...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I agree with training the teachers, and would suggest training the students as well. As to specifically giving the teachers guns, that seems like a bit of a leap. There is no shortage of non-lethal ways to incapacitate people.
And we can't start using cost as an excuse. If we're able to put cost on the table, we've deemed the security of human life as less of a priority. We've already resigned our humanity.
Cost is ALWAYS on the table. For those few people who don't understand the fallacy of, "If it saves just one life, it's worth it", it's patent nonsense. Every day people weigh cost against lives. Let's start with an easy-to-understand example: It can be EASILY demonstrated that lowering speed limits saves lives. It follows, then, that we can save, what?, 50,000 lives per year by reducing the speed limit to 10mph or simply by banning motor vehicles altogether. The government has tacitly accepted that the reality of transporting goods and people with motor vehicles, in reasonable time frames, IS WORTH those 50,000 lives lost. How about enough dialysis machines for every person suffering from kidney disease. The treasury says, "no", and people will die as a result. This is accepted. The list goes on and on.
Where did you get the idea that accepting mortality levels means we've "resigned our humanity"? Where did this notion that every live is sacred come from, anyway. If I'm not mistaken that moral imperative does not even appear in the Bible.
I remember a congressional hearing into auto safety where an auto company exec was grilled about safety standards. A congressman asked him "Can't you build safer cars?" "Sir," he replied,l "we could probably build a car it would be almost impossible to die in. However, what would be the point of building a perfectly safe car almost no one could afford?"
Another example: Virtually every drug invented, no matter how efficient at saving lives, will kill a certain percentage. Is this a reason not to make life-saving drugs, as long as they save many more than they kill?
Most people do not understand the baseline risk that we all carry, just by being alive. I expect that everything we do, and take for granted, has an underlying 'risk' that could be computed with good statistics gathering. Some of us might consider staying at home to be 'safer' than driving or crossing the street. But we are only used to the risks of staying in the 'home' environment.
Sadly, we will each 'die' of something. Being scared of dieing, would only decrease our quality of life, but being aware of our risky behaviors, might, increase our life span and how our old age is spent. Knowing how to much 'risk' we carry, seems be dependent upon 'knowledge', and inversely related to 'bravado'.
Well put James.
Where did this notion that every live is sacred come from, anyway.
The sad thing is that saying something like this immediately paints you as immoral to some people. Of course that's nonsense, but it's an easy bail-out for disingenuous people who like to use the sappy "life is sacred" argument. They also use children as a replacement for a proper argument.
"Oh what about dead children bla bla bla." - as though there were an active genocide on children going on - and if you dare to be realistic about it, you are the made out to be a cold hearted evil immoral prick.
It's poisoning the well, nothing more.
That's the difficult part about having a reasoned discussion when people are wound up emotionally by a tragic event.
Everyone is distressed and shocked by what occurred at Sandy Hook, I have heard NO ONE supportive of that kind of mindless mayhem and slaughter of innocent children.
And yet if someone supports the 2nd Amendment as a means of deterrence to Tyranny and a means to self preservation and defense of one's own life and property, they will be cast as a mindless despicable gun nut.
I personally think we can have both a strong acknowledgment of our Rights under the 2nd Amendment AND reduce the possibility of deranged individuals committing similar acts like this in the future.
What??? Our Army can never be used against the people of the United States of America?
Have you never heard of the Civil War?
An armed populous is not the first line of defense to Tyranny, it is the last line.
The other things you have listed come before the "last line".
But the Supreme Court has already set the precedence that the 2nd Amendment also protects the individuals Right of "Keep and Bear Arms" for personal defense of life and property, which is not about tyranny.
The 2nd Amendment is there so that there can be "a well-regulated militia." What that means is subject to interpretation. Does it mean our current armed forces or does it mean some citizen militia, whether formed yet or not?
At any rate, it boggles the mind to think that a bunch of civilians could stand up to an army with fully-armed soldiers, tanks, piloted aircraft, drones, and a virtually unlimited supply of ammunition.
@Unseen - The government only has as much power as the people LET it have. To think that in our day and age of everyone running around being more worried about hurting someone feelings than doing whats right, that you could conceivably see our own military turning on the citizens.....
As for "a bunch of civilians could stand up to an army with fully-armed soldiers, tanks, piloted aircraft, drones, and a virtually unlimited supply of ammunition.".... I guess the conflict in Afghanistan has completely passed you by right?
@Timothy A. Miller
You're ignoring some facts. The U.S. isn't there as an elected government. The U.S. isn't on its home ground. The U.S. isn't a freely elected government placed there by the Afghan people through a free election (though that is a goal).
How do you see a freely elected, legitimate government as parallel in any way to an occupation force? If it ever happened that the U.S. was governed by a tyranny, I think there would be a counter coup to reestablish democratic rule carried out by the regular military.
I was talking about, say, some right wing militia in Kentucky, for example, trying to stand up to the full force of the American military. They probably would have a hard enough time standing up to the state police or National Guard, much less the regular armed forces.
These independent militia are little more than military daydreamers one step removed from paintballers.
The Federalist Papers are where anyone who is willing to read will find the Founding Fathers reasoning behind the wording of the 2nd Amendment. (and the rest of the Constitution for that matter)
As I read them the concern was a Federal Army use against the people of a State. (Homeland Security's recent purchase of enough bullets to shoot every person in America 4 times is disconcerting.)