NRA calls for Armed Police and/or Armed Guards in all Schools

[layoutshooter]

School buses have been hijacked before. Only a fool would believe that we can stop 100% of these things from happening.

These things are just gleefully being used by some to restrict freedom and destroy the Constitution.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

wonder if flying schools are still teaching students who show no interest in landing skills as long as they show the cash?....

 

[davekc]

I think much of it is a knee-jerk reaction. The reality compared to the amount of schools and the frequency of school shootings the numbers are less than 1 percent. As mentioned, you are never going to protect everyone including kids 100 percent of the time. Just a hard reality.
Some safe guards can be put in place but the impact will be small. Keep in mind, that some schools already have police or security on the premise yet shootings still persist.
The only difference is once you step outside the psychopaths, they shoot each other over drugs, gang crap, tennis shoes, all kinds of crazy stuff.

 

[layoutshooter]

I think much of it is a knee-jerk reaction. The reality compared to the amount of schools and the frequency of school shootings the numbers are less than 1 percent. As mentioned, you are never going to protect everyone including kids 100 percent of the time. Just a hard reality.
Some safe guards can be put in place but the impact will be small. Keep in mind, that some schools already have police or security on the premise yet shootings still persist.
The only difference is once you step outside the psychopaths, they shoot each other over drugs, gang crap, tennis shoes, all kinds of crazy stuff.

There may some knee-jerk reaction going on in the general public but NOT from the administration or many in congress. The election IS over. They can now do as they please. You can bet your turkey that they have a VERY long, complicated bill, already written. They were just waiting for the right moment to drag it out. It will only take Biden a few weeks to 'come up with the answer'. That bill will greatly restrict not only individual rights but states rights as well. It will be chocked full of 'hidden taxes' and will provide massive, intrusive power to the federal government. All of this bill will be opposed to the Constitution and freedom, which is their SOLE GOAL for these move. They don't give a rats behind about saving kids lives or stopping crimes. These incidents are just opportunities for them to impose their will on the People.

 

[RLENT]

An interesting article - one which raises some very important and relevant questions - regardless of what one might think of a number assumptions the article makes, or positions the author takes:

Don’t Disarm the Mentally Ill

by Mark R. Crovelli

The school shooting in Connecticut last week has provoked a slew of hysterical calls for gun control in the United States. Big surprise, I know. What makes the calls for "regulation" and "sensible gun laws" somewhat unique this time around is the focus on mental illness. The fact that the Connecticut shooter is alleged to have been mentally ill is being used by some as an argument for further disarming the mentally ill in general. (It is also interesting that so little focus has hitherto been placed on the dangerous drugs these shooters are all taking, rather than mental illness itself).

Gun rights groups have understandably steered clear of the mental illness issue. On first glance, it just seems like common sense that people with mental illness should not be running around the streets with guns, and groups like the NRA have sidestepped the issue in order to focus on other concerns, like making sure an assault weapons ban is not reinstated. This looks like a politically savvy move by these groups, but it is also a cowardly way to avoid having to stand up for a very vulnerable and voiceless group of people. If these gun rights groups had any worth at all, or if they had one shred of moral fortitude, it would be time for them to stand up for the rights of this extremely vulnerable group of people. Since there is virtually no chance of this happening, it is important for us as individuals to stand up for the gun rights of the mentally ill.

Tackling the issue of mental illness and guns is not nearly as politically dangerous as gun rights groups think. On the contrary, there are so many people in the United States that could potentially be classified as "mentally ill" by the state that it is politically dangerous for these groups to not stand up for them. As much as 20% of the adult population in the United States could be classified as having a mental illness in 2011 alone! With that many people at risk of being disarmed, (if they haven’t been so already), the gun rights groups are just plain crazy not to stand up for them.

In addition, the entire case for disarming the mentally ill is based more upon fear and misconceptions rather than rational argument. In the first place, there is the gigantic problem of deciding who is to be considered mentally ill. Most people probably have in mind disarming delusional schizophrenics walking around in bunny slippers, an image the gun control crowd has fostered, but mental illness is a much broader concept than that.

