61–70 of 143 posts
I thought advertising and marketing materials were expected to exaggerate things to the point of blatant falsehood. Is that changing, or is this company being singled out for some reason, or are they really that much worse than everyone else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am happy to inform you that the United States also does not have school shootings on an "almost daily basis". Not trying to be pedantic here, but gross exaggerations misrepresent the issue.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/12/17/mass-s... > GVA has reported 971 cases of school shootings across the United States in 2024, with many of them having no victims or injuries. The database has tracked 112 school shootings in which a victim was injured or killed. Somewhere between ~3/day and ~0.3/day, depending what you count. Close enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What federal law is that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1...
"unauthorized" is in the first sentence for a reason. States can (and do) authorize teachers to carry guns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're trying to disprove the political slogan, which is obviously rhetoric. "The only way to X is Y" is generally going to be false because absolutist statements in general are going to be false. The real question is, for example, does prohibiting school staff from having firearms make it better or worse? Which is pretty hard to measure when there is a federal law against it. But a point in favor of "better" is that…
> The real question is, for example, does prohibiting school staff from having firearms make it better or worse? Which is pretty hard to measure when there is a federal law against it. Federal law forbids unauthorized individuals from possessing firearms at schools. All it requires is the state authorize it. Result: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-teachers-guns-at-school/ > According to the Texas Association of Sc…
Apparently it still requires the state to explicitly authorize it, and states allowing teachers to do this is a relatively recent development. So now we get to find out if it works, e.g. if school shootings in Texas go up or down relative to the trend in states that don't do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of sources on the correlation of various socioeconomic factors with violence and gun violence. Pubmed is a good starting point. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35546249/
That study doesn't have any mention of controls in the abstract. Therefore it can't prove a casual link. For instance, it could be the case that rich people with the means flee more violent areas, and/or that less violent people are more successful in life, which allows them resources to escape violent areas, and that's responsible for the correlation, rather than "socioeconomic factors" making people more violent.
Yeah, it's an abstract... the point is, there are studies you can go look up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be nice to have better screening tools, but that doesn’t mean a company should get to lie about what their products are capable of and how they work. Ironically, millimeter wave imagers, that are legitimately capable of finding hidden weapons pretty much anywhere, isn’t deployed outside airports because of the cost and the huge backlash that anything that has the resolution to accurately distinguish a gun ca…
> So instead Evolv preys on nervous leaders who want some protection in large public gatherings but aren’t knowledgeable about security. That's certainly consistent with their email list. I have no idea how I got on it, but I was on it for a while about church security, and it was constant "webinar" reminders (I assume, sales pitch without having to actually interact with people one-on-one) about how you might have p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(C) crazed gunman neutralized by good guy with gun. In this case it was 3 minutes after the fact (Median Police Response Time to Active Shooter Attacks) rather than immediately as there were no available Good Guys with Guns due to gun policies. I would never ever choose to be involved in an active shooter situation but if I were I’d surely want to be armed rather than not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uvalde_school_shooting#Timelin... 11:30am: First 911 call. 11:31am: Officer arrives at school. One minute police response time, by your metric. ~80 minutes later, the ~400 very well armed cops on scene managed to finally go in.
A cop outside is not obligated or expected to put his own life at risk. He's expected to show up for work tomorrow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That study doesn't have any mention of controls in the abstract. Therefore it can't prove a casual link. For instance, it could be the case that rich people with the means flee more violent areas, and/or that less violent people are more successful in life, which allows them resources to escape violent areas, and that's responsible for the correlation, rather than "socioeconomic factors" making people more violent.
"That study doesn't have any mention of controls in the abstract." Yeah, it's an abstract ... the point is, there are studies you can go look up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a crazed gunman will (A) go through the scanner and (B) will not open fire when their weapon is detected.
Gun and weapon detection is still useful to stop shootings and stabbings that arise out of fights, where one member may suddenly present and use a previously concealed weapon. Agreed that the usefulness against a crazed gunman is less clear, although crazies do not always have a rational plan. If the weapon was concealed in a backpack or something the security may be able to tackle them before they access it. If they…
Luckily some venues are nice about checking it with security, but still a pain to have to remember to go back and pick it up when leaving.
Wouldn't it be nice of people would just quit shooting and stabbing each other at things like sporting events :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mexicans have guns. Mexico has some of the most stringent gun laws in the world. They also have more than four times the murder rate of the US. So while it's technically true that Mexicans have guns, this is more along the lines of "people inclined to violate the law against murder have no qualms about violating the law against unlawful possession of a firearm" rather than that it's easy to lawfully acquire a firea…
Practically anyone can own a shotgun in the UK, which also has restrictive gun laws. There has only ever been one school shooting (and the guy responsible owned his weapons completely legally). What I'm saying is that gun control won't solve the problem, but it will help.
I still don't get how this is supposed to work.
It seems like there are two main categories of shootings. The first is the ones that most often make the news, i.e. school shootings. But the people who do this are typically people who snap rather than career criminals, and then they would pass the background check etc. Also, these are in practice a small minority of shooting deaths.
The second is gang violence. This is where you really get the high body counts. But it's also where gun laws aren't going to be followed, and then you get the same result as you do in Mexico, i.e. stringent laws that do nothing because drug cartels are already operating a criminal smuggling operation and don't give a crap about following gun laws.
The best argument I've heard in favor of "gun control" reducing fatalities is something like, if you make it inconvenient for normal people to have guns then fewer of them will do it and you get fewer accidents. But then there are any number of alternative ways to get a similar result, like subsidizing gun safes or training etc., which don't require you to fight the people you're otherwise intending to purposely inconvenience.