No, I most certainly do not mean 'basic common sense' since I don't actually believe in such a thing.
...like don't point it at people or store it loaded in the toy chest, then yes everyone should know.
Obviously, you could use a basic gun safety course yourself, if you think that's all that's necessary.
However, this is not the same thing as saying there is no reason to ask if someone is a gun owner or not because they need all the same info either way.
There is no reason to ask, because they do all need the same information. See the above comments on basic education for gun owners and non-gun owners alike.
Actually, your ignorant comments are a prime example of why all parents could use basic gun safety education, because apparently you'd have no problem allowing your hypothetical children to spend time in a home where basic safety means 'not pointing it at people or storing it loaded in the gun chest'.
I mean wow. The best thing about the upcoming zombie apocalypse is that people like you will be the first ones down.
Pointing out the flaws in your argument may have been offensive, but they certainly were not degrading, meaning no insult exists. Nice try, though.
I certainly didn't mean for it to be a strawman.
Your intention doesn't really matter. You took a perfectly rational argument - that parents should know about basic gun safety - and ran past the goalpost with it, thereby creating a strawman to knock down. Why? I'm not sure. We'll leave that answer as an exercise for the student.
The clear implication was that non-gun owners need to get the same gun safety lecture as gun owners which is what I find ridiculous.
No, the clear implication was that non-gun owners didn't need gun safety education at all, which is certainly not a logical conclusion. Every child needs to know basic gun safety, just as ever child needs to know basic pool safety, basic electrical safety, and basic 'things that are hot' safety. Non-ownership of guns, pools, electricity, and a grill or whatever is not enough to preclude the need for these kinds of knowledge, unless you're keeping your child locked up in a room in said non-gun, non-pool, non-electrical, non-things-that-are-hot home. (In which case we have bigger things to worry about than gun or pool safety.)
Regardless of the actual implications, you're still wrong. Gun owners and non-gun owners alike do need the same basic education. Gun owners so they can behave safely and non-gun owners so that they can recognize safe and not-safe behavior. End of story.
Also, you're ugly.
See? That's an insult, and has nothing to do with the topic. Try to stay on topic next time and you won't have to look like so much of an asshat. :)
In July of 1798, Congress passed – and President John Adams signed - “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”. This law authorized the creation of a government-operated marine hospital service and mandated that privately employed sailors be required to purchase health care insurance. This was 11 years after our government was first organized. :)
I don't know; I call bullshit on the monopoly idea, because the RIAA already has control over this portion of the industry, so why not a different - more sensible - entity?
I liked the idea posited in the comments of the post on Amazon's service, where a commenter suggested that Amazon or Google simply purchase the Big Three and let people download for free. :)
I have to agree with John Doe. I mean, my doctor knows about gun safety, because he's an old Army doc, but most of my physicians have not been the hunting type, even in Oklahoma.
We are the hunting type so, despite our careers and knowledge of birth control, we do know more about guns than the average physician.
Why would a doctor give you a lecture about the dangers of smoking without first asking if you're a smoker?
So that you know what to do if you encounter a smoker. Or a a swimming pool, or a gun, or whatever.
Of course, I don't believe that it should be illegal to ask if they own guns; I just think that's a stupid first question, right there with only giving pool safety advice to pool owners or cigarette safety advice to smokers.
I hope that you don't have children, then, because you should also be able to tell if they're stored properly. Also, your arguments are flat-out dumb. No one says that gun safety for non-gun owners consists of all of the crap you keep spouting about, so it's a total straw man.
We talking about things like the proper way to store and clean a gun.
The first is a facet of gun safety that everyone should know. The second is a facet of gun safety that gun users should know. Therefore, they're not both what we're talking about.
And the reason that everyone should know the first is so that you can, at a glance, understand if you're safe in the area that you're in.
Why would these things be a priority for me over, say, how to properly clean and store a samurai sword?
Most people do know if a sword is stored safely or not. Is it stored in a cover, or in a place where it can't fall and injure someone, etc.? So why not basic gun knowledge?
One large difference is that you probably know if your dad had cancer, but you may not know if he owns a firearm. One is a little more obvious than the other.
In addition, your children can't get cancer from play dates or sleepovers, but they certainly can encounter situations where gun safety knowledge is key.
Responsibility in one area doesn't translate to responsibility everywhere. In addition, many people think they're being responsible, but really aren't. So you may have a friend who thinks the safety is on, but he's really just as uneducated and unrealistic as his buddy who's proud of his lack of gun safety education.
In either case, you're not going to be safe unless you know about gun safety.
Choosing friends who are safe with their guns means being educated enough to ask questions and understand their answers. According to Chris Marshall, you shouldn't even have to do that.
If you own a gun, it's your responsibility to keep family, friends, guests, strangers, enemies, and everyone else safe from your decision to own a gun, and as an extension, it's your job to prevent your gun(s) from falling in the hands of those not educated in gun safety.
Nope, it's not. You're responsible for your own safety and that of your children, and I'm responsible for my safety and that of your children. End of story.
Regardless of whose responsibility it should be, the fact remains that guns exist in this world. You can:
a. educate your children about them, as umccullough suggests, or
b. sit back and hope that other people do that for you. (Sort of like sex ed in the Bible Belt.)
Even in Oklahoma, parents don't ask us about guns before sending their kids over for parties, playdates, and sleepovers and their children don't generally know anything about gun safety.
When the zombie apocalypse happens, my children will be safely bringing home dinner while their children starve or shoot themselves.
She wasn't expressing there best interest. She was lying about what the school was saying and inciting protest when a conversation would have sufficed. She actually did have the conversation then lied about what was said because she didn't like the results. She was making mountains out of mole hills when it was her job to describe the mole hills.
So she actually was practicing for a future in politics? :P
...kids most certainly can not say or wear or protest freely in schools.
Yes, they can. Take five seconds and peruse the ACLU's site to see what happens when these cases go to court.
Obviously, many schools break the law and haves rules against and punish children who engage in political protest (and many parents allow them to get away with it), but that certainly doesn't make it legal.
Schools are allowed to prevent speech that disrupts the learning environment.
Only if it actually disrupts the learning environment. Fear of disruption is not enough. Or did you not even scan through Tinker?
"...prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."
Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying.
In this case they said that they staff believed the shirts would cause a disruption at the assembly and interfere with the kids elections speeches. While they may have been wrong and the shirts may not have had that effect if they were wrong it was a reasonable mistake.
Did you not just read what you copied and pasted? They must have evidence that their actions are necessary to avoid substantial interference. No reasonable person could see either of those things happening with some silly T-shirts. (But I could see it happening with a banning of those shirts, so they really created the only interference that existed.)
"Again, were you fired from a private company? If not, then no." Lets say I work at the DMV am I allowed to send out company wide emails calling my bosses douchebags without expecting disciplinary measures?
Did you do it while using a work computer? If not, then no. Think about it. What if you say that your boss is a douchebag on Facebook, or at a BBQ? There is no difference there, and your speech is protected in all cases.
The rest of this has been responded to elsewhere in this thread.
Meaning that you have no response, because I'm right.
Thanks for being the first to resort to name calling.
Free speech is a wonderful thing. It allows everyone, even students, to point out the idiots and douchebags without fear of legal repercussion. :)
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I most certainly do not mean 'basic common sense' since I don't actually believe in such a thing.
...like don't point it at people or store it loaded in the toy chest, then yes everyone should know.
Obviously, you could use a basic gun safety course yourself, if you think that's all that's necessary.
However, this is not the same thing as saying there is no reason to ask if someone is a gun owner or not because they need all the same info either way.
There is no reason to ask, because they do all need the same information. See the above comments on basic education for gun owners and non-gun owners alike.
Actually, your ignorant comments are a prime example of why all parents could use basic gun safety education, because apparently you'd have no problem allowing your hypothetical children to spend time in a home where basic safety means 'not pointing it at people or storing it loaded in the gun chest'.
I mean wow. The best thing about the upcoming zombie apocalypse is that people like you will be the first ones down.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pointing out the flaws in your argument may have been offensive, but they certainly were not degrading, meaning no insult exists. Nice try, though.
I certainly didn't mean for it to be a strawman.
Your intention doesn't really matter. You took a perfectly rational argument - that parents should know about basic gun safety - and ran past the goalpost with it, thereby creating a strawman to knock down. Why? I'm not sure. We'll leave that answer as an exercise for the student.
The clear implication was that non-gun owners need to get the same gun safety lecture as gun owners which is what I find ridiculous.
No, the clear implication was that non-gun owners didn't need gun safety education at all, which is certainly not a logical conclusion. Every child needs to know basic gun safety, just as ever child needs to know basic pool safety, basic electrical safety, and basic 'things that are hot' safety. Non-ownership of guns, pools, electricity, and a grill or whatever is not enough to preclude the need for these kinds of knowledge, unless you're keeping your child locked up in a room in said non-gun, non-pool, non-electrical, non-things-that-are-hot home. (In which case we have bigger things to worry about than gun or pool safety.)
Regardless of the actual implications, you're still wrong. Gun owners and non-gun owners alike do need the same basic education. Gun owners so they can behave safely and non-gun owners so that they can recognize safe and not-safe behavior. End of story.
Also, you're ugly.
See? That's an insult, and has nothing to do with the topic. Try to stay on topic next time and you won't have to look like so much of an asshat. :)
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re:
/win
On the post: Google Follows Amazon's Lead: Launching Music Locker, But Ignoring RIAA Demands For Licenses
Re: Re:
On the post: Google Follows Amazon's Lead: Launching Music Locker, But Ignoring RIAA Demands For Licenses
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re:
We are the hunting type so, despite our careers and knowledge of birth control, we do know more about guns than the average physician.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Doublespeak
So you're on the side of this law, which would restrict said doctor from firing said child, thereby endangering them even more?
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re:
You realize this isn't a new thing, right? The government has been 'into' health care almost as long as we've had a government.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: RE: umccullough
I think it should be the other way 'round, personally.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: RE: umccullough
So that you know what to do if you encounter a smoker. Or a a swimming pool, or a gun, or whatever.
Of course, I don't believe that it should be illegal to ask if they own guns; I just think that's a stupid first question, right there with only giving pool safety advice to pool owners or cigarette safety advice to smokers.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: My 2 Cents
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The first is a facet of gun safety that everyone should know. The second is a facet of gun safety that gun users should know. Therefore, they're not both what we're talking about.
And the reason that everyone should know the first is so that you can, at a glance, understand if you're safe in the area that you're in.
Why would these things be a priority for me over, say, how to properly clean and store a samurai sword?
Most people do know if a sword is stored safely or not. Is it stored in a cover, or in a place where it can't fall and injure someone, etc.? So why not basic gun knowledge?
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In addition, your children can't get cancer from play dates or sleepovers, but they certainly can encounter situations where gun safety knowledge is key.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In either case, you're not going to be safe unless you know about gun safety.
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, it's not. You're responsible for your own safety and that of your children, and I'm responsible for my safety and that of your children. End of story.
Regardless of whose responsibility it should be, the fact remains that guns exist in this world. You can:
a. educate your children about them, as umccullough suggests, or
b. sit back and hope that other people do that for you. (Sort of like sex ed in the Bible Belt.)
Which seems more realistic?
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re:
Even in Oklahoma, parents don't ask us about guns before sending their kids over for parties, playdates, and sleepovers and their children don't generally know anything about gun safety.
When the zombie apocalypse happens, my children will be safely bringing home dinner while their children starve or shoot themselves.
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So she actually was practicing for a future in politics? :P
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they can. Take five seconds and peruse the ACLU's site to see what happens when these cases go to court.
Obviously, many schools break the law and haves rules against and punish children who engage in political protest (and many parents allow them to get away with it), but that certainly doesn't make it legal.
Schools are allowed to prevent speech that disrupts the learning environment.
Only if it actually disrupts the learning environment. Fear of disruption is not enough. Or did you not even scan through Tinker?
"...prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments."
Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying.
In this case they said that they staff believed the shirts would cause a disruption at the assembly and interfere with the kids elections speeches. While they may have been wrong and the shirts may not have had that effect if they were wrong it was a reasonable mistake.
Did you not just read what you copied and pasted? They must have evidence that their actions are necessary to avoid substantial interference. No reasonable person could see either of those things happening with some silly T-shirts. (But I could see it happening with a banning of those shirts, so they really created the only interference that existed.)
"Again, were you fired from a private company? If not, then no." Lets say I work at the DMV am I allowed to send out company wide emails calling my bosses douchebags without expecting disciplinary measures?
Did you do it while using a work computer? If not, then no. Think about it. What if you say that your boss is a douchebag on Facebook, or at a BBQ? There is no difference there, and your speech is protected in all cases.
The rest of this has been responded to elsewhere in this thread.
Meaning that you have no response, because I'm right.
Thanks for being the first to resort to name calling.
Free speech is a wonderful thing. It allows everyone, even students, to point out the idiots and douchebags without fear of legal repercussion. :)
Next >>