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

Quote by ElCoco

I'm trying to let you know I'm comfortable with our failure to come to an agreement. Our conversation here has given me the opportunity to consider the merits and flaws of the senator's proposal.

Oh, OK. I was just thinking that if my goal was to be persuasive to everyone on the thread, I may have taken a different tact. 😉

Quote by ElCoco

The issue here isn't about teachers as an alternative to guards but instead about the feasibility of arming teachers to defend their students. Based on the information from the RAND survey, it seems plausible.

.

Picking up your idea of the root cause of the problem this band-aid is addressing, the obvious question is, what long-term plan do you propose? Gov Newsom has a suggestion. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-gov-gavin-newsom-proposes-constitutional-amendment-tighten-99939042

Well, at least he's offering some sort of solution, though a Constitutional Amendment is an incredibly heavy lift.

Quote by AngelEthics

Well, at least he's offering some sort of solution, though a Constitutional Amendment is an incredibly heavy lift.

Every part of Newsom's amendment is heavily favored by the entire US population in various polls. The republicans will still be against it though. It will not happen but the point is to show how unwilling the republicans are to do things that 70% of Americans want. The democrats have to push back against republicans more and more like how Newsom and AOC do. Most normal people don't realize just how in the pocket of corporations and the gun lobby republicans really are and just straight up bought off by dark money too.

Quote by Magical_felix

Every part of Newsom's amendment is heavily favored by the entire US population in various polls. The republicans will still be against it though. It will not happen but the point is to show how unwilling the republicans are to do things that 70% of Americans want. The democrats have to push back against republicans more and more like how Newsom and AOC do. Most normal people don't realize just how in the pocket of corporations and the gun lobby republicans really are and just straight up bought off by dark money too.

The good thing about this proposal is that if you can get it passed, it won't expire and it's really hard to repeal. I get why he's proposing this and not federal legislation. Before this is even possible, though, something like 13 state legislatures have to be flipped from Republican to Democrat, assuming that the Republicans are going to hold the line against it, which like you pointed out they're heavily motivated to do.

In this case, it's a shame that a Constitutional Amendment can't be proposed by a 2/3 or 3/4 popular vote.

Quote by Chryses

That is the long-term solution. "Reasonable" needs to be fleshed out a bit, and the hurdles are high.

Quote by ElCoco

Talk's cheap, and 'incredibly' was the right word to use.

Absolutely.

Here's the other option, though. They get federal law through both houses of congress and Biden signs it into law. Every red states starts bringing challenges against it and this SCOTUS agrees with every challenge. It's either struck down nationally or so diluted that it's useless.

Quote by Chryses

An assault rifle ban was passed back in 1994, so that might be possible again.

There need be only an individual to "suffer harm" from a federal law to have standing for a constitutional challenge. Any law prohibiting ownership of a handgun or that has as its intent (e.g., $1,000 tax per box of ammunition) to prevent gun use would be struck down by the SCOTUS. So, regulation, yes, but ban, no.

In 1994, that was a completely different SCOTUS. Moderate to liberal. This SCOTUS is conservative.

"Shall not be infringed" is the rallying cry for gun enthusiasts all across this nation. I'm betting they would consider raising the legal age to 21, when you can be in the military at 18, an infringement against the rights of the non-military, tax-paying, voting 18-20 year olds. There's currently a group suing the Biden administration over waiting periods and there are always groups suing over background checks. All because of the phrase "Shall not be infringed".

Practically, I doubt the ability to even propose ANY Constitutional Amendment on any topic right now, much less something like guns, abortion, racism/sexism or any issue that's partisan.

Quote by Chryses

If the same bill which passed in 1994 could be passed today, I think it would pass constitutional muster again.

 Yes, that would be a safe bet.
How much regulation is too little? How much is enough? How much is too much? For the SCOTUS, Justice Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” and “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

The manner the U.S. Constitution can be amended was designed to make passing amendments difficult. Making amendments difficult to bring about ensures the subject has had a fair reading and has been thoroughly discussed by all because the entire nation will be changed. Alexander Hamilton spoke at some length about amendments to the Constitution in The Federalist Papers: No. 85.

This is the same SCOTUS that looked at 50 years of Constitutionally supported abortion, and decided that everyone got it wrong but them. The majority are Constitutional Origionalists, or a bastardization of that constitutional theory, and "shall not be infringed" means literally that, to them. They struck down a law in Yew York that's been on the books for decades that says you have to give "proper cause" to concealed carry in public. In that ruling, Justice Thomas said that going forward, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.

So I don't share your optimism. Nor do I think this court will acknowledge that traditions of gun control actually have existed through American history.

Again, I don't think that this country has the political will to pass a Constitutional Amendment on any topic. But I am beyond certain that any federal law that managed to pass will be gutted, whether it's an assault weapons ban or a raise of the legal age to buy a gun. It will all be seen as "infringing".

Quote by ElCoco

That's why Gov. Newsom's trotting out his amendment speech.

That, and because he's probably angling for a presidential run in 2028.

I find the political gymnastics to avoid the obvious solutions quite fascinating. The root cause of the problem appears to be poor education, either on safe gun handling, or on critical thinking that would enable one to see that gun injuries and deaths are way higher in the US than practically everywhere else in the world. Kids are scared shitless, and it is damaging them for life.

It's easy enough to google this: "Guns are the leading cause of death for US children and teens, since surpassing car accidents in 2020. Firearms accounted for nearly 19% of childhood deaths (ages 1-18) in 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wonder database. Nearly 3,600 children died in gun-related incidents that year."

So, whatever is being done now, it ain't working.

Quote by Chryses

I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is because no issue is serious enough to warrant a Constitutional Amendment that none will be passed.

edited

I still don't know how to capture everything you said in a quote, so bear with me.

Fifty years isn't a magic number. The cause of the overturn of Roe v Wade wasn't because after 50 years we have some new understanding about abortion. It's because of Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Organizationalization is bastardized by using the 27 words of the Second Amendment without looking at the reality of laws and culture at the time. When the Second Amendment was passed you had to register your gun, because you had to register to be part of the "well regulated militia" and everyone brought their own gun. In Boston it was illegal to have an loaded weapon in your home. You had no right to "stand your ground"; you were obligated to retreat everywhere but in your home.

As for Justice Thomas not knowing other rights that you have to show cause for... apparently he's unfamiliar with needing a permit to hold a protest that had a loudspeaker (assembly, speech).

It may seem off topic to talk about how SCOTUS has changed but isn't. It's exactly the reason why we have to talk about pulling money from the IRS, or arming teachers (FFS), or "good people with guns". Band-aids, if you will. We can give this country a shot of antibiotics with real gun laws, or we can cover the problem with a band-aid and hope it doesn't fester.

Quote by Chryses

The SCOTUS is an integral part of the system and very relevant to Second Amendment issues.

If the democrats decide to add more seats and appoint left leaning judges would you still think the same?

Quote by Chryses

I'm a filthy hog.

That's dope, to always think, "well that's the law hurr hurr, where's my cousin I'm horny."

Quote by Chryses

Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are doing what Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are doing. They are reviewing the law in the context of their interpretation of the Constitution.

If you accept the linked definition of Originalism, then you accept those words.

It is not true you had to register your gun when the Second Amendment was passed. Many people owned guns who were not members of a militia.

Once Massachusetts ratified the Constitution, it subordinated its laws to those of the United States.

I would like to read the permit to which you refer. I expect it is not a permit to assemble or speak freely but rather a permit to use some public space to protest (assemble and speak freely) something..

The SCOTUS is an integral part of the system and very relevant to Second Amendment issues.

If band-aids are what are available, it would be unwise not to use them.

edited

What I'm saying is that Origionalism would be an appropriate term for this group of judges, except, as the linked definition says, they would need to interpret all statements in the Constitution based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". They aren't doing that.

At the time the Constitution was adopted, every free white man, aged 18-45 was required to register themselves and their gun. Officials could come into your home and check how you're keeping both your weapon and your gunpowder. They could disarm you if you didn't take a loyalty oath to the United States. The exact things, a gun registration that existed in 1776, is now being deemed unconstitutional. That is not origionalism.

The band-aids in these cases aren't going to save a single life. They're distractions. What they are going to do is give politicians something to point to, so they can say that they're doing something.

Quote by Chryses

Those judges, as Originalists, would (IMO) take the position that the Second Amendment should be read as it was written and understood when it was ratified. The Militia Act, to which I think you are referring, was not part of the Constitution, was passed four years after the Constitution was enacted (1792 vs. 1788), and failed to include armed youngsters and elders.
While I am confident some people agree with your assessment, as the Militia Act(s) were legislation and not part of the Constitution, I hope the above will help explain why those justices can be reasonably be described as unbastardized Originalists.

If we agree a Constitutional amendment addressing the Second is not currently in the cards (I suggest that is true), then as there appears to be a real problem, we should seek out and implement available alternatives.

or women.

Why not arm the Hall Monitors with at least a small handgun. Maybe a .22 auto. Those kids have earned it my brown nosing the teachers. And let's not forget the volunteer crossing guards. They could strap on a piece and be ready for some hot action should bullets start flying.

Also, bus drivers! Why not AR15s for the bus drivers?

Shouldn't Honor Roll students be considered for a gun each.

I mean, shit, the school could be packed with gun defense.

And have we considered school janitors or sanitary engineers or whatever they are called now. They could even get a concealed gun carry permit to be like undercover gun defense.

I'm sure we all would feel so much safer.

Quote by ElCoco

If you're going to try, you'll have to start somewhere. Texas thought it would start with one armed security officer or armed school personnel at each public school campus statewide.

"Gee, let's shoot up some kids at the local primary school. Where to start? Oh wait, there's this one person carrying a gun over there."

A security guard should be on guard of course, so they may see the threat coming in time. But an armed teacher is probably/hopefully teaching, and so they'll likely only find out about a shooter when they're being shot at.

Quote by ElCoco

"let's"?

How many times in the last 20 years have there been multiple school shooters?

Damn, you don't let anyone fool you. I'll admit I don't know. Neither do I know how many school shooters actually say things like "Gee". Or how many of them talk to themselves… oh wait.

Quote by ElCoco

Then stop trying.

The answer's none

Columbine was multiple shooters. that was 24 years ago, tho. Also one in '83 up here in Seattle that involved multiple shooters. other than that it's usually single shooters. that all said, you're fixating on semantics with a ESL poster.

Quote by Chryses

It is good to see that some people, in this instance, the State of Texas, are taking a serious issue seriously.

Isn't Texas the state where the cops hung out outside the door for like 90 minutes while the shooter was busy massacring kids? that's your definition of taking it seriously?

Quote by Chryses
You are mistaken.

So, Uvalde isn't actually in Texas?

for the record, from 1970 to today, there have been 192 school shootings Texas, based on data tracked by the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. so the question i have is, why did it take them 53 years to get serious about it?

Quote by Chryses

Did I suggest that? If not, why did you ask?

well, when i mentioned it, you told me i was mistaken. if you're going to make a statement like that, it would be polite to explain what i was mistaken about rather than just put out a blanket statement. so... what was i mistaken about?

Quote by sprite

well, when i mentioned it, you told me i was mistaken. if you're going to make a statement like that, it would be polite to explain what i was mistaken about rather than just put out a blanket statement. so... what was i mistaken about?

Do you really expect Chryses to answer a question? He may respond with some vague proselytizing, but with a to the point, distinct answer? We will wait and see.

Quote by ElCoco

The answer's none

So?

Quote by Chryses

Which had nothing to do with Uvalde - in or not in Texas.

i asked a pretty simple question. you declined to answer it. instead you just danced around it and wasted everyone's time like always. this is, btw, why i usually refuse to converse with you - it's not because i disagree with you. it's because you have nothing to add or say to the conversation.

Quote by ElCoco

If you're going to try, you'll have to start somewhere. Texas thought it would start with one armed security officer or armed school personnel at each public school campus statewide.

Interestingly enough, there WAS an armed guard at Uvalde. He interacted with the shooter before he was shot. The truth is that even armed guards don't work. In fact, they might make the situation worse:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/presence-armed-school-officials-and-fatal-and-nonfatal-gunshot

However, the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. The well-documented weapons effect explains that the presence of a weapon increases aggression. Whenever firearms are present, there is room for error, and even highly trained officers get split-second decisions wrong. Prior research suggests that many school shooters are actively suicidal, intending to die in the act, so an armed officer may be an incentive rather than a deterrent. The majority of shooters who target schools are students of the school, calling into question the effectiveness of hardened security and active shooter drills. Instead, schools must invest in resources to prevent shootings before they occur.

Quote by ElCoco

A couple of points.

I read the piece at your link above and read, "However, the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases." Did you see that?

.

What I've read is there wasn't an armed guard at Uvalde. If there was, what's the guard's name?

Yes, I did see that. It's what I opened with in the cut-and-past I used from the article. It's also why I posted it, because there's evidence that could make a school shooting a more dangerous situation if, as my post above says, the shooter is trying to die by police officer.

I have no idea of the name of the guard. What I do know is that that this district spent 40% of it's municipal budget on police. in 2019-2020. The district school system has it's own dedicated police. hat's more than a lot of school systems have, and, yet....

Quote by ElCoco

OK, you're aware the piece says, "the data suggest no association".

So, if I'm reading your post right, your current position is if the shooter is suicidal, having an armed guard could make a dangerous situation worse. Do you think all the shooters are suicidal? Not crazy, since they all are, but suicidal?

.

If you don't know the name of the guard, would you provide a link about "the armed guard at Uvalde"? I thought there wasn't one, and it's something I may have missed.

My position is that armed guards, while better than armed teachers, still don't prevent school shootings. When it comes to certain weapons and certain perpetrators, armed guards an make the situation worse.

This is an article that talks about all of the response measures they had in place, including armed guards and dedicated police. Also, if you'd like to see it, there's an article about a woman who responded to Uvalde as police and was applying to be one of these guards. I read an article that said a guard was on site on the day of, but I can't find it now.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/security-measures-uvalde-school-district-place/story?id=84966706

Why, oh why, is there such a push to keep trying things we have tried that we know won't work?

Quote by AngelEthics

My position is that armed guards, while better than armed teachers, still don't prevent school shootings. When it comes to certain weapons and certain perpetrators, armed guards an make the situation worse.

This is an article that talks about all of the response measures they had in place, including armed guards and dedicated police. Also, if you'd like to see it, there's an article about a woman who responded to Uvalde as police and was applying to be one of these guards. I read an article that said a guard was on site on the day of, but I can't find it now.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/security-measures-uvalde-school-district-place/story?id=84966706

Why, oh why, is there such a push to keep trying things we have tried that we know won't work?

The only stories I ever read about guards at schools is when they have inappropriate relationships with the kids. Never a story about a guard heroically taking down an active shooter.

Quote by Magical_felix

The only stories I ever read about guards at schools is when they have inappropriate relationships with the kids. Never a story about a guard heroically taking down an active shooter.

And now these guards will be armed. LOL.