Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'll see if I can post some stats on this issue. First, I put together a list of the US states with the most firearm murders, robberies and assaults. I multiplied the murder number by 10 and then added the robbery and assault numbers, as of 2010 (FL 2011). Gun violence is more than just murders. The percentage of firearm murders with murders overall is fairly constant, so I didn't include that. The USA average is 67%. I used this website:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

Then I compared this total number with the gun control law ranking, from 1 to 100, given each state by the Brady Campaign. Blue states were almost always ranked highest, with some exceptions such as Vermont. It is also true sometimes that tough gun laws exist in the blue states where they are the most needed. So make of it what you will. I should also check on the number of firearms owned per capita in each state; maybe I'll add that later.

The USA average score is 114.85

Ranked from the most violent to the least:
1. DC 515.23 not ranked
2. Tennessee 238.34 8
3. Delaware 229.14 13
4. South Carolina 217.51 8
5. Louisiana 201.62 2
6. Missouri 195.63 4
7. Florida 182.75 3
8. Michigan 180.09 25
9. Texas 158.12 4
10. Arkansas 156.21 4
11. Nevada 155 5
12. Georgia 152.47 8
13. New Mexico 145.74 4
14. Maryland 138.72 45
15. North Carolina 136.94 16
16. Arizona 134.36 0
17. Oklahoma 133.17 2
18. Pennsylvania 127.69 26
19. California 127.59 81
20. Alaska 124.98 0
21. Mississippi 118.53 4
22. Kansas 117.62 4
23. Ohio 113.53 7 (nearest USA average)
24. New Jersey 97.42 72
25. Virginia 92.1 12
26. Kentucky 90.67 2
27. Wisconsin 89.57 3
28. Connecticut 82.96 58
29. Alabama 78.1 14
30. Massachusetts 73.13 65
31. Colorado 72.76 15
32. Nebraska 71.26 5
33. Rhode Island 62.4 44
34. Washington 60.1 15
35. New York 51.17 62
36. Minnesota 49.11 14
37. Indiana 47.38 4
38. Montana 42.6 2
39. Utah 41.43 0
40. Oregon 40.27 15
41. West Virginhia 36.99 4
42. Illinois 36.17 35
43. Idaho 34.75 2
44. Iowa 34.68 7
45. South Dakota 29.55 4
46. Wyoming 28.1 4
47. New Hampshire 26.16 6
48. Hawaii 25.94 50
49. Maine 17.11 7
50. Vermont 13.16 6
51. North Dakota 11.15 2

The thing is, it would have only taken a person like me with a gun and a few bullets and a moment of opportunity to end the violence.

Originally Posted by annla899

I've given up the notion of real gun "control" in the US, but wouldn't more stringent licensing, perhaps gun owner's insurance, limits on how many rounds can be bought and stockpiled? Limits of some kind? In the UK (and yes, their laws are far, far stricter), from what I've read, you need to have a background check on everyone in the household, including mental health.

It's not going to stop nutjobs, but maybe they can do less damage. I do not believe in the perfect being the enemy of the good. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible (and I know many. An old friend was a competition skeet shooter).

But don't you think having the ability to strafe a room full of 6 and 7 year-olds in that short a time needs to be looked at? It's not like hunting game or honing a skill with target shooting.

How do you propose administering these limits? Will you be going door to door and holding inspections? Will punishing responsible gun owners make you feel better? Safer? When your government strafes a few women and children in a far away land, do you care as much? Will the government be held to the same lofty standards?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Weapons used in killing spree

The primary murder weapon:

— Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, a civilian version of the military’s M-16 and a model commonly seen at marksmanship competitions. It’s similar to the weapon used in a recent shopping mall shooting in Oregon. Two men convicted in a series of sniper killings in the Washington, D.C.-area in 2002 also used a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle that they fired from the trunk of a car at randomly picked victims. Lanza was carrying multiple 30-round magazines, police said, though higher capacity ones are available.

Also found in the school near Lanza’s body:

— Glock 10 mm: A larger and more powerful weapon than the widely popular 9 mm, it is in many respects similar to the 9 mm. It is a lightweight and comparatively affordable weapon that is often used for target shooting and for personal protection. Lanza killed himself with a shot to the head from this pistol, according to a state official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the source was not authorized to disclose details of the investigation.

— Sig Sauer 9 mm: Considered an upper-tier, quality product, it’s comparatively expensive, and its range of uses includes elite military and police units.

http://www.lohud.com/viewart/20121216/NEWS/121216002/Weapons-used-killing-spree

Okay, since you completely missed my point, I'll make it anyway.

An AR-15 is a semi-automatic knock off off an M-16. It's mechanically the same as any of the most commonly used hunting rifles. Round size wise, an AR-15 actually packs bullets that are smaller than a lot of your more popular hunting rifles, meaning the AR is going to be pound for pound less likely to be lethal than your .30- variants.

Same with the hand guns. They're semi-automatic hand guns, mechanically the same as any of the most commonly used hunting side arms. Round size, they're actually smaller than some of the more popular .40 to .45 sizes.

There is no law that a person could write that would ban the sale of these kinds of weapons that would not have a negative impact on every practical application for fire arms. The guns that can be banned because you can parse out what makes them different from standard, practical use fire arms either already are, or are so expensive they are effectively banned based on price rationing or both.

There is no difference between these semi-automatic guns and any other semi-automatic gun you could show me save round size.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How do you propose administering these limits? Will you be going door to door and holding inspections? Will punishing responsible gun owners make you feel better? Safer? When your government strafes a few women and children in a far away land, do you care as much? Will the government be held to the same lofty standards?

I wish we could place limits on the amount of sick people we let roam free and do nothing about.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It doesn't concern you that you use a a version of an M-16 to kill animals? They must be pretty scary creatures for you to have to use such a weapon.

Not really. The .223 that the Bushmaster is chambered for is generally considered underpowered for hunting deer. It's not some kind of extremely powerful round. In fact, weapons chambered for .223 are typically employed as varmint rifles (for shooting coyotes, wild dogs, and small game). But we've been through that before. You don't know about firearms and what they're capable of, and you don't want to know.

Of course, weapons that fire .223 rounds can kill human beings. So can weapons that fire less powerful rounds, like 9mm or .22 LR. In fact, 9mm pistol and a .22 LR pistol were used in the Virginia Tech shooting, which remains the deadliest single-shooter killing spree in the nation's history. If your goal really is to stop events like this from happening in the future, you have to acknowledge that and find some way to deal with it.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I wish we could place limits on the amount of sick people we let roam free and do nothing about.

Psychological solutions legally require that a person be a danger to themselves or others, and for good reason, as usually there are negative effects to taking psychiatric meds. Each individual has to make the determination for themselves what treatment options they need to pursue because the outcomes vary so much between individuals.

The nuance here is the "danger to yourself or others", the problem being that there is no way to determine that fact unless a person has already proven themselves to be a danger to themselves or others. Given that the majority of mentally ill people are never a danger to themselves or others, altering this this isn't a solution that will provide the greatest amount of good to the greatest amount of people.

This is the sort of thing that would be the job of criminal profilers creating a solid profile (not the dumb post-columbine "loner, likes heavy metal" nonsense, but a real deal isolates potential spree shooters profile) and creating a real proceedure for handling these people. Much like we have those critical serial killer symptoms (bedwetting, animal cruelty, fire starting), we need to develop them for spree shooters and develop a course of action that will work for both and give that profile credibility.

Originally Posted by Kepi

This is the sort of thing that would be the job of criminal profilers creating a solid profile (not the dumb post-columbine "loner, likes heavy metal" nonsense, but a real deal isolates potential spree shooters profile) and creating a real proceedure for handling these people. Much like we have those critical serial killer symptoms (bedwetting, animal cruelty, fire starting), we need to develop them for spree shooters and develop a course of action that will work for both and give that profile credibility.

1.) The MacDonald Triad isn't a set of serial killer symptoms, critical or otherwise. There are plenty of people who exhibit those behaviors and do not become serial killers, and there are plenty of serial killers who don't exhibit those behaviors. While it is true that those behaviors are indicative of serious problems (especially animal cruelty), they're not actually predictive of future violence.

2.) Each spree shooter is different. There are no common conditions that lead to spree killing, and there are no common symptoms that indicate someone is likely to become a spree killer. Some are loners, but not all are. Some exhibit violent tendencies before they start killing, but not all do. Some seem to have a break with reality, others don't. As a result, there is no predictive profile, and there never will be.

So then it becomes like every other crime, and you can't really do anything to prevent it, but you might displace it... Eh, even that, I'm not really big on, either, because it reeks of notinmybackyardiganism, which is a non solution.

Gee, maybe we need to reduce social pressure and overcompetition.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

How do you propose administering these limits? Will you be going door to door and holding inspections? Will punishing responsible gun owners make you feel better? Safer? When your government strafes a few women and children in a far away land, do you care as much? Will the government be held to the same lofty standards?

Actually, I was asking in all sincerity. As I pointed out, I think the kind of gun regulation that other countries have is not feasible in the US at this point. What I don't get is that you see it as an either/or proposition--and so do those who want to rid the entire country of guns.

But it seems you believe I'm against you and am not interested in your thoughts on the matter. So fnck it.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I do find it interesting that when it comes to shining a light on gun violence, any numbers that don't fit the war mentality are considered propaganda for emotional impact. Let's trust our militaristic CIA before we trust a non-profit organization trying to prevent gun violence.

The CIA Fact Book seems reliable with this data. Sources that involve allies with good record-keeping are unlikely to be faked.

While our country pushes war for profit, has kill lists, and desensitizes the population with the killing of innocent people in other countries by calling it collateral damage, there's not a peep out of those who have a love affair with weapons.

Legitimate concerns. Timothy McVeigh called civilians that he murdered at the Murrah Center "collateral damage". The military might get away with it, but not a terrorist.

The U.S. has by far the highest civilian gun ownership, the loosest gun laws, and the most guns deaths. Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...an-experience/








According to the Children’s Defense Fund, in the 44 years since Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were shot to death, bullets have ended the lives of more than one million people — including 12 in Aurora, Colo., who came together at midnight, just looking to cheer for a superhero.

That is the point. The US is awash in privately-held weapons often stored and used irresponsibly or in the custody or easy access of people that one does not want to have firearms.

Firearms should be harder to get than a solid education, a job, or medical help (including psychiatric care). We have some weird and destructive priorities in this country.

Originally Posted by Kepi

So then it becomes like every other crime, and you can't really do anything to prevent it, but you might displace it... Eh, even that, I'm not really big on, either, because it reeks of notinmybackyardiganism, which is a non solution.

Gee, maybe we need to reduce social pressure and overcompetition.

Actually, there's something that would be fairly simple to do that we refuse to try.

Not turning these killers into rockstars would be a good start. That would mean not plastering their faces on every newspaper, news website, and television news program. That would mean not making interactive timelines or sophisticated computerized reenactments with action movie music. That would mean not inviting the nation to scrutinize the killer's mp3 collection, his favorite movies, his favorite computer games, his home life, or what someone he went to grade school with has to say about him. That would mean not blaring whatever half-assed deep thoughts he might have left behind through the mass media megaphone.

Here's a great segment from the Charlie Brooker's BBC program Newswipe:

That's something we might consider trying.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

1.) The MacDonald Triad isn't a set of serial killer symptoms, critical or otherwise. There are plenty of people who exhibit those behaviors and do not become serial killers, and there are plenty of serial killers who don't exhibit those behaviors. While it is true that those behaviors are indicative of serious problems (especially animal cruelty), they're not actually predictive of future violence.

The McDonald triad seems to suggest rebelliousness for its own sake (bedwetting), sadism (animal cruelty), and destructiveness (fire starting). This likely points to the future low-functioning sociopaths like robbers, rapists, drug dealers, car thieves, burglars, and spree killers. It might not point well to the high-functioning sociopaths who do Ponzi schemes, securities fraud, large-scale embezzlement, 419 scams, oppression, glory-seeking military activities, diplomatic bullying, or genocide. I have no idea what would signal that some kid is a new Hermann Goering, Jerry Sandusky, Aldrich Ames, or Kenneth Lay. High-functioning sociopaths may look like the sorts to make the financial reports look good for a time or get the desired effects in politics on behalf of elites. High-functioning sociopaths may be terribly over-represented among otherwise-competent people in the clergy, elected office, lobbying firms, government bureaucracies, and executive suites.

2.) Each spree shooter is different. There are no common conditions that lead to spree killing, and there are no common symptoms that indicate someone is likely to become a spree killer. Some are loners, but not all are. Some exhibit violent tendencies before they start killing, but not all do. Some seem to have a break with reality, others don't. As a result, there is no predictive profile, and there never will be.

Some will say something like "I'm going to smash a truck into (a chain restaurant) and mow down as many people as I can". Some will say something similar and cool off, never acting out anything of the sort. Some will give no warning and then go on a rampage. It's easy enough to say that such people are troubled, but many troubled people do nothing horrible. Still, this is a needlessly grim and hopeless world for many, and it is hard to imagine anyone who perceives having a good life ahead doing anything of the sort. Educational performance collapses in college, a business venture fails, a calming influence in life is no longer available, a family relationship begins to look like a betrayal, one gets a head injury...

Most of us are committed to high-stakes gambles with modest rewards but huge potential for irrecoverable disaster. Many have only material indulgence as a purpose in life. Our economic and political system works badly for most of us, and those at the apex of power expect us to show a fatalistic reverence for the results even when -- especially when -- they go badly for us. Our public sector offers little help.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The thing is, it would have only taken a person like me with a gun and a few bullets and a moment of opportunity to end the violence.

You would never be hired as a teacher or a school administrator. The only sort of person who could have stopped the depicted violence would have been a trained police or military sharpshooter on the scene at the time.

Having been a substitute school teacher, I have no idea of what I would do under the circumstances. I'd probably be the easiest target because I am nearly six feet tall. The best that I could hope for would be to try to convince a gunman to not go through with it if it started in the classroom in which I was in charge. Getting some children out would depend upon the level of surprise that I had.

I do not want a firearm of any kind in the classroom. Maybe I would throw things at the gunman before I was crippled or before I passed out.

Semo, I definitely agree with all that and I feel news should be handled that way in general. Sterile, boring, informative.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You would never be hired as a teacher or a school administrator. The only sort of person who could have stopped the depicted violence would have been a trained police or military sharpshooter on the scene at the time.

Having been a substitute school teacher, I have no idea of what I would do under the circumstances. I'd probably be the easiest target because I am nearly six feet tall. The best that I could hope for would be to try to convince a gunman to not go through with it if it started in the classroom in which I was in charge. Getting some children out would depend upon the level of surprise that I had.

I do not want a firearm of any kind in the classroom. Maybe I would throw things at the gunman before I was crippled or before I passed out.

My choice in life was not to be a school teacher or an administrator. But, If I had been in that school, I would have done everything within my power using whatever means available to put an abrupt end to the slaughter.

Kip Kinkle to Columbine was, to me, the defining difference in Gen X to Millennials as far as this was concern. Kip Kinkle got his ass beat and nobody hardly remembers who he was, mostly because the kill count was so low (he used pretty much your standard fare spree shooter guns), even though there were a lot of injuries.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The thing is, it would have only taken a person like me with a gun and a few bullets and a moment of opportunity to end the violence.

It would perhaps take at least one armed guard in every school in the country, which is unlikely in the current economic situation. Educators won't like it. While some might think the answer to offense is defense, being stronger than the attacker at every point that might be attacked would be problematic.

The founding fathers thought every man ought to be armed. There were no police forces at the time, and the professional military were few and far between. Most everything was handled by the militia, the adult male armed population. That was a long time ago. The notion of every day guys with guns walking around among the kids is a non-starter. The culture has drifted way far away from the militia being the natural defense of a free state. Personal responsibility has been replaced by a fantasy that well trained professionals will be able to get to the scene in time to protect.

I'd like real answers. There aren't enough magic ponies in the country to make all the guns poof vanish. I'd hope that people look into spotting people with mental problems as an alternative to the gun control approach. Anyway, people are going to propose solutions. I'd like them to be solutions that would actually solve the problems we are facing.

But lone nut gunmen aren't going to go away with the passage of a few laws.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Semo, I definitely agree with all that and I feel news should be handled that way in general. Sterile, boring, informative.

