(06-08-2022 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 09:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 09:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Seriously... under what circumstances would you EVER not report a child of ANY age bringing a gun to school??

These days, none. But back in 1961 or so, a HS classmate showed me a hollowed out book with a gun in it, and it never occurred to me to snitch on him. Of course, it never occurred to me he might use it either, and he did not. He grew up to be a barber.

When I was in high school, the speech class had an exercise in expository speaking, in which a student had to give a talk explaining how to do a particular thing. One student (who was an experienced hunter) demonstrated how to clean a rifle, which he brought in a protective carrying case. He definitely did NOT been carry it around school all day; I suspect he kept it in the trunk of his car (or perhaps in the headmaster's office) until time for that particular class, and put it right back there as soon as the class was done. I was merely a brief spectator (my class started just as his was ending, so I saw him packing up after his talk), but it certainly never occurred to me that there was any intent -- or even any real potential -- for danger. But that's in large part because of the nature of the class exercise and the nature of the particular student. A kid carrying a handgun (or even a knife) in his backpack and showing it around during recess would have sparked a different reaction.

Both of these incidents are pre-Columbine. Before that, few people ever considered that a student with a weapon was a danger. My concern was that my classmate would get in trouble if caught. Parking lot was probably full of cars with rifles - this WAs rural Texas in the early 60's. Before the Tower, before all this. I was taught to respect a gun, not to fear it.

A naive observer might think that the crux of the matter is not how did teenagers start getting hold of rifles, but what has caused them to start using them on other people.

To me it makes sense to try to keep them out of teenagers' hands until the bolded has been determined.

(06-08-2022 10:13 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 09:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 09:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Never... but doesn't it seem like this bill is trying to avoid complete overreach for matters that are ridiculous to report to the police? I don't know... I just browsed the area quickly.

Let me say it differently.

It seems there is a long laundry list of things that a school are required to report to the police... from guns to as you said, not removing airpods. It may not be quite that bad, but this seems to be the problem they're trying to address.

It seems to me though that simply making every report 'discretionary', gives an awful lot of power to some VERY low level people... (in terms of policing and law enforcement etc) while still having this unusually wide range of offenses. They can literally decline to tell the police about a kid with a gun. Not that they necessarily would, but they certainly could. Most people wouldn't shoot up a school either... and a few teachers sleep with their middle school students.

While I haven't looked into all the possibilities, it sure seems as though the vastly better answer is to shorten the list of 'required' reports... to at least include guns on campus... and then to give discretion only to 'lower' level offenses that would only be reported if there were a pattern of some sort.

The Witness LA source says this:

"The bill does maintain a provision requiring schools to report to law enforcement a student who is in possession of or discharges a firearm in a school zone. Possession of certain weapons would be removed from the mandatory reporting rule, however, including things like airsoft guns, box cutters, and razor blades."

Where are you reading that schools would not have to report firearms possession?

First, part of the premise of the thread is 'different interpretations'. I'm not going to get into a 'source' debate. I haven't read that anywhere in any story... I'm TRYING to read the text of the bill. As to the specifics above, that's a federal guideline, not a state one. I'm certainly glad to know that California is going to comply with Federal law. That said, there are still numerous items and actions on this list that invariably show up in the 'why didn't someone connect the dots' conversation when a kid shoots up a school.

When you look at various things going on, and California is somewhat of a 'leading indicator' of where things are going... I see a confusing cacophony of rules surrounding guns, kids, abortion, drugs etc etc etc. I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity. I'm reading some of this and what I see is a road-map for how to plan one of these disasters.

(06-08-2022 11:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:13 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 09:50 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 09:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Never... but doesn't it seem like this bill is trying to avoid complete overreach for matters that are ridiculous to report to the police? I don't know... I just browsed the area quickly.

Let me say it differently.

It seems there is a long laundry list of things that a school are required to report to the police... from guns to as you said, not removing airpods. It may not be quite that bad, but this seems to be the problem they're trying to address.

It seems to me though that simply making every report 'discretionary', gives an awful lot of power to some VERY low level people... (in terms of policing and law enforcement etc) while still having this unusually wide range of offenses. They can literally decline to tell the police about a kid with a gun. Not that they necessarily would, but they certainly could. Most people wouldn't shoot up a school either... and a few teachers sleep with their middle school students.

While I haven't looked into all the possibilities, it sure seems as though the vastly better answer is to shorten the list of 'required' reports... to at least include guns on campus... and then to give discretion only to 'lower' level offenses that would only be reported if there were a pattern of some sort.

The Witness LA source says this:

"The bill does maintain a provision requiring schools to report to law enforcement a student who is in possession of or discharges a firearm in a school zone. Possession of certain weapons would be removed from the mandatory reporting rule, however, including things like airsoft guns, box cutters, and razor blades."

Where are you reading that schools would not have to report firearms possession?

First, part of the premise of the thread is 'different interpretations'. I'm not going to get into a 'source' debate. I haven't read that anywhere in any story... I'm TRYING to read the text of the bill. As to the specifics above, that's a federal guideline, not a state one. I'm certainly glad to know that California is going to comply with Federal law. That said, there are still numerous items and actions on this list that invariably show up in the 'why didn't someone connect the dots' conversation when a kid shoots up a school.

When you look at various things going on, and California is somewhat of a 'leading indicator' of where things are going... I see a confusing cacophony of rules surrounding guns, kids, abortion, drugs etc etc etc. I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity. I'm reading some of this and what I see is a road-map for how to plan one of these disasters.

Isn't that an argument for this change? Streamline the reporting requirements so that there are less of them, and the ones that exist are significant and memorable.

For everything else, leave it up to the teachers' discretion so they're not overwhelmed with reporting requirements and students don't suffer as well. If a kid brings a clear plastic airsoft gun to the school in their vehicle and someone sees it, is there a good reason to involve law enforcement?

(06-08-2022 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Isn't that an argument for this change? Streamline the reporting requirements so that there are less of them, and the ones that exist are significant and memorable.

For everything else, leave it up to the teachers' discretion so they're not overwhelmed with reporting requirements and students don't suffer as well. If a kid brings a clear plastic airsoft gun to the school in their vehicle and someone sees it, is there a good reason to involve law enforcement?

I think there are vastly better ways to do this.

The wording of the bill is ridiculously 'lawyeresque' and subject to all sorts of interpretation. The fact that you can 'reasonably' spin it to either extreme is what i'm talking about.

(06-10-2022 09:35 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 12:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Isn't that an argument for this change? Streamline the reporting requirements so that there are less of them, and the ones that exist are significant and memorable.

For everything else, leave it up to the teachers' discretion so they're not overwhelmed with reporting requirements and students don't suffer as well. If a kid brings a clear plastic airsoft gun to the school in their vehicle and someone sees it, is there a good reason to involve law enforcement?

I think there are vastly better ways to do this.

The wording of the bill is ridiculously 'lawyeresque' and subject to all sorts of interpretation. The fact that you can 'reasonably' spin it to either extreme is what i'm talking about.

Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion: "I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity."

I don't see how that comment has much to do with the ability to spin things, and that was what I was responding to - whether or not it is appropriate to give the teachers discretion when it comes to reporting issues to law enforcement.

I don't have an inherent problem with the text of a law being "lawyeresque" since it is meant to be enforced by the law. I think they do need to be clear and understandable, which this does seem to be (one just needs to know what the federal statute says). I also don't think the "lawyeresque" nature of the bill's language is what results in the spin. If the bill plainly stated: "Teachers will have to report when a student brings a firearm on campus, but have the discretion to report other activities" the very first headline is still "accurate" spin ("New CA Bill Would No Longer Require Schools to Report Bad Student Behavior to Police").

(06-10-2022 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion: "I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity."

I don't see how that comment has much to do with the ability to spin things, and that was what I was responding to - whether or not it is appropriate to give the teachers discretion when it comes to reporting issues to law enforcement.

I don't have an inherent problem with the text of a law being "lawyeresque" since it is meant to be enforced by the law. I think they do need to be clear and understandable, which this does seem to be (one just needs to know what the federal statute says). I also don't think the "lawyeresque" nature of the bill's language is what results in the spin. If the bill plainly stated: "Teachers will have to report when a student brings a firearm on campus, but have the discretion to report other activities" the very first headline is still "accurate" spin ("New CA Bill Would No Longer Require Schools to Report Bad Student Behavior to Police").

And you wonder why you can't get along with anyone on here??

First, that was one of many comments.
Second, Yes... being a parent (now my second go-round with high schoolers, a decade or more apart) I don't want teachers having that sort of discretion. Principals? School security? Perhaps. Teachers have their hands full with the kids.

And you say it will be enforced by the law, but most police... and especially teachers aren't lawyers or skilled in laws. They do what they are told/taught/is expedient other than perhaps their specific job... which for teachers, isn't divining a child's purpose in bringing a gun or knife to school.

Disagree all you want, have your own opinions all you want... but stop trying to decide what I meant or what YOU think my comment was focused on. It's not constructive and can only lead to more argument... because the odds of you being correct about 'what I think' are close to zero... and assigning beliefs to someone is a recipe for an argument.

(06-10-2022 01:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion: "I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity."

I don't see how that comment has much to do with the ability to spin things, and that was what I was responding to - whether or not it is appropriate to give the teachers discretion when it comes to reporting issues to law enforcement.

I don't have an inherent problem with the text of a law being "lawyeresque" since it is meant to be enforced by the law. I think they do need to be clear and understandable, which this does seem to be (one just needs to know what the federal statute says). I also don't think the "lawyeresque" nature of the bill's language is what results in the spin. If the bill plainly stated: "Teachers will have to report when a student brings a firearm on campus, but have the discretion to report other activities" the very first headline is still "accurate" spin ("New CA Bill Would No Longer Require Schools to Report Bad Student Behavior to Police").

And you wonder why you can't get along with anyone on here??

First, that was one of many comments.
Second, Yes... being a parent (now my second go-round with high schoolers, a decade or more apart) I don't want teachers having that sort of discretion. Principals? School security? Perhaps. Teachers have their hands full with the kids.

And you say it will be enforced by the law, but most police... and especially teachers aren't lawyers or skilled in laws. They do what they are told/taught/is expedient other than perhaps their specific job... which for teachers, isn't divining a child's purpose in bringing a gun or knife to school.

Disagree all you want, have your own opinions all you want... but stop trying to decide what I meant or what YOU think my comment was focused on. It's not constructive and can only lead to more argument... because the odds of you being correct about 'what I think' are close to zero... and assigning beliefs to someone is a recipe for an argument.

And here I thought we were having just a normal back and forth where we didn't quite see eye to eye... Frankly, I don't see anything there for you to get cross over; I was responding to what you typed.

I'm not assigning a belief to you, I'm responding to what you said regarding teachers being overwhelmed. In direct response to that I noted that I think this bill could actually reduce teachers' burdens by allowing them to have discretion. You've actually clarified that I was correct in my interpretation of that comment, and that you disagree that this would reduce the teachers' burdens.

I see your pointing about how this perhaps puts a burden on teacher's to divine student intentions, but they could also just err on the side of caution and report everything. I don't think that these teachers will now be forced to divine these intentions. We both work in industries with a lot of regulations, and I'm generally in favor of ones that have a lot less nit-picky requirements. Give me the big picture and really important requirements, and then let smart individuals handle the rest.

But to the bigger picture comment about getting cross with me, I've said this time and time again, this forum is not the best method of conversing because it allows for a lot of open interpretation of what someone meant or what they were focusing. Normal conversations just don't flow like that. Inherently people are going to have to infer, interpret, and respond to what is written, and if that response needs some clarification, make it.

You replied directly to my comment in ways that seemed to be non-sequitors. I could either assume you were making direct responses to my comment or speaking in non-sequitors. I chose the former, but it looks like I should have chosen the latter.

(06-08-2022 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 09:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  These days, none. But back in 1961 or so, a HS classmate showed me a hollowed out book with a gun in it, and it never occurred to me to snitch on him. Of course, it never occurred to me he might use it either, and he did not. He grew up to be a barber.

When I was in high school, the speech class had an exercise in expository speaking, in which a student had to give a talk explaining how to do a particular thing. One student (who was an experienced hunter) demonstrated how to clean a rifle, which he brought in a protective carrying case. He definitely did NOT been carry it around school all day; I suspect he kept it in the trunk of his car (or perhaps in the headmaster's office) until time for that particular class, and put it right back there as soon as the class was done. I was merely a brief spectator (my class started just as his was ending, so I saw him packing up after his talk), but it certainly never occurred to me that there was any intent -- or even any real potential -- for danger. But that's in large part because of the nature of the class exercise and the nature of the particular student. A kid carrying a handgun (or even a knife) in his backpack and showing it around during recess would have sparked a different reaction.

Both of these incidents are pre-Columbine. Before that, few people ever considered that a student with a weapon was a danger. My concern was that my classmate would get in trouble if caught. Parking lot was probably full of cars with rifles - this WAs rural Texas in the early 60's. Before the Tower, before all this. I was taught to respect a gun, not to fear it.

A naive observer might think that the crux of the matter is not how did teenagers start getting hold of rifles, but what has caused them to start using them on other people.

To me it makes sense to try to keep them out of teenagers' hands until the bolded has been determined.

I suspect that nearly everyone has a fair sense of what the reasons are -- and no stomach whatsoever for addressing them.

(06-10-2022 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:22 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  When I was in high school, the speech class had an exercise in expository speaking, in which a student had to give a talk explaining how to do a particular thing. One student (who was an experienced hunter) demonstrated how to clean a rifle, which he brought in a protective carrying case. He definitely did NOT been carry it around school all day; I suspect he kept it in the trunk of his car (or perhaps in the headmaster's office) until time for that particular class, and put it right back there as soon as the class was done. I was merely a brief spectator (my class started just as his was ending, so I saw him packing up after his talk), but it certainly never occurred to me that there was any intent -- or even any real potential -- for danger. But that's in large part because of the nature of the class exercise and the nature of the particular student. A kid carrying a handgun (or even a knife) in his backpack and showing it around during recess would have sparked a different reaction.

Both of these incidents are pre-Columbine. Before that, few people ever considered that a student with a weapon was a danger. My concern was that my classmate would get in trouble if caught. Parking lot was probably full of cars with rifles - this WAs rural Texas in the early 60's. Before the Tower, before all this. I was taught to respect a gun, not to fear it.

A naive observer might think that the crux of the matter is not how did teenagers start getting hold of rifles, but what has caused them to start using them on other people.

To me it makes sense to try to keep them out of teenagers' hands until the bolded has been determined.

I suspect that nearly everyone has a fair sense of what the reasons are -- and no stomach whatsoever for addressing them.

What do you think these reasons are (why are school shootings more prevalent now than they were when we were in school)?

(06-10-2022 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 10:30 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Both of these incidents are pre-Columbine. Before that, few people ever considered that a student with a weapon was a danger. My concern was that my classmate would get in trouble if caught. Parking lot was probably full of cars with rifles - this WAs rural Texas in the early 60's. Before the Tower, before all this. I was taught to respect a gun, not to fear it.

A naive observer might think that the crux of the matter is not how did teenagers start getting hold of rifles, but what has caused them to start using them on other people.

To me it makes sense to try to keep them out of teenagers' hands until the bolded has been determined.

I suspect that nearly everyone has a fair sense of what the reasons are -- and no stomach whatsoever for addressing them.

What do you think these reasons are (why are school shootings more prevalent now than they were when we were in school)?

To me, it's probably some combination of access (I'm guessing the per capita quantity and relatively low cost availability of semi-auto rifles existed in the mid-1900s), internet/social media, a greater amount of societal disconnection, if not a few other things.

(06-10-2022 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:02 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  A naive observer might think that the crux of the matter is not how did teenagers start getting hold of rifles, but what has caused them to start using them on other people.

To me it makes sense to try to keep them out of teenagers' hands until the bolded has been determined.

I suspect that nearly everyone has a fair sense of what the reasons are -- and no stomach whatsoever for addressing them.

What do you think these reasons are (why are school shootings more prevalent now than they were when we were in school)?

To me, it's probably some combination of access (I'm guessing the per capita quantity and relatively low cost availability of semi-auto rifles existed in the mid-1900s), internet/social media, a greater amount of societal disconnection, if not a few other things.

Internet/social media/the 24/7 news cycle.

Observation:

When the topic is “gun violence”, leftists think the topic is guns, rightists think it is violence.

(06-10-2022 03:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-08-2022 11:04 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  To me it makes sense to try to keep them out of teenagers' hands until the bolded has been determined.

I suspect that nearly everyone has a fair sense of what the reasons are -- and no stomach whatsoever for addressing them.

What do you think these reasons are (why are school shootings more prevalent now than they were when we were in school)?

To me, it's probably some combination of access (I'm guessing the per capita quantity and relatively low cost availability of semi-auto rifles existed in the mid-1900s), internet/social media, a greater amount of societal disconnection, if not a few other things.

Internet/social media/the 24/7 news cycle.

I think how the 24/7 news cycle operates, and the prominence of talking heads as journalists definitely has played a role too.

Read this piece by Kara Swisher this morning, who hosts a podcast I enjoy, and I thought this line was illuminating in respect to the internet/social media element:

Quote: One of the great tragedies of the internet — which once held the promise of allowing the whole world to be available with a click — is that people now see what they believe rather than believe what they see.

It’s long past time to open their digital eyes.

(06-11-2022 11:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 03:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 02:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I suspect that nearly everyone has a fair sense of what the reasons are -- and no stomach whatsoever for addressing them.

What do you think these reasons are (why are school shootings more prevalent now than they were when we were in school)?

To me, it's probably some combination of access (I'm guessing the per capita quantity and relatively low cost availability of semi-auto rifles existed in the mid-1900s), internet/social media, a greater amount of societal disconnection, if not a few other things.

Internet/social media/the 24/7 news cycle.

I think how the 24/7 news cycle operates, and the prominence of talking heads as journalists definitely has played a role too.

Read this piece by Kara Swisher this morning, who hosts a podcast I enjoy, and I thought this line was illuminating in respect to the internet/social media element:

Quote: One of the great tragedies of the internet — which once held the promise of allowing the whole world to be available with a click — is that people now see what they believe rather than believe what they see.

It’s long past time to open their digital eyes.

I like the quote.

I think the turning point was Columbine. Televising and debating the unthinkable for weeks not only made it thinkable, but the first choice of certain minds.

(06-11-2022 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Observation:

When the topic is “gun violence”, leftists think the topic is guns, rightists think it is violence.

It seems to me that the leftists try to do something about the guns whereas the rightists point out "violence" with no attempts at solving what they consider the root of the problem.

(06-11-2022 06:03 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-11-2022 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Observation:

When the topic is “gun violence”, leftists think the topic is guns, rightists think it is violence.

It seems to me that the leftists try to do something about the guns whereas the rightists point out "violence" with no attempts at solving what they consider the root of the problem.

That would be good if guns were the root of the problem, AND if the something’s they try to do would work. If violence is the root, then nobody is doing anything about it.

(06-10-2022 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion: "I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity."

I don't see how that comment has much to do with the ability to spin things, and that was what I was responding to - whether or not it is appropriate to give the teachers discretion when it comes to reporting issues to law enforcement.

I don't have an inherent problem with the text of a law being "lawyeresque" since it is meant to be enforced by the law. I think they do need to be clear and understandable, which this does seem to be (one just needs to know what the federal statute says). I also don't think the "lawyeresque" nature of the bill's language is what results in the spin. If the bill plainly stated: "Teachers will have to report when a student brings a firearm on campus, but have the discretion to report other activities" the very first headline is still "accurate" spin ("New CA Bill Would No Longer Require Schools to Report Bad Student Behavior to Police").

And you wonder why you can't get along with anyone on here??

First, that was one of many comments.
Second, Yes... being a parent (now my second go-round with high schoolers, a decade or more apart) I don't want teachers having that sort of discretion. Principals? School security? Perhaps. Teachers have their hands full with the kids.

And you say it will be enforced by the law, but most police... and especially teachers aren't lawyers or skilled in laws. They do what they are told/taught/is expedient other than perhaps their specific job... which for teachers, isn't divining a child's purpose in bringing a gun or knife to school.

Disagree all you want, have your own opinions all you want... but stop trying to decide what I meant or what YOU think my comment was focused on. It's not constructive and can only lead to more argument... because the odds of you being correct about 'what I think' are close to zero... and assigning beliefs to someone is a recipe for an argument.

And here I thought we were having just a normal back and forth where we didn't quite see eye to eye... Frankly, I don't see anything there for you to get cross over; I was responding to what you typed.

No. You responded to one small section of what I typed, ignoring everything else I typed.

Quote:I'm not assigning a belief to you, I'm responding to what you said regarding teachers being overwhelmed. In direct response to that I noted that I think this bill could actually reduce teachers' burdens by allowing them to have discretion. You've actually clarified that I was correct in my interpretation of that comment, and that you disagree that this would reduce the teachers' burdens.

I think my comment was pretty clear up front... and yes... I think giving a teacher discretion is a MASSIVE burden... and also dangerous. I'm trying to be kind because the vast majority of teachers are good people, but as I said... a FEW of them are having sex with your middle school child. I don't think I need to note that some of the others just aren't good people... indifferent, cruel, racist, lazy, whatever. More are inexperienced, unskilled or untrained in 'what to look for'. They can easily be 'Eddy Haskell'd' by some kids.

Quote:I see your pointing about how this perhaps puts a burden on teacher's to divine student intentions, but they could also just err on the side of caution and report everything. I don't think that these teachers will now be forced to divine these intentions. We both work in industries with a lot of regulations, and I'm generally in favor of ones that have a lot less nit-picky requirements. Give me the big picture and really important requirements, and then let smart individuals handle the rest.

Don't disagree. But that's not 'teachers'. As I said, principals or school security people, perhaps. Maybe you assign a specific person at each school to decide... maybe a school counselor of a new job for someone with a degree in sociology or psychology.... and train them and give them resources. You know, address the problem! In MY industry, people have a decade of training and big malpractice insurance coverage... they also have peer case review etc etc etc. IOW, they're not the only ones making the decision.... and second opinions are common and encouraged. Is any of that present here??

Quote:But to the bigger picture comment about getting cross with me, I've said this time and time again, this forum is not the best method of conversing because it allows for a lot of open interpretation of what someone meant or what they were focusing. Normal conversations just don't flow like that. Inherently people are going to have to infer, interpret, and respond to what is written, and if that response needs some clarification, make it.

I didn't need to clarify my statement. a) you got it right and b) the words are simple. I don't want teachers having that discretion. Apparently at some point, neither did the state of California, so its not as if my opinion is some fringe one. I just wouldn't go the exact opposite. I'd allow discretion, but as I said, not at the 'teacher' level.

Once again as I said, FAR too often we come back to one of these school shooting issues and we see a very clear pattern of behavior that lead up to the event... but we find that 'this person' didn't talk to 'that person' so the dots weren't connected. Discretion at the teacher level is a recipe for that. If all such events are reported to someone who is skilled, trained or tasked to 'connect the dots', then we don't have this problem. That's what happens in my and I suspect your industry. Cases are also peer reviewed. Is there a review of the teachers use of discretion? I agree that 'the police' are also overwhelmed, but if you 'defund the police' and use that money to create a taskforce to connect the dots, that's another way to do it.... might help if kids are transient through different schools or maybe have better access to social media, community activities etc etc?? Maybe in a big city its a quasi-police group... maybe in a small town its an additional school counselor.

I think I've said most of what I am saying above already... maybe giving a little more detail, but no 'new ideas'.

Lad, you said 'Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion:'

As I said... that is only a very small part of what I said... so while that one specific comment that you pulled out wasn't focused on that, my entire comment was focused on MUCH MORE than just that... as I've summarized above. My 'non-sequitur' (as you call it... it is directly on point from my perspective) is that you're cherry picking one small part of my comment that you disagree with... and acting as if this was the majority of premise. (I focused on it).

Yes..,. we seem to disagree significantly that 'mandatory reporting' is more burdensome on teacher than 'selective reporting'.... but even if I am wrong and it is less burdensome to give them discretion, there are some and perhaps many who shouldn't be given that discretion.... for a variety of reasons. My son taught for a year. He would not have WANTED that discretion (and had no training whatsoever in it). The burden of being wrong is potentially catastrophic.


ETA... I'm not completely dismissing the idea of teacher discretion... I'm just pointing out what I see to be a fatal flaw in it. a) no coordination, no connecting the dots between what perhaps half a dozen teachers all see once, but let slide, since they only saw it once (each)...b) no training for teachers to connect the dots... c) enough teachers who are inexperienced, new to the kids, not good people, lazy etc to mess the whole thing up and cost lives.

The purpose of this is to save lives... not to point fingers. I'm betting most teachers don't want the discretion we are discussing... and those that do are the ones I'd worry most about. It seems pretty simple to me to mandate that all gun possession or knives or assaults or what have you get reported to SOMEONE... who then decides whether or not to escalate it to therapy, parent-teacher conference, the police or other...

(06-13-2022 10:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion: "I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity."

I don't see how that comment has much to do with the ability to spin things, and that was what I was responding to - whether or not it is appropriate to give the teachers discretion when it comes to reporting issues to law enforcement.

I don't have an inherent problem with the text of a law being "lawyeresque" since it is meant to be enforced by the law. I think they do need to be clear and understandable, which this does seem to be (one just needs to know what the federal statute says). I also don't think the "lawyeresque" nature of the bill's language is what results in the spin. If the bill plainly stated: "Teachers will have to report when a student brings a firearm on campus, but have the discretion to report other activities" the very first headline is still "accurate" spin ("New CA Bill Would No Longer Require Schools to Report Bad Student Behavior to Police").

And you wonder why you can't get along with anyone on here??

First, that was one of many comments.
Second, Yes... being a parent (now my second go-round with high schoolers, a decade or more apart) I don't want teachers having that sort of discretion. Principals? School security? Perhaps. Teachers have their hands full with the kids.

And you say it will be enforced by the law, but most police... and especially teachers aren't lawyers or skilled in laws. They do what they are told/taught/is expedient other than perhaps their specific job... which for teachers, isn't divining a child's purpose in bringing a gun or knife to school.

Disagree all you want, have your own opinions all you want... but stop trying to decide what I meant or what YOU think my comment was focused on. It's not constructive and can only lead to more argument... because the odds of you being correct about 'what I think' are close to zero... and assigning beliefs to someone is a recipe for an argument.

And here I thought we were having just a normal back and forth where we didn't quite see eye to eye... Frankly, I don't see anything there for you to get cross over; I was responding to what you typed.

No. You responded to one small section of what I typed, ignoring everything else I typed.

Quote:I'm not assigning a belief to you, I'm responding to what you said regarding teachers being overwhelmed. In direct response to that I noted that I think this bill could actually reduce teachers' burdens by allowing them to have discretion. You've actually clarified that I was correct in my interpretation of that comment, and that you disagree that this would reduce the teachers' burdens.

I think my comment was pretty clear up front... and yes... I think giving a teacher discretion is a MASSIVE burden... and also dangerous. I'm trying to be kind because the vast majority of teachers are good people, but as I said... a FEW of them are having sex with your middle school child. I don't think I need to note that some of the others just aren't good people... indifferent, cruel, racist, lazy, whatever. More are inexperienced, unskilled or untrained in 'what to look for'. They can easily be 'Eddy Haskell'd' by some kids.

Quote:I see your pointing about how this perhaps puts a burden on teacher's to divine student intentions, but they could also just err on the side of caution and report everything. I don't think that these teachers will now be forced to divine these intentions. We both work in industries with a lot of regulations, and I'm generally in favor of ones that have a lot less nit-picky requirements. Give me the big picture and really important requirements, and then let smart individuals handle the rest.

Don't disagree. But that's not 'teachers'. As I said, principals or school security people, perhaps. Maybe you assign a specific person at each school to decide... maybe a school counselor of a new job for someone with a degree in sociology or psychology.... and train them and give them resources. You know, address the problem! In MY industry, people have a decade of training and big malpractice insurance coverage... they also have peer case review etc etc etc. IOW, they're not the only ones making the decision.... and second opinions are common and encouraged. Is any of that present here??

Quote:But to the bigger picture comment about getting cross with me, I've said this time and time again, this forum is not the best method of conversing because it allows for a lot of open interpretation of what someone meant or what they were focusing. Normal conversations just don't flow like that. Inherently people are going to have to infer, interpret, and respond to what is written, and if that response needs some clarification, make it.

I didn't need to clarify my statement. a) you got it right and b) the words are simple. I don't want teachers having that discretion. Apparently at some point, neither did the state of California, so its not as if my opinion is some fringe one. I just wouldn't go the exact opposite. I'd allow discretion, but as I said, not at the 'teacher' level.

Once again as I said, FAR too often we come back to one of these school shooting issues and we see a very clear pattern of behavior that lead up to the event... but we find that 'this person' didn't talk to 'that person' so the dots weren't connected. Discretion at the teacher level is a recipe for that. If all such events are reported to someone who is skilled, trained or tasked to 'connect the dots', then we don't have this problem. That's what happens in my and I suspect your industry. Cases are also peer reviewed. Is there a review of the teachers use of discretion? I agree that 'the police' are also overwhelmed, but if you 'defund the police' and use that money to create a taskforce to connect the dots, that's another way to do it.... might help if kids are transient through different schools or maybe have better access to social media, community activities etc etc?? Maybe in a big city its a quasi-police group... maybe in a small town its an additional school counselor.

I think I've said most of what I am saying above already... maybe giving a little more detail, but no 'new ideas'.

Lad, you said 'Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion:'

As I said... that is only a very small part of what I said... so while that one specific comment that you pulled out wasn't focused on that, my entire comment was focused on MUCH MORE than just that... as I've summarized above. My 'non-sequitur' (as you call it... it is directly on point from my perspective) is that you're cherry picking one small part of my comment that you disagree with... and acting as if this was the majority of premise. (I focused on it).

Yes..,. we seem to disagree significantly that 'mandatory reporting' is more burdensome on teacher than 'selective reporting'.... but even if I am wrong and it is less burdensome to give them discretion, there are some and perhaps many who shouldn't be given that discretion.... for a variety of reasons. My son taught for a year. He would not have WANTED that discretion (and had no training whatsoever in it). The burden of being wrong is potentially catastrophic.


ETA... I'm not completely dismissing the idea of teacher discretion... I'm just pointing out what I see to be a fatal flaw in it. a) no coordination, no connecting the dots between what perhaps half a dozen teachers all see once, but let slide, since they only saw it once (each)...b) no training for teachers to connect the dots... c) enough teachers who are inexperienced, new to the kids, not good people, lazy etc to mess the whole thing up and cost lives.

The purpose of this is to save lives... not to point fingers. I'm betting most teachers don't want the discretion we are discussing... and those that do are the ones I'd worry most about. It seems pretty simple to me to mandate that all gun possession or knives or assaults or what have you get reported to SOMEONE... who then decides whether or not to escalate it to therapy, parent-teacher conference, the police or other...

I don't mind teachers being armed IF:

1. They volunteer for it
2. Complete a training/certification course, preferably one sponsored by law enforcement
3. have at least 5 years experience teaching, at least 2 at their school.

The last is to enable administrators to vet them and decide if they want them armed. It also serves the same purpose as raising the age to buy a gun - maturity.

(06-13-2022 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't mind teachers being armed IF:

1. They volunteer for it
2. Complete a training/certification course, preferably one sponsored by law enforcement
3. have at least 5 years experience teaching, at least 2 at their school.

The last is to enable administrators to vet them and decide if they want them armed. It also serves the same purpose as raising the age to buy a gun - maturity.

Just to be clear... I didn't say anything about them being armed...

Your response falls in a similar vein and I take no issue with it, but I wasn't talking about that... just being clear.

I don't mind teachers being armed though because it is a 'no gun zone', I would require some additional certification like you mention. I'm not in favor of schools being places where anyone with a permit or carry license can bring a gun.

Side bar.... elementary school teachers, its pretty common for them to hug the children a lot.... so carry is more of an issue. As they get older, the physical contact becomes vastly less... so less of an issue. I'm not sure exactly how I'd handle that. Maybe a lock box in the room that is opened in the event of a 'call'?? Maybe some sort of 'double' lock... where someone has to initiate a call (like pulling the fire alarm, but not a fire alarm) and then the box can be unlocked?? IDK.

(06-13-2022 10:14 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion: "I see so much crap going on in these overwhelmed and out-gunned (literally, but I meant it figuratively) schools that I'm not really willing to give much discretion to a teacher who is just trying to maintain their sanity."

I don't see how that comment has much to do with the ability to spin things, and that was what I was responding to - whether or not it is appropriate to give the teachers discretion when it comes to reporting issues to law enforcement.

I don't have an inherent problem with the text of a law being "lawyeresque" since it is meant to be enforced by the law. I think they do need to be clear and understandable, which this does seem to be (one just needs to know what the federal statute says). I also don't think the "lawyeresque" nature of the bill's language is what results in the spin. If the bill plainly stated: "Teachers will have to report when a student brings a firearm on campus, but have the discretion to report other activities" the very first headline is still "accurate" spin ("New CA Bill Would No Longer Require Schools to Report Bad Student Behavior to Police").

And you wonder why you can't get along with anyone on here??

First, that was one of many comments.
Second, Yes... being a parent (now my second go-round with high schoolers, a decade or more apart) I don't want teachers having that sort of discretion. Principals? School security? Perhaps. Teachers have their hands full with the kids.

And you say it will be enforced by the law, but most police... and especially teachers aren't lawyers or skilled in laws. They do what they are told/taught/is expedient other than perhaps their specific job... which for teachers, isn't divining a child's purpose in bringing a gun or knife to school.

Disagree all you want, have your own opinions all you want... but stop trying to decide what I meant or what YOU think my comment was focused on. It's not constructive and can only lead to more argument... because the odds of you being correct about 'what I think' are close to zero... and assigning beliefs to someone is a recipe for an argument.

And here I thought we were having just a normal back and forth where we didn't quite see eye to eye... Frankly, I don't see anything there for you to get cross over; I was responding to what you typed.

No. You responded to one small section of what I typed, ignoring everything else I typed.

Quote:I'm not assigning a belief to you, I'm responding to what you said regarding teachers being overwhelmed. In direct response to that I noted that I think this bill could actually reduce teachers' burdens by allowing them to have discretion. You've actually clarified that I was correct in my interpretation of that comment, and that you disagree that this would reduce the teachers' burdens.

I think my comment was pretty clear up front... and yes... I think giving a teacher discretion is a MASSIVE burden... and also dangerous. I'm trying to be kind because the vast majority of teachers are good people, but as I said... a FEW of them are having sex with your middle school child. I don't think I need to note that some of the others just aren't good people... indifferent, cruel, racist, lazy, whatever. More are inexperienced, unskilled or untrained in 'what to look for'. They can easily be 'Eddy Haskell'd' by some kids.

Quote:I see your pointing about how this perhaps puts a burden on teacher's to divine student intentions, but they could also just err on the side of caution and report everything. I don't think that these teachers will now be forced to divine these intentions. We both work in industries with a lot of regulations, and I'm generally in favor of ones that have a lot less nit-picky requirements. Give me the big picture and really important requirements, and then let smart individuals handle the rest.

Don't disagree. But that's not 'teachers'. As I said, principals or school security people, perhaps. Maybe you assign a specific person at each school to decide... maybe a school counselor of a new job for someone with a degree in sociology or psychology.... and train them and give them resources. You know, address the problem! In MY industry, people have a decade of training and big malpractice insurance coverage... they also have peer case review etc etc etc. IOW, they're not the only ones making the decision.... and second opinions are common and encouraged. Is any of that present here??

Quote:But to the bigger picture comment about getting cross with me, I've said this time and time again, this forum is not the best method of conversing because it allows for a lot of open interpretation of what someone meant or what they were focusing. Normal conversations just don't flow like that. Inherently people are going to have to infer, interpret, and respond to what is written, and if that response needs some clarification, make it.

I didn't need to clarify my statement. a) you got it right and b) the words are simple. I don't want teachers having that discretion. Apparently at some point, neither did the state of California, so its not as if my opinion is some fringe one. I just wouldn't go the exact opposite. I'd allow discretion, but as I said, not at the 'teacher' level.

Once again as I said, FAR too often we come back to one of these school shooting issues and we see a very clear pattern of behavior that lead up to the event... but we find that 'this person' didn't talk to 'that person' so the dots weren't connected. Discretion at the teacher level is a recipe for that. If all such events are reported to someone who is skilled, trained or tasked to 'connect the dots', then we don't have this problem. That's what happens in my and I suspect your industry. Cases are also peer reviewed. Is there a review of the teachers use of discretion? I agree that 'the police' are also overwhelmed, but if you 'defund the police' and use that money to create a taskforce to connect the dots, that's another way to do it.... might help if kids are transient through different schools or maybe have better access to social media, community activities etc etc?? Maybe in a big city its a quasi-police group... maybe in a small town its an additional school counselor.

I think I've said most of what I am saying above already... maybe giving a little more detail, but no 'new ideas'.

Lad, you said 'Sure - perhaps there is a better way to streamline reporting requirements, but your comment wasn't focused on that, but rather that teachers were so overwhelmed, you weren't willing to give them discretion:'

As I said... that is only a very small part of what I said... so while that one specific comment that you pulled out wasn't focused on that, my entire comment was focused on MUCH MORE than just that... as I've summarized above. My 'non-sequitur' (as you call it... it is directly on point from my perspective) is that you're cherry picking one small part of my comment that you disagree with... and acting as if this was the majority of premise. (I focused on it).

Yes..,. we seem to disagree significantly that 'mandatory reporting' is more burdensome on teacher than 'selective reporting'.... but even if I am wrong and it is less burdensome to give them discretion, there are some and perhaps many who shouldn't be given that discretion.... for a variety of reasons. My son taught for a year. He would not have WANTED that discretion (and had no training whatsoever in it). The burden of being wrong is potentially catastrophic.


ETA... I'm not completely dismissing the idea of teacher discretion... I'm just pointing out what I see to be a fatal flaw in it. a) no coordination, no connecting the dots between what perhaps half a dozen teachers all see once, but let slide, since they only saw it once (each)...b) no training for teachers to connect the dots... c) enough teachers who are inexperienced, new to the kids, not good people, lazy etc to mess the whole thing up and cost lives.

The purpose of this is to save lives... not to point fingers. I'm betting most teachers don't want the discretion we are discussing... and those that do are the ones I'd worry most about. It seems pretty simple to me to mandate that all gun possession or knives or assaults or what have you get reported to SOMEONE... who then decides whether or not to escalate it to therapy, parent-teacher conference, the police or other...

To be fair, do either of us know that this is not still included? As was discussed, the bill still says to follow federal guidelines which may include those weapons (as far as I can tell, it still requires reporting of the possession of a firearm).

I actually think we're on near the same page regarding outcomes, but there is a difference of understanding on what the California bill requires. We both seem to recognize a benefit in required reporting for serious issues, and this California law does require reporting to law enforcement in some instances. Defining what exactly constitutes a "serious issue" as I put it would be helpful, but I don't have the time to dig. My guess is that there is still a requirement for a weapon (firearm, knife, etc.), but not for getting into a fight, verbally threatening someone, etc.

I also think developing a intermediary for less-serious issues, so that someone has a place to report and discuss the issue without triggering a required law enforcement action, would be beneficial. I don't know if that's something that needs to be legislated, though.

We will have to agree to disagree about what path if more or less burdensome for teachers and would result in better outcomes for identifying and proactively addressing student issues. From my perspective, it would be more stressful to wonder if I were going to be formally reprimanded/fired because I forgot to report an incident that I missed (like a student threatening another). I think teachers are likely already on alert for odd behavior, and I think requiring them to memorize specific issues that require reporting to law enforcement is an unneeded stressor that could be addressed in another manner. And that doesn't touch on what it does to students who worry about being literally policed 24/7. I think the risk of a few bad apples ignoring any and all reporting is probably worth it to reduce the legitimate policing of children/teens and the extra stress on teachers.

Tying this back to the point of this thread, I don't think this California bill is nonsensical now that we've dug into it a bit.