Right Wing Senator "We stand ready to assist" - --- NBA Hall Of Fame Coach " Assist With what? They're dead"
Gregg Charles Popovich (born January 28, 1949) is an American professional basketball coach and executive who is the president and head coach of the San Antonio Spurs of the National Basketball Association (NBA). Taking over as coach of the Spurs in 1996, Popovich is the longest tenured active coach in the NBA as well as all other major sports leagues in the United States . Often called " Coach Pop ", Popovich has the most wins of any coach in NBA history, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest coaches in NBA history .
Although he made a multiple time champion of the San Antonio Spurs (and that means more there than in some other places because it is the only major professional sports team they have) maybe Popovich would have more impact on society by being in Congress.
Yesterday he showed yet again that he is a national treasure. In a season, and perhaps career ending press conference (he may retire) he used his platform to speak truth to America
related
S AN ANTONIO — Before the San Antonio Spurs closed out their 2023 season with a 138-117 win over the Dallas Mavericks on Sunday, head coach Gregg Popovich met with reporters and spoke his mind about gun violence in the United States.
Popovich, toward the end of his pregame media session, prompted the subject by asking if anyone in the room was carrying a firearm.
“I just wondered because we have a governor and lieutenant governor and an attorney general that made it easier to have more guns. That was a response to our kids getting murdered,” Popovich said, referring to Texas politicians and their response to the Uvalde school shooting in May 2022. “I just thought that was a little bit strange decision. It’s just me, though.”
In addition to criticizing Texas politicians, Popovich took aim at Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R) and Gov. Bill Lee (R) and their response to The Covenant School shooting in Nashville on March 27 that left three children and three adults dead.
“I mean, I couldn’t believe it, so I wrote this thing down, but Senator Marsha Blackburn, her comment after was, after the massacre, ‘My office is in contact with federal, state and local officials and we stand ready to assist,’” Popovich read.
“And then there’s Governor Lee. I’m sorry to go on and on, but Bill Lee: ‘I’m closely monitoring the tragic situation. Please join us in prayer.’ What are you monitoring? They’re dead! Children — they’re dead. When I pick up my 6- and 11-year-old grandkids at school, when I’m here at home, on the way it goes through my mind that I hope they’re going to be OK,” Popovich added.
Popovich also addressed the three Tennessee Representatives who were expelled from the state’s Congress after they joined protests against gun violence. Meanwhile, Tennessee Rep. William Lamberth (R) met with some of the protesting students and asked them which firearm they are “comfortable being shot with.”
“Well, since you asked, what would it take to budge those people? What would it take?” Popovich said. “I mean, we’ve got two young Black guys in Tennessee who just got railroaded by a bunch of people that I would bet down deep in their soul want to go back to Jim Crow. And what they just did is a good start. It’s beyond comprehension. And what were they guilty of? They actually protested?
“Those (Tennessee Republican) legislators called those kids that were protesting insurrectionists. That’s hard to believe in America. But America ain’t what we thought America was. It’s changed. So if those kids are insurrectionists, what were the people on January 6th? What do we call them? What’s the next step or word or level of violence after insurrectionists? I don’t know what it is. What will it take?” Popovich added.
The NBA’s all-time winningest coach also indirectly addressed the National Rifle Association and the politicians who associate with the organization.
“You know, the greed of the gun lobbies and the manufacturers is obvious. We all know that,” Popovich said. “Money talks, but the cowardice and the selfishness of the legislators who are so scared to death of being primaried and losing their job, losing their power, losing their salary — you’d like to get each one of them in a room just one by one and say, ‘What’s more important to you? If you could vote for some good gun safety laws that most of the public agrees to, would you do that if it saved one kid? Or is your job and your money so important to you that you would say, screw the kid? What’s, what’s in your mind?’”
And while Sunday’s comments weren’t the first time Popovich, 74, addressed gun violence in the United States, he continued to plead for change in his final media session of the NBA regular season.
“So what will it take? Do we have to show it? Do we have to show that classroom?” Popovich said. “That’s a pretty big step, right? That’s just gross to think about. But do we need to show it, like the girl running with Napalm on her back? So they actually see that these parents couldn’t even tell if it was their kid, that they had to go the DNA route. Will that wake up (U.S. Sen.) Josh Hawley, so he won’t be running like this (raises his right fist) to the whatever they were, insurrectionists? I don’t know what the next word would be.
“You know, these people, they think we’re stupid — Republican and Democratic alike. But they might be right because they get away with that crap. They tell us things about prayers and you know, their offices are monitoring this stuff, like I said. Get away from me. Stop all the (expletive). Stop talking down to us. We’re not stupid, but they will do it to keep their jobs.”
Popovich to Marsha Blackburn -
"What are you going to assist with , scraping their brains off the classroom walls? Mopping their blood off the floor?"
Well, they could pass a few more sensible common sense gun laws. /s
In Denver, the Democrat enablers had to put SRO's back in the schools have some recent shooting
Popovich is a real brave guy who speaks up when he knows it won't cost him anything. Criticizing America is good business for the NBA.
Ask him or Steve Kerr to criticize China's human right violations. Or all the businesses that use child labor and sweatshops that their players profit off of. Than Money talks, and they get real quiet.
Popvich did say "America has changed". How does he say it has changed? Teenagers protesting school shootings, entirely peacefully, are described by the deranged right as " insurrectionists". Popovich hit the nail on the head. Keep that whataboutism coming though, it is what you are known for.
No. State representatives who take over the floor of a house of representatives, stifled speech with a bullhorn and stopped the House from performing it democratic duties were called insurrectionists.
When has that ever been acceptable?
from one of your favorite publications -
The Tennessee state police (probably not a hotbed of progressivism) said the protest was peaceful.
Their speech was stifled before they resorted to bullhorns. Tennessee republicans are such an uppity bunch.
One question...does the Federalist feed Fox or is it vice versa?
Just like all of those "mostly peaceful protests" during the Summer of Love.
Democrats and leftists need to learn the definition of peaceful; then actually be it.
They were insurrectionists disrupting the Tennessee Congressional session, period. The fact that 3 Democrats went out and incited the insurrectionists led to the dismissal of two of them- it should have been all 3.
Greg Popovich? The piece of shit hypocrite who is surrounded by armed guards and police? That piece of crap telling others what protection they can have? Fuck him
[Deleted]
A lot of players in the game that pays Popovich a lot of money like to have guns
Thoughts and prayers, sadly the typical response from much of America. Good for Popovich for slapping Blackburn.
I guess liberal democrats celebrating the abuse of women by other liberals “slapping them” in their comments shouldn’t surprise anybody.
Pathetic.
Anything on topic would have been a shock.
Agree, celebrating slapping women even figuratively is pathetic, but that’s all some “men” have left.
would bet down deep in their soul want to go back to Jim Crow.
He's playing all the loony toon hits.
Tennessee fucked up royally, admit it and move on.
Wow. He wants to see less kids get shot. What an asshole, amiright? /s
Sure. That's how you achieve your goals. Ridicule people for offering support to families and accuse them of supporting Jim Crow. He's not engaged in cheap partisan trolls, he's trying to solve problems. .
Support them how, exactly?
Popovich rightfully recognizes that Blackburn's take is bullshit, no better than "thoughts and prayers".
I am happy to discuss the efficacy of various liberal gun legislation. Much of it is not very useful, in my opinion, but at least they are trying to do something. It’s hard to totally find fault with that impulse. On the other hand, the Republican response is never a solution (even a weak one would be a refreshing change). It’s always, “Muh freedom!” Worse than useless.
How do you imagine? Counseling, emotional support etc. Simply acknowledging the tragedy. For people who attend a Christian school and presumably are believers prayers are probably appreciated.
Do you think insulting people and ridiculing offers of help are "supporting" families? Is their loss because the coach of the Spurs mocked offers of assistance? Might the families feel exploited that some obnoxious liberal loudmouth is capitalizing on the tragedy to score internet points with the hard left?
The asshole in this situation isn't Blacburn.
It's crazy that simple acknowledgments of loss , just basic politeness, are now fodder for ridicule and point scoring.
[Deleted]
I think suggesting counseling as a solution to a dead child is insulting and ridiculing to families. Is that really your answer?
That’s bullshit. When grandma dies of old age or cancer, it’s a “loss.” When a child dies from being shot, it’s an atrocity that should be prevented from ever happening again.
Right. Counseling is useless. Just do nothing and hope the Senate can pass a bill resurrecting their child from the dead.
But by allmeans, explain how insulting and mocking people will ensure no child is ever murdered again.
Is that really your answer?
Is yours to ridicule the idea that counseling might help a family deal with grief?
hen grandma dies of old age or cancer, it’s a “loss.”
I had a young cousin die of cancer. One of the things I remember most of the aftermath was my aunt being absolutely devastated that when she returned to work some clients she had didn't acknowledge her loss.
I would sure she'd be happy to know it's bullshit for her to be upset that her child's death wasn't acknowledged. Maybe you should give lectures to grieving parents about what will and won't help them with their grief, since you are the expert in telling people what they are allowed to feel. Use your sanctimoniousness for good.
Actually there are Republicans who do suggest a reasonable solution but the Democrats shoot it down (pun intended) quickly. IMO this requires two solutions, a quick or immediate solution and a long-term solution.
The quick solution is to get armed guards and police into schools, spend the money allocated from the feds to harden schools to restrict entry. Once schools are hardened then we can move on to the next gathering point. Hell, CNN headquarters is better protected than most schools with armed guards and a single point of entry. Why is it that when this is suggested for schools it's always ridiculed?
The long-term solution is much more work as it entails a lot of different parts including (but not limited to) enhancing the NICS system to insure it has all up-to-date data, insuring mental health concerns can be adjudicated and reported without a stigma or impact attached to the person, better education around gun safety including safe storage, better red flag laws and the education around them (also need to insure due process and the possible stigma involved). There's more that can be done here, but I think this is a start. But as you can imagine, even getting thru this list will take many many years.
For those who's first impulse is to shout out to ban guns, I submit that just won't work. If the 1984 assault weapons ban is re-enacted, all it does is ban the new sale of such guns. And how quickly did manufacturers "change" their design to match what the law demanded? Not to mention that there are something like 20 million AR-15's and how many more similar type weapons already in civilian hands... No, common sense to me means that if you are banning guns then first you need to get rid of the 2nd Amendment, then ban ALL guns and then have police/military go door to door to confiscate them, and finally build a really big wall around the entire country to stop smuggling in of weapons. No half measures. Any partial ban will do little to stop the next mass shooting and then where will you go? And lets not forget the 2015 Paris attacks. Automatic weapons are banned in France, France has some fairly hard gun-control laws already and that didn't stop this attack.
For preventing future murders? Yes, it damned well is useless.
Take your hurt feelings and go cry quietly in the corner. Children are dying, so your feelings don’t worry me in the slightest.
I would not suggest that. I have guns and I want to keep them. But I am tired of hearing that nothing can be done on the grounds that there are too many guns out there already. The same people that say that, also say we should close our very long border and deport 20+ million illegal aliens or somehow eliminate the uncountable dangerous drugs infesting our society. So, the job is only too big if we’re unwilling to try.
I would rewrite the Second Amendment. Good people should have access to guns, but there should be requirements around safety, competency, and responsibility. Think about how much training goes into our military personnel before they get guns, but any random 18 year-old civilian can just go get one without training or assessment. That’s not sensible. And there are, incredibly, people who think there shouldn’t be an age limit on buying a gun.
Shootings happen in other countries, to be sure, but they are exceedingly rare compared to what goes on in the United States.
Why do you want to keep them?
What is special about America that it requires a level of personal individual gun ownership that is rarely seen in the rest of the world (outside of countries that are in active warfare or have no functioning government). Is it psychological? Philosophical? Why are Americans so unique and special? Because we have a second amendment "right"? That is not an explanation.
In 1700 or even 1800 the "average" person may have had need for a gun. The vast majority of Americans lived in rural areas where they may have needed guns to shoot food or scare away destructive critters, and in some rare cases for self-defense. Today the vast majority of Americans live in cities or in metro areas consisting of cities and suburbs, which are often highly developed areas of high population.
Why should we have the same rules for gun ownership that we had when the population distribution was entirely different?
There's still a large number of people that live in those rural areas,.....
Oh for christs sake, give it a rest. It is long past time someone called out the Marsha Blackburns of America for their "thoughts and prayers" drivel. Popovich is intentionally being "impolite" to her, because her "concern" is in total lieu of action to lower gun deaths.
The new, young, Democratic congressman Maxwell Frost was on a tv show this morning. One of the things he noted was that we have a blooming generation of young people who have grown up with "active shooter drills" in their daily lives. Armed guards in schools may stop some of the attacks, but not all of them and maybe not even the majority. Like the drills, the armed guards will remind kids that they could be attacked by a maniac with a semi-automatic rifle at any time, and teach them that everyone should always be armed. What a world we will build for them.
We need a modern amendment to our Constitution, what do you want it to say?
For preventing future murders? Yes, it damned well is useles
Lol. And Greg Popovich grandstanding prevents them.
But hey, you attacked basic human decency, so you can feel good about yourself.
How do you do anything, ever, knowing you haven't prevented child from being murdered, somewhere sometime? . Just think of all the time you've wasted on this site or even with your family not preventing child murder. '
There's no time for basic human kindness when child murder can be prevented!
\ Children are dying, so your feelings don’t worry me in the slightest.
Thanks, it's nice of you to take time out your day telling everyone else how they should feel to tell me not to offer condolences to grieving families. You are truly selfless in sharing your self righteousness with everyone .
If you want to take a stand against offering condolences to grieving families, be my guest. I'll happily choose the side of basic human decency.
I've heard this argument before. What utter horseshite.
We have armed security in banks all the time. We have them at concerts and sporting events and even the Smithsonian. Nobody seems to suffer from emotional scars.
If we want to make the point that we value our money more than our kids, then fine. But the idea that a police officer scares kids is just stupid.
The irony is galactic.
Its not the police officer that will scare kids, its when they realize why he is there.
The idea that the presence of an armed guard, probably an older man or woman , and a little overweight , (because those are the only people who will take such a boring job full time) is going to terrify ultra armed mad men is wishful thinking , and just stupid.
So what are your thoughts and ideas? Why no comment on my suggestions for both an immediate fix and a long-term fix?
And there's a process for that built right into the Constitution. Have you reached out to your federal representatives yet?
My point here was that it doesn't really matter what laws are set, these types of events will still occur as the criminal mind doesn't really bother to follow the laws. So why does this happen more in the US than in other countries? What is different here in the US vs other countries? Even taking out the criminal vs criminal or gang vs gang action, why does this happen here more than elsewhere? Take the latest one in Louisville.. The shooter, from what has been released, seemed like a successful young man, had a masters degree and so far no mental health issues have been released that I am aware of. We also know that he had recently been notified that he was going to be fired. What makes someone decide to kill other people like he did? What is being missed here?
This is the hard part of finding a solution because we move on so quickly from these types of shootings without any understanding of the why. And without understanding of the why we will never find a solution that will do any good. And that's why I said that just banning these so-called "assault weapons" won't do any good, if they ban guns they will need to ban all guns and then go door to door to confiscate all of them.
You might be surprised by the gun ownership stats from around the globe. Did you know that there are 50 million guns in civilian hands in China? While I don't like the PRC government due to it's policies on people, I don't believe one could call them a country in active warfare or a non-functioning government.
However another explanation might be that America is one of the richest countries in the world, the individual citizens have more personal wealth than citizens in other countries. And having that wealth they look for "toys". Why does the average American household have 2.5 television sets? Again, we have the capital to allow us to have more belongings than we really need. One could also ask why do citizens own so many cars? And why do those cars have to drive over 30mph?
Americans are not so unique and special, they just have the personal wealth that allows them the ability to indulge themselves. If personal gun ownership was truly the problem for these mass shootings, we would experience hundreds of mass shootings daily given the number of weapons in civilian hands. We don't experience that because the issue is not the gun itself but the mindset of the person who would willingly shoot and kill other people.
What a steaming pile of shit that is. Troll elsewhere, will ya? I notice you still don’t have shit to say about stopping the murder of children. So you deflect to attacking me. Absolutely typical of people with no interest in solutions.
You flip out over saying counseling helps people and it's a good thing to offer condolences and you want to call someone a troll?
You still haven't explained how insulting people stops child murder. Has Popovich's insults stopped child murder? Have yours? At least hold yourself to the standard you hold others.
The very comment you replied to has my thoughts and ideas at a very general level because that is the nature of a quick comment. I mentioned requirements on safety, competence, and responsibility. I mentioned training and age. We can explore ideas in more detail, of course, but don’t pretend I haven’t expressed ideas at all.
Acquisition, ownership, maintenance, and use of guns should all be more regulated than they are. It should at least be as hard as driving a car, but I think it should be more involved even than that. People should not only have to be trained in the use of a gun, but also trained in how not to use one to cope with anger or depression.
Of course it matters. If we take the attitude that it doesn’t matter what the laws are, then why have them at all? Why make murder illegal? Why make DUI illegal? Why make domestic violence illegal? Of course it matters. Are all laws highly effective? No. But it does matter.
One thing I will say about the law, since I have a little experience with it, is that what really deters criminal behavior is the certainty of consequences. A lot of people commit crime because they think they will either get away with it totally, or the penalty will be minor.
Obviously, though, if you’re prepared to go out and murder dozens of people, we’re talking about a whole different dynamic.
A few things:
First, is the guns. If we can’t honestly acknowledge the fact that we have more guns than humans in this country, and that that could be a factor, then we are doomed to make no progress. People in other countries also have bad days or a bad life and want to lash out, just like they do in America. The difference is that in America, it’s super easy to have not just one gun, but several, so a person lashes out in a way that is both dramatic and easy to pull off. People commit crimes or suicides with a gun in America because guns are highly efficient, and having the gun is easy. That should be common sense.
Can you commit murder/suicide/violent crime in another country? Of course, and people do. They use knives, hammers, their bare hands, even explosives. But no country that isn’t basically at war kills groups of people on a regular basis the way America does.
We’re so efficient at it because we have a shit-ton of guns and a shit-ton of people who have these guns with no concern for how their mental health might interact with ownership of that gun.
Second is who we are, as a people. I’ll never find it now, but years ago, I read a historical paper on gun homicides in the US vs Britain in the late 19th and early 20th century. At that time, they still had a lot of guns in England, but the US still had way more murders.
So it’s not the just the guns. It’s something about the society. We pride ourselves on living in the “Wild West.” We pride ourselves on being rebellious. We pride ourselves on individuality to the point of selfishness. All of this creates a society of “every man for himself” and “fuck the other guy.” This is just my opinion, but it’s based on observation of various cultures around the world, and how our society has evolved over time. Some cultures have a population that cares a lot about the community. Others, like ours, are all about the individual.
Third, is a decline in the economy that stretches back decades now, to the end of the 50s. People love to look back at that time as a golden age, and with good reason. There may have never been a better time, economically, to be alive in this country. A man could work a job with minimal training that supported a wife, multiple kids, a house, and a car or two. That seems impossible today, and the maldistribution of wealth in this country gets worse by the year. Poverty and desperation are great drivers of crime - especially violent crime.
Grow up, will ya?
You've never worked with kids, clearly.
I'm not sure what you're imagining, but secondary schools in Texas usually have an actual police officer assigned to the campus. He's armed, wears body armor, and has qualified with his weapon. We're not talking about Paul Blart.
I think this is far more important an idea than many people like to think it is.
We're talking about people who have no fear of consequences. That changes the entire regulatory thought process.
Here are the states with the most public schools in operation, 2020-21
Math.
Not sure what point you're driving at with this chart (since you didn't say), but it doesn't look good for Illinois and Michigan.
As the first and second most populous states, I would expect California and Texas to rank first and second in just about anything, including school shootings.
Illinois, however, only ranks 6th in population, but is 3rd in shootings. Michigan ranks 10th in population, but 5th in shootings. That is not what one would expect.
Additionally, California and Texas have wildly different gun laws, but it doesn't seem to impact the rankings. That might be worth investigating.
[trolling]
That's an interesting observation.
Jack said they have armed cops in Texas schools to prevent mass shootings. It doesnt appear to have made a lot of difference. Otherwise Texas would be near the bottom of the list, population figures notwithstanding.
Fuck off.
I would say it's telling that you have such a hateful response to statistical data.
But there's not much left to tell, really.
What was hateful about it?
Texas has more schools than all the other states. I know that Einstein. You are the one who said cops in schools would end school shootings, and they have such cops in most Texas schools.
So why are they second in the number of school shootings?
As for your lame ass and ubiquitous attempts at being condescending, fuck off again.
Again... your data skills are failing you.
You don't seem to be able to differentiate between "when a gun is fired, brandished (pointed at a person with intent), or bullet hits school property, regardless of the number of victims, time, day, or reason" with "mass shootings".
Nor are you apparently able to understand the difference between elementary and secondary schools.
I won't yet trouble you with the difference between kids shooting at the building while driving by the campus at 2am on Saturday night and kids actually shooting another student during the school day. One step at a time.
Do cite me saying so.
Secondary schools. Typically in wealthier districts. They don't have the money to put them everywhere.
Because you don't understand the definition of "school shooting" as you've cited it.
Armed campus police do not prevent school shootings, research shows
Multiple studies have found no association between the presence of armed officers in schools and the deterrence of violence.
June 1, 2022
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, has blamed others for politicizing the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, to advance discussions about gun access.
To Cruz, the answer is simpler.
“We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” Cruz said in Washington on May 24, just hours after the shooting, before many details were known.
“Inevitably when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it, you see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work. It’s not effective. It doesn’t prevent crime.”
Is it true that we know from “past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus”?
No.
Whether it’s anecdotal evidence or broad-based research, there is little to support Cruz’s claim. Let’s start with what happened in Uvalde, Texas.
Uvalde shooting details
Officials have offered various and conflicting reports at what happened at Robb Elementary School. On May 25, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety Steven McCraw said that before 18-year-old Salvador Ramos entered the school and shot and killed at least 19 children and two teachers, he was confronted by a district school resource officer, a common title for armed police officers who work on school grounds.
“There was a brave consolidated independent school district resource officer that approached (Ramos), engaged him and, at that time, gunfire was not exchanged,” McCraw said. “The subject was able to make it into the school.”
Other media accounts offer some different details about the number of officers and the level of confrontation.
And then on May 26, Texas law enforcement officials said Ramos was able to enter the school unobstructed and that a school resource officer was not on scene.
“He walked in unobstructed initially,” said Victor Escalon, regional director for the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Law enforcement officers ultimately shot and killed Ramos, McCraw said, but not before at least 21 people were killed and 17 additional people were injured.
The Sante Fe, Texas, shooting
In 2018, in Texas, Cruz responded to another school shooting, this one at Santa Fe High School, in Santa Fe, Texas.
In that case, the shooter was confronted by two police officers who were stationed at the school, according to a local sheriff. The officers, one of whom was shot during the attack, “hemmed the gunman into one classroom and saved lives by drawing his attention and fire,” the sheriff said.
About 30 minutes after the shooting started, the 17-year-old suspect surrendered to law enforcement. A total of 10 people were killed and 13 were wounded. Multiple explosive devices were also found at or near the school, officials said.
