Armed Guards

[skookerasbil]

We all know that Columbine had an armed sheriff's deputy on duty at the time of shooting. Virginia Tech had armed police on duty. Ft Hood had dozens of guards and MPs not to mention the trained military who were shot.

We also know that there was an armed civilian at the Tucson shooting who stayed inside the Walgreen's store until the unarmed people wrestled the gun away from Loughner. He later said he almost came out but then his story changed several more times. It was the unarmed people, including an elderly lady, who held Loughner until the police arrived.

In almost all shootings, its the police who stop the shooter or the shooter kills himself. In searching, I've found only one case of a civilian and one case of an off duty police officer taking down a shooter. There are also occasional cases of people disarming home invaders but, since this is not a second amendment issue, those stories have nothing at all to do with the question of armed police at schools.

Since having armed guards has never helped before, why do gun nuts believe that will change?

Do gun nuts want armed guards at other places as well? Churches? Restaurants? There have been shootings at both so should there be armed guards there as well?

So for the record, you are in favor of letting unprotected school children and teachers die while they wait for the police to arrive. Duly noted asshole. Go play in traffic.

Indeed.

For anybody not understanding the meaning of the bumper sticker, "LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER", they just need to spend all of 5 mintues reading any internet gun grabber thread. These folks live in a perpetual state of fairy-world.

This Neddy Ludbutter prefers psychological screenings be conducted at the door of each school BEFORE the mass murderer is allowed to enter!! And if he refuses, the guy who sits in the school asking for a hall pass best be ready with the Fonzie routine if all else fails.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dorrkKjYYa8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dorrkKjYYa8[/ame]

 

[Artifice]

But everyone does have to understand the difficulty of being a responsive society, not a preventative society. We don't think of the numerous outcomes that go along with certain situations, we just wait until something happens and then "respond" hastily with new protocol. Societal Security is an immense undertaking, and without being overseen "iron-fist" style, the security will be inevitably flawed. The American public is not willing to live under a "iron-fist" style of secured ruling, so it will never work.

Look at the TSA, the American people demanded a response to 9/11 to secure the skies for the traveling public. But the TSA adhere to the demands and cries of people who don't like their privacy invaded, or to take their shoes off, or to leave bottles of liquids behind. Therefore, the TSA is immensely flawed (not getting into their poor staffing choices) when it comes to operating procedures.
If they were to operate with 100% security, people would be flying butt naked undergoing x-rays to make sure they hadn't surgically implanted explosives into their belly fat. The creativity of the mentally disturbed is endless, so the security agencies would have to mirror that fact in their procedures.

All in all, establishing some sort of armed security force at schools would then move on to malls, and movie theaters, and restaurants etc etc. You arm them with guns, crazies use explosives. You arm them with devices to disarm explosives or reinforce building with blast proof materials, the crazies will use biological weapons (And no, I'm not saying all crazies are nuclear physicists that can build biological weapons of mass destruction in their basements, I'm talking about envelopes with white powder in style stuff).

This is a sad problem for the United States to be faced with, but prancing around on this pro-gun/anti-gun bandwagon really overall doesn't impact the problem at hand whatsoever. The sooner people start looking past these petty arguments the sooner we can work together and come up with some kind of solution to fix these rather distasteful problems.

 

[daveman]

Let's see now.

Armed guards at Sidwell where the President's daughters attend = proper security

Armed guards at Sidwell where David Gregory sends his child = proper security

Rahm Emmanuel's children attend a school with an armed police officer = proper security

Armed guards for other American children = Outrageous, crazy, nuts, what a stupid idea!!!!

Obviously only the most privileged among us deserve to have security for their children.

Progressives do love their royalty.

It's because they yearn to be subjects, not citizens.

Every time I think liberals and progressives couldn't possibly be more hypocritical on any given topic, they never cease to amaze me by surpassing their last level of hypocrisy.

This one's a keeper. Yikes.

If it weren't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

 

[Mr. Jones]

But everyone does have to understand the difficulty of being a responsive society, not a preventative society. We don't think of the numerous outcomes that go along with certain situations, we just wait until something happens and then "respond" hastily with new protocol. Societal Security is an immense undertaking, and without being overseen "iron-fist" style, the security will be inevitably flawed. The American public is not willing to live under a "iron-fist" style of secured ruling, so it will never work.

Look at the TSA, the American people demanded a response to 9/11 to secure the skies for the traveling public. But the TSA adhere to the demands and cries of people who don't like their privacy invaded, or to take their shoes off, or to leave bottles of liquids behind. Therefore, the TSA is immensely flawed (not getting into their poor staffing choices) when it comes to operating procedures.
If they were to operate with 100% security, people would be flying butt naked undergoing x-rays to make sure they hadn't surgically implanted explosives into their belly fat. The creativity of the mentally disturbed is endless, so the security agencies would have to mirror that fact in their procedures.

All in all, establishing some sort of armed security force at schools would then move on to malls, and movie theaters, and restaurants etc etc. You arm them with guns, crazies use explosives. You arm them with devices to disarm explosives or reinforce building with blast proof materials, the crazies will use biological weapons (And no, I'm not saying all crazies are nuclear physicists that can build biological weapons of mass destruction in their basements, I'm talking about envelopes with white powder in style stuff).

This is a sad problem for the United States to be faced with, but prancing around on this pro-gun/anti-gun bandwagon really overall doesn't impact the problem at hand whatsoever. The sooner people start looking past these petty arguments the sooner we can work together and come up with some kind of solution to fix these rather distasteful problems.

This is what it has come to. Problem, reaction, solution. The problem has to be addressed first, and it is deeper and more complex then is being studied. The thinking, that taking guns away, as if it is an inanimate object with a brain acting on its own, is very shallow thinking, and does not address the root of the problem on the deeper level
it warrants and necessitates.
It is this kind of "thinking" that American leaders have displayed by immediately launching bombing campaigns, and wars without so much as considering a "cause" and effect.