Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Ohio School Janitors To Carry Handguns


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

#151    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,765 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:36 PM

View PostYamato, on 14 January 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:


I do NOT accept militarizing our schools, sir.  Let people handle it.  Let people decide.

If this was about keeping the kids safe, wouldn't you want the people carrying guns to be professionals, not janitors with a 2 day course? Or is this not really about kids safety...

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#152    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:39 PM

Professional yes. Cash strapped schools are gonna have hard time making that happen. Our education system is already lower then most 1st World Nations.


#153    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:49 PM

I think what's being overlooked here is that there is an extreme lack of details about the 4 men carrying the guns.... There is nothing to indicate either way if they are qualified or not based on anyone's criteria, unless you're on the fence of 'only people who were in the military, police force, or armed security' can effectively defend against a threat.  Even then, there's nothing to indicate that these janitors didn't serve in one of those capacities at some point in their lives.


#154    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,079 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:50 PM

we have a saying here, penny wise and pound foolish. that is about our gvmnt, federal and local.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#155    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,906 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:54 PM

View PostStellar, on 14 January 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

If this was about keeping the kids safe, wouldn't you want the people carrying guns to be professionals, not janitors with a 2 day course? Or is this not really about kids safety...
Well if it's what I believe personally, it's that the janitors of this country who get the job done right and genuinely care about our kids, are some of our country's finest citizens.   If I was a principal and had a janitor in my school like that, I would love to pay for his two-day training course and allow him greater responsibility if he personally agreed to it.    Oh and I'd give him a damn raise too.

I believe two days of training is adequate so long as it's continuous training, every couple of years or so.   I think a basic level of proficiency should be maintained, much like pilots and to lesser extent drivers.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#156    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,765 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:12 PM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 14 January 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

I think what's being overlooked here is that there is an extreme lack of details about the 4 men carrying the guns.... There is nothing to indicate either way if they are qualified or not based on anyone's criteria, unless you're on the fence of 'only people who were in the military, police force, or armed security' can effectively defend against a threat.  Even then, there's nothing to indicate that these janitors didn't serve in one of those capacities at some point in their lives.

Well, qualifications mean things to people. If I'm hiring someone to be a biologist, I'm going to hire someone with a degree in biology. That janitor down the road might know a lot about biology because it's his hobby, but do you expect me to hire him? Who would you hire?

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#157    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 14 January 2013 - 08:19 PM

View PostStellar, on 14 January 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

Well, qualifications mean things to people. If I'm hiring someone to be a biologist, I'm going to hire someone with a degree in biology. That janitor down the road might know a lot about biology because it's his hobby, but do you expect me to hire him? Who would you hire?

My point was you don't know if they are or are not qualified based on this article.  They could be retired scout snipers that took up janitor positions to fill their time in retirement.

Now I'll switch gears and address your question; I would hire anyone who I deemed could get the job done... doesn't have to be a former military, police, or armed security officer.


#158    Wyrdlight

Wyrdlight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,091 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2009

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:29 PM

Really?

Thats the most absurd idea ive ever heard.

"Lets give random people a 2 day saftey course and give them live fire arms then put them in place full of children"

Ok, lets look at some scenarios.

1. Gun is left or mislaid on school grounds and a kid picks it up.  People forget things all the time its a logical outcome.

2. Kids steal gun off care taker, we pranked the hell out of our school care taker at primary school, we stole/hid his keys, his tools, everything it was fun.  Most care takers havea  hard enough time with unruley kids, add a gun to the mix seems like a terrible idea.

3. In response to a possible stranger on school grounds (a very common occurance, its usually nothing, hell we had a totally harmless down syndrome man wander into the playground once having got seperated from his carer) were gonna go for a "shoot em" policy are we?  Firing live rounds into an environment PACKED with children.  Even if your a dam good shot, there is a high chance your gonna hit or wing a child, seeing as it takes hundreds and hundreds of hours on the range to get "good" certianly to the point of hitting moving targets reliably this is almost a certainty.

4. Bullets go through things, doors, dividing walls, glass, pepople, collarateral damage espechially in a densely popiulated place is almost certain.

5. Wrongly identifying "dangerous" people, as the example i gave above, shootings at schools are pretty rare all things considered, having non aurthourised people on school grounds is not.

6. What kind of screening with the care takers have?


#159    Yamato

Yamato

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,906 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:34 PM

Shootings in schools are rare, but unfortunately it's a school shooting that people want to react to about guns.   They're already gun-free zones.  Guns are already highly regulated.   But the real paranoids think that more of the same is going to solve our problems.   Punish the assault rifles, they whine!    Because facts like handguns being used in nearly all gun crime doesn't deter them from their emotional bowel movements against whatever is politically correct to blab about.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#160    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,515 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:48 PM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 14 January 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

My point was you don't know if they are or are not qualified based on this article.  They could be retired scout snipers that took up janitor positions to fill their time in retirement.

Now I'll switch gears and address your question; I would hire anyone who I deemed could get the job done... doesn't have to be a former military, police, or armed security officer.
retired scout snipers? do scouts have snipers in the US? They could also be just a regular guy doing a regular job and not wanting the hassle...but we can speculate all night on what their past is.
When you say deemed fit, do you mean able to carry a gun, do the cleaning, as well as be on guard and ready to protect all the children on his own with his firearm?
This is sounding more and more like a job for James Bond, wonder if he would take up the position of janitor/armed and ready security guard?

Edited by freetoroam, 15 January 2013 - 05:49 PM.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#161    rashore

rashore

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,621 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:16 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 15 January 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

retired scout snipers? do scouts have snipers in the US? They could also be just a regular guy doing a regular job and not wanting the hassle...but we can speculate all night on what their past is.
When you say deemed fit, do you mean able to carry a gun, do the cleaning, as well as be on guard and ready to protect all the children on his own with his firearm?
This is sounding more and more like a job for James Bond, wonder if he would take up the position of janitor/armed and ready security guard?
Actually, yeah, the Marines have scout snipers.

But you are right, this whole thing has taken on a rather secret agent kind of flavor. Kind of silly.


#162    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:10 PM

Ok, the reading comprehension is getting questionable. I'll spell it out.

The article simply states that 4 janitors in a school who will buy their own service weapon, and attend a 2 day training course designed for this purpose.  The only other detail about the 4 is the fact that they are men.  We don't know if they're 20 years old, or 80 years old.  We don't know if they are mentally challenged, or a retired Navy Seal.  We don't know what previous training they have had.  We don't know where they previously worked before becoming janitors.  We don't know if they have 2 arms.

So, my point yet again, is since we don't know anything about the 4, making assumptions that they are or are not qualified are moot, because we don't know.

View PostWyrdlight, on 15 January 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Really?

Thats the most absurd idea ive ever heard.

"Lets give random people a 2 day saftey course and give them live fire arms then put them in place full of children"

Ok, lets look at some scenarios.

1. Gun is left or mislaid on school grounds and a kid picks it up.  People forget things all the time its a logical outcome.

2. Kids steal gun off care taker, we pranked the hell out of our school care taker at primary school, we stole/hid his keys, his tools, everything it was fun.  Most care takers havea  hard enough time with unruley kids, add a gun to the mix seems like a terrible idea.

3. In response to a possible stranger on school grounds (a very common occurance, its usually nothing, hell we had a totally harmless down syndrome man wander into the playground once having got seperated from his carer) were gonna go for a "shoot em" policy are we?  Firing live rounds into an environment PACKED with children.  Even if your a dam good shot, there is a high chance your gonna hit or wing a child, seeing as it takes hundreds and hundreds of hours on the range to get "good" certianly to the point of hitting moving targets reliably this is almost a certainty.

4. Bullets go through things, doors, dividing walls, glass, pepople, collarateral damage espechially in a densely popiulated place is almost certain.

5. Wrongly identifying "dangerous" people, as the example i gave above, shootings at schools are pretty rare all things considered, having non aurthourised people on school grounds is not.

6. What kind of screening with the care takers have?

What exactly do you think this training is going to entail?  Or better question, why do you think these things would be left out of a training course geared for people to defend a school in a crisis?  I can see that you have not taken a gun safety course, I can fill you in; they will cover these issues.


#163    Wyrdlight

Wyrdlight

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,091 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2009

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:29 PM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 15 January 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:



What exactly do you think this training is going to entail?  Or better question, why do you think these things would be left out of a training course geared for people to defend a school in a crisis?  I can see that you have not taken a gun safety course, I can fill you in; they will cover these issues.

A 2 day training course. lol


#164    green_dude777

green_dude777

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • When you look back in life, you don't regret what you did, you regret what you never attempted.

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:39 PM

View PostWyrdlight, on 15 January 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

A 2 day training course. lol

Since you seem to be well versed in matters like these, what is your suggestion?

I'm assuming (and I'm sure it's gonna bite me in the rear this time) since you're scoffing at this school district's idea, you have a better alternate solution.

Of course, you'll take into account all the budget and legal limitations like the school has, correct?

Or maybe you're of the idea that we'll just only let the school murderers have the guns, we'll wait the 5 minutes it takes the police to arrive.


#165    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 6,515 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 07:49 PM

View Postgreen_dude777, on 15 January 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:


Or maybe you're of the idea that we'll just only let the school murderers have the guns, we'll wait the 5 minutes it takes the police to arrive.
And during that 5 minutes we have the school janitor who has had 2 days training taking control of the situation??

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users