Quote by ElCoco
I'm trying to let you know I'm comfortable with our failure to come to an agreement. Our conversation here has given me the opportunity to consider the merits and flaws of the senator's proposal.
Oh, OK. I was just thinking that if my goal was to be persuasive to everyone on the thread, I may have taken a different tact. 😉
Quote by ElCoco
OK. You share noll's opinion and I share mine with the others'.
I wasn't aware that we were taking a vote.
Quote by noll
If the willingness to carry/use a firearm becomes an advantage when applying for a job as a teacher, then one of the consequences is that teaching skills will become less valued, compared to now, in the hiring of teachers. Armed defence is not a skill that should be asked of teachers, as it takes away from their profession as a teacher.
Having kids being confronted with guns during their entire school time also gives a bad message IMO. And it might change the relationship with the teacher too.
I agree with everything you've written here.
Quote by ElCoco
Possibly, and at (again) greater cost, but the teachers are already where the children (the targets) are. Where better to have the defense?
You said that the priority is time, is more important than money. If that's true, you choose the fastest path to your goal. The fastest path is to hire people already trained to use firearms, who already have commincation with police in place, who can be stationed wherever you need them (rather than trying to recruit teachers in some of these non-urban school systems).
However, I have concerns about throwing a budget at a "band-aid" where there's no actual plan to tackle the root cause of the problem. If it was part of the long-term plan, I may be more behind it. "It" being armed guards, not armed teachers.
Quote by ElCoco
I disagree with you.
If my example demonstrates what someone could do in court to absolve a parent from responsibility, it also serves to show that parental responsibility ("And WHY didn't you check what your child was taking to school?") isn't absolute.
The refugee who knifed the children in France yesterday wasn't using a tool. He was using a weapon.
.
As Ironic mentioned, a weapon (steak knife or handgun) can be planned to be used in defense from, for example, bullies. Dani's piece expresses thoughts largely parallel to mine, and Buz agrees.
.
This isn't to say our disagreement is absolute, but rather by case, where the nitwit in Virginia is getting the justice she deserves, as do the unprosecuted single working mothers whose sons are delinquents.
The responsibility isn't about checking on what a child is bringing to school, in the case of guns. The responsibility is knowing that your gun(s) is secure and that nobody, including your child, can access it without you, whether they're going to school, a friend's house, a movie, or whatever. That safeguard isn't in place for knives, wrenches, shovels, corkscrews, or pens, all of which have been murder weapons. I'm sure we all understand why.
If there's a police investigation, every instance is going to be a case-by-case situation.
Quote by ElCoco
The priority is time, which is more valuable than money.
If the priority is time, people already trained to be armed guards would be the better answer.
Quote by ElCoco
You changed the discussion when you introduced the conversation between the parent and the child.
Until then, the parent didn’t know of the child’s action.
.
If the parent doesn’t know that the child took the took (gun or steak knife), and
If the child commits a crime (shooting or stabbing somebody) with something the parent didn’t secure, and
In both cases, the child used something the parent owned and didn't secure as a weapon.
.
If it’s a gun, you expect to be prosecuted.
If it’s a steak knife, you expect you won’t be prosecuted.
.
Correct?
The conversation changes nothing. It just demonstrates what someone could do in court to absolve a parent from responsibility. You can have a reasonable expectation that a knife would be used as a tool. We don't require that people lock up tools. However, the only expectation around guns is that it's going to be used to put a hole in something, be it a target, an animal, or a human.
That's probably why you don't need a background check and a waiting period to buy a steak knife.
So, yes, if you don't secure your weapons, you should be prosecuted if they're used for a crime, because causing destruction is the point of a weapon. If you don't secure your tools, I would say that there's a higher burden of proof needed to implicate the parents.
Quote by ElCoco
Let's see
.
If I owned a gun, and
If I didn't keep it secure, and
If my child used it to commit a crime,
Then an assistant DA could make your argument.
.
And that irresponsible nitwit in Virginia whose son shot the teacher is a good example.
And she's being prosecuted.
.
Let's continue this argument, but tweak it slightly.
If you owned a set of steak knives, and
If you didn't keep it secure, and
If your child used it to commit a crime,
Would you expect to be prosecuted?
No, and here's why. A gun is one of those unique items that is ONLY a weapon. Tons of things can be weapons that are also tools: a car, a knife, a plane, a nail, etc. They don't regulate buying nails even though I can do a bit of damage with one because, usually, it's a tool, like a knife.
So I ask my child, "Why do you need a knife for school today?" He says, "We have a cake for Ms. BlahBlah's birthday/retirement/new baby. I told them I'd bring the knife to cut it."
Now, see if there's any reasonable explanation for: "Where are you going with that gun?"
Quote by ElCoco
Laws can be weird, that's for sure. A parent can be criminally negligent and face the consequences for that, but I doubt one can be prosecuted as an accessory to armed robbery unless he or she facilitated it.
I think I could make the argument that you facilitated it if you owned a gun, didn't keep it secure, and your child used it to commit a crime.
Quote by ElCoco
I don't think I said money used for security should be taken from actual education, did I?
I got that idea from this: "Although school safety isn't the only priority; it's more important than field trips." Since school shootings don't typically happen on field trips, I thought you were talking about the money allocation. What were you trying to say here?
In some states, parents can face fines and prison time if their children are truant. It makes no sense to me that you can hold parents responsible for school absenteeism, but not if your child shoots someone.
Quote by ElCoco
If we take the uniformed guard route, the additional FTEs will make it much more expensive than if teachers who are willing are trained for the task. The communications improvement would be funded in any case.
Long-term gun control is a topic that deserves its own thread.
Although school safety isn't the only priority, it's more important than field trips.
We disagree on this. Any money used for security can't be taken from actual education. Education is compromised enough.
Quote by ElCoco
That's an interesting line of thought. Should parents be jailed when their children are convicted of robbing stores or other people?
Absolutely yes if they use a parent's gun to rob a store.
Quote by ElCoco
If, like the Columbine killers, a son used a weapon not owned by or from his parents, would you still think the same?
Yes. Like noll, I think they should still be investigated. In the case of Dylan Klebold, I suspect the parents would be found to have minimal responsibility. I don't know about Eric Harris; his parents don't really speak about it.
Quote by ElCoco
I'm assuming you disagree with the idea of arming teachers and not with the program getting separate funding.
As you've pointed out, school funding is primarily a state and local responsibility. The federal government can budget money wherever it wants through block grants to states, as it's been doing for many years.
It might be a bandaid, as has been pointed out, but it's something that can be done now to make schools less attractive targets to would-be mass murderers.
I think there's real positive value in making schools less attractive targets to would-be mass murderers.
I do think there's value in making schools less attractive targets for mass shooters, but I don't think this does that. If this is a band-aid, it's one over a festering wound and the band-aid's only purpose is to hide the problem from view. As a concession, I would say that uniformed officers might be more effective because they're visible, trained, and in communication with local police. Still, this could only be temporary while we work on the gun issue, at large, and there's no movement on gun control, especially at the federal level
I disagree with putting aside funding for arming teachers when teachers don't have enough of what they need to do their actual job. I disagree with adding this responsibility to their job. They're paid roughly the same as a truck driver. It's too much to ask of them.
Quote by ElCoco
The sins of the son are visited on the father?
I'm a gun owner. If I didn't secure my guns and my son walked out of the house with a weapon that he later used to kill someone, that's my sin, too.
Quote by ElCoco
But something worth trying, although if it's worth trying, it's worth its own budget.
I disagree. Budget money from where? If they want to do this at a federal level, they'll need to justify why after only supporting the public school system at 8% of total funds, they're now willing to dump money into schools so that teachers can carry guns. That, at the expense of buying computers, lowering classroom sizes, and increasing teacher pay as they take on extra duties.
State and local funds? We're going to see what we see now when it comes to schools. A nice, healthy budget in higher income areas while lower income school systems, where I would guess school shootings are a bigger issue, little or none.
I don't think it's worth trying. I certainly don't think this is the thing in education to throw money at.
Quote by Buz
The names and pictures of mass killers and shooters should never be released. They should stay anonymous. Never give them the sick glory and fame they seek.
What are other ideas you all have to decrease or stop these mass killers.
Better control of who can own a gun.
Militarized ammunition should not be sold to the public.
Parents of underage shooter-killers should also be held responsible and prosecuted. The minor is their responsibility.
Let the FBI control the nationwide database of guns owned, registered, etc.
Gin shows must be held to the same standard as gun shops.
Make any gun not made of metal illegal. With serious prison time for possessing one.
Let's hear your ideas.
I love this idea. I don't know if it's possible, practical, or even legal, but not only shouldn't the name be released, but their social media should also be deleted. Disappear the shooter.
Quote by noll
Indeed, it's often a place where the killer feels they've got something to settle, school or workplace. And then there are the ones who, in their delusional mind, want their final act to become global news. And killing a bunch of kids will likely make that happen.
I agree. That's also why I don't think armed guards or armed teachers will be a real deterrent. As many have said here, maybe, maybe it could be a short term thing while stricter gun control laws are passed, but nothing changes without that, no many how many good people with guns we station in populated areas.
Quote by ElCoco
It's just a guess, but I suspect one of the reasons would-be mass murderers are drawn to schools in the US is because they're usually "gun-free zones," meaning the shooter's gun will be the only one on the scene.
The senator suggested funding a program to train and license willing teachers to carry firearms to level the playing field. According to a recent national survey by the RAND Corporation, although most teachers thought it was a bad idea, nearly one in five K-12 educators said they would choose to carry a firearm at school if allowed.
If a "shooter" hungry for media glory thought that one teacher in five was carrying a gun, he'd (they're almost always he) more likely go somewhere other than a school to carry out his rampage. I know that's assuming an unlikely even distribution of gun-toting teachers across the nation, but you get the idea.
So, arming teachers is a practical – and relatively inexpensive – way to deter school shootings.
I just really dislike the idea of asking teachers to carry guns for student protection, even if they're willing. It's not a liability I I think they should have to take responsibility for. Where does the gun go while the teacher is teaching? What's the teacher's responsibility in an active killer situation, to the classroom or the school at large? How does the police recognize the teacher as a teacher and not the shooter? What if, God forbid, the teacher accidentally shoots a student?
The RAND survey said that the teachers most willing to carry a weapon to school were white males in rural schools. But where were the most recent school shootings? Pittsburgh, Washington DC, Seattle, Richmond, Columbus....
The most common location for a mass shooting to take place isn't necessarily school; it's a current or former workplace for the shooter. Should everyone just be able to go to work armed?
Running. It's the only exercise I've stuck with my whole life. I did martial arts for a while but running is always my preference.
Cocaine Bear.
It was amusing. It probably would have been more amusing if I had been on drugs.
I hate to say it, because I spend a fair amount of time being entertained on Twitter and the like, but social media isn't good for us. I don't want to get rid of it completely, but if our computers/phones/tablets kicked us off of all social media after so many hours, I think we'd all be happier for it.
This proposal is a joke, IMO. Funds for IRS agents were allocated so that the wealthy, who are likely to find tax loopholes, could be audited more frequently. It's shocking to me--simply shocking-- that some politicians would like to funnel that money away from it's purpose to enact a law that has no possibility of stopping school shootings. It's pure politics.
It won't stop school shootings. It might, maybe, shorten the duration of a school shooting once it's started. Mostly, it's window-dressing.
The solution to this starts with the assault weapons ban that was allowed to expire, like Magical Felix said. If lawmakers could get that back in place, nationwide, you watch and report the numbers of mass shootings. It will decline over time. Then you can take more measures based on your success.
Limit the amount of ammo that can be purchased at any one time. Get rid of the kits that let you convert a gun to a more powerful gun. Make a longer waiting period to get guns, so that angry people have a chance to cool off. I'm a gun owner. I've always left same-day with the gun I wanted from the dealer selling it. I don't have a record but they had no way of knowing if I was mentally stable.
I like the idea of someone "vouching" for someone else when they want to buy a gun. That being said, I don't think I would ever do so for anyone. No more than I would hand them one of my guns.
First, the colonel shared a story of an AI simulation that, when told by its operator to ignore its primary objective, turned on the operator and tried to kill them. When it was told it couldn't kill the operator, it knocked out the communications tower that delivered its orders.
The Air Force corrected his statement, saying no such simulation was actually done. The good colonel, who probably won't be giving any interviews anymore, also said that he was misunderstood. It wasn't a simulation. There wasn't any need for the simulation to know this was a potential outcome.
So, at the very least, maybe we don't put AI in charge of guns, missiles, combat aircraft....
Quote by ElCoco
I'm sure some men can look like women with enough drugs and surgery.
My interpretation of "transmen who have merely adopted gender nonconformity" is "cross-dressing men." If that's wrong, please update me.
If, as you say, a female-to-male's transition is more likely to produce an appearance closer to a male than a male-to-female transition is to create an appearance closer to a female, the root cause might be an essential difference.
I would argue that males get more mileage out of estrogen. Women get more mileage out of surgery.
Men can at least get small breast formation from estrogen. If they choose not to have bottom surgery-- and I wouldn't blame them if they didn't-- they still get some of the secondary sex characteristics. Those who are born female must get surgery to masculinize their chests, or they're stuck binding indefinitely.
Quote by noll
I guess transwomen are often more visible than transmen.
I think this is true for multiple reasons.
In my personal experience, transmen tend to stay in the female facilities until they believe they pass. Transwomen start using the women's facilities as part of their coming out and transition. If you think about risk, this makes perfect sense. A transman is risking his safety by using the men's restroom, just because of the environment.
I also think that the nature of male socialization makes transwomen more assertive, and therefore more visible. In return, they they recently have been getting high profile accolades, making them still more visible. Caitlyn Jenner as Glamour's Woman of the Year in 2015. Rachel Levine as the first four star trans officer in the Public Health Corps. (The white house called her the first female four star officer, which sure felt like a shattered glass ceiling to me as a woman /s). Alba Rueda getting one of the International Women of courage awards this year. A Pulitzer Prize this year going to Andrea Long Chu.
Also, in sports. The winners are on a podium. Sex differences can be pretty obvious, especially in athletes.
Quote by noll
That seems to suggests that there are more transwomen than transmen. Do you have any evidence for that?
There is a slight tilt that makes the percentage of transwomen higher than the percentage of transmen (40% to 35%, with the rest nonbinary). That's been historically constant until about 2012. Then, there was a paradigm shift where referrals to gender clinics were 2/3 female born. So, you may be right. We may (eventually, though probably not now) have as many trans men as trans women using cross sex facilities.
Which, if like most trans people, they're not having bottom surgery, means there should probably be a building code update for men's restrooms, as well. They're going to need more stalls.
Quote by DanielleX
I saw the gluing incident. I'm assuming the police used some kind of solvent to free her hands, unless it was that poundshop glue. She should have gone to Wilkinsons. I use Gorilla glue, that's good stuff.
Gorilla glue is a commitment. I admire that.
Quote by AngelEthics
I suppose gluing yourself to the floor is an option. 🤣
I don't want come across as poking fun at Oxford for the type of protest this conversation elicits. In America, one protestor screamed at a San Francisco Board of Supervisors, so that the others in the room could feel her pain. The histrionics span borders, clearly.
