Florida High School Shooting

[Dulanic]

In the most recent Florida shooting an "unarmed" security guard died shielding students with his body. In the school of 3,200 student there was one armed resource officer. I think it may have made a difference, but certainly can't be sure. The students are asking for some kind of solution and it fits.

I think it's a bad idea and here are my reasoning's, instead of just actually spouting off shit like you.

• You put firearms into schools to teachers that mostly wouldn't want to be burdened with that. Not saying all, but you're trying to make teachers into security guards.
• If you then say OK well let's limit it to specific people with training. So what happens when that "teacher" gets nervous around a verbally abusive kid and shoots them? It would happen.
• What if a student/shooter approaches a teacher with a gun to their head and says give me your gun? These are teachers, you can't train them all to be Chuck Norris.
• So we train just a handful of teachers? OK, what happens during the first few minutes when the kid /w a AR is mowing down a classroom full of kids? Your point will be less die still I'm sure... but that's the best way to judge our success here, KPSS (Kills per School Shooting?) right? Yes I used AR-15 as an example because that's what most use. I'm not saying it because it looks one way vs another, the shooters picked the weapon, not me.
• Next point will be they will use something else. OK let's go and find all those cases where a teenager mowed down a school using a car.... or a baseball bat.... OK I'll wait for you. Find one yet? OK 25+ in the 2 months of the year? Hm, yeah thought so. And don't go pointing at ISIS. A religious fanatic is not the same thing as a mentally unstable teenager.

I am by no means anti gun, I own and use one. I am very anti how damn EASY it is to get a gun. I had to do more background checks for my job. I had to take more tests for my drivers license. I don't get the 2nd amendment argument. None of this would prevent me from owning one, but it would regulate it more.

For a car I had to get:

• A learners permit,
• Take a drivers exam proving I had at least basic knowledge of the rules of the road.
• If I move states I need to update my License within 30 days of moving states.
• I had to take a actual driving test to to show I had the understanding and ability to drive a car.
• I had to buy and register my vehicle.

For a gun I could:

• Go to a gunshow
• Buy a gun
• Buy amunition
• Walk out the door 20 minutes later

That seems a bit one sided on regulation... why? Would the process of registering, licensing and testing me hinder my ability to buy a gun? Not by much. Hell it was so easy for me to get my FOID, I didn't even have to talk to anyone. And that is in IL where it's left obviously. I can only imagine how much easier it is to get one in other states.

I just don't get the whole idea behind it being so easy. Who came up with the whole Real ID issues at the federal level? I mean obviously the right is anti licensing right, it makes things too hard? Oh wait... that was a republican idea? I'll be damned! Hm wonder why they want that there, but not here.... oh wait a second.... might it have something to do with voting... oh right that's it! They need to block illegals from voter fraud, but be damned if we want to block mentally unstable from buying guns, the humanity of it all!

 

[fskimospy]

Yes they do, but I know of no such thing that seems to impact their minority groups in the same way that the "War on Drugs" does. Further, their minority groups make up a far smaller population than in the US which has much more of its population that would be called minorities.

So if the US has policies that disproportionately effects is minority groups, and the US minority groups make up a much larger % of its population, then you can see what drives the unique situation in the US. If guns span across both cultures, but the US is doing something that causes an excess amount of violence driving up gun use, its less about guns and more about policies that drive up violence.

I am not going to bother trying to explain this to you again. Cherry picking leads to bad analysis. Stats 101.

 

[Paratus]

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

There’s a few other cons. Specifically increasing the number guns in schools increases the risk of accidental shootings and of escalating bad behavioral incidents between falcutly and students to fatal ones.

Teens lose their shit on a frequent basis in most schools. We’ve all seen stories about how a troubled teen chucked a desk at a teacher or picked a fight with a faculty memeber. Now those incidents may involve a weapon being drawn and a student possibly shot.

So the question is how many school shootings does this deterrent likely stop vs how many students or faculty likely end up dead or injured from accidents/escalations involving the new deterrent.

I don’t know the answer. Reliable information is hard to come by on accidental shootings due to the ban on federal study.

 

[K1052]

Who was he expecting to see at CPAC? Sanders, Ellison and Maduro?

This is not the argument you made. You accused somebody of being anti-free speech because they were critical of what CPAC speakers were saying.

 

[fskimospy]

The magnitude of the bad analysis is technically smaller though, Europe has something like 10-12% ethnic minorities vs the USA having 25%, so the magnitude of his error is half providing they are equally violent.

It's hard to see how the magnitude of the needlessly inserted error would make it better though. The statement of 'if you exclude violent US minorities then we have the similar rates to Europe with their violent minorities included' is not a particularly useful statement as it's obviously not comparing apples to apples.

 

[glenn1]

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).

Something like race is relevant depending on the subject like mass shootings specifically or gun violence generally, especially when as Osiris pointed out race can sometimes be a rough proxy for geography or other factors. Plus when the statistics show such a huge outlier it's worth exploring that outlier and its causes. It's fairly obvious to me at least the "war on drugs" and gang violence account for a huge percentage of the gun violence in the U.S. And as gangs/drugs heavily correlate with urban poverty (which also unfortunately highly correlate with being black or Hispanic) It's hardly crazy talk or racist to presume that if you removed those drivers then the numbers would probably normalize between the races.

It's actually pretty obvious that the opposite is true if you look at the empirical research. Have you?

I can look at statistics and see most gang shootings involve young, male, urban blacks or Hispanics using small caliber and highly concealable pistols. I can look at statistics and see the typical mass shooter is young, male, and white and often using an AR-15 type platform (sometimes backed up with a handgun). To say "empirical research" would disagree with the premise of my statement that you quoted "...a rancher in Montana with his .17 Marlin used to protect his livestock from coyotes isn’t the cause of school shootings" is quite frankly absurd and counterfactual to the extreme.

My entire point is that policy should account for the realities of actual shootings, not your fever swamp imaginings. The realities of actual data clearly say it's not Grandpa Clampett in Iowa with his 50 year old varmint rifle who we need to be concerned about.

That's odd, considering the restrictions I call for would include .25 and .32 caliber pistols and AR-15 style weapons. How is it that my restrictions simultaneously do 'basically nothing' and 'stop a huge majority of typical homicides'?

Because again Grandpa Clampett commits zero mass shootings so treating him and his typical choice of weapon the same you would a 20 year old member of the the neo-Nazi party who's threatening to lynch a black person is stupid.

 

[momeNt]

Differing take on this school's active shooter drills. They are training students to swarm the shooter. None of these shooters would be brave enough to poke a hornets nest, so maybe use that mentality in our defense.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...s-student-warriors-to-swarm-an-active-shooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=113&v=AK4_ogsh0Po

 

[realibrad]

I am not going to bother trying to explain this to you again. Cherry picking leads to bad analysis. Stats 101.

Its not cherry picking. Its a method to help understand what makes the US different from Europe which was the context of his post. If you compare the US to Europe, you see much higher gun violence. You then look at that group and see what the group is, and then look at Europe. You then find that Europe has less of that group. You then look at what is impacting the US groups and then see if that is unique to the US.

It does not seem misleading at all given the context of his post. If you just look at what he said out of context maybe, but reasonable in context.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's easy because it's a right, not a privilege. We already have armed police, resource officers and security guards in schools, why would you be so adamantly opposed to having faculty volunteers trained and armed for added security?

I think it's a bad idea and here are my reasoning's, instead of just actually spouting off shit like you.

• You put firearms into schools to teachers that mostly wouldn't want to be burdened with that. Not saying all, but you're trying to make teachers into security guards.
• If you then say OK well let's limit it to specific people with training. So what happens when that "teacher" gets nervous around a verbally abusive kid and shoots them? It would happen.
• What if a student/shooter approaches a teacher with a gun to their head and says give me your gun? These are teachers, you can't train them all to be Chuck Norris.
• So we train just a handful of teachers? OK, what happens during the first few minutes when the kid /w a AR is mowing down a classroom full of kids? Your point will be less die still I'm sure... but that's the best way to judge our success here, KPSS (Kills per School Shooting?) right? Yes I used AR-15 as an example because that's what most use. I'm not saying it because it looks one way vs another, the shooters picked the weapon, not me.
• Next point will be they will use something else. OK let's go and find all those cases where a teenager mowed down a school using a car.... or a baseball bat.... OK I'll wait for you. Find one yet? OK 25+ in the 2 months of the year? Hm, yeah thought so. And don't go pointing at ISIS. A religious fanatic is not the same thing as a mentally unstable teenager.

I am by no means anti gun, I own and use one. I am very anti how damn EASY it is to get a gun. I had to do more background checks for my job. I had to take more tests for my drivers license. I don't get the 2nd amendment argument. None of this would prevent me from owning one, but it would regulate it more.

For a car I had to get:

• A learners permit,
• Take a drivers exam proving I had at least basic knowledge of the rules of the road.
• If I move states I need to update my License within 30 days of moving states.
• I had to take a actual driving test to to show I had the understanding and ability to drive a car.
• I had to buy and register my vehicle.

For a gun I could:

• Go to a gunshow
• Buy a gun
• Buy amunition
• Walk out the door 20 minutes later

That seems a bit one sided on regulation... why? Would the process of registering, licensing and testing me hinder my ability to buy a gun? Not by much. Hell it was so easy for me to get my FOID, I didn't even have to talk to anyone. And that is in IL where it's left obviously. I can only imagine how much easier it is to get one in other states.

I just don't get the whole idea behind it being so easy. Who came up with the whole Real ID issues at the federal level? I mean obviously the right is anti licensing right, it makes things too hard? Oh wait... that was a republican idea? I'll be damned! Hm wonder why they want that there, but not here.... oh wait a second.... might it have something to do with voting... oh right that's it! They need to block illegals from voter fraud, but be damned if we want to block mentally unstable from buying guns, the humanity of it all!

 

[fskimospy]

Something like race is relevant depending on the subject like mass shootings, especially when as Osiris pointed out race can sometimes be a rough proxy for geography or other factors. Plus when the statistics show such a huge outlier it's worth exploring that outlier and its causes. It's fairly obvious to me at least the "war on drugs" and gang violence account for a huge percentage of the gun violence in the U.S. And as gangs/drugs heavily correlate with urban poverty (which also unfortunately highly correlate with being black or Hispanic) It's hardly crazy talk or racist to presume that if you removed those drivers then the numbers would probably normalize between the races.

I can look at statistics and see most gang shootings involve young, male, urban blacks or Hispanics using small caliber and highly concealable pistols. I can look at statistics and see the typical mass shooter is young, male, and white and often using an AR-15 type platform (sometimes backed up with a handgun). To say "empirical research" would disagree with the premise of my statement that you quoted "...a rancher in Montana with his .17 Marlin used to protect his livestock from coyotes isn’t the cause of school shootings" is quite frankly absurd and counterfactual to the extreme.

My entire point is that policy should account for the realities of actual shootings, not your fever swamp imaginings. The realities of actual data clearly say it's not Grandpa Clampett in Iowa with his 50 year old varmint rifle who we need to be concerned about.

Because again Grandpa Clampett commits zero mass shootings so treating him and his typical choice of weapon the same you would a 20 year old member of the the neo-Nazi party who's threatening to lynch a black person is stupid.

This is a bizarre comment. You basically take my already stated preferred policy, say it won't work, and then recommend an almost identical policy. When I point that out you then change the goals of my policy and say the thing you agree with won't help.

I don't even know what to say, this is incomprehensible.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So the only way to deal with Whites using heroin more is to not focus on Whites using heroin more?

Correct. Because the color of their skin is almost certainly an meaningless correlation. Unless you can find some reason why lesser melanin production in the skin would link to greater heroin use you are wasting your resources following the wrong correlation.

Are you really saying that there are not ways to target one subculture over another? How is it then that some entertainment can target a demographic based on race?

You can target subcultures, but it is lazy, and misleading, to link a subculture to skin color. There are much more valid links than skin color, and using the wrong link will lead to wrong solutions. Find the real connection and you can target the right solutions.

 

[woolfe9998]

What I want to know is if conservatives really think that higher numbers of deaths due to other causes somehow de-prioritizes gun control, how can we justify giving a damn at all about terrorism? Terrorism kills about 200 people a year in the US, while guns kill about 30,000 per year. If cancer kills hundreds of thousands, neither of these things should be addressed before we address cancer, right? Yet polls routinely show that terrorism is the NUMBER ONE ISSUE among conservative voters. We have a POTUS who campaigned on banning Muslims to prevent terrorism and he undoubtedly received a slew of votes based on his "tough on terrorism" stance.

So if deaths due to terrorism and all other forms of murder are exactly the same as deaths due to eating too many big macs, and big macs (and other unhealthy foods) kill way more people, then can we stop even discussing terrorism? Why is it so prominent of an issue in political campaigns, especially for republican candidates? And not just terrorism, but crime in general, right? The right seems obsessed with preventing deaths due to [Islamic] terrorism and murder committed by [people of color] in general, but now we're told that anything which statistically causes more deaths must be addressed first?

Can we now all agree that there is no difference, morally or otherwise, between a death due to clogged arteries and a murder at the hands terrorists or illegal aliens that the latter two issues are moot? So I expect that conservatives will now shut the f**K up for all time about Islamic terrorism and about black people and illegal aliens committing crimes, right? Because after all, we still have way more to do about smokers and drunk drivers and until those issues can even be addressed.

So violent crime and terrorism don't matter any more because other things cause more deaths right? Good. Now conservatives have lost 80% of everything they complain about and we can look forward to them staying silent in perpetuity about all of it, right?

 

[Sunburn74]

The arming of teachers is really just something with so many ways that it can blow up in your face.

I think you're better off making the case that a soldier or national guardsman should be at every school or something. It's not that costly and also has a number of specific issues but at least it addresses the basic issue of increased security. However it doesn't address the issue that shooting occur in all sorts of soft targets, anywhere really (churches, clubs, restaurants, you name it). It seems like a band aid on a more widespread issue.

 

[realibrad]

Correct. Because the color of their skin is almost certainly an meaningless correlation. Unless you can find some reason why lesser melanin production in the skin would link to greater heroin use you are wasting your resources following the wrong correlation.

Because its culture, not biology. That is why I said that from the start.

Then it seems like less of a gun issue, and more of a culture issue with the group that was removed.

Is there some other term you would like to use other than White Culture?

You can target subcultures, but it is lazy, and misleading, to link a subculture to skin color. There are much more valid links than skin color, and using the wrong link will lead to wrong solutions. Find the real connection and you can target the right solutions.

So what term would you like to use? If there is a more accurate one I would be more than glad to use it.

 

[glenn1]

This is a bizarre comment. You basically take my already stated preferred policy, say it won't work, and then recommend an almost identical policy. When I point that out you then change the goals of my policy and say the thing you agree with won't help.

I don't even know what to say, this is incomprehensible.

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.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Differing take on this school's active shooter drills. They are training students to swarm the shooter. None of these shooters would be brave enough to poke a hornets nest, so maybe use that mentality in our defense.

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...s-student-warriors-to-swarm-an-active-shooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=113&v=AK4_ogsh0Po

I bet that lasts about as long as it takes the first bullet to punch a baseball sized hole in the front guy's head. Mob morale doesn't hold up to an active shooter unless they're fanatics, crazy, or under the influence.

 

[K1052]

I see the Air Marshall program being discussed as useful a bit in here. Yet it has been rife with problems, corruption, waste, safety issues and the government after spending billions on it can't even conclude it actually prevents incidents.

But the GAO noted that there are several methods to measure the deterrent effect, and that the TSA hasn’t even tried to launch a study. They suggest the TSA develop “theoretical game scenarios and have testers simulate would-be attackers’ decisions when attempting to carry out an attack on the aviation system.”

Without a method to measure the TSA’s deterrent value, auditors argued, government officials are relying “on theories of causality and limited evidence available from U.S. intelligence sources.”

Air marshal program officials argue the fact that there hasn’t been a hijacking on a U.S. carrier since 2002 is proof enough of “the program’s deterrent effect,” the GAO report said. But TSA officials “had no specific evidence to support” their claim.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, said it was taking the recommendations onboard and would write its own report about how far along they are in completing the recommendations in July next year.

http://www.newsweek.com/tsas-800m-air-marshal-program-may-not-deter-terrorism-says-audit-663374

The program involves paying people to fly shotgun on airliners to prevent or disrupt hijackings. Even though there are thousands of such marshals, there are too few to be on much more than 5 percent of all flights—though the service still wouldn’t be cost-effective even if that number rose to 20 percent. The TSA insists marshals are placed on high-risk flights, but since no terrorist has boarded an airliner in the US with hostile intent since 2001, it is difficult to see how that “risk” is determined.

A 2015 CNN investigation found that air marshals were often medicated. Because of their hectic schedule they were also often sleep-deprived: 75 percent on domestic runs and 84 percent on international ones.

Crucially, the program is very expensive. It takes up some 10 percent of the TSA’s budget, costing more than $1 billion per year, including losses borne by airlines forced to provide free seats (mostly in first class) for their uninvited guests. In general, spending one dollar on the service generates less than 10 cents in benefit.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/trumps-tsa-budget-fails-cut-obvious-air-marshals/

 

[realibrad]

What I want to know is if conservatives really think that higher numbers of deaths due to other causes somehow de-prioritizes gun control, how can we justify giving a damn at all about terrorism? Terrorism kills about 200 people a year in the US, while guns kill about 30,000 per year. If cancer kills hundreds of thousands, neither of these things should be addressed before we address cancer, right? Yet polls routinely show that terrorism is the NUMBER ONE ISSUE among conservative voters. We have a POTUS who campaigned on banning Muslims to prevent terrorism and he undoubtedly received a slew of votes based on his "tough on terrorism" stance.

So if deaths due to terrorism and all other forms of murder are exactly the same as deaths due to eating too many big macs, and big macs (and other unhealthy foods) kill way more people, then can we stop even discussing terrorism? Why is it so prominent of an issue in political campaigns, especially for republican candidates? And not just terrorism, but crime in general, right? The right seems obsessed with preventing deaths due to [Islamic] terrorism and murder committed by [people of color] in general, but now we're told that anything which statistically causes more deaths must be addressed first?

Can we now all agree that there is no difference, morally or otherwise, between a death due to clogged arteries and a murder at the hands terrorists or illegal aliens that the latter two issues are moot? So I expect that conservatives will now shut the f**K up for all time about Islamic terrorism and about black people and illegal aliens committing crimes, right? Because after all, we still have way more to do about smokers and drunk drivers and until those issues can even be addressed.

So violent crime and terrorism don't matter any more because other things cause more deaths right? Good. Now conservatives have lost 80% of everything they complain about and we can look forward to them staying silent in perpetuity about all of it, right?

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.

 

[Sunburn74]

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.

I don't think banning guns is really the answer. I think the real answer lies in setting restrictions and screening protocols for who can and cannot get a gun. One can do crazy harm with pistols,ARs, auto weapons if things are planned and the target is soft. It's figuring out a way to get all of these crazy guys to not pass some sort of screening test at the time of the purchase.

What that test is I don't know but it certainly is out there. Heck the majority of these guys if the only test was family approval or local police approval they would fail.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Is there some other term you would like to use other than White Culture?

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.

 

[Dulanic]

It's easy because it's a right, not a privilege. We already have armed police, resource officers and security guards in schools, why would you be so adamantly opposed to having faculty volunteers trained and armed for added security?

Even Scalia said the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. Why are you so adamantly opposed to some regulation for guns like basic checks and balances around someones ability/capability to be empowered with one? I'm not opposed to having those things when properly trained, but this is not a one size fits all issue. It can be and should be addressed via multiple methods.

 

[jackstar7]

Damnit, I actually forgot about the member of the St. Paul Public School System that was armed.

His name was Philandro Castile.

What happened to him again?

But yeah, let's pretend arming teachers and staff is some kind of solution and not just a terrible marketing ploy to sell guns and ammo and increase net insecurity and fear.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Even Scalia said the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. Why are you so adamantly opposed to some regulation for guns like basic checks and balances around someones ability/capability to be empowered with one? I'm not opposed to having those things when properly trained, but this is not a one size fits all issue. It can be and should be addressed via multiple methods.

Because so many of the people in those meetings and some here in the forums are calling for some bans of firearms and massive confiscations. We have school districts across this country that are already training and arming faculty with more passing laws every day.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...iew-school-district-head-defends-arming-staff

 

[momeNt]

Damnit, I actually forgot about the member of the St. Paul Public School System that was armed.

His name was Philandro Castile.

What happened to him again?

But yeah, let's pretend arming teachers and staff is some kind of solution and not just a terrible marketing ploy to sell guns and ammo and increase net insecurity and fear.

He drove a beaten up car and was black.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But yeah, let's pretend arming teachers and staff is some kind of solution and not just a terrible marketing ploy to sell guns and ammo and increase net insecurity and fear.

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.