Easy Solution To School Shootings?

[BFritz21]

There's almost 400,000 unemployed veterans in the United States, so hire them to stand at school entrances with guns, even if just concealed pistols at middle schools, and you solve the school shootings problem, because it's not going to go away on its own.

This would also give veterans a sense of purpose because a lot of veterans are depressed and have troubles fitting back into normal society.

There would obviously need to be testing to make sure that they don't have PTSD that might flare up around groups of loud kids, but this seems like a no-brainer IMCO.

Why hasn't this been done? What am I not seeing?

[KillerGoose]

My main thought is that it doesn’t really solve the underlying problem. In my opinion, we should look to reduce mass shootings overall, not just school shootings. Assuming the armed guards work and deter shooters, it is feasible for it to just push shooters elsewhere, like a grocery store/hospital etc.

You bring up a great point with PTSD. There was a study done that showed roughly 13.5% of soldiers returning from Afghanistan had PTSD. It was a sample size of 60,000 screened soldiers. Assuming that figure holds true, that would eliminate over 50,000 veterans from our hiring pool. That unemployed figure also likely contains veterans from multiple wars, so we need to keep that in mind as well. PTSD occurrences were higher following Vietnam, for instance. We still are okay and have plenty of veterans to guard our schools, but we still have plenty to screen for. The screen for PTSD would also likely include a screening for mental illnesses that would inevitably eliminate more veterans, along with wounded veterans being eliminated depending on their injury.

Age is also a factor. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39% of unemployed veterans are over the age of 55. I wouldn’t be a fan of utilizing Vietnam or Gulf veterans to be armed around kids when they potentially haven’t handled a weapon in a decade-plus.

I think it is a creative idea for employing veterans but there is a lot of overhead associated to it that will ultimately really thin our candidate pool and I also believe it would just push shooters elsewhere. At the end of the day, I don’t think armed guards are the solution. We have to fix the societal cracks that are pushing people to do this.

EDIT - Another issue would be logistics. Some rural schools would be difficult to staff with this method as the town would not always have an unemployed veteran that is qualified to perform the duties. So, we would still end up with schools with no guard. An incomplete solution.

[CKwi88]

(06-07-2022, 01:44 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: There's almost 400,000 unemployed veterans in the United States, so hire them to stand at school entrances with guns, even if just concealed pistols at middle schools, and you solve the school shootings problem, because it's not going to go away on its own.

This would also give veterans a sense of purpose because a lot of veterans are depressed and have troubles fitting back into normal society.

There would obviously need to be testing to make sure that they don't have PTSD that might flare up around groups of loud kids, but this seems like a no-brainer IMCO.

Why hasn't this been done? What am I not seeing?

Bels is certainly the statistics and studies guy around here, but I'm unaware of any study that shows that an armed presence at a school is an effective deterrent. Most studies I've seen (like this one) actually show that the presence of armed guards are associated with an increase of deaths. 

[*Nately120*]

Why not just assign a section of the active military to guarding schools?

[HarleyDog]

(06-07-2022, 01:44 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: There's almost 400,000 unemployed veterans in the United States, so hire them to stand at school entrances with guns, even if just concealed pistols at middle schools, and you solve the school shootings problem, because it's not going to go away on its own.

This would also give veterans a sense of purpose because a lot of veterans are depressed and have troubles fitting back into normal society.

There would obviously need to be testing to make sure that they don't have PTSD that might flare up around groups of loud kids, but this seems like a no-brainer IMCO.

Why hasn't this been done? What am I not seeing?

It's not that simple as to "Why hasn't this been done." We shouldn't seek out veterans only as a solution to the problem. Not saying they can't play a part, but if it would be done it should be done on a state level with very stringent background checks and open to all applicant's who are not mentally disabled or have a criminal background. "Everyone deserves a second chance" applicant's should not be considered. Now, I think it's ok if veterans are given a 10pt preference in the selection process, but not solely targeted.

[BigPapaKain]

Cops could actually serve and protect. I bet that'd help.

[Belsnickel]

Honestly, I won't go into the effectiveness. I will just ask the question of how we are going to pay for it, and who will be paying for it?

The easiest statistic I could find on the number of public schools was here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/238307/number-of-us-elementary-and-secondary-schools/#:~:text=In%202018%2F19%2C%20there%20were,and%202%2C845%20private%20secondary%20schools.

98,755 public schools in the Pre K-12 range.

