27 Dead, Most Are Children, at an Elementary School in the U.S.

YV, I can understand how all this would be shocking to a German. I have been to Germany in 2002, to visit friends of my family who are German. Solingen was so pristine, and I visited many other areas on this trip and found the same perfection and beauty. In Solingen the children walked through the town by themselves or with just one other child without anyone (any adult) walking them to school or worrying about them. I was so surprised to see this, I asked my friends why the children were allowed to walk alone and my friends said, "If anyone tried to hurt them, there would be plenty of other people around who could help."

My childhood was the same. But at some point between the 1960's, when I was born, and today, parents stopped letting their kids play outside by themselves. I think they started to worry much more about abductions and did not want to have any worry about that at all. They wanted to know at all seconds of the day just what their kids were up to. Parents sit in cars with their kids at the end of the road where they live, waiting for the school bus and they are there again when the school bus drops off the kids in the afternoon.

When I was a kid, I played outside after school with the other kids in the neighborhood, and we roamed freely (makes us sound like cows) and we could play in the street or on the side walk or in our back yards: hop scotch, roller skating, riding my bike. I had to stand with just other kids waiting for the school bus in all temperatures and weather conditions. A parent would never have dared to "cramp our style" and embarrass us by waiting for the bus with us or walking us to school.

Today the kids play indoors and they have problems with lack of exercise. It is sad. In the inner city, parents are worried about children being shot by drug dealers (stray bullets) and other criminals who are capable of shooting a person for their shoes or jacket. In the suburbs where there is no street crime, parents are worried about abductions.

So now that this tragedy has occurred, parents, I expect, will take matters into their own hands and will make sure security guards are hired for the schools. The kids will have to pass by a person like this (armed guard I suppose) on the way to class. I think they may already have armed guards in the inner city schools ( in neighborhoods with high crime rates).

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]waunakonor wrote:[/b]

Ouch, TheRealWizard, that's harsh. I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to know that generalizations like that are very rarely true.[/QUOTE]

I'm listening ... feel free to debunk.

In the meantime, I recall nearly half the country voting Republican last time around, and just about every time..[/QUOTE]
For one thing, over half of the voters in the country didn't vote Republican. That's not including those who did or could not vote (such as me). In general, youth are somewhat overwhelmingly liberal, and you'd be somewhat hard-pressed to find a kid who thinks gay marriage is immoral, though it depends where you go.

Your comment seemed to imply that you believe all Americans think in the same shallow manner, and that it's the rest of the world vs. Americans. What I was trying to say was that I assume you're intelligent enough to know that this is definitely not the case, and many Americans are capable of seeing things as they really are, and not this "it worked then so it must work now," thought process. I sure hope you're that intelligent.

[QUOTE] [b]waunakonor wrote:[/b]

For one thing, over half of the voters in the country didn't vote Republican. That's not including those who did or could not vote (such as me). In general, youth are somewhat overwhelmingly liberal, and you'd be somewhat hard-pressed to find a kid who thinks gay marriage is immoral, though it depends where you go.

Your comment seemed to imply that you believe all Americans think in the same shallow manner, and that it's the rest of the world vs. Americans. What I was trying to say was that I assume you're intelligent enough to know that this is definitely not the case, and many Americans are capable of seeing things as they really are, and not this "it worked then so it must work now," thought process. I sure hope you're that intelligent.[/QUOTE]

Of course I am - or at least I think I am !

The voting turnout is estimated to be 58%. Worse than Canada.

Obviously not all Americans are dumb, as the stereotypes tend to say. I know plenty of great Americans. But one can't deny that it's basically two countries in one. How polarized it is. But your comments about the youth are very encouraging.

[QUOTE]

[b]Donna13 wrote: [/b] YV, I can understand how all this would be shocking to a German. I have been to Germany in 2002, to visit friends of my family who are German. Solingen was so pristine, and I visited many other areas on this trip and found the same perfection and beauty. In Solingen the children walked through the town by themselves or with just one other child without anyone (any adult) walking them to school or worrying about them. I was so surprised to see this, I asked my friends why the children were allowed to walk alone and my friends said, "If anyone tried to hurt them, there would be plenty of other people around who could help."

My childhood was the same. But at some point between the 1960's, when I was born, and today, parents stopped letting their kids play outside by themselves. I think they started to worry much more about abductions and did not want to have any worry about that at all. They wanted to know at all seconds of the day just what their kids were up to. Parents sit in cars with their kids at the end of the road where they live, waiting for the school bus and they are there again when the school bus drops off the kids in the afternoon.

When I was a kid, I played outside after school with the other kids in the neighborhood, and we roamed freely (makes us sound like cows) and we could play in the street or on the side walk or in our back yards: hop scotch, roller skating, riding my bike. I had to stand with just other kids waiting for the school bus in all temperatures and weather conditions. A parent would never have dared to "cramp our style" and embarrass us by waiting for the bus with us or walking us to school.

Today the kids play indoors and they have problems with lack of exercise. It is sad. In the inner city, parents are worried about children being shot by drug dealers (stray bullets) and other criminals who are capable of shooting a person for their shoes or jacket. In the suburbs where there is no street crime, parents are worried about abductions.

So now that this tragedy has occurred, parents, I expect, will take matters into their own hands and will make sure security guards are hired for the schools. The kids will have to pass by a person like this (armed guard I suppose) on the way to class. I think they may already have armed guards in the inner city schools ( in neighborhoods with high crime rates).
[/QUOTE]

Donna - in Germany kids are hurt, abducted, abused, killed in public places like in any other country but it is still an exceptional incidence when a child is hurt. Each time that happens we have discussions about how children can be protected more effectively but arming parents or hire armed security has never been an option. We do not have this extensive violence culture that the USA has been accustomed to live with. I think it will be almost impossible to turn around and what you say about hiring armed security only confirms that. The silent majority will not reclaim the country, instead the will turn the wheel of violence to another climax by having their children go to gun-protected schools - what a horrible idea. Not long ago NYC policemen shot 9 innocent bystanders when they pursued an armed person who had shot his former boss at the Empire State building. These policemen were professionals but they did not protect the public - they made matters worse. The society cannot win a shootout, there must be a change towards a peaceful culture. After all, most people would not want to be forced to kill another human being only to protect their own lives and familes.

About this 'anti-Americanism'... no country is perfect so I can't see how simply pointing out the faults of the USA makes one anti-American...though it can, of course, make others feel rather defensive.

There's a lot wrong with my country, but I wouldn't consider living anywhere else because, in my less than partial opinion, the USA is the greatest place on earth - faults and all. I do think, however, the best way to show patriotism is to acknowledge the homeland's shortcomings, not to pretend the homeland is exceptional simply because it exists. Without addressing failures, how can one improve?

Unfortunately, only half of those actively involved in the US political process see its imperfections. The other half is blind to progress because they see that as a threat to their ideal America (circa 1950's) where everyone celebrates Christmas, women know their place, children are seen but not heard, (Christian) prayers are said in schools, we can clearly tell the difference between "us" and "them", local news is the only news (oh. Sorry. That's how it is now, too) and, therefore, everything is right in the world. If anything, that is the biggest problem facing this country and, for that, I'd invite others to mock away, though doing so will only entrench those of that mindset even further.

And yes, because of the youth, Latinos and women of this country, Obama won in an Electoral College landslide. However, he barely scraped by (considering) with the popular vote. The part of the population that gives a damn is evenly split and that is something I, as a very proud American, find stressful and embarrassing.

Back to the gun debate – Obama is trying to get something done, and maybe he will succeed, but that will only address part of the problem. The mental health issue is a big – if not bigger – problem that we cannot and should not ignore.

Thanks for your comments, YV. I wouldn't describe American culture as a whole as a culture of violence. If you stick to the safer areas I think our violent crime rates are actually lower than England and Canada. I don't have a link but that was just something I ran across online a few months ago. There are certain high crime areas in this country and the extremely high number of violent crimes in those areas brings up the overall score. And I don't know how we would fix those areas. It is definitely part of the culture in those areas.

My own life experience: I know people who own guns but I have never met anyone who has been hurt by a gun except for two suicides. (One of the suicides was not an American but just working here.).

I really hope kids do not have to see the guns that the security guards would have (if that is the course we are on). I shouldn't have made such a bold prediction that the children might be walking by a person with a gun visible to them; this would probably be avoided in a school setting although guns are visible to children in other settings such as at the airport, etc. I can't say I ever feel relaxed in the presence of a gun. I find them to be scary objects.

Far as anti-Americanism goes, it's there for a reason. Every country - I really mean every last one - ought to be criticised for its faults, because it's all too easy to start believing your own press and imagining that the faults don't exist.

I guess people give America a bit extra because they've been the top of the food chain for so long. It's not pretty, and maybe not even entirely fair in a lot of instances, but that's how it goes. If China ever really does become the big dog, I'm sure the same thing will happen. I can't help but feel like we treat countries like China and India with kid gloves because no one wants to be accused of being racist.

Pff. It'd be racist, if you ask me, if we singled any one country out, but like I said - no country should be above criticism. There's a lot I wish was a little different in mine, for starters.

Anyway, back on the topic of guns - I think it behooves the US to at least try some new approaches to gun control. The Constitution says 'we should have guns!' - fine. Start playing with the idea of massively cutting down on anything bigger than a handgun, or having more stringent background checks and personal references and psychiatric evaluations for people who want a gun. For people who dig recreational shooting, maybe they should be in the same league as people who like to have track days with their non road-legal cars - it stays at a facility, and you use it there only.

Sky's the limit, and it doesn't hurt to try any of these things. I can envision the reaction to the first mass shooting in an America that has removed many of its guns, of course, but the guns didn't save anyone this time did they? I'm not up on the story behind each mass shooting in the last few decades, but I can't really remember any where a bystander with a weapon 'saved the day'.

(I'm not being glib, by the way - if that's happened before then I'd love a link to the story).

Excellent points, Zebonka. I agree completely - from the top of the food chain reference to the very end.

Just a point on the 'save the day' issue - after the Arizona shooting where Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot in the head, a young man who owns and carries a gun was interviewed. I'll post a link to the story about what happened but here's the most important part -

==
"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."
==

Here's the full article from MSNBC - and yes, MSNBC leans far left but the facts are facts regardless which way you lean -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018893/ns/slate_com/t/armed-giffords-hero-nearly-shot-wrong-man/#.UNM7BFJCr9g

I take your point about everything else but MSNBC does not "lean far left". Just because it isn't as vitriolically conservative as Fox doesn't make it a left-wing news organisation.

MSNBC is without question a left leaning news organization. It acknowledges itself as such. It is at times as vitriolically and poisonously left as Fox is vitriolically and poisonously right, something that probably disappoints me more because we on the left are supposed to be the good guys.

The thing about MSNBC is that they at least acknowledge when they are wrong. But like Holly pointed out, it is not the far-left equivalent of Fox News. The actual intelletual capacity of Rachel Maddows alone is ten times more than all of Fox News put together

Rachel Maddow is fucking horrid most of the time. MSNBC was one thing once, but it's another thing now. Playing the ratings game, the anti-Fox role, whatever it is the result is people like Maddow engaging in EXACTLY the kind of mocking and reductio ad absurdum positioning of the 'other side' as people like Bill O'Reilly. Who would want to be informed of anything on that basis? In their worst modes Fox and MSNBC are mirror reflections of each other, looking into the abyss and having it look back into them. It's pitiable. And sharing views and ideals from the left doesn't make it any less so.

MSNBC might not be as far left as FOX is right, but it is definitely left-leaning and proud of it. As for Rachel Maddow, greaserkat, I couldn't agree more. I think the woman is a genius. Love her.

I completely agree; MSNBC is a left-leaning news outlet. I think it would be hillarious for her to go on any of the Fox News programs, especially Fox and Friends or America Live with Megyn Kelly

I suppose it depends on your definition of left, right and centre. Remember, the centre depends on how wide the road is :) 

To my mind over the last 60 years or so the democrats and the republicans pretty much agree on most of the big issues -- capitalist economic system, expansionist foreign policy, and big tax breaks and subsidies for corporations,. There are some differences in domestic social policy -- the democrats are, on balance more liberal-leaning on a number of social issues, but even that is a generalisation as often you may have liberal republicans and conservative democrats, depending on the issue and what's at stake for their local electorate.

Fox News is so conservative and downright ignorant and stupid on most issues it doesn't qualify in my mind as a news organisation to be mentioned in the same breath as, for example, the BBC. But does that make MSNBC left wing? Or are they just left of Fox? Or are they left "liberal" in the American sense of that term (in my view, still fairly conservative on political, foreign and economic policy)? In other words, do they advocate rolling back the capitalist state to be replaced by govt. nationalisation of healthcare, power, transport etc? Or are they only "left" on some social issues?

(Question: Is there a voice on MSNBC for Palestinians? There wasn't whan I lived in the USA. Has that changed? Because in Europe one of the political identifiers of the left is a general pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli outlook. WHat's MSNBC's view on Israel these days?)