My thoughts exactly.
1. Wouldn't stop a narcissist
2. Wouldn't stop somebody from walking to the front and shooting the screener and then walking through.
3. Wouldn't stop a narcissist.
This is most idiotic hoopla I've read in a long time. He's suggested a Watch Your Neighbor Orwellian state, combined with a useless "feel good" suggestion that will stop nothing.
Hey genius. If they had checked him for weapons BEFORE being allowed on school grounds the shooting would have been averted.
Personally I would change the unarmed security they currently have on school grounds to armed security or even armed off duty police.
How is that an "orwellian state?" My god do you know how ignorant and naive you sound? Do you know why small towns have less violent crime over all than cities? Because everyone knows everyone. you clearly don't value the safety of our children. If we are going to be serious about wanting to make sure our children are safe then this is the sort of approach that needs to be taken.
If you don't agree with this then please tell us what you idea is of a better plan.
I don't see how any of the three things listed above would have helped, they are all feel good measueres that sound good and comforting after a tragedy but won't stop a mad man.
The shooting would have started with the person working the security station.
Maybe fire doors at classroom doors that can be dropped in case of emergency. I know this will be very sensatvie, but why not allow teachers to carry a handgun. they would need rigourous training and recertification every year as well as a full psych exam.
Small towns? I lived in a small town. I can't recall people monitoring others for mental instabilities there, in order to get them "treatment".
As to your "if they'd searched him first!" comment, that is simply absurd. Say you queue up waiting to be body scanned for weapons. Long line behind you. Some guy walks straight to the front of the line and shoots the scanning personnel. Walks in. So much for "searched him first!". You assume madmen will queue up and wait in line to be searched. That's insanity and a very fatal assumption.
If you want to stop this kind of thing, how about we start examining the very uncomfortable questions about modern culture that the Left refuses to examine?
My answer? Start here: http://www.patriotsdonotcomply.com/index.php/articles/insanity-and-culture-death/
My solution? Start here: http://www.patriotsdonotcomply.com/index.php/articles/harshness-reality/
In short, get rid of Criminal Protection Zones entirely (on government land/facilities). A person doesn't go from law abiding, tested and background checked good guy, to insane evil bad guy simply by walking into a school with a CHL and a sidearm. Anything else is madness.
Any teacher who is willing to undergo firearms training should be allowed to have a weapon in their classroom in a fingerprint activated lock box. The weapon should have an electronic trigger lock which is activated only by a special electronic ring on one of the authorized users fingers so that a kid can't break into it and fire the weapon.
Glass entry doors should be fortified with metal grid work so the shooter can't just shoot out the glass and walk right through, or make the glass bullet proof. Classroom doors should also be fortified to make it very difficult for an intruder to get in.
The entry ways should be a double entry system with steel gates (like the malls have) that will quickly close at the press of a panic button and secondary gates could also be installed at various places through out the building and trap the perpetrator in a confined space.
Place an armed security guard at every single school in the US and spread out the cost of his yearly salary among the parents of the Children, It wouldn't be that much money per child. For example; 50K a year salary / 400 students = $125 per student / 12 months = 10.41 per month per student. That's pocket change...
We don't need less guns...we need more of them...NO MORE SHOOTING GALLERIES!!!
A metal detector may have helped at Columbine but only if there was an armed guard. An unarmed security screeener would just be the first casualty.
I started school in 1952. The most dangerous situation I faced was "would I have to fight Don Harter for my lunch money?"
Crazy people have been with us forever. The big difference between my childhood and my granddaughters is the crazies were locked up in mental hospitals for the most part.
December 15, 2012 at 7:52am
perhaps its time for these talking heads to stop hiding behind the out dated first amendment and RVW.
December 6, 2012 at 8:58am
Yes legalize it, but most of the population will not be able to smoke it. If your job does drug testing and fires you for using marijuana don’t come crying to us about making your employer not test for it…
Do you take a breathalyzer test every day when you show up to work, or do you disclose everything you consume with your employer? What right does an employer have to judge an employee, out side of job performance. Point is the only "DRUGS" that produce negative response from your employer are the illegal ones. Time to figure out what laws stop crime and what laws create crime. Remember its totally "LEGAL" to KILL your baby so long as you follow the governments law . I'm just saying don't let government, corporate, or societies policies set your moral center point.
The employer is paying someone to voluntarily show up and do a job. No one is forcing the employee to work there. An employer is well within his or her rights to require daily breathalyzer and drug tests if they wanted to. If that is seen as too oppressive, free market principles will ensure that this employer will not attract employees.
Living under government is not voluntary however. By virtue of birth, you (assuming you are living here) and I live under the government of the United States. Therefore, it is sensible to fight for basic freedoms. Telling employers what they can and can't do (outside of very basic things such as endangering the lives of their employees via neglect) is government oppression.
"but most of the population will not be able to smoke it. If your job does drug testing and fires you for using marijuana don’t come crying to us about making your employer not test for it…"
If it was legal, your job wouldn't drug test you for it. Similarly, I don't know of any workplaces that drug test you for alcohol use ... do you? Now, if you're under the influence of said drug during your work hours, that is a different matter entirely.
Drug testing does nothing for workers, only employers. As a worker, I'd much rather work with a reeking stoner than worry about someone that "has gone off their meds". With pot, you smell it and can look someone in the eye and know. Legal drugs, you gotta put up with a lot of crazy crap, if they go off their drugs....and frankly, when that happens, I really wish they could go outside and smoke a big fat one. But it's all well and good if its a legal drug, right? Can't really complain if your co workers are NOT on their meds right? It's a privacy issue. My point is drugs can be a force for good or bad. Either way, people use them. There are plenty of people abusing legal drugs and somehow people think that is at least ,somehow, I don't know...respectable, maybe? Like, when Rush Limbaugh admitted his addiction, it wasn't like he admitted to an "illegal" drug, so that was somehow, more forgivable. For me it is a behavior issue, not an issue of legality. I have had too many problems with legal drug abusers. Drug testing is only for illegal drugs....yes, those mandatory drug tests keep the workplace safe. Ever had a boss off his Thorazine? Drug testing to get and keep a job, but no drug test for welfare recipients. Who is the genius that thought of that one? Drug tests...everything will be fine, just threaten them with a drug test....and if you don't like your worker, tell them they failed it and make their life hell. Drug tests, yes that is the answer!!!!
December 6, 2012 at 8:49am
Why does everyone use ‘Tax Revenues’ as a way to justify legalizing it? Don’t you pay enough taxes? Why do you wan’t to add a whole new layer of bureaucracy? You people act like taxing it is going to be the end to our troubles and a revenue panacea…
Just legalize it, free people that are held on Marijuana related charges.
December 3, 2012 at 2:26pm
As a Christian, I think the retailers should stand with the atheist and get rid of Christmas… They’ll be begging to have it back in a few years.
December 3, 2012 at 2:01pm
“The ironic thing is that the sectarian Christians who squeal the loudest over this “war on Christmas” are the same ones who defend parodies of sacred Mormon clothing, Joseph Smith, the angel Moroni, or other sacred Mormon symbols.”
Please tell us how you REALLY know that these are the same people. Unlike the atheist who decry everything they think is myth. If it’s not real they why do you care so much?
Atheist pretend they have the luxury to point at everyone about evils done through history as the fault of religion; i.e.: slavery, polygamy, genocide, etc. etc.
If we buy into their point of view, then they’ve had millions of years to get rid of these evil. Or to be fair, 10,000 years of civilization to get rid of these evils. Yet, where were the atheist to stop them? Now that we’ve arrived at a point of history where everyone agrees that these things are wrong? Christianity, has helped outlaw them. The atheist now point to the religious as being the cause of it.
So show us where the atheist have made a concerted effort to bring freedom, value of life, elevated the rights of women in history… Don’t tell me what you’re doing now, because your kind has existed throughout history.
December 3, 2012 at 11:48am
your absolutely right. I’ve been there done that…
December 3, 2012 at 11:44am
This is why you only help widows and orphans Timothy 5:3-16… no ADULT MEN who choose not to work.
November 28, 2012 at 1:34pm
I am amazed at how people look at giving today. Seem to think that it is required. That if a poor person did not receive a gift to their satisfaction that it is insufficient. That concept is downright selfish. We graciously accept whatever someone wants to give you. Not stand there and say it’s not enough.
The New Testament looks at giving differently. It should be done not out of necessity or need or grudgingly. Let everyone determine if his heart what God wants them to give and they should give it. It should be a secret. not something that you tell everyone about.
November 28, 2012 at 1:23pm
You have apparently not been to very many churches in our country… to make such a statement I guess you’d have to attend attended everyone of them. There are plenty of churches that preach the gospel and correct living. If you want to get their churches around the world to our churches. You should look at the tax code for the differences. Nonprofit organizations are required to have a board. This provides a different power structure in our churches. Rather than theocratic rule of the church it’s done by a board Like a corporation. As you know parliamentary systems generally lead to corruption and power struggles.
November 28, 2012 at 1:12pm
10% is an Old Testament concept, 10% is not in New Testament. The role of the church is To perform the great commission. Helping Widows and Orphans i.e. your neighbor is a personal duty. The Bible says a lot about personal responsibility and the duties of parents. But all we ever hear about is “helping the poor”.
November 28, 2012 at 12:29pm
This poll is offensive to me for many reasons. We live in a nation that increasingly hates Christians, who then set back and whine that we aren’t doing enough. Is it not a miracle enough that we give and care for the poor period? The whole concept the ‘we’re not doing enough’ is selfish! What is the poor, widows and children; men and single women are required by the Bible to GET OUT AND WORK! The so called poor already get $1T from us a year. Care for your neighbor is suppose to be a personal work, not a corporate one.
Remember that when you give to the the Salvation Army, Goodwill, United Way and Red Cross; who turn the ‘poor’ into a product or commodity to profit from.