5 ms·
You have no problem with the opening example in the article?
by abtinf 1y ago
You have no problem with the opening example in the article?
- tyleo 1y agoI have a problem with the degree of punishment but not that the student was punished. A student said, “on Thursday we kill all the Mexico’s,” on a schools private communication platform. The school should correct that behavior. Unfortunately they involved law enforcement. Thats where I see the problem. A better solution would be detention and informing the parents.
- kayodelycaon 1y agoWhen I was a kid, detention over a stupid joke would have been an extreme overreaction and would result in the teacher being pulled into the principal’s office, not the kid.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> detention over a stupid joke When you were a kid gun laws were stricter.
- giantg2 1y agoNot exactly true. You don't know how old the person is nor their jurisdiction. Some states have fewer laws, others have more. At the federal level, there are more laws and rules than there were in the 60s or 70s (overall more than at any prior time). And of course enforcement varies. I remember many people coming to school with guns in their cars during hunting season even though it's not legal.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> You don't know how old the person is nor their jurisdiction One can impute it from the content assuming it’s relevant, i.e. in America.
- giantg2 1y agoGun laws vary dramtically by state. If we are only looking at the federal level, then there has been no substantial reduction.
- kasey_junk 1y agoThere was a federal assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004.
- giantg2 1y agoYes, and there have been additional law and rules changes since then (NICS, trusts, etc). Thus the number of laws and rules are not substantially lower than in the recent past.
- kasey_junk 1y agoAccess to assault weapons is substantially easier now than it was in 1996. There maybe the same number of laws or whatever but in real terms access is easier now than then.
- giantg2 1y agoAnd what does that access mean? How many of the weapons used in school shootings would have been banned? They've done studies on the effectiveness of the ban and showed no real effect over that decade, but speculated that there could have been an effect if it went on longer. The other issue is that the ban was largely cosmetic and could easily be avoided by not including certain features that have limited utility in most domestic shootings anyways (launcher lug, flash hider, etc) as evidenced by continued AR-15 post-ban model production. So to me, the claim that there is more accessibility doesn't provide any evidence of causality.
- kasey_junk 1y agoI’m not making a claim about the usefulness. You made a claim about access not changing. That’s simply untrue. Access has gone up. As for the feature bans those are clearly municipalities attempts to get around either constitutional or political impediments to the bans people actually want. Magazines fed semi automatic rifles are what people want to ban, banning rifles with muzzle shrouds is how they get there. Studies on this topic are fraught because the gun industry has long prevented the normal research funding issues on this topic and have fought tooth and nail any data collection efforts.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> Unfortunately they involved law enforcement. Thats where I see the problem Eh, terminal violence was potentially threatened. Calling the cops seems fine if no teacher or administrator can vouch for the kid. (Particularly if, as is true in this case, the law requires “any threat of mass violence against a school to be reported immediately to law enforcement.”) To the extent someone fucked up, it’s the cops who allegedly caused the 13-year old to be “interrogated, strip-searched and spent the night in a jail cell.”
- soulofmischief 1y agoPolice are a volatile, uncontrollable solution for anything other than white collar crime. If you introduce police into a situation where your life ot belongings aren't in immediate danger, you should be prepared for them to make someone miserable or hurt someone and you're culpable if they do.
- 1718627440 1y agoPolice exists to deescalate conflicts and prevent harm. If they don't you should file a disciplinary complaint.
- Hizonner 1y ago> Police exists to deescalate conflicts and prevent harm. Somebody should tell them that. > If they don't you should file a disciplinary complaint. ... which will be ignored. They may or may not laugh in your face. I wish I lived in your dream world.
- 1718627440 1y agoThey regularly get education on how to deescalate. At least the media reports that. Also police officers get prosecuted for misconduct or promotion of right-wing ideology. Not every country has a weird dysfunctional police.
- worldsayshi 1y ago> Unfortunately they involved law enforcement Sounds like they could've reasoned that they face the least chance for liability if they pushed the responsibility to law enforcement.
- chasd00 1y agoA threat like that has to be reported to the authorities. In 99.9% of cases it’s nothing but you never know. You can’t threaten the president without getting investigated, you can’t threaten mass murder at school without getting investigated.
- FpUser 1y agoInvestigation is ok given how much shooting happens. Punishment however is way out of proportion. It was a bad joke. Does not deserve any real punishment except maybe couple of hours in a class that explains why jokes like this are bad.
- giantg2 1y agoInappropriate comments or jokes could easily be handled with parent-teacher intervention and some detention. If it's possibly credible, then reporting it to the police to kick off an investigation is good. It seems that nobody really used their brain in the example given - everyone just trusted some automated system's determination instead of making their own.
- potato3732842 1y ago>seems that nobody really used their brain in the example given Brain users get jaded and a) stop b) seek alternate employment. Schools don't just crush kids.
- giantg2 1y ago"A threat like that has to be reported to the authorities." This forced reporting necessarily creates false reports. Under the law, things like terrorist threats are required to be credible or incite panic. Reporting things that aren't credible is arguably a violation of law under any other context, yet they choose to ignore that with these mandatory reporting laws. Basically it creates a situation where nobody is allowed to use their brain - automated conveyer to the criminal system.