If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   NBC News talking head David Gregory chides NRAs Wayne LaPierre for even considering the notion of having armed guards at schools. After the interview, he picked up his kids at their school...which has 11 on the security payroll   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 521
    More: Dumbass, NBC, mock trial, Sidwell Friends, payrolls, security  
•       •       •

9312 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Dec 2012 at 11:07 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



521 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-24 01:24:33 PM

ongbok: If this whole thing about the magazine is all you got then you're argument is not only weak, it is idiotic.


It's the hypocrisy and the idea that gun control laws are for commoners, not political and media elites. And the Geraldo comparison is apt, it's just as illegal to possess drugs while reporting as it is to possess banned high capacity magazines.
 
2012-12-24 01:25:21 PM

Wayne 985: randomjsa: For liberals I see this whole series of stories continues to be "This is the perfect crisis for us to do what we want and we're going to exploit the hell out of it! Don't you dare say or do anything that makes it harder for us or you will face the wrath of our temper tantrums!"

The threats to march on NRA headquarters were particularly cute since the NRA has never had anything to do with the mass shootings that occur in schools.

If a large group of people had marched on a major bastion for the religion of Islam after the Ft Hood shooting what do you suppose these same anti-NRA/anti-2nd Amendment people would say about it?

I've said it before, but I'll say it again: you seem to have gotten really hysterical since November. I haven't been here terribly long, but I would read your posts and they were always very conservative (which is fine), but are now bordering on Freeper territory.

You're just constantly enraged and reducing everything to black and white "splitting".


randomjsa has always and forever been a ninny
 
2012-12-24 01:26:19 PM

ficklefkrfark: Dancin_In_Anson: nmrsnr: Yeah, but doesn't consider that the school is also where Ambassadors' and other dignitaries' children go, who also probably merit heightened security.

Good to see that you understand that their are children that are more important than yours.

There is a difference between "more important" and more likely to be harmed or exploited for political reasons....my kid is the most important thing in my very existence, however I am not naive enough to think that she needs armed protection like a child with a parent with a lot of public exposure/obscene amounts of money. I, personally, wouldn't want to be in the position which required my children to have armed overseers.


Those poor rich people and children of the rich and powerful. Every weekend we hear of another kidnapping and ransom. How dare anyone question their need for guards and security....
 
2012-12-24 01:28:43 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: You don't know what the definition of absolute is apparently. Having restrictions doesn't make something absolute.

You seem to not know what the definition of right OR inalienable means. Let me enlighten you. Natural right- They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. Inalienable - incapable of being conveyed, incapable of being sold, incapable of being transferred, nontransferable, not able to be conveyed, quod abalienari non potest, secured by law, unable to be bought, unable to be disposed of, unforfeitable, untouchable

So if you create a document outlying inalienable rights by that very language you have made putting restrictions or banning very difficult. In the real world many different inalienable rights have to coexist. In this example the inalienable right for 20 6 years old to have life and liberty are coming in direct conflict with the inalienable right to have guns and so we have to find a way to balance the two but that is not the debate. The debate seems to be that even though the Consitituion lists gun ownership as an inalienable right that it needs to be taken away just like that. It cant happen like that if we respect the Constitution. Remember what we went through to have the rights we do have. Remember the blood shed and the pain endured. Dont be so quick to throw it away. That is simply my point.


We were discussing absolute rights and restrictions which means they are not absolute. If you want to knock down some more strawmen regarding bans or move the goal posts some more, please continue.
 
2012-12-24 01:30:33 PM
Some people pay extra to send their children to Catholic school, it is a choice.

Some people may pay extra to send their children to secured schools, that is their choice.

I don't want the NRA to help decide that children should be conditioned to put up with more jack-booted TSA conditioning for their personal 'safety'.
 
2012-12-24 01:32:34 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.


Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.
 
2012-12-24 01:32:54 PM
I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:19 PM

Fart_Machine: We were discussing absolute rights and restrictions which means they are not absolute. If you want to knock down some more strawmen regarding bans or move the goal posts some more, please continue.


Strawman? I have not heard one talking head on tv, one politician, one left leaning farker argue anything but either total bans or such onerous regulations as to make having the right to have guns meaningless. You seem to take the view that if you make something so restrictive nobody can exercise the right that is not the same as taking away the right is what makes me shake my head. Why do you think poll taxes were struck down? Nothing inherently bad about making people pay to vote. You still have the right to vote there is simply a restriction on it. Well fortunately the Supreme Court didnt see it that way. They correctly came to the concustion that a heavily restricted right is not a right. Especially when the entire reason the restriction was put in place was to keep people from exercising that right. As the poll tax was written to do. Just because there is now an issue in which YOU want to take away the right of others to exercise doesnt make it a good thing. Call that a strawman all you want.
 
2012-12-24 01:35:46 PM

kxs401: it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't


Yes, it is.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:01 PM

xmasbaby: BSABSVR: Also, since the theme of the the thread seems to be a pointless and incorrect gotcha: Who under the age of 60 gives a Fark about David Gregory?

Man, I miss Tim Russert!


So much THIS.

David Gregory has no business sitting in that 'Meet The Press' chair. It's too late now, but NBC should have scooped up Jake Tapper to replace Gregory.

David Gregory is the same biased, talking-head, hack, that he was when he worked in Sacramento for KCRA TV.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:23 PM

St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.


They reacted negatively?

According to Gallup Polls, more Americans seem to think increased armed police presence at schools will be more effective than an assault weapon ban: Link

The 24/7 News Cycle reacted negatively because it makes for good controversy. The same people who brought you the "horse race" coverage of the election, trying to make it look neck-and-neck down to the wire want to make everything to be a controversy, everything to be a scandal. Something-gate.

Of course the NRA response would be "unpopular", that means more controversy, more talking heads, more political speeches, and they hope it means more ratings.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but it was an outlier in an overall trend of decreasing crime rates. However, saying that violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily since 1991 doesn't make for big ratings.
 
2012-12-24 01:36:33 PM
snyted.files.wordpress.com

TOUCHE
 
2012-12-24 01:38:08 PM

ficklefkrfark: There is a difference between "more important" and more likely to be harmed or exploited for political reasons


So you set your kids down and tell them that this guys kids
twimg0-a.akamaihd.net

deserve more security than do they because his might be exploited for political reasons where they might just get shot up.

Let me know what they have to say about that.
 
2012-12-24 01:38:37 PM
While we're pissing on the Bill of Rights lets piss on all of it! Next up, free speech must be regulated. Want to attend a church? Were is your mental health evaluation form? etc.
 
2012-12-24 01:39:05 PM
Gun Control is only to keep conservative whites from having guns. Inner city blacks and libs with money can always have guns
 
2012-12-24 01:39:41 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: We were discussing absolute rights and restrictions which means they are not absolute. If you want to knock down some more strawmen regarding bans or move the goal posts some more, please continue.

Strawman? I have not heard one talking head on tv, one politician, one left leaning farker argue anything but either total bans or such onerous regulations as to make having the right to have guns meaningless. You seem to take the view that if you make something so restrictive nobody can exercise the right that is not the same as taking away the right is what makes me shake my head. Why do you think poll taxes were struck down? Nothing inherently bad about making people pay to vote. You still have the right to vote there is simply a restriction on it. Well fortunately the Supreme Court didnt see it that way. They correctly came to the concustion that a heavily restricted right is not a right. Especially when the entire reason the restriction was put in place was to keep people from exercising that right. As the poll tax was written to do. Just because there is now an issue in which YOU want to take away the right of others to exercise doesnt make it a good thing. Call that a strawman all you want.


Thank you for proving my point.
 
2012-12-24 01:40:04 PM

Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.


This. When I went to High School from '92 to '96, we had a School Resource Officer.

He was a sworn Sheriff's Deputy. He carried a gun.

He directed traffic in the morning and after school. He was there in case drugs were found or if there was a serious fight, but most of the time he was more a social worker than anything else, there to make sure kids knew where their families could get help or access to programs.

That was around 20 years ago.

BTW, yeah before anybody says it didn't help at Columbine since they had an armed SRO, remember that until that point SRO's were trained to not fire first and not engage immediately, that armed people would take hostages and wait for the demands. That went out the window after Columbine. . .much like "just go along with the hijackers and you'll be OK" went out the window after 9/11.
 
2012-12-24 01:40:22 PM

Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.


My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:03 PM
Congratulations on missing the point and misunderstanding the conversation completely.
 
2012-12-24 01:41:23 PM

Silverstaff: According to Gallup Polls, more Americans seem to think increased armed police presence at schools will be more effective than an assault weapon ban: Link


This is no time for facts!
 
2012-12-24 01:41:28 PM

LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.


.
citation please?
 
2012-12-24 01:42:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: ficklefkrfark: There is a difference between "more important" and more likely to be harmed or exploited for political reasons

So you set your kids down and tell them that this guys kids


deserve more security than do they because his might be exploited for political reasons where they might just get shot up.

Let me know what they have to say about that.


Do you often tell your kids that they'll be shot up?
 
2012-12-24 01:44:10 PM

david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

.
citation please?


LaPierre called upon congress to act. Basically, appropriate money at the Federal level to pay for it.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:19 PM
At the end of the day, if we spend all that money meant for guards on the students instead the long term outcomes would be better.
 
2012-12-24 01:44:47 PM

Fart_Machine: Thank you for proving my point.


Really? When the governor of one of the largest states goes on record as saying that forcibly removing guns from people is on the table that means I somehow talking in hyperbole? That im claiming that there is a prevailing idea to completely walk all over the 2nd amendment? So you are just going to sit there with your fingers in your ears because this is a right you dont like others to have so it will be ok to take it away and yet somehow my pointing out the wrongness of this means I am beating on strawmen?
 
2012-12-24 01:44:53 PM

Great_Milenko: Nutsac_Jim: How about retired police officers. They already are on a pension. An extra 20k a year will just be gravy for them.

Maybe they don't want to work anymore? I'm sure they will all appreciate being dragged back into the workplace just to satisfy your paranoia.


Maybe, just maybe, we don't draft retired police officers and only offer the job to those that want to do it.
How about that?
 
2012-12-24 01:45:59 PM

LargeCanine: david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

.
citation please?

LaPierre called upon congress to act. Basically, appropriate money at the Federal level to pay for it.


citation please?
 
2012-12-24 01:46:28 PM

david_gaithersburg: While we're pissing on the Bill of Rights lets piss on all of it! Next up, free speech must be regulated. Want to attend a church? Were is your mental health evaluation form? etc.


what the fark is wrong with you?
Because maybe at some point you won't be able to purchase any given killing machine of your choice your rights are being pissed upon? Get a farking grip.
When they stop sales of all guns and ammo and ALSO go house to house taking away guns then you can complain.
When they refuse to solve the problem of guns in schools with more guns in schools; Good.
 
2012-12-24 01:47:45 PM

walkingtall: Fart_Machine: Thank you for proving my point.

Really? When the governor of one of the largest states goes on record as saying that forcibly removing guns from people is on the table that means I somehow talking in hyperbole? That im claiming that there is a prevailing idea to completely walk all over the 2nd amendment? So you are just going to sit there with your fingers in your ears because this is a right you dont like others to have so it will be ok to take it away and yet somehow my pointing out the wrongness of this means I am beating on strawmen?


Please point out where I said it was a right nobody should have or that I want it taken away. I'll wait. Just keep digging...
 
2012-12-24 01:49:57 PM

david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: david_gaithersburg: LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.

.
citation please?

LaPierre called upon congress to act. Basically, appropriate money at the Federal level to pay for it.

citation please?


I doubt that the issue you have is that you need a link to LaPierre's speech.
 
2012-12-24 01:50:38 PM

Silverstaff: St_Francis_P: sammyk: Well, if you got nothin you attack the messenger.

The public reacted very negatively to LaPierre's message, so the Conservative Entertainment Complex has decided to double down on it. Good times.

They reacted negatively?

According to Gallup Polls, more Americans seem to think increased armed police presence at schools will be more effective than an assault weapon ban: Link

The 24/7 News Cycle reacted negatively because it makes for good controversy. The same people who brought you the "horse race" coverage of the election, trying to make it look neck-and-neck down to the wire want to make everything to be a controversy, everything to be a scandal. Something-gate.

Of course the NRA response would be "unpopular", that means more controversy, more talking heads, more political speeches, and they hope it means more ratings.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but it was an outlier in an overall trend of decreasing crime rates. However, saying that violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily since 1991 doesn't make for big ratings.


The NRA response was also to blame videogames and movies.
 
2012-12-24 01:54:41 PM

Silverstaff: Yeah, Sandy Hook was a horrible tragedy, but it was an outlier in an overall trend of decreasing crime rates. However, saying that violent crime in the US has been dropping steadily since 1991 doesn't make for big ratings.


In fairness, violent crime as a whole has been dropping, but these mass slayings are happening with greater frequency.
 
2012-12-24 01:54:58 PM

kxs401: Dancin_In_Anson: kxs401: Regardless of whether you think all schools need armed guards or not, it's not hypocritical for Sidwell Friends to have armed guards when other schools don't

I can only assume that you regularly rail on people for wanting to have things that you afford yourself.

No, I'm saying that you can argue for armed guards in schools all you want to, but "this school has armed guards, therefore all schools need armed guards" is not a logical argument. Find a better one.


there's nothing illogical about it, other than of course all you working class heroes suddenly deciding that the rich deserve more protection for their children.

what's good for the goose...
 
2012-12-24 01:57:20 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.

Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.


if anything that speaks to the efficacy of armed security. These kids who are more likely to be targeted have security. That doesn't mean that security will not help kids just because they are less likely targets
 
2012-12-24 01:57:45 PM
1) some schools may need armed security because of their specific circumstances. that doesn't mean armed security is the answer to mass school shootings.

2) some schools may choose to have armed security. see above response

3) we don't know that they are in fact armed security at the Quaker school. and we have no context here; in a school with 200 kids 11 security ppl, right be excessive. 2000 kids? might not be enough. and again, see above response,

4) the children of potus go there, making it more of a target so extra security is warranted IMHO. see above response.

writer and subby are idiots if they think they got greggory on this one,
 
2012-12-24 01:58:23 PM

LargeCanine: Marine1: I fail to see the problem with the NRA's reasoning. My middle schools and high school had School Resource Officers from the police department/sheriff's office. They had their own offices. And yes, they were armed.

My main issue with the NRA's suggestion is that they are calling for Federal action on it.


Well, define "federal action". Like, at all schools?
 
2012-12-24 02:00:53 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.

Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.

if anything that speaks to the efficacy of armed security. These kids who are more likely to be targeted have security. That doesn't mean that security will not help kids just because they are less likely targets


It's actually more of a deflection just like saying bans will deter criminals. I don't believe either is the case.
 
2012-12-24 02:01:10 PM

GAT_00: your argument


To be clear, I have no argument here. I am looking for the best statements that would lead to the best practices.
I do not believe that one's posting history bars them from making good points, even thought it has often pained me to agree with you. I believe your intentions are generally toward the good, so I always listen.

I am currently undergoing a revaluation of my views on the 2nd amendment. It says what it says, but what should we say today?
 
2012-12-24 02:02:22 PM

skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.


No one should ever accuse another person of hypocrisy because it's a logical fallacy? Well, there goes fark.
 
2012-12-24 02:04:46 PM

Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: skullkrusher: Fart_Machine: jigger: Good lord, I can't believe (well, ok I can) that so many ideologues showed up in this thread to defend this and make excuses.

