NRA: Put Armed Officers In Every School.

[Skwim]

It's also possible that if Lanza's mother never had a gun, he would have gotten a gun from somewhere else and proceeded to go on his shooting spree.

And if he had gone to get a gun and got run over by a bus he wouldn't be able to go on his shooting spree. The point is, "if" and "could have (see ↓)" scenarios are pointless.

Regardless of where the guns come from... whether they're legally obtained or not... by the time the gunman steps onto the campus, there ought to be some form of defense for the children inside. An armed staffer could have shot Lanza and saved the lives of 20 children.

And an armed staffer could have missed and ended up being shot herself.

Will it prevent all incidents? Obviously not. Will it eliminate all casualties? No. Will it reduce casualties and prevent some incidents? Yes.

Or not? Yes.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Adding guns or banning guns isn't actually going to change anything about the nature of killing people. Addressing why people want to kill people would be a good way to go... addressing root causes and what not.

Psychiatric care, good education, availability of abortion, community outreach programs, a working economy that pays people, access to healthcare, etc.

These are ways to address people wanting to kill other people.

That's 100% true.

However, at the point when there's a gunman intent on shooting children inside a school, should we just throw up our hands and say "oh well, society drove him to this, those kids are screwed, let's just hope he doesn't have good aim"?

Or can we attempt to protect those kids by having someone around who can take out that shooter before he kills anyone?

 

[Poisonshady313]

And if he had gone to get a gun and got run over by a bus he wouldn't be able to go on his shooting spree. The point is, "if" and "could have (see ↓)" scenarios are pointless.

If that's the case, then nobody should ever enact any safety/security measures anywhere ever, because whatever is going to happen is going to happen... no point trying to prevent or at least minimize it, right?

And an armed staffer could have missed and ended up being shot herself.

Or... could have not missed and saved the lives of 20 children.

 

[dust1n]

That's 100% true.

However, at the point when there's a gunman intent on shooting children inside a school, should we just throw up our hands and say "oh well, society drove him to this, those kids are screwed, let's just hope he doesn't have good aim"?

Or can we attempt to protect those kids by having someone around who can take out that shooter before he kills anyone?

Seeing how the average school shooting death per year is about 8, I see allowing armed individuals on campus only increasing the number, instead of lowering it. We can attempt to do all sorts of things... and with the best of intentions... but, that doesn't mean the results will be effective.

Even then, that sort of rhetoric isn't going to be especially effective on me. If we were supposedly interested about the well being of kids, we'd be trying to fight pneumonia, AIDS, malaria, and for access to clean water around the world.

I'm sorry for all the kids and their families. Many tragedies occur daily... sucks. But it makes no sense to me to expect armed teacher's to be effective at reducing the tiny number of kids that die by gun at school each year. A school is a relatively big place... a shooter can access a school a number of ways and even if there were a handle full of armed teachers or staff, there isn't any guarantee the number of lives taken will be lower, and there isn't any guarantee something bad couldn't happen having new guns there. Things like that could serve to give more ammunition to someone who is already trying to kill people.

Effective lock down strategies would probably be better than just having random people carry guns onto school and expect a firefight to work in one's favor every time.

 

[dust1n]

Or... could have not missed and saved the lives of 20 children.

Man, it's hard to argue against a position that essentially consist of 'my argument played out might have stopped 20 kids from dying.'

 

[Apex]

Hey guys, what if a giant asteroid hits the Earth tomorrow, killing all life?

 

[Poisonshady313]

People who wear seatbelts might still be killed... is that a reason to do away with seatbelts, when their purpose is to prevent/minimize harm?

People at a beach/pool where a lifeguard is present might still drown... is that a reason to do away with lifeguards, when their purpose is to prevent/minimize harm?

Pedestrians crossing the street might still get run over, even though there are crosswalks and traffic signals to prevent/minimize this sort of thing. Shall we do away with them too?

Since when do we stop trying to prevent or minimize harm just because the method might not be 100% effective?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hey guys, what if a giant asteroid hits the Earth tomorrow, killing all life?

There will be nobody around to study why it happened or to pass a few laws restricting asteroids from hitting earth again.

 

[Skwim]

If that's the case, then nobody should ever enact any safety/security measures anywhere ever, because whatever is going to happen is going to happen... no point trying to prevent or at least minimize it, right?

*sigh* Considerations of future "ifs" are sometimes quite productive, but this wasn't the sort of "if"s you were presenting. Yours "ifs' were all about changing past conditions:

". . .if either the principal or psychologist, or anyone else on that staff were armed, someone could have . . "

"if Lanza's mother never had a gun,.
​

Or... could have not missed and saved the lives of 20 children.

Speculation about what the past would have been, are pointless, because all kinds of differing "ya, but. . . .s" can be asserted almost ad infinitum. It's a fruitless child's game.

 

[Poisonshady313]

*sigh* Considerations of future "ifs" are sometimes quite productive, but this wasn't the sort of "if"s you were presenting. Yours "ifs' were all about changing past conditions:

". . .if either the principal or psychologist, or anyone else on that staff were armed, someone could have . . "

"if Lanza's mother never had a gun,.
​

Speculation about what the past would have been, are pointless, because all kinds of differing "ya, but. . . .s" can be asserted almost ad infinitum. It's a fruitless child's game.

We can use past examples to inform future ifs.

Like deciding to put a traffic signal at a particular intersection. Traffic lights don't necessarily eliminate car accidents... but when a car accident happens in a place where there probably should be a signal, we can say "perhaps if it were here earlier, this particular accident could have been avoided". That's not to say it necessarily would have... but that's why we make the decision to go ahead and put in the signal so that in the future, perhaps similar car accidents may be avoided.

You're right. Speculation about what WOULD have been is pointless. Speculation about what COULD have been is useful.

Put an armed guard in a school. He won't necessarily prevent all school shootings... but he COULD take out a shooter before he steps foot into a classroom. There's a chance he could be ineffective, like in Columbine.... but without him, there's not even a chance for him to be effective.

I like the idea of increasing the chances of reducing harm, rather than leaving things as they are, and hope that a relatively rare occurrence becomes relatively more rare by making it harder, but not impossible, to obtain weapons.

 

[dust1n]

Since when do we stop trying to prevent or minimize harm just because the method might not be 100% effective?

Having more guns at school might be counter-effective.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Having more guns at school might be counter-effective.

Irony abounds. Those who decry the existence of armed guards at schools in general will make an exception for their own....
Gregory Mocks LaPierre for Proposing Armed Guards, but Sends Kids to High-Security School | The Weekly Standard
Those Quakers must be a violence prone bunch if they need 11 armed guards (& looking to expand) for the school.
But apparently schools with an even greater violence problem should be denied such protection.

Apparently, that's a chance David Gregory and Barack Obama are willing to take in the school where they send their children.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seeing how the average school shooting death per year is about 8, I see allowing armed individuals on campus only increasing the number, instead of lowering it.

That could be examined. How many licensed concealed carriers perpetrate wrongful shootings per year? This would give
us a probability of x shootings per person per year. Multiply x by the number of licensed concealed carriers in the school.
I couldn't find the numbers, but in MI it's about zero.

But let's take your claim & apply it to armed guards. Is the school where Obama's kids go (Sidwell) made more dangerous
by the dozen or so armed guards (private citizens) there?

We can attempt to do all sorts of things... and with the best of intentions... but, that doesn't mean the results will be effective.

This would be an excellent argument against surgery too.
Despite the best intentions of the surgeon, it could go wrong.
(How's that for reduction ad absurdicalistic?)

 

[dust1n]

Apparently, that's a chance David Gregory and Barack Obama are willing to take in the school where they send their children.

It's a little difficult to tell the usefulness of this proposed program off the fact a single private school which is filled with the high income families has had no shootings before or after armed guards being there.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It's a little difficult to tell the usefulness of this proposed program off the fact a single private school which is filled with the high income families has had no shootings before or after armed guards being there.

So then why dismiss it? Why not give it a chance? Do you believe Obama's children are at higher risk of dying by gunfire because they have armed guards at their school?

 

[LuisDantas]

Children of public figures are unavoidably under several kinds of risks. They are exceptions, and it is premature to draw any conclusions about the general situations from them.

Why not give it a chance? Because, Poisonshady, once the cat is out of the bag you can't put it back without a lot of effort and sorrow.

 

[Revoltingest]

Children of public figures are unavoidably under several kinds of risks. They are exceptions.....

Poor inner city kids face greater risks than wealthy upper crust types.
Why can't they be exceptions entitled to a safer school too?

Why not give it a chance? Because, Poisonshady, once the cat is out of the bag you can't put it back without a lot of effort and sorrow.

To allow CCW holders to carry in schools is a reversible decision.
It would be a worth thing to try.

 

[LuisDantas]

Poor inner city kids face greater risks than wealthy upper crust types.
Why can't they be exceptions entitled to a safer school too?

I'm not sure they qualify as exceptions, much less that the road to a safer school involves more weapons in the first place.

To allow CCW holders to carry in schools is a reversible decision.
It would be a worth thing to try.

Reversible to the holders. But what about the children?

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not sure they qualify as exceptions, much less that the road to a safer school involves more weapons in the first place.

Do you think Sidwell would be safer if the armed guards were sent packing?

Reversible to the holders. But what about the children?

You presume the only result would be that CCW holders would turn on the kids.
I say they're more likely to defend the kids. A trial run would shed light on this.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you think Sidwell would be safer if the armed guards were sent packing?

I don't know enough about Sidwell. Generally speaking, yes, I believe most schools would be safer with less weapons, not more.

You presume the only result would be that CCW holders would turn on the kids.

No. I presume instead that the very casual presence of so many guns at school would make attempts at playing with weapons and even stealing them (from their own parents, even) that much more likely. It would send the message that there is no significant danger in carrying weapons, or that they are "cool".

I say they're more likely to defend the kids. A trial run would shed light on this.

Of course they are more likely to defend the kids. And they are more likely to have to, as well.