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

[Azure]

Well I can easily answer 2 of those.

The armed resource officer at Columbine was in a different building, which just goes to show how difficult it would be for one person to cover an entire school.

At Fort Hood, military personal are not allowed to carry on base, so the shooter basically attacked a gun free zone. Virginia Tech is also a great example of why MORE cops at schools wouldn't exactly solve the problem entire.

But then again, I read today that 40% of schools in the US have a police officer on premises at LEAST one hour per day, so who knows what will happen now.

[Caged Great]

The thing is that from start to finish the entire shooting in Newtown was something like 5-10 minutes. Really, even if there is a single cop on the scene, it would take at least one-two minutes to run from one side of the school to the other. Add in response time from the first shot being fired to the cop responding, and you're looking at close to half way through the carnage before the cop gets there.

Then what, he's only got a hand gun against a guy in body armour. Unless the guy's a marksman and hit the guy in the head from 20-50 feet or further with a handgun, then he's not going to be much help, especially when the target can spray the area and he himself doesn't have any body armour.

So really logistically having a cop on scene isn't really going to make a difference, and would more than likely be the first guy shot, and would most likely just add another body to the pile.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

The thing is that from start to finish the entire shooting in Newtown was something like 5-10 minutes. Really, even if there is a single cop on the scene, it would take at least one-two minutes to run from one side of the school to the other. Add in response time from the first shot being fired to the cop responding, and you're looking at close to half way through the carnage before the cop gets there.

Then what, he's only got a hand gun against a guy in body armour. Unless the guy's a marksman and hit the guy in the head from 20-50 feet or further with a handgun, then he's not going to be much help, especially when the target can spray the area and he himself doesn't have any body armour.

So really logistically having a cop on scene isn't really going to make a difference, and would more than likely be the first guy shot, and would most likely just add another body to the pile.

Yes, but wouldn't the thought of someone defending the school, tend to deter a potential shooter?

[Minnie]

Did it deter anyone at Columbine or V-Tech?

[Azure]

I think most of the studies done in regards to cops being stationed at schools indicate that the benefits are more in the line of mentorship, awareness, etc, etc...and not so much in stopping crime.

[Rathji]

Possibly, but in those cases listed, it was pretty obvious that the shooter would have known what protective forces existed. If it deterred them, then it did a rather poor job of it.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Yes, but wouldn't the thought of someone defending the school, tend to deter a potential shooter?

Not really. If you're planning on doing that, you'd expect to meet some resistance along the way. Whether it's one guy or the swat team. You're there to die, and to take as many people with you.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Possibly, but in those cases listed, it was pretty obvious that the shooter would have known what protective forces existed. If it deterred them, then it did a rather poor job of it.

It is extremely hard to gather any kind of evidence as to what kind of deterrence having a cop stationed at the school would offer. From all accounts, because the shooters are willing to kill themselves, I doubt it would be much.

But maybe it stops one shooter. We don't really know. Hard to really tell.

Still a bandaid solution IMO.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

And even if it did deter a shooter...it may only deter them from going to a school...they could just as easily choose a different location a mall, a daycare, a theatre...

It just won't be effective in changing what needs to change (less wackos with weapons)

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I never thought that the NRA was run by ######s, and I'm sorry about the term so I'll take it back and use the term morons.

Seriously? Since Reagan was shot most people knew the truth. The NRA are full of power because they fund politics with large money(republican mostly) and the funds come from, guess where?....gun manufacturer's.

The way US politics is run is a farce, the elected leader can't lead because of a bought off senate from sources like the NRA. Put a vote to the actual American people I would bet gun laws would change in a big and a very positive way.

Sad that the most powerful country in the world can't protect it's own people because of greed and politics.

