Recognitions:
Gold Member

 Quote by Evo It's not necessary, it's all over the media in memorial articles.
Please remember that for some of us, PF is the media.

I really hate the fact that I do not know this little peacenik's name.

------------------------------
breathe Om, breathe!
 Can't believe there so many people out there that think arming teachers or having armed guards would stop a school shooting. Did they forget that Columbine had an armed deputy had an armed deputy that couldn't stop the shooting? http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/col...UTIES_TEXT.htm

 Quote by gravenewworld Can't believe there so many people out there that think arming teachers or having armed guards would stop a school shooting. Did they forget that Columbine had an armed deputy had an armed deputy that couldn't stop the shooting?
Ask the Secret Service if they stopped guarding the President after Kennedy was killed, Ford shot at and Reagan was shot. Granted it might not be 100% effective but to use Columbine as a reason not to do it seems strange. That said I think it's a simple-minded dumb idea.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Homework Help Science Advisor Armed guards at schools would reduce the chance of any type of killing in schools, and about 1/3 of schools do have some type of armed security. It would cost about $2.5 billion to provide armed security for the rest. Part of the funding could come from taxes on firearms and ammunition, but probably not the whole amount. The taxes on firearms and ammunition would rise so high that sales would decrease, lessening the amount of tax money gathered. While the overall weapons industry generates a lot of money, presumably, any taxes would only be applied to domestic sales of small arms, meaning the taxes would have to be very high to generate the entire$2.5 billion. Plus, one has to wonder whether that's the right place to spend $2.5 billion. The murder rate for elementary school kids is very low (Table 311, a little down the page). Murder rate for pre-school age children and younger is at least three times higher than the murder rate for elementary school children, with parents being responsible for over half of those murders. Murder rates for teenagers skyrockets, more than three times higher than for pre-school kids (Table 311). The high teenage murder rates usually occur outside of school and easy access to firearms could be said to be one reason for the high murder rates (or at least one could say firearms are the most popular murder weapon among teenagers). In fact, most of the schools with armed security are schools with a teenage population (high schools, some middle and junior highs).  Quote by BobG Armed guards at schools would reduce the chance of any type of killing in schools, and about 1/3 of schools do have some type of armed security. It would cost about$2.5 billion to provide armed security for the rest. Part of the funding could come from taxes on firearms and ammunition, but probably not the whole amount. The taxes on firearms and ammunition would rise so high that sales would decrease, lessening the amount of tax money gathered. While the overall weapons industry generates a lot of money, presumably, any taxes would only be applied to domestic sales of small arms, meaning the taxes would have to be very high to generate the entire $2.5 billion. Plus, one has to wonder whether that's the right place to spend$2.5 billion. The murder rate for elementary school kids is very low (Table 311, a little down the page). Murder rate for pre-school age children and younger is at least three times higher than the murder rate for elementary school children, with parents being responsible for over half of those murders. Murder rates for teenagers skyrockets, more than three times higher than for pre-school kids (Table 311). The high teenage murder rates usually occur outside of school and easy access to firearms could be said to be one reason for the high murder rates (or at least one could say firearms are the most popular murder weapon among teenagers). In fact, most of the schools with armed security are schools with a teenage population (high schools, some middle and junior highs).
I don't think deploying armed guards to stop school shootings is a realistic plan.

The first question to ask is where are these events taking place? IMO - when the discussion turns to guns - we have two problem areas.

The first is crime related (often injuring innocent victims) and the second is the more publicized type (school, theatre, campus, hospital, etc.) On the crime side, weapons might be part of daily life on the street. On the other side, weapons are tools of choice to do whatever crazy plan they've concocted.

In the case of a school shooting, an armed guard is just one additional variable to be avoided - much like a police officer on the street. Again, it's just what I think.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by nsaspook Ask the Secret Service if they stopped guarding the President after Kennedy was killed, Ford shot at and Reagan was shot. Granted it might not be 100% effective but to use Columbine as a reason not to do it seems strange. That said I think it's a simple-minded dumb idea.
The secret service had always guarded the presidents and always will. Asking if they quit after Kennedy was shot was a strawman.

Anyone ever wonder what the outcome may have been if John Hinckley had been carrying a 9MM Glock with a high capacity magazine instead of a .22 caliber revolver? And no that is not a strawman that just brings us up to date on what we are facing.

My grand son's grade school already has an armed Resource Officer. Depending on the size of the school one officer may not be enough.

The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target. If we put armed guards at the schools, the only deterrent will be the presence of the guard not the effectiveness. Next they will have to put armed guards on the school buses. Will Junior High basketball games be next?

Each incident presents a different tactical situation especially in a crowd. Will we need snipers at football games.?

The death toll at these types of incidents is related to the sheer firepower that the perpetrator comes with.

There was a citizen armed with a Glock at the Gabriele Gifford's shooting in Tucson. He couldn't get a clear shot.

 Loughner allegedly proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[2][20] The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[21][22] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[23] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it .[24] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.[25] The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

 Quote by edward The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target.
Adam Lanza killed himself. He knew it was going to be a suicide mission. Why would he be concerned about going for the easiest target?

