cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/3089104
NEWPORT NEWS — The Newport News Education Association President condemned the premise of the school division’s motion to dismiss Abigail Zwerner’s pending $40 million lawsuit.
The motion was filed last week by attorneys representing the School Board and argues that Zwerner, who was shot in her classroom at Richneck Elementary in January by a 6-year-old student, is only entitled to file a worker’s compensation claim because the injury she sustained from the shooting is a “workplace injury,” and that the shooting was a hazard of the job.
Removed by mod
While I understand the assholes are trying to get a lower payment, if this is a workplace hazard, then every teacher should sue for back hazard pay, violations on clearly showing it’s a possibility and expectation to get shot, and I’m sure OSHA has something on providing proper PPE. It’s a workplace hazard after all.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. In the civilian context, an assault weapon is semiautomatic. Fully automatic weapons are, to put it lightly, uncommon among civilians so assault weapon refers to a variety of styles of semiautomatic firearm.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Why is what? Why did the ban expire? It had a sunset date and wasn’t extended. Why are fully autos not popular? Combination of laws and practicality. Why are certain civilian semiauto rifles called assault weapons? Military has assault rifles, civilians use the broader term assault weapons to capture a broader category.
Why not go after handguns? NRA and their ilk keep blocking those efforts.
Removed by mod
Consider this: not everyone familiar with firearms is a right wing lunatic. In fact, there is a surprisingly large and generally quite chunk of the population that is moderate to left leaning with various levels of support for civilian firearm ownership. If you go far enough left you find the people actually willing to fight for the good of the people and against tyranny (not like, "no step on snek tyranny, but more a long the lines of the black Panthers of old, or the current volunteers providing armed protection to lgbtq events in Texas, etc).
How would you suggest that such a person point out to you that you’re using emotionally charged language to create a false dichotomy and ramble off blatant ad hominem attacks?
Here’s something else to consider: the US government is bad at writing laws. If you want a great example, check the CAFE emissions standards. Using a chart that effectively allows bigger vehicles to get lower mileage has not resulted in manufactures making more fuel efficient vehicles, it’s resulted in larger vehicles. This is why you can’t buy a small pickup truck like the old ranger or s-10. So people are forced to buy larger vehicles (that use more resources to manufacture) that get worse mileage, and in turn actually increasing total fuel consumption. That’s obviously really stupid if you think about it for a few minutes.
Most gun laws are equally as stupid and short sighted, but because the topic is more political and constantly in the news (even though the planet burning up is way more important, but I digress) it is debated more emotionally. In the example above if one doesn’t take the time to understand general concepts about modern vehicles, legislation, and the various terms used to describe it, they won’t have an educated opinion. An uneducated opinion is just noise.
This is relevant to firearms because most laws are feature restrictions of some kind. For example, banning a vertical foregrip. Defining what that is surprisingly tricky, and the government gets it wrong, or leaves loopholes, or has some other weird side effect. That’s ignoring the fact that the purpose of a foregrip is to give the shooter better ergonomics and control. More control is safer and the odds of a shooter missing a target are reduced. So why would the government decide to ban something that is effectively a safety device while using incorrect jargon? Great question! Go ask the state of California, and new Jersey, etc.
At the end of the day, the only way to eliminate gun violence is to eliminate all guns. In the US that is logically impossible even if the constitution and will of the people is ignored. Calling something “assault” is as meaningless as cereal manufacturers saying a bowl of sugary carbs in milk is good for your heart.
Removed by mod
I think you need to go re-read and do some research. I never suggested a solution to school shootings at all. If you want one it’s simple: better quality of life overall, better quality education, and guaranteed social services of various kinds. This is quite straightforward.
Now, if you’ll stop putting words in my mouth I’ll give you one more try. Otherwise, it seems like it’s you that’s sticking to the talking points and not at all paying attention.
Removed by mod
If you want to solve a problem you need to understand the problem, using terms like “assault rifle” when 97% of all gun violence uses hand-guns including school shootings shows you don’t actually care about understanding the problem, let alone solve it.
Removed by mod
We should just ban schools. That way school shooting won’t happen.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Short-barrel carbine ban doesn’t have the same ring. I still think they should go as they really amount to nothing more than murder fantasy toys for grown boys.
deleted by creator
Like a sign that says “X days without shooting”?
Country wide? That sign comes with a permanent 0.
Each school. Country-wide a Mass shootings per day would be more effective.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/134/846/b75.jpg
I was thinking the same, the outrageous thing here is not the claim, but the fact that they do have a point.
getting shot in America is a hazard of just existing in that country…
I read a little more about it. They are saying that she was entitled to claim workman’s comp, but refused to do so. She has thus far refused benefits to which she was/is entitled.
Their theory is that whatever damages are eventually assessed in this case should not include the benefits she is entitled to receive separate and apart from the case. This would be important if she is awarded triple damages, for example. They are effectively arguing that the medical bills shouldn’t be tripled, even if every other claim is.
It’s a technical point, but likely a solid one.