Oh noes, thank goodness for the brave actions of...

[Rockula]

I did right a long answer but I thought I might offend some perfectly decent teacher so I'll just say

I worked hard for my spoon 

Was it a Runcible Spoon?

[Mr. Hatchett]

To be fair, it doesn't seem as if the prinicpal has cornered the market on blowing shit out of proportion.  The parents may sue because their son was almost punished?  Maybe the ought to switch the whole town to unleaded water.

[Utini420]

I dunno, I can see that one being dictated almost completely by the attitude of the principal.  I'll grant you that I've something of an ax to grind when it comes to public education administrators, but had that been my theoretical kid, and I got my kid out of the idiocy (which seems to have been a bit hard to do) and the woman was still sitting there all smug and superior about it (which, again to be fair, would be any attitude at all other than profusely kissing my ass for wasting my time and upsetting my child) I'd be looking to bury her under the school house.  There's a pretty decent chance this principal has been less than outstanding on other issues of judgement, and this is the one just crazy enough to get rid of her.

[TribalWren]

>covers herself with protective shield in preparation for the beating she will likely incur<

YES, I think this incident was probably blown out of proportion (by the principal or by the press?) BUT! I would like to raise the point that contentious issues such as gun play put most teachers in very awkward positions. I am an early years teacher and specialised in early childhood development etc. In my school we have a 'no aggression ever' policy. No replica guns, no gun play, no play fighting. This is really hard to implement in the early years particularly because most young boys naturally play fight!

However, it is considered to be the best policy because in the area where I work there is unfortunately a lot of gun crime and we don't want children to gain the message that 'playing with guns' is acceptable. You are considering the issue from an adult perspective (it's just play, what's the harm!) From a child's perspective though, play is how they learn, how they form schema, how they form understanding of social convention etc. Makes the issue more complicated. Perhaps in this particular incident it was not the 'gun' itself that was the real issue, but the 'gun play' in general. If you are writing policies for a whole school of children you can't bend the rules for one person and stick to them for another. If there is a no gun-play rule in that school (which is probably likely...it exists in most schools nowadays) then the cold hard fact is that the child broke the rules (read: the parent broke the rules by allowing the child to take toy into school... )! The teacher/principal has to consider what effect this may have on the other children surrounding that one child, just as much as the child himself.

Personally, I have real difficulties trying to maintain some of the policies realting to violence, agression etc that exist in schools. Classic example; in my class we have a no fighting rule. The kids are DRILLED that fighting is wrong, punishable to the highest degree and so forth. However, along came Rememberance Day...and somehow I then had to find a way to explain to the same children that fighting actually IS ok... so long as it's British soldiers doing it..!! *I confused myself whilst teaching so God knows what message they finally left with in their little noggins*.

So final message is...don't be too harsh on the teachers! They have a hard enough job as it is without having to navigate all the political crap that makes it into our education systems as well. 

[Utini420]

Setting aside my own thoughts on brainwashing aggression out of humans at a young age, I will simply ask: if there is to be no human-factor in the rules-enforcement cycle, that is to say if no person is charged with a the responsibility of interpreting the rules on a case by case basis and applying individual judgement to the situation, what function does the principal serve?   

[TribalWren]

Setting aside my own thoughts on brainwashing aggression out of humans at a young age, I will simply ask: if there is to be no human-factor in the rules-enforcement cycle, that is to say if no person is charged with a the responsibility of interpreting the rules on a case by case basis and applying individual judgement to the situation, what function does the principal serve?   

You make a good point. I don't know that much about how the system works in America-land, but here in Britain the principal (headmaster) serves a predominantly administrative role. In that their job is to deal with the paperwork regarding policy enforcement etc. However, when it comes to making individual judgements on cases, the headmaster now has much less power than in the past. Infact such cases are usually dealt with by a 'panel' including the headmaster, the governing body of the school and a representative from the local authority (area). The LA and governors also hold the headmaster 'accountable' to implementing the policies that are in place...therefore this may be why so few headmasters are brave enough to judge on case by case merit and go for 'total enforcement across the board'!

Bureaucracy, hey?!! 

[Sgt.Major Thistlewaite]

TribalWren, you are in an area-in Great Britain- where there is a problem with gun crime?!? That boggles the mind.
I presume that when you say "gun play" that phrase would even apply to a lad pointing his finger and going "bang bang." The phrase "gun play" in America usually means an actual exchange of gun fire, with real bullets.
America, early on, most likely could never have come to be without individual ownership of firearms, for putting meat on the table, for defending the homestead against savages...yes, strange as it may seem, American Indians actually strongly objected to people building cabins on their hunting grounds, and yes, their objections were expressed, at the time, in ways that truly qualify for the use of the term "savages"...and the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was that if the "people" were guaranteed their right to own arms, the Government could never become corrupt, because the "people" would always have the means to depose them. Granted, it has not worked out too well. The Government has become thoroughly corrupt anyway, and now we have idiots who should not have access to a sharp stick running around with guns shooting each other, and also shooting innocent people who are minding their own business, and cops, and kids, and pretty much everything else. "Gun control" isn't going to work, at least not if that means "getting rid of all the guns"...(1) It simply can't be done, there are already far too many in existence, and (2) it flies in the face of the US Constitution (see above) because the majority of gun owners, believe it or not, are like myself...upstanding, responsible citizens. What we need is "Idiot Control." Unfortunately, that is also impossible, short of a massive eugenics program (also probably Unconstitutional) because the idiots breed like flies.
Now, as to the specific case in point...in my humble opinion, the kid should not have had the toy gun at school...or the Lego people, or any other toy. Toys are for home, for play time, for time off. School is for learning, school is supposed to be the childhood equivalent of work. All toys should be banned from school. Maybe if our schools were actually fulfilling their intended purpose, instead of being glorified baby-sitters, we'd have less idiots, and less of a problem.

~Thistlewaite

[B. Morningway]

...and the original intent of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Second Amendment to the US Constitution was that if the "people" were guaranteed their right to own arms, the Government could never become corrupt, because the "people" would always have the means to depose them. Granted, it has not worked out too well. The Government has become thoroughly corrupt anyway, and now we have idiots who should not have access to a sharp stick running around with guns shooting each other, and also shooting innocent people who are minding their own business, and cops, and kids, and pretty much everything else.

Interesting. I had always heard that the reason that particular amendment was added was the fear of an attack by England. This also makes sense though. Its amazing how a law that was created with the best of intentions gets completely turned about, and becomes a hazard rather than a boon, isn't it?

What we need is "Idiot Control." Unfortunately, that is also impossible, short of a massive eugenics program (also probably Unconstitutional) because the idiots breed like flies.

  I've had similar thoughts myself.

Anyway, as to the actual subject matter, I think that this whole thing is simply ridiculous. Its obvious to anyone with even an ounce of brain matter mushing about in their skull that this gun is no more harmful than the action figure it came with. Having a no toy gun policy is fine, but it should be accompanied by a size limitation as well. As far as bringing toys to school, I see no problem with that, as long as they are only for recess (I'm assuming that they have that in other places besides Canada? 15 minute breaks within the school day?), and not played with during class time.

[rovingjack]

I don't know about harmless, I pretty sure I could kill somebody with a lego gun if I was so inclined.

Toys in school, meh, why not? We send them home with four or more hours of home work, why not send them to school for four or more hours of fooling around.

Seriously schools don't do any teaching anymore. Children will learn more about almost any topic in the care of individuals that help them explore the world of knowledge and it's applications than they do by repetition and memorization.

Schools are less a mass daycare than they are prisons. The young are penned up in rooms, they cannot eat sleep or use the bathroom without permission of the guards, they are allowed no pleasure and often subjected to hostility from other inmates. The in some years they are set before a parol board to see if they have been rehabilitated sufficiantly into the ways of the good drone to be sent out into the world.

It also reminds me of something we were watching the other day about animal behaviour. Chickens. Battery (sp?) chickens specifically. Kept penned up they actually begin to peck and scratch each other. When let out or even given some kind of stimulation such as the ability to move through a coloured gate to the another tiny cage at will the chickens nearly completely stopped inflicting damage on one another.

[Lilith-Nighthawk]

First off I object to our actions being called savage. If some one who's connection to the land was completely different from yours turned up and decided your land belonged to them you would fight to. I personally see the systematic destruction of another races homelands as savage. When native people did act in a way that our minds see as savage it was during acts of war, or raids.

But the American government stole the native peoples land out of pure greed. The broken treaty's were mainly due to American greed. Our founding fathers even took inspiration for the American Constitution from the Iroquois nation, witch actually comprised of six different Indian nations in the north east. And while trying to conquer them, the government took kids from their people try ed to squash out their languages, religion, culture, and pride. I call the act of trying to suppress an entire race savage.

Second things are getting more then out of hand in the schools of some nations. When I was a kid things like ridiculously restrictive attendace policies weren't par for the course now they are. When I was small as long as you kept up with your work people didn't worry overly much. When I was small we play fought in school as long as it wasn't out of hand.

When i was in first grade i would chase my best friend, make him want his mother. The teachers weren't overly concerned about it. But now a tiny toy gun, play fighting, or a child chasing their best friend in a way that would possibly make them want their mother sends up huge red flags. I think people need to think about the freedom they had as children in school, and what kids now have to deal with. Why aren't they allowed the freedom we were? I think people have turned into cowards.

[Ms. Elisabeth Collins]

Oh, goodness, I don't know where to start.   It makes me so glad I was homeschooled, and not subjected to this idiocy.  I have lost all faith in the future of our world.  The majority wins, and the majority is dumb as sin.

Rather reminds me of this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21661718/?PHPSESSID=d9dd72bf3b073025a298a45f53819fa9

A thirteen year old got two days of detention (not THAT bad, I know, but still) for hugging her two friends goodbye.  This violated a school ban on hugging.  Really?!  I can see why such a ban would be put in place, to prevent gratuitous displays of affection between romantic partners, but wouldn't a ban on public snogging work better for that purpose? 

Or just as well, the many schools that have banned tag, hide and seek, and any chasing game.  What do kids do now?  Sit around tables and look at one another?  Why not ban recess altogether?  You've already taken the fun out of it.  When I was a kid (and this was not long ago at all), if you fell, you sucked it up and kept playing.  If you were bleeding, you got a choice of cartoon bandaids and moved on.  If you required stitches, you got the automatic respect of all your classmates, and you kept playing.

God save us all from overzealous protection.

[Sgt.Major Thistlewaite]

First off I object to our actions being called savage. If some one who's connection to the land was completely different from yours turned up and decided your land belonged to them you would fight to. I personally see the systematic destruction of another races homelands as savage. When native people did act in a way that our minds see as savage it was during acts of war, or raids.

Descending on a farmstead with a full strength war party, killing-and often mutilating-every man, woman and child, and burning the farm to the ground is savage...I didn't say it wasn't justified!  I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, you know...attitude is difficult to get across in print. For the record, my father's mother was one of the last of the full blood Creek (now known as Muskogee) tribe...one of the so-called "five civilized tribes," the remnants of which were lumped in with the Cherokee and sent packing down the "Trail of Tears," so you're not telling me anything, dear. My grandmother was fortunate in that she was legally married to a white man. Many Creek, and even more so the Cherokee and Choctaw, did their best to be pragmatic about it and adopt the white man's ways in dress and manners...it did not save them when the time came for a land grab. Some of the Seminole retreated into the Everglades in Florida, more or less successfully fighting off the white soldiers, at least to the extent that they alone never surrendered to the US Government.
There is no excuse, or even adequate explanation, for the way the indigenous people of North America ( and South America, but that was mainly the Spanish and Portuguese) were treated.
"Civilization" is at best a thin veneer...and theft is theft, even when it is "sanctioned" by a piece of paper. This remains a wrong which will, in all likelihood, never be righted. It is perhaps a small bit of ironic justice that tobacco has killed millions of white people.

~T

[Sir A Poiselamppe]

TribalWren, you are in an area-in Great Britain- where there is a problem with gun crime?!? That boggles the mind.

After some high profile cases, including on in which a man (who had held a guns perfectly legally for years ,despite objections) shot 15 children and their teacher, with 4 handguns:2 x Browning 9mm and 2 S&W 357 magnums.. using 109 shots...

No-one has been able to establish exactly why he did this, although rumours of Paedophilia abound... as a result all weapons over .22 cal. were banned. Alas the  most likely people to use guns are criminals and they really aren't bothered by the ban.... although the government figures claim 42 gun related deaths in 2009...

That is our problem with gun crime.... makes you wonder what would happen if our politicians had to sit in the Senate....probably have a nervous kneejerk breakdown.....

[Utini420]

Its amazing how a law that was created with the best of intentions gets completely turned about, and becomes a hazard rather than a boon, isn't it?

I don't think its as simple as that: its a hazardous boon, but still a boon: if you think the US Federal Gov't has lost its feaking mind now, I wonder what they'd be like otherwise.  

I was thinking about this the other day in a different context: individual ownership of firearms has not made America a Utopia, BUT a large percentage of us subscribe to the notion that our firearm ownership opposes tyranny.  It seems to me that to govern a population that believes itself able to resist must require a sneekier form of tyranny.  We could debate weather overt or covert tyranny is preferable, but I think at the end of the day if its sneekier its going to be at least somewhat less evil, if only because its got less elbow room.  Ownership of guns keeps the government from just going off the freaking deep end, even if their day-to-day activities are still rather nutty.

I don't know about harmless, I pretty sure I could kill somebody with a lego gun if I was so inclined.
Toys in school, meh, why not?

Well, I'm not going to address the school-as-prison comments, but these first I'll touch on.  

A motivated individual can kill a person WITH ANY INANIMATE OBJECT.  Looking back on the contents of my book bag in grade school, had I been motivated I could have ruined your day with, lets see, I had some scissors, several sharp pencils, a ruler with a metal edge, a few heavy books, the straps on the bag itself, plastic sacks from my lunch (hell, my lunch itself, if you're allergic to peanuts), maybe a pretty rock I picked up off the ground, and I might could mess up your eye with that tape dispenser.

My point here is that, as a globe-dominating hunter species humans are pretty good at killing stuff, when we choose to.  I think it would be a shorter path to teach people when to do that and when not to do that than try to limit their access to anything that might help them pull it off.  Britain's schizophrenic attitude towards violence sounds to me like wanting to have your cake and eat it too: guns are great, but only for these guys with the sanction of the State.  

And, now that I've done the write-half-a-post-and-come-back-to-it thing, I can see the dust settling around the Cowboys and Indians.  (Please, for the love of god, I use that phrase for the joke.)  Savagery and gross dishonor on both sides.  Honestly, in a lot of ways, the early history of America makes me sort of glad that my family didn't get here until the 1880s or so.  Well, except for grandma's side, not so sure about her lineage, and NO topic of curiosity made her madder, faster.  

After some high profile cases, including on in which a man (who had held a guns perfectly legally for years ,despite objections) shot 15 children and their teacher, with 4 handguns:2 x Browning 9mm and 2 S&W 357 magnums.. using 109 shots...

That is, frankly, appalling.  I'm disgusted not only with the local constabulary but also the local civilian population.  Why in the name of all that's right and holy did no one put a bullet in that man's head?  Sorry, its possible that living in a high-gun area of a high-gun country has distorted my assumptions on this, but the chances of someone spending that much time shooting without drawing an armed response are pretty slim.

I know you meant it the other way, but all I got from that was another argument in favor of private gun ownership.  Do not rely on the police to protect you (in most cities, they are under no impetus to do so, despite what you may think.)

[Sgt.Major Thistlewaite]

My point here is that, as a glob-dominating hunter species humans are pretty good at killing stuff,

Well, I'm not sure about glob dominating, but as far as blob dominating goes, Steve McQueen did manage to dominate the Blob, but not until the very end of the flick.

 

(Sorry...it was getting pretty thick up in here...thought I'd take it back to the "Lighter Side" )

~T

[Utini420]

Ah, spelling now corrected.

But you bring up an interesting point: all our guns will be for not once these things show up in our schools:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Zwack]

After some high profile cases, including on in which a man (who had held a guns perfectly legally for years ,despite objections) shot 15 children and their teacher, with 4 handguns:2 x Browning 9mm and 2 S&W 357 magnums.. using 109 shots...

That is, frankly, appalling.  I'm disgusted not only with the local constabulary but also the local civilian population.  Why in the name of all that's right and holy did no one put a bullet in that man's head?  Sorry, its possible that living in a high-gun area of a high-gun country has distorted my assumptions on this, but the chances of someone spending that much time shooting without drawing an armed response are pretty slim.

I know you meant it the other way, but all I got from that was another argument in favor of private gun ownership.  Do not rely on the police to protect you (in most cities, they are under no impetus to do so, despite what you may think.)

The incident in question happened in 1996 in the small Scottish town of Dunblane.  If you've never been to Dunblane that won't mean much to you.

Dunblane is a town with a population of around 8,000.  It is rather hilly.  Based on the descriptions of what happened I would be surprised if the total time taken was more than a few minutes.  Most of the dead were in one class of five and six year olds that were shot at the very start.  (15 children and a teacher) three other adults were injured and 11 more children.  One was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.

Wikipedia article  

I don't think it would have been much different if every adult present had been armed.  In that case he would have entered the gym, shot the teacher first and then systematically shot all of the children in the gym.  He would have been unlikely to get out of the gym, but the outcome could well have been worse.

In the UK most police officers are unarmed most of the time (unless things have changed significantly in the last ten years).  They would have had a truncheon, or a side handled baton.  

Now, steering wildly away from that topic... Dunblane is also the location of Scottish Churches house which I have had reason to visit many times, and is a stunningly beautiful town.  

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Z.

[Zwack]

Ah, spelling now corrected.

But you bring up an interesting point: all our guns will be for not once these things show up in our schools:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Indeed, but with Spoons we will be able to totally dominate those...  

I've had school meals that looked less appetising.

Z.

[Utini420]

I will freely admit, my reaction to the shooting story was pretty knee-jerk, and no disrespect was meant to the families.  I don't think I feel much different about it, but there it is.

[Mr. Hatchett]

Long story short: all of this is why we're home schooling.  Institutionalized schooling is a proven failure on all points.

[Capt. Dirigible]

That is, frankly, appalling.  I'm disgusted not only with the local constabulary but also the local civilian population.  Why in the name of all that's right and holy did no one put a bullet in that man's head?

Because even before the  ban very few people in the UK owned guns (hand/automatic or semi). Most gun  'fans' had their guns locked away in a gun club and only used them on a supervised range. Farmers own shotguns, but you cannot walk around town with a loaded (or even unloaded) gun of any kind in the UK so there simply wouldn't have been anyone around with a gun to shoot the Dunblane killer anyway!. And as pointed out our Police have never been armed as a matter of course. Nowadays anti-terrorist Police are armed with (I believe) Koch and Heckler sub machine guns (you see them on duty at airports)and Diplomatic Protection Squads have hand guns as do ARU (Armed Response Units). But as an ex-member of Her Majesty's Constabulary myself I don't look forward to a time when all 'Bobbies on the Beat' are armed on a regular basis.

[Utini420]

Like I said, knee-jerk response made without proper consideration (though I did know your cops don't carry guns; that was a bit of a jab, not an ignorant comment).  I'll claim no take-backs, because I still see a well placed round as the best response to this (OK, best would be taking him out the day before with a time machine).  But its also worth noting that we've had a few school shootings around here, ourselves, and it never seems like someone is there with a gun when it would have helped.  Either that, or those incidents never make the news.

[Sgt.Major Thistlewaite]

The USA is gun-crazy, the UK is gun-shy....and then there is Switzerland. Switzerland has a population of around six million, and it is estimated that at least two million guns are privately owned and kept in the home, including 500,000 handguns and 600,000 automatic rifles. Yet their gun-crime rates are so low that they are statistically negligible, almost non-existent. Why? Perhaps it is training...every Swiss male is required to do compulsory service in the militia, and is issued a rifle, which is kept at home. After his term of service has been satisfied, he has the option of keeping the rifle, providing that it is modified to remove the fully automatic function from its operation. Are the Swiss just that much smarter, or more civilized, than the rest of us?

~T

[Screaming Lord Pea Green]

It reminds me of the film: Demolition Man with Sylvester Stallone.

We Cotton wrap our kids and then complain when they choke on the Cotton!

[TribalWren]

TribalWren, you are in an area-in Great Britain- where there is a problem with gun crime?!? That boggles the mind.

I presume that when you say "gun play" that phrase would even apply to a lad pointing his finger and going "bang bang." The phrase "gun play" in America usually means an actual exchange of gun fire, with real bullets.

HA! Yes indeed...I get the impression some folks have a glorified view of (no longer so) Great Britain?! I live and work in an area of North London affectionately dubbed 'Shank Town' by the media. It's an area of real poverty and also where the immigrants tend to be 'dumped' by the government, so we have lots of council estates/ state housing around etc. The gun crime unfortunately is mainly the result of pathetic teenage boys who form little 'posses' and roam the streets because their parents don't give a fig about where they are anyway. This has led to 'postcode' wars...gangs stepping over an imaginary line into another gangs 'territory'..which naturally means that they deserve to die *deadpan stare*.

So in my post I did mean 'gun-play' to mean kids pointing a finger and saying 'bang-bang', but also I see the kids who are using the REAL guns and think to myself...to them it IS just all PLAY still. They have no clue about the severity of their actions or of the value of human life. Just this week a fifteen year old boy got stabbed to death at my local fast-food joint because he was 'cutting his eyes' at another boy (from what I can decipher from the children I work with, this phrase basically means 'looking'). A child was murdered by another child for looking at him. There is obviously something deeply wrong with our culture when you consider this...so what to do?

For me; although I am not against 'play-fighting' per se, I feel that the most important thing we can do is to try and highlight the severity of gun crime...the terrible nature of taking a human life. Now it would be nice if we could just discuss this with the children we teach. It would be nicer if parents took more of a responsibility for the growth and development of their own young. However, the fact remains that neither of these ideals are likely to manifest themselves in 'real life'. Therefore the most 'efficient' technique for conveying this message in a school setting IS to stigmatise guns and therefore using guns. It is not a perfect method, and I can see how others may argue it could lead to the 'glorification' of guns for some, yet what other choices are there?

It is something that really frustrates me in this country. Before I came here I was living in Africa and so saw gun crime on a daily basis...real crime as well as boys playing at criminals. Except over there gun crime always had a 'purpose'! Yes, that pupose would still be 'illegal'..mainly theft, of course (!), but in a roundabout way I could always understand why these people resorted to using guns. In England there is no purpose. Young boys are killing just for the sake of killing. The country appears to be losing all sense of the morals or ethics that underpinned their laws and society..that put the 'Great' in Great Britain. More's the pity, hey?