• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another School Shooting

I think this is the best explaination which looks at both views.

The weapons effect is a finding in studies of aggression suggesting that the mere presence of a weapon, words describing weapons, or pictures of weapons, may facilitate an increased likelihood of aggression, especially among angered persons.
The original investigation of a possible causal link between firearms and impulsive aggression was found by Berkowitz and LePage (1967). Under controlled laboratory conditions, previously angered and nonangered subjects were exposed to guns or neutral objects (badminton rackets) in the environment (on a table) and then given the opportunity to aggress. Results showed that angered subjects exposed to a rifle or revolver administered significantly more electric shocks than did those angered subjects exposed to neutral objects.

More recent research has shown that weapon associated words – a “priming effect of weapons” or “weapons priming effect” – increases the likelihood of aggressive responses (Anderson, Benjamin, & Bartholomew, 1998), which is believed to be affected by context (e.g., hunting vs. assault weapons) and individual familiarity with weapons. Thus, some researchers suggest that weapons priming effects are diminished among frequent weapons users, and that there may be a heightened potential for weapon effects in societies with lower levels of weapons availability (Bartholow, Anderson, Carnagey, & Benjamin, 2005). Overall, then, the laboratory evidence for a “weapons effect” is robust. The empirical evidence for the effect in naturalistic or real world settings, however, is less so.

Closely related to the weapons effect is the “offensive effect of a weapon,” which suggests that during altercations where there is a potential for violence, the presence of a knife or a gun may reduce the likelihood of actual violence as it plays a coercive role, allowing the weapon carrier to exert control over another with an increased threat of violence (Kleck & McElrath, 1991).

Weapons effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Thank you for the old All In the Family clips. It was the best show on TV and I remember it well.........May Carroll Oconner rest in peace.

I find it rather funny that you were a fan of "all in the family". The show made complete fun of people like you. Maybe you didn't realize that.
 
I think this is the best explaination which looks at both views.



Weapons effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for proving the point in the last paragraph: when a citizen shows a criminal a weapon, the criminal usually fears the threat enough to run away or surrender.


Also note in the middle paragraph were frequent weapon users were less likely to experience the aggressive priming effect...
 
How about strapped to pavement, steam roller in low gear, feet first?

How about we strap a M134 onto a projector stand and roll it around the hallway hunting for killers?
 
if every gun had a trigger lock on it, this would never have happened.

sure, if a guy uses his own gun, it would. but this was about a gun being misused..without the permission of its owner.
 
1 student dead, 1 seriously hurt in stabbing at Far South Side school

1 student dead, 1 seriously hurt in stabbing at Far South Side school - chicagotribune.com.

It is not just guns.
Makes me wonder about the quality of parents for some young people.
1) Absolutely correct, it's not the weapon choice rather the intent. This boy in Ohio was going to hurt someone regardless of what he had at his disposal. I think the adults failed these kids here as there were signs that he was considering violence according to the reports. Heck, I remember a couple of years back when a female college student got stabbed to death in the cafeteria and the crowd just looked on in horror, didn't even try to stop the assault. 2) The parents are troubled as well, the father had aggravated assault and DV charges, the mom had violent priors as well, poor kid didn't have a chance.
 
if every gun had a trigger lock on it, this would never have happened.

sure, if a guy uses his own gun, it would. but this was about a gun being misused..without the permission of its owner.


Puh-leese.

You don't think the kid could very well figure out where the keys are and swipe them? Or pry the lock off with something?

Can we go back to where this woman was a convicted felon and wasn't supposed to have a gun in the first place, so what makes you think she would have heeded a trigger-lock law? What fantasy universe is this you're discussing where people with long criminal and drug records who illegally own a gun would heed a law to have trigger locks on all guns?

Might as well set the fox to guard the henhouse.
 
Puh-leese.

You don't think the kid could very well figure out where the keys are and swipe them? Or pry the lock off with something?

Can we go back to where this woman was a convicted felon and wasn't supposed to have a gun in the first place, so what makes you think she would have heeded a trigger-lock law? What fantasy universe is this you're discussing where people with long criminal and drug records who illegally own a gun would heed a law to have trigger locks on all guns?

Might as well set the fox to guard the henhouse.
I remember someone years back speaking to how easy it is for a criminal to defeat a trigger lock. Takes minutes to find the key and worse in low lighting when seconds count, and a criminal can pop it in seconds.
 
So he should be killed within a year by the state?
(From Thread: On death row, by mistake (or worse))



and

In that thread I was speaking about ADULTS. Do you intend to keep following me around thread to thread looking for any way to try to prove me wrong? If so? I am not playing chickie.
 
When I was a kid in high school, bullying was very common. It was much more than razzing, and often consisted of pushing, shoving, verbal insults, glaring, and threats. It was nothing unusual, but kids were emotionally able to handle it. It wasn't *nice*, but it was nothing unusual. Nowadays, kids seem to have much more trouble handling anything that upsets them emotionally. It's a cultural change in stress management and response, and probably not an increase in bullying. Unfortunately, a kid who is being bullied these days will get in trouble for responding with force, which is what the bully actually needs.

We should look at pushing, shoving, verbal attacks and threats as unusual! There is nothing or should not be "commonabout someone laying their hands on you or assulting you in the school. It is this kind of thinking that is all kinds of messed up. None of this should be tolerated and parents are suppose to be raising their kids to be able to function in the real world. If while in a school setting someone lays hands on you? That is not a normal thing! It will not be tolerated in the workforce and it damn sure should be be considered a "usual" thing inside a frigging school.

Having said all this? If I ever have kids? I will teach them if someone hits you? You have a right to hit back and hopefully beat they ass. A child should be allowed to defend within limits and it does piss me off when these schools suspend kids for protecting themselves from someone coming up to them and frigging sucker punching them or hitting them. They really expect kids NOT to react to being hit like that? Give me a break.
 
Thank you for the old All In the Family clips. It was the best show on TV and I remember it well.........May Carroll Oconner rest in peace.

His work was before my time but he was a wonderful actor. I discovered and love watching Heat of the Night. It is sometimes on my cable and wish I could figure out when they show it all the time. It was a really good show. He was a very good actor.
 
Having said all this? If I ever have kids? I will teach them if someone hits you? You have a right to hit back and hopefully beat they ass. A child should be allowed to defend within limits and it does piss me off when these schools suspend kids for protecting themselves from someone coming up to them and frigging sucker punching them or hitting them. They really expect kids NOT to react to being hit like that? Give me a break.

The bolded was my point. We don't allow children to apply the justice that bullies really need anymore. Bullying was more common when I was a kid, it's just that we were able to address it in the manner in which it needed to be addressed.
 
The bolded was my point. We don't allow children to apply the justice that bullies really need anymore. Bullying was more common when I was a kid, it's just that we were able to address it in the manner in which it needed to be addressed.
I don't like zero tolerance policies, we have a right to self defense anywhere else, school is not any different in reality when faced with decisions such as defense. I also don't like the precedent set by disallowing self defense in the school because it could teach these kids to be wimps and might get a few killed one day when they leave the system.
 
I don't like zero tolerance policies, we have a right to self defense anywhere else, school is not any different in reality when faced with decisions such as defense. I also don't like the precedent set by disallowing self defense in the school because it could teach these kids to be wimps and might get a few killed one day when they leave the system.

We shouldn't encourage the idea that the proper response is to hit someone else. That isn't where we are messing up. Where we are messing up is in overreacting when it does happen.
 
We shouldn't encourage the idea that the proper response is to hit someone else. That isn't where we are messing up. Where we are messing up is in overreacting when it does happen.

Yup because sitting there and getting wailed on without defending yourself is clearly the way to go.
 
I don't like zero tolerance policies, we have a right to self defense anywhere else, school is not any different in reality when faced with decisions such as defense. I also don't like the precedent set by disallowing self defense in the school because it could teach these kids to be wimps and might get a few killed one day when they leave the system.

I agree 100%
Zero tolerance policies are complete BS!
I didnt have them when I was in school but they are around now. One of the girls I coach was getting harassed for half the school year. (pushing, name calling, taking her stuff, threw gum in her hair etc ALL ON RECORD) Typically she ignored it and acted like the bigger person. Well I guess these girls werent getting the reaction they wanted so TWO girls jumped her and started attacking her, a third girl just kind of helped and pushed her like one time. Well those two girls lost and while they were hair pulling and smacking and kicking at her they managed to get themselves punched in the face LMAO

This happened in the main hallway so it was on audio/video.

you know what happen?

the girl that got jumped got 10 day suspension and 5 days detention

the girls that did the jumping got 3 and 2?!?!?!!

WHy because of zero tolerance and they said that girl fought with 2 girls and the other girls only fought with 1 girl? COMPLETE BS!

and another case IN MY SCHOOL DISTRICT a bot was hit in the back of the head with a book, then punched, then kicked, while being kicked he manage to grab his attackers leg and pull him down. All he could do after being suckered and attack was basically hold on to him until teachers got there, this was WITNESSED by the school nurse, shes older so she feared trying to break it up and they both got 3 days suspension and 2 days detention. WHAT A CROCK!

lol
 
I agree 100%
Zero tolerance policies are complete BS!

You should have agreed 99%, and left out the 'complete'. For the sake of consistency.
 
We shouldn't encourage the idea that the proper response is to hit someone else. That isn't where we are messing up. Where we are messing up is in overreacting when it does happen.

I don't see why that is. If a bully is attacking you, shouldn't you be allowed to defend yourself?

As for overreacting, it doesn't seem that way. Tbh there is not enough action being taken. If students are committing suicide from such harrassment, then perhaps it's time for Draconian bully laws.
 
We shouldn't encourage the idea that the proper response is to hit someone else. That isn't where we are messing up. Where we are messing up is in overreacting when it does happen.
If I am on the street and someone throws a punch at me they will never make that mistake again, I will throw them a horrendous beating that will leave more mental scars than physical ones. I don't care if people think it's overreacting or not, the person at fault is going to answer for an unprovoked attack, if I were a student and did so I would be legally protected anywhere but at school. That is crap, if one doesn't want to get injured they should keep their hands to themselves.
 
I agree 100%
Zero tolerance policies are complete BS!
I didnt have them when I was in school but they are around now. One of the girls I coach was getting harassed for half the school year. (pushing, name calling, taking her stuff, threw gum in her hair etc ALL ON RECORD) Typically she ignored it and acted like the bigger person. Well I guess these girls werent getting the reaction they wanted so TWO girls jumped her and started attacking her, a third girl just kind of helped and pushed her like one time. Well those two girls lost and while they were hair pulling and smacking and kicking at her they managed to get themselves punched in the face LMAO

This happened in the main hallway so it was on audio/video.

you know what happen?

the girl that got jumped got 10 day suspension and 5 days detention

the girls that did the jumping got 3 and 2?!?!?!!

WHy because of zero tolerance and they said that girl fought with 2 girls and the other girls only fought with 1 girl? COMPLETE BS!

and another case IN MY SCHOOL DISTRICT a bot was hit in the back of the head with a book, then punched, then kicked, while being kicked he manage to grab his attackers leg and pull him down. All he could do after being suckered and attack was basically hold on to him until teachers got there, this was WITNESSED by the school nurse, shes older so she feared trying to break it up and they both got 3 days suspension and 2 days detention. WHAT A CROCK!

lol
Not cool on the system's part. It tells victims they just "have to take it" as if that would ever be an option outside of school property, and that pure numbers punishment seriously makes me sick, it's basically telling the victim they are just as wrong in using violence to stop as the perpetrators. I don't get how admins. can get their heads that far up their asses.
 
Back
Top Bottom