Video
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns
Schools
Responses: 13
7
7
0
Some common sense there- you can legislate evil. Great observation and spot on.
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter SrA Christopher Wright Sgt Randy Wilber SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl (Join to see) Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth LTC (Join to see) MSG Frederick Otero SFC Pete Kain SSG David Andrews LCDR (Join to see) PO1 Tony Holland SCPO Morris Ramsey SPC Margaret Higgins SGT Jim Arnold SFC William H. PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SPC Mike Lake CPL Dave Hoover TSgt Joe C.
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter SrA Christopher Wright Sgt Randy Wilber SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl (Join to see) Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth LTC (Join to see) MSG Frederick Otero SFC Pete Kain SSG David Andrews LCDR (Join to see) PO1 Tony Holland SCPO Morris Ramsey SPC Margaret Higgins SGT Jim Arnold SFC William H. PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SPC Mike Lake CPL Dave Hoover TSgt Joe C.
(7)
(0)
6
6
0
There aren't many times when part ways with Colin Noir, but this is one of them. The metal detector idea is a non-starter. Not because they're expensive (they are) or that they would take a long time to install in every school (they would), it's because the money simply is not there. Most if not all school districts are already strapped for cash, and there's just nowhere for the money to come from. Granted, probably most districts would be better served to get rid of some administrators, but that's not going to pay for many metal detectors.
Then there's the actual implementation of the policy. For metal detectors to be effective, every single person has to go through them. That means installing them in every single access point, and then having people there to ensure every single person goes through them... and is able to respond if someone actually is carrying a weapon. How many schools has anyone ever seen that only has one access point? Every school I have ever been to has many ways of accessing the grounds and buildings. If metal detectors were to become the primary means of keeping unauthorized weapons out of schools, schools are going to be forced to reduce the number of access points, because they simply can't afford the equipment or the manpower to put them in all existing access points.
But reducing the number of access points also means spending money to put up tall chain-link fence or whatever other thing they want to use to barricade currently used access points that they no longer want to be access points. So fine, they spend that money and they get the number of controllable access points down to one or two or three, and now every student has to go through the metal detectors. What does that look like? As any serviceman who every had to get on an American military base immediately after 9/11/2001 can tell you, tighter control means slower access. That means a bottleneck. That means long lines. That means that anyone who would have otherwise planned to go to a school to shoot students, and planned to trip the fire alarm so he could have more people congregated in one area to shoot, now doesn't have to actually enter the school to shoot a lot of people, and he doesn't have to do anything to make them congregate. The school will have done that for him.
Then there's the actual implementation of the policy. For metal detectors to be effective, every single person has to go through them. That means installing them in every single access point, and then having people there to ensure every single person goes through them... and is able to respond if someone actually is carrying a weapon. How many schools has anyone ever seen that only has one access point? Every school I have ever been to has many ways of accessing the grounds and buildings. If metal detectors were to become the primary means of keeping unauthorized weapons out of schools, schools are going to be forced to reduce the number of access points, because they simply can't afford the equipment or the manpower to put them in all existing access points.
But reducing the number of access points also means spending money to put up tall chain-link fence or whatever other thing they want to use to barricade currently used access points that they no longer want to be access points. So fine, they spend that money and they get the number of controllable access points down to one or two or three, and now every student has to go through the metal detectors. What does that look like? As any serviceman who every had to get on an American military base immediately after 9/11/2001 can tell you, tighter control means slower access. That means a bottleneck. That means long lines. That means that anyone who would have otherwise planned to go to a school to shoot students, and planned to trip the fire alarm so he could have more people congregated in one area to shoot, now doesn't have to actually enter the school to shoot a lot of people, and he doesn't have to do anything to make them congregate. The school will have done that for him.
(6)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
I think, given the ridiculously high pay received by most administrators, that more than a few metal detectors might be purchased by eliminating a few overpayed individuals
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
SSG David Andrews MSgt John McGowan SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl (Join to see) Erin Nelson LTC (Join to see) PO3 John Wagner Sgt Randy Wilber MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL LTC Stephen C. SGT Jim Arnold PO3 Bob McCord SPC Margaret Higgins
(6)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google