Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:47 pm

Brekkie wrote:
Koatanga wrote:His position is that the source of the black market weapons will be people invading homes to steal handguns. I find that position to be ludicrous. He's welcome to defend it if he likes.

Guns are owned by approximately 1/3 US households. So breaking into a house to get handguns gives you a 33% chance per break-in that there will be any guns to find. Then you have to deal with alarm systems, dogs, neighbours, and general risk of discovery, then you have to find the guns, deal with gun safes, etc., or potentially deal with a gun owner being home and armed. Then there's that whole cop thing.

Of the easiest targets, women, only around 9% have guns. Put it into WoW terms: That's a low drop rate. You could earn enough gold fencing the jewellery drops to buy the handguns off the AH (black market) as a more reliable way of acquiring guns.

I agree that handguns will be found in the course of normal home invasion robberies. But to increase those robberies for the purpose of farming handguns is every bit as silly as I made it out to be.


[Citation Needed]

Actual Stats

Stats seem to be somewhat in debate:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/ ... 303850331/
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/polit ... index.html

Seems this might be the explanation - the face-to-face poll, in which around 70% responded, has much different data than the telephone poll in which around 10% responded:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ip-us-data

The face-to-face poll done by the University of Chicago reports 1-in-3 households, while telephone polls put the figure at almost 45%.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sun Dec 23, 2012 12:55 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:In the midst of the endless circlejerking about handgun control and arguing policies that no one here will effectively make a whit difference, a reminder to do something this holiday (and every fucking day) that can and will make a measurable impact: make sure neither you nor anyone you party with drives drunk.

Since 1982 there have been about 400 deaths in "mass shootings" (cite found via google). For comparison, in 2010 there were 10,228 deaths involving a drunk driver.

This is just in the US; I don't know what world-wide statistics are, but youtube footage of Russian dash cams suggest horrible things happening there too.

Hope you and yours have a safe holiday.

Quoted for truth. Keep it sober and safe.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Brekkie » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:49 pm

Koatanga wrote:
Brekkie wrote:
Koatanga wrote:His position is that the source of the black market weapons will be people invading homes to steal handguns. I find that position to be ludicrous. He's welcome to defend it if he likes.

Guns are owned by approximately 1/3 US households. So breaking into a house to get handguns gives you a 33% chance per break-in that there will be any guns to find. Then you have to deal with alarm systems, dogs, neighbours, and general risk of discovery, then you have to find the guns, deal with gun safes, etc., or potentially deal with a gun owner being home and armed. Then there's that whole cop thing.

Of the easiest targets, women, only around 9% have guns. Put it into WoW terms: That's a low drop rate. You could earn enough gold fencing the jewellery drops to buy the handguns off the AH (black market) as a more reliable way of acquiring guns.

I agree that handguns will be found in the course of normal home invasion robberies. But to increase those robberies for the purpose of farming handguns is every bit as silly as I made it out to be.


[Citation Needed]

Actual Stats

Stats seem to be somewhat in debate:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/ ... 303850331/
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/polit ... index.html

Seems this might be the explanation - the face-to-face poll, in which around 70% responded, has much different data than the telephone poll in which around 10% responded:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ip-us-data

The face-to-face poll done by the University of Chicago reports 1-in-3 households, while telephone polls put the figure at almost 45%.



When it comes to statistics, I'll trust Nate Silver thanks.

Surveys explicitly about guns are almost certain to be biased, however exit poll data is probably not (except for the selection bias of "people who vote", which is corrected for) because the gun question is ancillary and unrelated to the primary purpose of the survey and thus unlikely to bias the results.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sun Dec 23, 2012 3:13 pm

Koatanga wrote:
Brekkie wrote:
Koatanga wrote:His position is that the source of the black market weapons will be people invading homes to steal handguns. I find that position to be ludicrous. He's welcome to defend it if he likes.

