Curt at photoworks wrote: I think that's because nobody has proposed such a stupid idea. But thanks for the straw man argument.
I assume you believe that putting more constraints on tobacco has had nothing to do with fewer people smoking and a decline in smoking related deaths?
Cultured Pearls Photo wrote: Actuall Diane Feinstein introduced a new AWB in direct association wth the school shooting.
Nice dodge. However, nobody has proposed such a stupid notion as what you said which was this....
Cultured Pearls Photo wrote: With what I know about guns, I have yet to hear a gun control proposal that would prevent the next event being just as deadly.
I wouldn't donate 5 cents. Here's why: these things are going to continue to happen in places deemed to be "weak" targets. People still rob banks despite the cameras, silent alarms, etc etc. Do you think bulletproof blankets, teachers with gun training (and guns) and anything else is going to stop someone who wants to shoot a school up?
If these things won't protect everyone, who decides who gets protected and who doesn't? How many lawsuits are going to be filed because a white student in a mostly black school (or a black student in a mostly white school) got shot as they weren't under the bulletproof blanket?
Bulletproof doors won't do any good because most people won't be shooting at the doors.
Besides, there have been how many school shootings? How many of these shootings were perpetrated by people outside the school (ie not students or teachers)? How many schools are there? So if there are a million schools and 10 get shot up, you want to spend billions to "protect" all the schools from isolated incidents that will likely not happen there? Where does it end?
Justin wrote: Certainly, guns are among the issues. You can't look at a roomful of kids with bullet holes and rationally say, "We don't have a problem with the things that these bullets came from."
Cultured Pearls Photo wrote: Actually, I can.
I don't believe you can, rationally.
Guns are a part of the problem. They are where the bullets come from that rip into people. They are what give a skinny little psychopath the ability to wreak havoc. And we have accepted them. They will remain part of the problem. Gun control will not work well because the guns are already here and pervasive.
Cait Chan
Posts: 6,272
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Cultured Pearls Photo wrote: Funny, because of the wording I used you ascribed it to "religious"teaching. Regardless of wording, I ascribe it to "moral" training. In what universe is it in any way a bad idea to teach children respect for life?
I will grant you that I have not had a teacher so directly challenge my beliefs /teachings with my child. It is usually rather subtle, which is worse to me. Have the conviction to challenge me directly.
Funny, so if it is bad for a teacher to re-enforce a UNIVERSALLY accepted morality point. How can we then have come to allow schools to teach recycling as a MORAL good? We start them at pre-school age and keep it up all the way through. The premise usually sounds something like "help save the planet" clearly indicating that saving the planet is morally good. Yes, a lot of the arguments use or claim to use science, but they use the science to re-enforce the moral postion.
If I blindly accept the theory that current human behavior will "destroy" the planet in 200 yrs (nice round number) , absent a moral guide, what do I care. I won't be here in 200 yrs. Thus we sell it as "for the children". What if I don't have or even like children?
See how hard it is to let the teacher off the hook for morality training/ encouragement. I do NOT want a teacher promoting Jesus, Allah, or Cthuulu for that matter. We have however thrown the babby out with the bathwater. Maybe we could come together as a nation and come up with the"5 Highly Recommended Suggestions" since the "10 Commandments" is so touuchy/dangerous/offensive to so many?
My FIRST priority for my kids from their teachers IS the three r's. If they are going to NOT teach/ spport nearly universal morality issues then how can they teach ANY morality lessons?
Your analogy does not work. Because you couldn't care less whether or not you are alive in 200 years does not make it any more or less a moral argument. In fact, doing what is right and benefiting generations to come whether or not we are here is a direct statement to our morality as a society.
Teaching children is fundamentally the duty of the parent. THAT is one of the issues with kids today. Parents are disinterested with being PARENTS and its everyone else's duty to guide the child because parents are more interested in being the friend. Morality, good behavior and character shaping NEEDS to start at home. That child is a direct reflection of you and you need to make sure they are going out into the world and being the person you would be proud of. It's not the duty of the government or anyone else to teach your child how to be a decent person. However, I disagree that children do not have values enforced while at school. They are taught to respect, to share, to donate, help others, and patience. If that isn't taught first and taken seriously at home, kids will only behave until they get on the bus.
I've learned some fantastic life lessons from some of my teachers that I will keep forever. I also think some here forget what it was like to be in school. Have you never been told " You never put your hands on someone else" " if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything" and the old faithful, " solve your problems with words, not fists"
Ultimately, there ARE lessons taught in schools, and hey reinforcing it doesn't hurt, but to claim that this is the issue here is a fallacy and to pretend this would change ANYTHING overnight is delusional. Morality does not cure mental illness and it doesn't lessen the availability of dangerous weapons. I'm pretty sure everyone that has ever killed anyone knew it was wrong...
That's where the disconnect comes in, and that's what we need to address. What makes then different from the billions of people in this world who DON'T commit murder.
Curt at photoworks wrote: I think that's because nobody has proposed such a stupid idea. But thanks for the straw man argument.
I assume you believe that putting more constraints on tobacco has had nothing to do with fewer people smoking and a decline in smoking related deaths?
Cultured Pearls Photo wrote: Actuall Diane Feinstein introduced a new AWB in direct association wth the school shooting.
Nice dodge. However, nobody has proposed such a stupid notion as what you said which was this....
Now what about the bolded part?
Try again on the first part:
Feinstein calls the new legislation "common sense, and an important first step toward preventing an atrocity like Newtown in the future."
...she goes beyond what I said and actually claims this will help prevent another Newton altogether, not just reduce the number of casualties.
Justin wrote: Certainly, guns are among the issues. You can't look at a roomful of kids with bullet holes and rationally say, "We don't have a problem with the things that these bullets came from."
I don't believe you can, rationally.
Guns are a part of the problem. They are where the bullets come from that rip into people. They are what give a skinny little psychopath the ability to wreak havoc. And we have accepted them. They will remain part of the problem. Gun control will not work well because the guns are already here and pervasive.
Rationally, I can deduce that if we got rid of ALL guns tomorrow morning.
1) I would have one by tomorrow afternoon.
2) Bad guys who can't fabricate one would use something else and still be bad guys.
Your analogy does not work. Because you couldn't care less whether or not you are alive in 200 years does not make it any more or less a moral argument. In fact, doing what is right and benefiting generations to come whether or not we are here is a direct statement to our morality as a society.
Teaching children is fundamentally the duty of the parent. THAT is one of the issues with kids today. Parents are disinterested with being PARENTS and its everyone else's duty to guide the child because parents are more interested in being the friend. Morality, good behavior and character shaping NEEDS to start at home. That child is a direct reflection of you and you need to make sure they are going out into the world and being the person you would be proud of. It's not the duty of the government or anyone else to teach your child how to be a decent person. However, I disagree that children do not have values enforced while at school. They are taught to respect, to share, to donate, help others, and patience. If that isn't taught first and taken seriously at home, kids will only behave until they get on the bus.
I've learned some fantastic life lessons from some of my teachers that I will keep forever. I also think some here forget what it was like to be in school. Have you never been told " You never put your hands on someone else" " if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything" and the old faithful, " solve your problems with words, not fists"
Ultimately, there ARE lessons taught in schools, and hey reinforcing it doesn't hurt, but to claim that this is the issue here is a fallacy and to pretend this would change ANYTHING overnight is delusional. Morality does not cure mental illness and it doesn't lessen the availability of dangerous weapons. I'm pretty sure everyone that has ever killed anyone knew it was wrong...
That's where the disconnect comes in, and that's what we need to address. What makes then different from the billions of people in this world who DON'T commit murder.
1) I specifically said the teacher should "re-enforce", NOT be the starting point.
2) I clearly indicated it is my job as parent to START the training, but knowing the "it takes a village" crowd I would like to know we are all pushing the cart in the same direction.
3) I agree with YOU that any change in individual respect for life, personal sense of responsibility IS at least a generation in the making before it pays any real dividends. It took more than one generation to break it, it might take more than one to fix it.
4) apparently you misunderstand, my point is PRECISELY that "thou shalt not kill" is a hell of a lot more universally moral than "save the planet"...yet one of them evoked a negative response from you, when in conjunction to school usage.
I would gladly donate to pay for the purchase, distribution, and proper training in the use of "Less than lethal" options.
Particularly, I recommend 1 shotgun loaded with sand/bean-bag rounds, 1 taser with multiple discharge cartridges, 1 canister unit of "riot foam", and 1 lockable permanently mountable storage device for each of the above be distributed to each school in the US.
All of these options are fairly inexpensive and would be more so in "bulk" format.
ALL have already been field tested by the Justice Department and issued to hundreds of government agencies at all levels.
They are simple to learn technologies with very limited liability issues in the school setting.
Including maintenance, training, rotation of stock...still anticipated to be one quarter of cost of full time armed personnel for first year, and even less after that.
Pinups4 wrote: It would cost about $7,500 to put 1 bulletproof doors and 2 or 3 bulletproof blankets in every school. Figure 50 to 100 billion for the country.
Cheaper than cops. Wouldn't cover everyone, but would provide some level of protection
I'm willing to open the account with my local nonprofit community foundation
I need a board to help decide what schools we start with
And....donations. i'm in for a grand
First, this might be a small part of a much larger approach. But it shouldn't be regarded as "the solution." The two most effective strategies for most school kids are to stay in their current classroom and get down (so stray rounds don't hit them and they don't encourage gunmen to enter their room) or to evacuate the building.
Second, as a general rule you want to make school class rooms easy to get in to. Kid has an epileptic seizure or some kind of medical emergency, runs out of class to get get administrator or school nurse and then a student in the room (out of panic or maliciousness) locks the door. Or a misbehaving student runs into an empty classroom and locks the door. Or 3 older students take a younger student or a special needs, go into an empty classroom and lock the door. The point is: there are far more likely scenarios where an nearly impregnable door creates major issues for teachers and administrators. So you don't want doors that are easily locked and/or blocked. Which means if a gunman wants in, it's likely to not be that difficult for them even if the classroom door is armored.
To put one door in one building is to tell 300-500 kids "when the shooting starts, make for that classroom." Not very viable and counter to more effective strategies. Now....having a sturdy door that denies some kinds of rounds is not a bad thing. But on my list of possible strategies, it would be about 15th or 20th. Which doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered. But I still remember going in to my son's elementary and middle school during the school day. It's a "target rich" environment and so any strategy that basically says "we're going to arm teachers/put armed guards in the school/make a few parts of the school more survivable in a shooting does solve the real issue which is: someone with a gun (or guns) in an elementary school has plenty of targets. There are also ways classes going from one room to another, kids going to the library, recesses in an enclosed pen, someone excused to go to the bathroom, heading to an assembly, etc.
Again, I'm not against armoring some doors in a school. But there are strategies that are likely to be far more effective and produce far more safety. Ultimately, there isn't going to be one approach (like banning a particular type of weapon or magazine or putting in cops or mental health screening, or armed guards or armed teachers) that is going to be "the" solution. It's going to take a multitude of approaches. That's b/c schools are "target rich" and there are many scenarios for how things could go wrong.
Some data I've seen says that there are approximately 130k public schools in the US (K-12). Some of the schools are big (several thousand students) or consist of several buildings. So an upgrade of the schools in some ways is probably best done at the Federal level. You'd have consistent standards, probably get a deal on the armoring. In the meantime, if people wanted to volunteer time and money to make it happen for their local school, that's probably not a bad thing.
afplcc wrote: First, this might be a small part of a much larger approach. But it shouldn't be regarded as "the solution." The two most effective strategies for most school kids are to stay in their current classroom and get down (so stray rounds don't hit them and they don't encourage gunmen to enter their room) or to evacuate the building.
