Kids in US need a bullet proof vest to go to school

#101 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: the title of my thread is "Kids need a bulletproof vest to go to school in the US.

So I'm basically stating that things are fucked up in the US with all the school shootings that happen. No mention of blankets in the title.

I do have a link to the story about the blankets in my OP but that's just to show how bad it must be in the US when companies feel this kinda thing is needed.

So I state;

Wow!! You know things are fucked up in your country when you need to send your child to school with a bullet proof blanket. I just can't imagine what it's like as a parent in the US sending your child to school and hoping that no crazy ass mofo decides he's having a bad day and is gonna shoot up the school.

This is craziness. What if anything can be done???

So If all you get from that is the subject of bullet proof blankets, then there is something wrong with your reading comprehension.

Now I ask you again why can't you discuss this inside the parameters of the thread? What point are you trying to prove?

That kids are at bigger risk from dog bites? Well that's for the owner of the dog, and the guardian of the kid to protect prevent against.

#102 Posted by gamerguru100 (10585 posts) -

@gamerguru100 said:

@joehult said:

Your house could fall in a sink hole and kill you. Your dog could attack your kid and kill them. A tornado can get you. Lightning, choking on food, heart attack, asthma attack, sudden allergic reaction, snakes, spiders, mountain lion, slipping and hitting your head, carbon monoxide build up, bacteria, virus, hit by a train, hit by a hockey puck, falling more than 6 feet, grease fire, radiation, diabetes.....

Are all things more people die from than a school shooting.

More people die to mountain lions and hockey pucks than school shootings? Interesting. I also didn't think people often get hit by trains. I guess alcohol often plays a role in those.

There was a kid around where I live who got killed by a train recently. He was walking on the tracks with his Beats headphones on and couldn't hear the train coming behind him. :/

That sucks. Although I have to wonder how you wouldn't be able to hear a train's horn, even with headphones on. Trains have loud freaking horns, and for good reason.

#103 Posted by evildead6789 (7644 posts) -

dumb ass americans

#105 Posted by gamerguru100 (10585 posts) -

dumb ass americans

Blame the creator of the stupid blankets, not the entire nationality of the creator. Jesus, half your posts are anti-American. Do you have nothing better to do, or are you just bored out of your mind?

#106 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@gamerguru100: "Blame the creator of the stupid blankets"

Maybe he is not talking about the blankets, maybe he is talking about the fact that Americas love affair with guns has bitten them in the ass. Just saying

#107 Edited by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -

@gamerguru100 said:

And gang shooting homicides outnumber school shooting homicides, and no one gives a crap about that. Most of us will simply say it's just another day in Chicago. Hell, you're far more likely to meet your maker in a car. No matter which way you cut it, you put your life on the line every time you get in your car. A car accident is still far more likely to kill you than some random lunatic with a Glock. And until everyone has a self-driving car, I'm sure traffic deaths will continue to outnumber gun deaths. Yet, it seems nothing is being done about that.

People make the worst comparisons to guns
There are plenty of things being done to prevent car accidents/death (training, speed limits, seat belts, airbags, speed/red light cameras, police) but it is still an invaluable source of transportation for a large percentage of the population
In what part of your life is a gun essential?

#108 Edited by theone86 (20555 posts) -

lets call this what is really is: someone trying to profit off of fear of school shootings.

the odds your child is actually going to be involved in a school shooting incident. even in the "gun crazy" US is astronomically low.

Yup, yup. Life is dangerous, kids can die getting hit by cars, struck by lightning, freak medical condition, whatever. Hell, not so long ago infant mortality was at 50%, kids these days have a way better chance of reaching adulthood even with increased occurrence of shootings factored in. Granted, I would like some better regulations governing gun access and better access to mental health services, but it's not like schools are a war zone.

#109 Posted by MrGeezer (56242 posts) -

@thegerg: the title of my thread is "Kids need a bulletproof vest to go to school in the US.

So I'm basically stating that things are fucked up in the US with all the school shootings that happen. No mention of blankets in the title.

I do have a link to the story about the blankets in my OP but that's just to show how bad it must be in the US when companies feel this kinda thing is needed.

So I state;

Wow!! You know things are fucked up in your country when you need to send your child to school with a bullet proof blanket. I just can't imagine what it's like as a parent in the US sending your child to school and hoping that no crazy ass mofo decides he's having a bad day and is gonna shoot up the school.

This is craziness. What if anything can be done???

So If all you get from that is the subject of bullet proof blankets, then there is something wrong with your reading comprehension.

Now I ask you again why can't you discuss this inside the parameters of the thread? What point are you trying to prove?

That kids are at bigger risk from dog bites? Well that's for the owner of the dog, and the guardian of the kid to protect prevent against.

1) Kids don't need bulletproof vests to go to school. Lots of kids go to school in the USA and almost none of them are wearing bulletproof vests.

2) School shootings are statistically extremely rare (this is true even when we factor in shootings such as "a gun was accidentally discharged but no one was injured). The situation may be more "fucked up" than in numerous other countries, but school shootings are far from a common thing. It isn't anywhere close to the kind of situation you're presenting, in which there are so many school shootings that one should be afraid to send their kids to school. This stuff is rare.

3) That being said, even if it is rare, I'm all for PRACTICAL measures to make them even more rare. The thing is, schools are already mostly safe. Schools are safe enough that the quality of a child's education is probably gonna be a bigger concern than whether or not that child gets murdered today. Sure, we could throw money at schools in order to make them marginally safer (and that's assuming that the money actually exists). But in many cases it's probably going to be a better use of resources to use that money to improve the quality of the child's education. I'm not saying that school shootings aren't a problem, I'm saying that the extent of the problem has been grossly exagerrated by the media because that's the kind of shit that sells papers and generates web traffic. For the most part, our schools are safe.

#110 Posted by gamerguru100 (10585 posts) -

@gamerguru100 said:

And gang shooting homicides outnumber school shooting homicides, and no one gives a crap about that. Most of us will simply say it's just another day in Chicago. Hell, you're far more likely to meet your maker in a car. No matter which way you cut it, you put your life on the line every time you get in your car. A car accident is still far more likely to kill you than some random lunatic with a Glock. And until everyone has a self-driving car, I'm sure traffic deaths will continue to outnumber gun deaths. Yet, it seems nothing is being done about that.

People make the worst comparisons to guns

There are plenty of things being done to prevent car accidents/death (training, speed limits, seat belts, airbags, speed/red light cameras, police) but it is still an invaluable source of transportation for a large percentage of the population

In what part of your life is a gun essential?

I'll admit that was a bit of an exaggeration saying nothing was being done about making cars and roads safer, but people act as if getting shot is a certainty in America, so I had to compare it to a relatively common cause of death (car accidents).

#111 Posted by airshocker (29507 posts) -

@gamerguru100 said:

And gang shooting homicides outnumber school shooting homicides, and no one gives a crap about that. Most of us will simply say it's just another day in Chicago. Hell, you're far more likely to meet your maker in a car. No matter which way you cut it, you put your life on the line every time you get in your car. A car accident is still far more likely to kill you than some random lunatic with a Glock. And until everyone has a self-driving car, I'm sure traffic deaths will continue to outnumber gun deaths. Yet, it seems nothing is being done about that.

People make the worst comparisons to guns

There are plenty of things being done to prevent car accidents/death (training, speed limits, seat belts, airbags, speed/red light cameras, police) but it is still an invaluable source of transportation for a large percentage of the population

In what part of your life is a gun essential?

In what part of life is anything you like essential? In fact, who are you to even make that determination? The point of freedom is so that no one determines what you can and can't do so long as you're following the law.

#112 Edited by UnbiasedPoster (780 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

dumb ass americans

Blame the creator of the stupid blankets, not the entire nationality of the creator. Jesus, half your posts are anti-American. Do you have nothing better to do, or are you just bored out of your mind?

