Violence and Schools

So, I’m sure by now, all you good readers have heard about the school shooting in Nebraska. A student shot two administrators and killed them. Perhaps, to stop these sorts of things from happening, we should make it against the law to have guns in schools. No, better, perhaps we should make it illegal to have guns anywhere near a school. Maybe we could make it a law that 17-year-olds shouldn’t be allowed to have guns. I know, let’s go with a new “zero-tolerance” law against anything that looks like a weapon at schools. That will do it for sure. No? Perhaps a law against discharging a gun on school property? A law against shooting guns in a safe manner? How about a law making it a crime to fire a gun in city limits? Make it illegal for someone under 18 to buy ammunition? Wait, I’ve got it: let’s make it against the law for people to hurt other people. In fact, let’s make it an even MORE serious crime for people who shoot other people.

As I’m sure you can imagine, all of these things are already against the law. In other words, the fellow that shot those two administrators already broke dozens and dozens of laws. I’m sure he didn’t care. This is further illustration that no matter how many laws you pass, only the lawful will follow them. In fact, if it were legal to have a gun at school, the only likely difference to this story is that the administrators might be alive today because they shot the 17-year-old who tried to kill them. Gun laws don’t help people, they kill people.

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

33 Responses to “Violence and Schools”

  1. victoria says:

    And lets make it illegal to pray in school or post the 10 commandments that says “Thou shalt not kill” and ban God from schools altogether also. There is a whole load of statistics on how crime and everything else went up in schools after that law was passed. And Adam don’t come on here demanding that I show you each and every statistic or therefore I am lying. I frankly don’t care what you think.

    • Adam says:

      And I don’t care that you don’t think.

    • Eoj Trahneir says:

      It isn’t just a member of ten commandments group; it is a plenty good idea not kill.

      But there are times when nothing else will do, and for some, that line is crossed sooner than for others. And if you draw the line past the point where another does, say in the Muslim/Christian way, you wind up the dead dead dead guy.

      When the rules of the school don’t protect the kids, kids figure it out real fast.
      And they will do what they can to live.
      It is very natural. Even a cockroach fights to live.

      • Big Dog says:

        That is why it is important to note that the Ten Commandments never said Thou Shall not kill. It was, Thou Shall not Murder. Murder is a crime, killing can be justified as in self defense and war. God inspired David to defeat (and kill) his enemies.

        • Darrel says:

          BD: “important to note that the Ten Commandments never said Thou Shall not kill. It was, Thou Shall not Murder.”>>

          Actually, that’s not right. An acquaintance of mine wrote a detailed and scholarly response to this interesting question. I’ve posted it here for you:

          http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=23084#p23084

        • Darrel says:

          BD: “the Ten Commandments never said Thou Shall not kill. It was, Thou Shall not Murder.”>>

          The most scholarly modern translation, the NRSV has: “Thou shalt not kill.”

          Catholic scholarship is quite good, their Douay-Rheims Bible has: “Thou shalt not kill.”

          God’s own favorite version, the King James Bible has: “Thou shalt not kill.”

          The American King James Version
          “You shall not kill.”

          American Standard Version
          “Thou shalt not kill.”

          Darby Bible Translation
          “Thou shalt not kill.”

          Webster’s Bible Translation
          “Thou shalt not kill.”

          Glad you know more than all of the hundreds of translators involved in making those translations!

          Perhaps you meant the verse is commonly understood to mean “not murder” since killing people and telling people to kill other people is perhaps the most favorite Bible pastime. But saying thou shalt not murder is rather redundant since murder is by definition wrong (tautology).

          • Big Dog says:

            Let’s ask the Jews since the Commandments were given to them and the original language is Hebrew:

            The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad.

            The translation is “Thou shalt not murder

          • Big Dog says:

            Yes my argument is that it means thou shalt NOT MURDER because that is what the Hebrews said it is.

            You argument is that since murder is wrong it would be redundant to say thou shalt not murder. Of course since God was giving them the law it only stands to reason he would tell them what he considers wrong.

            But Thou shalt not steal is now redundant since stealing is wrong. Maybe it is just me but we have a society where the legal system has laws saying it is wrong to do something. Is it redundant to say that it is wrong to rob a liquor store because we already know that stealing is bad? Or is it more likely that our society is telling us what is expected of us and what it considers to be wrong and therefore what we can be punished for?

            Hey, just like God spelling out what He considers wrong and what we will be punished for. And you said scholarly…

        • Darrel says:

          BD: “And you said scholarly…”>>

          You be sure and send a note off to the Catholics (1/3 of Xtianity), the fundies (KJV another 1/3) and the scholars with the NRSV. Professional translators just don’t know how to translate Hebrew like you.

          Note, you said: “the Ten Commandments never said Thou Shall not kill. It was, Thou Shall not Murder.”

          Maybe check next time before you pretend to know what the Bible says.

  2. Eoj Trahneir says:

    And let’s make all kids embrace their fellow gays and perverts, and make it against the law to say, “I don’t like the idea of homosexuality.”

    Wait, I’ve got it: let’s make it against the law for people to say anything that hurts other people. Every time a gay says, “I don’t like being straight,” it would be…a hate crime!

    In fact, let’s make it an even MORE serious crime for people who shoot other people.

    I agree with BD; the problem isn’t lack of laws, but lack of enforcing them.

    Injustice is caused by mercy, (think about it)
    and global warming is caused by liberals burning in hell. (don’t think about it.)

    • Adam says:

      Surprise. Another off topic smear of homosexuals. You think about gays more than anyone I’ve ever met in my life, gay or straight. What’s up with that?

      • Eoj Trahneir says:

        Because I haven’t meet you, and had some dinner with you, dear. Then I would have something else to think about!
        Only you can save me from being straight, big guy!

        Seriously, you mean to say you don’t see any link between the promotion of a moral-less society and a society that seems to be loosing every indication of morality?

        That could mean you are either dumber than you pen yourself out to be, or you don’t know what morals are.
        And frankly, that post wasn’t about gays, it was about global warming being caused by liberals burning in hell.

        I am sure you will…ah, do your part, you handsome devil you!

        Kisses and hugs!

        • Big Dog says:

          Eoj, if a homosexual were called a queer in War and Peace and only one time, if you asked Adam what the book was about he would say it was about bashing gays.

        • Adam says:

          “Seriously, you mean to say you don’t see any link between the promotion of a moral-less society and a society that seems to be loosing every indication of morality?”

          I don’t see a promotion of a moral-less society or a society losing every indication of morality. I guess by your own construction that makes me dumb but I guess I can live with that.

  3. victoria says:

    David Barton of Wall Builders has studied the statistical records for the past 60 years. In each study you can clearly see a negative impact starting around the year 1962 when School Prayer was removed! Teenage pregnancy rates have gone up 500% since 1962. Unmarried mothers have risen dramatically since 1962. The divorce Rate is so high that many young children don’t really understand what a family is. Violent Crimes have risen steadily since the early 60’s, and our prison system is bursting at the seams. The SAT scores have steadily declined each year for 18 straight years since 1962 and continue to decline or be low. We once had the best school system in the world, and we are now ranked about 15th among the industrialized nations. This is despite us spending more money then any other nation in the world on our school system. As the poorly educated enter the workforce how can our companies compete with other international industries?

    • Eoj Trahneir says:

      Not only poorly educated, but American kids have no concept what the words “moral responsibility” means.
      If they want to tattoo “I’m a Dracula” across their butt, they DO IT! Never realizing that every tattoo, every hat on backwards, or in the house, or in a profile photo screams “I AM AN IDIOT!” to the rest of the world.

      And I don’t mean biblical morality. There are plenty places in the world with moral people that are not Christians, although Christianity does have a good moral base.

      I mean common sense morality; it does not serve society to allow crime to go unpunished. Actions have consequences. People do judge you by your actions. Make poor choices now and you will suffer in the future. If you attack a just and honest man, don’t be surprised if he sprouts a little whoop-ass on on you.

      And I don’t mean Ms Woopass Goldberg, that liberal twit.

      When kids are instructed in school that, “Anything is OK, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone!” then someone needs to also teach what hurts other people. ‘Cause kids think that if they aren’t actually twisting a knife in someone’s guts, they aren’t hurtin’ anyone.

      But a father can feel pain for the failure of his kids.

    • Big Dog says:

      Yes, all about the time of Johnson’s Great Society and the enslavement of minorities to the Democrat party

    • Adam says:

      David Barton is a hack, a liar, and a phony historian who’s writing is complete rubbish. His arguments sound great but they’re not based on reality.

      • victoria says:

        And why did I know you were going to say that? I could almost write your posts for you anymore.

        • Adam says:

          His views are not supported by mainstream historians and his work has been discredited over and over. I’m sure he knows a ton of history but he’s twisted it to fit a view that just isn’t reality.

      • Blake says:

        Adam, most “mainstream” historians are liberals who are interested only in twisting history to suit their means, like saying Wilson, and either one of the Roosevelts were great presidents, when they all sought in their own way, to destroy the Constitution, because it hampered their “enlightened” view of how they should “rule”.
        A good example would be Eisenhower’s attempts to enact civil rights, only to be thwarted by the Senate Majority leader at that time, who wanted to eliminate the most meaninful parts of the bill- and yet, just seven years later, that same man who blocked the civil rights bill when it was proposed by a Republican, then took full credit for implementing the SAME bill- who was it?
        LBJ-
        So I have to take issue- when you say “mainstream”, you are REALLY saying liberal socialists, aren’t you?

    • Ogre says:

      Indeed, Victoria, Barton has written some great, accurate stuff. Of course, Adam will bash him simply because Adam doesn’t like truth, only things that agree with him.

      • Adam says:

        You too? Yes, continue to proclaim the greatness of hacks like Barton while suggesting I am the one with a truth problem. Funny stuff.

        • Ogre says:

          Indeed. You are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong always forever and at all times. As I mentioned already.

          • Big Dog says:

            And that is how it goes with Adam. You are wrong if you do not agree with him. He and Darrel live by that edict. If you disagree with them and the information they cut and paste from places that agree with them then you are wrong even if you cite items contrary to their claims. They are always right because they said so and you should always ignore their past acts when showing them as hypocrites. If they go after you for attacking Obama for something they attacked Bush on then YOU are wrong and they are not hypocrites.

            They are actually amazing little liberals. Give them gubmint cheese and wipe their butts for them because they can’t take care of themselves.

        • Adam says:

          Don’t confuse your inability to convince me your conservative nonsense is the truth with me having some inability to accept the truth. I change my mind on subjects all the time. You just need to be right sometime and maybe I’ll accept it.

          Barton is a liar. It’s nothing personal.

  4. victoria says:

    “Don’t confuse your inability to convince me your conservative nonsense is the truth with me having some inability to accept the truth.”

    The truth is the truth no matter who the messenger might be and you can deny it all you want to but it doesn’t change it or stop it from being so. And that my friend is a huge difference between the left and right because your truths change with the winds and is called hypocrisy. You can’t stand what David Barton says about what has happened since 1962 and the fact that the statistics might have something to do with prayer and God being outlawed in schools, however, there are certain natural laws ordained by God himself that no matter how much you scream and shake your fist cannot be changed just like the law of gravity. The law of sowing and reaping for instance. And to take a page out of your book–“where’s the proof that Barton is a liar.” Because I don’t think you can, you just don’t like what he says. He proves over and over again that our founders were Christian with quote after quote from their own writings. He has proven there is no such thing as “separation of church and state” except in the minds of people who cannot stand the thought that there even is a God and a Creator and the fact that our “inalienable rights” don’t come from the government.

    • Adam says:

      “The truth is the truth no matter who the messenger might be and you can deny it all you want to but it doesn’t change it or stop it from being so.”

      I absolutely agree with that statement. Now, I know you mean that to say I’m wrong and you’re right so I should just stop denying the truth, but you’re still wrong and I’m right about Barton. The truth: Barton lies constantly.

      One of my favorite Barton lies is simply that more than half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were trained for ministry. It’s not true of course but that hasn’t stopped others from repeating this lie just like you repeat Barton’s lies on this site.

      My favorite person that has spent a great deal of time debunking this nonsense and documented all of it is Chris Rodda.

      • Darrel says:

        Regarding Barton’s non sequiter of Prayer in school correlating with morality, the following background is useful:

        ***
        Haven’t Public Schools Always Had Prayer?

        At the time the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1962 and 1963 decrees against school-sponsored prayers and bible-reading, it is estimated religious observances were unknown in about half of the nation’s public schools.

        Horace Mann, the father of our public school system, championed the elimination of sectarianism from American schools, largely accomplished by the 1840’s. Bible reading, prayers or hymns in public schools were absent from most public schools by the end of the 19th century, after Catholic or minority-religion immigrants objected to Protestant bias in public schools.

        Until the 20th century, only Massachusetts required bible-reading in the schools, in a statute passed by the virulently anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party in the 1850’s. Only after 1913 did eleven other states make prayers or bible reading compulsory. A number of other states outlawed such practices by judicial or administrative decree, and half a dozen state supreme courts overruled devotionals in public schools.

        As early as the 1850’s, the Superintendent of Schools of New York State ordered that prayers could no longer be required as part of public school activities. The Cincinnati Board of Education resolved in 1869 that “religious instruction and the reading of religious books, including the Holy Bible, was prohibited in the common schools of Cincinnati.”

        Presidents Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt spoke up for what Roosevelt called “absolutely nonsectarian public schools.” Roosevelt added that it is “not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in these schools.”

        For nearly half a century, the United States Supreme Court, consistent with this nation’s history of secular schools, has ruled against religious indoctrination through schools (McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948), prayers and devotionals in public schools (Engel v. Vitale, 1962) and prayers and bible-reading (Abington School District v. Schempp, 1963), right up through the 1992 Weisman decision against prayers at public school commencements and Santa Fe v. Doe (2000) barring student-led prayers at public school events.”

        Also:

        “Can’t Moral Decline Be Traced to the Prayer Decisions?

        Some politicians like to blame everything bad in America upon the absence of school prayer. Get real! Entire generations of Americans have grown up to be law-abiding citizens without ever once reciting a prayer in school! If prayer is the answer, why are our jails and prisons bulging with born-agains! Japan, where no one prays at school, has the lowest crime rate of any developed nation.

        Institutionalizing school prayer can not raise the SAT scores (only more studying and less praying can do that). It is irrational to charge that the complicated sociological problems facing our everchanging population stem from a lack of prayer in schools.

        One might just as well credit the lack of prayer with the great advances that have taken place since the 1962 and 1963 decisions on prayer. Look at the leap in civil liberties, equality, environmental awareness, women’s rights, science, technology and medicine!”

        More here:

        http://ffrf.org/publications/brochures/schoolprayer/