|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 19 2018 13:46 Danglars wrote:
I disagree with the more libertarian-leaning elements of the right on permitting. I'm fine with the state involvement in permitting process.
I disagree with some of the NRA's hard-stance issues like waiting periods and registries. They have absolutely legitimate fears that all these efforts are aimed at subverting the 2nd amendment rights of Americans. I just don't think the stance of not taking one step back is an effective tool to win support.
I disagree with the moderate/RINO faction on their surrender of gun rights for law-abiding Americans. We agree on a lot of fiscal issues and social conservative issues. For some decades, this is a prevailing dividing line. The second amendment protections should apply to law-abiding citizens wishing to purchase commonly used firearms like glocks and AR-15s for personal defense and hunting (lawful purposes generally).
Really these are all too many to count. The broad conservative terminology applies to too much today and encompasses a ton of views on firearms, safety, gun control, and carry permissions.
Fair enough, I'll remember this (in a there are ways/areas I can engage with danglars way, not ominous I'm going to hold this over you way).
How about stuff like this (may fall under libertarian stuff):
|
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student?
|
On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student?
It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future.
The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero.
|
On February 19 2018 16:15 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student? It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future. The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero.
You guys have more faith than I do that this wouldn't turn into a certain strain of teachers shooting disruptive/disliked students with something that sounds straight out of the "how no tot go to prison for murdering someone handbook" they keep at police departments around the country.
|
On February 19 2018 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 16:15 Kyadytim wrote:On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student? It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future. The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero. You guys have more faith than I do that this wouldn't turn into a certain strain of teachers shooting disruptive/disliked students with something that sounds straight out of the "how no tot go to prison for murdering someone handbook" they keep at police departments around the country.
I'd honestly give it within the year before we hear the time honored, "I THOUGHT HE HAD A GUN ON HIM! I SAW HIM MOVE A LITTLE HE PROBABLY MAYBE WAS REACHING FOR IT?!" except from teachers!
|
The very moment you entertain putting guns near schools, I stop taking you seriously. Everyone was dumber and more emotional when they were younger. This is a universal truth. It is an institution of young people experiencing a myriad of firsts. First fight, first break-up. Schools are the worst place imaginable to have a gun available. Even on the belt of a security-guard, it shouldn't be there. It is so much more likely to be grabbed and used for the wrong reason, especially since in most schools there is literally never a right reason.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On February 19 2018 18:06 Leporello wrote:
The very moment you entertain putting guns near schools, I stop taking you seriously. Everyone was dumber and more emotional when they were younger. This is a universal truth. It is an institution of young people experiencing a myriad of firsts. First fight, first break-up. Schools are the worst place imaginable to have a gun available. Even on the belt of a security-guard, it shouldn't be there. It is so much more likely to be grabbed and used for the wrong reason, especially since in most schools there is literally never a right reason.
People aren't talking about arming high school students. The idea that teachers are going to break up schoolyard fights with a gun is also when I stop taking you seriously.
|
On February 19 2018 19:38 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 18:06 Leporello wrote:
The very moment you entertain putting guns near schools, I stop taking you seriously. Everyone was dumber and more emotional when they were younger. This is a universal truth. It is an institution of young people experiencing a myriad of firsts. First fight, first break-up. Schools are the worst place imaginable to have a gun available. Even on the belt of a security-guard, it shouldn't be there. It is so much more likely to be grabbed and used for the wrong reason, especially since in most schools there is literally never a right reason. People aren't talking about arming high school students. The idea that teachers are going to break up schoolyard fights with a gun is also when I stop taking you seriously.
That's not what he said at all.
Also, you know students and teachers fight pretty frequently? Giving scared/asshole teachers guns is a great recipe to turn some injuries into a death. Not to mention people are careless and it's very likely guns would be left unsecured and accessible to students.
It's a categorically stupid idea.
|
On February 19 2018 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 16:15 Kyadytim wrote:On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student? It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future. The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero. You guys have more faith than I do that this wouldn't turn into a certain strain of teachers shooting disruptive/disliked students with something that sounds straight out of the "how no tot go to prison for murdering someone handbook" they keep at police departments around the country.
Honestly, as a teacher, my first thought was a half-joking "Well I guess if you have a gun you'd rarely need to worry about your students being disrespectful" but I didn't really want to go there. Teaching can be a very stressful job, and I don't see any good coming out of this...
|
On February 19 2018 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 16:15 Kyadytim wrote:On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student? It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future. The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero. You guys have more faith than I do that this wouldn't turn into a certain strain of teachers shooting disruptive/disliked students with something that sounds straight out of the "how no tot go to prison for murdering someone handbook" they keep at police departments around the country. Honestly, as a teacher, my first thought was a half-joking "Well I guess if you have a gun you'd rarely need to worry about your students being disrespectful" but I didn't really want to go there. Teaching can be a very stressful job, and I don't see any good coming out of this...
I can think of at least half a dozen classmates growing up who's first goal would be to get a teacher to brandish a gun.
|
On February 19 2018 20:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 16:15 Kyadytim wrote:On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student? It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future. The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero. You guys have more faith than I do that this wouldn't turn into a certain strain of teachers shooting disruptive/disliked students with something that sounds straight out of the "how no tot go to prison for murdering someone handbook" they keep at police departments around the country. Honestly, as a teacher, my first thought was a half-joking "Well I guess if you have a gun you'd rarely need to worry about your students being disrespectful" but I didn't really want to go there. Teaching can be a very stressful job, and I don't see any good coming out of this... I can think of at least half a dozen classmates growing up who's first goal would be to get a teacher to brandish a gun.
And I'm sure that 99% of all incidents surrounding teachers with guns would have nothing to do with stopping an active shooter. It'll just be teachers threatening kids, kids egging teachers on, kids trying to grab the gun, etc.
Classrooms are small and filled with kids... I'm within arm's reach of multiple students at all times, especially as I circulate around the room. That means that a gun in my possession will be within arm's reach of multiple students at all times.
Also, public schools can't even afford to buy teachers chalk and erasers and calculators. Now they think they can magically find money in the budget for guns. Gtfo.
|
On February 19 2018 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 20:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 16:15 Kyadytim wrote:On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student? It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future. The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero. You guys have more faith than I do that this wouldn't turn into a certain strain of teachers shooting disruptive/disliked students with something that sounds straight out of the "how no tot go to prison for murdering someone handbook" they keep at police departments around the country. Honestly, as a teacher, my first thought was a half-joking "Well I guess if you have a gun you'd rarely need to worry about your students being disrespectful" but I didn't really want to go there. Teaching can be a very stressful job, and I don't see any good coming out of this... I can think of at least half a dozen classmates growing up who's first goal would be to get a teacher to brandish a gun. And I'm sure that 99% of all incidents surrounding teachers with guns would have nothing to do with stopping an active shooter. It'll just be teachers threatening kids, kids egging teachers on, kids trying to grab the gun, etc. Classrooms are small and filled with kids... I'm within arm's reach of multiple students at all times, especially as I circulate around the room. That means that a gun in my possession will be within arm's reach of multiple students at all times. Also, public schools can't even afford to buy teachers chalk and erasers and calculators. Now they think they can magically find money in the budget for guns. Gtfo.
I don't know about the last point. The US is very good at finding money for guns.
Other than that, you are correct. Another point i would like to add is the difference in tone that it would make to have armed teachers in a school. That distinctly changes the feeling of the school from being a place of learning to being under constant threat. That means that there is a constant need to pay some attention to the surroundings to be able to react quickly in case of danger, which means that students aren't focused on learning, and teachers aren't focused on teaching.
|
On February 19 2018 13:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 13:46 Danglars wrote:
I disagree with the more libertarian-leaning elements of the right on permitting. I'm fine with the state involvement in permitting process.
I disagree with some of the NRA's hard-stance issues like waiting periods and registries. They have absolutely legitimate fears that all these efforts are aimed at subverting the 2nd amendment rights of Americans. I just don't think the stance of not taking one step back is an effective tool to win support.
I disagree with the moderate/RINO faction on their surrender of gun rights for law-abiding Americans. We agree on a lot of fiscal issues and social conservative issues. For some decades, this is a prevailing dividing line. The second amendment protections should apply to law-abiding citizens wishing to purchase commonly used firearms like glocks and AR-15s for personal defense and hunting (lawful purposes generally).
Really these are all too many to count. The broad conservative terminology applies to too much today and encompasses a ton of views on firearms, safety, gun control, and carry permissions. Fair enough, I'll remember this (in a there are ways/areas I can engage with danglars way, not ominous I'm going to hold this over you way). How about stuff like this (may fall under libertarian stuff): https://twitter.com/fox32news/status/964646075125690369
Only in America! Keep believing that the solution to your gun problem is even more guns. You already have more guns than most other countries, and they are easier to get. It has worked great so far, hasn't it?
|
On February 19 2018 21:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 20:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 20:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 16:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2018 16:15 Kyadytim wrote:On February 19 2018 14:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So instead of one shooter in a crowd of students and faculty during a fake fire drill, we'll have multiple shooters because some teachers might be armed and might want to use their guns? Is that how this scenario replays itself with this proposed bill? More bullets flying, more confusion, more casualties, more chaos for the police who arrive and can't tell who the good vs. bad shooters are? Would these armed teachers get in trouble if one of their stray bullets hits a student? It's a good question, but probably not. The way stand your ground laws and police use of force at trials goes, teachers will probably be absolved of any collateral damage if they were attempting to stop a shooter. If things proceed in the more guns to solve guns direction, I wouldn't be surprised to see a preemptive allowance for accidents written into bills in the future. The more relevant consequence for a teacher who accidentally shot an innocent student is probably having that injury or death weighing on them. Following from that, the teachers most likely to have an use guns if allowed to bring them are the ones with fantasies of being a hero. You guys have more faith than I do that this wouldn't turn into a certain strain of teachers shooting disruptive/disliked students with something that sounds straight out of the "how no tot go to prison for murdering someone handbook" they keep at police departments around the country. Honestly, as a teacher, my first thought was a half-joking "Well I guess if you have a gun you'd rarely need to worry about your students being disrespectful" but I didn't really want to go there. Teaching can be a very stressful job, and I don't see any good coming out of this... I can think of at least half a dozen classmates growing up who's first goal would be to get a teacher to brandish a gun. And I'm sure that 99% of all incidents surrounding teachers with guns would have nothing to do with stopping an active shooter. It'll just be teachers threatening kids, kids egging teachers on, kids trying to grab the gun, etc. Classrooms are small and filled with kids... I'm within arm's reach of multiple students at all times, especially as I circulate around the room. That means that a gun in my possession will be within arm's reach of multiple students at all times. Also, public schools can't even afford to buy teachers chalk and erasers and calculators. Now they think they can magically find money in the budget for guns. Gtfo. I don't know about the last point. The US is very good at finding money for guns. Other than that, you are correct. Another point i would like to add is the difference in tone that it would make to have armed teachers in a school. That distinctly changes the feeling of the school from being a place of learning to being under constant threat. That means that there is a constant need to pay some attention to the surroundings to be able to react quickly in case of danger, which means that students aren't focused on learning, and teachers aren't focused on teaching.
My last point was just a tongue-in-cheek jab at how many schools don't even have funding for basic infrastructure and supplies for their students ^^; I also agree with your description of how the mood of the school would change for the worse.
|
USA, the only country where allowing teachers to have gun in schools is really a subject. Well it's also the only country where people seriously think that the solution to having too much guns is... to have even more guns. Yeah, Trump is not an accident.
|
Instead of arming teachers (whose job it is to teach, not to use firearms), why not just post two cops at every school? Or hire armed security guards?
|
It disturbs me how prison like schools would be with armed guards.
|
I guess I'm a bit late on the whole 'let's dl wikipedia into a Jupyter notebook and correlate away' thing I was planning to do this morning, and happy that American stats exceptionalism is alive and well. I want to share this study www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov that rigorously establishes correlation between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates within the 50 States. It's based on 2012 data. I didn't see anything fundamentally wrong with its scientific methodology.
Interestingly enough, looking at the bibliography shows a grand total of eighty references, many of them pointing in a similar direction.
Sharing the discussion / conclusion as :
'To the best of our knowledge, ours is the most up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between firearm ownership and gun-related homicide rates within the 50 states. Our study encompassed a 30-year period, with data through 2010, and accounted for 18 possible confounders of the relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide. We found a robust relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates that was not explained by any of these potential confounders and was not sensitive to model specification. Our work expanded on previous studies not only by analyzing more recent data, but also by adjusting for clustering by year and state and controlling for factors, such as the rate of nonfirearm homicides, that likely capture unspecified variables that may be associated with both gun ownership levels and firearm homicide rates.
The correlation of gun ownership with firearm homicide rates was substantial. Results from our model showed that a 1-SD difference in the gun ownership proxy measure, FS/S, was associated with a 12.9% difference in firearm homicide rates. All other factors being equal, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Because of our use of a proxy measure for gun ownership, we could not conclude that the magnitude of the association between actual household gun ownership rates and homicide rates was the same. However, in a model that incorporated only survey-derived measures of household gun ownership (for 2001, 2002, and 2004), we found that each 1-SD difference in gun ownership was associated with a 24.9% difference in firearm homicide rates.
'Our study substantially advances previous work by analyzing recent data, examining the longest and most comprehensive panel of state-specific data to date, and accounting for year and state clustering and for a wide range of potential confounders. We found a robust relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, a finding that held whether firearm ownership was assessed through a proxy or a survey measure, whether state clustering was accounted for by GEEs or by fixed effects, and whether or not gun ownership was lagged, by up to 2 years. The observed relationship was specific to firearm-related homicide. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher levels of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.'
|
That looks like one hell of a study! I'm interested in hearing superstartran's response.
|
The problem with just posting studies like that and acting like its you're whole argument is that the common person can't be expected to understand it with any respectable standard. I'm trying to understand some of the terms its using but I'm struggling a lot with questions that aren't answered (like what some of these numbers mean and how they got them) and a lot of the terminology. They throw out terms like throwing away variables when they decide other variables are better and never really expand past stating that they did that. Most of the thing is just talk about itself instead of actual data and then concluding what they wanted to conclude from the beginning.
I mean unpack "Use of a Poisson rather than a negative binomial model did not alter the results." I have no comprehension on that and I doubt a lot of people do. Theres a reason why academia doesn't have the same standing with the public like it used to.
In the end its not even a good argument to use in a debate. More guns means more homicides used with guns. Its not saying that more guns means more deaths. its not saying that having less guns means less deaths. Its just saying having guns available means its more common that guns are used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
