Shootings

[msteelers]

Schools in Florida already have armed cops. There seems to be some confusion over whether the cop in this latest shooting was actually on campus. I’ve heard sound bytes of the sheriff saying he was, but he never encountered the shooter. Some news reports online question that though.

Still, I grew up in Orlando and we had cops on campus every day. It might have been a response to Columbine, which happened at the end of my freshman year in high school. I don’t remember cops on campus during middle and elementary school.

I don't mean resource officers. And definitely not SBLEs.I mean a dedicated officer for each school who's only job is to protect students from threats. Often resource officers have multiple schools on their patrol. And they're there to deal with a little bit of everything. That won't work.

I don’t think this is the case. At least not from what I can tell in FL. Schools get 1-2 dedicated SRO’s. The one for Marjory Stoneman Douglas had been there since 2009. They are full officers of the law. The main difference between an SRO and an SBLE is who is their boss. SRO’s are employees of local law enforcement agencies.

From what I can tell, FL schools already have what you are asking for. We can discuss whether one SRO is enough for a 45-acre school, but the basic idea that a dedicated officer is there to protect students from threats is already happening.

[LawBeefaroni]

From what I can tell, FL schools already have what you are asking for. We can discuss whether one SRO is enough for a 45-acre school, but the basic idea that a dedicated officer is there to protect students from threats is already happening.

So then add metal detectors and a security operator.

And in my experience here, at least, SROs are kind if jacks-of-all-trades. They wouldn't be replaced but rather the new position would be more from the tactical unit side and be trained and used primarily to deal with active shooters/ attackers. SROs would be welcome extra protection.

Yeah, it's a lot. But the outcry seems to be universal that nothing is too much.

[malchior]

Uhh, yeah. That. Not all 'equivalent' risks are equivalent.

But the point is that all things are not equal. As I understand it, the risk of kids dying from mass school shootings are dwarfed by the risk of dying from other kinds of gun violence like drive-bys. These mass shootings are just breathlessly reported on by the media because they are sensational and guaranteed to get eyeballs and clicks. The magnitude of the problem is in no way proportionate to the coverage or our instant reaction. Perhaps part of the reason that initial reaction does not galvanize into actual action is that, on some level, we know the risk is so minimal.

Mass events always get more coverage. That is just the way people work. The reaction is driven by that reality and the continuing fact that we can't get our politicians to address gun violence *of any form*. Should we talk about the big picture? Sure. Despite the "low probablity" we have way more of these than any other nation on earth so despite it being lower risk than say other risks...that just implies that overall risk is way too high.

[Alefroth]

Just a question: Has the 2nd Amendment ever actually defended liberty? Even once?

Not that I know of, and I really doubt it ever will. By the time we get to the point where the 2nd Amendment needs to be used for it's intended purpose, it'll already be game over. I can't imagine a situation where it will ever work how it was intended. When and if the shooting ever starts, I suspect it will be a civil war and not a revolution.

[Alefroth]

Ok. There are wide swathes of this nation that would be genuinely moved to armed rebellion should anyone attempt an actual wide-ranging ban on weapons, and any politician from a third of the nation would immediately end their career the moment they supported said ban.

The latter is likely true, the former is likely untrue. And if it were, what would their armed rebellion look like? Would they go on the offensive and take down all law enforcement, or would it be like a Malheur standoff where they forget to pack their supplies. Armed rebellion is a romantic notion many have, but it doesn't really hold up under the lens of practicality.

[Max Peck]

I also could be wrong.

Not sure why there would be registry for prohibited guns, since those guns by definition aren't allowed.

I remember talk of long guns and registry together. I seriously doubt you can legally own a handgun in Canada without telling the gov about it (i.e. license or register).

The little I looked into handgun ownership, there was the option to leave it locked up at the range of your choice. Transporting a gun probably has some onerous legal requirements.

Here is an overview of Canadian firearms laws, for anyone that's interested.

I don't own any firearms (I don't hunt, and my home-defense requirements are satisfied by my letter opener), so I didn't really follow the long-gun/non-restricted registry issue very closely. My vague recollection is that it was popular in urban areas and unpopular in rural areas, that it was supported by law enforcement entities and some provincial governments, and that Harper nuked it because it was red meat for his GOP-wannabe base.

