March For Our Lives

It's extraordinarily off-putting when a so-called adult calls out a kid who (a) has gone through unspeakable tragedy and (b) is understandably disappointed after a personal setback. David Hogg is everything Ingraham is not--poised, intelligent, articulate and balanced. He'll go far, no matter what college he attends. Ingraham, on the other hand...well, let's just say I'm very happy advertisers are decamping .

[h=1]Student shot at Madison Schools in Ohio gets detention for school-shooting protest[/h]

In 2016, he was shot in his school’s cafeteria while eating chicken nuggets. He remembers falling on the ground, unsure what happened, watching students run away from him.
He hoped someone would come tell him everything was OK.

Earlier this month, against the wishes of his school administration, Cooper Caffrey walked out of Madison High School – past the cafeteria – as part of a day of protests around the country in the wake of the deadly school shooting in Florida.

Click to expand...

ShaunHorton said:

Not to defend the other side. But it does appear that Hogg brought up the colleges and his GPA himself during an interview.



I'm not sure if the quote is being taken out of context but it does sound a little like sour grapes, like they should be snatching him right up for his role in spearheading the MarchForOurLives movement.

Click to expand...

Ingraham described that as whining. Did it sound like whining to you?

To the point someone should publicly call him whining about it? Was that really an appropriate thing for Ingraham to say about him? Petty shit at a very bad time, insensitive, tone deaf???

Lyv said:

I am sure. The quote is being taken out of context. I am sure, because I saw the interview when it aired. In the part you quoted, Hogg was answering a question about his getting rejected (by four college, though he got into three). I didn't see sour grapes at all. But then, I saw the interview.

Click to expand...

Good point. I only saw the interview, didn't read the transcript. He was not whining in the interview, it was much more matter of fact.

ElaineA said:

Yeah, it has to do with AP and IB classes being weighted more than 4.0. Parkland places a heavy emphasis on AP classes, from what I've seen from the kids who have released their stories of that day. They all seem to have been in AP-Something.

Click to expand...

Of course what this does is it ensures that GPA is used less and less for college admission processes because administrators have to factor in a hodge podge of GPA grading mechanisms between schools and school districts which do and don't do this. Grade inflation, like credential inflation, ends up confusing the ones striving to earn grades and credentials.

MaeZe said:

"I believe my show was the first to feature David immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how "poised" he was given the tragedy."

Click to expand...

Even that quote is suspect: 'first to feature David'='looking for a kid to push around'?
And, could 'poised' be taken as suggesting 'practiced and rehearsed'? Especially when 'given the tragedy' is added. Let's face it, if he broke down in tears and couldn't continue, she'd be calling him 'hysterical' and 'overly dramatic'.

Alpha Echo said:

I'm not sure. I do know that my daughter is going to enter high school next year, and we started this year planning for her path to college. Because she wants to be a vet, there are only 2 in-state school that offer a vet program, and it's in high demand. Kids getting accepted into those schools AVERAGE 4.2.

In the high school, honors classes are weighed .5 heavier than other classes. Her high school is an International Baccalaureate school where she'll take college courses weighed even heavier (and in order to get the IB diploma, she'll also have to earn 100 hours of community service, take a Theory of Knowledge course, and write a 4000 word extended essay) It's a lot, but I think it'll be good for her.

Click to expand...

Yep, AP classes are weighted more heavily, and there are a lot more AP classes than there once were, some available even before senior year. Plus, there's been some general grade inflation in addition. The UC Campuses here in CA can pretty much turn away anyone with less than a 4.0 and still have more applicants than they know what to do with. They count SAT scores too, and actually read the application essays now and look at extracurricular stuff, but it's brutal. My niece is interested in attending my alma mater, UC Davis. She has straight As in high school so far, and did about as well on her SATs as I did, but while I was considered a strong applicant with a 3.5 GPA and SAT scores that were well above average back then, she is marginal for a UC school at best with SAT scores that are now considered a bit below average for a UC student

She's incredibly stressed, since everyone in her family is a UC alumni, and she really wants to go to Davis. She's pretty extroverted and has done a lot more than I did at her age--sports, travel abroad courses (she's raising money and writing a proposal for a trip to Thailand this summer), robot building workshops, girls in the sciences programs and so on--so hopefully that will help. Introverts who can't manage much in the way of extracurricular activities are at a huge disadvantage these days when it comes to college applications.

cornflake said:

The students at MSD are trolling the administration and their idiotic clear backpack plan -- boredpanda has a lovely collection of pics here.

Some are just pointing out the stupidity by sticking their regular backpacks inside the clear ones; some are plastering the interior with signage facing out (this backpack costs more than.../ Crisis Actor #....); some are filling them with things that really scare conservatives --a guy filled his backpack with tampons, to squick out male security guards, and in the process said he's learned a lot about how expensive the products are and thinks something should be done about access.

Go kids.

Click to expand...

The most imbecile comment I saw yesterday was ranting that the kids should appreciate the effort for their security, rather than whine about not being able to wear their fashion backpacks.

When has a backpack ever been cool? They're the lamest, heaviest, most uncomfortable things ever.

Kaiser-Kun said:

The most imbecile comment I saw yesterday was ranting that the kids should appreciate the effort for their security, rather than whine about not being able to wear their fashion backpacks.

When has a backpack ever been cool? They're the lamest, heaviest, most uncomfortable things ever.

Click to expand...

An idea that had zero thought deserves zero appreciation.

And I'd rather have my backpack for conventions than a damn purse.

cornflake said:

The students at MSD are trolling the administration and their idiotic clear backpack plan -- boredpanda has a lovely collection of pics here.

Some are just pointing out the stupidity by sticking their regular backpacks inside the clear ones; some are plastering the interior with signage facing out (this backpack costs more than.../ Crisis Actor #....); some are filling them with things that really scare conservatives --a guy filled his backpack with tampons, to squick out male security guards, and in the process said he's learned a lot about how expensive the products are and thinks something should be done about access.

Go kids.

Click to expand...

A certain amount of this insanity is playing to the camera, but make no mistake about it. There are these fools who go around "debunking" mass shootings and just as they have harassed the Sandy Hook families and 9/11 families and every other family who have lost a loved one to mass murder killing sprees, they will be coming for the Parkland kids too.

NSFW due to language and absolute stomach-turning revulsion that people like this really exist.

nighttimer said:

they will be coming for the Parkland kids too.

Click to expand...

Already have.


caw

It seems to me that most of the gun advocates don't have any arguments against reasonable gun restrictions - so they are trying to whip up fear and distract everyone from thier lack of arguments.

Why?

And just to establish that I know when end of the gun fires - I am an army trained marksman. I also think the UK firearms policy is very reasonable.

To save searching for it here is the policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom

I haven't seen anyone here advocate for a total ban; probably because it's a stupid idea.

I am certainly not in favor of a ban. I am in favor of better control, checks on backgrounds.

I don't know anyone who works with farms animals from sheep up to horses who would be in favor of a gun ban.

But I see any need for an AR-15 and thousands of rounds to put a suffering horse down. Or to hunt for food.

Emilander said:

Okay. Do you really think that anyone in favor of gun control who is also in favor of a total ban on guns would really say so at this point? The US is nowhere near being ready for that. So they start small by getting rid of "military-style" "assault weapons".

Click to expand...

'They might say they only want to ban certain categories of guns, but that's just a cover for their real intent.'

It's not as if we haven't heard similar things throughout modern history.

Countries with gun controls do not ban all firearms. Prospective owners just have to have a good reason for ownership. Being giddy with fear about hypothetical evildoers is not a good reason.

Emilander said:

... So what are you in favor of, if not a total ban?

Click to expand...

Read ElaineA's post. Then read it again.

ElaineA said:

They. don't.

They just don't. One person may have said that on stage at the rally, but the overwhelming cry has been for gun "regulation" not "elimination." Regulation possibilities => fixing the insta-check system, stronger background checks, 3-5 day waiting periods, licensing, insurance requirements, limiting magazines, restricting weapons originally designed for military use from civilian hands, closing the gun show loophole, prohibiting people with a history of restraining orders (especially for DV), and those with mental health issues who have encountered the court or criminal system, from being allowed to purchase guns for some proscribed period.

That's just off the top of my head, yet not one of those is "ban all guns." The premise of your argument is wrong, which might be why you feel defensive. You aren't arguing from a position of knowledge because you haven't listened to those who are talking about what we mean by "common sense gun regulation." (I posted about the futility of eliminating all guns way back in #78, and I know others have offered examples of what we're talking about, as well.) You're the one saying people need to have "knowledge" to talk about this. Maybe try more listening (acquiring knowledge) to those who actually advocate for common sense measures (not the NRA party line) and you'll hear what advocates are truly saying. Unless you just don't want to, because.

The people who want to ban all guns are a tiny fraction of the people in this national conversation, and frankly, they aren't worth listening to. It's never. going. to happen. But the NRA and gundamentalists have amplified that tiny minority as if the entire gun-control debate winnows down to that. Because it suits their purposes. It scares people, it skews the possibility of finding common ground to near impossibility, and, oh yeah, it sells more guns.

Edit: Oh, ffs


Even after 3 posts explicitly telling you people who want regulation do NOT want to ban guns, you're not only shifting the goalposts, you're still using "banned." Clear the ears, there, Emilander. I promise it's helpful.

Click to expand...

Okay, most of the people here do not want a total ban. Would it be fair to say that at least some people here are in favor of banning AR-15s? It appears that way, but I'm consistently being told that I'm misinterpreting or outright ignoring what people are saying.

What is the goal with regards to gun control? What constitutes success?

Speaking for myself...

Emilander said:

What is the goal with regards to gun control?

Click to expand...

Save lives.

Emilander said:

What constitutes success?

Click to expand...

A reduction in the number of gun-related homicides and mass shootings to levels similar of other democratic nations.


-cb

ElaineA said:

Regulation possibilities => fixing the insta-check system, stronger background checks, 3-5 day waiting periods, licensing, insurance requirements, limiting magazines, restricting weapons originally designed for military use from civilian hands, closing the gun show loophole, prohibiting people with a history of restraining orders (especially for DV), and those with mental health issues who have encountered the court or criminal system, from being allowed to purchase guns for some proscribed period.

Click to expand...

Just wondering, Emilander, (and any 'pro-gun' AWers), if you are in support of the above bolded measures?

Emilander said:

Okay, most of the people here do not want a total ban. Would it be fair to say that at least some people here are in favor of banning AR-15s? It appears that way, but I'm consistently being told that I'm misinterpreting or outright ignoring what people are saying.

Click to expand...

The AR-15 is only the current poster child for these kinds of weapons. The AK-47, M-16, and a number of others should also be considered. But not by individual model name, which could easily be circumvented. How would you feel about this?

1. Any firearm capable of discharging more than 4 rounds per second, or capable of being modified to do so, should, as a minimum, be regulated by license and registration. Any individual desiring to obtain such a weapon should pass rigorous background checks (criminal record, history of psychiatric treatment, etc,) and be required to pass a reasonable certification test confirming an understanding of the firearm and the ability to use such a weapon.

2. A strict limit should be placed on the number of such firearms that can be owned legally. A national registration for such devices must be established and maintained.

I stopped before advocating a complete ban on the ownership of weapons defined in this manner, but I can understand how others might advocate that.

For your info, I live in the state with almost certainly the highest percentage of people who hunt, and know how to use firearms properly. I'm not interested in taking anybody's hunting weapons. And nobody I know ever goes hunting with anything like an AR-15. Not even the fisher-people I know, who often need to deal with industrial-strength grizzly bears, carry a weapon of that sort.

Emilander said:

What is the goal with regards to gun control? What constitutes success?

Click to expand...

To make it at least somewhat more difficult for individuals unqualified to obtain the most massively lethal firearmsm and certainly to make it much more difficult for a person like Stephen Paddock to obtain the arsenal he took into that 32nd floor room in Las Vegas.

caw

Okay. Here goes:

None of these measures will work and here's why... Just kidding.

Universal background checks: now does this include private transfers? Because licensed dealers are already required to submit an ATF Form 4473 when they make a sale. I think this is what contributes to the "gun show loophole", is people think that at gun shows dealers can just sell to anybody, which isn't true. That said, I'm in favor of background checks on every sale, including private transfers.

Waiting periods: I don't feel that waiting periods are particularly effective and in some cases feels like the state wants to punish people for buying guns. It may work in some cases, but I don't see someone so angry that they want to kill someone that they run out to buy a gun to kill them as soon as possible either not still being that angry 3-5 days later or just finding another way to kill that person. I also don't think it would help with people planning to harm themselves or others. Most mass shooters appear to take months planning their attacks so a waiting period would likely have no effect on their plans. And if you already own guns, a waiting period is just a mild inconvenience.

DV and mental health additions to background checks: I agree with DV information being included (which it already is) and improving the sharing of such information. With mental health, I think it gets a little tricky. There is already a provision for people adjudicated mentally defective but since mental health issues are generally self-reported and there already is a stigma associated with mental health, I think any laws regarding mental health and guns may have the unintended consequence of people foregoing seeking help. Plus there are HIPPA considerations. I'm not opposed to it, but I'm not sure how it could be implemented without either missing troubled individuals or reinforcing the idea that mentally ill people are dangerous.

Study of gun violence: I'm in favor of unbiased research into guns.

Reduction of gun violence: I think everybody is opposed to gun violence. I just think people disagree on what the root problem is.

Legal liability: I'm not sure how that would work. Guns are inherently dangerous. Is Budweiser liable for the damage alcohol causes?

Licensing: Provided that it's not used as a way to limit access to guns by being either an onerous process or cost prohibitive, I'm good with that. I am always in favor of people being properly trained and knowledgeable with regards to firearms.

Registration of military-like devices: this is where clear definitions come into play. Is it military-like because it looks like a military weapon even though it functions differently? What makes a weapon military-like? Does this include handguns, because the military uses them as well.


Edit:

Blacbird, nearly every modern gun, with the exception of muzzle loaders and some shotguns, can all fire more than 4 rounds a second, or very close to it.

Also, as I've said before, the .223 round, which the AR-15 fires, is considered a varmint round. There are states which ban its use when hunting large game because it is too weak and considered cruel to use animals like deer and bigger. It won't do shit to a bear, which is why no one uses it for that.

Emilander said:

Reduction of gun violence: I think everybody is opposed to gun violence. I just think people disagree on what the root problem is.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing guns are a pretty big part of it. Why not fix what's fixable, starting with sensible gun-access laws?