In response to:

Newtown, and a New America

David3036 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 6:38 AM
My idea will not curb all gun violence, but it may prevent shooting deaths in schools. The idea is to have every classroom door locked all the time -- not just when a teacher gets a warning or hears shots, but ALL the time when class is in session. Attach a key to the hall pass for kids who need to use the restrooms. If the principal wants to drop by, he has an intercom to inform the teacher. And when he or anyone else gets to the door, they knock. And nobody gets in without a "Who is it?" from the teacher -- which will also be a good lesson for kids opening the door at home. Wouldn't this be a lot simpler and more effective solution than arming teachers or having armed guards in the schools?
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:17 PM
the Newtown shooter broke or shot out a window just to get into the school,he could do the same to any classroom door.

Having armed teachers (and other school employees)is like having plainclothes police scattered all around the school,at no cost,and present all the time,where they need to be,close to the children.
it's the smart thing to do.
it's also a DETERRENT,because these mass murderers SEEK OUT "gun-free zones" such as schools. If it's known that schools have armed people,the murderers will avoid them,as the Aurora murderer did;he bypassed theaters closer to him for the one that was "gun-free".

Comprehend?
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:18 PM
I sincerely believe you folks have a "no guns in schools no matter how many kids die" mindset.
tgivens Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 9:51 AM
No! That would not stop a killer. Sandy Hook was locked.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:18 AM
Simpler, yes; more effective, no, David.
MrPaul Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:00 AM
David, I am generally in agreement with you, but we seem to be on a sparsely populated island on this subject. I have been advocating perimeter security in TH since the Sandy Hook tragedy and have read some of the dumbest responses to my thoughts that one could imagine. The idea of arming teachers as the first line of defense is simply nuts. It might make a good movie, but I know some elementary teachers and they are wonderful people but the last people I would want to depend on to defend my grandchildren. A well-designed perimeter security system should be the first line of defense. It would deter many who might want to target the school, and for those it wouldn’t, it would at least buy time to muster a second line of defense.
MrPaul Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:01 AM
And that could be armed personnel inside the school who are trained and willing to assume that responsibility. And if a gun battle did ensue, at least it would not be inside a classroom.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:27 AM
MrPaul, obviously the teachers would have to be evaluated before being armed. I had some smart, tough, and dependable teachers when I was in school. I would not be surprised if some teachers were members of the NRA.
chris73 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:47 AM
MrPaul, I agree with you an David. However, could you clarify "perimeter security system". I'm still in Uncle Sam's gang (Army) and that sounds like a patrol base etc...to me. Again, the doors should be locked in the classroom. To me this is this makes sense. Teachers are not there to defend these kids, their purpose is to educate them. Our education system, which has been thoroughly infiltrated by radicals, is bad enough. The last thing we need is teachers more focus on security than doing what they were hired to do in the first place. In my view, the NRA is wrong on this one. If anyone is to be armed in a school let it be the principal.
chris73 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:52 AM
Being a member of the NRA does not equate to one being a proficient shooter who is able to utilize a firearm under stress. We are talking about a school with kids running around with their hair on fire, in fear! That is a difficult environment to shoot, move and communicate. These teachers would need "lots" of training and would have to shoot at least once a week to keep their skills up. So, I'll say it again, arming teachers is not the holy panacea to this problem.
GOOD OL' BAD GUY Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 9:22 AM

MrPaul,

Prisons have a well-designed perimeter system, i.e., limited number of entry points, fences with razor wire and armed gaurds. If this were a workable idea, there would be no drug problem in prisons. How's that working out for you?

The fact is that for EVERY defense there is a counter-measure. The two ways to deal with other people is reason and force. You can’t reason with a psychotic so force is the only alternative. It’s only necessary to ALLOW teachers to carry concealed. If none of them decided to carry, no one would know IF they were. The idiocy of requiring teacher to carry is equal to the idiocy of NOT permitting them to carry.

MrPaul Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:00 PM
Sorry GOBG, but your argument that sneaking drugs into prison by sticking them in some body orifice versus breaking into a school with an arsenal of weapons goes beyond skating on thin ice. It's right out there with your suggestion that the threat of encountering someone with a concealed weapon will deter a lunatic. A few days ago some goofball in Altoona, PA shot at two police cars. By your argument I guess he never have imagined the police were armed.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:37 PM
many schools are open-campus type,like a strip mall,where each classroom opens to the outdoors,not to an inner hallway.

you can't secure the perimeter for them.

"armed teachers" (school employees) makes FAR more sense,except you refuse to recognize that.
"you know some teachers" ,well,that makes you the expert...NOT.

Sheesh. some people are stuck on stupid.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:45 PM
STUPID;
if a mass murderer enters and begins shooting people,there's ALREADY a gun battle going on,just one sided,where the good guys can't fight back.

you are not going to be able to prevent all gunmen from entering.
BUT,having armed school employees IS a DETERRENT,as proven by the Aurora shooter,who bypassed several closer theaters for the one known to be "gun-free".
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:47 PM
even if deterrence fails,you have armed good guys right where they need to be,close to the students,ALL the time school is open.

and at no extra cost.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:49 PM
BALONEY.
armed ODCs outside of schools have done the same thing,and not shot any bystanders.
Also,if it's known the schools have armed personnel,the murderers AVOID those places. A DETERRENT.

your scenarios simply HAVE NOT HAPPENED anywhere in real life.
MrPaul Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:52 PM
Jay Wye ... what have you done with your life since you flunked out of shoe shine school?
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 1:03 PM
as usual,you can provide no actual argument against what I posted.

Go away,troll.
MrPaul Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 2:21 PM
Somehow that doesn't quite fit the situation at Columbine, now does it Jay Wye. They had two armed security guards and the shooters were students who most certainly knew they were there. Try to get your facts straight before you tell your story.
GOOD OL' BAD GUY Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 3:41 PM

MrPaul,

So one nut shot at some police, what does that prove? There will always be nuts with a gun, basing legislation on the actions of one nut that penalizes everyone is a lousy idea. When some drunk driver kills someone, do you think banning cars would solve the problem?

MrPaul Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 4:53 PM
Let's get on the same page. I am not advocating any legislation. I am not against having an armed guard inside a school. What I do advocate is perimeter security as the first line of defense against these nuts. Someone inside the school who is armed and trained in the use of the weapon could be the second line of defense. Even if the nut got past the first line, which would not happen if it were well designed, it would slow him down so the armed guard would have warning and time to act. At that point he could stop the nut at the door. I want to avoid having a shoot out inside the school. Doesn't that make sense?
rhinegarten Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 6:57 AM
Arming teachers, especially those who would volunteer, is still a good idea. It's also a good idea to allow those in the community (such as retired cops or military) who would volunteer to pull armed guard duty.

It would cost much less than having cops in every school. When such a plan is publicized, those who would think of doing horrific things would think twice when they figure out that their misson would be cut way short. Remember, those who would murder children are insane, not necessarily stupid.

And arming teachers, such as is done in Isreal, would provide for real protection in high schools, where the perps are sometimes the students themselves. In your scenario, they would already be in the classroom.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:23 AM
An excellent suggestion, rhinegarten. There myriads of people who would volunteer for this. The estimates of cost from the left on armed protectors in schools is ridiculously high. My conclusion is that they are not seriously concerned with protecting children from violence.
chris73 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:41 AM
I'm opposed to arming teachers. Kids nowadays have zero respect for authority, just take a walk in an inner school and you will see my point. If a teacher is assaulted, threatened or challenged and utilize that firearm we have just created another mess. My brother is a teacher in the inner city and he is always being challenged by his students and he is a big boy! David is correct, locking the doors and keeping them locked is the way to go. If there are arm guards in every school, who is paying for it, unintended consequences and for how long? Then you have to look at training, psyche evaluations etc... We are doing what, Americans always do, try to solve a problem by creating another problem. We seem to never learn our lesson.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:29 PM
it's actually in the teachers interest to have armed school personnel,because teachers also get killed in these massacres,not just students.

Plus,they often are threatened by violent students,even accosted on the way to their cars.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:34 PM
First,since it's CONCEALED carry,the students are not going to know who are armed and who is not.
Second,to lawfully use a firearm in self-defense,one MUST have reasonable fear for their life or "great bodily harm",and the standard is not likely to be met from a student.
Permit holders KNOW this,few of them have misused their guns in this manner,and they already have established a SUPERB record of safety and lawfulness,in the several DECADES of permitted concealed carry.

Your fears are NOT supported by fact or example.Thus they are irrational.
annfan_777 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 6:54 AM
Perhaps if people like you weren't so obsessed with making sure we continue to slaughter children at the rate of 4000 per day, respect for human life wouldn't be at such an all time low.
Earl29 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 8:36 AM
I don't think you're being quite fair to David here, Ann.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 12:27 PM
she and a few others are pushing their own agenda against abortion,on the backs of massacred children. disgusting.
It's OFF TOPIC here.

MYOB,Annfan et al.
David3036 Wrote: Dec 24, 2012 7:10 PM
If you're referring to abortion, I'm against it.

An entire country is in shock as we continue to watch the funerals of these innocent children and adults in Connecticut. It's not merely shock, but horror and revulsion, at the second-bloodiest school shooting in our history. It is sickening even to rank them in this way, to admit that there have been so many as to require it, but it is true: yet another child has killed yet more children in cold blood.

We don't have to worry about foreign terrorists coming to our country: we are better at hurting ourselves than they are at hurting us, and we always...