Gyroscopic Investing

Simonjester wrote: not a bad list gumby but far from a 100% success rate, some items have had unfortunate unintended consequences... and if you found people intimately involved in each one you could find problems with all of them.

the question on any government program is..... what is the fail to success ratio? what is the cost for success and is it a price worth paying? and could we have had better results by different methods?....
and when in human history will we ever, just once, fulfill the libertarian wet dream of "erring on the side of to little government" instead of to much...

You require perfection? Those are all examples of the government stepping in to do something where the private sector failed to (or was unable to) execute on its own.

TennPaGa wrote:

MediumTex wrote: While it would be little more than a giant make-work program for police officers and security guards, I do sort of like the idea of a "school marshals" program along the lines of the air marshal program where you basically pay someone to do nothing but sit around and make people feel safer.  It probably wouldn't prevent too many crimes, but it would make people feel safer without doing too much harm to our constitutional rights.

This would not make me feel safer.  If I had kids in such a school, I would probably pull them out.

Well, MANY schools have a police officer assigned to them on a more or less full time basis anyway, so if you have kids there may already be a "school marshal" there for much of the day.

In our district, there are police officers who will be assigned to several schools and they spend their days going from school to school doing their cop thing. 

In the spirit of Bernie Madoff and Anthony Wiener, the police officer at my daughter's school is named "Officer Justice."

Better than a school marshal, though, is probably better physical security of school facilities.

They should do for schools what they did for the cockpit after 9/11: harden the doors and allow the people on the other side of the doors who WANT to arm themselves to do so (with appropriate training and oversight).

It's sort of bizarre, but for someone who wanted to go on a shooting spree, a school is actually a great place to go because with the "Gun Free Zone" laws, it almost guarantees that you aren't going to encounter any armed resistance.

This sounds strange today, but when I was in high school there was a kid who had a job as a security guard.  It was our senior year and he was 18.  At some point in the year he started doing high risk security work that paid better, but required him to carry a firearm during every shift.  Since he was on some kind of early school release that required him to drive straight from school to his work location because of liability concerns (there had been some wrecks with kids not driving directly to their jobs) he somehow got the school to go along with him keeping a handgun in his car at school.  During that year he killed a couple of guys while working the security guard job and you can imagine what that did for his reputation at school.  I wonder what that guy is doing today.

Simonjester wrote:

Gumby wrote:

Simonjester wrote: not a bad list gumby but far from a 100% success rate,  some items have had unfortunate unintended consequences...  and if you found people intimately involved in each one you could find problems with all of them.?

You require perfection?

i require the pursuit of it.  just because people think government is the answer doesn't mean that a problem is solved or fixed, the problems with one government program are often the same problems found in others, learning from the mistakes is part of the process .. this applies to free market solutions as well...

Yes, yes. Just because a government or private agency exists doesn't mean it can't be improved. But, I see your point.

In any case, I think we can safely say that things like public libraries and national parks are generally a good thing for society.

Desert wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: It's very true, and I don't think anyone will argue that guns in the wrong hands can be devastating to innocents. Adam Lanza's hands so tragically revealed to be very much the wrong ones, but I have to say I'm truly at a loss to imagine how one could have kept guns out of them. His mother purchased and owned those firearms legally. Background checks are mandated federally, and Connecticut already has laws mandating secure storage and waiting periods, and banning weapons whose cosmetic features classify them as "assault weapons."

I think someone would need to have stopped him before he decided to commit violence, or after he became armed. I just can't think of how another law could have prevented him from becoming armed, outside of banning and confiscating all firearms, which is constitutionally problematic to say the least.

I agree for the most part.  I think in this case, only the mother could have kept the guns away from her son.  In other words, if there is a mentally unstable person living in one's household, gun ownership may be a bad idea.  Of course I have no idea what was going on in that household, so it's impossible to judge that situation.  If I did have a son who was unstable or violence prone, I believe I'd lose the guns.

His mother was also apparently in the process of having him involuntarily committed and he was aware of this.

I would say definitely get rid of the guns if someone in your house is so unstable that you are going to have them institutionalized because you can no longer handle them/take care of them.

Desert wrote:If I did have a son who was unstable or violence prone, I believe I'd lose the guns.

A friend of mine has an unstable (adult) son.  One day the son grabbed a kitchen knife and made a violent approach towards his mother and brother.  The dad shot him with his 9mm.  (He lived.)  The grand jury did not indict.

Sometimes when there's somebody unstable around, that's just when you DO need to be armed.

Xan wrote:

Desert wrote:If I did have a son who was unstable or violence prone, I believe I'd lose the guns.

A friend of mine has an unstable (adult) son.  One day the son grabbed a kitchen knife and made a violent approach towards his mother and brother.  The dad shot him with his 9mm.  (He lived.)  The grand jury did not indict.

Sometimes when there's somebody unstable around, that's just when you DO need to be armed.

But wouldn't it have been better to let his son violently murder the entire family with the knife rather than risk the son might steal the gun and go on a shooting rampage? I think that's what a Liberal might suggest.

I'm tired of pejorative connotative use of the word "liberal". Is anyone here familiar with the denotative definitions and differences between libertarianism and classical liberalism?

I think this article does a decent job describing what classical liberalism is and how it differs from what in my view is its more extreme and utopic stepchild  "libertarianism"

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/20 ... iberalism/

Thanks for the link Doodle. I never realized how much I disagree with Friedman and how much HB differed from him.

I disagree with all of the things that "government got right" or perhaps I'm skewed because maybe government did get it right back up until the 60s when Friedman was alive and only screwed up in the last 50 years.

From first hand experience on many levels, I can frankly say public education is an atrocity. I could go into some details and others I cannot due to nondisclosure agreements I have with companies who exploit NCLB to make millions off the government.

Dams would be built by private enterprise if people actually wanted them. The government isn't necessary to steal my money at the barrel of a gun to build some boondongle dam. If 1000 people want to live in an area that can utilize a dam, then some private company will build the dam, construct residential housing, and then turn a profit off the enterprise. If a company couldn't make a profit, then clearly people were not willing to pay the money required to build the dam and live there, in which case the only way it could have been built is through coercion of the government to steal money to build it.

Same for satellites. If there was value in them (which there is), private companies would have fronted the cash to enjoy the profits created by providing a valuable service to customers.

Antitrust laws are a joke and were only "necessary" because of unnatural monopolies that were allowed to flourish only because of government regulation. Thus, we need bigger government to fix the screwups of previous government.

According to that link, Friedman wrote "the willingness of the public to bear heavy taxes for what they regard as a public purpose." - I laughed out loud for that one. I didn't realize paying taxes was voluntary. I'm pretty sure if I don't pay them, then I'll get a letter demanding I pay them. And if I ignore the letter, men with guns will come to my home and demand them. If I fail to pay the gun-wielding men, they will put me in jail and seize/auction all of my property to pay them. That doesn't seem voluntary to me.

Here's another take on the societal implications of an armed society:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... ef=general

As our Constitution provides, however, liberty entails precisely the freedom to be reckless, within limits, also the freedom to insult and offend as the case may be. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld our right to experiment in offensive language and ideas, and in some cases, offensive action and speech. Such experimentation is inherent to our freedom as such. But guns by their nature do not mix with this experiment — they don’t mix with taking offense. They are combustible ingredients in assembly and speech.

I have often suspected, however, that contrary to holding centralized authority in check, broad individual gun ownership gives the powers-that-be exactly what they want.

After all, a population of privately armed citizens is one that is increasingly fragmented, and vulnerable as a result. Private gun ownership invites retreat into extreme individualism — I heard numerous calls for homeschooling in the wake of the Newtown shootings — and nourishes the illusion that I can be my own police, or military, as the case may be. The N.R.A. would have each of us steeled for impending government aggression, but it goes without saying that individually armed citizens are no match for government force. The N.R.A. argues against that interpretation of the Second Amendment that privileges armed militias over individuals, and yet it seems clear that armed militias, at least in theory, would provide a superior check on autocratic government.

As Michel Foucault pointed out in his detailed study of the mechanisms of power, nothing suits power so well as extreme individualism. In fact, he explains, political and corporate interests aim at nothing less than “individualization,”? since it is far easier to manipulate a collection of discrete and increasingly independent individuals than a community. Guns undermine just that — community. Their pervasive, open presence would sow apprehension, suspicion, mistrust and fear, all emotions that are corrosive of community and civic cooperation. To that extent, then, guns give license to autocratic government.

lazyboy wrote: it goes without saying that individually armed citizens are no match for government force.

If individually armed citizens are no match for a government force... is the superior alternative collectively disarmed citizens 

It's well documented that there have been successful movements and political revolutions based mostly on non-violence involving the moral suasion of an awakened populace. That does not mean that non-violent strategies haven't been costly in terms of lives lost.  Consider India in 1947, the civil rights movement in the USA and the recent and continuing struggle for democracy in Egypt...Also consider that many times armed struggle for freedom against a superior force has failed miserable. I don't pretend to know what will work in each situation. I'm still mulling over what the effects are historically for either strategy. One point of the article is that intelligent dialog dies due to the intimidation factor when people show up with guns at a rally or political event. Another point is that the alienation caused by extreme belief in self righteous individuation actually works to the benefit of the oppressor. A non-violent, cohesive and informed community may well be a stronger force for freedom than an armed and threatening one. You vote with your heart and soul on this one- it's something to meditate on- what do you want to create?

TripleB wrote: Thanks for the link Doodle. I never realized how much I disagree with Friedman and how much HB differed from him.

I disagree with all of the things that "government got right" or perhaps I'm skewed because maybe government did get it right back up until the 60s when Friedman was alive and only screwed up in the last 50 years.

Friedman died only a few years ago, and as far as I know he didn't radically alter his views from those expressed in Capitalism and Freedom which was published in the 60's

From first hand experience on many levels, I can frankly say public education is an atrocity. I could go into some details and others I cannot due to nondisclosure agreements I have with companies who exploit NCLB to make millions off the government.

Yep, public education could be better. But, I would argue that the schools are getting saddled with larger societal problems that they are not equipped to deal with. I worked for 5 years as a high school teacher, there is a reason why I'm not involved in that line of work anymore.

Dams would be built by private enterprise if people actually wanted them. The government isn't necessary to steal my money at the barrel of a gun to build some boondongle dam. If 1000 people want to live in an area that can utilize a dam, then some private company will build the dam, construct residential housing, and then turn a profit off the enterprise. If a company couldn't make a profit, then clearly people were not willing to pay the money required to build the dam and live there, in which case the only way it could have been built is through coercion of the government to steal money to build it.

Government doesn't need to steal back the very money that only it can create. Taxation as I see it is primarily a drain on the money supply to prevent inflation. Overall, I agree that projects should undergo an economic analysis....I'm pretty sure they all do. I have spoken with many of my city council members regarding local projects and they all undergo multitudes of studies and analysis and are competitively bid.

Same for satellites. If there was value in them (which there is), private companies would have fronted the cash to enjoy the profits created by providing a valuable service to customers.

Government often invests in projects and undertakings that the private sector or an individual company would never take a risk on. They then pass the technology on to the private sector and let them run with it. Do you think the manhattan project could have been accomplished by the private sector?

[/quote]

Antitrust laws are a joke and were only "necessary" because of unnatural monopolies that were allowed to flourish only because of government regulation. Thus, we need bigger government to fix the screwups of previous government.

There are certain industries...like electric and water that operate better as monopolies. There are very high barriers to entry and complicated zoning and land access issues. Monopolies like this need to be regulated.

According to that link, Friedman wrote "the willingness of the public to bear heavy taxes for what they regard as a public purpose." - I laughed out loud for that one. I didn't realize paying taxes was voluntary. I'm pretty sure if I don't pay them, then I'll get a letter demanding I pay them. And if I ignore the letter, men with guns will come to my home and demand them. If I fail to pay the gun-wielding men, they will put me in jail and seize/auction all of my property to pay them. That doesn't seem voluntary to me.

Then convince the public to elect a person who will abolish the federal income tax... If the public elects someone who wants to maintain taxes to pay for public projects then they are showing that "willingness to be taxed" that you laughed out loud about.

The majority of Americans pay either zero or close to zero federal income tax. Some even get a rebate above taxes paid. Voting that your neighbor pay more while you pay little to nothing doesn't show a willingness to be taxed. Notice the outcry over the fiscal cliff. Higher taxes are mana from heaven...as long as they are paid by someone else.

RuralEngineer wrote: The majority of Americans pay either zero or close to zero federal income tax. Some even get a rebate above taxes paid. Voting that your neighbor pay more while you pay little to nothing doesn't show a willingness to be taxed. Notice the outcry over the fiscal cliff. Higher taxes are mana from heaven...as long as they are paid by someone else.

That is progressive taxation. You pay the exact same amount I do on each rung of the progressive tax scale.

If you want economic stimulus you get your best bang for your buck among the lower earners. They tend to spend all they have and then some. The ones at the top just sock it away....not too stimulative.

The Fiscal Cliff is a manufactured crisis. The federal government hamstrung themselves. They is no reason why they need to force austerity on themselves.

doodle wrote:
If you want economic stimulus you get your best bang for your buck among the lower earners. They tend to spend all they have and then some. The ones at the top just sock it away....not too stimulative.

Depends on your definition of stimulus. If I sock away money I'm putting it into stocks or bonds. Which means I'm giving capital to businesses to function. Without that capital, they couldn't function. I'm stimulating business growth by saving. The money I invest doesn't just disappear, removed from the economy.

TripleB wrote:

doodle wrote:
If you want economic stimulus you get your best bang for your buck among the lower earners. They tend to spend all they have and then some. The ones at the top just sock it away....not too stimulative.

Depends on your definition of stimulus. If I sock away money I'm putting it into stocks or bonds. Which means I'm giving capital to businesses to function. Without that capital, they couldn't function. I'm stimulating business growth by saving. The money I invest doesn't just disappear, removed from the economy.

I agree, Americans by and large need to invest more in infrastructure and capital and reduce short term consumption expenditures that don't increase future living standards. The problem that I see is that business will only invest in new capital (factories and machines) if there is a consumptive demand for their products. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. If no one is spending, then there is no reason to invest in new productive capacity.

My lamentation with the private sector vs. public sector spending is that often myriad individual decisions don't exactly lead to the
best outcomes. I think drinking water is a good example. Our drinking water systems are (rightly or wrongly) thought to be substandard by many Americans. This has fueled a demand for bottled water. From the perspective of the individual making a short term decision, this is logical.

However, what I think the preferable course of action (and more economical and environmentally friendlier one) would be to invest the umpteen billions of dollars we spend as individuals on drinks to avoid our water system, and instead collectively put that money into fixing our water system. I have lived in third world countries where the water systems suck and everything you put in your mouth comes out of a bottle. It is more expensive and cumbersome than just fixing the pipes and water purification plants so that I can drink what comes out of a tap, or fill up my reusable bottle at a drinking fountain.

doodle wrote: My lamentation with the private sector vs. public sector spending is that often myriad individual decisions don't exactly lead to the
best outcomes.

They lead to the best outcomes for the individuals, not the collective. As a pure diehard libertarian, I'm concerned about the individual, not the collective.

doodle wrote: I think drinking water is a good example. Our drinking water systems are (rightly or wrongly) thought to be substandard by many Americans. This has fueled a demand for bottled water. From the perspective of the individual making a short term decision, this is logical.

However, what I think the preferable course of action (and more economical and environmentally friendlier one) would be to invest the umpteen billions of dollars we spend as individuals on drinks to avoid our water system, and instead collectively put that money into fixing our water system.

Doing this will force everyone to pay for the decisions of the few. Suppose 10% of the population will only buy bottled water to drink. They would have to force the other 90% to spend more (through increased taxes) to pay for a change to the public water system that they individually decided was fine.

One might argue:

a) But what if the other 90% do want bottled water but can't afford it?
b) What if the 90% would be better off with better public water?

Counterarguments:
a) If the other 90% can't afford bottled water, or aren't willing to pay for it out of pocket given their limited budget and other desires, then how can they afford to pay increased taxes for public water?
b) Why does the 10% know what's best for everyone and demand to impose their will on everyone else? That's tyranny.

One might also argue that taxes don't need to go up to pay for better water. Instead, cutbacks to other, less necessary programs could be made to shift budget to cleaner/better water.

To which I would retort: if those other programs weren't necessary, then why not cut them anyway, reduce taxes, and let each individual decide whether they'd rather choose to spend their money on a public water system or something else?

Perhaps my biggest argument against this proposal is "what makes you think the government, which fails at everything else, can someone make public water cleaner/better? If they can't keep the streets safe from crime, and can't produce well-educated students in public schools, how can we possibly expect that their water system project will be done right?"

The problem is how government is structured. There's no incentive to produce or perform. 5pm, time to go home. Overbudget? No problem, request more money, taxes will be raised. Perform poorly? Don't feel bad, there will be time to improve over the next 20 years of your virtually tenured position before you retire to collect your lifetime pension.

Those problems don't exist at bottled water plants which are private, and so they can produce high quality water that people want and are willingly entering into an agreement with them to purchase it.

When the government steps in, it's essentially going door to door with a shotgun demanding everyone pay for a more expensive public water system whether they want it or not and they will be killed in their own home if they don't comply.

Think I'm exaggerating? Find out what happens if you stop paying property taxes to your city and then refuse to leave "your" home on the principal that you don't want to pay for an improved water system. The police will kick in your door and shoot you in the face. Does that really seem like the "best" and most just way to do things? Kicking in someone's door and murdering them because they don't want to pay for your boondoggle?

doodle wrote: That is progressive taxation. You pay the exact same amount I do on each rung of the progressive tax scale.

If you want economic stimulus you get your best bang for your buck among the lower earners. They tend to spend all they have and then some. The ones at the top just sock it away....not too stimulative.

The Fiscal Cliff is a manufactured crisis. The federal government hamstrung themselves. They is no reason why they need to force austerity on themselves.

As usual you completely miss my point. The only question now is whether it's intentional or just basic incomprehension. 

You'd think I'd have learned my lesson by now.

TripleB wrote: b) Why does the 10% know what's best for everyone and demand to impose their will on everyone else? That's tyranny.

Doodle,

That is the problem stated very nicely.

In the spiritual book that perhaps it was you I mentioned to  I am That,  Maharaj comments that people who think they know what is best for others are dangerous.

TripleB wrote:

doodle wrote:
If you want economic stimulus you get your best bang for your buck among the lower earners. They tend to spend all they have and then some. The ones at the top just sock it away....not too stimulative.

Depends on your definition of stimulus. If I sock away money I'm putting it into stocks or bonds. Which means I'm giving capital to businesses to function. Without that capital, they couldn't function. I'm stimulating business growth by saving. The money I invest doesn't just disappear, removed from the economy.

Technically wouldn't the business already have all the money that they received from the stock? They already sold their stock at a prescribed original price. If the price of the stock doubles, the company's shareholders would be richer, and if they sold their stock they could use the extra funding to further function the business. I would think just investing in stock though doesn't cause much functional difference in a business (in a micro-scale that is, you get everyone to buy or sell and you could crush/raise a business).

Let me play devil's advocate here: would repealing the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act actually help? Our rhetoric is that mass shooters target gun-free zones due to their certainty at not encountering an armed citizen, but is this true? The Federal GFSZA contains carve-outs for state-licensed concealed carry permit holders. In theory, any teacher, visitor, or parent could be packing (so long as state-law doesn't forbid it). Many states allow permitted school carry, including California!

Perhaps we should target state-level laws. Connecticut bans it:

Sec. 53a-217b Possession of A Weapon on School Grounds: Class D Felony.
(a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that he is not
licensed or privileged to do so, he possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section
53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary
school or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

But did Adam Lanza really read these laws and surmise that Sandy Hook Elementary was likely to be defenseless? Apparently he was a pretty smart guy so maybe he did, but part of me wonders if schools aren't going to remain inherently soft targets no matter how much we legalize and encourage concealed carry. I'm all for it, but I wonder how many teachers are going to carry firearms. Heck, how many school districts or administrators would allow it? I mean, most private companies ban firearms on their premises where it's otherwise totally legal according to the applicable level of government. Even if school carry becomes 100% legal across the country, the threat of losing your job if you're caught with a firearm is going to be a huge barrier.

Pointedstick wrote: Let me play devil's advocate here: would repealing the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act actually help? Our rhetoric is that mass shooters target gun-free zones due to their certainty at not encountering an armed citizen, but is this true? The Federal GFSZA contains carve-outs for state-licensed concealed carry permit holders. In theory, any teacher, visitor, or parent could be packing (so long as state-law doesn't forbid it). Many states allow permitted school carry, including California!

Perhaps we should target state-level laws. Connecticut bans it:

Sec. 53a-217b Possession of A Weapon on School Grounds: Class D Felony.
(a) A person is guilty of possession of a weapon on school grounds when, knowing that he is not
licensed or privileged to do so, he possesses a firearm or deadly weapon, as defined in section
53a-3, (1) in or on the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary
school or (2) at a school-sponsored activity as defined in subsection (h) of section 10-233a.

But did Adam Lanza really read these laws and surmise that Sandy Hook Elementary was likely to be defenseless? Apparently he was a pretty smart guy so maybe he did, but part of me wonders if schools aren't going to remain inherently soft targets no matter how much we legalize and encourage concealed carry. I'm all for it, but I wonder how many teachers are going to carry firearms. Heck, how many school districts or administrators would allow it? I mean, most private companies ban firearms on their premises where it's otherwise totally legal according to the applicable level of government. Even if school carry becomes 100% legal across the country, the threat of losing your job if you're caught with a firearm is going to be a huge barrier.

PS,

What would happen if a teacher suddenly lost it in a classroom and shot their students? I've seen many teachers pushed to the brink of insanity...there are a LOT of medicated teachers out there. One incident and the law that you just repealed would be back into effect immediately.

By repealing this act could students then carry weapons to school as well? Lots of fights happen at school between rival gangs....I'm imagining these being escalated to shootouts.

I just think the whole thing sounds like a really dangerous idea.

doodle wrote: PS,

What would happen if a teacher suddenly lost it in a classroom and shot their students? I've seen many teachers pushed to the brink of insanity...there are a LOT of medicated teachers out there. One incident and the law that you just repealed would be back into effect immediately.

By repealing this act could students then carry weapons to school as well? Lots of fights happen at school between rival gangs....I'm imagining these being escalated to shootouts.

I just think the whole thing sounds like a really dangerous idea.

Students could only carry if they had concealed carry permits issued by their state government, most of which don't issue them to people under 21--the age at which you can buy a handgun in this country. I'm guessing you wouldn't see a lot of of legal concealed carrying pre-college students.

Laws only stop people who decide to follow them, so remember that we're only talking about people who will go through the hoops to get the appropriate permits. Gang members don't typically do that. What would be the point of following a burdensome law and paying a bunch of money to the state to make it legal to carry your weapon that you intend to murder someone with?

But even with the GFSZA right now, it's just a piece of paper. It doesn't prevent gang members from bringing guns to school. The only thing that could prevent that would be metal detectors at the entrances, regardless of what is or isn't legal. Currently, gang members already bring guns to school and shoot each other. This hasn't been stopped by simply making it more illegal than it already is (remember, even absent the GFSZA, they've already broken laws against carrying a handgun without a permit and of course laws against committing assault and murder).

My father, a college professor, echoes your worry about crazy teachers. I share it a bit, knowing how insane some of his colleagues are. But then again, unless we're going to argue that teachers are more prone to instability than the general populace, that argument would apply to every adult. And if they are, then we really don't want them teaching our children, then do we?

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: PS,

What would happen if a teacher suddenly lost it in a classroom and shot their students? I've seen many teachers pushed to the brink of insanity...there are a LOT of medicated teachers out there. One incident and the law that you just repealed would be back into effect immediately.

By repealing this act could students then carry weapons to school as well? Lots of fights happen at school between rival gangs....I'm imagining these being escalated to shootouts.

I just think the whole thing sounds like a really dangerous idea.

Students could only carry if they had concealed carry permits issued by their state government, most of which don't issue them to people under 21--the age at which you can buy a handgun in this country. I'm guessing you wouldn't see a lot of of legal concealed carrying pre-college students.

Laws only stop people who decide to follow them, so remember that we're only talking about people who will go through the hoops to get the appropriate permits. Gang members don't typically do that. What would be the point of following a burdensome law and paying a bunch of money to the state to make it legal to carry your weapon that you intend to murder someone with?

But even with the GFSZA right now, it's just a piece of paper. It doesn't prevent gang members from bringing guns to school. The only thing that could prevent that would be metal detectors at the entrances, regardless of what is or isn't legal. Currently, gang members already bring guns to school and shoot each other. This hasn't been stopped by simply making it more illegal than it already is (remember, even absent the GFSZA, they've already broken laws against carrying a handgun without a permit and of course laws against committing assault and murder).

My father, a college professor, echoes your worry about crazy teachers. I share it a bit, knowing how insane some of his colleagues are. But then again, unless we're going to argue that teachers are more prone to instability than the general populace, that argument would apply to every adult. And if they are, then we really don't want them teaching our children, then do we?

Frankly, I don't have a gun because I feel it puts me in a horribly compromising situation where I might make a decision that I regret for the rest of my life. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I don't feel comfortable walking around with a tool designed to take someones life strapped to my belt buckle. It is too much power and responsibility for me to handle. The whole thing just doesn't allow me to be at ease.

If I were a teacher, it would make me extremely uneasy as well to know that other teachers and possibly students at the junior college were walking around with guns. I had a friend that nearly blew his head off with a rifle he didn't think was loaded and I worked with a guy whose pistol discharged into his leg while he was getting into his car. I would rather just have a few extra officers on duty or maybe the school building security increased.

Couldn't we get gun manufacturers to equip civilian guns with some sort of electronic chip that would disable them within a certain range of schools? I'm sure there is some technological solution that can be devised that would allow people to carry guns, but prevent them from being used in these type of atrocities...

doodle wrote: Frankly, I don't have a gun because I feel it puts me in a horribly compromising situation where I might make a decision that I regret for the rest of my life. I know that sounds ridiculous, but I don't feel comfortable walking around with a tool designed to take someones life strapped to my belt buckle. It is too much power and responsibility for me to handle. The whole thing just doesn't allow me to be at ease.

That's a very responsible decision you made, and I applaud you for it. It doesn't sound ridiculous to me at all. My father is very anti-gun, and I suspect it's because of the same reason you said: he doesn't want that kind of responsibility and doesn't trust himself not to deploy it in the wrong situation, out of anger rather than the need for defense. He's a very angry man, and some part of him realizes that he's safer without weapons nearby.

But understand that you're not like everybody else. I suspect your fear of others carrying guns is actually psychological projection of your own unease with the concept of doing it yourself. In the state of Florida, more than a million of your fellow citizens carry concealed firearms. You're probably around them 24/7, and statistically, they're safer with their guns on a per capita basis than the police officers you already trust with them.

I know guns are scary, and dangerous too. But some people can be trusted with that power. You already implicitly believe this in your endorsement of armed police. But try to have as much faith in your friends, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow planet-dwellers.