logo Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 652

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time

Having police officers in schools not only doesn’t work. It’s a negative to students, especially minority ones.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=njlsp

The fate of school discipline and security in America is at a crucial turning point. While the “school-to-prison pipeline” has recently received an increased amount of attention from policy makers interested in improving public education, the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut led to renewed calls for the heightened security measures that helped give rise to the pipeline. This article provides clear evidence that heightened disciplinary and security measures in schools are faulty policy responses, as they have adverse impacts on the students they intend to protect and siphon resources away from policies that more effectively ensure student safety and success.

A relatively small number of the students arrested in Delaware were charged with felony offenses (approximately 9%), while the overwhelming majority of students were charged with misdemeanors and violations (approximately 91%). Moreover, students rarely faced high-level felony charges.

Although the Delaware student population is evenly split between genders, 65% of the arrested students were male, and 35% were female. Black students comprised 67% of the arrested students while only accounting for 32% of the student body. Meanwhile, white students accounted for 31% of those arrested in school, but half of the student body. Black students, therefore, were approximately three-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested than white students.

Author
Time

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/entertainment/ted-cruz-the-simpsons/index.html

The senator from Texas ran afoul of the showrunner for “The Simpsons” after he invoked the characters during an appearance Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

“The Democrats are the party of Lisa Simpson,” Cruz said of the character who is portrayed on the show as being a bit of a know-it-all. “And Republicans are happily the party of Homer, Bart, Maggie and Marge.”

Al Jean, showrunner for the long-running animated Fox series, struck back on Twitter saying Cruz needed the character of baby Maggie’s pacifier.

“Ted Cruz says Maggie Simpson would vote for him,” Jean tweeted. “I think Ted’s the one who could use a pacifier in his mouth.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K0sRkvX4KE

Author
Time

Sorry that I keep tweet spamming this thread but it’s not my fault nobody writes articles anymore.

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663128736940032

After every massacre, there’s inevitable talk about Australian gun laws post-1996 and how successful they’ve been at reducing gun violence, homicides and suicides. Also a lot of misinformation about ‘bans’ and such.

Here’s what actually happened and what it means today:

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663187138359298

Undoubtedly true. But an interesting thing has happened. The bad guys with guns, for the last 20 years, have been using them almost exclusively on one another. No one seriously worries about being shot in public any more. There’s no armed guards in schools.

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663198769213441

Oh, almost forgot. Aussies still watch the exact same movies and play the same ‘violent’ video games as the US, yet no more massacres. It was both the guns AND the person holding it that was the cause. But no longer.

Author
Time

Australia got the convicts, we got the Puritans. And that’s why they yelled “No tradebacks, mate!”

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Sorry that I keep tweet spamming this thread but it’s not my fault nobody writes articles anymore.

Don’t apologise mate - I find the links illuminating & help give pause for thought. Thank you.

A little patience goes a long way on this old-school Rebel base. If you are having issues finding what you are looking for, these will be of some help…

Welcome to the OriginalTrilogy.com | Introduce yourself in here | Useful info within : About : Help : Site Rules : Fan Project Rules : Announcements
How do I do this?’ on the OriginalTrilogy.com; some info & answers + FAQs - includes info on how to search for projects and threads on the OT•com

A Project Index for Star Wars Preservations (Harmy’s Despecialized & 4K77/80/83 etc) : A Project Index for Star Wars Fan Edits (adywan & Hal 9000 etc)

… and take your time to look around this site before posting - to get a feel for this place. Don’t just lazily make yet another thread asking for projects.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

  1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
  2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
  3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
  4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

  1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
  2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
  3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
  4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

I’m curious about this too.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Sorry that I keep tweet spamming this thread but it’s not my fault nobody writes articles anymore.

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663128736940032

After every massacre, there’s inevitable talk about Australian gun laws post-1996 and how successful they’ve been at reducing gun violence, homicides and suicides. Also a lot of misinformation about ‘bans’ and such.

Here’s what actually happened and what it means today:

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663187138359298

Undoubtedly true. But an interesting thing has happened. The bad guys with guns, for the last 20 years, have been using them almost exclusively on one another. No one seriously worries about being shot in public any more. There’s no armed guards in schools.

https://twitter.com/AlogoAgogo/status/966663198769213441

Oh, almost forgot. Aussies still watch the exact same movies and play the same ‘violent’ video games as the US, yet no more massacres. It was both the guns AND the person holding it that was the cause. But no longer.

This all sounds like precisely the type of common sense legislation that we need in the US, and I can’t see one legitimate argument against any of it.

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

I’ll tell you what happens. They get detained, pepper-sprayed, arrested, or have the shit beat out of them. At worst they may get shot to death. Every year there is a far too high number of school-aged kids that get shot to death by police.

Oh brother. You’re so prejudice against the cops, there is no point talking to you about this.

Warbler said:

Don’t try to kill any students, teachers or others

Obviously the dangerous people aren’t going to follow this rule.

Well if someone tries to kill a student or teacher or someone else, don’t you think the cop should stop that? Or should the cop just stand there and let them kill the student or teacher or someone else.

Of course I don’t think that.

Don’t carry deadly weapons

Again, the dangerous people won’t follow this rule,

no kidding. But but someone carries a deadly weapon into school, don’t you want to cops to intervene?

Yes. I don’t want them standing by every second of every day waiting for it.

but that doesn’t even matter since cops treat everybody as though they’re potentially carrying dangerous weapons.

well they could be. Small guns are easy to conceal. I once saw video where that looked normal, started pulling out guns that he had concealed. Turns out he had like 6 of them or so.

Most aren’t carrying concealed weapons.

That’s why so many unarmed people get shot to death by police. The excuse is always, “He could’ve been armed.”

and of of course it has nothing to do with ignoring repeated orders and warning from cops, right?

I didn’t know that was a capital offense these days.

It has nothing to do with people acting stupidly in an encounter and making a sudden motion like they are pulling a weapon right?

You’re right, better shoot him twenty-five times.

Yeah, you’ll say they should wait and make sure it is a gun. Trouble is they do that, and if it is a gun, they can’t stop it in time and you get a dead cop.

Here’s the thing: they signed up for this job, we didn’t. I know that sounds heartless, but I thought cops were signing up for a dangerous job in order to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to protect the innocent. The best cops have that mindset. But when you have cops with guns in your face screaming at you at the top of their lungs (ironically sounding much more like a deranged criminal than most deranged criminals do) it’s hard to know exactly how to move and what to do. I don’t like that I have to be treated like an armed and dangerous person just because someone else might be armed and dangerous, and if I get shot to death because I moved wrong, it’s my fault for provoking the cop. When a cop shoots a surrendering, unarmed person, that cop should be tried for manslaughter at least. If I pull a gun and shoot someone to death because I think they’re armed even though they aren’t, I would not get the special treatment that cops get. My poor judgement would’ve killed the unarmed person, so I should be held responsible. I don’t understand why people don’t feel the same way about cops, but since they aren’t held to the same standard I don’t want to stationed around each and every school.

Obey direct orders from cops

Why?

Because they cops giving lawful orders? Because sometimes they are giving orders in order to protect you and others? Because sometimes they know what they are doing in a dire situation where you the untrained civilian does not?

I have little faith in the training of cops. “Sometimes they know what they are doing” isn’t enough for me to just assume that they’re right no matter what.

So they don’t shoot me to death? If I’m obeying the law then their direct orders can go to hell.

What about emergency situation like an active shooter?

That’s a special circumstance that doesn’t happen often enough to justify putting an armed police officer in every school.

Sometime in such situations a cop doesn’t have time to explain why he wants you do something.

In extremely intense situations, yes. In every other situation, they do. Cops are often very intimidating, so it’s too scary to ask them for explanations.

I’m a law-abiding taxpayer.

that doesn’t exempt you from having to obey lawfully given orders.

Not all orders are lawful and not all lawfully given orders are reasonable.

The cops theoretically are here to serve people like me.

How will they serve you best? by people refusing to do what they are told in an emergency? or doing what the cops tell them and thus help the cops keep everyone safe.

Who said anything about an emergency? I understand that emergencies are different, but since most schools go through entire academic years without any emergencies, I’m assuming that most interactions with the cops won’t be during emergencies.

A lot of direct orders from cops are violations of your rights.

In your opinion. btw, such can be sorted out in a court of law.

Yep, and I’d have to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to fight them in that court of law. And the court would most likely side with the cops anyway.

You don’t have to let them search you or your car or your property (assuming they don’t have a warrant),

actually sometimes you do. like if they hear someone screaming for help from the trunk of your car. Or if they hear shooting and then realize you smell of gun power.

That’s probable cause. They don’t usually have that.

you don’t have to answer their questions if you don’t want to, etc. etc. I don’t like this idea that the cops are our overlords that we just need to obey if we don’t want to be harmed by them.

oh ffs.

I’m right.

I don’t want cops in schools. If I had kids then I would not send them to a school that was under this police-state form of martial law, even if that meant I had to home-school them. This nonsense cannot be allowed to happen.

No, what can’t allowed to happen is more shooting like the one in Florida. But please continue to let your prejudice of cops get in the way of saving kids lives.

I desperately want to save kids’ lives. I just can tell that this is horrible idea that won’t work. Schools are huge. The shooter could just go to the part of the school where the cop isn’t stationed and do plenty of damage before the cop got there.

We need to solve this country’s gun problem the right way rather than fight it with more guns.

If the right way is to ban guns, its not going to happen. Too much opposition from the right.

Then the right is the problem. They must be defeated.

Don’t let anyone use these tragedies to turn the US into a police state.

having cops in our schools does not equal a police state.

Having them stationed throughout all of our daily life locations is, and your mindset that their use of deadly force is justified even if the suspect is unarmed is dangerously close.

It is pointless to continue with this. No one will listen.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

I’ll tell you what happens. They get detained, pepper-sprayed, arrested, or have the shit beat out of them. At worst they may get shot to death. Every year there is a far too high number of school-aged kids that get shot to death by police.

Oh brother. You’re so prejudice against the cops, there is no point talking to you about this.

Warbler said:

Don’t try to kill any students, teachers or others

Obviously the dangerous people aren’t going to follow this rule.

Well if someone tries to kill a student or teacher or someone else, don’t you think the cop should stop that? Or should the cop just stand there and let them kill the student or teacher or someone else.

Of course I don’t think that.

Don’t carry deadly weapons

Again, the dangerous people won’t follow this rule,

no kidding. But but someone carries a deadly weapon into school, don’t you want to cops to intervene?

Yes. I don’t want them standing by every second of every day waiting for it.

but that doesn’t even matter since cops treat everybody as though they’re potentially carrying dangerous weapons.

well they could be. Small guns are easy to conceal. I once saw video where that looked normal, started pulling out guns that he had concealed. Turns out he had like 6 of them or so.

Most aren’t carrying concealed weapons.

That’s why so many unarmed people get shot to death by police. The excuse is always, “He could’ve been armed.”

and of of course it has nothing to do with ignoring repeated orders and warning from cops, right?

I didn’t know that was a capital offense these days.

It has nothing to do with people acting stupidly in an encounter and making a sudden motion like they are pulling a weapon right?

You’re right, better shoot him twenty-five times.

Yeah, you’ll say they should wait and make sure it is a gun. Trouble is they do that, and if it is a gun, they can’t stop it in time and you get a dead cop.

Here’s the thing: they signed up for this job, we didn’t. I know that sounds heartless, but I thought cops were signing up for a dangerous job in order to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to protect the innocent. The best cops have that mindset. But when you have cops with guns in your face screaming at you at the top of their lungs (ironically sounding much more like a deranged criminal than most deranged criminals do) it’s hard to know exactly how to move and what to do. I don’t like that I have to be treated like an armed and dangerous person just because someone else might be armed and dangerous, and if I get shot to death because I moved wrong, it’s my fault for provoking the cop. When a cop shoots a surrendering, unarmed person, that cop should be tried for manslaughter at least. If I pull a gun and shoot someone to death because I think they’re armed even though they aren’t, I would not get the special treatment that cops get. My poor judgement would’ve killed the unarmed person, so I should be held responsible. I don’t understand why people don’t feel the same way about cops, but since they aren’t held to the same standard I don’t want to stationed around each and every school.

Obey direct orders from cops

Why?

Because they cops giving lawful orders? Because sometimes they are giving orders in order to protect you and others? Because sometimes they know what they are doing in a dire situation where you the untrained civilian does not?

I have little faith in the training of cops. “Sometimes they know what they are doing” isn’t enough for me to just assume that they’re right no matter what.

So they don’t shoot me to death? If I’m obeying the law then their direct orders can go to hell.

What about emergency situation like an active shooter?

That’s a special circumstance that doesn’t happen often enough to justify putting an armed police officer in every school.

Sometime in such situations a cop doesn’t have time to explain why he wants you do something.

In extremely intense situations, yes. In every other situation, they do. Cops are often very intimidating, so it’s too scary to ask them for explanations.

I’m a law-abiding taxpayer.

that doesn’t exempt you from having to obey lawfully given orders.

Not all orders are lawful and not all lawfully given orders are reasonable.

The cops theoretically are here to serve people like me.

How will they serve you best? by people refusing to do what they are told in an emergency? or doing what the cops tell them and thus help the cops keep everyone safe.

Who said anything about an emergency? I understand that emergencies are different, but since most schools go through entire academic years without any emergencies, I’m assuming that most interactions with the cops won’t be during emergencies.

A lot of direct orders from cops are violations of your rights.

In your opinion. btw, such can be sorted out in a court of law.

Yep, and I’d have to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to fight them in that court of law. And the court would most likely side with the cops anyway.

You don’t have to let them search you or your car or your property (assuming they don’t have a warrant),

actually sometimes you do. like if they hear someone screaming for help from the trunk of your car. Or if they hear shooting and then realize you smell of gun power.

That’s probable cause. They don’t usually have that.

you don’t have to answer their questions if you don’t want to, etc. etc. I don’t like this idea that the cops are our overlords that we just need to obey if we don’t want to be harmed by them.

oh ffs.

I’m right.

I don’t want cops in schools. If I had kids then I would not send them to a school that was under this police-state form of martial law, even if that meant I had to home-school them. This nonsense cannot be allowed to happen.

No, what can’t allowed to happen is more shooting like the one in Florida. But please continue to let your prejudice of cops get in the way of saving kids lives.

I desperately want to save kids’ lives. I just can tell that this is horrible idea that won’t work. Schools are huge. The shooter could just go to the part of the school where the cop isn’t stationed and do plenty of damage before the cop got there.

We need to solve this country’s gun problem the right way rather than fight it with more guns.

If the right way is to ban guns, its not going to happen. Too much opposition from the right.

Then the right is the problem. They must be defeated.

Don’t let anyone use these tragedies to turn the US into a police state.

having cops in our schools does not equal a police state.

Having them stationed throughout all of our daily life locations is, and your mindset that their use of deadly force is justified even if the suspect is unarmed is dangerously close.

It is pointless to continue with this. No one will listen.

Lol when I say the exact same thing you get all pissy about it.

Author
Time

yhwx said:

Having police officers in schools not only doesn’t work. It’s a negative to students, especially minority ones.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=njlsp

The fate of school discipline and security in America is at a crucial turning point. While the “school-to-prison pipeline” has recently received an increased amount of attention from policy makers interested in improving public education, the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut led to renewed calls for the heightened security measures that helped give rise to the pipeline. This article provides clear evidence that heightened disciplinary and security measures in schools are faulty policy responses, as they have adverse impacts on the students they intend to protect and siphon resources away from policies that more effectively ensure student safety and success.

A relatively small number of the students arrested in Delaware were charged with felony offenses (approximately 9%), while the overwhelming majority of students were charged with misdemeanors and violations (approximately 91%). Moreover, students rarely faced high-level felony charges.

Although the Delaware student population is evenly split between genders, 65% of the arrested students were male, and 35% were female. Black students comprised 67% of the arrested students while only accounting for 32% of the student body. Meanwhile, white students accounted for 31% of those arrested in school, but half of the student body. Black students, therefore, were approximately three-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested than white students.

Yeah, I know, all cops are bigoted gun crazy a-holes who will shoot black kids because they hate them and shoot others for talking back. What horrible monsters cops are. I know.

It is pointless to continue with this. No one will listen.

So we can protect our kids, we can’t get the guns off the streets and nothing will get done. See you at the next school shooting. Have a nice day.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

I’ll tell you what happens. They get detained, pepper-sprayed, arrested, or have the shit beat out of them. At worst they may get shot to death. Every year there is a far too high number of school-aged kids that get shot to death by police.

Oh brother. You’re so prejudice against the cops, there is no point talking to you about this.

Warbler said:

Don’t try to kill any students, teachers or others

Obviously the dangerous people aren’t going to follow this rule.

Well if someone tries to kill a student or teacher or someone else, don’t you think the cop should stop that? Or should the cop just stand there and let them kill the student or teacher or someone else.

Of course I don’t think that.

Don’t carry deadly weapons

Again, the dangerous people won’t follow this rule,

no kidding. But but someone carries a deadly weapon into school, don’t you want to cops to intervene?

Yes. I don’t want them standing by every second of every day waiting for it.

but that doesn’t even matter since cops treat everybody as though they’re potentially carrying dangerous weapons.

well they could be. Small guns are easy to conceal. I once saw video where that looked normal, started pulling out guns that he had concealed. Turns out he had like 6 of them or so.

Most aren’t carrying concealed weapons.

That’s why so many unarmed people get shot to death by police. The excuse is always, “He could’ve been armed.”

and of of course it has nothing to do with ignoring repeated orders and warning from cops, right?

I didn’t know that was a capital offense these days.

It has nothing to do with people acting stupidly in an encounter and making a sudden motion like they are pulling a weapon right?

You’re right, better shoot him twenty-five times.

Yeah, you’ll say they should wait and make sure it is a gun. Trouble is they do that, and if it is a gun, they can’t stop it in time and you get a dead cop.

Here’s the thing: they signed up for this job, we didn’t. I know that sounds heartless, but I thought cops were signing up for a dangerous job in order to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to protect the innocent. The best cops have that mindset. But when you have cops with guns in your face screaming at you at the top of their lungs (ironically sounding much more like a deranged criminal than most deranged criminals do) it’s hard to know exactly how to move and what to do. I don’t like that I have to be treated like an armed and dangerous person just because someone else might be armed and dangerous, and if I get shot to death because I moved wrong, it’s my fault for provoking the cop. When a cop shoots a surrendering, unarmed person, that cop should be tried for manslaughter at least. If I pull a gun and shoot someone to death because I think they’re armed even though they aren’t, I would not get the special treatment that cops get. My poor judgement would’ve killed the unarmed person, so I should be held responsible. I don’t understand why people don’t feel the same way about cops, but since they aren’t held to the same standard I don’t want to stationed around each and every school.

Obey direct orders from cops

Why?

Because they cops giving lawful orders? Because sometimes they are giving orders in order to protect you and others? Because sometimes they know what they are doing in a dire situation where you the untrained civilian does not?

I have little faith in the training of cops. “Sometimes they know what they are doing” isn’t enough for me to just assume that they’re right no matter what.

So they don’t shoot me to death? If I’m obeying the law then their direct orders can go to hell.

What about emergency situation like an active shooter?

That’s a special circumstance that doesn’t happen often enough to justify putting an armed police officer in every school.

Sometime in such situations a cop doesn’t have time to explain why he wants you do something.

In extremely intense situations, yes. In every other situation, they do. Cops are often very intimidating, so it’s too scary to ask them for explanations.

I’m a law-abiding taxpayer.

that doesn’t exempt you from having to obey lawfully given orders.

Not all orders are lawful and not all lawfully given orders are reasonable.

The cops theoretically are here to serve people like me.

How will they serve you best? by people refusing to do what they are told in an emergency? or doing what the cops tell them and thus help the cops keep everyone safe.

Who said anything about an emergency? I understand that emergencies are different, but since most schools go through entire academic years without any emergencies, I’m assuming that most interactions with the cops won’t be during emergencies.

A lot of direct orders from cops are violations of your rights.

In your opinion. btw, such can be sorted out in a court of law.

Yep, and I’d have to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to fight them in that court of law. And the court would most likely side with the cops anyway.

You don’t have to let them search you or your car or your property (assuming they don’t have a warrant),

actually sometimes you do. like if they hear someone screaming for help from the trunk of your car. Or if they hear shooting and then realize you smell of gun power.

That’s probable cause. They don’t usually have that.

you don’t have to answer their questions if you don’t want to, etc. etc. I don’t like this idea that the cops are our overlords that we just need to obey if we don’t want to be harmed by them.

oh ffs.

I’m right.

I don’t want cops in schools. If I had kids then I would not send them to a school that was under this police-state form of martial law, even if that meant I had to home-school them. This nonsense cannot be allowed to happen.

No, what can’t allowed to happen is more shooting like the one in Florida. But please continue to let your prejudice of cops get in the way of saving kids lives.

I desperately want to save kids’ lives. I just can tell that this is horrible idea that won’t work. Schools are huge. The shooter could just go to the part of the school where the cop isn’t stationed and do plenty of damage before the cop got there.

We need to solve this country’s gun problem the right way rather than fight it with more guns.

If the right way is to ban guns, its not going to happen. Too much opposition from the right.

Then the right is the problem. They must be defeated.

Don’t let anyone use these tragedies to turn the US into a police state.

having cops in our schools does not equal a police state.

Having them stationed throughout all of our daily life locations is, and your mindset that their use of deadly force is justified even if the suspect is unarmed is dangerously close.

It is pointless to continue with this. No one will listen.

Lol when I say the exact same thing you get all pissy about it.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Also, I don’t think I’d feel very safe around an armed guard, I’d probably feel less safe then I would without a guard. People with guns make me nervous, not because I’m afraid of guns, but because I can never know if they’re going to use them or what they’re going to use them for.

Ok, I will give this a real response.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

I don’t know why an armed cop would make you nervous. He/she has the gun in case the worst happened. As long as you behave yourself, you don’t need to worry.

I don’t trust that all cops will be totally sane/rational. If the guards were “extremely well trained and extensively background checked,” as you said, I think I’d be less averse to the idea. That said, I think “trained and background checked” is too vague to really have a discussion about, and it seems to me that it’s rooted in a ‘perfect world’ ideal without really considering how it would be done and how feasible it is.

obviously, a lot more details would need to be ironed out before going ahead with this.

I’m not saying that a cop is going to shoot a student (though I don’t doubt that it would happen), just that people with guns put me on edge.

And when you say “behave yourself,” what does that mean?

Obey direct orders from cops

Kids? Obeying direct orders? Doesn’t compute. And again, what happens if they don’t?

I’ll tell you what happens. They get detained, pepper-sprayed, arrested, or have the shit beat out of them. At worst they may get shot to death. Every year there is a far too high number of school-aged kids that get shot to death by police.

Oh brother. You’re so prejudice against the cops, there is no point talking to you about this.

Warbler said:

Don’t try to kill any students, teachers or others

Obviously the dangerous people aren’t going to follow this rule.

Well if someone tries to kill a student or teacher or someone else, don’t you think the cop should stop that? Or should the cop just stand there and let them kill the student or teacher or someone else.

Of course I don’t think that.

Don’t carry deadly weapons

Again, the dangerous people won’t follow this rule,

no kidding. But but someone carries a deadly weapon into school, don’t you want to cops to intervene?

Yes. I don’t want them standing by every second of every day waiting for it.

but that doesn’t even matter since cops treat everybody as though they’re potentially carrying dangerous weapons.

well they could be. Small guns are easy to conceal. I once saw video where that looked normal, started pulling out guns that he had concealed. Turns out he had like 6 of them or so.

Most aren’t carrying concealed weapons.

That’s why so many unarmed people get shot to death by police. The excuse is always, “He could’ve been armed.”

and of of course it has nothing to do with ignoring repeated orders and warning from cops, right?

I didn’t know that was a capital offense these days.

It has nothing to do with people acting stupidly in an encounter and making a sudden motion like they are pulling a weapon right?

You’re right, better shoot him twenty-five times.

Yeah, you’ll say they should wait and make sure it is a gun. Trouble is they do that, and if it is a gun, they can’t stop it in time and you get a dead cop.

Here’s the thing: they signed up for this job, we didn’t. I know that sounds heartless, but I thought cops were signing up for a dangerous job in order to potentially sacrifice themselves in order to protect the innocent. The best cops have that mindset. But when you have cops with guns in your face screaming at you at the top of their lungs (ironically sounding much more like a deranged criminal than most deranged criminals do) it’s hard to know exactly how to move and what to do. I don’t like that I have to be treated like an armed and dangerous person just because someone else might be armed and dangerous, and if I get shot to death because I moved wrong, it’s my fault for provoking the cop. When a cop shoots a surrendering, unarmed person, that cop should be tried for manslaughter at least. If I pull a gun and shoot someone to death because I think they’re armed even though they aren’t, I would not get the special treatment that cops get. My poor judgement would’ve killed the unarmed person, so I should be held responsible. I don’t understand why people don’t feel the same way about cops, but since they aren’t held to the same standard I don’t want to stationed around each and every school.

Obey direct orders from cops

Why?

Because they cops giving lawful orders? Because sometimes they are giving orders in order to protect you and others? Because sometimes they know what they are doing in a dire situation where you the untrained civilian does not?

I have little faith in the training of cops. “Sometimes they know what they are doing” isn’t enough for me to just assume that they’re right no matter what.

So they don’t shoot me to death? If I’m obeying the law then their direct orders can go to hell.

What about emergency situation like an active shooter?

That’s a special circumstance that doesn’t happen often enough to justify putting an armed police officer in every school.

Sometime in such situations a cop doesn’t have time to explain why he wants you do something.

In extremely intense situations, yes. In every other situation, they do. Cops are often very intimidating, so it’s too scary to ask them for explanations.

I’m a law-abiding taxpayer.

that doesn’t exempt you from having to obey lawfully given orders.

Not all orders are lawful and not all lawfully given orders are reasonable.

The cops theoretically are here to serve people like me.

How will they serve you best? by people refusing to do what they are told in an emergency? or doing what the cops tell them and thus help the cops keep everyone safe.

Who said anything about an emergency? I understand that emergencies are different, but since most schools go through entire academic years without any emergencies, I’m assuming that most interactions with the cops won’t be during emergencies.

A lot of direct orders from cops are violations of your rights.

In your opinion. btw, such can be sorted out in a court of law.

Yep, and I’d have to go tens of thousands of dollars in debt to fight them in that court of law. And the court would most likely side with the cops anyway.

You don’t have to let them search you or your car or your property (assuming they don’t have a warrant),

actually sometimes you do. like if they hear someone screaming for help from the trunk of your car. Or if they hear shooting and then realize you smell of gun power.

That’s probable cause. They don’t usually have that.

you don’t have to answer their questions if you don’t want to, etc. etc. I don’t like this idea that the cops are our overlords that we just need to obey if we don’t want to be harmed by them.

oh ffs.

I’m right.

I don’t want cops in schools. If I had kids then I would not send them to a school that was under this police-state form of martial law, even if that meant I had to home-school them. This nonsense cannot be allowed to happen.

No, what can’t allowed to happen is more shooting like the one in Florida. But please continue to let your prejudice of cops get in the way of saving kids lives.

I desperately want to save kids’ lives. I just can tell that this is horrible idea that won’t work. Schools are huge. The shooter could just go to the part of the school where the cop isn’t stationed and do plenty of damage before the cop got there.

We need to solve this country’s gun problem the right way rather than fight it with more guns.

If the right way is to ban guns, its not going to happen. Too much opposition from the right.

Then the right is the problem. They must be defeated.

Don’t let anyone use these tragedies to turn the US into a police state.

having cops in our schools does not equal a police state.

Having them stationed throughout all of our daily life locations is, and your mindset that their use of deadly force is justified even if the suspect is unarmed is dangerously close.

It is pointless to continue with this. No one will listen.

Lol when I say the exact same thing you get all pissy about it.

Well too fucking bad for you.

Author
Time

I don’t see how, I don’t care. Just pointing out the irony.

Author
Time

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Having police officers in schools not only doesn’t work. It’s a negative to students, especially minority ones.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=njlsp

The fate of school discipline and security in America is at a crucial turning point. While the “school-to-prison pipeline” has recently received an increased amount of attention from policy makers interested in improving public education, the recent shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut led to renewed calls for the heightened security measures that helped give rise to the pipeline. This article provides clear evidence that heightened disciplinary and security measures in schools are faulty policy responses, as they have adverse impacts on the students they intend to protect and siphon resources away from policies that more effectively ensure student safety and success.

A relatively small number of the students arrested in Delaware were charged with felony offenses (approximately 9%), while the overwhelming majority of students were charged with misdemeanors and violations (approximately 91%). Moreover, students rarely faced high-level felony charges.

Although the Delaware student population is evenly split between genders, 65% of the arrested students were male, and 35% were female. Black students comprised 67% of the arrested students while only accounting for 32% of the student body. Meanwhile, white students accounted for 31% of those arrested in school, but half of the student body. Black students, therefore, were approximately three-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested than white students.

Yeah, I know, all cops are bigoted gun crazy a-holes who will shoot black kids because they hate them and shoot others for talking back. What horrible monsters cops are. I know.

That article wasn’t an opinion. It was hard, factual data.

So we can protect our kids, we can’t get the guns off the streets and nothing will get done. See you at the next school shooting. Have a nice day.

I try to.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

  1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
  2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
  3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
  4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

  1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose.
  2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
  3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

Although I’m sure people who use self-defense as a justification would have no problem coming up with lots of reasons they and all their friends and family must be freakish statistical outliers without actually having to consider the possibility that maybe they aren’t.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

But we should totally arm teachers and coaches. That’ll end well.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

  1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
  2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
  3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
  4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

  1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose over its entire lifetime.
  2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
  3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

The setup is flawed.

  1. The existence of instances of self defense are the exceptions that prove the rule.
  2. Relatedly, if law abiding citizens were disarmed they would likely be at greater risk of violence.
  3. Some people are at greater risk of needing self defense than others.
  4. I imagine most of #3 are suicides. Followed by murders of supposed loved ones. We can speculate on the effect there if handguns were banned, but doesnt negate a need for self defense.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

  1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
  2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
  3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
  4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

  1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose over its entire lifetime.
  2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
  3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

The setup is flawed.

  1. The existence of instances of self defense are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I think we’re talking past each other here. Buying a gun increases your risk of danger more than it increases your safety. Buying a gun makes you overall less safe which moots the safety justification.

  1. Relatedly, if law abiding citizens were disarmed they would likely be at greater risk of violence.

That’s not true at all. Burglars are more likely to steal from houses if they know there’s guns in the house. By buying the gun, you’re increasing your risk of becoming a crime victim, which could lead to violence.

  1. Some people are at greater risk of needing self defense than others.

That is true. And some people endanger their loved ones more than others. On average, the rate is just over 40x different, that’s all.

  1. I imagine most of #3 are suicides. Followed by murders of supposed loved ones.

Suicides, accidents, murders, burglars who break into your house to steal your guns because you posted a helpful “Protected by Smith & Wesson” sign outside to advertise the fact, and then they shoot you when you interrupt the burglary.

We can speculate on the effect there if handguns were banned, but doesnt negate a need for self defense.

As long as you recognize that the need for self-defense is inextricably tied to a much stronger need to pretend you’re not actually endangering the lives of your loved ones, we’re in agreement.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Regulation. Name any regulation, and that’s another option beyond just banning guns or having armed guards.

What regulation? like I said, banning guns isn’t going to happen. So what regulation would you suggest?

I’m not an expert on the issue, but some things that sound good to me on a surface level are; raising the minimum age to 21,

probably not going to happen, too much opposition. Also kids could still get them from their parents. I think that is what happened with Columbine.

a ban on high-capacity magazines, more extensive background checks on a national level,

not going to happen, too much opposition.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966662241977360384

I will be strongly pushing Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks! Congress is in a mood to finally do something on this issue - I hope!

I’ll believe it when I see it. You’ll forgive me if don’t take Trump at his word.

These things will help, but I don’t think them alone will be enough.

For sure, but I think Trump’s support of the ideas is a step in the right direction.

He also supported the dreamers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Trump’s support of anything means less than nothing.

Oh, for sure. He’s a notorious liar, I wouldn’t take anything he says at face value. I think his stated support for those ideas is a step in the right direction.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

  1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
  2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
  3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
  4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

  1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose over its entire lifetime.
  2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
  3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

The setup is flawed.

  1. The existence of instances of self defense are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I think we’re talking past each other hear.

So soon?

Buying a gun increases your risk of danger more than it increases your safety.

You’re just repeating your conclusion.

  1. Relatedly, if law abiding citizens were disarmed they would likely be at greater risk of violence.

That’s not true at all. Burglars are more likely to steal from houses if they know there’s guns in the house. By buying the gun, you’re increasing the risk of being a crime victim.

I think burglars are more likely to steal from houses if they know there’s anything of value. I don’t know where you are divining the stat about burglars being in particular more likely to burgle if they know there’s a gun, but I’ll continue to assume you are not offering valid generalizations of stats.

In any event, that does not speak to what would happen when dangerous people (not fearing possibility of self-defense with a firearm) do enter your house - for your belongings, or to hurt someone, their spouse, or child. Then it would just be another unfortunate statistic.

  1. Some people are at greater risk of needing self defense than others.

That is true. And some people endanger their loved ones more than others. On average, the rate is just over 40x different, that’s all.

Some people are going to kill people (including themselves) with or without guns.

  1. I imagine most of #3 are suicides. Followed by murders of supposed loved ones.

Suicides, accidents, murders, burglars who break into your house to steal your guns and kill you when you interrupt them.

I imagine the number of burglars who break into your house, steal your guns, and shoot you with them is a very low number. And indicates certain precautions should be taken, not that you shouldn’t have a gun to defend yourself…from the person breaking into your house with a willingness to kill.

We can speculate on the effect there if handguns were banned, but doesnt negate a need for self defense.

As long as you recognize that the need for self-defense is inextricably tied to a much stronger need to pretend you’re not actually endangering the lives of your loved ones, we’re in agreement.

In light of the foregoing responses, I still don’t buy the attempt at turning this into a simple math problem.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

All those guns that we like to say criminals are going to get their hands on any way usually are stolen from someone who has it.

Less guns means less guns.

Author
Time

Of course it is going to take some time to actually reduce the number of guns floating around out there but the solution is to start reducing the number now not increase it.

Author
Time

Mrebo said:

In light of the foregoing responses, I still don’t buy the attempt at turning this into a simple math problem.

Math is not offended when you ignore it.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)