1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun Advice

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by KeyFin, Feb 15, 2018.

  1. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    According to this article the $10 million was granted:

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

    (CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

    “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.
     
  2. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    In case nobody read my longer post: @rafael

    https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

    "The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”"


    I use ~1.5 million as a nice average between 500,000 and 3 million.
     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,349
    41,660
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    It isn't relevant though. First of all, the rape rates is a small portion of the chart but it does cover the US. All it is saying its that rape rates don't really change between states with and without stricter gun laws. For your argument to be relevant, then it would mean that states with less gun laws saw a decline in violent rapes and an increase in non violent rapes, which would have kept the overall rape rates the same.

    Lots of gun studies are biased, no argument. But the ones I linked aren't nor are they filtered through a biased source, like CNSnews.

    For example, the study from your article is legit, the article isn't. That quote from the study is incomplete. Here is the full quote, with the stuff CNS left off in bold:

    Again, not giving you crap, but most of this was covered and discussed in the SA article already.
     
  4. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,349
    41,660
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You have to stop using CNS. They are terrible and factually incorrect a lot or misleading.

    Again, from the SA article, that you should read:
     
  5. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    KeyFin likes this.
  6. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets

    6,294
    2,465
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    It's cuz they were never Marines. Or 11 Bravo either. It's the disease of multiple rounds easily loaded and fired. When you have to load every round or every few rounds you learn to hit what you're shooting at. I come from the sniper school myself. If I want you dead you'll never know it. And if it takes me two shots I'll be pissed. I am getting old but I've still got 20/15 vision and know how to breathe.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  7. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    Whatever the US military has should be available to US citizens as well. Albeit through much more stringent guidelines. When the people are grossly outmatched by military technology the US government has power over the people.
     
  8. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets

    6,294
    2,465
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    So if you can afford it you get an Abrams. Or an Apache. Or LAW rocket launchers? Can I get a Claymore at my local store?
    I agree with your premise, but that is one of the flaws in the 2nd amendment argument. The founding fathers had no concept, could not have visualized the kinds of weapons we have available today. Or even more important, a standing professional military force. Our military is capable of destroying the earth for human habitation forever. That's a big difference from everyone being able to own a musket.
    The 2nd amendment's intention was to avoid a standing military and put home defense in the hands of a citizen militia, basically the National Guard. But the world is not the same as it was. I don't think the same POV should apply to today. The spirit yes, not a literal translation.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  9. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    You can't own an Apache or Abrams for armor and design secrets. You certainly can own a tank or claymore under DD laws in states. For that matter you can also have a flamethrower and a grenade launcher with artillery stationed around your house in some states. You can also make whatever gun you like at home as long as it is not sold or transferred to anyone (this will get scary with 3D printing).

    Point is, none of these are being used in these mass shootings. Very simple rifles are being used for the most part. I don't think restricting weapons themselves helps save many lives if any at all. Stricter background checks with re-registration and frequent follow up evaluations may but this will be a huge DMV type inefficient wasteland if not implemented by private sector.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  10. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,321
    2,935
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    Surprised this one hasn't been shut down yet haha, but interesting reads.

    Just for a first hand perspective on the HOT TOPIC OF THE DAY - Armed Teachers.

    I'm on a break from teaching atm, but did 3 years through the spring of 17 in what would be termed an "urban" district. Lots of poor kids, high rates of minority students (both black and hispanic, about 1/3 each with 1/3 white). Tough school, tough students.

    We went through a few lockdowns - a couple clearly were drills, a few were not. Thankfully none were active shooters, the closest I got was like 2 years prior to me starting a kid blew out his brains in the common area. But I never knew what was really happening during those lockdowns, and there were a handful of times I think a gun would have brought some comfort.

    ...
    ...
    ...

    But I would never, ever, for any reason recommend any teacher, even a veteran, ever consider bringing a gun to school. That is not, and will not ever be a solution. Whatever else happens in the coming months, I cannot think of a worse idea.
     
    Puka-head, Fin-O and Fin D like this.
  11. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    9,481
    8,302
    113
    Sep 28, 2015

    NOTHING will happen in the coming months.

    People love talking and pretending they and their opinion is gospel, then it all disappears as soon as we find out the Donald orders an extra side of Big Mac sauce.
     
    aesop and danmarino like this.
  12. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    lol...A lot of what the Military has has secret things on them so I can't get onboard with this.

    However, a person can get a real assault weapon, military grade, but it is extremely hard and expensive.
     
  13. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    - I own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended.
    - Four ruffians break into my house.
    - "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle.
    - Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man. He's dead on the spot.
    - Draw my pistol on the second man. Misses him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbor's dog.
    - I have to resort to the cannon at the top of the stairs loaded with grapeshot.
    - "Tally ho, lads." The grapeshot shreds two men in the blast. The sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms.
    - Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion.
    - He bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are difficult to stitch-up.
    - Just as the founding fathers intended.

    :flag:



    To believe that the Founding Fathers thought the 2nd Amendment was for "muskets" is to believe that the fathers were SO stupid they have never witnessed nor anticipated any kind of technological advancement in weaponry whatsoever. Rocks were a pretty good first weapon by man. Then rocks became sharper rocks, sharper rocks became clubs, clubs became swords, swords became guns etc etc. And the Fathers knew all about this. To top it off, "assault weapons" existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written. The belton flintlock was developed during the revolutionary war and could fire 20 or so rounds in 5 seconds with one pull of the finger. The girandoni rifle had a 22 round magazine that accurately could be fired within 30 seconds and created during the revolutionary war. The Puckle gun, which was an early gatling gun, was created 60 years before the revolutionary war. The Pepper box revolvers could hold over 20 rounds and were developed hundreds of years before the founding fathers.

    I love ya Puka, but the "musket" talk is silly. And I know you know this. :)
     
    Puka-head and aesop like this.
  14. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I'm glad the mods have kept this open. I think the fact that everyone is acting like adults helps...lol

    However, I'm curious as to why you think it's the "worst idea" ever to allow teachers etc to carry? "Gun Free" zones are stupid. Hell, most schools are the ONLY gun free zones where no one has a gun. Courthouses are "gun free", and yet they are protected by people with guns. The White House is "gun free" and same thing. Some schools have armed police or security. The majority have no one around that can protect themselves or others.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2018
  15. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    It is funny how Trump is sticking it to the NRA and nary a word.
     
  16. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,409
    7,084
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I'm curious- have we defined "self defense" in these studies? For instance, I have an aunt who heard a noise in her kitchen in the middle of the night, went to investigate and saw a man trying to crawl through her kitchen window. She put her husband's 357 in the guy's nose, cocked the trigger and the guy screamed and ran away.

    To me, that's definitely self defense even though a round was never fired.

    Likewise, this thread was started because I wanted defense against rattlesnakes and coyotes. While that definitely does not require an AR-15, almost every person in my neighborhood has shot a rattlesnake at one point- two neighbors have on our property alone over the past 7 years. So it's important to remember that guns are used for a lot more than shooting people.
     
  17. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    I think in these studies it's defined as anytime a person who is legally using a weapon to defend themselves against another person.
     
  18. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,409
    7,084
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    But what does "defend yourself" mean? My aunt defended herself with the mere presence of a gun...and I guarantee you that it's not represented in the study. Police draw their weapons every single day yet they rarely fire- they are also defending themselves regardless whether there's a shooting or not. I have a feeling that the study is skewed because we're confusing "gun violence" (the act of shooting someone) with "gun defense" (the mere presence of a gun as a deterrent).
     
  19. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    "Kleck's study defines a defensive gun use (DGU) as a defensive action against a human (rather than an animal), involving actual contact with the person being defended against, in which the defender could state a specific crime which he or she thought was being committed at the time of the incident, and in which the defender's gun was actually used in some way, even if it was only as part of a verbal threat."

    https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth-3-25-million-defensive-gun-uses-each-year-cant-be-accurate
     
    KeyFin likes this.
  20. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,409
    7,084
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Aah,okay; so it did include threats without further violence. I was wrong then...thanks!
     
    danmarino likes this.
  21. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,321
    2,935
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    So, gun free zones ...

    First, schools aren't truly a gun free zone, nearly all schools have SRO cops assigned, at least 1. They are armed at all times. The recent Parkland shooting occurred despite the presence of at least one armed cop - he wasn't a deterrent and in fact didn't even confront the shooter. And that's the issue with deterrence from guns ... it doesn't exist. These kids are not shooting up schools randomly or BECAUSE they are gun free, these schools and locations have personal connections to them. More guns doesn't deter them, especially when many of them are additionally either flat out suicidal, dealing with anger issues, substance abuse or psychotics (though I am not one that would pin the issue on the drugs as some will) and just flat out bad decision making and impulse control. Working with teens, you realize just how dumb a lot of them are in that regard - bad decisions and no control. So, as a means of deterrence? Nope.

    That leaves you with hoping armed teacher pulls off a kill, in the middle of a combat zone, while being responsible for their room full of kids, in a situation they are not (and no, will not) be trained for. Frankly, these warrior teachers are just as likely to hit a fleeing student or other armed teacher as they are an assailant. Any actual gunning down of the gunman is probably a slim chance, doubly since the gunmen in these cases are packing far superior firepower and surprise. It's a massively disadvantageous situation. So, hoping for a lucky shot is where you are at.

    Now ... where are these warrior teachers storing guns? Please, please, please don't say they are carrying. As a teacher, you spend all day long mixing and meandering through teens by the bucketful. Some of these kids are BIG (as a 6'1 240lb male I couldn't take more than a few). Any student that REALLY wanted my gun? They could get it. I HAVE to turn my back on them, in close proximity, frequently. And while I consider myself relatively OK mentally, I really don't like the idea of students acting up or even getting into a fight around armed teachers. Guns WILL be pulled, and likely fired.

    And that doesn't count accidents. Yes, they will happen. No, you cannot 'train' them away, just make them less likely. But you cannot open guns to hundreds of thousands of teachers and NOT expect accidents. If we are killing kids by accident, have we really solved anything? Nope.

    Ok, store the guns. Where? The classrooms? Students will know about them and will try to break in. Who is paying for the gun safes? We can barely afford education as is right now. When do teachers go for the gun? Before or after seeing to their freaked out students?

    Further, you are setting yourself up as an adversary of the students. I guarantee you that most will reset that. Some will be cowed into not responding to anything, some will act out deliberately to provoke you. Some asshats that consider themselves jokers will absolutely try to goad you into drawing to get you in trouble/fired. Again, their risk assessment is negligible at best.

    And yeah, as we saw in Georgia just the other day, teachers ****ing snap. It's incredibly high stress. No, you won't be able to weed them out. Some teacher will overreact in a heated moment, or just make a deliberate choice.

    Bottom line? Guns would MAYBE be use useful in one very specific situation. Maybe. For literally everything else, they will make the situation 100x worse for everyone involved.

    And lastly, it's just a cheap ploy by (and here I have to get into politics a tad, sorry) the NRA and NRA favorable politicians to deflect the blame onto an already overworked and overstressed group of professionals. Allowing teachers to carry means any teachers NOT carrying become scapegoats. Any teacher that carries and fails will be scapegoated. It's just a sham.
     
    Puka-head likes this.
  22. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets

    6,294
    2,465
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    Luv you too brother, but the difference between a well regulated militia and todays swat teams and The God Bless em one and all US military was the point. The OG's thought everyone would take their toys and go home after the bad guys were all dead. They never intended for there to be a standing professional army.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018
    danmarino likes this.
  23. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets

    6,294
    2,465
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    I agree 100% with this. And every other adult in my family is a teacher or retired teacher. None of them would be willing to carry a firearm in school. 13 including Uncles and in Laws BTW including my wife and my mother.
    And yes, we've discussed it. A LOT!
     
  24. Puka-head

    Puka-head My2nd Fav team:___vs Jets

    6,294
    2,465
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Slightly left of center
    Are there enough of us across the country? Can we get this thread read by our "representatives"??? I am sending an email with a link to mine here in WA. But they are a bunch of Liberals anyway so not going to change much. Maybe you boys and girls in some of the more contested regions could let the powers know 80% or so of us agree to some common sense regulations.
     
  25. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014

    I replied to your points in red font in the quoted part above^^

    And let me be clear about something. Arming teachers shouldn't be the only, and it's not the best, option. Armed police, trained armed security, should be the first option in regards to protecting schools RIGHT NOW. The bigger issue is mental health problems, parenting, etc etc...And those things are tougher to fix and take time. But ensuring that kids in schools are safe should be a top priority and could be solved today by sending in police to all schools across the country.
     
  26. danmarino

    danmarino Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    9,090
    9,706
    113
    Sep 4, 2014
    And that's OK....But I promise you that there would be a handful of teachers that would be comfortable carrying.
     
  27. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,321
    2,935
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    Just responding to your reds by #.

    #1 Regardless of what you think of armed security presence, the Parkland school had armed police on campus. The school I worked at did. The schools I know of all do. Certainly high schools. And the issue here is not security, but arming teachers. That's not security. Teachers are not cops/soldiers/special operators and nothing will change that.

    #2 Ok. Not germane to the conversation really. Nobody is really opposing increased security in a theoretical sense, though it comes with more issues than one might expect. Cost, manpower and again psychological issues of turning schools into what amounts to a jail.

    #3 How ridiculous. Anyone with a gun is a threat, bottom line. Secondly, absolutely not "everyone" recommends confronting with force. In fact, that's generally the LAST thing recommended. https://www.ready.gov/active-shooter You are making baseless claims here. Leave the guns to the cops, not random teachers please.

    #4 "Proper training" doesn't exist lol. Active shooter training for teachers is absurd. And a gun safety course and some weekends at the range are not "proper training to confront an active shooter." A slim chance is better than none except for the fact an armed teacher probably stands to make the situation even worse, and again, a gun literally makes EVERY OTHER situation BUT an active shooter 100x worse. Day to day life becomes much worse.

    #5 Pointless anecdote. Glad that you and your kids have been safe and hope they continue to be. Nothing guarantees this. No amount of talking/training/drilling/etc can do that. You most likely will not have an accident. You also will be unlikely to ever need to fire or draw in anger. Statistically, if we have to choose one, its the former by a fair bit. I'm not increasing those stats to thousands and thousands of teachers and schools, sorry.

    #6 Again, pointless argument without merit. Just because they haven't shot anyone outside of school doesn't mean they won't inside it, by accident or not. Adding guns just increases the odds it will happen all in order to prevent what is - frankly - an unlikely situation.

    #7 Absolutely students will find out who carries. Guaranteed. 100%. They will nail it within a week or two. If they don't get it through observation, they will get it from the teacher or another staff member. Someone will tell. I also assume you don't spend the majority of your work time among teens.

    #8 Again I take issue with that. Guns escalate more situations than de-escalate. Having a gun will make a person deadlier than not. It changes the way one can think and approach the situation. Again, YOU are probably fine. MOST will probably be fine. But statistically, it will happen. Adding guns just increases the chance of going postal.

    #9 You say not true at all, then confirm exactly what I said. You want guns, but the truth is that they have ONE use in a very narrow and rare (though unacceptable) situation, with no guarantee that it makes said situation better. It might! It might not! But for, again, literally every single other moment of the school day, they are a poor choice.

    #10 It is absolutely true. Full stop. Teachers have long been a scapegoat, and this deflection to arming them is 100% about making sure that when the next incidents happen, it's on the teachers. **** that noise. You also go back to that "easy target" thing which is again a false talking point. They are targeted not because they are "easy" but because of personal connections to the shooter. And again, they are not literally gun free, as most have armed police.

    You also completely ignore the psychological impacts of the whole thing, which I fully get since you are not in a classroom.

    Sorry bro, I get that guns provide peace of mind, but this is not the time to fight fire with fire. Guns are wholly inappropriate in a school setting. We HAVE to focus on both reaching these people before they go off the rails, and limiting the access people have to that kind of firepower. Anything else is not a solution, but rather a band-aid reaction designed to make people FEEL safe without actually doing anything.
     
  28. texanphinatic

    texanphinatic Senior Member

    9,321
    2,935
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin TX
    There absolutely would. I know at least 1. I wouldn't really feel any safer knowing he was packing, and would feel less safe. The fact that some would be comfortable is completely beside the point.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    71,349
    41,660
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    In many ways it reinforces why it is a bad idea, if you think about it.
     
    texanphinatic likes this.
  30. aesop

    aesop Well-Known Member

    2,118
    1,261
    113
    Nov 2, 2008
    NYC
    I speculate most of these school shooters are not getting laid. I propose, instead of having armed officers, we offer school sanctioned prostitutes to blow these kids if they haven't been laid by age 17. Fill out a form, have it approved by the guidance counselor.. and let these kids blow off some steam.
     
    Fin D, Puka-head and danmarino like this.
  31. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,409
    7,084
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and the answer to protect our kids has to be a heck of a lot more collaborative. It's not just arming teachers, better security, and better protocols...it's really all of the above.

    For instance, I used to work in a state prison as a food supervisor- I've worked all three levels of security. At max and medium level, you're not coming in under any circumstances...you could throw a pipe bomb over a fence or fire rounds from the outside perimeter, but you're not gaining entry without a gun fight. And it's not that we're all armed- none of us were unless something happened. But there were clear procedures in place above and beyond "secure in place". We went into lock down but there were also others assigned different tasks....I'm not sure I can legally go into details but the prison would fully defend ourselves until help arrived. Plain and simple, an outsider is not coming in without some heavy artillery or a full squad of attackers.

    Then I think about my kid's school- they have locked doors and you technically need to be buzzed in by the front office. But when I push the little doorbell connected to the security camera, they instantly buzz parents in because they recognize us. Once I pass through the main door, I do have to enter a different office area before I'm in the school, but if I'm armed then nothing is stopping me from waltzing straight through. I can also go to a side door and wave at a student from a door window...it's so simple to gain unrestricted access because nobody is trained to think security first- not the students or the teachers.

    It would be so easy to convert my child's school to that max security prison layout, and all you'd need is one armed guard/cop behind bulletproof glass to screen anyone accessing the school. Then it's just a matter of training the student body to never open an exterior door for anyone under any circumstances- and our schools are 90% secure. But they can no longer just buzz me or anyone else in because they recognize us....that has to stop! Most of the shooters were recognized as well.

    I don't think this is a gun issue, per se, as much as it is a security issue. There's so much that can be done to "lock down" areas of a school and make safe areas, but if you don't have a security-minded individuals monitoring situations and calling the shots, then the bad guys will continue to just waltz through the front door and have free reign. As much as we don't want to admit it, every school needs airport or courthouse-like security for everyone entering, then simple protocols to keep the perimeters secure. And I don't think we're talking a major expense here...maybe 50k in labor/materials and the same school resource officer that schools already have.

    You military folks know what I'm talking about though- I couldn't just stroll onto a military base and catch soldiers off-guard for more than a few seconds. They have the training to secure first and then defend second though, and our schools need to do the same.
     
    danmarino likes this.
  32. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    9,481
    8,302
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    IMO, It's a media and exposure issue first and foremost.

    How many times was a school shot up pre columbine? You could still get these unnecessary weopans then, and yet it wasn't an issue.

    Messed up suburban kid hears/reads about this, relates and likely admires the shooter, decides "hey, aweeeesome bro" then does it. Next F'd up kid goes on social media and see's the attention X is getting, thinks "hey aweeeeesome bro" and the cycle continues.

    It isn't enough that the media pushes false political narratives, only makes it an issue if it is a black man killed by cops, then sensationalizes these types of events.

    Our media is the biggest threat to this country by a mile.
     
    aesop and danmarino like this.
  33. KeyFin

    KeyFin Well-Known Member

    5,409
    7,084
    113
    Nov 1, 2009
    Ten years ago I'd FULLY AGREE with you, but today I only partially agree. Here's why.

    You're 16 and you're a dork. To adults that's a good thing- you're kind and responsible and have a good head on your shoulders. Most would say that you're a likable kid heading on to better things in life. But at school, you're practically invisible. You have very few friends and those relationships are mostly superficial. You're not into sports or parties or all the other stuff teens love so much, which is all you see them post on Facebook day after day.

    You see, in this new world, you don't wonder what a hot girl from your school is like- you look at her Instagram posts, see where she's into on Facebook and can even track her on Snapchat. Everybody from the school is watching everybody because that's what you do with technology.

    Here's the thing though- you'd think that always seeing what others are doing would make you closer to them...but it has the opposite effect. It makes you feel alone, depressed and isolated from everyone else, and every post you read reconfirms that you're a loser without any real friends. This isn't just for the dorks and geeks, mind you...every teen feels that way these days. Social media isn't showing what their friends are doing, it's showing what you missed out on, what you weren't invited to and which social groups you should really be in. And all of that is depressing as ****.

    Some depressed kids kill themselves....nationally we're at an all-time high in teen suicides. Other kids just retract into a shell and live with it- maybe it gets better in college or in a career. But there's also a few here and there that stumble across a YouTube video about standing up for yourself, teaching bullies a lesson, etc. And a few of them, they follow through with those ideals.

    Now, the media still keeps things stirred up...I completely agree. But your kid and my kid and everyone else's kid is on a path towards being that next shooter because of technology and how little us parents understand what it's doing to them.

    The simple truth is that SOCIETY in general is creating these problems because we're all too busy staring at our stupid smartphones to see what's really going on. We should be educating our kids on putting down their digital devices and living life instead of focusing on crap that truly doesn't matter...but you can't try to fix a problem that you don't even know exists.
     
    aesop, danmarino and Fin-O like this.

Share This Page