khicks
Regular Member
imported post
26981
81% yes
19% no
26981
81% yes
19% no
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Hit this MSN Poll CC on Campus!
- Thread starter Daddyo
- Start date
jarodm20
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
81% YES
19% NO
Just shows what the people want. So it's time for our legislators to give us what we want.
81% YES
19% NO
Just shows what the people want. So it's time for our legislators to give us what we want.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
27,058 responses
Yes; armed students and faculty could respond to a critical situation immediately.
81%
No; allowing guns on campuses could confuse authorities in a real crisis.
19%
27,058 responses
Yes; armed students and faculty could respond to a critical situation immediately.
81%
19%
lawdog312
New member
imported post
I'm a Texas Peace Officer andhave beenworking as a licensed/certified officer for a university police department for just a shade under a decade. Possession of firearms on non-private university campuses in vehicles in parking lots is LAWFUL-- NO CHLpermit required. Possession on campuses with a CHL is LAWFUL in most cases except in buildings. The law as written under the Texas Penal Code is very clear regarding its definitions.
Contrary to popular belief, colleges/universities are not as they once were. Admission standards/requirements have fallen drastically. Universities are now a “business” not an institute of higher education and the only way to make money if you are not a demand college (or should I say “in demand”) is lowering the standards and recruiting those that the University can make money from. In other words, those that the University know have their way paid (Govt. Loans, special scholarships, special funded, ect.) and will be paying into the business at least two semesters until they fail out of what has now gone from a college/university to a “secondary high school”. Don’t believe me? Ask your local professor to compare the students from 10 years ago to this year’s students. (I’m still waiting for a study linking this problem with the rise of campus violence) Affidavits provided to my department whether they be confessions or witness statements read like a 2[suP]nd[/suP] grade English paper over, “What I did last summer” and “Why I like my dog”. These are those who can not pass an English or a Math class, but will be able to carry a firearm in said English or Math class.
What does the above have to do with anything, you say? I’ve been searching for a better word or words but I can only come up with the “unproven”. Whether they are unproven in the classroom or on the gun range, the unproven will be carrying guns inside buildings on campuses. Why? Because, absent the convicted and with few other exceptions, anyone can obtain a CHL under the current requirements in Texas. That is to say, the license can be obtained with ease by a novice who has little or no training with a firearm and need not further qualify or even shoot the firearm again until the license expires. To make matters worse, no psychological exam is needed.
Why does this concern me? Because you can’t find a campus today whose police department does not practice “active shooter training” in and around their campus. As you know, campus shootings are now becoming more frequent and if (or when) this training turns to reality, students brandishing guns while police attempt to locate and end the threat will become even greater targets themselves. In other words, it doesn’t become “finding a needle in a haystack”, it becomes “finding a needle in a stack of needles”. When the shooting starts, college students aren’t required to wear a sign around their neck saying “good guy” while police look for the guy wearing the “bad guy” sign; the common denominator both will have is the gun in their hands. God help the police officer who ends a student’s life who is an “innocent” who fails to comply with an officer’s demands or is even seen firing a weapon at another person, quite possibly an unseeable shooter—Who’s shooting at who, who’s the “bad guy”?
If the people want “open carry” and the ability to carry on campuses, the people should also push for more stringent qualification requirements for those who carry.
I'm a Texas Peace Officer andhave beenworking as a licensed/certified officer for a university police department for just a shade under a decade. Possession of firearms on non-private university campuses in vehicles in parking lots is LAWFUL-- NO CHLpermit required. Possession on campuses with a CHL is LAWFUL in most cases except in buildings. The law as written under the Texas Penal Code is very clear regarding its definitions.
Contrary to popular belief, colleges/universities are not as they once were. Admission standards/requirements have fallen drastically. Universities are now a “business” not an institute of higher education and the only way to make money if you are not a demand college (or should I say “in demand”) is lowering the standards and recruiting those that the University can make money from. In other words, those that the University know have their way paid (Govt. Loans, special scholarships, special funded, ect.) and will be paying into the business at least two semesters until they fail out of what has now gone from a college/university to a “secondary high school”. Don’t believe me? Ask your local professor to compare the students from 10 years ago to this year’s students. (I’m still waiting for a study linking this problem with the rise of campus violence) Affidavits provided to my department whether they be confessions or witness statements read like a 2[suP]nd[/suP] grade English paper over, “What I did last summer” and “Why I like my dog”. These are those who can not pass an English or a Math class, but will be able to carry a firearm in said English or Math class.
