I Think It Is Time We Got Involved.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

BTW, we got our licenses at age 15. Strange thing is we didn't have any mass shootings. I wonder why?

Because nobody had guns anywhere, then we did not have fist fights in school.

We know that the 1960s were more dangerous than streets and subways today. Those are facts and numbers. But a majority believe something else for one simple reason. They ignore numbers. And listen to liars who note trends without any numbers. Fear (emotion) works for the same reason why a majority *knew* smoking cigarettes increase health.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Because nobody had guns anywhere....

[glatt]

I feel like I've mentioned this here before, so forgive me if I have, but in 3rd grade, in Tuscon, Arizona in 1976, my friend brought a handgun to school for show and tell. I think it was a Luger.

The teacher asked to hold it in her desk for the day, but gave it to him for the show and tell portion so he could show it and tell about it.

He had found it in the desert, and his dad let him keep it. He told the story about how he fired it at a cactus one time, and when he went to look at the hole in the cactus, he saw a dead lizard behind the cactus that the bullet had also hit.

At the end of the day, the teacher gave him the gun back, and he went home. Maybe there were some phone calls that I wasn't aware of, but the boy was back in school the next day and seemed perfectly normal. No evidence that he had gotten in trouble.

[Lamplighter]

A coincidence of NY Times news articles today and Glatt's post above.
...maybe a bit of "deeper thinking" is creeping into society at large


NY Times
JANE GROSS
12/3/13
Born of Grief, ‘Three Strikes’ Laws Are Being Rethought

<snip>A few noted criminologists predicted at the time that “three strikes” laws,
which would sweep the nation, were unlikely to have much effect on crime,
would fill the nation’s prisons to bursting and would satisfy frustrated voters
at the expense of bad public policy. They were largely ignored.

As this Retro Report points out, California voters eventually concluded
that its three strikes law was excessive in its zeal and financial burden,
and last year they amended the law that Mr. Reynolds had put before them two decades earlier.
<snip>

——————

NY Times
LIZETTE ALVAREZ
December 2, 2013

Seeing the Toll, Schools Revise Zero Tolerance

<snip>The Florida district, the sixth largest in the nation, was far from an outlier.
In the past two decades, schools around the country have seen suspensions,
expulsions and arrests for minor nonviolent offenses climb together
with the number of police officers stationed at schools.

The policy, called zero tolerance, first grew out of the war on drugs in the 1990s and became
more aggressive in the wake of school shootings like the one at Columbine High School in Colorado.<snip>

But in November, Broward veered in a different direction, joining other large school districts,
including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago and Denver, in backing away from the get-tough approach.

Rather than push children out of school, districts like Broward are now doing the opposite:
choosing to keep lawbreaking students in school, away from trouble on the streets,
and offering them counseling and other assistance aimed at changing behavior.<snip>

[BigV]

Originally Posted by glatt

I feel like I've mentioned this here before, so forgive me if I have, but in 3rd grade, in Tuscon, Arizona in 1976, my friend brought a handgun to school for show and tell. I think it was a Luger.

The teacher asked to hold it in her desk for the day, but gave it to him for the show and tell portion so he could show it and tell about it.

He had found it in the desert, and his dad let him keep it. He told the story about how he fired it at a cactus one time, and when he went to look at the hole in the cactus, he saw a dead lizard behind the cactus that the bullet had also hit.

At the end of the day, the teacher gave him the gun back, and he went home. Maybe there were some phone calls that I wasn't aware of, but the boy was back in school the next day and seemed perfectly normal. No evidence that he had gotten in trouble.

Not merely nostalgic here, but this story is what you get when you let adults exercise JUDGMENT, instead of shackling them with zero-tolerance policies.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

... but this story is what you get when you let adults exercise JUDGMENT, instead of shackling them with zero-tolerance policies.

We should let banks invest in anything they want. We should never require automobile safety features. We should never require all children to be educated. If the driver sees nobody coming, then he has a right to run a red traffic light.

Not all adults are adult enough to make responsible decisions. Many adults, using emotions for reasoning, make some blanket restrictions necessary. A majority is limited by many laws because only a minority, incapable of exercising responsible judgement, make some blanket laws essential.

We know from the worst recession since 1929 that adults in banks (who are supposed to be most responsible adults) made major, blanket restrictions necessary. Because many if not most bankers are not sufficiently responsible. Which restrictions are necessary? That's why restrictions are made pragmatically; not based in rhetoric and political biases.

We know that most adults will use a 155 mm howitzer properly. But some adults who cannot think like an adult means sales of 155 mm howitzers should be banned.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by tw

But some adults cannot think like an adult means sales of 155 mm howitzers should be banned.

Uhhh - NO.