So here is the question we all should think about. If we ban guns who will comply with that law? Criminals? Psychotics? Terrorists? I wonder...
Gun control is one subject. School security is an entirely separate subject. You simply can not mix the two!
Lets say that every gun is outlawed and school security remains the same. A criminal, psychotic, or terrorist can still get into a school in seconds and it takes police minutes to respond, during which time children are at risk. Basically that means even with the strictest gun control laws, our children are still not safe.
But lets say we ignore gun control and focus on improving school security. Lets say that we push for locked entry doors, and locked classroom doors that together slow down a shooter for 5 minutes. If it takes the criminal, psychotic or terrorist 5 minutes to get into the school and it takes police 2 minutes to arrive, there is a good chance that police can intervene before any children are hurt. Seems to me that our energy would be better used fighting for the government to enact school security standards.
But here is the rub... school security costs money which we don't seem to have. Right? Consider, one terrorist incident crashes planes into three buildings causing 3000 or so deaths. Not to make light of 9/11 because it was in fact very tragic, but I think we do need some perspective. The government response was 2 wars, establishing DHS, and numerous "security" enhancements at airports, federal buildings, and a host of other places. This has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars to make us safer from possible terrorists in the future. Yet in reality we are actually not that much safer at all, consider the Boston bombing.
Now compare one isolated terrorist attack to school shootings. Since the early 1980's, there have been at least 10 school shootings every year where children died, and many more incidents where someone brought a loaded gun into a school and fortunately no one was hurt.
So one terrorist attack and we spend trillions without blinking an eye, but consistently having 10+ school shootings EVERY year and we don't care because it would cost to much for school security. The sad irony is that if you go to your bank, where your money is kept, you will certainly see much more security than in your local school, and it is quite likely that you will even see armed guards at your bank. And if you visit your lawmakers who decide to focus on the terrorist threat, you will certainly see much security. Now I don't know about you, but I think that this is pretty damn sad.
So now I ask the question, who cares about a few kids dying in a school shooting?
Maybe we should start to consider devoting some of the trillions of dollars that we use to fight terrorists towards improving school security. I think that hundreds of school shootings, yes hundreds, look it up, justifies taking some funding from one terrorist attack.
How about we start pushing our legislators towards passing laws to establish school security standards and funding improvements. We can have gun control arguments another day.
Gun control is one subject. School security is an entirely separate subject. You simply can not mix the two!
Lets say that every gun is outlawed and school security remains the same. A criminal, psychotic, or terrorist can still get into a school in seconds and it takes police minutes to respond, during which time children are at risk. Basically that means even with the strictest gun control laws, our children are still not safe.
But lets say we ignore gun control and focus on improving school security. Lets say that we push for locked entry doors, and locked classroom doors that together slow down a shooter for 5 minutes. If it takes the criminal, psychotic or terrorist 5 minutes to get into the school and it takes police 2 minutes to arrive, there is a good chance that police can intervene before any children are hurt. Seems to me that our energy would be better used fighting for the government to enact school security standards.
But here is the rub... school security costs money which we don't seem to have. Right? Consider, one terrorist incident crashes planes into three buildings causing 3000 or so deaths. Not to make light of 9/11 because it was in fact very tragic, but I think we do need some perspective. The government response was 2 wars, establishing DHS, and numerous "security" enhancements at airports, federal buildings, and a host of other places. This has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars to make us safer from possible terrorists in the future. Yet in reality we are actually not that much safer at all, consider the Boston bombing.
Now compare one isolated terrorist attack to school shootings. Since the early 1980's, there have been at least 10 school shootings every year where children died, and many more incidents where someone brought a loaded gun into a school and fortunately no one was hurt.
So one terrorist attack and we spend trillions without blinking an eye, but consistently having 10+ school shootings EVERY year and we don't care because it would cost to much for school security. The sad irony is that if you go to your bank, where your money is kept, you will certainly see much more security than in your local school, and it is quite likely that you will even see armed guards at your bank. And if you visit your lawmakers who decide to focus on the terrorist threat, you will certainly see much security. Now I don't know about you, but I think that this is pretty damn sad.
So now I ask the question, who cares about a few kids dying in a school shooting?
Maybe we should start to consider devoting some of the trillions of dollars that we use to fight terrorists towards improving school security. I think that hundreds of school shootings, yes hundreds, look it up, justifies taking some funding from one terrorist attack.
How about we start pushing our legislators towards passing laws to establish school security standards and funding improvements. We can have gun control arguments another day.