Are armed guards at schools a good idea?

Absolutely ... Instead though , we absolutely should have volunteer teachers with training in such areas as weapons management with combat readiness . If we , with practical common sense , would take these steps , there would NEVER, be another crime and there would never be another President like Barack Obama that take such advantage of the suffering children and their parents. That fraud nut-cake president been trying to render the American people , helpless, for 4 years and after the school shooting --- with his phony tears, saw the biggest opportunity to do so. How does this make sense??? Nut cake enters school and kills 26 children---- " LET'S TAKE AWAY ALL THE PROTECTION FOR GOOD LAW- ABIDING PEOPLE WHO ARE LICENCED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES , THEIR FAMILY AND THEIR NEIGHBORS -- SO AS TO LEAVE THEMSELVES HELPLESS AND SITTING DUCKS FOR THESE MURDERERS TO KILL US.. OUR PRESIDENT DREAMS OF THE DAY THAT HE CAN GIVE SUPREME ORDERS TO HIS PEOPLE WITHOUT THEM SAYING ,NO!!! WE WOULD NOW HAVE A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT!!! HAIL HITLER!!!

no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

So you would rather that we have NOTHING, instead of SOMETHING, preventing anyone, with any weapon, from walking into any school, and slaughtering children?

You honestly believe that the gun in my safe is a bigger societal problem than dead kids?

You really are one more useful idiot.

Armed guards at schools would only further the gun problem that had already gone to far. it's better if they just forget the NRA an get harder on gUN laws

So you would rather that we have NOTHING, instead of SOMETHING, preventing anyone, with any weapon, from walking into any school, and slaughtering children?

You honestly believe that the gun in my safe is a bigger societal problem than dead kids?

You really are one more useful idiot.

Yes and No because some of those security guards let that get to their heads. Some just do not know how to be humble of what their job is supoose to be, serve and protect.
Some have cocky attitude, and have their noses up in the air as if to say, I'M in charge. Maybe I should have said NO.

Better than making them sitting ducks.

yes I believe so. parents have got to be parents and not friends. parents have to know what their children are doing. guns just don't appear out of no where. I'd feel better if my grandson was going to a large school for there to be armed guards at the doors. in smaller schools it will probably come down to principals and some teachers being armed. God help us!

Though gun education and gun safety are needed even more.

Overreaction.

A clear threat to the well-being of our children is not an overreaction.

Armed security is providing SOME security for our children. No security is 100% secure, but having no security is RETARDED!

Ridiculous proposal and an overreaction. We haven't reached that point, yet.

Well, I have recently gone from SVU detective to campus officer at the local college campus and they LOVE us being there. Students, staff and faculty. How can protecting students be an overreaction? I just wish that those that had a CHL didn't have to leave their handguns in the car...

Security on college-campuses is reasonable and not extraordinary because the number of students-faculty-teachers, etc.. require it. And, for the most part, security is not 'felt' and doesn't impede the learning process on college campuses.

I attended a university that had over 25K-students, but security was rarely felt or seen unless circumstances demanded it. Also, keep in mind that people who have reached that level of education are sophisticated enough to understand that having security does not necessarily mean that being at school is a dangerous place. This may be an issue with toddlers and adolescents.

If security at elementary, middle, and high school levels can be designed so that impressionable students do not have their education interrupted nor unduly influenced, it can do no harm to have security at the school on a full-time basis (better safe than sorry, in my opinion).

However, keep in mind that we live in a country founded on the principle that the State can become the quintessential violator of human rights. (A palpable tension should always exist between the State - which has a penchant for taking more and more Rights from its subjects - and armed-citizens, who should trust-but-verify every act and utterance of it.) We should not want our children to grow up in a semi police-state, and placing guards in schools is an unmistakable step in that direction.

I didn't read your profile before responding.

Why do you think I took the handle Patrick Henry?!?! Seems to me that someone needs a time out... Hey, check out Sister Jean and her question on America being the police of the world. Very interesting!

don,t they always have security on collage campus?didnt they at virginia tech?

I used to bean SVU detective-this month I moved over and took a position as a college police officer. There are only so many sexually abused children one can smile at and tell that things will be better... Virginia Tech,no idea.

Armed security is providing SOME security for our children. No security is 100% secure, but having no security is RETARDED!

A clear threat to the well-being of our children is not an overreaction.

Armed security is providing SOME security for our children. No security is 100% secure, but having no security is RETARDED!

TRAINED guards are good. ARMED guards, not so much. If a kid is better at fighting than the guard, then weapons are simply going to get guards hurt.

Of course armed guards will be trained! That's absurd!

Let me paraphrase Jeff Cooper and say that good men will do good things with rifles, and bad men will do bad men with rifles, and since good men far outnumber bad men, bad men can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.

I have had a police officer at my school for the last five years. They have all been armed. I have felt safe, and the only people who do not feel safe have been the people who would willingly commit crimes upon the premises. Coincidence? I think not.

To me it seems like trying to put out a fire with more fire. Trying to stop violence with more violence, even if it's "controlled violence", doesn't seem like a permanent solution. If a kid really wants to kill another kid, he will find a way to do it, (if not with a gun, with something else). I think putting in programs to help relieve the violent intentions of students may prove more effective. Stop the problem before it happens.

Armed (trained) staff is a better idea

Trying to stop a mass shooter with armed security provides some chance that the shooter will be stopped.

Trying to stop a mass shooter with scissors, and waiting for police officers to be your armed security, that are currently doing another job (being a police office) half an hour away... That's retarded.

Stopping the problem before it happens is NOT possible.

Armed security is providing SOME security for our children. No security is 100% secure, but having no security is RETARDED!

The school system should implement a security program, something like the Sky marshal's service. I think arming schools with unknown guards, may allow anonymity to provide an effectual line of deterrence and defense. These Marshall's can be cross trained as educators or administrators, to better serve the school and community...Just a thought...

PS...This way, we don't have nervous, tactically untrained teachers packing guns...

Yes I stole this quote...lol..'Way better than leaving schools as "gun free zones" like the idiot progressives want."

Just a matter of time before one of those armed guards flip out and take out a number of people with the arms he/she is authorized to carry. Adding gasoline doesn't put out any fires.

That is also stating "well we shouldn't arm police officers, because one of them will eventually flip out and shoot a bunch of people with the gun we gave them". That might be one of the most paranoid, counter productive opinions I have heard to date. That ranks even lower than the post suggesting we build "Robo Cop"....Just a thought...

You confuse insults for ideas. To equate the minimum wage security guard with a well trained police officer is inapt.

To start with, the idea is not inept...
The term, "well trained" didn't stop any single shooting ever perpetrated by a police officer. The simple fact that they are part of a police force, does not remove their propensity to be human.
The real (and non agenda driven, paranoia fed) facts are quite simple. Neither a police or "minimum wage security guards", stand a better chance of "flipping out", than any private citizen with a firearm. The simple fact that the presence of an armed guard might deter a single shooting, makes them a viable and valuable investment. Should the trend be to attack the innocent and undefended, then to provide security is paramount, and should be provided by what ever means is available...Just a thought...

You're an idiot. Here's an idea: Realize that you're an idiot, and get educated.

Saying that armed security is going to flip out and kill kids is like saying that the secret service shouldn't have guns because one of them will flip out and kill the president.

It's retarded. Now grow the hell up.

You're an idiot.

Armed guards would have VERY thorough background checks, have VERY good training, and would have ONE job to do: Protecting kids.

Armed security is providing SOME security for our children. No security is 100% secure, but having no security is RETARDED!

It's not that having armed guards in schools is a bad idea, but it is not the best idea. My suggestion is have every school buy a safe, put a handgun in it, and hide it far away from the front door. Then have 2 or 3 people who know where it is, and how to use it. Every shooting since 1952, with the exception of tucson, that has killed 3 or more people since 1952 was in a gun-free zone, and keeping schools defenseless zones will only continue to make them targets. Shooters only get one chance at a suicide attack, and they will be much less likely to go places they know they will shot. If you have a security guard then the obvious solution to the shooter's dilemma is to shoot the security guard first, but if there are multiple people who can shoot it, and no one knows beforehand who they are it is much more likely a shooting would be stopped sooner, but it would also decrease the amount of school shootings. At the very least maniacs would be deterred from murdering children.

School staff need special training above and beyond regular concealed carry permittees. There are issues of finding the intruder, when to shoot him or not, recognizing multiple intruders, collateral damage risks vs when to shoot, et c. As a retired school principal, I found myself locking down my school against the possibility of armed intruders. My first thought after completing the lockdown was, "If I had my .308 and a position on the roof, these bad guys wouldn't ever get near my building." My .308 was at home, 30 miles away. Within two weeks I got my concealed carry permit.

I believe a bullet someone fired to purposely kill someone innocent has a higher chance of hurting an innocent person a bullet fired to kill a perpetrator. There have been school shootings, that have been stopped by people with guns, such as Luke Woodham, and the Appalachian school of law, the reason they dont make the news is hardly anyone is killed. While it will not eliminate the chance of school shootings it will provide a deterence and decrease the severity. Im Glad you got the concealed carry permit, but you will most likely break the law if you bring it onto school grounds because they are gun-free zones.

Fortunately, we in Utah decided against the "gun free zone" nonsense. Why have a CCW if you are not allowed to implement its use? Just a thought...

What do you favor? A gun filled zone for schools?