This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Right on time! Another school shooting...

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:   What's the problem with my proposal ... which is something actually realistic and can be done right away with no new laws.

If your solution is hardening the schools, it's ridiculous! Who the hell is going to pay for it? It'd cost $50 to $100 thousand for each entrance and most high schools have more than one building with multiple entrances. What about portables? Thirty percent of the schools in this country have portable classrooms on campus, how're gonna harden them? Shit, you can shoot a BB through most of them!

You're probably looking at more than $1,000,000 for a high school with two buildings, a gym and 6 or 8 portables and there's at least 20,00 high schools in this country. Do the math.

So.  

We pour tons of dollars into all kinds of dubious educational programs/initiatives.  We pay tons of dollars for adequate security of our military bases, federal buildings, corporate headquarters, etc.   If people in some locality or other don't want to pay for it ... then kids will continue to die.  How much do you think we might spend enforcing all the new gun laws some might propose as a solution?   It's really the only real-world remedy.

(50k to 100k per entrance? Where do you get your figures from, btw?)

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:(50k to 100k per entrance?   Where do you get your figures from, btw?)

It's an educated guess, depending on how secure you want it. Naturally, I included kickbacks and bribes for crooked officials, but walk-through metal detectors, wands and x-ray parcel scanners ain't cheap.

The local contractors are gonna want to get their noses in the trough too. They're gonna "encourage" the elected county officials to secure every damn big window and breezeway.

Then you gotta train and pay a bunch of retired cops to stand there all day. They'll need a full benefits package with all the trimmings, of course. God forbid a college educated teacher should get a better deal than they do. Fifty grand, easy.

View user profile
So far I haven't been able to find hard stats for this online, but I'd like to know how many people are actually killed in the United States each year by Ms-13. Because they seem to be the big scary boogeymen of the conservatives now, and they want to spend billions on walls and keep every immigrant out because they might belong to this gang. Which is a bad gang, don't get me wrong, but...

... but I betcha they don't kill a hundredth of the people that under-regulated firearms murder in this country every year.

The right wants us to be terrified of the one and take tons of precautions, while doing nothing to stop the other.

I'm not certain of this because I couldn't find reliable stats, but I'm betting that just that Vegas asshole, by himself, probably killed and injured more people than MS-13.

Honestly, as a gun-owner, gun control protects my rights. If we make it harder for things like school shootings to happen, then nobody will care as much if reasonable people have firearms. More responsibility from us means society has less reason to "take our guns." So, I’m good with harder background checks, having to complete a safety course to get a license to own a firearm, etc. These things ensure not only the safety of the public, but also the likelihood that guns will remain available.

Also, I’m for ownership of guns that are actually useful for sports, hunting, and self-defense. America currently has this craze for military-style weapons that really are of no practical civilian use. Yes, I know that the Santa Fe shooting wasn't done with an AR-type rifle, so clamping down on those wouldn't help in this case, but high-capacity semi-auto rifles are still some of the most popular mass-shooting weapons, so they might need extra regulation.

The main motivation for having them seems to be "so we can fight off the gubmint!" but if they were any threat to the government's power then Republicans would be the first ones wanting to take 'em away from you. One Hellfire from a drone and the militia's negated. "The second amendment protects all the others" is not a realistic argument in today's society. And I'm not even saying that we'd have to remove that style of weapon completely -- but make it a harder license to get, the way a class 3 used to be. If you really feel like you need one of those, then show legit cause to have one and go through the steps to get that license. That would help weed out the lunatics who get access to them, and it'd also do more to ensure that the weapons were available to those who really wanted them.

And it might stop people from being irresponsible with the things, carrying them into Target stores and WalMarts and all this other ridiculous bullshit. That does nothing to help responsible gun-owners. It just makes us look like alarmist idiots. If you're too afraid to go into WalMart without a rifle, then stay home. I also watch "gun experts" on YouTube demonstrating weapons by rapid-firing on things that are two feet away from 'em, or firing at chunks of metal which guarantee ricochets... which any responsible gun owner will tell you is ignorant behavior. I'd trust these people with their weapons more if their behavior wasn't so goddamned stupid.

Nothing's going to stop all shootings, but we can certainly do more than we have been. So far, Trump has rolled back regulations -- even common-sense ones. I mean, who the hell thinks making it easier for the mentally ill to get weapons is a good idea? He rolled that back just 'cuz Obama put it in place, no other reason. Certain regulations would do more to protect the second amendment than they would to threaten it. Make it clear that the maximum is being done to keep firearms out of the hands of idiots like this kid and the public will be less het-up to take them away from people who are hunting, target-shooting, and defending their homes.

View user profile
Been listening to some Al Stewart while decluttering the man cave this morning:



(hey, if 'Tellie' can just drop music videos in wherever he likes regardless of relevance to the thread topic ... so can I !!!   Very Happy  )

View user profile
zsomething wrote:So far I haven't ....


How would any of that have stopped the most recent school shooter in Texas?

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:Been listening to some Al Stewart while decluttering the man cave this morning:



(hey, if 'Tellie' can just drop music videos in wherever he likes regardless of relevance to the thread topic ... so can I !!!   Very Happy  )



lol!



View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:(50k to 100k per entrance?   Where do you get your figures from, btw?)

It's an educated guess, depending on how secure you want it. Naturally, I included kickbacks and bribes for crooked officials, but walk-through metal detectors, wands and x-ray parcel scanners ain't cheap.

The local contractors are gonna want to get their noses in the trough too. They're gonna "encourage" the elected county officials to secure every damn big window and breezeway.

Then you gotta train and pay a bunch of retired cops to stand there all day. They'll need a full benefits package with all the trimmings, of course. God forbid a college educated teacher should get a better deal than they do. Fifty grand, easy.

Many schools already have detectors, wands, and security guards. As do ALL courthouses you'll notice, in case you haven't visited one lately.

So .... hardening school facilities against armed entrants won't work because it will be too expensive because of .... corruption? Is that what you're saying? That's pretty weak sauce as an argument against if you ask me.

How much is the safety of kids in our public schools worth? You are wanting a cheap or free solution maybe? As the old saying goes ... "there ain't no free lunch"

View user profile
Telstar wrote:


lol!




Oh ... so we gonna do "Dueling Banjos" again today? Okay then

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
zsomething wrote:So far I haven't ....


How would any of that have stopped the most recent school shooter in Texas?




Well, if the kid's father was more responsible and better educated about guns, then maybe he wouldn't have left his weapons where his lunatic son could get access to them. If you lock things up where the people who aren't licensed to have them can get them, then they can't use 'em.

That's not to say it's all the dad's fault, but keeping a tighter rein on your dangerous stuff couldn't hurt, could it?

Like I said, nothing's going to stop every shooting... but there are certainly things that can be done to make them rarer.

View user profile
Since we're throwing off topic into the mix of bad ideas... I'm a huge van Morrison fan. His voice is like a sax.

View user profile
The cool room, Lord is a fool's room.


View user profile

View user profile
polecat wrote:

He forgot abortions, video games and Ritalin.

View user profile
zsomething wrote: ...

Like I said, nothing's going to stop every shooting... but there are certainly things that can be done to make them rarer.  

Like what, specifically?

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
zsomething wrote: ...

Like I said, nothing's going to stop every shooting... but there are certainly things that can be done to make them rarer.  

Like what, specifically?





View user profile
All while we ignore the vast majority of gun crime that takes place in inner cities by felons.

Thank you for your cooperation comrades.

View user profile
polecat wrote:

BINGO!

View user profile
polecat wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:
zsomething wrote: ...

Like I said, nothing's going to stop every shooting... but there are certainly things that can be done to make them rarer.  

Like what, specifically?






So ... .you have no specific proposals. Why am I not surprised?

View user profile
Now here's something "specific" ....


"Marco Rubio, Bill Nelson announce federal 'red flag' bill on firearms"


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-risk-protection-order-rubio-nelson-20180322-story.html

I wonder if Rubio's gonna lose his AAA rating from the NRA?

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:All while we ignore the vast majority of gun crime that takes place in inner cities by felons.

Thank you for your cooperation comrades.

View user profile
If you weren't so easily led around by Soros, dnc,and media that would/should be the focus.

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:So .... hardening school facilities against armed entrants won't work because it will be too expensive because of .... corruption?  Is that what you're saying?   That's pretty weak sauce as an argument against if you ask me.

I didn't say that and your suggesting that I did is another logical fallacy: The Straw Man fallacy. I'll let you look that up because you apparently need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

All I said was that's it's gonna be expensive and asked who's going to pay for it. I then offered a tongue-in-cheek description of why it would be expensive, but that, apparently, went over you head. Imagine that!

The problem is a lot more complicated than you want to admit and hardening schools may, in fact, be unhelpful.

It's time to ask deeper questions about school shootings

As a researcher who has written about school shootings, I believe this latest school shooting underscores that what is missing from the discussion of school violence prevention is the idea of an educational response.

An educational response is important because the "target hardening" approach might actually make things worse by changing students' experience of schools in ways that suggest violence rather than prevent it.

Filling schools with metal detectors, surveillance cameras, police officers and gun-wielding teachers tells students that schools are scary, dangerous and violent places - places where violence is expected to occur.

The "target hardening" approach also has the potential to change how teachers, students and administrators see one another. How teachers understand the children and youth they teach has important educational consequences.

To what extent does the force and coercion employed by many schools contribute to a "might makes right" mentality and associated violence?


http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/05/its_time_to_ask_deeper_questio.html


School shootings are just a subset of the larger problem of mass shootings in our society. Naturally, because ultra-conservatives are too stupid to grasp complexity, you want to focus on the molecules of bark on the trees in an enormous forest.

View user profile
PkrBum wrote:If you weren't so easily led around by Soros, dnc,and media that would/should be the focus.

The subject of THIS thread is school shootings...not your pathetic attempt to derail the conversation. And you can KMA.

View user profile
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:So .... hardening school facilities against armed entrants won't work because it will be too expensive because of .... corruption?  Is that what you're saying?   That's pretty weak sauce as an argument against if you ask me.

I didn't say that

Yes you did. Cost & corruption-related costs were your main argument against it in your last post. That's not a straw man. Do I need to quote you for you to read it again?

Deus X wrote:
and your suggesting that I did is another logical fallacy: The Straw Man fallacy. I'll let you look that up because you apparently need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

All I said was that's it's gonna be expensive and asked who's going to pay for it. I then offered a tongue-in-cheek description of why it would be expensive, but that, apparently, went over you head. Imagine that!

The problem is a lot more complicated than you want to admit and hardening schools may, in fact, be unhelpful.

It's time to ask deeper questions about school shootings

As a researcher who has written about school shootings, I believe this latest school shooting underscores that what is missing from the discussion of school violence prevention is the idea of an educational response.

An educational response is important because the "target hardening" approach might actually make things worse by changing students' experience of schools in ways that suggest violence rather than prevent it.

Filling schools with metal detectors, surveillance cameras, police officers and gun-wielding teachers tells students that schools are scary, dangerous and violent places - places where violence is expected to occur.

The "target hardening" approach also has the potential to change how teachers, students and administrators see one another. How teachers understand the children and youth they teach has important educational consequences.

To what extent does the force and coercion employed by many schools contribute to a "might makes right" mentality and associated violence?


http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/05/its_time_to_ask_deeper_questio.html


School shootings are just a subset of the larger problem of mass shootings in our society. Naturally, because ultra-conservatives are too stupid to grasp complexity, you want to focus on the molecules of bark on the trees in an enormous forest.

I've worked in plenty of secure buildings ... and been to plenty of events where there was lots of physical security.    Didn't scar me.  Don't be such a snowflake ... and quit trying to make our kids out as though they are a bunch of genetic snowflakes either.   They're not as emotionally fragile as you might think ... or as some of them might want us to think.

Deus X wrote:The problem is a lot more complicated than you want to admit and hardening schools may, in fact, be unhelpful.

No ... it's not that complicated.  There's only a certain amount we can do in short order to prevent angry or mentally ill people from getting the idea of shooting a school up.  There's a lot we can do ... in short order ... to keep them from getting inside the school where the kids are assembled in groups (mandated to be there by the State even) and with no quick way to exit the area.

Will it solve 100% of mass shootings in this country?   Well of course not.  Will it better protect our kids from mass shooters entering a school?  You betcha it will.  It works for other facilities.

Deus X wrote:To what extent does the force and coercion employed by many schools contribute to a "might makes right" mentality and associated violence?

Beefing up our schools' physical security sends kids the message "might makes right"  Geez ... what kind of odd thinking is that?  Do you lock your doors at night?

View user profile
EmeraldGhost wrote:
Deus X wrote:
EmeraldGhost wrote:So .... hardening school facilities against armed entrants won't work because it will be too expensive because of .... corruption?  Is that what you're saying?   That's pretty weak sauce as an argument against if you ask me.

I didn't say that

Yes you did.   Cost & corruption-related costs were your main argument against it in your last post.   That's not a straw man.  Do I need to quote you for you to read it again?

Deus X wrote:
and your suggesting that I did is another logical fallacy: The Straw Man fallacy. I'll let you look that up because you apparently need to brush up on your logical fallacies.

All I said was that's it's gonna be expensive and asked who's going to pay for it. I then offered a tongue-in-cheek description of why it would be expensive, but that, apparently, went over you head. Imagine that!

The problem is a lot more complicated than you want to admit and hardening schools may, in fact, be unhelpful.

It's time to ask deeper questions about school shootings

As a researcher who has written about school shootings, I believe this latest school shooting underscores that what is missing from the discussion of school violence prevention is the idea of an educational response.

An educational response is important because the "target hardening" approach might actually make things worse by changing students' experience of schools in ways that suggest violence rather than prevent it.

Filling schools with metal detectors, surveillance cameras, police officers and gun-wielding teachers tells students that schools are scary, dangerous and violent places - places where violence is expected to occur.

The "target hardening" approach also has the potential to change how teachers, students and administrators see one another. How teachers understand the children and youth they teach has important educational consequences.

To what extent does the force and coercion employed by many schools contribute to a "might makes right" mentality and associated violence?


http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/05/its_time_to_ask_deeper_questio.html


School shootings are just a subset of the larger problem of mass shootings in our society. Naturally, because ultra-conservatives are too stupid to grasp complexity, you want to focus on the molecules of bark on the trees in an enormous forest.

I've worked in plenty of secure buildings ... and been to plenty of events where there was lots of physical security.    Didn't scar me.  Don't be such a snowflake ... and quit trying to make our kids out as though they are a bunch of genetic snowflakes either.   They're not as emotionally fragile as you might think ... or as some of them might want us to think.

Deus X wrote:The problem is a lot more complicated than you want to admit and hardening schools may, in fact, be unhelpful.

No ... it's not that complicated.  There's only a certain amount we can do in short order to prevent angry or mentally ill people from getting the idea of shooting a school up.  There's a lot we can do ... in short order ... to keep them from getting inside the school where the kids are assembled in groups (mandated to be there by the State even) and with no quick way to exit the area.

Will it solve 100% of mass shootings in this country?   Well of course not.  Will it better protect our kids from mass shooters entering a school?  You betcha it will.  It works for other facilities.

Deus X wrote:To what extent does the force and coercion employed by many schools contribute to a "might makes right" mentality and associated violence?

Beefing up our schools' physical security sends kids the message "might makes right"  Geez ... what kind of odd thinking is that?  Do you lock your doors at night?

LOL!

Take two Zanax and call me in the morning. Thanks for playing.



Last edited by Deus X on 5/25/2018, 5:45 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 4]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum