Larry of the Lawn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 How much is too much? I didn't want to derail shooting thread with policy discussion, but personally I feel most security measures like armed guards would be illusory.I don't feel its absurd to invoke a slippery slope argument here, at some point the teachers are going to be like Andy Dufraine writing the state for more books, and the Warden advising him that when it comes to schools, the only good uses of taxpayer dollars are more walls and more guards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchback the Second Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Unfortunately, I think the string of school shootings is just one of many natural outcomes of our gun culture as a whole. Until we can finally deal with that this kind of thing is just going to be an everyday occurrence. Shit, we barely blink an eye anymore with these school shootings. The fact that a shooting at a high school just about 30 miles north of where I live doesn't invoke even a hint of shock in me anymore says all I need to know abut where we're at with guns in this country. A kid walking into school one morning with a loaded handgun just seems like it could happen pretty much anywhere now. Pretty fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darzin Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 My highschool had armed police walking around the lunchroom with bullets in the clips of the guns and usually A cop car in the front. Mainly because my town was so quiet there was nothing for them to do otherwise. Not as a matter of policy. The fact that a shooting at a high school just about 30 miles north of where I live doesn't invoke even a hint of shock in me anymore says all I need to know abut where we're at with guns in this country. A kid walking into school one morning with a loaded handgun just seems like it could happen pretty much anywhere now. Pretty fucked . Where are you from? I'm from Gig Harbor just south of Seattle, so yeah this hits a bit close to home for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I think it's important to note that this "trend" of school-shootings occur overwhelmingly in public schools, as opposed to private ones. So, maybe I'm just cherry-picking, but is there a security concern for all schools in the U.S., or just public ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The vast majority of the student population attends public schools, so it's not remotely surprising or interesting that most school shootings occur in public schools. Private school shootings are not unheard of. As for the OP- no, I don't think school security should be the focus. School shootings are an unsettling but extremely small part of a massive gun violence problem in the United States, which we should deal with by just banning guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The vast majority of the student population attends public schools, so it's not remotely surprising or interesting that most school shootings occur in public schools. Private school shootings are not unheard of. As for the OP- no, I don't think school security should be the focus. School shootings are an unsettling but extremely small part of a massive gun violence problem in the United States, which we should deal with by just banning guns. Is there a gun-violence problem in the U.S.? Even when the focus is violent homicides where guns are used, it represents a very small portion of incidents relative to the gun-owning population. And out of curiosity, do you own/possess a gun, Onion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Is there a gun-violence problem in the U.S.? Even when the focus is violent homicides where guns are used, it represents a very small portion of incidents relative to the gun-owning population. Yes. We have the highest homicide (and gun homicide) rate in the Western world. And out of curiosity, do you own/possess a gun, Onion? I doubt this will come as a surprise given that I just called for banning guns, but, no, I do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Yes. We have the highest homicide (and gun homicide) rate in the Western world. Do we really? Do you have a source? A primary one would be preferable. I doubt this will come as a surprise given that I just called for banning guns, but, no, I do not. Then why did you suggest that "we" should ban guns? You do not possess one. I'm also going to make an assumption that you do not sell them, either. So isn't it more accurate to state, "I want the government to prohibit others from owning and selling guns"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Do we really? Do you have a source? A primary one would be preferable. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country Then why did you suggest that "we" should ban guns? You do not possess one. I'm also going to make an assumption that you do not sell them, either. So isn't it more accurate to state, "I want the government to prohibit others from owning and selling guns"? This has to be the most egregious example of arguing semantic bullshit that I have ever encountered on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country The first link isn't a primary source, and the second link provides data that conveys that Mexico has highest homicide rate and count in the "Western-World." Here you can see for yourself: http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/data/GSH2013_Homicide_count_and_rate.xlsx. I may have considered Brazil to be the highest, but I don't know if it's considered as part of the "Emerging World" or the "Western-World." The numbers in the U.S., according to that data, have declined from 2000 to 2012. This has to be the most egregious example of arguing semantic bullshit that I have ever encountered on this forum. Yes, it's semantics, but I don't see where it's "bullshit." Did I happen to mischaracterize what you were stating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 The first link isn't a primary source, and the second link provides data that conveys that Mexico has highest homicide rate and count in the "Western-World." Here you can see for yourself: http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/data/GSH2013_Homicide_count_and_rate.xlsx. I may have considered Brazil to be the highest, but I don't know if it's considered as part of the "Emerging World" or the "Western-World." The numbers in the U.S., according to that data, have declined from 2000 to 2012. Oh, good, more semantics. Yes, I should have been more clear that I was talking about developed Western nations. Mexico and Brazil are both considered to be part of the developing world. Yes, it's semantics, but I don't see where it's "bullshit." Did I happen to mischaracterize what you were stating? You "happened" to pursue an idiotic reading of a plain English statement to facilitate a completely meaningless line of inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 My highschool had armed police walking around the lunchroom with bullets in the clips of the guns and usually A cop car in the front. Mainly because my town was so quiet there was nothing for them to do otherwise. Not as a matter of policy. As a non-American, I find it abhorrent, to tell you the truth, that kids have to put up with armed police officers in their midst. If that's what it takes to be secure... In 12 years of my elementary and secondary schooling, I'd never seen a cop there. No, wait, that's not true. I remember there was a police officer in something like third grade to hold a class on how to be secure in traffic or some such thing. And I'm pretty certain he was unarmed. It would be close to scandalous to parade weapons around kids under any circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talleyrand Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Yes, it's semantics, but I don't see where it's "bullshit." Did I happen to mischaracterize what you were stating? Because it is bullshit semantics as it serves no point other than some weird attempt to look like you're scoring a point. A "We" in that situation was perfectly acceptable. Onion is a human being and a member of the American public its perfectly fine to say that "we" (you know as in the group as a whole, a rather common use of the word) should be banning guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/data/GSH2013_Homicide_count_and_rate.xlsx. The US is at 4.7, with most of the rest of the western world ~1. The closest I saw to America is Norway, at 2.2. In 12 years of my elementary and secondary schooling, I'd never seen a cop there. No, wait, that's not true. I remember there was a police officer in something like third grade to hold a class on how to be secure in traffic or some such thing. And I'm pretty certain he was unarmed. It would be close to scandalous to parade weapons around kids under any circumstances. The only cop that ever showed up at one my schools was a mascot, to talk to us about bullying. The idea that metal detectors, security guards, police, armed teachers, etc, is a better solution than, idk, tighter gun laws, is fucking weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Oh, good, more semantics. Yes, I should have been more clear that I was talking about developed Western nations. Mexico and Brazil are both considered to be part of the developing world. "More semantics?" So what? If you've failed to communicate your point effectivley, placing your gripe at "semantics" is just bad form. Why did you even seek to section off the Western-World in the first place? If you wanted to make distinction, then yes you "should have been more clear." Making your points clear is not my burden. Now, if we can move past that, am I correct in assuming that you believe a ban on guns will reduce gun-homicides, as well as the overall rate? Because it is bullshit semantics as it serves no point other than some weird attempt to look like you're scoring a point. A "We" in that situation was perfectly acceptable. Onion is a human being and a member of the American public its perfectly fine to say that "we" (you know as in the group as a whole, a rather common use of the word) should be banning guns. Whether it looks like "scoring a point" is not an argument. That's merely your subjective perception on what you "believe" I'm doing. And when part of the "public" of which Onion considers himself apart owns/possess/sells guns--120 million, I believe--then "we" no longer includes the entire United States. (That's why I asked if he owned a gun.) So it becomes a question of who constitutes constitutes the "we" and who constitutes the "others?" I always presume that when one offers a point in discussion on what should or shouldn't be done, they're primarily referring to their own ideology until to offer a premise that suggests otherwise. So, for my own understanding as well as Onion's, I find it important--at least in the context of this discussion--to elaborate on these distinctions. Call it semantics, or whatever. But it's not bullshit. Make your points. Don't assume any "common" understanding between us. The US is at 4.7, with most of the rest of the western world ~1. The closest I saw to America is Norway, at 2.2. And Mexico has a rate of 21.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 "More semantics?" So what? If you've failed to communicate your point effectivley, placing your gripe at "semantics" is just bad form. Why did you even seek to section off the Western-World in the first place? If you wanted to make distinction, then yes you "should have been more clear." Making your points clear is not my burden. Now, if we can move past that, am I correct in assuming that you believe a ban on guns will reduce gun-homicides, as well as the overall rate? Whether it looks like "scoring a point" is not an argument. That's merely your subjective perception on what you "believe" I'm doing. And when part of the "public" of which Onion considers himself apart owns/possess/sells guns--120 million, I believe--then "we" no longer includes the entire United States. (That's why I asked if he owned a gun.) So it becomes a question of who constitutes constitutes the "we" and who constitutes the "others?" I always presume that when one offers a point in discussion on what should or shouldn't be done, they're primarily referring to their own ideology until to offer a premise that suggests otherwise. So, for my own understanding as well as Onion's, I find it important--at least in the context of this discussion--to elaborate on these distinctions. Call it semantics, or whatever. But it's not bullshit. Make your points. Don't assume any "common" understanding between us. And Mexico has a rate of 21.5.Okay. If bullshit semantics doesn't work for you, let's go with specious arguments. Sounds like you want to dismiss his argument out of hand because he doesn't own a gun. We, the American people as a whole, gun owning or not, get to have an opinion. And when facts are presented, whether you like them or not or believe them or not or read them correctly or not, you'd prefer to ignore them. Arguing that there can't be common ground because one doesn't own a gun? No wonder this country has such a problem with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Okay. If bullshit semantics doesn't work for you, let's go with specious arguments. Sounds like you want to dismiss his argument out of hand because he doesn't own a gun. We, the American people as a whole, gun owning or not, get to have an opinion. And when facts are presented, whether you like them or not or believe them or not or read them correctly or not, you'd prefer to ignore them. "Sounds like," again, is not argument; what you assume I "prefer" is not an argument. Point out in my statements where I dismissed his argument? If the purpose of my response was to dismiss Onion, then why was the response posed in the form of questions? Arguing that there can't be common ground because one doesn't own a gun? No wonder this country has such a problem with them. Where did I state that "there can't be common ground because one doesn't own a gun"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 And Mexico has a rate of 21.5. He did clarify that he meant "developed world", right? And besides, Mexico is in the middle of a civil war. Yeah, they might not call it that way, but I'm not sure what other term is appropriate when you have over 100,000 dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 He did clarify that he meant "developed world", right? And besides, Mexico is in the middle of a civil war. Yeah, they might not call it that way, but I'm not sure what other term is appropriate when you have over 100,000 dead. No. The US is at 4.7, with most of the rest of the western world ~1. The closest I saw to America is Norway, at 2.2. I'm still trying to find out what's the purpose of making the distinction between the western and developed worlds? Could it perhaps be an attempt to argue a greater scale by ascribing a higher standard because the U.S. is a "developed" nation? If gun-violence is a problem, then why should the concern over rates be affected by a nation's status? Why should the concern be qualified based on relative examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 No. Really? Yes, I should have been more clear that I was talking about developed Western nations. Mexico and Brazil are both considered to be part of the developing world. See? It's good to pay attention, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.