NRA: Put Armed Officers In Every School.

[Poisonshady313]

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.

Nonsense. Either armed guards in schools make those schools safer, or they don't.

To suggest that armed guards provide protection only to children of public figures, while they provide only danger to children of public schools, is just silly.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I see it as more a function of who has the weapons, rather than the quantity.

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".

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with how CCW license holders comport themselves in the USA.
We do not play with weapons. You could confirm this with Rev Rick.

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

Why?

 

[LuisDantas]

Nonsense. Either armed guards in schools make those schools safer, or they don't.

Because there are no other factors that can possibly create exceptions, is that what you are saying? In the whole USA?

I beg to differ.

Besides, we are not even discussing actual safety, but rather the perception of same. It is still unproven at best that more guns raise safety instead of diminishing it.

To suggest that armed guards provide protection only to children of public figures, while they provide only danger to children of public schools, is just silly.

Yes, it is. I'm happy to have avoided such a silly statement. I'm silly enough as it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see it as more a function of who has the weapons, rather than the quantity.

Makes sense. You probably wouldn't have the stance you have on this matter otherwise.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with how CCW license holders comport themselves in the USA.
We do not play with weapons. You could confirm this with Rev Rick.

I bet you don't. It is probably a requirement for the CCW license, even.

I'm far less willing to bet that the presence of the guns won't be overall detrimental, though.

Why?

Because children are attentive and curious. Part of their growth is learning about "adult things" and attempting to play with them.

I was born in Rio de Janeiro. Illegal concealed weapons carried by otherwise honest citizens are depressingly easy to find there. Which is one of the main reasons why it is so very easy to be shot there, even by accident.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Besides, we are not even discussing actual safety, but rather the perception of same. It is still unproven at best that more guns raise safety instead of diminishing it.

They provide a chance that the Adam Lanzas of the world get shot before they step foot into a classroom. Not a guarantee... but a chance.

But as we've mentioned already, not all safety measures provide a guarantee. Which is why the lack of a guarantee isn't enough to dismiss the use of such safety measures.

I'm happy to have avoided such a silly statement. I'm silly enough as it is.

But you didn't avoid it. You said "Children of public figures are unavoidably under several kinds of risks. They are exceptions,..."

Sounds a lot like you're saying they are exceptionally in need of protection from armed guards, while the rest of the country can't be trusted to provide the same for public school kids.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because children are attentive and curious. Part of their growth is learning about "adult things" and attempting to play with them.

Perhaps things are very different in your country, but here we don't hand over guns to school kids to play with just cuz they're interested.
That would be a crime, ie, lose your license & go to jail. And of course, there is the option of concealing them from the kids.

I was born in Rio de Janeiro. Illegal concealed weapons carried by otherwise honest citizens are depressingly easy to find there. Which is one of the main reasons why it is so very easy to be shot there, even by accident.

Sounds like you guys have a far more severe crime problem than we do.
I wouldn't base our solutions on your demographics.

I'm curious....do you think your country would be safer if all law abiding citizens got rid of their weapons?
(Just them....the criminal element wouldn't give them up.)

 

[Poisonshady313]

Because children are attentive and curious. Part of their growth is learning about "adult things" and attempting to play with them.

My elementary school's DARE officer (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) was a town cop, in uniform, and armed... and nobody was stupid enough to attempt to play with his gun.

Just how careless do you figure these armed guards would be?

 

[LuisDantas]

They provide a chance that the Adam Lanzas of the world get shot before they step foot into a classroom. Not a guarantee... but a chance.

Sorry, that is not good enough for me.

Among other reasons, because they also provide a chance for others to feel that much more tempted to emulate Adam Lanza (since they will be reminded of guns that much more often) and to be that much more insistent on acting with superior firepower and shooting before there is a chance of being talked to.

But then, that is the trouble with most arguments for more guns in schools; they take the danger as a given and don't attempt to actually avoid it.

But as we've mentioned already, not all safety measures provide a guarantee. Which is why the lack of a guarantee isn't enough to dismiss the use of such safety measures.

Of course. But the matter is on another level entirely. Is more liberal CCW policy even a safety measure at all? Or is it rather playing with fire?

But you didn't avoid it.

I most definitely did. It is not my fault that you made a wild assumption that is quite unrelated to what I actually said.

You said "Children of public figures are unavoidably under several kinds of risks. They are exceptions,..."

Sounds a lot like you're saying they are exceptionally in need of protection from armed guards,

It does? If you say so.

while the rest of the country can't be trusted to provide the same for public school kids.

