• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About redskins59

  • Rank
    The Role Player
  • Birthday 08/19/1979

Contact Methods

  • Location
    Chantilly, VA
  1. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    How can the total risk not change at all? If 20% of teachers bring guns to schools, that alone increases the risk. Of course I don't have the evidence that the probability will increase just as you don't have the evidence that the probability will go down. It is what I believe. I guess 2 months would be good. Now what will be the cost? Ultimately, arming teachers is highly experimental. That is the bottomline to me.
  2. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    No question that it reduces risk, but you need to look at the fact that there are 3.5 million teachers out there. So even 1% becomes a big number. Okay question, if teachers are allowed to bring guns to school, by how much will mass shooting be reduced? By 50%? Now, how many deaths will be lost due to deranged teachers or accidental firing, etc? If you add all the numbers up, what sort of improvement will we see? The media loves mass shootings, so the public perception might improve due to fewer mass shootings, but the actual deaths may not improve, and in fact may go up.
  3. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    If a deranged teacher can bring a gun legally to his classroom, there is a much bigger chance that he will snap. Are you telling me that the probability of risk will remain the same? It is a hypothetical. What if you go deranged after you pass your screening? How often are you going to screen? It just seems like a nightmare scenario to give teachers guns. Just too many risky variables.
  4. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    Okay, there are 3.5 million teachers in the United States. 18.2% of Americans suffer from mental illness. So if you apply this number to teachers, you end up with 630,000. Now, let's say 20% of these teachers apply for guns. So now we are left with 126000 teachers with mental illness. Now, suppose 1% of these teachers are not detected by screening. You are left with 1260 teachers who manage to get firearms. Now, if 1 % of these teachers can commit murder, we now have 12 teachers who can commit these crimes. That is a big number to me. You are making a huge assumption that screening will detect every single deranged teacher. It won't work like that. Even if just 1% of teachers with mental problems pass screening tests, it turns out to be a huge number. The reality is probably 10% or more would pass this test. I don't trust screening tests like you do. How good are these tests?
  5. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I am just not convinced. The more guns that are available, the higher the chance of accidents. Children act different from adults. And re: teachers not doing mass shootings, that's true, but like I said, mass shootings is not the no. 1 concern for me with armed teachers. And anyway, I think we will just end up repeating the same argument, so I am done.
  6. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    But you are experimenting on children. You want to try it even though it may backfire spectacularly, causing an increase in homicide rates? Now, I get that you believe that gun deaths will go down, but where is the proof? It is a really a bad idea to experiment on children, especially when we are dealing with guns.
  7. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    I highly doubt a psych evaluation will spot pedophiles on a regular basis. I am sorry to say, but I just don't buy that screening will effectively stop all deranged teachers from getting guns. If 1 out of 100k mentally unstable teacher gets a gun, is that good? If there are papers out there (non-biases ones, not the ones from NRA) that show that arming teachers is effective, I would like to see them. Otherwise, I just don't trust these ideas. If this arming teachers strategy does not have studies backing it, why do you want to try it? It is an innovative idea in my mind, but it can backfire spectacularly. Do you really want to try it out? See, then this is my problem with arming teachers. There is no study to back it up. It is an innovative idea, but it doesn't mean that it will work. It can backfire spectacularly. Simlar thing in business. They say 90% of startups fail. Only 10% survive. Just because you have an innovative idea doesn't mean it will work. I would give the arming teachers idea a 90% failure rate. Now, if there are studies showing that it has proved to be effective, I will gladly change my mind. Ultimately, I want my daughter to be safe.
  8. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    But supposedly, even in this case, there were four deputies outside. Yet they did nothing? I would like to see studies showing that arming teacher works. I am open to whatever works, however, if there are no studies out there regarding this, I am highly skeptical.
  9. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    When I mean homicide, I am talking more about a 1 person killing one or two individuals. You are probably right that mass shooting is a homicide. How effective is screening going to be? Sure, a little bit, but I always hear about pedophile teachers getting arrested. They can't even spot those people. The point is that if you are mentally deranged, it is probably not too difficult to hide it, screening or no screening. The bigger issue to me is that giving teachers firearms may reduce mass shooting, but other types of gun deaths will go up. Japan basically has very strict gun laws, and their gun deaths is close to nil. Look at Scandinavian countries as well. Has anybody else anywhere in the world tried giving teachers guns while having lax gun laws like we do here? What you are proposing (giving teachers guns) has not been tested yet. Is there a chance that giving teachers guns will mean more deaths, but not of the mass casualty kind? I would do something that is tried and tested, which is strict gun laws. Giving teachers guns may work, but it is just a huge hypothetical. Mass shooting doesn't happen only in schools. What about movie theaters, or concert? Even if we are to arm teachers, what about those other venues? It will only protect schools. Because might is not enough. Are you 100% certain that it will reduce the number? What are the chances that the number of gun deaths go up instead? There is no way to predict either way. So the tried method is strict gun control. I can already see a scenario play out where some random teacher starts shooting his students for no good reason.
  10. The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

