Trend: Are school shootings becoming more frequent?

[SpookyWriter]

After reading about the Amish tragedy, I did a little research and came up with this timeline (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html) of school shootings worldwide (but a majority are in the U.S), not including the most recent events.

So why is this happening? Why school kids?

A Time Line of Recent Worldwide School Shootings

Feb. 2, 1996
Moses Lake, Wash.Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.March 13, 1996
Dunblane, Scotland16 children and one teacher killed at Dunblane Primary School by Thomas Hamilton, who then killed himself. 10 others wounded in attack.Feb. 19, 1997
Bethel, AlaskaPrincipal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.March 1997
Sanaa, YemenEight people (six students and two others) at two schools killed by Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri.Oct. 1, 1997
Pearl, Miss.Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan.Dec. 1, 1997
West Paducah, Ky.Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle at Heath High School.Dec. 15, 1997
Stamps, Ark.Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.March 24, 1998
Jonesboro, Ark.Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.April 24, 1998
Edinboro, Pa.One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.May 19, 1998
Fayetteville, Tenn.One student killed in the parking lot at Lincoln County High School three days before he was to graduate. The victim was dating the ex-girlfriend of his killer, 18-year-old honor student Jacob Davis.May 21, 1998
Springfield, Ore.Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.June 15, 1998
Richmond, Va.One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway. April 20, 1999
Littleton, Colo.14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.April 28, 1999
Taber, Alberta, CanadaOne student killed, one wounded at W. R. Myers High School in first fatal high school shooting in Canada in 20 years. The suspect, a 14-year-old boy, had dropped out of school after he was severely ostracized by his classmates.May 20, 1999
Conyers, Ga.Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.Nov. 19, 1999
Deming, N.M.Victor Cordova Jr., 12, shot and killed Araceli Tena, 13, in the lobby of Deming Middle School.Dec. 6, 1999
Fort Gibson, Okla.Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.Dec. 7, 1999
Veghel, NetherlandsOne teacher and three students wounded by a 17-year-old student.Feb. 29, 2000
Mount Morris Township, Mich.Six-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant was identified as a six-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun. March 2000
Branneburg, GermanyOne teacher killed by a 15-year-old student, who then shot himself. The shooter has been in a coma ever since.March 10, 2000
Savannah, Ga.Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.May 26, 2000
Lake Worth, Fla.One teacher, Barry Grunow, shot and killed at Lake Worth Middle School by Nate Brazill, 13, with .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol on the last day of classes.Sept. 26, 2000
New Orleans, La.Two students wounded with the same gun during a fight at Woodson Middle School.Jan. 17, 2001
Baltimore, Md.One student shot and killed in front of Lake Clifton Eastern High School.Jan. 18, 2001
Jan, SwedenOne student killed by two boys, ages 17 and 19.March 5, 2001
Santee, Calif.Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.March 7, 2001
Williamsport, Pa.Elizabeth Catherine Bush, 14, wounded student Kimberly Marchese in the cafeteria of Bishop Neumann High School; she was depressed and frequently teased.March 22, 2001
Granite Hills, Calif.One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.March 30, 2001
Gary, Ind.One student killed by Donald R. Burt, Jr., a 17-year-old student who had been expelled from Lew Wallace High School.Nov. 12, 2001
Caro, Mich.Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.Jan. 15, 2002
New York, N.Y.A teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King Jr. High School.Feb. 19, 2002
Freising, GermanyTwo killed in Eching by a man at the factory from which he had been fired; he then traveled to Freising and killed the headmaster of the technical school from which he had been expelled. He also wounded another teacher before killing himself.April 26, 2002
Erfurt, Germany13 teachers, two students, and one policeman killed, ten wounded by Robert Steinhaeuser, 19, at the Johann Gutenberg secondary school. Steinhaeuser then killed himself.April 29, 2002
Vlasenica, Bosnia-HerzegovinaOne teacher killed, one wounded by Dragoslav Petkovic, 17, who then killed himself.April 14, 2003
New Orleans, La. One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related. April 24, 2003
Red Lion, Pa. James Sheets, 14, killed principal Eugene Segro of Red Lion Area Junior High School before killing himself.Sept. 24, 2003
Cold Spring, Minn.Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15. Sept. 28, 2004
Carmen de Patagones, ArgentinaThree students killed and 6 wounded by a 15-year-old Argentininan student in a town 620 miles south of Buenos Aires. March 21, 2005
Red Lake, Minn. Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead. Nov. 8, 2005
Jacksboro, Tenn. One 15-year-old shot and killed an assistant principal at Campbell County High School and seriously wounded two other administrators. Sept. 26, 2006
Bailey, Colo.Adult male held six students hostage at Platte Canyon High School and then shot and killed Emily Keyes, 16, and himself.

[Christine N.]

The one in Colorado I don't get. How did a homeless man a) get a gun and b) get into the school. Around here it's lockdown. You have to always enter through the main door and I know in the elementary and middle schools, be buzzed in.

[cree]

Another thought I had since posting in the other thread re: amish shootings. Are these shootings evolving suddenly from being something disgruntled teens do, to something ADULTS do? The last three I have heard about (happening within the last month) include shooters age 25 and up.

[blacbird]

The one in Colorado I don't get. How did a homeless man a) get a gun and b) get into the school. Around here it's lockdown. You have to always enter through the main door and I know in the elementary and middle schools, be buzzed in.

He evidently got the gun, somehow, from his brother. Regards the school, security really depends on where you live. In my son's high school, just down the street from me, a big school in a fair-sized city with attendant urban problems, anybody can walk in the front door, even check in at the front desk and get a sticker to put on your shirt, and walk freely through the school. It's that way at every public school in town. Most rural schools in the nation have no real security at all.

This crap keeps up, it could change, right quick. Of course, increased security will cost money, and we all know how taxpayers will react to that.

caw.

[cree]

This crap keeps up, it could change, right quick. Of course, increased security will cost money, and we all know how taxpayers will react to that.

caw.

How does that old bumper sticker go....schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber...

[Christine N.]

Makes me want to lock my son inside and not let him out. He goes to daycare at a high school. Fortunately the door to the room is locked all day, and they have a fenced in outdoor play yard where they could go should someone enter.

But it scares me. And I work in a middle school. We have a card with the 'codes' on it that I keep with my ID. Red means fire, evacuate, green is OK. Code Blue means lock yourself in your room and keep away from the doors and windows.

I am afraid of code blue. I can handle fire.

[Rolling Thunder]

Is this thread in regards to the shootings in Lancaster, PA. today?

[Christine N.]

There'a a whole other thread dealing with that directly, but this one is about the alarming trend of shootings in schools.

Guns are just too accessible, and in the case of the kids shooting classrooms, anger issues are not being dealt with. Bullies are allowed to run rampant, and victims of bullying not taught how to deal, fight back, or move past it.

The adults doing it are just nuts.

[Wordworm]

At the risk of pointing out the obvious...isn't it time the U.S. got serious about gun control?

We up here in Canada, living right next to you with a similar population mix and culture, don't seem have the same degree of problems you have down there (Exhibit A: only one Canadian incident on Spooky's list). Here, we keep seeing the stories about kids accidentally blowing away other little kids with guns they've found, and incidents like this one in Pennsylvania, and all we can do is shake our heads when the only response to the problem seems to be the old saw "Guns don't kill people...etc"

[Christine N.]

Problem is, is that anyone who really REALLY wants a gun is going to get one, no matter what kind of control you put in place. Gun control only affects the people who obey the law.

I'm not a fan of guns, either. I won't have one in my house. My dad has a couple, but keeps them in a locked gun safe on the second floor of his house, well out of reach of his grandchildren.

Trigger locks are also mandatory I think now too - again, anyone who really wants to shoot a gun will find one without one.

This man was not wanted for anything and did not have any kind of record. I'm assuming he owned his guns legally and there was no reason to deny him a permit to own them. He just flipped out.

[SpookyWriter]

Here, we keep seeing the stories about kids accidentally blowing away other little kids with guns they've found, and incidents like this one in Pennsylvania, and all we can do is shake our heads when the only response to the problem seems to be the old saw "Guns don't kill people...etc"My son mentioned to me yesterday how he found my gun (previous home) in the attic when he and a friend went up to explore. Now I kept it hidden, no bullets, and would never think that he'd find it. So, what scares me is that had I not kept the bullets somewhere else what would have happened that day?

I will never own another gun because I believe we don't need them in our society. We are not the same people two hundred years ago and so why should we need guns for a militia?

I am afraid that getting killed in America by gun owners, outlaws, and thugs is far easier than anywhere else in the world -- except the obvious countries -- and the thought that I could be killed because a driver got upset with me is spooky.

[Wordworm]

Problem is, is that anyone who really REALLY wants a gun is going to get one, no matter what kind of control you put in place. Gun control only affects the people who obey the law.

Yeah, I think we figured that out, too. And of course, you're right. But you know, that's no reason to avoid controlling access to more guns. Ya gotta start somewhere.

We all know that the real problem is the fact that in the U.S. there are so many guns floating around in the first place, and that owning a gun is so "socially acceptable," if I can use that phrase. And that's a problem.

Now me, I don't even know anybody who owns a gun. I wouldn't know where to find a gun if I had to. Guns have never been front and centre as an accepted part of life. I don't know anyone who has been shot, or anyone who knows anyone who has been shot. Somebody getting shot is front page news here in Toronto, even if they don't die—and we're a city of over 2 million people. And the only difference is tougher accessibility and tighter laws.

It may sound simplistic to say: pass some laws. But given enough time, I think that approach works better than just shrugging and saying, "we gotta have 'em 'cause all the bad guys have 'em." The rest of the civilized world has somehow managed to live without guns. I think the U.S. could, too.

[SpookyWriter]

The rest of the civilized world has somehow managed to live without guns. And there lies the problem. Is America really civilized or just a wild west show that hasn't managed to settle down into a true republic. Maybe the problem is that Americans feel as though they still live in the old west.

When I came into Phoenix a week ago, I saw a biker with a gun strapped to his side. Now that's something I wouldn't see in many parts of America, but heck Arizona had Mechum gum for governer.

[Wordworm]

And there lies the problem. Is America really civilized or just a wild west show that hasn't managed to settle down into a true republic. Maybe the problem is that Americans feel as though they still live in the old west.

When I came into Phoenix a week ago, I saw a biker with a gun strapped to his side. Now that's something I wouldn't see in many parts of America, but heck Arizona had Mechum gum for governer.
One time a few years ago, I went to a four-day event in Phoenix (all expenses paid as a member of the press, I might add, but those invitations are getting rarer) where I saw cowboys walking around just like the Old Wild West days, guns in holsters hanging from their hips. I was told that Arizona is one of the few states that allows guns to be worn on the outside of your clothing.

As "tourists" we were driven out into the desert, where I shot a gun at a target for the first (and only) time in my life. It was clear that guns and shooting were an accepted part of the lifestyle there, but to me it was pretty amazing. Lethal weapons apparently as common as flies, and folks casually accepting the idea that everyone should walk around displaying their hardware like jewelry. But I get the impression that most Americans would listen to me and think, geez, silly Canadian, what's wrong with him?

[Christine N.]

I'd have to say that in rural Arizona and parts of the desert that a gun would do you more good - coyotes and mountain cats still do attack people out there.

There's just no need for them in cities. Every day there are reports of innocent people caught in the crossfire from some drug war, gang war, whatever. The last one was a five year old girl, who was in her mother's car when the bullet pieced it and went into her head. The responsible party actually fessed up to it, acted like a man and turned himself in. Of course if he were a man in the first place he wouldn't be involved in such things.

So the criminals here have all the guns - you know none of them are legal.

[SpookyWriter]

I wonder how many of the school shootings could have been prevented had we (Americans) bothered to take hand guns out of the hands of civilians.

I wonder if we really need to have hand guns at all considering they are the most common weapon of choice for murder and violent crimes.

I wonder when someone is going to walk up to me and shoot me because I cut in front of them at the bank.

I wonder when the next school shooting will occur and what will it take for people to wake up and realize that we have a serious problem that won't go away with frivolous background checks.

I wonder...who's next? When will another John Hinckley finally succeed.

[AnneMarble]

Another thought I had since posting in the other thread re: amish shootings. Are these shootings evolving suddenly from being something disgruntled teens do, to something ADULTS do? The last three I have heard about (happening within the last month) include shooters age 25 and up.
And don't forget the time the DC snipers shot and wounded a boy outside a school in Rockville, Maryland (in October 7, 2002). While Malvo was (apparently) a minor at the time, the other sh!thead (John Allen Muhammad) was an adult in his 40s. If that boy's aunt (who brought him to school) hadn't been a nurse who knew to drive him right to the hospital, he'd be dead like so many of the other Sniper victims.

[cree]

Say what you want about Michael Moore, but Bowling for Columbine has some valid points. I agree with the Canadian posters, since I live my life "straddling the border" -- an American citizen who writes and spends a lot of time in Canada. The fundamental culture of guns is different.

[Rolling Thunder]

I wonder how many of the school shootings could have been prevented had we (Americans) bothered to take hand guns out of the hands of civilians.

I wonder if we really need to have hand guns at all considering they are the most common weapon of choice for murder and violent crimes.

I wonder when someone is going to walk up to me and shoot me because I cut in front of them at the bank.

I wonder when the next school shooting will occur and what will it take for people to wake up and realize that we have a serious problem that won't go away with frivolous background checks.

I wonder...who's next? When will another John Hinckley finally succeed.

Case in counter point, Spooky:

I could have never imagined in my entire life that a few, determined animals could use utility knives to bring down an airplane.

The tool used is of little significance; we write about various methods that are far more insidious. Murder is a trait human beings have been practicing since the dawn of our time. That might sound cold, but it is an inconvenient truth.

I doubt anyone of sound mind will ever figure out an answer to the simple question: Why?

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'm more worried about the sudden trend of separating the women from the men and then killing the females.

Marc Lepine did it twenty years ago in Montreal and we thought it was a crisis then... is there that much hatred against women getting an education or what?

[Christine N.]

I think this particular maniac had something against one particular woman or girl and took it out on the first bunch he could get his hands on.

That's the trouble - anyone who really wants to harm will find a way to do it.

9-11 was carried out with boxcutters, remember. Then airplanes became bombs. No guns involved, but mass destruction.

[Wordworm]

I think this particular maniac had something against one particular woman or girl and took it out on the first bunch he could get his hands on.

That's the trouble - anyone who really wants to harm will find a way to do it.

9-11 was carried out with boxcutters, remember. Then airplanes became bombs. No guns involved, but mass destruction.
I'm not so sure this is a valid comparison. Clearly 9-11 was one ideology attacking another ideology in a premeditated act of destruction.

Guns-as-part-of-the-culture, on the other hand, enables an environment where people can be killed at random by individuals who simply lose their tempers on the freeway, or because they happen to get in the way in a convenience store robbery, or because someone forgot to lock a drawer, or any number of similar "controllable" situations (I couldn't think of a better word than controllable).

[Christine N.]

My point was that they really want to harm someone. Clearly the incident today was someone who was hellbent on harm, and would have found another way could he not have gotten his hands on a gun.

I agree though, that it takes quite a bit of the thought process out - guns are instant and detatched. If you have to hack someone with a big knife, that's much more personal and messy.

[Wordworm]

Yes, I think that was the point I was trying to make. It seems to me that the easy availability of weapons is the issue, and that's the big difference in Canada and Europe. We'd have to work a lot harder to lay our hands on a gun.

[BradyH1861]

I'm a police officer. My wife teaches High School Math. Her job, in my opinion, is more dangerous than mine. I have the capability and the training to defend myself. She does not. I've been working with her on some defensive moves, etc. But they really don't work when someone is outside of arms reach and pointing a gun at you.

B.

[SpookyWriter]

But why are so many innocent children being targeted in a place they consider safe from harm?

[BradyH1861]

I'd say the reason depends on who the shooter is. If it is another student, then they are targeted because of what they represent (ie: the school). With the adults going into the schools, your guess is as good as mine. My hunch is that they are looking to cause as big a splash as they can. What better way to do it than targeting the innocent. I can't pretend to understand where they come from, of course, but that is my guess. And probably not even a good one at that.


B.

[robeiae]

I think that there is no question there are far too many handguns floating around the U.S. And I think the numbers of such a weapon (that is so easily concealed and so easily used and so deadly) have an impact on the U.S. to the extent that it would be reasonable to expect higher rates of violent crimes and murders in the U.S., as compared to European countries and Canada, all other things being equal. Of course, all other things are not equal, so the comparison is difficult to make empirically, to say the least.

Othe other hand, I've never been mugged, nor had either one of my parents (and they've almost never been outside the U.S.). My mother was mugged last week, the very first time she ever set foot in Europe. And the assailant had a gun. She wasn't hurt and lost nothing of value. Someone saw what was happening, started yelling, and the mugger took off. Still, it's odd the way things can work out.

But her experience also points to another problem. After the incident, she contacted the local police. They very clearly told her that there was no point in pursuing the matter or filing charges of any kind. After all, she didn't lose a cent...

How good are those low crime stats touted by other governements, really? This country seems to take a perverse pleasure in compiling ever crime or potential crime. How many other places can say that? Ever take a look at the 'official' crime figures from the old Soviet Union?

[Christine N.]

I'm a police officer. My wife teaches High School Math. Her job, in my opinion, is more dangerous than mine. I have the capability and the training to defend myself. She does not. I've been working with her on some defensive moves, etc. But they really don't work when someone is outside of arms reach and pointing a gun at you.

B.

That is one of the reasons I stay away from the High School. Now, like I said, my son does go to daycare in the High school building, but that place is very well secured and has an additional exit. I feel safter knowing that. In two years he starts regular school, and our elementary school is locked and you have to be buzzed in the front door. I don't know if I'll ever feel he's safe after today.

But I won't sub for HS - they scare me.

[BradyH1861]

I'd get fired if I had to teach high school. I would use profane language and whack some kid in the head with a baton.....or maybe use the ol' tazer on one of them. And then it would be Goodbye Brady!


B.

[SpookyWriter]

On the other hand, I've never been mugged, nor had either one of my parents (and they've almost never been outside the U.S.). My mother was mugged last week, the very first time she ever set foot in Europe. And the assailant had a gun. She wasn't hurt and lost nothing of value. Someone saw what was happening, started yelling, and the mugger took off. Still, it's odd the way things can work out.Rob, I'm sorry to hear about your mother being mugged. When you mention the words Europa and mugged so I am drawn to think of Italy. Was this the country?

But her experience also points to another problem. After the incident, she contacted the local police. They very clearly told her that there was no point in pursuing the matter or filing charges of any kind. After all, she didn't lose a cent...Years ago I was driving on the Queens Express in NYC with my supervisor when a guy pulled along side of us and took a shot at me for no reason. I started to follow him, but had the good sense to get off the expressway and go to the police station.

I went to the 71st precinct and walked up to the desk Sargent on duty to explain what happened. He asked where I was from "California, but what has that got to do with anything?" I said. He smirked something about freeway shootings only happen on the west coast.

Huh?

Then he mentioned that I need to go back to the 70th precinct and file a complaint because that's where it happened.

Huh?


Ever take a look at the 'official' crime figures from the old Soviet Union?Don't need to because I have been to Eastern Europe and also have several friends who have lived there for years. It is no secret that there is crime in Russia/Ukraine and the such, but most recently it is western style organized crime that is more prevalent. Under the old regime crime wasn't tolerated.

[robeiae]

Rob, I'm sorry to hear about your mother being mugged. When you mention the words Europa and mugged so I am drawn to think of Italy. Was this the country?No. Spain. But someone tried to lift her purse in Italy...

Under the old regime crime wasn't tolerated.
:ROFL:

That's more a consequence of defintions. But in reality, there was plenty of crime under the Communist government. In fact, the black market was of unimaginable proportions...and with it came all the crime we would see here, at far greater levels. However, official records show almost none--that's my point.

[SpookyWriter]

Rob,

I was surprised to hear your mother got mugged in Spain. I've been there and it has really low crime stats. She must have gone to Madrid or Barcelona? Anywho, crime in the old soviet empire was mostly "soft crime" and not the violent stuff we get here.

My last three girlfriends live in Ukraine and Russia, so we have had plenty of time to talk about crime in Eastern Europe. I don't think many people in Russia/Ukraine feel that lying is wrong. They have a different outlook on life because of the hardships.

That's not Amerika! Da? So targeting children in school is another perverted trait of American criminals. The types of crimes become so distorted that it takes something grandiose to make us wake up. When we experience murder and violent crimes on daily television then we become immune to the horrors.

So what will it take before enough is enough? Do we need a 911 on a day care center before people realize something is terribly wrong with this picture (guns don't kill, people do). No duh!

[robeiae]

Anywho, crime in the old soviet empire was mostly "soft crime" and not the violent stuff we get here.Incorrect. But again, some of this 'crime' became restated as legitmate government action--when the criminals are Red Army or KGB, they tend to report their 'crimes' in a very different manner. And much of the crime was never reported, at all. You do realize that brigands still operated in parts of the Soviet Union throughout its entire lifetime, don't you?

[SC Harrison]

So the criminals here have all the guns - you know none of them are legal.

But the elephant in the living room is the fact that nearly all of the handguns started out being legal. Look at the stats on burglary. A high percentage list firearms as part of the valuables that are stolen. It happened to me, and now a Russian pistol and a Chinese assault rifle are "out there" somewhere, involved in God knows what.

Then again, why break into someone's house and steal one pistol when you can sneak thousands out of a gun manufacturing plant:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/interviews/mccrary.html

The 'vaults' were no more than normal rooms with normal doors, and normal locking mechanisms. They weren't 'vaults' in the true sense of the word. It was a simple door - with a simple lock on it. And the room was a very simple room. That was 'the vault.'...To be able to have this type of access is something that in my experience has been - and I have never done a case like this before - but I think in any person's normal everyday experience of dealing with a gun, you would associate a certain level of security with those guns. And, it was not what you would think in terms of security. Sure, these guns were locked in a room, and at times were locked in the building, but oftentimes they were in a building that was unlocked and in rooms that were locked, and they were very accessible.



Q: How many guns did Jeremy Mendoza steal from Lorcin?


McCrary: Based on our audit of the gun inventory, it was probably six thousand guns, or more, that can be attributed to the theft.


or unguarded gun stores:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/local_news/epaper/2006/06/12/a11a_gunjourney_0612.html

Some thieves have learned that gun stores provide an attractive target. Because the businesses are not required to secure their firearms, they are often vulnerable to anyone who breaks in.

A teen who confessed to participating in the heist at Gator Guns during Hurricane Frances said he and his accomplices monitored the television news from a West Palm Beach hangout until the winds picked up. Then they made their move in two stolen vehicles.

There were at least eight of them in a Dodge pickup and a Honda Accord, according to the teen's confession. They communicated via two-way radios as they wound their way through the streets to Gator Guns, near the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Military Trail.

The alarm sounded shortly after midnight, but deputies would not respond because of the high winds.


We need to make sure guns remain easily accessible, so we can protect ourselves from the guns that were...easily accessible.

[BradyH1861]

I panicked after reading your post. I had to go make sure that my Russian pistol and Chinese assault rifle were still in my gun safe.


They were!


B.

[cree]

I had to go make sure that my Russian pistol and Chinese assault rifle were still in my gun safe.



I promise I won't make a joke about you being from Texas.

But my real question is why? Why do you have a Chinese assault rifle? I assume you're going to say it's a collectible, etc. But I'm not interested in that part -- I'm interested in: why the fascination? I mean this generically -- why do people have a fascination with guns in the US?
And is this fascination more prevalent in the US?

[SpookyWriter]

Incorrect. But again, some of this 'crime' became restated as legitmate government action--when the criminals are Red Army or KGB, they tend to report their 'crimes' in a very different manner. And much of the crime was never reported, at all. You do realize that brigands still operated in parts of the Soviet Union throughout its entire lifetime, don't you?Not to change the purpose and intent of this thread, but you're talking about "government sponsored" crime. I'm talking about the average street joe who shoots people because he's upset about something in his life.

Big difference (and it's not like America doesn't sponsor government crime -- errr... wire taps, illegal arrests, unwarranted searches, and beatings)

Now back to the topic at hand.

[MattW]

We don't need more gun laws - the cat is out of the bag, and it went down to a gun show and bought everything it could.

More laws would only serve to extend sentences of criminals already caught in the act. Laws will not protect law abiding citizens from those who would flaunt the law. Making guns illegal gives the power position over to precisely those who would not care. The police cannot be everywhere at once, and while they are great at finding criminals after the fact, you will be considered lucky to only be robbed blind at gun point.

Penalizing a law abiding citizen by preventing access to firearms is in contrast to one of the core tenets of our justice system. You are accused, tried, found guilty, and stripped of a right for something you haven't even committed and may never commit.

[BradyH1861]

why the fascination? I mean this generically -- why do people have a fascination with guns in the US?
And is this fascination more prevalent in the US?

I can't speak for anyone other than myself. I own guns because I want to. I support the right of others to not own them if they so desire. I carry a gun every day at work and my agency requires me to carry off duty as well. I am not "fascinated" with guns. Mine are simply tools of the trade. I do not carry the Chinese assault rifle at work. I have a state issued one instead.

Oh, and feel free to make a joke about my being from Texas. I don't mind. Lord knows I make enough of them as it is!

B.

[cree]

I can't speak for anyone other than myself. I own guns because I want to. I support the right of others to not own them if they so desire. I carry a gun every day at work and my agency requires me to carry off duty as well. I am not "fascinated" with guns. Mine are simply tools of the trade. I do not carry the Chinese assault rifle at work. I have a state issued one instead.

Oh, and feel free to make a joke about my being from Texas. I don't mind. Lord knows I make enough of them as it is!

B.

Thanks, i am truly curious about this aspect -- and not trying to "turn tables" or anything: I live in an area where if you aren't hunting, you're just cleaning your gun to get ready for hunting. But I've always wondered why people have guns around that they don't genuinely use for (legal) work or food -- locked up or not, it just seems like such an unusual thing to me. To me, it's the equivalent of setting up an old water-torture chamber in my basement, just to admire now and then. So i want to be enlightened, because there's got to be more to it than that, and I don't see it.

[robeiae]

Not to change the purpose and intent of this thread, but you're talking about "government sponsored" crime. I'm talking about the average street joe who shoots people because he's upset about something in his life.

Big difference (and it's not like America doesn't sponsor government crime -- errr... wire taps, illegal arrests, unwarranted searches, and beatings)Sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with the mis-characterizations you are making. You specifically said crime in the Soviet world was "soft crime," as opposed to the violent kind here. Again, incorrect. I realize this is a common belief, but you would do well to learn that it is wholly wrong, and dengerously wrong, at that. What you probably have not fully considered is how limited most of the information was in the Soviet Union. If there was a violent crime of any type in Kiev, who knew about, aside from a handful of local people? It wasn't reported throughout the nation, at large. Hell, it wasn't reported throughout the city it occured in!

When it comes to my point about criminals in the Red Army and the KGB, I'm not talking about Party action--I'm talking about government officials engaging in illegal activity, like black market operations, and burglary, and prostitution, and contract killing, and drugs. And yes, there was competition in those markets. And yes, violence was common.

When it comes to average street joes being upset and shooting people, that is not exactly common here, either--in comparison to all the other violent crimes committed with guns on a daily basis in this country

And your attempt to find some kind of equivalence with American 'government crime' is silly.

[BradyH1861]

This is going to blow you away then.........I am a non-hunter!

Seriously, I have no desire to shoot animals. (Or people for that matter)

I do, however, engage in target shooting. I don't do competitions. I merely shoot for fun. It is a relaxing experience for me to go to the range and pop off some rounds. Stress relief. In my job, it is needed.

So that is why I own sundry weapons. I only own three that were not issued to me by my agency. The rest belong to the state. (Luckily they supply my target ammo!)

B.

[SC Harrison]

Thanks, i am truly curious about this aspect -- and not trying to "turn tables" or anything: I live in an area where if you aren't hunting, you're just cleaning your gun to get ready for hunting. But I've always wondered why people have guns around that they don't genuinely use for (legal) work or food -- locked up or not, it just seems like such an unusual thing to me. To me, it's the equivalent of setting up an old water-torture chamber in my basement, just to admire now and then. So i want to be enlightened, because there's got to be more to it than that, and I don't see it.

Not to make light of such a serious subject, but...I was raised watching Gunsmoke on tv. I had so many different toy guns when I was a boy, I'm surprised I didn't grow up to be an arms dealer. Uncle Sam let me play with some of the coolest guns you could imagine, and he even paid me for it. And Communist weapons? Forget about it. Even though they're cheap as hell, they're also extremely cool.

Yes, America loves her guns. It doesn't mean we're especially dangerous or foolhardy, it just means we haven't completely grown up yet. :)

[Lyra Jean]

Maybe the school shootings with children are happening because they are getting picked on and tormented by bullies. When they report what is happening they are told to ignore it and it's a part of growing up. Nothing happens to the bullies because hey we need him for the football game coming up or something of that nature. Or he's one of the popular kids.

In high school I didn't exist to people so I know how it can feel.

[BradyH1861]

You make an interesting point.



B.

[SpookyWriter]

Sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with the mis-characterizations you are making. You specifically said crime in the Soviet world was "soft crime," as opposed to the violent kind here. Again, incorrect. I realize this is a common belief, but you would do well to learn that it is wholly wrong, and dengerously wrong, at that. What you probably have not fully considered is how limited most of the information was in the Soviet Union. If there was a violent crime of any type in Kiev, who knew about, aside from a handful of local people? It wasn't reported throughout the nation, at large. Hell, it wasn't reported throughout the city it occured in!

When it comes to my point about criminals in the Red Army and the KGB, I'm not talking about Party action--I'm talking about government officials engaging in illegal activity, like black market operations, and burglary, and prostitution, and contract killing, and drugs. And yes, there was competition in those markets. And yes, violence was common.

When it comes to average street joes being upset and shooting people, that is not exactly common here, either--in comparison to all the other violent crimes committed with guns on a daily basis in this country

And your attempt to find some kind of equivalence with American 'government crime' is silly.Rob, move on. If you want to open a thread about the differences between Soviet era crimes and current U.S. crimes then I will participate in that discussion since I've been to Eastern Europe and know a little of the language and culture. Plus, I can ask you to visit a few Russian sites for another discussion.

Spasibo..

[blacbird]

Sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with the mis-characterizations you are making. You specifically said crime in the Soviet world was "soft crime," as opposed to the violent kind here. Again, incorrect. I realize this is a common belief, but you would do well to learn that it is wholly wrong, and dengerously wrong, at that. What you probably have not fully considered is how limited most of the information was in the Soviet Union. If there was a violent crime of any type in Kiev, who knew about, aside from a handful of local people? It wasn't reported throughout the nation, at large. Hell, it wasn't reported throughout the city it occured in!

When it comes to my point about criminals in the Red Army and the KGB, I'm not talking about Party action--I'm talking about government officials engaging in illegal activity, like black market operations, and burglary, and prostitution, and contract killing, and drugs. And yes, there was competition in those markets. And yes, violence was common.

When it comes to average street joes being upset and shooting people, that is not exactly common here, either--in comparison to all the other violent crimes committed with guns on a daily basis in this country

And your attempt to find some kind of equivalence with American 'government crime' is silly.

You're drifting pretty bad here, Rob. You want a Soviet-era crime analogous to the kinds of psychopathic violence we're talking about here, you need to look at Andrei Chikatilo, the Ukrainian serial-killer/cannibal who murdered 50+ people, many of them children, in the 1980s. He was one of the worst serial murderers in modern history. Like the murders commited by Dennis Rader or Gary Ridgway or John Gacy or Ted Bundy, Chikatilo's savagery was purely psychosexual and had nothing to do with politics or venal/political motivation. To pose equivalence to that with black market, drug or purely political control motives is utterly missing the point.

Plus, there's a huge psychological difference between serial murderers and spree or single-incident mass murderers. In the U.S., Charles Whitman (the Texas Tower sniper in 1966) or James Huberty (the MacDonald's killer in southern California) or Charles Hennard (the Luby's Cafeteria murderer in Killeen, Texas), all of whom were suicidal mass-murderers, just like today's Amish school killer, are very different psychologically from the famous long-term serial murderers like Bundy and Gacy and Ridgway.

And, having said that, I do agree with your point about posing equivalence ot American 'government crime'. So, when it comes to crimes perpetrated for more venal motives by Soviet criminal thugs, why don't you?

caw.

[maestrowork]

Seriously, I have no desire to shoot animals. (Or people for that matter)

I do, however, engage in target shooting. I don't do competitions. I merely shoot for fun. It is a relaxing experience for me to go to the range and pop off some rounds. Stress relief.

Same here, Brady. I own a gun, and I do target shooting, and I support our right to own and operate guns. But damn, if I need a license to drive a car, I should be required to have training, etc. and demonstrate my knowledge of use and safety to own and operate a gun. Plus waiting period, verification, etc. Sure, guns don't kill people, but people kill people. Then make the people who acquire guns have some responsibilities.

Sure, criminals will always have a way. But we're talking about average Joe on the street...

And Rob, I was mugged, and I don't live in a bad neighborhood. The cops did file a report but they also did tell me there was not much they could do. A few months ago there was a double murder two streets down from where I live. And two weeks ago there was a robbery (by gun) about two blocks away. I live in a nice neighborhood but there's no doubt that crime is on the rise -- and not just petty crimes. Violent crimes. It's certainly a concern to me and I am not going to sit and say, "Oh, everything is fine." Not when your neighbors were shot dead in their homes.

[robeiae]

Rob, move on. If you want to open a thread about the differences between Soviet era crimes and current U.S. crimes then I will participate in that discussion since I've been to Eastern Europe and know a little of the language and culture. Plus, I can ask you to visit a few Russian sites for another discussion.
You're drifting pretty bad here, Rob. You want a Soviet-era crime analogous to the kinds of psychopathic violence we're talking about here, you need to look at Andrei Chikatilo, the Ukrainian serial-killer/cannibal who murdered 50+ people, many of them children, in the 1980s. He was one of the worst serial murderers in modern history. Like the murders commited by Dennis Rader or Gary Ridgway or John Gacy or Ted Bundy, Chikatilo's savagery was purely psychosexual and had nothing to do with politics or venal/political motivation. To pose equivalence to that with black market, drug or purely political control motives is utterly missing the point.
*sigh*

I'm not drifting and I see no reason to move, at this point in time.

My digression into this subject is the consequence of two things:

1) The offered position by some in this thread that the American gun culture is responsible for the high rates of violent crime in the U.S.

2) The suggestion that this qualitatitve difference of the U.S., as compared to other countries, is a sufficient condition to account for the quantitative differences in violent crime rates between the U.S. and other countries.

Both assumptions seem to have been taken as almost a given, as a priori truths. My points in this regard are:

1) It would seem valid to draw the conclusion that the sheer numbers of handguns available in the U.S. lead to more violent crimes, owing to the ability to conceal such weapons, the ease of their use, and the effectiveness of such use. Note that this conclusion has nothing to do with the perceived causal efficacy of a 'gun culture' in the least, because...

2) To make the case that there are cultural factors responsble for the rate of violent crime in the U.S., you need other cultures with which to compare the U.S. model. Unfortunately, such comparisons are only possible if all potentially contributory factors can be held constant. And they can't be.

The point that the Soviet example seeks to demonstrate is the varying degrees of reliability that necassarily exist, with regard to crime stats from various nations. Stats in the U.S. are not 100% reliable, not by a long shot. Neither are stats in Canada. Or in Italy. Or China. So, which are more reliable and how does this level of reliability affect any comparisons of crime stats involving two or more countries? (btw, reliability can change dramatically within one country, with regard to different times, i.e. 19th century v. 20th century) The Soviet Union is one of the best examples for totally unreliable statistics, with regard to almost anything that was compiled by the Soviet Government. The fact that you guys want to jump around this and claim you can make a legitmate comparison of Soviet crime with U.S. crime is disappointing, to me anyway.

And all this said, differences in reporting is just one factor--there are plenty more we have yet to discuss.

So if you want to have a discussion about changes in the numbers of violent crimes involving school children and guns, with respect to the U.S., knock yourselves out. I may have something to say about that. But if you're going to make gross assumptions about cultural causes and faulty comparisons, I see no reason why I shouldn't be free to comment on such things.

Have a nice day. :)

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'd be more concerned about the fact that women seem to be now specifically targeted in the last few shootings.

shades of Marc Lepine...

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

:(

[cree]

....and I support our right to own and operate guns. But damn, if I need a license to drive a car, I should be required to have training, etc. and demonstrate my knowledge of use and safety to own and operate a gun. Plus waiting period, verification, etc. Sure, guns don't kill people, but people kill people. Then make the people who acquire guns have some responsibilities.



I agree with that. But heck, I'm in favor of taking it further steps and requiring annual verification of ownership and EVEN use for government-sanctioned reasons. As in, have a list of what reasons people own their gun, and require use disclosure and proof of legitimacy. You're a prison guard or cop? Annual verification of employment. You're a hunter? Registry and annual refresher training/recertification in order to keep the thing. You're a target shooter? Annual refresher training and proof of membership to an accredited range.
Collector? You may keep your collection, but only in an accredited facility, like a freaking bank vault, and go visit it as you wish.

OK, let the "die, Commie, die" posts commence. :)

[Fern]

Thanks, i am truly curious about this aspect -- and not trying to "turn tables" or anything: I live in an area where if you aren't hunting, you're just cleaning your gun to get ready for hunting. But I've always wondered why people have guns around that they don't genuinely use for (legal) work or food -- locked up or not, it just seems like such an unusual thing to me. To me, it's the equivalent of setting up an old water-torture chamber in my basement, just to admire now and then. So i want to be enlightened, because there's got to be more to it than that, and I don't see it.

Some people like guns, just as others like cars, jewelry, collecting knives or any other thing. There's nothing to "understand" any more so than understanding why anyone collects anything. Perhaps it's the historical significance for some collectors; others may enjoy target shooting and others may have grown up hunting, so its just a part of who they are.

Just an opinion, but I'm thinking the place to start is at home with our children. Teach them right from wrong; teach them when you're at school you respect the teachers and your fellow student. If yours is a family that uses guns or has them around, then a gun safety course is in order, whether by a trained instructor or starting with parent/child early on in age.

Of course, there is still the problem of dealing with those who do this sort of thing, whom have already reached adulthood and are past the point of helping.

[cree]

I get what you are saying, but I don't think we can treat gun ownership like jewelry or stamp collecting. It's a world of difference to maintain lethal weapons in your home without any standardization or requirements for their maintenance. I could say I like to collect the ingredients for bombs, and I'd be the target of my friendly area SWAT team, eventually.
Again, I'm not opposed to the right to bear arms. Own your guns, but let's have some laws that structure the ownership. My teen can't ride a bike without a helmet on but he can own a hunting gun with no strings attached? Come on.

[Rolling Thunder]

I agree with that. But heck, I'm in favor of taking it further steps and requiring annual verification of ownership and EVEN use for government-sanctioned reasons. As in, have a list of what reasons people own their gun, and require use disclosure and proof of legitimacy. You're a prison guard or cop? Annual verification of employment. You're a hunter? Registry and annual refresher training/recertification in order to keep the thing. You're a target shooter? Annual refresher training and proof of membership to an accredited range.
Collector? You may keep your collection, but only in an accredited facility, like a freaking bank vault, and go visit it as you wish.

OK, let the "die, Commie, die" posts commence. :)

No, "die, Commie, die" comments from me, even though I disagree with your opinion. If having so much goverment control would work we'd have:

no fires
no car accidents
no workplace injuries
no drug lords
no enviromental hazards
no crime
no pornography (nor rights to speech or the written word)
etc
etc.

It's the reason we have the 'Bill of Rights'. Our founders knew that goverment without boundaries becomes a totalitarian society. The bill was written to guaranteethat our 'goverment' does not overstep these bounds. Once you start requiring verifications and disclosures for certain liberties you will eventually lose all of them.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I should point out something here, just for infomation's sake.

Canada has been working on a gun registry for *years*.

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

I remember when it first started and everyone gave a sigh of relief. Now it's a huge black hole.

and remember that the entire population of Canada, the *entire* population of Canada can fit inside New York City with room to spare.

[Wordworm]

and remember that the entire population of Canada, the *entire* population of Canada can fit inside New York City with room to spare.
No argument on the "black hole" of the attempted Canadian gun registry, but your population numbers are a bit off:
New York City (est 2003) 8,085,742
Canada (est 2006) 32,646,955

[Rolling Thunder]

No argument on the "black hole" of the attempted Canadian gun registry, but your population numbers are a bit off:
New York City (est 2003) 8,085,742
Canada (est 2006) 32,646,955

True, but New Yorkers need their space. Canadians are a friendlier people, eh? So, you could pack them in tighter. ;)

[Wordworm]

Have a nice day.
Thanks, Clint.

[SpookyWriter]

It's the reason we have the 'Bill of Rights'. Our founders knew that goverment without boundaries becomes a totalitarian society. The bill was written to guarantee that our 'goverment' does not overstep these bounds. Once you start requiring verifications and disclosures for certain liberties you will eventually lose all of them.I disagree. The bill of rights has nothing to do with owning a gun. The rights of all free people are protected by our willingness to stand up against an oppressive form of government. We earned our rights, as stated, and owning a gun is not even closely related to the right to assemble.

Guns are an unnecessary throwback to an era where this country was primitive. Are we still in a wilderness when it comes to our self protection? Shouldn't we now return our hand guns and allow the government to provide for our safety.

The right to bear arms was most likely really a guideline to assist early Americans prevent another form of government like England from taking away our freedoms. We were a young country and the founding fathers probably wanted to make sure our security was ensured by the citizens who could form militias to protect us.

But now why is it necessary to have this same right? We are more mature and have an established military and national militia. So what's the point?

It's time to become civilized and let the government provide for our national security.

ETA: Gun ownership still doesn't address the underlying question "Why are more and more children becoming the targets of violent crimes?"

What has become of our society when the innocents are the first victims of choice for disturbed individuals?

[TheGaffer]

Has anyone done the stats on school shootings, though? Despite these incidents I thought we'd peaked on these figures a few years back. Just a random question. If anyone knows (or has posted, as I didn't read this entire thread), clue me in?

[Rolling Thunder]

Shouldn't we now return our hand guns and allow the government to provide for our safety.

On this point I humbly disagree. New Orleans was an excellent example on how capable our federal goverment can be in protecting the general public's safety. I agree we aren't living in a wilderness either. If we were, and every person had a handgun strapped to their hip, we'd have far more shootings. But the fact stands that only those who have an intent to use a gun, as a tool for murder or a crime, carry them for that intent. But I don't carry a gun, nor do I believe you do either, for that purpose. I own them but they are only my last defense of protection. It's what differentiates a civilized person from a criminal; a civilized person will obtain a legal concealed weapons permit and carry a registered firearm, a criminal will not.


It's time to become civilized and let the government provide for our national security.

I agree we consider ourselves civilized and our goverment is responsible for out national defense. But we have learned from experience that our goverment is not perfect. Fear prevailed during the World Wars, when people of certain nationalities were rounded up and placed in secure camps. Fear is what drives these issues and it will happen again if liberals don't keep watch.

That being said, you probably thought I was a conservative, didn't you?:) Well, I am to an extent. But I also understand the difference between change for a better future and change for the current moment of crisis. When our current social system of consumer democracy, where money is held in high esteem above all other things, changes to a democracy where a better sense of value is placed upon the well being of its citizens I think we'll see significant change.

[Rolling Thunder]

Has anyone done the stats on school shootings, though? Despite these incidents I thought we'd peaked on these figures a few years back. Just a random question. If anyone knows (or has posted, as I didn't read this entire thread), clue me in?

I don't have any specific data, but this site:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita#rest

has alot of information on this discussion. It's a great place to start for getting data for writing, too!

The info on England vs USA gun control in the body of the text is interesting too.

[robeiae]

The right to bear arms was most likely really a guideline to assist early Americans prevent another form of government like England from taking away our freedoms. We were a young country and the founding fathers probably wanted to make sure our security was ensured by the citizens who could form militias to protect us.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.-- from James Madison, Federalist 46 (my boldface)

But now why is it necessary to have this same right? We are more mature and have an established military and national militia.I see no evidence that we are more mature.

[Bartholomew]

The one in Colorado I don't get. How did a homeless man a) get a gun and b) get into the school. Around here it's lockdown. You have to always enter through the main door and I know in the elementary and middle schools, be buzzed in.

Uhh, I've never seen a school like that.

Maybe Kansas is different?

[BradyH1861]

. You're a prison guard or cop? Annual verification of employment.

My issue weapons belong to the agency. When my employment with them ends, I must surrender all department issued equipment, including any department issued firearms. Annual verification of employment is not needed. I do, however, have to qualify twice annually per department policy.

Registration is one step ahead of confiscation. As a private citizen (not a police officer), I must say that it is none of the government's business if I own guns. An unarmed man is a subject. An armed man is a citizen.

Speaking as a police officer, I am in favor of good citizens owning guns. The more the better. There are a lot of bad guys out there who are not afraid of turning their guns on me. I know that a law abiding citizen who owns a gun just may be the one to save my a$$ if the need arises.

Brady

[BradyH1861]

I get what you are saying, but I don't think we can treat gun ownership like jewelry or stamp collecting. It's a world of difference to maintain lethal weapons in your home without any standardization or requirements for their maintenance.

I agree to a point, but I've seen people killed with knives, baseball bats, clubs, screwdrivers, a hammer, an axe, a car, etc, etc, etc. All thse are "lethal weapons" when used as such, just as a gun. Should we register these items too?


Brady

[SpookyWriter]

I own them but they are only my last defense of protection. It's what differentiates a civilized person from a criminal; a civilized person will obtain a legal concealed weapons permit and carry a registered firearm, a criminal will not.How sad you feel the need to have or carry a firearm for self protection. I thought that was what our government was supposed to do?

Civilized --

1.having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc. 2.polite; well-bred; refined. 3.of or pertaining to civilized people: The civilized world must fight ignorance. (hmmm...we have some of the lowest educational stats in the civilized world -- i.e. our contemporaries)4.easy to manage or control; well organized or ordered: The car is quiet and civilized, even in sharp turns.

---

Does civilized describe the typical American? Hmmm...me thinks not. Crude, unsophisticated, lacks a general understanding of the world or basic educational requirements to function in a complex society, abrasive, easily prone to violence, egotistic, etc.

[MattW]

I have heard hearsay stories from LA and firsthand stories from FL about people defending their homes, property, and selves with firearms after major hurricanes.

It's an extreme example of what happens when services break down - even the somewhat less severe disaster in FL, the power was out for days and friends had to defend their gas generator.

A home invasion is more likely than either of those events.

[BradyH1861]

How sad you feel the need to have or carry a firearm for self protection. I thought that was what our government was supposed to do?.

No, the government cannot protect you against crime. Only you can protect yourself. The government cannot even deliver the mail on time.


Brady

[SpookyWriter]

I agree to a point, but I've seen people killed with knives, baseball bats, clubs, screwdrivers, a hammer, an axe, a car, etc, etc, etc. All thse are "lethal weapons" when used as such, just as a gun. Should we register these items too?


BradyNow I'm really fricken worried for us. I'm thinking if we take guns away then some freak will club to death a bunch of innocent children with a baseball bat.

Bigger problem is why this is happening so often, in this country, and not in other industrialized countries. What's is it when violent crimes against children takes numerous events before the president finally takes notice and does something constructive? Maybe it's an election year and GW wants to jump on the band wagon with this issue. But where was he the past six years while numerous incidents happened?

We have a problem that isn't getting addressed by distracted political leaders. The war on terrorism is here! Our children are the victims. Where is the response? Why hasn't our elected leaders addressed this issue before now? When will enough dead children wake up America to the bigger problem we face?

Why? Why? Why? Is this happening so often?

[robeiae]

Does civilized describe the typical American? Hmmm...me thinks not. Crude, unsophisticated, lacks a general understanding of the world or basic educational requirements to function in a complex society, abrasive, easily prone to violence, egotistic, etc.If this represents your perceived greater level of maturity, I'd hate to see how you characterize people in the past.

'Civilized' is a subjective label and meanignful only as a comparitive term. So the typical American is not civilized as compared to who, exactly?

[SpookyWriter]

No, the government cannot protect you against crime. Only you can protect yourself. The government cannot even deliver the mail on time.


BradyThat's a cop out (no pun intended). The purpose (one such) of government is to protect its citizens from harm (internal and external) so why should I surrender my rights to a society of gun toting freaks because of an antiquated amendment to the constitution? When will my children or grandchildren be free of violence from protected gun owners (criminals) so they can go to the mall without fear of death from a punk with a .22 ?

I would rather have my mail delivered late than my child murdered, so it's an easy decision for me.

[MattW]

No, the government cannot protect you against crime. Only you can protect yourself. The government cannot even deliver the mail on time.
^ That from a police officer!

I've never heard a cop outright say that, or that you are in favor of armed citizenry. Good to hear.

Unfortunately for everyone, the ignorance of the general populace (not even including criminals) negatively impacts those who would be responsible owners of firearms.

[SpookyWriter]

'Civilized' is a subjective label and meanignful only as a comparitive term. So the typical American is not civilized as compared to who, exactly?Japanese. They consider us barbarians to this day. What I wrote about the characteristic of typical America is what you'll discover how many peoples in other countries define us. Live in the far east for a while (I lived and traveled in Japan for a year), or Europe (spent many years living in Europe) and you'll learn how other cultures perceive Americans.

The joke in Europe and other parts of the world is that it's easy to spot an American because they are the ones demanding service or by their general attitude of superiority.

Just my observations from traveling around ...

[Rolling Thunder]

Japanese. They consider us barbarians to this day. What I wrote about the characteristic of typical America is what you'll discover how many peoples in other countries define us. Live in the far east for a while (I lived and traveled in Japan for a year), or Europe (spent many years living in Europe) and you'll learn how other cultures perceive Americans.

The joke in Europe and other parts of the world is that it's easy to spot an American because they are the ones demanding service or by their general attitude of superiority.

Just my observations from traveling around ...

I can't honestly respond to that. I've never been in an airplane and I've never traveled more than maybe 300 miles from home (and I might be stretching that fact as well).

Still, I've encountered many people; some are as you label, but also many who are not. Maybe others would consider me niave, but I don't think I am. I've lived through the death of a child and of a parent caused by car accidents, but this is the form of transportation I still use everyday. Life is a risk and very short. At best, we can hope to live for 100 years, or slightly more, on a rock that is billions of years old.

And don't feel sad about my decision to own firearms. I do so by my own choice and I've never shot anyone. I also don't carry one around, also by choice, unless I'm fishing. Pesky Copperheads. Sometimes they don't just slither off into the grass but get a tad persnickity. Once bitten, twice shy.

[SC Harrison]

Does civilized describe the typical American? Hmmm...me thinks not. Crude, unsophisticated, lacks a general understanding of the world or basic educational requirements to function in a complex society, abrasive, easily prone to violence, egotistic, etc.

Dude, you have to stop watching Jerry Springer and Cops.

The typical American is not only literate, but also has some post-high school education. Not only does the typical American function in a complex society, he or she takes an active role in strengthening it, through participation in school activities, public service and/or philanthropy. The typical American is neither abrasive nor prone to violence, which is why you rarely see physical confrontations except on tv, or if you frequent the bad part of town where the Typical American doesn't live.

Typical Americans are egotistic, but are also just as likely to laugh at themselves when they do something stupid.

The Typical American would be at least mildly offended by your gross mischaracterization, but the Typical American would also choose to let you rant while ignoring you.

[Rolling Thunder]

Jerry Springer? Who's he?;)

[Jean Marie]

Does civilized describe the typical American? Hmmm...me thinks not. Crude, unsophisticated, lacks a general understanding of the world or basic educational requirements to function in a complex society, abrasive, easily prone to violence, egotistic, etc.
Unfair statement, Spooky. Broad stroke statements show lousy logic.

A small percentage of Americans, yes.

[SC Harrison]

Jerry Springer? Who's he?;)

"Oh, I know you didn't just ****ing say what I think you just ****ing, said, 'cause I will break this ****** ****ing chair across your ********* head! (Whoooooh!) That's right, go ahead and get ****** off, but you ain't gonna do nothin' 'bout it, 'cause I'm right here, and you right the **** over there, and you know I ain't afraid to get somethin' started!" (Whooooh!)

30 seconds later...

"I only hit you 'cause I love you!" (Awwwww)

[Rolling Thunder]

Oooooooooooooooh, THAT Jerry Springer.

(I'm still recovering from last weeks concussion. I'm still seeing *'s.)

[BradyH1861]

Japanese. They consider us barbarians to this day.

And the Japanese did such civilized things to the people in countries they occupied during World War Two.

Brady

[SpookyWriter]

The typical American is not only literate, but also has some post-high school education. Not only does the typical American function in a complex society, he or she takes an active role in strengthening it, through participation in school activities, public service and/or philanthropy. The typical American is neither abrasive nor prone to violence, which is why you rarely see physical confrontations except on tv, or if you frequent the bad part of town where the Typical American doesn't live.SC, wrong. There are several completed studied that discuss the de-evolution (decline (http://http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:HVKAtV0vR-8J:prorev.com/2005/09/us-falls-in-world-education-ranking.htm+education+ranking+world&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6)) in American education.

But this whole topic is taking away from the theme of this thread. Can you explain why children are becoming more prone to violence in the past twenty or so years? What is causing this trend?

Might it be social issues? The Amish killer had very complex social issues and committed a heinous crime against children.

So if it's not education, or our living standards, then just what is causing people to target children. The last innocents of our society is now becoming casualties to a ????

[BradyH1861]

That's a cop out (no pun intended). The purpose (one such) of government is to protect its citizens from harm (internal and external) so why should I surrender my rights to a society of gun toting freaks because of an antiquated amendment to the constitution? When will my children or grandchildren be free of violence from protected gun owners (criminals) so they can go to the mall without fear of death from a punk with a .22 ?

If the government could protect you from crime, then there would be no crime victims. Unless you want a cop to stay by your side 24/7, you cannot be protected. And even if you had that, it still wouldn't be protection enough.

Why should I surrender MY rights because you don't like guns. You refer to "gun toting freaks". Would you prefer that police officers not carry guns then? There are plenty of accidental police shootings, you know. Innocent people are killed on a regular enough basis for it to be disturbing. Justification could be made for unarmed officers here if you really wanted to. But odds are, if an armed, violent felon is assaulting you, I'd venture to say that you probably want an armed person to intervene on your behalf to save you or your family.

The day that only government officers and agents are allowed to have guns is the day I turn in my badge. I will never confiscate legally owned firearms from anyone. It goes against my oath of office. (That whole pesky little Constitution I swore to protect and defend)

The world is a violent place. We will never be totally free from danger or threat of danger, no matter how much you and I would like to be.

And for the record, I agree with you that the focus on the war on terror is having negative consequences when it comes to other enforcement areas.

Brady

[BradyH1861]

So if it's not education, or our living standards, then just what is causing people to target children. The last innocents of our society is now becoming casualties to a ????

That is the million dollar question that I don't think there is an answer for. There is a lot of evil in this world.


Brady

[Jean Marie]

IMO, it starts in the home. It has to do w/ how we raise our kids. Do we raise them to communicate w/ words? Or to shoot and ask questions, later.

And where do kids get the guns in the first place? At home, where they're apparently not safely locked away.

The above is in reference to the other shootings. The shooting of the Amish children doesn't fit. Except for the fact of how was this guy raised?

[Jean Marie]

We don't know how to talk w/ each other, anymore. It's become a lost art--it needs to be reintroduced. I'd suggest, quickly.

[BradyH1861]

And where do kids get the guns in the first place? At home, where they're apparently not safely locked away.


Exactly! In Texas, making a firearm accessible to a minor is a fairly serious offense. We had a police officer in a neighboring town go to prison for this. His son got his duty weapon and accidentally shot and killed the neighbor's child.

Of course, this is a good example of a law that is perfect in theory but not so good in practice. It punishes the act. It doesn't prevent it.

B.

[Rolling Thunder]

Might it be social issues? The Amish killer had very complex social issues and committed a heinous crime against children.



This possibly has some truth to it, Spooky. But he was only 12 years old at the time he claimed to do those things. He was a child himself, reaching the confusing time of puberty. Kids become curious at that age and social pressures become much more traumatic.

Unless he wasn't telling the truth, to garner sympathy for his current actions.

BTW - good debate/counter debate so far. Lot's of differing perspectives.

[SpookyWriter]

Unless he wasn't telling the truth, to garner sympathy for his current actions.Je's desu...he is dead, so his truth matters not but to the living who must go on with their lives...

[SC Harrison]

But this whole topic is taking away from the theme of this thread. Can you explain why children are becoming more prone to violence in the past twenty or so years? What is causing this trend?

Might it be social issues? The Amish killer had very complex social issues and committed a heinous crime against children.



I'll address the education issue later, after I've had a bite (Googling is strenuous, and requires a well-fed person).

As far as the apparent rise in attacks on school children, I would not be surprised if this didn't begin to accelerate with the emergence of 24 hr news channels or the "Breaking News" that interrupted regularly scheduled broadcasts in the 70's. The collective horror and outrage that is explored in depth on television could possibly be proof to some bent minds of the surety that this act will bring recognition from the masses as to the gravity of the person's mental anguish. Plainly put? It is a sure-fire attention-getter writ large.

I do not believe this means there are more and worse psychoses today, but I do believe our need to know what happened to a handful of kids across the country may be fueling more of these sensational incidents.

And our boy who attacked those poor girls in PA was dealing with complex issues, but I'm not so sure they were social in nature. The death of a child, and something about having molested two younger female relatives when he was going through puberty, tell me that he's had some dark stuff percolating in his head for some time, and he finally couldn't take it. Maybe he thought God took his daughter because of what he did as a young boy, and this was his way of getting even. Who knows. But I don't think this atypical act can be shown as part of a "trend", other than his knowledge that it would probably end up on CNN.

[Rolling Thunder]

Just a small fact to note that was mentioned on CBS news tonight:

They said the first school shooting was in 1988 somewhere in Illinois? At a school named 'woodward' I believe.

[Ken Schneider]

The veiwer hungry networks should stop showing news about these events.

Some other nut-job has an ah ha moment every time.

[robeiae]

Japanese. They consider us barbarians to this day. What I wrote about the characteristic of typical America is what you'll discover how many peoples in other countries define us. Live in the far east for a while (I lived and traveled in Japan for a year), or Europe (spent many years living in Europe) and you'll learn how other cultures perceive Americans.

The joke in Europe and other parts of the world is that it's easy to spot an American because they are the ones demanding service or by their general attitude of superiority.

Just my observations from traveling around ...Clearly, you are the prototypical egotistical American...

You're not special. How do you know where I have been and where I haven't been? Typical argument from the enlightened: "you don't know what I know because I'm so unique." The fact that you demonstrated only a rudimentary understanding of the realities of Soviet rule does not bode well for you in this discussion, Spooky.

And frankly, I resent your generalization of the Japanese. You cannot speak for them as a group. Nor can you speak for any culture, nor can you generalize what a culture believes, anymore that you can generalize what a typical American is.

[SpookyWriter]

Clearly, you are the prototypical egotistical American...Ha! Who ever said I was an American? Deport me..


ETA: Please leave me out of the topic. I would rather discuss why American children become targets for violent crimes, what can be done to prevent these horrible events from happening in the future, and what (if any) cause can be solicited from these terrible tragedies.

I am of no use in scrutinizing the issue. Best save the band width for a more constructive discussion.

Cheers,

Jon

[BradyH1861]

Generally speaking, Rob, someone will declare a Yee-Hawd upon you in the near future.


Brady

[TheGaffer]

We don't know how to talk w/ each other, anymore. It's become a lost art--it needs to be reintroduced. I'd suggest, quickly.

Don't tell me what to do! Jerkface!!! Stoopidbrain!

[SC Harrison]

I'll address the education issue later, after I've had a bite (Googling is strenuous, and requires a well-fed person).



I'm back, but I ate too much, so my Googling is somewhat lethargic:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2002-06-05-education-census.htm

Americans are more educated than ever before, with a greater percentage graduating from high school and college than a decade ago, U.S. Census data released Tuesday show. Eighty percent of Americans are graduates of high school or higher, compared with 75.2% in 1990, the 2000 figures show. That change came about in part because of a decline in the rate of students dropping out before ninth grade: 7.5% in 2000, compared with 10.4% in 1990.

The Census data, based on estimates from the long form sent to one in six households, showed that among people 25 and older:

21% of Americans had taken some college courses but had not earned a degree in 2000, compared with 18.7% 10 years earlier.
15.5% had earned a bachelor's degree but no higher, compared with 13.1% in 1990.
8.9% earned graduate or professional degrees, compared with 7.2% earlier.


Higher education does not necessarily make for a more enlightened and compassionate person:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47207

CAMBRIDGE, MA—Several members of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology chapter of the Theta Tau fraternity are in campus-police custody today following a brutal hazing incident in which one robot remains missing and two others are in critical condition with extensive circuitry and servo-motor injuries, sources revealed Monday.

This is not the first case of robot hazing on the campus. Last fall, during "Rush Week," a spider-legged unit was found struggling in a closet at MIT's School of Engineering, stripped of its outer casing, its motion sensors covered with duct tape. The perpetrators were never found.

On another occasion, a robot was locked in a room and forced to calculate pi to the 1083 decimal place in what officials called one of the worst cases of binge-thinking they'd ever seen.

Heh heh heh.

[clintl]

They said the first school shooting was in 1988 somewhere in Illinois? At a school named 'woodward' I believe.
It was a long time before that.

The Boomtown Rats' song "I Don't Like Mondays" is about a school shooting in San Diego in 1979, and there were others before that.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/mondays.asp

[Lyra Jean]

Ha! Who ever said I was an American? Deport me..


ETA: Please leave me out of the topic. I would rather discuss why American children become targets for violent crimes, what can be done to prevent these horrible events from happening in the future, and what (if any) cause can be solicited from these terrible tragedies.

I am of no use in scrutinizing the issue. Best save the band width for a more constructive discussion.

Cheers,

Jon

How about when the unpopular kids (victims) get picked on and harrassed by the popular kids (bullies). Then the unpopular kids report it. Then authority figures tell them to just ignore and it's a part of life but nothing happens to the popular kids. Can you really blame them for trying to take it into their own hands? Since no one is going to do anything about it or care for that matter. I don't condone such actions but a part of me can't blame them.

[cree]

Wow, i miss so much when I do things like work. :)
One comment on the hoopla -- all criminals were once non-criminals. Everyone says we need to keep guns out of the hands of the criminals. Let's just keep them out the hands of everyone who does not have a legitimate need/use for starters.

Someone's right to bear arms should not infringe on my right to live in a bullet-free environment for me and my kids. My concession, again, is that the right to bear arms should remain intact, but under much stricter guidelines than we have now, which is that any hootinanny can go get a freaking gun and say, well dammit it's my right! But they never seem to examine if there are concessions that can be made on that right that are in the best interest of the overall population. Especially, the population that is our kids.

[BradyH1861]

Especially, the population that is our kids.

But today's child is nothing more than tomorrow's criminal.

I'm kidding, of course. But if you were to see how some of my colleagues deal with teenagers, you'd think that they really believed that statement.

Come to think of it, I think they DO really believe that.

Brady

[Jean Marie]

Don't tell me what to do! Jerkface!!! Stoopidbrain!
:tongue See what happens! You freak, you made me stop using words, almost! Dweebhead :e2tongue:

[BradyH1861]

Someone called me a "pudknocker" yesterday. I don't think it was intended to be a compliment, but I took it as one.


Brady

[Jean Marie]

How about when the unpopular kids (victims) get picked on and harrassed by the popular kids (bullies). Then the unpopular kids report it. Then authority figures tell them to just ignore and it's a part of life but nothing happens to the popular kids. Can you really blame them for trying to take it into their own hands? Since no one is going to do anything about it or care for that matter. I don't condone such actions but a part of me can't blame them.
Bullying taken to the extreme, is what that is. And then what happens when the kids who are being bullied can't take it anymore?

Like I said earlier, it goes back to what happens in the home--if the adults don't believe/help the kids when they come to them, then they've failed them. If the line of communication is broken, that's the parents responsibility/fault. It goes to the parents and the teachers to be there for the kids. Sorry, no excuses accepted.

[Jean Marie]

Someone called me a "pudknocker" yesterday. I don't think it was intended to be a compliment, but I took it as one.


Brady
Probably better than a putz :)

[BradyH1861]

Indeed.

[Lyra Jean]

Bullying taken to the extreme, is what that is. And then what happens when the kids who are being bullied can't take it anymore?

Like I said earlier, it goes back to what happens in the home--if the adults don't believe/help the kids when they come to them, then they've failed them. If the line of communication is broken, that's the parents responsibility/fault. It goes to the parents and the teachers to be there for the kids. Sorry, no excuses accepted.

Wasn't trying to make an excuse. Just saying maybe teachers need some counselling on dealing with this kind of situation instead of just blowing it off. Then events like this would a) not happen or b) be drastically reduced. I don't know what to do about parents who don't care.

[DamaNegra]

Okay, here are my 2c worth.

First, Spooky is right. USA has a seriously bad image in the eyes of the rest of the world. I am 'the rest of the world'. I hear it everyday. And I mean, everyday. So he's not that far off base (don't jump at me over this, please, I'm just transmitting what I see).

Second, I live in Mexico, as many of you know. 80% of the wealth is distributed amont 10% of the population. I won't be too far from the truth if I said that more than half of the Mexicans never get to go to school. There's still a good 10% (or more) people that don't speak spanish at all. Education is a far-off dream for some.

Yes, Mexico is a violent country. People get robbed and kidnapped everyday. Most kidnaps are express, they drive you around town, strip you of all your money and they leave you wherever they please.

But why, in a country like Mexico, where there is an impressive amount of crime and no education, why do none of these things occur? I have never heard of anyone walking into a Mexican school (public schools, which have 0 security) and shooting all the kids there?

Why do these things happen in a country that is supposedly more educated and civilized than Mexico, who has a seriously corrupt government that would rather support outlaws than law-abiding citizens?

I blame the TV. Most Mexicans don't have access to television, and of those who do, most don't have access to cable. There are lots of violent show on TV. Now, I'm not saying that just because you saw violent shows as a kid you're going to become a violent person. No. What I'm saying is that this desenzibilises (sp?) you. Kids are used to see other people's guts flying all over the place on TV, so it becomes normal to them. They don't care anymore. In fact, they're fascinated by guts flying all over the place and blood splattering everyone. Saving Private Ryan, Final Destiny, Alien 4 are the ones that come to my mind right now. There are many, many more. If kids are used to violence, how do you expect them to react negativel against them?

Also, I blame education parents are giving to their children nowadays. They teach the kids that they're entitled to everything, that they deserve everything just because and that everyone should bow to them. No one spanks their kids anymore because the poor dearie will be 'traumatized'. Excuse me, but I was spanked when I misbehaved, and I'm far from being a traumatized individual. My mother was spanked, and my grandmother once recieved a piece of charcoal from Santa. They both turned out to be excellent individuals, no signs of being 'disturbed' individuals.

Now, kids who never recieve a good discipline, those that you see wailing in the restaurants or supermarket, THEY are going to grow up to be troubled individuals. Why? Because when life doesn't go their way, when bullies start teasing them at school, when teachers don't give them what they want, they are going to lose control. They will not know how to react and will do what they've been doing all their lives: tantrum. Some kids throw violent tantrums since they are babies. If they don't recieve a proper disciplination and their parents don't teach them that nobody's going to hand them everything in a silver platter, then they won't know how to react, and violence ensues.

Will I spank my children when I have them? If they deserve them, yes. It's not violence, but children often do not understand words yet. That's when you show them that it's not right, by doing something that hurts. What happens when you stick your hand in the oven and burn yourself? You're never, ever going to stick your hand in the oven again, right? Well, it's the same mechanism. (But no sticking your children's hands in the oven, okay?)

[Wordworm]

Okay, here are my 2c worth.

First, Spooky is right. USA has a seriously bad image in the eyes of the rest of the world. I am 'the rest of the world'. I hear it everyday. And I mean, everyday. So he's not that far off base (don't jump at me over this, please, I'm just transmitting what I see).


And I'd have to say that Canadians have much the same opinion, too. It's a funny thing. We know that Americans as individuals are generally nice and friendly and kind and all that good stuff, but I'd also say that the majority of Canadians think Americans on the whole are sort of dorky and not particularly sophisticated. Of course, it might also have something to do with who you elect as president. (Sorry, couldn't help but slip that in.)

I still think the best and funniest take on the Canadian view of Americans was Rick Mercer's. I think all Americans should be required to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCgbNhnfSBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0y47PRlifs&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kB74VDwU1w&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTKJFlPGpUk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8uKECeb0FQ&mode=related&search=

And the thing about Canadians always being sure to wear a maple leaf when they're travelling in Europe so they don't get mistaken for Americans is as true today as it was 35 years ago, when I was backpacking through Europe as a student. Sorry but dat's da fact, Jack. I've even heard stories about Americans who wear maple leafs to fool the Europeans into thinking they're Canadians.

But I guess I'm straying far off topic...

[Kentuk]

At the risk of pointing out the obvious...isn't it time the U.S. got serious about gun control?

We up here in Canada, living right next to you with a similar population mix and culture, don't seem have the same degree of problems you have down there (Exhibit A: only one Canadian incident on Spooky's list)"

Canada has few problems because it has fewer people. I'm sure that a proper comparision would show more equality and then you would have to resort to blaming evil Yankee influence.

[DamaNegra]

Canada has few problems because it has fewer people. I'm sure that a proper comparision would show more equality and then you would have to resort to blaming evil Yankee influence.

And an Amish village is a metropoli? I'm sorry, I'd believe this if it usually happened in huge cities but that's just not the case. Even proportionally, USA still has much more psychos.

[SC Harrison]

And an Amish village is a metropoli? I'm sorry, I'd believe this if it usually happened in huge cities but that's just not the case. Even proportionally, USA still has much more psychos.

Tell that to all the girls who have disappeared in and around Ciudad Jaurez.

I know the U.S. has an image problem in the rest of the world, and I've seen the way many American tourists act when they're off somewhere. But world opinion and scenes of horror on tv have no bearing on the true safety of schoolchildren.

[robeiae]

Ha! Who ever said I was an American? Deport me..


ETA: Please leave me out of the topic. I would rather discuss why American children become targets for violent crimes, what can be done to prevent these horrible events from happening in the future, and what (if any) cause can be solicited from these terrible tragedies.

I am of no use in scrutinizing the issue. Best save the band width for a more constructive discussion.Spooky, Spooky, Spooky...you're a-okay in my book. But you keep doing the same thing: you make an observation/generalization, people question it, then you say it's off-topic and we should get back on topic.

And I find all of this constructive, insofar as it is all related. You keep asking for a 'why' with regard to increased incidents of violent crime involving children. Yet, we don't really have any evidence offered here that such a trend exists, as of yet. So it's kind of hard to give that answer. Still, we have some speculation, unsupported by any empirical evidence, mind you:

1) It's the gun culture of America
2) It's because America is becoming less-civilized
3) It's reflective of a lack of discipline in child-rearing practices

Where is 'violence on TV' and 'video games'?

[TsukiRyoko]

Aaaa-yep, school shooting is the new trends. From what I hear, they're quickly becoming superior to leggings and eyebrow piercings. Sad, isn't it?

[maestrowork]

But today's child is nothing more than tomorrow's criminal.

A lot of kids are TODAY's criminals. Give them a gun and they will rob or kill someone without blinking an eye.

Shudders.

I blame violence on TV and video games. I do. I can't believe how much violence and how casual they are in video games. Some of them truly make me sick in my stomach, and kids are playing them like they're the most natural things.

