Armed High School Students?

[Snub44]

You’re right that safety isn’t guaranteed in a bank, which is why we can carry in them. Nobody is forcing you to go to a concert.

But the kids ARE forced to go to school...which is the topic here...considering one way to protect them better. Nothing wrong with adding security, like we do in other parts of our society.

A school is different from anywhere else because what we love most in life is there...our children.

[graydude]

The problem is identifying a point where a person is mature enough to be trusted with deciding if/when to use lethal force.

That decision isn't something we can trust to very young children, but is something we trust most law abiding adults with. Defining a clear threshold for when minors achieve the level of trust needed to carry in school, that would be accepted by a majority of people, is probably an unachievable goal.

[Snub44]

The problem is identifying a point where a person is mature enough to be trusted with deciding if/when to use lethal force.

That decision isn't something we can trust to very young children, but is something we trust most law abiding adults with. Defining a clear threshold for when minors achieve the level of trust needed to carry in school, that would be accepted by a majority of people, is probably an unachievable goal.

Bullseye! If the replies on this thread are indicative of how most adults in America who have children who are 16-18 years old, Jr and Sr in high school, feel, the vast majority don't feel that that age group is mature enough, with few exceptions.

[Havok]

But the kids ARE forced to go to school...which is the topic here...considering one way to protect them better. Nothing wrong with adding security, like we do in other parts of our society.

A school is different from anywhere else because what we love most in life is there...our children.

I know they are forced to go to school, I was the one who brought that up.

[Havok]

The problem is identifying a point where a person is mature enough to be trusted with deciding if/when to use lethal force.

That decision isn't something we can trust to very young children, but is something we trust most law abiding adults with. Defining a clear threshold for when minors achieve the level of trust needed to carry in school, that would be accepted by a majority of people, is probably an unachievable goal.

18 year olds are adults. I’m not even sure the majority of people agree that people over the age of 21(or whatever meaningless age we assign) should be able to carry. But rights are not about public opinion.

[Snub44]

I know they are forced to go to school, I was the one who brought that up.

Oh, I didn't see where you'd posted that...I still don't.

[seeker_two]

Firearms....no. Leave that to the school employees.

However, I firmly believe that students 17 and older should be allowed less-lethal tools to defend themselves from threats to their safety.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[LimaCharlie]

Uncle Sam trusted me with an M-2 50 BMG (Ma Deuce) in Viet Nam when I was eighteen.

[ColoradoDiablo]

Uncle Sam trusted me with an M-2 50 BMG (Ma Deuce) in Viet Nam when I was eighteen.

Mostly because (1) Uncle Sam needed bodies to deploy; (2) a screw up in Vietnam resulted in death or injury to expendables (those drafted or those on the other side). Screw up being defined as an accidental discharge or engaging outside the ROE, etc.

[Havok]

Oh, I didn't see where you'd posted that...I still don't.

Well crap, I must have edited it out and not realized it. My apologies.

Firearms....no. Leave that to the school employees.

However, I firmly believe that students 17 and older should be allowed less-lethal tools to defend themselves from threats to their safety.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Do you leave your gun home because someone else has one?

[SFury]

Do you leave your gun home because someone else has one?

As someone else mentioned, the defense of the young should be left to the staff who choose to be armed. Let the kids be kids, for they are most certainly not yet adults. Not completely yet.

Many have argued that some kids are good. I won't argue that fact. Individuals are good, but in groups that can change for the worse. I see that fact proven true over and over again. The benefit of working for a school district.

[graydude]

18 year olds are adults. I’m not even sure the majority of people agree that people over the age of 21(or whatever meaningless age we assign) should be able to carry. But rights are not about public opinion.

Like it or not, reality is public opinion will affect what rights students get to exercise while under a public school’s in loco parentis supervision.

[seeker_two]

Do you leave your gun home because someone else has one?

Working for a school district where NPE-by-law is enforced by those LEO with guns that, I hope, will get to the scene before too many die; I have to do just that...

As someone else mentioned, the defense of the young should be left to the staff who choose to be armed. Let the kids be kids, for they are most certainly not yet adults. Not completely yet.

Many have argued that some kids are good. I won't argue that fact. Individuals are good, but in groups that can change for the worse. I see that fact proven true over and over again. The benefit of working for a school district.

Well said!

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[mcp1810]

Uncle Sam trusted me with an M-2 50 BMG (Ma Deuce) in Viet Nam when I was eighteen.

And how much supervision did you have there?
The argument that teenagers can serve in the military is flawed in multiple ways. Even after being filtered through the induction process and basic training troops are still closely supervised by NCOs and officers. Even with that level of supervision when not deployed they are not walking around armed. Arms rooms and armories exist for a reason.

[Havok]

And how much supervision did you have there?
The argument that teenagers can serve in the military is flawed in multiple ways. Even after being filtered through the induction process and basic training troops are still closely supervised by NCOs and officers. Even with that level of supervision when not deployed they are not walking around armed. Arms rooms and armories exist for a reason.

Not walking around armed, while on base, stateside. That changes on deployment. Those same people are bringing rifles into the DFAC.