Jeebus

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

I don’t know why you don’t. If shooting happening at a school you’d want the cops there asap. Why? to stop the bad guy. The faster they get there, the faster the badguy can be taking out. But fastest way is if they were there already.

What kind of weaponry would the guard have?

Not sure, Handgun, tazer, pepper spray, the normal sort of cop stuff. I don’t think they would need AR-15s if that is what you mean.

I disagree, I think they would need AR-15s, but I also don’t think they should have them. These shooters come armed to the teeth; shotguns, pistols, rifles, everything.

Warbler said:

I don’t know why you don’t. If shooting happening at a school you’d want the cops there asap. Why? to stop the bad guy. The faster they get there, the faster the badguy can be taking out. But fastest way is if they were there already.

What kind of weaponry would the guard have?

Double posted somehow. Lame

Warbler 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?

Depends on the situation. What I talking about was obeying direct orders in an emergency situation, like an active shooter.

When not in an active shooter situation, what would you have the guard doing?

I don’t know if you read the article I posted, but it said that often, teachers would pawn off that responsibility of dealing with rowdy students over to the police.

I don’t think that is what should be done. The cops are there as a last resort in a dire situation.

The teachers don’t want to deal with the rowdy kids, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the job of an armed guard; what’s the solution?

teachers should be told to deal with normal kind of rowdy. When it is not not normal is when the cops should intervene.

What is “not normal?”

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

It’s still something that should be addressed.

So should a nut trying to come in and murder doubt digit numbers of kids. But instead, the right blocks banning of guns, and it seems the left is unwilling to allow armed guards. So nothing will happen and more kids will die.

Those aren’t the only two options.

Best case scenario, I think, if guards were absolutely necessary and there was no way they weren’t gonna happen; would be that they never interact with the students. Lock them in a room or something, have them watch the security cameras. They’d be solely reserved for dealing with an active threat. Even then, it would still be colossally expensive, and for what? How many of these guards will actually get the chance to do their job? How many will be successful at their job?

The knowledge that they are there itself might prevent a shooting. You don’t see these nuts trying their rampages at a police station do you? Ever wonder why?

Because their trauma is school-related? They weren’t forced to go to a police station nearly every day for 13 years. They weren’t (presumably) bullied at a police station.

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?

Kids and teenagers are rowdy. What happens if they don’t behave themselves?

I want the cops to be trained well enough to be able to deal with them reasonably. For most part, it should be left up the regular school staff to deal with rowdy kids.

What is a “reasonable response?” I don’t know if you read the article I posted, but it said that often, teachers would pawn off that responsibility of dealing with rowdy students over to the police. The teachers don’t want to deal with the rowdy kids, but that absolutely shouldn’t be the job of an armed guard; what’s the solution?

Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student?

unlikely.

It’s still something that should be addressed.

I feel like by putting armed guards in school, they would be bringing with them all the problems of a real police force; racial profiling, overuse of force, the whole nine yards.

I agree these are problems. But we have problems right now. Kids are being murdered in our schools.

And since I don’t think guards would solve that problem, I view this only as creating more unnecessary ones.

Best case scenario, I think, if guards were absolutely necessary and there was no way they weren’t gonna happen; would be that they never interact with the students. Lock them in a room or something, have them watch the security cameras. They’d be solely reserved for dealing with an active threat. Even then, it would still be colossally expensive, and for what? How many of these guards will actually get the chance to do their job? How many will be successful at their job?

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.

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? Kids and teenagers are rowdy. What happens if they don’t behave themselves? Will they be shot? What if the guard feels threatened by a student? I feel like by putting armed guards in school, they would be bringing with them all the problems of a real police force; racial profiling, overuse of force, the whole nine yards.

Warbler said:

Jeebus 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.

*rolls eyes*

Warbler said:

Darth Ender should have added “6) refuses to give intelligent and honest responses and instead responses with sarcasm, jokes, and wise cracks”.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/374812-texas-school-district-threatens-to-suspend-students-who-protest

Jeebus said:

This article is 5 years old; but, sadly, still very relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/no-armed-guards-in-schools

Now, if there was a guarantee that every armed guard would be like the one in CatBus’s story, I don’t think I’d have a problem with it. But a lot of the time, the armed guard doesn’t take the role of a chill beat cop, they become the person in charge of disciplining the students.

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.

Warbler said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’m in high school. I have many wonderful teachers. I don’t think any of them should be armed. Some of my teachers, and again, I love them, can hardly even operate a DVD player. I do not want any of them to be given firearms.

What about police officers that are extremely well trained and especially for a school environment and whom had been extremely background checked?

That’s even worse.

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it.

I don’t.

Explain it to me. Why is this required as a potential pastime in this country?

Since when is any pastime “required”? A lot of people have a lot of fun shooting targets. When you add semi-auto or auto fire, it is just a different way to entertain yourself than with single-fire manual-cock guns.

And to those people I say “too fucking bad.”

Can you name any other type of “entertainment” that is potentially this dangerous, this frequently?

Cars, and they’re very heavily regulated because of it, as I think guns should be.

Dek Rollins said:

On another note, if they can’t get guns, they’ll make homemade explosive devices out of fertilizer and blow the school up.

Not for lack of trying. Columbine, for example, was meant to be a bombing. Luckily, the bombs didn’t go off, but they were still able to kill 15 people because they had guns. If they didn’t have guns, then it would’ve just been a failed bombing, not a school shooting and failed bombing. I think it’s a false equivalence to say “oh they’ll just make bombs and it’ll be the same as if they had guns,” because homemade bombs are a lot easier to fuck up, they’re not nearly as effective as guns.

ray_afraid said:

Are PM’s the only way to find these things out now? Can’t it just be stated?

I don’t know, I figured this particular ban could be a bit of a sensitive subject.

HerekittykittyX said:

Darth Solo said:

Flippin Groundhogs Day all over again, yet something is slightly difforento.

Oh carp I just posted in the insignificant tread.

Why was darth solo banned?

PM’d

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

I will say that Cruz isn’t white supremacist sounding name.

That’s him? Oh, jeez.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Maybe the focus on ineffective broad proposals is the problem. Raising the age to own a firearm to 21 would be more focused and I think legally defensible.

the inevitable argument would be “whoa, I’m old enough to be drafted to carry a weapon in a war, but not old enough to buy one myself???”

Raise the draft age. Or, even better, eliminate the draft.

This article is 5 years old; but, sadly, still very relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/20/no-armed-guards-in-schools

Collipso said:

This might be my last post in this thread since I don’t think I contribute to it at all:

I disagree.

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is race car driving a sport?

it is treated like a sport.

And that’s good enough for you? In that case…

wow, how athletic they look. I bet they are barely breaking a sweat, if at all.

I didn’t know it was possible to miss the point by this much.

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Regardless, video games, at least the ones that have a serious competitive community, are much more physical than chess.

Please explain how.

Same reason that I would consider shooting and archery to be a sport, physical accuracy is a skill that needs to be trained. I guarantee that you can’t pick up a shooting game and be as good as the people who play them professionally.

I agree I would not be as those that play video games professionally.

In an FPS, the physical aspect is part of the game;

I don’t understand how.

Honestly it’s pretty hard to explain without having you experience it yourself. I could send you to an online “aim trainer,” but even those are radically different from an actual in-game experience. Below are two timestamped links to a single video, the first link is an example of what bad aiming looks like, the second is an example of good aiming.

https://youtu.be/FPtASGDl2Rw?t=28s

Now, why didn’t that guy just shoot his two opponents in the head for an instant kill? Well, it’s not as easy as it sounds. Aiming is something you have to work at, it isn’t as simple as just clicking on someone. You have to build muscle memory.

https://youtu.be/FPtASGDl2Rw?t=2m1s

I have played FPS games, I agree skill is involved. But that doesn’t make it a sport.

That’s what good mouse placement and muscle memory can do for you.

whereas in chess, the physical movement only exists because there wasn’t any other way to move the pieces. Unless you’re thinking about Madden or something, that’s not the type of game I’m talking about.

I fail to see how controlling keyboard/mouse/joystick is any more physical than moving pieces around board, especially when it comes to speed and blitz chess.

You can move chess pieces, right? Then why couldn’t you play as well as professionals? Because, as I tried to demonstrate with the videos above, there is a lot more going on.

just as in chess. Especially in speed chess. I have watched videos of professionals playing speed and blitz chess. They have to sometimes think and move blindly fast as their time is running out.

The target is small; and your opponent will always be moving, you have to try and predict how they’re going to move next. In Counter Strike, the game you saw in those videos, you also have to account for recoil patterns, because the guns “move up” as they’re shot.

I know I have played FPS games. It is possible for someone that is hundreds of pounds overweight to be excellent at FPS games. It is not a sport.

The point is that there is physical exertion involved, so it meets the definition of a sport. Any ideas about the level of physical exertion are just your own preconceived notions, and they have no bearing on what is or isn’t a sport.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Is race car driving a sport?

it is treated like a sport.

And that’s good enough for you? In that case…

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Regardless, video games, at least the ones that have a serious competitive community, are much more physical than chess.

Please explain how.

Same reason that I would consider shooting and archery to be a sport, physical accuracy is a skill that needs to be trained. I guarantee that you can’t pick up a shooting game and be as good as the people who play them professionally.

I agree I would not be as those that play video games professionally.

In an FPS, the physical aspect is part of the game;

I don’t understand how.

Honestly it’s pretty hard to explain without having you experience it yourself. I could send you to an online “aim trainer,” but even those are radically different from an actual in-game experience. Below are two timestamped links to a single video, the first link is an example of what bad aiming looks like, the second is an example of good aiming.

https://youtu.be/FPtASGDl2Rw?t=28s

Now, why didn’t that guy just shoot his two opponents in the head for an instant kill? Well, it’s not as easy as it sounds. Aiming is something you have to work at, it isn’t as simple as just clicking on someone. You have to build muscle memory.

https://youtu.be/FPtASGDl2Rw?t=2m1s

That’s what good mouse placement and muscle memory can do for you.

whereas in chess, the physical movement only exists because there wasn’t any other way to move the pieces. Unless you’re thinking about Madden or something, that’s not the type of game I’m talking about.

I fail to see how controlling keyboard/mouse/joystick is any more physical than moving pieces around board, especially when it comes to speed and blitz chess.

You can move chess pieces, right? Then why couldn’t you play as well as professionals? Because, as I tried to demonstrate with the videos above, there is a lot more going on. The target is small; and your opponent will always be moving, you have to try and predict how they’re going to move next. In Counter Strike, the game you saw in those videos, you also have to account for recoil patterns, because the guns “move up” as they’re shot.

TV’s Frink said:

Is race car driving a sport?

No, because it’s boring 😉

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

playing video games is not a sport. There is nothing athletic about it.

Seems to fit this definition.

except the physical exertion part. If video games are a sport, chess should be a sport, pool should be a sport. Poker should be a sport.

Chess is a sport in the eyes of many people.

Not in mine. It is a great game and I love it and it requires great skill and intelligence, but it is not a sport.

Would you consider shooting a sport? I would.

Regardless, video games, at least the ones that have a serious competitive community, are much more physical than chess.

Please explain how.

Same reason that I would consider shooting and archery to be a sport, physical accuracy is a skill that needs to be trained. I guarantee that you can’t pick up a shooting game and be as good as the people who play them professionally. In an FPS, the physical aspect is part of the game; whereas in chess, the physical movement only exists because there wasn’t any other way to move the pieces. Unless you’re thinking about Madden or something, that’s not the type of game I’m talking about.

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

playing video games is not a sport. There is nothing athletic about it.

Seems to fit this definition.

except the physical exertion part. If video games are a sport, chess should be a sport, pool should be a sport. Poker should be a sport.

Chess is a sport in the eyes of many people. Regardless, video games, at least the ones that have a serious competitive community, are much more physical than chess.

For the record, I’m not being fully serious, just playing devil’s advocate.