Cleveland school shooting (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Chumley]

Since gun bans just won't ever happen, the easier route to take is for absolutely CRUSHING penalties for parents or guardians of minors who commit these acts. Or more specifically, whomever allowed their firearm to be used by the perpetrator.

This story is heart breaking and as a parent this is just one of the many things I fear for my kids. I'm afraid there are no easy answers here. I don't believe a disturbed kid like this that is willing to kill countless others and possibly himself really cares what happens to parents or gaurdians. Is a kid or anyone else willing to walk int a school and kill other childern - classmates - and himself going to respect a law that says you can't own a gun? What if the shooter stole the gun from someone else? Are you still going to lock away his parents who had no idea what he was planning or that he had stolen a gun?

I think the idea here is if the gun was where he could steal it they failedyou may agree or not

Had he driven his car into a bunch of students standing around in the parking lot should the parents be put in jail for letting him drive? What if he took the car without permission?

 

[Clifford]

It's simple: you treat violent solutions to problems as a universal failing of the societal construct and in no way do you glorify them or set them up as somehow indicative of having courage or being more manly than those who seek non-violent means to solve their problems.Surely this did not elude you as a possibility? I assume I'm not really telling anyone anything new about our society.

Seek out non-violent means to stop Hitler. Go ahead.Show me the non-violent means to stop those that seek to eradicate anyone else they deem inferior. Turning the other cheek will only gets you another smacked jawAnd hell yes I hold those who came before me who served in our military and those that now served their country as courageous.Please feel free to go and preach the word of non-violence to radicals in other countries who seek out to kill those who do not share their beliefs.

Kill the messenger if you want. All I'm saying is that we have a violent culture, we promote and glamorize violence in all aspects of our society, and we have laws that make guns more accessible than they are compared to other 1st world countries with much lower crime rates.Connect the dots or don't, it's your choice. Obviously there are some situations that call for violence in order to stop more violence. Obviously men and women in our military served out of a sense of duty and honor and it makes perfect sense for people to value that choice.However, if we want to talk about why school shootings happen and we don't talk about the way our culture treats violence, especially gun violence, then it's a waste of time. If we also take the wide access to firearms off the table, then we literally have nothing left to talk about other than this one kid's messed up mind.But we can't ignore the fact that these things keep happening, and that they happen in the US more than any of its comparable countries throughout the world.

 

[B-Deep]

Since gun bans just won't ever happen, the easier route to take is for absolutely CRUSHING penalties for parents or guardians of minors who commit these acts. Or more specifically, whomever allowed their firearm to be used by the perpetrator.

This story is heart breaking and as a parent this is just one of the many things I fear for my kids. I'm afraid there are no easy answers here. I don't believe a disturbed kid like this that is willing to kill countless others and possibly himself really cares what happens to parents or gaurdians. Is a kid or anyone else willing to walk int a school and kill other childern - classmates - and himself going to respect a law that says you can't own a gun? What if the shooter stole the gun from someone else? Are you still going to lock away his parents who had no idea what he was planning or that he had stolen a gun?

I think the idea here is if the gun was where he could steal it they failedyou may agree or not

Had he driven his car into a bunch of students standing around in the parking lot should the parents be put in jail for letting him drive? What if he took the car without permission?

I suppose when a kid does this you'll have to ask jobber

 

[GamerBoy61]

Since gun bans just won't ever happen, the easier route to take is for absolutely CRUSHING penalties for parents or guardians of minors who commit these acts. Or more specifically, whomever allowed their firearm to be used by the perpetrator.

CRUSHING penalties has really worked in the "War on Drugs"

 

[Chaka]

Military service would no longer be upheld as the most noble sacrifice one could make: charity work would be.

You lose me here. When the righteous stand aside, evil WILL rise up and enslave others. I don't want to necessarily claim that we're always the righteous, but SOMEBODY needs to stand up against those that would do evil. And those that do so, should be praised for doing it.

