Debate:Mall Shootings

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In the day or so since he went on his shooting spree in an Oklahoma mall, the public has learned a lot about Robert Hawkins--he came from a broken home, spent years in and out of foster homes, dropped out of high school, struggled with drug and alcohol abuse, been the victim of sexual abuse, tangled with the law, and had severe mental, emotional, and behavioral problems. In short, he was one messed-up kid. But instead of having a smidgen of compassion for him and his victims, you gotta jump right on the story in order to score a cheap, snarky political dig at public schools (which, I'm quite sure, were the absolute least of his problems). That's beyond sick--it's positively evil.--RossC 19:17, 6 December 2007 (EST)

The teenager's values and substance abuse were typical of those those in public school. Defend it, or work to change that value system.
You don't seem willing to do either, and instead pull the "shame on you"-type of indignation common to liberal style. Do you even believe that "evil" exists?--Aschlafly 19:33, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Don't pretend to know something about me, my values, or my politics, because you don't, and you'd be wrong.
Yes, I believe that evil exists. It was present when that kid went on his rampage, and it is present in your obvious glee to be able to report that he attended public school.--RossC 19:52, 6 December 2007 (EST)
We need to look at the entire picture of this case; the young man who went on this rampage obviously had issues. To say the Public school system was the only contributory factor is simply false. Who know's what went through his head at the time - that is between him and God. To use this tragedy as a political item, is simply unchristian, and a betrayal of the Christian values that I have come to respect very deeply. I kindly ask, in the name of common human decency, that the entry you made be edited to reflect a truer, more compassionate picture of what really happened. Yours, Jimmy001 20:26, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Look fellows - this kind of argument is a total non-starter on this site. Go back to the coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings or the school shootings in Finlnd: reading this page right now is like being in a time machine. Claude 20:29, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Now Claude, there is absolutely no need for such remarks. I'm sure the sysops will asked reasonably when faced with reasonable objects. Insults and outrage will get you nowhere. Jimmy001 20:31, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Ideas and teaching do have consequences. RossC and Claude protest far too much when it is pointed at this killer was the product of public schools and engaged in typically liberal behavior: drugs, alcohol, and a lack of faith.

Sounds like Claude is still smarting from the observation that the Virginia Tech killer was an anti-Christian. Funny how self-style rational thinkers get so hysterical and irrational when scientific observations are made that embarrass their icons.--Aschlafly 20:40, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I couldn't give a tinker's damn that the Virginia Tech nutjob was anti-Christian. And while I assume you meant "self-styled" and not "self-style," I'm not sure what "icons" you are referring to. I see no link between the actions of a violent psychopath and my own lack of religious belief - just as you see no link between the mass violence committed in the name of Christianity and your own evangelical beliefs, I suppose. Claude 20:51, 6 December 2007 (EST)

I think a citation for "the mass violence committed in the name of Christianity" would be highly appropriate here, don't you think Claude? By the way, I think you need to clean up your debate style of red herrings (aka your discrepancies with grammar and your unreferenced, defensive statement about violent acts in the name of Christianity) and focus on making a point. Thanks! --◄ Ďāʋĭđ Ŕ ► 21:02, 6 December 2007 (EST)
By the way, I'm Dave. Nice to meet you! :) --David R 21:07, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Well, I mentioned a few of them above, but they always bear repeating: the Crusades, especially the ethnic cleansing of European Jews by Crusaders on their way to the Middle East; the American Indian Genocide - including church-sponsored attempts to eliminate Native American and Native Canadian culture through residential school programs; the pogroms in tsarist Russia and other acts of violence inspired by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the blood libel; the elimination of indigenous populations by Spanish Christians in South and Central America; the Spanish Inquisition; crimes against humanity committed against populations in Africa and Asia as part of so-called "civilizing missions" in Africa and Asia...are you beginning to get the picture? Claude 21:12, 6 December 2007 (EST)

In response to earlier points, great arguments, David! Claude, you obviously don't care what causes these killing rampages. I do. Responsible people care also. When a public school product goes on a killing rampage, responsible people ask why and seek to change or eliminate the causes so it doesn't happen again. The liberal activities and the loss in faith by this particular murderer, and the tragedy he caused, are striking and preventable. Ditto for the Virginia Tech killer.--Aschlafly 21:18, 6 December 2007 (EST)

In response to Claude's claims about Christianity, they lack any details because there are none to support the sweeping accusations. For example, the "American Indian Genocide"??? Christians came to convert the Indians, not . No credible historian would claim otherwise.--Aschlafly 21:18, 6 December 2007 (EST)
There's nothing wrong with conversion. The Indians had tremendous appreciation for the Great Spirit already, and lived in harmony with the natural world He had created. Imagine if they had augmented their native spirituality with Christian e--Ed Poor Talk 16:58, 7 December 2007 (EST)thics along with getting saved! :-)
Well, I thank you for trying, Claude, but I was thinking more MODERN acts as you ARE comparing these alleged acts to RECENT acts such as the mall shooting or the Virginia Tech shooting. Don't you think that would be more convincing and balanced? Also, if you still think those are suitable statements please provide some proof that Christians encourage that behavior TODAY or ever even encouraged it. There's a reoccurring theme here, wouldn't you agree? :) Thanks! --David R 21:24, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Thank you, Mr. Schlafly. --David R 21:26, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Ok, I'm gonna jump in and throw the Holocaust out there. Without the preceding 2000 years of persecuting Jews because they were "Christ-killers", Hitler would never have been able to convince the German public that the Jews were a real threat to Germany. He said several times that as a good Christian, he must avenge Jesus' death, however even if you don't agree with that, consider that almost all the guards who carried out the killings would have been christian, yet many took great joy in their work. Also consider the Armenian Genocide, if you want to. I think that was in the past century although I admit I'm a little hazy on the details. Bolly 13:29, 7 December 2007
Haha, I cannot believe you even attempted to make that argument work. In reality, what you say about Hitler using that ploy to justify his Holocaust may be true. But, from what I read, he created a neo-religion, a mixture of 90% of his fachist nazi government and 10% select truths from Christianity. The majority of German Christians opposed this measure and were persecuted for it. I suggest that we don't jump to the assumption that the German guards were real Christians. Wouldn't you agree?
As for the Armenian Genocide, I think you might just be "hazy on the details" as this does not support your argument at all. The genocide was a massacre of Armenian Christians by the Armenian Muslims after they had become disgruntled with the government. The Muslim Turks joined in as the murders went on. This was a Islamic jihad against the Christians. So I don't exactly know where you were going with this... --David R 21:41, 6 December 2007 (EST)
David R, are you using some kind of censoring program? Every time you edit this page it seem to remove words and even fractions of words in other peoples posts, for example; "Who really", became "ally" (it obviously even neglected the space). Turn it of when editing.
As for the issue, I think it's just common sense that the most likely reason for this tragedy was the murderers troubled childhood and continued social troubles in his teens, rather than school. The real problem with public schools I think is that they have a larger amount of "not so well adjusted youths". This is not because of religion but because those kids generally come from troubled and poor homes that can't afford to send them to a private school.--MrLennholm 08:20, 7 December 2007 (EST)
The argument is not that the schools will directly cause these problems, but that they teach a worldview (an atheistic one) that doesn't teach the kids right and wrong (because there's no such thing under atheism). So when they have other problems, there's no moral brake to stop them doing terrible things. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Well it was a religiously motivated genocide. You are right, I did get it slightly mixed up, and I apologise for that. But what is wrong with the Hitler argument? I do agree that it has little to do with real christianity, but that is just the point. The recent shooters have as little to do with atheism as Hitler does to christianity, i.e. they all praticed versions of the original ideas. Thankyou for proving my point :) Bolly 14:03, 7 December 2007
I do not see how I proved your point. Hitler's religion was not nearly real Christianity, even though he may have called it that. Now you may say: "Then the recent shooting were not fueled by real atheism either." Well, what makes a Christian? Without going into depth with the answer, I will say that it is NOT murder. Therefore, real Christianity could not be the basis of the Nazi actions. Now, what makes an atheist? The belief that there is no God is atheism. The shooters did not misconstrue any part of the religion: they WERE real atheists. Furthermore, their actions were fueled by their beliefs. I hope I cleared some of this up for you. --David R 22:39, 6 December 2007 (EST)
It does because they were atheists, however not moral atheists. Again, I apologise for making that error, I wrongly assumed that thats what you understood "real" atheist to mean. To be a moral atheist generally means either being a Utiltarian, like the admirable Peter Singer, or following some kind of Kantian ethics, Raymond Gaita. However how do you draw the conclusion that the shootings were fuelled by their beliefs? As far as I am aware, they were both really dissillusioned, depressed people with dangerous psychological problems. And please don't insult us both by saying "yeh, they were depressed cos they were atheists". That anti-atheistic rubbish is peddalled here regularly without any supporting evidence. Bolly 14:43, 7 December 2007
WHOA! You lost me at "moral atheists". What is that, and who decides what is moral if atheists do not have a moral code? I'm talking about a divinely-inspired one such as the 10 commandments. Please, educate me. Thanks! --David R 14:16, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Haha, funny. A moral atheist is an atheist who follows a moral code. Existentialism is one such code, every persons must accept responsibility for their own actions. Utilitarianism: The greatest good for the greatest number, with the least harm. I for one live by that code, I think that reasons to at morally include: compassion, every other person has thoughts and feelings just like you do so respect them like you would respect your own (note that that means respect them, you don't have to agree with them), even selfishness: it is easier to achieve your goal when supported by a group rather than on your own. As for the 10 commandments, oh dea oh dear oh dear. The first two both deny the freedom of religion. That is hardly a good moral code to live by, kill people if they refuse to worship your God. Sounds suspiciously like Sharia law....hang on thats where Sharia law comes from. Bolly 9:04, 7 December 2007

I think I have a modern example of Christianity motivated murder. In 1994, Paul Hill murdered abortion doctor John Britton because God told him to. [[1]] Blinkadyblink 22:47, 6 December 2007 (EST)

Under your argument, that would be one victim 13 years ago. The public school-produced killers have slain over 50 victims, and perhaps far more, in just the last ten years.--Aschlafly 23:07, 6 December 2007 (EST)
Just a couple of thoughts: Aren't most students in America in public schools? So the majority of anything that people do here will be done by products of the public school system, right? Also, the shooter was also a product of our foster care system and our legal system. If the Main Page is going to talk about the forces in his life that put him in that mall yesterday, then why is public school the one thing singled out? There were many factors in his life that were horribly negative. Making a jab at public schools really takes focus away from the other problems that led up to yesterday's tragedy, and the tragedy itself.Emkay 23:17, 6 December 2007 (EST)

My children go to a Church of England school in the UK (which is part of the public school system), The school is run on Christian principle (in the UK there is a fuzzy line between the separation of Church and State) with most aspect of educations viewed from a moral standpoint. Even with the school as part of the moral compass, there are still pupils that end up on the wrong side of the law. I was educated in a private Christian school and have found out through various reunions that we have had our share of criminal alumni. I agree with the point above, as conservatives we need to look beyond the simple finger pointing at the public school system and look at the breakdown of morality in society in general. Many of the great leaders (i.e. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) went through their respective public school systems. If you cherry pick products of the systems you can prove any point. My one (slight) complaint about this excellent site is that fact that you always seem to blame any negative story on Liberals - even when the linked article makes not reference to the leaning of the particular individual or group involved. I am no friend of the Liberal cause, but I don't see them as the cause of all evil in the world. As a free market conservative I still have some moments when I get concerned about the morality of a free market that promotes homosexuality and ographers because there is money to be be made out of these groups. .Nik77uk 12:15, 6 December 2007 (GMT)

I'm surprised it took so long to put that kid up on the front page. Every time there's a murder by someone under 25, you all blame it on the schools, and only the schools. Maestro 07:50, 7 December 2007 (EST)
With the Church of England in England rejecting the Bible teaching on creation and homosexuality, to pick just two examples, it's not exactly a great example of what the products of a Christian education should be. Philip J. Rayment 09:01, 7 December 2007 (EST)

The defenders of the atheistic public schools protest too much here. Public school is where the killer on the front page spent his formative years and formed his beliefs. Ideas do matter, and teaching ideas (and lack of ideas) to teenagers does matter. With a string of homicidal teenagers produced by public school, such as the Columbine killers and Virginia Tech killer, it's long overdue to scrutinize and criticize the factory that is producing these kids, and why.--Aschlafly 09:16, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafy,

We are not protesting too much here. Frankly we are horrified that you jumped on this tragic mass murder to score a political point. Not only have you ignored the other contributing factors to lead him to what he did - His father was a sick rapist (Which in my eyes will screw him up more than not been taught that the world was created in six days in science class) - you continue to perpetuate the lie that public schools created this monster.

Schools and teachers do not, and should not have the right to instill morals in students. That is solely the role of the parent. A school is intended to teach children and prepare them for the real world. They are supposed to be able to learn about different subjects, learn to think independantly. Religion does not foster freethinking.

Again, it is the parents role to bring their child up with religious values, not the states. Why would you even want the government interfering in the parents personal decisions in what they think is best for their child? Why should the State broadcast one religion over another (Which is in effect what you want to do with class prayer and teaching creationism) Do parents who pay their taxes so their child can go to public schools be treated so shoddily? I don't think so.

I look forward to your reply. MarcusCicero 10:31, 7 December 2007 (EST)

"Horrified" by a rational and skeptical analysis of the teaching and training of teenage killers? No, User:MarcusCicero, I don't think you're "horrified". I think you're deflecting accountability. See liberal style for how your argumentative style here fits the points identified there.
Sorry to disappoint you, but ideas do matter and scientific analysis can apply to this just as it applies to smoking, drinking and other aspects of society. Again, and again, and again, teenaged products of the public schools go on killing rampages that claim scores of innocent victims. Some accountability for the ideas behind these murder sprees is long overdue. Try Wikipedia® if you prefer political correctness to honest analysis.--Aschlafly 11:51, 7 December 2007 (EST)
And you haven't taken the ready availability of guns into account? The gun culture? The lack of psychological care? The young mans father?

What you seem to be ignoring is the fact that the working class have a higher rate of crime than other classes. Its sad but true. A large chunk of public schoolers hail from working class backgrounds. More often that not, their home lives are very troubled. Yet you never take this into account when assessing public schools. You have not provided a scientific analysis because you haven't taken all the variables into account to form your conclusion. In fact, what you are promoting is a psuedo-science - a science that hasn't conducted itself along the scientific method.

Also, there is no need to accuse me of political correctness. I am merely pointing out factual errors in your argument and the flaws in your method of gathering evidence that forms your conclusion. I am an open minded person, but resorting to the old 'go back to wikipedia' attack when in a rational debate surely meets one of your own criteria for Liberal style. (Points 7, 23 and 26) MarcusCicero 13:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)

You pointed out no flaws. Instead, you feigned being "horrified" and used basic liberal style to try to get me to abandon a rational inquiry into the belief systems and education of these young mass murderers. In many cases, as in Columbine, their home lives were not troubled at all, so you can't blame it on that.--Aschlafly 13:17, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I think you raise a very good point, Mr.Schlafly. I've personally seen MANY of my local youth turn to the Devil's work during their years in public school. I have often wondered if we shouldn't actually keep a closer watch on public school students. I believe one thing that might help would be to turn public schools into boarding schools - students would attend classes during the day, then stay there at night and during down time - under lock and key, of course. During the summer holidays, they could attend summer camp there and of course their parents could visit any time they like. When they are old enough and mature enough to be released from school, they can emerge brighter and better citizens. What do you think of this idea? I think it would make our streets and malls safer. MarianS 13:53, 7 December 2007 (EST)

MarianS, your comment is pathetic joke. Atheists have free will to be atheists, but they don't have a right to take taxpayer money and educate kids to become [young mass murders]], and this site is going to point out the growing number of examples. You can remain in denial as long as you like.--Aschlafly 14:06, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Oh no, I think you misunderstood me - I agree with you! I'm suggesting that public schools ARE INDEED a scourge, and since we can't stop some people going there, we should turn them into mandatory boarding schools so their students do not roam the streets threatening elders and doing the kind of horrendous acts we saw in Omaha! If for the five or six years they are in school they cannot terrorize us, it would be better for society at large. I have been writing to my congressman and senator for a few years suggesting this. I must have explained my suggestion badly, sorry. MarianS 14:12, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Oh my! Sorry, my apologies. However, aren't you just postponing the inevitable harm?--Aschlafly 14:18, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Well, yes, that's certainly true, but only if you allow the dangerous cases out. However, I envisage a system of examinations, tests and psychoanalysis that would allow those who are not deranged to continue on into society, while those that are considered dangers to society are held back for re-education and correction of their societal misalignment. I think it's clear from almost every one of these cases that the youths involved are well-known to be troubled by their teachers and even their peers, so it's not like they can't be spotted. If each and every student were to be interviewed on a regular basis, in private, about their views of their classmates, the schoolmasters would know a lot more about who should be allowed to roam the streets and who should not. MarianS 14:31, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Does your "rational inquiry" taken into account all the individuals who attend public schools and live morally healthy and normal lives? Maybe conservapedia should offer a statistics course if you think a signficant number of people who have attended public schools become killers. --UPOD 14:14, 7 December 2007 (EST)

The normal ones are the ones shot dead by the young mass murderers. And you can bet that for every killer who develops in the public school environment, there are thousands who become disturbed, distressed, criminal or insane without actually going on a shooting spree. Note, for example, how I did not include the numerous planned shootings that were averted when leaked to the authorities.--Aschlafly 14:18, 7 December 2007 (EST)

"it's not like they can't be spotted" - right, but the question is what can be done with them? We have been creating a society where individual rights trump responsibility to the greater good.

Many of these school shooters were victims of bullying, but we are more concerned with "hate crimes" legislation which gives special protection to members of favored groups, than we are with actual expressions of hate and instances of violence.

The mumbling postal worker who "went postal" several years ago was well known, but management did not dare to intervene because of union rules and lawsuits. --Ed Poor Talk 14:42, 7 December 2007 (EST)

You're right, Mr. Poor about that - there is a liberal fear of actually doing anything to stop this scourge. I think the answer is simple- if they are boarded in schools 24 hours a day for five or more years under skilled adult supervision, they are harmless to society at large. And, with them being under lock-and-key supervision 24 hours a day, they are less likely to stray and troublemakers can be identified early and removed from the company of good students and educated separately. The good students can make the best of the educational facilities available to them, and wll improve when removed from the influence of the bullies. I think Christian religious education and services should obviously be enforced on all students. Finally, the exit interviews will ensure that only the sane and productive can become adult members of society -the troublemakers can continue their education for as long as it takes to adjust their thinking. MarianS 17:13, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Uhm, I hate to point something out to you, but the system you are describing has another name - prison. You're seriously suggesting locking up all youth under guard through their entire High School years? Reasonableperson 20:10, 7 December 2007 (EST)
It seems you're not familiar with good boarding schools Reasonableperson. That's all I'm describing. MarianS 20:44, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Template:Remove personal comment MichaelA 15:03, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Michael A, I don't think Mr. Schlafly was making a case against the kid, but rather against the institution that promotes his beliefs. Besides, I do not think a case against the kid would be totally innappropriate (He brutally killed 8 people, just in case you forgot). Nevertheless, emotional rants don't belong on talk pages. Putting a little thought into what you are writing can go a long way. --David R 15:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)
He is exploiting a tragedy for his own agenda. He has a whole website to make his case about atheism or anything else he wants. Why does he have to use a tragedy like this to make his point when he has other outlets? Only twisted people do that. MichaelA 15:14, 7 December 2007 (EST)
MichaelA, the essence of compassion to honestly recognize the cause of the tragedy and take steps to correct that cause, so that there are not more innocent victims. Those who try to bully others by namecalling ("twisted people'"), as you are doing, in order to discourage them from finding and correcting the cause are wrong. Your approach here, common in liberal style (see point #24), won't work. We will continue to find and discuss the truth here, and our society will be better off because of it.--Aschlafly 17:20, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Andy, I suggest reading through a profile of Robert Hawkins. [2] He was severely depressed and had gotten an enormous amount of help from many people. Investigate before you publicly engage in cruel speculation about terrible tragedies for political purposes. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 15:25, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Here's something I found:

In 2002, a report released by the U.S. Secret Service concluded that bullying played a significant role in many school shootings and that efforts should be made to eliminate bullying behavior. (National Conference of State Legislatures)
I'm not surprised at the problem with bullying (I know that it was involved in past school shootings) but that doesn't apply in this case. It wasn't even a school shooting, for that matter. PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 15:39, 7 December 2007 (EST)

While obviously each case is unique, in the case of this awful tragedy, under my proposal, the shooter would not have been in the mall, as he would still be in school being re-educated - he clearly would have failed his exit interviews and would have been retained for correction. MarianS 15:49, 7 December 2007 (EST)

So every troubled 19 year old should be forced to stay in high school? No GED's allowed (he had a GED)? PostoStudanto ✉Tλlk 15:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Well, yes, that is my point EXACTLY! MarianS 15:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Bullying is not a common denominator to the young mass murderers. Several of them were more the bully than the victim of bullying!--Aschlafly 16:11, 7 December 2007 (EST)

This discussion is clearly no longer about the main page. It has turned into a debate. Why don't we think of a topic and create a debate page for it? --Ed Poor Talk 17:24, 7 December 2007 (EST)
Mr. Sclafy,

Can we please leave the stereotype Liberal bashing at the door? I have not once came out with an anti-conservative comment, yet you feel the need to dandy around the word Liberal as if it is a bad thing, on a parallel with fascist and communist. Despite your objections, Liberal and Liberalism are one of the mainstream political outlooks in your country, the other been conservative. Although conservatives outnumber Liberals almost two to one, the moderates in the centre largely think both sides are idiots when they attack each others ideologies with such venom. Stop using the phrase 'Liberal Style' also, as I have pointed out you have met some of the criteria listed in that yourself. Now, back to the point, which can hopefully stay on the point from here on.

You said: 'You pointed out no flaws.'

That is simply untrue. Either you are using that tactic only Liberals are capable of (Liberal deceit ad hominum) or your didn't read my last post.

My point was that the contributing factors to this childs mental instability were largely ignored by yourself when you adopted your 'scientific' analysis that the public school system is to blame for this mass murder. Notice how I have not, as yet, defended the public school system. All I have done is point out the worthlessness of the conclusion that public schools created such a monster. By ignoring the other contributory factors, you effectively weaken your argument, an argument all the more weakened by your continued ignorance of the points raised by myself.

Now, the main objections that I, and many other people of all political persuasions have in your news page item is that it is simply callous to try and earn political points out of such a tragedy. Liberals did not resort to this with the Virginia tech massacres. By and large we showed compassion for the victims. You have shown none for them. Instead, on an almost unrelated rant you have attacked the integrity of the public school system, claiming that the public school system, and it alone caused this tragedy.

Again, I hope you respond with more clarity this time, attacking my argument and not my character. MarcusCicero 13:31, 8 December 2007 (EST)

This teenage killer spent most of his developing time at public school. His crime and behavior were similar to that of other products of public school, as reflected by young mass murderers. You could develop other hypotheses, such as that he wore glasses or had dark hair, but you'd quickly find that your hypotheses are missing in the similar crimes. But the training by public school and the atheistic culture there is the common denominator. This is scientific analysis, not liberal emotion attempting to deflect accountability.--Aschlafly 14:27, 8 December 2007 (EST)
I heard a statistic recently that 90% of students in the US go to public schools. Private schools are too expensive for most. Considering 90% of young people go to these 'manufactories of atheism' it is implausible to assert that the few who do go on mass killing sprees do it as a result of public schools. Its much more likely that they are messed up. Someone who is messed up and has an easy access to a gun is dangerous. Period. Do you honestly think other countries in the Industrial west do not have an alienated youth? What about a country like France, who's homicide rates are minuscule compared to the US yet adopts a secular education system?

The 'common denominator' is also flawed. There is a 'common denominator' that an imbalanced number of African Americans are in prison. Does this mean that all African Americans are dangerous? Of course not. The same goes with public schools.

No-one is deflecting accountability here except you, sir. You constantly refuse to address the real issue at hand - AKA, your horribly flawed logic - but rather prefer to come out with a series of Liberal ad hominums such as 'Liberal emotion attempting to deflect accountability'. Have you ever even met a Liberal, Sir? MarcusCicero 14:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

But this does deflect accountability from his parents whose job it is to teach their child right from wrong and a code of moral and instead blames the public school system --Pibu 14:36, 8 December 2007 (EST)
This could be one of our debate topics, like Do US public schools teach good values?. Considering that most teachers and PTAs are members of the NEA, an ultra-liberal union and professional group, I doubt that any good morals or ethics are being taught as a rule.
The only thing I know that liberals teach children is what their rights are. I hear very little about responsibility. How can children have good relationships, if they are taught a "gimme" mentality? I think healthy give and take begins with giving.
I don't think anyone here is arguing that poor schooling is the only cause; rather, that it is a significant contributing factor. The irresponsibility of educators is reflected in the way they teach kids to pursue their own interests without regard to the feelings or needs of others. This, in turn, creates a climate which permits (promotes) suicide. "No one cares about me," is the cry of the suicide (along with "I'll show them").
Many people are alarmed when suicides take others with them, but what worries me more is the act of suicide itself, which comes from despair. Anger is easily calmed, but despair goes to the bone. --Ed Poor Talk 14:38, 8 December 2007 (EST)

The torrent of liberal nonsense might work on Wikipedia, but not here. Check out young mass murderers and you'll find many were from good homes and many were above-average in intelligence. Their common denominator, however, was their training by atheistic public schools and their hostility to Christianity as encouraged in public school. This would make for a good scientific paper.

Those who want to engage in liberal hysteria rather than approach this scientifically, please find a talk page on Wikipedia for your rants rather than here. There have been enough mass murders by young people to study and discuss the ideological causes in a rational way.--Aschlafly 16:15, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Well, Mr. Schlafly, I don't think liberals are going to approach any social issue scientifically in the near future. Liberals' aversion to science is well known. They don't want to shed the light of reason on any issue where facts contradict their preconceptions. We could write a whole article on how they hound out devotees of science (like the president of Harvard) from academia, for daring to check whether reality matches liberal dogma. --Ed Poor Talk 16:27, 8 December 2007 (EST)
No, Ed, Andy's got a good idea--let's test his theory, using his list of young mass murderers:
  • Harris and Klebold - public school students, outcasts, bullied, mentally ill / depressed, frequent trouble with the authorities, fascination with death and destruction, admirers of Tim McVeigh.
  • Pekka-Eric Auvinen - public school student, "bullied", "outcast", depressed/suicidal, "love(d) guns and shooting", noticeable mental deterioration in weeks before the shootings.
  • Seung-Hui Cho - public school student, severe and ongoing psychiatric problems since childhood, bullied, obsessed with death and violence.
  • Sebastian Bosse - graduate of public schools, an outcast, "no one liked him", "It was clear he would flip out at some point..", fascination with guns, had been arrested for illegal gun possession, obsessed with death and violence.
  • Kimveer Gill-- public school student (graduated 8 years prior to shooting), depressed for months with "noticeable mental deterioration" in the weeks prior to his rampage, suicidal, felt bullied (particularly by "anti-goth" religious folks), fascination with guns
  • Robert Steinhaeuser - expelled from public school, poor student, loner, reputation for being a problem student and a truant, broken home, gun collector, expert marksman.
  • Michael Carneal--attended public school, "picked on his whole life", regular church-goer, diagnosed with paranoia and a schizophrenia-like personality disorder, easy access to guns.
(and one Andy missed):
  • Asa Coon - wounded four people and fatally shot self at a Cleveland school, home-schooled (oops! Maybe this one shouldn't be on the list...well, let's continue), hospitalized for mental illness, bullied, broken home, family history of violence, easy access to guns, suicidal, frequent fights, and (just for Andy) said he "didn't believe in God and didn't respect God".
Hmmm, yes, public schooling seems to be the only common denominator here...--RossC 20:23, 8 December 2007 (EST)
Wow, that's amazing: Seung-Hui Cho, Harris and Klebold were all ... bullied? Oh right, I saw Cho's video, he really looked a bullied victim. Your claims are typically liberal jokes. These killers, who murdered almost 50 people among them, were not victims of bullying, and the rest of your analysis smacks of distorted liberal bias. Hint: take a look at what the young mass murderers admitted about their own beliefs. They were mostly arrogant anti-Christians, and murder is the ultimate in "bullying".--Aschlafly 22:31, 8 December 2007 (EST)
And what, pray tell, does a victim of bullying look like? (And, please, quit with the silly "you're a Liberal" dodge--you don't know me, and it doesn't help your case. It's the textual equivalent of a child who sticks his fingers in his ears yelling "LA-LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" You can do better than that.)--RossC 10:03, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Why do so many liberals, including even Hillary Clinton, deny they are liberals? That's notable.
Cho bullied many people, particularly women. So did the Columbine killers, and so did other murderers on the list. The claim that these murderers were themselves victims is claptrap designed to deflect attention from the beliefs these killers held and espoused.--Aschlafly 11:21, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Now I'm Hillary-ish?--Please...If you make denying one's alleged Liberalness proof of same, then everyone is a Liberal.
While most of these killers went to public schools, there are also demonstrably other common factors that may (or may not) contribute to their rampages--family turmoil, mental illness, depression, and--yes--bullying.
And while I heartily agree that what these guys (there's another common factor--gender) did is, as you said, the ultimate form of bullying, that may be precisely the point--some/all of these killers felt bullied, either by specific groups (jocks, Christians), or the world in general, and want to get their "revenge" by turning the tables and doing to "them" what "they" did to him.
The vast, vast majority of public school students go on to have perfectly normal, law-abiding lives--if your theory were correct, there would be many thousands of such such shootings every year, instead of the comparatively few that occur.--RossC 12:38, 9 December 2007 (EST)
It's curious in itself why so many liberals deny that they are liberals. If one called a sports fan a Yankee fan, would be deny it if he were a Yankee fan? If he did deny it, then he would immediately explain that he is a fan of another team, or no fan at all. Why so much denial by liberals? One reason could be embarrassment, but the more plausible reason is that liberals find it more effective to pretend they might be conservative when they really aren't. That ropes more people into the liberal ideology. If you disagree, then feel free to explain why.
As to the young mass murderers, the evidence is that they bullied prior to their killing more than being bullied. It's pure liberal bias to claim that bullying, rather than ideology, was the cause. Note, by the way, this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders, killing about 50 innocent people, by young public-school-taught, faithless killers in 2007. How many will there be in 2008???--Aschlafly 13:13, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Sure, one might deny liberalosity out of embarrassment or trickery (especially here at CP), but you're missing the most obvious reason somebody might deny being a Liberal: Because they are not a Liberal!
I'll move further comment re young mass murderers to that talk page.--RossC 14:07, 9 December 2007 (EST)
But you don't convince anyone that you're not a liberal, and with everyone from Hillary Clinton to John Kerry denying it, it's easy to take the denial with a grain of salt. What's your position on the right of a public school teacher to begin class with a prayer? I'd give 10:1 odds that you oppose such right, and insist on censoring such prayer, which is a central part of the liberal ideology. I'd give 100:1 odds that you don't want to admit it.--Aschlafly 15:16, 9 December 2007 (EST)
(10:1 and 100:1? I'm not a gambling man, usually, but I like them odds. Are we putting money down on this one?) Sure, that'd be fine--Way back when I was in school, we started and ended each day with a prayer, and no student from my school ever went on a shooting rampage. I'd suggest something simple along the lines of "O Jesus, through the immaculate heart of Mary, I offer you my prayers, works, joys and sufferings of this day in union with the holy sacrifice of the Mass throughout the world. I offer them for all the intentions of your sacred heart: the salvation of souls, reparation for sin, the reunion of all Christians. I offer them for the intentions of our bishops and of all the apostles of prayer, and in particular for those recommended by our Holy Father this month." One of my favorites, that. Maybe follow it up with a rundown of specific intentions to keep in mind throughout the day.--RossC 16:19, 9 December 2007 (EST)


  • doing to "them" what "they" did to him
  • If this was true, how come the victims are dead?
  • ...the world in general
  • Wow. You'd think the common denominator-gender, would have nullified this.
  • most of these killers went to public schools, there are ...other common factors... depression...
  • Any corelation between public schools & depression?
  • there would be many thousands of such... instead of the comparatively few
  • Amazing how jaded we get. Columbine was shocking at the time, now it happens everyother week. Most amazing of all was it happened at the very instant the Clinton Admin had the US in Kosovo because Serbs were not raising thier children correct and needed the US to teach them how to do it right. But that story never got reported.
  • If you make denying one's alleged Liberalness proof of same, then everyone is a Liberal.
Right. I guess those of us who never have to answer the charge are just sub-human non-entities. Typical liberal smugness and closmindedness. Rob Smith 18:18, 9 December 2007 (EST)

(deleted silly liberal comment)


Why have you ignored the French Secular education system, a system that doesn't breed mass murderes, possibly because of the lack of availability of firearms. As others have pointed out, the other common denominator was the fact they all had a fascination with guns. Yet you accuse me of unscientific analysis - well sir, I am not the one rejecting evidence on ideological grounds! My entire argument is based around the fact that most American kids go to public schools, yet only a few, generally poor troubled teens with access to guns lash out. Your pointless little rant about Liberals is a testament to the fact you are losing this argument. If you had valid points, you wouldn't need to engage is such petty behaviour (AKA, Go away to Wikipedia)

Your arguments should be able to stand up to rational inquiry without resorting to such tactics. I suppose I have now at this stage talked far too much common sense, and am likely to be banned. O well. You can ban me, but another man of reason will take my place. And so on, and so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarcusCicero (talk)

Can we move this debate to a page like Conservapedia:How can educators prevent school shootings?
Until then, I'll give my 2 cents again (somebody here owes me sixpence now ;-)
Making gun possession illegal doesn't stop school shootings. Why would anyone disturbed enough to take their own life obey a gun control law? And anyway, at least one major U.S. school shooting incident was ended when a man went to his car, got his firearm, and confronted the shooter(s). The MSM misleadingly said only that the shooters were "tackled" while omitting the inconvenient truth that they were tackled at gun point.
Please avoid personal remarks. Phrases like "pointless little rant", "you are losing this argument", "I am not the one" are complete wastes of space. If you have an argument or correction to make, just go ahead and make it. We're listening.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)
If the gun control laws were such that they were unable to get hold of a gun, then they really could stop a school shooting. Philip J. Rayment 20:40, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Philip, I believe that is the very idea behind the Liberal ideology of gun control. They see no need for guns in a modern world, and figure that if nobody had guns, then even the possibility of a shooting would be ruled out. However, most people don't want to give up their Berettas and their hollow-point rounds. For an interesting take on guns in society, take a look at Canada. Thier gun restrictions are much the same as America's (automatic and assault weapons, however, are much more tightly controlled) and yet gun-related issues are far less an issue for them. This may indicate a societal factor in gun-related incidents.
The idea is not to make a simple by-law or whatever to outlaw guns, but to eliminate guns from public possession entirely. Obviously this violates the Second Amendment, however.ABN 09:59, 10 December 2007 (EST)
I fail to see the point in this debate, because there are allot of people who go to public schools, and they don't go around killing tons of people. This kid had a very troubled life, his parents failed him, he felt everyone else around him had failed him too, and lastly, he failed himself. But, I can see the point that if he did have a faith, not just christianity but almost any religion, he could have had more stabillity in his life. But public schools? I think that was the least of his problems. thegovernator