Nope. What I meant was that political considerations will make people treat them differently, not always to their actual benefit.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps things are very different in your country, but here we don't hand over guns to school kids to play with just cuz they're interested.
That would be a crime, ie, lose your license & go to jail. And of course, there is the option of concealing them from the kids.

Smoking cannabis is also a crime in many states, I hear. Illegal things happen when the opportunity presents itself.

Children of CCW licensees will more often than not be at least aware of the guns, and more than a little likely to try to play with them at some point. It makes for exciting conversation matter among young children.

As for concealing, it is a numbers game. Even if most carriers are disciplined and careful, there will always be some exceptions. Multiply the number of guns and so will those exceptions.

Sounds like you guys have a far more severe crime problem than we do.

We do. When I lived in Rio it was commonplace to casually talk about distributing money among two or more places so that robbers would leave us some. Inside the socks was a popular choice for "emergency" money.

I wouldn't base our solutions on your demographics.

Neither would I. Yours is a very different culture. Hopefully it will remain so.

I'm curious....do you think your country would be safer if all law abiding citizens got rid of their weapons?

I wouldn' suggest quite that extreme a measure, of course. But as a matter of fact, yes I do.

(Just them....the criminal element wouldn't give them up.)

Of course not.

But law enforcement would have that much easier a time taking them from criminals; honest citizens would be considerably less likely to become criminals so casually as happens now; and even when one actually met an armed, unrepentant criminal, he would be less likely to try and shoot first in self-defense, or to pack more dangerous and impressive weapons as a deterrent.

For that matter, he would be less likely to try and make a point of earning a lot of money on drugs and/or robberies to buy more dangerous weapons as well.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Sorry, that is not good enough for me.

Among other reasons, because they also provide a chance for others to feel that much more tempted to emulate Adam Lanza (since they will be reminded of guns that much more often) and to be that much more insistent on acting with superior firepower and shooting before there is a chance of being talked to.

The principal and the school psychologist talked to Adam Lanza. They got shot and killed.

And would anyone really be reminded of guns any more often if said guns are concealed?

Of course. But the matter is on another level entirely. Is more liberal CCW policy even a safety measure at all? Or is it rather playing with fire?

If you're letting any random jerk carry a gun to school, then yeah I can see the problem. If you're getting highly trained and qualified armed guards, then it is a safety measure.

 

[LuisDantas]

The principal and the school psychologist talked to Adam Lanza. They got shot and killed.

It might have worked, though. Had someone shot Adam, for all we know that would only encourage the next one to use explosives instead of a rifle. Having qualified shooters at hand seems to me to be a very poor defense against someone who is all but begging to be shot already.

And would anyone really be reminded of guns any more often if said guns are concealed?

In all honesty, I guess that varies from child to child, according to many factors, not least among them how familiar with guns they are from other environments.

But it does ensure a minimum of exposure in daily school routine, which IMO is a bad enough thing in and of itself. Concealed guns will be perceived at some point, and hardly ever forgotten after that.

They may perhaps not actually even see more than a holster every semester, but the concept will accompany the person far more often than that, quite possibly forever changing the perception they have of teachers and school workers.

If you're letting any random jerk carry a gun to school, then yeah I can see the problem. If you're getting highly trained and qualified armed guards, then it is a safety measure.

Given some premises which I happen to find faulty.

 

[Revoltingest]

Smoking cannabis is also a crime in many states, I hear. Illegal things happen when the opportunity presents itself.

Not all illegal things are equally likely.
That a CCW license holder would hand over a gun to a curious school kid is patently ridiculous because it's so wrong in addition to being illegal.
Smoking dope is just illegal. (Although, if you do it while driving, it can go very wrong.)

Children of CCW licensees will more often than not be at least aware of the guns, and more than a little likely to try to play with them at some point. It makes for exciting conversation matter among young children.

You're guessing very incorrectly about this.

As for concealing, it is a numbers game. Even if most carriers are disciplined and careful, there will always be some exceptions. Multiply the number of guns and so will those exceptions.

You cite "numbers" yet I didn't see them. We have between several hundred thousand & several million (depending upon source) cases of self defense with guns here per year. This is one or two orders of magnitude greater than wrongful gun deaths, in which case few involve licensed users. This points towards the net efficacy of using guns for self defense, especially by those who go thru the licensing process.

We do. When I lived in Rio it was commonplace to casually talk about distributing money among two or more places so that robbers would leave us some. Inside the socks was a popular choice for "emergency" money.

Criminy!

I wouldn' suggest quite that extreme a measure, of course. But as a matter of fact, yes I do.

Hmmm....OK.

But law enforcement would have that much easier a time taking them from criminals; honest citizens would be considerably less likely to become criminals so casually as happens now; and even when one actually met an armed, unrepentant criminal, he would be less likely to try and shoot first in self-defense, or to pack more dangerous and impressive weapons as a deterrent.

I've never known anyone to become a criminal just because he (or she) owned a gun.
But I have known people who used them in self defense.

For that matter, he would be less likely to try and make a point of earning a lot of money on drugs and/or robberies to buy more dangerous weapons as well.

That doesn't sound likely. I'd expect their arms race would be about cops & rival gangs rather than ordinary citizens defending themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you're letting any random jerk carry a gun to school, then yeah I can see the problem. If you're getting highly trained and qualified armed guards, then it is a safety measure.

We'll never see widespread use of paid armed guards at schools.
The cost would be prohibitive. And even if it were done, a long period
of no implementation would cause dwindling interest in financing it.

 

[Poisonshady313]

It might have worked, though.

It didn't work. And for someone who is "all but begging to be shot", I have serious doubts about the chances of it ever working.

Had someone shot Adam, for all we know that would only encourage the next one to use explosives instead of a rifle.

Had someone shot Adam, 20 school children in Newtown would still be alive. And the escalation of firepower isn't really a trend that's manifested itself in school shootings... there were explosives used in Columbine.... not so much in Virginia Tech or Newtown.

Having qualified shooters at hand seems to me to be a very poor defense against someone who is all but begging to be shot already.

If they successfully shoot him, especially before he managed to kill children, it wouldn't be a poor defense at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you don't want to see the value of prevention, Poisonshady, then I don't feel responsible for convincing you.

 

[Poisonshady313]

If you don't want to see the value of prevention, Poisonshady, then I don't feel responsible for convincing you.

I see the value of prevention. I want to prevent students from getting shot. Having an armed staff member would be a measure toward that end.

 

[Skwim]

We can use past examples to inform future ifs.

Yup.

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

Not really, because again, if you allow the intervention of any possible "could" you have to allow the interventions of a myriad of other possibilities, any of which could possibly nullify your "could." It's a fools exercise. Stick to future possibilities, letting the past speak for itself, and not what might have been.

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.

Yup.

 

[dust1n]

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?

I said I'm not against resource officers put at high-risk schools. Do I think they help? Probably not. Give it a chance? Enabling a policy nationally at one time isn't giving it a chance, it's enabling the policy nationally at one time. And if there ain't some evidence to back up that it will be effective, or at least, not add to the situation, then it would be literally insane to implement a policy nation-wide that says card-holding gun owners can now bring their weapons to school.

 

[dust1n]

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.

These are the only stats I could find.. from a pro-gun blog quoting the stats of a anti-gun site. I could not find the original stats quoted on the anti-gun site.

"The opponents rely on a litany of horribles. The Violence Policy Center in Washington claims that since May 2007, individuals licensed to carry guns killed 286 private citizens and 11 law enforcement officers and committed 18 mass shootings. This gory record, it asserts, destroys the myth that permit holders are generally law-abiding folks who behave responsibly.


In fact, VPC's own data, when inspected closely, doesn't dent the case for gun rights. Over the past four years, there have been more than 60,000 homicides in the United States. The slayings carried out by permit holders amount to fewer than one of every 200 murders. For every licensee who killed someone, there are more than 20,000 who didn't."

I'm just going to assume "since May 2007" is to early 2011, since that is when it was written. So less than three full years, 297 murders carried out by those who had a license. 100 a year. 18 of the situations involved mass shootings.. 18/3 equals 6 mass shootings per year from permit carriers.

120 dead due to school shootings since 2007, including 2012. 24 per year. Number of deaths homicide firearm 11,493... 2009.

Chances you will be shot at school as a kid, during hours, as opposed to anyone else who is being shot: 1/5th of a percent. On the otherhand, you have 1/2th of a percent chance that the person shooting has a concealed carry license (assuming the reason article quoted above was correct in stating that 1/200 homicides are done by carriers.).

It's 2.5 times more likely someone with a concealed carry license will murder you than it is anyone at all will kill a child at school, including other children in the school.

Let's just assumed there was one extra person per public school, 98,817 at the end 2010. I have .005% chance that a murder that will take place by someone with a concealed carry weapon.

As is stated in the first Reason article (pro-gun) For every 1 concealed weapon killer, there are (over) 20,000 that don't kill. I don't know the actual number because I can't find the stats, but let's just assume it's 22,000.

98,817 public schools. If one concealed weapon carrier was at a school, than we should expect that 4.49 of them will use the gun at the school in a given year.

So are we going to stop 4 1/2 killers per year with the policy? It would have to be that effective at least just to undo the added likelihood that someone with the gun will shoot. 2012 only had 3 school killers. The most schools involved in a single year is 8. In 2012, it was likely that it would not even been possible for a policy to be effective.



The Unconcealed Truth About Carrying Guns - Reason.com

Sandy Hook: A chart of all 137 fatal school shootings since 1980. - Slate Magazine

FASTSTATS - Homicide

Number of U.S. Public Schools — Infoplease.com

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?

The problem with armed trained officers at every school would be the creation of 40 hours per week per school (some of which would be overtime for cops).

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?)

That would be an apt argument, if it didn't sort of imply weird stuff. For example, surgery is usually done to people who are usually already suffering some ailment, and they have agreed to any possible bad outcomes. This is different from kids in a school, who aren't actually in need of a protectorate 99.9 percent of the time. There is little consequence to not doing anything in this situation. There is much consequence to not doing a surgery that is needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

"The opponents rely on a litany of horribles. The Violence Policy Center in Washington claims that since May 2007, individuals licensed to carry guns killed 286 private citizens and 11 law enforcement officers and committed 18 mass shootings. This gory record, it asserts, destroys the myth that permit holders are generally law-abiding folks who behave responsibly.

Given the vast number of CCW licensees, that's a pretty peaceful group.

In fact, VPC's own data, when inspected closely, doesn't dent the case for gun rights. Over the past four years, there have been more than 60,000 homicides in the United States. The slayings carried out by permit holders amount to fewer than one of every 200 murders. For every licensee who killed someone, there are more than 20,000 who didn't."
I'm just going to assume "since May 2007" is to early 2011, since that is when it was written. So less than three full years, 297 murders carried out by those who had a license. 100 a year. 18 of the situations involved mass shootings.. 18/3 equals 6 mass shootings per year from permit carriers.
120 dead due to school shootings since 2007, including 2012. 24 per year. Number of deaths homicide firearm 11,493... 2009.
Chances you will be shot at school as a kid, during hours, as opposed to anyone else who is being shot: 1/5th of a percent. On the otherhand, you have 1/2th of a percent chance that the person shooting has a concealed carry license (assuming the reason article quoted above was correct in stating that 1/200 homicides are done by carriers.).

Those chances seem impossibly high.
We don't have nearly that many shootings here.

It's 2.5 times more likely someone with a concealed carry license will murder you than it is anyone at all will kill a child at school, including other children in the school.
Let's just assumed there was one extra person per public school, 98,817 at the end 2010. I have .005% chance that a murder that will take place by someone with a concealed carry weapon.
As is stated in the first Reason article (pro-gun) For every 1 concealed weapon killer, there are (over) 20,000 that don't kill. I don't know the actual number because I can't find the stats, but let's just assume it's 22,000.
98,817 public schools. If one concealed weapon carrier was at a school, than we should expect that 4.49 of them will use the gun at the school in a given year.
So are we going to stop 4 1/2 killers per year with the policy? It would have to be that effective at least just to undo the added likelihood that someone with the gun will shoot. 2012 only had 3 school killers. The most schools involved in a single year is 8. In 2012, it was likely that it would not even been possible for a policy to be effective.
The Unconcealed Truth About Carrying Guns - Reason.com
Sandy Hook: A chart of all 137 fatal school shootings since 1980. - Slate Magazine
FASTSTATS - Homicide
Number of U.S. Public Schools — Infoplease.com
The problem with armed trained officers at every school would be the creation of 40 hours per week per school (some of which would be overtime for cops).

It looks unreasonably expensive to pay for armed guards at schools.
That's why I favor simply allowing concealed carry by staff, who are already on the job.

That would be an apt argument, if it didn't sort of imply weird stuff. For example, surgery is usually done to people who are usually already suffering some ailment, and they have agreed to any possible bad outcomes. This is different from kids in a school, who aren't actually in need of a protectorate 99.9 percent of the time. There is little consequence to not doing anything in this situation. There is much consequence to not doing a surgery that is needed.

True dat, which is why I reject arguments based on possibility instead of probability.