Okay, I see it’s a three year old rule. I’m just amazed that parents, ACLU, etc. have let this go on. Like that school that wants the deaf kid to change his name because in sign language his hand represents some type of gun. You can’t make this shit up! Seriously!
http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/sports-nfl/20120906/20120906183824100579808/
It’s obviously a ridiculous thing to see happen. But you know how gangs are, they’ll kill each other, and even innocent people, over anything - colors, numbers - whatever. So if some kid wears an “18” jersey and has no idea about the gang, he’s at immediate risk for being targeted by gangs that are rivaled to the “18” gang. It would be like accidentally wearing a red t-shirt in a Crip controlled neighborhood.
Gangs communicate within their own groups and with other groups in a lot of obscure ways. Tattoo’s, graffiti, and other images and signs that none of us would recognize. It is absolutely conceivable that they were marking themselves with sports jerseys.
In light of the potential for innocent people to be targeted for violence based on wearing the wrong number, and the potential for gangs to be marking themselves BY wearing those numbers - I think saying “you know what, nobody can wear any of these numbers until this dumbass shit stops happening” is a pretty reasonable thing to do. Obviously the better solution is to put the entire gang behind bars or somewhere a little more permanent, but that’s not easily done.
I don’t know the exact circumstances around the story, but I’m willing to at least give the benefit of the doubt on this one. This is a school, remember. Schools have dress codes. If there is ever a reasonable reason to have a dress code in a school, surely this has to be it.
I’d have to think that even a person dumb enough to be in a gang would realize that Johnny Third Grader isn’t in a gang, but what do I know. hehe
Let me try a little switcharoo experiment here…
In light of the potential for innocent people to be targeted for violence based on people owning a gun, and the potential for gangs to be marking themselves BY owning guns - I think saying “you know what, nobody can own a gun until this dumbass shit stops happening” is a pretty reasonable thing to do. Obviously the better solution is to get all the guns out of peoples hands or somewhere a little more permanent, but that’s not easily done.
While what you wrote does sound reasonable, that isn’t where it would end. That logic of being reasonable is what leads to complacency and complacency leads to conforming. Scary road that is both slippery and sloped.
And that’s how we end up going down that slippery slope of “reasonable” rules, legislation, and other mandated BS. The mantra of “For the sake of a few, we will/must infringe on the rights of many”, “Because it’s for the children”. Heard that one before. Yep, it has really protected the hell out of us. :sarcastic:
Analysis by way of analogy thought experiments like this often lead to wacky results because they are based on false equivocations.
I can justify or condemn almost any decision by substituting words but keeping the same argumentational framework.
There is clearly something fundamentally different about numbered Jerseys being part of a school’s dress code and destroying the second amendment, even though substituting the words makes it seem like they’re the same.
Schools have dress codes. Banning clothing that gets used to mark gangs is a clearly good use of that dress code.
This is a school. It’s an individual institution and an individual district dealing with an individual problem, not the law of the land.
Enforcing a friggen’ school dress code in gang-infested territory is clearly not a slippery slope to hell, and it takes a certain kind of extremism / absolutism / failure to see the nuance of a situation to get to a state of mind where it seems like one.
You think that children as young as 3rd grade AREN’T in gangs? You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Then don’t give the gangs the satisfaction of knowing they’re affecting everyone else. Simply make it a dress code issue. Not a gang issue.
You’re absolutely right, and I clarified as such.
It’s not about them banning sports jerseys, if they want to do that as part of a dress code fine. It’s the silliness of banning numbers, or colors, or hairstyles, or cellphones, or whatever else gangs use to communicate with. You just gave them(gangs) more control to dictate what everyone else should do.
Having your antagonistic approach to most threads is getting old, again. You’ve made it right back onto my “Ignore List” in record time!
They’re not banning numbers. They’re banning numbered-jerseys, a specific item. They’re not being disallowed to be 18 years old, or say that 6X3=18, or anything else. If you think it’s okay to ban ALL the jerseys in the first place, then why would it not be okay to only ban the specific jerseys that are causing a problem? Seems like it’s a more measured response, less reactionary, and allows a greater level of individual freedom than banning them all. Which option gives the gang more control?
(link is dead to me so I’ll just ask)
How’s that going to work out for whatever peewee teams the school may have?
Or other schools that come in for home games?
AFA 3rd graders not being associated with gangs…Ever heard the term ‘shorty’?
It doesn’t represent a diminutive adult or adolecent, but an elementary school age child.
3rd grade puts a kid in the 8-9 year old bracket and well in the window for ‘light’ gang work like lookout or mule.
Why are gang members and associates in schools anyway?
All the locked in people to prey upon
I grew up in gang infested California.
I’ve seen many countermeasures against gangs in action.
a0cake is correct about which ones work, or forces gangs to adopt more overt forms of contacting eachother. Which makes them easier to catch.
In fact. I’ve seen kids as young as 7-8 with gang tattoos.
I’m guessing they weren’t the temporary type tattoos .
I suspect your life would have been much easier if they’d have simply banned “gangs” from school and expelled known members.
That would’ve been nice. But then we’d have had like 3 students in the whole school.
You forgot one part ^ but that was the gist of it.
I saw an article in Time magazine (I don’t usually humor such childish chicken scratch, but the doctor’s office waiting room was truly that
boring) about the number of mass shootings. They didn’t mention that the number of gun related deaths continues to decline. Someone saw me reading the article, and “Yeah, I read that one too, who in their right mind would allow such destructive technology in private citizens’ hands? Sure we aren’t all crazy but think of the amount of people who are.” My doc walks in just in time to hear this, suppresses laughter, and calls me into his office. We proceeded to talk carry handguns and he showed me photos of his slick new full-auto 1919 :dirol:
Why are there gang members at all?