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

Quote by ElCoco

Texas now has a law with a budget to improve safety in its public schools. Among the improvements are armed guardians. You say you're curious if they're required to confront school shooters, so you find out. Since you've got the bill text and haven't read it, it looks like you don't. I'm OK with you not caring enough to find out.

You made the claim that Texas is making an effort to address the issue, not me. But it seems you can't even answer the basic question of whether those armed security officers, mentioned in the bill, will be required to confront any school shooter. Well, no surprise there, Charles.

Quote by AngelEthics

Police have no obligation anywhere, nationwide, to run towards gunfire. They're trained to do so but they aren't required to do so. This is a SCOTUS ruling from 1985 and reinforced in 2005, so it doesn't matter what this specific law says.

Serve and Protect? It's a slogan, not a promise. So, given this is probably going to be another "resource officer" with less training than the police, with no obligation to run into a dangerous situation and less gun training than the police, it's just introducing another gun in a school. Study after study have found this "solution" as having no to negative effects school safety (the last study shows an increase in fatalities with an armed guard present).

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30832-2/fulltext

https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai21-476

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776515

It's seems like just another way to normalize guns by exposing kids to them every school day.

Quote by ElCoco

You don't need to tell me, tell noll. He's the one who thinks that guards need to be required to confront school shooters; otherwise, they're just part of the propaganda.

The Florida case shows such an officer is not responsible for the security of the kids in case of an active school shooter. So what's their purpose then?

Quote by noll

The Florida case shows such an officer is not responsible for the security of the kids in case of an active school shooter. So what's their purpose then?

so that people can claim that they are taking this seriously in the think tank.

Quote by ElCoco

Hi, nollke. You couldn't argue the ideas, so you've tried to make it personal. Never mind, that's what others here do too.

.

Pointing at a tree and calling it a tree isn't making a claim. Pointing at a bill with the name "AN ACT relating to measures for ensuring public school safety, including the development and implementation of purchases relating to and funding for public school safety and security requirements and the provision of safety-related resources." and describing it as an effort to make its public school students safer isn't making a claim either. So no, again, I'm not making a claim, even though you repeatedly say so.

.

Even though you ask questions about the new law, when you're given the bill to read to satisfy your curiosity, you don't look. Why?

.

Even though AE has explained the SCOTUS rulings, you can't let go of your assumptions. For example, you return to the Florida case without considering the possibility of Texas' new law being different. Even though I've given you the Texas bill to examine, you haven't. Why do you turn away from anything that may change your opinion?

LOL. You didn't just name the bill. You said multiple times that with the bill Texas is making an effort to address the issue of school shootings. That is a claim and you've made it.

Quote by ElCoco
Texas is trying to do something about it - at least as they see it.

Quote by ElCoco
That's got nothing to do with the effort Texas is making to address the school shooting issue. Texas's HB 3, mandating all public schools to have at least one armed security officer or armed school personnel at each public school campus does, even if it's not the way you want it addressed.

Quote by ElCoco

Well, with your opinion about guns, that's understandable. But the reality of gun ownership doesn't take anything away from Texas's efforts to address the school shooting issue.

Quote by ElCoco
Texas enacted a law to address the school shooting problem by improving its public schools' security.

Quote by ElCoco
Texas now has a law with a budget to improve safety in its public schools. Among the improvements are armed guardians.

My claim is that the Florida case shows that if you don't require armed security officers to confront active school shooters (as in: make them responsible for fighting off school shooters), that the requirement to have such officers does nothing to guarantee increased security for the school kids.
It merely adds extra guns in the mix, which seems to be the quintessential American solution (and then wonder why troubled teenagers go on shooting sprees).

Quote by ElCoco

Pointing at a tree and calling it a tree isn't making a claim. Pointing at a bill with the name "AN ACT relating to measures for ensuring public school safety, including the development and implementation of purchases relating to and funding for public school safety and security requirements and the provision of safety-related resources." and describing it as an effort to make its public school students safer isn't making a claim either. So no, again, I'm not making a claim, even though you repeatedly say so.

.

Even though you ask questions about the new law, when you're given the bill to read to satisfy your curiosity, you don't look. Why?

.

Even though AE has explained the SCOTUS rulings, you can't let go of your assumptions. For example, you return to the Florida case without considering the possibility of Texas' new law being different. Even though I've given you the Texas bill to examine, you haven't. Why do you turn away from anything that may change your opinion?

Just out of curiosity, what would you imagine the "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" was about? Climate change? Because that's a big chunk of the act. Also, negotiating prescription drug prices.

Did the Patriot Act have anything to do with American patriots? Nope.

The partial birth abortion ban banned a medical procedure that doesn't exist.

So, saying that this bill increases safety (or even intends to) in Texas is a claim, no matter what the bill/law has been titled.

Also, at your instance, I did read the bill. At least one officer/guard/armed teacher per school with no obligation to actually do anything in a school shooting looks an awful lot like window dressing because that's what it is.

I guess heavily armed - you mean like tanks?

in uvalde they had all the guns available 120 highly trained cops. they all jacked off with their guns while the fuck inside had a fucking shooting fish in a barrel haha.

even that one cop was fondling his dick while his wife bled to death.

as long as you idiots give people weapons of war - they will use them. to kill people. live with it.

Quote by mmmmm_wong

I guess heavily armed - you mean like tanks?

in uvalde they had all the guns available 120 highly trained cops. they all jacked off with their guns while the fuck inside had a fucking shooting fish in a barrel haha.

even that one cop was fondling his dick while his wife bled to death.

as long as you idiots give people weapons of war - they will use them. to kill people. live with it.

Yep.

Quote by ElCoco

Thanks for that! This shows the content of the bill is just as important as its title. And Texas not only claims it'll help, but Texas has also budgeted money for it.

.

Is the Income Tax a tax? Yes.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.

Does the Agriculture budget fund the Department of Agriculture? Yes.

Does the VA budget fund the Department of Veterans Affairs? Yes.

Does the DOD budget fund the Department of Defense? Yes.

Does the HHS budget fund the Department of Health and Human Services? Yes.

Does the DOT budget fund the Department of Transportation (DOT)? Yes.

I've given more Yeses than your Nos, so I win that battle.

.

Cool. Since you did read the bill, you should have noticed

Sec. 37.0814.  ARMED SECURITY OFFICER REQUIRED. (a)  The board of trustees of each school district shall determine the appropriate number of armed security officers for each district campus.  The board must ensure that at least one armed security officer is present during regular school hours at each district campus.

So, not only does a potential shooter know there's at least one person in the school who knows how to handle a gun and is authorized to use it, but the shooter doesn't necessarily know how many of those opponents there are. Now if we're talking about somebody who's planning a suicide by cop, there's not much that can be done. If there's enough rationality left inside that potential shooter to be able to plan, then knowing there's armed security in one potential target and none in another, the school might not remain the target.

Are you hoping for a 100% effective fix?

OMG, LOL! It's like you added 5 fictitious battles to the Civil War and then claimed the south won.

Edited to say: You don't need to mislead people about where money to fund a government agency comes from. However, if you want this window-dressing bill to pass, you need to convince people that Texas is actually doing anything to make Texas schools safer. It doesn't mean they believe it, but they want you to.

Here's an article that talks about how naming bills sometimes takes longer than writing the legislation. They're designed to dupe you, which it did.

https://theconversation.com/in-congress-the-name-of-a-bill-may-have-nothing-to-do-with-whats-in-it-its-all-about-salesmanship-188040

Quote by Ironic

You two are talking past each other and not responding to what the other has to say.

That happens when you believe the other person isn't making an argument in good faith. Perhaps ElCoco feels the same way about me as I do about them.

Quote by ElCoco
That's the Bill Texas passed to improve the safety of Texas' public schools. That's the law I pointed to. That's a goal Texas has, and that's how they're going about it. That's not a claim I made.

So, just for the record: you're not claiming that the Texas bill's requirement that every school should have at least one armed security guard is an effort to increase the safety of school kids. Is that correct?

Quote by ElCoco

You're grasping at straws now. If you ever read the bill, you'll see it's intended to increase the security of its public school children, and not only with armed staff. Not only is it intended and funded to increase the security of its public school children, but it's also titled to show that's what it's for. So, if the facts of the bill don't persuade you it's intended to increase the security of its public school children, then I don't think anything will.

Another unanswered question.

Quote by ElCoco

Another nonresponse. Let me know when you're up for a discussion on the facts.

I've stated my claim. It's a general claim about the requirement of having armed security officers in schools to increase safety for school kids. It's not specifically about the Texas bill/implementation. You, on the other hand, have been playing Schrödinger's cat about what your claim is exactly.
If you finally dare to take a position, then maybe we can have a discussion indeed.

So, do you agree with my claim or not? If not, why not?

Quote by ElCoco

If you want a discussion, you'll need to recognize the Texas law as an attempt to improve the safety of its public schools. So far, you haven't.

Let's say, for conversation's sake, that this law is aimed at making schools safer. If you leaved out the armed officers, I might even agree, because it requires the active shooter drills, evacuation plans, hierarchy of command in an emergency, contingency for the less mobile students, etc.

In Texas, since January 1, 2023, there have 28 mass shootings, resulting in 42 deaths and 125 injuries. One state in about 6 months. If armed guards are the safety answer for schools, would you advocate for them anywhere there's a public gathering? Especially established public gatherings, like movie theaters, shopping centers, and concerts?

Quote by ElCoco

If you want a discussion, you'll need to recognize the Texas law as an attempt to improve the safety of its public schools. So far, you haven't.

LOL, that's like saying "if you want a discussion you'll have to agree with me". I understand that it might seem like an attempt to some Americans, but it does not to me.

Quote by ElCoco

That's more like us agreeing a tree is a tree, even if seems different to you. I've given you plenty of information to understand why Texas thinks that's an effort to improve school safety. Not that it's a guarantee of success, but that it's an effort. Since you can't or won't admit the bill is an attempt by Texas to improve the safety of its public schools, you haven't left much for us to talk about.

What matters is whether it'll increase safety for school kids. Whether it's an attempt to achieve that or not is of no importance. For all I care increased safety is the random byproduct of something unrelated.

You say it's an attempt that is not guaranteed to succeed. I say it can't guarantee increased safety as long as those armed security officers are not made responsible for fighting off active school shooters. It's just an extra gun at school. And another employee, who has to be paid, but who can not be required to do precisely what the bill claims to try to achieve. That's not an attempt. That's just more thoughts and prayers and guns. It's hoping that one such officer will try to fight off a school shooter.

By why would they? Why would they risk their lives? They get paid, kids need to respect their authority and they can never be held responsible for not doing the main thing they're hired for.

If it's an attempt, then the attempt is to not focus or deal with the cause of the problem.

Quote by Chryses

Here is an example of the value of security measures in one school. Gunman at Memphis Jewish school thwarted by security measures

ok. and...?

Here is an example of what current US gun politics, and the lack of will power to deal with the cause, leads to. Gunman at Memphis Jewish school

They got lucky. The next gunner wanting to shoot up a school might not be stopped in time

just ban, round up, then destroy all guns