Is the NRA's National School Shield Program a good idea?

  • Of course it is!

    In a country with particular freedoms, you must have programs that defend against misuse of those freedoms. For example, we have legal definitions of threat, slander, libel, etc that are in place to defend against misuse of the freedom to speak. In the NRA’s National School Shield program, we have what I believe is adequate defense against those who would seek to misuse the freedom to bear arms. We need to protect our kids while defending our peculiar rights afforded by our constitution. Especially their right to life, liberty, Property, and the pursuit or happiness. This goes far beyond politics. This is about lives being defended to the best of our ability using the best of our resources. No question, this is a fantastic program.

  • I say yes

    I think that it is fair to say that the plan that the National Rifle Association has put forth is a good one. As has been shown in so many of these mass murders, the police will not make it to the scene on time to save anyone. We need to do better.

  • I believe so

    The israeli's have a program very similar to what the NRA is proposing now. Think about this for a second. When was the last time anybody shot up an Israeli school? Not in a very very very long time. Why? Maybe because there are competent people on the premises to shoot the bad guys before they shoot the kids.......

  • Too many guns!

    Adding more guns won't make anything better! If you're making a soup and you added too much salt, you don't add more salt to try to get rid of the original salt. It just doesn't make sense. Tighter security at schools would help, but adding guns to mix will just make things more violent.

    Posted by: WSB
  • No, screw them

    Few things trending in political discussion these days frustrate me more than the concept of "more guns makes things safer." It sounds idiotic because it is, every statistic you can point to will tell you the same thing. Tools designed for the sole purpose of making things die do not make environments safer.

  • Impractical, cost-inefficient, and the wrong goal.

    This is not a long-term solution. You can't increase protection by just putting more firearms into the mix. Not only is it cost-inefficient, but this theory that "everybody has guns" equals a safer world is nonsense. You have to educate people from the bottom up and provide help for those who need it - not put guns on hands of teachers, when the students might as well grab them and not even have to go through the trouble of buying one themselves.

    Israel has protections like these, because they are constantly in war with the neighborghing countries. They can't go and educate people in there, while they still control the West Bank. The U.S. doesn't control a West Bank, whose supporters go around killing people at schools.

  • More Guns is NOT the answer

    Althought school shootings are terrible things, they are very rare. Giving all the teachers in the school guns is not the answer. Guns are made to kil people! Giving weapons to teachers would not make the school environment safer. If a student wanted to do a school shooting it wouldd be a whole lot easier because they could just take it from the teacher.

  • Not the answer.

    While I think the organization might have their heart in the right place, I don't believe that adding more weapons to the mix is the answer. Many high schools already have on-site police officers, and have had so for years. I think if particular school districts (or the parents that live within them) are concerned about safety, they should organize to have more police on the premises. But I think the issues of school shooting violence is being tackled at the wrong angle with the proposed Shield Program.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.