Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 77975 times)

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1873
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1300 on: June 06, 2018, 11:03:39 PM »
Guns are not a net benefit to society and should be banned.  2nd Amendment repealed and everyone should hand in their guns.  Might take a little longer to get the balance of the guns from the criminals that break the law, but even those will be scooped up, eventually. 
Frugalite in training.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1301 on: June 06, 2018, 11:44:36 PM »

I’m actually not going to tell you you’re wrong, because I think you’ve mostly characterized what’s been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and won’t come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.


If I didn't believe firearms were a benefit to society, I'd have to support a complete ban. I think they are a major benefit to society, but need to be subject to some regulation. I've discussed the steps I'm willing to take, and they cover alot of what the gun control people want. There are some gun people who are unbending, just as there are some gun grabbers who won't accept anything less than a ban or some kind of crazy "no guns in your home, only in a state run locker where you can check it out for use on approved ranges" scheme I've heard thrown around in other conversations.

 I however, won't support things that are ineffective, purely symbolic, or will negate the positive aspects of firearm ownership. You seem to be of the mindset that "doing anything less than what I think is right is the same as doing nothing!" mindset.

Quote

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. I’d love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I don’t see that. I don’t want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how they’d all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

Well, you'll be glad to know that the odds of your child being killed in school by firearms are pretty low.... on average, there are 10 student fatalities per year, and about 55mm students. So, less than a .000018% chance of that happening per year... or a 1 in 5.5mm chance. I would say it's almost irresponsible to be getting everyone worked up about those kinds of odds, if they're not using drills or discussing what to do to avoid being killed on the walk to school, choking, or drowning in pools... all of which are orders of magnitude more likely to end you child's life than a school shooting.

Quote
I mean, I’d totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parent’s gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.

Great, I think it would be great to hold gun owners accountable for stopping thier guns from being used in a crime. Require all gun owners to provide proof that they have the means to secure their weapons. If they are negligent in doing so and their gun is used in a crime, then they face some penalties. The devil is in the details, but I generally agree with this. I'm not sure I'd arrest a parent for giving thier kid access to a gun, afterall the staggering majority of kids with access to guns use them responsibly... but I digress.

 I still think guns are a net benefit to society. I don't know why you're so stuck on this aspect of it... it doesn't preclude some sort of regulation.


Quote
Guns are not a net benefit to society and should be banned.

LOL... Citation, please.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1302 on: June 07, 2018, 05:16:20 AM »
Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?

If you look back a bit further ncornilsen stated that because he thinks guns are a net positive that doesn't mean he believes we should have more. So why would someone who believes they are a net negative in fact want to ban all of them, if applying the same logic? The question was contradictory to his own conclusions.

And I believe I covered pretty well why I don't see an item meant for the sole purpose maiming/killing living beings as some sort of net benefit to society. I believe it's immoral to assign variables (numbers) to grief. It's not something you can calculate. It's like finding 11 people that defended themselves with guns to cancel out the 10 kids killed in the latest school shooting. Is that how you want to justify this position? I shall hope not.

Quote
As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.

I believe you are conflating the two. They were brought up as means of demonstrating various degrees to which just having guns around increases ones likelihood of being involved in some gun related incident. Not exactly a net benefit. It doesn't have to be a homicide. If you want to pick and choose what's allowed in terms of gun related incidents, you'll always get the answer you want. It's a lot easier to second guess your suicide decision if you have a slit wrist or overdosed on some pills rather than putting a gun to your mouth and pulling the trigger. I have a family member who can personally attest to that.

Ok, I won't argue the point that ncornilsen made specifically that you're being illogical if you don't support banning them all. I will say I agree with the general thrust he and I made that we'd like you to put out specifics so I can have something to directly comment on and you don't have to keep accusing me of straw man arguments. So, I'll be direct: Ban all guns? Ban all semi-automatic guns? More middle of the road perspectives of magazine restrictions? Full registry of gun owners? What do you think?

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed. 

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1303 on: June 07, 2018, 06:39:34 AM »
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1304 on: June 07, 2018, 07:17:45 AM »

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed.

I don't understand your first point. Can you elaborate?

Very few (I never say none) of the people arguing for the need for home defense weapons would maintain that view if all they were theoretically protecting was their TV or other replaceable things. People who feel strongly about using guns for home defense feel that way because they think they are protecting themselves or their families.

Repealing the second is not synonymous with banning all guns. Personally I am in favor of repeal in theory but in reality I'm undecided. I think if we didn't have the 2nd amendment it would reframe the debate and GRA's wouldn't be able to argue that any proposed regulation is "unconstitutional". I don't think the constitution should enter into it. I'm undecided on whether we should push for repeal because I'm not sure the actions needed to successfully repeal are worth the long term results. I worry that even bringing it up will only serve to get certain groups more riled up and fearful that "they're taking our guns" and further push them into their corner.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 07:39:24 AM by Dabnasty »

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1305 on: June 07, 2018, 07:37:45 AM »
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.

And gun shootings are as well. Sort of. As has been discussed in detail, the statistics show you are much more likely to be killed by something mundane and boring and the chances of being shot are miniscule. On the other hand, it's not just the students who are shot that get hurt by these events, there is a significant emotional aspect. The chances of being at school when something like this happens are much higher, but still not huge. Whether the rate of incidence continues to increase is yet to be seen.

The question for me is, should we be doing this? First I would argue that we absolutely don't "have" to do this, but that's a word with a whole spectrum of meaning. So should we? I don't think we should, if that's what is causing stress for children and their parents, not to mention taking time away from studies. I could also see the argument that going through the motions makes some parents and kids feel better that they know what to do if it happens. Either way the question is more about psychology than practical application.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1306 on: June 07, 2018, 08:39:49 AM »
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.

