• 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!

Here's a city that took action.

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,665
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate


The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education has approved the carrying of handguns by its custodial staff.
The 5-0 vote of the board Wednesday night to allow handgun training for four custodians to be able to tote weapons at the K-12 campus at the Williams County school came after last month's deadly shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Thoughts?
 
I like the idea.
 
It likely won't be needed, but it's the sort of staff that will receive a push back if there's one incidence where the custodial staff produces an accident or an intentional incident. There's a hierarchy to this sort of thing, and such staff are near the bottom, thus identified as not having that as much public trust or whatever have you. Expensive as it likely was, I enjoyed seeing a security officer in school buildings. They were a visible presence in the school, broke up fights, became admired people in the building by students, staff, and faculty alike. As far as them being armed, I do not recall.
 
Because kids should clearly be brought up to expect that unqualified figures with nebulous authority should be carrying lethal weaponry around them all the time. Wouldn't want any of them learning terrible lessons like questioning authority or anything like that.
 

A student, questioning school authority, is usually unwarranted and causes discipline problems. A student, in comparison with custodial staff, is below the totem poll. Lord knows why questioning authority is your biggest concern here, when there's more important questions that could be pondered.
 

No, my actual concern is that this will spread, and using guns to intimidate children will become commonplace. And then intimidation will turn into violence. This is "think of the children" being used to justify the foundations of a police state. Get kids used to it and then they'll be used to it when they're adults. Would you want armed guards keeping you in line at work? How about watching you on the street?
 

It's actually well thought out . . . custodians have full access to all of the school via keys, aren't constantly in contact with students in close quarters (such as teachers) and aren't in the position to punish and flex authority (all others on staff)

Yes - heavens - we don't want kids knowing that the world is full of nutters that would actually walk into a school and threaten them - and that htey need to be protected from them.

Sorry - but the bubble's popped. It has been for quite some time and people are just now getting sick of it.
 
MaggieD said:

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's probably way more likely that if these guns were to ever be used that they would be used to accidentally kill an innocent person, be it a kid, staff, or an innocent visitor on campus, than to actually stop any kind of violent crime on campus.

Those are just the cold hard facts. It's a stupid idea.
 

Where are you getting that they'll be unqualified? They'll be required to take training courses and receive certifications (in addition to having already passed rigorous background checks) prior to being qualified to carry.
 

Ah, yes, now the counter-culturalist comes out. Always the fear of the police state when you can focus on more important matters. You could have even said, "I foresee accidents happening, and children dead." Instead, the fear of the police state.

Considering my area thus far is in the area of education, both secondary and post-secondary, let's be safe and assume I rather like authoritative measures and am surrounded by those who keep order.
 
Fine with me. Arm the cafeteria manager and librarian too if they are willing to carry since the places of congregation would be the softest target.
 

A reasonable fear. If you were to have firearms in the schools, I'd rather keep it in the hands of those most entrusted with security of the campus, not its cleaning.
 


Yes I agree. This is a really good idea NOT. Stupid loons.
 
My only concern would be how these individuals are armed. I don't want to send my children to school where the custodial staff is walking around with guns holstered in a way where the children will see them. I don't believe that would lead to a conducive learning environment.

Another question. How can we be so certain that the custodial staff won't snap the way any of the other school shooters snapped? Oh, we can't? So who do we arm when that happens to make sure it doesn't happen again?
 
Fiddytree said:
A reasonable fear. If you were to have firearms in the schools, I'd rather keep it in the hands of those most entrusted with security of the campus, not its cleaning.
Click to expand...


How is a fully trained and armed custodial staff differ than someone else with a concealed weapon permit who carries?
 
Fiddytree said:
A reasonable fear. If you were to have firearms in the schools, I'd rather keep it in the hands of those most entrusted with security of the campus, not its cleaning.
Click to expand...

How very elitist. Janitors are so lowly they cannot be entrusted with anything which is clearly why they have keys to every lock in the school. This is really where the rubber hits the road isn't it?
 
Chaddelamancha said:
How is a fully trained and armed custodial staff differ than someone else with a concealed weapon permit who carries?
Click to expand...

The image alone suffices. Some parents may like it, but it's a controversial move to a majority.
 
What makes them 'unqualified'?

I held a class this past Saturday with several teachers from our area. They are all long time firearm owners and conceal carry permit holders. They shoot more than most law enforcement officers. Yet your assertion would be that only police officers are responsible enough or qualified to act in situations of the gravest extreme? 1-Thats just foolish. Most cops are just citizens...no better or worse mentally capable of handling a crisis situation. 2-Training is the key. 3-It took responding law enforcement 10 minutes to reach Sandy Hook. But hey...as long as those students were 'safe' waiting for those 'qualified' law enforcement agencies...
 
Fiddytree said:
The image alone suffices. Some parents may like it, but it's a controversial move.
Click to expand...

If anything, I would prefer the armed individual be more low key, rather than some authoritative looking figure.
 
Fiddytree said:
A reasonable fear. If you were to have firearms in the schools, I'd rather keep it in the hands of those most entrusted with security of the campus, not its cleaning.
Click to expand...
The lead janitor at our nearest high school is a guy named H Patrick. He is a retired marine, clergy, former business owner. Its not a little bit presumptuous to denigrate people because they happen to be janitors.

I doubt anyone is rushing to put firearms into just 'anyones' hands. Im relatively certain there is more involved in this than "hey...mop boy...here is a gun". Now...if you are suggesting communities should pony up extra funds for a fully trained security staff...OK...thats cool too.
 

In theory it sounds good, but what if a custodian is opposed to carrying a weapon? Do you arm only the ones who are willing to carry? If you are going to protect the school it should be by armed guards not school staff of any kind IMO
 

And one teacher I know is a retired vet from Afghanistan. It's still a controversial position to arm teachers, nonetheless, right?
 
Oh Jeepers H. Crackers, talking out of turn excessively will be punished by blowing a students brains out? Why aren't there armed militia in schools right now if that what "they" wanted to do?

Seriously, you need to relax.
 
Fiddytree said:
And one teacher I know is a retired vet from Afghanistan. It's still a controversial position to arm teachers, nonetheless, right?
Click to expand...
Only controversial to people that dont like firearms. I dont know what is more controversial Fiddy...allowing (not 'arming') qualified competent citizens that HAPPEN to be teachers (or janitors) to exercise constitutional rights, or wait 10 minutes for the cops to show up. The reality is that unless something bad happens, it is EXTRAORDINARILY unlikely that anyone will EVER know those teachers or janitors are armed. And SHOULD that event ever tragically occur...well...no controversy.

A school that can afford an armed security force...go for it.
 

Who, among school staff, has more knowedge of the building's (and surrounding ground's) layout, has traveled repeatedly over every inch of it, often for decades? Why use extra, "security only", personnel that have ZERO other duties and will likely spend 99.9% of their time doing absolutely nothing productive? These custodial folks are in/around the building before, during and after most others are and can easily accept this extra duty for minimal added cost. What "authority" is involved with stopping an armed intruder herding kids and teachers to be slaughtered? How is it "better" to pay some equally "prole" gov't employee to simply stand around (in uniform?) doing nothing "just in case" they are ever needed?
 
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…