For example, if a medical student suffers a panic attack due to stress and is institutionalized for a day or two, does that mean that she is mentally ill and should be disarmed? If so, for how long will she lose her right to bear arms, and who is to decide if and when she is to recover her ability to defend herself? Or, what about the estimated 11% of Americans who are taking antidepressants? Are these people also mentally ill, and will they be disarmed as well? What if a person took antidepressants years ago, but has since stopped taking them? Is he mentally ill, and will he be disarmed? Or, even more dangerous, what if a prescription-happy doctor tells you to take antidepressants, but you don’t want them and don’t even take them? Would you still be classified as having been diagnosed with mental illness and lose your right to own guns? These are just a few of the fantastically insidious implications of disarming the mentally ill even more than they already have been.

The implications of disarming the mentally ill go far beyond merely the civilian population, because our armed services are absolutely chock filled with people who could and probably would be classified as mentally ill. The astounding rate at which soldiers are killing themselves testifies to this fact, as does the astounding 110,000 soldiers who are taking powerful antidepressant, sedative and antipsychotic medications. Are these people to be disarmed as well? If so, where would that leave our military? What about when these soldiers return home with emotional and other mental problems, are we going to add insult to injury and tell them that we are going to disarm them as well? Thanks for sacrificing your mental health, soldier, your reward is to lose your right to own guns.

These are just some of the practical implications that would flow from completely disarming the mentally ill in this country, but there are still other ethical problems that would flow from it as well. Many of the more seriously mentally ill persons in this country are incapable of holding down remunerative work, and many thus live in poorer parts of the cities in this country that are far from safe. To disarm these people, many of whom are already easy targets of crime, is to make them even more vulnerable for exploitation and injury. To disarm these people completely would be to broadcast from the rooftops to the criminals of this country that it was open season on the mentally ill. Want an easy mark that you know is not armed, just pick out the nearest mentally ill person!

Also bear in mind that, because there are so very many people in this country who can be classified as mentally ill, and current laws for restricting their gun rights are ineffective, there are currently millions upon millions of mentally ill people with guns in America. This fact alone should alert us to the fact that mentally ill people are overwhelmingly capable of owning guns responsibly, just like people without mental illness. These millions of responsible mentally ill are completely overlooked, as if it is impossible for a mentally ill person to refrain from shooting people, which is just plain silly.

The firearm is the great equalizer for weak and vulnerable people, like the mentally ill and the elderly (many of whom are depressed, and could thus also be classified as mentally ill!). To take away a weak or vulnerable person’s right to defend himself is self-righteous, cowardly, and wrong. All people have the right to defend themselves against aggression. This is just as true of the mentally ill as it is of anyone else. Getting sick, whether physically or mentally, should not mean that you lose your right to defend yourself.

If this doesn’t convince you, remember that there has been a long tradition in the United States of using psychology as a weapon against the weak and vulnerable. If the mentally ill are disarmed today, you could easily find yourself diagnosed as mentally ill tomorrow. When that happens, you will wish that you had stood up for the rights of the weakest among us.

December 24, 2012

​

Mark R. Crovelli [send him mail] writes from Denver, Colorado.

Copyright © 2012 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.​

Don’t Disarm the Mentally Ill by Mark R. Crovelli

 

[davekc]

Excellent article on the mentally ill, however you can bet that isn't mentioned with whatever new regulations they come up with.

 

[layoutshooter]

" The astounding rate at which soldiers are killing themselves testifies to this fact, as does the astounding110,000 soldiers who are taking powerful antidepressant, sedative and antipsychotic medications."



What is being done in the military with these drugs is criminal. Many have been sent back into combat when on 'drug cocktails' that require NO COMBAT when they are on them. There is a particular problem in "Sryker Brigades" and at Ft. Lewis. Over 50 from Ft. Lewis Stryker Brigades have had to go to Walter Reed for follow up work after having problems.

 

[scottm4211]

What is being done in the military with these drugs is criminal.

The same could be said about sick children.

 

[layoutshooter]

The same could be said about sick children.

I am not sure I know what you mean.

What is being done in the military, under orders from this administration, is a "cost cutting" program. The administration was trying to STOP paying lifetime disability benefits for those who have been messed up by these drugs and the effects of combat. They just sent them back in to line units, and in many cases, back into combat.

 

[RLENT]

The same could be said about sick children.

Indeed it could ...

 

[aristotle]

Indeed, having armed security in our schools is a local issue. Some school districts will choose this option, while many will not choose to be armed.

Having an armed presence is a potent deterrent. As mentioned in another thread, since the Israelis implemented a policy of having armed security at their schools in the 1970's, they have experienced zeo mass shootings at any school.

To the best of my knowledge, all mass shootings at American K-12 schools have taken place where no armed security was present.

These shooters want soft targets where they can control the outcome until their bloodlust is satisfied. Cowards, one and all, they kill themselves as police close in. These are suicide missions from the outset. In the case of Adam Lanza, his to-do list was matricide-homicide-suicide.

 

[davekc]

Indeed, having armed security in our schools is a local issue. Some school districts will choose this option, while many will not choose to be armed.

Having an armed presence is a potent deterrent. As mentioned in another thread, since the Israelis implemented a policy of having armed security at their schools in the 1970's, they have experienced zeo mass shootings at any school.

To the best of my knowledge, all mass shootings at American K-12 schools have taken place where no armed security was present.

These shooters want soft targets where they can control the outcome until their bloodlust is satisfied. Cowards, one and all, they kill themselves as police close in. These are suicide missions from the outset. In the case of Adam Lanza, his to-do list was matricide-homicide-suicide.

I'm not sure you can compare the two. Population sizes and demographics are completely different. Isreal's population is roughly 8 million and we are at 312 million. By percentage, not much different. For a psychopath, they will just move the target. If they want to shoot kids, they will just slide from the classroom to the bus or some school event. You just can't have a armed guard everywhere.

 

[Ragman]

To the best of my knowledge, all mass shootings at American K-12 schools have taken place where no armed security was present.

Columbine H.S. had 2 armed guards on duty at the time of the attack.

Armed Law Enforcement Didn't Stop Columbine | Debate Club | US News Opinion

 

[davekc]

Columbine H.S. had 2 armed guards on duty at the time of the attack.

Armed Law Enforcement Didn't Stop Columbine | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Bingo. That is why armed guards may help a little, but likely won't achieve the desired results. That is why I used the Fort Hood shootings. Over half the place was armed and it didn't prevent lives being lost.

 

[aristotle]

Columbine H.S. had 2 armed guards on duty at the time of the attack.

Armed Law Enforcement Didn't Stop Columbine | Debate Club | US News Opinion

Thank you Ragman, I forgot about armed security at Columbine. Perhaps, their presence diminshed the slaughter.

 

[LDB]

You just can't have a armed guard everywhere.

Nope, but you'd be surprised how many places you can have competent armed citizens. Pretty much anywhere that doesn't require passing through metal detectors.

 

[aristotle]

Bingo. That is why armed guards may help a little, but likely won't achieve the desired results. That is why I used the Fort Hood shootings. Over half the place was armed and it didn't prevent lives being lost.

Half the troops were armed? I don't think our soldiers are allowed to carry an armed weapon on US bases in most situations.

 

[davekc]

Half the troops were armed? I don't think our soldiers are allowed to carry an armed weapon on US bases in most situations.

Half is a exaggeration, but they had many there that were armed even though it was generally a "gun free zone". That is actually how the situation was brought under control.

 

[Ragman]

Thank you Ragman, I forgot about armed security at Columbine. Perhaps, their presence diminshed the slaughter.

According to survivors, it did. However 12 were kids were still needlessly killed.

 

[davekc]

Nope, but you'd be surprised how many places you can have competent armed citizens. Pretty much anywhere that doesn't require passing through metal detectors.

The dynamics change once you put them in a school district because of the liability issues. As mentioned, one wrong shooting and the lawsuits would be flying. Many districts will go with police or armed security guards just because of that issue. They could possibly used teachers, but you would have to have strict training and protocols for that to work. Similar to the airline industry and pilots. Very tough situation as you are trying to protect a moving target.