Tiberius Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 What difference does it make? Is that a rhetorical question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 So parenting would make a difference, wouldn't it. Rest assured, armed guards in schools is a BIG deterrent. Would the ends justify the means? Those officers would get tested and they would have to draw and fire their weapon on a child. At that point the water just gets more muddy. We end up with protests that the gun was drawn on a young hispanic boy who did not speak English and understand the officer. We end up with riots after an officer ends up shooting a teenage suburban white girl so lost in her 90210 world she is ready to take her life then gets backed in to a corner and shot. Yes, it sounds good now. It will not in 10 years after reality sets in to this practice. Is it frustrating being so stupid? Seems like you are frustrated, and I know you are stupid, so maybe there is a link? I thought I was simple. Man, I was hoping you'd just use simple again. I had the perfect response lined up: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Bad things are going to happen, regardless. Name-calling, shoving and punching or bullets; the fact remains the same that it doesn't solve the problem by simply putting armed police officers in the schools. No one is suggesting police officers can or should attempt to prevent name calling or shoving. But they might just prevent a mass shooting. Ya know, like they did yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Would the ends justify the means? Those officers would get tested and they would have to draw and fire their weapon on a child. At that point the water just gets more muddy. We end up with protests that the gun was drawn on a young hispanic boy who did not speak English and understand the officer. We end up with riots after an officer ends up shooting a teenage suburban white girl so lost in her 90210 world she is ready to take her life then gets backed in to a corner and shot. Yes, it sounds good now. It will not in 10 years after reality sets in to this practice. I thought I was simple. Man, I was hoping you'd just use simple again. I had the perfect response lined up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJj6GfPRAtg Our district schools have fights, drugs and other issues. The officers don't shoot students or people in the schools who don't demonstrate the will to kill others. We're glad they're there to deter a threat or act if a threat enters the school. If a child acts to kill others, they should be shot just the same as an adult. The law does not differentiate. Oh, and young boys and girls in this country should all understand English. School is taught in English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 No one is suggesting police officers can or should attempt to prevent name calling or shoving. But they might just prevent a mass shooting. Ya know, like they did yesterday. This is just like leaving the door unlocked and blaming the robbed for letting themselves become a victim. We need to let the kids understand what they're getting in to and to work it out amongst themselves without needing parents/authority resolve these issues. There was a documentary I watched 10-12 years ago about the differences in the Japanese educational system vs. the US. Japan would shun the students who sought to have authority resolve situations and instead encourage them to confront the issues and seek out solutions amongst their peer groups to resolve issues. If we empower the students to work situations out among themselves they will not only develop in to more functional and emotionally mature adults they will begin to understand the results and implications of their actions. Yesterday (really two days ago). Anyway, I do not believe that it was solely be an officer approached with a weapon. I am not going to buy the reasoning that because the officer had a weapon it caused the student to off himself. In fact, in many cases, if a teen was presented with a rushing officer who was armed and he had just committed a killing of this nature, I believe he would have tried to do a GTA type response and get some Scarface type shootout. This kid was probably just a big ass coward who hadn't thought out his plan enough to realize what happens next because he was a moron. Our district schools have fights, drugs and other issues. The officers don't shoot students or people in the schools who don't demonstrate the will to kill others. We're glad they're there to deter a threat or act if a threat enters the school. If a child acts to kill others, they should be shot just the same as an adult. The law does not differentiate. Oh, and young boys and girls in this country should all understand English. School is taught in English. See above. Why not teach them about world culture? We are a growing global village and neglecting that issue is one of the reasons we are falling behind on the world scale. There is more to this world then Uhmerica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 People who are trained to do vastly different things. Arming a teacher is a substitute for a police officer? That makes less than no sense. Yeah, it works much better if you have a demented high school kid shooting at unarmed teenagers or children instead of worrying about getting shot by a cop. Did EII in a hold of your login info? That's not fair! I actually agree with armed security guards in school! Don't some schools already have them? Anyway... A dude in my son's high school was overheard making a wise crack (hope it was a wise crack) about "shooting up the school." Boy did the shist hit the fan... LoL... They immediately suspended him, had some kind of intervention w/the parents and sent him to the hospital for a psych evaluation. Supposedly, the kid is back after about a week... It is a Catholic high school... The Dominican Sisters don't play... Just arm them: "Nuns w/guns!" May come in hand for those late tuition stragglers! LoL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Would the ends justify the means? Those officers would get tested and they would have to draw and fire their weapon on a child. At that point the water just gets more muddy. We end up with protests that the gun was drawn on a young hispanic boy who did not speak English and understand the officer. We end up with riots after an officer ends up shooting a teenage suburban white girl so lost in her 90210 world she is ready to take her life then gets backed in to a corner and shot. Yes, it sounds good now. It will not in 10 years after reality sets in to this practice. I thought I was simple. Man, I was hoping you'd just use simple again. I had the perfect response lined up: http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=key+and+peele+confederate+slaves&vid=0a6adb455552cf7f6b64533ef10cec5d&l=2%3A44&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DV.4692807061015046%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F53745656&tit=Civil+War+Reenactors&c=1&sigr=10pumhkq3&sigt=10k3ffvsa&back=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3Dkey%2Band%2Bpeel%2Bconfederate%2Bslaves%26fr%3Dipad&sigb=12ha0rp54&ct=p&age=0&&tt=b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 http://video.search....t=p&age=0&&tt=b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Is that a rhetorical question? Yes, you !@#$ing idiot, it's a rhetorical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 16, 2013 Author Share Posted December 16, 2013 There is no difference between acting out with fists or bullets. Uh, I'd say there's a whopping big difference. Would the ends justify the means? Those officers would get tested and they would have to draw and fire their weapon on a child. At that point the water just gets more muddy. We end up with protests that the gun was drawn on a young hispanic boy who did not speak English and understand the officer. We end up with riots after an officer ends up shooting a teenage suburban white girl so lost in her 90210 world she is ready to take her life then gets backed in to a corner and shot. So you want to allow more mass shootings just because the above nonsense might potentially happen? Yeah, I'm good with risking the hypothetical protest over the Spanish kid who didn't understand the order to stop. You know, because only Hispanics speak Spanish and none can be cops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Uh, I'd say there's a whopping big difference. So you want to allow more mass shootings just because the above nonsense might potentially happen? Yeah, I'm good with risking the hypothetical protest over the Spanish kid who didn't understand the order to stop. You know, because only Hispanics speak Spanish and none can be cops. I am good with protecting the live of the innocent. A bullet is more dangerous then a fist in most cases but when both can do damage should we ignore the one that creates the most danger? It's all well and good that retards worry about these mass school shootings that happen infrequently and ignore the fact that there are brutal fights, with knives and other weapons involved in other school violence every day. Yes, you can, in your hysteria believe that a cop with a gun is going to make a difference at a school in regards to violence. You'd be right, he'd have a gun. That's pretty damn powerful. But, whats that going to do when there is a fight between students and a knife is pulled? What about a gang related brawl where there are no guns? I would bet that guns are involved in less then .05% of all school events labeled violent. But, hey, the guns get the headlines and fi we can stop guns with more guns that shirely has to do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 It makes a great idea and seems very practical, but what happens when you bring a gun to a gun fight? Why do we need armed police officers? Why not just get armed teachers? Police and teachers are people, too. They're prone to mistakes and it takes a special type of person to be confronted with a teenager and not pull the trigger when he mouths off at you. We didn't need teachers or police officers with guns 20 years ago and we do not need them now. At the most, give them tazers. How could you stop from shooting a kid like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8S5I0QZHhY 20 years ago there was corporal punishment in schools and parents were far more engaged in their children's behavior. The "do gooders" all across society have ensured that the balance of power has skewed, so now schools are far more dangerous. I'll give you that police officers aren't anywhere near perfect but there simply isn't a better alternative and "arming teachers" is an absolute no go. I'd venture to guess that a very small percentage of teachers would want that type of responsibility and there are far too many logistical issues to overcome. If cops shot every !@#$ that acted like that towards them, the bodies would be stacked up in the streets like cord wood. Trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 20 years ago there was corporal punishment in schools and parents were far more engaged in their children's behavior. The "do gooders" all across society have ensured that the balance of power has skewed, so now schools are far more dangerous. I'll give you that police officers aren't anywhere near perfect but there simply isn't a better alternative and "arming teachers" is an absolute no go. I'd venture to guess that a very small percentage of teachers would want that type of responsibility and there are far too many logistical issues to overcome. If cops shot every !@#$ that acted like that towards them, the bodies would be stacked up in the streets like cord wood. Trust me. Cops actually have a lot more right to shoot people legally than they ever use. If you were to compile all the incidents in this country where a cop was legally allowed to shoot someone, and all police shootings and compared them you'd come away with a statistic that cops don't shoot people. Arming teachers is one of the stupidest ideas ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Maintaining schools as "gun free zones" only puts more children at risk. An armed security guard (not teacher) is a common sense solution, only opposed by those without any. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 It makes a great idea and seems very practical, but what happens when you bring a gun to a gun fight? Why do we need armed police officers? Why not just get armed teachers? Police and teachers are people, too. They're prone to mistakes and it takes a special type of person to be confronted with a teenager and not pull the trigger when he mouths off at you. We didn't need teachers or police officers with guns 20 years ago and we do not need them now. At the most, give them tazers. You din't need them twenty years ago, because then it would have been unthinkable for the unstable loners to come into the schools and shoot up the place. Even if you didn't like Mondays or wanted to get a better view from a clock tower, those events were generational aberrations not an annual occurrence. Until everyone recognizes the mass shooters for what they are and eliminate the fuel for their desire to cause harm, you will continue with these silly debates. It was good to see media not play the Newtown 9/11 tapes and somewhat play down the anniversary. But the have to go further in tamping down coverage. Bullies have been around for millenia, guns have been around for centuries, yet mass shootings are relatively recent. Why? Read up on herostratic fame, and this would be a good starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 there are inner-city schools where gang violence is a serious concern, so they have students enter by passing through metal detectors. wouldn't it go a long way in restricting the ability of people to bring a firearm on campus if they had 2 or 3 armed security personnel minding a metal detector at the entranceways? it's good enough for the county courthouse, why not the schools? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Some of the stupidest people I have met in my life were County Sheriffs. I am not talking about Deputies, I am talking about Sheriffs. They have such a micromanaged brain convoluted in stupidity that they do not look at the world rationally with a constitutional basis. JBoyst's local sheriff.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 armed guards and metal detectors can only do so much. You can;t protect everyone from everything all the time. Armed guards and metal detectors won't stop a determined nut job. They'll just call in a bomb threat, and wait outside to pick people off... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 armed guards and metal detectors can only do so much. You can;t protect everyone from everything all the time. Armed guards and metal detectors won't stop a determined nut job. They'll just call in a bomb threat, and wait outside to pick people off... Or walk in, shoot the two armed guards... Armed "guards" in most places are like door locks. They keep honest people honest. They won't stop anyone who is determined and has any kind of weapon control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 20 years ago there was corporal punishment in schools and parents were far more engaged in their children's behavior. ust me. What?? What schools? You think civilization took a step back by not allowing teachers to beat the kids? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts