[quote]csulli wrote:
I never realized so many people actually got their IQ tested. I always assumed those things were more or less bullshit lol.[/quote]
I got a result of 81 on one once, yet I’m in my 2 year of a physics degree and so far the lowest result I’ve got on any piece of coursework or exam was 86%. Go figure.
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I never realized so many people actually got their IQ tested. I always assumed those things were more or less bullshit lol.[/quote]
I got a result of 81 on one once, yet I’m in my 2 year of a physics degree and so far the lowest result I’ve got on any piece of coursework or exam was 86%. Go figure.[/quote]
I’ve gotten wildly varying results from one supposedly legitimate test to another.
Also, you will get “smarter” the more tests you take as you start to figure out and get better at the type of questions IQ tests are almost invariably composed of. Of course there will be an upper limit to this, too. You can probably get a good idea of what your relative intelligence level is by taking a number of tests under similar conditions, but I start to get skeptical whenever someone starts talking about himself and a specific number.
I’m also a bit wary of something that suspiciously resembles a voluntarily limiting belief. Such limiting beliefs have been shown to have an extremely powerful influence over a person’s actual ability. People tend to be exactly what they believe themselves to be. Even if someone was told their IQ was 130, that sounds great…unless his potential IQ was actually closer to 160, and that latent ability was forever left untapped, because he believed he was only above average.
[/logorrhea]
Anyway raj, how is your teacher situation different than anywhere where open or concealed carry is allowed?
There’s still a risk/security trade-off that occurs. Only your situation is based upon speculation and statistics, whereas we have hard evidence for what happens when we voluntarily disarm a group of people in a public space.
We also have a Constitutional Amendment that contains the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” that most gun control advocates and even opponents always conveniently whistle past.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Anyway raj, how is your teacher situation different than anywhere where open or concealed carry is allowed? [/quote]
The difference is you are responsible for the welfare of other people’s children in their absence. I wonder how many parents would take issue with putting their children in the hands of a bunch of armed individuals they barely know?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
There’s still a risk/security trade-off that occurs. Only your situation is based upon speculation and statistics, whereas we have hard evidence for what happens when we voluntarily disarm a group of people in a public space. [/quote]
How many people die in spree shootings on average in any given year? 5 maybe? The chances of a kid dying in a spree shooting is probably on par with being struck by lightning.
And honestly, if someone wants to hurt children or vulnerable women they’re going to regardless. Just think about it for a second. How many opportunities in any given day do you have to victimize someone smaller or weaker than you? I bet if you were cognizant of this idea you’d probably count at least a dozen.
Spree shootings are premeditated, incidents like the shooting of students by teachers would be spontaneous. In my opinion, putting guns in the classroom would make killers out of otherwise non-violent/sane people.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
We also have a Constitutional Amendment that contains the words “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” that most gun control advocates and even opponents always conveniently whistle past. [/quote]
Kinda irrelevant no? We’re talking about making it mandatory for teachers to be armed in schools.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
I never realized so many people actually got their IQ tested. I always assumed those things were more or less bullshit lol.[/quote]
I got a result of 81 on one once, yet I’m in my 2 year of a physics degree and so far the lowest result I’ve got on any piece of coursework or exam was 86%. Go figure.[/quote]
I’ve gotten wildly varying results from one supposedly legitimate test to another.
Also, you will get “smarter” the more tests you take as you start to figure out and get better at the type of questions IQ tests are almost invariably composed of. Of course there will be an upper limit to this, too. You can probably get a good idea of what your relative intelligence level is by taking a number of tests under similar conditions, but I start to get skeptical whenever someone starts talking about himself and a specific number.
I’m also a bit wary of something that suspiciously resembles a voluntarily limiting belief. Such limiting beliefs have been shown to have an extremely powerful influence over a person’s actual ability. People tend to be exactly what they believe themselves to be. Even if someone was told their IQ was 130, that sounds great…unless his potential IQ was actually closer to 160, and that latent ability was forever left untapped, because he believed he was only above average.
[/logorrhea][/quote]
On the site I linked, you can find out your approximate IQ based on SAT scores and ACT score and even GRE. Across all 3, I score within a pretty narrow spectrum so I’d say they’re fairly accurate.
And I always score within that range on online IQ tests too, just make sure you find a good one.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Even if someone was told their IQ was 130, that sounds great…unless his potential IQ was actually closer to 160, and that latent ability was forever left untapped, because he believed he was only above average.
[/logorrhea][/quote]
130 is a tad more than above average.
Thats the upper 2%.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
On the site I linked, you can find out your approximate IQ based on SAT scores and ACT score and even GRE. Across all 3, I score within a pretty narrow spectrum so I’d say they’re fairly accurate.
And I always score within that range on online IQ tests too, just make sure you find a good one. [/quote]
Okay well if I base mine off of those I’m between 143 and 146. Huzzah! I feel like I’ve won an imaginary prize 
James Woods, the actor, is rumoured to possess an IQ of 180 and a huge dick.
I have to gives props to raj for so eloquently articulating his position.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Strictly on the topic of arming teachers, I would say you’d just be transferring the killings from spree shooters to over zealous teachers acting in what they perceived to be “self-defense.”
Hormonal Teens are unruly. Just ask George Zimmerman.
[/quote]
I think most teachers who would decide to actually come to school armed would be the type to take that responsibility seriously, and aren’t going to be drawing their weapon pretty much ever, particulary as the intended target would not be the child you are striving to protect, and the last thing in the world most law abiding citizens, including gun owners, want to have to do is to kill another human being.
I think if this were such a problem we’d already be hearing about such “tragedies of skittishness” occuring in CCW and open carry states. I never hear about such things occuring, though. [/quote]
I think that’s an extremely naive viewpoint.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Even if someone was told their IQ was 130, that sounds great…unless his potential IQ was actually closer to 160, and that latent ability was forever left untapped, because he believed he was only above average.
[/logorrhea][/quote]
130 is a tad more than above average.
Thats the upper 2%.
[/quote]
Pish posh.
(^_~)
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Strictly on the topic of arming teachers, I would say you’d just be transferring the killings from spree shooters to over zealous teachers acting in what they perceived to be “self-defense.”
Hormonal Teens are unruly. Just ask George Zimmerman.
[/quote]
I think most teachers who would decide to actually come to school armed would be the type to take that responsibility seriously, and aren’t going to be drawing their weapon pretty much ever, particulary as the intended target would not be the child you are striving to protect, and the last thing in the world most law abiding citizens, including gun owners, want to have to do is to kill another human being.
I think if this were such a problem we’d already be hearing about such “tragedies of skittishness” occuring in CCW and open carry states. I never hear about such things occuring, though. [/quote]
I think that’s an extremely naive viewpoint.[/quote]
Go on…
Remember, I grew up in Texas.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Kinda irrelevant no? We’re talking about making it mandatory for teachers to be armed in schools.
[/quote]
If that’s what you think I believe should happen, then this whole conversation is irrelevant. I said earlier I am only in favor of allowing teachers to arm themselves if they so choose. I sure as hell don’t want to push a gun into the trembling hands of every skittish, gun-hating, manatee that shudders at the very presence of a firearm. That WOULD be courting disaster.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Strictly on the topic of arming teachers, I would say you’d just be transferring the killings from spree shooters to over zealous teachers acting in what they perceived to be “self-defense.”
Hormonal Teens are unruly. Just ask George Zimmerman.
[/quote]
I think most teachers who would decide to actually come to school armed would be the type to take that responsibility seriously, and aren’t going to be drawing their weapon pretty much ever, particulary as the intended target would not be the child you are striving to protect, and the last thing in the world most law abiding citizens, including gun owners, want to have to do is to kill another human being.
I think if this were such a problem we’d already be hearing about such “tragedies of skittishness” occuring in CCW and open carry states. I never hear about such things occuring, though. [/quote]
I think that’s an extremely naive viewpoint.[/quote]
Go on…
Remember, I grew up in Texas.
[/quote]
You make this assumption that the teachers who come to school armed will be responsible. In and of itself, a pretty sensible statement until you factor in that it doesn’t need to be a sizable portion of teachers that go insane and shoot up a school - it only takes one.
The mother of the shooter should never have been given access to guns, or at the very least had that right stripped away the moment she took her son with developmental problems to a gun range.
Mama don’t always know best.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Kinda irrelevant no? We’re talking about making it mandatory for teachers to be armed in schools.
[/quote]
If that’s what you think I believe should happen, then this whole conversation is irrelevant. I said earlier I am only in favor of allowing teachers to arm themselves if they so choose. I sure as hell don’t want to push a gun into the trembling hands of every skittish, gun-hating, manatee that shudders at the very presence of a firearm. That WOULD be courting disaster. [/quote]
Yeah, I at least was talking about considering making it possible for a select group (5 per the average school would be adequate, IMO) of teachers to volunteer to be vetted, armed and trained for a worst case scenario.
Columbine massacre:
at the age of 17, Eric Harris complained of depression, anger and possessing suicidal thoughts. As a result, he was prescribed the anti-depressant Zoloft. He complained of feeling restless and having trouble concentrating; in April, his doctor switched him to Luvox, a similar anti-depressant drug.[12] At the time of his death, Harris had therapeutic Luvox levels in his system. Some analysts, such as psychiatrist Peter Breggin, have argued that one or both of these medications may have contributed to Harris’s actions. Breggin said that side-effects of these drugs include increased aggression, loss of remorse, depersonalization, and mania.
Doesnt matter if you are getting treatment, the problem is if you still have access to weapons. I dont see why civilians should have assault rifles handy, or RPG’s and autos (evenif they are harder to get).
Double barrel shotguns/handguns are more than enough. And if you ‘need semiautomatic rifle to protect yourself of tyranny’. Well I can say you have already lost that war thanks to the military budget.
[quote]NikH wrote:
Doesnt matter if you are getting treatment, the problem is if you still have access to weapons. I dont see why civilians should have assault rifles handy, or RPG’s and autos (evenif they are harder to get).
Double barrel shotguns/handguns are more than enough. And if you ‘need semiautomatic rifle to protect yourself of tyranny’. [/quote]
Right. Because no murders are ever committed with shotguns/handguns, amirite?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]NikH wrote:
Doesnt matter if you are getting treatment, the problem is if you still have access to weapons. I dont see why civilians should have assault rifles handy, or RPG’s and autos (evenif they are harder to get).
Double barrel shotguns/handguns are more than enough. And if you ‘need semiautomatic rifle to protect yourself of tyranny’. [/quote]
Right. Because no murders are ever committed with shotguns/handguns, amirite?[/quote]
Semi-/automatic shotguns/assault rifles are far more efficient in doing that job. And doesnt need the planning and know how of fertilizer combos.
[quote]NikH wrote:
Doesnt matter if you are getting treatment, the problem is if you still have access to weapons. I dont see why civilians should have assault rifles handy, or RPG’s and autos (evenif they are harder to get).
Double barrel shotguns/handguns are more than enough. And if you ‘need semiautomatic rifle to protect yourself of tyranny’. Well I can say you have already lost that war thanks to the military budget. :)[/quote]
The majority of firearm homicides are committed with handguns…
Long gun homicides account for like some ridiculously negligible number.
Almost every male over 18 in sweden has a legitimate assault rifle in their home, yet the country has an amazingly low level of firearm homicide. Why?
People keep focusing on the gun rather than examining the social and economic issues that cause these problems in the first place.