...a couple staffers had been armed?

Views: 9779

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

"Mojo" has meant male sexual power; "swag" means glitzy gifty kinds of things.

Just checked with my 18 year old stepdaughter.  Evidently, "swag" is the new "cool", so if you have "swag", you have a cool style.  It seems to be mutating towards a sarcastic version, sort of a self-perceived cool where everyone else thinks you are an idiot.  I learned something :)

I thought "swag" was a collection of "bling," but what do I know?

The Urban Dictionary has several entries indicating that it's an acronym meaning "secretly we are gay." 

On the other hand, I've heard it used to describe the gifts given to people at film festivals, major conventions, etc., in which case it seems to mean "sealed with a gift."

According to this site, it has a different etymology.  They also reject that it is acronymic in origin.  It does seem to stem from anachronisms, though, so if these offend you, don't click :)

Not to add yet another secondary reference but I like this site for discussions like this.


It's a shame for Henson they don't do Hebrew.

Just read an article on Huffington post where armored backpack sales have sky rocketed. You know there is seriously something wrong with the country when children need to carry armor in their backpack to school

Here is the article if you want to read it


If the school were adequately 'protected' (and what is the definition of adequate here?  What are we guarding against? Do we need a rent-a cop, an armed forces veteran, perhaps a serving special forces soldier or maybe even a small squad in case the first one gets shot?)

The seriously mentally disturbed man who did this would have gone somewhere else to do his killing; a different school without 'adequate' protection, a sports club, a shopping mall close to christmas, etc.  Do we put armed guards on everywhere?  Just because one deranged person in over 300 million has a some sort of episode should we live our lives in fear and mistrust?  No, because the huge majority of people do not go around shooting other people, and long should it remain so.

The alternative, with armed guards everywhere, keeping watch for possible threats, with government approval and pay, seems suspiciously similar to China and Stalin's USSR and might be called a police state...Okay, maybe a bit over dramatic but you get my drift.

Your suggestion seems to imply overt (uniformed and openly carrying) security, and I agree that would be insanely expensive.

How about simply allowing ordinary people who meet the state's requirements for a concealed handgun permit, do this work, as part of their ordinary every day business?  It may not perfectly prevent such rampages, but there's plenty of evidence that it somewhat discourages them and can lessen their severity when they do happen. (See my next top-level reply for a very recent example!)

Since the firearms are concealed, it's extremely difficult for the wanna-be-rampager to know whether there is security or not.  As it is right now, he knows that various places other than schools could have someone "packing heat" there, but that firearms at a school are strictly verboten (other than cops).  That is precisely why these shootings happen at schools and post offices, because they are gun-free zones, and the rampager knows it.  He just has to find a school with no cops at it. 

Well guess what, if we did what you seem to think we are suggesting (trying to put cops everywhere), the rampager could continue doing precisely that--look for a place where there are no cops.  That is why I for one am not suggesting this!  I am advocating allowing people who have a concealed handgun permit to carry in places (schools, post offices) where now it is forbidden.

I think "adequately protected" isn't a working standard, since it can only be applied retrospectively. What's wrong with a more workable one like "better protected"? This school was the softest of soft targets. Their "security" consisted of a show ID and sign-in system. He didn't bother to do either presumably, and certainly didn't need to. 

Would he have gone somewhere else? Perhaps. We're trying to save THESE people. What happens elsewhere is up the Plan B location.

But need he actually know that the school has an armed person on board. Perhaps advertising your security measures is a bad idea, since it just has the bad guy planning on the best way to neutralize or work around that defense. 

Any resemblance to China or the USSR is strictly on the surface due to the total difference in purpose, unless you think oppressing mass killers is some sort of civil rights issue. If so, the killers could complain to their congressmen.

One can look at how other people are guarded. Military camps, embassies, even police stations. How do we value our children? As well as our soldiers, our diplomats, our police themselves? Apparently to many, if you can't provide perfect security, and save every single child on every occasion, why bother?

And if the man had gone elsewhere to do his shoot-em-up, we have at least moved the problem away from the school and onto someone else's doorstep. Hopefully, they will have taken better precautions.

Regarding security everywhere. I think we should legitimately ask ourselves what that would look like. What does a socially conscious police state look like on the ground? When cops are everywhere, what are we thinking is going to happen? Judge Dredd? "Dramatic" to say the least.

I missed it. Who is touting the idea of "security everywhere"?


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service