And gun shootings are as well. Sort of. As has been discussed in detail, the statistics show you are much more likely to be killed by something mundane and boring and the chances of being shot are miniscule. On the other hand, it's not just the students who are shot that get hurt by these events, there is a significant emotional aspect. The chances of being at school when something like this happens are much higher, but still not huge. Whether the rate of incidence continues to increase is yet to be seen.

The question for me is, should we be doing this? First I would argue that we absolutely don't "have" to do this, but that's a word with a whole spectrum of meaning. So should we? I don't think we should, if that's what is causing stress for children and their parents, not to mention taking time away from studies. I could also see the argument that going through the motions makes some parents and kids feel better that they know what to do if it happens. Either way the question is more about psychology than practical application.
OK, but discounting with the first statement is not equivalent.  There is no way you can argue that getting shot is as low a likelihood as a nuclear warhead being launched at our city.  Everyone can clearly see the risk of a gun is higher no matter how you slice it.  Only countries have warheads whereas individuals have guns.  There are only like 100,000 warheads worldwide, and we have over 300 million guns just in the US.  Indicating that I should consider the worry the same is a poor defense and again smacks of GRA spin to downplay.  I get that getting shot may still be low but it is not that low to just take what I said and brush it off.

ETA:  Sorry, see this.  http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ 
Only 14,900 warheads in the whole world.  Please do not try to tell me the risk is the same.  You also ignored my comment that the threat is entirely different.  What I meant by that, is even my grade school mind could easily understand that no one would walk in the front door with a warhead so the drills were humorous.  They did not cause concern.  It is entirely plausible that someone can walk in the door with a gun.  When I moved into the house I live in now in August of 2011, we also were seriously considering moving to Chardon and almost did.  A few months later in February 2012 the high school their had a mass shooting.  It is not a big leap for my kids to see how easy it is to get shot in school.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 08:44:15 AM by caracarn »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1307 on: June 07, 2018, 08:47:09 AM »

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed.

I don't understand your first point. Can you elaborate?

Very few (I never say none) of the people arguing for the need for home defense weapons would maintain that view if all they were theoretically protecting was their TV or other replaceable things. People who feel strongly about using guns for home defense feel that way because they think they are protecting themselves or their families.

There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm. 


DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1308 on: June 07, 2018, 09:06:52 AM »
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17431320/betsy-devos-school-safety-guns

Quote
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has set up a commission to study school safety in the aftermath of mass shootings like the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Florida, in February. But on Tuesday, DeVos revealed that the commission will not study a key problem: guns.

“That is not part of the commission’s charge, per se,” DeVos told members of Congress.

We are truly living in the Idiocracy Presidency.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1309 on: June 07, 2018, 09:27:18 AM »
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.

And gun shootings are as well. Sort of. As has been discussed in detail, the statistics show you are much more likely to be killed by something mundane and boring and the chances of being shot are miniscule. On the other hand, it's not just the students who are shot that get hurt by these events, there is a significant emotional aspect. The chances of being at school when something like this happens are much higher, but still not huge. Whether the rate of incidence continues to increase is yet to be seen.

The question for me is, should we be doing this? First I would argue that we absolutely don't "have" to do this, but that's a word with a whole spectrum of meaning. So should we? I don't think we should, if that's what is causing stress for children and their parents, not to mention taking time away from studies. I could also see the argument that going through the motions makes some parents and kids feel better that they know what to do if it happens. Either way the question is more about psychology than practical application.
OK, but discounting with the first statement is not equivalent.  There is no way you can argue that getting shot is as low a likelihood as a nuclear warhead being launched at our city.  Everyone can clearly see the risk of a gun is higher no matter how you slice it.  Only countries have warheads whereas individuals have guns.  There are only like 100,000 warheads worldwide, and we have over 300 million guns just in the US.  Indicating that I should consider the worry the same is a poor defense and again smacks of GRA spin to downplay.  I get that getting shot may still be low but it is not that low to just take what I said and brush it off.

ETA:  Sorry, see this.  http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ 
Only 14,900 warheads in the whole world.  Please do not try to tell me the risk is the same.  You also ignored my comment that the threat is entirely different.  What I meant by that, is even my grade school mind could easily understand that no one would walk in the front door with a warhead so the drills were humorous.  They did not cause concern.  It is entirely plausible that someone can walk in the door with a gun.  When I moved into the house I live in now in August of 2011, we also were seriously considering moving to Chardon and almost did.  A few months later in February 2012 the high school their had a mass shooting.  It is not a big leap for my kids to see how easy it is to get shot in school.

I never said it was equivalent, but I do think you can reasonably make the same argument. As in, the risk is too low to spend our resources, time and emotional, on preparing for such an unlikely thing. While the chances of nuclear attack were less (maybe, it's kind of hard to say what the real % chance of this happening was because it's a situation of it happens or it doesn't, there is no statistical data) the cost would have been far greater. Not that the comparison is even relevant because like you said, the desk will not protect you*.

But since that's not a very useful analogy, I just go back to my main point. I don't agree that active shooter drills are something that children have to do. I mean, they do if the teacher tells them to, but should it be standard practice in our schools?

Personally, I've taken classes on active shooter scenarios. I think it's knowledge worth having but I also think it's highly unlikely that I ever use what I learn. I also think the practice is actually enjoyable, has other potential benefits outside of active shooter scenarios, and doesn't cause me psychological harm. It's my decision to learn and it doesn't impact my thoughts on how likely it is to happen. For kids being required to go through the drills, it's different. I can imagine that if I was told to participate in such drills as a middle schooler I would have thought "well, we're doing these drills to save our lives in a specific scenario so there must be a pretty good chance that it's going to happen".

So what is your opinion on the drills being conducted at your daughter's school? Obviously there has been a negative emotional impact, do you think that impact was worth her increased preparedness for an active shooter situation?

*I think. Maybe it depends on where you are in the blast radius?

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1310 on: June 07, 2018, 09:40:39 AM »
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17431320/betsy-devos-school-safety-guns

Quote
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has set up a commission to study school safety in the aftermath of mass shootings like the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Florida, in February. But on Tuesday, DeVos revealed that the commission will not study a key problem: guns.

“That is not part of the commission’s charge, per se,” DeVos told members of Congress.

We are truly living in the Idiocracy Presidency.

I can't disagree with your comment but I don't see how this commission or her comment are reasons to attack DeVos.

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 09:46:07 AM by Dabnasty »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1311 on: June 07, 2018, 09:52:23 AM »

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1312 on: June 07, 2018, 10:27:47 AM »

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.

In that case the inconsistency between the White House statement and the commission does seem worthy of some ridicule. I still take issue with the notion that gun violence is the root problem of school safety.

She also said "per se" which is a kind of bullshit response, but if I were to give the benefit of the doubt this could mean they will look at the issue from the side of protecting kids from guns but not changing gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. Right or wrong I don't see this as a source of outrage.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1313 on: June 07, 2018, 11:00:08 AM »

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed.

I don't understand your first point. Can you elaborate?

Very few (I never say none) of the people arguing for the need for home defense weapons would maintain that view if all they were theoretically protecting was their TV or other replaceable things. People who feel strongly about using guns for home defense feel that way because they think they are protecting themselves or their families.

There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3080
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1314 on: June 07, 2018, 11:02:17 AM »

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.

In that case the inconsistency between the White House statement and the commission does seem worthy of some ridicule. I still take issue with the notion that gun violence is the root problem of school safety.

She also said "per se" which is a kind of bullshit response, but if I were to give the benefit of the doubt this could mean they will look at the issue from the side of protecting kids from guns but not changing gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. Right or wrong I don't see this as a source of outrage.

Exactly.  I think the Gun Control Advocates look at this and think it should be a vehicle to promote an assault weapons ban or other gun control wet dreams; in reality, it should focus on how to prevent gun violence in schools, which is not the same as gun control.  It should explore school security measures and procedures, identifying early warning signs amongst potential shooters, that sort of thing. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1315 on: June 07, 2018, 11:45:13 AM »
There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.

I think what MasterStache is trying to say is that using a firearm to defend your property does not cancel out an innocent person being murdered with a firearm.  You seem to be making the assumption that any criminal that a firearm owner interacts with is planning to murder you, so any defensive gun use counts as a saved life in your book.  While I don't have the data to back it up, my guess would be that he's right.  In fact, I think some defensive gun uses could lead to more unnecessary loss of life.  For instance, a robber breaking in to steal a TV with no intent to murder anyone being killed in the process is still one more life lost to firearms.  Sure, it's more justifiable because he was committing a crime at the time of his death, but it's still an unnecessary loss of life.  So I don't think you can say one defensive use of a firearm equals one life saved and therefore as long as there are more defensive gun uses than innocents murdered firearms are a net benefit.

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1873
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1316 on: June 07, 2018, 01:07:23 PM »

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.

In that case the inconsistency between the White House statement and the commission does seem worthy of some ridicule. I still take issue with the notion that gun violence is the root problem of school safety.

She also said "per se" which is a kind of bullshit response, but if I were to give the benefit of the doubt this could mean they will look at the issue from the side of protecting kids from guns but not changing gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. Right or wrong I don't see this as a source of outrage.

Exactly.  I think the Gun Control Advocates look at this and think it should be a vehicle to promote an assault weapons ban or other gun control wet dreams; in reality, it should focus on how to prevent gun violence in schools, which is not the same as gun control.  It should explore school security measures and procedures, identifying early warning signs amongst potential shooters, that sort of thing.

Or, you know, just remove the death machines from the equation. 
Frugalite in training.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1317 on: June 07, 2018, 01:53:36 PM »
I never said it was equivalent, but I do think you can reasonably make the same argument. As in, the risk is too low to spend our resources, time and emotional, on preparing for such an unlikely thing. While the chances of nuclear attack were less (maybe, it's kind of hard to say what the real % chance of this happening was because it's a situation of it happens or it doesn't, there is no statistical data) the cost would have been far greater. Not that the comparison is even relevant because like you said, the desk will not protect you*.

But since that's not a very useful analogy, I just go back to my main point. I don't agree that active shooter drills are something that children have to do. I mean, they do if the teacher tells them to, but should it be standard practice in our schools?

Personally, I've taken classes on active shooter scenarios. I think it's knowledge worth having but I also think it's highly unlikely that I ever use what I learn. I also think the practice is actually enjoyable, has other potential benefits outside of active shooter scenarios, and doesn't cause me psychological harm. It's my decision to learn and it doesn't impact my thoughts on how likely it is to happen. For kids being required to go through the drills, it's different. I can imagine that if I was told to participate in such drills as a middle schooler I would have thought "well, we're doing these drills to save our lives in a specific scenario so there must be a pretty good chance that it's going to happen".

So what is your opinion on the drills being conducted at your daughter's school? Obviously there has been a negative emotional impact, do you think that impact was worth her increased preparedness for an active shooter situation?

*I think. Maybe it depends on where you are in the blast radius?
I've had active shooter training/drills at my place of employment.  They go through how you can either hide, flee or fight but due to liability they will not actually tell you which you should do.  They leave that up to you.  Talking with my daughter it is the same thing, or "listen to your teacher", who likely had the same non-training.  Before I got trained I knew I could hide, flee or fight.  I learned that when I was three playing hide and seek (or we did not include the fight part but certainly could have).  They do the training in school or at work to avoid lawsuits if something were to happen, to be able to say they did not ignore the risk.  The school is not at fault if a shooter shows up anymore than a bank is at fault if it is robbed, so suing them is stupid, but that does not stop people from doing it.  Asides from all that you are twisting this discussion into a line you want it to go, and one I'm not interested in. 

It is irrelevant what I think of the drills or if I think they should happen.  The point I was making is things have escalated to the point that we now even have to consider your questions, and that in the problem I am talking about.  You cannot argue that the risk of a school shooting has increased.  School just were not targets at the rate they are now, which is why we did not have those drills.  Police departments were not talking about this and not training their officers on how to take out active shooters, those were tactics reserved for SWAT teams and other specialists, because those events were "special" not common place enough to mandate the training.  You appear to be denying the shift and saying it is not there and we are just training because we want to, not because any change happened, but because we want to create some false sense of peril that it appears you are trying to convince me is not there.

What other beneficial situation benefits from active shooter training?  Are you talking about using what you learned on the weekend playing paintball with your friends?  Nothing I learned on active shooter training helps be shop for groceries, mow my lawn, fix my car or do anything else I do in life.  Hiding, fleeing or fighting someone who is trying to kill me is not a very transferable skill.  What exactly are you finding this useful for?

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1318 on: June 07, 2018, 02:23:59 PM »

I’m actually not going to tell you you’re wrong, because I think you’ve mostly characterized what’s been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and won’t come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.


If I didn't believe firearms were a benefit to society, I'd have to support a complete ban. I think they are a major benefit to society, but need to be subject to some regulation. I've discussed the steps I'm willing to take, and they cover alot of what the gun control people want. There are some gun people who are unbending, just as there are some gun grabbers who won't accept anything less than a ban or some kind of crazy "no guns in your home, only in a state run locker where you can check it out for use on approved ranges" scheme I've heard thrown around in other conversations.

 I however, won't support things that are ineffective, purely symbolic, or will negate the positive aspects of firearm ownership. You seem to be of the mindset that "doing anything less than what I think is right is the same as doing nothing!" mindset.

Quote

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. I’d love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I don’t see that. I don’t want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how they’d all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

Well, you'll be glad to know that the odds of your child being killed in school by firearms are pretty low.... on average, there are 10 student fatalities per year, and about 55mm students. So, less than a .000018% chance of that happening per year... or a 1 in 5.5mm chance. I would say it's almost irresponsible to be getting everyone worked up about those kinds of odds, if they're not using drills or discussing what to do to avoid being killed on the walk to school, choking, or drowning in pools... all of which are orders of magnitude more likely to end you child's life than a school shooting.

Quote
I mean, I’d totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parent’s gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.

Great, I think it would be great to hold gun owners accountable for stopping thier guns from being used in a crime. Require all gun owners to provide proof that they have the means to secure their weapons. If they are negligent in doing so and their gun is used in a crime, then they face some penalties. The devil is in the details, but I generally agree with this. I'm not sure I'd arrest a parent for giving thier kid access to a gun, afterall the staggering majority of kids with access to guns use them responsibly... but I digress.

 I still think guns are a net benefit to society. I don't know why you're so stuck on this aspect of it... it doesn't preclude some sort of regulation.

This is a good example of why I realize both sides aren’t going to come together any time soon. You really don’t understand why we are frustrated and want change. I do realize the odds are good my kid won’t be in a shooting situation. However, the drills and gun incidents elsewhere (there was actually a local elementary school blocks from our home where a kid brought a parent’s gun to school, and it’s very much still a topic of conversation around the school yard) are traumatizing on a different level. It makes our kids feel less safe in school, and feeds the anxiety beast that is already a problem in schools today.

Stopping the gun incidents is a whole lot more than just worrying your kid might end up dead. This is also why I oppose more cops in schools or arming more people there. Once again, it doesn’t do anything to solve the issue, but does make school seem like a scarier place.

I realize there are gun owners who support change. Unfortunately, most of them seem willing to accept *some* things, but only under duress if it has to happen. There will be zero encouraging politicians to support them. Which leaves only the gun control side asking for change. And the politicians continue to dance around the issue because the damn second amendment and fear of the gun owners who won’t accept anything but easier access to guns.


Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1319 on: June 07, 2018, 02:42:05 PM »
I never said it was equivalent, but I do think you can reasonably make the same argument. As in, the risk is too low to spend our resources, time and emotional, on preparing for such an unlikely thing. While the chances of nuclear attack were less (maybe, it's kind of hard to say what the real % chance of this happening was because it's a situation of it happens or it doesn't, there is no statistical data) the cost would have been far greater. Not that the comparison is even relevant because like you said, the desk will not protect you*.

But since that's not a very useful analogy, I just go back to my main point. I don't agree that active shooter drills are something that children have to do. I mean, they do if the teacher tells them to, but should it be standard practice in our schools?

Personally, I've taken classes on active shooter scenarios. I think it's knowledge worth having but I also think it's highly unlikely that I ever use what I learn. I also think the practice is actually enjoyable, has other potential benefits outside of active shooter scenarios, and doesn't cause me psychological harm. It's my decision to learn and it doesn't impact my thoughts on how likely it is to happen. For kids being required to go through the drills, it's different. I can imagine that if I was told to participate in such drills as a middle schooler I would have thought "well, we're doing these drills to save our lives in a specific scenario so there must be a pretty good chance that it's going to happen".

So what is your opinion on the drills being conducted at your daughter's school? Obviously there has been a negative emotional impact, do you think that impact was worth her increased preparedness for an active shooter situation?

*I think. Maybe it depends on where you are in the blast radius?
I've had active shooter training/drills at my place of employment.  They go through how you can either hide, flee or fight but due to liability they will not actually tell you which you should do.  They leave that up to you.  Talking with my daughter it is the same thing, or "listen to your teacher", who likely had the same non-training.  Before I got trained I knew I could hide, flee or fight.  I learned that when I was three playing hide and seek (or we did not include the fight part but certainly could have).  They do the training in school or at work to avoid lawsuits if something were to happen, to be able to say they did not ignore the risk.  The school is not at fault if a shooter shows up anymore than a bank is at fault if it is robbed, so suing them is stupid, but that does not stop people from doing it.  Asides from all that you are twisting this discussion into a line you want it to go, and one I'm not interested in. 

It is irrelevant what I think of the drills or if I think they should happen.  The point I was making is things have escalated to the point that we now even have to consider your questions, and that in the problem I am talking about.  You cannot argue that the risk of a school shooting has increased.  School just were not targets at the rate they are now, which is why we did not have those drills.  Police departments were not talking about this and not training their officers on how to take out active shooters, those were tactics reserved for SWAT teams and other specialists, because those events were "special" not common place enough to mandate the training.  You appear to be denying the shift and saying it is not there and we are just training because we want to, not because any change happened, but because we want to create some false sense of peril that it appears you are trying to convince me is not there.

What other beneficial situation benefits from active shooter training?  Are you talking about using what you learned on the weekend playing paintball with your friends?  Nothing I learned on active shooter training helps be shop for groceries, mow my lawn, fix my car or do anything else I do in life.  Hiding, fleeing or fighting someone who is trying to kill me is not a very transferable skill.  What exactly are you finding this useful for?

I'm definitely not arguing that the risk hasn't increased, it has. I'm arguing that the risk does not justify the emotion and fear that it has created. Going back to the beginning of this, the only reason I said anything was that several comments gave the idea that active shooter training in schools is a necessity and that in turn kids are scared and upset. I think the psychological cost outweighs the potential benefit.

Other benefits of training - situational awareness, body awareness (It was more of a general self defense class), and the general benefit of learning something new. I think learning is good for my mental wellbeing. Oh and it makes me feel slightly cooler than I am and let's me fantasize about being a hero :)
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 02:52:15 PM by Dabnasty »

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1320 on: June 07, 2018, 02:54:41 PM »
Oh and it makes me feel slightly cooler than I am and let's me fantasize about being a hero :)
Yes, and I think right here is a big reason a lot of people have a gun.  :) 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1321 on: June 07, 2018, 03:24:35 PM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

px4shooter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1322 on: June 07, 2018, 05:35:08 PM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1323 on: June 07, 2018, 08:54:46 PM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1324 on: June 08, 2018, 05:28:18 AM »
There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.

I think what MasterStache is trying to say is that using a firearm to defend your property does not cancel out an innocent person being murdered with a firearm.  You seem to be making the assumption that any criminal that a firearm owner interacts with is planning to murder you, so any defensive gun use counts as a saved life in your book.  While I don't have the data to back it up, my guess would be that he's right.  In fact, I think some defensive gun uses could lead to more unnecessary loss of life.  For instance, a robber breaking in to steal a TV with no intent to murder anyone being killed in the process is still one more life lost to firearms.  Sure, it's more justifiable because he was committing a crime at the time of his death, but it's still an unnecessary loss of life.  So I don't think you can say one defensive use of a firearm equals one life saved and therefore as long as there are more defensive gun uses than innocents murdered firearms are a net benefit.

Yep, pretty much! Apparently now it has evolved into you are probably going to die during an armed home invasion. Like GuitarStv said, fear sells. It doesn't have to be based on reality or even logical (defending yourself from a government). 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3080
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1325 on: June 08, 2018, 06:42:24 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1326 on: June 08, 2018, 07:03:07 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493

Yes, thats why so many restrictive gun controls were passed.  Like . . . uh . . . hmmm . . . none?

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1327 on: June 08, 2018, 09:04:05 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3080
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1328 on: June 08, 2018, 09:12:36 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493

Yes, thats why so many restrictive gun controls were passed.  Like . . . uh . . . hmmm . . . none?

Again with the goal post moves. 

Kris said it wasn't Obama's rhetoric, it was the other side claiming what Obama would do.  I pointed out rhetoric where Obama did in fact say he was interested in banning certain types of guns.

That's it. 

The fact that he didn't pass any legislation, likely because he realized he wouldn't be able to, is completely besides the point.  There was Obama rhetoric on increased regulation, which counters Kris's argument. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3080
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1329 on: June 08, 2018, 09:14:37 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Secret Stache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1330 on: June 08, 2018, 09:24:12 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made.

#MeToo

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1331 on: June 08, 2018, 10:10:13 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made.

#MeToo

So if you were fearful of the assault weapons ban I assume you purchased assault weapons in which case you would be breaking the law. The talk of "increasing gun laws" was based on expanding background checks, which is overwhelmingly supported (even by NRA members), and preventing folks on terror watch list from purchasing weapons. It makes me wonder which of these you were most afraid of? I mean none of these would have any impact on your typical law abiding gun owner.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3080
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1332 on: June 08, 2018, 10:21:10 AM »
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made.

#MeToo

So if you were fearful of the assault weapons ban I assume you purchased assault weapons in which case you would be breaking the law. The talk of "increasing gun laws" was based on expanding background checks, which is overwhelmingly supported (even by NRA members), and preventing folks on terror watch list from purchasing weapons. It makes me wonder which of these you were most afraid of? I mean none of these would have any impact on your typical law abiding gun owner.

