Easy Way To Protect Our Schools And Kids

[BFritz21]

There are 130,930 schools in the United States.

Take the 76.8 billion dollars we sent to Ukraine so far for their war.

Divide that up and that leaves $586,000 to give to each school in this country and you can pay NINE officers $65,000 a year to protect it.

Or 10 officers $50,000 a year and that leaves $86,000 leftovers for a raise for teachers or for whatever else. Arming and training teachers, bulletproof glass, or anything.

Biden cares more about aiding the Ukraine than protecting our kids.

[CKwi88]

(03-31-2023, 08:11 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There are 130,930 schools in the United States.

Take the 76.8 billion dollars we sent to Ukraine so far for their war.

Divide that up and that leaves $586,000 to give to each school in this country and you can pay NINE officers $65,000 a year to protect it.

Or 10 officers $50,000 a year and that leaves $86,000 leftovers for a raise for teachers or for whatever else. Arming and training teachers, bulletproof glass, or anything.

Biden cares more about aiding the Ukraine than protecting our kids.

So......more guns? 

Brilliant!

[Stewy]

It is a private school.  Your plan wouldn't have affected this.

The solution is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental issues.

[SunsetBengal]

The correct answer is to stop giving out participation trophies, and return to preparing children for the likelihood that they may not have a "fabulous" life when they grow up. Return to teaching children that not everyone is a winner, and that they must work to provide a sustainable life for themselves.

[*Nately120*]

(03-31-2023, 10:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The correct answer is to stop giving out participation trophies, and return to preparing children for the likelihood that they may not have a "fabulous" life when they grow up.  Return to teaching children that not everyone is a winner, and that they must work to provide a sustainable life for themselves.

Geez man, this is a thread where we are discussing how to reduce the number of children who face and/or are killed by military-grade gunfire.  You'd think we could scale back the "kids these days are so soft" talk for a bit.

[BFritz21]

(03-31-2023, 09:49 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: So......more guns? 

Brilliant!

Would you like them to bring snowballs to throw at the shooter?

Or teddy bears to hold up to soften their hearts?

(03-31-2023, 09:57 PM)Stewy Wrote: It is a private school.  Your plan wouldn't have affected this.

The solution is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental issues.

Who said my plan only would be implemented in public schools?

[BigPapaKain]

(03-31-2023, 10:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Who said my plan only would be implemented in public schools?

So you want the government to start meddling in the affairs of private businesses?

That doesn't seem very small government to me.

[NUGDUKWE]

(03-31-2023, 10:04 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: The correct answer is to stop giving out participation trophies, and return to preparing children for the likelihood that they may not have a "fabulous" life when they grow up.  Return to teaching children that not everyone is a winner, and that they must work to provide a sustainable life for themselves.

What are your thoughts about banning religion. If we stop teaching people that there is another life after death. Will people stop being so careless with the life they have? Start looking at life like it's extremely precious and not so willing to just throw away someone else's or there own precious life. 

Not saying I support this. But I've heard the argument your making ( even if it may or not be sarcastic ) before and I think it's a little ridiculous. If we think telling everyone they are special and unique and that taking the initiative and trying is worth acknowledgement regardless of win or loss is harmful. Then surely religion should be on par with that. 

[NUGDUKWE]

(03-31-2023, 08:11 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There are 130,930 schools in the United States.

Take the 76.8 billion dollars we sent to Ukraine so far for their war.

Divide that up and that leaves $586,000 to give to each school in this country and you can pay NINE officers $65,000 a year to protect it.

Or 10 officers $50,000 a year and that leaves $86,000 leftovers for a raise for teachers or for whatever else. Arming and training teachers, bulletproof glass, or anything.

Biden cares more about aiding the Ukraine than protecting our kids.

I know we've had an issue with trying to be to involved with other countries. But I think our helping Ukraine has more to do with the Global economy more than anything else. I could be wrong but that's the sense that I get. So if that's the case than it is still done with Americans well being in mind. 

[*Nately120*]

(03-31-2023, 11:12 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I know we've had an issue with trying to be to involved with other countries. But I think our helping Ukraine has more to do with the Global economy more than anything else. I could be wrong but that's the sense that I get. So if that's the case than it is still done with Americans well being in mind. 

We should protect our kids by letting Russia invade and conquor Europe and then send our kids over there to fight them.

[CKwi88]

(03-31-2023, 10:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Would you like them to bring snowballs to throw at the shooter?

Or teddy bears to hold up to soften their hearts?

Both would probably be just as statistically effective as your proposal. Snowballs and teddy bears would probably be cheaper though. 

[BFritz21]

(03-31-2023, 10:50 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So you want the government to start meddling in the affairs of private businesses?

That doesn't seem very small government to me.

How is offering protection meddling in their affairs?

If the building caught fire, would the fire department coming to put it out be mending in their affairs?

(03-31-2023, 11:45 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Both would probably be just as statistically effective as your proposal. Snowballs and teddy bears would probably be cheaper though. 

How do you figure my proposal wouldn't be effective?

[NATI BENGALS]

Didn’t Parkland have a security guard who got fired for being there and not doing enough to stop a shooting?


On the other hand it would be a good learning lesson to introduce the kids to the police state they will be growing up in.

I’d still rather spend the money to stop an evil asshole risking nuclear WW3 global annihilation as his army rapes, murders, and pillages a peaceful democracy.

[*pally*]

More guns=more dead people

It is a fallacy that arming everyone will lead to fewer deaths. Every single state that has removed gun regulations has seen an increase in gun violence.

Why don't we start realizing that it is 2023 and not 1782. The writers of the Constitution would be appalled at what this country has become in regard to guns. They saw guns as a tool. Now far too many see them as an extension of their manhood

[CKwi88]

(04-01-2023, 12:08 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: How do you figure my proposal wouldn't be effective?

