# School Shootings



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

It seems in the last week there have been three school shooting plots that have been foiled. What the hell is going on? I graduated high school in 1991 and can't even fathom what the average American high school experiece entails today. I attended a Catholic all boys high school and our pent up frustrations were vented on the basketball court or in the gym bleachers during dances with our sister school. Occassionally a fist fight would break out, someone would get a bloody nose, and after a a week of detention and perhaps a call home from the Dean of Discipline (yes, we had a dean of dsicpline and he was a mean old Marist brother from the old school - tough but fair) that would be the end of it and in all likelihood the combatants would be friends within a day or two.

So what has happened with the youth of America in the intervening 15 years? We didn't dare bring a copy of Playboy to school let alone a weapon. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Karl


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

In previous incarnations I was a high school teacher and a substance abuse counselor. Based on those experiences, I have a theory.

For previous generations, the primary cognitive experience was linear - words on a page, which had to be sounded out and meaning derived.

Today, the earliest learning experience is likely to come in the form of rapidly changing images from television or a video game. Not cinematic _montage_ in the Eisenstein/Hitchcock sense; more a relentless barrage of sensory input.

If kids get this from the get-go then small wonder they have poor attention spans.

Try depriving youngsters of TV and video games. Their reactions are eerily similar to some withdrawal symptoms: inability to focus, lethargy and/or hyperactivity, bouts of rage and despair.

Anyway, my guess is that when life fails to live up to video-inspired expectations, the more marginal personalities drift off into drugs and anti-social behaviors. And the most fragile of those individuals turn to the kind of seemingly senseless violence of Columbine.

The best thing any parent can do is get rid of the TV and the games and get a boat-load of books in the house. Sadly, a lot of the parents aren't in much better cognitive shape.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

It's spring, the end of the school year. This means that schools are tapering off on the ritilan doses for the summer. This can trigger depression and psychosis in unstable students, some of whom react in violent ways.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Patrick,

I think you are on to something. But my generation also grew up playing video games, albeit the fairly primitive Atari 2600 and Colecovision and we didn't shoot up any schools. Perhaps the graphic violence inherent in todays games has something to do with it? Or was it Judy Blume's "Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing" that kept me on the straight and narrow?

Karl


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> ...


I am sorry - but I think that it also has to do with the availability of pretty high grade weapons around the house, and a lack of responsibility of the parents. some 120 pound 15 year old isn't going to be able to kill 10 school mates without access to more or less military firearms, and/or information on the internet about explosives. and if he were sitting down to dinner every night telling his folks about his day and discussing his chores, he wouldn't have time to be plotting with his loser friends.


----------



## blantons (Apr 4, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with this sentiment. As one of the members of the "video game era" being partially raised on Nintendo et al., I think the lunatic fringe of students has always been there. With the advent of the internet and what I consider to be a loss of the "innocence of youth" concept which is a general trend in society and pretty hard to pin down on one or two aspects, these mentally troubled few have greater ability to cause harm. In every school shooting case, firearms were purchased illegally on some level before reaching the hands of the students. And if I'm not mistaken one of the kids even constructed bombs in his parents' house without their knowledge!

I believe school and the parents do not get enough scrutiny in most cases. The school for allowing such a violent dichotomy of social classes in high school which can result in the constant tormenting that can bring an already unstable individual to do something extreme, and the parents for not taking a more active role in the kid's life to see this sort of thing coming. Not to mention the gun store owners that allow the illegal purchase of firearms that make a lot of these possible.

I sincerely doubt that any normal individual is going to experience any sort of disconnect with reality or expectations for real life from video games. It's been found in many cases that video games actually encourage intellectual growth and are a healthy way to vent frustration that in earlier years were done on the playground. I had friends that would come over and play video games the same way we would go to the basketball court or the park.

We live in a culture of electronic entertainment. The number of kids playing video games has increased exponentially even since Columbine, and the fact that the rate of violent school shootings has actually dropped off during that time should show that correlation does not necessarily show causation. There are always many extenuating circumstances in these case, and attempting to pigeon hole causes on one or two aspects of society does more harm than good, because there is no easy fix for this.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> ...


Games now are faster, better and more violent. I don't think anybody would have fun shooting centipedes or asteroids which look like they were drawn with an etch-a-sketch anymore.

Could absorption in fast-moving media like television programming contribute to the incidence of ADD/ADHD? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

As for books - reading helps people become more empathetic. A person is less likely to hurt other people _if he understands that they have feelings too. _

My theory is that teenage boys like first-person-shooter games for the same reason teenage girls like tv shows about teenage girls who are witches - powerlessness. 14-year-olds are constantly being told what to do, when to go to class, that no, they can't have their chins pierced, etc. But when you load a game, you're GOD.


----------



## blantons (Apr 4, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As with any recently invented (although I hate to say that word as it implies that the condition didn't exist beforehand) psychological disorder, it is difficult to determine the prevalence before such diagnoses were offered. More likely that a decreased emphasis on physical activity (partially to blame on video games but schools are certainly not helping by taking up such practices as abolishing recess) has given our youth more pent-up energy and this is sometimes manifested in a pathological way. The kids you remember always being full of energy and being the troublemakers in elementary school would more than likely be diagnosed as ADHD nowadays.

I do think that today's entertainment is much more superficial and mass produced to be readily absorbed than in days past. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem very feasible to demand any sort of responsibility of the entertainment industry, as the scientific data (important to note that it will likely come from the same sources that exonerated rock, disco music, and whatever scapegoat people used to blame maladjusted youth on at the time) is far from being complete at this stage.

I think it all comes down to parental responsibility. Many parents are too involved in their own affairs to take an active part in raising their children, and they are surely worse for it. Making sure your kids are exposed to questionable material in small doses and finding effective structure and support for a youth, whether it be in sports, social circles, clubs, or whatever, is vital in ensuring a healthy upbringing.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

I caught an episode of Shalom in the Home last night on TLC. It's not produced very well, but Rabbi Shmuley is fun to watch. Dr. Phil is an idiot hack compared to this guy.

The featured family last night had a nine year old daughter who was a hellion. She would yell and scream at her parents, throwing a temper tantrum at the slightest provocation. Their daughter would get ready for school by herself every night, then eat dinner by herself while her father surfed the web and her mother watched TV. They never did anything as a family, aside from watch TV.

I think this situation is quite common these days. Parents want to be their children's best friend, instead of their parent.


Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by jbmcb_
> 
> I think this situation is quite common these days. Parents want to be their children's best friend, instead of their parent.


I happened to catch this also - the rabbi is terrific.

However, I'm not sure that this family was a symbol of the decline and fall of our civilisation. The issues that family had ran a lot deeper than the dad surfing the net - the husband and wife clearly hated each other.

I mean, when my dad got home from work 30 years ago he sat and read the paper and it had to be something pretty major for me to bug him during that period. I don't think that was uncommon.

But, back to the topic - these school shootings may occur for many reasons (I'm personally skeptical about the role video games play) but surely it is difficult to argue against the fact that easy access to weapons facilitates these crimes in the USA.

------------------


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gmac,

I am not saying you are wrong (for once!) but it seems to me that weapons were pretty available in rural America well before these school shootings became common in the 90's. To me it seems deeper, like some boundary of decency has been crossed and there is no going back. It seems that nothing is off limits today, nothing taboo. I am just wondering when American society sort of lost it. A good friend of mine suggests it was the moment in 1992 when some MTV goofball asked Clinton what type of underwear he wore, after that nothing was off limits and any sense of propiety went out the window. School shootings just seem to be the most violent and tragic manifestation of the loss of common decency. Maybe I am just getting old, I don't know.

Karl


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I do not think this subject has an easy answer. I do not think it is uni-dimensional in causes either. For instance, gun availability. I grew up in farmland Canada, we all had guns starting with a .22 cal "rabbit gun" from early ages and more powerful long guns were available in most homes. However, we all had daily exposure to the presence of guns from a young age, most homes having a rack mounted on a wall, and were taught safety and respect from a very young age.

The same with video games. There are now more graphic first person shooter games than ever before, but now also there are more MMORPGs that simply did not exist in graphical format until about 10 years ago. Everquest was the first hugely popular of such games (there were other smaller and more primitive first) and currently WoW is the biggest out there. So actually there are probably people drawn from FPS games into MMORPGs. 

I do not have the answer, but I suspect they are not simply, do not derive from logic of either the right or left, i.e. right = godlessness as reason, left = guns as reason.

Warmest regards


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl - I hate to be agreeing with GMAC, but I think that the combination of responsibility, community and access to weapons are all related. my father grew up on a rural farm, and had access to an army suplus single shot 45/70. he would buy his own ammo, a few rounds at a time, and he would be able, from about age 12, to take the gun and go hunting when he wanted to. but his father and brothers hunted together as well, and he had a great deal of responsiblity, as well as contact with the community.

I think of this - if my father had been hugely pissed off at this school, he would have had to save up his money for a month or two to get 10 or 15 rounds, he would have had to smuggle in this ackward single shot carbine and fire away to kill people. of course, their were kids who had better weapons - but the availablity of cheap ammo, high velocity large capicity hand guns, and other weapons helps.

although, I do believe that the issue of parents not paying attention is much more important.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

A few random thoughts:

I had a history professor who, around 20 years ago, was studying violent, accidental death. It turns out that one of the few things we know about almost everyone in the past few centuries, no matter how poor or illiterate they were, is how and when they died.

There was quite a lot of violent death in the early 19th c-- random farm accidents, bar fights, etc. This declined an awful lot as the country became more industrialized and workplaces, schools, etc., became more regular and orderly. There is some trouble you're less likely to get into when you are punching a clock. The major exceptions to this trend were when the automobile started to become a common mode of transport but people hadn't learned to cope (a small blip after WWI), and in the black community as a whole, which was largely excluded from the blessings of factory work.

The trend to lower violence reversed itself some time after WWII, and broadly tracked the de-industrializing of America.

No idea if these few datapoints fit into this scheme, but I'd observe that we have an economy that is much less stable than would be the case 50 years ago. The One-parent-works-always model is broken, and we have not only more parents sliding in and out of the workforce, but when they do work, it's often non-salaried activity at irregular hours. Homes are confusing places these days, and parents are often too exhausted to provide the order that used to be taken for granted. Increased mobility, and declining membership in stable civic groups like churches ("Bowling Alone") further isolate families.

On a personal note somewhat unrelated to the above, I'd observe that we have a kid diagnosed with a mild form of autism. He went through a really nasty behavioral period that was very quickly brought to order when we found the right school for him, one with a lot of structure. Without structure and predictability in his day, he gets a little unfocused and anxious. 
When he comes home and needs to chill out, his favored vehicles are the DVD player--nature/dinosaur shows-- and the PC-- games like Harry Potter, Jimmy Neutron, Barbie Explorer, and so on. The computer is endlessly patient and willing to repeat _ad nauseum_, and he likes that.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

The matter of these school shootings is one that I have given quite a bit of thought to and have editorialized about occasionally in my capacity as editor firearms magazines.

A number of you have pointed out that the "availability of firearms" argument really doesn't fly. In point of fact, firearms are far more controlled now than 50 years ago when you could readily buy all manner of weaponry--pistols, semi-automatic military rifles, 20mm anti-tank rifle and much more--all by mail order, simply signing a little affadavit to the effect you were over 18 (or 21) and legally permitted to buy the firearm. In fact, I think--no, I know--that enthusiasm for firearms was much more widespread among young males then than now.

The violent video games: I would expect that virtually every young male in this country has had some experience with these things. If they did play a substantial role in inciting them to mayhem and carnage, this country would be a nightmare of homicide, yet overall homicide rates have decreased markedly in recent years.

"Moral Decay": Most of the "decay"--and the worst period thereof--took place in the late 60s through the mid-1970s, the great heyday of sex, drugs and rock and roll, family breakdown and the like. In fact, I think young people today tend to be more conservative, and many of them are involved in evangelical churchs, that sort of thing. So why now and not 30+ years ago when the "decadence" was at its height?

My own conclusion is that these school shootings are mostly just a sort of horrible fad, with the publicity given one shooting fuelling more. Lenin coined the term "Herostratism" to describe this perverse desire for notoriety. It comes from a Greek named Herostratus who arsonized the temple of Artemis at Ephesus. When asked why, he replied that it was the only way he could think of to gain everlasting renown. I think there is a lot of that at work with these killer-kids.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Gentlemen

JLibourel, very good points regarding weapons. I agree, much more controlled.
I disagree with the crazy 1960 era though, my favorite time in my life. LOL
Gentlemen, it is what we have created. I am part of the problem as well.
This is a different generation, some more bitter than others. I have seen so much, in this country, it does trouble me. 
I recently met a 51yo farmer. He had been farming for 30 plus years. He had his dads farm. His dad died a year ago.
I asked what he did, which was milk.He sold this primarily.
I asked him why his dad chose this, and he explained to me that it was easier for a truck to come and pick up the milk, than go "into town." He said his dad did not like coming to town and meeting people.
Neither did my patient. He enjoyed his peace.
This touched me, immensely. 
My advice, stay out of town, enjoy your lives, and get a gun!
LOL

Nice day my friends


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Gentlemen,

I wanted to point out that there is an increase in mental health ilnesses in all age groups. I think this may be skewed, and mask what might be happening. We are more educated regarding these disease states, and treat much quicker. Does this tell us anything. Yea, people are depressed.
Go Figure.

Nice day my friends


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> The matter of these school shootings is one that I have given quite a bit of thought to and have editorialized about occasionally in my capacity as editor firearms magazines.
> 
> ...


I kept a rifle and sometimes a handgun in my high school school locker all the time. I would take it out and go to riflery practice 4 afternoons a week. For four years, four days a week, I shot about a hundred rounds a day. A bunch of us, boys and girls, did this. No one ever got shot. It was the late 1960's and inside the city limits of a big city.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Liberty Ship_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


obviously, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young people in the country, have access to firearms, without shooting up their schools. I do not think that it is a cause of the violence, as such. but I would say that when you have an insane and hate filled kid who snaps - he used to grab a knife and slash a few people, or maybe he would grab his dad's 30 06 and kill a few people. what we have had, over the past few years, is some extremly effitient mass killings. if you compare them in numbers to the total overall killings in the country, they aren't that much, but I am not sure if these kids could have done the type of killing they did with simpler weapons. I am actually not even talking about access here - but the quality of the weapons.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

My father grew up either playing Cowboys and Indians, or GIs and Germans. I grew up pretending to kill Commie Russians. Violent video games are just an outgrowth of simple games of 'war' that virtually all young boys have played going back for generations. One suspects that 700 years ago young Scots played games of fighting the English. 

The availability arguement is bunk. Further, since such events didn't happen in the 80s (much less the 1950s), there is no reason to think that military style weapons would have made a difference. 30 times 0 is still 0, just like 2 times 0 is 0. 

I don't profess to have the knowledge. I do remember being in high school and wondering why when two people wanted to fight, they weren't allowed to fight wearing gloves and protective headwear in a semi-controlled boxing type enviroment than in the halls at random.

---------------------


Beware of showroom sales-fever reasoning: i.e., "for $20 . . ." Once you're home, how little you paid is forgotten; how good you look in it is all that matters.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Dr Libourel, wonderful post, as always. I particularly like your reference to Herostratus. The news media have doubtless inspired many copy-cats. However,

One cannot help but to suspect that the collapse of civilisation is more than a trifle to blame. A few teenagers killed every year is statistically meaningless relative to the certain slide into oblivion we all face by tolerating the very things which incite such killings in the first place.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> The availability arguement is bunk. Further, since such events didn't happen in the 80s (much less the 1950s), there is no reason to think that military style weapons would have made a difference. 30 times 0 is still 0, just like 2 times 0 is 0.


Explain then why these types are incidents are many times more prevalent in the USA than other industrialized nations where access to firearms, particularly handguns and miltary style automatic weapons, is much easier?

Other nations face the same societal issues but the kids there don't seem to shoot up the school with quite the same frequency. If you think that has nothing to do with availability of the necessary weapons then pray enlighten us as to reasons for the difference.

Your math seems sound though.

------------------


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by crazyquik_
> 
> Further, since such events didn't happen in the 80s (much less the 1950s), there is no reason to think that military style weapons would have made a difference. 30 times 0 is still 0, just like 2 times 0 is 0.


I honestly don't know if this is true. in my sister's class, when she was in high school, around 1979, a boy brought a handgun to school and waved it around the classroom, when the teacher tackled him. it made the local paper and that was it. I do not know, but I raise the question - were there 30 random school shootings, using cheap revolvers or shotguns or hunting rifles, each of only one or two people, around the US between 1930 and 1980, and, because they were so far between and small and non-connected, they didn't raise any questions or pattern?

the fact is, steven king wrote a short story about a random shooting in a school in the 70's, there was that guy in the universtiy tower in texas in the 70's. hard to say.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

No wise and insightful comments to shed light on this one but in this century the number of parents who really suck at it seems to be on the steady increase.

Look at the number of kids today in single parent homes. No, I am not picking on single moms because I have been one - it isn't easy to create the same environment a lot of us grew up with.

Combine that with a general parenting strategy of 'whatever keeps the kids out of my hair and quiet is fine".

On my block, it happens that around 60% of the little ones have had 'yes sir'/'no sir' beaten into them at an early age. The other 40% act like punks, sneer at authority and seem to have no fear of reprisal. When I was growing up "I'm going to tell your mother if you do not stop right now" brought forth instant negative images of a shoe becoming lodged in my ass. With the kids around here that mine is not allowed to play with the "I am going to talk to your dad!" warning is met with laughter and a sneer and "Good luck, I think he'll be home next week!".

Parents don't invest the time they used to (on average). The best thing about my day is that it takes 45 minutes to an hour to get to my daughter's school. I'm not sure that many parents these days spend 45 minutes per day talking to thier kids.

I could be wrong - don't think the kids are worse, I think the kids are largely ignored and so desperate for attention that the crap we pulled seems mild compared to what they must now do to shock us into taking notice.

Some folks should elect for sterilization.

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

us raised in the old school chinese upbringing were taught at a very early age that your ass will be minced like garlic if you ever step out of line. i guess it worked for me, though in exchange for that is kids dont get to be close to their folks like how americans are. parents were feared authority figures, not really somebody you could talk your problems about. i remember watching cosby in the 80s and i couldnt believe how theo and the rest of the huxtable kids talk to cliff. thankfully i wasnt spanked much when i was a kid, and my parents are cool folks, but when we do something wrong, somehow it registers in our minds that we are "gonna get it."


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

To a degree, I agree with JLibourel about the '60s. But I think the reason that we're seeing the problem (more) now is that some of the negative attributes of that era have now been propogated through two generations and have become so common that we don't even notice them most of the time. Such as parental/teacher _authority_ or responsibility. Parents don't discipline their kids, or if they do, the kids are exposed to all the other little [email protected]#$s in school and start to learn those traits. Teachers are basically not allowed to excercise any authority over kids anymore, so they're no help. A parent can't threaten another kid (I'll tell your father) and expect any sort of response.

I mean, back in the day (well, 15 years ago) we thought about killing the class bully. Or about blowing up the school (Alice Cooper, anyone?). Some of us even made things which today would get you tried and convicted of a felony, though we never blew up anything bigger than a small tree. I was more afraid of my father than the police and I wouldn't do anything to dissapoint him. Well, nothing that big, at least. I don't think that most kids today care as much about what their parents think.

CT


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, "military style automatic weapons" are _not_ available for public purchase with ease. This is probably the biggest bit of bunk pushed over guns in the US. The requirements to own automatic weapons are many and the ownership is exceedingly limited and controlled. The reason this lie is so easily accepted is no doubt due to the fact most people do not know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic; it would seem knowledge is indeed power.

Now to hand guns. What is the big difference between a hand gun and a sawed off shot gun? Both are easily concealed in clothing for instance. Oh yes, the sawed off is much more dangerous at close range, that would be one big difference. However, as I pointed out above, long guns are everywhere in Canada.

Obviously, if there were no guns, there would be no gun violence, however I just do not think the answer to the problem of violence in the US is as simple as the presence of guns.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wf - I don't want to get into an arms control discussin on this thread, too, but there are differneces in weapons available today than 30 years ago, and frankly, the diffence between a semi automtic assult rifle and an automatic really isn't that important.

30 years ago, getting a lightweight, sturdy, relativly high powered semi-automatic hand gun with a magazine of over 9 rounds was uncommon and - if possible expensive. now there are dozens of very good, sturdy, cheap 9 mm handguns out there with 13, 15 and 17 round clips.

ditto rifles - how many semi automatic high velocity rifles with >20 round magazines were available to the public 30 years ago?

I am not sugesting, in any way, that these should be restricted or outlawed, but I feel confident that they are part of the issue, and should be taken into account when the issue is addressed.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Karl89_
> 
> Gents,
> 
> ...


We've forgot how to discipline children. Parents are afraid to properly discipline their children for fear Children Services will take the children over abuse allegations. On the other hand, parents have taken away schools ability to properly control children, by not allowing school officials to touch their children. Our society has become so "Politically Correct" no one has to be responsible for their actions.

These kids didn't go off the deep end yesterday, this behavior has been getting worse over many years. First, I blame the parents, because most are uninvolved in their kids lives. They are so wrapped up in making enough money to keep up with the "Jones'" that they don't see their families. Second, I blame the schools, because rules have gotten laxed and are not enforced. On the other hand when they are enforced, parents complain. Lastly, I blame society, because we don't watch out for each other anymore.

When I was growing up, the most important aspect of my life was consequences. I'm not saying I didn't do anything wrong, but I sure knew when I did something wrong I would pay for it. I can remember getting "paddled" in elementary school and then getting another spanking when my parents were called. I was always told when I went outside of my house, I not only represented myself, but I represented my family.

It is silly that we raise kids today not playing dodge ball, jumping rope with imaginary ropes and in general not teaching them that life isn't fair.

We all have a responsibility to the children of tomorrow. Starting with making sure we raise our children correctly.

I'd like to go back to the days when neighbors "watched" out for children other than their own. You knew if "Mrs. Smith" saw you do something wrong, she was going to dish out her punishment and then call your mom, so that more punishment was waiting at home. Nowadays when people see another child doing something wrong, they pull their child away and turn their head to what is going on. Instead they should be telling "Little Johnny" to knock it off and then picking up the phone and calling "Little Johnny's" mom to let her know what he is doing.

Let's give schools the proper tools to maintain control in the classrooms. Go back to the days of having to sit in the front of the class right next to the teachers desk, while all of your friends laughed and pointed at you. A paddling by the principal is not a bad thing. Lets hold parents responsible for their children's behavior in the classroom, not make school just a day care center.

I'm sorry, these kids shooting up schools needed a good ass whoopin' a few years before these shootings happened! This may offend some of you, but my children will grow up knowing the feel of my hand across their bottoms, but at the same time they will also know the feel of my arms hugging them. Parents need to be parents first and friends second. "Sheilding" our children and making them think the world owes them something is not making our children productive adults.

Be involved in your children's lives. Looking back now I am glad I had the rules I had. I still got in trouble, but I'm sure I didn't get into as much trouble as I would have had their not been the same rules!

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

How many here wailing about lack of parental attention and control, or the lack of beatings dished out at school actually have children? I'm really interested to know because it all sounds a lot more like a bunch of right wing talking points compared to my experiences as a parent.

If any neighbour, teacher, principal or other 3rd party thinks they have a right to inflict violence on my child for any reason then they are going to come face to face with me very quickly indeed. I will decide on what, if any, corporal punishment is required in any given situation. For the record, I've never hit my son and I hope I never have to.

If you have to beat common sense into your child then you are not doing a very god job as a parent.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Automatic, semi-automatic - I'm sure no-one is arguing the toss when the bullets are flying.

Just as obviously, because there are lots of guns in the US there is lots of gun crime. Nobody is claiminjg it's a root of crime, simply a pretty handy tool which you can pick up easily and cheaply.

------------------


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> How many here wailing about *lack of parental attention and control*, or the lack of beatings dished out at school actually have children? I'm really interested to know because *it all sounds a lot more like a bunch of right wing talking points*compared to my experiences as a parent.


What have we come to when the discipline of our children is political? Are you kidding me? If a parent thinks his children should behave, he is labeled "right wing"? If indeed this were true, then we might be onto something, in terms of an answer to the OP's question.

Unfortunately for GMAC, though, not even my MOST liberal friends would agree with him on this, so I'm afraid we can't blame them this time!


----------



## blantons (Apr 4, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> How many here wailing about lack of parental attention and control, or the lack of beatings dished out at school actually have children? I'm really interested to know because it all sounds a lot more like a bunch of right wing talking points compared to my experiences as a parent.
> 
> ...


Parental attention and control and corporal punishment are two very different things, and it is misleading to group them together as though one was required for the other.

I'm no child psychology expert, but I have taken a few classes in the subject, and it seems that, in controlled moderation, corporal punishment has little long term psychological effects. Anecdotally, myself and many of my friends were raised by parents who used a variety of punishment implementations, and it seems the ones who ended up being more successful in life were the ones with parents who were stricter disciplinarians.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish by throwing politics into this. I'm convincend it's entirely possible to be an effective parent without using corporal punishment. The real issue is the parents who do nothing with their kids whatsoever, and the ones who push the boundaries of corporal punishment into child abuse. Developing children naturally push the boundaries of what is acceptable and not acceptable, and without someone to firmly establish those boundaries, a child's ability to distinguish what is acceptable and not acceptable behavior is diminished. This can be done in a variety of ways, and I don't think the parents who use corporal punishment respinsibly as a deterrent are any more base for doing so.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Take your heads out of the sand boys.

What most of the posters here attibute the decline and fall of western civilisation to is the rise of liberal attitudes in the 60's and they think a return to "traditional" values will save us all from kids rampaging the streets with tec-9s.

Those traditional values are, of course, fully compliant with the right wing conservative agenda.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> Unfortunately for GMAC, though, not even my MOST liberal friends would agree with him on this, so I'm afraid we can't blame them this time!


Agree with me on what?

That beating sense into your kids probably isn't the most effective means of parenting? If they don't agree with me then they are idiots.

How many kids do you have?

------------------


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

Agreed Blantons. My parents certainly did not "spare the rod", and I turned out just fine by most accounts. Chuck, on the other hand, was not "spanked" - nor does he spank his little girl. But we *are * pretty strict disciplinarians. She might be a little indulged, as she likes to say, but she's not spoiled. And she is definitely well-behaved, by all accounts. I'm not sure either, why this is a "right-wing" issue.

I think you have to know your players, and what works on them.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> Agree with me on what?


 That "lack of parental attention and control" is a "right wing" talking point.



> quote:That beating sense into your kids probably isn't the most effective means of parenting? If they don't agree with me then they are idiots.


 I believe you were the only one who introduced the idea of dishing out beatings.



> quote:How many kids do you have?


3. All very well-behaved, well-mannered and well-educated. And yes, they were all subject to disciplinary swats at various times throughout their childhoods. None is the worse for it. They would tell you the same thing.


----------



## blantons (Apr 4, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Take your heads out of the sand boys.
> 
> ...


I think you're painting with a pretty wide brush, there. Surely every social topic discussed doesn't need to degenerate into conservative bible thumping versus liberal intellectual and cultural elitism. I don't think parents that choose to discipline their children with corporal punishment are barbarians, the same way I don't view parents that opt for time out as morally inferior or weak willed.

If there was a huge discrepancy in either my personal experience or in the statistics in the rate of maladjusted children for a certain type of punishment, I would understand the need for polarity on the issue. That is not the case, however. I do think that corporal punishment can be a more effective deterrent for behavior than time out, in some cases. I do not think that corporal punishment, used in moderation, is very likely to cause any psychological harm for a child, but again this may be skewed by my own personal experience of being raised in such a manner. It is important to note that corporal punishment doesn't involve a parent flipping out and striking their kid out of anger. It's a very rational, calculated punishment that should be evenly and fairly given to transgressions and completely removed from emotional attachment.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL Ok, if taking responsibility for raising a child who responds to authority figures with Yessir/No Sir, does her homework and has very clearly delineated boundaries regarding her conduct is a right wing political issue then I suppose I am far right wing.

Beatings? Nope, I do talk to my child every day at length. I know who her friends are, I know where she is. I know her friends parents. Her friends parents know they can call me should she ever misbehave.

My child is well aware that the consequences of any misdeed are minor in comparison to the consequences of lying about it.

I make extreme sacrifices to ensure that she remains in a private school that doesn't require metal detectors and doesn't take any crap. I email her teachers and know how she is doing in school and what problems she encounters/causes.

Is that conservative? Ok, so be it.

I also talk to my kid every day. I explain not only the rules but the underlying reasons for those rules. She's allowed to question the rules (while complying with them mind you) and she is encouraged to understand them. If you ask her why a rule exists and keep saying "and why is that" she eventually arrives unbidden at "Because you love me".

Children love boundaries. They chafe at them to be sure but most happy, well-behaved and successful children have boundaries imposed on them. Boundaries create a sense of safety and security - their world is well-defined and understandable.

I've watched friends and family take the 'I let my child make his or her own decisions and let them freely explore their personhood blah blah blah'... those kids seem to run their homes. I don't run a democracy, this is a benevolent dictatorship and children do not make the rules.

As a result, mine remains on the honor role, remembers her manners and is rewarded for good behavior. She wanted a puppy - she had to make honor role in a tough new school last year. She wants to go to Italy? I want to see 100's on math tests and perfect behavior notes on her report card.

It is a fact, not a political view, that many parents today have not the first clue what their kid is up to, who they are with and what they are doing. Those same parents seem terribly offended if a friend or neighbor points out that little Tommie is behaving badly and is no longer welcome at little Sally's house. Usually it is a vehement "MY son would do no such thing!" A phrase oft repeated to teachers, principals, police officers, judges....

Nonsense, parenting is a fulltime job and parents who don't know exactly what is going on in thier kids' lives are not keeping their promise to those children nor are they keeping their promise to society. I have an obligation to you - I am obliged to ensure that once released from my care my daughter will be a productive, law abiding member of society. It is my duty to ensure that she knows not to drive drunk and run over your child or cat or you. It is my duty to ensure that she is respectful of others and well mannered. It is my duty to warn all male members of society that when it comes to her person, failure to act responsibly will incur immediate and violent penalties from her protector.

Look at the school shootings previously. In how many of those cases did you see a close parental involvement in those kids' lives?

Sometimes, Gmac, traditional values become tradition because they work. Sometimes, the admonishments regarding behavior found in the Bible, Koran or (insert religious text here) are there because they work well in a society. Not coveting your neighbor's ass, his wife or his wife's ass is probably good advice.

It annoys me no end to see the presumption by certain segments of the left wingtip that ANY traditional value evolved over several millenia of human interaction is inherently incorrect. I am disgusted by the notion that more progressive theories which are largely untested and are in existence only because a grad student in sociology was required to complete a dissertation, are inherently more enlightened.

I find that notion to be a monumental pile of steaming bovine excrement. I'd say it was a load of bulls**t but the little one is nearby and I need to set a better example.

Oh look, we found the nerve which sets off the entire Chuck!

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Auto vs. semi-auto: we need to start from the position of reality and therefore need to define and acknowledge.

Second point, I agree, guns are handy tools for crime and I am glad you agree they are not the root cause. Since we both agree guns are not the root cause, we should look for the cause or causes. I for one do not think it is a residual of the hippies or the fault of the left wing. After all, some of the most repressive governments and societies around have been left wing. I do not think it is left/right in nature but saying that only leaves me open to criticism from both sides


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

I don't you can overestimate the role of violent video games in this whole phenomenon. I don't think it's so much the technology per se, or the idea that kids spend their time immersed in a fantasy-land -- I think the problem is the specific content of the games. A friend was telling me about a conversation he overheard among some young adults in which one guy was casually mentioned some interactive game he'd recently played in which the player was assigned a certain number of points for killing someone, kidnapping someone, raping someone... My friend expected the guy's female companion to express the same amount of shock he felt, but her response was merely, "meh, that sounds kind of boring to me..."

Now, no one will ever convince me that mixing civilians and guns is anything but a bad idea, but I don't think availability is the real problem at all. The problem is that there are kids out there who are sufficiently inured to violence that it's not that huge a leap to go from "those a**holes at school need to be taught a lesson" to "Dude, check out the blood spatter you can get with this one!".

And if you look at some of the reactions from classmates in the schools where plots were foiled, some of them were as casual as "wow man, that's ****ed up". So it's not just a small twisted minority who has become somewhat deadened to the idea of violence.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

....and parents ought to know what video games, websites etcetera their kids utilize. What does a video game and player run these days? Seems like most of them are purchased by parents or with money given by parents.

My kid's web surfing is visible in realtime on my computer and I check it frequently in case. Her email address is blind forwarded to me.

I also check what she's reading and what she watches on tv and if it is above a G rating it requires my consent.

Is it possible for a kid to turn into a violent, rampaging mass murderer despite involved, concerned and vigilant parents? Yes, but it a lot more likely that they will turn out relatively normal... and given who her dad is my kid has wide latitude on what constitutes normal.

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by CarloFranco_
> 
> ....and parents ought to know what video games, websites etcetera their kids utilize. What does a video game and player run these days? Seems like most of them are purchased by parents or with money given by parents.
> 
> ...


Bravo, Carlo, for your conscientious parenting.

