Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Poke78" data-source="post: 2023271" data-attributes="member: 4333">First off, thanks for your effort to make a well-constructed response to my post. I will now attempt to emulate your example...I see we are in agreement on NOT raising taxes so that means the money or methods need to be found elsewhere. I'm also not an expert on which programs should be de-funded (it's a given that somebody's ox will be gored) but that remains the only choice if government funds are to be used without a rise in taxes. I just want to acknowledge that reality and make sure it's on the table while we're counting costs.As to the price of chips at a convenience store, I think you are stretching to make a point. The price must cover all costs plus a profit so if costs rise in some way (and security and shrinkage are places where costs rise) then the price must increase to achieve the goals of the business.Also, you need to gain a better understanding of the various elements of our government. School employees are just that -- they are not employed by the city. These are two different political entities with their own tax base and budgets. Nothing is done between the two without a monetary exchange...trust me on this. See below for my response about providing firearms, ammo, etc.Sorry, making the law and policy you propose for teachers puts it in the realm of a job responsibility, IMO. Then you have to tap the public treasury for the salaries, range/instructor time, firearm, ammo, etc.Exactly, it is a different responsibility and reflects my point in the previous ^^^ paragraph above about how your proposal would make it an official job requirement and all that entails. My argument for simplicity is that we realize the teacher has a right to self-defense and the class would be an extra beneficiary of not taking the teacher's rights away by creating a criminal empowerment zone, aka the "gun-free school".And you have made equally good and valid points that are worthy of discussion. Your point as regards fire safety is good; I've heard similar points made in Dave Grossman presentations. I would note that the approach to fire safety is both pro-active and reactive with tools for both provided to those most exposed to the risk. The alarms, sprinklers, building and materials codes are pro-active, designed with prevention or minimalization in mind. However, the fire extinguisher is the reactive tool for when the other approaches fail in some way and occupants need something to protect themselves and directly take on the threat. Creation of criminal empowerment zones have effectively taken away that last resort, reactive tool.I could only make it to the 4:00 point in that video. It has some validity in some settings but I don't see the application to the recent incident, given the ages in the classroom. I had to quit as my ears were bleeding from listening to the presenter.</blockquote>

Verification