Words of Advice:

"Never Feel Sorry For Anyone Who Owns an Airplane."-- Tina Marie

"
If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It.
" -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Kids Learning the Toyota Rule

Students at the Florida high school where 17 students and staff members were massacred are now carrying their belongings in clear plastic backpacks in hopes that it will make it difficult to smuggle weapons onto campus.

Officials at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School began issuing the donated backpacks to the school's 3,200 students Monday, The Sun-Sentinel reports.

The students are being allowed through four monitored gates before school starts and only one after the opening bell. Soon, the district plans to issue metal-detecting wands to the law enforcement officers stationed at the gates. Sports bags and musical instrument cases are being searched.
Let's review some facts, shall we: The Asswipe who shot up the school used a fucking carbine that, in all probability, wouldn't have fit into a backpack. He apparently had his rifle in a duffel bag and nobody thought to inquire why someone would carry a duffel bag into a school. He wasn't even a student (having been expelled). But he still walked into the school, with his rifle, and shot the shit out of the place.

The kids, of course, think all of this is stupid as fuck and guess what? They're right.

One of the kids complained that they are "turning the schools into prisons", and well, kid, you're right. There are over 300 million guns in this country, maybe north of 450 million, and they aren't going away. Neither are the ten or so million rifles based on Eugene Stoner's design, let alone those designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov, John Williams, Bill Ruger or Sergei Simonov. Look into the compliance level in the states that have banned such guns. It's about around the levels of compliance with any other prohibition-type law.

(How many of you kids have tried cannabis? That's illegal. Tried tobacco, vaping, or alcohol? That's also illegal for minors, you know.)

So you want perfect security, kids? You want it so no outsider can come in and do you harm? You want it so no other student can bring in any sort of weapon and do you harm? You want to feel safe in school? Then your school is going to look, feel, and operate like a prison.

You asked for it.

You got it.

Toyota.

20 comments:

Dark Avenger said...

Somehow, other countries don’t have school shooting like we do. MAGA!

Comrade Misfit said...

Do you blame the hammer for smacking your thumb?

Nangleator said...

I believe we have very thoroughly, completely proven that we cannot be trusted to swing a hammer.

Must we always kill any attempt at gun control because a proposed change wouldn't have stopped *this* shooting or *that* shooting?

We have to start making changes and measuring the effect. The idea is adding regulations until child deaths are reduced. More shootings? Add more regulation. Until we reach the number of child deaths per year that we're comfortable with. Then, all we have to argue about is what's that number?

Dark Avenger said...

The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of schoolchildren from time to time.

Comrade Misfit said...

Why don't we start by fixing the things that were known to have failed with the Parkland Asswipe?

I know the answer: Those cost real money. Providing mental health services to people who are known to be troubled... that costs money.

But Americans have a problem when it comes to paying for anything. People want services at no cost to anyone. From fixing roads to mental health services to education: If it costs money, people are against it.

Costs less to take away other people's freedoms.

Dark Avenger said...

That's why we're constantly putting serious discussions about gun control on the back burner. Any attempt to discuss the damn topic is seen as a full-frontal assault on people's rights, and that's by sheer virtue of the fact that those rights are so far-ranging that there's no line in the sand behind which we can make a stand and begin negotiating.

In the aftermath of any shooting, it's easy to blame the Second Amendment for being so loose and open to abuse. But that's not fair. It made sense to the people who wrote it, and as far back as only a few decades, it made sense to us. It's just that we've been rewritten to ignore the context in which it was drafted. You can thank the NRA for that. And so will your children. And so, maybe, will your children's children. The NRA will be long gone by then, but their history-twisting, self-serving legacy is going to take some years to flush out of the system.

http://www.cracked.com/article_25195_how-nra-lost-its-mind.html

Eck! said...


First off lets get most school shootings right. Parkland, That was a suicide gone wrong, he survived at the last minute. Most are suicides as that's the last shot fired in most cases with their own hand. Those that were not were suicide by cop or the functional equivilent.

Yes, it is a full frontal assault on a basic right that has shall not be infringed as part of it. Last I looked I have the right to self defense and you have no say in how that's to be accomplished unless you volunteer to be my personal secret service.
That's part one.

Now If I gave you a few mil bucks and the authority, I'm sure you would gladly go door to door and collect guns, you would right? Who would? Right, rough people would do it for you.

But hey, lets take a bit of your privacy maybe limit your speech some too.
That what happens with gun control. That is provable MA and other places too.

As to the line in the sand... A negotiation has a common goal and both sides giving. Reality for the anti-gun lobby is they want it all and have nothing to give. IN some states like MA they got it all and if you can afford it you can have a gun its only maybe a few hundred bucks between required training and a license.
What do you get, well the police can invade your home at any time if they wish to inspect or confiscate and the due course comes later. That's assuming someone doesn't get the list with your name a release it to the press like in NY.
We have restrictions in so called "assault weapons" f you have a wood stock variant its cool, put a adjustable stock on it and its not cool. An M1 Garand
in 30-06 is cool here, a stupid poodle shooter is bad. Its that stupid.

THe anti-gun lobby and its money out runs NRA by a large margin. They are propagandists. They lie. What as a honest law abiding person do I get for all that. Not a damn thing except to wait for the cops. I've called them and that five minutes is a long time and it was only my neighbors teen friends having a drunken brawl complete with rocks and bottles, if it was my well being and not that tey were bouncing off my house it would be an eternity. But hey, we have gun control. I don't feel safer, very much on the contrary I know I'm not safer. I'm old enough to have looked evil in the eye, its ugly. What you want is evil to always have an advantage.

No, what you think you want, even Australia doesn't have, and that is lower crime. They like London both have a crime problem and guns are not a factor but murder persists. London even managed to beat NYC for murder rate! They are seriously thinking of mandating a restriction on knives. Cut your sirloin with a butter knife? Oh, one tiny last thing.

Both of those countries you do not have the right to self defense at all by any means. So what does repeal or significant modification of 2A mean for you. It means if a druggie breaks into your home and you kill him with a broom handle you might have to spend your personal fortune defending yourself in court. So yes
you lose too. And your not safer.

So no, just no.

Eck!

Dark Avenger said...

We also lock more people up per capita than most civilized counties, but that has nothing to do with our crime rate.

http://www.cracked.com/article_25502_6-underreported-reasons-why-nra-are-just-worst.html

In the aftermath of a shooting, it's important for the police to be able to link perpetrators to firearms (that's the whole "evidence" part of the equation). So in a world in which you can do everything online, this probably takes a couple of minutes, right? Nope. The NRA has successfully lobbied against any and all attempts to build an electronic database of firearms owners, because letting Uncle Sam have such information would be like showing all your cards at a poker table (where you just murdered someone).

B said...

DA: If the Anti Gunners negotiated from an honest position, they might well get what they want..or some of it.

But they've negotiated from a dishonest position from the get go. And when they get what they want, then that is the base from which they then negotiate for something else. They never give back when their goal doesn't work. They never start from a position of "lets make things safer" because:
1. They don't really want that, they want confiscation and repeal of the 2nd.
2. They don't know enough to make a decent request that might actually have some merit.

And they have proven that they cannot be trusted. So we simply don't trust them. Databases might be an answer, except they want confiscation, so that gives them a place to start. More restrictions might work, except that they cannot make the system that is already supposed to restrict people with "issues" from being able to acquire firearms isn't reported well enough to be effective.

I'm all for fixing the issue so that no one ever gets shot in a school...the issue is that the suggested fixes remove my rights without fixing the issue. You can do all the hating on the NRA you wish, and chant all the slogans you want but in the end, it is folks like me that simply no longer trust folks like you that do the fighting to keep our rights....you side simply hasn;t played straight. So you end up where we are today. You hate on all gun owners as the enemy, and we don't trust you to find solutions that work because you don't even understand thow what we have works. (Or you are lying). The Parkland shooter (I won't use his name, even here) followed all the rules your side asked for (and got) and yet your system failed because the police failed....

If you respond to me, please, try to be civil. I am.

Eck! said...

That and databases are being hacked at what seems like and increasing rate. Who's doing the hacking? Criminals! NOw you want the gun owners data in a system that can be hacked... Seriously? Likely your personal data from hacked from Experian is out there already.

The government has had multiple databases hacked. No if, its already been done
and more than once.

A ban, that will work. Seriously? Look at the NY and CT and likely Ca compliance stats. If they ever hit a paltry partial percent of what is there it will be a event. All you really did is scare people and make them criminals. America has one thing that is not allowed for, we as a people believe that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Those that would restrict freedom rarely accept responsibility for what results.

Modify 2A, do you still a have the right of self defense? Or will you be like the 78 year old pensioner across the pond who in trouble for defending himself against multiple attackers with screwdrivers in his own kitchen. He's got a murder rap to beat. Can't happen here right?

Every law written to restrict guns has been ineffective or worse penalises those that willingly comply. Why? Because they are based on a belief (not facts) that laws prevent things. News flash, laws specify the penalty for doing things prohibited. The longest standing laws are murder (some 5000 years or more), assault, and theft yet every day those things happen. We have laws for those and they specify penalties some pretty harsh. and in a land called England murder happens.

After 60 plus years of noticing things a pattern emerges. Its about "your" feelings and "you", at the expense of my ass.

So no one feels attacked the collective forms you, your, and we holds. If that offends you, I can't help you.


Eck!



Comrade Misfit said...

The question that I have asked, repeatedly, and to which I have yet to receive an answer is this:

If you want me to agree to more gun control measures, what do I get out of the deal. In other words, what's in it for me?

If the answer is "nothing", then that isn't a negotiated deal. It's a surrender.

dinthebeast said...

As a gun owner for a half century, I would like to remind the fans of the second amendment, especially the current bullshit interpretation of it, that there is an Article V of the constitution as well, and if we don't want the 78 and growing percent of the population who have chosen not to own guns to activate it against our interests we might want to do some spin control on those of us who come across to them as dangerously crazy.
If you have ever actually seen someone murdered with a gun, as I have a few times, it's not that hard to understand the attitude of those who just want to make it stop.
That doesn't make their position right, technically or morally, but I'm here to say that they will NEVER see it that way, and I can at least understand why.
Rights come with responsibilities, and those responsibilities are not, in fact, always fair in their distribution.
Nobody ever wants to give up a right that they already have, but almost nobody ever wants any more responsibility in order to keep that right.
My only certain take on this issue is that digging in and lying doesn't help.
Everyone involved may feel as if they are personally under attack in one way or another. Perhaps we will see whose method of defense really works best.

-Doug in Oakland

B said...

""As a gun owner for half a century" we need to give up something else to the gun grabbers in order to make them shut up or someday we might have to actually fight harder in the courts to keep our rights".

What, exactly would you have us give up this time? And then next time. and then again the next time?

'Cause the line keeps getting moved and then the anti gunners push from there. At what point will you folks be satisfied?...I ask you as a "Gun owner for a half century"....Seriously, Doug. Where does it stop?

Dark Avenger said...

Yeah, we shouldn’t have databases because they can be hacked into is very convincing.

dinthebeast said...

"Seriously, Doug. Where does it stop?"

That's what I was saying in my comment. We have the opportunity to have a say in where it stops, and I feel some of us are not helping us use that opportunity when they antagonize people who have exactly the same rights as we do, outnumber us more than two to one, and feel as if they are in imminent danger of being shot to death.
You know, the kind of personal safety concerns at the root of much of what is said here? They feel that too, and for the most part don't understand why your response isn't paranoid or extreme, qualities that scare the fuck out of them coming from anyone with guns.
Because so many more people are life-long city dwellers now, they have never been exposed to life where guns are not a big deal, like I was. All they see of guns is the pathology expressed in some neighborhoods in the form of violence and the negative influence the presence of guns has on certain young folks, who learn to use guns a power symbols and reasons to avoid learning the very social skills required to live in the high population densities where they actually do become a big deal.
That and Wayne La Pierre and Dana Loesch on their TVs who deliberately try to frighten them when they are already scared shitless.
What I'm saying is although you may have a low opinion of such people, there are a lot of them, and they will eventually be in a position to make policy on guns, and the less freaked out they are when that happens, the better it will be for all of us.


If you read what I actually said, you'll find that I'm not attacking you, but trying to help. Changes are coming, and denying that will not influence their direction.

-Doug in Oakland

Comrade Misfit said...

I still have yet to see anyone of consequence on the gun-control side ask the question of any salesman: "What will it take to put you into this car?"

As long as it goes like this: "We want to take away these guns," the answer will be a variant of "hell, no."

I keep saying this and I'm not going to shut up: Taking away something without giving up something in return is not a negotiation. It's a surrender. That's not going to happen.

Dark Avenger said...

B, your brave defense of the Pussy-Grabber in Chief is noted. Don’t remember you showing the same respect to Obama, I meant Barry, when he was in office.

B said...

"B, your brave defense of the Pussy-Grabber in Chief is noted. Don’t remember you showing the same respect to Obama, I meant Barry, when he was in office."

HUH?

Comrade Misfit said...

Back to the point:

What the kids want is to restrict the freedoms of a lot of other law-abiding people so that they may feel safe.

What they're getting is a restriction of their freedoms to achieve the same thing.

So they're getting a taste of what they are advocating for, and they don't like it very much.

Me, I'm savoring the irony.

Eck! said...

Me, the kids are getting schooled the old way. The test comes first then the explanation. they got what could be done fast clear packs and a loss of privacy.
It not like searching their lockers and bags hasn't happened already. Its also a false fix, just more security theatre, but boys and girls life is like that. There are few if any 100% solutions. However even small fixes can be effective.
Also name one case where that kind of evil horror happened twice in the same place.

I agree shooters like we've seen suck. We (I believe this) all want to reduce this and maybe even make it go away. Well wishes and ponies. The time line for a amendment to the constitution is long and very uncertain. It has no short path.

To achieve this we need practical, implementable things that do not have a time line of decades or maybe never.

First is federal law and local law must be in sync. The number of laws on the books are well over the ridiculous level. A unified set of laws are both enforceable and prevent the blame game of the adjacent state being the cause if it were ever true.
This means learning the laws all of them including the proposed duplicates.

First the gun was a tool, there are substitutes, so wrapping oneself around the axel about it changes little. The so called gun free zones really mean nothing to a criminal bent on doing harm. I use the term criminal because soon as one contemplates doing something like that it is a criminal action. Its also likely an action of a sick mind so recognizing that is significant. We know for Florida The perp was recognized, action was dismissed or passed on to others who also took no action. Every level of that could have possibly prevented harm. Fix that first, its far easier than implementing laws that are hastily prepared and don't work, penalises the innocent and only allows some politician to say hey I did something. In the end those same laws commit same lack of commitment and pass it to someone else to do.

If you don't fix the problems you have the same problems to deal with. Note the plural.


Eck!