10

School shooting. Is it time for armed security on all campuses?

Posted by LetsShrug 8 years, 5 months ago to News
320 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

The school shooting at an elementary school in CT yesterday is particularly unsettling to me, as I work at an elementary school and most of my day is spent in the Kindergarten classrooms working with 5 and 6 years olds. I am not, however, one of those who are saying that something like this happening is "unfathomable". I'm probably viewed as being a little on the paranoid side among my peers because I always jump to the extreme when anything seems a little off kilter.

For example, a few weeks ago I heard office staff talking on the radio that the overhead system (speakers) weren't working for some reason and I immediately grabbed a few extra radios and passed them out to teachers saying, "keep this on your person until the overhead gets fixed", some looked at me perplexed until I explained, "What if somebody's tampered with our speaker system? If something crazy happens we won't be able to communicate...call me nuts I don't care just take a friggin' radio!" I got different reactions from them. Some were surprised with my train of thought and others were appreciative of my preparedness. The speaker system was quickly fixed and all was well.

Maybe I am being extreme, but when I see kids on the playground, or sitting in a classroom, it has crossed my mind that 'if some lunatic wanted to cause chaos here it could be easily done', but let's face it because it's true...as we have just seen, once again. I was at a Christmas dinner last night with my book club friends (almost all teachers) and eventually the school shooting topic did come up, although we had vowed to avoid it for the evening because it is so upsetting. We didn't talk about it for too long, but we quickly came to the conclusion that there is no real way to make a school "totally secure" from an intruder if someone is so inclined to intrude.

Sure, there are certain "security" measures in place, enforcing them is a priority, keeping the kids safe at all times is paramount (even to the extreme of not letting children 'chase' each other on the playground to avoid injuries...and I could write a book about all the bloody noses and head lumps that result from this practically daily because enforcing the "no chasing" rule on a playground with 90 kindergartners is just as difficult as maintaining a "secure school"...you do your best, but if they're inclined to chase, they're going to chase...they're 5 year olds and that's what they want to do).

I've been thinking about school security a lot this morning, watching the news etc. and the topic of having an armed security officer/cop on every campus has been brought up. (Gun control has also been brought up, but being a gun enthusiast and freedom lover and a believer in having a right to defend myself and my family I do not believe that adding more gun laws to the books will do a damned thing to stop lunacy.) So I'm wondering... is it time to privatize schools and add an armed officer to each campus? Or should some charter schools pop up offering this service on campus, giving parents a choice of sending their children to schools where they think their kids will be as safe as possible?

Sure, some parents would opt to not have their kids attend a school where there is a gun present ANY where on campus, even if it's holstered on a hip of a trained law enforcement officer and that's their choice to do so, but is it time to do this? Would public schools ever offer this? (I'm sure the unions would love it as they could collect union dues from an officer too), but it would work against their current gun control agenda so I'm not so sure really.

What say you?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 4 months ago
    Yes. It is not the guns that kill people; almost anything can be fashioned into a lethal weapon. It is the Killer. If you have the physical advantage of size against the average untrained person a weapon is superfluous. This young man was mentally disturbed, but he could just as easily have pulled the fire alarm and went outside to wait for the crowd to gather in the lawn and then run them down with a car. There is no way to stop a determined mass killer except to shoot back. Even if he was in a car, armed security guards or trained school officials could have put up more resistance/ deterrent being armed versus throwing their bodies at the perpetrator. I do think that if you have a mentally disabled child you should take extra precautions to secure your guns. The administrators who threw themselves unarmed at the perpetrator were brave but ineffectual; a circumstance that would have been completely different if armed and trained.
    When I think of the children who might have been saved but for the policies of the liberals, I am distressed by the reality that they will accept no responsibility and only push policies that offer more risk in a typical knee jerk reaction.
    Very sad…
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 8 years, 4 months ago
      The largest number of death due to an attack in a school was in 1958 that I could find in a short search (http://www.olafire.com/Confession.asp) and killed 95 people. The second highest number was in 1927, that one was explosives. The 1927 incident would have been worse, but some of the dynamite did not blow up as was planned. Even if the liberals want to ban guns, other things have been used to greater effect and would be again.

      The irrational nuts have always been around. This is not escalating but it is being reported on to greater detail and length than in the past.

      Conceal and Carry permits should be mandatory for all public officials. That would have saved 20+ lives, most children and its the best most cost effective way to end these types of things swiftly. However neither of the above cases would be helped by the teachers and administrators being armed. It would have made a big difference in friday's case.

      The solutions that will be offered will not be about what would do the most to end these quickly when they occur, but how to make them not occur at all. Wrong solution
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 4 months ago
        “Wrong solution” Correct if your objective is to use reason as your means to minimize the problem. It is the correct solution if you wish to disarm the public and leave them at the mercy of the knuckle draggers and government. Thus increasing the perceived need for more government…
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 8 years, 4 months ago
    Ok, the response I was trying to make on my phone previously didn't quite work out.

    That being said, this happened in the next town over, and to say I'm shattered right now would be a grievous understatement. A friend was one of the first responders, a friend and neighbor knows children who died there. The two schools my kids attend were in lockdown Friday, and my daughter was terribly frightened. There will be police at each school this entire week, and the schools are operating on a high security protocol. Sending them off this morning made me a bit edgy, to say the least.

    In our middle and high school, there is a "resource officer". This is a town police officer, who gets paid out of our school budget. Actually we had to do away with the middle school officer, but will stop in about once per week. The high school officer is there every day. I think it's a great idea. They also wear their sidearm. The kids like and respect these officers, and as a result are open with them, and feel comfortable that they're there. I do too. I have NO issue whatsoever that he or she is armed. What good is it to have an officer there, unarmed, if something ever should happen?

    This is a conundrum that will not be solved overnight. I just hope a knee jerk reaction doesn't pull us down a road of paranoia and over regulation. The guns used were legally obtained by the coward's mother. It's a hideous shame that her son got ahold of them. Criminals will get them illegally, as usual.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
      Thinking about you and your family. They are debating this on the floor as I write. They should all just go home and be with their families right now. Most of our elected reps and senators are useless or detrimental to our well being anyway
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 8 years, 4 months ago
        I know I just want my kids in my arms right now. I get these little flutters of anxiety, which I've never really experienced, not so frequently at any rate, too often during the day. I can't let my kids see that though.

        It's an interesting correlation between the places with the strictest gun control laws and violent crimes. NYC, Chicago as you mentioned, DL, and DC, which is near where I spent most of my growing up years. Guns can be found by any criminal, without much effort. No background checks there!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
          We can't imagine what those families are going through unless we have been through it ourselves or know those who have gone through it. But often, one doesn't realize the life changing that happens to of course that community but also communities nearby. Colorado has had too many, but we lived not far from Columbine and I know so many people who had children in the school, lived in the neighborhood etc. My daughter was 10 years old then and I remember for years after, including my daughter and friends four years later, 8 years later, HS students would travel to Columbine on the anniversary(it's too nice a word for what it commerates) to lay flowers and stuffies and candy and poems and prayers at the school. I know people who were so traumatized by what happened in their neighborhood they moved or changed school districts so they would not have a daily reminder. For those personally affected there is no way to remove constant reliving of the horror. But the reverberation of emotions in communities nearby is also very real and has lasting consequences. In Colorado, we have had 3 (that I can recall) mass shootings in a decade. Luckily, in one instance, the gunman was stopped by an armed off duty security guard , saving scores of lives. To be honest, people forget that heroism, as they remember Columbine and the Aurora theater massacre. I also think about 9-11, and how everything would have been so different if lawful citizens were allowed to have their concealed weapons on board those planes. I bet no one is talking about that on the floor of the House.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DragonLady 8 years, 4 months ago
      I can only imagine your anxiety. Our schools here in Chicago (home of draconian gun control laws) are probably the most unsafe place for kids to be. Anyone who thinks any kind of gun control works should come to my city....the only people who have guns are thugs and gang-bangers. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and yet we are among the most violent cities anywhere. Thanks to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, this state of affairs may change soon (in spite of Rahm).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ekr990011 8 years, 4 months ago
    The real choice should be for private schools which should be all schools today. In which case the private entity has the right to have armed security guards on campus. When we talk about Government public schools it opens the debate to allowing students and teachers to be their own defense through our second amendment. I feel like putting armed security guards are not needed I guess. Teachers and students who are of age can protect and deter these kinds of incidents from occurring themselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      Yes, privatizing schools would be the answer, and being your own defense I agree with as well...however, that's not how the schools operate at present...so until schools, and teachers are "allowed" to do so....shouldn't armed guards be an option? I think it would do wonders for safety as well as the second amendment actually. And if some parents absolutely do not want such high security levels at their kids' school then they can attend a non-secured location. (Wait til parents have to make THAT choice.) Interesting...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 8 years, 5 months ago
    Our college installed security phones in classrooms this year. When an instructor got exam times mixed up, and didn't show up, a student picked up the phone and punched the "help" button. Turns out it wasn't connected to security at all, but to the Information Technology helpdesk. An annoyed IT employee stated, "It's not my job to track down instructors." The student patiently explained that their professor had never even been late, much less miss a class, and finally got the geek to transfer the call to someone who could help. Where have we heard "it's not my job" before? Oh yes, Atlas Shrugged.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DragonLady 8 years, 4 months ago
      I believe "panic" buttons under the teacher's desk might be an excellent idea. I work in the federal courthouse in Chicago (yeah, gun control is really successful in the newly-crowned "Murder Capital" of the U.S.!!!), and every judge's chamber and office has one (or more). And they do work. There has been more than one instance where a new employee activitated one, and response was instantaneous. Of course, that response was from the U.S. Marshall's Service, who is responsible for security in federal buildings.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
        Maybe in the front office under the secretaries desks, but teachers are rarely sitting at their desks (I can only speak from what I see at my school). Some teachers have even removed their desks from the classroom to have more teaching space. They prefer to work at horseshoe shaped tables so it can dual purpose as a small groups round table. Teachers (in elementary schools anyway) or on their feet moving around the room almost all day long. Maybe desk buzzers in high schools would be more practical, but where would the buzzers buzz to? By the time the police arrive the damage is done. An armed guard on campus would respond quicker, but that could be done with a radio which is more practical because its mobile and could be carried around on your person (I always have one), where a buzzer button is fixed in one location and may not be reachable in the event of an emergency.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by DragonLady 8 years, 4 months ago
          Guess I've been out of school longer than I thought! :-D I think part of the problem is the graphic violence in movies, music, and video games our kids are exposed to. My kids (now 45 and 42) received .22 rifles on their 10th birthday, were taught how to use and care for them and were taken on a hunting trip with responsible adults when they were 12 so they would understand that when you shoot a living thing it dies. They were NEVER allowed to have toy guns because I wanted them to know guns are NOT toys! We have created a society that is numb to violence until it hits home, as this latest tragedy has shown.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
            I have sons too and we took them to the range and taught them what real guns can do as well. Along with safety practices. However, they did have toy guns too. One is a toy and one isn't...no one was confused. My husband did mention today about violent games and movies desensitizing children. I'm of the school of thought though that if you're in a home where your parents are paying attention and involved and set a good example and just plain give a shit then outside forces won't have as much of an impact as it does if you're left unsupervised and not cared about. Stellar parenting is on the decline I fear. (I'm not placing blame on the parents in the latest case, from what I understand there are all kinds of personal complications with this individual and making any sense of this will probably never happen.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 8 years, 4 months ago
              We have taken our son to the shooting range, and he has handled .22 rifles and several pistols. Our daughter's turn is next. They both understand, though, that guns are not ever toys. My son and daughter both have air-soft guns, and adhere to the same strict rules with them as with "live fire" guns. But we, (my husband and I), take time to teach and talk with our kids. They know they can come to us about anything, and talk to us about it, and they have. I think a parent has to do just that. We need to get in their business when required, and give them space, too, but not detach ourselves.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CatieM 8 years, 4 months ago
    "Absolutely not!!!! The more people who believe in violence and the more people who have guns, the more gun sales and use is perpetuated."

    This was copied from a facebook thing. Like if teachers should carry guns, comment if they shouldn't.

    I am the most passive person on the planet, and am extremely non-violent. I own a gun. You come after me and mine, I won't think twice.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 3 months ago
      Wow... do they actually believe defending yourself is the same as "believing in violence"? Wait, what does believing in violence even mean? Is there a club for these 'believers'? Once again, an unreasoned statement from a buffoon....who uses too many exclamation points which reveals emotions and nothing else.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      Yes...and if an armed intruder/murderer enters school property then he is "coming after" yours, mine and everybody elses...kids, which is exactly why they should be met by someone who is defending and protecting them...just like you would your own kids if it happened at your home. It's a simple concept to have schools with armed guards for those who want it and for those who don't agree then they can go to schools with like minded staff and the school will be unarmed. I think it should be a choice of the parents, but the option should definitely be there. Plus it would make for an extremely interesting study.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
    I'm thinking schools should have 'safe rooms' where they can go and lock themselves in and wait until the police respond.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
        I agree with you David and I understand the frustration. How anyone can think leaving yourself, and students defenseless from a possible mass murderer is hard for me to understand as well. Too many only want to deal with how they WISH the world could be rather than how it really is. It's a type of extreme denial...a mental illness perhaps?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
        It's ok to rile things up, but I was part of the conversation today and it was good information and thoughts to vett. You are coming off as though your finger is on the trigger as we speak. where is your gun pointed, exactly?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment deleted.
          • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
            That's bullshit, I proposed a simple solution to a critical problem. I was never against gun's since I own a few. And I'm probably the closest thing to a Objectivist in the country. I resent you lumping me in with the 'socialists' because my idea doesn't match up with what you think!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment deleted.
              • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                That you see everything that doesn't match up with your beliefs as 'leftist' makes you far worse than any socialist, that's is exactly how they think. Sorry but leftist would not come up with safe rooms they would come up with banning all guns.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment deleted.
                  • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                    No one is running and hiding, unless you think putting children in a safe place while dealing with a potential mass killer as unmanly?!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment deleted.
                      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                        I agree actually. I think any deterrents or other defense ideas would be less effective as immediately being met with firearms. However, letting school staff defend themselves and the students with guns will NOT be the first option that gets tried.... other, more easy to swallow tactics (by those who hate guns) will be implemented first...and when they fail repeatedly then they might listen to logic. Which is terribly sad that some just can't come to terms with the best remedy in the first place. But since the shootings meets their agenda to ban guns they can't very well go along with arming adults in schools for protection can they? Sounds like a grand predicament.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
            Why do you say that safe rooms, used in tandem with other deterrents, is collectivist thinking? Even if we were playing cowboys and indians, portable, bullet proof "walls" would be helpful.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment deleted.
              • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                LetsShrug gets a point, David, you are so off the charts on everyone having a tommy gun because there's a st valentine's day massacre around every corner. I agree with you that being armed is a good thing. and that guns are a good answer here, but we can talk about other deterrents as well.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                  I'm sure Blaze can give a whole list of possible deterrents. The definition of deterrent is to slow someone down. Here are some I thought of-one of those bedazzling lamps, stun grenades, tear gas canisters, laser induced plasma channel (I'm doing someone's job today :)) I am not saying in place of guns, just other options in the meantime until everyone is on the same page about arming schools.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment deleted.
                  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                    first of all, the money was in at 5k per safe room, which I did not agree made monetary or tactical sense, just was willing to look at the pros and cons. 2nd, 1929 was the highest spike in mass murder occurrences. St. valentine's day etc. was a nod to that time period. Your answer seems to be guns to every question. They are essential but to quote the bard, "the pen..."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment deleted.
                      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                        I'm all in favor of guns. And I've said they are important to safety in this post many times. Just because I'm not carrying a gun, does not make me a fool. Not a good idea to bring a gun into a courthouse. You and I may not like that rule, but I know you're not breaking it, unless you're posting this from jail. which brings us back to your point about men getting raped. The answer to Hitler. You would take your gun and stop the whole 3rd Reich?? I might clap at your sacrifice in a movie, but sometimes guns are the answer and sometimes they're the second or third answer-even if we're talking about killers. Environmentalists are killing people daily, but your gun isn't stopping that. How many people have been exposed to the Gulch? By gunpoint to persuade?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                          You hit a permalink. I have said this several times and you ignore me, but I agree that guns are the best weapon, in the hands of trained individuals when these killers act. I'm not going to say it again, so attend me now.
                          But the fact that laws passed limiting where and when we can have our guns is also on point. That is a much larger question which I say so far aren't always the best s solution. For example, atomic bombs effectively ended the war with Japan. Our country has been sliding downhill for some time and I again put it to you-your gun did not stop Obama from becoming President, OBamacare passing, Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank from passing. and if stricter gun laws are passed tomorrow-you and your gun have been powerless in the changes our nation have gone through. Guns did not stop over 100M killed due to some lunatics who wrote about collectivism over 100 years ago. and your gun didn't stop Silent Spring from influencing , leading to the deaths of another 100M worldwide. The reason someone is going to shoot at you either through organized govt or crackpots is due to what people wrote! You are a fool for not spending more time in here persuading people to consider leaving, how to organize, Rand left the USSR with her wits and influenced millions of people with her philosophy. y and not wih a gun. how can that be possible under your logic?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                      I think my answer to every question (although I only remember one question) is the gun as well. Besides the obvious lock down, stay vigilant, always be able to communicate etc. There is no real way to stop these things from happening if someone is hell bent on making it happen so the only reasonable way to combat it is to do just that...combat it, forcefully.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                I think the brick walls we have would be better than a magic wall.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment deleted.
                  • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                    What kind of brick walls are we talking about? I'm thinking it would take a lot of shooting to get through them, and how much power would be left if a bullet did make it thru, but I digress. You've obviously done a lot of thinking about these types of scenarios and have come to a few logical conclusions because of it. Most people's minds don't even go in this direction, instead they go towards trying to make the impossible happen. Waving a magic wand and stopping dangerous people from being dangerous. I don't have a lot of faith in the mental health end either. Unless we bring back asylums, which I don't see happening.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment deleted.
                      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                        I don't get my brick wall bullet penetration ideas from hollywood movies.... I've shot at plenty of different types of targets, just not bricks. I've made some rocks move around, but rocks and bricks aren't the same thing. I still think it would take more than one shot to get through a block wall. And yes, I would take cover and melt as well. You HAVE done thinking about this...you're wired that way, so you already know what makes sense...that was my point. Most people aren't wired to think this way so it's really hard to get it hammered (ha..hammered) home to them.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                      bring back asylums, by all means. But I want to make a point here. we agree that guns don't kill people, but guns don't make people rational either. "Reason stops at the point of a gun." Guns protect but they are not the solution to everything and they don't make the world a better place, in and of themselves. Guns don't produce food, housing, they don't invent, ideas making our lives better, cure cancer, improve communications. They are at best tools, not magical. If we are going to get through this, we need people to THINK, not just have a gun cocked. I'm not seeing that David agrees with this. As Rand said, the bigger deterrent to evil govts, may be to withdraw your mind, your productivity from those who will use it against you.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment deleted.
                        • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                          You seem to attack anyone who disagrees with your world view, a typical leftist way of thinking.

                          I don't see any constructive discussion with someone who's first act is to attack the other person. I suggest you reassess your tact.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                        Hmmm...in the perfect world maybe guns wouldn't make it a better place, but in THIS world...I think it does. (Not when they get into the hands of evil doers, but the fact that I have a viable way to defend myself against evil makes it a better place.) If a crazy shooter is heading towards me my THINKING will be what makes my life better, because I will THINK to pull my trigger and stop him. Guns aren't the solution to EVERYthing, but to this topic I'm thinking they most likely are as so far I have yet to hear any other options that even come close. Asylums would help perhaps, but that's another sticky wicket.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      Getting to another room involves having to move people...better to do a lock down in whatever room you're in at the time. (Provided that room isn't the same room as the lunatic of course.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
      The problem with a "safe" room is fire or chemicals. It is infinitely faster for someone trained and armed to remove the threat. Of course there should be procedures to secure people in those situations.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
        Not sure I understand what does fire or chemicals have to do with safe rooms? They can easily be shielded against both. I agree it is good to have someone trained in using a fire arm, but that person may not be able to respond quickly enough if they are at another part of the school.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
          1. on safe rooms, I'm not sure I agree with "easily shielded against both" operative word easily. this would be a huge financial investment.
          2. Arming several at campuses is a great deterrent. But, if a situation happened, presumably thee many trained and armed teachers etc. would not all be in one place.
          3.do you have a company that constructs safe rooms? :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
            No I don't, I'm an Info-sec professional, and work on many disaster recovery programs for major corporations (Coke, Pepsi, IBM, Etc.) Unfortunately I have to plan for the worst. I am confident that a safe room can be made chemical and fireproof. There real worry is making sure the kids and faculty know where to go in a timely manner.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 8 years, 4 months ago
              This is an interesting thread. I would think that there would, of necessity, need to be more than one, since logically there would most likely be more than one class, etc. using said room. Capacity, location would be factors as well.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                considering they would not need to be in a safe room for more than an hour (if they are then it would be a reliance on local constables issue) it could be a room in the back of each class that can hold ~30 kids and teacher. For those in portable school rooms those can be made to be stronger with better protection.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                  Cheaper and more practical to have armed adults. Those "safe rooms" would not sit empty. You're suggesting enough space to have a dual school within a school. That's quite an expense of tax dollars which still wouldn't address stopping a shooter. Stopping the shooter is task number one. The students/teachers already have rooms that can be locked down.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                    Not at all, the room can be pretty small, it wouldn't be made to house them long term. Just to keep them safe until the law arrives.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                      Waiting for the "law to arrive"..... Why should we wait for that? I think the guard could get to the intruder faster than it would take to move 30 plus students to another room.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                        again, it hits a permalink for me. I understand the vast array of technology for identification purposes, I am more worried about stealing unique identifiers. Once a set of biometrics are electronic, they can be stolen. Technology is farther ahead coming up with ways to use biometrics and farther behind in protecting them.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                        Not sure if that's true, he would have to know exactly where the intruder was and the best route to get there. May not be possible.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                          I should hope the guard would know his way around the school blind folded and moving a classroom of students is NOT an immediately completed task, especially when they're scared, they tend to freeze. And we're back to the importance of radio contact. Also, in small schools the location of a shooter would be a quick determination. Larger schools would need more than one guard I think.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                          "the "new" wave of identity theft is going to be all over stealing your fingerprint"

                          There's more than fingerprints, there can be hand biometrics which are better. it's possible to use size. grasp and hand print. Couple that with voice. Again in security realm it's all about making it as difficult as possible. If someone wants to commit a crime badly enough, they will find away to do it, no way around it. It's to make it hard enough and costly enough, that they give up and try something else instead of the gun.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                          we hit a permalink. I am interested in how you're thinking of other possible solutions. I'm not big on the biometric function to firearms. the "new" wave of identity theft is going to be all over stealing your fingerprint. If that happens and we have changed over products and systems to rely on it, there's no getting a new one, so to speak. Funny you should mention that, we have a client who invents in the biometric space.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                  again, at what cost (I mean reasonable, expensive, cheap) and do you see it as more viable than allowing people to be armed?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                    Typical safe rooms are ~5K add another 9K for making it chemical/biological proof. A real risk analysis will be needed to determine the cost versus risk and see if this is 'cheap' or 'expensive'.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                      In this post we were talking about arming teachers/personnel at schools, which would not be that expensive assuming liability remain the same. That might be a big assumption, I'm not sure. I could understand a school district considering building something when a new school is going up or large remodel project, but a 6k safe room in every classroom or even every other classroom is a large investment. I wouldn't need to see a risk analysis to say no to safety at any cost. But for many, this solution might be a huge selling point especially for charter and private schools.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                        The typical elementary schools is approximately $5 million to $6 million for a 45000 sq/ft building. To add on 15 'safe rooms' would cost approximately $210K. Then there are portable class rooms which can be made to be protected against gun fire. This could be added on at any time. I'm not saying that it's a sure fire solution, but in combination with teachers who are trained and certified to use a gun, the combination of solutions may be more workable.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by gblaze47 8 years, 4 months ago
                          "You do agree to arming some within schools"

                          I was never against it, but right now we have to look at all solutions, I just threw one out there. This sadly is a sobering critical issue. I don't believe guns are the problem, but we need smart solutions. I also like biometric locks allowing only the owner to use their gun.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                          Finally. You do agree to arming some within schools. I wanted to know how you stood on that issue. You make a good point about the costs.
                          Maybe you've found a good entrepreneurial venture here. Since most of the schools are run by the government though, you'd have to crony up. :)
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Sophist 8 years, 4 months ago
    Two things seem to be predominant in the way these kind of events play out and the way they end. They will almost always take place at a place of least resistance where there are no guns present or allowed so as to enable the shooter and grant them some level of safety. The second is that usually when confronted by a gun they either surrender or more often kill themselves, and this in my mind constitutes a finite level of gun control.

    You cannot usually tell who the crazy person is until they do something crazy, and subjective views of family usually fail to give society the true view of what might or might not be dangerous.

    Do guns belong in schools? Yes, in the hands of competent individuals trained for this kind of events. At the same time access within school grounds should also be restricted. The more trouble it is to get somewhere the less likely people are to go. Criminals and crazies have even less patience and give up quicker. At the same time video and electronic countermeasures should also be employed so that employees can see what is happening outside at a distance and warn security should there be a suspicious lurker.

    In the end to keep anything or anyone safe you must defend it. You defend with knowledge, training, and practice. My daughter has been exposed to 3 incidents where MS13 wanted to shoot up her school. Early on she had a phone and we had a plan. She performed a basic escape and evade, I met her, and took her home. And yes, I was armed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
      Not letting parents come and go as they please (pretty much) will be a sticky wicket although I agree that it would be a good safety measure. Yesterday, when I went to work (I go in earlier than most) I was greeted with a CNN satellite truck parked in front of the school, and there was a camera crew setting up lights and cameras and light reflectors on the edge of the parking lot etc. I was immediately annoyed and when I went into the office I said, "Do they have permission to be here??" And the secretary said, "Yes." I said, "I think there are going to be some angry parents over this." The secretary said that they couldn't refuse them coming, or that they didn't have a choice in it or something like that. (Later when I thought about it it only made me more mad. WHO can't refuse a camera crew showing up at an elementary school? WHO thinks this is an okay idea? Small children don't need an added disturbance to their day after something like this happens.) There was an announcement made about the camera crew not being allowed to film children and that they were only there to talk to parents about their opinions on gun laws. AS IF that's some justifiable reason. Needless to say, I was the only employee alarmed by this (that I'm aware of). Parents actually stopped and talked to them too which is even MORE perplexing to me. I feel like I'm the only one who cares or notices or is bothered by these things. That crew was there ALL DAY... 12 hours in fact. Okay, back to my point... at some point during the day I heard 2 co workers talking about how parents will probably be more willing to sign the sign-in book at the front desk before they go into the school now (apparently there's a few parents who are annoyed by having to do this).. and I almost laughed out loud because just about anybody can sign that book and get into the school. And even if we "KNOW" the parent doesn't mean some wacked out parent some day won't gain access by signing the book only to go in and cause mayhem. A sign in book is making the school feel secure???? So what I've learned from this is that people do not understand what real security means. And that too many people are so vain they'll talk to a news camera about gun issues in front of their kids' school hoping to see their mugs on national t.v. It's no wonder this country is in the toilet.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 8 years, 4 months ago
        Annoyed that they have to sign in!?!?!? I have been doing that for years, and wouldn't have it any other way! They should have such problems. And get the camera/news crews away from the schools. The kids and everyone else doesn't need a lens and microphone shoved in their face, wanting to know how they feel. They feel like shit!!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
        it's kinda creepy that the CNN truck picked your school to hang out at. We always had to sign in AND wear some badge/nametag if we were in the school. Our schools were more vigilant than most because of Columbine and then later 9/11. Our district was smack in the middle between NORAD and a large military base. When the bubble of false security is popped, it really is a good time to reassess procedures and training inside schools and other vulnerable locations. As long as everyone is rational with rule changes, etc. Over time the bubble will slowly develop again. You have to stay vigilant.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Sophist 8 years, 4 months ago
          While freedom of press is a constitutional right, there has to be some limit placed on how long the media can beat a dead horse. Lately every horse they have pursued has ended up soup, and frankly I think there is more motivation in one up man ship of the last gruesome event that motivates these wing nuts.

          The price of safety and security is indeed vigilance. But we are also tasked as parents with teaching them the realities of the world and how to cope when we're not there. I am always impressed by the kid who climbs in the closet and acts like a pair of shoes. I am impressed because to do that the kid must have some guts and some presence of mind and that will almost always be an asset in a difficult situation.

          The mind is a resource of undefined dimension, so I offer this simply as a reference of how we sometimes react and why.

          http://www.committeeforfirstprinciples.o...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
            Sophist, excellent post! You should consider re-posting the link with and set up a discussion. very interesting.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Sophist 8 years, 4 months ago
              Not sure how any of that works. I initially just wanted to put in my 2 cents worth about the shooting and gun control. Personally I always opt for common sense, but it seems that people are reacting and not thinking and that concerns me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                Up at the top of the page to the right you will see an electronic button for "submit post." Click it and it will open a new window that lets you choose your own title for the post, a box to insert the url and a notes section. You can post the url and then in notes tell us something about the link, or the topic you'd like to discuss regarding the link, etc. It's how we get new stuff in here to talk about, debate etc.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 8 years, 4 months ago
          Yeah, that's creepy. The elementary school I went to in Arlington, VA was 2 miles maybe from the Pentagon. We were diving under our desks on a weekly basis when the air raid sirens came on. That was I when I was 8-11, so '75-'78. My mom had to sign in and wear a badge then. She would have told someone off if she DIDN'T have to do so.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
          It was TOTALLY creepy. I could NOT believe it. I have yet to hear what any of the parents said, but I've heard from a couple of people that they heard from friends/family in other States that they saw our school on CNN so they aired something. I mostly just wanted to know who said what so I know where they stand, (just for kicks I guess) but oh well. (And yes, you sign a book and slap on a paper badge...makes everything safe and cozy....like magic.) I'm ALL for vigilance...lol "take a friggin' radio!"
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
            you're the one in hall all intense over a badge less person. :) there's a bit of the non rule follower in me and so I may have torn off my paper badge just to annoy you. It's not all that reasonable, but rules mostly annoy me. I think the radio deal is a much better answer. because if you started talking into a radio, I would have pulled the badge out of my pocket and tried to slap it back on.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
              OH dear God...is that how I sound? Actually I'm the last person to call anybody out on not having a badge on...I probably wouldn't even notice, unless you were somebody I had never seen before..and you seemed shifty in some way and even then I wouldn't whip out my radio I'd say, "Hi, can I help you?" Ha...one time I was in the gym with a few other grown ups and some guy came in the side door tossing a bean bag back and forth and I said to them.."who's that?" and somebody said, "I guess he's the P.E. substitute...he has a bean bag." And I said, "Well, hell, as long as he has a bean bag he must not be a terrorist or anything." (They were right and probably thought I was paranoid.) I'm not so much of a "rule follower" either. Things have to make sense to me before I'll go along with it. I'm like the questioning pain in the ass who can't let anything go, "So..why are we doing this.... what's the point of this again? Someone please explain this to me I don't get it." My poor kids lol.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                I always pick "you" to be on my team because I suck at the vetting of situations. I'd probably recruit 200 terrorists because they answered "absolutely!" to any hard thing I asked someone to do and then they did. it's all about managing blind spots.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                  "Absolutely" and "alluhu akbar" actually do sound similar. (Do not be fooled!) (I'll be the one over by myself saying, "You want me to do WHAT?? I did NOT sign up for that. If you want that done you'll have to do it yourself, honey.") <-- I think I actually had that conversation with one of my bosses a long long time ago. It landed me on the shit list, needless to say.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                    yea, you are on my sticky wicket list. what does "alluhu akbar" mean? it is not on my radar. if there was a bunch of tongue trilling with it, I might have a clue...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                      From what I understand...It is what the terrorists yell when they're about to die from whatever mission they're on. (google it) :) (Means: God is holy or something like that.)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
    Did somebody edit and re-paragraph my post? I don't remember having 7 paragraphs when I posted this...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
      well we know who is on the edit and re-paragraph list ;)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
        Seriously...it's been altered. lol !
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by sdesapio 8 years, 4 months ago
          I hope you don't mind. We're going to share this on the movie's facebook page (http://facebook.com/AtlasShruggedMovie) and email this coming week and I just wanted to make it a little easier to read.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
            I don't mind whatsoever...just made me scratch my head and wonder.... (C'mon, I'm getting old...I don't need to feel like I'm more forgetful than I already am.) Mystery solved tho...No worries Scott. :)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
              cuz you so love FB.
              seriously I'm getting old too. I clicked through the link and my whole family was at the right. it startled me and then I realized they all " liked" the page.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                I'm so out of the FB loop I don't even know what you mean by saying your whole family was at the right....and they "liked" what page??
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                  hello. you finished wrapping presents and making dinner. :) this is how it works. the movie has its own page. the page is divided up into left side content and posts. the right side (think of venn diagrams) is people and advertisers out there in FB land which are "liking" the page. they show up as a picture they post representing themselves. ads are farther to the right from that. so, I clicked on the link and immediately saw pictures of loved ones to the right. it took a nano second for me to adjust why just they were there. the moral of the story is: I need to get more friends (the family was already there) to like the movie page.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                    OOOkkkkkaaaay. This is the kind of talk about FB that makes me scream, "Ugh! Who wants this hoopla?" But thanks for the lesson in venn diagrams (which I had to google cuz I'm not a smart person). lol I think I get it...sorta. Seriously, FB makes me cringe. Ick.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
    I am so thankful that this forum is more inclined toward those that can think vs. emote.

    That being said, perhaps we can step up above the tangible solutions and think more about where this behavior starts (the behavior of the taking of innocent blood, then immediate subsequent suicide).

    Doesn't it start with the thinking? Why would the perpetrator's thinking be this way? Are we all capable of this, or only those we deem are "insane," or "mentally ill?" Are all those who take innocent blood "mentally ill?"

    I will say, and likely will get vehement disagreement, that since we are further and further from believing and acting as though there are absolutes, this type of behavior is entirely possible and accepted.

    What do I mean "accepted?" Well, when children are taught more and more that they evolved from primordial stew based on chance time and circumstances, then all we are is a bag of reacting and responding chemicals which means the setting of standards for behavior are societal and cultural and not from an extraneous source such as God.

    You cannot have it both ways. Even when Ms. Rand promoted objectivism, she stated the highest ideal is the value of man's ability to think and must always act in consistency with what his thinking lead him to. Well, doesn't that mean that if this perpetrator sought to destroy innocent blood as his highest ideal, isn't that okay? Who is to say that isn't okay, especially if we are just a bag of chemicals.

    All in all, you have to either believe there are absolutes, or not and if so, they cannot come from yourself because no one's determination of an absolute from himself can be applied to others since how is one to know what absolute is suitable for another and what is suitable right?

    Only absolutes come from God and when you start there and believe that man has the highest living value in this world because he is in God's image and only God, which is the Creator and can legitimately add or remove life, then you can begin to build a society who realizes that taking innocent life, no matter how many and how often, is (and may I be so bold to say it) simply wrong.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
      If you have read Rand, you would know A is A, separate from God. Evolution is an incredibly powerful scientific theory explaining numerous biological facts on the order of Newton's Gravity. Evolution has three simple premises.
      1.There is a selection mechanism. Even a Creationist will not plant a Saguaro in Minnesota.
      2.Sex. You are not either your mother or your father. No one can deny there is combining and rearranging in breeding.
      3.Mutation and genetic expression. Recent understanding of DNA shows there is a "code" dictating organisms how to grow.
      Moral absolutes can exist without believing in God, and if one understands Evolution, as Rand points out, morality and ethics are the logical derivation of what is necessary for Man to thrive. Belief in God distorts one's understanding that A is A.(reality). To your example above, I present these examples: those who killed Galileo, the Inquisition, Witch trials, Jones massacre, Obamacare. All have or will kill in the name of "Faith"
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
        Understood; however, you do not appear to address evolution's explanation of origins. As well, faith doesn't make A not A. No one can do without faith; it is used in teaching all the time, else you cannot learn anything (e.g. no one has ever seen Galileo who is alive today, so you are taking it on faith that those who report he lived are not lying). You may use this as well to say that no one has seen God; however, many things exist which are unseen and they support A is A as much as anything.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jorellyoung 8 years, 4 months ago
          Perhaps it would be prudent to acknowledge that morality is not defined by ones religious beliefs, but their beliefs period.

          It is very difficult for some to comprehend how a non-religious / atheist / agnostic person can find value in modeling their lives and behavior to a moral code - if there isn't some affixed punishment or reward from a deity creating incentive for adhering to said moral code.

          Having been on both sides, I can definitely declare that living ones life on the basis of personally derived morals is very possible and very rewarding. If you insist on debating it philosophically, then may I recommend reading or listening to some of the content of Penn Jillette - a well known libertarian atheist who takes every opportunity to reconcile how atheism can be a just as valid a basis for developing morality, and even argues that it can be a superior guiding position with which to determine morality.

          I realize that kind of content may be offensive to someone within a religious context, but if your genuinely interested in learning how an atheist belief system can still be a sound basis for a person to lead a morally defined life - then check him out.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
          You are not using the correct definition for Faith here. I also can't see electrons, I know they exist-not due to faith but due to knowledge. Faith is the act of suspending your ability to reason, But in order for that Christianity thing to work out, people have to behave mostly rationally-so A is A comes before faith. Which means it is a much larger umbrella than belief in God for Man. Here is some quick reading from Ayn Rand:
          http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith....
          You should consider posting this as another topic. It would generate alot of interest, I predict.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -1
            Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
            Thanks for the all the responses; however, we must remember that even the ability to logically deduce or infer anything comes from our ability to think which, as some would argue, is an evolutionary result and again, the collective luck of chemical reactions. Concerning the origin of life is still up for debate in the scientific world and must be since no one was there to witness it and record their thoughts in a language understood at the time; on the other hand, God has been there from the beginning and I know that it is hard to swallow that God was not created.

            Overall, all of this discussion does relate back perfectly to the subject matter of this taking of innocent blood and that is this: if one is left only to ones self to develop one's morality, then one can develop any morality they want regardless of its antipathy with others.

            Overall, we will never know until we die and meet face to face with God whether the perpetrator developed his morals from God or himself.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by jorellyoung 8 years, 4 months ago
              Your bottom line poses a very intriguing philosophical argument, and is very thought provoking! Although it only seems applicable if you ignore a wide array of influences on a persons development of thought and belief throughout their lifetime. How many influences are brought to bear on us as we learn and grow that effect our sense of right and wrong - and lead us to ascribe a schema of standards and morals beyond our primal chemistry.

              Thinking of godless people as being no more than bags of chemicals driven too and fro 'with every wind of doctrine' is really a disservice to religious people. To suggest that their belief in God is the only thing keeping every religious person from being a potential thief, molester, murderer [insert anything], I find that very belittling to the religious community! That is the ONLY absolute that guides and motivates religious people to develop and live by a code of morals?! I don't think you would! You should give yourself more credit as an apparently religious person - surely you have some restraint and find value in your beliefs that make them worthwhile aside from your belief that they are of divine origin!

              http://theinterrobang.com/2012/04/penn-j...

              You use the word 'absolute' a lot when talking about the standards of religious origin, but even within religious communities the supposed 'absolutes' of god-defined standards are debated extensively, and the interpretations there-in have resulted in thousands of religions based on the same core texts.

              You ended this conversation by giving us a very unsatisfying 'to be continued'! Maybe there is an emotional / spiritual component that is beyond rational explanation that validates the absoluteness of a certain set of religious standards, a component that a non-believer simply will never experience because they lack this experience - (???)

              That reminds me of the holistic naturopathic medicine man, after prescribing a remedy they will always be right when reviewing the results. If you experience the desired result, they will say "See! It worked!", if nothing happens, they will say "These things take time - be patient..." if the results are negative they will say "Your body is so unhealthy, it will get worse before it gets better." Like the holistic, they are always operating in a spiritual realm where any one who questions these absolutes will always be wrong.

              As for "one is left only to ones self to develop one's morality", isn't a religious person subject to the same influences of society, genetic disposition and exposure as an atheist? Where does the foundation of religious belief begin - is it truly innate, or did it have some help from parents, family, friends, community, society, preachers and reading scriptural texts? Are atheists exempt from having their morals influenced by these sources simply because they don't agree on the source of morality?

              Is it possible that people can find and appreciate moral absolutes without a deity, that maybe there is perceived value in adhering to a moral construct - perhaps an atheist might think "Hmm... I can do a lot better in life if I treat people right the first time." ...because they don't believe in an all-forgiving deity? Aren't religious people just people who have been raised with a certain set of ideals and then convinced that they originated some place divine? What if religious standards weren't inspired, but came from a collection of good-principled human beings who simply scribed a book two thousand years ago; do these standards then have any less potential for being valued and good?

              Plus look at the evolution of society over the last two thousand years - is there a pattern in the way human beings are developing their morals? Is any one religion or belief system responsible, or is it bigger than that? Are human beings becoming more intelligent, more driven to cooperate and deal with their problems rationally, or less?

              Just some thoughts - I hope you don't take this as an attack on your beliefs, I really take issue with people viewing atheists as being morally inferior or unable to find value in living in accordance with a set of ideals. It's the very absoluteness of religious tenants that people often use to reconcile heinous acts - history is ripe with the devout of every religion using their faith to justify the execution of the skeptic. Ironically history is also ripe with skeptics advocating peace and enlightened cooperation in humankind.

              I don't mean to generalize, personally I think most religions can be a wonderful way for people to live, and in many cases are responsible for beautiful acts of self-motivated compassion, charity and cooperation throughout the world; but 'I believe' it is misguided to think that religion is only medium with which people can become enlightened enough to develop morality.

              I won't wait until we're dead to tell you that my morality has a wide array of influences - among them are religious - namely the teachings of Christ, the writings of Paul, Buddha, Hindi proverbs, the abridgments of Mormon and even some contemporary Zen masters. Also among them are some skeptics - Ayn Rand, John Stossel, Penn Jillette and many many personal friends.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                I do believe this post has been hijacked... The question was: Should there be armed guards on school campuses?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                  you know these discussions can evolve. In fairness, I tried HARD to get it moved. Jorellyoung, are you willing to copy and paste your comment in a new post? I'll be happy to respond there, but I want to be respectful to LetsShrug's post main subject. Also, LetsShrug is feisty. She'll smack you on the arm and demand a coke
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
                Ok...perhaps we can look at this more of a macro level. Is or is not the taking of innocent blood wrong? Let's just say for argument that innocent means that the person killed was not directly endangering the life of the killer (e.g. no self-defense).

                If you cannot say it is wrong, then frankly, it would be difficult to say that anything is wrong as an absolute.

                The reason I continue to hearken back to absolutes is because you cannot live without them. You cannot breath and live without oxygen in the right mixture with other naturally occurring gases, etc.... There are things that are what we call "natural laws," but I would refer to them as the way God set the world up to function.

                There is absolutely no question that a person's environment from one period of life to another, either experienced on a voluntary or involuntary basis, influence behavior; however, some behavior has to be classified as right and some wrong, else, life doesn't work and society becomes chaos.

                I perhaps should have prefaced all my thoughts with the fact that I am not an Objectivist and am not seeking to argue for it or against it...simply to argue that living life in denial of absolutes defined by God result in chaos, either in short order or in the long-term.

                I am happy to have this move to another thread and hijacking this was not my intention. I completely know what that is and what trolling is, neither are my MO.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                  even at a macro level, this discussion is off topic for the post. Please go find my post on morals and I'll be happy to continue the conversation as might others. I am interested in what brought you to this website. Have you read any Ayn Rand?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
                    Oh, by the way, I am on my second reading of AS and have read the Fountainhead and seen several biographical documentaries and read some of her philosophical writings. I would say that the only true difference between Ms. Rand and a Christian is that instead of man's reason being the ultimate value, Christianity's ultimate value is becoming more like the person of Christ. They both are very similar.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                      And one includes guilt and the other one doesn't..for good REASON.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
                        Sorry, couldn't reply to your post below stating "I meant guilt in relationship to religion." I know that Christianity is thrown in the basket with "religion" but it isn't a religion and I am not religious; however, for the sake of argument, I will grant it for this purpose.

                        My question still stands because in some religions, you are prone to guilty feelings due to aberrant behavior in light of stated religious standards; then there is Christianity where the only guilt that matters is the legal guilt that we are all sinners from our creation in the womb and guilty before God and need redemption through Christ. All other "religions" require guilt to manufacture redemption amongst their followers.

                        Actually, this type of guilt in Christianity is a sin because it prevents one from maturing in the Christian life in pursuit of Christ's likeness.

                        I frankly despise the imposition of guilt feelings by religions since they don't offer anything except a straw man waiting to be burned.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                          I know ALL about religion and Christianity.... thank you. I was steeped in it my entire childhood....until we all woke up (from organized religion). We no longer practice, but none of us are atheists either. It's a personal issue...no need to preach.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                        one destroys Man's ability to think and one exalts Man's ability to think for themself
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
                          I would argue that Christianity requires more thinking because a change in thinking is required where objectivism simply requires a mature development of the thinking you are born with, which Christianity states is wicked and evil.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by flanap 8 years, 4 months ago
                    Ok...agreed that I have not succinctly addressed the topic. My answer in direct address is that due to the nature of public schools, it is implied that any public institution established by our government should be protected from those who would seek to prevent the institution from functioning as was decreed. The extent of such protection is up to the government, same as their decision to establish the institution. They will do as they want, regardless of my input. If it were me, I would disband all public schooling and return to what we had before public schooling; therefore, the red tape required to be processed for whatever security each locally established institution for education determined was needed could be figured locally and as needed. Overall, all citizens should be versed in firearms and protecting themselves against those who would harm them and others and I do not think that we should completely farm out security measures to the government. I am sure Ms. Rand would agree the more self-sustaining you are and the less you lean on others for your needs the more "objective" you are and beneficial to society.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
              It seems you don't want to move this discussion out of this post, so I'll answer you here.
              Knowledge is derived by reason and observation. We do not have to observe or witness an actual event to know it took place. That is where reason comes in.
              One can develop any morality one wants but there is only one morality consistent with furthering human life. Yes, it's hard to swallow that God was not created, along with so many other faith based premises. I do not deny that you can believe what you want, but I will respond when you incorrectly state as fact what Man empirically knows.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jmlesniewski 8 years, 4 months ago
      "What do I mean "accepted?" Well, when children are taught more and more that they evolved from primordial stew based on chance time and circumstances, then all we are is a bag of reacting and responding chemicals which means the setting of standards for behavior are societal and cultural and not from an extraneous source such as God."

      You have created a false dichotomy. The "setting of standards of behavior" is not not only do by society/culture or god.

      "Even when Ms. Rand promoted objectivism, she stated the highest ideal is the value of man's ability to think and must always act in consistency with what his thinking lead him to. Well, doesn't that mean that if this perpetrator sought to destroy innocent blood as his highest ideal, isn't that okay?"

      No, it's not ok because it takes away another person's ability to think.

      "Who is to say that isn't okay, especially if we are just a bag of chemicals."

      I say it based on reality. Your second clause is completely unnecessary to your first. Why slide it in there? It makes it seem like you are snidely deriding anyone who opposes you as seeing life as meaningless.

      "Only absolutes come from God and when you start there and believe that man has the highest living value in this world because he is in God's image and only God, which is the Creator and can legitimately add or remove life, then you can begin to build a society who realizes that taking innocent life, no matter how many and how often, is (and may I be so bold to say it) simply wrong."

      Absolutes come from reality because there can be no reality without absolutes. A tree is a tree. When it snows, it is snowing. Where did those rules come from? They always were because there could nothing without them,
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
      I want to answer your last comment, but I'd prefer if we started a new post. I believe we have gone over the 5000 character limit to copy and paste into the notes section. Would you mind either setting up the discussion like you did here or allow me to play around with the post and see how much I can move over?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jorellyoung 8 years, 4 months ago
        Agreed - post the link once it's created plz :)

        (unless of course I've annoyed the hell out of everyone already - haha)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
          These discussions are very relevant in here, in my opinion. Until Flanap agrees to move the post I won't move the discussion. Flanap started the point and I am happy to keep its parameters. But if it dies here, I think I'll put a new post together for discussion along these lines-or you're welcome to as well. Just to really mix things up, I am not an Atheist.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DragonLady 8 years, 4 months ago
            I think moving this to its own post is a wonderful idea....I haven't posted any comments yet, but that doesn't mean I'm not learning something. Just need a little more time ;-)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by wgingram1 8 years, 5 months ago
    Oh no. Not guns on campus. Just think of all of the daily incidents on campuses all over the US when each "armed" child would shoot another simply because they wanted to use the swing or teeter-totter instead of the ones that currently occupied "Their" desired spot.
    Kids would shoot each other over a stick of bubble gum or even bumping into them in the hall or something equally mundane.
    How could we allow guns in the hands of children? Are you fools?
    --- Well, I guess it would help decrease the world population which is a good thing. It would also make for a "survival of the fittest" mentality which would also help strengthen society.
    I guess it might be a good idea on second thought.
    It would also quickly resolve traffic alterations and people who cut inline at games and concerts.
    It would resolve neighborhood conflicts, quiet barking dogs, stop people with hot rods with boom boxes blaring/blasting pure noise as they drive past your home.
    Guns would be a good thing.....

    Is that what you were thinking? If so you were probably a Liberal Nut and should be shot.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LeoRizzuti 8 years, 5 months ago
      The safest schools in the world right now are the schools in Israel. It was not always the case, though. The tide turned when the Israeli government decided that it was time to stop letting their children be sitting ducks and began training and arming teachers in all schools. Since the people that commit these acts are cowards the school shootings stopped.

      Of course, I do not allow the government to take control of the education of my children. I home school, and anyone wanting to attack our classroom will find out very quickly that the teacher is a well armed, well trained former Marine. My children will not become statistics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by itisntluck 8 years, 5 months ago
        The safest schools in the world are right here in the U.S.A. - Home Schools. Safe from liberal indoctrination, safe from childing molesting teachers, safe from kooks like Lanza, and safe from so-called Palestinian rockets.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
          I totally expect to see a rise in that. Home schooling, not Palestinian rockets. Wait, yes, Palestinian rockets too.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by itisntluck 8 years, 5 months ago
            Home Schoolers are on the DHS terrorist list, along with vets and people that have food storage. I talked with a guy from Ft. Carson in Colorado Springs today. He said there are 400,000 NATO troops here in the USA.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago
              how do they know if one has food storage? and why animal doctors? oh, you mean military vets? military vets are an easy list to have. I try to remain listless.:)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                I believe the Gov has taken the sales lists from the food storage companies. I remember hearing something about that. One of the companies refused to give it up...or something like that. Is anybody NOT on that list, besides the REAL terrorists?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago
                  I am sure I'm on some list-but not the food storage ones. btw, you missed my pun.
                  I used to say the govt was too inept to use the lists even if they had them and then I see how the libs worked their voter rolls. Am I too hopeful to think they only know how to work lists of dead and illegal people? It would be rich if at some point we were rounded up by illegals who were militarized as part of immigration reform (which is the 1ST TALKING POINT of the new admin.-jobs are LAST) and put away in internment camps. that's a good story line for someone out there...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                    Listless... lol
                    Ah but having illegals do time in the military would BE putting jobs first on the list. (I just used that lib 'logic' there). Actually, your scenario sounds eerily possible. This post and responses should win the Gulch Downer Award. Sheesh.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                      those "downers" started adding up a long time ago in my mind. Talking about the best mode moving forward and thinking things through is the least we can do for that community. It is a sad but interesting post because you brought it "home" for us.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                        **Spoiler Alert** Sad gruesomeness ahead.
                        I actually dread going to work tomorrow. I've NEVER felt dread for going to the school before. Not because I'm fearful, but because I know all the kids will have heard about it over the weekend and they'll be talking (and thinking) about it... And this is supposed to be fun Christmas activity week. :( (And yes we call it Christmas every chance we get). I hate them having to experience this. When I was 8 I had a close family friend (and neighbor, 3 doors down), who was murdered (him and his cousin, 10 and 11 year olds) while they were fishing at a pond near his cousin's house (on Mother's Day of all days), by an ex-con who had just gotten released from prison, and he did it with his bare hands. It tore up our entire community. I wouldn't wish this type of thing on my worst enemy and I've never looked at the world in the same way since. It changes you forever. I really really hate this for all of them. (Whew...I just severely lowered the level of the downer bar...sorry.)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
              Why are there NATO troops here?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by itisntluck 8 years, 4 months ago
                Good question. Another good question, why does DHS need 1 billion rounds of ammo and why are the FEMA camps going up across the U.S. stocked with coffins?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                  someone posted a link to the FEMA camps. but I don't remember the coffin part. Let me just say, if I were running one of those camps charged with holding and losing dissenters, I would not need something conspicuous like a bunch of coffins. Sounds more like a setup for potential disasters. Except, even in that case, the coffins seem sort of useless. must be some crony tie-in with the funereal industry.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago
          home schooling is an interesting answer. Maybe with the unemployment rat staying stagnant and the under-employed not counted, we'll see an increase. After all, you are "paid" if you choose to home school.
          As for Israel, there is a difference between safety training in locations that are regularly attacked by organized groups and safety training against random events. I don't want to sound callous or anything like that, but one armed guard standing around looking important and is probably not always "on guard" if you take my meaning has less impact than 30 watchful adults. Maybe this is off topic, but I have always thought it made no sense to build large fishbowl schools in the first place. The fluctuation in enrollees might spike a few years then decrease and before you know it there's a big bond issue and then a 3 story glass facade with atrium. Seemed to make more sense to me to buy up the houses around the existing school and remodel them to be appropriate classrooms. safe as houses....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
            Mass shooters don't want to be met with a gunman, which is why they typically plan their massacres where there aren't any. (Schools, colleges, malls, churches, movie theaters --which a little riskier to run into a gunman hence all the body armor he had on, but alas, no one in the theater ended up having one...perhaps they have a visible sign at the entrance saying that guns are not allowed and law abiders abided--...) And they usually keep shooting until the cops arrive (after minutes and minutes and minutes and many bodies and bullets later) and one of the cops finally picks him off. Maybe one armed person isn't enough, but it's sure better than NONE. I was at a work Christmas party last night (yes, another party) and my table got to talking about this and at one point I blurted out, "Maybe we should ALL be armed." I totally expected someone to say "WHAT???", but everyone actually nodded their heads and said, "Yep". So that was refreshing...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago
              you are probably right. it always bugged me that there were armed guards at my kids' high school. I always felt like it was to protect the kids from themselves. and they were a school blowing the world away on test scores. but then, we found out there was a heroin ring at work at the school obviously worked from the outside and infiltrated inside and I changed my opinion. of course we were Colorado, home to any number of monsters...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by LeoRizzuti 8 years, 5 months ago
          Of course the safest schools are home schools, that was kind of my point. I was simply pointing out one government's solution to the problem, pursuant to the comment and the original post.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by fivedollargold 8 years, 5 months ago
            I teach at a college, and I've found home schooled students, in general, to be well prepared. The obvious drawback is that most parents would not have the motivation or ability to accomplish this.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by wgingram1 8 years, 5 months ago
        You are absolutely correct however there are those in these forums that still hold to the Liberal idea that guns in schools ONLY means that children will shoot other children. They do not understand that it is responsible (Trained) personnel that protect the schools in Israel, not a random bunch of morons.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
          I know that, which is why (up there in my blurp) I mentioned some schools possibly offering up and armed guard so parents have a choice (meaning liberals) who wouldn't want any gun anywhere on a school campus even it's in a holster on the hip of a trained professional. I covered that possibility already.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by fivedollargold 8 years, 5 months ago
          Seems logical to me to have at least one teacher on each hall trained in the use of firearms, with a weapon in a locked drawer at the ready. Not a perfect solution, but far better than what we've got. I would also allow any teacher that desired to keep a taser in their locked drawer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
            A locked drawer would take too long to access in an emergency situation. And teachers move around a lot so the drawer would, at the very least, be way on the other side of a room. Weapons need to be on the hip....where they're trained for it to be. It becomes part of your body after a while.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by fivedollargold 8 years, 5 months ago
              Good point. I was thinking of a situation in which a teacher heard gunfire elsewhere in the building or heard a command to arm come over the intercom.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
                I'm thinking a teacher would need to immediately corral his/her kids to the "safe place" if they got a prewarning of danger in the building and not even have to think about anything else such as getting his/her arms at that point. Seconds are valuable. Keeping it ON your person is the only fail safe way to be at the ready constantly. But point taken. :) (The other problem with having a locked drawer and needing a key etc is the added risk of a curious, or an "off" student getting access to the key....why even have that extra worry? Eliminate that possibility all together. ON-THE-HIP! :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Wow, did you even read the title OR what I wrote? Please point out where I said anything about arming children? I've been called a lot of things, but you're the first to call me a Liberal Nut. And I can't even get a the liberal nut name calling to jive with a "guns on campus" argument.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by wgingram1 8 years, 5 months ago
        Do you not understand satire when you read it.
        Do you not know how the left views guns in "Our" hands?
        We all know they love guns in the hands of their "UN" troops.
        We all know that they think of us as primitives because we do not fear defending ourselves and our liberties.
        I tried (and obviously succeeded) in putting a perspective together that bothered you. Get used to it because the Left will use it against you until the day they have complete and utter control over your life and that of everyone else.
        Have a nice day..... For - Tomorrow we die. if you have your way.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago
          my take is this: if a child is armed in today's world, they better be standing right next to the parent or grandparent. not on school property. Now if we're in a war situation, well, there are times throughout history and particularly in before we were able to beat the Malthusian Trap, where an armed child might make sense. Knowing how to handle firearms and shooting them in an appropriate environment should at least be the framework to begin a discussion of arming children. But that is not in school, here in the US.
          so many potential great lives destroyed and for what? I want to say it the very environment of what is taught in public schools in the first place that breed monsters. but the evidence points away from that. In fact, in this article, the evidence points to a peak in 1929.
          http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise...
          Regardless, I do not believe satire had a place in this particular post.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
            I'm assuming the peak in 1929 was because of Prohibition(?), but (believe it or not and I know I'm sounding like some copy cat topic person) we talked about this last night too. About it "being on the rise" and I said that I didn't think so it's just that it's more publicized and there are more people now, but there's always been lunatics who kill people for no good reason. I don't think there is anyway to stop crazy people on an ugly mission, other than to be prepared to combat it if it shows up at your door, or in your face when you're out living your life. More gun laws will only make combating it more difficult. How do anti gun people ever think more gun laws will ever stop a criminally minded person, EVER?? There will always be a black market for guns (ALWAYS.. just like booze during prohibition) so if you took OUR guns away in the name of keeping us safe, the black market gun business would thrive (just like bootlegged booze), and we'd be less safe than ever because we wouldn't have the "right" to defend ourselves any longer.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
              I concur with Prohibition.. Although many in here don't like what I'm going to say, I believe legalizing drugs would make a huge difference in border and below border crime.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                Legalize drugs, I don't care so long as I don't have to fund ANY part of a person's addiction, medical bills, re-hap, therapy, or burial costs. I won't infringe on their rights to abuse their bodies so long as they don't infringe on my right to keep my own earnings. :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by jorellyoung 8 years, 4 months ago
                  This is an interesting point - one that many conservative pundits are fond of. Although I wonder if we should be taking the position of an ultimatum on a civil liberty? Or should we simply be taking a dual stance; one supporting the right for people to do as they please with their bodies and one expecting the government keep out.

                  Rather than viewing a victory in a civil liberty as being on the same scoreboard with a failed implementation of government regulation / interference is combining two separate fronts.

                  Are the potential costs of subsidized health costs for drug users any more disgusting than the billions spent on keeping our crony-capitalist designed law-enforcement / incarceration systems brimming with revenue? I would think that these are both unacceptable and ideologically choosing to ignore the defense of a civil liberty shouldn't be on the bargaining table with the issue of government over-reaching in our health decisions... in my opinion :)

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qaiz8gNw...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by khalling 8 years, 4 months ago
                    Most people think in terms of desired result in passing a law and totally close their mind to the freedom that is removed. For example, I could say, I don't do drugs, so what do I care if it's illegal? It's bad for you. This particular thread started in showing a marked rise in violence following Prohibition enacted. I bet there were scores of teetotalers (I wonder about the origin of that word) thinking that alcohol was bad, it wouldn't hurt anyone to NOT drink alcoholic beverages, and before you know it, Chicago and New York are filled with Mafia violence. Most just don't think far ahead and are surprised or in denial of the REAL consequences of allowing their govt to chip away at their freedoms. Something seemingly innocuous as what kind of lightbulb you can have and the other extreme of death, all due to laws put on the books.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                    An "ultimatum on a civil liberty"? I think I was suggesting personal responsibility not an ultimatum.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by jorellyoung 8 years, 4 months ago
                      Oh - gotcha, it sounded to me like you were saying "Only legalize drugs IF the effects of use aren't going to be funded by govt. subsidized health care" instead of "Legalize drugs AND don't let the consequences of use be subsidized.."

                      :)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 8 years, 4 months ago
                        YES.... to both of them. Use drugs (legally OR illegally... either way I couldn't care less) and the subsequent expenses are on the user...NOT tax payers. Choices have consequences and they should remain the consequences of the user and no one else.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 8 years, 5 months ago
      Pardon if my thinking is disturbed, but,
      " ..add an armed officer to each campus? "
      is to me not the same as
      " allow guns in the hands of children".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by wgingram1 8 years, 5 months ago
        Precisely. However Liberal "think" does not use logic. They do not realize that allowing guns in schools would be performed by trained professionals and not by the students themselves.
        I just gave you a perspective that any Lib reporter would portray as the intent of guns in schools.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
          Perhaps, but I'm attempting to converse with real thinkers, not liberals. I already know they'd put an anti gun slant on it and make all gun people into barbarians because they (libs) lack logic. And-that-is-why-I'm-in-the-Gulch.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by overmanwarrior 8 years, 4 months ago
            That's right, we are here because we think, and have no illusions that evil, or bad activity can be regulated with yet another law. Politicians are such lost souls. They feel emotional, and feel they must do something. The issue of school shootings is much more complicated than gun rules. It's a social break-down more than anything.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo