Mass Shooting

[nitflegal]

17 hours ago, AETiglathPZ said:

Do we really want teachers to be armed? What prevents a teacher from being a killer?

List of school shootings in the United States (before 2000) - Wikipedia

August 16, 1856- The schoolmaster warned students not to harm his tame sparrow, threatening death. One of the boys stepped on the bird and killed it. When the boy returned to school, the master took the boy into a private room and strangled him. The boy's father upon hearing what had happened went to the school and shot the schoolmaster dead.

December 22, 1881-School teacher Charles J. Gregory shot at a pupil at close range because he refused to write on a slate. The bullet missed the boy. The teacher was arrested.

What stops a killer teacher from bringing a gun in already?

[BansheeOne]

Armed school children of course!

[FALightFighter]

20 hours ago, AETiglathPZ said:

Do we really want teachers to be armed? What prevents a teacher from being a killer?

Two incidents, from over a century ago (141+years and 165+ years)?

We put teachers in charge of children for 6+hours a day. If the teachers are going to hurt the kids, they will find a way.

When my kids are with me, they are protected by an armed and trained adult. If you (the generic you) are going to force me to render them to someone else's care involuntarily, you owe them at least that level of protection.

[Skywalkre]

On 4/3/2023 at 1:56 PM, rmgill said:

It's not a straw man when democrats categorically state what they want. We've been able to see it in effect for decades in places like New York. Take a handgun you can legally carry to New York on your own state's license. I dare you.

Some Ds want that, sure.  Not all.  Not everyone calling for meaningul action are Ds, either.  Again, this is a strawman folks on the right throw out to shut down any discussion on the matter.

On 4/3/2023 at 1:56 PM, rmgill said:

A great many of the bulk of what is considered a mass shooting is in fact gang related shootings. Those are recidivist, violent felons as a rule. That would in fact help in those.

Actually, most mass shootings apparently are domestic violence related or deal with family members (some quick google-fu isn't showing how many of those have a violent past).  There's been controversy in some states about limiting access to or confiscating guns of perpetrators of DV.  Take a wild guess who's opposing these measures?  Given that background plays the biggest role in mass shootings you're fine with measures to limit access to firearms to folks with a history of DV?

Another thing to consider is when looking at deaths by firearms suicide is the leading cause.

Taking all of this into consideration what I'm seeing from folks advocating sensible measures is that there are limits that can be put in place (background checks flagging violent behavior, either criminal or possible in relation to mental health).  Doesn't seem unreasonable at all... but would require drastically beefing up the system already in place.

 

[Skywalkre]

On 4/3/2023 at 2:14 PM, AETiglathPZ said:

The night before in Tennessee, 6 girls between 1 and 18 years of age died in a car accident. Not one politician has expressed outrage or proposed a ban on high carrying capacity vehicles.

6 girls, including 1-year-old, killed in Tennessee highway car crash (nbcnews.com)

Interesting comparison considering gun deaths have passed auto deaths in teenagers recently (seen a lot of stories about that since the Nashville shooting).

But let's look at that... while there's been a recent uptick in auto related deaths the trend over the last 50 years by varying measures has been way down.  Why?  Measures were taken to make vehicles safer and have continually been made.  As such deaths per capita are over half of what they were back in the heyday of the 70s where we were losing nearly the equivalent of all our deaths in Vietnam in a single year.

Now look at the issue with guns.  These school shootings only started en masse with Columbine a little more than two decades ago.  What's been done since?  Mental health is an underlying cause in several of the perpetrators but nothing has really been done about making wide ranging mental health screening and treatment happen in that timeframe.

Like in Nashville it sounds like there was technically laws in the books that should have prevented this... but was there adequate support for them to actually work?  I'm curious now, with all the laws in the books at the Fed and local level, if the issue is said laws just don't get the support they need to actually work.  It's one thing to pass a law... it's another to make sure it's funded and implemented fully.  I wonder if the stigma of 'gun control' has limited that from happening with these laws we already have...

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Armed school children of course!

'A free Glock in every child's John Wick lunchbox!'

[rmgill]

18 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Again, this is a strawman folks on the right throw out to shut down any discussion on the matter.

Categorically false. We just want honest points and policy objectives by the left. 

18 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Actually, most mass shootings apparently are domestic violence related or deal with family members (some quick google-fu isn't showing how many of those have a violent past).  There's been controversy in some states about limiting access to or confiscating guns of perpetrators of DV.  Take a wild guess who's opposing these measures? 

Probably because we kinda think that suspension of rights needs a court decision and particularized findings of guilt and not just a she said.

That should not be such a stretch. 

18 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Given that background plays the biggest role in mass shootings you're fine with measures to limit access to firearms to folks with a history of DV?

Sure, if theres a felony conviction. Thats the standard for suspension of rights. But, is a person who's disarmed no longer a threat due to a restraining order? 

18 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Another thing to consider is when looking at deaths by firearms suicide is the leading cause.

ok? 

18 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Taking all of this into consideration what I'm seeing from folks advocating sensible measures is that there are limits that can be put in place (background checks flagging violent behavior, either criminal or possible in relation to mental health).  Doesn't seem unreasonable at all... but would require drastically beefing up the system already in place.

We are going to see ways to challenge these red-flag orders,  right?

 

Right Skywalkre? 

Edited April 7, 2023 by rmgill

[Steven P Allen]

Mas' take on the issue.  His position seems perfectly reasonable to me and can be countered only by the ridiculous assertion that somehow guns shouldn't be in the same neighborhood as children.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NnWFYntEyQ

[Burncycle360]

Red flag laws are abhorrent. If you believe the citizen to be too dangerous to possess a firearm despite no crime having been committed, why strip them of some of their rights and permit them to remain free in society? If the claim is that they are a clear and present danger to those around them then drop the pretense and make the argument to remove them from society through charging them with something or involuntary committing them. Shit or get off the pot, this halfway stuff is nonsense.  Everyone knows it will be abused and many involved will be false positives with very little redress.

 

It was in my grandparents lifetime that there was still such a thing as "female hysteria" and my parents lifetime where the best treatment money could buy for rosemary kennedy was a lobotomy.

 

per medical experts

 

New York City pushed _hard_ to pass a law allowing them to put noncompliant people into concentration camps without due process just two years ago during covid. So no. Now is not the time to give the state that sort of power, and any individual anecdotes regarding DV and school shootings are irrelevant, not because we don't care about children or any of that nonsense, it's because the alternative is one in which a state with powers unchecked can kill orders of magnitude (plural) more and have done more than once in the 20th century, AND there are easily at least as many anecdotes of defensive uses of firearms (even conservative estimates by gun control proponents) that doesn't get any coverage and many of those people wouldn't be here today without them. 

 

So harden schools, reform mental health and access to it, address the upstream causes of violence, poverty, whatever. I am open to any and all of it. Conservative approaches, progressive approaches, I am results oriented and entirely happy to entertain them all... as long as it doesn't involve stripping the citizenry of their rights, and as long as you understand that no matter what you do you'll never eliminate crazy people intent on doing harm to others, you'll only ever get closer to the baseline.

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Burncycle360

[rmgill]

Ding Ding Ding. 

[rmgill]

This is why there is high violent crime in urban areas in the US. 

Edited April 8, 2023 by rmgill

[Ivanhoe]

[Rick]

28 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Well done. Very well done. Thanks.

[DB]

On 4/3/2023 at 11:05 PM, R011 said:

The answer is just live with it*.   The chances your kids will be the victims of a spree shooter are still very, very small.  The chances they'll be victims of serious violent crime depend on the location of the school - if it's not an inner city schoool, they're reasonably safe.

 

*  OK, things like active shooter drills, better locks and maintenance of them on classsrooms and perimeter doors, seccurity guards and/or police resource officer are helpful.  Allowing qualified staff to concealed carry should also help.  Competent police resonse is very important.  These measures should save lives, but won't prevent lunatics froim acting out.

I was pondering the issue of the balance of risk if a significant percentage of school teachers were to be armed, and that would have to consider their competence, the level of security of the firearms they carry and the additional risks of accidental injuries, compared to the level of threat.

I think if one knew how many teachers there were, assume a percentage would be routinely armed and that their accident rate (as opposed to deliberate shootings, justified or not) was similar to, say, police officers, then you could estimate a number of student/teacher casualties per year and compare it with the average number of school shooting deaths per year.

 

This estimate also neglects the possible cases where teachers may choose to use guns under different circumstances of violence - an armed teacher must defend themselves against an unarmed student who attacks them, because they must prevent the firearm from getting into an angry student's hands. The absence of a firearm changes the level of risk associated with the attack. Does the teacher resort to (threat of) firearms use if a student is beating another student to the point of threatening their life, and so on.

Not easy.

[Ivanhoe]

4 minutes ago, DB said:

This estimate also neglects the possible cases where teachers may choose to use guns under different circumstances of violence - an armed teacher must defend themselves against an unarmed student who attacks them, because they must prevent the firearm from getting into an angry student's hands. The absence of a firearm changes the level of risk associated with the attack. Does the teacher resort to (threat of) firearms use if a student is beating another student to the point of threatening their life, and so on.

Risk to whom? 

Normally neglected in these stories are the numerous student victims of violent students. Yes, there are the national/international news stories of stereotypical bullied victims finally lashing out; man-bites-dog effect. The other 99% doesn't make the news, for several reasons.

 

4 minutes ago, DB said:

Not easy.

Never is.

[Ivanhoe]

As for arming teachers, ordinarily it is implied that all teachers will be armed. Basically a reductio ad absurdum approach.

Make it voluntary, use existing standards of performance (with range exercise), and the overall safety will be an improvement over the current condition where the guns on campus are possessed by the gang-affiliated students.

It should also be noted that we are now two weeks downstream from the Nashville shooting, and there have been no news stories of "trans genocides" in the US. The apocalyptic and menacing rhetoric from the trans crowd is at odds with reality. Which I interpret as an indicator that there will probably be future violence in response to the rest of society not kowtowing to the trans movement. 

 

 

[DB]

Additional risk to people who would be in the school normally. Risk analysis is often compared to a societal norm baseline, one could argue that the risk change is between the accidental death due to firearms use in an environment where public carry (concealed or open, I don't think it matters here) and "gun free" zones. I'd assume (without evidence) that if guns are not present, then the accident rate due to guns is zero (close to zero - people may inadvertently or deliberately carry onto the premises with no intent to cause harm, after all.)

So, if the accident rate in schools where carrying is allowed is higher than schools where it is not allowed, applied to the entire school system may yield a significant number of casualties per year. How does that compare to the number of casualties due explicitly to bad actors?

A point of contention has occurred to me, though (as if there aren't enough already) - what is the baseline societal risk of becoming a casualty from an accidental discharge of a firearm? Risk analysis often compares residual risk against societal norms. If the additional risk of allowing teachers to carry a firearm in a school is negligible compared to the societal norm, then the conclusions should be much easier - allow carry and you have a mitigation against school shootings that is likely to be a net benefit.

It's probably worth mentioning that the risk of becoming a school shooting casualty may be higher in the US than in many places, but it's still really low (as RO11 mentioned, above).

Edit: I hadn't considered the school gang illegal carry situation. That means the accidental discharge injury probability is notably far away from zero, but I'm not sure that teachers' (I'd always assumed voluntary) carry would affect that - the police are armed and that doesn't deter criminals from being armed.

Edited April 9, 2023 by DB

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

It should also be noted that we are now two weeks downstream from the Nashville shooting, and there have been no news stories of "trans genocides" in the US. The apocalyptic and menacing rhetoric from the trans crowd is at odds with reality. Which I interpret as an indicator that there will probably be future violence in response to the rest of society not kowtowing to the trans movement. 

There was the tranny in Wisconsin who was about to go on a murder spree when it was apprehended.  Several weapons and Communist Manifesto were found during the search of its domicile.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, DB said:

Additional risk to people who would be in the school normally.
 

You could always, as a proxy, cite the vast increase in gun related accidents when states allow concealed, open or constitutional carry. 
 

 

1 hour ago, DB said:

 

analysis is often compared to a societal norm baseline, one could argue that the risk change is between the accidental death due to firearms use in an environment where public carry (concealed or open, I don't think it matters here) and "gun free" zones. I'd assume (without evidence) that if guns are not present, then the accident rate due to guns is zero (close to zero - people may inadvertently or deliberately carry onto the premises with no intent to cause harm, after all.)

The deliberate death rate due to guns being used by criminals in gun free zones is very much non zero  

 

1 hour ago, DB said:

A point of contention has occurred to me, though (as if there aren't enough already) -

Some cited data in gun accidents would be useful. 

 

 

1 hour ago, DB said:

Edit: I hadn't considered the school gang illegal carry situation. 

You need to factor this in for both whom the teachers will be shooting and as for the reduction in violence now that teachers aren't entirely at the mercy of gang members. 

[rmgill]

DB, here's your starting point to demonstrating the increase in firearms injury and death due to accidents...

 

https://wisqars.cdc.gov/data/explore-data/explore/selected-years?ex=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

Edited April 9, 2023 by rmgill

[rmgill]

 

[Murph]

The lefty murderer in Louisville is already having his internet usage cleaned up by someone.  Hard core uber-lefty, not a conservative, or normie at all.  

 

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/04/10/the-louisville-shooters-inconvenient-social-media-being-conveniently-scrubbed-n1685956  (use ad block to get past the blockage).  

[DKTanker]

Hey, Leftists, get your trannies under control.  What am I saying, the WH has given implicit direction to Tranny Terrorism.

[DB]

On 4/9/2023 at 5:23 PM, rmgill said:

You could always, as a proxy, cite the vast increase in gun related accidents when states allow concealed, open or constitutional carry. 

The deliberate death rate due to guns being used by criminals in gun free zones is very much non zero  

Some cited data in gun accidents would be useful. 

You need to factor this in for both whom the teachers will be shooting and as for the reduction in violence now that teachers aren't entirely at the mercy of gang members. 

Well, I did say it wasn't easy.

The best data I could probably use is the nationally gathered homicide data, which covers accidental deaths as well as murders, even though it is collated by the FBI and that will make some here unhappy, I think that any other source is likely to be even more biased.

I will take a look at this when I have some spare time, although it's always going to be imprecise.

Edit: replied before reading the next post. I'll take a look at that CDC data too.

Edited April 11, 2023 by DB

[rmgill]

Pretty simple I think.

Track incidence of accidental deaths due to gun accidents. 
Then track over the same time series the incidence of lawful firearms carry. 
 

If your assertion of increased risk of accidental deaths bears out, you should see a clear rise in such in each state. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by rmgill