Bad example. Shooter stopped by armed security guard. The 3rd person injured is the original shooter.
I'm not on that side of this argument, but be prepared for the NRA to go hard on this one (pun fully intended).
I think it is a great example of how an armed individual in the school (not at the police station miles away) can change the momentum of events like this. The school was prepared (ran drills, etc) and had a plan for quick response. Props to them for taking steps now to save lives instead of sitting on their hands waiting for a bill to pass to “fix everything”.
Armed resource personnel are typically trained members of the local police force. It is in my sons school. No one here has argued against that to my knowledge. Plus this shooter appears to have been anned with a hand gun . Don't try to water down a trained cop into an "individual".
So everyone here is supportive of putting armed resource officers (trained cops) in schools? Great to know, I’m all about that myself. With such overwhelming bipartisan support, why are there not armed police in every school in the US? I think I have seen a few here against armed resource officers in schools, btw, but I could be wrong.
Bad example. Shooter stopped by armed security guard. The 3rd person injured is the original shooter.
I'm not on that side of this argument, but be prepared for the NRA to go hard on this one (pun fully intended).
I think it is a great example of how an armed individual in the school (not at the police station miles away) can change the momentum of events like this. The school was prepared (ran drills, etc) and had a plan for quick response. Props to them for taking steps now to save lives instead of sitting on their hands waiting for a bill to pass to “fix everything”.
Armed resource personnel are typically trained members of the local police force. It is in my sons school. No one here has argued against that to my knowledge. Plus this shooter appears to have been anned with a hand gun . Don't try to water down a trained cop into an "individual".
So everyone here is supportive of putting armed resource officers (trained cops) in schools? Great to know, I’m all about that myself. With such overwhelming bipartisan support, why are there not armed police in every school in the US? I think I have seen a few here against armed resource officers in schools, btw, but I could be wrong.
Its hard to argue against it so long as there is a 2A. My argument is against assault rifles and arming teachers.
Why not in every school? Don't know. Budget? They are in Richmond schools. There were two in parkland.
My impression was that most high schools at least will have one or more. Don't know about younger kids, but very common in high school.
I think that is probably true in large schools in cities, but not in smaller towns. I used to go into schools for counseling up to two years ago and there were no armed officers staffed at any of the small schools or elementary schools (although the elementary schools do seem to have better barriers and secured entrances/exits than the high school campuses). Many of them would have principles or some armed staff, though. Could very well have been budget issues that determined how the schools handled security.
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
well no shit, if that good guy is a trained guard in a finite space. oh, wait, except when it doesn't. like at parkland, when that "good guy" was a fucking coward and let 14 teenagers and 3 adults get slaughtered.
What's your argument? Presumably you read the last several posts. No one has argued against resource officers. It's wannabe Rambo's who discharge their weapons in classrooms and have no ongoing training that worry rational people. But feel free to construct sentences that belong on memes.
Yes this is the new norm gun fights at your local schools, so don’t worry you can send your kids to school knowing there’s someone to fight off perpetrators... what a disgrace this country has become ...
Except of course 2 other kids got shot and the kid shooter is dead. Maybe didn’t work out so perfectly for them. I’m guessing gun control would have helped them more.
Wait, but these were essentially cops. I thought you were anti-cop?
So hard to keep your line of thinking straight.
You need to keep up.....ALL cops are bad corrupt tools of an even more corrupt government out to get you. Except when they are armed SROs doing their jobs and they kill a school shooter.
In this most recent situation, the School Resource Officer (SRO) was able to stop the shooter, but not prevent it from occurring. While the outcome is better than Parkland, it is also a completely different scenario with a different weapon and intent by the shooter, so while several want to celebrate this as some sort of affirmation that armed personnel (SRO, security guard or teacher) in our schools is the solution, it neither supports nor disproves this line of thought. Adding these personnel could reduce response time to a threat and could decrease the amount of casualties, but it is a crapshoot at best on how the outcome will really change. In this case, it seems the shooting was domestic related as the shooter had a prior relationship with the female. It's highly likely he had already achieved his goal by the time the SRO engaged him and only stopped an attempted murder-suicide. But I'm not going to get in to the what-ifs on what may have happened. It's more feel good lazy thinking to believe this SRO was a savior or had any impact on this incident besides stopping the suspect before he left the scene. He performed his job duty, unlike the last time in Parkland, and killed the fleeing shooter.
The bigger focus should be on this theory that the "good guy with a gun" is the plan we should be implementing at all schools because it is a solution we can take action on right now while congress and different interest groups squabble over the right to bear arms, gun control and thoughts and prayers. I disagree that adding armed security will prevent or even minimize this from occurring. It's hard to know what impact the security personnel have had, but we do know for sure that it doesn't necessarily prevent or stop someone, and never will, from committing these shootings at institutions where armed security staff work. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be addressing that security concern, but we do need to be realistic in what actual deterrent or preventative impact it can make.
I also don't understand how anyone believes this to be the quick and easy answer "until" something can be done. Besides making people think they are safer, it is a huge burden cost wise just to have at least (1) armed security personnel or SRO on site as a FT employee during the regular school day. Then you need to consider the dozens of after school programs, sporting events and extracurricular activities that occur as frequently, if not more. It's not sustainable and it's not the answer. As of the 2013 school year, only about 23% of schools employ a FT security person while only about 19.3% have even a PT person working at least 1/week. Of those schools that employ either FT or PT, 90% of them work in schools with an enrollment of over 1,000 students. Bigger school districts can afford to make these staffing implementations and almost have to because they are operating a small city, but what I couldn't find is the security staff to student ratio. If there are 1,500 students at a school campus covering 10 acres, then will 1 or 2 personnel really matter if they are not in the right spot at the right time? Especially if the shooter has access to semi-auto rifles.
Threat assessment teams are another must and so are counselors, but again, funding all of this will be extremely problematic. It's a multifaceted issue that even if implemented across the country only offers a small percentage of the overall population a better chance, not guarantee, chance, to prevent or respond to an active shooter. All of the money, resources and staff only addresses a very specific target. As many have mentioned, there are dozens of other options to choose from.
Gun reform and agreements need to be made if we seriously want to address this all encompassing issue. It can't be one or the other. It has to be everything. Plugging one hole while we leave the rest open isn't work and will never work
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Rich people don't have problems, didn't you hear?
True dat lol yep no school shootings in private highschools , less students, the school has more control of student body , not sure what else but its just seems like they just don't have these events happening in those schools ...
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
yeah i bet your right the school itself has more control of student body zero tolerance for bullying ...
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
yeah i bet your right the school itself has more control of student body zero tolerance for bullying ...
Would be an interesting comparative study. There is definitely a correlation with bullying and these events.
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
I think that's definitely what the difference is. My niece and nephew go to private school, and their experience is WAY different from those in public schools. But also, it really is true that those kids who are in private school have far fewer negative experiences that lead to such shootings. Most kids in private school really are not from super broken, fucked up households, and the chances of any behavioural issues they have are almost certainly going to be dealt with more directly with private school kids, specifically because those schools confront such issues better, yes, certainly because of better resources being available to the admin and teachers, and also because private schools tend to have a very low tolerance for troublemakers compared to public schools. Communication between teachers/admin and parents is also WAY better in private schools. One thing I also noticed, though, that doesn't really speak well for private schools, is that more of the students seem to have anxiety, although that very well might be because of the commonalities with the parents, and not the school at all.
BTW, it makes me SO angry that rich kids get such better opportunities in the education system than everyone else because of private school. I actually don't even think this should be legal, frankly. I believe that ALL children should get the same quality of education, the same exact opportunities from a young age. The current system truly does just contribute to the whole "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" problem.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
I think that's definitely what the difference is. My niece and nephew go to private school, and their experience is WAY different from those in public schools. But also, it really is true that those kids who are in private school have far fewer negative experiences that lead to such shootings. Most kids in private school really are not from super broken, fucked up households, and the chances of any behavioural issues they have are almost certainly going to be dealt with more directly with private school kids, specifically because those schools confront such issues better, yes, certainly because of better resources being available to the admin and teachers, and also because private schools tend to have a very low tolerance for troublemakers compared to public schools. Communication between teachers/admin and parents is also WAY better in private schools. One thing I also noticed, though, that doesn't really speak well for private schools, is that more of the students seem to have anxiety, although that very well might be because of the commonalities with the parents, and not the school at all.
BTW, it makes me SO angry that rich kids get such better opportunities in the education system than everyone else because of private school. I actually don't even think this should be legal, frankly. I believe that ALL children should get the same quality of education, the same exact opportunities from a young age. The current system truly does just contribute to the whole "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" problem.
yeah i agree the fact is perents that pay that much for their kids pre college schooling expect way more from those institutions ..How much does it cost to send one kid to private middle & high school ? alot of $$ .. I looked into private school for my two kids way back when they were that age for one yr for SAINT PATRICKS middle school was 15 grand per yr back in those days probably yr 2000 ....
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
I think that's definitely what the difference is. My niece and nephew go to private school, and their experience is WAY different from those in public schools. But also, it really is true that those kids who are in private school have far fewer negative experiences that lead to such shootings. Most kids in private school really are not from super broken, fucked up households, and the chances of any behavioural issues they have are almost certainly going to be dealt with more directly with private school kids, specifically because those schools confront such issues better, yes, certainly because of better resources being available to the admin and teachers, and also because private schools tend to have a very low tolerance for troublemakers compared to public schools. Communication between teachers/admin and parents is also WAY better in private schools. One thing I also noticed, though, that doesn't really speak well for private schools, is that more of the students seem to have anxiety, although that very well might be because of the commonalities with the parents, and not the school at all.
BTW, it makes me SO angry that rich kids get such better opportunities in the education system than everyone else because of private school. I actually don't even think this should be legal, frankly. I believe that ALL children should get the same quality of education, the same exact opportunities from a young age. The current system truly does just contribute to the whole "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" problem.
Private schools do a lot of things to help avoid bullying that public schools could probably take note of. I used to think it was terrible, but having specific uniforms helps keep the lower income students from being singled out due their clothing. Many private schools focus less on sports, and you probably do not have as much of the “prep vs jock” mentality. I’m sure there are still “popularity” gaps, and other things that make children feel inadequate, but because of the better teacher/student relationships, the situations probably get resolved more adequately. I’m just brainstorming, but surely public schools could do a better job at facing these dilemmas by using some of the approaches that private schools implement.
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
I think that's definitely what the difference is. My niece and nephew go to private school, and their experience is WAY different from those in public schools. But also, it really is true that those kids who are in private school have far fewer negative experiences that lead to such shootings. Most kids in private school really are not from super broken, fucked up households, and the chances of any behavioural issues they have are almost certainly going to be dealt with more directly with private school kids, specifically because those schools confront such issues better, yes, certainly because of better resources being available to the admin and teachers, and also because private schools tend to have a very low tolerance for troublemakers compared to public schools. Communication between teachers/admin and parents is also WAY better in private schools. One thing I also noticed, though, that doesn't really speak well for private schools, is that more of the students seem to have anxiety, although that very well might be because of the commonalities with the parents, and not the school at all.
BTW, it makes me SO angry that rich kids get such better opportunities in the education system than everyone else because of private school. I actually don't even think this should be legal, frankly. I believe that ALL children should get the same quality of education, the same exact opportunities from a young age. The current system truly does just contribute to the whole "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" problem.
yeah i agree the fact is perents that pay that much for their kids pre college schooling expect way more from those institutions ..How much does it cost to send one kid to private middle & high school ? alot of $$ .. I looked into private school for my two kids way back when they were that age for one yr for SAINT PATRICKS middle school was 15 grand per yr back in those days probably yr 2000 ....
I think the cost varies greatly, but generally the more it costs, the better the quality of education (obviously, I guess). My sister and bro-in-law (he's rich, she married well, lol) pay $17,000 per child per year for elementary school. I'm not sure if that goes up once they're in high school. My nephew is in grade 7 now, so I guess I'll think to ask soon about that soon enough. Now I'm curious. .... Oh, btw, then there is a whole other kind of private school: The cheap (subsidized) religious ones. That is whole other ball of wax. I would argue that the quality of the actual education is about equal to that of public school, but the expectations when it comes to behaviour are still higher.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So can someone answer why these events never happen in private schools but always in public schools ..
Maybe private schools do a better job at actually teaching children life skills...such as non-violent conflict resolution? Maybe bullying is less toleranted in private schools? I’m not sure, but that is a good question.
I think that's definitely what the difference is. My niece and nephew go to private school, and their experience is WAY different from those in public schools. But also, it really is true that those kids who are in private school have far fewer negative experiences that lead to such shootings. Most kids in private school really are not from super broken, fucked up households, and the chances of any behavioural issues they have are almost certainly going to be dealt with more directly with private school kids, specifically because those schools confront such issues better, yes, certainly because of better resources being available to the admin and teachers, and also because private schools tend to have a very low tolerance for troublemakers compared to public schools. Communication between teachers/admin and parents is also WAY better in private schools. One thing I also noticed, though, that doesn't really speak well for private schools, is that more of the students seem to have anxiety, although that very well might be because of the commonalities with the parents, and not the school at all.
BTW, it makes me SO angry that rich kids get such better opportunities in the education system than everyone else because of private school. I actually don't even think this should be legal, frankly. I believe that ALL children should get the same quality of education, the same exact opportunities from a young age. The current system truly does just contribute to the whole "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" problem.
I have no idea, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for a private school to house a monster, lol. Of course any school can have a psychopath as a student, or an extremely troubled or abused student, or a mentally ill student. I'm just saying that the chances of a school shooter coming out of a private school (and thus shooting up a private school) are much, much smaller for the reasons I mentioned. Far fewer kids slip through the cracks at private schools.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have no idea, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for a private school to house a monster, lol. Of course any school can have a psychopath as a student, or an extremely troubled or abused student, or a mentally ill student. I'm just saying that the chances of a school shooter coming out of a private school (and thus shooting up a private school) are much, much smaller for the reasons I mentioned. Far fewer kids slip through the cracks at private schools.
Fewer may “slip through the cracks”, but I think it’s fair to say that private schools expel most of the kids with any significant behavioural issues. They aren’t required to try to educate these kids, the way that public schools are. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison at all, because there’s a large selection bias.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Out of curiosity, I checked on that. No, Adam Lanza didn't attend private school. He attended public school (including Sandy Hook) for years, and then a public Intermediate school, and then home schooling, which seems to be when he got really weird. Doesn't say much for home schooling! Although in all fairness to his mother, perhaps she chose to home-school him because he was acting all fucked up, and not the other way around. (I do admit that I think home schooling is fucking weird unless absolutely necessary)
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have no idea, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for a private school to house a monster, lol. Of course any school can have a psychopath as a student, or an extremely troubled or abused student, or a mentally ill student. I'm just saying that the chances of a school shooter coming out of a private school (and thus shooting up a private school) are much, much smaller for the reasons I mentioned. Far fewer kids slip through the cracks at private schools.
Fewer may “slip through the cracks”, but I think it’s fair to say that private schools expel most of the kids with any significant behavioural issues. They aren’t required to try to educate these kids, the way that public schools are. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison at all, because there’s a large selection bias.
Where are you getting that info? Public schools expel kids all the time - no school is forced to keep a problem kid at the school. I would guess that most private school kids who are expelled end up at another private school.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I have no idea, but to be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible for a private school to house a monster, lol. Of course any school can have a psychopath as a student, or an extremely troubled or abused student, or a mentally ill student. I'm just saying that the chances of a school shooter coming out of a private school (and thus shooting up a private school) are much, much smaller for the reasons I mentioned. Far fewer kids slip through the cracks at private schools.
Fewer may “slip through the cracks”, but I think it’s fair to say that private schools expel most of the kids with any significant behavioural issues. They aren’t required to try to educate these kids, the way that public schools are. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison at all, because there’s a large selection bias.
Where are you getting that info? Public schools expel kids all the time - no school is forced to keep a problem kid at the school. I would guess that most private school kids who are expelled end up at another private school.
The public school system is required to make quite significant efforts to educate children in their catchment area. It isn’t easy to expel a child and many steps need to be taken first, whereas a private school is not compelled to take those steps at all.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
I think I have seen a few here against armed resource officers in schools, btw, but I could be wrong.
Why not in every school? Don't know. Budget? They are in Richmond schools. There were two in parkland.
www.headstonesband.com
what a disgrace this country has become ...
You mean to say 'worked this time'.
Two times a day a broken clock tells the right time.
So hard to keep your line of thinking straight.
Except when they are armed SROs doing their jobs and they kill a school shooter.
The bigger focus should be on this theory that the "good guy with a gun" is the plan we should be implementing at all schools because it is a solution we can take action on right now while congress and different interest groups squabble over the right to bear arms, gun control and thoughts and prayers. I disagree that adding armed security will prevent or even minimize this from occurring. It's hard to know what impact the security personnel have had, but we do know for sure that it doesn't necessarily prevent or stop someone, and never will, from committing these shootings at institutions where armed security staff work. It doesn't mean we shouldn't be addressing that security concern, but we do need to be realistic in what actual deterrent or preventative impact it can make.
I also don't understand how anyone believes this to be the quick and easy answer "until" something can be done. Besides making people think they are safer, it is a huge burden cost wise just to have at least (1) armed security personnel or SRO on site as a FT employee during the regular school day. Then you need to consider the dozens of after school programs, sporting events and extracurricular activities that occur as frequently, if not more. It's not sustainable and it's not the answer. As of the 2013 school year, only about 23% of schools employ a FT security person while only about 19.3% have even a PT person working at least 1/week. Of those schools that employ either FT or PT, 90% of them work in schools with an enrollment of over 1,000 students. Bigger school districts can afford to make these staffing implementations and almost have to because they are operating a small city, but what I couldn't find is the security staff to student ratio. If there are 1,500 students at a school campus covering 10 acres, then will 1 or 2 personnel really matter if they are not in the right spot at the right time? Especially if the shooter has access to semi-auto rifles.
Threat assessment teams are another must and so are counselors, but again, funding all of this will be extremely problematic. It's a multifaceted issue that even if implemented across the country only offers a small percentage of the overall population a better chance, not guarantee, chance, to prevent or respond to an active shooter. All of the money, resources and staff only addresses a very specific target. As many have mentioned, there are dozens of other options to choose from.
Gun reform and agreements need to be made if we seriously want to address this all encompassing issue. It can't be one or the other. It has to be everything. Plugging one hole while we leave the rest open isn't work and will never work
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_233.70.asp?current=yes
BTW, it makes me SO angry that rich kids get such better opportunities in the education system than everyone else because of private school. I actually don't even think this should be legal, frankly. I believe that ALL children should get the same quality of education, the same exact opportunities from a young age. The current system truly does just contribute to the whole "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" problem.
I looked into private school for my two kids way back when they were that age for one yr for SAINT PATRICKS middle school was 15 grand per yr back in those days probably yr 2000 ....
I’m just brainstorming, but surely public schools could do a better job at facing these dilemmas by using some of the approaches that private schools implement.
.... Oh, btw, then there is a whole other kind of private school: The cheap (subsidized) religious ones. That is whole other ball of wax. I would argue that the quality of the actual education is about equal to that of public school, but the expectations when it comes to behaviour are still higher.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
(I do admit that I think home schooling is fucking weird unless absolutely necessary)