What is going on in this young people's minds that pushes them to perform such deadly acts of violence? School and mass shootings have become some deadly sort of grim "tradition" in this world. Alarming disposition of today's youth to just decimate other young and adult people. What's your take on this matter?
courtesy of The Plain Dealer
I hope I don't come off sounding as if I'm laying the blame on everyone except the kids committing the crimes. However, I do think it has a lot to do with kids not being taught to handle their problems in other, non-lethal, ways. When I was a kid, we were told to either talk out our problems or walk away. Now it seems kids only want a quick solution to the problem and the quickest way is to literally kill the problem.
All individuals behave badly from time to time. But when hostile behavior ends with shootings, the reason is seldom revealed because the hostile individual's environment is rarely evaluated correctly. Research of recent deadly acts of violence indicates that the young adult lacks the social attributes normally viewed from a positive participant. In some cases this is due to disorganized digital society participation where the individual assumes a role of empirical participant. The youth performing violent acts are also disengaged due to the distraught nature of the family based on the immoral fibers currently being woven within society. This then presents the distraught youth with little or no positive role model with which to engage. From this toxic vacuum the violent youth emerges as a deeply upset and agitated individual bent on promoting an extreme emotional force for their solution. Research indicates that the extreme violence is a result of an environment of aggressive and violent behavior, poor parenting practices, economic stress, peer or institution rejection, and intensive exposure to fantasy world online games. While theorists seek to multiply the reasons, they seldom focus on the main one. Poor parenting is the basic cause of deadly acts of violence. Poor parenting results in lack of recognition for self-control and self-worth as the youth seeks acceptance within the broken society. Due to the apathy shown for immoral acts, many youth today wander aimlessly through the jungle of society much like wild animals of the world. With a warbled sense of kill or be killed, the disgruntled youth strike out. The occurrence of such action is relatively small at this time, but appears to be growing more abundant everyday. Immoral attitudes must be reversed if the society is to overcome this dilemma. This requires the adults to refuse to accept the immoral actions of those who wish to destroy the moral society. This must begin with proper moral education of the youth through moral principles that will produce a non-violent individual. This requires positive parenting and positive requirements from parents for the educational system and environment of the youth. Without such action, the society will evolve into further risk of heightened violence in the youth of tomorrow.
I totally and completely agree with what you are saying here. I have seen the decay of morality and the display of the ill accepted new standards in society which crumble and destroy the upcoming generations. This immoral actions creep up and increase day by day and the tolerance and encouraging of such actions by parents today is in my opinion not just dysfunctional and irresponsible and unacceptable. Thank you for sharing your wisdom.
Tighter gun control laws. It happened in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, and that was an isolated incident. All automatic weapons were banned and all other weapons need to be licenced and with strict conditions. We haven't had a mass shooting since, and never a school shooting.
The illicit firearm markets of Australia have grown substantially since the weapons have been banned. More weapons are in criminal hands today than before the Port Arthur massacre. This mass shooting was the work of many, not one incompetent individual. Since then, the analytics for gun use have been modified by removing the deaths from police shootings.
Oh let's see: violent, constant movies and video games, parents who don't or won't parent, adults who constantly are on the news for doing these same things...and oh yes, laws that allow kids to misbehave in school and elsewhere with very few, if any consequences.
Something indeed has to be done. There has to be more mass meetings with the schools, communities, and churches to address this issue. This issue has really gotten uncontrollable to say the least. When more schools, communities, and churches work together to address the issue, hopefully there will be a solution to the problem.
I see it as a hopelessness that young people come to embrace as the chasm in society becomes ever increasing. The push to do well in school and onto college hopes shattered by indebtedness that can never be overcome by merely working hard. They see it in their parents lives as older generation working parents are pushed out of their jobs and replaced with younger lesser paid individuals who in most cases marginalize the companies former capabilities. Jobs being shipped overseas so that the 1% can increase their greedy stashes of cash while putting down those that would like a chance to improve their lot through hard work. The totally corrupt political forum we employ in this country with none willing to clean it up but would rather argue the semantics of the argument rather than the topic itself. The fear mongering that the government feeds us so that the spy agencies can readily and easily accomplish their intrusive methods on our rights to privacy. The list goes on and on about the reasons why our youth has become oppressed with these depressing issues yet we offer little hope for them in their future. The greedy and fast paced lifestyle we have developed leaves little for reflection and the hope of one day living the American Dream.
The immoral social environment is currently filled with many individuals who lack the moral fiber that once was the primary learning for the youth of the USA. As the education system becomes more focused on political correctness rather than love and understanding, the youth rebel violently against all forms of moral principles. It is no wonder that children are then violently attacking each other as the adults in charge begin to spread immoral disease through the education system. The distressed lifestyle of the family also attributes to the suffering and sorrow. Many deny this as they cling to the immoral trail.
It doesn't happen everywhere in the world. There must be something very toxic about the countries where this does happen on a regular basis.
the toxic society is generated by the apathy shown for immoral acts that destroy moral principles. However, this happens everywhere the world. It just does not get reported in some countries due to political management.
There are some deep rooted societal problems today that contribute to this killing problem. The prevalence of guns available to young people as never before is part of the problem. We have a culture of death in this country which young disturbed adults have no remorse for their actions as they see these behaviors exhibited in movies and videos and have become desensitized to. We are too busy today to talk through feelings or problems and some young people are left with no compass on where to go or how to live. Lastly, because young people have no one to talk to they don't realize that problems are temporary and not final. They see no other option or way out, so they kill to solve the problem. There are so many variables that affect this problem at this point that there is no one area that will fix the problem. We need so much societal change to end this problem that I don't see the situation changing any time soon.
You are right as well. Communication seems to be taboo these days and sharing feelings have turned into something that people see as weakness rather than a way to strengthen and straighten our lives. And this is not only affecting our youth but I have also witnessed how this affects adults as well. Mental illnesses coming only second to heart disease. That in my opinion is an alarming statistic.
It is not the prevalence of guns because everyone had guns when I grew up. In fact, we had loaded weapons in our vehicles in the school parking lot. The society has been undermined by evil as immoral acts have been permitted to enter the world of the moral community. Like mold on bread, the evil acts have ravaged the moral community.
Again, would you care to list some of those immoral acts that we have permitted to enter our world and that are destroying us?
you view the immoral acts daily when watching the latest depraved movies, debauched acts reported on by the news agencies and deranged political pundits. personal morals have been degraded continually through introduction of immoral acts presenting conflicting personal and social morality structure. with each ensuing immoral volition that enters society the youth reaches a much lower morality level. this leads to disrespect, violent insolence, and audacity for immoral acts. the removal of the teachings of God for youth in society further burdens the society as these feelings are heightened to evil.
"The prevalence of guns available to young people as never before is part of the problem. "
A fundamental misunderstanding by a well meaning person but nevertheless, a complete mistake as to the history of guns in our culture.
Prior to 1968 guns and ammo were bought and sold down at the corner hardware store. No question asked. It was common to see teen boys walking around with their rifles on the way to and from school in even urban settings. Most high schools had a shooting club.
When my dad was 12 he was expected to do his share of providing for the supper table by bringing home a rabbit or squirrel after school. He said the cloakroom was stocked with shotguns from the guys in the same circumstances.