What does the above have to do with anything, you say? I’ve been searching for a better word or words but I can only come up with the “unproven”. Whether they are unproven in the classroom or on the gun range, the unproven will be carrying guns inside buildings on campuses. Why? Because, absent the convicted and with few other exceptions, anyone can obtain a CHL under the current requirements in Texas. That is to say, the license can be obtained with ease by a novice who has little or no training with a firearm and need not further qualify or even shoot the firearm again until the license expires. To make matters worse, no psychological exam is needed.
Why does this concern me? Because you can’t find a campus today whose police department does not practice “active shooter training” in and around their campus. As you know, campus shootings are now becoming more frequent and if (or when) this training turns to reality, students brandishing guns while police attempt to locate and end the threat will become even greater targets themselves. In other words, it doesn’t become “finding a needle in a haystack”, it becomes “finding a needle in a stack of needles”. When the shooting starts, college students aren’t required to wear a sign around their neck saying “good guy” while police look for the guy wearing the “bad guy” sign; the common denominator both will have is the gun in their hands. God help the police officer who ends a student’s life who is an “innocent” who fails to comply with an officer’s demands or is even seen firing a weapon at another person, quite possibly an unseeable shooter—Who’s shooting at who, who’s the “bad guy”?
If the people want “open carry” and the ability to carry on campuses, the people should also push for more stringent qualification requirements for those who carry.
captchuck
Campaign Veteran
imported post
That 2nd amendment is such a pain in the a-- sometimes. How many rapes should you take reports on. How many innocent students should die waiting for your highly trained response. How few crazies will shoot up a campus in the first place if they know they will likely be shot dead after their first shot.
That 2nd amendment is such a pain in the a-- sometimes. How many rapes should you take reports on. How many innocent students should die waiting for your highly trained response. How few crazies will shoot up a campus in the first place if they know they will likely be shot dead after their first shot.
ThoreauHD
New member
imported post
Hello,
Lawdog, in response to your well thought out well.. essay, I thought I would respond in kind. I am a CCW holder with a Virginia and Utah permit. In my state of Virginia, open carry is legal.
At the Virginia Tech campus there are students that open carry and conceal carry in class. They were not permitted to do this before as it was a "gun-free zone". You know the result. The police were there to clean up the bodies. Just like in every other crime. I'm not being condescending. I'm being factual. In a previous life, I was a forensic pathology tech doing 2 crime scenes a day on average.
Your concern is that firstly, these students are too .. how can I put it more bluntly- stupid to carry a gun. That may be true. But that is self-correcting.
Your second concern is that in the minutes to hours following a murder spree, how can you distinguish between the killer and the innocent bystanders. The innocent bystanders will have their gun holstered if they aren't in danger. Just like innocent policemen.
The crux of the matter is this. It is the Right of every human to protect their lives. Whether they be stupid or smart, rich or poor, white or black. To deny the Rights of the unintelligent when they have given no cause to negate those Rights is elitist in the real sense of the word. It is stated We the People. Not We the People that get paid from taxes to shoot bad guys.
As a counterbalance to your concerns, you know that there is a plethora of training available for these young adults. Liberty is Freedom + Responsibility. Both must be served due to natural law. If you wish to help these students, teach them. They are there to learn- and are paying for it. Teach them how to act responsibly with a tool that can save their lives.
I share your concerns. But we can not save lives by creating lambs to the slaughter. You know the seconds that determine whether you live or die. You know the response time of policemen. You know the outcome of those that cannot defend themselves. Lives cannot be preserved by disarming the weak minded. They will learn, either by choice or by consequence.
Consider the alternative. Ban all guns, due to the stupid people among us. Now we have knives. Bats. Bricks. Cars. Poisons. Drugs. Strangulation. Etc, etc.. England and Australia are now a model of this. Nations of sheep with home invasions and homicides in broad daylight where nobody does anything.
