Why does the President have armed guards?

[boedicca]

^ obscure post makes no sense.

It does if you bother reading what I respond to before responding to me.

Are you honestly saying the President needs armed security to protect him from the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, or Fox news? Because that would be what Hazel was suggesting. That people and groups that have no desire for violence are a threat to the Presidents life.

Meanwhile, it's absolutely crazy to suggest we consider whether armed security may be useful to protect schools from random acts of mass murderers. No discussion on the merits. It's just insane.

It's obvious why we protect the President with armed security. It should be obvious why protecting school children the same way might also be wise if it's feesible.

The argument shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as something that is insane.

It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.

People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.

You're missing "perspective."

We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.

Strawman argument.

We don't need to hire armed guards for every school. All we have to do is to allow willing principals, teachers, and administrators to be trained and then to conceal carry.

 

[Avatar4321]

It would probably put more students at risk. Nutters that prey on children take jobs that put them around children. I'm sure this isn't news to you as there are always stories in the news about abusive teachers, priests, etc.

Wouldn't it be more logical to let the nutjobs be fired instead of making it virtually impossible to fire them through union negotiations then?

So rather than make an effort to eliminate bad teachers and nutjobs from being around students, you think taking away the rights of your fellow citizens is a better idea?

 

[eflatminor]

Where do criminals get guns?

Wherever they can, whenever they can. Your laws and regulations have no effect on a criminal's ability to use a firearm in the commission of their crimes, while simultaneously putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Go ahead, explain that logic.

You can't admit that criminals get their guns from people that at one time purchased them legally, can you?

So fucking what? How does that stop criminals? It does not.

Criminals steal firearms or buy them on the black market. That does not change the fact that placing more burdens on those legal owners has ZERO effect on criminals and their use of firearms. So again, please use your logic and tell us how laws that give criminals an edge should be embraced.

 

[G.T.]

It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.

People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.

You're missing "perspective."

We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.

It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.

Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.

The comparison IS retarded, that's what makes it...................retarded. Not because I disagree with it. I agree with plenty of retarded shit.

Also - most of these shooters end up suicidal. Don't know that guns for those particular suicidal shooters are much of a deterrant.

It's something that might end up making it so there are less bodies, but not a deterrant for a suicidal maniac.

 

[Greenbeard]

We don't need to hire armed guards for every school. All we have to do is to allow willing principals, teachers, and administrators to be trained and then to conceal carry.

Can we arm the kids, too?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Legalize

Battle rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

It does if you bother reading what I respond to before responding to me.

Are you honestly saying the President needs armed security to protect him from the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, or Fox news? Because that would be what Hazel was suggesting. That people and groups that have no desire for violence are a threat to the Presidents life.

Meanwhile, it's absolutely crazy to suggest we consider whether armed security may be useful to protect schools from random acts of mass murderers. No discussion on the merits. It's just insane.

It's obvious why we protect the President with armed security. It should be obvious why protecting school children the same way might also be wise if it's feesible.

The argument shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as something that is insane.

It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.

People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.

You're missing "perspective."

We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.

Strawman argument.

We don't need to hire armed guards for every school. All we have to do is to allow willing principals, teachers, and administrators to be trained and then to conceal carry.

Yea, I'm okay with that - - - - - but it has nothing to do with the secret service if I weren't. That's retarded.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's insane because of the cost effectiveness. It sure is.

People dont just go shooting up little school children. Your chances of dying that way are so miniscule, that it would be more cost effective to put a giant inflatable ball on the bottom of every airplane that flies...EVER.

You're missing "perspective."

We dont have the money for things such as an armed guard in every little school everywhere, across America. It's almost retarded to compare that to the Secret Service. Seriously, it is.

It doesn't have to cost much at all. Just allow securty, staff, and teachers to carry conceal if they choose. If they want to carry, they can. If not, they don't. As long as it's not announced who has what, it will be a deterent because killers wont know who is armed and who isn't.

Oh. And just because you disagree with something, doesn't make what you disagree with retarded. That would be the point of the thread. Instead of trying to deal with topics or THINK, you label things and avoid putting any thought or effort into addressing anything.

You think that will be a deterent? Seriously, have you given this any thought at all? At what point did you come to the conclusion that people who walk into elementary schools and shoot children are thinking rationally?

 

[Ravi]

It would probably put more students at risk. Nutters that prey on children take jobs that put them around children. I'm sure this isn't news to you as there are always stories in the news about abusive teachers, priests, etc.

Wouldn't it be more logical to let the nutjobs be fired instead of making it virtually impossible to fire them through union negotiations then?

So rather than make an effort to eliminate bad teachers and nutjobs from being around students, you think taking away the rights of your fellow citizens is a better idea?

Now you're just being stupid. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Ravi]

Wherever they can, whenever they can. Your laws and regulations have no effect on a criminal's ability to use a firearm in the commission of their crimes, while simultaneously putting law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. Go ahead, explain that logic.

You can't admit that criminals get their guns from people that at one time purchased them legally, can you?

So fucking what? How does that stop criminals? It does not.

Criminals steal firearms or buy them on the black market. That does not change the fact that placing more burdens on those legal owners has ZERO effect on criminals and their use of firearms. So again, please use your logic and tell us how laws that give criminals an edge should be embraced.

Please. We just found out last week from one of the cons here how easy it is purchase a firearm from an unidentified moron in the parking lot of Walmart. If you were serious about protecting children you'd want it to be harder for idiots to own guns.

 

[AmyNation]

No, I'm not ok with my babies kindergarten teacher walking around the classroom with a .45 hidden under her skirt, but if you want that in your kids school, then do it.

 

[eflatminor]

You can't admit that criminals get their guns from people that at one time purchased them legally, can you?

So fucking what? How does that stop criminals? It does not.

Criminals steal firearms or buy them on the black market. That does not change the fact that placing more burdens on those legal owners has ZERO effect on criminals and their use of firearms. So again, please use your logic and tell us how laws that give criminals an edge should be embraced.

Please. We just found out last week from one of the cons here how easy it is purchase a firearm from an unidentified moron in the parking lot of Walmart. If you were serious about protecting children you'd want it to be harder for idiots to own guns.

Thank you for supporting my point. It IS easy for criminals to acquire firearms. Further, we know from history that your gun control laws have zero effect on criminals that don't give a shit about your regulations.

So I ask yet one more time, why would you support laws that result in ONLY law abiding citizens being restricting in their inalienable right to self defense? If you were serious about protecting children, why would you want to make it harder for good people to protect those children?

 

[Avatar4321]

In re: bolded item: yes; what are you fucking nuts?

Put it into perspective: we've had 44 presidents. In my lifetime, Kennedy shot and killed; Reagan shot; Bush 41 plotted against by a foriegn leader.

Now in my state (WA), with no "columbine" events in my lifetime:

• Number of elementary and high school students: 989,252
• Number of elementary and high schools: 2,275
• Number of school districts: 295
• Number of school districts with fewer than 200 students each: 61
• Number of students in private education: 101,700

How many security firms, additional police, etc, are needed to do for students what we do for presidents? Something on the order of 5X our current military? And so the fucking gun makers can continue selling whatever the fuck they want, and the NRA can keep handing out hats to new members?

Grow a fucking braincell. Nah; scratch that. Two braincells, and then have them synapse with each other. You might like it. Amazing shit can happen when you think.

No shit.

How would you know? You wouldn't think to save your life. I have no doubt you are intelligent. But you don't bother thinking.

What is logical hanging signs outside buildings saying they are gun free zones and thus unprotected. Or allowing responsible adults to have a weapon for self defense & the defense of children? Security guards are already employed. As well as teachers & School staff. How much would it cost to lift the bans on them being allowed to conceal carry? Absolutely nothing.

Give them freedom of choice. Let them carry if they choose. They need to be trained for their licenses anyway. The mass murders will be less likely to act because they won't know who is armed. There is a reason they target places that ban guns.

Instead of saying "That's crazy it can't be done" why not try thinking and figuring out low cost ways to save lives and do so without infringing on your fellow citizen's rights? Radical concept, I know.

 

[Ravi]

So fucking what? How does that stop criminals? It does not.

Criminals steal firearms or buy them on the black market. That does not change the fact that placing more burdens on those legal owners has ZERO effect on criminals and their use of firearms. So again, please use your logic and tell us how laws that give criminals an edge should be embraced.

Please. We just found out last week from one of the cons here how easy it is purchase a firearm from an unidentified moron in the parking lot of Walmart. If you were serious about protecting children you'd want it to be harder for idiots to own guns.

Thank you for supporting my point. It IS easy for criminals to acquire firearms. Further, we know from history that your gun control laws have zero effect on criminals that don't give a shit about your regulations.

So I ask yet one more time, why would you support laws that result in ONLY law abiding citizens being restricting in their inalienable right to self defense? If you were serious about protecting children, why would you want to make it harder for good people to protect those children?

MY gun control laws? wtf are you babbling about?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Criminals get their guns from sloppy, lazy, shifty, irresponsible but otherwise law abiding people. These people should be held criminally responsible for not securing their weapons.

 

[Koios]

In re: bolded item: yes; what are you fucking nuts?

Put it into perspective: we've had 44 presidents. In my lifetime, Kennedy shot and killed; Reagan shot; Bush 41 plotted against by a foriegn leader.

Now in my state (WA), with no "columbine" events in my lifetime:

• Number of elementary and high school students: 989,252
• Number of elementary and high schools: 2,275
• Number of school districts: 295
• Number of school districts with fewer than 200 students each: 61
• Number of students in private education: 101,700

How many security firms, additional police, etc, are needed to do for students what we do for presidents? Something on the order of 5X our current military? And so the fucking gun makers can continue selling whatever the fuck they want, and the NRA can keep handing out hats to new members?

Grow a fucking braincell. Nah; scratch that. Two braincells, and then have them synapse with each other. You might like it. Amazing shit can happen when you think.

No shit.

How would you know? You wouldn't think to save your life. I have no doubt you are intelligent. But you don't bother thinking.

What is logical hanging signs outside buildings saying they are gun free zones and thus unprotected. Or allowing responsible adults to have a weapon for self defense & the defense of children? Security guards are already employed. As well as teachers & School staff. How much would it cost to lift the bans on them being allowed to conceal carry? Absolutely nothing.

Give them freedom of choice. Let them carry if they choose. They need to be trained for their licenses anyway. The mass murders will be less likely to act because they won't know who is armed. There is a reason they target places that ban guns.

Instead of saying "That's crazy it can't be done" why not try thinking and figuring out low cost ways to save lives and do so without infringing on your fellow citizen's rights? Radical concept, I know.

It weeds out the dipshits that violate the rule, most of whom don't shoot the joint up. They just lose the gun and the rights to own one.

 

[Koios]

In re: bolded item: yes; what are you fucking nuts?

Put it into perspective: we've had 44 presidents. In my lifetime, Kennedy shot and killed; Reagan shot; Bush 41 plotted against by a foriegn leader.

Now in my state (WA), with no "columbine" events in my lifetime:

• Number of elementary and high school students: 989,252
• Number of elementary and high schools: 2,275
• Number of school districts: 295
• Number of school districts with fewer than 200 students each: 61
• Number of students in private education: 101,700

How many security firms, additional police, etc, are needed to do for students what we do for presidents? Something on the order of 5X our current military? And so the fucking gun makers can continue selling whatever the fuck they want, and the NRA can keep handing out hats to new members?

Grow a fucking braincell. Nah; scratch that. Two braincells, and then have them synapse with each other. You might like it. Amazing shit can happen when you think.

No shit.

How would you know? You wouldn't think to save your life. I have no doubt you are intelligent. But you don't bother thinking.

What is logical hanging signs outside buildings saying they are gun free zones and thus unprotected. Or allowing responsible adults to have a weapon for self defense & the defense of children? Security guards are already employed. As well as teachers & School staff. How much would it cost to lift the bans on them being allowed to conceal carry? Absolutely nothing.

Give them freedom of choice. Let them carry if they choose. They need to be trained for their licenses anyway. The mass murders will be less likely to act because they won't know who is armed. There is a reason they target places that ban guns.

Instead of saying "That's crazy it can't be done" why not try thinking and figuring out low cost ways to save lives and do so without infringing on your fellow citizen's rights? Radical concept, I know.

Go hog wild. Name one, or a plethora.

 

[eflatminor]

Please. We just found out last week from one of the cons here how easy it is purchase a firearm from an unidentified moron in the parking lot of Walmart. If you were serious about protecting children you'd want it to be harder for idiots to own guns.

Thank you for supporting my point. It IS easy for criminals to acquire firearms. Further, we know from history that your gun control laws have zero effect on criminals that don't give a shit about your regulations.

So I ask yet one more time, why would you support laws that result in ONLY law abiding citizens being restricting in their inalienable right to self defense? If you were serious about protecting children, why would you want to make it harder for good people to protect those children?

MY gun control laws? wtf are you babbling about?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Criminals get their guns from sloppy, lazy, shifty, irresponsible but otherwise law abiding people. These people should be held criminally responsible for not securing their weapons.

Actually, you're wrong. If a person sells a firearm to a criminal, that person is no longer 'law abiding'. You see, we already have laws on the books about selling firearms to felons. If a criminal steals a firearm, that's hardly the fault of the legal owner. I suppose if someone doesn't put their car in a locked garage and it's stolen and used to harm another, we should punish the legal car owner? Patently ridiculous.

You keep making my point for me, that criminals will get firearms no matter what laws are put in place. Yet, you call for measures to "make it harder for criminals to obtain guns" when you know damn well that means law abiding citizens are put at a disadvantage while criminals get those firearms anyway.

So, yet one more time, why would you support laws that help the bad guys while restricting good guys from defending themselves and their families (children)?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why does the president have armed guards? The same reason that Assad or Kim jong un has them.

True story!

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. There is no comparison and I am truly wondering what it takes to get people to think.

If you actually want an intelligent discussion on this, then start with an intelligent proposal. Don't make this ridiculous connection and expect to get a non-ridiculous response. Are you aware, for example, that this is an issue which can only be resolved at the state level? You do know the president can't put armed guards in schools, don't you? Not without nationalizing the National Guard. What exactly is it you are proposing and just how do you intend to pay for it?

You mean the intelligent proposal that arming law abiding citizens might protect more people from the criminals? The one that's being labeled insane and dismissed without any effort to discuss it? That one.

Silly me. I thought that pointing out that people, such as the President, hire armed security to protect themselves and seeing as this is kind of a no-brainer of why he does this, that people would be able to see how absurd it is to suggest that allowing the security we already have at schools carry weapons is an insane or crazy idea. Of course, I should have taken into account that people wouldn't actually bother thinking about it. And that some would be unable to see how protecting one person and protecting many people might need similiar solutions.

I should have foreseen that people would come up with off the rocker red herrings and straw men like "arming adults in schools would lead those adults to abuse children more" or "protecting Presidents didn't start with Obama".

But I didn't foresee that. I expected people to think. I still do. I am sick and tired of intelligent people refusing to think. It's a tragedy.

I know. I expect people to actually discuss issues rather than just label others as stupid, crazy, insane, or some other pejorative designs to avoid actual thinking and disussion.

 

[J.E.D]

If the people in the state want to pay for the cost to have armed guards in their public schools, then do it. However since states have been so strapped they have cut emergency services, I doubt many states will have enough money for armed guards.

This sounds like a good case for private security. Since cons like to privatize everything, why don't they advocate putting hired guns at their childrens' schools? What could possibly go wrong?