...a couple staffers had been armed?

Views: 9772

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Specious reasoning.

Didn't have enough time to expand on that thought? I repeat: 

If we put $10K on 20 school desks in the same school they'd feel obliged to have some sort of security. Not for children? The life of a child isn't worth as much?

Why not actually respond this time.

I responded once before when you posted this silly comparison. Why do I need to repeat myself over and over if you either ignore it or fail to read it?

But since you are here, now, I'll spend a quick moment on it.

It is specious reasoning because you assume all things are equal when they are not. Cash is a great tool because it is liquid, meaning it spends easy. What are you going to buy with a kid? This is the same lesson art thieves learn the hard way. That $10 million dollar they just stole? Guess what? It isn't worth shit to them.

Go ahead and try taking a child somewhere and using him or her to buy something. You'll find that in almost every situation, you couldn't get a pack of gum for a kid. Then you can self-righteously berate the shopkeeper for devaluing the worth of a child as he dials the police.

Good enough this time for you? I'd hate to displease you. And let me know if you need me to do anymore of your thinking for you. If I have time, I'll lend a mind.

They are both high value items. In fact, a child is probably higher value because (to put it in market terms) a parent with the resources would likely pay much more to a kidnapper than just $10,000..

I know people who would pay that to get their pet poodle back, but how far off-topic do you want to go?  From other remarks you've made on this thread, I got the feeling you wanted the topic to stay in quite a narrow band. 

Reggie appears just to be saying that the kidnapping concept is not comparable, either in nature or by monetary comparison.  And it isn't - you have much better points raised in other postings - I don't think this one is really worth the effort of dissecting.

It's on topic to wonder why we'd take more serious steps to safeguard money than children.

I don't disagree that in certain terms that a child is worth more than any amount of money, especially to a parent. But the reason we guard money and children differently is because of the liquidity of one versus another.

If you steal money, everyone recognizes the value of the money and will honor that value. Kidnapping a child? Well, now you have a market of the parents only (or traffickers). Plus you have just endeavored on a much, much riskier course of action than just simply grabbing cash off of a desk. The economics don't add up. If you can't easily move something you have stolen, it is not worth nearly as much. The harder it is to move, the less a price you can command. Buyers start assuming risks and most aren't willing to risk criminal records. I used art thieves as an example because the same principles hold true with that scenario. Most art thieves don't initially realize that they won;t be able to sell their loot to anyone for even a fraction of the purported worth.

Sadly, there is a market for children and human trafficking is still a very real problem. But this is driven by organized crime syndicates that know better than to grab children from suburban schools.They prey on runaways and other individuals that won't be missed as much.

RE: "I'd hate to displease you." - yeah, that often worries me a lot too --http://api.ning.com/files/uso0NvsEja148qMhgTl5tcWI-occJ79jQ2Z-m*UHkmJUfwm0R4ANrFKHS2jyJmoRHF13Bsf5ewFRdxSMCaNajbLQIZ2nJ5s4/icon_roflmao.gif

Your emoticon displeases me.

Highly trained professional police officers often hit bystanders if an area can't be cleared. Trained officers have hit their own family members in their house because they thought they were someone else. CQB SWAT teams practice for countless hours to be proficient enough to subdue perps in what can be chaotic situations, with a lot of people running around. It's not practical nor advisory when the collateral damage is young children. Look how careful police are before making the decision to rush hostage situations.

Also, it's not like he went around taking his time to choose which class to shoot into. He shot up the first group he could find and then killed himself. By the time anyone would have got there it would have been over but you would still have an amped up armed person with an itchy trigger finger.

Contrary to governmental spin, there IS no such thing as friendly fire --

Is that anything like 'clean coal', or 'job creators' or how about 'right to work'?


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service