Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What? You confuse me. I see the same level of archaeological insight in that article as another one I linked to a month or two ago, which you dismissed as “pure speculation”, and stated “probability = the academic and respected word for guess”.
I don't think this issues is comparable to abortion since owning guns is not an absolute right according to the natural law or divine law. I also don't think the right implied is as crystal clear as one might otherwise think. The wording of the Second Amendment:"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."Now, according to this statement, what exactly are "arms"? Did they include rifles? Pistols? Canons or other heavy artillery? And is the right to "bear arms" contingent on their use as part of the "well regulated militia"? I don't think the issue is entirely clear *based on the wording alone*, which is why the courts have had to weigh in on them and interpret them.Oh, and if the right to "bear arms" is inviolate, we really shouldn't be preventing incarcerated individuals from possessing them. Of course, that would be insane.
I was talking about this at work today and I think principals and teachers should be deputized by federal marshals to openly carry sidearms or have access to them when needed. They would of course receive the necessary training on use of the firearms and take down procedures including negotiating tactics. Gun free zones are magnets for suicidal maniacs.
First, from what I understand about the CT shooting, the principal confronted the gunman (in the hallway?) and then shot her, and I think after this went into the classroom to kill the children. If the shooting was totally unexpected, it would not have helped if her gun was locked away in her office somewhere, or even at the bottom of her purse.Second, requiring teachers and/or principals to openly carry sidearms or have access to them when needed changes their job description, something which I think would be highly difficult to realize. If the principal is a 75 year old granny, is she honestly going to be trained in "take down procedures" and the like? No, that is not going to happen. These are administrators we're talking about. Far more likely is that the school would hire outside security for the school. This is, in fact, already done in many schools. I just don't think that people would have expected the need for armed security at an elementary school, especially one in a quiet community.If teachers/principals were required to carry or have access to something, it would more likely be something non-lethal, such as tasers. The shooting in CT was an anomaly, and I don't think more liberal gun laws would have prevented it from happening. There are always going to be places where people are unprotected and vulnerable. If not in a school, then in a nursing home, or a church, or some other similar place.
No, I actually use an old program from circa 2000 called Photodraw. It was put out by Microsoft but subsequently discontinued. I tell you, it is the most user-friendly, functional drawing/photo manipulation program I have ever used (I have tried Inkscape, Gimp, Paint.net, and I think some others). Ok, so it doesn't contain all the power of Photoshop, but it is far, far easier to use. No need to worry about confusing layers and such. And with a little creativity, I can mimic some effects found in Photoshop. I started using Photodraw in the early 2000s for my family's business, and then just a few years ago I found a copy selling on Ebay or Amazon and bought it for my own computer. This is one program which I wish Microsoft would have kept on developing.
that's like saying banning drunk driving is a slippery slope which will lead to banning alcohol.
I don't think that analogy works. Drunk driving is inherently criminal behavior, whereas owning X number of guns is not inherently criminal. Using those guns to murder your neighbor is inherently criminal, but merely owning them is not. Yet, I still think your refutation of the slippery slope argument is more reasonable than not.
I'm looking at the legal precedent it sets. If they can ban one firearm related item, they can ban more and more and more. Why make it easy for them to do so if you don't have to? Better to be safe than sorry. Instead of banning any guns they should make them more available and easier to carry openly. That way when some idiot tries what Lanz did, somebody will be nearby with a gun to take him down before the body count gets higher.
Tell me, are you expecting that some fifth grader carrying openly would have been able to step in? Or perhaps some teacher? Obviously not. A school is a ripe target precisely because no one would have a gun in a place like that, and I don't think we should ever expect them to. This is one reason why what happened is so tragic; it's a place where no one would ever expect the need for self defense to arise.More liberal carrying laws would probably lead to a greater number of criminals being stopped by the hands of private citizens. Yet at the same time, I don't really think it would ever lead to a net decrease in shootings like this in the first place. Honestly, for me the real issue that needs to be addressed isn't really guns, but rather the darkness in men's hearts.
Well, I added stars. I didn't spend that much time on it, but just wanted to do it so it better fit with the “starry night” theme of the page I put it on.
Yeah, that looks like the right video. I would not call myself an Alex Jones fan at all, but at the same time some of what he says can be interesting. I do wonder if this kind of thing will help snowball anti-gun legislation.
Nobody is perfect 8)
Tell me about it!
One of the suggestions in the article to make Wikipedia better is to incorporate it into college classes by assigning students to edit Wikipedia articles. I actually think that is a pretty good idea.Another point made by the author is that the history articles on Wikipedia tend to be the best and leas biased articles although he does complain that they don't hew as well to the post-modern tilt as academic articles. His complaint, if you can call it that, is that the history articles tend to present history as it was classically written until the last 30 years or so. I agree with him and think that is a good thing. I especially like the Wikipedia insistence on a neutral point of view.
I recall a few years ago that a class project at some school was to create/re-edit a Wikipedia entry. I do think that is a good project, as it forces students to find comprehensive sources on a subject matter and consider it from different angles.I wonder how the author judges the bias of history articles compared to the bias, in, say engineering articles. I would think that there would be less bias in entries on technical things than even on historical figures who play into the modern political discourse.
I did not know you were a teacher.In the past, I have thought of teaching a "Wikilesson" to my students by inserting some erroneous fact into an entry which students may want to look at before an exam. I would be able to determine who took the bait by looking a their exams after they turn them in.
I have been to Amsterdam, Haarlem, and Utrecht. It is a lovely place. I thought that the city of Bruges in Belgium was also something of a port city in the Middle Ages, but today is a ways away from the coast.
