I'm not clicking on any more links about school shootings. The media needs to start reporting on more important matters, such as people getting struck by lightning.
Bad guy being dead is not a tragedy, it's justice. I wasn't calling for anything just pointing out how it's supposed to be done. As a policeman this is your job. If you can't do it get out!
I'm also hearing that metal detectors don't detect metal if it's in the shape of a gun.
My hope, though, is that while there are ways to cut down on the occurrences of school shootings, people consider the cost vs reward. I get temporary bans from other message boards for saying this, but I'll say it again- a human life does not have that high of a market value. We can't just keep spending billions and billions to lower a person's risk of dying in one specific way from a .0000012% probability to a .0000009%...it's just a laughably horrible investment.
I'm also hearing that metal detectors don't detect metal if it's in the shape of a gun.
My hope, though, is that while there are ways to cut down on the occurrences of school shootings, people consider the cost vs reward. I get temporary bans from other message boards for saying this, but I'll say it again- a human life does not have that high of a market value. We can't just keep spending billions and billions to lower a person's risk of dying in one specific way from a .0000012% probability to a .0000009%...it's just a laughably horrible investment.
Right. Those investments into seat belts, air bags, and other worthless stuff should just never have happened. Freedom baby. I should be able to roll down the road in my pickup, no seat belt, keg in the back with 4 kids chillen in the bed.
I'm also hearing that metal detectors don't detect metal if it's in the shape of a gun.
My hope, though, is that while there are ways to cut down on the occurrences of school shootings, people consider the cost vs reward. I get temporary bans from other message boards for saying this, but I'll say it again- a human life does not have that high of a market value. We can't just keep spending billions and billions to lower a person's risk of dying in one specific way from a .0000012% probability to a .0000009%...it's just a laughably horrible investment.
Right. Those investments into seat belts, air bags, and other worthless stuff should just never have happened. Freedom baby. I should be able to roll down the road in my pickup, no seat belt, keg in the back with 4 kids chillen in the bed.
It does cut down on the stupid population. Natural selection at work. I'm pretty sure that is exactly what Darwin was talking about.
Cept 2/3 of the people killed by guns here... wait for it, do it themselves!!!!!
Next thing you know we'll be banning ropes and belts if we had der golves wishes.
It sucks that the Boomers and Gen x'ers have bred these desensitized pussies that can't deal with conflict like a Man. And it sucks that this happens so often. I'm just glad that it was stopped before there were more killed. By a professional armed presence at the school.
Right. Those investments into seat belts, air bags, and other worthless stuff should just never have happened. Freedom baby. I should be able to roll down the road in my pickup, no seat belt, keg in the back with 4 kids chillen in the bed.
You're comparing car safety equipment features that have long since been proven to be a demand of the consumers who voluntarily purchase vehicles with their own money to forcing every tax payer to annually fund improvements to school safety. People know that seatbelts and air bags save lives, and that is the reason why, even in the absence of safety regulations, people would gladly pay extra for vehicles with that safety equipment. Every car model sold in the U.S. exceeds the minimum regulatory standards for safety equipment....by far.
And what exactly are you arguing against? I said that if we are going to look at ways we can improve safety through government, we should desire a stronger return on our investment. Your odds of dying or being critically injured in a car crash due to lack of seatbelts is *WAY* more statistically significant than anybody's odds of being shot, and even more so than a child's odds of being shot at school. A quick Google search reveals NHTA's estimate of 15,000 lives being saved per year because people are wearing seatbelts. Right now, the topic at hand is whether or not we should make a similarly costly investment to save 12 lives per year.
14 million vehicles sold per year in the US x $1,000 per vehicle cost to install seatbelts = 14 billion dollars.
Estimated cost to have armed guards and other safety equipment in schools = roughly 14 billion dollars.
Do you get what I'm saying? Return on investment. It's like we've gotten to the point where we have become so politically correct that it's taboo to even talk about how much we're spending to save each life. "How dare you question the price of a human life! Life is priceless! Just spend, spend, spend...do whatever it takes!"....until you tell people to put their money where their mouth is. But that's the problem with using tax dollars. People think it's just magic money that appears out of nowhere and doesn't affect them.
So think of it this way...If I went around selling a service to parents that guaranteed to reduce their child's odds of being shot at school from .0000002% per year to .0000001%, and said "hey, it'll only cost you $1,000 a year", I'll bet only a very small % of them would be stupid enough to think that's a good value for their dollar. Hell, I'd probably get arrested and put in jail for being a snake oil salesman. But when government funds it through tax dollars, suddenly people think it's a good value. But it's not...and people aren't going to know that until we start having serious discussions about it.
And come on, you're throwing in drinking and driving and negligent parental behavior to prove what, exactly? That freedom is bad? What the hell are we even talking about? Real talk, bro...your posts being all over the place like that is one thing you should work on. It's one thing to be blatantly partisan...hell, we're all guilty of that to some degree. But if you want my advice, people will take you more seriously if your posts were less of a blanket of general distaste for libertarian/conservative values, and more of you making a point in the discussion at hand. Take the time to explore your feelings and make a well thought out post. "I feel that this is a good use of tax dollars because _______________" would have been an infinitely better premise for a post.
I know it sucks when somebody criticizes the stuff you write. I've been there. I'm seriously just trying to give you what I think is helpful advice. You post a lot here. And you obviously have strong opinions. So why not take the time to do a better job or writing them out? It's not a race to see how fast you can disagree with somebody. Just my 2 cents.
The second one is absolutely true. This is a logic 101 example of the false equivalence fallacy.
Build the wall and have the Mexicans pay for it. I don't care. I'm here and I'm not Mexican.
But they'll keep coming.
PS: did anyone, even Hondo, say armed guards don't work? I don't recall anyone stepping out on that ledge.
I, myself, said that arming teachers was a vastly limited solution, at best, given the demographic, and a bad idea at worst, based admittedly on the 'what could go wrong?' school of thought. But armed guards? Yeah, I think even the most strident gun critic would agree that they'd be helpful.
The second one is absolutely true. This is a logic 101 example of the false equivalence fallacy.
Build the wall and have the Mexicans pay for it. I don't care. I'm here and I'm not Mexican.
But they'll keep coming.
PS: did anyone, even Hondo, say armed guards don't work? I don't recall anyone stepping out on that ledge.
I, myself, said that arming teachers was a vastly limited solution, at best, given the demographic, and a bad idea at worst, based admittedly on the 'what could go wrong?' school of thought. But armed guards? Yeah, I think even the most strident gun critic would agree that they'd be helpful.
I've heard armed guards/police in school will send black youths directly to jail, or something like that. So it won't work. Just what I'm hearing, don't twist.
Right. Those investments into seat belts, air bags, and other worthless stuff should just never have happened. Freedom baby. I should be able to roll down the road in my pickup, no seat belt, keg in the back with 4 kids chillen in the bed.
You're comparing car safety equipment features that have long since been proven to be a demand of the consumers who voluntarily purchase vehicles with their own money to forcing every tax payer to annually fund improvements to school safety. People know that seatbelts and air bags save lives, and that is the reason why, even in the absence of safety regulations, people would gladly pay extra for vehicles with that safety equipment. Every car model sold in the U.S. exceeds the minimum regulatory standards for safety equipment....by far.
And what exactly are you arguing against? I said that if we are going to look at ways we can improve safety through government, we should desire a stronger return on our investment. Your odds of dying or being critically injured in a car crash due to lack of seatbelts is *WAY* more statistically significant than anybody's odds of being shot, and even more so than a child's odds of being shot at school. A quick Google search reveals NHTA's estimate of 15,000 lives being saved per year because people are wearing seatbelts. Right now, the topic at hand is whether or not we should make a similarly costly investment to save 12 lives per year.
14 million vehicles sold per year in the US x $1,000 per vehicle cost to install seatbelts = 14 billion dollars.
Estimated cost to have armed guards and other safety equipment in schools = roughly 14 billion dollars.
Do you get what I'm saying? Return on investment. It's like we've gotten to the point where we have become so politically correct that it's taboo to even talk about how much we're spending to save each life. "How dare you question the price of a human life! Life is priceless! Just spend, spend, spend...do whatever it takes!"....until you tell people to put their money where their mouth is. But that's the problem with using tax dollars. People think it's just magic money that appears out of nowhere and doesn't affect them.
So think of it this way...If I went around selling a service to parents that guaranteed to reduce their child's odds of being shot at school from .0000002% per year to .0000001%, and said "hey, it'll only cost you $1,000 a year", I'll bet only a very small % of them would be stupid enough to think that's a good value for their dollar. Hell, I'd probably get arrested and put in jail for being a snake oil salesman. But when government funds it through tax dollars, suddenly people think it's a good value. But it's not...and people aren't going to know that until we start having serious discussions about it.
And come on, you're throwing in drinking and driving and negligent parental behavior to prove what, exactly? That freedom is bad? What the hell are we even talking about? Real talk, bro...your posts being all over the place like that is one thing you should work on. It's one thing to be blatantly partisan...hell, we're all guilty of that to some degree. But if you want my advice, people will take you more seriously if your posts were less of a blanket of general distaste for libertarian/conservative values, and more of you making a point in the discussion at hand. Take the time to explore your feelings and make a well thought out post. "I feel that this is a good use of tax dollars because _______________" would have been an infinitely better premise for a post.
I know it sucks when somebody criticizes the stuff you write. I've been there. I'm seriously just trying to give you what I think is helpful advice. You post a lot here. And you obviously have strong opinions. So why not take the time to do a better job or writing them out? It's not a race to see how fast you can disagree with somebody. Just my 2 cents.
If you want my honest opinion, which I've given many times. There are many ways we can reduce gun deaths without incurring a bunch of costs. Background checks on all gun purchases would be one. Limiting magazine size would be another. Finding a better way for background checks to be effective as well. I'm not in the camp of arming teachers or security guards at schools, as I think they are less effective and would cost more.
I brought up vehicles because that's an instance where costs have gone up but been very meaningful in saving lives.
I've also said that I think the NRA should come up with the gun laws that protect everyone's second amendment rights, but would reduce the number of deaths. In Australia, the number of suicide deaths decreased significantly as well after their gun control efforts. If we can cut the number of gun deaths in half, with minimal cost, don't you think that's a win win?
The second one is absolutely true. This is a logic 101 example of the false equivalence fallacy.
Build the wall and have the Mexicans pay for it. I don't care. I'm here and I'm not Mexican.
But they'll keep coming.
PS: did anyone, even Hondo, say armed guards don't work? I don't recall anyone stepping out on that ledge.
I, myself, said that arming teachers was a vastly limited solution, at best, given the demographic, and a bad idea at worst, based admittedly on the 'what could go wrong?' school of thought. But armed guards? Yeah, I think even the most strident gun critic would agree that they'd be helpful.
I've heard armed guards/police in school will send black youths directly to jail, or something like that. So it won't work. Just what I'm hearing, don't twist.
And high speed rail won’t move passengers from LA to SF?
For the exact same reason that high speed rail is a fucking waste and boondoggle, so is the border wall. For hundreds of billions of dollars, you keep no one but the physically inept out (we’re dealing with profession mountain climbers here according to potusFS). They are both massively inefficient for what they are supposed to do.
When there’s demand for money, goods and labor, the supply will meet clear the market. The law of economics trumps the broken, and unenforceable US immigration edicts every single time.
You were promised Mexico would pay. Trumpanzees are such mindless pussies.
Comments
Walls don't keep people out
My hope, though, is that while there are ways to cut down on the occurrences of school shootings, people consider the cost vs reward. I get temporary bans from other message boards for saying this, but I'll say it again- a human life does not have that high of a market value. We can't just keep spending billions and billions to lower a person's risk of dying in one specific way from a .0000012% probability to a .0000009%...it's just a laughably horrible investment.
Next thing you know we'll be banning ropes and belts if we had der golves wishes.
It sucks that the Boomers and Gen x'ers have bred these desensitized pussies that can't deal with conflict like a Man. And it sucks that this happens so often. I'm just glad that it was stopped before there were more killed. By a professional armed presence at the school.
That's the only answer there is to this.
And what exactly are you arguing against? I said that if we are going to look at ways we can improve safety through government, we should desire a stronger return on our investment. Your odds of dying or being critically injured in a car crash due to lack of seatbelts is *WAY* more statistically significant than anybody's odds of being shot, and even more so than a child's odds of being shot at school. A quick Google search reveals NHTA's estimate of 15,000 lives being saved per year because people are wearing seatbelts. Right now, the topic at hand is whether or not we should make a similarly costly investment to save 12 lives per year.
14 million vehicles sold per year in the US x $1,000 per vehicle cost to install seatbelts = 14 billion dollars.
Estimated cost to have armed guards and other safety equipment in schools = roughly 14 billion dollars.
Do you get what I'm saying? Return on investment. It's like we've gotten to the point where we have become so politically correct that it's taboo to even talk about how much we're spending to save each life. "How dare you question the price of a human life! Life is priceless! Just spend, spend, spend...do whatever it takes!"....until you tell people to put their money where their mouth is. But that's the problem with using tax dollars. People think it's just magic money that appears out of nowhere and doesn't affect them.
So think of it this way...If I went around selling a service to parents that guaranteed to reduce their child's odds of being shot at school from .0000002% per year to .0000001%, and said "hey, it'll only cost you $1,000 a year", I'll bet only a very small % of them would be stupid enough to think that's a good value for their dollar. Hell, I'd probably get arrested and put in jail for being a snake oil salesman. But when government funds it through tax dollars, suddenly people think it's a good value. But it's not...and people aren't going to know that until we start having serious discussions about it.
And come on, you're throwing in drinking and driving and negligent parental behavior to prove what, exactly? That freedom is bad? What the hell are we even talking about? Real talk, bro...your posts being all over the place like that is one thing you should work on. It's one thing to be blatantly partisan...hell, we're all guilty of that to some degree. But if you want my advice, people will take you more seriously if your posts were less of a blanket of general distaste for libertarian/conservative values, and more of you making a point in the discussion at hand. Take the time to explore your feelings and make a well thought out post. "I feel that this is a good use of tax dollars because _______________" would have been an infinitely better premise for a post.
I know it sucks when somebody criticizes the stuff you write. I've been there. I'm seriously just trying to give you what I think is helpful advice. You post a lot here. And you obviously have strong opinions. So why not take the time to do a better job or writing them out? It's not a race to see how fast you can disagree with somebody. Just my 2 cents.
It will work if we kill enough folks
Build the wall and have the Mexicans pay for it. I don't care. I'm here and I'm not Mexican.
But they'll keep coming.
PS: did anyone, even Hondo, say armed guards don't work? I don't recall anyone stepping out on that ledge.
I, myself, said that arming teachers was a vastly limited solution, at best, given the demographic, and a bad idea at worst, based admittedly on the 'what could go wrong?' school of thought. But armed guards? Yeah, I think even the most strident gun critic would agree that they'd be helpful.
I brought up vehicles because that's an instance where costs have gone up but been very meaningful in saving lives.
I've also said that I think the NRA should come up with the gun laws that protect everyone's second amendment rights, but would reduce the number of deaths. In Australia, the number of suicide deaths decreased significantly as well after their gun control efforts. If we can cut the number of gun deaths in half, with minimal cost, don't you think that's a win win?
For the exact same reason that high speed rail is a fucking waste and boondoggle, so is the border wall. For hundreds of billions of dollars, you keep no one but the physically inept out (we’re dealing with profession mountain climbers here according to potusFS). They are both massively inefficient for what they are supposed to do.
When there’s demand for money, goods and labor, the supply will meet clear the market. The law of economics trumps the broken, and unenforceable US immigration edicts every single time.
You were promised Mexico would pay. Trumpanzees are such mindless pussies.