You still have not adequately dealt with my comparable scenario (the community rec center that has ping pong paddles, tennis rackets, and hand guns available to children).
First of all, I don't think the scenario is comparable. Rec centers may provide paddles and tennis rackets; they don't provide guns for the use of patrons, children or otherwise. Visitors may opt to carry a concealed weapon that could end up endangering a child. Or they may accidentally in a contagious disease. Or pet hair or mold on their clothes, which produces a medical emergency in a child. Or maybe just some guy with a bad attitude. Do you favor Uncle Sam legislating and enforcing those things so that the children are protected? Would it not be better for the community center, which knows its patrons, to determine if patrons need to go through metal detectors or be screened for disease before entering the center? Or whether to segregate the kids from the adults? Or whether kids can use the facilities without their parents present? Or how many staff they want to hire to keep an eye on the kids? How does Uncle Sam do that better than the community?
The checking out process could be lightening fast if some simple software were developed to assist in the procedure.
The checking out process could be lightening fast if some simple software were developed to assist in the procedure.
That sounds like a good idea. If someone offered that software, my library might buy it if they think that's the best way to protect our kids.
By the time, though, the Congress passed legislation to use that software and some agency put regulations and an enforcement program in place, that software would be obsolete because something better would be available. How long would it take for Congress or the federal agency to update its legislation and specify the new product? Meanwhile your kids would be "protected" by last year's software. Why would you want to do that rather than just have your library go out and buy it? I do not see the added value of federal involvement in this. Quite the contrary, I see a less responsive approach. |
