Highly Trained Armed Security In Schools - Reallocate IRS Funds to Do It

Quote by JustAMan

Lush should remove people like you who continue to sling hateful comments and insults, routinely putting others down for their beliefs and opinions.

Quote by JustAMan

ALL YOU HATERS and bullies should be removed from Lush. I’ve not bullied, insulted nor hated on anyone on Lush, but your group seem to thrive on it. The name should not be “Think Tank” it should be called “Haters’ Bully Pit”

You know, I've only seen you take this stance against people who disagree with you. Let me again remind you that things are expected to get a very heated here in the Think Tank.

I've seen you say some pretty harsh things to people here, and it hasn't yielded this sort of response from others, and yet others don't respond to you this way.

So far, you're the biggest hinderance to any "productive" discourse here because you have these incredibly immature responses to having your support of ideas shut down, or hearing things like "[insert political party here] is [insert derogatory term here]."

If that's not something you can handle without you making responses like this, I strongly advise you to stay out of the Think Tank.

This is the last time I want to see a post like this from you. People should be able to have political opinions/affiliations that don't directly align with yours, and be able to openly challenge them without you responding this way.

Here's to keeping this thread on track. If you have any well-wishes, or have any more to say about how people handle the nature of the Think Tank, feel free to message each other privately.

Please and thanks.

Quote by Magical_felix

I can see why he thought that because for certain licenses you need letters of recommendation like that. Since republicans won't ever stop taking donations from the NRA the only thing you can do is make more hoops for people to jump through to try and weed out the unserious people. But it's flawed, like, if your friend has autism, would you write a letter for them? I mean I don't think I would but because someone has autism should they not have access to guns? I don't know, in my opinion? Probably not.

Autism exists on a spectrum, as does many other disorders that affect cognitive functioning. There are people who have autism that you wouldn't even know/suspect unless they told you. So if we did take into account people's mental capacity and incapacity into gun control (and I think we should), I wonder how that would be qualified.

Quote by Chryses

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion on this and anything else. It is also true that your opinion, when expressed only as what you believe, has the same merit as any other opinion when expressed as a belief.

Indeed, which is why I expressed that having armed forces to protect students and staff in schools from being shot is dancing around the issue without addressing the real problem.

Your prattling about the nature of me having an opinion is irrelevant.

Quote by Tantaleyes

That's not dancing around anything. That's a way of responding the problem.

The problem: Mass shootings (in this context at schools) because of loosely mitigated access to guns, especially those that are favored for mass shootings.

The proposed solution: Armed forces for return fire in future school shootings.

The proposed solution isn't a response to the problem. It's a response to the symptom and blatant avoidance of the actual problem, therefore dancing around the problem.

Quote by Tantaleyes

You're only half right.

The problem is the shootings. You're assuming it's "because of loosely mitigated access to guns". I'm sure you're aware that correlation isn't causation, so why have you made the assumption that's the cause?

Correlation isn't causation, except when it is. That's why the higher the temperature, the faster the ice cream melts.

The problem is the loosely mitigated access to guns. The symptom is the shootings.

Quote by Tantaleyes

You're only half right.

The problem is the shootings. You're assuming it's "because of loosely mitigated access to guns". I'm sure you're aware that correlation isn't causation, so why have you made the assumption that's the cause?

All (mass) shootings are committed by people with guns. As for your causation: you need a gun to shoot, duh. Reducing the number of people with guns will therefore reduce the chances of (mass) shootings.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Ice cream sales go up in the summer, and so do swimming deaths. By your logic the one causes the other.

Like I said, you're only half right. Ther rest is your assumption.

Oh great, now you've brought willful obtuseness and semantics into the conversation.

I'll reiterate my initial statement of "Correlation isn't causation, except when it is." In the case of ice cream sales and swimming deaths being higher in the summer, one isn't causing the other. However, what you're leaving out of your example is the role of the higher temperature in the summer, which is a correlation that causes both to increase. While swimming deaths and ice cream sales both increase in the summer independent of each other, they're both impacted by the causal factor of a higher temperature in the summer. The higher the temperature, the higher the ice cream sales because statistically, people eat more ice cream when it's hot, and statistically, people swim more in the summer, when it's hot, which in turn yields more swimming deaths than in any other time of the year. So you're correct that ice cream sales increase and swimming in the summer have nothing to do with each other, while the underlying cause for both is the higher temperature in the summer.

Much like the underlying cause for shootings, especially at the mass level, is unmitigated access to guns.

Quote by Tantaleyes

You're the one who brought the faulty logic into the thread. That's on you.

Guns in the US are more regulated now than they were in the past, but mass shootings are more frequent now than then

*Edited by moderator.*, no they're not. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Quote by Tantaleyes

You're the one who brought the faulty logic into the thread. That's on you.

Guns in the US are more regulated now than they were in the past, but mass shootings are more frequent now than then

Now now, let's not pretend my logic is faulty. I clearly said "Correlation isn't causation, except when it is." You chose to counter it with a correlation example seemingly without any causation in an attempt to convey that I believed correlation is always causation. Interesting tactic. Just unsuccessful. I'd also like to say that correlation in research is significant because it helps point us to causal factors, even if none exists directly in the correlations that we've observed. But I digress. You're determined to breeze past this, and I'm happy to move on.

True, guns in the US are now more regulated than they were in the past, but a better term is deregulated, because guns are "regulated" in the US in such a way that increases access, not limit it. Gun legislation in the US as it has occurred over last few decades has been to make it easier to access, obtain, carry, conceal, etc. So you're half right (see what I did there?), but they're "regulated" in such a way that makes mass shootings more frequent due to the ever-increasing access to guns.

Quote by Tantaleyes

*Edited by moderator.*They are. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Yes I do *edited by moderator*...

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2023/03/did-assault-weapon-ban-correspond-with-drop-in-mass-shootings-what-the-data-shows.html

Before the 1994 ban:

From 1981 – the earliest year in our analysis – to the rollout of the assault weapons ban in 1994, the proportion of deaths in mass shootings in which an assault rifle was used was lower than it is today.

Yet in this earlier period, mass shooting deaths were steadily rising. Indeed, high-profile mass shootings involving assault rifles – such as thekilling of five children in Stockton, California, in 1989and a1993 San Francisco office attackthat left eight victims dead –provided the impetusbehind a push for a prohibition on some types of gun.

During the 1994-2004 ban:

In the years after the assault weapons ban went into effect, the number of deaths from mass shootings fell, and the increase in the annual number of incidents slowed down. Even including 1999′sColumbine High School massacre– the deadliest mass shooting during the period of the ban – the 1994-2004 period saw lower average annual rates of both mass shootings and deaths resulting from such incidents than before the ban’s inception.

From 2004 onward:

The data shows an almost immediate – and steep – rise in mass shooting deaths in the years after the assault weapons ban expired in 2004.

Breaking the data into absolute numbers, from 2004 to 2017 – the last year of our analysis – the average number of yearly deaths attributed to mass shootings was 25, compared with 5.3 during the 10-year tenure of the ban and 7.2 in the years leading up to the prohibition on assault weapons.

We calculated that the risk of a person in the U.S. dying in a mass shooting was 70% lower during the period in which the assault weapons ban was active. The proportion of overall gun homicides resulting from mass shootings was also down, with nine fewer mass-shooting-related fatalities per 10,000 shooting deaths.

Taking population trends into account, a model we created based on this data suggests that had the federal assault weapons ban been in place throughout the whole period of our study – that is, from 1981 through 2017 – it may have prevented 314 of the 448 mass shooting deaths that occurred during the years in which there was no ban.

And this almost certainly underestimates the total number of lives that could be saved. For our study, we chose only to include mass shooting incidents that were reported and agreed upon by all three of our selected data sources: theLos Angeles Times,Stanford UniversityandMother Jones magazine.

Furthermore, for uniformity, we also chose to use the strict federal definition of an assault weapon – which may not include the entire spectrum of what many people may now consider to be assault weapons.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Yes, that's true. They are. Break the news to MF.

Please don't bastardize and decontextualize my posts. It's gross.

Quote by Tantaleyes

*Edited by moderator.* Thanks for showing mass shootings were lower when there was less regulation!

Mass shooting was lower when there wasn't "regulation" that made gun access easier, specifically access to assault rifles.

Quote by Ironic

You're right. There weren't as many mass shootings when there were fewer regulations.

Yes, when there were fewer regulations that increased accessed to guns, especially specific types, like there exists today and in the time of increasing mass shootings. While it's true that there were fewer mass shootings when there were fewer regulations, it's disingenuous to disregard that current regulations exist to make gun access easier, not limit it, and mass shootings have risen exponentially as a direct result of guns being regulated in a way that yields more access, especially to assault rifles.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Was the transwoman who shot the people at the school a republican?

Oh great, another red herring.

Regardless of political affiliation, why was it so easy for the transwoman, Audrey Hale, to access the gun she used to carry out the shooting?

Quote by Dani

Yes, when there were fewer regulations that increased accessed to guns, especially specific types, like there exists today and in the time of increasing mass shootings. While it's true that there were fewer mass shootings when there were fewer regulations, it's disingenuous to disregard that current regulations exist to make gun access easier, not limit it, and mass shootings have risen exponentially as a direct result of guns being regulated in a way that yields more access, especially to assault rifles.

It's like saying "I was healthy before I got diabetes!" Then you get placed on medication... then you lose your health insurance... then your diabetes worsens because you still have diabetes but without the same levels of medication... then saying "I was healthier before I got diabetes!!!"

*Edited by moderator.*

Quote by Tantaleyes

Tell that to the Dutch politician and also to the French magazine editors and to the Serbian victims.

The Serbian kid probably wouldn't have had access to guns if his father had had none.

It's true that you can't prevent all shootings with stricter gun laws, but since those other two events, 21 and 8 years ago, there have been way more mass shootings in the US than in Europe with its stricter gun laws and, as a result of those laws, much lower numbers of guns per capita. This suggests many of the shootings in the US might not have happened had the US had similarly strict laws and guns per capita.

So yeah, it still sucks for those Serbian victims, Fortuyn and the Charlie Hebdo editors, but hell yeah for all those who might otherwise have been dead by now if we had a gun culture here similar to that of the US.

Quote by Ironic

The facts that mass shootings were lower before regulation than after don't need a gun to back them up.

*Edited by moderator.*

But why were the regulations put in place? Because gun violence was:

A. On the decline?

B. Staying the same?

C. On the rise?

Quote by Magical_felix

It's like saying "I was healthy before I got diabetes!" Then you get placed on medication... then you lose your health insurance... then your diabetes worsens because you still have diabetes but without the same levels of medication... then saying "I was healthier before I got diabetes!!!"

*Edited by moderator.*

Excellent analogy.

Now cut all the other shit out. I'm sick of editing/deleting your posts. I'd really appreciate it if I didn't have to ask again.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Don't blame me for MF making this a political distinction.

I'm not blaming. I'm asking a question about gun access due to increasing "regulations" that make it easier to access guns, especially assault rifles.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Now that you've acknowledged the additional regulations, how've they worked out?

Whaaaa??

They were actually working... The the assault weapons ban was let to expire... Then mass shootings went up again.

Haha omg

Quote by Tantaleyes

That may be true, maybe not. But at least you're admitting it's a suggestion.

Like the suggestion that armed security guards, or "good folks with guns", will be the solution to your problem?

Quote by Tantaleyes

Yeah, you were. You called it a red herring after I called MF out about the political feature.

Well yes, I called it a red herring because honing in on the political affiliations and identity of a transwoman who went into a school with an assault rifle and killed children (students) and staff to bypass acknowledging the reason she was even able to access the weapons she had is indeed a red herring. If you conflate pointing out red herrings intended to circumvent the issue at hand with blaming, then that's not my cross to bear.

Now please, back to the guns and shit. And I ask that any personal issues with anyone be taken up in private messages.

Quote by Ironic

Are you only interested in that one segment of the problem of gun homicides?

Not by a long shot...pun sincerely not intended.

But it is one of my major points in that regard. Unmitigated access to guns due to rampant “regulations” that made it so is by far the biggest cause of gun violence, period.

The regulations, as I’ve said previously, didn’t exist when mass shootings were at an all-time low because new regulations have increased as a direct response to mass shootings and increasing gun violence, which occurred as a direct result of the end of the ban on assault rifles. I’m sure that part of my post will be quoted without context to support contrary points, but I’ll trudge forward anyways.

The reason gun regulations increased in response to mass shootings is because these new regulations make access to guns easier. Because the NRA has a big influence on gun laws because of their funding power, they’ve been successful at advocating for gun “regulations” that continue to decrease restrictions on gun access. Every time there’s a mass shooting, the NRA doubles down and does what they can to shift the focus/blame from guns, and pressure the political players in their pockets to pass legislation that does the same in the form of regulations.

That’s why the whole “guns are now more regulated than they ever were and mass shootings are higher than ever” argument is so dishonest, because the new regulations are designed to make gun access easier than ever, thereby deregulating gun access.

Quote by noll

Like the suggestion that armed security guards, or "good folks with guns", will be the solution to your problem?

Yes just like Uvalde, the good guys with guns saved the day or something.

Let's try this again.

As this particular playground reopens, here are some things to keep in mind:

1. Stick to the topic.

2. Different ideas branching off the same topic and in the context of the topic at hand is not the same as threadjacking or derailing. Truly off topic posts will either be edited or removed, and anyone involved will be redirected.

3. Any post that contains lashing out and calling people "haters" "bullies" or anything of the like simply because they disagreed with you will be removed. If you can't handle "Democrats suck and they're idiots" or "Republicans suck and they're idiots" then consider another area of the forums. Such discourse is par for the course here. Is it nice? No. But if you want someone to be nice to you in a forum where politics and social issues are discussed, the Think Tank is not for you.

4. Any meanderings about others to others will be edited or removed. If you want to have words about another poster speak to them directly.

5. Repeated violations of the aforementioned in this thread can lead to this thread being locked again (and if that happens, it won't be reopened a second time) or removed in its entirety. Any thread or post that is removed by a moderator is removed from Lush servers, gone for good, and therefore irretrievable.

Note: The above applies to all Think Tank threads, present and future.

Another Note: This post exists to get the thread moving forward again. I will not be responding to (and will likely remove) posts about this post since they'll be off topic.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Do you behave in ways you think will get you killed?

i think that recent history has shown us that behaving in a certain way has nothing to do with being shot and/or killed. most of the people killed in mass shootings have just been going about their business and doing nothing illegal or incendiary. i am pretty sure that school kids aren't behaving in a way that merits punishment by death.

Quote by ElCoco

Nope. The "guns are now more regulated than in the past, and the count of gun homicides is larger than ever argument" is both accurate and fair. Sorry if that bothers you.

I agree that the argument is accurate, because it's a statement of fact. However, it's not a fair argument because gun violence is at an all-time high because the heavy regulations exist to ease gun access, not tame it. The mental gymnastics around this is both intriguing and frightening. What's fair about leaning on gun regulations being more abundant in the face of record-setting gun violence when guns are accessible to the extent that they are as a direct result of these more abundant regulations?

We're now at a point where we've accepted mass shootings as an inevitability to the extent of using trained armed forces in schools. I accept that it may be a necessity, because at this point I'd support anything that lessens gun deaths, especially at the mass level, but this reality was absolutely preventable.

As far as your apology goes, it's not needed. Strange notion. Unless of course your apology is insincere and an attempt to be condescending. In which case, it fell flat.