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.
Feel free to list the rights which gays, trans, and ethnic minorities have lost due to republican actions.
Be sure to only include the rights which other normal citizens have.
Because “social equity” is not equality.
The sooner you guys realize that the better off we’ll all be.
Calling people “Nazi” while you vote to coerce speech and kill unborn babies… Denial isn’t cute. Once again, all you got is name calling. The logic is severely lacking with this one.
No need to apologize, my friend. Here’s some timestamped links of the giant numbers leading the way:
https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7286
https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7646
https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7655
https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7692
https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7752
This level is just full of them, all those are for the same level… The timestamps are right on the spot, so might be helpful to pause or the player will probably just run past them quickly.
Not sure what happens on kbin when linking multiple YT vids in a single post. Let’s find out!
Hm, something got lost in the conversation there… Boltgun does not have sequels or prequels it’s not a “franchise” (regarding “Boltgun” itself, of course 40k is a huge franchise). There is only the one Boltgun game…
I was referring to certain levels within the game. Not every level, but some, have giant signs painted on the walls that will have Roman numerals, like “I, II, or III”. With an arrow pointing a certain direction which leads to a door or how to progress through the level.
I wish I never noticed them as they felt very immersion breaking. Why would somebody paint on the walls exactly where to go and in which order?
Instead of seeking to lose a debate through name-calling, I encourage you to focus on constructive debate techniques that can foster a healthy discussion and lead to personal growth and learning.
However, I now suspect that you recognize your friends in the picture and you’re trying to dissociate. Best of luck to you!
Probably libs cosplaying to push the narrative.
I really disliked the level design of Boltgun. When you need giant signs on the walls (I, II, III) with giant arrows pointing the way… I kinda think that’s an obvious failure or lack of trying, regarding fluidity of the level design… A great and common feature that is often used to counter this is the use of a mini-map, very common in retro shooters, but mysteriously missing from Boltgun… Otherwise, yea Boltgun was mostly solid.
Selaco isn’t released yet so keep that #1 spot open (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1592280/Selaco/) 🤞
While consensus ideally involves everyone agreeing, in practice, achieving unanimous agreement can be challenging, especially in large groups or complex situations. In such cases, consensus is often understood as a broad agreement among a significant majority.
I don’t believe in your mythology and I don’t give a flying fuck about what you think about your god
Seems like you’re deflecting. But, to address your concerns, I’ll have you know that not only does nobody care, the general consensus of the world is also that some type of God or higher power does exist… So, I hope you have a better day, friend.
If you try to impose YOUR morality on me I will fight to the death over it
Sorry, buddy. It’s the world consensus. Not specifically my morality. Also, if you’ve been following the conversation, I was not the one to bring religion into account.
Morality can be approached from various perspectives, including secular or philosophical viewpoints. Secular ethics, for example, seeks to develop moral principles based on reason, empathy, and the well-being of individuals and communities. Philosophical systems such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics provide frameworks for moral decision-making without relying on religious beliefs.
However, I do hope that God has blessed you in some other important way. Have a great day, friend!
the entire GOPq is fascist, racist
Feel free to create a list of rights which republicans have rescinded. Remember, making a fair and equal playing field for everyone is called equality, “gender affirming care” is just a lib buzz word for “gender denial”, and the ability to murder isn’t a “human right”. So, good luck with that request.
Second request, feel free to create a list of laws which republicans have enacted that are “theocratic”. Abortion restrictions are actually just laws concerning murder. Everyone has access to affordable contraceptives. And there are no widespread “Sunday Blue Laws” that are actively enforced? So, you make it sound like you’re just confused.
Patriotic
Libs will find any excuse to deny their patriotism. “Stolen land” without realizing nearly all land in the world has been stolen at one point. “Built on slavery” without realizing United States was one of the first countries to abolish slavery. The list goes on… Meanwhile, republicans remain patriotic even when the libs are in power screwing everything up.
GOPq is fascist / sick of the GOPq
I’d LOVE to hear why you keep adding a “q” to GOP? Is that like lbgtQism?
Regardless of all that. I sincerely hope that you can find your chill, my friend.
Feel free to create a list of rights which normal US citizens have but gay persons lack…
The immorality of abortion is in almost all religions, not what ever you think my religion is… Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Catholicism all consider abortion as the harming of another individual. Simply deciding to not follow any religion does not exclude an individual from the laws regarding murder.
The founders of the United States, who were influenced by the Enlightenment era and its ideals of individual rights and religious tolerance, sought to establish a government that would avoid the pitfalls they witnessed in theocratic monarchies of their time. Many of the founding fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, were well-versed in history and understood the dangers of intertwining religious authority with political power. They had witnessed firsthand the conflicts, oppression, and persecution that arose from state-enforced religious doctrines and the influence of religious institutions on government affairs.
By establishing a secular government, the founding fathers aimed to create a society where individuals could freely practice their faith, or choose not to follow any religion, without fear of persecution or coercion. They sought to prevent the dominance of a single religious group and the potential for religious strife that they had witnessed in Europe. This has allowed for a diverse society with a wide range of religious beliefs to coexist, and it has fostered a culture of religious tolerance and individual freedom that continues to be an important aspect of American society today.
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.
Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, had complex and sometimes controversial views on religion. He is often described as a deist.
John Adams, the second President of the United States, was a deeply religious individual and held strong Christian beliefs throughout his life. He was raised in a devout Congregationalist (Puritan) household and maintained his religious convictions as an adult.
Thomas Paine, an influential figure during the American Revolution and a key advocate of republican principles, had unorthodox religious views that can be described as Deistic and skeptical of organized religion.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, was known for being a man of deep religious conviction. He was raised in an Anglican household and maintained a strong religious faith throughout his life.
This principle was enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing a state religion and guarantees the free exercise of religion. Many modern activists claim that the conservatives are trying to enforce their religion on others, when the reality of the situation is that, killing unborn babies is immoral, and people from nearly ALL religions try to evangelize. These activists also don’t realize that they themselves are trying to force a state religion and evangelize, that religion being, LGBTism.
Identity and Belonging: LGBTism often involves a strong sense of identity and belonging. Individuals may find support, camaraderie, and a shared sense of purpose, just as found in religious communities.
Community and Rituals: Both religion and the LGBTism involve communal gatherings, celebrations, and rituals. Both communities often have regular worship gatherings, ceremonies, and festivals that bring people together.
Shared Values and Ethics: Just as religious communities often have shared values, moral codes, and ethical principles that guide their actions, LGBTism also emphasizes certain lack of values and moral codes shared by the community.
Activism and Advocacy: Both religion and the LGBTism have a history of activism and advocacy for social change. Both have been involved in various social justice movements throughout history, advocating for equality, peace, and human rights.
Personal Transformation: Religion often involves personal transformation, spiritual growth, and a journey of self-discovery. Likewise, LGBTism involves a process of self-discovery, self-acceptance, and personal growth.
If you don’t see the relevance to parts of our ongoing conversation, I don’t know what to tell you.
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.