    It's pretty much well known that the more guns there are available, the higher the gun deaths. You give teachers guns, expect gun deaths to shoot up. Mass shooting is not the biggest way that people die due to gun-related injuries. No. 1 from what I recall is homicide. No. 2 is suicide. Heck, accidental gun deaths are probably even higher than mass shooting related deaths. The gunman in this case, Nicholas Cruz, pulled the fire alarm. There was probably a lot of chaos. How are you going to target Cruz in such a case? CNN is reporting that there were four police officers who decided to not even go inside. But even if a teacher manages to kill Nicholas Cruz, how many students end up dying before he gets killed? Only zero is acceptable. I have a daughter who is close to 3. She will be going to school soon. This is very concerning to me. I would say that changing age requirement to 21 helps when it comes to high schools, but what about colleges? If you join a college at 18, you are going to leave at 22 or 23. So it seems to me that the age requirement needs to be 25 (accounting for Master's degree).
  11. Let's talk about investing! Stock market, ETF, etc.

    Credit Suisse, which owns XIV is down 6% in the after-hours. They own $500 million worth of XIV, which is predicted to hit zero tomorrow. We'll see if that is true. What are the chances of a market contagion? Probably not a whole lot, but they just lost a lot of money.
  12. Let's talk about investing! Stock market, ETF, etc.

    @techboy I generally agree that for a guy like me, passive investing is the way to go. It is also a fact that the majority of active investors underperform indexes. Heck, I would never put my money in a hedge fund due to the fees involved. However, that does not mean that everybody fails. Yes, some of the people who do well have been lucky. It does not mean that they have all been lucky. There are people out there who know what they are doing. Machine learning has become much more powerful these days due to something called deep learning. Thousands of papers come out about artificial intelligence every year. So someone with knowldge in this field can have a good chance. How many people know machine learning algorithms? And anyways, some of them have the ability to write their own models. When I talk about mathematically good, I am talking almost genius-like. The founder of Renaissance Technologies I believe has Phd in mathematics. Prior to starting Renaissance Technologies, he was I believe a renowned professor. Another example is Robert Mercer. He was also using some kind of statistical model, and he is a billionaire. I think the quants (mathematical geniuses, physicists, computer scientists) can make money by trading. I know I can't. I am saying that there are people out there who have developed models or algorithms that can generate excess returns.
  13. Let's talk about investing! Stock market, ETF, etc.

    One of the hedge funds that Renaissance Technologies has generates 40% returns annually. They have been doing it for so long that it cannot be luck. One of the founders of the company(James Simone?) is supposed to be some sort of mathematical genius. Making money by trading is possible if you have a mathematical brain. There is a reason quants are so sought in the financial world. Of course, commission has a lot to do with it. These days, even Ameritrade commission is pretty low. 75 cents per contract for options? Trading stocks is 10 bucks I believe. I don't remember, but it isn't too high. Mathematicians and Algo traders can make money from home. I won't be able to do it, bit there are high IQ mathematicians out there.
  14. Let's talk about investing! Stock market, ETF, etc.

    Basically, trading stocks is timing it because you are trying to figure out the direction of the stock in the short term. On the other hand, investing is when you are holding long term. There are hedge funds out there who have made money for years by trading. So you can't say that nobody knows how to time it right. We the normal folks don't know how to do it, no question about it though. We might get lucky, but that's it. One big name that has made tremendous amount of $$ is Renaissance Technologies. There are many successful traders out there.
  15. Do you need to wait a year for a fiance visa? Someone I know got it within a few weeks from what I recall.