Connecticut School Shooting

[Mister_T]

Then why did you bring up the entire metaphorical about shooting the apple? backing away from your stance now? Good.

I have not once backed away from anything I've said in here, as much as you might like that. And I've already explained why, someone just doesn't read things correctly and tries to make it everyone elses problem but his own.

You place both participants into the scenario, and ask who would I prefer to take the shot.

Between this and the apple, that's two things you got right. Maybe we can shoot for three now.

I cited that cops are awful shots and it certainly would not be the cop. I then cited evidence as to the fact that they do not even often hit their targets at all, despite all the training you keep insisting makes some kind of difference. I showed evidence from a police trainer, the very person you insist makes them somehow specialists in shooting things. Their own trainer says they can't shoot for ****. Really, what's so hard to get, here?

And I countered that with evidence that suggested that police are not as bad as the 15% you make them out to be. It's also just comparing cops, it's not comparing cops to teachers who will more than likely be far worse, that's the point, not which one has sniper aim, it's which one is likely to be better than the other.

Perhaps it's necessary for you to define what you think a 'specialist', your word, actually is?

Well unsurprisingly, I searched all my posts in this thread and I have never once used the word "specialist." Well done, yet another testament to your attention to detail.

I have used "professional" and "expert", and explained it a number of times that when it comes to handling these types of situations (i.e. psychotic shooting spree), cops are going to be more qualified to handle it. I would think it's pretty obvious that there's is a lot more to it than just aiming a gun.

Yeah, um, all this evidence points to them not being good shots. Or even passable. None of what you just listed supports you over my statements. The evidence shows the cop is NOT likely to be any kind of expert.

It does show that you cherry pick to try and fit you bias, since none of the other studies done in the NY Times show an abysmal 15% and are recent as oppose to one study whose majority of sources are from two decades ago. It was also the second choice from the top of the front page when searching for "police firearm accuracy statistics," while your source was not even on the front page. You had to dig pretty deep for that one, I guess the first 11 sources listed didn't fit the picture you were trying to paint?

But once again, you still keep trying to strawman this into whether or not cops are expert marksman who have sniper aim. They don't have to be snipers, they just have to be better than a teacher and they will be on average. That's my whole point.

Strawman
My mention of hyperbole is not about child deaths, and certainly not about facts, its your exaggerations of my own stances [note that you do it again, below].

So your mention of hyperbole is not about child deaths, and yet this is the post you quoted me on:

You're missing the point entirely. Teachers are there to be teachers, not fully armed commandos. Putting a gun within reach of 30 or more children in every classroom around the country is going to increase school shootings...just look at how many kids die around the country from accidental gun deaths outside of school, and people want to have teachers carry guns? What a brilliant idea.

And your response:

Your use of hyperbole only damages your claim

Good job, you're on a roll today. :bonk:

Reading comprehension, have you met him?

I have actually, apparently he's an alien life form to you, maybe one day he'll abduct you and show you his ways. If you meant to quote something else I said, you could have just said so, but you're just embarrassing yourself now.

Im sorry, I was engaging in your own habit of sarcastic hyperbole; is that only reserved for you?

And if I actually made a sarcastic hyperbole, you might have a point. Hyperbole apparently to you is "anything that doesn't align with my view or agree with me." I'd ask you to go read the definition of a hyperbole, but we haven't had much luck in that department as is.

Oh look! Here you are, using it again.

Oh hey look, just repeating what you said!

No police force will be able to protect you the instant something horrible begins. If you are there, YOU are the only one who will protect you, and your own family.

Be prepared, or surrender your arms. If you die from the former, it was time to die and you were beaten by a better opponent. If you die from the latter, it's your own damned fault. Don't cry because you voluntarily gave up your teeth.

Yup, that was just me using a hyperbole alright. :foot:

Except you don't mention any others, of course

I most certainly did and it's there for everyone to read, which you obviously didn't. You just try to make your problem of not reading things everyone else's problem. I guess a win is a win, right?

Im sorry if bringing in real-world example of where the thing you say doesn't work, actually works, feels thwarting to you. Perhaps if you took a moment to examine the fact that what I suggest does work somewhere, your eyes might be opened a bit to the possibility of my common sense solution actually being feasible.
A general disarmament does work in some places. It will not work here.

I'm sorry if it's hard for you to accept that comparing isolated school shootings that rarely happen, to a constant warzone with constant terror attacks is a false equivalency, as well as intellectually dishonest. I understand that it gives you this feeling of "neener, neener I beat you!" but it's not proving anything other than your apparent lack of understanding of how things work around the world and in your own backyard.

I'm sure it does work in Israel, because they are a war with with a country they share a border with, where as we have one or two psychopaths that go on a shooting spree once in a while. Yes, a whole lot of common sense being used right there. Does someone really have to explain the difference to you? I can't believe anyone who's being honest with themselves can't see that obvious disconnect. That's like saying because fire lights cigarettes, people should use a flame-thrower instead of a lighter. Sure they'll burn their face off, but the flame-thrower-cigarette-lighting enthusiasts will still have bragging rights for being right, which is all that apparently matters to you at this point.

And once again, I never called for any kind of disarming. Not once. Like I mentioned before at the beginning of our debate, I own guns and they're there for self defense, why would I want to disarm myself? You keep reading/seeing things in posts that I don't say or are not there and it's not doing anything except making this debate unproductive. It's obvious we're not going to agree or see eye-to-eye on anything in regards to teachers and guns, so I'm just going to bow out because this isn't going any where, if you want to respond to this post, you're more than welcome to.

Bottom line here for both of us is, you're okay with teachers having guns in school, I'm not. I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The 2 underlined portions look contradictory.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

But since guns are successfully used in self defense tens of thousands of times per year in the USA (far more than there are deaths
by guns), we can calculate that trained & armed school staff would be safer than enforcing total disarmament of the victims.

And that's certainly another way to look at it.

 

[Copernicus]

The 2 underlined portions look contradictory.
But since guns are successfully used in self defense tens of thousands of times per year in the USA (far more than there are deaths by guns), we can calculate that trained & armed school staff would be safer than enforcing total disarmament of the victims. There is still the added advantage that perps intent on mass murder would be less likely to commit mayhem if they expected to be killed before they got very far, ie, the deterrent effect. (There are no mass murders at gun shows.)

I thought that Kilgore made a very good point about looking at this from a statistical point of view. The number of massacres of this sort are getting more common, but they are still extremely infrequent. Arming all teachers in a state or nation, on the other hand, drives up likelihood that infrequent accidents from that situation will multiply. Massacres are not the only problem associated with guns. There are gun accidents, suicides, threats made by people brandishing guns, etc. When you arm people not used to stressful situations, and you put them in a stressful situation, some will make terrible mistakes.

The real problem here, as I see it, is the facile assumption by so many people that the solution to too many guns being misused is to increase the number of guns available for misuse--an unintended consequence. The opportunities to use those guns to stop a killer will be few and far between, but the opportunities to misuse them (intentionally or not) will be much more common. Even in the case where a killer enters a school, the potential for unintended disaster are multiplied--e.g. an armed teacher mistaking security personnel for an intruder or security personnel mistaking the teacher for the shooter. Not to mention the problem of ricochets and bullets hitting bystanders. That is why there is such resistance to the idea of arming teachers as a protective measure against random suicidal maniacs dressed in body armor.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I thought that Kilgore made a very good point about looking at this from a statistical point of view. The number of massacres of this sort are getting more common, but they are still extremely infrequent. Arming all teachers in a state or nation, on the other hand, drives up likelihood that infrequent accidents from that situation will multiply. Massacres are not the only problem associated with guns. There are gun accidents, suicides, threats made by people brandishing guns, etc. When you arm people not used to stressful situations, and you put them in a stressful situation, some will make terrible mistakes.

The real problem here, as I see it, is the facile assumption by so many people that the solution to too many guns being misused is to increase the number of guns available for misuse--an unintended consequence. The opportunities to use those guns to stop a killer will be few and far between, but the opportunities to misuse them (intentionally or not) will be much more common. Even in the case where a killer enters a school, the potential for unintended disaster are multiplied--e.g. an armed teacher mistaking security personnel for an intruder or security personnel mistaking the teacher for the shooter. Not to mention the problem of ricochets and bullets hitting bystanders. That is why there is such resistance to the idea of arming teachers as a protective measure against random suicidal maniacs dressed in body armor.

What if we give teachers non-lethal weapons like tasers?

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought that Kilgore made a very good point about looking at this from a statistical point of view. The number of massacres of this sort are getting more common, but they are still extremely infrequent. Arming all teachers in a state or nation, on the other hand, drives up likelihood that infrequent accidents from that situation will multiply. Massacres are not the only problem associated with guns. There are gun accidents, suicides, threats made by people brandishing guns, etc. When you arm people not used to stressful situations, and you put them in a stressful situation, some will make terrible mistakes.

He didn't actually make a statistical argument (no numbers). He posits that his unlikely scenarios would cause more death than leaving schools unprotected.
Given that the number of instances when people use guns in self defense exceeds homicides by at least an order of magnitude, it appears that guns enhance
overall safety.

The real problem here, as I see it, is the facile assumption by so many people that the solution to too many guns being misused is to increase the number of guns available for misuse--an unintended consequence.

Methinks this assumption doesn't really exist.

The opportunities to use those guns to stop a killer will be few and far between, but the opportunities to misuse them (intentionally or not) will be much more common. Even in the case where a killer enters a school, the potential for unintended disaster are multiplied--e.g. an armed teacher mistaking security personnel for an intruder or security personnel mistaking the teacher for the shooter. Not to mention the problem of ricochets and bullets hitting bystanders. That is why there is such resistance to the idea of arming teachers as a protective measure against random suicidal maniacs dressed in body armor.

Cops make mistakes too. The problem of ricocheting bullets is eliminated by using fragmenting ammunition.

 

[Revoltingest]

What if we give teachers non-lethal weapons like tasers?

They would be better than nothing, but they would need to get closer to
the perp than if they used a gun. And there would be no follow up shots.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Does the cutlery in the kitchen pose similar concerns?

Yes, and that concern is appropriately reduced according to the reduced killing efficiency and increased necessity of cutlery compared to firearms.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They would be better than nothing, but they would need to get closer to
the perp than if they used a gun. And there would be no follow up shots.

Why would they be better than nothing? Most elementary schools will never see a gun on their premises. Ever. For those schools the possible risk posed by an intruder must be weighed against the certain risk posed by introducing weapons--even in the hands of trained people. (Aren't you the same guy always complaining about the police? You know ... those guys trained with weapons?)

Is anyone even suggesting that a gun would have changed anything in the OP? Suppose the poor elementary school teacher had been armed. How would this tragedy have turned out any differently?

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would they be better than nothing? Most elementary schools will never see a gun on their premises. Ever. For those schools the possible risk posed by an intruder must be weighed against the certain risk posed by introducing weapons--even in the hands of trained people. (Aren't you the same guy always complaining about the police? You know ... those guys trained with weapons?)

You're mixing different problems here. I complain about an entirely different problem with the police, ie, that they are corrupt & largely above the law.
Do you see how this differs from allowing trained & armed school staff to defend themselves & their charges?

Is anyone even suggesting that a gun would have changed anything in the OP? Suppose the poor elementary school teacher had been armed. How would this tragedy have turned out any differently?

I suggest that trained & armed school staff stand a good chance of reducing the number of deaths when an attacker descends upon them.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I suggest that trained & armed school staff stand a good chance of reducing the number of deaths when an attacker descends upon them.

Well let's compare your contention to the facts. In the past year, how many elementary school teachers or their students were harmed by armed attackers in the classroom? Of those, how many cases could have been prevented if the teacher had been armed? For your argument to be sensible the answer to both questions should be "a lot".

So far from the OP we have one example and your contention is 0-1 with the facts. Not a good start but let's look at some more cases, I'm listening.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well let's compare your contention to the facts. In the past year, how many elementary school teachers or their students were harmed by armed attackers in the classroom? Of those, how many cases could have been prevented if the teacher had been armed? For your argument to be sensible the answer to both questions should be "a lot".

The facts? We don't have comparative examples of schools where staff carry weapons.

So far from the OP we have one example and your contention is 0-1 with the facts. Not a good start but let's look at some more cases, I'm listening.

We have one example of unarmed school staff & many deaths.
Are you saying this helps your argument that they should remain prohibited from carrying concealed weapons?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The facts? We don't have comparative examples of schools where staff carry weapons.

Nor do you need any to answer my very basic and straightforward questions.

We have one example of unarmed school staff & many deaths.
Are you saying this helps your argument that they should remain prohibited from carrying concealed weapons?

Yes. To find out why, re-read my last two posts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nor do you need any to answer my very basic and straightforward questions.

Your questions haven't been that straight yet.
If you feel I haven't responded directly enfu, then ask again simply & directly.

Yes. To find out why, re-read my last two posts.

I see nothing there to alter my reading of them.
Are we descending into mere pointless argumentation? That's not too interesting.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Your questions haven't been that straight yet.
If you feel I haven't responded directly enfu, then ask again simply & directly.

Perhaps you were reading them in Portuguese rather than the intended English? From post #230:

Question #1: In the past year, how many elementary school teachers or their students were harmed by armed attackers in the classroom?​

Question #2: Of those, how many cases could have been prevented if the teacher had been armed?​

see nothing there to alter my reading of them.
Are we descending into mere pointless argumentation? That's not too interesting.

I draw your attention to this part: "Suppose the poor elementary school teacher had been armed. How would this tragedy have turned out any differently?" A guy bursts into a room with an assault weapon already drawn. Remember, teacher may have a concealed handgun but she doesn't have Spidey-sense.

 

[NIX]

Perhaps you were reading them in Portuguese rather than the intended English? From post #230:

Question #1: In the past year, how many elementary school teachers or their students were harmed by armed attackers in the classroom?
​

Question #2: Of those, how many cases could have been prevented if the teacher had been armed?
​

I draw your attention to this part: "Suppose the poor elementary school teacher had been armed. How would this tragedy have turned out any differently?" A guy bursts into a room with an assault weapon already drawn. Remember, teacher may have a concealed handgun but she doesn't have Spidey-sense.

The difference (in this case) would more likely have been made in the front office.
As the stories relay those women were fiercely brave.
Those in the front office were the first aware of the situation, they were the school's first line of defense and they fought for those children with all they had. Their very lives. They did not freeze and hide- they actually attempted to attack and deter with no weapons at all.
As well multiple shots were fired before any classroom was reached, and they were heard even through the PA system if I'm correct.
Even a lockdown door between the office and the halls might buy enough time to get students into a safe room.
This only works, of course, if the main door is the door of entry. So- nothing is perfect. As soon as a criminal mind knows what a defense system is- they will try to circumvent it.

I'm really not out to defend any particular course of self defense, but leaving the schools with no real inner self defense strategies to me, is unacceptable. Life is fragile and we are all susceptable to possible unexpected death or tragedy each and every day. But here we are talking about our children- en mass. THEY deserve some kind of ACTUAL school intrusion emergency plan. And not just some stupid 'feel good' thing. Something REAL- that actually has a chance of keeping them protected.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps you were reading them in Portuguese rather than the intended English? From post #230:

Question #1: In the past year, how many elementary school teachers or their students were harmed by armed attackers in the classroom?​

Question #2: Of those, how many cases could have been prevented if the teacher had been armed?​

I draw your attention to this part: "Suppose the poor elementary school teacher had been armed. How would this tragedy have turned out any differently?" A guy bursts into a room with an assault weapon already drawn. Remember, teacher may have a concealed handgun but she doesn't have Spidey-sense.

After returning from distractions, I see that responding to this post looks like I'd be getting bogged down in unanswerable
questions (#2) & hypothetical scenarios designed to bolster your case. It doesn't seem to lead to a common understanding
or any solutions to the problem. I really don't have anything useful to add at this point.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

An armed staff means what exactly? Are our teachers now paramilitary operatives at every school? A shooter comes in with body armor and an assault rifle and you pull your 9mm glock and problem solved? Are teachers practicing at the range every weekend and maintaining their weapons? Do the people suggesting this think very highly of public teachers in the first place or do they just want more people to have more guns?

It seems like a really lazy and inadequate solution to a very real problem. Its fine that you suggest it but I think it introduces more problems than it is purported to solve.

Teacher forgets gun in desk while at lunch or tutoring and hears shots fired? Teacher is reportedly supposed to be armed but never actually carries or does carry but has never fired a weapon in years. Teacher is supposed to carry and does but is a pacifist and only uses blanks... etc etc...

Maybe in this case it would have slowed the shooter down enough for a proper response but I don't think so. I think if you suddenly introduce 1000's of handguns across the US then you are inviting more gun deaths and not less.

 

[Revoltingest]

An armed staff means what exactly? Are our teachers now paramilitary operatives at every school? A shooter comes in with body armor and an assault rifle and you pull your 9mm glock and problem solved? Are teachers practicing at the range every weekend and maintaining their weapons? Do the people suggesting this think very highly of public teachers in the first place or do they just want more people to have more guns?
It seems like a really lazy and inadequate solution to a very real problem. Its fine that you suggest it but I think it introduces more problems than it is purported to solve.
Teacher forgets gun in desk while at lunch or tutoring and hears shots fired? Teacher is reportedly supposed to be armed but never actually carries or does carry but has never fired a weapon in years. Teacher is supposed to carry and does but is a pacifist and only uses blanks... etc etc...
Maybe in this case it would have slowed the shooter down enough for a proper response but I don't think so. I think if you suddenly introduce 1000's of handguns across the US then you are inviting more gun deaths and not less.

Since your post follows mine, but you lack a referential quote, I can't discern whether you're addressing me. But if you are, your questions look rhetorical & rantish.
If you really want an answer or any discussion, please dial it down, skip the loaded questions, & ask the one you'd really like answered.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Since your post follows mine, but you lack a referential quote, I can't discern whether you're addressing me. But if you are, your questions look rhetorical & rantish.
If you really want an answer or any discussion, please dial it down, skip the loaded questions, & ask the one you'd really like answered.

I tried it already.

 

[dust1n]

Hey. It would decrease the unemployment rate.

Indeed. Maybe experts believe that endless an war-time economy in any form is great, almost necessary, for any popular wealth.