What Cuts Deeper Than a Bullet?

reply to post by daskakik

I checked out your link... at first glance it does look pretty bad. But then I started looking into details.

Prior to 1980, the typical frequency of shootings was one a year or less, with an occasional two per year. The entire first half of the 1970s, for instance, had only two mentions, both catastrophic, but both committed by the National Guard against student protesters. Since then, the frequency increased drastically until 2000, tapering off after that but still higher than the periods prior to 1980.

Yes, there were school shootings before, but not of the frequency that we have now, and in a social environment where armed students were commonplace. Less guns = more deaths? More restrictions = more deaths? Liberal attitudes toward child-rearing = more deaths?

That's not what these policies were supposed to do.

All I am saying is we need to find out why this is happening, without regard to personal issues like being anti corporal punishment or being anti-bully or any of that kind of baggage. The goal is not to press a personal political agenda, but to fix the problem: children dying in violent acts in the one place we as parents assume them to be safe.

TheRedneck

reply to post by freethinker123

With respect but none of us can know whether paddling would have stopped this from happening. If you are talking generally about children misbehaving its a different point. But misbehaving is one thing, grabbing guns and killing kids - well that suggests some very serious issues.

I would classify "grabbing guns and killing kids" as a form of misbehaving... an extreme form, of course, but misbehaving nonetheless.

It is human nature to not only continue actions which obtain desired results, but to intensify those actions. This means that a child who is not subjected to some form of discipline when they act contrary to rules of conduct, will continue to not only act contrary to rules of conduct but actually increase the intensity and frequency of such unwanted actions. Few career criminals started out as such; they typically started out taking things from smaller kids or beating up smaller kids and progressed from there. In the case of shootings like the Ohio incident, I would hazard a guess that this kid had behavior problems before... as did those who drove him to this point.

Knowing this propensity of humans and especially children, does it make any sense to wait until they are already troubled in order to try and fix the problem? Or does it make sense to let them learn early on that there are consequences to their actions and that they have to adjust to others rather than demanding others adjust to them?

My presumption here is that the parental figures in the lives of the culprit did not communicate with their children / grandchildren (if reports that parents were absent for whatever reason were true).

Communication need not necessarily be verbal. It can also be physical. But that aside, I do agree there had to be a parental issue for this to escalate to the point it did.

My emphasis is not upon paddling or to focus upon the cowardice of the culprits, it is upon the failure of parent figures to engage with the child.

But you fail to realize a dynamic of the issue: government agencies which delight in removing children from homes in response to parental attempts to discipline them. Yes, this happens, far too often. Does it make sense that allowing parents to discipline their children would cause more parents to discipline their children?

Personally speaking paddling and punishments of this kind should be used only as a last resort and quite often the threat (provided said parents have generated respect and a bit of fear from their children) will be as effective in getting kids to behave themselves.

I completely agree that the paddle is not the first means of discipline, but it is a last means that must be present as a consequence for continual or extreme disobedience. That respect and "bit of fear" you mention is a good point, but how do you instill that when the child is well aware that you can't do anything other than yell without risking prison time?

I realize I tend to harp on the spanking issue, but removing that from parents' arsenals of discipline is, IMO, the greatest single regulatory disaster we have ever made. The goal of every (decent) parent is for their children to be well-adjusted happy adults; the goal is not to inflict pain. The infliction of pain is a methodology to both get the child's attention and to keep that child from risking the pain again by misbehaving. When administered form an early age, it will indeed lead to a child needing less actual punishment as the threat of such is enough to change attitudes.

I disagree that paddling equals concern for the child. Paddling can be adminstered through concern and it can be administed by those with no concern for said child. People can be cruel as we all know.

Understand there is a major difference between spanking and beating. I do not approve of beatings; I vehemently defend a parent's right to spank their children as a part of their disciplinary regiment.

Spankings are typically given on the buttocks, the most well-padded portion of the anatomy. This is not coincidence; it reflects a parent's desire to not actually harm the child.

But where we part company is your implication that all other parents have the same noble motivations. This kid is a murderer, why can't we agree on a fact that he was failed by his family, rather than focusing on one aspect of parenting?

We do agree on this point. The parents failed. My question is why did they fail, and why do so many apparently fail? Why have we raised this generation of cowards, not only the children, but the parents as well in many cases? And most important of all, how do we fix it?

Vehicle IS car, parenting IS beating??? Or did I misunderstand?

Vehicle IS car; parenting IS discipline, including spanking... not beating.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

The problem is that SCHOOLS ACTIVELY WORK TO PROTECT BULLIES! Bullies get away with stuff while kids who try and put their foot down get expelled.

We need to end the zero tolerance BS!

P.S

Not all school shootings are the same:

One could say that Columbine was a case of atheist supremacist's targeting a Christian club.

Also, 30-40 years ago education wasn't an all girls club that it is today. Maybe increasing gender diversity in Education might have a positive effect?

reply to post by TheRedneck

i know but hit hits a nerve when it is
happening to your own daughter,
i know what shes feeling but i could
cope
and we do everything we can to make
her feel good about herself
but thanks for the reminder


philware

reply to post by korathin

I know...

My son came home scared to death one day when he was in the 4th grade. He told me he had gotten a spanking for fighting at school. I had always told them the same thing my Daddy told me: you get one at school, you'll get a worse one at home. But he quickly explained that he was just defending himself. So instead of spanking him that night, I went to the school to get the real story the next day.

It seems he was caught in the boys room by two known bullies. One tried to shove his head in the toilet, and my boy elbowed the bully in the gut. Of course the bully let go and fell down crying, and his buddy ran out of the boys room. My son took his licks for fighting, but the bully refused and was let go scot-free.

I hit the roof! In front of my son, I crawled that principal's rear up one side and down the other. At one point she threatened to call the police on me; I told her to go ahead, but before they got there I was going to show her what physical abuse meant. She decided to take her chewing out. Ever since that day, my son had no more problems with bullies, although I had plenty more run-ins with the school.

The problem wasn't the spanking; it was the lack of fairness and the lack of ability to control the kids. That bully had just learned two lessons: my son would fight back, so he had better bring his A-game if he wanted to pick on him; and the faculty of that school was more afraid of him than my son! He later dropped out of school and got in some trouble with the law... not to my surprise.

We have got to move away from these feel-good make-the-kids-happy-at-all-costs policies if we ever want to curb violence in schools. I repeat what I said earlier: We are killing our kids with good intentions and stupid policies!

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Increase in population would cause an increase in frequency.

My main point was that these things happened even when corporal punishment was the norm. Even the cases where the shooters were adults, who had been raised the old fashion way, shows that this type of behavior wasn't curtailed by that type of upbringing.

It happened then, why are people surprised that it is still happening?

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thanks I enjoyed reading your replies to me and especially the story about your kid. You sound like a great father backing your son to the hilt when he's not in the wrong, and being firm with him when he is.

reply to post by daskakik

Yes, it has happened in the past, but my point is that it has been increasing on frequency, despite prohibitions on weapons in schools, metal detectors, and attempts to curb corporal punishment. None of these things have worked to curb school violence; instead it has actually increased.

The boy who shot up Ohio was a coward. Period. Every bully I have ever come across in my life (and that is quite a number) has been a coward. Period. Even my son and daughter have remarked on how 'soft' and 'scared' their generation is.

The difference between the shootings of yore and the shootings of today is, IMO anyway, due to that increase in cowardice among students and parents alike. A pattern is emerging: instead of kids becoming angry enough to pull a trigger in a moment of emotional overload, kids today are planning, scheming, and carrying out desires to hurt others simply because they cannot face life and need to feel powerful.

That kid in Ohio no doubt felt powerful for those few moments when he was in total charge. Those he was once in fear of were running from him instead. He and he alone held the power of life and death in his hands, at least until confronted by one man who showed true bravery: the coach that chased him away. If you will notice, that coach was not injured; the kids running from him were.

My point is also that liberal feel-good social changes have contributed to the problem of children feeling they are powerless. Things like trying to eliminate corporal punishment, or placing special interest on 'bullying' without researching the situations behind incidents to identify who was truly bullying who, and the idea that taking weapons away from faculty who are fully licensed to carry anywhere else would prevent others form bringing in guns, have all contributed and must be stopped.

Yeah, some adults shot some kids back in the 1800s. A few, anyway. But every one of these incidents from back then can be attributed to emotional knee-jerk actions or even para-military attacks on colleges. That is a far cry from cold-blooded killings.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I really appreciated what you had to say in your Op. Bullies usually are the ones who are suffering and they alleviate their own suffering by causing more pain. It's an exchange of energy. Through intimidation and fear, they create the illusion that they have become stronger.

The best advice I can give to those who may be or are being bullied, improve your posture. Keep your head up and always make eye contact when passing people. In other words, walk like you own it. Practice looking as though you're oozing confidence even when you're not feeling all that confident. Bullies will see this body language and it will usually cause them to steer clear.

Best wishes, everyone!

reply to post by TheRedneck

our society is funny...you can inflict an unlimited amount of pain on someone, but so long as you don't actually hit them (much) it's completely fine.

i was bullied in school, and one day i fought back because it became physical. i gave the other kid a black eye, and i was expelled for defending myself. the other kid wasn't punished and the bullying didn't let up. THAT is what makes someone pick up a gun and get some justice.

i didn't have it too bad usually, but some kids do. how much pain does someone have to take before homicide becomes self defense?

the more "civilized" our society becomes, the less civil everyone acts.

reply to post by TheRedneck


When my oldest brother was getting picked on in school (about 8 years old) my dad taught him how to throw a punch. When my brother came home and told my dad he punched the bully, my dad took him out for an ice cream. Yes, things have changed. Lest you think this caused my brother to himself become a bully, it did not, nor did he end up a criminal. He was an M.D. in fact.

I miss him and my dad. I miss that you can't fight a bully without the state children and family services stepping filing a report about it.

Thanks for the post, TheRedneck.

Originally posted by freethinker123
Ok so what I'm getting here is that the youth of today are a bunch of cowards. unlike us who are older and much better.

Problem with that theory is that the kids of today are being raised by the older generation in the first place!

WRONG, WRONG, OH! SO VERY WRONG!

The children of today are RAISING THEMSELVES!

Where do you live guy? on the dark side of the moon?

Most of these children(>90%) are not being cared for by my generation...GREATgrandma and GREATgrandpa are raising these kids if they are blessed enough to have A FAMILY MEMBER(as in any) taking care of them AT ALL!

So where are they being taught what they SHOULD know?
answer: in the streets!

Real talk guy!

Check around on the MSM outlets! Now that is one topic they are into showing on prime time news!

This is a known fact for over 90% of America dude! I just had to give you a fact or two on that subject.

I donate time talking to the juveniles in DH and you just do not KNOW the half of it!

reply to post by TheRedneck


I understand your point but you are just dismissing the explosion in population for the increase in frequency. I'd say that movies and games are the reason for the shoot-em up style seen in today's shootings.

The reason for pointing out that it has happened in the past is to point out that that system didn't really work at stopping these types of situations either. I'm not saying that the present one is any better but it really isn't that much worse. It may seem that way, but nostalgia has a way of doing that.

reply to post by daskakik


I don't think it's the movies that are making it possible that's part of the whole various media rot kids minds and ruin good societies.

I have an antique book from the 1800's that says "books will rot societies mind".
Every generation gets some new form of media and the previous generations say that it's ruining everything.

An Increase in population could explain it, but the affects would be linear and they have more random increases and decreases too many to be a 1:1 relation.

I think the OP is right, it's the way we deal with children when they are younger that is causing this.

Both the bullies and their victims.
The bullies need more control earlier, but so do the kids who eventually shoot up schools.
Both are coddled too much.

reply to post by daskakik

I understand your point but you are just dismissing the explosion in population for the increase in frequency.

Population density doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the problem; if it did, I would expect a more drastic rise in shootings in congested areas and less shootings in rural or suburban areas. That is not happening.

I'd say that movies and games are the reason for the shoot-em up style seen in today's shootings.

Ummm... you do realize we had violence in the media back in my day too, right? It wasn't Andy and Opie 24/7. Have you ever watched an episode of "Road Runner"? Poor Wile E. Coyote was crushed beneath boulders, splattered across rock walls, shot with malfunctioning cannons, drilled into the ground, and dropped off towering bluffs every single episode. Elmer Fudd was constantly shooting at poor Bugs Bunny, who was busy trying to get him to aim at Daffy Duck instead. The little alien was always trying to get that disintegration ray aimed at Earth (we apparently made him "very very angry"). Heck, even Mickey Mouse pulled a shotgun on Chip and Dale!

Think about the Three Stooges... Larry would poke Curly in the eyes, Curly would hit Moe across the top of the head with a hammer, and Moe would slap both of them and yank them by the ears. That show was a HUGE hit!

"War of the Worlds" described terrible massacres on the radio, before TV was even popular!

Now it may be true that we have more violence to choose from today, but don't let that nostalgia get to you as well... violence in the media existed back in the early days too. What is different about the media is their availability to children. Back in my day, watching TV while the sun was shining was a big no-no! My mother would tell me to get lost; she didn't want to see me in the house again until dark! So instead of lying there watching a screen, I was outside wandering alone through a mountain, chasing animals, playing ball, or exploring.

There's another thing that has changed: I used to have a blasted arsenal of toy weapons! Water guns, toy guns, guns that made a popping sound when I pulled the trigger, even a BB gun that actually shot real projectiles from a real barrel using a real trigger! Today there are actually groups that are busily trying to outlaw toy guns, and there are precious few of them in the stores compared to my day.

No, the difference is not that we have started showing more violence in the media; the difference is that I could always go home and feel safe. Kids today do not have that luxury. Too many kids go home to empty homes because their parents have more important things to do. Too many kids get free reign of their activities and give in to laziness. Not enough kids have chores to do that make them responsible for something around the house. Maestromason is right: we are letting kids raise themselves, and they are doing a poor job of it.

I realize you are dead-set against corporal punishment; chances are you may have had some bad experiences with it in the past, and you may even equate it with abuse. But my philosophy (which has apparently worked on two different children) was simple: I looked to my parents. I saw the things they did for me that worked well and the things that didn't work so well. I kept the things that worked (corporal punishment, emphasizing education) and adjusted the things that didn't work so well (my Dad had a bad habit of getting frustrated when I couldn't do something as well as he did and just doing it himself). I hope my kids will do the same for my grandchildren.

Dr. Spock and Dr. Phil and a host of others with those fancy titles are very good at giving advice. But they didn't raise my kids, nor did they raise me. They are entertainers, not parental models. They give advice to people on specific situations based on a phone call, whereas a parent is taking action based on an intimate knowledge of the whole situation. Do these over-educated do-gooders have anything to add to the conversation? Sure! But are they the final authority on every situation?


NO!


The final authority and the final responsibility rests with those at ground zero: the parents, the teachers, and the mentors. And they are not doing their job.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Population density doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the problem; if it did, I would expect a more drastic rise in shootings in congested areas and less shootings in rural or suburban areas. That is not happening.

Cities do have more violence than rural areas. Not just shootings but all types of violent crime.

ETA:According to the FBI in 2009 areas with a population of more than 100,000 had 8.6 times more violence than areas with a population of less than 25,000. Areas with populations between 25,000 and 99,999 had 3.22 times the violent crime than those with less than 25,000.

Ummm... you do realize we had violence in the media back in my day too, right? It wasn't Andy and Opie 24/7.

I was just talking about the type of shootings. The list that I posted mentioned many episodes of people going into a school and confronting a single person instead of shooting the place up.

Slapstick and cartoons are a poor example because it's understood that it is exaggerated.

I realize you are dead-set against corporal punishment; chances are you may have had some bad experiences with it in the past, and you may even equate it with abuse.

Actually your're wrong. I have never said corporal punishment is wrong or bad. I actually agree with you in that, when applied right, it works really well. I just disagree in that it is a magic bullet that is going to make violent episodes vanish from society.

The final authority and the final responsibility rests with those at ground zero: the parents, the teachers, and the mentors. And they are not doing their job.

I think that the difference on my take, as far as violence in society, is that it isn't all based on how a person is raised. I believe that there is a percentage of a population that is mentally ill, and no matter how they are raised, will grow up and become murderers, rapist, arsonists or suicidal. It was proven by the violent episodes of the past. Not just the school shooting info that I linked to but violence in general.

reply to post by daskakik


I've said it at least once and so has TheRedneck.
The population levels don't show the direct affect on school shootings.
Shootings go up and down while the population still increases.
If they were directly related there would be a 1:1 ratio showing a constant increase of shootings as the population increases.

As far as violence increasing in cities over rural areas that is a product of socioeconomic factors.
While they play a role in the school shootings they are only part of the cause.
Population density has far more affect on general crime in cities than it does on school shootings.

Originally posted by Pigraphia
I've said it at least once and so has TheRedneck.
The population levels don't show the direct affect on school shootings.

You can say it all you want but do you have numbers to back it up. Not saying you're wrong but just stating something doesn't make it true.

As far as violence increasing in cities over rural areas that is a product of socioeconomic factors.
While they play a role in the school shootings they are only part of the cause.

True but this also makes the point that the issue is complex and I'm not sure that paddling in school is the silver bullet. In many cases it was the triggering event.

Population density has far more affect on general crime in cities than it does on school shootings.

Sure but schools also take greater measures to prevent violence. This also effect the numbers. I believe that it has driven the overall number of shootings down.The shooting spree incidents give the impression that things are worse when in fact they may be better in many areas.

reply to post by daskakik


I'm not just saying it.
The numbers have already been posted in this thread Re: frequency of school shootings.
If you missed them or ignored them that's on you not me.
From the numbers posted there are rises and dips, if population had a direct affect the numbers would have an increase as population increases.
Even without the dips the frequency doesn't increase enough to say it's from population.

The OP isn't saying just paddling they are saying an over all change in how schools are run, the whole system is running amok.
Yes the issue is complex, but it has more to do with how society has changed the structure of schools.
Hell getting rid of winners and losers is even part of the problem.
Again the OP isn't saying paddling alone will fix this, it's just part of it.
In fact more questions than solutions were raised to open discussion.

Your last part isn't coming through very clear, what are you saying has had an affect to lower the frequency?

Originally posted by Kali74The level of bullying now goes beyond school, it infects every aspect of the childs life.

To go one step further, it infects every aspect of our culture. From pundits and politicians to media and marketing. If you are outside of what is acceptable, you are marginalized, picked on or made invisible.