Armed FL school deputy Resigns after video shows he stood outside did nothing

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Because the law says so, really in a civilized society that's what matters.

a teacher is a fully developed adult in theory as a child I had a lot more growing to do, and again in theory an 18 yr old is pretty much a fully functioning adult.

The law doesn't work on logic though, it works on definitions. The law tries as much as it can to eliminate gray areas, and when a gray area does exist a court case eventually establishes precident eliminating it.

The law defines 18 as an adult, because at some point a person needs to be considered an adult. With modern science we know that people never stop mentally developing, and physically it's around 25 rather than 18. So the law is really just an arbitrary dividing point between adult/child, but all that really does in my opinion is muddy the definition of both since most people have a pretty long period where they're a bit of both, and even then someone in their 30's can be considered young and ideaistic to someone in their 70's so it's all relative.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ok, so he's more child than adult. I don't disagree there, in fact you're making the case that being an adult is more about a mental state than a physical state. So why does it make sense to tie something like gun ownership to the physical state of being 18 years old?

a reply to: Aazadan

Grow up: gain a perspective that would generally be considered adult

No 6 year old can make the same decisions as an adult.

But from a legal perspective you have to pick numbers arbitrarily based on what seems reasonable to within a consensus.

a reply to: Aazadan

So you don't want an actual answer, what you want is people to go by god you are right I am changed thanks for showing me the light.

a reply to: Aazadan

I don't think 18 year olds should be allowed to vote either. The entire concept of voting is screwed up when the average person posses just the average understanding on any given subject. It's a process of putting the least qualified into decision making roles.

Or it could be your impression they aren't as knowledgeable because it doesn't match your way of thinking on a particular issue. Just because someone disagrees with your point of view does not make them less informed or you more informed.

No, but I'm against alcohol in general. I've never once had a drink, that aside... I've seen more than enough examples that 21, 30, and 40 year olds don't drink responsibly either. Every single person who has ever gotten drunk has proven this. These last two are physical issues not mental ones

The premise of my question was whether they should be allowed to drink and buy alcohol, not would they be responsible once they became drunk. I do agree age does not equate to being a responsible drinker. You said no you don't think they should not be allowed to buy or drink alcohol. Set aside your personal beliefs and opinion on how responsible they would be, can you explain why you don't think they should not be allowed to buy or drink alcohol? If you believe there is no difference between a 6 year old and a 30 year old why should they not be allowed to?

Their feet don't reach the pedals.

Cars are modified for people without arms and legs and even little people who aren't much taller than a 6 year old so modifying it for them could be accomplished. Let's say it's modified for a 6 year old. Should they be allowed to drive? If your assertion is there is no difference between a 6 year old and a 30 year old why can't they be allowed to drive in a modified car?

Most of them have no interest. If some that do show interest they can... nothing is actually stopping two 6 year olds from having sex with each other. Or are you referring to an adult and a 6 year old, in which case there's a large power dynamic at play. A power dynamic people often conveniently ignore even though it still exists when it's two adults.

It is my error for not making it clear I was referring to 2 6 year olds. I have no interest in entertaining the idea of a 6 year old having sex with an adult, but it is my error for not making my question clearer. Due to the lack of clarity in my question and the sensitivity of the subject, I accept your answer as it is and will refrain from discussing this particular question any further. I apologize to you for not clarifying what I was asking.


I appreciate you replying to my questions. I structured my questions hoping to have better insight of how you believe the minds and thinking process of a 6 year old and a 20-30-40 year old are the same. I am sure you have heard the expression..."I wish I knew then what I know now." Going by your logic, we did know then what we know now and I really can't see how that's possible.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head with that conclusion.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Aazadan

So you don't want an actual answer, what you want is people to go by god you are right I am changed thanks for showing me the light.

Not at all. People disagree with me all the time, that doesn't bother me, I could even be wrong here... but if I am that would mean fewer guns are the answer. I'm just trying to apply some logic to the situation. If the solution is that we want more guns in school it makes sense to me that we arm students. The logistics of arming teachers doesn't work, and even if it did, more guns are better than less right?

So the question is, what defines if someone is gun worthy or not? I have no doubt that some kids could handle concealed carry, but I also have no doubt that some kids couldn't. What I went over before was an age based criteria, that doesn't make sense, so it's something else. What is that something?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Aazadan

Grow up: gain a perspective that would generally be considered adult

No 6 year old can make the same decisions as an adult.

But from a legal perspective you have to pick numbers arbitrarily based on what seems reasonable to within a consensus.

If we go by that criteria, I think 18 doesn't make much sense. 18 seems to me that it's more of a definition of having reached the age of finishing compulsory education than any mark of mental maturity.

I don't think displaying higher level reasoning is a good metric, because plenty of adults display poor reasoning skills. I've read more than enough term papers from college students to see that they don't have those skills... so why would someone younger than them with education have those skills?

But in regards to guns, plenty of people are capable of being responsible gun owners without those reasoning skills. Picking 18 years old with no other factors attached is completely arbitary, and if it's that arbitrary then there's not really any reason to not pick another arbitrary age like 12 or 25.

originally posted by: JustaBill
Or it could be your impression they aren't as knowledgeable because it doesn't match your way of thinking on a particular issue. Just because someone disagrees with your point of view does not make them less informed or you more informed.

It's not that at all, people can reach different conclusions from the same set of facts, they do it all the time. The average person only has an average level of understanding on any given subject though. Taking a single college class on a subject or reading a single book on that subject already places you in the above average category. Now how big is the knowledge gap between that, which is the bare minimum understanding on a subject and that of the experts who wrote the books and are actually informed on a subject?

On a scale of 1 to 100, the average understanding is around a 2 while the experts are all 95+ but most of the voting power (as in 99% or more of it) resides in those who are in the 1-5 range of the scale. On most subjects we vote on we are not only incapable of understanding the subject, but we are incapable of properly vetting a candidates idea as to how to proceed on a subject, and that candidate is incapable of fully understanding the information their expert advisors are giving them on that subject.

The premise of my question was whether they should be allowed to drink and buy alcohol, not would they be responsible once they became drunk. I do agree age does not equate to being a responsible drinker. You said no you don't think they should not be allowed to buy or drink alcohol. Set aside your personal beliefs and opinion on how responsible they would be, can you explain why you don't think they should not be allowed to buy or drink alcohol? If you believe there is no difference between a 6 year old and a 30 year old why should they not be allowed to?

Putting aside my personal feelings on alcohol (which I also realize couldn't be legislated, it was already tried and failed with prohibition), alcohol is detrimental to physical and mental development. When we set the age to 21 it was largely in response to the idea that people stopped developing around the age of 18, so we tacked a couple more years onto that to be safe and made it 21. What we know today though is that development doesn't really stop until about 25 or 26. Adding a couple years to be safe onto that would push the drinking age to close to 30.

This has nothing to do with responsibility, as people of all ages fail to do that but it does tend to happen more often as people are closer to the legal drinking age as they go overboard on it. I think that one could make an argument that based on physiology drinking should be 30, but that wouldn't make people any more responsible when they drink... 30 year olds would still act like 15 year olds for a few years.

Cars are modified for people without arms and legs and even little people who aren't much taller than a 6 year old so modifying it for them could be accomplished. Let's say it's modified for a 6 year old. Should they be allowed to drive? If your assertion is there is no difference between a 6 year old and a 30 year old why can't they be allowed to drive in a modified car?

I don't know if it's still the case, but I remember growing up that there were permits given for kids as young as 12 to drive from home to school in some cases. I went to private school so we didn't have bus service (and no after school programs) and parents weren't always in a position to drive their kids to and from school. I don't know what stipulations the state placed on it but from experience I would say that in some situations a kid could drive. Like alcohol, I think the main argument here has nothing to do with maturity but rather physical development. A 6 year old has a reaction time of about 600ms while an adult has a reaction time around 300 ms. Converting that into what it would mean on the road, it would mean longer yellow lights, more following distance, lower speed limits, and so on. That isn't practical... but when they reach the age that their reactions are more in line with everyone else on the road? I don't really see an issue at that point.

I appreciate you replying to my questions. I structured my questions hoping to have better insight of how you believe the minds and thinking process of a 6 year old and a 20-30-40 year old are the same. I am sure you have heard the expression..."I wish I knew then what I know now." Going by your logic, we did know then what we know now and I really can't see how that's possible.

I've heard that a lot, but it doesn't seem to just apply to kids. I've heard plenty of 80 and 90 year olds say that in reference to their 60 year old selves. My point and perhaps I'm communicating it poorly is that we always become more knowledgable and more capable as we go through life, wisdom comes with age and experience. There are definite physical points of development that we can make note of, but guns (or drinking responsibly, or driving) aren't really about physical development, it's about mental maturity and that's a lot harder to quantify.

There's still developmental stages at work where most people become less ego focused and a bit more empathic over time but as bfft pointed out above... at 18 he was full of bravado, and that's something very common to 18 year olds (it's one of the reasons they're preferred as combat troops) and those people aren't necessarily all that rational. Yet, we've decided they can be legal responsible gun owners and crime stats indicate that most of that group who are gun owners are responsible. So lets walk it back from there. If 18 year olds can be responsible, then why not 17 year olds? If not, why not? If so, why not 16 year olds?

When I go through that exercise I keep coming to the same conclusion that with proper teaching and experience a 12 year old should be able to handle a gun and probably younger too. It definitely ceases to be true at some age where kids start having trouble seperating fantasy from reality and understanding death but when that is on average I can't really say. Could 6th graders have guns? I'm sure some could. Could 1st graders? That's a harder sell.

Along with the news of Peterson standing outside while the shooting goes on, we find out other officers did not enter the school either.

Just saw the video of Sheriff Israel instructing officers at Active Shooter Training to not attack but go on defense.
That would explain some things. So he teaches them to not engage the shooter. He even says run and hide but i'm guessing/hoping he was talking to the civilians when he said that.

video at truepundit

a reply to: EchoesInTime

Most police officers are not SWAT teams. If you're going to assault a complex with armed shooter(s) you want a SWAT team.

It's probably not a good idea to further militarize the police and turn them all into those types of groups.