Montreal college shooting! READ!

Hey Guys,

Another sad day to add to America's growing list of school shootings! we just had a live coverage of the Montreal College shooting! It's frustrating to see this, very upsetting at the same time, can an American please explain to me why this keeps on happening over there? I am very sorry to sound condescending, I do not mean to, it's just so painfully mind boggling to comprehend all this, I mean 9/11 Monday, then less than 48 hours later, 19 students are injured, 1 dead, with 6 out of the 19 students injured, in a critical state, thankfully they are getting prepped for surgery now! They have my prayers and thoughts, I really hope no one else dies!

READ HERE

When it came on before, I got really angry, President Bush goes on about terrorism, other country's and nationalities, being the threat, yet this happens on a 'Regular' basis over the past few years! By regular I mean at least once a year, which is once a year too many!

It appears to me this was a terrorist -suicide threat, which the perpetrators executed successfully, the mid 20 year old female that died was an innocent soul! How can someone do this! The main gunman was shot dead, but apparently it was 3 to 5 gunman, police sourcing out the other perpetrators, but they were wearing disguising clothing, so they could have easily shot themselves to look wounded, but that gets the scent of there suspicion!

I thought all schools, colleges, universities and alike had entrance metal detectors and other installed methods for scanning each student for any sort of weapons? I apologize if I am wrong, I swear I read it back somewhere after the columbine high shootings.

Sorry to carry on, I just cannot wrap my mind around this.

 

although another tragedy it was in Canada not USA, although I agree there must be something that can be done everywhere to stop this sort of thing from continually happening

 

Quote from article:

bringing one weapon into a school is bad enough, its even worse when he has at least "3". Seems no one has learned the lesson from Columbine.

 

it's hard to wrap your mind around something like that, if your mind is fairly normal.

We don't have any real details about the shooters or who/what they were. I expect the normal knee-jerk reactions; music lyrics, violent movies, violent video games, probably other things like poor parenting depending on what they discover about them. Obviously Canada's much tougher gun laws weren't a deterent.

If I say that the world's going to hell in a handbasket, I'd sound like the old fart I am, but that's too simplistic anyway.

But from my old fart perspective, all of those knee-jerk platitudes I noted above DO impact kids to some extent. But certainly not enough by themselves to create monsters like these. Or their older versions; mindless violence is sure NOT limited to kids and schools, but it gets our attention more when it's kids.

I was a "kid" in the '50s and '60s, and society is massively different today. When I was a kid, most moms were at home all day, available to both teach and watch their kids. Neighbors and strangers didn't feel out of place watching other people's kids either, nor about marching them home... by the ear if necessary, for parental justice, which usually happened. More of our society was seriously religious, and religious or not, moral and ethical values were expected, enforced, re-inforced in school as well as at home, and much more ingrained in society than is the case today, both in real life, and in all of our entertainment media. My generation was the first to embrace drugs and "do your OWN thing" as a way of life, and to renounce authority in any form; and my generation produced some really lousy parents, that produced some really lousy kids, and it's gotten progressively worse ever since.

Today mom is probably working, there's a good chance dad is non-existent, morals and ethics are either ignored or sneered at, and "do your own thing" has become a religion. The moral and ethical framework and expectations that at least TENDED to keep people pointed in the right direction is much less common today. And too many kids AND adults now decide that shooting is an answer to whatever's bugging them. There ARE shining examples of good kids/parents/people in general, but as a group, kids today have poorer education, less parenting, almost NO societal role models worth modeling your life after, many types of entertainment with either no moral value or negative moral value, higher levels of depression, less hope for their futures, and little in the way of moral or ethical framework to help them survive all the negatives. It's no wonder some of them kill themselves or others.

The roots of the killing lie in society (or lack of it) in general. And I don't hear many people talking about, or even recognizing, the things we've lost and how valuable they were, nor about the things we've replaced them with, and how fundamentally useless they are.

 

Very true, G.T.

And this brings out a conflict in me! In my heart, I know it is best for the children if a parent is home with them up until they start school, and from then on, is home at least part time.

Problem with this is that it generally makes women dependant on their men for living. In Sweden, which is known for it's high social standard... the parent (usually mom) gets an alimony for staying home, for a little over a year. After that nothing and you have to start working, or produce another child...

And of course the low income while staying home is just one of the problems, later on when she goes back to work, her wages will be considerably lower compared to people who've been working while she was absent, and on top of that, her pension will be lowered as well, as it is income based.

If the parents divorce, the woman gets nothing of the man's wages, he pays half of the cost for the kids if they remain with her. But she is not compensated for staying home and sacrificing her career to raise the kids.

So where do we want to end up in the future? A future where women feel compelled to start working when the child is 5 months, so that they don't "fall behind" and where kids are not cared for properly, or a future where women are forced backwards in social standards, becomes less independent again, and raises the children and helps with their growing up.

As I work as a teacher now, I see a lot of the expectations the parents have on the school. In the parents opinions it is OUR job to raise their kids, teach them moral values, tell them it is not ok to hit their fellow students, bully, be nasty, and all the motivation for studies has to come from the school and the teachers. "You have to make learning fun"...

I agree, that the school has the obligation to help doing this. But we only see the kids for a few hours every day. We need help from the parents, so that the children hear the same things from all aspects in their life.

Not all parents are like this of course. Some are though, and that is bad enough.

I made my decision long ago. I do not want to have children. Some reasons are personal, but the fact that this society is not built for raising kids in sure has an impact on that decision.

Sorry about the rant, and back on topic.

Feeling incredibly sad for the children and the parents in that school. What a senseless act!

 

Very real dilemma Solange.

Having one parent, EITHER parent, stay home with the kids is much more difficult today. During the 50s/60s, most families could live fairly well on a single income. Not true today. Wages have risen hugely since then, but inflation has outrun the wages, and a single income today is usually not enough to support a family decently. My blue-collar Dad did well by himself; we had a house, decent cars, enough for vacations and some goodies, while Mom stayed home with us. When MY son was born, my wife wanted to stay home, which I supported, but I soon found that my job didn't stretch far enough to cover the extra costs, and I had to take a second job that pretty much wiped out most of my "family" time. Not ideal either, and added stress to an already high stress marriage. That was in 1980. The financial picture hasn't gotten better for most people since then.

Add to that the "womens movement" that fought for women's rights. For the most part a worthy and overdue move to get women the same rights in the workplace that men enjoyed, which was a good thing. But they also changed our views on the value of motherhood, drastically downward, and many women decided they preferred a career to devoting years to child-rearing. Career is a good thing, but child-rearing is important, and most men didn't, and still don't, considering stepping into that role, even if financially feasable. And schools, creches, and state programs, are not the same as, or a replacement for real parents.

"Single family households" are the final nail in the coffin. Far fewer parents bother to get married, which means a reduced commitment to the "team" that used to raise children. Mostly single mothers, some single dads, all with the choice of work anyway or live on welfare. Welfare is both poverty level, and a lousy way to instill a work ethic in your kids. They learn a LOT from what they see us do, regardless of what we say. Add bad neighborhoods, lousy living conditions, and high crime in their communities and the odds of those kids succeeding in life are much diminished. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. In the U.S., over half of our kids are being raised in single family households. In the black community it's over 70%. And every study that's looked at it says that kids raised in 2 parent families are as a group, significantly better off financially, better educated, better adjusted, less represented in crime statistics, and far more likely to be successful when they grow up. But society doesn't pay attention to those, or just doesn't care. Hillary Clinton's book "It Takes A Village" was a crock of, um, manure. No "village" takes personal 24/7 responsibility for your kids. Only parents do. And sadly, a LOT of parents DON'T.

I don't see any of our governments mandating marriages for parents, and many of those marriages would be hell anyway. And there's no way to legislate values or commitment, or limit who can have kids. At least not in a free country.

Unless and until society as a whole (ie, the majority of individuals) comes to the conclusion that marriage, kids, values, and comittment matter enough to invest serious effort, I don't see things getting better.

 

Great post G.T. and I agree with you completely!

 

Couldn't agree with you guys more!!!! But hell, GT...I'm only 33 and I can see a HUGE difference in the way children are parented these days compared to my childhood!!!!

When I was a kid...both of my parents were hard workers, but that didn't stop the love and discipline!! If I did something I knew was wrong...then I got my a$$ busted, and/or sent to my room!! If I got in trouble at school (which is only once I can think of) then the teacher took you out in the hall and paddled you then sent a note home, and got my a$$ beat again!! So needless to say...I didn't act up at school again!! And if I got in trouble for something at home...I typically wouldn't do that again either!! Granted you don't want to beat your children black and blue, and you want them to know that you do love them and you still have to play with them etc., etc., but parents today don't even do that!!

Nowdays...If you so much as look at a child crossways, then someone out there is willing and ready to call DCFS, which I think is a brunch of crock!!!! These children have nothing to FEAR!! When they get in trouble at school or on the bus, or just somewhere out in society in general...it seems as though some parents just tell their child not to do that again...now run along, Ive got things to do!!!! Now is that going to stop you from doing it again if that was all the punishment you got!?!?

But to put it in a nutshell...It is a lot different in just the last 20 years that I'm aware of!!

Guess I'll have to follow up on this later...off to work now!! Good day all!!

Roger

 

Having kids is about making choices, unfortunately today more and more people are making the wrong choice.
I personally believe it's not doable to have a full time job ánd a kid (which equals out to having 2 full time jobs).
While this is probably something I've taken over from my parents (my mother stayed at home until I was 4 or 5 and started working part-time afterwards), I do believe children aren't meant to be alone or in creches with strangers for whole days in a row, they need at least one of his or hers parents with them to teach them the most important thing you can't properly be taught without them;
moral and ethical values.
You just can't trust a stranger to raise your kid, it's a parent's job.

 

Very true! The women's movement is starting to give us equality at work, but it is neglecting the family aspect of it. When will it be considered a job to take care of your children? Only then will we achieve what we are aiming for, that it is up to the family which of the parents who stays home with the children, and raises the status for those who do!

I wonder if this is a financial and social/cultural problem more than it is a problem with being raised in a split family? As you have stated, it is very difficult to maintain a family on a single income, which means that the result of a devorce will be poverty. This means the income bringer might have to work several jobs, probably with low pay, low on the social ladder as well.

It should be possible to not live together for eternity and still give the children a good upbringing! I'm sure it is possible! My parents devorced when I was 7, and the doc says I'll be fit to interact socially within a few years! Kidding of course, but it is possible. Just more difficult. Especially in socially and ethnically voulnerable groups, of course.

 

I am the first to agree that the change in social and 'family values' has changed dramatically, and mainly for the worst in the last generation or so. I was brought up in the U.K. and U.S., in the late sixties and seventies, when much of the dramatic decline in religious/moral values, and rampant anti-establishmentarianism was rampant.

I AM old fashioned in a lot of my views, (but not all) for good reasons. Not because they are 'traditional', but because most of the values and methods have been proven successful over a very long period of time. I'm all for an egalitarian society and all. If the woman can earn more money than the man - fine. Except I do believe that for biological/psychosocial reasons the child has more need for the mother (e.g. feeding, mother/infant bonding).

This very tragic and disturbing incident is often indicative of a lot of sociological factors, as in the posts above, but it is also part of a major mental health crisis, which is becoming more and more pronounced in most western societies in recent decades.

Although single parent families and so on, may make things harder, morals and generally good and decent values can, and are taught by single parents, and busy working families.

I see much of society’s ills in terms of total lack of direction and motivation, and a lack of any social/ethical/personal framework to believe in. We are taught that the government sucks, religion is bunk, old values are for old codgers and losers, and the only morality is money and survival of the 'fittest' (for what?) - Almost always at someone else’s’ expense. Not much to base ours, or any society on, i.m.h.o.

 

Some similarities here, FWIW...just thought I'd throw it out there for comment/observation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5346834.stm

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/03/24/2003247578

 

Would be nice! Currently a woman that stays home is viewed by many as an oddity and a loser. A man that stays home is considered to be truly weird. Not by all, but by most. They are generally assumed to be less competent and less intillegent than their business counterparts, which is a stupid and baseless prejudice. Consciously or unconsciously, society strongly dissuades full-time parenting.

[/quote]
Single parenting aggravates financial problems, as both parents have to support their own households. Double rent (or morgtage), utilities, etc. automatically make each one poorer, although women take the worst hit, as they generally earn less, still. Puts the family in a lower social strata... MUCH lower if the parent has chosen welfare over work. Also generally mandates a lower class housing area, with the increased problems found there.

Kids need both male and femal role models, and parents are the primary role models, particularly for fairly young kids. They learn a lot about adults from interacting with and watching their parents, particularly about how to BE whatever they are, and how to think about and relate to the opposite sex. The best single parents can do a terrific job of nurturing and teaching, but they can't be both parents in all ways. If the other parent is around, supportive, working with the kids and getting along with the other parent, kids can still have the role modeling available, but all too often, that second parent is nowhere to be found, or is NOT any part of the child's life, or at least not a good part.

So true. And NONE of this is applicable to single individuals, only to group statistics and the odds of success. There have been some marvelous people raised in single parent settings, and some have risen above the welfare trap to be very successful. But the odds are more heavily against them succeeding.

 

Update on the shooter below, I went to that college but not that campus. Luckily the police were right around there and got to the scene some 4 min after it started and killed the man. He used the .22 semi-auto in the shootings so that's why so many are still alive as had a rifle also and if he had used that... Oh, he was into goth with a slicked back mohawk, black trenchcoat and boots and his face was extensively pierced.

 

Reinforces my statement about today's society and brainless acceptance of just anything. Name me ONE positive moral/ethical/motivational aspect of the Goth movement. Many people just shrug and consider it a stying choice, that kids will outgrow. And for some it probably is. But it's about death, hopelessness and depression. All of which foment anger. Real good influence for foundering kids that don't have anything positive in their lives.

 

i am a thousand times a better parent than my parents were! 'the good old days' were full of unreported violence and addiction. (think vallium and the use of the belt)

 

I agree with you laurie, however there is a need for disclipine...a slap on the hand or raised voice works if it is used from infancy. This is how kids learn the difference between right and wrong. Trying to "reason" with young kids doesn't work, they don't have the mental capacity to understand. There has to be a change in voice or the parents behavior so they can realize what they just did was wrong. However, never use a weapon, or belittle them. For the record I've probably "hit" my kids less than half a dozen times between the three of them and they're all very well adjusted, polite when they have to be, and know how to behave in public. As for the shootings, these things are always going to happen because guns are readily available whether they are legal or not. Our proximity to the U.S. will always guarantee that, that's a fact whether you like it or not.

 

A lot of good opinions have been raised and politely discussed and debated in this thread, which is why I have MG as my Homepage. I am proud to be a part of this group, you folks always continue to amaze me with your insight and knowledge.

I am glad to see that the senseless violence that occurred in Montreal hasn't been dredged up horrid detail by detail, enough said that it is a tragedy, and we should collectively just consider it the aberation that it really is, for it is not a true reflection of who were are. Just wish that the media would get the point, and not sensationalize the thing to sell space and product.

My view on the present society issue and child rearing simplistically is that we collectively have bought into the "Instant Gratification Syndrome" that the major media and goverment have sold us. Our parents worked hard to get a house, washer, fridge, Electric Stove and it took them years to get them, we left home and expected those items as "The Necessities of Life" then went out and acquired even more items, which our children now consider the necessities. Hey folks its just stuff!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kids, Family, Mates, your inner self, and true friends are "The Necessities of Life" without them there is no Human Race. Most are just chasing for bobbles.

Sheesh I am getting too serious gotta go to the Joke Thread

 

Very true BCGray.

 

As I said, the value, or worth of a system is judged by its results. Not everything in previous generations is good, that's a given - but most is tried and true over many years. I'm not much older than you, and I've never used Valium or the belt, nor did my parents. (One could say:- "Think of Heroin and Street kids"., now).

Fair enough to change systems for the better, and T.B.H., I'd rather live in 2006, than 1996, but to replace imperfect social values with semi-anarchy don't make a lick of sense to me.

Anyway, these types of cases are primarily family/public mental health issues, which sadly, occasionally spill out into public carnage. Seems mental health is stigmatised it gets ignored until a tragedy occurs. If we did the same thing with physical health, we'd still be in the Dark Ages and leaches. A pity really.

Yep. That basically sums it up.

 

Whatever time period one's "good old days" were, they were certainly not good for everybody. There's been some abuse and bad examples in every generation. Based on your age, sounds like your parents were 2 off the poorer examples from MY generation. Some had problems with alcohol and other older drugs (valium hadn't been invented yet when I was a kid), but my generation was the first to embrace drugs as a lifestyle in a big way... something I'm sure not proud of. And it wasn't as common or as accepted back then.

The argument for/against corporal punishment, and discussion of humane LIMITS and how it is used, has been going on for many years. My parents did use corporal punishment, on a well-laid out escalating scale that we kids NEW was there, and was quite rational for whatever our ages were... we had fair warning. Was never delivered in the heat of anger, was always explained, crime and punishment, calmly, before delivering, and was never hard enough to damage anything besides our temporarily overinflated egos. Was ALWAYS delivered on the butt, which is well designed to take such minor humiliations without any damage. Most minor things got lesser punishments than corporal, and "The Belt" was reserved for only the worst offenses. Love and positive re-inforcement far outweighed the punishment; wasn't needed all that often. I had GOOD parents, and my sister and I were not harmed in the least by the RARE use of that evil "Belt".

My ex-wife, on the other hand, had a pretty nice mom, but a VERY abusive and hateful father, who mom was unable to stand up against, even in defense of her children. The girls got primarily verbal abuse, but lots of it, very hateful and destructive. The boys got way too much and very inappropriate physical punishment. Once "dad" whacked one of the sons on the side of the head hard enough to rupture his eardrum, requiring a doctor visit. The doctor, to his credit, personally told "dad" that if he ever did such a thing again, Doc would have his butt thrown in jail and his kids removed, and this was in the 60s, long before anybody thought up Child Protective Services, or whatever your local branch is called. Didn't stop the hate and abuse, but it did lessen the physical abuse a little.

There've been bad examples of parenting all through history, but I do believe that in most generations prior to mine, the ratio of decent parenting to bad parenting was far better than today.

From what I've heard around here, you seem to be deeply and lovingly involved with your kids, which is the most important single aspect of parenting, apart from whatever discipline methods you've chosen.

Aloha.

 

WOW, this thread grew quickly into a debate, I didn't mean for that to happen, nothing I can do about that now.

Anyway, GT..... where to start.....

I think I will have to re-read the thread, beginning to end, front to back, left to right!

Becuase although I agree with you on many fronts, ruling to that conclusion, especially about familys vs society, here in australia if you said the same, I`d have to completely disagree with just about everything you said, I have not been to the US of A, but I have seen and heard enough to know that what you said was as true as it can get.

Also, to add a little fuel to this fire, our australian kids are very much influenced by the american teen society, that was even happening when I was at primary school, and got much worse into high school, especially the 'Thug' talk & walk.....

Gonna take a while and re-read this thread, a few times!

 

Oopsy! I meant to say 1966. I just had another Phantom 'Mr. Magoo moment' there, sorry. Same applies, though.

I just checked, and apparently I'm a couple of years younger. LoL! I'm a bit spaced on these new meds. Ah, Phantom - You've done it again! .

Ah well, ya look younger, anyway.

 

Don't be sad, it is a very interesting debate with many well founded arguments!

 

I have no objection to belts or canes in the name of discipline. It worked, the generations before us are more obedient then us, there were and are less riots, crimes performed by those generations then today's.

Shootings don't happen much here in Australia, probably because you can't get SMGs legally like in America (not sure about Canada).

 

That isn't the reason at all, after the Martin Bryant incident, our government disarmed the Australian public, they collected and disposed of hundreds of thousands of guns!

Their was no reason to disarm the Australian public, The Tasmanian killing was indeed a black day for us Aussies! but what came out of it was an excuse to do what the government was trying to do for ages, make the average Joe unprotected!

You know the murder rate has actually gone up since Howard disarmed us? After the confiscation craze finished, break-ins, bashing, rapes & murders sky rocketed!

Unless your job description has a license in guns, like police, private body guards, armed forces. Then you are not allowed to own a firearm! Oh and unless you were in a gun club before the confiscation, but now you can get a gun if your in a gun club, but your limited to the avail firearm, and a very rigorous written test.

Sorry, but when that constipated, pug looking tool we call a Prime Minister, Johnny 'numb nutz' Howard got into power, all his done is destroy Australia in so many ways! his got a dirty brown nose that has 'G. Bush' tattooed on each side!

He wants to increase Australia's population, he keeps going on about being a FAMILY man, and supporting families, entice the boyfriend/girlfriend situation into a 'Couple', his a family man, that's what he says...

You know I am unemployed, on a DSP, my girlfriend just had a baby and is was on single mothers pension, when we moved in together, I lost $120 each fortnight, she lost $148 each fortnight!! How is that supporting families?

He is also trying to get mothers back into work within months of having a baby! oh my god that's really for family's, that's really supporting families!!!!

No wonder people break up, for one, as a 'Couple' if your unemployed, your lucky to survive and eat! after you pay the rent, then food, etc

Ugh, I`ve gotten carried away a bit, I`ll stop now before I go right off the rails!

 

I do object, and very strongly! Oh yes, it may have worked in the past with SOME children, but only because they were so fearful of the punishment. What kind of relationship is THAT to have with your parents? Beating a kid with a belt or cane is no replacement for actually sitting down and spending time with them explaining why we do or don't do certain things. You can beat them all you like - it won't force them to understand the implications of their actions and be accountable for them no matter how hard you hit them. They just live in fear, which brings a whole host of different problems to the world that are more hidden to the general eye than riots and crimes, but take just as big a toll on the community in which they live.

Even as adults we continue to get stuff wrong, intentionally or not, and screw up all the time. No one comes along with a big stick and beats us up in the name of "corrective punishment". And why not? Because we know this doesn't work and is inhumane.

 

Just some background info for those none Canadians, our previous government enacted a gun registration law that required every citizen that owned a firearm to registry said firearms, such as I believe happened in both England and Australia. This action was spearheaded by an organization called M.A.D.D. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers after the senseless killings again on a Montreal campus. The thought process was that if you register guns criminals (or deranged individuals) would not be able to get guns and if they did they could be traced. This they figured would reduce violent deaths, even though it took the rights away from millions of law abiding Canadians. Sadly, this recent incident just proves that all they did was take away my right to defend my family and property from critters (included the humankind) that intended to harm me or my family. Anyone that registered a gun is subject to the fact that the police at anytime can enter there private residence without notification, and they would do so with weapons drawn.

Sadly most Canadians went along with this, in part because we live next to the U.S.A., and we are rightly afraid of the “Wild West” attitude that some Americans exhibit towards firearms. Having lived in the states for ten years, I must concur that seeing everyday Americans show you their Smith & Wesson and tell you that they will blow away any nare do well that gives them any lip, is disconcerting. That said I must say that I admire the fact that my American neighbours have fought to keep that right to bear arms, mainly because of the reason it was originally placed in their Constitution by their founding fathers. This gives the right to the individual American to overpower there elected government at anytime with force if required, and don’t kid yourself, there leaders are acutely aware of that reality.

To those that say that the present society is going to H double L, hogwash!!! Heard my Great Granddad, Grandfather, Father, and yes and even myself say the same thing. Society is like the ameba in a Petri dish, it continues to evolve, successful actions are repeated, unsuccessful ones are dropped or the ameba dies. The lunatic fringe will always be with us, and believe it or not it is required in the evolutionary cycle. Do I like it, hey I am 58 years old and getting “Older” everyday, and change is something “Older” people do not like. But that 14 year old listening to Gangster Rap with a Mohawk and fifteen body piercings, has something to give to society, as well as a old “Kermudging” like myself. Tolerance of others thoughts and feelings, is something humankind has not advanced in as well as its scientific advances, that will come, or we will perish, and be just another dead ameba in the stellar petri dish.

To G.T. and the others that post here to MG, you are the reason most of us have the faith in society, because you all are the best part of it. You guys and gals push and question everything, which is the way we learn. You do not belittle or deride others, nor do you concede your opinions without a debate. Your all great!!!! Feel like “Tony the Tiger” see told you I was "Old"

 

You can't buy sub-machine guns legally in the U.S. either, unless you're a collector with a license, are checked out by the BATF and FBI, prove you have secure theft proof place to keep it, fill out reems of paperwork, and accept on-site inspections from time to time. Some semi-automatic weapons can be converted to full auto, illegally, usually involving either illegally bought parts or parts machined from scratch, but full auto is NOT common over here by any means.

England, Canada, and Australia have all been largely disarmed, at least their honest citizens, and crime rates HAVE increased, including crimes using guns. Illegal guns are like illegal drugs; if crooks want them, some crooks will find and provide them. At most it becomes another profitable smuggling business. In England, the traditional unarmed Bobby is being replaced with armed cops, and many of the unarmed bobbies have a swat team on call if needed. Disarming the public hurts the public more than it hurts the crooks. Here in the states, the thing a burglar fears most is an armed home-owner. Cops usually don't show up quick enough to catch them and usually won't shoot them. An armed homeowner is MUCH more likely to kill the bastard, which is both a deterrent, and slightly reduces the number of burglars out there, which is a good thing for society in general. They're also more likely to scare off the crook or hold him for the cops without firing a shot. Most armed homeowners stop the crime one way or another without firing a shot. Over a million times a year, by FBI statistics. Dade County Florida had a huge problem with women getting raped. Floridy allowed concealed carry permits to allow women that want to to carry a gun with them on the streets. R4pe dropped to 20% of what it had been, and there were no wild shoot-outs between citizens, which critics had promised. Decent people are decent people, whether they're armed or not, but armed decent people are safer, and are a crime deterent.

The first mass school killing I recall was in 1948, and was done by a disgruntled school employee, not a kid. He used dynamite to blow up a chunk of the school auditorium, and killed a bunch, don't recall the exact number. Guns are a tool, it's the people that are evil. Focusing only on the tool used doesn't solve the evil.

 

I don't approve of physical (or verbal) abuse of children, and I don't think anything justifies hitting a child.

But!

What we are seeing a lot of now is parents who do not dicipline their children at all. As mentioned before, you can't reason with an angry, kicking and screaming child age 6 or so. There are other ways of enforcing dicipline than to use the belt. I was never beaten as a child, and I had great respect for my mom and dad, and if they got angry, I sure as hell did what they told me to.

 

Very true. And those that don't discipline seem to use screaming,anger, and verbal abuse more, which does more harm than good. Kids are very good at identifying exactly what and where their boundaries and limits are. Whatever discipline methods you use, and not all punishments work well with all kids, it needs to be consistent, well known by the kids in advance, and meted out without anger or histrionics. Yelling is NOT necessary. If they know and understand the punishment process, a calm warning works as well or better than yelling it at them. And rational for their age level. You can't expect the same things from a 3 year old that you do from a 13 year old, and you treat them differently Ideally you're trying to instill discipline, a sense of justice, an understanding of the relationship between behavior and consequence, and in the long run, self-disciplined, respectful, competent, compassionage human beings. ALL discipline should be done calmly, by the numbers, and OVER when it's over, going back to being loving parents and not dragging it on, even in conversation. A hug and an "I love you" conversation at the end of the discipline is great reinforcement that you're not just being mean to them.

Raising good kids is SO much more than just discipline. It's much more about loving, caring, communicating, and leading by example. Done right, discipline should be a small part of child rearing, heavier during the youngest years, needed less as they get older and more SELF-disciplined.

 

I would agree with B.C.Gray, that society as a whole isn't "going down the drain" as such, but there are sociological/psychological issues that are much more prominent nowadays.

So-called disarming the public merely controls the law abiding citizens and does nothing to treat or reduce the problems. Treating the superficial symptoms of an issue with knee-jerk type legislation may be handy in winning a few votes, or looking like you're actually doing something does nothing to address any core problem. It is analogous to treating a plague victim for a skin rash, whilst ignoring the disease. May look good to the ignorant, but the patient will still surely die.

Firearms, and weapons in general are not problems - people are, (some of them, anyway). Difficult to do much about random acts of atrocities by the insane. I guess we could have every school fenced off and fortified, with armed security staff at the gates, but then we have to ask, is this the kind of society we wish for our children.

Re: Corporal punishment:- Personally, I don't believe any object, wether it be stick, belt, or whatever should ever be used on any child. If the use of the object is simply to increase the pain and suffering to the child in the name of discipline, then that is inappropriate and wrong, i.m.o.

Whether an open handed smack on the bottom is appropriate for the child will depend on each individual case and situation - so I can't really comment there. I do know, however that positive reinforcement for doing the right thing is far more powerful than the negative reinforcement (i.e. punishment) for doing bad. (One reinforces reward for good deeds and the other reinforces the 'crime and punishment principle).

 

I must have missed his posting in this thread


Continue......

 

Unfortunately gun crimes have doubled in the last ten years. I can't believe the politicos being so shortsighted as to ignore the fact that there are millions of guns just south of the border with very easy trade routes available and for something that was supposed to be a self funded operation turned into a $1B+ ongoing boondogle!

Guns are being smuggled in by the same routes that B.C. and Quebec pot is being smuggled out by organized crime, Hell's Angels in Quebec's case and of course the criminals are registering the guns. I think Canada is getting the short end of the stick.

@ Luthius We don't allow SMG's, the gun used was a berreta .22 semi-automatic.

 

(Yeah, I WAS going to add (no, not our Corporal Punishment), but I thought it was a given that wasn't necessary, LoL!)

Sometimes I think I should be called 'Major Disaster', but might be tad negative, eh.

 

I'v gotta say I think gun control in England is a great thing,this is pretty hard for me to say because I love guns and have done all my life owning quite few air rifles,when I was younger I hated the amount of restrictions placed on us but now I'm all for them

I think taking the guns from joe pulics hands is one of the greatest policies to come from our government,the main reason I woouldnt like to live in America is the amount of guns,everyone could possibly have a gun,many crimes like burglary turn into life oir death affairs where is England if a burglar is confronted 90% of the time he'll do a runner

If guns wernt controlled any petty disagreements would turn into life or death affairs as it does in America,one example that springs to mind is that guy who got too drunk one sunday afternoon had an argument with his dad then forced him to stay in the house the police and swat arrive moved on the house the guy walked around a corner and was blown away by a swat officers MP5, in England in the first place the guy wouldnt have the shotgun to threaten anyone but mainly the swat guys wouldnt have had to kill him,he'd of been dragged the the local nick and thrown the the cells to sober up and no doubt would have been very sorry for what he had done once sober

I agree with corporal punishment,you can only explain to a child so much the consequenced of thier actions and whats right or wrong,an example from my childhood which was the only time I was smacked with a slipper was for stealing matches and lighting fires,even though I knew it was wrong as I was stealing them I wanted to impress my friends so stole them anyway,my parents found out and my mum hit me once with a slipper,after that she just showed me the slipper if being cheaky ect.

One if the mistakes I believe alot of people make when dealing with children is that they can be reasoned with like an adult,that they can form elaborate rational conclusion as to the morality of thier actions,they cant, thier brains havnt developed enough IMHO they need a clear easy to understand consequence,I knew stealing the matches was stealing and lighting fires was dangerous but I did it anyway,the slipper gave me a solid motivation not to o it again,for me the smack of the slipper outweighed the reward of stealing the matches so I never stole them again,if my parents had sat me down explained what I alread knew, that stealing was wrong and lighting fires was dangerous I wudda probably just stole more and lit more fires because the consequence of my actions wasnt blatently obvious to me

 

I couldn't of said it better myself, when I was growing up, I used to get the wooden spoon across the backside, but it didn't end there, if that did not suffice enough for me to be crying in pain, then the threat of "Wait until your father gets home, then you`ll cop it", which I was scared of, but fought back in anger and fear, but when dad got home, I copped it big time, it was at first a thrashing across the naked backside with his hardest slap, but around 12 years old, it started turning into beatings, as if I was a man!

I love my parents, but I will never turn around an try and justify a smack with "I got a smack here and there and I turned out fine!", physical disciplin will never happen in my new family, and I swear I`ll never lay a hand on my child in that way, nor will I allow my partner to! You said method is more than effiecent enough.

When I met kylie she already had a child 3 n 1/2 years old, his father didn't want anything to do with him really, truth be told, as soon as he found out he was going to be a daddy, he took off interstate, using excuses, he wasn't even in town at birth time!

Nowadays, with my pushing, he spends 1 weekend per fortnight with his father, but now we are having conflicts within the family with him, becuase he goes to His fathers every second weekend, and the weekend we have him, usually kylies mother takes anthony for the friday or saturday now, so he stays at three diffrent places, having 3 diffrent sets of rules, at home its just the standard rules, that are VERY flexible, especially now since his getting tugged around 3 diffrent places. At his fathers there are NO rules, he can do, say, and get anything he wants, most of the time his dads mom takes care of him, aswell as his uncle @ 13 years old, who shows him all the wrongs you can think off. Then he goes to kylies mothers, which is going to stop if I get my way, becuase the rules are too strict, and in my eyes vindictive, if he fails to finish his tea, they bring the belt out and start verbally threatening it if he does not hurry up and finish his meal! I saw it first hand when kylie and I went over last to tell them Kylie was pregnant, which they turned around and said to us "Well thats great f'n timing isnt it!"... but anyway, continuing!, he has to be in bed early, by 7:30, even though its the weekend, and a few other things!

I cannot step in when it comes to Anthony and Kylies parents, although I felt like getting the belt and wrapping it around their heads that day.

But all of this mentioned, is causing conflict with him at home, he has changed in a way, we got really close when kylie and I first went out together, now he seems a little distant-ish, I thank thats becuase his forced into a tug o war scenario, he he could usually be himself, but becuase now there is 3 places, I think there is 3 personalities, one at home (Normal-ish anthony), onother one at his fathers (wreckless anthony), and another at his granny & grandad (scared, but willing anthony).

I have explained it above, but I`ve forgot my point, I`ll still post it and when I remember I`ll come back and edit it, or if thats too late I`ll post a Part 2.

If you have any tips G.T regarding how to deal with this type of situation, to better it, help in any way, things that I can personally do/say. then please let me know, I`m a baby just learning the ropes right now, I`ve only been a father 2 months, 2 days and 17 hours!

 

AR15 semi-automatic rifle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Stag2wi.jpg

More info here: http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/bryant/

 

You may have been a father only a short time, but your heart is in the right place. I admire your insistence of Anthony's biological father having a relationship with his son. It is important that he knows who is father is while he is still too young to remember finding out. To discover this at, say, 12 or 13 years old, would have a much bigger possibly problematical effect on the child.

Kids are very resilient, and to have different rules at different places per se, is not a problem. My own kids have very different "rules" when they come to their american home, compared to their english home. It isn't an issue, to my knowledge, here, although Mini-Geek might like to correct me on this now Kids soon learn what is expected of them in each different setting. It is no different to one set of rules at home, another at school,and another when they go visit at their buddies homes, where each has another differing set of rules. These, in themselves, are not a problem to kids and in fact, are a very useful life-lesson to have ready for the big adult world of irony and hypocrisy

What would concern me is the grandparents threats with the belt. You say you cannot step in. I disagree. If your intentions are to make permanent home and life with Kylie, her son and your baby, then you are the father, husband and protector of your household. It is your duty as his common-law father to protect him from abuse of any sort...mental or physical or both. If Kylie thinks this behavior from her parents his okay, then you do have to talk it out with her first. but with her agreement, you have every right to stop this, in whatever manner is necessary, even if it means restricting Anthony's visits with one of you being present at all times. Obviously I would discuss it with the grandparents first, to get them onboard with your thinking, so that such limits do not have to be imposed. You will not wish for your own baby to be treated in this way either, but you cannot afford for Anthony to see you allowing him to be treated differently to your baby. therefore you need to take the same stance for them both. Mixed messages from within one household are very different to having mised rules within different households, to a child.

This is my 2c for what it's worth

 

Tough situation Luthius. Kids need stability, and he's not getting that. One more problem caused by broken families and kids being raised in multiple homes, under multiple rules and expectations.

In a perfect world, he'd have one set of parents that provided a stable, consistent environment. In the next best world, those that are sharing the parenting roles would get together, agree on a consistent set of rules and consequences, and all present the same environment and expectations, which would aid greatly in stability. Doesn't sound like this set would even consider that, as widely as they vary, but you could try talking to them and explaining why it's important to the clild to have consistency, and at best, YOU'D likely have to bend some to come to a three way agreement. At 3 1/2, the kid is far too young to understand what's going on, and adjust to "visitor's rules" without confusing them with Home Rules.

I don't have any sure-fire answers to that one.

 

Hi Lev,

I get what your saying regarding me having the right to step in, I have been thinking the same way, except I have had to restrain myself, especially the day in question, because I know from Anthony's attitude and comments that it is still happening.

But I do not want to loose Kylie in the past, by stepping in, in a way, disrespecting her parents, It isn't meant for that, but her mother would definitely turn it into that, at the moment we are struggling with Kylie's moth, sending cards to Kylie saying she loves her, she hasn't seen Jonas lately, etc.. even though we haven't stopped her, and they had Anthony last weekend! It's like a sympathy/attention/days of our lives game her mother is playing, and I ain't into those types of games!

but in the past I didn't feel like I could step in, now I do, but I am just afraid of the aftermath! I have a gut feeling it would get twisted, exaggerated, etc

And I am also worried that Kylie may get upset with me, conscience or unconsciously....

It's a long and difficult way to explain how her parents work, but her mother is very vindictive and cunning when it comes to kylie and her emotions. my mother is like that with me, but when it comes to borrow some money or something, kylies mothers like that when she just wants attention, an argument, or to be 'the better' person (in her mind anyway...)


@ G.T : He is 5 and 1/2 now...

 

Lev, you're right about the abusive grandparents. THAT kind of abuse can indeed be addressed, to the point of restricting visits. The lax father would be harder to control, unless he's willing to tighten up his rules, but abuse is stoppable, even if not by simple agreement with the grandparents.

 

Sounds like your first discussions and agreement must come with Kylie. You two have to agree on a game plan before you can tackle her mom. And yes, it could get ugly.

 

Which is why you and Kylie need to sit down and talk about what you two, as parents, consider to be in the best interests of Anthony and Jonas, and develop a game plan. It isn;t about what is easiest and least confrontational for you and Kylie...you guys are the adults here and sometimes we have to just suck it up to give our kids the best.

Yes, there will be aftermath, for sure, but you were both blessed with children because you have the strength and ability to deal with aftermath. Better that you two, as adults and parents deal with this kind of aftermath, than dealing with the alternative aftermath of an abused child for years to come. At least if you nip it in the bud now, he will have little if any recollection of this approach by his grandparents. You are also acting in their interests of their postiive relationship with their grandson for years to come, even if they don't view it like that right now. Kids have a habit of becoming adults, and when that happens, they vote with their feet. What will happen when Anthony is 20, feels his grandparents treated him wrongly for 20 years and asks you and Kylie, "Why didn't you stop them since you knew about it?" Dealing with that question will be a heap load tougher than dealing with the situation in hand.

I do understand something of what you say about Kylie's mother's manipulating ways. Been there, done that. Hang in there and keep working at what you know is right, for your kids and for Kylie.

 

AR-15 is semi-automatic, which means you pull the trigger, the rifle fires ONCE, and the next cartridge is loaded automatically, rather than pumping, levering, cycling a bolt, or manually loading the next round. Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic. What makes the AR-15 scary, and what got it listed as an "assault rifle" is the fact that it's external trappings look like the military full-auto M-16, which IS an assault rifle. The taditional LEGAL definition of "assault rifle" includes full autofire capability, which this does NOT have. A lot of the extra doodads that get hung on it don't make it a better rifle, and it's not a good choice for serious hunting, but is a good varmant rifle to have around the barn in the country, and is fun for plinking/target practice, and for making military wannabes feel more military. But it is not a gun of choice for most criminals, nor is any rifle. Too large and obvious. Crooks want a handgun that can be carried out of sight, and the vast majority of gun crimes involve handguns exclusively. Long guns get more press because they look more impressive, but they're represented in only a small percentage of crimes, albiet usually the more spectacular ones.

 

The AR15 turns me on the top one looks like the sniping one with the floating walther barrel even more tasty

EDIT I love the carbine version too,many agencies around the world have switched to the carbine version form the standard 9mm auto subs due to thier ability to defeat body armour

 

@ Luthius, I don't know anything about guns, perhaps this will give a better insight into the monster and his wares. He's obviously not pierced as I said previously, that was an 'eyewitness ' account on TV.

I see others have chimed in quickly, not the same gun by the looks of it.

 

Hi augiedoggie,

Sorry, that gun was regarding the tasmanian masacre which I was referring to when I posted it, we`ve got mixed up I think....

 

Hehe, I think I got mixed up, not you. I'll look up your Tasmanian massacre as I've never heard of it. Sad state of affairs all over.

 

If you want to see the opposite of that tragedy and a topic worth rejoicing about then take a look at this link kindly provided by Rikky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryCTIigaloQ

That his thread never got off page one and only had 243 hits versus this one that to date has 366 hits and is on its 4th page. Kinda would like to see it the other way around, don't quite understand why we revel in violence. Oh and incase you think I am preaching I to have contributed a few posts to this very thread.