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.
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.
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”…
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.
I already have though… I hope you have a better day, friend.
Not saying it’s fine, just that stupid questions deserve stupid answers.
It will, because leftists love to cry and moan on the internet.
Many countries have private prisons.
+1 for Feedbro.
Removed by mod
Nobody is keeping score, buddy. This includes you, apparently. It’s sad to see people who are so conceited. But hey, you lie to yourself as much as you need to, whatever it takes to keep you feeling content. Have a great day, friend.
Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top.
Feel free to point out the misinformation and falsehoods in my previous comment, which you downvoted. LMFAO. Talks in circles, blatantly lies, provides no evidence… Sounds like a spineless leftists.
I understand the repetitive reasoning behind your perspective. However, the problem lies in your understanding, or lack there of, of misinformation.
Who do you propose is the arbiter of what qualifies as fact or fiction? Because you make it sound like you are qualified to know everything about everything with your ability to downvote… Or, do you think which ever argument is the most convincing to you, that’s who is obviously correct…? Or are you more simple than even that and think, “this information is on TV so it MUST be correct!”
When you have a thousand qualified professionals saying the same thing, yet another thousand qualified professionals saying the opposite, what then becomes misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation? Are you still wearing a cloth mask outdoors and getting your boosters?
I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we’ve done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn’t hard to do…
During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.
Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.
The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.
Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.
The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency’s mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.
We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the “War on Drugs” policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality…
Good old “Drug War Joe”.
one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.
Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and creating more disinformation.
TamperMonkey browser add-on with RedditHistorySanitizer userscript (https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/23605-reddit-history-sanitizer/code). It’s kinda slow, but much faster than doing it manually!
Your comment clearly demonstrates your own bias. You are engaging in what is known as collective punishment or collective blame, unjustly punishing or mistreating individuals who may not have been involved in any wrongdoing, simply because they hold different beliefs or opinions than you and your group. This approach completely disregards the principles of individual responsibility and fairness, ignoring their individual actions and intentions.
Until an individual user posts racist or hateful speech, they deserve either the discussion they are looking for or, if you don’t have anything constructive to say, ignore them and don’t say anything at all.
It is crucial for you to recognize and acknowledge your bias, as it undermines the credibility and objectivity of your argument. By allowing it to dictate your actions, you are not fostering a constructive environment for discussion. You aren’t considering their merit or engaging in meaningful dialogue.
It’s important to remember that a person can hold bigoted views even if they actively advocate for social justice. Prejudiced or intolerant views towards a particular group of people, regardless of whether they are based on race, religion, gender, or any other factor, are equally unacceptable.
Remember, it is important to approach discussions with an open mind, respecting the diversity of opinions and perspectives. Only by doing so can we create an environment conducive to productive conversations and the exchange of ideas. Otherwise, we might as well create echo chamber magazines for everything. As an example, instead of “Politics” we’ll need Left Politics, Right Politics, Center Politics, Top Left Politics, Top Right Politics, Bottom Left Politics, Bottom Right Politics… etc.
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.