Arming Janitors, when Trained Professionals just won't do.

at least someone will be able to shoot back if anyone ever tried to shoot up their school, rather than follow protocol turning off the lights hoping the gun man goes "ahhh durrr I guess no one is in the school the lights are off durrr"
 
Hell yeah man, give those motherfuckers guns. Maybe if they all start shooting they'll hit the bad guy. fuck yeah!

God damn we're a stupid people...:roll:
 
teach them some chemistry so they can use their cleaning products as weapons, or explosive to make holes in the walls.

i forgot most of chem so im talking out of my ass.
 
[quote name='Clak']Hell yeah man, give those motherfuckers guns. Maybe if they all start shooting they'll hit the bad guy. fuck yeah!

God damn we're a stupid people...:roll:[/QUOTE]

Right, because they're not cops, they automatically suck at shooting, and therefore, aren't qualified to protect innocent people. :roll:
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Right, because they're not cops, they automatically suck at shooting, and therefore, aren't qualified to protect innocent people. :roll:[/QUOTE]

But are they actually qualified? Becoming a police officer requires extensive firearms training and a background check. Armed security guards generally have the same expected of them. Is this level of scrutiny being given to these janitors or are they just allowing them to carry guns on school property?

Because, let's be honest, these guys were hired to clean schools, not to provide security. Regardless of whether or not this is necessary, I think the ideal of making sure our children are protected is a laudable one. I just think being lazy about it like this is potentially dangerous and likely to accomplish the opposite.
 
Oh no, I'm sure they're awesome shots. Moving a mop across a floor every day has probably sharpened they're eyesight and steadied their hands a great deal.
Janitors at the K-12 campus of the school in Montpelier, a town of about 4,000 people, will now be able to pack heat after completing a two-day handgun training course.
Click to expand...
Two day course, they'll be fucking sharpshooters after that.

The only thing I don't understand is why they're limiting it to janitors, why not the lunch ladies too? They at least deserve a shotgun, gotta put down those food fights somehow.
 
Come on, guys! They're janitors! Obviously they're worthless and not worthy of respect. If they were, they wouldn't be janitors.

This is the same kind of BS that our esteemed members of vs. spout off on a regular basis towards those who have a job that they feel to be below them.

Now, excuse me while I go stock some Dr. Thunder.
 
[quote name='Cantatus']But are they actually qualified? Becoming a police officer requires extensive firearms training and a background check. Armed security guards generally have the same expected of them. Is this level of scrutiny being given to these janitors or are they just allowing them to carry guns on school property?

Because, let's be honest, these guys were hired to clean schools, not to provide security. Regardless of whether or not this is necessary, I think the ideal of making sure our children are protected is a laudable one. I just think being lazy about it like this is potentially dangerous and likely to accomplish the opposite.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure they're not handing guns to convicted felons. I believe the schools in Utah (I think Utah) gave training to all the teachers would wanted to carry a firearm. I'm sure the janitors have to do the same.

Also, "extensive firearm training" doesn't mean much. I know friends that go to the range more than some of the cops I know. Who do you think is going to be a better shot? A cop who has spent 10 years writing traffic tickets, or the janitor who visits the range once a week?
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm sure they're not handing guns to convicted felons. I believe the schools in Utah (I think Utah) gave training to all the teachers would wanted to carry a firearm. I'm sure the janitors have to do the same.[/quote]

They're getting a "two-day handgun training course". I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's slightly less than what is required of a police officer or security guard.

And I'm sure they're not giving guns to felons, but what sort of oversight is there? Are they doing mental health checks? Background checks? How often?

Also, "extensive firearm training" doesn't mean much. I know friends that go to the range more than some of the cops I know. Who do you think is going to be a better shot? A cop who has spent 10 years writing traffic tickets, or the janitor who visits the range once a week?
Click to expand...

This is pretty irrelevant unless it is what is being required of the janitor. And even if that officer has been just writing tickets for 10 years, so long as he is carrying a firearm, he is required to requalify for its use annually in Ohio.

I still go back to the fact that this isn't what these people were hired to do. I can understand the desire for our children to be able to learn in a safe environment, but this is a slap-dash fix. These men and women were hired to keep our schools clean, not our children safe. If our schools desire to have armed protection, they should hire men and women who are trained to do so, and not do it in a lazy and ridiculous fashion that potentially comes with its own dangers.
 
I'll admit to not being up on this kind of thing, but don't schools normally do background checks on employees as they're hired in?
 
It's a stupid idea to mandate arming anyone that doesn't want to be. It's about as useful as conscripting cops.
"Hey, you over there. We need a new cop and your it. Here is your gun and your training starts in the morning."

Training and arming people motivated and interested in protecting kids at school that already work there is another issue entirely.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's a stupid idea to mandate arming anyone that doesn't want to be. It's about as useful as conscripting cops.
"Hey, you over there. We need a new cop and your it. Here is your gun and your training starts in the morning."

Training and arming people motivated and interested in protecting kids at school that already work there is another issue entirely.[/QUOTE]


1) I don't believe they are requiring anyone to carry a gun

2) I don't think they (the schools) are just giving guns out

3) Janitors do more then mop floors; in most schools they are responsible for the grounds (boilers, safety checks, transportation, etc.) but regardless why are we shitting on their profession?

4) If someone is deemed worthy to legally carry a gun why not let them? You want to do a comparison of murders convicted by those who have CWP vs those that do not?


Edit: Some of you liberals are a lost cause. I didn't read the article before I posted but now that I have I'm so ashamed for you. It clearly states in the article (more then once) that they will be "allowed" to be armed.

It doesn't once mention that they will be required (i.e. mandated) or that they will be given guns. Why are you so fucking stupid?
 
[quote name='GBAstar']

4) If someone is deemed worthy to legally carry a gun why not let them? You want to do a comparison of murders convicted by those who have CWP vs those that do not?[/QUOTE]

Why not indeed.
Probably because we now find ourselves living in a country full of those that believe demonizing and putting people in danger for doing nothing but obeying the laws they disagree with, is not only acceptable but trendy and cool.
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh no, I'm sure they're awesome shots. Moving a mop across a floor every day has probably sharpened they're eyesight and steadied their hands a great deal.
Two day course, they'll be fucking sharpshooters after that.

The only thing I don't understand is why they're limiting it to janitors, why not the lunch ladies too? They at least deserve a shotgun, gotta put down those food fights somehow.[/QUOTE]


So we show compassion in the VS thread towards minorities illegals and those that choose not to work but we are okay with shitting all over custodians---a gainful profession. I'm willing to bet that the janitors in most school systems are more knowledgeable re: guns then any other staff. I'd much rather have an armed janitor then an armed "language arts professor" or a "drama coach".
 
[quote name='GBAstar']So we show compassion in the VS thread towards minorities illegals and those that choose not to work but we are okay with shitting all over custodians---a gainful profession[/QUOTE]

Pretty SOP here on vs. Sadly.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']So we show compassion in the VS thread towards minorities illegals and those that choose not to work but we are okay with shitting all over custodians---a gainful profession. I'm willing to bet that the janitors in most school systems are more knowledgeable re: guns then any other staff. I'd much rather have an armed janitor then an armed "language arts professor" or a "drama coach".[/QUOTE]

You realize by dismissing teachers in this way, you're just as bad as those that are "shitting all over" janitors.
 
Who's shitting on janitors? And if we were, would they have to clean it up?

But no seriously, I know it's voluntary, it's still stupid. For that matter so are some of you.
 
[quote name='Clak']Who's shitting on janitors? And if we were, would they have to clean it up?

But no seriously, I know it's voluntary, it's still stupid. For that matter so are some of you.[/QUOTE]

Why is it stupid? It is better to have some armed personnel with training than none at all. After all you do not expect them to use the broom for self defense against a glock17? Also refrain from insulting the members of this forum, you make yourself look foolish by bashing on someone who has a different opinion.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Why is it stupid? It is better to have some armed personnel with training than none at all. After all you do not expect them to use the broom for self defense against a glock17? Also refrain from insulting the members of this forum, you make yourself look foolish by bashing on someone who has a different opinion.[/QUOTE]

You haven't been in the vs forum long have you? If slinging mud and arrogance around like sacks of leftist potatoes doesn't sound like a grand time, this may not be the place for you.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You haven't been in the vs forum long have you? If slinging mud and arrogance around like sacks of leftist potatoes doesn't sound like a grand time, this may not be the place for you.[/QUOTE]

I guess i should have expected that type of behavior. Arguments should be civil and lead to education instead of name calling. If we cannot do that then why let such a section exist?
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I guess i should have expected that type of behavior. Arguments should be civil and lead to education instead of name calling. If we cannot do that then why let such a section exist?[/QUOTE]

I concur. It lowers the level of discourse if people just resort to name calling. For that matter, so does labeling everything "liberal," "leftist," conservative," etc.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']More Guns= More Safety
Less Guns- Less Safety

Look at the statistics people.[/QUOTE]

More like:

Regulating / monitoring firearms dealers = more safety and fewer guns because the risk of selling illegally becomes not worth the reward. Ideally on the federal level, but even at the state level can help if a significant portion of states were to adopt legislation toward that purpose.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You haven't been in the vs forum long have you? If slinging mud and arrogance around like sacks of leftist potatoes doesn't sound like a grand time, this may not be the place for you.[/QUOTE]

What is a leftist potato?
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Look at the statistics people.[/QUOTE]

A dollar says the closest you came to any statistic about guns and crime was the fifteen seconds you spent looking at the Amazon.com page for John Lott's book.

If you want to have a legitimate discussion, why don't you introduce an actual statistic instead of herp-derp NRA rhetoric? "More guns, less crime" is pablum in the same way Wayne LaPierre's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" rhetoric is pablum.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A dollar says the closest you came to any statistic about guns and crime was the fifteen seconds you spent looking at the Amazon.com page for John Lott's book.

If you want to have a legitimate discussion, why don't you introduce an actual statistic instead of herp-derp NRA rhetoric? "More guns, less crime" is pablum in the same way Wayne LaPierre's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" rhetoric is pablum.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I have no idea who John Lott is. Here is a great video for you regarding the crimes in US and UK. http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/piers-morgan-vs-alex-jones-and-gun-homicide-rates
The thing is a few years back I strongly advocated a big government and regulations of everything. I then realized that the government is always inefficient, hungry and must be limited to few core functions.

A few years ago I would also advocate for ban of guns in order to be "safe". I then realized that guns do not kill people, people kill people. We will always have criminals and many of us wouldn't be able to take them on barehanded or with a knife, armed civilians would. Now remember that 2nd amendment's major purpose was to protect the other amendments from being destroyed by its own government. You cannot fight a tyrannical government through courts as they control them. If you want more statistics then I can get them for you after I am done with work. Also my PP is [email protected]
 
[quote name='mykevermin']A dollar says the closest you came to any statistic about guns and crime was the fifteen seconds you spent looking at the Amazon.com page for John Lott's book.

If you want to have a legitimate discussion, why don't you introduce an actual statistic instead of herp-derp NRA rhetoric? "More guns, less crime" is pablum in the same way Wayne LaPierre's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" rhetoric is pablum.[/QUOTE]

Maine has perhaps the most loose gun control laws in the nation and it also has one of the lowest rate of violent crime per 100,000 people.

Chicago (Illinois) on the other hand...

Let's compare:

Maine Population: 1,328,361
Violent Crimes: 1,621

Rate per 100,000 occupants: 122

Illinois Population: 12,830,632
Violent Crimes: 55,835

Rate per 100,000 occupants: 435.2
 
Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)?

No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too. :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)?

No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Oh... so if violent crime is linked to cities maybe we should propose population regulation?

Because it is a fact that gun regulation has done nothing to stop violent crime in Chicago. It has a disgustingly high violent crime rate---even when compared to other urban areas in the United States.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)?

No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Could you please supply us with some statistics or evidence to back up your claims?
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Could you please supply us with some statistics or evidence to back up your claims?[/QUOTE]

TENNESSEE'S VIOLENT CRIME RATE IS OVER 600 PER 100,000! THAT'S 133% GREATER THAN ILLINOIS! LORDY, LORDY, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?

my point is that cherry picking any data is an inefficient exercise. crime rates are moving ineffective of gun laws, as I've pointed out in the connecticut shooting thread. allowing private sales of firearms to occur without background checks is exploitable and only serves the purpose of allowing people who should *not* purchase or possess firearms to do both.

stopping firearms-related fatalities is my goal more than reducing shootings that can, at best, be categorized as outliers. part of reducing firearms-related fatalities includes stricter gun control legislation - because when I say "firearms-related fatalities," I mean more than deliberate criminal usage - I mean idiot gun owners who accidentally shoot someone, or idiot gun owners whose children get ahold of their firearms and use them accidentally (or not).

nobody is an absolutist on the second amendment, so the size of your magazine isn't anything anyone can reasonably claim as the last stand for arguing for no compromise on gun control.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)?

No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Even the metropolitan areas of Maine have a smaller violent crime rate than the non-metropolitan areas of Illinois.

Non-Metropolitan Illinois
Population: 750,998
Violent Crimes: 1,076

Rate Per 100,000: 143

Metropolitan Maine
Population: 779,776
Violent Crimes: 971

Rate Per 100,000: 124
 
Almost every firearm used illegally was originally obtained legally though a licensed dealer. It eventually ends up in the hands of someone who isn't supposed to have one.

You can ultimately reduce the violence by more accountability and oversight. Federal law has weakened the ability of BAFTE to inspect and monitor firearms dealers; it was already underfunded in this area to begin with. This leaves it up to the states to start requiring a state license and inspections.

1. States should require a state license and perform routine inspections.

2. Regulate the secondary market by requiring screening in each state for a private sale. Hold private sellers criminally accountable for unlawful straw purchases.

3. Pass laws requiring firearm registration.

4. Require firearm theft to be reported.

5. Enact one gun per month law to prevent mass trafficking.

6. Restrict sales of cheap, low quality "Saturday Night Specials" to reduce trafficking.

States that have already implemented these countermeasures tend to have lower interstate trafficking of guns purchased in said state.
 
I'm getting really tired of people coming in here with half baked ideas and opinions, and then acting like we should take them seriously. It's the same god damn shit that Ron Paul employs in politics when he whines about not being taken seriously.

Maybe some of you should take a hard look at yourselves and figure out why we don't take you seriously. If you act like big boys we'll treat you like it, otherwise all we've got is name calling, whether it's us calling you stupid or you calling us "leftists".

And yeah, just wtf is a leftist potato?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I'm getting really tired of people coming in here with half baked ideas and opinions, and then acting like we should take them seriously. It's the same god damn shit that Ron Paul employees in politics when he whines about not being taken seriously.

Maybe some of you should take a hard look at yourselves and figure out why we don't take you seriously. If you act like big boys we'll treat you like it, otherwise all we've got is name calling, whether it's us calling you stupid or you calling us "leftists".

And yeah, just wtf is a leftist potato?[/QUOTE]

How about no name calling and instead use facts? Otherwise you act like
 
[quote name='IRHari']What is a leftist potato?[/QUOTE]

You know, a tuber. A starchy filler that puts you in a happy carb coma but isn't terribly nutritious, making many fat.
It's also what mostly gets thrown around the vs forum.

[quote name='ID2006']Almost every firearm used illegally was originally obtained legally though a licensed dealer. It eventually ends up in the hands of someone who isn't supposed to have one.

You can ultimately reduce the violence by more accountability and oversight. Federal law has weakened the ability of BAFTE to inspect and monitor firearms dealers; it was already underfunded in this area to begin with. This leaves it up to the states to start requiring a state license and inspections.

1. States should require a state license and perform routine inspections.

2. Regulate the secondary market by requiring screening in each state for a private sale. Hold private sellers criminally accountable for unlawful straw purchases.

3. Pass laws requiring firearm registration.

4. Require firearm theft to be reported.

5. Enact one gun per month law to prevent mass trafficking.

6. Restrict sales of cheap, low quality "Saturday Night Specials" to reduce trafficking.

States that have already implemented these countermeasures tend to have lower interstate trafficking of guns purchased in said state.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty ok with all of those except 6. It's unnecessary and redundant with 5.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You know, a tuber. A starchy filler that puts you in a happy carb coma but isn't terribly nutritious, making many fat.
It's also what mostly gets thrown around the vs forum.



I'm pretty ok with all of those except 6. It's unnecessary and redundant with 5.[/QUOTE]


Well, to be fair, I'm not certain on that one, either. Although you really don't want a gun that can break down due to bad quality. Taking care of a good one is another story, though.
 
You do realize that for many people potatoes are a food staple, right? I mean you do know what the Irish potato famine was, correct? They're incredibly nutritous, as long as you don't spend half your time sitting on your ass jerking off to the latest issue of New Republic.

You can't even get nutrition right, let alone politics or economics.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Well, to be fair, I'm not certain on that one, either. Although you really don't want a gun that can break down due to bad quality. Taking care of a good one is another story, though.[/QUOTE]

I have never heard of a one of the lower priced guns blowing up and harming anyone. My main concern is that low income people living in low income neighborhoods have access to protection they can afford.
Allowing only the affluent to have guns is not much better than allowing only authority to have guns.

[quote name='Clak']You do realize that for many people potatoes are a food staple, right? I mean you do know what the Irish potato famine was, correct? They're incredibly nutritous, as long as you don't spend half your time sitting on your ass jerking off to the latest issue of New Republic.

You can't even get nutrition right, let alone politics or economics.[/QUOTE]

Which politics are those? Which economics? Quote it if you want to besmirch me.

Go ahead and subsist on only fries for a few weeks and see how you're doing.

You see, the interesting thing about the potato is it's nutritional value is highly dependent on how you cook it. Deep frying them in beer batter and flinging them at people is more than a little analogous to the dogmatic hate, intolerance, and propaganda you routinely tarnish these forums with.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I have never heard of a one of the lower priced guns blowing up and harming anyone. My main concern is that low income people living in low income neighborhoods have access to protection they can afford.
Allowing only the affluent to have guns is not much better than allowing only authority to have guns.[/QUOTE]


I took a look a Wiki earlier, and the explanation it gives is that they tend to have poorer accuracy at longer range and low durability. If it's meant for self-defense, though, I guess that wouldn't be too much of an issue, say at home or something and with little or no need to be used.

I do get that price is a factor for many people who might like to own a firearm, though.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You see, the interesting thing about the potato is it's nutritional value is highly dependent on how you cook it. Deep frying them in beer batter and flinging them at people is more than a little analogous to the dogmatic hate, intolerance, and propaganda you routinely tarnish these forums with.[/QUOTE]

Except far more delicious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']TENNESSEE'S VIOLENT CRIME RATE IS OVER 600 PER 100,000! THAT'S 133% GREATER THAN ILLINOIS! LORDY, LORDY, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?

my point is that cherry picking any data is an inefficient exercise. crime rates are moving ineffective of gun laws, as I've pointed out in the connecticut shooting thread. allowing private sales of firearms to occur without background checks is exploitable and only serves the purpose of allowing people who should *not* purchase or possess firearms to do both.

stopping firearms-related fatalities is my goal more than reducing shootings that can, at best, be categorized as outliers. part of reducing firearms-related fatalities includes stricter gun control legislation - because when I say "firearms-related fatalities," I mean more than deliberate criminal usage - I mean idiot gun owners who accidentally shoot someone, or idiot gun owners whose children get ahold of their firearms and use them accidentally (or not).

nobody is an absolutist on the second amendment, so the size of your magazine isn't anything anyone can reasonably claim as the last stand for arguing for no compromise on gun control.[/QUOTE]The statistic in regards to Tennessee bothered me so I did some research and voila!
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jun/29/memphis-victim-of-crime-reports/?print=1
Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top