Why are our schools left vulnerable?

[Anonymous]

Big anti-gun rally in FL. Yay!! People are pissed. A small minority of gun owners are destroying our lives. I hope the will of the majority is going to ban assault rifles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Military grade weapons, high capacity magazines and the easy availability of accessing firearms is the problem. Schools are often huge and if there were the money to have armed guards, you would basically have to have Secret Service-type protection for every child.

We also have had mass shootings at movie theaters and college campuses. High capacity clips are the one thing all these shootings had in common.

If you think you’re taking away high capacity clips think again. This is a mental health issue, and always has been, not a gun issue.

It is a gun issue. You killed Obamacare and don’t want single payer, which would extend mental health services to Americans. You had your chance, now it’s a gun problem!

[Anonymous]

Criminals don't care about gun regulations.

PROTECT the school kids!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let me start out by saying I would have no problem banning AR-15s. Let me also say that I don't think it's the solution liberals think it is.

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop these individuals from getting a weapon in the first place. Cruz was known to both the school and to the FBI. He stated he wanted to shoot up a school. That clearly wasn't an alarm bell to FBI. See something, say something, failed.

We can argue gun control until we are blue in the face. What I'm after in this thread, is the where the security failures are at the LOCAL level and what can be done to prevent future attacks.

We saw with Lanza, he failed to legally procure a gun. He tried. The system worked. Instead he killed his mother, and took hers. She failed to see the danger. He then had to shoot off a lock (from what I understand) to gain entry to the school. There was no officer at the door to stop him - to even give him pause. By the time officers DID get there, children were massacred. Sitting ducks so to speak.

Cruz waltzed right into the school, despite what the school is calling 'tight security'. Unless the officer on premise was killed at the only point of entry (per the superintendent), we can assume the officer was not at that point of entry. The football coach who was deemed security, was left unarmed and protected kids with his own body, and subsequently his life.

I know of a lot of veterans who would like to volunteer their time to help guard those entries. I know of a lot of teachers who either are already trained - or would like to train - to carry concealed within the schools. Instead, there is shouting about disarming these law-abiding citizens. I maintain we just SAW what happened to a disarmed population (gun-free zone).

Please tell me logical reasons as to why we cannot, on a local level, move to protect our schools.

The school had armed security and a police presence at the time of the shooting. A lot of good that did.

[Anonymous]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

That is why there should be a waiting period to make sure certain people don't get guns.

That is why we should make sure mentally ill people don't have guns.

That is why people should be properly trained and licensed to have a gun.

That is why people with guns should carry the proper insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big anti-gun rally in FL. Yay!! People are pissed. A small minority of gun owners are destroying our lives. I hope the will of the majority is going to ban assault rifles.

It's not me, you moron. It's the criminals, dope dealers, gang members, and mentally ill that are destroying your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me start out by saying I would have no problem banning AR-15s. Let me also say that I don't think it's the solution liberals think it is.

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop these individuals from getting a weapon in the first place. Cruz was known to both the school and to the FBI. He stated he wanted to shoot up a school. That clearly wasn't an alarm bell to FBI. See something, say something, failed.

We can argue gun control until we are blue in the face. What I'm after in this thread, is the where the security failures are at the LOCAL level and what can be done to prevent future attacks.

We saw with Lanza, he failed to legally procure a gun. He tried. The system worked. Instead he killed his mother, and took hers. She failed to see the danger. He then had to shoot off a lock (from what I understand) to gain entry to the school. There was no officer at the door to stop him - to even give him pause. By the time officers DID get there, children were massacred. Sitting ducks so to speak.

Cruz waltzed right into the school, despite what the school is calling 'tight security'. Unless the officer on premise was killed at the only point of entry (per the superintendent), we can assume the officer was not at that point of entry. The football coach who was deemed security, was left unarmed and protected kids with his own body, and subsequently his life.

I know of a lot of veterans who would like to volunteer their time to help guard those entries. I know of a lot of teachers who either are already trained - or would like to train - to carry concealed within the schools. Instead, there is shouting about disarming these law-abiding citizens. I maintain we just SAW what happened to a disarmed population (gun-free zone).

Please tell me logical reasons as to why we cannot, on a local level, move to protect our schools.

The school had armed security and a police presence at the time of the shooting. A lot of good that did.

ONE armed police officer for a school of over 3200 students. And, a large campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

That is why there should be a waiting period to make sure certain people don't get guns.

That is why we should make sure mentally ill people don't have guns.

That is why people should be properly trained and licensed to have a gun.

That is why people with guns should carry the proper insurance.

Those are actually sensible reforms. I'd argue that a gun liscense should be as challenging to optainas a plane liscense, you really have to prove you can use a deadly weapon safely with lots of practice before getting to own one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Criminals don't care about gun regulations.

PROTECT the school kids!!

Criminals don't care about any laws. So why do we bother to have any laws about anything? And yet we do, and most people think it's a good thing.

Let's protect the school kids by making it harder for people who want to murder school kids to get guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big anti-gun rally in FL. Yay!! People are pissed. A small minority of gun owners are destroying our lives. I hope the will of the majority is going to ban assault rifles.

FBI dropped the ball. Rally?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me start out by saying I would have no problem banning AR-15s. Let me also say that I don't think it's the solution liberals think it is.

What I see here is similar to what I saw in the church shooting - that government failed to stop these individuals from getting a weapon in the first place. Cruz was known to both the school and to the FBI. He stated he wanted to shoot up a school. That clearly wasn't an alarm bell to FBI. See something, say something, failed.

We can argue gun control until we are blue in the face. What I'm after in this thread, is the where the security failures are at the LOCAL level and what can be done to prevent future attacks.

We saw with Lanza, he failed to legally procure a gun. He tried. The system worked. Instead he killed his mother, and took hers. She failed to see the danger. He then had to shoot off a lock (from what I understand) to gain entry to the school. There was no officer at the door to stop him - to even give him pause. By the time officers DID get there, children were massacred. Sitting ducks so to speak.

Cruz waltzed right into the school, despite what the school is calling 'tight security'. Unless the officer on premise was killed at the only point of entry (per the superintendent), we can assume the officer was not at that point of entry. The football coach who was deemed security, was left unarmed and protected kids with his own body, and subsequently his life.

I know of a lot of veterans who would like to volunteer their time to help guard those entries. I know of a lot of teachers who either are already trained - or would like to train - to carry concealed within the schools. Instead, there is shouting about disarming these law-abiding citizens. I maintain we just SAW what happened to a disarmed population (gun-free zone).

Please tell me logical reasons as to why we cannot, on a local level, move to protect our schools.

The school had armed security and a police presence at the time of the shooting. A lot of good that did.

ONE armed police officer for a school of over 3200 students. And, a large campus.

And was that officer actually alert and doing their job or on the phone, flirting with teachers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Criminals don't care about gun regulations.

PROTECT the school kids!!

Your falling on deaf ears.

Let them get their legislation and maybe after that when the next mass murder event at a school occurs they'll wake up to that reality and push for measures that make kids safer at school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP. By your standards, schools in European countries, China, Japan, or Australia are very vulnerable. Yet this does not happen. Gee, I wonder why?

Have they ever had the crime the US has? Also plenty of school massacres in china.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Criminals don't care about gun regulations.

PROTECT the school kids!!

Your falling on deaf ears.

Let them get their legislation and maybe after that when the next mass murder event at a school occurs they'll wake up to that reality and push for measures that make kids safer at school.

Np. I feel the same way. If guns were banned I still would not feel safe because I know that if a person is deranged as so many are in the US they will find other ways to kill large amounts of people if they really want to and have no doubt we would see massacres happen in the way of bombs, by guns bought in a black market, or people mowed down like in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP. By your standards, schools in European countries, China, Japan, or Australia are very vulnerable. Yet this does not happen. Gee, I wonder why?

Have they ever had the crime the US has? Also plenty of school massacres in china.

With guns? Really? Could you please link to news reports of two or three of those school massacres with guns in China?

No, those other countries have never had the levels of gun crime the US has, because they regulate guns more than the US. The US doesn't have more crime (in general) than other countries; what the US has more of, is gun crimes.