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.
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.