• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NRA unveils plan for armed guards in schools it says 'will save lives'

Agreed. I am also glad that I don't have kids to worry about.

Going to school should be a positive experience. And for all the criticism our schools get and as much as we want to improve education, I don't see how remolding schools so they resemble bomb shelters is going to help. When I went to high school I did worry about shootings. That's a lot if damn stress.

Telling children as young as 5 that they are not safe in school seems damaging to me. Just regulate the most dangerous guns, and improve safety but don't send children the message that schools are death zones. This is America, not some worn torn third country. We shouldn't be worried about these shootings at all. It shouldn't be happening.
You folks are just going off the deep end tonight.
 
NRA talking points. We don't need guns in public schools unless you are agreeing that the government needs to now use drones on the hate groups and gangs in this nation.
I actually Googled "NRA talking points" and couldn't find them. Could you link to where you're reading the NRA talking points please? Is a subscription required or what?
 
Agreed. I am also glad that I don't have kids to worry about.

Going to school should be a positive experience. And for all the criticism our schools get and as much as we want to improve education, I don't see how remolding schools so they resemble bomb shelters is going to help. When I went to high school I did worry about shootings. That's a lot if damn stress.

Telling children as young as 5 that they are not safe in school seems damaging to me. Just regulate the most dangerous guns, and improve safety but don't send children the message that schools are death zones. This is America, not some worn torn third country. We shouldn't be worried about these shootings at all. It shouldn't be happening.




Thank you for the news from La-La Land. Now, back to the real world...

"Regulating the most dangerous guns" will work about as well as our current efforts to keep people from getting meth and crack and heroin.... that is to say, not at all.
 
being afraid that a student might get hold of a teachers weapon, the weapon might fire accidently or that it might intimidate their child is a lot different than hating someone because of the colour of their skin.

how realistic is that-almost zero. I have carried a gun since 1983 on and off, never had one go off in the holster.
 
NRA talking points. We don't need guns in public schools unless you are agreeing that the government needs to now use drones on the hate groups and gangs in this nation.

more oozing rot about the NRA. We don't need anti gun drivel being spewed when it is based on hatred and lies. You want more victim disarmament zones so there will be more massacres that you can use to disarm people who don't buy into your far far wrong agenda
 
Call me old fashioned I just teachers should teach kids and leave the Die Hard stuff to the paid professionals.

yeah its better to have 20 dead kids than one dead nutcase
 
Regulating guns is more practical and less expensive then arming teachers and expecting an average person with a glock to kill somebody with a bushmaster. Most people went into to teaching for many reasons, but few envisioned defending the school till their death.

its also completely ineffective and has no merit.
 
You folks are just going off the deep end tonight.

they hate the gun culture and saving kids is just an afterthought

they don't really care about the safety of children OR they have not given the concept much rational thought

Lanza committed first degree capital murder to acquire his weapons. He planned on trying to break the VT record of deaths and he chose the school because he knew it was without any armed defenders.

She wolf would have us believe that someone who premeditates a massacre and has already planned to die is going to be thwarted because a bunch of pimps in office have banned certain guns. She obviously seems oblivious to the effectiveness of the war on drugs or prohibition
 
they hate the gun culture and saving kids is just an afterthought

they don't really care about the safety of children OR they have not given the concept much rational thought

Lanza committed first degree capital murder to acquire his weapons. He planned on trying to break the VT record of deaths and he chose the school because he knew it was without any armed defenders.

She wolf would have us believe that someone who premeditates a massacre and has already planned to die is going to be thwarted because a bunch of pimps in office have banned certain guns. She obviously seems oblivious to the effectiveness of the war on drugs or prohibition
I've also noticed that they assume the government will be paying for teachers to have guns.

Does it never occur to these people that some of us can pay our own bills like adults?
 
So...

Would the government pay everyone the market value of their confiscated guns? How much would that cost? I don't have an exact number, but I would think that we're talking about 100 million or more guns. That would at the very least come to 50 billion dollars. All for guns that would most likely not be used to commit a crime.

What about criminals with unregistered guns... you know the guns that are used in the bulk of gun crimes. Are you volunteering to go to Detroit and collect guns from gang members?

Your rhetoric is a waste of time, for two reasons. You're asking questions you really don't want to hear my answers to (and would undoubtedly argue) and we both know what I want will not happen any time in the near future. So let's not waste our time with something you don't want to hear and will never happen.
Leave it to a liberal or a socialist to be unable to think something through.

If the police showed up and told a teacher to drop their weapon...what do YOU think that teacher will do? Act like a shooter and start firing at them?
Leave it to someone like you to say something ridiculous and then use it to criticize a "liberal". We went through crisis training with police just a couple of weeks ago, and they made it VERY clear that when they come in, they're coming in hard. They start shooting high and their gunfire follows you as your corpse hits the ground. They were very clear that they don't care what you do before they get there, just don't be standing in an aggressive stance when they enter the room.

But hey, continue on with your insults about being "unable to think something through".

And now we know where you get your information.

I got mine from those who were training us, who also happen to be the same people who would be entering my school if it came to that. Do you have a snide comment for me as well?
what about the parents who object to guns being in school around their children?

Or teachers who object to such an obvious difference in the power dynamic, not just between teachers and administrators, but also with the children.
Ahhh....I see what your problem is...you watch TV.

Dude...they don't call that thing the "boob tube" for nothing, you know.

See my comment above. I'd ask you to apologize, but in my short time on these forums, I won't hold my breath.
I put them in the same category as parents who don't want their children to be around gays or minorities.

From some of the posts I've read from you, this doesn't surprise me. Take that however you wish.
Stuff and nonsense. This is citizens and parents desiring that the schools where their children spend so much time are properly equipped to protect them against nutters.
Except they wish to do it in a way which makes far less sense. I agree, they are doing it because they THINK it will help, but that doesn't mean it's a logical thought.

There actually are parents from Newtown who think it would have been nice to have at least one armed person at his/her child's school on one particular day.

And there are several who think it would be a good idea to prevent those guns from getting in the wrong hands in the first place.
We already have armed guards in many schools. My son's High School has one; an off-duty police Resource Officer. They don't seem overly intimidated by him... when I go by I often see students talking with him.

As for teachers, I would personally not advocate FORCING them to be armed... oh no, not at all. Only if they do so willingly, pass the course/test for a concealed carry permit, and possibly an additional class focused on safety issues they would be dealing with in schools. Then the teachers would be carrying CONCEALED.... which means the students don't know who is or is not armed... and that puts a lot of the intimidation factor out, among other things.
Teachers should not be armed, for so many reasons. While I was originally against the idea of armed officers in the school, I've kind of come around to that line of thinking. Not only do you have more protection in the building (and not with those who are expected to be teaching), but you can also have the officers around the children, teaching them that police officers really are good people and really do care about helping others. Just in the few months since Newtown, when our local police force started coming around much more often, the kids have really warmed up to the officers. I even saw a couple giving them high fives this morning.

Armed police officers? I'm okay with that now, I think. Armed teachers? Terrible idea.

And church-goers should just go to church instead of saving a hundred of their fellow worshipers. I understand.
Or they could just be smart and not go to church...though, I am not intending that to have anything to do with this debate, merely the idea of church itself.


No one is asking the government to pay for any of this.
Really? You better alert the NRA of this, because you and them are not on the same page:

The NRA's new list of recommendations include changing local state and district laws to allow school personnel to carry guns – the report even has appended a model state law that would do so. It calls on federal funding to be used to encourage the take up of armed school guards and their training, which would involve between 40 to 60 hours of induction into the use of weapons – with the NRA offering its services as a training institution.
NRA reveals 'school shield' plan: armed guards on every campus 'will save lives' | World news | guardian.co.uk



"Regulating the most dangerous guns" will work about as well as our current efforts to keep people from getting meth and crack and heroin.... that is to say, not at all.
Really? So meth, crack and heroin are as prolific in society as cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legal? Huh, who knew?

By the way, that was sarcasm and me disagreeing entirely with the idea regulating an item doesn't curtail it's use. My apologies for the aggressive nature of the disagreement, but I do grow tired of the argument you presented.

they hate the gun culture and saving kids is just an afterthought
:lamo

Yes, because there is NO WAY the gun culture is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people every year. Did you really just say that?

I've also noticed that they assume the government will be paying for teachers to have guns.

Does it never occur to these people that some of us can pay our own bills like adults?

Did it never occur to you to actually read the article which talked about the NRA's proposal? Because if you had, you probably wouldn't be posting this.
 
