Boy punished for T-shirt with gun image

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

You are comparing apples to oranges though, one is in violation of the dress code, which printed literature is not subjected to. Now, schools have banned books before, but that argument can be backed with how it is a needed tool for education; where as a t-shirt which violates dress code is not needed. You can't have it black and white, yes or no, it has to be lots of shades of gray.

Like I said, you are dealing with minors here, and their parents want to blame the schools first chance they get. That is how it is, these policies are put in place to protect everyone, including the people who work in education. They are already over worked and under paid, they don't need to deal with stress from parents or law suits over ridiculous crap. So they create policies like this to avoid it all together. Like I said, no public school system can afford a multi million dollar lawsuit.

Like I said, it is a lose:lose situation but unless you can sit here and come up with a better idea (which would grant you a very nice job in education administration btw if you could pull it off) then it would have been done that way.

You are right... there are few too many shades of gray here... especially in this sue-happy society. I still blame the lawyers.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

You are right... there are few too many shades of gray here... especially in this sue-happy society. I still blame the lawyers.

Lawyers and the judges that let crap like that through our legal system. I know that since I work with minors I always protect myself and make sure I don't do, say, or act the wrong way around them. I also know that when certain things happen it is best for me to report it to my boss directly so it can be dealt with immediately.

Lets just say that when you give every high school kid a laptop, you get to see some, interesting things.

[LarryO1970]

Originally Posted by tlarkin

Lawyers and the judges that let crap like that through our legal system. I know that since I work with minors I always protect myself and make sure I don't do, say, or act the wrong way around them. I also know that when certain things happen it is best for me to report it to my boss directly so it can be dealt with immediately.

Lets just say that when you give every high school kid a laptop, you get to see some, interesting things.

... and the "figuratively" hang themselves.

[ShawnF]

WOW....I just stummbled onto this thread. I can't believe what i am reading, tlarkon, you have put your point of view forward, and I have to say I strongly disagree with your stance on things. The schools around where I live have a pretty good grasp on things. Hunters saftey is not an optional class, it is mandatory. Images of guns are not frowned apon, boards where students can post pictures of their hunting/fishing adventures are on the wall in the hallway. This policy is liberal ignorance at its finest. I understand that the anti gun/special intrest groups have become the policy making body of much of our scociety, but to defend it is the same as claiming it as your own views. You very much sound as if you own a gun, but think its wrong, because it stands for violence. They may stand for violence to you, but for many they stand for freedom, patriotism, or just as sporting equipment. How many here have participated in shooting sports? Last time I checked, we still have a us shooting team who participates in the olympics. Guess these must be some truely violent men and women. I guess i don't get the logic of punishing someone for what they wear, or what they believe.

[tlarkin]

The shirt said "Terrorist Hunter" which implies someone who hunts and kills terrorists, which is violent. It is the dress code we are talking about. Sometimes I find myself talking to a brick wall with people who all they care about is their rights to guns. This has NOTHING TO DO with that right. This is because the kid wore a shirt that represented violence, plain and simple.

I never once stated my opinion either, I am simply stating why the schools do this. I understand why the policy is in place and I understand what the policy means, none of you are grasping that. I haven't even said how I felt about it other than I know a gun is a weapon and a gun is designed to kill. That is my only opinion on it.

Frankly, I could care less what people wear as long as it actually covered up their body. There are a lot of people in America I never want to see naked. I may disagree with a racist T-Shirt, but that person has every right to wear it.

ShawnF, I have no idea where you live exactly, but in the big cities, hunter's safety is the least of the schools concerns. There are 1200 kids in each high school and 5 of them together. Are you going to take 5500 kids on a hunter's safety course? Let alone bus them out to somewhere they can learn that stuff? In my opinion your school district is wasting time/resources/money on something that doesn't need to be taught in public schools. Why don't they add another educational class, like math, physics, computer technology related, you know something that actually could help them in the job world?

I own a few guns, not too many and I want to buy a few more before I am done with my collection. I have no problem owning a gun, and I have no problem using one, or anyone using one in strict self defense. What I do have a problem with is people who are ignorant and can't even see that a gun is a weapon, and it only has one purpose, to kill. Guns are not made as a deterrent, they aren't made to make things, or build things, they are made to kill someone. Especially handguns, which I own one of those as well. I never once said guns kill people, I firmly believe people kill people, but I don't hold any delusion that a gun is not designed to kill and killing is not violent; because it is.

