Florida High School Shooting

[realibrad]

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.

Man you posted a lot of things.

Terrorists kill very few in the US, but a lot more outside of the us. Countries that have taken in people from countries where terrorism happens more have seen an increase in terrorism.

Immigrant crime stats are of 1st gen, not their kids afterward. If you measure the kids afterward you see an increase equal to natives. That said, that is a measure of crime and not type of crime. As minorities tend to commit more violent crime you actually see an increase in murders.

The other parts I agree with.

 

[Younigue]

I'm sure your weapon prohibition will be just as successful as all the previous ones.

Threatening people with gun violence Taj?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

What if its the teacher that is the shooter? Just not a great idea all around.

We already have armed teachers in many schools. Not one incident of the armed, trained, approved teacher being the shooter. Ever.

Besides, what would prevent a teacher who wants to be the shooter from illegally bringing a gun and opening up on kids? Why would they bother to go through rigorous training and evaluation to legally bring the gun to illegally murder the kids? This concern doesn't make any logical sense.

Your question could be asked of any armed person. What if it's the cop that is the shooter? What if it's the security guard that's the shooter? Yet we still call good guys with guns when there's a shooting. I'd rather the good guys with guns to already be on scene than to respond to the aftermath.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

No vetting done on this statistic but I’m sure it’s not 100%

This is likely a true stat. Yet we still call the cops whenever there is a school shooting.

I have seen quotes from cops who evaluate the self defense training and shooting courses that armed teachers undergo. Those cops say that the teachers receive superior training to actual cops. So it seems like your position is that we shouldn't rely on people with awesome training to actually be there on scene to protect kids. We should instead rely on people with inferior training to come clean up the mess after the incident is already over. Nonsense.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

This is likely a true stat. Yet we still call the cops whenever there is a school shooting.

I have seen quotes from cops who evaluate the self defense training and shooting courses that armed teachers undergo. Those cops say that the teachers receive superior training to actual cops. So it seems like your position is that we shouldn't rely on people with awesome training to actually be there on scene to protect kids. We should instead rely on people with inferior training to come clean up the mess after the incident is already over. Nonsense.

Not really my point is it’s just lip service, the handful of former Navy Seals who become high school teachers would be great until they get old. I just don’t think this is a large scale solution.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

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.

Assault rifles kill about 100 people a year in this country. Yet recent news shows that liberal voters are treating assault rifles as the single most important issue in America today. Yes I did pull "both sides." And I am right. Because they are both retarded and both need to knock it off and focus on more important things.

Edit: wrong number

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Not really my point is it’s just lip service, the handful of former Navy Seals who become high school teachers would be great until they get old. I just don’t think this is a large scale solution.

I literally want people with good training to protect my own kids. We protect our money with armed guards. We protect our politicians with armed guards. We protect sporting events with armed guards. Why not our most precious and defenseless loved ones as well? We've already got 300 million guns in America. It is what it is. We have the highest rates of mental illness in the world. It is what it is. We can complain about all that and try to change it but meanwhile we have to protect our kids and placing a "gun-free zone" sign at schools isn't the solution.

 

[fskimospy]

This is likely a true stat. Yet we still call the cops whenever there is a school shooting.

I have seen quotes from cops who evaluate the self defense training and shooting courses that armed teachers undergo. Those cops say that the teachers receive superior training to actual cops. So it seems like your position is that we shouldn't rely on people with awesome training to actually be there on scene to protect kids. We should instead rely on people with inferior training to come clean up the mess after the incident is already over. Nonsense.

Got a source for the idea that armed teachers are superior actors for stopping an active shooter?

Because that sure sounds like bullshit to me.

 

[jpeyton]

Here's how you absolutely know the gun fetishists are panicking: there's a run on AR-15s and other military style rifles right now.

Just checked some of my favorite high volume online retailers, and they are showing 90%+ of their inventory on those types of rifles out of stock.

So much winning today. Panic buying is the last situation gun nuts want to be in, and enterprising individuals can make a pretty penny off desperate 2nd Amendment types during sellers markets. I remember the year after Sandy Hook to be extremely wallet depleting for people who like guns. $50 lower receivers were going for 4x that price or higher; cheap ARs were double or triple the price; magazines were double; ammunition was double.

 

[soundforbjt]

Assault rifles kill about 10 people a year in this country. Yet recent news shows that liberal voters are treating assault rifles as the single most important issue in America today. Yes I did pull "both sides." And I am right. Because they are both retarded and both need to knock it off and focus on more important things.

