Texas: 18 children & one teacher killed in elementary school shooting


Suzie
 Share

Recommended Posts

They had the conference and it was interrupted.

Different opinions are going around on it.  Some feel it was appropriate for Beto to interrupt and bring up the political points.

Others feel it was inappropriate.

I think that as there were those who had lost children, they didn't need another individual to suddenly go up and interrupt their moment there.  They were already there.  It seemed more like political grandstanding and taking the picture off of those who just lost their loved ones for his own political stunt.  In that, I feel it was inappropriate.  There were other times he could have brought it up just as effectively.

That said, there are those who are praising his actions for doing what he did, so it appears his stunt worked as intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People react irrationally to such mass shootings, especially when the victims are children. This is due partly to outrage at an outrageous act, but mostly because most people are bad at math--specifically, statistics.

Since the heavily covered Columbine massacre, about 100 people per year on average lose their lives to mass shootings. "That's 100 too many!" you may say, and odds are that most here would agree with you. But by comparison, you are about four times as likely to be struck by lightning as to be killed by a mass shooter (though to be fair, you are more than twice as likely to be killed by said mass shooter than by said lightning--lightning strikes kill only about 10% of their victims).

 To put it another way: About 10,000 people per year are killed in drunk driving accidents in the US every year.  If by stricter enforcement of existing laws we could save only 10% of those victims, we would save literally ten times more people every year than if we could completely eliminate all mass shootings.  If we could drop the alcohol-related fatality rate by a mere 1%, that would save as many lives as completely eliminating all mass shootings in the US.

 I am pro-Second Amendment, but the honest truth is that I'm afraid of guns. They are weapons that are designed to kill, with handguns being designed specifically to kill people at close range. But the Second Amendment was not included to allow people to go hunting or shoot tin cans out in the sticks. It was designed to keep us a free nation, not beholden to foreign governments or even to despots within our own government.

 The ugly truth is that as long as people are allowed to own firearms, there will be mass shootings and accidental shootings. The uglier truth is that is that without firearms, people cannot effectively protect themselves from the immediate threat of violence.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

The ugly truth is that as long as people are allowed to own firearms, there will be mass shootings and accidental shootings. The uglier truth is that is that without firearms, people cannot effectively protect themselves from the immediate threat of violence.

The reason why this is a contentious issue is that there is no solution that fixes everything.  That is true for any contentious issue.  It is always a question of which consequences we're willing to deal with and which we are not.  Or the more common case:  Which is the lesser of two evils?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three or more victims = mass shooting per US statistical studies.  So if you have a domestic and a husband shoots his wife, her new boyfriend and the son who intervened, we have a new "mass shooting."   Gang members do a drive by shooting on their rivals, hit four people.  Another "mass shooting."  Neighbor dispute turns violent.  The neighbor grabs his gun to get his revenge and shoots the neighboring husband, wife, son, his visiting girlfriend and the cousin over for dinner.  We have a new "mass shooting."  The left loves to manipulate shooting statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, LDSGator said:

But I still am highly skeptical that arming teachers will help.

And you're right.

Many places are short on teachers. Now we say we only want teachers who are experts in firearms who will be guaranteed to stop a shooter on top of teaching algebra? You're not going to find enough.

I support the right of teachers to carry, but arming teachers to solve a problem is a pipe dream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Backroads said:

And you're right.

Many places are short on teachers. Now we say we only want teachers who are experts in firearms who will be guaranteed to stop a shooter on top of teaching algebra? You're not going to find enough.

I support the right of teachers to carry, but arming teachers to solve a problem is a pipe dream.

It’s just so sad. School shootings are rare, but it’s heartbreaking of course. 
 

Our human minds are simple. We like easy answers, good guys and bad guys. With issues like this there are no easy answers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me cold, but this is how I feel.  I am glad the murderer was shot to death by law enforcement officers.  I do not like murderers especially those who kill children.

I believe the LORD took those children who died to be with Him in paradise and they are with the saints there in the spirit world now.  I am also very sad for the parents who have lost their children.

Edited by Still_Small_Voice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Call me cold, but this is how I feel.  I am glad the murderer was shot to death by law enforcement officers.  I do not like murderers especially those who kill children.

It’s not cold, it’s totally understandable. 
 

I have sympathy for anyone in a dark mental place, but sympathy only goes so far. And it stops when someone decides to kill people. Mentally ill doesn’t mean “unable to comprehend right from wrong.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s not cold, it’s totally understandable.  I have sympathy for anyone in a dark mental place, but sympathy only goes so far. And it stops when someone decides to kill people. Mentally ill doesn’t mean “unable to comprehend right from wrong.”

From the news stories I read (if they are correct) he was concealing his plans to murder and that indicates to me he knew what he was doing was illegal and did not want to be caught before he did the killings.  That does not sound mentally ill to me.  It sounds like the person was broken and evil.

I am not the judge but it would not surprise me if he was in spirit prison suffering for the sins he did presently.  Multiple murders are the worst sins one can commit in this life as most do not have enough light and knowledge to deny the Holy Ghost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

am not the judge but it would not surprise me if he was in spirit prison suffering for the sins he did presently

I’m not his judge either. However, I can say with virtual certainty that you are correct about his eternal place. 
 

One of the reasons I’m not an atheist is that I can’t believe that Mussolini goes to the same place in the afterlife as those doctors who treat Ebola on the frontlines in Africa do. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The reason why this is a contentious issue is that there is no solution that fixes everything.  That is true for any contentious issue.  It is always a question of which consequences we're willing to deal with and which we are not.  Or the more common case:  Which is the lesser of two evils?

 

I'm not so sure it is a case of being allowed to have and use guns in the United States.  Switzerland has a pretty high amount of Gun ownership but you do not see the shootings there.  A few other nations may qualify on the list, but only the United States is the one having more of these problems.

Other nations have guns, mental disabilities and emotional disabilities among citizens, criminals, and gangs.  They don't have the percentage of mass shootings (low as they may be, even in the US).

It seems to lie more in the idea that other nations that allow guns also have citizens (opinion on my part) that have a higher amount of civil responsibility that they believe in.  One could say it is not in the "culture" for them to participate in such things.

Why does the United States arrive at a culture where it is more allowable to be more aggressive in that stance?  Is it possible to change it and how would we do this?

I think examining the ROOT causes and HOW to change them would do far more in stopping these types of incidents than simply restricting fire arms or blaming anyone who has ever had mental health issues (most of whom would be perfectly safe with a firearm).

On the otherhand, there ARE nations which have very restrictive firearm laws which have shown that this reduces shooting deaths and gun deaths.  The U.K. and Japan both have extremely restrictive laws.  Australia has stated it had shootings go down as they implemented more restrictive laws.  Part of that is also culture though.  The U.K. still has murders, but those are still fewer in number than the U.S., even when firearms are taken into account. 

I think there is something that we could address in regards to the Culture of the U.S. that is somehow promoting these types of incidents that could be beneficial, but I do not see most politicians or others discussing how we can do that.

Instead, we try to address the symptoms (people owning guns) rather than the cause.  Now, just like prohibition reduced alcohol consumption in the US (something many don't acknowledge, but prohibition was actually somewhat successful in it's efforts), reducing guns could also probably reduce shootings.  That's addressing a symptom though, rather than the cause of the matter.  Until we address the cause, I think there will still be a number of incidents in the US regardless of how many gun laws we pass, even if we manage to reduce how many are occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vort said:

People react irrationally to such mass shootings, especially when the victims are children.

Excellent overall post Vort, but I had one clarification: People react irrationally to such mass shootings, only after the media makes a big deal out of it.   And boy howdy no, do the not make a big deal out of things unless there's a reason. 

I wonder how many of us can name any of the 4 elementary school shootings that happened in the 1970's.  Or the 9 from the '80's.  Or the 5 from the 2000's.  Or any of the 10 from the 2010's besides Sandy Hook.  

image.png.7fc81c2bd514da707594c415f5b6014f.png

For that matter, I wonder how many of us know how many children were shot and killed in Chicago last year.   41, btw.  

 

We've understood the media spin for a long time.  This chart needs to be updated to include kids, but it's scary accurate.

How the media responds to violence | Gun Control Debate | Know Your Meme

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I'm not so sure it is a case of being allowed to have and use guns in the United States.  Switzerland has a pretty high amount of Gun ownership but you do not see the shootings there.  A few other nations may qualify on the list, but only the United States is the one having more of these problems.

Other nations have guns, mental disabilities and emotional disabilities among citizens, criminals, and gangs.  They don't have the percentage of mass shootings (low as they may be, even in the US).

It seems to lie more in the idea that other nations that allow guns also have citizens (opinion on my part) that have a higher amount of civil responsibility that they believe in.  One could say it is not in the "culture" for them to participate in such things.

Why does the United States arrive at a culture where it is more allowable to be more aggressive in that stance?  Is it possible to change it and how would we do this?

I think examining the ROOT causes and HOW to change them would do far more in stopping these types of incidents than simply restricting fire arms or blaming anyone who has ever had mental health issues (most of whom would be perfectly safe with a firearm).

On the otherhand, there ARE nations which have very restrictive firearm laws which have shown that this reduces shooting deaths and gun deaths.  The U.K. and Japan both have extremely restrictive laws.  Australia has stated it had shootings go down as they implemented more restrictive laws.  Part of that is also culture though.  The U.K. still has murders, but those are still fewer in number than the U.S., even when firearms are taken into account. 

I think there is something that we could address in regards to the Culture of the U.S. that is somehow promoting these types of incidents that could be beneficial, but I do not see most politicians or others discussing how we can do that.

Instead, we try to address the symptoms (people owning guns) rather than the cause.  Now, just like prohibition reduced alcohol consumption in the US (something many don't acknowledge, but prohibition was actually somewhat successful in it's efforts), reducing guns could also probably reduce shootings.  That's addressing a symptom though, rather than the cause of the matter.  Until we address the cause, I think there will still be a number of incidents in the US regardless of how many gun laws we pass, even if we manage to reduce how many are occurring.

I've been taking a look at mass shooting events since the early 2000s when I was super into politics.

What I found is that the vast majority of shooters I looked at either:

1. had overt warning signs of mental instability

2. had a substance abuse issue

3. were known to the authorities, who failed to intervene

4. some combination thereof

For example, the guy who shot up Virginia Tech was clearly unwell his entire life, but his family feared taking him for treatment because they presumed there would be a stigma.

Or with Nidal Hassan, his co-workers at Walter Reed Army Hospital had every reason to believe he'd become unstable, but feared that since they were white and he was Middle Eastern any attempts to report him would end with *them* being flagged as "racist" and so they never spoke up.

The school shooter in Florida? Numerous reports to law enforcement about erratic, unstable, and potentially dangerous behavior. No action.

Sandy Hook? The shooter was *legally prohibited* from owning guns, so his mother bought them and he took them from her after killing her.

Southerland Springs church shooting? The shooter was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force for domestic violence, but the Air Force failed to report this to the federal background check database and so it never turned up.

Et cetra.

It's this, the human element, that needs to be examined more closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Numerous reports to law enforcement about erratic, unstable, and potentially dangerous behavior. No action

 

I always find the narrative on this one interesting.  The police get blamed for this one regularly.  We are not mental health professionals.

 

It is NOT illegal to be mentally unstable.

 

You can not be arrested and prosecuted when you have not committed a crime.

 

I repeat.  It is NOT illegal to be mentally unstable.

 

 

 

Mental health issues are an area I don't think we are doing a very good job with in society as a whole.  Not sure how we fix that though.

 

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, mirkwood said:

You can not be arrested and prosecuted when you have not committed a crime.

It would seem that some people expect police to be agents of the Pre-crimes Division.

19 hours ago, mirkwood said:

Mental health issues are an area I don't think we are doing a very good job with in society as a whole.  Not sure how we fix that though.

The upswing in mental health issues is society's wholesale turning away from God and family structure.  We've lost all sense of right and wrong.  (That is a common clinical definition of mental health). The reason these crimes occur is that we live in a culture that has forgotten to value human life. 

The problem with "gun control" is that blaming guns simply takes the blame off the individual who perpetrated the crime.  Blaming police for "not doing their job" also takes the blame off of the perp.  The entire gun control lobby is about blaming everyone and everything else other than the person committing the crime.

And people wonder why things keep happening?  How about start preaching personal responsibility again?  How about preaching the sanctity of life?  How about encouraging stable family life?  How about bringing God back into our society, our homes, and our hearts?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harden the schools, with armed SROs in every one.   Pay for it by having congress re-purpose 10% of it's $113 billion unspent COVID funds currently allocated to schools.  That'll immediately hand every single public school in the United States $120,000 with which to make improvements.

What to do about the dangerously mentally ill who have committed no crime, but might?  We used to have asylums for such folks, but it was so unpopular and inhumane we closed them all, choosing instead to, well, 

Quote

The state mental hospital reflects a bygone era in American psychiatry. Gone are the days of long-term psychiatric hospitalization and housing for the most severely mentally ill. Instead, for better or for worse, patients in need of psychiatric admission are treated for five or seven days and discharged back to the community—sometimes without a place to live.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freud-fluoxetine/201807/the-american-mental-asylum-remnant-history

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can all be concerned and troubled when things like this happen.  I have previously stated that I often took a gun to school.  On one occasion, in high school, I took a long gun to several classes and placed the weapon on the floor by my desk.  No one even asked me why I had the weapon.  About 100 years ago an Apostle at a stake conference (in St George) address a trend of deacons bring guns to church.  

Our country has a long history of gun ownership.  As an engineer I have always been of the mind that when problem occur that the first effort in solving the problem is to determine what changed when the problem started.  So what has changed????

May I make a suggestion? - Gun ownership has not changed nor has our society changed in that all of a sudden we have mental issues.  We have always had mental issues.  I would suggest that the greatest change has a two fold or two step process.  The first step is the broad use of psychotropic drugs.  The definition of a psychotropic drug is "a mind turning" drug.  Lets think on that definition for a minute here.  I am not a pharmacist but I am aware that side effects can be different for individuals.  I am also aware that drugs can interact and produce a combined side effect that does not exist of any of the drugs themselves. 

Before we engage in a ready, shoot, aim activity - which seems to be the politics of mental cases flipping out - should we not take a long hard look at the drugs used and the age of the shooter.  We also have experienced that known mental cases have driven cars into people along a road.  Obviously this really is not a gun issue.  I am not a gambler but I would bet that the pharmaceutical companies have better (more powerful) lobbyists that the gun manufactures. 

And yet when ever there is a mass shooting by someone with mental issues - we never hear anyone (political) suggest we look into drug use.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 6:12 PM, mirkwood said:

 

I always find the narrative on this one interesting.  The police get blamed for this one regularly.  We are not mental health professionals.

 

It is NOT illegal to be mentally unstable.

 

You can not be arrested and prosecuted when you have not committed a crime.

 

I repeat.  It is NOT illegal to be mentally unstable.

 

 

 

Mental health issues are an area I don't think we are doing a very good job with in society as a whole.  Not sure how we fix that though.

 

Agreed.  I think “mental illness” is largely (not entirely, but largely) a “cop-out”, if you’ll forgive the pun.  Other demographics are more at risk for “mental illness” than late-adolescent, mostly-white teenaged boys; but they don’t generally go around shooting up schools.  And frankly, mental illness—unlike most other medical conditions—isn’t diagnosed according to an observable physiological or chemical causative agent; it’s diagnosed according to what kind of tensions it creates between the patient and the patient’s broader social community and then we try to work backwards to guess about what might have caused it.  As community values evolve, some things that were formerly dubbed “‘mental illnesses” are redefined to not be mental illness at all (homosexuality, for example).  Neuroscience is advancing, and we kind of know what sorts of behaviors tend to originate in what part of the brain—but it’s still a really fuzzy line between “mentally ill” versus “obstreperous son of a gun” versus “just plain, unmitigatedly evil.”

Even most people we would call “mentally ill” can still love, can still feel connected with their community.  And they can still fear suffering death in painful, ignominious ways; as well as postmortem humiliation.  I suspect the rash of school shootings we are witnessing has less to do with clinical mental illness per se, and more about people who have been culturally groomed  (sorry, @LDSGator!) to disregard at least some subset of human life, to not take pride in their past or expect to find meaning in their future, and/or not to be particularly fearful of the consequences of “going out in style”.

These issues aren’t easily solved; but I think flaying and gibbeting the bodies of school shooters may be a start.  Pre-death, if we can get SCOTUS to go along with it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Agreed.  I think “mental illness” is largely (not entirely, but largely) a “cop-out”, if you’ll forgive the pun.  Other demographics are more at risk for “mental illness” than late-adolescent, mostly-white teenaged boys; but they don’t generally go around shooting up schools.  And frankly, mental illness—unlike most other medical conditions—isn’t diagnosed according to an observable physiological or chemical causative agent; it’s diagnosed according to what kind of tensions it creates between the patient and the patient’s broader social community and then we try to work backwards to guess about what might have caused it.  As community values evolve, some things that were formerly dubbed “‘mental illnesses” are redefined to not be mental illness at all (homosexuality, for example).  Neuroscience is advancing, and we kind of know what sorts of behaviors tend to originate in what part of the brain—but it’s still a really fuzzy line between “mentally ill” versus “obstreperous son of a gun” versus “just plain, unmitigatedly evil.”

Even most people we would call “mentally ill” can still love, can still feel connected with their community.  And they can still fear suffering death in painful, ignominious ways; as well as postmortem humiliation.  I suspect the rash of school shootings we are witnessing has less to do with clinical mental illness per se, and more about people who have been culturally groomed  (sorry, @LDSGator!) to disregard at least some subset of human life, to not take pride in their past or expect to find meaning in their future, and/or not to be particularly fearful of the consequences of “going out in style”.

These issues aren’t easily solved; but I think flaying and gibbeting the bodies of school shooters may be a start.  Pre-death, if we can get SCOTUS to go along with it.

Take a look at these mass shooting of children.  What are the common denominators?  It seems to me that among the common denominators is - more affluent  children under the age of 25.  It is interesting to me that 25 is about the age that the human brain reaches what we call developed - especially concerning what are called the higher executive functions of behaviors that would directly contribute to the crazed murder of children.   I am not an expert but I have heard that even the use of marijuana (cannabis) can be detrimental for developing brain functions.  In other words mind bending drugs for young adults under the age of 25 that otherwise may not be a problem.

What about more affluent children???  Well for one their families have better access to health care including drugs for mental issues.  I realize that there are other mass shooting that involve individuals greater than 25 - but even in those cases their mental issues have a long history.  If that history included drugs that alter brain functions and such drugs were utilize by that individual prior to age 25 - I believe we have found a critical common denominator.   Especially if there is a mixture of prescribed drugs with the use of illegal or unprescribed drugs.

One thing I have observed is that any "cure" that does not address the issue - will not resolve the problem.  If instead of firearms such an individual could turn to other means - like driving a vehicle into unprotected individuals gathered by the side of a road.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 4:36 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Harden the schools, with armed SROs in every one.   Pay for it by having congress re-purpose 10% of it's $113 billion unspent COVID funds currently allocated to schools.  That'll immediately hand every single public school in the United States $120,000 with which to make improvements.

What to do about the dangerously mentally ill who have committed no crime, but might?  We used to have asylums for such folks, but it was so unpopular and inhumane we closed them all, choosing instead to, well, 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freud-fluoxetine/201807/the-american-mental-asylum-remnant-history

 

 

We like to blame mental illness, but the mentally ill have always been there, and not always in the asylums.  Asylums were, overall, inhumane and I am not in favor of returning to their use that some try to promote. 

I think part of the problem is that our culture has turned into one that glorifies violence.  Compare the movies to when I was a young man to a decade later.  Movies with extreme violence were prohibited for the most part.  Now, I turn on TV and could watch TV shows far worse than anything that ever graced the screen when I was young.

I tend to think movies and TV today are far too excessive in violence, language, and sexuality.  Most movies are unenjoyable with how much they promote one, two, or all of those items.  Even PG movies are rather horrendous to watch.  Movies with higher ratings are progressively worse.

I know I am the minority here in what I think is appropriate to watch (most movies over a PG rating, and many WITH a PG rating are inappropriate movies).  One of the big things that many members of the church ignore in their watching of tv and film is violence.  If it doesn't involve language or nudity, they seem to think it is okay to watch. 

There are probably many other factors, but our acceptance and even glorification of violence is something I've noticed getting larger and more prevalent as time has passed since I was young.  They use to have a board in Hollywood that would have these things censored out of overly violent or crass.  They did away with that board, and I've seen things get progresively worse over the years.

I'm not sure what all the symptoms of the shootings in America are, but we probably should put more research into it rather than simply trying to treat the symptoms.  Find the cause of the matter and you can cure a patient.  If you just treat the symptoms, the disease at times will get worse.

I ran into a news story recently which showed what happens when someone does the exact opposite of what the Police officers did in Texas.  Someone could have murdered all those children and more with a knife (or baseball bat as Trump jr. recently pointed out) with how much time they wasted waiting outside the school instead of confronting the individual who was murdering the children inside.

When one doesn't run, it is amazing how they could cut such thing short.

Armed Female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia

Getting rid of certain guns MAY cut down mass shootings, as it is treating a symptom of the cause.  It didn't STOP mass shootings though.  It was because (IMO) we are treating symptoms instead of the cause of the problem.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

We like to blame mental illness, but the mentally ill have always been there, and not always in the asylums.  Asylums were, overall, inhumane and I am not in favor of returning to their use that some try to promote. 

I think part of the problem is that our culture has turned into one that glorifies violence.  Compare the movies to when I was a young man to a decade later.  Movies with extreme violence were prohibited for the most part.  Now, I turn on TV and could watch TV shows far worse than anything that ever graced the screen when I was young.

I tend to think movies and TV today are far too excessive in violence, language, and sexuality.  Most movies are unenjoyable with how much they promote one, two, or all of those items.  Even PG movies are rather horrendous to watch.  Movies with higher ratings are progressively worse.

I know I am the minority here in what I think is appropriate to watch (most movies over a PG rating, and many WITH a PG rating are inappropriate movies).  One of the big things that many members of the church ignore in their watching of tv and film is violence.  If it doesn't involve language or nudity, they seem to think it is okay to watch. 

There are probably many other factors, but our acceptance and even glorification of violence is something I've noticed getting larger and more prevalent as time has passed since I was young.  They use to have a board in Hollywood that would have these things censored out of overly violent or crass.  They did away with that board, and I've seen things get progresively worse over the years.

I'm not sure what all the symptoms of the shootings in America are, but we probably should put more research into it rather than simply trying to treat the symptoms.  Find the cause of the matter and you can cure a patient.  If you just treat the symptoms, the disease at times will get worse.

I ran into a news story recently which showed what happens when someone does the exact opposite of what the Police officers did in Texas.  Someone could have murdered all those children and more with a knife (or baseball bat as Trump jr. recently pointed out) with how much time they wasted waiting outside the school instead of confronting the individual who was murdering the children inside.

When one doesn't run, it is amazing how they could cut such thing short.

Armed Female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia

Getting rid of certain guns MAY cut down mass shootings, as it is treating a symptom of the cause.  It didn't STOP mass shootings though.  It was because (IMO) we are treating symptoms instead of the cause of the problem.

I think there is a trend towards violence in our upcoming generation.  Along with this trend of violence there also seems to be a secondary trend towards the inability of individuals to defend themselves as well as a trend that our government cannot protect us.  But I am also concerned that there may be a trend by individuals within out society as well as our government towards preventing or diminishing law abiding citizens from defending themselves.  It is most difficult to defend yourself from someone better armed and prepared. 

I personally believe that someone is uneducated if they lack education in the proper use and care of fire arms.  Why is the proper use of firearms not part of or a requirement of public education?  This is not just a question towards my good friend @JohnsonJones but anyone reading this thread.

 

the Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I think there is a trend towards violence in our upcoming generation.  Along with this trend of violence there also seems to be a secondary trend towards the inability of individuals to defend themselves as well as a trend that our government cannot protect us.  But I am also concerned that there may be a trend by individuals within out society as well as our government towards preventing or diminishing law abiding citizens from defending themselves.  It is most difficult to defend yourself from someone better armed and prepared. 

I personally believe that someone is uneducated if they lack education in the proper use and care of fire arms.  Why is the proper use of firearms not part of or a requirement of public education?  This is not just a question towards my good friend @JohnsonJones but anyone reading this thread.

 

the Traveler

It will be added to the curriculum right after proper management of finances. Oh wait, both subjects breed independence. Nevermind, not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share