Texas shooting.
-
@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
@Horace Actually it is falsifiable. Blacks commit the overwhelming majority of mass shootings (>70%) despite being only 13% of the population.
At least as defined by ‘4 or more people shot’.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/americas-overlooked-gun-violence.html
It just is covered differently. Think of all the headlines like “8 people were shot in Chicago this weekend in two separate incidents involving firearms, including a young girl….”
Another difference is that the lone white crazy guy sticks around and finishes off the wounded and is often prepared to confront police. The typical black shooter intends to lie low at grandma’s until everything blows over, so he runs at the first sign of sirens.
Generalizing of course but that’s how it nets out in aggregate.
Point taken, but we should admit the difference in kind between gang shootings and school shootings. The motivations are completely different.
I was more referring to the blame on the white male patriarchy. Which is directly falsifiable by the fact that this shooter was not a white male. But such falsifiability is not possible.
-
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
Texas Tribune article talking about proposals to "harden schools" with "single entrance" design:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/28/uvalde-shooting-school-doors/
Actually, I gave you recommendations the other day from a guy that did executive security. Entrance and egress were among his evaluation.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
In both cases, the facts are falsifiable, but the opinions that led to the claim remain, in spite of the facts. Jolly essentially said that even though the shooter wasn't trans, he believes that trans people shouldn't be allowed to own guns as they're all 'mentally ill'.
So? How is that an insistence on blaming trans people for this shooting? It's not. Nobody's dug into that claim. People just mistakenly believed this guy was trans, and their minds changed upon some fact checking.
As for whether gender confusion is a mental illness, I daresay 99.9% of us wouldn't have sniffed that out as a bit of raging hatred if it'd been presented to us as a clinical, sterile idea 30 years ago. Now we've all been told and cajoled that that idea is a bit of raging hatred, and now most of us believe that that idea is a bit of raging hatred. That's how that works.
-
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
-
@Jolly said in Texas shooting.:
Actually, I gave you recommendations the other day from a guy that did executive security.
How well does "executive security" translates to "public school security"?
Security for a billionaire, his/her immediate family, and his/her entourage has got to have many significant differences than security for hundreds and thousands of public school children, right? The difference in cost of security $ per protected person has got to be huge, right?
-
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
-
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
@Axtremus said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
The author points out rather trivial objections and situations that might make this an imperfect solution in some cases. My belief is it is the low hanging fruit and should be taken seriously. It works quite well in our district and can be done without the time and effort involved in firearm legislation.
I wouldn't characterize all the objections as trivial. Indeed similar design concepts are being evaluated by/for schools here as well. Given the sizes of the school buildings and student populations here, though, actual proposals are more along the line of "multiple entrances, open just around school opening times to let students in quickly, then locked down all but one entrance during class hours." During class hours, the school may have select entrances opened to accommodate specific field/PE traffic, but otherwise will effectively have only one usable entrance that has other security design features to screen all comers.
Even that sort of design concept costs a good sum to implement, and that's reflected in bond proposals and property tax discussions. Wanna guess who are the ones most likely to argue/vote against school bond proposals and against raising property taxes to fund these things? Yeah, the same folks most likely to vote/argue against stricter gun control regulations. It's like the rest of the population has to bear the non-trivial extra cost of "hardening school security" to accommodate the feelings of the pro-gun/anti-tax crowd, just to keep everyone's children safe.
Like the author, your approach is assuming defeat at the hand of some imagined enemy simply because you won’t agree to anything but impossible gun control laws.
What's your idea?
-
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
I already have said the first and easiest thing is to harden ingress to schools.
Hey, I'm down. I don't see how that would actually help against people who really want to commit some violence, but it'd be something to try.
-
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
It would have kept Ramos out.
Show up during bus arrival and it doesn't really matter.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
It would have kept Ramos out.
Show up during bus arrival and it doesn't really matter.
His planning for this attack didn't seem advanced enough to coordinate with bus schedules. And the death count would likely have been lower if he had done it that way.
-
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
It would have kept Ramos out.
Show up during bus arrival and it doesn't really matter.
His planning for this attack didn't seem advanced enough to coordinate with bus schedules.
It doesn't take much to decide to show up at 4:00.
And the death count would likely have been lower if he had done it that way.
I doubt it.
-
@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
The country is going to take such a massive shit on those cops.
Deserved, no?
Probably deserved by one of them, some decision maker. Then the others fell in line, as is their job. It's easy to say each individual should go renegade and be dirty harry, but I think it's ignorant to think that would be the obvious decision in the moment. Unless you also think each individual who failed to make that obvious decision is a cowardly dirt bag. More likely that they're normal people, making normal decisions in an abnormal moment. But shitting on all of them will teach their counterparts throughout the country a lesson, so it's probably for the best.
-
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
@jon-nyc said in Texas shooting.:
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
The country is going to take such a massive shit on those cops.
Deserved, no?
Probably deserved by one of them, some decision maker. Then the others fell in line, as is their job.
Ah, the Nuremberg defense.