Highly Trained Armed Security In Schools - Reallocate IRS Funds to Do It

Quote by Ironic

Now you're qualifying the goal with "significantly".

Indeed I am. But if qualifiers are too much, I'm happy to amend.

What needs to be done to reduce the number of mass shootings in the US?

Quote by Ironic

I think it has potential, and even if it does work, it is a bandaid. But it's one of the symptom treatments that can be applied now.

Has anybody said both approaches couldn't be tried?

You seem to be doing that now:

Quote by Ironic

The ones I'll choose will be ones that have a realistic chance of success. You can choose a path to failure.

Quote by Ironic

The thread topic is one of the bandaids.

And on that we agree. The solution proposed in the opener for this thread is indeed nothing but a bandaid.

Have anything else in mind?

Quote by Ironic

I do think trying approaches that will succeed is a better approach than advocating one that isn't likely to succeed.

So can't do both then?

Quote by Ironic

sprite and noll think trying to revise the constitution is with their while.

The Red Flag laws help

require training would also be beneficial, I think

I agree, amending the constitution is a great long-term goal.

I also agree about the benefits of required training.

Quote by Ironic

Why wouldn't you want to try both approaches?

go re-read my post again, then think about it, then come back and comment, please (she says after JUST saying. i'm okay with the bandaid as LONG as we don't abandon pushing forward the long-term actual solution that deal with more than just the symptoms) ;)

Quote by sprite

go re-read my post again, then think about it, then come back and comment, please (she says after JUST saying. i'm okay with the bandaid as LONG as we don't abandon pushing forward the long-term actual solution that deal with more than just the symptoms) ;)

Exactly. I don't know why it has to be all-or-nothing, or either/or when it comes to gun reform.

Bandaid solutions are great as long as they're acknowledged as such while more feasible, effective long-term solutions are in the works.

Quote by Ironic
Why wouldn't you want to try both approaches?

bangs my head against the wall repeatedly let's see if i can make this EVEN clearer. i am in favor of using ANY reasonable approach that has a chance of working. i am also in favor of working to solve the issue permanently, regardless of how long it might take. Both. or more, if there are more 'bandaids' and/or cures. then just one.

Texas must be striving to set the mass shooting/mass hit by car record.

Quote by Magical_felix

There's something wrong with this kid

If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, please refrain from posting. thanks.

You don't need to arm schools, you need to get rid of the other guns. The rest of the Western World sees American gun culture for the insanity that it is. There's probably going to be 30,000 gun deaths in the USA this year.

This proposal is a joke, IMO. Funds for IRS agents were allocated so that the wealthy, who are likely to find tax loopholes, could be audited more frequently. It's shocking to me--simply shocking-- that some politicians would like to funnel that money away from it's purpose to enact a law that has no possibility of stopping school shootings. It's pure politics.

It won't stop school shootings. It might, maybe, shorten the duration of a school shooting once it's started. Mostly, it's window-dressing.

The solution to this starts with the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire, like Magical Felix said. If lawmakers could get that back in place, nationwide, you watch and report the numbers of mass shootings. It will decline over time. Then you can take more measures based on your success.

Limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased at any one time. Get rid of the kits that let you convert a gun to a more powerful gun. Make a longer waiting period to get guns, so that angry people have a chance to cool off. I'm a gun owner. I've always left same-day with the gun I wanted from the dealer selling it. I don't have a record but they had no way of knowing if I was mentally stable.

I like the idea of someone "vouching" for someone else when they want to buy a gun. That being said, I don't think I would ever do so for anyone. No more than I would hand them one of my guns.

Quote by ElCoco

It's just a guess, but I suspect one of the reasons would-be mass murderers are drawn to schools in the US is because they're usually "gun-free zones," meaning the shooter's gun will be the only one on the scene.

The senator suggested funding a program to train and license willing teachers to carry firearms to level the playing field. According to a recent national survey by the RAND Corporation, although most teachers thought it was a bad idea, nearly one in five K-12 educators said they would choose to carry a firearm at school if allowed.

If a "shooter" hungry for media glory thought that one teacher in five was carrying a gun, he'd (they're almost always he) more likely go somewhere other than a school to carry out his rampage. I know that's assuming an unlikely even distribution of gun-toting teachers across the nation, but you get the idea.

So, arming teachers is a practical – and relatively inexpensive – way to deter school shootings.

Why not arm the kids? Surely that would be an even bigger deterent? Oh wait, no that's crazy isn't it!

Quote by ElCoco

It's just a guess, but I suspect one of the reasons would-be mass murderers are drawn to schools in the US is because they're usually "gun-free zones," meaning the shooter's gun will be the only one on the scene.

The senator suggested funding a program to train and license willing teachers to carry firearms to level the playing field. According to a recent national survey by the RAND Corporation, although most teachers thought it was a bad idea, nearly one in five K-12 educators said they would choose to carry a firearm at school if allowed.

If a "shooter" hungry for media glory thought that one teacher in five was carrying a gun, he'd (they're almost always he) more likely go somewhere other than a school to carry out his rampage. I know that's assuming an unlikely even distribution of gun-toting teachers across the nation, but you get the idea.

So, arming teachers is a practical – and relatively inexpensive – way to deter school shootings.

I just really dislike the idea of asking teachers to carry guns for student protection, even if they're willing. It's not a liability I I think they should have to take responsibility for. Where does the gun go while the teacher is teaching? What's the teacher's responsibility in an active killer situation, to the classroom or the school at large? How does the police recognize the teacher as a teacher and not the shooter? What if, God forbid, the teacher accidentally shoots a student?

The RAND survey said that the teachers most willing to carry a weapon to school were white males in rural schools. But where were the most recent school shootings? Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Seattle, Richmond, Columbus....

The most common location for a mass shooting to take place isn't necessarily school; it's a current or former workplace for the shooter. Should everyone just be able to go to work armed?

Quote by AngelEthics

I just really dislike the idea of asking teachers to carry guns for student protection, even if they're willing. It's not a liability I I think they should have to take responsibility for. Where does the gun go while the teacher is teaching? What's the teacher's responsibility in an active killer situation, to the classroom or the school at large? How does the police recognize the teacher as a teacher and not the shooter? What if, God forbid, the teacher accidentally shoots a student?

The RAND survey said that the teachers most willing to carry a weapon to school were white males in rural schools. But where were the most recent school shootings? Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Seattle, Richmond, Columbus....

The most common location for a mass shooting to take place isn't necessarily school; it's a current or former workplace for the shooter. Should everyone just be able to go to work armed?

Indeed, it's often a place where the killer feels they've got something to settle, school or workplace. And then there are the ones who, in their delusional mind, want their final act to become global news. And killing a bunch of kids will likely make that happen.

Quote by noll

Indeed, it's often a place where the killer feels they've got something to settle, school or workplace. And then there are the ones who, in their delusional mind, want their final act to become global news. And killing a bunch of kids will likely make that happen.

I agree. That's also why I don't think armed guards or armed teachers will be a real deterrent. As many have said here, maybe, maybe it could be a short term thing while stricter gun control laws are passed, but nothing changes without that, no many how many good people with guns we station in populated areas.

Most teachers are incapable of handling loaded guns. Some of them are just as likely to go on a shooting spree. I'd want them to be thoroughly trained in gun safety and usage, and pass a very thorough psychological exam before they could be licensed to have a gun at school. And the gun would need to be highly secured.

Allowing teachers to have guns in school is not a good idea.

Armed security ar schools would need to be highly trained police, who specialize in dealing with school children. They'd need to be extremely vetted, and thoroughly trained for that particular job.

But no doubt, schools need much more security than they have now. Unfortunately, our society is de-evolving into a violent mess.

This is like protecting the butcher's counter by arming the guard dog with a string of sausages.

Quote by ElCoco

But something worth trying, although if it's worth trying, it's worth its own budget.

I disagree. Budget money from where? If they want to do this at a federal level, they'll need to justify why after only supporting the public school system at 8% of total funds, they're now willing to dump money into schools so that teachers can carry guns. That, at the expense of buying computers, lowering classroom sizes, and increasing teacher pay as they take on extra duties.

State and local funds? We're going to see what we see now when it comes to schools. A nice, healthy budget in higher income areas while lower income school systems, where I would guess school shootings are a bigger issue, little or none.

I don't think it's worth trying. I certainly don't think this is the thing in education to throw money at.

Quote by ElCoco

I'm assuming you disagree with the idea of arming teachers and not with the program getting separate funding.

As you've pointed out, school funding is primarily a state and local responsibility. The federal government can budget money wherever it wants through block grants to states, as it's been doing for many years.

It might be a bandaid, as has been pointed out, but it's something that can be done now to make schools less attractive targets to would-be mass murderers.

I think there's real positive value in making schools less attractive targets to would-be mass murderers.

I do think there's value in making schools less attractive targets for mass shooters, but I don't think this does that. If this is a band-aid, it's one over a festering wound and the band-aid's only purpose is to hide the problem from view. As a concession, I would say that uniformed officers might be more effective because they're visible, trained, and in communication with local police. Still, this could only be temporary while we work on the gun issue, at large, and there's no movement on gun control, especially at the federal level

I disagree with putting aside funding for arming teachers when teachers don't have enough of what they need to do their actual job. I disagree with adding this responsibility to their job. They're paid roughly the same as a truck driver. It's too much to ask of them.

Defunding the IRS is a silly idea. They need their funding to secure the taxes owed the federal government, so that the government and its' programs, and national defense is funded. They need to make tax cheats pay their fair share.

Protecting schools should come from local sales taxes. That way, everyone helps fund school safety.

Quote by Chryses

Sales taxes are considered regressive, with a greater impact on the poor.

Then you should be extra happy with it.

Quote by ElCoco

If we take the uniformed guard route, the additional FTEs will make it much more expensive than if teachers who are willing are trained for the task. The communications improvement would be funded in any case.

Long-term gun control is a topic that deserves its own thread.

Although school safety isn't the only priority, it's more important than field trips.

We disagree on this. Any money used for security can't be taken from actual education. Education is compromised enough.

Quote by ElCoco

I don't think I said money used for security should be taken from actual education, did I?

I got that idea from this: "Although school safety isn't the only priority; it's more important than field trips." Since school shootings don't typically happen on field trips, I thought you were talking about the money allocation. What were you trying to say here?

Quote by ElCoco

The priority is time, which is more valuable than money.

If the priority is time, people already trained to be armed guards would be the better answer.

Quote by Ironic

That's true. Why expect the poorer part of society to carry a disproportionate share of the burden?

Oh? So, the poor are the biggest spenders?

The burden of school taxes is currently on home owners, so renters are not paying school taxes for children. Only a few home owners are rich. The burden should be more fairly distributed. Sales tax is an excellent way to do it.

Quote by ElCoco

Possibly, and at (again) greater cost, but the teachers are already where the children (the targets) are. Where better to have the defense?

If the willingness to carry/use a firearm becomes an advantage when applying for a job as a teacher, then one of the consequences is that teaching skills will become less valued, compared to now, in the hiring of teachers. Armed defence is not a skill that should be asked of teachers, as it takes away from their profession as a teacher.

Having kids being confronted with guns during their entire school time also gives a bad message IMO. And it might change the relationship with the teacher too.

Quote by ElCoco

Possibly, and at (again) greater cost, but the teachers are already where the children (the targets) are. Where better to have the defense?

You said that the priority is time, is more important than money. If that's true, you choose the fastest path to your goal. The fastest path is to hire people already trained to use firearms, who already have commincation with police in place, who can be stationed wherever you need them (rather than trying to recruit teachers in some of these non-urban school systems).

However, I have concerns about throwing a budget at a "band-aid" where there's no actual plan to tackle the root cause of the problem. If it was part of the long-term plan, I may be more behind it. "It" being armed guards, not armed teachers.

Quote by noll

If the willingness to carry/use a firearm becomes an advantage when applying for a job as a teacher, then one of the consequences is that teaching skills will become less valued, compared to now, in the hiring of teachers. Armed defence is not a skill that should be asked of teachers, as it takes away from their profession as a teacher.

Having kids being confronted with guns during their entire school time also gives a bad message IMO. And it might change the relationship with the teacher too.

I agree with everything you've written here.

Quote by ElCoco

OK. You share noll's opinion and I share mine with the others'.

I wasn't aware that we were taking a vote.