If Dems Wanted to Stop School Shootings Why Are They Against This? #Shorts | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report
youtu.be
Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” shares a clip of Ted Cruz sharing the receipts proving the Democrats aren't really willing to do what might be necessary to ...

The safest places in the world are protected with armed guards.

The majority of mass shootings happen in “gun free” zones.

If you want to stop the crimes, you put people in place to prevent the crimes from happening.

The left doesn’t care about stopping crime, they just want to disarm you.

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    0·
    1 year ago

    Fact-check: Do armed campus police prevent school shootings?

    Ted Cruz: “We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus.”
    PolitiFact’s ruling: False …

    Broader research provides not much support for Cruz’s claim that armed law enforcement officers on school grounds are the “most effective tool” for keeping kids safe from mass shootings.
    A 2021 study conducted by researchers from University at Albany and RAND examined data from U.S. schools between 2014 to 2018 to evaluate the impact of school resource officers. It found that school resource officers “do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools, but do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.”
    In addition, that study found that school resource officers appear to protect students from “a non-trivial number of physical attacks and fights within schools,” which could have long-term academic and psychological benefits for students. But schools with resource officers also report more suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and student arrests — and those harsher disciplinary punishments disproportionately fall on Black students, male students and students with disabilities.
    Another 2021 JAMA Network study conducted by researchers at Hamline University and Metropolitan State University in Minnesota examined a total of 133 school shootings and attempted school shootings from 1980 to 2019.
    It was limited by the availability of public data and the inability to measure deterred shootings, among other factors, but researchers found that, controlling for other factors such as location, school type and region, the data showed “armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries” during school mass shootings.
    Further, when researchers controlled for location and school characteristic factors, “the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater (emphasis added) in schools with an armed guard present.”
    Pete Blair, the executive director of the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University, said armed individuals can play a role in stopping school shootings in progress but cautioned against any claim that it’s “the most effective tool” or that it prevents school shootings.
    In Illinois in 2018, for instance, officials credited an officer with avoiding a potential school shooting involving a student at the school. The shooter’s mother said she thought her son was trying to get the police to kill him. Only the shooter was injured.
    Blair said the ALERRT Center is part of a group that works with the FBI to release annual active shooter data. The FBI defines an active shooter as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.”
    That data shows that from 2000 until 2021, there have been 434 active shooter incidents, Blair said. This includes shooter incidents in schools and elsewhere.
    “The most common resolution is for the attacker to flee,” Blair said, which happened in about 25% of all cases.
    In about the same number of cases, the shooting stopped when a responding on-duty police officer, armed security or off-duty officer shot the attacker, he said.
    Blair said the data isn’t specific enough to break down whether police officers who used force to stop an attack were already stationed there at the time — as a school resource officer likely would be — or were called in specifically to respond to the incident.
    Dewey Cornell, a professor of education at the University of Virginia who studies school safety, bullying and student threat assessment, said he has seen research that suggests school resource officers “can be valuable in building relationships with students and working with threat assessment teams, but not as armed guards protecting the campus from a shooter.”
    “I know of no scientific evidence that having armed law enforcement on campus by itself keeps kids safe at school,” he said. “We have prevented school shootings by identifying threats and working with troubled students before they make an attack.”

    There’s even more to read for those who wish to see Ted Cruz’s disingenuous argument thoroughly debunked.

    • Unhappily_Coerced@kbin.socialOP
      0·
      1 year ago

      trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it…

      False dichotomy: The article presents the argument as a binary choice between armed law enforcement on campus and restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This oversimplifies the issue and ignores other potential solutions or approaches to school safety.

      Cherry-picked evidence: The article selectively presents examples and studies that support the argument against armed law enforcement on campuses while downplaying or omitting evidence that may contradict it. This creates a biased view of the topic.

      Anecdotal evidence: The article relies on specific incidents, such as the Uvalde and Santa Fe shootings, to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. While these incidents are important to consider, they alone do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the issue.

      Appeal to authority: The article quotes experts and studies to support its claims, presenting them as the definitive authority on the matter. However, there are conflicting studies and opinions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools, and relying solely on one set of experts or studies is misleading.

      Hasty generalization: The article generalizes from specific cases or limited studies to make broad conclusions about the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. This ignores the complexities and variations in different school environments and security measures.

      Ad hominem attack: The article includes a statement from Sen. Ted Cruz blaming others for politicizing the Uvalde shooting, implying that his argument for armed law enforcement is driven by political motivations rather than genuine concern for school safety. This attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

      Lack of counterarguments: The article does not present counterarguments or alternative perspectives to the claim that armed law enforcement is an effective tool for keeping kids safe in schools. This one-sided presentation of the issue limits a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

      Overgeneralization of research findings: The article cites specific studies to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools. However, it fails to acknowledge the limitations of these studies and extrapolates their findings to make sweeping claims about the overall impact of armed officers in preventing school shootings.

      It’s important to critically evaluate the information presented in the article and consider a range of perspectives and evidence before drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        0·
        1 year ago

        False dichotomy: The article presents the argument as a binary choice between armed law enforcement on campus and restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This oversimplifies the issue and ignores other potential solutions or approaches to school safety.

        Cite where it does this. The only dichotomy presented there is whether Cruz is lying. (He is.)

        Anecdotal evidence: The article relies on specific incidents, such as the Uvalde and Santa Fe shootings, to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. While these incidents are important to consider, they alone do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the issue.

        WTF? As you acknowledge yourself, THEY CITE MULTIPLE PAPERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS. This article/argument does not rely on anecdotal evidence to make its case, even if it includes some.

        Cherry-picked evidence: The article selectively presents examples and studies that support the argument against armed law enforcement on campuses while downplaying or omitting evidence that may contradict it. This creates a biased view of the topic. … The article quotes experts and studies to support its claims, presenting them as the definitive authority on the matter. However, there are conflicting studies and opinions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools, and relying solely on one set of experts or studies can be misleading. … Lack of counterarguments: The article does not present counterarguments or alternative perspectives to the claim that armed law enforcement is an effective tool for keeping kids safe in schools. This one-sided presentation of the issue limits a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

        So present them. You have yet to present links to any studies or experts to refute these many papers presented, just a video of constant liar Ted Cruz spewing more lies.