Glenn E. Meyer
New member
C'est magnifique.
Chicago IL area school officials upset over "no guns" signs....
- Thread starter ClydeFrog
- Start date
French art appreciation? I totally showed up for this class in my (metaphorical) underwear. Is there going to be a test?
(And who carved a smiley face on a 3" 66?)
There are actual state guidelines, and the sign has to meet specific criteria. So, they can have a "no guns" sign without a picture of an ermagherditsagun, but it doesn't meet legal standards.
(And who carved a smiley face on a 3" 66?)
There are actual state guidelines, and the sign has to meet specific criteria. So, they can have a "no guns" sign without a picture of an ermagherditsagun, but it doesn't meet legal standards.
larryh1108
New member
The last sentence of the article posted:
“But it correlates with the law, and I think if it ultimately helps to keep schools safe, that’s the objective.”
How does this help keep schools safe?
Somebody please help me understand.
“But it correlates with the law, and I think if it ultimately helps to keep schools safe, that’s the objective.”
How does this help keep schools safe?
Somebody please help me understand.
In the article, the principal said, “I have no knowledge of guns ever being in this building"
So, is she unaware of police officers ever being in the building? Or did she make them leave their guns at home?
The whole concept of the "gun-free school zone" signs is ludicrous. It relies on a fallacy, the belief that criminals will obey a law.
In practice.....the gang members and drug dealers that might be carrying guns are already carrying illegally, and therefore will not be deterred by an additional law, since they are counting on not getting caught. And those who intend to go there specifically to kill people will not be deterred by an additional law, since they are already planning to commit several more serious crimes, often with the intent of not surviving.
The only ones affected by "gun-free school zone" laws are the people who might actually do some good with their guns....and are prevented from doing that good, by idiotic laws. Not to mention greatly inconvenienced, often on a daily basis, or actually put in jeopardy by the idiotic law.
JimmyR, thanks for posting the link to the story.
And Glenn, hoplophobia might not be in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but it is a logical extension of the terms used to describe phobias.
So, is she unaware of police officers ever being in the building? Or did she make them leave their guns at home?
The whole concept of the "gun-free school zone" signs is ludicrous. It relies on a fallacy, the belief that criminals will obey a law.
In practice.....the gang members and drug dealers that might be carrying guns are already carrying illegally, and therefore will not be deterred by an additional law, since they are counting on not getting caught. And those who intend to go there specifically to kill people will not be deterred by an additional law, since they are already planning to commit several more serious crimes, often with the intent of not surviving.
The only ones affected by "gun-free school zone" laws are the people who might actually do some good with their guns....and are prevented from doing that good, by idiotic laws. Not to mention greatly inconvenienced, often on a daily basis, or actually put in jeopardy by the idiotic law.
JimmyR, thanks for posting the link to the story.
And Glenn, hoplophobia might not be in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but it is a logical extension of the terms used to describe phobias.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
No - because opposition to gun usage is not the same as the symptoms of an anxiety disorder. Unless you get those, the term lacks descriptive power.
Some who is just an antigunner doesn't meet the DSM criteria by logical extension to use the term. You need the anxiety symptoms.
Opposition to gun ownership may be misguided in our view but is not apriori pathological.
Sorry to be a downer on that but we can't throw techy terms around loosely. Note how some flip out on clip vs. magazine - for example
Some who is just an antigunner doesn't meet the DSM criteria by logical extension to use the term. You need the anxiety symptoms.
Opposition to gun ownership may be misguided in our view but is not apriori pathological.
Sorry to be a downer on that but we can't throw techy terms around loosely. Note how some flip out on clip vs. magazine - for example
Glenn E. Meyer said:
For those who are interested in what it takes to actually have a phobia, per the DSM-IV-TR
DSM IV-TR 300.23 said:
Note the emphases. While it would seem at times that people who are against the presence of firearms in public environments appear to be irrationally afraid, stepping back reveals their fear is the same as ours. They fear that a BG with a gun puts their lives at risk. They know they have no way of knowing who the BG is until an event happens. The very reason we choose to carry is the same they want to ban guns from the public square. Where we differ is our approach to solving that problem.
Terms & conditions ....
To me, the sign dispute is more of a example of the elitist nature of these public school administrators/educators. They want to throw their weight around & demonstrate how they can control nearly every faucet of what goes on in the school/on school grounds at their whim.
A few years ago, in the late 1990s, I heard a media story of a upscale neighborhood in the metro Pittsburgh PA area that wanted the local 911 call center(LE agency) to stop displaying the home addresses of any emergencies on the systems.
These residents wanted "privacy" & to not let any first responders have quick access to their locations.
This is the same as the stupid "no gun picture signs" drive.
Some people don't get or comprehend how outlandish or unrealistic their behavior/remarks are until someone points it out.
Clyde
PS; about 3 months ago a local school administrator(vice principal) was doing a morning safety check of his school grounds prior to classes starting when a homeless vagrant attacked him!
The street thug broke in & was hiding in a office. The principal was hurt in the event. If it were me, Id have a white light(with a strobe feature) & a C2 Taser or Mk 9 OC spray with me. 
To me, the sign dispute is more of a example of the elitist nature of these public school administrators/educators. They want to throw their weight around & demonstrate how they can control nearly every faucet of what goes on in the school/on school grounds at their whim.
A few years ago, in the late 1990s, I heard a media story of a upscale neighborhood in the metro Pittsburgh PA area that wanted the local 911 call center(LE agency) to stop displaying the home addresses of any emergencies on the systems.
These residents wanted "privacy" & to not let any first responders have quick access to their locations.
This is the same as the stupid "no gun picture signs" drive.
Some people don't get or comprehend how outlandish or unrealistic their behavior/remarks are until someone points it out.
Clyde
PS; about 3 months ago a local school administrator(vice principal) was doing a morning safety check of his school grounds prior to classes starting when a homeless vagrant attacked him!
The street thug broke in & was hiding in a office. The principal was hurt in the event. If it were me, Id have a white light(with a strobe feature) & a C2 Taser or Mk 9 OC spray with me. Double Naught Spy
New member
I hardly think this is the case. Of course if it is, that these administrators have expressed an opinion that they don't like something is an example of them attempting to throw their weight around on a whim, then you (and most of the rest of us) are guilty of the same thing by expressing an opinion on their opinion.
That is certainly a spot-on statement.
4runnerman
New member
I think post 24 hit the nail on the head. I am a old fart and so I was brought up in old fart times. I think people need to see this as a social issue and not a gun issue. As posted in #24, The BG do not care if a sign is hanging or not. No one is responsable for what they do any more. It is my fault,your fault,his fault,her fault, Never the BG's fault. We as a people have gotten to the point now that No one person is bad. As a country I see this gun issue getting much worse to the point of banning them all together for everyone ( What they think is a perfect world ). Those of you that are my age,Think back to your youth, You walked in a store,layed money on table,walked out with fire arm. You could walk into a Holiday Gas station and buy a rifle. These signs on the door is just another step in the direction I see us going whether we like it or not. Mind melt the children for future laws to be passed in years to come. No bad people,just bad guns.
Bad guys....
But bad guys don't go to jail or to prison they go to corrections.
It's not their fault they had no $ or morals or skill training(jobs).
To me it's a example of how some anti-gun supporters want to decide what goes on. Like how in post-Newtown CT 2012, they started using the term; gun safety. It's not gun control anymore. Because no one wants to control you right?
Parents & local tax payers need to stand up to these incidents and be vocal. Anti-gun/anti 2A groups will roll over anyone to push their agenda.
But bad guys don't go to jail or to prison they go to corrections.
It's not their fault they had no $ or morals or skill training(jobs).
To me it's a example of how some anti-gun supporters want to decide what goes on. Like how in post-Newtown CT 2012, they started using the term; gun safety. It's not gun control anymore. Because no one wants to control you right?
Parents & local tax payers need to stand up to these incidents and be vocal. Anti-gun/anti 2A groups will roll over anyone to push their agenda.
Yep. Let's not forget that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once called Handgun Control, Inc. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) was originally the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. They're smart enough to realize when certain words (like "ban" and "control") just don't resonate well with the public.
Illinois Senator Don Harmon is now sponsoring a bill under which businesses would have to "opt in" if they want to allow guns on their premises. Apparently, the lack of support for posting no-guns signs is causing some hand-wringing.
they'll have a tough sell in HOLLYWOOD! Constant depictions of gun use, legal (cops & the hero) and illegal (everyone else, including the hero), are fed to us 24/7 from our entertainment industry.
Just curious, that list from DSM IV-TR 300.23...does one have to meet ALL the criteria in order to be officially "phobic"?
In particular,
the old joke about not being paranoid if there really is someone out to get you comes to mind....
If you don't recognize your fear as excessive or unreasonable, then you don't have a phobia? or do you? Or are you just put in a different classification?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Of the symptoms, you need all three above. Like I said, we can try to chortle and stretch it but you cannot really claim the typical antigun person is technically phobic.
