These Students will change US gun landscape

[Audie]

To be fair, trauma informed care was probably not a thing for badger. That said, I believe he is coming at it from a standpoint of home defense. He will endeavor to pick apart what else you could have done in order to suggest that the gun was unnecessary.

You absolutely should not have to go over the details. His point could have been made without asking personal questions. You should be entitled to take reasonable measures to take care of your own personal security.

His point is not a point at all, it is an uninformed personal opinion.

Opinion.

One does not need to be trained in trauma care to have a little
decency. Few are trained. Decency, you have it or dont.

He is actually the only person who managed to
find a way to make what happened to me my fault, and
see me as just someone to callously
exploit for his own purposes.

Other that is, than the man who assaulted me.

Life hss risks, sometimes you or your possessions are at risk.
You cannot lock all the world out all the time.

But of course, in some situations, maybe the most valuable thing is the
TV or purse.) Nothing worth enough that you cant just hand it over.
Handing myself over is another matter.

I doubt an old man is "valuable" in the way I was.

I appreciate it that you'd agree I have a right to self defense, for
all that it is a sort of obvious / minimum given. Or should be.

 

[Shaul]

Clearly you don't trust your teacher's professional abilities or characters.
But the abuse is all about fast-fire guns here. The children will soon be voters. Their opinions count already.

Um, as a teacher myself, I trust teachers to teach academic subjects, not to brainwash impressionable young minds. Children’s opinions count too much to be exploited by ideologues and deserve to develop independent of corruption from people with their own ulterior motives. Especially by compelling mere children to coercion as a captive audience in state mandated classrooms. Teachers should teach, not preach.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Teachers should teach, not preach.

So arm them to teach, not kill.

 

[Audie]

"To serve and protect"

The job of a parent, or teacher.

Whatever it takes.

 

[oldbadger]

How is not knowing the answer to a specific question lead to a conclusion that I have no knowledge of their "mission" or complaints?

Because their complaints are about school shootings, which you have written that you don't know about.

 

[Curious George]

Because their complaints are about school shootings, which you have written that you don't know about.

No, I wrote I do not know how many instances since 2001. That was the question you asked.

 

[oldbadger]

It was not a " " invasion, nor was it my fault.

What? Not a home-invasion?
Oh yes it was!!!!
You wrote that down........ didn't you!

Audie said: ↑
For that matter, the period of time when I kept a weapon at home was in response to a home invasion that I fortunately survived.

.

What kind of man are you?

I'm the kind of man that knows enough about security and loss-prevention to ask questions such as 'How did this happen?' 'How did your home fail to keep an intruder out?'
That's the kind of man that I am.

Why not get your boyfriend to tell you how he could gain access to your home, and then follow that up with how he suggest how he could be deterred or slowed or stopped whilst still outside?
Then spend on securing your home.

There are situations where good security fails, and I have met with most of them but if you happen to own a safe full of jewelry or happen to be a gold trader we can even respond to threats like those.

 

[oldbadger]

Um, as a teacher myself ...................................... Teachers should teach, not preach.

Excellent!
So you're going to support 'no guns in schools', with better perimeter security, access control and professional security staff.

Teachers should deliver lesson plans in effective ways, and not be asked to carry guns as stand-in gunslingers. Excellent.

 

[esmith]

I know what laws are needed to prohibit the purchasing and possession of guns. I don't know what measures are being referred to under the rubric "invest in education, mental health, and poverty reduction," therefore I don't know that any such measures or investments would be effective in reducing gun crime or deaths or injuries to any noticeable degree.

So what laws, IYO, are needed to prohibit the purchasing and possession of firearms beyond what we have now?

 

[Nous]

Education: Lower teacher child ratios, funding for teachers continued education credits and training concerning mental health, more school counselors and psychologists, reduction in the school to prison pipeline, funding for tutors and resource teachers as needed, expand head start and early head start programs and create a positive right to education and all that entails legally.

Mental health: provide more grants for non profits which provide mental health services to the community provide adequate grants for housing for people with mental health issues, make sure every American has coverage for mental health issues.
Poverty reduction: provide more grants to community action agencies which support food and nutrition programs, employment outreach, and housing assistance, provide statesome with funds to create more integrated low income housing, increase funds and grants to homeless shelters and safe parking programs, and I suppose there is a lot more but do you really want to listen to me drone on about the programs that we need to better fund?

I'm certain I would support several of these measures. Nevertheless, no such measure is going to turn an impoverished state or area of the US into a high income area.

In your previous post to me, you said:

You mean are these correlated to crime more so than guns? I am not certain, but I would imagine that socioeconomic status, decreased education, and lack of sufficient mental health are indeed more highly correlated with crime (including murder) than is gun ownership.​

According to the following abstract of a paper reviewing the literature, it seems that gun ownership is the more important factor in homicide rates (I have not read the paper):

In the past almost 40 years, homicide rates in the United States have moved in cycles. The gender and race of victims and offenders have not changed significantly over time with males committing approximately 90 percent of all homicides and representing 75 percent of the victims. According to a Federal report, the homicide rate is higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Over 60 percent of all homicides in the United States in 1999 involved a firearm and firearm ownership in the United States, particularly handgun ownership, is much more common than in other developed nations. This article provides a review of the most commonly cited, representative, and empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the association between gun availability and homicide. The article begins by describing individual case control and cohort studies. Then, it describes international ecological studies that have compared the United States to other countries. Lastly, it describes ecological studies of the United States that have contrasted the levels of gun availability and homicide across regions, States, and rural and urban areas. The available evidence is quite consistent. The few case control studies suggest that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. The strongest evidence came from cross-sectional analyses of United States regions and States. In summation, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates. Most studies, cross sectional or time series, international or domestic, are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate.​

 

[Nous]

So what laws, IYO, are needed to prohibit the purchasing and possession of firearms beyond what we have now?

Laws that do prohibit the purchasing and possession of firearms for non-military and non-law enforcement purposes.

 

[Shaul]

Excellent!
So you're going to support 'no guns in schools', with better perimeter security, access control and professional security staff.

Teachers should deliver lesson plans in effective ways, and not be asked to carry guns as stand-in gunslingers. Excellent.

As a teacher I support giving teachers whatever tools they need to teach and protect their students. Guns can be one valuable tool for protecting students, including in the hands of teachers should they feel so inclined. I also feel outside parties should not interfere with the ability of teachers to be armed. The protection of children trumps ideological interests. So, I support arming teachers, as should those that care for our children’s safety.

 

[Shaul]

So arm them to teach, not kill.

Arming teachers won’t lead to killing, it would lead to the prevention of killing.

 

[Nous]

Compensation to victim's nearest kin.
Most of these mass shooting have occured with guns that have been procured through legal means. That is correct, yes?

I believe you are correct that most mass shootings are with guns procured legally. (Of course, the number of people killed or injured in mass shootings every year in the US is just a drop in the bucket of annual firearm homicides and injuries in the US.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Arming teachers won’t lead to killing, it would lead to the prevention of killing.

Pretending to know what you don't know serves nether the kids nor your credibility.

 

[Shaul]

Pretending to know what you don't know serves nether the kids nor your credibility.

Um, I do know it could prevent killings. It isn’t pretending to know. For you to pretend to know something you ineluctably have no knowledge of, and to propose policy based on that ignorance, now that is a disservice.

 

[Curious George]

I'm certain I would support several of these measures. Nevertheless, no such measure is going to turn an impoverished state or area of the US into a high income area.

In your previous post to me, you said:

You mean are these correlated to crime more so than guns? I am not certain, but I would imagine that socioeconomic status, decreased education, and lack of sufficient mental health are indeed more highly correlated with crime (including murder) than is gun ownership.​

According to the following abstract of a paper reviewing the literature, it seems that gun ownership is the more important factor in homicide rates (I have not read the paper):

In the past almost 40 years, homicide rates in the United States have moved in cycles. The gender and race of victims and offenders have not changed significantly over time with males committing approximately 90 percent of all homicides and representing 75 percent of the victims. According to a Federal report, the homicide rate is higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Over 60 percent of all homicides in the United States in 1999 involved a firearm and firearm ownership in the United States, particularly handgun ownership, is much more common than in other developed nations. This article provides a review of the most commonly cited, representative, and empirical studies in the peer-reviewed literature that directly investigate the association between gun availability and homicide. The article begins by describing individual case control and cohort studies. Then, it describes international ecological studies that have compared the United States to other countries. Lastly, it describes ecological studies of the United States that have contrasted the levels of gun availability and homicide across regions, States, and rural and urban areas. The available evidence is quite consistent. The few case control studies suggest that households with firearms are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. The strongest evidence came from cross-sectional analyses of United States regions and States. In summation, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates. Most studies, cross sectional or time series, international or domestic, are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate.​

No. It does not state that it is the MORE important factor. It suggests that in high income countries guns are a factor and this is so even to the exclusion of the U.S.

 

[Nous]

No. It does not state that it is the MORE important factor. It suggests that in high income countries guns are a factor and this is so even to the exclusion of the U.S.

What do you think this means:

International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. The strongest evidence came from cross-sectional analyses of United States regions and States. In summation, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates.​

?

 

[Curious George]

What do you think this means:

International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. The strongest evidence came from cross-sectional analyses of United States regions and States. In summation, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates.​

?

It means when comparing countries which have high incomes we see a correlation between homocides and gun availability. This does nothing to challenge that the areas with low income are responsible for higher murder rates in those countries. Nor does it deal with the educational levels. Nor does it deal with mental health. The term "high income countries" is used because it is comparing "like countries." That the U.S. is a high income country would suggest that comparing to a low-income country might skew the results. They are trying to isolate a variable, that is all. It does not deal with murder rates and socioeconomic status. The States study does not suggest that they isolated low income neighborhoods or guns owned by people in low socioeconomic status.

Essentially it is preventing comparing countries that a impoverished vs. Countries that are not (remember this is the country, not the individuals).

 

[Shaul]

What do you think this means:

International cross-sectional studies of high-income countries find that in countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. The strongest evidence came from cross-sectional analyses of United States regions and States. In summation, places with higher levels of gun ownership are places with higher homicide rates.​

?

That isn’t true. The US has the most guns per capita of any country but is the 28th country on the list gun-related murders per capita. Nor does Switzerland Switzerland has one gun for every four people, yet gun related homicide is almost unheard of there.

Comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries - Crime Prevention Research Center