Armed cops in schools??

Anybody think this is the answer?? The NRA are blaming the shootings on video games and the media. Quote - "the only thing stopping a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" The NRA guy I saw on the news seemed completely detached from all these horrors. Guns,guns and more guns are his solution. He wants armed cops in the schools. Might work but who's gonna foot that bill??

I think better door security (HID badges, something) before armed teachers/police/whatever at schools.

I think many inner city schools already have Metal Detectors and either a Full time cop on campus or a Armed Security guard already so the NRA's Idea is not so New, I do think is a Knee Jerk reaction,

This to me seems like a grass roots question Each school and school district should be asked, What do they think would fix "the problem" and What are Parents
willing to do to help out???
Would parents be willing to Donate time and or Money to make this happen or is this just another thing the Goverment should provide?
Example I know If I had kids in school I wouldn't mind kicking in extra $ to make sure my kids are safe. I don't know what it would cost to employe a full time armed guard or police officer at most schools. But split up amongst all the parents in the school I cant see it being that much.

Sure, why not?

Everything that has happened on school campuses since last Friday is a knee jerk reaction. There are new sign in/put procedures at my son's school starting this week. I do not see them being effective AT ALL as no one is closely monitoring them. He is allowed to go through the gate but I have to go to the office and sign in...no thank you, not going to release my 5-year old through the gate while I go sign in. He will be staying right with me until the bell rings. I am all for tightening up security at schools, but I do not think there needs to be an armed guard. The sight of the person would scare the crap out of my kindergartner. He would wonder why there was a need for gunned person standing there and would spend more time freaking out that something could happen. I don't know what the answer is, but I am not ready to make school a scary place for my child. He loves it way too much, but is a worrier and that would take a way the love he has for a place if he felt there was the need for such heightened security.

My HS had all the buidlings facing an inner quad. Tall gates that were locked during school hours with a single entry and exit point. We also had an on-duty Police Officer on campus during school hours and several motorcycle cops would show up when school was getting in/out to cite unsafe/speeding teenage drivers.

Most of the high schools in our district were designed or retrofitted like this after the Lindhurst HS shooting.

I think your kid would be a hell of a lot more scared if some mentally ill lunatic entered his classroom and started killing his classmates. My son is 4 years old and wouldn't be scared one bit of an armed guard. He would be very scared if Santa was at his school (he hates Santa). Kids generally aren't scared of cops are they? No one is saying the armed guard would be dressed like a Navy SEAL with an AR-15 w/ACOG and his face all blacked out. Come on... you mean to tell me you feel better without an armed security office at your kid's school? I am in the security business and think there is no real security solution other than a good guy with a gun. Maybe a man trap but then again, this guy shot his way into the school. It already had decent security.

Yes, I do mean to tell you that. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. Great thing about living in America, isn't it.

Sounds like a great idea. Court houses have armed security, airports too. The president has armed security, why not our children?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

Melissa- Absolutely true. Me, I would take any redneck, from any deer lease, with any deer rifle over nothing at all. Even in Texas we still have "gun free killing zones" that keep the honest people with guns out.

Airplanes have air marshalls (spelling?) in casual clothing, why can't a school have something similar? I might get ridiculed for this, but I think it's ridiculous that when something like this happens, as absolutely unfortunate as it is, we want to put in metal detectors, tall gates, and make parents sign in at the office instead of employing a responsible, trained, and certified enforcement officer that would be armed. He could be in plain clothing and maybe disguised as a school counselor or anything for that matter. Not only would we be promoting new jobs and careers (which America clearly needs) we would also have a more effective way of preventing this from happening IMO.

I'm not saying I'm right, this is simply my belief. I am neither a parent or direct victim of these trageties so I am open to the concept of being wrong here. A kid that has the brain to steal his moms AR and other guns is smart enough to get around a metal detector or tall gate. What that kid is not smart enough to do is figure out that the school counselor he thought was innocent is actually an armed enforcement officer ready for preventative measures. Just my thoughts.

The only problem with police in every school is it would be very expensive for every municipality. I still think, training and arming an administrator is the cheapest easiest way to help prevent this.

I think Canadians play Halo and watch Tarantino, don't they?

I agree with “G.” This is a grass root problem and not one patch will work for all. To me, it will end up being just a lot of knee-jerk money that will--more than likely--be frivolously thrown about.

Originally Posted by psych3060

Everything that has happened on school campuses since last Friday is a knee jerk reaction. There are new sign in/put procedures at my son's school starting this week. I do not see them being effective AT ALL as no one is closely monitoring them. He is allowed to go through the gate but I have to go to the office and sign in...no thank you, not going to release my 5-year old through the gate while I go sign in. He will be staying right with me until the bell rings. I am all for tightening up security at schools, but I do not think there needs to be an armed guard. The sight of the person would scare the crap out of my kindergartner. He would wonder why there was a need for gunned person standing there and would spend more time freaking out that something could happen. I don't know what the answer is, but I am not ready to make school a scary place for my child. He loves it way too much, but is a worrier and that would take a way the love he has for a place if he felt there was the need for such heightened security.

Is your child scared to death of a Policeman,Security Guard or Secret service Agent? They all carry guns.Our Presidents and their children are protected by men with guns.Is that a bad thing too?

After reading this, I vote to allow volunteer teachers and administrators the right to arm themselves. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/20...n-gun-control/

Originally Posted by cwb4me

Is your child scared to death of a Policeman,Security Guard or Secret service Agent? They all carry guns.Our Presidents and their children are protected by men with guns.Is that a bad thing too?

I actually didn't say he would be scared to death of the person. I said that he would spend his time worrying that there would a situation that required those people to be there. Big difference. He is a worrier, he would spend his time focused on the fact that something could happen which would require the guard to be there, not that they guard himself would freak him out. Yes, I want my child safe, but I also don't want him focused on there being potential for something bad to occur at a place he loves so much. After being at his school all day today and seeing the parents and children enjoying a funfilled day, my feeling stands. These children genuinely love school. If they are made to feel it is unsafe, that love would certainly diminish. Call me crazy, naive or whatever you want, I just want my children to be happy.

Guns protecting the president are necessary and good-
Guns protecting children are extreme and bad-

Melissa,
I can see your concern regarding your son seeing a armed guard at his school on a daily basis. Seeing an armed guard would only be strange to him for a short time most likely. Unfortunately, this is the world we now live in; a world were we MUST step out of our zone of comfort and realize these monsters will not be stopped by inconveniences like metal detectors, 'gun free zone' signs and stricter firearms laws. It's disgusting, but their force needs to be met with swift force. I know nobody WANTS their children to have to be protected with firearms. I get that we shouldn't have to facilitate armed bodies at school, but that's the reality we live in if we're to be honest with ourselves.

At the end of the day there is a hint of surrender in all of this. Do you ever think of that glib statement "these people will not change our way of life" when you are practically stripping naked and being cavity searched before boarding a plane?? It infuriates me. And especially the people who were invisible before 9/11 and now have become rude,obnoxious airport bullies.I feel that slowly but surely our freedoms are being eroded The NRA guy on the news did not exactly endear himself to anybody either.It was almost like he felt if he showed any sort of compassion or understanding they would get the blame. So all we got was a rallying call for more guns while he pointed the finger at the REAL culprits.You can understand why some people hate them. Children entering prisons to go to school surrounded by armed guards..........Kinda sad.Next it will be razor wire and watchtowers.

A armed guard [like secret service] can be nearly invisible.What people aren't understanding is criminals and lunatics go after EASY targets.If you posted a sign in front of all the schools that read"Warning Faculty is trained and wearing Tactical Situation Gear . Enter at your own risk. Our job is to Teach our children and above all keep them safe."Then most criminals wouldn't even consider entering a school.Just like a Bank [with armed guards] or the White house.Have you ever heard of an attack on the White House? No. Because you would have to be crazy to even try.

Wait... wait... I'm getting a vision of the NRA's press conference from next week... "NRA outraged at increased police presence in schools; decries "Obama police state" and calls for "good guys" to arm themselves to stop "bad guys"..."

I know this would not stop most of these "lunatic" killers. Never the less, I think our country would be better served with better gun safety measures. I appreciated my 12 hour hunters safety course but have never understood why I needed that level of training to shoot a bird but needed no training to buy/own a handgun. So, I would not object to national standard for "shooters" that included a background check, safety training and competency testing.

The NRA sees this as a way to get even more guns and ammo circulating through the US.

The worst part about this whole debate, and not even just WW, is that everyone thinks more restrictions would have prevented this. It wouldn't have. The kids mom, from my understanding, was a good citizen of the comunity that loved her family and even held a masters degree in education. She took up target shooting as a hobby and her reasons for buying a lethal weapon were probably more valid than most whether it be protection or a hobby. With her education, reputation in the community, and background this woman could have purchased those guns no matter how strict regulations were. The fact of the matter is not the restrictions but rather how she protected the guns from her children and others. They should have been under lock and key that only she had access too NO MATTER WHAT. It is not restrictions that would have prevented this rather the responsibility of gun issuers educating buyers and buyers being responsible with their weapons. The pencil didn't make you write it, the spoon didn't make you fat, and the gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Education, safety, and responsibility should be the key factors at point.

Originally Posted by wakedaveup

The worst part about this whole debate, and not even just WW, is that everyone thinks more restrictions would have prevented this. It wouldn't have. The kids mom, from my understanding, was a good citizen of the comunity that loved her family and even held a masters degree in education. She took up target shooting as a hobby and her reasons for buying a lethal weapon were probably more valid than most whether it be protection or a hobby. With her education, reputation in the community, and background this woman could have purchased those guns no matter how strict regulations were. The fact of the matter is not the restrictions but rather how she protected the guns from her children and others. They should have been under lock and key that only she had access too NO MATTER WHAT. It is not restrictions that would have prevented this rather the responsibility of gun issuers educating buyers and buyers being responsible with their weapons. The pencil didn't make you write it, the spoon didn't make you fat, and the gun didn't pull it's own trigger. Education, safety, and responsibility should be the key factors at point.

If the guns weren't in the equation, this wouldn't have happened. How can you say to the contrary?

But guns will always be a part of the equation. Regardless of what the govt says or tries to do, guns will be a part of the equation. The simple fact of it is, even good people can be bad gun owners. The fact is that if she had these guns locked up like a responsible gun owner, this would not have happened.
Much like the portland mall shooting, these guns were stolen from unlocked storage. Responsible gun owners keep their weapons under lock and key, or digital codes which only they know.
I agree with GD who talks about the requirement to take a 12 hour course to go shoot a few 12oz quail, vs the no course to purchase a handgun. Its retarded logic.

I agree with GD who talks about the requirement to take a 12 hour course to go shoot a few 12oz quail, vs the no course to purchase a handgun. Its retarded logic.

You are required in California(he is in California) to pass a competency based test to buy a handgun. The test consist of questions ranging from safety to storage to legal. Furthermore, before the firearm is released you must complete a safe handling demonstration, loading, unloading and locking up the firearm. You're also required to have a gunsafe, a DOJ approved lock box or a DOJ approved trigger lock prior to releasing the gun.
These are all verified by signed affidavit prior to taking possession of the firearm. DOJ "Shops" and plants decoys fairly regularly to be certain the requirements are met.