Jump to content

Menu

Abuse and school shootings. :(


BlsdMama
 Share

Recommended Posts

This statement doesn't even make sense.

 

Public schools in other first world countries are primarily able to keep kids from shooting other kids at school because they exist in cultures with limited access to firearms.

 

This isn't an abuse issue. It isn't a mental health issue. It isn't a matter of irresponsible public schools that don't turn themselves into armed camps. It's a result of living in a society that values guns above human life. It's a result of a society that owns 101 guns per 100 people.  It's the result of a society that is so terrified of it's government and of our own neighbors that we must pack significant fire power to "protect" ourselves or our own, or so we tell ourselves. Do you want to discuss the numbers of people "protected" versus the numbers of protection guns used for domestic violence or suicide?

 

You are not really flabbergasted.

 

Lives are very cheap in this country. We tut-tut "tragic"  and "I'll pray for them," and head off to the gun show. When people really care, they do something. We don't really care. One more school shooting. One more mall shooting. One more concert or nightclub shooting. BFD.

I agree that this is a mental health issue, in regards to the shooting.  Do you really believe taking guns from law abiding citizens would lessen mortality- I don't.  People who want to kill will use hammers, knives, or rocks- should we get rid of kitchen knives as well?  In other countries kniving deaths are much higher than here for the obvious reason that, evil people are shock- evil people, whether they have guns or not.

 

Sadly, I do believe that we should keep armed to protect ourselves from the "government" and for "personal protection" (as we can see in this situation, we do need the ability to protect our children against the mentally ill/ just plain evil people in the world).  Our forefathers understood full and well that an armed society makes for a much more safe society overall.  I am a promoter of gun regulation (mentally ill/ violent felons should not legally be able to have guns), but I am thankful that my husband knows how to use a gun as we live in a very rough area.

 

Governments have killed more people than all of the deranged combined, so while I doubt it will happen anytime soon here in America, I still do believe our "rights" is what actually guarantees our "rights".

 

We don't say that homeschooling should be banned because a few people don't educate, or worse abuse their children.

 

We don't ban kitchen knives or hammers because people get killed by them.

 

We don't ban cars because evil people are using them to kill people.

 

Evil people burn down houses, but we don't ban lighters.

 

Why would we ban personal protection of good law abiding citizens because of people who are mentally ill or not law abiding?l

 

Brenda

ETA

P.S. Did you know that you are half as likely to be a victim of gun violence in America, than you are of knife violence in England.  It is an epidemic there, as people DON"T have anything to protect themselves from violent offenders.  

Edited by homemommy83
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that guns are no more of a threat than knives is always hysterical to me. If that is the case, then why do people want guns for home protection? Don't they already have a kitchen knife? Obviously guns are deadlier. I 16-year-old is not going to be able to cause as much violence with a knife as he can with an AR 15. To say otherwise is Insanity.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post reminds me of the aftermath of the Newtown shooting when someone posted they were glad they prevented their kids' being harmed by homeschooling them.  Meanwhile my then-6-year-olds were sitting at b&m school.

 

There is a lot going on in this world that schools can't prevent.  A school near me has had about 6 suicides since the start of the school year.  Sometimes school buses crash (or are hijacked) and kids are killed.

 

I still think that if you compared the incidents in school vs. out of school, statistically kids are safer at school.  A lot of bad stuff happens at home, on the roads, etc.  (Not saying homeschooling isn't safe, but I agree that logic is lacking in some of the posts here.)

  

 

Wait.  Really?  You really and truly believe our kids are safer out of our homes?  

 

 

That frightens me.  Not so much that you think it, but that if you think it then so are others.  That frightens me.  Please try to hear my tone here, I am not being rude or sarcastic, more shocked/scared by that comment.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a truly scary thought. 

 

Also a little insulting to those of us who apparently don't love our kids as much as you love yours.

 

 

Would you stop your kid from being bullied?

 

Would you seek help if they had emotional problems?  A counselor?

 

Would you step in, if need be, and get evals and get tutors?

 

 

I think these are very real questions that need to be discussed.

 

I have nieces and nephews who are both public and parochial schooled.  They love their schools.  Ask me if I want schools to be successful.  I do.  I absolutely do.  My oldest married a kiddo from a B&M school.  So did I.  So did my husband. ;)

We ALL want schools to be successful.  

 

And that is not at all what I meant and you know it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you probably should have stopped with your first post. Doubling down didn't make you look any better.

 

 

 

Obviously I'm not trying to win a popularity contest nor do I need to polish up how I look.

 

ETA: I am angry about this, there is no doubt.  But I want those with kiddos in B&M schools (of which I am one currently - I have two in) to also try, for just a moment, to see the similarities in this discussion.  As soon as I put the choice to put kiddos in B&M schools on the hot seat, there was a defensiveness that existed.

 

And yet, so many say to homeschoolers, "Wait.  Why can't you change the way you school, jump through more hoops, do X, do Y, do Z, if it will spare the lives of 13 children?"

 

The fact is this:  We're homeschooling under the laws.  We're obeying the rules.  The vast majority of us are not beating our children, neglecting their education, nor are we chaining them in their bedrooms."

The vast majority of B&M parents believe they are sending their (very loved) children to a safe school.

 

Both sets of parents feel they are making an informed, conscientious choice for the welfare of their own children.

 

And so you ask, essentially, BlsdMama, who are you to question the well-being of my B&M child and my choice to school them?

 

And I ask, who is anyone, the governor of a given state, the DHS, etc., to question the well-being of my homeschooled child and my choice to school them?

 

There are correlations here.  We are allowed to push homeschoolers up against a wall and make assumptions.  But, we don't do the same of our public school system.  We can blame guns, and while I believe in (some) gun rights, we kind of stop there.  

 

I'm a mom working for rights of kids with learning disabilites and I have to tell you - WAY more kids are suffering in the school system than you realize.  Far, far more.  It is a one-size fit system and SO many KNOW the changes that NEED to be made and won't.  I'm frustrated on 1,000 levels and yet, homeschoolers are being told we need law changes.  Yup, mad.

Edited by BlsdMama
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait. Really? You really and truly believe our kids are safer out of our homes?

Pretty sure she didn't statistically more kids are injured at home than at school.

 

That frightens me. Not so much that you think it, but that if you think it then so are others. That frightens me. Please try to hear my tone here, I am not being rude or sarcastic, more shocked/scared by that comment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wait. Really? You really and truly believe our kids are safer out of our homes?

Pretty sure she didn't statistically more kids are injured at home than at school.

 

That frightens me. Not so much that you think it, but that if you think it then so are others. That frightens me. Please try to hear my tone here, I am not being rude or sarcastic, more shocked/scared by that comment.

 

 

 

No, no she didn't.  I should have said that our kids are less safe being homeschooled and in the care of their parents.  I'm truly not attacking her for that comment.  It frightens me.  I'm trying to understand if that was off the cuff or if it was a real and thought provoked conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here again is where generalized statistics aren't helpful really.

 

4.5 million US women report having been threatened by an intimate partner with a gun.  Ok.  Well first, there are approx 150 million women in the US (I have seen as low as 127mil and as high as 168 million.  150 mil seems like a good round number.)  That's about 3%.  But then, does that 4.5 million include all women who have every been threatened by a partner EVER?  Because then I wonder what percentage of those women LEFT after being threatened.  I mean we all know that those involved in an ongoing domestic violence situation often find it hard to leave, but that doesn't mean that every single women who was ever once threatened in that manner was in an ongoing domestic violence situation at the time. 

 

So, given that approx. 97% of women in the US haven't been threatened by an intimate partner with a gun, and given that MILLIONS of men who own guns have NEVER EVER threatened another person in that manner, I would say that most women, especially those who are living in homes where there is NO history of domestic violence, are probably at a low risk as well.  For myself, the likelihood of my spouse ever threatening me with this gun is very incredibly small.  For a women living in a situation with domestic violence, who is part of that 3% who have been threatened, obviously the risk is much higher.  The generalized statistic does not apply equally to everyone. 

 

So if I understand your "general statistics" comments, you are of the camp that considers the number of deaths by gun violence in the U.S. to be insignificant?  

 

Out of curiosity, what's a significant number?  How many people need to die before gun rights no longer outweigh their right to their own life?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think my words were a mistake, though I do think I should better explain.

 

I'm absolutely sick of kids getting hurt in safe places. On a personal note, something (not NEARLY this magnitude) happened in a nearby community, public place to a group of kids, and it makes me want to vomit.

 

I'm angry.

 

I *do* see the correlation here.

Correlation to what? Explain to me how your anger over two separate issues in anyway logically fits together. Or how your correlation leads to a causation that says somehow homeschooling is blameless. Because that is not in fact what you have here. You don’t have an argument or a correlation. You have disparate topics you’ve shoe-horned together as if one necessariyl follows into the other.

 

You’re against homeschool regulation? Fine, make that argument without hyperbole and non-sequiturs. Even better, make that argument without taking advantage of someone else’s tragedy and horrific loss.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that guns are no more of a threat than knives is always hysterical to me. If that is the case, then why do people want guns for home protection? Don't they already have a kitchen knife? Obviously guns are deadlier. I 16-year-old is not going to be able to cause as much violence with a knife as he can with an AR 15. To say otherwise is Insanity.

I can personally attest that in many, many years of working in a job where I witnessed a high number of trauma patients brought to a hospital, I lost count of how many died from their gunshot wounds and never witness a single one who actually died from knife wounds, and one I will always remember was stabbed over 10 times and still lived, whike many were shot only once and still died.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait.  Really?  You really and truly believe our kids are safer out of our homes?  

 

 

That frightens me.  Not so much that you think it, but that if you think it then so are others.  That frightens me.  Please try to hear my tone here, I am not being rude or sarcastic, more shocked/scared by that comment.

 

I believe that SKL meant that statistically children are more likely to be harmed in their own home than at school. Statistics aside, do I think a child is more likely to be assaulted or to suffer from a serious accident at home than at school? Unfortunately, yes.  

 

Right now, in this country, we have roughly 15 million children who live below the poverty line - about 21% of all school-age children. How do you propose to homeschool them? My friend who is a first grade teacher routinely sends home class books that she has purchased with children who live in homes without books. I have counseled high school students who are on track to be the first in their family to go to college. One of my students didn't have any extra curricular activities because she watched her siblings after school while her mom worked an evening shift. For many kids, the meal provided by the school lunch program is the biggest one they will have all day - maybe the only one.

 

Many families in HCOL areas need two incomes to keep their households going, making homeschooling impractical.

 

Kelly, you've been on this board for a while. Do you remember the conversations on the chat board in 2009 and 2010 during the economic "recovery?"  Some of those are seared in my brain.  Americans have the idea that if you work hard, live right, life will go well.  If it doesn't you've done something wrong.  We had so many boardies who lost their jobs, their homes, their insurance, and their retirement or pensions through no fault of their own. It was heart-breaking. For me, it really brought it home why we need some forms of social safety nets.

 

When we as a society vote for policies that in the long-run increase the poverty gap, we vote for increased societal violence.

 

Again, as to everyone homeschooling, I've read this board for nine years and I remember the folks who had serious illnesses and lost a year of their kids' schooling. I remember the parents who want to know what the minimum education looks like so they can graduate their dd from high school as soon as possible, because she is only going to get married and have babies.  I remember the parents who decided science education wasn't necessary because they had no experience with the subject. Personally, I am a huge homeschooling advocate, but only when the circumstances are right for both parent and child.  My state requires that the parent notify the education district of the intent to homeschool each year and then to take a nationally-normed test four times in 12 years. The nationally-normed test Sailor Dude took was so easy that I could have not taught him a new thing for three years before he would no longer make the cut-off. I think Oregon could actually use a bit more oversight.  There are plenty of homeschooling parents along with some public and private schools that could benefit from more oversight.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We don't ban kitchen knives or hammers because people get killed by them.

 

We don't ban cars because evil people are using them to kill people.

 

Evil people burn down houses, but we don't ban lighters.

 

 

 

 

 

Knives, cars, and lighters have a primary purpose which is useful and productive.  The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.  So if you want to compare guns to other objects, it would make more sense to compare them to bombs, anthrax, and sarin.  

 

 

 

 

ETA

P.S. Did you know that you are half as likely to be a victim of gun violence in America, than you are of knife violence in England.  It is an epidemic there, as people DON"T have anything to protect themselves from violent offenders.  

 

"Knife violence" including minor injuries, though, right?  I'd rather take my changes against an assailant with a knife than one with a gun any day.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you stop your kid from being bullied?

 

Would you seek help if they had emotional problems?  A counselor?

 

Would you step in, if need be, and get evals and get tutors?

 

 

I think these are very real questions that need to be discussed.

 

I have nieces and nephews who are both public and parochial schooled.  They love their schools.  Ask me if I want schools to be successful.  I do.  I absolutely do.  My oldest married a kiddo from a B&M school.  So did I.  So did my husband. ;)

We ALL want schools to be successful.  

 

And that is not at all what I meant and you know it.

 

 

 

I am really confused. I read your post in probably the same way SKL did.

 

My first response when I read your initial post was "Kelly's usually pretty on the ball. She truly thinks all kids would be safer and better off homeschooling????" Did I miss something in the translation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knives, cars, and lighters have a primary purpose which is useful and productive.  The primary purpose of a gun is to kill.  So if you want to compare guns to other objects, it would make more sense to compare them to bombs, anthrax, and sarin.  

Actually the PRIMARY purpose of guns is to PROTECT from unlawful people.  You bring up bombs and sarin gas, but as we see in GOVERNMENTS overseas- they are weapons to use against their own populace- which is the other reason we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

 

 

"Knife violence" including minor injuries, though, right?  I'd rather take my changes against an assailant with a knife than one with a gun any day.

A person who is trying to kill, will obviously go for major arteries or liver shots- I wouldn't want attacked that way either.  Guns or knives are equally lethal in a psycho, but intelligent persons hands.

Edited by homemommy83
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who is trying to kill, will obviously go for major arteries or liver shots- I wouldn't want attacked that way either.  Guns or knives are equally lethal in a psycho, but intelligent persons hands.

 

 

Equally lethal?  You can't tell me you honestly believe that the Las Vegas shooter could have killed 58 people with a knife before somebody brought him down.  

 

"Guns don't kill people" -- they just make it easy to kill a whole bunch of people in a short amount of time.

Edited by Greta
  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who is trying to kill, will obviously go for major arteries or liver shots- I wouldn't want attacked that way either.  Guns or knives are equally lethal in a psycho, but intelligent persons hands.

You can shoot someone from far away before they even see you. To stab someone you have to get in arm's reach and your victim will have a better chance to evade you. Remember the DC sniper? The Las Vegas massacre? Those people never saw their assailant, they were just shot out of the blue.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who is trying to kill, will obviously go for major arteries or liver shots- I wouldn't want attacked that way either.  Guns or knives are equally lethal in a psycho, but intelligent persons hands.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement. Yes knives can kill but it is way easier to kill someone with a gun. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EQUALLY lethal?  B.S.  You can't tell me you honestly believe that the Las Vegas shooter could have killed 58 people with a knife before somebody brought him down.  

 

"Guns don't kill people" -- they just make it easy to kill a whole bunch of people in a short amount of time.

They may kill more people quicker from farther away, but overseas we see twenty people in mass stabbings as well. Our freedom of the right to carry prevents tens of thousands of stabbings here.

 

  My point is that evil people will still kill, especially if the think you are defenseless.  The unlawful will still have guns illegally, leaving everyone else defenseless. 

 

We call police because they have guns to protect us, but they make it after the home invasion not before.  Gangs are not law abiding, a dark gun market would immediately set up and we wouldn't be safe in our own homes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may kill more people quicker from farther away, but overseas we see twenty people in mass stabbings as well. Our freedom of the right to carry prevents tens of thousands of stabbings here.

 

  My point is that evil people will still kill, especially if the think you are defenseless.  The unlawful will still have guns illegally, leaving everyone else defenseless. 

 

We call police because they have guns to protect us, but they make it after the home invasion not before.  Gangs are not law abiding, a dark gun market would immediately set up and we wouldn't be safe in our own homes.

 

How many people die in those mass stabbings?  What is their frequency in relation to our mass shootings?

 

Why don't the unlawful in Europe or Australia have as many guns as they do in the United States?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may kill more people quicker from farther away, but overseas we see twenty people in mass stabbings as well. Our freedom of the right to carry prevents tens of thousands of stabbings here.

 

  My point is that evil people will still kill, especially if the think you are defenseless.  The unlawful will still have guns illegally, leaving everyone else defenseless. 

 

We call police because they have guns to protect us, but they make it after the home invasion not before.  Gangs are not law abiding, a dark gun market would immediately set up and we wouldn't be safe in our own homes.

 

Not everybody in the world lives like this though. It is possible to live another way

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may kill more people quicker from farther away, but overseas we see twenty people in mass stabbings as well. Our freedom of the right to carry prevents tens of thousands of stabbings here.

 

My point is that evil people will still kill, especially if the think you are defenseless. The unlawful will still have guns illegally, leaving everyone else defenseless.

 

We call police because they have guns to protect us, but they make it after the home invasion not before. Gangs are not law abiding, a dark gun market would immediately set up and we wouldn't be safe in our own homes.

I’m interested in where your statistic on tens of thousands of stabbing being prevented here due to the right to carry comes from. Do you mean actual stabbing that were stopped with a gun or theoretical stabbings that didn’t occur because the potential criminals were worried about being shot? And what is the time frame for the statistic? Edited by Frances
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this is a mental health issue, in regards to the shooting. Do you really believe taking guns from law abiding citizens would lessen mortality- I don't. People who want to kill will use hammers, knives, or rocks- should we get rid of kitchen knives as well? In other countries kniving deaths are much higher than here for the obvious reason that, evil people are shock- evil people, whether they have guns or not.

 

 

 

Guns are exceptionally easy to kill with, whether homicide, suicide, or accident.

 

Many, many victims of those would be alive today if not for easy access to guns.

 

There is a decent probability that my husband would not be alive today if we had had a gun in the house at his lowest points in depression. We don't, and most other suicide methods require more forethought and/or effort than just grabbing a gun in an off moment and shooting.

 

I will never allow a firearm in this house.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14,000 hospital visits in just Britain (only a small portion of the UK) alone last year due to stabbings.  This was from the independent UK.
  London has 1000 a month as well- that is one city.

Europe does commercials for families to count their kitchen knives- I am not joking.

 

Almost the same amount of people die yearly from drunk drivers as gun violence (which is mostly gang warfare and won't change with legislation)

2014- 12,565 deaths in America due to guns 

2015- 10,265 deaths in America due to drunk drivers

 

We do make drunk driving illegal- obviously people still do it- should we ban alcohol again like during Prohibition because non law abiders do what they do illegally.  The exact same thing can be said for gun owners who are legally carrying/ protecting their families.

There is so much online for statistics, I just suck at linking- but the people here are educated and can search google-lol.

Brenda

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may kill more people quicker from farther away, but overseas we see twenty people in mass stabbings as well. Our freedom of the right to carry prevents tens of thousands of stabbings here.

 

  My point is that evil people will still kill, especially if the think you are defenseless.  The unlawful will still have guns illegally, leaving everyone else defenseless. 

 

We call police because they have guns to protect us, but they make it after the home invasion not before.  Gangs are not law abiding, a dark gun market would immediately set up and we wouldn't be safe in our own homes.

You are contradicting yourself. If knives are just as dangerous as guns, then why would you need a gun for self defense? Why not just use a knife? Or a hammer. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are exceptionally easy to kill with, whether homicide, suicide, or accident.

 

Many, many victims of those would be alive today if not for easy access to guns.

 

There is a decent probability that my husband would not be alive today if we had had a gun in the house at his lowest points in depression. We don't, and most other suicide methods require more forethought and/or effort than just grabbing a gun in an off moment and shooting.

 

I will never allow a firearm in this house.

I think that is intelligent in your situation.  I am sorry for the mental issues going on with your husband, and I will pray for him. 

 

I definitely believe people should not have guns if they have mental health issues.  

 

In our neighborhood- if people didn't have protection they would be killed. Drugs are so bad in our town that we made national news for opioid addiction and the highest HIV epidemic in the country.  We had a home invasion down the street last year, and our best friends were car-jacked two years ago and his gun is what ended up saving his life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In our neighborhood- if people didn't have protection they would be killed. Drugs are so bad in our town that we made national news for opioid addiction and the highest HIV epidemic in the country.  We had a home invasion down the street last year, and our best friends were car-jacked two years ago and his gun is what ended up saving his life.

 

WEll, according to you they could have just defended themselves with a hammer. Or a steak knife. Just as deadly as a gun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are contradicting yourself. If knives are just as dangerous as guns, then why would you need a gun for self defense? Why not just use a knife? Or a hammer. 

I am not contracting anything- I am comparing one nations problems with the other.  Gun nations have guns issues, nations without guns have just as many problems- just with knives.  But here in America not having a gun would mean we would be fighting criminals who will have guns, with kitchen knives- who is winning that fight:( .  As long as mental illness/ evil people exist we will see people dying at their hands.  It is sad, but confiscation isn't the answer- it just opens the door to a different problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people die in those mass stabbings?  What is their frequency in relation to our mass shootings?

 

Why don't the unlawful in Europe or Australia have as many guns as they do in the United States?

They weren't founded by militias who were all armed to get our freedom, they limited guns long before they got rid of them.  America would end up with millions of guns on a black market- there were never that many there to start with.

 

Without the guns- America wouldn't even be here (free from England that is).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14,000 hospital visits in just Britain (only a small portion of the UK) alone last year due to stabbings. This was from the independent UK.

London has 1000 a month as well- that is one city.

Europe does commercials for families to count their kitchen knives- I am not joking.

 

Almost the same amount of people die yearly from drunk drivers as gun violence (which is mostly gang warfare and won't change with legislation)

2014- 12,565 deaths in America due to guns

2015- 10,265 deaths in America due to drunk drivers

 

We do make drunk driving illegal- obviously people still do it- should we ban alcohol again like during Prohibition because non law abiders do what they do illegally. The exact same thing can be said for gun owners who are legally carrying/ protecting their families.

There is so much online for statistics, I just suck at linking- but the people here are educated and can search google-lol.

Brenda

But how many people die from the stabbings? What are the rates of death for violent crimes in the US vs the UK?

 

And if getting rid of guns means only the criminals will have them, why don’t those stabbing in the UK have guns to shoot with instead?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WEll, according to you they could have just defended themselves with a hammer. Or a steak knife. Just as deadly as a gun. 

Your logic is off- I said that if there WERE NO GUNS than evil people could use anything to kill- not that any object people use to kill is equal in power, but they are equal in that they can cause death in an UNARMED person.

 

Guns are more powerful- which is why our government, police, and my military husband use them for protection- it prevents death by other means to innocent people- as I showed earlier in reference to my friends being car- jacked- (he was selling his car, and they guy wanted to "test drive"- but intended to drive down the road- kill him- dump his body- and steal his car) his gun caused the guy to pull over and thus saved his life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question, why do you think that is?

 

Scarcity.  Take a significant number of guns out of play and for the average criminal, the one likely to commit a home invasion, the cost becomes too great even on the black market. 

 

There is really no good reason for us to own half of the world's guns.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is intelligent in your situation. I am sorry for the mental issues going on with your husband, and I will pray for him.

 

I definitely believe people should not have guns if they have mental health issues.

 

In our neighborhood- if people didn't have protection they would be killed. Drugs are so bad in our town that we made national news for opioid addiction and the highest HIV epidemic in the country. We had a home invasion down the street last year, and our best friends were car-jacked two years ago and his gun is what ended up saving his life.

While I certainly know there are some very bad areas in the US, I find it hard to believe there are areas where everyone who is not armed with a gun is going to be killed.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not contracting anything- I am comparing one nations problems with the other.  Gun nations have guns issues, nations without guns have just as many problems- just with knives.  But here in America not having a gun would mean we would be fighting criminals who will have guns, with kitchen knives- who is winning that fight:( .  As long as mental illness/ evil people exist we will see people dying at their hands.  It is sad, but confiscation isn't the answer- it just opens the door to a different problem.

 

Well you said they were just as easy to kill with...so equal fight, right?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guns are exceptionally easy to kill with, whether homicide, suicide, or accident.

 

Many, many victims of those would be alive today if not for easy access to guns.

 

There is a decent probability that my husband would not be alive today if we had had a gun in the house at his lowest points in depression. We don't, and most other suicide methods require more forethought and/or effort than just grabbing a gun in an off moment and shooting.

 

I will never allow a firearm in this house.

 

One of the first things you are told when you have a family member with suicidal thoughts, is to remove whatever implements that might be a part of their suicide plan. So for instance, pills might be kept in a locked safe. And yes, the persona who is struggling can go to the store and obtain more, but many suicides are an impulse of the day or the moment. Removing guns or medications from the home of a potential suicide or knives and razors for those who self-harm can provide a much-needed buffer. Men often prefer guns and they tend to be more successful. Thankfully, in a horrible moment, my son only had access to a BB gun. Even then, if he had angled it a bit differently, we would have lost him. Yes, he had gun safety training. So did the 16 yo son of dear friends. He was an excellent shot.

 

Maize, I am truly sorry. It is a very difficult road to walk. :grouphug:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They weren't founded by militias who were all armed to get our freedom, they limited guns long before they got rid of them.  America would end up with millions of guns on a black market- there were never that many there to start with.

 

Without the guns- America wouldn't even be here (free from England that is).

 

I missed the wars for Canadian and Australian independence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed the wars for Canadian and Australian independence.

I clearly talked of America, not other countries in reference to why we have gun rights as it was for our freedom from OPPRESSION of Britain. We actually have freedom due to having guns. The reason the Japanese didn't come here during ww2 was because they said that there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I clearly talked of America, not other countries in reference to why we have gun rights as it was for our freedom from OPPRESSION of Britain. We actually have freedom due to having guns. The reason the Japanese didn't come here during ww2 was because they said that there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

I never heard that before about Japan, but some quick googling shows the quote doesn’t hold up to fact checking.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so I will list some of my own reasons.

 

Australia is an island.  Which means people and things coming from elsewhere have to either fly or boat in.  A lot more difficult to get a gun in, vs straight up walking across the land.

Culture

Illegal drug trade.  Some tens of billions of dollars are generated through the illegal drug trade in the US.  Not coincidently, illegal drug trade leads to violence.  I also don't think it's coincidence that some of the most violent corrupted drug infected countries in the world happen to share a continent with the US...not Europe.

Racism.  No, not straight up white on black racisim.  Not institutionalized systemic oppression.  And no, I will not debate my definition here.  Because I am using the word to describe basic "fear of those not like me."  That is the sort of thing that is part of all of human nature.  The US happens to be more diverse than Europe or Australia.  Diversity isn't always peaceful. 

Scarcity a factor?  Sure.  But not the only one, by a long shot.

 

Europe isn't an island.  Europe and Australia both have issues with illegal drugs.  You also underestimate the diversity in both places.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I clearly talked of America, not other countries in reference to why we have gun rights as it was for our freedom from OPPRESSION of Britain. We actually have freedom due to having guns. The reason the Japanese didn't come here during ww2 was because they said that there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

 

Japan was never in a position to even consider an invasion of the United States.

 

Are Canada and Australia not free?

Edited by ChocolateReignRemix
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never heard that before about Japan, but some quick googling shows the quote doesn’t hold up to fact checking.

It was quoted by my college professor, and by teachers throughout school- this is so sad that it is quoted by everyone, but isn't true.

 

Thanks for the update, I find it interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was quoted by my college professor, and by teachers throughout school- this is so sad that it is quoted by everyone, but isn't true.

 

Thanks for the update, I find it interesting.

 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto

 

He did say:

"In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success."

 

Which is why there was never any serious thought of a Japanese invasion of the U.S. mainland.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Europe isn't an island.  I didn't say it was.  That doesn't mean that being surrounded by water isn't a factor in Australia.

 

And of course both continents have issues with illegal drugs. 

 

From wikipedia

You are free to dismiss this as nothing.  I do not.

 

And certainly let's not forget MS13, one of the most violent gangs in the world.  If they exist in Europe, or Australia, I am not aware of it and I suspect their numbers in those areas are incredibly small

 

Diversity

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/

 

 

 

I will absolutely say that scarcity is a factor.  I am not willing to say it's the ONLY factor.  Is that really what you are saying?  That scarcity is the ONLY reason that bad buys have fewer guns in Europe and Australia?

 

Pretty sure we had a higher murder rate long before MS13 was around.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need clarification on what you mean.  Do you mean you think the US had a higher murder rate than Honduras before MS13?  Or that our murder rate was higher in the past, before MS 13 was around?  Or, something else?

 

Also, just to ask the question again....do you really believe that scarcity of guns is the ONLY factor in the the issue of gun violence in the US today?

 

We weren't discussing the high murder rate in Honduras.  Our murder rate was higher than that of various countries in Europe and Australia long before MS13 was ever formed.

 

I believe the number of guns in the U.S. is the #1 difference in our murder rate compared to the rest of the developed world.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am really confused. I read your post in probably the same way SKL did.

 

My first response when I read your initial post was "Kelly's usually pretty on the ball. She truly thinks all kids would be safer and better off homeschooling????" Did I miss something in the translation?

I think you did, absolutely.

I read it as no commentary on homeschooling, but rather as a commentary on the media's kneejerk criticism of homeschooling whenever a problem within a family claiming to be homeschooling hits the news.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait.  Really?  You really and truly believe our kids are safer out of our homes?  

 

 

That frightens me.  Not so much that you think it, but that if you think it then so are others.  That frightens me.  Please try to hear my tone here, I am not being rude or sarcastic, more shocked/scared by that comment.

 

I don't know about *your* kids, but "our" kids as in all the kids in the USA, yes, they have fewer serious accidents and suffer fewer acts of serious violence when they are at school vs. at home / with their parents.

 

As a mom, I find it a lot more reasonable to expect homeschooled kids to be observed by non-family members on a fairly regular basis than to expect b&m school kids to have to pass through a metal detector every time they go to school.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm not trying to win a popularity contest nor do I need to polish up how I look.

 

ETA: I am angry about this, there is no doubt.  But I want those with kiddos in B&M schools (of which I am one currently - I have two in) to also try, for just a moment, to see the similarities in this discussion.  As soon as I put the choice to put kiddos in B&M schools on the hot seat, there was a defensiveness that existed.

 

And yet, so many say to homeschoolers, "Wait.  Why can't you change the way you school, jump through more hoops, do X, do Y, do Z, if it will spare the lives of 13 children?"

 

The fact is this:  We're homeschooling under the laws.  We're obeying the rules.  The vast majority of us are not beating our children, neglecting their education, nor are we chaining them in their bedrooms."

The vast majority of B&M parents believe they are sending their (very loved) children to a safe school.

 

Both sets of parents feel they are making an informed, conscientious choice for the welfare of their own children.

 

And so you ask, essentially, BlsdMama, who are you to question the well-being of my B&M child and my choice to school them?

 

And I ask, who is anyone, the governor of a given state, the DHS, etc., to question the well-being of my homeschooled child and my choice to school them?

 

There are correlations here.  We are allowed to push homeschoolers up against a wall and make assumptions.  But, we don't do the same of our public school system.  We can blame guns, and while I believe in (some) gun rights, we kind of stop there.  

 

I'm a mom working for rights of kids with learning disabilites and I have to tell you - WAY more kids are suffering in the school system than you realize.  Far, far more.  It is a one-size fit system and SO many KNOW the changes that NEED to be made and won't.  I'm frustrated on 1,000 levels and yet, homeschoolers are being told we need law changes.  Yup, mad.

 

FTR I don't have any problem with homeschooling.  I have a problem with people preventing their kids from interacting with other humans in the wider community.  It just so happens that parents who send their kids to b&m school pretty much have that base covered.  Most homeschoolers do too.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post is a lovely example of why people shouldn't post angry.  Most of it I really do stand by.  And, some remarks I made off the cuff out of spite because of personal interactions that have taken place in my own life since those kids were discovered.  I apologize.

 

The deeper story here is that this weekend we went to a close (very close) family member's home and, again, had to defend homeschooling.  We've been on the defense our whole lives but once the oldest ones got into college with scholarships a lot of died down. BUT then I got sick. And for some reason, people smell blood.  I swear it. And when they do, they look at weakness as an opportunity to attack homeschooling AGAIN. I'm exhausted and sick to my freaking toes of having to defend it.  Even GOOD homeschoolers are defending themselves these days.  There is no better place to homeschool than where I am right now, IMO.  My kids have access to be in plays, science labs, writing classes, dual enrollment CC -paid for inc. books, friend circles, etc. And we are finally "home" where family can have conversations with articulate, outgoing, great kids and SEE what homeschooling IS and still we actively have to don armor. Not all of our family, to be sure, but I just have to wonder - do people just make ONE decision on every argument?   Can they not say, "I lean this way."  Then read more.  Then say, "Hm.  I had not considered and now I think this way."  

So the rest of this is, encouraged by the #thisishomeschooling posts, I went ahead and posted a folder to my FB with pictures of us homeschooling over the years.  It included field trips, games, sib relationships, discussions, table work, mock, high school/homeschool graduation ceremonies, etc. I felt it gave a well-rounded view of what homeschooling kids truly looks like.

 

The vast majority of my circle does not homeschool.  

The prevailing comment was an atta-girl for being a good mommy.  And honestly?  I wanted to scream.

The whole point wasn't for Kelly to get points.  The whole point was to open people's eyes to the fact that homeschooling is a legitimate educational choice and that it should be protected as such because it is a healthy opportunity for children to learn in *most* circumstances.

 

Comparison: Imagine that you posted pictures of your child's B&M school.  You include fun opportunities, pictures of kids with close friends, pictures of after-school activities, pictures of labs and specialized curriculum, additional learning opportunities, field trips.  Right?  What are the comments going to be?  Wow, what a fantastic school.  The kids learn so much!  This really provides them with a well rounded opportunity.

 

Instead, essentially, my post was a, "Hey, homeschooling does work, but Mom does."  Now, I'm all for being pro-woman, but most of this, like the time to explore the outdoors, the ability to spend time and discuss as a family, is really because of homeschooling, not because of a one woman circus act, kwim?

And I think, legitimately, people opt to say, "Oh, this is good. This is *just* them," rather than ALLOW into their heads the very idea that homeschooling in and of itself is a good thing.
 

And then comes the bad family. NOW all of a sudden society is more than willing to say, "Okay, so THIS is homeschooling."  NO, no it isn't.

 

 

 

Many families in HCOL areas need two incomes to keep their households going, making homeschooling impractical.

 

Kelly, you've been on this board for a while. Do you remember the conversations on the chat board in 2009 and 2010 during the economic "recovery?"  Some of those are seared in my brain.  Americans have the idea that if you work hard, live right, life will go well.  If it doesn't you've done something wrong.  We had so many boardies who lost their jobs, their homes, their insurance, and their retirement or pensions through no fault of their own. It was heart-breaking. For me, it really brought it home why we need some forms of social safety nets.

 

When we as a society vote for policies that in the long-run increase the poverty gap, we vote for increased societal violence.

 

Again, as to everyone homeschooling, I've read this board for nine years and I remember the folks who had serious illnesses and lost a year of their kids' schooling. I remember the parents who want to know what the minimum education looks like so they can graduate their dd from high school as soon as possible, because she is only going to get married and have babies.  I remember the parents who decided science education wasn't necessary because they had no experience with the subject. Personally, I am a huge homeschooling advocate, but only when the circumstances are right for both parent and child.  My state requires that the parent notify the education district of the intent to homeschool each year and then to take a nationally-normed test four times in 12 years. The nationally-normed test Sailor Dude took was so easy that I could have not taught him a new thing for three years before he would no longer make the cut-off. I think Oregon could actually use a bit more oversight.  There are plenty of homeschooling parents along with some public and private schools that could benefit from more oversight.

 

 

You know, the whole maybe we should make everyone homeschool thing was a rash and rude comment.  i'm going to leave it there because I deserved to get called on it.  The truth?  I do think in an ideal world that people should be taking responsibility in their own children's education.  I think a year of homeschooling would, in a perfect world, really open people's eyes to how much work it is (and joy) to invest heavily.  I think the afterschooling families we have here are already those families.  My own sister worked with my niece after school and on weekends to get her started solidly on reading.  My sister in law did the same thing with her girls.  And I do know that you are right - some homeschooling families are in need of coaching, accountability, bigger circles.  Truly I know this,  but I don't think that shoving laws down our throat and piling laws on already law abiding families is the answer.  I really don't.

 

Take my family for example.  I'm *really* not thrilled with the idea of homeschool assistance programs.  I'm not.  I lived out in Oregon where I was involved in a really sweet program run by moms who were deeply invested in their kids.  I loved it.  It was such a tight little circle and we got to know each other's kiddos. I miss it.  I moved here and wanted something similar to that, didn't want to do CC (and couldn't afford it, lol)  and because of public funded homeschool assistance programs here, they undercut the mom run programs.  I was resentful when I joined it.  It's been wonderful.  BUT it is admin'd by a homeschooling dad, and almost all the supervising teachers are homeschool moms.  Because of Iowa's open enrollment regulations, kids from other districts can be pulled into the system.  The money follows the kids.  Now all of a sudden you don't have more laws, nor do you have forced compliance.  Instead you have school districts making additional "coaching" and oversight respectful and attractive in order to gain the funds from open enrolling students. 

And I do know what you're talking about.  I remember the discussion.  It came at exactly the right time for me.  Iowa's unemployment is currently something like 2.8%.  We have jobs here. About 2009, you couldn't walk into a gas station without seeing "Help Wanted" signs. (Though unemployment was higher then, I believe.)  Then we moved out to Oregon and it really struck me.  Some of the families we were schooling with had had their jobs "downsized" essentially.  Jobs for blue collar workers were in short supply.  The Midwest mentality of, "Everyone who wants a job can have one if they're motivated," really shifted for me.

 

On a normal day to day basis, I am not a "everyone can and should homeschool" but I sure would like a little recognition and respect for the idea that homeschooling IS a strong and valid educational option. There just seems to be this idea that it's cozy, cute, homey, fun.  It's not that it ISN'T those things at times, but those adjectives undercut rigorous, academic, thoughtful, insightful.  :(

 

I am really confused. I read your post in probably the same way SKL did.

 

My first response when I read your initial post was "Kelly's usually pretty on the ball. She truly thinks all kids would be safer and better off homeschooling????" Did I miss something in the translation?

 

I'm sorry.  What I should have said was, well, first nothing.  I should have cooled off.  

 

Then I should have said I think all parents would be served well to have to educate for a while.  Let's take a look at afterschooling parents. 

SKL, you put a lot of effort into that.  Don't you have more respect for teachers, the kids, for the whole ball of wax because you've made this your personal responsibility?

Really guys, I do not usually have a short fuse, but this whole attack on homeschooling thing because of a few rotten apples has me so mad.  The Turpin thing wasn't the first.

Maybe I'm more sensitive with this coming on two Iowa cases - Sabrina Ray and Natalie Finn.

Local paper: "With the deaths of Natalie Finn and Sabrina Ray, the people of Iowa saw firsthand how homeschooling can be used to isolate victims and hide abuse."
And that sticks in people's heads. What about that they were both public schooled first? Both were foster kids?  Both families had been reported for suspected abuse?  And what about that both were not actually homeschooling, which does actually mean - schooling at home. 

 

FTR I don't have any problem with homeschooling.  I have a problem with people preventing their kids from interacting with other humans in the wider community.  It just so happens that parents who send their kids to b&m school pretty much have that base covered.  Most homeschoolers do too.

 

SKL, I hope you know I truly do not believe, at all, that anyone who sends their kids to school loves their kids less.  Not ever.  Not even a little. 

:(

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

​If I were in your shoes Blessed Mama, I would writet a letter to the editior in your town stating all of which you just spoke.  Secondly I think you should know that I think you are human, and we all say things we don't mean when we are stressed and upset.  I always enjoy your post and appreciate what you bring to many of our conversations here.

 

Brenda 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

SKL, I hope you know I truly do not believe, at all, that anyone who sends their kids to school loves their kids less.  Not ever.  Not even a little. 

 

:(

 

I know.  I probably should not have reacted either.

 

I know what it feels like to have parenting decisions questioned just because they are minority decisions or just because someone else made a different choice.  I get it a lot too.

 

Maybe as the homeschooling community grows, it would be helpful to promote more thoughtful language when these things happen.  It's worked to change the way the media talks about other things.  What alternative words would accurately describe the situation without making it sound like this is a homeschooling issue?

 

Of course sometimes the demand for a change is legitimate.  Usually, regardless of the context, a demand for more regulation in the wake of a tragedy is an overreaction that ends up doing more harm than good.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...