Arming Teachers

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

He never said he'd go to training. He said he knows some people would be open, however, he doesn't think it is the right approach.

That's lucky then since he's such a scatterbrain. You're missing the point though, it doesn't really matter what he thinks of the approach, the simple fact is teachers with guns is an accident waiting to happen, and the article highlights that; "go on sir, show us your gun." "WHAT!!! you gonna shoot me?" etc. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

Just now, rangerx said:

Misleading away from negligence into a "you all just want to take our guns" inference in other words.

 

Please provide a quote where someone said this.

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

but apparently it's taboo to discuss that.

Please provide a quote where someone said this.

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

I'm sure they're perfectly fine with "OMG they want to take our guns" comments after even the smallest of measure of gun control is discussed though.

Please provide a quote where someone said this.

[rangerx]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Please provide a quote where someone said this.

It's the narrative you've been painting all along.

As I said... in other words.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

You're missing the point though, it doesn't really matter what he thinks of the approach, the simple fact is teachers with guns is an accident waiting to happen, and that article highlights that; "go on sir, show us your gun." "WHAT!!! you gonna shoot me?" etc. 

I do not care about the point of it.

It was openly misleading, and that is wrong on either side.

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

It's the narrative you've been painting all along.

As I said... in other words.

Please provide a quote, otherwise your statements have no backing.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

I do not care about the point of it.

It was openly misleading, and that is wrong on either side.

Well, you should care, unless you hate teachers and are indifferent to the inevitable accident.

[Raider5678]

51 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This seems more like the kind of ambiguity the press loves to use to cast a wide net to snare readers.

Perhaps you're right with this, and I took it as misleading. In which case I'm wrong about their intentions, however, the result was the same.

 

Just now, dimreepr said:

Well, you should care, unless you hate teachers and are indifferent to the inevitable accident.

No. My distinction between what is right and wrong should not depend on what side is doing it.

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Please provide a quote, otherwise your statements have no backing.

Why would I do that, when all you'll do is spin it into something else to detract from the underlying issue? Which is my entire point.

This is a thread about arming teachers with guns, not your twisting things into something they're not.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Why would I do that, when all you'll do is spin it into something else to detract from the underlying issue? Which is my entire point.

This is a thread about arming teachers with guns, not your twisting things into something they're not.

Please provide a quote of me doing this, otherwise, your statements have no backing.

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's the narrative you've been painting all along.

As I said... in other words.

You also didn't quote or name them. The demand for citation assumes your post was about them. Ironically that aligns with the sentiment of your post.  

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No. My distinction between what is right and wrong should not depend on what side is doing it.

Since you're the only one in this thread that thinks it's misleading, not to mention it's off topic, perhaps you're wrong.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You also didn't quote or name them. The demand for citation assumes your post was about them. Ironically that aligns with the sentiment of your post.  

No.

I said:

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Please provide a quote where someone said this.

"someone" in case you need a refresher, doesn't mean me specifically.

 

He then turned it against me personally with this:

14 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's the narrative you've been painting all along.

As I said... in other words.

 

As you can see Ten oz, "You've" is pretty much pointing at me.

Where, a direct accusation against me, I can ask for a citation.

He again fails to provide one.

 

But do not fear, Ten oz is here to defend accusations regardless if they have no quote, citation, nor evidence.

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Since you're the only one in this thread that thinks it's misleading, not to mention it's off topic, perhaps you're wrong.

Don't change the goal posts.

One time you're saying I just missed the point.

Another time you're saying it depends on which side is doing it.

Now you're saying it wasn't misleading at all.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

But do not fear, Ten oz is here to defend accusations regardless if they have no quote, citation, nor evidence.

Other than just wanting to take your guns, right?

I don't need to quote, when you just keep repeating yourself.

 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Other than just wanting to take your guns, right?

Again, provide a quote or a citation.

 

IMO you're not adding anything to this discussion, but I'm realizing asking you to provide evidence of your statements is not going to work because you won't.

So I'll stop replying to these.

[DrP]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

This is part of how misleading works. IT didn't directly lie to you, however, it was set up so you'd automatically make connections in your head once you read the title and the first few sentences of the article.

I read the entire article. He did not say he was open to the idea of carrying in the classroom. He said he didn't think it was the right idea.

That is where it misleads people. 

You just admitted you had created information inside your head that was not in the article. That's essentially misleading: Telling just enough truth so that someone then believes a lie.

Again, this is something we simply disagree with. 

I firmly believe that misleading people is wrong. You don't see a problem with it as long as it's supporting your side.

I'm not sure where I got it from - from some snippet of the convo or I mis read somewhere - it WASN'T the headline though.

It seems pretty irrelevant to me  -  some bloke, regardless of his belief about guns, left a loaded Glock in the toilet. Not surprising since 1- he is human and fallible like any other human regardless of how much training they have. 2 - there are so many guns in your country that probability alone dictates accidents and mishaps number far greater than in any other country in the civilized world.

Regarding DELIBERATE misleading - of course it is wrong - it is just if you are getting in a twist over that article then there is something wrong with your thinking  - dissonance probably although I don't fully understand it - I don't think anything was deliberate and if it was it was so slight and irrelevant anyway. Point is - humans make mistakes....  if you let guns in schools then sooner or later there will be a mistake that involves children.

 

$Regarding sides....  I hate that comment - I am not on anyone's side here except that of reality, truth, facts and common sense.

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

Again, provide a quote or a citation.

 

IMO you're not adding anything to this discussion, but I'm realizing asking you to provide evidence of your statements is not going to work because you won't.

So I'll stop replying to these.

Now you've resorted to removing me from the discussion, again. That one fails. try another angle, spin or off topic comment.
 

[CharonY]

26 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If you've ever been to Israel, it's virtually every school there.

Yes and is the rationale the same as the one proposed in the US? How about take a look at the security situation in Israel, how gun ownership is regulated and how many are in civilian circulation.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Yes and is the rationale the same as the one proposed in the US?

No.

I was just saying that that is virtually every school in Israel.

I wasn't trying to argue anything. Just figured it'd be an interesting tidbit of information in relation to your post.

[DrP]

15 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No.

I was just saying that that is virtually every school in Israel.

I wasn't trying to argue anything. Just figured it'd be an interesting tidbit of information in relation to your post.

Isn't that a little 'misleading' though.   ;-)   If it is a totally different situation (i.e. they have Palestinians on their very close boarder that are know for trying to blow them up) then why equate it to the USA?

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

Isn't that a little 'misleading' though.   ;-)   If it is a totally different situation (i.e. they have Palestinians on their very close boarder that are know for trying to blow them up) then why equate it to the USA?

I wasn't.

He asked about the psyche of students who have to live in an environment of constant threat.

Israeli students live in an environment of constant threat.

I wasn't equating it to the USA.

 

Very clever though....+1

Edited April 19, 2018 by Raider5678

[DrP]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I wasn't.

Very clever though....+1

I know - I was being facetious.

Thanks for the +1   Have one back for being a good sport. 

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Don't change the goal posts.

One time you're saying I just missed the point.

Another time you're saying it depends on which side is doing it.

Now you're saying it wasn't misleading at all.

Come on Raider you're better than this.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Come on Raider you're better than this.

I still believe it's misleading. Or, as Phi put it, purposefully ambiguous as to catch as many readers as possible.

 

For the record, I do agree with the article.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, DrP said:

Isn't that a little 'misleading' though.   ;-)   If it is a totally different situation (i.e. they have Palestinians on their very close boarder that are know for trying to blow them up) then why equate it to the USA?

And other relevant  aspects are that in Israel schools have guards (as mentioned) for terrorist protection, and not to protect against students. As a consequence they are not checking students for weapons or have metal detectors to this effect. Teachers are not armed (or allowed to be armed, IIRC). The population has a higher rate of firearm training, yet fewer private citiziens own guns and they are tracked (as well as bullets).

Quote

In other words, as the Public Security Ministry explains on its website, Israeli law “does not recognize a right to bear arms, and anyone wanting to do so must meet a number of requirements, including a justified need to carry a firearm.” There is no inkling of a belief among Israelis that citizens should be permitted to own guns as a check on government power — that is, as a limit to the sovereignty of the state expressed in its monopoly on violence.

As a whole, despite higher risks due to the political situation, Israel seems to have a more moderate approach to the whole situation. Other than having guards around (for different reasons) how is it even comparable to what folks are afraid of in the US and their reaction to it?

 

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Come on Raider you're better than this.

Nope, he really isn't. It is a common occurrence for them to come into a thread gish gallop and either derail or become the central focus of a topic while ignoring context. Their initial post, back on the first page, was an indictment of the thread itself yet they continue on in futility just to muddy the water. Sadly it is how these things go broadly in society. Conservatives have responded to the Parkland student activists pleading for gun control with faux solutions hoping to both steal the spotlight and change the topic. The idea of Arming Teachers itself was nothing but a phase one distraction tactic mentioned for the sake of demanding equal time to cut time away from legitimate gun control debate. Now that it has worked and real gun control reform legislation has stalled in Congress conservatives have begun phase two, demonizing  the Parkland students. It is shameful.

[rangerx]

56 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Nope, he really isn't. It is a common occurrence for them to come into a thread gish gallop and either derail or become the central focus of a topic while ignoring context.

Exactly. It's my assertion he's deliberately being misleading to forward his narratives. One that suggests we all want to take away their guns, another that muddies waters and yet another to singularly dismiss others from the discussion. Yet his stance others being misleading is unassailable.

Immediately defaulting to "quote me where I said that" on the same pages where he said it, isn't discussion. It's belligerence. No wonder the discussion spirals downward from there.








 

Edited April 19, 2018 by rangerx