Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (57308)	2/21/2018 1:46:49 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362992

But it also seems to me that a clean sheet of paper involves looking at other ideas that don't require changes to the law that are highly improbable, and that appear on the surface more likely to be effective. Well, of course it would. But I brought up one element of the issue for discussion because I thought it wasn't getting any attention and I've been trying to stay on topic. I gave you the best response I could. Your "best response" is to introduce a counter-proposal. That was what I was trying to obviate. The problem of getting rid of guns is a huge undertaking that at best would take decades and even then would be only partially successful. I don't think anyone is talking about getting rid of guns anymore. The mainstream discussion has shifted from that. I don't know why you wouldn't consider that as an effective alternative. I was not "considering" it because it is outside the scope of the discussion that I framed. What has been inappropriately dubbed the "TSA" approach -- basic security measures hardening the targets, is a proven effective measure and while expensive, could easily be done by cutting waste from the education budget. I think that you are way underestimating the facility cost. There are a whole lot of schools in this country. And don't forget the cost of fumigation what with all those teenagers taking off their shoes upon entry. <g> Seriously, if the EPA were proposing a rule that would cost that much to maybe save on average a few deaths a year the red team would be apoplectic.