Should we keep armed guards at schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the metal detectors and more security. Enough is enough and we need to do better to keep our kids safe. It sucks it has to turn into more of a prison but better safe.

Oh great, and then you'll have crowds of kids lining up to enter school. The shooters can just get them there. They can shoot into the crowd without even having to enter the building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To thwart shooters?

Guards get killed too:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Report-Shooting-Census-Bureau-Headquarters-in-Md-299259981.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident

Semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and revolver used.

A legally purchased AR-15 can easily kill an armed guard. This guy got off 70 rounds:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/politics/congressional-shooter-70-rounds/index.html

Amidst many trained secret service. It's only sheer luck that people didn't actually die.

Yup - the first person killed at the Navy Yard shooting (our local slaughter that was quickly forgotten) was an armed security guard. But anything to make the case for more guns!

[Anonymous]

With property taxes being what they are, yes MoCo can afford it. And to the extent they can't, my apologies but cut the bowling team and a few music programs and whatever else you need to even a few of the bullshit AP classes. Yes in a perfect world we should be able to have it all. But things aren't perfect and I'm pretty sure student safety is far more important than AP Environmentalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the metal detectors and more security. Enough is enough and we need to do better to keep our kids safe. It sucks it has to turn into more of a prison but better safe.

Oh great, and then you'll have crowds of kids lining up to enter school. The shooters can just get them there. They can shoot into the crowd without even having to enter the building.

Exactly - this is all security theater.

Same thing at Nats games - they create this artificial crowd of people who would make a great target - as if someone out to inflict damage would care if it is inside or outside the gates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To thwart shooters?

Guards get killed too:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Report-Shooting-Census-Bureau-Headquarters-in-Md-299259981.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident

Semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and revolver used.

A legally purchased AR-15 can easily kill an armed guard. This guy got off 70 rounds:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/politics/congressional-shooter-70-rounds/index.html

Amidst many trained secret service. It's only sheer luck that people didn't actually die.

Yup - the first person killed at the Navy Yard shooting (our local slaughter that was quickly forgotten) was an armed security guard. But anything to make the case for more guns!

Ok so because it's not a perfect solution, let's instead do nothing. That's a MUCH better plan. And FYI -- screaming "gun control now" IS doing nothing because who knows when and if that'll ever get accomplished. What if it takes 2 more years or 25 more years? Is it really better to just keep marching and demonstrating and tweeting, rather than taking some concrete steps. No one is saying metal detectors + lives will save 100% of lives. But say it saves 50% or even 10% -- is that not worth it to you because it's not a full 100%? Wouldn't it be better if 8 of those 17 families or even 2 of those 17 families still had their kids/spouses/parents here?

[Anonymous]

^metal detectors + guards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With property taxes being what they are, yes MoCo can afford it. And to the extent they can't, my apologies but cut the bowling team and a few music programs and whatever else you need to even a few of the bullshit AP classes. Yes in a perfect world we should be able to have it all. But things aren't perfect and I'm pretty sure student safety is far more important than AP Environmentalism.

But where does it end - in Columbine there were two shooters - so do we need two armed security guards?

Even if you limit entry points for security reasons you cannot limit exits and kids will open the doors for other kids - do you need an armed guard at every door?

And as pointed out elsewhere the kids congregate outside the door in large slow moving numbers to get thru security which makes them easy targets - or do we need another perimeter with yet another ring of security guards?

Or we could do what every other western country has successful done and limit access to fire arms.

This only happens in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the metal detectors and more security. Enough is enough and we need to do better to keep our kids safe. It sucks it has to turn into more of a prison but better safe.

Oh great, and then you'll have crowds of kids lining up to enter school. The shooters can just get them there. They can shoot into the crowd without even having to enter the building.

Exactly - this is all security theater.

Same thing at Nats games - they create this artificial crowd of people who would make a great target - as if someone out to inflict damage would care if it is inside or outside the gates.

Let me guess - liberal?

I WANT gun control. 100%. But why don't liberals EVER get that even a partial solution is better than NO solution? You can gun down people the same way outdoors than you can in an enclosed classroom -- bc people will running in every which direction whereas in a class, it's sitting ducks with no place to go. So yeah -- there's a reason that security folks are pulling security check points out further and further from airports, stadiums etc. to keep the person from ever getting inside where there is 0 chance of escape and a whole lot of bullets being sprayed.

And again it is NOT a perfect solution (that would be no guns) BUT is it better to say "oh well that's not perfect, let's not do anything and just wait for gun control even if that takes 50 more years or never happens; in the meantime we'll just keep stating our outrage over and over."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To thwart shooters?

Guards get killed too:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Report-Shooting-Census-Bureau-Headquarters-in-Md-299259981.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident

Semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and revolver used.

A legally purchased AR-15 can easily kill an armed guard. This guy got off 70 rounds:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/politics/congressional-shooter-70-rounds/index.html

Amidst many trained secret service. It's only sheer luck that people didn't actually die.

Yup - the first person killed at the Navy Yard shooting (our local slaughter that was quickly forgotten) was an armed security guard. But anything to make the case for more guns!

Ok so because it's not a perfect solution, let's instead do nothing. That's a MUCH better plan. And FYI -- screaming "gun control now" IS doing nothing because who knows when and if that'll ever get accomplished. What if it takes 2 more years or 25 more years? Is it really better to just keep marching and demonstrating and tweeting, rather than taking some concrete steps. No one is saying metal detectors + lives will save 100% of lives. But say it saves 50% or even 10% -- is that not worth it to you because it's not a full 100%? Wouldn't it be better if 8 of those 17 families or even 2 of those 17 families still had their kids/spouses/parents here?

But what you are proposing simply hasn't worked so why waste time and money talking about it? Gun nuts love to point out the five times a year when one gun nut stops another gun nut from robbing a convenience store in Arkansas of $200 but those are rare exceptions.

We live in a country with lots of guns and lots of people. Some of whom are mentally ill. But other countries have lots of people including some who are mentally ill. Only the US has regular school shootings.

And seriously where does it end? My teens regularly go to crowded movie theaters that are packed with other teens - do we need an armed guard at every door?

My eldest takes Metro to/from school on trains with hundreds of people - do we need armed guards on every single platform?

I get that there is something of a nexus here between unstable teenagers and schools but those unstable teenagers can find plenty of targets outside of school, including immediately outside of school if there ire is so focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With property taxes being what they are, yes MoCo can afford it. And to the extent they can't, my apologies but cut the bowling team and a few music programs and whatever else you need to even a few of the bullshit AP classes. Yes in a perfect world we should be able to have it all. But things aren't perfect and I'm pretty sure student safety is far more important than AP Environmentalism.

But where does it end - in Columbine there were two shooters - so do we need two armed security guards?

Even if you limit entry points for security reasons you cannot limit exits and kids will open the doors for other kids - do you need an armed guard at every door?

And as pointed out elsewhere the kids congregate outside the door in large slow moving numbers to get thru security which makes them easy targets - or do we need another perimeter with yet another ring of security guards?

Or we could do what every other western country has successful done and limit access to fire arms.

This only happens in the United States.

I was in HS when Colombine happened and my HS very quickly (like the next week) went from being a large Parkland kind of high school where you could go in/out any door and even walk outside to switch classes if you wanted to being single point of entry; and then doors/windows were switched out to be weighed secured doors that slam shut, millions of cameras etc. This was 98-99. Certainly I think almost all schools now are single point of entry. Of course doors open from the inside (fire risk). As for congregating -- isn't that a soft target risk anywhere -- i.e. airports etc.? So just bc that's a risk, why haven't airports said -- nah, there's already congregation/soft target risk, lets not bother doing anything and let these people in as quick as possible without screening. No -- you take THAT risk to avoid the risk of something happening IN the plane involving weapons. Same thing -- take the soft target risk outside to make sure the inside is more secure.

[Anonymous]

Yes, that's what they do in Israel, and, as a result, have no problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the metal detectors and more security. Enough is enough and we need to do better to keep our kids safe. It sucks it has to turn into more of a prison but better safe.

Oh great, and then you'll have crowds of kids lining up to enter school. The shooters can just get them there. They can shoot into the crowd without even having to enter the building.

Exactly - this is all security theater.

Same thing at Nats games - they create this artificial crowd of people who would make a great target - as if someone out to inflict damage would care if it is inside or outside the gates.

Let me guess - liberal?

I WANT gun control. 100%. But why don't liberals EVER get that even a partial solution is better than NO solution? You can gun down people the same way outdoors than you can in an enclosed classroom -- bc people will running in every which direction whereas in a class, it's sitting ducks with no place to go. So yeah -- there's a reason that security folks are pulling security check points out further and further from airports, stadiums etc. to keep the person from ever getting inside where there is 0 chance of escape and a whole lot of bullets being sprayed.

And again it is NOT a perfect solution (that would be no guns) BUT is it better to say "oh well that's not perfect, let's not do anything and just wait for gun control even if that takes 50 more years or never happens; in the meantime we'll just keep stating our outrage over and over."

I understand and often make the "perfect should not be the enemy of the good" argument.

But this is not even a good argument or progress or protecting anyone.

And you are making a perverse version of it.

We shouldn't try to control guns but should satisfy ourselves that a shooter guns down 15 kids at the crowded entrance to a school with metal detectors instead of 20 inside?

I don't expect to get gun control in this country - ever - even though the Supreme Court has actually made it clear it is in fact allowed.

But this security theater nonsense plays into the NRA's narrative - that it isn't guns that are the problem but that we need more armed security or whatever - all of which involves spending more money on guns and police etc which is exactly what they want and nets us next to nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To thwart shooters?

Guards get killed too:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Report-Shooting-Census-Bureau-Headquarters-in-Md-299259981.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/10/museum.shooting/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident

Semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and revolver used.

A legally purchased AR-15 can easily kill an armed guard. This guy got off 70 rounds:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/politics/congressional-shooter-70-rounds/index.html

Amidst many trained secret service. It's only sheer luck that people didn't actually die.

Yup - the first person killed at the Navy Yard shooting (our local slaughter that was quickly forgotten) was an armed security guard. But anything to make the case for more guns!

Ok so because it's not a perfect solution, let's instead do nothing. That's a MUCH better plan. And FYI -- screaming "gun control now" IS doing nothing because who knows when and if that'll ever get accomplished. What if it takes 2 more years or 25 more years? Is it really better to just keep marching and demonstrating and tweeting, rather than taking some concrete steps. No one is saying metal detectors + lives will save 100% of lives. But say it saves 50% or even 10% -- is that not worth it to you because it's not a full 100%? Wouldn't it be better if 8 of those 17 families or even 2 of those 17 families still had their kids/spouses/parents here?

But what you are proposing simply hasn't worked so why waste time and money talking about it? Gun nuts love to point out the five times a year when one gun nut stops another gun nut from robbing a convenience store in Arkansas of $200 but those are rare exceptions.

We live in a country with lots of guns and lots of people. Some of whom are mentally ill. But other countries have lots of people including some who are mentally ill. Only the US has regular school shootings.

And seriously where does it end? My teens regularly go to crowded movie theaters that are packed with other teens - do we need an armed guard at every door?

My eldest takes Metro to/from school on trains with hundreds of people - do we need armed guards on every single platform?

I get that there is something of a nexus here between unstable teenagers and schools but those unstable teenagers can find plenty of targets outside of school, including immediately outside of school if there ire is so focused.

So because anything can happen anywhere, let's not bother to try to prevent even 50% of it or even 1% of it because it'll waste your time and money. I mean what's the difference -- 17 were lost, maybe only 16 could've been lost -- nah, too much trouble for 1 9th grader besides his fam has other kids so they'll get over it. I hope they open up the federal courthouses too. I mean why bother. The court security officers are just gun nuts trying to stop other gun nuts, it never works so -- nah -- come on in . . . .Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With property taxes being what they are, yes MoCo can afford it. And to the extent they can't, my apologies but cut the bowling team and a few music programs and whatever else you need to even a few of the bullshit AP classes. Yes in a perfect world we should be able to have it all. But things aren't perfect and I'm pretty sure student safety is far more important than AP Environmentalism.

But where does it end - in Columbine there were two shooters - so do we need two armed security guards?

Even if you limit entry points for security reasons you cannot limit exits and kids will open the doors for other kids - do you need an armed guard at every door?

And as pointed out elsewhere the kids congregate outside the door in large slow moving numbers to get thru security which makes them easy targets - or do we need another perimeter with yet another ring of security guards?

Or we could do what every other western country has successful done and limit access to fire arms.

This only happens in the United States.

I was in HS when Colombine happened and my HS very quickly (like the next week) went from being a large Parkland kind of high school where you could go in/out any door and even walk outside to switch classes if you wanted to being single point of entry; and then doors/windows were switched out to be weighed secured doors that slam shut, millions of cameras etc. This was 98-99. Certainly I think almost all schools now are single point of entry. Of course doors open from the inside (fire risk). As for congregating -- isn't that a soft target risk anywhere -- i.e. airports etc.? So just bc that's a risk, why haven't airports said -- nah, there's already congregation/soft target risk, lets not bother doing anything and let these people in as quick as possible without screening. No -- you take THAT risk to avoid the risk of something happening IN the plane involving weapons. Same thing -- take the soft target risk outside to make sure the inside is more secure.

You will never get rid of targets. And you can't protect them all.

And this soft target distinction is just nonsense. The greatest crowds at my kids school on a day to day basis are the ones gathered to get through the metal detectors every day. If you think it is better to get shot outside of school instead of inside or that somehow the odds for your kid are better that way well then good for you. The NRA count on the sheep idiotically being led to the slaughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the metal detectors and more security. Enough is enough and we need to do better to keep our kids safe. It sucks it has to turn into more of a prison but better safe.

Oh great, and then you'll have crowds of kids lining up to enter school. The shooters can just get them there. They can shoot into the crowd without even having to enter the building.

Exactly - this is all security theater.

Same thing at Nats games - they create this artificial crowd of people who would make a great target - as if someone out to inflict damage would care if it is inside or outside the gates.

Let me guess - liberal?

I WANT gun control. 100%. But why don't liberals EVER get that even a partial solution is better than NO solution? You can gun down people the same way outdoors than you can in an enclosed classroom -- bc people will running in every which direction whereas in a class, it's sitting ducks with no place to go. So yeah -- there's a reason that security folks are pulling security check points out further and further from airports, stadiums etc. to keep the person from ever getting inside where there is 0 chance of escape and a whole lot of bullets being sprayed.

And again it is NOT a perfect solution (that would be no guns) BUT is it better to say "oh well that's not perfect, let's not do anything and just wait for gun control even if that takes 50 more years or never happens; in the meantime we'll just keep stating our outrage over and over."

I understand and often make the "perfect should not be the enemy of the good" argument.

But this is not even a good argument or progress or protecting anyone.

And you are making a perverse version of it.

We shouldn't try to control guns but should satisfy ourselves that a shooter guns down 15 kids at the crowded entrance to a school with metal detectors instead of 20 inside?

I don't expect to get gun control in this country - ever - even though the Supreme Court has actually made it clear it is in fact allowed.

But this security theater nonsense plays into the NRA's narrative - that it isn't guns that are the problem but that we need more armed security or whatever - all of which involves spending more money on guns and police etc which is exactly what they want and nets us next to nothing.

So you don't expect gun control and all prevention attempts are a waste because nothing could ever work. Ok well I guess we just sit and hope it all works out. I mean it's working really well so far, so why mess with what works.