http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp It seems like people want to ignore gun-free zones hurt everyone except psychos.
Israel has well-known security concerns, but it limits security to the professionals. Universal army service entrusts every 18-21 year old soldier with a gun, but only lieutenant colonels and above can own guns after their service ends. Schools employ armed commercial security guards, but teachers haven't carried guns since the 1970s.
"Israel and Thailand save lives by arming teachers." Love it or leave it. Why don't you lefties move there if it's so great? Stars and stripes forever.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/17/1171099/-Columbine-High-School-had-an-armed-deputy# This is the first I've heard of this about Columbine, a few good point made in the article though. "If you really think more guns are the answer, Louis Gohmert, then please describe how many guards, at what level of training and how heavily armed, are needed to stop a killer with a semi-automatic rifle, expert in its use, wearing body armor, and attacking with the advantage of surprise at the most vulnerable spot. Because these killers are not going to stop, some of them are going to prepare and plan I'd say half a dozen per elementary school, with SWAT-team armaments and armor. There are 67,000 elementary schools in the United States. Let's call it 400,000 full time guards, making perhaps $50,000 each. That's $20,000,000,000 per year just for the elementary schools. And since a smart, preparing, planning killer may just go down the street to the park, or the Little League fields, you can multiply that by a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand to protect every place. Who knows?"
That all you got from that article? Its about the armed guard who was at Columbine and was no match for their firepower. Sure we can spend $20B trying to protect our schools but is that the best place for an arms race?
No, but I think it's the main point of the two paragraphs you quoted. It made it sound an awful lot like "oh noes, not another 20 BILLION!!!111!one1!" to protect schoolchildren when we're running a trillion-dollar deficit. I don't think a SWAT team at every school is necessary or prudent. But the reason for my opinion isn't b/c it'll cost $20B to protect them.
The second amendment is necessary to protect ourselves from jackbooted government thugs. Now, let's hire 100,000 new government employees, give them guns and station them in our schools.
The thread quickly went from allowing teachers to carry guns to mandating armed guards. Oddly enough, I think armed teachers would be more effective than armed guards. Why? Because an armed assailant would make a point to know where the armed guard is. Readily identifiable threats are easier to avoid or neutralize. If any or all of the teachers at any individual school may or may not be armed, it makes it impossible for a potential attacker to know who he/she must avoid.
ok your right that was clumsy quoteing by me. I should have posted the whole article but I was wrapping up at work and in a hurry. Money is a concern however and needs to be considered with every proposal, but if $20B fixed this problem then it would be money well spent. I think persuing this line of thought would just be an expensive failure though, and would only limit or stop the people who act on emotion and are not prepared. Guys like the Columbine and CT shooters, were well prepared and probably would only have been stopped with a SWAT team in place or a group of equally prepared counter terrorism unit, and then our schools are looking more like prisons than instituitons of learning.
When your considering guns in school you have to look at all angles, and the NRA is calling for armed guards on every campus. I agree that teachers being armed would be better and more cost effective, but then there are other problems to address. Like are we introducing more potential for accidents than problems we are solving? What about schools where no one wants to have a gun, is just the possibility enough? Would an armed teacher be able to stop a madman with a bullet proof vest and an AR15 anyway?
They may be, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about permitting teachers to carry firearms. Possibly. NO solution is perfect or foolproof. And no one action is going to be a panacea. But I'd rather do something than nothing. Enough to make someone think twice before acting? Possibly. But the possibility of a teacher being armed certainly isn't going to make someone more likely to attack, so this isn't really a "problem to address". Bullet-proof vests don't stop head shots.
I can't think of much scarier then my one ex-girlfriend or one and only mom being responsible to pack heat. Thinking back on my various teachers, there are many I would be very uncomfortable having that responsibility. This is a batshit crazy idea STOMP
