School shooting. Is it time for armed security on all campuses?
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?
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?
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.
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
In the USSR or Nazi Germany or communist China, whether you owned a gun or not was rarely the determining factor in your survival. But, knowing what was at stake and deciding to leave while one still could, WAS a major determiner in survival.
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.
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!
And you're right, it is very surreal.
I used to take my daughter to go shoot my guns, and now she's married to a cop. So there you have it: GUNS CAUSE CRIME.
Exiting sarcasm mode now...
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE ARE ARMED. Duh. "Gun-Free Zones" encourage violence by enabling the criminal mindset of no DEFENSE from their victims.
Zones in which guns are obvious are actually "Violence Free Zones" because no dumb a$s criminal would knowingly go into a firefight where the playing field is equal. The only way a criminal can get away with violence, especially when they want to use a gun, is when THE STATE grants the criminal a MONOPOLY on power by denying law-abiding, productive citizens of the right to bear arms to defend themselves from the evil that walks among us.
I'm rather not surprised at the moment. Too much "rationality" going on here. It short circuits small thoughts.
And where IS dragonlady? Is a very good question! We haven't seen hide nor hair in a very long time..
It was a bummer about the trip, but we are planning another one, so that's good.
The snow here is gorgeous, but it's really coming down. Have you ever heard the saying, "Big snow, little snow. Little snow, big snow". We have little snow, meaning we are in for it. I think we will be snow shoeing to our neighbor's house! I will try to post a pic. I'll use my 35mm to do that, though.. :-)
I hear tomorrow the school is having an emergency drill. I'm pretty sure it will consist of nothing more than finding a "safe" place to hide.... Or maybe "cower" is a better word than hide. OY! (Maybe I should take d2's, "NO!" with me when I cower in a corner...THAT should be sufficient protection. Right?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld9kRxfEE...
always ends in death-at least in the movies
I would like to offer up this scientific evidence-
my welsh will kick your ass if you scream-
jus sayin
Ydych chi yn siarad Cymraeg?
swedish guy had a swedish guy friend. one lived with us, the other with another family.
the foreign exchange students. well, every one-except the swedish grifter -became family. all's well that ends well
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.
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?
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.
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? :)
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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...
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.
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.
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"
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.
Origins of life? There is no scientific mystery as to the origin of life.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/faith....
You should consider posting this as another topic. It would generate alot of interest, I predict.
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.
SOMEbody here REALLY doesn't understand Objectivism...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
(unless of course I've annoyed the hell out of everyone already - haha)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.)
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....
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.
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.
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...
:)
" ..add an armed officer to each campus? "
is to me not the same as
" allow guns in the hands of children".
I just gave you a perspective that any Lib reporter would portray as the intent of guns in schools.