Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Monster Rain wrote:
That simply doesn't follow.

It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.

OK that's true but still the government should show involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes.

 Ouze wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

As always I do my best to bring you some more of the very best of crazy:
(snip garbage)
Photoshop is of course a thing, and no I couldn't really be bothered to go through and check those exhaustively. Why? Because I don't wear tin foil and subsist only on spam and paranoia. I'm sure one of your internet sleuths will be able to blow this particular sack of crazy open, but till then... it is kinda odd innit?

In 2013, in the era of google and snopes, posting stuff like this is making a conscious choice to be ignorant, and then posting it on dakka while shrugging your hands as if you are helpless in this; is just... ridiculous, really. You should probably couch this is a more "hey, look at these stupid people, lets laugh at them" tone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I had never heard of John Lott before your post, the guy you said was disreputable? I just looked him up, and.... wow, man. How does a clown like that even make it on the news? God, the media really is awful in this country.

Sooo I post up some crazy conspiracy theory stuff that I saw and laughed at for the most part, point out a part that actually looked kinda compelling and say "This is nuts, but I don't give a damn enough to go through and /actually/ poke holes in it" thus I'm making a choice to be ignorant.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.

Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?

Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.

Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).

Then you may find out that guns get used in the US, but other weapons get used in other Western countries, and that perhaps American sociology isn't as 'fundamentally wrong' as some folks like to make it out to be.

Indeed, it has more to do with social factors.

Domestic Violence is an issue.

Gang violence is a major issue, which ties nicely in with Drugs as a third issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well if they already have an armed guard thats great. This is for those that don't have a guard.


I figured out it shouldn't cost more than $1500 per security guard to get them a firearm, cleaning kit, and ammo. I would hope the school already does background checks on their employees. Then you have maybe a $500 fee to send the guard to a gunrange for a training course.

Then you have the guard go to the gun range each month for practice. Which is just a range fee plus ammo, maybe another $150 a month.

So ~$2000 up front and another ~$150 a month per security guard.

Hardly breaking the bank for the school, especially if they already have a security guard(s) that they are paying.


Can we really put a price on the safety of kids at schools? This is hardly a massivly expensive proposal. Given how much we spend on our education system, and that we have a rather poor one at that, there has to be waste somewhere that could easily be trimmed to pay for an armed guard(s).

Don't forget to raise the guard's salary by 20% minimum. Trained armed guards command a significantly higher salary than your run-of-the-mill unarmed guard.

CptJake wrote:
Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).

Then you may find out that guns get used in the US, but other weapons get used in other Western countries, and that perhaps American sociology isn't as 'fundamentally wrong' as some folks like to make it out to be.

Except guns are faster at killing someone than knives and baseball bats plus they're ranged also if a country has a high amount of gun related crime in comparison to other countries the responsible thing for the government to do is to introduce policies that might reduce gun related crime

not to compare it to unrelated stats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.

Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?

Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.

Except the US has a much higher gun per capita than those nations and I would imagine that Israel and Switzerland have stricter regulations and laws on guns than the US.

CptJake wrote:
Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).

And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.

 dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).

And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.

That comparison is rather weak. It implies that the very presence of a gun makes you more likely to kill someone, which is demonstrably false.

The presense of a power saw doesn't make me inclined to saw wood. The presense of an oven in my kitchen doesn't make me any more likely to cook something.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
That simply doesn't follow.

It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.

OK that's true but still the government should show involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes.

Gun control is not a policy that could help reduce gun-related crimes.

FBI crime statistics are pretty conclusive on this point. Areas with strict gun control laws or even outright gun bans do not see a significant change in the rate of gun crimes, not when compared to similar areas without strict gun control laws, and not whe compared to the same area previous to the ban.

This is true of every area where strict gun control laws have been enacted. But don't take my word for it, please, go check for yourself. You'll have to research where strict gun control laws have been enacted, then check the FBI's crime statistics on those areas before and after the ban, and look for similar areas where there isn't a ban. But the information is there... just far too involved to post.

There is an interesting correlation I've heard about. Apparently the rate of gun crime in an area is directly linked to the percentage of people in that area living under the poverty level. Where the poverty rate is low, the rate of gun crimes is also low. Where the poverty rate is high, the gun crime rate is also high. And as poverty rates change over time, so does the gun crime rate, right alongside it.

Perhaps instead of banning guns, we should be banning poverty?

 dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).

And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.

And I could saw much more wood with much greater speed.

feeder wrote:

 dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).

And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.

And I could saw much more wood with much greater speed.

It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.

 Grey Templar wrote:

feeder wrote:

 dogma wrote:

CptJake wrote:
Well, you may as well look at violent crime rates instead of just gun crime rates. (after all the gun is just a tool used in a violent crime, the violence itself seems to be the issue vice the tool used).

And a handsaw is a tool that enables me to saw wood, but if I had a power saw I wouldn't need to expend so much effort in doing so. As such, I would be more inclined to sawing some wood.

And I could saw much more wood with much greater speed.

It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.

Wait until you're angry at the wood.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
That simply doesn't follow.

It's true, and it's bad, but you can't say that the odds of something happening are incredibly remote with the status quo and at the same time use that same incident as an excuse to push a political agenda.

OK that's true but still the government should show involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes.

Gun control is not a policy that could help reduce gun-related crimes.

FBI crime statistics are pretty conclusive on this point. Areas with strict gun control laws or even outright gun bans do not see a significant change in the rate of gun crimes, not when compared to similar areas without strict gun control laws, and not whe compared to the same area previous to the ban.

This is true of every area where strict gun control laws have been enacted. But don't take my word for it, please, go check for yourself. You'll have to research where strict gun control laws have been enacted, then check the FBI's crime statistics on those areas before and after the ban, and look for similar areas where there isn't a ban. But the information is there... just far too involved to post.

There is an interesting correlation I've heard about. Apparently the rate of gun crime in an area is directly linked to the percentage of people in that area living under the poverty level. Where the poverty rate is low, the rate of gun crimes is also low. Where the poverty rate is high, the gun crime rate is also high. And as poverty rates change over time, so does the gun crime rate, right alongside it.

Perhaps instead of banning guns, we should be banning poverty?

You know the government showing involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes doesn't just mean strict gun laws, it could mean a criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment, policies that make education more accessible to poorer

families, policies that increase social mobility for the poor, better services for the people with mental or physical disabilities, more in depth requirements for gun licenses (certain medical and mental conditions should prohibit you from using firearms), criminal background checks for

gun licenses, etc.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.

Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?

Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.

This man speaks the truth.

Jumping back to the NRA commercial everyone was hating on briefly:




The Yankee Marshal is a Blue State Democrat voting gun owner, and I think his points are quite valid here.

Amen brother.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Jumping back to the NRA commercial everyone was hating on briefly:




The Yankee Marshal is a Blue State Democrat voting gun owner, and I think his points are quite valid here.

No, they're really not.
Why?

Because the vast majority of schools already have armed resource officers in the form of police officers assigned to the schools.

And that video was terrible. He keeps rambling about the NRA and how "he never thought he'd defend them" and how "he changed his mind from disliking the commercial".

The NRA commercial was pandering filth of the lowest caliber. It was aimed towards the individuals who already believe that Obama and his administration engage in elitist behavior and to play upon the emotional heartstrings of "His children have it. Why can't yours?".

They do engage in elitist behavior. They're politicians. Dubya did it, Clinton did it before, him, etc.

SROs are exactly what the NRA's asking for from what I understand. So why not ensure it happens?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
They do engage in elitist behavior. They're politicians. Dubya did it, Clinton did it before, him, etc.

I don't think you quite understand what "elitist" means when you simply lump it as "They're politicians".

SROs are exactly what the NRA's asking for from what I understand. So why not ensure it happens?

That's not what "the NRA is asking for".
The NRA is "asking" for teachers to be armed and trained to "defend children".
The NRA is "asking" for private security firms to be employed at schools.

They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.

Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?

Here we are putting a price tag on human life again.

I certaintly think that if a Teacher desires to pack a gun to school they should be allowed to do it.

I would say that gun control advocates are using the emotions of these situations to ram through their political agenda and not address the real problems here.



What harm could possably come from allowing teachers to carry weapons in the event of a school shooting? The same for having armed security?

As for the cost for SROs, compared to other programs schools may be running I would assert the safety of children has higher importance. Music and Art programs would certaintly fall into this catagory. They're optional, safety shouldn't be.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
They do engage in elitist behavior. They're politicians. Dubya did it, Clinton did it before, him, etc.

I don't think you quite understand what "elitist" means when you simply lump it as "They're politicians".

SROs are exactly what the NRA's asking for from what I understand. So why not ensure it happens?

That's not what "the NRA is asking for".
The NRA is "asking" for teachers to be armed and trained to "defend children".
The NRA is "asking" for private security firms to be employed at schools.

They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.

Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?

Just anecdotally, my public high school has a private security firm and we've never had a shooting. There are at least 6 officers in the school, one mobile unit (for truancy and what not), and the school has 2 entrances into the school. Every visitor needs to go in through the visitor's entrance and sign in. None of the security officers are armed. They maintain school safety through rigorous drills with the students from both city emergency officials and the security firm. Visitors are easily identified, and all students must visibly wear their student ID. All of these changes were tightened and revised after 2003 when a man from the local media walked into the school unannounced to interview students about something school related. As from where the money comes from? Not sure, I only ever payed 31 dollars a year for "instructional fees" And my city hates passing school levies because the majority of the city's population is elderly, and they don't like getting taxes raised to help kids when they don't have kids in the school.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I certaintly think that if a Teacher desires to pack a gun to school they should be allowed to do it.

Why?

No, seriously.

I would say that gun control advocates are using the emotions of these situations to ram through their political agenda and not address the real problems here.

Which are what?

Go on. Tell me what the "real problems" are here.
Because from my seat, the "real problems" seem to be that guns are being sold legally to individuals who are passing the current regulations. These same individuals then perform spree shootings.

Sound about right?

What harm could possibly come from allowing teachers to carry weapons in the event of a school shooting?

Panic fire potentially injuring more children than the shooter did and the encouragement of a "siege mentality" to the children under the care of the teachers and to the teachers themselves?

The same for having armed security?

Again:
Most schools have a School Resource Officer, who is armed on campus. The middle and high schools I went to had four officers assigned to it; with rotating shifts to ensure that two were on duty at any given time.

There is no amount of "having armed security" which can reasonably prevent these kinds of shootings from happening.

As for the cost for SROs, compared to other programs schools may be running I would assert the safety of children has higher importance. Music and Art programs would certaintly fall into this catagory. They're optional, safety shouldn't be.

I'm not surprised at all to see "Music and Art programs" put on the chopping block for SROs.
Why not cut down the bloated sports programs present at most schools?

 Alfndrate wrote:

Just anecdotally, my public high school has a private security firm and we've never had a shooting. There are at least 6 officers in the school, one mobile unit (for truancy and what not), and the school has 2 entrances into the school. Every visitor needs to go in through the visitor's entrance and sign in. None of the security officers are armed. They maintain school safety through rigorous drills with the students from both city emergency officials and the security firm. Visitors are easily identified, and all students must visibly wear their student ID. All of these changes were tightened and revised after 2003 when a man from the local media walked into the school unannounced to interview students about something school related. As from where the money comes from? Not sure, I only ever paid 31 dollars a year for "instructional fees" And my city hates passing school levies because the majority of the city's population is elderly, and they don't like getting taxes raised to help kids when they don't have kids in the school.

Fair point Alf.

Just as a note, the money for the private security firm likely comes from the revenue made by the school district's sports programs and a negotiated contract on the part of the security firm that grants them exclusivity in terms of private contracts within the district.

So Kan, tell me where the SROs were at these shootings?

Why?

No, seriously.

Because the teacher is in a perfect position to stop the situation and because the teacher has the right to be safe too.

The teacher may be the closest person to the shooter at the time the incident begins to occur.

its all about layered defenses. You have armed security that patrol the grounds, and you have teachers in the classroom itself.


Not that I think this should be a mandatory thing. Just optional. If the teacher wants to have a gun with them they should be able to do it. Provided they prove they legally own the gun and have proof of at least redumentary training with it. This would cost the school nothing and give the teachers options.

If I worked in a place that had a risk of a shooting I might want to be armed.

Gas Station, Convenience stores, Pawn shops... these places often have armed employees. It seems like a School has things that are worth protecting far more than the local 7-11 has.

Which are what?

Go on. Tell me what the "real problems" are here.
Because from my seat, the "real problems" seem to be that guns are being sold legally to individuals who are passing the current regulations. These same individuals then perform spree shootings.

The Sandy Hook shooter did not own the weapons he used. He stole them from his mother, who he killed.

I'm not surprised at all to see "Music and Art programs" put on the chopping block for SROs.
Why not cut down the bloated sports programs present at most schools?

We could do that too. I'd rank sports just above Music and Art in importance.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So Kan, tell me where the SROs were at these shootings?

I don't know.

I'd love to know, but I would assume it comes down to the fact that you cannot accurately predict things like this.
It's also worth mentioning that it is far easier for a shooter to scout out a target than it is for security to shore up their defenses unless they've already had some kind of warning.

Why?

No, seriously.

Because the teacher is in a perfect position to stop the situation and because the teacher has the right to be safe too.

The teacher may be the closest person to the shooter at the time the incident begins to occur.

its all about layered defenses. You have armed security that patrol the grounds, and you have teachers in the classroom itself.

The fact that they are the "closest person to the shooter" does not necessarily mean that the teacher is going to be able to actually defend the students. That's what I keep trying to get across here.

Not that I think this should be a mandatory thing. Just optional. If the teacher wants to have a gun with them they should be able to do it. Provided they prove they legally own the gun and have proof of at least rudimentary training with it. This would cost the school nothing and give the teachers options.

If I worked in a place that had a risk of a shooting I might want to be armed.

Gas Station, Convenience stores, Pawn shops... these places often have armed employees. It seems like a School has things that are worth protecting far more than the local 7-11 has.

Most chain gas stations and convenience stores do not actually have armed employees. The employees are generally told to cooperate and empty the register.

Pawn shops and family owned places tend to be a bit different though.

Which are what?

Go on. Tell me what the "real problems" are here.
Because from my seat, the "real problems" seem to be that guns are being sold legally to individuals who are passing the current regulations. These same individuals then perform spree shootings.

The Sandy Hook shooter did not own the weapons he used. He stole them from his mother, who he killed.

Saying that he 'stole them from his mother' is a tad ridiculous in my opinion. They lived in the same house and he had access to the guns. From reports, she took him shooting.

I'm not surprised at all to see "Music and Art programs" put on the chopping block for SROs.
Why not cut down the bloated sports programs present at most schools?

We could do that too. I'd rank sports just above Music and Art in importance.

At least we agree on this.
Though to be fair, I don't think cutting sports entirely is the right way. Just cutting down on the bloat.

I don't know.

I'd love to know, but I would assume it comes down to the fact that you cannot predict things like this.

Yeah, you can't predict these things. hence why the security should be around all the time.

The fact that they are the "closest person to the shooter" does not necessarily mean that the teacher is going to be able to actually defend the students. That's what I keep trying to get across here.

I sort of agree, hence why I am only advocating it as a personal choice of the teacher, not something they would be required to do. I think if I am getting attacked there is nobody in a better position to defend me than me!

Most chain gas stations and convenience stores do not actually have armed employees. The employees are generally told to cooperate and empty the register.

Pawn shops and family owned places tend to be a bit different though.

True, but the reason is why. A robber is just after the cash, He's not gone there with the intent to kill. Although there are cases of the robber shooting a cooperating clerk without provocation. Assumedly to prevent identification of the culprit.

A school shooter on the other hand is there to kill.


Which brings us back to my point. If people working in stores can arm themselves, why shouldn't our teachers be allowed to as well?

Saying that he 'stole them from his mother' is a tad ridiculous in my opinion. They lived in the same house and he had access to the guns. From reports, she took him shooting.

This really just highlights his mother's stupidity. She was aware of his issues from what I gather, and she made the poor judgement call to allow him access.

If he had tried to get a gun legally he probably would have been denied.

This situation doesn't support your claim that many shooters get their guns legally. In this case he did not get those guns legally.



Living in the same house and having access is more of a failure of his mom then anything else. She was aware of his issues.

 Grey Templar wrote:

It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.

Really? Because lots of people seem quite excited to employ their new, shiny tool.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

It wouldn't make me any more likely to saw the wood. If I have no reason to saw wood I'm not going to just go saw wood because I have a shiny power saw.

Really? Because lots of people seem quite excited to employ their new, shiny tool.

GW army updates are a great example of this. "Oh look at this new shiny unit, I GOT TO PLAY THIS."

Tools are a close second

 Grey Templar wrote:

That comparison is rather weak. It implies that the very presence of a gun makes you more likely to kill someone, which is demonstrably false.

No, it implies that the presence of means of violence makes me more likely to use violence, especially if that means is efficient.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The presense of a power saw doesn't make me inclined to saw wood. The presense of an oven in my kitchen doesn't make me any more likely to cook something.

Of course it does, you have one of the tools necessary to cook something. Therefore you are more likely to cook if you have an oven, than if you do not have one.