Mass shootings

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2018, 04:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That’s fair.  

IMO The best policy would be to hire actual armed security.   But I just know how most districts are and they won’t prioritize it unfortunately.

Actual security, armed or not, is a better policy, but their resources are already spread thin. 

But, again, none of this addresses preventing the shootings from occurring, just reacting to them when they happen.

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it really doesn't.  The pro-gun side does not make up statistics or deliberately lie.  They are generally very clear and up front with their goals. 

I respectfully disagree. In addition to suggesting any regulation is a call for banning guns, we have seen fake statistics, such as the ones Lucie just posted from a major pro gun research group suggesting that all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. 

I don't disagree that they're upfront with their goals, but that doesn't mean their arguments aren't misleading. I also don't even understand their need to be misleading. You can acknowledge gun violence and also point out the 2nd Amendment as being the only thing that matters to the debate.

[Belsnickel]

(02-22-2018, 06:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I respectfully disagree. In addition to suggesting any regulation is a call for banning guns, we have seen fake statistics, such as the ones Lucie just posted from a major pro gun research group suggesting that all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. 

I don't disagree that they're upfront with their goals, but that doesn't mean they're arguments aren't misleading. I also don't even understand their need to be misleading. You can acknowledge gun violence and also point out the 2nd Amendment as being the only thing that matters to the debate.

Yeah, I didn't see the post which you are quoting here, but there is a lot of misleading information on both sides where numbers are massaged or framed in a way to be more favorable than they really are. It's important to keep in mind that on both sides, the data is not made up. What is being done is presenting the information in a way that makes a better argument. I've taken classes on how to avoid this in statistics and for my policy stuff, but unfortunately those are more like "how to" manuals for more partisan actors.

[ballsofsteel]

Drumph suggest arm the teachers. Great idea. Big increase in gun sales. What a great solution.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2018, 12:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the biggest problems is that the anti-gun crowd has consistently proven themselves to be highly disingenuous.  You will routinely hear them state that 36k are killed by gun violence per year.  This deliberately ignores that 24k of those are suicides.  A suicide, while certainly tragic, is not "gun violence" anymore than a person who hangs themselves or OD's on pills is rope violence or pill violence.  So why the deliberate subterfuge?

After the FL shooting you heard a lot about "18 school shootings already this year".  This is another deliberate lie.  This one was so egregious that even the Washington Post had to refute it.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.c9910507f55a

If you feel you have a good argument, why would you need to lie?  Maybe because you don't have a good argument or you have an agenda that doesn't require truth.  In the late 80's when CA banned standard capacity magazines, limiting the number of rounds to ten, they stated they would never come after the magazines of that type that were already owned by the citizenry.  Then in 2016, they did exactly that, passing a law that banned all of them and made failure to surrender the previously lawfully owned property a criminal act.  Thankfully a judge put a stop to that, at least temporarily.


If you're a gun owner, or just someone who believes the 2nd amendment is important, how could you trust people who have routinely demonstrated a willingness to engage in blatant falsehoods to push their agenda?  How could you trust people who say they want "x" but will never want "y and z" and then come for both of them a few years later?  The answer is you can't and you shouldn't.  This, more than any other reason, is why you don't see the pro-gun side give even an inch, because they know the anti-gun side will then take a mile.  Not a recipe for getting "common sense" (and I mean real common sense not Everytown or Moms Demand Action's idea of common sense) gun control through, is it?

The pro gun crowd does the same thing.  when they want to talk about how rare gun violence is all they use is the number of murders and completely ignore the fact that twice as many people are shot than people who are killed.  and they also ignore the hundreds of thousands of armed robberies where a gun is used but never fired.  And the thousand of assaults where a gun is used but never fired.

The argument that "giving an inch" has anything to do with "taking a mile" is just ridiculous.  That is not how legislation works.  You either get the votes to pass it or you don't.  It is not like "Oh we got you to agree on X and now you HAVE TO agree to Y".  As long as X and Y are two different issues you can always agree with one while not agreeing to the other.  I can't believe people fall for that illogical fear mongering.   "If we agree to a gun registry then that means we can never oppose anything else ever again".  People who believe that are just ignorant of how laws and regulations are created.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it really doesn't.  The pro-gun side does not make up statistics or deliberately lie.  They are generally very clear and up front with their goals. 

That is exactly what Lucie just did in this thread with his stats on killings in "gun free zones".

They also like to tell the lie that "If we agree to a gun registry then we will be helpless and not allowed to oppose a complete banning of all guns". 

And how often have you heard this gem? "Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens"  Sounds pretty silly when there are so many people in jail for violating gun laws.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2018, 06:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I respectfully disagree. In addition to suggesting any regulation is a call for banning guns, we have seen fake statistics, such as the ones Lucie just posted from a major pro gun research group suggesting that all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. 

I don't disagree that they're upfront with their goals, but that doesn't mean their arguments aren't misleading. I also don't even understand their need to be misleading. You can acknowledge gun violence and also point out the 2nd Amendment as being the only thing that matters to the debate.

(02-22-2018, 06:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I didn't see the post which you are quoting here, but there is a lot of misleading information on both sides where numbers are massaged or framed in a way to be more favorable than they really are. It's important to keep in mind that on both sides, the data is not made up. What is being done is presenting the information in a way that makes a better argument. I've taken classes on how to avoid this in statistics and for my policy stuff, but unfortunately those are more like "how to" manuals for more partisan actors.

I suppose it was rather foolish of me to claim that the pro 2A crowd flat out does not engage in this conduct, there's almost certainly those that do.  What I really should have focused on is that the anti-2A claims seem to get a lot of traction with the media and end up being reported as fact.

One argument that's really bothered me of late, and the high school kids really indulge in it (note I get they're HS kids who've been through a traumatic experience so I don't relay hold them accountable) is this supposed right to "feel safe".  I've got news for you, you're not safe now and you never were safe.  Free society and safe are incompatible.  Did they feel safe getting into the car to go to the town hall on guns?  Because they were far more likely to be injured or killed in an auto accident than a school shooting.  They're far more likely to be injured or even killed getting out of the shower than in a school shooting.  I need to feel safe is a non-argument.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2018, 07:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I need to feel safe is a non-argument.

Funny because that is the #1 argument used by gunowners to explain why they have to own so many powerful guns.

You are far more likely to get injured stepping out of your bathtub than by an armed home invader.

[Benton]

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: .  What you didn't just describe is what I did in the post you quoted, the deliberate falsehoods constantly spread by the anti-2A crowd.  Having a total numbers versus a per capita argument is not the same as deliberately falsifying data.

t

Not really. Lumping gun violence statistics together or lumping gun violence statistics together is still just.... lumping gun violence statistics together. Citing Chicago as a failure of gun control based off one set of numbers isn’t any better than saying gun violence happens more often by lumping in self inflicted gun violence.

[Dill]

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will never understand why people such as yourself and Matt even bother responding to him.  GM, Dill and Fred do so as he's low hanging fruit.  They can beat him up with arguments that wouldn't work on an informed and serious person and then feel good about their "victory".  Just ignore him, you'll find yourself happier for it.  I do the same thing to Fred when he goes into full toast mode.

Why do you feel that such asides are necessary?  Are GM, Dill and Fred so in your head that you must keep obliquely targeting them in discussions with others?  

For the record, there is no one in this forum whom I wouldn't "bother" responding to, no one I consider "low hanging fruit" for "victory."  In recent disagreements with Lucy, I have posed questions about apparent contradictions in his statements and he has answered without veering off topic or personally disparaging me or anyone else.  You cannot say that.

And as the record shows, though you and the more civil Lucy are generally on the same side, I have clearly spent far more time "beating up" on you than than on him.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2018, 07:20 PM)Benton Wrote: t

Not really. Lumping gun violence statistics together or lumping gun violence statistics together is still just.... lumping gun violence statistics together. Citing Chicago as a failure of gun control based off one set of numbers isn’t any better than saying gun violence happens more often by lumping in self inflicted gun violence.

On the Chicago example we agree.  Laws that can be ignored by driving an hour to a less restrictive state aren't really going to have much impact.  I suppose I should refer you to my post above and reiterate that my real issue is with how much of the media picks up these "statistics" from Everytown, or like minded organizations, and runs with them as fact.  I think it's fair to say that most of the media would land on the anti-gun side of the ledger with only Fox being a major news outlet on the other side.  How much have you seen about the Gonzalez girl vs. the student who's pro 2A?  Hell, CNN just called the JROTC kid a liar when the kid claimed they wouldn't let him ask his own question and instead gave him a scripted question.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-22-2018, 06:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Actual security, armed or not, is a better policy, but their resources are already spread thin. 

But, again, none of this addresses preventing the shootings from occurring, just reacting to them when they happen.

Out of curiosity, where is your district wasting resources? At least where you feel it could move to secure the schools .

The next step would have to be to get tough on mental health. Start going after people who are sick and start questioning people who need a pharmacy to operate in their daily life . We need to commit people who shouldn’t be on the street. Also alternative schooling for the children who can’t get right because of their illness.

We have a massive pharmaceutical problem in this country and it dovetails with this issue.

[GMDino]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-maybe-they-have-to-put-a-rating-system-on-movies

Quote:HE... HE... KNOWS, RIGHT?
Trump: ‘Maybe They Have to Put a Rating System’ on Movies
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.55)]After suggesting Hollywood is to blame for shootings, Trump offered up a system that already exists as a way to curb violent films. He then proposed paying armed teachers a bonus.[/color]

During a meeting Thursday with state lawmakers, President Trump suggested violent entertainment is to blame for mass shootings in the United States.



His proposed solution? A ratings system for movies.


At first, during the conversation about ways to prevent further massacres like the one that claimed 17 lives last week in Florida, the president connected video games to gun violence.


“We have to look at the internet because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young minds and their minds are being formed,” the president said. “We have to do something about maybe what they’re seeing and how they're seeing it. And also video games. I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts.”


And then the president pivoted to blaming Hollywood.

“You see these movies, they’re so violent. And yet a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn’t involved, but killing is involved. And maybe they have to put a rating system for that. You get into a whole very complicated, very big deal but the fact is that you are having movies come out that are so violent with the killing and everything else that maybe that's another thing we’re going to have to discuss.”

It was unclear whether Trump was aware that the Motion Picture Association of America already rates films based on graphic sexual or violent content; or if he was suggesting that ratings system needs to be overhauled.

Additionally, during the meeting, Trump floated the idea of paying a “little bit of a bonus” for teachers who carry firearms in schools.

“These people are cowards,” the president said, referring to shooters. “They’re not going to walk into a school if 20 percent of the teachers have guns. And maybe 10 percent or maybe 40 percent. What I’d recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. We give them a little bit of a bonus.”


The president also said that a “gun-free zone to a killer or someone that wants to be a killer—that's like going in for the ice cream.”

[GMDino]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-maybe-they-have-to-put-a-rating-system-on-movies

Quote:HE... HE... KNOWS, RIGHT?
Trump: ‘Maybe They Have to Put a Rating System’ on Movies
[color=rgba(2, 20, 31, 0.55)]After suggesting Hollywood is to blame for shootings, Trump offered up a system that already exists as a way to curb violent films. He then proposed paying armed teachers a bonus.[/color]

During a meeting Thursday with state lawmakers, President Trump suggested violent entertainment is to blame for mass shootings in the United States.



His proposed solution? A ratings system for movies.


At first, during the conversation about ways to prevent further massacres like the one that claimed 17 lives last week in Florida, the president connected video games to gun violence.


“We have to look at the internet because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young minds and their minds are being formed,” the president said. “We have to do something about maybe what they’re seeing and how they're seeing it. And also video games. I’m hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is really shaping young people’s thoughts.”


And then the president pivoted to blaming Hollywood.

“You see these movies, they’re so violent. And yet a kid is able to see the movie if sex isn’t involved, but killing is involved. And maybe they have to put a rating system for that. You get into a whole very complicated, very big deal but the fact is that you are having movies come out that are so violent with the killing and everything else that maybe that's another thing we’re going to have to discuss.”

It was unclear whether Trump was aware that the Motion Picture Association of America already rates films based on graphic sexual or violent content; or if he was suggesting that ratings system needs to be overhauled.

Additionally, during the meeting, Trump floated the idea of paying a “little bit of a bonus” for teachers who carry firearms in schools.

“These people are cowards,” the president said, referring to shooters. “They’re not going to walk into a school if 20 percent of the teachers have guns. And maybe 10 percent or maybe 40 percent. What I’d recommend doing is the people that do carry, we give them a bonus. We give them a little bit of a bonus.”


The president also said that a “gun-free zone to a killer or someone that wants to be a killer—that's like going in for the ice cream.”

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/22/officer-florida-high-school-shooting-sat-outside-gunfire-sounding-he-should-have-stopped/365122002/

Quote:'It's devastating': Cop stayed outside during Florida massacre while students died

An armed school deputy rushed to the Florida high school building where terrified students ran from a killer with an assault rifle, but then sat outside for about four minutes and never went inside.


The school resource deputy for Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School , Scot Peterson, was under investigation for his response to the shooting but then decided to resign his post, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said Thursday.


Two other deputies are also under investigation after a review of prior law enforcement calls involving accused gunman Nikolas Cruz spurred questions on whether the deputies followed the department's policies. 


"It's devastating," Israel said during a Thursday news conference. "I'm sick to my stomach. These families lost children, we lost coaches." 
Israel said surveillance footage captured Peterson responding to the building where the shooting was unfolding. He said the deputy got there within a minute and a half of when the gunfire started. He positioned himself outside the building but never went in, Israel said.


The shooting lasted a total of six minutes. Peterson sat outside the building for four of those minutes, Israel said. In the end, 17 people were killed. 


He should have "went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer," Israel said. 


Modern active shooter procedures were changed after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, when officers were trained to wait for SWAT officers to respond and take out a threat. 

Quote:[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/browardsheriff/status/966798213108953088]
Broward Sheriff

@browardsheriff

https://www.pscp.tv/w/bV3mmTFKUkttWVp2ZWdPS1B8MU1ueG5lQUx6T1lKT6R2_dfpIsaawXiWc12fts0Wl2HXbGZo_2VMZbvLFH1o …
5:13 PM - Feb 22, 2018

Officers are now trained to go toward gunfire because research has shown the presence of law enforcement can slow down a suspect, potentially bringing the death toll down. 



"When we in law enforcement arrive to an active shooter, we go in and address the target and that's what should have been done," Israel said. 


The Broward County Sheriff's Office also released information on more than a dozen calls that involved Cruz and his family. Israel said he placed deputies in two of the calls under investigation because there were questions whether more should have been done. The calls stemmed back to 2008 and all were made prior to last week's shooting. 

[*bfine32*]

I cannot speak for educators; however, I know every time I was shot at I was happy I had my own weapon.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-22-2018, 09:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/22/officer-florida-high-school-shooting-sat-outside-gunfire-sounding-he-should-have-stopped/365122002/

I told you some people were going to lose their job over this incident.  This was an eminently preventable shooting. Some people didn't do their jobs properly and as a consequence won't have one anymore.

[Benton]

(02-22-2018, 09:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I cannot speak for educators; however, I know every time I was shot at I was happy I had my own weapon.

How many times were you shot at in school? Movie theater?

[Benton]

(02-22-2018, 07:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On the Chicago example we agree.  Laws that can be ignored by driving an hour to a less restrictive state aren't really going to have much impact.  I suppose I should refer you to my post above and reiterate that my real issue is with how much of the media picks up these "statistics" from Everytown, or like minded organizations, and runs with them as fact.  I think it's fair to say that most of the media would land on the anti-gun side of the ledger with only Fox being a major news outlet on the other side.  How much have you seen about the Gonzalez girl vs. the student who's pro 2A?  Hell, CNN just called the JROTC kid a liar when the kid claimed they wouldn't let him ask his own question and instead gave him a scripted question.

I’ll agree with that, but my comment wasn’t restricted to just the media. Talk to a gop lawmaker or 2nd advocate and the discussion is usually how you can’t change/differently interpret the constitution or how Chicago is a the perfect example of why regulations are unnecessary.

[BmorePat87]

(02-22-2018, 08:07 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Out of curiosity, where is your district wasting resources?  At least where you feel it could move to secure the schools .

We recently had a state audit because of our former Superintendent. She was giving building contracts to friends for more than what was originally proposed without taking other offers, not using transportation software to make efficient bus routes  (which meant she was giving more jobs to bus contractors than we should have), and promoted her staff to new executive positions to triple their pay.

We kicked her out and hired the former head of WV's schools (who used to be a part of our school system) as our interim super to fix her mess. With those areas addressed, I'd say our system is well managed in terms of finances. Being one of the top 5 wealthiest counties in the country, we tend to have it better than others. Despite that, we do currently have a budget shortfall. Our new county executive (who I am a big fan of, former GOP minority leader in the State Senate who lost his job for supporting gay marriage and trans protections) was a surprise winner in 2014 and made the last super spend money on teacher raises, so he has been working to ensure that our new schools are placed on sites that will be the most efficient cost wise. We're trying to deal with our finances before proposing any sort of tax increase to handle the shortage.

Over all, we have a good group of leaders and we could likely afford more security, but I worry about other counties.

Quote:The next step would have to be to get tough on mental health.   Start going after people who are sick and start questioning people who need a pharmacy to operate in their daily life .   We need to commit people who shouldn’t be on the street.   Also alternative schooling for the children who can’t get right because of their illness.   

I disagree with demonizing people who require medication. Every person is different and as Matt and I addressed in the suicide thread, medication is the best route for many. What needs to be addressed is expanding health coverage to ensure everyone has access to a therapist or medicine if they need it. The issue is people who do not get help.

We need more community based mental health facilities. Day hospitals and the such, not necessarily the old asylums. Like you're implying, lots of people on the streets who need help. They'll just start self medicating and fill up the prisons. I agree that we should be providing more options for alternative schooling for kids who cannot function in their home school, particularly for health issues. We have a solid program here, but other places don't.

Quote:We have a massive pharmaceutical problem in this country and it dovetails with this issue.

We do and it's complex. Over prescribing, misdiagnosing, under prescribing, treating addiction as a crime and not an illness, opioids, etc.