Last edited:
Did it never occur to you to actually read the article which talked about the NRA's proposal? Because if you had, you probably wouldn't be posting this.
You care more about the NRA then I do. There isn't only Obama vs. the NRA. I've been fighting to remove gun free zones for years before Sandy Hook or any of this hype.

I do not support the NRA's proposal. Not at all. I don't think there should be armed guards at the school, especially at tax payer expense. Just remove the gun-free zone. That's it. Let any ordinary regular adult who can already legally carry a gun everywhere else in the city also happen to carry while in the school, rather they work there or not. That's it. That's my whole plan. Remove the gun-free zone. No further action is necessary.
 
Last edited:
You care more about the NRA then I do.
Good attempt at a dodge, unfortunately for you I'm not fooled by word games. You were addressing the training and armament of these people in the schools. You replied to someone who asked if the NRA was paying for this with a provably false statement stating "No one is asking the government to pay for any of this". Just because you were found to be wrong doesn't mean I care about the NRA. But this thread addresses the plan put forth by the NRA, and the question you replied to asked who would pay for the NRA's plan.

Good try, better luck next time. Could you instead just admit you were wrong and apologize for spreading false information?
 
Your rhetoric is a waste of time, for two reasons. You're asking questions you really don't want to hear my answers to (and would undoubtedly argue) and we both know what I want will not happen any time in the near future. So let's not waste our time with something you don't want to hear and will never happen.

Leave it to someone like you to say something ridiculous and then use it to criticize a "liberal". We went through crisis training with police just a couple of weeks ago, and they made it VERY clear that when they come in, they're coming in hard. They start shooting high and their gunfire follows you as your corpse hits the ground. They were very clear that they don't care what you do before they get there, just don't be standing in an aggressive stance when they enter the room.

But hey, continue on with your insults about being "unable to think something through".



I got mine from those who were training us, who also happen to be the same people who would be entering my school if it came to that. Do you have a snide comment for me as well?


Or teachers who object to such an obvious difference in the power dynamic, not just between teachers and administrators, but also with the children.


See my comment above. I'd ask you to apologize, but in my short time on these forums, I won't hold my breath.


From some of the posts I've read from you, this doesn't surprise me. Take that however you wish.

Except they wish to do it in a way which makes far less sense. I agree, they are doing it because they THINK it will help, but that doesn't mean it's a logical thought.



And there are several who think it would be a good idea to prevent those guns from getting in the wrong hands in the first place.

Teachers should not be armed, for so many reasons. While I was originally against the idea of armed officers in the school, I've kind of come around to that line of thinking. Not only do you have more protection in the building (and not with those who are expected to be teaching), but you can also have the officers around the children, teaching them that police officers really are good people and really do care about helping others. Just in the few months since Newtown, when our local police force started coming around much more often, the kids have really warmed up to the officers. I even saw a couple giving them high fives this morning.

Armed police officers? I'm okay with that now, I think. Armed teachers? Terrible idea.

Or they could just be smart and not go to church...though, I am not intending that to have anything to do with this debate, merely the idea of church itself.


Really? You better alert the NRA of this, because you and them are not on the same page:


NRA reveals 'school shield' plan: armed guards on every campus 'will save lives' | World news | guardian.co.uk




Really? So meth, crack and heroin are as prolific in society as cigarettes and alcohol, both of which are legal? Huh, who knew?

By the way, that was sarcasm and me disagreeing entirely with the idea regulating an item doesn't curtail it's use. My apologies for the aggressive nature of the disagreement, but I do grow tired of the argument you presented.


:lamo

Yes, because there is NO WAY the gun culture is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people every year. Did you really just say that?



Did it never occur to you to actually read the article which talked about the NRA's proposal? Because if you had, you probably wouldn't be posting this.

I have been dealing with the ARC for almost 40 years. The ignorant low information sheep who think gun control=crime control might believe the swill people like Biden and Feintard spew. But those turds and the other leaders of the gun ban movement don't give a damn about innocent children. Its about punishing voters and organizations who tend to fund the GOP

I have forgotten more about this topic than I suspect you will ever know. I am a court certified expert on this subject. I have been involved in shootings, defending shooters and doing "postmortems" on defensive or claimed defensive shootings.

I train with one of the leading authorities on active shooters in the nation. Blaming law abiding gun owners for these shootings is pathetic. Those who create gun free zones are far far more culpable but in reality, its the killers who are at fault and people like you want them to operate in a safe environment
 
Good attempt at a dodge, unfortunately for you I'm not fooled by word games. You were addressing the training and armament of these people in the schools. You replied to someone who asked if the NRA was paying for this with a provably false statement stating "No one is asking the government to pay for any of this". Just because you were found to be wrong doesn't mean I care about the NRA. But this thread addresses the plan put forth by the NRA, and the question you replied to asked who would pay for the NRA's plan.

Good try, better luck next time. Could you instead just admit you were wrong and apologize for spreading false information?


why do the anti gun ARC members spend so much time whining about the NRA and almost no bandwidth bashing criminals?
 
The ignorant low information sheep who think gun control=crime control might believe the swill people like Biden and Feintard spew.
Yes, because it's not like there are countries all over the world which support such a belief....oh wait....

But those turds and the other leaders of the gun ban movement don't give a damn about innocent children. Its about punishing voters and organizations who tend to fund the GOP
As opposed to the GOP, who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the 2nd Amendment or innocent children, except to curry favor with their voters.

What a waste of time for you to state something so obvious. By the way, my bet is I care FAR more about school children (and school safety) than you do, and I'm much more likely to agree with Biden than I am you. For what it's worth.

I have forgotten more about this topic than I suspect you will ever know.
Really? How long have you been a teacher?

I am a court certified expert on this subject. I have been involved in shootings, defending shooters and doing "postmortems" on defensive or claimed defensive shootings.
Congratulations??? What does that have to do with arming teachers?

I train with one of the leading authorities on active shooters in the nation. Blaming law abiding gun owners for these shootings is pathetic. Those who create gun free zones are far far more culpable but in reality, its the killers who are at fault and people like you want them to operate in a safe environment
Is it really so hard to read my entire post? If yes, then don't ever bother replying to me again. If no, go back and read the post of mine you quoted again.
 
Here in SD we're arming more than teachers.
 
It's not like it's rocket science to learn how to properly use and handle a gun. A few safety and shooting classes. Why are people SO afraid of armed teachers?
 
why do the anti gun ARC members spend so much time whining about the NRA and almost no bandwidth bashing criminals?
:lamo

Because we all love criminals, don't you know? What a ridiculous post. Nobody defends evil people, we all agree they are evil and criminals are bashed all the time. Are you really saying those who supporter stricter gun control haven't criticized what Adam Lanza did? Of course they have, you're just being silly if you argue otherwise.

I edited my post, please readdress your response accordingly.
There's no point responding. You replied to a question asking if the NRA would pay for their proposal. Your response was that no one is asking the government to pay for this, which is provably false.

I'm glad we agree the NRA's plan is stupid. Where we disagree is your idea that adults should be allowed to carry firearms on a school campus. And if you wish to debate this, I've already provided a post explaining my side.

It's not like it's rocket science to learn how to properly use and handle a gun. A few safety and shooting classes. Why are people SO afraid of armed teachers?
For many reasons. But for me, it's not just the fear of untrained teachers being asked to engage in life and death situations in an open environment and make all the right decisions, it's also the effect it has on every day education in the classroom and collaboration amongst peers.
 
Yes, because it's not like there are countries all over the world which support such a belief....oh wait....

As opposed to the GOP, who doesn't give a rat's rear end about the 2nd Amendment or innocent children, except to curry favor with their voters.

What a waste of time for you to state something so obvious. By the way, my bet is I care FAR more about school children (and school safety) than you do, and I'm much more likely to agree with Biden than I am you. For what it's worth.

Really? How long have you been a teacher?

Congratulations??? What does that have to do with arming teachers?


Is it really so hard to read my entire post? If yes, then don't ever bother replying to me again. If no, go back and read the post of mine you quoted again.

citing other countries is a losing argument. YOur post is swill and has no merit. I have a kid in school-a school my family helped found. So you are wrong. Your silly calls for gun restrictions do nothing.
 
Where we disagree is your idea that adults should be allowed to carry firearms on a school campus.
We already carry guns around you and your children; at the park, at the mall, in the store. There's nothing special about a school.
 
For many reasons. But for me, it's not just the fear of untrained teachers being asked to engage in life and death situations in an open environment and make all the right decisions, it's also the effect it has on every day education in the classroom and collaboration amongst peers.

Think about this. If a gunman comes into YOUR child's school, it isn't a "life or death" situation. If no one is armed, it is just a death situation, unless you're one of the lucky ones. The ONLY thing that will stop a lunatic like that is to take him out immediately. I would rather know that there is at least ONE armed person on the premises. We have armed guards to protect our money, our celebrities, our politicians, but we're too frightened to protect our children?

Also, the chances that a teacher would actually ever have to use that weapon are pretty slim.

BTW, who says they have to be untrained. Like I said, you don't have to be a genius to learn how to properly and safely shoot and care for your weapon.

Also, I don't think it would have ANY effect on the students or the classroom learning environment. The children wouldn't even have to know.
 
citing other countries is a losing argument.

Yes, anything which supports our side must be a losing argument. Seriously, just stop. There are plenty of people who are quality debaters on being pro gun, but right now, you're not striking me as one of them.

I have a kid in school-a school my family helped found. So you are wrong. Your silly calls for gun restrictions do nothing.
And I teach nearly 200 different kids every week in the school I've been a part of for over 20 years. If we're comparing resumes....

We already carry guns around you and your children; at the park, at the mall, in the store. There's nothing special about a school.

Yes, there is. A school is a place to learn. The relationship between adult and child and the relationship between co-workers is very important. I don't care if you carry your firearm at the park or the mall or the store, it doesn't affect what I do and it doesn't affect the learning my student have. But bring a firearm into the equation and the dynamic in the relationship changes dramatically. And there is no way you can possibly argue otherwise, else there would be no point in you arguing for guns in school.
 
*Note* Apologies for the double post, forum timed out in between.
Think about this. If a gunman comes into YOUR child's school, it isn't a "life or death" situation.
Of course it is. You have to decide to fight or flee. You need to know how many intruders there are, where they are, and what their intentions (specifically) might be.

If no one is armed, it is just a death situation, unless you're one of the lucky ones. The ONLY thing that will stop a lunatic like that is to take him out immediately. I would rather know that there is at least ONE armed person on the premises. We have armed guards to protect our money, our celebrities, our politicians, but we're too frightened to protect our children?
Could you please read the long post I posted earlier, the one about having uniformed police officers in the building? Thank you.

Also, the chances that a teacher would actually ever have to use that weapon are pretty slim.
Yes, you are right. The teacher would most likely be the first one killed.

Also, I don't think it would have ANY effect on the students or the classroom learning environment. The children wouldn't even have to know.
Unequivocally false. The children WOULD know and it WOULD have an effect on the environment. If introducing a gun to a situation doesn't change the dynamic in a situation, why bother to have the gun in the first place. Your entire argument is based around the gun changing the dynamic in a situation, why do you think it would not do the same in other situations?
 
Leave it to someone like you to say something ridiculous and then use it to criticize a "liberal". We went through crisis training with police just a couple of weeks ago, and they made it VERY clear that when they come in, they're coming in hard. They start shooting high and their gunfire follows you as your corpse hits the ground. They were very clear that they don't care what you do before they get there, just don't be standing in an aggressive stance when they enter the room.

But hey, continue on with your insults about being "unable to think something through".

You make the same mistake the other guy made....not thinking things through. Now, think about it...if an armed teacher, janitor, principle...whatever...has been engaging a shooter when the police arrive, do you honestly think the police are going to fire them up just because they have a gun in their hand? If they do, someone's going to lose his job at the least. Maybe go to prison. Furthermore, I would expect the police to KNOW that there is an armed friendly person on the grounds. Sounds to me like your police want you to just sit tight in your classroom huddled in a corner with your kids. And it sounds to me like you are content to do just that.

See my comment above. I'd ask you to apologize, but in my short time on these forums, I won't hold my breath.

I have no reason to apologize to you. Heck, I wasn't even TALKING to you when I made my comments. So...unless you are the sock puppet of the person I WAS talking to, you need to get off your high horse, dude.

And there are several who think it would be a good idea to prevent those guns from getting in the wrong hands in the first place.

And they would be thinking like dumbasses if they think anyone can prevent firearms from getting in the wrong hands.

Or they could just be smart and not go to church...though, I am not intending that to have anything to do with this debate, merely the idea of church itself.

You know what? You go right ahead and be *****whipped by the thought of someone choosing to be armed if they think they may be in danger while doing whatever they want to do to live their lives. Like going to church.
 
Back
Top Bottom