[RD] Florida School Shooting

[Timsup2nothin]

Since this has become a general gun control discussion thread I thought this would be an interesting point for everyone to discuss:

Apparently a poll of "Millennials", defined as people aged 18 to 36, aren't really any more for stricter gun control than previous generations. The polling found that Millennials are only about 1% more in favor of stricter gun control than the current national average of 57%.

According to the article I read, these results have come as a shock to both sides of the debate as the assumption was that the younger generation would be heavily in favor of tighter gun laws.

Just have to point out here that 57% is "heavily in favor." "Just 1% more" is even more heavily in favor.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If you want to start rounding up all the posturing macho beefheads, then you may be on to something. But I don't really see the justice, or even the catharsis, in singling out the one beefhead who had the bad luck to be in the wrong place and the wrong time.

I certainly don't see the justice in the Sheriff throwing him under the bus for failing to Robocop into the building, as if he would not have personally signed off on this ridiculous scheme to begin with. If we want heads, why not start with those who actually make the decisions.

Frankly, in terms of avoiding being scapegoated, blamed, shamed etc., he really didn't have to actually engage the shooter at all or even fire his gun. All he had to do was enter the building. If for example he snuck into the building, dove into the first classroom he could find with some kids in it, drew his pistol and whispered "Don't worry kids, to get to you he's gonna have to get past me first!"... He could have essentially done exactly the same thing he did do... stay hidden and just wait it out... and people would be falling all over themselves to praise him for how he bravely and heroically "protected the kids"... If he had just done that, he would be getting lionized and heralded and venerated... barely be able to stand from the weight of all the medals and awards they'd be draping all over him.

Both of these are equally likely. I would also place at least some blame on the police department itself, since they don't really take the "resource officer" duty all that seriously and tend to send their "mediocre" officers to those duties rather than sending some of their best. Until something like this actually happens, the resource officer position is usually seen as something akin to traffic duty so police departments tend to not want to assign their best officers to it because it is seen as a "waste of resources".

Thinking about it more... If he had just gone in and hid with the kids he'd be getting used as a poster boy for how well the "Resource Officer" thing works and he would be held out as an example of why we need armed police guarding every school. In fact, I can hear it now... they'd be saying "This brave heroic Officer was all alone... he did what he could, but he was only one man. Imagine if all the teachers were armed! Then there would have been enough armed folks to protect all the kids!"

The fact that they didn't assign some gung-ho super-cop that would have went in and martyred himself, or at least a person with enough nerve to run into the building and hide in a room with the kids, might be the only thing between us and overwhelming nationwide clamoring for us to "arm all the teachers."

 

[FriendlyFire]

Just have to point out here that 57% is "heavily in favor." "Just 1% more" is even more heavily in favor.

Still kinda suprising though given overwhelming support for universal background checks
On the other hand fewer gun owners, and same level of support for stricter gun laws

This poll was just for AR semi assault rifle ban.

 

[Commodore]

Just have to point out here that 57% is "heavily in favor." "Just 1% more" is even more heavily in favor.

Yes, but what shocked people on both sides was the fact that it only moved 1%. The assumption by both sides was that the percentage heavily in favor among youth would be much higher than we've seen in previous generation.

In any case, I just want to clarify that I wasn't trying to make any kind of point by posting that, I just thought it would be an interesting point of discussion in the gun control debate.

Do you have a link to the poll?

I'm having trouble finding it again. I know the article about it was from npr.org though, so that might help you find it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, but what shocked people on both sides was the fact that it only moved 1%. The assumption by both sides was that the percentage heavily in favor among youth would be much higher than we've seen in previous generation.

In any case, I just want to clarify that I wasn't trying to make any kind of point by posting that, I just thought it would be an interesting point of discussion in the gun control debate.

You and I have talked about this in the past in other contexts... I guess I'll call it the persuadability myth... the idea that people are ready to move from their ideological/political positions based on this or that happening or an argument being presented in a more palatable way. I've said in the past that I'm skeptical about how persuadable the average person actually is... you've suggested that folks... including you, were very persuadable. What do you think this statistic you posted supports?

 

[Commodore]

What do you think this statistic you posted supports?

After thinking about it a bit, I think it might show that parents still have a huge amount of influence over what their children end up believing. If there is no significant statistical change in a given issue, it might show that the younger generation may simply just adopt their parents' beliefs on the matter and ignore what any other source may have to say.

Now you might say that shows people cannot be persuaded, but I would disagree. For most people, parents are a trusted source of knowledge and wisdom on account of them being there to guide a person from their earliest days. Having a bond of trust that deep makes it extremely easy for parents to persuade their children, even when those children become adults. For any outside source to be able to persuade that person into a way of thinking that contradicts their parents, they have to break down that bond of trust. And that is very much easier said than done.

So it's not that people aren't persuadable. If someone seems like they can't be persuaded, chances are it's because someone else has already gotten in their ear and persuaded them before you got to them. And that someone else is usually the parents or whoever filled the parental role for that person.

 

[Arwon]

It might just show opinion polling is hard to do well. Tracking movement is particularly hard off a typical sample size. And with topic and policy questions there's often no way to know how strongly or genuinely respondents hold the view they give or select from a list of options.

 

[Sommerswerd]

After thinking about it a bit, I think it might show that parents still have a huge amount of influence over what their children end up believing. If there is no significant statistical change in a given issue, it might show that the younger generation may simply just adopt their parents' beliefs on the matter and ignore what any other source may have to say.

Now you might say that shows people cannot be persuaded, but I would disagree. For most people, parents are a trusted source of knowledge and wisdom on account of them being there to guide a person from their earliest days. Having a bond of trust that deep makes it extremely easy for parents to persuade their children, even when those children become adults. For any outside source to be able to persuade that person into a way of thinking that contradicts their parents, they have to break down that bond of trust. And that is very much easier said than done.

So it's not that people aren't persuadable. If someone seems like they can't be persuaded, chances are it's because someone else has already gotten in their ear and persuaded them before you got to them. And that someone else is usually the parents or whoever filled the parental role for that person.

Oh OK, I see... So its your parents' fault that you refused to vote for Hillary?

Joking aside... I agree that people are persuadable, especially in the first instance, but I think you can sense that what I was addressing is a little different from that. I'm talking about the room to persuade people away from one political position, ideology, "side" etc., you get the idea... once they have chosen their position. My feeling is that its a difficult thing to do, much harder than a lot of folks like to admit... and more specifically, that folks who like to characterize themselves as moderates or "undecided" are far less persuadable in their positions than they will admit, even to themselves.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think Commodore is wrong either*. I think you change some specific person's mind about one issue and I think you change the nexus that comes to them for questions like that. Though they aren't likely to reassign their loyalties. That's not going to happen very often at all. In fact, people who do easily reassign their loyalties are likely to trend towards being feckless friends.

Why would we think moderates are unprincipled and looking for direction instead of simply rejecting, on their principles, what they consider incorrect courses of action from different groups of likewise self-interested people?

*It was supposed to have the "either" from the get-go.

 

[warpus]

Just give every student a bulletproof vest as part of their student orientation. Duh. Side benefit is job creation

 

[Lexicus]

Why would we think moderates are unprincipled and looking for direction instead of simply rejecting, on their principles, what they consider incorrect courses of action from different groups of likewise self-interested people?

Probably because they so often assume an air of detached superiority, as though people with strong convictions are a little bit stupid.

 

[Berzerker]

Interesting game of pass the buck going on, the sheriff (Israel?) criticized the politicians and now the politicians (Republicans) are accusing him of incompetence for missing all the red flags and demanding he be suspended. Maybe both are incompetent...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Maybe? LOLs

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Interesting game of pass the buck going on, the sheriff (Israel?) criticized the politicians and now the politicians (Republicans) are accusing him of incompetence for missing all the red flags and demanding he be suspended. Maybe both are incompetent...

Actually, the Republicans are demanding he be fired because he is a Democrat. Incompetence is incidental to their supporters.

 

[Berzerker]

thats true, if he was an upstanding Repub the GOP would be defending or ignoring his behavior

 

[Ryika]

It's irritating that there are people on social media who are defending the cops who didn't go in to stop the shooter, some even claiming that it's "inhumane" to expect them to risk their lives for the safety of the children of others. Think about that. They don't want you to have guns to be able to defend yourself so people like the school shooter have a harder time to get a gun - which by itself is a reasonable position - and they are against arming teachers who could defend the children - which in itself is also a reasonable position - ...but then they also don't want it to be the duty of police officers to protect the children. So who DOES protect the children in such a situation in their mind?

You'd almost guess they want children to be killed, but then you realize that they're just morons who don't actually think about what they're saying as pieces of a greater picture, but instead just have emotional reactions to everything. Their "empathy" for the difficult situation of the cops blinds them so much, that they can't use their brains to actually think about their positions.

 

[warpus]

When you sign up to be a cop in a dangerous place like the U.S., you know what you're signing up for. If someone starts shooting, you gotta get in there and do your job.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's irritating that there are people on social media who are defending the cops who didn't go in to stop the shooter, some even claiming that it's "inhumane" to expect them to risk their lives for the safety of the children of others. Think about that. They don't want you to have guns to be able to defend yourself so people like the school shooter have a harder time to get a gun - which by itself is a reasonable position - and they are against arming teachers who could defend the children - which in itself is also a reasonable position - ...but then they also don't want it to be the duty of police officers to protect the children. So who DOES protect the children in such a situation in their mind?

You'd almost guess they want children to be killed, but then you realize that they're just morons who don't actually think about what they're saying as pieces of a greater picture, but instead just have emotional reactions to everything. Their "empathy" for the difficult situation of the cops blinds them so much, that they can't use their brains to actually think about their positions.

It's difficult. On one had we have a situation where a guy, quite understandably, didn't want to die. That probably ends one way, even though it does not always. But it's still a crappy thing to ask somebody to do, but here's the rub - we asked if somebody would do it, they signed up saying they would, then... well, it sucks, but we were all kind of counting on them. Big ask on forgiveness. But ultimately, it's what it is.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It's difficult. On one had we have a situation where a guy, quite understandably, didn't want to die. That probably ends one way, even though it does not always. But it's still a crappy thing to ask somebody to do, but here's the rub - we asked if somebody would do it, they signed up saying they would, then... well, it sucks, but we were all kind of counting on them. Big ask on forgiveness. But ultimately, it's what it is.

On the one hand yes, he took a job that presents a martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition. But then... that's only the case if he took the job in good faith and then lost his nerve when he in fact realized it was a martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition, and decided to go with scapegoat. I guess you can pity him having to endure the shame, etc... but can we really give him a pass on the scapegoat role he chose? He picked it.

On the other hand, as I and others have pointed out he may have taken the job in bad faith, just assuming he would never have to perform the task. So what then? Do we still want to forgive?

Then there's the third point, that I brought up earlier... the martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition was actually not his only option. He could have gone with "enter the building, find some kids, and then shelter-in-place with them"... With just a little more nerve than "Them kids are on their own, they knew the risks when they showed up to an American school!", he would have been a show stealing "hero" with poster-boy status for armed guards at schools and a permanent place as a guest on the talk show circuit.

 

[Traitorfish]

On the one hand yes, he took a job that presents a martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition. But then... that's only the case if he took the job in good faith and then lost his nerve when he in fact realized it was a martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition, and decided to go with scapegoat. I guess you can pity him having to endure the shame, etc... but can we really give him a pass on the scapegoat role he chose? He picked it.

On the other hand, as I and others have pointed out he may have taken the job in bad faith, just assuming he would never have to perform the task. So what then? Do we still want to forgive?

Forgive what, though? His crime, as far as anyone is able to articulate, is being the ground-level represent of dysfunctional public policy. No choice he as an individual made was going to have any measurable on that dsyfunction.

Scapegoating isn't bad because it's simply inaccurate. It's bad because it represents a breakdown of moral reasoning. It's poison for public discourse.