Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Absurd Alhazred posted:

In Israel, where I grew up? :shrug:

Israel qualifies as a dystopia, if perhaps a rather unique one.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos

Orange Devil posted:

Israel qualifies as a dystopia, if perhaps a rather unique one.
I agree. That's why I left.

I'm not saying that this is an ideal solution or anything, and again, obviously the best situation would be to get all these assault weapons out of the market and increase scrutiny of people applying for any gun license, but until that happens, what are you to do? So far the gun bans people are talking about would not work retroactively, so they'll basically be useless, like the last ban. Why would you reject a proposal that seems, on the surface, to be reasonable and could help prevent this kind of situation in the future, while providing employment to some incoming veterans (or, of course, anyone else who would apply for this job)? I just don't see it as being on the level of crazy as "arm all school teachers".

Sarion
Dec 24, 2003

Absurd Alhazred posted:

but until that happens, what are you to do?

Nothing; because adding armed guards just creates a false sense of security, while also creating an illusion of danger. These guards could watch over schools for decades and never need to lift a finger. You're just inflicting fear of nearly non-existent danger where there's no need. And in the rare cases where they occur, the people carrying these out are generally looking to die anyways, so the guards are not going to be much of a deterrent.


This isn't the same as security guards by the way; the guys that patrol a lot of high schools to keep kids from fighting each other. We're all talking about people like the guy in the image: body armor, assault rifle, etc; right?

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos

Sarion posted:

Nothing; because adding armed guards just creates a false sense of security, while also creating an illusion of danger. These guards could watch over schools for decades and never need to lift a finger. You're just inflicting fear of nearly non-existent danger where there's no need. And in the rare cases where they occur, the people carrying these out are generally looking to die anyways, so the guards are not going to be much of a deterrent.


This isn't the same as security guards by the way; the guys that patrol a lot of high schools to keep kids from fighting each other. We're all talking about people like the guy in the image: body armor, assault rifle, etc; right?

I'm not. Frankly, I think it's not very charitable to assume that the meme generator was saying that, either.

Look, this might come from growing up in a very different environment, but back in Israel you would have a guard at the entrance and they would look through your bag if it were big enough; same goes for malls, train stations, etc. It might just be security theater, but - again - compared to "arm all teachers" this is at most a misguided idea of security, rather than actual craziness. I think it's important to respond accordingly.

Sarion
Dec 24, 2003

Absurd Alhazred posted:

I'm not. Frankly, I think it's not very charitable to assume that the meme generator was saying that, either.

Look, this might come from growing up in a very different environment, but back in Israel you would have a guard at the entrance and they would look through your bag if it were big enough; same goes for malls, train stations, etc. It might just be security theater, but - again - compared to "arm all teachers" this is at most a misguided idea of security, rather than actual craziness. I think it's important to respond accordingly.

Well, lots of schools already have basic security guards, some even have metal detectors and search bags if the school has a history of violence within the student body. So it's hard to imagine that the meme is suggesting we implement things that lots of schools already have; especially when they use the picture they did. If you're just talking about basic security guards, that's not a big deal; but like I said a lot of schools and nearly all Universities already have them.

And this year has seen an exceptionally high number of incidents: 7 total, only 2 at schools. One was a University that almost certainly already has security personnel. The last one at a school before this year was in 2008, also at a University. That's across a country with a population 40x that of Israel. It just isn't that big of a problem that we need to start putting armed guards in every school across the country. Honestly, looking at where these kinds of shootings have taken place, businesses should be more concerned than schools.

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos

Sarion posted:

Well, lots of schools already have basic security guards, some even have metal detectors and search bags if the school has a history of violence within the student body. So it's hard to imagine that the meme is suggesting we implement things that lots of schools already have; especially when they use the picture they did. If you're just talking about basic security guards, that's not a big deal; but like I said a lot of schools and nearly all Universities already have them.

And this year has seen an exceptionally high number of incidents: 7 total, only 2 at schools. One was a University that almost certainly already has security personnel. The last one at a school before this year was in 2008, also at a University. That's across a country with a population 40x that of Israel. It just isn't that big of a problem that we need to start putting armed guards in every school across the country. Honestly, looking at where these kinds of shootings have taken place, businesses should be more concerned than schools.

I see your point.

SilentD
Aug 22, 2012

by toby

Sarion posted:

Nothing; because adding armed guards just creates a false sense of security, while also creating an illusion of danger. These guards could watch over schools for decades and never need to lift a finger. You're just inflicting fear of nearly non-existent danger where there's no need. And in the rare cases where they occur, the people carrying these out are generally looking to die anyways, so the guards are not going to be much of a deterrent.


This isn't the same as security guards by the way; the guys that patrol a lot of high schools to keep kids from fighting each other. We're all talking about people like the guy in the image: body armor, assault rifle, etc; right?

It's not security theater. When I was in school in the 90s and moved to a Washington DC school we had to have cops. The reason was simple, the kids there were bringing guns to school and they were shooting each other on school grounds. The schools also had rapes, assaults, and rampant drug dealing. It was hell.

The cops changed ALL of that. People didn't pull that because there was a police station in the the school and the cops were everywhere. And the criminal elements that existed in those areas kept clear as well, because again, cops all over the place.

Now, none of this stopped people from doing this stuff off school grounds, which is what happened. But that's the point of stuff like this. The mere fact that there are armed cops there means people will choose another place to do it.

The point of cops in school is not to completely stop kids from ending up shot, it's to make sure parents know their kids at least won't be shot at school.

Guilty Spork
Feb 26, 2011

Thunder rolled. It rolled a six.

Ashcans posted:

I kind of wish there was a war on Christmas. This year all the stores skipped right over Thansgiving and started doing Christmas stuff immediately after Halloween. If someone doesn't mobilize to resist the relentless advance, next year we'll start the jingles right after Labor Day.
The real war on Christmas was when they made it illegal to publicly celebrate it in England and the American colonies. Except it was Christians who did that, so it doesn't count.

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together

Fun Shoe

Sarion posted:

So Facebook has given us a lot of gun-chat lately; and this is not likely to end anytime soon.

But, as a break from gun-chat, here's an email forward I got from my father-in-law. My father-in-law is fairly typical Virginian, blue collar, labor union guy nearing retirement age. Reliable Democratic voter, strong on worker's rights but holds some conservative views, too (distrustful of strong federal government, opposes gay marriage, etc).

Anyways, I think this email is kind of interesting. It could almost pull off being a "liberal" forward, something we don't see often. It's attacking a Republican Senator, and the fear-factor stems from changes to Social Security and Medicare. However, it also uses language typical of conservative forwards, regarding the trustworthiness and laziness of public servants, and so forth. I don't think it really classifies solidly as left or right leaning; more of just a general "scare old people" leaning.

Here it is, all formatting is per the original, not emphasis from me. Also, I should point out, I have no idea who Rick Barry is, or what he or basketball have to do with anything else in the email.



I'll probably do a line by line response to it later, but I need to get back to work for a bit first.

Really it just comes across as angry, and reading it over is a bit disheartening. This person is upset about very real issues like increasing retirement age, but they don't know where to direct their anger. It just flies off in all directions: zero ambition losers, politicians, healthcare, etc. They're frustrated and angry all the more because their grasp on the mechanisms at work is tenuous so they're lashing out at all these things that, while maybe not directly related, appear to be problems (that sounds condescending as all hell but that's the emotion it gives off to me upon reading it).

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Sarion posted:

This isn't the same as security guards by the way; the guys that patrol a lot of high schools to keep kids from fighting each other.

This is already insane to me. Schools don't need guards.

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005

Orange Devil posted:

This is already insane to me. Schools don't need guards.

We had a cop assigned to my high school and I didn't grow up in a high crime area. Why is it so insane to have one around?

myron cope
Apr 21, 2009

SilentD posted:

The point of cops in school is not to completely stop kids from ending up shot, it's to make sure parents know their kids at least won't be shot at school.

And gun control is to stop kids from ending up shot, school or public park or movie theater or wherever

My high school had a "guard" (I don't know if he was even armed. I guess probably) and a metal detector. Not everyone had to go through the metal detector, it was "random" based on a teacher standing in the door way telling people to go through. I never, in 4 years, was picked to go through it once. If you weren't a student, or if you came in late, you had to go through. They searched your bag too. Seemed ok to me. Middle and elementary school we had nothing. Maybe a guard? But I don't remember seeing one even.

Crackbone
May 23, 2003

Vlaada is my co-pilot.

Armyman25 posted:

We had a cop assigned to my high school and I didn't grow up in a high crime area. Why is it so insane to have one around?

Because if it's not a high-crime area what is the cop supposed to accomplish? Let's be realistic - a gunman attacking a school is still going to have ample time to get in, reach a classroom and kill people before a cop is alerted and gets to the room in question.

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Armyman25 posted:

We had a cop assigned to my high school and I didn't grow up in a high crime area. Why is it so insane to have one around?

Cus schools aren't prisons. I don't know it's difficult to express exactly, it's just wrong on a fundamental level. The idea that cops or security guards in schools is normal is just unbelievably foreign and, frankly, stupid. It sure as gently caress is a symptom of a broken society. I've known about (some) American schools having metal detectors and so on, so I'm not surprised that it exists, but I am surprised that apparently the milder form of this is seen as normal and acceptable by Americans, including on this board. I mean, it may be necessary due to socio-economic circumstances, but I'd like to think we can all at least agree that it is hosed up.

Crackbone
May 23, 2003

Vlaada is my co-pilot.

The reality is most people, and possibly Americans moreso, are big loving babies who can't deal with the realities of life. You walk out there door every morning, and there's a thousand ways you or your loved ones could bite it. School shootings are horrific, but the reality is there's no feasible way to ensure it never happens, even in countries with stricter weapon controls than the US.

But people don't want to hear that. So instead we get metal detectors and banning bookbags and security checkpoints and strip searches.

NatasDog
Feb 9, 2009
I grew up in the suburbs of Detroit, and while we had a police officer on site he was armed with mace and handcuffs only; so it wasn't like he would have been much good if someone barged in wearing body armor and toting an AR. I never really considered it to be too draconian, but I also grew up in a family of gun fetishists and some LEOs; making my views on guns and gun control are a bit more on the conservative side than most here.

SilentD
Aug 22, 2012

by toby

Orange Devil posted:

Cus schools aren't prisons. I don't know it's difficult to express exactly, it's just wrong on a fundamental level. The idea that cops or security guards in schools is normal is just unbelievably foreign and, frankly, stupid. It sure as gently caress is a symptom of a broken society. I've known about (some) American schools having metal detectors and so on, so I'm not surprised that it exists, but I am surprised that apparently the milder form of this is seen as normal and acceptable by Americans, including on this board. I mean, it may be necessary due to socio-economic circumstances, but I'd like to think we can all at least agree that it is hosed up.

It depends on where you go to school. High school in rich land, yeah we had two security guards in their late 50's who road around on a golf cart and were mostly there to stop people from smoking in the parking lot.

High School in Washington DC, drat straight we had cops because the students were dealing drugs, raping girls, fighting, and shooting each other on the school grounds. It's not the city stepped in, it was the parents who stepped in and demanded this.

It's not abnormal, we tend to increase police presence in problem areas. The mere sight of a cop or knowledge that their is a cop in an area tends to drive down crime. Furthermore having a regular cop there, one that people can get to know and talk to, is more effective than having random ones show up afterwards. People get to have a relationship with the cop and develop a bond. They feel far more comfortable going to them with problems than they would if they didn't see them every day.

It's not a bad thing at all. The cops hung out and mostly did... nothing. But you saw them everyday and if you had an issue you could talk to them. About anything too. A lot of the crap they dealt with was kids who had really hosed up home issues and never felt they could talk to the cops (often their parents told them not to). But after dealing with the same cop every day for a year and realizing he was on your side, they'd bring up problems that were often pretty loving crazy and the cops would handle it.

It's not like "cops in schools" means Judge Dread is walking down the halls shooting kids in the head for blowing up toilets with cherry bombs.

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005

Orange Devil posted:

Cus schools aren't prisons. I don't know it's difficult to express exactly, it's just wrong on a fundamental level. The idea that cops or security guards in schools is normal is just unbelievably foreign and, frankly, stupid. It sure as gently caress is a symptom of a broken society. I've known about (some) American schools having metal detectors and so on, so I'm not surprised that it exists, but I am surprised that apparently the milder form of this is seen as normal and acceptable by Americans, including on this board. I mean, it may be necessary due to socio-economic circumstances, but I'd like to think we can all at least agree that it is hosed up.

There is an old saying that "hope isn't a course of action." Throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done isn't much of a response. If something happens once it's an aberration, if it keeps happening it makes sense to come up with a response to it.

Police officers patrol our cities and towns and always present at large gatherings of people, why not in the schools? It's not like becoming a security guard or law enforcement officer is some kind of magic. They're normal people with training.

ozmunkeh
Feb 28, 2008

hey guys what is happening in this thread

Armyman25 posted:

We had a cop assigned to my high school and I didn't grow up in a high crime area. Why is it so insane to have one around?

Metal detectors, cops and bag searches at schools is just really loving weird and an unhealthy environment for kids to get accustomed to.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

In many (most) communities the high school is going to be the most densely populated public building in the locality. They would be foolish to not have a cop there. Now, whether or not they are armed is another topic. But I don't see the problem with having police in a public building of 2000+ people.

CharlestheHammer
Jun 26, 2011

YOU SAY MY POSTS ARE THE RAVINGS OF THE DUMBEST PERSON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH BUT YOU YOURSELF ARE READING THEM. CURIOUS!

Armyman25 posted:

There is an old saying that "hope isn't a course of action." Throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done isn't much of a response. If something happens once it's an aberration, if it keeps happening it makes sense to come up with a response to it.

Police officers patrol our cities and towns and always present at large gatherings of people, why not in the schools? It's not like becoming a security guard or law enforcement officer is some kind of magic. They're normal people with training.

Well you could seriously deal with the reasons people go on shootings. That seems like a fair counterplan.

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005

CharlestheHammer posted:

Well you could seriously deal with the reasons people go on shootings. That seems like a fair counterplan.

It's not an either/or situation.

Gourd of Taste
Sep 11, 2006

by Ralp

Armyman25 posted:

It's not an either/or situation.

You know I hate this about America but it kind of is. We are forever given to throwing out little solutions to the most obvious symptoms and calling it solved.

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Armyman25 posted:

There is an old saying that "hope isn't a course of action." Throwing up your hands and saying nothing can be done isn't much of a response. If something happens once it's an aberration, if it keeps happening it makes sense to come up with a response to it.

Police officers patrol our cities and towns and always present at large gatherings of people, why not in the schools? It's not like becoming a security guard or law enforcement officer is some kind of magic. They're normal people with training.

I guess it must be magic that security guards or cops are necessary in schools in the US yet not in the Netherlands.

euphronius posted:

In many (most) communities the high school is going to be the most densely populated public building in the locality. They would be foolish to not have a cop there. Now, whether or not they are armed is another topic. But I don't see the problem with having police in a public building of 2000+ people.

I guess entire countries are foolish then.

Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Dec 19, 2012

jmzero
Jul 24, 2007

I don't think having an armed security guard at a school is crazy - and many veterans would have a head start in being ready to do this kind of job. I don't think it's a good idea for most schools, and it's not a very effective answer to the mass murder situations we're addressing (I think it's probably better thought of as a grudgingly accepted deterrent in a school with routine violence problems)... but there's at least a case to be made.

I think we need some truly nutty crap to cleanse the palate here. I'd contribute, but all my e-mailing relations are stuck in "horrible joke" and "fascinating facts (that mostly aren't true)" forwarding mode.

euphronius
Feb 18, 2009

I was just talking about America! I have no idea if LEOs would be proper in schools in other nations.

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

euphronius posted:

I was just talking about America! I have no idea if LEOs would be proper in schools in other nations.

High schools are probably the most densely populated public buildings locally in other countries as well. Why is it fine to have cops in US ones but not in others?

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos

Armyman25 posted:

It's not an either/or situation.
Exactly. Dealing with the root causes will hopefully change things for the better 5, even 10 years from now. That doesn't mean you shouldn't also be doing something about next week.

Orange Devil posted:

I guess it must be magic that security guards or cops are necessary in schools in the US yet not in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands doesn't have the same socioeconomic issues as the US, for many complicated reasons.

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Absurd Alhazred posted:

The Netherlands doesn't have the same socioeconomic issues as the US, for many complicated reasons.

Yes I believe I literally said that.

Absurd Alhazred
Mar 27, 2010

by Athanatos

Orange Devil posted:

Yes I believe I literally said that.
So it would be nice if you stopped constantly feigning amazement that the solutions here are different. I'm sorry a late-industrialized half-third-world country isn't as nice and fluffy as a rich old-school postcolonial Northern European state.

Anyway, "content". A facebook friend posts this blood splatter specimen

I pointed out that the issue of population density is related to how dense it is within the besieged territory (Paris isn't under siege, etc), we'll see how that goes.

ducttape
Mar 1, 2008

Absurd Alhazred posted:

So it would be nice if you stopped constantly feigning amazement that the solutions here are different. I'm sorry a late-industrialized half-third-world country isn't as nice and fluffy as a rich old-school postcolonial Northern European state.

Anyway, "content". A facebook friend posts this blood splatter specimen

I pointed out that the issue of population density is related to how dense it is within the besieged territory (Paris isn't under siege, etc), we'll see how that goes.

You could also point out that every non Gaza strip circle is a city. Funny thing, cities and towns tend to have higher population densities than the area they are in.

For apples-to-apples comparison:
Gaza city, ~10,000 people/sqkm
France, ~120 people/sqkm

CheesyDog
Jul 4, 2007

by FactsAreUseless
Here's something I ended typing up in response to one "Post Armed Guards at Every School" comment threads I ended up involved with. These are some rough numbers, but I thought that goons might find it useful for arguing with their stupid Facebook friends:

Alright, I'm coming up with 138,925 public, private, and post-secondary schools in the United States. Assuming three guards to cover the full school day (buses start arriving around 6:30, you'll need at least two guards there during the day so that their is coverage during lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, etc., at least one guard during basketball and football games and other post-school activities), at the median security guard salary of $31,000 annually, plus the cost of benefits bringing the average cost per guard up to around $35,000, you're looking at $14,587,125,000 annually for security guards in each school.

Given that the median cost for a child's health insurance is around $940 a year, you could insure every one of the 7 million uninsured children in the United States twice for this amount of money. This would prevent 850 child deaths a year, compared with the around ~50 child deaths due to school shootings annually.

Given that it's children you're worried about and not your guns, I trust you'll support a universal healthcare program for every child under the age of 18? It will cost less than half the cost of hiring security guards for every school and save around 9 times more lives.

Citations:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Armed-Security-Officer.html
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2011.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/incpovhlth/2011/highlights.html
http://healthland.time.com/2009/10/29/lack-of-insurance-factors-into-childrens-deaths/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

Heck Yes! Loam!
Nov 15, 2004

a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

CheesyDog posted:

Here's something I ended typing up in response to one "Post Armed Guards at Every School" comment threads I ended up involved with. These are some rough numbers, but I thought that goons might find it useful for arguing with their stupid Facebook friends:

Alright, I'm coming up with 138,925 public, private, and post-secondary schools in the United States. Assuming three guards to cover the full school day (buses start arriving around 6:30, you'll need at least two guards there during the day so that their is coverage during lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, etc., at least one guard during basketball and football games and other post-school activities), at the median security guard salary of $31,000 annually, plus the cost of benefits bringing the average cost per guard up to around $35,000, you're looking at $14,587,125,000 annually for security guards in each school.

Given that the median cost for a child's health insurance is around $940 a year, you could insure every one of the 7 million uninsured children in the United States twice for this amount of money. This would prevent 850 child deaths a year, compared with the around ~50 child deaths due to school shootings annually.

Given that it's children you're worried about and not your guns, I trust you'll support a universal healthcare program for every child under the age of 18? It will cost less than half the cost of hiring security guards for every school and save around 9 times more lives.

Citations:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Armed-Security-Officer.html
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2011.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/incpovhlth/2011/highlights.html
http://healthland.time.com/2009/10/29/lack-of-insurance-factors-into-childrens-deaths/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

I love it, and I'll be using this as a response to anyone who brings it up to me. Thanks.

Fuck You And Diebold
Sep 15, 2004

by Athanatos

CheesyDog posted:

Here's something I ended typing up in response to one "Post Armed Guards at Every School" comment threads I ended up involved with. These are some rough numbers, but I thought that goons might find it useful for arguing with their stupid Facebook friends:

Alright, I'm coming up with 138,925 public, private, and post-secondary schools in the United States. Assuming three guards to cover the full school day (buses start arriving around 6:30, you'll need at least two guards there during the day so that their is coverage during lunch breaks, bathroom breaks, etc., at least one guard during basketball and football games and other post-school activities), at the median security guard salary of $31,000 annually, plus the cost of benefits bringing the average cost per guard up to around $35,000, you're looking at $14,587,125,000 annually for security guards in each school.

Given that the median cost for a child's health insurance is around $940 a year, you could insure every one of the 7 million uninsured children in the United States twice for this amount of money. This would prevent 850 child deaths a year, compared with the around ~50 child deaths due to school shootings annually.

Given that it's children you're worried about and not your guns, I trust you'll support a universal healthcare program for every child under the age of 18? It will cost less than half the cost of hiring security guards for every school and save around 9 times more lives.

Citations:
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Armed-Security-Officer.html
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2011.pdf
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/data/incpovhlth/2011/highlights.html
http://healthland.time.com/2009/10/29/lack-of-insurance-factors-into-childrens-deaths/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

Edit: nm.

Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Dec 20, 2012

ellie the beep
Jun 15, 2007

Vaginas, my subject.
Plane hulls, my medium.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Anyway, "content". A facebook friend posts this blood splatter specimen

I pointed out that the issue of population density is related to how dense it is within the besieged territory (Paris isn't under siege, etc), we'll see how that goes.

Also point out that by that chart Gaza is denser than Washington, DC (3866/km2).


gently caress You And Diebold posted:

Is the cost of insuring all the children twice that of the security guards or half that? Seems to switch in your comment. Great work though!

He was saying for the price you could insure children twice over, which is half the cost if you only insure each child once.

Fuck You And Diebold
Sep 15, 2004

by Athanatos

Edminster posted:

He was saying for the price you could insure children twice over, which is half the cost if you only insure each child once.

:doh: reread it twice and I still read it wrong, bah.

Sydney Bottocks
Oct 15, 2004
Probation
Can't post for 11 days!
E: Forgot to mention, I originally saw someone make this same point in the comments section on an MSNBC article.

To me, a good argument for not having a bunch of armed teachers/guards in schools is the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. This was just two guys, out on the open street, and they managed to hold the cops at bay for a decent length of time before they were taken down (with a lot of cops and civilians injured, but thankfully no deaths other than that of the two perps).

Think about it: two guys managed to hold off trained, dedicated police officers, out in the open. Does anyone seriously think a bunch of schoolteachers and/or rent-a-cops are gonna fare any better, in a school where these guys have plenty of places to barricade themselves, and with a bunch of terrified kids caught in the middle?

And those guys were just robbing a bank. What if they had decided to kill as many people as they could, before either offing themselves or committing suicide-by-cop?

Sydney Bottocks fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 20, 2012

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002

Jade Ear Joe

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

:doh: reread it twice and I still read it wrong, bah.

It's a little trickily worded. It might be better to say "pay their insurance two times over" or "you could insure every child for only half that amount."

NatasDog
Feb 9, 2009
Got this one forwarded to me last night, I don't even know where to begin.

http://news.yahoo.com/know-stop-school-shootings-003203357.html

Ann Coulter posted:

WE KNOW HOW TO STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS
By Ann Coulter | Ann Coulter – 12 hrs ago

In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.
Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.
Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.
None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)
Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.
The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.
Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.
You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.
Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.
It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)
In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.
In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones methodology:
-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.
-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.
-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.
By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).
All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.
COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER

Edit: Found a pretty good takedown of Lott's work in a MoJo repost, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards

I also provided him a link to another recent MoJo article on the fact that concealed carry doesn't really help stop crime, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

NatasDog fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Dec 20, 2012

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

TheIllestVillain
Dec 27, 2011

Sal, Wyoming's not a country

Sydney Bottocks posted:

E: Forgot to mention, I originally saw someone make this same point in the comments section on an MSNBC article.

To me, a good argument for not having a bunch of armed teachers/guards in schools is the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. This was just two guys, out on the open street, and they managed to hold the cops at bay for a decent length of time before they were taken down (with a lot of cops and civilians injured, but thankfully no deaths other than that of the two perps).

Think about it: two guys managed to hold off trained, dedicated police officers, out in the open. Does anyone seriously think a bunch of schoolteachers and/or rent-a-cops are gonna fare any better, in a school where these guys have plenty of places to barricade themselves, and with a bunch of terrified kids caught in the middle?

And those guys were just robbing a bank. What if they had decided to kill as many people as they could, before either offing themselves or committing suicide-by-cop?

It's like a real life version of that scene in Heat.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply