...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
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 --
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 --
So, suppose the officer (or trained teacher) gets there after the gunman has killed 10. In shooting the gunman, he accidentally hits a chld and kills him/her, but then dispatches the killer the score is 11 dead, 9 saved.
The math works for me.
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.
If someone couldn't have got there in less than 10 minutes (the period over which the shooting apparently took place) in a tiny school like this one (300 students), something would have to be wrong if SOME of the kids couldn't have been saved.
The problem with your "9 saved" mathematics is that nobody can ever count how many did not get killed, so although hindsight allows the mathematics you are citing, in reality, the headlines would simply read "11 killed in disaster.....etc" rather than "9 saved in disaster...". I do truly understand your maths, I just feel that nobody will ever count the number of people not killed.
I wonder if the US media has a central committee that can agree on things, like we have in the UK. A media consensus not to print or report the name of such a perpetrator as we are currently discussing, might take the "fame" element out of the picture. I realise that this would only be enforceable if the media chose to support the idea, and of course there will be someone who can disclose it publicly, but even if the newspapers and TV agreed to such a block initially, the concept of "going out with a splash" might be less certain for the potential perpetrator.
By your ridiculous reasoning, there's no point to controlling guns if we can't know for sure we are saving anyone.
That was such a quantum jump, I really have no idea how you have drawn this conclusion from my post.
You argue (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's no sense in talking about how many might be saved if there were an armed "friendly" on the scene to attack the shooter.
By parity of logic, there's no sense in talking about controlling guns since we'll never know if we are actually saving anyone. That statistic will always be unavailable.
All we can do, in both cases, is make a reasonable assumption.
It is reasonable to assume, even if we can't prove it, that an armed "friendly" would save SOME lives in SOME cases, even if he can't save all lives in all cases.
Clear enough for you to reply now?