The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

26 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why would other types of deaths go up? (If we put more guns in schools, all over the country)?

 

 

Granted, just talking from my gut, here. But I sure do have the impression that there's a really strong correlation between "more guns" and "more gun deaths (from lots of different methods)". 

 

I've stated several times that that's why I'm really cautious about the notion of solving a "too many guns in here" problem via "if only there were more guns". 

 

Having more guns, in America (as a whole) certainly has not resulted in America having lower rates of gun deaths than other countries. Quite the opposite. 

 

Sure, it's possible that scattering guns randomly across thousands of schools might eventually save a few lives in a mass shootin. Somewhere. Eventually. 

 

But it's pretty much guaranteed that it will also result in some people getting shot, in a non-mass shooting, somewhere. Through one or more possible scenarios. 

[twa]

Just now, redskins59 said:

 

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.

 

The more freedom a shooter has unopposed the higher the deaths.

 

something to remember as your daughter ages, if given the chance.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by visionary

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I think you are experimenting on children if you forbid screened and trained PROVEN security options that are generally accepted OUTSIDE shools/

 

a FAILED experiment by the results

 

And I think you're making **** up when you claim that throwing guns at a gun problem is a PROVEN solution. Despite the use of all caps. 

 

 

[PeterMP]

44 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

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.

 

Why might it backfire, especially spectacularly?

 

If you can explain a reasonable mechanism by which it would fail, I'll be willing to listen, but so far nobody in this thread has done so.

 

If you don't do things without proof, then you will never try anything knew. 

 

My general "proof" for the idea that guns in the hands of good and trained people is that we allow police to carry guns.

 

The logical application of your argument is that no new drugs can ever be used on children.

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Granted, just talking from my gut, here. But I sure do have the impression that there's a really strong correlation between "more guns" and "more gun deaths (from lots of different methods)". 

 

I've stated several times that that's why I'm really cautious about the notion of solving a "too many guns in here" problem via "if only there were more guns". 

 

Having more guns, in America (as a whole) certainly has not resulted in America having lower rates of gun deaths than other countries. Quite the opposite. 

 

Sure, it's possible that scattering guns randomly across thousands of schools might eventually save a few lives in a mass shootin. Somewhere. Eventually. 

 

But it's pretty much guaranteed that it will also result in some people getting shot, in a non-mass shooting, somewhere. Through one or more possible scenarios. 

 

Police shoot and even kill people through multiple possible scenarios on a regular basis.  Having more police with guns means more deaths.

 

Are you for taking guns from a large number of the police?

 

Or is there a point where the training and screening the police go through actually over all reduces deaths?  That with respect to police more guns does not equal more gun deaths?

Edited February 24, 2018 by PeterMP

[twa]

Just now, Larry said:

 

And I think you're making **** up when you claim that throwing guns at a gun problem is a PROVEN solution. Despite the use of all caps. 

 

 

 

So trained and screened armed personnel are not the standard practice for security in your world?

 

Where do you live?....even in Star Trek and Disneyland it is standard.

 

what ya'll seem to be saying is a damn teaching degree makes them inferior/defective even with MORE training and restrictions/controls .

 

We have further suggested restricting their movement and responsibility to behind a locked door and STILL ya'll panic.

 

 

Ya'll need to examine your motives and grasp of what has been proposed cause something is interfering with your reasoning.

 

 

[redskins59]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

If you can explain a reasonable mechanism by which it would fail, I'll be willing to listen, but so far nobody in this thread has done so.

 

 

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? 

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Police shoot and even kill people through multiple possible scenarios on a regular basis.  Having more police with guns means more deaths.

 

Are you for taking guns from a large number of the police?

 

OK, I admit it.  

 

I, and every other person in this thread who has ever pointed out that there is a correlation between more guns, and more gun deaths, are engaged in a secret plot to disarm all police officers.  

 

Not one of us has ever in any way said anything which in any way implies our plot.  But your persistent technique of pretending that we said it, every single time that people point out that this correlation exists, has cleverly forced me to admit our secret agenda.  

 

Now that I've admitted our secret plot, does that mean that you can stop trying to hijack the discussion of this correlation, into the disarming cops plot which you really wish to discuss?  Would it be OK, now that I've admitted our secret plot, for us (including you) to actually discuss this teensy problem with the proposal to fight school shootings by vastly increasing the number of guns in our schools?  

 

Could you, for example, be willing to give us your opinion on whether dumping, say, a million guns into America's schools just might result in an increase of, say, accidental shootings in said schools?  (You know, the point which several of us have actually said, but which you cleverly deduced was actually a cover for our secret agenda to disarm America's police?)  

[twa]

What is the differential in your results once you accept teachers can get guns now and bring them on campus?

Most that would accept the role of being armed will have them already....and ya'll always say they are not hard to get.

 

Does having one secured in a classroom raise the risk discernibly?

 

The situation then is reduced to a teacher snapping at school 

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

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? 

 

Again, if a deranged teacher wants to get a gun now and kill kids what is stopping them?  It is about the risk now compared to the added risk.

 

Deranged teachers are a risk to kids now.  How is putting possible deranged teachers through screening actually increase the risk?  If anything, turning your math on its head, I've now identified a whole bunch of people that shouldn't be teachers.  That will be a good thing and actually make kids SAFER.

 

You've simply made the 10% number, and there is no way that percent of Americans that suffer from mental illness applies to the total teacher population.  People like Adam Lanza could never have been a teacher.

[Larry]

8 minutes ago, twa said:

So trained and screened armed personnel are not the standard practice for security in your world?

 

Ah, got it.  

 

America employs police officers.  

 

Therefore arming school teachers is a proven solution.  

 

(If one carefully works to choose terminology which makes them sound like the same thing.)  

 

Analogies are like farts.  If you have to force it, it's probably crap.  

 

[redskins59]

Just now, PeterMP said:

Again, if a deranged teacher wants to get a gun now and kill kids what is stopping them?  It is about the risk now compared to the added risk.

 

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?

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

You've simply made the 10% number, and there is no way that percent of Americans that suffer from mental illness applies to the total teacher population.  People like Adam Lanza could never have been a teacher.

 

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.  

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

Could you, for example, be willing to give us your opinion on whether dumping, say, a million guns into America's schools just might result in an increase of, say, accidental shootings in said schools?  (You know, the point which several of us have actually said, but which you cleverly deduced was actually a cover for our secret agenda to disarm America's police?)  

 

I've SPECIFICALLY TODAY IN THIS THREAD already said there will be accidents.  I EXPLICITLY STATED IT.

 

However, most accidental shootings don't result in death and realistically not even in serious injury.

 

I've talked about in this thread MULTIPLE times since this conversation came up that if you look at police accidentally shooting police in police stations it is rare, and I can't find a single example of a cop accidentally killing another cop in a police station.  And I looked through pages of pages of google results and did the search more than one way.

 

More police with guns equal more gun issues.  Clearly, I'm not claiming that something that is true for cops isn't going to be true for teachers.

 

And I'm asking for more stringent requirements than what police use in carrying their guns around (e.g. biometric trigger locks), and the gun density will be less than police in stations (i.e. fewer people will have guns/a person).

Edited February 24, 2018 by PeterMP

[twa]

Just now, Larry said:

 

Ah, got it.  

 

America employs police officers.  

 

Therefore arming school teachers is a proven solution.  

 

(If one carefully works to choose terminology which makes them sound like the same thing.)  

 

Analogies are like farts.  If you have to force it, it's probably crap.  

 

 

If teachers get the same level of training that armed security guards(that are commonly used at events students attend)  will you STILL object?

 

If we further add requirements for locks/safes and Limited movement with a gun....will you Still object?

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

What is the differential in your results once you accept teachers can get guns now and bring them on campus?

Most that would accept the role of being armed will have them already....and ya'll always say they are not hard to get.

 

Does having one secured in a classroom raise the risk discernibly?

 

The situation then is reduced to a teacher snapping at school 

 

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Again, if a deranged teacher wants to get a gun now and kill kids what is stopping them?  It is about the risk now compared to the added risk.

 

Deranged teachers are a risk to kids now.  How is putting possible deranged teachers through screening actually increase the risk?  If anything, turning your math on its head, I've now identified a whole bunch of people that shouldn't be teachers.  That will be a good thing and actually make kids SAFER.

 

You've simply made the 10% number, and there is no way that percent of Americans that suffer from mental illness applies to the total teacher population.  People like Adam Lanza could never have been a teacher.

 

Wow.  Two people both spouting the reasoning that well, a teacher who is premeditating mass murder could bring a gun to school now, therefore putting a million guns in our schools, 24-7, will produce no increased risk of shooting whatsoever.  

 

Gee, I simply cannot find any flaw with the simple assertion that premeditated murder is possible now, therefore having guns available all the time will not result in any accidents whatsoever.   

[redskins59]

8 minutes ago, twa said:

The situation then is reduced to a teacher snapping at school 

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.

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

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.  

 

I'm telling you I don't think the total risk change very much at all.  I don't think many deranged people become teachers.  From there, I think the chances of a teacher being deranged and passing the test will be offset by deranged teachers uncovered by the screening.

 

Do you have any evidence that the probability will increase?

 

How often do you think we'd need to screen?

 

I'd like to see every 2 months, but I could probably settle for every 6 months.

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

Wow.  Two people both spouting the reasoning that well, a teacher who is premeditating mass murder could bring a gun to school now, therefore putting a million guns in our schools, 24-7, will produce no increased risk of shooting whatsoever.  

 

Gee, I simply cannot find any flaw with the simple assertion that premeditated murder is possible now, therefore having guns available all the time will not result in any accidents whatsoever.   

 

Come on Larry.  I was specifically addressing the specific point he's made about deranged teachers.  His post was about deranged teachers.  I answered in kind.

 

Again, I've talked about accidents several times in this thread.

Edited February 24, 2018 by PeterMP

[twa]

Just now, Larry said:

 

 

Wow.  Two people both spouting the reasoning that well, a teacher who is premeditating mass murder could bring a gun to school now, therefore putting a million guns in our schools, 24-7, will produce no increased risk of shooting whatsoever.  

 

Gee, I simply cannot find any flaw with the simple assertion that premeditated murder is possible now, therefore having guns available all the time will not result in any accidents whatsoever.   

 

If you truly fear deranged teachers you would appreciate sane ones with guns on site.

 

unless you are just using it to deflect of course.

Just now, redskins59 said:

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.

 

 

They may go down as well.

It is ya'lls choice. I've made mine and don't need your approval.

 

[redskins59]

 

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm telling you I don't think the total risk change very much at all.  I don't think many deranged people become teachers.  From there, I think the chances of a teacher being deranged and passing the test will be offset by deranged teachers uncovered by the screening.

 

Do you have any evidence that the probability will increase?

 

How often do you think we'd need to screen?

 

I'd like to see every 2 months, but I could probably settle for every 6 months.

 

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.

 

[Larry]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I've SPECIFICALLY TODAY IN THIS THREAD already said there will be accidents.  I EXPLICITLY STATED IT.

 

However, most accidental shootings don't result in death and realistically not even in serious injury.

 

Then perhaps, when people point out the fact that putting more guns in the school is guaranteed to result in more shootings in school, you could try responding with "I agree that that's true, but I think it's a price that I'm willing to pay".  Instead of "Are you trying to disarm all cops?"  

 

And then you can trot out your assertion that well, yeah, it will result in more kids getting shot, but most of them will live.  And I can point out that increased access to guns leads to increases in other kinds of shootings, too, like suicide, or impulse killings, or mistaken identity.  And the conversation can move on.  

 

instead of, every few hours, being yanked back to people defending themselves from you accusing them of wanting to disarm the police.  

 

Just a thought.  

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Acceptable risk = Collateral damage

 

That's not acceptable to me, and I am sure others.

 

Arming teachers isn't acceptable.

[twa]

Just now, redskins59 said:

 

 

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.

 

 

Since you like risk calculations we can reduce risk by identifying the risks of a school having a mass shooter.

kindergarten and elementary are low risk(despite a notable example)  and can allow fewer  thus reducing risk overall.,,,unless the metrics justify changing it.o

 

We have a problem needing addressed....or do we?

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Acceptable risk = Collateral damage

 

That's not acceptable to me, and I am sure others.

 

Arming teachers isn't acceptable.

The deaths of children in our schools and elsewhere is an acceptable sacrifice for them. They will say that they feel bad for their deaths, but until they actually begin to PREVENT the massive amount of gun violence we see in this nation then their “feelings” will be shown as shallow and hollow as their “thoughts and prayers” tweets.

 

 

[twa]

Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

Acceptable risk = Collateral damage

 

That's not acceptable to me, and I am sure others.

 

Arming teachers isn't acceptable.

 

your acceptable risk then becomes piles of bodies if there exists a genuine risk of school shooters.

 

you do not get a exemption.

[tshile]

4 hours ago, Llevron said:

When did I ever even allude to that?

I wasnt trying to say you said that specifically. I was trying to make a point but the truth is invited myself into the conversation. I was trying bring it down notch. That's all.