Why does the President have armed guards?

[Koios]

This thread is similar to a child asking, "What happens to your lap when you stand up?"

I can't believe we entertained these children with 22 pages.

Time for the children to go to bed and let the adults solve big problems.

Wiser counsel I have never received.

Haste la bye-bye.

 

[P@triot]

This thread is similar to a child asking, "What happens to your lap when you stand up?"

I can't believe we entertained these children with 22 pages.

Time for the children to go to bed and let the adults solve big problems.

You're getting KILLED on this issue, and you know it. Which is why you're trying to run from it....

 

[P@triot]

Try to stay with me: Of course security must be tight around all national leaders.

Security is also needed for citizens, in parallel to the relative threat to them. So we have police, fire, etc.

And if we truly cared for the wellbeing of children, we'd provide healthcare. We'd also do a better job of insuring they have proper nutrition, along with assurances that college would be paid for if they wish it and have the merits to continue their educations.

But to put armed security in every ******* school, knowing full-well that 99.999% of them are going to spend their entire ******* careers twiddling their goddamn thumbs, while much of what I mentioned above is going UNFUNDED, is something only someone more retarded than you would advocate -- and that would likely have to be retarded to an extent bordering on vegetable.

Are you getting it? (tip: of course not)

You do realize that police as security is almost the opposite of the security provided to leaders. Police are basically janitors, they sweep in after a crime has already occurred; whereas the President's men are there to prevent a crime from happening (using those big bad guns I imagine!).

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Well, at least you do NOT realize it (because you're so incredibly ******* stupid). But hey, why don't you tell us all again how you think everyone should have free healthcare, free "nutrition", free housing....

******* moron

 

[P@triot]

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Okay then please explain to me how having someone attend to my needs after a crime has already been committed and I have been made a victim (such as a citizen dependent on the police to "protect" himself) is the same as having security around me 24/7 to prevent me from becoming a victim (such as the President).

Really? You're that ******* ignorant of our criminal justice system? How is it you're not in jail?

Here's a tip: police do not slide down fire poles once a crime has been reported. Fire do, so as to quickly arrive at the scene and mitigate as much as possible additonal fire damage to yours and the surrounding residences / businesses / etc. And on occassion they inspect, to make our communities less at risk of fire damage and death. Nice folks, doing good things.

What police do is a bit different: patrol, not only looking for potential criminal activity in its early development, but also providing a highly visible presence, which deters folks from doing stuff that might land their asses in jail. That's a huge mitigating factor that our citizens benefit from; and that folks in Darfur, Somalia, etc. can only wish for in their wildest ******* dreams.

Ergo, to suggest police protection is little more than janitors cleaning up at a crime scene, places you in a very, very rare group of drooling, cross-eyed, complete ******* idiots.

Astonishing. Truly. How do you dress yourself, assuming you do so without assitance?

God almighty, you actually get ******* dumber with each post. You're so pissed off about getting your ass handed to you in this debate that you're going off the deep end in desperation.

Because of our RIGHTS, you ******* idiot, police cannot detain you before you have committed a crime. You are such a ******* moron. A crime MUST be committed before police can intervene. Jesus, I can't believe your brain remembers to breathe as ******* stupid as you are.

Furthermore, by your own asinine version of reality, why would we have any crime in America since police are always "patrolling"?!?!

Further still, by your own asinine version of reality, you contradict yourself on Secret Service protection for the president. Since police are "always patrolling", then the president is 100% safe on American soil and thus the Secret Service is completely unnecessary. You're such a ******* ignorant piece of shit, you keep contradicting yourself! My God, how are you not humiliated by the fact that your words actually argue against yourself?!?

 

[Koios]

You do realize that police as security is almost the opposite of the security provided to leaders. Police are basically janitors, they sweep in after a crime has already occurred; whereas the President's men are there to prevent a crime from happening (using those big bad guns I imagine!).

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Well, at least you do NOT realize it (because you're so incredibly ******* stupid). But hey, why don't you tell us all again how you think everyone should have free healthcare, free "nutrition", free housing....

******* moron

Not everyone. Just on a means tested basis for nutrition; but yes on higher education, which I advocate being free to all with the desire and merits to attend, since being a moron (K-12) reduces lifetime earnings by over $1 Million, on average, compared to folks with a 4 year degree. So instead of us fatiguing after 12.5 years of free eduction, and we went another 4 years, for example, morons like you would pay back about $300,000 more in taxes and $700,000 more in additional spending into the economy.

