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.
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.
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.
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.
The safest places in the world are protected with armed guards.
What? do you have more information on this?
The majority of mass shootings happen in “gun free” zones.
Only if you don’t count police or security that open-carry. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-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.
The right is emotional and wants to manipulate you with flawed conclusions based on their feelings.
The article uses biased language when describing certain individuals and groups, such as referring to John Lott as a “pro-gun advocate” and Daniel Webster as someone who “disagreed with Lott’s findings.” This kind of language can influence readers’ perceptions and is not conducive to an objective analysis.
The article presents opposing views but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the counterarguments. It briefly mentions that anti-gun advocates see different patterns in the statistical evidence, but it does not explore these alternative perspectives in depth or provide specific examples or studies that contradict Lott’s findings.
The article heavily relies on the viewpoints of Daniel Webster and Louis Klarevas to challenge Lott’s research. While it is valid to include different perspectives, the selective use of sources can create a skewed representation of the available evidence.
The article portrays Lott’s research as flawed without providing substantial evidence to support this claim. It mentions that academics have criticized his work, but it does not delve into specific critiques or present a balanced assessment of the academic debates surrounding Lott’s findings.
The article dismisses Lott’s characterization of certain locations as gun-free zones because armed security personnel are present. However, it fails to address Lott’s argument that shooters may target areas where civilians are not armed, regardless of the presence of armed guards or police officers. This oversight undermines the comprehensive evaluation of the issue.
The article briefly mentions that some academics have criticized Lott’s methodology, but it does not provide a detailed analysis or explanation of these criticisms. Without a thorough examination of Lott’s methods, readers are left without the necessary information to assess the validity and reliability of his research.
The article concludes that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of perpetrators of mass shootings or their relationship with gun restrictions. While this statement may be true to some extent, the article fails to provide a clear analysis of the available evidence and expert opinions. It leaves readers without a strong understanding of the topic.
Oh well, better luck next time…
The scope of the study is off topic as it discusses the size of a police force relative to the amount of crimes within an area. The proposed argument isn’t about the size of police forces, it is about putting existing police in places which we deem important places worth protecting, such as the buildings in which our children congregate on a daily basis.
If you had half a brain, you would notice that tons of government buildings have armed security forces and they are rarely ever the target of mass shootings.
The article does not provide any context or summary of the research it is discussing. It jumps straight into discussing the findings without explaining the methodology or the scope of the study.
The article does not provide any in-text citations or references to support its claims. It mentions the number of studies analyzed and the conclusions drawn from them but does not provide specific examples or evidence from the research itself.
The article presents a binary view of the findings, stating that there is no consensus among the studies and that police agency size has no impact on crime. However, it fails to acknowledge the nuances and variations within the studies analyzed. It also does not discuss potential factors that may influence the relationship between police agency size and crime.
The article focuses solely on the impact of police agency size on crime and does not consider other important outcomes, such as officer health and safety or public perception of the police. This narrow focus limits the comprehensiveness of the analysis.
The article presents its conclusions as definitive and dismisses any other interpretations as contradicting theory, evidence, and common sense. However, it fails to address potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives, which weakens the overall credibility of the article.
The right is emotional and wants to manipulate you with flawed conclusions based on their feelings.
Hilarious to say such a thing when you are clearly letting your emotions control your opinions while putting faith in bunk “science”. A true leftist, “trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it”…
“Why is the left against protecting children?” kind of biased language?
Fortunately for me, I’m not the one who is pretending to be a
fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Or, a criminologist, crime analyst, and criminal justice researcher…
Scientists should strive to adhere to the principles of objectivity and impartiality in their research and analysis. The scientific method is designed to minimize bias and subjectivity in order to obtain reliable and valid results.
I don’t see Politifact saying “the left” is “against protecting children”. That’s all you and the twisting of the narrative.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths-dg/index.html
Guns are the leading cause of death for US children and teens, since surpassing car accidents in 2020.
In no other comparable country are firearms within the top four causes of mortality among children, according to a KFF analysis.
Wow, why is the right against protecting children?
You sound like you are helping prove my point. Children need to be protected. So it makes no sense to prevent the placement of police outside of schools.
The unfortunate truth is that you likely don’t see it that way and will instead try to coerce people to give up their guns.
Children need to be protected. So it makes no sense to prevent the placement of police outside of schools.
The unfortunate truth is that you likely don’t see it that way and will instead try to coerce people to give up their guns.@Unhappily_Coerced I’m reminded of Uvalde, when the cops sat around while the shooter murdered children. If you want to keep people safe from gun violence, gun regulation is the obvious solution, one you clearly don’t want to entertain despite bipartisan support for many forms of regulation.
Evidence shows police in schools do not make students safer, and they disproportionately harass, punish and incarcerate black, Latino, and disabled students.
I suspect you’re not the type that cares about evidence as much as ideology given what you’ve posted. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.
That just sounds like welfare for useless cops.
We would be seeing cops beat and harass children within weeks of something like that being implemented.
Plenty of liberal gun owners pal, they just don’t drink the same flavor aide
Certainly aware and support their decision to have a means of protecting themselves and their loved ones. However, that is totally irrelevant to the idea that is being discussed here.
The idea is that you are sowing is the liberals are coming for our guns. I would disagree that liberals are coming for your guns, and it is indeed relevant that liberal gun owners exist. I believe this kind of mindset is mongering to rile up hate against ‘liberals’. Just because people don’t want you to conceal carry your AK does not mean they are against guns, or are some boogie man out to take your 2A rights, and strip you of protecting your family or livestock.
I’m a pro-gun leftist. Yeah, some liberals are coming for guns. That’s what they’re talking about when they call for bans. It’s kinda hard to miss.
Saying “no one is coming for your guns” is as disingenuous as OPs link. Trying to make that kind of claim will only convince pro-gun people you’re clueless or just the “I’m pro-2a but” fuddy type.
So, who is coming for our guns? Enlighten me.
