[wat0n]

There is a search engine called Google.

It comes with things like Google maps and Google Earth.

Then share the link.

How do you know that “we don't even know if it's possible to know for sure”?

Can you carry experiments to test any theories on this matter out?

If so, provide an example.

This is a leading question. It also betrays the fact that you are not reading my posts properly since this is also a strawman.

I thunk I will simply ignore these from now on.

No. Security experts and stakeholders are requesting improving physical security of schools, regardless of other measures. So why not do it again?

[late]

Can you carry experiments to test any theories on this matter out?

You don't need to reinvent the wheel, fer chissakes.

[Pants-of-dog]

Then share the link.

www.Google.com

Can you carry experiments to test any theories on this matter out?

If so, provide an example.

What are you talking about?

Again, you are apparently making an argument form ignorance because you have no real clue if the root causes are discernible or actionable.

[wat0n]

You don't need to reinvent the wheel, fer chissakes.

And yet there's substantial variation in those rates in the US over time. For example, there has been a secular downward trend in crime in the US in general, including homicide, even though arms regulations have remained the same. Other countries have seen their rates fluctuate even though they haven't changed their gun regulations all that much.

That's definitely not the whole story. It also doesn't explain why do mass shooters do what they do to begin with, as you said it yourself, Switzerland has a very developed gun culture but you don't see as many mass shootings as in the US. Hell, even here these things didn't happen as often as they do now decades ago even if gun culture has remained roughly the same and the overall homicide rate was higher.

Restricting gun access would help, yes, but it would not really tell us what's going on. If Americans are more mentally ill than they used to be and this is why mass shooters exist (and I ignore if this is actually the case), why is it so? Is mental illness becoming more widespread or serious in other countries?

@Pants-of-dog I can tell you have little leg to stand on here. As a reminder, ideally we'd want to be able to test out theories with experiments. If we can't, as it often happens, then we probably want to try other policies that don't really depend on understanding whatever the root causes of mass shootings are, like tightening gun control (unlikely to happen anytime soon due to the political nature of that debate) or buffing school security (which should be far easier to justify, who can be against making schools safer after all?)

Likewise, we'd like to be able to make our cost estimates replicable and acknowledge their limitations or assumptions like I did. Otherwise this lack of transparency smells like bullshit.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Without knowledge of the root causes and ow to address them , it seems wrong to simply dismiss them outright.

And please note that your estimate was a million dollars higher than mine, so if you want to insist your estimate is more correct, then I am happy to oblige. This, of course, only strengthens my point that these types of architectural modifications are often economically unfeasible.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog certainly we'd prefer to know what the root causes of gun violence are. But that doesn't mean we can't take measures that don't depend on them. Gun control and buffing school security are two examples.

I also said, clearly, I did a gross overestimate. You are saying yours is more precise but don't really show how. And even with this gross overestimate, the proposal seems to be feasible. At least more than reaching a widespread agreement on tightening gun control measures, beyond making sure criminals and the mentally ill don't get access to them judging by last year's Pew survey. People can't even seem to agree on something that should be a no brainer like banning the sale of automatic weapons to individuals, given how strongly it depends on party leanings and on whether you live in a urban, suburban or rural area.

[Scamp]

@wat0n
Since you are from Chicago, enlighten us.
Here are Chicago's numbers year to date.
Shot & Killed: 219
Shot & Wounded: 972
Total Shot: 1191
Who is responsible for this carnage? Who is in charge? What's the common denominator?
How are the strict gun laws in Chicago working?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog certainly we'd prefer to know what the root causes of gun violence are. But that doesn't mean we can't take measures that don't depend on them. Gun control and buffing school security are two examples.

Note that I never claimed that we cannot do these things because we should only focus on root causes.

Instead, I pointed out that these projects are often very expensive and there is no verifiable data that these policies save lives.

I also said, clearly, I did a gross overestimate. You are saying yours is more precise but don't really show how. And even with this gross overestimate, the proposal seems to be feasible. At least more than reaching a widespread agreement on tightening gun control measures, beyond making sure criminals and the mentally ill don't get access to them judging by last year's Pew survey. People can't even seem to agree on something that should be a no brainer like banning the sale of automatic weapons to individuals, given how strongly it depends on party leanings and on whether you live in a urban, suburban or rural area.

Your criticisms of your own estimate do not affect my argument.

Again, these projects are far more feasible if we took money out of the (much higher) police budget. After all, the cops were the least useful part of this whole situation.

[Rancid]

I like how conservatives keep yelling we need to turn schools into impenetrable fortresses. Pour all sorts of money into these schools, yet, not want to pay the teachers more.

I also like how conservatives claim we should arm the teachers. The same teachers they do not trust to say the word gay, or give assignments on classic books.

America conservatives are so full of shit, that the only explanation for how they have so much power, is that Americans themselves are just so fucking god damn stupid. This is the argument that we should be funding schools better and paying teachers more.

[wat0n]

@Scamp the exact same question was already asked and answered.

@Pants-of-dog we do have expert opinion suggesting they're worth pursuing. Gun control, screening and buffing school security. Furthermore, security measures can be tested too, it should be far easier to design an experiment to test their effectiveness on the field (by introducing them gradually) and the fencing of schools can be also tested by trying to see how long with it take to breach the security fence only using means normally available to civilians (car crashes, for example).

As for your comment about the police budget: Actually, if these measures help to make policing easier and cheaper then, yes, decreasing police budgets would be completely reasonable. Realistically speaking though if you're going to go for tough gun control then what will actually happen is that police will need to enforce that, and that may well require budget increases since actual enforcement of gun laws may turn out to be like enforcement of drug laws (expensive and hard). It would still make more sense than just filling schools with cops though and not doing anything to control who's getting guns

One interesting thing to note is that cops themselves have traditionally lobbied to tighten gun regulations and to stop loosening them. This includes both departments and unions. It seems Republicans aren't as pro-cop as they claim to be when it comes to gun access.

@Rancid they don't even want to turn schools into fortresses, instead, they want to fill them with cops and also arm teachers so they will also have to deal with security. If they truly wanted to turn schools into fortresses they'd support investing in beefing up restrictions to access but they don't. They expect cops will always magically manage to stop a shooter or that a teacher will pull a gun and kill the shooter like in movies. Honestly adding physical barriers to access would make more sense but this does away with the idea schools can be as open as they were a century ago.

[Scamp]

@Scamp the exact same question was already asked and answered.

No it wasn't.

[late]

And yet

Switzerland has a very developed gun culture but you don't see as many mass shootings as in the US.

And yet we know what works, all BS aside...

The Swiss are strictly disciplined. That wouldn't last 10 seconds here.

My problems with most forums is it's always the same dumbass excuses.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. Expert opinion is not the same as verifiable data.

2. Glad to see you finally agree that defunding the police will actually make things safer.

3. Having cops in schools is a waste of time, since they do not protect anyone.

[wat0n]

And yet we know what works, all BS aside...

The Swiss are strictly disciplined. That wouldn't last 10 seconds here.

My problems with most forums is it's always the same dumbass excuses.

I know they are strictly disciplined, so you don't think Americans could be? Maybe you're right. I actually find people here to be more disciplined but then I come from South America, where things can get more chaotic at times.

By the way, couldn't that discipline by itself have a lot to do with their lower crime rates regardless of gun laws?

@wat0n

1. Expert opinion is not the same as verifiable data.

2. Glad to see you finally agree that defunding the police will actually make things safer.

3. Having cops in schools is a waste of time, since they do not protect anyone.

1. You can do case studies or design an experiment to test security measures and even gun control, motivated by expert opinion. It doesn't seem feasible to do so to understand why some people just carry mass shootings out. Seriously, how would you do it?

2. I think it's the other way around. Take measures that don't depend on police and then defund it to better use resources.

3. I can see why it may be necessary in schools that have gang problems and extreme situations like that. I agree it's unnecessary to have cops in EVERY school, it's far easier and more effective to take standard measures to control access, and only call the cops if necessary. Seriously.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

1. Feel free to provide links.

2. However you want to phrase it, go ahead. You still agree that defunding cops is a feasible way forward.

[late]

I know they are strictly disciplined, so you don't think Americans could be?

How about starting right now.

The idea is absurd. I walked up a glacier that was clearly marked off limits. It was reasonable, I saw chunks of ice the size of fridges go sailing by.

When I came down A Swiss hausfrau came out and hollered at me for about 15 minutes. Because I was a kid, I got to talk to other kids, they hated it.

Seriously, the idea belongs in a comedy club.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

1. Feel free to provide links.

2. However you want to phrase it, go ahead. You still agree that defunding cops is a feasible way forward.

1. For what? How to design an experiment to see if a gun control measure is effective or if restricting access to schools is? You can do it by introducing those measures gradually and comparing the evolution of incidence rates between localities that had those measures and those who didn't.

You can even try to figure that out retroactively using synthetic controls, for example.

What I don't know however is how would you do so to test the "root causes of gun violence". Let's say you believe bullying is one such cause. So... Would you just randomly choose kids to bully them, then within these bullied kids randomly choose some to have easy access to guns and compare both groups of bullied kids with the controls that weren't bullied? Because that's exactly how an experiment would look like. Doesn't seem ethical or possible to test that.

You could instead try doing research on bullying and gun violence rates by locality, but unlike testing gun control or school safety policies (where the policy maker can control how to introduce these changes and where, including by randomization) bullying would not be something the researcher can control. The researcher wouldn't know why the bullying itself is happening and he would not know if the bullying AND the gun violence rates are being driven by something else, so there would at best be a correlation but no causation would be established.

2. The chronological order does matter though.

@late but how can you fix that? Let's say the US bans guns. How do you enforce it if, as you say, Americans are undisciplined and unwilling to comply?

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Until you provide links, this is not going to be fruitful.

[Scamp]

@late but how can you fix that? Let's say the US bans guns. How do you enforce it if, as you say, Americans are undisciplined and unwilling to comply?

It is estimated that the citizens of the USA have approximately 393 million firearms. And that's just the law abiding citizens.
Our Gov is not going to take our guns.

[Scamp]

You don't need to reinvent the wheel, fer chissakes.

Those countries are all missing a diversity that we have in the USA. Millions of them.