Easy Way To Protect Our Schools And Kids

[*Nately120*]

We can sink billions into making schools as secure and guarded as prisons or military bases or other guarded compounds, but the average person might not care for being subjected to it.

I know it's different, but the general public's disdain for the mask mandates makes me feel like we'd be seeing a whole lot of people throwing fits that they can't just drive up to the school and pick up their kids because they are clearly not a danger.  Inconvenience for the safety of others really isn't our cup of tea. 

We want strict rules and security to hold others to high scrutiny but we want to walk right by because we are obviously not a crazed gunman. For every threat you stop you have to inconvenience a boatload of honest people.

Also if we invested in this all it would take is  political commentators on the other side to compare it to Nazis or the USSR and it'll be yet another big fight.

[NATI BENGALS]

Might be enough to buy a Boston Dynamic robot dog and humanoid for each school. Then just give them AI. Robocops?

[samhain]

(04-01-2023, 09:52 AM)Nately120 Wrote: We can sink billions into making schools as secure and guarded as prisons or military bases or other guarded compounds, but the average person might not care for being subjected to it.

I know it's different, but the general public's disdain for the mask mandates makes me feel like we'd be seeing a whole lot of people throwing fits that they can't just drive up to the school and pick up their kids because they are clearly not a danger.  Inconvenience for the safety of others really isn't our cup of tea. 

We want strict rules and security to hold others to high scrutiny but we want to walk right by because we are obviously not a crazed gunman. For every threat you stop you have to inconvenience a boatload of honest people.

Also if we invested in this all it would take is  political commentators on the other side to compare it to Nazis or the USSR and it'll be yet another big fight.

Yeah, I remember the first time I had to pick up my kid from school mid day.  I felt like I was visiting a prison.  I get why it works this way.  I'm just older and never realized that when you put a kid in school, he's basically locked in that box until the day ends.

[GMDino]

(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?

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

[BFritz21]

(04-01-2023, 07:50 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: 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. 

When has this ever been tried?

How do you figure a shooter, even an experienced one, could kill 9 guards, or even 4 or 5 guards, and then kill a bunch of kids? All this while also fighting off police who would have been called and would be arriving?

(04-01-2023, 08:53 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: 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.

So you don't think the police should come to a private school if someone calls 911?

(04-01-2023, 09:45 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: 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. 

Value or not, they had to purchase the equipment to send, so it basically is them sending that much.

As far finding personnel for it, there were 250,000 unemployed vets in this country in 2022 who I'd say wouldn't mind protecting kids. In fact, I think they'd see it as easy money, a rewarding job, and a walk in the park compared to war zones.

Explain to me this: you think a person that shows up to a school, sees 9 or 10 armed guards, and is still going to say "ok, I'm still going to try and shoot may way through them," and is successful?

Explain how and where my proposal has been tried and failed.

(04-01-2023, 10:42 AM)GMDino Wrote:

So the police showing up and killing the shooter was meddling in their personal affairs?

How about this: the schools can say no if they don't want the guards there. Would that still be meddling in their business?

[KillerGoose]

(04-01-2023, 01:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Value or not, they had to purchase the equipment to send, so it basically is them sending that much.

I might be misunderstanding you, but we sent them American made equipment that had already been developed and was sitting in stockpiles. We didn't purchase/develop brand new weapons to send over to them. 

Quote:As far finding personnel for it, there were 250,000 unemployed vets in this country in 2022 who I'd say wouldn't mind protecting kids. In fact, I think they'd see it as easy money, a rewarding job, and a walk in the park compared to war zones.

That's not enough, even if we were to do that. If we were to institute four police officers per school (or 10, under your proposal), we would need 520,000 new police officers (1.3 million under your proposal). Best case scenario, we don't even have half of the required personnel to pull this off. You're also going to run into logistical issues such as vet populations congregated in specific areas of the country where we would need them to be spread out. Finally, we would have to make sure all of them are physically fit and sound to work a job like this. Veterans with PTSD would be understandably be excluded. Nobody wants troubled veterans armed around children - they need healthcare. 

Quote:Explain to me this: you think a person that shows up to a school, sees 9 or 10 armed guards, and is still going to say "ok, I'm still going to try and shoot may way through them," and is successful?

I do understand the logic behind it and it makes sense at first glance. However, we have to be careful about just blindly going for it. It needs to be tested and studied in a logical manner. The current research we have on the topic shows that there is no relation to deterrence in shootings. Marjory Stoneman Douglas had a deputy sheriff on campus at the time of the shooting - 17 died and he didn't engage the shooter. Would more have helped? Sure, maybe so, but we need evidence that clearly proves that before we spend billions of dollars implementing it. 