You'd need a minimum of four per school to account for sick days, vacations, etc. So that hits 395,020 or nearly all of those unemployed veterans (which we have already determined not all would be eligible). Now, I'll say $35k per year which is shit pay, to be quite honest, but probably about on par for what they would be offered. That would cost taxpayers $13,825,700,000. Close to $14 billion not including the costs of benefits. So who's paying for it? Do we make it a federal program and add to the federal deficit? Maybe we make it an unfunded mandate so the states have to do this and then states/localities are on the hook whether they want it or not. If localities choose to do it themselves, you're adding hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to the education budget of a school system which will require property tax increases (given that property taxes are the primary source of education funding across the country).

Anyway, just some of my thoughts for things like this.

Edit: I said $35k, then looked up median salary of armed security guards in the US and the first number was $34,734.

[Au165]

(06-07-2022, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I won't go into the effectiveness. I will just ask the question of how we are going to pay for it, and who will be paying for it?

The easiest statistic I could find on the number of public schools was here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/238307/number-of-us-elementary-and-secondary-schools/#:~:text=In%202018%2F19%2C%20there%20were,and%202%2C845%20private%20secondary%20schools.

98,755 public schools in the Pre K-12 range.

You'd need a minimum of four per school to account for sick days, vacations, etc. So that hits 395,020 or nearly all of those unemployed veterans (which we have already determined not all would be eligible). Now, I'll say $35k per year which is shit pay, to be quite honest, but probably about on par for what they would be offered. That would cost taxpayers $13,825,700,000. Close to $14 billion not including the costs of benefits. So who's paying for it? Do we make it a federal program and add to the federal deficit? Maybe we make it an unfunded mandate so the states have to do this and then states/localities are on the hook whether they want it or not. If localities choose to do it themselves, you're adding hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to the education budget of a school system which will require property tax increases (given that property taxes are the primary source of education funding across the country).

Anyway, just some of my thoughts for things like this.

Edit: I said $35k, then looked up median salary of armed security guards in the US and the first number was $34,734.

Don't forget the increase in liability insurance that each school will need to carry in the event they accidentally shoot a kid.

[KillerGoose]

(06-07-2022, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I won't go into the effectiveness. I will just ask the question of how we are going to pay for it, and who will be paying for it?

The easiest statistic I could find on the number of public schools was here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/238307/number-of-us-elementary-and-secondary-schools/#:~:text=In%202018%2F19%2C%20there%20were,and%202%2C845%20private%20secondary%20schools.

98,755 public schools in the Pre K-12 range.

You'd need a minimum of four per school to account for sick days, vacations, etc. So that hits 395,020 or nearly all of those unemployed veterans (which we have already determined not all would be eligible). Now, I'll say $35k per year which is shit pay, to be quite honest, but probably about on par for what they would be offered. That would cost taxpayers $13,825,700,000. Close to $14 billion not including the costs of benefits. So who's paying for it? Do we make it a federal program and add to the federal deficit? Maybe we make it an unfunded mandate so the states have to do this and then states/localities are on the hook whether they want it or not. If localities choose to do it themselves, you're adding hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to the education budget of a school system which will require property tax increases (given that property taxes are the primary source of education funding across the country).

Anyway, just some of my thoughts for things like this.

Edit: I said $35k, then looked up median salary of armed security guards in the US and the first number was $34,734.

Also, another note to say that Brad is being imprecise here, though I don't think he is doing it intentionally or anything. His figure of "almost 400,000" is actually 386k, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, with a need of 395k employees, we have already depleted our workforce if we make the assumption that everyone is eligible. 

Just not feasible in a variety of ways. 

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-07-2022, 11:25 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Why not just assign a section of the active military to guarding schools?

Imagine having your military to protect your kids to not be shoot in school.

This is insane for a 'developped country'.

[*Nately120*]

(06-07-2022, 01:15 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Imagine having your military to protect your kids to not be shoot in school.

This is insane for a 'developped country'.

We want to be occupied by our own military so we just need to get on with it. Personally, I'm to the point where I'd just argue that law-abiding minors should have the right to carry firearms to protect themselves just as people over the age of 18 do.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-07-2022, 01:05 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Also, another note to say that Brad is being imprecise here, though I don't think he is doing it intentionally or anything. His figure of "almost 400,000" is actually 386k, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, with a need of 395k employees, we have already depleted our workforce if we make the assumption that everyone is eligible. 

Just not feasible in a variety of ways. 

It is just one of several solutions.
as far as paying for it? Tax payers will fit the bill, slight increase in your local or fed taxes depending on who's paying.

(06-07-2022, 01:15 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Imagine having your military to protect your kids to not be shoot in school.

This is insane for a 'developped country'.

Insane is kids being killed in a developed country, but don't act like we are the only developed country where that occurs.
It's like safe sex, having protection is better odds than none.

[*Nately120*]

(06-07-2022, 02:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's like safe sex, having protection is better odds than none.

And that's where I'd start the argument that high school kids should be able to legally carry firearms.  If guns become this safety solution the second you turn 18, they shouldn't only be limited to people who are 18.

[BFritz21]

(06-07-2022, 08:14 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: My main thought is that it doesn’t really solve the underlying problem. In my opinion, we should look to reduce mass shootings overall, not just school shootings. Assuming the armed guards work and deter shooters, it is feasible for it to just push shooters elsewhere, like a grocery store/hospital etc.

You bring up a great point with PTSD. There was a study done that showed roughly 13.5% of soldiers returning from Afghanistan had PTSD. It was a sample size of 60,000 screened soldiers. Assuming that figure holds true, that would eliminate over 50,000 veterans from our hiring pool. That unemployed figure also likely contains veterans from multiple wars, so we need to keep that in mind as well. PTSD occurrences were higher following Vietnam, for instance. We still are okay and have plenty of veterans to guard our schools, but we still have plenty to screen for. The screen for PTSD would also likely include a screening for mental illnesses that would inevitably eliminate more veterans, along with wounded veterans being eliminated depending on their injury.

Age is also a factor. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 39% of unemployed veterans are over the age of 55. I wouldn’t be a fan of utilizing Vietnam or Gulf veterans to be armed around kids when they potentially haven’t handled a weapon in a decade-plus.

I think it is a creative idea for employing veterans but there is a lot of overhead associated to it that will ultimately really thin our candidate pool and I also believe it would just push shooters elsewhere. At the end of the day, I don’t think armed guards are the solution. We have to fix the societal cracks that are pushing people to do this.

EDIT - Another issue would be logistics. Some rural schools would be difficult to staff with this method as the town would not always have an unemployed veteran that is qualified to perform the duties. So, we would still end up with schools with no guard. An incomplete solution.

But schools are easy targets.

And I'm sure most veterans wouldn't mind relocating or a decent drive to get to a job where they feel wanted and like they're making a difference.

(06-07-2022, 10:18 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Bels is certainly the statistics and studies guy around here, but I'm unaware of any study that shows that an armed presence at a school is an effective deterrent. Most studies I've seen (like this one) actually show that the presence of armed guards are associated with an increase of deaths. 

Armed guards and a soldier standing at the entrance are two different things.

Even so, I saw one video that said an armed shooter pulled up to a school, saw an armed guard outside, and instead went and shot up a supermarket (I think it was a supermarket).

As I said, armed guards/soldiers outside and inside are two different things.

(06-07-2022, 12:05 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: It's not that simple as to "Why hasn't this been done." We shouldn't seek out veterans only as a solution to the problem. Not saying they can't play a part, but if it would be done it should be done on a state level with very stringent background checks and open to all applicant's who are not mentally disabled or have a criminal background. "Everyone deserves a second chance" applicant's should not be considered. Now, I think it's ok if veterans are given a 10pt preference in the selection process, but not solely targeted.

Veterans already have weapons training, have (most likely) been in dangerous situations, and, like I said, have a huge unemployment problem.

I agree if they can't find enough that they should open it to everyone.

(06-07-2022, 12:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I won't go into the effectiveness. I will just ask the question of how we are going to pay for it, and who will be paying for it?

The easiest statistic I could find on the number of public schools was here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/238307/number-of-us-elementary-and-secondary-schools/#:~:text=In%202018%2F19%2C%20there%20were,and%202%2C845%20private%20secondary%20schools.

98,755 public schools in the Pre K-12 range.

You'd need a minimum of four per school to account for sick days, vacations, etc. So that hits 395,020 or nearly all of those unemployed veterans (which we have already determined not all would be eligible). Now, I'll say $35k per year which is shit pay, to be quite honest, but probably about on par for what they would be offered. That would cost taxpayers $13,825,700,000. Close to $14 billion not including the costs of benefits. So who's paying for it? Do we make it a federal program and add to the federal deficit? Maybe we make it an unfunded mandate so the states have to do this and then states/localities are on the hook whether they want it or not. If localities choose to do it themselves, you're adding hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to the education budget of a school system which will require property tax increases (given that property taxes are the primary source of education funding across the country).

Anyway, just some of my thoughts for things like this.

Edit: I said $35k, then looked up median salary of armed security guards in the US and the first number was $34,734.

Biden just sent 40 billion to Ukraine and we can't spend a fraction of that to protect our kids?

They could find a way to pay for it.

(06-07-2022, 12:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: Don't forget the increase in liability insurance that each school will need to carry in the event they accidentally shoot a kid.

I'd imagine that it wouldn't be much of an increase because it would decrease the possibility of a shooter killing multiple kids, which would cause the school to be sued for even more.

(06-07-2022, 01:05 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Also, another note to say that Brad is being imprecise here, though I don't think he is doing it intentionally or anything. His figure of "almost 400,000" is actually 386k, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, with a need of 395k employees, we have already depleted our workforce if we make the assumption that everyone is eligible. 

Just not feasible in a variety of ways. 

386k isn't almost 400k?



Also, a lot of schools already have security, like doors with locks that need passwords to get into the school.

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-07-2022, 02:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It is just one of several solutions.
as far as paying for it? Tax payers will fit the bill, slight increase in your local or fed taxes depending on who's paying.



Insane is kids being killed in a developed country, but don't act like we are the only developed country where that occurs.
It's like safe sex, having protection is better odds than none.

School shootings at that rate ? 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country

19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN):

• United States — 288
• Mexico — 8
• South Africa — 6
• India — 5
• Nigeria & Pakistan — 4
• Afghanistan — 3
• Brazil, Canada, France — 2
• Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1
  

[KillerGoose]

(06-07-2022, 03:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: But schools are easy targets.

So are malls and grocery stores, for example. If someone is deranged enough to shoot up a school, they will shoot up a grocery store or mall if it is more convenient for them. 

Quote:And I'm sure most veterans wouldn't mind relocating or a decent drive to get to a job where they feel wanted and like they're making a difference.

I think you're overestimating the job and peoples desire to do said job, or underestimating some of the rural locations they'd have to drive to. Maybe both. The job likely wouldn't pay well, as the salary for an armed guard is $34,734. That isn't attractive, but to someone unemployed, it could sound great. Still, there is likely going to be a group of veterans that don't want to do the job for that pay, or just don't want to do the job at all. Then, you have the logistics. There are towns here in Oklahoma that are at least an hour-and-a-half from any major city. We don't want to exclude those towns from our list in this solution, but you're going to have a hard time finding someone willing to relocate or commute that distance for $17 per hour. 

Another issue you'll run into is a disproportionate amount of veterans living in one location. There are 40,000 unemployed veterans living in California, for instance. How many of those veterans would be willing to relocate to Mississippi, Maine, Vermont etc. to help fill vacancies there? You're not going to find the volunteers willing to do that for this kind of job.

Quote:386k isn't almost 400k?

I didn't say that; I said you were imprecise. You are, "almost 400k" can be interpreted in a few different ways. Is it 398k? Is it 390k? Is it 380k? Anywhere in between? I said you weren't doing it intentionally. I don't think you had any nefarious intentions, I say stuff like that all the time. It's just when we start breaking down numbers and being precise, it helps to have precision on both sides.

This is a major killer for the idea, aside from the questionable effectiveness. There simply isn't enough veterans to arm all of our schools. Via age, mental illness/PTSD, and wound status, you aren't going to have enough of a workforce to keep the schools protected.

Quote:Also, a lot of schools already have security, like doors with locks that need passwords to get into the school.

Do they? This is news to me. Again, rural schools are going to be a problem. I went to two different schools, both smaller towns. Neither of them had guards or police patrol, locked doors, or cameras. Hell, the school I graduated from genuinely had no security precautions. Parents walked in the doors freely all the time to sit and talk to the office ladies or principal. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-07-2022, 02:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It is just one of several solutions.
as far as paying for it? Tax payers will fit the bill, slight increase in your local or fed taxes depending on who's paying.

Why should I have to pay to protect children that aren't mine? I already have to pay to support the public school system as a whole without any benefit from it, why should I have to pay more?

(06-07-2022, 03:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Biden just sent 40 billion to Ukraine and we can't spend a fraction of that to protect our kids?

They could find a way to pay for it.

Don't mistake me for someone who thinks we should be spending that kind of cash over there. I am on Ukraine's side, but I am not in favor of us taking part in any way. Call me a non-interventionist in that way. I do find it funny, though, that conservative talking points are all about fiscal responsibility until it is something they want, then it's "They could find a way to pay for it."

[Belsnickel]

Let's also be clear on this. The idea here is nothing new. In fact, school resource officers were a response to Columbine. The idea was to make schools "hard targets" by putting police officers in schools. How's that going?

[Au165]

(06-07-2022, 03:20 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I'd imagine that it wouldn't be much of an increase because it would decrease the possibility of a shooter killing multiple kids, which would cause the school to be sued for even more.

No, that's not really how this works. If you put people in schools with guns there is always a chance of an accidental discharge. Most schools will never have an active shooter but by virtue of having armed guards in them all will have a potential of an accidental discharge, potential unsecured firearm, and so on. There will be a substantial increase in their insurance for such a measure unless they give these armed guards some sort of immunity which would be pretty reckless.

[CKwi88]

It's ironic that this is really just a rehashed version of the "more guns" or "more good guys with guns" talking point rather than trying to attack the underlying causes of these events. Based on the past 20+ years I can't imagine much will change.