Page 57 of 91
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:11 pm
by Isgrimnur
I'm working on giving The Treatment™ to the speech now, but it is still a work day.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:51 pm
by Pyperkub
Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Jun 02, 2022 8:30 pm
- No, we don't, and maybe we should
- No, we don't
- Sure
- No, we don't
- No, we don't
OK, let's go to the meat. #1 Ban Assault weapons.
As we all know, we did this for 10 years, and mass shootings declined, and when the ban was removed, they exploded with continuing momentum towards more.
So, Isg. Why do you have a problem with the ban on assault weapons, which has demonstrated success in the US previously?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:55 pm
by Kraken
Kurth wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 11:34 am
A miracle could happen (it won’t), and we could successfully implement every one of the measures proposed in Joe Biden’s tweet, and that still wouldn’t make a significant impact in the gun violence that’s a scourge on our society.
The last time we banned assault weapons, mass shootings fell by about 1/3. Granted mass shootings are a small subset of overall gun violence, but that's still significant.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:27 pm
by dbt1949
If teachers had been armed at school how many, if any, would have actively engaged the shooter?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:32 pm
by Isgrimnur
More than the cops.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:17 am
by Unagi
Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:32 pm
More than the cops.
That’s not at all certain. But it’s clearly an easy number to top.
I believe that most teachers honestly don’t have it in them to kill a student. If you wanted to be a hero with a gun that protects people for little pay, you’d sign up to be a cop, not a teacher.
Now the one thing they have on their side is: they may have no choice but to engage.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:22 am
by LawBeefaroni
Unagi wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:17 am
Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:32 pm
More than the cops.
That’s not at all certain. But it’s clearly an easy number to top.
I believe that most teachers honestly don’t have it in them to kill a student. If you wanted to be a hero with a gun that protects people for little pay, you’d sign up to be a cop, not a teacher.
Now the one thing they have on their side is: they may have no choice but to engage.
Yeah, I would wager even Uvalde cops would engage if they' were trapped and someone was shooting at them.
Arming teachers isn't a solution.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:46 am
by Combustible Lemur
Unagi wrote:Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:32 pm
More than the cops.
That’s not at all certain. But it’s clearly an easy number to top.
I believe that most teachers honestly don’t have it in them to kill a student. If you wanted to be a hero with a gun that protects people for little pay, you’d sign up to be a cop, not a teacher.
Now the one thing they have on their side is: they may have no choice but to engage.
This isnt the problem with arming teachers. We have quite a few veterans, combat veterans, strong willed and determined people. The problem is when you add guns to stressful situations more people get shot. How many students will find ways to access said fire arms? How long till the first accidental discharge? How long until a teacher uses one as a disciplinary scare tactic? Uses one when "threatened"? Uses one in a fight? Accidently shoots a bystander? Who's paying for the additional training? Is it coming out of existing training? How much training?
We're not trusted with books, potty words or harsh grades, but people want to put death in our hands?
Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:48 am
by hepcat
Guns should be kept out of schools…period. For ALL the reasons just mentioned.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:54 am
by Unagi
Combustible Lemur wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:46 am
Unagi wrote:Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:32 pm
More than the cops.
That’s not at all certain. But it’s clearly an easy number to top.
I believe that most teachers honestly don’t have it in them to kill a student. If you wanted to be a hero with a gun that protects people for little pay, you’d sign up to be a cop, not a teacher.
Now the one thing they have on their side is: they may have no choice but to engage.
This isnt the problem with arming teachers. We have quite a few veterans, combat veterans, strong willed and determined people. The problem is when you add guns to stressful situations more people get shot. How many students will find ways to access said fire arms? How long till the first accidental discharge? How long until a teacher uses one as a disciplinary scare tactic? Uses one when "threatened"? Uses one in a fight? Accidently shoots a bystander? Who's paying for the additional training? Is it coming out of existing training? How much training?
We're not trusted with books, potty words or harsh grades, but people want to put death in our hands?
Oh, please don't think that I feel what I said is the only problem with arming teachers. Everything you said is spot on as well.
I also almost said: "There may have been even more dead students", but I didn't feel like going down the whole list of problems with arming teachers...
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:55 am
by Unagi
Combustible Lemur wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:46 am
We're not trusted with books, potty words or harsh grades, but people want to put death in our hands?
I think this is a particularly good way of saying it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:12 pm
by Smoove_B
LawBeefaroni wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:22 am
Arming teachers isn't a solution.
It is now in
Ohio:
House Bill 99 was reportedly rushed through both the state House and Senate in a single day. Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has already announced that he plans to sign it into law.
Barring an unexpected development, this means that school staff will no longer have to go through the 737 hours of training required under current law to wield deadly weapons on campus. The new minimum amount of training outlined by the bill is 24 hours.
Under the tortured logic of the new Ohio legislation, armed school staff with only 24 hours of training will now be expected to do what Uvalde law enforcement could not: incapacitate or possibly kill a would-be mass shooter before a multitude of lives are lost. Such a policy could also make it more likely that a school employee will shoot someone who isn’t a deadly threat.
To be clear, it was permitted before, but only after extensive training hours. I'm sure 24 hours of training time is fine. How hard could be it to learn how to just start blasting?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:47 pm
by dbt1949
Operating a gun is not the problem. Learning to hit what you aim at is.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:13 pm
by Unagi
That's long after you've found and unlocked the secured gun, and then found the courage to hunt down the shooter. Provided they weren't aware of you having the access to a gun - and didn't target you as a priority.
And as it's been said... This will just mean more guns on campus and they have simply no place on campus.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:34 pm
by Unagi
And as that article suggests, how long will it be before the first school staff member is the shooter. And at that point, do you have to let students on campus with their firearms, with the same 24hour training?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:56 pm
by dbt1949
I don't really think I'm for it but I like to hear ideas about for and against it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:02 pm
by Holman
If nothing else, arming teachers will attract the kind of people who want to wear a gun and have authority over kids. That's not good.
If that sounds far-fetched, consider the likely percentage of cops who aren't actually in it for the sake of serving the public.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:15 pm
by Blackhawk
Pyperkub wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:51 pm
As we all know, we did this for 10 years, and mass shootings declined, and when the ban was removed, they exploded with continuing momentum towards more.
To be fair, all violent crime declined during that period. It's really hard to say exactly what effect the ban itself had, but for the same reasons I gave in the other thread, the ban itself did very little in regards to reducing the availability or effectiveness of guns. All it really did is make things that let people trick out their guns to 'look cool' illegal. It's like banning fancy rims and KC lights in order to reduce the number of trucks.
Combustible Lemur wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:46 amThe problem is when you add guns to stressful situations more people get shot. How many students will find ways to access said fire arms? How long till the first accidental discharge? How long until a teacher uses one as a disciplinary scare tactic? Uses one when "threatened"? Uses one in a fight? Accidently shoots a bystander? Who's paying for the additional training? Is it coming out of existing training? How much training?
Until one takes their school-supplied gun home and uses it in a crime, or it is stolen and used in a crime? Until the bullet goes through the shooter, through the wall, and kills a kid in the next room? Until the school budget gets tight and the school has to choose between refreshing the gun training for 50 teachers or getting new football uniforms?
Speaking of which, where is this gun? In a locked safe? Wouldn't help - most shootings are either over, or the shooters are barricaded within four to five minutes, and a huge chunk of those within two or three minutes. And even then, have you seen The Lockpicking Lawyer on YouTube? Students have. How long until a student gets a gun he wouldn't have had access to by stealing it from the school. Or are they carried on the teacher? Even with a retention holster, if a student wants a teacher's weapon, they've got it. It's that simple. It takes a lot of training, constant training, to be able to recover a weapon once somebody grabs it from your holster. And it takes just as much to regain control when you pull it out and someone grabs your hand to take it. And that isn't even touching on how easy it would be for a student wanting to do some killing to simply start by knocking an armed teacher over the head by surprise. Again: You're introducing more guns into a crowded building. That is never a good plan for fewer deaths.
And what do the teachers do when they hear there is a shooter? All of them come running out of their classrooms, armed, and abandon their kids?
And then there is the human factor. People faced with that situation who aren't heavily and regularly trained (and even some who are) tend to either freeze (rendering the gun pointless, or the teacher dead and an extra gun in the shooter's hands), panic (now there are wild shots flying around), or overreact (when there is an active shooter and a dozen people come charging around different corners with guns in hand, guess who they start shooting? Each other.) They're not trained combatants. They won't respond like soldiers.
And if the teacher is armed, it simply means that they are the first target. Do we pay teachers enough to be the first target?
Next up: What happens when the cops
do get there, and actually do respond correctly? All the cops know is that there's a shooter. They don't know who, or what they look like, or if it is a 4th grader or adult. When they go in through that door, what do they see? How many people with guns walking around? At that point, they either can't identify the shooter quickly enough, or they shoot a teacher.
And now can we say civil lawsuits? Any shooting that happens with a teacher's gun is a lawsuit. Any shooting that happens that the teachers don't stop is a lawsuit. How many wrongful death lawsuits can our education system absorb? What will that do to budgets? What will the insurance premiums for schools do to budgets? And if teachers are opening themselves up to that kind of liability, shouldn't they get paid commensurate to the risk (in addition to hazard pay for being the first target?)
Yes, it is possible that there will be a shooting or two that starts in the right place near the right teacher who has just enough time to retrieve a weapon and stop it. In the vast majority it won't help. And I think you'd find that, after a decade of armed teachers, they'd have a dozen lives, and cost hundreds of them.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:32 pm
by Kraken
Holman wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 5:02 pm
If nothing else, arming teachers will attract the kind of people who want to wear a gun and have authority over kids. That's not good.
Conversely, a lot of good teachers who want no part of that will leave the profession.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:34 pm
by Blackhawk
In an already thankless profession that is infamously underpaid, under-respected, and blamed for everything under the sun. And which is constantly struggling with shortages already.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:38 pm
by Unagi
"Oh no, that would just about be the end of public schools."
Isn't that one of
their goals as well?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:51 pm
by Blackhawk
Thinking more about armed teachers, one more thing to keep in mind is that these mass shootings are premeditated, and most are extensively planned in advance. It would be simple to plan around armed teachers - just start by closing the door to your chosen classroom, and then shooting the teacher. It isn't a complex problem to get around.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:53 pm
by Unagi
Unagi wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:13 pm
... Provided they weren't aware of you having the access to a gun - and didn't target you as a priority.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:53 pm
by YellowKing
People can throw out all the statistics they want, and all the reasons they want, but ultimately for me it boils down to this:
We live in a country where we're not willing to do anything and everything to protect our kids.
As a parent, it's extremely disappointing and frustrating.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:46 pm
by Holman
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:01 pm
by Blackhawk
YellowKing wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:53 pm
People can throw out all the statistics they want, and all the reasons they want, but ultimately for me it boils down to this:
We live in a country where we're not willing to do anything and everything to protect our kids.
As a parent, it's extremely disappointing and frustrating.
I hope you don't think anyone here isn't in favor of doing something - whatever we can - to protect them. We just disagree on what would be most effective, taking into account with might actually be possible to get done.
Hell, I'm all in favor of giving the guns in the US the Thanos snap (x2) and prohibiting anything new from being manufactured or imported, except maybe weapons 'of historical interest' (IE - technologies and implementations dating to prior to 1847.) In other words, single shot weapons, which would give hunters plenty of choices (bow, crossbow, rifle), although it would require more skill.
But I'm more interested in figuring out something we can actually
do, rather than something we can dream about. And if we can only do a little, it needs to be the most effective thing we can do - another 'assault weapons ban' would be awful, wasting what little clout we have on theater.
What we can actually do, and what the best thing to do is where the arguing comes in. In my experience, smaller magazines aren't the most effective choice (save, possibly, drum mags.) They are not zero gain. But they are not going to be as effective as other options.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:36 pm
by Blackhawk
And again, there is the ugly elephant-in-the-room question that most people avoid, as it gets in really tricky ethical territory, and I usually got yelled at when I've brought it up after past shootings (all based on 2021's data):
If we could stop
all mass shootings completely, or reduce other shooting deaths by 5%, which would we choose?
If we could prevent
all deaths of children, 0-18 by guns, or reduce all other deaths guns by 10%, which would we choose?
If we could ban every rifle of even one shot, or reduce availability of handguns enough to reduce handgun deaths by 10%, which would we choose?
And what about just the kids who die in school shootings. This one's trickier, as school wasn't fully in session over the last couple of years so the numbers are low. Let's take this year - which has been high - and double it (and we're way beyond halfway through the school days in 2022.)
Which would we choose? Which should we choose?
It's a shitty question, because we're hard-wired to protect children (and I have three children, plus three grandchildren myself, and yes, I'd keel over dead right this second if it saved any one of their lives, or the life of a stranger's kid.) And yeah, statistics suck. And talking about the ratio of value between children's lives vs all lives really, really sucks. But how can we pretend to value life if we don't even
consider it before spending what little power we may be able to scrape up on something that might save a few dozen over a few thousand?
You may now begin the name calling.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 2:18 am
by Pyperkub
Please note that the GOP strategy is to do nothing.
In writing
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... y-1362970/
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:28 am
by LawBeefaroni
Blackhawk wrote: Sat Jun 04, 2022 10:36 pm
And again, there is the ugly elephant-in-the-room question that most people avoid, as it gets in really tricky ethical territory, and I usually got yelled at when I've brought it up after past shootings (all based on 2021's data):
If we could stop
all mass shootings completely, or reduce other shooting deaths by 5%, which would we choose?
If we could prevent
all deaths of children, 0-18 by guns, or reduce all other deaths guns by 10%, which would we choose?
If we could ban every rifle of even one shot, or reduce availability of handguns enough to reduce handgun deaths by 10%, which would we choose?
And what about just the kids who die in school shootings. This one's trickier, as school wasn't fully in session over the last couple of years so the numbers are low. Let's take this year - which has been high - and double it (and we're way beyond halfway through the school days in 2022.)
Which would we choose? Which should we choose?
It's a shitty question, because we're hard-wired to protect children (and I have three children, plus three grandchildren myself, and yes, I'd keel over dead right this second if it saved any one of their lives, or the life of a stranger's kid.) And yeah, statistics suck. And talking about the ratio of value between children's lives vs all lives really, really sucks. But how can we pretend to value life if we don't even
consider it before spending what little power we may be able to scrape up on something that might save a few dozen over a few thousand?
You may now begin the name calling.
If you could choose to do nothing or do something, which would you choose? Start with low-hanging fruit.
As stated in the AWB thread, fighting
Heller is a major battle. We can tackle one problem that has a chance at being solvable or we can tackle one that has almost zero chance. Case law and the current make-up of judicial and legislative branches kind of limit options.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 8:39 am
by YellowKing
Blackhawk wrote:But how can we pretend to value life if we don't even consider it before spending what little power we may be able to scrape up on something that might save a few dozen over a few thousand?
When we have a plane crash that kills 150 people, we figure out what caused it and make damn sure it doesn't happen again. Even though we know there will be other plane crashes caused by other causes. Even though this fix may not impact other transportation fatalities that occur every year. We start by fixing this problem that we 100% know resulted in deaths.
Every time one of these shootings happen, we get bogged down on what we should do, large blanket bans, statistics, what defines an assault rifle, etc.
Let's start by making sure this *particular* incident does not happen again. What do we have to do to get there?
This is a problem that *has* to be solved through iteration. It can't be solved in one fell swoop (well, it *could*, but not in this country). So if the answer to making sure an 18-year old doesn't get his hand on this weapon is to raise the age limit to 21, we do that. Then the next inevitable time this happens, we figure out what went wrong and we fix that.
That's what we're not willing to do. We're not willing to look at a mass shooting where 10 year old kids got shot and say "Let's make sure this doesn't happen again." So it will happen again. Just as it did post-Sandy Hook. And there will be future kids that will die because of our inaction.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 9:47 am
by RunningMn9
Blackhawk, the problem with your position is that it treats all fatalities caused by a firearm equally. You are looking at a spreadsheet with numbers and figuring out a min/max strategy to reduce the most numbers.
And that’s certainly your choice.
I don’t view all gun fatalities equally. These aren’t numbers on a spreadsheet to me. I’m not interested in trying to reduce the overall number as much as possible. If I could stop all suicides or I could stop all mass shootings in schools, I would stop all mass shootings in schools. If I could stop all gang bangers from killing each other or stop all mass shootings in schools, I would stop all mass shootings in schools.
It doesn’t matter to me if there are 10,000 suicides for every 9 year old gunned down while learning his times tables. If given the choice, I know which one I would rather try to prevent.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:01 am
by YellowKing
Yeah to put another way, I kind of grew up in a safety background. My dad was a construction safety officer for many years, and I used to work for a construction contractor where OSHA requirements were constantly being taught and implemented.
In that environment, if one guy gets crushed by a forklift at your company, it doesn't matter if 100 other guys fell off a ladder at the place down the road. You still focus on how to prevent the guy from getting crushed by the forklift.
We need to be treating this as a public safety issue, incident by incident, instead of trying to fix the world with one stroke of a pen.
The sad fact is that if those kids at Uvalde had died from falling from a piece of playground equipment, we'd have investigators all over it figuring out what went wrong and taking steps to address it. We'd have playground equipment manufacturers all over the country revising their entire manufacturing process to ensure it didn't happen again. Whether or not it had happened before. That one incident would be enough to spur action, and we'd never have another group of kids dying the same way.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:03 am
by Blackhawk
I don't view them equally, either. But that doesn't mean it isn't a scale, or that the balance can't tip. No, I don't know exactly where it would tip. But I know that I would lay down my life for any child. And I would let any adult die before a child. But if I had to choose between a hundred people (regardless of age) dying, or one child dying, the hundred are going to live. No, lives are not equal, and not all deaths are equal, but they all have weight, and I can't sit back and say that one type of life is so much more important that the others bear no consideration next to it.
Again, I don't know where the line is. There is no X adults per child value statement. But when you get to the extremes, the balance, to me at least, does shift.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:05 am
by Blackhawk
YellowKing wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 10:01 am
In that environment, if one guy gets crushed by a forklift at your company, it doesn't matter if 100 other guys fell off a ladder at the place down the road. You still focus on how to prevent the guy from getting crushed by the forklift.
But it does mean that you take a look at your ladder and make sure it won't happen to you, too. And if you do have the same problem, maybe you fix the ladder before the forklift.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:42 am
by Unagi
RunningMn9 wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 9:47 am
Blackhawk, the problem with your position is that it treats all fatalities caused by a firearm equally. You are looking at a spreadsheet with numbers and figuring out a min/max strategy to reduce the most numbers.
And that’s certainly your choice.
I don’t view all gun fatalities equally. These aren’t numbers on a spreadsheet to me. I’m not interested in trying to reduce the overall number as much as possible. If I could stop all suicides or I could stop all mass shootings in schools, I would stop all mass shootings in schools. If I could stop all gang bangers from killing each other or stop all mass shootings in schools, I would stop all mass shootings in schools.
It doesn’t matter to me if there are 10,000 suicides for every 9 year old gunned down while learning his times tables. If given the choice, I know which one I would rather try to prevent.
I was going to try and articulate something like this too. (Here, I'll try and we'll see why I worried that I would blow it)
Being randomly gunned down in a public space like a school, mall, church, etc. - with a school being just out-of-the-park horrible... - holds an entirely different place in many people's heads (I imagine even Blackhawk's).
Being a victim of something like suicide, crimes of passion, or even a street crime in the city... these are more personal and psychologically one feels they have some level of personal control to avoid/negate or even just minimize their exposure to.
The 'mass-shooting' is more like a sudden killer-tornado that one sees as nearly undefendable and unpredictable, but since we know a person is actually behind it - we know there must be a way to avoid/negate or even just minimize our exposure to it.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 11:52 am
by Grifman
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:03 pm
by dbt1949
I think the easiest thing to do is go with home schooling. Problem solved.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:05 pm
by Blackhawk
dbt1949 wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:03 pm
I think the easiest thing to do is go with home schooling in Canada. Problem solved.
Adjusted.
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:28 pm
by Blackhawk
I'll ask it again separately, because most people are probably tuning the other discussion out:
If we had a great bill in hand right now, and figured out the best combination of reforms to prevent this from happening again, what would we do with it? Where would it go?
Re: Shootings
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:37 pm
by Unagi
Blackhawk wrote: Sun Jun 05, 2022 12:28 pm
I'll ask it again separately, because most people are probably tuning the other discussion out:
If we had a great bill in hand right now, and figured out the best combination of reforms to prevent this from happening again, what would we do with it? Where would it go?
A Senator from Kentucky would keep the bill from being voted on.