@greenteakitten said in #42:
> Hospitals don't have a lot of security.
>
Right. But that have some, and that have less mass shooting. It doesn't mean that's why, but it certainly doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to the numbers of them being lower.
> Actually most don't. At least not where I live. Security is very lax.
>
Right. Me and my sister got season passes to a amusement park near us, security was quite lax. Security consisted of a metal detectors, security guards, a conveyor belt metal detectors.(they don't even use it on us every time) the point I'm trying to make through multiple examples is the security don't have to stop the shooter, just like security bars bars on your house. It's to deter them. The harder you make the target, the less likely they try. They don't want to be stopped before anything even happens, if they just want to go kill some security guards they could just go somewhere else. They don't want to fight security!! Even a small amount, the want to kill the people on the other side.
> I don't go to government buildings such as a court house or the Pentagon every day. It's reasonable to conduct a full body search if I'm only going to appear a couple times in my entire life. Schools run every single day.
>
Multiple points where made concerning government buildings, one was that the people who work there pass through security. So unless you saying they work in a suffocating environment, and all other people who work a high security locations like wise.
Youd be making a hard argument to say it's unreasonable to expect children to experience security, that other people go through nearly every day.
Another point was there's less shooting at them then schools, so I'd hope we'd agree there's no lack of people who wood love to shoot up a government building. Either for animosity against the government, or just to kill innocent person(maybe at a famous land mark that's government run)
But it happens less. Why... Maybe it's the security?
> This comment makes absolutely no sense. And it doesn't sound like it would be very nice if I actually understood it either.
>
Less shooting at museums, more security.
> Equating a school with government-owned buildings is just comparing apples to oranges. If schools had the same security as the government did, not only would we suffer >from huge budget deficits,
I'm not necessarily saying it has to be on the same level,(your saying that) the point is they have it. And I think most people would agree this would be desirable targets for evil acts, but there's less at these locations. Why!
>it would also create the exact suffocating environment I was describing earlier that you called rash.
(I don't know if you've ever seen this, but if TSA catches you wearing glitter, they have to do a search aka grope around a bit to make sure you aren't hiding anything suspicious. Learned that the hard way...twice. Now imagine school officials that are supposed to be teaching me history or mathematics doing the same thing every single day, day in, day out. Do you think this is good for morale?)
>
First of it's never gonna be tsa level security, their not gonna be saying you can't have more than one ounce of liquid. Or confiscating your fingernail clippers, its obviously going to be primarily to prevent you from bringing a weapon into the school.
Do I think security is good for moral, if I was worried about being a victim of a mass shooting(witch is very unlikely) no. I don't think going through low grade security every day would bother me, if I was advocating for precautions to be put in place and was currently in the school system. It's like I've said, people go though it all the time for work, the concept of thinking there is a different way just doesn't make sense. We pertect everything valuable with guns... It's what we do. if you owned a bank, would you hire security guards with guns? Or would you just offer free mental health to everyone who wants it? Both wouldn't be a bad idea, but no security guards wouldn't work to well. But then replace the gold and money with children, some bank don't even have great security. Sometimes none, I think children deserve a lot better then money and gold.
> Yes I agree with you on this. Schools are pretty good targets.
>
Ya, basically it's, come on in and school us.
> I don't think a shooter out for revenge would care too much about how many they kill so much as just killing.
>
Well, if they want a particular target it does.
But if you want revenge you want the to make a statement, if you don't end up killing anyone or your stoped before you even get through the door.... That's the kind of things that would deter you from trying in the first place.
> Have you been in a typical "public high school" in a decently-sized city? They are absolutely huge. In urban areas, it varies between 2,000 to 5,000 students. Even my local "smaller" high school has over 1,500 students. Metal detectors are incredibly >impractical because they detect all metal,
Right.
>not just guns. (Not to mention, non-metal guns exist,
they are just rarer and much less useful.)
>
Non-metal guns don't have the firing capacity, nor the strength to do a mass shooting. And even come close to the deviation or a regular semi auto, and there are guns the a metal detectors can't pick up. But something like that would be very expensive, and probably quite rare, some not really something to give basically any thought to.
>Let's give a conservative estimate. 2,000 students line up. Let's assume most students are responsible and avoid metal, but some forget and still have a metal fork in their lunch box, or make another similar mistake.
>
Ya. That should stop relatively soon. And even if you need some metal objects you just put them in a small see through bag you could put in your back pack,(witch you could remove during the security check) the back pack wouldn't have to be clear. But it wouldn't hurt, you may not be aware, but even if you have a regular job a majority of the time you have to have a clear bag. Even at the amusement park I mentioned earlier, the employees all have to have one. You can clearly see them all caring a small clear back pack.
>Now I'm going to guesstimate that's about 10 seconds per student. 10 seconds * 2,000 = 5.56 hours. That's nearly the whole school day. But let's assume that we have 10 people there helping. That's still 33 minutes. 33 minutes to stand outside a door and wait to get into class, every single morning, without fail. It's just not a feasible task for schools. And this is a conservative estimate, on average, it would take much longer than 10 seconds, and I'm willing to bet the first day of metal detecting could extend up to a whole school day if a school was sufficiently large. (As someone who has gone through metal detectors [albeit not in school], they are not exactly the fastest thing in the world, particularly if you keep on forgetting that you have something metal in your backpack.)
>
You could avert most of the time problem by staggering arrival time of the students,and like wise stager class times. All so you could just start buy being stricter gradually, so it wouldn't be such a shock.
And if you keep for getting, then there's a problem.
> Okay? I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here; sorry I'm a bit slow. We were talking about ways to prevent school shootings WITHOUT more guns. Not WITH more. Or so I thought?
>
I never thought that.... I'm sorry if I'm wrong, if you could show me something you or I said to that affect I'd be interested to read it.
> Yes, I do, but I believe we are talking about the secular side of things here.
>
The secular side doesn't have a answer, thats why it's like this.
> Either everybody in this nation gets free mandatory gun safety + self defense training starting when they're in high school, or we place so many restrictions on obtaining a gun that it becomes virtually impossible. Pick one or the other: either everybody can defend themselves in case of an attack or nobody can attack in the first place. Of course, this is not foolproof. But both solutions would be better than this "stuck in the middle" we have nowadays.
>
The problem is that you don't think in terms of what's possible in reality, your thinking in ideal circumstances that sadly aren't going to happen.
First you think it would be a burden on the school system to up security to the extent necessary, fare enough. But you don't think it would cause a much, much, bigger burden on the tax payer(witch would be the tax payer both cases) change the laws, then get everyone to give/buy back every unlawfully own gun. Witch won't happen, buy backs would only get back mostly guns no one wants(like your grandpas single shot shotgun with the barrel that's about rusted through and maybe some cheaer guns people would just like to sell) and then you'd have at this time what would be illegal guns that conveniently got lost in a "boating accident" witch just means there being hidden. So then unless we descend into marshall law to get all the illegal guns back, watch would descend it civil war. So taking them is not happening, as far as mandatory gun safe. And or free gun safety courses to buy a gun.... Ya. Not happening. And even if you could do something on these lines, criminals would just have them anyway. Or even if we somehow became a nation with no public owner ship of guns, just like any other
> Of course! Take your time. But I would be genuinely curious to see what solution you have that doesn't involve more/less guns.
@greenteakitten said in #42:
> Hospitals don't have a lot of security.
>
Right. But that have some, and that have less mass shooting. It doesn't mean that's why, but it certainly doesn't mean it doesn't contribute to the numbers of them being lower.
> Actually most don't. At least not where I live. Security is very lax.
>
Right. Me and my sister got season passes to a amusement park near us, security was quite lax. Security consisted of a metal detectors, security guards, a conveyor belt metal detectors.(they don't even use it on us every time) the point I'm trying to make through multiple examples is the security don't have to stop the shooter, just like security bars bars on your house. It's to deter them. The harder you make the target, the less likely they try. They don't want to be stopped before anything even happens, if they just want to go kill some security guards they could just go somewhere else. They don't want to fight security!! Even a small amount, the want to kill the people on the other side.
> I don't go to government buildings such as a court house or the Pentagon every day. It's reasonable to conduct a full body search if I'm only going to appear a couple times in my entire life. Schools run every single day.
>
Multiple points where made concerning government buildings, one was that the people who work there pass through security. So unless you saying they work in a suffocating environment, and all other people who work a high security locations like wise.
Youd be making a hard argument to say it's unreasonable to expect children to experience security, that other people go through nearly every day.
Another point was there's less shooting at them then schools, so I'd hope we'd agree there's no lack of people who wood love to shoot up a government building. Either for animosity against the government, or just to kill innocent person(maybe at a famous land mark that's government run)
But it happens less. Why... Maybe it's the security?
> This comment makes absolutely no sense. And it doesn't sound like it would be very nice if I actually understood it either.
>
Less shooting at museums, more security.
> Equating a school with government-owned buildings is just comparing apples to oranges. If schools had the same security as the government did, not only would we suffer >from huge budget deficits,
I'm not necessarily saying it has to be on the same level,(your saying that) the point is they have it. And I think most people would agree this would be desirable targets for evil acts, but there's less at these locations. Why!
>it would also create the exact suffocating environment I was describing earlier that you called rash.
(I don't know if you've ever seen this, but if TSA catches you wearing glitter, they have to do a search aka grope around a bit to make sure you aren't hiding anything suspicious. Learned that the hard way...twice. Now imagine school officials that are supposed to be teaching me history or mathematics doing the same thing every single day, day in, day out. Do you think this is good for morale?)
>
First of it's never gonna be tsa level security, their not gonna be saying you can't have more than one ounce of liquid. Or confiscating your fingernail clippers, its obviously going to be primarily to prevent you from bringing a weapon into the school.
Do I think security is good for moral, if I was worried about being a victim of a mass shooting(witch is very unlikely) no. I don't think going through low grade security every day would bother me, if I was advocating for precautions to be put in place and was currently in the school system. It's like I've said, people go though it all the time for work, the concept of thinking there is a different way just doesn't make sense. We pertect everything valuable with guns... It's what we do. if you owned a bank, would you hire security guards with guns? Or would you just offer free mental health to everyone who wants it? Both wouldn't be a bad idea, but no security guards wouldn't work to well. But then replace the gold and money with children, some bank don't even have great security. Sometimes none, I think children deserve a lot better then money and gold.
> Yes I agree with you on this. Schools are pretty good targets.
>
Ya, basically it's, come on in and school us.
> I don't think a shooter out for revenge would care too much about how many they kill so much as just killing.
>
Well, if they want a particular target it does.
But if you want revenge you want the to make a statement, if you don't end up killing anyone or your stoped before you even get through the door.... That's the kind of things that would deter you from trying in the first place.
> Have you been in a typical "public high school" in a decently-sized city? They are absolutely huge. In urban areas, it varies between 2,000 to 5,000 students. Even my local "smaller" high school has over 1,500 students. Metal detectors are incredibly >impractical because they detect all metal,
Right.
>not just guns. (Not to mention, non-metal guns exist,
they are just rarer and much less useful.)
>
Non-metal guns don't have the firing capacity, nor the strength to do a mass shooting. And even come close to the deviation or a regular semi auto, and there are guns the a metal detectors can't pick up. But something like that would be very expensive, and probably quite rare, some not really something to give basically any thought to.
>Let's give a conservative estimate. 2,000 students line up. Let's assume most students are responsible and avoid metal, but some forget and still have a metal fork in their lunch box, or make another similar mistake.
>
Ya. That should stop relatively soon. And even if you need some metal objects you just put them in a small see through bag you could put in your back pack,(witch you could remove during the security check) the back pack wouldn't have to be clear. But it wouldn't hurt, you may not be aware, but even if you have a regular job a majority of the time you have to have a clear bag. Even at the amusement park I mentioned earlier, the employees all have to have one. You can clearly see them all caring a small clear back pack.
>Now I'm going to guesstimate that's about 10 seconds per student. 10 seconds * 2,000 = 5.56 hours. That's nearly the whole school day. But let's assume that we have 10 people there helping. That's still 33 minutes. 33 minutes to stand outside a door and wait to get into class, every single morning, without fail. It's just not a feasible task for schools. And this is a conservative estimate, on average, it would take much longer than 10 seconds, and I'm willing to bet the first day of metal detecting could extend up to a whole school day if a school was sufficiently large. (As someone who has gone through metal detectors [albeit not in school], they are not exactly the fastest thing in the world, particularly if you keep on forgetting that you have something metal in your backpack.)
>
You could avert most of the time problem by staggering arrival time of the students,and like wise stager class times. All so you could just start buy being stricter gradually, so it wouldn't be such a shock.
And if you keep for getting, then there's a problem.
> Okay? I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at here; sorry I'm a bit slow. We were talking about ways to prevent school shootings WITHOUT more guns. Not WITH more. Or so I thought?
>
I never thought that.... I'm sorry if I'm wrong, if you could show me something you or I said to that affect I'd be interested to read it.
> Yes, I do, but I believe we are talking about the secular side of things here.
>
The secular side doesn't have a answer, thats why it's like this.
> Either everybody in this nation gets free mandatory gun safety + self defense training starting when they're in high school, or we place so many restrictions on obtaining a gun that it becomes virtually impossible. Pick one or the other: either everybody can defend themselves in case of an attack or nobody can attack in the first place. Of course, this is not foolproof. But both solutions would be better than this "stuck in the middle" we have nowadays.
>
The problem is that you don't think in terms of what's possible in reality, your thinking in ideal circumstances that sadly aren't going to happen.
First you think it would be a burden on the school system to up security to the extent necessary, fare enough. But you don't think it would cause a much, much, bigger burden on the tax payer(witch would be the tax payer in both cases) change the laws, then get everyone to give/buy back every unlawfully own gun. Witch won't happen, buy backs would only get back mostly guns no one wants(like your grandpas single shot shotgun with the barrel that's about rusted through and maybe some cheaer guns people would just like to sell) and then you'd have at this time what would be illegal guns that conveniently got lost in a "boating accident" witch just means there being hidden. So then unless we descend into marshall law to get all the illegal guns back, watch would descend it civil war. So taking them is not happening, as far as mandatory gun safety. And or free gun safety courses to buy a gun.... Ya. Not happening. And even if you could do something on these lines, criminals would just have them anyway. Or even if we somehow became a nation with no public owner ship of guns, just like any other nation with similar laws. You just get more stabbing, poisonings, and people killing with hammers, and so on.
> Of course! Take your time. But I would be genuinely curious to see what solution you have that doesn't involve more/less guns.
>
I'll try to type it up soon, it's taking a good amount of time to do this.
I don't type fast and don't spell really well, also I'm trying to be very deliberate with my words. But with out monopolizing my time to much.