[FlameOn]

Maybe if the NRA wants armed guards in every school they should pay for it. Apparently the cost would be upwards of $18billion to implement cross country. Not that armed guards are effective given the suicidal behaviour of the most of the shooters. Like Fozzie_DeBear mentioned in past shootings shooters didn't really care whether or not people in the area were armed.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...uld-pay-for-it

[flamesfever]

Does anyone know if it would take an amendment to the US Constitution to create universal gun legislation? If it did, it seems strangely opportune that the movie "Lincoln" is coming out, at this point in time, showing the amendment process.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Does anyone know if it would take an amendment to the US Constitution to create universal gun legislation? If it did, it seems strangely opportune that the movie "Lincoln" is coming out, at this point in time, showing the amendment process.

Basiically the 2nd amendment is vague enough that with public support they can do anything with it, there is nothing in the second amendmant that would preclude limiting the types of guns or number a citizan could have, in fact a goverment could conceivably limit gun ownership to members of a militia with the subsequent meeting requirement, want a gun you have to go drill twice a month for 2 hours or so and turn out for camp every 3 months.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is extremely hard to gather any kind of evidence as to what kind of deterrence having a cop stationed at the school would offer. From all accounts, because the shooters are willing to kill themselves, I doubt it would be much.

But maybe it stops one shooter. We don't really know. Hard to really tell.

Still a bandaid solution IMO.

The cost of it makes it impossible regardless of whether it would work or not, the US is broke.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The cost of it makes it impossible regardless of whether it would work or not, the US is broke.

If 40% of schools already have police, and they can be used for other purposes in addition to police work, and if volunteer auxilliary police can be used, what would you say then?

What price do you put on a child?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Maybe if the NRA wants armed guards in every school they should pay for it. Apparently the cost would be upwards of $18billion to implement cross country. Not that armed guards are effective given the suicidal behaviour of the most of the shooters. Like Fozzie_DeBear mentioned in past shootings shooters didn't really care whether or not people in the area were armed.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...uld-pay-for-it

I imagine many NRA supporters are also supporters of smaller government. An $18 million, publicly funded government initiative like this doesn't seem to me like something they would be in favour of.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

While obviously a tragedy, this would be the costliest plan of action in response to the crime committed, with negligible - if any benefits associated with the plan. There has been one shooting at an elementary school that I can think of - the odds of a repeat of this occurrence are minute, combined with the fact that it is questionable if an armed guard would actually stop an armed gunman make me think that this is the dumbest approach to take, especially given the associated price tag.

The other aspect is, I can't imagine the boredom associated with being an armed guard at an elementary school, I would think that would undoubtedly be the most boring job of all time.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If 40% of schools already have police, and they can be used for other purposes in addition to police work, and if volunteer auxilliary police can be used, what would you say then?

What price do you put on a child?

40% of other schools may have a police presence, but is it for a full school day, or is it a 1-hour be seen, then leave type of deal? I doubt all 100% of the 40% have a full 7-4 police presence.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If 40% of schools already have police, and they can be used for other purposes in addition to police work, and if volunteer auxilliary police can be used, what would you say then?

What price do you put on a child?

Armed volunteers? That seems like an awful, awful idea... putting randomly armed people into a school is a recipe for disaster, the first time that there is an accidental discharge, which will eventually happen. Also I know in my high school there was a police officer who was there from 1-3 pm on a Wednesday or something like that and he sat in an office on the second floor, there were no roving patrols, or shows of force or anything that would act as a deterrent.

Sorry but at a 10 billion dollar price tag there has to be a better option... such as I don't know - installing locks on the doors and a buzzer to the office for the secretary.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Armed volunteers? That seems like an awful, awful idea... putting randomly armed people into a school is a recipe for disaster, the first time that there is an accidental discharge, which will eventually happen. Also I know in my high school there was a police officer who was there from 1-3 pm on a Wednesday or something like that and he sat in an office on the second floor, there were no roving patrols, or shows of force or anything that would act as a deterrent.

Sorry but at a 10 billion dollar price tag there has to be a better option... such as I don't know - installing locks on the doors and a buzzer to the office for the secretary.

The volunteers would be well respected members of the cummunity that would be properly trained.

I think your idea about better security is a good one...more cameras, better locking system, doors etc.