But that's a math thing, requiring more than merely fingers and toes. So don't beat yourself up if it's a smidge beyond your grasp.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This thread is similar to a child asking, "What happens to your lap when you stand up?"

I can't believe we entertained these children with 22 pages.

Time for the children to go to bed and let the adults solve big problems.

You're getting KILLED on this issue, and you know it. Which is why you're trying to run from it....

Wait! Did a nutter just claim that liberals were getting killed in a thread?

That's it! Shut the doors and send the help on their way. Business here is concluded. A nutter has claimed victory. It must be so.

 

[P@triot]

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Well, at least you do NOT realize it (because you're so incredibly ******* stupid). But hey, why don't you tell us all again how you think everyone should have free healthcare, free "nutrition", free housing....

******* moron

Not everyone. Just on a means tested basis for nutrition; but yes on higher education, which I advocate being free to all with the desire and merits to attend, since being a moron (K-12) reduces lifetime earnings by over $1 Million, on average, compared to folks with a 4 year degree. So instead of us fatiguing after 12.5 years of free eduction, and we went another 4 years, for example, morons like you would pay back about $300,000 more in taxes and $700,000 more in additional spending into the economy.

But that's a math thing, requiring more than merely fingers and toes. So don't beat yourself up if it's a smidge beyond your grasp.

"Higher education" is already readily available to all, you uneducated buffoon. People working minimum wage, entry level positions at McDonald's get tuition reimbursement. They can graduate from college without spending one ******* penny of their own money. But I wouldn't expect a pro-marxist asshole like you to be informed on reality. After all, if MSBNC didn't tell you about it, you don't know it exists....

 

[Koios]

Okay then please explain to me how having someone attend to my needs after a crime has already been committed and I have been made a victim (such as a citizen dependent on the police to "protect" himself) is the same as having security around me 24/7 to prevent me from becoming a victim (such as the President).

Really? You're that ******* ignorant of our criminal justice system? How is it you're not in jail?

Here's a tip: police do not slide down fire poles once a crime has been reported. Fire do, so as to quickly arrive at the scene and mitigate as much as possible additonal fire damage to yours and the surrounding residences / businesses / etc. And on occassion they inspect, to make our communities less at risk of fire damage and death. Nice folks, doing good things.

What police do is a bit different: patrol, not only looking for potential criminal activity in its early development, but also providing a highly visible presence, which deters folks from doing stuff that might land their asses in jail. That's a huge mitigating factor that our citizens benefit from; and that folks in Darfur, Somalia, etc. can only wish for in their wildest ******* dreams.

Ergo, to suggest police protection is little more than janitors cleaning up at a crime scene, places you in a very, very rare group of drooling, cross-eyed, complete ******* idiots.

Astonishing. Truly. How do you dress yourself, assuming you do so without assitance?

God almighty, you actually get ******* dumber with each post[?] You're so pissed off about getting your ass handed to you in this debate that you're going off the deep end in desperation.

Because of our RIGHTS, you ******* idiot, police cannot detain you before you have committed a crime. You are such a ******* moron. A crime MUST be committed before police can intervene. Jesus, I can't believe your brain remembers to breathe as ******* stupid as you are.

Furthermore, by your own asinine version of reality, why would we have any crime in America since police are always "patrolling"?!?!

Further still, by your own asinine version of reality, you contradict yourself on Secret Service protection for the president. Since police are "always patrolling", then the president is 100% safe on American soil and thus the Secret Service is completely unnecessary. You're such a ******* ignorant piece of shit, you keep contradicting yourself! My God, how are you not humiliated by the fact that your words actually argue against yourself?!?

I think so; I swear I can feel braincells dying with each of yours I read. No shit.

 

[P@triot]

No. But then, I'm not the abject moron that obviously are. Thanks for asking.

Well, at least you do NOT realize it (because you're so incredibly ******* stupid). But hey, why don't you tell us all again how you think everyone should have free healthcare, free "nutrition", free housing....

******* moron

Not everyone. Just on a means tested basis for nutrition; but yes on higher education, which I advocate being free to all with the desire and merits to attend, since being a moron (K-12) reduces lifetime earnings by over $1 Million, on average, compared to folks with a 4 year degree. So instead of us fatiguing after 12.5 years of free eduction, and we went another 4 years, for example, morons like you would pay back about $300,000 more in taxes and $700,000 more in additional spending into the economy.

But that's a math thing, requiring more than merely fingers and toes. So don't beat yourself up if it's a smidge beyond your grasp.

Hey, I know! Why don't you tell us again how police "patrols" prevent crime...

And then, in the next breath, explain why the president needs a PSD when you believe that police "patrols" prevent crime....

******* tool.... can't even keep your story's straight as you go along.

 

[Koios]

Well, at least you do NOT realize it (because you're so incredibly ******* stupid). But hey, why don't you tell us all again how you think everyone should have free healthcare, free "nutrition", free housing....

******* moron

Not everyone. Just on a means tested basis for nutrition; but yes on higher education, which I advocate being free to all with the desire and merits to attend, since being a moron (K-12) reduces lifetime earnings by over $1 Million, on average, compared to folks with a 4 year degree. So instead of us fatiguing after 12.5 years of free eduction, and we went another 4 years, for example, morons like you would pay back about $300,000 more in taxes and $700,000 more in additional spending into the economy.

But that's a math thing, requiring more than merely fingers and toes. So don't beat yourself up if it's a smidge beyond your grasp.

"Higher education" is already readily available to all, you uneducated buffoon. People working minimum wage, entry level positions at McDonald's get tuition reimbursement. They can graduate from college without spending one ******* penny of their own money. But I wouldn't expect a pro-marxist asshole like you to be informed on reality. After all, if MSBNC didn't tell you about it, you don't know it exists....

I said "desire and merits" in case you're wondering why you got fucked out of going to college, despite sleeping through 12.5 years of free "education."

 

[P@triot]

Really? You're that ******* ignorant of our criminal justice system? How is it you're not in jail?

Here's a tip: police do not slide down fire poles once a crime has been reported. Fire do, so as to quickly arrive at the scene and mitigate as much as possible additonal fire damage to yours and the surrounding residences / businesses / etc. And on occassion they inspect, to make our communities less at risk of fire damage and death. Nice folks, doing good things.

What police do is a bit different: patrol, not only looking for potential criminal activity in its early development, but also providing a highly visible presence, which deters folks from doing stuff that might land their asses in jail. That's a huge mitigating factor that our citizens benefit from; and that folks in Darfur, Somalia, etc. can only wish for in their wildest ******* dreams.

Ergo, to suggest police protection is little more than janitors cleaning up at a crime scene, places you in a very, very rare group of drooling, cross-eyed, complete ******* idiots.

Astonishing. Truly. How do you dress yourself, assuming you do so without assitance?

God almighty, you actually get ******* dumber with each post[?] You're so pissed off about getting your ass handed to you in this debate that you're going off the deep end in desperation.

Because of our RIGHTS, you ******* idiot, police cannot detain you before you have committed a crime. You are such a ******* moron. A crime MUST be committed before police can intervene. Jesus, I can't believe your brain remembers to breathe as ******* stupid as you are.

Furthermore, by your own asinine version of reality, why would we have any crime in America since police are always "patrolling"?!?!

Further still, by your own asinine version of reality, you contradict yourself on Secret Service protection for the president. Since police are "always patrolling", then the president is 100% safe on American soil and thus the Secret Service is completely unnecessary. You're such a ******* ignorant piece of shit, you keep contradicting yourself! My God, how are you not humiliated by the fact that your words actually argue against yourself?!?

I think so; I swear I can feel braincells dying with each of yours I read. No shit.

Good strategy! Admit you are getting dumber so you don't have to discuss the points I made above about your theory on police preventing crime....

 

[Koios]

God almighty, you actually get ******* dumber with each post[?] You're so pissed off about getting your ass handed to you in this debate that you're going off the deep end in desperation.

Because of our RIGHTS, you ******* idiot, police cannot detain you before you have committed a crime. You are such a ******* moron. A crime MUST be committed before police can intervene. Jesus, I can't believe your brain remembers to breathe as ******* stupid as you are.

Furthermore, by your own asinine version of reality, why would we have any crime in America since police are always "patrolling"?!?!

Further still, by your own asinine version of reality, you contradict yourself on Secret Service protection for the president. Since police are "always patrolling", then the president is 100% safe on American soil and thus the Secret Service is completely unnecessary. You're such a ******* ignorant piece of shit, you keep contradicting yourself! My God, how are you not humiliated by the fact that your words actually argue against yourself?!?

I think so; I swear I can feel braincells dying with each of yours I read. No shit.

Good strategy! Admit you are getting dumber so you don't have to discuss the points I made above about your theory on police preventing crime....

Think about how fast you'd drive on the freeway were there no potential for getting a ticket, then go from there. You might grow some of the braincells I lost reading your retarded rants.

 

[P@triot]

I think so; I swear I can feel braincells dying with each of yours I read. No shit.

Good strategy! Admit you are getting dumber so you don't have to discuss the points I made above about your theory on police preventing crime....

Think about how fast you'd drive on the freeway were there no potential for getting a ticket, then go from there. You might grow some of the braincells I lost reading your retarded rants.

And yet, every single day, I see people FLYING way above and beyond the speed limit. Every single day. So much for your theory in "prevention".

 

[P@triot]

A chronological timeline of the posts by the idiot known as Koios:

Post #57 - she shows extreme distain towards guns and the NRA, at the same time showing extreme support for having our president completely surrounded by the guns she shows so much disdain for, while also making the case that it would be absurd to have armed security in schools (wow - 3 contradictions in 1 post - might be a new liberal record!)

Post #89 - continues to insists that having our nations leader - surrounded by the guns she has so much disdain for - is the greatest thing this nation could possibly do, citing "payback is no state funerals".

Post #97 - like most of his posts, this one is incoherent rambling, but she does manage to make one thing clear - she is dead set against guns in the home. So far, she is showing an irrational fear of an inanimate object in every single scenario, other than them being deployed around the president. How ******* odd that she would want something so dangerous surrounding his president.

Post #177 - tries to distort the 2nd Amendment (epic fail like everything else she does) in an attempt to make the case that people like her have the right to strip others of their right to have guns. Again, clearly has deep disdain for firearms, yet insists they should surround her president at all times

Post #203 - suggests making ONE model of firearm mandatory for all people, then outlawing every other single firearm in the world. Again, some serious anti-gun ideology while insisting guns should surround her president

Post #212 - states she would sign a petition immediately that would outlaw not only ALL firearms (yes, ALL), but also knives (wtf?!?! Now knives are an issue in this assholes mind). Again, still supports surrounding her president with something she would universally outlaw tomorrow

Post #232 - cites Ford Hood as proof that guns are bad - still wants them to completely surround her president at all times. Fails to see the irony that if trained military personnel could go "crazy" and start shooting people, the same thing could happen by a Secret Service agent (this is due to her remarkably low IQ).

Post #244 - after having to point out the irony that she cites Fort Hood to prove guns are bad while wanting her president surrounded by armed men who could go crazy at any moment and experience an incident like Fort Hood did, she states that "background checks and psych evals" are "probably" done. One, this kind of thinking shows an incredibly low IQ. We're dealing with a mental midget here. Two, the fact that she doesn't even know but states it any way is proof that she talks out of her ass 24x7.

Post #245 - cites Ford Hood once again, this time claiming that if guns couldn't prevent the tragedy on this base, it couldn't prevent a tragedy in a school. But somehow, she believes it WILL prevent a tragedy around the president (Note - this is the point where the insanity and the contradictions REALLy start piling up)

Post #250 - yet again, cites Ford Hood as "proof" that armed security will not keep a school safe, yet still believes it does keep her president safe

Post #253 - someone points out to her that soldiers at Ford Hood were in fact NOT allowed to carry firearms on the base - thus completely defeating her entire argument that this happens at places other than gun free zones. Rather than being a mature adult and acknowledging defeat, she instead goes on yet another incoherent rant that our nations military is comprised of nothing but degenerate psychopaths who need to be disarmed at all times (can you imagine how our military must feel providing freedom for assholes like this who use their freedom to just slander them?)

Post #286 - reaffirms her commitment to having "all national leaders" surround by the same firearms she wants to ban, has disdain for, etc. However, changes course slightly after her contradictions are being pointed out to her, and now says it would be a "waste of resources for 99.99999%" of schools to have armed security (so now it's not that it prevents the loss of life, it's just that it's a "waste" - ironic since liberals are ALL about wasting other people's money).

Post #290 - shows an incredible lack of understanding about our entire system, falsely stating that police can stop crime BEFORE it happens (while everyone knows your rights prevent you from being detained or arrested until AFTER you have committed a crime - which is why judges have to sign off on search warrants, arrest warrants, etc.). States that "police patrols" prevents crimes (then why do we have any crime in the U.S.?). Fails (once again) to see her contradiction. She claims the president needs to be surrounded by guns. She also claims that police patrols prevent crime. Well, if police patrols prevent crime, then the president is 100% safe on domestic soil.

Post #292 - reaffirms her astonishingly ignorant belief that "police patrols prevent crime".

Post #296 - shows remarkable ignorance stating that kids are completely safe at school (despite fatal massacre's at alarming rates) and then shows ZERO understanding of what a sociopath is (thinks it's someone who doesn't fear their own death )

Post #300 - shows disdain for guns yet again (300 posts later, still support those same guns she has disdain for surrounding her president, while also claiming that kids are safe because we have "police patrols" )

Post #303 - tells someone to "kill your teacher" (sad, but true)

Post #313 - goes on some incoherent ideological rant about paying more and more taxes will make everyone's life better and will "enhance our liberty" Talks about making eye contact with people and not reaching into your jacket to flip the safety off because of it (ie - believes we can someday have a utopia of harmony and peace - where no bad people exist).

 

[P@triot]

Think about how fast you'd drive on the freeway were there no potential for getting a ticket, then go from there. You might grow some of the braincells I lost reading your retarded rants.

Lets dumb this way down since I know you are slow. If police prevent crime - why do we still have crime?

 

[Borillar]

Just wondering

Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and that's just in my lifetime.

Wow, THREE whole people?!? And two of them didn't even die

More than 3 people are the victims of violent crime in any given 15 minute span in the U.S. and yet the left doesn't believe guns are justified for us "little, worthless people".

But 1 death by a U.S. president over the past 60+ years and by God a heavily armed team of security personnel is justified...

Fine. Next time a Republican becomes president, you can take away all his protection.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Pro tip: Republicans and Democrats work for the same CEOs.

 

[P@triot]

Kennedy, Ford, Reagan and that's just in my lifetime.

Wow, THREE whole people?!? And two of them didn't even die

More than 3 people are the victims of violent crime in any given 15 minute span in the U.S. and yet the left doesn't believe guns are justified for us "little, worthless people".

But 1 death by a U.S. president over the past 60+ years and by God a heavily armed team of security personnel is justified...

Fine. Next time a Republican becomes president, you can take away all his protection.

Actually, I fully support all U.S. presidents having complete Secret Service protection. My point was to illustrate the asinine hypocrisy of liberals who think that we shouldn't have guns as protection, yet they have no problems with the president being surrounded by guns for protection.

 

[Koios]

Think about how fast you'd drive on the freeway were there no potential for getting a ticket, then go from there. You might grow some of the braincells I lost reading your retarded rants.

Lets dumb this way down since I know you are slow. If police prevent crime - why do we still have crime?

Read again dumbfuck. "Most of what police do is prevent crime."

Without them, courts and penal institutions, crime rates would increase by MANY MULIPLES.

Are you really that ******* clueless?

 

[Koios]

A chronological timeline of the posts by the idiot known as Koios:

Post #57 - she shows extreme distain towards guns and the NRA, at the same time showing extreme support for having our president completely surrounded by the guns she shows so much disdain for, while also making the case that it would be absurd to have armed security in schools (wow - 3 contradictions in 1 post - might be a new liberal record!)

Post #89 - continues to insists that having our nations leader - surrounded by the guns she has so much disdain for - is the greatest thing this nation could possibly do, citing "payback is no state funerals".

Post #97 - like most of his posts, this one is incoherent rambling, but she does manage to make one thing clear - she is dead set against guns in the home. So far, she is showing an irrational fear of an inanimate object in every single scenario, other than them being deployed around the president. How ******* odd that she would want something so dangerous surrounding his president.

Post #177 - tries to distort the 2nd Amendment (epic fail like everything else she does) in an attempt to make the case that people like her have the right to strip others of their right to have guns. Again, clearly has deep disdain for firearms, yet insists they should surround her president at all times

Post #203 - suggests making ONE model of firearm mandatory for all people, then outlawing every other single firearm in the world. Again, some serious anti-gun ideology while insisting guns should surround her president

Post #212 - states she would sign a petition immediately that would outlaw not only ALL firearms (yes, ALL), but also knives (wtf?!?! Now knives are an issue in this assholes mind). Again, still supports surrounding her president with something she would universally outlaw tomorrow

Post #232 - cites Ford Hood as proof that guns are bad - still wants them to completely surround her president at all times. Fails to see the irony that if trained military personnel could go "crazy" and start shooting people, the same thing could happen by a Secret Service agent (this is due to her remarkably low IQ).

Post #244 - after having to point out the irony that she cites Fort Hood to prove guns are bad while wanting her president surrounded by armed men who could go crazy at any moment and experience an incident like Fort Hood did, she states that "background checks and psych evals" are "probably" done. One, this kind of thinking shows an incredibly low IQ. We're dealing with a mental midget here. Two, the fact that she doesn't even know but states it any way is proof that she talks out of her ass 24x7.

Post #245 - cites Ford Hood once again, this time claiming that if guns couldn't prevent the tragedy on this base, it couldn't prevent a tragedy in a school. But somehow, she believes it WILL prevent a tragedy around the president (Note - this is the point where the insanity and the contradictions REALLy start piling up)

Post #250 - yet again, cites Ford Hood as "proof" that armed security will not keep a school safe, yet still believes it does keep her president safe

Post #253 - someone points out to her that soldiers at Ford Hood were in fact NOT allowed to carry firearms on the base - thus completely defeating her entire argument that this happens at places other than gun free zones. Rather than being a mature adult and acknowledging defeat, she instead goes on yet another incoherent rant that our nations military is comprised of nothing but degenerate psychopaths who need to be disarmed at all times (can you imagine how our military must feel providing freedom for assholes like this who use their freedom to just slander them?)

Post #286 - reaffirms her commitment to having "all national leaders" surround by the same firearms she wants to ban, has disdain for, etc. However, changes course slightly after her contradictions are being pointed out to her, and now says it would be a "waste of resources for 99.99999%" of schools to have armed security (so now it's not that it prevents the loss of life, it's just that it's a "waste" - ironic since liberals are ALL about wasting other people's money).

Post #290 - shows an incredible lack of understanding about our entire system, falsely stating that police can stop crime BEFORE it happens (while everyone knows your rights prevent you from being detained or arrested until AFTER you have committed a crime - which is why judges have to sign off on search warrants, arrest warrants, etc.). States that "police patrols" prevents crimes (then why do we have any crime in the U.S.?). Fails (once again) to see her contradiction. She claims the president needs to be surrounded by guns. She also claims that police patrols prevent crime. Well, if police patrols prevent crime, then the president is 100% safe on domestic soil.

Post #292 - reaffirms her astonishingly ignorant belief that "police patrols prevent crime".

Post #296 - shows remarkable ignorance stating that kids are completely safe at school (despite fatal massacre's at alarming rates) and then shows ZERO understanding of what a sociopath is (thinks it's someone who doesn't fear their own death )

Post #300 - shows disdain for guns yet again (300 posts later, still support those same guns she has disdain for surrounding her president, while also claiming that kids are safe because we have "police patrols" )

Post #303 - tells someone to "kill your teacher" (sad, but true)

Post #313 - goes on some incoherent ideological rant about paying more and more taxes will make everyone's life better and will "enhance our liberty" Talks about making eye contact with people and not reaching into your jacket to flip the safety off because of it (ie - believes we can someday have a utopia of harmony and peace - where no bad people exist).

Wow. Most thoughtful yet brain dead rant yet. And all about me. I'm flattered.

Plus mildly entertained that I got your panties up your crack so far that no doubt it's difficult to swallow. Praise babyjesus, I'm having a banner week.

Now then, Rottie, I've an idea:

Grab some kids. Maybe ages 6 or 7, when intellectual curiosity and comprehension is beginning to develop. That way they can be of some assistance to you.

Next, head on down to your local police precinct. It'll be like a field trip! You can even get ice cream after, if maybe one of the kids brought lunch money.

Lastly, ask the Desk Sargent, "can you tell us about crime prevention that police do to keep us safer?"

Have fun!