Gun control

Gavinrad_sl said:

Bullshit.

Click to expand...

Kinda like 13 states ?

Soysauceonrice_sl said:

You know why I'm exhausting ? Because you're used to arguing with caricatures of your opponents. That's why you slip up and put shit in my mouth that I never said, because you simply assumed I said it. My assertion is that school shootings are low. I don't think you will challenge this assertion, because I think this is something that EVERYONE agrees on. Yet the probability of a CHL holder accidentally harming either himself or another is not low at all. You have google just like I do, so go google it and see how many results you get. It isn't wrong for me to say that it is more likely that someone with a CHL harms himself or another, than it is that a school shooting takes place. And even then, you have NO evidence that a teacher with a CHL will actually stop an armed shooter, because armed shootings are so fucking rare that there has never been an armed shooter in a school with a teacher with a gun. My assertion is further backed up by the fact that a CHL holder with a gun in a school hurting himself or another has already occurred -- my point isn't theoretical, your point IS.

As to your questions: No one is arming the teachers, but plenty of states are already allowing or are thinking of allowing the teachers to arm themselves. I do not believe teachers should have the right to arm themselves in schools.

Click to expand...

What are the statistics of a CHL holder harming themselves? You have to know that my little caricature for you to state one event is more likely than the other.

Big Derg_sl said:

What are the statistics of a CHL holder harming themselves? You have to know that my little caricature for you to state one event is more likely than the other.

Click to expand...

So before I do the research for you, are you telling me that you think it's more likely that a school shooting occurs than it is that a CHL holder accidently harms himself or another ?

The arming teachers thing is just a knee jerk response to other knee jerk responses to completely ban types of weapons. While I personally am ok with it, I understand why other people are completely against it. I don't understand why it is so fucking rare these days that someone can respectfully consider an alternate view even if they don't agree with it. Our growing lack of respect is going to be our downfall.

Gun violence and murder as a whole has been decreasing every year for the past decade. The mass murder events are so rare that I personally don't think we need to do anything at all. Horrible people doing horrible things. Trying to plan for horrible events to become the norm just doesn't work unless we want to live in fear of our shadows.

Soysauceonrice_sl said:

So before I do the research for you, are you telling me that you think it's more likely that a school shooting occurs than it is that a CHL holder accidently harms himself or another ?

Click to expand...

I want to know the chances of getting injured or killed in a school shooting vs a CHL holder injuring or killing themselves or others in a school. I think it's more likely I'm injured or killed by a school shooter than a licensed CHL holder while in a school.

Big Derg_sl said:

I want to know the chances of getting injured or killed in a school shooting vs a CHL holder injuring or killing themselves or others in a school. I think it's more likely I'm injured or killed by a school shooter than a licensed CHL holder while in a school.

Click to expand...

I doubt I or anyone can find that information. Concealed carry in school is quite rare as it is, there isn't a database somewhere where this information can be found. I've already done half of the research.

This lists the number of schools in the United States at approximately 138k.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d...s/dt11_005.asp

This site lists the number of mass shootings since 1996. When we narrow the parameters to only U.S. schools, you have about 57 incidences since 1996.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

which gives you about 3.3 incidences a year. So dividing 3.3 incidences/year over all 138,000 schools *100 gives you a 0.00242966% chance of having a school shooting in 1 year in any given school.

And this is just the rate of school shootings. If you want to figure out your chances of death/injury from such shooting, you still have to multiply this percentage by the number of those killed/injured in the shooting divided by the total population of the school, which will reduce this number to a much lower figure. I don't have the numbers to make that kind of computation. My math is kind of rusty so if someone feels like double checking my numbers, feel free.

Thorne_sl said:

The arming teachers thing is just a knee jerk response to other knee jerk responses to completely ban types of weapons. While I personally am ok with it, I understand why other people are completely against it. I don't understand why it is so fucking rare these days that someone can respectfully consider an alternate view even if they don't agree with it. Our growing lack of respect is going to be our downfall.

Gun violence and murder as a whole has been decreasing every year for the past decade. The mass murder events are so rare that I personally don't think we need to do anything at all. Horrible people doing horrible things. Trying to plan for horrible events to become the norm just doesn't work unless we want to live in fear of our shadows.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm OK with sending my child to a gun free zone, but I'd prefer someone, whether it be a guard or a teacher conceal carrying, to have the option of lethal force when necessary. More importantly, I don't think the government has the right to make that decision for us when they're surrounded by secret service and sending their daughters to schools with eleven armed guards. I also believe people need to accept that guns are part of our culture. All but one state allows conceal carry, which means that more often than not you're in close proximity to a firearm in some form or another, including your children.

Big Derg_sl said:

I agree. I'm OK with sending my child to a gun free zone, but I'd prefer someone, whether it be a guard or a teacher conceal carrying, to have the option of lethal force when necessary. More importantly, I don't think the government has the right to make that decision for us when they're surrounded by secret service and sending their daughters to schools with eleven armed guards. I also believe people need to accept that guns are part of our culture. All but one state allows conceal carry, which means that more often than not you're in close proximity to a firearm in some form or another, including your children.

Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously, those fucking hypocrites. Where's my Airforce one? They don't have the right to dictate laws to us until we all get personal planes!

Fyro_sl said:

Yeah, seriously, those fucking hypocrites. Where's my Airforce one? They don't have the right to dictate laws to us until we all get personal planes!

Click to expand...

Were you making a point?

This exactly. I'm dumbfounded people fail to see the simple logic of the below. It's a god damned foregone conclusion that filling schools with guns introduces more risk through so many scenarios than does the miniscule chance that a mass school murder is in progress and a teacher stops the threat. By permitting gun carrying for every teacher that wants one and can pass a course, you are introducing a daily persistant risk of everything from gun theft, to accidental shooting, to actually arming a potential perpetrator.

Oh yeah, and in this hypothetical scenario where teachers carry guns and the 911 call goes off that there is a shooting in progress at X school, and the cops show up. How are they supposed to distinguish between the armed civilians and the bad guys?

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot.. In FlunkieSnarkin's world a concealed carry course is all that's needed to turn a mild mannered teacher into a cold hard Dirty Harry. After all, it's all about the shit you learn on how to safely operate a gun and shoot, and nothing to do with the whole psychological aspect of quickly reacting, not hesitating to take a teenage life, and not panicking when adrenaline shoots through your veins when you see someone draw a gun in your class. This is the shit that chances are still makes fat donut cop more qualified even if he isn't as a good a shot as Mr gun club. The cop has spent years witnessing violence, seeing people wounded, and generally being desensitized to dangerous scenarios. I don't care how long their course is, nothing can prepare you for the real thing. It's why the marine private that has the perfect shot isn't nearly as valuable as the vet that's seen two tours in Iraq.

Soysauceonrice_sl said:

I'll boil down the argument for you, so you can really understand what I'm saying. I'm NOT saying that a teacher CAN'T stop an armed shooter, not at all. But here is the argument:

YOU: an armed teacher can help stop a school shooter.
ME: that may be, but an armed shooter in schools is extremely unlikely, and an armed teacher would be MORE LIKELY to harm himself or others, than stop an armed shooter. Therefore, arming teachers is a disproportionate response to a minuscule risk.

The fact that I've already shown you people who are licensed and yet were still irresponsible and harming others in a fucking university, but no armed teachers have stopped a school shooter, suggests that my scenario (someone armed in a school hurting by-standers) is more likely to happen than your scenario (someone armed in a school preventing another armed shooter).

Click to expand...

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

This exactly. I'm dumbfounded people fail to see the simple logic of the below. It's a god damned foregone conclusion that filling schools with guns introduces more risk through so many scenarios than does the miniscule chance that a mass school murder is in progress and a teacher stops the threat.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the show.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

This exactly. I'm dumbfounded people fail to see the simple logic of the below. It's a god damned foregone conclusion that filling schools with guns introduces more risk through so many scenarios than does the miniscule chance that a mass school murder is in progress and a teacher stops the threat. By permitting gun carrying for every teacher that wants one and can pass a course, you are introducing a daily persistant risk of everything from gun theft, to accidental shooting, to actually arming a potential perpetrator.

Oh yeah, and in this hypothetical scenario where teachers carry guns and the 911 call goes off that there is a shooting in progress at X school, and the cops show up. How are they supposed to distinguish between the armed civilians and the bad guys?

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot.. In FlunkieSnarkin's world a concealed carry course is all that's needed to turn a mild mannered teacher into a cold hard Dirty Harry. After all, it's all about the shit you learn on how to safely operate a gun and shoot, and nothing to do with the whole psychological aspect of quickly reacting, not hesitating to take a teenage life, and not panicking when adrenaline shoots through your veins when you see someone draw a gun in your class. This is the shit that chances are still makes fat donut cop more qualified even if he isn't as a good a shot as Mr gun club. The cop has spent years witnessing violence, seeing people wounded, and generally being desensitized to dangerous scenarios. I don't care how long their course is, nothing can prepare you for the real thing. It's why the marine private that has the perfect shot isn't nearly as valuable as the vet that's seen two tours in Iraq.

Click to expand...

And now we're back to asking how high is the risk and what that has to do with allowing schools to make up there own decision on the matter?

So much strawmanning going on in this thread.

I might need a concealed flamethrower permit to burn it all down.

Frenzied Wombat_sl said:

This exactly. I'm dumbfounded people fail to see the simple logic of the below. It's a god damned foregone conclusion that filling schools with guns introduces more risk through so many scenarios than does the miniscule chance that a mass school murder is in progress and a teacher stops the threat. By permitting gun carrying for every teacher that wants one and can pass a course, you are introducing a daily persistant risk of everything from gun theft, to accidental shooting, to actually arming a potential perpetrator.

Oh yeah, and in this hypothetical scenario where teachers carry guns and the 911 call goes off that there is a shooting in progress at X school, and the cops show up. How are they supposed to distinguish between the armed civilians and the bad guys?

Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot.. In FlunkieSnarkin's world a concealed carry course is all that's needed to turn a mild mannered teacher into a cold hard Dirty Harry. After all, it's all about the shit you learn on how to safely operate a gun and shoot, and nothing to do with the whole psychological aspect of quickly reacting, not hesitating to take a teenage life, and not panicking when adrenaline shoots through your veins when you see someone draw a gun in your class. This is the shit that chances are still makes fat donut cop more qualified even if he isn't as a good a shot as Mr gun club. The cop has spent years witnessing violence, seeing people wounded, and generally being desensitized to dangerous scenarios. I don't care how long their course is, nothing can prepare you for the real thing. It's why the marine private that has the perfect shot isn't nearly as valuable as the vet that's seen two tours in Iraq.

Click to expand...

Shut the fuck up and stay out of this thread.

Big Derg_sl said:

And now we're back to asking how high is the risk and what that has to do with allowing schools to make up there own decision on the matter?

Click to expand...

How simple must it be stated? No guns in the classroom. No guns in classroom means no chance for mistakes. No chance for ill trained teachers. Putting guns in the classroom won't solve anything. It will just add more stress for teachers, uncertainty for students, liabilities for the school district and the opportunity for the media to scrutinize teachers even more. It's a no-win.

Armed guards, stationed officers OUTSIDE of the classroom, ED-209 roaming the halls; all fine. Just don't bring them inside the classroom. There is no valid reason or justification for it. None.

Beef Supreme_sl said:

How simple must it be stated? No guns in the classroom. No guns in classroom means no chance for mistakes. No chance for ill trained teachers. Putting guns in the classroom won't solve anything. It will just add more stress for teachers, uncertainty for students, liabilities for the school district and the opportunity for the media to scrutinize teachers even more. It's a no-win.

Armed guards, stationed officers OUTSIDE of the classroom, ED-209 roaming the halls; all fine. Just don't bring them inside the classroom. There is no valid reason or justification for it. None.

Click to expand...

How simple can it be stated, people aren't asking for guns to be mandated in classrooms.

They are suggesting local communities have the option to vote and choose for themselves without an overly protective federal government making that choice for them.

If there was stronger statistics to bear out the fears of teachers shooting students then I'm sure there would be more resistance to armed teachers. At this point nobody is saying teachers must be armed, just that local communities be allowed to do so without interference from the federal government.


If a parent doesn't want their child attending a school with armed teachers that is alright by me. Just don't try to force other parents to make the same choice as you.


INB4 more strawman arguments.

Flunklesnarkin_sl said:

How simple can it be stated, people aren't asking for guns to be mandated in classrooms.

They are suggesting local communities have the option to vote and choose for themselves without an overly protective federal government making that choice for them.

If there was stronger statistics to bear out the fears of teachers shooting students then I'm sure there would be more resistance to armed teachers. At this point nobody is saying teachers must be armed, just that local communities be allowed to do so without interference from the federal government.


If a parent doesn't want their child attending a school with armed teachers that is alright by me. Just don't try to force other parents to make the same choice as you.


INB4 more strawman arguments.

Click to expand...

Again, no matter the reasoning, there's no reason to have guns inside the classroom. Doesn't matter whether or not they are given the choice, or mandated or whatever, 0 guns INSIDE the classroom. I could care less about the choice, because regardless of the choice, if that choice is to allow guns inside the classroom then I don't want them to HAVE the choice.

I've been able to follow this thread only sporadically so I checked back over the last 10 pages to make sure this hadn't been posted recently. A friend pointed me to this site in reference to the new "Assault Weapons Ban" proposed by that severely retarded colossal cunt known as Dianne Feinstein.

Good information laid out in a concise, easy to read format. Takes about 3 minutes to get through.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Flunklesnarkin_sl said:

If a parent doesn't want their child attending a school with armed teachers that is alright by me. Just don't try to force other parents to make the same choice as you.


INB4 more strawman arguments.

Click to expand...

This actually isn't as easy as you claim. For example, I know you specifically have held up Utah in one of your examples. Well guess what, Utah doesn't allow public access to concealed carry records, so if I'm a parent in Utah that doesn't want to send my child to a school that has a teacher with a gun in the classroom, there is no way for me to do this.

http://www.rcfp.org/utah-open-govern.../k-gun-permits

Beef Supreme_sl said:

no matter the reasoning, there's no reason.

Click to expand...

This is the type of hypocrisy that permeates politics in the US.

Consider evidence or statements contrary to your beliefs and disregard it because it doesn't conform to your world view.


Quite the progressive thinker you are.

Soysauceonrice_sl said:

This actually isn't as easy as you claim. For example, I know you specifically have held up Utah in one of your examples. Well guess what, Utah doesn't allow public access to concealed carry records, so if I'm a parent in Utah that doesn't want to send my child to a school that has a teacher with a gun in the classroom, there is no way for me to do this.

Click to expand...

I'm sure a system could be set up for parents afraid of guns. If anything it would provide evidence of which system has more shootings after a few years.

I'm not touting Utah as the golden path forward, I'm ok with regulating guns. I just don't think outright bans or forbidding weapons in places accomplishes much.