#SchooolSafety #teachers #students #parents #FeelingSafe #SchoolShootings
Safety in schools is more than just being able to avoid being shot.
Of course, any moment now, someone could walk into a school with a gun and shoot a bunch of students, teachers and staff.
What can we do about it? Not much, short of limiting the supply of firearms – particularly the most lethal and purely offensive weapons — for people who shouldn’t have them.
More security officers in schools will help, as long as they are willing to come face to face with the assaulter(s).
But now, it’s not just the threat of violence in the schools that can concern children. Children used to be able to confide in teachers, or other staff, about things they may have been afraid to tell parents.
Now, in many places, teachers and staff MUST tell parents if children talk to them about, say, their sexuality.
Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, took on this topic in her March 14, 2023, column.
There was a time when school was a totally safe space for kids. Yes, they were supervised. Yes, they had many requirements they had to fulfill. Sometimes, discipline was necessary.
If Child X was bothering Child Y, Child Y could go to someone and report it confidentially – at least in theory. (There may have been some fear that Child X would retaliate if he or she were disciplined).
Of course, there should be cooperation between teachers, staff and parents when necessary. But there are some things kids don’t want to discuss with parents, particularly if they live in restrictive households.
Discussing such things with other students has its own peril. Besides, students usually do not have the adult wisdom to counsel properly.
We want students not only to be safe in school, but also to FEEL safe in school. If they do not feel safe, they won’t learn properly. Despite some schools that strictly use rigor and discipline as an education method, most students are not motivated to learn strictly out of fear. Certainly, fear can get kids to accomplish tasks. But, they are unlikely to truly learn what they need to know that way.
Feeling unsafe in school puts fear at top of mind for students.
So, what is an educator to do under these conditions?
If students are not allowed to be honest with educators about what they are feeling, how is an educator supposed to reach them?
As governments begin to impose unreasonable restrictions on how teachers teach, what they teach, what they can and cannot say to students etc., how and what do these entities expect students to learn in school?
It’s a question that will not be answered immediately. It’s difficult to measure what a deprived learning environment will do to any child.
The good news in all this – or the bad news, depending on one’s perspective – is that if a student doesn’t learn what he or she wants in school, there are other readily available outlets for them to get that information. Students often will fill that learning vacuum via other means.
We can only hope that depriving students of safety, and some education, in schools doesn’t lead to one or more of them, out of frustration, turning to weapons against that same school.
Peter
Tag Archives: guns
DEFINITION OF FREEDOM IN EYE OF BEHOLDER
#freedom #WhatWeThinkFreedomIs #guns #laws #America
What does freedom mean?
We all have an idea of what WE think freedom is.
But, definitions are not necessarily universal.
The simple definition is the ability to do what we want, when we want and how we want.
But, because we are not alone in the universe, and we live among others who live different lifestyles, have different religious beliefs etc., freedom cannot be absolute. In other words, one is not free to harm someone else in his quest for freedom.
Secondly, one’s freedom to live as he or she sees fit does not carry the freedom to oppress others.
As an example, one can follow one’s religious beliefs strictly within his or her own life. He or she is not free to impose his or her religious beliefs on others. That’s why, in more perfect democracies, secular law remains religiously neutral.
In another example, one may be free to own a firearm. But laws are designed to manage how one uses and maintains that firearm. Owning a gun does not give you the right to use it on someone else in an offensive scenario.
A group may preach “freedom,” yet impose restrictions on others who don’t fall in line with their beliefs.
You can’t be free to make others less free.
Few in this world want to live under authoritarian rule, with no individual freedom. But one must take care not to use the quest for freedom to exhibit authoritarian tendencies.
So how do you define freedom? The easiest way to define it might be “live, and let live.”
In America, you are free to be you. And, you should want to protect others from those who do not want people to be who they are.
You may not be free to be a criminal. But, you should feel free to do what you want in your own life, without harming others in the process.
Circumstances may demand certain things from you. Some demands – and restrictions – are reasonable. You would be wise to know the difference between unreasonable demands and those that ensure safety and well-being of all.
“Let Freedom Ring,” ends the patriotic song “America.”
The freedom sung of in that song is one that recognizes its many definitions.
The lyric tells us we are free, and should rejoice that we are. But it also tells us that others have to be free, too. Our lives should be free, and others’ lives should be free.
If we all substituted the word “freedom” with kindness, courtesy, humility, care and love, we might really know true freedom.
Peter
What does freedom mean?
We all have an idea of what WE think freedom is.
But, definitions are not necessarily universal.
The simple definition is the ability to do what we want, when we want and how we want.
But, because we are not alone in the universe, and we live among others who live different lifestyles, have different religious beliefs etc., freedom cannot be absolute. In other words, one is not free to harm someone else in his quest for freedom.
Secondly, one’s freedom to live as he or she sees fit does not carry the freedom to oppress others.
As an example, one can follow one’s religious beliefs strictly within his or her own life. He or she is not free to impose his or her religious beliefs on others. That’s why, in more perfect democracies, secular law remains religiously neutral.
In another example, one may be free to own a firearm. But laws are designed to manage how one uses and maintains that firearm. Owning a gun does not give you the right to use it on someone else in an offensive scenario.
A group may preach “freedom,” yet impose restrictions on others who don’t fall in line with their beliefs.
You can’t be free to make others less free.
Few in this world want to live under authoritarian rule, with no individual freedom. But one must take care not to use the quest for freedom to exhibit authoritarian tendencies.
So how do you define freedom? The easiest way to define it might be “live, and let live.”
In America, you are free to be you. And, you should want to protect others from those who do not want people to be who they are.
You may not be free to be a criminal. But, you should feel free to do what you want in your own life, without harming others in the process.
Circumstances may demand certain things from you. Some demands – and restrictions – are reasonable. You would be wise to know the difference between unreasonable demands and those that ensure safety and well-being of all.
“Let Freedom Ring,” ends the patriotic song “America.”
The freedom sung of in that song is one that recognizes its many definitions.
The lyric tells us we are free, and should rejoice that we are. But it also tells us that others have to be free, too. Our lives should be free, and others’ lives should be free.
If we all substituted the word “freedom” with kindness, courtesy, humility, care and love, we might really know true freedom.
Peter
ARE SOME TOO QUICK TO USE A GUN?
#guns #shootings #intruders #visitors
Shoot first; ask questions later.
That mantra may have applied in long-ago wars.
But it seems to have been revived in modern-day America.
A black teen-ager rings a doorbell at the wrong address when he went to pick up his younger brothers.
The house’s occupant, with a storm door between him and the young man, shoots the teen through the door.
By most accounts, no words were exchanged before the gun was fired.
Normally, when someone rings one’s doorbell, the first instinct, if the resident does not know the person, would be to ask, “may I help you?”
If that Kansas City resident had just asked that question prior to using his gun, a young man with a promising future likely would have responded that he was looking for his younger brothers.
Further conversation undoubtedly would have cleared up the fact that the young man needed to go to a different house with a similar address not too far away.
Similarly, a young woman was killed when the car she was in accidently turned into the wrong driveway in Upstate New York.
Since then, two cheerleaders were shot in Texas when they accidentally got into the wrong car. And, a 6-year-old girl and her father were shot by a neighbor upset that a loose ball had rolled onto his yard.
These incidents reveal not only a fear of the unknown, but also the impulse to deal with that fear by using a gun. They also reveal that inadvertent mistakes can be very costly – but they shouldn’t be.
Certainly, one has the right to protect his or her home, life and belongings from intruders.
But, shouldn’t one ensure, to the best of one’s ability, that visitors, even ones who may be lost or have mistaken a destination, are not intruders who intend to harm or rob, before using lethal force?
It could be argued that other factors may have contributed to the reactions. It also could be argued that if one does not act first, and the (perhaps mistaken) visitor is indeed an intruder, that the resident is more likely to be the innocent victim.
Perhaps it may come down to the type of person one is, or the views of the outside world that a person holds.
But it still rests on assumption of the worst without necessarily having a reason for such an assumption.
One could ask what might have happened had the resident not owned a gun, or not had his gun readily accessible to take to the door.
But few would dispute one’s right to protect his home.
But that right of self-protection does not give the person the right to shoot someone for no apparent reason, because he or she made a mistake and went to the wrong place.
One could ask the shooter whether he or she had ever made such a mistake, and what kind of reception he or she would expect from a stranger for making that mistake.
The lesson here may be to ask before shooting. Or, at least, tell the person to keep his distance until the purpose of the visit is ascertained. If the person refuses, or otherwise threatens, then all bets are off.
A few simple words – “may I help you?” – can prevent a lot of tragedy.
Peter
PROTESTS, LEGISLATURES AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES
#NashvilleProtests #StateLegislatures #guns #SchoolShootings #AssaultWeapons #LegislatorsExpelled
Recently, thousands of students walked out of schools in Nashville, Tenn., and elsewhere to protest the Tennessee legislature’s lack of action to deter school shootings.
The previous week, six people – three adults and three 9-year-olds – were killed in a shooting at Covenant School in Nashville.
The capitol steps were overwhelmed with students, parents and others calling for mitigation measures to deter gun violence.
As Maureen Downey, education columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution points out, there are more school shootings by far in the U.S. than in any other country.
Yet, as Downey writes, some legislatures seem to value the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution over second-graders’ lives.
In fact, two Tennessee state legislators were expelled from the House of Representatives, and a third survived expulsion by a single vote, for joining in the protests.
But the legislatures nationwide can learn from the Nashville protests.
First, the legislatures’ agendas may not be the same as those of some parents, students etc. Some of these protesting students will succeed the current occupants of legislatures one day, and their vision of a safe society may be very different from that displayed by some legislatures today.
Therefore, legislators of today can either begin taking measures to mitigate gun violence and gun possession among those that should not possess them, or they can leave it to the next generation to start to fix the problem. By waiting, there is no telling how many more children will get shot.
Better security in schools is a great idea, but given the power and availability of sophisticated and deadly weapons today, potential assailants can just shoot their way past security. Therefore, more security may save some lives, but not all.
The framers of the Second Amendment could not have had any idea that such killing machines would be created, and how certain members of the public would cherish possessing them as their “right.” Back then, it was all about defense against colonial tyranny, and the sophisticated weapon of the day was a one-shot-at-a-time musket.
Downey points out that there are more guns than people in the U.S. The more guns we have, the more likely it is that some, if not many, will end up in the wrong hands.
Also, some life happenstance can quickly turn some law-abiding gun owners into people who are no longer law-abiding.
If a law-abiding gun owner loses a job, loses a business, loses a loved one or has something else happen to him or her, does he or she suddenly feel so helpless that he or she may be tempted to take revenge, even against people who may have never wronged him or her?
In summary, as may have been demonstrated in Nashville, the next generation will have had a different experience with deadly weapons from that of their current elders. They may not be so easily swayed by those whose interest is in selling more guns.
When that generation takes over the political arena, attitudes likely will be very different. We, as the current generation, can do those children a big favor and begin to act now. Very few object to gun ownership for recreational, even self-defense purposes in some cases.
But the weapons that can expend multiple bullets very quickly are neither recreational nor defensive. They are mass killing machines. What purposes, other than evil, does it serve for so many of these weapons to be in the hands of a wide civilian population?
We can either begin to fix the problem now, or, certainly, the next generation – some of whom would have heard or witnessed gunfire in their schools as children – very likely will.
Peter