Child is killed during school walk out against gun violence

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Kayla has already nullified their position.

Tell us the answer to the question you posed earlier, should we ban all guns if one irresponsible idiot leaves a gun unattended for a child to get their hands on it?

Answer that, please.

I am not sure who you are asking

That question is irrelevant anyways

Of course we shouldn’t ban all guns because of one shooting

But that is a question of should we take away rights of law abiding citizens because of the actions of one person

The question of rather one death should be enough to stop these school walkouts is different

First, the answer is no that one death even if tragic shouldn’t sway this

However, the question is what is the purpose of these schools in the first place

The students legally have to attend the school, the school is responsible to properly supervise the children whil there

The school is not suppose to encourage walkouts for any reason, especially for the purpose of encouraging a one sided political ideology

This leads to situations where it is almost impossible to properly supervise the children

So in this case, we see a child die and the school is at fault

So the original question is nonsensical

Owning guns is a right outlined in the bill of rights, teacher s and admistartirs encouraging schools walkouts that lead to impossible supervision levels is not

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck

I suppose it would be simple enough to stop all children from being shot at school by shutting down all schools. That would be one way to do it. Or, we could have not allowed Adam Lanza’s mother to have guns in the house, considering he was a nutbag.

I never let my daughter ride her bike alone in our neighborhood. Too many bad things could have happened to her. Instead of not letting her have a bike, I just had to ride with her, so I could make sure she didn’t get hurt or abducted by someone. Good move on my part, right? Adequate supervision makes a difference.

So it's the schools fault for not adequately supervising the child?

Absolutely. It’s not the school’s fault for allowing a protest. It’s the school’s fault for not adequately supervising the protest.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yes, good supervision makes a difference. So does not placing her in dangerous situations... isn't that a major part of good supervision?

Would you let your daughter ride on a railroad track while a train was coming? Obviously not. Why? Maybe because it was too dangerous for her to be safe even with your supervision?

A large part of supervision is knowing where it is safe and where it is not. A protest on a busy highway is not safe, especially at that age. Proper supervision would be to say "no."

TheRedneck

a reply to: LungFuMoShi

Not really, altough you want to paint us like that.

I think most of the active posters in this tread from the last 6 pages or so, have by now made clear that this was a stupid idea to begin with and that it does not matter if it was pro or antigun.

You don´t take children out of school into the public, impropper supervised. Oh and you also are supposed as a teacher to teach without bias of ANY kind. Be it political, racial, religious I don´t care.

A school is for teaching, not making politics. Plain simple.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck

I suppose it would be simple enough to stop all children from being shot at school by shutting down all schools. That would be one way to do it. Or, we could have not allowed Adam Lanza’s mother to have guns in the house, considering he was a nutbag.

I never let my daughter ride her bike alone in our neighborhood. Too many bad things could have happened to her. Instead of not letting her have a bike, I just had to ride with her, so I could make sure she didn’t get hurt or abducted by someone. Good move on my part, right? Adequate supervision makes a difference.

So it's the schools fault for not adequately supervising the child?

Absolutely. It’s not the school’s fault for allowing a protest. It’s the school’s fault for not adequately supervising the protest.

But it is nearly impossible to have a school have adequate supervision with a schools full of children on open streets

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: DBCowboy

If there had been adequate supervision, the child would not have died. The protest itself was not the problem. Inadequate supervision was the problem.

Obviously there was inadequate supervision at the protest, but in order for your assumption to be correct, there'd have had to have been inadequate supervision at the school where the child died.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
Kayla has already nullified their position.

Tell us the answer to the question you posed earlier, should we ban all guns if one irresponsible idiot leaves a gun unattended for a child to get their hands on it?

Answer that, please.

I am not sure who you are asking

That question is irrelevant anyways

Of course we shouldn’t ban all guns because of one shooting

But that is a question of should we take away rights of law abiding citizens because of the actions of one person

The question of rather one death should be enough to stop these school walkouts is different

First, the answer is no that one death even if tragic shouldn’t sway this

However, the question is what is the purpose of these schools in the first place

The students legally have to attend the school, the school is responsible to properly supervise the children whil there

The school is not suppose to encourage walkouts for any reason, especially for the purpose of encouraging a one sided political ideology

This leads to situations where it is almost impossible to properly supervise the children

So in this case, we see a child die and the school is at fault

So the original question is nonsensical

Owning guns is a right outlined in the bill of rights, teacher s and admistartirs encouraging schools walkouts that lead to impossible supervision levels is not

Sorry, the question was to Kayla in a response to a rather twisted and illogical point they were trying to make.

I wanted kayla to answer that question for a specific reason but they chose to pretend they didn't see that question.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure, having them protest in a safe place would be considered proper supervision. The protest itself was not the problem.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

Not really, altough you want to paint us like that.

I think most of the active posters in this tread from the last 6 pages or so, have by now made clear that this was a stupid idea to begin with and that it does not matter if it was pro or antigun.

You don´t take children out of school into the public, impropper supervised. Oh and you also are supposed as a teacher to teach without bias of ANY kind. Be it political, racial, religious I don´t care.

A school is for teaching, not making politics. Plain simple.

I don't disagree with that one bit. Certain people have been turning schools into a political playground for quite some time now.

They've been using kids for years now, they ain't interested in the kids but seem to come from a purely selfish position.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure, having them protest in a safe place would be considered proper supervision. The protest itself was not the problem.

Yes a safe place such as in the school

As soon as the school facilitates and encourages students to walk out of the school, they have immediately made supervision much harder and the situation much more dangerous

a reply to: kaylaluv

Where is a safe place to protest? Isn't the idea of a protest to be as visible as possible? As in next to a busy highway where people can't help but see the commotion?

When was the last time a protest took place behind closed doors? I can't seem to remember...

TheRedneck

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

You're REALLY pathetic...You in one side of your mouth are trying to claim that what the school did was NOT politically motivated, but that us SAYING that it is OBVIOUSLY politically motivated, is us USING them for political reasons...

That is one of the most pathetic attempts I've seen in quite some time.

Jaden

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure, having them protest in a safe place would be considered proper supervision. The protest itself was not the problem.

That is a whole other discussion.

Was the protest part of the districts approve lesson plan and curriculum? Did the students get permission slips from legal guardians?

a reply to: Grambler

I don’t believe all the kids in the whole school protested, only the ones who wanted to. And no, it’s not impossible to have adequate supervision.

a reply to: verschickter

Then they wonder why gun owners get all up in arms...as it were.

Crazy times...or maybe it's always been crazy I'm just old enough to recognize it now.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Why are they protesting at all?

When I was at school we sat in class and learned stuff. Only time teachers took us out of class was on a school trip, they'd take us to a zoo or to see a play or something.

Parentls would accompany them and assist with supervision, my own mother did this several times.

But it was rare, no protests. they didn't feel the need to push their political views on us.

Back then most of the brainwashing/pushing of agenda's was based on religion...taking us to mass once a week.

I don't agree with that, either...but churches are generally quite safe so there's that.

a reply to: kaylaluv

The protest itself was not the problem.

It was and still is. Be careful what you wish for, one day, your child will be in school, maybe it is already. And then you will hopefully grasp that indoctrination of any kind is a no-go when it comes to young innocent minds.

You only want this to happen as long as it fit´s your own agenda. Let´s see when the teacher of your child tells it transgender is not normal, or god behold, do a protest with children DURING schooltime.

You would be the first one to complain. You would go nuts. That´s what hypocrisy stands for.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If I was in charge of a school right off of a busy highway, and I had a group of students who wanted to stage a protest? I would bus them over to a public area that didn’t involve cars going 70 miles an hour. My kid’s middle school is in a neighborhood, so they could just walk the sidewalks pretty safely — with teachers there to make sure they stayed on the sidewalks.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

I don’t believe all the kids in the whole school protested, only the ones who wanted to. And no, it’s not impossible to have adequate supervision.

Without vastly more adults being brought in it sure is

The amount of adults to supervise children in school is in place assuming a confined area with very limited interaction from outside people

That’s why most schools have visitors go to the office to check in

Placing those children in an open environment immediately makes supervision exponentially more difficult

That is why field trips are carefully planned out, with usually only a small percentage of the school going at once and with additional chaperones being brought in

And even then, most of these trips are to relatively confined areas with routine headcount and check ins, and they are carefully planned out months in advance

That is not what we see in the footage of these walkouts

a reply to: LungFuMoShi

When I was at school, we didn’t have mass school shootings. There were some kids that protested the Vietnam war, though. I think they were in high school.