NRA calls for armed police officers in all U.S. schools

[habernac]

in the NRA's view, people who own guns are more protected. Tell me again how that worked out for Lanza's Mom, who owned many guns.

[afc wimbledon]

I would like to point out that it is actually very difficult for bad guys to get guns if you cut off their source, which is always legally purchased guns.

In the UK and to a lesser degree (due to our close proximaty to the US) black market guns are very expensive and carefully protected by criminals and not used if at all possible.

It would obviously take a few years to take out the supply of guns in the US but the reality is if the US did enact and enforce UK or Canadian style gun laws within a decade not only would they not have much of a gun problem but a big chunk of the rest of the world would become safer, the US is the source for most illegal guns in the rest of N America and Europe. Strict gun control would in the US would fix Mexicos drug war just as surely.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Even if you put a properly trained, armed police officer at every school which I'm not opposed to. Maybe he can stop a knife attack. But as others have stated. It just takes a bit more planning on the part of the shooter and the officer is the first one dead.

Also, maybe you make schools safer, but what about malls, theatres, hockey rinks, outdoor basketball courts, soccer fields, etc? This will just cause the lunatics to find an easier target.

Sorry I was not clear, I don't think cops are schools is the answer.

At Beaverbrook we had a cop, back in the late 80's. He was there as a resource than security.

I believe you and I have the same view point.

[Slava]

OK, well think about this way. These degenerates are attacking schools (the only softer target is probably an old age home?). Having just one police officer there might make them think twice.

I get that the cop might just be the first one killed. I also think that a trained officer might just have the knowledge and expertise to kill the shooter, or hold them up long enough so that back-up can arrive?

First choice for me is strict gun control. I just don't see that coming quickly. Until then we shouldn't have these schools sitting there waiting for some lunatic to decide that today is the day to die and make some statement on the way out.

[gargamel]

The NRA may be right that an armed guard would have been enough of a deterrent to get Lanza to shoot up a daycare center or church service instead of a school, but I don't see how that's an improvement.

If we want to do more than just shuffle the victims, we need to make it more difficult for these lunatics to get guns.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sorry I was not clear, I don't think cops are schools is the answer.

At Beaverbrook we had a cop, back in the late 80's. He was there as a resource than security.

I believe you and I have the same view point.

I believe we are as well.

By the way, I was talking about Beaverbrook as well, but probably 10 years after you. I assume it's still that way right now which I think is totally fine. I don't see anything wrong with having a cop at every school, but to think he'll be able to stop a mass murder is naive (not talking directly to you undercoverbrother, just a general comment on the NRA's stance on the issue.)

[rayne008]

I was certain the NRA was going to concede a little and make a statement about working at making some sort of military style assault weapon ban, which would be a very reasonable step to take that both sides could easily get on board with.

Instead we get the call for armed guards at schools??? WTF!? O_o

I really hope Obama / Biden's plan in January takes a major step in addressing this.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

- We can't do gun control because if a bad guy really wants a gun, he'll get a gun anyway.

This isn't directed at you in particular, but I've seen this statement come up a few times and wanted to address it.

This guy killed his mom for access to guns. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to think that if his mom didn't have guns, he would have probably got them from someone / somewhere else.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK, well think about this way. These degenerates are attacking schools (the only softer target is probably an old age home?). Having just one police officer there might make them think twice.

I get that the cop might just be the first one killed. I also think that a trained officer might just have the knowledge and expertise to kill the shooter, or hold them up long enough so that back-up can arrive?

First choice for me is strict gun control. I just don't see that coming quickly. Until then we shouldn't have these schools sitting there waiting for some lunatic to decide that today is the day to die and make some statement on the way out.

How would the cop be able do anything if he has no idea the shooter is coming? He is powerless until he is aware of the situation. All the shooter would need to do is create a situation outside that the cop would need to attend to and then take him out.

Set off a bunch of car alarms, light a fire, break a window etc...

[bubbsy]

curious, does the NRA feel we need cops at every movie theater also?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This isn't directed at you in particular, but I've seen this statement come up a few times and wanted to address it.

This guy killed his mom for access to guns. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to think that if his mom didn't have guns, he would have probably got them from someone / somewhere else.

Thank you.

Many people forget that many of these shooters are "law abiding" person(s) and get their weapons legally.....

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK, well think about this way. These degenerates are attacking schools (the only softer target is probably an old age home?). Having just one police officer there might make them think twice.

I get that the cop might just be the first one killed. I also think that a trained officer might just have the knowledge and expertise to kill the shooter, or hold them up long enough so that back-up can arrive?

First choice for me is strict gun control. I just don't see that coming quickly. Until then we shouldn't have these schools sitting there waiting for some lunatic to decide that today is the day to die and make some statement on the way out.

Access to military grade body armour means armed guards anywhere are all but useless, a better idea would be to change building codes so that all school doors are steel framed and lockable from the inside by teachers or students so that when things go wrong the classrooms themselves become a safe place to wait for the police. Add to that an intruder alert bell different from the fire bell and you could at least minimise some casualties.

Bottom line though is if the US want to give everybody guns they have to be prepared for 10 to 15,000 deaths a year and there is nothing that will stop that

[polak]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

curious, does the NRA feel we need cops at every movie theater also?

The NRA feels that the country should be like a speghetti western and everyone should be carrying.

[CarlW]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This isn't directed at you in particular, but I've seen this statement come up a few times and wanted to address it.

This guy killed his mom for access to guns. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to think that if his mom didn't have guns, he would have probably got them from someone / somewhere else.

It's not impossible, but it would have been hell of a lot more difficult to get an assault rifle one would think, and perhaps raise more alarms/suspicions of the authorities?

[firebug]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

It's not, only multiplied by 98,816.

Lets figure that total annual costs for a highly trained security professional are going to be $100k.

Annual cost $9.9-billion. Good thing the US doesn't have a revenue or spending problem.

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

This guy killed his mom for access to guns. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to think that if his mom didn't have guns, he would have probably got them from someone / somewhere else.

So he's just going to random houses killing people until he finds a house with guns in it?

[firebug]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

So he's just going to random houses killing people until he finds a house with guns in it?

And of course since he doesn't yet have a gun - he (the guy who couldn't even look at strangers) would have to enter a number of homes until he found an assault weapon, two hand guns, bullet proof vests, and several hundred rounds of ammunition.

I guess in the states it might only take 2 or 3 tries.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CarlW

It's not impossible, but it would have been hell of a lot more difficult to get an assault rifle one would think, and perhaps raise more alarms/suspicions of the authorities?

Was going to post this, glad I scrolled down.

Proper gun control, restrictions, and bans are the first logical steps towards stemming these kinds of tragedies.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by polak

How would the cop be able do anything if he has no idea the shooter is coming? He is powerless until he is aware of the situation. All the shooter would need to do is create a situation outside that the cop would need to attend to and then take him out.

Set off a bunch of car alarms, light a fire, break a window etc...

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Access to military grade body armour means armed guards anywhere are all but useless, a better idea would be to change building codes so that all school doors are steel framed and lockable from the inside by teachers or students so that when things go wrong the classrooms themselves become a safe place to wait for the police. Add to that an intruder alert bell different from the fire bell and you could at least minimise some casualties.

Bottom line though is if the US want to give everybody guns they have to be prepared for 10 to 15,000 deaths a year and there is nothing that will stop that

This way of thinking is so defeatist though. Because it might not work we should just do nothing until the only full solution is implemented? Gun control means a long, protracted argument. Let's all hope we see it one day soon.

In the meantime though we have these wackos out there. Its a sad state of affairs when we basically say that this might not work as well as we would like, or is too expensive, or whatever other excuse we find, so we're going to do nothing but talk about how terrible this is.

[MrMastodonFarm]

The NRA and people who agree with their idea reminds me of OilKiller and his plan to get out of debt.

Money problems? Spend more money
Gun problems? More guns!