The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:46 am UTC

U.K. man found to have gonorrhea resistant to conventional treatments

Researchers at Public Health England have announced, as reported by the BBC, that a U.K. man has contracted a case of gonorrhea that is resistant to the two types of antibiotics that are normally used to treat such infections. It is, they further report, the first known instance of a case where a strain of the bacteria has developed resistance to both treatments.

The team treating the infected man has reported that another antibiotic, ertapenem, is now being used—it is considered a last-line-of-defense antibiotic. Thus far, it seems to be working, but the researchers will not know for sure until sometime next month.


N-1 antibiotics down, 1 to go.
In all fairness...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9856
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:35 pm UTC

If it's any comfort, antibiotic resistant strains tend to be slightly weaker, due to the four F's of biology.

elasto
Posts: 3442
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:59 pm UTC

Survivors of the deadly school shooting in Florida have resisted new security rules that ban all but clear backpacks at their school. Students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, adorned their bags with signs, badges and slogans protesting against the measures.

Seventeen people were killed in the shooting on 14 February. The attack led to an extensive social media campaign, culminating in a national march for tighter gun control. But students have argued that the new bags will not prevent future attacks and infringe their privacy.

Students have raised a number of doubts about the transparent backpacks.

One of the most immediate objections to the bags has been that they offer no long-term solution to the issue of gun violence. Some pointed out that they would not have prevented the 14 February attack, as the gunman was not a student at the time of the attack.

One pupil argued that even if the bags were effective in preventing mass shootings, more wide-reaching reform was needed.

Meanwhile, others pointed to the logistical challenges of checking the bags of over 3,000 students who attend the school and questioned the priorities of policy makers.

Other students complained about the lack of privacy for students, with some saying that they felt like "prisoners".

Issues were also raised over the effect the new bags would have on girls carrying sanitary products, or students with personal medication.

When similar rules have been introduced in other school districts, there have been fears that students could be at risk of theft, as their possessions are clearly visible.


[We must do something!] + [This is something!] => [We must do this!]

link

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8069
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

I can imagine people would feel incredibly self conscious about others seeing their condoms, birth control pills, menstrual pads/tampons, etc. It's a pretty shitty idea, and guarantees you're going to have students inventing new ways to avoid this.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9856
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:22 pm UTC

After Columbine, my high school required everyone to have transparent or mesh backpacks. It was widely viewed as a joke, since people still had purses and if you really wanted to conceal something you put it in a 3 ring binder.

Security theater.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 557
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Yablo » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:22 pm UTC

elasto wrote:[We must do something!] + [This is something!] => [We must do this!]

It's marginally better than the "arming students with rocks" idea.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9856
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:28 pm UTC

Can't read sarcasm. I hope you realize the rocks thing was basically a mockery of the "arm the teachers" idea.

If teachers are armed, what will happen is the gunmen will shoot the teachers first. What you need is to arm the students too, which would have the bonus of eliminating school bullying, bullies, students that might be bullies, jocks, nerds, drama geeks, Wendy who didn't want to go to Junior Prom with me, homework, principals, and so forth.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:52 pm UTC

This would allow a reduction in the school budget, for which the person who added firearms to the freshman uniform, marksmanship to the sophomore curriculum and firearm safety to the junior year curriculum would pay himself a large bonus, thereby confirming that it's a great idea. Capitalism in action!
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3874
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:56 pm UTC

Not to mention that (after the initial out-burst-fire) schools would become peaceful places to study free of the hormonal drama and noise that accompanies most school-age children/teens. </sarcasm>
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:03 pm UTC

Heh...I bet if we armed students, the ensuing gunfire would drown entire schools with the blood of innocent children...maybe youd hear the horrified screams for a while...then complete silence.*giggle* just kidding XD
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9856
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:26 pm UTC

Think about the future doctors and nurses; it's best to get acquainted with the sight of blood and injuries sooner rather than later, as well as have plenty of real life experience in trauma before entering med school.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:08 pm UTC

Man, hypothetical tragedies are so hilarious, but so useful! I often find myself daydreaming about mass suffering and loss of life just for fun, and also, in order to better explain my point of view when arguments get...you know...serious. :twisted: Psych! Not really!
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9856
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:37 pm UTC

Youtube shooting, possibly.

Story in progress, subject to updates.


Yes, I found out from Drudge. I use that, some other blogs including this site, The Guardian, CNN, and BBC to get an idea of what everyone is saying rather than living in just a CNN echo chamber

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Alien-lizard city, Panama

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:49 pm UTC

suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Kewangji wrote:I'd buy you chili ice cream if you were here, or some other incongruous sweet.
natraj wrote:i have a bizarre mental block against the very idea of people enjoying mint and chocolate together.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1704
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:43 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If teachers are armed, what will happen is the gunmen will shoot the teachers first. What you need is to arm the students too, which would have the bonus of eliminating school bullying, bullies, students that might be bullies, jocks, nerds, drama geeks, Wendy who didn't want to go to Junior Prom with me, homework, principals, and so forth.


AKA, the Battle Royale model.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Wed Apr 04, 2018 11:44 am UTC

Yablo wrote:
elasto wrote:[We must do something!] + [This is something!] => [We must do this!]

It's marginally better than the "arming students with rocks" idea.

I don't know, he looks serious to me. I think it would be more obvious sarcasm if he had gone with a ream of paper and every classroom, you know, so the kids could paper cut any attacker.
In all fairness...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10784
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:20 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If teachers are armed, what will happen is the gunmen will shoot the teachers first. What you need is to arm the students too, which would have the bonus of eliminating school bullying, bullies, students that might be bullies, jocks, nerds, drama geeks, Wendy who didn't want to go to Junior Prom with me, homework, principals, and so forth.


AKA, the Battle Royale model.


Again, we have teachers carrying in eight states, and they have killed or injured precisely zero students.

The transparent backpacks thing does seem stupid, though. It's an authoritarian move to more easily identify contraband, not something that would have stopped the incident in question. Mass shooters are not stealthy, and do not require concealment. As an irrational backlash thing, it's not unlike some of the proposed gun control ideas. Not really a solution, though. I would expect it to not reduce mass shootings at all.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/us/youtube-hq-shooting/index.html

New shooting at...youtube. Three shot, one more injured attempting to escape, then the shooter took her own life. Shooter apparently liked to post ranty videos about the company and maybe had a grudge against them?

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1802
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Again, we have teachers carrying in eight states, and they have killed or injured precisely zero students.


literally last month a teacher who was also a police officer injured a student shooting his gun during a gun safety lesson the entire situation was honestly a parody of itself and yet people still want to push to arm more teachers (who don't want to be armed and will undoubtedly have less experience and training than teachers who are also police officers certified to teach gun safety courses.)
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1704
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:47 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If teachers are armed, what will happen is the gunmen will shoot the teachers first. What you need is to arm the students too, which would have the bonus of eliminating school bullying, bullies, students that might be bullies, jocks, nerds, drama geeks, Wendy who didn't want to go to Junior Prom with me, homework, principals, and so forth.


AKA, the Battle Royale model.


Again, we have teachers carrying in eight states, and they have killed or injured precisely zero students.


I was (jokingly) referring to arming students, not arming teachers.

I wonder what proportion of teachers in those states actually carry on the job. If that figure is close enough to zero that may not provide much evidence of anything other than that most teachers don't want to be armed.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby SuicideJunkie » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:20 pm UTC

Coyne wrote:
Yablo wrote:
elasto wrote:[We must do something!] + [This is something!] => [We must do this!]

It's marginally better than the "arming students with rocks" idea.

I don't know, he looks serious to me. I think it would be more obvious sarcasm if he had gone with a ream of paper and every classroom, you know, so the kids could paper cut any attacker.
Eureka!
Best plan: We arm 1/3rd of the students with rocks. 1/3rd of them with the ream of paper, and the remaining students get scissors from the supply cabinet.
That way, no matter what they get attacked with, the students can counter it perfectly.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 04, 2018 1:26 pm UTC

Only if the others guess correctly on 1, 2, 3…

cphite
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby cphite » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If teachers are armed, what will happen is the gunmen will shoot the teachers first. What you need is to arm the students too, which would have the bonus of eliminating school bullying, bullies, students that might be bullies, jocks, nerds, drama geeks, Wendy who didn't want to go to Junior Prom with me, homework, principals, and so forth.


AKA, the Battle Royale model.


Again, we have teachers carrying in eight states, and they have killed or injured precisely zero students.


Last month a teacher in Seaside California - who is also a police reservist - injured three students when he accidentally fired his weapon in class, ironically enough in a demonstration about how to make sure it wasn't loaded. Fortunately, the bullet hit the ceiling and not a student - but one student was injured by a bullet fragment, and two others apparently by pieces of the ceiling.

That being said... the common concerns are typically that teachers who carry will be disarmed and the weapon used by someone; or that the teacher will overreact to a situation and shoot someone. Neither of those things have happened; and frankly it's arguable that the Seaside incident was an example of that teacher being fucking idiot and really not representative of teachers who carry responsibly.

I don't like the idea of arming teachers as a matter of policy; but I do believe schools should have armed people who have received adequate training. The reality is that there are millions of guns in the US and that will continue to be the case no matter what new restrictions on buying and selling are put into place. Any solution to the problem has to account for that.

The transparent backpacks thing does seem stupid, though. It's an authoritarian move to more easily identify contraband, not something that would have stopped the incident in question. Mass shooters are not stealthy, and do not require concealment. As an irrational backlash thing, it's not unlike some of the proposed gun control ideas. Not really a solution, though. I would expect it to not reduce mass shootings at all.


It's a perfect example of security theater - make people think you're doing something. As someone else already mentioned, this has been done before and it's pointless - mainly because even if the backpack is transparent, the stuff inside it won't be. A three ring binder, a sneaker, or even a folded t-shirt can be used to conceal a weapon, even if the backpack is see-through.

User avatar
heuristically_alone
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2016 7:43 pm UTC
Location: 37.2368078 and -115.80341870000001

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby heuristically_alone » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:32 pm UTC

How did he accidentally injure THREE students? What type of gun was he demonstrating? (Off to read article)

In reference to giving teachers guns, the community college I work part time at is pushing for its teachers to go through a qualification process in order to carry firearms on campus, but it would be optional. The thought of me carrying a firearm, a little terrifying. If it passes, I wonde how much pressure will be put on faculty to do it.
Bow gifted by adnapemit.

We'll win, but not everyone will get out

:idea: = Surprised Cyclops

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:44 pm UTC

heuristically_alone wrote:How did he accidentally injure THREE students? What type of gun was he demonstrating? (Off to read article)

Spoiler:
Image

cphite
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby cphite » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:45 pm UTC

heuristically_alone wrote:How did he accidentally injure THREE students? What type of gun was he demonstrating? (Off to read article)


When I initially heard about this, it was said that one kid was struck by a bullet fragment and that the other two were struck by ceiling fragments; and that the kid struck by the bullet fragment had a bleeding wound that was fortunately not serious. My assumption was that the other two suffered small cuts or something along those lines.

However, now when I look on Google I see articles saying three, one, and none were injured. In any event, the main point was that this jackass ought not have been messing with his weapon in the first place.

In reference to giving teachers guns, the community college I work part time at is pushing for its teachers to go through a qualification process in order to carry firearms on campus, but it would be optional. The thought of me carrying a firearm, a little terrifying. If it passes, I wonde how much pressure will be put on faculty to do it.


Hopefully no pressure will put on anyone to carry a weapon; to do so would be counter-productive.

Carrying a weapon is an enormous responsibility, and if you're not trained, capable, and willing to use it when necessary, it's actually more of a liability than a tool. Anyone who isn't comfortable carrying a weapon ought not be carrying one.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3270
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:49 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Anyone who isn't comfortable carrying a weapon ought not be carrying one.
Ditto anyone who is far too comfortable, to the point of such carelessness.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9856
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:08 pm UTC

Or for that matter, anyone the military wouldn't take even if the filthy Canucks were invading. Quite sure those aren't "the people" the second amendment was written for, given that we've redefined the second amendment from "the federal government can't prevent the states from forming militias" to "since we need militias, the people [who would join those militias] can be armed".

cphite
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby cphite » Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Or for that matter, anyone the military wouldn't take even if the filthy Canucks were invading. Quite sure those aren't "the people" the second amendment was written for, given that we've redefined the second amendment from "the federal government can't prevent the states from forming militias" to "since we need militias, the people [who would join those militias] can be armed".


Two things stand out when reading the various writings of the framers about the Second Amendment and it's ratification... first, they were trying to avoid the formation of a national standing army, because they believed that to be a path to tyranny; and second, they considered "the people" to be the source of any militia required to replace that standing army.

However, it's important to note that they do not define any actual militia; and while they do use the phrase "well regulated" to describe it, they decline to specify any political body as having the power to regulate it; not the Congress, or the federal government, not even the States. They explicitly grant the power to "the people", giving the reason that a well regulated militia is necessary, and then leave it at that.

In short, the Second Amendment means what it says: That the *people* have a right to keep and bear arms, because the people might be called upon to form a militia. It does not grant States the right to form militias (not that they need it to) nor does it even grant States the right to regulate militias.

The first ten amendments were basically "thou shalt not" statements directed at the newly formed federal government; they were a list of things that the States demanded that the federal government agree were out of bounds, in exchange for the States agreeing to ratify the Constitution.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11077
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Yakk » Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:44 pm UTC

Yes, that is the opinion that the NRA spread around starting in the 1970s and convinced the supreme court and Republican party of.

It doesn't have much to do with the original intent and meaning of the consitution.

Here is a reasonably through reading of the original intent/meaning:
https://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2013 ... id-it-mean

In it, there are clear cases in both the articles of confederation and the consitution where authority over the militia is listed. And the mliitia is clearly a body of armed men with state provided gear (like tents). These militias are regulated both by their states (for training, rules, and gear) and by the federal government (at least when called into federal service). They where to be trained, the training was to be regulated by both the feds and states, gear and ammunition and arms was to be kept by the states, etc.

It is entirely reasonable and consistent to read into that amendment that by keeping and bearing arms, you declare yourself part of the militia, and by being a part of the militia you subject yourself to being regulated by both your state and federal government, and if you fail in your obligations as part of the militia you can be subject to punishment. Each member of the militia can have an officer appointed above them, and they must obey military discipline and rules while they are part of the militia.

The right to bear arms would be become collective, and laws that make the rules so strict that the majority of the citizens do not qualify would be illegal.

This would basically be the interpretation of that amendment that was held up until the 1970s when the NRA started a massive lobbying campaign to change its meaning.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:07 am UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
heuristically_alone wrote:How did he accidentally injure THREE students? What type of gun was he demonstrating?


Probably something like Liston's most famous case:

Spoiler:
Amputated the leg in under 2​1⁄2 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright.

That was the only operation in history with a 300 percent mortality.

— Richard Gordon[23]
In all fairness...

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:20 am UTC

cphite wrote:However, it's important to note that they do not define any actual militia; and while they do use the phrase "well regulated" to describe it, they decline to specify any political body as having the power to regulate it; not the Congress, or the federal government, not even the States.


Not sure i buy that. "Regulated" has a fairly straightforward meaning. They didn't say, "well-regulated without a regulatory body," which would have been oxymoronic anyway. Therefore a regulator was intended, even if not planned.
In all fairness...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9856
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:39 am UTC

"Regulated" as in "met regularly". Words often change meanings over time...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10784
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 05, 2018 1:49 am UTC

Quercus wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Quercus wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If teachers are armed, what will happen is the gunmen will shoot the teachers first. What you need is to arm the students too, which would have the bonus of eliminating school bullying, bullies, students that might be bullies, jocks, nerds, drama geeks, Wendy who didn't want to go to Junior Prom with me, homework, principals, and so forth.


AKA, the Battle Royale model.


Again, we have teachers carrying in eight states, and they have killed or injured precisely zero students.


I was (jokingly) referring to arming students, not arming teachers.

I wonder what proportion of teachers in those states actually carry on the job. If that figure is close enough to zero that may not provide much evidence of anything other than that most teachers don't want to be armed.


This also used to be a thing. I'm a millenial, and I took my firearms safety training in the range in a school basement, as did quite a few other people in the midwest. Granted, a bit different from carrying everywhere, was more of a sport shooting area, but it was entirely normal until fairly recently.

The exact proportion is hard to tease out. It probably varies a lot from state to state, and even from district to district. No doubt some proportion do not wish to carry and...that's good. Making everyone do it would mean making those who are not interested in training, etc do it. Better to let people self select what they're comfortable with.

cphite wrote:Last month a teacher in Seaside California - who is also a police reservist - injured three students when he accidentally fired his weapon in class, ironically enough in a demonstration about how to make sure it wasn't loaded. Fortunately, the bullet hit the ceiling and not a student - but one student was injured by a bullet fragment, and two others apparently by pieces of the ceiling.


Wow, that's out there. Oddly enough, you can easily find a fair amount of police fail videos with guns on youtube. Some in classes. It's...unsettling how frequently police violate safety rules. Worst I could find by a teacher who wasn't a cop was one teacher shot a toilet by mistake.

That one counts as both, I suppose, but overall, teachers appear to be safer carriers of guns than police. There's probably a moral there or something.

CorruptUser wrote:Or for that matter, anyone the military wouldn't take even if the filthy Canucks were invading. Quite sure those aren't "the people" the second amendment was written for, given that we've redefined the second amendment from "the federal government can't prevent the states from forming militias" to "since we need militias, the people [who would join those militias] can be armed".


Well, actual military standards may not correlate to safety habits. Plenty of teachers who maybe can't meet physical standards for enlistment, but are otherwise fine people.

Yakk wrote:Yes, that is the opinion that the NRA spread around starting in the 1970s and convinced the supreme court and Republican party of.

It doesn't have much to do with the original intent and meaning of the consitution.


Nah, it long predates that. United States v Cruikshank(1875) holds that both the first and second amendment served only to prevent the federal government from restricting the people. Furthermore, they held that these rights were innate rights of man, and the constitution only recognized them, not brought them about.

They then twisted this into "it's okay for the state to violate your rights", because Reconstruction, and holy shit, so much racism......but you do have a pretty hard and fast recognition of the rights protected by law then. It's just a shame they didn't respect the logical result of that a bit more.

The right to bear arms would be become collective, and laws that make the rules so strict that the majority of the citizens do not qualify would be illegal.


The "collective rights" theory was definitively struck down in Heller, and only really was supported in US v Miller. Looking at the body of case law(which isn't actually immense for gun rights), you only really have this one case in which this interpretation is supported. It was certainly not the interpretation at the time of writing, but a later invention, and a similar interpretation for say, the first amendment, would be very odd indeed.

Can you imagine advocating that sure, "the people" can freely talk, but certain individuals can have that right removed? Even if you never banned the majority from doing so, this can be horribly concerning. Shit, look back at the history of Cruikshank, or literally any anti-minority limitations on freedom of speech. When tried, it WAS awful. We need not even imagine it.

Coyne wrote:
cphite wrote:However, it's important to note that they do not define any actual militia; and while they do use the phrase "well regulated" to describe it, they decline to specify any political body as having the power to regulate it; not the Congress, or the federal government, not even the States.


Not sure i buy that. "Regulated" has a fairly straightforward meaning. They didn't say, "well-regulated without a regulatory body," which would have been oxymoronic anyway. Therefore a regulator was intended, even if not planned.


At the time of the constitution, "regulated" often meant "effective" or "orderly". You might see it in reference to a watch, in which context, it invariably refers to the quality of function. So, basically, they are saying that yeah, this law exists because they need an effective defense of the country. Not really surprising, much of the constitution is straight up a reaction to revolutionary problems, and the difficulty of the conflict with England was no doubt in their minds.

The nature of militias at the time was that their organization varied. States formed militias, towns formed militias, groups of interested parties formed militias. As no one organizational structure is specified, it seems unlikely they were trying to standardize this. Or, frankly, that they cared. Any port in a storm, right? They weren't about to turn up their noses at anyone willing to help. At the time, legislation mostly centered around mandating that folks had enough guns, or actually funded defense. They wanted more armed folks, not less, for pretty obvious military reasons.

iamspen
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby iamspen » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:42 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The nature of militias at the time was that their organization varied. States formed militias, towns formed militias, groups of interested parties formed militias. As no one organizational structure is specified, it seems unlikely they were trying to standardize this. Or, frankly, that they cared. Any port in a storm, right? They weren't about to turn up their noses at anyone willing to help. At the time, legislation mostly centered around mandating that folks had enough guns, or actually funded defense. They wanted more armed folks, not less, for pretty obvious military reasons.


Don't forget also that the individual states, by which the most regulated militias were formed, were poor and absolutely bludgeoned by foreign and domestic debt at the time the Constitution was written. If you were conscripted by the state, it was damn helpful if you brought your own gun so they wouldn't have to buy you one.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10784
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 05, 2018 11:57 am UTC

Yeah, that was a big factor. The early states/fed had a ton of trouble financing things, and it's a large part of why the articles of confederation didn't stick around. Even privately owned cannon and warships existed, and were greatly welcomed in the Revolution.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:13 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:"Regulated" as in "met regularly". Words often change meanings over time...


From the Constitution:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

[From the Letter of Transmittal to the President of Congress] The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money, and regulating commerce,


I think the authors of the Constitution were pretty clear on what they meant by "regulate", and it wasn't "meet regularly". Are you going to assert next that the meaning changed between 1787 and 1789 and then changed back?

And, James Madison, who introduced the amendments to Congress, was no simple farmer... unless you think the meaning of "simple` has changed
In all fairness...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10784
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Apr 05, 2018 12:23 pm UTC

You will note that all of those usages are specifically granting an authority.

The second amendment doesn't grant an authority.

Both meanings were valid. Context is what matters for differentiating between them. If you're seeing an authority assignment in the second amendment, let me know who it is. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. And this isn't about the framers being "simple farmers". You're the only person to make that claim. Someone need not be simple to use a word in multiple contexts.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Coyne » Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:34 am UTC

A well met regularly Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Have it your way.
In all fairness...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10784
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:40 am UTC

That's....not the right way to do it at all.

If you dropped in functioning, you'd have a decent modern approximation. Well functioning militia being essential.

Which, in fairness, if we use the term militia in the sense of the time, only really included men, and may have only included white men, depending on state, etc...but later amendments fixed the constitutions shortcomings in those regards.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26342
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:41 am UTC

Oh wow you can't literally just swap one for the other in every sentence without running into grammatical problems. That's proof that they had vastly different meanings!
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests