Octopus Overlords

LawBeefaroni wrote:

msteelers wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:34 pm 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.

msteelers wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:06 pm
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.

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:39 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:09 pm 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.

Holman wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:03 pm Just a question: Has the 2nd Amendment ever actually defended liberty? Even once?

Blackhawk wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:32 pm 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.

GreenGoo wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:44 pm 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.

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:39 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:09 pm 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.

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:39 pmI 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.

Alefroth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 2:29 pm

Holman wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:03 pm 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"

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:12 pm How many more? Unimportant--it's a positive number, and that's enough for me.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:49 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:12 pm 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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:53 pm 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?

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:40 pm

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:39 pmI 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".

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:58 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:53 pm 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.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:58 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:53 pm 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.

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:22 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:58 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:53 pm 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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:26 pm We regulate what parents do with their kids all the time.

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:31 pm 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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:40 pm 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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:52 pm
You have me confused with someone else.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:51 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:31 pmYOU 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.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:51 pmYOU don't think there is a benefit. Plenty of people do. This is the liberal elitism that makes moderate conservatives side with extreme conservatives.

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:58 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:51 pm

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:31 pmYOU 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.

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

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:08 pm 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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:09 pm Well, then don't say "no benefit" without clarification.

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.

What else would you use to explain it?

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:14 pm Or maybe I was being charitable in reading Zaxxon, and I have the reading comprehension problem.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:17 pmI 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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:19 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:17 pmI 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.

Zaxxon wrote: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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:40 pm

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:39 pmI 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".

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:23 pmAm I correct in that you limited your scope to "hunting with something that requires 10-30 seconds to reload"?

Kurth wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:33 pm 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.

RM9 wrote: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".

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:41 pm 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.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:43 pm

RM9 wrote: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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:49 pmI 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.

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

LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 1:17 pm 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.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:43 pmI don't see how you can ever make it 0.

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:54 pmIt 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 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:36 pmSo many un-follows this week.

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:14 pm

Trent Steel wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:36 pmSo many un-follows this week.

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