Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Philo what if we took the troops withdrawal money and invest in school security...
Obama can save the day.. ur advanced Obama administration will look like they did when first in office..
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
philo
climber
Oct 4, 2015 - 12:35pm PT
So Madbolter again I ask do you have kids?
How many of you advocated for turning schools into armed encampments actually have school age kids?
Two of my three KIDS went to school with this exact same VISIBLE heavily armed protection when I was stationed in Spain ....
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
FYI Locker that's where the word came from, the clip used to hang your carbine from your shoulder harness.
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
And lookee here...
In San Diego...
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
madbolter1 asked what is wrong with putting a few soldiers in each school?
i'd argue a few things:
1. specific evidence of the columbine incident, where there actually was an armed deputy posted to the school, suggests that, while some still believe his presence did save even more from being killed, in one case at least, it certainly didn't stop the catastrophic events that did happen.
2. the general logic in your next post is flawed. you state that: Make it clear to nutjobs that the second they poke of their cowardly heads, those heads will be shot off.
it's mistaken because in most of these incidents these boys and men [and it is almost always the y chromosome behind these attacks] already know that their heads are going to be blown off [usually at their own hand]. and so if a person's goal is to take out 10 or 20 people as they commit suicide, all your plan makes them do is move the location of said event to the wing of the school where these soldiers, that you've suggested, aren't posted. ie. the only way your plan would really work would be to post a soldier to each classroom and hallway of the building.
the second point in your argument that is uncharacteristically mistaken is calling them cowards. this is the kind of common sense bullshit that keeps americans from adressing the actual roots of these types of issues. you think someone who makes plans to go into a space, kill other people, knowing full well that after it is all over, that they will be dead, is a coward? i say this with absolutely no intent to shine any kind of positive light on the people who do this. i have no disagreement that they are criminal, insane, murderous, etc and etc. my point is that calling them cowards is mistaken and leads to the false logic that more soldiers will make a difference. most of these dudes already know they are going to die and they do it anyway. are you going to try and make these "cowards" die twice?
3. the overall cost would be astronomical. the u.s. can't even pay its teachers properly. where is the money going to come from to post a couple of soldiers to each school? and as argued above, even if this was done, it will be just like most of the rest of the u.s.'s high dollar investments in "security": an almost complete and total waste of money.
unless you all really go whole hog and like i said, post a soldier to every room and hallway.
and before all you who are making emotionally charged knee-jerk reactionary arguments for creating more gun control assume i'm on your side, i think your arguments sound like a bunch of circa 1980's moms making emotional arguments after traumatic events advocating that cd's having bad words be censored or that marijuana is a gateway drug and we should throw people carrying even seeds and stems into federal pens.
THIS SH#T NEVER WORKS. and by this sh#t i mean using more control to solve the problems that have been created by too much control already.
you all are arguing about the symptom... how can we control the symptom...
until you accept that you can't treat the symptom without treating the deeper disease, you're f*#ked as you'll only exacerbate the situation with more attempts at more control. this will happen in the same way that trying to control drug addiction, or alcohol use, or teenage sex ALWAYS fails in the long run, when attempts at more control are applied [and in most cases attempts at control actually increases incidence prevalence]. more control in the u.s. gun violence situation will not ultimately be the cause of any decrease in violence. you already have all of the laws you need to ban this type of thing. the problem is the people perpetrating these types of things don't give a f*#k about the laws and the consequences of those laws.
and so i'm sure if you're still reading you're asking: ok smart guy, what's the deeper disease?
i'll throw two out there:
1. living in one of the most controlled nations in the world and then calling yourself free [the control is not just physical, but more importantly it is economic, and it is social/emotional/spiritual]
2. and so much of the control comes from assuming that all there is, is the [individuated] material realm that can be objectively measured. ie. not accepting that the [collective] emotional, dare i say spiritual, grounding to the human mystery is just as real and important of consideration as the material one that we can mostly all see and agree upon.
the more you all try to chase the tail of the dog by applying more control the more you just increase the spiritual/emotional pressure that ultimately results in this kind of horror.
as always: imesho.
and so with sincerity: best of luck.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!