• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Armed guards in schools?

MadLib

monstrous vermin
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
2,439
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ever since the Sandy Hooks massacre, there have been talks of placing armed guards in schools. People who strongly support gun rights have a tendency to support this idea, while people who support more restrictions tend to reject this idea. What do you think?

I think that armed guards in schools is actually a very good idea, but my views on this are independent of my views on guns. Gun control or no gun control, children in schools are virtually defenseless against demented maniacs who decide to hurt them. There are security guards in school but they are only armed with walkie talkies. I mean, seriously? If a psychopath parks in the teacher parking lot and walks into the school with a semi-automatic, what can unarmed guards do? Say "stop"? Threaten to call the police? Call the police? When the police arrive, how many children could have been murdered at that point? If the guards are armed, on the other hand, even with small arms, the would-be shooter could be apprehended or receive a well-earned bullet to the head before he could hurt anybody.
 
I'm pro second amendment but neutral on the armed guards issue regarding schools. I think both gun bans and armed guards are reactionary measures which don't address the main issue of what is causing the shooters, I think the real problem isn't going to be fixed by either solution and prefer we revisit mental health issues in this country, as well I think the media needs to stop nationalizing these tragedies as I feel it encourages copy cat massacres by people who are suicidal or insane and looking for an easy route to fame through infamy. I'm a fan of allowing through legitimate means for the temporary debarring of suspect individuals under sworn affadavit from weapons ownership, though in the case of Sandy Hook that wouldn't have accomplished much.

Armed guards can lessen casualties, unless of course the perpetrator takes the guards out first. I don't think it is enough, not without better mental health services and media compliance anyway.
 
In my high school and Jr High, we had something called an SRO (School Resource Officer) whose job was to deal with any trouble, or legal issues within the school. I support this idea.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In my high school and Jr High, we had something called an SRO (School Resource Officer) whose job was to deal with any trouble, or legal issues within the school. I support this idea.
Click to expand...
Same here in La. They are sufficient for most problems IMO.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Same here in La. They are sufficient for most problems IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree. 100%
But i dont think one guard will solve the problem neither do i think many armed guards will solve the problem (Fort Hood) the fact of the matter is crazies will always find a way, and more guns, and more "guards" will not solve the problem. IMO
 
Fort Hood is a bit of a confused issue, Military subordinates are not allowed to carry just anywhere on base without special permissions, the massacre happened in a disarmed area. True, crazy people will find a way to accomplish what they want to do if possible, I don't think just arming civilians or adding personnel will solve much, we have to address the root causes of mental illness and fame seeking.
 

Mixed emotions on whether armed guards in schools is a good idea.

But am solid on the opinion that it is a sad reflection on our current culture that the situation has evolved to the point where we even need to address the question...
 

The fort hood shooter did not shoot up a place with armed people in it nor did he use a issued a weapon to do it. Having been in the army and stationed at Fort Hood(2000-2002) I know for a fact soldiers are not going around carrying loaded weapons all over army posts. Weapons are usually locked up in company and battery arms rooms,unless its for a training exercise and even the only time those weapons have ammo is usually during a live fire training exercise. Live ammo is not stored in company and battery arms rooms(there might be a few exceptions to that). Live ammo is either at a live fire range or locked up in a bunker or some other place away from the companies and batteries,there are a few exceptions to this like soldiers on armed guard duty, and I would assume the MPs would also have live ammo. Armed guards and MPs are not standing at every street corner at Fort Hood or any other army post as far as I know.Plus a lot of military bases are like small cities or town,so it may take awhile for armed police to show up.
 
Last edited:
That's why we oppose laws like the Gun Free School Zone Act.
 
Armed guards in schools wont fix the problem, but it is a step towards making them safer. I ultimately want to see the false sense of security known as the Gun Free School Zone Act repealed.
 
StubbornMoose said:
Armed guards in schools wont fix the problem, but it is a step towards making them safer. I ultimately want to see the false sense of security known as the Gun Free School Zone Act repealed.
Click to expand...

I agree.Armed guard could be at the opposite end of the school campus or another floor or building. A armed teacher or some other school staff member could be in the class room or right across the hall or next door.
 


Most schools in my area have at least one armed police officer, known as a Resource Officer, on campus during classes. Some have two. I'd like to see more schools adopt this policy.

While one or two armed officers may or may not be adequate to stop another Sandy Hook, at least it would be a fighting chance. Nothing is certain after all.

In terms of likely effectiveness, three to five such guards would be far more effective, but unfortunately we have to consider the cost of such things. I am tempted to suggest the use of armed citizen volunteers with CWP, who have been vetted with background and psych checks and undergone an advanced training class oriented on "dealing with active shooters in a crowded school setting" as a lower-cost higher-yield alternative... but I know a lot of people are going to view that as anathema. I like the idea myself; I think a good many retired military guys would take that on, even for little or no pay.
 
The sad truth is that NOTHING will prevent these tragedies. All we can do is whatever we can to limit the body count. That means quick as possible intervention and threat neutralization. The BEST way of doing that is responsible adults carrying firearms. Remove the gun free zones and in states that do not allow carry (NY NJ IL CA HI MD DC etc) make them shall issue. It is insane to me to create areas where one would have to break the law to exercise the most basic of rights, self protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…