Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Back-to-School - what to buy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mario Kart
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
If it wasn’t for commercials like these and all of that useless active shooter training, maybe their wouldn’t have been so long a wait for your son. At least, that’s what I’m reading in here.
Best wishes to your family.
i wonder how many people who find the ad offensive and fear mongering and there is nothing to worry about school:
1. Have kids at a grade or high school level?
2. Have kids at a grade or high school level school level that they actually talk to?
1. Have kids at a grade or high school level?
2. Have kids at a grade or high school level school level that they actually talk to?
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
I'm not offended by it.
I just called it a political ad. Seems that more people were offended by me doing that.
But, I'm not exactly sure why? Tim stated that he hopes the ad will effect the 2020 election. Doesn't that make it a political ad?
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Thanks buddy. There have already been two lock downs this year because of threats of "shooting the school up". Sickening.
jonessed
Footballguy
It is a political ad. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that though.
Kids have a higher chance of being hit by lightening than being shot at school. The constant piling on of parent’s irrational fears is definitely not going to help with anxiety and depression. Kids have enough to deal with. Obviously in areas of high crime working with your kids on how to avoid getting shot, associating with gangs, drugs, etc. makes sense. Actually, the drugs issue applies to just about any area.
Cyber bullying is definitely a big issue. It seems hard to address though. I would like to find a way to expand mental health support. I know some health insurers, like Kaiser, are being sued for their lack of mental health support. That’s something that can be addressed in the courts. We also need more child psychologists. There is a shortage.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skoo
Footballguy
I've always loved this line of reasoning.
If that's the case, why have any laws to begin with?
Murderers are still gonna murder people, what's the point in making a silly law against it?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I posted in the other thread that my son's Middle School went to lock down because somebody said a vague threat - something like "I'm gonna #### you up", and left the campus. Not even a specific threat about shooting somebody at the school.
John Blutarsky
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I guess it would be the same as asking why have any religion?
People are going to choose to do things that are morally or criminally wrong. It's human nature and has no regards to laws.
Laws serve as a punishment for actions. Not a deterrent. The same way that hell serves as a punishment.
jonessed
Footballguy
Skoo
Footballguy
Feel free to explain what you meant.
What I gathered from your post is that a criminal is going to break the law anyway, so no point in making stricter laws.
If that's the case, why make any laws? Won't criminals just break them anyway?
The Commish
Footballguy
It's a "political ad" in the sense that it was created in the hopes that it would cause people to pause and reflect and most of all ACT. That action would be engaging politicians as they are the ONLY ones who can change our laws. If the more general/popular definition of political ad is being used, then that's obviously wrong. We all know the differences between that and what I just qualified.
Skoo
Footballguy
Incorrect.
And hell most definitely serves as a deterrent as well, since no one even knows if it actually exists.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
And based on what Tim stated, 90% of the population wants background checks.
I've asked what there is to gain from the ad? Is it to raise awareness? Is there a person left in the civilized world that isn't aware of the mass shootings happening at schools? If there is, I doubt they are watching this ad. (they must be stuck under a rock).
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I am out of touch with the community, so I have no idea.
I have not dug through their guidelines for what they do as far as threats go, just going off of what the district sent out in an email. My son just said cops were called, they couldn't go outside after lunch, etc.. I will reread email again.
KCitons
Footballguy
I'll cede to the rest of the forum on this.
I'm pro death penalty. Either to deter, or to punish. Dealers choice.
But, I've been told over and over that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent. Perhaps one of those other posters will take up the argument.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Every time something like that is posted, it seems like that is the implication.
The Commish
Footballguy
This is a common occurrence here in the great state of Florida. The culture of fear is pervasive and disguised as "better safe than sorry". It's disgusting that my kids have to go through a monthly "active shooter" drill and have periodic "tests" of that procedure. Fortunately, they NOW tell us as parents when those are going to happen. I guess they learned their lesson the first time they didn't warn us beforehand. That created quite the ####storm.
I don't really fault the school systems in this. I genuinely believe they are doing the best they can with the ####ty hand they've been dealt in being forced to deal with this absurd issue. The good news, for my kids anyway, is at least now their guardians are both under age 75 and both have all their limbs. That wasn't the case last year. At my son's school the dude was 83 years old and my daughter's guardian didn't have any legs (Afghan vet).
The most bizarre thing about this whole situation is "active shooter" simulations are the ONLY ones they provide advanced notice to the parents of. Many have claimed that these sorts of simulations aren't all that different from fire drills or tornado drills etc. If that's true, why doesn't the school system feel the need to give us forewarning about those drills that they only do once a semester? And yes, it's a rhetorical question.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I just saw this thread. I was able to make it halfway through the ad before turning it of in disgust. Whose bright idea was this? Let's have kids pretend their is a mass shooting? Wow. Crazy how low the Dems can continue to go.
-fish-
Footballguy
my kid is forced to pretend there is a mass shooting at her school 2-3 times a year. sadly, that's how she's grown up. it traumatizes her every time.
The Commish
Footballguy
unckeyherb
Footballguy
I understand the desire to conduct these drills. I have two young daughters, one in 3rd grade one starting kindergarten next year. The worry about them being hurt or killed in any situation is visceral. So I get it.
On the flip side, the chances of a child being killed in a school shooting are insanely low. Last figure I read was something like 1 in 600,000,000. That's a non-zero chance, so again, the fear is there. I just wonder if the negative effect on children's psyche these drills have are worth it.
It reminds me of car seats. After a few deaths occurred (involving small children) a policy shift was implemented and car seats were made mandatory. The reality is however, that studies have shown that car seats do almost nothing in terms of protecting a child during a car accident (and in some cases can cause more harm than simply being buckled in with a seat belt.) The fear in that case is more compelling than the data. I think it applies in this case too.
I'd also add that I am in favor of more comprehensive background checks, as should anyone be. I think the net result from this would be a positive, but would not stop these events from happening. I'm honestly not sure there is much data out there to support that it would have any affect, but I'd still support it.
I'm very much less-inclined to support an AR ban.
On the flip side, the chances of a child being killed in a school shooting are insanely low. Last figure I read was something like 1 in 600,000,000. That's a non-zero chance, so again, the fear is there. I just wonder if the negative effect on children's psyche these drills have are worth it.
It reminds me of car seats. After a few deaths occurred (involving small children) a policy shift was implemented and car seats were made mandatory. The reality is however, that studies have shown that car seats do almost nothing in terms of protecting a child during a car accident (and in some cases can cause more harm than simply being buckled in with a seat belt.) The fear in that case is more compelling than the data. I think it applies in this case too.
I'd also add that I am in favor of more comprehensive background checks, as should anyone be. I think the net result from this would be a positive, but would not stop these events from happening. I'm honestly not sure there is much data out there to support that it would have any affect, but I'd still support it.
I'm very much less-inclined to support an AR ban.
-fish-
Footballguy
Considering that there are 72,000,000 school age children, there would have to be a negative number of children killed in school shootings for your made up statistic to be true.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
From the WP article that I read that stat:
ETA: What do you think the statistical odds are?
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I think there is a significant difference between the two things being compared to and you even touched on it in your post. The bold is what this is all about as I see it. We can shelter our kids from "why" they have to sit in a car seat. We can't shelter them for "why" they have to do these drills. My kids' school has been through a pretty drastic change in the last two years. There is now a 10 foot fence all the way around the entire property including gates to the parking lots. There are cameras everywhere and the front office isn't all that different in look/feel to what you might run into at the processing section of your county jail. The kids know exactly what is going on and they also know these sorts of measures exist at jails where "very dangerous people are". I've had this discussion many times with them and there is simply no way to sugar coat something that serious.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Fences and cameras are not the same thing as active shooter drills. There are cameras everywhere now. Fences too. These serve a number of functions that have nothing to do with active shooters and have been implemented for decades. Active shooter drills imply, to children, that there is a real possibility that this will happen to them. The facts suggest the opposite. And frankly, I disagree that these drills would help in an actual shooter situation. What if the shooter is a current or former student, which is usually the case? Wouldn't running these drills to move people to one designated location just give the shooter a roadmap to do more damage?
ETA: I should add that my point was that there is always a sense of "doing something is better than doing nothing" when it involves kids. It causes us to adopt policies that are not backed up by any meaningful data points. Sometimes doing something isn't better. I don't know in this case.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
I didn't say they were the same. Active shooter drills and making people use car seats for their kids aren't the same either. I was responding to that comparison you made. At this point, I really don't understand the point you're trying to convey. The bold holds true for fire drills, tornado drills, _________drills but we do all of those and people have even said that active shooter drills aren't all that different than those drills. Again, I disagree completely based on the psychological impacts alone. You can argue that they aren't necessary. You can argue they aren't effective. You can argue that they provide no benefit. That's fine...go for it. I have empathy for the schools in this though. As I said above, they are in a really ####ty situation. Say a school takes the "no big deal...it's not going to happen here" approach and then it does. Then what? Do you genuinely believe that the parents are going to say "wow, what are the odd of THAT happening?!??!" #### no they aren't....they're going to be demanding answers from the schools on how that could happen at their school.
You can also argue that the presence of a fence isn't unique to school shootings. It's true, fences are everywhere. Here's the problem....as a matter of communicating with the community and showing that they are doing all they can to keep kids safe, schools are telling the kids and everyone else that the fences are there for security...same with cameras. These are tangible things they are pointing to in order to show they are trying their best. So it's a complete strawman at worst and disingenuous at best to even go down that path IMO.
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
The Center for Disease Control estimates the odds of being killed in a school shooting at about 1 in 2 million, so your number is about 300x too high.
Part of it is the "any given day" analysis that they've used to artificially up the number. Kids don't got to school 1 day in their lives. Every school year increases the odds by at least 180 days, which is the minimum. Most are longer. Then multiply that by 13 for each year of school.
Last edited by a moderator:
unckeyherb
Footballguy
The odds of a fire in a school are exponentially higher than a school shooter. I don't care if active shooter drills are similar to fire drills. They are called ACTIVE SHOOTER drills. There is no confusion as to what you are trying to prevent. I agree that schools are in a ####ty situation. What is your point?
Fences ARE there for security. They were there for security 40 years ago too. They were and are still there to keep insurance rates down, keep people out, stop kids from running into the street, etc. Having security is not telegraphing to the community that a shooting is a real possibility. Engaging in active shooter drills is. There's no strawman there. Not disenegnuous either.
-fish-
Footballguy
Equating murder with accidents like a fire is incredibly disingenuous. I don't see my daughter coming home crying because of a fire drill. Practicing not getting murdered every year she goes to school has definitely traumatized her, particularly because she knows kids that have been in schools where kids have been killed.
The Commish
Footballguy
Like I said before. I don't really no what the point is you're trying to make. That the kids shouldn't have to be going through these drills? I'd agree, but it seems like the reasons for thinking that might be different. You seem to be saying that because it's a minimal chance of happening that they shouldn't be done. If that's the case, what do you think SHOULD be done in an effort to keep them safe?
unckeyherb
Footballguy
You are saying what I am saying.
ETA I didn’t equate those things. Saying I did is actually being disengenuous.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
I recall going through fire drills 1-2 times a year and tornado drills once a year in the spring. (didn't need to do one in December)
Paging @timschochet. Active shooter drill once a month for something that is not likely to every happen.Consider yourself lucky....my kids go through it once a month.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Generally speaking, I think I’ve already stated I’m in support of stronger more comprehensive background checks, though I also stated that I’m not sure if it will affect change at the margins like in school shootings.
More specifically with schools? I don’t know. I think implementing stronger security measures such as cameras and fences is a decent start. I think that implementing more security guards, possibly armed is another solution. Training teachers and admins to better identify and profile potentially problematic students and then providing a mechanism to address those concerns. I suppose I could be in support of an AR regulation or maybe even a ban if there were compelling evidence to suggest it would have an impact, but right now I don’t think that is something I’d support. Remove the ‘gun free zone’ concept and allow teachers or admins to carry if they want to and have gone through required training.
KCitons
Footballguy
Why not have active shooter training once a day? Why once a month, or once a year? It seems like you're using the liability issue as a reason to overtrain for active shooters. If a school can have training for bombs, earthquakes, tornadoes or fires at a rate of once or twice a year, then why does it need to be more frequent in regards to active shooter training? It's not because of the likelihood of a mass shooting is greater than those other things.
The Commish
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I'll say this in response to your solutions unkeyherb....I don't see how any of these ease the trauma. My kids have security guards already..armed, all that. What do I say to them when there are now MORE at the school or why their favorite teacher is carrying a gun around? How do I explain why MORE barriers are going up around their school? Same with cameras? How do I explain why their school is beginning to look more like a jail than a school?
Your argument against these drills seems to be "likelihood of it happening" which is a fine position to take. Problem is, that same argument is a fine argument against your proposed actions as well. The difference being a daily reminder of fences, cameras, armed guards vs a monthly one.
Your argument against these drills seems to be "likelihood of it happening" which is a fine position to take. Problem is, that same argument is a fine argument against your proposed actions as well. The difference being a daily reminder of fences, cameras, armed guards vs a monthly one.
-fish-
Footballguy
unckeyherb
Footballguy
If you think static objects like fences, cameras and security guards-things all schools have had prior to school shootings- are more traumatic than actually having children simulating an active shooter, I guess we just don’t see things the same.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
That was in response to someone else’s comment comparing the two. I was pointing out that it was not comparable. Again, the exact opposite of what you are implying I said.
timschochet
Footballguy
Not sure why you’re paging me. We have active shooter drills because crazy, evil people are able to buy guns designed for war, without background checks. There should be universal background checks and guns designed for war should be illegal to purchase. Full stop.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Strawman premise....... not all schools had this stuff before. In my anecdotal experience none of my kids' schools have had any of these things until the last few years with ther exception of security cameras. It's all new to my kids and their classmates
ETA. i never said more traumatic either
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
we have active shooter drills because we keep having children murdered in schools. apparently it would have to be higher numbers of dead children before some here would deem them necessary.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
You implied as-traumatic at the very least. And they aren’t. Not sure how that’s straw man. I suppose I should have said “some or many” schools.
unckeyherb
Footballguy
I said I questioned whether it makes sense to have them. You know, weigh the pros and cons of suggesting to children that it’s such a possible enough scenario that someone will be coming to kill them-creating the trauma that commish is talking about-that we need to practice it. All to mitigate a risk that is far far less of a chance of happening than getting killed on the way to school (also very low). I’m allowed to question it. It doesn’t mean I have bad intentions. It doesn’t mean you can imply I want to see more dead kids.
But trying to have a civil back and forth over a very touchy subject is met with posts like yours.
KCitons
Footballguy
Because this current conversation was a key part of our conversation this morning. Funny how people accuse me of deflecting, but isn't that what you are doing with your latest comment? Does the end justify the means? It seems to me that we are guaranteeing the kids become victims without a shooter ever entering the school.
I've made the claim that there is diminishing returns when it comes to active shooter training.
Why would kids nee to go through active shooter drills once a month? Does that mean other schools that do it twice a year are more at risk? Will they carry a greater liability? Or is it over reaching paranoia by parents that is doing more harm than good?Consider yourself lucky....my kids go through it once a month.
KCitons
Footballguy
For some reason, one of my sons was afraid of the Easter Bunny when he was little. Not someone dressed up like the Easter Bunny at the mall, but the thought of some giant rodent coming into the house in the middle of the night while he was sleeping. We never figured out how that fear started. But, it doesn't take much for kids to have irrational fears.
The Commish
Footballguy
No I didn't. I simply said that your examples of heightened security suffer from the same issues that you identified as being caused by the drills. For a kid where all these things are brand new, like in my experience, your solutions still have to be explained just like the drills do.
Similar threads
