10

School shooting. Is it time for armed security on all campuses?

Posted by LetsShrug 12 years, 4 months ago to News
320 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The school shooting at an elementary school in CT yesterday is particularly unsettling to me, as I work at an elementary school and most of my day is spent in the Kindergarten classrooms working with 5 and 6 years olds. I am not, however, one of those who are saying that something like this happening is "unfathomable". I'm probably viewed as being a little on the paranoid side among my peers because I always jump to the extreme when anything seems a little off kilter.

For example, a few weeks ago I heard office staff talking on the radio that the overhead system (speakers) weren't working for some reason and I immediately grabbed a few extra radios and passed them out to teachers saying, "keep this on your person until the overhead gets fixed", some looked at me perplexed until I explained, "What if somebody's tampered with our speaker system? If something crazy happens we won't be able to communicate...call me nuts I don't care just take a friggin' radio!" I got different reactions from them. Some were surprised with my train of thought and others were appreciative of my preparedness. The speaker system was quickly fixed and all was well.

Maybe I am being extreme, but when I see kids on the playground, or sitting in a classroom, it has crossed my mind that 'if some lunatic wanted to cause chaos here it could be easily done', but let's face it because it's true...as we have just seen, once again. I was at a Christmas dinner last night with my book club friends (almost all teachers) and eventually the school shooting topic did come up, although we had vowed to avoid it for the evening because it is so upsetting. We didn't talk about it for too long, but we quickly came to the conclusion that there is no real way to make a school "totally secure" from an intruder if someone is so inclined to intrude.

Sure, there are certain "security" measures in place, enforcing them is a priority, keeping the kids safe at all times is paramount (even to the extreme of not letting children 'chase' each other on the playground to avoid injuries...and I could write a book about all the bloody noses and head lumps that result from this practically daily because enforcing the "no chasing" rule on a playground with 90 kindergartners is just as difficult as maintaining a "secure school"...you do your best, but if they're inclined to chase, they're going to chase...they're 5 year olds and that's what they want to do).

I've been thinking about school security a lot this morning, watching the news etc. and the topic of having an armed security officer/cop on every campus has been brought up. (Gun control has also been brought up, but being a gun enthusiast and freedom lover and a believer in having a right to defend myself and my family I do not believe that adding more gun laws to the books will do a damned thing to stop lunacy.) So I'm wondering... is it time to privatize schools and add an armed officer to each campus? Or should some charter schools pop up offering this service on campus, giving parents a choice of sending their children to schools where they think their kids will be as safe as possible?

Sure, some parents would opt to not have their kids attend a school where there is a gun present ANY where on campus, even if it's holstered on a hip of a trained law enforcement officer and that's their choice to do so, but is it time to do this? Would public schools ever offer this? (I'm sure the unions would love it as they could collect union dues from an officer too), but it would work against their current gun control agenda so I'm not so sure really.

What say you?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 4.
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hey...my French class included a VERY cute and very FUNNY Aussie who knew how to play Euchre (which makes NO sense but added to the allure, let me tell you). Yes... I KNOW... but it's pool night and I'm headed there now. I will, I will and I really want to too, but I'm swamped by life. (I'm also dropping Agenda 21 at the library and grabbing that 5000 book tonight too.) My 'homework' is next on the list...pinky swear!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That was very well reasoned AND logical. :) Thanks Uncommon. (I get the feeling the "NO!" is highly emotional....so I'm still waiting for d2's logic to set in..... not holding my breath tho.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by UncommonSense 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Did you ever wonder why the cowards who do such despicable acts don't commit them in police stations? Why not at gun conventions? Hmmmm?

    BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE ARMED. Duh. "Gun-Free Zones" encourage violence by enabling the criminal mindset of no DEFENSE from their victims.

    Zones in which guns are obvious are actually "Violence Free Zones" because no dumb a$s criminal would knowingly go into a firefight where the playing field is equal. The only way a criminal can get away with violence, especially when they want to use a gun, is when THE STATE grants the criminal a MONOPOLY on power by denying law-abiding, productive citizens of the right to bear arms to defend themselves from the evil that walks among us.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Why not? (And I'm requesting a well reasoned and logical answer from you, not some emotional, feel good bullshit....Proceed.)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CatieM 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I bet children would be better behaved too :) Not that being shot by your teacher would be a real threat, but children do have imaginations
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "What do I mean "accepted?" Well, when children are taught more and more that they evolved from primordial stew based on chance time and circumstances, then all we are is a bag of reacting and responding chemicals which means the setting of standards for behavior are societal and cultural and not from an extraneous source such as God."

    You have created a false dichotomy. The "setting of standards of behavior" is not not only do by society/culture or god.

    "Even when Ms. Rand promoted objectivism, she stated the highest ideal is the value of man's ability to think and must always act in consistency with what his thinking lead him to. Well, doesn't that mean that if this perpetrator sought to destroy innocent blood as his highest ideal, isn't that okay?"

    No, it's not ok because it takes away another person's ability to think.

    "Who is to say that isn't okay, especially if we are just a bag of chemicals."

    I say it based on reality. Your second clause is completely unnecessary to your first. Why slide it in there? It makes it seem like you are snidely deriding anyone who opposes you as seeing life as meaningless.

    "Only absolutes come from God and when you start there and believe that man has the highest living value in this world because he is in God's image and only God, which is the Creator and can legitimately add or remove life, then you can begin to build a society who realizes that taking innocent life, no matter how many and how often, is (and may I be so bold to say it) simply wrong."

    Absolutes come from reality because there can be no reality without absolutes. A tree is a tree. When it snows, it is snowing. Where did those rules come from? They always were because there could nothing without them,
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sure...what do you think the title should be? To be...or not to be? Just not sure. Absolutes vs. relativism?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    jorellyoung and I moved our comments hoping you would join the conversation, but the post kind of died. I think you should start one. It's an interesting discussion and if I have anything to add, I'll participate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes...and if an armed intruder/murderer enters school property then he is "coming after" yours, mine and everybody elses...kids, which is exactly why they should be met by someone who is defending and protecting them...just like you would your own kids if it happened at your home. It's a simple concept to have schools with armed guards for those who want it and for those who don't agree then they can go to schools with like minded staff and the school will be unarmed. I think it should be a choice of the parents, but the option should definitely be there. Plus it would make for an extremely interesting study.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CatieM 12 years, 4 months ago
    "Absolutely not!!!! The more people who believe in violence and the more people who have guns, the more gun sales and use is perpetuated."

    This was copied from a facebook thing. Like if teachers should carry guns, comment if they shouldn't.

    I am the most passive person on the planet, and am extremely non-violent. I own a gun. You come after me and mine, I won't think twice.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I know ALL about religion and Christianity.... thank you. I was steeped in it my entire childhood....until we all woke up (from organized religion). We no longer practice, but none of us are atheists either. It's a personal issue...no need to preach.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wicked?? Normally I would give someone a point for using wicked in a sentence. But the way you are using it to describe Objectivism is unproductive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by flanap 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry, couldn't reply to your post below stating "I meant guilt in relationship to religion." I know that Christianity is thrown in the basket with "religion" but it isn't a religion and I am not religious; however, for the sake of argument, I will grant it for this purpose.

    My question still stands because in some religions, you are prone to guilty feelings due to aberrant behavior in light of stated religious standards; then there is Christianity where the only guilt that matters is the legal guilt that we are all sinners from our creation in the womb and guilty before God and need redemption through Christ. All other "religions" require guilt to manufacture redemption amongst their followers.

    Actually, this type of guilt in Christianity is a sin because it prevents one from maturing in the Christian life in pursuit of Christ's likeness.

    I frankly despise the imposition of guilt feelings by religions since they don't offer anything except a straw man waiting to be burned.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree actually. I think any deterrents or other defense ideas would be less effective as immediately being met with firearms. However, letting school staff defend themselves and the students with guns will NOT be the first option that gets tried.... other, more easy to swallow tactics (by those who hate guns) will be implemented first...and when they fail repeatedly then they might listen to logic. Which is terribly sad that some just can't come to terms with the best remedy in the first place. But since the shootings meets their agenda to ban guns they can't very well go along with arming adults in schools for protection can they? Sounds like a grand predicament.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No one is running and hiding, unless you think putting children in a safe place while dealing with a potential mass killer as unmanly?!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm sure Blaze can give a whole list of possible deterrents. The definition of deterrent is to slow someone down. Here are some I thought of-one of those bedazzling lamps, stun grenades, tear gas canisters, laser induced plasma channel (I'm doing someone's job today :)) I am not saying in place of guns, just other options in the meantime until everyone is on the same page about arming schools.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That you see everything that doesn't match up with your beliefs as 'leftist' makes you far worse than any socialist, that's is exactly how they think. Sorry but leftist would not come up with safe rooms they would come up with banning all guns.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by khalling 12 years, 4 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You hit a permalink. I have said this several times and you ignore me, but I agree that guns are the best weapon, in the hands of trained individuals when these killers act. I'm not going to say it again, so attend me now.
    But the fact that laws passed limiting where and when we can have our guns is also on point. That is a much larger question which I say so far aren't always the best s solution. For example, atomic bombs effectively ended the war with Japan. Our country has been sliding downhill for some time and I again put it to you-your gun did not stop Obama from becoming President, OBamacare passing, Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank from passing. and if stricter gun laws are passed tomorrow-you and your gun have been powerless in the changes our nation have gone through. Guns did not stop over 100M killed due to some lunatics who wrote about collectivism over 100 years ago. and your gun didn't stop Silent Spring from influencing , leading to the deaths of another 100M worldwide. The reason someone is going to shoot at you either through organized govt or crackpots is due to what people wrote! You are a fool for not spending more time in here persuading people to consider leaving, how to organize, Rand left the USSR with her wits and influenced millions of people with her philosophy. y and not wih a gun. how can that be possible under your logic?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo