...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
I missed it. Who is touting the idea of "security everywhere"?
Well THIS is interesting in the light of the original question: whether armed security [I have been advocating undercover, via concealed carry programs; I don't know if Unseen has this in mind] would have cut down the casualty count.
Remember that shooting in Oregon just a couple of weeks ago? Where "only" a couple of people died?
A person with a concealed carry permit and exercising it, is the reason. Who knows how many would have died without this.
Explain to me, again, why this is such a bad idea?
Because for every case where ONLY a couple die in a shootout interrupted by a civilian with a CCW, many more toddlers shoot themselves by accident. The problem is that there is a problem and rather than be proactive about it, the cure proposed by some is to be reactive and wait for the bullets to start flying. And when we reach that point, how do untrained people even grasp what the situation is? Am I shooting at a crazed gunman or another bloke like me who has drawn his weapon and is returning fire on a crazed gunman?
I have a CCW and about 70% of the people in my CCW class were probably not qualified to handle a firearm, let alone handle one in an active shooter situation. They all received their permits because it is so ridiculously easy to get one that a blind man could pass the test. Literally, a blind man could pass the test, including the shooting portion. So now I get to worry about crazies with semi-automatic weapons using high capacity magazines AND legally carrying dipshits that are untrained and very bad shots. And possibly the occasional blind man.
Unfortunately these situations depend on the circumstances and hard to tell how they will come out. The person carrying the CCW, depends on the training the person has received or the reaction of the person under live fire situations. Most people hear gun shots, run for their lives in whatever direction they can without ever thinking about whats going on next to them. People that are trained in live fire situations know that you must hit the ground, find cover, and locate the direction of the fire. Now if the person is not really trained and starts shooting from where he hears the sound of fire is coming from, mix in random civilians running around in chaos, you got a whole lot of blue on blue contact, and the situation might get worse. On the other hand you can have situation where the CCW user is highly trained and can actively take out the shooter with minimum collateral damage.
So these situations are very hard to say. Could go both ways, bad or good.
Yea I already mentioned that in one of my earlier posts. Unfortunately that was NYPD too that caused the 9 other people to be injured.
Like I said situation like that can go either way.
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?
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...
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.