Instigator / Pro
18
1515
rating
15
debates
86.67%
won
Topic
#5531
American Schools should have armed guards
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
2
After 3 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
itsnotago
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
12
1485
rating
19
debates
44.74%
won
Description
Pro must prove that assigning armed guards to all schools is a good idea and why this is more effective than any other form of protection.
Con must prove it isn’t a good idea and that either the situation should remain the same or we should implement another form of protection.
Burden of proof is shared
This debate is directly about tackling school shootings.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thank you SocraticGregarian96 for accepting
I will start by showing the situation concerning school shootings today.
In 2022, there were more school shootings than in any year since 1999, exactly 46. Apart from those unalived or wounded because of school shootings, many people not only children stay traumatised for the rest of their lives.
Columbine in 1999 acted as a pedestool for these shootings. It happened in Littleton, Colorado and the perps killed 13 people and wounded 20 others before shooting themselves. It raised many questions about gun control in the United States while it also prompted a debate about gun safety and what would have to be done to ensure it.
Since then, many major shootings have happened such as the Feb. 14, 2018, rampage at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High where a 19-year-old man with an AR-style rifle killed 17 people. These shootings and many other minor ones were encouraged by the Columbine Massacre, with a total of 404 shootings and the most recent one happening 89 days ago. If we look at the statistics, there were approx. 15 annual shootings up until 2017 but violent incidents have started climbing and the shootings in 2022 were 46 in total.
These attacks were mostly conducted by children. The ranks of school shooters include a 6-year-old boy, who killed a classmate he shot on purpose, and a 15-year-old girl, who did the same to a friend for rejecting her romantic overtures. This just goes to show how easily children can get their hands on guns and while we don't possess yet a way to prevent children from taking their parents guns, we can install security (armed guards) in schools that safeguard them and prevent school shooters until the police can come and arrest them.
These guards will be well-trained in the use of guns in contrast to teachers and staff who if given a gun, wouldn't know how to properly use it. In addition, these guards need to have clean criminal records so that we know they can be trusted with the children's safety. Their job will be to frisk students and staff that enter the schools and then if a person manages to enter with a gun, the guards are supposed to stop them under all circumstances, that means potentially shooting and injuring them if the threat is major. They will then wait for the police to arrive and take it from there. While they're in the schools, they can also break up any fights between students and confiscate other weapons for when teachers aren't present because they are much better trained in doing it than teachers. I don't see any major drawbacks with this security method, unless con wants to bring up any
As to the extent to which they are effective, there many examples of ressource officers that have similar roles to the guards i am proposing, saving the lives of many people and catching the shooters until the police arrive for example in 2018 when an armed guard shot at and injured a school shooter who was about to shoot down a school in Dixon, Illinois.
Sources
Con
#2
If we’re going to make the argument that schools should have armed guards, then I would even go as far as to say that they should have the National Guard deployed if it's a serious issue that we're talking about. The reason why I don't like this argument is because, then, why stop at schools? You can extrapolate this logic to shops, homes, pretty much everywhere. I mean it would be non-Stop and change everything as we know it. so the other option would be that if it's not a serious issue then it's unnecessary. The reason why I say this is because we need better gun control not better reaction to that gun control. How we do this is through better background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of irresponsible owners and in the hands of responsible owners. I'm all for gun rights; I believe wholeheartedly in the Second Amendment. That said, I also believe in the concept of gun control. It's kind of a no-brainer. I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm simply arguing that this debate should go one of two ways. Either:
- We agree that there should be armed guards in which case I would even go as far as to say that there should be the National Guard deployed, but I digress.
- Or we could take this debate in the other direction. That being, instead of having armed guards we should actually have better gun control in the first place and do better background checks and keep guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of irresponsible owners.
I'm fine with either option, but I prefer option number two because option number one seems more fuzzy and as I said before, if it gets extrapolated to everything else we will be looking at a completely different way of life for the average American.
Round 2
Pro
#3
...why stop at schools? You can extrapolate this logic to shops, homes, pretty much everywhere
You can't extrapolate this logic to the conventions you mentioned. These places are operated by responsible adults that have the license to own guns. If they detect a robbery or crime being committed, they have the right to use their guns. School shootings are most of the time conducted by children who stole their parents guns and nobody can protect the children exposed to the danger since it is illegal to have a gun in school in the first place. In other words, by exercising their second amendment rights, the adults operating their shops can protect themselves to an extent while schools can't be protected unless there is some form of guards or security. Schools could implement alarms or put cameras all over the place but they're useless without the guards. When the cameras or alarms detect a gun or a perp holding it, they have to alert someone to take care of the danger. Who would that be? The police. The police take 5-10 minutes to arrive on school premises, by the time the perp has shot down the whole school. The guards need to be there to assist the police and at least slow the perps down until the police arrives.
That being, instead of having armed guards we should actually have better gun control in the first place and do better background checks and keep guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of irresponsible owners
Firstly, we already have gun control. The Biden administration recently announced a rule that will require more background checks on gun buyers, aiming to close a loophole that allowed unlicensed gun dealers to sell to anyone they wanted, without performing background checks. From now on, all licensed gun dealears are required to perform checks using the NICS system (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) in order to verify buyer eligibility. If a buyer has disqualifying mental health records or other legal prohibitions, the dealer is supposed to refuse the sale
That being so, we have gun control. If you proposed further gun control, people would retaliate and go against any new rules. They would go out of their way and illegally purchase firearms if new regulations prevented them from doing so. What would happen then? Increased crime, but even if that happened, as i explained, mostly students conduct the school shootings and would use their parents stolen, yet fully licensed firearms.
In conclusion,installing the guards would hit two birds with one stone. They would slow down perps until police arrive, saving the lives of many children while they would also take care of children with irresponsible parents, that let them access the firearms in the first place.
Sources
p.s no school shooting is unserious
Con
#4
What makes you think schools (especially public) have the funds to do that? And even if they did, it would not matter. Because I have a better solution:
Just check the students before they come into school — anyone with a gun is expelled.
(btw I’m actually pro-concealed carry, jut obviously not for kids)
anyways, just check ‘em right and keep the guns in good hands and we’ll be alright.
Round 3
Pro
#5
While i do admit the economic side of things is indeed an issue, the solution you are proposing is incomplete and can be ameliorated with the help of the armed guards.
You say checking children for guns is all that it takes to prevent the shootings but that's not true.
There are many smart children out there that will manage to bend regulations. They will manage to bring weapons in school even through the checks. There are many ways to do so but since i'm not a school shooter, i haven't given it much thought.
If the checks are conducted through electronic devices, a smart child will manage to disable or hack the device, it might find a way to destroy it when teachers and other students aren't present, it might find a way to hide the gun in the school itself when no one's watching and it could also potentially collude with an adult in the school to carry the gun for the student.
However, say that your checks prevent 90% of school shootings. What happens to the 10%? Are we really gonna risk Columbine happening all over again? The answer is no
While i do agree that checks will prove useful, guards not only check the students (frisk them), they also stop them in the act of the shooting. If a child has managed to bring a gun with them on school premises, the cameras will spot them. Then, the guards are alerted and since they have the right to shoot or attack the student, they will be able to stop it.
Therefore, implementing solely checks is useful yet flawed and incomplete.
As for keeping the guns in good hands, an adult can accidentally leave their gun in the open. If the child finds it, it doesn't have anything to do with gun control or adults being irresponsible, something that requires infringing on the second amendment, it was an honest mistake and that's why in case a mistake like that actually happens, guards will be there to stop it from becoming a serious issue
Con
#6
What I suggested was that guns shouldn’t be allowed to be sold to irresponsible (i.e. where a kid could find and take the gun)
I never said anything about 90% and 10%. What I said was what I just related above.
And the most important thing, is that you don’t need an armed guard to check a student. Anyone with hands and feet could do it. Sure Armed guards are more professional, but not necessary, and as you said yourself:
“I do admit the economic side of things is indeed an issue"
It is more than just an issue. It would be a HUGE financial burden, and that certainly shouldn’t be popularized.
(just to clarify, I'm very pro-gun and pro-gun control. I’m also very pro-police.)
I just think that having armed guards seems stupid.
Instead, save the money, invest it into a better school system, and the principal can do the checks.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
I did a video for this, not sure if I will post it, but if I do check the comments and it will be there in 24 hours. Essentially pro argued that school shootings would be less frequent and less severe with armed guards. Con argued it was impractical and the logic could be applied even to our own homes or businesses and pro counters that those business owners could already choose what level of risk they want to take. Con does not respond to this counter. Con also argues that a better approach would be gun control, but pro counters that gun control is useless because it can be maneuvered around. Con does not respond to this counter argument. I would like to see con stick to his guns a bit more, to actually expand on his arguments and use the counter rebuttals to strengthen his own position. I also thought con had the seeds to some great counter arguments in his final round, but it came too late. Ultimately pro's arguments stands and they win, but pro has some work to do also. Both debaters kept using a version of the argument "but you can get around that law", which is literally true of every law. Con also should have pointed out how disgusting pro's proposal of grown men patting down children was.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro's assertion seems completely impractical as correctly mentioned by con
Furthermore I would like to add to cons argument that-
Even if we have armed guards they will be unable to do anything in a large school campus, as reaching a perpetrator a few hundred meters away will take way to long for any sort of prevention of shooting, also as mentioned most school shootings are done by students, and hence an having 'armed' guards is useless, since they most likely not even try to shoot the perpetrator, and do the work of just a regular security guard.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro presented compelling arguments that Con failed to effectively counter, and Con lacked a clear plan beyond "Don't sell guns to the irresponsible." Pro was also the sole participant to provide sources and maintained a more professional demeanor, thereby earning the votes for better sources and conduct.
I apologise for arguing in the vote, but I do still think it's impractical as a preventative measure since-
It takes only a few milliseconds to shoot someone, and the armed guards can only react after the shooting is already done, till that time many people could've been kiled if it's a crowded area.
And why can't any regular guard frisk? also metal detectors would be way more effective.
Please vote.
Please vote.
You placed a vote which i totally respect but i don't really respect the comments you made. You said my assertion is impractical which you didn't prove and then you tried to add an argument in favor of pro which i will rebuttle but the voting section of debates isn't really the place to create a debate, it's more to indicate who did a better job rather than give your opinion.
You said they won't be able to reach the perp before the perp does the shooting but that is false. Schools are smart enough to have the guards scattered across premises instead of have them standing still at the entrance which is the only scenario i can imagine in which the perp actually gets the chance to perform the shooting. It will be impossible if the guards are scattered since they will be patrolling every single corner. I didn't actually mention this in the debate so it is technically inadmissible but you brought up this subject, not con. The guards won't act like security ones since they have guns which security guards don't possess and as i said will not hesitate to pull the trigger. A school shooter is a major criminal and will be treated as one. If the guards spots the shooter shooting at a bunch of kids, he will not wait for the police to arrive, he will get the job done even if that involves shooting at the perp and injuring them.
However as i stated, the perp won't get the chance to enter the premises since there are multiple guards scattered across the school, patrolling every single corner looking for suspicious students.
I also stated that the guards will sometimes frisk the students and you can't possibly hide an AR from the person frisking you
---
---
---
Please vote.
I encourage everyone to vote.
Our schools should have airport-style security. It works with airports; there hasn't been a terrorist attack since.
Also I don't think you are an American, but I will let you in on a secret. In most states, schools do have armed guards called "resource officers" .
"burden of proof is scared"
Maybe change that to shared, unless you meant scared
Lol
One kid at my school tried to do that with a gun he brought from home. A lot of kids were running in the hall that day, but fortunately, he was there to stop them from hurting someone.