...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Gun manufacturers thrive on this kind of incident, as nothing sells guns more effectively, and the possibility that we would choose to arm a hundred thousand guards to sit in chairs next to gun safes must give them wet dreams at night.
If someone wants to massacre children, there are plenty of places for them to do that, it doesn't have to be in a school. We can't protect our children everywhere, but we can protect them in schools by denying potential killers access. Unseen is saying that's impossible, that locked doors won't stop them, as they can just shoot through the glass and walk in, but that presupposes there is no such thing as bullet-proof glass.
If we can't find a way to protect children from killers in an enclosed, controlled environment in the electronic age, then there's something seriously wrong with our imaginations.
"If we can't find a way to protect children from killers in an enclosed, controlled environment in the electronic age, then there's something seriously wrong with our imaginations."
Sadly we do not live in the StarTrek century. I expect a force field that counter acts a kenetic weapon projectal would be nice. A Vulcan mind control class might be mandatory in that future, and nano-machine sensors in a weapon might be used to determine class of victim, friend or foe.
Maybe a microchip in every new gun or as a retrofit, that listens for 'human screaming' in the environment and then disables the weapon. A little like a 'clapper' for gun owners/shooters.
a gun with morals ?
"...there's something seriously wrong with our imaginations."
You were asking for some inprovement in our imagination. If you are a hungry engineer, consider this a free-be. I expect that the idea is simple, the engineering could take a few years. Hint: 'a military grant'....;p)
Interesting. Many points similar to the Republican platform, and seems a good rebutal to many gun control positions.
A very comprehensive, well-researched piece, Gregg - thanks!
Gregg, do you have any links to the sources of information presented in this video?
The speaker makes literally hundreds of assertions of "facts", and repeatedly mentions "statistics" and "studies" and "the best research" but he doesn't substantially cite his sources of information.
I checked one source I happened to recognize: the "fact" of the CDC research (17:48) is deeply misleading. The 2003 CDC report on gun violence found no evidence that gun control laws reduced gun violence, but the conclusion states the report had "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness." The CDC didn't conclude that gun laws don't work. It said there wasn't enough data.
I would fact-check more of his assertions but there aren't many recognizable citations, let alone any specific ones. So we're left either to accept his say-so, or re-do his homework for him. The latter assumes he did any homework in the first place and didn't extract more "facts" from his rectum like he did with the CDC report.
The early signs are that True "News" is borrowing a page from Fox "News": presenting hyperbole in the format of journalism, calling it "news", and counting on an audience that loves the message too much to bother with a few minutes of pesky fact-checking.
I had the same issue. The 2.5 million self-defense usages is another contentious figure and it is not clear why I should favour Gary Kleck's study from which the figure seems to be drawn or David Hemenway's criticism of the study, David Hemenway having equal credentials (to the best of my knowledge).
I did notice at the end, that he changed his focus from guns to poverty and class issues.
The 'fact checking' reminds me of a funny attempt I made to check the facts in the Moral Majority book, 'Battle for the family', early 1980's. My fact checking was just about a longer list than the lenght of the original book. The 'cherry picking effect', does not do it justice.
And who doesn't just love Chuck.