back to article Never fear, the White House is here to tackle web trolls

A US task force aims to prevent online harassment and abuse, with a specific focus on protecting women, girls and LGBTQI+ individuals. In the next 180 days, the White House Task Force to Address Online Harassment and Abuse will, among other things, draft a blueprint on a "whole-of-government approach" to stopping "technology- …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    be careful what you wish for

    ending abuse for specific groups ? How about everyone ? Should the ethnic groups children from the northern European continent be made to apologise for having a broken melanin gene that classes them automatically problematic ? What happened to equality before the national law . See Martin Luther King speech.

    1. Snowy Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: be careful what you wish for

      I would see the Martin Luther King speech but it is copyrighted until 2058 or later if copyright is extended again.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: be careful what you wish for

        "I would see the Martin Luther King speech but it is copyrighted"

        That doesn't make it unavailable. If you used all three brain cells, you might be able to find a transcript of the original broadcast.

        Try here.

        1. Snowy Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: be careful what you wish for

          Yes I could hear it there or I could even read it somewhere else but can I see it (as in watch him give the speech) without break copyright?

          1. Irony Deficient

            can I see it (as in watch him give the speech) without breaking copyright?

            Yes, you could watch it, without breaking the copyright of the estate of Dr. King, by purchasing a licensed DVD of the speech.

            1. Snowy Silver badge
              Facepalm

              Re: can I see it (as in watch him give the speech) without breaking copyright?

              I could if it was not currently sold out

              1. Irony Deficient

                I could if it was not currently sold out

                There’s more than one place to buy it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: be careful what you wish for

      The Democrats seem to always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and they do so by focusing on stuff like this instead of important things that will materially affect the voters. I suspect we'll see that in the 2022 Congressional electrons in the Fall.

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: be careful what you wish for

        You're pretty much correct - Biden got elected on a centrist platform and swung hard left as soon as he got elected, and the Republicans seem to have gotten stronger for implementing a Trump-less Trumpism.

        That doesn't mean that this specific legislation is useless, nor is it particularly 'lefty'

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: be careful what you wish for

          Biden.... hard left????! You must be a USA-ian.

    3. NoneSuch Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: be careful what you wish for

      Fighting ignorance with facts. That's worked incredibly well so far.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: be careful what you wish for

      Should teaching children that physical mutualisation can solve mental problems be acceptable ?

  2. chuckufarley Silver badge
    Boffin

    Again I will say that this isn't a solution...

    ...It's just another symptom of the American Problem. Without a solution to the American Problem people in this country cannot be expected to act in a healthy way online. We lack respect for others because we don't respect our society and since we are all part of society we therefore must not respect ourselves. Let's end the "Blame and Shame Game" and start the "We The People Game" like we said we would do over 200 years ago.

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Again I will say that this isn't a solution...

      Nothing beats a two party system in dividing a people into two groups.

      Looking at you from the side it's absolutely horrifying to look and listen to you.

      You will not be able to become anything else, perhaps not even a one party country like North Korea, and some other countries, and still it's the ultimate goal of a party in a two party system.

      You are as rubbish in this respect as the British.

      Get a mirror, please.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Equality comes in when the government spies on everyone*

    *everyone besides Wallstreet and the Fortune 500

    1. quxinot

      You forgot the government representatives themselves, which would be one of the top priorities to have privacy, of course.

  4. Claverhouse Silver badge
    Meh

    Finger-Wagging

    "And after the massacre of 19 children — 19 babies — and two teachers in Uvalde, it was revealed that the shooter had threatened to kidnap, rape, and kill teenage girls on Instagram," she added.

    .

    I am by no means anti-gun freedom, but it would do a lot more to prevent this stuff if America --- and all it's little States --- adopted saner gun laws

    1. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: Finger-Wagging

      Unfortunately that's not going to happen in my lifetime. The number of guns sold per year has tripled from 20 years ago, because the right wing is kept in a constant state of fear by Fox News and other extremist media telling them that immigrant caravans, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and adrenochrome chugging deep staters are all coming for you, and make you afraid one or two guns is not going to be enough to protect your family!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Finger-Wagging

        make you afraid one or two guns is not going to be enough to protect your family!

        I have three guns in my apartment loaded and ready to go. One in the front, one in the master bed room (about the middle of the unit) and one in the back office. All that in about 1,050 sq feet.

        If you can't get to a gun in two seconds, then it's not useful in an emergency.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          I hope you are very careful who you invite into your appartment.

          Anyone getting in an argument with you is only 2 seconds from a tool applying lethal force.

          You will although claim it is safe as you know how to handle those tools - does that apply to every visitor as well?

          1. jvf

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            First of all, it sounds like he’s joking. Second, even if true, nowhere does he imply he’d shoot someone he was arguing with. Third, and most importantly, he’s in an apartment-if he’s not using the correct ammunition he’s going to shoot his neighbors-they’re the ones who should be nervous. Hope he has his s**t together on this.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Finger-Wagging

              First off, no I'm not joking.

              Secondly, I don't really like people and I'm not a social butterfly, so I rarely have anyone over. Those that I do have over have no clue where the guns are located. And I don't like children, so they're never over. And if a child were to come over, I would re-locate my guns to somewhere out of their reach temporarily. In the 10 years that I've had guns, I could probably count on one hand the number of times that a child came over where I live.

              And thirdly - the guns are only needed in a life or death emergency. THAT IS IT. They are not toys. They are not for show and tell. They are not to "settle an argument." These tools are to protect me and those that I love from any crazy that enter my "castle" and threaten grave harm to me or my loved ones.

              Oh and yea - the first and last rule of self-defense is to try everything else before using your gun, including calling 911 first! The gun is the tool of last resort, PERIOD. There are horror stories of people who legitimately were in fear of their life, used a gun to kill someone and either the government arrested them (criminal charge) or, the estate of the deceased/wounded person sues (civil). I want to avoid both of those outcomes. If I have to discharge my weapon at someone, it will be absolutely because there was nothing else I could do.

              Hell, speaking of weapons in a home or apartment, I have plenty of other dangerous weapons - in my fridge, German 0.5L beer bottles (they weight about a kilo full and are thick as shit). Next to my fridge is two dozen steak knives and butcher knives. I also have two rolling pins, two different canes (not mine, but my partner's and one of them has a nice quad base made of steel), two Boos cutting boards, several (perhaps too many...) loose 3.5" hard drives that can be used both as a ranged attack and melee attack, a vise, a few cordless drills with twist bits usually in them, a reciprocating saw, a circular saw, I have a bottle of bleach, a bottle of ammonia, bottles of whiskey (let's hope it doesn't get down to that, however), a bicycle tire pump, mason jars with both tool bits and food bits (not commingled, of course), a small library of books, three fire extinguishers and a snow shovel. (not all of that is next to the fridge, they're all over the place)

              And that's all that I can think of at the top of my mind right now that I can use as weapons before reaching for one of my guns.

              So, everyone's home can be dangerous to an intruder, or apparently a "friend" that you have an "argument" with, or vice versa, if you want to consider the tables being flipped against you.

              And to the earlier AC - I have one of my two EDCs on me while I'm awake. Usually in a "sneaky pete" or an OWB holster - including when I'm dumping out, with two spare clips on my belt, so I'm covered all the other times.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Finger-Wagging

                So you've got plenty of weapons that aren't guns. And statistics show that most criminals, armed or otherwise, who are subdued by amateurs, are subdued without use of guns. So... isn't three guns in the home about three too many?

                I've lived more than thirty years since leaving my parents' home, mostly in mid-sized, racially mixed cities, where I haven't hesitated - and still wouldn't - to walk the streets at any hour. I've been mugged twice. And in all that time, I have never once been in a situation where I thought "I wish someone here had a gun". Well, except when very angry, usually in traffic, and on reflection I'm quite glad my wish wasn't granted on those occasions.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Finger-Wagging

                  Because what I wrote elsewhere -

                  However, if I MUST use one of my guns in self-defense, there isn't anything else as reliable or with as much stopping power as a bullet fired from a gun. If there was, every cop in our nation would be issued that, instead of a bullet-firing gun.

                  So, yes - there are lots of makeshift weapons in my apartment. However, I don't train self-defense with using them like I do with my guns. And while I may see a lot of shit on a TV, that doesn't make me an expert in using them as seen on TV.

                  And to be honest, of everything that I just listed - pretty much the cane, shovel or fire extinguisher would be my go to. Everything else is either defensive or close-quarter and I have no idea what's going on in the mind that person who just broke into my apartment. Are they on drugs? Do they want to rape my disabled partner? Are they for valuables? Are they just for my TV? Do they just like to watch the world burn? (That's been on an uptick in my city this summer.) I don't know and I don't want to find out how strong they are or how weak I am.

