Obama puts guns in schoolsFollow

The next article you'll read about is about a student overpowering the rent-a-cop and shooting him/her with their own gun.

The future of school protection.

Not really news about putting guns in schools. At least it'll (supposedly) be people actually trained in their use, and not some mall security reject or the janitor. Still stupid unless they put enough in overlapping patrol areas or it's basically spending money on nothing at all. Putting a camera to watch the front door doesn't make the whole house safe, yannow. Oh well, at least our budget has that extra $45m just laying around.

Don't most schools already have armed cops in them?

I would say no. Even for the ones that do, I'm sure it's an insufficient amount to do anything, i.e., Old man Henry, the rent-a-cop.

I'm ok having law enforcement in schools where the students need protection from each other - so high schools mostly, and high schools in high crime areas more specifically.

I don't see any need to have armed guards in elementary schools. Seems that's just asking for an accidental shooting.

I'd rather they hire new people than to pay a guy who just got off a double to wander around a school.

Edited, Sep 30th 2013 10:08am by lolgaxe

Depends, what sort of weapons do I get? Baseball bat? Shotgun? Flamethrower? Tank?

Dude, I can ROCK some cooties.

As mentioned above, it's not really a change. Schools have been hiring security officers since long before Obama came along. I suppose it's better than nothing, but it'll cost money to implement. Whereas simply amending the existing prohibitions regarding firearms at schools with respect to school staff would cost zero dollars. Given that those prohibitions don't actually protect a single person at a school right now, there's nothing more than knee jerk fear of firearms as justification for them in the first place.

They protect them from injury by the accidental discharge of a firearm. For your statement to be true the incidence of such injury must be be zero. Is that the case, or are you simply factually incorrect?

You tell me. Prior to the creation of gun free zones around schools, was the rate of death or injury on school grounds via accidentally discharged firearm by a school staff member significant relative to say, slipping on a wet floor in the bathroom, or falling down stairs, or participating in sports? Amazingly, we haven't banned mops, and stairs, and sports (yet) in our schools.

Sure Smash. You're technically correct in that the incident rate can't be zero, but it was close enough to be statistically irrelevant. Guess I should have accounted for the not surprisingly inconsistent application of the Smasharoo literal interpretation. I'll acknowledge that by creating those gun free zones, we've saved 1/1,000,000 as many injuries as we could have saved by eliminating say pencils from our schools. Hell. I'm betting that there are more broccoli related injuries in school cafeterias over time than accidental shooting injuries. But I'll give you the irrelevant point. The number is presumably greater than zero.

You know this isn't true. We previously discussed this.

1. Guns aren't free, someone has to pay for them.
2. Are you mandating some sort of training or any 'ol Joe with a gun is ok in your child's school? Training cost money.
3. If you're mandating teachers/staff to use weapons, should those people be paid the same in comparison to a school with no such requirement? Maybe maybe not. I could see arguments going either way. That could potentially be additional money

President Obama couldn't have resolved all of the gun debate issue by offering to delay the Affordable Care Act mandates for national background checks. Play the GOP game!

It actually makes more sense to put someone in with experience with guns than to let just any stressed out, low paid and under appreciated teacher to pack heat. Just because someone told you giving Mr Garrison a gun is a good idea doesn't actually mean it is. You should really learn to think for yourself.