RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Vermont may not need it ... since they permit both open and concealed carry without a permit, and have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the United States:
Gun laws in Vermont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NRA calls for Armed Police and/or Armed Guards in all Schools
- Thread starter bobwg
- Start date
Gun laws in Vermont - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Again, several different ways it can be played. You can have different cops spend 2 hours of their day there, or cops on light duty. Just cops on light duty, returning from an injury, would put a big dent in it. Add uniformed guards plus volunteer parents... The parents would play the bigger role. The uniform is just there because some would be deterred by it.
It can be done, by a combination of methods.
It does matter how it is handled as long as the Federal Government is NOT involved. It is frankly none of their business. These are local issues.
bobwg
Expert Expediter
I would say 2 cops/guards 1 uniformed which would prevent an attack in most cases and 1 undercover /plain clothes would be secondary line of defense and then any teacher /school administrator willing to be trained as a last line of defense. so were talking 600,000 that would help put some people back to work.
One, how is it going to be paid for. Two, is this a local, state or federal responsibility/program?
I suggest that the feds need to state at home on this and each individual school district should decide, for themselves, what to do, how to do it and how to pay for it. Those who have to foot the bill should have the last word.
bobwg
Expert Expediter
Yes I agree it is up to each local school district and the parents and local law to work together and decide what they think is best for them
On the theory you get what you pay for, counting all the costs of these uniformed and stealth operatives, paying enough to get quality people and not just anyone who can fog a mirror, we're looking at a minimum of $40k per year per person. For the 300k some have been suggesting that's an annual cost of $12B. That's twelve billion with a B. Now for the 600k just suggested that would be $24B a year. That's compared to a cost of authorizing properly trained and tested citizens who choose to participate in a sensible program of, oh that's right, ZERO dollars.
One security person is better than zero and two are better than one. Then again, when the one is suddenly ill and either can't show up or has to go home the school is unprotected. Then again, when the one lone guard is at the far end of the building and just gets unbuckled and seated and an event starts at the far end of the building the school is unprotected. Then again, how do we pay for it? School districts are broke. They can't afford $24 much less $24Billion dollars. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding the most sensible solution. When you have 100 admin, teachers and staff and any or ALL of those 100 can if they so choose be armed and prepared to defend the students you don't have to worry who went to the bathroom or who called in sick. There are plenty remaining just in case.
One security person is better than zero and two are better than one. Then again, when the one is suddenly ill and either can't show up or has to go home the school is unprotected. Then again, when the one lone guard is at the far end of the building and just gets unbuckled and seated and an event starts at the far end of the building the school is unprotected. Then again, how do we pay for it? School districts are broke. They can't afford $24 much less $24Billion dollars. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding the most sensible solution. When you have 100 admin, teachers and staff and any or ALL of those 100 can if they so choose be armed and prepared to defend the students you don't have to worry who went to the bathroom or who called in sick. There are plenty remaining just in case.
Last edited:
If some school districts can cover the costs of paid guards, let them. IF teachers and admin wish to get trained, let them. Just keep all decisions in each individual district. This is STRICTLY a LOCAL matter. Let's keep it there.
True, someone does have to be wrong and they have chosen to be.
apparently restricting some kinds of firearms has been done before...
They have been destroying our Constitution one step at a time. Each step brings us closer to the brink. We may have already reached the tipping point if what I have been seeing at gun shops and ranges are any indication. It also proves that NONE of those restrictions have helped since ALL types of outlawed guns are STILL used in crimes. As predicted, with each law passed, with each new restriction, crime goes up.
We did not learn our lesson with booze. Prohibition did not work and there are STILL revenuers chasing moonshiners. Prohibition of drugs has not worked. It has built entire criminal enterprises that have become SO BIG they are threatening to bring down an entire nation's government in Mexico. Illegal guns coming INTO the United States is already a problem and that black market will continue to grow out of control as tighter restrictions are put into place.
The BIG jump in guns crimes started just AFTER the 1968 law was passed.
Also, keep in mind, that CT already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. The 5th most restrictive. The sale of 'assault rifles' is illegal there and those owned prior too that going into effect have to be registered. I am under the impression from reports I have heard that the rifle used in that school was legally registered. Which again proves that NONE of these laws stops crime.
Last edited:
That is why when lawmakers or news people say crap about automatic weapons you know they are full of BS and trying to scare people.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums mobile app
The answer is on the local level with qualified individuals. A rural school may get by with a few armed teachers but a inter-city school may require more. It has to be thoroughly thought out and planned because one wrong shooting will have liability lawyers all over the place.
Also, keep in mind that just having guns on the premise is no way a cureall.
Just think the Fort Hood shooting. Guns and people armed everywhere. We seen how that went.
Also, keep in mind that just having guns on the premise is no way a cureall.
Just think the Fort Hood shooting. Guns and people armed everywhere. We seen how that went.
It is called LYING through their teeth. Same when they use terms like 'gun culture' or 'high power rifle'. It is OBVIOUS for anyone who makes an effort to LEARN the facts. Few do.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Gee ... I wonder what other matters they might be doing this with ...
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Yes, and 150 years ago, one man could own another. All nice and legal. Not everything historical is right.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
The liability issue - for school districts, school boards and/or school administrators - is huge ... and is probably why the idea of allowing "armed citizens" on school campuses ... willy-nilly ... will never happen in most places ...
Precisely ... at the very best, it's a slight deterrent ... given the usual mindset of those that are prone to commit such acts ...
Where someone has the intent to do harm and is highly motivated, they will find a way ... particularly if they are psychopathic ...
You want to place armed personnel in your schools to defend them ?
How will you defend the school lunches the kids are served ?
How about the buses kids ride home on ?
The possibilities to do harm are probably near endless ... just use your imagination ...
Last edited: