Burning Down

I don't see how having armed guards in schools would be productive at all. It's a school, not a ****ing army base camp. You don't need to turn into North Korea to solve gun problems...

8 billion bucks for that program? The US is already trillions and trillions of dollars in debt, meaning that there are bigger problems to deal with.

Freebase Dali

I haven't read the NRA's statement, as I generally don't give a sh*t about them and don't think they're necessary at all, nor do I feel like they represent me or my rights any more than the constitution does. But, if I step aside from politics for a moment and just use logic alone, I would be glad to make some (admitted) assumptions about what I recommended.

First.
If we take the Sandy Hook scenario into account and use it as our basis for this: I think that if there was a trained, armed individual or two at the school at the time of the shooting, there would have been a far higher probability of lives being saved. I'm basing this arbitrary number (represented by the word "far", and assuming it's a significantly greater value than the comparison) on the fact that with NO trained, armed individuals located at the school, the likelihood of retaliation and neutralization of the shooter is effectively 0% until the perpetrator either kills himself or is killed by the first responding armed unit.

Using basic analytical skill, I can arrive at the assumption that an armed guard or two would have been preferable to none, even if solely based on the probabilities.
Considering the value of innocent life over monetary concerns, I would fight in the corner of the former, rather than the latter.

Let me know if I lost you guys so far.

Now, if we wanted to address the feasibility of cost after having already concluded that innocent human life was more important, but would like to make this as financially and economically as efficient as possible, we could possibly stop thinking solely in terms of public sector funding, and think about opportunities to provide armed security in places we would not like our innocent citizens to be gunned down in mass quantities, versus how many pieces of paper it's costing us.

I know this sounds crazy, but let's just key in on a demographic sector that might benefit from a job. Ex military veterans coming out of infantry positions that have little else to offer in terms of experience than migrating to private security (wow! perfect fit! And a lot of these guys are jobless right now!) or public law enforcement (Oh sh*t! Another great skill set!).
Another demographic is ex-cops.
Another is people that need jobs in general.
What if... and this is totally a what if... I know this is going to sound extra crazy, but what if we lobby for cutting government spending in other, less important programs and create a job market for a much needed commodity, which is protecting our schools from violent criminals?
These would be individuals being paid money that is ultimately flowing back into the economy at a consumer level, and being able to put food on his family's table while protecting the lives of your families as they go to school.

I understand that this entire concept probably "sounds stupid" or something, but I dunno. Maybe having employed security at schools might "seem crazy because we're totally not used to guys with guns being at your kid's kindergarten class" and it seems all "nazi-like" and we're "totally not used to that" and "it's weird", and maybe that's the f*cking problem.
Maybe the next Adam Lanza won't be so keen to drop in on a bunch of defenseless, unguarded children if they know trained, armed individuals will be there to intercept them. Maybe we can actually think about the benefits to human life this might have, instead of being superficially offended by the presence of people with "scary guns all Gestapo-like that I'm conditioned to be opposed to because I saw this go bad in movies". (just throwing probable positions out there)

You would think this shouldn't be an outrageous concept. After all, we've all warmed up nicely to pilots having guns on airplanes, and air marshals as well. I don't think it would be outlandish to provide at least some measure of security at public schools as well (Something more than Adam Lanza obviously got around), instead of the current law which is basically "law abiding citizens must not bring weapons to school. But if you decide to break the law, we're totally gonna have cops on your ass after you've killed a lot of people".

Well, I guess it's just tough sh*t for the families of the children that died. It's not like stricter gun laws are going to change the level of security when there, by extension, can be no one to counteract those that don't follow such laws (until all the victims are already victims, as so obviously portrayed at Sandy Hook)

I dunno.
If people can't see the logic in this, then I don't know what to say. I like to think of myself as at least a half-way intelligent person, but if I'm missing something completely glaring, please do let me know.

midnight rain

I wouldn't say the problem is 'bigger issues' so much as taking a risk in something that is only going to lead to a more hostile and unfriendly environment.

Why not take a chance on the type of policy that Great Britain enacts for example?

edit: I didn't see Freebase's response until after I made this post, I'm intrigued what he has to say though

Freebase Dali

So your argument is that the risk of having armed individuals protecting innocent civilians causing a hostile, unfriendly environment is greater and more pressing than the risk of those innocent civilians not having someone there to protect them should a guy do what Lanza did.

Let me know if I calculated this wrong.

Because taking a chance on policy that affects one culture, population and demographic and simply applying it to another completely different scenario is ridiculous and misguided.
If you wanna make comparisons without any regard to the differences in the culture and population, then let's just arbitrarily throw Mexico's gun laws into the discussion and let you try to explain that away...

Rjinn

I always thought the news is a more detrimental influence than tv or movies. Most people tend to just point at tv or movies, when the realistic aspect lies in the media that make it all the more accessible. I tend to notice a more obvious pattern of incidents after news reports.

__________________
last.fm

Freebase Dali

I agree and think news media is a factor. I mean, consider the fact that, although violent crime has actually decreased since the '90s, public perception of personal safety has decreased along with it.
I'll be the first to admit that my attributing of sensationalist media is only an assumption, but I can't help but draw a correlation. I'm not asserting there's a causation there, but if I were a betting man, I'd put my chips on yes.

midnight rain

I don't see a guy like Lanza getting his hands on a gun with the kind of policy that Great Britain has. He stole the weapons from his mother, who had them legally, let's not forget.


Mexican criminals get the majority of their weapons from the U.S. because they have strict gun control laws. If we were to enact stricter laws, it could potentially bring down violent crime in the U.S. AND Mexico.

All that said, I still haven't read through your novel of a post earlier. I'm a little drunk and think I may wanna be a bit more lucid when I speak on it.

Bloozcrooz

__________________
<DoctorSoft>: You know life is good when you take Viagra to jack off lol

midnight rain

You give people on here far too little credit to sift through the propaganda nd bull****

the image on the left is the current state, and reflects the opinions of VERY LITTLE people. almost everyone acknowledges something needs to be done, the idea is whether to address the criminal or the citizen

Freebase Dali

Let's also not forget that apparently she had them laying around with easy access. But I do concede that if Lanza didn't have any access to guns, he would not have used guns to make a statement. I don't think he would have just relegated himself to not making a statement at all, however.
Getting rid of guns might make it harder for suburban kids to get a hold of them, but it won't stop the crazy ones from being crazy, nor will it stop criminals in the U.S. from using them to prey on others.

If you think Mexico's gun problem is the result of the U.S. having guns, then I can't really fault you for having that position. But if you think the U.S. somehow going *boop* and deciding that guns are no longer legal is going to actually change anything either here or in Mexico except regular citizens in the U.S. no longer having anything to defend themselves with except a sock full of batteries and a fireplace poker, then I hope I'm not around if you become the next contestant on You're The Latest Best Inadequately Unguarded Victim of Seedy Human Nature.

I mean, when 'Merica says "Ok gaiz, no mor gunZ nao!", I don't think it's realistic to assume they all just evaporate and suddenly the clouds dissipate and everyone starts having peace on earth. The only change here would be now those who didn't turn their arms in have a pretty awesome advantage over those that did. And That's the sort of thing that would probably instill confidence in those wishing you harm, knowing all you have to fight back with is a baseball bat.