Posted on 02/19/2018 9:57:11 AM PST by EyesOfTX
They are right up there with self-medicating nutjobs.
We protect banks, politicians, celebrities, airplanes, some businesses (not enough) and a plethora of other entities, but our schools are protection free. That’s the insanity.
School security should all be armed.
I don’t know if they changed it, but as of 2015, POLICE OFFICERS in the pastoral peace of Baltimore are not armed.
My brother is a high school teacher. He has a proposal ready to give about arming specific instructors within the school.
Never take an outrageous statement from President Trump at face value.
His list is pretty good except that, as Lurkinanloomen wrote, “Due process matters.”
Like taking property from drug dealers, the conviction should come first.
You are absolutely right. Hence my argument that the schools will need to be hardened, which does lead to what else needs to be hardened. Why are we locking up our society when we need to lock up a few criminals in our midst.
OK, assuming people agree with this, we need to find a way to find these people before they commit their act. This is always the issue BTW, because we cannot even protect a women from the attack of her ex-boyfriend until he makes a direct move against her. Thus she needs to be armed for her own protection. This applies to the schools.
As a former teacher, in my day I would have taken the training necessary to be a CC teacher on the staff. This would be in California of course where the proposal has very little chance of being approved.
Yes, we lock and restrict our lives everywhere but consider the school union tb be too tough a lobby to fight against. To have armed security at every school, the cost would be enormous and would cut into the heart of paying the faculty more and paying the administration much more. It is said that the tax would be worth it, but I don’t know. Turning this over to the government seems like a mistake. How much of a police state can we afford?
Let me know the cost of having 17 kids murdered at a school. Please include any teachers that retire early or draw worker’s comp because of the trauma.
Tell each teacher that they will be paying 1-2% of their salary as a security expense. Let’s see them fight against that. Then we’ll really know what they stand for.
And if the cost of 2-3 extra people at each school is too much, start consolidating schools.
First, they take the right to keep and bear arms from someone who has been institutionalized and is prescribed anti-anxiety drugs. Next, if you are even prescribed the drugs, NOBODY in your house can own guns. Don't laugh-- it already has happened in the "blue" states of NY and NJ.
Once infringement of freedom starts, it never stops, until war breaks out and mass death ensues. I guess this is what they want.
Good point, but the statistics still argue that this event per school is very rare. This is always the risk equation that confronts school districts, of course the tragedy of the event is so catastrophic that it could outweigh any expense if you look at it as you are doing.
See the other post about the cost of an armed security force which is much less and will be the ultimate solution that the schools will choose.
The lion's share of the ever increasing funding goes to administrative BS. If the public was smarter, they would demand that existing funding be used to better protect our children and that the redundant personnel/paper pushers be shown the door. But we're far too stupid and cowardly to demand such a thing. Another alternative is to write a referendum and let the community vote on providing additional monies that will be spent only on specific policies and personnel that will enhance security. But, in the end, the left will hijack those funds and use them for their own purpose and the lack of security will not change. The community, however, would never deny such a request.
Unfortunately, far too many are fixated on screaming at the sky, while blaming Trump, when the solution is easily at hand within their own communities. The flagrant stupidity of these people is so overwhelming that it makes it impossible to follow the news.
Yes, to all your points.
But the stupidity is also the result of elections being held during special times and the school teachers union being able to buy most board seats.
Now this is interesting because these same teachers have to have some respect for their safety do they not?
No.
You are presuming that a person who has served their time is going to commit a crime. What happened to the presumption of innocence?
The entire edifice of gun control rests on the provably false idea that controlling guns will control people. It hasn't worked and it will never work.
Released felons who wish to do harm can rent large trucks, buy hundreds of gallons of gasoline, poison water supplies, and commit any number of non-gun attacks. The idea that we should fixate on guns and punish the millions of people that didn't commit the crime is ludicrous.
People who are provably a danger to society must be institutionalized. That would include mental hospitals for those who are not responsible for their criminal acts and prisons for those who are.
What we mustn't keep doing is excusing small crimes, thinking that they don't have a relationship to larger crimes. I always like to say, "Nobody ever walked into a convenience store with a gun in his hand by accident three times." By that I mean, when someone is convicted a third time for a violent crime, the sentence must be increased exponentially in order to protect the public.
Petty crimes need to be punished lightly at first, perhaps, but again, exponentially increasing the punishment for recidivism. Two months in jail for the first crime. Eight months for the second crime. Three years for the third. Twenty-four years for the fourth.
Justice for the American people cannot be obtained if we continue to let people who have criminal records "as long as your arm" to have access to guns, trucks, or gasoline. Some years ago San Francisco ran a sting operation involving a helpless person with cash. They caught the same guy twice within nine months stealing the money. Imagine how many crimes this man committed during the intervening nine months.
I'm personally fed up with California's gun laws which affect only the law-abiding and have no effect whatever on crime rates.
Hopefully nothing will come of it, like with various other directives (ie banning trannies from the military).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.