You can assign a lot of reasons why kids shoot up schools today, but you can't use the excuse that they have more and easier access to guns.
The whole psychological and social structure that we follow and perpetuate is based in division and competition, looking down on some and looking up to others, degrading the weak and upholding the strong. If we keep looking at the various forms and manifestations of the problem rather the root cause of it in that psychological and social structure, then we will blindly keep acting shocked at the results of it without realizing we are encouraging the results; so, then, it will keep going on and on, ad nauseum.
Agreed. There is a underlying issue with values and this society, which very much aside from advancing seems more like regressive, and where the oppression of the "weak" is seen as normality. Structure is lacking and the practice of those moral and social values that at least I grew up with is lost.
Here's the other issue I see: Why are kids not helped to truly explore what they want to do, what they love to do, what to them has life and meaning? People want to push them around, make them conform, molding them into what is expected, but not actually take care of them. That is the problem. Fact is, no one is taken care of. We are training them to go to war, to be good little workers, and to compete with each other and degrade each other, but not how to understand themselves and the world. Parents and teachers and later their bosses and co-workers destroy them as they destroy each other. There needs to be a very fundamental and radical change and it has nothing at all to do with the accepted social morality of all of the divisive systems, structures, religions or the economic system. All of that has caused the problem. Forcing them to conform to some standard creates more conflict and violence, inwardly and outwardly; actually what occurs inwardly is what occurs outwardly, there's no difference. Mostly we actually create the problem with our solutions.
Edit: As usual, people are suggesting we need more "discipline", and unfortunately no one knows the meaning of that word. What they mean by discipline is fear; and fear distorts the mind. It is just more violence and division. The real meaning of that word discipline means to learn, and has nothing at all to do with fear or telling people what to do or making people conform. Making people conform mostly makes them stupid. Intelligence, sensitivity, perceptiveness comes from being whole, not being divided inwardly or outwardly, to be able to see directly and clearly; pretty much everything that fear and conformity is not. It is only in the awakening of intelligence that we will change anything.
When society permits immoral evil to grow abundantly within the moral society, these acts persist. It is this level of evil that has recently grown out of control. The Moral Principles through Honorable Parenting must be restored if the society is to heal.
Would you care to list some of the immoral evil that is causing our society to degrade to shooting children in the schools?
We know that the Law is good if one uses it lawfully. The law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious. Those that are ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their parents, immoral men, homosexuals, liars, perjurers, and all else that is contrary to sound moral teaching. Removal of the glorious gospel of the blessed God that teaches us love and righteousness. When the schools were forced to remove the moral teachings these immoral acts of evil have entered their buildings.
My children don't hear a word of the Bible in my home or anywhere else until well into their teens. They are probably more well-behaved and respectful than you were as a child... except the one who DID choose to become a Christian. He is a trial.
Maybe someone can explain that to me someday.
But that is even with two children with a confirmed "mental illness" (Which I don't consider Autism/Aspergers personally)
errrr.... people are not pre-programmed robots but are actually people with free will. How's that?
The point I was making was that all of my kids were very well behaved except the on who chose Christianity to counter the point that it is the lack of Christianity in schools that causes children to be misbehaved...
I'm sorry you missed that.
You must have me confused with another poster. I didn't "miss" anything. I merely didn't engage in that issue.
However, I do recall someone making the statement, "Maybe someone can explain that to me someday."
Since I explained that concept quite well (at your request) I would think you would be more appreciative than so hostile.
You do understand what a rhetorical question is, right? And you also understand when your response doesn't even address said rhetorical question... correct? Additionally, you probably need to understand the difference between being hostile and apologizing for a misunderstanding, because you're going to have a rough time of it if you keep confusing the two.
I know full well what a "rhetorical question" is. Not sure that yours started out that way but it is a convenient excuse for your not processing my answer properly.
If you want to discuss how well I answered the question then go for it. I won't stop you.
I have no clue as to what you are attempting to communicate in your last sentence.
I do not know your children but I do know many others and many do not show respect because the society has removed all teaching of respect. in addition, the schools are constantly bombarded by those who wish to remove God from the structure.
Thank goodness - our public schools have no business whatsoever pushing your particular brand of mythology. Your personal concept of God does not belong in our schools any more than that of Muslims, Buddhists, witches or Pagans in general.
your public schools are failing the students because they have removed the righteousness that teaches respectful children. Therefore, there is no avenue to goodness whether you thank or not. that is why radical wildness is rampant in children.
Maybe you need to hang out with some better kids. My friends don't seem to have any trouble teaching their kids right from wrong as the schools teach them literacy and numeracy.
Every generation likes to bitch about the younger generation, but meanwhile violence is at an all time low, education levels at an all time high, and racial disparity in socioeconomic status is the smallest it has been since recording began.
so why is there so much desire by the government to change the system?
Because public schools are government ran and the government doesn't have any place promoting a religion. Also because the people wanted it that way. And the Supreme court decided it was unconstitutional and the government tends to get pissy about supporting unconstitutional things.
Or were you talking about the educational system in general, and the g'ments desire to keep constantly improving it?
By who in government to change what system? I don't know what you are referring to.
Ah yes, the "There is no morality without the Bible." defense. I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd murder, molest children, rape and steal things even if the Bible had never been written. Would you?
I can teach my children just fine using empathy. (We don't hit others because it hurts, do you like it when you get hurt?) and consequences (We don't lie, because it makes it so people don't believe us, even when we do tell the truth.)
See? No Bible required. And- as a bonus- they learn right and wrong for reasons other than "You don't do this because a big invisible guy in the sky will send you to a burning pit." I think it's a little easier for them to grasp observable consequences, yes?
support for immoral activity on a daily basis comes from those that continually lack the intelligence to build upon the knowledge of the past. empathy may be considered your sound teaching method, but when confronted with terrorists, the empathy transferred will not assist the youth.
Yes, I do believe there is less morality without the Bible.
You comically challenge the teaching of Christianity while stating that you don't lie because it makes it so people don't believe us.
Your truth seems to be the grasp that is missing from the observable consequences. Thus, when you provide the bonus, the world learns right from wrong for all reasons, not just those that you wish to acknowledge.
Christianity will be part of your children's lives because Christians out number all other spiritual groups.
So, it is better to pass on all the truth.
If you say so Sparky.
Just don't try to teach your morality to my kids. Hey! Maybe that's why the Bible is forbidden in schools. I'd hate to think your version of morality is what all kids are being taught. Perhaps you should stick to teaching it to your own children.
What biblical morality do you think we need? The right to beat our slaves and children, to stone to death disobedient children or adulterers, to ostracise the homosexual?
Let's look at Mosaic law; a law that institutionalised sexual inequalities and oppression of foreign nationals. Is that what you want? How about a morality that forbids women to speak in church or braid their hair, or men to grow their hair beyond their shirt collars?
I don't know - the morality your upbringing has given you (Any way but my way is wrong and everyone must live as I say) has rather obviously failed as well. I believe that I would much prefer that my children learn right from wrong, not the twisted morality of hate, genocide and cruelty taught in your bible. And that pretty much means keeping the teachings of that particular book out of the schools.
We can thank our lucky stars that our forefathers 200 years ago saw this more clearly than you do and wrote into our most basic laws the morality of leaving religion out of what government can force upon us or our children.
