Author Topic: More shootings...are the media creating more?  (Read 54907 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20424
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1785 on: March 13, 2018, 04:51:53 PM »
I'm far more bugged by passing laws to achieve an aim with no basis, data, or insight into whether that law will actually achieve the aim, save for the ridiculous, useless, and irrelevant "common sense".   It's not a thing, except when your wife wants to yell at you.
That's fine, and if you present the argument that the aim is to prevent school shootings by minors that kill 4 or more people, then your concern is valid. If your aim is simply to make it harder for criminals, crazy fucks, and moronic teenagers to buy guns then you have no problem. Not everything needs to have a quantifiable downstream benefit.

Well - with the understanding that "laws" are a willful abdication of some right, or if you will, a willful deference to the social will over free will - why would you do that if there WASN'T a "quantifiable downstream benefit"?  Especially with guns, that makes it even harder for me to get behind.
For the unquantifiable benefit.

We don't let 16 year olds buy whiskey. What's the specific benefit? The general benefit is that we're less likely to see drunken, moronic teenagers driving their cars into trees, passing out in people's lawns, and buggering livestock. They'll still do it, but we've made it somewhat more difficult. The same thing applies here. There are plenty of such laws that don't prevent any specific crime but exist to deter, mitigate, or lessen the frequency of those crimes.

Honestly, how can you support any restriction on gun ownership at all if proof of efficacy is a requirement? Has there been a study to determine that preventing mental patients from buying guns has a direct, quantifiable effect on the murder rate? If a nine year old walks into Academy to buy a shotgun does it matter if there are no studies to show he's a greater risk than some other person?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1786 on: March 13, 2018, 05:01:27 PM »
And just to add to the answer to "why would you do that if there WASN'T a 'quantifiable downstream benefit'?  Especially with guns, that makes it even harder for me to get behind":  As much as, like you, I don't buy "because common sense," age-related restrictions just do make sense.  We have all kinds of laws that restrict youth from accessing certain things, even where fundamental rights are involved, and you know this.  I already mentioned voting as an example.  But there are plenty of others as well.  You could even talk about free speech/expression.  Pretty sure that if an 8-year-old went down to city hall to ask for a permit for a gay pride parade, or a town hall meeting on abortion (pick your side--I don't care), or whatever, he's be told to come back in 13 years.  Laws put reasonable limits on rights all the time when it comes to lack of age and maturity to properly exercise those rights. And we don't need quantifiable data to establish that.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12599
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1787 on: March 13, 2018, 07:14:40 PM »
I'm far more bugged by passing laws to achieve an aim with no basis, data, or insight into whether that law will actually achieve the aim, save for the ridiculous, useless, and irrelevant "common sense".   It's not a thing, except when your wife wants to yell at you.
That's fine, and if you present the argument that the aim is to prevent school shootings by minors that kill 4 or more people, then your concern is valid. If your aim is simply to make it harder for criminals, crazy fucks, and moronic teenagers to buy guns then you have no problem. Not everything needs to have a quantifiable downstream benefit.

Well - with the understanding that "laws" are a willful abdication of some right, or if you will, a willful deference to the social will over free will - why would you do that if there WASN'T a "quantifiable downstream benefit"?  Especially with guns, that makes it even harder for me to get behind.
For the unquantifiable benefit.

We don't let 16 year olds buy whiskey. What's the specific benefit? The general benefit is that we're less likely to see drunken, moronic teenagers driving their cars into trees, passing out in people's lawns, and buggering livestock. They'll still do it, but we've made it somewhat more difficult. The same thing applies here. There are plenty of such laws that don't prevent any specific crime but exist to deter, mitigate, or lessen the frequency of those crimes.

Honestly, how can you support any restriction on gun ownership at all if proof of efficacy is a requirement? Has there been a study to determine that preventing mental patients from buying guns has a direct, quantifiable effect on the murder rate? If a nine year old walks into Academy to buy a shotgun does it matter if there are no studies to show he's a greater risk than some other person?

This is also to Bosk: I'm actually cool with age restrictions.  There ARE quantifiable benefits.  We know that the brain isn't fully developed yet, we know that there are psychological changes that happen to the brain as it develops, with development occurring up to the age of 25 or so. And under the age of 18* we are in the area of consent, so there's that.

I think where I'm really parked is the standard that I've been talking about for a while now, and that's the one we use for ALL fundamental rights.    I'm less hung up on the anti-libertarianism of "rules without a reason" - I've made peace with that compromise a long time ago - but I'm at least drawing the line that says "we can't make emotional decisions based to deny rights".  I can list any number of knee-jerk, reactionary infringements on rights that many of us would blanche at.  Post 9/11, let's just monitor everyone's phone.  Or, let's allow wire taps with a signature of a cop.   I'm sort of demanding that we recognize - whether we like it or not - that it's a right and that it has to be handled as such.   Whether we agree that the Second Amendment means assault weapons or not, the court has determined that owning a gun is a fundamental right and needs to be addressed with strict scrutiny.

This requires certain steps be followed.  "Quantifiable downstream benefit" are not the words used, but SOME nexus between the infringement of the right and the intended effect has to be shown. 

And no, I don't necessarily need conclusive

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20424
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1788 on: March 14, 2018, 10:35:38 AM »
I'm far more bugged by passing laws to achieve an aim with no basis, data, or insight into whether that law will actually achieve the aim, save for the ridiculous, useless, and irrelevant "common sense".   It's not a thing, except when your wife wants to yell at you.
That's fine, and if you present the argument that the aim is to prevent school shootings by minors that kill 4 or more people, then your concern is valid. If your aim is simply to make it harder for criminals, crazy fucks, and moronic teenagers to buy guns then you have no problem. Not everything needs to have a quantifiable downstream benefit.

Well - with the understanding that "laws" are a willful abdication of some right, or if you will, a willful deference to the social will over free will - why would you do that if there WASN'T a "quantifiable downstream benefit"?  Especially with guns, that makes it even harder for me to get behind.
For the unquantifiable benefit.

We don't let 16 year olds buy whiskey. What's the specific benefit? The general benefit is that we're less likely to see drunken, moronic teenagers driving their cars into trees, passing out in people's lawns, and buggering livestock. They'll still do it, but we've made it somewhat more difficult. The same thing applies here. There are plenty of such laws that don't prevent any specific crime but exist to deter, mitigate, or lessen the frequency of those crimes.

Honestly, how can you support any restriction on gun ownership at all if proof of efficacy is a requirement? Has there been a study to determine that preventing mental patients from buying guns has a direct, quantifiable effect on the murder rate? If a nine year old walks into Academy to buy a shotgun does it matter if there are no studies to show he's a greater risk than some other person?

This is also to Bosk: I'm actually cool with age restrictions.  There ARE quantifiable benefits.  We know that the brain isn't fully developed yet, we know that there are psychological changes that happen to the brain as it develops, with development occurring up to the age of 25 or so. And under the age of 18* we are in the area of consent, so there's that.

I think where I'm really parked is the standard that I've been talking about for a while now, and that's the one we use for ALL fundamental rights.    I'm less hung up on the anti-libertarianism of "rules without a reason" - I've made peace with that compromise a long time ago - but I'm at least drawing the line that says "we can't make emotional decisions based to deny rights".  I can list any number of knee-jerk, reactionary infringements on rights that many of us would blanche at.  Post 9/11, let's just monitor everyone's phone.  Or, let's allow wire taps with a signature of a cop.   I'm sort of demanding that we recognize - whether we like it or not - that it's a right and that it has to be handled as such.   Whether we agree that the Second Amendment means assault weapons or not, the court has determined that owning a gun is a fundamental right and needs to be addressed with strict scrutiny.

This requires certain steps be followed.  "Quantifiable downstream benefit" are not the words used, but SOME nexus between the infringement of the right and the intended effect has to be shown. 

And no, I don't necessarily need conclusive
Should crazy fucks be allowed to purchase guns? Where's the study that says a person who's been released from the loony bin is an increased danger to society and thus shouldn't be allowed to own guns? I get your distinction,* but I'm not sure how you can justify any number of things that need to be done under your standards since I'm not sure how you can really prove that it'll be beneficial.  In the case of guns and murder you can't prove what shootings didn't happen because of increased restrictions on gun purchases.



*A distinction I suspect you intentionally demonstrated with 4A cases that you know would fuck with me.  :lol
Obviously I do object to those things, but I do see two differences. For one, there were already effective mechanisms in place that solved the stated problem. Search warrants aren't hard to come by. Eliminating their necessity offered no benefit while doing away with a vital safeguard against abuse. Moreover, the issue with your examples is that that they're so ripe to be abused. I don't see the same potential for abuse in the proposed gun laws, though I might certainly be overlooking something.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11611
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1789 on: March 20, 2018, 08:13:52 PM »
Waited to see if anyone was going to mention this shooting today....but being that an armed resource officer shot and killed the shooter about one minute after the shooter had opened fire.....I didn’t suspect it’d be talked about much.

Not trying to argue anything other than having armed officers at schools is a must in my mind. I’m not talking a brigade of them....but one or two is a no brainer in my eyes.



https://www.yahoo.com/newsroom/vibes/student/v-8f75dbd6-bf94-30b8-8c6f-29ba15339d2b_c-cd18a3e3-3054-36f0-946b-7c7a23e3a187_a-cd18a3e3-3054-36f0-946b-7c7a23e3a187?soc_src=newsroom&soc_trk=com.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard&.tsrc=newsroom

Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1790 on: March 21, 2018, 05:15:02 AM »
For every instance of that, there'll be instances of this - http://time.com/5199328/seaside-high-school-gun/

Quote
A teacher in Northern California accidentally fired his gun inside a classroom, injuring three students, police said. Dennis Alexander, who is also a reserve police officer, was pointing the gun at the ceiling to make sure it was not loaded when the weapon discharged Tuesday .... no one suffered “serious injuries.” One 17-year-old boy sustained moderate injuries when bullet fragments lodged in his neck

Increases in the number of guns in schools will increase the number of THESE kinds of scenarios (or worse) far - FAR - greater than the decrease of the scenarios Gary calls out.  There is no valid reason to increase the number of guns in schools. 
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19989
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1791 on: March 21, 2018, 05:38:08 AM »
Waited to see if anyone was going to mention this shooting today....but being that an armed resource officer shot and killed the shooter about one minute after the shooter had opened fire.....I didn’t suspect it’d be talked about much.

Not trying to argue anything other than having armed officers at schools is a must in my mind. I’m not talking a brigade of them....but one or two is a no brainer in my eyes.



https://www.yahoo.com/newsroom/vibes/student/v-8f75dbd6-bf94-30b8-8c6f-29ba15339d2b_c-cd18a3e3-3054-36f0-946b-7c7a23e3a187_a-cd18a3e3-3054-36f0-946b-7c7a23e3a187?soc_src=newsroom&soc_trk=com.apple.UIKit.activity.CopyToPasteboard&.tsrc=newsroom

It wasn't known right away that it was stopped by a resource officer and the story still wasn't posted here. I was going to post something about it, and this is going to sound awful, but I didn't because only 2 people shot. I don't know why it made a difference, but it did. This seemed more personal than it did a killing spree.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1792 on: March 21, 2018, 06:15:28 AM »
And to clarify my post... this was a Police Officer on site at a school.  I don't know what it's like in the States, but "school resource officer" is a common role/function in Canada.  If it's the same as it is here, this has nothing to do with the discussion of arming teachers.  It'd be like a cop stopping any shooting event no matter where it was.  It's not like School Resource Officers are education employees who have been trained and "deputized".  They are active duty Police Officers, who have been assigned time in schools for various purposes - educating students on many aspects of the police, community involvement, relationship building etc...

I have no problem with school resource officers... but I it's a mistake to link this event to any kind of message that guns in schools save lives.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11611
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1793 on: March 21, 2018, 06:33:25 AM »
And to clarify my post... this was a Police Officer on site at a school.  I don't know what it's like in the States, but "school resource officer" is a common role/function in Canada.  If it's the same as it is here, this has nothing to do with the discussion of arming teachers.  It'd be like a cop stopping any shooting event no matter where it was.  It's not like School Resource Officers are education employees who have been trained and "deputized".  They are active duty Police Officers, who have been assigned time in schools for various purposes - educating students on many aspects of the police, community involvement, relationship building etc...

I have no problem with school resource officers... but I it's a mistake to link this event to any kind of message that guns in schools save lives.


Well, this officer had a gun and he did save lives. My OP’s point was that having armed officers in schools should be a no brainer. Heck, I graduated in 94’.....pre Columbine and we had armed officers at our high school.

I’m not fully on board with the arming of teachers just to arm them......BUT.....all I will say is that if I’m a teacher and already have a CCW I’m taking that gun into work with me. It’s ‘conceal carry’ for a reason....no one has to or should know you have it on you until God forbid it’s needed.

The teacher in the article you linked Chad is just a tool bag. Fooling around with a gun in a school outside of needing to defend yourself was the issue here and I’d be willing to bet he had little experience with weaponry anyway to have had that happen. Which, is a good reason why you don’t arm all teachers.

Brian....I understand what you mean by ‘only’ two kids being shot. It’s horrible that no longer is shocking or noteworthy. But an additional point to my post was that ‘only’ two kids were shot because there was an armed officer there that responded immediately.....reports say less than a minute.....and neutralized the shooter.

Sure we don’t want to turn schools into military zones or prisons...but to NOT have a couple trained armed officers on your campus is a mistake IMO.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19989
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1794 on: March 21, 2018, 06:45:49 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of having armed police in schools. It's arming the teachers that doesn't sit well with me.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17893
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1795 on: March 21, 2018, 06:55:23 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of having armed police in schools. It's arming the teachers that doesn't sit well with me.

This is exactly how I feel.  Police are trained and their job is to protect, I don't feel that is a teacher's responsibility. 

Online Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5998
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1796 on: March 21, 2018, 07:09:21 AM »
Yeah, armed officers shouldn't be controversial. I graduated High School in 1979 and we had armed campus officers (two) every year I attended.

Online sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 817
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1797 on: March 21, 2018, 07:09:56 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of having armed police in schools. It's arming the teachers that doesn't sit well with me.

This is exactly how I feel.  Police are trained and their job is to protect, I don't feel that is a teacher's responsibility.

As was said earlier, I believe it was Stads, teachers essentially take on the responsibility of parents when kids are sent of to school. It IS actually part of their job to protect our kids (allegedly... I don't know how far that idea extends). So as the potential dangers expand, shouldn't perhaps the people responsible for the children's safety expand their role of protector?

