9 Dead in Dayton....

posted by Spock

We dont need alcohol and cigs either but those arent going anywhere anytime soon

If feels like it was just yesterday when the Marlboro Man created a vest made of cigarette butts and shot up that Joe Camel fan meet up. 

posted by Rotinaj

If feels like it was just yesterday when the Marlboro Man created a vest made of cigarette butts and shot up that Joe Camel fan meet up. 

Wat?

posted by O-Trap

Wat?

Gut said most people don’t need body armor. CC for some reason brought up needing alcohol and cigs as if they are comparable. I made a joke(apparently not a very good one) about using cigs as body armor during a mass shooting. 

posted by O-Trap

I wasn't arguing the psychological element, as psychology can be heavily influenced by nurture.

As for the physiology, that can also be influenced by how it's used, which can be influenced by nurture as well, though I admit that hormones obviously affect it also (namely steroidal hormones, like testosterone or estrogen).

Worthy of note, none of the differences listed are used to account for this difference, while psychology has, for decades, been under the impression that social psychological factors largely account for male aggression in comparison to female aggression.

Even still, the ratio of mass shootings overwhelms the ratios used in any of the studies I could find (the closest I saw was 85% of violent crimes being committed by men in the US in 2004).

 

posted by gut

I'm surprised there's not more regulation around body armor.  There's no good reason for most people to own body armor.

Although this should make for some interesting debate when Schumer tries to propose stricter laws.  I imagine you'll have some soccer moms who demand they be able to purchase a vest for themself and little Johnny.

Shoot, why not?  Realistically, the reason to carry a gun doesn't seem that different from the reason to wear a ballistic vest.

 

The article also listed physiological/biological differences in the brain, most of the article was about that. 

It is a scientific fact that men’s and women’s brains are different, on average. 

Lots of new video out today of him that night.  

My Old HS is arming staff 

posted by geeblock

My Old HS is arming staff 

Is the school itself arming the staff, or is it just permitting certain staff to arm themselves?

posted by geeblock

My Old HS is arming staff 

Good

posted by O-Trap

Is the school itself arming the staff, or is it just permitting certain staff to arm themselves?

I haven’t asked it’s very recent just came up this last 3 days .. I have 3 siblings in that school tho I’m surprised they didn’t provide info to the parents but then again it’s southeast Ohio. I would assume their own guns but maybe a cash stipend to carry 

posted by O-Trap

Is the school itself arming the staff, or is it just permitting certain staff to arm themselves?

Our school does the same thing.  At our school, only the admin knows who carries legally, and only the admin assigns.  It's not public knowledge who carries.  We also have special metal detectors that detect shapes.  Example, a baseball bat carried into the school set it off.  We are po-dunk rural, be we are proactive.  Zero fucks given on my end.  Better safe than sorry.

I know another neighboring school district who arms a couple people, but it is public knowledge who carries.

My kids go to school and they have paid armed guards that are ex military 

I only ask because I do think it makes a palpable difference.

Providing firearms for those carrying would mean that the firearms are purchased by the school, which would mean taxes are being used to fund it.

In those scenarios, I wonder how we'd view the responsibility of a shooting if it were to take place at the hands of one of these staff members with a gun purchased and handed out by the school?

posted by O-Trap

I only ask because I do think it makes a palpable difference.

Providing firearms for those carrying would mean that the firearms are purchased by the school, which would mean taxes are being used to fund it.

In those scenarios, I wonder how we'd view the responsibility of a shooting if it were to take place at the hands of one of these staff members with a gun purchased and handed out by the school?

I am not sure who actually purchases said gun in our situation.

posted by geeblock

My Old HS is arming staff 

The school isn't passing out guns. The school is allowing those with CCW's that are on staff to carry if they want. The sign is there to possibly deter a shooter. Its basically the "anti" gun free zone sign.

The Sidney schools supply the guns which are kept in hidden cobination safes. The teachers/staff in the program train regularly on shooting and tactics.

posted by iclfan2

Good

This.

posted by O-Trap

I only ask because I do think it makes a palpable difference.

Providing firearms for those carrying would mean that the firearms are purchased by the school, which would mean taxes are being used to fund it.

In those scenarios, I wonder how we'd view the responsibility of a shooting if it were to take place at the hands of one of these staff members with a gun purchased and handed out by the school?

Schools spend taxpayer money on safety all the time, not sure your point.  Name a parent and/or taxpayer who would not be happy with an armed teacher taking out a shooter and saving students’ lives.

I can't speak for this school, but from what I've heard/seen in the past with schools around the country that do permit teachers possessing guns in the school is that the teachers aren't always carrying.

A common protocol is certain teacher(s) are authorized to possess the gun(s). But, the gun(s) are stored in a safe that only the teacher(s) and administrator know who is authorized and in possession. That safe can only be accessed by those who are authorized. It's been a common practice further west, where law enforcement may not be as readily available.

I know my wife has already talked to administrators wherever she's taught about carrying. She's qualified and she'd be willing.

Guns and the Do-Something Fallacy

An honest debate on mass shootings starts by admitting limits to federal solutions

By  William McGurn

Aug. 12, 2019 7:18 pm ET

Wall Street Journal Opinion

“Do something!” someone shouted at Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine. The shout came during a candlelight vigil in downtown Dayton, where a disturbed young man just hours before had shot to death nine innocent people, including his own sister. Others in the crowd quickly chimed in, until “what started as just a smattering of voices had morphed into a deafening chant,” according to the Washington Post.

The deafening chant has now moved to Washington, where Congress is feeling pushed to “do something” about mass shootings. In the standard Beltway narrative, were it not for the Second Amendment “absolutists” in thrall to the National Rifle Association, Democrats and Republicans would happily come together on common-sense measures to halt the bloodshed. Even President Trump is now saying, “I think we could get something really good done”—meaning expanded background checks, which the NRA opposes.

 This ought to be Mr. Trump’s moment. After all, he ascended to the Oval Office not by abiding by conventional wisdom but by defying it. Right now we could use some of that defiance, because missing from the debate over mass shootings is a national leader willing to endure the opprobrium that comes with speaking a hard truth: There’s only so much the federal government can do here. 

The American people, we are told, have grown cynical because we know the solutions but can’t implement them because of that pesky Second Amendment. But one driver of public cynicism surely has to be that little of what has been put in place so far has worked as promised. If America is serious about dealing with homicidal young men, the answer won’t be to dump the problem on local cops, the FBI or some federal database—especially when no crime has been committed.

 “Everything’s on the table,” Mr. DeWine told reporters after the Dayton killings. But that really isn’t true. Like so many other pols, the governor means he’s willing to consider legislation controlling guns or access to them. What’s almost certainly not on the table? A critical look at whether more extensive background checks or red-flag laws or bans on “assault weapons” will in fact solve this problem.

The same goes at the federal level. Take the Bipartisan Background Checks Act recently passed by the Democratic House and now being urged on the Republican Senate. David Harsanyi, a senior editor at the Federalist and author of “First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History With the Gun,” notes that “the type of universal background checks now being proposed by Washington would have done nothing to deter any of the mass shootings we’ve seen.” The El Paso and Dayton shooters each apparently passed background checks and acquired their guns legally.

 Skepticism is also in order for so-called red flag laws, which allow police or family members to petition a state court to confiscate firearms temporarily from a person deemed dangerous. In an op-ed for the New York Times, psychiatrist Richard A. Friedman admitted that even “experienced psychiatrists fare no better than a roll of the dice at predicting violence.” The evidence suggests that while red-flag laws do stop suicides, it isn’t clear they prevent mass shootings.

 So what might be an answer? Hillary Clinton pointed the way in her book “It Takes a Village.” Of course, once you move past her title, Mrs. Clinton’s village turns out to depend on federal bureaucrats.

But the principle is worth rescuing. There will never be any federal agency or watch list that can match the real-time collective intelligence that communities have about a young man in their midst who is steeped in toxic ideologies, indulging in fantasies of violence and getting hold of firearms. Alas, far from empowering these local leaders to act when they spot trouble—teachers, scoutmasters, pastors, police chiefs, shopkeepers, coaches—we have spent the past half century undermining their authority.

 A little modesty could go a long way. On the left, few trust the ordinary American as much as they do the federal government, especially with guns. But on the right, Republican congressmen, senators and presidents calling for federal gun control ought to be pressed whether they really believe what they offer is a solution—or merely enough to quiet the “do something” chorus.

Perhaps before Congress “does something,” we ought to let states and localities experiment with giving community leaders the ability to act—while also protecting due process and other constitutional rights. At the least those who insist the solutions are primarily federal ought to answer the most obvious question: Can you show us exactly how your measure would have prevented earlier shootings if it had been in place?

Some will take this as a counsel of despair. That, too, is an unfortunate consequence of today’s narrative. Because acknowledging the limits of the federal government’s ability to stop mass shootings isn’t the end of the debate. It’s the start of an honest one.

TL;DR, but I find it humerous the Philly Mayor is calling for gun control when a felon who already can't own a gun shot some cops. The only "gun control" they want is confiscation. Maybe violent offenders should get longer jail sentences? You can't have it both ways. Cry about the system and then cry when repeat offenders commit crimes.