Simple Basketball Score Sheet: Fill & Download for Free

Easy: the +/-.All other stats have many other factors that come into play that can hide the truth. Carmelo Anthony puts up 50 shots and scores 30, with his team losing by 20. You may get 12 rebounds, but is that really the result of the other team missing 60% of their shots, and thus, credit should go to the defenders? Shooting percentage is great…if your point guard makes it easy for you to get layups.No…the +/- makes it easy. This stat is pretty simple: what is the scoring differential when you are on the floor? The higher, the better.I remember when the Suns were still in their heyday, they had a player named Lou Amundsen. He didn’t score much, didn’t do much fancy stuff. I think his stat line would be about 4 points, 5 rebounds, 1 steal…really unimpressive.But you’d look at his +/- and see, invariably, that he had one of the top 3 on the team.So, what did this indicate? Amundson did the things that don’t show up on stat sheets. He defended, REALLY well. He boxed out the other team’s best rebounder. Every loose ball, he dove for it. He made the extra pass.The +/- takes away all the fluff and shows you who’s really helping the team

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Can I get a pro-gun conservative's sincere views on how to stop school shootings in the US? Can it really be done without introducing strict gun laws?ObjectiveYou are asking a policy question that unfortunately does not boil down to a short answer. Solving school shootings has nothing to do with being liberal, conservative, libertarian, left, right, or whatever political flavor you want to focus on. If the goal is to stop school shootings, the answer is not particularly difficult, practically speaking. If political posturing is added, well the stated objective can become as impossible as an opposition wants it to be. Is the goal to end school shootings or is it to get rid of guns? The two are not the same.Stopping mass shootings is too narrow a goal. Why not stop school killings? This word choice, shootings rather than killings, is a semantics game. The mechanism of killing becomes the object of focus rather than the cause—the underlying social factors. When we say mass shootings we are giving more weight to someone killed by a gun verses someone else who is killed by any number of other devices. Yet, the dead are equally dead. Not all mass killings are shootings. Some attackers use multiple weapons—improvised pipe bombs, cars, knives, pistols, shot guns, rifles of various types, and commercially made explosives. The principle weapons of the Columbine attack were pipe-bombs and shotguns—over 100 explosive devices were used. The deadliest school attack in the US involved dynamite, not firearms[i].If we are going to put forth effort to stop school shootings, we might as well go through the effort to stop school killings. The effort is not significantly different, either requiring a layered approach.I identify 12 steps. Some local and some focused on society at large. Approaching this effort by breaking down actions taken by the school and local community and those actions taken by the larger society allows action to be taken at several levels of society. Breaking down the steps taken to reduce mass killings into a layered process also allows a flexibility avoiding a monolithic effort capable of being slowed or stopped by making one step dependent on another. The first steps are local. They are carried out by the community at the school. These are hard-nosed practical steps. Other actions take place at the larger social level, targeting school killings and broader social trends that contribute to a culture of violence. The school and local level is easier to control or influence. Change is more personal being felt most directly. The more change moves beyond the local the more time and effort such change takes. The steps I layout are not dependent on another step to be carried out. Although, when taken together, they are mutually supporting.No one course of action will stop school killings. Yet, implementing any one or any number of these acts will bring improvement. Some will have more positive impact than others. Long term steps aimed at targeted socio-economic change will take time, but will have the greatest impact. Some steps are immediate and can be enacted more easily but generally they focus on limiting an attacker’s ability to inflict harm. These 12 steps, should be used jointly for maximum effect.If the solution in your mind comes down to, stopping school shootings requires a gun ban, you have made a link—curtailing school killings has a prerequisite, banning guns. This drives the discussion in one direction. Gun bans precede other action. This stops progress we can make now. It omits actions immediately available and side-steps many causal issues without direct association to firearms. If the objective is stopping mass shootings (or mass killings) don’t limit the method by first myopically focusing on the tools used to commit the violent act rather than the context that facilitates the act.ContextThe hype that follows any type of mass killing but especially shootings generally undermines situational awareness. I have yet to see an assessment of: the attacker(s), the space the attack takes place in, and the make-up and posture of the defenders or targets of the attack. A lot of coverage is passed off as analysis that is not more than leveraging grief and spectacle.Or, we dismiss the attacker as impenetrablely crazy and leave assesment at that.We do a great disservice to the discussion when we begin with, the attacker is crazy; there is nothing we can you do about crazy?This is simplistic thinking. The attackers might be crazy. Often, school attackers have diagnosed mental health issues that bear out the assertion. Many times, the mental health issues are well known before the attacker acts. There are clear benefits to understanding the contributing effect of mind-altering drugs on all mass killings at school or elsewhere. This is especially true when considering long-term consequences beyond school killings to larger, far more deadly, social concerns like suicide. Suicidal ideations are one of the tell-tale red flags. This correlation should be explored; there are potential life-saving lessons to be gleaned from such studies.Nevertheless, despite the merit of understanding mental illness and its role in school attacks, focusing on the impact of drugs up-front side-steps an immediate clear-minded assessment of the attacker's actions subsequent to their motivation. The discourse goes something like this.Person in state of confusion or shock: Why would anyone do this?Answer: They are crazy. Whoever attacks innocent people is crazy. Full stop. No need to explore further. There is no explaining crazy.This answer is an excuse. Really, it is lazy. There is a great deal to be learned from understanding the attacker's actions in the now of the attack that helps us reach our goal. Principally, that there is a predicable rationality to almost all school attacks or attacks on any public place people gather in.Crazy or not, under the influence of mind altering drugs or not, school attackers are making very rational assessments about their objective and how to reach their objective. School attackers are thinking, evaluating, then picking targets based on desired outcome. And, so far, the outcome matches desire. The actions of school attackers are rational within the context of their objective. The objective might be crazy. The approach to the objective is not. When professionals tell you, there is no way to predict where a nihilistic, narcissist, seeking notoriety might attack, they are being intellectually dishonest.Ask yourself, where do most non-military mass killings take place? Locations that are:1. Public.2. High visibility.3. Easily accessibility—the areas have multiple entrances and exits and limited security or no security (security does not mean a fortress).4. Greatest shock value—Locations are selected to elicit emotional response and maximum media coverage.5. Familiarity—attackers pick areas they know usually better than law enforcement knows them.This is not target selection of truly crazy people. This is rational decision making following a perceived need to act out. This does not justify the decision or negate the fundamental truth that attackers preying on defenseless people is anything other than sociopathic or psychopathic. However, the attacker comes to the decision to attack defenseless members of their own community, execution of the decision is far from crazy. In most cases, maximum damage is limited by lack of experience in executing their plan, not by the location and lack of planning. Many people are repulsed by the idea that perpetrators of mass killings might be rational. Basic rationality at the level of execution is a good thing though. Rational acts are predictable even if the justification behind them is not sane.Targeted locations are not military targets. Attacks in public places, (schools or similar locations), are generally not carried out to shape public policy. These are not terrorist targets designed to shape political, economic outcomes as an act of asymmetric warfare. Perhaps there is commonality with acts of terrorism at the execution level, but the motivation is different. It should be noted though that many of the steps taken to reduce school attacks will decrease the possibility of attacks carried out for other reasons as well.School attackers are after social targets first and foremost. Attackers are narcissistic, often nihilistic, individuals who want attention. Notoriety and infamy are confused with more positive forms of attention, acceptance, and respect. If life is truly nihilistic, the difference between infamy and fame is trivial. The value of one life over another life, is of little distinction. Often the attackers want respect from the community the they feel denied them respect and, given the self-focus and nihilism, they have no problem elevating their response past more conventional, healthy, measured methods used to get attention. Usually, the attackers present many warning signs making their actions predictable as much as the location of such attacks is predictable.In their study published as, Mass Shootings and Mental Illness, James L. Knoll IV, M.D. George D. Annas, M.D., M.P.H. noted perpetrators of mass shootings shared, “a persecutory/paranoid outlook, narcissism, depression, suicidality, and a perception of being socially rejected.” My speculation is many perpetrators of mass killing where the means of killing is something other than a firearm ought to follow similar psychological trends. The same article noted of the perpetrators who survive, “Most perpetrators acknowledged being influenced by previous mass killers who received significant media exposure… Since the 1990s, mass murders, and especially mass shootings, have arguably taken on a different quality, influenced by a cultural shift, social media, and expansive news coverage of the tragedies.” This is proving to be such the case that the authors note there is a cultural shift taking place where, through media, we are creating a “script” for such events. We are normalizing it.The attackers want attention and lots of it. They want spectacle. They want to be remembered.The combination of rationality tied to unhealthy motivation, hyper self-focus, and the urgent desire for notoriety, define what should be the immediate response to this threat.Initial steps taken to limit the effectiveness of an attack are primarily tactical responses to a threat. Some steps have both a tactical and a larger strategic impact e.g. step one below. Following step one, subsequent steps take place at the local level, then shift to broader social considerations that should be addressed to reduce mass killings. These tactical responses are not specific to any one school.Step 1: Deny the SpectacleDon't plaster, name and face of the attacker all over media platforms. The method of news coverage adds to the chaos initially after an attack, rather than diminishing it. This increases the spectacle. Details can still be discussed without elevating the attacker’s profile and without compromising information and public awareness. But, the public speculation, 24/7 publicity of 'crazy' is what the attackers want; it increases emotion, generally without honestly assessing the situation. Feeding emotion gets ratings, not reasoned results. Feeding emotion, feeds ego but leads to poor policy. Each attack elevates the spectacle and feeds the next attack. The greater attention on crazy acts we provide lifts the spectacle level and normalizes crazy actions—it draws the next attackers in. More importantly, as detail of the homicidal act is dissected without context, it teaches other attackers without providing social framework that reduces future attacks. We don’t really discuss the motivation and larger causes that shape the social context that drove attackers the same way we focus on the method. That is a mistake of emphasis.The conversation is reduced to, “You can’t stop crazy. Don’t take my gun. Don’t punish me for the crazy man’s actions. The Constitution.” Or “Guns. Scary guns. Arrogant pigs hand-over your phallic guns! Ignorant red neck. Well, gun owners want to see kids killed.” Meanwhile, we create spectacle, the very spectacle the attacker wanted and that hypnotizes the next attacker into a dead-end act of horror. The way the discussion is framed just adds to the spectacle of chaos and destruction.The sound-bite news media is the worst medium imaginable for bringing social awareness to such tragedy. Quit flashing pictures and names of the attackers. Giving them more fame than the victims is bad practice.Step 2: Shape Areas to Your Advantage / Protect YourselfWhy are attackers so successful, within a short time period? Department of Homeland Security research reveals that the average duration of an active shooter incident at a school is 12.5 minutes. In contrast, the average response time for law enforcement is 18 minutes.[ii]Attackers have two things on their side by virtue of being attackers—time and initiative. The time between the attack beginning and the attacker resisting (or committing suicide) belongs to the attacker. Keep in mind most attackers pick targets they are familiar with. Usually, they are more familiar with the area where they carry out the attack than the police or medical responders.I refrain from calling police or medical responders, first responders. First, that is an impossibly inaccurate label. The targets of the attack, school officials and students are the first responders, no matter how they choose to respond. This is true of any potential target of an attack. How the real first responders take responsibility for their own lives means everything. This leads to the second reason calling police and medical responders, first responders, is unhealthy in this situation. It creates a mindset that victims must wait for a response because the first responder is not them i.e. it is someone else who is responsible for their lives. The victims of an attack are always the first responders. The police and medical responders are clean-up even if they arrive in time to engage the attacker. Average response time for police to a school attack is more than 12 minutes. That is a long time to wait for help when you are being attacked by a knife, a pipe-bomb, or a shotgun, a pistol, or a rifle, or a bat, or a car.Denying an attacker, the time / initiative advantage, means understanding the space being attacked. What is the school designed to do? In the hundreds of schools, I've been in, most are not actually designed to protect students and teachers. That is a loaded statement. I understand. My assessment of the schools I have been in, is that they have policy and physical layout designed around accountability and limiting liability. That is not the same as safety. School administrators have plans for fire and things like tornadoes. In most cases, they also had action plans that sounded like they addressed even dire sounding ones like active attackers. They might have brevity codes they can use with urgency. Yet, by physical layout and school policy, in accordance with daily activity and conventional emergency scenarios, schools are typically designed to control students, not protect students. The layout and design of school buildings channels students and teachers into kill zones (commonly called classrooms, lunchrooms, and libraries) and provides avenues of approach leading to the kill zone (wide, empty hallways).Generally, this seems to come down to a lack of willingness to come to terms with what an actual attack entails, and then unwittingly, conceding initiative to an attacker. Prime example, most students and teachers huddle in the classrooms with no way out, but the single door to the classroom. This is a natural reaction. Walls protect us from wind and rains and define our space. We feel safe inside them. Truth be told though, never retreat to a cave with only one way in and out.The result, from the perspective of an attacker, despite the earnest desire of most people involved, is that most schools are physically and administratively set up to box teachers and students into kill zones with no escape. Solutions need not be drastic. Schools don't need to be fortresses. Fortress schools are a waste of time and money. That does not equate to complacency though. A fortress is designed to withstand assault and potentially support a proactive deterrent force. Students are not trained combatants armed for providing quick response with force. We also know despite many brave acts to the contrary, police and security may not defend the students or confront the attacker. Fundamentally, the need is to avoid conflict. Leave. Where conflict is unavoidable, shift the balance of power from the attacker to any number of first responders.There are a number of safe guards that can be incorporated or retrofitted into building design that increases safety and reduces attacker’s ability to achieve their goals. For the most part, these actions do not need to drastically change the appearance of the school.Schools that foster situational awareness and flexibility of escape are not difficult to create. As a matter of resources, we spend more on sports by far than would be needed for safeguards. Schools should be evaluated for ease of movement allowed by the building structure and the awareness students and teachers have for who moves through the school spaces. We need to give students and teachers a greater advantage. Rethink how we build schools. This does not necessitate new construction. Simple cost effective remodel will do.Basically, the layout of a school is set up to keep students controlled. As that was the singular goal for most designs, most classrooms have one way in and out. Student movement is channeled into primary hallways where people are concentrated together for short bursts of predictable of time (Usually announced by a broadcast chime or bell) then moved back into the control boxes where students sit in regimented formation i.e. rows of desks. The passageways are then empty and unimpeded. This is an ideal target rich environment for an attacker. Avenues of approach: are well defined and open, lead to target rich areas, and limit ability for targeted people to evade or escape. Picture, the proverbial fish in a barrel with a red carpet leading to the barrel. Even many campuses with open plans have disastrous choke points.Classrooms lacking alternate ways in and out are deathtraps. Retreat to a classroom with no way out drastically limits options. Classrooms should have two means of entry and exit. Rooms on exterior walls can exit to the outside via a door or suitable window. Interior rooms can link via doorways between classrooms, left shut except in response to emergencies, making rooms a chain allowing students and teachers to move in emergencies without giving away their position. This is good for fires and earthquakes too. Adding doors or windows capable of allowing quick emergency evacuation is not cost prohibitive.Step 3: Limit Initiative & Reduce the Time AdvantageA. Fix / Slow attackers—deny them free access. Entrances should have metal detectors, which will catch many weapons like pipe bombs and knives, as well as firearms. This restricts entrance of weapons. As important, interior spaces should be able to be isolated (locked down) so movement throughout the school is not possible by an attacker. This does not mean fortress doors. It means solid fire doors or gates that lock under specific circumstances. Reduce an attacker's time to act and the impact of first initiative. Doors, drop down gates, or sliding gates that section off areas of a facility are options. Secure fire doors with a lock down trigger also work and can be less obvious especially if the door or gate is hidden in a wall. Fire doors also help reduce fire damage too. When not in use, these doors need not (should not) conspicuously choke passage ways.Improve door locks. Use solid doors with hardened locks. Slow the undesired attacker’s entrance (take the attacker's time) and give students and teachers the ability to escape. These doors can still have windows. They don’t have to look like prison doors. In fact, it is better if they do not look like prison doors.Barriers without overwatch are meaningless. Without surveillance, barriers are often counter-productive. They become places to hide. Or the barrier intended to protect becomes a trap that slows escape. Well intentioned people want fences and walls. When one of the best responses is to leave the area of attack, adding fences and walls slows evacuation as well as limits the police and emergency responders situational awareness. The goal of a school administration should not be to hold students on site, it should be to evacuate as quickly as possible in as unpredictable a manner relative to the attacker as possible. This ties to the next facility related piece of the solution. Deny hiding places and give the students and teachers as well as emergency responders maximum situational awareness.B. Mirrors made of shatter-proof surfaces that eliminate blind corners and hiding spaces. We see these in hospitals to keep doctors and nurses from running into each other. This has the added benefit of reducing other undesirable activities too. Make it harder for attackers to surprise potential victims and enable law enforcement, and the attacker’s intended targets, to have greater situational awareness.C. Cameras. Hallways, entrances, approaches, and areas of congregation should have cameras. Cameras should be monitored. This is not just for attackers. There are many activities that take place in schools that ought not to take place, whether vandalism, bullying, drugs, student teacher interactions, that would also see beneficial response from attention.D. Public Address (P.A.) System. Mass notification is an ability most schools have. Use existing resources. School announcements: lunch menu, basketball scores, student body activities are broadcast over the P.A. along with emergency responses codes, drills, and assembly notices. P.A. systems gain their greatest potential when used in connection with cameras. Don’t simply use the P.A. to broadcast a threat in general terms e.g. “Attention students and teachers there is an active shooter on campus”. Use the P.A. and cameras to define the space for everyone; let everyone know where the threat is. If an attacker is identified in one area of the school, this should be announced. As the attacker is isolated in one area, the students and teachers in other areas should vacate.The only people in a school, or victims of any attack, who should be hiding, are those who cannot leave the area of the attack. Evacuation is the first goal. Hiding is a secondary course of action. It should not be a primary course of action. The last course of action is fighting. In the last few years this priority of actions has been reduced to the mantra, run, hide, fight. (see FBI / Homeland Security video, Run Fight & Hide https://youtu.be/ZvkdGK2j2Bs) It was developed for active shooter scenarios. The concept holds true for mass killings where an active attacker is the threat. If an attacker comes into a room the last thing to do is sit there. In Columbine, the students sat in their desks and let the two attackers put guns to their heads. In Springfield, the students hid behind tables until several decided to rush the attacker and disarmed him before emergency responders arrived at the scene of the attack. The first action should have been to leave. The second action should have been to hide in the least predictable place possible. In a school where students congregate in classrooms, this is predictable and a poor place to hide. The last thing to do is fight.Step 4: Make a Plan, Know the Plan, Work the PlanSchools range in how prepared they are. Being who I am, which is a slightly untrusting Marine father of seven, I test every school my children are students of. We've lived in 12 states and overseas. No public school other than on military bases, has ever lived up to their stated safety policy. Schools don’t need to be on a military base or be a fortress. They do need to be run by people with a clear plan. That plan needs to be known and practiced. Only then will it work in a crisis.I have always been told that visitors must check-in at the front office accessible through a main door and usually get a visitor pass. I make a practice to enter through a side door that should have been locked, and walk the hallways without a pass or ID. Most of the time I am not stopped. When I am, usually an excuse works to explain away my presence—I ask directions to the office and then I am then allowed to walk-off unescorted. I could be a divorced parent of a student I am not supposed to pick-up, or a homicidal maniac. I have never been escorted or stopped.Don’t establish policies that are not enforced and practiced. The students, teachers, administrators, and if possible, law enforcement should be familiar with the school plan of action. Where are exits? Where will students and teachers vacate to? Is there an officer on site who is familiar with the plan? If you ask students and community members to report information or ask for help, follow-up and provide help. Don’t advertise support that is not available. Stating there is a plan that is not practiced leads to false security.Step 5: School UniformsHelp defenders identify attackers quickly. Make strangers stand out. Although there are several benefits to school uniforms—better behavior, fewer distractions in class, and reduced money spent on clothes, the benefit in this context is, school officials and students alike instantly identify outsiders. There is much less chance of an attacker blending in.School uniforms have several psychological benefits from a schooling perspective. Yet, many communities do not like the lack of individualism. Coupled with cameras, this is likely one of the things many students and parents seem to dislike. Cameras require an investment in technology that costs money and having people man the cameras to provide active overwatch. For the most part, uniforms save money and are tech free.Step. 6 Don’t Advertise a Weakness“Gun Free Zone” is the worst advertising campaign in history. It not only invites people with firearms to attack a school (or similar space), it invites anyone with a rational plan built on a foundation of crazy to use pipe-bombs, knives, cars, “manufactured whatevers”, etc. to carry-out an attack. It is the same as saying, “Lunatics Come One, Come All”. Gun Free Zone is the kind of thing you announce when you want to draw attackers in. It feels good to some people. It lets them take the moral high-ground till it puts people six feet below ground.I am not going to go into too much detail, but the average American supermarket has what is needed to carry out an attack on a school or similarly cloistered public space resulting in the same number of deaths as most mass shootings. No need for a firearm at all. Average high-school chemistry classes provide knowledge of chemical reactions to do the same, plus they train students how to control the process of making hazardous compounds. Most warning labels and Material Safety Data sheets provide similar information. I am not saying anything new. We like to think we have a system of safety, but the means of providing safety in one area, like easily accessible labeling for hazardous material so firefighters know what risk they are taking, also provides a beacon of temptation for any nut-job with a vengeance issue, an empty basement, and time to use two brain cells.Easily, tens of millions of people in this country have knowledge to use this information to do harm. Letting the world know you have no means of stopping them, or at least equalizing the playing field, is not rational. It is called, the world of let’s pretend to be safe and fixate on a weapons platform that kills less than knives or hands/feet annually. The solution to the mass killings is in addressing the cause not the symptom. Advertising, Gun Free Zones exacerbates rather than ameliorates the problem.Step 7. Let People Protect ThemselvesEither bring law enforcement into the schools like it exists in other parts of the community or let legal gun owners who are trained and want to carry a firearm do so. Publicize it. As much as “Gun Free Zone” in an invitation for lunacy (it attracts lunatics like cows to low hanging fruit) letting the community know that a school or public place is protected is a deterrent. There is a reason communities patrolled by Neighborhood Watch post signs stating the neighborhood is patrolled. Advertising active real presence works, especially when there is an actual presence. Similarly, homes protected by security systems advertise the presence of the security system. Let people know the school is patrolled, watched, and there are active antibodies in the school ready to respond to human pathogens. Or do both. Wait you say, someone with a gun might go crazy and shoot… We’ve passed that point. That’s already happening. Plus, firearms are not the only means of killing. Also, allowing someone to protect themselves is not the same as mandating that they do so. No adult on a school campus should be forced to carry a firearm. Forcing people to carry who are not prepared increases risk.Harden the target. Although, I am a proponent of firearms wherever people are vulnerable, including schools, protection that potentially decreases the advantages an attacker has, doesn’t need to be limited to firearms. In most school shootings, where students hide in a classroom, a can of Raid Wasp/Hornet killer, or pepper spray that has similar range, would have gone a long way to saving many students and teachers. The insecticide in Raid makes it nearly impossible to see, it burns if sprayed in the eyes or soft tissue and shoots a tight stream of fluid 20 to 30 feet. An incapacitated attacker (one that cannot see or breath well) will not attack as well, if at all. Personally, I don’t like leaving an opportunity for the attacker to move. In the face of reluctance to use firearms, there are methods that reduce an attacker’s advantage of time and initiative. A wide range of non-lethal self-defense tools could be used. Many schools don’t encourage the use of non-lethals any more than firearms. In some cases the non-lethals proposed were silly. They required teachers and students to get within arms reach of the attacker without really incapacitating the attacker.Step 8: Enforce Existing LawsThere are millions of people who, by virtue of being diagnosed with some type of mental illness or having criminal records for domestic abuse or other violent crime, should not be allowed to buy a firearm. These people buy firearms not because of a legal loop hole, but because the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)[iii] system used to perform required Federal background checks is not used fully or at all by many states. From the FBI website,Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 230 million such checks have been made, leading to more than 1.3 million denials.NICS is located at the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas). Please be advised that calls may be monitored and recorded for any authorized purpose.20 states do not fully use the NICS system. Let me say that again, millions of people across the country, who should not be allowed to purchase firearms (of one type or another) based on accepted standards, are able to do so because the Federal background check database is not used, or it is used incompletely by many states. The infrastructure is there. The process is there. Sometimes this is a case of data not getting submitted. In other occasions the reasons differ. Each state has its justification for participating or not, and to a degree, many reasons make sense—lack of funding impacts staffing and software development. So, why create another program that causes a new requirement when the previous hasn’t been fully implemented? Yet, for the victims of violent attacks, the answers which are often rooted in bureaucracy, lack moral merit.Many states have databases of their own. These state databases do not communicate with other states or the federal government NICS database. A mentally ill person from one state can move to another state and buy a firearm. Similarly, a criminal convicted of a state level crime, who ought to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm, can relocate to another state and purchase firearms. Although this is not universally true, it allows millions of people who legally ought to be prohibited from buying a firearm to purchase what they want regardless of any “ought to” stopping them. Technically, these are legal purchases. They should not be.The means to implement change is largely in place already. To resolve this issue, each state should either use the Federal NICS system or purchase/develop software allowing communication between the respective state systems and the NICS system. Point of sale background checks are reality. The background checks are taking place. The process breaks down on the database side of the house. The states are not entering the data.Step 9. Keep PerspectiveDespite the great deal of attention given to mass killings in and out of schools, the overall trend for all violent crime is going down and has for decades. In fact, US homicide rates are tied for the lowest they have been in a century. This is true of gun violence. If the goal is to end school shootings, and as I have added, mass killings regardless of the weapon used, then we should be asking, why is violent crime going down overall? How do we reinforce that trend?Using a window from 1982 to Feb 2018, mass shootings are not “all white” they roughly reflect demographics. Latino numbers were not nearly as high previously compared to now in part because Latino population has grown over time. So long term studies tend to skew down. Black mass shooters accounts for slightly higher percentage than their demographic but not by a huge margin. Males make up all but three shooters during this period. There was only one couple. These statistics mix school and non-school shootings.https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/Mass shootings kill fewer people than other methods of firearm homicide. Also, the popular notion that all mass killings are carried out by white men is not correct. Apart from gender mass killings generally reflect the demographic make-up of the US.Step 10. Recognize US RealityWhen the solution to the problem means conceding the criminal act of the perpetrator is unmanageable and then shifting from managing the crime to managing the non-criminal who is self-managing instead, there is a problem. This is not a reasoned approach. It is not a just approach. The gun control debate, and the mass-shooting sub-category, has shifted from reducing the crime and number of criminals, to attempting to control the law abiding. We cannot honestly say we are doing everything in our power to curb mass shootings/killings when we don’t use the provided tools like NCIS at even 50% efficiency. We cannot say we really want to stop the problem when we dismantled the mental health system decades ago over accusations of abuse (many true) rather than reform it. This is a two-fold tragedy. First, the law-abiding are being punished for something they did not do by removing weapons they lawfully and safely held and then leaves them less safe. Second, gun-control will not address the underlying issues that leads to criminal acts of homicide.This question addresses mass shootings. But part of the mystique that shapes the gun violence and other forms of violence, is the ambivalent social attitude we have on criminal violence in general. As a society, we want to punish criminality “hard”—get those guys in prison and make them pay. Given the level of incarceration the US has, we don’t mind paying for prison. But, a convicted criminal has a tough time getting a job once they are out of prison. That leaves us paying for the ex-cons again, once they get out of prison in other ways: welfare, revolving prisons stays, increased criminality by many, etc.Treat drugs as a health issue. Provide treatment. Lower prison populations. Reduce the hardening of criminals. Why? Significant amount of gun homicide in the US is associated with some other criminal activity like drugs and gang activity. My personal perspective on this has shifted recently through discussions I have had online. Many gun-rights advocates perceive gun homicides to be linked to drugs and gangs. There is significant correlation but not near the levels I previously thought (More on this in Step 11). Still, drugs and gangs play a significant role in creating a culture of gun violence. Reduced drug trafficking and gang activity will result in lower gun violence since drug traffickers/gangs are primarily protecting supply lines and territory.This means two things. One, treat drug-use like a social health issue rather than a criminal issue. Stop putting people in prison and giving them records that decrease employment once a convict gets out of prison. Two, reduce trafficking. This means having a functioning immigration policy at the national level to address cross border traffic. It also means rethinking what constitutes recreational drug use. Is it marijuana and alcohol? Or something else too? Whatever it is, the ambivalent approach we are taking doesn’t work.Why does it matter? Less crime, higher employment, means safer healthier communities and that drives down the environment that produces many social ills that are connected to mass killings.Step 11. It’s Not the Guns. No Really. It’s Not the GunsThis is not another version of, it is the person not the weapon—the often-raised point made by gun rights advocates. That is a perspective I agree with at the point of attack. However, at a larger socio-economic level, whether this is true or not is irrelevant to the causal factors that drive gun homicide. Long term, poverty and income inequality is the single most important issue driving gun violence. It is connected to Step 10 but given the almost singular role it plays in homicide rates it merits focused attention and deliberate policy response. It also merits singular attention because the connection to gun-homicide and poverty and income inequality is almost completely ignored. It is also likely to be the most controversial.A great deal of hay has been made by gun control advocates asserting the US is unique in gun homicides. Comparisons showing the US evaluated against other selected developed countries are almost germane to the discussion. Near universally the data is manipulated to reach a set conclusion—guns ownership equates to shooting homicides.Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide discusses the distortion of statistical data used in many stories and studies. The author, BJ Campbell does a better job than I can of explaining the data manipulation in Everybody’s Lying and two following essays (cited at the end of this answer). For me to make a point he makes well on his own, I would shamelessly copy his charts and graphs. Instead, I encourage you to look at his articles (all three together are shorter than this answer).Yes, this flies in the face of common assertions made by many networks and media outlets. It also flies in the face of the general assertion made by many gun-rights advocates that firearm homicides are mostly linked to drug trafficking, which is an assertion I have made in the past. Drug related killing is significant but not nearly as much as is often stated.Yet, if the root cause of gun homicides in the US has more to do with poverty and income disparity than the firearm, ultimately gun-control will not succeed by banning scary deaths by AR-15s because it won’t curb the cause. Over time the method based on firearms will be replaced by something else.Mass shootings have less to do with gun availability than socio-economics. Firearms are a means to an end. So are pipe-bombs, and knives used in an attack, or any other tool used to commit murder. There is no causal connection to homicides and guns in society. When the data is examined, the single biggest impact on who commits murder with or without a gun is income disparity and poverty. Jobs and social mobility and things like school choice that voluntarily break-up stagnant communities that reinforce victimization and mediocrity will decrease homicides across society far more than gun-control efforts. Jobs and social mobility and being able to take responsibility for yourself are seeds of hope, which is the opposite of nihilism.Step 12. Head Games & Heart PainsIn Step 8, I mention enforcing existing laws that would keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill. It is beneficial to the goal. It also side-steps the problem. It treats a symptom, not the cause. Mental health and emotional health drive the issue of mass killings, homicides, and suicides. Addressing the mental health issues and emotional issues that drive people to kill on mass is the real challenge. I would separate ideological extremists from this discussion. People like the San Bernardino couple, the Unibomber, the 911 attackers, and the attacker of the Oklahoma City Federal Building show, the ideologically or politically motivated attackers can share similar characteristics as perpetrators of mass killings at schools and similar locations. Yet, perpetrators of the mass killings discussed here are more tied to health issues, socio-economics, and the broader culture of nihilistic narcissism.In a world of post-modernist relativism where having standards for ethical behavior and just action can be hard to achieve, setting standards is a daunting task. Yet, society fails if there are not standards of acceptable behavior. Society depends on social norms. Perhaps coming to such agreement on what those social norms ought to be is the hardest to achieve of all the steps above.In simple terms people deserve respect. People have intrinsic value. We are not a virus plaguing the planet. We are not simply animals chasing our most urgently felt passion i.e. live for today for tomorrow we die. My anguish does not supersede your right to exist. My feelings should not condemn you. Protecting individuals from correction and truth leads to miserable self-image. Meritless platitudes aimed at promoting self-esteem, create oversized egos. Inflating ego through false or exaggerated praise is not the same thing as recognizing intrinsic value; it often leads to inflated sense of self-worth, which does not bode well when confronted by reality. To a greater degree than before, we are raising children with expectations of instant gratification, and who have a false idea of self-importance. Simultaneously, we are allowing near unfettered access to social media platforms that feed the narcissism and enable mobs of narcissists or bullies to attack others more than ever before. It is a situation almost designed to create distorted self-image. In an age of instant gratification, it can be hard to see past the pain of today to a better tomorrow. My grandfather, who lived through the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War, used to say, “This too shall pass.” We are not helping the youth of today understand that many trials and tribulations of today are temporary. The mentally ill are even less able to contend with pain and anguish.If we are to give our children healthy self-images, we need to tame social media. Too much of a good thing is bad. In the case of social media there is just a lot of bad. Parents need to be parents. Where parents are less present, other social agencies need to step in. Pastors, coaches, teachers, mentors of various types need to model and enable activities that provide an outward focus for young people growing up.Additionally, in the case of every school attacker I have looked at, the signs were clearly seen by parents, teachers, health workers, and peers. In some cases, even police agencies were aware. Yet, in all cases there were multiple levels of failure. Let that sink in. Multiple levels of failure by the people who knew the attackers best and professionals most trained to deal with these attackers.A principle at a school my children attended once said of students who suffer behavioral disorders, that these students could not be held accountable because they did not have the privilege of stable families. So, the students were allowed to hit, spit, throw things, and yell at other students and teachers. This principle threw-away every referral that involved these students. Instead of providing some structure and stability needed for learning, he fostered the next generation of mal-adjusted community members who will act out. Like the examples of the attackers in almost every school killing every professional, parent, and teacher involved in these student’s lives sees the red flags. They know the trouble that will come. Yet, the students are passed on from year to year without addressing the issue.If we tell children there is no inherent value in life, then reinforce it by withholding better options for education and jobs, and we instill a self-focus that creates limited connection to community and family, we ought not be surprised when we have mass killings of any kind. Affluence is not the remedy for nihilism or narcissism. Community involvement, personal responsibility, and purpose is. As adults and members of our various communities we need to personally engage and demonstrate options besides the path to self-destruction. This is the greatest challenge. It is also the only way to create real change.Editorial Comment:One way technology can be leveraged is through smart phone apps. Students already have faster communication than law enforcement and administrators are capable of. Students text details faster than information can be compiled because those details are not being sent and processed by emergency responders. Capitalize on this. Let students voluntarily provide details through an app that links to parents, emergency responders, and school officials. Use it for all emergencies. KEEP IT SIMPLE & INTUITIVE. This is a quick response app that provides key details: location of attacker, health emergency, fire, etc. once the person sending info is not in immediate danger. This improves communication and situational awareness.This could be a general site plan with a drop down menu to provide a short list of emergencies, touch screen for location, and level of security i.e. unsafe but can't move or safe. The details need to be refined. The point is there are tools available that are not expensive. They primarily cost time, thought, and effort to implement.Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide” @Freakoutery https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5“The Gun Homicide Epidemic Isn’t” @Freakoutery https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/the-gun-homicide-epidemic-isnt-ac13b21ff3f9The Left Is Making the Wrong Case on Gun Deaths. Here’s a Better Case.” @Freakoutery https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/the-left-is-making-the-wrong-case-on-gun-deaths-heres-a-better-case-1429e7ad2f25[i] The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School MassacreThe 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre[ii] Quicker Response to Active ShootersQuicker Response to Active Shooters[iii] National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

To an extent.To the extent that moneyball is about gaining a better understanding of the game through the use of statistically-backed methods, yes. There's no doubt that basketball is undergoing a revolution with respect to the importance of statistically-driven analysis is be given while evaluating players. Statistically-driven moves are becoming common place (see Mark Cuban's comments in Jonathan Brill's answer, or any interview with Daryl Morey or Erik Spoelstra), and we have a better understanding of the game of basketball and its players than before. Ultimately though, a statistical approach can only take you so far in a truly team environment before problems like the number of variables on any given play or the sample size become issues.That being said some of reasons that a statistical approach works really well in baseball is because:Baseball is, for the most part, an individual sport. In the post-moneyball era in which statistically driven analysis has become the thing to do throughout the sports world, you have to remember that one of the reasons that statistically-backed analysis works as well as it does in baseball is because baseball is essentially a sport in which what Player A does is almost exclusively a function of Player A, and has little impact from Players B and C. Whether or not Robinson Cano hits the ball has very little to do with Derek Jeter's batting average. And while there are stats that do involve a larger team performance (RBI, ERA, etc.), we've found better metrics to use (Runs Created, FIP, etc.) that reduce the numbers we care to quantify and use for analysis as close to individual performance as possible. In the field, there are some cases where teammates do matter in turning double plays or throwing somebody out, but the use of the error statistic provides us a handy guide of knowing who's at fault when an out isn't recorded but should have been.Virtually everything that happens in a game of baseball is expressed somewhere positively (in the sense that somebody did whatever it is being recorded). If a batter goes 1-4, in addition to the hit that the player got, somewhere there's a record of other players recording the three outs (except, of course, in extreme situations like running outside the base path). There's a fantastic sense of conservation in baseball in that everything that happens is attributable to somebody.We really understand the most fundamental idea of what baseball is. While this is oversimplifying a statistical approach (and baseball, for that matter), you can practically express the strategy to winning baseball with two statistics: if you had a lineup filled with batters that had as close to an 1.000 OBP (on-base percentage) as possible and a pitching staff with a WHIP (walks plus hits/inning pitched) of as close to 0.00 as possible, you would win an awful lot of games.We have a treasure trove of information that goes back decades. Using a traditional box score, you can figure out a lot of baseball's advanced metrics yourself (while WHIP wasn't in a box score 20 years ago, walks, hits and innings pitched all were giving you the tools to figure it out) giving you an incredibly large sample size from which you can make more accurate observations and better understand trends.On the other hand:In basketball, and other true team sports, there are very few metrics that are truly independent. A player's field-goal percentage, while not necessarily explicitly tied to the rest of the players on the team, it is undoubtedly impacted by those players. Replace Michael Jordan with me or you and most of the players on the Bulls will probably shoot a lower field-goal percentage simply because they're getting fewer of the high-quality shots they got when Jordan forced defenses to collapse on him. Likewise, Shane Battier may tip a pass (as he is prone to do according to the almost mandatory reading provided by Michael Lewis and the New York Times), but the only reason he was in the position to do so was because other players on his team were playing lock-down defense on players in better positions to pass to. The number of truly independent stats in basketball are few and far between, and so basketball metrics can only take you so far. [1]There are a lot of things in basketball that are expressed negatively (in the sense that somebody failed to do whatever is being recorded). Defensive statistics as a whole are often predicated on what the offensive team didn't do as opposed to what the defense did. Field-goal percentage (along with more advanced forms of the stat like effective field-goal percentage and true-shooting percentage) treats an offensive player's failure with the same weight as a defensive player's success. Turnovers don't distinguish between those that are forced (e.g. a steal, a foul drawn, forcing a player out-of-bounds or a backcourt violation, etc) and those that are unforced (e.g. dribbling a ball of your foot, throwing to somebody who isn't looking, etc).[2]We don't understand the game of basketball nearly as well as baseball. Yes, we can express the game in the simple terms of scoring as many points as possible while preventing your opponent from scoring, but expressing that in positive statistical terms is somewhat difficult. We can express the first part rather easily because it's essentially offensive efficiency or points per possession. The second part is the hard part as defensive statistics in basketball are almost exclusively a negative expression, or rather the opposition's failure to achieve something as opposed to the defense actively succeeding at some quantitative action.The traditional metrics are somewhat flawed which limits our ability to derive statistically significant conclusions. Unlike baseball's near century of relevant statistics, basketball only has a few years of data that is truly good enough with which they can try and figure these things out. The traditional statistics put on a game sheet are of only limited help, and good defensive information is virtually non-existent.[3] It doesn't prevent people from coming up with good conclusions, but it does make it harder to prove those conclusions and to spot trends.The bottom line is that moneyball can work in the NBA, just not in the same way that it works in baseball. Baseball has pretty much reached the point where player and team evaluation is (or at least should be) about 80% statistically driven and 20% subjectively driven. The more intricate and dependent nature of the team-oriented game means that basketball can't really achieve that 80/20 split, but there's no reason that it can't reach at least a 50/50 split, or even a 65/35 split.A few extra things about a couple of points made in some of the other answers:To Charlie Kubal's point about getting the players on the fringes: I actually think that this is one of the areas where moneyball principles can help the NBA the most. While I agree that the NBA is a league driven by superstars (and the larger point that one or two great players can go a long way to making a great team), as we've seen with the Miami Heat over the past two years, the role players matter a great deal; think of what the Heat would be like if they could find their version of Ben Wallace. Finding that diamond-in-the-rough when your team is over the salary cap can end up making a big difference.To Liz Mullen's point regarding the salary structure of the NBA vs. MLB: While I agree that the rigidness and universal limitations on salaries throughout the NBA create far less room for exploitation, I think that there is still some inefficiencies in the NBA player market (especially with how teams value centers, point guards, and small forwards). But, more importantly, the salary cap structure creates an environment in which teams are forced to make a choice from a smaller pool of players, and it's the statistical approach that can help teams make better choices at the margins.[1] One of the things that annoys me the most about the massive shift towards the individual statistical analysis of players in the world of basketball over the past few years is the rise of metrics that masquerade as individual statistics but use components that are decidedly not, or at least not wholly, individual in nature. User points out a nice metric, Wins Produced, as proof of moneyball's impact on basketball. Win's Produced's purpose is to quantify an individual player's impact on winning a basketball game; the better you produce in categories that statistical analysis has shown are important to winning, the more wins you produce. The problem with the metric is that it incorporates an awful lot that an individual player has little control over. For instance, it incorporates team defense which is problematic because you could be a patently horrible defender but still get rewarded because you've got a good defense behind you (in a theoretical framework: I could be the worst defensive player that basketball has ever seen, but if you put me on a team with a player who blocks 100% of shots taken, my team is going to have a pretty good defensive rating despite my defensive incompetence). Using the Win Percentage formula, Derrick Rose would have gone from being the 21st best player in 2011 to the 56th best player if he had simply played for Cavaliers instead of the Bulls; he would have dropped 35 spots by simply playing for a different team (now yes, presumably the Cavaliers wouldn't have had such a bad defensive efficiency with Rose on the team, but he by himself wouldn't have made that much of a difference). Likewise, the inclusion of assists is problematic (return to the theoretical framework: if I constantly throw horrible passes to a teammate, passes that constantly put him in worse shooting position, but he always makes 75% of his shots,I get assists, but how much of that is me and how much of that is my teammate?). As they note, a player's shooting efficiency is related to the number of assists his teammates dish out and so they attempt to reward a player for dishing out assists. The problem is that the assist statistic is a somewhat subjective, and ultimately flawed, statistic. It implies a relationship that doesn't completely exist; namely that Player A's pass was the reason why Player B was able to take, and make, a field goal. And while that's certainly true some of the time, it's not true all of the time. There are times when shots are made in spite of a bad pass, and times when shots are missed despite a good pass. More often than not, the factor that has the biggest impact of whether or not a pass is an "assist" or not is the skill level of the person being passed to rather than the person doing the passing.[2] To preempt the obvious argument to this point, while this stuff isn't available to us mere peons, I am aware that more and more teams do track things like this, BUT (and it's a very important "but") this leads you down a very murky path towards an increased amount of subjective calls. And while baseball metrics are not devoid of the same subjective calls (the error, for instance), they occur at a much reduced rate than, say, unblocked missed field-goals. The Spurs led the league in field-goal percentage this year, making about 48% of their 5,463 shot attempts. Spurs opponents blocked 330 shots. Imagine the time it would take to make a good subjective call on the reason behind missing 2,522 shots and try and imagine how accurate information you get out that system would be.[3] If you say "But hey, at least they put +/- information on the game sheet now," I'm going to reach out of the Quora Machine and, in the words of Scott Van Pelt, I will punch you in the face. Do not get me started on the affront that is the +/- statistic.