Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Beckys_Mom

Ohio School Janitors To Carry Handguns

189 posts in this topic

You said the country is quite wealthy and doesn't have scarce resources. You can't say that without meaning federally subsidized security in our schools. These professionals, wherever they are, are paid for by the country or else "the country is wealthy" would be irrelevant.

Isn't pretty much everything in public schools paid for by the country? Part of the budget goes towards schools and education. If the schools were given more money, they could then use the money to hire professionals, no?

Allocating scarce resources is the purpose of economics. If everyone had all the resources they need, economics wouldn't even exist. Reallocating percentages don't increase the budget. If you want to sacrifice from a school's primary function which is to educate our children to get some kind of professionals from somewhere, then schools have less to spend for educating our kids and the quality of our education goes down. Schools can't afford to play this economic game and compete for professionals which are scarce resources themselves. Maybe a few private schools can afford professionals, but not county level schools which are already strapped. You have no idea what kind of economic environment our states and local governments are operating in if you're trying to claim that resources aren't scarce.

I understand that, but the budget gdp doesn't all go towards education, does it? What about the example I gave? Reduce the military's budget and distribute it among the schools to pay for professionals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, you don't get it do you?

drones to watch who? everyone every second?? how do you think drones will make school safer?

Perhaps if you'd reread my post and take the time to understand it before going on a wild rant, you'd see that I never said drones would make schools safer. I practically said the opposite...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't pretty much everything in public schools paid for by the country? Part of the budget goes towards schools and education. If the schools were given more money, they could then use the money to hire professionals, no?

I understand that, but the budget gdp doesn't all go towards education, does it? What about the example I gave? Reduce the military's budget and distribute it among the schools to pay for professionals.

Things paid for by the country are a trillion dollars a year in the hole. Looking for more money in a debt hole isn't even a resource, it's a liability.

A person doesn't need to be a professional to have the right to bear arms. How much expertise a person has isn't dependent on the government. You can fire millions of rounds of ammunition as a civilian and have more expertise in more firearms than anyone else alive. You can be a lazy good for nothing "professional" that doesn't even carry a firearm at all. The quality of the security should be verified by the employment process of the applicant, not federally funded "professionals" just digging us further into debt.

If we want to find someone who will be truly effective at defending her kids, try almost any mother. She doesn't need to shoot for a living, or go through combat, or quit the police force after running gun battles with goons in the streets. All she needs is the passion in her heart and the means to defend herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things paid for by the country are a trillion dollars a year in the hole. Looking for more money in a debt hole isn't even a resource, it's a liability.

But I'm not looking for more money, I'm looking to just take money being already spent and spend it elsewhere.

A person doesn't need to be a professional to have the right to bear arms. How much expertise a person has isn't dependent on the government. You can fire millions of rounds of ammunition as a civilian and have more expertise in more firearms than anyone else alive. You can be a lazy good for nothing "professional" that doesn't even carry a firearm at all. The quality of the security should be verified by the employment process of the applicant, not federally funded "professionals" just digging us further into debt.

And with the extra money, the school could find a professional security company they trust. Security would be they're number one job. Chances are they're better at it than the current option being considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if you'd reread my post and take the time to understand it before going on a wild rant, you'd see that I never said drones would make schools safer. I practically said the opposite...

you did ??? lets see.

Hell, on the topic of reallocation of money, if you truly believe that schools need more security, wouldn't it make sense to use all the money being spent on police drones and instead spend it on school security?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this school specifically..

Maybe the school chose not to go with regular security because they didn't feel it was warranted. Maybe they felt a couple regular employees volunteering to have a CCH was more in line with their needs. Maybe they thought just letting the public know there are CCH on campus might be a deterrent in itself. Perhaps they felt they could rely on the police a mile down the road for the major aspects of a violent scenario, and only think of the janitors as a "just in case" kind of stopgap for the couple minutes it would take for the police to show up.

I think a lot of schools probably would benefit much more from having hired regular security. Probably in more urban environments. But a lot of smaller schools might not really need such heavy duty security, and why spend the money if you don't need to?

And just saying.. The two day training course isn't about crisis training. It's the general safety and legal course for CCH itself- same thing roughly a quarter of the state has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you did ??? lets see.

Did you not see the word "instead"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With this school specifically..

Maybe the school chose not to go with regular security because they didn't feel it was warranted. Maybe they felt a couple regular employees volunteering to have a CCH was more in line with their needs. Maybe they thought just letting the public know there are CCH on campus might be a deterrent in itself. Perhaps they felt they could rely on the police a mile down the road for the major aspects of a violent scenario, and only think of the janitors as a "just in case" kind of stopgap for the couple minutes it would take for the police to show up.

I think a lot of schools probably would benefit much more from having hired regular security. Probably in more urban environments. But a lot of smaller schools might not really need such heavy duty security, and why spend the money if you don't need to?

And just saying.. The two day training course isn't about crisis training. It's the general safety and legal course for CCH itself- same thing roughly a quarter of the state has done.

i agree, also in small towns where everyone knows everyone, it isn't easy for such sickos to hide, if we look at history of school shootings, we'll see, those ppl didn't snap out of the blue, they all showed signs well before, none of those ppl were described by ppl that knew them as sane, friendly ppl. some of those ppl were mantal patients, or were knows to have mental disorders. others did post it on their fb\ms pages that they are sick of entire world....., no one took it serously than, but when they snap, we balme guns, and want to punish ppl that had nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you did ??? lets see.

I didn't get your point here.. He never suggested it at all.. Your reading comprehension has ran off on you this time..

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you not see the word "instead"?

yea,so what is your point? it doesn't make any difference.

your words.

if you truly believe that schools need more security, wouldn't it make sense to use all the money being spent on police drones and instead spend it on school security?

pertty clear what you meant, and my answer still stands,

NO, IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE.

may be it isn't my reading, but your wrighting??

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that's not what I said. I said that perhaps the best answer is to reallocate spending so that the schools could have enough money to hire professionals.

In a way no, they aren't scarce, they're just poorly spent. Again, I'm talking about a reallocation. If you have a budget split into two areas A and B, A having 60% of the total budget and B needing more than its 40%, I think it would be worthwhile to really look into perhaps lowering A's percentage and raising B's. The spending overall wouldn't change.

Here are some random thoughts about the situation:

There are many schools in my area (Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas) that have lost teachers because of cuts of income from state. Hiring new personnel for security is not an option.

There are ten different entrances to the building that I am in. Additionally, students have to travel outside the building and across a parking lot to get to the athletic field. One or two security personnel cannot cover an entire campus efficiently.

Some of our janitors don't speak English. That could be a problem in an emergency situation if they were the armed personnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the janitor's rather large key-rings get in the way if they ever have to draw their weapons? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some random thoughts about the situation:

There are many schools in my area (Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas) that have lost teachers because of cuts of income from state. Hiring new personnel for security is not an option.

There are ten different entrances to the building that I am in. Additionally, students have to travel outside the building and across a parking lot to get to the athletic field. One or two security personnel cannot cover an entire campus efficiently.

Some of our janitors don't speak English. That could be a problem in an emergency situation if they were the armed personnel.

same here, teachers get laid off, some schools close, even some firehouses close, all to patch up billion dollars state gap. but hey, what do we americans know, it is them who live in other countries, some thousands miles away, know beter than us here, of course. who are we to say how it really is, lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea,so what is your point? it doesn't make any difference.

your words.

if you truly believe that schools need more security, wouldn't it make sense to use all the money being spent on police drones and instead spend it on school security?

pertty clear what you meant, and my answer still stands,

NO, IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE.

may be it isn't my reading, but your wrighting??

If it was my "wrighting", Becky's Mom would be agreeing with you, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may be it isn't my reading, but your wrighting??

No, it is your reading.. Here is his full quote again..

Hell, on the topic of reallocation of money, if you truly believe that schools need more security, wouldn't it make sense to use all the money being spent on police drones and instead spend it on school security?

He clearly is saying and instead spend it on school security ..This is as clear as a bell.. When you read it correctly to sum up - He is saying not to spend it on police drones and instead spend it on school security.. If you still fail to see that, then I am sorry but I am not going to explain it again..

Edited by Beckys_Mom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell, on the topic of reallocation of money, if you truly believe that schools need more security, wouldn't it make sense to use all the money being spent on police drones and instead spend it on school security?

I took Stellars comment to mean take all money currently being used or is earmarked for police droids and reallocate it to hire security people for schools. It would make more sense to use the funds in the schools if ones belief is that schools need more security.

Though I think it is an interesting suggestion.. I'm not sure there's really enough police droid allotted funds to reallocate to make much of an impact on the funds that would be required to hire the additional security staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns in schools scares many kids and will make it harder for them to concentrate on why there there...to learn. Sad we even have to have this conversation.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was my "wrighting", Becky's Mom would be agreeing with you, not me.

No, it is your reading.. Here is his full quote again..

He clearly is saying and instead spend it on school security ..This is as clear as a bell.. When you read it correctly to sum up - He is saying not to spend it on police drones and instead spend it on school security.. If you still fail to see that, then I am sorry but I am not going to explain it again..

ok, if that is the case, than it's my fault, you both are right.

i admit, i read it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'm not looking for more money, I'm looking to just take money being already spent and spend it elsewhere.

And with the extra money, the school could find a professional security company they trust. Security would be they're number one job. Chances are they're better at it than the current option being considered.

Everyone can agree on spending cuts in a vacuum. The devil and the details show up, and everyone's feigned sense of fiscal responsibility disappears as fast as it arrived. You've got to cut spending in the school, even to train and arm the janitor. That's going to cost something. Go tell lower-middle class people they should buy BMWs because they're safer than Chevrolets, all they have to do is take money already being spent and spend it elsewhere. Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone can agree on spending cuts in a vacuum. The devil and the details show up, and everyone's feigned sense of fiscal responsibility disappears as fast as it arrived. You've got to cut spending in the school, even to train and arm the janitor. That's going to cost something. Go tell lower-middle class people they should buy BMWs because they're safer than Chevrolets, all they have to do is take money already being spent and spend it elsewhere. Right.

Well that's exactly the point of discussion: to determine where the money is needed most. Can, for instance, the military budget get cut back and those funds reallocated to security for schools? I believe that if we are to be honest about "protecting our children", this approach should not be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no military spending cant be cut to fund school security. Thats the same as an invading army. Foreign or Domestic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no military spending cant be cut to fund school security. Thats the same as an invading army. Foreign or Domestic.

Why?

And just before someone accuses me of something, I was using the military budget simply as an example, as it is often times pointed out that the USs defense spending is abnormally large.

Edited by Stellar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree with your overall comment Stellar just that we need to be careful what lines were crossing. Why would these same anti gun yahoo's want guns placed into there childs school. Emplyee disgruntlment shootings arent unheard of either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont disagree with your overall comment Stellar just that we need to be careful what lines were crossing. Why would these same anti gun yahoo's want guns placed into there childs school. Emplyee disgruntlment shootings arent unheard of either.

Oh I completely agree, but if people have decided that that is something they want in schools, they should look at all the options to make it work best.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's exactly the point of discussion: to determine where the money is needed most. Can, for instance, the military budget get cut back and those funds reallocated to security for schools? I believe that if we are to be honest about "protecting our children", this approach should not be ignored.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.