Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
What they asked for was to not have to face gun in their schools, not being made to feel like they were in jail. Be careful what you accuse people of, because you may look like either a liar or an idiot if you can't distinguish between two completely different things.
|
You know, this remains me of the intelligence business.
The information security regulations back in the 80s required that ANY contact with a person of a Warsaw Pact country had to be reported to one's superior security agency. One of the women in my belly dancing class was an immigrant from Czechoslovakia(then) and I had to report that contact to NIS (then). Leaving out a lot of the tension, I met with the agent and did a security interview.
To my classmate, she was shocked that this happened; she thought she had left such things back behind the Iron Curtain.
SHRUG. In the intelligence business, people are always looking over another's shoulder, sometimes openly, sometimes cladestine. One just accepts it and carries on with their job but to the people on the outside, I find that they cannot understand such a way of life.
When it comes to security, people are going to be inconvenienced, one way or another. Having done physical security, I usually saw the angry ones in the sense of "How DARE I have the gall to stop them and search their cars.".
Well, if anything else, the enemy that sees I am not complacent, that I do look, search, and question, that I am ready to respond with force.............................may decide that he ought to look for an easier target.
Anti, like in anti terrorism, it's all the measures one takes so they are less likely the target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biker53
..........Commonsense actions to protect school kids would be to treat schools like courthouses. Metal detectors, armed guards (or armed teachers) etc. Crazies do not attack any place where they know a good guy with a gun might shoot back. They only go for gun free zones where they know they'll have free reign.
|
Reminds me on an exercise given to me about 4 years after the service: "This building is now a Federal Courthouse...secure it!".
I don't recall all my techniques but it involved that NO ONE gets to park next to the building, everyone is driven in. "You are going to tell a federal judge he can't have his own parking space?"......."HECK, I'll put them in limos!". CCTV and two security forces, the SWAT unseen until activated and visible, seek out, inquiring, "friendly", hand to hand force. The ones who study people and approach anyone who might need "assistance".
Further, while it was not the same exercise, I am the devious type. I'll put undercover agents into friendly crowds of civilians so to look for enemy agents and confederates. It's a reversal of an old skyjacker trick where not all the skyjackers may reveal themselves at the same time.
Now, is that all commonsense? I rather hope not for one's tricks should not be obvious....but it does show how this world can work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
Or commonsense gun control could include charging your neighbor for his or negligence in keeping a large quantity of guns where they would be accessible to a thief.
My gun control would include someone like that - a proven risk of being negligent with his guns - prohibited from ever owning guns again. Owning guns should be considered a privilege that he relinquished with his behavior.
|
20/20 hindsight, is it not?
Where in after the fact, one has all the answers of what should have been done. Darn if you, darn if you don't. Sort of like the cops should not have believed Jeffrey Dahlmer that it was a gay lover quarrel but should have proceeded. On the other hand, had it been a gay lover quarrel and had they gone in, we would be hearing about police harassment.
I have used over the years at times, levels of camouflage security. For a quarter of a century, I live in apartments that the locals considered the ghetto of town. It served me well for among other things, what could someone who lived there have to steal? My ammo and parts were not delivered to my apartment but to a store front.
You say "proven risk of being negligent" but who is determining that risk and on what basis? If no one knows what is there and finds it because they are there for something else, is it being negligent? How can it be negligent if one took considerable opportunity of their surroundings?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
who interpret laws as they see fit... even if it's illegal.
