Florida High School Shooting

[fskimospy]

I'm all for ending the war on drugs, which coincidentally enough, would drastically reduce the data point you've removed from the stats. Also, I find it interesting that the data starts in 2000 and ends in 2014. Conveniently excluding Columbine and the recent rash of high casualty events while including the Brevik shooting.

Also, removing the segments of American society most prone to violence and then comparing it to Europe societies as a whole is a great example of misleading people with statistics. Why are we leaving in their most violent constituencies while removing our own? It makes no logical sense other than to arrive at a preferred outcome.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think it's a reasonable question to ask if the near-certain knowledge there won't be anyone armed at a school (because of "schools are a gun free zone" laws), the likely lack of any armed opposition makes a school a more inviting target for a would-be shooter.

My quick scorecard for the idea of "arming teachers to prevent mass shootings"

On the pro-side of the argument:

• We put armed air marshals on planes to provide a deterrent and it seems to work (not many hijackings lately) so we do have at least one proof of concept
• It makes intuitive sense that shooters would avoid places having lots of people with guns, such as police stations and gun stores, and indeed relatively few shootings do seem to occur in these places
• If we just used existing CCW permits holders who volunteered, it would be relatively cheap and fast to implement compared to alternatives (like getting Congress to pass new laws)

On the con side of the argument:

• Plenty of other places are likewise pretty devoid of guns (e.g. hospitals, churches, etc) and yet these places don't seem to be targeted for mass shootings, so link of "gun free zone = more shootings" seems tenuous at best
• The logistics and legalities of arming teachers as a policy seem daunting if not nigh impossible to implement at scale
• It's unclear the concept that teachers would be an effective deterrent or stop an active shooter, could make situations worse

Counterpoints:
Hijackings, prior to 9/11, weren't suicidal. Air marshals are/were a good deterrent to a hijacker looking for some (perceived) easy money, but nowadays a hijacking is just as likely to fail due to the passengers on board bull-rushing a would-be hijacker as anything else. That doesn't happen in schools, and this leads me to point two...
School shooters are usually suicidal, and as such I doubt they'll care much about resistance. You say shooters would avoid places with lots of guns, yet we have gang shootings every day, and those tend to include plenty of guns.

There has been at least one church mass shooting, but you're right that most places aren't targeted. You'll notice it's mostly social gathering places, especially ones including youth. Not hard to find the connection there.
I agree with your con's assessment far more than your pro's.

 

[fskimospy]

It is not easy to find a shooter within a crowd of fleeing people. Even more so, you want young people with education degrees to perform headshots whilst minimizing collateral damage with ice water in their veins under the threat of their own lives. Why not ask NBA players to write quantum physics papers?

These are the same idiots who thought the Aurora shooting would have been helped by more people in the audience with guns. Yes, I’m sure adding in a half dozen additional largely untrained shooters to a dark, chaotic environment filled with smoke, a loud movie, and a hundred or more running and screaming people would have really helped. No way more innocent people end up getting shot there. No sir!

I’m still waiting for one example of gun violence from gun nuts like Taj where they will admit fewer guns rather than more guns is the answer. Just one.

 

[glenn1]

Also, removing the segments of American society most prone to violence and then comparing it to Europe societies as a whole is a great example of misleading people with statistics. Why are we leaving in their most violent constituencies while removing our own? It makes no logical sense other than to arrive at a preferred outcome.

Because people like you are the ones driving for universal solutions. It’s pretty obvious if you look at the actual stats the across the board restrictions you call for would do basically nothing to stop the problems you cite. A rancher in Montana with his .17 Marlin used to protect his livestock from coyotes isn’t the cause of school shootings.

If we banned .25 and .32 caliber pistols that would stop a huge majority of typical homicides. Restrict AR-15 style “assault weapons” to range use only and the bulk of mass shootings go away. Implement a free “universal background check” and the problem of people just giving away Grandpa’s old .38 revolver because the FFL background check would cost more than the firearm is worth goes away. Etc.

 

[mdram]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...fter_denying_question_about_armed_guards.html

 

[realibrad]

Also, removing the segments of American society most prone to violence and then comparing it to Europe societies as a whole is a great example of misleading people with statistics. Why are we leaving in their most violent constituencies while removing our own? It makes no logical sense other than to arrive at a preferred outcome.

Then it seems like less of a gun issue, and more of a culture issue with the group that was removed. The US has far more Blacks and Hispanics and so excluding those should help understand the differences. As you earlier qualified that this discussion is not about mass shootings but all gun deaths, then it would seem that examining the data for things like this would be helpful. So if you exclude groups x and y and then find that your data greatly changes, then its a good bet that you need to focus your efforts on x and y in terms of gun deaths.

 

[pmv]

The bump-stock thing does seem, to my inexpert eye, to be a bit of a non-issue. On that one I don't disagree with the pro-gun fanatics, that it doesn't really make firearms significantly more deadly. The fact it was only used in one mass shooting out of a far larger number seems to emhasise that.

On the backround checks, I can only assume Trump is hoping one popular prejudice trumps another. i.e. that his base will be more preduced against the mentally ill than they are absolutist about gun rights.

 

[realibrad]

The bump-stock thing does seem, to my inexpert eye, to be a bit of a non-issue. On that one I don't disagree with the pro-gun fanatics, that it doesn't really make firearms significantly more deadly. The fact it was only used in one mass shooting out of a far larger number seems to emhasise that.

On the backround checks, I can only assume Trump is hoping one popular prejudice trumps another. i.e. that his base will be more preduced against the mentally ill than they are absolutist about gun rights.

A few weeks after the LV thing, I was talking to an in-law who was in the Military and enjoys guns. He said the first time he saw a bump-stock he thought there was no way they keep it legal for long. He was surprised that they were around for so long. He said that even though it was simple and easy to do yourself, that the optics of making a gun fire more like an automatic would be enough to get it outlawed.

Now that its more of a known thing, I would bet that you see one get used again at some point. Most people simply do not know about them. If the purpose of a gun in these instances is to increase death, then why would you not want to use something like this now that you know of it?

 

[boomerang]

I'll just throw this out there and leave you all to your collective insanity.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/nra-money-isnt-why-gun-control-efforts-are-failing-commentary.html

My specific point about posting the link is about your comment about NRA cash donations.

And btw, I'm not a member of the NRA

Quoted in hopes that your post won't be ignored. But unfortunately the same people that like scripted town halls put on by CNN will continue to rail against the NRA because of reasons provided by the media. Reality is a good basis for instituting change. Fabricated feel-good rah-rah bullshit hasn't accomplished anything to date. I fully expect the fabricated bullshit to continue and for it to be accepted as the gospel.

"Of course, the NRA does spend money and it does have a sophisticated and persistent messaging operation. But so do dozens of other organizations and causes. So, how does the NRA stack up against them?

Not too well. The NRA, gun makers, and gun rights issues do not even show up on the OpenSecrets website lists for top lobbying firms, top lobbying sectors, top lobbying issues, or top lobbying industries for the years 1998-2017."

I also, am not an NRA member.

 

[glenn1]

A few weeks after the LV thing, I was talking to an in-law who was in the Military and enjoys guns. He said the first time he saw a bump-stock he thought there was no way they keep it legal for long. He was surprised that they were around for so long. He said that even though it was simple and easy to do yourself, that the optics of making a gun fire more like an automatic would be enough to get it outlawed.

Now that its more of a known thing, I would bet that you see one get used again at some point. Most people simply do not know about them. If the purpose of a gun in these instances is to increase death, then why would you not want to use something like this now that you know of it?

I'm guessing because a bump stock creates an additional risk of jamming or otherwise making your weapon non-operational. Quick google search shows numerous forum posts or youtube videos where this happens, top link on the search results says he got jams in 2 of 3 magazines while using it.

 

[realibrad]

I'm guessing because a bump stock creates an additional risk of jamming or otherwise making your weapon non-operational. Quick google search shows numerous forum posts or youtube videos where this happens, top link on the search results says he got jams in 2 of 3 magazines while using it.

If it does not cause a problem, it makes it far more lethal. It seemed to work effectively in LV sadly.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Quoted in hopes that your post won't be ignored. But unfortunately the same people that like scripted town halls put on by CNN will continue to rail against the NRA because of reasons provided by the media. Reality is a good basis for instituting change. Fabricated feel-good rah-rah bullshit hasn't accomplished anything to date. I fully expect the fabricated bullshit to continue and for it to be accepted as the gospel.

"Of course, the NRA does spend money and it does have a sophisticated and persistent messaging operation. But so do dozens of other organizations and causes. So, how does the NRA stack up against them?

Not too well. The NRA, gun makers, and gun rights issues do not even show up on the OpenSecrets website lists for top lobbying firms, top lobbying sectors, top lobbying issues, or top lobbying industries for the years 1998-2017."

I also, am not an NRA member.

You, and that link, are being pretty disingenuous regarding this. Yes, the NRA spent a 'paltry' $5.12M last year on lobbying, however, it was for a single issue. I thumbed through the top 10, and every single one of them has dozens, if not hundreds of companies in as many industries on retainer, most of which for a few thousand, up to a couple hundred thousand each. Find me any other lobbying group representing a single issue (wedge or otherwise) that spends as much on lobby as gun rights via the NRA, I dare you.

Top spender:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000000162&year=2017

NRA:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=d000000082

 

[vi edit]

Sweet jesus...Dana Loesch (NRA spokesperson) is speaking (evangelizing?) at CPAC. Holy propaganda firebrand batman.

 

[pmv]

Then it seems like less of a gun issue, and more of a culture issue with the group that was removed. The US has far more Blacks and Hispanics and so excluding those should help understand the differences. As you earlier qualified that this discussion is not about mass shootings but all gun deaths, then it would seem that examining the data for things like this would be helpful. So if you exclude groups x and y and then find that your data greatly changes, then its a good bet that you need to focus your efforts on x and y in terms of gun deaths.

While I disagree with most of your positions, you've never struck me as racist at all. But you seem to have blatantly strayed into that here. "Black and hispanics" are not a separate type of human being, or a separate country, they are part of US society. You can't just exclude them based on skin colour (or language) as if they could be lifted out of US society and history and everything else would stay the same. Any more than you can exclude 'the poor' or 'the working class' or 'men'.

 

[realibrad]

Sweet jesus...Dana Loesch (NRA spokesperson) is speaking (evangelizing?) at CPAC. Holy propaganda firebrand batman.

I had no idea who she was so I did a search. She is an attractive woman that looks like she would kill you and have no problems hiding the body.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

While I disagree with most of your positions, you've never struck me as racist at all. But you seem to have blatantly strayed into that here. "Black and hispanics" are not a separate type of human being, or a separate country, they are part of US society. You can't just exclude them based on skin colour (or language) as if they could be lifted out of US society and history and everything else would stay the same. Any more than you can exclude 'the poor' or 'the working class' or 'men'.

I don't want to speak for him, but he may have just been stating that if there's a proliferation of violent behavior within certain cultural sub-groups, one might prioritize targeting that cultural sub-group for examination to determine if there's something specific going on that's causing said proliferation. It's not an unreasonable level of logic, but yes, you have to be very careful about straying into raw racism. Primarily, one must understand that certain cultural phenomenon may actually stray across racial boundaries ('urban' vs 'black' for instance).

 

[realibrad]

While I disagree with most of your positions, you've never struck me as racist at all. But you seem to have blatantly strayed into that here. "Black and hispanics" are not a separate type of human being, or a separate country, they are part of US society. You can't just exclude them based on skin colour (or language) as if they could be lifted out of US society and history and everything else would stay the same. Any more than you can exclude 'the poor' or 'the working class' or 'men'.

What? I'm trying to understand how you feel that is racist in any way? How is admitting that there is something unique to Black and Hispanic male cultures in terms of gun violence racist?

Is this also racist? "Also, removing the segments of American society most prone to violence..." Its a known fact that those segments are more violent, but that may be caused from many factors. Racism, poverty, education, ect. are all likely factors so I can't understand how its racist.

Can you explain?

 

[boomerang]

You, and that link, are being pretty disingenuous regarding this. Yes, the NRA spent a 'paltry' $5.12M last year on lobbying, however, it was for a single issue. I thumbed through the top 10, and every single one of them has dozens, if not hundreds of companies in as many industries on retainer, most of which for a few thousand, up to a couple hundred thousand each. Find me any other lobbying group representing a single issue (wedge or otherwise) that spends as much on lobby as gun rights via the NRA, I dare you.

Top spender:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000000162&year=2017

NRA:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=d000000082

If you like your boogeyman, you can keep your boogeyman.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There is a lot that could possibly go wrong. I'm also curious what the liability landscape looks like for this. Districts can self insure but what happens if there is an incident and people are inadvertently wounded or killed by an employee with a firearm. Or a staff owned firearm is lost and used in a crime.

Needless to say this is not going to be a popular suggestion in a lot of places.

Same as any first responders.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

If you like your boogeyman, you can keep your boogeyman.

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

Tell me, do you make other life decisions with that brain of yours? Or do you let others tell you what to do in those arenas as well?

 

[realibrad]

I don't want to speak for him, but he may have just been stating that if there's a proliferation of violent behavior within certain cultural sub-groups, one might prioritize targeting that cultural sub-group for examination to determine if there's something specific going on that's causing said proliferation. It's not an unreasonable level of logic, but yes, you have to be very careful about straying into raw racism. Primarily, one must understand that certain cultural phenomenon may actually stray across racial boundaries ('urban' vs 'black' for instance).

Yeah, you are right on my stance. It would be like trying to address meth use and saying we need to target Blacks and Hispanics too even though they make up very little meth use. In terms of meth, Blacks and Hispanics do not need help for a problem they do not have.

It is strange to me to think that issues effect ever race* equally when the data is clear. Super weird.

 

[K1052]

Same as any first responders.

Police enjoy a level of political, popular, and legal immunity that I very sincerely doubt would be conferred to educators wielding firearms or their elected boards.

Also this is their primary job.

 

[vi edit]

Police enjoy a level of political, popular, and legal immunity that I very sincerely doubt would be conferred to educators wielding firearms or their elected boards.

Also this is their primary job.

And even with heavy training they still make mistakes. Anyone can be trained *how* to shoot a gun. It takes a very different level of training to understand *when* to shoot a gun.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sweet jesus...Dana Loesch (NRA spokesperson) is speaking (evangelizing?) at CPAC. Holy propaganda firebrand batman.

That's because Dana Loesch, the NRA and pro-gun conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have free speech, after all it's only the 1st Amendment.

 

[K1052]

And even with heavy training they still make mistakes. Anyone can be trained to shoot a gun. It takes a very different level of training to understand when to shoot a gun.

A lot of mistakes.