Because there is no statistically relevant data that shows that it would be. 

I feel like this is a rehash of a similar thread of yours from the last time kiddos were getting mowed down in our schools. The end result is the same. Just because YOU (or me, or anyone on this board) think  something makes sense doesn't make it a reality. 

Policy is supposed to be based on and supported by evidence rather than feelings. There is no significant evidence that suggests that more guns, more security officers or more police presence has a positive effect on the frequency or lethality of school shootings. There is plenty of research and evidence to the contrary.

So yeah, your idea holds about just as much water as giving out teddy bears and snowballs. Because it is based on your thoughts rather than any evidence-backed logic. 

[SunsetBengal]

(03-31-2023, 10:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Geez man, this is a thread where we are discussing how to reduce the number of children who face and/or are killed by military-grade gunfire.  You'd think we could scale back the "kids these days are so soft" talk for a bit.

These shootings are happening at the hands of people, sick and unstable people.  The gun is just a tool, if you take those away sick people will simply choose another tool to carry out their intents.  The real question of how to protect gets much more complex when you are forced to ask yourself why are so many sick people carrying out evil intentions?  

[SunsetBengal]

(03-31-2023, 10:58 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: What are your thoughts about banning religion. If we stop teaching people that there is another life after death. Will people stop being so careless with the life they have? Start looking at life like it's extremely precious and not so willing to just throw away someone else's or there own precious life. 

Not saying I support this. But I've heard the argument your making ( even if it may or not be sarcastic ) before and I think it's a little ridiculous. If we think telling everyone they are special and unique and that taking the initiative and trying is worth acknowledgement regardless of win or loss is harmful. Then surely religion should be on par with that. 

Personally, I'm not a fan of general "bans" of much, particularly a key tenant of which our country was based upon.  I think that what you say has some merit, but the emphasis should be on parents taking the job of teaching their children right from wrong, the value of human life, and teaching them to make sound choices with a full understanding of the benefit or consequences of their actions.

In my mind the reaction of "we gotta ban the guns" is about as knee-jerk lazy logic as someone else claiming "y'all need to get back to Jesus".

[BigPapaKain]

(04-01-2023, 12:08 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: How is offering protection meddling in their affairs?

If the building caught fire, would the fire department coming to put it out be mending in their affairs?

No you're absolutely right. The government definitely doesn't have a long history of being given an inch and taking a mile.

How about this - I don't want my tax dollars helping out private businesses. Capitalism requires them to sink or swim on their own.

[*Nately120*]

(04-01-2023, 08:26 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Personally, I'm not a fan of general "bans" of much, particularly a key tenant of which our country was based upon.  I think that what you say has some merit, but the emphasis should be on parents taking the job of teaching their children right from wrong, the value of human life, and teaching them to make sound choices with a full understanding of the benefit or consequences of their actions.

In my mind the reaction of "we gotta ban the guns" is about as knee-jerk lazy logic as someone else claiming "y'all need to get back to Jesus".

I dont think enough parents know right from wrong or just don't care.  As a society we are too focused on fighting and domestic enemies and my side your side and guns/shooting being a statement and ultimate solution. 

Guns aren't getting banned and violent rhetoric isn't getting toned down.  We are addicted to outrage and victimhood and being under attack and fetishizing "fighting back."

There is big money is feeding that addiction.  I can't say  I don't look for my daily fix. 



Anyways, we don't need to let our allies fall to dictators to raise the money, just take tax rates back to the golden era of the 50s and we'd have enough to defend our kids.  Who would complain about a tax hike from the era when America was great to keep kids from getting shot?

Take the tax rates on the top 0.1% back up 11% or so compared to where they are now and get it done. 

[KillerGoose]

(03-31-2023, 08:11 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There are 130,930 schools in the United States.

Take the 76.8 billion dollars we sent to Ukraine so far for their war.

Divide that up and that leaves $586,000 to give to each school in this country and you can pay NINE officers $65,000 a year to protect it.

Or 10 officers $50,000 a year and that leaves $86,000 leftovers for a raise for teachers or for whatever else. Arming and training teachers, bulletproof glass, or anything.

Biden cares more about aiding the Ukraine than protecting our kids.

Solving this problem is very far from easy. To begin, the U.S. hasn't just sent Ukraine $76.8B - most of that is the value of what they have sent. Humanitarian aid and equipment accounts for the vast majority of that figure. We have provided financial support to the tune of $26B. Now, that is probably still enough to do this hypothetical scenario, but I don't think cash was the issue in the first place - it is personnel and redundancy. There are plenty of schools that already have police presence. Roughly 58% of schools as of 2018 reported having police presence at least one day out of the week. Hell, my tiny school in Oklahoma had police presence. 

Regarding personnel, police departments are already struggling with staffing. Where are we going to find the officers to do this? Are we going to pull them off the street? That'd be a large chunk of officers pulled away from policing the entire city. For instance, in Tulsa, there are 679 police officers (facing a staffing shortage here as well). There are 69 schools in Tulsa. Using our figure of $26B from above, we could provide each school about $200k. The average starting salary of a police officer is $50k, so we could theoretically get four officers to each school. Even this isn't correct as that $50k isn't all that it costs to hire a police officer, but I am just using it for the simplicity of math. In total, that would be 276 officers in schools in the Tulsa area, or roughly 40% of the entire department. Again, we already have a police shortage and this would exacerbate it. There would need to be a massive influx of new recruits to police academies which is not likely to happen.

Finally, there is no empirical evidence that exists that police presence at schools actually deters gun violence. I would honestly rather make a large monetary investment into a policy that has evidence of efficacy to back it up.