Anecdotally, buying/owning/shooting semiautomatic weapons doesn't seem to be particularly problematic if you don't mind doing the paperwork and aren't paranoid about the government knowing about it. Not many of my friends are into firearms (aside from the ones that hunt, but I don't know what sort of weapons they use), but I do have a standing invitation to go to the range with a former co-worker who owns an AR-15 carbine and 9mm sidearm.

[Zaxxon]

Uhh, yeah. That. Not all 'equivalent' risks are equivalent.

I don't really get this. Actually, I guess I kind of get it.

...

But the point is that all things are not equal. As I understand it, the risk of kids dying from mass school shootings are dwarfed by the risk of dying from other kinds of gun violence like drive-bys. These mass shootings are just breathlessly reported on by the media because they are sensational and guaranteed to get eyeballs and clicks. The magnitude of the problem is in no way proportionate to the coverage or our instant reaction.

The point I was trying to agree with is that just because Item X has a lower chance of happening than Item Y, that does not imply that we should focus on Y at the cost of X. To the example RM9 used, driving is way more of a risk than being shot. But one willingly assumes some risk when driving--it comes with the territory, at least given current car tech. You want to get somewhere quickly, you choose to take that risk. It's not clear to me why we should willingly accept the risk of being shot in order to attend school.

To your point, I'm not sure that relative risk is important at all. The risk of having a bunch of people shot in a short time frame at a school may be low. But the benefits to society of having the enabling technology that results in this [particular] risk are zero. So why accept that risk at all?

I'm aware that this line of argument draws in 'but hunting!!11!!' and 'Fuck you, I like guns.' I'm utterly unmoved by those arguments. Hunt with something that requires 10-30 seconds to reload. You'll survive. And so would more kids. How many more? Unimportant--it's a positive number, and that's enough for me.

[RunningMn9]

I don't really get this. Actually, I guess I kind of get it.
:
As I understand it, the risk of kids dying from mass school shootings are dwarfed by the risk of dying from other kinds of gun violence like drive-bys.

I'm not sure that you even kind of get it.

You are evaluating "risk" using only one metric: % chance that it will occur.

It's more complicated than that, which is why some people treat it differently. Your equation has a single variable, X. So you want to sort X from high-to-low and start at the top. That's a perfectly reasonable approach if all you are considering is X.

There are other factors, like Y (the psychological impact of having your school attacked, even if you survive). And Z (the expectation that you are assuming the risk by engaging in the activity).

Like I said above, I know that when I get behind the wheel of a vehicle, there is a set of terrible things that can happen to me. I know that they are much more likely than my kid's high school being attacked by one of these pieces of shit. I know that, and then it's up to me whether I decide to back out of my driveway. I know the risk, and I accept it when I drive. We still do a vast number of things to increase my survivability and reduce the changes of an accident - but I accept that risk when I drive away.

My son does not accept the risk of being shot in the face will dissecting a frog in Bio. It doesn't matter than the chances of *him* being shot in school are relatively low. The fact that the chances of him being shot in school while minding his own business is not 0.0000000000000000000% is an unacceptable state of affairs. Him being shot while in school can *never* be the "cost of doing business in America".

[LawBeefaroni]

Just a question: Has the 2nd Amendment ever actually defended liberty? Even once?

Not that I know of, and I really doubt it ever will. By the time we get to the point where the 2nd Amendment needs to be used for it's intended purpose, it'll already be game over. I can't imagine a situation where it will ever work how it was intended. When and if the shooting ever starts, I suspect it will be a civil war and not a revolution.

Four years after the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was enacted, Douglass wrote in his newspaper: "The True Remedy for the Fugitive Slave Bill [was a] good revolver, a steady hand and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap"

In the Words of Frederick Douglass: Quotations from Liberty's Champion.

There are lots of examples from the Jim Crow South.


The Second Amendment isn't limited to overthrowing the Federal government.

[noxiousdog]

How many more? Unimportant--it's a positive number, and that's enough for me.

I think this is disingenuous. There is a large positive number of people that would not die in car accidents if helmets. Are you equally likely to support helmets?

This is not an argument against gun regulation (I think we'd be much better served to call it regulation), but I hate the "if it saves one life" argument, because we only use that on things that don't affect us directly.

[Zaxxon]

How many more? Unimportant--it's a positive number, and that's enough for me.

I think this is disingenuous. There is a large positive number of people that would not die in car accidents if helmets. Are you equally likely to support helmets?

Again, vehicles are not a good analogy. The risk there is largely voluntary. Unless you're suggesting that those that are not OK with gun deaths simply home-school?

This is not an argument against gun regulation (I think we'd be much better served to call it regulation), but I hate the "if it saves one life" argument, because we only use that on things that don't affect us directly.

Agreed on the nomenclature. And no, we don't only use it on things that don't affect us directly. I'd be in favor of regulation on a lot of things that do impact me, such as a carbon tax accounting for externalities such as deaths by pollution that I voluntarily choose to emit, etc. Sure, I'm not a hunter so I'm likely a lot more open to banning hunting rifles. I like to think I'm open to the things that *do* impact me, as well, when those choices also impact others.

[noxiousdog]

Again, vehicles are not a good analogy. The risk there is largely voluntary. Unless you're suggesting that those that are not OK with gun deaths simply home-school?

The kids in your backseat don't have a choice.

[Rip]

I don't really get this. Actually, I guess I kind of get it.
:
As I understand it, the risk of kids dying from mass school shootings are dwarfed by the risk of dying from other kinds of gun violence like drive-bys.

I'm not sure that you even kind of get it.

You are evaluating "risk" using only one metric: % chance that it will occur.

It's more complicated than that, which is why some people treat it differently. Your equation has a single variable, X. So you want to sort X from high-to-low and start at the top. That's a perfectly reasonable approach if all you are considering is X.

There are other factors, like Y (the psychological impact of having your school attacked, even if you survive). And Z (the expectation that you are assuming the risk by engaging in the activity).

Like I said above, I know that when I get behind the wheel of a vehicle, there is a set of terrible things that can happen to me. I know that they are much more likely than my kid's high school being attacked by one of these pieces of shit. I know that, and then it's up to me whether I decide to back out of my driveway. I know the risk, and I accept it when I drive. We still do a vast number of things to increase my survivability and reduce the changes of an accident - but I accept that risk when I drive away.

My son does not accept the risk of being shot in the face will dissecting a frog in Bio. It doesn't matter than the chances of *him* being shot in school are relatively low. The fact that the chances of him being shot in school while minding his own business is not 0.0000000000000000000% is an unacceptable state of affairs. Him being shot while in school can *never* be the "cost of doing business in America".

You are asking for the impossible. The risk isn't zero for any kid anywhere in the world. Kids have been shot in schools pretty much since the invention of the gun.

Heck there have been several knife attacks that killed multiple kids. They shouldn't need to accept the risk of that, but alas removal of risk is an unacceptable and unrealistic goal.

[Rip]

Again, vehicles are not a good analogy. The risk there is largely voluntary. Unless you're suggesting that those that are not OK with gun deaths simply home-school?

The kids in your backseat don't have a choice.

Not just that. I've had a car hit my house. You can't live in America without being exposed to the risk of vehicle accidents. Not possible.

[Zaxxon]

Again, vehicles are not a good analogy. The risk there is largely voluntary. Unless you're suggesting that those that are not OK with gun deaths simply home-school?

The kids in your backseat don't have a choice.

Non sequitor. Kids don't have choice in a lot of things. Their parents have that choice, instead.

[noxiousdog]

Again, vehicles are not a good analogy. The risk there is largely voluntary. Unless you're suggesting that those that are not OK with gun deaths simply home-school?

The kids in your backseat don't have a choice.

Non sequitor. Kids don't have choice in a lot of things. Their parents have that choice, instead.

We regulate what parents do with their kids all the time.

[Zaxxon]

But again, you're grasping at straws and/or running off the topic's road here (see what I did there?). There is a clear benefit to the child brought on by allowing him/her to be driven. This discussion is simply not about regulating all things (even things with individual and societal benefits) because something may go wrong.

It's about regulating things where there is no benefit, but there is a risk--and/or where there is no choice in the matter of taking on the risk to those [and their guardians] being put at risk.

[GreenGoo]

We regulate what parents do with their kids all the time.

Regulate their guns then.

If you're an insurance adjuster, by all means crunch the numbers. Otherwise understand the demoralizing impact that a mass shooting has on most of the nation. Even if it were *only* an emotional impact (I don't really think it is, but don't want to go hunting the practical costs a mass shooting results in) hit the nation hard enough and often enough and things grind to a halt.

We are talking about not just a devastated family or two per car accident, we are talking about devastating a community as a whole in one powerful blow, semi-regularly. While there is no difference between dying to a car accident or dying to a bullet, you're still dead, but the community feels unsafe, powerless and angry.

And that doesn't even cover the difference between a car *accident* and an intentional mass shooting. Knowing that Americans just like yourselves are vulnerable to this kind of violence is a tough way to live. The kids aren't wrapped up in gangs, crimes, or desperately poor. This is middle America being assaulted where it is most vulnerable, their children. "think of the children" is cliched because it's a powerful motivator, and as much as we like to make fun of it, it's a powerful motivator for a good reason. While it is often mis-used, this is the very definition of appropriate use of that phrase.

You're basically asking Americans to just accept that a couple of times a year a community's children are going to be wiped out and the community devastated because guns are hard. So far you've managed to get them to be quiet after some noise for each shooting. Can that go on forever? Time will tell I guess.

[noxiousdog]

But again, you're grasping at straws and/or running off the topic's road here (see what I did there?). There is a clear benefit to the child brought on by allowing him/her to be driven. This discussion is simply not about regulating all things (even things with individual and societal benefits) because something may go wrong.

It's about regulating things where there is no benefit, but there is a risk--and/or where there is no choice in the matter of taking on the risk to those [and their guardians] being put at risk.

YOU don't think there is a benefit. Plenty of people do. This is the liberal elitism that makes moderate conservatives side with extreme conservatives.

Guns are for hunting wildlife, make you feel safe (even if they aren't really safe), and they are fun. We can argue cost benefit but for you to say "no benefit" makes me want to oppose you. If you can't be trusted to respect gun-owners point of view, how can you expect them to believe you're not coming for all their guns?

[noxiousdog]

You're basically asking Americans to just accept that a couple of times a year a community's children are going to be wiped out and the community devastated because guns are hard. So far you've managed to get them to be quiet after some noise for each shooting. Can that go on forever? Time will tell I guess.

You have me confused with someone else.

[GreenGoo]

You have me confused with someone else.

First sentence was for you. The rest is for general consumption. "you're" is referring to the general "you" who value personal liberty over societal safety.

[Zaxxon]

YOU don't think there is a benefit. Plenty of people do. This is the liberal elitism that makes moderate conservatives side with extreme conservatives.

Guns are for hunting wildlife, make you feel safe (even if they aren't really safe), and they are fun. We can argue cost benefit but for you to say "no benefit" makes me want to oppose you. If you can't be trusted to respect gun-owners point of view, how can you expect them to believe you're not coming for all their guns?

Yes, guns are for hunting wildlife. Not all gun types are required to hunt wildlife. This is a well-tread area. We don't allow hunting deer with bazookas, so the only question is where the line is drawn. There's a discussion to be had there, and I don't think anyone (credible) is arguing that all guns should be taken away.

'Make you feel safe despite the evidence' is not a benefit worth arguing.

Fun is also not really relevant--there are ways (already discussed in this thread) to greatly tamp down on the risk of a mass shooting while still maintaining the ability to have fun.

FWIW, your use of the term 'liberal elitism' also makes rational people want to oppose you.

[RunningMn9]

YOU don't think there is a benefit. Plenty of people do. This is the liberal elitism that makes moderate conservatives side with extreme conservatives.

This is the libertarian reading comprehension that makes everyone frustrated.

I don't think that is what Zaxxon said (that there is no benefit to gun ownership in general). He was staying within the analogy I believe. Car accidents are an acceptable risk due to the benefit provided by driving around in cars. Getting shot while in Spanish II is not an acceptable risk due to the utter lack of benefit provided by sitting in Spanish II class while getting shot at.

[noxiousdog]

YOU don't think there is a benefit. Plenty of people do. This is the liberal elitism that makes moderate conservatives side with extreme conservatives.

Guns are for hunting wildlife, make you feel safe (even if they aren't really safe), and they are fun. We can argue cost benefit but for you to say "no benefit" makes me want to oppose you. If you can't be trusted to respect gun-owners point of view, how can you expect them to believe you're not coming for all their guns?

Yes, guns are for hunting wildlife. Not all gun types are required to hunt wildlife. This is a well-tread area. We don't allow hunting deer with bazookas, so the only question is where the line is drawn. There's a discussion to be had there, and I don't think anyone (credible) is arguing that all guns should be taken away.

Well, then don't say "no benefit" without clarification.

'Make you feel safe despite the evidence' is not a benefit worth arguing.

Emotional argument: You go tell that to the abused woman who finally managed to kick her ex out of the house and the handgun is the only thing that helps her sleep at night. (anecdotal: this is something I had to deal with in the last 4 months, and in getting her help, I heard the story repeated twice)

Real argument: there some balance between real numbers and emotional well being. The reality is getting randomly killed by a gun is highly unlikely. 2/3s are suicides, 2/9th is criminal activity, and the last are fights. Accidents and mass murders are a tiny fraction.

FWIW, your use of the term 'liberal elitism' also makes rational people want to oppose you.

What else would you use to explain it?

[RunningMn9]

Or maybe I was being charitable in reading Zaxxon, and I have the reading comprehension problem.

[noxiousdog]

I don't think that is what Zaxxon said (that there is no benefit to gun ownership in general). He was staying within the analogy I believe. Car accidents are an acceptable risk due to the benefit provided by driving around in cars. Getting shot while in Spanish II is not an acceptable risk due to the utter lack of benefit provided by sitting in Spanish II class while getting shot at.

I wasn't suggesting you don't drive. I was suggesting you wear a helmet the same way you wear a seat belt. It would dramatically reduce your chance of dying in a car as head injuries are the leading cause of death in motor vehicle accidents.

[Zaxxon]

Well, then don't say "no benefit" without clarification.

As RM9 pointed out, no clarification was really needed within the analogy I had been discussing.

Emotional argument: You go tell that to the abused woman who finally managed to kick her ex out of the house and the handgun is the only thing that helps her sleep at night.

Not relevant to this discussion (due to bolded).

What else would you use to explain it?

Misreading the argument. I have to say I'm disappointed--I generally find your retorts to be thought-provoking and relevant. I'm not getting that at all from your contributions to this discussion.

Now you can bring on the liberal elitism charge.

Or maybe I was being charitable in reading Zaxxon, and I have the reading comprehension problem.

No, you were spot-on.

[Zaxxon]

I wasn't suggesting you don't drive. I was suggesting you wear a helmet the same way you wear a seat belt. It would dramatically reduce your chance of dying in a car as head injuries are the leading cause of death in motor vehicle accidents.

Call me when my choice to not wear a helmet while driving puts others' lives at risk.

[noxiousdog]

I wasn't suggesting you don't drive. I was suggesting you wear a helmet the same way you wear a seat belt. It would dramatically reduce your chance of dying in a car as head injuries are the leading cause of death in motor vehicle accidents.

Call me when my choice to not wear a helmet while driving puts others' lives at risk.

Ok, never mind. I see you had put your argument in a limited scope and I weighted it differently.

I'm aware that this line of argument draws in 'but hunting!!11!!' and 'Fuck you, I like guns.' I'm utterly unmoved by those arguments. Hunt with something that requires 10-30 seconds to reload. You'll survive. And so would more kids. How many more? Unimportant--it's a positive number, and that's enough for me.

Am I correct in that you limited your scope to "hunting with something that requires 10-30 seconds to reload"?

[Kurth]

I don't really get this. Actually, I guess I kind of get it.
:
As I understand it, the risk of kids dying from mass school shootings are dwarfed by the risk of dying from other kinds of gun violence like drive-bys.

I'm not sure that you even kind of get it.

You are evaluating "risk" using only one metric: % chance that it will occur.

It's more complicated than that, which is why some people treat it differently. Your equation has a single variable, X. So you want to sort X from high-to-low and start at the top. That's a perfectly reasonable approach if all you are considering is X.

There are other factors, like Y (the psychological impact of having your school attacked, even if you survive). And Z (the expectation that you are assuming the risk by engaging in the activity).

Like I said above, I know that when I get behind the wheel of a vehicle, there is a set of terrible things that can happen to me. I know that they are much more likely than my kid's high school being attacked by one of these pieces of shit. I know that, and then it's up to me whether I decide to back out of my driveway. I know the risk, and I accept it when I drive. We still do a vast number of things to increase my survivability and reduce the changes of an accident - but I accept that risk when I drive away.

My son does not accept the risk of being shot in the face will dissecting a frog in Bio. It doesn't matter than the chances of *him* being shot in school are relatively low. The fact that the chances of him being shot in school while minding his own business is not 0.0000000000000000000% is an unacceptable state of affairs. Him being shot while in school can *never* be the "cost of doing business in America".

Ok. I take it back. I don't get it at all.

But how about this? Rather than looking at any one variable, we should:
(1) Take a look at all the gun-related events that represent horrible "unacceptable states of affairs" in the U.S. today.
(2) Use my X variable representing the % chance those events will happen.
(3) Measure both the amount of resources it would take to positively impact X and the degree of impact.
(4) Focus our efforts where we are likely to see the largest overall reduction of "unacceptable states of affairs" compared to resources allocated.

Through this lens, it still seems to me that making mass school shootings our focus is misguided.

[Zaxxon]

Am I correct in that you limited your scope to "hunting with something that requires 10-30 seconds to reload"?

Yes, although I admittedly did not give that specific timeframe the thought it deserves. My overall feeling is that it should be much more difficult to procure a weapon that can put more than X bullets out extremely quickly. To give an extreme example--I have zero reservations about it being very easy for everyone and their brother to obtain an 18th-century musket.

A weapon that can put out a dozen bullets in 10 seconds, then reload in a couple of seconds? Should be far more difficult (in my ideal world, impossible for all but a very narrow set of circumstances--see: military, hunting on private property and renting such a weapon while doing so, etc).

Also, I hope the prior comment about liberal elitism came off with the proper level of sarcasm. Sometimes I misfire on that front.

But how about this? Rather than looking at any one variable, we should:
(1) Take a look at all the gun-related events that represent horrible "unacceptable states of affairs" in the U.S. today.
(2) Use my X variable representing the % chance those events will happen.
(3) Measure both the amount of resources it would take to positively impact X and the degree of impact.
(4) Focus our efforts where we are likely to see the largest overall reduction of "unacceptable states of affairs" compared to resources allocated.

Through this lens, it still seems to me that making mass school shootings our focus is misguided.

I'd sure like to see that. Does that exist somewhere? On that front, what is the current state of the limitation on government-sponsored/considered research into firearm safety?

[noxiousdog]

My son does not accept the risk of being shot in the face will dissecting a frog in Bio. It doesn't matter than the chances of *him* being shot in school are relatively low. The fact that the chances of him being shot in school while minding his own business is not 0.0000000000000000000% is an unacceptable state of affairs. Him being shot while in school can *never* be the "cost of doing business in America".

Can you elaborate on this?

I don't see how you can ever make it 0. Despite all the crazy things we've done since 9/11, despite all the metal detectors at airports and stadiums, despite the money we've poured into the NSA etc, the chances of a terrorist attack aren't anywhere close to 0.

Similarly, even if we completely outlawed guns, how would that make it so nobody gets an illegal weapon and shoots up a school?

[noxiousdog]

Yes, although I admittedly did not give that specific timeframe the thought it deserves. My overall feeling is that it should be much more difficult to procure a weapon that can put more than X bullets out extremely quickly. To give an extreme example--I have zero reservations about it being very easy for everyone and their brother to obtain an 18th-century musket.

A weapon that can put out a dozen bullets in 10 seconds, then reload in a couple of seconds? Should be far more difficult (in my ideal world, impossible for all but a very narrow set of circumstances--see: military, hunting on private property and renting such a weapon while doing so, etc).

I think magazine size and reload speed are two of the biggest reasonable areas for regulation. I also have been toying with limits on private ammunition purchases while allowing you to buy ammo at a range.

Also, I hope the prior comment about liberal elitism came off with the proper level of sarcasm. Sometimes I misfire on that front.

I didn't give it a second thought. I take the comment back. I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Zaxxon]

My son does not accept the risk of being shot in the face will dissecting a frog in Bio. It doesn't matter than the chances of *him* being shot in school are relatively low. The fact that the chances of him being shot in school while minding his own business is not 0.0000000000000000000% is an unacceptable state of affairs. Him being shot while in school can *never* be the "cost of doing business in America".

Can you elaborate on this?

I don't see how you can ever make it 0. Despite all the crazy things we've done since 9/11, despite all the metal detectors at airports and stadiums, despite the money we've poured into the NSA etc, the chances of a terrorist attack aren't anywhere close to 0.

Similarly, even if we completely outlawed guns, how would that make it so nobody gets an illegal weapon and shoots up a school?

At the risk of mis-reading RM9, I don't think he's arguing that it's literally unacceptable to have it not be 0.000000000000000%, but rather that we could do a lot more without too much (IMO--yours may vary, obviously) rights-infringement.

To your point, if we completely outlawed guns it would not make it so that nobody gets an illegal weapon and shoots up a school. But it'd sure make it more difficult. The Florida shooter got his legally. If he couldn't have, would he have still committed the crime? Maybe. Would it have been with a less powerful weapon? Probably.

And I do think that the point RM9 brings out here is one that's often glossed over when discussing limiting peoples' rights with gun regulation. Stricter regulation would certainly have an adverse impact on some folks. But it also has a positive impact on others (those that would have been shot dead under current law but would not be under other prospective regulation frameworks, for example).

I think magazine size and reload speed are two of the biggest reasonable areas for regulation. I also have been toying with limits on private ammunition purchases while allowing you to buy ammo at a range.

Then I think we're probably far closer to agreement on this than it may at first have seemed. While I personally wouldn't bat an eye at going the Australia route and banning most weapons, I'm not actually arguing for that at this stage. I'd be largely happy with some restrictions on the 'deadlier' side of the market, ammo limitations, and actual peer-reviewed research into where to go from there. Right now this is a 'truthiness' discussion, and there's no reason for that, IMO. We should have a lot better hard data.

It is difficult to argue with the Onion headline that gets re-posted all the time--'No way to prevent this, says only nation where this regularly occurs.'

I didn't give it a second thought. I take the comment back. I misunderstood what you were saying.

[gameoverman]

So while the fight over gun control/regulation continues to stalemate, why can't we at least agree to other solutions?

Why can't we secure school like we do courts and banks? I've seen estimates from $15 to $25 billion a year to put metal detectors, their operators, and sworn officers (cops) in all public schools. Not armed teachers, cops. Cops trained specifically for the nuances of the job.

This seems like a no brainier, even if we still ban Ar-15s and whatever else. Banning all firearms, let alone just a few types, won't make it impossible for someone to walk into a school and shoot kids. So why not afford kids the same protection we give our money and judges and air travel? By all means, take your side on the gun control debate but why not secure schools as well? Surely the best scenario is whatever proper gun control/regulation plus additional security.

It's already in place in war weary schools in NY and Chicago.

It's sad, that's why I think we haven't done it yet. When I first went to high school it was an open campus. At lunch you could walk out in any direction, we usually went to In N Out which was a couple of blocks away. Then when you came back, you could walk onto the campus completely unchallenged by anyone. By the time I had graduated, it was a closed campus due to a few incidents of the drive by shooting variety over the years I was there. The first time it happened the reaction was "OMG a drive by!" and the last time before I left was more like "Oh, another one?".

Losing the open campus was a sad day. I can't imagine how I'd feel if the school was like a prison, all concrete and brick with tiny thick glass windows high enough off the ground to be out of reach, and everyone had to pass through small guarded entrances. Good luck teaching anyone anything in that environment. One message that will get through to the kids is be afraid, be very afraid.

[RunningMn9]

I don't see how you can ever make it 0.

To quote Vince Lombardi: "Gentlemen, we will chase perfection, and we will chase it relentlessly, knowing all the while we can never attain it. But along the way, we shall catch excellence."

My point isn't that we need to achieve 0.0000000000% success (although that would be nice). My point is that it can never be an accepted matter that it's just something we have to deal with occasionally. It will never be "acceptable risk" that these kids are being murdered in school. It can never just be the cost of freedom. That's fucking absurd.

[Trent Steel]

It will never be "acceptable risk" that these kids are being murdered in school. It can never just be the cost of freedom. That's fucking absurd.

Of course. However...

[sarcasm]
Haven't you heard the real reason all this is happening is because "pussy parents" don't know how to raise their kids nowadays? Facebook told me so.
[/sarcasm]

So many un-follows this week.

[RunningMn9]

So many un-follows this week.

I don't even know why I bother logging into FB anymore.

[Chaz]

I already deleted it from my phone. I'm tempted to just stop using it altogether. I never had a huge friends list on there, but a decent number of people I don't want to completely lose contact with, and that's the only way I even passively keep in touch with all of them. Then again, most of them don't actively post anymore, and those that do it's a lot of "look at my awesome, crazy life" or just instagram pictures, and I don't care about either of those.

[Carpet_pissr]

So many un-follows this week.

I don't even know why I bother logging into FB anymore.

I gave it up completely about a year ago, and haven't looked back. So glad I did.