If we put armed guards (plural) in each school...

by MarkatNite - 1/25/13 11:01 PM

In Reply to: If we put armed guards in schools..... by Josh K

...they can cover for each other when they go on break. But that's really incidental. Note that I had "(on lunch break)" in parentheses. The main point was that the guard (singular) was outside while the shooters were inside. 1) Obviously this situation lessened the guard's effectiveness, as opposed to if he had been inside. (i.e. eating lunch in the cafeteria with the students, as he sometimes did.) 2) This also led to him establishing a perimeter (which was SOP at the time) instead of proactively engaging the shooters (which is SOP now).

>"an armed guard in a school may create more of a perception of security than the reality of it."

Even if that is the case, if the perception of security is created in the minds of the would-be perpetrators, it may cause them to seek other "softer" targets. And even if it doesn't, how is that any worse than the situation we have now?

>"The NRA says that if there was armed security in schools, these things wouldn't happen"

Again, I don't speak for the NRA. Although I have been supporting guarding our children at least as well as we guard our money ever since Columbine. Unfortunately, the board only goes back to 2004:


Incidentally, while I was searching, I came across the following post of mine from 2006 which was a reply to one of your old posts:


But getting back to the main point, note that, even though we guard our banks, that doesn't mean that bank robberies never happen. And even though bank robberies do happen, no one says that means we should not guard our banks at all.

>"VA Tech shows otherwise, regardless of the excuses you tried to make for it."

What you call "excuses", I call facts. You're free to refute them, if you can.

1) It's a fact that, all else being equal, a larger area is more difficult to secure than a smaller area.
2) It's a fact that most of the students at VA Tech are legally adults and are therefore responsible for their own protection. It's a fact that none of them are required to be there by the government. It's a fact that neither is true for most grade school and/or high school students.
3) It's a fact that the school's actions during the incident were roundly criticized.

>"that theater did employ armed security guards, but as it happened none were on duty that night, though typically they would have been."

That's incorrect according to the link you provided:

"Cinemark provided off-duty police guards at the Aurora theater on busy Friday and Saturday nights. As for other nights of the week, theater operators decide on a case-by-case basis whether to hire security"

So the rest of your assertions:

"That means that if James Holmes had been planning his acts and considering the possibility of encountering an armed security guard, he probably would have picked another theater. As far as he knew, there was supposed to be armed security that night."

are based on a false assumption. However, I would like to note the following paragraph from the article you linked to:

"Larry Lowak, whose son Brent was among the wounded, said security personnel on the scene possibly could have stopped the gunman"

>"I may have been wrong about there being armed patrons inside the theater. According to this same article, theater policy prohibits weapons."

1) Thank you for acknowledging your mistake re: there being armed patrons in the theater.

2) I would again note how "gun free zones" (aka "victim disarmament zones" aka "sitting duck zones") do not prevent criminals--who, by definition break laws, and in most of these cases, multiple laws up to and including mass murder, much less theater policies {oh, scary. NOT!}--from possessing guns therein.

>"Loughner was subdued before he could kill himself"

Yet again, source, please. Not that he was subdued, but that he would have killed himself at the time if he hadn't been subdued. Also, again, source, please, for your previous assertion that "Gabby Giffords had armed security around her" at the time of the attack.

>"nor does your nitpicking about the fact that the Giffords shooting took place outdoors."

Similar to what I said above, what you call "nitpicking", I call facts. You're free to refute them, if you can.

1) It's a fact that, all else being equal, an open area is more difficult to secure than an enclosed area.
2) It's a fact that her attacker is still alive and therefore, unless you can provide evidence that he would have killed himself at the time, by your own criteria, he does not fit the profile.