[basballguy]

(04-01-2023, 09:59 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Might be enough to buy a Boston Dynamic robot dog and humanoid for each school. Then just give them AI. Robocops?

I recall Dallas using a robot to blow up that gunman back in 2017 that was shooting cops…the public was not thrilled lol

[BFritz21]

(04-01-2023, 01:26 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I might be misunderstanding you, but we sent them American made equipment that had already been developed and was sitting in stockpiles. We didn't purchase/develop brand new weapons to send over to them. 

Which we would then have to purchase more to replace those and to keep our own stockpile up to standards.

(04-01-2023, 01:26 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: That's not enough, even if we were to do that. If we were to institute four police officers per school (or 10, under your proposal), we would need 520,000 new police officers (1.3 million under your proposal). Best case scenario, we don't even have half of the required personnel to pull this off. You're also going to run into logistical issues such as vet populations congregated in specific areas of the country where we would need them to be spread out. Finally, we would have to make sure all of them are physically fit and sound to work a job like this. Veterans with PTSD would be understandably be excluded. Nobody wants troubled veterans armed around children - they need healthcare. 

You're saying we don't have enough police officers and, in the same post, switching the argument against vets.

I realize that there are vets all over, so you could maybe have vets who are willing to move to new areas or have a rotation where a vet is only at a school for a month or two and then have vets rotate in and move to another location.

(04-01-2023, 01:26 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I do understand the logic behind it and it makes sense at first glance. However, we have to be careful about just blindly going for it. It needs to be tested and studied in a logical manner. The current research we have on the topic shows that there is no relation to deterrence in shootings. Marjory Stoneman Douglas had a deputy sheriff on campus at the time of the shooting - 17 died and he didn't engage the shooter. Would more have helped? Sure, maybe so, but we need evidence that clearly proves that before we spend billions of dollars implementing it. 

Ok, so why not try it and exhaust all resources to keep our kids safe?

[KillerGoose]

(04-01-2023, 02:11 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Which we would then have to purchase more to replace those and to keep our own stockpile up to standards.

We are naturally producing these weapons. It isn't an extra burden on our weapon production. There is no extra expenditure. It is a cost incurred regardless. If you would like to argue that maybe we should reduce our defense budget to allocate money to other issues, then I would be in favor of that, yes. 

Quote:You're saying we don't have enough police officers and, in the same post, switching the argument against vets.


I realize that there are vets all over, so you could maybe have vets who are willing to move to new areas or have a rotation where a vet is only at a school for a month or two and then have vets rotate in and move to another location.

The argument is the same for both side - we don't have enough police officers to satisfy your proposal. Many departments are already short. If the idea is that we can fill that deficit with unemployed veterans, then we don't have enough unemployed veterans to fill the delta so we still don't achieve our goal. Vets moving from location-to-location sounds nice, but we have to keep in mind we are working with humans here. There are naturally going to be people who live in close proximity to family. Convincing them to uproot their life and move around will be a difficult ask that won't be accommodated simply for the greater good. Many will say no. Some of these veterans may be unemployed due to disabilities/sickness/mental disorders. They wouldn't qualify for the program proposed here, so we aren't getting full utilization out of the 250k, which only increases our shortfall. 

Quote:Ok, so why not try it and exhaust all resources to keep our kids safe?

It is already being tried. That is how we have our current data, and it doesn't support an improvement. Some schools are looking for more officers on campus, so if that trend continues then we will be able to see if there is a threshold to be crossed that can provide benefit. 

[BFritz21]

(04-01-2023, 02:25 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: We are naturally producing these weapons. It isn't an extra burden on our weapon production. There is no extra expenditure. It is a cost incurred regardless. If you would like to argue that maybe we should reduce our defense budget to allocate money to other issues, then I would be in favor of that, yes. 

We are naturally producing these weapons, but we're not going to create 25 billion dollars worth of more weapons if we already have 25 billion worth just laying around.

(04-01-2023, 02:25 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: The argument is the same for both side - we don't have enough police officers to satisfy your proposal. Many departments are already short. If the idea is that we can fill that deficit with unemployed veterans, then we don't have enough unemployed veterans to fill the delta so we still don't achieve our goal. Vets moving from location-to-location sounds nice, but we have to keep in mind we are working with humans here. There are naturally going to be people who live in close proximity to family. Convincing them to uproot their life and move around will be a difficult ask that won't be accommodated simply for the greater good. Many will say no. Some of these veterans may be unemployed due to disabilities/sickness/mental disorders. They wouldn't qualify for the program proposed here, so we aren't getting full utilization out of the 250k, which only increases our shortfall. 

Many will say no and many won't be stable enough, but we don't need 8 or 10 veterans at every school. We'd probably only need two or so because, like I said, shooters will be scared off. 

If a shooter is carrying a rifle or semi-automatic weapon, the vet would see them walking from when they got out of there car or at least from a decent distance. 

Larger schools would need more than one soldier with multiple entrances, but smaller schools with only one or two main entrances obviously wouldn't need as many.

(04-01-2023, 02:25 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: It is already being tried. That is how we have our current data, and it doesn't support an improvement. Some schools are looking for more officers on campus, so if that trend continues then we will be able to see if there is a threshold to be crossed that can provide benefit. 

Show me an instance where a mass shooting has occurred somewhere with an armed guard.

[NUGDUKWE]

(04-01-2023, 03:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We are naturally producing these weapons, but we're not going to create 25 billion dollars worth of more weapons if we already have 25 billion worth just laying around.


Many will say no and many won't be stable enough, but we don't need 8 or 10 veterans at every school. We'd probably only need two or so because, like I said, shooters will be scared off. 

If a shooter is carrying a rifle or semi-automatic weapon, the vet would see them walking from when they got out of there car or at least from a decent distance. 

Larger schools would need more than one soldier with multiple entrances, but smaller schools with only one or two main entrances obviously wouldn't need as many.
Show me an instance where a mass shooting has occurred somewhere with an armed guard.

I would think anyone who is in a mental state to do a mass shooting. Isn't concerned about death or even thinking about it. This most recent shooter was messaging there friend they were going to die that day and wanted to die. I'm not saying more resource officers won't help eliminate a shooter faster but I don't think they will be scaring people away. 

I'm not saying ban guns. But the most obvious solution is to raise our standards for gun purchasing/ownership. 

[BFritz21]

(04-01-2023, 03:55 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I would think anyone who is in a mental state to do a mass shooting. Isn't concerned about death or even thinking about it. This most recent shooter was messaging there friend they were going to die that day and wanted to die. I'm not saying more resource officers won't help eliminate a shooter faster but I don't think they will be scaring people away. 

I'm not saying ban guns. But the most obvious solution is to raise our standards for gun purchasing/ownership. 

Ok, then they would have gotten into a gun fight in the parking lot before the shooter got inside the school to kill kids.

If they were unable to kill the shooter, they'd at least slow them down and be in a fire fight, which would allow cops to get to the scene.

[BFritz21]

After the recent shootings in Nashville, several schools in Rhode Island are hiring armed guards:

Quote:HUNTINGTON STATION, Long Island (WABC) -- A school district on Long Island is now using armed guards to try to protect students from gun violence in the wake of the deadly shooting rampage in Nashville that killed three small children and three staff members inside an elementary school.

South Huntington is not alone. At least several other school districts on Long Island will also use armed guards.

It will be interesting to see if states start following Long Island's lead if it proves effective.

[KillerGoose]

(04-01-2023, 03:29 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Show me an instance where a mass shooting has occurred somewhere with an armed guard.

Sure. I mentioned one already, but here are a few. Fatalities are included in parentheses. 

1. Stoneman-Douglas, Florida (17) Link
2. Santa Fe High School, Texas (10) Link
3. Robb Elementary School aka Uvalde, Texas (22) Link
   

Here is one of the studies, as well. Here is another. Based on current data, the presence of armed officers decreases non-gun related violence such as fights but actually sees a 1% increase in gun related violence on campus. There is plenty of interesting information in those studies. 

[BFritz21]

You've gotta include the relevant parts in your post, especially when it looks like none of these had an armed guarded, much-less multiple armed guards outside.

However, let's take a look:

(04-01-2023, 06:00 PM)KillerGoose Wrote:

1. Stoneman-Douglas, Florida (17) Link
   

He was dropped off by an Uber driver carrying a rifle case and backpack.

Soldiers outside would have engaged or killed him before he got inside.

(04-01-2023, 06:00 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: [*]Santa Fe High School, Texas (10) Link 

[*]
Soldiers outside would have stopped him since he was carrying a 12 gage.

(04-01-2023, 06:00 PM)KillerGoose Wrote:

1. Robb Elementary School aka Uvalde, Texas (22) Link
   

[*]
He crashed his car through a barricade and then scaled a fence.

You don't think the soldiers outside would have seen that and gone to stop him?

Your examples show how armed soldiers would be beneficial to schools and stopped these mass shootings.

[*pally*]

Why is it that just because someone is a veteran, people suddenly believe they are capable of being teachers or school guards? In many cases, these vets are unemployed because they are addicts, alcoholics, disabled, etc. I am gobsmacked that the same people who thought masks were traumatizing and permanently harming children somehow ignore the damage these mass shootings, active shooter drills, and armed school personnel is doing. But hey if it puts more money in the pockets of the gun industry and keeps NRA money flowing, they don't give a damn.

MAGA world doesn't want some of the actions that can help prevent violence. That is, in schools, teaching empathy, compassion, and tolerance. It is discussing differences and similarities. It is teaching anger management and stress management. It is teaching how not to be a bully and how to handle one. It is teaching why racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, *****/trans phobia, xenophobia, and hate in general are wrong and dangerous. It is shedding light on the wrongs of the past so that the future can be improved. Children learn hate from their parents. Real education opens children's eyes...and MAGA parents are afraid

[KillerGoose]

(04-01-2023, 06:49 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You've gotta include the relevant parts in your post, especially when it looks like none of these had an armed guarded, much-less multiple armed guards outside.

However, let's take a look:
He was dropped off by an Uber driver carrying a rifle case and backpack.

Soldiers outside would have engaged or killed him before he got inside.




[*]
Soldiers outside would have stopped him since he was carrying a 12 gage.

[*]
He crashed his car through a barricade and then scaled a fence.

You don't think the soldiers outside would have seen that and gone to stop him?

Your examples show how armed soldiers would be beneficial to schools and stopped these mass shootings.

[*]


Yes, those are different ways that someone determined to commit a school shooting can access the school. Stoneman-Douglas, the first link, had a deputy sheriff on campus, who was armed. He did not engage the shooter and actually hid in a closet. Link.

Santa-Fe had two, full time (armed) police officers in the school on a daily basis and they actually engaged with the shooter. The school shooter shot one of them and he was admitted to the hospital in critical condition. He did survive, though. 

Uvalde had six police officers assigned to their school district. When the accident occurred, 911 calls were made regarding the accident and one of the officers arrived at the scene but pursued a teacher, believing that he was the gunman. In doing so, he actually passed by the shooter. 

I am not sure what you want, Brad. I believe you are arguing with the intention of finding a solution but that you're more concerned with being right or not looking stupid to have a good faith conversation. You initially wanted 9-10 officers at each school in America... 

Quote: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.

[*]


Once we went down that rabbit hole and discussed the logistical nightmares of it, you suggested maybe using two veterans at each school (along with 9-10 officers? Not sure.)

Quote:Many will say no and many won't be stable enough, but we don't need 8 or 10 veterans at every school. We'd probably only need two or so because, like I said, shooters will be scared off. 

[*]

Then, you asked for a single instance of a school shooting occurring with an armed guard at it...

Quote:Show me an instance where a mass shooting has occurred somewhere with an armed guard.

[*]


I provided three examples, but they aren't good enough. You are now changing your proposal from "police officers" to "soldiers".

Quote:You don't think the soldiers outside would have seen that and gone to stop him?


Your examples show how armed soldiers would be beneficial to schools and stopped these mass shootings.

[*]


So, we have gone from police, to veterans, to armed guards, to now soldiers. You also completely ignore the studies that I provided. I think the conversation has reached its natural conclusion and we simply don't see eye-to-eye here. That's okay. I hope that we as a country are able to find an adequate solution. 

[Arturo Bandini]

FYI the amount of money given to Ukraine is misleading, it's the value of military equipment which exists already, stocks.

Unless you want to put tanks, missiles, ammos and HiMARS into schools, it's not relevant.

Bringing more guns to school is not a good idea.

Every bad people with a gun was a supposded good people with a gun 2 seconds before they decide to act.

But ... checking backgrounds of people before selling it might help because obviously, the solution of only police officers being authorized to carry guns is not on the table.

[*Nately120*]

Since mental illness is such a buzzword for causing mass shootings, given the odds alone won't a few of these 1.4 million armed school guards be mentally ill and legally allowed into schools with firearms?

[Belsnickel]

Were the federal government to do this, it would be a massive overreach of authority by the feds. That's the first problem with this. The second problem is that spending comes from Congress. The POTUS doesn't hold the purse strings. So point your finger over there.