...a couple staffers had been armed?

Tags: control, gun, guns, killings, mass

Views: 8342

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

The exception that proves the rule.

I heard something on The Diane Rehm Show on public radio today  One of her guests said, "Take 20 children out of a classroom and put $10,000 on each chair. Are you telling me you're going to leave $200,000 laying around unguarded?" The obvious implication is, isn't a kid as valuable as $10,000? Do we really value money more than the lives of children?

She had several experts on to provide several points of view from different political perspectives, and to her obvious surprise they all said that it's probably a good idea to have one or two armed people there just in case.

That is a terrible comparison for a variety of reasons.

My $30K truck sits in the driveway with no armed guards.

I visited a commercial property today worth $800K. Not a single armed guard.

I dropped a dollar. It was gone in a minute. My truck is not worth a dollar now?

Specious.

We could build a fortress around them that might be cheeper, and store the US gold and silver reserves the same place. The off duty military could be posted at all exits, fully armed. A little like building a 700 mile fence, or so, to prevent illegal aliens, in over kill! 

Given the number of hidden costs raising a child to adult hood, would it be cheeper to never allow them to finish the trip?

Will we figure that concentrating kids at one place, 5 days a week, is too risky? Just leave them at home, with very good computers and education software. In a few years, the most dangerous places will be the play grounds, health clinics, and the home. Of course, the lose of childhood socialization could create a huge population of kids with more limited social skills. Making sure that kids have all the best education hardware, could include 3D printers, making it possible for them to build the most elaborate anti-social WMD. Parents will lose all control of their little darlings, and find themselves at the end of the most elaborate leash.

While the little darlings are planning their excapes from their issolated mini-gulags, their 'parents' find themselves needing their own issolation. The old 1960's movie 'Wild in the Streets' now has been made reality.

Ok back up, we need to what we can to protect our kids, but life is risky anyway, we are lucky to live more than three score and ten...  

 

Dear Blaine:

Yes, that was my point, in a round about way. A minor correction, I would have used 'absurd', not 'ridiculous'. But with the growth of gated communities, this might not be far off.

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?

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.

RSS

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service