Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 650

darthrush said:

I have grappled with the gun issue a while and see no reason not to implement intensive restrictions and ban assault rifles and such. I think I lean more towards the gun-control side of things as of right now and for those of you who agree, I am curious how you respond to the following argument from gun activists. I hear it often and don’t really have an adequate response and am curious what your thoughts are. The basic idea is the following:

“No matter what gun laws are put in place, it will not change the fact that criminals and people who wish to do harm will always be able to illegally acquire guns.”

It doesn’t really change my views all that much but it seems like a good point. Is there any form of gun control that would help make it more difficult for criminals to illegally attain guns?

Looking forward to some responses as it’s definitely an important discussion to be having as a country right now.

There is no short term solution. Gun activists and some republicans keep claiming that if we restrict gun access it won’t solve anything right now and that is true. Because of how easily accessible weapons are nowadays it’s going to be hard to take it out of both illegal and legal market in the near future. but you have to start somewhere. If we don’t restrict/regulate guns now, a problem that could be solved in the next 5-10 years will only be solved in the next 20-25 years because of pure inaction.

There’s also the side that Ash pointed out: why the heck have laws in the first place? If the criminals are going to break them anyway. That for me is the ultimate argument against the argument you’re pointing out and there’s no way to counter it.

We have to start somewhere though. I don’t think most mass shooters would go completely out of their ways to acquire guns. I think some of them just did it because of how easy it is to acquire such guns and the amount of exposition they probably had to weapons in general at an early age.

Think of the John Lennon murderer. He basically was so obsessed with him that he decided to kill him. If he had no gun that wouldn’t have happened, for example. And I’m pretty sure he legally acquired that gun.

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean? Kids and teenagers are rowdy. What happens if they don’t behave themselves? Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student? I feel like by putting armed guards in school, they would be bringing with them all the problems of a real police force; racial profiling, overuse of force, the whole nine yards.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Don’t try to kill any students, teachers or others

Don’t carry deadly weapons

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids and teenagers are rowdy. What happens if they don’t behave themselves?

I want the cops to be trained well enough to be able to deal with them reasonably. For most part, it should be left up the regular school staff to deal with rowdy kids.

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

I feel like by putting armed guards in school, they would be bringing with them all the problems of a real police force; racial profiling, overuse of force, the whole nine yards.

I agree these are problems. But we have problems right now. Kids are being murdered in our schools.

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

Kids and teenagers are rowdy. What happens if they don’t behave themselves?

I want the cops to be trained well enough to be able to deal with them reasonably. For most part, it should be left up the regular school staff to deal with rowdy kids.

What is a “reasonable response?” I don’t know if you read the article I posted, but it said that often, teachers would pawn off that responsibility of dealing with rowdy students over to the police. The teachers don’t want to deal with the rowdy kids, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the job of an armed guard; what’s the solution?

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

It’s still something that should be addressed.

I feel like by putting armed guards in school, they would be bringing with them all the problems of a real police force; racial profiling, overuse of force, the whole nine yards.

I agree these are problems. But we have problems right now. Kids are being murdered in our schools.

And since I don’t think guards would solve that problem, I view this only as creating more unnecessary ones.

Best case scenario, I think, if guards were absolutely necessary and there was no way they weren’t gonna happen; would be that they never interact with the students. Lock them in a room or something, have them watch the security cameras. They’d be solely reserved for dealing with an active threat. Even then, it would still be colossally expensive, and for what? How many of these guards will actually get the chance to do their job? How many will be successful at their job?

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

• What if the bad guy is surrounded by hostages? Are they expected to engage anyway?

obviously, this where quality training would help. Cops need to be trained to know when to shoot and when not to.

Might want to talk to black folks to see how that’s going.

I am open to improving the training we currently give cops.

• If Chris Kyle, a highly trained marksman, and good guy with a gun, was gunned down in a shooting range, surrounded by other good guys with guns… what makes you think an (at best) amateur marksman will fare better?

He will certainly fair better than someone who is not armed!

Well he didn’t fair so well.

He’s dead.

and if he didn’t have a gun and the nut was only one armed, he’d still be dead. If you are unarmed and someone is trying to shoot you and escape is impossible, you have no chance. Same situation and armed, you have a chance.

• What if having hundreds of guns in a single building is… bear with me now… not a great fucking idea? What if that building was filled with our children? Doesn’t that make it… an even worse fucking idea?

