@JesusIsSalvation said in #57:
> Thank God no.
That's what I thought.
> They don't need top notch, school just need a deterrent. The reason to bring up government buildings is to show a place that has no shortage of people who would love to attack them, but it's still not as prevalent.
Schools have deterrents. They just aren't very effective.
> (To ever change it)
> Maybe it's gotta change... I don't know, don't you think it's worth it?
And this is where not growing up in public school comes in. If you were homeschooled, you most likely don't understand what it's like to have both parents working long hours. To be the first one dropped off and the last one picked up. Public school exists because not everyone has the privilege to be able to afford changes like staggered school hours. (It can hardly be called a "privilege" to be honest. If you look at the average class schedule, staggering it would lead to a living nightmare for everyone involved.)
Not to mention, it's a good example of making a new problem without solving any existing ones. Staggered school hours only create extremely long work days for teachers, really bad elective schedules for students, and a bunch of overworked parents who are now even more exhausted because they can't get a normal pick-up, drop-off time. It does absolutely nothing to help curb school shooting.
> Oh we agreed perfectly, adults can't act like adults, There's no way their children are going to.
Nobody acts like an adult anymore sadly.
> So expel them. And if the kids don't want the program solved, and the parents can't get there kids in line, then this notion of solving the problem is never going to happen.
And have more kids in the streets? For simply protesting? I can smell the lawsuits from miles away already.
And no, this is not a parent's problem to fix. Making a kid behave, sure. But if metal detector tests drag on for hours that is not a kid problem, that's a problem with the metal detector policy in the first place.
> I didn't say to mix religion in anything,(other then in your own thoughts) I'm saying it's not going to be solved by seculer means.(-guns) I'm saying there's no reason to think secular ways,(which is why we're in this state)is going to bring us out of this state.
That is exactly what I'm talking about when I say mixing religion.
Look, I agree with you that no secular solution will ever be truly foolproof. But what I'm trying to point out here is that you can't expect everyone to be a perfect genuine goody-two-shoes Christian overnight either, and anyone that wants to promise such a thing is being a pure manipulator. Theocracies in history have never been successful because anyone that tries to run a government like that merely falls victim to corruption and scapegoating quickly.
That is why we keep religion strictly out of this. Because it won't change a thing while we're all still here on God's green earth.
> I'm talking about like appliance places, grocery stores, Sears, so on.
I haven't seen such a thing in those places either.
Regardless, clear backpacks have been tried and tried again as a preventative measure against gun violence. They are rightfully called "security theaters" by security experts because they have never meaningfully protected students, while only invading privacy (nobody really likes doing things like carrying pads for everyone to see.)
Examples of how to get around a clear backpack rule:
1) Conceal weapons in thick winter clothing instead. Who's going to be able to tell the difference under that bulky winter coat?
2) There are significant amounts of school shootings committed by former students or non-students. In both cases, policing current students would lead to little effect.
3) Clear backpacks are usually far less durable than traditional ones due to the material they are made out of. This leads to families who are already experiencing financial pressure having to spend even more money on a policy that never worked in the first place.
> You didn't give any other ideas... What did you want me to bring up?
I did. Maybe I just wasn't very good at being direct about it.
1) Better enforcement of gun laws
- I think this is the most obvious one to be honest. It's also the hardest one because it comes with the most amount of backlash.
2) Better school perimeters
- Some schools have multiple back doors that are open 24/7. These back doors seldom serve as more than just a fire safety measure so that students don't end up trapped in the event of a front gate losing function. A better guarded back door would help in cases of active shooter instances.
3) Education
- More lockdown drills! This doesn't actively affect school shootings by preventing them, but it does make them less effective.
- Watch carefully for students that appear problematic. School shooters are mentally ill; most of them are not shy about it. Better monitoring would lead to discovering problems early. In other words, staff should care about all of their students and pay close attention. This is the only place where the mental health I mentioned plays in: better care taken around the issue would help.
4) Security guards
- Very, very minimal, just maybe two at any given moment. Problems with budget, sure, but it would be nice.
5) Doors
- Provide secure locks on classroom doors and windows. In the event of a school shooting, a lock that can be used quickly, while also keeping everything secure, will be crucial to survival. Some classrooms lack the ability to lock from the inside which is just such a terrible design choice to be honest.
> But we'd have money to enforce the gun laws?
Gun violence cost the USA a whopping $557 billion. Of that, taxpayers spend about $13 billion for criminal justice services, emergency service, and medical care.
In contrast, even the most comprehensive gun violence plan, complete with community violence protection ($50 million, 2024 spending bill), background checks/"red flag laws" ($750 million, bipartisan bill that allows confiscation of guns from people deemed problematic) would not even equal a billion dollars. Notice that I don't advocate for the complete ban of guns here. Just enough regulation to help reduce school shootings.
That's a huge difference right there. People just have to be willing to make it.
> No big deal, truthfully I don't even know what your talking about lol.
Well, there's quite a big difference between the meaning of the sentence with the word Muslim and with the word museum.
> So if we don't fix that kind of stuff, then it ain't gonna happen.
We've been trying for a long time, and it doesn't really work out. You can't "un-racist" people that easily.
> Ain't gonna help. The people who would do stuff like this are not going to be stopped by not having a gun(if it where even possible to stop them from obtaining one) they'll just make a bomb. Or one of many other options.
First of all, since they can't buy a bomb, a homemade one would be much more likely to be riddled with issues that could delay its detonation or stop it altogether. Second of all, you have spent many paragraphs arguing the case that making it harder to kill would greatly help in discouraging school shootings, something I agree with. So why the sudden switch-up? Why are you suddenly deciding that they just cannot be stopped, a stance I thought neither of us had?