Yeah, OK, if that kid were wearing an Olympic Shooting team T-Shirt, I think it would be interpretted differently, then again schools have to take zero tolerance because of lawsuits and other asinine things parents blame the schools for.

[Rave]

Originally Posted by LarryO1970

Can you say "reverse discrimination" ? God help ya if you ever brought that up, Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton would be beating down your door to sue you.

Right on.
Uniforms.

[LarryO1970]

What is the difference between strict self defense and self defense?

You know what ... I have 12 guns in my house... they ARE a deterrent. NONE of them were ever used to kill anyone. Currently, they are testing gravity by holding themselves to the floor, no more, no less.

I have carried a gun for the past 15 years enforcing my duties as a cop, never having to fire. Seems to me, the gun was a deterrent.

Explain yourself further, your argument is waning.

[tlarkin]

If they were to be a deterrent, it would have to be publicly known that had 12 guns in your home and they were loaded and you had a great ability to use them. Otherwise, it is meaningless because no one is going to know that until its too late.

A deterrent would be like a car alarm, it doesn't prevent crime but it may deter it. Guns can definitely scare, and sure you can pull one out, but its not a deterrent because you may have to use it.

When I say strict self defense I mean that it is that, just self defense. Not someone, who at the first sign of danger pulls a gun and shoots, or some hot head or whatever reason. It is completely situational but I have read stories where people have gotten in car wrecks and one person shot other because they feared that person wanted to cause them harm. Well, in heated situation like that, some things may be said that person may not really fully mean. To me you have to draw the line every time in every situation and that line will differ from experience to experience and once that line is crossed then you have a right to self defense. If that line wasn't crossed then you are a murderer. I never want to kill anyone ever, let alone ever have to shoot anyone ever. If I had to I would want it to be a damn sure thing I had no other choice.

[LarryO1970]

When someone has a 12GA stuck in their face, that is a deterrent. The mere sound of a shotgun being cycled is a deterrent. Those who know the sound of an M-16 being chambered, that is a deterrent. See, guns can be a deterrent. ... kinda like a car alarm, bars on a window, a safe, etc.

What does "just self defense" mean to you? Does that mean only for you, not in protection of others? What?

With gun ownership comes a large amount of personal responsibility... and MOST people are not going to run for a gun at the drop of a hat either. If you're gonna pull it, you'd better be damn sure you're gonna use it, period.

Self defense is either all or none. You must commit to defending yourself, if you do not commit, you are in a world of trouble.

[tlarkin]

Guns are still not designed as a deterrent, they are designed to kill plain and simple. An alarm is a deterrent, designed to let the person know who is trespassing that an alarm has gone off and they should leave right now.

Sure some guns do put the fear of mortality in a person, because when you hear a shotgun chamber or an assault rifle, you know that your mortality just went out the window. Because they are designed to kill.

At this point we will just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

[BaserRonin]

Still not sure what the difference is between a printed image in an encyclopedia and a 5'th graders drawing.

Also, guns are a deterrent. Otherwise violent crimes would not fall when concealed permits are issued.

[tlarkin]

Originally Posted by BaserRonin

Still not sure what the difference is between a printed image in an encyclopedia and a 5'th graders drawing.

Also, guns are a deterrent. Otherwise violent crimes would not fall when concealed permits are issued.

Even that is subjective, because the carry and conceal laws had no impact on gun related crime in Florida. It was the state's 10-20-life policy with directly caused gun related crime to drop.

So, even then that argument is inconsistent as some places it did affect gun related crime and in other places it was inconclusive, and while in some places it didn't impact it at all.

So, that does not change the fact that guns are designed to kill, not designed to be a deterrent.

[LarryO1970]

If I were a criminal and I knew you had a gun... or even thought you maight have a gun, I wouldn't rob ya. Deterrent... whether they are designed that way not not, they are what they are.

... it's not that criminals are looking to fight fair because I sure don't...

[ezearln]

The actual presence of a firearm or even a suspicion of the possible presence of a firearm is often a deterrent without the weapon ever being drawn or used. I carry constantly both open and concealed while we are on private property, I openly display my gun club membership stickers on my truck and my jeep. While we have had several less than sterling persons attempt to cross our property, none have failed to reverse direction and make a hasty withdrawal to safety territory. and tlarkin I hate to dispute you once more but the sudden decrease in violent assualts in Florida was attributed by their own statistics as being primarily due to the CCW laws passed there. The determinate sentencing laws passed afterwards only improved what was turning to the good already in progress. The Armed citizen is the greatest deterrent to crime in America today as can be demonstrated clearly by the horrendous crime rates present in those cities and states having the most restrictive ownership and self defence laws.

[tlarkin]

ezearln

When I was first looking into CCW, because my state allows it, I researched it a lot, and the only real hard evidence I could find that reduced violent crimes due to CCW was from Texas. My research in Florida, I found that there was an insignificant impact after the CCW was passed to the rate of violent crimes being committed. Once they passed the 10-20-life law, then it went down a ton.

While, I do agree that yes they can be a deterrent in some situations, they are not made to be a deterrent. They are made to kill, see my previous post about the sword.

To tell you the truth, from what I found researching online from anti-gun people, pro gun people, the NRA, the government, that gun laws really don't reflect crime rates. When we restricted guns, it didn't really lower violent crimes at all. When we lifted that restriction it didn't really affect it either. However, in some cases it did lower, but there is not sufficient data to conclude it was because CCW was passed. There are many factors involved with an area and crime.

Take Kansas City for example, which I have lived in off and on my entire life is a great example on how gun laws don't affect crime that much. You take a suburb, like Lenexa or Overland Park, which has a super low crime rate, then compare it to the more urban sides of KC. Kansas and MO both pass CCW, and well the crime rate in Johnson county drops 2%, but the violent crime in Jackson County doesn't drop a single bit. Jackson County still has around 200 or more murders per a year. I live in a metropolitan area that is very very dynamic. With in only a few miles you can go from very rich million dollar homes, to homeless crack heads begging for money.

It is to my findings that gun laws, whether they be liberal or restrictive do not directly affect crime rates at all. Sentencing seems to affect it on a way higher scale. When chicago passed the federal prison sentence on any violent crime committed on elevated trains is a mandatory 10 years minimum in federal prison, it lowered crime rates on the train/sub stations.

When you argue that guns are a deterrent you are simply arguing in circles against what I said earlier. Sure, anything can be a deterrent, and yes guns can be very scary, especially big ones that go bang really loud. That does not change the fact that they are made for killing. They aren't designed to deter someone, they are designed to shoot someone, or something like an animal.


I am not saying that CCW laws don't impact crime rates, just not at the level every pro gun person thinks they do. In retrospect, gun laws in general do not really reflect crime rates. I think that there really should be no restrictive gun laws at all, and that everyone should be allowed to own them as long as they are fit and responsible for them. So, really gun laws in general don't impact crime rates all that much, which of course the only huge exception to my finding I could find was texas. So, way to go Texas.

[ezearln]

tlarkin perhaps we are clashing over semantics and I must have missed your phrase that firearms are not "Designed" to be deterrent. That may be true as to that statement being their intended use is not a deterrent as such. Yet arguably they do indeed function as such, the mere presence suspected or otherwise of an armed citizen has put more than one would be criminal to flight. In more than one News expose or another and during my years as an LEO I've heard it stated in one way or another by criminals that MOST criminals have very little fear of Law Enforcement and that their greatest concern was potentially meeting an armed and skilled homeowner/citizen ready to defend him or herself. To me that indicates that even though the firearms intended purpose is to inflict death or great bodily harm upon another living thing it also serves as a deterrent.

[tlarkin]

Yeah like I just said we were arguing in circles. I agree that they can be a deterrent, but they are not designed to deter.

[Windwalker]

Well Tlarkin, as per your post #45 I am one of the ignorant that does not agree that guns are only made to kill with because they are weapons. Guns can punch holes it paper targets just as easily as they can punch holes in people. The deciding factor is not the gun but the person using it who decides what the gun is going to do. We don't need to ban guns or pictures of guns, we need to prosecute people who wrongfully use guns in the commission of a crime. We need ENFORCEMENT of the laws already in place, not new laws. In my ignorance I can't believe that guns kill people. I still believe that people kill people whether it's with a gun, knife, club, bare hands, automobile,----ect.