If the choice is having armed cops to defend our kids vs. leaving our kids unprotected, I’ll choose armed cops. Also these “hundreds of guns” if that is how many there’d be, would have to be strictly regulated. I think any guns coming into to school would have to be on the cops’ person 100% of the time. No leaving them in bathrooms, no locked closet with guns . . . ect.

But it’s extremely hard to get people to follow these protocols.

It is called training. It is called background checks, it is called being extremely careful in who you hire for this.

And if you get more people, it’s going to be harder to harangue all of them in to following those protocols.

If they don’t follow the protocols, they will be fired or worse.

If there’s more guns, there’s more opportunity for mistake. If you stand in the middle of a road for ten seconds, you’re much more likely to get hurt by a car in a car accident than if you did the same for one second. Your exposure to the possibility of a bad outcome is greatly reduced. And that’s why we need less exposure to guns.

mistakes can be minimized. I think it is preferable to leaving our kids unprotected.

Protect your kids by taking guns out of the hands of the fuckers that are murdering them, not forcing the kids to go to school under the thumb of a bunch of armed people.

As I have repeated said, banning guns won’t happen. Too much opposition, but we can still protect our children.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

Depends on the situation. What I talking about was obeying direct orders in an emergency situation, like an active shooter.

Kids and teenagers are rowdy. What happens if they don’t behave themselves?

I want the cops to be trained well enough to be able to deal with them reasonably. For most part, it should be left up the regular school staff to deal with rowdy kids.

What is a “reasonable response?”

depends upon situation.

I don’t know if you read the article I posted, but it said that often, teachers would pawn off that responsibility of dealing with rowdy students over to the police.

I don’t think that is what should be done. The cops are there as a last resort in a dire situation.

The teachers don’t want to deal with the rowdy kids, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the job of an armed guard; what’s the solution?

teachers should be told to deal with normal kind of rowdy. When it is not not normal is when the cops should intervene.

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

It’s still something that should be addressed.

So should a nut trying to come in and murder doubt digit numbers of kids. But instead, the right blocks banning of guns, and it seems the left is unwilling to allow armed guards. So nothing will happen and more kids will die.

I feel like by putting armed guards in school, they would be bringing with them all the problems of a real police force; racial profiling, overuse of force, the whole nine yards.

I agree these are problems. But we have problems right now. Kids are being murdered in our schools.

And since I don’t think guards would solve that problem, I view this only as creating more unnecessary ones.

I don’t know why you don’t. If shooting happening at a school you’d want the cops there asap. Why? to stop the bad guy. The faster they get there, the faster the badguy can be taking out. But fastest way is if they were there already.

Best case scenario, I think, if guards were absolutely necessary and there was no way they weren’t gonna happen; would be that they never interact with the students. Lock them in a room or something, have them watch the security cameras. They’d be solely reserved for dealing with an active threat. Even then, it would still be colossally expensive, and for what? How many of these guards will actually get the chance to do their job? How many will be successful at their job?

The knowledge that they are there itself might prevent a shooting. You don’t see these nuts trying their rampages at a police station do you? Ever wonder why?

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

Depends on the situation. What I talking about was obeying direct orders in an emergency situation, like an active shooter.

When not in an active shooter situation, what would you have the guard doing?

I don’t know if you read the article I posted, but it said that often, teachers would pawn off that responsibility of dealing with rowdy students over to the police.

I don’t think that is what should be done. The cops are there as a last resort in a dire situation.

The teachers don’t want to deal with the rowdy kids, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the job of an armed guard; what’s the solution?

teachers should be told to deal with normal kind of rowdy. When it is not not normal is when the cops should intervene.

What is “not normal?”

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

It’s still something that should be addressed.

So should a nut trying to come in and murder doubt digit numbers of kids. But instead, the right blocks banning of guns, and it seems the left is unwilling to allow armed guards. So nothing will happen and more kids will die.

Those aren’t the only two options.

Best case scenario, I think, if guards were absolutely necessary and there was no way they weren’t gonna happen; would be that they never interact with the students. Lock them in a room or something, have them watch the security cameras. They’d be solely reserved for dealing with an active threat. Even then, it would still be colossally expensive, and for what? How many of these guards will actually get the chance to do their job? How many will be successful at their job?

The knowledge that they are there itself might prevent a shooting. You don’t see these nuts trying their rampages at a police station do you? Ever wonder why?

Because their trauma is school-related? They weren’t forced to go to a police station nearly every day for 13 years. They weren’t (presumably) bullied at a police station.

Double posted somehow. Lame

Warbler said:

I don’t know why you don’t. If shooting happening at a school you’d want the cops there asap. Why? to stop the bad guy. The faster they get there, the faster the badguy can be taking out. But fastest way is if they were there already.

What kind of weaponry would the guard have?

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

I’ll tell you what happens. They get detained, pepper-sprayed, arrested, or have the shit beat out of them. At worst they may get shot to death. Every year there is a far too high number of school-aged kids that get shot to death by police.

Oh brother. You’re so prejudice against the cops, there is no point talking to you about this.

Warbler said:

Don’t try to kill any students, teachers or others

Obviously the dangerous people aren’t going to follow this rule.

Well if someone tries to kill a student or teacher or someone else, don’t you think the cop should stop that? Or should the cop just stand there and let them kill the student or teacher or someone else.

Don’t carry deadly weapons

Again, the dangerous people won’t follow this rule,

no kidding. But but someone carries a deadly weapon into school, don’t you want to cops to intervene?

but that doesn’t even matter since cops treat everybody as though they’re potentially carrying dangerous weapons.

well they could be. Small guns are easy to conceal. I once saw video where that looked normal, started pulling out guns that he had concealed. Turns out he had like 6 of them or so.

That’s why so many unarmed people get shot to death by police. The excuse is always, “He could’ve been armed.”

and of of course it has nothing to do with ignoring repeated orders and warning from cops, right? It has nothing to do with people acting stupidly in an encounter and making a sudden motion like they are pulling a weapon right? Yeah, you’ll say they should wait and make sure it is a gun. Trouble is they do that, and if it is a gun, they can’t stop it in time and you get a dead cop.

Obey direct orders from cops

Why?

Because they cops giving lawful orders? Because sometimes they are giving orders in order to protect you and others? Because sometimes they know what they are doing in a dire situation where you the untrained civilian does not?

So they don’t shoot me to death? If I’m obeying the law then their direct orders can go to hell.

What about emergency situation like an active shooter?

Sometime in such situations a cop doesn’t have time to explain why he wants you do something.

I’m a law-abiding taxpayer.

that doesn’t exempt you from having to obey lawfully given orders.

The cops theoretically are here to serve people like me.

How will they serve you best? by people refusing to do what they are told in an emergency? or doing what the cops tell them and thus help the cops keep everyone safe.

A lot of direct orders from cops are violations of your rights.

In your opinion. btw, such can be sorted out in a court of law.

You don’t have to let them search you or your car or your property (assuming they don’t have a warrant),

actually sometimes you do. like if they hear someone screaming for help from the trunk of your car. Or if they hear shooting and then realize you smell of gun power.

you don’t have to answer their questions if you don’t want to, etc. etc. I don’t like this idea that the cops are our overlords that we just need to obey if we don’t want to be harmed by them.

oh ffs.

I don’t want cops in schools. If I had kids then I would not send them to a school that was under this police-state form of martial law, even if that meant I had to home-school them. This nonsense cannot be allowed to happen.

No, what can’t allowed to happen is more shooting like the one in Florida. But please continue to let your prejudice of cops get in the way of saving kids lives.

We need to solve this country’s gun problem the right way rather than fight it with more guns.

If the right way is to ban guns, its not going to happen. Too much opposition from the right.

Don’t let anyone use these tragedies to turn the US into a police state.

having cops in our schools does not equal a police state.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

I don’t know why you don’t. If shooting happening at a school you’d want the cops there asap. Why? to stop the bad guy. The faster they get there, the faster the badguy can be taking out. But fastest way is if they were there already.

What kind of weaponry would the guard have?

Not sure, Handgun, tazer, pepper spray, the normal sort of cop stuff. I don’t think they would need AR-15s if that is what you mean.

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

I don’t know why you don’t. If shooting happening at a school you’d want the cops there asap. Why? to stop the bad guy. The faster they get there, the faster the badguy can be taking out. But fastest way is if they were there already.

What kind of weaponry would the guard have?

Not sure, Handgun, tazer, pepper spray, the normal sort of cop stuff. I don’t think they would need AR-15s if that is what you mean.

I disagree, I think they would need AR-15s, but I also don’t think they should have them. These shooters come armed to the teeth; shotguns, pistols, rifles, everything.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

Depends on the situation. What I talking about was obeying direct orders in an emergency situation, like an active shooter.

When not in an active shooter situation, what would you have the guard doing?