                  All I know is that a felonious criminal or criminals forced their way into my apartment and I don't have time to become their social worker.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Finger-Wagging

                  "isn't three guns in the home about three too many?"

                  Are you suggesting trading in those firearms for a pet rock?

              2. jmch Silver badge

                Re: Finger-Wagging

                "These tools are to protect me and those that I love from any crazy that enter my "castle" and threaten grave harm to me or my loved ones."

                Generally speaking you make a compelling case that you are a responsible gun owner only using those guns as a last resort for self-defense. If that is truly the case, then your rights would not be at all affected by bans on automatic / semi/automatic rifles (basically military-use), nor having a background check and ID on buyers, waiting period etc etc. Simply sane measures to put some sane limits on crazy people (or even sane people having a moment of anger during a hard day / week / month ) having easy access to guns.

                All of that apart, how real is the actual possibility of any crazy entering your castle and threatening grave harm?? My feeling is that a lot of gun ownership in the US is based on a much-overblown fear of something that has an infinitesimal chance of actually happening unless you live on a Hollywood movie set

                1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

                  Re: Finger-Wagging

                  I had an armed meth head try to force his way into my house one night, and I shot him. I've owned firearms since 1994, and that was the only time I ever had to point one at someone. And do you know what? My wife had 911 on the phone, the 911 operator heard the gunshot, and it STILL took the cops 15 minutes to arrive. The guy almost bled to death on my doorstep.

                  The US Supreme Court already ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. You want to play the odds, that's your business but without a firearm you have zero chance of a positive outcome in a home invasion. I'd rather have the odds in my favor, or at least 50/50.

                  So far as the answer to violent crime goes, Britain already showed that banning guns does nothing. Nor does banning knives. Nor does banning acid. The solution is to deal with the actual cause, violent people. Disarming people doesn't stop crime, it just makes victims.

                  1. jmch Silver badge
                    Thumb Up

                    Re: Finger-Wagging

                    "I had an armed meth head try to force his way into my house one night"

                    Sorry to hear that!! I'm curious as to how typical / common that is. It seems to be a fairly regular movie occurrence but statistics seem to say otherwise (at least US violent crime stats are on a continuous downward trend since the 90s) . ie were you just unlucky??

                    ", and I shot him."

                    I'm not really in favour of guns and shooting at all, but in this case, good for you!

                  2. jmch Silver badge

                    Re: Finger-Wagging

                    "Britain already showed that banning guns does nothing. Nor does banning knives. Nor does banning acid. "

                    Well, not sure about that. Britain's violent crime is, I believe, lower than the US. In any case, limiting and controlling (not banning) handguns (not all firearms) works to limit violent outcomes in places where guns aren't common. If guns are already common as in the US, there needs to be a way to phase them out, but I'm all out of practical ideas there.

                    "The solution is to deal with the actual cause, violent people."

                    The actual cause isn't violent people, it's violent actions, and violent actions are done by people who are desperate, angry, afraid... Violent crime is high in poor areas because poor people have nothing to lose, can see no prospect of improvement no role models or examples of people who have broken the cycle.

                    If you want a society with little to no violent crime, you also need a society where there is prosperity all the way from top to bottom, not just as an average of fabulously wealthy and desperately poor. Good education. Good (and dare I say, affordable) healthcare. But that would be too "socialist" for some USA-ians

              3. Sherrie Ludwig

                Re: Finger-Wagging

                So, just for the record, Mr. (assumption) Anonymous Coward, can you tell us WHICH "well-regulated militia" you are part of?

                1. Pirate Dave Silver badge

                  Re: Finger-Wagging

                  If he's in the United States, he's in the same militia as the rest of us - that being the general populace of the United States itself. We USians are all responsible for defending this country, like it or not.

        2. Jaybus

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          Don't forget to put one in the head. I mean, what if a break in occurs when your.....indisposed.

        3. cookieMonster Silver badge

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          It must be terrible to live in such fear, maybe you could move/emigrate to a safer country?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            I already live in a (relatively) safe country. In countries where guns are banned, crims love to use bladed weapons instead. Since I can't conceal a machete, but can conceal a gun, seems like a decent compromise.

        4. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          If I was that afraid I was going to be attacked by intruders into my house I'd be investing in bars for my windows and a reinforced steel door & frame. How can you be sure your house is safe when you are gone, are the guns going to shoot themselves? Also I heard nothing about you keeping a gun in your bathroom, so they could come for you when you're taking a shit - better buy another gun!

          With better physical defenses it would take intruders so long to break in you would have plenty of time to walk to a gun safe, unlock it, take out a gun, and load it before you would need it. Heck, you might even have time to call the police and have them arrive before anyone succeeds in getting in, depending on where you live. Though I'm going to guess you are one of those people who secretly hopes someone breaks into your house, because you fantasize about killing a criminal and being hailed as a "hero" by your friends at the shooting range!

          If you live in such abject terror that you think you need to be ready to shoot in two seconds, you are undoubtedly leaving multiple loaded weapons lying about in your house. Which surely makes you a bigger target for theft than most. Perhaps that's why gun fanatics don't want to see stronger background checks put in place - if it becomes difficult for criminals to acquire guns legally, the only way they'll be able to get them is to steal from gun owners. They'd just have to wait until you leave the house before breaking in.

          Meanwhile the rest of us who haven't been terrorized by right wing media will go on living our lives without a gun in our house, or bars on our windows, and sleep soundly since our minds haven't been poisoned and know the odds of someone breaking into our house at all (let alone someone willing to kill an unarmed homeowner) are vanishingly small. I'm far more likely to be killed by one of the huge trees that surround my house, or a malfunction in my furnace, slipping in the shower, etc.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            I don't care about my possessions nearly as much as I care about my loved ones, so not sure about your point on auto-shooting guns while I'm away.

            Why can I say that? Because I will flee my home if there is a wildfire, building fire, a flood, a hurricane, killer locus, whathaveyou and leave everything except my partner and our pets, behind (except maybe one of my computer backup drives and work craptop and a change of clothes, depending on how much time we have to act).

            And yes, I have already reinforced my exterior doors. I installed a hardening kit on both of my exterior doors and have removable door security bars that are in place while we sleep.

            And as even pointed out by the not-so-friendly-person-to-guns, comedian Jim Jefferies, in the show Bare, clearly points out that a gun stored in a safe, is not available for protection. So, no - my rifles and all my other guns are stored in a safe... but my protection guns are loaded and ready to go at a moment's notice.

            And how am I at an increased risk to be targeted exactly for my guns? Do the crims have x-ray vision? Are they partnered with Magneto who can sense concentrated sources of metal? From the outside, my apartment looks no different than any other apartment that may or may not guns.

            Sure, there was that nice data breach in the UK recently with a bunch of long gun holders. I'm curious what the actual blowback on that breach was. Was there an uptick in break-ins that is statically significant?

            Let's say that my state's gun owner database is breached. If you're a crim where you can buy a gun for $100 on the street (if you buy a "hot gun", eg: one that has been used in prior homicide. The reason they're cheaper is that if you get caught with it and ballistics links that gun to a murder, it is highly likely that you might be charged with that/those murders...), would you rather break into a the domicile of a known multiple gun owner or plunk down $100 for another hand-me-down gun? Option two seems the safer of the two options.

            Hell - the risk of a state data breach might be a good reason to campaign for eliminating the licensing component of both gun ownership and concealed carry. You can't steal data on lawful gun owners if that data does not exist.

            And you are correct - the odds of me having to use my gun to defend myself is very, very, very, very small. I will likely die of old age or a car crash or being hit by a vehicle as a pedestrian.

            However, if I MUST use one of my guns in self-defense, there isn't anything else as reliable or with as much stopping power as a bullet fired from a gun. If there was, every cop in our nation would be issued that, instead of a bullet-firing gun.

            1. Pirate Dave Silver badge
              Pirate

              Re: Finger-Wagging

              "Let's say that my state's gun owner database is breached."

              Ah, you must be in one of the un-gun-friendly states that keeps such a database. Sorry to hear that.

              As to you original post, I'm with you. I have multiple pistols in various cubbie-holes, and a couple of AKs in relatively easy reach. In my 53 years, I've "needed" a gun twice, although neither time did I have to actually use them. But better to have it than need it, IMHO, especially when nobody but you is there at that moment to do whatever may need doing. Some folks don't see things that way, and that's fine by me, but I'll be damned if I'm going to have to explain to the Father-in-law why I completely failed to keep his daughter and grand-kids safe. That's still Job 1 as far as I'm concerned.

        5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          The saddest thing about your comment is that you feel you have the need to keep 3 loaded weapons, ready to fire, within easy reach inside your own home "for emergencies". That's a big part of what the other poster was referring to as the "America Problem".

      2. Snowy Silver badge
        Holmes

        Re: Finger-Wagging

        Every time gun control comes up gun sales go up too.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          Well, of course. Fear of a shortage of anything will set off a run on that thing.

          See: Bog Roll.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            Nobody sells as many guns as a Democrat President.

    2. the Jim bloke

      Re: Finger-Wagging

      All of the proposed gun control measures - banning 'ghost' guns, maybe, possibly some character checks before selling automatic weapons.. whatever others they come up with - act to protect the gun manufacturers.

      1. Horst U Rodeinon
        Flame

        Re: Finger-Wagging

        A U.S. citizen cannot legally purchase an AUTOMATIC weapon.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          "A U.S. citizen cannot legally purchase an AUTOMATIC weapon."

          Incorrect. You just have to dot the is and cross the ts in all the right places. Or you can purchase one made prior to 1898, none of which are considered firearms.

          Yes, even in California.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            Partially incorrect. Any automatic weapon or machine gun lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986 is excluded from FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act).

            Therefore, if you dot your t's and cross your i's - an US citizen can legally (at the federal level) own a fully-automatic weapon/machine gun.

      2. Pirate Dave Silver badge

        Re: Finger-Wagging

        Eh, nobody much wants to spend the big bucks for an "automatic' weapon just to go on a shooting rampage. They are stoopid expensive and a bit of a PITA to transfer.

        By the same token, "ghost" guns are another stupid idea for potential shooting rampagers - it would seem very rare to have a mentally deranged wannabe shooter put the time and effort into finishing an 80% receiver accurately enough that it wouldn't go "Kaboom" during his rampage. I mean, hell, a factory-finished Anderson or Palmetto State lower receiver can be had for under $50 when they run the sales, so why run the risk of doing it poorly yourself?

        Not sure how the government could do millions of "character checks" per year. I'm guessing they would need to be nearly as thorough as a security clearance check to be of any value, and those are expensive and time consuming.

        And I'm certainly not sure how any of that would protect the gun manufacturers. That's what the PLCAA is for, and it seems to currently be in vogue to disregard that law and allow the manufacturers to be sued.

    3. Horst U Rodeinon
      FAIL

      Re: Finger-Wagging

      Gun Laws are meaningless to the people doing the massacres.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Finger-Wagging

        The 18 year old who killed all those people in Uvaldi legally purchased his guns a few days after his 18th birthday. He had tried to acquire guns before his 18th birthday but failed. He had asked his older sister to buy him a gun, but she refused. Supposedly had talked to some other people too. Gun laws didn't stop him, but they delayed him. If he had to wait until he was 21, he would have had to stick to his murderous plan for three more years. Three more years for someone to maybe figure out what he was going to do. Three more years for maybe him to get mental help. Three more years for him to maybe commit some lesser crime and be put in jail.

        While a hardened criminal who knows other criminals would have little difficulty acquiring a gun even if he wasn't legally able to purchase one in his own name, that's not the case for the kids and young adults doing many of the school shootings. Raising the age to purchase guns to 21 would have stopped some of them - almost certainly would have stopped the Uvaldi shooter. Sure, the one earlier this year who stole his mom's gun or whatever wouldn't be stopped, but laws making gun owners legally liable if they don't securely store their weapons which are then used by their children to commit a crime would.

        How many who live in the US would have been able to acquire a gun before they turned 18 "off the street" (i.e. not relying on family members) I sure wouldn't have known who to ask, though I suppose if I asked enough people (i.e. a few people I knew who dealt drugs) maybe I could have got a lead. Hopefully we can normalize "no questions asked" reporting if someone is looking to buy a gun illegally, especially someone of high school age, and have authorities actually look into it.

    4. ratcatcher67

      Re: Finger-Wagging

      couldnt the shooter have done as much damage with cars/ knives..etc.

      1. Irony Deficient

        couldn’t the shooter have done as much damage with cars/knives…etc.

        It would have been far more difficult to use a car to run over people from room to room within the school.

      2. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Finger-Wagging

        Let me know the first time a single person on a murderous rampage kills 21 people with a knife. If he tried that in a school, presumably a teacher would have hit him over the head with something heavy and put to a stop to it pretty quickly. Can't do that with a person who has a weapon that can kill beyond arm's reach.

        The kids could just run away, he might catch a few but never 19 of them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Finger-Wagging

          "The kids could just run away, he might catch a few but never 19 of them."

          What you just said is "I do not care if a few kids get killed by a psychotic with a knife, as long as all the scary guns are taken away from everybody else".

          An intelligent society would remove the psychotics and not see any kids killed by them.

          1. nintendoeats

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            No, what he said was "I would prefer that a smaller number of children be attacked with a knife than a larger number of children be attacked with a gun".

            I do not "want all the scary guns taken away" (you would be taking several away from me), and I am fully capable of understanding and agreeing with what this person is saying. Being deliberately obtuse does not help your position.

            1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

              Re: Finger-Wagging

              Armed teachers would be the solution, and they can use radio beacons in the pocket, specific colored guns and perhaps a roadguard vest so the cops know it's a teacher. Armed teachers can attend monthly firearms training with the local SWAT team as well, so everyone knows how to react and everyone is familiar with each other. Make it an added pay incentive for the teachers as well, and require annual psyche evals to be a carrying teacher. This would reduce school shootings, and would reduce bodycounts. Schools are a prime target specifically because there are a large number og small, unarmed victims and the goal is to rack up as large a bodycount as possible before being shot.

              For that matter, if the media downplayed the shooter's identity instead of doing specials for weeks, these people would not get the "star treatment" they are after. No media blitz around their names means they don't get to go out in a blaze of what passes for glory for them. Sure, report the shooting, report the aftermath, report that they caught/killed the shooter, just don't report their name or show their picture and point out "we know who the shooter is, but we will not publicise their name, picture or lives because we will not make them famous through their cowardly act of attacking children."

              1. nintendoeats

                Re: Finger-Wagging

                Odds that periodically children will (deliberately or accidentally) access the teacher's gun and do something bad: %100

                Odds that a teacher will at some point (deliberately or accidentally) shoot somebody other than an active shooter: ???

                Odds that an armed teacher will, in the moment, be both willing and able to shoot somebody (especially a 16 year old): ???

                Odds that the anti-gun lobby will consider this to be an acceptable compromise solution: %0

                Odds that many teachers will seek other employment if this is implemented: %100

                Percentage of school budgets that is left over for a program like this: %0

                Percentage of democratic countries other than the USA that would deal with school shootings by arming teachers: %0

                I lived in the states for a few years when I was 5 - 10. My parents were always disturbed that they needed to have a "no guns allowed" sign at my school.

                1. Pirate Dave Silver badge

                  Re: Finger-Wagging

                  My wife is an elementary school teacher, so I have met most of the other teachers at the school. In all honesty, most of them either could not mentally shoot an armed intruder, or could not do an accurate, reliable job of it. But some could. Even then, eh, I don't know, that's going to be a lot to lay on a stereo-typically soft-hearted person who dedicated their life to teaching kids. My Dad was an MP in the US Army over in Vietnam, and had to shoot more than a few kids himself. They still haunt him to this day.

                  I'd say more cops in the schools would help, but that will only last one or two election cycles before the funding gets cut and we're back to square one.

                  Red-flag could help, but as others point out, our legal system is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and red-flag really turns that on its head in some very unpleasant ways. There was quite a bit of fall-out in the gun community when Papa Trump casually said "why don't we take the guns first...".

                  Banning scary rifles and standard magazines might help, but with 20+ million rifles and God-only-knows how many mags floating around, it's just going to move the transactions from an FFL's store front to Bubba's back porch. I'd have to think that if somebody is already screwed-up enough in the head that they want to go into an elementary school and open fire, then they aren't going to be too put out by having to purchase their one-time-use weapon on the gray/black market. And a ban will create that easy market for them, where one doesn't so much exist today.

                  Raising the age to buy a weapon to 21 will be as effective as raising the drinking age to 21 was. We've had that law for, eh, 40 years now, but still have stupid drunk 16 and 17 year olds wrapping their cars around telephone poles and trees (in the best-case scenarios) with frightening regularity.

                  Is there an answer? Not a good one, and probably not one that our government can find and implement. Our US society is diseased on all sides with "me, me, me", and that runs the gamut from land ownership to gun ownership to corporate management to how our government is run. And that's all before we start on the "social" causes. Until we "fix" the "me-ism", we won't fix the urge to hurt each other.

              2. DS999 Silver badge

                Re: Finger-Wagging

                Armed teachers would be the solution

                There are 19 cops inside the building, and they had a ballistic shield and multiple ARs for OVER AN HOUR before they mustered up the courage to take on the shooter.

                You want low paid teachers to do something the cops were too cowardly to do?

          2. DS999 Silver badge

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            An intelligent society would remove the psychotics and not see any kids killed by them.

            Let's see your proposal for doing that. When you have your magic method of figuring out who is a "psycho" BEFORE they attempt to shoot up (or knife up) a school what you are going to do to them? Lock them up in a mental hospital? Put them on a "red flag" list so they can't buy guns? Treat them like sex offenders and have to register with the local authorities if they move and don't allow them within 500 ft of a school?

            Knowing who will commit crimes before they commit them is obviously the perfect solution for all criminals. If you have a way to tell who will shoot up a school before they do it, you should be able to tell who is going to try to hijack a plane, or rob a bank, or rape women. Or do you think school shooters are some special brand of psycho it is possible to detect, but that's not true for any other crimes?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Finger-Wagging

              Weren't quite a few of the mass-shooters in the past few years already "under suspicion" by law-enforcement prior to their shooting? But no serious action was taken before the shooting, so here we are talking about it, yet again.

              1. nintendoeats

                Re: Finger-Wagging

                I know that the mosque shooting in Quebec a few years ago, the shooter had actually been reported by members of his gun club as a risk and the RCMP failed to investigate (if they had, they would have learned that he had a history of mental illness and had made false representations on his license application).

                You won't get every single maniac by looking for these sorts of markers, but let's be honest; few people go from 0 to mass-murderer in one step. Unfortunately the conditions that lead to this kind of behavior is often tied to not having the support infrastructure which would catch the warning signs.

              2. DS999 Silver badge

                Re: Finger-Wagging

                Weren't quite a few of the mass-shooters in the past few years already "under suspicion" by law-enforcement prior to their shooting

                Sometimes they are, the question is what to do about it. If they haven't yet broken any laws there is little that can be done.

                The red flag laws in the US would require they give up any firearms, but the pro-gun lobby is generally very against that, as they fear how such rules could be enforced - i.e. if you tell your neighbor "you'll be sorry if you let your dog shit on my lawn one more time" and he reports that to the police as a threat do they take your guns away? The higher the bar for that the fewer people who will be undeservedly swept up by it, but the more people who later murder people could have been stopped.

                Plus since the red flag laws would inevitably be some type of judgment call, it wouldn't be enforced the same way everywhere, with innocent gun owners unfairly targeted in one city and in another no one ever losing their guns no matter what they do because whoever makes that decision (could be the county sheriff or a local judge I'm not sure) disagrees with the law on principles and refuses to do his part in enforcing it.

                The only thing that can really be done is try to get people mental help, but until they do something they can refuse such help.

          3. jmch Silver badge

            Re: Finger-Wagging

            "An intelligent society would remove the psychotics..."

            An intelligent society would BOTH (1) try to identify and care for the psychotics in a compassionate and respectful way AND (2) limit access to guns, since they know they can't care for all the psychotics even if they tried.

            US society is paying lip service to (1) while doing f*ck-all about it in practice. With regards to (2), while apparently according to surveys there are majorities in favour of stronger gun control, the significant loud minorities against will never allow it.

    5. Khaptain Silver badge

      Re: Finger-Wagging

      It's not a gun problem , it's a culture problem...

      If you can't change the culture, you can't change the problem.....

      It's for that reason that many of todays movements don't actually change anything or do anything positive, because they are not changing the cultural problem that are the fundamental root causes..

  5. sreynolds

    The defence of the first ammendment is about to begin....

    How long before people take an absolute view on the first amendment like they have done so on the second amendment?

    "I can say whatever I goddamn like." or "I will not be censored."

    Why even bother trying?

    1. Toe Knee

      Re: The defence of the first ammendment is about to begin....

      The American right is already trying… any time they’re held accountable for what they say, it’s “they’re taking away muh freedums!!1!one”

      Sadly, it seems to be working in the intended audiences.

    2. DS999 Silver badge

      Re: The defence of the first ammendment is about to begin....

      Have you missed Elon Musk wanting to buy Twitter and reinstate all the right wingers who have been "silenced"? Have you not noticed how he feels quite comfortable libeling people in public like his "pedo guy" comment?

      He clearly feels the first amendment should be so absolute that not only can government not stop you from saying whatever you want, but that private businesses should not be able to do so either - even though the first amendment is expressly about only the government not being able to abridge free speech.

      Except people who work for him, of course. Post an open letter criticizing him or try to organize a union and he'll have you fired so fast you won't know what hit you. Because like all right wing nutjobs, he thinks free speech should only be allowed when it is speech he agrees with. He was born as a privileged white under South Africa's apartheid, so his views shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

  6. the Jim bloke
    Unhappy

    An already implemented step in protecting web citizens from white supremacists.

    Online and phone based support is no longer available from native English/European-language speakers.

    i would use the joke icon - if it was funny.

    1. Sixtiesplastictrektableware

      Re: An already implemented step in protecting web citizens from white supremacists.

      I'm sorry, but isn't that just the sort of thing that would snap your white supremacist mind and cause you to commit random, vile acts of violence against people that have nothing to do with your white supremacist stupidity?

      How exactly does the white supremacist tendency to remark upon stupid white supremacist things (and then actualize them) stand as a deterrent to stupid white supremacists?

      I, too, wish I were joking about you.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: An already implemented step in protecting web citizens from white supremacists.

        I think all the bisphenols in that sixties plastic tableware have finally sent you over the edge.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Re: An already implemented step in protecting web citizens from white supremacists.

      Wait ... are you really suggesting that offshoring tech support is part of a grand conspiracy to protect citizens from racists?

      Huh. Here I thought it was all about saving money.

      1. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

        Re: An already implemented step in protecting web citizens from white supremacists.

        It can't be about saving money, because fixing the problems caused by offshoring costs more than just paying in-nation people a decent wage. I deal with a lot of telecom companies who outsourced, and problems that should take no more than an hour to fix now take weeks. The thing about that is, the signed contracts state that the cirrcuit can only be down for a certain amount of time per year, otherwise the end user gets a rather large refund that accounts for far more paid time than they lost. A circuit that's down for a week might be worth a month of lost revenue. These same offshored people will open tickets to get a reason for outage on a circuit that might have been down for less than a second, because the same contracts will have a "total down time" penalty - if the circuit was down more than X aggregated minutes per year, they get a contracted refund amount.

  7. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Trollface

    KHive?

    I wonder if there will be any repercussions for this group?

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kamala-harris-khive-toxic-side_n_5f4fa573c5b69eb5c037473e

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: KHive?

      No more than for any other religion.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Won't pass in the US. Apparently their politicians aren't educated enough to read and understand their own Constitutiion.

    1. Jaybus

      Oh, they understand it. The problem is that it limits the power of those same politicians, and so they try to circumvent it in whatever way possible, or whatever way they think they can get away with.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Most of the politicians can both read and understand the constitution. Sadly, however, the electorate who put them into power (and keep them there, sometimes for decades) cannot.

  9. innominatus

    More than a US problem?

    Why should "attempting to participate in society" mean using Fessebook or Twatter (other cesspools of humanity are available). Don't go there in the first place?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: More than a US problem?

      While I agree with V.P. Harris's comment that people should be able to participate in society un-abused, I expect actually trying to effectuate this sentiment will not extend much beyond soshill meedja. The "permission" to treat some people as less-than in the real world is extending further and further to cause more hassle for more and more groups of people -- just ask anyone who is told they "fit the profile" or "look like a transient".

  10. Death Boffin
    Trollface

    Speech = Freedom

    Freedom of speech should be exceptionally safe. If Kamala does as well in this assignment as she has done in her other ones.

  11. Horst U Rodeinon

    Based on the picture on the home page, you misspelled "cackle."

  12. david 12 Silver badge

    What they won't fix is the Free Press

    As long as you can become famous by killing people, people will kill to avert their own powerlessness. America can't fix this, because in their hearts they don't and can't separate 'Free Speech' and 'publicizing mass murder'.

    Free Speech and the Free Press permeate American society in a way that is measurably different than other societies. It's not just the guns: it's what they use them for.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As the Great Bloviated Orange one once said

    “Shithole countries”

    I think he was talking about much, much closer to home.

    These mass shootings have no equal around the civilised world.

  14. M.V. Lipvig Silver badge

    I find it hypocritical

    that Harris, in the same speech, would lament those "poor dead babies" in the exact same speech that she would say that women who get abortions should be protected from people who would tell the police where to find a woman who had an abortion in states where it is illegal. Shouldn't all children be protected from those who would kill them? Should not all those who kill children face justice?

    So far as abortion goes I support it only for cases of rape, incest, life of the mother or viability of the child. It should not be convenient, or used as a form of birth control. And, I fully support contraception, provided the screwers buy their own like I did before the vasectomy.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like