Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're already spending billions on wages for people that are staffing schools. Why not just use the existing personnel? Is there some reason why all those "front office" staff can't be people that are trained to use firearms instead of just overweight house-fraus that can type and answer a phone?
Or the teachers? Some of whom are surely capable of learning how to use a firearm. What about the janitorial staff?
I mean its crazy we're having THIS conversation when there were multiple armed LEOs assigned to that school and they didn't even ATTEMPT to intervene in this massacre.
Can we start there? Let's have a simultaneous national conversation about this crazy idea that the police can protect or should protect citizens or that it is reasonable for citizens to "outsource" their personal safety to the 911 dispatch system.
I'll start: the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect any person. They CAN, but they have no duty to do that. That leaves all of us responsible for making ALTERNATIVE ARRANGEMENTS.
The gun banners need to take that into consideration before they render their fellow citizens even more helpless than they already are.
Yep, just was thinking about it today. Need to filter out ones with PTSD, though, as they can do more harm than good, sometimes.
Go try to tell an overweight house-frau that she will be soon replaced with a fit gun-bearer...
Ok, is it just me, or has anyone else never heard this word? Both my husband and I, and most of our social Circle, are well educated, and I have never heard this word used. Maat55 inserts it into many of his posts, clearly intended as an insult. After googling it's definition, I am completely baffled how it applies to the discussion at hand.
Statism is a somewhat common and fairly basic term in political science and philosophy, so I'm surprised that a college grad wouldn't be familiar with it. But I suppose if you never studied or had interests in political philosophy you could get through the average public uni experience without seeing or hearing it. But even then, I think you'd have to have a similarly provincial social circle to not have heard it outside of formal education.
It is indeed a pejorative because its antithetical to the American Ideal. Meaning that this nation was conceived of as a truly novel political experiment, based on the supremacy of the individual (instead of the supremacy of the collective, or the State - hence, "statist").
Problem I see is that schools don't actually teach Civics in K-12, so most students can graduate woefully ignorant of the fundamentals of Western political theory, as well as the founding of their own nation. Most high school grads cannot give you even a brief synopsis of the evolution of political thought that led to the present day. They can't put the major movements in the proper order, they cannot identify the classical antecedents of the American system (some of them might mumble something about the Magna Carta, or common law...but that's about as deep as it gets).
In any case....the real tragedy of this is that we now have a population of people, who, because they are ignorant, don't understand the perils or problems with Statist systems. Because they don't have any frame of reference to appreciate the vastness of historical examples. They were never taught, and they simply don't care enough to find out.
These kinds of people tolerate far too much abuse and too much perversion of our system.
No one can prove this NEVER happened, anywhere in the world, anytime throughout history. I haven't even bothered to google yet to find out which sources are making this claim, but considering a negative can never be proven, I wouldn't believe it regardless of the source.
If you are disputing the results of someone else's research, how does your unsubstantiated, UN-RESEARCHED opinion add anything to the discussion? America has over 320 million people, and a well-documented history of over 200 years--a pretty big database for statistical analysis. Even if you could find an incident where a normal (non-psychotic) armed citizen shot someone by mistake every year while defending against a mass murderer, it would be so rare as to be statistically "none."
And while negatives can't be proven, you can certainly get a good idea of how common (or rare) something is. In this case, there's an excellent reason to conclude that normal (non-mentally ill) armed citizens are an asset, rather than a liability, during an attack: the lack of any reports of an armed citizen harming bystanders while defending an attack, even though the vast majority of American media & news conglomerates are desperate to find ANY news to support their owners' agenda (disarming the American citizen).
If there were any such incidents, our biased media would have found them, exaggerated and mis-reported them, and made sure that the intellectually-challenged masses thought they were common events (via endless repetition for months after the incident, and then perpetual inclusion in every subsequent gun-related incident).
Everyone has an opinion on every subject, but the importance of that opinion depends on how it was formed:
(1) Via research on all sides of the issue, followed by critical analysis (conscious and subconscious bias of sources, overt attempts to push an agenda; ignoring data when the conclusion is inconvenient, whether assumptions are justified and conclusions logical, etc.), or
(2) By parroting back whatever an authority figure (or the media in general) wants everyone to think.
When a poster admits they haven't bothered to research, and wouldn't believe research anyway, it's pretty clear how they form their opinions--and consequently how much their opinion should count in the minds of those who actually want to understand and improve the world.
Again, another vile malicious insinuation with no bases. You’ve disgustingly attempted to twist my assertions in order to attack me and not my proposal. Of which, is to defend schools and retain the people’s purposefully established 2A rights. Pathetic.
I just do not see that these two things are related and you seem to be mashing them together. On top of that you announce ideas and do not address criticism of your ideas.
Look, nothing against teachers but they are normal people. The percentage of teachers that are criminals is probably very similar to the rest of the population. So arming teachers does not seem to be the answer to me. To add to that are school systems, and as a result our teachers, are under budget stress almost constantly. So you are taking a group of people that I feel believe they are underpaid in general and arming them around children. I really am not thinking this is the answer.
No matter what the criticism you keep wedging guns in as the solution which to me is irresponsible. YMMV
Statism is a somewhat common and fairly basic term in political science and philosophy, so I'm surprised that a college grad wouldn't be familiar with it. But I suppose if you never studied or had interests in political philosophy you could get through the average public uni experience without seeing or hearing it. But even then, I think you'd have to have a similarly provincial social circle to not have heard it outside of formal education.
.
I never heard the term in college and neither have most people. The word was popularized by Ayn Rand and has been co-opted by the alt right and neo-libertarians who now throw it around freely to claim that any government program, whether it's protection of the environment, food inspection, or a requirement that we obtain building permits when we build a house is statism. In actuality statism refers to two extremes, communism or fascism, both of which establish total censorship and tolerate no freedom of thought. But hey who can blame someone for using it, it sounds so cool
Statism is a somewhat common and fairly basic term in political science and philosophy, so I'm surprised that a college grad wouldn't be familiar with it. But I suppose if you never studied or had interests in political philosophy you could get through the average public uni experience without seeing or hearing it. But even then, I think you'd have to have a similarly provincial social circle to not have heard it outside of formal education.
It is indeed a pejorative because its antithetical to the American Ideal. Meaning that this nation was conceived of as a truly novel political experiment, based on the supremacy of the individual (instead of the supremacy of the collective, or the State - hence, "statist").
Problem I see is that schools don't actually teach Civics in K-12, so most students can graduate woefully ignorant of the fundamentals of Western political theory, as well as the founding of their own nation. Most high school grads cannot give you even a brief synopsis of the evolution of political thought that led to the present day. They can't put the major movements in the proper order, they cannot identify the classical antecedents of the American system (some of them might mumble something about the Magna Carta, or common law...but that's about as deep as it gets).
In any case....the real tragedy of this is that we now have a population of people, who, because they are ignorant, don't understand the perils or problems with Statist systems. Because they don't have any frame of reference to appreciate the vastness of historical examples. They were never taught, and they simply don't care enough to find out.
These kinds of people tolerate far too much abuse and too much perversion of our system.
I was humble enough to admit I'd never heard the term. I knew I wasn't the only one here, because I could tell from someone else's post that someone thought it meant a person who relies on statistics. So I asked.
I could type out condescending paragraph after paragraph, belittling people who don't understand the complement cascade involved in coagulation or the histocompatibility complex. But I wouldn't do that because I realize that even highly educated people have their specialized fields of knowledge, and there will always be topics and terms that simply haven't been part of their experiences.
I never heard the term in college and neither have most people. The word was popularized by Ayn Rand and has been co-opted by the alt right and neo-libertarians who now throw it around freely to claim that any government program, whether it's protection of the environment, food inspection, or a requirement that we obtain building permits when we build a house is statism. In actuality statism refers to two extremes, communism or fascism, both of which establish total censorship and tolerate no freedom of thought. But hey who can blame someone for using it, it sounds so cool
Honestly when it was thrown out here I ignored it because it just seems like a red herring to deflect and distract.
I do not see how adding more guns to schools will resolve the problem. I am a veteran and I do not see how veterans are necessarily better for this.
I just do not see that these two things are related and you seem to be mashing them together. On top of that you announce ideas and do not address criticism of your ideas.
Look, nothing against teachers but they are normal people. The percentage of teachers that are criminals is probably very similar to the rest of the population. So arming teachers does not seem to be the answer to me. To add to that are school systems, and as a result our teachers, are under budget stress almost constantly. So you are taking a group of people that I feel believe they are underpaid in general and arming them around children. I really am not thinking this is the answer.
No matter what the criticism you keep wedging guns in as the solution which to me is irresponsible. YMMV
You are ignoring the fact that every time a school shooting happens there is a call for more do nothing gun laws. America’s favorite rifle is always the focus. Additionally, there is no immediate counter for the shooter.
I disagree with your assertion that teachers are not capable of providing a defense when they and their students lives are on the line. I’m not calling for all teachers, I’m calling for those who are qualified and desire the task with training. Millions of Americans, that are not police, carry responsibly everyday with no issues. You are vastly misjudging CC’s as incompetent.
For you to say “wedging guns in” as not a solution. Are you suggesting police guns as well? Or only teachers/citizens? Again, your comment reeks of statism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
