Worried about school shootings? Not anymore!

[Sanis Prent]

Just use your textbook as a shield! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohrh57WROZI&eurl=)

:lol This is hilarious. Not only is it incredibly amateurish (Honestly, I could do a far better presentation of it, and www.boxoftruth.com did it better still), but it's also completely skewed. They test jacketed hollow point ammunition only, which is inferior at penetrating material harder than fleshy-type stuff. Full metal jacket, which is far cheaper and far more prevalent, would penetrate a lot worse than what they're suggesting.

Woo hoo, your tax dollars at work!

[Jedieb]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10/20/school.shootings.textbooks.ap/index.html

Why are politicians so stupid? Granted, a textbook is better than nothing, but to actually propose this an actual plan for self defense when a crazed gunman enters a school is beyond stupid.

[Khendon Sevon]

Or... we could just... you know, keep guns out of the hands of delinquents/crazy people?

[Sanis Prent]

We already have things in place to do that.

[Pierce Tondry]

Or... we could just... you know, keep guns out of the hands of delinquents/crazy people?

The economist in me wants to know if you'll be the first to volunteer for approaching said delinquents/crazy people and ask them to hand over their weaponry. :)

[Park Kraken]

Heh. Why not pack all the textbooks into a backpack, and use said backpack as shield instead? Maybe they should start making backpacks out of kevlar. Or maybe there should be a school armory and all the teachers have navy SEAL combat training.

[Khendon Sevon]

The economist in me wants to know if you'll be the first to volunteer for approaching said delinquents/crazy people and ask them to hand over their weaponry. :)

Nooo. That's why we pay SWAT the big bucks.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

This is like all those old educational videos telling schoolkids to hide under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack :rolleyes

[JMK]

Well this plan is slightly better than the previously recommended plan of having each student wear ruby slippers in class and clicking their heels 3 times when a murderous nut job comes calling.

[Sanis Prent]

Heh. Why not pack all the textbooks into a backpack, and use said backpack as shield instead? Maybe they should start making backpacks out of kevlar. Or maybe there should be a school armory and all the teachers have navy SEAL combat training.

Because even a stack of books in a kevlar backpack won't stop a 7.62x39 slug, much less anything bigger.


Nooo. That's why we pay SWAT the big bucks.

SWAT are a bunch of overrated cops paid to play soldier, without the training or responsibility for it.

What omniscience are we to use to determine who is crazy and who is not?

[Khendon Sevon]

What omniscience are we to use to determine who is crazy and who is not?

I don't know. We could always just leave it up to the people who understand psychology extremely (PhD? Real Experience?) well. I believe they would be the experts, as it were, in the determination.

It's interesting to think how this situation could be handled on a gun control side.

It's also interesting to consider how this could be handled on a sociological level.

It's also interesting to play guitar with your teeth.

[Sanis Prent]

There are ethical considerations here. You are already required by law to admit at point of purchase if you have been committed or found mentally adjunct, and that will reject the bill of sale, since it goes through to the BATFE for consideration.

Should we then submit all buyers to evaluation? Who is to pay for this red nightmare? Do the findings of such examinations fall under Doctor/Patient confidentiality?

Are we to tag all gun owners and storm in every year for mandatory head shrink exams? Juden raus and whatnot?

Why don't we do this with anything else? Isn't this just a little bit out of proportion?

[Pierce Tondry]

Nooo. That's why we pay SWAT the big bucks.

Ahhh, what wonderful opinions are these that endorse an end result requiring essentially no effort on the part of the originator!

Would that passing the buck actually could solve the problem at hand!

[Kraehe Branwen]

Yeah, okay... I know that textbooks these days are overly thich and heavy, but I dont think they would be affective against a gun. Maybe a few weaker guns, but not some of the things some kids have used when shooting up their school. Like a shotgun and a rifle. I may not know much about guns but I know those are pretty damn deadly. Weren't those used in the Columbine case? Why didn't they include their research on THOSE guns and perhaps some other weapons as well? Not all psychos are going to go for 9mm and AK-47's. I think the only damage a textbook can do against anything is on a studen'ts back(from carrying them), not against a bullet.

[Khendon Sevon]

I was addressing the issue slightly tongue in cheek.

Relax.

[Lion El' Jonson]

This is a marginally better idea than using the kid that everybody hates as a shield...I think. I'm not sure, would a human body stop bullets better than a textbook if the bullet happened to deflect off of various bones? ^_^;

I really wish there was a common-sense solution to this problem, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think there's any way to keep various whackjobs from getting their hands on lethal weapons. Heck, various people on t3h interweb have constructed weapons from household items, and while their utility is debated (I don't know how useful a super-soaker flamethrower is) if some idiot wants to cause harm to somebody else I doubt that "use your textbook" will be anymore of a deterent than "In the event of a nuclear detonation, duck and cover!"

[Sanis Prent]

Yeah, okay... I know that textbooks these days are overly thich and heavy, but I dont think they would be affective against a gun. Maybe a few weaker guns, but not some of the things some kids have used when shooting up their school. Like a shotgun and a rifle. I may not know much about guns but I know those are pretty damn deadly. Weren't those used in the Columbine case? Why didn't they include their research on THOSE guns and perhaps some other weapons as well? Not all psychos are going to go for 9mm and AK-47's. I think the only damage a textbook can do against anything is on a studen'ts back(from carrying them), not against a bullet.

A shotgun would probably be stopped by textbooks, I'd wager. Since a kalashnikov style rifle is not, then there's no point in testing other rifles, since Kalashnikovs are relatively weak in power as far as rifles go.

The two examples they showed penetrate decently as far as guns go. It's the ammo choice that's suspect.


I was addressing the issue slightly tongue in cheek.

Relax.

I know ;)


This is a marginally better idea than using the kid that everybody hates as a shield...I think. I'm not sure, would a human body stop bullets better than a textbook if the bullet happened to deflect off of various bones? ^_^;

Ballistic gelatin, which has the approximate resistance of human flesh, is penetrated deeper by most ammunition than books or similar objects would be.


I really wish there was a common-sense solution to this problem, but for the foreseeable future, I don't think there's any way to keep various whackjobs from getting their hands on lethal weapons. Heck, various people on t3h interweb have constructed weapons from household items, and while their utility is debated (I don't know how useful a super-soaker flamethrower is) if some idiot wants to cause harm to somebody else I doubt that "use your textbook" will be anymore of a deterent than "In the event of a nuclear detonation, duck and cover!"

Yeah pretty much.

[Pierce Tondry]

I was addressing the issue slightly tongue in cheek.

Relax.

And I am pointing out the flaws, tongue-in-cheek. ;)

In this court, no harm, no fowl!

[Khendon Sevon]

:)

I think I might need to bring a certain extra "punch" into this court. Say, 7.62 NATO?

[Pierce Tondry]

I cannot help but read that as North Atlantic Treaty Organization, lol.

I will bring a bowl of freshly prepared chicken soup. Er, no wait, that's my dinner.

I will bring bears.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Grizzley or bi-polar?

[Sanis Prent]

I cannot help but read that as North Atlantic Treaty Organization, lol.

That's because that's what it stands for :)

[Park Kraken]

That's because that's what it stands for :)

Standard issue pistol for NATO forces?

The only thing I think can help is to upgrade the protection at all the schools. Have tv monitors on all the entrances, complete with security guards sitting behind a desk, and make it to where all the doors can be locked by remote, and I mean locked to where no one can jimmy their way in. All windows are bullet-proof too. Make lockdown an actual lockdown.

[Khendon Sevon]

Standard issue pistol for NATO forces?

The only thing I think can help is to upgrade the protection at all the schools. Have tv monitors on all the entrances, complete with security guards sitting behind a desk, and make it to where all the doors can be locked by remote, and I mean locked to where no one can jimmy their way in. All windows are bullet-proof too. Make lockdown an actual lockdown.

Like prison.

I think most schools are enough of prisons.

Let's not encourage it.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

The only thing I think can help is to upgrade the protection at all the schools. Have tv monitors on all the entrances, complete with security guards sitting behind a desk, and make it to where all the doors can be locked by remote, and I mean locked to where no one can jimmy their way in. All windows are bullet-proof too. Make lockdown an actual lockdown.

What the hell, you can not be serious. You just.... can not think like that, because you are basically advocating schools become prisons.

This, like gun control does nothing to address the real issue, it is only a feel good measure, an illusion that simply does not work. The real issue to be addressed is not security, but giving someone the ability to realize killing / maiming does nothing and that it is not something that a human should be doing. That revenge like shooting someone is never justified.

A good moral person with the right ethical beliefs will never simply take a gun and shoot the suburb up. That's the real key, the real basis to the real solution. But of course, the real solution asks hard questions of what society really is like and those questions arent ones our leaders like answering, nor most of the time are they capable of answering. It is also very true that a child bought up with the framework of morals and ethics is much less liekly to be a psycho killer.

[Sanis Prent]

Standard issue pistol for NATO forces?

No. 7.62 NATO is a heavy rifle cartridge, used in things like the M-60 and such. It isn't really used as much anymore, although I hear the FN-Herstal SCAR-H may use it.



The only thing I think can help is to upgrade the protection at all the schools. Have tv monitors on all the entrances, complete with security guards sitting behind a desk, and make it to where all the doors can be locked by remote, and I mean locked to where no one can jimmy their way in. All windows are bullet-proof too. Make lockdown an actual lockdown.

Nooooo! This is not a step forward!

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

It just all boils down to common sense parenting. Our society has become one that refuses to take responsibilty for its' action, and so kids are now being raised under the banner of 'it's not your fault that you do bad things'. This mentality that there is a disease for everything is getting so rediculous now that perfectly normal people are given unnecessary meds to 'fix' their so-called problem, which result in further problems and complications.

And then there's the sue-happy phenomenon; too fat? Sue McDonald's because you won't stop eating their food. Hurt yourself while cutting your hedges with your lawnmower? Sue the mower company for not putting a label on their machine that says to not use it as a hedge-trimmer.

It's this inability to be held truly accountable for for your actions that is going to stunt us and our future generations. Turning a school into a veritable prison isn't going to help anything, it'll just up the ante and dare these kids to keep doing it. If their parents would teach them that they will be responsible for what they do, the difference between right and wrong, and common sense and decency, I think you'd start to see a change in the way kids these days behave.

[Kraehe Branwen]

Like prison.

I think most schools are enough of prisons.

Let's not encourage it.

Id rather feel like my child is somewhat safer and more protected rather than worry if school is a prison. Though, some of the ideas he has mentioned would be flawed. Bullet proof windows might prevent from people from breaking open a window if there is a fire and the window might not always be forgiving in the situation when you try to open it.

I dunno if he mentioned metal detectors but I heard from a few friends of mine that had been arrested for shoplifting at one point or another that they were able to get through those easy. You know how the stores have some device meant to catch shoplifters red handed when they're stealing something with that little tag on it right? According to them it works the same way. I guess. Never tested it myself but they would line their backpack with tinfoil on the inside so that the sensors would be thrown off when they went through. It's never 100% cuz sometimes they did get caught, but most of the time they didn't. Kids with guns and are psycho might do this to get through metal detectors.

Really, I think what should be done is more severe punishments for kids that tease other kids. If this weren't an issue, then there wouldn't be so many kids that feel that they have to get even by killing people. Plus there really need to be more scool counselors to deal with kids that are being picked on so that they can pick on on who might be the next to snap. BUT I am not discriminating against kids that have been teased. I have been all my life, so I'm in no way saying all of us unpopulars are killers. Its just that sometimes a kid with a not so healthy mindset can get set off easily, especially if teased.

Even popuular students need to be watched, but on many different levels. I have heard of a group of jocks that beat up a kid who was gay and hung him. Thats just another reason I think teasing should be severely punished even to the point of expeltion if the jackass if a repeat offender.

I'll add more to this thought later. I have errands to run.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

The problem here, Z, is that you have to even consider sending your kid to a school such as this :\

This isn't meant as anything mean or snarky, it just makes my head hurt to think that parents have to adapt to this way of thinking when considering where they want their children to go for education.

[Sanis Prent]

Id rather feel like my child is somewhat safer and more protected rather than worry if school is a prison. Though, some of the ideas he has mentioned would be flawed. Bullet proof windows might prevent from people from breaking open a window if there is a fire and the window might not always be forgiving in the situation when you try to open it.

"Those that would trade liberty for the promise of extra security deserve neither."



I dunno if he mentioned metal detectors but I heard from a few friends of mine that had been arrested for shoplifting at one point or another that they were able to get through those easy. You know how the stores have some device meant to catch shoplifters red handed when they're stealing something with that little tag on it right? According to them it works the same way. I guess. Never tested it myself but they would line their backpack with tinfoil on the inside so that the sensors would be thrown off when they went through. It's never 100% cuz sometimes they did get caught, but most of the time they didn't. Kids with guns and are psycho might do this to get through metal detectors.

If I'm a shooter, I will know about metal detectors in advance, and there's an easy way to get past that. Kill anybody manning the detectors first.

Seriously, what do you expect metal detectors to accomplish here?


Really, I think what should be done is more severe punishments for kids that tease other kids. If this weren't an issue, then there wouldn't be so many kids that feel that they have to get even by killing people. Plus there really need to be more scool counselors to deal with kids that are being picked on so that they can pick on on who might be the next to snap. BUT I am not discriminating against kids that have been teased. I have been all my life, so I'm in no way saying all of us unpopulars are killers. Its just that sometimes a kid with a not so healthy mindset can get set off easily, especially if teased.

Good luck enforcing any of it. It's mostly hearsay anyways.

[Pierce Tondry]

Bah. I presumed it was a gun from the context, what I meant was that in my head I envisioned Khendon wielding a piece of paper that said "NATO section 7.62" as a weapon, like the actual physical treaty itself. Far less harmful and far more silly.


Id rather feel like my child is somewhat safer and more protected rather than worry if school is a prison.

And would your child enjoy it? More importantly, would it really help him to grow and learn in that kind of setting? As a parent, you really do have to think about more than your child's physical well-being.


Its just that sometimes a kid with a not so healthy mindset can get set off easily, especially if teased.

And this actually drives that point home a little better than I could. You are essentially saying that children with unhealthy mindsets are more likely to go on a shooting spree. Well that's great, but what's the real issue: a child's ability to kill or the unhealthy mindset that prompts them to do so?

Presuming we only have the resources to effectively solve one of the two issues, which would be a better use of time and money and effort?

[Khendon Sevon]

Presuming we only have the resources to effectively solve one of the two issues, which would be a better use of time and money and effort?

No. Why assume?

I'm a firm believer that it's on the parents' side. They're responsible for ensuring that their child grows up in a safe, healthy environment.

Now, there's the nasty bit about sending your kid off to a place where there might be negative influences or dangers. What do you do about that?

It's life. Balances, trade-offs, etc., etc., etc.

Let's not pretend that "random" (or not so random) acts of violence are something new. History is full of young (and old) psychopaths. It's part of the "human" flaw (what makes us great also destroys us).

Rawr.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

Bah. I presumed it was a gun from the context, what I meant was that in my head I envisioned Khendon wielding a piece of paper that said "NATO section 7.62" as a weapon, like the actual physical treaty itself. Far less harmful and far more silly.


Like this?

<img src=http://s93860457.onlinehome.us/misc/NATO.jpg>

[Lilaena De'Ville]

I'm going to homeschool my kids anyway. But that still wouldn't guarantee they'll be protected from random home invasions and shootings.

We can prepare all we like, and make public schools into prisons, but it only takes one nutjob who works as a school security guard to go bonkers and then we have people trapped inside prison-like schools with a madman and then what is the solution past that? Sometimes you just can't prepare for all situations without turning into a society that shuns human contact and breeds only acute paranoia.

[Pierce Tondry]

No. Why assume?

I'm not sure if this is an actual question or not, but the answer is twofold:

1) Because we do live in a world of finite resources that need to be used wisely
2) Because examining one's priorities often lends insight into where the true issues lie.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said. Given that I have a good understanding of the concept of risk management, I think I'd probably make a good parent. Go figure.

PS: I <3 s'Il. She is ossum.

[Khendon Sevon]

Hah! S'il, that is great :)

[Park Kraken]

I'm a firm believer that it's on the parents' side. They're responsible for ensuring that their child grows up in a safe, healthy environment.

Yes, in fact, it is on the parent's side. Most of the time, the parent's of the boy/girl? that did the shooting could have done something to prevent it. They could have sat down with their offspring and talked about it, they could have hid their guns better, they could have advised school officials or seeked help for the person, but they didn't. For every one thousand or ten thousand sets of parents out there that care about their children and so forth, there is one set that doesn't give a thing about their children and what they do. So you can't rely on the parent's alone to solve this issue.

[Pierce Tondry]

This is one of those subjects where the "greatest good for the greatest number" school of thought tends to apply the best. There is no way to completely eliminate the phenomenon. The idea is simply to reduce it as much as possible using reasonable precautions.

[Morgan Evanar]

This is one of those subjects where the "greatest good for the greatest number" school of thought tends to apply the best. There is no way to completely eliminate the phenomenon. The idea is simply to reduce it as much as possible using reasonable precautions.You know people used to have public school sponsored shooting classes with .22s and stuff, which will kill you plenty dead. I'm not aware of any kids shooting anyone else during that time, although it probably happened once or twice.

What the hell happened? I am tired of this pointless nannying of everything. Things are probably less dangerous than they were in the 40s-70s, but "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" seems to have blinded everyone to the actual statistics and dangers, which is very low. Sure, you don't want some creepo walking around your child's school, but how much of the third degree should an alum coming back to lunch with their old teachers get? Kids can't even go out to lunch anymore.

SCHOOL SHOOOTING OH GOD EVERYONE IS AT RISK? If someone wants to park in a car with an accurate weapon and randomly drop students from 100 yards, there isn't going to be too much we can do to stop them. If someone has the willpower to do something that humans are reasonably capable of them, they're probably going to do it. Spending tons of money on false security isn't going to prevent it.

In other words, this crap is pointless and you should be upset you tax dollars are wasted on it.

[Kraehe Branwen]

No child would be able to care about what kind of education they're getting if they get killed. As for the whole thing about everything being on the parent's side, its a little flawed as well. You can't ensure that all parents are going to be good parents. And not all good parents are successful 100% of the time with every single child they have. For example: My husband and his older brother are perfect, well behaved, adults that don't do drugs or drink too much. His younger brothers: Skip school, dont do their homework, impregnate the entire state of WI, and do drugs in FRONT of (only one bro has kids) his children. Its not always a guarentee that all kids will be well behaved. It's hard to raise a child, and most parents here will agree with me. No matter how many times you tell a kid fire burns, they'll keep trying it until they're satisfied that it wasn't a trick you pulled.

A way to avoid that is counseling. Perhaps an appointment twice a year for each student can help teachers or the counselor catch early signs of something being off and perhaps tell the parents that the child may need more counseling. When you're a parent it's hard to notice sometimes when something is bothering your child all the time. I hid my depression from my mother until I was 16 and finally attempted at my own life. It came to her as a shock cuz I never talked to her about anything bothering me. It was a teacher that noticed something then told the principal who in turned called my mom. I think it's teamwork on part of all the adults to catch on to any peculiar things exhibited in a child's behavior.

But not all ideas are 100%. No matter what idea anyone comes up with, someone will disagree and it will have its flaws too. Maybe twice a year isn't enough, maybe a child is devious enough to even hide strange thoughts from a counselor. We can't be sure. I have a son and it terrifies me how often this sort of thing occurs. I just feel like I need to toss out as many ideas as possible so that maybe some sort of solution came come about before he's of age. But maybe by then I can afford private school or homeschooling. But its a shame I would have to pay for such a thing when its free otherwise. Plus homeschooling takes away from a child's ability to grow socially imho and private schools make them think they're better than everyone else eventually at some point(not saying thats the absolute truth, just from what I have seen from in Florida).

I have heard of even a kindergardner taking a gun to school and accidently shooting someone. I dunno if this is true, but thats scary that even at that age it happens. I want the best education for my son but not at the expense of his life. What good would an education be if he ends up dead before I'm even in my own grave? Everytime something like this happens I cry as if they were my own children because no matter how many times it happens, nothing is done to help prevent it! Its as big a problem as terrorism. We don't do anything to protect ourselves until it's too late and something has already occured. But with this, we still haven't learned our lessons enough to agree on what needs to be done.

No one liked the changes made after 9/11, but it did help to prevent anything else from happening these past few years. Maybe not all of the ideas I have mentioned are agreeable, but so was the whole security change in airports and what not. This world is full of sickos and that is never going to change, so we just need to figure out ways of either finding those sickos and helping them to recover into good people or to protect ourselves a little more.

[Byl Laprovik]

No child would be able to care about what kind of education they're getting if they get killed.

You aren't appreciating the utterly rare nature of these attacks. To make a significant policy shift to address what are freak occurrances, you are really overreacting and throwing away resources at something that is questionably preventable anyway.


No one liked the changes made after 9/11, but it did help to prevent anything else from happening these past few years.

I have a magic rock! It keeps tigers away! How do I prove to you that it works? Well, have you seen any tigers lately?

No, I'm not convinced that the "precautions" we took after 9/11 did anything other than to kill the civil liberties that define us.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

No one liked the changes made after 9/11, but it did help to prevent anything else from happening these past few years. Maybe not all of the ideas I have mentioned are agreeable, but so was the whole security change in airports and what not. This world is full of sickos and that is never going to change, so we just need to figure out ways of either finding those sickos and helping them to recover into good people or to protect ourselves a little more.


Prove it. Go on, prove the changes after 11/9 did anything other than right royally annoy the law abiding citizens. It has NOT STOPPED ANYTHING. It has instead bought about a constant state of fear and paranoia that did the terroist's job for them. Terrorist hate your freedoms? Well guess what, look who really took the freedoms away. Your own government for exactly nothing in return. You as an USA citizen can have your rights stripped away, without any proof in a court of law. Your government tortures innocent people, denies them human rights, it even does it against it's own citizens. It started a war with no end in sight based on abunch of lies that's killed more of your own citizens than 11/9 and killed far, far, far more citizens than the dictactor who they overthrew did in a shorter time, that same war is now about to ignite into a civil war, if it hasnt already. Your own government changed everything, not the event itself.

The UK showed how it's supposed to be done. Even with the tube staitions a smoldering mess, they just got back to their daily lives. And when Blair tried to enact heavier legislation, he was howled down. The Brits knew from long experience with the IRA (who wrote the book on terrorism) that the terrorists win if you change and live in fear. They shows that even after one of the worst bombings, nothing had changed.

And exactly also, who decides who's a "sicko" as you put it? I personally think the "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" crowd are sickos, lets lock them away. Wait, that guy over there is gay, lets lock him up too. Wait.... pot smoker, potential rapist! LOCK HIM AWAY!!!!

Wait...... oh that's right, most murderers are in fact quite rational people and quite normal from the outside until they start shooting. That guy who shot the Amish? He was a nice normal man until that day. But he made a cold blooded choice to kill. He was not a sicko, he was a normal man who believed his anger at past wrongs could be taken out on a shooting gallery of Amish.

Police rarely catch spree killers, because they usually end up dead at the end of the rampage. But the thing they do find is that the killer is not a distrubed person, but someone who lacked something in them telling them it was wrong to shoot, or they let their anger get the better of them, lacked control.

My father told me once that the man to truly fear is the cold blooded, detirmined one, who is rational and puts emotion to one side, because he can and will do anything. This is a real truth, the crazies arent the ones to worry about. It's the normal people who decide killing is the right thing to do. The only real response to that is make sure a person never comes to that conclusion. Stuffed if I know how other than a proper upbringing and a good dose of Christianity.

[Park Kraken]

It has NOT STOPPED ANYTHING.

Not true. There have been many arrests where people have tried to smuggle guns or bombs onboard airplanes that probably wouldn't have been stopped without the extra security. One example that comes to mind is the shoe bomber that was picked up in, I think it was, Miami International.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Not true. There have been many arrests where people have tried to smuggle guns or bombs onboard airplanes that probably wouldn't have been stopped without the extra security. One example that comes to mind is the shoe bomber that was picked up in, I think it was, Miami International.

There have NOT been many arrests. Come on, name them if you think there has been because I know quite well there hasn't been - the "security" measures only annoy the honest travellers and Lord knows, I felt like decking a few of those overweight idiots manning the scanners on my journey through the USA, they are simply a complete farce. And as for the Shoe Bomber...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_%28shoe_bomber%29

Read up on it. NOT arrested because of security measures. And he evaded security pretty well - that kind of stuff doesnt show up on X-Ray or set off metal detectors. Some of it doesnt even show up on explosives sniffers.

[Lion El' Jonson]

Quite frankly, 9/11 was a wakeup call to America that it was still (and will always be) vulnerable to people wishing to cause us harm. Following the overwhelming displays of NATO supremacy in the 90s, following the Persian Gulf War and Operation Allied Force (flawed, but impressive), people assumed that the bad times were over. Without needing to fear the USSR or Red China, we turned our attention to more mundane things.

So 9/11 definitely showed that we were vulnerable. In my opinion, however, we've overreacted. There is no way to completely stop terrorism, just like it is stupid to think that we can wage a War against Terror. You can't fight an ideal, and a determined individual (or individuals) will eventually find a way. We can only stay ahead of terrorism for so long. The re-evaluation of our security system didn't accomplish much in regards to technology or searching methods, but it did have the side-effect of making the nation more suspicious as a whole. This has its upsides and downsides; we may be more secure, but America is increasingly becoming intolerant and xenophobic.

It's unfortunate that terrorism occurs, but I feel that in altering the founding ideals of our nation in the name of national security, we're really no better off. We've become bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan (through no fault of the armed forces), which has limited our response to other threats. America may well be the greatest nation in the world, but it's a shame that we're giving up so much.

We're not going to solve school shootings by upping security at schools anymore than we'll stop terrorism by invading the Middle East. Federal legislation can't take the place of responsible parenting practices. Idiots like Jack Thompson thrive off pointing fingers at various external "stimuli" for school shootings, such as video games, but the problem really starts in the home.

[Park Kraken]

You can't fight an ideal

Actually, you can, but I'd prefer not to turn the Earth into a radioactive wasteball.

[Lion El' Jonson]

Actually, you can, but I'd prefer not to turn the Earth into a radioactive wasteball.

I concede the point, but a radioactive parking lot free of terrorism isn't a good tradeoff. :lol

[Jaime Tomahawk]

I concede the point, but a radioactive parking lot free of terrorism isn't a good tradeoff. :lol


I would not concede the point, because the idea in reality just won. Why? Because the ones who set us up the bomb are every bit the terrorists as the ones who they called terrorists, probably a lot worse. And yes, I would dare say the Bush Admin are worse because of all the death and destruction they have caused for a <i>lie</i> and their own ideas makes any terrorist attack look pale.

You fight ideas with your own ideas. You show them how much better they are. You dont go fighting and killing because that makes people dig their heels in and believe even more in their own ideas. If you really, really want to make your ideas spread and take hold, learn how to spread them, how to speak, how to communicate. Learn how to make them palatable. Make them look good. Give them some appeal.

I might add that terrorists find their support in the lost,the weak, the hungry, the poor, the desperate. Take that away, feed a man, give him a job, give him responsibility and a direction, hope...... he's going to accept your ideas pretty quick or at the least be fine with them and terrorists lose and so do their ideas.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

Be all of that as it may Mark, there are enough of those people who simply won't talk and listen. They've grown up believing one thing no matter how skewed, and no amount of reasoning is going to yield any results. You might as well just go argue with a brick wall.

I admit to being partial to compromise and talking things out, but there are times when you have to abandon that. There is no one, single satisfying solution to everything, no matter how hard one might wish.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Be all of that as it may Mark, there are enough of those people who simply won't talk and listen. They've grown up believing one thing no matter how skewed, and no amount of reasoning is going to yield any results. You might as well just go argue with a brick wall.

I admit to being partial to compromise and talking things out, but there are times when you have to abandon that. There is no one, single satisfying solution to everything, no matter how hard one might wish.


Then it does gets back to how a child is raised, doesnt it? yes, there are those who just will do anything to impose their will on others, but as Iraq shows, you can turn a man who wants nothing more than to feed his family into a suicide bomber out of desperation. You can set up the perfect place for hatred, fear and desperation to fester and you give ordinary men the reason to think they have no other way other than to kill. And they spread that to their children and so the cycle continues.

The majority of insurgents and terrorists around the world are perfectly resonable men and women.... but they get sucked in wiht messages that tell them they can strike back against .

The point in the end is that to stop terrorism (and it is a long term thing, lets not be slow about admitting that) is to give a strong, compelling reason for those who might otherwise kill themselves and others to ignore Bin Laden, JI, Al-Quada etc and join their stupidity. You do that, then terrorists have no real power and no support. Their cause becomes lost and it will die with them. And whne someone lese with the insanity in their head comes along, he'll get ignored too.

It's not an easy solution tho. And our politicians lack the guts to do it as it will cost money and have no benefit in general to the voters that they get to see.

[Jedieb]

There are certain things that have happened as a result of Coumbine and 9-11 that have changed daily life in most American public schools. Some are effective, some are just for show. Most schools have lock-down procedures. These can include code words to alert faculty that there's some kind of threat. (Anything from an out of control parent to a student with a gun.) A pre-selected location for teachers to lead students in case a school has to be evacuated. DARE officers can be found in most middle and high schools. Most schools now have tougher penalties for students who bring weapons to school. And these things happen ALL the time. Hell, in my middle school we've had suspensions for knives, pellet guns, and pot and we're not even through the first marking period. NONE of it makes the evening news because it's just not a big deal or out of the ordinary. I guarantee you that large cities such as NY, LA, Detroit, etc. deal with FAR worse on a daily basis. Kids are getting caught with guns and knives EVERY day in this country. It's just part of the job today. It would be pointless to have a metal detector in my school, but there are probably more than a few schools in NYC where they do a decent job of helping to keep weapons out of school. There's always a way around a system, but in some schools a metal detector is a sensible tool.

One thing is for sure, this thread was started by highlighting a "safety" procedure that's uttertly and completely moronic.

[Khendon Sevon]

Yeah, but a lot of that predates 9/11. My high school had "code words" and whatnot well before my freshman year. I know that because a teacher once mentioned that the school did have plans for emergency situations--I participated in a SWAT practice event as a hostage my sophomore year.

All that the security measures from 9/11 have done is to provide funding to universities for pretty pet projects and to annoy passengers on international flights--no lighters anywhere!

Then again. The software that my school developed to visually detect ships under various weather conditions is pretty cool. It uses a regular webcam and generates a computer outline around the vessel and can track the wake. Spiffy stuff.

