It was available on Amazon for $65 earlier today, now cheapest copy available is $122. I’ll know to keep an eye out for that book now.
Still, context matters! Whatever we “hate” - be it prequels, sequels, or the Holiday Special - we are here for what we love. I think.
Public Message for dahmage:
I also fully suspect that this will be used for snark at times, which is a wholly appropriate use of the thread.
In case there was doubt, those were snarky responses to your post. That is all.
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.
My question is, are we sufficiently confident in our ability to vet the hundreds of thousands of teachers across the country, that we think kids would actually be safer when we allow the teachers to voluntarily carry guns into the classroom? I am not that confident. Rather, I believe that the likely outcome is that while there might be fewer mass shootings by intruders (although I am not even sure about that), it would be offset by a greater number of shooting incidents involving the teachers’ firearms.
Also, people can become crazy over time. We’ve all seen incidences of people starting out fine, and slipping gradually into mental issues. This “vetting” would have to be done constantly.
I think there might be confusion: I think armed teachers is a bad idea.
I have an urgent communiqué for General Hux.
Tool
Hi, I’m holding for General Hux.
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.
I have an urgent communiqué for General Hux.
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.
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.
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.
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. Not all crazy people who pose a danger to children carry weapons. We have to hear more about this case to know if there was a basis for denying the right to a handgun.
determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
Which is why it’s not enough to just call this a “mental health” problem.
It shows the insufficiency of the existing structure to address mental health issues. So you change that structure. And you focus on helping troubled students if they’re not necessarily prone to violence.
And you stop selling these kinds of guns to people. Any people.
By “these kinds of guns” you mean semiautomatic rifles? Not handguns, as the teacher had?
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.
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.
determinations of mental illness sufficient to forbid gun ownership are difficult to obtain.
Which is why it’s not enough to just call this a “mental health” problem.
It shows the insufficiency of the existing structure to address mental health issues. So you change that structure. And you focus on helping troubled students if they’re not necessarily prone to violence.
At least you have Trump in your corner, for now.
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. Even without a gun this guy shouldn’t be in a classroom.
I’m going to regret this, but how about OT adopting the slogan:
“Not fighting what we hate, saving what we love.”
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.
Obviously a rip-off from “The Dog Without A Tail - Part II”! Scandelous!
Just noticing the site I grabbed that from, ugh. Anyway I expect this detente to age as well as what is represented in that image has.
The Glorious Opinions of the User Currently Known as Handman:
Ooh, Soon Input Glorifies Cheery Turtle And Known Shaman Runs
I appreciate your Vulcanic temper.
I like coffee. I like coffee like I like my…well I like it with plenty of cream and sugar. Take it as you will.
You seem amiable and intelligent. Not sure what makes you suspicious and that makes me suspicious.
That’s an objective fact.
I’m one of the few people brazen and crazy enough to just admit that I think everyone that disagrees with me is wrong. Most people think like that too, they just pretend not to.
Few people are self-aware enough to realize they think that way. And once you realize how uniquely right you are about everything, it’s not polite to say so. Even fewer people progress to the next step of questioning that belief so that they can strengthen the conviction they are right, ad infinitum.
To be clear, I’m not 100% sure chess isn’t on tv. I’ve just never seen it on tv.
What we need to do is start a ot.com curling thread and see how that goes.
You’re in the wrong thread. You know where to go for approval. I can’t make any promises, but I think it’s a shoo-in.
I’m intrigued by this case of the Texas high school transgender kid winning the girls’ wrestling title. Ordinarily, we hear of boys becoming girls and then [unfairly] winning the girls’ division. But in this case, a girl became a boy and wants to wrestle in the boys division, but is forced to wrestle in the girls’ division. It sure seems unfair for someone being allowed to bulk up on the associated hormones, and then competing against girls.
The typical Yahoo comments are 90% from people complaining about liberals. But in this case, it seems that it was the conservatives forcing people to compete in their “birth” gender, that is the cause of this particular conundrum.
I’m not sure what I think is the right solution. It seems to me like it would be doping even if he is allowed to compete against boys. But not allowing transgender kids to compete in sports at all seems discriminatory.
Might consider the case of Dutee Chand whose body naturally produces excessive male hormones which give her an advantage.
I don’t see anyway that is fair/accommodating to everyone.
Insinuations about weather aside, I think it shows a mismatch between ideology and political party. I do think weather, or maybe latitude, has something to do with political affiliation however, given the liberal-libertarian bent of Oregon, Maine, Canada, and Nordic countries.
Everything is political nowadays, including every movie. Especially Adam Sandler movies. Corporations are increasingly eager to stake out positions aligned with liberal politics. So be it. If it means conservative-corporate alliance is fractured, then it’s win-win.
Umm… so NOT offering special discounts to NRA members is “staking out a position aligned with liberal politics”? I might buy that if they WERE offering discounts to, say, Planned Parenthood workers, or PETA members. Is that the case?
That doesn’t follow. It’s al about the reason why NRA member benefits were ended. This is clearly about politics.
Couldn’t an equivalent argument be made that the existence of NRA benefits in the first place was what was political, and that eliminating them was Delta’s way of backing out of the politics?
Changing from supporting a conservative cause to being politically neutral is still perceived as movement in a liberal direction, rightly or wrongly. Such is the team sport of politics – if you’re not with us, you’re against us.
FedEx made the Solomonic decision to keep offering NRA member benefits and express a political position on guns.
