Monday July 25, 2016
Jump to content
The current discussion of armed guards or trained teachers is not only stupid, it is the precursor to an attempt to either create ANOTHER federal bureau, or to siphon more tax money off into private pockets.
My answer? Not only no, but hell no!
We would create another multi-billion dollar federal boondoggle that would solve nothing while it pushed us closer to the edge of national bankruptcy.
To begin with it would not, and could not, accomplish its purpose. Short of walling off the schools and placing armed guards around them there is no sure and certain way to stop a determined killer. None!
So forget it. It is pure nonsense. The instant Congress starts out to shovel billions of your tax dollars down the sewer again, rise up and tell them, "Not this time!"
There are, of course, some reasonable things that can, and should, be done.
One thing we should do--at last!--is fence the schools and close the gates during the day. In the morning before school, put teachers on extra duty at the gates. Check incoming kids to avoid another Columbine. On Columbine, as on any school in the nation right now, there was nothing to discourage any kid from simply walking on campus and starting to shoot. While we cannot stop a determined, well armed shooter, we can stop the 98% of shootings that are done by kids who get all steamed up and come on campus with revenge in mind.
So, let's stop that 98% and try another approach with the rest.
The other approach is to pass laws which enable us to find those who are so deranged they should be separated from society. That is doable, affordable, good for them, and good for us.
What we have now--and you can check this out in Payson by going to the office where it is happening--is a system which keeps such people on the street by feeding them pills. That may help the mildly ill, but the really dangerous minds we would like to see off the street are out there, just waiting for the day when the pressure gauges inside their heads reach the top and they hear, "Kill! Kill! Kill them all!"
Two doable approaches, both recommended by the FBI, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Centers for Disease Control.
But armed guards? No! Never! It will not work!
Arm ALL the students! (just kidding).....According to FBI statistics, the everyday Baseball Bat is the weapon of choice for the majority of murders each year in the USA! Firearms are at the bottom of their list of all murders reported.
The way I figure it, if the Secret Service, which did a study of school violence, says that the way to go resolve the problem is to get serious about stopping bullying, especially in PE, to fence schools to stop guns from routinely coming on campuses, and to find the crazies and get them off the streets, then we ought to be listening to them.
Who has more experience in guarding against attacks? No one! They know what they're talking about!
You know what all this "train the teachers, arm the teachers, put guns in places around the school where they can be found for defense, blah, blah, blah" stuff is? It's the thin end of the wedge, an excuse for some %$#@! politician to convince us that we need to create yet another new federal bureau and spend another $500 billion a year on schools!
Take another look at the bottom line in U.S. Department of Justice report that studied so many schools.
"Media reports have created the impression that such killings are more commonplace than they actually are."
"The School-Associated Violent Deaths Study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, indicates that less than 1 percent of the children nationwide who were murdered in the first half of [the year of the study] were victims of school-associated murders (i.e. murders that occurred on school property, at a school-sponsored event, or on the way to or from school or a school-sponsored event)."
"Available data do not suggest that schools are particularly risky places for homicide victimization, nor do they show that schools are becoming increasingly risky."
So what should we be doing?
• Stopping school bullying, which causes some kids to come unglued and seek revenge on the world. (This is rated as THE number one cause of school violence.)
• Fencing schools and assigning morning screening duties to teachers.
• Setting up mandatory reporting requirements which will get the insane off the streets and in places where they cannot harm themselves or others.
"Setting up mandatory reporting requirements which will get the insane off the streets and in places where they cannot harm themselves or others"
In my opinion Psychiatric units are often treated as the poor relation in the medical field when it comes to funding.
Tom, if I remember correctly there are door openers/locks that can be installed that allow a door to be opened from the inside (allowing easy escape if necessary) but are locked on the outside (preventing unwanted people to enter). I am sure there are other types of door controls that could be installed to prevent unwanted entry. Any locksmiths out there that could enlighten us?
When I was the Principal of a Middle School and then a High School we implemented many of the steps that you suggest on our campuses. We had at least one person who patrolled the campus every day and used his radio to report any problems to administration. The parking lot gates at the High School were closed and locked ten minutes after the starting signal for classes. Visitors had to enter campus through the main office during the day and were required to sign-in and have a Guest Pass. The entire campus had a fence surrounding. Any determined person, however, could have climbed over the fence. Your other points become relevant at this point. Only so much can be done to protect ourselves unless changes are made in the society and guns on the campus are not the answer.
Well, Mr. Lemon’s last point is what some of us might expect from those administrators over schools. Why does he think “guns on the campus are not the answer”? Notice folks with this point of view never seem to explain that position, it is simply like breathing itself. It is ‘assumed’ by those who have an aversion to guns, which appears to include many school administrators.
Mr. Lemon, I’m not sure of your position on guns. Maybe you have a few around the house. Maybe you’re a hunter. Or, maybe you despise the idea of them. Regardless, perhaps you could explain? How can it possibly be “not the answer”?
Just for giggles, and since this is the "playoffs" in both pro and college football. While viewing some of these events on TV, watch and see just how many police officers are protecting the coaches of those teams. Are coaches on the field more important than the children in the classrooms? The hypocracy from the "elite" in this nation is simply nauseating.
Mr. Sims; Your first sentence is rather snarky. Beyond that, you note how some folks do not ever explain a position. I note that you did not explain or use evidence to back your statement. Perhaps you rush to a statement that has no evidence. I have no aversion to guns. I own a gun and have owned one or more guns for over 50 years. If one thinks about it, the purpose of public schools ( and private, too ) is to educate youth. How do you want youth educated and in what environment? What do we want to teach our youth by our example? Violence is the only answer to violence? Do we want to turn teachers , who basically teach because they want to help youth grow and prosper, into examples of peopel who are ready and willing to kill other human beings? What form of atmosphere do we want on our campuses? Loving, caring and nurturing where youth are taught to think, speak, disagree and search for self-meaning? A prison-like atmosphere where lessons in frank, honest differences in opinion can not co-exist? The universities that formed in the Middle Ages were deemed to be "neutral ground" so that ideas could flourish without threats of violence. I enjoy that tradition of several hundred years and that is the type of school that I would strive to see. As to the last point, arming the teachers has a high moral, ethical and political cost that I am not willing to support. Besides that, I maintain that so long as our society has the values that it does a nut- case could still invade a school and killl/wound students and teachers. Arm one or two administrators after in-depth training? Perhaps not a bad idea. Mr. Hamric: Please give some thought to your question. To me the answer is obvious and has nothing to do with "elite" or double standards.
I think the way Mr. Lemon told how his school was protected should work. Nothing is fool proof. Maybe one other armed patrol person at the main door?
With all due respect, it has everything to do with double standards. I for one am getting pretty tired of being demonized as a gun owner because I won't compromise my ability to protect myself and those things that I hold dear. And this usualy comes from those who are better protected than are our "national treasure", our kids. Most every politician has security, every person of notoriety has security, corporate execs have security. Personal security is a necessity in today's world. But the solution to the issue of school security is to take away the rights of the law abiding who would provide for their own security. That's the best you can do? And before you even begin to tell me what types of firearms or their capability I should be allowed to best secure my safety and welfare, please let me be the first to say that it is I who will make that determination, not you thank you very much.
Mr. Hamric: I have not demonized you or anyone else on this site. If we have differences of opinion that can be discussed, it is a good thing. Also, I do not wish to take away anyone's freedoms except as common sense and laws dictate. That is the discussion, is it not? As to your question , "That's the best you can do?": No, it is not. I believe that there are many good ideas about school security. You are making snarky and derogatory remarks when there is no cause to do so unless your intent is to end discussion. I do not have any intention of making decisions about your safety and welfare. The U.S., or Gila County, or Arizona may pass legislation that you do not enjoy and in those cases the decisions will be theirs.
Perhaps a little clarity might help. You indicated that you don't think a "prison like" campus is conducive to the learning environment that teachers and administrators feel should exist for students. Then you say "guns on the campus are not the answer.". If we all can agree that school security is the goal, then just what steps to you propose be taken to insure such security. As I've posted, we all know that there is a whole industry that has grown up around securing the safety of various individuals such as politicians, celebrities, etc. Just how much or what level of security to you personally believe is required to protect our children? So far you've pointed to the things you are not in favor of, but I would like to hear specifics as to what you would propose that would ensure a more safe learning environment for kids in schools. Then perhaps this debate can continue further. And as food for thought, I think Ben Franklin, one of those angry old white guys from our past, said it well "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither".
This gun control discussion is getting out of hand and is being driven by emotions. If you look a few entries back, John Lemon outlines what was done in one school to guard against "wrongful" entries. I think quite a bit can be done to keep dangerous people out of schools. I feel that these things should be looked into and the ones that offer the best protection should be implemented before teachers, principals, etc. are armed.
What are we going to do about attacks at shopping malls like the one in Tucson? What are we going to do about attacks in theatres like the one in Colorado?
While I do not own a gun, I support your rights given under the 2nd Amendment. However, questions are being asked about what can be done to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Can something be done to prevent mentally ill people from owning guns? As I understand it, guns can currently be bought at gun shows without a background check. Should background checks be required even for gun show purchases? What about sales at garage sales or other private sales? Are private sales allowed between individuals that do not know each other? Do background checks have to be brought up to date?
Gun control should be seriously and unemotionally investigated and discussed. Both sides need to come to the table with an open mind. Only if both sides are interested in DISCUSSION and not argument will some good come out of this mess.
When I made that ‘snarky’ comment about Mr. Lemon, there was a purpose behind it, which was to draw out what would otherwise probably have been couched in platitudes. (Snarky is really a dumb word in my opinion, and both sides use it. If we mean ‘rude and crude’, we ought to say it.) Just like the substitution of that word for what was meant, liberals have taught themselves to insulate themselves from things they find disagreeable. It is the highlight of the difference between people of the two sides.
Conservatives, by and large, live in the ‘real’ world. We lift, push, cut and sweat. A snake is a snake, not an endangered species, a gun is a gun, not assault weapons versus personal protection devices. But, to those of a liberal mindset (By and large, but not all) there should be a social or legal solution to every inconvenience.
Consider Mr. Lemon’s description of the desired school environment. It gives ample evidence of how most of academia views life. They live between book covers. When they are at home, they consider things of the world. Some even want to have a gun to protect them. But, since they want to raise other’s children isolated from the ‘real’ world because it might instill in them things distasteful to the academician, they are willing to risk the lives of those kids in the mistaken belief that it is their duty to do so. I don’t doubt their sincerity, nor the bravery of the average teacher. It is commendable, for they are dedicated; just not to the real world’s good, but to the Utopian dream. You can readily see it in Mr. Lemon’s description of his view of how schools have been isolated for hundreds of years.
But, to risk other’s children because of this Kumbaya concept is inherently wrong. No wonder we have raised up a nation of vacillating wimps.
I mentioned, not long ago, seeing a picture of Israeli teachers (women) with Uzi’s slung over their shoulders. They may share Mr. Lemon’s view of raising kids, but they do it with submachine guns under their arms. Actually only in high risk areas do they do that, but they do it. And, there are no massacres in Israeli schools, are there? Isn’t that proof positive that armed teachers are effective?
Now, the internet is flooded with claims that these assertions are false (They acknowledge a few teachers in Israel do go armed) and you get the notion that all these conservatives are lying about it. I personally have seen them in the news reels, in years past, with the Uzi, and know it is true.
It is amazing the vehemence of the left against people who want to keep their guns. They smell blood, and are going for the throat. These genteel lovers of peace will go to any lengths to strip us of anything that doesn’t match their view of Utopia. Like any predator they aren’t trying to swallow the whole in one gulp. They want to strip, and rip the vital parts first, and can gobble up what’s left at leisure.
Mr. Hamric; This discussion has gone beyond what I may think and what you may think into a morass of assertions and belief-based finger pointing. I can assure you that my concepts of a safe environment in schools are open to change and are based on real experiences. As one example, my high school had an armed Deputy Sheriff on campus on a half-time basis and we used him/her to advantage. It is my opinion that further discussion on this particular topic will not lead to any enlightenment and therefor I will not contribute.
My son and family moved to Payson about 10 yrs. ago. His daughter was in high school and cried for weeks she didn't want to move and leave her friends as she didn't know anyone here except three cousins.
After they moved, she told her dad. "Dad I am so glad we are here. In Mesa I never knew if
one of my friends or I would be shot or harmed in some way at school."
She had never told her dad before that she was afraid of school. She and her dad are very close and she didn't want to worry him. I wonder how many other kids feel the same way and don't say anything.
Remember this was over 10 years ago in Mesa. Since then the population in Mesa and surrounding towns has probably doubled in population. Gilbert had one high school and now they have 3 or maybe four.
You say that you had a Deputy Sheriff on your High School campus. You implied that it was a beneficial situation. I appreciate that it is not an ideal situation to have to move from traditional eduacational environments to the likes of what are being proposed today in light of these mass shootings. There is nothing I yearn for more than a return to the America I grew up in where these things were so rare most never even heard of such things or ever had to ponder going to the extreme measures we are discussing today. Before I personally make a decision as to what I feel is in the best interest of the kids, and what I could openly support, then I need someone who has had experience with such an arraingement as you describe. I have heard that throughout this nation ,many schools have "campus police" as part of their environment. Is it a "one size fits all" or do different campuses require a different approach?
One area I sense has proven to be fool hardy is to implement more "Gun Free/Drug Free" school zones. We all know how well that worked, and now as one of the proposals being offered by our representatives is to simply increase the penalties for violating those zones. And it certainly isn't keeping drugs off the campuses either.
In all honesty, I am not trying to belittle your thoughts/approach on this topic. I believe we all want solutions. The rub is who's views, individually or collectively, ultimately arrive at a solution all can agree on. We can accept that any solution will be far from perfect as we live in a fallen world where evil truly exists, but we can seek to identify social problems and work towards fixes for those problems.
You encapsulated very well the various aspects of this issue. I won't bother to address each and every one of the points you included. I think that there are people at many levels who are addressing and trying to answer the very questions you put forth.Those of here on this blog will NOT be consulted by those who ultimately will decide on a course of action, but we can still bring our views to the table via this blog. And I will be the first to admit that when "gun control" is the topic, then yes most certainly it is going to get emotional, on the
part of both sides. We are not simply discussing a minor alteration in the traffic laws or whether or not we will permit government to determine our diets. This issue is far, far more complex and it is intertwined into the very fabric of this nation. As anyone who's been paying attention already knows, there are some in high positions that are going as far as recommending the abolition of the US Constitution in part or whole under the guise that it is simply an old, imperfect document that does not address the current realities in this nation. Not sure how that recommendation is going to fly, but then I am pretty much appalled that we are where we are at in this nation today, socially and morally.
In a nutshell, we can all disagree on many issues but still appreciate that we all have to inhabit the same world together and it behooves us all to keep the avenues of discussion and civil debate open so that we don't simply revert completely back to the laws of the jungle.
If Mr. Lemon or anyone else wishes not to further participate in any of these discussions, then that is certainly their right to do so. But I feel the discussions will still be taking place and the more views and opinions brought to the table the better.
I think we got off track here. When I read John's comment that guns on campus were not the answer there wasn't the slightest doubt in my mind that he was saying exactly the same thing I was saying: The discussions going on right now about arming teachers, training teachers, and so on are NOT the answer to our problem. In fact, knowing what I know about how well such "training" is likely to work I would bitterly oppose it. I saw nothing in John's comment which was an anti-gun reflex, and I think out of all fairness to him it wouldn't hurt to go back, read what he said, and see if I'm not right about that.
I'll wait until everyone has had a chance to do that before I say anything more. I think someone misread what was said, or misinterpreted it, leading to an a series of comments where everyone is essentially on the same side. It happens.
I read what he said, specifically "Only so much can be done to protect ourselves unless changes are made in the society and guns on the campus are not the answer." Yet he said in a followup post there was an armed deputy on the high school campus. What I'm trying to get resolution on is whether folks feel ok with armed law enforcement types being on campuses or are they against that as well as armed teachers. I for one am not promoting the "training and arming" of teachers as an effort towards school security. I do know of one instance where a teacher retrieved his firearm from the locked trunk of his vehicle and stopped a kid from wreaking havoc at that school, but then the carry concealed issue is a whole different matter. All along I have believed we are all trying in our own feeble way to try to arrive at a consensus on solutions regarding school security. What did I misread in that?
