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.
DeSantis isn’t “making gay people illegal”, he’s doing what is right by protecting women and children from your BS.
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”.
We could discuss how countless groups of college libs attack people who they aren’t intelligent enough to have a conversation with. Or how the libs are trying to coerce speech through legislation with their fantasies concerning deadnaming and misgendering.
Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and acting like children.
Alright, lemmy help you out, buddy…
Private research has been instrumental in the development of groundbreaking drugs, aerospace technology, internet and communication technologies, agricultural biotechnology, transportation systems, financial innovations, and energy production. While many private ventures have been absorbed by the government or heavily subsidized in modern times, renewable energy technologies still require substantial upfront investments compared to fossil fuels. The existing energy infrastructure is designed for centralized fossil fuel power generation, making the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources a challenge. Transitioning to renewable energy requires changes in infrastructure and workforce skills.
Renewable energy is expected to become increasingly mainstream in the future, but at this point in time, it is simply unreliable and under developed. It’s not about policy reform, it’s about reliability.
Secondary point, the government is inefficient and under performing at almost everything they do and it’s up to the populous to get shit done.
If you don’t see the relevance to parts of our ongoing conversation, I don’t know what to tell you.
My previous comment was too many characters apparently.
The argument is against sociology and gender studies.
*, and the government subsidizing education
While some college degrees are useful, I wasn’t addressing all of them specifically, nor are their specifics relevant to the argument. The argument is against sociology and gender studies.
If we don’t study the ways in which our society is failing people, how can we expect things to get better?
Our society is failing because we’re shifting a child’s dependence from their parents to the government. Adults too who are in desperate need of assistance no longer seek out their neighbors or local religious establishments, they instead depend on the government. Both of these aspects require excessive taxation and social goods to be either bolstered or built from the ground up.
Sociology doesn’t provide practical skills that directly translate into specific careers. The job market is very limited, with many graduates failing to find jobs related to their degree. The study of society and human behavior is subjective, theories and findings are influenced by the researcher’s perspective, making it difficult to establish definitive truths. These biases are often disconnected from real-world applications.
Almost all the same things can be said about gender studies, because it’s irrelevant to practical applications in the real world.
How do you know this?
Men don’t menstruate and cannot get pregnant. Women cannot produce sperm and don’t have prostate glands. Try all you might, ingesting what you shouldn’t, you’re still going to be bound by the chromosomes you were born with.
Lefties are all about “trust the science, bro” yet when it comes to basic biology, often they’d rather rewrite the literature to fit some asinine ideology. HRT isn’t gender affirming, it is gender contradicting.
Any time there is any legislation put to vote that would reduce our emission it gets shot down by conservatives.
You see emissions, we see livelihoods.
If you work in a field reliant upon the fossil fuels that are destroying our planet, then you should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and find a job that won’t kill the planet.
Simply suggesting that people switch jobs overlooks the economic realities faced by millions of individuals. Are you going to build the businesses that employ all the people who have no jobs? Probably just expect the government to do it.
Drive a car powered by oil drilled by Americans, or drive a car who’s resources were mined by child labor and other unethical work forces… The choice is yours.
it isn’t moral to kill the planet
Scientific consensus suggests reversing global warming is impossible. While some tactics might slow down the process, you’re just beating a dead horse. The planet will die eventually, with or without human intervention.
Telling coal and wood fired pizza shops in NYC to reduce their emissions isn’t going to do anything compared to the military, the over seas shipping industry, the private jets, etc. Beating a dead horse.
You think you’re helping, but you’re just making millions of lives more difficult, both the people you’re telling to get new jobs that don’t exist and the people you’re supporting overseas who have much less ethical employment practices.
During the pandemic, global emissions droped like a rock. It is absolutely in our capability to build a society in which we maintain our freedoms while getting rid of fossil fuels.
Not sure which freedoms you think you still have when you’re being told to not leave your house, not get close to people, cover your face to muffle your voice and expressions… But it feels like that just circles back to my original statement regarding chatting on the internet all day… Maybe you’re content with interacting with people over video and text chat. Maybe you like sitting at a computer all day doing fuck all. Most people don’t.
Gloomy clouds indicate upcoming rain, reducing the number of vehicles on the road improves air quality. Profound.
We have clean technologies that we can invest in within third world countries.
Assessment of a technology’s environmental impact should consider its entire life cycle, including the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, operation, and disposal. Large-scale deployment of renewable energy projects lead to habitat destruction and harm to local ecosystems. Similarly, the increased demand for certain raw materials, such as lithium and cobalt for batteries contributes to environmental degradation and human rights issues.
No technology is “clean”, the sooner you face the facts the better off we’ll all be.
We absolutely can and should do so to avoid this disaster from getting worse and/or unrecoverable.
You absolutely should do the things that make you feel better about yourself and the impact you have on the world. You absolutely shouldn’t try to infringe on your neighbor by forcing them to follow you. Forcing me and mine through legislation to invest in your capital ventures through taxation is immoral theft.
It will, because leftists love to cry and moan on the internet.
I’m from Alaska. Everyone I know and their sons either kill millions of salmon every year or works for the oil industry.
You’re right that big bro probably shouldn’t be bailing out anyone. Unfortunately, truly free markets are hard to advocate for. The college debt topic is an easy target because we’re tradesmen who didn’t need colleges to begin with and all you silly kids getting degrees for stuff nobody needs is hilarious. Sociology, gender studies, etc etc. News flash, there’s only two genders, I and the trillions of people that came before me didn’t need a degree to figure that one out.
My statement about conservatives being outnumbered on the internet is anecdotal, obviously. From what I see, reddit, lemmy, kbin, twitter, etc… Mostly leftist echo chambers. If I’m wrong, oh well, NBD. Take yourself for example, a lefty hanging out in a conservative magazine. I fully support your decision to engage in debate BTW.
We aren’t voting to destroy the planet, we’re voting to keep our careers, livelihoods, traditions, morals, etc. Praying that our traditions and value will continue to have a positive influence on the world who, used to, look up to this country and our freedoms (yes, I’m a full blown ethnocentric and proud!). We also don’t vote to discriminate, we vote for a fair and equal opportunity across the board. Regardless of your skin color or the awful choices your parents might have made as the leaders of your life.
Nothing we as a species can do will change the natural course of the planet. Fossil fuels have enabled us to save countless lives from unavoidable, natural disasters. Nothing you vote for will detour third world countries from continuing the path of destruction.
It’s almost as if, people living off big bro, begging for free money and debt forgiveness have plenty of free time to chat on the internet all day… Meanwhile, conservatives are out in the world trying to hold the damn thing together!
Regarding the matter at hand. I don’t agree that it’s right to ban people who have opposing views. Most of my comment history here is talking to the leftists about that exact thing. Because yes, this place, as new as it is, is already feeling like a lefty’s echo chamber…
sad x indeed
Cogs in the great machine
Blessed is the Omnissiah
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.