Just be on normal guard duty, ready in case an active shoot situation occurred.

I don’t know if you read the article I posted, but it said that often, teachers would pawn off that responsibility of dealing with rowdy students over to the police.

I don’t think that is what should be done. The cops are there as a last resort in a dire situation.

The teachers don’t want to deal with the rowdy kids, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the job of an armed guard; what’s the solution?

teachers should be told to deal with normal kind of rowdy. When it is not not normal is when the cops should intervene.

What is “not normal?”

Not exactly sure, but basically when violence goes beyond the normal kind of violence that kids do in schools. Certainly if kids start fighting with deadly weapons like knives or guns, it is time for the cop to intervene.

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

It’s still something that should be addressed.

So should a nut trying to come in and murder doubt digit numbers of kids. But instead, the right blocks banning of guns, and it seems the left is unwilling to allow armed guards. So nothing will happen and more kids will die.

Those aren’t the only two options.

I’d like to know a third.

Best case scenario, I think, if guards were absolutely necessary and there was no way they weren’t gonna happen; would be that they never interact with the students. Lock them in a room or something, have them watch the security cameras. They’d be solely reserved for dealing with an active threat. Even then, it would still be colossally expensive, and for what? How many of these guards will actually get the chance to do their job? How many will be successful at their job?

The knowledge that they are there itself might prevent a shooting. You don’t see these nuts trying their rampages at a police station do you? Ever wonder why?

Because their trauma is school-related? They weren’t forced to go to a police station nearly every day for 13 years. They weren’t (presumably) bullied at a police station.

or maybe they known they wouldn’t be able to murder people in the double digits there before being stopped, isn’t that a possibility?

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

I don’t know why you don’t. If shooting happening at a school you’d want the cops there asap. Why? to stop the bad guy. The faster they get there, the faster the badguy can be taking out. But fastest way is if they were there already.

What kind of weaponry would the guard have?

Not sure, Handgun, tazer, pepper spray, the normal sort of cop stuff. I don’t think they would need AR-15s if that is what you mean.

I disagree, I think they would need AR-15s, but I also don’t think they should have them. These shooters come armed to the teeth; shotguns, pistols, rifles, everything.

Even so, handguns would be better than nothing. I think guards with AR-15s in the schools daily would be a bit much. I think handguns in the hands of multiple well trained cops should be enough to take out a lone nut even if he is armed to the teeth.

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

Depends on the situation. What I talking about was obeying direct orders in an emergency situation, like an active shooter.

When not in an active shooter situation, what would you have the guard doing?

Just be on normal guard duty, ready in case an active shoot situation occurred.

I don’t know if you read the article I posted, but it said that often, teachers would pawn off that responsibility of dealing with rowdy students over to the police.

I don’t think that is what should be done. The cops are there as a last resort in a dire situation.

The teachers don’t want to deal with the rowdy kids, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the job of an armed guard; what’s the solution?

teachers should be told to deal with normal kind of rowdy. When it is not not normal is when the cops should intervene.

What is “not normal?”

Not exactly sure, but basically when violence goes beyond the normal kind of violence that kids do in schools. Certainly if kids start fighting with deadly weapons like knives or guns, it is time for the cop to intervene.

What about a fistfight? And, to add onto that, should the police be arresting kids?

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

It’s still something that should be addressed.

So should a nut trying to come in and murder doubt digit numbers of kids. But instead, the right blocks banning of guns, and it seems the left is unwilling to allow armed guards. So nothing will happen and more kids will die.

Those aren’t the only two options.

I’d like to know a third.

Regulation. Name any regulation, and that’s another option beyond just banning guns or having armed guards.

Best case scenario, I think, if guards were absolutely necessary and there was no way they weren’t gonna happen; would be that they never interact with the students. Lock them in a room or something, have them watch the security cameras. They’d be solely reserved for dealing with an active threat. Even then, it would still be colossally expensive, and for what? How many of these guards will actually get the chance to do their job? How many will be successful at their job?

The knowledge that they are there itself might prevent a shooting. You don’t see these nuts trying their rampages at a police station do you? Ever wonder why?

Because their trauma is school-related? They weren’t forced to go to a police station nearly every day for 13 years. They weren’t (presumably) bullied at a police station.

or maybe they known they wouldn’t be able to murder people in the double digits there before being stopped, isn’t that a possibility?

Sure, that’s probably part of the reason; but on the other hand, I don’t think these shooters are very familiar with rational thought or survival instinct.