 Quote by SixNein There is already an estimated 300 million guns in circulation. In a basic nutshell, the realistic answer is that making weapons less available is not an option. We can however control the situation with bullets.
The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection.

The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by edward The secret service had always guarded the presidents and always will. Asking if they quit after Kennedy was shot was a strawman. Anyone ever wonder what the outcome may have been if John Hinckley had been carrying a 9MM Glock with a high capacity magazine instead of a .22 caliber revolver? And no that is not a strawman that just brings us up to date on what we are facing. My grand son's grade school already has an armed Resource Officer. Depending on the size of the school one officer may not be enough. The perpetrators of these crimes are going for the easiest target. If we put armed guards at the schools, the only deterrent will be the presence of the guard not the effectiveness. Next they will have to put armed guards on the school buses. Will Junior High basketball games be next? Each incident presents a different tactical situation especially in a crowd. Will we need snipers at football games.? The death toll at these types of incidents is related to the sheer firepower that the perpetrator comes with. There was a citizen armed with a Glock at the Gabriele Gifford's shooting in Tucson. He couldn't get a clear shot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Pennsylvania gunman kills woman in church, two other people before dying in shootout with police

 As the gunman fled, his pickup truck crashed into a second vehicle, and he shot and killed the other driver, police said. The truck subsequently crashed into a car driven by one of the troopers on Juniata Valley Road near Geeseytown, and the gunman got out and began firing. The troopers returned fire, killing the suspect, police said.

like a noose....
 In regards to Lanzas motives, this is a possibility. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...loved-him.html Also I believe I read(can't find the source) that he got into a fight at the school the day before the shooting. It might have been with the school psychologist. If this is the case then it's possible she was going to work with Lanzas mother to commit him. If this is true then what he did was not random or unguided but an act of what he considerd revenge.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by skeptic2 The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection. The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.
This was exactly my thought process. Bullets have a shelf life, and one can control that variable so much easier than guns. It's flexible and provides lots of options.

A friend of mine also suggested something like a drivers license for guns. People would be required to undergo training, background checks, and the would obtain a license to buy guns and bullets. In every say 4 years, the person would have to undergo the same treatment again to achieve a renewal.
 I like that idea but was thinking along the lines of a militia. So you want a gun per the second amendment then you have to attend militia training every x months.

 Quote by skeptic2 The same thought occurred to me. In fact restriction of ammunition could be much more flexible than restricting weapons. For instance the purchase of a hunting license could come with a permit for a reasonable number of rounds. Shooting ranges could sell all the ammunition a customer wants but he would not be allowed to take it with him. Home owners would also be allowed reasonable number of rounds for protection. The idea would be to prevent a gun owner from stockpiling large amounts of ammunition. Different types of ammunition could have different limits. High powered assault rifle ammunition could have lower limits than say.22 rounds.
Ammunition is part of the word "arms." The Founders didn't just mean firearms but not the ammunition to use them at the time. Also, there is no such thing as a "high-powered assault rifle" and actual assault rifles are already illegal. Also, what would be bad about stockpiling large amounts of ammunition? If one has 5,000 rounds in their home, they can't use that to go on a shooting spree.

 Quote by SixNein This was exactly my thought process. Bullets have a shelf life, and one can control that variable so much easier than guns. It's flexible and provides lots of options. A friend of mine also suggested something like a drivers license for guns. People would be required to undergo training, background checks, and the would obtain a license to buy guns and bullets. In every say 4 years, the person would have to undergo the same treatment again to achieve a renewal.
The problem with gun licensing is that unlike with driver's licenses, the gun control-oriented states do not want the licenses of other states to apply in their states. If you get a driver's license in Texas, and then drive into New York state, your license is perfectly legal there for a temporary period of time. But if you have a license to carry a gun from another state and then bring that gun into New York state, it is illegal for you to carry it at any time. Only if you have a NY state license would it be legal.

But also, what good would gun licensing do to solve the problem of people like Lanza?

 Quote by jedishrfu I like that idea but was thinking along the lines of a militia. So you want a gun per the second amendment then you have to attend militia training every x months.
The militia in the Second Amendment refers to the general population, the unorganized militia, not an organized militia created by the government. But also, how would such training work to stop people like a Lanza?

 Quote by CAC1001 The militia in the Second Amendment refers to the general population, the unorganized militia, not an organized militia created by the government. But also, how would such training work to stop people like a Lanza?
I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings...

This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia.

I know as it stands no one will want to do this just as no one wants to do jury duty when called upon to do it.

The goal is to reduce the overall amount of guns which would in turn reduce access and frequency of these incidents.

Blog Entries: 2
 Quote by jedishrfu I don't know how it would work but just thinking along the lines of compulsory training like you're in the National Guard and have to spend two weeks each year in training with monthly meetings... This would preserve the second amendment while at the same time discourage some people from owning guns because of the civic responsibility of being a part of a local militia. I know as it stands no one will want to do this just as no one wants to do jury duty when called upon to do it. The goal is to reduce the overall amount of guns which would in turn reduce access and frequency of these incidents.
You're probably right. The same effect would be gained by burning all guns in the world. What do both ideas have in common? They both will never happen and have no chance of happening.