This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: "https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr"

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (40 posts)

What should we do in response to the school shooting?

  1. sarahspradlin profile image94
    sarahspradlinposted 4 months ago

    I'm so sick of hearing arguments about guns and mental illness and bad parenting. What school meetings or city meetings would be a good place for people to go to express their concern?

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      A visit to the school board meeting might be reasonable.  But whatever venue is chose how about proposing well thought out solutions with a good chance of success?  Preferably with some real world experience somewhere showing it worked?

      Just going to a meeting, anywhere or with anyone, and saying "I'm concerned that children are dying: you have to do something!" is useless; they already know that.

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        Another option for some people: Offer constructive solutions and quit attacking or undermining people who want gun safety.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          You may be (and apparently are) far more concerned that people aren't shot than with not being killed at all.  I'm not - the overriding concern is that the murders stop, whether by gun, car, knives or anything else - and that means that the current furor over those terrible "assault rifles", responsible for less than .03 of the total killings, is a red herring.

          You would put our resources and efforts into trying (and failing, IMO) to prevent less than 300 of the 12,000 murders each year: I would prefer to put those things into saving thousands of lives each year.

          Others will make up our minds for us, of course, but for me those people wanting "gun safety" (read: no guns) are far more interested in getting guns out of the hands of the citizenry than in saving lives.  They won't say so of course - that would be terribly unpolitical and would alienate millions - but there really can't be any other reason to squander precious resources in return for such a tiny result (it if works at all; history and experiences says it won't).

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
      Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Your urge to discuss problems at schools or city meeting places is actually quite quaint. smile

  2. Paolo Mojares profile image60
    Paolo Mojaresposted 4 months ago

    Perhaps, we always see that mental illness and gun control are the reasons of these. We can still understand and try to address mental illnesses. However, the vulnerability of the mentally-ill to handle a gun is that US doesn't have a proper gun control policies. So why do gun control is still not happening? One of the reasons are the gun corporations such as NRA, who spent millions of dollars in order to lobby politicians of their advocacy to stop gun control, even Trump benefited from these. So as long as politicians value more of a money than the lives of many people, then gun control will never happened.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Which of the 200+ US gun control policies are improper?  Which ones should be changed or added? 

      Complaining that whatever we've done isn't working doesn't help much; we all already know that.  Neither does complaining that the NRA spent millions in lobbying congress or a claim that Trump benefited from it.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    We need to stop putting children on drugs for attention deficit problems. We must work with them AS THEY NATURALLY ARE. The mass killing shooters had all been on drugs. Their brains and their psyches were all messed up.

    These kids don't get enough REM sleep for one thing due to the effects of Adderal or Ritalin.

    Most parents put their kids on drugs as soon as they get a couple of Ds or Fs on their report cards.
    Horrors!!!! Not doing well in school … theres gotta be a magic pill for that.

    Well, no just the opposite.


    Guns don't go nuts because they stopped taking their medication that mommy gave them throughout their whole childhoods as soon as they had a say in the matter, or got tired of taking the stupid pills.

    White males do.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image79
    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 months ago

    … expressing our concern would be good to do. Expressing concern would be to revolutionize how we deal with children. Expressing concern would be to try to understand a natural approach to living and realize how far we are from natural living in our laziness and our lack of love for nature and our children. Expressing concern would be for parents and teachers and community leaders to set good examples …

    I guess there's no way to express concern in group settings. This is due to the fact that communities are not motivated to action because communities don't function as units. Modern people are impersonal and independent. We don't know the neighbor across the street let alone, fellow "community" members.

    Its because of the transportation system. If there were no cars, we would have more of a sense of community.

  5. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 3 months ago

    I think the idea of arming teachers is a dumb and certainly sends the wrong message.

    Heaven forbid that I touch upon the "sacred" 2nd Amendment

    I guess one deterrent may be metal detectors at entrances in all schools, security like one would find at airports. The new high schools will not be like "Room 222".

    What are the explanations conservatives give for the violence in our society? Muzzle the First Amendment to extol the 2nd? That is dead in the water for me.... The 'genie' is "out of the bottle", rightwinger, and its not going back.

    The issue is that violence is a primary feature of American culture. The homicidal, insane and what have you will always among us. We need to make it difficult for any single person to produce such body counts with relative ease.

    Short of McVeigh's action in 1995, what other weapon of choice has been associated with high body counts?There is your Jeopardy question.

    I don't like the idea of designating those between 18-21 as second class citizens. I consider everybody over the age of 18 in the age of the majority, with all rights and privileges associated with that status. So, the idea of such restrictions on access to firearms on that basis does not sit well with me.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      "We need to make it difficult for any single person to produce such body counts with relative ease."

      You mean like buying a bag of fertilizer and 5 gallons of diesel?
      Or by renting a small truck?
      Or a gallon of gasoline and a pack of matches?

      It's really cool to pretend that if a psyco can't easily lay their hands on a preferred weapon they'll just go home and have a bowl of ice cream instead of finding another way to accomplish their goal, but when the body count goes up as a result of that pretense do left wingers feel bad?  Apparently not, because all they'll do is repeat the same thing again!  Been doing it for years without ever attempting to examine or address the real problem - no reason to think they will ever change.  You said it yourself - "The issue is that violence is a primary feature of American culture.", and your "solution" is to pretend that if they don't have easy access to a semi-automatic (black) rifle they won't kill anybody.

      "Short of McVeigh's action in 1995, what other weapon of choice has been associated with high body counts?"

      In Australia, it's the lowly match.  In the US it's a handgun (that is illegal to own in the places where they are used the most)...to the tune of about 8,000 murders per year.  You won't find a higher body count anywhere outside of a war zone, and probably not there.  On the other hand we can cry about fake assault rifles that are used to destroy less than 300 lives per year because it's a popular cause that soothes our emotional state.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Well, Wilderness, it was more than a "a bag of fertilizer", just a bit more. McVeigh bought 4000 pounds of the Ammonium Nitrate, I would say that is more than just "one bag". Today that quantity purchase should alert law enforcement to have a look.  As I am a big believer in the power of deterrent, I supported a Ammonium Nitrate Security Program  that required those selling, buying or transferring 25 pounds or more of the substance to register with the government so that they may be screened against U.S. terror watch lists. And believe me, domestic terrorism is just a frightening as the foreign variety.  It is just one of those ideas that while not making such attacks impossible in all cases, makes it more difficult. Just one of those things that make such attacks in the future require higher levels of sophistication with increased risk of exposure and detection.
        -----------------------
        "It's really cool to pretend that if a psyco can't easily lay their hands on a preferred weapon they'll just go home and have a bowl of ice cream instead of finding another way to accomplish their goal, but when the body count goes up as a result of that pretense do left wingers feel bad?"
        -------------------------
        The point is where things can be made difficult for the psycho with minimum infringement upon the rights of the innocent, why not proceed?

        ---------------------------------------

        "The issue is that violence is a primary feature of American culture.", and your "solution" is to pretend that if they don't have easy access to a semi-automatic (black) rifle they won't kill anybody.
        -------------------------------------
        Perhaps one man might not be allowed an advantageous position to kill scores of people. Back on the bump stock for instance. Yes, they can be created with a 3D printer, but I can make my own moonshine as well. The fact that the possession or sale is illegal acts as a deterrent  that I can certainly live with and the gun advocates should have no issue with... It won't stop everyone, but the deterrent effect is there for many and it is better than doing absolutely nothing. The killing is not likely to stop, but it is not easy for one man to kill scores of people with a machete or blow darts...
        -----------------------------------
        "In Australia, it's the lowly match.  In the US it's a handgun (that is illegal to own in the places where they are used the most)...to the tune of about 8,000 murders per year.  You won't find a higher body count anywhere outside of a war zone, and probably not there.  On the other hand we can cry about fake assault rifles that are used to destroy less than 300 lives per year because it's a popular cause that soothes our emotional state."
        ------------------------------------------
        So why are Americans so homicidal, aside from the means of murder? You have made your point before about the exaggeration of the influence of the firearm on American crime rates. But why do you think that society is so violent relative to other western democracies?

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          "The point is where things can be made difficult for the psycho with minimum infringement upon the rights of the innocent, why not proceed?"

          I repeat myself, but "Why"?  Because you hope they'll give up the idea and stay home eating ice cream?  History says they won't, however much you'd like to believe they will.

          You can make moonshine, yes.  Either with a tiny still that makes a bottle for you or with a giant one that makes enough to sell.  I don't really think we'll see people making bump stocks with a printer in quantities to flood the market, but then that wasn't the point.

          "But why do you think that society is so violent relative to other western democracies?"

          You tell me.  I've posted a dozen or more thoughts, and asked for more a dozen times as well and very few people have responded.  I don't recall seeing anything at all from you, either in the "why" or in solutions to stop those "whys".  Nobody cares is my guess - it's much more PC to simply take guns away and pretend all will be hunky dory after we do it.  And then take more and take more until there are none left.  Whereupon we will wonder why there are still so many bodies, but hey - that's down the road and we'll worry about that after the people are disarmed and those scary gun things are all gone.  Gotta get the priorities straight, after all, and taking guns is far more important than saving lives.  Easier, too, and nobody needs one after all.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            "I repeat myself, but "Why"?  Because you hope they'll give up the idea and stay home eating ice cream?  History says they won't, however much you'd like to believe they will."
            -----------------
            If I put enough impediments in their path, yes, rather than risk certain discovery and prosecution they will stay home and eat ice cream
            -------------------
            "You tell me.  I've posted a dozen or more thoughts, and asked for more a dozen times as well and very few people have responded.  I don't recall seeing anything at all from you, either in the "why" or in solutions to stop those "whys".  Nobody cares is my guess - it's much more PC to simply take guns away and pretend all will be hunky dory after we do it.  And then take more and take more until there are none left.  Whereupon we will wonder why there are still so many bodies, but hey - that's down the road and we'll worry about that after the people are disarmed and those scary gun things are all gone.  Gotta get the priorities straight, after all, and taking guns is far more important than saving lives.  Easier, too, and nobody needs one after all."

            The research and answer to this question is deserving of its own unique discussion. The truth about this society may be more than many would want to hear or acknowledge. I will have to make a mental note to light up this fire.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "If I put enough impediments in their path, yes, rather than risk certain discovery and prosecution they will stay home and eat ice cream"

              We very much disagree here.  Looking at the history of both our country and others that doesn't happen.  Perhaps the biggest reason for that is that 1) other weapons are chosen and 2) mass murderers don't care if they are found.  We have not, for instance, failed to find the perpetrator of a single school shooting or mass murderer in the US yet.  They are there in order to be found.

              There is also the wee matter of these "impediments" and their effect on everyone else in the country.  When the expected result is either negative or non-existent that effect becomes of paramount importance.

              "The research and answer to this question is deserving of its own unique discussion. The truth about this society may be more than many would want to hear or acknowledge. I will have to make a mental note to light up this fire."

              Good luck with that - just as I said, no one cares.  If reducing the death toll means changing something within themselves, or requires sacrifice on their part, then it is ignored.  Only when others will pay the price is the effort worthwhile.  Sad, but that's what I see.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                "If I put enough impediments in their path, yes, rather than risk certain discovery and prosecution they will stay home and eat ice cream"

                We very much disagree here.  Looking at the history of both our country and others that doesn't happen.  Perhaps the biggest reason for that is that 1) other weapons are chosen and 2) mass murderers don't care if they are found.  We have not, for instance, failed to find the perpetrator of a single school shooting or mass murderer in the US yet.  They are there in order to be found.
                ---------------------------------------------------
                Yes, we certainly do disagree, but isn't that always the rub?

                How many "weapons" are available to do what McVeigh did in Oklahoma city, looking at the sheer scale? The law makes it difficult to acquire all the TNT and C4 you want without attracting someone's attention. Such is the case now, with ammonium nitrate. McVeigh tried to escape and was captured, he was homicidal but not suicidal. As you say, most of those involved in the school homicides were captured or killed themselves. But there are a percentage of people who commit these crimes and do not want to be found or captured, McVeigh is one example.
                --------------------------------------------
                There is also the wee matter of these "impediments" and their effect on everyone else in the country.  When the expected result is either negative or non-existent that effect becomes of paramount importance.
                -------------------------------------------------
                The idea that the expected result of creating the impediments as being totally ineffective is something that you cannot substantiate. In other words, 'that is what you think'.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                "Good luck with that - just as I said, no one cares.  If reducing the death toll means changing something within themselves, or requires sacrifice on their part, then it is ignored.  Only when others will pay the price is the effort worthwhile.  Sad, but that's what I see."
                --------------------------------
                I will have a look and determine what it is that I see.....

    2. GA Anderson profile image80
      GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Cred, I also think the age increase is an insult. But, I don't see what good metal detectors would do with regards to a mass shooter. They surely won't stop one, and I can't see a deterrent value either. Just more pablum.

      As for arming teachers ... as proposed I think it is a half-baked idea.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

        Metal detectors would keep a student from bringing a gun or knife to school (unless it is plastic) and using it later in the day.  But it would have to be set pretty darn sensitive, and at the rate students pour through the door it would take several of them.  And a guard right there.

        1. GA Anderson profile image80
          GA Andersonposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Yes they would do that Wilderness, but how many of the school shootings have started with a gun the shooter smuggled into school? I don't know that answer, but I don't recall that being the scenario for any.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Seems I can recall one or two, but they were not mass murders.  A student went in looking for a specific person(s), not to just fling bullets everywhere.

            I suppose an "airlock" arrangement could be built with a metal detector, which might have stopped the Florida killer, but I don't really see hundreds of kids going through it in a matter of minutes, either.  And it would certainly make emergency exits problematical, whether from a shooter or a fire!

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

        You know GA, I was always Po-ed by the idea during that 18-21 period for me, why I had to be eligible for the draft, yet I could neither vote nor have a drink? The "adults" always had the excuse that the responsibility levels were different, but I never bought it.

        It is like you said, the circumstances surrounding many of the shootings may have made such a checkpoint meaningless. But, if you think about it, what if the shooter and his weapon could be identified at the checkpoint with an armed officer on hand? Perhaps, this may well be a time when 'the good guy with the gun could subdue the bad guy with one". It has got to be better than allowing students packing a veritable arsenal to just walk in and sashay down the halls unchallenged in any way?

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

          Ummm.  Just a passing ugly thought, but what keeps a student from breaking in at night, hiding an arsenal in their locker, and coming in to school the next day, right past the detector and cop.  Hadn't considered that, but it's an obvious work-around. 

          I think I would be more towards armed guards and teachers than a passive detector.  Look at what airports use and compare it to what we could do in schools.  I don't see us copying airports for their detection gear and search rooms.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Ummm.  Just a passing ugly thought, but what keeps a student from breaking in at night, hiding an arsenal in their locker, and coming in to school the next day, right past the detector and cop.  Hadn't considered that, but it's an obvious work-around. 
            -------------------------
            But, it is a pretty easy 'work around' to thwart. So, some simple minded 19 year old is able to evade silent and audible alarms, closed circuit TV, motion detectors that should be activated at every public building after hours? Many people have this kind of stuff at their residences, nothing prohibitive here. It is not like the old days where a mischievous student can just open up a window from the outside and just climb in, you know.  So, how many 'criminal geniuses' are going to go through so much trouble?
            -------------------
            I think I would be more towards armed guards and teachers than a passive detector.  Look at what airports use and compare it to what we could do in schools.  I don't see us copying airports for their detection gear and search rooms.
            -----------------
            A school should be a place of learning not a fortress. I can't imagine how silly it would be for a teacher strapped up like Bat Masterson teaching 11 year olds. Who is going to train all the educators in the art of gun slinging?  The presence of this draconian but necessary security arrangement should be kept to a minimum. Armed guards at entry and exit points should be enough. I don't believe that we have to take this to a security level identical to that found at airports, but we may well have to move more firmly in that direction.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

              "But, it is a pretty easy 'work around' to thwart."

              Of course it's easy to thwart.  All we need is motion detectors throughout the school, cameras everywhere, recorders and some one to check them all before school starts.  All we need to do is turn our schools into that "fortress" you mention - something I agree is not what we really want to see, but until we figure out that killers kill people, it is a fix that will protect schools if not theaters, restaurants, concerts, meeting halls, churches or even busy sidewalks.  Anywhere people congregate.

              But there is zero need, and you will get zero positive response to exaggerations like the Bat Masterson scenario.  No one is proposing each teacher be covered in ammo belts and packing a machine gun - just a concealed weapon for those teachers that volunteer to be trained to protect their students.  At least that's my picture of it - others may want each teacher to become Rambo, complete with giant knife in the belt. 

              I believe you will find that if psychotic killers decide that airports will be the target rather than schools they will do as much damage there as they are in the schools.  Problem is that until the building is armed and armored like a prison we cannot keep a killer from having a few minutes to work in, and those few minutes are all they require to ring up a body toll.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                Of course it's easy to thwart.  All we need is motion detectors throughout the school, cameras everywhere, recorders and some one to check them all before school starts.  All we need to do is turn our schools into that "fortress" you mention
                ------------------------------------
                Yes, and the armed security guard should be checking the recorder everyday before school begins. I have motion detectors at the point of the lighting near the garage, no big deal, yes? I don't consider that turning my house into a fortress. The fact that such technology exists in every public building should not make one shudder? Since you don't want to take the guns, we have to be more vigilant in other areas to compensate. Did you not expect to make this trade off or pay the price of the proliferation of firearms?
                -------------------------------------------
                "- something I agree is not what we really want to see, but until we figure out that killers kill people, it is a fix that will protect schools if not theaters, restaurants, concerts, meeting halls, churches or even busy sidewalks.  Anywhere people congregate."
                ---------------------------------------------------
                Everybody walking around with guns, (now that is rich) concealed or otherwise, waiting for an opportunity to use them, is hardly civilized. "Dirty Harry" is a fictional character, there is no teacher or any human being that can really be prepared for any outcome regarding an armed assailant. It does not protect anyone, but will probably increase casualties.
                ----------------------------------------
                "But there is zero need, and you will get zero positive response to exaggerations like the Bat Masterson scenario.  No one is proposing each teacher be covered in ammo belts and packing a machine gun - just a concealed weapon for those teachers that volunteer to be trained to protect their students.  At least that's my picture of it - others may want each teacher to become Rambo, complete with giant knife in the belt." 
                ---------------------------------
                I did not expect a positive response, I did not expect you to be receptive to my attitude about this issue in any case. So, that has to be irrelevant. Call it a 'lefty reflex', but I don't like the idea of teachers doubling as gun slingers teaching my kids. My 'picture' is a totally different channel.
                ----------------------------
                "I believe you will find that if psychotic killers decide that airports will be the target rather than schools they will do as much damage there as they are in the schools.  Problem is that until the building is armed and armored like a prison we cannot keep a killer from having a few minutes to work in, and those few minutes are all they require to ring up a body toll."

                At the airports, as for anywhere else, there is nothing more dangerous than a homicidal maniac who has no regard for his or her own life. But do we go back to a pre-1971 scenario, where people are just allowed in airports and aboard planes without security inspection? How is that going to help? You keep missing the point of the importance of deterrent. If such precautions preclude 50 percent of the homicidal maniacs, that is better than allowing them all to get through. And, in this dangerous world, having all these security and surveillance programs is a small price to pay to stop that 50%

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  You have a motion detector.  Do you have one in every room, including bathrooms?  Do you have cameras in every room?  That's what we're talking about, not a detector/camera or two at the front door.  And yes, it is turning a grade school into a prison.  If that's what is necessary, then do it and hang the cost (billions).

                  "Everybody walking around with guns, (now that is rich) concealed or otherwise, waiting for an opportunity to use them, is hardly civilized. "

                  But killing kids in school is civilized?  Wanting a "civilized" answer that is pleasant is not going to help.

                  "It does not protect anyone, but will probably increase casualties. "

                  On what do you base that "probably"?  A completely unsupported opinion?  And if it does - if "friendly fire" kills 2 but saves 20 are we not ahead?

                  "If such precautions preclude 50 percent of the homicidal maniacs, that is better than allowing them all to get through."

                  Where do you get that 50%?  Made out of thin air?  Because I don't believe you will stop 1% of homicidal maniacs that are there to die.  It is a pipe dream that won't happen.  Would we not be better off, in the long run, to eliminate the insanity from our society that makes a homicidal maniac rather than trying to stop one that we never see coming?  Plus, of course, making it difficult for that maniac to get his weapon of choice accomplishes nothing at all when it comes to saving lives - certainly banning guns painted black isn't going to produce that 50% savings.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                    "You have a motion detector.  Do you have one in every room, including bathrooms?  Do you have cameras in every room?  That's what we're talking about, not a detector/camera or two at the front door.  And yes, it is turning a grade school into a prison.  If that's what is necessary, then do it and hang the cost (billions)."

                    For heavens sake, Wilderness, the outside world is not Mayberry.  My house is not a public place, surely you can see the difference. I am just making a point that armed guards should be at the entrances at the start school day, the security features I am speaking about should apply primarily when school is out of session to prevent trespass, vandalism or theft. Do you really have a problem with that? Security is expensive, but if you want protection for the kids and property......
                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    But killing kids in school is civilized?  Wanting a "civilized" answer that is pleasant is not going to help.

                    On what do you base that "probably"?  A completely unsupported opinion?  And if it does - if "friendly fire" kills 2 but saves 20 are we not ahead?
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    This is funny, now you acknowledge the deterrent value of a "Miss Brooks" doubling as 'pistol packing mama' in a classroom, but say that sophisticated security systems and precautions are useless and without deterrent value. I find that sort of odd. I find that your opinion regarding the deterrent value of security systems as incorrect and unsupported, are we even?
                    ---------------------------------
                    "Where do you get that 50%?  Made out of thin air?  Because I don't believe you will stop 1% of homicidal maniacs that are there to die.  It is a pipe dream that won't happen.  Would we not be better off, in the long run, to eliminate the insanity from our society that makes a homicidal maniac rather than trying to stop one that we never see coming?  Plus, of course, making it difficult for that maniac to get his weapon of choice accomplishes nothing at all when it comes to saving lives - certainly banning guns painted black isn't going to produce that 50% savings."
                    -------------------------------------------------
                    Where do you get the 1 percent or "zero"? Can you substantiate the total uselessness of the deterrent features put into place? What you believe does not necessarily make it fact, now does it? The experts and the people in a position to REALLY KNOW say otherwise, so to whom should I give credibility? Insanity is part of human condition, you can never really totally eradicate it from any society. What kind of magical proposal are you offering that can remake 'man' himself? Are the conservatives really that clever?

 
working