Originally posted by thaughbaerI never said it was a "solution"; in fact I said:
So implement your solution and see what happens. I'm not against the idea I just don't think that it will solve the problem in the way that you do. And yes the security at airports has stopped atrocities on aircraft but it has not stopped atrocities at hotels and embassies or anywhere else. Your argument that because I don't think security at schools is a ...[text shortened]... rity removed everywhere else is as you like to put it absurd... but it's your idea not mine.
There's no proposal that will insure that there will never be another mass shooting. The presence of armed police does deter these incidents, however.
Your argument seems to be that its useless to station armed guards places because the shooters will necessarily just go somewhere else. That is an absurd argument.
Originally posted by no1marauderMy argument is only absurd if it hasn't happened. Exactly how does the presence of armed police at location A deter a crime happening at location B ? The armed police at a sports event did not save the people in a movie theatre. What is it that you find so absurd about someone intent on killing as many people as possible picking somewhere where there are no armed police ? You say it's absurd but isn't that what happens every time ? I find it unlikely that someone who has decided to end not his own life but also the lives of many others would give up just because he finds his first chosen target to be difficult.
I never said it was a "solution"; in fact I said:
There's no proposal that will insure that there will never be another mass shooting. The presence of armed police does deter these incidents, however.
Your argument seems to be that its useless to station armed guards places because the shooters will necessarily just go somewhere else. That is an absurd argument.
This is an emotive subject especially because in the most recent incident children were involved. If a burglar wants to rob a house if my house has a burglar alarm, barbed-wire, a pack of barking dobermans, and you've gone out and left the door open he will pick your house. The burglary still happened and there is still a victim. This does not mean that I should remove my burglar alarm and barbed wire and get rid of the dobermans.
Originally posted by thaughbaerA lot of ifs and speculation. I find it absurd that you think you can read the mind of every potential mass murderer and then ascribe to them perfect information as regards to where and when armed guards are posted. I find it humorous that you automatically assume that every such shooter just decides to kill as many people as possible and then goes down a list to decide where to do it like Goldilocks picking out porridge(School A: "No, too many guards". Airport B: "No, metal detectors" Laundromat C: "Just right"😉.
My argument is only absurd if it hasn't happened. Exactly how does the presence of armed police at location A deter a crime happening at location B ? The armed police at a sports event did not save the people in a movie theatre. What is it that you find so absurd about someone intent on killing as many people as possible picking somewhere where there are ...[text shortened]... not mean that I should remove my burglar alarm and barbed wire and get rid of the dobermans.
I'd say the levels of security and crime prevention techniques reduce overall levels of crime. Increased use of security cameras and more rapid police response times over the last 20 years have contributed to a decrease in robberies for example. And even if your thesis was correct, hardening the most easy targets would make it less likely that so many would be killed on other targets. Personally, I don't think your thesis is correct; most school shootings have been done by people who had a direct connection with the school involved and there's little reason to believe the shooters would have simply picked another target; it's quite possible they may have been deterred completely.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell if that's what you think I have claimed just because I believe criminals will pick easy targets there is little point debating with you. Back to the original question. More guns the answer ? I say no. You say yes.
I find it absurd that you think you can read the mind of every potential mass murderer
2 edits
Originally posted by thaughbaerActually I see little point discussing the issue further with you; you ignored over 90% of the post I made responding to yours and then disingenuously attributed a position to me that I have not adopted. This latest post is nothing of substance, either.
Ok.. so I take it you'd like to continue. What ratio of armed guards to children would you like to see ? 1/30 ? Too little ? Too many ?
EDIT: My position was (and is):
I'm not adverse to funding so that armed police can patrol schools though it would be an expensive undertaking. I am opposed to that duty being pawned off to citizen volunteers or private contractors.
I also continue to support the abolition of large capacity mags though not an "assault rifle" ban.
Your position was:
Actually being on a school premises is probably not high up on the priority list of anyone contemplating such a crime. By doing this surely all you do is move the atrocity to a different location.
I discussed in detail why I think you are wrong and you haven't responded to the points I made. Until you do, further discussion is fruitless.
Originally posted by thaughbaerObviously anyone with criminal intent finds the softest target possible to improve chances of success, and sometimes to minimize chances of injury, death or imprisonment. The latter is not a factor if the criminal has already decided to self destruct.
Well if that's what you think I have claimed just because I believe criminals will pick easy targets there is little point debating with you. Back to the original question. More guns the answer ? I say no. You say yes.
Schools are notoriously easy targets. Schools in Detroit are all equipped with metal detectors and multiple security guards. There aren't shooting in schools here, but there are often shootings outside or in the neighborhood. Plus the schools are notoriously poor at teaching kids, but that's another story.
Nearly every incident of criminal use of a gun ends with police or citizens with guns showing up to stop the shooting. Concealed carry has been around a long time and if the disasters predicted were going to happen they would have by now. People take seriously the responsibility, and often train better than the so called professionals.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt is almost all speculation. It is speculative that if assault rifles and large magazines weren't available the person would be deterred. If no hand guns were available? IF if if. Reality is that mass killing have been done with bombs, blades, poison, you name it.
A lot of ifs and speculation. I find it absurd that you think you can read the mind of every potential mass murderer and then ascribe to them perfect information as regards to where and when armed guards are posted. I find it humorous that you automatically assume that every such shooter just decides to kill as many people as possible and then goes down ...[text shortened]... ply picked another target; it's quite possible they may have been deterred completely.
If we speculate on one thing, why not on others. Jailhouse interviews have shown that convicted criminals gave a lot of thought to their MO. Whether or not mentally imbalance individuals do or don't is perhaps unknown, although there is evidence that they often are highly intelligent, and quite capable of advanced planning, and of making alternative plans. If the 1st plan is irrational, why is it to be presumed that a secondary choice would be rational.
What is the difference between a mass killer, and a serial killer who over time may slaughter more victims?
Originally posted by no1marauderOK.. I apologize for that. I was under the mistaken impression that you had advocated non-police armed guards in schools.
Actually I see little point discussing the issue further with you; you ignored over 90% of the post I made responding to yours and then disingenuously attributed a position to me that I have not adopted. This latest post is nothing of substance, either.
EDIT: My position was (and is):
I'm not adverse to funding so that armed police can patrol schoo ...[text shortened]... d you haven't responded to the points I made. Until you do, further discussion is fruitless.
So to answer your points. No. I am not able to read the minds of mass murderers. I know that airports are places where there are high security measures. Why is it that mass murders may not be in possession of the same information ? Is it a secret ? I have argued that they might pick a location where there is low security.
I am not sure where you are going with the Goldilocks analogy. I assume that a mass murderer is going to try and kill as many people as possible nothing more. If you want to kill as many people as possible walking into a police station to do it probably isn't the smartest move.
The above points didn't really deserve a response but you got one anyway.
If someone has a grievance with a particular establishment then protecting that particular establishment might stop on attack on that particular establishment. I have no idea what might happen next. In the most recent event I've not seen that he was schooled there but that his mother taught there. I can understand the reasons when a disgruntled employee shoots his boss. In the absence of any other information what he did seems fairly random to me.
I don't think CCTV or police response times are going to put off anyone who doesn't intend to see out the day anyway.
The expense of a police presence at schools isn't something that concerns me but then I don't pay US taxes. The topic of this thread is "More guns the answer ?". Unless you are going to divert part of the existing police force into schools on a permanent basis I don't see how you're going to do it without more guns.
Originally posted by normbenignIt's not "speculative" that high capacity mags are designed to increase the firepower of the person wielding it. It is not "speculative" that such mags are very often used in this type of mass slaughter. It is not "speculative" to observe that there are very few, if any instances, where a citizen needed to fire more than 10 shots in rapid fashion in an incident of legitimate self-defense.
It is almost all speculation. It is speculative that if assault rifles and large magazines weren't available the person would be deterred. If no hand guns were available? IF if if. Reality is that mass killing have been done with bombs, blades, poison, you name it.
If we speculate on one thing, why not on others. Jailhouse interviews have shown that co ...[text shortened]... ifference between a mass killer, and a serial killer who over time may slaughter more victims?
Originally posted by thaughbaerHow's this for an idea: take all the police presently employed in the foolish "War on Drugs" and use them to enhance security at schools and other places where large groups of children are present.
OK.. I apologize for that. I was under the mistaken impression that you had advocated non-police armed guards in schools.
So to answer your points. No. I am not able to read the minds of mass murderers. I know that airports are places where there are high security measures. Why is it that mass murders may not be in possession of the same information ? ...[text shortened]... schools on a permanent basis I don't see how you're going to do it without more guns.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat would be a way to pay for armed guards in schools, to be sure. Get the federal government off the backs of the states and let states decide whether they want to legalize marijuana and other drugs. A significant fraction of national resources are being squandered prosecuting and jailing people whose only offense was to be caught carrying an ounce of weed for personal enjoyment.
How's this for an idea: take all the police presently employed in the foolish "War on Drugs" and use them to enhance security at schools and other places where large groups of children are present.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderExactly how "stupid" is it to have an armed officer walking a "beat" in a 2000 square foot kindergarten? Because that's what you're proposing.
These types of arguments are beyond stupid. When I go to a sports event or concert, armed security guards are the norm and I appreciate them being there. The idea that "oh, crazed people will just go somewhere else to kill people, so we shouldn't bother to protect people here" has got to be the most ridiculous "logic" I have ever heard. I guess we can ge Step back, read what you have written and actually think about how absurd you sound.
I think it makes sense, actually, to have an armed guard at schools with over 500 students, maybe 1000. Many such large schools already have some form of security personnel. Armed guards also make sense at places where very large crowds convene, sure. But every school? What "ridiculous logic" are you using there exactly? And what "ridiculous logic" are you employing taking my words and running with them to scenarios where we eliminate security at airports?
Your call to put an armed guard in every school is a completely arbitrary line in the sand. I've pointed out that your reasoning could be extended to movie theaters, places of worship, restaurants, and so on. You scoff at that. I further suggested that guards at schools may not deter a single mass shooting of children, if shooting children is what a nutter is gunning to do. You counter with "slippery slope" slop about eliminating security at airports.
You get positively hysterical when someone suggests any arbitrary line in the sand you make is not etched in stone at the behest of the gods.