Jump to content
Jameson76

Sad sign of the times

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, David CO said:

No, it is not. The massacres are rare. The near misses occur more often than you might think.

Got data? 

I am more concerned about traffic crashes, high adventure safety / basic safety, and sex abuse prevention because I expect the odds of all of those to be greater.

Edited by WisconsinMomma
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised to hear that this was the 18th school shooting of the year. (6 weeks into the new year)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Here's a 2013 study by the Obama administration that say otherwise.

To clarify, that study doesn't state what you think it does. The study did not try to determine "crime related to drug use." That study simply determined that people arrested had drugs in their system at the time of their arrest. That doesn't mean that they smoked pot and while high, decided to car-jack someone.

Correlation is not causality. As your link stated, if they tested individuals arrested for crimes for having consumed water in the last 24 hours, such would not mean that 100% of crime is related to water consumption.

More likely the study suggests that individuals with the propensity to commit crimes are also likely to use illegal drugs. Not a rather shocking discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RememberSchiff said:

In school scenarios maybe,  scouting scenarios can be different.  Can't lock doors and cellphones may not work.

They are very similar. They go through closed campus and open campus scenarios when they do the training in my school. They even discuss what to do at gas stations, department stores or other types of places. The training is pretty good and covers a number of scenarios but that’s my school district. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

To clarify, that study doesn't state what you think it does. The study did not try to determine "crime related to drug use." That study simply determined that people arrested had drugs in their system at the time of their arrest. That doesn't mean that they smoked pot and while high, decided to car-jack someone.

Correlation is not causality. As your link stated, if they tested individuals arrested for crimes for having consumed water in the last 24 hours, such would not mean that 100% of crime is related to water consumption.

More likely the study suggests that individuals with the propensity to commit crimes are also likely to use illegal drugs. Not a rather shocking discovery.

But it doesn’t say there isn’t a relationship either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Back Pack said:

But it doesn’t say there isn’t a relationship either. 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." :)

It also doesn't say there isn't a relationship between those that are born with two eyes and those that commit crimes but I bet the correlation is higher than those that use drugs and commit crimes. Because the study doesn't say it doesn't exist, we might want to start poking out everyone's extra eye based on that absence of evidence. We can clearly infer that there is a correlation between having two eyes and crimes.

Good thing correlation isn't the same thing as causation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." :)

It also doesn't say there isn't a relationship between those that are born with two eyes and those that commit crimes but I bet the correlation is higher than those that use drugs and commit crimes. Because the study doesn't say it doesn't exist, we might want to start poking out everyone's extra eye based on that absence of evidence. We can clearly infer that there is a correlation between having two eyes and crimes.

Good thing correlation isn't the same thing as causation.

 

Right. So the data is not definitive either way so both your argument and his is not proven by the data. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Back Pack said:

Right. So the data is not definitive either way so both your argument and his is not proven by the data. 

You might want to change your obligatory upvote then. :)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scoutldr said:

You were surprised because it isn't true.  Fake news.

It depends on how you define school shooting.  While the number is off by 1 (the folks who came up with the numbers changed it from 18 to 17 because one of the schools has been closed for a few years) there have been 17 incidents of gun fire at schools since January 1.  If you don't want to call some of them "school shooting" feel free if it salves your conscience - but frankly, arguing whether a middle school student committing suicide by gun in his school's restroom is a school shooting or not, or whether a student fires his gun in the air during an argument at school is a school shooting is beside the point.  Whether its 5 or 7 or 17 gun incidents, it is 5 or 7 or 17 gun incidents too many.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scoutldr said:

You were surprised because it isn't true.  Fake news.

Crap, I fell for it. After some searching, it seems as though there have been 6.

Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control advocacy group responsible for spreading this bogus statistic, should be ashamed of its blatant dishonesty.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, .40AET said:

Crap, I fell for it. After some searching, it seems as though there have been 6.

Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control advocacy group responsible for spreading this bogus statistic, should be ashamed of its blatant dishonesty.

Everytown for Gun Safety is quite clear on what they consider the parameters to be to call something a school shooting - you can disagree if you want but its rather disingenuous to claim they are being dishonest just because the numbers they are reporting which match their criteria doesn't meet yours or someone else's idea of what a school shooting means.

We can have honest differences of opinion without calling other people dishonest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

Everytown for Gun Safety is quite clear on what they consider the parameters to be to call something a school shooting - you can disagree if you want but its rather disingenuous to claim they are being dishonest just because the numbers they are reporting which match their criteria doesn't meet yours or someone else's idea of what a school shooting means.

We can have honest differences of opinion without calling other people dishonest

I think we all have a pretty clear idea of what "school shooting" means in this country today. So if someone says there was a "school shooting" and you come to find that a guy shot himself in a school parking lot when no children were present, or it was a gun fired in a parking lot at a college basketball game after class hours, that seems dishonest to me. 

I get that they disclose their parameters to define "school shooting", but it doesn't matter if their definition is contrary to what the vast majority of Americans think of when someone says "school shooting."

Edited by FireStone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CalicoPenn said:

Everytown for Gun Safety is quite clear on what they consider the parameters to be to call something a school shooting - you can disagree if you want but its rather disingenuous to claim they are being dishonest just because the numbers they are reporting which match their criteria doesn't meet yours or someone else's idea of what a school shooting means.

We can have honest differences of opinion without calling other people dishonest

 

 

My apologies. The bottom of the quote was from a news feed, not me. I am not calling them dishonest. Again, I'm sorry and will stay out of this. Today appears to be a bad day. I'm logging off. Best of luck to you and everyone else.

Edited by .40AET
not enough apology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, .40AET said:

 

My apologies. The bottom of the quote was from a news feed, not me. I am not calling them dishonest. Again, I'm sorry and will stay out of this. Today appears to be a bad day. I'm logging off. Best of luck to you and everyone else.

Hey.40AET  do not be bullied into signing off.  Many of the folks on these feeds try to push others into their narrative.  We are all here to express our feelings and opinions.  No one opinion is right.  That is why it is an opinion.  It is neither right or wrong.  To walk away and not express it punishes all others on this page from having an additional opinion to consider.  @ CalicoPenn, I have followed you for some time and agree with a significant amount of your feelings but shame on you for putting down another member's opinion.  I am sure I can go back and find someone doing the same thing to you that you have taken and exception to.  Just my $ 0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×