As I see it, the irresponsible use of firearms would not be nearly so much of a problem in our society if we engaged in more responsible use of penises.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL... I will do my part to ensure that none of that variety of weapon is anywhere near my daughter, should one get too close... I'll resort to the firearms.

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:Interviewer: How do you feel about your daughters dating? Are you good about that?
> 
> Billy Crystal: Well, we have a deal where they're not allowed to have sex until after I'm dead. So, so far it's been fine.


Oh, wait... is there a topic here?


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Crystal is a smart guy.

I remember when my eldest sister informed my father that she and her husband were expecting a child after having been married some 10 years.... I believe his exact words as he coughed his drink through his nose were "For God's sake - you are sleeping together????"

There are some things dad does not need to contemplate. There are other things, such as how likely it is that investigators could identify your remains after a trip through the chipper/shredder and compost pile that young men ought to ponder mightily.

We suspect that disaffected teenagers may be capable of violence. We are quite well aware that fathers of young girls are fully capable of considerable violence and thus nobody really ponders why we are the way we are....

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:[Second point, I agree, guns are handy tools for crime and I am glad you agree they are not the root cause. Since we both agree guns are not the root cause, we should look for the cause or causes. I for one do not think it is a residual of the hippies or the fault of the left wing. After all, some of the most repressive governments and societies around have been left wing. I do not think it is left/right in nature but saying that only leaves me open to criticism from both sides


I am sorry - this doens't make sense to me.

something is makeing a small set of kids want to kill a lot of people - that is the cause.

because they have access to the tools with which to kill a lot of people, they are able to do it.

if they wanted to kill alot of people, but could only get their hands on a hachett - maybe they would only be killing one or two, instead of a large group.

while the guns aren't the cause, they are what enables that activity.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_...while the guns aren't the cause, they are what enables that activity.


 I agree that they aren't the cause, they don't enable the activity any more than poison or a pipe bomb or any other tool the little deviant may choose.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Jill_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


actually, Jill, I agree. I posted above that I think part of the problem is with the availability of good arms, as well as information on the internet as to how to make bombs. I didn't think of poison, but I would have included it. the internet is as much an enabler as weapons here - I am not suggesting to close it down, just not to ignore it.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

In response to the points raised by globetrotter and others that more fearsome weapons technology expedites these school shootings, I'd just like to raise a few points:

High-powered semi-automatic rifles have been readily available to the American public (with wartime hiatuses) since the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt.

Back in the 1950s, some few semi-automatic military rifles were available on the surplus market. Moreover, we had a thriving market in DEWATs (Deactivated War Trophies)--submachine guns that had been supposedly de-activated--only trouble was, anybody with a modicum of mechanical ability could re-activate them!

The first great purveyor of "assault weapons" in the U.S. was none other than good old Uncle Sam himself, when the government began dumping huge numbers of M1 Carbines on the market for sale by the NRA to its membership at $17.95 each. (Back in those days the NRA had an extremely cozy, bi-partisan relationship with the government). The NRA's membership shot up from about 300,000 to 1,000,000 as a result of the Carbine sales. Large scale commercial production of M1 Carbines commenced around the same time.

Charles Whitman's shooting rampage fom the Tower at the University of Texas, Austin, took place in August 1966. He used an M1 Carbine to inflict the majority of the carnage. 

Colt introduced the AR-15--the civilian-legal version of the M16--in the mid-1960s. By the mid-1970s, there were a number of other semi-automatic, civilian-legal counterparts to selective-fire military rifles on the market, as well as semi-automatic copies of sundry submachine guns.

As to high-capacity semi-automatic pistols, the Browning Hi-Power (13+1 capacity) has been continuously on the market since 1954. The MAB PA-15 (15+1) was on the market in the 1960s although it was not a common gun. The Smith & Wesson Model 59 (14+1) came out in 1971, the Beretta 92 (15+1) in 1976. So, high-firepower semi-automatic weaponry is by no means a recent development.

Moreover, you don't really need very formidable weaponry to invade a school and kill a bunch of kids and unarmed adults. Almost any fast-firing, repeating firearm will do very well, unfortunately. In the rampage of Laurie Dann (1987, I think), she used a .22 semi-automatic rifle to shoot up a school in an upscale suburb of Chicago. She killed one little boy and wounded a number children and maybe some teachers (can't remember all the particulars). Such commonplace hunting arms as the lever-action carbine or the pump-action or semi-automatic shotgun, found in American homes in the tens of millions, could be used with terrible effect in a school shooting or similar situations. The killer or killers could keep one round in the chamber for instant use as he topped off the tubular magazines on these firearms.

Well, I could go on, but I don't think this dreadful spate of school shootings is primarily a matter of changes in firearms technology.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

In general, I think that JLibourel's "fad" theory explains the school shooting phenomenon better than anything.

The videogame theory doesn't make sense - 30 million kids are playing video games, and 1 to 3 kids per year engage in a school shooting. If video games were the cause, there would be a lot more school shootings.

I don't agree with the high-powered firearms explanation, either. It's not like there used to be school shootings in the 50's, but only a few kids were killed because the students just had access to revolvers...but now a lot more kids are being killed.

I think if kids with the same behavioral problem were transported back into the 50's, instead of school shootings, they would engage in other anti-social behavior common at the time - perhaps committing robberies. Certainly the people in the 50's were very worried about "juvenile delinquency."

So it's an unfortunate fad.

As to why the murder rate is higher in the US than elsewhere (when the non-murder crime rate is about the same) - that's a complicated issue, but phrasing the question that way masks the fact that the murder rate in the US shows extreme variation from state to state. If you go to the CDC's site, you can find a county-by-county map showing homicides; they occur disproportionately in the south. https://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/maps/default.htm (Actually, you need to go to the website, click "create national map", and then enter "homicide" as the cause of death, and then click on the map icon.) Northern states, generally, have homicide rates roughly similar to western europe, canada, and australia. Southern states have a much higher homicide rate, which brings the average for the US up.

The best explanation for this that I've seen (and it's not original to me) is that southern states, perhaps due to a longstanding value placed on "honor", tend to be places where a greater percentage of the population seems to believe that other people deserve to be killed. So it seems to be this cultural phenomenon, more than simple access to guns, that accounts for the significantly higher crime rate. Guns are no less available in Iowa or Maine than they are in Arkansas or Louisiana, for example, but the murder rates are shockingly different Iowa has 1.5 homicides per 100k population (very similar to Western Europe); LA has 12.5 homicides per 100k.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Another view on this issue:

https://smh.com.au/news/opinion/tig...powerful-weapon/2006/04/26/1145861416502.html

------------------


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Another view on this issue:
> 
> ...


As we posited above, remove guns, remove gun crimes. Remove the crime itself? Article said "no". Dead by a bullet, dead by a sledge hammer, one is still dead. Tool, not cause.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> How many here wailing about lack of parental attention and control, or the lack of beatings dished out at school actually have children? I'm really interested to know because it all sounds a lot more like a bunch of right wing talking points compared to my experiences as a parent.
> 
> ...


I have children. Fortunately, they are only a year old so the need to punish them hasn't arisen yet.

As far as beating common sense into them, that is a bit of an overstatement. If you can rear your child with good morals, values and respect for authority without having to physically punish them, more power to you. I'm not saying this is impossible, but highly unlikely.

I will admit I am jaded. Because of my job as a police officer, I have been exposed to many different parenting styles. Generally speaking the "hands off" and "time out" approach has a common end result. I'll run you through a very common scenario.

Officer: "How can we help you today?"
Parent: "My (13,14 or 15) year old is out of control and won't
listen to me." (This is the age when they've gotten old
enough to be physically threatening)
Officer: "What would you like us to do for you?"
Parent: (in an irritated voice) "Well, make him/her behave and mind
me."
Officer: "We can't make your child behave."
Parent: "Can't you arrest him/her to scare them a little?"
Officer: (this is about as far as my patience goes) "We are not your 
here to aide in your discipline."
Parent: "Well what am I supposed to do?"

Now you may be thinking this is made up, but I'll have you know I've been to this scenario more than once in my career. In 14 years as a police officer, the only things that have changed is I have less hair and the age of the "problem child" is now as young as 11 and 12.

I can say more often than not in these scenarios, these children have been raised without physical punishment or for that matter any sense of personal accountability. Then the parents wonder why they're out of control as teenagers.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by CarloFranco_
> 
> I could be wrong - don't think the kids are worse, I think the kids are largely ignored and so desperate for attention that the crap we pulled seems mild compared to what they must now do to shock us into taking notice.
> 
> ...


Chuck you hit the nail on the head. Kids haven't gottten worse, many times they are doing what any kid would do without supervision. The problem is these unmonitored kids grow into uncontrollable teenagers.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> Take your heads out of the sand boys.
> 
> ...


How is a return to traditional values a bad thing?

How is personal responsibility and accountability something that liberal or conservative, shouldn't be encouraged and demanded?

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> I will admit I am jaded. Because of my job as a police officer, I have been exposed to many different parenting styles. Generally speaking the "hands off" and "time out" approach has a common end result. I'll run you through a very common scenario.
> 
> ...


Thank you for sharing that bit of real life with us. Have you ever noticed that the parents that yell constantly at their children in public are rarely listened to by their children? I think there is a valid correlation there.

Warmest regards


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> I will admit I am jaded. Because of my job as a police officer, I have been exposed to many different parenting styles. Generally speaking the "hands off" and "time out" approach has a common end result. I'll run you through a very common scenario.
> 
> ...


How can you say that? Do you know from a very brief phone call how a parent has raised their child?

It seems much more likely to me that the child in question has been brought up in a household where physical violence was the norm and is now big enough to react in the same way to their parents.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wayfarer_
> Have you ever noticed that the parents that yell constantly at their children in public are rarely listened to by their children? I think there is a valid correlation there.


I have further noticed that parents who hit their children are much more likely to raise children prone to violence. I think there is a valid correlation there.....

------------------


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think this is a generational thing. In my era it was customary to beat children. My mother used to beat me and beat me and beat me some more! She would use a wooden coat hanger on my little butt, and when it broke, she would grab another to beat me further. Her mother beat her. And my great grandmother used to beat my grandmother so severely that the family's former slaves would weep and beg her to have mercy on "Miz Marie"! I was also beaten by my prefects at prep school. Yet I like to think we all turned out pretty well. I haven't been in serious fight since around the time I hit puberty, and I consider myself "a man of peace about whose dreams the sweet milennial angels cluster" (to borrow the phraseology of John Greenleaf Whittier).

My mother was anything but PC! She once commented to me, "Children are like blacks. Force is the only language they understand."

I sometimes wonder if modern theories of pedagogy that eschew corporal punishment are turning out generations of cheeky, unmanageable boys who are then hauled off to shrinks who prescribe Ritalin and other drugs to keep them manageable. I believe some authorities have opined that this wholesale drugging of boys may cause some of them to flip and engage in school shootings.

My own theory of pedagogy reflects my own upbringing: "Pain begets fear. Fear begets cooperation. Cooperation begets harmony. Harmony begets love." And nothwithstanding the beatings, my mother and I had a very close, loving relationship right up to her death.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

no one appears to mention the personality of the individual child.

my wife and I have some friends who have 2 children,the first born, a boy who is now 11 years old they have never once had to issue a punishment in the form of a smacked behind and have rarely had to raise their voices or administer any type of punnishment such as withdrawal of priviliges etc.

Their second child a girl now 8 is a totaly diffrent story, however through various types of discipline including smacked bottom they are raising a polite, well mannered, rounded little girl all be it a lively one.

is it nature or nurture?

by the way regarding rights of the children.

a friend of mine who is a police officer in Florida told me a tale of a 15 year old boy who rang 911 to report his mother for administring corpral punishment due to misbehaviour.
anyway no one was sure what to do with the case so the Sherrif (not the seargent,lieutenant or captain but the sherriff)
took the case due to pollitical sensetivitys .
the sherrif proceeds to attend the home of the 15 year old complainant
with both parents present and asks the 15 year old what it was all about, it soon becomes evident that the boy was stepping out of line on a regular basis and disrespecting his parents even on two occasions
slapping his mothers face.
the sherrif told the boy that he was going to give his mother his cell phone number and if the boy ever lifted as much as a finger to his mother again the sheriff was going to come round to the boys house and not arrest him and charge him but paddle his backside till his hands were sore.

the sherriff then told the mother that one of the problems with kids today is that they are fully aware of their rights but take no account of the rights of others and responsibility to society at large.

IMHO the story of the sheriff shoes a great deal of common sense in a polliticlly correct world.

I don`t have the word power elequence or intelligence to argue the case with other posters who advocate a more liberal view but I do have commonsense and look myself in the mirror Knowing the diffrence between right and wrong


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Trying to reel in a 15 year old is like pissing into the wind, the results will never be terribly good.

Parenting is not rocket surgery. I've seen a few good parents with screwed up kids but I've seen far more reasonably good kids with screwed up parents turn out miserably.

Rule number 1: There must be rules
Rule number 2: There can be no rules without a relationship. When I set out a rule my child starts from the assumption that the rule is in her interest and starts to figure out why. We're friends, we're buddies, she and I dig in the garden together and have deep conversations while engrossed in 2 hour long hair braiding projects. She knows where my heart is because I tell her that she is loved every day, I tell her I am proud of her AND WHY every day. If a teacher is having an issue then "Angel, do I need to call your dad?" is better than a shock collar. Is that because I beat the snot out of her? No - it's because she respects and loves her dad and would rather slam her hand in a car door than disappoint me.

Parenting isn't hard work but it is never ending work. Kids must know what is allowed and must know precisely what to expect. Ask my kid what her dad would say about her doing X )pick any X you like - she'll know the answer because it has been discussed). You have to be the same dad day in and day out and you occasionally have to get off your ass and parent, even when it isn't convenient.

Are there rotten kids that no parent can control or fix? Yes. Do not blame my parents for me.

Is that usually the case? No. Most screwed up kids are a result of parents who are too stupid or too damned lazy to get off their ass and do their job until the child is beyond their grasp. You don't stop a 15 year old from doing drugs, getting in trouble and behaving violently. You teach a 2 year old how to behave and reinforce those lessons at age 3,4,5,6,7,8,9......

Sorry, I'm simplistic on this one. I see too many parents who are busy worrying about their car or their job or this or that and not enough time taking the trouble to do the sometimes uninteresting but invariably more important job of paying attention to thier kids, finding out about thier friends, setting and enforcing boundaries and teaching their children the basics of functioning in society. Those parents are the ones who call Trenditional and b**ch about the schools and police failing to control the monster they hatched and ignored.

Yes, I am rude and arrogant on this particular topic and damned near as uncuddly as Kabbaz on a grumpy day but for good reason. It pisses me off that I have to spend 10 grand every year simply to ensure that my kid spends the day in a school like the public school I went to rather than going to a school where the only ones who dare to cross the miscreant whelp of irresponsible clueless parents are the police officers assigned to make sure the little monsters don't kill anyone.

....wow, we really have found the one area where Chuck is a humorless and deadly serious grumpy sonofab**ch, how 'bout that.

Normally irrepressible and annoyingly cheerful persona will re-emerge in 5-4-3-2-....

www.carlofranco.com
Handmade Seven Fold Ties


----------



## EL72 (May 25, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by CarloFranco_
> 
> Sometimes, Gmac, traditional values become tradition because they work. Sometimes, the admonishments regarding behavior found in the Bible, Koran or (insert religious text here) are there because they work well in a society. Not coveting your neighbor's ass, his wife or his wife's ass is probably good advice.
> 
> It annoys me no end to see the presumption by certain segments of the left wingtip that ANY traditional value evolved over several millenia of human interaction is inherently incorrect. I am disgusted by the notion that more progressive theories which are largely untested and are in existence only because a grad student in sociology was required to complete a dissertation, are inherently more enlightened.


Although I am not a very religious or God-fearing individual, I totally agree with you on this point.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

I think we all wish the answer to school shootings and violence were easy. If only it was availability of firearms, poor teachers, video games, GE food, gay people getting married, marilyn manson, football coaches, pollution, janet jackson's nipple, etc. then we could deal with it. But as we've seen, the problem is more complicated then that. In fact education in general in this country is a can of worms. The only real common theme you can draw out of the problems with education is that every few years somebody has a grand idea that might work, the implimentation of it is totally botched and then the next botched grand idea gets layered on top of it.

As far as which schools of thought on child rearin' are correct, some people are just nuts. I think if you look at all the theories that have been put forward in the last hundred years, then look at how people actually raise their children, I think you'll find the actual raising sometimes goes to unheard of extremes. For example: Child who is home schooled until college and not allowed to even listen to the radio. Where as on the other side Child who is allowed to "express himself" through this habit he has of setting homeless people on fire. I think we can all agree either of these approaches can lead to disaster. But for those in the middle there really isn't one right approach. You can do everything right and they'll still mess up.

A lot of that is just being a teenager: confused, angry, convinced your parents are wrong about everything, depressed, embarassed and with raging hormones that somehow make you incapable of rational thought.

Oh, and most importantly the Cosby Show reference is a cheap shot. I think if you compare the Cosby Show to the other shows at the time you'll find Cliff and Claire are much tougher parents. Look at the first episode, where Theo comes home with Ds. Theo gives one of those TV speeches "instead of coming down on me for what I'm not, why can't you accept me for who I am?" Now with most sitcoms the tender music would have come in there, but in the Cosby Show Cliff comes back with "Son...that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No wonder you get D's in school. Now you are going to try as hard as you can and you're going to do it because I said so. I'm your father, I brought you in this world, I can take you out."


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by MER_
> 
> Oh, and most importantly the Cosby Show reference is a cheap shot. I think if you compare the Cosby Show to the other shows at the time you'll find Cliff and Claire are much tougher parents. Look at the first episode, where Theo comes home with Ds. Theo gives one of those TV speeches "instead of coming down on me for what I'm not, why can't you accept me for who I am?" Now with most sitcoms the tender music would have come in there, but in the Cosby Show Cliff comes back with "Son...that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No wonder you get D's in school. Now you are going to try as hard as you can and you're going to do it because I said so. I'm your father, I brought you in this world, I can take you out."


yes, i remember that episode. and i also remember they received a little flak back then because of how the "dad" answered his "child" regarding his emotions.

but to clear things out, what i was trying to say was in our culture, the way the cosby kids interacted with their parents was not the norm. parents are parents, they are not your friends, as charles barkley once said.

speaking of tv shows and cosby, i remember a relative of mine, a mother of a 4 year old then, who was complaining about those shows they air on nickolodeon. she's specially peeved about "that's so raven" because apparently her child started answering back to her when she started watching that show.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by acidicboy_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have tivo - my 4 year old son has never seen a commercial, an adult (read - not meant for pre-schooler) tv show or movie, or a show that I haven't approved. at any given time there are 3 or 4 shows on the approved list - at present dora, blue's clues, the backyardigans and charlie and lola.

he literally has no idea what a gun is, or a sword. he has never asked for a commerical product by name.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:I think we all wish the answer to school shootings and violence were easy. If only it was availability of firearms, poor teachers, video games, GE food, gay people getting married, marilyn manson, football coaches, pollution, janet jackson's nipple, etc. then we could deal with it. But as we've seen, the problem is more complicated then that.


No, I don't think we've seen that the problem is all that 'complicated' at all. Instill a sense of right and wrong, establish clear standards, and apply discipline. You don't need a PhD in child development to know that. Raising decent, well-socialized kids with good manners and a basic sense of right and wrong is pretty straightforward.

Maybe some people think it's more complicated than it is because they have a simplistic sense of what it takes to raise a child properly -- some seem not to realize it's a very 'active' process, and seem to think that as long as you treat the child well and give them 'the freedom to discover who they really are', their 'inherent goodness' with just burst forth and everything will turn out honky dorey. That explains the surprise we often hear about kids from 'good families' shooting up schools. "But... but... mom's a lawyer and dad's a college professor -- and they're so nice -- how could he turn out so bad?". Decent human beings have to be cultivated.

Even if you believe in the 'inherent goodness' of children, what kind of a chance does that inherent goodness have against a constant barrage of negative influences? Unless parents take a committed active role in nurturing that goodness, it doesn't stand a chance.

So I say it's really very simple. If not necessarily 'easy'. But that's why God created birth control devices. And brains.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

> quote:No, I don't think we've seen that the problem is all that 'complicated' at all. Instill a sense of right and wrong, establish clear standards, and apply discipline. You don't need a PhD in child development to know that. Raising decent, well-socialized kids with good manners and a basic sense of right and wrong is pretty straightforward.


I would point you to the case of David Ludwig and Kara Beth Borden. The parents of both seem to have done exactly what you suggest. Or the famous eagle scout Gary Hirte. The fact is sometimes it's not the parents...it's the kids.


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by MER_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know who they are, but I didn't mean to imply that a properly parented child can't end up turning out dysfunctional because of mental illness or a brain chemistry problem, or what have you. There will always be aberrations, but I don't think that's what we're dealing with here.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> I have tivo - my 4 year old son has never seen a commercial, an adult (read - not meant for pre-schooler) tv show or movie, or a show that I haven't approved. at any given time there are 3 or 4 shows on the approved list - at present dora, blue's clues, the backyardigans and charlie and lola.
> 
> he literally has no idea what a gun is, or a sword. he has never asked for a commerical product by name.


"No idea what a gun is, or a sword." Amazing how you can keep him so "uncontaminated." Doesn't he ever play with other boys? Does he ever watch TV at other kids' houses? And shouldn't boys know about guns and swords? I got my first toy gun when I was about 18 months old. One of the few mementos of my father that my mother was able to save when she fled from Java as the Japanese were invading was my father's cermonial sword. He had been killed at the outbreak of the war in the Pacific, about 3 1/2 months before I was born.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, it's fairly easy to keep kids "uncontaminated" at that age - IME, there are quite a few parents who don't let their kids play with guns, so it's by no means obvious that a 4-year-old would have experience with guns that way. The same is true with TV - if the kid did watch TV at another kid's house, it would most likely be a DVD of of a kid's show and not a "regular" program.

By the time the kid is in school things will have changed, of course - but I'm not at all surprised that a 4 year old would lack exposure to guns.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not phone calls, in person.

More often than not, children of physically abusive parents don't act up at home. They tend to become more introverted and as they get older they are less confrontational, out of fear of being beaten.

Pardon the analogy, but children are like dogs. Dogs raised with no rules or boundaries become out of control dogs. Children who are raised without rules (that are enforced) often grow up ignoring more and more rules as they get older. It tends to explode and overflow in agressive behavior directed at the parents.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I was told growing up....

"I'd like you to respect me, but you will FEAR me!"

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by CarloFranco_
> 
> Trying to reel in a 15 year old is like pissing into the wind, the results will never be terribly good.
> 
> ...


Chuck,

You are exactly correct. Child rearing is a full-time job. More importantly parenting needs to be consistent and fair. And even harder, lead by example!

Kids actually respect having boundaries, they may push them but they respect them. The problem is parents are not consistent in these boundaries, what is okay today isn't okay tomorrow. Parents need to set rules and stick by them.

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was pretty amazed, myself. I know I had toy guns, gi joess, and played cowboys and indians at my sons age. He has no idea what cops and robbers are, cowboys and indians, or guns. as far as I can see, none of his friends play with them.

I had planned on buying my son a lot of gi joe stuff, but if he doens't know about it, I am not going to complain.

when they time comes, he will know what firearms are, and how to sue them. I won't be sorry if he never plays with a toy gun, or glorifies them. I will be surprised if he doesn't find his way, like his father, and his grandfather, into a light infantry unit one day, but I have no need for him to play with guns.


----------



## guyfromboston (Jan 26, 2005)

I'm afraid you just don't know what you're talking about. After WWII, the US government essentially gave away millions of M1s and 1911s (45 cal pistol). Either of those would be highly effective as a weapon to blow away your classmates, if you were so inclined.



> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> [...]
> 
> when they time comes, he will know what firearms are, and how to *sue* them. [...]


It's the American way!


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by guyfromboston_
> 
> I'm afraid you just don't know what you're talking about. After WWII, the US government essentially gave away millions of M1s and 1911s (45 cal pistol). Either of those would be highly effective as a weapon to blow away your classmates, if you were so inclined.
> 
> ...


again - I didn't say anything after Jl's post - but I will comment on yours. first, I would argue that a 1911 is a hell of a lot more difficult to handle than a 9 mm semi automatic manufactured in the 90's, and holds 30% less rounds. I would argue that it would be very difficult for kids, like the ones who perpetrated colombine and some of the other shooting, to handle a 1911, and not that easy for him to stick it in a pocket or belt.

ditto a M1 rifle. first - the magazine of a M1 rifle is not easy to load or handle, especially for somebody with weak fingers. and, it holds 8 rounds. and, it is not exactly the type of thing you stick under your jacket.

in terms of the M1 carbine - yes, mush easier to conceal, and a slightly larger magazine, but not a hell of a lot better a killing weapon.

compare this with a $600 AR-15 that can hold a 25 round magazine and be concealed under a parka.


----------



## Briguy (Aug 29, 2005)

My AR15 is much larger than my M1 Carbine, and I can (and do) conceal and shoot a full-size 1911 much easier than the compact Glock 26. But, realistically, this is all moot. With the baggy clothes common today, you can practically stuff a one-five-five under your jacket and not print.

With rights come responsibilities. I believe that the parents (or other adults) who leave their weapons unsecured, and those weapons were then used in a shooting, must be held responible for their failure to secure their weapons.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

[/quote]

again - I didn't say anything after Jl's post - but I will comment on yours. first, I would argue that a 1911 is a hell of a lot more difficult to handle than a 9 mm semi automatic manufactured in the 90's, and holds 30% less rounds. I would argue that it would be very difficult for kids, like the ones who perpetrated colombine and some of the other shooting, to handle a 1911, and not that easy for him to stick it in a pocket or belt.

ditto a M1 rifle. first - the magazine of a M1 rifle is not easy to load or handle, especially for somebody with weak fingers. and, it holds 8 rounds. and, it is not exactly the type of thing you stick under your jacket.

in terms of the M1 carbine - yes, mush easier to conceal, and a slightly larger magazine, but not a hell of a lot better a killing weapon.

compare this with a $600 AR-15 that can hold a 25 round magazine and be concealed under a parka.
[/quote]

I would have to differ that a full-sized, steel-frame 1911 is much more difficult to handle or shoot than most of the 9mm's on the market. A little more recoil, but not a great deal. I think the 1911 is actually easier to conceal than most of the high-capacity 9mm's.

Moreover, this makes the assumption that most of this shootings are perpetrated by little kids who cannot handle a man-sized weapon. In fact, most of these shootings are perpetrated by males in their mid- to late teens. For practical purposes, many of these youngsters are man-sized already. Heck, I was over 6 feet and weighed 170 pounds when I started prep school when I was 14 1/2.

High capacity (20-, 40-round) magazines are readily available for M1 carbines.

I think to conceal an AR-15 under a parka, it would need an M4 (not civilian-legal) configuration and a telescoping stock. Even then, concealing it would be a hassle. Moreover, has an AR-15 ever figured in any of these school shootings? I'm not aware of any, and I try to pay close attention to these matters for professional reasons. As I recall, the killers in the Columbine shooting used a cheap Hi-Point 9mm carbine.

A $600 price tag for an AR-15 seems optimistic these days, I think.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Just spent a bit of time researching school shootings on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The reports are rather vague about what weaponry was used by the perps, but much of it doesn't seem to have been terribly "high tech." I could find no reference to an AR-15 having figured in any of them. 

The killers in the Columbine massacre had, as I had correctly remembered, a Hi-Point 9mm Carbine; they also had an Intratec Tec-9 assault pistol (a crappy gun. A former Intratec employee once cracked to me that it was what you WANT the bad guy to have!) They also had two shotguns they had sawn off.

The killers at the Jonesboro, Arkansas massacre used an assortment of guns stolen from the grandfather of one of them. The only one I could find identified was a .30-06 rifle, no particulars given. I was horrified to learn that one of these little monsters was set free last year and the other will be released next year, as they turn 21. They have absolutely "clean slates" and are free to buy firearms!

Kip Kinkel in the massacre in Oregon used a Glock 9mm, a Ruger .22 autoloader and a Ruger semi-automatic rifle (don't know if it was a 10/22 or Mini-14).

The killer in the Santee school shooting was using a cheap Arminius revolver he actually was able to reload several times. I was surprised that he wasn't disarmed while reloading, as happened to Kip Kinkel. My stepson observed at the time that the kids were probably habituated to movie guns that fired forever without reloading and so were cowed into inaction.

The killer on the Red Lake Reservation used two handguns and a shotgun.

I was in error when I reported ealier that Laurie Dann had used a .22 rifle in her rampage. I had confused her with another young woman, Brenda Ann Spencer, who had used a .22 rifle to shoot up a school a few years earlier. Laurie Dann used a couple of revolvers. The cases were very similar--disturbed young women invading and shooting up a school.

I suppose there is a qualitative difference in school shootings like those above in which outsiders invade and shoot up a school and those in which the students themselves are the perps. The worst outsider shooting was no doubt that of Patrick Purdy in Stockton, CA, who used a Chinese-made civilian-legal semi-auto AK-47.

Just thought this might shed a bit of light if anyone's still interested in this thread.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I am going to have to agree with JLibourel. The 1911 is much more concealable than most double stack 9mm's. Yes the 1911 does have some more kick, but it's no Desert Eagle. The AR-15 is a concealable weapon to a degree, but $600 for one is not likely.

That said, what difference does it make? Whether some kid walks onto school grounds with 7 357 revolvers, or one AK-47 with a drum magazine, what is the reason for it? I don't understand what could be so bad in one of these kids lives to make them want to do this?

Is it because they were picked on by the other kids, deal with it life isn't fair.

Is is because they had to take showers during P.E., we have all had to take showers with other guys.

Make people *ACCOUNTABLE* for their actions! Make parents responsible for being involved in their kids lives. I'm sure these kids didn't just start behaving differently the mornings of these shootings. I'd be real interested in a study of these kids home life leading up to the shootings.

I hate having to say this, because I am not a NRA supporter and I believe many if not all guns should be made illegal, but....

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

We need to start holding people accountable for their actions in this country. Not every damn kid has A.D.D., they're just undisciplined. Hell, we all got bored during school, but our teachers and parents made sure we learned that acting like a knucklehead wasn't acceptable.

<Trend jumps down from his soap box......next>

Paul

_Deny Guilt, Demand Proof and Never Speak Without an Attorney!_​


----------



## J. Homely (Feb 7, 2006)

Interesting thread, but I think it's being derailed (no offense) by the overconcern with guns. Fine, let's confiscate all the guns. And then we can wonder what drove that quiet young boy from a good family to poison his schools water system, or drive his father's Porsche into the bleachers the day of the big homecoming game, or whatever other creative channel he finds to direct his pathology.

As I've said, I really have no use for guns. I'm not a fan. But I still don't think they're the point.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

again, I think that there is a huge sensitivity to this issue - I have litterally said, 3 times in this thread, that I am not suggesting that access to guns to limited. I will say that again - I am not suggesting that access to guns be limited due to this issue. I have also said that I believe that the internet is contributing exactly as much, in that it is making it easier for idiots to get their hands on information that may move them in this direction, or help them with their plans, espectially in terms of building bombs and making poisons. 

but I do think that if we are discussiong why this is happening now, and didn't happen 2 generations ago - access to cheaper, better firearms is part of it, in my opinion. 

another point, that I thought of concerning the post about garands and 1911's dumpted after wwii. My father, who lived in a rural community, was part of the middle class, whose father was demobilized as an officer in 1945, and whose family consumed as much venison as any other meat around the year - if not more, had a US military issue single shot firearm manufactured in the 1870's as his hunting firearm into the late 1940's. I do know, that when he went to college in 1950 or so, he had a 1911, but what he had in the house until then was a 80 year old single shot 45/70. 

this might not be very representative - but I am wondering if a family that wasn't dirt poor, had a head of family that was demobilized from the army after VJ day, lived in rural western NY and relied on hunting for meat didn't have a garand around the house, I am wondering how common they really were at the time.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by globetrotter_
> 
> again, I think that there is a huge sensitivity to this issue - I have litterally said, 3 times in this thread, that I am not suggesting that access to guns to limited. I will say that again - I am not suggesting that access to guns be limited due to this issue. I have also said that I believe that the internet is contributing exactly as much, in that it is making it easier for idiots to get their hands on information that may move them in this direction, or help them with their plans, espectially in terms of building bombs and making poisons.
> 
> ...


Some Garands were available on the surplus market in the 1950s. I believe these were usually rifles that had been given to foreign governments in the aftermath of WWII and then sold off as surplus as they adopted FALs or whatever. Especially after the U.S. Army adopted the M14 and these began to become available in quantity, the government started selling Garands to NRA members through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship program. I know that John F. Kennedy got one of these rifles through the DCM program while he was president. Shortly after Kennedy's assassination the government tightened up the sale of the surplus Garands and you had to provide evidence you participated in NRA-sanctioned High Power Rifle competition before they let you buy one.

I really don't think there was too much interest in M1 Garands during the '50s and '60s. They were perceived rightly as unwieldy for hunting, and almost nobody was interested in "Arming for Armageddon" in those days. That was really a legacy of the survivalist movement of the 1970s, by which time the M1 Garand had certainly ceased to be state of the art.


----------