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17893
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1798 on: March 21, 2018, 07:17:39 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of having armed police in schools. It's arming the teachers that doesn't sit well with me.

This is exactly how I feel.  Police are trained and their job is to protect, I don't feel that is a teacher's responsibility.

As was said earlier, I believe it was Stads, teachers essentially take on the responsibility of parents when kids are sent of to school. It IS actually part of their job to protect our kids (allegedly... I don't know how far that idea extends). So as the potential dangers expand, shouldn't perhaps the people responsible for the children's safety expand their role of protector?

Well, they aren't trained for it, they don't get paid a whole lot, so for me, I don't believe their protection extends this far.  Police sign up for the job knowing they may have to take a life and/or give their life to the force.  Teachers don't expect that, nor do I think they should personally unless we are going to change how we train/pay our teachers in this country which I think makes little sense here when we have trained and ready policemen to do this.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19989
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1799 on: March 21, 2018, 07:23:40 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of having armed police in schools. It's arming the teachers that doesn't sit well with me.

This is exactly how I feel.  Police are trained and their job is to protect, I don't feel that is a teacher's responsibility.

As was said earlier, I believe it was Stads, teachers essentially take on the responsibility of parents when kids are sent of to school. It IS actually part of their job to protect our kids (allegedly... I don't know how far that idea extends). So as the potential dangers expand, shouldn't perhaps the people responsible for the children's safety expand their role of protector?

I suppose, but up until now we've still had duties spread throughout the school based on specialties. We have nurses and don't expect all teachers to be as knowledgeable or helpful in that realm. We have trained counselors and psychologists for students in need. Why wouldn't we have designated security and protection as well? I know two teachers (both female) who CC pistols. They are two of the most dimwitted people I graduated with and I wouldn't trust them with a potato gun in the middle of a field let alone in a panic scenario with live rounds and children running around in fear.


Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1800 on: March 21, 2018, 07:24:12 AM »
So long as we're all on the same page of arming teachers is a bad idea.

Can't say I disagree with having police presence at schools is bad.  But ... MJD had a deputy there who did jack shit.  So I don't think this solves the problem.  It's a bandaid, not addressing some other root causes.  This guy yesterday did his job, and should be commended for it.  Having armed officers on site 7 hours a day / 5 days a week would be "common sense". 

So I'l patiently await Stadler to tell us that such a knee jerk / common sense reaction is nonsense and non-productive.   :biggrin:

@ Sylvan - can't say how much I disagree that teachers are "protectors".  How many more "roles" do you want teacher's to play?  Let's just keep dumping more on them.   ::)
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11611
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1801 on: March 21, 2018, 07:42:06 AM »
So long as we're all on the same page of arming teachers is a bad idea.

I concur.


Can't say I disagree with having police presence at schools is bad.  But ... MJD had a deputy there who did jack shit.  So I don't think this solves the problem.  It's a bandaid, not addressing some other root causes.  This guy yesterday did his job, and should be commended for it.  Having armed officers on site 7 hours a day / 5 days a week would be "common sense". 

That deputy was there for the wrong reasons. Biding his time until retirement. I think the schools would have to be more diligent in identifying officers that are there with the expectation that they will be ready to protect the kids when called upon. Weed out the officers that are there just to grab the extra OT pay or 'cush' job. Those positions need to be treated and staffed like REAL positions.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 817
  • Gender: Male
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1802 on: March 21, 2018, 07:50:09 AM »
So long as we're all on the same page of arming teachers is a bad idea.

At what point did you become comfortable making that assumption? This is another one of those subjects where people have such strong opinions and FEELINGS that they assume everyone else feels the same way. It doesn't help anything, and only implies that anyone who thinks differently is somehow wrong, or at the very least part of a minority. On top of that, describing it as "arming teachers" is not even close to authentic. Nobody is suggesting school issue glocks that teacher's pick up at the beginning of the school year. All the talking points I've seen have been around ALLOWING teachers to be armed, not ARMING teachers. But maybe I missed the people talking about forcing teachers to carry weapons...

Can't say I disagree with having police presence at schools is bad.  But ... MJD had a deputy there who did jack shit.  So I don't think this solves the problem.  It's a bandaid, not addressing some other root causes.  This guy yesterday did his job, and should be commended for it.  Having armed officers on site 7 hours a day / 5 days a week would be "common sense". 

This is confusing. In one sentence, you state that having an armed/trained deputy on site didn't do anything, and the idea is just a bandaid that doesn't address other (more impactful) root causes. And then you follow that by saying that having armed officers on site would be "common sense." Why is it common sense if it doesn't change anything? If the idea of armed officers that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT (abundance of skill, lack of action) do their job is a common sense security measure, then I would contend that a teacher that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be a good shot, but in past scenario we've seen their willingness to save lives at their own peril (lack of skill, abundance of action) equally common in the sense department. (Or is it equally sensical in the commonality department?)