Guns are owned by approximately 1/3 US households. So breaking into a house to get handguns gives you a 33% chance per break-in that there will be any guns to find. Then you have to deal with alarm systems, dogs, neighbours, and general risk of discovery, then you have to find the guns, deal with gun safes, etc., or potentially deal with a gun owner being home and armed. Then there's that whole cop thing.

Of the easiest targets, women, only around 9% have guns. Put it into WoW terms: That's a low drop rate. You could earn enough gold fencing the jewellery drops to buy the handguns off the AH (black market) as a more reliable way of acquiring guns.

I agree that handguns will be found in the course of normal home invasion robberies. But to increase those robberies for the purpose of farming handguns is every bit as silly as I made it out to be.


[Citation Needed]

Actual Stats

Stats seem to be somewhat in debate:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2011/04/ ... 303850331/
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/polit ... index.html

Seems this might be the explanation - the face-to-face poll, in which around 70% responded, has much different data than the telephone poll in which around 10% responded:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ip-us-data

The face-to-face poll done by the University of Chicago reports 1-in-3 households, while telephone polls put the figure at almost 45%.

It seems to me that asking this particular question in person would be much more likely to get a lie as a response. As long as the data is weighted demographically, I don't think that the response rate matters all that much.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self- ... -1993.aspx (47%)

The truth is that we don't really know, but I can tell you that there are areas where you know it's really really high.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 6465
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:46 am

I was going to respond, but then I saw that Fridmarr spoke up, and thus, I don't need to.

LOL@ Roving Bands of thugs. That made me giggle thanks.

And you are looking at it in terms of a "well, if I look at the US as a whole" type of thing, and looking at the "Drop Rate". That would be like farming for something in "WoW" Terms that has a 9% drop rate the zone over, but there is a specific mob, that smart people will look up on say.... WoWhead, and farming the mobs that have the better drop rate in the given zone.

You know, Being smart about it.

I'm done arguing with you Koatanga, You seem to want to argue whatever point you can to make sure your right, even if you look silly in the process. You keep clinging onto parts of what I say, not listening to the whole thing, and then rejecting stats given to you.

I too, will take my information from Nate Silver. It's not like the man is a quack. He's actually put forward some of the best stats in recent history for politics and (shocker) sports.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:49 am

I'd say we leave this thread alone for a few days, and go to the sports thread instead.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Shoju » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:59 am

Klaudandus wrote:I'd say we leave this thread alone for a few days, and go to the sports thread instead.


Yeah, go chat QB stats with me. Maybe give me a new line of thinking about interesting stats for RB's and WR's, and the like.

/bounces like a pandaren out of politics.
User avatar
Shoju
 
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:15 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Passionario » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:35 am

Klaudandus wrote:I'd say we leave this thread alone for a few days, and go to the sports thread instead.

Or we could talk about other horrible political shit.

Like, say, Russian Duma recently passing a law banning all US citizens from adopting Russian children (in retribution for US congress passing the Magnitsky bill which prohibits corrupt Russian officials from entering US or using their banking system).

That's Garrosh level of villainy right there. :(
If you are not the flame, you're the fuel.
User avatar
Passionario
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:16 am

Or how there seems to be a glimmer of hope in NOLA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 30724.html
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:51 am

A few other states have done that as well. I'm kind of speechless that ANY state would adopt a "revisionist" history, but it's far from the silliest thing a state government has ever done (SB 1070 springs immediately to mind).

At this point, I think we're possibly headed toward a second civil war - this one along the lines of Red vs Blue rather than North vs South. It's already being fought in congress. Hardcore conservatives have been going out of their way to ensure that nothing (just about) gets done, and it's a relatively short step from there to outright fighting. Honestly I'm pretty surprised full scale fights haven't broken out over issues like the national debt and the fiscal cliff already.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:08 am

This should be required reading for anyone debating gun control, regardless of which side you're trying to argue for.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/ ... n-control/

I'd like to see a response to this from the other side...because I don't think there is one.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:27 am

Melathys wrote:I'd like to see a response to this from the other side...because I don't think there is one.


The response is simple: if there are no guns, there are no deaths by guns.

The raw fact that this is an impossibility has nothing to do with it. That genie is out of the bottle, that horse is out of the barn, that egg is broken. But some people think passing laws can reverse entropy.

It is hard to have a conversation about "gun control" because the two sides are often working from completely disparate basic assumptions.

You look at any long going debate and the core problem is almost always different first principles. Then the debate rages about policy, and each side attempts to frame the debate so *their* vision of reality contains the One True premise.

I recently had a long conversation with a friend about gun control. He couldn't really think straight about the issue because it involved guns, which are Tokens of Evil to some people. Like, a gun on a table is Horrible and Dangerous. He couldn't think clearly because the discussion involved something that evokes a strong emotional response.

So I told him to replace guns with beer in our discussion (which lead to a lot of interesting reading on our part -- I would argue that alcohol causes more problems and is more destructive than firearms, but that's another thread). Every time he brought up an argument about firearms, turning it into an argument about beer made the logical inconsistencies clear.

It's an interesting technique and I recommend it to any rationalist.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Tue Dec 25, 2012 11:24 am

A response to Correia would be about facts:

- Are or are not armed civillians without a trained background like off-duty cops or ex-marines a deterrent or a speed bump in a gun massacre? I've heard both sides argued - that armed civillians have stopped countless shooting incidents, and that no armed civillian without a background like the ones I mentioned have ever stopped one.

- Do police officers have a uniform opinion on armed civillians, and if so, what is it? I've seen both argued, both that cops hate having armed civillians at the scene as it confuses the events and can even allow the shooter to escape while cops deal with an innocent civillian who fought back. The other argument is the one Correia puts forward, that the cops can't be everywhere and that minutes count.

Somebody has to gather facts about those two points, and present them neutrally. Until that happens you're just yelling at each other.
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:13 pm

1. I do not understand what you are asking for in the first paragraph. My contention is that if someone walks into the workplace with a gun intending to harm people, I do not want him to have the only gun on the premises. Does it matter whether it is a deterrent or a speed bump? I have seen people argue that if another person (nominative "good guy") in the room had a gun they would "feel less safe." I personally think such an argument is bollocks.

2. The opinion of police officers is immaterial. The police have no duty to provide police services to individuals (Warren v. District of Columbia). There are plenty of op eds by police both pro- and con-. Some police want gun control because they want to be the only ones with guns because it is safer for them. Some police do not want gun control because they want people to be able to defend themselves ("when seconds count, the police are only minutes away"). And when they do arrive, if they believe it to be a dangerous situation, they have no duty to engage.

Some googling around brought up this study ( http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/police.pdf ):
Also, there is an inverse relationship between the rank of the officer and
the degree to which law enforcement officials support rights of law-abiding
citizens to carry concealed weapons for self-protection. The line officers,
who spend the most time on the street and should be most threatened by the
potential risk of additional permit holders, often express the greatest support
for concealed carry laws. In contrast, the highest-ranking, often politically
appointed officers, whose lives are least threatened, are the most vocal
opponents of the law. Survey results showed that 76 percent of street officers
and 59 percent of managerial officers agreed that all trained, responsible
adults should be able to obtain handgun carry permits.

...

This is the first study to examine how felonious police deaths are affected
by changes in waiting periods and laws that allow law-abiding citizens the
right to carry concealed weapons for self-defense. Although some people
oppose shall-issue laws because they believe the laws endanger the officers’
lives, there is no evidence for that belief. After controlling for an array of
factors, including trends before and after the law went into effect, I show
that states that enact concealed carry laws are less likely to have a felonious
police death and more likely to have lower rates of felonious police deaths
after the law is passed. This result is statistically significant in seven of the
nine specifications, and the difference between the before and after trends is
significant in over half the specifications.


Again, you're asking for opinions -- which are immaterial. Actual statistical analysis is more useful.

It's one of the things that is mind boggling. Some people think putting up "gun free zones" and making sure people "feel safe" is the same thing as -- or even morally superior to -- actually making sure people *are* safe.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:33 pm

My opinion as a law enforcement officer about civilian or off-duty carriers who are responding to a threat... When uniformed personnel show up, the civilians need to disengage, perhaps even put your weapon on the ground and lay down. Uniforms showing up have no idea who the threat is, so you need to show in no uncertain terms that you are not the threat. Go ahead and let them cuff and secure you and explain yourself later. There are plenty of cases of off duty cops trying to back up their buddies, but end up only creating more chaos because on duty cops didn't know if he was a threat or not.

Are or are not armed civillians without a trained background like off-duty cops or ex-marines a deterrent or a speed bump in a gun massacre? I've heard both sides argued - that armed civillians have stopped countless shooting incidents, and that no armed civillian without a background like the ones I mentioned have ever stopped one.


The bolded part. Just last week there was an incident of a civilian with a concealed weapon when a shooter appeared. He drew his weapon and tried to engage, but he saw that if he shot and missed, he would likely hit civilians. Instead of engaging he took cover, however, the shooter saw him and his weapon and shot himself. As mentioned in that article, most of these shooters fold at the merest hint of an armed response. What the civilian did didn't involve any sort of military or LEO training, just one of the basic cardinal safety rules, "know your target, and what lies beyond it."
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Tue Dec 25, 2012 1:18 pm

The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 9439
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:02 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:1. I do not understand what you are asking for in the first paragraph. My contention is that if someone walks into the workplace with a gun intending to harm people, I do not want him to have the only gun on the premises. Does it matter whether it is a deterrent or a speed bump? I have seen people argue that if another person (nominative "good guy") in the room had a gun they would "feel less safe." I personally think such an argument is bollocks.


Guns in the hands of civillians are dangerous, you cannot argue against that. There's plenty of lethal accidents involving guns happening.

Your argument is that having an armed person present when somebody starts a shooting spree is one of the benefits that outweighs the deaths to firearms accidents (or the cases every year when somebody gets shot by his neighbour for playing loud music). I think that's not an assertion that should be taken at face value.

Do armed civilians do any good when somebody starts a shooting spree? And I'm not talking anecdotes here. You need a scientific study.

2. The opinion of police officers is immaterial.


After a rethink I'll agree there. The opinions of police officers aren't what's important.

There should still be a study to find the hard facts about how armed civilians affect the police response to massacres.

I'm not sure it the study you linked is looking at that? When it says "felonious police death" is it talking about police officers killed or police officers shooting innocent people? (I think it's the first.)
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:03 pm

Klaudandus wrote:Really Fox news, really?


Fox News wrote:Bikers Turn Out to Protect Newtown Mourners from Left-Wing Westboro Cult


I wouldn't have thougth even Fox News could manage that...
Paxen
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:17 pm

I think the problem with arming teachers is that in order to be effective with a gun towards a shooter, you have to be prepared to be a shooter yourself. While there are many exceptions that I am sure will be listed in full by my opposition, I believe that the desire to teach children and the willingness to take a human life are fundamentally incompatible.

Reflecting on the teachers I have had at any level (and there have been many), I believe there is only one or two who would be capable of pulling the trigger against another human being in any circumstance.

It's not just teachers - it's a problem with anyone who has a gun for self-defense, but who is psychologically incapable of using that gun against someone else. Having a gun, and potentially being able to kill someone with that gun, are two entirely different concepts.
Un-Retired. Ish. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Tue Dec 25, 2012 2:48 pm

Koatanga wrote: I believe that the desire to teach children and the willingness to take a human life are fundamentally incompatible.



I can't express how terribly terribly wrong I believe this statement to be. You can be sure that if I was a teacher, and I nearly was as there's a soldier to teacher program, that if someone came to harm my students that I would do whatever it takes to stop that person, even killing if need be. I would go all mama bear.

And I'm a person that is pretty non-violent, nearly to the point of being a pacifist, but I will defend myself and others with deadly force if threatened with the same.

*edit
My mom is a teacher, and she says that she would feel very protective of her students. Hell, she says that teachers see the children more than the parents...
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:05 pm

I think my stance on the issue is fairly obvious, but I think that putting guns in the hands of teachers (especially at the college level) is stupid.

One of the worst places to work as an educated adult is in an academic environment. The amount of stress they're put under is mind-boggling. In high school and under, they're under fire from both sides - parents and administration. In colleges, fighting politics is the main stressor, but it's worse than trying to fight parents and the state combined. Why? Tenure. It's a single make or break moment in a person's life, and oftentimes it will break the person.

Teachers are prone to nervous breakdowns at all levels of academia. Now imagine if they had a gun during the beginning of that nervous breakdown. I honestly think guns should be kept out of the hands of teachers in their workplace - it'll prevent more random violence than them being able to act as first responders/speedbumps to a school shooting.

Your link says "Utah has had armed teachers for awhile now, and nothing has happened" and I feel that should be qualified with a "yet".

Now, arming secondary staff (janitors, lunch servers, etc) I can agree with. But adding easily available weaponry to a high stress environment is like setting a bomb with a faulty timer. It's going to go off, the only question is exactly when it goes off.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 2801
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Melathys » Tue Dec 25, 2012 8:10 pm

My mom, who is a teacher, actually lolled at the idea that a teacher would come in and shoot their students.
Image
User avatar
Melathys
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 1:08 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:40 pm

Paxen wrote:Guns in the hands of civillians are dangerous, you cannot argue against that. There's plenty of lethal accidents involving guns happening.


I do not argue against that. Guns improperly used are dangerous. So what? Cars improperly used are dangerous. According to the World Heath Organization every year 1.2 million people die in car accidents globally. Clearly we should be talking about getting rid of cars!

Well, no, of course that's absurd, even if that's a staggering amount of deaths. We as a civilization have determined that the conveniences of motor travel is worth the deaths of 1.2 million people a year.

Your argument is that having an armed person present when somebody starts a shooting spree is one of the benefits that outweighs the deaths to firearms accidents (or the cases every year when somebody gets shot by his neighbour for playing loud music). I think that's not an assertion that should be taken at face value.


See, this touches on the dissonance of first principles I touched on earlier. If no one had any guns then no one would get shot. Wouldn't that be grand?

Well, yes, sort of. It leaves people at the mercy of those who are just physically stronger, but that's been the case for almost the entirety of human history and we've gotten by. Not that I think this is a good thing -- a friend of mine is a petite Asian lady. She was raped at knife point. She carries a gun, now, and practices with it weekly. Does having a gun guarantee she will never be a victim again? No. But she will not be an easy target again.

Let's bring beer into the discussion. Does your ability to enjoy some drinks with friends outweigh the deaths caused by drunk drivers?

Let's discuss the assertion you think I am making: that preventing spree killers is worth Joe Bob shooting his neighbor for playing Nickleback cranked up to eleven. Are you arguing that we should make ourselves defenseless to spree shooters because Joe Bob might shoot Jim Bob? Is that your counter assertion?

Do armed civilians do any good when somebody starts a shooting spree? And I'm not talking anecdotes here. You need a scientific study.


I would love to see such a study, but there tends to be radio silence and very little documentation on when a civ stops a spree shooter. By definition the mass murder has not occurred, so there's far less media attention and I'm not certain anyone tracks this kind of data. I'll take a look the next time I'm avoiding doing a bit of work.

Actually I'll take a look now, as I don't think I can get up from the couch after eating the standing rib roast feast I spent all day cooking. Hmm. Let's see what google can find.

