:up:

I know, but in relation to the suggestion of armed guards being a solution.
Columbine high-school and Virginia Tech both had them didn't they.

Better to have guards than not. Course if a school has an armed guard, he'll probably be the first target to get it in the back.

They'll be a lot of debate, if the libs get lucky, they might get clips banned, maybe the old assault ban, but it will solve nothing in the end.
If it keeps happening, we'll need several armed guards at schools.

Why stop there? Why not have a well trained SWAT team assigned to every school patrolling the grounds? It would cost no more than a ban on semi-automatic weapons and would improve employment opportunities.

The thing that the talk about using armed guards doesn't address, is the procedure for the armed guard using their weapon to defend the school. When do they have the go ahead to draw and fire? If they see someone suspicious? If they see someone reaching for what they think is a weapon? When two or more kids are beating up another? After shots are fired?

I don't think that's a good idea.

The same way that a cop handles things. If he sees something suspicious, he walks up and asks what's going on. If he doesn't look like he belongs there, he asks them to leave. If he refuses, the person is escorted. If the person gets violent, security responds accordingly.

I have worked in numerous schools with on-site security. They have never handled student discipline. That has always been a matter for teachers and administrators.

What, do you want a hard bound report TJ? All of those details can be worked out as necessary. I'm imagine most if not all of them are already extensively covered by standard department regulations.

Nor do I. It was a rhetorical question.

No I don't but I'm sure there will be one with all these details if that's the solution that's selected.