The Trace, a nonprofit newsroom that focuses on gun issues, found that in Santa Fe and in three other prominent shootings in 2018 — Kentucky’s Marshall County High School in January; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February; Maryland’s Great Mills High School in March — “attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards.” In each case, guards failed to stop the shooter from killing.
What research says about armed law enforcement in schools
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, attends a prayer vigil in Uvalde, Texas, Wednesday, May 25, 2022. The vigil was held to honor the victims killed in Tuesday’s shooting at Robb Elementary School. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)
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.”
...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.”
Are armed officers a deterrent?
PolitiFact found no studies or research that conclusively showed that the presence of armed officers deterred people from targeting schools.
“From a theoretical point of view, it makes sense. Trying to prove it empirically can be difficult,” Blair said. “I can’t point to any specific cases and say, here’s this specific case where this person said, they looking at this and they chose not to because there was an armed security guard there.’”
The 2021 JAMA Network study said data suggested “no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence” in mass shootings from 1980 to 2019.
“Prior research suggests that many school shooters are actively suicidal, intending to die in the act, so an armed officer may be an incentive rather than a deterrent,” the study said.
...Our ruling
Cruz said, “We know from past experiences that the most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus.”
A 2021 JAMA Network study said data found “no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence” in mass shootings from 1980 to 2019. A 2021 study by the University at Albany and RAND said school resource officers “do not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.”
We rate this claim False.
Jack, you can accept this article, whine about it, snark about it, misrepresent it. Whatever you want. I dont give a fuck about this any more.
You are an excuse factory.
Armed guards don’t deter gunmen
It’s an axiom of the pro-gun movement that mass shooters target “gun-free zones.” According to that logic, the presence of armed guards should deter shooters. President Donald Trump embraced that reasoning in a post-Parkland statement on school safety.
But the record usually doesn’t back up the deterrence theory — gunmen have often targeted schools with armed guards. In four high-profile 2018 school shootings — Kentucky’s Marshall County High School in January; Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February; Maryland’s Great Mills High School in March, and Santa Fe High School in Texas in May — attackers stormed campuses despite the presence of armed guards. In all four of those cases, guards failed to stop the gunman from killing.
More generally, active shooters do not favor “gun-free zones.” Louis Klarevas, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, analyzed 111 shooting attacks between 1966 and 2015 for his book Rampage Nation , and found that only 18 took place in areas where firearms were banned.
Armed guards can have unintended consequences for schools
The current vogue for safeguarding schools with deadly force is a response to atrocities like Parkland. But school shootings remain relatively rare. Most of the guards hired as part of the recent trend will never encounter an active shooter. But they will carry guns around students every day on the job. And experts question whether this makes schools safer.
Instead, the push for armed security in schools is “perception based,” according to Mayer, the Rutgers professor. “The parents and the administrators feel good about having police officers in schools, and they perceive improved school safety.” However, the students themselves don’t necessarily feel comforted by police or other armed security. Instead, kids may just feel policed.
Illinois has Chicago which skews the stats.
Almost all Illinois school shootings occur outside the building on school grounds. Inside, high schools have metal detectors.
As for the "gun laws" , they are subverted by the amount of ILLEGAL guns which enter Chicago from other states.
That's about to change with the election of Brandon Johnson, a true progressive, unlike the past PINO's.
You mean laws don't stop them? I'm shocked to hear that! Absolutely shocked to hear laws don't stop criminals.
You realize you undermine your claim in your own citation.
No, on second thought, you probably don't realize it.
Which is entirely different from finding studies that conclusively show the presence of armed officers does not deter people. But again, don't let the basic facts dissuade you.
Where do you think they're happening in Texas?
Blackburn is a complete waste of space. There isn't one thing she's ever done that's been of any benefit to anyone.
I think an armed cop on campus might reduce fights and one-on-one school violence. Since most mass shooters are also suicidal, armed cops on campus might be an incentive for them.
Then let them find the armed security guard and commit suicide. hopefully before they reproduce.