View Full Version : Another school shooting, multiple fatalities
jp1, if you want to change the topic to include every word in the Constitution, maybe another thread would be in order.
Those guys were pretty frugal with their words. Certainly compared to what lawyers do today. If they didn't mean every word in the amendment why put them there? And I'm not trying to discuss the whole constitution, just one amendment that doesn't even have very many words in it, even if you include the part the NRA wants to ignore.
Can we start chopping up the other amendments to take out the inconvenient parts too? This sounds like a fun game for the whole family!
Those guys were pretty frugal with their words. Certainly compared to what lawyers do today. If they didn't mean every word in the amendment why put them there? And I'm not trying to discuss the whole constitution, just one amendment that doesn't even have very many words in it, even if you include the part the NRA wants to ignore.I'm guessing you're referencing the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" section? If so, consider this:
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
Or, you could also look at any standard dictionary's definition:
Militia: A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government.
Consider those for a moment and then let's talk.
The only rights we have are those our society bestows upon us, IMO.
I could stretch it, and say we have a natural right to defend ourselves, but that doesn't extend to specifying weapons.
Yes! I would push it even further and say it is natural to defend ourselves, and leave the word "right" out of it, at least at first. Helps us slow down and think about the essence of what we are saying and where we are going.
When you guys start plotting a return to an era when unalienable rights are fickle, are granted or taken away on a whim, think hard and long about what you're going to end up with.
I think we're already at the dystopia you're worried about. With things like civil asset forfeiture laws that don't require a conviction first, or even ever, stop and frisk policing policies, a farcical definition of commerce that includes me growing something in my backyard for my own personal use, a ridiculous interpretation of what our border is that allows border agents to stop people far from the border, police departments being given millions upon millions of dollars worth of surplus military equipment, and a president who has stated outright that he believes he is 100% above the law in all circumstances, we're done. If people haven't gotten out their guns to save society at this point they never will.
Voting rights, abortion rights, right to clean air and water...Just a few of the casually alienable rights we are in the process of losing.
flowerseverywhere
6-3-18, 3:29pm
OK, I get that you guys just want to be argumentative, and that's all right. Flowers, you know that those natural rights enshrined in the constitution were the means for eliminating slavery, just as they're the first line of defense against everyone's favorite dystopian fears such as those illustrated in The Handmaid's Tale, Fahrenheit 451 or 1984. All those evil white males designed the very structure we all benefit from today. Maybe it took longer to realize some of those goals than we would like, but there's no doubt some of them would never have been realized in this country without their foresight.
jp1, if you want to change the topic to include every word in the Constitution, maybe another thread would be in order.
When you guys start plotting a return to an era when unalienable rights are fickle, are granted or taken away on a whim, think hard and long about what you're going to end up with.
The crazy thing about the Constitution is that even scholars and experts disagree on what it really means. We would not have the Supreme Court and their years of judicial experience and education if it was that easy.
The crazy thing about the Constitution is that even scholars and experts disagree on what it really means. We would not have the Supreme Court and their years of judicial experience and education if it was that easy.LOL, I think the only thing that makes it hard is all the effort put into interpreting what it clearly says to make it mean something else. Who knew the Commerce Clause, containing just 16 words, could be interpreted to give the Federal Government unlimited authority over all things economic?
I agree. It's pretty clear that "well-regulated militia" doesn't refer to any half-cocked yahoo with a grudge. George Zimmerman, anyone?
I agree. It's pretty clear that "well-regulated militia" doesn't refer to any half-cocked yahoo with a grudge. You're right. It refers to citizens, whether a yahoo or not.
George Zimmerman, anyone? Yes, he could have easily been beaten to death if not for the right and ability to possess the means of effective self defense.
Teacher Terry
6-3-18, 4:24pm
He was stalking the kid if I am remembering it correctly.
George Zimmerman, anyone?
Yes, he could have easily been beaten to death if not for the right and ability to possess the means of effective self defense. [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
Or enough common sense to not start trouble where trouble doesn't currently exist. He would have survived either way, and if he'd gone the common sense route he wouldn't have had to murder someone.
flowerseverywhere
6-3-18, 8:45pm
You're right. It refers to citizens, whether a yahoo or not.
Yes, he could have easily been beaten to death if not for the right and ability to possess the means of effective self defense. [/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
are you serious? The kid was walking home from a store and he was stalked. He has had a long list of run ins with the law since then. Maybe you should rethink your opinion of St. George.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman
are you serious? The kid was walking home from a store and he was stalked. He has had a long list of run ins with the law since then. Maybe you should rethink your opinion of St. George.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zimmerman
What is my opinion of "St. George"? I don't think I've ever expressed one.
You’re the one that presented him as the posterchild for why we need the second amendment. To many of us zimmerman appears more to be the posterchild for why common sense is a useful survival skill and exactly what’s wrong with the second amendment. Personally i dont think the amendment should protect people who made stupid decisions that put themselves needlessly at harm.
You’re the one that presented him as the posterchild for why we need the second amendment. To many of us zimmerman appears more to be the posterchild for why common sense is a useful survival skill and exactly what’s wrong with the second amendment. Personally i dont think the amendment should protect people who made stupid decisions that put themselves needlessly at harm.
I hope that if you feel I've ever disrespected you that doesn't trigger your need to beat me to death, but if you do, I hope it's still legal for me to protect myself.
Don’t worry. Unlike Zimmerman, if you’re Walking around my neighborhood looking sketchy i’ll keep my distance and let the responsible adults take care of the situation as was suggested in his case. Hopefully no one will die.
flowerseverywhere
6-3-18, 11:02pm
I hope that if you feel I've ever disrespected you that doesn't trigger your need to beat me to death, but if you do, I hope it's still legal for me to protect myself.
I think you are toying with us on this very serious matter of innocent children being slaughtered.
I think you are toying with us on this very serious matter of innocent children being slaughtered.Well, if you consider attempts to introduce reason to emotional arguments as 'toying', then yes, I guess I am.
ToomuchStuff
6-5-18, 1:11am
I think you are toying with us on this very serious matter of innocent children being slaughtered.
Innocent? In how many of these school shooting cases, were targets, ones that had bullied the shooter? (I think they bear some responsibility as well, as the shooter)
Well, if you consider attempts to introduce reason to emotional arguments as 'toying', then yes, I guess I am.
This is the crux of the whole thing, reason verses emotional thought. They mix like oil and water.
ToomuchStuff
6-5-18, 1:18am
LOL, I think the only thing that makes it hard is all the effort put into interpreting what it clearly says to make it mean something else. Who knew the Commerce Clause, containing just 16 words, could be interpreted to give the Federal Government unlimited authority over all things economic?
One reason why I wish there was one language in this country. Not a lack of a national one, plug legalese, as well as others.
Reminds me of this old sketch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO6EE1xTXmw
Innocent? In how many of these school shooting cases, were targets, ones that had bullied the shooter? (I think they bear some responsibility as well, as the shooter)
.
Seriously? You’re blaming the victims? Unreal.
Teacher Terry
6-5-18, 10:17am
Blaming innocents is disgusting. I bet those first grade kids that were massacred deserved it to with that type of reasoning.
ToomuchStuff
6-7-18, 1:59am
Blaming innocents is disgusting. I bet those first grade kids that were massacred deserved it to with that type of reasoning.
Your failing reading comprehension. First grade kids didn't bully adult shooters and is a different issue then situations like Columbine where high school age kids were shot by a fellow high schooler who had been bullied. That isn't the same issue either as an earlier one where a shooter opened fire, out of boredom and not liking the day.
I probably should have realized as emotional as you all are acting, you couldn't get it.
flowerseverywhere
6-7-18, 7:14am
So please tell us Alan, Toomuchstuff or anybody what is the solution? Please somebody come up with something.
How could we prevent the 30 school shootings this year? How can we prevent more?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
who will pay for the armed teachers, perimeter security, and metal detectors that some have suggested? Our students already rank in the middle of the world pack as far as school rankings go in developed countries. Diverting funds that might possibly pay for math and reading teachers, updated textbooks etc?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/
what laws currently on the books are not being enforced as some have mentioned?
Williamsmith
6-7-18, 8:12am
Irreconcilable arguements seem to have a few trademarks. Both sides are partially right, both sides are partially wrong and neither is willing to compromise based on distrust of the other. Separation and inward reflection is the only thing that will result in meaningful steps toward a solution, temporary or otherwise.
School shootings could be reduced. We are a civilized society capable of applying workable plans to make things better for ourselves. Or are we? Adding “friction” to reduce crime is what all laws are really about. They aren’t intended or designed to eliminate the commission of crime by all facets of society. So anything that reduces the opportunity for a young person to solve his problems with a semiautomatic firearm....is a workable solution.
But the gun is only one ingredient. Alone, it poses no risk. Add mental illness or lack of a nurturing home environment and you have an ugly cocktail. A well educated child possessing common morals and ethics can withstand bullying and verbal abuse without resorting to mass murder.
Compromise seems to be a word not very well respected by either side. The only way to make any progress here is not with more comparisons, statistics, anecdotes or accusations of intentions. It’s about looking inward.
flowerseverywhere
6-7-18, 10:19am
But the gun is only one ingredient. Alone, it poses no risk. Add mental illness or lack of a nurturing home environment and you have an ugly cocktail. A well educated child possessing common morals and ethics can withstand bullying and verbal abuse without resorting to mass murder.
How are mental health issues and lack of nurturing environments solved?
dado potato
5-6-19, 10:13am
Many comments have been made in this discussion thread about the concept of permitting armed teachers (with firearm training) to increase security in schools.
Florida is about to put a law on the books that will accomplish this … in the state where the Parkland shooting incident occurred.
The Florida house passed a bill 65-47, following passage in the Florida senate. Next, the bill goes to Governor Ron DeSantis, who is expected to sign it into law.
Polling indicated that most Floridians opposed the arming of teachers.
The law will enable individual school boards to opt out. Several boards have already stated that they will opt out, if the bill becomes law.
In the wake of the Parkland shootings, a wide range of measures were taken to harden schools as potential targets for gun violence, including the addition of at least one armed guard in each school. Florida's Armed Guardian program provided for 132 hours of training (a "refresher" because all participants were to have recent experience in the military or law enforcement). Armed Guardians were an alternative to, as well as an addition to sworn law enforcement officers assigned to school security duties.
The Florida bill allows for teachers to be armed in schools, if they complete the Armed Guardian program.
I don't know how it would be possible to evaluate the number of mass shootings that were deterred or prevented by armed guards. There have been some incidents where firearms were accidentally discharged by guards in schools (which may be a reflection on the effectiveness of their training). Also there have been incidents in which a guard accidentally discharged a firearm while subduing a student regarded as a threat.
There have been no incidents I am aware of in which a lawfully armed teacher opened fire on students or other faculty. However, it may be that teachers are not immune from becoming uncontrollably angry, even to the point of violence. According to the Wikipedia entry "Going Postal" : between 1986 and 2011, workplace shootings happened at a rate of 2 per year in the US, with an average of 12 people killed per year.
Wasn't Parkland the school where the armed "sheepdog" sat on his thumbs while kids were being slaughtered?
Wasn't Parkland the school where the armed "sheepdog" sat on his thumbs while kids were being slaughtered?Yes, he didn't have what it takes to put the welfare of others ahead of his own, and now he has to live with that. That's an all-too-common consequence of forcing people to rely on governmental protection while denying them the ability to effectively protect themselves. A true sheepdog knows up front they couldn't live with the consequences of inaction. You see examples of them in every incident such as this whether it's a teacher giving up their life while trying to shield a student under their charge or a student dying while fighting back against uneven odds.
It's mind boggling that teachers will be expected to take up the slack when supposed trained professionals drop the ball. But they likely will have more of a vested interest in protecting their students.
It's mind boggling that teachers will be expected to take up the slack when supposed trained professionals drop the ball. But they likely will have more of a vested interest in protecting their students.
I'm not aware of anyone expecting teachers to take up the slack, I think the focus is on not denying them the opportunity.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-19, 4:36pm
I'm just waiting for the first "I felt threatened" excuse for a murder of a minority student with smartphone video backing the deceased student. Is there enough liability insurance coverage for school districts adopting the arming of instructors, given the inevitable lawsuits that will arise? And what of potential instructor imprisonment for pulling the trigger too fast? I seriously doubt all teachers would ever be guilty of such - but there will be a scattered few who are, and it seems as if this new law in Florida actively denies this reality.
Good thing constant muggy air and palm trees only work for me in countries with much more reasonable costs of living than the United States.......I have no desire to ever set foot in Florida, and less even now with this new law (Though to be fair right before the Noor verdict, a police officer was incarcerated in Florida for 25 years for murdering an innocent, unarmed African American male waiting for a toe truck in his vehicle, so Florida has made some concessions to the rule of law and human life meaning something as it does in other countries where there are checks and balances against the police). Rob
I'm just waiting for the first "I felt threatened" excuse for a murder of a minority student with smartphone video backing the deceased student. I hope you never get to feel that particular giddiness.
Teacher Terry
5-6-19, 8:43pm
Having to live with doing nothing while kids are dying is not getting what he deserves by having to live with it. I am sure he didn’t commit a crime so no way to punish but it’s sickening.
gimmethesimplelife
5-6-19, 9:37pm
I hope you never get to feel that particular giddiness.I didn't mean it that way, Alan. I too hope it never happens....I just don't discount the eventuality is all. There would be no giddiness for me in such a thing happening - I hope you understand this? Rob
flowerseverywhere
5-6-19, 9:51pm
So please tell us Alan, Toomuchstuff or anybody what is the solution? Please somebody come up with something.
How could we prevent the 30 school shootings this year? How can we prevent more?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
who will pay for the armed teachers, perimeter security, and metal detectors that some have suggested? Our students already rank in the middle of the world pack as far as school rankings go in developed countries. Diverting funds that might possibly pay for math and reading teachers, updated textbooks etc?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/
what laws currently on the books are not being enforced as some have mentioned?
imwrote this almost a year ago and no one has answered. Still the shootings go on.
I live in Florida. It is easy to get concealed carry permits and firearms. I know many people who carry, and many more who have guns in their homes. I have never seen anyone with a gun out in public except in Alabama where a policeman had a gun aimed at a black man with his arms up who was then taken into custody. I have only heard opposition to the guns in school arguments. Counties are opting out. I imagine there are some people for it. I can only say a black teacher who is armed is going to need lots of thoughts and prayers that they are not assumed to be the active shooter. This is the south after all and the southern states have lots of guns and very high incarceration rates, especially blacks. Coincidence?
https://www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#rankings?dataset-option=SIR
imwrote this almost a year ago and no one has answered. Still the shootings go on.
I don't know the answer, I wish I did.
I do feel strongly that the desire to deny citizens the means to an effective self defense by legislative means is the wrong answer, it's like eliminating capitalism by denying everyone the right to vote. I think it would help to teach people that right and wrong are not relative, that evil is evil and should not be tolerated, that every life is a blessing and should be cherished. We've gotten away from that.
Not being an intruder from Canada so much as asking in the interest of discussion, why the need for 'an effective means of self-defence'? What drives this need in the US?
imwrote this almost a year ago and no one has answered. Still the shootings go on.
I live in Florida. It is easy to get concealed carry permits and firearms. I know many people who carry, and many more who have guns in their homes. I have never seen anyone with a gun out in public except in Alabama where a policeman had a gun aimed at a black man with his arms up who was then taken into custody. I have only heard opposition to the guns in school arguments. Counties are opting out. I imagine there are some people for it. I can only say a black teacher who is armed is going to need lots of thoughts and prayers that they are not assumed to be the active shooter. This is the south after all and the southern states have lots of guns and very high incarceration rates, especially blacks. Coincidence?
https://www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#rankings?dataset-option=SIR
Since most school shooters (all?) (like most terrorists in general) are white males, it shouldn't be a concern, but it probably is, lamentably.
iris lilies
5-7-19, 10:38am
Not being an intruder from Canada so much as asking in the interest of discussion, why the need for 'an effective means of self-defence'? What drives this need in the US?
DH served on the Grand jury for three months, going to court several days a week. He heard mostly gun and drug cases.
He saw close up that all of the laws in the world do not keep the bad guys from getting, keeping, and using guns.The bad guys have guns. Why dont you ask them rather than the law abiding citizens on this website?
Not being an intruder from Canada so much as asking in the interest of discussion, why the need for 'an effective means of self-defence'? What drives this need in the US?I think more than anything, it's philosophical. This country was founded under the radical philosophy that the individual was not subservient to a ruler or central government and immediately became a beacon of hope for people from every corner of the world. The ability for the individual to protect themselves and their families from tyranny perpetrated by other individuals or groups is essential to maintain that independence.
Of course, our government made every effort to keep indigenous peoples from enjoying that right and it turned out badly for them. Our government denied slaves the ability to protect themselves and the practice thrived for generations as a result. World history is filled with examples of tyranny against peoples denied the right of an effective defense.
Some modern societies depend upon the altruism of their local and national governments to maintain their safety, ours has shown itself un-deserving of that trust. But that's must my opinion.
Teacher Terry
5-7-19, 11:03am
Other countries don’t have this issue and we should look at ones with low instances of mass shootings and their solutions.
Other countries don’t have this issue and we should look at ones with low instances of mass shootings and their solutions.
I'd start with teaching absolute right and wrong and ensure consequences are worthy of avoidance. We've stopped doing that with our children.
Not being an intruder from Canada so much as asking in the interest of discussion, why the need for 'an effective means of self-defence'? What drives this need in the US?
I think the more fundamental question to ask is why the exercise of a given right requires justification.
I'd start with teaching absolute right and wrong and ensure consequences are worthy of avoidance. We've stopped doing that with our children.
I think that's very true. Regulation is a poor substitute for morality and transient political fashion is a poor substitute for custom and tradition.
I think the more fundamental question to ask is why the exercise of a given right requires justification.
OK, I can see the given right of self-defence viewpoint but does not every right have responsibilities that go along with the right? Is it the needed education of the responsibilities that is missing? When it was given as a right, were no responsibilities attached? Or is it the chosen means of self-defence that requires the responsibilities defined and the education?
I'd start with teaching absolute right and wrong and ensure consequences are worthy of avoidance. We've stopped doing that with our children. Is this the part of teaching rights and responsibilities that you were thinking, Alan? If so, where and how to start?
Is this the part of teaching rights and responsibilities that you were thinking, Alan? If so, where and how to start?
Yes, the three greatest influencers in any childs life are the home, their school and their church, which should all be local. Meaning we should not handicap local school districts with federal edicts or handicap families with programs that indirectly encourage breaking up nuclear units. If we did those two things, I think churches would regain their place as social, if not spiritual influences. I think we would then see gradual but positive changes in popular culture and media influencers.
My wife works at an elementary school servicing the poorest area of our county and it is obvious which children are from broken families and which ones are not, which children are taught right from wrong and which ones are not and which children have positive social influences and which ones do not.
I think more than anything, it's philosophical. This country was founded under the radical philosophy that the individual was not subservient to a ruler or central government and immediately became a beacon of hope for people from every corner of the world. ...
Maybe it's because this country was founded on genocide; we've been a violent people since our inception. And then there's the Puritans, to add a fillip of cruelty to the mix But we're a relatively new country--kind of adolescent--and we may eventually grow some maturity, one hopes. Of course being by far the biggest arms dealer in the world doesn't help matters.
Maybe it's because this country was founded on genocide; we've been a violent people since our inception. If you take those two statements as fact, that's all the more reason not to trust those who wish to take away your means of self defense, dontcha think?
If you take those two statements as fact, that's all the more reason not to trust those who wish to take away your means of self defense, dontcha think?
I can see where some would think so, but I've gotten this far without arming myself to the teeth, and I'll carry on.
Teacher Terry
5-7-19, 1:28pm
Kids from loving nurturing homes will do well regardless of intact family or not. Churches can be part of that for religious people but aren’t a necessity. All families need a good support system, decent daycare or after care and a reasonable work schedule so parents aren’t too exhausted to do their best as parents. Plus some kids turn out bad due to drugs or despite having the best upbringing.
I can see where some would think so, but I've gotten this far without arming myself to the teeth, and I'll carry on.That's ok, if circumstances change and you become a target you can change your mind, at least currently.
Kids from loving nurturing homes will do well regardless of intact family or not. Churches can be part of that for religious people but aren’t a necessity. All families need a good support system, decent daycare or after care and a reasonable work schedule so parents aren’t too exhausted to do their best as parents. Plus some kids turn out bad due to drugs or despite having the best upbringing.
Yes, nothing is fool-proof, but we can improve the odds of success if we try. Or to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if we stop making people so comfortable in their poverty (economic or moral) they gain incentive to improve themselves.
That's ok, if circumstances change and you become a target you can change your mind, at least currently.
I can't envision a situation where 1) I would need a gun to defend myself, or 2) I would have it at the ready to deploy.
Maybe if I were hiking alone, or traveling in a wilderness area. (Which would have never happened.) But even then, I wouldn't be packing an AR-15.
Maybe if I were hiking alone, or traveling in a wilderness area. (Which would have never happened.) But even then, I wouldn't be packing an AR-15.I don't have one either, but if I ever needed a nice varmint rifle it would be a good choice, albeit a scary looking one.
Teacher Terry
5-7-19, 2:00pm
Yes let’s blame the poor. A favorite pastime of conservatives and republicans.
Yes let’s blame the poor. A favorite pastime of conservatives and republicans.
I don't blame the poor, I blame the systems and "empathetic" enablers which guarantee they stay that way. Maybe I haven't made that clear enough.
I don't blame the poor, I blame the systems and "empathetic" enablers which guarantee they stay that way. Maybe I haven't made that clear enough.
The poor wouldnt be poor if only we made being poor more unpleasant so that they would be inspired to stop being poor?
dado potato
5-7-19, 2:10pm
all the more reason not to trust those who wish to take away your means of self defense
I was just reading about "Make My Day Laws" which are on the books in various states (MT, CO, OH, FL, TX, probably others as well). Under certain circumstances the occupant of a dwelling is justified for the use of deadly physical force against an intruder in a residence. The circumstances may vary somewhat from state to state, but in general:
1. the intruder made a knowing, unlawful entry into the dwelling, and
2. the occupant reasonably believed the intruder was committing or intended to commit an additional crime against a person or property in the dwelling, other than the unlawful entry, and
3. the occupant reasonably believed the occupant might use physical force against any occupant.
In Loveland CO, in February 2019, a man named Guzman was at home. Three intruders stole a toy helicopter he had bought as a gift for his son. He went to another room, got his 12 ga. shotgun and loaded it. By then the 3 intruders were leaving the property, and he fired two blasts, killing one and seriously wounding another. He has been charged with murder. Perhaps his lawyer will use the "Make My Day" defense... but the problem is the bad guys were running away by the time Guzman shot them.
It may be that Guzman used his firearm precipitously, with a misunderstanding of the legal justification for the use of deadly force in his jurisdiction.
The poor wouldnt be poor if only we made being poor more unpleasant so that they would be inspired to stop being poor?
Something like that, think generationally.
I was just reading about "Make My Day Laws" which are on the books in various states (MT, CO, OH, FL, TX, probably others as well). I wonder who came up with that term? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them "Defense against persons brazen enough to invade an occupied private residence law"?
Teacher Terry
5-7-19, 2:24pm
Here we go again the welfare queen myth made popular by Reagan. Ugh!
Here we go again the welfare queen myth made popular by Reagan. Ugh!If that's your take-away, you're not paying attention.
Yes, nothing is fool-proof, but we can improve the odds of success if we try. Or to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, if we stop making people so comfortable in their poverty (economic or moral) they gain incentive to improve themselves.
Personally I don't think the problem is that people are so comfortable in their poverty that they chose to stay dependant on gov't programs. They stay on those programs because the programs incentivize dependence on them. Do any work and you lose your benefits dollar for dollar, or even worse, lose everything from the program. And if you would need to pay for childcare if you have a job, but lack the skills to get a job that pays better than minimum wage you'll spend your whole income on childcare. We could design better programs that enabled people to get to work that don't jeopardize the minimal amount of economic security that they already have and we would probably see more poor people willing to get out there and become productive.
Personally I don't think the problem is that people are so comfortable in their poverty that they chose to stay dependant on gov't programs. They stay on those programs because the programs incentivize dependence on them. I agree, just indicating how long the discussion of dependence has been going on in this country.
One of the major accomplishments of the Clinton administration was welfare reform which was supposed to help transition people from a role of dependence to independence. I'm not sure how well that's going currently but it will likely take generations to overcome the damage done between the 60's and the 90's.
Thinking more about this I'll give an example from my own life. Back in 2001 I was unemployed. The state of NY sent me a check each week for $440. I could earn up to $100/week without losing any of the benefit. After that my benefit was reduced dollar for dollar for everything I earned. So I routinely would take one day temp assignments from an agency doing basic admin work. I'd earn $15/hour, which at 7 hours meant $105 income. There was no point in working more than one day a week so I rarely did. The only benefit to working more would be that my total unemployment benefit amount would have stretched beyond the 9 month maximum benefit I could collect. I assumed, correctly as it turned out, that I would have a fulltime job in 9 months so I didn't consider that to be of much use to me.
Teacher Terry
5-8-19, 1:20am
The last time I saw the statistics there were a lot less people on welfare than before Clinton was in office.
The last time I saw the statistics there were a lot less people on welfare than before Clinton was in office.I think that's probably correct although I don't have anything to back it up. I only brought it up initially as a factor in the breakup of the nuclear family in so many poor families caught in the cycle of dependence. Respected black economists and social commentators such as Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele have long lamented the unintended role of social service programs in destroying whole urban communities and I can attest to the negative impact on the rural communities of my youth as well. Three generations of my extended family are still caught up in the cycle, for many of the same reasons jp1 mentioned, as the path of least resistance.
flowerseverywhere
5-8-19, 4:55am
I think the more fundamental question to ask is why the exercise of a given right requires justification.
maybe because of about 100 gun deaths per day in the US.
I live in the midst of stand your ground gun culture. I see it being more about power and paranoia than self defense. The paranoia is certainly being stoked by the hysteria on the news day in and day out. When you live in a big senior community everyone is home and knows their neighbors. The streets are patrolled at least three times a day. Any violence or theft is minuscule for the size of the population yet I know many people armed to the teeth and never leave the house without concealed carry.
A big shooting store and range range opened near me. They have a liquor license and a bar. I cannot imagine what could possibly go wrong.
I cannot imagine what could possibly go wrong.
I've noticed that hint of distrust at what others may do in every discussion we've ever had on this subject, I can understand that. Two years ago this past Christmas while driving home one evening a woman coming from the other direction decided to cross the center line and hit my car head on. She totaled both of our cars although our cumulative 18 or so airbags and restraint systems ensured that neither of us were hurt.
Now, over two years later I still pay very close attention to oncoming traffic and don't feel comfortable anymore on my motorcycle, while stopping short of advocating everyone else have their driving privileges suspended and cars taken away. They haven't done anything wrong.
If we're going to compare guns to cars maybe we should treat them the same way. I imagine the woman who caused the accident had insurance to cover her liability for harming you. Perhaps we need to require gun owners to have gun owners' liability insurance to cover harm caused if their gun is used to commit a crime.
I wasn't comparing objects as much as expressing an understanding of an unwarranted feeling. I don't think we can insure against that.
I wasn't comparing objects as much as expressing an understanding of an unwarranted feeling. I don't think we can insure against that.
True that. But we can also hold people financially responsible if their weapon is used to harm another person.
True that. But we can also hold people financially responsible if their weapon is used to harm another person.
Anyone can bring a civil damages suit against anyone else, are you suggesting this become an automatic outcome outside the judicial system?
Upon reflection, and remembering you're an insurance guy, I'm guessing you're suggesting mandatory liability insurance on every weapon owned. If that's true, should we also require mandatory liability insurance on every knife, every brick, every truncheon type device or any other object that may be used to harm another?
I AM suggesting mandatory liability insurance. Just as exists with cars. If sticks and stones and knives were used for anywhere near the amount of harm as guns i’d suggest that too. But for now that would seem overkill.
I AM suggesting mandatory liability insurance. Just as exists with cars.
Just like cars huh? I only need to insure my cars if I use them on a public road, not if they spend all their time sitting in my driveway. I have a .40 calibre semi-auto pistol and .38 Chief Special revolver in a lockbox in my house. Do I only need to insure them if I take them out of the box, or maybe only if I take them off my property? Trying to understand how this would work.
Perhaps we need to require gun owners to have gun owners' liability insurance to cover harm caused if their gun is used to commit a crime.
Insurance is priced by risk and exposure.
Considering how many firearms are in this country (~400 million), and how rarely they cause injuries (~100k cases/year, many of those suicides or suicide attempts or accidental self-injuries), I'd think such a policy would be quite inexpensive. 0.025% are involved in injuries/deaths each year. 1 in 4000. ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700838/ )
There are ~3 million auto injuries each year in the USA, with ~276 million motor vehicles registered. 1.08% are involved in auto injuries each year. 200x more often than than firearms are.
If insurance companies further rated gun owners like they do automobile drivers, I'd imagine people like myself who have extensive training, extensive collections, and many decades of demonstrated non-injurious use would get great rates. 15 year old males living in inner cities might have higher rates, but they aren't supposed to have guns anyways....
The "you should have firearms liability insurance" proposal is a clear attempt to impose additional burdens of ownership on firearms owners, and stamp out the culture of firearms use in this country.
maybe because of about 100 gun deaths per day in the US.
I live in the midst of stand your ground gun culture. I see it being more about power and paranoia than self defense. The paranoia is certainly being stoked by the hysteria on the news day in and day out. When you live in a big senior community everyone is home and knows their neighbors. The streets are patrolled at least three times a day. Any violence or theft is minuscule for the size of the population yet I know many people armed to the teeth and never leave the house without concealed carry.
A big shooting store and range range opened near me. They have a liquor license and a bar. I cannot imagine what could possibly go wrong.
People abuse rights all the time, but does that mean those rights must be abrogated?
If we are going to go so far as to compare guns to cars, I would suggest that increased gun regulation is to school shootings as recycling paper products is to correcting climate change. There is a much larger cultural issue that romanticizes gun use in the media and in games.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.