That's probably all he's allowed to say.

#113 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -

@chaoscougar1 said:

@gamerguru100 said:

And gang shooting homicides outnumber school shooting homicides, and no one gives a crap about that. Most of us will simply say it's just another day in Chicago. Hell, you're far more likely to meet your maker in a car. No matter which way you cut it, you put your life on the line every time you get in your car. A car accident is still far more likely to kill you than some random lunatic with a Glock. And until everyone has a self-driving car, I'm sure traffic deaths will continue to outnumber gun deaths. Yet, it seems nothing is being done about that.

People make the worst comparisons to guns

There are plenty of things being done to prevent car accidents/death (training, speed limits, seat belts, airbags, speed/red light cameras, police) but it is still an invaluable source of transportation for a large percentage of the population

In what part of your life is a gun essential?

In what part of life is anything you like essential? In fact, who are you to even make that determination? The point of freedom is so that no one determines what you can and can't do so long as you're following the law.

lol
Fucking amazing

#114 Posted by airshocker (29507 posts) -

lol

Fucking amazing

I agree, freedom is fucking amazing. Stopping tyrants like yourself makes it even more satisfying.

#115 Posted by evildead6789 (7644 posts) -

@gamerguru100: "Blame the creator of the stupid blankets"

Maybe he is not talking about the blankets, maybe he is talking about the fact that Americas love affair with guns has bitten them in the ass. Just saying

it's not the guns, plain radicalism out of stupidity

the american way, the minority report

it's not a riddle, it's fairly simple,

The one big flaw in the american system is that they take measures to prevent crime that actually encourage crime.

Somebody makes a mistake... let's punish them so hard they will never do it again,

They do achieve the opposite though, people lose hope because of the harsh punishments and they simply give it up but.... not all go out so quietly.

Not to mention the egoism, look ... a commy lol

#116 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@MrGeezer: "Kids don't need bulletproof vests to go to school. Lots of kids go to school in the USA and almost none of them are wearing bulletproof vests"

Of course not but if your school is the unlucky one that has a shooting incident,

then a vest or safe room would sure come in handy.

"It isn't anywhere close to the kind of situation you're presenting, in which there are so many school shootings that one should be afraid to send their kids to school. This stuff is rare"

Tell that to a parent that has lost a child in a school shooting, they obviously didn't expect that their child would be shot an killed while at school but it still happened. It maybe rare but it's happened enough times in the US to warrant some kind of protective measures.

And it happens a lot in the US because guns are so readily available and easily attainable.

" Sure, we could throw money at schools in order to make them marginally safer (and that's assuming that the money actually exists). But in many cases it's probably going to be a better use of resources to use that money to improve the quality of the child's education"

Saying school shootings rarely happens so why spend money trying to protect against them when that money could be used for education, is like saying planes being hijacked is a rare occurrence so what's the point in spending money trying to protect a plane and it's passengers when that money can be better used giving the passengers better food.

#117 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@Master_Live: "Who is paying for that?"

I don't know it's sad that you have to ask that, like I said protecting students while they are at school should be a no brainer but no one wants to put up the money or there isn't the money, I guess there will have to be an increase in school shootings or a few really bad ones where a large number of students are killed before this is taken seriously.

#118 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36795 posts) -

@chaoscougar1 said:

lol

Fucking amazing

I agree, freedom is fucking amazing. Stopping tyrants like yourself makes it even more satisfying.

hahahahaha
You mean, the freedoms that aren't already illegal?

#119 Posted by coasterguy65 (5935 posts) -

lol...what? I've never felt the need to send my kid to school with a bullet proof vest. My kids, sadly, have a much bigger likelihood of dying on the way to and from school, than in school.

#120 Posted by MrGeezer (56242 posts) -

@MrGeezer: "Kids don't need bulletproof vests to go to school. Lots of kids go to school in the USA and almost none of them are wearing bulletproof vests"

Of course not but if your school is the unlucky one that has a shooting incident,

then a vest or safe room would sure come in handy.

"It isn't anywhere close to the kind of situation you're presenting, in which there are so many school shootings that one should be afraid to send their kids to school. This stuff is rare"

Tell that to a parent that has lost a child in a school shooting, they obviously didn't expect that their child would be shot an killed while at school but it still happened. It maybe rare but it's happened enough times in the US to warrant some kind of protective measures.

And it happens a lot in the US because guns are so readily available and easily attainable.

" Sure, we could throw money at schools in order to make them marginally safer (and that's assuming that the money actually exists). But in many cases it's probably going to be a better use of resources to use that money to improve the quality of the child's education"

Saying school shootings rarely happens so why spend money trying to protect against them when that money could be used for education, is like saying planes being hijacked is a rare occurrence so what's the point in spending money trying to protect a plane and it's passengers when that money can be better used giving the passengers better food.

Again, costs vs risks. Have you ever driven your son/daughter to the zoo? Or to the circus? I could argue that you're being irresponsible, that you're unnecessarily risking your kid's life just so they can see a monkey or some clowns. You could then argue that it's unreasonable to shelter your child against ALL unnecessary risks, that the benefit of stimulating them and exposing them to the world justifies the SMALL chance of them getting hurt or killed. I could then counter that with, "yeah, tell that to the parents whose kids were killed on the way to the zoo or the museum." Is that then to say that you are nigligent, that you're a bad parent for failing to take ALL possible steps to protect your child from harm? No, because some possible steps are simply UNREASONABLE.

Dude, everything comes with a cost. If it isn't money, then it's time or safety or comfort or yadda yadda yadda. If bulletproof vests were as cheap as t-shirts, and if they were as comfortable as t-shirts, and if they were readily available, then sure...wear bulletproof vests all the time. But they're not, which is a large part of the reason why people DON'T wear bulletproof vests all the time.

And hell, dude. Why are you wanting schools to provide them? Have you personally bought any bulletproof vests for YOUR child? Do you make your child wear bulletproof vests when he/she goes out to the mall? Why not?

As far as safe rooms go, like I said...I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but that's just because I have no idea what the costs are. If the costs are minimal, then sure, go ahead (though depending on the design there may be other problems, such as it limiting access to escape routes during fires or other emergencies). But those factor into the "costs" of implementing a measure. And if the costs outweigh the marginal benefit awarded, then you don't freaking do it. I never said to not spend more money protecting against school shootings, I just said that any money spent needs to be done after considering whether or not that money could have been spent in a more useful manner. Bulletproof blankets are just a bad freaking idea. Bulletproof vests are also widely impractical (and I don't know, but are there any legal issues with this?) If that kind of stuff was practical, then people would already be doing it.

Also, your analogy sucks. You typed, "Saying school shootings rarely happens so why spend money trying to protect against them when that money could be used for education, is like saying planes being hijacked is a rare occurrence so what's the point in spending money trying to protect a plane and it's passengers when that money can be better used giving the passengers better food?" Well, the difference here is that people don't fly on airplanes for the food. The food is just a bonus, whereas with schools education is the entire point. If it wasn't, then why even bother sending your kid to school in the first place? So a better analogy would be talking about the security at restaurants. There, at restaurants, the food IS one of the biggest reasons for going there. So, let's ask the question...should a RESTAURANT skimp on food quality in order to make the place more secure? Well, they should obviously comply to legally mandated safety regulations, but aside from that, when was the last time you've seen a security guard at a restaurant? What measures do most restaurants have in place to prevent someone from going on a shooting spree there? That's right...most restaurants DON'T have armed guards or safe rooms, because the miniscule risk of a shooting spree happening isn't worth the costs.

#121 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@MrGeezer: I hear ya, It's sad that the risk will have to grow higher meaning more students being shot while at school before people deem the risk high enough.

Also in the event of a school shooting if the school had vest the students wouldn't have to wear them constantly, they would put them on when the event occurred to minimise risk of death, yeah a couple couple kids might not be lucky enough to be near a vest at the start of a shooting but at least the number of deaths caused could possibly be brought down, along with having safe rooms with fireproof and bulletproof doors.

Also my plane hijacking analogy is more focused on the point of just because a life threatening hazard rarely happens doesn't mean it should not be protected against, USA has seen many school shootings in past 20yrs resulting in the deaths of over 200 students, but yet no one finds the risk high enough.

Also anyone that uses potential car accidents causing death to children argument, you seem to forget that collisions are protected against in cars, with side impact bars, air bags seat belts and prevention methods are in place with traffic lights, speed limits, road signs etc.

#122 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@MrGeezer: "Kids don't need bulletproof vests to go to school. Lots of kids go to school in the USA and almost none of them are wearing bulletproof vests"

Of course not but if your school is the unlucky one that has a shooting incident,

then a vest or safe room would sure come in handy.

"It isn't anywhere close to the kind of situation you're presenting, in which there are so many school shootings that one should be afraid to send their kids to school. This stuff is rare"

Tell that to a parent that has lost a child in a school shooting, they obviously didn't expect that their child would be shot an killed while at school but it still happened. It maybe rare but it's happened enough times in the US to warrant some kind of protective measures.

And it happens a lot in the US because guns are so readily available and easily attainable.

" Sure, we could throw money at schools in order to make them marginally safer (and that's assuming that the money actually exists). But in many cases it's probably going to be a better use of resources to use that money to improve the quality of the child's education"

Saying school shootings rarely happens so why spend money trying to protect against them when that money could be used for education, is like saying planes being hijacked is a rare occurrence so what's the point in spending money trying to protect a plane and it's passengers when that money can be better used giving the passengers better food.

"Saying school shootings rarely happens so why spend money trying to protect against them when that money could be used for education, is like saying planes being hijacked is a rare occurrence so what's the point in spending money trying to protect a plane and it's passengers when that money can be better used giving the passengers better food."

Why can't you stay within the parameters of this thread? This thread is not about hijackings. Make another thread if you want to talk about this.

"Tell that to a parent that has lost a child in a school shooting, they obviously didn't expect that their child would be shot an killed while at school but it still happened."

That has NO BEARING on the fact that it is rare. Why bring it up?

"then a vest or safe room would sure come in handy."

Sure, let's have large numbers of kids gather at the vest distribution point in the case of a shooting. The killer will never look for them there.

#123 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@MrGeezer: I hear ya, It's sad that the risk will have to grow higher meaning more students being shot while at school before people deem the risk high enough.

Also in the event of a school shooting if the school had vest the students wouldn't have to wear them constantly, they would put them on when the event occurred to minimise risk of death, yeah a couple couple kids might not be lucky enough to be near a vest at the start of a shooting but at least the number of deaths caused could possibly be brought down, along with having safe rooms with fireproof and bulletproof doors.

Also my plane hijacking analogy is more focused on the point of just because a life threatening hazard rarely happens doesn't mean it should not be protected against, USA has seen many school shootings in past 20yrs resulting in the deaths of over 200 students, but yet no one finds the risk high enough.

Also anyone that uses potential car accidents causing death to children argument, you seem to forget that collisions are protected against in cars, with side impact bars, air bags seat belts and prevention methods are in place with traffic lights, speed limits, road signs etc.

"Also anyone that uses potential car accidents causing death to children argument, you seem to forget that collisions are protected against in cars, with side impact bars, air bags seat belts and prevention methods are in place with traffic lights, speed limits, road signs etc."

Yet car accidents still kill more kids than guns do.

Also, let's not forget that there are also methods in place to prevent and protect from school shooters.

#124 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: "Why can't you stay within the parameters of this thread? This thread is not about hijackings. Make another thread if you want to talk about this"

Ha very good! I see what you did there, you went from one level of being annoying and times it by 100 well done! Hope your proud of yourself :)

#125 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: "Sure, let's have large numbers of kids gather at the vest distribution point in the case of a shooting. The killer will never look for them there"

I don't remember saying to have the vest all in one spot, or at distribution spots, did I? So if your going to try and make me look stupid make sure you use something I actually stated.

#126 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@thegerg: "Sure, let's have large numbers of kids gather at the vest distribution point in the case of a shooting. The killer will never look for them there"

I don't remember saying to have the vest all in one spot, did I? So if your going to try and make me look stupid make sure you use something I actually stated.

I don't remember you saying that either. Nor do I remember saying that you said that.

#127 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: "I don't remember you saying that either"

Good we agree on at least that :)

#128 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@thegerg: "I don't remember you saying that either"

Good we agree on at least that :)

So will the kids be carrying their vests with them all day?

#129 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@thegerg: "Why can't you stay within the parameters of this thread? This thread is not about hijackings. Make another thread if you want to talk about this"

Ha very good! I see what you did there, you went from one level of being annoying and times it by 100 well done! Hope your proud of yourself :)

Just sayin'. You have a problem with other people talking about threats that aren't school shooters. If no one else should talk about other threats neither should you.

#131 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: If the risk of school shootings becomes high enough to issue schools with bulletproof vest, I'm sure they will figure out the best way to implement them.

Personally I feel the risk is high enough but that's just my opinion, if more deaths are required before people think the risk is high enough then fair enough.

"Also, let's not forget that there are also methods in place to prevent and protect from school shooters"

What are these methods if you don't mind?

#132 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@thegerg: If the risk of school shootings becomes high enough to issue schools with bulletproof vest, I'm sure they will figure out the best way to implement them.

Personally I feel the risk is high enough but that's just my opinion, if more deaths are required before people think the risk is high enough then fair enough.

"Also, let's not forget that there are also methods in place to prevent and protect from school shooters"

What are these methods if you don't mind?

"Personally I feel the risk is high enough but that's just my opinion, if more deaths are required before people think the risk is high enough then fair enough."

What kind of world, exactly, do you think that we should live in? If the minuscule risk of being shot while in a school is enough that you think kids should be given body armor, what other kind of safety measures should be taken elsewhere?

As we went over earlier, a kid is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by dog than a school shooter. Should the state issue everyone bite-proof clothes?

"What are these methods if you don't mind?"

Police presence in schools, many schools have drills to prepare teachers and administrators to act in such situations, locking doors, etc..

#133 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: "As we went over earlier, a kid is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by dog than a school shooter. Should the state issue everyone bite-proof clothes"

And like I said before it's up to the owner of the Dog to prevent the dog from biting a child by putting a muzzle on the dog when out for walks, not letting the dog off the lead and chaining the dog up while it's in the back yard and or making sure all exits are securely locked. For guardians with young children they can protect them from dog bites by not letting the child go out of arms reach while at the park, or making sure all gates are secured while child is playing in the garden. These are simple but effective measures that can reduce the risk of dog bites.

#134 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@thegerg: "As we went over earlier, a kid is far more likely to be killed or seriously injured by dog than a school shooter. Should the state issue everyone bite-proof clothes"

And like I said before it's up to the owner of the Dog to prevent the dog from biting a child by putting a muzzle on the dog when out for walks, not letting the dog off the lead and chaining the dog up while it's in the back yard and or making sure all exits are securely locked. For guardians with young children they can protect them from dog bites by not letting the child go out of arms reach while at the park, or making sure all gates are secured while child is playing in the garden. These are simple but effective measures that can reduce the risk of dog bites.

And it's up to the parents to prevent kids from killing their peers. We can see, however, that sometimes those things don't work.

Why should we spend money for protective gear to protect kids from the less common of these two occurrences?

#135 Edited by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: continuing on the subject of dog bites, as I said the owner of the dog is obligated to prevent dog bites and the guardian of a young child is obligated to protect from dog bites the state is not obligated unless state schools are being targeted by random dog attacks. A state is obligated to protect it's students while the students are in the state schools care, am I wrong?

#136 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@thegerg: continuing on the subject of dog bites, as I said the owner of the dog is obligated to prevent dog bites and the guardian of the child is obligated to protect from dog bites not the state, where as a state school is obligated to protect it's students while the students are in the schools care, am I wrong?

You're not wrong, but that has no bearing on the fact that those measures don't always work. Why should we invest in protective clothing to prevent injury from the much less likely scenario, while telling people "you should handle it yourself" in reference to the one that seriously injures or kills far more kids. You don't think that we should also take measures outside of schools as well?

After all, "[o]ne of these kids could be the person that comes up with a cure for cancer, kids are the future." Well, I guess they're not all that important when they're not in school.

#137 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: "And it's up to the parents to prevent kids from killing their peers. We can see, however, that sometimes those things don't work"

That's true so that's why the state schools also have to protect.

"Why should we spend money for protective gear to protect kids from the less common of these two occurrences"

We have already established that to protect from dog bites cost the state nothing, it mainly cost the dogs owner to prevent dog bites.

Also in 20yrs over 200 students have died in school shootings in the US it may not be a lot considering the size of the US but this shouldn't be happening at all, to me that number of children being shot and killed while at school is insane, no other country has this problem to that extent if at all.

#138 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@thegerg: "And it's up to the parents to prevent kids from killing their peers. We can see, however, that sometimes those things don't work"

That's true so that's why the state schools also have to protect.

"Why should we spend money for protective gear to protect kids from the less common of these two occurrences"

We have already established that to protect from dog bites cost the state nothing, it mainly cost the dogs owner to prevent dog bites.

Also in 20yrs over 200 students have died in school shootings in the US it may not be a lot considering the size of the US but this shouldn't be happening at all, to me that number of children being shot and killed while at school is insane, no other country has this problem to that extent if at all.

""And it's up to the parents to prevent kids from killing their peers. We can see, however, that sometimes those things don't work"

That's true so that's why the state schools also have to protect."

I agree that providing certain protections to the public is one role of the government. I'm just trying to get you to explain why you think that it's the state's role to provide protective clothing in case of a school shooter, but not in the case of a much more common threat to kids.

"We have already established that to protect from dog bites cost the state nothing"

Then why don't they do it if it costs them nothing? Don't you care about the kids?

#139 Posted by always_explicit (2793 posts) -

You cant have a country where citizens bare arms and then get upset when people get shot.

Either fix the problem together as a nation or live with the expectation that people might get hurt.

I know which I prefer and Im pleased my country doesnt have guns.

#140 Posted by thegerg (15099 posts) -

You cant have a country where citizens bare arms and then get upset when people get shot.

Either fix the problem together as a nation or live with the expectation that people might get hurt.

I know which I prefer and Im pleased my country doesnt have guns.

Which country is that?

#141 Posted by always_explicit (2793 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@always_explicit said:

You cant have a country where citizens bare arms and then get upset when people get shot.

Either fix the problem together as a nation or live with the expectation that people might get hurt.

I know which I prefer and Im pleased my country doesnt have guns.

Which country is that?

I prefer not to discuss anything with you. You are irritating, lack basic comprehension and prefer to talk about semantics regarding individual posts than the issues in question. Whilst your entitled to use your own time having conversation of that nature I prefer to use my time having a thought provoking discussion.

#142 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

@thegerg said:

@always_explicit said:

You cant have a country where citizens bare arms and then get upset when people get shot.

Either fix the problem together as a nation or live with the expectation that people might get hurt.

I know which I prefer and Im pleased my country doesnt have guns.

Which country is that?

I prefer not to discuss anything with you. You are irritating, lack basic comprehension and prefer to talk about semantics regarding individual posts than the issues in question. Whilst your entitled to use your own time having conversation of that nature I prefer to use my time having a thought provoking discussion.

You're entitled to avoid a civil conversation if you wish, I'm just curious about where you live. As far as I know there is no country in the world without guns. Some certainly have more than others, but I doubt that any country has none.

#143 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: "Well, I guess they're not all that important when they're not in school"

If that's what you think that's just your opinion not mine, but as I said before it's really up to the dogs owner to prevent and pay for any measures that prevent the dog from biting anyone it's not the States responsibility,if you own a dog you take measures that will prevent the dog from biting someone, if you want the state to pay for that then fair enough. But it is the States responsibility to protect kids that are in a state schools. Why are you finding it so difficult to distinguish between what is state responsibility and what is personal responsibility?

#144 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@always_explicit: there is no fixing the problem for the USA, first off they are in denial that there even is a problem and secondly no matter how bad things get they will never give up there guns.

It's too late for America they are the nation of guns.

#145 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@thegerg: "Well, I guess they're not all that important when they're not in school"

If that's what you think that's just your opinion not mine, but as I said before it's really up to the dogs owner to prevent and pay for any measures that prevent the dog from biting anyone it's not the States responsibility,if you own a dog you take measures that will prevent the dog from biting someone, if you want the state to pay for that then fair enough. But it is the States responsibility to protect kids that are in a state schools. Why are you finding it so difficult to distinguish between what is state responsibility and what is personal responsibility?

"If that's what you think that's just your opinion not mine, but as I said before it's really up to the dogs owner to prevent and pay for any measures that prevent the dog from biting anyone"

And it's the parent's responsibility to ensure that their kids don't murder people, but you find it OK for the state to put additional measures in place there.

Why do you feel the state has no obligation to maintain public safety outside of schools?

#146 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: you already said I wasn't wrong about the States responsibility to keep children safe while in the care of a state school.

You said and I quote

"You're not wrong, but that has no bearing on the fact that those measures don't always work"

but measures not working is irrelevant to the fact of the responsibility of the state to protect students in a state schools care.

"And it's the parent's responsibility to ensure that their kids don't murder people, but you find it OK for the state to put additional measures in place there"

Yes your right it is the parents responsibility not to raise a murderer but it's not the individual parents obligation to protect every child in a state school from a life threatening situation while the children are at a state school, that's the States responsibility.

#147 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@thegerg: you already said I wasn't wrong about the States responsibility to keep children safe while in the care of a state school.

You said and I quote

"You're not wrong, but that has no bearing on the fact that those measures don't always work"

but measures not working is irrelevant to the fact of the responsibility of the state to protect students in a state schools care.

"And it's the parent's responsibility to ensure that their kids don't murder people, but you find it OK for the state to put additional measures in place there"

Yes your right it is the parents responsibility not to raise a murderer but it's not the individual parents obligation to protect every child in a state school from a life threatening situation while the children are at a state school, that's the States responsibility.

"you already said I wasn't wrong about the States responsibility to keep children safe while in the care of a state school."

OK, and? I've said nothing to the contrary. The state does have a responsibility to maintain general safety and good order.

"Yes your right it is the parents responsibility not to raise a murderer but it's not the individual parents obligation to protect every child in a state school from a life threatening situation while the children are at a state school, that's the States responsibility."

Not exactly. Look up Warren v. District of Columbia. The state has no obligation to "provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." Rather, such things are owed to society as a whole.

Anyway, why do you feel the state has no obligation to maintain public safety outside of schools?

#148 Posted by xdude85 (4397 posts) -

They should give those kids guns instead.

#149 Posted by Xeno_ghost (683 posts) -

@thegerg: "Anyway, why do you feel the state has no obligation to maintain public safety outside of schools"

I don't recall having that opinion.

#150 Edited by thegerg (15099 posts) -

@thegerg: "Anyway, why do you feel the state has no obligation to maintain public safety outside of schools"

I don't recall having that opinion.

Then what's with all the whining about whether or not dogs attack kids in schools? If the state has responsibility to maintain safety outside of schools as well, why should the state focus on a very small threat inside a school and not a greater threat outside?