It's not a real solution, it is a bandaid. I am not against it as a practice but I have no illusions it will solve the problem. It is an option, it may help a little but it isn't a solution. I know that because I have thought this through.

Even if it could be shown to reduce the number of shootings or the number of deaths there are still many other problems to overcome. As you point out training would be one such issue and that costs time and money. Then liability would be a huge issue. The instant someone steals a gun from a school and uses it to hurt someone lawsuits will be filed. Sure schools are known to waste money but realistically  we aren't going to expect them to simply stop wasting so teachers can be armed.

To the rest of the developed world we look like animals, we need armed guards in our schools yet so very few other developed countries need that. Again, I am not against armed guards but that suggestion doesn't focus on the problem.

We have armed guards for currency but we dont for everyday children. How is the world looking at us as animals? ever heard of Rwanda?
Who thinks the solution of armed guards in a school a band aid? You? How did you quantify it as "little". You said it was an option but not a solution? How does that make any sense? What is your solution?

We have armed guards for currency but we dont for everyday children. How is the world looking at us as animals? ever heard of Rwanda?
Who thinks the solution of armed guards in a school a band aid? You? How did you quantify it as "little". You said it was an option but not a solution? How does that make any sense? What is your solution?

He doesn't get it.  He thinks the only real solution is one that can prevent the shooting from being planned or even thought about, much less executed.

Let's say we have a vaccine for a deadly disease.  No vaccine is 100% effective.  You still need the treatment available for when the disease presents itself.

Solutions are not going to be a singular remedy.  It needs to address both the causes AND the ones that don't get prevented.

The real problem is, there are no solutions so far that address prevention which can effectively and consistently prevent shootings.  That means, until those exist, we NEED to be able to stop them once they start.  That's the only solution that saves lives at the moment.

The politicians with their armed guards (and they have more than 10 rd mags) and the hopeless POTUS with his Secret service (and they also have more than 10 rd mags) and the casinos with their armed guards (yep, you guessed it) amongst others seem to think it works.

Looks like it works.

Yet when it comes to children all they have between them and a nutjob killer is a stoopid sign that says "Entering Gun Free Zone".

We have armed guards for currency but we dont for everyday children. How is the world looking at us as animals? ever heard of Rwanda?
Who thinks the solution of armed guards in a school a band aid? You? How did you quantify it as "little". You said it was an option but not a solution? How does that make any sense? What is your solution?

How much good did the armed officer at Columbine do? Plus if I am going to shoot up a school I am just going to take the guard out first anyway. Shooters have even targeted cops before. Sure sometimes an armed guard might stop the shooter earlier and save a few more lives but that is still just a bandaid. Reducing the body count is good but preventing the shooting is so much better.

Comparing it to guarding money is not a good comparison. The scale is way different. Armed security can be one thing that can be done but it is not a comprehensive solution. It only helps with one facet of the problem.

The politicians with their armed guards (and they have more than 10 rd mags) and the hopeless POTUS with his Secret service (and they also have more than 10 rd mags) and the casinos with their armed guards (yep, you guessed it) amongst others seem to think it works.

Looks like it works.

Yet when it comes to children all they have between them and a nutjob killer is a stoopid sign that says "Entering Gun Free Zone".

I really don't think the sign has anything to do with it. It's easy to reason that an elementary school is going to be filled with mostly children and some adults who are not that likely to be armed anyway. Not having the sign isn't going to change anything.

But let's think it through, imagine we raised taxes to get enough money to have an armed guard in every school full time. The target has not be hardened a little. What about all the other soft targets? Should every business have a full time armed guard? Every playground? Every library, etc.? If a shooter really gets scared away from schools because they now have armed guard then they will just pick another target. Therefore for this proposal to truly be effective we are talking about armed guards everywhere and all the costs that are associated with that including increased taxes and the price of goods.

Furthermore this has actually been studied. There have been armed officer in schools for years yet little to no evidence to show that they actually prevented school shootings. There were one or two instances where an armed guard stopped an active shooter but not enough to show statistical significance.

Again, I am not against armed guards but that suggestion doesn't focus on the problem.

Let me guess. The problem is too much freedom and we need to hand more power over to the state to keep us safe.

Let me guess. The problem is too much freedom and we need to hand more power over to the state to keep us safe.

You completely avoided the problem I pointed

What about all the other soft targets? Should every business have a full time armed guard? Every playground? Every library, etc.? If a shooter really gets scared away from schools because they now have armed guard then they will just pick another target. Therefore for this proposal to truly be effective we are talking about armed guards everywhere

That's called constitutional carry

The politicians with their armed guards (and they have more than 10 rd mags) and the hopeless POTUS with his Secret service (and they also have more than 10 rd mags) and the casinos with their armed guards (yep, you guessed it) amongst others seem to think it works.

Looks like it works.

Yet when it comes to children all they have between them and a nutjob killer is a stoopid sign that says "Entering Gun Free Zone".

Yeah, but thought experiments are more fun.  Asking more questions than bringing up proposed solutions. . .

I really don't think the sign has anything to do with it. It's easy to reason that an elementary school is going to be filled with mostly children and some adults who are not that likely to be armed anyway. Not having the sign isn't going to change anything.

But let's think it through, imagine we raised taxes to get enough money to have an armed guard in every school full time. The target has not be hardened a little. What about all the other soft targets? Should every business have a full time armed guard? Every playground? Every library, etc.? If a shooter really gets scared away from schools because they now have armed guard then they will just pick another target. Therefore for this proposal to truly be effective we are talking about armed guards everywhere and all the costs that are associated with that including increased taxes and the price of goods.

Furthermore this has actually been studied. There have been armed officer in schools for years yet little to no evidence to show that they actually prevented school shootings. There were one or two instances where an armed guard stopped an active shooter but not enough to show statistical significance.

Look at all the tax money over the decades of years we have paid to "protect" our politicians and the POTUS.  How many times have all these paid security people actually stopped a killer from killing  these people?

I would say not enough to justify the total expenses.  But still, we do it.  Why?  Because these people are that important? 

What degree of importance do we place on these children and school personnel to be even thinking of the expense of armed security because the cost might be prohibitive?

We spare no expense when it comes to protecting these "important" people but haggle about costs when it comes to protect our children and workers in schools.

The politicians who are harking about more gun control measures yet maintain their security personnel are hypocrites. 

edited to add:  And yes, the sign has nothing to do with it.  It will not change anything.  I mentioned it to highlight the sheer insanity of it all.  The only thing I agree with you on.

Look at all the tax money over the decades of years we have paid to "protect" our politicians and the POTUS.  How many times have all these paid security people actually stopped a killer from killing  these people?

Or the money spend by anti 2a groups like MDA and ET.  Imagine if they really cared, they would instead divert the funds to other options that would get pro 2a support.  This itself shows that all they want to do is take the guns away.

There have been armed officer in schools for years yet little to no evidence to show that they actually prevented school shootings. There were one or two instances where an armed guard stopped an active shooter but not enough to show statistical significance.

How many times do you hear about mass shooting events in inner city schools where they have metal detectors and armed guards? That seems statistically significant to me.

Do you really care about kids, or is this all just a long-winded sophistic attempt to shoehorn the conversation towards gun control?

How many times do you hear about mass shooting events in inner city schools where they have metal detectors and armed guards? That seems statistically significant to me.

Do you really care about kids, or is this all just a long-winded sophistic attempt to shoehorn the conversation towards gun control?

These schools had an issue with weapons being brought in. So they put up metal detectors and teams of security manning them.  They didn't just put up a no weapons sign.  In order to do this, they had to show there was a constant problem.  Same schools also have lots of fighting, so teams of security are added.  So a cause and effect thing going on.  What we are asking is the school that doesnt have these issues to increase security as a preventative measure because no one knows where the next active shooter will strike.

Even though active shootings at schools dont happen often, it's odd how none happened in the hood.  It's like the gunmen knew to stay away.  Also I need to clarify that active shooters differ from gang related or 1 on 1 type gun involved shootings at schools. Or we can just ban guns from everyone that doesn't live in the hood. 

How many times do you hear about mass shooting events in inner city schools where they have metal detectors and armed guards? That seems statistically significant to me.

Do you really care about kids, or is this all just a long-winded sophistic attempt to shoehorn the conversation towards gun control?

it is. just like the gun show, no one was buying his sh1t

it is. just like the gun show, no one was buying his sh1t

What about those that buy Osprey "just as good as Nightforce" scopes? 

 

What about those that buy Osprey "just as good as Nightforce" scopes? 

 

BURRRNNNNN

How much good did the armed officer at Columbine do? Plus if I am going to shoot up a school I am just going to take the guard out first anyway. Shooters have even targeted cops before. Sure sometimes an armed guard might stop the shooter earlier and save a few more lives but that is still just a bandaid. Reducing the body count is good but preventing the shooting is so much better.

Comparing it to guarding money is not a good comparison. The scale is way different. Armed security can be one thing that can be done but it is not a comprehensive solution. It only helps with one facet of the problem.

There was ONE guard on duty at Columbine, and another that answered her call for assistance from a nearby campus.  Both fired on Harris, but failed to connect.  Maybe they needed something better than a handgun to engage a target at 60+ yards? Harris entered the school, yet the security personnel remained outside.

This is the scenario we see happening over and over.  Columbine, Parkland, and now Uvalde -- even with armed guards on site, they are reluctant to place the safety of children above their own lives.

Maybe we need a better screening process to find guards who aren't afraid to put themselves in jeopardy -- who react as we hope they would under fire.  Maybe we could also spring for some top-quality body armor so they can survive a couple of direct hits and still remain in the fight.

How many times do you hear about mass shooting events in inner city schools where they have metal detectors and armed guards? That seems statistically significant to me.

Do you really care about kids, or is this all just a long-winded sophistic attempt to shoehorn the conversation towards gun control?

Active shooters who target schools tend not to be inner city kids too. This me parallel the fact that wealthy people are more likely to commit suicide than poor people. These types of active shooters tend to be white males as well. There are definitely some other social factors at work here.

Of course I care about the kids. That's the same type of question people on the left are saying, accusing of caring about guns more than children. But what I'm doing is trying to balance everything to solve the problem at hand

There was ONE guard on duty at Columbine, and another that answered her call for assistance from a nearby campus.  Both fired on Harris, but failed to connect.  Maybe they needed something better than a handgun to engage a target at 60+ yards? Harris entered the school, yet the security personnel remained outside.

This is the scenario we see happening over and over.  Columbine, Parkland, and now Uvalde -- even with armed guards on site, they are reluctant to place the safety of children above their own lives.

Maybe we need a better screening process to find guards who aren't afraid to put themselves in jeopardy -- who react as we hope they would under fire.  Maybe we could also spring for some top-quality body armor so they can survive a couple of direct hits and still remain in the fight.

All fine suggestions. But it also illustrates the limitations of armed guards and why they are just one piece in a larger puzzle

Active shooters who target schools tend not to be inner city kids too. This me parallel the fact that wealthy people are more likely to commit suicide than poor people. These types of active shooters tend to be white males as well. There are definitely some other social factors at work here.

Of course I care about the kids. That's the same type of question people on the left are saying, accusing of caring about guns more than children. But what I'm doing is trying to balance everything to solve the problem at hand

They tend not to? Or people intent on murder tend to go places with easier pickings?

The left likes to completely ignore gang violence where the vast majority of homicides take place because it doesn't fit their gun control agenda.

That's kinda racist.