posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 02:19 PM
Originally posted by oper8zhin
or=skyblue]So its [color=gold]GOOD and RIGHTEOUS REASONING for THEIR CHILDREN [color=skyblue]to be protected via ARMED GUARDS with
firearms in THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS, but all of a sudden its [color=gold]BAD, BAD, BAD, when its suggested as a solution for MASS SHOOTINGS
IN OUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL??!!
Am I understanding this correctly???
You aren't thinking sufficiently about the problem, and your anger is in the way.
Mass shootings---with random victims---by suicidals with rifles and armor can't be easily stopped without security and construction equal to a base in
Afghanistan, quite literally. 20 Marine guards, trenches, razor wire, alarms, body searches, etc. There was an armed guard at the school shootings in
Columbine who fired his weapon at the shooters. Even then after many police arrived, they didn't enter for a long time.
The perpetrators of specific targeted action against children of prominent people aren't like that. The threat is different. Firstly, they aren't
suicidal, and they have a specific goal. Security can definitely inhibit them.
They want to kidnap/threaten one specific child. Remember that many children at Sidwell's are likely to be born of foreign parents.
Even a jihadist with a suicide-homicide-vest isn't likely to be successful at getting one particular enemy's child.
Mass shootings come from young men with mental disturbances. You can't prevent these, they are facts of biology. Reduction of harm means firstly
mental health treatment and ability to commit people, or restrict firearms to them. Also, requirements for storing firearms in the home and liability
if they are used because of negligent safekeeping.
The money spent on armed guards in every elementary school in the nation could pay for lots of mental health treatment which would probably help many
edit on 25-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-12-2012 by mbkennel because: j