...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Yep...in direct violation of every applicable law we have including the "Gun Free Zone" law.
And then he shot himself in the head with one of the four handguns he used for his crime.
What do you purpose to do about it?
"What do you purpose to do about it?"
Easy. Get rid of all guns.
Great plan. How do you plan to do it? with a coup done by an army without weapons?
"Hands in the air and drop those weapons" said FIRMLY, "or you will be guilty of breaking the law"!
But seriously, I am VERY happy to live in a society where gun violence is rare compared to The States.
Would the Māori agree?
Please ignore Blaine Leavitt.
Adopt ME! (Psst B.L. I'll send for you as soon as I'm settled)
I'm hobbit like if that helps.
Long live Peter Jackson!
New Zealand, where the men are men and the sheep are scared.
Where do you live? And I can only assume that by the statement that YOU pay alot of money for protection, you must be referring to body guards. In that case, by all means, turn in your weapon, and those of your guards as well. If anyone truly believes that guns dont protect, then tell me why every person of importance has an armed escort? Why doesnt the President walk down the street with out them? Hmm, maybe because guns in the hands of COMPETENT people does do good. ANd if you are referring to the taxes you pay, how much do you pay in state taxes a year? Because I am pretty sure it probably is not enough to cover even a tenth of one police officers salary, and if you mean your federal taxes paying for the military, they do not have that authority to carry out policing actions against the American populace unless under Marshal Law. If you want that, then Sweet! lol, I would love to hear the complaints about that one. Oh, and btw, neither you, nor anyone else should have the right to decide which weapons I should be allowed to own, because there is NO stipulations in the Constitution, and also, just in case you forgot, the rifles carried by the military back when the Constitution was written, were the same ones owned by the MAJORITY of the civillians, and they were the musket rifle. Your quote "Assault Rifle".
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'.