NRA's answer: armed guards in schools

[Lois]

Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999

WASHINGTON -- In a highly anticipated press conference on Friday, the National Rifle Association announced that after a week of reflection following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it decided the way to prevent another such tragedy was to place more guns in schools.

"I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school -- and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January," said the NRA's top lobbyist Wayne LaPierre in a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.

But having armed security on-site failed to prevent the deadliest mass murder at an American high school.

In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

more:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

[tangent69]

"This is everybody's fault but mine"...smacks of the Homer Simpson defence to me.

As for blaming violent films and video games, there are a couple of slight flaws in that argument. 
A little bit of lazy internet research shows that the history of "rampage killers" predates video games by 100 years or so.
Also, violent films and video games are available worldwide, but there aren't as many mass shootings as in the US.

I really don't know what the answer is, but..........

[buddyChrist]

Even so, this article indicates that gun violence is up 89% in England after the gun ban.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

There maybe no more shootings in school, but there certainly more shootings everywhere else in the country. It is obvious that banning guns does not get rid of them, and it absolutely does not cut the rate of crimes committed with them.

[joan1984]

Columbine also occurred during the Joe Biden/Diane Feinstein 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban... in fact, after the Ban was in effect for several years, so that is obviously not the answer.

Jobs, jobs, jobs! Am surprised the solution of more union members employed by schools everywhere is not being readily embraced. Some clear plastic lockers, and bookbags, and we need a spot to put all those body scanners the TSA must get rid of anyway.

An alternative to ourside play, too, so snipers from nearby roofs are repulsed as well. A rifle range would be simple to install in the school basement, or even in the field space now dedicated to Title 9, with gun safety, markswomanship classes just adds one more option for the people who cannot climb a rope, or don't want to shower with the other kids...

Need a Certified NRA Gun Safety and Range Manager of course, but that is readily found in the local PTA group, if one just asks. I thought hiring 100,000 plus more police officers was in the Democrat Party Platform, for many years now... just sayin'...

Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999

WASHINGTON -- In a highly anticipated press conference on Friday, the National Rifle Association announced that after a week of reflection following the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, it decided the way to prevent another such tragedy was to place more guns in schools.

"I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school -- and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January," said the NRA's top lobbyist Wayne LaPierre in a speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.

But having armed security on-site failed to prevent the deadliest mass murder at an American high school.

In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

more:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html

[Gina Marie]

And while Wayne was making his epic little speech:

http://gawker.com/5970497/while-the-nra-was-on-tv-talking-about-the-need-for-more-guns-some-guy-was-walking-up-and-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people

Before Mr. LaPierre could finish his speech, the counterargument made itself as news broke of a mass shooting event in Pennsylvania with multiple casualties, including state troopers.

According to local reports out of Blair County, at least four people were killed and five more were injured in a shooting spree near Altoona. The gunman is said to be among the dead, and at least two state troopers were hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.

[tangent69]

Even so, this article indicates that gun violence is up 89% in England after the gun ban.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

There maybe no more shootings in school, but there certainly more shootings everywhere else in the country. It is obvious that banning guns does not get rid of them, and it absolutely does not cut the rate of crimes committed with them.

Firstly, if the Daily Mail put the date on the front, I'd get it checked out before I believed it.  And secondly, an 89% increase (if that is true) is an 89% increase of a very low amount to start with.  And thirdly, this was the total figure for "firearms related offences" not just murders.

Gun crime in this country is very rare.

2008 figures showed 9146 murders by firearm in the US.
The figure for the UK?.....39
This is the equivalent of 195, multiplied by 5 as the population of the US is 5 times larger than the UK.
This means that you are 47 times more likely to be murdered by firearm in the US than you are in the UK.

[joan1984]

Good men with guns killed the murderer. And your point was?

And while Wayne was making his epic little speech:

http://gawker.com/5970497/while-the-nra-was-on-tv-talking-about-the-need-for-more-guns-some-guy-was-walking-up-and-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people

Before Mr. LaPierre could finish his speech, the counterargument made itself as news broke of a mass shooting event in Pennsylvania with multiple casualties, including state troopers.

According to local reports out of Blair County, at least four people were killed and five more were injured in a shooting spree near Altoona. The gunman is said to be among the dead, and at least two state troopers were hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.

[Athos131]

No one sane believes this is a good idea.

[joan1984]

So, Gia, another mass shooting at a school? Guess Wayne just is dead wrong... oh? not a mass shooting but several shootings at different places? oh? not at a school? oh? armed police subdued and killed the shooter to stop further murders? hmmm. Go Wayne.

BTW, before Wayne could finish his statement, his suggestion, the same suggestion made a few years back after VA Tech shootings... he was interrupted by one of yours, Gia, screaming anti NRA statements... just another day, eh...

And while Wayne was making his epic little speech:

http://gawker.com/5970497/while-the-nra-was-on-tv-talking-about-the-need-for-more-guns-some-guy-was-walking-up-and-down-a-road-in-pennsylvania-shooting-people

Before Mr. LaPierre could finish his speech, the counterargument made itself as news broke of a mass shooting event in Pennsylvania with multiple casualties, including state troopers.

According to local reports out of Blair County, at least four people were killed and five more were injured in a shooting spree near Altoona. The gunman is said to be among the dead, and at least two state troopers were hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries.

[joan1984]

No one cares what you think! No one is waiting for your call...

No one sane believes this is a good idea.

[Janus]

Lets see here......We can put armed security at the bank to protect the customers and the  money....We can put armed security at the mall to protect clerks and shoppers....We can put armed security at our gated communities.......Hmmmmmm

But how dare we put armed security in a school to protect our children?.....That doesn't make any sense to me. Obama's kids are under constant armed security.... My kids aren't any less important to me than his are to him.....

Police are a reactive force. They don't prevent crime. They report it or apprehend suspects. Investigate it. They don't stop crime they just build the case against a criminal so they can put him away. They make sure you drive the speed limit and don't run stop signs. They Don't Prevent Crime.

Make sure that the folks that are in charge of our kids, while we can't be with them, can protect them as vehemently as a parent would, if the child were home with them. Don't let the babies get murdered because of principle.....Principle won't bring them back home safely.

Furthermore, how many of you anti gun folks have children of your own?...

If you don't have any children of your own than how can you decide for a parent how their child should be protected.....Thank you all for making our schools safer...Oh wait...They aren't as has been proven to many times to count.......

Go procreate.....

Maybe then you will understand.....

[RopeFiend]

Let's put it in perspective, instead of whining "OMG, WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN!!!" and going berserk spreading guns around.  More guns just destabilizes the situation, they don't improve it.

Your kids are a LOT more likely to die walking to school.  School bus accidents happen, too.  Every day on the way in to work, I see idiots here in Texass speeding in a school zone, and it's already faster here (20MPH) than in a lot of other states (15MPH).

Putting MORE guns into the schools will not protect them, just like the armed guard at the bank can't prevent bank robberies.  If you're paranoid/neurotic about your child's safety, then pull them out of school and home-school them.  While you're at it, GET A GRIP ON REALITY.  You *can't* protect your children from everything, and they're probably more likely to get struck by lightning while playing outside than they are to be shot by a lunatic gunman at their grade-school.

[Katiebee]

Somehow, sending children to school in a hardened building where every movent is monitored and access is rigidly controlled, surrounded by three belts if razor wire with mines interspersed in between, gstd rowers with machinefuns and a company of infantry,...


DOESN'T sound like a school, it sounds like a concentration camp.

I think the urge to cower is not the answer.

[Athos131]

No one cares what you think! No one is waiting for your call...

No one sane believes this is a good idea.

At least you proved what I just said.

[Janus]

Rope: "You Can't Protect Your Children From Everything"

So it is impractical to put armed security in a school? It doesn't seem to be an issue in the inner cities. Why can't the burbs be protected as well? Where there is actually a school that is within budget to afford security.

Statistics be damned. This isn't putting up a deer crossing sign everywhere there is a car deer accident. Peace of mind is priceless.

Katie: "Somehow, sending children to school in a hardened building where every movent is monitored and access is rigidly controlled, surrounded by three belts if razor wire with mines interspersed in between, gstd rowers with machinefuns and a company of infantry,...DOESN'T sound like a school, it sounds like a concentration camp.
I think the urge to cower is not the answer."

Once again, look at the inner city schools. They are protected. Look at most every high school. They already have cameras. Why? So they can record watching kids get shot? They aren't doing anything but monitoring. You can't prevent something by watching it happen if you aren't learning from the data. The data at these schools is telling me that I wish to hell there was someone there that could have stopped these occurrences from happening before it is too late. 

I can appreciate the tongue in cheek sarcasm. I understand what you're saying, I really do. But if schools can put new sod on the football field every year or awesome sound systems in the cafeteria, why can't we arm a couple of people to monitor the grounds and parking lots? Why can't the children be greeted at the front door by a kindly person who is warm and friendly who happens to be armed?Hell the gun doesn't even have to be seen. It could look as though there is just a balding fat guy that laughs a lot, making sure that little Billy isn't late for class as he gets off of the bus. Just like a play ground attendant or a teachers aid.

There is so much wasted resources in our schools. I think having an armed security force that can look benign isn't such a bad idea. Why do we have police if not to protect the citizenry? Aren't the children our future leaders? I don't care if it costs a million dollars a year to protect our kids.

Many here are screaming for gun control to protect our children. That measure could take over twenty years to see an impact. That is a full generation. We can act right now and offer a safer environment RIGHT NOW......

Janus

[joan1984]

When hijackers attacked the airplanes in 2001, we did not take the airplanes out of the sky. The most effective thing we did, I think, was fortification of the cockpit door. I don't believe we have had a hijacker since who entered the cabin door, unless it was opened for him by the pilots.

Something similar is available to every school, with increased security of the building entrances and windows. Some more complex than others, some will need plexiglass cover or other to secure, and this is very possible, doable on a local level, where the children reside. Common sense says each location should seek "certification" as to their level of practical security from break-in, occupied or unoccupied, and make decisions locally.

You noted inner city school security. In DC we have metal detectors, for persons and for bags, at all schools, some more extensive than others, some maybe a bit aging in the technology installed. Also there are armed police at every middle and high school, not sure about elementary and preschool where they may be in separate buildings. The security in these schools was prompted by the need to restrain students from carrying dangerous items into the building. Alarmed doors exist for the exits, and cameras of course. Now if we could only do something about the parents, and the neighborhoods the children walk through on their way home.

[TinyDancer]

Americans.......we are surely the most arrogant nation in the world!  It should be obvious by now that we, as a nation, cannot find the solution to the problem.  Why are we not looking at the countries who don't have this problem and follow the same procedure? But no, that would be too fuckin' easy.  Instead let's debate the issue for who knows how many years while more innocents are being killed.

I am not against Americans possessing firearms, but stricter control needs to be put in place.

[watcher1]

Does any reasonable and sane person take the NRA seriously?  Will be interesting to see how the politicians that are beholden to the NRA vote now that a majority of Americans favor some type of assault weapon ban.

[Janus]

Does any reasonable and sane person take the NRA seriously?  Will be interesting to see how the politicians that are beholden to the NRA vote now that a majority of Americans favor some type of assault weapon ban.

How do you know what the MAJORITY of Americans want?...

[Lois]

It is very impracticable to put armed guards in every school.  The cost would run something like 3.5 billion per year.  Who would cover this cost?  If the NRA is volunteering to pay I say ok, but I don't think they are.

Also I don't think it would be effective.  The real answer is to find a way to keep guns out of the hands of people that are a danger to themselves and to others.