Hire more security instead of "gun control" or "arm the staff"?

Hiring security sounds expensive, and some schools honestly don't get the money for that. Arming the staff would be cheaper.

That's probably the next best thing to do. It would be nice if they made the hiring somewhat strict to ensure all schools are getting experienced and qualified security though.

@blade_r: @neon_leon: And if the staff go doolally and shoot up a school?

@citizensentry: I never said arming the staff was safer, just cheaper. If they started arming the staff, there'd obviously be a screening process to decide which of the staff would be armed. It's not perfect, and getting security would certainly be a better option, but hiring armed guards would be a more expensive option that not all schools could afford is all I was saying. If they did hire armed guards, then I'd say it shouldn't be the school's responsibility to pay for it.

Not staff, I am talking about hiring separate security all together. People that actually want to protect the lives of innocent people. For the record, I am all for passing some laws to make obtaining firearms more difficult for criminals and mentally ill people, but I know getting that to happen will take nothing short of a small miracle since nobody is willing to make any kind of compromise, so maybe this is the next best thing.

@blade_r: @neon_leon: Or you could just ban all guns.

Did you read what I said? I am all for some gun control, but it isn't going to happen, nobody is willing budge on their stances. Its like talking to a damn wall, so until we can get that to happen, we should try to come to some sort of compromise, its better than nothing.

@blade_r: It's easy to enforce gun control. Get the president or any high ranking official to say something like this "From this moment forward all firearms are hereby banned to the public. Anyone that is caught owning a firearm with or without a license will spend a minimum of 5-7 years imprisonment. And anyone who has been caught owning a firearm and are refusing to hand there weapon over to the proper authorities will spend 8-10 years imprisonment."

If it was that easy it would surely have been done by now, don't you think? I saw Obama's address after the recent shooting and he seemed pretty fed up (as a lot of us are) so I feel like he would put a law similar to that in place if he could do it that easily.

@blade_r: No pal it's easy. The only reason they don't do it is because they are feeding the public basic fears and then saying if you buy a gun you'll be safe.

@citizensentry: but why would someone who seems to want some form of gun control in place, purposely not pass such a law?

Go back in time and prevent the right to bear arms from being in the constitution.

@blade_r: National Gun Tax.

Come on now, anyone that says "arm the staff" don't exist in real life.

@sophia89: I'd rather the president get "impeached" than watch more kids die, because Americans believe in *GUNS FOR ALL*

@sophia89: a majority of the public don't even know what the second amendment is, they just see it as a way to get free (not free guns......you know what I mean) guns.

I would much prefer police officers on the campus just have a little section of the school dedicated to them. They can respond to emergencies quicker and why don't they build bullet walls around campus at least give the students a place for cover

I work in DC and every single government building has armed security guards. Like airport security after 911 changed to meet the reality of the world, I think public schools need to meet that reality and have armed security.

I favor closing some of the loopholes in background security checks and keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable. But will more laws solve the problem though? No. Did anyone notice how many existing gun laws were broken by these school shooters? Lots of exiting laws were broken. Even if all guns are taken away the threat of mass murder remains. Timothy McVeigh brought a building down in Oklahoma with fertilizer. The Boston Marathon bombers didn't use guns. Security guards may be expensive, but I am glad they are protecting my building.

Ban guns already.

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

Or this ^^^, m8t3.

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

Isn't the hired security as likely, if not more to do the same thing? Not taking a side, just wondering.

Then we can be like Cuba where the government is the only one with the guns. Then we won't have to worry about anything. Why we can trust the government, can't we?

@just_sayin: If you have to be afraid of your government being the only one with guns then you have a problem with your government. I can't say I know much about America's political climate though so perhaps the US system is that bad, I don't actually know.

@thedandyman: Look at how many millions of citizens of been killed by there government after banning guns.

^ Would never work, people would fight back and the death toll would be massive.

@the_new_avenger: Without researching the subject, I'm going off of the experience of my own country. After the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, handguns were effectively band and we haven't had a school shooting following that time. And we haven't had any major problems with the government killing citizens either.

Implicate more gun control at least.

At most, ban them.

Don't be a pussy, fight with your fists :)

Ban all guns.

Arm the staff is just ridiculously impractical and dumb.

The trouble is, USA has already too much guns in circulation, so the problem tend to feed itself.

@thedandyman: You most likely live in a place with less than 50million population and a news station that don't put every thing that happens on national and international news. If you believe your "gun free" country has not gun related violence you're delusional.

Stalin banned guns, he then killed 20million of his own people, Mao Zedong banned guns, he killed 50million of his own people. Hitler banned guns and he then killed 7million people with no one to say NO.

@monsterstomp: Fist kill more people per year than guns by up to 12 times more.

@the_new_avenger: Pft... source please.

@the_new_avenger: We have a population of over 64 million which obviously isn't close to that of America which is why I don't pretend to be completely knowledgeable on how gun control would work there. What I can say, however, is that while there defiantly still is gun related violence, only 2.4% of homicides were committed using a gun in 2011 whereas according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime 67% of homicides were committed using a gun in America in 2010.

Do you really feel that your government is as corrupt as that of Stalin's Mao's and Hitler's? If so, that's a problem.

@monsterstomp: Handguns are the only gun's in the USA that require a licences to own and are restricted. And yet they have the highest rate of homicide, "Assault rifles" and shotguns kill less people per year than clubs,knifes, and fists.

Go to the FBI database and see for yourself.

I find it sad that we even have to consider to hire security or arm staff for an institution of learning.

@thedandyman: You never know with things like that, guns are not the problem it's the people who buy them. If you can stop the flow of guns into crazy people hands that's how you stop gun related violence, Problem is they are ready to comment murder so prison sentences don't mean jack to them so threatening with 10 years when they are ready for a life time wont stop them. And neither will banning the guns, I can watch youtube and learn how to make a gun or i can get a gun by illegal means.

How about we take the common sense approach and figure out what the root problem is. Why are all these people coming out to kill? Why are they the person that they are? What can we do to help these people?

I think if we figure this out then there won't be a need for anything in the poll. No gun bans, no hiring of more security and no gun armed staff.

@monsterstomp: @thedandyman: I by no means think guns should be handed out and easily accessed. I think there are better ways to stop these things than by banning guns, because i highly doubt banning guns will work.

@the_new_avenger: If a criminal really wants to get his hands on a gun then it is possible that he will be able to get one. However, if I go off of the 2.4% statistic that I spoke about area then it does seem like many criminals won't bother going through the process of trying to acquire the parts needed for a gun or trying to find one illegally.

I don't actually feel like banning guns would be practical now though. There are too many guns in circulation so I think it would be too time consuming and possibly ineffective to do. What I originally said is that, in an ideal world, guns should've been banned sometime in the past when the weapons were less powerful than the modern ones.

@thedandyman: I agree this world would be massively better without the invention of guns, and something needs to be done. I just don't believe banning will work like you said.

Also no need to arm the schools just have the city they school is in have a couple of officers stationed there. My school did that and drugs, and fights dropped quick.

Knife attack that reads like a school shooting.

Do both. Preferably armed security so liberals don't cry as much, but if they can't afford it then do the teacher thing.

if it were up to me, i'd ban all guns. But that's definatly out of the question with this country.

Gun control is a good idea.

HIring security is not so good for several reason. First of all, on who's dime!? i gotta pay more taxes? Most schools can't afford that.

Secondly, i don't know many people that would sign up for the job with it's sole purpose is to shot a disgruntle child in the face. For (one of) the same reasons why arming teachers is bad, who really has the heart to shoot a kid when the time comes? Who wouldn't choke when it came down to it? it takes a special kind of damaged for that...

Third, what happens when you have months/years go by when no action is going down? Eventually you're gonna hire someone that only takes the job because they are confident they never have to do anything or some that is prepared but eventually becomes complacent. Then, when the moment comes for real, they're caught with their pants down, fumbling and unfocused.

fourth, slippery slope. if we start handing out guns to teachers or "extra security" what's next if that doesn't help? now everyone of every age gets a gun? i don't think the solution to gun violence is more guns... it's like a retarded game of rock paper scissors where we try to say rock beats rock. sure u can beat down a rock with another rock (of roughly the same size) if you're patient enough but wouldn't it be way more practical to use paper and save us the headache?

@yodaprime: That's why i say have the Towns Police Department station a 2-3 trustworthy cops on campus. This caused less drugs, and Fights in my old highschool and we never really noticed the cops.

@citizensentry:

That's a recipe for a bloody civil war.

The government has tanks, Jets and helicopters. The public would have Pistols, Handguns, Shotguns & Machines Guns. The 'fight' would be over in about a week.

@citizensentry:

1. That doesn't refute my point at all. Millions would still die were our government to try that.

2. You assume every member of the military would be loyal to the government.

@sog7dc

1: And millions would die because?

2: If just 400 apache helicopter pilots remained loyal the 'fight' would be over within 2 weeks.

@citizensentry:

1. Because that usually happens in civil wars.

2. What happens if there are 400 that are pro-2nd amendment too? Or better yet, what if the generals are pro-2nd amendment? Bottom line, the government doing what you suggests results in a horrid amount of lives lost.