Crime School Shooting In Wisconsin

[spamking]

The US is more armed than peer or near-peer countries, and has more shootings not fewer. Idk it's almost like more guns = more people getting shot. Anyway

Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980-2019 | Office of Justice Programs

By examining every recorded incident where one or more people was intentionally shot in a school building during the school day, or where a perpetrator came to school heavily armed with the intent of firing indiscriminately, we examine the association between the presence of an armed officer on...

www.ojp.gov

Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003).

This study had some limitations. It is limited by its reliance on public data, lack of data on community characteristics, and inability to measure deterred shootings (nonevents). However, the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. The well-documented weapons effect explains that the presence of a weapon increases aggression. Whenever firearms are present, there is room for error, and even highly trained officers get split-second decisions wrong. Prior research suggests that many school shooters are actively suicidal, intending to die in the act, so an armed officer may be an incentive rather than a deterrent. The majority of shooters who target schools are students of the school, calling into question the effectiveness of hardened security and active shooter drills. Instead, schools must invest in resources to prevent shootings before they occur.

Obviously, this study has no way to measure how many potential shootings were deterred due to an armed security presence. Nobody thinks armed security will put an end to and stop EVERY shooting. Hardening school security is great, but we're all aware that there is so much more to it than that. The point about armed security and hardening schools is to limit the amount of damage/death to the extent possible. Suicidal shooters will usually end up taking someone else with them, but an armed guard can put an end to that faster than just letting the shooter roam free within the school.

I mean think about, we have fire safety sections in schools and other public buildings to limit the spread of fires, but when someone suggests expanding that to include physical security measures to deter shooters and other violent behavior we get laughed at and told we told want to be inconvenienced or that we don't care about "the children" and get to listen to people whine about "turning schools into prisons".

 

[DoctorTaco]

What's the logic behind imposing more gun control when most firearms will never be used maliciously, and the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a violent crime? How can further restricting an inalienable right reduce violence when criminals, by definition, are already breaking the law?

I wish you guys would admit that your goal is to restrict our rights in exchange for a false sense of security.

500 accidental gun deaths a year, 27,000 accidental gun injuries. Feels like a good place to start.

 

[WklySportsMemes]

500 accidental gun deaths a year, 27,000 accidental gun injuries. Feels like a good place to start.

Kind of curious what are the #s minus self inflicted instances???

I 100% support the rights of " True 'Merican Bald Eagle freedom loving patriots" to love an inanimate object that they will never use for their intended fantasies, to literal death.
Thats a choice I feel they should get to make. So be it. On them.

Now for innocent bystanders as victims. Totally different story. Yeah that's a problem.

 

[650lb Sumo]

Obviously, this study has no way to measure how many potential shootings were deterred due to an armed security presence. Nobody thinks armed security will put an end to and stop EVERY shooting. Hardening school security is great, but we're all aware that there is so much more to it than that. The point about armed security and hardening schools is to limit the amount of damage/death to the extent possible. Suicidal shooters will usually end up taking someone else with them, but an armed guard can put an end to that faster than just letting the shooter roam free within the school.

I mean think about, we have fire safety sections in schools and other public buildings to limit the spread of fires, but when someone suggests expanding that to include physical security measures to deter shooters and other violent behavior we get laughed at and told we told want to be inconvenienced or that we don't care about "the children" and get to listen to people whine about "turning schools into prisons".

It can't measure directly how many shootings were deterred (or took place somewhere else instead) but obviously there are stats on how many shootings there are, and where, every year, so they can calculate whether armed guards deter shootings or not, or how much, with, I would imagine a decent degree of confidence.

This resembles a 'God of the Gaps' argument, and comes up in different guises in these conversations. Firstly a huge amount of crime is prevented or curtailed by guns, but shucks we can't measure it. Secondly, gun criminals go where other people don't have guns. Therefore there should be armed people on guard everywhere. This doesn't appeal to most people, but apparently does to the gun enthusiasts. A lot of them are into the militiaman / prepper fantasising kind of scene. I've posted the stats disproving the 'The overwhelming majority of shootings take place in Gun Free Zones' and 'Concealed carry citizens prevent or curtail mass shootings' canards in the past.

I've posted the stats disproving the 'The overwhelming majority of gun crime is gang-related' canard too, but noticed it being repeated above (I haven't read the whole thread). Seeing as the Gun Cult in the USA is a religious phenomenon, by one of those funny aspects of psychology, arguing against it just makes it stronger. The more time, energy, emotion, attention etc. you direct at people repeating obviously false dogma, the more they do it and somehow it seems to make other people attracted to the ideology as well. Like punks deliberately being obnoxious.

I don't know what the term for it is, but another behaviour you come across quite often, is for someone to come up with a false argument, then when it is disproven abandon it and move to another, and when that is disproven another, until the logical person just gives up and stops responding. Then the false argument purveyor declares victory, being left in possession of the battlefield. The next mass shooting thread, which will no doubt come soon, will feature all of the above implausible and disproven arguments, as the gun worshippers scramble to rationalise their fervour.

 

[Source]

To more easily impose tyranny on the population. That's why people in power want gun control. It's irrelevant why NPCs want gun control. They're just programmed to say it.

What specifically do you consider tyranny and when is it appropriate for citizens to take matters into their hands and fight back against it?

 

[spamking]

500 accidental gun deaths a year, 27,000 accidental gun injuries. Feels like a good place to start.

What law would stop an idiot from mishandling or not being responsible?

 

[spamking]

It can't measure directly how many shootings were deterred (or took place somewhere else instead) but obviously there are stats on how many shootings there are, and where, every year, so they can calculate whether armed guards deter shootings or not, or how much, with, I would imagine a decent degree of confidence.

Using reported or actual shootings as a means to discredit shootings that were deterred by armed security or other enhanced physical security is a pretty dishonest way to push your opinion as being correct and superior. You can't honestly calculate anything based on that view.

This resembles a 'God of the Gaps' argument, and comes up in different guises in these conversations. Firstly a huge amount of crime is prevented or curtailed by guns, but shucks we can't measure it.

Defensive gun use stats exist.

Secondly, gun criminals go where other people don't have guns. Therefore there should be armed people on guard everywhere. This doesn't appeal to most people, but apparently does to the gun enthusiasts. A lot of them are into the militiaman / prepper fantasising kind of scene. I've posted the stats disproving the 'The overwhelming majority of shootings take place in Gun Free Zones' and 'Concealed carry citizens prevent or curtail mass shootings' canards in the past.

You really are disengious aren't you? This discussion is about school shootings. They're the most high-profile shootings and receive the most press. They're also gun-free zones. So pretty much every school shooting is a gun-free zone. Meaning, that your average citizen can't legally carry.

I've posted the stats disproving the 'The overwhelming majority of gun crime is gang-related' canard too, but noticed it being repeated above (I haven't read the whole thread). Seeing as the Gun Cult in the USA is a religious phenomenon, by one of those funny aspects of psychology, arguing against it just makes it stronger. The more time, energy, emotion, attention etc. you direct at people repeating obviously false dogma, the more they do it and somehow it seems to make other people attracted to the ideology as well. Like punks deliberately being obnoxious.

Gang-related activities are a pretty significant factor in gun crime. I'm not going to fault anyone who believes it's a big influence on gun crime. If gun control folks are going to use suicides as a reason to push for more gun control I'll side with those who use "gang violence" as a reason to push against it.

I don't know what the term for it is, but another behaviour you come across quite often, is for someone to come up with a false argument, then when it is disproven just abandon it and move to another, and when that is disproven another, until the logical person just gives up and stops responding. Then the false argument purveyor declares victory, being left in possession of the battlefield. The next mass shooting thread, which will no doubt come soon, will feature all of the above implausible and disproven arguments, as the gun worshippers scramble to rationalise their fervour.

Gun rights proponents aren't the only folks guilty of doing this.

 

[ShadowRun]

it was a stupid post to begin with, but harris isn't the president. she has no authority to do anything about it as vp. so not really the curb stomp....that said, she lost, and she'll do fookin noothin.

Yea she has no power as VP or influence .. good point

 

[650lb Sumo]

Using reported or actual shootings as a means to discredit shootings that were deterred by armed security or other enhanced physical security is a pretty dishonest way to push your opinion as being correct and superior. You can't honestly calculate anything based on that view.

Defensive gun use stats exist.

You really are disengious aren't you? This discussion is about school shootings. They're the most high-profile shootings and receive the most press. They're also gun-free zones. So pretty much every school shooting is a gun-free zone. Meaning, that your average citizen can't legally carry.


Gang-related activities are a pretty significant factor in gun crime. I'm not going to fault anyone who believes it's a big influence on gun crime. If gun control folks are going to use suicides as a reason to push for more gun control I'll side with those who use "gang violence" as a reason to push against it.

Gun rights proponents aren't the only folks guilty of doing this.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, and have a pleasant evening.

 

[My Spot]

The US is more armed than peer or near-peer countries, and has more shootings not fewer. Idk it's almost like more guns = more people getting shot. Anyway

 

[DoctorTaco]

What law would stop an idiot from mishandling or not being responsible?

I was under the impression from posters in this thread that threat of punishment is a deterrent for criminal use of a gun. So I guess then we just need mandatory minimums if you accidentally shoot or kill somebody and they need to be brutal

 

[spamking]

I was under the impression from posters in this thread that threat of punishment is a deterrent for criminal use of a gun.

What does criminal use of a gun have to do with someone being irresponsible with how they use or store it that might lead to one of those ACCIDENTAL deaths you mentioned?

So I guess then we just need mandatory minimums if you accidentally shoot or kill somebody and they need to be brutal

You want to punish someone for being irresponsible? Where would you draw the line of when you would or wouldn't?

If you want to punish those responsible for gun crime then maybe talk to your local DA about not allowing pleas for lesser charges or send a strongly worded email to the ATF about punishing straw purchasers, etc.

 

[Aurelian]

Perhaps it should be harder for people to obtain guns.

The 2a crowd balk at the idea that the government would ever tell them where to keep their guns, how or even if they should secure them, etc.

There's half a billion guns in this country. It's not hard to obtain one illegally, you just need cash and a seller.

Removing all these guns would probably cost the government trillions of dollars so were kinda stuck with them. First you'd have to consider the cost of buying these guns back from citizens and guns are not cheap. Second you'd have to employ tons of people and spend lots of money to facilitate these efforts. It would be a lot more cost effective to just install some metal detectors at schools with checkpoints.

 

[SoSo]

I think what we're seeing is that fewer teens and young adults as a proportion are using substances but that smaller proportion is consuming novel, more dangerous drugs. That's why overall usage is down while overdoses are up. Even with vaping there's a steep decline after its initial spike.

Overdoses are up because the Mexican cartels figured out they could move across the border a thousand hits of fentanyl (if pure powder) in the same package volume 10 hits of heroin would take up. And, where 10 hits of H would say get you a profit of "X", the same volume of fent would give a profit of "10000X". Add in the inherent potency of fent, the shit quality control when cutting pure fent or pressing pills, you have a recipe for disaster. The few years the cartels have figured out that ratio is even better with the "Nitazene" type of opioids (stronger than regular fent) and shits only going to get worse.

Those overdose deaths are for all ages. It's a little macabre, but I'm curious how teen overdoses deaths have trended over the same period.

 

[DoctorTaco]

What does criminal use of a gun have to do with someone being irresponsible with how they use or store it that might lead to one of those ACCIDENTAL deaths you mentioned?


You want to punish someone for being irresponsible? Where would you draw the line of when you would or wouldn't?

If you want to punish those responsible for gun crime then maybe talk to your local DA about not allowing pleas for lesser charges or send a strongly worded email to the ATF about punishing straw purchasers, etc.

Criminal negligence is a thing. Yes, if somebody is mishandling a gun and shoots me I would want them punished by the law.

 

[spamking]

Criminal negligence is a thing. Yes, if somebody is mishandling a gun and shoots me I would want them punished by the law.

Criminal negligence and mishandling a gun aren't the same thing. Accidental shootings aren't always the result of criminal negligence. Could an accidental shooting happen because someone isn't being responsible or makes a mistake? Sure. This doesn't mean the person always purposefully ignored the risks and chose to be irresponsible anyway.

What point were you trying to make by bringing up accidental deaths earlier as a reason for more gun control?

 

[GrantB13]

Oh look. Another shooting, another pointless debate on are they a fucking tranny libtard or are they a gun toting MAGAt. It's gotta be "the other side". It never ends. Nobody gives a fuck about the issue and nobody is willing to concede. 2A people will tell you to your face they aren't giving anything up no matter how many people die. If one or both sides aren't willing to cooperate then the whole thing is meaningless. Nothing will change. Everyone is so fucking quick to jump on some identity politics. "I bet it's a transgender" "muh Christianity! Always pursecuted!"

Fuck y'all and have a nice day. Never gonna change.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

What's the logic behind imposing more gun control when most firearms will never be used maliciously, and the vast majority of gun owners will never commit a violent crime? How can further restricting an inalienable right reduce violence when criminals, by definition, are already breaking the law?

I wish you guys would admit that your goal is to restrict our rights in exchange for a false sense of security.

"most people with a gun will never use their gun maliciously. anyways, i need a gun to defend myself"

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Kind of curious what are the #s minus self inflicted instances???

I 100% support the rights of " True 'Merican Bald Eagle freedom loving patriots" to love an inanimate object that they will never use for their intended fantasies, to literal death.
Thats a choice I feel they should get to make. So be it. On them.

Now for innocent bystanders as victims. Totally different story. Yeah that's a problem.

deliberate self inflicted gun deaths/injuries aren't included in accidents. of the 42,000 people killed by guns last year, 56% (or roughly 23,500) were suicides.

 

[WklySportsMemes]

deliberate self inflicted gun deaths/injuries aren't included in accidents. of the 42,000 people killed by guns last year, 56% (or roughly 23,500) were suicides.

Referencing self inflicted accidental....non- suicidal. More so talking about the "hold my beer" shootings. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. People kill themselves with guns unintentionally quit a bit I would imagine.
Accidental self shooting deaths happen all the time.

Hell, Trump just appointed some chick to a position & she accidentally shot & killed her father when she was just a girl. Dropped or knocked a gun to the floor and it discharged when it struck the ground blowing her Dad's head off or something.