Florida High School Shooting

[fskimospy]

I've suggested banning or highly restricting two calibers of pistol and limiting one semi-automatic platform to use only at ranges. You've called for the outright ban of all firearms except shotguns. How you think these are "almost identical policies" makes me question your grip on reality.

How you think your policy, which is a subset of mine, would be effective in reducing murder but mine would not be makes me question your grip on reality. It's just incomprehensible.

 

[momeNt]

It's completely ludicrous. The same people who tout 'training, training, training' for gun owners, gun ownership, gun fears, etc, are now stating that we need thousands of untrained teachers with hand cannons. My sister-in-law is a HS teacher, she spends about 14 hours a day in some way, shape, or form, doing work related to her teaching duties. Beyond not having *time* to hit the range, she's like 115 pounds soaking wet. I probably could have overpowered her by 7th grade or so.

Cruz was 130 lbs. I don't see what your point is?

 

[jackstar7]

Just imagine the assholes showing up armed to parent-teacher conferences because they know the teacher is armed!

 

[fskimospy]

It's completely ludicrous. The same people who tout 'training, training, training' for gun owners, gun ownership, gun fears, etc, are now stating that we need thousands of untrained teachers with hand cannons. My sister-in-law is a HS teacher, she spends about 14 hours a day in some way, shape, or form, doing work related to her teaching duties. Beyond not having *time* to hit the range, she's like 115 pounds soaking wet. I probably could have overpowered her by 7th grade or so.

Yes. I mean look at all the times police officers and others panic in shooting situations and do something stupid, and these people are trained for this and do it as their full time job! This isn't a slam on police, it's just to show how hard those situations really are to deal with. Now you're going to take a teacher, who has an entirely separate full time job and little training, and have them armed with a deadly weapon so they can take down a would-be shooter? This is a fantasy. The most likely outcome from this is that teachers mistakenly (or purposefully!) injure or kill far more students than they save.

Also if my teachers in high school had been armed I would probably be dead now, haha. God, I was such a little shit.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Cruz was 130 lbs. I don't see what your point is?

My point regarding weight is that if a student so inclined, decided they wanted to surprise my SIL and take her firearm, there's not likely anything she could do about it. That's different from an active shooter with rifle drawn tearing through hallways.

My point regarding the rest, I feel, is self-explanatory. Arming untrained (and logistically un-trainable) faculty for an accepted active shooter scenario is goddamned Idiocracy-level retarded.

 

[woolfe9998]

As you know, the likely answer is no. People latch onto issue that are not always the most important to their stated goals. For example, guns have a lower impact than violence and income, yet here we are talking about reducing guns even though it has less of an impact. Go figure.

What I really want to know is that for all of your cost-benefit analysis, do you actually see no moral difference between a death due to murder and a death due to clogged arteries? By that logic, the executives and shareholders of the McDonald's corporation should be held way more criminally liable than say, Ted Bundy, because they've "killed" way more people, right?

Has it occurred to you that violent crime and terrorism cause public fear and disquiet, and this is a negative impact beyond the mere number of deaths? By your logic and the logic of many others posting here, 9/11 with was an INSIGNIFICANT event because we probably lost more people in a single week due to heart disease.

Perhaps it matters how people are dying, not just that they are dying? Or is that not a concept you recognize?

 

[momeNt]

My point regarding weight is that if a student so inclined, decided they wanted to surprise my SIL and take her firearm, there's not likely anything she could do about it. That's different from an active shooter with rifle drawn tearing through hallways.

My point regarding the rest, I feel, is self-explanatory. Arming untrained (and logistically un-trainable) faculty for an accepted active shooter scenario is goddamned Idiocracy-level retarded.

If teachers are untrainable from a logistical standpoint, how can you possibly advocate any sort of firearm safety and / or use training in order to own a gun in the first place? I'm at a loss on that point.

As to your point about the overpowering, I now better understand what you meant.

 

[realibrad]

Middle class/suburban is the typical term I think, though it depends on what you're targeting. For instance, when 'white culture' is referenced in regards to financial, it's probably middle class/suburban. When referenced in regards to say, opioid epidemic, it's probably lower-income urban or inner-city.

But if I did that for something like heroin use, it would be misleading to use middle class/suburban. That would be inaccurate.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If teachers are untrainable from a logistical standpoint, how can you possibly advocate any sort of firearm safety and / or use training in order to own a gun in the first place? I'm at a loss on that point.

As to your point about the overpowering, I now better understand what you meant.

Is he actually saying that women shouldn't be allowed to be firefighters, police officers or combat soldiers because they don't have the strength to be safe?

 

[Pens1566]

If teachers are untrainable from a logistical standpoint, how can you possibly advocate any sort of firearm safety and / or use training in order to own a gun in the first place? I'm at a loss on that point.

As to your point about the overpowering, I now better understand what you meant.

I think there's a difference between training a teacher or staff member to handle school shooting situations and training required to safely use a handgun like the general public. Two very different situations entirely.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What I really want to know is that for all of your cost-benefit analysis, do you actually see no moral difference between a death due to murder and a death due to clogged arteries? By that logic, the executives and shareholders of the McDonald's corporation should be held way more criminally liable than say, Ted Bundy, because they've "killed" way more people, right?

Has it occurred to you that violent crime and terrorism cause public fear and disquiet, and this is a negative impact beyond the mere number of deaths? By your logic and the logic of many others posting here, 9/11 with was an INSIGNIFICANT event because we probably lost more people in a single week due to heart disease.

Perhaps it matters how people are dying, not just that they are dying? Or is that not a concept you recognize?

The way I personally feel regarding t his is that yes, there's no moral difference. IF and only if, the argument is couched as saving lives (overall), then my counter-argument is always going to be a nice, amoral cost-benefit analysis regarding different causes of death and ways to prevent them. If you want to present an argument regarding overall violent culture, and ways in which that can be addressed, that may include abolishment of 2A and confiscation of all firearms, if compelling evidence could be presented that it's a necessary and prudent step.

That's just me though, most don't agree with me I don't think.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Because its culture, not biology. That is why I said that from the start.
Is there some other term you would like to use other than White Culture?
So what term would you like to use? If there is a more accurate one I would be more than glad to use it.

That is kind of the point. You have to find out what the real connection is. You can't just use any correlation and call it the problem. If you do that you are missing the point. If we say it is 'white culture' that is causing heroin use would banning Pumpkin Spice reduce the amount of heroin usage? Is that a method we should peruse? Because linking it to 'White culture' certainly make it seem that way.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If teachers are untrainable from a logistical standpoint, how can you possibly advocate any sort of firearm safety and / or use training in order to own a gun in the first place? I'm at a loss on that point.

There's a difference between someone who takes up a hobby they wish to pursue, and have time to do so, and someone who's compelled to perform an action by their work, or due to lack of appropriate steps taken to prevent said requirement (defacto requirement through lack of legislation).

 

[realibrad]

What I really want to know is that for all of your cost-benefit analysis, do you actually see no moral difference between a death due to murder and a death due to clogged arteries? By that logic, the executives and shareholders of the McDonald's corporation should be held way more criminally liable than say, Ted Bundy, because they've "killed" way more people, right?

You first mistakenly believe that I think death by gun is the same as death by obesity. I don't which is why I brought up that example before. Both cause deaths but obesity causes way more. Understanding the differences helps form a coherent argument which would help, in my opinion, give answers on how to deal with the problem(s).

Has it occurred to you that violent crime and terrorism cause public fear and disquiet, and this is a negative impact beyond the mere number of deaths? By your logic and the logic of many others posting here, 9/11 with was an INSIGNIFICANT event because we probably lost more people in a single week due to heart disease.

I believe you have built an argument in your head not based on what my point was. 9/11 was significant in large part due to people over reacting. It was a major event, but terrorism generally is over valued by far too many. It should have resources, but not even close to what it has even considering how people react to terrorist incidents.

Perhaps it matters how people are dying, not just that they are dying? Or is that not a concept you recognize?

Yep, and that was the point in bringing up obesity vs guns. Both cause deaths, but if you only look at that, you will miss something that I consider important.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Is he actually saying that women shouldn't be allowed to be firefighters, police officers or combat soldiers because they don't have the strength to be safe?

No dingleberry, I'm saying my lightweight art-teacher SIL shouldn't be armed in a classroom with two dozen 150-240lb 17yo males, in the event one decides they'd like to own a new gun today.

 

[realibrad]

That is kind of the point. You have to find out what the real connection is. You can't just use any correlation and call it the problem. If you do that you are missing the point. If we say it is 'white culture' that is causing heroin use would banning Pumpkin Spice reduce the amount of heroin usage? Is that a method we should peruse? Because linking it to 'White culture' certainly make it seem that way.

Again, that is not the argument I made. I said you should look at what influences the group(s) to see what is causing it. You are arguing against a position that is antithetical to what I said. You can use correlation to help guide you to causes, but you must identify causes.

 

[woolfe9998]

The way I personally feel regarding t his is that yes, there's no moral difference. IF and only if, the argument is couched as saving lives (overall), then my counter-argument is always going to be a nice, amoral cost-benefit analysis regarding different causes of death and ways to prevent them. If you want to present an argument regarding overall violent culture, and ways in which that can be addressed, that may include abolishment of 2A and confiscation of all firearms, if compelling evidence could be presented that it's a necessary and prudent step.

That's just me though, most don't agree with me I don't think.

So selling someone enough big macs to kill them is the same as shooting them in the head? I think that's total lunacy but at least you're being consistent here. All this focus on murder and terrorism is misplaced. In reality, they should never even be discussed by politicians because they just aren't statistically important. Good. No more fear mongering about terrorism and crime from the political right then?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So selling someone enough big macs to kill them is the same as shooting them in the head? I think that's total lunacy but at least you're being consistent here. All this focus on murder and terrorism is misplaced. In reality, they should never even be discussed by politicians because they just aren't that statistically important. Good. No more fear mongering about terrorism and crime from the political right then?

I'd *personally* love a halt to fear mongering over terrorism and crime, as an overarching focus of our country. I'd rather us focus on statistically significant drivers of change, like social/economic inequality, violent culture as a whole, etc.

 

[boomerang]

Great response! I look forward to more thoroughly-thought out responses from you in the future!

You should try to read between the lines. Your investigative work has no value for me. It's a revelation to you and a non-issue to me. The NRA did not conform to a methodology you find to be more worthy. That's a big yawner for me.

 

[realibrad]

So selling someone enough big macs to kill them is the same as shooting them in the head? I think that's total lunacy but at least you're being consistent here. All this focus on murder and terrorism is misplaced. In reality, they should never even be discussed by politicians because they just aren't statistically important. Good. No more fear mongering about terrorism and crime from the political right then?

You are still missing what is being said. Its the same if and only if your premise is that deaths is only metric you are going to measure.

IF and only if, the argument is couched as saving lives (overall), then my counter-argument is always going to be a nice, amoral cost-benefit analysis regarding different causes of death and ways to prevent them

 

[momeNt]

No dingleberry, I'm saying my lightweight art-teacher SIL shouldn't be armed in a classroom with two dozen 150-240lb 17yo males, in the event one decides they'd like to own a new gun today.

What's protecting her from any number of types of assaults that 15-240lb 17-year old males could also commit against her? Not saying that a gun would protect her in those scenarios, but she appears to be at the mercy of her students with or without the gun no?

Besides, permitting teachers to carry would be voluntary. Do you know if she even wants to carry in class?

 

[IronWing]

You should try to read between the lines. Your investigative work has no value for me. It's a revelation to you and a non-issue to me. The NRA did not conform to a methodology you find to be more worthy. That's a big yawner for me.

Lie to me, I promise I'll believe
Lie to me, but please don't leave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn3oTICeZUE

 

[Pens1566]

What's protecting her from any number of types of assaults that 15-240lb 17-year old males could also commit against her? Not saying that a gun would protect her in those scenarios, but she appears to be at the mercy of her students with or without the gun no?

Besides, permitting teachers to carry would be voluntary. Do you know if she even wants to carry in class?

It's more about the aftermath of the attack/assault if she had the gun. Now, she's in danger. Arm teachers, and everyone is in danger after that 17yr old knocks her out and takes the gun.

 

[glenn1]

How you think your policy, which is a subset of mine, would be effective in reducing murder but mine would not be makes me question your grip on reality. It's just incomprehensible.

Because people actually get killed in statistically relevant numbers with the types of guns I want to ban. Whereas you want to allow shotguns which are used in homicide more often than rifles. If you want to just ban guns your plan is great, if you want to actually reduce homicides and mass shootings by pretty much the same amount while still limiting the impact on the 2nd amendment and peoples' abilities to use guns for actually valid purposes (like wildlife protection) then my plan is far superior to yours in every way.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

What's protecting her from any number of types of assaults that 15-240lb 17-year old males could also commit against her? Not saying that a gun would protect her in those scenarios, but she appears to be at the mercy of her students with or without the gun no?

Besides, permitting teachers to carry would be voluntary. Do you know if she even wants to carry in class?

Nothing prevents it, a gun would just make her more of a target for the type of person willing to do it.

It's voluntary unless it's deemed necessary by either the board or herself, just for self protection. Escalation is a terrible response in this situation.