School Shootings?

[Lotus Mox]

I wasn't justifying anything, because even though they got what they deserve that doesn't mean that the people who shot them or persecuted Jews don't get what they deserve later, so it's completely wrong to murder soemone you don't like because you will likely pay for it: eye for an eye

That's what I'm saying.
I know it sounds probably like a lamebrain excuse but it's not that simple.

 

[Spiderman]

Are you Christian or Babylonian?

And how does teasing deserve killing someone? That's like saying being an accessory to a crime deserves life in prison...

 

[Daggertooth]

Hmmmmm, I think I get it now. Though I still don't believe that those killed were evil in past lives. But then again, I don't know much about that since Ireally don't beleave in reincarnation.


And Spidey, You askin me?

 

[Spiderman]

I was asking Lotus Mox. But I think I see what he is saying too, about what deserving what. Although I still don't think teasing someone "deserves" murder.

 

[Spiderman]

Here's a link to a Washington Post (3/20) about what other people are saying about school violence:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/education/A28177-2001Mar19.html

 

[Daggertooth]

Interesting stuff Spidey, thanks.

I particularly like the Idea of making anger management a Required class. Too often the reasons for violence is because an individual just "couldn't take it anymore." Well, If they could manage their anger they could take alot more, if not assuage the problem by their selves.

I dislike the ideas of Adults in the school monitoring every student, and adults in the school stopping every act of bullying.

For the first one it is an impossible task. This would just Place official blame on someone. Besides, It's too much pressure on our teachers. These guy's have to put up with all the crap of students anyway. Now they'll have to worry about gunfire and babysit disgruntled students. All the while knowing that they would be punished if one of the 30 + kids they are watching goes berserk.

The second one is just a bad idea. Part of growing up is learning how to deal with bully's. You have to deal with that type of person all through your life. From some coworker that is being a jerk to a boss that always seems to be one your case. You constantly interfere in bully/bullied relations ships you'll get a generations of wimps. Pathetic people that can't handle their own confrontations. Sometimes the bullying is too extreme and should be stopped. But not for every incident. Besides, the bullied would still feel humiliated if a teacher had to "save" them every day in front of everybody.


So, like in so many other problems in society, education is the best answer. If students are educated in anger management they will be far less likely to commit the crime. Theoretically, of course.

Daggertooth

 

[Multani]

Hmm...interesting topic. This would've made exellent Political Corner Material. Nice job FoR, and damn you for beating me to it. ;p

Anyway, on topic. First off, I think the true effectiveness of Anger Management courses is near nil, and I think the cost and resources of setting up such a course would be wasted. You could simply incorporate a unit in a health course, and the education problem will be solved.

Secondly, I think the idea of installing security is not the best idea. The cost is too high, and if you think about it, the number of school shootings, although a very shocking number, is not terribly high.
Parenting is partially responsible for school shootings, but nowadays, there is little parents can do to get the truth about a kid's day at school. In short, children are getting more independence, which I think is good.

The only way I see to totally eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) school shootings is to make sure kids can't get their hands on guns. And the only way to make sure kids don't get guns is to make sure their families don't have guns, because a kid can find anything in the house. And the only way to make sure kids can't get guns elsewhere is to close gun-shops. Granted, easier said than done, and there is a certain amendment in the Bill of Rights which prohibits the government from doing what I'm proposing.

Anyway, I think that school shootings aren't going away anytime soon, and I have yet to see an idea that truly has any value. Everything here is mere idle speculation. I think the problem with school shootings lies deeply in the American culture. Violence is already embedded into the minds of every American. In the country, people are murdered everyday, outside, the U.S. employs her military to get things done for her. But that's another debate.
All I'm saying is that right now, there is little we can truly do, unless there is some serious legislation on gun control, or the NRA dies.

Now, to address the topic of whether or not those bullies deserved to be killed. In my opinion, no one deserves to be killed unless they killed another. Either that, or they pose a serious threat to something else. (A broad definition, I know, but by a serious threat, I mean treason.) Some of you mentioned a Babylonian law, an eye for an eye. Well, if you think about it, killing someone just because they bully you is certainly not an eye for an eye. However, I think that concept does apply to dealing with bullies. Let's face it. In today's schools, we have to be vigilantes and take matters into our own hands. Teachers simply can not deal with bulliying. It's not possible, despite a few minor "victories". So, my advice is, if you are being bullied, form your own gang and bully them back. If your alone, and they attack you, hit them back. But keep in mind, do so only when it is to your advantage. It is sad, but in order to deal with bullies, you have to sink to their level. To think you could beat them in a more...shall we say innocent way, is idealistic and naive.

I still firmly believe we need to attack school shootings at it's root; the weapons. Granted, we also need to do teach students about violence, etc. But such methods have only minimal success rates, and can serve only as back-up programs and suppliments.

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

Originally posted by Multani
So, my advice is, if you are being bullied, form your own gang and bully them back. If your alone, and they attack you, hit them back. But keep in mind, do so only when it is to your advantage. It is sad, but in order to deal with bullies, you have to sink to their level. To think you could beat them in a more...shall we say innocent way, is idealistic and naive.

I have twice in a row had my post deleted because I'm not cookied, and the first post took about 20 minutes. :angry:

Suffice it to say that I heartily disagree with this philosophy; from personal experience I find it better to ignore them.

As I am unwilling to attempt to retype my first reply, but I do not want to be quiet about this issue, I will talk about this for the next few days.

I don't disagree with the rest of what you said, just that one segment.

 

[Spiderman]

Multani:

The only way I see to totally eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) school shootings is to make sure kids can't get their hands on guns. And the only way to make sure kids don't get guns is to make sure their families don't have guns, because a kid can find anything in the house. And the only way to make sure kids can't get guns elsewhere is to close gun-shops. Granted, easier said than done, and there is a certain amendment in the Bill of Rights which prohibits the government from doing what I'm proposing.

I think this is as just as good as a solution as your answers to Anger Management and security; just like drugs, someone can find a gun if they really want it. Guns in the family/house and thus guns from gunshops are not the only source of how kids get guns.

Anyway, I think that school shootings aren't going away anytime soon, and I have yet to see an idea that truly has any value. Everything here is mere idle speculation. I think the problem with school shootings lies deeply in the American culture. Violence is already embedded into the minds of every American. In the country, people are murdered everyday, outside, the U.S. employs her military to get things done for her. But that's another debate.
All I'm saying is that right now, there is little we can truly do, unless there is some serious legislation on gun control, or the NRA dies.

Violence is not only limited to American culture. You have Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Middle East, India and Pakistan, China, and Africa. So you'll probably need to explain further why you singled out America. Is it because most of school shooting reports come from there?

Everyone: I thought it interesting about that second California shooting last week that the shooter was NOT picked on (according to one news article); rather, people were afraid to pick on him because he was "intimidating" (don't know or can't remember if it was size or attitude or what). Also, the school just had a meeting with parents on security and stuff and this STILL happened. It basically boils down to: if it's going to happen, it's probably going to happen. Unfortunately.

 

[Multani]

quote:

The only way I see to totally eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) school shootings is to make sure kids can't
get their hands on guns. And the only way to make sure kids don't get guns is to make sure their families don't have guns, because a kid can find anything in the house. And the only way to make sure kids can't get guns
elsewhere is to close gun-shops. Granted, easier said than done, and there is a certain amendment in the Bill of Rights which prohibits the government from doing what I'm proposing.

Originally posted by Spiderman


I think this is as just as good as a solution as your answers to Anger Management and security; just like drugs, someone can find a gun if they really want it. Guns in the family/house and thus guns from gunshops are not the only source of how kids get guns.