[Jean Marie]

Wasn't trying to make an excuse. Just saying maybe teachers need some counselling on dealing with this kind of situation instead of just blowing it off. Then events like this would a) not happen or b) be drastically reduced. I don't know what to do about parents who don't care.
My bit about no excuses was my commentary--not aimed at you, at all :)

As for parents who don't give a damn; therein lies the problem.

[MacAllister]

I suspect it's less about parents not giving a damn, than it is about parents both working full-time or more, as cost-of-living multiplies, and cost-of-housing outright explodes...

[robeiae]

I suspect it's less about parents not giving a damn, than it is about parents both working full-time or more, as cost-of-living multiplies, and cost-of-housing outright explodes...The idealistic 50's were just that--idealistic. Throughout most of history, both parents have often been rquired to work their fingers to the bone. Throwing a little literature in, look at Tom Sawyer. He was on his own most of the time, as were his friends. Neither moms nor dads had time to spare to cater to their needs and desires.

Children are more dependent today, imo, as surprising as that may seem. And they are more dependent because adults are more dependent--on trivialities, on luxuries, on secondary aspects of life. And that's all a product of expectations that our society portrays as realistic, as opposed to being a product of expectations derived from simple hope.

[Sheryl Nantus]

but then... does the fault lie with *us* for falling for all the crap that society tells us that we have to have?

our kids *have* to have the newest running shoes at $200 a pop; I was lucky if I could get my mother to buy a pair for more than $20. And if they don't have those shoes and go to school they get bullied by the fashion cliques into believing that somehow they aren't as good enough as those kids whose parents toss the credit card at them every few weeks for a mall shopping trip.

it's all about the labels - your jeans may be from Walmart but *mine* are from The Gap and thus my social IQ is higher than yours... even if you can actually read and write.

and how much of that two-parent income goes to maintaining and often encouraging this sort of rampant commercialism?

just thinking out loud...

[Lyra Jean]

My bit about no excuses was my commentary--not aimed at you, at all :)

As for parents who don't give a damn; therein lies the problem.

No problem. Sometimes I'm not very clear when I write things out. New to this whole debate thing.

Sometimes it's hard hearing these adults saying it's a part of growing up and they need to deal with it. Well they came to you because they couldn't and you didn't help them. What did you think would happen? Do you think they would just sit there and allow themselves to get beat up and picked on everyday while you just looked the other way?

[MacAllister]

Oh, damn straight, Robeiae! Put the little blighters back to work in the factories.

Preferably doing something really productive, like polishing the insides of artillery casings.

[robeiae]

Preferably doing something really productive, like polishing the insides of artillery casings.That's not much of an industry these days.

Pharmaceuticals?

[MacAllister]

Hah. Just wait. It will be.
If we use 'em in pharmaceuticals, we could set all the innocent little bunnies free. That'd be a humane thing to accomplish.

[robeiae]

Oh, damn straight, Robeiae! Put the little blighters back to work in the factories.

Preferably doing something really productive, like polishing the insides of artillery casings.But here's an idea--maybe the little blighters could start doing things like chores again. Having been to the homes of many parents, I'm amazed at how little is asked from many children, as opposed to how much the children demand (and actually get). My children have been to the homes of some friends where the children aren't even asked to clean up after themselves. They'll pull out every toy in the house and not pick up a single one when they're done. And don't even get me started about dishes...

Then there are the other simple things, like feeding pets, taking out the trash, minor yard work, making beds, unloading groceries, etc. Of course, if the kids did all these things, they might miss an hour of television every day!

[Sheryl Nantus]

I do worry about this current generation when they hit the workforce and discover that no, you *can't* get everything you want immediately. You have to work for that promotion, you have to do the bad shifts, you have to actually *pay* for that gasoline for your fancy new car to get to work.

I've seen too many shows depicting spoiled kids to not worry about what's going to happen when they run out into the street and expect the world thanks to their parents giving them everything *now*.

:(

[Jean Marie]

I suspect it's less about parents not giving a damn, than it is about parents both working full-time or more, as cost-of-living multiplies, and cost-of-housing outright explodes...
It's about the quality of time spent, not necessarily the quantity.

Maybe instead of running around to soccer/baseball/football/drama/lacrosse practice, how about just spending a bit of one-on-one time w/ the kids? Any free-time is used spinning our collective wheels, literally. And to what end.

Today's interpretation appears to be; if the kid's schedule isn't completely filled w/ extra-curricular activities, s/he will not get into college.

That leaves emotional growth to occur on its own. W/ no guidance. Okay.

[MacAllister]

Let me just stand up for some of today's teens and kids, here--I've met some really smart, wonderful, motivated kids. We have some of those kids on this board, even.

I'm not a parent, so it's easy for me to Monday-morning quarterback. But I don't think the sweeping criticism of the whole generation is completely warranted--in fact, we all sound a bit like our grandparents. :D

[Sheryl Nantus]

true - I'm no parent, but my sister is raising two great kids and she's doing her best.

but I see the pressure my niece is under to wear the right clothing, the right shoes - and she's just 8 years old! Bratz is the *hot* thing right now and, frankly, the commercialization is awful to have to deal with at that age. My sister has to fight to keep her "grounded" and realise that not everyone can afford everything, all the time.

[Jean Marie]

Speak for yourself, Mac, you old fart ;)

Agreed, it's not all kids. I see a lot of what I described in my area. Any free time is booked, immediately, to the max. It's insane.

They had signs up at the local market assigning Sept. something as family day--sit down and have dinner w/ your kids. I call that very weird.

I know some great kids also. Mostly on this board :D

[robeiae]

Let me just stand up for some of today's teens and kids, here--I've met some really smart, wonderful, motivated kids. We have some of those kids on this board, even.

I'm not a parent, so it's easy for me to Monday-morning quarterback. But I don't think the sweeping criticism of the whole generation is completely warranted--in fact, we all sound a bit like our grandparents. :DI know many wonderful kids, too. What scares me is that it's so obvious that they are wonderful.

And I think it's less of a generational thing with regard to the kids--it's wholly about the parents. At some point, we have to take stock and look at where we've been and where we're going, no? The benefits of living in a country such as this are inumerable, but I can't help ask if everyone is truly willing to shoulder some of the costs...

[Jean Marie]

Yeah, some of the parents are living slighly vicariously. Just slightly. Yes, that's supposed to be dripping w/ sarcasm.

Sometimes kids do come across as a bit too perfect. Makes me wonder what exactly is wrong w/ them. Other times, turns out, that's just how they are.

Still, there needs to be more time spent communicating w/ kids. For example; how the hell could the parents of the Columbine killers not have known they had all those weapons and were building bombs in the garage? How can you not know what's happening in your own home, to that extent?

[Sheryl Nantus]

that's what always blows my mind - I can understand kids having secret diaries and the like, but how can you *MISS* your kid stockpiling explosives and weapons anywhere in your home?

imo, those parents should have been charged with child abuse for allowing their kids to stockpile all that stuff without even asking or noticing... and where did they GET all the money for that?

I've seen too many shows where the host asks the mother (usually since the dad is either absent or too smart to go on the show) where the kid gets hundreds of dollars to buy drugs, etc. She usually shrugs and says that the kid told her it was his saved-up allowance.

WTH???

[MacAllister]

Oh man. Yeah--if your kid's allowance is enough to buy an AK-47, there's a problem. That's not exactly a BB gun, there.

[robeiae]

I made enough money during finals week in college to buy an AK-47. I'd hang around the library, watching people study. When they went to the bathroom, I'd take their textbooks, then sell them back at the bookstore (which always has the textbook buy-back program on during finals week).

[Sheryl Nantus]

seriously, though - if you have *that* little contact with your child that you have no idea of how much money they have at any given time or what they have in their room or who they're hanging out with...

why be surprised when they freak out either hurting themselves or others?

[cree]

I still think the best and funniest take on the Canadian view of Americans was Rick Mercer's. I think all Americans should be required to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCgbNhnfSBQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0y47PRlifs&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kB74VDwU1w&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTKJFlPGpUk&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8uKECeb0FQ&mode=related&search=

But I guess I'm straying far off topic...

Just want to plug these links wordworm put out there -- they are both hilarious and telling.
And must agree with Spooky and Dama. Please Americans, understand there truly is an image problem and instead of raising the middle finger at it, just think about it. Nothing more. (Yep, I'm an American writer in Canada -- raises middle finger at self :).

As for going off topic, I do think all this is relevant stuff. Parents have responsibility, schools and government have responsibility, gun owners have responsibility...but we need a fundamental cultural overhaul in relation to guns that, I fear, will never happen.

The weapons of mass destruction have been found, everyone. They are right here at home in our classrooms.

[Wordworm]

Just want to plug these links wordworm put out there -- they are both hilarious and telling.

Aside from being just plain funny, I think they speak to the earlier discussion points about the level of education in the U.S. I don't mean this to be inflammatory, but you have to admit that if we Canadians were judging Americans purely from what we see in these videos, our opinion wouldn't be very high. Fortunately, I have contact with lots of Americans, enough to know that not all of you are as dense as Rick Mercer portrays you to be.

btw, didn't I also hear somewhere that American education systems have been dumbing down requirements because they found that U.S. kids were scoring so badly in comparison to kids in other countries?

Among numerous articles on the subject of U.S. education standards, I saw a recent Bloomberg report that said:
"The U.S. spends more on primary and secondary education than most developed countries, yet has larger classes, lower test scores and higher dropout rates, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported.
"The U.S. spent about $12,000 per student, second only to Switzerland among the 30 OECD countries based on 2003 figures, the OECD said today in its annual report on education. The U.S. outperformed only five of the 30 countries on an OECD test given to 15-year-olds, ranked 12th in high school completion rates and averaged 23 students per class, higher than the average of 21."

[Rolling Thunder]

Well, of course it's funny! It is, after all, satire. But, then again, if every American should be required to watch them, then every Canadian should be worrying about the 'The Red Green Show'. It portrays Canadians in a pretty poor light IF you take it for anything more than it is suppose to be.

Someone's always the butt of the joke. That's what makes it satire.

[Southern_girl29]

Now, kids who never recieve a good discipline, those that you see wailing in the restaurants or supermarket, THEY are going to grow up to be troubled individuals. Why? Because when life doesn't go their way, when bullies start teasing them at school, when teachers don't give them what they want, they are going to lose control. They will not know how to react and will do what they've been doing all their lives: tantrum. Some kids throw violent tantrums since they are babies. If they don't recieve a proper disciplination and their parents don't teach them that nobody's going to hand them everything in a silver platter, then they won't know how to react, and violence ensues.

Will I spank my children when I have them? If they deserve them, yes. It's not violence, but children often do not understand words yet. That's when you show them that it's not right, by doing something that hurts. What happens when you stick your hand in the oven and burn yourself? You're never, ever going to stick your hand in the oven again, right? Well, it's the same mechanism. (But no sticking your children's hands in the oven, okay?)

But, spanking is violence, especially when a child doesn't understand words. Have I spanked my daughter? Unfortunately, I have, but I hate the way it makes me feel, and I hate the way it makes her feel. And, I won't be doing it again. There are other more productive ways of disciplining a child. Why do we have to make it hurt? For me, taking away something she wants, making her sit in the corner, etc., are far better ways of getting my point across. Say your child hits you. How are you going to teach her, especially a young child, that hitting is not acceptable? So, you'll teach your child not to hit by hitting her? Tell me, how logical is that?

And, as the parent of a high-spirited three year old, I have to say that some kids just have tantrums, sometimes even for no reason. No amount of spanking, time-outs, taking away toys will make them stop. If you're in public, you take them to a private spot. If you're in private, you just let them have it and go about your business. Ignoring it is a fabulous tool to get a child to stop having a tantrum.

In my opinion, spanking is never the answer. Violence just leads to more violence.

[Southern_girl29]

The only comment I'm going to make about gun control is that we need to make it harder for anyone to purchase a gun, and we also need to have some kind of uniform rules for storage of guns. Probably won't do any good, but it's good in theory.

I think schools need to have a zero tolerance for bullies. One instance of bullying would result in suspension. Many of the kids doing the teasing are popular and make good grades. A day or two out of school with zeroes for good grades might shape them up some. The problem is that many of the bullies have parents who were/are bullies and don't see anything wrong with it. The only way to fix that is to have programs at school to deal with bullies effectively.

[SpookyWriter]

Spooky, Spooky, Spooky...you're a-okay in my book. But you keep doing the same thing: you make an observation/generalization, people question it, then you say it's off-topic and we should get back on topic.I am a generalist in many ways. I do the big picture senerios and let others worry about the details. Maybe I'm getting ready for management?

[Rolling Thunder]

I am a generalist in many ways. I do the big picture senerios and let others worry about the details. Maybe I'm getting ready for management?

That or you have a lot of questions with a passion for seeking answers about this topic in general. Sounds like a recipe for a good piece of non fiction or fiction for you to explore?

[SpookyWriter]

But here's an idea--maybe the little blighters could start doing things like chores again. Having been to the homes of many parents, I'm amazed at how little is asked from many children, as opposed to how much the children demand (and actually get). My children have been to the homes of some friends where the children aren't even asked to clean up after themselves. They'll pull out every toy in the house and not pick up a single one when they're done. And don't even get me started about dishes...

Then there are the other simple things, like feeding pets, taking out the trash, minor yard work, making beds, unloading groceries, etc. Of course, if the kids did all these things, they might miss an hour of television every day!Ha! Not my kid. He has to learn to live with what we could bring from Texas in my car.

Seriously though. I think teaching kids to be productive members of society begins when they learn to help at home. A little lesson in cooperation, team work, and helping out at home goes a long ways toward their ability to interact with peers and have good social skills. But it's also helpful if they don't (the kids) spend all day in front of the tube.

Children don't learn social skills from t.v., and so maybe some of the problem adults are the product of too much artifical stimuli.

[cree]

Well, of course it's funny! It is, after all, satire..

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Johnathan Swift

[Rolling Thunder]

"Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own"--Johnathan Swift

So, is satire of Americans, by Canadians, of lesser or greater poignancy than:

Canadians on Canadians
or
Americans on Americans?

Americans and Canadians are a satirical bunch, due in part from their English heritage. In my opinion English satire of America is far more biting (and hilarious) than what I saw on YouTube. Heck, David Letterman does the same thing nearly every week!

I'm not implying that I ignore it but I only have a 12th grade education so it's possible I don't quite grasp the concept either. (This is me, looking into my own little mirror, btw). :D

[DamaNegra]

For me, taking away something she wants, making her sit in the corner, etc., are far better ways of getting my point across. Say your child hits you.

The problem here is that instead of using violence, you are humiliating your kid. There is really no 'good' way to discipline a child. As I said, I was spanked when young. Yes, my mother hated doing it, but I came out all right in the ending.

I can also sort of relate. I own a puppy who thinks she's a baby (funny story: my dad once told her to get over the fact that she's a dog and not a human, and she got angry and bit him in the shoes :) ). She needs discipline every now and then, and it kills me to do that to her, especially when she cries after it.

Some of you will say, how dare you compare our children to dogs! But, the more I know my dog, the more I realize she's just like a little kid. But sometimes, you don't have a choice.

Tell that to all the girls who have disappeared in and around Ciudad Jaurez.

As I said, I am very aware that I live in a very violent country. Yes, I am aware of the women in Juarez. Yes, I am aware of the Mochaorejas, who kidnapped people and cut off a finger or ear to send to their relatives to convince them to pay the ransom. Yes, I am aware of the October 2 shootings, the APPO, the mafia, etc, etc, etc.

And still, you don't see children shooting each other in the schools.

And, as the parent of a high-spirited three year old, I have to say that some kids just have tantrums, sometimes even for no reason. No amount of spanking, time-outs, taking away toys will make them stop. If you're in public, you take them to a private spot. If you're in private, you just let them have it and go about your business. Ignoring it is a fabulous tool to get a child to stop having a tantrum.

In my opinion, spanking is never the answer. Violence just leads to more violence.[/QUOTE]

[English Dave]

Allow idiots access to guns and they will shoot each other and other people.

[Fern]

Guns are inanimate objects; it's the hands they get into that we need to work on. . .or more particularly, the heads that go along with those hands.

As for spanking, if a parent takes care of that when their kids are little, it becomes a moot point later. Someone told me once the way to guage whether your discipline style is working or not is to imagine the following scenario:

Your child is running away from you, playing or for whatever reason, and you yell "Stop there's a car coming!" If that child stops, you're obviously getting their attention enough with whatever discipline you're using. If not, the possible outcome is too horrifying to think about and you have no one but yourself to blame.

I think some folks equate spanking with beating. People have differenct experiences with/on the subject, therefore you'll get a million different opinions. I've seen some who would fight you over their opinion on not spanking, but they have no qualms at all about slapping their child across the face.

As for bullying, people need to teach their kids how to defend themselves and let them know its okay to take up for themselves, instead of "Oh Honey, we don't hit under any circumstances". Of course, you teach them not to hit. You just have to let them know where to draw the line on others hurting them.

My daughter had a situation going in Jr. High where one girl kept walking into the restroom and jerking the stall door open on girls. They were totally embarrassed and she got where she would try to avoid even going all day long. She told the teacher, the kid's mom and the principal, to no avail. I finally told her she may have to take care of it herself. Warn the girl once, then pay attention to what kind of shoes the kid is wearing so you know you have the right person and when she walks up to the stall you are in just slam the door open on her as hard as you can. She'll get the hint after a time or two.

We tell our son to never throw the first punch and never instigate a fight. He understands that whether or not he is in the right, the school will punish both parties. He knows we will stand behind the school in any instance where he is the aggressor. He also understands that sometimes you have to take up for yourself. Do a good job of it the first time and you won't have to deal with it again. Accept the punishment, but make it worth it. Boys in his school got to doing what they call "cup check" and grabbing private parts. My son didn't participate, but one kid in particular decided he'd use it on my boy. He warned him once. The second time, he punched him in the gut as hard as he could. The kid couldn't tell on him because he knew he would get in trouble too. Mine hasn't had another bit of trouble out of any of them.

The government can't be everywhere; the teachers can't be everywhere, mom and dad can't be everywhere; teach your kids to be gentle and considerate with others, but draw the line where it needs drawing.

As a result of teaching ours this way, we've ended up with kids who are most often found taking up for the "underdog" and will step in if others are being mean or bullying other kids. They don't sass their teachers and they get along well with "all" their classmates.

[Rolling Thunder]

Allow idiots access to guns and they will shoot each other and other people.

Killjoy! You boiled 149 posts down into one easy to understand sentence.:D

[SC Harrison]

As I said, I am very aware that I live in a very violent country. Yes, I am aware of the women in Juarez. Yes, I am aware of the Mochaorejas, who kidnapped people and cut off a finger or ear to send to their relatives to convince them to pay the ransom. Yes, I am aware of the October 2 shootings, the APPO, the mafia, etc, etc, etc.

And still, you don't see children shooting each other in the schools.

And, as the parent of a high-spirited three year old,

That was my quote about Jaurez not Sean's, but you're right—it was inappropriate for the discussion (school safety) and I apologize.

I also have to admit I almost freaked when I saw the comment about the three year-old, until I figured out you were quoting someone else. Our little Dama needs to remain childless until she has achieved a level of success commensurate with her intellect. :)

p.s. that's a lot of success, in case I was too vague with my statement.

[cree]

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-sep2106-greenleaf_guns.2f0f202.html

Now here's one town's approach to gun ownership in the homes....

[SC Harrison]

http://www.ktvb.com/news/localnews/stories/ktvbn-sep2106-greenleaf_guns.2f0f202.html

Now here's one town's approach to gun ownership in the homes....

I'm wondering what possible 21st Century town emergency would be best handled by an armed populace:

Holton says this is part of a larger plan to establish an organized response to a town emergency and a way to ensure Greenleaf's way of life is protected.

Maybe those hooligans over in Brownstem have been getting liquored up and shooting off their mouths about invading.

[cree]

(Trying desparately to remember a good line from Blazing Saddles...) :)

[Wordworm]

So, is satire of Americans, by Canadians, of lesser or greater poignancy than:

Canadians on Canadians
or
Americans on Americans?

Americans and Canadians are a satirical bunch, due in part from their English heritage. In my opinion English satire of America is far more biting (and hilarious) than what I saw on YouTube. Heck, David Letterman does the same thing nearly every week!

I'm not implying that I ignore it but I only have a 12th grade education so it's possible I don't quite grasp the concept either. (This is me, looking into my own little mirror, btw). :D
Red Green is satire. The Bob and Doug Mackenzie Show, the original hosers, was satire. Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans was not satire, although his topics were comical. He was talking to real Americans—including George Bush, who didn't even know the name of the Canadian Prime Minister.

[cree]

—including George Bush, who didn't even know the name of the Canadian Prime Minister.
Ever hear the CBC interview done when Wilkins was appointed US Ambassador to Canada? It was so funny, I cried. Interviewer asked interviewee if he had ever been to Canada. Yes. Where? she asked. "Oh, somewhere north, like near, um, Niagara Falls, I think...."
Impressive debut.
But I digress, will hereby stay on topic.....

[Rolling Thunder]

Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans was not satire, although his topics were comical.

No, no it is satire, Wormwood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCgbNhnfSBQ

From the satirical Canadian TV special "Talking to Americans" hosted by Rick Mercer of This Hour Has 22 Minutes fame.......(Text is on the left side of the screen. Their words, not mine.)

You might have missed it on the website, but if you google the text "Talking to Americans" the word 'satirical' can't be missed.

You have Rick Mercer, we have Michael Moore; same thing really.

Btw, did you also see Rick's apology to the US?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/mercer.asp

It's still satire and damn funny.

ETA - Me too Cree, we've gone way off topic here. But it was still good clean fun.

[cree]

http://wjz.com/topstories/local_story_277141705.html

How did I miss MORE U.S. students injured with a gun today, in Baltimore? Six kids sent to hospital when a child brought his bb gun to school.

[Wordworm]

No, no it is satire, Wormwood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCgbNhnfSBQ

From the satirical Canadian TV special "Talking to Americans" hosted by Rick Mercer of This Hour Has 22 Minutes fame.......(Text is on the left side of the screen. Their words, not mine.)

You might have missed it on the website, but if you google the text "Talking to Americans" the word 'satirical' can't be missed.

You have Rick Mercer, we have Michael Moore; same thing really.

Btw, did you also see Rick's apology to the US?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/mercer.asp

It's still satire and damn funny.

ETA - Me too Cree, we've gone way off topic here. But it was still good clean fun.
The TV show This Hour Has 22 Minutes is satirical. The so-called "apology" (actually delivered by Colin Mochrie) was satirical. The YouTube description was written by the person who posted the videos, which doesn't qualify in any way as definitive. But in Talking to Americans, real American politicians and citizens cluelessly missed the absurdity of statements that were obviously ridiculous, and when one of the parties isn't in on the joke, that's not satire, it's mockery. Which makes it no less funny.

[maestrowork]

No doubt there are many wonderful kids. But like Rob said, it's kind of scary that they're so "obviously" wonderful. What does that mean about the rest? And if you look closely, many troubled kids or teenagers are neglected at home. The Columbine kids, for example. When I was a kid, I didn't have a lot of things I wanted. I couldn't buy a pair of Adidas that all my friends were wearing. I couldn't compete with my schoolmates -- they had everything and I've got none. I did just fine, because I wasn't just wandering around without parental guidance and care and love.

We do live in a violence culture. TV, news, movies, video games. If you look at the Japanese, for example, you will be astounded by the difference with regard to violence, and the Japanese has one of the lowest violent crime rate in the world. They love video games just as much as we do, but their games are mostly non-violent. Their most popular games are not DOOM or Half Life, but Katamari Damacy. I mean, how many parents actually know what their kids are playing on the computer in the privacy of their rooms?

[Fern]

I mean, how many parents actually know what their kids are playing on the computer in the privacy of their rooms?

And, how many actually care? It's like many parents have the attitude "don't bother me and I won't bother you".

Just an opinion, but to me the first hint of that attitude is the computer or tv in the kid's room to start with.

Seems like the idea today is to wrap anything and everything up in cartoon characters and that character is as far as some parents look when purchasing items for their kids.