Huh?  No.

Quote
On Monday, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett will host a mass conference call for the general public “about the need to renew the assault weapons ban and the different gun safety measures the Senate is set to vote on in the coming week.”

Vice President Joe Biden announced the call in a response to a petition on the White House’s “We the People” platform on Friday. The request for a ban on the AR-15 assault-style rifle was posted on Sunday, in the immediate aftermath of the Orlando shooting in which were 49 people were killed, and already had nearly 200,000 signatures by Friday.

“The president and I agree with you,” Biden wrote. “Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.”

Last time there was an AWB, it banned the production and sale of new so-called assault weapons.  So-called "pre-ban" guns were legal to possess and resell, and went up in value pretty significantly.  So the thought was, you can buy a firearm you thought would be outlawed, and either keep it because you couldn't replace it, or resell it at a pretty good markup.  Either way, you win. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1674
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1333 on: June 08, 2018, 11:05:11 AM »
That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made.
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands. Gun control laws, especially in poor areas, are incredibly repressive/regressive; removing or placing high barriers to the most effective means of defense available. Absolute arrogant madness. Guns don't kill people but stupid gun laws sure do.

#MeToo
#awesome
SWAMI
1 DW, 7 MiniMMMs + 1 getting baked, 1 'stache, many bicycles.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2670
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1334 on: June 08, 2018, 11:33:27 AM »
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1335 on: June 08, 2018, 01:57:02 PM »
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers. overall very law abiding.

That's a place to start, anyway.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 03:08:12 PM by ncornilsen »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1336 on: June 08, 2018, 02:06:44 PM »
There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.

I think what MasterStache is trying to say is that using a firearm to defend your property does not cancel out an innocent person being murdered with a firearm.  You seem to be making the assumption that any criminal that a firearm owner interacts with is planning to murder you, so any defensive gun use counts as a saved life in your book.  While I don't have the data to back it up, my guess would be that he's right.  In fact, I think some defensive gun uses could lead to more unnecessary loss of life.  For instance, a robber breaking in to steal a TV with no intent to murder anyone being killed in the process is still one more life lost to firearms.  Sure, it's more justifiable because he was committing a crime at the time of his death, but it's still an unnecessary loss of life.  So I don't think you can say one defensive use of a firearm equals one life saved and therefore as long as there are more defensive gun uses than innocents murdered firearms are a net benefit.

Yeah, I get what MS is saying. The problem is, MS is not comprehending what I did actually say.

I never said that one DGU=1life saved.  I do, and still make the assertion, that for everyone case where someone has been killed, there are as many or more cases where lives were saved. For every robbery at gunpoint,  there are as many or more prevented with a firearm. If you look at CDC figures for DGUs, even the LOW end estimates bear this out. Ergo, they are a net benefit. I've been going back and forth with MS about this for a while, but that individual I think, realizes what I am actually saying is correct... but decided to purposely misunderstand it so they can defeat a bad argument that I didn't make.

The latest post was me refuting this nonsense that "DGUs don't matter because they could have defended themselves other ways." I was merely explaining that in a case where someone is  intending physical harm, having a gun can at least put you on equal footing with the assailant... so it does infact weigh in favor of firearms. I also know that when you point out that a good portion of the murders, assaults, robberies, etc would happen with other weapons if guns weren't available, that's dismissed because "guns let them do it so much more effectively."  It works that way for defense, too.

Quote
Yep, pretty much! Apparently now it has evolved into you are probably going to die during an armed home invasion. Like GuitarStv said, fear sells. It doesn't have to be based on reality or even logical (defending yourself from a government).

For someone so quick to claim people were using 'strawmen' against them earlier in the thread, you sure are quick to throw up strawmen now. You're clearly trolling.  You bold 1 sentence to hide the context it was in... which was if you try to defend yourself from an intruder intending to harm you who has a firearm, using a fire poker... yeah, you're probably going to loose. that is not a statement that I think you are probably going to die in an armed home invasion.

Quote
I'm definitely not arguing that the risk hasn't increased, it has. I'm arguing that the risk does not justify the emotion and fear that it has created. Going back to the beginning of this, the only reason I said anything was that several comments gave the idea that active shooter training in schools is a necessity and that in turn kids are scared and upset. I think the psychological cost outweighs the potential benefit.

Some people don't have to argue it... they use data to show that the current risk is lower than at any point since the early 1990s... (but that with the Parkland shooting 2018 might be a year that upsets the trend.)
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

I googled this guy, and I can't seem to find anything to refute or change the context of this data. (except the "everytown" stuff, but they use a really misleading definition of school shooting to drive a pre-formed conclusion.)

Average deaths per year per million students, 1992 through 2000 school years: .30
Average deaths per year per million students, 2001 through 2007: .11
Average deaths per year per million students, 2008 through 2014 school years: .11

Quote
This is a good example of why I realize both sides aren’t going to come together any time soon. You really don’t understand why we are frustrated and want change. I do realize the odds are good my kid won’t be in a shooting situation. However, the drills and gun incidents elsewhere (there was actually a local elementary school blocks from our home where a kid brought a parent’s gun to school, and it’s very much still a topic of conversation around the school yard) are traumatizing on a different level. It makes our kids feel less safe in school, and feeds the anxiety beast that is already a problem in schools today.

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I don't intend to minimize the impact that the current level of school shootings has, but I do mean to counter this fear narrative from the left that they're getting drastically worse, and that the solution is restricting guns significantly. I also mean to say that the ramping up attention, the drills, assemblies, the constant attention on the issue is at best, creating excessive fear and at worse, might be contributing to it by keeping it at the forefront of the minds of individuals who might be inclined to do something like that.

Quote
Stopping the gun incidents is a whole lot more than just worrying your kid might end up dead. This is also why I oppose more cops in schools or arming more people there. Once again, it doesn’t do anything to solve the issue, but does make school seem like a scarier place.

I was fully on board with more police in schools until I saw data showing that all it did was turn common youthful indiscretions into life ruining criminal charges, and had no discernible effect on school shootings... so I'm coming around on this one.

Quote
I realize there are gun owners who support change. Unfortunately, most of them seem willing to accept *some* things, but only under duress if it has to happen. There will be zero encouraging politicians to support them. Which leaves only the gun control side asking for change. And the politicians continue to dance around the issue because the damn second amendment and fear of the gun owners who won’t accept anything but easier access to guns.

Most gun owners I know seem more than willing to accept some things that will make a difference, but not the symbolic, ineffective, or unreasonably onerous things  some propose.


« Last Edit: June 08, 2018, 03:02:02 PM by ncornilsen »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1337 on: June 08, 2018, 02:14:24 PM »
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers.

Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 719
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1338 on: June 08, 2018, 02:56:40 PM »
Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

Quote
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1084
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1339 on: June 08, 2018, 03:04:48 PM »
Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o

Quote
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

That's a completely unrelated claim/study.  Cool?
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 50k miles for $2k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 798
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1340 on: June 08, 2018, 03:07:16 PM »
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers.

Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

I didn't realize that had originated with Lott, or that it was flawed.
I am still convinced that CC holders are very much law abiding "good people with guns" but consider any comparison of that relative to police officers retracted until I find some other more credible source.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3080
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1341 on: June 08, 2018, 04:10:12 PM »
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers.

Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

But that is for cops charged, yes?  Isn’t the big gripe that crooked cops are never held accountable for their crimes?  So it would stand to reason they aren’t charged?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1873
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1342 on: June 08, 2018, 05:39:28 PM »

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world? 
Frugalite in training.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10892
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1343 on: June 08, 2018, 07:09:08 PM »

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world? 

Without a gun in your home, the US military under the orders of secret Muslim Kenyan Obama will invade your living room, turn your children communist, your dog gay, and your wife into a gay communist.  You're living under the sword of Damocles sheeple!

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1344 on: June 08, 2018, 07:16:02 PM »
I never said that one DGU=1life saved.  I do, and still make the assertion, that for everyone case where someone has been killed, there are as many or more cases where lives were saved.

So you did calculations that weren't actual calculations. And they were definitely not calculations in a since that they included weighing lives lost vs lives saved to arrive at some "net benefit." Except that's exactly what they were. Perhaps a mirror is your most logical "sparring" partner.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1345 on: June 09, 2018, 06:44:15 PM »

I’m actually not going to tell you you’re wrong, because I think you’ve mostly characterized what’s been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and won’t come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. I’d love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I don’t see that. I don’t want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how they’d all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

I mean, I’d totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parent’s gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.

Thanks for your response, TrudgingAlong. In this response, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth just express my feelings on part of the issue that may or may not even have much application to what you said. Please don't think that I'm thinking this is refuting what you said, I guess, is what I'm meaning. Just as you are expressing your feelings, I'm trying to as well although it may be a bit rambling.

The topic of the feelings of your children towards active shooter drills and shootings in general is something that's on my mind a lot recently, because my oldest child is about to start school for the first time in a couple of months. This has brought up thoughts about school shootings and the possibility of active shooter drills, and the like. However, when I think about it, I tend to think about things a little bit differently.

I guess I'll start with my whole perspective on fear and the like. I have trouble understanding the perpetual fear that I see people in when it comes to their physical safety. I know as I type this that many may give me crap about being a GRA while saying this, but it's true. It's frustrating that GCA people tend to think that all GRA people live in terror of bad things happening, which is why they have guns. Either that or they have fantasies of being Rambo and mowing down a horde of people trying to break into their house. I can honestly say (believe it or not) that I fit into neither of those categories. I do not live in fear of people breaking in at least in any way that I would define fear. By that, I mean, that I don't dwell on the possibility that someone could break in, and I would need to defend myself. The calculation for having versus not having a gun is based more on, as I've mentioned before, a weighing of two risks (harm coming because of it and benefit of having it), both of which I realize are remote. However, I see other people all the time that seem to be extremely preoccupied with fear of what could happen to them or their family in regards to the topic of guns or really in general. I have a close friend that mentions that when her husband and kids are riding together apart from her she is afraid because her whole life, as she termed it, is in that car, and something bad could happen to them. It plays out in all kinds of perspectives. This whole thing recently of people calling the police when they see someone who is a minority in some area just boggles my mind. They claim they are scared, and I dunno, if I give them the benefit of the doubt that at least some of them are actually scared (completely irrationally so, of course) and not all just total racist jerks, I have such a hard time understanding them. How does someone see someone else and just get scared because they are there? I don't get it. I can't think of one time in my life that I have been scared enough to call the police on someone because their very presence in a public area made me nervous... I have my own things I'm afraid of, but for whatever reason it's never been a general persistent fear that the lives of people I love will come to an abrupt end.

I'm dreading the day (if the school does these) when my child would come home scared to death of potential active shooters. I don't know for sure how I would respond to it. I do think that if it became a big enough issue and was handled in a way that engendered fear in what I felt was an unproductive way, I would probably talk to the school board about it. I don't like things being set up in a way that causes fear for something that has a remote possibility of happening. I mean, I don't think we even have tornado drills anymore, and those have actually happened in the area of my school before in the last few years or so.

I say this all with uncertainty, myself. All of this is encapsulated in the fact that I have also never been a victim or had anyone close be a victim of a violent crime. I've had a close family member die in an accident but never due to deliberate violence. How can I say to someone that has don't be afraid of it? How can I say to someone whose fears naturally align more to this than I do to not be afraid? I'm not sure, and I'm certainly not perfect. I do know of one thing, though. Even on the things that I do fear, when I am afraid of them, I don't like it. I don't want to be afraid or have people I care about afraid. I get frustrated when people try to make me afraid - easiest example to think of is the hyper risk inflated news where everything is going to kill you or get you or whatever.

None of this is to say there's not a problem. None of this is to say that there's not things we can do to help it. None of this is to say that all other GRA people are not afraid of bad guys and clinging to guns while living in fear. Just some thoughts in regards to how school shootings and drills for them inspire fear in kids in general and mine specifically, for what it's worth.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 133
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1346 on: June 11, 2018, 10:35:04 AM »
Wolfpack, I appreciate your response. It is hard to know how you’ll feel until it’s your kid. Mine were h8meschooled until this year, so I’m sure that has a lot to do with my feelings. Sandy Hook didn’t hit me really at all, even though I had kids the same age at the time, because we were out of country then. It’s just different when yours are in n the middle of it. I am not generally a fearful person, to be clear. I am mostly frustrated because to me, this is so much a gun owner/parenting problem. Gun owners who feel no need to lock up their weapons because “their kid is so responsible, and they’ve been taught so well to be around guns!”

Except kids are kids, no matter how much you teach them, or how much they have been perfect angels in the past. Mine, who are generally well behaved and people often tell me that, still surprise me at their shockingly bad choices. My oldest did something super mean to another child soon after starting school that shocked BOTH the teacher and myself. He was having unexpected transition issues, and acted in frustration. We addressed it, and happily have had no more issues. But, what if his moment had come while there were weapons around? What if he thought hey, maybe I’ll threaten them with this? That’s the kind of dumb shit kids do. They don’t think things though. They react, especially when puberty starts.

I think I take huge issue with this insistence that gun owners are pretty much all “law abiding”, so any law is an offense and unfair to them. All these kids with guns (Parkland a rare exception) are because of “law abiding” gun owners who think leaving weapons easily accessible to their kids is somehow responsible. Background checks won’t fix this, but going after those gun owners will. I get the feeling, though, that that kind of law is anathema to the whole “good guy with a gun” construct (god god I think that s such a stupid phrase...).

I’d also be very interested if your school board would care you were against shooter drills. Every school has them, I imagine because it’s become a liability issue not to do it.

Jrr85

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1347 on: June 11, 2018, 11:12:39 AM »

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one. 

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either. 

tyort1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1873
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1348 on: June 11, 2018, 12:08:34 PM »

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

Just pointing out that the "guns keep us safe argument" is based on false assumptions.  The world, especially the West, is the safest it's been in history.  And it's not "guns" keeping you safe - we see strong drops in crime across the boards, even in countries with little or no guns among the populace.  But I don't expect data to change your mind...

But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one.

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either.

Two things.  First, if someone is going to break into a house, if they think the owners are armed, they will simply bring their own guns and will also be much more likely to "shoot first, ask questions later".  The presence of guns escalates a simple b&e to a shootout and probable death.  Remove the guns and the b&e might still happen, but the chances of loss of life drop dramatically.

Second, if you talk to cops, like actual cops that work the street, you'll find that very often they are face with the same dilemma: "There's a greater than 50% chance that the suspect on the other side of this door is armed".  So they are also forced to "go in hot" as they say.  Which means they are more likely to shoot quickly out of the (quite correct) assumption that their lives are in immediate danger.

Don't you see how removing guns from the hands of EVERYONE (including the criminals) makes all of these situations safer?  Even for cops.  Especially for cops.  Don't you care about the lives of cops?  Because blue lives do matter.
Frugalite in training.

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #1349 on: June 11, 2018, 12:22:43 PM »

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

Just pointing out that the "guns keep us safe argument" is based on false assumptions.  The world, especially the West, is the safest it's been in history.  And it's not "guns" keeping you safe - we see strong drops in crime across the boards, even in countries with little or no guns among the populace.  But I don't expect data to change your mind...

But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one.

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either.

Two things.  First, if someone is going to break into a house, if they think the owners are armed, they will simply bring their own guns and will also be much more likely to "shoot first, ask questions later".  The presence of guns escalates a simple b&e to a shootout and probable death.  Remove the guns and the b&e might still happen, but the chances of loss of life drop dramatically.

Second, if you talk to cops, like actual cops that work the street, you'll find that very often they are face with the same dilemma: "There's a greater than 50% chance that the suspect on the other side of this door is armed".  So they are also forced to "go in hot" as they say.  Which means they are more likely to shoot quickly out of the (quite correct) assumption that their lives are in immediate danger.

Don't you see how removing guns from the hands of EVERYONE (including the criminals) makes all of these situations safer?  Even for cops.  Especially for cops.  Don't you care about the lives of cops?  Because blue lives do matter.

While I agree that removing guns from the interaction entirely makes it safer for everyone, I just want to comment on the bolded.

I think this assumption is very wrong. The vast majority of people breaking into homes are there to steal some stuff and get out. They are not there to hurt anyone or get hurt, if you raise the stakes of robbing someone to possibly being shot or shooting someone and getting a much harsher prison sentence, some, dare I say most, thieves would find another way.

That's not to say I feel strongly about the efficacy of self defense using a gun or whether I think the small chance that a gun may be used defensively makes their ownership worthwhile. I just think this is an incorrect assumption.