@xeno_ghost said:
@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.
Log in to comment