Safer Schools

[MarineTpartier]

IMO, the first thing we need to do is require states to provide 1 or more security officers per school. This security officer need not be a police officer. It can be a thoroughly vetted security officer from any number of private security firms. This security officer should be under the authority of the principal of the school. The officer(s) should also be required to be stationed by any used/unsecured/main entry way to the school. Secondly, schools should be required to have a "buzzer" style entry into the school. Too many schools have the traditional glass, push doors. However, these doors can be fitted with the aforementioned buzzer style entry. Yes, the Federal gov't should legislate this and fund it. You can call it big gov't to which I say screw you these are kids and not political talking points. There are many programs we can cut, and no program should be safe, to fund these doors. Also, the Federal gov't should include in this legislation a requirement of all states to provide a plan to fund the hiring of a security officer per school. I do not believe the Federal gov't should dictate the specifics ie how many officers per square foot/student, if they are state, county, or private security officers, etc. All they should dictate is that a security officer is provided per school. It needs to be as broad as possible so as not to be unwieldly. The reason someone such as myself, an almost extreme believer in small gov't, says this is because I know as well as all of you what will happen with this issue. State level and lower gov't agencies will adopt the "it will never happen here" attitude and do nothing. They will view parents and citizens of their communities as knee jerk reactors who are simply amped up due to a recent incident. They will wait them out and then it will be forgotten. We can't allow that to happen. A Federal mandate prevents that from happening. Yes, its too much gov't oversight. In this case, I'm fine with that. These are kids we're talking about.

 

[Risky Thicket]

The problem with this figure is that really it is reported school shootings of which we have well-known records. Violence across America is actually pretty solidly down across the century.

Deaths due to driving with cell phones are up and I'm certain that it is a lot higher than it was 10 years ago. There is no hue and cry on "news" networks about cell phone deaths.

The best I can find in a quick search is that by 2009, 995 deaths nationally were attributed to using a cell phone while driving. How many hours do you suppose the networks have devoted to that information?

 

[Rainman05]

The problem with this figure is that really it is reported school shootings of which we have well-known records. Violence across America is actually pretty solidly down across the century.

We are discussing school shootings, not violence. Also ,violence is of 2 kinds, reported and not reported. So yeah, while indeed, certain acts of criminal violence have been dropping, on the official records, there is no argument to suggest that violence in general has went down the same path.

The thing that has been dropping is in murders. Not gang-related murders, those are on a ascending path, but murders by normal people on other normal people. For example, people didn't murder their spouses that often because what do you know, divorce is easier and easier to get. But crime due to poverty and gangbangers killing one another, yeah, that's on the rise.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So what do you do to keep the kids safe?

Within the parameters established by this thread? Nothing. We're talking about controlling and intimidating millions of students in the hopes of saving what, dozens? And as we've already seen... these "security measures" don't work. The only viable solution is for everyone to be responsible for their own security and to stop panicking every time a freak incident leaves a couple dozen dead.

What happened the other day was a terrible tragedy, but there's no sense in compounding that tragedy by allowing it to change our lives for the worse.

 

[wolfman24]

Is locking students in and guarding them like prisoners really a step in the right direction? Do we really want to raise children to expect to be treated like they need to be watched all the time? The lessons they learn in school will be carried with them for the rest of their lives. Treat them like prisoners when they're young, and they won't be able to handle liberty when they become adults.

I understand this point but using my sons school as a case once the students were inside the cameras did all the monitoring. Most of the students their didn't even notice them. But I agree having halls partrolled by cops or security guards or whatever is the wrong step. At his schools between classes it was customary (Not reguired) for teachers to stand out side thier rooms to help things go along.

 

[MarineTpartier]

I posted this in another thread and I believe it applies here:
IMO, guns aren't the issue when speaking of equipment. What Dems should go after (because we all know the inept GOP won't), is the equipment this guy and other mass shooters have. Equipment such as 30 round mags for AR/AK style rifles, body armor, various weapons attachments such as the M203 Launcher and "slide fire" (which is VERY scary), etc. This is the stuff we need off the streets. Right now, a civilian can purchase and arm themselves as good as or better than me when I am in Afghanistan hunting Taliban. There is something inherently wrong with that. I don't think anyone is going to win an anti-gun fight. However, I think Dems can win an anti equipment fight. No one can cite 2nd Amendment on that one. The NRA can attempt to have a dog in that fight but I think they will dismissed from it. If Pres Obama and the Dems were smart, that is the cause they would take up. There is no practical application for Joe Schmoe the civilian to have body armor and a 30 round mag.

 

[ChuckBerry]

I posted this in another thread and I believe it applies here:
IMO, guns aren't the issue when speaking of equipment. What Dems should go after (because we all know the inept GOP won't), is the equipment this guy and other mass shooters have. Equipment such as 30 round mags for AR/AK style rifles, body armor, various weapons attachments such as the M203 Launcher and "slide fire" (which is VERY scary), etc. This is the stuff we need off the streets. Right now, a civilian can purchase and arm themselves as good as or better than me when I am in Afghanistan hunting Taliban. There is something inherently wrong with that. I don't think anyone is going to win an anti-gun fight. However, I think Dems can win an anti equipment fight. No one can cite 2nd Amendment on that one. The NRA can attempt to have a dog in that fight but I think they will dismissed from it. If Pres Obama and the Dems were smart, that is the cause they would take up. There is no practical application for Joe Schmoe the civilian to have body armor and a 30 round mag.

Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia Tech murders had 10 and 15 round magazines and killed lots more people. One of the guns was a .22 ffs. Hardware isn't the issue.

 

[Carjosse]

I posted this in another thread and I believe it applies here:
IMO, guns aren't the issue when speaking of equipment. What Dems should go after (because we all know the inept GOP won't), is the equipment this guy and other mass shooters have. Equipment such as 30 round mags for AR/AK style rifles, body armor, various weapons attachments such as the M203 Launcher and "slide fire" (which is VERY scary), etc. This is the stuff we need off the streets. Right now, a civilian can purchase and arm themselves as good as or better than me when I am in Afghanistan hunting Taliban. There is something inherently wrong with that. I don't think anyone is going to win an anti-gun fight. However, I think Dems can win an anti equipment fight. No one can cite 2nd Amendment on that one. The NRA can attempt to have a dog in that fight but I think they will dismissed from it. If Pres Obama and the Dems were smart, that is the cause they would take up. There is no practical application for Joe Schmoe the civilian to have body armor and a 30 round mag.

Do it the Canadian way limit magazine sizes to 5 bullets and monitor the sale of certain ammunition types. I know a guy who owns a semi-auto M16 but the thing is useless because he can't buy ammunition and the limit is 5 bullets for a magazine so shooting it is useless. He also can't get parts for it either.

 

[wolfman24]

I posted this in another thread and I believe it applies here:
IMO, guns aren't the issue when speaking of equipment. What Dems should go after (because we all know the inept GOP won't), is the equipment this guy and other mass shooters have. Equipment such as 30 round mags for AR/AK style rifles, body armor, various weapons attachments such as the M203 Launcher and "slide fire" (which is VERY scary), etc. This is the stuff we need off the streets. Right now, a civilian can purchase and arm themselves as good as or better than me when I am in Afghanistan hunting Taliban. There is something inherently wrong with that. I don't think anyone is going to win an anti-gun fight. However, I think Dems can win an anti equipment fight. No one can cite 2nd Amendment on that one. The NRA can attempt to have a dog in that fight but I think they will dismissed from it. If Pres Obama and the Dems were smart, that is the cause they would take up. There is no practical application for Joe Schmoe the civilian to have body armor and a 30 round mag.

I absolutely see your point but the NRA won't. They freak anytime anything to do with guns is mentioned.

At least it would be a start. Thanks

 

[MarineTpartier]

Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia Tech murders had 10 and 15 round magazines and killed lots more people. One of the guns was a .22 ffs. Hardware isn't the issue.

This isn't the end all be all solution. There isn't one. However, it can't be ignored. Remember the LA bank robbery stand off in the streets? That wouldn't have happened had there been a ban on body armor and extended mags.

 

[cpwill]

We are discussing school shootings, not violence. Also ,violence is of 2 kinds, reported and not reported. So yeah, while indeed, certain acts of criminal violence have been dropping, on the official records, there is no argument to suggest that violence in general has went down the same path.

The thing that has been dropping is in murders. Not gang-related murders, those are on a ascending path, but murders by normal people on other normal people. For example, people didn't murder their spouses that often because what do you know, divorce is easier and easier to get. But crime due to poverty and gangbangers killing one another, yeah, that's on the rise.

...no, actually, it's not.

If you are actually interested in the subject, you may enjoy seeing that notion statistically annihilated

 

[ChuckBerry]

This isn't the end all be all solution. There isn't one. However, it can't be ignored. Remember the LA bank robbery stand off in the streets? That wouldn't have happened had there been a ban on body armor and extended mags.

...and the only two people who died in that incident were the two bank robbers, and one of them committed suicide.

Gear isn't the issue. It's intent. Reload time between magazines is negligible for a reasonably competent operator, and the weight balance of an extended mag makes accurate shots difficult. And I doubt I need to tell you how useless full auto really is for a light rifle if you want to even pretend to fire accurately.

The truth is that common handguns with common magazines are all you need if you want a high body count. Soft targets are just that...soft. No need for military grade anything to waste a few dozen people if thats all you want to do.

 

[MarineTpartier]

...and the only two people who died in that incident were the two bank robbers, and one of them committed suicide.

Thankfully. It could have been different..

Gear isn't the issue. It's intent. Reload time between magazines is negligible for a reasonably competent operator, and the weight balance of an extended mag makes accurate shots difficult. And I doubt I need to tell you how useless full auto really is for a light rifle if you want to even pretend to fire accurately.

The truth is that common handguns with common magazines are all you need if you want a high body count. Soft targets are just that...soft. No need for military grade anything to waste a few dozen people if thats all you want to do.

My point is why make it easier? Why allow these people to have minimal training to be able to do this? You have to practice mag changes. You have to re-adjust sight picture when changing mags over and over. And no one can simulate the adrenaline rush you get when shooting at live targets and possibly being shot back at. I've seen guys who can drop and change mags as fast as anyone can totally botch a reload when being shot at or shooting at live targets. I think these measures make it that much harder for a psycho to do things like this.