[quote]batman730 wrote:
That said, I still don’t follow your logic. The whole less “incentive to deescalate” line just doesn’t hold water for me. I just don’t see an otherwise rational, stable, professional person thinking of “fuck talkin to this kid. Imma shoot his ass instead” as a viable option simply because you add a gun to the mix. [/quote]
There are how many teachers in the US? at least 100,000+? It’s hard for you to believe that all these teachers aren’t all rational actors and even the ones that are do not act 100% rational all the time? People act less rational when emotions are ramped up.
I’m not sure what is so far fetched.
Kid threatens
teacher gives half hearted effort to deescalate in hopes troubled kid (with previous incidents) continues to test
Kid continues
teacher pulls out gun
kid continues to test teacher
teacher shoots
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Regarding single officers vs. partners: if that stat is accurate I think correlation vs. causality is a question. Do you imagine that dispatchers would try to send multiple officers to attend calls where incidents are more likely to take place? Seems plausible to me. [/quote]
No.
That’s not what the study said and the numbers are too far apart for your theory to hold.
"The FBI collected information for a period from January 1960 to September 1962 and found that in American cities deploying both types of vehicles, 65% of the officers killed while on duty killed were in two-officer vehicles while only 35% were in one-officer vehicles.xiii This statistic seems to indicate that the presence of a second officer does not guarantee personal safety.
Studies have also found that officers who work alone do not have a higher risk of injury. A study done in San Diego compared the effectiveness of one- and two-officer vehicles.xiv Their study concluded that one-officer cars are more cost-effective and at least as safe as two-officer cars.
It is also often argued that an officer working alone is less likely to act without caution than is the same officer working with a partner.xv Eastman, for example, argues that the presence of a second officer may serve to discourage caution. Pride prevents the second officer from prudently assessing danger or taking suitable precautions, for fear that one’s partner may interpret the caution as cowardice.xvi
Researchers have also found that working with a second officer may lead to careless behaviour. Wilson, for one, argues that carelessness is the greatest killer of police officers.xvii"
http://www.fcpp.org/publication.php/178
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Similarly the driving analogy: is it possible that more aggressive, less considerate drivers may gravitate toward larger vehicles as opposed to conservative drivers get in bigger vehicles and suddenly decide it’s hit-to-pass out there?
[/quote]
Maybe to an extent, but still overall no.
Even when cars see bicyclists on the road, they’re more likely to cut it closer in passing them them when they’re wearing helmets. The increased perceived safety directly affects their actions.
It shows up the in the NFL as well. I heard an interview a while back where a player was saying that the introduction of modern helmets has completely changed how the game is played. Players would not willingly missile their bodies head first into other players in the absence of a helmet.
When there is a perceived higher level of safety, humans many times will take more risks, act less cautious. I believe the same would hold true with teachers in the presence of a gun, especially if ALL teachers were mandated to carry as proposed.