[Pierce Tondry]

One thing is for sure, this thread was started by highlighting a "safety" procedure that's uttertly and completely moronic.

Agreed.


Some are effective, some are just for show.

A lot of that goes back to the "reasonable" standard I mentioned earlier. A metal detector in my old high school wouldn't accomplish jack. A drug-sniffing dog would, because too many of the kids there are children of "new money" parents and the drug use has gone way up since I graduated. You move into the city of Richmond and the metal detector becomes a lot more useful- you don't get to be the city with the highest murder rate in the nation when you have an abundance of plastic sporks being used as weaponry.

When you start getting into "one-size fits all" solutions that are motivated by some widely-publicized tragedy, you have abandoned reason and should be beaten with a Malaysian Death Spatula.

[Park Kraken]

We are nearing a second civil war, I can feel it in my bones. Right now there are so many people going around, dis-crediting the bush administration and the U.S. goverment. Support is at an all time low, and these people running around posting conspiracies and other half-baked truths aren't helping. In fact, they are worst than the terroists and anything the Bush administration may have or may not done. It will be them, not the terroists, that ultimatley destroy our country. Fighting a war with Germany certaintly didn't help the Tsarizt regime, but it was the Bolsheviks that ultimatley crumbled it.

I think the main thing is, that the First Gulf War and the attacks under the Clinton Administration have created a false sense of security in that since we are the most technogically advanced nation in the world, that we can hide behind a wall of technology and feel safe from it. 9/11 proved that wrong, and the second Gulf war has proven that the technology, does not in fact protect our troops all the time. The false impression has been dashed into pieces, and it was the Bush administration that did it. People are angry that their little safe feeling has been shattered, and naturally blame the goverment, rather than the terroists and whatever threats. They also hate the goverment for trying to protect them as well. The Bush administration has been going more for the 'need' and less for the people's 'wants' and has suffered for it.

Sorry for the rant, but it's been a while.

[Sanis Prent]

In fact, they are worst than the terroists and anything the Bush administration may have or may not done. It will be them, not the terroists, that ultimatley destroy our country.

Please stop posting crap like this ok.


They also hate the goverment for trying to protect them as well. The Bush administration has been going more for the 'need' and less for the people's 'wants' and has suffered for it.

Exactly what "need" has the administration filled in this regard? I seem to recall what a big flubbering fiasco Katrina was, and that was after Bush's Homeland Security and other garbage was supposed to help keep us safe, right?

Oh, you mean the terrists haven't struck again? This isn't any kind of proof, you know.

[Morgan Evanar]

I think the main thing is, that the First Gulf War and the attacks under the Clinton Administration have created a false sense of security in that since we are the most technogically advanced nation in the world, that we can hide behind a wall of technology and feel safe from it. 9/11 proved that wrong, and the second Gulf war has proven that the technology, does not in fact protect our troops all the time. The false impression has been dashed into pieces, and it was the Bush administration that did it. People are angry that their little safe feeling has been shattered, and naturally blame the goverment, rather than the terroists and whatever threats. They also hate the goverment for trying to protect them as well. The Bush administration has been going more for the 'need' and less for the people's 'wants' and has suffered for it.

Sorry for the rant, but it's been a while.Holy crap man put down the pipe. We're going to go after Iraq because terrist terrist terrist. Rooofls. I feel more unsafe because of how seemingly purposely inept this current government is, not because my mystical "We can't be attacked shield" was shattered. This administration hasn't done anything for "need". It's underminded the founding documents of this country with a terrifying consistency and is flushing away rights faster than anything since World War II without the declaration of war.

Show solid evidence of a terrar plot being undone by the actions of this administration.

VOTE FOR NIXON!

[Jedieb]

Yeah, but a lot of that predates 9/11. My high school had "code words" and whatnot well before my freshman year. I know that because a teacher once mentioned that the school did have plans for emergency situations--I participated in a SWAT practice event as a hostage my sophomore year.

We had procedures in place before 9-11 and Columbine as well. But what happened as a result of those 2 events is that plans were re-evaluated and overhauled. It was rather striking the emphasis that was placed on certain scenarios and procedures. We've always had some kind of "plan" in schools.

Some have been idiotic:
Here comes the mushroom cloud, DUCK AND COVER!!!
and now..
Holy crap, he's got a machine gun. GRAB YOUR COPIES OF WAR AND PEACE!!!!!!

Some have been sensible.
Designated safety zones.
Lock down code words.
Tough penalties for students who bring weapons, drugs, and violence into our schools.

I've just noticed that we've had to place more emphasis on these issues this decade than we did in the 90's.

[Sanis Prent]

Please explain this "designated safety zone" thing, Eb.

[Park Kraken]

I seem to recall what a big flubbering fiasco Katrina was, and that was after Bush's Homeland Security and other garbage was supposed to help keep us safe, right?

Safe from man-made threats is one thing, safe from natural disasters is something else. The former can be prevented, the second can only be responded to. But if there is anything that the Katrina disaster can point to, it's the ages old problem that the U.S., and possibly other countries have: communications.


Oh, you mean the terrists haven't struck again? This isn't any kind of proof, you know.

Actually, the terroists strike almost everyday. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, allied with former Baath party officials and the more properious peoples under Saddam's rule attack everyday, you hear about car bombings or roadside bombs killing U.S. troops and scores of Iraqi civilians. The fact that Al-Qaeda is more heavily comitted over there rather than being free to focus that attention over here quite possibly means that an attack that may have happened by now has instead been delayed for quite sometime, giving us the time to preven it.


Holy crap man put down the pipe. We're going to go after Iraq because terrist terrist terrist. Rooofls

Actually, I feel Iraq is more about trying to tye up a loose end rather than trying to get rid of terroists.

The problem as I see it, is that we no longer know what's good for us and what isn't. We've placed too much faith in the goverment for that kind of guidance, and we've allowed the goverment to take advantage of it. But, even as we realize this, we shouldn't try to destroy the goverment because of it. Politicians will be politicans.

[Khendon Sevon]

Everything always returns to Iraq.

The ultimate failure of our government: they placed hundreds of thousands of Americans into the crosshairs of our enemy.

It was somewhat difficult to plan a coordinated assault on American soil. Now they no longer have to worry about actually getting here. We've given them a great opportunity. Get your AK-47, a bag of RPGs, and your favorite son and sneak into Iraq and join the resistance!

You'll be given all of the bullets you want!

Guess what? It's not a one-time offer! The Americans will be entrenched for a loooong time to come.

Wow. That's a great plan. I can see the diversion from American soil really working. Yup. Any day now.

Let's be realistic. Wars aren't about "He said x to me! She said y! John threatened me!"

Well, partially they are; but, not completely. It's about interests. I'm not talking about how you like that girl in the office--not those types of interests. The guys who make the bombs, the gals who own the stock, the man-chines that run the businesses are the ones that want to see conflict.

Look at the Crusades. Holy Wars, right? Pffff. The Franks and Germans all went there for land and wealth! Constantinople promised untold riches if the West would save the East. Let’s not even talk about the Venetians!

Welcome to the Modern Holy Wars. They’re not really about religion; but, some people will pretend it’s so to manipulate the weak of mind and poor of heart and pocket to engage in a conflict that they actually have nothing to do with.

There you go.

Fight.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Safe from man-made threats is one thing, safe from natural disasters is something else. The former can be prevented, the second can only be responded to. But if there is anything that the Katrina disaster can point to, it's the ages old problem that the U.S., and possibly other countries have: communications.


Have you not looked at what the ral problems with Katrina were? Let me put it bluntly - successive government with their heads up their backside, culminated with a disaster that everyone knew was going to happen one day, with the most incompetent bunch of morons in charge in the White House imaginable. And guess what, Homeland Security WAS supposed to sort all the problems out. Yet, they made it considerably worse.

How's Michael Brown now? Still horsing around?



Actually, the terroists strike almost everyday. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, allied with former Baath party officials and the more properious peoples under Saddam's rule attack everyday, you hear about car bombings or roadside bombs killing U.S. troops and scores of Iraqi civilians. The fact that Al-Qaeda is more heavily comitted over there rather than being free to focus that attention over here quite possibly means that an attack that may have happened by now has instead been delayed for quite sometime, giving us the time to preven it.

Al Quadia are NOT the trouble makers in Iraq. My advice is to really look into the situation before replying again. And this time, dont include a single source that has "Fox News" or "CNN" in the title. Most of the IRaqi's blowing up stuff dislike Al-Quadia a lot and woud be the first to shoot them.




Actually, I feel Iraq is more about trying to tye up a loose end rather than trying to get rid of terroists.


.............

I really think you should get yourself more informed.



The problem as I see it, is that we no longer know what's good for us and what isn't. We've placed too much faith in the goverment for that kind of guidance, and we've allowed the goverment to take advantage of it. But, even as we realize this, we shouldn't try to destroy the goverment because of it. Politicians will be politicans.

No actually, I thnk it would be great to throw out every damn idiot in Parliment and start again. And while we're at it, lets sort out the real problem and deny Fox News a broadcast licence. And the Shock-Jocks, they get their licences denied. Introduce BBC type quality in news broadcast at the least.

[Liam Jinn]

Have you not looked at what the ral problems with Katrina were? Let me put it bluntly - successive government with their heads up their backside, culminated with a disaster that everyone knew was going to happen one day, with the most incompetent bunch of morons in charge in the White House imaginable. And guess what, Homeland Security WAS supposed to sort all the problems out. Yet, they made it considerably worse.

How's Michael Brown now? Still horsing around?




FEMA and Homeland Security are two completely different agencies buddy.

[Sanis Prent]

FEMA and Homeland Security are two completely different agencies buddy.

Not really. FEMA was a department under HS

[Liam Jinn]

Nah, I guess you don't get what I'm saying. I can't see HS taking control when a tornado destroys an area. FEMA on the other hand, yeah.

[Sanis Prent]

By FEMA taking over, DHS also takes over, since they're a subordinate extension of the department.

[Liam Jinn]

As simple as that sounds, it's not actually that simple. There wouldn't be a department such as FEMA if DHS could handle everything.

[Sanis Prent]

That doesn't make any sense. FEMA's duties fall under the broader umbrella of DHS duties, since FEMA is a part of DHS.

Part of the whole problem is that DHS did indeed "handle everything", or at least, had it's hands in a wide assortment of pies that didn't always tie together, such as counter terrorism and hurricane response.

[Liam Jinn]

FEMA's duties falling under the umbrella of DHS, is like saying T-Mobile should be held accountable for a cell phone user who used their cell phone to beat a man to death...

[Sanis Prent]

That analogy only holds if DHS administration acts in all competence, such as diverting enough funds for FEMA and not dallying on silly things like talking about duct tape to defend against nerve gas.

Since even the department administration screws the pooch, opening the door for FEMA specifically to do so, culpability is shared.

In your analogy that isn't the case

[Park Kraken]

The problem as I see it with Katrina, is a breakdown in communications. Forecasting is partly to blame with this, along with the classifications for hurricanes. The system we use now is the Saffir-Simpson scale, and measures a hurricane's strength by wind speed. However, with Katrina, it was water, not wind, that caused the real devastation in Mississippi. While it is true that Katrina's wind speed weakened, the barometric pressure stayed up in the Category 5 range, producing a 40-foot wall of water that oblitered everything along the Mississippi coastline.

So people are thinking that Mississippi got hit by a Cat 3, when they really got slammed by a Cat 5. And the problems in New Orleans didn't develop until after the storm had largely passed, and a false everything ok was issued. So what happened is, FEMA got the everything is ok from New Orleans, started to head to Mississippi, then the real emergency, so FEMA went back to New Orleans, and Mississippi got abandoned, and it was a mess from there.

I read an interesting article that made me think last night at work. It talked about airport security, and mentioned that airport security was largely for show, and that federal agents have managed to smuggle bombs and fire-arms through the screeners. And working as a security guard, I thought...

Well, Duh.

From my point of view, people think security guards are for force. They aren't. While they may act in force, really security is for discouragement. When I started guarding my current site, a housing development where somethings had been stolen, the first couple of nights, people drove around. After that, the activity slackened off into no one driving in other than the sole residents that have moved in. They see me sitting there, and they keep on driving right by.

Ok, this is where it gets interesting.

Now, the report about the federal agents, I'm ok with it happening, as long as it isn't released to the public, but is done as part of a review to see if the measures need to be tightened. And here is why it shouldn't be released to the public:

It is a known fact that terroist cells are living within our country. They may take part in hostile acts, but I think they are merely the intelligence cells, sending information out to the real agents.

Now, say that I am a terroist intillegence officer undercover in America. I go to a local airport, see the strict security measures, and think, "hmmm, heavily guarded, not worth the risk, go for something else." and guess what? By discouragement, the security measures in place have succeeded in preventing an airliner hijacking.

But wait. Back at home, I turn on the tv, and see a report about the agents, and how the security is for show. I sit up and take interest, and think, "hey, the path of an airliner might work after all."

Guess what? Thanks to the freedom of speech, our nation's security has been compromised. Our greatest right is also our greatest enemy.

[Khendon Sevon]

Thank you very much, Mr. Expert On National Security.

Now, here's the logical response to your arguement:

The freedom of speech, as used in your post, then makes officials, activists, and the general public aware of the situation. As such, they call for measures to counter-act the weaknesses. The government then has a responsibility to ensure an upgrade of security.

The problem gets fixed. The noose falls around the would-be-terrorist's neck.

There's an issue, of course. The government is a huuuge, slow, plodding beast right now that loooves to graze on oil-enriched grasses and scratch its rump. It might have horns for show, but they're very dull.

[Jedieb]

Please explain this "designated safety zone" thing, Eb.

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this.

A designated safety zone is some place where teachers are suppose to take students in the event that a school is evacuated. It can literally be anywhere; a park down the street, an auto dealership across the road, etc. If necessary, the school's administration will make some kind arrangement with the establishment ahead of time so that if something extraoridinary happens, the school has someplace to bring students to. When you're there you've got some kind of emergency packet with class rolls, contact numbers, etc. Again, it's not some place to hunker down and fight off the enemy with grenade launchers and M-16's. Just some place you can take your class to if you have to evacuate the building. It's a bit more effective than;
"RUN TO THE STREETS, THE ENEMY HAS ARRIVED!" We're not even suppose to tell non-school personnel or parents where these areas are. You get some deranged parent wanting to act out a suicide pact and the last thing you want them to know is where there kids and their classmates are suppose to be evacuated to.

[Jedieb]

How's Michael Brown now? Still horsing around?

Actually, after he was removed as head of FEMA he was hired by FEMA to be a consultant on disaster relief. I'm not making this up, FEMA put him back on the payroll. "Heck of a job Brownie!" indeed.

[Sanis Prent]

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this.

A designated safety zone is some place where teachers are suppose to take students in the event that a school is evacuated. It can literally be anywhere; a park down the street, an auto dealership across the road, etc. If necessary, the school's administration will make some kind arrangement with the establishment ahead of time so that if something extraoridinary happens, the school has someplace to bring students to. When you're there you've got some kind of emergency packet with class rolls, contact numbers, etc. Again, it's not some place to hunker down and fight off the enemy with grenade launchers and M-16's. Just some place you can take your class to if you have to evacuate the building. It's a bit more effective than;
"RUN TO THE STREETS, THE ENEMY HAS ARRIVED!" We're not even suppose to tell non-school personnel or parents where these areas are. You get some deranged parent wanting to act out a suicide pact and the last thing you want them to know is where there kids and their classmates are suppose to be evacuated to.

So in the event of a spree shooting, they expect to be able to move a student body to one of these areas, and somehow not have them killed? If nobody is in the loop on it, and there's no training done, wouldn't this be pretty difficult to pull off in the kind of time you're looking at needing to get kids to safety?

Maneuvering only works if you can do it quickly.

[JMK]

I guess the point is having a plan, even if not 100% effective against a shooter is better than not having a plan at all and letting a shooter have his way. I also understand that a mass of students huddled together in a hallway, making for the exit makes for a mighty fine target, but that's dependant on the layout of each school and up to each school to find the path of least resistance.

[Park Kraken]

The freedom of speech, as used in your post, then makes officials, activists, and the general public aware of the situation. As such, they call for measures to counter-act the weaknesses. The government then has a responsibility to ensure an upgrade of security.

And therein lay the problem. The problem is that terroist cells are a part of the general public, and changes to security does not happen overnight, whereas someone that is waiting to make a move can do it overnight. If anything, the report should be released AFTER the problem has been solved, and then the Public suggests changes to add to it. Don't give the criminals the window of time in which to act.


that loooves to graze on oil-enriched grasses

I'm going to just argue this once, since the arguement solves the whole point. If we cared about the oil in Iraq and other countries, why are our troops going door to door instead of patrolling the pipelines and guarding the refineries? Bingo.

[Khendon Sevon]

Because we have 20,000 "private security specialists" there to do that. That's why.

Oh, that means mercenaries in normal speak--just for clarification.

[Park Kraken]

Source, proof? Or hot air?

[Sanis Prent]

Source, proof? Or hot air?

Of what? That we have tons of paramilitary contractors sourced for work in Iraq? I thought this was pretty common knowledge. Blackwater much?

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/

Nothing against the guys, I'd actually like to get in on their courses if I could ever afford the tuition, but they're certainly big, and certainly over there.

[Sanis Prent]

Ahahahahaha

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/training/coursesprices.asp

Ok this is actually a lot more affordable than I thought. I'm thinking about seriously doing this for vacation one year.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

And therein lay the problem. The problem is that terroist cells are a part of the general public, and changes to security does not happen overnight, whereas someone that is waiting to make a move can do it overnight. If anything, the report should be released AFTER the problem has been solved, and then the Public suggests changes to add to it. Don't give the criminals the window of time in which to act.


I'm very surprised you cant see the circular logic black hole your opening up for yourself. And also surprised you cant see that criminals are the ones who usually expose the flaws first. Or are they flaws I wonder? Much like the BS of phone tapping it's supposed to be done only with a warrant to show cause why it should be done. Warrantless doesnt do jack apart from potential for abuse.



I'm going to just argue this once, since the arguement solves the whole point. If we cared about the oil in Iraq and other countries, why are our troops going door to door instead of patrolling the pipelines and guarding the refineries? Bingo.

Not just the independant contractors, but the military ARE doing this as well. Just because they aint standing there all day doesnt mean they arent doing it.

[Park Kraken]

And also surprised you cant see that criminals are the ones who usually expose the flaws first.

Probably. Thanks for supporting my point in either case.


Or are they flaws I wonder?

Yes, they are. Something is always overlooked, forgotten, or misplaced.


Not just the independant contractors, but the military ARE doing this as well. Just because they aint standing there all day doesnt mean they arent doing it.

I should clarify that while we are taking part in guarding it, it makes sense since oil is the biggest economic factor for Iraq. However, it is by far the least of the military's concerns or focus in Iraq. We are more comitted to restoring peace and order than getting oil in our hands.

However, no one, and I mean no one, knows for one hundred percent certainty why we are in Iraq. Not even the president knows, for his advisors have their own agendas which may conflict with one another. Everyone just assumes it's for oil because it's Iraq's major economic export. If we invaded, say, Australia, everyone would say that we are after Kangaroos.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

However, no one, and I mean no one, knows for one hundred percent certainty why we are in Iraq. Not even the president knows, for his advisors have their own agendas which may conflict with one another. Everyone just assumes it's for oil because it's Iraq's major economic export. If we invaded, say, Australia, everyone would say that we are after Kangaroos.


I was going to write a well thought out and reasoned arguement refuting all your points but frankly I re-read that paragraph and it made me reconsider. Your either seriously misinformed or your trolling and in either case I dont believe I will waste more time other than the below.

I in no way supported your case and dont you dare try to insinuate otherwise. The "flaws", because you utterly missed my point and this bears repeating for others anyway, are not "flaws" but deliberately put there by your own founding fathers so that the government could not take away certain freedoms they held to be important. These "Human Rights" are something worth fighting for and just because some seek to use them to do damage in no way undermines their importance r their roles in keeping you and I in a free society.

It is also the case that the freedoms of a properly free society have their price and potential for abuse. Criminals and their like will always seek to take society and it's rules for a ride, but in many ways this is a sign of a truly free society.

Also, the principle of security via obscurity has long been kicked over as a fallacy. And in this case, your basically not running a democracy, but a dictatorship if you were serious about your suggestion. Think about what you said.

The other point that you missed is that without the limits of power that the "flaws" give, governements are free to do as they will to you. That scares me a great deal more than any terrorist or criminal.

[Jedieb]

So in the event of a spree shooting, they expect to be able to move a student body to one of these areas, and somehow not have them killed? If nobody is in the loop on it, and there's no training done, wouldn't this be pretty difficult to pull off in the kind of time you're looking at needing to get kids to safety?

Maneuvering only works if you can do it quickly.

You're getting kind of ridiculous. A teacher is in their room and they get an evacuation code. You have a designated area where you're suppose to take your class. It's as simple as that. It's just common sense, it's not suppose to be foolproof, just a reasonable course of action. Some codes are for lockdown, some are for evacuations. In some situations it's better to lock the kids in, others it's better to get them out of the building. Any plan or situation can picked apart with hindsight or enough planning, that's not a reason to have NOTHING in place.


I guess the point is having a plan, even if not 100% effective against a shooter is better than not having a plan at all and letting a shooter have his way. I also understand that a mass of students huddled together in a hallway, making for the exit makes for a mighty fine target, but that's dependant on the layout of each school and up to each school to find the path of least resistance.

Exactly. Not every class or grade level would have the same evacuation area. Schools have multiple entry points so classes would have different routes to take to different "safety zones." The point is, a reasonable plan is better than no plan.

[Sanis Prent]

But you're talking about a plan with no training. If you don't inform the students of the evac point (unless I read your description wrong on that), then how are you to expect them to adhere to the plan effectively and efficiently? This is why fire drills and tornado drills are practiced regularly. You could just as easily tell kids to go outside for a fire drill, or to kneel in a bathroom for a tornado drill, but you train in order to make these activities a part of the mid-brain, a kind of automatic function that requires only the higher thinking of getting to it, in order to spring into action.

Sometimes making a plan for planning's sake is just as bad as no plan at all. I think you'd be a lot better off in a lockdown scenario, and I'm not even a fan of them.

[Jedieb]

But you're talking about a plan with no training. If you don't inform the students of the evac point (unless I read your description wrong on that), then how are you to expect them to adhere to the plan effectively and efficiently? This is why fire drills and tornado drills are practiced regularly. You could just as easily tell kids to go outside for a fire drill, or to kneel in a bathroom for a tornado drill, but you train in order to make these activities a part of the mid-brain, a kind of automatic function that requires only the higher thinking of getting to it, in order to spring into action.

Sometimes making a plan for planning's sake is just as bad as no plan at all. I think you'd be a lot better off in a lockdown scenario, and I'm not even a fan of them.

They're getting the training you're talking about during those fire drills. An evacuation is just an extended fire drill. The routes and the destination are just a bit different and the kids are staying out of the building longer. In both cases there's a teacher or some other member of the staff leading the kids to the designated area. Practicing them on a regular basis would just be impractical. We lose enough instruction time as it is with fire drills. The location of the designated areas are kept on a need to know basis because it's just one small way to make those areas a bit safer. Evacuations are an extreme measure, but you need to have some plan in place to get kids out of the building. Lockdowns are more practical, but if you have something along the lines of a bomb threat, then you need to get everybody out of the building. Now, can some deranged shooter use a bomb threat to pick off students filing out of a building? Yes, but you still have to have a plan to get kids out of a building. A pulled fire alarm would do the same thing that a fake bomb threat would.

Another thing, I'm talking about plans for Elementary and Middle Schools. Those are the ones I have experience with. I've seen these practiced and implemented. High School is a different animal and I honestly don't know how large high schools go about these situations. Elemetnary and Middle school students are far less independent that HS students and monitored much more closely so they're easier to manage during crisis situations. I'd imagine that there are different things to consider in high schools with older and more independent students.

[Park Kraken]

Ok, this is the last time I will post as well on this issue, seeing as to how far off topic it has gotten, but I think you are the one who missed my point. I'm not talking about fixing a flaw when to comes to the freedom of speech, I'm talking about fixing a flaw in security coverage. Therefore your criminal statement supports my statement, as I intended to convey it. I'm not sure where you got that I wanted to abolish freedom of speech from.

[Khendon Sevon]

*Blink*

Does Kraken think this is a formal debate or something?


Therefore your criminal statement supports my statement...


You know, it doesn't support your statement unless you prove how it supports your statement. At least, in a formal debate :)

[Park Kraken]

Ok then, the original statement showed that releasing the information that there is a problem with the security system before it is fixed to the general public means that terroist cells would be able to exploit that problem before it can be fixed. Jaime added onto that by saying that criminals would probably exploit the problem first to smuggle bombs or whatnot onboard. So either way, releasing that information to the public before the problem is fixed is a bad thing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Park Kraken
And therein lay the problem. The problem is that terroist cells are a part of the general public, and changes to security does not happen overnight, whereas someone that is waiting to make a move can do it overnight. If anything, the report should be released AFTER the problem has been solved, and then the Public suggests changes to add to it. Don't give the criminals the window of time in which to act.



I'm very surprised you cant see the circular logic black hole your opening up for yourself. And also surprised you cant see that criminals are the ones who usually expose the flaws first. Or are they flaws I wonder? Much like the BS of phone tapping it's supposed to be done only with a warrant to show cause why it should be done. Warrantless doesnt do jack apart from potential for abuse.

[Zem Vymes]

I'm sorry, I said what here? It's pretty hard to follow when you aren't using quotes or citing anything.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Ok then, the original statement showed that releasing the information that there is a problem with the security system before it is fixed to the general public means that terroist cells would be able to exploit that problem before it can be fixed. Jaime added onto that by saying that criminals would probably exploit the problem first to smuggle bombs or whatnot onboard. So either way, releasing that information to the public before the problem is fixed is a bad thing.


You cleanly missed my point. Now go back and read my real point again and dont dare quote me again until you get it or at least understand it enough to realise why I said it. FFS, I even spelt it out in a later post!

[Park Kraken]

I don't get it though. I'm talking about flaws when it comes to security coverage at airports. Your statement talking about our founding fathers putting flaws in airport security is the funniest thing I've ever read. Your the one who obviously mis-understood my point.

[Pierce Tondry]

Park, you are cleanly missing Mark's points, which are twofold.

1) Criminals are usually the ones to find a security flaw first. The flaw then becomes apparent after it is exploited to cause harm, not before. If a flaw is found by a friendly source and made public knowledge, steps are usually taken instantly to "patch" the issue while a longer-term solution is being worked on. Therefore, any delay in making a security flaw public knowledge increases the window of time in which criminals have to act on the flaw's full vulnerability.

2) The bit about wiretapping is meant to suggest a scenario in which law enforcement may find itself in a Catch-22 situation of circular logic. A wiretap would make it easier to obtain enough cause for a warrant, but to legally be able to place a wiretap one must have a warrant.

The entire "circular logic" scenario is meant as a metaphor. If I read it right, Mark suggests that by exploiting security vulnerabilities, criminals make them public knowledge in the same way releasing a news report does. (Well, let's be honest. If a crime happens, it's probably on the news anyway so it's pretty much the same thing.)

[Park Kraken]

Ahhh, ok then. Now I understand what he was trying to get across. Anyways, let's get back to school security now.

On that topic, the only cost efficent but effective plan I can think of right off the bat would be to have metal detectors, one or two security guards, and a plan to protect the students and to get enough police force presence to the school in the time needed.

I read in the paper recently where a High school about an hour away from my location had a drill where a large police force responded to a mock call about a gunman entering the school. The drill raid discovered a student's car that had three packs of illegal drugs and two firearms inside of it. The three or four people in question were taken into custody.

[Zem Vymes]

Ugh, I hate that students' cars are considered fair game and searchable.

[Park Kraken]

Well the parking lot was on campus and the dogs sniffed out the drugs, after which the firearms were found next to the baggies. Besides lockers, cars are the perfect place to hid guns until the right time comes. Say like, when school lets out, and the students are headed to the buses and their own cars?

[Zem Vymes]

It's still a BS incursion in my opinion. What if I'm a kid and my car reeks of cordite, because I've loaded it with guns the prior weekend and done a lot of shooting?

This is why I always park on public, municipal land as a rule.

[JMK]

If they're going to search your car and not tear it apart like customs guards, then I'm ok with that. If they're going to pull apart your interior because dogs smell cordite from 3 days ago and the guns have been removed...then that's a little overkill.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Park, you are cleanly missing Mark's points, which are twofold.

1) Criminals are usually the ones to find a security flaw first. The flaw then becomes apparent after it is exploited to cause harm, not before. If a flaw is found by a friendly source and made public knowledge, steps are usually taken instantly to "patch" the issue while a longer-term solution is being worked on. Therefore, any delay in making a security flaw public knowledge increases the window of time in which criminals have to act on the flaw's full vulnerability.

2) The bit about wiretapping is meant to suggest a scenario in which law enforcement may find itself in a Catch-22 situation of circular logic. A wiretap would make it easier to obtain enough cause for a warrant, but to legally be able to place a wiretap one must have a warrant.

The entire "circular logic" scenario is meant as a metaphor. If I read it right, Mark suggests that by exploiting security vulnerabilities, criminals make them public knowledge in the same way releasing a news report does. (Well, let's be honest. If a crime happens, it's probably on the news anyway so it's pretty much the same thing.)

Pretty close mate. Altho point 2) is more about how that we're trading freedom for security, for no real benefit at all and that the 'flaws' in the system were designed in in the first place, to keep people free of their government and to stop directly some of the things that have been happening lately, in regards to personal freedoms restricted in some "cause" or moral justification.

So the issue is that, yes criminals do take advantage of systems and our freedoms, but those same freedoms were deliberately inserted so that a far worse thing could not happen, and that is a authoritarian government.

Governments by their nature can do things that inivduals or groups cant. Governments can and have done incalculable damage to everything if left unrestrained. The Forefather's thoughts I think were, whats a few criminals (or these days terroists) in comparision to a totaritarian government? And the really worrying thing is, due to the hysteria of TERRISTS!!!! you have the ground work in legislation and the tiwsting of the three branches of government that can allow for one to occur.

I personally am not afraid of terrorists or criminals or whatever. I am however afraid of governments and what they can d, because even in Australia I can be locked away, not charged, denied access to a lawyer, have all my rights stripped with no recourse at all. Your government I might add can do that too.

I dont trust politicains with this power and nor should anyone else.