paperburn1 wrote:I still believe that there is a large amount of information not being published that would change the public sentiments on the current media efforts to push gun control.
The Left-Wing dominated media is the greatest threat to our freedom in this nation.
How Much Would It Cost to Put Guards with Guns in Every Public School?
1. ..Most people think it's the best approach. In the wake of the Newtown shooting, Gallup asked people what they thought were the best ways to stop school shootings in the future. Putting more police in schools topped the list, with 53 percent saying they thought it would be "very effective" at preventing these kind of tragedies. And this was unanimous across the political spectrum. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agreed on this in almost equal measure,...
...It wouldn't be that expensive. Here's some simple math. The median salary for police officers is $55,010 and there are about 99,000 public schools in the country -- and of those, about a third already have armed guards. Putting police in the remaining schools works out to an annual cost of about $3.6 billion, which is really more like $4 billion or so when you factor in benefits as well. That's not even a rounding error when it comes to the federal budget. It's even smaller than the foreign aid budget -- a point LaPierre demagogued -- despite foreign aid making up less than 1 percent of overall spending.But the NRA might be putting a different price-tag on this project: zero. It named former Arkansas representative Asa Hutchinson to lead this new school safety initiative, and he said it would use armed volunteers, not cops.
That's the thing the biased media ignore everything Lapierre said except the part about putting police/guards in schools, distort it by claiming it would be "insanely expensive", or "more guns isn't the answer" or both. And almost completely ignore the part about the NRA being willing to train teachers/school officials with CCW permits and/or ex-military/ retired police to do the job.
"Putting police in the remaining schools works out to an annual cost of about $3.6 billion, which is really more like $4 billion or so when you factor in benefits as well."
No. If is costs $3.6B cash to pay for 99,000 police officers, it will cost about $10B once you start paying retirement funds, and the numbers of public schools continually increase, so this number will as well. Also, this is only for the 2/3 that do not have police on campus. The 1/3 that do will need to be paid for in the same way, so add 33%. NOw recognize we are talking about what OBama campaigned for before his first election--a national police force. If you have any common sense at all, this move toward Socialism ought to scare you silly.
This entire topic is going to be used to push us down the Socialist path, mark my words. This is exactly where OBama's panel is going to lead--the creation of a national police force.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:"Putting police in the remaining schools works out to an annual cost of about $3.6 billion, which is really more like $4 billion or so when you factor in benefits as well."
No. If is costs $3.6B cash to pay for 99,000 police officers, it will cost about $10B once you start paying retirement funds, and the numbers of public schools continually increase, so this number will as well. Also, this is only for the 2/3 that do not have police on campus. The 1/3 that do will need to be paid for in the same way, so add 33%. NOw recognize we are talking about what OBama campaigned for before his first election--a national police force. If you have any common sense at all, this move toward Socialism ought to scare you silly.
This entire topic is going to be used to push us down the Socialist path, mark my words. This is exactly where OBama's panel is going to lead--the creation of a national police force.
Obama isn't really going to do this inspite of apparently widespread public support of the idea, has no intention or desire to do this. Lapierre was merely throwing it out there as a challenge, point being Obama(& Congress) could do something now to increase school safety if he/they really wanted to. Obama only wants to use the tragedy to push gun control that is it. Also don't see how granting federal dollars to local school districts or police would make the police any more "national police force" than they already are.
williatw wrote:Also don't see how granting federal dollars to local school districts or police would make the police any more "national police force" than they already are.
I didn't say that. I said he's going to use this issue to try to push for the things he campaigned on 5 years ago, especially including a national police force. You should expect him to be more bold when it comes to pushing for more socialism, since this is his last term and he has only to lose what else he puts on the table. There is a lot he wanted to do last term but couldn't because he wanted to gain reelection. Now that he's won that you should expect him to be more radical.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
williatw wrote:
That's the thing the biased media ignore everything Lapierre said except the part about putting police/guards in schools, distort it by claiming it would be "insanely expensive", or "more guns isn't the answer" or both. And almost completely ignore the part about the NRA being willing to train teachers/school officials with CCW permits and/or ex-military/ retired police to do the job.
And THAT is the best approach. Yes, the media drives the discussion, and they only push ideas which they agree with.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Putting a single armed guard in a school won't help either.
He becomes the first target of anyone wishing to do harm. Once he has been taken out, you are back to having a defenseless herd at the mercy of these people.
Many school shootings are done by students. How can an armed guard stop a student-attacker? The guard sees them every day. He knows they are supposed to be there. (Columbine). Now you need metal detectors in every school. If you take this to extreme of the TSA, now you need a crew to administer pat down 'random' searches of every one entering the school.
INSANITY.
What about movie theaters? (Aurora)Gonna post armed guards there also?
What about malls? (Brookefield Square, Eaton Centre, Arundel Mills)
What about community bbqs? (Toronto)
What a culture of fear we live in.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Stubby wrote:Putting a single armed guard in a school won't help either.
He becomes the first target of anyone wishing to do harm. Once he has been taken out, you are back to having a defenseless herd at the mercy of these people.
Many school shootings are done by students. How can an armed guard stop a student-attacker? The guard sees them every day. He knows they are supposed to be there. (Columbine). Now you need metal detectors in every school. If you take this to extreme of the TSA, now you need a crew to administer pat down 'random' searches of every one entering the school.
INSANITY.
What about movie theaters? (Aurora)Gonna post armed guards there also?
What about malls? (Brookefield Square, Eaton Centre, Arundel Mills)
What about community bbqs? (Toronto)
What a culture of fear we live in.
A single armed guard vs completely disarmed people in a gun-free zone that not only fails to protect the children & adults, but actively encourages the shooters, cowardly animals like that love disarmed helpless people. Every mass shooting in the US of four or more dead after 1950 with one exception happened in gun free zones. As opposed to CCW having teacher(s) or school personnel (in addition or instead of the one guard), it would not be known to the shooter who was armed and who wasn't. But let’s take your idea; let's not give in to the culture of fear. I don't want our politicians to live in a culture of fear either. So henceforth I will "free" them from fear by disarming their bodyguards (or better still no bodyguards), then they can experience the fear free life first hand that they wish upon the rest of us. It is amazing to me that an assault weapon(or straight up machine gun) in the hands of the police, military, bodyguard is perfectly acceptable to the gun grabbers, but a gun in the hands of a citizen the thought is: this "assault weapon" was designed for the purpose of mass killing people therefore it should be banned for that reason. Because after all gov around the world, they never/so rarely abuse the unilateral power to legally inflict death on the rest of us, therefore they’re the only ones to be trusted with those hateful killing machines. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ https://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com/tag/r-j-rummel/
...After examining about 10,000 sources over many years, Rummel estimates that governments of the world have committed democide on (i.e., murdered) approximately 262 million people in the 20th century alone.
...To put the 262 million murders in more conceptual terms, consider that if one takes a random walk through the entire set of murdered men, women, and children, more than 9 out of 10 murders across all times and all nations, were perpetrated, not by civilian criminals, but by criminal thugs operating under the auspice or directive of government to murder its own people. Repeat that: Not the killing of foreigners or enemis, but the murder of its own people, from whom the government ostensibly derives its power in the first place.
Thank you for the link to this article. This is not a well known statistic and probably bears further research. The current direction of the gun control debate in this country is so focused on emotion and is generally so devoid of rational thought that it is scary. The use of fear and panic to manipulate the populace into actually asking for their liberty to be reduced in order to provide the illusion of security has never been more clear.
Is this topic so emotionally charged that people never change their mind once they have chosen a side? Have any of you changed your mind on this topic in one direction or the other? If so, what argument did you find persuasive?
Stubby wrote:Putting a single armed guard in a school won't help either.
He becomes the first target of anyone wishing to do harm. Once he has been taken out, you are back to having a defenseless herd at the mercy of these people.
Many school shootings are done by students. How can an armed guard stop a student-attacker? The guard sees them every day. He knows they are supposed to be there. (Columbine). Now you need metal detectors in every school. If you take this to extreme of the TSA, now you need a crew to administer pat down 'random' searches of every one entering the school.
INSANITY.
What about movie theaters? (Aurora)Gonna post armed guards there also?
What about malls? (Brookefield Square, Eaton Centre, Arundel Mills)
What about community bbqs? (Toronto)
What a culture of fear we live in.
A single armed guard vs completely disarmed people in a gun-free zone that not only fails to protect the children & adults, but actively encourages the shooters, cowardly animals like that love disarmed helpless people. Every mass shooting in the US of four or more dead after 1950 with one exception happened in gun free zones. As opposed to CCW having teacher(s) or school personnel (in addition or instead of the one guard), it would not be known to the shooter who was armed and who wasn't. But let’s take your idea; let's not give in to the culture of fear. I don't want our politicians to live in a culture of fear either. So henceforth I will "free" them from fear by disarming their bodyguards (or better still no bodyguards), then they can experience the fear free life first hand that they wish upon the rest of us. It is amazing to me that an assault weapon(or straight up machine gun) in the hands of the police, military, bodyguard is perfectly acceptable to the gun grabbers, but a gun in the hands of a citizen the thought is: this "assault weapon" was designed for the purpose of mass killing people therefore it should be banned for that reason. Because after all gov around the world, they never/so rarely abuse the unilateral power to legally inflict death on the rest of us, therefore they’re the only ones to be trusted with those hateful killing machines. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ https://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com/tag/r-j-rummel/
What exactly do you think my idea is? Unless I am mistaken you and I agree on this issue.
Don't want gun control.
Don't want massive amounts of law enforcement either.
I think concealed carry should be like a first aid course: one more thing for the resume for the teaching job.
The NRA should provide advanced training for teachers/administrators willing to conceal and carry. Hell they should provide free practice ammunition.
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe
Stubby wrote:What exactly do you think my idea is? Unless I am mistaken you and I agree on this issue.
Don't want gun control.
Don't want massive amounts of law enforcement either.
I think concealed carry should be like a first aid course: one more thing for the resume for the teaching job.
The NRA should provide advanced training for teachers/administrators willing to conceal and carry. Hell they should provide free practice ammunition.
Thank you glad to hear it, and may you have a Merry Christmas (or happy Holidays).
NRA’s Asa Hutchinson Interview on CNN’s State of the Union: Gun Control – 12/23/12
