The pros and cons of armed guards in schools.

[AmyNation]

Disclaimer, the is KG's idea. I thought it was interesting and warrants a discussion, but she doesn't really want to talk about it.

Poll to follow.


I figure it will cost around 7-8 billion a year( thats really the low end) to keep and maintain armed guards in K-12 public schools.

The risks that ive so far thought of are

the guard being disarmed and someone using his gun to shoot up the school
an accident with the guards gun
an over zealous guard shooting a student during an altercation

The pro being that armed guards will be in the school at all times and able to defend the students from the kind of attack we have seen.

The questions are
Good idea/bad idea and why
Should it be a ferdeal or state issue
Who should pay for it

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't see the federal gov't stepping in, this should be a state/local issue with solutions specific to the local needs. I'd have a couple of armed security people, one on the inside monitoring cameras that surround the school especially at the exits. The other on the outside stopping and checking people before they get into the school. That right there could cut down on school attacks.

First sign of trouble, the cops get instantly notified and the classrooms get locked down. Maybe the bad guy never gets into the building in the first place. If it was me I'd deny any visitor access to the buildings where the kids are, the admin offices should be located elsewhere. If a parent or guardian wants to see a kid, the kid comes to them.

 

[Oddball]

Pro: There's someone to shoot back.

Con: Any potential shooter would probably be able to readily identify that person.

 

[AmyNation]

I don't see the federal gov't stepping in, this should be a state/local issue with solutions specific to the local needs. I'd have a couple of armed security people, one on the inside monitoring cameras that surround the school especially at the exits. The other on the outside stopping and checking people before they get into the school. That right there could cut down on school attacks.

First sign of trouble, the cops get instantly notified and the classrooms get locked down. Maybe the bad guy never gets into the building in the first place. If it was me I'd deny any visitor access to the buildings where the kids are, the admin offices should be located elsewhere. If a parent or guardian wants to see a kid, the kid comes to them.

While I'd prefer it to be a state issue only, the con of that is states are already strapped for cash, and many don't have the money to hire and maintain armed guards.

Your idea of adding cameras, revamping buildings and exits, is a valid one, but it will cost trillions.

Perhaps we should change the model we build schools with, and look to a more secure model instead of the traditional one.

 

[AmyNation]

Pro: There's someone to shoot back.

Con: Any potential shooter would probably be able to readily identify that person.

True.

Also, if the shooter is a student, they would already have easy access and could smuggle a gun in.

 

[bobcollum]

According to those that feel schools are targets because of no guns being there, I'd have to assume that this would just drive a potential murderer somewhere else.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Oh for christ's sake, arming the teachers now?

I hope you all realize how ridiculous this premise is.

America becomes a caricature of itself with every passing moment if this is supposed to warrant a serious discussion.

What stopped the terrorists attacks after 9/11 wasn't putting air marshalls on airplanes or giving guns to pilots. It was disrupting the cash flow and making it financially unfeasible to attack America again. Do that with the manufacturing of semi-automatics and assault weapons and we won't need to arm a 1st grade teacher or put security guards in the hallways.

 

[AmyNation]

Like the mall shooter?

That's probably true, someone who wants to kill as many people as possible will just take their crazy somewhere else, although I don't think thats a reason to not protect children.

 

[g5000]

Putting our militarized police inside a school is very Third World.

Besides, there are thousands of other soft targets. You going to have cops wall to wall across America?

If you like, make classroom doors like an aircraft cockpit door. Bulletproof and unable to be kicked in. And put a back door in each classroom. A simple change to building codes for all schools henceforth.

All that's cheaper than cops.

.

 

[AmyNation]

Revamping entrances to have double security doors is cheaper that armed guards in the long run too.

 

[g5000]

A moat. Filled with sharks with lasers on their heads.

.

 

[AmyNation]

We could all home school. Remove the target altogether

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't see the federal gov't stepping in, this should be a state/local issue with solutions specific to the local needs. I'd have a couple of armed security people, one on the inside monitoring cameras that surround the school especially at the exits. The other on the outside stopping and checking people before they get into the school. That right there could cut down on school attacks.

First sign of trouble, the cops get instantly notified and the classrooms get locked down. Maybe the bad guy never gets into the building in the first place. If it was me I'd deny any visitor access to the buildings where the kids are, the admin offices should be located elsewhere. If a parent or guardian wants to see a kid, the kid comes to them.

While I'd prefer it to be a state issue only, the con of that is states are already strapped for cash, and many don't have the money to hire and maintain armed guards.

The feds don't have the money either. Maybe if we did something about the 6 figure public union pensions and benefits we'd have more money for security.

Your idea of adding cameras, revamping buildings and exits, is a valid one, but it will cost trillions.

Dunno about trillions, maybe revamped buildings and exits isn't always necessary. I'm guessing some things can be done on the cheap and still be effective.

Perhaps we should change the model we build schools with, and look to a more secure model instead of the traditional one.

Certainly. Bottom line is, the school districts, unions, parents, and the community are going to have to look at their options and make some decisions. Some schools can afford more than others, some measures will work better than others for specific situations. I think we need to stop looking for Washington to solve all our problems, I don't have much confidence in their abilities to provide effective and efficient programs that will work.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

I guarantee more kids will die by accidents and armed guard silliness than in school shootings if this happens. Not to mention wasting millions upon millions of dollars if public funds. Also why militarize our schools further?

 

[AmyNation]

Well, of you're worried about public worker pensions, adding at the least, 2 full time armed guards to every one of the 100k public schools, is not going to help that.

I know the fed is broke, and I'm aware states are broke too. However, mentioning the cost means I'm a heartless child hater.

 

[Duped]

These shooters are cowards; they ambush the innocence. Armed guards would deter anyone seeking a soft target. I'm sure you could find many qualified indivisuals who would volunteer.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Well, of you're worried about public worker pensions, adding at the least, 2 full time armed guards to every one of the 100k public schools, is not going to help that.

I know the fed is broke, and I'm aware states are broke too. However, mentioning the cost means I'm a heartless child hater.

We're talking about a phenomenon that happens .008% to the schools in this country. On that logic, we need to place moats around all public schools because on average it's more likely for a drunk driver to randomly crash his car into a school. And let's put two armed guards in the 248,000 public schools in the country at $30,000 a year. That's $14,880,000,000 a year without even considering any other funds. And there's no guarantees this people will be of any use when something bad happens. They could just easily shoot innocents or make the situation worse.

 

[Wiseacre]

Well, of you're worried about public worker pensions, adding at the least, 2 full time armed guards to every one of the 100k public schools, is not going to help that.

I know the fed is broke, and I'm aware states are broke too. However, mentioning the cost means I'm a heartless child hater.

You? Never! You are obviously far too cute for that. I however, am a fiscally responsible person who desires nothing more than the best bang for the buck I can get as an individual and as a taxpayer. Which maybe makes me a cold heartless bastard, but I do care about the kids.

 

[Wiseacre]

Well, of you're worried about public worker pensions, adding at the least, 2 full time armed guards to every one of the 100k public schools, is not going to help that.

I know the fed is broke, and I'm aware states are broke too. However, mentioning the cost means I'm a heartless child hater.

We're talking about a phenomenon that happens .008% to the schools in this country. On that logic, we need to place moats around all public schools because on average it's more likely for a drunk driver to randomly crash his car into a school. And let's put two armed guards in the 248,000 public schools in the country at $30,000 a year. That's $14,880,000,000 a year without even considering any other funds. And there's no guarantees this people will be of any use when something bad happens. They could just easily shoot innocents or make the situation worse.

We're talking about 20 dead kids, 6 or 7 years old, and trying to find ways to make sure it doesn't happen again. Question: how high does the percentage have to be until you think it might deserve some attention?

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Well, of you're worried about public worker pensions, adding at the least, 2 full time armed guards to every one of the 100k public schools, is not going to help that.

I know the fed is broke, and I'm aware states are broke too. However, mentioning the cost means I'm a heartless child hater.

We're talking about a phenomenon that happens .008% to the schools in this country. On that logic, we need to place moats around all public schools because on average it's more likely for a drunk driver to randomly crash his car into a school. And let's put two armed guards in the 248,000 public schools in the country at $30,000 a year. That's $14,880,000,000 a year without even considering any other funds. And there's no guarantees this people will be of any use when something bad happens. They could just easily shoot innocents or make the situation worse.

We're talking about 20 dead kids, 6 or 7 years old, and trying to find ways to make sure it doesn't happen again. Question: how high does the percentage have to be until you think it might deserve some attention?

Higher than .008% to warrant several billion dollars in public funding.