Government Keeps You Safe

Which is why Asian students in a south Philadelphia high school are being distributed pamphlets that tell them how to respond in the event they are attacked by savages.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Many Asian students who walk into South Philadelphia High on Tuesday morning will be carrying something besides books.

In pockets and purses, they’ll tote a pamphlet called “Staying Safe.” It was given to them by community leaders who ran a special orientation aimed at teaching the students an important lesson: what to do if they’re attacked at school.

Knowing how to report harassment or assault is a skill most would prefer not to need. But it’s the reality of life at the school, where 30 Asians were attacked by groups of mostly African American students Dec. 3.

The violence sent seven Asians to hospitals and led about 50 to stage a weeklong boycott.

Of course, if government really could keep you safe we wouldn’t need to tell Asian kids what to do in the event they are set upon by roaming gangs of violent welfare fueled street thugs.

I can see it now, 10 thugs surround some Asian kid with baseball bats; the Asian kid pulls out a paper pamphlet, folds it into a stabbing weapon, and then proceeds to stab each of his attackers in the eye socket, ultimately puncturing their frontal lobe, killing his attackers instantly.

What the school needs to hand out is the following:

1 government issue Glock 19 with 2 clips, Trijicon night sights, and 100 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

1 government issue Fox OC canister

1 government issue bullet proof vest

1 government issue Ka-bar combat knife

This would immediately solve the problem of roaming street thugs violently attacking Asian kids for no particular reason at all. When people are disarmed, natural law rules the day. The strongest dominate the weakest. The reason why statists hate guns is because guns are the ultimate equalizer. They give the smallest person equal odds against the largest attacker. They give a person independent safety. The frailest old lady can defend herself against a professional football player without the need to depend on anyone but herself.

Some statists may scream and stamp their feet over such advice, claiming that it would lead to mass shootouts in our schools. – Well, which is better? Asian kids getting the crap beat out of them or a level playing field? I can tell you that if everyone was armed in that school, the incidence of violence would be LOW, because just like in nuclear war, mutually assured destruction prevents everyone from doing something stupid.

If government can’t even keep some Asian school kids safe, how is it going to keep you safe – from anything?

I hear you there. If everyone was armed, crime would drop significantly. Who in their right mind would rob a store, knowing that the clerk was armed?

I agree with your views on being armed, but I don't think arming teenagers is the answer. I bet a select few would even understand the idea of mutually assured destruction. But many of them would be quick to kill each other over stupid stuff.

I think the answer lies within the community and homes of those who wish to harm others. We recently had an incident in my area where a group of blacks went on a violent rampage. All of them has serious parental issues and troubled homes.

So I think we need to reinforce the family/home structure and our economic system before we simply arm everyone. All people need to be armed but only at a time that they fully understand the implications of such a huge responsibility.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


History says you are wrong.

Believe it or not, there was a day and age when students took their rifles and pistols to school, to go hunting or target shooting afterwards.

I would also like to point out that the average age of new military recruits is around 19.

Our own government hands fully automatic assault rifles, grenades, man portable missile launchers, tanks, mortars, high explosive mines, and combat knifes to kids on a daily basis.

Last time I checked, there is an extremely low incidence of shootings on military installations where the kids are armed.

Hence, we can deduce that armed kids will not result in mass shootings any more or less than it does now.

Also keep in mind that the kids our government is arming are all boys, many of whom come from the wrong side of the tracks, and it's placing them all under extreme stress.


[edit on 6-9-2010 by mnemeth1]

You know, I actually dont disagree with OPs (which is unusual). HOWEVER, I would add a caveat here, that a test of sorts be established before a pistol is issued. Something that tests their emotional state, and should be a reoccuring test every few months...make sure only the stable minded kids are armed...its always the unstable exception that blows it for the rest.

The old west wasn't as wild as it was reported...matter of fact, the armed man law was significantly less dangerous than the controlled east coast in regards of murder per 100k...people did think twice before stealing or drawing their pistol out considering the other person...and everyone around you...more than likely was packing.

The drawback of course would be, when things do happen, your not bringing the person to the hospital, your bringing them to a morgue.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I think we should base the issue of guns on a math test in this case.

mnemeth, I like your mutually assured destruction analogy. Never thought to use that macro argument for the micro.

To further that postulate.

If the government believes sooo much in disarming, why do they not do it?

Oh I forgot, they are going to protect us from those evil................. fill in blank here with anything you want.

For those that will come and argue the statist mentality, I will post this video for their ultimate arrival. A synapse of the video-the lecturer destroys the arguments on the crime rates and the total lack of coverage of crime deterred by people with guns. Kinda hard to get statistics from the government when they want to take guns away. The old argument comes to mind, if you as a citizen can protect your rights, what would be the reasoning be of having a totalitarian and tyrannical government?

For those gun control peeps out there-

Back in the early to mid 90's when I was in school, we could park our cars, leave a gun in the window and there would be no problem. Most time it was deer or pheasant season, but no one batted an eye if the gun was there out of season. We did not run to our cars after a fight or because of one. People today are just way too sensitive and kids are under-educated about firearm safety/ dangers of.

Honestly I don't think that this zero tolerance policy has done anything but harm the relationships children and parents have with their schools and the schools with their communities. Yes I want my kids to be safe at school, but as a parent it is my responsibility to ensure that 1. they know it's not appropriate to take a weapon to school 2. it's wrong to use that weapon on another student. It is not wrong to have the same expectation of my fellow parents.

If we stop ignoring our children and stop relying on the school to raise our children, then we can affect change on our children. But alas, I am asking too much of my fellow parents... you know to actually be a parent?

Thank # there are no guns in my country. What a great idea that would be, lets give all the retards weapons! woohoo!!!, lets not try and resolve the issue by learning how to effectively curb violence and a serious gun problem, no, lets get more GUNS GUNS GUNS YEEEEEEHAAAAWWW

Yip, MORE guns is deffinatly the solution, what.

Originally posted by Johnze
Thank # there are no guns in my country. What a great idea that would be, lets give all the retards weapons! woohoo!!!, lets not try and resolve the issue by learning how to effectively curb violence and a serious gun problem, no, lets get more GUNS GUNS GUNS YEEEEEEHAAAAWWW

Yip, MORE guns is deffinatly the solution, what.

So tell me, how would you prevent the Asian kids from being attacked in this case?

I'm all ears.

Just what we need some heavily armed Asian kids.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm all ears.

At the risk of sounding racist, I suggest schools start a martial arts regiment...replace gym class with some form of effective self defense...dodgeball wont help you in life, but how to kick a person in their nose is a skill that comes in handy

reply to post by mnemeth1


Long term I would find out why they were attackd, and try to find a solution. Giving people more guns is retarded in the extreme and makes absolutely no sense. Why do drug cartels and lower gangs on the street still fight with each other?, they have highly illegal automatic weapons, still plenty of violence there. But according to yourself there should be no violence what so ever right?, because of all the GUNS GUNS GUNS.

Imagine that, MORE guns, leads to MORE violence???, i would never have thought that you know. I mean in the run up to world war war its blindingly obvious the escalation of an arms race between the british and german colonial empires was going to lead to utter calamity, but again acording to your understanding, WW1 should have been totaly averted because of all the GUNS GUNS GUNS YEEEEEHAAAWWWW

Education is basicaly the key here, you really have to educate people properly so they understand the difference between what is essentialy the right or wrong thing to do, there is clearly a total break down of this education in whatever social enviroment these people are living in. You have to look at why there is total social collapse here and seek to remedy it, AS ANY CIVILISED PERSON OR NATION WOULD SEEK TO DO. Not make it worse by giving more people death dealing weapons.

reply to post by Johnze


So your solution is to "educate" people into not getting beaten up for being Asian.

What would your system of education entail and why would it work?

Why should the roaming gangs of black street thugs listen to what you have to say in this case?




[edit on 6-9-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by JBA2848
Just what we need some heavily armed Asian kids.

Well, only one of those actually killed anyone.

Considering we only have one instance of an Asian mass murder, I'd say the odds are pretty good.

Both of those attackers DID have something in common besides being Asian - they both chose to attack gun free zones.

I'd also like to point out, in keeping with my original theme, that government didn't protect anyone from anything in either instance.

Sure, the government killed the Discovery Channel guy, but if that guy wanted to, he could have killed damn near everyone in the building before the cops would have stopped him.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Gun free zones, that is almost as funny as a peaceful politician.

They are out there, just few and far between.

I hear they have a new force field that is going up all around these gun free zones, the FF exists in the mind only though.

Hey, if gun free zones work, why don't they just declare Mexico a gun free zone or say Irag and Afghanistan.

That might work!?

A great movie about gun control is called "Shoot Em Up". A few very witty quotes about guns being the great equalizer. Check the movie out. My favorite was, "guns don't kill people, but, they sure help."

Police are effective only as long as they have their weapons and backup. If the people were back to having to protect their own like in the old days, LE would become irrelevant. As a byproduct, crime would exponentially decrease. WHY? The possible risks would be too great, if you have the choice of possibly going to prison as opposed to sure death, you might reevaluate whether your premeditated motives are truly worth it.

Originally posted by dfens
Police are effective only as long as they have their weapons and backup. If the people were back to having to protect their own like in the old days, LE would become irrelevant.

Ultimately, this is precisely why statists are against guns.

They take away the reason to expand government.

Fear and safety are the two biggest base instincts that statists use to further their agenda of total enslavement.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I don't think guns are the answer, although I don't have a problem with them being issued.

The answer is to eliminate the kindergarten criminal justice system for the thugs who are running around the street. They should be locked up and not for a weekend.

I know that folks will rail against the number of folks in prison. Who cares how many folks are in prison if they deserve to be there?

The other thing that should happen is to have segregated schools, segregated by the desire to learn. In the 70's you actually got kicked out of school and for good. That was the end of it. Is that good for the kid who gets kicked out? No, but who cares. It is good for the kids who are attempting to get an education.

If they are not willing to deal appropriately with these thugs, they should formally escort the kids to school. The cost of that activity should be paid for in a reduction of services directly to the familys of the thugs. Less welfare, less food stamps, less of all of the handouts.

Face it - regardless of how many feel good stories you see on Dateline or some other pap program, outreach to these neighborhoods has failed. They need to be fixed from the inside-out and not from the outside in. Enough of the rubbish of how society has "failed" these kids. Their parents have failed them and as a result, they have failed society, not the other way around.

reply to post by dolphinfan


Mommy and daddy can't be with junior 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and neither can law enforcement.

Just as we see with the Taliban, locking up or killing violent thugs does not solve any problems. It perpetuates the problems. There is an unending amount of violent thugs, so much so, that no matter how much money is spent on enforcement, there will always be more looters to take their place.

Currently the US locks up more people than any other country in the world - yet the problems remain.

The solution is not more "after the fact" enforcement. The solution is to let people defend themselves.

I'd also like to add, that under our current system of justice, the person who is attacked has to pay for the punishment of the attacker - thus, the person attacked is victimized twice.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by mnemeth1]