Should we keep armed guards at schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But when has it worked - your entire argument is premised on the notion that security guards have foiled a bunch of shootings but as has been pointed out in a bunch of shootings they were simply the first to be shot.

Most shootings appear to have been foiled because people who knew the shooter realized something was terribly amiss and contacted authorities.

I get that you are scared and want to do something but finding congregated people to shoot isn't hard. Finding specific congregated groups to shoot isn't hard.

[Anonymous]

I do not want metal detectors, or guards with guns at the doors of my kid's schools (MCPS high schools all have a police officer with a gun at school). I do not want them going to school in a police state. I do not want them to go to school in a prison.

Even though it's all over the news, believe it or not, it's still relatively rare. I'll repeat what I said earlier : you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than being shot and killed at school. No one saying stop driving your kids, anywhere and jist keep them home, right?

[Anonymous]

I think it's a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But when has it worked - your entire argument is premised on the notion that security guards have foiled a bunch of shootings but as has been pointed out in a bunch of shootings they were simply the first to be shot.

Most shootings appear to have been foiled because people who knew the shooter realized something was terribly amiss and contacted authorities.

I get that you are scared and want to do something but finding congregated people to shoot isn't hard. Finding specific congregated groups to shoot isn't hard.

Um -- a security guard/LEO takes a job KNOWING the dangers and has a weapon with which to try to protect himself. An 11th grader doesn't go to science class knowing there is a danger of being shot. All I'm saying is if fed workers can protect themselves -- and there are always exceptions but by and large you don't see this kind of thing happening at the courthouses or DOJ at the rate of 1x/week -- then there's no reason schools can't be protected in the same manner. Half this board is government workers. Does it feel good knowing you're sitting in the security of your office with armed guards downstairs who'd shoot up anyone who tried to evade their security procedures and your 14 yr old is chilling in science in a wide open building with maybe one cop car parked a half mile away - given how big these campuses are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do not want metal detectors, or guards with guns at the doors of my kid's schools (MCPS high schools all have a police officer with a gun at school). I do not want them going to school in a police state. I do not want them to go to school in a prison.

Even though it's all over the news, believe it or not, it's still relatively rare. I'll repeat what I said earlier : you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than being shot and killed at school. No one saying stop driving your kids, anywhere and jist keep them home, right?

No, but we wear seat belts and buy cars with more and more safety features. The risk will always exist but we mitigate it. Right now the best defense our children have is currently to hide in a closet in their classroom. I think we can do better than that.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the car vs. gun argument. Sure both have dangers. We get that. But the car has the purpose of transporting you from pt. A to pt. B -- and in exchange for that transport, you take on the dangers. (Same with lots of things -- meds can have side effects but you weigh the benefit of the med vs. the dangers and decide that it is better to take that penicillin than to just let strep spread.)

What is the purpose of a gun, exactly? Isn't the purpose to kill or is there some other defined benefit I'm not seeing; as far as I know guns were developed for wars/militias. And don't give me the hunting argument, this is not a community where you need to hunt a deer in order to have meat for the season -- these kids' moms are waltzing out to Whole Foods 3x/wk for organic everything. So you're taking on the dangers of guns in schools -- esp assault rifles -- for what purpose or benefit exactly? Please -- explain it to me. I really want to understand the analogy.

[Anonymous]

I live in MPCS. I would pay an additional $200 a year for this service. Heck two armed guards per school.

[Anonymous]

We can’t secure our way out of this problem. You lock down the school buildings and they will attack the football games. The only thing that will work is gun control. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew that we were watching our children die over a “right to bear arms” extremism.

[Anonymous]

No.

[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.

Are you crazy? You would cut enriching activities to spend thousands of dollars to prevent something that’s not going to happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, and let’s ban cars while we’re at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the car vs. gun argument. Sure both have dangers. We get that. But the car has the purpose of transporting you from pt. A to pt. B -- and in exchange for that transport, you take on the dangers. (Same with lots of things -- meds can have side effects but you weigh the benefit of the med vs. the dangers and decide that it is better to take that penicillin than to just let strep spread.)

What is the purpose of a gun, exactly? Isn't the purpose to kill or is there some other defined benefit I'm not seeing; as far as I know guns were developed for wars/militias. And don't give me the hunting argument, this is not a community where you need to hunt a deer in order to have meat for the season -- these kids' moms are waltzing out to Whole Foods 3x/wk for organic everything. So you're taking on the dangers of guns in schools -- esp assault rifles -- for what purpose or benefit exactly? Please -- explain it to me. I really want to understand the analogy.

I make the car analogy but for me it’s not cars vs guns. It’s cars vs. unfounded fear. I’m all for banning guns. But I think the idea of spending millions to put metal detectors at every school is foolhardy considering the time ncredibly chances of this happening at any given school.

[Anonymous]

Let's ban assault weapons. In Florida it's easier to buy an AR-15 than a hand gun:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/ar15-mass-shootings-guns.html

No one needs an AR-15 for protection. It kills a lot of people quickly and why it's the weapon of choice for mass killers.

[Anonymous]

Actually, there may be a real answer to this problem. At least for the female population. All these shooters, or 99% of them are male right? Stop allowing men to go to school. Girls will be safe. Men (boys) can be homeschooled. Then the sane population can be safe. (This is tongue in cheek, but seriously, it is always men who do this)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, there may be a real answer to this problem. At least for the female population. All these shooters, or 99% of them are male right? Stop allowing men to go to school. Girls will be safe. Men (boys) can be homeschooled. Then the sane population can be safe. (This is tongue in cheek, but seriously, it is always men who do this)

Dipsh*t, the sandy hook shooter was home schooled.