Parkland FL HS shooting, shooter arrested, 17 dead

[Tornado]

I doubt a tyranny or a dictaorship will happen as the US political system and constituion limits any sort of dictatorship from happening.

That's a strange argument to make when before Trump even took office the internet was completely aflame, shouting from the rooftops all of the things Trump would do in his fascism checklist that would turn the country into a police state. That includes GTP, as well.

 

[Dotini]

It works for military and police training because they constantly drill for it, so unless you are advocating that teachers are trained constantly to deal with this then its a nonstarter (and by constantly I mean just that - not annual refreshers, but all the time).

You are an expert on the middle east. Will you please explain for us how Israel successfully uses trained and armed teachers in schools?

 

[Scaff]

You are an expert on the middle east.

That's not a claim I have ever made, nor would make. Please refer to the AUP in regard to making such claims.

Will you please explain for us how Israel successfully uses trained and armed teachers in schools?

And how many times have these teachers (for which you would do well to supply a source) been tested in an active shooter situation (as that would be the criteria needed to judge them as successful)?

Edited to add, seems that armed teachers are NOT the norm by any stretch in Israeli schools.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.173029a57701

“Professionals deal with the security,” Shavit said. “Not the teachers.” - Israel's Ministry of Education.

 

[Dotini]

That's not a claim I have ever made, nor would make. Please refer to the AUP in regard to making such claims.


And how many times have these teachers (for which you would do well to supply a source) been tested in an active shooter situation (as that would be the criteria needed to judge them as successful)?

Sorry. I thought I recalled you as having worked and travelled widely in the middle east. I respectfully withdraw my question.

 

[Scaff]

Sorry. I thought I recalled you as having worked and travelled widely in the middle east. I respectfully withdraw my question.

I have, that doesn't mean I am an expert on everything.

I've never even been to Israel. I do know however how to check before I post an as my edit shows Israel doesn't successfully use armed teachers in schools:

“Professionals deal with the security,” Shavit said. “Not the teachers.” - Israel's Ministry of Education.

Its also a false equivalence as gun ownership levels are totally different, as is the nature of the threat.

 

[UKMikey]

Will you please explain for us how Israel successfully uses trained and armed teachers in schools?

According to this website teachers are armed and trained and have stopped two school shootings since the policy was introduced:

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21714

According to this website there is no policy to arm Israeli teachers and schools shootings are virtually non existent due to the relatively low percentage of the civilian population owning firearms (3.5%) compared to the US (30%).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5838ad0d77a_story.html?utm_term=.1f69d37e6cb8

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/gun-ownership-survey.html

I'm sure these statistics are all biased but without them all we have to go on are anecdotal stories which seem even less reliable to me.

 

[Dotini]

Apparently Israel does use trained and armed teachers in schools, in addition to armed security people.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21714

When terrorists attacked a school in Maalot in 1974, Israel did not declare every school a gun-free zone. It passed a law mandating armed security in schools, provided weapons training to teachers and today runs frequent active shooter drills. There have been only two school shootings since then, and both have ended with teachers killing the terrorists.

 

[Scaff]

Apparently Israel does use trained and armed teachers in schools, in addition to armed security people.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21714

The Israeli Ministry of Education disagree.

Not that an article from the right of Israeli politics would ever have a pro-US bias at all!!

And after a little digging it turns out that in neither of the two school shootings in Israel did a teacher with a gun kill the attacker.

One was stopped by an ex-armed force member who was a part time student and a member of the IDF who lived nearby; and the other by IDF forces.

https://web.archive.org/web/2011071...04546422275&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercaz_HaRav_massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshivat_Otniel_shooting

 

[UKMikey]

Apparently Israel does use trained and armed teachers in schools, in addition to armed security people.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/21714

Yeah, that was the article I quoted in the post directly above yours alongside an article which directly contradicted it.

 

[Scaff]

Yeah, that was the article I quoted in the post directly above yours alongside an article which directly contradicted it.

Over lunch I've been digging into this, and article after article, source after source comes up with the same thing.

Teachers in Israel are not routinely armed.

https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/safety/the-israeli-approach-to-school-security/
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23572/Default.aspx
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-rejects-nras-guns-in-schools-claim/
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0119.htm

Fox & Co. seem to like to claim otherwise, but the actual government the country, people who have worked in the system, etc all say quite the opposite.

 

[Dotini]

Yeah, that was the article I quoted in the post directly above yours alongside an article which directly contradicted it.

We have no shortage of contradictions in the middle east, nor in the US. Call it polarization, internal division, schizophrenia, social decay or whatever. Despite the current hubbub, I doubt there is sufficient will or even ability to end the problem of school shootings. It seems to be endemic to our society, and most everywhere guns are widely available. Once technology has been loosed in the world, there is no easy way to go back in time and in technology. I'm not going to say that since there is no solution then there's no problem. There is a problem. Just no clear or easy way forward. In fact, it may well get worse! I suspect the basic problem is in people, human nature.

 

[UKMikey]

We have no shortage of contradictions in the middle east, nor in the US. Call it polarization, internal division, schizophrenia, social decay or whatever. Despite the current hubbub, I doubt there is sufficient will or even ability to end the problem of school shootings. It seems to be endemic to our society, and most everywhere guns are widely available. Once technology has been loosed in the world, there is no easy way to go back in time and in technology. I'm not going to say that since there is no solution then there's no problem. There is a problem. Just no clear or easy way forward. In fact, it may well get worse! I suspect the basic problem is in people, human nature.

I'm assuming that by "our society" you mean the United States in particular because I compared the Canadian figures and they struggle to average one shooting a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

According to this article Canada's gun laws are more restrictive than the US's though.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/06/13/news/how-us-gun-laws-stack-canadas-wake-florida-shooting

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm assuming that by "our society" you mean the United States in particular because I compared the Canadian figures and they struggle to average one shooting a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

According to this article Canada's gun laws are more restrictive than the US's though.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/06/13/news/how-us-gun-laws-stack-canadas-wake-florida-shooting

According to your "data", Canada has had 6 "massacres" in the last 5 years. According to your same source, there have been zero massacres in the U.S. in that same time period. Sounds a little fishy to me.

 

[Scaff]

According to your "data", Canada has had 6 "massacres" in the last 5 years. According to your same source, there have been zero massacres in the U.S. in that same time period. Sounds a little fishy to me.

From your source:

" it excludes single perpetrator massacres"

From the links provided in your source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_by_year

Wiki even has a section just for school shooting in the US, which for just the 2010's is rather depressingly large:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

 

[Johnnypenso]

From your source:

" it excludes single perpetrator massacres"

From the links provided in your source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_by_year

Wiki even has a section just for school shooting in the US, which for just the 2010's is rather depressingly large:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#2010s

I have no source. I simply input the same words in the title of the "source" and changed the name of the country.

 

[Scaff]

I have no source. I simply input the same words in the title of the "source" and changed the name of the country.

Which you then used to reach a conclusion, one that reading the source indicates that looking at another link provides further data.

Data that doesn't support the conclusion you reached (unless semantics is the next course of action).

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which you then used to reach a conclusion, one that reading the source indicates that looking at another link provides further data.

Data that doesn't support the conclusion you reached (unless semantics is the next course of action).

I didn't reach any conclusions. I said specifically that according to [his] source this is what the data said and that I found it fishy which implies that I'm not drawing any conclusions at all.

 

[Scaff]

I didn't reach any conclusions. I said specifically that according to [his] source this is what the data said and that I found it fishy which implies that I'm not drawing any conclusions at all.

That's you found it fishy and stated so is drawing a conclusion; that the source clearly addresses the very point you made and provides links to sources that show it utterly undermines the point you were making.

Nothing fishy exists about it at all.

 

[Johnnypenso]

That's you found it fishy and stated so is drawing a conclusion; that the source clearly addresses the very point you made and provides links to sources that show it utterly undermines the point you were making.

Nothing fishy exists about it at all.

Nope. It's fishy because I put in the same search words and yet the "data" included in one of the searches is not consistent with the type of data included in the other search using the exact same words. Fishy. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the "data", you are free to draw any conslusions from that you wish. It's Wikipedia, not peer reviewed, scientific analysis.

 

[Scaff]

Nope. It's fishy because I put in the same search words and yet the "data" included in one of the searches is not consistent with the type of data included in the other search using the exact same words. Fishy. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in the "data", you are free to draw any conslusions from that you wish. It's Wikipedia, not peer reviewed, scientific analysis.

And had it not clearly stated why and provided links to the lists that contain the exact data being referred to then I would agree, however its does, as such its not even remotely fishy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

And had it not clearly stated why and provided links to the lists that contain the exact data being referred to then I would agree, however its does, as such its not even remotely fishy.

Agree to disagree. Smells like rotten tuna to me.

 

[Scaff]

Agree to disagree. Smells like rotten tuna to me.

Fine, bit your still to actually explain what is fishy. Simply saying so doesn't really come across as a rounded point.

 

[UKMikey]

Fine, bit your still to actually explain what is fishy. Simply saying so doesn't really come across as a rounded point.

When you can't provide any data (or "data") that disproves a conclusion you don't like, sometimes it's easier to rubbish the other person's source and double down with "it's just my opinion" when someone else repeatedly and correctly points out your error in comprehension.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@Scaff Again, it all boils down to how does one define a Mass shooting. If you take the Canadian definitions, then @Johnnypenso is not necessarily correct here. The San Bernardino shooting was committed by two people, a married couple if memory serves. That was in 2015. Of course, it could be argued that the Las Vegas shooting was a massacre in itself due to the number of dead and injured.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff Again, it all boils down to how does one define a Mass shooting. If you take the Canadian definitions, then @Johnnypenso is not necessarily correct here. The San Bernardino shooting was committed by two people, a married couple if memory serves. That was in 2015. Of course, it could be argued that the Las Vegas shooting was a massacre in itself due to the number of dead and injured.

Indeed, but a single shooter so would not be on the list.

Its simply down to how people editing Wiki have chosen to list them, which does make it slightly more tricky to compare one to the other, but I would not agree that then somehow makes it 'fishy'.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Indeed, but a single shooter so would not be on the list.

Its simply down to how people editing Wiki have chosen to list them, which does make it slightly more tricky to compare one to the other, but I would not agree that then somehow makes it 'fishy'.

One man's tricky is another man's fishy.

 

[Joey D]

In response to the shooting, Dick's Sporting Goods have decided to quit selling "assault-style" rifles at its stores and Field & Stream Stores:

http://pressroom.dicks.com/press-information/media-statements.aspx

It seems like it's more in response to them selling the shooter a shotgun last year than anything and wanting to get ahead of any bad PR. But, whatever its reason, it's really funny how bent out of shape some people are getting. Browsing Facebook comments virtually everyone with a military avatar is claiming that Dick's is infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights.

What I don't understand is if you support the Constitution, shouldn't you also support a free market? A store choosing not to sell you something is not infringing on your rights.

Ultra-conservatives are a special kind of snowflake.

 

[Blood Eagle]

What I don't understand is if you support the Constitution, shouldn't you also support a free market? A store choosing not to sell you something is not infringing on your rights.

Ultra-conservatives are a special kind of snowflake.

This is my take as well and unrelated to firearms but the same people who flipped out about NFL players kneeling for the anthem. It's your protected right to do whatever you want even if that means you looking like a dick in front of a national audience either for reasons you are passionate about or things you don't understand. Super hardcore conservatives and hardcore liberals are literally the same type of person. That said, if someone sues Dicks on a 2A challenge, they may win. If Dick's is doing this for more than a cheap moral victory, good for them. No way to know.

 

[Northstar]

In response to the shooting, Dick's Sporting Goods have decided to quit selling "assault-style" rifles at its stores and Field & Stream Stores:

http://pressroom.dicks.com/press-information/media-statements.aspx

It seems like it's more in response to them selling the shooter a shotgun last year than anything and wanting to get ahead of any bad PR. But, whatever its reason, it's really funny how bent out of shape some people are getting. Browsing Facebook comments virtually everyone with a military avatar is claiming that Dick's is infringing on their 2nd Amendment rights.

What I don't understand is if you support the Constitution, shouldn't you also support a free market? A store choosing not to sell you something is not infringing on your rights.

Ultra-conservatives are a special kind of snowflake.

Man, what a bunch of dicks.

...I’ll get my coat.

That said, if someone sues Dicks on a 2A challenge, they may win.

I doubt they would win considering it would be hard to justify the government telling stores what they have to stock.

Plus, I’m sure there are gun shops that specialize in a certain type of firearm and don’t stock any other kind (not being a gun enthusiast, I have no clue if such a thing actually exists).

 

[Blood Eagle]

Man, what a bunch of dicks.

...I’ll get my coat.



I doubt they would win considering it would be hard to justify the government telling stores what they have to stock.

Plus, I’m sure there are gun shops that specialize in a certain type of firearm and don’t stock any other kind (not being a gun enthusiast, I have no clue if such a thing actually exists).

Not really talking about the type of gun but more the 21 year old thing. Can a business violate rights of individuals because of policy? We've seen religious bakers lose cases of them refusing to bake cakes for Gays.