Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
I'm proud to own guns.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rez Exelon" data-source="post: 4220505" data-attributes="member: 5800"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 <strong>responsive</strong> incidents, rather than <em>preventative</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Ultimately I'd like to see real research done into what can be done to prevent people from <em>wanting</em> to go shooting people. Then I'd like to see what could be done to <em>stop </em>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rez Exelon, post: 4220505, member: 5800"] 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 [B]responsive[/B] incidents, rather than [I]preventative[/I] 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 [I]wanting[/I] to go shooting people. Then I'd like to see what could be done to [I]stop [/I]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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
I'm proud to own guns.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom