RE: School shooting at Parkland Florida. How can you protect your students?
First, clearly this is a tragedy, and I hope none of my comments to come in any way belittle that tragedy. The fact that this seems to be happening so much more often is frightening, and it would seem some action or change is necessary to solve it.
The sad thing is people are called for gun control and not blaming the shooter.
I find this statement to be a little disingenuous. I don't think anyone who is in favor of stricter gun control would say that the shooter is not responsible for his actions. I have not heard anyone say that this shooter - or any of the recent mass killers - should not be punished, or is not the first cause behind the murders.
What gun control proponents are saying is that stricter gun regulations would make it harder for bad actors to acquire guns, and therefore they would not be able to do as much damage.
Now, I'm not really a partisan for either camp. Generally, I think people's belief in the efficacy of gun control is as misguided as those who believe every person should be walking around strapped with a gun. But I do think if any progress is to be made, each side must be willing to listen to, and respond to, the actual argument of the other side, rather than some twisted strawman.
18 school shootings so far in 2018. That is a lot for a year that is only 7 weeks old. Am I over reacting?
Your post suggests that you don't think stricter gun control can help fight this problem. Do you have any suggestions on what might help?
Thanks for sharing.
Actually I was raised shooting guns. I don't own a gun now but that is my choice not to have one. I was taught to be responsible for my own actions.
My problem is people saying guns kill. I believe it is the people behind the gun that does the killing.
I have no problem with the current gun controls in place now. The problem is they are not being initiated and people are getting their hands on guns with out being screened first. And guns should not be sold from one person to another without going through some retail outlet. If the guidelines for guns being purchased were being followed there would be less of a problem.
Also I have heard the comment that guns kill a lot. And to answer your question if the gun control practices we have in place now are not being used. I don't think stricter regulations are going to help unless they take and enforce the ones we already have.
I agree that controls that are already in place can/should be enforced better.
Again, though, no one actually says "guns kill". The only time I ever see/hear that statement is when pro-gun people are complaining against pro-gun-control people. What liberal pro-gun-control people are saying is: "when there are a lot of guns around, more people are killed by people with guns. Therefore, if you take away the guns, fewer people will be killed by people with guns." And even if some emotional and imprecise person shouts, "Guns kill people!" no one actually believes that a gun commits murder without a person pulling the trigger. It's a strawman set up by the NRA.
Now, the argument that without guns fewer people will die from guns, and the implied argument that fewer people will be killed overall, is a debate worth having. There are legitimate points to favor either side.
My problem is, even with the increase of mass shootings this last decade or so, they are still much rarer, and cause less death, than the emotional impact that they generate would have us believe. They are visceral tragedies that get way more attention than other deaths, never mind the many lives possibly saved by having a gun to protect your home, etc. So, like I said, I don't know the right answer here. I just know that when someone on either side shows signs of anger and certainty, he's probably wrong. :)
If someone wants to kill people they will find away with guns or without guns. I have no way of knowing what you mean by strawman set up by the NRA. I think people are entitled to their own opinion. Fewer people will die without guns from guns might be right but it doesn't mean fewer people will die. People that want to kill people will do it one way or another.
I don't pay anymore attention to the NRA than I do about supporters of gun control. I know what my own opinion is.
Then allow me to clarify. A straw man argument is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that the person does not actually hold. Usually it is a silly view, so the debater can point at it and say, look how silly my opponent's argument is. It is an argument that is weak and easily goes to pieces - like a straw man.
So, when people attempt to support their position by claiming that people who want stricter gun control think only that guns kill people, rather than that people kill people - this is a straw man argument, since no one actually says or believes that. As I stated above.
I referred to it as the NRA's straw man, because the NRA is the lobby group who makes it their mission to publicly argue against gun controls of any kind. If they were not the original entity to come up with the straw man argument about "guns killing people", they are certainly the group that has done the most to popularize it. I know you say you don't follow the NRA, and that's fine. But your opinions, and my opinions, are shaped by many groups and individuals that we may not even have heard of, since ideas and culture can easily spread exponentially across a society.
This is a rather strange statement. The first question it raises is: what kind of opinion are you referring to? Are you talking about an opinion of taste, i.e., I like vanilla and you like chocolate? I agree, you are entitled to that opinion. And yet, to say you are entitled to it seems a bit odd, since I don't think anyone is going to try to restrict or contradict your opinions of taste.
However, in a discussion about guns, about laws, or about safety, we are not talking about opinions regarding taste. We are talking about opinions regarding facts. Now, the reason these are even considered opinions is that there is possibly a disagreement about the facts, or the meaning or the context surrounding the facts. But the existence of this disagreement does not mean that every opposing opinion has equal value. How could it? The most valuable opinions regarding facts are the ones which best correlate with truth and reality.
One would hope that we all want our opinions to correlate with truth and reality as much as possible, in which case we will keep an open mind to be swayed by new information if and when it becomes available. That being the case, the claim that you are entitled to your own opinion would seem to be a claim that you are entitled to deny reality if and when you so choose. And I don't think that's an entitlement anyone can afford.
I think you missed the most important part of my blog. That teachers need to take responsiblity and know their classroom and to be able to protect their students.
It seems to me you are pro gun control and are going to continue to press that point. Instead of the point of the childrens safety at school. And being told my opinion that the gun control laws we now have now needs to be enforced is of no importance.
I am not one who is of the entitlement generation. But my opinion is something I am allowed to have and you saying differently is an insult to me.
You seem to value your own opinion and care nothing of other peoples opinions. We all know people are going to be either pro gun control or against it. My opinion is that we need to enforce the gun control laws we now have in place.