One guard or two? Big schools get 3? Awesome. Armed, trained, full time. Got it. So maybe between $80,000 - $250,000 a year per school. Easy. So never mind we have teachers buying their own pencils. Let’s pay for armed guards.
I feel like I need to ask: Is it ok to stipulate that I'm all for better background checks, if you don't ever by legislation put me in a position where I am unarmed at the mercy of a criminal? Personally I'm all for people who violently protest something to have rights to weapons taken away, and people who've committed felonies, etc. I know that's not popular or legal, but maybe that's going to change. What I fail to see any of the "gun control/removal" advocates acknowledge is that mass shootings only happen when there aren't legally-held firearms. They happen at churches, at schools, at malls, at recruiting centers, at military installations, at discos and concerts with metal detectors. Personally, I feel that you as gun control advocates are doing us as a society a huge disservice by assuming that legislating "good" people's use of arms is arbitrary and can get taken away. You know where I don't see mass shootings happen? With politicians or celebrities with protective details. Gabby Giffords did not have armed personnel escort her (for whatever reason) and Jared Loughner got off about 30 shots before he was tackled by an old Army Colonel. When Reagan was shot Hinckley was taken down within 3 seconds. He didn't have time to "mass shoot" people. When the church shooter last year in TX stopped wasn't after he'd run out of ammo, but after someone with a gun engaged him and he drove off wounded to commit suicide. The Clackamas Town Center shooting only stopped when the shooter wanted, maybe b/c guns aren't allowed there. Personally, I believe all people have sin and evil in them that is only mitigated through societal mores and/or religious adhesion. I know that many people believe that "all people are inherently good". I don't know why the "inherently good" people have a problem with more "inherently good" people having weapons around.
Nobody cares if good people have their guns and get to sit in their rooms and shine their pistols and sleep tight. Go for it. Gun legislation isn’t about taking guns away. That’s exactly what the NRA wants desperately for people to think. It’s about making it harder to get a gun, enforcing the rules we have, closing loopholes, making it very clear that gun owners can’t lay their toys around or unlocked so Junior can take it, and at the SAME time hey let’s tackle shitty FBI/Police response to known crazies, tighten up school security etc. I have three sons - 11,8,5. I literally can park my car in front of the school, open the door (far left, the other three doors are locked but just go left) walk by the office (or not, just sign in and throw a sticker on), and I could have accesss to the entire school. Maybe let’s not do it this way? You have to do all of it.
But you see, it is. My legal ability to have a weapons is taken away every time I step on base, or in a movie theater, or in a recruiting center, or in a mall, or in a concert, or ... That means that when someone attacks the Navy Yard, or an Islamic terrorist shoots up an Army base, or attacks a recruiting center (all places where "gun legislation" has "taken away" the "legal right to possess a gun") there are many people killed instead of a one or two plus the shooter. I don't know or care what the NRA wants, it's about knowledge of society and your personal worldview on good v. evil. OR, let's not make it so that when you do pull up in front of school and walk in the unlocked door bent on a shooting rampage, that people trying to protect kids are not legally mandated to have their weapons (if they own them) taken away from them where they spend 9+hours a day? I'm not saying to buy every teacher a Glock (like someone said before). I'm asking you to not restrict a teacher or coach or security guard from bringing their Glock with them to do their job.
I picked this line to quote because of it's truth and in spite of this, the founders had the wisdom to recognize these imperfect beings, to have the right to protect themselves and those they protect, including their family's, society, and country. I look forward to the responses you receive.
Do the teachers in Holland or Canada or wherever else carry glocks? I have a hard time thinking we combat a gun problem with more guns. And then when everyone has a gun, the “bad guys” will have bigger better guns or bombs and then we will make sure teachers can bring bigger guns so we can just outshoot each other. It’s insane.
The people protecting schools in Afghanistan do. Then again, I don't know how many people in Holland or Canada attack schools like they do here in the US and AFG. I ate every single meal for two years in a chow hall filled with people from around 15 different countries...all of whom were armed. Not a single "mass shooting" incident. The one time someone (not in the chow hall) drew their weapon and fired they were immediately struck down by three other armed individuals. What I'm postulating is that, while the football coach is a hero for using his body to shield a student's, he may have been able to protect a bunch more who were killed or wounded if he had the opportunity to be armed while he was being slaughtered.
It's different when you're in the military...let me ask you this...would you feel safer sending your own children to school in Afghanistan where everyone is armed or say Taipei American school where guns are not allowed for private purchase or to be carried in public.....which place would innocent students be actually less likely to be shot
Why?? I'm under more restrictions to have a weapon in the military than some asshole civilian out in town is. Why should I be able to eat armed in a chow hall in AFG but not in one at the Navy Yard where people actually come in and shoot at me? I can carry in Baghdad but I can't carry on MacDill AFB. I can sleep with a pistol in my hand in a tent in Helmand Province but not on the Submarine Base. I don't know Taipei. What I do know from the military is the concept of Operational Risk Management. And I feel that, in the very unlikely (statistically insignificant, though tell the families of the victims that) event that someone does something at a school that requires security guard intervention, it's almost criminal to legislate that they have security duties but cannot be armed to perform them. Maybe in Taipei they never have criminals attack schools. Here they do. But here they also legislate that when criminals attack schools, people who are charged with protecting them cannot be armed, so they generally die. Along with lots of students.
I realize you were asking for a justification why, but I'd be interested in the simpler why: what rule is it that restricts you from doing so? barfo
I understand your point but my question is which system in the long run is safer for future generations....safe enough to entrust your families lives to? As it is, ours is flawed or we wouldn't be burying innocent children. I'd give up my guns in a heartbeat if the world agreed to disarm....which I know is a pipe dream
