We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, February 16. 2018
One more shooting. One more chance for the Progressives to screech and whine about gun control. I'm really tired of this cycle. Progressives complain about the cycle, too, because they want action, and they want it now. In 3 weeks they'll be bored again, or outraged about something new such as the fact that Trump doesn't have a dog and doesn't seem to care for them. Progressive try to make it seem like those of us who actually support freedom and the Constitution are uncaring, because we don't do something other than the one thing they deride - "Thoughts and Prayers". I've noticed some are taking a new tack. Not necessarily better. Like every other event, they trot out the same emotions, same flawed statistics, bizarre comparisons to nations without cultures remotely similar to ours, and then one or two tricks. Progressives are not old dogs. They are young dogs and haven't learned that new tricks aren't necessarily smarter or better.
I wrote about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, slightly over 5 years ago. Have my views changed since then, and the presumed thousands of mass shootings that Progressives point out? No. Not in the least. Does the fact this involved children change my views? Nope. Am I cold and heartless? No. I'm just rational. Gun control won't stop this. People who want to kill will kill and they will use whatever method they can. The Progressive argument is "with guns, you can kill MORE" and that's just not proven to be true. It's an assumption based on incomplete data sets. What is the real issue that needs to be discussed after a shooting and the outrage is building?
The real issue is freedom and the Constitution. Progressives keep trying to misuse it. This is no surprise. They don't understand it, and frankly don't really enjoy the freedoms it provides. They, for some bizarre reason, think it creates government and government gives us everything the Constitution provides. Which is incorrect. The Constitution limits the government from getting in our way so we can each pursue the things we want and desire. The Constitution assures the freedoms, the government is just supposed to make sure nobody and no laws get in the way of the freedoms provided. These rights are not given by government. They are given to all by something greater than government. Call it God, or a Natural Order, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any could be the provider of these rights - I don't know what its name is, and the source is immaterial. All that matters is we all agree, and accept, that we have these rights. These rights don't change with time, circumstance, or technology. The Second Amendment allows us the right and ability to protect these rights on our own - individually! Let's not forget that an armed populace also prevents government from having a monopoly on force. One idiot Progressive said "big deal, how will your rifle offset a government tank? You're already at a disadvantage." Brilliant. So since I'm 190 lbs going against George Foreman, I should stop training because I'm going to lose anyway, right? Tell that to David when he stepped in with Goliath. I know the gun itself won't stop a tank. But it gives me a small advantage, if used properly. There are ways to stop a tank with a rifle, in the right situations. I'd rather have the gun rather than just my fists, and I'm certain many in Tiananmen Square felt the same way in 1989.
But the new trick I saw was something I saw posted several times. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Domestic tranquility? Nope
Justice? Not for all
general Welfare? Not for many
This was then followed by various commentaries such as "The founding fathers would weep." "We need to rethink our Constitution." Other silliness and lack of reason was applied to this misinformation. Talk about FAKE NEWS.
I've seen misinterpretations of the Constitution before. But this really took the cake. It's not even close. Domestic tranquility, of course, is exactly what we have. Except for ne'er-do-wells seeking to undermine the office of president, destroy the Constitution, and force people to eat, sleep, drink, act, and believe EXACTLY what they do - by force of law (or at least force of societal pressure). Everyone being the same is, to them, "tranquility". "Oh, it's just a gun. Is your life worse without it?" Yes it is. And it's not just a gun. It's an assurance that you won't force me to be like you - like you're trying to.
Justice, of course, is what the shooter (and all shooters) face, assuming they survive. The "not for all" is based on the assumption that those killed somehow didn't receive their justice because their dead. And, somehow, we who support gun rights are to blame for that. Sorry, not going to buy that crap. I'm no more responsible for a mental patient with guns than I am for 8 immigrants with boxcutters or 2 with home-made pressure cooker bombs. Who, by the way, are responsible for just as much death and destruction, if not more, utilizing LEGAL items. Progressive conveniently ignore these facts because they have the freaking amygdala which is hopped up and functioning at hyperdrive. "But what about the children?" is a joke comment made in virtually every crisis situation on The Simpsons. Because, you know, it's only a meaningful thing if you've thought about the children first.
General welfare, of course, is misrepresented by Progressives in many ways. If it's not class envy or fear that someone is earning more than them (that is, those who actually work), it's that 'welfare' somehow magically equates with safety. That is, the government needs to provide safety to everyone at all times. After all, the Constitution says "insure", doesn't it? Uh, yeah, it does. Except that doesn't mean the government is going to keep YOU safe AT ALL TIMES. That's moronic. It can't do that, and it shouldn't do that. It shouldn't even try to do it a little bit, especially if it means impinging on liberty. As Ben Franklin wisely opined:"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." NPR feels his comment has "lost its context". Let's not discuss that NPR lost its context about 20 years ago. Volokh alters the perspective, quite properly, here. Giving up some liberty for an improved, longer-term, safety, is logical. But giving up guns DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT ASSURANCE. The Bath Schoolhouse proves this. In a fictional sense, so does Heathers.
Finally, there is the point whether the Constitution does assure these things to everyone. In fact, it doesn't say that everyone's general welfare will be assured at all. It simply says THE general welfare. That means YOUR general welfare is YOUR responsibility, not the government's. It means YOU need to take care of yourself and your family, but the government will help protect the opportunities for you to do that. Which it has, quite effectively. My safety and general welfare is not the government's business. It's mine, and mine alone.
Of course, the Progressives, once their attempt to be rational fails, will fall back on emotion. This is the part where someone complains about me not caring or being unfeeling because I won't "do something" and don't support their agenda. What about the children, indeed? "What would you do if it was your kids?"
Well, I don't know. It's not my kids, but I do know one thing. I wouldn't want gun control, even stopping assault weapons won't work.. I'd probably want to arm my kid, make sure they were trained properly, or get on the school's back for not properly training the teachers or providing decent security. I've never been in a situation like that, so I don't know how I'd behave. I do know how I'd feel, because it's pretty close to how I feel now. Pretty bad, upset that bad things happen to good people and that life is unfair and sometimes destructive. Empathetic folk think my response is strange, shallow and uncaring. It's not. I genuinely hurt for those kids and their families. But I don't have to rage against the government for that. I rage against the government for plenty of stuff. This isn't one of them. In this case, the rage is felt for the gunman. After all, the government is doing its job properly, in this case.
Feelings won't fix anything. They will lead to bad policy. Which is why things like the claims about the number of school shootings in 2018 is bothersome. It's fake news. These are statistics which are conjured up out of nothing in order to develop greater outrage - emotionally driven policy news. Funny how Progressive rage on and on about how 'fake news' got Trump elected (no it didn't) but want to use real fake news to drive policy. Emotions, in this case, are completely insane.
Right now, everyone feels so bad for the families of the victims they aren't stopping to think about the potential impact of the policies they want to implement to stop these shootings. Let's ignore the fact that shootings are in decline, and run with the misguided Progressive belief that they are getting worse. The reality is that stopping guns won't stop killings, let alone mass killings. These are disturbed people. They will find a way to do what they want. The proper question is related to how can we identify and stop these potential events prior to them happening? We can't just toss threatening people in jail. And we can't use mental illness as a defining point for gun sales. After all, we've seen several regimes use political affiliations as indicators of mental illness, and even in the US some prominent politicians, celebrities, and activists have made claims that Republicans, climate skeptics, Trump voters, and a host of other types of people are 'mentally ill', so you see how this can be a problem. Any defining term about "mental illness" will have to have clear exclusions for political affiliation.
Today, as far as I'm concerned, we need to end the outrage about guns, and focus the outrage at the shooters. We should block their names and images from news broadcasts and other outlets. We should stop having schools listed as gun-free zones, and we should end gun-free zones altogether. Nobody in politics has seemed to make the correlation between active shooters and these zones. I have no problem with trained, armed, teachers or school staff. It should be a requirement.
But I simply can't listen to pinheads railing on removing freedoms so they can feel safe. If I can feel safe, in spite of these events, so can they.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Have you noticed that most of these male shooters are "alienated" from their parents? My guess is that most, but not all, are from divorced parents -- my hunch is that most of these guys have been raised by single mothers. Anybody going to get funding to do a research study on this possibility?
“If you can show me a law that will prevent the next mass killing, go ahead and sign me up for it.”
Rep, Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.)
I want to be discussing mental health problems in this country (choices for families, the lack of power in the law to actually doing anything substantive, etc.) and school safety. That's where actual, real improvements can be made. The rest is just hyperventilating.
The latest shooter was a recent orphan. The Sandy Hook shooter was the son of a single mother from a divorce.
I'm not going to go along with the idea this is a problem. My mom was a single mother for several years with four kids after her divorce. I owned, and I still own, guns. I don't see the problem or the relationship. Correlation is not causation.
My guess is these people were all troubled. Divorce doesn't help a troubled kid. But it's not an assurance of trouble, either.
Yes I understand about correlations, etc. Yes, many of us came out of divorced family situations in fine shape. What I want to see is the relationship between the mothers and these sons. It really, really is time for us to examine that particular relationship. A home without a father and the way a mother responds to raising young boy on her own. This is probably one of those "tough' conversations that no one in this country is willing to start.
All these attacks happen in gun free zones.
I don't go to the mail box without a gun. Not so much for me as for everyone else who doesn't carry a gun to church, the post office, the store, the diner, etc. I will not let a shooter put me or anyone down without a fight.
All the shooters are cowards and will run at the first sign of fighting back... see latest church shooting as an example.
You are right--this is where it should begin, after we have armed the security guards for certain, and the teachers if they wish and qualify.
Please correct me if I am wrong. All school shooters have been white? Is this true?
I'd like to see that also - seems like a common thing buried in the weeds is that the kid was on some sort of ADHD/psychiatric medication.
Correlation may not be causation, but it needs to be looked at.
Sadly, it'll be overlooked in the 'We must ban moar guns!' screaming. The left loves to wait and emote on how we need gun control, but they never look beyond that.
This (censored-expletive) was ALREADY a known psychopath, ALREADY known to police, ALREADY kicked out of his school, people had ALREADY made their concerns known, and he had ALREADY been reported to the FBI (who couldn't 'find' him despite having his real name on the Youtube account where he was posting really disturbing stuff) - and yet...
Somehow, the FBI had no problems finding my lovely bride when she took a photo of some power station smokestacks silhouetted against a brilliant blue sky. Her car got reported, and they checked us out.
So I'd love someone on the 'progressive' side to tell me what additional laws could have been passed that would have prevented HIM killing, once he got his mind set on it. But don't go the easy route of 'banning guns'- use your imagination.
Include him possibly paying a couple hundred bucks for chains, padlocks, and a gas can and a lighter - and setting fire to the school after chaining the doors. Include him tearing through the parking lot when school lets out and seeing how many he can mow down. Would there be a call for car control, just to prevent it from possibly happening?
He was determined to kill. Remember that.
I don't want to see this sort of stuff happen any more than you do. But screaming for 'MOAR LAWS ON EVIL GUNS!' when there was a massive, MASSIVE failure of damn near everyone else involved is like screaming about lantern control after Mrs. Murphy's cow kicked it over and burned half of Chicago.
(And don't get me started on how the most restrictive cities re gun control seem to have the worst crime/murder rates. Why, it's almost like criminals don't obey laws, and they prefer prey they KNOW is unarmed.)
I meant to say that they have not been from the African/American community. Yes, they have been from other communities not recognized as white, but my point being that there have not been any from the African/American community.
Where broken families and estrangement, psychological trauma, clinical dysfunction, licit drug dependency, postmodern cultural rot, apathetic latchkey "parenting", and especially the thirteen-year public prison-school complex go, when things go wrong it's only natural to blame the appliances invented to keep law and order. And the owners of said appliances because, well, because.
Because it can't possibly be the f*cking culture. Said every weak-minded "liberal" tool of the system ever.
I think you are correct but that observation cuts both ways.
You hear this outcry every time an UMC suburban school is shot up but the same voices are quite silent when Chicago, Detroit, or Baltimore has another weekend of shootings, often with a similar death toll and shooters about the same age as the young man in Florida. But the shooters and often the victims aren't white or 'white Hispanics' (I'm sure that trope will be trotted out again) so nobody seems to care as much.
All the highly publicized school shooters have been white. Last year 50-60 black children shot other children in schools and school yards but since it was part of the bigger problem of gangs it isn't a great news story for the 24/7 cable TV model. About 65-70% of shooting homicides in this country are committed by blacks, 10-20% by hispanics and the rest by others. But they aren't what the MSM wants to splash across the TV. This week there will be a dozen or two shooting in Chicago alone and 1-4 people will be killed. It won't even be mentioned on cable news. It happened last week and every week before too and it will happen next week and every week into the forseeable future as well. No one cares, 100% of THOSE guns were stolen and or acquired illegally anyway and won't help the fight for gun control very much and in fact might destroy their argument. So those shootings aren't useful
When the Nov 1 2017 NY City Truck terror attack happened there was no outcry to ban trucks/cars. Why not? If the same terrorists had acquired a gun and shot and killed those same 8 people the MSM would have been all over it 24/7 to ban guns.
There are about 150,000 deaths in the U.S. every year from preventable accidents. Rarely do you see even a nod from the MSM about this carnage. Those sons and daughters are just as dead as the children shoot by this nut case in Florida. But those deaths don't fit the agenda. Senator Nelson from Florida did not go on TV pleading to stop any of those 150,000 deaths, I assume he doesn't care about them. He cares very deeply about these deaths in Parkland. Why? Simply because it is an opportunity to push his agenda on gun control.
I have a suggestion how we can reduce criminal homicides: Allow the police and the FBI (perhaps even use the NSA) to monitor ALL social media. Use supercomputers to search for key words and phrases. Then when someone says something suspicious go talk to them and maybe even commit them to psychiatric care. I can imagine that this might be so effective it would stop about 50% of the homicides. Why not do it???
We need to lose all the six-figure diversity and race and LGBTQ vice-principals and use the freed-up salary money to put a real school security force in place.
I'll start advocating for the government to have more power to control these individuals the day the death toll from these individuals starts approaching the death toll from government. And it seems odd to me that these people are advocating for the government to have more power over so many aspects of our lives when that government is headed by Literal Hitler. Almost as if they believe that it's not really Donald Trump running the government but an army of faceless, nameless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. All of whom are almost progressive by definition if you realize that progressives are convinced that human beings really don't have free will but can be easily manipulated to behave in whatever manner their masters see fit. It's just a fairly simple matter of applied science to control humans as if they were machines. Well, except for those few who don't get with the program because they're stupid or crazy or evil. And what can you do with those flawed humans except send the stupid ones off to a re-education camp and the crazy ones off to a psychiatric prison and the evil ones off to be stood up against a wall?
School grounds and school buildings aren't secure by their very design...and no one in nearly every school administration seems very interested in securing them. Could you drive a dump truck through the front doors on your school and down the hallway? Likely you could and that's a problem. Are the exterior wall so flimsy that you could drive through them with the same dump truck or school bus? Window walls? Securing from an individual on foot can be done rather easily with just adding personnel but how do you secure from Breslan crazies or single jihadi crazies...that requires more secure buildings. And what is any school administration or governor doing? In the end it is up to you to demand the security because it will not be done voluntarily by the administration of the school.
The problem is not the guns, it is the people. This country will not face the fact it is in moral and social collapse and we are being taken over by an ever-increasing mob of sick, dishonest, evil people.
I look outside my office building. Every day there are dozens of mentally ill people and drug addicts wandering around, yelling and screaming, threatening people, OD'ing, defecating and urinating all over the place. The authorities can do nothing because of federal laws and lawsuits that now make it impossible for law authorities to take action. (This last shooter is a perfect example of that. They have known for at least a year he is a psycho and yet no one could take action.)
There are "homeless" camps of thousands now throughout the city in all of the parks and public spaces, on the sidewalks and elsewhere. They steal, they rob, they do drugs, they threaten, they urinate, they defecate. You can't use the parks now. Some days you can't go in the water at the beach because the bacteria count from human waste is too high. Again, the government does nothing.
My wife is now frightened to walk outside her building, especially when it starts getting dark, because she was physically attacked several months ago by a crazy person (not seriously hurt, however). This was at 5 p.m. in the evening. Her building security told her that they and the police know who it is but can do nothing. I now have to pick her up from work every day at her building across the street and escort her to our building and parking gtarage and we go home. And there are generally at least 4 or 5 psychos on the way we have to deal with. A well known crazy sex offender used to be outside my old building every day leering at women. Again, nothing could be done. (I do think a couple of boyfriends beat the crap out of the guy a couple of times, and then he was later found dead of a drug overdose.) This is in the financial district of a substantial city.
People in the United States now accept all this as normal. It is not normal. I go to Korea, I go to Japan, I go to Taiwan. None of this stuff is tolerated by their societies. There, foot police walk the streets and take action immediately if they see anything. Crime, drug dealing and drug use is punished severely. As a result, they have no crime and it is safe to walk the streets day and night in most parts of those countries. But we tolerate it because we are in collapse and the government has made us powerless to take action to protect ourselves or stop these people.
I guess I had a great relationship with my mom back in the day. Not so much now, and I'm open about it. I love her. More properly, I love who she was. Lots of water under that bridge.
I don't know that it's anyone's place to make judgments on relationship dynamics. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong - that bad parental/child dynamics probably lead to violent outcomes. It's quite possible.
But defining what 'bad' may be is difficult.
My guess? There's more nature than nurture at work here. Some people really do just want to see the world burn.
Recreational drugs and bad parenting are a lethal combination.
1980 San Francisco. My beautiful, tall and much older looking 14 year old was being stalked by a very, very large (350-400 pounds) photographer. He followed her to school and waited across the street from school to take pictures of her. He took pictures of her through the fence around the school. When I asked the school principal to help his response was: "I can't he is not on school property." When I asked the local police they sat in their car on several occasions and documented the fact that he was indeed stalking her. When I asked them to do something their response was similar: "we can't do anything until he touches her." I finally went in to my local Irish bar(real Irish) and asked for help. A few days later when we saw him on the street the next time he ran the other way. Problem solved! ;-) No more stalking, no more pictures.
I think the key word is powerless.
This is less about some of the cultural or societal aspects you've mentioned. Other cultures have less crime for different reasons. Our problem, and the source of our collapsing moral compass is, entirely, government.
People rely on government to do everything for them. In the past, if someone was leering at your daughter, you confronted them and did something - the method you utilized with the Irish Bar. Communities upheld standards, sometimes punitively.
Today, the government forbids this. Vigilantism is what they'd call it. You'd be tossed in jail for threatening him, have a restraining order brought against you.
The government promises to keep you safe, but never can properly do this. Nor should it be relied on to do it. People from my POV look at it (improperly) as "the police need to do something". Progressives say "the government needs to pass more laws and remove guns". I say "we need to be empowered to protect ourselves.
Guess what? That's what the Second Amendment is for.
I agree we are in a kind of collapse. There are definitely myriad reasons for it....but I blame a poorly educated youth. The is no good middle ground in place, where once there was.
The concept of socially liberal, fiscally conservative was very real at one point (within the framework of each era). Today, there is only polarity, and the side which favors deconstruction is trying harder to win. They control the media, and they control a good portion of our government. They have infiltrated our law enforcement and have begun to use portions of it to push their agenda. They control our schools. They have managed to take control of the national dialogue, too - the concept of behaving in a particular manner in order to be 'acceptable' is their doing. They are pushing the Emotional Quotient rather than the Intelligence Quotient by trying to make people think it's intelligent to be overly emotional.
That's fine. Most of them won't last if things collapse. They'll be destroyed quickly, quietly and life will move on.
I'm posting an article by Gary North on Lew Rockwell:
The murder of 17 innocent high school students in Parkland, Florida reminds us that public schools are dangerous. Too dangerous for children.
Yet there are pro-public school ideologues who refuse to face the facts. They shut their eyes to reality. They spout their slogan: “Public schools don’t kill public students. Killers kill public school students.” We have heard this for 50 years. Yet the killers are always one of these: (1) enrolled public school students, (2) public school graduates, or (3) expelled public school students. It’s time to turn a deaf ear on the refrain about public schools not killing public school students.
When was the last time you heard of a mass execution of students in a private school? The next time will be the first.
When did anyone hear of a dozen or more corpses lying on the floor of a homeschool co-op?
The facts are inescapable. Students in public schools are at risk. Terrible risk. Unacceptable risk. There is no excuse for this any longer. None. The statistics are clear. Students get gunned down only in public schools.
Yet defenders of public schools never cease spouting their slogans about a constitutional right to taxpayer-funded education. They claim that this is guaranteed by the Constitution’s general welfare clause. This is preposterous. There were no taxpayer-funded day schools in 1788, not even a military academy. There wasn’t even a school at West Point. It was a fort. West Point was where Benedict Arnold had been in charge.
We need to organize . . . now. We need to go to the voters . . . now. We need to tell them what they already know but refuse to say in public: it is time to ban public schools once and for all. No more excuses. No more gradualism. Gradualism kills! In every town, every city, every county, every state, and in Congress, our voices must be heard. “Shut them down! All of them!”
There should be a school building buy-back program. Any school board that is willing to turn in its schools to the local police department should be paid. The empty schools can be then sold to private schools or even turned into business complexes. The police department should be allowed to keep the profits. We want our men in blue behind this.
County schools can be sold by the local sheriff’s office. Same arrangement. “Support your local sheriff. Turn in your schools.”
What will the students do? They can stay home and sign up for the Khan Academy. It’s online. It’s free. There would soon be a market for similar programs. Churches can create them. Retired teachers can create them. Service organizations can create them. If Salman Khan can do it, others can do it. There is a working model. This isn’t rocket science.
What about the children of mothers who work outside the home? No problem! A city or county can pay profit-seeking charter schools to enroll students. Tax support involves coercion, but it’s better to have private charter schools with armed guards than what we have now. There have been no mass shootings in charter schools. There have not been any gang-related murders, either.
FWIW: There is more than one university professor who homeschools his/her child. There are more and more of them every year because, "the academic skills of the kids coming in to university is so poor it's hard to explain"
Some people really do just want to see the world burn.
Correction: Some peoples' cultures really do just want to see the human spirit burn. Or has it by now also escaped rightists that the soulless progressive concrete block prison-school with its armed guards and by-the-book (in)doctrinaires Americans hand their kids to for thirteen years is so exempt from analysis as to its most useful function, which is conditioning robots, that is completely escapes mention?
What I want to see is the relationship between the mothers and these sons. It really, really is time for us to examine that particular relationship.(*) A home without a father and the way a mother responds to raising young boy on her own. This is probably one of those "tough' conversations that no one in this country is willing to start.
The State has a vested financial interest in broken homes. The two legislators most defensive of this their complex I'd ever met with include a Democrat feminist and a Republican head of committee. She was an obvious, home-wrecking lost cause going in. He was the biggest unconstitutional, constituent-abusing, statist asshole I'd ever met.
No quotes needed: This is certainly one of those tough conversations no one in this country is willing to start. We don't do cause and effect and we especially don't do the right thing.
A national movement against the government-enriching custody industry and the generational welfare regime stands as much chance of achieving reform as would one to abolish the State school, its incubator.
By now values are ostensible and movements all move in one direction. The ostensible right's endless bitching about the left's dysfunction rings hollow when it can't so much as inspect its own decades of failure. It'd rather live a fancy life on the temporary teat of debt-State corporatocracy and leave the kids to fend literally behind bars, rejecting their useless "millennialism" as a moral defect when in fact they themselves were to blame for it.
*We no longer have time for the good, the beautiful, or whether of not something is true. We have only time for conversation. -John Cage
"School grounds and school buildings aren't secure by their very design"
Even that's treating the problem. When I was in high school 50+ years ago, we didn't have locked doors, security guards, student or visitor IDs. We didn't have cops or lockdowns. Occasional student dustups were easily handled by teachers.
We didn't NEED that crap.
I spoke recently to a student at that same school, they're paying over 1 million for 'security enhancements'. Stuff we wouldn't have dreamed necessary when I was her age. And people consider this 'normal'.
Go back to stories like 'Blackboard Jungle' to get a perspective about what used to be considered a bad school.
What the hell is wrong?
The problem is the hype and the 24/7 news cycle. You are 10,000 times more likely to die in some preventable accidental death than you are to be shot at your local school. But those 150,000 preventable accidental deaths aren't as exotic and attention grabbing for the MSM. This "different" treatment of these things make us think that the risks are so much greater than they really are.
IMHO the predominant reason that these type of school shooting occur is BECAUSE of the 24/7 hype on TV. These shooters are mentally ill and they motivation is "fame". It makes no sense to those of us watching it all happen but to the mentally ill these things are just a way of fulfilling their destiny.
Hello, i feel that i noticed you visited my weblog so i came to go back the want?.I am trying to to find things to improve my website!I guess its ok to use a few of your concepts!!
So, explain to me again why I should allow the descendants of Josef "of course my opponents are crazy" to determine anything about my mental health?
It's a fundamental trust issue: the Left has repeatedly demonstrated they can't be trusted to keep any civil compact. There is no compromise, no reasoned debate, that will change that fact.
The mental health angle is a red herring (meaningless distraction that will not prevent any crime) and is used as an argument to invert rights. Those who bring out this red herring want non-ownership to be the default, with owners having to prove fitness for ownership. It's revolting. The default for rights is people can exercise them, with government to have to prove the justice of the denial of the right.
You're just another racist, uninterested in the truth. As with all other crimes, whites are UNDER-represented in school shootings, while blacks are OVER represented.