How many have they killed per school shooting? This is what we’re talking about.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Got a source for the idea that armed teachers are superior actors for stopping an active shooter?

Because that sure sounds like bullshit to me.

Do I really need a source to state that an armed teacher has a better chance of stopping an active shooter than a cop who will show up after the shooting is already over?

 

[woolfe9998]

Man you posted a lot of things.

Terrorists kill very few in the US, but a lot more outside of the us. Countries that have taken in people from countries where terrorism happens more have seen an increase in terrorism.

Why is it even relevant how many people are killed by terrorists outside the US? You know what, I bet if you measured the total number of people who died by terrorism in the entire world it wouldn't even rate in the top 20 causes of death.

Now, please explain to me why registered republicans rate terrorism as the number 1 most important issue in America today given that there are probably 500 more common causes of death. And while you're at it, please explain why no form of terrorism committed by anyone not a Muslim seems to even be on their radar. Please think about this before answering.

Immigrant crime stats are of 1st gen, not their kids afterward. If you measure the kids afterward you see an increase equal to natives. That said, that is a measure of crime and not type of crime. As minorities tend to commit more violent crime you actually see an increase in murders.

I don't even understand what you just said about crime stats. Are you saying that first gen immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens but their kids commit crimes at the same rate as citizens? If so, so what? How is this an argument constantly used by Trump and his supporters in favor of building an expensive border wall?

The fact is, conservatives only care about people killing other people when the people doing the killing are either a) non-white, or b) non-Christian. It's never about the victims for conservatives. It's always about who is doing the killing. Don't you find that the least bit strange?

To summarize: political conservatives in America seem awfully concerned about terrorism committed by Muslims and crime (mostly black on black) committed in "inner cities" plus any all all crime committed by illegal (Mexican) immigrants but mass murders which are committed almost exclusively by white people are downplayed as unimportant because of the relatively low number of deaths.

I'm afraid my point stands.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I literally want people with good training to protect my own kids. We protect our money with armed guards. We protect our politicians with armed guards. We protect sporting events with armed guards. Why not our most precious and defenseless loved ones as well? We've already got 300 million guns in America. It is what it is. We have the highest rates of mental illness in the world. It is what it is. We can complain about all that and try to change it but meanwhile we have to protect our kids and placing a "gun-free zone" sign at schools isn't the solution.

Name one person in this thread who suggested “Gun Free Zone” signs as a solution. It’s absurd just like thinking arming a teacher or two per school will work.

Whose Alt account is this SlowSpyder?

 

[fskimospy]

I literally want people with good training to protect my own kids. We protect our money with armed guards. We protect our politicians with armed guards. We protect sporting events with armed guards. Why not our most precious and defenseless loved ones as well? We've already got 300 million guns in America. It is what it is. We have the highest rates of mental illness in the world. It is what it is. We can complain about all that and try to change it but meanwhile we have to protect our kids and placing a "gun-free zone" sign at schools isn't the solution.

You realize that placing lots of guns in our schools will likely increase the number of children shot and killed, not decrease it, right?

This kind of overreaction is nonsense and arming teachers is stupid. About 80 kids are killed each year in school shootings. It is simply not smart or logical to import lethal weapons into every school to guard against this threat. Similarly, restricting assault rifles in order to combat that threat isn’t very helpful either.

What we should be doing is restricting ALL guns more seriously and it has almost nothing to do with school shootings. Guns kill a lot of people every year and provide very little benefit to society. Time for people to accept that reality.

 

[Victorian Gray]

No vetting done on this statistic but I’m sure it’s not 100%

Probably from the Rand study mentioned here

According to a 2008 RAND Corporation study evaluating the New York Police Department’s firearm training, between 1998 and 2006, the average hit rate during gunfights was just 18 percent. When suspects did not return fire, police officers hit their targets 30 percent of the time.

study link

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/RAND_FirearmEvaluation.pdf

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Name one person in this thread who suggested “Gun Free Zone” signs as a solution.

There is literally a law to make schools gun free zones. It has been proposed, voted upon, and passed into law. It is literally a suggested and accepted solution by our government. Literally. The other solutions I've heard proposed are assault weapon bans which might have little to no effect of the rates of gun deaths.

It’s absurd just like thinking arming a teacher or two per school will work.

Following your logic, it would therefore be absurd to arm a guard or two per bank. But we do this. Or a guard or two per politician. We also do this. Or a guard or two outside of a celebrity's mansion or a military location or an FDA research center or a nuclear facility. We do all of these. Why shouldn't we guard our children?!?

Whose Alt account is this SlowSpyder?

No, he's a tard. I'm awesome

 

[realibrad]

We already have armed teachers in many schools. Not one incident of the armed, trained, approved teacher being the shooter. Ever.

Very small sample group.

Besides, what would prevent a teacher who wants to be the shooter from illegally bringing a gun and opening up on kids? Why would they bother to go through rigorous training and evaluation to legally bring the gun to illegally murder the kids? This concern doesn't make any logical sense.

No. But being trained does not stop people from using that training. If it did, we would not have had the military person shooting up his base, or cops killing civilians.

Your question could be asked of any armed person. What if it's the cop that is the shooter? What if it's the security guard that's the shooter? Yet we still call good guys with guns when there's a shooting. I'd rather the good guys with guns to already be on scene than to respond to the aftermath.

Getting trained as a cop is very different than being trained as a teacher.

Also, I personally would not mind guns in the hands of many teachers, but not all teachers. I do however think there are better things to do.

 

[woolfe9998]

Assault rifles kill about 100 people a year in this country. Yet recent news shows that liberal voters are treating assault rifles as the single most important issue in America today. Yes I did pull "both sides." And I am right. Because they are both retarded and both need to knock it off and focus on more important things.

Edit: wrong number

Yes, I agree that liberals put too much emphasis on banning assault weapons, though polling does not show liberals placing "assault rifles" as the number 1 issue in America. You're going to have to find me a poll on that and link it.

However, while both sides are being emotional and not entirely rational, I find the exclusive emphasize placed by conservatives on crimes committed by non-whites and non-Muslims especially troubling. At least the liberals focus is blind to color and religion. One side has the right goals. They may just have faulty reasoning. While the other side - I question whether their goals are even remotely admirable as they seem less interested in preventing deaths and more interested in using crime and terrorism as an excuse to bash certain groups they don't like.

 

[fskimospy]

Do I really need a source to state that an armed teacher has a better chance of stopping an active shooter than a cop who will show up after the shooting is already over?

1) yes. I would love to see estimates on net student casualties with and without armed teachers. I bet they are higher with.

2) you claimed teachers have superior training on stopping active shooters to cops and would therefore be better than them at it. Would love to see a source on that.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

You realize that placing lots of guns in our schools will likely increase the number of children shot and killed, not decrease it, right?

I disagree. I think it would decrease the number of children shot and killed. Do security guards shoot up banks? Or politicians? Or celebrities? All of those people hire and pay armed guards. All of them. So if increased guns hurt people, then why do they hire people with guns to protect themselves? Why do we call people with guns to come save us when there is a shooting?

This kind of overreaction is nonsense and arming teachers is stupid. About 80 kids are killed each year in school shootings. It is simply not smart or logical to import lethal weapons into every school to guard against this threat.

Why not? We call people with lethal weapons to respond whenever there is a school shooting. Every. Single. Time. It often takes 1/2 hour or more for cops to resolve the situation. IF we could train teachers and IF they could respond, why wouldn't we? Cuz we're scard of the gunz?

Similarly, restricting assault rifles in order to combat that threat isn’t very helpful either.

100% agreed.

What we should be doing is restricting ALL guns more seriously and it has almost nothing to do with school shootings. Guns kill a lot of people every year and provide very little benefit to society. Time for people to accept that reality.

Guns are used in self defense HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of times per year. That is a benefit to society. A massive benefit.

 

[realibrad]

Why is it even relevant how many people are killed by terrorists outside the US? You know what, I bet if you measured the total number of people who died by terrorism in the entire world it wouldn't even rate in the top 20 causes of death.

Do you not remember talking about how Trump did not want to bring in refugees from war torn countries? Every European country that has done that has seen an increase in terrorism. If the US with its very low numbers started to bring in the same people, it would seem reasonable that the number would go up.

Now, please explain to me why registered republicans rate terrorism as the number 1 most important issue in America today given that there are probably 500 more common causes of death. And while you're at it, please explain why no form of terrorism committed by anyone not a Muslim seems to even be on their radar. Please think about this before answering.

I did say I agreed with you on other things. Republicans tend to be very afraid of Others and very risk adverse when it comes to outsiders. No disagreement here that Terrorism being in the top 5 is even absurd and number 1 insane.

I don't even understand what you just said about crime stats. Are you saying that first gen immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens but their kids commit crimes at the same rate as citizens? If so, so what? How is this an argument constantly used by Trump and his supporters in favor of building an expensive border wall?

First, let me say I think the wall is a waste of money and should not be built. Next, yes the kids of first gen immigrants comment crime rates equal to the average US citizen. I also noted that crime rate does not express what type of crime. Those kids of minority immigrants tend to commit more thinks like murder. So, there is a very small bit of truth about immigrants bringing in more crime. The problem is that they take that and run with it to promote bad ideas like building a wall. Why those minority groups commit more things like murder is not because of their race and likely due to the conditions they live in.

The fact is, conservatives only care about people killing other people when the people doing the killing are either a) non-white, or b) non-Christian. It's never about the victims for conservatives. It's always about who is doing the killing. Don't you find that the least bit strange?

Strange no, sad yes. Again, its something we do not disagree on. Its a super complex issue as to how it happened, but its a reality never the less.

To summarize: political conservatives in America seem awfully concerned about terrorism committed by Muslims and crime (mostly black on black) committed in "inner cities" plus any all all crime committed by illegal (Mexican) immigrants but mass murders which are committed almost exclusively by white people are downplayed as unimportant because of the relatively low number of deaths.

Mostly true. I would add that blacks victimize whites far more than whites victimize blacks when adjusted for population %. Its not totally irrational there, and only becomes irrational when you see how overvalued something like that is to the Right.

As for whites being almost exclusively represented in mass murders, you are wrong.

Newsweek based its claim on data from Mother Jones, which defines a public mass shooting as an incident in which the motive appeared to be indiscriminate killing and a lone gunman took the lives of at least three people. Under this definition, Mother Jones found that non-Hispanic white men have been responsible for 54 percent of mass shootings since August 1982.

Another tally, with a longer timeline and a different definition of mass shooting, found non-Hispanic white men make up 63 percent of these attacks. Under both definitions and datasets, white men have committed more mass shootings than any other ethnicity group.

Newsweek's claim is literally accurate. But it's worth noting the imprecision of this data, and the percentage of mass shootings by white men is lower than their share of the male population, according to Mother Jones.

We rate this Mostly True.
.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ite-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/

So you are wrong about that too.

I'm afraid my point stands.

What is your point? That Conservatives are irrational? If so then yes, but with the understanding that Liberals are irrational too, just less than Conservatives.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

1) yes. I would love to see estimates on net student casualties with and without armed teachers. I bet they are higher with.

To my knowledge, there has never been a student casualty by a trained, certified, armed teacher. If you can find otherwise, please post the information.

2) you claimed teachers have superior training on stopping active shooters to cops and would therefore be better than them at it. Would love to see a source on that.

I did not claim they have superior training. I claimed that a law enforcement officer claimed that they have superior training. Am furiously searching for the quote, am not finding it. Am feeling shame. Whether they would be better at it than a cop or not doesn't matter much if the cop can't get there until after the incident is over. At worst, the teacher doesn't end the killings. At best, they do. What's not to like?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Yes, I agree that liberals put too much emphasis on banning assault weapons, though polling does not show liberals placing "assault rifles" as the number 1 issue in America. You're going to have to find me a poll on that and link it.

I wasn't quoting any polls. I was stating that it seems to be the #1 issue based on the news. Either way, both "teams" are retardedly focusing on things that are retarded. You know I'm right.

However, while both sides are being emotional and not entirely rational, I find the exclusive emphasize placed by conservatives on crimes committed by non-whites and non-Muslims especially troubling.

Yeah those guys fucking suck.

At least the liberals focus is blind to color and religion.

You know this is not true in the big picture. Liberals tend to magnify color and religious differences. For that matter conservatives do too (much worse IMO). Neither side is against collectivism and both exploit it for political gain.

One side has the right goals. They may just have faulty reasoning. While the other side - I question whether their goals are even remotely admirable as they seem less interested in preventing deaths and more interested in using crime and terrorism as an excuse to bash certain groups they don't like.

I think both sides share the same goals but differ so much on the solution that neither can fathom how the other side might actually have the same goal. I don't think either side WANTS more dead kids.

 

[kage69]

No vetting done on this statistic but I’m sure it’s not 100%

Sounds about right for 12lbs triggers.

Awhile back a really nervous cop gripped their gun too hard, shot and killed a suspect unintentionally. Ever since NY has mandated that cops have their triggers tuned from the 3-6lbs neighborhood to 12lbs. Means more pressure and finger travel needed, causes good shooters to struggle and bad shooters to fail horribly.

Still...consider the Kehoe Brothers shoot out. That was not in NY, IIRC.

 

[soundforbjt]

Guns are used in self defense HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of times per year. That is a benefit to society. A massive benefit.

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/