Posted on 11/03/2015 9:06:56 AM PST by Academiadotorg
There may be a solution to school shootings but liberals might not want to hear it because it involves either calling the cops or carrying a gun.
“Dr. J. Eric Dietz, director of Purdue University’s Homeland Security Institute, concluded that in a study of all mass shootings since the 1950s, only two occurred outside gun-free zones,†Jesse Kremer, a Republican state representative from Wisconsin, claimed on his web site.
When contacted by the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dr. Dietz was more measured in his conclusions. Nevertheless, the reporter he talked to, Eric Kelderman, reported that “Mr. Dietz, a former director of the State of Indiana’s Homeland Security Department, says the conclusion to be drawn from his research is that to reduce casualties in active-shooter scenarios, you have to reduce the time it takes the police to engage with the shooter.â€
“His [computer] model showed that the number of victims could fall by nearly 70 percent when an armed police officer is on site. Having a small number of faculty members who are armed would reduce the number of deaths by 10 percent to 15 percent, he said.â€
While the Dietz study is not a ringing endorsement of concealed carry laws, it goes against widespread beliefs in both the media and academia. You will probably hear crickets chirp before CNN reports it.
Go Boilermakers!!!
Gun Free Zones aka Free Fire Zones.
Hysteria over school shootings is a means to an end and not intended as a solution to the alleged issue. They simply represent an opportunity to tighten social controls over the public while the public is not thinking clearly.
yeah the no gun sign never filled me with comfort
Free Gun Zones are much better than Gun Free Zones...
I would suggest that armed on-site security (AKA School Resource Officers- SRO’s) is a good step, but there’s typically only 1 officer available even where such programs are in place.
To do this right... or at least better... would require a panic button in every office that links directly to the SRO. This eliminates the problem of the SRO being on one end of a campus when the trouble is on the other. In that way, you would at least have a chance to reduce the impact of a shooting more quickly.
Headline that you will never see.
UNKNOWN ASSAILANT ROBS GUN STORE, SHOOTS AND KILLS THREE EMPLOYEES, NO SUSPECTS IN CUSTODY...
CNN reports? Who knew?
I had always understood that CNN was a cable channel set aside only for purposes of indoctrination, and any actual news items were carefully crafted to fit the institutional bias, before being put on the air.
Clinton News Network alive and well after all these many years.
I do wanna know how the heck you write a computer model to simulate the behavior of a deluded killer.
Now that is a dumb statement. Only a computer model could come up with that. The big deterrent in this case is the latent presence of firearms, which the psychopath doesn't even show up. The below study deals with that point.
Study by John Lott and William Landes from the University of Chicago Law School
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=272929
>>I do wanna know how the heck you write a computer model to simulate the behavior of a deluded killer.
The same way you write a climate change model: make stuff up, create assumptions, write the rules of the model to make the facts follow your assumptions, tweak as necessary to renew your government grants.
Such killers exhibit various objective behavioral facts, which can be statistically modeled and emulated. Facts like: 90% of the time within seconds of someone else merely displaying a gun, the attacker shots himself in the head ... ego you can model the situation and conclude that if the teacher is carrying a gun and displays it ASAP, the attack will likely end within seconds (at which point there aren’t enough dead to count as a mass shooting, so Leftists won’t count it as a valid solution). Add facts, expand the scenarios, get more statistical outcomes and realistic solutions.
In what you describe, there is no problem with the computer modeling. It's the making up of data, the use of unproven and unprovable assumptions, and modifications after the fact to achieve a particular outcome that betray climate changists as charlatans.
Scientific computer modeling works and works well in many applications.
GiGo
Models work when they can be validated.
Comuputer models of climate do not have the data base to validate the models.
Weather simulation models work because they are constantly validated and refined. A weather model can be checked against reality several times per month, every day, or a few times per day if it is evaluated on a short time frame.
The climate models deal in hundreds of years, decades at minimum, and they do not do well against the small amount of data that we have (relatively).
>>Scientific computer modeling works and works well in many applications.
I didn’t say that it doesn’t. But you have to face facts that computer modeling is an easily corrupted thing that can be held before the ignorant public and told that it is an accurate predictor of reality. In things like hydraulic modeling or actuarial predictions that have plenty of cause-and-effect data to ensure accuracy, this is true. But, in things like climate “science” or “how many people will an armed teacher save”, there is not enough data to prove that the conclusions are anything but opinion that is written into the code.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.