Annihilator (Gun Control Thread- NOT SHOOTINGS)

[archibaldcrane]

Good to know teacher's bodies are good enough protection for you.

Fuck off with your glib bullshit. I suppose I needed to say "as the parent of two children and the son of a high school teacher"?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Day]

As a parent of no kids but a taxpayer they can use some of it for metal detectors if they want, I'm sure it gets wasted elsewhere on worse things.

[zoobernut]

As a parent of no kids but a taxpayer they can use some of it for metal detectors if they want, I'm sure it gets wasted elsewhere on worse things.

Like giving corporations tax breaks to bolster their stocks instead of increasing compensation or upping our military budget for the umpteenth time or investing in the next fighter jet project that will run way over budget and still not work properly?

[Ksandra]

Fuck off with your glib bullshit. I suppose I needed to say "as the parent of two children and the son of a high school teacher"?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Why would that matter? I'm a daughter of a middle school teacher and math professor.

[Day]

Like giving corporations tax breaks to bolster their stocks instead of increasing compensation or upping our military budget for the umpteenth time or investing in the next fighter jet project that will run way over budget and still not work properly?

i mean throw a dart really

[Ksandra]

Like giving corporations tax breaks to bolster their stocks instead of increasing compensation or upping our military budget for the umpteenth time or investing in the next fighter jet project that will run way over budget and still not work properly?

All of this is so infuriating.

[zoobernut]

i mean throw a dart really

Hey if you put me in a room full of balloons all I have to do is throw a dart and something will pop.

[Gredival]

School-to-prison pipeline is about things like kicking kids out of school, not following PBIS, and having them end up in juvenile prison. It's not simply metal detectors by itself.

Bars, no trees, blocked windows, etc. etc. are not metal detector requirements.

From the post you are quoting: "And before you say metal detectors aren't the same as hardening schools, look at how the image of a fortified security school is kids going through a metal detector in a NY school."

From my previous post: "The African and Latino communities are huge voices of resistance to any 'hardening' of schools -- zero tolerance policies, guards, and other securitization -- because these have documented disparately negative impact on children of color [....] These schools are model prisons to deal with "problem" youth but essentially condition and normalize authoritarian discipline."

From a link in the post you are quoting: "If you want young people to grow up seeing themselves as prisoners, run the schools like prisons. [....] Remove the metal detectors and surveillance cameras, re-assign the cops elsewhere, and start treating our nation’s young people like citizens of a republic and not inmates in a police state."

If that analysis is insufficient, go read the primary sources. They describe very in-depth about how the modern state of schooling creates the pipeline. That includes the securitization/"hardening" of schools.

Can't find any analysis on this one so I can't comment.

See my above statement.

If your school doesn't give you access to JSTOR the RS article and the law review article are both publicly accessible. I'm giving your primary sources to rebut your arguments. You don't get to cop out of responding by saying "There's no analysis by other people for me to use."

Article links to study I can't see.

Unless your response is going to hinge on you taking down a scientific study, let's just assume that the article is honest about what the study says (Politico leans slightly right so they have no incentive to misrepresent)

Given that, does it change your opinion?

Seriously, you are arguing off the idea that there will be things that will come with the metal detector, which I've never argued for.

No the argument is that 1) metal detectors are an instance of hardening/securitization of schools and 2) hardening/securitization of schools is bad (particularly for the socioeconomically disadvantaged)

Do you feel like you are walking into a prison every time you go to a bank? Do you? No. Because you are not dumb, and know it's not a prison. You understand the purpose of the detectors. You grasp there is a need for them.

[....]

Now with shootings gaining national attention, more kids are seeing why schools would want the detectors, they would see the purpose. And it's not because we think they are all criminals, but that we want to protect them.

No because my local branches don't have metal detectors. But when I go through security screening for a court house or through the federal and state buildings I used to work at, it is a stark reminder that the locations are places of risk.

The point is that we don't want schools to be like that. And the most effective way to do that is to get rid of guns. Just accepting that the risk is inevitable and that we should deal with it, instead of eliminating the risk, is the gun lobby's way of stopping gun control by making you implicitly accept change is impossible.

And outside of the detectors the place looks probably pretty nice and nothing what you image a prison to look like.

Yes because the fact there are not cells with bars on them clearly proves that the securitization of schools is not bad.

Yes, they organized a 17 minute of silence for the parkland shooting with speeches after and pictures of the victims on chairs. I was super proud of them. It was 100% organized by the students, they just asked the principal if it was allowed.

We let students who didn't want to participate sit in the theater. Some did. Most were outside. (of course, you can't assume all outside were a part of it vs. wanting fresh air).

More students wrote about having more gun control than those asking for less. But the vast majority wrote about how they didn't want teachers to have guns.

Only two wrote about wanting safety equipment. None wrote about not liking safety equipment.

Not. The. Point.

I asked if they wanted gun control because you are using what your students want/say as a shield for your advocacy for metal detectors. So if they support gun control why are you blaming the Dems for going for gun control?

[archibaldcrane]

Why would that matter? I'm a daughter of a middle school teacher and math professor.

We're talking about the possibility of mass shooters coming into a school and shooting up students, who could be, in this hypothetical, my own children...and your response is "think of the teachers!" who might get shot.

I'm already out ahead of you there by thinking of my own children - and still saying I don't want metal detectors in my kid's school. Appealing to my lack of regard (in your estimation) of teachers isn't going to be effective here.

[Ksandra]

No because my local branches don't have metal detectors.

lol

So if they support gun control why are you blaming the Dems for going for gun control?

I'm not responding to the rest, because I have stated my point several times and you are ignoring it.

I am NOT blaming dems for going for gun control. I am a dem who is FOR gun control. And have stated that serveral, and I mean, several times over the years.

I AM blaming dems who ONLY want gun control, and refuse to spend a penny outside of what they consider the best answer while kids die because they can't grasp you can do BOTH.


I'll say it again and maybe it'll be clear: You can have BOTH gun control measures and school protection

You can AT THE SAME TIME fight for gun control measures, while also work on protection in other ways.

You CAN be all for gun control measures AND also want school protections.

Gun control is going to take a long long long long time before ever being meaningful and I see nothing wrong with having some minor protections in the meantime. Because again, these kids don't get to come back once we've won the war on guns. They're gone. That's it. Perhaps we should make sure less are gone in the meantime.

We're talking about the possibility of mass shooters coming into a school and shooting up students, who could be, in this hypothetical, my own children...and your response is "think of the teachers!" who might get shot.

I'm already out ahead of you there by thinking of my own children - and still saying I don't want metal detectors in my kid's school. Appealing to my lack of regard (in your estimation) of teachers isn't going to be effective here.

Why would your parent being a teacher mean you care about the lives of the teachers who are teaching your kids?

[arus2001]

And more aptly, the politicians should be the ones getting shot at for gleefully accepting the NRA's hand up their posteriors.

Otherwise, I don't go into a bank expecting to be there for 7+ hours with hundreds of other customers, let alone being forced into such like kids are with school. Securing a small building (in the majority of cases) is also more sensible than an entire school/campus, which also lacks the incentive of theft like piles of money in a safe might. We could probably comfortably assert that robberies of all stripes are more prominent than school shootings, but nonetheless are also exacerbated by firearms accessibility.

Edit: And part of the blowback on the "Why not both?!" pitch is that when gun control is finally a thing, you have all these resources that are objectively no longer required. Paired with the prioritization of funds to actually make education better for both students and teachers, it's not hard to see why these temporary fixes are viewed as a waste of time and money.

[archibaldcrane]

Why would your parent being a teacher mean you care about the lives of the teachers who are teaching your kids?

why do you think appealing to my caring about teachers lives is going to be effective when they're in the same situation as my own children?

[Ksandra]

why do you think appealing to my caring about teachers lives is going to be effective when they're in the same situation as my own children?

because that's apparently enough protection for you because that's the only protection they'll get.

[BaneTheBrawler]

dingdongs in this thread want to abolish the NRA even though not a single shooter I'm aware of was an NRA member, somehow that will be more effective and efficient than metal detectors because reasons??

people fully acknowledge banning all guns or getting rid of NRA won't stop every single one of these acts but I'm told it will help, but for some reason something as practical as metal detectors won't make every single person safer so no reason to do it.

logix

the NRA exists to sell more guns. it's literally an organization controlled by shills for gun manufacturers.



It's like if Big Pharma got together and made an organization called National Opioid Association which lobbied explicitly for deregulating opiates.

[Gredival]

lol

I'll just repost the rest of my statement that you cut, because your attempt to be glib here is just a mask for non-responsiveness.

"But when I go through security screening for a court house or through the federal and state buildings I used to work at, it is a stark reminder that the locations are places of risk.

The point is that we don't want schools to be like that. And the most effective way to do that is to get rid of guns. Just accepting that the risk is inevitable and that we should deal with it, instead of eliminating the risk, is the gun lobby's way of stopping gun control by making you implicitly accept change is impossible."

I am NOT blaming dems for going for gun control. I am a dem who is FOR gun control. And have stated that serveral, and I mean, several times over the years.

I AM blaming dems who ONLY want gun control, and refuse to spend a penny outside of what they consider the best answer while kids die because they can't grasp you can do BOTH.

I'll say it again and maybe it'll be clear: You can have BOTH gun control measures and school protection

You can AT THE SAME TIME fight for gun control measures, while also work on protection in other ways.

You CAN be all for gun control measures AND also want school protections.

Gun control is going to take a long long long long time before ever being meaningful and I see nothing wrong with having some minor protections in the meantime. Because again, these kids don't get to come back once we've won the war on guns. They're gone. That's it. Perhaps we should make sure less are gone in the meantime.

Because

"No the argument is that 1) metal detectors are an instance of hardening/securitization of schools and 2) hardening/securitization of schools is bad (particularly for the socioeconomically disadvantaged)"

I'm not responding to the rest, because I have stated my point several times and you are ignoring it.

I am responding. It's just going over your head apparently.

You say do both. I'm saying do both is bad because securitization is bad. Why do something good and something bad together vs. just doing something good.

[Ksandra]

by making you implicitly accept change is impossible."

Gun control is going to take a long long long long time before ever being meaningful

I never said it was impossible

I am responding. It's just going over your head apparently.

I know you're responding. I said you weren't listening. Because if you were, you wouldn't have asked this:

So if they support gun control why are you blaming the Dems for going for gun control?

As I am not, nor never was, blaming dems for going for gun control.

"No the argument is that 1) metal detectors are an instance of hardening/securitization of schools and 2) hardening/securitization of schools is bad (particularly for the socioeconomically disadvantaged)"

Even if said socioeconomically disadvantaged say they want it.


I just described a good example of security personnel at my school. But god, we should get rid of them because there are bad instances of security and prisons use security. Rather than learn from it.

[Gredival]

I know you're responding. I said you weren't listening. Because if you were, you wouldn't have asked this:

As I am not, nor never was, blaming dems for going for gun control.

You were expressing dissatisfaction/frustration with them for not getting anything done because they don't pursue alternative/supplementary options, such as metal detectors, when they can't get gun control.

And everyone else is saying that's stupid because they are 1) ineffective and a waste of resources (and also feeds into the anti-control tactic of distractions) and/or 2) actively harmful.

Therefore your dissatisfaction/frustration is unfounded.

Even if said socioeconomically disadvantaged say they want it.

1. Your students do not equal the majority of these communities.

2. Just like how Asians buy into the model minority myth and ally with whites against communities of color because they perceive civil rights as harmful for them and only helpful for Blacks and Latinos?

I just described a good example of security personnel at my school. But god, we should get rid of them because there are bad instances of security and prisons use security. Rather than learn from it.

Except that I gave you a wealth of primary sources to support my position. With the exception of the JSTOR paper, these are available for you to examine. However you declined to respond to two by saying "There's no analysis by other people for me to use," then you feebly tried to argue that the first source (a collection by different qualified authors, of which I cited three specifically) was talking about a different issue even though I provided the internal link connecting metal detectors to securitization to the prison pipeline.

So again, unless 1) your response hinges on your inability to disprove the scientific study Politico cited (regarding the inefficacy of metal detectors and other augmented security) PURELY because you can't invest the time/money to access the study in order to peer review it, or 2) you are going to assert that your personal anecdotal examples should bear equal weight to public policy experts who serve the House Committee and professors whose field of specializations are racial and cultural studies, then perhaps you need to reconsider your position.

You say you're against armed teachers. Your argument is essentially the same as armed teacher proponents who say "Well not every teacher has to be armed, it just should be an option for those who want to be."

[Salodin]

Bruh she's desperate to feel safe; your logic and facts will not reach her. She is too far gone =(

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Day]

She knows what she's talking about, you two clearly do not.

[Day]

Dems would rather stomp their feet and kick dirt than actually apply something that will likely help more than doing nothing but standing around crying about wanting to pass more laws for a decade or two. Clearly the laws around murder and guns are working we just need a few more.