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.
So all the guards that today do not have guns should in the future have guns but this will not result in more guns.
I think we're already starting on an inexorable path away from the big centralized community school. Technology will change the way we need and utilize infrastructure.
I do, for the strength it has. That said, and because my mind easily wanders, I wonder what would happen if the dog was an egg sucking dog, but that is a discussion for another time, perhaps. Do not let my immaturity derail the conversation.
I think I would want an actuary or an experienced risk manager to weigh in on the risk and the cost benefit analysis before I would automatically agree with your position here. I like some data when I might be tempted to make and emotional decision.
FBI definition of mass public shooting is 4 or more dead and the shooting is not the result of another crime (gang or drug violence or robbery). ie targeting people to kill for the sake of killing them. Public, in this scenario, includes malls, businesses, schools, churches, health care facilities, government public places (post offices, etc.). From 1950 to 2016 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free zones".
You are clearly misrepresenting what I am saying as are other posters. I've already addressed this with you 3 pages ago that different situations call for different measures-many of which absolutely don't call for more guns. You didn't have anything productive to say then, you don't now. You're being obtuse. Not surprising.
I would hope not. Because no one, literally no one is proposing that students or teachers or administrators carry guns on campus. Don't really know why it always goes right to that.
I'm answering you because every time I suggest that a responsible, already on staff, security guard should potentially be armed, the response is something along the lines of "oh, I guess the janitor should be able to carry an AR-15, right?" It seemed like that was what you were doing. apologies.
I get different information from sources I can find:
Here's another interesting article:
Who to believe, the NRA, or several independent researchers and government agencies? It's a puzzle I tell ya.
He doesn't. He just says the same thing over and over then signs it with /Gopper. Pretty awesome discussion
Right, those figures count drive by shootings, gang wars and shootings at home or in the process of another crime as mass shootings. Which are not applicable to the conversation we are having. Thanks though.
I think we probably need schools from a socialization aspect - but my daughter took an on-line high school class last summer, and it was a great learning experience. She was able to move quickly through some areas and take more time when she needed on other areas.
The conversation is about what happens in gun free zones. The stats I gave address that, frankly in a more realistic way than your cherry picked stat formulated for you by the NRA. Thanks though.
My community addressed this immediately post-Columbine. We have School Resource Officers (Fully commissioned and trained Police Officers) at each High School and at each Junior High School unless they share a campus then we may have only one assigned to both. We also have School Resource Officers assigned one to every three elementary schools and they rotate their time through them. Additionally we have report writing substations within the schools where Officers may choose to write up reports even when they are wholly unrelated to the schools, believing that mere presence has deterrence value. (why not have them write things up in a warm building instead of on their MDT's in their car at a Dunkin Donuts?)
No they don't. They include gang drive by shootings and in the commission of robberies. We are talking about school shootings. They are different. The stats you gave address shootings outside the realm of what we are talking about.
What percentage of all malls, businesses, schools, churches, health care facilities and government buildings are gun-free zones? Is it more or less than 98.4%?
Unless I'm mistaken all school zones (within 1000 feet of the grounds of a public school) are gun free zones. As are all Government buildings. No idea on businesses or malls.
The other guy was talking about gun free zones. The stat you gave (From 1950 to 2016 98.4% of mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free zones" - your words) says gun free zones. The stats I gave address gun free zones. Seems you have a muddled understanding of what you're asserting. More importantly the distinction you're trying to make is irrelevant even to the topic you claim. If your assertion is that having more guns on campus would result in less shootings on campus, there should be a correlation in number of shootings in gun-free campuses vs. guns allowed campuses regardless of the motive for the shooting or the amount of people killed in a given incident. The stats show no such correlation at best, the opposite correlation at worse.
So we have zero context for the statistic you presented. It could be that shootings are less likely in gun free zones, could be more likely. We don't know.
I would be fascinated to learn that all school zones are gun free, though I believe many purport to be, but all? As for government buidings I can asure you that this is not so though certainly many are.
Again, it's illegal to conceal carry a weapon or for a citizen to have a gun on them within 1000 feet of any public school. Also, I'm not aware of any public buildings such as courthouses, administration buildings, post office, etc, that citizens are allowed to have a handgun on them. Some of these government buildings have armed guards of course.
We don't have zero context. It would be impossible to ascertain what percentage of all businesses are gun free zones. We do know however that all schools are gone free zones. And we do know that the vast majority of these mas shootings, Albeit not all of them, are targeted at public schools.
Do you think most school shootings are perpetrated because the shooter knows that schools are "gun free zones"?
Targeted mass shootings where the only goal is for the shooter to kill as many people as possible. I'm not sure what you don't understand But again, the shootings involved in the numbers that you're giving include gang shootings drive-bys, robberies etc. These are not applicable to Targeted mass shootings where the only goal is for the shooter to kill as many people as possible. I'm not sure what you don't understand
But without knowing whether 98.4% is higher or lower than the total number of gun-free malls, schools, etc. spread out over the period from 1960-present we have zero evidence of a correlation, let alone a causal connection.
Well there is no way to understand the motives of these shooters, I think that that is a fair guess. Their goal is to kill as many people as possible, so of course they are going to go where they will Face the least amount of resistance. Otherwise we would probably see more shootings at gun shows, police stations etc.
While I appreciate the smarminess in your response I'm not interested.
Yeah, it's probably because they're gun-free zones. Not because the shooters often have a connection to the school or anything. Totally a fair guess.
I don't understand where I intimated there's something I don't understand. I understand perfectly well, you've tried to subtly change the conversation from shootings to the NRA's narrowly defined notion of mass shootings and gun free zones. I don't particularly care about the deaths/injuries per incident or motivation behind school shootings - they're still school shootings. Your (well, more accurately the NRA's) attempt to make some arbitrary distinction about the nature of the school shootings and then back out a statistic that supports a contention that more armed people on campus is disingenuous.
So the fact that they can get off hundreds of rounds without any one stopping them in any quick amount of time has no bearing on their thought process? Got it.
True. The application of the definition with the intent to mislead, that's the NRA's. Sorry about that.
Sorry, I really don't understand what your point is. Including drive-by shootings in mass shootings is not applicable to this conversation. We're talking about arming a guard at a school. That would have no impact on anything other than school shootings.
Probably because they have Pat Downs, metal detectors, and armed guards at all sporting events. Just a hunch.
But you can use your brain right? You can logically assume that a person that wants to do as much damage as possible will go to a place that they will get the least amount of resistance. Right? This isn't rocket science or anything hard to ascertain.
No, you just don't want to admit understanding. That's o.k. your argument is pretty lousy.
Both things can be true I'm sure they often are. That doesn't negate the fact that they know the can do the most damage at that school. In fact most of those cases, it probably makes it even more easy for them to circumvent what little security is there, because they already know the surroundings. Both things can be true
When you take the entirety of mass shootings, and you subtract out shooting involved in things like robberies, gang violence, drug wars, etc. as well as domestiv shootings, You are left with all the other gun free zone shootings. That is what I am talking about. That is where the 98% comes from. This is not solely encompass only school shootings, but it narrows it down quite a bit. And it focuses on the issue that we are talking about. It's not being disingenuous it's trying to get to the closest the statistical representation of mass shootings that occur at places like schools, that our gun free zones
