Could janitors be one school's line of defense?

Associated Press
Jan 14, 2013





















Whiskey Tango F...

what about the fact that many MANY schools already have an armed officer? This isn't radically new, and may not be the "solution" to these times, but at least they did something. Anything is better than nothing. If one life is spared and one family doesn't have to suffer a loss then all of the efforts are worth while. Sherriff Joe A. is wild, and notorious, but I guarantee you that every illegal immigrant knows where his county starts and ends.


Is this a gender thing? Female teachers being protected by manly janitors?

Let me remind you Columbine had an armed guard. How'd that work out?

Guess who was a law abiding citizen up until he opened fire? Adam Lanza.

"Doing something" means banning all automatic weapons, even pistols, and limiting the amount of bullets all guns can fire in a given time period. This is legally and technically possible.

Whiskey Tango F...

you're in luck. Automatic weapons are heavily regulated. However the number of bullets to be fired is determined by the number of bullets carried on the person, not the capacity of the weapon. Lets use good old Chicago as an example. All of your hopes and dreams are already in place. 500 + murders there last year. Maybe we need to hold the shooters and the lack of parenting and roll models responsible.




Yes places with more people have more crime, very important observation.

FYI, people usually don't throw bullets they shoot them out of guns. Meaning limiting firing rate and capacity limits the number of people being killed in a short time. That's why you don't hear of mass murders carried out with knives.


EVER hear about the school attacks in China, KNIFE KILLINGS /MASS MURDERS


I have and I'm glad you brought them up because they prove my point. It took 7 separate attacks over two years to kill 25 versus a few minutes to kill 26 at Newtown. That is the difference between knives and automatic firearms, see? Thanks for bring that up jon491!


This is about walmart ammo

Dr. Information

VA Tech....36 dead.....guns of choice. Handguns. So you wired, you want to ban all handguns as well......

BW1's picture



are you insinuating that all Janitors are male and all teachers are female? You are stretching to create a gender relationship to a solution.

So, you believe that banning arms and introducing ammunition reducers will prevent things like this from happening? Once again, arms ban and registration red tape only limit law abiding citizens who would never do a mass murder suicide. The criminals will be still be able to pick up what they need through the black market channels such as the silk road...

Criminals WANT strict gun control laws so that you are left defenseless when they come for you. To take what you have, to kill your loved ones. They laugh in their lairs when you suggest disarming the nation..

When the law-abiding citizens are left to defend themselves with sticks and stones versus the criminals approaching from behind and the government they gave up every right they had to meeting them directly, it will be a losing battle, and it will be incredibly difficult to determine which crook is worse, the government or the criminals... If you don't want your guns and see no value in them for protection of your rights or your own flesh and blood then sell them. But please don't introduce or support legislation to take what is mine from me..


I defy you to show that the janitors are not all male and the majority of the teachers are not women.

Adam Lanza was a law abiding citizen until he went on a killing spree. Show me a career criminal who goes on school shooting spree.

Also please provide examples of how a privately owned gun ever protected a Constitutional right. Keep in Ming that the 4th amendment refers to the government not criminals.


Ok, where do I even start with this?

I guess I will start with this statement:


#1 I think you may have meant imply instead of defy..
#2 These positions are most definitely not gender specific. It may be true that in the school system you attended, the teachers were predominately women and the janitors were predominately men. But women can clean and men can teach. In fact, I went to Edison High School and when I graduated in 1997 my most favorite teachers were gentlemen (Hello Mr. Schauer (my absolute favorite), Mr. Matula, Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Ruff, Mr. Calwell, Mr. Campana, Mr. Moyer, and Mr. Wallrabenstein).

Next I suppose I will address this statement:

"Show me a career criminal who goes on school shooting spree."

#1 This website presents a time line of worldwide school shootings:
#2 Many of the individuals responsible for these shootings were known to have
mental and/or behavior problems and displayed a pattern of antisocial

Finally we will discuss this statement: "please provide examples of how a privately owned gun ever protected a Constitutional right. Keep in Ming that the 4th amendment refers to the government not criminals."

#1 The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights concerning unreasonable search and seizures and has nothing to do with this discussion. We will focus on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution today which is the section of the Bill of Rights concerning the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
#2 It is a privately owned gun that presented safety and security to the townspeople by various well regulated militia. In fact, the actual bill presented and passed by congress described a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
#3 Ideals that helped inspire the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution are, deterring tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, facilitating a natural right of self defense, participating in enforcement of the law, and enabling citizens to organize a militia system.
#4 A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a privately owned gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a privately owned gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard
#5 Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use privately owned guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
#6 A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use privately owned guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
#7 A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

#8 A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:



WiredMamba666 please present solid arguments.


1. From Merriem-Webster (that's a dictionary): defy- 2 : to challenge to do something considered impossible : dare. Moreover, it's a common turn of phrase among people who make sound arguments. LOL.

2. We're not talking about gender specific positions in society or your personal ancient history. We're talking about that specific school district and those employees. It's nice to know you are concerned with gender equality while engaging in sophistry. LOL.

3. I'd wager most of the people on your timeline are, duh, not career criminals because they are children, making my point that criminals, who you cite as the reason we need so many guns, are not the ones going on shooting sprees. Pointing out that shooters have mental problems doesn't help your poor reasoning.

4. Your long, long lasts section seems to be an incoherent rant of cut and paste that demonstrates nothing except you are incapable of making a sound argument. Also you don't seem to have ever read the 4th amendment.


#1 You spelled Merriam-Webster wrong. I sell books, Millions of them, and displays of the Merriam-Webster dictionaries along with many other dictionaries printed by publishers such as Oxford and American Heritage, etc...
#2 The use of the statement "I defy you" It is not as common as you believe it to be. Now using I implore, or dare, those are generally accepted challenges. You are not my dad so to defy me anything would imply I was in a position of subordination to you. I in fact am not.

#3 I'm 33, which isn't so ancient in fact. It does allude to your age however which could present an excuse for such a weak argument and inexperience with the world beyond Ohio. I will applaud the use of sophistry, however you didn't exactly nail the context in which you used the word. Also, Women gained equality and even universal suffrage in America a long time ago. The sooner you realize that women are right in every circumstance, life will be a whole lot easier for you...

#4 In response to your "wager" this point seems valid. My point included behavior problems along with mental problems. When children graduate to criminals after becoming 18, they usually have a history of behavior problems and mental problems. I think we agree here so I don't think belaboring the point is necessary. If you were sharp you would argue that statistics show that these underage children with severe mental and behavior problems attained arms that were purchased legally and were registered. I would then of course argue that they stole them from the person (often family members) who obtained them legally. That would be a criminal action by the way which would support my argument that criminals were responsible for these shootings.

#5 Again, the 4th Amendment does not apply to this argument. The long last section does cite actual sources. If you ever enroll in college you will find out that citing actual sources to defend an argument is encouraged. The only incoherent property of this entire thread is your spelling, but I am more interested in your logic that disarming America will reduce crime. It is simply not true... And very dangerous. If you ever decide to have little ones someday you may understand that every branch of the government is necessary for checks and balances but when it comes to protecting yourself and your family in a true moment of danger from an immediate threat, it comes down to you. If that threat has a gun, you are going to want one of those too.


You're funny. Not so good a reasoning, but hey, not everyone can be.

You got me though, I did misspell the name of the dictionary. That proves your argument about guns.

Please don't shoot me.


Well don't put my family in danger and you would never even know I own a gun :)


I'm bettin' that WiredMamba666 is at minimum, 12 yrs. old and at max, 13.5 yrs old. Just a friendly bet. :) No wagers.


Moderators have removed this comment because it was an amusing response to an insult.




Name calling? LOL. Who guessed about who's age first? To see the problem in the mirror it have to be a two way mirror showing you.

FYI, I'd just give your mugger with a handgun my wallet. I'm anatomically a big man, I don't need a gun to prove it.

Does this describe you?



"I'm anatomically a big man.."

Good for you! It doesn't do anything for your capacity to think or even be original in the least bit, though. In case you haven't grasped the idea, your handle is just a spoof of wiredmama222. I can't understand why someone would want to try and make her look bad if he was such a big man.

Perhaps, you can explain it?

Dr. Information

@wired......Adam Lanza voted for Obama. Once again, FAILING the argument on your part.


So , how much more will a janitor , or teacher get paid to carry a firearm ? It would only be fair . More responsibility equals more pay , right ? If tax payers want to foot the bill for the training , the licences , the weapons for each and every school empoyee , fine . Then it would come down to the voters to see that their schools were protected , or who the real cheap skates were . I think alot of the harrumphing would end if it came to the taxpayers footing the bill , that is unless the NRA or the pro-gun advocates would like to pay for the whole thing.


Actually I think you may be on to something here Bluto. Arming a state certified school employee by a completely NRA funded program sounds great to me!


As long as the taxpayer "just" pays for the initial training, OK with me. The weapon owner has to supply the weapon, ammunition and any/all subsequent training. That way, we know they give a spit.


If a employee would be required to carry a firearm then they should be reimbursed completely for the weapons , training , recertifications etc. . Plus pay rate increases to the order of hazardous duty pay . And let's not forget annual drug testing , regular background checks of all carrying weapons . Then tuition costs for parents who would rather their child go to a school without guns or home / private schooling . Also we would have to deal with insurance issues and costs for the schools - liability , the employees' health plan costs will go through the roof . Oy !!! This could get expensive . Wouldn't it be cheaper and less chaotic to just ban assault-like weapons and high capacity ammo ?


Cheaper for who...the thousands who work in those factories who will soon be unemployed?


If a firearms manufacturer is making only one type of weapon , that would be like putting all your eggs in one basket , and a bad business practice . They could produce guns other then assault-like weapons , or heaven forbid , diversify into non-lethal weapons specifically for schools and hospitals were there is a high risk of injuries to bystanders . Besides they are probably making a killing ( literally ) selling weapons to other countries , or our own military . The NRA and pro-gun advocates are just stirring up your fears that the government is going to take all guns , which will never happen . It's more about the money , than individual freedoms . The majority just want some common sense in the types of weapons the general population can acquire .

BW1's picture

That might be bring about the first time I've EVER voted for in favor of school levy.


You never heard of mass stabbings, come on now. Happens all the time in the UK and China; even here in America. The UK banned Samurai swords. LONDON (AP) — A 30-year-old man was arrested Sunday on suspicion of stabbing six people to death on the British island of Jersey, police said.


Alaska teen slashes 5 family members to death, California student slashes ex-girlfriend at school.

A Michigan prosecutor said Tuesday that stabbing attacks in his state that killed five people are linked to similar attacks in Virginia and Ohio; Total is 16 victims. 8/2010.


heck ya, better ban steak knives, much deadlier than butter knives,


Yea,the UK is banning kitchen knives !


Help Wanted: Custodial worker with knowledge of floor buffing machine and nine millimeter operation; must have CCW permit and clean background check. Prefer associates degree in criminal justice with a minor in housekeeping.


Funny thing is that they will likely be more effective at neutralizing a threat than a schoo; resource officer.


20 years on Police Force and 20 as a Custodial Officer,good retirement !

Taxed Enough Already

I just happen to know a School Custodian/Janitor who is an excellent marksman with a gun....I say go for it. Shooters would never expect the janitor. SURPRISE!!!!!


And by the time arming school employees goes through all the red tape like compensation for those carrying the guns , insurance concerns , and keeping up with safety and training . Guess where the cost will end up . SURPRISE !!! You the taxpayer.

Dr. Information

@bluto...but wait, I thought it was all about the children? Anything to protect our children right? Which is it?


It was a sarcastic response to T.E.A . Get it , Taxed, Enough , Already . Always crying about their taxes and not wanting to spend anything on anything . Duh!!!


The reality is that HIPPA law forbids medical employees from talking about any patient without written permission. Most of the people who have murdered others were recognized as having emotional or mental disability and the medical professionals came forward after the killings. We need to remove the threat of loss of their jobs, so medical staffs can come forward before the problem occurs. This would have prevented Columbine, Newtown, Virginia Tech and many of the postal killings. Congress created this mess, not Winchester, Bushmaster, Colt, Glock or any other manufacturer. As the old adage goes.... People kill people. Guns are simply a pieces of metal, plastics,carbon fiber and wood that are fashioned into a useful tools for use by mentally competent citizens.


Useful tools designed for what purpose ? Guns only have one purpose . As far as mentally competent citizens . Let me ask you this . Who exactly are judging these peoples' mental competence at the gun shows or individual sales from private owners ?


Argue all day long, but just have a look at what works elsewhere in the world. There are more threats to schools in 3rd world countries, yet they don't have massacres as we do here. I've only been to 5 or 6 different poor countries, but it was always the same at schools. One entrance, with an armed security guard, and the rest of the school was fenced in and outer doors locked. Once school started, the whole place is locked. You can't shoot the guard and walk in. That will work here too, as the usual perps of these crimes walk right in with no resistance. One guard at the one entrance takes care of the whole problem. Other doors can be electronically locked so they can be opened remotely by the guard or principal in an emergency. No one gets buzzed in. No one walks in loaded to the teeth. Banning weapons and ammunition won't alleviate this problem, there are thousands of automatic weapons out there, and criminals won't turn them in.