User Profile: JRook

JRook

Member Since: March 16, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • August 29, 2014 at 5:18pm

    Ok the weakness in your example is that no one would agree that a gun should be as accessible as a car. But then again arguing from extreme examples are rather easy but rarely demonstrate careful thought. The point is that guns, similar to explosives or any other dangerous devices should be kept under lock and key. For example if you don’t have a fence around your pool that is of adequate height and locked then yes your are responsible for a kid who walks in and drowns. So by extension if you had loaded guns on your back porch and a kid walked up and shot himself you should be held responsible. My point is that people would be more careful with guns if they were responsible. And yes I think the mother of the individual who shot the kids in Newbury, knowing that her son was mentally disturbed, should be held responsible for the ease at which he was able to access her guns and ammo. Responsible gun owners don’t leave their guns laying around and don’t make them easy to steal. And actually, if the guy who stole your car, didn’t have insurance you would probably be held somewhat responsible, particularly if you left the keys in it. At some point there is an issue of negligence. It is why when you sign a waiver at a health club, they are still liable if you hurt yourself if they were negligent in how the setup or maintained the equipment.

  • [-1] August 29, 2014 at 5:09pm

    I’d say someone who has displayed anti-social or violent behaviors at a level that requires court assigned mental health counseling is a good group to start with. Your implication that because there maybe mistakes that anyone should be allowed to legally obtain and carry a gun is no less unreasonable. I do agree that a sign armed guard would be preferable to arming the teachers.

  • [7] August 29, 2014 at 5:03pm

    By the way I just noticed, if the handle is pushed down to open, would the cable not simple slide off.

  • August 29, 2014 at 5:00pm

    As someone much wiser than me once pointed out, “its easy to manage the dedicated high performing employee or in this case the dedicated and high performing student” “It is the true manager and thus true teacher who can motivate, develop and improve the performance of the employees or students they label as unmotivated and poor performing. Perhaps they are victims of a one of the poor managers or teachers who can’t handle themselves.

  • [1] August 29, 2014 at 4:56pm

    Why flames. Did you take your position and construct your comments to get a fiery reaction? Her comments are certainly not funny and more than just blowing off steam. And coaching ones agreement with your position by making the assumption the kids don’t care or are having trouble learning is self serving at best. Her comments are at the very least indicative of poor judgement and certainly not indicative of someone I would want my child being taught by. Your comments support the unfortunate truth that a good number of teachers chose teaching as a default major and then a default career. Teachers are a critical component of childhood development and should take that role very seriously. As someone mentioned there is a time and place to blow off steam. But statements like this indicate a mindset that goes beyond just blowing off steam after a bad day. And of course she might want to consider that the kids are having trouble grasping the material or acting out because of her abilities and/or limitations as a teacher.

  • [-9] August 29, 2014 at 4:45pm

    “Why does he not have a strategy yet?” Because unlike dumbo the clown Bush, he is not taking Cheney’s or Rumsfeld word for it. He is waiting for a more comprehensive strategy from his national security team and the military. Has it not been obvious there was no real strategy for the Iraq war. Have you forgotten that Bush stood on a Navy ship and declared Mission accomplished after 60 days. Well if the mission was accomplished, why were we there for another 8 + years? Now that is lack of a strategy and for that matter grip on reality.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-4] August 29, 2014 at 4:41pm

    Or perhaps given that there was a vote she decided to actually read them are realized the fox, Rush and GB talking points were a fantasy. What is reality is school children in the US are falling farther and farther behind in the world. Great example of political groups who spend 98% of their time and effort bashing the standards rather then make suggestions on how to fine tune them. And saying that local school boards should be able to develop their own standards is just plain stupid. Who in their right mind would advocate 10,000+ different school standards across the US.

    Responses (3) +
  • [-2] August 29, 2014 at 4:33pm

    Really poor judgement to draw a similarity between the two and does nothing but argue from an extreme position as 99.99999999 % of the people who are pro choice would not agree with killing a child. And your attempt to infer by using the term children that fetuses within the construct of Roe v. Wade are children is false an you know it. The point is that within the framework of Roe v. Wade a woman can choose to abort the fetus for any reason she wants. And, yes if the fetus was known to have moderate or severe abnormalities that would qualify as a rational choice. As in some cases severe abnormalities result in miscarriages, a biological response to these abnormalities. Let’s at least agree that the worst parents are the ones who have a severely disabled child and then ditch them off to a state run home and visit them rarely if ever. There are more parents like that then people would want to admit. They are much worse than the parents who faced the situation, discussed the implications and made a rational choice of how to proceed. The parents who dump developmental disabled children in homes would fill up the hell you describe. And let’s be clear that people who are Pro Choice are not necessarily atheists. And until you actually ask Dawkins what he thinks of Mr. Singer, you should not present some convenient relationship or perceived status.

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] August 29, 2014 at 2:34pm

    And given that such stuff is usually overstated in books for marketing reasons, I’d say she should have just said thank you for the compliment.

  • [5] August 29, 2014 at 2:32pm

    “Don’t lose too much weight now, I like my girls chubby.” She said a congressman told her: “You know, Kirsten, you’re even pretty when you’re fat.” Ok this view of sexual harassment is exactly why the statistics that are reported for college campuses regarding “sexual assault” are BS. How does “Your even pretty when your fat” raise to the level of sexual harassment. It is as stupid as those who defend cowards who hide behind “Stand your Ground” laws by saying they were threatened because someone ran their doorbell at 2 AM. Perception is not reality, Reality is reality. So if the context was that the individual was saying she was pretty, than it was not a sexually motivated comment. The reality of the context and the intention matters, not the perception of the individual, unless as stated in the law they communicate that to the individual so they will not make such comments in the future. I am reminded of the number of single, 40+ moms who claim they got breast augmentation for themselves not for men. But of course their new wardrobe that highlights their new friends have nothing to do with being noticed or eliciting a unconscious or conscious positive response or sexual impulse from men.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-21] August 29, 2014 at 2:20pm

    No doubt but it is individuals like this that should be gunned down while being arrested, not an unarmed teenager or a individual shopping in a walmart. But we’ll see how many people here make that distinction. As many inferred the teenager in Ferguson deserved to be shot because he took a $49 box of cigars, which means it was really a $25 theft, as that is what the store paid for them.

    Responses (9) +
  • [-6] August 29, 2014 at 2:14pm

    “That’s what they are counting on. They know that there are very few of us that actually pay attention. Most of their voters are uninformed.” Ah yes the Rush high information voters who never seem to mention Reagan’s 381 executive orders, nearly double that of the PRESIDENT or for that matter FDR’s 3,522. Your point is lost in the lack of context and actual facts. Why are you not focusing your energy on directing the House to vote on a bill to fix the immigration system. Or like them are you just interested in misrepresenting everything involving the PRESIDENT as negative. Nah that would be childlike and too obvious.

    Responses (6) +
  • [-7] August 29, 2014 at 2:10pm

    “what options are available to him for acting unilaterally to address some for the problems of our broken immigration system” Which means of course to those who actually believe the misinformation and BS coming from Rush and GB and other individuals who yell “fire”, that their are options the PRESIDENT can do administratively that are within current immigration laws. You see the PRESIDENT is in charge of the executive branch and therefor gets to decide how laws will be carried out. Certainly, Reagan understood that when he issued 381, almost double that of the PRESIDENT and FDR who issued 3,522 of them. Take the time to do a little research rather than just be a good parrot for fox, Rush and GB.

    Responses (7) +
  • [1] August 29, 2014 at 2:03pm

    Ok simple enough you have every door automatically lock when closed and have a push bar on the inside that allows the children to open it in a panic. As they will be pushing towards the door anyway. Then it is just a matter of determining how loose you want to be with allowing the door to open during normal school activity from the outside. Any number of access methods could be used to limit access to a limited number of individuals. I’d certainly rather have the teachers and kids a little more restricted than arm the teachers, which would insure any mentally disturbed individual would bring a gun and raise the level of violence.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] August 29, 2014 at 1:58pm

    Ok well similar to your fire extinguisher practical observation, the teacher in the first classroom is not aware that the person has a gun and intends to shoot people. So that teacher is not behind a desk with their gun drawn. The shooter knowing this shoots the teacher first, now has access to a second gun, uses the device to secure the door before shooting the students and then themselves. Your solution has not prevented the same outcome of the worst school shooting we have experienced. So admit from a practical standpoint your solution offers nothing different, other than to add guns to the school.

    Responses (2) +
  • [-3] August 29, 2014 at 1:54pm

    Just because you feel a need to hold an extreme position on one side of this debate does not mean people on the other side do. I have heard no one suggest that all guns should be banned or confiscated. Ok now can we have an adult discussion about reasonable background checks and gun registrations. The shooting in Arizona dispelled one of the great NRA talking point myths that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Well it is pretty clear that the girl didn’t kill her instructor. A gun that was too powerful for her, killed him. So yes there is a need for some rational public policy to prevent accidents like this. And I can tell you from my childhood that two of my brothers and countless other teenagers in my town who were given guns, should have never had them. Come on we have laws that prohibit teenagers from smoking, buying and using fireworks that are 1/10th as dangerous as guns, but we let them in many states buy, own and use guns.

  • [-2] August 29, 2014 at 1:47pm

    Doesn’t seem like you have thought this through any better than the school district. Your scenario might be useful once the teacher(s) know there is a shooter present. But I doubt the school or teacher is going to greet anyone who opens the classroom door with a gun. So the shooter, who as history has shown us are mentally disturbed individuals not your average criminal, opens the classroom door shoots the teacher before they can access their gun. Then uses the device shown here to secure the door before shooting the rest of the students. Then of course shoots themselves. I see nothing different from this result than what happened at Newtown. Now from a public policy standpoint the rational approach is to significantly reduce if not eliminate the ability of a mentally disturbed individual from obtaining a weapon. 100% background checks on any and all sales of guns, extended waiting periods and 100% registration of all guns. Additionally, gun owners should be held both civilly and criminally liable for any crime committed with their gun, unless it was reported stolen within 48 hours. And as pointed out by individuals on both sides of this debate, the situation in Arizona dispelled the talking point myth that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The gun given to that child was too powerful and killed that instructor.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-2] August 29, 2014 at 1:38pm

    Spare us the NRA talking points. Arming some or all of the teachers may result in the shooter being shot at some point, but does not inure that some number of children are shot. And what about the possibility that the teacher might hit a student during the gun fight. Making the schools and classrooms less accessible and much harder to bring a gun into will perhaps not stop the zealot, but neither will arming the teachers. And how would you suggest these armed teachers respond to an armed individual who comes into a classroom, shoots the teacher before they can access their weapon and uses this device to secure the door before shooting the students. Since the vast majority of school shooting are done by mentally disturbed individuals rather than your average criminal, the best public policy actions is to perform 100% background checks, 100% gun registrations and revoking of such registrations and confiscation when individuals are deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

    Responses (4) +
  • [1] August 29, 2014 at 1:24pm

    Ah Granny… Since it is a cable the door knob can still be turned and the door opened if only a crack. At that point the door can be kicked which could either break the door handle or anyone of the components of this “device”. Or even worse the gunman could push the gun barrel through the crack. A standard, perhaps electronically controlled deadbolt is a far superior alternative. I agree with the folks who thought it was a joke or put on.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 29, 2014 at 1:19pm

    Em I don’t think the teacher would apply it to the door during a fire.

123 To page: Go