I'm well aware of this Spidey. Yes, I know there are gangs and other illegal methods to get ahold of firearms.
However, the point of my comment was to eliminate the legal ways to obtain guns. Once that is accomplished, crimes involving fire-arms will greatly be diminished. Sure there will always be gun-related crimes, but as far as civilian shooting civilian incidents; those will diminish greatly, if not be altogether eliminated. Here's a question for you. Where do you think most criminals get their guns? Also, your anology was flawed. Unlike Drugs, guns are legal in this country for some reason....

Originally posted by Spiderman


Violence is not only limited to American culture. You have Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Middle East, India and Pakistan, China, and Africa. So you'll probably need to explain further why you singled out America. Is it because most of school shooting reports come from there?

You must think I'm fool Spidey, don't you. Anyway, It wasn't my intention to "single out" America. But all those other incidents of violence are for mainly political reasons. Sure, most of it is pure violence for the thrill of it, but there is still a reason to that violence. Now, as for China, I'm not quite sure as to what violence you're talking about. You'll have to explain. (And don't give me the BS about the government using Tanks to crush civilians. And if you're referring to governmental violence, don't all countries use violence to enforce the law?)
I digress. I mentioned the comment about America having a violent culture because this is the U.S. we are talking about, no? If you really want to know why I "singled out" America, it's because in America, the violence is truly pointless violence. There is nothing resembling a good reason for it. Also, only in America do you even hear about a civilian killing a civilian on a day-to-day basis. So if you wanted to know why I "singled out" America, there's your reason.

Originally posted by Spiderman


It basically boils down to: if it's going to happen, it's probably going to happen. Unfortunately.

On this, I must agree. These things happen, and in the foreseeable future, there is little that can be do to remedy the situation.

 

[Daggertooth]

I take the NRA's position on removing guns. Getting rid of guns only stops the law abiding citizen from getting the guns. Criminals have their ways. and will get the guns. Now would you like to defend yourself or be helpless?

Presently I've heard of two instances where guns saved individuals lives. I'll tell you one. 3 well armed guys attempted to rob a pawn shop. Luckily the owners all had guns otherwise they would have been at the mercy of the criminals. 2 robbers were hit. one died.

Sure you can say that this was an oddity, but the fact remains that guns can save lives. Remove them from society and only those who would abuse the law will obtain them.


I still say that education will significantly reduce School shootings and accidental shootings. Hunters safety does a lot to help accidental shootings. you are right about a sole class dedicated to anger management being too much. But it is necessary to at least attempt to educate.

Daggertooth

 

[Gerode]

Just a question: For the major school shootings, where did the kids get their guns? Within their household from their parents? Through illegal vendors? Friends?

 

[Spiderman]

Multani:

I'm well aware of this Spidey. Yes, I know there are gangs and other illegal methods to get ahold of firearms.
However, the point of my comment was to eliminate the legal ways to obtain guns. Once that is accomplished, crimes involving fire-arms will greatly be diminished. Sure there will always be gun-related crimes, but as far as civilian shooting civilian incidents; those will diminish greatly, if not be altogether eliminated. Here's a question for you. Where do you think most criminals get their guns? Also, your anology was flawed. Unlike Drugs, guns are legal in this country for some reason....

Your conclusion is pure speculation and (so far) cannot be based on facts. Sure, my conclusion that banning guns is speculation too, but I have another similiar situation to compare it to: drugs. Yeah, they're illegal. And look at their availability. And I don't think it's flawed, because it's the same type of situation. One could say drugs are ILLEGAL for some reason... (except alcohol).

Where do MOST criminals get their guns? I have no idea. Some get them through friends (Palzinski in MAryland last year), some get them through gun shops where they evade/don't do a good enough background check, some steal them (Texas breakout last year), and some just plain get them on the black market (those guns that are illegal to seel in gunshops). Why, where do YOU think MOST criminals get them?

You must think I'm fool Spidey, don't you. Anyway, It wasn't my intention to "single out" America. But all those other incidents of violence are for mainly political reasons. Sure, most of it is pure violence for the thrill of it, but there is still a reason to that violence. Now, as for China, I'm not quite sure as to what violence you're talking about. You'll have to explain. (And don't give me the BS about the government using Tanks to crush civilians. And if you're referring to governmental violence, don't all countries use violence to enforce the law?)

No fool, you . Um, there's still a reason for the violence, despite most of it "being for the thrill of it"? Can't the same be said for school shootings, there's a "reason" behind them? There's really no difference when you boil down to it.

I had something about violence in China, but realized it's really about senseless beatings, not really gun shootings so I will retract that.

What kind of violence are you talking about enforcing the law? And is that level of violence uniform in all countries for the same offence?

I digress. I mentioned the comment about America having a violent culture because this is the U.S. we are talking about, no? If you really want to know why I "singled out" America, it's because in America, the violence is truly pointless violence. There is nothing resembling a good reason for it. Also, only in America do you even hear about a civilian killing a civilian on a day-to-day basis. So if you wanted to know why I "singled out" America, there's your reason.

As I said above, school shooting violence is no different from an Irish bombing or a Palestinian rock-thrower or Israeli shooting. There's a point to it; not the same reason as the others, but a point nonetheless.

Two things about "civilian killing civilian on "day-to-day""basis:

1. How big is the world section in US newspapers/media? If you can show me coverage in each respective country's news that they don't report "day-to-day" killings, I'll give you the point.

2. Nowhere in America do you hear "day-to-day" violence linked to terrorist activities in America, unlike other countries.

Gerode: No idea. The Columbine shooters got theirs from their houses, I believe, but I don't recall in more recent incidents where they got their guns.

 

[Multani]

First off, all these discussions are based on speculation due to the fact that they are usually impromptu, so in the future, try not to use that argument as it probably will go both ways.

Originally posted by Spiderman


Your conclusion is pure speculation and (so far) cannot be based on facts. Sure, my conclusion that banning guns is speculation too, but I have another similiar situation to compare it to: drugs. Yeah, they're illegal. And look at their availability. And I don't think it's flawed, because it's the same type of situation. One could say drugs are ILLEGAL for some reason... (except alcohol).

I see what you're saying in this, but still, banning guns from civillain hands will decrease the number of gun deaths, no matter what. Guns are far more difficult to sell than drugs illegaly. Sure, there will always be smugglers and black markets, but then I'm counting on customs to do it's job instead of confiscating food and plants.....
You seem to have disregarded the fact that I admit there will always be gun violence in America. I'm not saying that banning guns will wipe it out altogther. It's just a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

Also, if you want my opinion of where criminals get guns, here it is. I think criminals get guns, exactly like you or me. The common street robber goes to a shop, buys/steals the guns, and robs a bank. Now, sometimes they get it from friends, but in the end the guns land in their hands from originally two places: Black market, and Gun shop.

Originally posted by Spiderman


Um, there's still a reason for the violence, despite most of it "being for the thrill of it"? Can't the same be said for school shootings, there's a "reason" behind them? There's really no difference when you boil down to it.

Okay, let me be more specific so as to prevent you from further nitpicking my meaning. By a good reason I mean political or religious. Why do you think I didn't mention any of the terrorist activites or bombings? Most of them were political, and in my mind, I think that political motivation is an acknowledgeble cause for violence. I don't condone it, but I can understand it. The school shootings were a simple, "I hate you so I'll kill you" violence. I do not approve of that so, I stated that the school shootings had no decent cause.

Originally posted by Spiderman

Two things about "civilian killing civilian on "day-to-day""basis:

1. How big is the world section in US newspapers/media? If you can show me coverage in each respective country's news that they don't report "day-to-day" killings, I'll give you the point.

2. Nowhere in America do you hear "day-to-day" violence linked to terrorist activities in America, unlike other countries.

Again, I think you're stretching my meaning a bit there. I meant that nowhere in the world is there day-to-day violence involving only normal citizens. BUT, I also said that that violence was pointless, which discounts the violence in the Middle East and Africa, where the reasons are either Political, or Religious. Also, I mentioned nothing in the respect about terrorists. Under those conditions, if you gave me an ACCURATE newspaper, I could probably point out to you any country that does not report day-to-day civillian violence that is both non-religious and non-political.

Draggertooth: I don't think there is a true need for citizens to defend themselves. What else are the police for? Also, when you compare the number of people saved by guns, vs. the number killed by it, I think you'll see that America will be safer without guns. Of course, if you own a gun, all the logic, scientific facts, and statistics in the world won't be able to convince you to give up a gun.

 

[Spiderman]

Multani:

First off, all these discussions are based on speculation due to the fact that they are usually impromptu, so in the future, try not to use that argument as it probably will go both ways.

Agreed. And I'm sorry I did bring it up. I just take umbrage at blanket statements that seem to say that "banning guns is an automatic cureall and violence WILL go down", which is what it seems you're saying.

I see what you're saying in this, but still, banning guns from civillain hands will decrease the number of gun deaths, no matter what. Guns are far more difficult to sell than drugs illegaly. Sure, there will always be smugglers and black markets, but then I'm counting on customs to do it's job instead of confiscating food and plants.....
You seem to have disregarded the fact that I admit there will always be gun violence in America. I'm not saying that banning guns will wipe it out altogther. It's just a step in the right direction, in my opinion.

I will concede that it MIGHT decrease gun deaths, but NOT to a noticeable degree. And I'm not sure why you think guns will be more difficult to sell than drugs. Customs? Please... they're overwhelmed and undermanned and underfunded. Despite this, they're doing a GREAT job, IMHO, but let's face it: USA has a lot of porous borders. Seeing how the drug trade is thriving here, I have no reason to believe that a gun trade will not flourish equally.

I also want to clarify something that may not have been clear throughout all of this: I also think banning guns is a step in the right direction, but it's not the ONLY solution. As I've said before, there are many different factors in this and all most be tackled.

Also, if you want my opinion of where criminals get guns, here it is. I think criminals get guns, exactly like you or me. The common street robber goes to a shop, buys/steals the guns, and robs a bank. Now, sometimes they get it from friends, but in the end the guns land in their hands from originally two places: Black market, and Gun shop.

Ah, but the question is: What is the percentage that get their guns from the black market vs gun shops? I'm thinking the latter is marginal...

Okay, let me be more specific so as to prevent you from further nitpicking my meaning. By a good reason I mean political or religious. Why do you think I didn't mention any of the terrorist activites or bombings? Most of them were political, and in my mind, I think that political motivation is an acknowledgeble cause for violence. I don't condone it, but I can understand it. The school shootings were a simple, "I hate you so I'll kill you" violence. I do not approve of that so, I stated that the school shootings had no decent cause.

Well, here's where we'll have to differ. In MY mind, having a political reason is NOT a valid cause for violence. I can understand it, but not approve. I can ALSO understand the reasons behind school shootings, yet not approve (and apparently you're mixing up your wording, because you said you don't "condone" political violence yet you also don't "approve" of school shootings. Thus, the difference is between you understanding[/b] the reasons behind the two, which apparently you understand political but not school. Correct?)

Again, I think you're stretching my meaning a bit there. I meant that nowhere in the world is there day-to-day violence involving only normal citizens. BUT, I also said that that violence was pointless, which discounts the violence in the Middle East and Africa, where the reasons are either Political, or Religious. Also, I mentioned nothing in the respect about terrorists. Under those conditions, if you gave me an ACCURATE newspaper, I could probably point out to you any country that does not report day-to-day civillian violence that is both non-religious and non-political.

So we're really butting heads here. You say violence is NOT pointless in the Middle East and Africa; I say it is, political and religious makes no difference.

Are you saying US newspapers are NOT accurate? Because I'm not sure what you mean otherwise...

Of course, if you own a gun, all the logic, scientific facts, and statistics in the world won't be able to convince you to give up a gun.

I know this was to Daggertooth, but there HAVE been people who have changed their minds about owning a guns when confronted with the logic, facts, and statistics. They come out in those gun buyback programs (and some like the money )

 

[Hetemti]

I particularly like the Idea of making anger management a Required class.

LMAO! Hell, that's not only the kind of liberal bull-s' that caused this problem in the first place, but would probably INCREASE the problem, not reduce it. I'd go f'n nuts if I had to spend a period listening to a "peer pressure management consultant" (or whatever the f' you wanna call 'em) tell me that I'm incompetant of handling my emotions. It's degrading, demeaning, and just plain rude.

My opinion (this oughta get replies):
There are two types of bullies.
1) The big kid who bullies because he can. When his mark gets tired of it and beats the snot out of him, he bullies no longer.
2) The kid who had no way to fight back packs heat one day and rips the place up. That's bullying back big time.

I don't feel like typing much this morning, so chew on that while I playtest my new R/B deck.

 

[Hetemti]

...addendum.

My school had a "Peer Counciling" class.
It had three parts: Peer Counciling, P.E., and Health.
We had the same "teacher" for P.C. and P.E. He did two things:
1) Put quotes on the board and made us write "responces" to them.
2) Checked out the girls goodies during "exercises."

Good deal, huh?

 

[Spiderman]

What if in "1. Victim doesn't take it anymore and fights back", the victim NEVER fights back? Just endures it.... so the bully keeps on bullying...

 

[Daggertooth]

Originally posted by Multani
By a good reason I mean political or religious. Why do you think I didn't mention any of the terrorist activities or bombings? Most of them were political, and in my mind, I think that political motivation is an acknowledgeable cause for violence. I don't condone it, but I can understand it. The school shootings were a simple, "I hate you so I'll kill you" violence. I do not approve of that so, I stated that the school shootings had no decent cause.

How can Political and Religious reasons be considered good? I can understand Political violence. Sometimes the nations have to flex their muscles a bit to get their point across. I still think its dumb and not "good."

And I just can't understand religious violence. Thou shalt not kill? Love thy neighbor? Those religious hypocrites cry out these saying, holding the bible in one hand and a gun in the other. Creating things like Bloody Sunday and the crusades. All in the name of the god both sides believe in. It's a contradiction to what they believe. Yet it continues. Why?

Also, I mentioned nothing in the respect about terrorists. Under those conditions, if you gave me an ACCURATE newspaper, I could probably point out to you any country that does not report day-to-day civilian violence that is both non-religious and non-political.

Since when is terrorist activities anything but political? A group wants independence, but their restrictive nation is not even listening to them. Assassinate a few political leaders, blow up a few cars, send suicide bombers to show dedication of members, and see if your still ignored. That's terrorism, strictly political. Back in our little colonial days I'm sure Britain considered those rebelling terrorists and political traitors.

Draggertooth: I don't think there is a true need for citizens to defend themselves. What else are the police for? Also, when you compare the number of people saved by guns, vs. the number killed by it, I think you'll see that America will be safer without guns. Of course, if you own a gun, all the logic, scientific facts, and statistics in the world won't be able to convince you to give up a gun.

What are the police for? Catching those who just robbed you. Unless your suggesting to post a police man at every corner, with a strict curfew. You take the guns away and every criminal knows that every house is easy pickins. Just enter, hold the family by gun point, the run. At least with people owning guns those criminals are a bit more cautious.

Tell me what scientific fact there is. And the Logic of gun owners are not necessarily wrong.

To get a gun you are required to be a certain age and to get a background check. so not every bum on the street can get guns from the gun shop. So criminals with a record aren't able to get guns in gun shops.

Daggertooth

 

[Gerode]

Is there any way how one of you can prove the "newspaper dispute" about nations having or not having civilian day-to-day killings? I don't know why the motives for certain killings in foreign countries would be different than the ones here.