100% of the individuals who shed blood in schools this year were not Christians, but individuals who were taught to disbelief.
Your twisted world is destined to become even more violent as the terror spread by disbelief will rise further.
government does not force upon us any religion because every individual must choose their life path.
however, your concept of omission of religion by the government was not the concept of the founders of the nation. the founders did not wish to declare a single religion or church as was the pattern of the English.
Therefore, they declared that no national church would be permitted.
Those who choose to deny all religion are permitted to do so by the law.
But those who attempt to eliminate the religion of others are actually breaking the law. Therefore, removal of religious artifacts pertaining to the religions of others should be illegal.
There is no force intended by the display of artifacts or any Bible within a government building.
The description of force is a self-imposed attitude that renders the individual less capable of defending the freedoms and liberties of others.
While you fight to keep the Bible out of public schools, the Islamic traditions of prayer are being taught daily.
Individuals that deny this is happening are incapable of sustaining the democratic republic that was created by the founders.
Where is you list of the religion of all the recent shooters. Because if you have this and none of them are Christian I will eat my hat.
This "majority wins" approach to religious sects would have the founding fathers spinning in their graves. If that was true we would all still be Anglicans and part of the Empire.
"100% of the individuals who shed blood in schools this year were not Christians" Is lying part of your morals? Because for an absolute surety I do not believe that statement for even a second. Even if you invoke the logical fallacy of "Not a true Scotsman" it is still untrue.
"...every individual must choose their life path." That is completely true. True to the point that anyone wishing to force their religion, via public schools, onto our children cannot seem to accept it but instead continue to push their personal version of the myth into my children's schools.. Unfortunate, as it is a result of the most basic and true of all morals; the golden rule (as given in your bible, no less).
"Therefore, removal of religious artifacts pertaining to the religions of others should be illegal." Somehow I very much doubt that you would support a Buddha in every classroom, or a pagan spellbook. Prayer rungs on the floors aren't very attractive, are they? Rather selective on what religion government may push onto children, aren't you?
"Islamic traditions of prayer are being taught daily." Perhaps in your home or school; not in mine. Another little white lie from the Christian in you? While there is no doubt that it is being taught in many mosques throughout the nation, that is certainly no worse than the hideous caricature of a man being crucified found on virtually every street corner. The violence, hate and cruelty given in your scriptures is as bad as it gets.
There is no violence, hate, and cruelty in my scriptures.
There is only violence, hate, and cruelty in your mind based on your lack of comprehension of the passages.
You dwell in a lost soul and so it will always be difficult for you to see the truth as you continue to live through deceit and lies.
The caricature of a man being crucified depicts the violence, hate, and cruelty that you seem to abhor. However, you do not wish to recognize this.
Why does this truth not meet with your approval? Are you afraid of it?
My error, then - I thought you were claiming Christianity and the bible is mostly about violence (remember killing all the innocent Egyptian kids), hatred (remember that other tribes were to be conquered as often as possible) and cruelty (remember being instructed in proper techniques for beating a slave).
I absolutely recognize the violence and hatred in that caricature that Christianity has taken for its symbol. The "religion of love" with a symbol of one of the most barbarous acts possible - makes sense doesn't it?
Yes, it makes sense, because Christianity is a religion of fear and control, not love, and that icon makes that crystal clear as do the actions of the god portrayed in their religious writings.
So the question becomes "Why does this truth not meet with your approval? Are you afraid of it?" Why do you deny the evidence before your eyes, make excuses for it and twist it to mean something it does not? For when you begin to speak of the "morality" of the barbarians of the bible, all the old prophets of God and their people, it is nothing I want a part of and I certainly don't want my children being taught such barbarism in my schools. Stoning little children to death for insubordination, indeed! Only Christians would come up with such an idea.
There's all sorts of fun things in the Bible that most Christians miss (because they don't really read it). Cracked has plenty of them covered:
http://www.cracked.com/article_20694_6- … bible.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_20255_5- … bible.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_19597_8- … bible.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5- … bible.html
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3778-5-bib … mythology/
http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_th … erses.html
http://www.cracked.com/funny-8723-thing … -in-bible/
http://www.cracked.com/article_16546_th … bible.html
No violence in the Bible? What edition are you reading that it has wars, stoning, rape and the crucifixion redacted?
It seems that the development of the generations existing and those to come is deeply and gravely affected by the lack of values and morality in society nowadays. This is not an issue that just began but more a problem that started long ago as a situation that year after year keeps approaching more and more closely to the surface. This is an abomination that we need to be aware of. That the values being taught to our children and young ones are being corrupted. That the tolerance of those things that we know deep inside are not correct or righteous has no room in our world if we really are to abolish this sort of events. But most of all that we are as responsible for the outcome of the ones we raise as they are for their actions. When I grew up I was taught that you lead by example and that you reap what you sow. I also learnt that to love and to lead is to invest into a human being that will carry on the legacy of what is right and decent. This is not something you get to see too often in today's society. We have the obligation to correct this. Is is not an option but a necessity.
I don't have much to add to what others have already expressed eloquently. Claire Davis, the latest victim of a school shooting, died today. May she rest in peace. Pray that her family will find a way to continue without her and live with their devastating loss.
Every time something like this happens, someone, have to mention video games. Sure, there are violent video games, but those, are rated 18. So, there can be a lot of good explanations for this kind of violence and I do not believe video games are to blame.
- There are a lot of pressure in schools, many kids just like to give a hard time to others, even to a point that some kid can enter into a big depressive state.
- Parenting, while many of us with kid's do our best to set rules and give our love, some parents just "don't have the time". Working a lot, or social problems that creates distance from parents and sons, might create also a sense of "lonely" in any kid that does not have set rules and behavior examples.
- Some are just really stupid!
- drugs, alcohol, bad companies, bad influence, etc.
But since I started this by talking about video games, it is just lame that is the first thing people came out. I have 41 years old, I grew up playing Doom, Quake and other violent games, I am a calm person, I never had problems in school (except when I was after some girl ), I always behave. What did I have different? Parents that care.
And parenting the right loving way is the difference kar351. That is true. I could always say that I see the guns issue as the video game issue itself. Video games are not the only thing out there that in the hands of the wrong person could cause harm but guns are also the same and so is television and internet, etc. It is not the item itself that causes the problem but it is the lack of guidance and education. Love itself is wonderful but without discipline at the time of leading someone it could also be misinterpreted. It is all in the eye of the beholder.
Two kids can be given a blank sheet of paper and crayons to make a drawing. But the outcome of these drawings is going to be completely different. And the reason for that is in the child's mind and it is based in his or her upbringing. Like a gun for example. Two men or women could be given guns but that does not mean they'll open fire immediately and start mass shooting everyone. Paying attention to our children and details behind their behavior can make a huge difference in whether we identify and address a problem before it escalates or let it fess up till it blows up in an incident that harms not just others around but the person as well.
A parent for example is supposed to be a guide, a role model and a leader but also a comforter, a teacher, a listener and problem solver. I guess the issue that classifies the lack of effective parenting is what makes it fall under immorality because we are the ones as parents failing to teach our children how to behave, respect and love our peers without judgments. Allowing our kids to imitate bad conduct, acts of lewdness or violence and promoting retaliation, discrimination and bullying have become the ways to teach children today.
Whether a child is the bully or the one being bullied, again it creates certain feelings in the child that many would not understand and could lead to very grim consequences. This again being just one example.
Now, if this helps answer my friend's wilderness request. Morality falls into the following definition:
: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
Courtesy of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
This definition proves what we have all been discussing here all along.
On the other hand, if we as parents were not taught right from infancy what's right or what's wrong then we as parents are also corrupting the views of what is moral and immoral in this society. If I teach my child that aggression and violence are the right ways to go then that is what my child is going to learn and promote and leave as a legacy for generations to come. This being yet another example. This does not apply to just everyone either. I grew up being a victim of physical and psychological/emotional abuse and this did not make me a killer but it was enough to help me realize how I did NOT want to raise my children given the great amount of suffering that I endured. And so I raised my children with love and leadership, teaching them how to make decisions based of what's right and what is wrong and the consequences of each action and decision, promoting logical and effective thinking and they have turned out to be amazing kids now teenagers both. And my job with them still isn't done.
We also have to consider that many of the children and young adults today suffer from some kind of mental illness that in many cases can go undetected for many many years. This in itself I cannot discuss about much because I am not a professional and all I can give is my personal opinion about it. But what I do know is that this illnesses also have symptoms and those we need to pay close attention to. Many of these symptom behaviors go unnoticed because people have become desensitized to other people's feelings and concerns. But this subject is for another forum.
Morals - about the only moral I can think of that is applicable is to not hurt people. To cause no harm.
But I don't think that's what is being referenced. This is a subject I've put some thought into - what is making our society so violent - and I've come up blank in this area. I'd like some other input if I could get it.
Mental illness - do you think our kids have a much higher rate of mental illness than in the past? If so, is it from psychological reasons, physical reasons or even moral ones? What is driving our kids insane and what can we do about it?
There's a lot of over-medication of children these days. If the kid acts up, you give him ritalin or something. Who knows what the long term consequences of these drugs are on the human brain. The drug companies get to make tons of money though, thanks to their lobbies in Washington.
Well, I'm certainly on your side there. We medicate thousands of kids around the country, mostly because kids in a stupor are easier to control that those running around the room.
And we do NOT know what the long term results of those drugs are.
I do not have a clear answer to this but your insight is truly appreciated (wilderness) because it promotes the kind of thinking that addresses everyone's questions and trains of thought. I too have been pondering these subjects deeply. I guess there is much research going on and some of it does not have a clear solution to any of this problems we encounter in today's society. I would love to research some more about this subject though as a college student of psychology.
I'm not sure that we ARE putting our efforts into research of this. Instead we spend our time and resources into convincing a frightened population that if they would just turn in all their guns the problem will stop.
It won't of course, not until we solve the underlying problem of violence in our society. Whereupon we will have figured out that violating the 2nd amendment is not needed.
Our society is becoming more violent because violence is what the psychological and social structure that we follow is made of. We are taught to go against each other, to be divided and to struggle; to even go against our own feelings, against what we can see for ourselves to be right. Think of all the ways we are divided; by race, by sex, by that guy being homeless but that other guy owns a house so he's respectable. Then we are vying for positions in that structure, generally being very self-important about it all. Force ourselves to go to school/work even though we know it's mind-numbing or degrading; make the tired body get up at the blare of the alarm; brave traffic, then go somewhere to get pushed around for 8 hours. None of that encourages care, affection, love, compassion, wholeness; in fact, to the contrary. We are consumed by it and can't take care of anything, not ourselves or our children. Then you put a child in that mess, he's all confused, obviously. He will have to survive. Like sheep to the slaughter.
All true, yet...All other countries have the same problem There is no Eden on earth, where there is no struggle necessary to survive.
So why is the US so much more violent (in terms of homicide rate) than other countries not involved in a war?
I think the US is more "you're on your own", rugged individualist; it's a rough place, been violent for a long time. About 50 (or less) years after the Revolution, gangs were already forming in New York; and those formed because of the "you're on your own" mentality, ironically; they had to form gangs to survive the hostile environment. When I look at the difference between the US and, say, Finland or Switzerland and countries like that, it would be that people in those countries feel people should be cared for, rehabilitated, helped, well-educated, well-paid; they don't lock people away in prison forever for non-violent offenses and they guarantee a decent standard of living. Switzerland recently decided to guarantee a minimum income way better than the one I have, that's for sure; can't remember the numbers right now. Everyone here in the US knows, you're expected to endure more, get less and suck it up. Most developed countries feel "we're all in this together"; which is the actually realistic view of it. We here in the US fantasize by acting like anybody can make it, just on their own. It really, actually, doesn't work that way, never has.
You may be right that the individualism of the US is playing a part - there is no other first world country that supports the concept to the degree that the US does.
Nate this is a very knowledgeable explanation. Thanks for your contribution.
What Nate is stating is absolutely correct. In the United States, it is more of a dog eat dog society. Everyone is expected to take care of themselves and theirs. If one fails, it is seen as a sign of weakness and ineptitude. In American society, if one is #1, next to it, or a winner, he/she is applauded, even adulated and worshipped. One can say that it is similar to the pecking order in high school. If one is successful, he/she is adulted; however, if one fails, he/she is derided and shunned. If one falls or fails, one is expected to immediately pick himself/herself up and do not bemoan the situation. That is why the homeless in American society are the most derided people- they are seen as the ultimate failures. They are marginalized as others who "do not make the mark". American society is a society which values individuality as strength. They do not believe that we are in this together- that would be too socialistic for the American mind and consciousness.
And right yo are gmWilliams. I have experienced this myself in my personal life and as a family member. I am in fact homeless right now with my husband and it happened so easily too. Where we moved away from where we lived to pursue my husbands job only to find out after 42 days that he was being laid off. And so family shunned us. We were to the mercy of strangers in a new town and not finding jobs for months, we lost everything in the blink of an eye. But do people really care about what brought you to be in that position in the first place? Not everyone does. Most people just cast you as a failure and judge without knowing. No one ever knows what situations bring people to be in a certain position. And it is hard to understand until you find yourself being there yourself.
Nonsense. Since the early 60s we have spent trillions of dollars on the "war on poverty." This money is not made from nothing by the government but is taken directly from the pocketbooks of those who earn it and transferred to those who don't. The average family receiving benefits makes more money than by working at a job. Compared to the "poor" in other countries the "poor" in the U.S. live like kings and queens.
The U.S; has a higher charitable giving rate than any other country, and the southern part of the States give much more than the Northeastern states do.
The fact that we still can't get rid of poverty after spending all that money says a lot. It also says a lot that someone can make more money on benefits than at a job; that is a shame, tells you how badly the average job in the US pays. To compare how the poor live in varying countries is like saying it's better to get doused with pig's blood rather than cat urine. I guarantee you that anyone trying to live on what the government gives the poor on welfare will be living a horrific and insecure life. I know that for certain. Pretty much everything you said there makes the statement that we do indeed have a problem in how we look at the poor and poverty and why the problem continues.
nate sez: The fact that we still can't get rid of poverty after spending all that money says a lot.
Jack replies: Yes, it certainly says that the process of just giving people money has never and never will work.
nate sez: It also says a lot that someone can make more money on benefits than at a job; that is a shame, tells you how badly the average job in the US pays.
Jack replies: If you want to open a company and pay someone $20 when they only produce $10 of value to your company than go for it. We'll check back in a few weeks to see if you're still in business.
nate sez: To compare how the poor live in varying countries is like saying it's better to get doused with pig's blood rather than cat urine.
Jack replies: Liberals, progressives and socialists are always comparing our country to others to show how bad we are. Showing how good we are quickly gets a "never mind."
nate sez: I guarantee you that anyone trying to live on what the government gives the poor on welfare will be living a horrific and insecure life. I know that for certain.
Jack replies: Certain? Perhaps you have not proven your self of value to any company who is willing to hire you. And this is my fault and responsibilty, how?
nate sez: Pretty much everything you said there makes the statement that we do indeed have a problem in how we look at the poor and poverty and why the problem continues.
Jack replies: It takes a special kind of person to whine about what we are doing to help poor people after admitting that he knows we have spent trillions of dollars over the past few decades on the problems.
Well, that's a myth easily destroyed. The U.S. ranks near 100 in this issue. Not at the top.
http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicat … 5/rankings
the environment has been inundated with chemicals added to food to elongate the shelf life of the substance. in addition, legal and illegal drug use among parents and youth has increased drastically over the last 5 decades. the combination of these drugs spread through the members of society has resulted in an increase in mental illness through chronic degradation of rational mental ability. the immoral stage presented by political factions supporting repressive groups leads to cruel moral divisions growing fast throughout society.
You are equating making food safe to eat by the time you get it onto your table with the prevalence of violence in our society? I'd need a much clearer logical chain of thought before I could come close to agreeing with that one.
I think you would have a hard time showing that legal drug usage by either parents or youth has resulted in increased violence or a change in moral codes leading to such violence. The most prevalent legal drug usage in youth is probably to drug them into a stupor to combat claimed ADD, not make them violent.
What "immoral stage" and what "political factions" are supporting what "repressive groups" that lead to what "cruel moral divisions" teaching us all that violence is OK?
It's got to a stage now where almost all of us have some form of mental illness whether we recognise it or not. It is impossible to diagnose everyone, and who knows what tiny spark may shove someone over the edge. Not all these killers have been known to have a previous mental disorder. It is true that every gun owner doesn't go around shooting people but that's not the point. We need to take away the tool that makes the killing easy. It seems so obvious a solution for the rest of the world that have gun control, but difficult for the American psyche to comprehend. Growing up with the Third Amendment is the problem, and the Gun Lobby being more powerful than the government. Banning guns won' stop all killing, but it makes it a darn sight harder. At least make strict back ground checks compulsory and ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons.
While it may seem so obvious, it is so ONLY until we take a hard look at the results of taking away one tool while leaving intact the underlying problem. Results which are zero - there is no change in homicide rates in any country in the world that are attributable to a population owning fewer guns. Indeed, a very good case can be made, backed up with statistics, that more guns = fewer murders.
No, we need very badly to look somewhere beyond the tool; tools can only be used when the psyche behind them are prepared to use them. And whether a specific tool is available or not will not and does not change the violence levels.
Ok do your best. Change them psyche, good luck. But I pity all the innocents who die while you are trying. And homicide rates have dropped in countries that now have gun control. The problem is the argument that you have to carry a gun to protect yourself from others that carry guns. Still Wild West thinking. True we need better education and try to instil good morals in people and try to address the mental health issues, but make guns harder to get as well. The argument, "it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people".. No, it's people WITH GUNS, that kill people.
That is untrue, that homicide rates fall when guns are removed, and a quick perusal (honest, not looking for a reason to ban guns) clearly shows it.
I know - I did one over some 30 first world countries (although the days and days it required weren't quick) and the results of the study were astounding. Nothing even close to what I assumed I would find, but it is what it is and all the wishful thinking won't change it.
If you truly believe that it is people WITH GUNS that kill people, I certainly wish you would have explained it to the perpetrators of 911 before they got on those planes. Or the bomber in KC years ago. Go explain it to the violence oriented in Canada that, not having a gun near hat hand, kill by bludgeoning instead (you might check the homicide rate of the two countries via that method while you're at it). While I'm very sure you are extremely tired of hearing that old adage, you are tired of it because it carries enough truth to repeat it a thousand times.
But this is neither the time nor place for another gun control debate. I wish you well this Christmas; we can unite in our desire to stop the mayhem in our mutual country.
Good sentiments wilderness, a joyous Christmas to you. Healthy debate is a good thing and is the only real way of finding solutions to important problems. I respect your learned opinion, (our differing views on the issue probably stems from growing up in different countries and is culture related.) Admittedly you live in America and I don't, so I should leave this debate to the people who are directly effected by it. It is too easy for outsiders like me to offer solutions (like football commentators telling the players what they should be doing better).
Well, that's what I get for not investigating a profile: I make a fool of myself by insinuating one of those crazy Aussies from down under is an American!
I don't know about there being a difference in opinion on gun control, but how you you poor folks can possible understand Christmas in the middle of summer is beyond me. Not even any snow to give the season some meaning!
Yes, good point.many of us celebrate Christmas with a bbq on the beach. Lucky we have all the US Christmas movies and cards with snowy scenes to let us know what it should really be like...lol.
You poor people. I shall create an upside down snowman, as a tribute to our Aussie cousins. With a crocodile skin purse - everyone knows that there is a croc on every street corner down there.
One of the big issues that people are not aware of, or don't want to acknowledge, is the relaxing of standards on mental healthcare in this country. Basically, since the 1970s, mentally disturbed people have been given much more freedom and have been let back into the community, instead of being kept in a safe place where they could be medicated.
Everyone should read this excellent and important article on the subject (ignore the Reagan-bashing if you're not into that aspect):
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_ … l_illness/
As more mentally handicapped or deranged people were let back into society, there were more murders and mass shootings by the deranged. And more homelessness. Surprise, surprise.
Of course the gun nuts don't want anyone to trample on the "rights" of the deranged to keep and bear arms:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/wh … .html?_r=0
I'm not 100 percent sure what you're saying. Are you saying that if we locked more kids up for life in mental hospitals, there would be less school shootings?
I'm not sure that is the answer.
Melissa you have a very big point here...
Melissa, reading my comment, or better yet, reading the article that I linked, might help you understand what I'm saying better than creating a simplistic straw man.
secularist10: I read both of your articles. I live in California and I remember when Reagan removed the mentally ill from the state run institutions. We had mentally ill people on the streets. I used to jog and twice I have had mentally ill people following me.
I agree with both articles. Almost all the mass shootings are committed by mentally ill individuals. The problem is much like testing a match. You don't know if it will burn, until it is ignited, but by then it is too late. We don't know who the mentally ill are that have the potential to commit these horrendous acts, until it is too late.
I do know in California, in years past, that when a person was under a shrinks care, the shrink could not only perform therapy but administer medication. Today, they have panels. A panel is made up of the shrink who issues medication and that's it. And a shrink who does the therapy and never the two shall meet. And because of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996), It is very difficult to get disclosure of a patients information.
In the case of Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook shooting, he and his mother were both exhibiting abnormal behavior. But then who is going to be responsible for reporting them and to whom? We need some type of cultural and societal change to take place. It begs the question of how do we provide early intervention for the mentally ill who have the potential of committing mass shootings. And what is the process that is used to prevent them from committing the crime? Thanks for your articles.
Those are important points. We value personal freedom a great deal, as we should. In any free society, there will always be a danger of crime because you simply can't have the government imposing on people's lives to any significant degree.
However I do think things have gone too far. Some re-balancing is in order. My basis for saying that, despite my great love of diversity and tolerance and uniqueness, is simply the rise in these violent crimes committed by deranged individuals in recent decades. While we cherish individual freedom, there simply cannot be true freedom in an environment where at any moment you might get mowed down by a lunatic.
There are difficult and important questions that need to be addressed by society. You're right, it's a cultural change.
I think mental health professionals should have greater freedom and responsibility to report the potential for danger to the authorities (speaking of Adam Lanza, he was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome). And I think the authorities should have greater ability to confiscate weapons from those who potentially pose a risk. That would require significant changes in the laws, but it's possible.
So the weakest amoung us determine the amount of freedom the rest of us get. Even though the odds of any individual being shot by a mass murderer rank up there along with being struck by lighting we still have to somehow collar the freedom of everyone else "just in case."
And the authorities have plenty of laws that permit them to take firearms from those who are considered a "risk." However, it has to be a true risk. There are many on hubpages that would gladly turn in their neighbor as a "risk" because the neighbor supports Sarah Palin.
As Ben Franklin said, those that are willing to give up liberty to obtain safety soon wind up with neither.
Children are quite weak. We impose restrictions on their behavior and their freedom, but that doesn't affect the freedom that adults enjoy.
The odds of experiencing a murder in the US are quite low too. We still have laws against murder and procedures for law enforcement to follow to prevent murders. And you know what? Those procedures and policies do impact the freedom of law-abiding people. That is the cost of living in a society.
Moreover the odds of being murdered are low, but the odds of committing a murder rise significantly with certain conditions (certain mental illnesses being one of them).
And the authorities have plenty of laws that permit them to take firearms from those who are considered a "risk."
Not enough. See the NY Times article I cited.
"There are many on hubpages that would gladly turn in their neighbor as a "risk" because the neighbor supports Sarah Palin."
Yeah. Good thing no one is arguing for citizens to bypass the police and arrest each other whenever they want.
Ben Franklin was only somewhat correct on that statement. Some of the most secure societies are often tyrannies (not always, but often enough). It's a tough fact, but true. And on the other side, circumstances of total "freedom", with no governing authorities, no rule of law, no control over anything, no restrictions on behavior... are usually the most dangerous and deadly.
Anarchy is itself a form of tyranny.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone could be totally free, and totally safe at the same time? Yeah. Sadly, life isn't perfect though. There are limited resources. And we have to make choices.
In my opinion its the older generation that's at fault. These kids are growing up as Prima Donna's/Diva's with a sense of entitlement for whatever they want. When they don't get their way they act out on it as they deem fit. Perfect example of this is that recent Ft Worth teenager that ran over 4 people because he was drunk, and was not held accountable for his actions (was given probation) because apparently he was never taught right from wrong at the age of 16. Kids need to be educated and disciplined, not just given gifts so they will stop whining.
IMHO, since everyone is throwing their's around, I believe that the school shootings could be prevented if there was a student to teacher ratio of under 1:15.
These shooters have all had the same characteristics. They have all been picked on, bullied, and outcast. There are simply too many children with no enough direct supervision and certainly not the staff needed to make sure that no one is being pushed too far.
There's all the anti-bullying initiatives, but no one to actually make sure they run effectively.
In addition, just as something to think about, I home school and there are zero weapons in my house. I would say my chances of a school shooting are just about nil.
While smaller classrooms may help, it sounds as if your saying its the teachers responsibility to stop the bullying, teach right from wrong, etc....This starts in the home, its the parents responsibility to teach their kids manners, respect of others and not to bully and be a nemesis in school/society etc.
While smaller classrooms may help, it sounds as if your saying its the teachers responsibility to stop the bullying, teach right from wrong, etc....This starts in the home, its the parents responsibility to teach their kids manners, respect of others and not to bully and be a nemesis in school/society etc.
Yes and no. Yes it is the parents job to teach the children. You'll get no argument from me. However, the teachers are the ones responsible for watching what goes on in their classroom and school. The bullying is happening there, it's their job to stop it.
And the unfortunate thing abut it is that these teachers are not given the right nowadays to enforce effective discipline when they are being disrespected in their own classrooms by cliques or individual students. What is the norm? They get detention. And what do they go and do in detention? Exactly what they were sent to detention for. It is in my eyes a vicious cycle. When I was in school the teachers had the authority to take care of the problem right then and there and the student was address for his or her behavior in the classroom with verbal reprimand or sitting that student away from class and against the wall. If it continued then the student was sent to the principal's office and from there the principal would contact the parents and set and appointment with the school counselor. Next steps where suspension or expelling the student. But bullying was not allowed and was dealt with, disrespect of teachers, other adults, peers or authority was not tolerated and everything was dealt with at the time. Things did not escalate because they were addressed and taken care of.
In today's society disrespect, sarcasm, bullying and aggression is not only tolerated but also encouraged and promoted as "the way" to survive in a world where supposedly only the "strongest" survive. If you ask me this is a way of terrorism as well.
1. The only people that ever diagnosed Adam Lanza with Aspergers were the media. There is no record of any diagnosis in any medical records ever. In addition, school shootings really aren't symptoms of Aspergers and every child who is socially inept isn't suffering from the condition which brings us to my next point....
2. Most school shooters were described as outcasts, picked on and bullied. Geeks and nerds, socially awkward. I knew lots of kids like that. None of them were aspies. They weren't described as obviously delusional or psychopathic. School shooters have different profiles than mass shooters. The profile you NEED to be looking for are kids that have been beaten up, teased and isolated with no relief. Because THAT is your school shooter profile. They snap. Sometimes the snap leads to fore-planning but the point is they get to the point they can't take it any more and no one else is helping them. They take matters into their own hands. So it's more akin to a battered wife syndrome than a psychosis.
3. I wasn't making a straw man argument. I seriously had no idea what the article you referenced had to do with school shooters. Since none of the information, scary as it was, is even remotely relevant.
I totally agree that those who commit the school shootings have been bullied and snap. Absolutely. It is because the whole system encourages bullying and not that we need more discipline as some are implying. It has always been and still is acceptable in schools for kids to be bullied; it's part of the fabric of society, the way the schools are run and the way it is at work, everywhere. This is why I said in another comment that, basically, I don't understand why school shootings are such a big surprise to so many people.
Melissa, why are you replying to me all the way down here?
"There is no record of any diagnosis in any medical records ever."
Where did you hear that?
"In addition, school shootings really aren't symptoms of Aspergers..."
Never said that they were. Another silly straw man.
"...and every child who is socially inept isn't suffering from the condition"
Yet ANOTHER straw man. Lol. This is getting a little out of hand. You clearly like reading into things.
School shooters are, by definition, mass shooters. It's one type. My reference to mass murders and violence in general is completely relevant.
Mental health is broad. It doesn't just mean hallucinations and drooling in the corner. Depression, low self-esteem--all of these kinds of things are related to mental health (especially for young people).
Just as mental healthcare in general in this country has declined over the last few decades, the mental healthcare of children and adolescents has as well. What you mentioned--bullying, isolation, "snapping"--are precisely germane to mental health. So you are basically making my point for me.
We ignore the diseases of the mind and soul at our peril.
Maybe if you could provide me a definition of what you think a straw man is... because it seems our definitions are different. It seems that when you say the problem is mental health and then you link to an article about the release of mentally ill from institutions, it's not really a straw man to assume that you are making the point that mentally ill should be institutionalized. Then when I say, specifically, "I don't understand what you mean, is this what you're saying." That's not a straw man, that's asking for clarification. In addition, when you bring up Aspergers as the "mental illness" that Adam Lanza had, you are CLEARLY implying that it was a factor in the shooting. It's not a straw man to tell you that Aspergers does not cause homicidal behavior. It's also not a straw man to tell you the difference between being socially awkward and having Aspergers.
Now, I did mistype. Maybe what I should have said was that the media and a family friend diagnosed Adam with Aspergers and there is no way possible they could have made that diagnosis on anything but speculation, since his medical records are sealed.
However, let me state AGAIN, just for public knowledge, that connecting Aspergers and school shootings is ignorant and dangerous.
Saying a school shooting is a subgroup of mass shootings with entirely different causes and mitigating factors with the only thing in common being lots of dead people and the use of a gun is perfectly reasonable. I concede point.
Yes, mental illness is broad... it includes everything from learning disabilities, to chemical imbalances, to predictable human actions when placed in abusive/torture situations. Now, when it comes to the issue of the SUBSET of school shootings, where the mental illness (largely) wouldn't exist if the abuse didn't exist... Don't you think it is the abuse causing the mental illness that should be prevented rather than treating the individual being abused AFTER they have suffered through it?
Now, I might agree completely with whatever point you're making if you would like to make it. If it is that mental health care is insufficient in this country, then you've got my support. If you would have made that clear from the beginning, I would have been right behind you. Maybe clarifying your posts and flat out saying what you mean rather than making a lot of insinuations and connections that seem to point to a conclusion that you don't actually state would prevent you from having to type "straw man" inappropriately over and over.
I used Adam Lanza as an example because he and his mother were both exhibiting abnormal behavior. He would only communicate with his mother via email. He had black waste bags on the windows in his room. His mother had an arsenal of firearms and they were both trained in how to use them. And he did research on other mass killings.
None of these things by themselves are really that bad. But it's like the perfect storm. It was the confluence of all of them that should have raised a red flag. But no one was aware of it until after the fact. But all together they point to a person with mental illness that needs help.
I think secularist10 point is that the mentally ill used to be given treatment for these types of behaviors, but in 1980 they shutdown facilities and changed the procedures for treatment to save money, it caused these kinds of people to fend for themselves where they have the potential to be a risk to society it they are not treated.
Melissa, it would be one thing if you said "I don't understand what you mean." Happy to explain. But you said, and I quote: "Are you saying that if we locked more kids up for life in mental hospitals, there would be less school shootings?"
"There will be less school shootings if we lock up more kids for life" is an absurd statement. Anybody can see the tone of your original comment. Not understanding/ wanting clarification is one thing. Projecting an absurd statement out of the blue is quite something else.
It was not my intention to "connect Aspergers to school shootings" specifically. My point was that Adam Lanza did have mental health issues, and this could have been a good basis to at least question his access to firearms. And then you respond saying "school shootings are not a symptom of Aspergers." Really?! I had no idea! Lol.
But god forbid we should ever even question ANYONE'S access to deadly weapons. (Not that you're saying that, I'm referring to these gun fundamentalists.)
"Don't you think it is the abuse causing the mental illness that should be prevented rather than treating the individual being abused AFTER they have suffered through it?"
We should do both. They are not mutually exclusive. If the damage is done, authorities (from schools to medical professionals to police) have the responsibility to act.
"If it is that mental health care is insufficient in this country, then you've got my support. If you would have made that clear from the beginning, I would have been right behind you."
Really? Cuz that's what I said in the first sentence of my first comment: "One of the big issues that people are not aware of, or don't want to acknowledge, is the relaxing of standards on mental healthcare in this country."
You have an odd way of agreeing with someone, lol.
It may or may not be relevant to the topic but a British soldier maid the comment that though he had plenty of good things to say about US soldiers they had no ability at conflict resolution.
He cited an example, when out on foot patrol with US soldiers he would wear a beret and carry his gun over his back. US soldiers went out in full combat gear and whereas the British soldier would drop to his knees when approached by groups of children and offer them sweets and a bit of light banter, his US colleagues would drop to their knees with guns up and at the ready.
Probably a result of having too many children or groups of children come at the soldiers with explosives. We lose soldiers that way - either treat unknown children in hostile territory as hostiles or die. A truly sad lesson to learn, and I hope British soldiers never, ever have to learn it.
What are you suggesting? That British soldiers do not risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq?
A) British soldiers are too stupid to understand that the enemy is using small children as weapons, weapons that kill soldiers.
B) British soldiers have not been consistently attacked for 5 decades by small children with explosives as US soldiers have. Beginning in Korea, it has been a staple of our enemies through nearly every fight since then - perhaps the British have not experienced this as US soldiers have
I'll pass on A) no need to start slagging people off.
I doubt that there are many US servicemen who have been serving for five decades and what makes you think that British soldiers have no experience of hostile children? The conflicts in Ireland have been going on for a lot more than five decades which is probably why our soldiers have a lot more experience of dealing with conflict.
If the British military has been greeted for 5 decades by children wearing explosives/grenades and still haven't learned to take precautions from children, then A) must be the proper answer.
During combat operations in Afghanistan a British soldier in our NATO group was killed by a young child wearing a bomb that was set off remotely. According to those questioned afterward, the child was blind and so had thought he was carrying food to his family. The enemy does not respect life as we do; therefore, we must be diligent at all times when encountering the unknown in a combat zone. This includes suspecting the worst from children that rush towards us. War is hell - everyone who has ever fought in one knows this all too well.
Actually most of the children and their parents look to the occupying forces for protection, not death.
Do you think having their children shot by jumpy soldiers endears you to the people you are supposed to be "liberating"?
If I am dead like the British soldier then I cannot provide the protection that you speak of. We are not "jumpy soldiers" but highly skilled combatants that know when and how to operate within a terror situation. War is hell. That is why the "Best" are sent into the situation to "liberate" those that cannot do it for themselves.
I think you are drifting off the point I was making that US soldiers are more likely to escalate conflict rather than deflate it and this relates back to the OP in that some Americans are rather too quick to shoot and too slow to question first.
It was not intended as a debate on whose soldiers are the best.
And you've reached that conclusion based on a statement made by an unspecified British soldier in some undisclosed source/conversation?
It's not an escalation to control the environment. It's actually the opposite. It would be an escalation if the children then pulled out weapons as well because the American soldiers pulled out weapons... Or if the American soldiers shot the children.
Our soldiers are among the most well-trained, well-conditioned soldiers to every walk the planet. If there is a chance of danger, they put themselves in the position to be most prepared and respond most rapidly if that chance should become a reality.
If that makes them appear unfriendly, so be it. They aren't there to make friends. They are there to protect. That same show of force, of preparedness, is the reason those kids are alive in the first damn place. So try to show a little respect.
It was only a point to the debate!!
"He (Gen Petraeus) hailed the 'world-class counter-terrorism expertise' of British special forces and UK soldiers who were in the 'thick of the fight in some of the toughest places in Afghanistan'.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z2ohyHHIHM
How about a little respect from you?
You linked me to an article in the Daily Mail which quotes an American General and says nothing about candy or children.
No, but he counters your claim that US soldiers are the best in the world.
You know, where he says
"He (Gen Petraeus) hailed the 'world-class counter-terrorism expertise' of British special forces and UK soldiers who were in the 'thick of the fight in some of the toughest places in Afghanistan'."
Unless of course I misunderstand you and you are admitting that whilst your soldiers are amongst the best, ours are the best.
Are you fixated on children and candy?
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
You said that American soldiers were prone to escalating a situation because some british guy somewhere said it. Because British soldiers hand out sweets and hug kids and American soldiers ready arms until the situation is deemed safe.
I replied... you posted an entirely unrelated article and told me to show respect... OK, who I'm I suppose to respect? You? The American General you quoted? The Soldier handing out candy?
Then you feel some need to get into a pissing match about something I never said? And that your troops are better than ours?
I'm glad all Brits aren't like you (and I KNOW they aren't) I think maybe you need to look at yourself before you accuse people of escalating.
I feel the need to get into a pissing match!
All I was doing was offering a possible explanation as to why you have so many school shootings.
I've just realised, I owe you a thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could - thank you.
It's conversations like this that make me glad I'm an Aussie. i think all soldiers do their job to the best of their training and ability, and should be congratulated for the effoert.
You forgot to associate those killers with the military or the CIA connection.
I am at a loss as to see why others cant see that these individuals where just plain crazy. What ever happened to crazy, did the PC brigade remove it from common use just because it doesn't fit in with their ideology? Words like crazy and insane seem to be frowned upon but it certainly describes the situation very well indeed.
I'm a teacher. I see the impact of movies, television, the Internet, video games, poor parenting, and music every day. Children quote from each of these sources openly. I see children, elementary-aged children, talk about their dream of being in a gang, just like their daddy. I hear young children talk openly and unashamed about how they are going to go visit a loved one in prison or how their loved one will be going to prison; they know prison as a likely part of life. I see children who are permanently damaged, drug babies. I see children who have to live with grandparents or other family members, because their parents are unreliable, incarcerated, drugged out, or simply don't care about them. I see children, elementary-aged children, intoxicated at school. I see children, elementary-aged children, dealing drugs, drugs they stole from parents. I see children who can get away with just about any kind of misbehavior at school, because they qualify for special education and therefore can't be disciplined like other children; that's at least how most administrators interpret the federal laws, IDEA.
I see parents screaming at and threatening teachers quite often. I see intoxicated and drugged-out parents coming to pick up their children from school. I see parents who spend their last few dollars on tattoos while their children are unable to do work for lack of light; apparently tattoos trump electric bills in the hierarchy of needs. I see parents who fail to pick up their elementary-aged children, even after they have been contacted and hours have passed. I see parents who wear obscene shirts, both in verbal content and lack of concealment, to elementary schools. I see parents who advocate a lack of consequences for their children, parents who believe that anything their child does wrong is somehow the school's fault.
Our problems stem from societal decay, a lack of morality and a lack of responsibility. Guns are merely a tool. Children's lives are destroyed each day; we often only talk about children lost to gun violence. If guns were banned, these problems would still be real, palpable. The fact that young children can get their hands on guns without their parents even knowing is what I'm getting at here. We have generations of parents who aren't being parents. If we address that issue, we'll save far more lives, not just the ones that are lost to gun violence. The problem is that addressing these issues is difficult; gun control is an easier "fix," so that's where the debate continues to go. Gun control is a scapegoat for the real problems that face our country.
I see it more as our society is dominated by religious right-wingers who vote for politicians that take money out of the sciences, the humanities, and really the education system as a whole.
Idiot parents don't want their kids knowing anything about biology because it interferes with their primitive bronze age fairy tales, and they certainly don't want the same kids taking literature classes and learning how to think critically about the things they read. Then, just because these people can never stoop too low, they harass the schools when their idiot kids can't pass their classes and only contribute to the perpetual dumbing-down of grade curves.
And now, because these people vote, NASA has the budget of a lemonade stand and Texas is shoving idiotic bullsh!t into our textbooks, all the while we're almost dead-last on test scores worldwide in just about every subject.
Just...just...stupid people ruin fscking everything.
That's not at all what I see. With all due respect, I see many parents who know nothing about politics and don't care; their only concern is having a good time at any cost. Responsibility, in any way, is out of their grasp. They don't know what is being taught to their children in school. Advocating textbooks or advocating a change in instruction would be out of the case for people who care so little. They just sign Johnny's report card, regardless of what it says, if they even sign it at all.
I see few parents who object to biology, perhaps as many as those who disagree with the Pledge of Allegiance. I see textbooks that are as liberal as ever, perhaps more liberal than ever. I do see less money for subjects other than math or reading, but those changes are advocated by both republicans and democrats, in the form of teacher accountability. Tests drive everything; both sides of the aisle push for greater testing.
Don't get me wrong, the majority of parents are great. Still, many parents are anything but parents; their children have little chance to succeed. Instead of addressing these pressing issues, we blame the gun. Great. We could ban guns today, and we'd still have the same problems. If we address the real issues, we'll do more to solve the problem, but that won't happen; politicians want a quick "fix" that will score more political points and votes. It's easier to take guns away than it is to fix the real problems that face our youth.
And that I agree with, mostly.
I also agree, btw, with Zelkiiro but I see the issues you brought up as more pressing.
The points I disagree with are the text being too liberal and the need for parents to have more interest in politics. I think they would be better off if they had more of an interest in their children. I've seen those so wrapped up in politics that it pulls away from other areas of their lives.
Many of the text books I see are definitely pulling towards the right. That may be my region though.
Just as an aside, I despise the need to teach for tests.
by moneyfairy4 years ago
Do we need to have immediate gun control? Does there need to be more background checks before fire arms are sold to someone? What needs to happen to stop all this meaningless violence to innocent people??? I mean sh*t...
by kbdressman19 months ago
Ethan Couch was sentenced to 10 years probation and treatment after drinking and causing an accident that killed four people. His lawyers said Couch suffered from "affluenza," a condition that resulted...
by schoolgirlforreal5 years ago
I'm not very good in the forums with debating, but this following article struck me and I've heard it before about how our culture is, and I find it very interesting to say the least. What do you think the current...
by Celia Ribeiro17 months ago
It's inevitable that the recent events in Newton i'm going to once again bring to light with some consider a gun control issue. 15 people injured and for dead including the shooter. The sheriffs ...
by greeneyesH19827 years ago
I bring this up because some people think that the united states is trying to ban this altogether and think that it will result in more crime from children being allowed to get away with more.... what are your thoughts...
by Ralph Schwartz14 months ago
Until 1989, there were only a few school shootings in which more than two victims were killed. This was despite widespread ownership of — and familiarity with — weapons and an absence of “gun-free zones.” ...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.