NR-tarded

[snoopy369]

Far from an environment of fear...authority figures (in particular uniformed authority figures) inspire stability and a sense of security. As things are now, the only people with guns on a school campus are mass murderers.

Bull****. I went to a school where I could walk in the front door, walk to class, go have lunch, come back, go home. I knew the local cops that walked the area beat, and certainly they came in fairly regularly, but they weren't there all the time, and they weren't holding assault rifles or whatever. Now in cities you have to walk through metal detectors to get into schools, you have to wear your ID around your neck so everyone can see you belong there, and you're now suggesting having an additional armed guard? Sounds like prison to me, not high school. I don't want any part of that. I'd like my sons to feel like school is a second home, not somewhere that they are in danger of being shot on a regular basis at.

I also don't think my sons will believe an armed uniformed presence inspires security or stability any more than I do. I was raised to respect authority figures, but that's different from feeling secure around them. To me the presence of someone with a gun means that someone thinks that gun might be needed to shoot someone, which makes me much more nervous than that person not being there. I didn't mind police officers in high school both because they weren't always there (ie, they were in the area but not standing guard or even on school grounds all the time), and because they usually were friendly and attempted to perform their duties in a way that deemphasized the danger.

Having an armed guard there whose purpose is solely deterring armed attack would just remind the kids about that possibility - and thus encourage an authoritarian climate of fear. No thanks.

[PLATO]

Bull****. I went to a school where I could walk in the front door, walk to class, go have lunch, come back, go home. I knew the local cops that walked the area beat, and certainly they came in fairly regularly, but they weren't there all the time, and they weren't holding assault rifles or whatever. Now in cities you have to walk through metal detectors to get into schools, you have to wear your ID around your neck so everyone can see you belong there, and you're now suggesting having an additional armed guard? Sounds like prison to me, not high school. I don't want any part of that. I'd like my sons to feel like school is a second home, not somewhere that they are in danger of being shot on a regular basis at.

I also don't think my sons will believe an armed uniformed presence inspires security or stability any more than I do. I was raised to respect authority figures, but that's different from feeling secure around them. To me the presence of someone with a gun means that someone thinks that gun might be needed to shoot someone, which makes me much more nervous than that person not being there. I didn't mind police officers in high school both because they weren't always there (ie, they were in the area but not standing guard or even on school grounds all the time), and because they usually were friendly and attempted to perform their duties in a way that deemphasized the danger.

Having an armed guard there whose purpose is solely deterring armed attack would just remind the kids about that possibility - and thus encourage an authoritarian climate of fear. No thanks.

This sounds more like some personal issues than a cogent argument. Assault rifle? Really? Damn man, I feel for you.

So your kids see the school shootings on TV and look to you and say, "Boy Dad! Sure am glad that we don't have someone at our school to protect us in case some nut job showed up there. If there was I might feel insecure!"

Great parenting skills.

[Sava]

Sure am glad that we don't have someone at our school to protect us in case some nut job showed up there.

Your strawman is obsolete. Columbine had an armed guard. Virginia Tech has an armed security force. Ft. Hood? The army.

Try again.

[snoopy369]

While true, it is a different issue. You could start a whole different thread on that issue.

Not different at all. Risks are all relative. Flying is safe, in particular because it's much safer than driving. Some people die in plane crashes most years, but that number is far less than the number who die in car accidents (even per-mile, even weighted to take highway/long distance into account). These armed guards would not only cost money, but would impinge on our freedoms and push us further towards an authoritarian state. We as a nation need to decide what risks are worth what costs. Some of us weight the 'authoritarian state/impinge freedom' bit more than others, and some are more concerned by the risk to our children than others (either consider the risk higher, or are more worried by the same risk). That's where the debate comes in; but to imply it is a debate with only risks on one side and not costs to weigh against them is wrong.

[PLATO]

Your strawman is obsolete. Columbine had an armed guard. Virginia Tech has an armed security force. Ft. Hood? The army.

Try again.

Its not a strawman. I don't contend that an armed guard would make things safe...only safer.

Reading comprehension is a skill...not a gift.

[PLATO]

Not different at all. Risks are all relative. Flying is safe, in particular because it's much safer than driving. Some people die in plane crashes most years, but that number is far less than the number who die in car accidents (even per-mile, even weighted to take highway/long distance into account). These armed guards would not only cost money, but would impinge on our freedoms and push us further towards an authoritarian state. We as a nation need to decide what risks are worth what costs. Some of us weight the 'authoritarian state/impinge freedom' bit more than others, and some are more concerned by the risk to our children than others (either consider the risk higher, or are more worried by the same risk). That's where the debate comes in; but to imply it is a debate with only risks on one side and not costs to weigh against them is wrong.

This is an argument I could buy into easily. Far different that the insecurity argument (at least in my eyes). However...school systems are locally run (usually anyway) and each community could set the standard for what they want.

I suppose that the argument I am arguing is "Given the choice between armed guards and gun control as proposed, which would I prefer?" My answer would be armed guards. A community might decide on gun control. The federal government should stay the hell out of it.

Now...if the question is "What is the best solution?" that would have a different answer all together from me and would not involve guns or guards. Personal responsibility and responsibility to your community would be the direction I would go then.

[MRT144]

This sounds more like some personal issues than a cogent argument. Assault rifle? Really? Damn man, I feel for you.

So your kids see the school shootings on TV and look to you and say, "Boy Dad! Sure am glad that we don't have someone at our school to protect us in case some nut job showed up there. If there was I might feel insecure!"

Great parenting skills.

GTFO Parenting Troll.

[snoopy369]

This is an argument I could buy into easily. Far different that the insecurity argument (at least in my eyes). However...school systems are locally run (usually anyway) and each community could set the standard for what they want.

I suppose that the argument I am arguing is "Given the choice between armed guards and gun control as proposed, which would I prefer?" My answer would be armed guards. A community might decide on gun control. The federal government should stay the hell out of it.

Now...if the question is "What is the best solution?" that would have a different answer all together from me and would not involve guns or guards. Personal responsibility and responsibility to your community would be the direction I would go then.

Sure, Federal Government should stay out of it - no problem there, certainly if we're talking armed guards. Gun control is more complicated, though; because my area's decision on gun control affects your area's decision. IE, if New York passes strict gun control laws, but New Jersey says 'Eh, whatever', New York is harmed by New Jersey's decision (in their eyes) because guns will be readily available to New York residents nearby. As a result, it's probably necessary to handle it at the federal level.

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't actually believe the NRA thinks schools need armed guards so much, I think they are just being pressured to "contribute" to a discussion that they feel is pointless (correctly!)

No measures under consideration actually do anything to address gun violence, it's just a big middle finger to law abiding gun owners. That is the entire point of the legislation--to say "we are anti gun and america will vote for anti gun!" They've lost, so what does that tell you?

[DinoDoc]

As a result, it's probably necessary to handle it at the federal level.

I don't want Chicago's gun laws.

[DinoDoc]

fascism

Were the words to large for you to comprehend?

[Hauldren Collider]

Your strawman is obsolete. Columbine had an armed guard. Virginia Tech has an armed security force. Ft. Hood? The army.

Try again.

Virginia Tech's "armed security force" sat on its hands while that dude blasted through campus with two 10-round pistols and a ****ton of mags. They were scared of being shot so they waited.

[Dr Strangelove]

Virginia Tech's "armed security force" sat on its hands while that dude blasted through campus with two 10-round pistols and a ****ton of mags. They were scared of being shot so they waited.

No, they were on the other side of the campus investigating the murders he had committed earlier that day. Also the shooter locked the doors to the building where he committed the largest number of murders.
Have you even ever been to Virginia Tech? I went to school there. The dormitory where the first shootings happened wasn't that far from the class building where the rest of the shooting occurred, probably less than one half mile, but the layout of the streets mandates taking the long way around because there's a huge parade ground in the middle of the campus. The buildings are made with heavy stones and the doors are thick and heavy. The school was all ROTC during its major era of growth after WW2 so it the buildings were designed around a sort of fortress mentality. That means if someone jams the doors shut you're not going to put your shoulder to it and break it down.

[DinoDoc]

Isn't the argument wrt Virginia Tech not so much about armed guards but about the school's ironic gun free safe zone created the circumstance that none of the other students or faculty would be armed and that as a result they were unable to stop Cho?

[BlackCat]

Its not a strawman. I don't contend that an armed guard would make things safe...only safer.

Reading comprehension is a skill...not a gift.

This is my old school - how many guards would you think woul be nessecary to defend it ?


View Larger Map


Edit: not perfect- tried one more time.