As a non-gun person, this is about reason and logic. It’s emotion and fear when any story involving a gun is said to prove that guns need to be banned.
The story doesn’t prove anything that wasn’t proven long ago, it just prompts questions about whether we’re going to do anything about it or kick the can down the road a few more years.
I just don’t understand why people love their guns so madly that they can’t listen to reason or logic.
Well, that’s half of the frustration. What we’re ultimately talking about here is an entertainment device. Like a frisbee golf course that happens to be lethal. After a few thousand people die on the frisbee golf course, people may reasonably want to shut it down.
But there are people out there who really like frisbee golf. They will say, hey, some guy got struck by lightning on a soccer field one time. And two swimmers got attacked by a shark this year alone. And yeah, all three lived, but they totally could have died. All sports are potentially lethal, why pick on this one frisbee golf course just because a few thousand people died?
People can’t be killed by knives and domestic violence can’t happen at a school. Learn something new everyday!
The rate of death is lower with knives than guns. Learning is a process that should never stop. And apparently non sequiturs about domestiic violence can happen anywhere at all.
You cannot say that there is any greater chance these two people who are now dead would be alive if not for the gun. You can’t.
Well, technically you’re right. I’m typing it, not saying it.
It’s harder to kill someone with a knife than a gun and it’s even harder to kill lots of people with a knife than a gun. This should be extremely obvious, but since it’s not, learn something new every day!
Well the event I’m still addressing concerns 2 people killed, not lots. In general it’s easier to kill someone with a gun, but it is easy with a knife too. The differing amount of effort is no consolation to a dead person.
When the increased time, effort, and struggle means the attempt failed on one of the intended victims, it may not console the victim (assuming there is one), but as I said earlier, the survivor may think differently.
People can’t be killed by knives and domestic violence can’t happen at a school. Learn something new everyday!
The rate of death is lower with knives than guns. Learning is a process that should never stop. And apparently non sequiturs about domestic violence can happen anywhere at all.
Death and violence is not going to end, subject to a total remaking of the world.
Indeed mate - though many places in the world thankfully don’t have as many (or anywhere near the number of) school shootings.
We should focus on making schools safe! For the particular story I’m commenting on, would we rather this domestic dispute happened off campus? Sure, but I don’t think that’s the most important thing that happened her. Nor would I have been more pleased if a car or knife had been used.
I’m sure the survivor(s) would have been much more pleased if a car or knife had been used.
Death and violence is not going to end, subject to a total remaking of the world.
Of course the Republican solution is generally “therefore let’s not even try to reduce the death and violence.”
What I see in that story is a domestic dispute ended in 2 deaths. Tragic but not the kind of story indicating there is one good solution.
I’d still much rather read a story about a domestic dispute ended in 2 injuries. Same violent world, different outcome.
That’s nothing more than wishful thinking. I’d like the same thing.
I suppose it’s nice to hear you’d like a gun ban if you thought it wasn’t wishful thinking.
Death and violence is not going to end, subject to a total remaking of the world.
Of course the Republican solution is generally “therefore let’s not even try to reduce the death and violence.”
What I see in that story is a domestic dispute ended in 2 deaths. Tragic but not the kind of story indicating there is one good solution.
I’d still much rather read a story about a domestic dispute ended in 2 injuries. Same violent world, different outcome. Root problem not solved, but lives saved.
Is it ever going to end?
Ask me again when the same political party doesn’t control the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of state governments. I might have a better answer for you then.
9,531
Interestingly, it would seem that a full 17 percent of posts are either deleted or private.
PM sent.
Not really.
I just posted a new thread in the Technical HOWTO forum about torrents, as it may apply to distributing the next version of Project Threepio. Anyone with expertise in the matter please consider adding your input, because this is new territory for me. FTP I get. BitTorrent I do not.
So far I’ve pretty much managed to completely avoid even properly knowing what a torrent is, let alone doing much of anything with them. This may change.
With the next release or Project Threepio, I might try seeding it on the Organ myself (in the past, I’ve relied on volunteers). My Internet connection is no longer as tragic as it once was, and I’ve got a headless 24/7 Linux box just sitting around without much to do.
So the question is: how would I even do this? I can ssh into the box, run processes with nohup so they keep going even after I disconnect, and rtorrent is installed. I just want to seed this one thing and nothing else. What’s the best way to go about this? What’s the best way to make it persist through reboots? And so on.
It’s a typographic error that has never been corrected over the centuries. It actually refers to the Rod of Ron. Which could be interpreted as referring to adult film star Ron Jeremy. 😛
No, man. It’s the Rod of Ruin from only the best fantasy-themed board game evar!
I thought Lucas’ issue was that he didn’t see a market for dead Han Solo figures? 😛
I don’t know about other places, but those things would have flown off the shelf in my neighborhood. Especially if Han got horribly disfigured first.
And maybe some of the neighborhood kids who weren’t me would have bought some too.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.
Sure, but if you can get rid of a rare but bad thing without downsides, I say go for it.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.
You’re not law-abiding if you still have a gun after it’s been made illegal. Circular, yes, but all laws are like this. Law-abiding murderers became criminals when murder was outlawed, unless they stopped doing it.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.
I ran the due process/equal protection argument past the DMV but they still wouldn’t give me a license until I passed the test.
A test may pass master. But if instead there’s a “good enough reason” standard (or as Australia says, a “genuine reason”), then we may run into issues. Consider if you needed to demonstrate a “genuine reason” to obtain a driver’s license and DMV bureaucrat decided your reason wasn’t lacking. In that situation I think there’s a good case for a due process violation.
The Constitution already specifies a “genuine reason” – being a member of your state’s well-regulated militia, a.k.a. the National Guard. But I don’t mind expanding the explicit Constitutional mandate to cover additional Constitutionally unspecified reasons, such as hunting and varmint control, though. Because I recognize guns do have practical value, in these specific capacities. But if the courts say we can’t add these additional reasons to the constitutional one because of due process or whatever, I suppose we could live pretty easily without them.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
As TM2YC suggests, we can’t stop bad things from happening. I don’t recall hearing a story about a teacher bringing a gun to school and shooting a student. That would be weird if such a thing were vanishingly rare even with the ready access to guns.
Sure, but if you can get rid of a rare but bad thing without downsides, I say go for it.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
The question is how you do that without violating law abiding people’s rights.
You’re not law-abiding if you still have a gun after it’s been made illegal. Circular, yes, but all laws are like this. Law-abiding murderers became criminals when murder was outlawed, unless they stopped doing it.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
I don’t think there’s any justification for the handgun in the classroom. As to whether the teacher should own one (assuming he legally owns/is licensed), we need to know more. Setting the 2nd Amendment aside, requiring people to provide justification for firearm ownership runs headlong into due process and equal protection issues. I’m not sure how that shakes out but it’s a legal issue that would need to be addressed.
I ran the due process/equal protection argument past the DMV but they still wouldn’t give me a license until I passed the test – and a car actually serves a practical purpose in addition to being a deadly weapon.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
I’m saying we should keep the crazies out of school employment.
I understand. I was just expanding on that, on the grounds that children’s safety shouldn’t stop at the school boundaries, and that it’s also possible to protect kids from armed school employees who manage to pass an employment vetting regimen.
Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons.
And thankfully so! The more people who pose a danger to children we can put into that category (not carrying weapons), the better. That’s harm reduction at work.
We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
As always, I’m approaching it from the opposite direction. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for justifying the presence of a handgun in a classroom.
I suspect we’re both a default “No” on our questions, with a fairly high hurdle to get to “Yes”.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
I don’t know what vetting is involved in becoming a teacher, but it should extend beyond mental health.
Certainly giving someone the ability to teach kids geography warrants less scrutiny than giving them the ability to kill all of them. But that doesn’t mean no scrutiny.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
Vet all school employees! That’s the point. Make the schools safe. It’s about mitigation, as one says.
Yes, that would demote all of them to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Risk mitigated!
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
Per the NYT podcast that Frink recommended, determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
“Vetting” should not be limited to mental health considerations, let alone extremely rare cases of mental illness. There’s a lot of room for improvement here.
Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
That would demote him to “crazy guy with a gun outside the school”. Or “crazy janitor with a gun inside the school” for that matter.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Yikes. This demonstrates not only the need for mental health services but better vetting of teachers.
Not just teachers, but anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
I love that my post resurrected the term “packing heat”.
My work here is done.
The “teachers packin’ heat” bill is advancing in Florida.
As if on cue, reason number 45,238 why this is a terrible idea.
Also, new reports of swastikas carved into the magazines used in the attack indicate that although particular affiliations still aren’t certain, white supremacist is a pretty safe bet.
EDIT: Someone snarkily commented what is sure to be the actual NRA response to the teacher shooting incident.
They should arm the students to protect themselves from teachers.
Not sketchy, but very nearly unseemly. That’s how suspicious.
Or find a different way to break up wrestling groups equitably, something along the lines of weight classes. Gender in this case is a proxy for other things that could likely be measured and accounted for. Boys and girls, regardless of birth gender, could compete within the same group. As long as the groups were created by some reasonable capability-measuring standard, I don’t see how that would be a problem.
Same thing with firefighters. Firefighters used to exclude women because the average man has more upper body strength than the average woman. But if the department simply tests upper body strength regardless of gender, some women will pass (and some men will fail).
Awarded: One Internet.
Use it wisely.