|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 18, 2018 21:45:23 GMT
In a previous job, I worked on parts for the F-35. Yeah, if the rest of the plane was managed as badly as what we did, no wonder it was over designed, over managed, over cost, and under performing. "an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications" |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 18, 2018 21:46:54 GMT
the news is a bit old, already, but Florida has a program starting that will put armed civilians in schools. they will provide their own guns, they will have firearms training, and they will be wearing a uniform.
which supports my theory that they will be the first victim in a school shooting. I guess we will see who is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 18, 2018 22:37:53 GMT
I am not necessarily opposed to arming some teachers, who want to do it and are put through a very intense vetting and training. I'm not so sure about civilians, even though they are trained, being put into that situation. If you're going to do that, just use police officers or hire armed security guards. School safety is too important to be left to volunteer civilians.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 18, 2018 23:05:35 GMT
I am not necessarily opposed to arming some teachers, who want to do it and are put through a very intense vetting and training. I'm not so sure about civilians, even though they are trained, being put into that situation. If you're going to do that, just use police officers or hire armed security guards. School safety is too important to be left to volunteer civilians. I am not convinced ANY armed guard will be sufficient to prevent a mass shooting and am concerned that a shootout will result in collateral damage. but primarily, I recall reading about a study that determined the only difference having an armed guard in a potential mass shooting made was that the guard got shot first. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 19, 2018 1:25:14 GMT
Could be, but I don't think there is a large enough data set to draw any concrete conclusions one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 19, 2018 2:16:50 GMT
Could be, but I don't think there is a large enough data set to draw any concrete conclusions one way or the other. Maybe there aren't enough data points from schools specifically, but there are plenty of data points from other places that can be used as perfectly viable surrogates. Whether you're a home invader, a bank robber, a SWAT officer or an Army general, neutralizing the biggest known threat to your success is always the first order of business for any assault. Human beings have been using that tactic for millenia, so claiming we have no way of knowing if a school shooter would do the same before we've actually seen it done is just a bizzare argument. That's like seeing a previously unknown type of big cat for the first time and claiming we have no way of knowing whether or not it's a carnivore. We may not have any experience with this particular animal, but we certainly know enough about felines in general that we can pretty safely assume it eats some form of meat, just like all the others. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 19, 2018 4:13:37 GMT
Could be, but I don't think there is a large enough data set to draw any concrete conclusions one way or the other. Maybe there aren't enough data points from schools specifically, but there are plenty of data points from other places that can be used as perfectly viable surrogates. Whether you're a home invader, a bank robber, a SWAT officer or an Army general, neutralizing the biggest known threat to your success is always the first order of business for any assault. Human beings have been using that tactic for millenia, so claiming we have no way of knowing if a school shooter would do the same before we've actually seen it done is just a bizzare argument. That's like seeing a previously unknown type of big cat for the first time and claiming we have no way of knowing whether or not it's a carnivore. We may not have any experience with this particular animal, but we certainly know enough about felines in general that we can pretty safely assume it eats some form of meat, just like all the others. I believe TLW was referring specifically to an armed person being on site of a mass shooting. He believes that the armed person would be the first to get killed by the shooter. I don't believe that would be the case, but find no data to support that idea one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 19, 2018 6:55:41 GMT
Maybe there aren't enough data points from schools specifically, but there are plenty of data points from other places that can be used as perfectly viable surrogates. Whether you're a home invader, a bank robber, a SWAT officer or an Army general, neutralizing the biggest known threat to your success is always the first order of business for any assault. Human beings have been using that tactic for millenia, so claiming we have no way of knowing if a school shooter would do the same before we've actually seen it done is just a bizzare argument. That's like seeing a previously unknown type of big cat for the first time and claiming we have no way of knowing whether or not it's a carnivore. We may not have any experience with this particular animal, but we certainly know enough about felines in general that we can pretty safely assume it eats some form of meat, just like all the others. I believe TLW was referring specifically to an armed person being on site of a mass shooting. He believes that the armed person would be the first to get killed by the shooter. I don't believe that would be the case, but find no data to support that idea one way or the other. He was referring specifically to an armed guard, as in a person in some sort of uniform. For a shooter, a uniform would be an easily identifiable threat to his success and therefore an obvious first target. Even if whoever is carrying a gun on school grounds isn't uniformed, as long as the shooter knows or even just assumes there are armed adults present, any adult he sees will be a potential threat and therefore an obvious first target. It's not rocket science. The data you claim is missing can be found on an average playground. Even 10-year-old kids playing dodgeball know to take out the best player first if they get the chance. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 19, 2018 13:36:12 GMT
Maybe there aren't enough data points from schools specifically, but there are plenty of data points from other places that can be used as perfectly viable surrogates. Whether you're a home invader, a bank robber, a SWAT officer or an Army general, neutralizing the biggest known threat to your success is always the first order of business for any assault. Human beings have been using that tactic for millenia, so claiming we have no way of knowing if a school shooter would do the same before we've actually seen it done is just a bizzare argument. That's like seeing a previously unknown type of big cat for the first time and claiming we have no way of knowing whether or not it's a carnivore. We may not have any experience with this particular animal, but we certainly know enough about felines in general that we can pretty safely assume it eats some form of meat, just like all the others. I believe TLW was referring specifically to an armed person being on site of a mass shooting. He believes that the armed person would be the first to get killed by the shooter. I don't believe that would be the case, but find no data to support that idea one way or the other. and by what logic do you believe the shooter would not select the armed (being aware that in the florida scenario, the armed person is also in a distinctive identifying uniform, so everyone knows they are armed) person to be shot by surprise at the beginning of the shooting spree? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 19, 2018 13:44:02 GMT
I believe TLW was referring specifically to an armed person being on site of a mass shooting. He believes that the armed person would be the first to get killed by the shooter. I don't believe that would be the case, but find no data to support that idea one way or the other. and by what logic do you believe the shooter would not select the armed (being aware that in the florida scenario, the armed person is also in a distinctive identifying uniform, so everyone knows they are armed) person to be shot by surprise at the beginning of the shooting spree? that's why arming teachers makes more sense. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 19, 2018 13:54:16 GMT
and by what logic do you believe the shooter would not select the armed (being aware that in the florida scenario, the armed person is also in a distinctive identifying uniform, so everyone knows they are armed) person to be shot by surprise at the beginning of the shooting spree? that's why arming teachers makes more sense. because even though the student knows that teachers can be armed, or even knows WHAT teachers are armed, they won't shoot a teacher because they love and respect them? what makes sense is to NOT arm the shooters. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 19, 2018 14:18:47 GMT
that's why arming teachers makes more sense. because even though the student knows that teachers can be armed, or even knows WHAT teachers are armed, they won't shoot a teacher because they love and respect them? what makes sense is to NOT arm the shooters. So let's pass laws that say a potential school shooter cannot have a gun. Oh wait, we already have those laws. Maybe we should give a try at enforcing them. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 19, 2018 14:53:46 GMT
because even though the student knows that teachers can be armed, or even knows WHAT teachers are armed, they won't shoot a teacher because they love and respect them? what makes sense is to NOT arm the shooters. So let's pass laws that say a potential school shooter cannot have a gun. Oh wait, we already have those laws. Maybe we should give a try at enforcing them. no argument, there. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 28, 2018 9:19:30 GMT
Armed "Civilian's" on school grounds.
Who to choose?.
The ones that volunteer should all be immediately disqualified.
For the love of chocolate logs, look at what you are asking, a civilian who isnt a teacher, who WANTS to go onto school grounds?.
You can first discount a lot by making sure that any who turn up in a dirty rain mac are immediately turned over to the police, and then anyone who is a parent of any child at that school, and therefore quite biased towards any other kid, also is that wise?.
Just who is watching the watchers, ...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 28, 2018 9:59:59 GMT
Armed "Civilian's" on school grounds. Who to choose?. The ones that volunteer should all be immediately disqualified. For the love of chocolate logs, look at what you are asking, a civilian who isnt a teacher, who WANTS to go onto school grounds?. You can first discount a lot by making sure that any who turn up in a dirty rain mac are immediately turned over to the police, and then anyone who is a parent of any child at that school, and therefore quite biased towards any other kid, also is that wise?. Just who is watching the watchers, ... they do all have a thorough background check. which is actually true of ANY person who volunteers to help at a school. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 1, 2018 15:11:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jul 1, 2018 16:22:52 GMT
apnews.com/a2efaf83c5a64e9ab26526895b36f0f0The California state government passed a law requiring that new models of all semi-automatic handguns stamp the weapon's information on the shell casings, thereby making it easier for the police to match the casing to the weapon used. Several gun manufacturers sued, saying that the technology to make it happen doesn't exist and so it would be literally impossible to comply with the law. The California state supreme court shot the suit down, saying that "impossibility" is not good enough for them to invalidate a law.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jul 1, 2018 18:36:43 GMT
And to make the whole thing even more ironic, he wasn't even trying to use the gun. He just dropped it during the tussle and was reaching out to get it back - probably to prevent anyone else from picking up and using it - when the shots were fired by the officers. I suppose the question of blame comes down to whether or not the officers clearly identified themselves and instructed the man to lie still and stop reaching for his gun before they opened fire. If they did and he failed to comply, I would call it a justified shooting. I hope the demonstrations won't be targeted against the two officers in question, but more the idea of armed officers on campus in general, which is what both students and faculty were against from the beginning. Supposing the officers acted as they were trained to, making them scapegoats wouldn't be fair, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens. And on that note, why does the article provide the names of the officers? I've noticed that's something US news outlets often do. Don't they care that that information can be used for retaliation, possibly even against innocent people?! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 2, 2018 0:50:55 GMT
apnews.com/a2efaf83c5a64e9ab26526895b36f0f0The California state government passed a law requiring that new models of all semi-automatic handguns stamp the weapon's information on the shell casings, thereby making it easier for the police to match the casing to the weapon used. Several gun manufacturers sued, saying that the technology to make it happen doesn't exist and so it would be literally impossible to comply with the law. The California state supreme court shot the suit down, saying that "impossibility" is not good enough for them to invalidate a law. stamp the serial number into the chamber. when the gun fires, the brass will take a print of the serial number. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jul 2, 2018 0:53:42 GMT
And to make the whole thing even more ironic, he wasn't even trying to use the gun. He just dropped it during the tussle and was reaching out to get it back - probably to prevent anyone else from picking up and using it - when the shots were fired by the officers. I suppose the question of blame comes down to whether or not the officers clearly identified themselves and instructed the man to lie still and stop reaching for his gun before they opened fire. If they did and he failed to comply, I would call it a justified shooting. I hope the demonstrations won't be targeted against the two officers in question, but more the idea of armed officers on campus in general, which is what both students and faculty were against from the beginning. Supposing the officers acted as they were trained to, making them scapegoats wouldn't be fair, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what happens. And on that note, why does the article provide the names of the officers? I've noticed that's something US news outlets often do. Don't they care that that information can be used for retaliation, possibly even against innocent people?! our media has strange standards about that. |
|
