First Sandy Hook related litigation.

Post Reply New Topic

Without statistical evidence, it is just your opinion.

Evidence, please?

If the shooter not only knows that they will be met with armed resistance, and they don't know from which direction that armed resistance will come from, they will either be more cautious, use sniping tactics (which are easier to evade than a point-blank assault), or seek engagement elsewhere.

That's called "Battlefield Logic".

prove me wrong. Science is the art of proving hypothesis. Prove to me that armed guards cause a statistical drop in teh number of deaths because the gaurd takes out the person. you have schools without. such as the elementary school. and ones with, like columbine.

Unless you guys are willing to do that. Its just your opinions against mine. and i think you can can agree, my arguments at the very least raise points that give VERY good reasoning and explanations against your argument of arming schools

You made the assertion. You provide your own supporting evidence.

Armed guards are a deterrent, not a fighting force. This is also military logic. The idea being that if an attacker believes that he or she can just stroll through the front gate and start shooting, then he or she is more likely to do it. But if there is an obvious armed presence, then a potential attacker is likely to reconsider the risks. This is one of the main reasons why there are highly visible armed guards at entrances to military bases.


And if armed guards are deemed necessary to deter or prevent attacks on armed military personnel, then why are they not deemed necessary to deter and prevent attacks on unarmed children?

Why do you seem to believe that unarmed children do not deserve the same level of protection as armed military personnel?

Do you hate children?

Yes. i hated them when i was one. bullying tends to do that. and i don't care much for them now. Wont stay out of my yard and breaking my property. joke
But no really. The difference there is the military the entire point of it, is being armed, (we call them the armed forces). The point of a school is to teach, learn and grow socially, spiritually(in some cases), and intellectually. Not the a place to be under armed protection, it isn't a prison, bank, or military base where the point is to keep the people/object under strict protection. The school was not negligent unless you say not having bullet proof glass on the doors was negligent. In which case what twisted world do you live in.

And not to die in a mass shooting by a crazed lunatic.


Why do you not believe in protecting children? Are they not worthy of protection?

Are you against pre-enrollment inoculations, as well? Why protect children against diseases?

How about school lunch programs; are you against those too? Why protect children against malnutrition?

Why teach them anything at all? Why protect them against a life of ignorance?

Children need and deserve to be protected. The response to the recent escalation in the frequency and magnitude of mass shootings in schools should be met with an equivalent increase in the methods used to protect the children in those schools. Mere locks are not enough. A visibly armed presence in schools may be the one best solution.

Either that, or lock up anyone who is diagnosed as mentally or emotionally incompetent and declared Non Compos Mentis in a court of law, especially since medicating them into insensibility doesn't seem to work as well as it should.

These are isolated incidents. much like 9/11. You take steps to prevent the people who commit the acts from getting a hold of them next time. you don't overreact and arm everyone or by the opposite token take away everyone right to arm. These are people with mental problems, that commit these acts. But you don't overreact and having weapons around hormonal, stressed and undeveloped children and teens is NOT the reaction we need. We need to work to keep the guns out of these idiots hands not say "well they have it, so should everyone else" that may work in backwards logic land but it doesn't pass the BS test of the real world.
And while i do understand this is an Aspergers site and we do have a tendency to be a little high on ourselves intellectually . Let us do remember the real world doesn't work by math and provable hypothesis alone.

Trained guard (police officer is the same thing) = deterrence and the ability to confront an active threat (training has changed for first responders to engage the threat and to stop them from continuing the massacre; no one waits for SWAT anymore)

no deterrence = free fire zone that won't stop until the guards/police arrive to confront the shooter (or the shooter chooses too)

What we're doing here is making it so there's little lag between the start of the massacre and when the police arrive, as the police are already there.

Easy to have a two-man security or police station that is tapped into 360 degree surveillance. Not at all expensive either.

NO! a decent society that doesn't keep engendering/perpetuating these blow-ups would be reasonable. having to resort to armed guards in our schools is a blinking obscenity, nothing more. what does this dysfunctional situation say about our society? reasonableness has escaped america in search of greener pastures.

You could say the same thing about any form of armed security in society, from malls to nuclear missile silos. Security is needed because someone wants to harm or take what's held within; it doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Nothing has really changed for the majority of people other than media that makes things closer to home for everyone -- seeing parents and EMTs crying on television really hits home for the empathy feelers.

I don't want to get too involved in another firearms argument, so I'll raise one point and that's it:

If the viewpoint is to protect the unarmed & vulnerable why aren't hospitals loaded with armed guards?

But my reason for posting was to ask why is America so litigation happy?

the hospital i used to work in [madigan army med. ctr. JBLM] WAS loaded with a small army of armed security guards. at the same time, all the other hospitals in the surrounding area were exactly the same, in response to 9/11.

Last edited by auntblabby on 29 Dec 2012, 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Some do, some don't; depends on where it is. I'm sure if they became targets you'd see them all arming up.

Money, that is really the only thing that matters in America.

^^^
america is a living example to the rest of the world, of the 7 deadly sins in action, of which our greed is merely one.