What we, or any other military, consider to be a courageous fight against evil may often be viewed by others as an act of evil itself.We just stopped fighting a decade long war that had nothing to do with an evil perpetrated against us. Tens of thousands of innocent people died as a result of our action and I still cannot get a clear answer as to what the purpose of our military action was. Might does not make right.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see. Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this. On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

My support or lack thereof for military missions is completely irrelevant here. I am a part of the same society as every other American. I have favored armed conflict in both present-day and in historical context. I often hear of things that upset me and automatically think of violent solutions to them. I am no different and no less affected by our society than any other American.My point is that from birth we are trained to think violently and taught to laud people who use violence to achieve their means. That doesn't mean violence is never acceptable or any other imagined extreme tangent. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. And it should be obvious to everyone that this will affect children and adults alike.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Military service would no longer be upheld as the most noble sacrifice one could make: charity work would be.

You lose me here. When the righteous stand aside, evil WILL rise up and enslave others. I don't want to necessarily claim that we're always the righteous, but SOMEBODY needs to stand up against those that would do evil. And those that do so, should be praised for doing it.

What we, or any other military, consider to be a courageous fight against evil may often be viewed by others as an act of evil itself.We just stopped fighting a decade long war that had nothing to do with an evil perpetrated against us. Tens of thousands of innocent people died as a result of our action and I still cannot get a clear answer as to what the purpose of our military action was. Might does not make right.

There a plenty of cases where it IS perfectly clear and I really don't care what the other side thinks. The Nazis thought the Jews were evil. I'm pretty glad we finally pegged Hitler as evil and helped stop him. The Soviets convinced tons of people that capitalism and the US were evil. I'm glad we stood up against the USSR and their system that enslaved the masses and sent countless millions to die in the gulags.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see. Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this. On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

You're saying people only sign up for the military to kill people or are you saying that is what Clifford is implying?

 

[Joseph]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see.

Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.

We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.

Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this.

On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.

American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.

I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...

You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

My support or lack thereof for military missions is completely irrelevant here. I am a part of the same society as every other American. I have favored armed conflict in both present-day and in historical context. I often hear of things that upset me and automatically think of violent solutions to them. I am no different and no less affected by our society than any other American.My point is that from birth we are trained to think violently and taught to laud people who use violence to achieve their means. That doesn't mean violence is never acceptable or any other imagined extreme tangent. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. And it should be obvious to everyone that this will affect children and adults alike.

Again, for this to be relevant to this situation those committing these violent acts would have to be expecting to be lauded for them. I highly doubt this is the case. These kids in the school shootings aren't acting in accordance with societal convention and expecting to be treated as heroes (in most cases they're expecting to die), they're disturbed children who have other problems and are acting on those problems.

 

[Clifford]

Can we not get sidetracked for once? Does anyone believe that our society does not promote or glorify violence more than other 1st-world countries featuring either ethnically mixed populations or having a basis in European society? Does anyone really wonder why so many desperate kids have come to the same conclusion: that the best or perhaps only thing left for them to do is blow everyone away? Literally shoot away their problems?

Anyway, there is no changing this whether people agree with it or not. The cowboy is our national myth. The gritty frontiersman persona is universally valued in our society and it's what we characterize as being uniquely American. I never suggested it can be changed. I just don't think there is any point in discussing the "why" of something like this in a bubble where we only look at video games, or drugs, or look at the particular dysfunction that this perp found himself in.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see. Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this. On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

You're saying people only sign up for the military to kill people or are you saying that is what Clifford is implying?

regardless of motivation, the potential of being asked to kill people and break things is a huge part of the job description.

 

[GoFishTN]

It's simple: you treat violent solutions to problems as a universal failing of the societal construct and in no way do you glorify them or set them up as somehow indicative of having courage or being more manly than those who seek non-violent means to solve their problems.

Surely this did not elude you as a possibility? I assume I'm not really telling anyone anything new about our society.

Seek out non-violent means to stop Hitler. Go ahead.Show me the non-violent means to stop those that seek to eradicate anyone else they deem inferior.

Turning the other cheek will only gets you another smacked jaw

And hell yes I hold those who came before me who served in our military and those that now served their country as courageous.

Please feel free to go and preach the word of non-violence to radicals in other countries who seek out to kill those who do not share their beliefs.

Kill the messenger if you want. All I'm saying is that we have a violent culture, we promote and glamorize violence in all aspects of our society, and we have laws that make guns more accessible than they are compared to other 1st world countries with much lower crime rates.Connect the dots or don't, it's your choice. Obviously there are some situations that call for violence in order to stop more violence. Obviously men and women in our military served out of a sense of duty and honor and it makes perfect sense for people to value that choice.

However, if we want to talk about why school shootings happen and we don't talk about the way our culture treats violence, especially gun violence, then it's a waste of time. If we also take the wide access to firearms off the table, then we literally have nothing left to talk about other than this one kid's messed up mind.

But we can't ignore the fact that these things keep happening, and that they happen in the US more than any of its comparable countries throughout the world.

Yet you ignored my post where I pointed out that DC, where it's nearly impossible to own a gun legally, has the highest gun crime murder rate by far. More than double the 2nd worst state and triple the third.

 

[beer 30]

So we're done talking about actual facts and have moved on to political infighting? Just want to know if it's safe for me to call it quits on this thread and move on

 

[B-Deep]

Can we not get sidetracked for once? Does anyone believe that our society does not promote or glorify violence more than other 1st-world countries featuring either ethnically mixed populations or having a basis in European society? Does anyone really wonder why so many desperate kids have come to the same conclusion: that the best or perhaps only thing left for them to do is blow everyone away? Literally shoot away their problems?

Anyway, there is no changing this whether people agree with it or not. The cowboy is our national myth. The gritty frontiersman persona is universally valued in our society and it's what we characterize as being uniquely American. I never suggested it can be changed. I just don't think there is any point in discussing the "why" of something like this in a bubble where we only look at video games, or drugs, or look at the particular dysfunction that this perp found himself in.

that's a lot of qualificationscan you list the societies that qualify?

 

[Chaka]

Military service would no longer be upheld as the most noble sacrifice one could make: charity work would be.

You lose me here. When the righteous stand aside, evil WILL rise up and enslave others. I don't want to necessarily claim that we're always the righteous, but SOMEBODY needs to stand up against those that would do evil. And those that do so, should be praised for doing it.

What we, or any other military, consider to be a courageous fight against evil may often be viewed by others as an act of evil itself.We just stopped fighting a decade long war that had nothing to do with an evil perpetrated against us. Tens of thousands of innocent people died as a result of our action and I still cannot get a clear answer as to what the purpose of our military action was. Might does not make right.

There a plenty of cases where it IS perfectly clear and I really don't care what the other side thinks. The Nazis thought the Jews were evil. I'm pretty glad we finally pegged Hitler as evil and helped stop him. The Soviets convinced tons of people that capitalism and the US were evil. I'm glad we stood up against the USSR and their system that enslaved the masses and sent countless millions to die in the gulags.

Hitler is a nice example of the philosophy working well, but there are also examples where we there was no clear agenda or were just trying to impose our will and used violence as our means of discourse. And plenty more examples of where we stood by and did nothing while evil reigned.So while I admire soldiers for the sacrifice they make, the people who send them off to die should be held to a much greater level of scrutiny because a lot of what they do is ####### bull####.Wait, what was this thread about again?

 

[B-Deep]

Military service would no longer be upheld as the most noble sacrifice one could make: charity work would be.

You lose me here. When the righteous stand aside, evil WILL rise up and enslave others. I don't want to necessarily claim that we're always the righteous, but SOMEBODY needs to stand up against those that would do evil. And those that do so, should be praised for doing it.

What we, or any other military, consider to be a courageous fight against evil may often be viewed by others as an act of evil itself.We just stopped fighting a decade long war that had nothing to do with an evil perpetrated against us. Tens of thousands of innocent people died as a result of our action and I still cannot get a clear answer as to what the purpose of our military action was. Might does not make right.

There a plenty of cases where it IS perfectly clear and I really don't care what the other side thinks. The Nazis thought the Jews were evil. I'm pretty glad we finally pegged Hitler as evil and helped stop him. The Soviets convinced tons of people that capitalism and the US were evil. I'm glad we stood up against the USSR and their system that enslaved the masses and sent countless millions to die in the gulags.

Hitler is a nice example of the philosophy working well, but there are also examples where we there was no clear agenda or were just trying to impose our will and used violence as our means of discourse. And plenty more examples of where we stood by and did nothing while evil reigned.So while I admire soldiers for the sacrifice they make, the people who send them off to die should be held to a much greater level of scrutiny because a lot of what they do is ####### bull####.Wait, what was this thread about again?

a lot of people would agree with you, but that was not at all what Clifford seemed to be saying

 

[Clifford]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see.

Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.

