Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/25/13 07:29 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I'm sorry I can't take someone seriously who wants someone to work for 1 day in a single school for the entire school year as a guidance councilor.

So you choose to focus on how little he would be able to do instead of the intended point? The point being: even that little bit will prove far more use to the students than a single gun, let alone an assault rifle, let alone many assault rifles.

At 1/26/13 01:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote: So you choose to focus on how little he would be able to do instead of the intended point? The point being: even that little bit will prove far more use to the students than a single gun, let alone an assault rifle, let alone many assault rifles.

I disagree. This counselor wouldn't be able to effectively do anything unless he completely ignores nearly the entire student body. I think the best thing to do would be to actually funnel money into schools to have counselors and shit be able to speak with students and know them on a personal level, while also equipping the responding forces with the tools necessary to utterly decimate the problem. Prevention and ability to respond go hand in hand, they're not mutually exclusive. Passive and active deterrents combined with active responses are the way to go for just about anything. Just because I buy a fire extinguisher doesn't mean I don't turn off burners anymore.

At 1/26/13 01:43 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: how about instead of teachers with guns how about a actual police officer (like in my old school) have two police officers each with one 4 hour shift (schools are six hoursish) but one hour before school starts and one after school for after school activities. and these shifts would be part of the officers daily patrol?and the roster for the officers on duty shift with officers on the force so everyone gets a chance?

I see no problem with that. they did it in my school and we had about 2000 students and the parents never complained they would actually thank the police officers on duty.

This this this.

There is literally no downside to this, and for once it would actually be a proper government expenditure, as it would actually benefit society.

My high school had 1 cop (who was awesome) and 2-3 security guards on the premise every day. Is this uncommon? I was under the assumption that this was the norm throughout the country, but it must have just been from living in a yuppie Connecticut town.

At 1/26/13 02:26 AM, Feoric wrote: My high school had 1 cop (who was awesome) and 2-3 security guards on the premise every day. Is this uncommon? I was under the assumption that this was the norm throughout the country, but it must have just been from living in a yuppie Connecticut town.

My school had a cop or two as well. However the number of poeple saying this would be "outlandish" makes me think it's not that common, for some reason.

At 1/26/13 11:21 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 02:26 AM, Feoric wrote: My high school had 1 cop (who was awesome) and 2-3 security guards on the premise every day. Is this uncommon? I was under the assumption that this was the norm throughout the country, but it must have just been from living in a yuppie Connecticut town.

My school had a cop or two as well. However the number of poeple saying this would be "outlandish" makes me think it's not that common, for some reason.

I'm old. 20 years ago when I graduated, there was no police presence. Nor do I think there is one still. At the two schools I sub at there is no police presence.

Also, until '92 we could bring our guns to school as long as they were kept in our trucks/cars.

At 1/26/13 12:43 PM, TheMason wrote: Also, until '92 we could bring our guns to school as long as they were kept in our trucks/cars.

I wish it could still be like that. But no, govt. feels the need to punish everyone because of one fuck up

I remember hearing about that on "The Daily Show" and Jon Stewart made a joke of something along the line of, well, Obama's kids also get to live in the White House and your kids don't. Honestly, all he seems to have been doing is do background checks and I never noticed anything about guards having guns in the first place. Bill Maher said something about everything being in danger but our gun rights, so yeah, I get my information from comedians.

At 1/26/13 01:34 PM, Ericho wrote: I remember hearing about that on "The Daily Show" and Jon Stewart made a joke of something along the line of, well, Obama's kids also get to live in the White House and your kids don't. Honestly, all he seems to have been doing is do background checks and I never noticed anything about guards having guns in the first place. Bill Maher said something about everything being in danger but our gun rights, so yeah, I get my information from comedians.

Well it all comes down to the value of human life. We're all equal in this world. Obama is not a king or a god. His children are not princess. His and his children's lives are not more valuable than anyone else's. Not yours. Not mine. Not a Pakistani child's.

To assume that only he deserves to be protected from danger, is honestly disgusting, and if you don't think your life is valuable, maybe you should consider some alternatives.

At 1/26/13 11:21 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 02:26 AM, Feoric wrote: My high school had 1 cop (who was awesome) and 2-3 security guards on the premise every day. Is this uncommon? I was under the assumption that this was the norm throughout the country, but it must have just been from living in a yuppie Connecticut town.

My school had a cop or two as well. However the number of poeple saying this would be "outlandish" makes me think it's not that common, for some reason.

I was wondering this too, because in every school in my school district, there were at the very least security guards, and all the high schools had one to two full time cops, with a heavy police presence nearby due to how their patrols worked, with other cops having full time duties two blocks over

At 1/26/13 02:07 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I was wondering this too, because in every school in my school district, there were at the very least security guards, and all the high schools had one to two full time cops, with a heavy police presence nearby due to how their patrols worked, with other cops having full time duties two blocks over

Where do you live? It could be the size that makes the difference. Afterall, many schools serving small communities may lack the resources to have resource officers. And it's not just the school district...it could be the police force too. The police force could be lacking in manpower to support full time cops in schools.

Afterall, many of these shootings happen in smaller cities and towns.

At 1/26/13 06:17 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Zero cops or security guards through my education. The area I attended K-12 was upper class and probably saw no need for it.

However go downtown and the schools at least seem to have a guy at the door.

Now that you mention it, I've heard of a really dismal experience with cops in inner city schools. As in if you leave the class room you have to be escorted by a guard. The problem here is that this is not a learning environment, no one is going to be able to learn if they're surrounded with so much security.

At 1/26/13 01:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Well it all comes down to the value of human life. We're all equal in this world.

No it doesn't, and no we're not.

It comes down to the pure amount of harm that can be caused by an abduction of the head of the Executive Branch's child. If someone abducted my child, there's relatively little they could get from me. Same goes for 99.99% of all Americans. Maybe they could extort some small amount of money, or get us to do some relatively small time bad acts.

Such extortion pressure on the President could result in pardons, military strikes, release of national secrets, and so on. That list doesn;t even include the secondary effects that such a trauma can have on a nation.

In short, we ALL stand to lose if Obama's girls are abudcted or harmed.

At 1/26/13 02:33 PM, TheMason wrote: Where do you live? It could be the size that makes the difference. Afterall, many schools serving small communities may lack the resources to have resource officers. And it's not just the school district...it could be the police force too. The police force could be lacking in manpower to support full time cops in schools.

That's very true. However, I do think pure location has a great deal to do with it as well. My elementary school did not need any security, but there were other elementary schools that fed into my high school that needed security even then. My side of the distrct was middle-upper suburban, but there were other parts that had strong gang ties.

At 1/26/13 07:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In short, we ALL stand to lose if Obama's girls are abudcted or harmed.

Ok, fair enough. Shouldn't I have be allowed to protect myself the same?

There is no justifiable reason for the President to have greater protection, or rather, right to safety, than the people.

I'm not saying lower his security. I'm saying allow people to increase their level of safety.

I want a military aircraft escort the next time I fly coach. After all, it's my right to protect myself. Who knows if my plane will be hijacked?

At 1/26/13 11:43 PM, Feoric wrote: I want a military aircraft escort the next time I fly coach. After all, it's my right to protect myself. Who knows if my plane will be hijacked?

I'm a stop proponent in armed federal marshals on flights.

At 1/26/13 11:43 PM, Feoric wrote: I want a military aircraft escort the next time I fly coach. After all, it's my right to protect myself. Who knows if my plane will be hijacked?

Military aircraft (Well, what we're talking about anyone) are almost exclusively offensive in nature. When they escort, they are for seeking out and exterminating threats. Armed security is more defensive.

It doesn't matter, I am a person just like Obama and I should have the same protections the President has because his life is equal to not just mine, but all citizens of the United States. We should all have easy access to military-level defensive and offensive protections.

At 1/27/13 01:37 AM, Feoric wrote: It doesn't matter, I am a person just like Obama and I should have the same protections the President has because his life is equal to not just mine, but all citizens of the United States. We should all have easy access to military-level defensive and offensive protections.

It's really not an apt comparison, because it's public transport, and you're assuming the risk when you're getting on the airplane in the first place.

Choose a more apt comparison for justification why your life isn't as valuable as your King's.

At 1/27/13 01:37 AM, Feoric wrote: It doesn't matter, I am a person just like Obama and I should have the same protections the President has because his life is equal to not just mine, but all citizens of the United States. We should all have easy access to military-level defensive and offensive protections.

I'm pretty sure most people will settle for what ever they can pay for on their own, with out having that become illegal of course.

At 1/27/13 01:30 AM, RacistBassist wrote:

Military aircraft (Well, what we're talking about anyone) are almost exclusively offensive in nature. When they escort, they are for seeking out and exterminating threats. Armed security is more defensive.

Escort missions are defensive in nature. And there are many, many defensive applications of fighter aircraft.

They are far from being exclusively offensive.

At 1/27/13 11:49 AM, Fim wrote: Who's stopping you? If you had the need and the resources to hire personal protection for yourself or your kids because you think you are uniquely at risk then there's nothing legally in your way.

Well, there's currently bills floating around banning "military style" guns (which are actually not military style at all) and in NY there's a bill banning any gun over 7 round capacity.

there's plenty of reasons why the president needs greater protection. Although I still find it laughable that this isn't self evident to people.

Sorry, his life is not more important than mine.

People can.

Depends on where you live. And if there's a federal ban, then no, you can't.

At 1/26/13 01:08 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

So you choose to focus on how little he would be able to do instead of the intended point? The point being: even that little bit will prove far more use to the students than a single gun, let alone an assault rifle, let alone many assault rifles.

guidance counselor vs crazed gunman... I don't think the guidance counselor is going to win that one. Still, I've said it before and I will say it again. good ideas and good intentions mean NOTHING unless properly implemented. a guidance counselor in every school who stays in that one school who spends time with the students every school day to provide his sage advice and point children in the right direction and give encouragement... and assist children when they have problems outside of school too. Dad's an abusive drink and mom's a crackwhore? Counselor should be free to alert the police without repercussions.

Just having a token person once a week/month/year at the school is useless and pointless.

At 1/26/13 02:00 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 01:43 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: how about instead of teachers with guns how about a actual police officer...

I see no problem with that. they did it in my school and we had about 2000 students and the parents never complained they would actually thank the police officers on duty.

This this this.

There is literally no downside to this, and for once it would actually be a proper government expenditure, as it would actually benefit society.

I wholeheartedly agree.

At 1/27/13 02:47 PM, Korriken wrote: Just having a token person once a week/month/year at the school is useless and pointless.

That token counselor is still likely to help some students at some time, and it's a 1 in 1 quintillion chance that those assault rifles will do anything, let alone help someone. The horiffically inadequate counselor is still more helpful that the guns.