Rez, you're not gonna see eye to eye using gaslighting.
Woody
Woody
You said we need to have real conversations about this topic so I'm conversing about it. Will we see eye to eye? Maybe, maybe not. It's ok for people to disagree on most topics.Do you really want to know or do you want to just start something so you can toss these replies out trying to feel superior? That's a real question you can feel free to think about because I get the sense we wouldn't see eye to eye on this.
I would expect most people to not really agree on much of anything. It's like how there's a million denominations of Christianity because everyone interprets the source material differently somehow.You said we need to have real conversations about this topic so I'm conversing about it. Will we see eye to eye? Maybe, maybe not. It's ok for people to disagree on most topics.
I think a big part of having SROs on campuses is the deterrence factor. It's definitely not a perfect solution, but it's geneally a good start. Yes, there have been incidents where they sat on their hands while kids were murdered. Those responses were also in direct contradiction to current tactics where it doesn't matter if you have one SRO available or 30 patrol cops responding, you immediately move to the threat and neutralize it.I would expect most people to not really agree on much of anything. It's like how there's a million denominations of Christianity because everyone interprets the source material differently somehow.
So, as far as measurement --- tough metric to quantify, but I would think offhand that we would want a goal-zero of kids getting shot. Right now, we are not there obviously. I don't believe that SRO's really do much. Even back when I was in school, the SRO never did anything other than harass kids that should have been getting help from a counselor. In high school we had to go through metal detectors which could be defeated by showing up 2 minutes late since they were staffed by teachers. 1 officer ain't really going to do much with 2500 kids in the school anyways.
Thinking right offhand about some notable examples, the SRO at Marjorie Stoneman didn't prevent or stop anything. The SRO and hundreds of officers at Uvalde were notably disasterous. Those are examples of responsive incidents, rather than preventative incidents. The preventative's likely don't make the news cycle to be perfectly fair, so it's harder to gauge what those incidents might look like. Ultimately schools, like most places, are soft targets and would be easy to penetrate if someone (student or external person) wanted to penetrate them. So do I give some credit to SRO's as a deterrent? I mean, maybe but not much.
To the question of measurement that goes back to the top of the thread, I'd be very curious what the data would look like measuring "after the shooting starts" incidents. How many shooters are taken down by LEOs, how many by bystanders. How many are taken down by unarmed persons. What do we know about the incidents when the shooting took place? How many "saves" took place?
Unfortunately, I'm relatively sure that none of that data is captured anywhere. There's almost no uniformity in standards for reporting any of this --- by design. Funding has been blocked to even study these concepts from a federal level for eons, and any private sources studying it get vilified by the gun community so if they manage to turn something out, it's DOA in many minds.
Ultimately I'd like to see real research done into what can be done to prevent people from wanting to go shooting people. Then I'd like to see what could be done to stop people from carrying it out. Addressing the source is more critical in my mind when all our current systems are not really preventing anything --- they are "lessening" the damage.
My take, which I realize is an ultimately unpopular take on this forum where there tend to be many loud voices from Camp Punitive, is that we as a society will never punish our way out of the cycle of violence we're in. That doesn't mean we stop punishment of those that commit crimes and break the law, but we should be actively working to make people not WANT to break the law, even if it's impossible to root out evil from the world entirely.
You are all over the map. Whether its crayons you like our your mom’s makeup mirror I could care less.What's not clear? I mean, I'd like to break it down using crayons but the board doesn't support that.
The concept as posted in this thread is a bullcrap concept. "I have a gun because it might keep a kid safe". Sure.. it might. But how many times have kids been killed by unsecured guns? Even in this thread there's a lot of "but my kids would never...." which everyone says... up to and including the interviews where kids get hurt or killed.
My initial ask was that there are some stats about how many kids get killed by guns. Sure, they are probably not comprehensive and detailed as they could be (that's a whole other side issue) so are there corresponding statistics about how many times a gun has protected a kids. How many bystanders have kept kids safe for instance?
I don't think the numbers are going to line up. I think the best way to keep kids safe is that guns are less accessible to the bad guys. What happens to a bad dude AFTER the shooting doesn't do anything anymore than thoughts and prayers do. I would bet that any mass shooter is prepared to die in a fight going into it, so big deal if they get life or executed, they've already taken down targets. Would it be a message to the next person? No --- that's almost an invite that they'll die with even MORE notoriety.
Personally, I think the best way to keep kids safe is to have an honest discussion about why kids keep getting killed in our country and then an honest discussion about how to fix it. Right now, and for most of my life, neither Dems nor Reps have been capable of that discussion, which I find sad.
As to whether having a gun stops anything --- I mean the KC parade was one of the latest high profile cases. A million people there at a parade in a state with basically no restrictions on carry. And who was the one the stopped the shooting? An unarmed dad. The narrative of more guns = safer isn't always as honest as people make it.
You are all over the map. Whether its crayons you like our your mom’s makeup mirror I could care less.
Poorly handled guns get kids killed. Other times kids are saved with guns. Two things can be true at the same time.
The amount of kids safely delivered to school in cars has little to do with the amount of kids killed on the highway. The numbers don’t line up you say. Yeah, that’s life. All you can control is the guns in your house.
I’ve read all your comments. You mostly just sound like you like to argue.
As Mark Twain once observed: "There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."Lets clearly define what is considered a child. Jon Stewart has been using a stat that includes 19y.o. gang bangers to try and shame gun advocates lately. People can rig the stats any way they want to push their agenda....
Enter your email address to join: