Nra calls for armed police officer in every school

[seekerz]

If saving children’s lives is important, Obama can immediately do two things:

1. Publicly call for a ban on abortion, since on the day 20 children were killed by a gun there were over 2,000 killed by abortion.
2. Immediately implement Mr. LaPierre’s practical solution of at least one police officer in every school.

If money is a problem for Mr. Obama, there are a few things he could do:

1. Immediately end all support for the terrorist “rebels” in Syria. He could then take the money and support that the U.S. is now officially giving them, and use it to fund Mr. LaPierre’s practical solution.
2. End the wasteful and abusive Department of Homeland “Security” and transfer those funds to Mr. LaPierre’s new program.
3. Bring the troops home immediately and close down unnecessary bases abroad. This would provide plenty of money to protect American children at home, rather than waste it on unjust military adventures abroad.

Yay! End all wars abroad and bring the soldiers home to guard our kids. Sounds like a real plan. In order to protect the untrammeled rights of gun owners, the troops must trade Afghanistan and Pakistan for AnyTown USA. Sounds like progress…now our kids can get to experience what it feels like to live in Kabul.

 

[HansTrappist]

Yay! End all wars abroad and bring the soldiers home to guard our kids. Sounds like a real plan. In order to protect the untrammeled rights of gun owners, the troops must trade Afghanistan and Pakistan for AnyTown USA. Sounds like progress…

It makes gun owners happy and it fulfills Obama’s as yet unfulfilled campaign pledges and it makes our school children safe.

Everyone wins, especially the troops.

Yay!

 

[_Abyssinia]

Guns save more lives than they take? How’s that again?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10160094#post10160094

 

[kelvinf]

It’s about saving lives that are lost as a result of guns. That’s what this thread is about. Is it so hard to comprehend?

If saving children’s lives is important, Obama can immediately do two things:

I really wrote what I said in bold so that everyone could see it clearly. We could start a different thread to discuss Obama.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Yes I agree.

I also think we should severely limit gun free zones.

We should probably just abolish them altogether.

 

[seekerz]

It makes gun owners happy and it fulfills Obama’s as yet unfulfilled campaign pledges and it makes our school children safe.

I like the order in which you place those three results. Kids must learn what’s important in life - the sooner the better. Hey, do you think LaPierre’s plan includes Day Care facilities?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I deal with that some posts ago.

“Teachers at the front door to greet the kids as they are dropped off…external doors locked during school hours…buzz-in systems…911…you know, the things that are taken for granted in the West”

No, I meant the safety system that doesn’t rely on an armed response. The only difference between having armed police officers at schools (which apparently you don’t like) and calling 911 is the increase in time it will take to actually respond to an attacker. So what are these safety systems?

 

[colmywaykurtz]

No, she was perfectly within all the laws that are supposed to keep her safe - yet she still died a violent death. The laws didn’t help.

The state had laws banning firearms on school property - we saw how well those work too.

Criminals don’t obey the law.

Sadly, but truly, the dictum of Mao holds true: “Political/governmental power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

 

[seekerz]

“Teachers at the front door to greet the kids as they are dropped off…external doors locked during school hours…buzz-in systems…911…you know, the things that are taken for granted in the West”

No, I meant the safety system that doesn’t rely on an armed response. The only difference between having armed police officers at schools (which apparently you don’t like) and calling 911 is the increase in time it will take to actually respond to an attacker. So what are these safety systems?

I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean. I listed the common safety measures at the schools I know - that was all I was referring to.

The question of armed guards is not so much whether I like the idea or not, but whether it makes a difference when shooters can get their hands on the kind of firepower where only the first 3 minutes count. The police could be on-site or 15 minutes away and the kids would still gain more by running than by relying on police for protection from a high-capacity weapon.

 

[_Abyssinia]

US homicide rates at 50 year low

 

[spartan_cop]

So because car accidents happen, people should be free to have any kind of a gun or what? I don’t get the comparison.

If you want us to discuss how to prevent car accidents, then we can do so.

How many adds, laws, and schooling do we have for driving? A lot! Yet the death toll only get higher. Why? So because a couple of folks can’t drive responsibly should be banned all vehicles? Or perhaps we should banned cell phones and alcohol? Since those two contribute the most in vehicle accidents.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean. I listed the common safety measures at the schools I know - that was all I was referring to.

The question of armed guards is not so much whether I like the idea or not, but whether it makes a difference when shooters can get their hands on the kind of firepower where only the first 3 minutes count. The police could be on-site or 15 minutes away and the kids would still gain more by running than by relying on police for protection from a high-capacity weapon.

-OK, I misunderstood your position. Your comment makes a lot more sense now.

-If it’s the number of rounds a person can put down range that needs to be regulated than high-capacity is the wrong item to focus on. Someone trained in combat reloading (quickly changing out an empty mag for full one; not hard to learn or master) can negate a limit on the capacity of a magazine. If the aim is as I stated in the first sentence, than what needs to be regulated is the type of firearm (revolver and single load bolt actions vs. semi-automatic); and even then a person can train to overcome some the limitations inherent to these types of weapons.

-If stopping these types of attacks is the aim than increasing gun control is a waste of time. China and Europe (in general) have more restrictive gun laws, yet both still have attacks on schools. The only way to stop these types of attacks (without major changes in our culture) is to make them more secure. Part of this would be armed security officers or police officers at the school. A determined person can break into a school and attack people in the time it takes the police to respond. Schools aren’t built to withstand attacks (large windows, multiple entrances, exterior doors with windows, no second line of defense once the exterior is breached, etc).

-The “we need to increase gun control to make our schools safer” is faulty because it over inflates the issue of guns and ignores the insecurity of our schools. A better approach would be to start with the insecurity of our schools and base our response around that. Would an increase in gun control be a part of that? I’d say probably, but it would be a secondary or tertiary safety measure, not the primary (which is how it is being pushed now).

 

[Brendan]

What does abortion do apart from killing? Any loss of innocent life from a gun is awful, but the truth is that guns save far more than they kill, so there has to be perspective on guns and weighing up the evidence

And, unlike abortion, the owning, and even use, of a firearm is not an intrinsic evil.

If it was, the Vatican would not have Swiss guards armed with Sig Sauer pistols in the costumes, and others, in modern military attitre, at the ready with sniper rifles and submachine guns

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

How many adds, laws, and schooling do we have for driving? A lot! Yet the death toll only get higher. Why? So because a couple of folks can’t drive responsibly should be banned all vehicles? Or perhaps we should banned cell phones and alcohol? Since those two contribute the most in vehicle accidents.

While there are certainly still too many people who drink and drive it is against the law and if caught, a person will lose their licence for varying periods (and permanently if a repeat offender). The point is though that is here it is no longer socially acceptable to drink and drive. I can remember when it was, when people thought “I know how much I can handle, I know when I’m safe, it’s my right to make that decision, why should I be penalised because someone else might not be able to handle alcohol?” and it was usual for people to drive home after being out drinking. I’m ashamed to say I did it myself back then, but now I wouldn’t even consider it. Public perception changes. What was once acceptable becomes unacceptable but it took random breath tests to start that process. People didn’t want to lose their licence.

It’s the same with mobile phones. Here it’s illegal to use a phone when driving unless it’s fully handsfree and some people think even that’s unsafe. It’s illegal to text when driving. It’s illegal to even hold a phone in your hand when behind the wheel, whether the car is moving or parked. Sure, people still do it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep working on changing the perception that it’s a safe thing to do, or keep prosecuting offenders in the meantime. (I don’t know what the laws are around this in the US).

I don’t see why the perception that guns are needed couldn’t change too. If, as many here are saying, crime rates are down, why the need for more guns? What is the cost (in terms of the way people think) of the idea that schools need to be locked up and guarded so they are “secure” and that people need a gun for personal protection? What is the cost of the idea that guns ensure safety and freedom? The cost may be acceptable for the US or something that it would too hard to change, but I rarely see anyone even asking the question.

 

[St_Francis]

Contrary to my usual practice, I have not read every post in this thread, but I read a bunch and did not see this idea floated.

1. Establish and **publicize **a program in which plainsclothes police officers will be in the schools, but not on a continual basis and not all the time, and definitely not on a regular schedule. Just a part of the pokice officer’s day to show up at one or two schools each day, different officers at different times.

Also have patrols stop at different times at the schools–police officers could be encouraged to stop at schools for their breaks, for example.

Never knowing when armed police officers are in the schools or not would go a long way to stopping this.

1. Supplementary: a teacher who legally owns weapons who scores a high score on accuracy could receive special training to carry a gun in the school, or to have one in a special place that is easy for the teacher to get to. This progeam should also be widely publicized, but not the identities of the teachers who have permission. Perhaps parents could also join in a program like this.
2. There should be a way for someone in the school to be able to automatically lock the classroom doors (but which the teachers would be able to unlock), and drills should be carried out. A special buzzer could go off so everyone could duck into the nearest classroom before the doors lock. Then these maniacs wouldn’t be able to get in to kill children.

I agree with those who say that the problem is that it is known that schools are unprotected and that killers will have a free rein for a good long time before anyone who is capable of doing anything will show up–20 minutes it took for the police to show up in a suburban community!

To me, once it is known that we are protecting our students and that anyone who shows up with ideas of making a splash in the media or whatever they have in mind might very likely be met with an armed person on the premises, they will choose other places to do this. But there is no need for a constant presence of someone, just a good likelihood.

 

[livingwordunity]

Contrary to my usual practice, I have not read every post in this thread, but I read a bunch and did not see this idea floated.

1. Establish and **publicize **a program in which plainsclothes police officers will be in the schools, but not on a continual basis and not all the time, and definitely not on a regular schedule. Just a part of the pokice officer’s day to show up at one or two schools each day, different officers at different times.

Also have patrols stop at different times at the schools–police officers could be encouraged to stop at schools for their breaks, for example.

Never knowing when armed police officers are in the schools or not would go a long way to stopping this.

1. Supplementary: a teacher who legally owns weapons who scores a high score on accuracy could receive special training to carry a gun in the school, or to have one in a special place that is easy for the teacher to get to. This progeam should also be widely publicized, but not the identities of the teachers who have permission. Perhaps parents could also join in a program like this.
2. There should be a way for someone in the school to be able to automatically lock the classroom doors (but which the teachers would be able to unlock), and drills should be carried out. A special buzzer could go off so everyone could duck into the nearest classroom before the doors lock. Then these maniacs wouldn’t be able to get in to kill children.

I agree with those who say that the problem is that it is known that schools are unprotected and that killers will have a free rein for a good long time before anyone who is capable of doing anything will show up–20 minutes it took for the police to show up in a suburban community!

To me, once it is known that we are protecting our students and that anyone who shows up with ideas of making a splash in the media or whatever they have in mind might very likely be met with an armed person on the premises, they will choose other places to do this. But there is no need for a constant presence of someone, just a good likelihood.

 

[CaptFun]

And after being seen BEFORE school he/she would sit in a spot with several security monitors and access to the PA system - so that trouble could be headed off before it happened.

Arming oneself with non-lethal weapons as WELL with a preference for disabling the perp with a shock or tranquilizer dart if possible would be more ideal.

I stop short of having a “break glass in case of terrorist” and access to a gun for anyone -
like one can get a fire extinguisher … but schools etc. should be secure.

In planes, I often thought cameras and a track with remote movable weaponry that could cover every inch might secure flights.

Many schools have security anyway. Metal detectors and guards can disarm in a defensive measure. But to save lives … some times the good guys need to go on offense or the bad guys are not afraid.

Even THIS measure won’t stop the nonsense. And if a perp is shot and killed whoever actually does it will be second guessed. And maybe that’s the way it needs to be.

The old westerns sometimes had the good guy shoot the gun from the bad guys’ hand. Saving the day without even killing him. The technologies we now have and control of the environments to be guarded make that scenario almost possible.

I don’t own a gun myself but someone PLEASE protect me with one when I’m in danger, :sad_yes:

 

[Fused_Participl]

Since the Newtown shooting, approximately 500 Americans have been killed with guns. Approximately, 50 are children and teenagers.

“Nope. We don’t need to do anything about guns,” days Moloch.

 

[chero23]

I wasn’t aware the NRA sold guns.

They might not sell them per say, but they sure know how to get them in the street and get congress filled with politicians who follow their agenda. Don’t act surprise by this group, when they had their press conference today and the lady got up with the sign that the NRA has kids blood in their hands, the guy for the NRA kept speaking. That man looked like a man with no soul nor heart

 

[Brendan]

Since the Newtown shooting, approximately 500 Americans have been killed with guns. Approximately, 50 are children and teenagers.

“Nope. We don’t need to do anything about guns,” days Moloch.

Well, in 1995, the Dept of Justice under the Clinton adminstration, idendified 1.5 million defensive use of firearms by civilians.

And based of of a 1994 study by two Criminiolgy professors at the Northwestern School of Law, about 300,000 of those uses resulted in a life being saved.