I'm going to be real, as a person who went to a bad high school and had nearly 5 school boomb threats with one being nearly real since the kid took a grenade to school. This shouldn't even be done even as a precaution.
Yeah, I've made fun of school shootings, would of been terrified is someone actually did it during my time in that hell hole, but kids should not be mentally terrified.
Don't spend money on garbage like iPads to a school, my schools had 100 missing in its first week, invest some "bulletproof" plates, that only covers a portion of their body, or invest in security measures, because that's not going to stop the fact that kids can still be killed in a bus or outside while playing in playgrounds.
Gun laws won't fix an issue that has been going on for years and no one batted an eye because the real problem is that America has an issue identifying cases of bullying and depression amongst teens, and they really think banning guns will help.
America may have a problem with identifying bullying and depression in teens, but wouldn’t gun laws at least limit the access of weapons for these kids? With limited access, mass shootings may not completely stop, but evidence from other countries with gun reform shows that the amount of mass shootings decrease significantly. Gun laws and an effort to identify and help kids with problems aren’t mutually exclusive, and implementing both will definitely decrease mass shootings.
I will agree with that, but limiting the access won't do much if they can get guns from their parents, or other relatives who have a weapon in their their homes that are not properly and safely stored away.
Theres have been many shootings where the child or teen obtained the weapon from parents that didn't safely store their guns or misplaced them.
I definitely see your point, but hopefully gun reforms would not just limit access guns for children but for adults as well - there should be a legitimate need and serious vetting for people to have guns in their home. Idk if this would work in the current climate in America tho, bc people are really attached to their guns
The short answer is no it wouldn't work. The long answer, that I'm not going to go into detail with, is that until we can get humans to stop hurting each other it doesn't matter what laws you make people are still going to attack each other.
deleted
· 6 years ago
That’s why other countries have just as many violent incidents in schools... oh wait
They do. Don't kid yourself that they don't. What you don't have is so many involving guns. Instead you have knives, bats, and other forms of attack. In fact there is so much youth violence that the WHO has even made a summarized article. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/youth-violence
Just because you don't see or hear about something in the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And blaming the violence all on the weapon used is a stupid tactic to try and solve that violence. Just like any sickness if you keep trying to cure the symptoms you'll never cure the problems.
3
deleted
· 6 years ago
My bad, I should have specified: the rest of the developed world does not have as many school violence deaths per capita as the US
Ask yourself- in non developed countries where guns are still part of daily life for many- for protection of self, home, or herd, where young children use and posses riffles- why aren’t school shootings or mass shootings such a problem save maybe for radical political factions? There’s more to this than just guns or just security. The laws we have already ban kids from owning guns- yet how many of these mass shootings are by children? The laws we have prevent people from bringing guns to schools- paper. Paper doesn’t beat bullets. There’s no one solution, and taken to extremes any single solution requires too many people to give up too much. Yes, we need to look at gun laws and refine them, we need better awareness and mental care, and we do need some security. If you ban guns tomorrow, America has the will and means to get them for the next several decades at least. We have more than the rest of the world, not counting unregistered weapons. So we need to look at it comprehensively.
In some scenarios either of these are applicable, but not always. Often times if someone feels isolated enough they can reach a point they break. Suicide could be considered not valuing human life, which is another, far more common thing teens go through. This isn't necessarily the parents' faults-- teenagers in particular rarely know how to open up, and generational gaps are a very real thing. Locking guns up would certainly be helpful, but at the end of the day if someone wants to bad enough, they usually can find a way.
Not that I know what the answer to all this mess is. And parents certainly do play a role, and can be to blame. Sometimes they are. Sometimes it's the kids at the schools. Sometimes the shooter is just a born sociopath. There's just so many factors involved in most incidents, blaming it all of the parents seems a little unfair.
I think like the problem at large it’s many things. Teaching kids to respect and be safe with guns is a good thing- but kids don’t always listen, some kids especially. When people are depressed or mentally unwell even those things they know and hold as gospel may fall asides to their imbalances. Guns are tools of death. We can’t ask kids to respect that if we don’t respect it enough ourselves to secure our weapons properly. Properly may mean many things in any combination of situations and circumstances unique to the house hold that gun is in- but next to no one ever had their house robbed and was expecting it and prepared- so steps to at least keep anyone who may enter the home from accessing a weapon are prudent. As for punishment- we wouldn’t hold someone for murder if someone else took their car and killed someone without their knowing. For there to be any liability the person must have acted knowingly or negligently to allow someone to take it.
Not all schools with iPads are like that though. My school has them but they organized it so that we can learn from the experience and having to take care of an iPad and such.
It's always annoying when adults try and use kids as pawns in their politics. If the parent wants to give the kid a bullet proof backpack that's one thing, but it's not your place to do this.
A better option would be maybe organizing a seminar with the parents to discuss how THEY can go about preparing their kids for dealing with a scenario like this, and then, potentially, holding an assembly for kids at their new school *after they've had a chance to acclimate a bit.* Maybe even start doing safety drills for such a scenario-- but treating them no different than fire drills or bomb threats. It's one thing to prepare children, but these shields aren't doing that in a remotely functional manner.
I'm actually not really sure how effective it would even be considering where I went to school almost everyone stored their backpacks in their lockers. Not to mention they literally could have just given that same shield to a potential shooter anyway.
Can you imagine living in a country that thinks that the solution to gun violence is more guns? Do your firemen put out fires with gasoline and more fire?
@guest- yes. Not only are fire and accelerants often used to fight fires (either creating fire breaks or using up available O2,) but really is such a thing so uncommon? For instance what country doesn’t meet the devastation of war with more war? Isn’t it routine that a country will respond to the sanctions of another with sanctions in turn? That their administrations and politicians will counter allegations against them by making allegations back? Even if we look at nuclear proliferation which escalated based off of an idea that countries would fight nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons- when the mass stockpiling was stopped- are we any safer from nuclear war, or did the main players keep enough nukes to still be a threat? Is it a coincidence that after a ban on testing, those who still had sizable caches were worldwd powers almost in order, or that the “rogue” nations who have since developed nuclear weapons suddenly went from fleas waiting to be squashed to targets of diplomacy?
Is most of that morally “right,” or even really very healthy minded? Arguable- in general I’ll say no. But- all the sermonizing in the world doesn’t change the practical reality that humans are still wired to understand and comply with overwhelming force for the most part. Do most of those examples even make much sense in context? Not really. Could someone find and pick at faults in the comparison? Almost definitely. I suspect despite this message they still will because they miss the point. The point is that while homespun slogans win hearts and minds they don’t stand any scrutiny, they just sound like obvious truism so like most bs people will get on board if it supports their thinking. Guns and fire aren’t really very good comparisons. Not really as good as comparing guns and guns- but when we ask the question as such- “who would think the best way to defend against guns is guns?” The answer becomes more clear. Not a lot of of people running around trying to counter guns with spears
Yeah, I've made fun of school shootings, would of been terrified is someone actually did it during my time in that hell hole, but kids should not be mentally terrified.
Don't spend money on garbage like iPads to a school, my schools had 100 missing in its first week, invest some "bulletproof" plates, that only covers a portion of their body, or invest in security measures, because that's not going to stop the fact that kids can still be killed in a bus or outside while playing in playgrounds.
Gun laws won't fix an issue that has been going on for years and no one batted an eye because the real problem is that America has an issue identifying cases of bullying and depression amongst teens, and they really think banning guns will help.
Theres have been many shootings where the child or teen obtained the weapon from parents that didn't safely store their guns or misplaced them.
Just because you don't see or hear about something in the news doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And blaming the violence all on the weapon used is a stupid tactic to try and solve that violence. Just like any sickness if you keep trying to cure the symptoms you'll never cure the problems.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/10/06/555861898/gun-violence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002469/246970e.pdf
https://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports.html
(recommend chapter 4)
What we do have in the US is a very opinionated news force armed with the knowledge that sensationalism sells more than the truth.
Not that I know what the answer to all this mess is. And parents certainly do play a role, and can be to blame. Sometimes they are. Sometimes it's the kids at the schools. Sometimes the shooter is just a born sociopath. There's just so many factors involved in most incidents, blaming it all of the parents seems a little unfair.
A better option would be maybe organizing a seminar with the parents to discuss how THEY can go about preparing their kids for dealing with a scenario like this, and then, potentially, holding an assembly for kids at their new school *after they've had a chance to acclimate a bit.* Maybe even start doing safety drills for such a scenario-- but treating them no different than fire drills or bomb threats. It's one thing to prepare children, but these shields aren't doing that in a remotely functional manner.
I'm actually not really sure how effective it would even be considering where I went to school almost everyone stored their backpacks in their lockers. Not to mention they literally could have just given that same shield to a potential shooter anyway.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/06/bulletproof-backpacks-school-present-students-graduation