Kindergartner suspended for bringing princess bubble gun to school

[X Factor]

Way to miss the point.

Defending the KKK's right to march = defending The Right To Free Speech.

If the KKK has the right to free speech, you definitely do.

I definitely do because the KKK does (because, y'know, I'm clearly KKK). Yep. Not wasting my time any more.

 

[Absentglare]

They're all obviously toy guns. The only one that might give someone pause if the Nintendo one IF the viewer was completely unfamiliar with weaponry and not in a position to see the writing (or perhaps even the red detailing)


I'm guessing the small all-one-color ones are 3d-printed, but until that is in any way prevalent, that just isn't a concern.

We cannot eliminate all risk in any respect; policies should account for marginal risk in order to be sensible, and zero tolerance utterly fails to do this.

The middle ones are 3d printed guns.

The nintendo one is absolutely a real gun. It was custom built to look exactly like the toy.

The goal is not to eliminate all risk, it is to minimize risk. Safety is infinitely more important than toy guns at public schools. That's what the policy reflects.

 

[Absentglare]

And you feel that bubble gun presented a real risk to the kids at school? How much punishment did you want for the kid since you thought the punishment was too light? Juvie until 21?

No, like i said, hindsight is 20/20. We know now it wasn't a real gun. Clearly, the student had no idea that this was against the rules. That's why i think the punishment was excessive, yet my more general defense of the intent behind zero tolerance policy remains.

 

[Mr Person]

I definitely do because the KKK does (because, y'know, I'm clearly KKK). Yep. Not wasting my time any more.

Do you not see the point where I patiently explained to you the blindingly obvious fact that I was talking about the ACLU defending the right to free speech? You do realize, do you not, that the Supreme Court's rulings apply across the nation, yes?

Anyway, if you're just going to troll me in this manner, please do not "waste . . . time anymore".

 

[X Factor]

Do you not see the point where I patiently explained to you the blindingly obvious fact that I was talking about the ACLU defending the right to free speech? You do realize, do you not, that the Supreme Court's rulings apply across the nation, yes?

Anyway, if you're just going to troll me in this manner, please do not "waste . . . time anymore".

Can you just tell me straight up if you meant to suggest that conservatives are KKK or sympathetic to the KKK? Usually when the KKK gets brought up, it's no accident. I'll accept whatever your answer is if you'll just be direct.

 

[sangha]

Usually when the KKK gets brought up, it's no accident.

What does it usually mean when Mr Person brings up the KKK, or are you hypocritically stereotyping Mr Person's intent because of something some other liberal(s) said?

 

[Mr Person]

Can you just tell me straight up if you meant to suggest that conservatives are KKK or sympathetic to the KKK? Usually when the KKK gets brought up, it's no accident. I'll accept whatever your answer is if you'll just be direct.

Where do you get this? Are you perhaps confusing me with some other poster that says stuff like that? I'm not that kind of poster. The most I'll say is something like "it seems to me that many conservatives think....", etc. I don't go "oh, all conservatives are X, Y, Z"



No, I did not mean to suggest it. I did not suggest it. I explained to you that I was not saying anything of the sort over here (in red), post #73:

Way to miss the point.

Defending the KKK's right to march = defending The Right To Free Speech.

If the KKK has the right to free speech, you definitely do.

If you had slowed down, you would have realized I wasn't trying to bash conservatives.

I actually repeatedly edited it down to be minimally snarky/annoyed, in fact, though I freely admit that further clarifications got more snarky/combatitive.

I think my post was perfectly clear. Even if I'm somehow completely wrong about that, I utterly fail to understand how the above clarification didn't work as a clarification. Whatever. Enough is enough.

 

[X Factor]

Where do you get this? Are you perhaps confusing me with some other poster that says stuff like that?



No, I did not mean to suggest it. I did not suggest it. I explained to you that I was not saying anything of the sort over here (in red), post #73:





I actually repeatedly edited it down to be minimally snarky/annoyed, in fact....

I think my post was perfectly clear. Even if I'm somehow completely wrong about that, I utterly fail to understand how the above clarification didn't work as a clarification.

Dude, you cannot expect me to keep rereading your posts looking for edits. Your last sentence (which is the most direct clarification I see) was not in post that I replied to. But yes, seems I misunderstood. Apologies.

 

[eohrnberger]

zero tolerance was invented by right wingers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance

High time to get ride of it. It's just stupid.

 

[X Factor]

What does it usually mean when Mr Person brings up the KKK, or are you hypocritically stereotyping Mr Person's intent because of something some other liberal(s) said?

Speaking of hypocrisy, you are, without a doubt, among the very last people who could credibly lecture me (or anyone) on the evils of stereotyping others.

 

[sangha]

Speaking of hypocrisy, you are, without a doubt, among the very last people who could credibly lecture me (or anyone) on the evils of stereotyping others.

Nice dodge

Why don't you just explain why you believed MP accused conservatives of being KKK or sympathizing with the KKK? Is it because you know you assumed that it was because MP is a liberal and you hypocritically objected to what you thought was a stereotyping of conservatives as a result of you stereotyping liberals?

 

[Fishking]

The police officer exercised zero tolerance of what could have been a firearm.

Those police practiced very poor procedures. It still hold no relevance to what is being talked about here.

The school exercised zero tolerance of what could have been a firearm.

Your opinion that it is somehow magically impossible for something in the general shape of a gun to possibly be a real gun is irrelevant. The school made the determination that it is not impossible and rendered an admittedly severe punishment.

Because schools are totally known for their great judgement. Schools and others with this level of discernment shouldn't really be in charge of anything.

 

[Fishking]

zero tolerance was invented by right wingers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance

Nikolaus Otto invented the combustion engine. Therefore he is directly linked to tanks so he invented death machines. Seriously, the correlation from criminal policy to everything else out there is devoid of any value.

 

[Absentglare]

Those police practiced very poor procedures. It still hold no relevance to what is being talked about here.



Because schools are totally known for their great judgement. Schools and others with this level of discernment shouldn't really be in charge of anything.

The police officer exercised his judgement, in that case, he made a choice that had unfortunate consequences.

The zero tolerance of gun-like objects is not just some coincidence. Schools do not allow violence. In this case, i think the school went too far. In my mind, this is preferable to erring in the opposite direction. I believe this is the intent of the zero tolerance rules, to ensure the school never errs in the opposite way. I don't always agree with its results, but i think i understand that we drew this counterintuitive line in the sand. It's not as unreasonable as it might seem if you zoom in on some corner case like this. If you look at this way, the rule exists as such to ensure that the school, while exercising poor judgement on this type of issue, cannot possibly endanger the students lives while following the rule.

 

[Mr Person]

. But yes, seems I misunderstood. Apologies.

Allright then, hatchet buried. And I can apologize for ramping it up with snark.

Dude, you cannot expect me to keep rereading your posts looking for edits. Your last sentence (which is the most direct clarification I see) was not in post that I replied to.

At peril of starting over, I must note: a copy/paste from the text captured in the reply you made before I edited:


Way to miss the point.

Defending the KKK's right to march = defending The Right To Free Speech.

If the KKK has the right to free speech, you definitely do.

(Post #73).

I'm copy/pasting that out of your response to the post you responded to while I was editing it. However, my post in final form, as quoted above but without the colors added, was:

Way to miss the point.

Defending the KKK's right to march = defending The Right To Free Speech.

If the KKK has the right to free speech, you definitely do.

If you had slowed down, you would have realized I wasn't trying to bash conservatives.

Take that sentence out, and I think the point I was making was unmistakable between that and the post prior that kicked it off. Only other change appears to be capitalizing the right to free speech for.... ... some reason...

 

[PoS]

How is this "liberals" fault? This is zero-tolerance at its finest. Mostly it results from people suing the schools all the time.

Wouldnt schools get sued even more because of cases like this?

 

[Hatuey]

A strawman is a perfectly acceptable response to a non sequitur.

A non sequitur? He complained about a policy. I explained to him it's better than the alternative - which is being shot by police for having a toy gun. :shrug:

 

[Hatuey]

You are never going to be able to bubble-wrap kids through life, and if you could you would end up with one terrified of just about everything adult.

Nobody is asking to bubblewrap kids. Schools don't want to be sued for some negligent parent with a kid whose toy ended up in another kid's throat. Seems reasonable. :shrug:

 

[Hatuey]

So from what I've gathered, the school has a rule against “carrying, using, actively displaying or threatening with the use of a firearm facsimile that could reasonably be mistaken for an actual firearm."

So, essentially, they're not even following their own guidelines? I mean, the facsimile needs to be **REASONABLY MISTAKEN**, and I'm not sorry, you'd have to be really, really oblivious to confuse something like the toy that got this 5 year old suspended with a genuine firearm...

We live in a world where supposed adults will argue that 2 pieces of paper are 'guns' for the sake of justifying police officers shooting a kid. This shouldn't surprise you.

 

[legalimmigrant]

Zero tolerance is not open to interpretation by design.

Zero tolerance is not open to interpretation by design...to eliminate thinking.

Under those rules, a kid whose last name is Gun cannot attend any American school because in response to, "Are you Gun?" the kid would say, "Yes, I am Gun". Well, we don't allow guns in our school. You have to leave.

Welcome to the land zero brain zombies.

 

[countryboy]

That's your bias talking.


What is "beyond absurd" is high school administrators. You can find laughably stupid actions by such persons regardless of whether they are in Reddy McRedState or in a blue state.

It doesn't matter if they are in a red state, the vast majority of educators are flaming leftist ninnies.

 

[Absentglare]

Zero tolerance is not open to interpretation by design...to eliminate thinking.

Under those rules, a kid whose last name is Gun cannot attend any American school because in response to, "Are you Gun?" the kid would say, "Yes, I am Gun". Well, we don't allow guns in our school. You have to leave.

Welcome to the land zero brain zombies.

That's not how the rule works.

 

[Ikari]

Wouldnt schools get sued even more because of cases like this?

They've suspended kids for less citing these silly zero tolerance laws. In the end, I think they likely net out better with than without them.

 

[Fishking]

The police officer exercised his judgement, in that case, he made a choice that had unfortunate consequences.

It wasn't really judgement that the police screwed up so badly on, but the procedure. The problem was they got a call of a kid with a gun and they raced right up to the location, giving themselves no proper time to respond. You see the one officer back-peddling so hard he falls over backwards. If the situation was different, and the person wasn't a kid with a toy but someone with a real gun and knew how to use it, one of those officers very well may be dead.

The zero tolerance of gun-like objects is not just some coincidence. Schools do not allow violence. In this case, i think the school went too far. In my mind, this is preferable to erring in the opposite direction. I believe this is the intent of the zero tolerance rules, to ensure the school never errs in the opposite way. I don't always agree with its results, but i think i understand that we drew this counterintuitive line in the sand. It's not as unreasonable as it might seem if you zoom in on some corner case like this. If you look at this way, the rule exists as such to ensure that the school, while exercising poor judgement on this type of issue, cannot possibly endanger the students lives while following the rule.

I understand why the policy is in place but if we cannot trust the teaching faculty to use some judgement then how can we trust them to properly teach and care for our kids to begin with. Remember, we're talking about 5 freaking years old.

I remember being in third grade and I brought in one of those Rambo style survival knives to school because I thought it was cool. I got caught with it and they took it away for the day and gave it back as I went home and was told not to bring it in again. High school students used to have shooting classes in school and some good 'ol boys would even have gun racks in their trucks.

This type of mentality came out of the burbs or the city, where liberalism is more dominant. It didn't spawn out of small town USA.

 

[Fishking]

A non sequitur? He complained about a policy. I explained to him it's better than the alternative - which is being shot by police for having a toy gun. :shrug:

You didn't explain anything. You brought up an entirely different case that has almost no resemblance to what was linked in the OP. See post #67. That's what you did.