Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

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: 10817
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: 558
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: 558
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.
Koatanga, Capnhammer, Shapely, Sultry, Boondoggle, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1878
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: 1907
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: 3032
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: 1907
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: 5085
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: 7338
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: 5085
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:15 pm

I'm less worried about crazy teachers than I am about the ones who are unwilling to use the gun, which simply adds another available gun to the proceedings, and the teachers who would be unwilling to shoot their students who may attack them in order to get a gun.

I know teachers of inner-city kids who are already afraid of several of their students without giving those students incentive to attack them.
Koatanga, Capnhammer, Shapely, Sultry, Boondoggle, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:36 pm

Koatanga wrote:I'm less worried about crazy teachers than I am about the ones who are unwilling to use the gun,


Completely agree. No one should be compelled to carry a firearm, especially if they are unwilling and untrained.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5085
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby bldavis » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:55 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:
Koatanga wrote:I'm less worried about crazy teachers than I am about the ones who are unwilling to use the gun,


Completely agree. No one should be compelled to carry a firearm, especially if they are unwilling and untrained.

i agree as well, which is why i said those that are against it (or just dont want to participate) dont have to
those that do get training
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: 7338
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 Levantine » Wed Dec 26, 2012 12:30 am

Ugh. This thread is doing my head in. The culture difference between the US and just about everyone else is fucking insane. Honestly the fact that "Let's arm all the teachers, that seems like a great idea" is just repulsive to me. The answer to gun violence is more guns? Okay. Makes perfect sense. :roll:
User avatar
Levantine
 
Posts: 10817
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: NQ, Aus

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fivelives » Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:50 am

There are far more cases where teachers have nervous breakdowns (and I've actually used the Amy Bishop incident in a paper arguing against tenure) than teachers that go on shooting rampages. Having seen a couple of psychotic breaks in patients over the years - remember, I work in emergency response - I wouldn't doubt that, had a gun been handy the person having the break would have used it. They'd have picked it up, pointed at someone, and pulled the trigger until it went click.

Also knowing the stress that teachers are put under and how much more likely they are to HAVE those nervous breakdowns, I wouldn't want teachers - at ANY level - to be armed. Because if it's not pressure from the tenure committee at the college level, it's pressure from helicopter parents and school administration at the K-12 level. Which is worse? I don't know, but I do know that I'd rather not have guns in the hands of teachers. Or students, for that matter. I'm not against guns on campuses; I am against guns in the hands of individuals prone to psychotic breaks.

Like I said - give them to the support staff. Secretaries, janitors, lunch servers, groundskeepers - but keep them out of high stress environments. Civilians aren't trained to respond well at all to stress, and aren't watchdogged like police officers and members of the military.
- 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: 3032
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 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: MSNbot Media and 1 guest