Thoughts going out to Texas, another school shooting

[KeepItMoving]

Speaking of claims that don't have data to back them up...

If your hypothesis were true, then you would find evidence that atheists and their offspring are more likely to perpetrate violent crimes and engage in anti-social behavior than believers.

That evidence doesn't exist.

You addressed one aspect of my post, and then you scaled it to a tiny example. In other words, you didn't really address what I wrote. I'm okay with that though.

[thomashenry]

We have taken Gun Safety classes out of School

We have Removed God from Our Pubic Schools

We teach Kids to almost hate America and it`s Founding Fathers and Documents

We disparage and attack young MEN, actual masculinity is toxic and to be frowned upon just for simply being a MAN, hell some are told to "Identify" with whatever gender they "feel" like ! it`s a fluid situation

We teach them to be "Politically Correct", instead of utilizing Critical and Objective thoughts, discerning between what`s actually right & Wrong

And a Myriad of other issues that leads me to think that we have done more to create this abject insanity than to curtail it

The role of the American government has transitioned from the protection of individual rights and liberties to a tool for one group of flawed people to force their opinions and preferences upon another group of flawed people. Government is force and the more things you involve it in, the more things it will force people to do that they would otherwise choose not to do. I know there are some great educators out there, But it seems clear that our public school system can now aptly be described as state employees at state schools turning out the next generation of statist. If your children are receiving a modern state education, I urge you to supplement that with some home knowledge and education. Pass along your understanding of freedom and the constitution and history and values and ethics. At the very least, know what your children are being taught.

The Left’s lunacy and licentiousness will more and more be turned toward your children. You teaching your children traditional values will make you a target. There will be calls that it is a form of abuse. Public school systems and government agencies will become more and more embolden pushing the envelope in what they do in regards to your children, and without your consent. They will teach your children things you disagree with. They will give your children choices that go against your beliefs. Socialism sees you and your children as the property of the state. They will try and replace parents with the government. You don't want this village raising your child

I am a purist when it comes to the 2nd amendment. For me, it is not about guns. The amendment does not say we have the right to bear muskets or pistols or rifles or even the generic guns. It says we have the right to bear arms, The Bill of Rights is the very aroma of sedition. It is a proclamation to those in power reminding them that the people hold the ultimate power and there are areas beyond their reach. We need to stop giving these control freaks the thumbs up and replace it with a different finger.

[KeepItMoving]

We have taken Gun Safety classes out of School

We have Removed God from Our Pubic Schools

We teach Kids to almost hate America and it`s Founding Fathers and Documents

We disparage and attack young MEN, actual masculinity is toxic and to be frowned upon just for simply being a MAN, hell some are told to "Identify" with whatever gender they "feel" like ! it`s a fluid situation

We teach them to be "Politically Correct", instead of utilizing Critical and Objective thoughts, discerning between what`s actually right & Wrong

And a Myriad of other issues that leads me to think that we have done more to create this abject insanity than to curtail it

The role of the American government has transitioned from the protection of individual rights and liberties to a tool for one group of flawed people to force their opinions and preferences upon another group of flawed people. Government is force and the more things you involve it in, the more things it will force people to do that they would otherwise choose not to do. I know there are some great educators out there, But it seems clear that our public school system can now aptly be described as state employees at state schools turning out the next generation of statist. If your children are receiving a modern state education, I urge you to supplement that with some home knowledge and education. Pass along your understanding of freedom and the constitution and history and values and ethics. At the very least, know what your children are being taught.

The Left’s lunacy and licentiousness will more and more be turned toward your children. You teaching your children traditional values will make you a target. There will be calls that it is a form of abuse. Public school systems and government agencies will become more and more embolden pushing the envelope in what they do in regards to your children, and without your consent. They will teach your children things you disagree with. They will give your children choices that go against your beliefs. Socialism sees you and your children as the property of the state. They will try and replace parents with the government. You don't want this village raising your child

I am a purist when it comes to the 2nd amendment. For me, it is not about guns. The amendment does not say we have the right to bear muskets or pistols or rifles or even the generic guns. It says we have the right to bear arms, The Bill of Rights is the very aroma of sedition. It is a proclamation to those in power reminding them that the people hold the ultimate power and there are areas beyond their reach. We need to stop giving these control freaks the thumbs up and replace it with a different finger.

Got any studies from maybe Harvard or Yale to proooove what you're saying?? (Yes, heavy sarcasm, brother.) What you say is plain on its face. It's not a gun issue.

[Bando]

armed security or teachers will only serve to limit the casualties but won't prevent the initial casualties, so it's not really a solution

A shooter that was engaged by an armed defender and killed, is a case solution I like.

While "studies" can be manipulated to reach any conclusion you want, if you're going to "just get chit done" with no context or perspective in mind, you're going to do the wrong chit. That just makes chit worse.

You don't need to ignore studies, you need to vet them and critique them honestly. That's not happening, neither in the White House, nor in Congress, nor in this forum.

You're turning me to other side with this post. The "safe act" in NY was legislation drafted by 5 NYC legislators who have never owned or fired a gun. This legislation drastically limited gun rights state wide.

[startingat56]

A shooter that was engaged by an armed defender and killed, is a case solution I like.

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun ... but only after the bad guy has taken action (discovered to be bad). While it helps, it is not the solution

[Bando]

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun ... but only after the bad guy has taken action (discovered to be bad). While it helps, it is not the solution

It's part of the solution. The shooter never makes the media, never turns himself in for the cameras, never goes to trial, he just goes away.

You've just taken away the motive.

[Brackneyc]

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun ... but only after the bad guy has taken action (discovered to be bad). While it helps, it is not the solution

It would be super be nice to be able to stop crime before it happens. But in the real world, that’s not really how it generally works.

[ElrondHubbard]

You addressed one aspect of my post, and then you scaled it to a tiny example. In other words, you didn't really address what I wrote. I'm okay with that though.

If I only address a small part of a post, then chances are that
A. I don't have an issue with the rest of the post...
B. That small part is a linchpin that the entire argument depends on...
C. Some combination of the above.

In the case of your post that I responded to, it appeared to me that you were casting blame on the decline of religion for the social problems in this country. And if that is a part of your argument, then that part of your argument is wrong.

[ElrondHubbard]

A shooter that was engaged by an armed defender and killed, is a case solution I like.



You're turning me to other side with this post. The "safe act" in NY was legislation drafted by 5 NYC legislators who have never owned or fired a gun. This legislation drastically limited gun rights state wide.

There was no "side" I was trying to take. Uninformed action is uninformed, and almost always counterproductive, whether it comes from the left, the right, or the center. The war on knowledge is usually associated with the republicans, but it's not exclusively in their domain.

I'm not for one minute going to argue that an uninformed anti-gun law is better than an uninformed pro-gun law.

[ElrondHubbard]

It's part of the solution. The shooter never makes the media, never turns himself in for the cameras, never goes to trial, he just goes away.

You've just taken away the motive.

In most of the recent cases I've heard about, the shooter doesn't turn himself in for the camera. He's either killed in the act, or he attempts to escape and fails miserably. These people are not philosophers. For the most part they're very mentally unbalanced kids.

Or mentally unbalanced adults.

The fact that they're mentally unbalanced is the key. You can't expect rational decisions or motives from them. I agree that there's a large element of copycat involved in these incidents, but that affects the style of the attack rather than the attack itself. When I was in High School, the fear wasn't shootings so much as bombings. But the fear was still there.

[Bando]

Uninformed action is uninformed, and almost always counterproductive, whether it comes from the left, the right, or the center. The war on knowledge is usually associated with the republicans, but it's not exclusively in their domain.

As a Scholar I respect this approach in theory or with slow moving diseases, but for HEAVENS SAKE LETS JUST KEEP GUNS OUT OF SCHOOLS RIGHT NOW. We can study at length later. No one ever talks about the school shooter running around the locked building looking for an entrance who never got in while being chased by an armed retired PO.

[Karl_Hungus]

It's not that big a mystery. Given time, a grant, and a few interns, I could certainly conduct such a study, and so could you.

I could not, and neither could you. To illustrate the point: Karl_hungus is a granting agency and wants to know whether media coverage influences the likelihood of a school shooting, and how specific elements of the coverage affect school shootings. I am giving you a 5 million dollar grant and a 5 year time period to come up with answers. How do you do it? Be specific.

The data is out there already -- a number of companies have done very well for themselves collecting, analyzing, and selling data on usage, demographics, and behaviors of the users of internet media.

These work because you have millions of data points related to commerce behavior that allow you to build sophisticated models. A company can use both current and previous behavior (logistic and baysian modeling) along with demographics to predict the likelihood that you will purchase the new Samsung Galaxy S9 in the next 6 months. They can do that because they have millions of data points which allow automatic updating of their algorithms for more precise prediction. With school shootings, you only have a few dozen data points, which is why we have little more than crude profiles of shooters.

Not you necessarily, but in this thread it's been suggested that the major media outlets should not give coverage to these events, and then they would go away. Others, including myself, argue that among the demographic that's both perpetrating and being victimized by these shootings, "traditional" media is less influential than the aggregate of the various forms of internet social media. So cutting out coverage by the networks simply would not work. It wouldn't have the effect that some here believe it would.

It might be less influential, but it might not. I don't know of any school shooters who have live-streamed it or snapchatted it, and certainly if they did so, it wouldn't have the ubiquitous presence in mainstream consciousness in the same way as national news coverage. If it is covered on the major networks, it will certainly be present on alternative media as well. Admittedly, it is speculation, but that is what you are doing as well. Cutting off coverage is probably unrealistic, but, it might not be a bad idea if the media didn't release the name of the perp -- It may or may not work, but what is the harm in making an effort at reducing the motive of instant fame?

[Brackneyc]

I could not, and neither could you. To illustrate the point: Karl_hungus is a granting agency and wants to know whether media coverage influences the likelihood of a school shooting, and how specific elements of the coverage affect school shootings. I am giving you a 5 million dollar grant and a 5 year time period to come up with answers. How do you do it? Be specific.



These work because you have millions of data points related to commerce behavior that allow you to build sophisticated models. A company can use both current and previous behavior (logistic and baysian modeling) along with demographics to predict the likelihood that you will purchase the new Samsung Galaxy S9 in the next 6 months. They can do that because they have millions of data points which allow automatic updating of their algorithms for more precise prediction. With school shootings, you only have a few dozen data points, which is why we have little more than crude profiles of shooters.



It might be less influential, but it might not. I don't know of any school shooters who have live-streamed it or snapchatted it, and certainly if they did so, it wouldn't have the ubiquitous presence in mainstream consciousness in the same way as national news coverage. If it is covered on the major networks, it will certainly be present on alternative media as well. Admittedly, it is speculation, but that is what you are doing as well. Cutting off coverage is probably unrealistic, but, it might not be a bad idea if the media didn't release the name of the perp -- It may or may not work, but what is the harm in making an effort at reducing the motive of instant fame?

Ffs, we still don’t know if coffee is good or bad for us.

There is no way to study these shooters/shootings to the point of being able to predict the next one.

I’m not sure if it’s ignorance or arrogance that allows people to believe we can, but in either case,
we are dealing with a level of mental illness that pills and counseling can’t fix.

[KeepItMoving]

If I only address a small part of a post, then chances are that
A. I don't have an issue with the rest of the post...
B. That small part is a linchpin that the entire argument depends on...
C. Some combination of the above.

In the case of your post that I responded to, it appeared to me that you were casting blame on the decline of religion for the social problems in this country. And if that is a part of your argument, then that part of your argument is wrong.

Okay, well, help me out here Elrond. Where in my post did I use the word 'religion?' Now, go look for another linchpin.

[KeepItMoving]

whatever dumb ass

Ya think? Well, I guess that makes me a dumb ass, racist, a55hole, idiot who posts only to get attention and uses his son to try to make himself look good. Oh yeah, and who talks about his health issues in a weak attempt to get sympathy. Oh, wait, and a pervert or something along those lines. I forget.

Indeed, I am many things to many people.

[thomashenry]

Ya think? Well, I guess that makes me a dumb ass, racist, a55hole, idiot who posts only to get attention and uses his son to try to make himself look good. Oh yeah, and who talks about his health issues in a weak attempt to get sympathy. Oh, wait, and a pervert or something along those lines. I forget.

Indeed, I am many things to many people.

You Forgot Knuckle draggin Christian Hypocrite, Just saying :]

[Mark1T]

Ya think? Well, I guess that makes me a dumb ass, racist, a55hole, idiot who posts only to get attention and uses his son to try to make himself look good. Oh yeah, and who talks about his health issues in a weak attempt to get sympathy. Oh, wait, and a pervert or something along those lines. I forget.

Indeed, I am many things to many people.

You Forgot Knuckle draggin Christian Hypocrite, Just saying :]

Add inmate to the list.

[KeepItMoving]

Add inmate to the list.

I have been called a knuckle dragging Christian; and an anti-science flat earther; and a mouth breather, as we all have. (But only by the most caring and open minded of people!!) I haven't been called an inmate, though...yet!!!

[Mark1T]

I have been called a knuckle dragging Christian; and an anti-science flat earther; and a mouth breather, as we all have. (But only by the most caring and open minded of people!!) I haven't been called an inmate, though...yet!!!

Not you!! I was referring to deeks the troll

[KeepItMoving]

not you!! I was referring to deeks the troll

lol!

[Brackneyc]

You Forgot Knuckle draggin Christian Hypocrite, Just saying :]

You called?

[ElrondHubbard]

Okay, well, help me out here Elrond. Where in my post did I use the word 'religion?' Now, go look for another linchpin.

You used the word "faith". In the context, I considered them synonymous. I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[ElrondHubbard]

I could not, and neither could you. To illustrate the point: Karl_hungus is a granting agency and wants to know whether media coverage influences the likelihood of a school shooting, and how specific elements of the coverage affect school shootings. I am giving you a 5 million dollar grant and a 5 year time period to come up with answers. How do you do it? Be specific.

Hey, sounds like good deal! As soon as the check clears I'll be right on it!

These work because you have millions of data points related to commerce behavior that allow you to build sophisticated models. A company can use both current and previous behavior (logistic and baysian modeling) along with demographics to predict the likelihood that you will purchase the new Samsung Galaxy S9 in the next 6 months. They can do that because they have millions of data points which allow automatic updating of their algorithms for more precise prediction. With school shootings, you only have a few dozen data points, which is why we have little more than crude profiles of shooters.

There's more to the issue of violent behavior in schools than just the shootings. It's part of a spectrum of behavior that can be analyzed in the aggregate, and IMO the data is there to do that, or at least if it's not there now, it's collectable in principle.

It might be less influential, but it might not. I don't know of any school shooters who have live-streamed it or snapchatted it, and certainly if they did so, it wouldn't have the ubiquitous presence in mainstream consciousness in the same way as national news coverage. If it is covered on the major networks, it will certainly be present on alternative media as well. Admittedly, it is speculation, but that is what you are doing as well. Cutting off coverage is probably unrealistic, but, it might not be a bad idea if the media didn't release the name of the perp -- It may or may not work, but what is the harm in making an effort at reducing the motive of instant fame?

Interesting that what you've done there is reference a potential data point. That wouldn't have been possible if the behavior in question was untestable.

I'm not recommending any specific course of action. And I don't know if the studies that started this line of debate are valid or not, because I haven't read them either. All I'm disputing is your claim that, due to the subject matter alone, you can tell whether or not they're valid without reading them.

I have no doubts that you're capable of designing studies and peer reviewing them. So am I -- in my particular field. Anti-social teen behavior is not my field. I'm not going to pass judgment sight-unseen on studies in fields I don't have expertise in. Neither you nor I would be credible if we dismissed some paper in astrophysics without bothering to read it. I think this is an equivalent situation.

[ElrondHubbard]

Ffs, we still don’t know if coffee is good or bad for us.

There is no way to study these shooters/shootings to the point of being able to predict the next one.

I’m not sure if it’s ignorance or arrogance that allows people to believe we can, but in either case,
we are dealing with a level of mental illness that pills and counseling can’t fix.

I don't think anybody was talking about predicting the next shooting. They were talking about whether the traditional media coverage is so influential that eliminating it -- WITHOUT eliminating coverage by alternative web networks, would be sufficient to prevent future events of that nature.

I do think it's ironic here, in that the zeal of some to preserve the second amendment they're willing to sh*t all over the first amendment to do it.

[Brackneyc]

I don't think anybody was talking about predicting the next shooting. They were talking about whether the traditional media coverage is so influential that eliminating it -- WITHOUT eliminating coverage by alternative web networks, would be sufficient to prevent future events of that nature.

I do think it's ironic here, in that the zeal of some to preserve the second amendment they're willing to sh*t all over the first amendment to do it.

The second amendment makes all the others possible. The media had forgotten their responsibility to the quality and intent of their words.

Imo, the media coverage doesn’t create more shooters. It creates fear. THAT is my concern.

Do you fear being shot by someone. I don’t.

I work in a school everyday. We prepare the best we can for all sorts of events. but will never be totally prepared.

We do the best we can.

[ElrondHubbard]

The second amendment makes all the others possible. The media had forgotten their responsibility to the quality and intent of their words.

Imo, the media coverage doesn’t create more shooters. It creates fear. THAT is my concern.

Do you fear being shot by someone. I don’t.

I work in a school everyday. We prepare the best we can for all sorts of events. but will never be totally prepared.

We do the best we can.

I agree with all but the first sentence. It's a widespread idea and sounds reasonable, but I don't think it holds up on close examination. There are a number of western democracies that value human rights and a free press, some more fully than the U.S. does, that do so without having a gun culture and a constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms.

I don't think they should be banned, and for the most part neither do the other democracies. But they do place restrictions on them, and their murder rates are orders of magnitude lower than ours.

[Redfish225]

Or just ban idiots, it seemed to have worked on you.

It’s just that simple. Kid was an obvious time bomb they all ignored.

[Karl_Hungus]

Interesting that what you've done there is reference a potential data point. That wouldn't have been possible if the behavior in question was untestable.

I'm not recommending any specific course of action. And I don't know if the studies that started this line of debate are valid or not, because I haven't read them either. All I'm disputing is your claim that, due to the subject matter alone, you can tell whether or not they're valid without reading them.

I am not basing my assertion on the subject matter, but on what I know about research design, statistical modeling/inference, and the variables of interest here. In order to provide an answer to the question you either need a variable you can manipulate (e.g. media/media variables), or, you need a very large data set for which you can develop statistical models to see how variance is apportioned across a variety of factors. Here, you have neither. Because the sample size is so small, you need to collate the data over lengthy periods of time (decades or longer), thereby introducing a host of cohort effects and societal variables that create additional complexity. Even then, your data set is too small to develop anything other than a crude profile. Don't get me wrong, I love research (I do it for a living), but I also understand the contexts in which the inherent limitations severely weaken your ability to draw valid conclusions. In this case, you wouldn't do much worse throwing darts at a board.

I don't think anybody was talking about predicting the next shooting. They were talking about whether the traditional media coverage is so influential that eliminating it -- WITHOUT eliminating coverage by alternative web networks, would be sufficient to prevent future events of that nature.

I do think it's ironic here, in that the zeal of some to preserve the second amendment they're willing to sh*t all over the first amendment to do it.

I don't think anybody is saying the media should be banned from reporting on it, but the media already voluntarily omit names of sexual assault victims, or juveniles accused of some crimes. Why not do the same here? I don't think we should automatically dismiss it just because there is a possibility it might not work.

[Brackneyc]

I agree with all but the first sentence. It's a widespread idea and sounds reasonable, but I don't think it holds up on close examination. There are a number of western democracies that value human rights and a free press, some more fully than the U.S. does, that do so without having a gun culture and a constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms.

I don't think they should be banned, and for the most part neither do the other democracies. But they do place restrictions on them, and their murder rates are orders of magnitude lower than ours.

The founders believed the second amendment was important, and they recognized this check and balance was necessary, or could at some point could become necessary to the security of our nation.

People say they don’t want guns banned, but in many/most cases, I think they’re simply afraid to be honest.

[ElrondHubbard]

The founders believed the second amendment was important, and they recognized this check and balance was necessary, or could at some point could become necessary to the security of our nation.

People say they don’t want guns banned, but in many/most cases, I think they’re simply afraid to be honest.

At the time of the founders, "arms" meant muzzle-loading single shot rifles and muskets firing black powder and lead balls. They could not have anticipated rapid-fire assault weapons, and shooting up a school by a disgruntled student, or machine-gunning a musical concert by an arsenal-toting madman would have been so impractical as to be incomprehensibly out of the realm of possibility.

Had they known then what we know now, I suspect they would have phrased it differently. Maybe a little more emphasis on that "well-regulated militia" that seems to always get ignored nowdays?