Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Mass Shootings, Why

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    And then they legalize the lottery and promise that the lottery will pay for education. ha.
    In Georgia it funds the Hope Scholarship which helps to pay for kids who have a B average or better to go to college. And it works. Perhaps too well.

    Now teachers are hesitant to give a student a C since that might be what kept him/her from getting a Hope Scholarship. So we have grade inflation. What was once C level work often gets bumped up to a B making a lot more students eligible. Unfortunately for those students there isn't grade inflation bumping up their grades when they go to college, so many end up leaving before finishing even a year. Plus, since so many are going to college you have over-crowding issues which causes tuition rates to go up.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Yet, they can pay all kinds of money for "administration". The school district where I lived before moving to where I am now was REALLY heavy in "administration". And, to have all those important people, you have to have a fancy building for them to office, and high salaries, and "consultants".... there's always money for that!

      And, when they build a new school building, it's usually with a "bond issue" (a fancy way of saying we're going to raise your taxes) and they hire fancy architects and spend tons of money on it so they can name it after some "accomplished" educrat...
      Sounds just like Anchorage School District.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Yeah, in Texas, all that meant was the money goes into a different pot, but no real increase in school spending.
        We do not need increased school spending. We need more sensible school spending.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
          Sounds just like Anchorage School District.
          Same here. My old High School was so over-crowded that we had to go in shifts (Juniors and Seniors in the morning and Freshmen Sophomores in the afternoon), and there were 4 Principals. Now there are fewer students (another High School was built) but there are 15 Principals.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            In Georgia it funds the Hope Scholarship which helps to pay for kids who have a B average or better to go to college. And it works. Perhaps too well.

            Now teachers are hesitant to give a student a C since that might be what kept him/her from getting a Hope Scholarship. So we have grade inflation. What was once C level work often gets bumped up to a B making a lot more students eligible. Unfortunately for those students there isn't grade inflation bumping up their grades when they go to college, so many end up leaving before finishing even a year. Plus, since so many are going to college you have over-crowding issues which causes tuition rates to go up.
            There's an old axiom that goes: "A students teach B students how to work for companies owned by C students."
            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

            Comment


            • #66
              Saw this on Facebook thought I would share.

              Thoughts from Dr.
              Kevin M. Gilmartin on the mental illness crisis:

              This is a huge law enforcement problem that goes unaddressed at the legal challenge level. The silence by the law enforcement leadership is deafening. Civil libertarians have dictated involuntary hospitalization statutes for decades. The rights of the mentally ill need to be protected but balanced against pubic jeopardy. In 1975, for the first time, the United States Supreme Court heard a case concerning the rights of a civilly committed psychiatric patient. In O'Connor v. Donaldson (422, U.S. 563, 1975), attempting to define a standard for involuntary hospitalization, the Court ruled that the state cannot detain a non-dangerous psychiatric patient who is capable of surviving in the community-either by himself or with the help of friends and family. This decision established the ability to survive as the standard for the involuntary hospitalization of non-dangerous individuals, the Court deemed intrusive any attempts by the state to provide help to a sick or disturbed person through hospitalization-simply a means of disposing of aberrant behavior. Suzuki v. Quisenbery (411 E Supp. 11 13, 1976) expanded the "survival" standard by developing a two-pronged test for civil commitment: First, a person could not be hospitalized simply because of mental illness; and second, only those individuals who were proven substantially dangerous to themselves or others could be involuntarily hospitalized. The trouble is that the standard of dangerous is always argued after the tragedy.
              Last edited by Littlejoe; 02-18-2018, 04:01 PM.
              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                Saw this on Facebook thought I would share.

                Thoughts from Dr.
                Kevin M. Gilmartin on the mental illness crisis:

                This is a huge law enforcement problem that goes unaddressed at the legal challenge level. The silence by the law enforcement leadership is deafening. Civil libertarians have dictated involuntary hospitalization statutes for decades. The rights of the mentally ill need to be protected but balanced against pubic jeopardy. In 1975, for the first time, the United States Supreme Court heard a case concerning the rights of a civilly committed psychiatric patient. In O'Connor v. Donaldson (422, U.S. 563, 1975), attempting to define a standard for involuntary hospitalization, the Court ruled that the state cannot detain a non-dangerous psychiatric patient who is capable of surviving in the community-either by himself or with the help of friends and family. This decision established the ability to survive as the standard for the involuntary hospitalization of non-dangerous individuals, the Court deemed intrusive any attempts by the state to provide help to a sick or disturbed person through hospitalization-simply a means of disposing of aberrant behavior. Suzuki v. Quisenbery (411 E Supp. 11 13, 1976) expanded the "survival" standard by developing a two-pronged test for civil commitment: First, a person could not be hospitalized simply because of mental illness; and second, only those individuals who were proven substantially dangerous to themselves or others could be involuntarily hospitalized. The trouble is that the standard of dangerous is always argued after the tragedy.
                Exactly why I had to go before a judge and, in effect, swear out a warrant for the arrest of the EDP I was helping. It stinks.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Exactly why I had to go before a judge and, in effect, swear out a warrant for the arrest of the EDP I was helping. It stinks.
                  I wish that would work in our case but my case isn't a willing subject...according to my buddy on the force, this would result in them holding them for 3 - 5 hours at most...before cutting them loose. Esp. if they don't have any insurance.
                  "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                  "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                    I wish that would work in our case but my case isn't a willing subject...according to my buddy on the force, this would result in them holding them for 3 - 5 hours at most...before cutting them loose. Esp. if they don't have any insurance.
                    Exactly - as I said - the system really stinks, and needs serious change.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I am a high school teacher in a working-class neighborhood in the suburbs of Chicago. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue of arming teachers; aside from the fact that some of my coworkers are idiots and some are over-aggressive idiots, there are all kinds of other weird kinks: do you allow faculty to keep their weapons in a classroom, or are they kept in a centralized location? If you allow faculty to keep their weapons with them, then they get to decide when it is important to use that weapon--which might not be a good idea. If you keep them in a centralized locker--plans I've heard from some people--then they might as well not be armed with guns. Is a school shooter going to put his spree on pause and wait for Mr. Coach and Ms. Librarian to go down to the locker, strap on their guns, and come back? If you add more arms to an active shooter situation, aren't you increasing the likelihood that a first-responder or teacher gets shot? Now we have eight full time security guards--some of them are...less than fully reliable. We also have a police-liaison officer, who is ALWAYS armed. We could give security guards the guns, but then you have a similar problem to the issue with teachers. The students are also fools. They open locked doors for anyone who knocks. So unless you have security at every door all the time, or unless you have metal detectors at every door, you will still have threats who can get in at any time to do evil.

                      People asking to turn schools into varying degrees of armed camps don't have much experience with schools, imo.

                      The way I see it, most school shooters intend to commit suicide or plan to be shot by a cop. I'm not sure that having a few teachers/support staff armed changes the calculus there.

                      fwiw,
                      guacamole
                      "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                      Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                      Save me, save me"

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                        I am a high school teacher in a working-class neighborhood in the suburbs of Chicago. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue of arming teachers; aside from the fact that some of my coworkers are idiots and some are over-aggressive idiots, there are all kinds of other weird kinks: do you allow faculty to keep their weapons in a classroom, or are they kept in a centralized location? If you allow faculty to keep their weapons with them, then they get to decide when it is important to use that weapon--which might not be a good idea. If you keep them in a centralized locker--plans I've heard from some people--then they might as well not be armed with guns. Is a school shooter going to put his spree on pause and wait for Mr. Coach and Ms. Librarian to go down to the locker, strap on their guns, and come back? If you add more arms to an active shooter situation, aren't you increasing the likelihood that a first-responder or teacher gets shot? Now we have eight full time security guards--some of them are...less than fully reliable. We also have a police-liaison officer, who is ALWAYS armed. We could give security guards the guns, but then you have a similar problem to the issue with teachers. The students are also fools. They open locked doors for anyone who knocks. So unless you have security at every door all the time, or unless you have metal detectors at every door, you will still have threats who can get in at any time to do evil.

                        People asking to turn schools into varying degrees of armed camps don't have much experience with schools, imo.
                        If you're teaching in a chicago school shouldn't you already have armed guards, barred windows and metal detectors on premises?

                        Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                        The way I see it, most school shooters intend to commit suicide or plan to be shot by a cop. I'm not sure that having a few teachers/support staff armed changes the calculus there.

                        fwiw,
                        guacamole
                        Well, half the point is to have the means by which to fight back.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                          I am a high school teacher in a working-class neighborhood in the suburbs of Chicago. I'm not sure where I stand on this issue of arming teachers; aside from the fact that some of my coworkers are idiots and some are over-aggressive idiots, there are all kinds of other weird kinks: do you allow faculty to keep their weapons in a classroom, or are they kept in a centralized location? If you allow faculty to keep their weapons with them, then they get to decide when it is important to use that weapon--which might not be a good idea.
                          Even the least amenable and mos aggressive teacher are pretty unlikely to start shooting students or casual visitors. This is some pretty misplaced concern in my opinion.
                          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            Even the least amenable and mos aggressive teacher are pretty unlikely to start shooting students or casual visitors. This is some pretty misplaced concern in my opinion.
                            I think you guys are over-estimating the capacity of the average person in a crisis, one which may or may not be fatal. People would change their minds the first time a teacher shot someone in a room-clearing brawl.
                            "Down in the lowlands, where the water is deep,
                            Hear my cry, hear my shout,
                            Save me, save me"

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                              I think you guys are over-estimating the capacity of the average person in a crisis, one which may or may not be fatal. People would change their minds the first time a teacher shot someone in a room-clearing brawl.
                              I think you are underestimating the fact that the public is well aware of the dangers of arming teachers, and the extent to which authorities will go to screen and train those who elected to serve as protectors, should that ever happen.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by guacamole View Post
                                I think you guys are over-estimating the capacity of the average person in a crisis, one which may or may not be fatal. People would change their minds the first time a teacher shot someone in a room-clearing brawl.
                                yeah i'd prefer armed security guards. arming unwilling liberals who cry when they see a gun sounds like a recipe for disaster.
                                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                155 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X