Originally Posted by Rochard

But that's usually not the way it works.

It's very easy to say "An armed guard would taken action and this would have ended much sooner". They had an armed guard at Columbine, and it didn't change the tactical situation at all. Just because it means there is someone with a firearm on the scene it only means they have the potential to alter the tactical situation, but it doesn't guarantee there will be less carnage.

I think a lot of you watch way too much TV and everyone thinks that one single armed guard will be able to quickly dispatch a crazed gun man and nothing could be further from the truth. With the school shooting in CT, any armed guard would have been the first one shot. With the shooting in Taft California this past week, the armed guard had called in sick that day. In Columbine, the armed guard was unable to react in time to prevent anything. It's not like "Oh, there's a gun man in the other room and I'll just stroll in and shoot him between the eyes and be a hero" - it just doesn't happen that way.

There are times when an armed guard is able to react quickly - there was a shooting in a church where an armed guard was able to quickly take action and take out the shooter. At the same time, society is in a sad state where churches feel the need to have armed guards on the grounds. Is this what our society has become? Armed guards in churches?

Fuckers. Some of you are bitching about become a police state while insisting we install armed guards everywhere. LOL.