Yes the Weekly Standard position is indeed ridiculous.

just as ridiculous as every other single attempt to pass a tu quoque off as a legitimate argument. Which is to say, very ridiculous.

That said, important people apparently think that armed guards protect their kids.

Political figures and their families are often targets for assassination. If you go to school with them you might be as well. That being said you're more likely to find schools looking like security compounds in poorer areas than affluent ones.

if anything that speaks to the efficacy of armed security. These kids who are more likely to be targeted have security. That doesn't mean that security will not help kids just because they are less likely targets

It's actually more of a deflection just like saying bans will deter criminals. I don't believe either is the case.


of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.
 
2012-12-24 02:05:03 PM

illbeinmybunk: 1) some schools may need armed security because of their specific circumstances. that doesn't mean armed security is the answer to mass school shootings.


since the washington elite like david gregory appear to think armed security is actually an answer to a school security risk, I think it is probably incumbent on you to explain how come it isn't at any other school.
 
2012-12-24 02:06:48 PM

Fart_Machine: Please point out where I said it was a right nobody should have or that I want it taken away. I'll wait. Just keep digging


You called me a troll for pointing out that wholesale banning or restrictions on gun ownership is completely against the Constitution. I have also read through the thread at all your posts and you appear to be on the side laughing at the NRA for making a suggestion that many others have made in the past. You also gave me a lot of grief about the very simple idea that rights are rights not priviledges. So if you trolled me good job but I got the impression you are all for gun bans or heavy restrictions despite what the Constitution says.
 
2012-12-24 02:07:10 PM

Fark It: ongbok: And what is this stuff about him breaking DC gun laws on national TV. Let me guess, he was doing a news story on guns and had an example of a banned weapon. Crying that a reporter is breaking the law on national TV because he is using a banned item as an example is pathetic.

Clearly the rules don't apply to gun control advocates, only evil, racist, child-murdering NRA gun-fappers, amirite?


Absolutely. That's the whole concept of "social justice," after all. It's justice that favors those who are socialist, and punishes those who aren't.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:04 PM
www.theblaze.com

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.
 
2012-12-24 02:08:05 PM
Lets move the TSA from airports to Schools
 
2012-12-24 02:09:03 PM

skullkrusher: of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.


True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.
 
2012-12-24 02:10:45 PM

Virtue: Lets move the TSA from airports to Schools


Free-Thinking Independent Americans For A Stronger National Security State. Sounds about right.
 
2012-12-24 02:11:52 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: skullkrusher: of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.

True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.


Man... if you think that we're not already to the point of having undereducated, power-hungry dicks controlling our students' every move...
 
2012-12-24 02:13:15 PM

Marine1: Man... if you think that we're not already to the point of having undereducated, power-hungry dicks controlling our students' every move...


True, but I don't think adding even more under-educated, power-hungry dicks to the system is gonna help.
 
2012-12-24 02:13:28 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: skullkrusher: of course it's a deflection. It's a tu quoque. However, Gregory was insisting that armed guards do not deter attacks. Apparently the administrators of the school his kids attend disagree. I think we would all agree that a school with such a high concentration of attractive targets for kidnapping, attack, etc would be remiss in not offering protection for those kids. Sure, the argument can be made that in most cases, having such resources at "regular" schools would be wasteful in that the likelihood of an attack is small but it does speak to the perceived efficacy of such security in preventing attacks.

True, but by that logic, for an effective deterrent, you're looking at the level of protection at Gregory's school for pretty much every school across the nation. And all you need to do is look at the TSA to see where that's headed.


there's nothing to say that the security in Gregory's kids' school isn't overkill. Of course there's nothing to say it is underkill to totally make up a term. 11 armed guards isn't gonna be able to stop a coordinated attack by 20 highly trained jihadists, for example. The Secret Service would obviously be busy making sure that Malia and Sascha are safe rather than prioritizing the lives of the other students so they may or may not be much use in protecting them depending on the situation.
 
Displayed 50 of 521 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report