Winnie-the-Pooh book teaches Texas kids to ‘run, hide, fight’ in a shooting

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
User avatar
SouthernIslander
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
Location: Texassippi

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 12:53 am
Bobcobbagob wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:26 pm
SallyMae wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 2:37 pm

You just have to be smarter than the tigers, which we are. These aren't wild tigers; *every single one* lives in a home and has an owner, who is ultimately responsible. We can change the laws, offer big incentives to people to turn in their tigers, create a culture where harboring a tiger is seen as a danger to society instead of a show of manly patriotism. We can require strict regulation of the tiger trade, limiting the number and types of tigers people can legally own. We can destroy every tiger we confiscate (since these are metaphorical tigers, no real tigers will be harmed.) These tigers are not breeding on their own; we can go after the tiger manufacturers and limit the types of tigers they can make for the general public.

It's not on the kids to deal with these F***ing tigers and it's no use pretending the kids stand a chance against them even if they read the Pooh book.

We're the adults, the ones making the society. There are real steps we can take to limit the danger to our kids from tigers and Tigger isn't one of them.
We do offer incentives for people to turn them in, we have gun buybacks all the time, people get $500 for turning them in… it only works for the people that have guns but don’t want them. It’s not going to work for people who love their guns…

I don’t think changing the culture is possible… people love their guns like they love their dogs… it would be akin to saying “let’s get society to not want dogs anymore, they often hurt people”… it’s a true sentence, but it does nothing to make people believe their own dog is dangerous.


We can try to go after manufacturers but ghost guns are extremely popular now and people ( ESPECIALLY teenage boys) know how to print out all the parts they need… the information is out there online for the taking, and we can’t really limit the knowledge being disseminated…

Limiting the amount people can have doesn’t do much to quell the shootings because someone who goes on a rampage can only hold 1-3 on them anyways…


We can make more laws about people needing to lock them up, we can make more laws about who can sell them and what kind of paperwork/background checks are needed for a sale to go through, more laws on registration … but I would say probably 90% of gun owners don’t ever become violent with another person with a gun. Until you can convince people that the gun in their own hands is a danger to society, they’re not going to willingly give them up.
Next up, let's convince the men to cut off their penises, because rape happens. We need to convince the men that the penises in their pants are a danger to society. 🤦🤦🤦
😂😂😂😂😂😂
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Valentina327 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 12:53 am Next up, let's convince the men to cut off their penises, because rape happens. We need to convince the men that the penises in their pants are a danger to society. 🤦🤦🤦
I've seen this argument before, here's the counter:
The analogy you provided comparing gun control to asking all men to cut off their penises because some men use them to rape is flawed. Let's break down the flaws in this analogy:

False equivalence: The analogy equates gun control measures with a severe, permanent bodily harm. Gun control aims to regulate and restrict access to firearms, while cutting off one's penis is a physically harmful and irreversible act. Gun control does not involve physically harming individuals or removing an essential part of their bodies.

Misrepresentation of intent: Gun control policies are designed to address public safety concerns, such as reducing gun violence, preventing accidents, and promoting responsible firearm ownership. Comparing this intention to an act of violence (castration) is an inappropriate and misleading characterization. The analogy implies that gun control measures are motivated by a desire to harm gun owners, which is not the case.

Ignoring broader societal benefits: Gun control measures are implemented to promote public safety, reduce gun violence, and protect innocent lives. These policies take into account statistical evidence, research, and the experiences of other countries that have implemented successful gun control measures. The analogy fails to acknowledge the potential positive impact of gun control on reducing gun-related accidents, suicides, and homicides.

Analogies can be helpful in clarifying complex issues, but it's essential to ensure that they are accurate, fair, and relevant. In this case, the analogy does not accurately reflect the goals, intentions, or effects of gun control measures.
Deleted User 2267

Unread post

Which is why I said dogs…


Plenty of people live happy, fulfilled lives without owning a dog… no one actually needs a dog (excepting handicapped people), but for some people they make them feel safer, and they like having them.


SallyMae wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 1:49 pm
Valentina327 wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 12:53 am Next up, let's convince the men to cut off their penises, because rape happens. We need to convince the men that the penises in their pants are a danger to society. 🤦🤦🤦
I've seen this argument before, here's the counter:
The analogy you provided comparing gun control to asking all men to cut off their penises because some men use them to rape is flawed. Let's break down the flaws in this analogy:

False equivalence: The analogy equates gun control measures with a severe, permanent bodily harm. Gun control aims to regulate and restrict access to firearms, while cutting off one's penis is a physically harmful and irreversible act. Gun control does not involve physically harming individuals or removing an essential part of their bodies.

Misrepresentation of intent: Gun control policies are designed to address public safety concerns, such as reducing gun violence, preventing accidents, and promoting responsible firearm ownership. Comparing this intention to an act of violence (castration) is an inappropriate and misleading characterization. The analogy implies that gun control measures are motivated by a desire to harm gun owners, which is not the case.

Ignoring broader societal benefits: Gun control measures are implemented to promote public safety, reduce gun violence, and protect innocent lives. These policies take into account statistical evidence, research, and the experiences of other countries that have implemented successful gun control measures. The analogy fails to acknowledge the potential positive impact of gun control on reducing gun-related accidents, suicides, and homicides.

Analogies can be helpful in clarifying complex issues, but it's essential to ensure that they are accurate, fair, and relevant. In this case, the analogy does not accurately reflect the goals, intentions, or effects of gun control measures.
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Bobcobbagob wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:26 pm We can make more laws about people needing to lock them up, we can make more laws about who can sell them and what kind of paperwork/background checks are needed for a sale to go through, more laws on registration … but I would say probably 90% of gun owners don’t ever become violent with another person with a gun. Until you can convince people that the gun in their own hands is a danger to society, they’re not going to willingly give them up.
The gun in their own hands is a danger to themselves and the people they love. That's just a fact. A gun in the house makes it much more likely that you or someone in your family will shoot themselves or each other. Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens. That fact, and the pile of children's bodies, is already changing how some people feel about it, and as the danger grows it just becomes more and more obvious.

Sure, some people won't care, but most will.
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Bobcobbagob wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 1:06 pm That’s what I was saying when I brought up dogs…

We do know that dogs attack and kill people every year, we do know that if no one had dogs, no attacks would happen…

But that is not going to get people to give up their dog in an effort to make people more safe… the age old adage, it’s not the dog, it’s the owner… most people feel safer with their dog around and they don’t believe their dog will be the cause of an attack.

So we’re never going to get people to get rid of their dogs, but we can make laws requiring leashes, training ect…

First of all, if dogs were the leading cause of death among children, we would definitely be doing this same re-evaluation of whether it was safe to have them in the home. The number of people killed by dogs in the U.S. maybe 30 - 40 per year. The number of people killed by guns is about 40,000. If dogs were killing that many, they wouldn't BE man's best friend.

Secondly, if we have a culture where people consider guns to be like their penises or their dogs, that seems like a problem. When I was growing up, people some people loved hunting, etc., but they weren't in love with the gun like it was alive or part of their personality. That is toxic gun culture that can and needs to change.

Thirdly, we absolutely DO regulate AND prohibit the owning of dangerous animals, including some dogs, for the safety of individuals and the public. It doesn't matter how much people love tigers, most people cannot have them, and so it means the threat they pose is small and manageable.

Lastly, the goal of stricter gun control is not to get rid of every gun, it's to take down the danger levels, by having fewer guns and less dangerous guns. That's the exact same goal of animal ownership laws which are generally working. It's not unreasonable, and if the gun lobby stopped stoking gun fetishism as the answer to every danger, people could see that it works.
Deleted User 2267

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 2:14 pm
Bobcobbagob wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 4:26 pm We can make more laws about people needing to lock them up, we can make more laws about who can sell them and what kind of paperwork/background checks are needed for a sale to go through, more laws on registration … but I would say probably 90% of gun owners don’t ever become violent with another person with a gun. Until you can convince people that the gun in their own hands is a danger to society, they’re not going to willingly give them up.
The gun in their own hands is a danger to themselves and the people they love. That's just a fact. A gun in the house makes it much more likely that you or someone in your family will shoot themselves or each other. Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens. That fact, and the pile of children's bodies, is already changing how some people feel about it, and as the danger grows it just becomes more and more obvious.

Sure, some people won't care, but most will.
That’s not a fact…


Most people who own guns don’t ever experience the gun hurting anyone. Which is why it’s so hard to get people to believe that the gun in their hands is dangerous, because it’s been proven time and time again that someone owning a gun doesn’t mean anyone will be hurt.

Guns are now leading because we’ve MASSIVELY decreased car deaths, and it’s true… have risen by 29.5%, mostly due to school shootings and suicide, with poisoning deaths growing by 110%.
All that is significant, and should make parents of teenagers and young children take a giant step back and be careful with what is in their home…however if someone does not have a teenager at home, they are not going to be worried about their gun being used in a school shooting or a teenager’s suicide.


If there are 393 million guns, and 45,000 were used in a shooting, most gun owners did not experience a negative consequence by owning one. 0.0114% of guns hurt a child…Remember… you are trying to convince the naysayers to give up their guns… not the ones who have been affected by gun violence.
SallyMae
Regent
Regent
Posts: 3028
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:38 pm

Unread post

Bobcobbagob wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 2:54 pm That’s not a fact…

Most people who own guns don’t ever experience the gun hurting anyone. Which is why it’s so hard to get people to believe that the gun in their hands is dangerous, because it’s been proven time and time again that someone owning a gun doesn’t mean anyone will be hurt.

