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)
5
5
0
How much are people willing to pony up in new taxes?
“Installing metal detectors at every South Carolina public school would cost $14.4 million up front, plus up to $98.3 million each year to place staff at security checkpoints, according to a recent estimate from the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office.
For comparison, that's enough money to replace about a fifth of the state's aging, fire-prone school bus fleet in a single year.”
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/school-metal-detectors-would-cost-million-a-year-in-s/article_6fdbbad6-0ffc-11e8-a077-5ffd5919b42f.html
“Installing metal detectors at every South Carolina public school would cost $14.4 million up front, plus up to $98.3 million each year to place staff at security checkpoints, according to a recent estimate from the state Revenue and Fiscal Affairs Office.
For comparison, that's enough money to replace about a fifth of the state's aging, fire-prone school bus fleet in a single year.”
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/school-metal-detectors-would-cost-million-a-year-in-s/article_6fdbbad6-0ffc-11e8-a077-5ffd5919b42f.html
School metal detectors would cost $98 million a year in S.C., but some say they're worth it
Installing metal detectors at every South Carolina public school would cost $14.4 million up front, plus up to $98.3 million each year to place staff at security checkpoints, according to
(5)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SSG Michael Hartsfield - Did you even read the report? From your statement you did not.
(1)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
SSG Robert Webster - And why should I? Your "report" has nothing to do with the topic, unless they are putting metal detectors on buses.
(0)
(0)
SSG Michael Hartsfield
Cpl (Join to see) - Are you saying that children should be responsible for their own safety in schools instead of the adults responsible for sending them there? Your "freedom" argument mean f*(k all when children in school are more worried about getting shot rather than being educated.
SSgt Christopher Brose Being an educator myself, I'm more concerned about insuring my knowing my topic and educating the children in my charge. It's very easy for us in the military to say that teachers should be armed to defend themselves and their students BUT this something that shouldn't even be. Many educators, myself included, see schools as a place of learning and it should be the responsibility of the district and parents to ensure that ALL of the children and teachers in attendance are safe. The cost of something becomes irrelevant when you are looking in the eyes of a parent whose child just got killed and you are asked "Why didn't the school district do something?" Also, like I said in a previous post, you don't hear about school shootings in Baltimore, Chicago or any other inner city school district do you? Outside of it? Yes. Inside the schools? No. Why? Because those schools have metal detectors, security guards, clear backpack requirements, dress codes as well as stringent guns laws.
SSgt Christopher Brose Being an educator myself, I'm more concerned about insuring my knowing my topic and educating the children in my charge. It's very easy for us in the military to say that teachers should be armed to defend themselves and their students BUT this something that shouldn't even be. Many educators, myself included, see schools as a place of learning and it should be the responsibility of the district and parents to ensure that ALL of the children and teachers in attendance are safe. The cost of something becomes irrelevant when you are looking in the eyes of a parent whose child just got killed and you are asked "Why didn't the school district do something?" Also, like I said in a previous post, you don't hear about school shootings in Baltimore, Chicago or any other inner city school district do you? Outside of it? Yes. Inside the schools? No. Why? Because those schools have metal detectors, security guards, clear backpack requirements, dress codes as well as stringent guns laws.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
Do you even know the FBI's literature for civilians during an active shooter situation? Run. Hide. Fight. They are telling EVERYONE that an armed response to an active shooter situation may not be able to stop the criminal from killing you. Yes, I am saying school aged children should be able to stand up for themselves if the teachers are incapacitated by fear or death. Not all adults will have the wherewithal to fight, some will cower in a corner.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google