Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools

[Svartalf]

Well that model would explain why there has never been any shooting deaths at military bases.
Oh wait.

except

a) There HAVE been shootings with deaths at military bases... don't remember the particulars, but I read about at least one

b) Military bases are essentially gun free environments since it's essentially forbidden to be armed on one, unless you are an MP on duty or going between the arsenal and firing range, with due orders to do so.

[Citizensmith]

Well that model would explain why there has never been any shooting deaths at military bases.
Oh wait.

except

a) There HAVE been shootings with deaths at military bases... don't remember the particulars, but I read about at least one

b) Military bases are essentially gun free environments since it's essentially forbidden to be armed on one, unless you are an MP on duty or going between the arsenal and firing range, with due orders to do so.

So a) was actually the point I was making, hence the 'oh wait' comment. There are a few a year with some notable larger ones recently that got more publicity. b) is highly dependent on the base. Somewhere like Whiteman has very high level security, they get grumpy about cameras let alone guns. Somewhere like Beale is much more relaxed and has a housing area on base. The bases that will thoroughly check every vehicle though is a small minority, and being asked not to carry a gun doesn't mean people don't have one tucked away.

[Citizensmith]

Well that model would explain why there has never been any shooting deaths at military bases.
Oh wait.

Actually, if the research is correct, one could argue that a military base is perhaps the safest place to educate kids.

Not really, at least here in the US, because since the Clinton administration soldiers (not even officers) have been allowed to carry personal firearms on base, which is why they get shot up with some regularity.

Which is meaningless as the rate of violence on bases has remained about constant and if anything is trending downwards.

[Hermit]

The point, since I know most of you will miss it completely, is that violence by deranged people is impossible to predict, and therefore everyone, everywhere is in danger of being a victim of random (or carefully planned) violence (including terrorism)

The point you inexplicably missed is that this thread is titled "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools". The central assertion of the article you quoted at length claimed that a study by Dietz "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools. And it’s all based on numbers and facts." Typically of you, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you take evasive action by moving goal posts. Will you ever realise just how the repetitive employment of that technique highlights your dishonesty?

[Seth]

The point, since I know most of you will miss it completely, is that violence by deranged people is impossible to predict, and therefore everyone, everywhere is in danger of being a victim of random (or carefully planned) violence (including terrorism)

The point you inexplicably missed is that this thread is titled "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools". The central assertion of the article you quoted at length claimed that a study by Dietz "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools. And it’s all based on numbers and facts." Typically of you, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you take evasive action by moving goal posts. Will you ever realise just how the repetitive employment of that technique highlights your dishonesty?

What evidence do you refer to? You cannot say that children are safer in European schools where there are no guns because it's simply not true. The fallacy of your sort of argument is based on the perception that fewer guns in society makes children safer in school and elsewhere, but it does not. The reason it does not is because when I discuss guns in schools keeping kids safer I am of course referring to legally-possessed guns carried in schools for the express purpose of protecting children and staff in the event of an armed attack.

It should be obvious to anyone that in the event of an armed attack, children are safer where the adults responsible for their safety are armed and capable of defending the children against an armed attacker, as opposed to being unarmed and thus unable to defend the children against an armed attacker.

The typical canard that your sort floats falsely assumes that all guns are equally evil and dangerous to children (or anyone else) regardless of who happens to be in possession of a particular gun. This sort of stupidity is demonstrated by the hypocrisy of saying that only police and military should have guns, which implicitly places trust in police and military (who are often the biggest abusers of civil rights worldwide) to carry arms, but which also falsely assumes that absolutely no one else anywhere is capable of safely carrying a firearm and using it properly for the defense of themselves or others.

The left, as Deitz says, objects to ANY guns in schools in many cases, including armed police officers, as a matter of "principal" having nothing to do with fulfilling their obligation to properly care for and protect the children under their supervision.

The common argument is that "schools are places of education" and that "guns disrupt the educational process" and that they are not "consistent with the educational purpose" of a school. This of course completely ignores the fact that kids don't learn anything if they are dead because some fuckwit socialist-pacifist teacher doesn't like the idea of guns.

In Israel, after a number of horrific school attacks by Muslim terrorists, parents and other community members took it upon themselves to stand guard at schools armed with both pistols and fully-automatic rifles. Since they began doing so, no more successful attacks on schools have occurred.

This is because unlike you and your ilk, Israelis are not complete idiots and hoplophobes, and they understand that to respond to an armed attack on a school, people in the school need to be armed.

I don't care if we have to surround schools with revetments, tanks, barbed wire and military troops, we have a duty to keep children safe at school, whatever it takes, and any fuckwit teacher or administrator who objects to necessary steps to protect someone else's child while in their custody should be fired and never allowed to have custody of a child ever again, under any circumstances.

Children in school are less safe the fewer trained, armed adults there are in the school with them. They are safer the more armed, trained adults there are in the school who can take immediate action in the event of an armed attack.

Those are the facts, and denying them is pure idiocy.

[Seth]

Well that model would explain why there has never been any shooting deaths at military bases.
Oh wait.

Actually, if the research is correct, one could argue that a military base is perhaps the safest place to educate kids.

Not really, at least here in the US, because since the Clinton administration soldiers (not even officers) have been allowed to carry personal firearms on base, which is why they get shot up with some regularity.

Which is meaningless as the rate of violence on bases has remained about constant and if anything is trending downwards.

It's not meaningless to the soldiers who get shot because they have been disarmed by their Commander in Chief. Or to their families. Or to anyone with any sort of compassion or concern.

[Hermit]

The point, since I know most of you will miss it completely, is that violence by deranged people is impossible to predict, and therefore everyone, everywhere is in danger of being a victim of random (or carefully planned) violence (including terrorism)

The point you inexplicably missed is that this thread is titled "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools". The central assertion of the article you quoted at length claimed that a study by Dietz "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools. And it’s all based on numbers and facts." Typically of you, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you take evasive action by moving goal posts. Will you ever realise just how the repetitive employment of that technique highlights your dishonesty?

What evidence do you refer to?

I wonder how a study like Dietz's "demolition of one of the left's key gun control arguments once and for all" would fare given the readily available statistics in Australia. Here they are: Massacres in schools: 0. Percentage of teachers carrying concealed weapons: 0.

[Seth]

The point, since I know most of you will miss it completely, is that violence by deranged people is impossible to predict, and therefore everyone, everywhere is in danger of being a victim of random (or carefully planned) violence (including terrorism)

The point you inexplicably missed is that this thread is titled "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools". The central assertion of the article you quoted at length claimed that a study by Dietz "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools. And it’s all based on numbers and facts." Typically of you, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you take evasive action by moving goal posts. Will you ever realise just how the repetitive employment of that technique highlights your dishonesty?

What evidence do you refer to?

I wonder how a study like Dietz's "demolition of one of the left's key gun control arguments once and for all" would fare given the readily available statistics in Australia. Here they are: Massacres in schools: 0. Percentage of teachers carrying concealed weapons: 0.

That's not evidence, that's specious assumption.

How many people in Port Arthur had guns when the shooting started?

One.

How many had guns two hours later?

Two.

How long did it take the police to respond with guns?

Four hours or more.

How many people tried to shoot the killer?

One.

Why wasn't he able to shoot the killer?

Because his ammunition was locked up and he couldn't get to it in time.

If Port Arthur had been a school, any school in Australia, how many people would have a gun in a similar situation?

One.

How long would that person be able to execute children and teachers absolutely unopposed by anyone capable of stopping him?

Six seconds to four hours longer than necessary.

You are operating under the false assumption that past performance predicts future events.

That's why the Aussies got it so terribly wrong at Port Arthur.

You see, it won't happen until it happens, and by then it's too late to begin preparing for it to happen in order to save lives.

Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand this simple fact of life?

If someone starts shooting at kids while I'm around, how many guns are present?

Two to three, and perhaps more.

How long will it take me to respond to a school shooter in my presence?

Less than one second.

So, you don't mind kids getting shot at leisure for minutes to hours. I do mind, and will put a stop to it as quickly as possible, or die trying.

Whose the fucking retard here?

Not me.

[Tero]

Yeah yeah heard it before. Peer reviewed science from NRA convention.

[Hermit]

The point, since I know most of you will miss it completely, is that violence by deranged people is impossible to predict, and therefore everyone, everywhere is in danger of being a victim of random (or carefully planned) violence (including terrorism)

The point you inexplicably missed is that this thread is titled "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools". The central assertion of the article you quoted at length claimed that a study by Dietz "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools. And it’s all based on numbers and facts." Typically of you, when confronted with evidence to the contrary, you take evasive action by moving goal posts. Will you ever realise just how the repetitive employment of that technique highlights your dishonesty?

What evidence do you refer to?

I wonder how a study like Dietz's "demolition of one of the left's key gun control arguments once and for all" would fare given the readily available statistics in Australia. Here they are: Massacres in schools: 0. Percentage of teachers carrying concealed weapons: 0.

That's not evidence, that's specious assumption.

Oh? Let's see now.

Fact: Thread title claims "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools" Study purportedly "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools".
Fact: No massacres in Australian schools. Ever.
Fact: No guns are routinely carried by any teacher or staff in Australian schools. Ever.

You need to do some reading on the difference between fact and specious assumption.

[JimC]

Port Arthur was not a school.

And its consequences were to reduce the overall availability of guns in Oz...

[Seth]

Port Arthur was not a school.

No, it wasn't. It was an adult recreational venue filled with adults, and they got slaughtered because nobody but the bad guy had a gun. That's rather the point. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere, any time, at a school, or a mall, or a public beach.

And its consequences were to reduce the overall availability of guns in Oz...

It only reduced the availability of guns to non-terrorists and non-crazed nutters. Those who want to kill lots of people with guns, or gasoline bombs, have no problem finding the tools with which to kill.

The reason kids (and everyone else) is less safe in gun-free zones is because they cannot be, and often aren't, gun-free. They are only less likely to have an armed citizen capable of intervening when a criminal (who obviously doesn't care about gun-free zone laws) starts shooting the place up.

I find it incomprehensible that someone as smart as you can't see this simple fact and admit its truth.

Now, it may be that a particular society is willing to place children at greater risk by creating gun-free zones in return for a reduction in the overall availability of guns to law-abiding citizens, which may in some cases make it slightly more difficult for a deranged child-killer to obtain the optimal tools to commit murder, but that is a compromise that makes kids LESS SAFE than they would be if teachers and administrators were trained and armed.

That's the fact, jack.

[Seth]

Fact: Thread title claims "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools" Study purportedly "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools".
Fact: No massacres in Australian schools. Ever.
Fact: No guns are routinely carried by any teacher or staff in Australian schools. Ever.

You need to do some reading on the difference between fact and specious assumption.

You need to do some reading on the difference between correlation and causation.

[Hermit]

Fact: Thread title claims "Research shows kids less safe in gun-free schools" Study purportedly "destroys the left’s argument against putting more guns in schools".
Fact: No massacres in Australian schools. Ever.
Fact: No guns are routinely carried by any teacher or staff in Australian schools. Ever.

You need to do some reading on the difference between fact and specious assumption.

You need to do some reading on the difference between correlation and causation.

I already have read your dictionary. It says: When something suits Seth, it's causation. When it doesn't, it's correlation.

[Tyrannical]

I once heard, and it was before my time, that teen age students could bring guns to school so they could hunt after school.