How useful/effective really is the zero-tolerance policy on weapons in schools?

Quote:

Hmm... you call that a rifle?!

I did not use that word,
but a carbine is defined as a short light rifle.

Quote:

A M1 Carbine?! Ha, that's nothing!

Thay come with 15 round magazines.
U can easily get 30 round M 2 magazines for them.

Quote:

Look what this congresswoman, Carolyn Mccarthy, brought into show and tell.

I attended a lecture of hers
at a library. From the audience, I told her that when I read of what
happened to her husband, I wished that I had been able to hand him
a cocked, loaded revolver. She did not like that.

I read that she was divorcing him, at the time.





David

.30 Carbine makes a pee poor rifle cartridge.
Ruger once put out a single action revolver chambered for it.
That was one very hot pistol cartridge.

Off topic, but it's your topic.

That's the idea. Did I clear up what I was saying?
K
O

.30 Carbine makes a pee poor rifle cartridge.
Ruger once put out a single action revolver chambered for it.
That was one very hot pistol cartridge.

Off topic, but it's your topic.

I am so far from a gun not that all of this is pretty much over my head.

The problem with all 'zero tolerance' rules is that, by definition, there can be no exceptions allowed for mitigating or extenuating circumstances. And, furthermore, the rule against 'no weapons of any description' fails to adequately define a 'weapon.' I would never have imagined that a Boy Scout knife (or a Swiss Army knife, for that matter) could be considered a weapon. As David has already pointed out, under the right circumstances literally anything can be construed as a weapon.

School teachers have a professional history of irrationality

Good idea. Sorry for the digression.

Quote:

The problem with all 'zero tolerance' rules is that, by definition, there can be no exceptions allowed for mitigating or extenuating circumstances. And, furthermore, the rule against 'no weapons of any description' fails to adequately define a 'weapon.' I would never have imagined that a Boy Scout knife (or a Swiss Army knife, for that matter) could be considered a weapon. As David has already pointed out, under the right circumstances literally anything can be construed as a weapon.

It is not merely a matter of interpretation; with very little cleverness,
almost ANYTHING can be used as an effective weapon
(tho some weapons are better than others).
For instance, a pencil driven into the throat or a carotid artery,
or using a wooden or plastic ruler to slash that artery,
or using one's bare hands to box the victim's ears: lethal in the extreme; almost effortless.

Q.E.D.: anti-weapons laws are only foolish, futile and absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to enforce.

I certainly can see a boyscout knife or a Swiss Army Knife being used as a weapon. I know of a number of instances where they have been used as weapons. But why would any student need to bring a knife (of any sort) to school, anyway? What "mitigating or extenuating circumstances" do you think might apply? Personally, I can't see any problem with schools wanting to ban them from their premises. The problem, to me, is how they they go about enforcing such a ban. As I said earlier, a 45 day suspension for a 6 year old seems hardly appropriate.

I'm assuming the US schools concerned have reasons for these policies, based on past experience? (I'm not aware of similar rules in Australian schools, so I can't really compare our different circumstances.) But without knowing too much about the background information that's led to the bans, I'd imagine there'd be little argument from parents if the motivation was understood to be the safety of their children. It does help enormously, of course, if parents have been involved in the process of formulating the rules & are aware of (& support) the consequences for breaching them. But once the rules are actually in place, schools should be in a realist position to realistically apply them.