In any case, to be clear, I share your concerns. But make no mistake. Disenfranchising the least of us is the same as killing them yourself. Nature doesn't suffer good intentions by any man.
Hello,
Lawdog, in response to your well thought out well.. essay, I thought I would respond in kind. I am a CCW holder with a Virginia and Utah permit. In my state of Virginia, open carry is legal.
At the Virginia Tech campus there are students that open carry and conceal carry in class. They were not permitted to do this before as it was a "gun-free zone". You know the result. The police were there to clean up the bodies. Just like in every other crime. I'm not being condescending. I'm being factual. In a previous life, I was a forensic pathology tech doing 2 crime scenes a day on average.
Your concern is that firstly, these students are too .. how can I put it more bluntly- stupid to carry a gun. That may be true. But that is self-correcting.
Your second concern is that in the minutes to hours following a murder spree, how can you distinguish between the killer and the innocent bystanders. The innocent bystanders will have their gun holstered if they aren't in danger. Just like innocent policemen.
The crux of the matter is this. It is the Right of every human to protect their lives. Whether they be stupid or smart, rich or poor, white or black. To deny the Rights of the unintelligent when they have given no cause to negate those Rights is elitist in the real sense of the word. It is stated We the People. Not We the People that get paid from taxes to shoot bad guys.
As a counterbalance to your concerns, you know that there is a plethora of training available for these young adults. Liberty is Freedom + Responsibility. Both must be served due to natural law. If you wish to help these students, teach them. They are there to learn- and are paying for it. Teach them how to act responsibly with a tool that can save their lives.
I share your concerns. But we can not save lives by creating lambs to the slaughter. You know the seconds that determine whether you live or die. You know the response time of policemen. You know the outcome of those that cannot defend themselves. Lives cannot be preserved by disarming the weak minded. They will learn, either by choice or by consequence.
Consider the alternative. Ban all guns, due to the stupid people among us. Now we have knives. Bats. Bricks. Cars. Poisons. Drugs. Strangulation. Etc, etc.. England and Australia are now a model of this. Nations of sheep with home invasions and homicides in broad daylight where nobody does anything.
In any case, to be clear, I share your concerns. But make no mistake. Disenfranchising the least of us is the same as killing them yourself. Nature doesn't suffer good intentions by any man.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
In before the (poo) storm....
Side note: God help anyone that takes any of my statements to turn this into an anti-cop thread. You've been warned.
Lawdog...
First of all, welcome. Interesting first post of an oft-repeated belief.
Also, I share your sentiments about the declining quality of education, but I blame law makers for ruining grade, middle, and high school educations. I know *I* saw it going downhill at an alarming rate in the 90's.
Being given a bigger personnel budget without suitable recruits has produced a hardship for many police HR directors (not sure what they are called), which in many cases has sadly caused the erosion of recruiting standards. As the hiring/firing directors find themselves in potentially hot water for not meeting their department's staffing needs, something has to give, and previously sub-standard recruits are being accepting at an alarming rate.
I'm seeing this a bit in my own city. I can tell who the newbies are versus the ones from when standards are higher. And not just because some of 'em are a little grey around the edges. :lol:
I like dealing with the veteran officers. They know their jobs, they know a basic level of human decency when dealing with the public, most of them are quite congenial, and they don't resort to name-calling like a 12-year old boy.
Next, playing "what if" with peoples' lives is a very risky proposition. We've already seen that laws and student codes banning firearms on campus works about as well at stopping school shootings as laws and codes banning assault and murder.
Additionally, if I'm armed at school (my current college allows CC w/ permit), and there's shots fired while I'm in a classroom, I'll be DAMNED if I'm going out there.
I'll presume anyone else with enough sense to carry to school would feel the same way. Two of the six that I know do.
Chuck, calm down. I know it's the internet, but let's keep it civil. Easy on the hyperboles, please.
Anyway, we're getting WAY off topic for this thread. Might be best if we have this discussion in its own topic.
In before the (poo) storm....
Side note: God help anyone that takes any of my statements to turn this into an anti-cop thread. You've been warned.
Lawdog...
First of all, welcome. Interesting first post of an oft-repeated belief.
Also, I share your sentiments about the declining quality of education, but I blame law makers for ruining grade, middle, and high school educations. I know *I* saw it going downhill at an alarming rate in the 90's.
Unfortunately, this same statement can be applied to police departments around the country, but I blame the Fed for taking their usual "throw money at it" approach.
Being given a bigger personnel budget without suitable recruits has produced a hardship for many police HR directors (not sure what they are called), which in many cases has sadly caused the erosion of recruiting standards. As the hiring/firing directors find themselves in potentially hot water for not meeting their department's staffing needs, something has to give, and previously sub-standard recruits are being accepting at an alarming rate.
I'm seeing this a bit in my own city. I can tell who the newbies are versus the ones from when standards are higher. And not just because some of 'em are a little grey around the edges. :lol:
I like dealing with the veteran officers. They know their jobs, they know a basic level of human decency when dealing with the public, most of them are quite congenial, and they don't resort to name-calling like a 12-year old boy.
Next, playing "what if" with peoples' lives is a very risky proposition. We've already seen that laws and student codes banning firearms on campus works about as well at stopping school shootings as laws and codes banning assault and murder.
I would hope that an officer on the scene would not shoot someone in the back without at least making an attempt to identify themselves or identify their target, as it can be read you are suggesting, and for exactly this reason.
Additionally, if I'm armed at school (my current college allows CC w/ permit), and there's shots fired while I'm in a classroom, I'll be DAMNED if I'm going out there.
I'll presume anyone else with enough sense to carry to school would feel the same way. Two of the six that I know do.
Chuck, calm down. I know it's the internet, but let's keep it civil. Easy on the hyperboles, please.
Anyway, we're getting WAY off topic for this thread. Might be best if we have this discussion in its own topic.
captchuck
Campaign Veteran
imported post
O.K. Sorry. Just getting a little sick of this, we need to be defenseless victims waiting for the government agent to rescue us, stuff. We need peace officers in the world to catch and deter the bad guys. But, we need to be able to protect ourselves right now.
O.K. Sorry. Just getting a little sick of this, we need to be defenseless victims waiting for the government agent to rescue us, stuff. We need peace officers in the world to catch and deter the bad guys. But, we need to be able to protect ourselves right now.
AbNo
Regular Member
imported post
That's why we're here, to discuss and remind people of the merits and necessity of personally carried self-defense, in a civil manner.
You're among like-minded people, relax a little. It's not all SRS BSNS.
That's why we're here, to discuss and remind people of the merits and necessity of personally carried self-defense, in a civil manner.
You're among like-minded people, relax a little. It's not all SRS BSNS.
imported post
lawdog312 You would seem to equate proficiency in English and math with the right to defend oneself. Is the lesser academically qualified student to be determined to be unworthy? Either we are equal or we are not.
Your rhetoric regarding a LEO being able to identify the BG from the good guy is tired and well worn and falls into the "what if, maybe, might be" category. For a LEO or anybody to use deadly force before properly identifying the target and making risk assessment is negligent at best.
Yata hey
lawdog312 You would seem to equate proficiency in English and math with the right to defend oneself. Is the lesser academically qualified student to be determined to be unworthy? Either we are equal or we are not.
Your rhetoric regarding a LEO being able to identify the BG from the good guy is tired and well worn and falls into the "what if, maybe, might be" category. For a LEO or anybody to use deadly force before properly identifying the target and making risk assessment is negligent at best.
Yata hey
Gordie
Regular Member
imported post
lawdog312
I have asome questions for you.
Do you favor civilian carry of firearms in public?
If so, why is a college campus any different than the mall, grocery store, public sidewalk, ect.?
If not, why are you opposed?
You expect students to leave their guns at home or in their cars whileon campus. Are you willing to do the same thing?
Are you aware that in many states it is against the law to have a firearm in your car while on campus, even unloaded and locked? Insome cases, a felony?
Can you show where CCW holders have shown to be an increased risk to law enforcement?
Can you show where restricting firearms has prevented one murder, or reduced violent crime rates?
Are you aware that statistics show that you are more likely to be shot in a case of mistaken identity by a LEO than by a civilian?
Are you aware that in many statesCCW holders have a lower rate of violent crime than LEOs?
Are you aware that 1/3 of mass victim, public shootings are stopped by armed civilians before the police arrive?
When was the last time that police officers stopped an active shooter before he was finished and either left the scene or committed suicide? I can only think of one in the last 5 years, he was engaged by an off duty LEO who ignored the "no firearms" sign on the mall entrance.
How many rounds does the average LEO fire in the course of a year? 250? 500? 1000? More? The point is that I, andmany of my friends, go through 2500+ a year, very few LEOs use their weapons to this degree.
You are worried about the "unproven", but I ask you, how many of the officers on your department have ever been in a firefight in an area crowded with civilians? I have known enough people who have been in these type situations (military, not LEO) to have learned that training does not entirely prepare you for this.
Has your department conducted no notice drills for an active shooter?
If so, what is the average response time for your entry team when engaging an active shooter, when given a no notice drill?
If not, then how do you know what the response will be?
At an average of 3 victims per minute, how many victims will there be before you can engage and stop the shooter.
Being from Texas, are you aware of the circumstances of the university shooting involving Charles Whitman, where armed civilians helped slow down the shooter and rescue victims?
Are you aware that a civilian (a building custodian, if I'm not mistaken) actuallyaccompanied LEOs up the tower steps to engage the shooter?
Finally, are you willing to require stringent qualification requirements for all Constitutional rights?
Let me be very clear, I fully support the police. Most LEOs are good people who only want to help people. The problem is, they can't be everywhere all of the time. If someone is in the building with me, shooting people, I don't want to be forced to wait for the police to show up, organize a plan, and engage.
Gun free zones attract the kind of dirtbags that want to cause as much destruction as possible. How often do these lowlifes attack police stations, military installations, or even NRA conventions? They don't because they know that they will likely be met with armed resistance. They may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.
lawdog312
I have asome questions for you.
Do you favor civilian carry of firearms in public?
If so, why is a college campus any different than the mall, grocery store, public sidewalk, ect.?
If not, why are you opposed?
You expect students to leave their guns at home or in their cars whileon campus. Are you willing to do the same thing?
Are you aware that in many states it is against the law to have a firearm in your car while on campus, even unloaded and locked? Insome cases, a felony?
Can you show where CCW holders have shown to be an increased risk to law enforcement?
Can you show where restricting firearms has prevented one murder, or reduced violent crime rates?
Are you aware that statistics show that you are more likely to be shot in a case of mistaken identity by a LEO than by a civilian?
Are you aware that in many statesCCW holders have a lower rate of violent crime than LEOs?
Are you aware that 1/3 of mass victim, public shootings are stopped by armed civilians before the police arrive?
When was the last time that police officers stopped an active shooter before he was finished and either left the scene or committed suicide? I can only think of one in the last 5 years, he was engaged by an off duty LEO who ignored the "no firearms" sign on the mall entrance.
How many rounds does the average LEO fire in the course of a year? 250? 500? 1000? More? The point is that I, andmany of my friends, go through 2500+ a year, very few LEOs use their weapons to this degree.
You are worried about the "unproven", but I ask you, how many of the officers on your department have ever been in a firefight in an area crowded with civilians? I have known enough people who have been in these type situations (military, not LEO) to have learned that training does not entirely prepare you for this.
Has your department conducted no notice drills for an active shooter?
If so, what is the average response time for your entry team when engaging an active shooter, when given a no notice drill?
If not, then how do you know what the response will be?
At an average of 3 victims per minute, how many victims will there be before you can engage and stop the shooter.
Being from Texas, are you aware of the circumstances of the university shooting involving Charles Whitman, where armed civilians helped slow down the shooter and rescue victims?
Are you aware that a civilian (a building custodian, if I'm not mistaken) actuallyaccompanied LEOs up the tower steps to engage the shooter?
Finally, are you willing to require stringent qualification requirements for all Constitutional rights?
Let me be very clear, I fully support the police. Most LEOs are good people who only want to help people. The problem is, they can't be everywhere all of the time. If someone is in the building with me, shooting people, I don't want to be forced to wait for the police to show up, organize a plan, and engage.
Gun free zones attract the kind of dirtbags that want to cause as much destruction as possible. How often do these lowlifes attack police stations, military installations, or even NRA conventions? They don't because they know that they will likely be met with armed resistance. They may be crazy, but they aren't stupid.
Smurfologist
Regular Member
imported post
27445 responses
Yes 81%
No 19%
2nd Amendment..........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
27445 responses
Yes 81%
No 19%
2nd Amendment..........Use it.........Or, lose it!!:X
DanM
Regular Member
imported post
lawdog,
It doesn't take Jedi skills or policetraining to responsibly bear arms for self-defense or to draw, aim, and shoot to save your life, when an attacker is bearing down on you.
You may be a peace officer, but I have to wonder how extensive your experience is with real world policing. Every officer on the beatI know and have talked to are in favor of law-abiding citizens owning and bearing arms for self-defense. These officers are on the streets and they've seen enough citizens who've assumedroom temperature to know that they (the police)canstop practically zeroviolent crimes in progress and thatcitizens tremendously increase their odds of survival by being armed.
I recommend you put in a request to get out from behind your desk and go on patrol.
lawdog,
It doesn't take Jedi skills or policetraining to responsibly bear arms for self-defense or to draw, aim, and shoot to save your life, when an attacker is bearing down on you.
You may be a peace officer, but I have to wonder how extensive your experience is with real world policing. Every officer on the beatI know and have talked to are in favor of law-abiding citizens owning and bearing arms for self-defense. These officers are on the streets and they've seen enough citizens who've assumedroom temperature to know that they (the police)canstop practically zeroviolent crimes in progress and thatcitizens tremendously increase their odds of survival by being armed.
I recommend you put in a request to get out from behind your desk and go on patrol.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
that never happens. When the poll so clearly opposes their agenda, they just bury it. All Liberals operate the same way.
that never happens. When the poll so clearly opposes their agenda, they just bury it. All Liberals operate the same way.
James
Regular Member
imported post
At the Virginia Tech campus there are students that open carry and conceal carry in class. They were not permitted to do this before as it was a "gun-free zone".
Huhhhhhhhhhhh.
At the Virginia Tech campus there are students that open carry and conceal carry in class. They were not permitted to do this before as it was a "gun-free zone".
Huhhhhhhhhhhh.
squisher
Regular Member
imported post
Got my vote in. I hate to say, but I smell a couple of puppet accounts. Hopefully not, and hopefully the ones I'm seeing turn into productive, contributing members.
82/18 still
Let adults carry where they will. More cases than not, the presence of guns (open or concealed) leads to LESS violence. At least that I've seen.
Having been in college relatively recently (graduated in '03), the students I attended with were fun-loving folks, and somewhat immature in a sense, but at the same time they were largely a stable and responsible bunch.
I saw no more "crazies and binge drinkers" than any other sample of the population. There will always be a certain percentage, but by no means is it going to be a significant percentage.
Granted, I did go to a small engineering focused school (Rose-Hulman), but even when i would visit friends at other colleges it seemed about the same as far as students being as responsible as any other population segment.
Got my vote in. I hate to say, but I smell a couple of puppet accounts. Hopefully not, and hopefully the ones I'm seeing turn into productive, contributing members.
82/18 still
Let adults carry where they will. More cases than not, the presence of guns (open or concealed) leads to LESS violence. At least that I've seen.
Having been in college relatively recently (graduated in '03), the students I attended with were fun-loving folks, and somewhat immature in a sense, but at the same time they were largely a stable and responsible bunch.
I saw no more "crazies and binge drinkers" than any other sample of the population. There will always be a certain percentage, but by no means is it going to be a significant percentage.
Granted, I did go to a small engineering focused school (Rose-Hulman), but even when i would visit friends at other colleges it seemed about the same as far as students being as responsible as any other population segment.
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
28445
82% Yes
18% No
28445
82% Yes
18% No
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Yet it still warrants rebuttal
James wrote:
Except for the Gubmint. And historically, that has never worked out well.
I ask, when will 'for the children' start to include NOT letting them be easy targets?
Yet it still warrants rebuttal
James wrote:
No, nobody can carry a weapon, in any fashion, at VA Tech.
Except for the Gubmint. And historically, that has never worked out well.
I ask, when will 'for the children' start to include NOT letting them be easy targets?