Florida High School Shooting

Page 106 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,735
48,396
136
Me too. I can't find any concrete numbers. I kind of think they want it this way for tactical reasons. Anyhow, there haven't been any deaths or injuries from this, so what's the problem???

How can a rational claim be made that there is no problem without having a handle on how many schools actually utilize such a program? Maybe a ton use it and we just don't know. Maybe there are no problems at all. Maybe there are a bunch of unreported problems.

Without more data on the subject I wouldn't be making the claims you're making.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
There’s no fear here, there’s just stats and logic. Teachers with guns are unlikely to prevent mass shootings and are more likely to have people be hurt through accidents.

It’s a dumb idea, objectively.

Proof? Stats and logic of people hurt by certified armed teachers? Maybe this is a thing.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
How can a rational claim be made that there is no problem without having a handle on how many schools actually utilize such a program? Maybe a ton use it and we just don't know. Maybe there are no problems at all. Maybe there are a bunch of unreported problems.

Without more data on the subject I wouldn't be making the claims you're making.

The burden of proof is on you. If this were a problem, a rational rebuttal would include stats and data. Do you have any, sir?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,735
48,396
136
The burden of proof is on you. If this were a problem, a rational rebuttal would include stats and data. Do you have any, sir?

lol

If you want to make a case for a program to be implemented citing "many" places where it's going well the burden of proof is not on me to define "many" with hard numbers.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
As you admitted, they’re rarely reported and no realistic data is available due to the NRA and republicans, it allows for claims to be made with no real data. Blame the NRA and republicans for no one being to state accurately.

Yes, the NRA and the Republicans suck ass. We are fucking united on this. If the most assholish gun-fearing people say that people defensively use guns almost 100,000x per year, it is a rational, objective belief that the actual number might be higher. As in 100,000 or more. Which counts as hundreds of thousands.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
There’s no fear here, there’s just stats and logic. Teachers with guns are unlikely to prevent mass shootings and are more likely to have people be hurt through accidents.

Teachers with guns have never hurt people through accidents. At worst you break even with teachers with guns. I want people to protect my kids. Why do you want my kids to be defenseless?
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
lol

If you want to make a case for a program to be implemented citing "many" places where it's going well the burden of proof is not on me to define "many" with hard numbers.

I asked you to tell me what the problem is. What has been the problem? Can you name me one single instance? You are freaking out over my kids being protected and you better fucking provide a good reason why.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,735
48,396
136
I asked you to tell me what the problem is. What has been the problem? Can you name me one single instance? You are freaking out over my kids being protected and you better fucking provide a good reason why.

I'm entirely calm and rational. Not sure about you.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
I asked you to tell me what the problem is. What has been the problem? Can you name me one single instance? You are freaking out over my kids being protected and you better fucking provide a good reason why.
How’d the armed deputy do in this shooting?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If you're concerned about what a "reasonable person" looks at, then you might want to look at how political conservatives in general, and Trump supporters especially, prioritize things. Trump campaigned first on banning all Muslims from entering the country, later suggested that we register all Muslims the way the Nazis registered all Jews, then after elected, he focused on a selective ban of immigrants from certain Muslim countries. He also doesn't want to admit any refugees from war torn countries like Syria, claiming that they pose a significant terrorist risk. Islamic terrorists kill at most about 100 people a year in this country. Yet recent polls show that republican voters place terrorism as the single most important issue in America today.

And Trump's rationale for building a wall which will cost tens of billions in tax payer money by any reasonable estimate - we are constantly told that illegal immigrants are responsible for terrible crimes in this country even though it appears that they commit violent crimes at no greater rate than citizens. Don't even bother making economic arguments against illegal immigration because if these arguments stood up on their own, there'd be no need to fear monger over crime and terrorism, would there?

The fact is, conservatives consistently prioritize any problems they think are caused by people who are either a) non-white, or b) non-Christian, and accordingly they are very easily manipulated by shysters like Trump.

If you think liberals are being irrational in putting too much emphasis on the impact of mass shootings, you might want to look at cleaning up your own backyard first because there are some very serious problems there. At least the liberals who are passionate about gun control aren't focusing only on targeting certain disfavored sub-groups. They may be misguided in their reasoning and cost-benefit analysis, but at least they aren't being hateful pieces of crap.

I already oppose conservatives’ efforts for those things. Muslim and refugee bans are stupid, as is a wall (except perhaps in very limited spots where safety is a concern). I also differ with many progressives in wanting immigration quotas raised much higher as well as being generally opposed to their propensity towards nanny state bans like against Happy Meal toys, attempting to ban uncomfortable speech, and widespread bans against firearms almost never used in mass shootings or intentional homicide period.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
I'm entirely calm and rational. Not sure about you.

OK I'll repeat, in great hopes that you will actually respond: I asked you to tell me what the problem is. What has been the problem? Can you name me one single instance? You are freaking out over my kids being protected and you better fucking provide a good reason why.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
I posted this in the other FL thread:

Pro gun guys just don’t seem to hear the people, they (the people) want less guns, not more. They don’t want armed teachers, they want no reason to need them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
Probably as well as an inexperienced armed cop would do. Better than someone without a weapon would do.

Your main problem here seems to be that you’re arguing based on things you intuitively believe to be true without any actual evidence that they are true.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
Higher firearms availability is associated with higher firearm injury and death. You made a claim it would do otherwise so back it up.

You are making the claim that armed guards cause more firearm injury and death. Your claim states that people who guard themselves with certified, trained armed guards make themselves less safe. Why do our smartest, most important people guard themselves with armed professionals? Why should we not guard our children with the best?
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
You are making the claim that armed guards cause more firearm injury and death. Your claim states that people who guard themselves with certified, trained armed guards make themselves less safe. Why do our smartest, most important people guard themselves with armed professionals? Why should we not guard our children with the best?
We’re all those Secret Service able to stop one man from shooting Reagan?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
I also find it amusing how often pro-gun people accuse anti-gun people of arguing based on emotion when the anti-gun argument is tens of thousands of deaths without commensurate benefit and the pro gun argument is freedom.

The total lack of self awareness is impressive.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,987
807
136
Your main problem here seems to be that you’re arguing based on things you intuitively believe to be true without any actual evidence that they are true.

The same thing could be said of you. I said an armed guard could not possibly react worse in a school shooting than an unarmed guard. I have challenged people to prove otherwise. So far, nobody has stepped up with the actual evidence. Intuitive arguments can be valid. Kind of like "common sense" gun laws. Common sense is a thing. If you want to argue that an armed guard is more dangerous than a teacher, then YOU must provide the evidence. Provide it now, please.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
You are making the claim that armed guards cause more firearm injury and death. Your claim states that people who guard themselves with certified, trained armed guards make themselves less safe. Why do our smartest, most important people guard themselves with armed professionals? Why should we not guard our children with the best?

Stop attempting to equate armed teachers with professional security. This is ridiculous nonsense and you know it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,239
55,791
136
The same thing could be said of you. I said an armed guard could not possibly react worse in a school shooting than an unarmed guard. I have challenged people to prove otherwise. So far, nobody has stepped up with the actual evidence. Intuitive arguments can be valid. Kind of like "common sense" gun laws. Common sense is a thing. If you want to argue that an armed guard is more dangerous than a teacher, then YOU must provide the evidence. Provide it now, please.

I don’t think you understand how evidence works. Nobody has to DISPROVE your statement, you have to prove it. Empirical evidence already shows that increased gun availability leads to increased risk of gun homicide, so if you’re going to argue the opposite it’s on you.

This attempt to shift the burden of proof is transparent nonsense. You have the burden of proof as it’s your idea.