Armed Guards in Schools Don’t Help?

January 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM

When NRA’s Wayne LaPierre recently suggested that schools should have armed guards on the premises to protect the kids there, the Left went berserk and called him all manner of names.  They said he needed to resign, he was totally out of touch with reality, he wasn’t born on this planet and other things.

One individual went so far as to say there is no proof that having armed guards in a shootout situation would keep people who were standing around safer (my paraphrase).  Really?  His point was that spending money to have armed guards at schools would not increase safety for students there one bit, especially if something were to happen.

That was his point.  That was the point he was attempting to make.  If that is allegedly true, then why do we have armed guards or security surrounding the President of the United States?  Why are there eleven armed guards at the school in which the president’s daughters attend?

If armed guards do not create a safer environment simply by their presence alone, then why do certain expensive schools, politicians, Hollywood celebs and other important people pay lots of money for their services?

Simply because someone makes the claim as the person did whom I referring to on the audio that you’ve probably heard too, does this mean it is true?  No, it is not true.

People who use the services of paid security personnel do so because those people are trained to keep people secure.  How do they do that?  They do that by 1) knowing what to look for and being ready to enter a firefight if necessary when it comes down to it, and 2) the very presence of trained security personnel works to diminish and even eliminate a threat in most cases.

Criminals will think two, three, and four times before they decide to try to kidnap the children of an elected official, Hollywood celeb, or other important person if they see that the individual is surrounded with people who are well-trained in security procedures.  On the contrary, if that same criminal can walk up to a school where a politician’s children are attending and walk on the campus without even being asked to show some ID, they know they would have a much better chance to do some damage if that is their intent.

Years ago when my kids were attending high school, I walked onto the campus from the side gate after parking my car, went through the quad area and into the office.  I needed to ask a question about my child missing school.  I did not know the procedure, but was quickly informed that I was supposed to go back outside and go to the window on the outside of the building.  I was also told that “due to their security,” I should come through the front gate (after I told them that I had come through the side gate.

Security?  What security? I walked onto the campus through the unattended side gate and passed only one other person on the way to the office.  That person hadn’t even looked at me as we passed one another.  If there was security in place, it was not obvious at all.

Compare that with the school where Mr. Obama’s children attend.  I have no idea which school that is and would prefer not to know, but we are told there are eleven armed guards at the school.  Do you really think you’ll be able to walk in through a back, side, or any other gate?  No, there is probably one way in and the same way out.  You would likely have to show credentials and if they do not know how you are, expect a pat-down or to have to walk through a metal detector and more.

In this day age, there is nothing wrong with that at all and I’m quite sure that it has saved lives.  Yet, the one person I’ve paraphrased above states without equivocation that armed guards in a shootout situation is not any safer for those standing around.

Okay, then get rid of the armed guards at schools like the one that the president’s daughters attend!  Eliminate the Secret Service!  I’m being facetious because it would be asinine to do that.  Those security precautions are absolutely necessary and to say that they do no good at all is 100% incorrect in my view.

Of course armed guards provide at least some measure of safety because it will make people think several times before they try something stupid.  Would James Holmes have chosen that particular movie theater if that theater allowed concealed weapons holders to carry their weapons?  Would Adam Lanza have gotten far had he met an armed security person or police officer when he came up to the school?

How many times do you hear about gun shops being robbed during hours of operation?  Go in one sometime and you’ll see that every person in there who is working at that shop carries a weapon and they do not carry concealed either.  The sight of a gun is a great deterrent and to think otherwise simply points to the “logic” that the Left uses as a natural way of thinking.

Where there are armed guards, who are trained in the use of their weapon and the process of what happens in an emergency situation can and do provide a needed service for the public.  I have taken classes from people who train our military.  It’s not about simply knowing how to shoot a gun.  It’s knowing what to look for and the type of situation to avoid.  It’s knowing what to do when you might find yourself (through no fault of your own) in a situation that may demand using lethal force against an assailant.

This is why politicians, Hollywood celebs, and others pay to have well-trained security personnel around to protect them.  Think of the fact that had not trained Secret Service people been there, Ronald Reagan would have been assassinated.  Instead, one of the Secret Service agents deliberately stood in front of Reagan and took the bullet meant for him.  Another agent pushed Reagan into the back of the presidential, shielding him from further assault.

These actions saved Mr. Reagan’s life and he knew it.  Though he later came out in support of the “assault” weapon, he also knew that simply creating more gun control laws would not eliminate crime or restrict the actions of criminals.

But the belief that armed guards offer no safety or advantage to law-abiding citizens is ridiculous.  We know this cannot be true simply due to the amount of people and organizations who use them.

Most of us cannot afford to hire personal security.  It’s too expensive.  We also know that we cannot carry a police officer around with us wherever we go.  The next best thing is for me to be responsible – as far as I am humanly possible – for my own security and that of my family.

I cannot surround my home with a security detail, like the White House.  I don’t have the money to have a state of the art security system that will take out the bad guy before he even steps two feet onto my property.  Even if I had one of these security systems installed that notified actual people that I’m in trouble, they’re only going to call the police.

In lieu of the fact that I cannot afford a detachment of security forces for myself, my family, and my property, it is up to me to do what I can to act in that capacity.

If I had the money to hire security people to surround my home 24-hours per day, do you really believe I would ever experience a break-in?  Do you honestly think that we would ever become the victims of a home invasion?  The fact that there would be visible security people on my property every hour of every day would be enough to make any criminal decide that my home is not worth trying to break into and he would move along to the next home or even neighborhood.

Is there anyone out there reading this that can logically argue the point?  Live people trained in the use of weapon and knowing what to look for are an excellent deterrent with respect to keeping criminals at bay.  However, even if there was a criminal stupid enough to think that he had a chance of breaking into my home, he would be dealt with by these same armed guards at that point, which would likely result in his arrest or death, depending upon how far he pushed it.

Mr. Obama sends his children to a school that just happens to have a contingent of eleven armed guards; guards whose sole responsibility is to keep the children who attend that school safe.  If you go to Washington, DC and walk up to the fence at the rear of the White House, you will see armed guards on the roof of the White House as well as on the grounds.  They are dressed in black and they are armed.

Why are the armed guards at the White House visible?  Why aren’t they there, but completely unseen?  Because they want people to know that there is a presence at the White House that is armed and willing to shoot anyone who attempts to jump over that fence onto the White House lawn.  They are seen for your protection, so that you will think twice and even three times before you do something stupid.

We see those armed guards and we know several things:

  1. they are well-trained
  2. they will shoot to kill
  3. they take their job of protecting the First Family seriously

Who would want to mess with that?  A few have tried, but they do not get far at all.  Think about how terrible it would be if those armed guards were not there?  It would be absolutely foolhardy!  They exist and the fact of their existence is the greatest deterrent, but for those who are not dissuaded by their presence, these same armed guards have the right to do whatever is necessary if they believe that the life of the president or any member of his family is in danger and that includes shooting someone to death, if need be.

When some idiot on the Left makes a statement like the one referenced at the beginning of this article, it simply proves once again that they do not understand how things work.  They are not acquainted with logic at all.  They make these wild erroneous statements that they think we should just hear and swallow, hook, line and sinker.

They miss the point entirely.  Armed guards do work to keep people safe in the two ways I’ve mentioned.  Having armed guards at schools will keep students safe in those two ways.

But the Left says “It’s not a good idea to have more guns in schools.”  We’re not talking about simply putting guns in schools.  We are talking about the addition of armed, trained individuals in schools who are actual human beings who will prevent disorder and more gun play simply by their presence alone.  That is worth considering and it will go much further than all the anti-gun rhetoric and legislation the Left can dish out.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , , .

Guns: Liberals Continue to Defy Logic China Ready to Demand Payment from U.S.?


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,795 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Blog Stats

  • 253,660 hits

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,795 other followers

%d bloggers like this: