Reply to Should we keep armed guards at schools?

Forum Index » Schools and Education General Discussion

Reply to "Should we keep armed guards at schools?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics