Texas shooting.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
So does my niece. And not just men, white men. She posted this. There is so much fallacious there that one scarcely knows where to start.
How is this worse than blaming it on trans-sexuals?
The trans sexual thing appears to have gone away with some fact checking. That’s why it’s not as bad. Because it was falsifiable. This gentlelady”s opinion on the other hand is religious and not falsifiable. And of course mainstream adjacent, it not entirely mainstream.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 10:57 last edited by jon-nyc@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.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
So does my niece. And not just men, white men. She posted this. There is so much fallacious there that one scarcely knows where to start.
How is this worse than blaming it on trans-sexuals?
The trans sexual thing appears to have gone away with some fact checking. That’s why it’s not as bad. Because it was falsifiable. This gentlelady”s opinion on the other hand is religious and not falsifiable. And of course mainstream adjacent, it not entirely mainstream.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 11:12 last edited by Doctor Phibes@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
So does my niece. And not just men, white men. She posted this. There is so much fallacious there that one scarcely knows where to start.
How is this worse than blaming it on trans-sexuals?
The trans sexual thing appears to have gone away with some fact checking. That’s why it’s not as bad. Because it was falsifiable. This gentlelady”s opinion on the other hand is religious and not falsifiable. And of course mainstream adjacent, it not entirely mainstream.
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'.
'Mentally ill' is such a massively broad term. Hey, let's stop the 'mentally ill' from owning guns. Even if they show no additional threat? The subset of the mentally ill that actually constitute a threat is very small. Let's expel people who get in a fight! Seriously? How many people didn't get in a fight at school?
How about let's expel teenagers with a disdain for authority? That would pretty effectively end school shootings, for sure, since homeschooling would become the norm, and good luck!
-
wrote on 28 May 2022, 11:15 last edited by jon-nyc
Case in point: Mass shooting in Chicago after buffalo and before ulvide. 9 people shot, 2 dead.
Anyone even hear about it? Maybe George and Ken?
Post and Times didn’t find it newsworthy.
-
wrote on 28 May 2022, 11:26 last edited by
Pretty much everybody is blaming another group else, here, which is hardly a unique occurrence when bad things happen.
-
wrote on 28 May 2022, 12:15 last edited by
Admittedly, I haven't gone through the UPD response, but standard policy for most departments in a bad situation is to contain the shooter and let SWAT engage. I think in some instances, that is the wrong response, but I would like to know Uvalde's SOP for their SWAT team.
As for the NRA...Not near what it was. Firearm support is not as focused in that organization as it used to be and people who are focusing their frustration on them are doing nothing.
Over the past few days, I've given several practical things we can do to try to increase security at schools. others have chimed in with their thoughts. Some may work, some might not. After all, we're working with people and people don't always follow the rules.
But...At the end if the day, nobody can stop a determined person from killing other people, not if he is willing to die himself.
-
Admittedly, I haven't gone through the UPD response, but standard policy for most departments in a bad situation is to contain the shooter and let SWAT engage. I think in some instances, that is the wrong response, but I would like to know Uvalde's SOP for their SWAT team.
As for the NRA...Not near what it was. Firearm support is not as focused in that organization as it used to be and people who are focusing their frustration on them are doing nothing.
Over the past few days, I've given several practical things we can do to try to increase security at schools. others have chimed in with their thoughts. Some may work, some might not. After all, we're working with people and people don't always follow the rules.
But...At the end if the day, nobody can stop a determined person from killing other people, not if he is willing to die himself.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 12:24 last edited by Catseye3@Jolly said in Texas shooting.:
But...At the end if the day, nobody can stop a determined person from killing other people, not if he is willing to die himself.
But it would sure be nice if these twists offed themselves before they took their rage out on others.
This message brought to you by Catseye3, Master of the Obvious.
^ETA: Shit, can I say Master???
-
@Jolly said in Texas shooting.:
But...At the end if the day, nobody can stop a determined person from killing other people, not if he is willing to die himself.
But it would sure be nice if these twists offed themselves before they took their rage out on others.
This message brought to you by Catseye3, Master of the Obvious.
^ETA: Shit, can I say Master???
wrote on 28 May 2022, 13:13 last edited by -
wrote on 28 May 2022, 14:03 last edited by
Texas Tribune article talking about proposals to "harden schools" with "single entrance" design:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/28/uvalde-shooting-school-doors/
-
wrote on 28 May 2022, 14:24 last edited by
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.
-
Pretty much everybody is blaming another group else, here, which is hardly a unique occurrence when bad things happen.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 14:49 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
Pretty much everybody is blaming another group else, here, which is hardly a unique occurrence when bad things happen.
Actually those who blame the shooter are dismissed as not addressing the problem. There's no way to join the conversation without blaming some group, after that.
-
@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.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 14:56 last edited by@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.
-
Texas Tribune article talking about proposals to "harden schools" with "single entrance" design:
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/28/uvalde-shooting-school-doors/
wrote on 28 May 2022, 14:56 last edited by@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.
-
@Horace said in Texas shooting.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Texas shooting.:
@Mik said in Texas shooting.:
So does my niece. And not just men, white men. She posted this. There is so much fallacious there that one scarcely knows where to start.
How is this worse than blaming it on trans-sexuals?
The trans sexual thing appears to have gone away with some fact checking. That’s why it’s not as bad. Because it was falsifiable. This gentlelady”s opinion on the other hand is religious and not falsifiable. And of course mainstream adjacent, it not entirely mainstream.
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'.
'Mentally ill' is such a massively broad term. Hey, let's stop the 'mentally ill' from owning guns. Even if they show no additional threat? The subset of the mentally ill that actually constitute a threat is very small. Let's expel people who get in a fight! Seriously? How many people didn't get in a fight at school?
How about let's expel teenagers with a disdain for authority? That would pretty effectively end school shootings, for sure, since homeschooling would become the norm, and good luck!
wrote on 28 May 2022, 14:59 last edited by@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.
-
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.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 16:08 last edited by@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.
-
@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.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 16:14 last edited by@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?
-
@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.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 16:19 last edited by@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.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@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.
wrote on 28 May 2022, 16:36 last edited by@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?
-
wrote on 28 May 2022, 16:38 last edited by Mik
I already have said the first and easiest thing is to harden ingress to schools.
-
wrote on 28 May 2022, 16:41 last edited by
@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.
-
wrote on 28 May 2022, 16:45 last edited by
It would have kept Ramos out.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
