*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

Any estimate of the number of accidental gun deaths caused by arming teachers can only be a positive number.

Ok, but exactly the same can be said to the contrary... the estimate of how many gunmen will get shot by teachers can only be a positive number.

What do you suppose is more frequent? Gun accidents (relating to trained people whose job it is to protect children)? Or school shootings?
Further, which do you suppose has the higher average death count?

It should be obvious that the lives saved by arming teachers will be significantly higher than any deaths caused by accidents, which will probably be something like one death a decade.

My sample size is not small. Ok there's only a handful of security guards at the Whitehouse, but you can take that further, you don't have to assume literally just the Whitehouse.

How many trained armed personnel accidentally shoot and kill people? Give me a yearly figure.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, but exactly the same can be said to the contrary... the estimate of how many gunmen will get shot by teachers can only be a positive number.

What do you suppose is more frequent? Gun accidents (relating to trained people whose job it is to protect children)? Or school shootings?
Further, which do you suppose has the higher average death count?

It should be obvious that the lives saved by arming teachers will be significantly higher than any deaths caused by accidents, which will probably be something like one death a decade.

My sample size is not small. Ok there's only a handful of security guards at the Whitehouse, but you can take that further, you don't have to assume literally just the Whitehouse.

How many trained armed personnel accidentally shoot and kill people? Give me a yearly figure.

You're still insisting on solving the equation as if eliminating or reducing school shootings is the only goal; and if that's the case then I agree, arming teachers will lead to fewer school mass shootings and fewer deaths from school mass shootings.

My argument is that the problems with gun deaths in the US aren't restricted to school mass shootings and that your solution will have the net effect of increasing deaths from guns overall by moving the mass shootings to other places and causing an increase in accidental shootings.

[wufwugy]

My argument is that the problems with gun deaths in the US aren't restricted to school mass shootings and that your solution will have the net effect of increasing deaths from guns overall by moving the mass shootings to other places and causing an increase in accidental shootings.

Your premise suggests the opposite, that there would be fewer shootings and deaths in total.

[Poopadoop]

Your premise suggests the opposite, that there would be fewer shootings and deaths in total.

I never said there would be fewer shootings; I said they would target different places. Maybe there'd be more deaths, like in LV.

[BananaStand]

I never said there would be fewer shootings; I said they would target different places. Maybe there'd be more deaths, like in LV.

Since we can't protect all soft targets, we shouldn't try to protect any? Is that what you're saying??

[wufwugy]

I never said there would be fewer shootings; I said they would target different places. Maybe there'd be more deaths, like in LV.

I know you didn't say that; it is instead implied by your premise.

If concealed carry in schools incentivizes shooters to not shoot up schools, it means the probable outcome is fewer shootings (and fewer deaths). This is because the current selection of schools includes the greatest net benefit to the shooter. If the shooter is deterred from that, it means he either doesn't go shooting (if he's on the margin) or he goes shooting in a place where he is more likely to get fewer kills.

The net effect of your premise (which is a correct premise) is fewer mass shootings and fewer associated deaths.

[Poopadoop]

I know you didn't say that; it is instead implied by your premise.

If concealed carry in schools incentivizes shooters to not shoot up schools, it means the probable outcome is fewer shootings (and fewer deaths). This is because the current selection of schools includes the greatest net benefit to the shooter. If the shooter is deterred from that, it means he either doesn't go shooting (if he's on the margin) or he goes shooting in a place where he is more likely to get fewer kills.

The net effect of your premise (which is a correct premise) is fewer mass shootings and fewer associated deaths.

A school isn't the only place someone can exact a high death toll if that is their aim. In fact, there's probably a lot of other places one could do more killing, like a mall, a concert, or basically anywhere there's a large concentration of people.

So fine, if your aim is to save students' lives at the expense of other people's, then arming teachers would help with that. But it won't stop mass shootings or even limit the number of mass shootings or the number of gun deaths. I think you're not being realistic in suggesting that some crazy person decides 'i'm gonna shoot up a school' and would just give up that plan if the schoolteachers were armed, and do nothing instead. My sense is they would almost certainly carry it out somewhere else.

Also, not to diminish the importance of what's happened in these schools, but there's 150,000 schools in the USA, and about a dozen shootings/yr with > 1 casualty over the last couple of years. The chance of any given school experiencing a mass shooting in a given year is less than 1 in 10,000. So I think the whole thing about school shootings is being overblown by all the media attention they get. The bigger problem is gun deaths in general and arming teachers is not going to address that in any significant way.

[wufwugy]

My sense is they would almost certainly carry it out somewhere else.

In order for this to be true, the potential shooter would need to be indifferent between the choice of school or someplace else. They aren't, because according to their preferences, shooting up schools gives them more net benefit than the next best option.

[wufwugy]

The bigger problem is gun deaths in general

Yeah, criminals shooting other criminals.

I know I'm being lied to when the media that claims to care about gun deaths only covers them in the small fraction of times in which the deaths fit their political agendas.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If concealed carry in schools incentivizes shooters to not shoot up schools, it means the probable outcome is fewer shootings (and fewer deaths). This is because the current selection of schools includes the greatest net benefit to the shooter. If the shooter is deterred from that, it means he either doesn't go shooting (if he's on the margin) or he goes shooting in a place where he is more likely to get fewer kills.

You're assigning a standard of rational thinking to someone whom is committed to mass murder, a decidedly irrational activity.

[wufwugy]

You're assigning a standard of rational thinking to someone whom is committed to mass murder, a decidedly irrational activity.

This is conflating two different types of rationality. The mass murderer has preferences and knows his preferences; therefore economic rationality applies.