Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You think there's going to be just one guard?

And my point still stands about a school shooter looking for easy prey, not one that can shoot back.

You can always find a corner case where the system fails. But having a guard is better than not having one.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
No I think a bunch of overweight, elderly men trained by a D list actor having guns in schools is a recipe for disaster.

So what does being a "D list" celebrity have to do with his training people to shoot? Is one exclusive to the other?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
No I think a bunch of overweight, elderly men trained by a D list actor having guns in schools is a recipe for disaster.

So what does being a "D list" celebrity have to do with his training people to shoot? Is one exclusive to the other?

You're telling me that there isn't anyone else better suited for this task than Steven Seagal? Or maybe its just political grandstanding with a known name meant to pander to the crowds, which is pretty much Sherrif Joe's MO?


Why stop with schools? Should we put them in daycares? Every college lecture hall? Where does it stop?

And furthermore if you're going to go down this ridiculous route, use trained individuals. Not a bunch of pissed off retirees with a hard on for a washed up "celebrity".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You think there's going to be just one guard?

And my point still stands about a school shooter looking for easy prey, not one that can shoot back.

You can always find a corner case where the system fails. But having a guard is better than not having one.

How many guards do you really think schools can afford? At most one at every entry. Shoot him and you've got free reign till the next overweight retiree can make it all the way across campus, ie minutes. Its not a long term solution.

Its better than nothing.

And why not Steven Seagal? He's a real Sheriff and expert martial arts instructor. So what if he's also an actor?

Seagal is well known because he's not just an actor. He's the real deal. Lets protect our kids.

So what happens when one of these retirees shoots a kid or gets his gun stolen? Is it better than nothing then? And stats would show you there's a lot more accidental shooting deaths than school shooting deaths.


Seagal is not well known for anything besides being an actor. A terrible one at that. His ridiculous TV show was a joke, not an in depth look at how law enforcement works.

How is knowing to choreograph fights with DMX going to make him a good teacher to a bunch of old men with guns?

Corner cases again.

What if a kid smuggles a bomb into the school?

I don't see you having any worthwhile suggestions that would work.

You say corner case, I use statistics. There are more accidental shooting deaths in the US every year than school shootings. How is that a corner case? 854 accidental shooting deaths to 59 school shootings this year. Tell me how with numbers like that more kids are going to live. Especially when utilizing a a force made up of retirees trained for a few hours by an actor. Its got disaster written all over it.


My suggestion is leave it alone. You can't have armed guards around everybody all the time, its preposterous.

Unless you could show that having armed guards would be detrimental to school safety it is still a good idea. One prevented shooting would make it worth it.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Unless you could show that having armed guards would be detrimental to school safety it is still a good idea. One prevented shooting would make it worth it.

I just did. 854 accidental shootings to 59. The odds are more likely of a child getting shot accidentally by one of the guards then by a school shooter. Over an order of magnitude higher chance.

How many of those accidental shootings are done by trained individuals?

You need that for the statistic to be relavent.

Couple that with the roughly 25,000 accidental shooting injuries. Its less safe for the kids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So you think a few hours with Steven Seagal is going to make you a "trained individual"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And no, that statistic is relevant just like it is. Soldiers, cops, everybody is capable of making mistakes, and they do.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
You're telling me that there isn't anyone else better suited for this task than Steven Seagal? Or maybe its just political grandstanding with a known name meant to pander to the crowds, which is pretty much Sherrif Joe's MO?

And furthermore if you're going to go down this ridiculous route, use trained individuals. Not a bunch of pissed off retirees with a hard on for a washed up "celebrity".

You seem to be concentrating on Seagal as an actor, and not whether he can shoot well enough to be an instructor. He is a reserve Deputy Sheriff in Louisiana (where he has a second home) and he graduated from a police academy in California over twenty years ago as well as holding the relevant qualifications in law enforcement for his role. In light of this do you believe that he is not qualified to instruct officers?

Seagal has nothing to do with this.

A trained individual is less likely to make a mistake. Said individuals should undergo constant training to maintain their level of competancy. Once a month gun safety evaluation for the guards would be enough, and not debilitatingly expensive.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So you think a few hours with Steven Seagal is going to make you a "trained individual"?

And a Police officer qualifying with his/her sidearm twice a year is sufficient?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Seagal has nothing to do with this.

A trained individual is less likely to make a mistake. Said individuals should undergo constant training to maintain their level of competancy. Once a month gun safety evaluation for the guards would be enough, and not debilitatingly expensive.

Except if you bothered to read the link, it is indeed Steven Seagal training Phoenix volunteers ie, retirees to man the schools as armed guards. No amount of training will ever eliminate accidents, and seeing as these aren't trained individuals, accidents have a higher chance of happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
So you think a few hours with Steven Seagal is going to make you a "trained individual"?

And a Police officer qualifying with his/her sidearm twice a year is sufficient?

Yes thats the only training police receive. Nothing about understanding and observing threats. Nothing about how to diffuse situations without violence, or things of that matter. Cops really should just be great shots. Thats all police work is, right? Shooting people, accurately and quickly.

And yes I would rate that training higher than Steven Seagal, who's claim to fame in this regard is that he's a deputy in some po dunk part of LA.

Seagal is qualified to train people. I'd rate his training higher than a run of the mill police instructor as it likely includes martial arts techniques as well as gun safety.

He still has nothing to do with the argument over if we should have armed guards or not.

Can we take the gun talk to one of the other 5 gun threads?

Blah if you think Steven Seagal is the answer to America's problems with guns, go ahead. I'm done here.

I don't think its the answer. I think the idea is an answer. Seagal or Joe Schmo doing the training. As long as they are qualified who cares.

You see an idea, I see politics.

What political benifit is there to having armed guards at schools?

Really? You don't see political gains to be made by being seen "protecting the children"? Thats why you use a relatively famous name like Seagal to garner attention. Using words like "posse" tries to evoke the Wild West and a spirit of vigilantism. A Sheriff is a politician just as much as a Congressman.

If the kids are protected whats the big deal?

 d-usa wrote:
Can we take the gun talk to one of the other 5 gun threads?

I thought we were talking about farming.

Protected from what? I just used statistics to show you they're more likely to be injured by the guns protecting them. Its like talking circles with you. Grandstanding is Arpaio's game. Like changing the answering recording to say "for Spanish hang up and learn English". He loves to be controversial and seen as "taking action".

Training will reduce the possability of an accident, and discourage a school shooting.

Proove that a properly trained individual is more likely to accidentally shoot someone at the school than a shooter at the school is to shoot people and I will believe you.

Your citation only shows totals and doesn't distinguish between trained and untrained people.


By properly trained, I mean people that are undergoing monthly safety inspections and are held accountable.

 kronk wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Can we take the gun talk to one of the other 5 gun threads?

I thought we were talking about farming.

I thought we were talking about which state has more sand.

What does any if this have to do with illegal immigrants making me my lunch?

Well cops wouldn't even fit into your definition of training then. I'm not even sure a lot of military members undergo monthly safety inspections of their shooting abilities unless it's related to their job.

Another issue for another time, and yes I think that too is a major problem.