I don't think think you misread a thing, not a thing. I think you got drawn into a sad misunderstanding that exploded into something more than it should have, and before that misunderstanding goes any farther I think I owe it to everyone to do my best to straighten it out. Won't be easy because there's some anger involved, but I'll give it my best shot.
I'll be as straightforward as I can be. I think that you reacted to something that wasn't there. I don't exactly blame you for doing that. Having seen people hide their true feelings behind platitudes so many times you were obviously worried that maybe John was one of those. He isn't. That I can vouch for.
I hate speaking for someone else because I long since learned that people can speak for themselves and they don't need me to do it for them, but I'm going to break a rule here because I think that you and John got into it for no good reason, and I'd really like us to put all this behind us.
Trust me, John Lemon is someone you can trust. When he says something he means it. There are no hidden agendas. He's only being honest when he talks about the subject of school violence as something he hates. That's because he's been a part of the school scene, as I have. When John says that he thinks that "guns on campus" is not the solution to school violence he's talking about the current overkill idea of training teachers to guard the schools. And that's ALL he's talking about.
I'd like to sit down and talk to Wayne LaPierre, who I blame for starting all this, and point out a few things to him, one of them is that he was responding to panicky people by sounding doggone near as panicky as they were.
Sure, there are some things than can be done to make our schools safer, but arming the faculty sure as hell isn't one of them. Fence the schools? Sure. Set campuses up so that entry to the school has to be through the office? Absolutely. Require teachers to be alert to the presence of anyone who may not belong where he is? You bet! Work with law enforcement so that there is a trained law enforcement officer present on the campus at times? Of course. But create some great, unwieldy program we don't need? Forget it! The minute the government gets mixed up in anything it immediately gets screwed up. And gun carry permits, as has already been said, is a separate subject.
Okay, so John got accused of being something he isn't.
And Allan asked some hard questions because he was so %$#@! tired of hearing and reading comments from gun-haters who use any and all issues for their own purposes.
The bottom line?
Hey guys, if we start arguing among ourselves when we are all on the side of reason, guess who loses?
And if anyone doubts that I worked long and hard on this comment, please look at the time of day it was posted.
Tom; Well stated. You represent my thoughts with clarity and reason. Thank you.
Regarding your point of view about armed teachers. I was thinking more in the vein of Utah’s steps they are taking to train volunteer teachers and administrators who want to arm themselves on school campuses. Not a Federal move, for you're right, it would be a boondoggle. They’d mess that up, royally; and if I were a teacher/administrator I’d not sign up, but would carry one anyway. Utah has the right idea. The teachers are enthusiastic and they’ve already scheduled more classes.
IMHO opinion, that is the only way to properly insure the safety for themselves and the children they are charged to care for. There have been many other interesting options discussed, including officers on campus. You, of course, disagree with my point of view; and that’s fine. Yet, again, I make mention that Israel solved their attacks on their children, with armed teachers in strategic areas.
I remind you that Columbine had an officer on site when that incident went down. There were a lot of factors involved, and I think the man did all he could do, under the circumstances, but one man, facing two heavily armed and determined suicidal opponents couldn’t do much from outside the building. Had he been inside, I think he could have stopped them, even alone.
I think that his vision problems acerbated his inability to stop them, but then, there are usually circumstances that keep responses from being perfect. The failure of the responding officers to enter the building quickly was a massive failure for the people inside. Armed teachers could have possibly gained a more favorable result.
As for my interaction with Mr. Lemon, it is a point of common knowledge that teachers (generally speaking) have a liberal bent, which includes the exclusion of guns from campuses, as he pointed out above. Mr. Lemon’s reasoning was telling. His vision of the environment he wants for school children precludes what I perceive to be the only safe means for those children and an invitation for nuts to continue to attack them.
It is my belief that these things are in common with your first post here, wherein you list things that certainly advantageous to the safety of the children, but minimizes the power of the armed school employee who is on site and in the face of the attackers.
They deserve the opportunity to protect themselves and those children in their care, for I think you will agree that those steps you espouse or any other could fail. The armed teacher could also fail, but at least they and their children would have a better chance than without. And, if those other measures, which surely should be implemented, fail; then the armed teacher is another level of protection between the attacker and the children. I submit to you that there is nothing as dangerous as a frightened woman with a gun.
I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion as the current participants seemed to have things well in hand; and because it seems to be the same old, "gun control versus not" or a variation thereof, debate.
That is...I wasn't going to post until I read Mr. Sims' last comment. And, actually I am not going to elaborate as he just sent my absolute livid fury meter into orbit...REALLY Mr. Sims??
"there is nothing as dangerous as a frightened woman with a gun."
With that statement, you relinquished ALL credibility, in my opinion. That is likely one of the most sexist, chauvinistic, bigoted, misogynistic, short-sighted comments that I have ever read on this forum, and I have been on here for a very long time.
Mr. Sims, you need to crawl back into your cave.
Kim; Fully agree !
I smiled to read your comment Ms. Chittick, because it was a tongue in cheek comment. I had no intention of insulting or ridiculing anyone of the fairer sex.
However I take all that back, including the smile your comment brought. I understand that ladies have certain nerves that it is better for a "sexist, chauvinistic, bigoted, misogynistic, short-sighted" person to step on. We all have those nerves, and some are closer to the surface than others. I know there's a few that light my fuse as well, although that wasn't one of them.
My humble apologies to you and all the other lady readers.
Mr. Sims, I submit to you that an after the fact, "oops, that was meant as tongue in cheek" is too little, too late. You demonstrated your familiarity with modern emoticons and abbreviations by your use (albeit, incorrect) of "IMHO opinion", therefore, were your comment truly meant as a "tongue in cheek" you should have included a smiley or winky.
As we all well know, sarcasm and humor do not come across well in writing; therefore we must include an indication that we are making a joke. One cannot always assume that everybody else knows that you were making a joke.
Furthermore, you compounded the grievousness of your error with the following comments: "anyone of the fairer sex", "I understand that ladies have certain nerves", "all the other lady readers". As my husband would say, perhaps you'd better stop digging.
I don't believe I had any misundertstanding of Mr. Lemon's views, simply my poor ability to frame a response so that I could get clarity for myself on those views. But I will accept your views and move on. As to this statement you made in that last post "I'd like to sit down and talk to Wayne LaPierre, who I blame for starting all this....". Perhaps he brought up the issue this time but he is hardly the first to broach this subject due to a school shooting. I submit this article for your edification on the issue of police assigned to schools. http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323
One of the things that sticks in my craw is when a Liberal makes a suggestion such as this, they are praised for their insight and intelligence, but when someone like Mr. LaPierre or someone of a conservative bent takes the same approach, the outrage and uproar can be heard all the way to Moscow and the invectives flow forth like water over a waterfall. As you have probably gleaned from all my posts, hypocracy is one of my "hot button" issues, regardless of which side it eminates from.
When I was attending college in the 60's there were campus police present, just as Mr. Lemon indicated were present at the high school. Since that seems to be a circumstance that has been with us for many decades, I'm not sure what all the uproar is about, over and above the issue of "training and arming teachers". To that point, it seems somewhat disengenuious to trust those folks with the education of our kids but then infer they are incapable of being taught the proper and safe use of firearms in order to protect themselves and the children under their charge. I really don't think any of those posting on this thread have anything but concern for the safety of school children, whether at school or elsewhere. Like Kim posted, it seems the discussion evolved into another "gun control versus not" or a variation thereof,". I appreciate the two topics are intimately linked , and Mr. Lemon was coming at it from a point different than that. But in light of the efforts underway at most political levels currently, you can imagine that those of us who even sense an effort to use such a tragedy as Sandy Hook and the others to further their "gun control" (read that "gun eradication" agenda, then as I responded to Bernice, yes most certainly, you can count on it getting very, very "emotional" from both sides.
I thought your remark was funny. Maybe because you didn't say a loaded gun.
