Which sign is more likely to deter violent criminals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ezkl2230
  • Start date Start date
E

ezkl2230

Guest
The Rockford Public Schools (MI) superintendent is one of those who has made it clear that he doesn't want legal open carriers on his school property (“I will challenge anyone who enters any of our facilities with an open weapon and have them removed from the premises,” he wrote to legislators. "Police will be called and the building locked down," Link Removed), but he can't legally post Rockford Schools as pistol free zones because of state law. Instead, he has posted the sign on the left. Of the two signs below, which one do you think is more likely to deter an active shooter?

Link Removed Link Removed

BTW, for all of his video cameras, a local media outlet conducted an exercise to see just how effective his security is. The results are supposed to be broadcast tomorrow night on WOOD TV. Hint - it was a dismal failure!
 
Even if neither sign was backed up by actual facts, the right sign alone would likely deter most criminals. But that superintendent puts his whole school in danger with his words. However, does the school actually allow concealed carry?
 
SN35-350.jpg
Link Removed
 
No sign will deter any BG. Most went to "public school" and was not not taught how to read or comprehend anything and also dropped out!
 
Signs today are like car alarms. When you first heard a car alarm years ago, you paid attention. Now, You just want it to stop.
Years ago people posted signs because what they said was true, so everyone put up a sign even if it wasn't true.
Now, the chances of a sign being for real are very slim.
 
I believe...according to anti open carriers...the sign with the firearm will cause bad guys to target that building to try and steal the firearms...yup...

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
 
Even if neither sign was backed up by actual facts, the right sign alone would likely deter most criminals. But that superintendent puts his whole school in danger with his words. However, does the school actually allow concealed carry?

Michigan only allows OC on school property, and then only if you possess a CPL. So the superintendent's threat to have a legal carrier removed by the police is an empty one - and that's what really makes him angry, because he knows it.
 
Unfortunately, here in SC we are ranked 49th in education. The few that can read and think are on this forum and others like it. The ones that can't will only be frightened if the poster is actually a mirror.
 
I think the sign announcing an armed staff might stop some of shooters that are just kids themselves, but motivated killers are stopped generally in only one way.
 
I think the sign announcing an armed staff might stop some of shooters that are just kids themselves, but motivated killers are stopped generally in only one way.

I agree. Those intent on killing a specific target aren't even stopped by a sign saying "Police Precinct" - in fact some are actually drawn to it.
 
We have a POTUS that can’t comprehend what the constitution says why would we expect street thugs to comprehend a sign?
 
Would any sign of any sort deter someone willing to attack and kill children? Certainly the second sign is more intimidating, but how many of your children's teachers are actually “heavily armed”? Likely Mrs. “Jones”, who teaches kindergarten, or Ms. “Green”, who teaches art, wouldn't know the first thing about how to use a gun, let alone have a conceal and carry permit. Most criminals, psychopath or not will likely disregard a sign like that out of hand. Certainly the first sign, if security cameras are in fact installed, may deter an angry parent from kidnapping his or her child as for example, retaliation in a lost custody hearing. The fear of being identified and facing jail time could be a deterrent. Though, to be quite literal, the sign says “protected by security cameras”, and that is inaccurate. A surveillance system is a deterrent, not protection. Armed guards would be protection. It should say, “monitored and recorded by security cameras”.
 
Would any sign of any sort deter someone willing to attack and kill children? Certainly the second sign is more intimidating, but how many of your children's teachers are actually “heavily armed”? Likely Mrs. “Jones”, who teaches kindergarten, or Ms. “Green”, who teaches art, wouldn't know the first thing about how to use a gun, let alone have a conceal and carry permit. Most criminals, psychopath or not will likely disregard a sign like that out of hand. Certainly the first sign, if security cameras are in fact installed, may deter an angry parent from kidnapping his or her child as for example, retaliation in a lost custody hearing. The fear of being identified and facing jail time could be a deterrent. Though, to be quite literal, the sign says “protected by security cameras”, and that is inaccurate. A surveillance system is a deterrent, not protection. Armed guards would be protection. It should say, “monitored and recorded by security cameras”.

My daughter is a teacher, who right now has infants to toddlers, and has a concealed carry permit. So I'm sure there's others. However her school is one that has the NO GUNS sign and isn't likely to change anytime soon.
For the most part you're probably right though.
 
My daughter is a teacher, who right now has infants to toddlers, and has a concealed carry permit. So I'm sure there's others. However her school is one that has the NO GUNS sign and isn't likely to change anytime soon.
For the most part you're probably right though.
My wife is the same, but 5th grade language arts. The truly tragic part is that the school zone restrictions prevent her from even carrying her gun to and from work. They aren't allowed on school property in Ohio.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,662
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top