TheDoozer
I think you’re missing the point. Bringing in difficult to obtain weapons as part of the conversation muddies the conversation about controlling the currently ubiquitous weapons being used.
As an analogy, let’s say someone blows something up and hurts people, using dynamite or homemade explosive using gun powder:
“Anyone who has access to the dynamite and RPGs and C-4 should be held responsible for what’s done with it!”
“Wait, there was an RPG or C4? I’m pretty sure outside the military it’s pretty difficult to get ahold of either of those. They’re already heavily regulated.”
“What difference does it make? They’re explosives used to blow things up and kill people.”
“Right, but, again, those are heavily regulated, while what happened was with dynamite, which is not.”
“OH! So it’s OKAY since the dynamite is not as regulated!”
“No, it’s just a different conversation about RPGs and C4.”
“Only if you have an agenda!”
Vs.
“Anyone who purchases dynamite should be responsible for what happens to it, unless they can show they’ve properly secured it and didn’t give access to it to someone they shouldn’t.”
“Agreed, dynamite and gunpowder explosives are common and not as regulated as they should be.”
Yeah, high school is some of the worst times in my life. If my kid complained, I wouldn’t say “it only gets worse,” I’d say “this is a rough time, but remember, none of the stuff that is hard is real. It’s all just training. The school stuff is training you for deadlines and heavy workloads. The social stuff is training for personal and professional relationships. Try to think of this as the tutorial for life, where you must do X action to proceed, and maybe it’s hard because it’s new, and it’s frustrating because you don’t realize it’s a tutorial and think “this is the game.” It’s not. It becomes an open-world game after this. It’s harder, but it can be WAY better, and you have a lot more control.”
I once had a female coworker who was complaining about how she had walked in on a male coworker using the single-occupancy bathroom (peeing, his back was turned to the door), that him not locking the door was somehow inappropriate of him.
Somebody put a poll up on a white board with the scenario, with question “who behaved inappropriately” with the choices “the person entering the bathroom without knocking” “the person using the bathroom without locking it” “they are both wrong” and “we’re all adults here, get the fuck over it.”
The tallies were overwhelmingly in the “get the fuck over it” column. But I feel the poll was missing something important: the door had a tendency when locked to stick and leave the person locked inside. We were in a quick-response duty status (as in running to the aircraft), so the person already in should absolutely not have locked it (he was the runner).
You see a closed door to a room (of relative privacy) that might be occupied, you knock. Simple as.
Not always. When I was a restaurant manager, I had a couple employees where I would patiently explain why we need to do something a particular way (usually for health and safety reasons), and they would deliberately do it a different way because they just “want to do it that way.”
No, Chelsea, dumping a half-full soda somebody handed you into the ice you use for putting in customer drinks is not okay, get the fuck out of drive through, grab a bucket, and start emptying that ice out and cleaning/sanitizing the space. I swear to god if you complain about it, when you just put one employee out of action for the next half (let’s be honest, full) hour as well as making drive-thru have to go up front to make drinks in the middle of the dinner rush I will fire you on the spot.
Some people have a “problem with authority” because they are belligerent idiots.