Contrary strategies. Choose one and train it. Taking cover and staying in place is tactically more sensible.
Second, as a general rule you want to make school class rooms easy to get in to. Kid has an epileptic seizure or some kind of medical emergency, runs out of class to get get administrator or school nurse and then a student in the room (out of panic or maliciousness) locks the door. Or a misbehaving student runs into an empty classroom and locks the door. Or 3 older students take a younger student or a special needs, go into an empty classroom and lock the door. The point is: there are far more likely scenarios where an nearly impregnable door creates major issues for teachers and administrators. So you don't want doors that are easily locked and/or blocked. Which means if a gunman wants in, it's likely to not be that difficult for them even if the classroom door is armored.
Actually, there is an easy solution to that. Put a key plate of some sort on the door so someone who is familiar with it or part of the staff can open the door (a fingerprint recognition scanner is used at my daughter's school - if you aren't in the system, you can't get in the door).
That's b/c schools are "target rich" and there are many scenarios for how things could go wrong.
Some data I've seen says that there are approximately 130k public schools in the US (K-12). Some of the schools are big (several thousand students) or consist of several buildings. So an upgrade of the schools in some ways is probably best done at the Federal level. You'd have consistent standards, probably get a deal on the armoring. In the meantime, if people wanted to volunteer time and money to make it happen for their local school, that's probably not a bad thing.
Ed
One really obvious solution is to rethink these target rich environments. There are a number of ideas for revamping the school system in order to make it more effective and individually more responsive that have been proposed over the years that might have the additional benefits of reducing the target rich nature of public schools.
Cait Chan
Posts: 6,272
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Cultured Pearls Photo wrote: 1) I specifically said the teacher should "re-enforce", NOT be the starting point.
2) I clearly indicated it is my job as parent to START the training, but knowing the "it takes a village" crowd I would like to know we are all pushing the cart in the same direction.
3) I agree with YOU that any change in individual respect for life, personal sense of responsibility IS at least a generation in the making before it pays any real dividends. It took more than one generation to break it, it might take more than one to fix it.
4) apparently you misunderstand, my point is PRECISELY that "thou shalt not kill" is a hell of a lot more universally moral than "save the planet"...yet one of them evoked a negative response from you, when in conjunction to school usage.
If your child has to go to school to learn that killing is wrong, then there IS a problem. You also missed that every person who commits these murders knows killing is wrong. That is where there is a disconnect and that is the issue that needs to be addressed.
And yes I take issue with quoting the bible and doctrine of a specific religion in school.Period. I however am more than okay with teaching children to respect the world around them. One way I learned that was in school. There is no comparing the two and you made a very weak attempt at making an analogy to connect the two.
SensualThemes
Posts: 3,024
Swoyersville, Pennsylvania, US
To clarify, I have now learned that bulletproof blankets in the size to protect multiple squirmy kids would be WAY to heavy. Doing the doors and putting mag locks on the doors to contain a threat and protect groups of kids will work. $2,500 per room installed.
If your child has to go to school to learn that killing is wrong, then there IS a problem. You also missed that every person who commits these murders knows killing is wrong. That is where there is a disconnect and that is the issue that needs to be addressed.
And yes I take issue with quoting the bible and doctrine of a specific religion in school.Period. I however am more than okay with teaching children to respect the world around them. One way I learned that was in school. There is no comparing the two and you made a very weak attempt at making an analogy to connect the two.
And yet I take the paragraph above as a restatement of what I said and I am in full agreement with you.
Btw, knowing killing is wrong according to everyone else and giving a shit that killing is wrong are 2 different animals.
| 
| 
| edu