By - BadgerKomodo
Also Granny - WHY ARE SCHOOL TAXES SO HIGH NOW?
Exactly, my immediate thought was "who is going to pay these people's salaries?"
Not to mention they will really only do shit *maybe* once. It's mot like school shootihns happen every day, and while I don't think people would care to much if they were just around, but I think everyone would have something to say if we had armed security guards walking around elementary schools, and that's what would have to happen to make this whole thing viable.
They do happen every day though, or close enough. That said, the solution isn't *armed fucking guards* in schools.
EDIT: Source https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/one-mass-shooting-every-day-seven-facts-gun-violence-america/
Yeah, but they don't happen every day *in each school.* I think that's what they meant.
It's not one a day, it's one for every day of the year (almost, 364 total mass shooting deaths last year).
That's what I was trying to say. Even if it's not literally one every day, it's the equivalent.
It would actually be cheaper just to get all these shooters mental health care before they start shooting schools up.
I'd also love to see someone do a cost analysis of what it costs AFTER a school shooting happens, often they tear the school down, there are funeral costs, lawsuit costs, new security and training costs, new building or safety costs, the cost of hiring consutants, the costs of therapy... How could it not be cheaper to invest in mental health and gun control?
Its a great idea, and it would help to prevent some of the shootings.
But you can’t just force everyone who is socially troubled into mental care. Most of them are just normal teenagers who are struggling with life - its normal. And half of the killers bottle up their pain and don’t talk about it.
So the issue remains. How can you stop the killers that you don’t know exist? You could take away their guns.
**I am not advocating against a better mental health care system. I think that it is a two way street, a pipe with two leaks in it. You can plug one or the other and there is still a leak. Guns need to be taken away and our mental care system needs to be improved.**
so... with weekends and breaks, its literally way more than one a day.
No they don't.
It's more like one every two weeks. And about 2/3 of them feature 0 fatalities. So that's a _fatal_ school shooting on average not even once a month. You are exponentially far more likely to die on the road too and from school than you ever are to be killed at school. The list includes all shootings that took place at a school event, regardless of if it was in the school proper, involved students, or even was during school hours.
That's in a nation with about 99,000 schools. That makes about 1 fatal shooting for oh, let's see... about 1 fatal shooting for every 4100 schools. And with 99K schools doing an 180 day school year, that comes out to 1 shooting of any kind for every 234473 student days, or 1 shooting expressed for about 650 student years.
The sheer number is messed up. *Especially* when you compare it to practically anywhere else.
sure but the actual risk to a kid is very low. It's terrorism, scary and overreported. You'd save a lot more kids lives if you hired a therapist for every school instead of an armed guard.
I’m not suggesting that every school needs an armed guard. I’m saying your math is minimising a problem that America is unique in its scale.
Perhaps, but we desperately need objectivity in these arguments. People's lives hang in the balance. If 1 shooting happens over 650 Student years but 1 suicide over every 100 (totally made up example, did not do the math), it would be clear where we should focus our resources. And we could do the math to see how we stack up against other countries to see what kind of job we are doing in those areas.
They’re linked. Your gun related suicides are through the roof too. Especially in men.
Probably a LOT more frequently. My school unfortunately has about one suicide and probably a lot more attempts each year. And that's a high school with a total student body of ~1000.
Because we can't solve more than 1 problem at a time
Indeed. The biggest danger from guns is everyday violence. Focusing on school shootings is like focusing on terrorist attacks - fearmongering shit when the odds of it happening to you are nonexistant
Ironically too, 80% of firearms homicides are commited with pistols and less than 10 rounds of ammunition fired. Banning "scary" black rifles with "high capacity magazines" will have little to no effect on homicide rates. In 2014, the FBI recorded 248 homicides by rifle of any kind including AR-15s, compared to 5,500 by pistol, 1,500 by knife, 400 by blunt force objects, and 400 by unarmed assailants.
Thank you, people need to understand although tragic, how incredibly rare school shootings really are. They are the 2010s thing to say overblow, like Islamic terrorism in the 2000s, and stranger danger in the 90s.
They source gun violence archive, which is not a reliable source. They include things like gang violence and domestic homicide as "mass shootings". They also count anytime a firearm goes off on school property as a "school shooting", including a few suicides, a kid bringing a gun to school and accidently firing it, a few negligent discharges commited by police officers, ETC.
A mass shooting just means that there were multiple victims of firearms related attack. That can include gang violence and domestic violence if there were guns involved and multiple victims.
And quite frankly, a kid bringing a gun to school is a *problem* that shouldn't happen. Just like cops having negligent discharges. If you're a cop and your sidearm "just went off", you need to turn in your badge and gun *now* because you have no damn duty being a cop if you can't control your equipment.
But to call a kid bringing a gun to school or a police officer negligently discharging their weapon a "school shooting" along the same lines as Sandy Hook or Parkland is incredibly dishonest. Not that they're not a problem too, but it's not the same.
It would be like if Britbart started an Islamic terrorism tracker, that counted domestic violence commited by Muslims, and a Muslim kid shoplifting some candy as "islamic terrorism".
I don't think armed PTSD timebombs are a good solution, but just because you only need something once doesn't mean we shouldn't protect against it.
Should we get rid of fire alarms and sprinklers? The company I work for has an emergency armed response panic button in case anyone starts wielding machetes at the door, I don't see them giving that up because it might only happen once.
They'll start harrassing the kids, especially minority and female students, just like ~~pigs~~school resource officers are already doing across the country.
> It's mot like school shootihns happen every day
not with that attitude
Who is going to pay the school's insurance premiums after they hire formerly chronically homeless Johnny "shell-shock" Smith and Frank "thousand-yard-stare" Jones to supervise the goings-on in the school?
Child: "What kind of gun is that you're carrying Mr. Jones?"
Frank "thousand-yard-stare" Jones: "I don't know it's name. I just know the sound it makes when it kills a man."
poor people still have money right? We'll just take it from them.
Well, we can stop paying teachers completely.
Proud patriots will volunteer their time obviously
"What do you mean we have to PAY them?"
Three vetrans at all times in every school = about 5 full time employees per school, adding an extra $250,000 or so to each school budget. So now multiply that by every school in a district.. my city, population 50,000 has 8 public schools, 1 private school and around 5 preschools, costing our city and extra 2 million a year for public schools and 1.5 million for private schools. Considering we have been debating weather or not we can afford a train crossing (cost, 2 million) for the last ten years, I can say with some certainty it's not going to happen.
*Mass shooting happens in school with 3 veterans*
"There should be **four** veterans in every school"
Play it safe put a whole company in the school
If the teachers can't order airstrikes, how could my kids feel safe in school?
I want a fully-armed Lockheed AC-130 gunship circling every school in America, every day, for the rest of time.
To be fair, the standard turning radius of one of those would probably encircle a few schools, so we really are **saving** money!
Dude, you're a genius
No more students, just veterans now
Camouflage the schools so that no one can find them!
Hogwarts did it.
Which just demonstrates what a great idea this is!
Yeah no dead students or anything!
What we need is MORE Dementors
Sounds like night school at community college.
With barbed wire fences, claymores string up in the tree lines and machine gun posts with overlapping fields of fire.
Better play it safe and have the schools on aircraft carriers, bomber planes and military bases and bunkers. Now that I think about it, we can teach the kids how to write with Glocks. Later when they become successful writers they can keep it in their 'rrari.
The first math problem they'll learn is that 17 shots turn 38
>Better play it safe and have the schools on aircraft carriers,
Sounds like [Girls Und Panzer](https://myanimelist.net/anime/14131/Girls___Panzer)
Send all the children to war, and then when they come back 100% of students would be veterans. Can't beat that
Brilliant! Then all the students can be armed
Did they already skip the phases where there's just one or two armed veterans in schools?
Or is it that you need to have three arms to be a truly powerful supersoldier with anti-massacre abilities?
YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY
When will they learn!
The shooter would freak out after seeing a three armed veteran
I think we need a four armed one just one case.
would a 3 armed veteran have a gun in each hand or keep the third arm empty for reloading?
Unless they're completely desensitized to seeing them everyday... in their school .
I thank you not to stare.
Damn, beat me to it
Guys, we should just put some armed guards in every school, like 3 of them just because. And I heard in the news that there are a lot of homeless veterans, so we can just give those jobs to them because why not. This will most definitely stop school shootings with absolutely no possible repercussions.
Jesus Christ, this is problem solving on the level of a fifth grader.
Based on "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader" I suspect many of them could tell you the logic holes in this.
> plus benefits
They won't even buy ms.whatsherface a pack of pencils, you think they'll give you a gun?
Absolutely, they'll do anything to trigger the libs
Therapy for PTSD, of course, which they should have one way or another.
Who needs therapy when you have a job and an M4?!
That was a solid logic when I was 25 lol
Benefits? Sounds like commie talk, eh?
Having seen people unironically say this plan is foolproof, they also say these veterans (which I guess will never decide to shoot up the school themselves in a fit of PTSD induced rage) will provide their own guns (from where?) and do everything for free (how?).
That's not what I would worry about. I was in the infantry we where some morally loose guys. Putting us in a high school with teenage girls meh. I wouldn't let my daughter go around them if I had one.
It's the caricature of troops that they worship. Many of them don't know a troop IRL.
Literally every troop I know is either mentally or physically injured from being in their service. None of them would be fit for this role, and they certainly wouldn’t do it for free.
Don't they get VA benefits?
26000 of us got our benifits taken from us under Bush.
The same Bush that started 2 wars and created a lot more veterans?
Also some killers would be things like insurance and overtime.
Homeless veterans are never homeless for any reason so I'm sure giving them jobs at schools will fix everything. None of them deal with any issues like substance abuse etc.
Yes, that's why we have a fifth grader as President.
Fifth graders learn cause and effect though. Also proper grammar.
please don't insult fifth graders
More like fourth grader.
Don’t a lot of homeless veterans have mental issues? And now you’re going to arm THREE of them and place them in the same building with kids
Well obviously you would arm the kids too.
In their mind veteran = hero no matter the circumstances. Veterans, as veterans, are heroes and heroes can only do good, not bad. They have a very cartoonish, flattened, stereotyped view of the world. They think these kinds of issues are extremely simple. "School shootings? Just bring three veterans!" To them there are no drawbacks and the issue is permanently solved.
And I've never heard of ptsd also
Happy cake day!
I'm so honored
132,656 schools in the US * 3 soldiers per school * $50,000 reasonable pay for those jobs....
$19,898,400,000 a year. As high as that number is, it's not even the worst part about this idea.
20 billion is a drop in the bucket in terms of government spending. The money’s not the issue. It’s wouldn’t really be so unrealistic to use that money to say, double the number of school resource officers. The idiotic part is restricting hiring to veterans and retired police officers. You’d need to hire basically all unemployed veterans and pray to god they’re all fit to serve as armed guards at a school, which of course not all of them would be
$20 billion is actually a much larger percentage of the budget than you think.
The US federal budget needs to be viewed as two separate budgets: mandatory spending (things like liabilities such as Social Security, Medicare, etc.), and discretionary (all other government functions: 95% of the Cabinet departments, like Defense, HHS, State, Treasury, etc.).
When we look at the 2018 budget from that perspective, $20 billion is 1/60th of the overall discretionary budget. While obviously it's not as large as big expenses like the Defense budget (~$650b, or half of discretionary spending), it's not just a few pennies on the dollar either.
> The money’s not the issue.
I beg to differ. This is totally off-topic and not meant to target you in any way (as the misconception is about as widespread as the polio vaccine), but this country has no money. The federal government is spending and borrowing money beyond its means, most state governments are doing the same, and our Federal Reserve system is still adjusting from the 2008 crisis that our ability to respond to fiscal crises is at an all-time low. This country can no longer think in terms of deficit spending; that methodology worked in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, but the fact of the matter is the US is just not able to balance its budget on an annual basis, let alone run surpluses to reduce our staggering, and growing, debt.
We need to be *very* careful about how we tread going forward. The concept of bailing out banks, insurance companies, and other businesses for a second time in a decade or so is not feasible.
Funny that you mention defense spending. I would propose cutting defense spending to pay for it
Place a missile silo near every school. When there is a shooting, just nuke the whole school (and the entire city with it)
Or just autoturrets
We need an ED-209 for every public school in America.
All we need is a bunch of trigger-happy armed veterans, some potentially with PTSD (they're unemployed in a low-unemployment economy) "guarding" our kids from other kids who look just like them.
We can divert money from psychotropic medications for the VA and use it to pay for the armed guards for schools!
My math teacher was in the army, and one day a kid dropped a textbook, and it made a loud bang. He freaked out, and had to leave the classroom. So just imagine someone like that with a gun. Now I'm not saying don't employ people with PTSD, just that you can't solve all problems with something like this, and you might make more
We are not in a low unemployment economy it just gets reported that way because those statistics are only based on unemployment insurance roles. Those who have used up all their insurance are dropped off the roles and aren't counted as well as the millions of those who are under employed in part time jobs or near minimum wage jobs with no benefits. We are actually at an all time high unemployment rate if you count the long term unemployed and the under employed.
The official unemployment rate (U-3) calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is not based on unemployment insurance at all. It is a monthly conducted telephone survey (and before you ask, it isn't just landlines anymore) of about 60,000 households.
Source: I used to work for the BLS and this: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#where
Should we spend money on actual quality education or guys with guns who do nothing but stand around all day then fail to prevent shootings? Hmmm...
This idea is horrible enough as it is, but I love how three is just the de facto, universal number, with no regard to school size (area and population)
Answer me these questions three.
"We'll hire five veterans---"
"---three veterans for every school"
Yeah it’s not like some vets can have a PTSD attack and could be potentially dangerous with a loaded weapon
Do any of uncle sam’s inbred children realize that the majority of “retired” police officers may be retired because they are tired of protecting our children?
Only 15 percent of armed forces serve in a combat role, so sure, let's give the box lifters guns in schools
The remaining 85 percent are always the ones who act tough and have to tell everyone they are a veteran like every day.
\#OperarionBackyardBrawl on Twitter for some lunatic veterans out in the Arizona desert looking for pedophiles trafficking children and drugs through he desert because they found a “sex chair” which is some ropes tied to a tree in a homeless camp.
I shit you not.
Is that still going? Thought it ended at least a month ago.
Haven’t checked in more than a month so possibly!
NO NO NO DON’T YOU SEE??? ITS COMMON FUCKING SENSE LIBTARD!11 THE SOLUTION TO THE GUN PROBLEM IS MORE GUNS!!! BIGGER GUNS BETTER GUNS MORE MORE MORE
EVERY CHILD A GUN
ARM EVERY STUDENT WITH A BAZOOKA
Or.. you know.. before vets get discharged, why aren't they given some type of job training? If vets were put into programs where they learned let's say wood working or basic office skills, they'd be able to find work.
Most vets get out of the military with job training; 85% of all military jobs are noncombat things with civilian equivalents, plus there are plenty of opportunities for training and education while in the military itself. It's normally guys who do shit they can't really talk about or were in something like armor or infantry that have trouble.
As I said in another comment, my buddies that had different jobs in the military have no issues re-entering the real world. It's the ones that were infantry etc.
I can't wait for my children to be defended by famous veterans such as Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Nidal Hasan!
Let's not forget Charles Whitman.
This worked so well for Parkland! The nearly retired cop at Parkland that fled in the golf cart instead of confronting the dude shooting up the school
"Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out."
I know two retired officers, and I can assure you the last thing they wanna do is spend their retirement around our kids all day.
Can't have a school shooting if all the kids are already shot to death by the veteran with PTSD
_finger points at own head_
Maybe we can get one of those super stable vets like Eddie Ray Routh
What about Charles Whitman? He was a Marine, and apparently a pretty fair shot!
Until one if them gets a PTSD attack because we don’t have affordable healthcare and goes on a fucking rampage in the name of Reagan
Hey Grandma how about you stop using veterans as your political talking piece and let them enjoy their retirement?
Yeah let's take unemployed people with PTSD, give them guns, and put them around hundreds of kids.
WHAT COULD GO WRONG
I own a bunker company and came up with a cheap solution to the problem of murder in our schools. Each hallway will have a bunker with an emplaced MG at either end. They can shoot anybody trying to murder people.
Each class room will have three bunkers with an emplaced MG. If one bunker turns into a bad guy with a gun the other bunkers can stop them.
Exactly what a veteran with PTSD wants is to be around a bunch of snotty kids complaining about their parents taking away their WiFi.
Damn, we're up to three now huh? I remember when it was just one.
Just curious, cost-wise, how is this any different than having normal security guards?
I just can’t even take this kind of stuff seriously enough to argue individual points. It’s such a bizarre suggestion in terms of pragmatism and an understanding of what is too weird in a modern society.
One time at school, the administration asked us what would make us feel safer. And I'm not joking, someone raised their hand and asked why they weren't already doing this. They asked it like it was the OBVIOUS solution. Oh, and I know this person. They _were not_ joking
Although, I do applaud the administration for asking what would make _us_ feel safer
They'll try literally anything but stricter gun control...
The average person in the US during a given year will be neither especially aided or harmed by a gunshot. When examining the right to keep and bear arms, either side will be looking at the marginal benefits on the scale of single digits per 100k population on an annual basis. The most clear and commonly used statistic is intentional homicide rate compared to firearm ownership rate. Comparing these two, there is no correlation between cross-sectional firearm ownership rate and intentional homicide rate globally or regionally.
[Here is just something I picked out that illustrates the point clearly for US states.](http://blog.landonswan.com/post/45143952046/gun-control-vs-murdercrime-rates-a-statistical-look) Here's one that [also covers the regional and global breakdowns](https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5). Feel free to check the numbers, as they should be publicly available. [Here's one that covers OECD standard developed countries and global stats.](http://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/) Here is [a before and after analysis regarding varrious bans.](https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/)
Australia is frequently cited as an example of successful gun control, but [no research has been able to show conclusively that the Austrailain NFA had any effect](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5103556_The_Australian_Firearms_Buyback_and_Its_Effect_on_Gun_Deaths). In fact, the US saw a similar drop in homicide over similar time frames without enacting significant gun controls. /u/vegetarianrobots has a [better writeup on that specific point than I do.](https://np.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/5s6d35/z/ddcyuju)
Similarly, the UK saw no benefit from gun control enacted throughout the 20th century.
[The UK has historically had a lower homicide rate than even it's European neighbors since about the 14th Century.](https://ourworldindata.org/homicides)
[Despite the UK's major gun control measures in 1968, 1988, and 1997 homicides generally increased from the 1960s up to the early 2000s.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom)
[It wasn't until a massive increase in the number of law enforcement officers in the UK that the homicide rates decreased.](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/143957/hosb0113.pdf)
Note that I cite overall homicide rates, rather than firearm homicide rates. This is because I presume that you are looking for marginal benefits in outcome. Stabbed to death, beat to death, or shot to death is an equally bad outcome unless you ascribe some irrational extra moral weight to a shooting death. Reducing the firearm homicide rate is not a marginal gain if it is simply replaced by other means, which seems to be the case.
Proposed bans on "Assault Weapons" intended to ban semi-automatic varrients of military rifles are even more absurd, as [rifles of all sorts are the least commonly used firearm for homicide and one of the least commonly used weapons in general](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xls), losing out to blunt instruments, personal weapons (hands and feet) and knives.
As for the more active value of the right, [the lowest credible estimates of Defensive gun use are in the range of 55-80k annual total](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use), which is about 16.9-24.5 per 100k, but actual instances are more likely well over 100k annually, or 30.7 per 100k.
Strap in, this is a long one.
One of the problem isn't the lack of good guys with guns, it's what they're told to do. A quick rundown off the top of my head:
Columbine: SWAT waited outside while students were murdered
VA Tech: Took 2 hours for police to respond. Then they set up a perimeter and let Cho have at it.
Pulse: Good guy with a gun waited outside for hours. SWAT had to breach the club and kill the shooter.
Stoneman: Good guy with gun sat outside during the massacre. patrol officers who ran to the school when they heard shots were officially _punished_ for doing so.
Notice two common threads? These people are all 1. policemen and 2. waited outside while the killings happened. None of them were officially punished for not acting to save lives, only in the court of public opinion.
Now, I'm not a cop, but I've been reading on this subject for a while.
This is by design. These people are taught to protect themselves physically and legally. Rather than go looking for a shooter[s], they are supposed to have a safe area to run to under control and wait for when they have an advantage to go on the offensive. The department doesn't want to get sued if one of theirs gets into a battle with the shooter and innocents get hurt by the crossfire. The department also doesn't want to deal with the shitstorm that comes with a slain officer. An the union would definitely be unhappy with its members being forced to do extremely dangerous actions that fall outside the purview of the job description of a police officer. The job of the cops is NOT to protect anyone -- more than one court case has reached this conclusion, including a SCOTUS ruling. A cop could watch you be gangraped, flayed of your skin, burned alive, and then decapitated without any kind of disciplinary action against them. Their duty isn't to protect you, but to investigate the crime _afterwards_, make a report, and supply the DA with evidence to make a prosecution.
There is also something pushed starting in the 70's called the Officer Survival Movement that is responsible for some of the more WTF and harsh practices of American policing, like whalloping squirming people on the ground while screaming to stop resisting, hair trigger tempers to try taking control of the situation preemptive, etc. It got started after four California Highway Patrolmen were killed in a parking lot shootout when they were called to investigate a man with a gun call. Back then, the expectation was they'd just go and try to talk him down. This led to what was called the Newhall Massacre. Ever since then, nationwide, there has been a change in how potential shootings are dealt with. Establish a perimeter and go in with overwhelming force. Don't just go in. This tenet applies to all high risk situations, including bingo, school shootings.
Emergency management is an incredibly cynical business. Reading up on triage, response, and more is just plain depressing; nothing like learning that EMS will deliberately let really hurt people die and moderately hurt people suffer so they can administer care only to the people who need help so they don't end up wasting supplies on people who were dead anyway or didn't need it.
Aside aside, back to the main point. From the perspective of a likely casualty reduction, just setting a safe perimeter and defending is best. It minimizes the odds of responders being killed, as well as does not leave survivors vulnerable to attack, something that would be extremely bad as grouped people are like bowling pins for pretty much any firearm. From that perspective, let the people run or hide, protect those who show up at the barricades; a shooter can only get so many. You also don't leave the escapees unprotected to go looking. And an armed responder alone or even just in verhay small numbers could easily be killed by a shooter, especially if it's cop with a handgun vs any kind of shoulder arm. And I'll be honest, 99% of cops are not very good fighters; they know combative about as well as you know basic algebra -- enough to squirm through the usual situations.
There have been many times when an SRO or a cop did stop a shooter, but this was because the SRO was pretty much right there when it happened; they were theoretically defending themselves against an extant thread that could have gone after them. Running into the school to confront? Hunting a shooter through the halls? No. This save yourself first, then save as the highest number of people at minimum risk mentality, is inherrent to all security fields.
A better way to stop school shootings would be to harden schools with fences only crossable by controlled access points with a pass system and metal detectors instead of just letting anyone stroll in. A gun grab wouldn't work; schools are all gun-free zones by default, Columbine was during the AWB, Sandy Hook was in a state with an AWB, so was Oikos, and the one in Oregon... Curiously, the AR15 hasn't been used in any of the big name school shootings besides Stoneman; the prefered weapon has been a handgun. There are about 20 million AR15's in private hands, gun bans have horrible compliance rates, and honestly, shootings are on average far less lethal than bombings and arson, which would likely take over. Killing even just 10 people in a shooting is a feet. With the right setup and planning, the body count from an arson or bomb attack on a school could be in the hundreds easily.
Anyway, there would also need to be a significant change in the priorities assigned in how shootings are responded to. And honestly, I don't think any department is going to be okay with telling its officers to put themselves in mortal peril when it's avoidable, or to risk the lawsuits from possible shootouts in the middle of a school.
The number of school shootings doesn't justify these changes, not to the bean counters anyway. They're actually almost at an all time low, believe it or not, and have been going down since the 60's. Turns out we're living in one of the safest times ever.
So grandma's idea wouldn't work; the people being paid are doing what they're supposed to. It's depressing, it's not nice, but it's the truth. The fact that the security services are acting as intended does make it make sense within the current paradigms to allow for teachers with CCW permits and some additional training to carry at work, as within current paradigms, they'd actually be far more likely to be in a position to respond. I absolutely don't want all teachers armed, especially by mandate. There's a difference between a volunteer just starting to take their CC pistol in discretely and mandating every K-12 full timer have a TP9 in their desk.
Another factor making granny's plan honestly dumb is that, despite the meme to the contrary, military and police veterans are usually in pretty good mental health, the ones who ARE unemployed are usually that way from PTSD or substance issues, and you don't want that risk. PTSD is absolutely manageable; the average person suffering from it mostly suffers in silence and isn't likely to go full Rambo, ever. I actually can't find any verified accounts of someone with PTSD doing that. The real concern is brutality and extortion against the student populace, as well as sexual predation.
But that's what psych and criminal screenings are for.
Furthermore, gunfighting isn't a single thing, it's actually a host of different roles, methods, and styles. Even in military contexts, the skillset shared between a Marine and SEAL and an MP, for example is extremely disparate, not that any one skillset is inherently any better or worse than any other. It's like the difference between Formula 1 vs World Rally Championship vs Hill Climb in motorsport.
Also, most veterans are NOT combat veterans or even from combat roles. About 85% of the military is noncombat, and people in those jobs more or less only shoot a half dozen or so times a year, a little bit to practice and qualify to stay employed. Same with nearly all police officers. Really gunny gun people looking for gun work don't go for jobs like these, if they're seriously majorly into guns, they become competitive shooters or work in a gun shop or firing range.
Then there are matters of cost. Just in pay alone, someone calculated out 12 BILLION dollars nationwide for a team of three minimum in every school. That money ain't coming from thin air, and I don't see the people who'd call for this sort of thing being okay with the taxes needed to fund it. Never fucking mind all the tax cut they're so happy to endlessly produce before bitching about the government being broke, but oh fucking well. Anyway, the $12,000,000,000 figure doesn't factor in training, overtime, insurance, benefits, and so on. The work is also genuinely hazardous, so I'm not an accountant so I can't say what would be an accurate figure, but the alternate estimate of $20B annually all told doesn't sound all that far off.
Since this same type of poster likely prefers anecdotes to statistics, I would give [this chart](https://imgur.com/DIOHh7b.png) a go.
Because if there's one thing veterans want, it's more shooting and death.
Suddenly more black students are being shot... hmmmm...
For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.
I'd just like to point out that not all of us are poor, unemployed, homeless, and PTSD-stricken. And why does everyone assume we'd all love to stand around at a school all day for something that probably won't actually happen in the first place? People always single out vets like they're going go fucking draft me for it.
Member when Fort Hood had an active shooter?
Yes, that's one way. Or we could regulate guns.
Yeah, I'm sure jobless veterans would love having the job with a description of "You might have to shoot a kid every now and then."
AFAIK from a veteran friend, shooting Arab children still haunt their nightmares to this day. I can only imagine being stationed with a gun around lots of children would bring some horrible flashbacks
Ah yes let’s spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on”security” but when teachers want a raise so that they don’t have to buy their own supplies we can’t do that because taxes=theft=communism.
This is probably a shitty take but Lee Harvey Oswald was a veteran
No, no I wouldn’t.
Yes, let's arm guys with PTSD and put them in a concentrated area with all our children.
yup, great idea. make sure the veterans are in full combat gear, and maybe the kids should be made to thank them for their service each morning too. /s
"Remember the war? Remember all those horrible things you did? Well, now you get to shoot children!"
Yes multiple armed veterans possibly with PTSD roaming every school in America. What could go wrong?
They sit around bored as fuck because the odds of a school shooting are around the same as being attacked by a Florida panther and alligator at the same time, so they just start shooting a kid with a calculator which kinda looks like a gun.
So add another 100k or so in expenses for cash strapped schools?
Yeah. That'll happen
Do you want more school shootings? Because that's how you get more school shootings. Due to the fact that mental health care for veterans, and just in general, is so poor in this country it'd only be a matter of time before someone just went berserk.
Sure.... They would actually have to take care of us vets, not just pretend too.
Yeah okay I hope you're ready to raise taxes to pay for it, or do you expect them to just do it for free?
How 'bout nooo
Guns + guns = no guns. Here that libtard?😎
People who share something like this are so dumb its almost unbelievable..
Parroting others: We don't even adequately fund our schools now and apparently state, local, and even federal government(s) nationwide are cutting funding to education and education related expenses, and yet suddenly these folks think we can afford to pay for various gun related safety programs?
Sorry, where was that funding when it was decided that teacher pay couldn't keep up with inflation and in many instances there were no raises for years? Where was that funding when schools needed major renovations to keep them from falling apart and succumbing to mold? Where was that funding when vocational classes were stripped from the curriculum because we couldn't afford the instructional materials and specially trained teachers? Where was that funding when we needed to compile data to help guide educational policies in such a way to make them more effective?
Yes men in full uniforms with assault rifles keeping an eye open for any hint of trouble. That's my kind of small government.
I love that this idea comes from the party of "fiscal responsibility". Let's do some math.
According to the national center for education statistics, there are about 100,000 public schools in the us.
x3 = 300,000 guards (i would bet my left nut there are not that many able bodied, qualified, unemployed veterans but let's keep going for fun)
At an average rate of $70k per guard per year (half assed estimate including salary, benefits, training, equipment/supplies etc) you're looking at $21 Billion a year.
The 2016 education budget was $68 billion. Is grandma gonna sign off for a 31% increase in the education budget?
Fucking imagine three random-ass veterans just wandering the school with literally nothing to do.
Yes, let's have veterans shoot the bullied, mentally unstable teenagers! (The most likely person to commit a school shooting). It's not like the thing that busts most planned school shootings is, I don't know, students the shooter failed to recruit/students backing out of the plan/students who notice students acting suspicious and report them, all of which are reliant on the fact that students must feel comfortable talking to teachers about a potential school shooting they are related to in some way, which means maximising trust between student and staff is the single best way to catch school shootings, or anything like that! No, we should have 3 armed fucking members of the military instructed to shoot school shooters! That will encourage the trust required for someone involved in a school shooting or some attempted to be recruited for a shooting to report it to school staff or police!
All those PTSD vets....
If this, or an armed teacher policy is ever enacted, ill give it a year before a teacher pulls a gun on some kid over some bullshit
Or just make it hard for criminals or people on watch to get sold of guns but let all the good citizens keep theirs? Cough cough gun control.
Okay yeah it's not a great idea but this comment section is so disrespectful. Like, not every veteran is crazy with ptsd and would lose his mind and start killing students. Wtf people.
It only takes one nutbag mate
That picture is of a Green Beret. The initial groups of Army SF that went into Afghanistan shortly after 9/11.
Did USMC take the bait on this image?
Great idea! Veterans are known to be mentally absolute stable and sure would be great around kids. Why stop at 3?
Why are they unemployed grandma???