Gun Free Zones

[notyou2]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24718883/reports-shots-fired-at-arapahoe-high-school

A student carried a shotgun into Arapahoe High School, asked where to find a specific teacher

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

I would disagree with this comment. Like this recent shooting I believe many of the shootings are not because the schools are gun free zones.

Now a question about the bullet proof glass that you are in support of scotty. I the glass intended to keep snipers from shooting up the schools or to keep the stray bullets inside the buildings from getting out?

The bullet proof glass may actually aid the bullets in bouncing around the classroom and doing more damage.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24718883/reports-shots-fired-at-arapahoe-high-school



Now a question about the bullet proof glass that you are in support of scotty. I the glass intended to keep snipers from shooting up the schools or to keep the stray bullets inside the buildings from getting out?

but it won't stop rocket propelled grenades, so I cannot support it....and they might bounce around too

Truth is I was teasing people who either support/do not say anything when millions of dollars for bulletproof glass and metal detectors, but when it comes to $25,000 for a school resource officer, they are all like "oh hell no that's way too much money spent on something that actually works."

A student carried a shotgun into Arapahoe High School, asked where to find a specific teacher

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

I would disagree with this comment. Like this recent shooting I believe many of the shootings are not because the schools are gun free zones.

Yes, he asked where to find a specific teacher. So you are suggesting he only had 1 target in mind... while carrying 125-150 bullets??? With that in mind, do you still hold that suggestion? and do you still disagree? And what do you base your belief that undefended schools do not make them a more likely target on?

[Phatscotty]

Here is how is where I live. Private schools don't have a police officer, but a high tech security system that runs 24/7. In the MAJOR public schools (where there are 1500+ kids) there are at least one, if not several, police officers on duty at the school.

Which makes me wonder about the ratio of private school shootings to public schools shootings

[Phatscotty]

security is the primary function of government

Not domestic security.

everything every dollar is spent on must be written in the Constitution?

That seems to be your primary argument when you don't agree with how Congress spends money. It is apparent to me that it is no longer your primary argument when the money is being spent on something you agree with (like voter identification cards or this particular bullet-proof glass issue).

You are just pulling a Woodruff pretending that anything I agree money should be spent on makes me a Progressive, which I would expect from Woodruff, and now I guess should expect from you.

I'm looking forward to your next post where you don't address anything of substance and just cry about my "attitude" in this post.

Prophetic. By the way, you doing that convinces me that you are wrong and you know you're wrong. It's a bad tell for you, so you should stop doing that.

You are trying to corner me into being an Anarchist, or the small government conservatives are not able to ever find a single thing the government should spend money on.

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to do is get you to be consistent in your arguments. You aren't and it annoys me. You cannot, on the one hand, argue that the Affordable Care Act is an unconstitutional breach or that a federal gay marriage act is unconstitutional while at the same time arguing that voter identification or public school security is not. I don't really care about this particular issue because I just think it's dumb (see below), but it is problematic how inconsistent you are, especially given how much you participate in these sorts of threads.

Would you say the same thing if the USA was attacked, and I suddenly supported increased spending on the military?? (probably)

No.

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

Do you know how many children in schools are attacked by gunmen in a year?
Do you know how many people are killed by handguns in a year?

This issue is blown completely out of proportion. On the one hand, we have Congressional liberals trying to ban guns that are already banned or that weren't actually used in any of these kinds of crimes. On the other hand, we have the NRA (and you) calling for armed guards and bullet proof glass in schools. Why? Because these people have vested interests in their particular issues and are able to convince the easily manipulated that these are the best things to solve this virtually non-existant problem.

Statistically, not many students, way below 1%. Statistically, not many people but more than students, while still far below 1%.

The issue is blown out of hand, as districts are using the issue to spend billions of dollars turning schools into fortified prisons.

An armed officer of some sort, on the other hand, is a common sense response, and the cheapest too. I do not seek to force this down anyone's throat, I only seek to persuade(unlike million dollar security renovations). I can't force everyone else to pay for any of it, which is why I'm not addressing any of your gaming posts. Your points just aren't accurate and playing those games takes you out of your element and only fudges the conversation.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Here is how is where I live. Private schools don't have a police officer, but a high tech security system that runs 24/7. In the MAJOR public schools (where there are 1500+ kids) there are at least one, if not several, police officers on duty at the school.

Which makes me wonder about the ratio of private school shootings to public schools shootings

Not really sure but where I'm from, there have been 0 Private School Shootings and only 1 Public School shooting, in the past 5 or so years. Not quite honestly there are probably some I do not know about. That's a given, however, to any school system.

[Phatscotty]

Here is how is where I live. Private schools don't have a police officer, but a high tech security system that runs 24/7. In the MAJOR public schools (where there are 1500+ kids) there are at least one, if not several, police officers on duty at the school.

Which makes me wonder about the ratio of private school shootings to public schools shootings

Not really sure but where I'm from, there have been 0 Private School Shootings and only 1 Public School shooting, in the past 5 or so years. Not quite honestly there are probably some I do not know about. That's a given, however, to any school system.

Which makes me want to share what I have always wondered...every mass shooter, rapist, murderer, thug car jacker punk psychos that commit these heinous crimes....I always ask "How much you wanna bet this person did not attend Church regularly if at all"

[Evil Semp]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24718883/reports-shots-fired-at-arapahoe-high-school



Now a question about the bullet proof glass that you are in support of scotty. I the glass intended to keep snipers from shooting up the schools or to keep the stray bullets inside the buildings from getting out?

but it won't stop rocket propelled grenades, so I cannot support it....and they might bounce around too

Truth is I was teasing people who either support/do not say anything when millions of dollars for bulletproof glass and metal detectors, but when it comes to $25,000 for a school resource officer, they are all like "oh hell no that's way too much money spent on something that actually works."

A student carried a shotgun into Arapahoe High School, asked where to find a specific teacher

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

I would disagree with this comment. Like this recent shooting I believe many of the shootings are not because the schools are gun free zones.

Yes, he asked where to find a specific teacher. So you are suggesting he only had 1 target in mind... while carrying 125-150 bullets??? With that in mind, do you still hold that suggestion? and do you still disagree? And what do you base your belief that undefended schools do not make them a more likely target on?

I never suggested he had one target in mind. I suggested that this shooting had nothing to do with schools being gun free zones. There was a gun in the school and it did not stop him. As far as so much ammo I suggest that he knew there would be a police response and was going to have a shoot out.

[Metsfanmax]

Here is how is where I live. Private schools don't have a police officer, but a high tech security system that runs 24/7. In the MAJOR public schools (where there are 1500+ kids) there are at least one, if not several, police officers on duty at the school.

Which makes me wonder about the ratio of private school shootings to public schools shootings

Not really sure but where I'm from, there have been 0 Private School Shootings and only 1 Public School shooting, in the past 5 or so years. Not quite honestly there are probably some I do not know about. That's a given, however, to any school system.

Which makes me want to share what I have always wondered...every mass shooter, rapist, murderer, thug car jacker punk psychos that commit these heinous crimes....I always ask "How much you wanna bet this person did not attend Church regularly if at all"

Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer (who killed at least 50 women),

had become religious during his second marriage, proselytizing door-to-door, reading the Bible aloud at work and at home, and insisting that his wife follow the strict teachings of their church pastor.

Dennis Rader, the BTK Killer (who killed 10 people),

was a member of Christ Lutheran Church and had been elected president[6][12] of the Congregation Council. He was also a Cub Scout leader.

Dylan Klebold, one of the Columbine shooters:

His parents attended a Lutheran church with their children, and Dylan and his older brother, Byron, attended confirmation classes in accordance with Lutheran tradition.

Wouldn't take that bet.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_24718883/reports-shots-fired-at-arapahoe-high-school



Now a question about the bullet proof glass that you are in support of scotty. I the glass intended to keep snipers from shooting up the schools or to keep the stray bullets inside the buildings from getting out?

but it won't stop rocket propelled grenades, so I cannot support it....and they might bounce around too

Truth is I was teasing people who either support/do not say anything when millions of dollars for bulletproof glass and metal detectors, but when it comes to $25,000 for a school resource officer, they are all like "oh hell no that's way too much money spent on something that actually works."

A student carried a shotgun into Arapahoe High School, asked where to find a specific teacher

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

I would disagree with this comment. Like this recent shooting I believe many of the shootings are not because the schools are gun free zones.

Yes, he asked where to find a specific teacher. So you are suggesting he only had 1 target in mind... while carrying 125-150 bullets??? With that in mind, do you still hold that suggestion? and do you still disagree? And what do you base your belief that undefended schools do not make them a more likely target on?

I never suggested he had one target in mind. I suggested that this shooting had nothing to do with schools being gun free zones. There was a gun in the school and it did not stop him. As far as so much ammo I suggest that he knew there would be a police response and was going to have a shoot out.

Oh, I thought that was what you meant when you started your post with this "A student carried a shotgun into Arapahoe High School, asked where to find a specific teacher" What did you mean by that then?

Of course this shooting had nothing to do with gun free zones. Like you just said, there was a gun in the school. AND YES the officer with the gun DID STOP THE SHOOTER. If he didn't stop the shooter, you have to let us in on just who you think did stop the shooter????????

[Phatscotty]

Here is how is where I live. Private schools don't have a police officer, but a high tech security system that runs 24/7. In the MAJOR public schools (where there are 1500+ kids) there are at least one, if not several, police officers on duty at the school.

Which makes me wonder about the ratio of private school shootings to public schools shootings

Not really sure but where I'm from, there have been 0 Private School Shootings and only 1 Public School shooting, in the past 5 or so years. Not quite honestly there are probably some I do not know about. That's a given, however, to any school system.

Which makes me want to share what I have always wondered...every mass shooter, rapist, murderer, thug car jacker punk psychos that commit these heinous crimes....I always ask "How much you wanna bet this person did not attend Church regularly if at all"

Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer (who killed at least 50 women),

had become religious during his second marriage, proselytizing door-to-door, reading the Bible aloud at work and at home, and insisting that his wife follow the strict teachings of their church pastor.

Dennis Rader, the BTK Killer (who killed 10 people),

was a member of Christ Lutheran Church and had been elected president[6][12] of the Congregation Council. He was also a Cub Scout leader.

Dylan Klebold, one of the Columbine shooters:

His parents attended a Lutheran church with their children, and Dylan and his older brother, Byron, attended confirmation classes in accordance with Lutheran tradition.

Wouldn't take that bet.

LOL. You wouldn't take that bet cause your scared to lose less than 1% of the time?????????....LMFAO You would win the other 99% of the time. Your bias hella blinds ya


You ever gonna explain just what harm conceal carry permit holders have caused in schools?

[Phatscotty]

It's really not that hard Mets. So far, it's the 57th story in a row shared here about conceal carry permit holders saving the day and saving lives. The fear of conceal carry permit holders is irrational. We are almost as effective as a police officers when it comes to crime prevention, and sometimes even more effective (when crimes are prevented even before the police can be called to report the attempted crime/crime in action)

Thankfully this area was not a 'gun free zone'. If it was no doubt the hero would have gotten a ticket and the robbers would have got away Scott free.

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A Minneapolis man helped stop a robbery by pulling a gun on the bad guys.

Matt Dosser saw two men standing outside the University Market in northeast Minneapolis Tuesday night. One had a gun, and they had just attacked the clerk inside.

“I was really scared for his life,” Dosser said. “They were trying to kill him, in my opinion.”

It was his immediate reaction when he saw two men enter his store around 9:15 p.m. They wore their hoodies tight around their faces, and they began asking questions that didn’t make sense. After a couple uneasy minutes, they attacked.

“It happened in no time,” said the store’s owner, Mohamed Ahmed.

One the men jumped over the counter while the other pulled a gun and went after Ahmed. It was on captured on surveillance video.

The gunman started going through Ahmed’s pockets and then pistol-whipped him on the head.

Ahmed said he wrestled with them.

The robbers eventually fled and Ahmed locked the door. But a minute later they decided to try and break back in.

“By their behaviors and from what I saw, it appeared they were trying to get back into the store to finish the job,” Dosser said.

Dosser happened to be walking by University Market and saw a man with a gun pounding on the door. The gunman then looked at Dosser.

“There’s a million thoughts that go through your head in that, you know, 10 to 20 seconds,” Dosser said.

With a permit to carry a firearm, Dosser said he pulled out his own gun and held it at the ready position. That’s when the two men got into their vehicle and took off.

“I am shook up. Don’t get me wrong,” Dosser said. “This isn’t something that people like myself that carry a weapon ever want to have to do.”

Ahmed is thankful that Dosser arrived when he did. His head injury required six staples, and he’s hoping this story helps find those responsible.

“I hope it don’t happen to anybody else,” he said. “Because it’s not a pleasant situation to be in. If somebody comes at you with a gun he can do anything he wants. This is not fun. This is serious.”

Dosser helped Ahmed call 911, and police arrived just minutes later.

The gunman stole some cash from Ahmed’s pocket, but that’s all that was taken.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/12/1 ... -progress/

[Phatscotty]

I hope your trolling on this one. Yall can't be serious about this. If anything needs to be, we need to look at our communities, our mental health institutions, and ourselves.

Right.....cuz Security guards would be too easy. Plus, we wouldn't want ensure safety the way the rest of the civilized world has since the beginning of time....

[Metsfanmax]

Plus, we wouldn't want ensure safety the way the rest of the civilized world has

You mean like socialized healthcare?

[thegreekdog]

security is the primary function of government

Not domestic security.

everything every dollar is spent on must be written in the Constitution?

That seems to be your primary argument when you don't agree with how Congress spends money. It is apparent to me that it is no longer your primary argument when the money is being spent on something you agree with (like voter identification cards or this particular bullet-proof glass issue).

You are just pulling a Woodruff pretending that anything I agree money should be spent on makes me a Progressive, which I would expect from Woodruff, and now I guess should expect from you.

I'm looking forward to your next post where you don't address anything of substance and just cry about my "attitude" in this post.

Prophetic. By the way, you doing that convinces me that you are wrong and you know you're wrong. It's a bad tell for you, so you should stop doing that.

You are trying to corner me into being an Anarchist, or the small government conservatives are not able to ever find a single thing the government should spend money on.

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to do is get you to be consistent in your arguments. You aren't and it annoys me. You cannot, on the one hand, argue that the Affordable Care Act is an unconstitutional breach or that a federal gay marriage act is unconstitutional while at the same time arguing that voter identification or public school security is not. I don't really care about this particular issue because I just think it's dumb (see below), but it is problematic how inconsistent you are, especially given how much you participate in these sorts of threads.

Would you say the same thing if the USA was attacked, and I suddenly supported increased spending on the military?? (probably)

No.

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

Do you know how many children in schools are attacked by gunmen in a year?
Do you know how many people are killed by handguns in a year?

This issue is blown completely out of proportion. On the one hand, we have Congressional liberals trying to ban guns that are already banned or that weren't actually used in any of these kinds of crimes. On the other hand, we have the NRA (and you) calling for armed guards and bullet proof glass in schools. Why? Because these people have vested interests in their particular issues and are able to convince the easily manipulated that these are the best things to solve this virtually non-existant problem.

Statistically, not many students, way below 1%. Statistically, not many people but more than students, while still far below 1%.

The issue is blown out of hand, as districts are using the issue to spend billions of dollars turning schools into fortified prisons.

An armed officer of some sort, on the other hand, is a common sense response, and the cheapest too. I do not seek to force this down anyone's throat, I only seek to persuade(unlike million dollar security renovations). I can't force everyone else to pay for any of it, which is why I'm not addressing any of your gaming posts. Your points just aren't accurate and playing those games takes you out of your element and only fudges the conversation.

I think the answer to the first question is something like 10 or 15 a year if that. The answer to the second question is way more than that.

And no, I'm not willing to spend a significant amount of tax dollars to fund armed guards in every US public school to protect potentially 10 to 15 deaths in a given year.

[Phatscotty]

security is the primary function of government

Not domestic security.

everything every dollar is spent on must be written in the Constitution?

That seems to be your primary argument when you don't agree with how Congress spends money. It is apparent to me that it is no longer your primary argument when the money is being spent on something you agree with (like voter identification cards or this particular bullet-proof glass issue).

You are just pulling a Woodruff pretending that anything I agree money should be spent on makes me a Progressive, which I would expect from Woodruff, and now I guess should expect from you.

I'm looking forward to your next post where you don't address anything of substance and just cry about my "attitude" in this post.

Prophetic. By the way, you doing that convinces me that you are wrong and you know you're wrong. It's a bad tell for you, so you should stop doing that.

You are trying to corner me into being an Anarchist, or the small government conservatives are not able to ever find a single thing the government should spend money on.

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to do is get you to be consistent in your arguments. You aren't and it annoys me. You cannot, on the one hand, argue that the Affordable Care Act is an unconstitutional breach or that a federal gay marriage act is unconstitutional while at the same time arguing that voter identification or public school security is not. I don't really care about this particular issue because I just think it's dumb (see below), but it is problematic how inconsistent you are, especially given how much you participate in these sorts of threads.

Would you say the same thing if the USA was attacked, and I suddenly supported increased spending on the military?? (probably)

No.

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

Do you know how many children in schools are attacked by gunmen in a year?
Do you know how many people are killed by handguns in a year?

This issue is blown completely out of proportion. On the one hand, we have Congressional liberals trying to ban guns that are already banned or that weren't actually used in any of these kinds of crimes. On the other hand, we have the NRA (and you) calling for armed guards and bullet proof glass in schools. Why? Because these people have vested interests in their particular issues and are able to convince the easily manipulated that these are the best things to solve this virtually non-existant problem.

Statistically, not many students, way below 1%. Statistically, not many people but more than students, while still far below 1%.

The issue is blown out of hand, as districts are using the issue to spend billions of dollars turning schools into fortified prisons.

An armed officer of some sort, on the other hand, is a common sense response, and the cheapest too. I do not seek to force this down anyone's throat, I only seek to persuade(unlike million dollar security renovations). I can't force everyone else to pay for any of it, which is why I'm not addressing any of your gaming posts. Your points just aren't accurate and playing those games takes you out of your element and only fudges the conversation.

I think the answer to the first question is something like 10 or 15 a year if that. The answer to the second question is way more than that.

And no, I'm not willing to spend a significant amount of tax dollars to fund armed guards in every US public school to protect potentially 10 to 15 deaths in a given year.

.....10-15% of people are killed by handguns every year??? You might want to double check that one

and that's perfectly okay. I'm not going to get mad at you, call you dirty names, or blame you for students dying, or carry this issue into some other issue.

But I will continue to firmly believe that in it's simplest form even a sign posted that says an armed officer is on campus, even if there really isn't one, will prevent some school shootings. Not to mention it's a fact that this most recent guy with 150 bullets was only able to get off a single shot (besides the one he fired on himself) because he was immediately confronted by an armed professional who was on campus. You don't have to agree that's worth spending money on, but you cannot disagree that it worked just as described here so many times before.

It's common sense

[Metsfanmax]

But I will continue to firmly believe that in it's simplest form even a sign posted that says an armed officer is on campus, even if there really isn't one, will prevent some school shootings. Not to mention it's a fact that this most recent guy with 150 bullets was only able to get off a single shot (besides the one he fired on himself) because he was immediately confronted by an armed professional who was on campus. You don't have to agree that's worth spending money on, but you cannot disagree that it worked just as described here so many times before.

That's all fine, but this thread is about repealing "gun-free school zones," which do not preclude police officers from being armed on school property. So perhaps that discussion should be moved to a separate thread.

[mrswdk]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

[Metsfanmax]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

[Phatscotty]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

Oddly, the only thing that could have stood up to the Sandy Hook shooter is the thread policy followed all the way through, which would be to have an armed officer on campus who most certainly would be able to confront the shooter 2-3-4-5-6 minutes faster than the first 'outside' armed officer.

If you are against having an armed officer on campus to prevent the shooting in a school, then what is the point of calling an armed officer from outside the school? Why do you want a good gun to show up only after a certain amount of murder has been committed?

Let's try this, does anyone disagree that in the case of a school shooting, and armed officer should get to the shooting location as quick as possible? And that those minutes between the first shot from the shooter and the first appearance of an armed officer are crucial?

[Metsfanmax]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

Oddly, the only thing that could have stood up to the Sandy Hook shooter is the thread policy followed all the way through, which would be to have an armed officer on campus who most certainly would be able to confront the shooter 2-3-4-5-6 minutes faster than the first 'outside' armed officer.

If you are against having an armed officer on campus to prevent the shooting in a school, then what is the point of calling an armed officer from outside the school? Why do you want a good gun to show up only after a certain amount of murder has been committed?

Let's try this, does anyone disagree that in the case of a school shooting, and armed officer should get to the shooting location as quick as possible? And that those minutes between the first shot from the shooter and the first appearance of an armed officer are crucial?

I'm not against having an armed police officer on a school campus. Has anyone in this thread said it's a bad idea?

[Phatscotty]

If someone's already committed as far as to shoot his mom and drive to his old school with a truck full of guns then a sign saying 'there is an armed professional on campus' isn't that likely to make him give up and go home.

I would hope that you would recognize that a discussion about good gun control policy can't focus on a single extreme example. You have to look at the aggregate. If literally just putting a sign up could deter some shootings, then it's probably a good (cost-effective) policy, even if it won't stop the Sandy Hooks.

Oddly, the only thing that could have stood up to the Sandy Hook shooter is the thread policy followed all the way through, which would be to have an armed officer on campus who most certainly would be able to confront the shooter 2-3-4-5-6 minutes faster than the first 'outside' armed officer.

If you are against having an armed officer on campus to prevent the shooting in a school, then what is the point of calling an armed officer from outside the school? Why do you want a good gun to show up only after a certain amount of murder has been committed?

Let's try this, does anyone disagree that in the case of a school shooting, and armed officer should get to the shooting location as quick as possible? And that those minutes between the first shot from the shooter and the first appearance of an armed officer are crucial?

I'm not against having an armed police officer on a school campus. Has anyone in this thread said it's a bad idea?

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say 'police' officers in school specifically. Although I am quite sure a high % of any kind of armed guard/officer would be off-duty or ex police.

However, if you glance at the poll, you will see most people are against having an armed 'professional' on campus...

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say 'police' officers in school specifically. Although I am quite sure a high % of any kind of armed guard/officer would be off-duty or ex police.

However, if you glance at the poll, you will see most people are against having an armed 'professional' on campus...

It's a loaded question, and the phrasing always matters in this situation. "Should they have an armed professional" has at least two issues: "should" implies an obligation, and "professional" can be interpreted quite broadly (is a teacher that was formerly in the military a "professional?").

If your question was "Is it a bad idea to have an armed police officer on a school campus," I doubt the vote would look that way.

(Also, is this one of those saxi-type polls that you changed the question for at some point? That might affect your results.)

[Phatscotty]

security is the primary function of government

Not domestic security.

everything every dollar is spent on must be written in the Constitution?

That seems to be your primary argument when you don't agree with how Congress spends money. It is apparent to me that it is no longer your primary argument when the money is being spent on something you agree with (like voter identification cards or this particular bullet-proof glass issue).

You are just pulling a Woodruff pretending that anything I agree money should be spent on makes me a Progressive, which I would expect from Woodruff, and now I guess should expect from you.

I'm looking forward to your next post where you don't address anything of substance and just cry about my "attitude" in this post.

Prophetic. By the way, you doing that convinces me that you are wrong and you know you're wrong. It's a bad tell for you, so you should stop doing that.

You are trying to corner me into being an Anarchist, or the small government conservatives are not able to ever find a single thing the government should spend money on.

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to do is get you to be consistent in your arguments. You aren't and it annoys me. You cannot, on the one hand, argue that the Affordable Care Act is an unconstitutional breach or that a federal gay marriage act is unconstitutional while at the same time arguing that voter identification or public school security is not. I don't really care about this particular issue because I just think it's dumb (see below), but it is problematic how inconsistent you are, especially given how much you participate in these sorts of threads.

Would you say the same thing if the USA was attacked, and I suddenly supported increased spending on the military?? (probably)

No.

The fact that mass murderers know schools are completely defenseless is what makes the schools a primary target.

Do you know how many children in schools are attacked by gunmen in a year?
Do you know how many people are killed by handguns in a year?

This issue is blown completely out of proportion. On the one hand, we have Congressional liberals trying to ban guns that are already banned or that weren't actually used in any of these kinds of crimes. On the other hand, we have the NRA (and you) calling for armed guards and bullet proof glass in schools. Why? Because these people have vested interests in their particular issues and are able to convince the easily manipulated that these are the best things to solve this virtually non-existant problem.

Statistically, not many students, way below 1%. Statistically, not many people but more than students, while still far below 1%.

The issue is blown out of hand, as districts are using the issue to spend billions of dollars turning schools into fortified prisons.

An armed officer of some sort, on the other hand, is a common sense response, and the cheapest too. I do not seek to force this down anyone's throat, I only seek to persuade(unlike million dollar security renovations). I can't force everyone else to pay for any of it, which is why I'm not addressing any of your gaming posts. Your points just aren't accurate and playing those games takes you out of your element and only fudges the conversation.

I think the answer to the first question is something like 10 or 15 a year if that. The answer to the second question is way more than that.

And no, I'm not willing to spend a significant amount of tax dollars to fund armed guards in every US public school to protect potentially 10 to 15 deaths in a given year.

.....10-15% of people are killed by handguns every year??? You might want to double check that one

and that's perfectly okay. I'm not going to get mad at you, call you dirty names, or blame you for students dying, or carry this issue into some other issue.

But I will continue to firmly believe that in it's simplest form even a sign posted that says an armed officer is on campus, even if there really isn't one, will prevent some school shootings. Not to mention it's a fact that this most recent guy with 150 bullets was only able to get off a single shot (besides the one he fired on himself) because he was immediately confronted by an armed professional who was on campus. You don't have to agree that's worth spending money on, but you cannot disagree that it worked just as described here so many times before.

It's common sense

And you may be against on-site armed security for our students based on cost, but really that isn't exactly what the reaction is, it's what I think the answer should be. But what is happening as a response to these school shootings is quite different...

How do you feel about the cost of this (something that is actually happening)

Long lines extended again from Connecticut State Police headquarters in Middletown Tuesday morning as gun owners raced to comply with new gun laws that go into effect on Jan. 1.

New gun laws were enacted after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown in December 2012 that took the lives of 20 first graders and six staff members. Tuesday is the year-end deadline for gun owners to register certain assault weapons as well as high-capacity magazines. ...

As of Christmas, 25,000 people had registered assault weapons and 17,000 registered high-capacity magazines, Malloy said Monday. That number is sure to rise after hundreds of people waited in line on the final two days of 2013, rushing to meet the deadline.

Like I said, millions (if not billions) are being spent right now on bulletproof windows and metal detectors and gun registries and gun buy back programs. And these expenses do not directly confront the problem either. I understand a lot of disagreement is because Phatscotty says it, but the billions ARE being spent right now all across the country turning our schools into prisons. Just don't spend too much energy arguing against cost of something that works but is barely being attempted and not enough energy arguing against cost of something that does not really work and is being attempted in reality.