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20424
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1803 on: March 21, 2018, 08:21:53 AM »
It's worth pointing out that Columbine had two cops on the scene. One working the scene and one who happened to show up and was in the parking lot at the time. Didn't offer much help. Moreover, the next knucklehead that pulls this will probably start his slaughter by killing the cop. So now we need to put extra cops in schools. Then we need to enact rules that they can't ever be in the same room. Hence Stadler's knee-jerk reaction response.

Honestly, I'm not generally opposed to having an armed presence in schools. What I am opposed to is having on-duty LEO in schools. We've already seen a huge shift towards treating school discipline matters as criminal matters, and that's a lose-lose scenario for everybody but Wackenhut. It's not the minority folk that are the problem here, shooters are always white suburban losers, but it's the minorities that pay the price when you criminalize trivial misbehavior.

School to prison pipeline
(this WikiP article is in need of major review)
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1804 on: March 21, 2018, 09:48:04 AM »
So long as we're all on the same page of arming teachers is a bad idea.

At what point did you become comfortable making that assumption?

I'll concede that my point was somewhat hyperbolic, and my insinuation of "we" was simply in response to the posts above mine that concurred with this point of view.

Can't say I disagree with having police presence at schools is bad.  But ... MJD had a deputy there who did jack shit.  So I don't think this solves the problem.  It's a bandaid, not addressing some other root causes.  This guy yesterday did his job, and should be commended for it.  Having armed officers on site 7 hours a day / 5 days a week would be "common sense". 

This is confusing. In one sentence, you state that having an armed/trained deputy on site didn't do anything, and the idea is just a bandaid that doesn't address other (more impactful) root causes. And then you follow that by saying that having armed officers on site would be "common sense." Why is it common sense if it doesn't change anything? If the idea of armed officers that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT (abundance of skill, lack of action) do their job is a common sense security measure, then I would contend that a teacher that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be a good shot, but in past scenario we've seen their willingness to save lives at their own peril (lack of skill, abundance of action) equally common in the sense department. (Or is it equally sensical in the commonality department?)

Not sure what is confusing.  My comment did not imply that having active duty law enforcement covering schools "doesn't change anything".  It was meant to imply that it could/should help, but it certainly doesn't mean it will be 100% infallible, nor does it address any root causes of this outbreak of school shootings.  Hence my comparison to "common sense" of (for example) banning AR-15s ... it'll help, but it won't be 100% infallible, nor does it address the root cause of the hows and whys of school shooting massacres.

Drawing an equivalency between armed active duty Police officers to any given individual with a Bachelor's degree and a 1-year teachers certificate (and giving them loaded weapon) is comical.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12599
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1805 on: March 21, 2018, 11:00:58 AM »
For every instance of that, there'll be instances of this - http://time.com/5199328/seaside-high-school-gun/

Quote
A teacher in Northern California accidentally fired his gun inside a classroom, injuring three students, police said. Dennis Alexander, who is also a reserve police officer, was pointing the gun at the ceiling to make sure it was not loaded when the weapon discharged Tuesday .... no one suffered “serious injuries.” One 17-year-old boy sustained moderate injuries when bullet fragments lodged in his neck

Increases in the number of guns in schools will increase the number of THESE kinds of scenarios (or worse) far - FAR - greater than the decrease of the scenarios Gary calls out.  There is no valid reason to increase the number of guns in schools.

Prove it.   Not trying to be a dick, but that's more of the illogical "common sense" that pervades these discussions.  Your logic only holds for those guns that are brought in for nefarious purposes, which by definition breaks the cause and effect.   Take it to extreme ends:  how often do we read about gunmen walking into police stations and opening fire?  Okay, so how about we commandeer a classroom in EVERY high school in the country and put a police station in there?   Do you really think it's the same analysis?   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12599
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1806 on: March 21, 2018, 11:03:20 AM »
I'm 100% in favor of having armed police in schools. It's arming the teachers that doesn't sit well with me.

This is exactly how I feel.  Police are trained and their job is to protect, I don't feel that is a teacher's responsibility.

As was said earlier, I believe it was Stads, teachers essentially take on the responsibility of parents when kids are sent of to school. It IS actually part of their job to protect our kids (allegedly... I don't know how far that idea extends). So as the potential dangers expand, shouldn't perhaps the people responsible for the children's safety expand their role of protector?

Well, they aren't trained for it, they don't get paid a whole lot, so for me, I don't believe their protection extends this far.  Police sign up for the job knowing they may have to take a life and/or give their life to the force.  Teachers don't expect that, nor do I think they should personally unless we are going to change how we train/pay our teachers in this country which I think makes little sense here when we have trained and ready policemen to do this.

Look, I don't really disagree - I'm not a fan at all of public school teachers, sorry to anyone who is offended by that - but for different reasons.  If you are going to do that, you can adjust pay and adjust the criteria for who becomes a teacher.  None of those things are static. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12599
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1807 on: March 21, 2018, 11:05:00 AM »
So long as we're all on the same page of arming teachers is a bad idea.

I concur.


Can't say I disagree with having police presence at schools is bad.  But ... MJD had a deputy there who did jack shit.  So I don't think this solves the problem.  It's a bandaid, not addressing some other root causes.  This guy yesterday did his job, and should be commended for it.  Having armed officers on site 7 hours a day / 5 days a week would be "common sense". 

That deputy was there for the wrong reasons. Biding his time until retirement. I think the schools would have to be more diligent in identifying officers that are there with the expectation that they will be ready to protect the kids when called upon. Weed out the officers that are there just to grab the extra OT pay or 'cush' job. Those positions need to be treated and staffed like REAL positions.

That's the way it is in Connecticut.  My wife's stepdad is a semi-retired detective with the town police, and in his last days on the job he was at a school.  He's a good guy, and in pretty good shape for the north side of 65, but still.  I'm not sure that's the best deterrent for a 20-year-old armed like the Captain from Call of Duty Black Ops.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12599
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1808 on: March 21, 2018, 11:11:41 AM »
So long as we're all on the same page of arming teachers is a bad idea.

At what point did you become comfortable making that assumption?

I'll concede that my point was somewhat hyperbolic, and my insinuation of "we" was simply in response to the posts above mine that concurred with this point of view.

Can't say I disagree with having police presence at schools is bad.  But ... MJD had a deputy there who did jack shit.  So I don't think this solves the problem.  It's a bandaid, not addressing some other root causes.  This guy yesterday did his job, and should be commended for it.  Having armed officers on site 7 hours a day / 5 days a week would be "common sense". 

This is confusing. In one sentence, you state that having an armed/trained deputy on site didn't do anything, and the idea is just a bandaid that doesn't address other (more impactful) root causes. And then you follow that by saying that having armed officers on site would be "common sense." Why is it common sense if it doesn't change anything? If the idea of armed officers that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT (abundance of skill, lack of action) do their job is a common sense security measure, then I would contend that a teacher that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be a good shot, but in past scenario we've seen their willingness to save lives at their own peril (lack of skill, abundance of action) equally common in the sense department. (Or is it equally sensical in the commonality department?)

Not sure what is confusing.  My comment did not imply that having active duty law enforcement covering schools "doesn't change anything".  It was meant to imply that it could/should help, but it certainly doesn't mean it will be 100% infallible, nor does it address any root causes of this outbreak of school shootings.  Hence my comparison to "common sense" of (for example) banning AR-15s ... it'll help, but it won't be 100% infallible, nor does it address the root cause of the hows and whys of school shooting massacres.

Drawing an equivalency between armed active duty Police officers to any given individual with a Bachelor's degree and a 1-year teachers certificate (and giving them loaded weapon) is comical.

But why draw equivalencies?   We ask police to teach all the time (my brother, a cop in Florida, goes into schools easily three or four times a month to talk to kids) but by your logic that should be "comical".   And I strongly disagree that "could or should" help should  even be a criteria here.  We don't spitball with kids' lives.  That's honestly what got us here to begin with.  "Social media?  What can it hurt?   It's FUN!   Tag pictures!  Cheat on your spouse!  Zuckerberg for MAN OF THE YEAR!" But bullying is skyrocketing, depression is up, obesity is up, use of anti-depressants is skyrocketing... but let's try banning guns and see if it works, even though in Washington DC it didn't, and in Australia it didn't.  Maybe the third time will be a charm? 

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1809 on: March 21, 2018, 11:25:10 AM »
For every instance of that, there'll be instances of this - http://time.com/5199328/seaside-high-school-gun/

Quote
A teacher in Northern California accidentally fired his gun inside a classroom, injuring three students, police said. Dennis Alexander, who is also a reserve police officer, was pointing the gun at the ceiling to make sure it was not loaded when the weapon discharged Tuesday .... no one suffered “serious injuries.” One 17-year-old boy sustained moderate injuries when bullet fragments lodged in his neck

Increases in the number of guns in schools will increase the number of THESE kinds of scenarios (or worse) far - FAR - greater than the decrease of the scenarios Gary calls out.  There is no valid reason to increase the number of guns in schools.

Prove it.   Not trying to be a dick, but that's more of the illogical "common sense" that pervades these discussions.  Your logic only holds for those guns that are brought in for nefarious purposes, which by definition breaks the cause and effect.   Take it to extreme ends:  how often do we read about gunmen walking into police stations and opening fire?  Okay, so how about we commandeer a classroom in EVERY high school in the country and put a police station in there?   Do you really think it's the same analysis?

I know you're not being a dick, you're being a lawyer  ;D.  However, we don't live in a world where 'burden of proof' is the rule of everything - you may, but most of us don't.  My conjecture is not based on "illogical common sense", it's based on pure statistical correlation ... increase the sample size of anything, and you'll increase any number of related outcomes.  Put more guns in classrooms, more guns will be discharged in classrooms.  Put more marbles on the floor, you'll have more cases of people falling down.  That's all I was trying to say.

But why draw equivalencies?   We ask police to teach all the time (my brother, a cop in Florida, goes into schools easily three or four times a month to talk to kids) but by your logic that should be "comical".   And I strongly disagree that "could or should" help should  even be a criteria here.  We don't spitball with kids' lives. 

The equivalency I was referring to was the ability for Police Officers to provide protection in a school shooting scenario vs teachers who have access to a gun.  On you last 'spitballing' point, No we don't do that - but your repeated answer on what to do 'take no action until it can be proven that there is a course of action guaranteed to deliver the desired outcome with no demonstrable detriment'.  In the meantime, kids are still getting shot at school.   :tup  I'd rather 'spitball' something.  Perhaps lawyers don't know much about trial and error (but know something about error in trials ... boom!  :lol).  Scientists on the other hand sure know a thing or two about trial and error.  That would extend to social sciences do as well.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12599
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1810 on: March 21, 2018, 11:44:31 AM »
For every instance of that, there'll be instances of this - http://time.com/5199328/seaside-high-school-gun/

Quote
A teacher in Northern California accidentally fired his gun inside a classroom, injuring three students, police said. Dennis Alexander, who is also a reserve police officer, was pointing the gun at the ceiling to make sure it was not loaded when the weapon discharged Tuesday .... no one suffered “serious injuries.” One 17-year-old boy sustained moderate injuries when bullet fragments lodged in his neck

Increases in the number of guns in schools will increase the number of THESE kinds of scenarios (or worse) far - FAR - greater than the decrease of the scenarios Gary calls out.  There is no valid reason to increase the number of guns in schools.

Prove it.   Not trying to be a dick, but that's more of the illogical "common sense" that pervades these discussions.  Your logic only holds for those guns that are brought in for nefarious purposes, which by definition breaks the cause and effect.   Take it to extreme ends:  how often do we read about gunmen walking into police stations and opening fire?  Okay, so how about we commandeer a classroom in EVERY high school in the country and put a police station in there?   Do you really think it's the same analysis?

I know you're not being a dick, you're being a lawyer  ;D.  However, we don't live in a world where 'burden of proof' is the rule of everything - you may, but most of us don't.  My conjecture is not based on "illogical common sense", it's based on pure statistical correlation ... increase the sample size of anything, and you'll increase any number of related outcomes.  Put more guns in classrooms, more guns will be discharged in classrooms.  Put more marbles on the floor, you'll have more cases of people falling down.  That's all I was trying to say.

YOU DO, though.  That's the point. YOU DO.  For better or worse, here in the States, that's how our legislative system works.   I've said this too many times and I don't know why it doesn't sink in: we can't just put laws in place without SOME basis.   I mean, we can, but they won't sustain any real Constitutional challenge.   For better or worse, we are talking about something that is a right, and to do some of the things that are being asked for, we need ore than "statistical correlation" (which, by the way, is meaningless; all school shootings to date have occurred on dry land; should we address the problem of dry land?)

Quote
The equivalency I was referring to was the ability for Police Officers to provide protection in a school shooting scenario vs teachers who have access to a gun.  On you last 'spitballing' point, No we don't do that - but your repeated answer on what to do 'take no action until it can be proven that there is a course of action guaranteed to deliver the desired outcome with no demonstrable detriment'.  In the meantime, kids are still getting shot at school.   :tup  I'd rather 'spitball' something.  Perhaps lawyers don't know much about trial and error (but know something about error in trials ... boom!  :lol).  Scientists on the other hand sure know a thing or two about trial and error.  That would extend to social sciences do as well.

HAHA, stop.   I have NEVER ONCE EVER said "do nothing".  I said and will continue to say "Don't do YOUR option until we know more".  I've laid out four or five things that I would do IMMEDIATELY and expeditiously to address this problem.   YOUR option is not the only one, not by a long shot.   

As for trial and error, sure, but you can't - by law, you can't - use "trial and error" when it comes to people's rights.  And not just the "right to own a gun".  There are other rights in play here too.   (And for the record, licensed professional engineer since about 1989 or so; I'm well aware of the scientific benefits of "trial and error", but even then it's done in a controlled situation, one variable at a time, and with a detailed documentation of the effects; NONE of those things are in place in our world today).   

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1811 on: March 21, 2018, 12:38:54 PM »
Bill.... you've jumped all over the place, and completely gone off topic about my 'trial and error' and statistical correlation points - and conveniently brought it back to gun rights.  My comments on those things were as it related to having armed police officers in the school (trial and error) and/or arming teachers (statistical correlation).  Neither of those would have anything to do with limiting gun rights as best as I can tell.

It's the concept of statistical correlation/sample sizes (not the actual correlation between two things such as the example that you're sarcastically pointing out) that validates my point of more guns in classrooms increases the risk of more accidental discharges in classrooms, which increases the risk of injuries as a result of said discharges. 

And no, we don't live in a world where EVERYTHING - literally, EVERYTHING - is about burden of proof.  I made a comment, you (facetiously) asked for it to be proven.  Not everything has to be proven to be known to be true.

"I'm hungry" - prove it.
"It's cold out" - prove it.
"Margot Robbie is fucking hot" - prove it.
"Gravity" - prove it.

C'mon man
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1812 on: March 21, 2018, 12:43:35 PM »
I can't speak for Stadler, but
"I'm hungry" - prove it.

You can watch me wreck this chicken I brought in for lunch and draw your own conclusions.

"Margot Robbie is fucking hot" - prove it.

Meh.  To each their own.  Not into the whole Hollywood skank thing. 
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1813 on: March 21, 2018, 12:46:48 PM »
I can't speak for Stadler, but
"I'm hungry" - prove it.

You can watch me wreck this chicken I brought in for lunch and draw your own conclusions.

 :rollin :rollin :clap:

Channelling my inner Stadler ... even a 'full' person could wreck a chicken.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12599
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1814 on: March 21, 2018, 12:49:32 PM »
Bill.... you've jumped all over the place, and completely gone off topic about my 'trial and error' and statistical correlation points - and conveniently brought it back to gun rights.  My comments on those things were as it related to having armed police officers in the school (trial and error) and/or arming teachers (statistical correlation).  Neither of those would have anything to do with limiting gun rights as best as I can tell.

It's the concept of statistical correlation/sample sizes (not the actual correlation between two things such as the example that you're sarcastically pointing out) that validates my point of more guns in classrooms increases the risk of more accidental discharges in classrooms, which increases the risk of injuries as a result of said discharges. 

And no, we don't live in a world where EVERYTHING - literally, EVERYTHING - is about burden of proof.  I made a comment, you (facetiously) asked for it to be proven.  Not everything has to be proven to be known to be true.

"I'm hungry" - prove it.
"It's cold out" - prove it.
"Margot Robbie is fucking hot" - prove it.
"Gravity" - prove it.

C'mon man

Well, my bad if I mischaracterized you.  Not my intention.  But I read (and again, I may have misread) that your beef was "more guns in the schools" because it would mean "more people being shot in schools" and that's not really true.  It's just not. 

And  your point about "increases the odds" isn't wrong, but it totally ignores the corresponding degree to which it DECREASES the risk of other sorts of discharges.  I don't know what the numbers are - no one does yet - but if we do these things and the risk of accidental discharge goes up by 1%, but the risk of student assaults drop by 50%, that's a fair trade, no?   

And as for the last, YES.  I am specifically talking about the abridgement of rights.  The way the Supreme Court rules on these things now, they DO need some proof.  Not hard, unassailable quantitative proof, but they need SOME nexus between the infringement of the right and the intended (positive) consequences.  Maybe not you personally, but down here there is a lot of ignorance of the power of rights.  We have plenty of people here that think "oh, they said something that is offensive?  Shut them the fuck down!" without any regard for how or why we might want to do that.   We don't get to take away voting rights, or protections from search and seizure, or free speech rights, or anything else without following the process.   That all applies here as well.

Oh, and challenge met:


Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1815 on: March 21, 2018, 01:08:22 PM »
I may reconsider one of my prior opinions...
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4077
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1816 on: March 21, 2018, 01:22:15 PM »
I can't speak for Stadler, but
"I'm hungry" - prove it.

You can watch me wreck this chicken I brought in for lunch and draw your own conclusions.

 :rollin :rollin :clap:

Channelling my inner Stadler ... even a 'full' person could wreck a chicken.

I actually brought fried rice, but it didn't really conjure up the same imagery.  :lol
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23868
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1817 on: March 21, 2018, 01:43:44 PM »
Well, my bad if I mischaracterized you.  Not my intention. 
I know, never thought that it was.

But I read (and again, I may have misread) that your beef was "more guns in the schools" because it would mean "more people being shot in schools" and that's not really true.  It's just not. 
Prove it.   :biggrin:

And  your point about "increases the odds" isn't wrong, but it totally ignores the corresponding degree to which it DECREASES the risk of other sorts of discharges.  I don't know what the numbers are - no one does yet - but if we do these things and the risk of accidental discharge goes up by 1%, but the risk of student assaults drop by 50%, that's a fair trade, no?   

As you are the master of it ... it depends.  A 1% increase in accidental discharge on 5,000,000 classrooms, or even 100,000 schools (I'm making those numbers up, but it's probably somewhat reasonable) vs a 50% drop in mass-shootings (say there's 100/year?)... that math don't work.

And as for the last, YES.  I am specifically talking about the abridgement of rights. 

Got it... we're talking about different things when it comes to "burden of proof".
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1818 on: March 22, 2018, 02:36:48 PM »
So transparent backpacks in schools.  Yea or Nay?

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11611
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #1819 on: March 22, 2018, 02:42:16 PM »
So transparent backpacks in schools.  Yea or Nay?

I’m a nay.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind