Easy Solution To School Shootings?

[*Nately120*]

(06-07-2022, 04:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let's also be clear on this. The idea here is nothing new. In fact, school resource officers were a response to Columbine. The idea was to make schools "hard targets" by putting police officers in schools. How's that going?

Right, let's just face facts....more good guys with guns and making schools harder/more secure are just feel-good solutions we tell ourselves that we will do and it will work after something like this happens.  

It's like going to a buffet or buying a pack of cigarettes and telling ourselves not to feel bad because tomorrow we're totally going to go on a diet or quit smoking and so on.  

[BFritz21]

(06-07-2022, 04:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: No, that's not really how this works. If you put people in schools with guns there is always a chance of an accidental discharge. Most schools will never have an active shooter but by virtue of having armed guards in them all will have a potential of an accidental discharge, potential unsecured firearm, and so on. There will be a substantial increase in their insurance for such a measure unless they give these armed guards some sort of immunity which would be pretty reckless.

A trained professional, like a soldier, that has the safety on and doesn't have the weapon aimed at anything to shoot, much less have his finger on the trigger, isn't going to shoot anyone.

Even just a handgun that they have in a holster on their belt would cut down on shootings.

[BFritz21]

(06-07-2022, 03:54 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: So are malls and grocery stores, for example. If someone is deranged enough to shoot up a school, they will shoot up a grocery store or mall if it is more convenient for them. 

Ok, then let them take a chance at opening fire in an open area, where ADULTS can RUN AND HIDE, as opposed to schools, where KIDS are SITTING DUCKS.

[BFritz21]

(06-07-2022, 03:54 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I think you're overestimating the job and peoples desire to do said job, or underestimating some of the rural locations they'd have to drive to. Maybe both. The job likely wouldn't pay well, as the salary for an armed guard is $34,734. That isn't attractive, but to someone unemployed, it could sound great. Still, there is likely going to be a group of veterans that don't want to do the job for that pay, or just don't want to do the job at all. Then, you have the logistics. There are towns here in Oklahoma that are at least an hour-and-a-half from any major city. We don't want to exclude those towns from our list in this solution, but you're going to have a hard time finding someone willing to relocate or commute that distance for $17 per hour. 

Another issue you'll run into is a disproportionate amount of veterans living in one location. There are 40,000 unemployed veterans living in California, for instance. How many of those veterans would be willing to relocate to Mississippi, Maine, Vermont etc. to help fill vacancies there? You're not going to find the volunteers willing to do that for this kind of job.



Do they? This is news to me. Again, rural schools are going to be a problem. I went to two different schools, both smaller towns. Neither of them had guards or police patrol, locked doors, or cameras. Hell, the school I graduated from genuinely had no security precautions. Parents walked in the doors freely all the time to sit and talk to the office ladies or principal. 

Ok, so we shouldn't have them in schools that have enough nearby veterans just because they can't be at every school?

[*Nately120*]

(06-07-2022, 08:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Even just a handgun that they have in a holster on their belt would cut down on shootings.

I'm not a retired veteran, hell I'm not a retired anything, but if my job description is to neutralize a shooter who could have an AR15 and body armor I'm not showing up with a handgun.  Same goes for teachers who are supposed to stop shooters...you can't under-arm them.

[CKwi88]

(06-07-2022, 08:38 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: A trained professional, like a soldier, that has the safety on and doesn't have the weapon aimed at anything to shoot, much less have his finger on the trigger, isn't going to shoot anyone.

Even just a handgun that they have in a holster on their belt would cut down on shootings.

There is no objective reason to believe this is true other than "'cause I think so". If this were the case the school resource officers would have made a difference.

[BFritz21]

(06-07-2022, 09:19 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not a retired veteran, hell I'm not a retired anything, but if my job description is to neutralize a shooter who could have an AR15 and body armor I'm not showing up with a handgun.  Same goes for teachers who are supposed to stop shooters...you can't under-arm them.

