"Slow on the uptake, was I."

This:

Quote:

---

The problem... Everybody hates TSA and the freedoms it curtails. But, we got a ton of folks working for TSA and a ton of technology to check for the objects... and it costs MONEY, lots of MONEY.

There are more schools (probably) in the US than there are aircraft... But, we have got to protect the kids... and the best way to do that is to use the TSA model... modified but not cheap.

---

plus this:

Quote:

---

So, the solution is simple... it is expensive... and it does not infringe on our rights.

---

does not compute.

You mention the problems with TSA, then go on to say that it won't infringe? The very cost of it, like Hopyard pointed out, is a burden let alone the privacy violations.

I would utterly refuse to send my kids to a school like you describe.

We would do much better to try to focus on research & education. Research on what makes people pop their cork and commit multiple murders. Education on weaponry, self-defense, first aid, & prevention.

ccw9mm has outlined very detailed objectives in this regard.

More security & less freedom is not the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zacii

Holy Smokes! For the love of all that is good and holy, KEEP ALL TSA STUFF OUT OF SCHOOLS!

I hate when people type with all caps. But really?

I wholly reject the idea of pat downs and detectors at schools. Because when they fail to work, and they will, then they'll implement those body scanners there.

You got it right on about the problem being the people, not the tools. But the TSA model is just more of the same, just like gun control. It won't work and it will just further erode our rights.

The problem is we have criminals. Dirty, rotten, maggot infested, evil criminals. What we have to figure out is why people become criminals; why they choose evil. This fight begins and ends in the hearts and minds of the people.

---

I realize full well what you are saying about TSA.

And, it's moronic to believe that the gubmint can do anything efficiently.

Local school districts can.

Local police can.

It can be done on a local level.

Armed RO.
A few volunteer armed teachers.
Some armed Admins.
A secure entry/egress.
Positive ID for students above certain grade level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakchas

I realize full well what you are saying about TSA.

And, it's moronic to believe that the gubmint can do anything efficiently.

Local school districts can.

Local police can.

It can be done on a local level.

Armed RO.
A few volunteer armed teachers.
Some armed Admins.
A secure entry/egress.
Positive ID for students above certain grade level.

---

I like this approach better.

If local authorities and local communities come together this way, then I'm fine with it.

What I'm not fine with is having it mandated.

Running the $ numbers though makes any solution costly.

55.5 million students K-12.
99,000 schools K-12
200,000,000 guns.
43,000,000 gun owning households.

Just looking for sources of revenue to fund anything from those numbers. It ain't easy, or painless.

1 full time RO @ $50k, per school, is 5 billion $.

Where do we get the money?

That's $90. Per student.
More per gun owning household.
$25.00 per gun.

Taxes on arms and ammunition is unacceptable in any fashion.

Sent from my Galaxy S2

oakchas - I would also add that J. Holmes at the theater shooting (I know you are focusing on schools) likely would have blown up the theater had he not had access to the firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zacii

Taxes on arms and ammunition is unacceptable in any fashion.

Sent from my Galaxy S2

---

So you never bought any? There is already an excise tax on guns and ammo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakchas

So you never bought any? There is already an excise tax on guns and ammo.

---

No more additional.

That's another bonus of the AR. You only have to pay excise tax on the lower if you buy it in pieces.



Sent from my Galaxy S2

I agree with the general sentiment in that we need to do a better job of securing our schools, just like we secure our airports (and banks, and government buildings, etc).

However, I don't think it needs to be to the level of airports/TSA. I spent 10 years in the military as a flyer. One of the big differences about being in the air vs. being on the ground is the limited options you have. If a car catches on fire, you stop, get out, and run away. If a building catches on fire, you get out and run away. If an airplane catches on fire, you're not going anywhere until that thing is on the ground and stopped, usually about 10-15 minutes minimum (unless you have ejection seats or parachutes). Same problem if you have terrorist or other armed criminals on board, plus the fact that punching holes in a pressurized fuselage with bullets is a bad idea.

Schools do need to do a better job of preventing unauthorized entry. If someone does get in with a gun, there needs to be a way to meaningfully engage them (i.e. force-on-force) that will allow most, if not all, of the intended victims to escape. Granted, without airport-style security checks a student could still get in with a gun and kill a few people before being taken out, or a bomb and kill many, but that is the same risk we all face everywhere, every day.

I think LaPierre is right in this aspect. Eliminating "gun-free zones" will probably get us the most mileage, and providing armed security for schools is one step better (not sure we want to rely completely on the "chance" that enough of the school staff are armed).

Lets start installing automatic blast doors every 20', mag locks on all doors, and ballistic glass on windows. Someone hit's the panic button, at least the shooter will be contained - no doubt.

Technology is available for very detailed CCTV systems that the police can track remotely (Colorado has this in place for Medical MJ Dispensaries).