hiring someone to look over your shoulder might be good, for business, nation wide, as the guns&whatever asociation president mounted, like in every school, an armed cop/security hawk...that's so..
,,,how will it affect the kids apprehention of "safety"... kinda swirl it around an x spot..never reaching peace.. or what?
we are still hunters and gatherers,... in many ways and/or lotsa more, but
whiile most folks will gather attention, some just go hunt for it..
it looks like we were "overpopulated" since we grew a tiny bit too big.... no longer depending with our lives bound so closely..
sinc ewe populated mostly every relatively usable area of the land of Earth, the pricks have deployed RC MEANs to bomb the fuck away from your safe self...
and it looks like we're on a much worse collision course!
Course 1, Lesson 1:
stay out of school!
go home and practice!
Hiring security guards for public schools is probably the worst possible action to take, retired vets even worse.
1. You indoctrinate the children from a young age that they need to worry far too much about statistically improbable events. You train them to think people are out to get them, to a degree far from proportionate to the statistical risk they will be attacked.
2. I see that as a move towards a militarized domestic leo agenda, which is once a gain a terrible idea. First its armed guards at public schools, taxpayer funded, and fiscally impossible, then its cctv to help "prevent terrorism" in the wrong hands without legal oversight, like what people were advocating after boston. Its brainwashing people that we need rediculously unnecessary protection, and inducing fear, fear that the government is the only thing that can protect us, and we need to cooperate with whatever they decide to do.
3. Who/what kind of training/background do these guards have? Military combat expirence, law enforcement, none at all (arming teachers), etc. The sheer bueracracy involved with making sure they are qualified and not going to pull the same shit they are there to prevent is fiscally impossible atm. And a waste of money. I don't want to generalize here, but putting already possibly damaged mental goods in such a enviroment, in the case of combat expirence vets, doesn't seem like a good idea given the track record of mental health vets have coming out of the service.
The only thing is see in common with all these mass shootings/bombings/terrorist acts, is that the government failed to intervene, when they had the information, but did not act fast enough. That is your problem, along with the mental health thing thats been thoroughly discussed. The cops do a shitty job at preventing these things, are already militarized enough, and are not interested in efficiently/effectively using money thrown at the problem, but thats a wider problem that most people tend to not think about regarding effective government. And that people refuse to accept this is a mental health problem, caused by an unhealthy society. LEO/Federal armed protection, even private firms, have core problems that make the idea of armed guards at every school comical. They fail to deliver on the promises when we throw funding at them to solve the problem.
Same with the mental health thing. Its such a difficult and fundamental problem, people woudl rather comfort themselves by rationalizing the causes in other ways, that are (in their illogical arguments) easier to come to terms with. We refuse to deal with the elephant in the room. I think the only action we can take is to change as a society in terms of how we deal with mental health. But thats the most difficult solution unfortunatley. I don't think the general populace would be able to do this, its to much of a harsh reality to face, they choose to find comfort in whatever crazy ass inneffective, and almost always expensive simple fixes. You could even say thats part of the mental health problem we have. Its diverse, and by and large no recognized as the real issue.