Another US shooting - Newtown, Connecticut

[Hard_to_Beat]

No I'm saying that whether we like it or not children of high-profile targets are targets themselves, and it is reasonable for them to have additional security as their presence can endanger not only themselves but also their classmates.

Your average school has no need for armed guards, because it is not reasonable to assume they will be the target of a terrorist attack or kidnapping.

The security at these schools is a defence against well organised actions aimed at manipulating the political system or foreign governments etc.

The assembled data would suggest that you are clearly incorrect.

You are basing your premise upon a foreign agent when the evidence as to the propensity of this occurrence is virtually non existent.

 

[Exe Gesis]

The security at these schools isn't not the same as a rent-a-cop with hand gun you would be putting at your average school who would be just as likely to be a danger to the students as those they are protecting them from. These schools would have highly-trained and experience security personal (probably ex-military or secret service) who work in tandem with the secret service.

That's what I mean, give all schools an equal/similar standard of protection.

Remember what I said a few pages ago....guns do provide benefits, like protection of assets, etc. Children are a nations biggest asset. Protect them all like they protect money in armored trucks etc.

At the same time, not just from potential mass shootings....but you'd see less of drug dealings and random hand-gun shootings occur too, and less cases of sexual predators.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The security at these schools isn't not the same as a rent-a-cop with hand gun you would be putting at your average school who would be just as likely to be a danger to the students as those they are protecting them from. These schools would have highly-trained and experience security personal (probably ex-military or secret service) who work in tandem with the secret service.

Further proof of nepotism. This clearly needs to be addressed in a fair and equal society.

Your "rent a cop" assessment is also an assumption based on no evidence.

I'm content to conclude the "rent a cop" is a far better scenario than no "rent a cop"

 

[sherb]

Armed guards at a school.

The next whack job simply targets an alternative unprotected gathering of people. There is no shortage of them.

The mass killings will continue, the perpetrators will simply find other targets.

It's addressing the symptom, not the problem. They can't secure everything and everyone.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Armed guards at a school.

The next whack job simply targets an alternative unprotected gathering of people. There is no shortage of them.

The mass killings will continue, the perpetrators will simply find other targets.

It's addressing the symptom, not the problem. They can't secure everything and everyone.

Take the killers out of the celebrity loop.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

That's what I mean, give all schools an equal/similar standard of protection.

Remember what I said a few pages ago....guns do provide benefits, like protection of assets, etc. Children are a nations biggest asset. Protect them all like they protect money in armored trucks etc.

At the same time, not just from potential mass shootings....but you'd see less of drug dealings and random hand-gun shootings occur too, and less cases of sexual predators.

I've got an even better idea, why don't they combine all public schools with police stations, nobody would be stupid/crazy enough to shoot up a police station, you are already paying the police so there would be a cost saving and you could sell off the existing police stations.

You'll also get of the drug dealings and other crime as well and it would make scared straight programs easier could just throw the delinquent into the lock-up.

Private schools will have to pay for their own security however but that is as it should be.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I've got an even better idea, why don't they combine all public schools with police stations, nobody would be stupid/crazy enough to shoot up a police station, you are already paying the police so there would be a cost saving and you could sell off the existing police stations.

You'll also get of the drug dealings and other crime as well and it would make scared straight programs easier could just throw the delinquent into the lock-up.

I wouldn't want certain crims near kids.

Or certain cops for that matter.

Private schools will have to pay for their own security however but that is as it should be.

There's no need to chuck a tanty just because your reasoning in this instance has been revealed as overly simplistic.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

There's no need to chuck a tanty just because your reasoning in this instance has been revealed as overly simplistic.

I only meant that government shouldn't be interfering in private schools, stationing police at non-government owned schools would be interfering so they would have to hire their own private contractors. For the most part these shootings appear to be at government schools so it might not be necessary for private schools to hire additional security.

 

[Moo]

Point is, armed security works at those schools, so better idea to use it for all schools.

Clearly.

100,000 public schools .....if we conservatively say 40K - 100k per school - who pays the recurring 4 - 10 billion dollar bill a year?

Or do we just add it to the current 16 trillion dollar deficit Greece style.

Plus GG/HTB - I was being serious about if assault rifles and bullet proof piercing rounds are part of the 2nd amendment ....why aren't the non-availability of SAM's, grenades and remote detonators in the same class?

 

[Max zero]

Resistance is messy. Resistance is defying not necessarily winning, but it thwarts the process/intention, drags it out. Eg, Vietnam.

Resistance? Is that what you call it? What government objectives have actually been thwarted? They can arrest US citizens without cause, hold them without access to a lawyer and have torture being a viable interrogation method. If (and its a big 'if') the trial occurs it is done is secret. All of which is enabled by the hacking/tapping of any electronic device without cause or warrant.

The fact is the government has already won and 300 million guns didn't fire a shot.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

100,000 public schools .....if we conservatively say 40K - 100k per school - who pays the recurring 4 - 10 billion dollar bill a year?

Or do we just add it to the current 16 trillion dollar deficit Greece style.

Plus GG/HTB - I was being serious about if assault rifles and bullet proof piercing rounds are part of the 2nd amendment ....why aren't the non-availability of SAM's, grenades and remote detonators in the same class?

Why not use volunteers, I'm sure there are enough gun toting soccer mums available to provide security.

 

[Exe Gesis]

100,000 public schools .....if we conservatively say 40K - 100k per school - who pays the recurring 4 - 10 billion dollar bill a year?

Or do we just add it to the current 16 trillion dollar deficit Greece style.

Plus GG/HTB - I was being serious about if assault rifles and bullet proof piercing rounds are part of the 2nd amendment ....why aren't the non-availability of SAM's, grenades and remote detonators in the same class?

They should be made available to the private sector (imo).

Resistance? Is that what you call it? What government objectives have actually been thwarted? They can arrest US citizens without cause, hold them without access to a lawyer and have torture being a viable interrogation method. If (and its a big 'if') the trial occurs it is done is secret. All of which is enabled by the hacking/tapping of any electronic device without cause or warrant.

The fact is the government has already won and 300 million guns didn't fire a shot.

I meant in the event of the govt moving in on civilians, homes, etc, thru police/ss, there would be sufficient resistance by civilians to make the whole ordeal too messy for the govt to continue, to escalate it with military force. Civilians can resist enough, not have to win.

The Patriot Act has put people on high alert now, now that they know 9/11 was BS.

That's why they want the 2nd removed, and working towards that.

 

[Max zero]

They should be made available to the private sector (imo).



I meant in the event of the govt moving in on civilians, homes, etc, thru police/ss, there would be sufficient resistance by civilians to make the whole ordeal too messy for the govt to continue, to escalate it with military force. Civilians can resist enough, not have to win.

The Patriot Act has put people on high alert now, now that they know 9/11 was BS.

That's why they want the 2nd removed, and working towards that.

Why would they need to move in? They already have unquestionable (and arguably unchallengeable) authority.

Again I ask what measures have actually been resisted? What battles have even been fought let alone won? What issues has firearm ownership actually made a difference on?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Why would they need to move in? They already have unquestionable (and arguably unchallengeable) authority.

Again I ask what measures have actually been resisted? What battles have even been fought let alone won? What issues has firearm ownership actually made a difference on?

The ownership, especially post-ww2, when the Nazi elements in the CIA started to infiltrate/influence the US Govt, has meant standing off. They can't move in. With things developing quicker now, them making a stronger hurried push (9/11, Patriot, next 2nd), the ownership is sufficient to provide a resistance, keep them at bay longer, should they move in.

I cant say it simpler. There are many analogies. Mexican stand-offs. Cold Wars. People dont trespass on property warned with gun fire and signs. People invade people's homes knowing there's nothing to scare them off. Guard dogs. Etc.

They're held back from making that physical step by the reality of 300 million civilians having ready access/ownership of 300+ million guns, assault rifles etc. They'll want to disarm first in order to take that physical step as there'd be little/no resistance.

 

[Max zero]

The ownership, especially post-ww2, when the Nazi elements in the CIA started to infiltrate/influence the US Govt, has meant standing off. They can't move in. With things developing quicker now, them making a stronger hurried push (9/11, Patriot, next 2nd), the ownership is sufficient to provide a resistance, keep them at bay longer, should they move in.

I cant say it simpler. There are many analogies. Mexican stand-offs. Cold Wars. People dont trespass on property warned with gun fire and signs. People invade people's homes knowing there's nothing to scare them off. Guard dogs. Etc.

They're held back from making that physical step by the reality of 300 million civilians having ready access/ownership of 300+ million guns, assault rifles etc. They'll want to disarm first in order to take that physical step. There'd be minimal/no reistance then.

Why we they need to even take the physical step when they can already control without the need of mass violence or public awareness?

ANYONE deemed dangerous gets branded a terrorist and disappears and the public APPROVES of this. I would argue that given the chance they would actually use their private arms in support of government aims (see public approval for concentration camps for Muslims if a second 9/11 incident occurred).

Having the prisoners be the guards of their own jail (and liking it) is to me the epitome of total success.

 

[blackcat]

Point is, armed security works at those schools, so better idea to use it for all schools.

Clearly.

armed security seems to me, to invite insecurity, in more ways than a personal psychological state.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both ~Franklin

 

[blackcat]

Forensic psychiatrist dismisses the gun availability argument in favor of the influence that media lionisation has upon mass killers.

ever since O'prah went into retirement, The View is my favourite soccer mom show, oh, should say favorite, keep speelling continent specific

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

ever since O'prah went into retirement, The View is my favourite soccer mom show, oh, should say favorite, keep speelling continent specific

This guest was of a particularly high quality for this type of program.

 

[Exe Gesis]

armed security seems to me, to invite insecurity, in more ways than a personal psychological state.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both ~Franklin

Look, there are a lot of great quotes out there on liberty and security/guns. A lot of them are very right, and very idealistically right, along the same lines as the one you quoted above.

However, humans are humans. We're never going to attain that spiritual peace and love in ourselves let alone in society. Truth is, life itself is a heart of darkness. For eons before these great 18th Century philosophers and activists, and eons after, humans will only continue to be dangerous and predatory towards each other, towards society, and society towards people.

People look at "guns" as a sickness, or symptom of sickness in man, an antithesis of the idealism of love and peace that is 'above man' -- what man is supposedly aiming for, as tho killing and crime can be removed/lessened, as tho society/man is slowly heading towards spiritual enlightenment with each decade/century, and people "have to get with the program".

But that's all BS. What's 'above man' is conflict. Life itself is a state of conflict. Humans need to arm themselves, protect themselves, against other people and govts and groups/gangs. Survival of species is based on conflict, not on peace.

I'll probably edit in more.

 

[blackcat]

guns and violence just perpetuates it. it wont dissipate with sentries.

 

[Exe Gesis]

There'll be more world wars, more continuing wars, more civil wars, more murders and mass murders, etc. It's never going to change. Taking guns away does nothing. Better to utilize them appropriately, protect your assets, your children. What it comes down to is human nature is always there, mental illness or social disconnect the causes, it's the world we live in. It's life. Planet earth.

 

[Monniehawk]

Point is, armed security works at those schools, so better idea to use it for all schools.
Clearly.

Get rid of the guns, then the need for armed guards (thugs) is out of the question.

• Do we have armed guards in our schools in Oz, U.K., France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Hungary, India, etc?
• Do they have a history of children being butchered by armed gunmen?
• Do they have a high gun ownership or lack of gun control?
• Are they dominated by corrupt and oppressive governments?
• Are the excuses for having free access to guns just fabricated, unjustified and illogical fear campaigns peddled by paranoid conspiracy theorists?

No.
No.
No.
No
and Yes!

 

[Catfish Alley]

Get rid of the guns, then the need for armed guards (thugs) is out of the question.

• Do we have armed guards in our schools in Oz, U.K., France, Germany, Sweden, Italy, Hungary, India, etc?
• Do they have a history of children being butchered by armed gunmen?
• Do they have a high gun ownership or lack of gun control?
• Are they dominated by corrupt and oppressive governments?
• Are the excuses for having free access to guns just fabricated, unjustified and illogical fear campaigns peddled by paranoid conspiracy theorists?

No.

No.
No.
No
and Yes!

I think their is an argument to say Italian and Indian governments are quite corrupt. I do kind of agree with you. It's just a different mentality though. You might as well be comparing those countries to Venezuela. Guns and the civilian right to protect their property is at the base of being American. It's how their country was founded. It's not like their is a vast majority pushing for further gun control. In fact, those that are are probably a minority.

 

[Catfish Alley]

Basically, it is their country and their democracy. It the majority don't want tighter gun control then they reap what they sow - as unfortunate as that is for some poor people.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Good to see how the principals and teachers en masse in the territory of New England (and other states) have been responding the last few weeks....asking for and receiving gun tuition and planning to carry concealed weapons in class so as to protect themselves and the kids "in case".

Something for all the naysayers in these topics to ponder and learn from. Fight fire with fire, you do not surrender to violence and fear but stand up to it, protect yourself from the reality of the world/life which is at heart all conflict and endangerment.