Poll of the Day > Why are people so against armed security at schools?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zeus posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't want to live in a police state. I don't think I should have to live in police state so crazy people and mass murders can continue to legally buy guns no one has a honest need for.

>Claims to not want to live in a police state
>Advocates a state where only the police have weapons

Literally not what I said and not even close to the intent of what I said.

RCtheWSBC posted...

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I'm not. I just wish the teachers would get off their uncaring asses and do something about violent kids, before it escalated into a tragedy.

And maybe the kids' parents and guardians too, yeah?

Definitely.
---

Zeus posted...

jsb0714 posted...

Schools get the shaft with money as it is. Where is the money for armed school personnel going to come from?

Well, RC is a vigilante fan, so maybe they could get a heavily armed patriotic volunteer.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't want to live in a police state. I don't think I should have to live in police state so crazy people and mass murders can continue to legally buy guns no one has a honest need for.

>Claims to not want to live in a police state
>Advocates a state where only the police have weapons

RCtheWSBC posted...

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I'm not. I just wish the teachers would get off their uncaring asses and do something about violent kids, before it escalated into a tragedy.

And maybe the kids' parents and guardians too, yeah?

This just in-- RC wants to disband the police and replace them with parental oversight! =p

Or parents could get onto their kids about why they shouldn't be bullies.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Zeus posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

I don't want to live in a police state. I don't think I should have to live in police state so crazy people and mass murders can continue to legally buy guns no one has a honest need for.

>Claims to not want to live in a police state
>Advocates a state where only the police have weapons

Literally not what I said and not even close to the intent of what I said.

True, but a lot of people are currently saying this and it's hard not to shake your head at the sheer stupidity that it must take to reach such an illogical conclusion.
---

Let's have a quick recap of how well guns have done at preventing other mass shootings!

Columbine: Not often talked about, but the school had an armed guard. Not only did he fail to stop the shootings, he very nearly got killed himself and was forced to retreat to the parking lot.

Pulse shooting: There was an off-duty officer in the club who attempted to shoot the attacker with his sidearm. He quickly realised he was completely outgunned and retreated.

Las Vegas shooting: Some members of the band and their road crew had guns. They realised that if they used them they could easily be mistaken for the shooter and so could only hunker down and wait for the cops to handle it.

Gabby Giffords shooting: Giffords herself carried and regularly practiced with a handgun, which did not protect her when she was attacked. Several people in the crowd were armed and drew their weapons, but in the confusion one of them almost shot another, mistaking him for the actual shooter.

Fort Hood: This military base (!) has been the sight of not one but two mass shootings in the past decade. Let that sink in for a minute.

But yeah, I'm sure more guns is the answer. I mean, it can't hurt try, right? It's like Trump said - "We need to let people know: you come into our schools, you're gonna be dead."

Hmm... you know, maybe he could have phrased that a little better...
---

darkknight109 posted...

Let's have a quick recap of how well guns have done at preventing other mass shootings!

Columbine: Not often talked about, but the school had an armed guard. Not only did he fail to stop the shootings, he very nearly got killed himself and was forced to retreat to the parking lot.

Pulse shooting: There was an off-duty officer in the club who attempted to shoot the attacker with his sidearm. He quickly realised he was completely outgunned and retreated.

Las Vegas shooting: Some members of the band and their road crew had guns. They realised that if they used them they could easily be mistaken for the shooter and so could only hunker down and wait for the cops to handle it.

Gabby Giffords shooting: Giffords herself carried and regularly practiced with a handgun, which did not protect her when she was attacked. Several people in the crowd were armed and drew their weapons, but in the confusion one of them almost shot another, mistaking him for the actual shooter.

Fort Hood: This military base (!) has been the sight of not one but two mass shootings in the past decade. Let that sink in for a minute.

But yeah, I'm sure more guns is the answer. I mean, it can't hurt try, right? It's like Trump said - "We need to let people know: you come into our schools, you're gonna be dead."

Hmm... you know, maybe he could have phrased that a little better...

Yawn... you picked the low hanging fruit. How stunning and brave of you. Seriously low effort. Now go look up the hundreds of incidents that were finished before they started because someone besides the perp had a gun.

You'll have to look at local news though because that stuff rarely goes national. I'd do it for you but frankly you should want to be less ignorant.

Google and all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips, you should have a better idea of what goes on in the world.

Unless your ignorance is willful. Which it looks like it is, because you'll probably shoot back with some BS instead of doing research. Keep regurgitating if it's all you can do.
---

You people won't even pay your teachers or your schools properly and you want armed security? Normalizing being around guns and armed guards isn't a good thing.

vhiran posted...

You'll have to look at local news though because that stuff rarely goes national. I'd do it for you but frankly you should want to be less ignorant.

I'd totally support my position with sources but I won't!
---

vhiran posted...

Yawn... you picked the low hanging fruit. How stunning and brave of you. Seriously low effort. Now go look up the hundreds of incidents that were finished before they started because someone besides the perp had a gun.

You'll have to look at local news though because that stuff rarely goes national. I'd do it for you but frankly you should want to be less ignorant.

Google and all the knowledge of the world at your fingertips, you should have a better idea of what goes on in the world.

Unless your ignorance is willful. Which it looks like it is, because you'll probably shoot back with some BS instead of doing research. Keep regurgitating if it's all you can do.

Big words from someone who apparently hasn't done as much research as they think they have (and can't even post a source to back up their claims). I could look up the "hundreds" of incidents where a gun prevented a crime... but I'd have to get through the thousands of incidents where one is used by a criminal instead. Here's some factoids from you, since you're all about expanding your startlingly-limited worldview:

-Guns are six times as likely to be used to commit a crime than for preventing one
-Guns are used in defence during a crime approximately 0.9% of the time, a strikingly low number considering how many people are armed in the US.
-The odds of someone getting injured if they are the victim of a crime and take no hostile action is 11.0%. When they defend themselves with a gun the odds drop all the way to... 10.9%.
-If you defend yourself with a gun during a burglary, there's a 39% chance you'll still lose property (vs. 85% if you do nothing). Sounds pretty good... but you may want to use a different weapon instead. People who fought back with non-firearm weapons only lost property 35% of the time.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
---

darkknight109 posted...

-The odds of someone getting injured if they are the victim of a crime and take no hostile action is 11.0%. When they defend themselves with a gun the odds drop all the way to... 10.9%.

It's almost like most crimes aren't actually meant to be violent, and those that are typically cause injury too quickly for an armed defence to make much of a difference!
---