OK, so give them all AR-15s, but I think just knowing there'e an armed soldier would cut down on shootings.

(06-07-2022, 09:26 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: There is no objective reason to believe this is true other than "'cause I think so". If this were the case the school resource officers would have made a difference.

An amateur with an AR-15 would be less likely to try and shoot-up a school if there's an armed guard with even a handgun because they both shoot at about the same rate but an AR-15 can shoot further and can fire more shots before reloading.

[*Nately120*]

(06-07-2022, 09:40 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: OK, so give them all AR-15s, but I think just knowing there'e an armed soldier would cut down on shootings.

An amateur with an AR-15 would be less likely to try and shoot-up a school if there's an armed guard with even a handgun because they both shoot at about the same rate but an AR-15 can shoot further and can fire more shots before reloading.

I'm just saying there'd be even less of a reason to try to shoot up a school if the guards have AR-15s and body armor.  Plus, this whole idea has more of a chance of happening if we can bill taxpayers for more expensive equipment.

[KillerGoose]

(06-07-2022, 08:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Ok, then let them take a chance at opening fire in an open area, where ADULTS can RUN AND HIDE, as opposed to schools, where KIDS are SITTING DUCKS.

I don’t want to assume what your point is here, so I’d like to ask. The way this is framed, you make it sound like a shooter opening fire in the scenarios I mentioned is a better scenario. Was that your intention?

[CKwi88]

(06-07-2022, 09:40 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: OK, so give them all AR-15s, but I think just knowing there'e an armed soldier would cut down on shootings.

An amateur with an AR-15 would be less likely to try and shoot-up a school if there's an armed guard with even a handgun because they both shoot at about the same rate but an AR-15 can shoot further and can fire more shots before reloading.

Again, there is no reason to believe that to be true other than "because I think so". School resource officer have handguns, and there has been no connection found between their presence and a decrease of shootings.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-07-2022, 03:48 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: School shootings at that rate ? 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country

19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN):

• United States — 288
• Mexico — 8
• South Africa — 6
• India — 5
• Nigeria & Pakistan — 4
• Afghanistan — 3
• Brazil, Canada, France — 2
• Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey — 1
  

Never said anything about Frequency, just that it happens in other developed countries as well, and thank you for making my point.

(06-07-2022, 04:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why should I have to pay to protect children that aren't mine? I already have to pay to support the public school system as a whole without any benefit from it, why should I have to pay more?

No benefit??? 
Those "children that aren't yours" grow up to be your coworkers, neighbors and part of your area's society. Now imagine if they were all uneducated cause of people like you that don't want to pay a tax to support the schools???? What would happen to that University that you work at?? Would you still have a job there??

And careful, sounds like you quoting the famous Republican rhetoric about not giving 2 shits about other people's kids...

(06-07-2022, 10:43 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Again, there is no reason to believe that to be true other than "because I think so". School resource officer have handguns, and there has been no connection found between their presence and a decrease of shootings.

LOL that's kinda hard to prove. Simply we don't know the real numbers of kids that were going to shoot up a school but changed their minds when they saw an armed officer???? Too many variables, isn't it already a proven fact that we have more shootings in gun free zones than non gun free ones?? I'd say there is probably a mental reason for that??

[BFritz21]

(06-07-2022, 10:23 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I don’t want to assume what your point is here, so I’d like to ask. The way this is framed, you make it sound like a shooter opening fire in the scenarios I mentioned is a better scenario. Was that your intention?

Yes. 

You don't think a shooter opening fire in open areas, where adults have the ability to run and hide, is better than a shooter opening fire in a classroom, where children are sitting ducks?

(06-07-2022, 10:43 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Again, there is no reason to believe that to be true other than "because I think so". School resource officer have handguns, and there has been no connection found between their presence and a decrease of shootings.

Because they're not standing guard at the doors.

I also think a person would be less likely to take on a soldier with a handgun than they would a soldier with a handgun, if they even know that the resource officer has a gun.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2022, 02:18 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No benefit??? 
Those "children that aren't yours" grow up to be your coworkers, neighbors and part of your area's society. Now imagine if they were all uneducated cause of people like you that don't want to pay a tax to support the schools???? What would happen to that University that you work at?? Would you still have a job there??

And careful, sounds like you quoting the famous Republican rhetoric about not giving 2 shits about other people's kids...

That was the point. I was being facetious and using conservative rhetoric intentionally to highlight the irony.

[KillerGoose]

(06-08-2022, 06:45 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yes. 

You don't think a shooter opening fire in open areas, where adults have the ability to run and hide, is better than a shooter opening fire in a classroom, where children are sitting ducks?

If the way you are describing it were true, then yeah. However, you’re painting a false picture. To answer directly, no, I don’t think that pushing shooters away from schools is a good solution. Most of the deadliest shootings our history have not been in schools. Shooters still target highly populated areas to maximize damage, where people can't run and hide as easily.. Las Vegas is an example, WalMart parking lot, McDonalds, churches, nightclubs etc.

That is not a better solution. Non-school shootings tend to have more victims, but also a significantly higher standard deviation. They are more volatile. Classifying victims as both the deceased and wounded, non-school shootings range from four victims to 461. School shootings have ranged from four victims to 40. This discrepancy is primarily caused by what is classified as a mass shooting, which typically four or more victims. If someone were to go to a party tonight, get into an argument with a group of four people and then shoot them all, it would be classified as a mass shooting. This a different picture than most people think of when they think of a mass shooting, but it fits the definition. The occurrence rate of school shootings is significantly lower than non-school shootings. For every school mass shooting, there are nine non-school mass shootings. The focus needs to be on reducing the amount of shootings overall, not trying to just focus on school shootings.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-08-2022, 07:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That was the point. I was being facetious and using conservative rhetoric intentionally to highlight the irony.

Then do me a favor, and back up your claim, obviously you believe it to be true.

Find me a quote direct from a Republican that directly says that he doesn't care about anyone else's kids.


You and several others keep making the claim, so i want to see it backed up. You know as well as i do that its nothing more than Political rhetoric.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2022, 09:10 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Then do me a favor, and back up your claim, obviously you believe it to be true.

Find me a quote direct from a Republican that directly says that he doesn't care about anyone else's kids.


You and several others keep making the claim, so i want to see it backed up. You know as well as i do that its nothing more than Political rhetoric.

Did I say that was the claim? I am referring to the argument for privatizing education which is taking it away from the government hands, removing it as a public good, and making it so those utilizing the service pay for it. This also is in line with the argument for a property tax credit it one sends their children to private schools. Both are very real arguments used in the private school debate and both are conservative positions (note, I didn't say Republican and I chose my words intentionally).

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-08-2022, 09:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did I say that was the claim? I am referring to the argument for privatizing education which is taking it away from the government hands, removing it as a public good, and making it so those utilizing the service pay for it. This also is in line with the argument for a property tax credit it one sends their children to private schools. Both are very real arguments used in the private school debate and both are conservative positions (note, I didn't say Republican and I chose my words intentionally).

You may have been referring to it, but I'm not a mind reader like Fred. 
I go by what you actually say.

Do you see me running around yelling Dems want your guns? 

It adds zip to the conversation and just pushes people further away into their selective corners.

[Belsnickel]

(06-08-2022, 11:28 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You may have been referring to it, but I'm not a mind reader like Fred. 
I go by what you actually say.

Do you see me running around yelling Dems want your guns? 

It adds zip to the conversation and just pushes people further away into their selective corners.

I don't put effort into Brad threads.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-08-2022, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't put effort into Brad threads.

neither does brad

[BFritz21]

(06-08-2022, 12:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't put effort into Brad threads.

(06-08-2022, 12:31 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: neither does brad

And yet I destroy both of you in every attempt you ever make to bash my threads.