How about the National Guard? Just make "school duty" part the National Guards responsibility? It seems like it would take minimal training and expense to post a soldier at school during the day. Down in Mexico there is a Federale on every street corner and likewise this seems like a reasonable expectation of our military.



About the National Guard
The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 375th birthday on December 13, 2011. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. In the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.

Mission accomplished!

Right AP its always the other guy. Take a lesson from your buddy Todd he says what he thinks and stands behind it . One might not agree with him but you have to respect that at least he is unafraid to say it like he thinks and rarely crawdads.

Costly, no doubt. But, its "crazy" effective. Prisons , the congress, the senate, government installations, the pres, billionares, dignitaries all have armed guards and any attcks on them are really low percentage, not zero, but pretty close. If you guys get guards; why cant my kids' school have one. I surley dont want cops at every school but the govt. loves to protect us from ourselves and this seems right up their alley. And since we are now putting killing people in a buisness model maybe the govt. has the expert advice on this.

So once you've "visited" a state you know all about it? I mean growing up in Israel and all...you should know right?

I do not agree with the premise of putting police at every school. It just does not make sense.

I trust that you growing up fat and stupid makes you an expert at being fat an stupid Shthead. You reward that trust everytime you post.

If you'd just crawl back into your hole you wouldn't be constantly shot full of holes.

Its scary, I agree. But the opposition is saying that a bad guy with less bullets is better? So 9 dead and save one for himself is a much better option? If my kid was one of those nine, I sure as sh!t wouldn't be praisin that new capacity legislation. Gun legislation should be completley out of the equation. Dont worry about me and my guns and just worry about bad guys with guns. Figure out how to protect inocent un-armed people on a different level than you already do. Here are the answers: Theory: you can have some body fight for you, you can fight for yourself, you cannot be there, or the gun cannot be there. Application: put guards at the schools, arm the teachers, have no schools at all (everybody gets home schooled), or completley remove a part of our culture and confiscate every weapon from every person.

So how much do you think insurance will cost the school district if teachers are armed? One mishap lawsuit could close down the district. Arming teachers is a bad idea all around. I think a lot of people who suggest so are thinking some perfect scenario and not reality scenarios where people die in cross fires or are blown away by law enforcement.

Even bullet proof windows and heavy security doors which are locked down during school hours are not 100% but a lot safer than relying on teachers to get it right under fire.

I have no idea what any of this will cost. If I'm thinking of the perfect scenario; you are thinking of the most imperfect scenario. I think we have to be willing to accept the average result. I'd rather accept the result where people can fight back, fairly do so, and in a timely manner. I dont disagree that sh!t could really hit the fan and backfire but I think the overall trend of mass shootings would go down.

I don't think they will go down one bit. We are talking crazies here who plan on dying. Why should a teacher with a pea shooter be a deterrent? More like an added challenge...a bonus. Plus now some of these nut jobs wear body armor.

There is no way we will be willing to accept a single mishap with a teacher/firearm/child in a school. That would be a media/lawsuit frenzy. And armed teachers will never be LE. At best they will be teachers who have had some firearm training. Not the same at all.

We have been accepting this sh!t since the nut [Bleeeeep!] in Texas back in th 60's. Now we want to do something! Now! This is BS!!!! If I lost a family memeber in these past tragedies I'd be phukin pissed that something was done before I lost my family member. Why is this recent one such a big deal? Because they were kids? You mean columbine, Vtech, the 6 year old in the movie theater werent kids. We have been accepting the worse case scenario for too long. Let me fight back. I'm not suggesting pea shooters either. I'm talkn pistols in person stopping .45 acp, snub nose 44's, AR's in .458 socom, 12 gauges. I mean stuff that will put some seriuos phukin holes in the little pissant. Drop the phuker pronto amigo!!!!!!!!!!!

"We are talking crazies here who plan on dying. Why should a teacher with a pea shooter be a deterrent?"

Because the sooner they are dead, the fewer they can kill.

Like I said some seem to only see the perfect wild west scenario where good guy blows away the bad guy.

A more likely scenario in a chaotic moment going down is good guy unloads a full clip most or all missing bad guy and instead killing other good guys. Then good guy is blown away any way. Other good guys who remain standing had better disarm within seconds or face being shot by LE.

BTW, my bro in law is in the SS. He met one of the first in to that theater in CO. Said it was a complete blood bath. Also agrees that armed civilians would only magnify the problem for them.

Interesting statistics on the downward trend in handgun-related murders. A good start, in my opinion. After thinking about it, I'd also be interested to see some numbers on how much cyber crime has increased over that same time period. My guess is that the numbers would suggest that more and more of the petty thieves who might have attempted armed muggings (which often end in someone getting shot) in the early 90s are turning to the safer, potentially more lucrative options the Internet provides them. To be sure, a shortage of scumbags is not the reason for the decline.

For all I've seen, the number of guns in circulation has a lot less to do with how much senseless killing goes on in our country than the number of psychos our society seems so adept at producing. That said, I don't think investing in better care for the mentally ill will fix anything. The people we know are crazy enough to be a menace are mostly under supervision. Every day, life feeds another person on the fringe the [Bleeeeep!] sandwich that sends them over the edge, thereby creating another "cracked" individual (the sort of person capable of, say, shooting 26 kids and teachers) that we don't know about... Until it's too late. There's just not any realistic way to avoid that.

The statistics are fairly undeniable: countries that severely restrict gun ownership don't have people getting murdered with guns. By supporting our right to bear arms (one I don't believe we should give up), we make guns available to not only the responsible people, but also to the crooks and the insane. I'm afraid that's just a reality we have to deal with.

Please think of all the kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, and high school teachers you have known over your life.

Now think about what percentage of them should ever have a gun in their hands, ever.

Now tell me why this is such a good idea anyway.

In the movies everyone hits what they shoot at. In a school with teachers carrying I suspect the statistics will be more similar to what they are when people have handguns in their homes...which is that innocent people are far more likely to die.

Fish on...

Todd

Like I said you only see the imperfect scenario. The average of the two will result in less deaths than the current state.

BTW, I served in the U.S. Army and I saw them train some pretty stupid people how to shoot straight, identify badguys, and not shot their buddies. They did this in nine weeks.

Also BTW, I take the reigns in a college class from time-to-time and I really dont feel safe at all knowing this [Bleeeeep!] could happen to me and my students. And I really dont like that the govt. and birds with sticks up their butts say/think I cant defend myself. If I can shoot straight, idendtify my target and whats behind it, then I'm sure my colleauges can too.

Unfortunately the only "training" you need to legally carry a gun is the ability to fill in a form and the ability to sign a credit card slip.

Fish on...

Todd

Just when I thought school tragedies couldn't get any worse.