Regrettably such makes news something other than a profit center -- and profit is everything in an America slow to reject 3T habits. Maybe the
4T is well underway when FoX News is taken over by CBS.

If what happened at the school I graduated from (Pearl High class of 1993) in 1997 is any indication, the "help" they offer the survivors of this is going to be a day or so of Kumbaya hand holding. Then the "help" goes away and the survivors are left trying to sort it out themselves and process it.

A lot of nonsense will be spouted, inclusion will be preached and everyone is going to be scarred for a long time to come.

A bunch of my classmates had kid brothers and sisters at Pearl High in that commons area that Luke Woodham shot up. Several have severe social anxiety, and are medicated. Formerly well adjusted social butterfly type kids are now adults that rarely go to any sort of place that has large gatherings of people.

One in particular, let's just use his initials, C.B., was standing right next to one of the kids that died. When C.B. finally got out of the school that day he had massive amounts of blood covering him. Before the shooting, this kid was just very outgoing, friendly.

He is 33 now, and is on several diffent types of medication. He had a nervous breakdown during Freshman orientation at the university he tried to attend. He withdrew from school. He now transcribes court records for a living in the privacy and safety of his home.

His sister says he rarely leaves the house to do anything in daylight hours. Nikki says he grocery shops at 2 or 3 in the morning and orders all his clothes from the internet. She told me not long he hasn't went to the mall or a movie theater since 1997.

Whatever the answer is, these kids are going to need help, beyond a day or 2 of a "grief" counselor on hand at the school. And they are going to need it for a very long time to come.

Stuff like this changes the landscape tremendously for not just the families, but the whole community. Nearly 2 decades have passed since that October day and Pearl, MS still feels the events dearly. The kids that lived are changed.

Originally Posted by annla899

Actually, I was asking in all sincerity. As I pointed out, I think the kind of gun regulation that other countries have is not feasible in the US at this point. What I don't get is that you see it as an either/or proposition--and so do those who want to rid the entire country of guns.

But it seems you believe I'm against you and am not interested in your thoughts on the matter. So fnck it.

So was I.

Understand that this argument always goes round and round but always ends up in the same place; punishment on suspicion of pre-crime. That's a pretty bad place to end up. I find that very few people who propose "new and improved regulations" ever take their ideas to their logical conclusion. So you tell me, what does your idea of gun regulation look like? How do you enforce it? Is the further erosion of liberty for the vast majority worth a little more illusion of safety to you? If it isn't to me, how do you propose to overcome the gap in our positions? Through more force?

Originally Posted by B Butler

It would perhaps take at least one armed guard in every school in the country, which is unlikely in the current economic situation. Educators won't like it. While some might think the answer to offense is defense, being stronger than the attacker at every point that might be attacked would be problematic.

The founding fathers thought every man ought to be armed. There were no police forces at the time, and the professional military were few and far between. Most everything was handled by the militia, the adult male armed population. That was a long time ago. The notion of every day guys with guns walking around among the kids is a non-starter. The culture has drifted way far away from the militia being the natural defense of a free state. Personal responsibility has been replaced by a fantasy that well trained professionals will be able to get to the scene in time to protect.

I'd like real answers. There aren't enough magic ponies in the country to make all the guns poof vanish. I'd hope that people look into spotting people with mental problems as an alternative to the gun control approach. Anyway, people are going to propose solutions. I'd like them to be solutions that would actually solve the problems we are facing.

But lone nut gunmen aren't going to go away with the passage of a few laws.

You'd like real answers but then you're quick to reject an answer that goes against a groups values and beliefs. I'm sure there was plenty of pleading for lives going on during the shooting spree. The thought of that pleading going on brings tears to my eyes, upsets me (angers me) and makes me feel sick. I know this doesn't sound civilized but that person's body deserved to be tied to a pickup and drug around town with the camera's following to send emotional twits like him a nasty message that society's mood has now changed. I think it's appropriate to say that we don't live in heaven or a perfect world taking into account your views pertaining to religious belief.

Originally Posted by Danilynn

If what happened at the school I graduated from (Pearl High class of 1993) in 1997 is any indication, the "help" they offer the survivors of this is going to be a day or so of Kumbaya hand holding. Then the "help" goes away and the survivors are left trying to sort it out themselves and process it.

A lot of nonsense will be spouted, inclusion will be preached and everyone is going to be scarred for a long time to come.

A bunch of my classmates had kid brothers and sisters at Pearl High in that commons area that Luke Woodham shot up. Several have severe social anxiety, and are medicated. Formerly well adjusted social butterfly type kids are now adults that rarely go to any sort of place that has large gatherings of people.

One in particular, let's just use his initials, C.B., was standing right next to one of the kids that died. When C.B. finally got out of the school that day he had massive amounts of blood covering him. Before the shooting, this kid was just very outgoing, friendly.

He is 33 now, and is on several diffent types of medication. He had a nervous breakdown during Freshman orientation at the university he tried to attend. He withdrew from school. He now transcribes court records for a living in the privacy and safety of his home.

His sister says he rarely leaves the house to do anything in daylight hours. Nikki says he grocery shops at 2 or 3 in the morning and orders all his clothes from the internet. She told me not long he hasn't went to the mall or a movie theater since 1997.

Whatever the answer is, these kids are going to need help, beyond a day or 2 of a "grief" counselor on hand at the school. And they are going to need it for a very long time to come.

Stuff like this changes the landscape tremendously for not just the families, but the whole community. Nearly 2 decades have passed since that October day and Pearl, MS still feels the events dearly. The kids that lived are changed.

This is a great genuine post. Thanks for sharing your experience.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You'd like real answers but then you're quick to reject an answer that goes against a groups values and beliefs.

I'd like a real answer, which means one that can be implemented. There are a lot of conflicting values, any one of which might compel some group deeply involved in the problem to put their feet down.

Dishonoring the perp's body, as in your pickup truck drag, is another non starter. It seems to me that you are less interested in something real that might improve the situation than your own sick violent daydreams. I'm associating your mentality closer to the shooter's than anyone else involved.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

You'd like real answers but then you're quick to reject an answer that goes against a groups values and beliefs. I'm sure there was plenty of pleading for lives going on during the shooting spree. The thought of that pleading going on brings tears to my eyes, upsets me (angers me) and makes me feel sick. I know this doesn't sound civilized but that person's body deserved to be tied to a pickup and drug around town with the camera's following to send emotional twits like him a nasty message that society's mood has now changed. I think it's appropriate to say that we don't live in heaven or a perfect world taking into account your views pertaining to religious belief.

It isn't so much that the answer is rejected because of values/beliefs, it is that the answer provided is not practical. I saw many calls to arm all teachers come through my Facebook feed over the weekend. There are many, many problems with it. My husband is a teacher. I know many of them. They are not soldiers and they did not enter the profession to become soldiers. It gets even worse for high schools, as the perpetrator can look remarkably similar to the rest of the students.

I do think it worth discussing better public school security and I would probably be in favor of an armed front office if training is part of the job of principal or vice principal. Again, the basic problem would be keeping the guns away from the very students they are there to protect. All of the expense and effort would be in vain once the "shooters" decide to become "bombers".

I do wish that the US could for once have a rational discussion about guns and weapons in general. So far, I am not too encouraged.

Originally Posted by Aramea

It isn't so much that the answer is rejected because of values/beliefs, it is that the answer provided is not practical. I saw many calls to arm all teachers come through my Facebook feed over the weekend. There are many, many problems with it. My husband is a teacher. I know many of them. They are not soldiers and they did not enter the profession to become soldiers. It gets even worse for high schools, as the perpetrator can look remarkably similar to the rest of the students.

Saw a captioned picture going around facebook: "Be wary of those who want to arm teachers; they are the same folks who, just a week ago, were calling teachers overpaid and incompetent."

None of the teachers I know think this is in any way a good idea. There's simply too much room for error and teachers already have way more on their plates than they can handle. The last thing a chaotic room of 30+ students needs is loaded guns.

Now... putting an armed security officer in schools? Someone who is specifically trained to deal with these kinds of situations? That might actually work, but it might cost actual money to accomplish. Maybe we should go ahead and legalize drugs/prostitution/etc and put the ex-vice squad in charge of something useful... like protecting people.

Then the problem is making sure the security isn't overbearing or treating all of the kids like they're a suspect in some horrific tragedy that hasn't happened yet...