I also have a warped sense of humor as I have said before.
Frightened women can be dangerous without a gun.
Come on, Pat, women can be dangerous no matter what!!!! :-)
"Tom, I don't believe I had any misundertstanding of Mr. Lemon's views..."
Nor do I. As you said, it's not easy to say anything on an issue like because it's hard to make sure you are not misinterpreted, and the reason for that is the ninety seven million hidden agenda comments we've all seen before. I think anyone who read what you were saying understood where you were coming from, so you have no need to explain. I only jumped in for the reasons I've already mentioned.
"...but when someone...." a LaPierre...
Right. He got sucked into that one. He responded at the level of the people who were prodding him.
Kim, may I respectfully suggest you missed the major thing that Allan said?
"My humble apologies to you and all the other lady readers."
Takes a rare m--uh, person to say say something like that. :-)
I'm now talking to everyone just in case anyone isn't sure.
What I don't understand about people like LaPierre is why in the world, with all the time they have to do it, people like him don't go out and read what the experts have to say about things like school violence. If the Secret Service, the FBI, the Office of the Attorney General, and even the Centers for Disease Control have done in-depth studies, and they all say the same things, why in the world not use that fact to put the ball in the other court? You could say something like, "Well, I hate to disagree with you, but I wonder if it's because you disagree with the study that says that the media gets its data all wrong?"
Let them sputter around trying to find an answer. What they will come back with is something like, "Are YOU saying that the media...?"
And you have the perfect answer. You pick up the report, identify it as coming from an unimpeachable source, tell how long they worked on it, how many pages it contains, and read--out loud and on the air--the statement you paraphrased. Then, when the air clears and they say what they are bound to say, "Well, that's just one study done by one group; how about...?"
Again you have the perfect answer, "But you are also in disagreement with the xxxx study done by xxxx and the xxxx study done by xxxx. Are you saying that these expert groups don't know anything about their own business?" And you hold up a copy of one of the reports that has the FBI emblem on it and the title in large type that the cameras can't miss it.
And so on. And the best part is waiting for them to grumble that you are answering questions with questions--which they will. Then you tell them that if they would do their homework by reading the expert studies they wouldn't need to be asking questions.
In other words, do what they do: Put them on the spot, in public, on the air. And do it with questions, not statements.
NEVER defend in an argument with people who have an agenda. Always attack.
Thanks Pat. Your star has risen far towards the zenith in my estimation. (:-))
Sorry Tom, I hate to disagree with you, however, in this case I must. I did not "miss the major thing that Allan said". I get the point that you are saying that it takes a big m.person to apologize. so, why was the apology addressed to the "lady readers"? I am certain that there are some men readers who were offended. It is very easy to toss out an apology after one has made ones point.
Kind of like in court when an objection is made and sustained and the Judge tells the jury to disregard something. We all know that whatever is supposed to be disregarded stays in the minds of the jurors. A truly good Attorney recognizes that and uses it to their advantage.
Any student or true lover of the English language will tell you that there are certain words that when utilized in certain circumstances are disparaging, belittling, condescending and meant to patronize. I myself have used words in this manner and recognize when someone else is doing it. Mr. Sims is guilty of same.
Finally, Pat, what an honor, you have come up in Mr. Sims' estimation. He has deemed you worthy!
Tom, have you looked at some of the other suggestions presented in the Roundup's various articles?
And, as for locking up those society deems not trustworthy—which you mentioned in your first post to this ‘string’, how would we go about that? (I am for that approach, because some of those folks hurt themselves when they aren't hurting others.)
I have a daughter who had some bizarre issues in the past. Hopefully they haven't reoccurred, but if they did, would we go back to the old methods of having them declared ‘insane’ or simply ‘dangerous to themselves and others” or what? Do we have the facilities to hold them?
You go right ahead and disagree with me any time you want. That's what this place is for. And I will admit that on very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rare occasions I am....
"Tom, have you looked at some of the other suggestions presented in the Roundup's various articles?"
I'm not sure what you are talking about. I've seen a lot of letters, and there may have been a "guess comment" (not sure of that), but haven't noticed any "articles" so can't comment.