And I'm not sure how to examine something like this statistically. We can look at spree shootings and look at the average number of fatalities when someone else is armed (2.33 deaths) and when only the shooter is armed (14.20 deaths); some guy looked at 100 shootings and did some math here: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/au ... tatistics/ I haven't closely examined his primary data, but scanning through his methodology he does not appear to be cherry picking. Does this qualify as a "scientific study?"


I'm not sure it the study you linked is looking at that? When it says "felonious police death" is it talking about police officers killed or police officers shooting innocent people? (I think it's the first.)


From the abstract:
This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws
and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police.
I pulled up this story after googling up police opinions on gun control; this study looked at actual impact of changes in gun control laws on specifically police deaths; so it's a much narrower scope than the entire discussion, and was intended to address the question specifically about the opinions of the police on an armed populace. Some of the other data excavated from the study was interesting.
Last edited by fuzzygeek on Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby bldavis » Tue Dec 25, 2012 9:59 pm

Fivelives wrote:I think my stance on the issue is fairly obvious, but I think that putting guns in the hands of teachers (especially at the college level) is stupid.

One of the worst places to work as an educated adult is in an academic environment. The amount of stress they're put under is mind-boggling. In high school and under, they're under fire from both sides - parents and administration. In colleges, fighting politics is the main stressor, but it's worse than trying to fight parents and the state combined. Why? Tenure. It's a single make or break moment in a person's life, and oftentimes it will break the person.

Teachers are prone to nervous breakdowns at all levels of academia. Now imagine if they had a gun during the beginning of that nervous breakdown. I honestly think guns should be kept out of the hands of teachers in their workplace - it'll prevent more random violence than them being able to act as first responders/speedbumps to a school shooting.

Your link says "Utah has had armed teachers for awhile now, and nothing has happened" and I feel that should be qualified with a "yet".

Now, arming secondary staff (janitors, lunch servers, etc) I can agree with. But adding easily available weaponry to a high stress environment is like setting a bomb with a faulty timer. It's going to go off, the only question is exactly when it goes off.


where did anyone say anything about arming professors?
i have had a few that i wouldnt give 2 shits if they were armed, others i would be scared to even go to class
but i believe the main point of this argument is to arm k-12 teachers, in order to stop shootings such as the recent CT one, Springfield OR amd Columbine...all in K-12 schools

not every teacher needs to be armed, so those that are against it..well they can stil be against it and not carry, just like those that are against firearms dont have to own them.

honestly im not sure where i stand on this issue, as such i havent been contributing to the discussion.
i just wanted to ask where they talked about college level teachers being armed?
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 6111
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:11 pm

Fivelives wrote:Teachers are prone to nervous breakdowns at all levels of academia. Now imagine if they had a gun during the beginning of that nervous breakdown. I honestly think guns should be kept out of the hands of teachers in their workplace - it'll prevent more random violence than them being able to act as first responders/speedbumps to a school shooting.


This happened not too long ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unive ... e_shooting

During the course of a routine meeting of the biology department attended by approximately 12 individuals, a professor stood up and began shooting those closest to her with a 9-millimeter handgun. Amy Bishop, a biology professor at the university and the sole suspect, was charged with one count of capital murder and three counts of attempted murder.


There honestly isn't much you can do about Crazy. But attempts to ameliorate crazy just end up creating more victims.

Let's go with your not-so-hypothetical situation. Teacher goes crazy and pulls out a gun and starts shooting.

Scenario A: no other teachers have guns. Crazy Teacher has free reign.
Scenario B: other teachers are armed. Crazy Teacher either a) doesn't go on a rampage because they recognize there will be an immediate armed response, or b) goes on a rampage *anyway* because crazy. Armed teachers respond.
Scenario C: other teachers are armed. Crazy Teacher goes WOLOLOLOLO and an army of teachers storm the capital and take over.

I do not think we should be pressing guns into the hands of everyone. But I do not think we should be forcibly disarming people and pretending that putting up "Gun Free Zone" signs actually does anything to keep people safe. Every spree shooting in the last ten years (except one) has occurred in a "Gun Free Zone."
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3447
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest