Unhappily_Coerced

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.

I'm reminded of Uvalde

"negativity bias"

Law enforcement agencies in the United States have, on multiple occasions, successfully intervened to stop potential and active school shooters. Interventions vary in terms of effectiveness.

gun regulation is the obvious solution

Do you not find it dumbfounding? How can we have so many existing firearm regulations and still have evil people? It's quite perplexing, isn't it?

It's almost as if, the guns aren't the problem to begin with, and instead, people’s culture and mental health are to blame. Imagine that. People kill people, with or without access to firearms... Amazing!

Now that we've covered some obvious nuggets of truth, we get to dive into why the articles you've put your faith in are BS pseudoscience. Enjoy.

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/making-schools-safe-and-just

...begins with the personal experience of Cameo Kendrick, using her feelings and experiences to support the argument against SROs. While personal anecdotes can be powerful, they are not sufficient evidence to draw broad conclusions.

...is manipulative, heavily relying on emotional language and appeals to fear and racial injustice to shape the narrative.

...mentions statistics about the increase in the number of SROs in schools but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the data.

...implies a causal relationship between the presence of SROs and negative outcomes such as higher rates of behavioral incidents, suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. However, it fails to consider other factors that could contribute to these outcomes.

...highlights statistics that support its argument, such as the disproportionate arrest rates of Black students. Does not provide a complete picture of the overall effectiveness or impact of SROs.

...makes sweeping generalizations about the impact of SROs based on limited research and isolated incidents. It fails to acknowledge that the effectiveness and outcomes of SRO programs can vary significantly across different schools and communities.

...does not present any opposing viewpoints or address potential benefits of having SROs in schools. This one-sided presentation undermines the credibility and objectivity of the argument.

...asserts that several school districts have already moved to stop the practice of employing SROs, but it does not provide any specific examples or evidence to support this claim.

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/no-police-in-schools

...opens with a strong emotional appeal by linking the presence of police in schools to historical injustices such as slave patrols and forced dislocation of indigenous youth. It is crucial to evaluate the current situation based on evidence and data rather than relying solely on emotional appeals.

...cites a few instances where school districts eliminated or made progress towards eliminating school police, implying that this is a widespread trend across California. However, without providing a comprehensive analysis of the situation in all California schools, it becomes a cherry-picked example.

...suggests a correlation between the presence of police in schools and higher rates of arrests. Other factors such as the demographics of the student population, socioeconomic conditions, and crime rates in the surrounding community could also contribute to the observed disparities.

...dismisses the argument that schools with assigned law enforcement officers may be inherently more dangerous, using the example of Baldwin Park Unified School District. While this example is presented as evidence against the argument, it does not consider other potential explanations for the increase in law enforcement referrals.

...selectively highlights data points that support its argument, focusing on the disproportionate arrest and referral rates for specific student groups. While these disparities may indeed exist, it is important to consider a broader range of data and factors to get a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Ignoring or downplaying relevant data can lead to a biased and incomplete analysis.

...does not address any potential benefits or positive aspects of having police in schools. It fails to acknowledge arguments that advocate for the presence of law enforcement as a means to ensure safety, prevent violence, or address potential threats within school environments. By omitting counterarguments, the article presents a one-sided view of the issue.

...recommends the removal of police from schools, it does not provide concrete alternatives or strategies to ensure the safety and well-being of students in the absence of law enforcement. Simply advocating for the removal of police without proposing viable alternatives undermines the goal of creating safe and supportive learning environments.

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.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315794349_Adding_More_Police_Is_Unlikely_to_Reduce_Crime_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Police_Agency_Size_and_Crime_Research

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.

If someone proposes an argument and another person tries to counter the proposed argument with the goal being to critically analyze the topic and challenge a position, the conversation becomes a "debate". Regardless of if the setting is formal or not. If you'd prefer to not call the conversation a debate, that's fine, Libs are well known for trying to redefine words to fit their narrative and the definition of debate itself varies depending on which source you query...

Since this isn't a formal debate and you were clear that you didn't think it's a debate at all, why then would you imply that the conversation must have a winner or a loser? Seems contradictory. I certainly didn't tell you that I won because I pointed out something that was seemingly obvious to everyone, besides yourself.

You seem generally confused as you lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation. If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your education. Maybe then you might be able to comprehend the joke and attack it's position and validity.

I truly hope you have a brighter future ahead of you. Best wishes.

Instead of seeking to lose a debate through name-calling, I encourage you to focus on constructive techniques that can foster a healthy discussion and lead to personal growth and learning.

It's called satire... If you cannot comprehend the joke, I hope God has blessed you in some other important way. Have a great day!

DeSantis isn't "making gay people illegal", he's doing what is right by protecting women and children from your BS.

Restrictions on education about sexual orientation and gender identity, a ban on gender-affirming care, an anti-trans bathroom bill, and measures that limit academic freedom and allow healthcare providers to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

Or, for the people who don't follow the religion of LGBTism... Laws concerning a reality check. "Gender affirming care" is mislabeled, should be "gender denial". Bathrooms are segregated based on sex to protect women from sick or aggressive men.

These are all great things, these people need mental help, and being their "yes men" or playing into their fantasy is not the help they need.

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.

I already have though... I hope you have a better day, friend.