"would we go back to the old methods"
In a word, yes. We never should have departed from them, not for the ones I'm talking about. They do not belong on the street; they are just too dangerous.
The problem is, I have my RSS feeds set up to pick up certain types of news, and although I reject over 99.9% of what I see (not an exaggeration), never commenting on it, it would shock people to find out how many totally mad people commit horrendous crimes each day. Compared to "normal" criminal activity the number is small, but the results are widespread--and totally avoidable. That nut case up in Colorado was known to be too dangerous to be on the street. That's why he was banned from being on the campus. The people who knew about him knew full well he had to be put away, but they obviously waited for an "overt" act. Well they got one--a nut in a movie theater shooting innocent people. It will no doubt turn out the same way with the nut in CT.
There is a VERY large problem with all this. Doctor/client and lawyer/client relationships have always been protected, for reasons we all know and don't need to discuss. That means that any laws would have to be carefully tailored to target only those who absolutely cannot be allowed on the street. I do not have answers for the many questions what would arise, but I'm sure they could be worked out.
If we don't do it we will always have things like the ones we have recently seen, and even if we do it we will still have a few now and then. But right now there are people walking around who would frighten people so badly if they knew about them that there would be an outcry like you've never seen before.
As to facilities, my guess--and it's only that--now that we have medicines which deal evry effectively with some things that once caused people to be diagnosed as insane we would not need as many as we once had.
I wish I could go out on the streets of New York City, where I first came across them, drag a couple of the people I am talking about into a news studio, put them on the air, and ask them some questions. That would end this discussion with a bang.
10-4 on the "That would end this discussion with a bang."
I know that in situations of Bi-Polar Behavior, specifically, that it is typical for the person to say "I'm normal, I don't need my meds", and so they don't take them. In extreme cases, they see visions, talk to people who aren't there, recall conversations with you that you know didn't happen, and so forth. I was once told that the moon hadn't been in the sky for over two months. And another time that arms were sticking through the wall making signs with the fingers.
I also have a friend who is paranoid-schizophrenic. He does well taking his meds, but they get out of whack, and he has to have them adjusted regularly. When he gets out of balance, they have to send him off to a state institution for a few weeks, then suddenly he is back a church and all is well. He's a big guy (6'3" & weights about 270), and comes across as near imbecilic; but in reality, he is quite intelligent, considering his problems.
So, you can see that while I think this totally necessary, I have concerns about what would happen to the people caught up in that.
First thing. That "guess comment" was supposed to read "guest comment." Actually, the name I gave them wasn't too far off the mark for some I've read, especially ones from some pols.
Allan, you have exactly the same concerns that I have. I strongly beleieve that there are times when people have to be taken off the street, but what you are saying gives me hope that maybe many of them can be eased back into normal life, and that only a few will have to be placed in an environment where they are no longer a severe danger to society.
One thing I have learned from life. Actually, I learned it in an unlikely place--a textbook on advanced sociology. Here it is: "The problems of today are often caused by the solutions to the problems of yesterday."
That may be the wisest observation I ever read. One of the examples they used in the book was what happened in the Eisenhower era when Ike, God bless him, decided to do something for the men and women who had fought iin WWII. He pushed for a housing bill that would create GI loans, saying that it would help those who had lost so many years fighting for their country to get back on track and perhaps be able to buy a home. It happened that Ike was also part of the team that surveyed Americans roads for the Army back in the 20's, where he learned that our roads were in pitifil condition. So he suggested the interstate system that we so enjoy today, and which has made it possible for people to live in places like the Rim Country, which would have been impossible to supply without good roads. Ike was smart; he funneled the highway funds through the states so that money flowed through the system, creating jobs and letting the states share in the decision making.
Great ideas, true? The exact kinds of things that we feel Washington should focus on.
And they are.
But those two bills were the DIRECT cause of inner city blight. Able to move to the suburbs, buy a house, and commute to work in the city, people moved away. We've all seen the result.
The trick is to do your best to foresee the problems. We don't want a program where Big Brother is breathing down our necks and making sure that everything we do is polically correct. We have enough of that now with seat belt laws and the like.
Posting comments requires a free account