School says deaf boy's name sign looks too much like a gun

Posted: Jun 18, 2013 - 2:22am

Nice Fathers Day pic of our President being a good father like so many of us:

It was recently announced that a school in California would be doing a toy gun buyback where students could trade in their toy guns for a chance to win a new bicycle.

“Playing with toys guns, saying ‘I’m going to shoot you,’ desensitizes them, so as they get older, it’s easier for them to use a real gun,” Chris Hill, the principal who organized the buyback, said said in a statement to Mercury News.

At least two students have been harshly punished for bringing toy guns to schools in recent weeks, one in Maryland and one in Massachusetts.

Multiple students were suspended in Washington for bringing toy Nerf guns to school (they did not resemble real guns and were brightly colored) for a project that was previously OK’d by their teacher.

Anti gun mayor Michael Bloomberg’s New York City government recently fined a small shop owner $60,000 for selling miniature gun shaped lighters since selling toy guns that aren’t brightly colored with non typical gun colors is highly illegal in New York City.

Posted: Jun 17, 2013 - 1:11pm

aflanigan wrote:

The answer to your question is a google away, my stubborn friend.

Coming in late to this discussion - and not wanting to backscroll forever - some people grew up around guns, understand their purpose and usefulness, not only as a means of putting food on the table, but as a method of self-defense (provided for in the constitution). Others, as I suspect of my homeboy (for real) aflanigan, was not a product of that upbringing, and therefore cannot be faulted for what they don't know. This does not mean that they are un-teachable wretches. Remember, inside every gook is an American trying to get out! {#Angel}

Posted: Jun 16, 2013 - 7:40pm

aflanigan wrote:

The answer to your question is a google away, my stubborn friend.

It's your insinuation, you prove it.

You're proposing yet another mechanism for the state to send people to prison. And not just anyone, either—mostly grieving parents who've just lost a child. You seem to think doing that will make other parents more responsible, that piling punishment on top of tragedy will motivate people to avoid the tragedy.

The burden of proof is on you. And not just to back up your insinuation (you haven't actually come out and said this would do that) but to demonstrate that the harm (people going to prison) is outweighed by the good.

Posted: Jun 16, 2013 - 4:11pm

aflanigan wrote:

The answer to your question is a google away, my stubborn friend.

I think his point is that there is no way to enforce responsibility short of a total police state.

Posted: Jun 16, 2013 - 4:05pm

Lazy8 wrote:

Adding yet another law may make you feel better, but does it have any effect on the problem?

The answer to your question is a google away, my stubborn friend.

Posted: Jun 15, 2013 - 2:01pm

aflanigan wrote:

Here, let me google Child Access Prevention Laws for you.

Here, let me repeat:

I'd like you to think it thru though. You can propose yet another law (and I know you will) but will that actually have any effect on the problem? How do you ensure that someone irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun lying around for a kid to find will actually comply with the law? Inspect every home that reports having a gun? How do you craft a law with penalties so severe that it's more effective than the threat of the death of a child?

Adding yet another law may make you feel better, but does it have any effect on the problem? You can tell yourself you did something and feel all self-righteous, but have you actually prevented any deaths? Did the effort (and the potential incarcerations) accomplish anything besides that warm fuzzy?

Posted: Jun 15, 2013 - 10:41am

Lazy8 wrote:

I looked below but didn't see a proposal to reduce this.

Here, let me google Child Access Prevention Laws for you.

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 2:53pm

aflanigan wrote:

See below. CAP laws (many states already have them, so no new law is really necessary, we just need uniform adoption of an effective existing state statute) are supposedly effective.

Minimize the problem all you want by comparing it to deaths due to other causes, but in most or all of your other examples, we have taken steps to reduce these fatalities, to good effect. Automobile fatalities continue to fall with the adoption of various comprehensive strategies including legislation, education, etc.

Suffocation figures I suspect include crib death (SIDS). Surely you don't equate a truly accidental death like that with death caused by negligence?

Drownings are another situation where education, supervision, and (rather minimal) legislation (PFD usage for children) have likely contributed to a reduction in fatalities. At the boy scout camp where my son has worked, they have strict rules regarding scouts not swimming unattended, and not being allowed to swim in water over their head until they are qualified swimmers. They have never had an accidental drowning of an attended scout.

I looked below but didn't see a proposal to reduce this. You proposed (surprise!) a law, but I didn't see any mechanism to ensure it was followed.

I don't distinguish between accidental deaths of any type because the victim is just as dead. If you're worried about kids dying from preventable causes then negligence is just another cause. I bring up the stats to put the problem in perspective. We could enact yet another expensive, intrusive program/legal structure to try and reduce what is already a tiny problem or we could put less effort into bigger problems and save more lives. If the priority is saving lives the choice is clear. If this is just another emotional attack on gun ownership then be honest about that.

Simple measures can indeed be effective, and in organized settings (like boy scout camps or, say, organized shooting events) accidental deaths are extremely rare. Further emphasis on safety in those settings would see diminishing (or even negative) returns. Do you have a proposal that might actually help? If so let's see it.

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 12:43pm

Lazy8 wrote:

aflanigan wrote:

Unfortunately, unlike the guy who shoots his nuts off with his own gun, the victims who suffer the ultimate loss are not the stupid ones in many of these shootings. I understand the reluctance by libertarian types to want to interfere with people's stupid behavior when it harms no one but themselves, but this goes beyond victimless crime, I think.

So what's your answer? Assuming you don't get the one you really want (criminal penalties for private possession of firearms) what would you do about this?

I'd like you to think it thru though. You can propose yet another law (and I know you will) but will that actually have any effect on the problem? How do you ensure that someone irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun lying around for a kid to find will actually comply with the law? Inspect every home that reports having a gun? How do you craft a law with penalties so severe that it's more effective than the threat of the death of a child?

You've raised the alarm over the sixth-largest cause of accidental death among children (age 0-19). If you reduced that count to zero, in 2007 that would have saved 138 lives. Children are 4 times more likely to burn to death, 7 times more likely to succumb to accidental poisoning, 7.7 times more likely to drown, 9 times more likely to suffocate, and 48 times more likely to die in automobile accidents. If the tragic accidental deaths of children is what's motivating you why aren't you beating the drum to reduce these other causes, where many more lives are at stake?

See below. CAP laws (many states already have them, so no new law is really necessary, we just need uniform adoption of an effective existing state statute) are supposedly effective.

Minimize the problem all you want by comparing it to deaths due to other causes, but in most or all of your other examples, we have taken steps to reduce these fatalities, to good effect. Automobile fatalities continue to fall with the adoption of various comprehensive strategies including legislation, education, etc.

Suffocation figures I suspect include crib death (SIDS). Surely you don't equate a truly accidental death like that with death caused by negligence?

Drownings are another situation where education, supervision, and (rather minimal) legislation (PFD usage for children) have likely contributed to a reduction in fatalities. At the boy scout camp where my son has worked, they have strict rules regarding scouts not swimming unattended, and not being allowed to swim in water over their head until they are qualified swimmers. They have never had an accidental drowning of an attended scout.

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 12:00pm

aflanigan wrote:

Unfortunately, unlike the guy who shoots his nuts off with his own gun, the victims who suffer the ultimate loss are not the stupid ones in many of these shootings. I understand the reluctance by libertarian types to want to interfere with people's stupid behavior when it harms no one but themselves, but this goes beyond victimless crime, I think.

So what's your answer? Assuming you don't get the one you really want (criminal penalties for private possession of firearms) what would you do about this?

I'd like you to think it thru though. You can propose yet another law (and I know you will) but will that actually have any effect on the problem? How do you ensure that someone irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun lying around for a kid to find will actually comply with the law? Inspect every home that reports having a gun? How do you craft a law with penalties so severe that it's more effective than the threat of the death of a child?

You've raised the alarm over the sixth-largest cause of accidental death among children (age 0-19). If you reduced that count to zero, in 2007 that would have saved 138 lives. Children are 4 times more likely to burn to death, 7 times more likely to succumb to accidental poisoning, 7.7 times more likely to drown, 9 times more likely to suffocate, and 48 times more likely to die in automobile accidents. If the tragic accidental deaths of children is what's motivating you why aren't you beating the drum to reduce these other causes, where many more lives are at stake?

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 11:21am

Red_Dragon wrote:

another irresponsible human being...

Unfortunately, unlike the guy who shoots his nuts off with his own gun, the victims who suffer the ultimate loss are not the stupid ones in many of these shootings. I understand the reluctance by libertarian types to want to interfere with people's stupid behavior when it harms no one but themselves, but this goes beyond victimless crime, I think.

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 11:19am

sirdroseph wrote:

See now this is a responsible and logical article that addresses gun safety instead of railing against the existence of guns which is not only counter productive, but absolutely useless rhetoric in actually helping reduce these senseless deaths. I agree with every point of this article. If you own a gun, it is your responsibility to insure that it is safely secured at all times. You can be for gun safety without frothing at the mouth and calling for confiscation or making all firearms illegal. {#Yes}

So the thing I wonder is, why isn't the NRA and the members of Congress who tend to vote with the NRA promoting widespread adoption of Child Access Prevention Laws (or a national law to that effect)?

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 10:17am

aflanigan wrote:

Another Day, Another "Accidental" Child Shooting Death

another irresponsible human being...

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 10:01am

aflanigan wrote:

Another Day, Another "Accidental" Child Shooting Death

See now this is a responsible and logical article that addresses gun safety instead of railing against the existence of guns which is not only counter productive, but absolutely useless rhetoric in actually helping reduce these senseless deaths. I agree with every point of this article. If you own a gun, it is your responsibility to insure that it is safely secured at all times. You can be for gun safety without frothing at the mouth and calling for confiscation or making all firearms illegal. {#Yes}

Posted: Jun 14, 2013 - 9:54am

Another Day, Another "Accidental" Child Shooting Death

Posted: Jun 6, 2013 - 6:59am

miamizsun wrote:

"Brace yourselves, because this is the dumbest thing you'll hear all day."
School says deaf boy's name sign looks too much like a gun

The Grand Island (Neb.) school district is forcing a 3-year-old deaf boy to change the way he signs his name, because they say his gestures violate their weapons policy. Preschooler Hunter Spanjer's personalized name sign is a registered sign with Signing Exact English — a modified form of American Sign Language — and involves extended index fingers that the district says resembles a gun.

It's for the boy's own good, come on.

Posted: Jun 6, 2013 - 6:04am

Chock one up for us tin foil hatters! {#Propeller}

House votes to curb DHS ammunition purchases

Posted: Jun 4, 2013 - 6:19am

miamizsun wrote:

"Brace yourselves, because this is the dumbest thing you'll hear all day."
School says deaf boy's name sign looks too much like a gun

The Grand Island (Neb.) school district is forcing a 3-year-old deaf boy to change the way he signs his name, because they say his gestures violate their weapons policy. Preschooler Hunter Spanjer's personalized name sign is a registered sign with Signing Exact English — a modified form of American Sign Language — and involves extended index fingers that the district says resembles a gun.

blithering idiots.

Posted: Jun 4, 2013 - 6:03am

miamizsun wrote:

"Brace yourselves, because this is the dumbest thing you'll hear all day."
School says deaf boy's name sign looks too much like a gun

The Grand Island (Neb.) school district is forcing a 3-year-old deaf boy to change the way he signs his name, because they say his gestures violate their weapons policy. Preschooler Hunter Spanjer's personalized name sign is a registered sign with Signing Exact English — a modified form of American Sign Language — and involves extended index fingers that the district says resembles a gun.

Another fine example of the Zero Tolerance society that Political Correctness has foisted upon us.

All of us ...

Posted: Jun 4, 2013 - 5:49am

gypsyman wrote:

Here we go.

i know, wtf?

dang, you're up with the chickens {#Yes}