We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.

Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this.

On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.

American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.

I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...

You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

My support or lack thereof for military missions is completely irrelevant here. I am a part of the same society as every other American. I have favored armed conflict in both present-day and in historical context. I often hear of things that upset me and automatically think of violent solutions to them. I am no different and no less affected by our society than any other American.My point is that from birth we are trained to think violently and taught to laud people who use violence to achieve their means. That doesn't mean violence is never acceptable or any other imagined extreme tangent. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. And it should be obvious to everyone that this will affect children and adults alike.

Again, for this to be relevant to this situation those committing these violent acts would have to be expecting to be lauded for them. I highly doubt this is the case. These kids in the school shootings aren't acting in accordance with societal convention and expecting to be treated as heroes (in most cases they're expecting to die), they're disturbed children who have other problems and are acting on those problems.

I disagree. I think the kid can think he will be universally hated by society and be killed at the end of the spree and still that our society led them to a way of thinking that a violent solution was the only solution to their problem.A kid thinking along these lines I would imagine long ago abandoned any thoughts of receiving approval from their peers or elders. They are thinking about revenge. So in their minds they likely assume the role of anti-hero, striking out at a cold and unfeeling society that has spurned them.

This is just MO but I don't think you ever get to the root of this without closely examining what we teach our kids about our societal values.

 

[B-Deep]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see.

Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.

We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.

Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this.

On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.

American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.

I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...

You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

My support or lack thereof for military missions is completely irrelevant here. I am a part of the same society as every other American. I have favored armed conflict in both present-day and in historical context. I often hear of things that upset me and automatically think of violent solutions to them. I am no different and no less affected by our society than any other American.My point is that from birth we are trained to think violently and taught to laud people who use violence to achieve their means. That doesn't mean violence is never acceptable or any other imagined extreme tangent. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. And it should be obvious to everyone that this will affect children and adults alike.

Again, for this to be relevant to this situation those committing these violent acts would have to be expecting to be lauded for them. I highly doubt this is the case. These kids in the school shootings aren't acting in accordance with societal convention and expecting to be treated as heroes (in most cases they're expecting to die), they're disturbed children who have other problems and are acting on those problems.

I disagree. I think the kid can think he will be universally hated by society and be killed at the end of the spree and still that our society led them to a way of thinking that a violent solution was the only solution to their problem.A kid thinking along these lines I would imagine long ago abandoned any thoughts of receiving approval from their peers or elders. They are thinking about revenge. So in their minds they likely assume the role of anti-hero, striking out at a cold and unfeeling society that has spurned them.

This is just MO but I don't think you ever get to the root of this without closely examining what we teach our kids about our societal values.

so in a society that does not glorify violence, what would this child do?

 

[Clifford]

Can we not get sidetracked for once? Does anyone believe that our society does not promote or glorify violence more than other 1st-world countries featuring either ethnically mixed populations or having a basis in European society? Does anyone really wonder why so many desperate kids have come to the same conclusion: that the best or perhaps only thing left for them to do is blow everyone away? Literally shoot away their problems?

Anyway, there is no changing this whether people agree with it or not. The cowboy is our national myth. The gritty frontiersman persona is universally valued in our society and it's what we characterize as being uniquely American. I never suggested it can be changed. I just don't think there is any point in discussing the "why" of something like this in a bubble where we only look at video games, or drugs, or look at the particular dysfunction that this perp found himself in.

that's a lot of qualificationscan you list the societies that qualify?

All of Western Europe. Most if not all of Eastern Europe. Scandanavia. Canada. Australia. New Zealand.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see.

Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.

We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.

Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this.

On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.

American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.

I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...

You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

My support or lack thereof for military missions is completely irrelevant here. I am a part of the same society as every other American. I have favored armed conflict in both present-day and in historical context. I often hear of things that upset me and automatically think of violent solutions to them. I am no different and no less affected by our society than any other American.My point is that from birth we are trained to think violently and taught to laud people who use violence to achieve their means. That doesn't mean violence is never acceptable or any other imagined extreme tangent. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious. And it should be obvious to everyone that this will affect children and adults alike.

Again, for this to be relevant to this situation those committing these violent acts would have to be expecting to be lauded for them. I highly doubt this is the case. These kids in the school shootings aren't acting in accordance with societal convention and expecting to be treated as heroes (in most cases they're expecting to die), they're disturbed children who have other problems and are acting on those problems.

I disagree. I think the kid can think he will be universally hated by society and be killed at the end of the spree and still that our society led them to a way of thinking that a violent solution was the only solution to their problem.A kid thinking along these lines I would imagine long ago abandoned any thoughts of receiving approval from their peers or elders. They are thinking about revenge. So in their minds they likely assume the role of anti-hero, striking out at a cold and unfeeling society that has spurned them.

This is just MO but I don't think you ever get to the root of this without closely examining what we teach our kids about our societal values.

so in a society that does not glorify violence, what would this child do?

Nothing? Commit suicide? Find a more productive outlet for his depression/anger? Seek medical help? There are literally endless alternatives to mass killings.

 

[B-Deep]

Can we not get sidetracked for once? Does anyone believe that our society does not promote or glorify violence more than other 1st-world countries featuring either ethnically mixed populations or having a basis in European society? Does anyone really wonder why so many desperate kids have come to the same conclusion: that the best or perhaps only thing left for them to do is blow everyone away? Literally shoot away their problems?

Anyway, there is no changing this whether people agree with it or not. The cowboy is our national myth. The gritty frontiersman persona is universally valued in our society and it's what we characterize as being uniquely American. I never suggested it can be changed. I just don't think there is any point in discussing the "why" of something like this in a bubble where we only look at video games, or drugs, or look at the particular dysfunction that this perp found himself in.

that's a lot of qualificationscan you list the societies that qualify?

All of Western Europe. Most if not all of Eastern Europe. Scandanavia. Canada. Australia. New Zealand.

Why so many qualifications? Why does European matter? If we are talking about societal acceptance of violence why limit it?

 

[Clifford]

It's simple: you treat violent solutions to problems as a universal failing of the societal construct and in no way do you glorify them or set them up as somehow indicative of having courage or being more manly than those who seek non-violent means to solve their problems.

Surely this did not elude you as a possibility? I assume I'm not really telling anyone anything new about our society.

Seek out non-violent means to stop Hitler. Go ahead.Show me the non-violent means to stop those that seek to eradicate anyone else they deem inferior.

Turning the other cheek will only gets you another smacked jaw

And hell yes I hold those who came before me who served in our military and those that now served their country as courageous.

Please feel free to go and preach the word of non-violence to radicals in other countries who seek out to kill those who do not share their beliefs.

Kill the messenger if you want. All I'm saying is that we have a violent culture, we promote and glamorize violence in all aspects of our society, and we have laws that make guns more accessible than they are compared to other 1st world countries with much lower crime rates.Connect the dots or don't, it's your choice. Obviously there are some situations that call for violence in order to stop more violence. Obviously men and women in our military served out of a sense of duty and honor and it makes perfect sense for people to value that choice.

However, if we want to talk about why school shootings happen and we don't talk about the way our culture treats violence, especially gun violence, then it's a waste of time. If we also take the wide access to firearms off the table, then we literally have nothing left to talk about other than this one kid's messed up mind.

But we can't ignore the fact that these things keep happening, and that they happen in the US more than any of its comparable countries throughout the world.

Yet you ignored my post where I pointed out that DC, where it's nearly impossible to own a gun legally, has the highest gun crime murder rate by far. More than double the 2nd worst state and triple the third.

I don't think gun laws alone solve the problem which has been my whole point. Gun laws, in the case of school shootings, should only be looked at in terms of the access to firearms our current system provides. They only answer the How, not the Why.

 

[Clifford]

Can we not get sidetracked for once? Does anyone believe that our society does not promote or glorify violence more than other 1st-world countries featuring either ethnically mixed populations or having a basis in European society? Does anyone really wonder why so many desperate kids have come to the same conclusion: that the best or perhaps only thing left for them to do is blow everyone away? Literally shoot away their problems?

Anyway, there is no changing this whether people agree with it or not. The cowboy is our national myth. The gritty frontiersman persona is universally valued in our society and it's what we characterize as being uniquely American. I never suggested it can be changed. I just don't think there is any point in discussing the "why" of something like this in a bubble where we only look at video games, or drugs, or look at the particular dysfunction that this perp found himself in.

that's a lot of qualificationscan you list the societies that qualify?

All of Western Europe. Most if not all of Eastern Europe. Scandanavia. Canada. Australia. New Zealand.

Why so many qualifications? Why does European matter? If we are talking about societal acceptance of violence why limit it?

Because societies and their values tend to differ based on heritage. For instance, certain societies that have not placed as high a value on human life and human rights, might be more amenable to violence. So I am attempting to compare us with other societies with similar socioeconomic situations, and a shared system of values.It makes it more relevant than comparing us to the Sudan, whose socioeconomic conditions and lack of government dictate violence as a means of survival (one could make the same argument for many of America's worst neighborhoods), or Iran, whose history and culture set different standards of human rights.

IOW, comparing apples and apples as opposed to apples and oranges.

 

[B-Deep]

Can we not get sidetracked for once? Does anyone believe that our society does not promote or glorify violence more than other 1st-world countries featuring either ethnically mixed populations or having a basis in European society? Does anyone really wonder why so many desperate kids have come to the same conclusion: that the best or perhaps only thing left for them to do is blow everyone away? Literally shoot away their problems?

Anyway, there is no changing this whether people agree with it or not. The cowboy is our national myth. The gritty frontiersman persona is universally valued in our society and it's what we characterize as being uniquely American. I never suggested it can be changed. I just don't think there is any point in discussing the "why" of something like this in a bubble where we only look at video games, or drugs, or look at the particular dysfunction that this perp found himself in.

that's a lot of qualificationscan you list the societies that qualify?

All of Western Europe. Most if not all of Eastern Europe. Scandanavia. Canada. Australia. New Zealand.

Why so many qualifications? Why does European matter? If we are talking about societal acceptance of violence why limit it?

Because societies and their values tend to differ based on heritage. For instance, certain societies that have not placed as high a value on human life and human rights, might be more amenable to violence. So I am attempting to compare us with other societies with similar socioeconomic situations, and a shared system of values.It makes it more relevant than comparing us to the Sudan, whose socioeconomic conditions and lack of government dictate violence as a means of survival (one could make the same argument for many of America's worst neighborhoods), or Iran, whose history and culture set different standards of human rights.

IOW, comparing apples and apples as opposed to apples and oranges.

So in other words, factor out places who are more violent than us, and perhaps we are the most violent.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Clifford, how do you feel about abortion as a violent solution to a problem?

 

[BigJohn]

Just blow the internet up. This is stupid.

T&P's to the kid's family that passed away. Horrible.

 

[B-Deep]

Clifford, how do you feel about abortion as a violent solution to a problem?

oh sweet lord as if this thread wasn't off the rails enough.....

 

[Clifford]

No, just agree upon a set of benchmarks and examine every country that meets them. If you want, go by G8 countries. or members of the security council. Or countries with a certain level of GDP. Go by number of flights in and out of that country per day. Just make sure that whatever benchmark you use, the US is included.

I get what you are doing but what's the point? Are you saying that 1st world is a nonsensical qualifier? Do you not acknowledge that we have a higher rate of street crime, or number of movies which have a minimum amount of explosions and gunfire? What if we just compare the number of shootings which occurred at a school and included more than 1 victim in G8 countries.

I'd rather talk about actual objections to the meat of what I am saying than engage in yet another round of gotcha fact checking in the FFA. I am not trying to talk specifics. I am saying examining this problem requires a deep, long look in the mirror about who we are as a country, where we came from, and what we value. And I think this makes most Americans uncomfortable enough to where real self-examination never occurs, and the problem is never even really looked at much less dealt with.

I do not think changing a law will affect this or passing stricter parental ratings will either. It has to almost be a consensus that we no longer think killing things and blowing stuff up is cool. And I don't think anything other than long-term societal evolution gets us there.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford, how do you feel about abortion as a violent solution to a problem?

The same way I feel about rhinoceroses as an alternative to popcorn.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Clifford, how do you feel about abortion as a violent solution to a problem?

The same way I feel about rhinoceroses as an alternative to popcorn.

It's just that violence has beeen foundational to our society and these scool shooting are a recent phenomenon. If, inded, a fetus is human life, or a form of life, is not our remedy violent? Does not this devaluation of life more closely correlate with the legalization and legitimizing of this violent practice moreso than glrifying John Wayne/Rooster Cogburn?

 

[NCCommish]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see. Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

I know this. My point is that talking about video games without examining the other 10,000 ways our society actively promotes guns and violence to kids is ridiculous. I do not think we can wave a magic wand and make this happen. However, we do know that our ultra-violent culture is unique in the first world, and we do know that other countries with similar socio-economic conditions and similar demographics have managed to achieve far lower violent crime rates. And we do know that most of the countries that do have far greater gun restrictions than we do.Yet we sit here, with kids killing kids with guns, and wonder what the hell we can do about this. On the military service thing, I almost didn't put that as I knew it would prove a non-sequiter, so I withdraw it now. But let's face it: you can't really support the troops without supporting what they do and what they sign up for. So by having a society where you are automatically a pariah if you don't support the troops, you also have a society where support of violent military conflict is basically a given.American society promotes violence as a means to solve conflict. And it occurs on all levels. So when a child attempts to solve their personal problems with violent means, it doesn't surprise me at all. The fact that easy access to guns provides much easier means to do violence to many more people doesn't surprise me either.I'm saying this because I have lived outside this country and seen how easy it is for a society to not promote violence. But I was living in a small central European country, not the big, bad, buttkicking United States.

I don't agree with your troops statement.You can support the troops and still not like the fact that they were in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc...You don't have to justify the cause but can still support the men and women in the military

I think what Clifford is saying is that the people in the service signed up to do a job. That job is to kill people and break things. This is soemthing he can't support regardless of the cause...

Actually the last thing the vast overwhelming majority of us want when we sign up is to kill people. Something has gone terribly wrong if we are out killing people and breaking things. Our job is to try to project strength in such a way as the other guy finds another way and we don't have to destroy him. We will kill people but we do so reluctantly and at grave personal sacrifice of our emotional, physical and mental health in an awful lot of cases.

 

[B-Deep]

No, just agree upon a set of benchmarks and examine every country that meets them. If you want, go by G8 countries. or members of the security council. Or countries with a certain level of GDP. Go by number of flights in and out of that country per day. Just make sure that whatever benchmark you use, the US is included.I get what you are doing but what's the point? Are you saying that 1st world is a nonsensical qualifier? Do you not acknowledge that we have a higher rate of street crime, or number of movies which have a minimum amount of explosions and gunfire? What if we just compare the number of shootings which occurred at a school and included more than 1 victim in G8 countries.I'd rather talk about actual objections to the meat of what I am saying than engage in yet another round of gotcha fact checking in the FFA. I am not trying to talk specifics. I am saying examining this problem requires a deep, long look in the mirror about who we are as a country, where we came from, and what we value. And I think this makes most Americans uncomfortable enough to where real self-examination never occurs, and the problem is never even really looked at much less dealt with.I do not think changing a law will affect this or passing stricter parental ratings will either. It has to almost be a consensus that we no longer think killing things and blowing stuff up is cool. And I don't think anything other than long-term societal evolution gets us there.

i wasn't gotcha fact checking, i just found it odd that you had such rigid qualifications on your statement.

 

[B-Deep]

And by the way gotcha fact checking makes no sense, if something is presented as fct when it is not, that is on the presenter.

 

[Chaka]

so in a society that does not glorify violence, what would this child do?

Hug it out?

 

[JaxBill]

Just blow the internet up. This is stupid.T&P's to the kid's family that passed away. Horrible.

 

[3C's]

this thread sucks

 

[B-Deep]

so in a society that does not glorify violence, what would this child do?

Hug it out?

i guessi mean if we assume there is some mental issue that starts this in motion, i find it hard to believe that in some set of utopian non violent soceity this person would just decide to pick dasies rather than act out

 

[Righetti]

http://www.punditpress.com/2012/02/tj-lane-picture.html

 

[B-Deep]

http://www.punditpress.com/2012/02/tj-lane-picture.html

creepy

 

[General Malaise]

Dad just told me "it's all the damn video games"

culturally, our appetite for violence keeps increasing.Art imitating life? Chicken and egg? I don't know?are younger brains able to adequately process the graphic violence? Again, I don't know...

Maybe we should try and make it harder for kids to get guns.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Another shooting today.... Thank God a civilian had a gun to take down the killer in the moment of danger.... Oh wait..... THAT NEVER HAPPENS !!!!!!!

 

[General Malaise]

Another shooting today....

Now, imagine lunatic children like this didn't have access to guns....your statement becomes.....existenceless.

 

[coyote5]

I say arm all the children. These wacko kids would think twice about going on a spree then.

 

[kface]

Clifford, it's not like I don't sympathize with what you're trying to say. But the reason that Rooster Cogburn is a hero is because he makes money being a hero. Films like that are made because that's what people want to see. Do you remember about 20 years ago when the film "Boys In The Hood" came out? The release of that film coincided somewhat with the Rodney King Riots, and I remember at the time there were cast members speaking out and complaining that there were too many gun stores and liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and asking why? The implication was that this was some sort of societal plot. Well, I'm a commercial real estate agent, and they never bothered to ask this question to anyone in my profession. The reason there are gun stores and liquor stores in many black neighborhoods is because they make good money there. Their sales are high in those areas. That's it; end of explanation.We cannot change the way people think. Our television and movie culture reflects what the public wants; it's not set. When it' is set, it's on accident. Nobody has ever found a way to shape public opinion.

Advertising is a billion $ a year industry and it very much shapes public opinion. People's opinions are shaped every day by the signs they see, the images they see on tv and the voices they hear

 

[Clifford]

so in a society that does not glorify violence, what would this child do?

Hug it out?

i guessi mean if we assume there is some mental issue that starts this in motion, i find it hard to believe that in some set of utopian non violent soceity this person would just decide to pick dasies rather than act out

Is it really that hard to believe? When I lived in the Czech Republic, for 2.5 years, there were maybe a total of 5 homicides. That's a slow week in North Birmingham.Here's a list of school shootings by location. Just compare the amount of US placenames vs all others as you scan down the list:http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.htmlAlso, you act like willful homicide and total pacifism are the only options. There's quite a spectrum in between.

 

[NCCommish]

so in a society that does not glorify violence, what would this child do?

Hug it out?

i guessi mean if we assume there is some mental issue that starts this in motion, i find it hard to believe that in some set of utopian non violent soceity this person would just decide to pick dasies rather than act out

Is it really that hard to believe? When I lived in the Czech Republic, for 2.5 years, there were maybe a total of 5 homicides. That's a slow week in North Birmingham.Here's a list of school shootings by location. Just compare the amount of US placenames vs all others as you scan down the list:http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.htmlAlso, you act like willful homicide and total pacifism are the only options. There's quite a spectrum in between.

And you act like the actions of a few is some reason to indict the everything. These kids probably drank milk might want to address that as well. A little correlation goes an awful long way for you on the causation side.

 

[Clifford]

I believe you can say one society is more prone to an action than another based on a mountain of evidence. That doesn't indict everyone or everything. But when there is a rather stark trend it can be useful to engage in more inclusive analysis than just looking at video games or rock music.

That's the totality of my message here: we need to look at what we really value as a society. I think if we do then children shooting children becomes easier to understand.

 

[Jackstraw]

Just to add some persepctive violent crime is way down in the US after peaking in the early nineties. Our current crime rates compare favorably with rates in the 60's.

Just want to add that as a counterpoint to remind everyone the country is not devolving into a cesspool. Quite the opposite in fact if you look at the crime data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

 

[ATC1]

Another shooting today....

Now, imagine lunatic children like this didn't have access to guns....your statement becomes.....existenceless.

I think the question is how parents that can raise this kid have access to guns. My stance is that schools should not be a gun ban zone for adults (teachers) who went through the proper mandatory training, back ground check, and practice to conceal a firearm for protection in a situation like this. We are lucky this kid got spooked by someone and decided to run instead of continuing to fire. I applaud the person that spooked him to run.

 

[General Malaise]

Another shooting today....

Now, imagine lunatic children like this didn't have access to guns....your statement becomes.....existenceless.

I think the question is how parents that can raise this kid have access to guns. My stance is that schools should not be a gun ban zone for adults (teachers) who went through the proper mandatory training, back ground check, and practice to conceal a firearm for protection in a situation like this. We are lucky this kid got spooked by someone and decided to run instead of continuing to fire. I applaud the person that spooked him to run.

Maybe I'm just a dreamer, but I'd like to live in a society where NOBODY needed to bring guns to a school. Ever. I don't think they arm themselves in Swiss schools.I'll go back to my drum circle now.