Guns are now leading because we’ve MASSIVELY decreased car deaths, and it’s true… have risen by 29.5%, mostly due to school shootings and suicide, with poisoning deaths growing by 110%.
All that is significant, and should make parents of teenagers and young children take a giant step back and be careful with what is in their home…however if someone does not have a teenager at home, they are not going to be worried about their gun being used in a school shooting or a teenager’s suicide.


If there are 393 million guns, and 45,000 were used in a shooting, most gun owners did not experience a negative consequence by owning one. 0.0114% of guns hurt a child…Remember… you are trying to convince the naysayers to give up their guns… not the ones who have been affected by gun violence.
*Every person* is affected by gun violence. Every time you have to walk through a metal detector, or be searched headed into a concert or graduation, that is the effect of gun violence. Every time we read in the news about how some school kids were mown down, or how some toddler shot his sister, that affects us and damages our mental health and our ability to cope. Every time you have to read your kids a Winnie the Pooh book about running and hiding and fighting, that is *you* being negatively affected by gun violence, your whole quality of life degraded by the threat.

Nothing is worth this.
Deleted User 2267

Unread post

SallyMae wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 3:18 pm
Bobcobbagob wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 2:54 pm That’s not a fact…

Most people who own guns don’t ever experience the gun hurting anyone. Which is why it’s so hard to get people to believe that the gun in their hands is dangerous, because it’s been proven time and time again that someone owning a gun doesn’t mean anyone will be hurt.

Guns are now leading because we’ve MASSIVELY decreased car deaths, and it’s true… have risen by 29.5%, mostly due to school shootings and suicide, with poisoning deaths growing by 110%.
All that is significant, and should make parents of teenagers and young children take a giant step back and be careful with what is in their home…however if someone does not have a teenager at home, they are not going to be worried about their gun being used in a school shooting or a teenager’s suicide.


If there are 393 million guns, and 45,000 were used in a shooting, most gun owners did not experience a negative consequence by owning one. 0.0114% of guns hurt a child…Remember… you are trying to convince the naysayers to give up their guns… not the ones who have been affected by gun violence.
*Every person* is affected by gun violence. Every time you have to walk through a metal detector, or be searched headed into a concert or graduation, that is the effect of gun violence. Every time we read in the news about how some school kids were mown down, or how some toddler shot his sister, that affects us and damages our mental health and our ability to cope. Every time you have to read your kids a Winnie the Pooh book about running and hiding and fighting, that is *you* being negatively affected by gun violence, your whole quality of life degraded by the threat.

Nothing is worth this.
You’re not going to convince people that walking through a metal detector is being a victim of gun violence.

And it’s going to be very hard to convince people without toddlers that their gun might kill a toddler.

Most gun owners still feel like the gun is “the great equalizer”. The ones set to kill and maim will have them, so you need to convince the normal people that they are safer from those killers with less protection for themselves…
User avatar
SouthernIslander
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9391
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:48 pm
Location: Texassippi

Unread post

The problem in Texas is the reckless gun culture, mental health crisis and extreme bases making compromise impossible.

It is stomach turning that a book like this is needed but I’m more concerned with the bigger picture because fighting over this small stuff isn’t solving anything.
WellPreserved
Donated
Donated
Queen Mother
Queen Mother
Posts: 9735
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:52 pm

Unread post

How you look at the gun violence problem in the US I guess is how you look at the victims. Of course children are victims (number one killer of children) but also the 0-100 age group are victims and I care about them as well.

Perhaps this book is necessary (but I feel could be better composed) but it is a quick bandaid on a much bigger problem - gun ownership and violence. The bigger issue must be addressed and I don't care what a person's age group is, they have skin in the game.

I've said before, there are multiple kinds of gun owners in my county and all should be in the conversation.

We have hunters - they should be able to hunt
We have those who own a gun to protect their farms - they should be able to do that
We have those who own a gun for personal protection - they should be able to do that too but we need to look at ways to change society so that isn't seen as a necessary
We have those who like to prance with their weapons through town because they can - IMO, stop this. Stop glamorizing a weapon. If there is an actual need, stop allowing people to display it on their back when going into the local Piggly Wiggly. I don't wear a chop saw on my back, don't wear an AK-whatever.
Open carry should be addressed all around
Amount of ammunition should be addressed
Red Flag laws should be universal - If I'm diagnosed with depression, considered suicidal, and taking meds, I shouldn't own a gun.
Increase community policing - I don't mean pulling over someone with a busted headlight but knowing your community which means knowing who is potentially a danger to their community. We are a county of 15,000 people with only 6 deputies on duty at any one time. There is information on EVERYONE.
Think about common sense gun laws such as waiting period, restrictions to conceal carry, age of buyers, shutting down gun show sales, more rigorous application to purchase a gun, etc without jumping to SECOND AMENDMENT!

The majority of people in the US want stricter gun regulation and yet we can't get there. Why?
"The books that the world calls immoral are books that show its own shame." - Oscar Wilde
Locked Previous topicNext topic