another school shooting!!!

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

This is just plain ignorant.

There is no evidence that a private school is any safer than a public school the fact of the matter is that it can happen anywhere. Take that school shooting in PA for example. They were Amish and were still targeted. The only way to combat this is to stop reporting it in the news and sensationalizing it.

Just because a school is an alternative school does not instantly make them hoodlums, washouts, druggies, lazy or any other catagory. It sounds like this school was technology based as opposed to a traditional school at least according to its own homepage and mission statement.
i meant to say "home school" instead of "private school" but regardless, the school shooting was by a 38 year old male that hated the amish. so that doesn't really count.

and yes, alternatives school is because they are hoodlums, washouts, druggies, lazy, pregnant, dysfunctional, or just can't interact with society. the fact that this was an alternative school doesn't have a factor. but alternative schools are for the people who cannot operate in regular schools.
 
I am sorry your original post seemed to imply that you think/thought that private schools were safer and that every student in an alternative school is a hoodlum. Which is why I called it an ignorant statement.

My point is/was that a shooting can happen at any school regardless of age, race, or gender and the matter of the fact is that unless the school is on total lockdown you will always have a chance of a shooting in that school - public, private, or otherwise.

Secondly I am not sure why the designation of an alternative school always conjurs up images of druggies, lazy people or students that "can't hack it" in the regular school system. I am a public high school teacher and I will be the first to admit that the traditional school model does not work for everyone - Ed. Psych. 101 teaches you that the first week. That by no means gives anyone the right to label these kids in anyway shape or form.

The school where this happened was a business oriented school that used technology as a vehicle to help students achieve in the classroom. From what I have read the school was credited with a 94% graduation rate where the rest of the school district has a 55% graduation rate.

Another example would be any of the "sports" related high schools that are set up around the country. I have a student attending one out east because he is in the alpine skiing Olympic program.

What about any of the Polytechnic schools that are around? They are all by general definition an alternative school as they do not follow a traditional model.

Are these kids all dropout druggie losers/low achievers?

Please do not take this as an attack on you or you opinions I am just trying to have a discussion about this and to show that sometimes a stereotype is wrong as in the case here with "alternative schools."
 
ok, just so i have an understanding, can you explain something to me?

why would a student need to attend an alternative school?

In my eyes, these are students that for some reason are incapable of learning or interacting in a traditional sense of education. they are a minority of a minority and for some reason classified as special needs. I am an intelligent person and could expound on this for a long period of time. I was aware of the needs and application of the alternative schools available in my district when I was in high school, so i'm speaking from what I know, and I admit i don't know everything.
 
Ok I will try my best to explain this the best from both what I have learned and what I have in terms of experience.

The need for alternative schools is due to the fact that each student is unique in terms of the way they learn. You are correct for a vast majority of students the traditional model of school suits them just fine. They go to class everyday for four years and at the end of that four years they receive their diploma. There is however a group of learners that do not or cannot utilize this model of school whether it is due to phisical, mental or other factors.

In its most basic sense an alternative school is any school that does not follow the traditional model. There are a wide variety of these in the US today. I gave a few examples of them before. There are academies for sports, music, the arts and even technology and science. Julliard would be a great example of this. It allows students to focus on the arts along with focusing on their history and english. You can't get that in a traditional school model.

Going back to my student that is attending a ski academy out east. His daily schedule will consist of working with tutors for completing my schools graduation reqirements, along with taking coursework there, along with having blocks of time during the day to practice and take advantage of the weather. His main link will be email and a laptop. Aside from his skills in downhill skiiing he is no different than anyother kid in terms of learning capability. He would not be able to exist and train in a traditional school model.

Next I have a buddy who has a daughter that is totally blind. He is sending her to a school that specializes in children with vision disabilities. The school is totally normal in terms of curriculum but also infuses cane training and brail with their every day activities. Likewise his daugter is "normal" in terms of her abilities except she cannot see. Actually I would be able to go out on a limb and say she has above average intelligence. Once again would not be able to exist in a traditional school model.

You mentioned a phrase before - "special needs" - that I think gets really misused by people outside of education. I honestly believe that there are some people both parents and students alike that abuse and mislabel themselves all the time. I would love to get rid of this term all together but there ARE certain students who benifit from special education. LD, EBD, CD kids are in our schools and have every right to be there by law and no one can deny that they need special services to co exist with mainstream kids.

Another thing to think about is the fact that home schooling, charter schools, online schools, GED programs, and any of the other programs out there are all by defintion alternative schools. You cannot tell me that all of the students in these programs are prime examples of the labels you used before.

From the sounds of it the district you went to had a seperate school where they sent students that needed more attention, a "safer environment", or better services than what could be offered at you individual high school. I honestly believe that this is a great idea. Why wouldn't you group this portion of a high school population together to better serve them? I saves on money for the district by centralizing it, gives the students more access to people trained to teach them and it allows for a better chance at success. Most of theses types of schools have strict admission requirements for enrollment usually requiring testing and an experts referal. We don't look at a student from a Julliard type school in a negative light do we? It's the same concept

If we did not have these schools I am willing to bet we would have alot more of these incidents and drop out rates would be higher than they already are. To label these kids in a negative light is both dangerous and adding to the problem. My district is currently looking at starting one of these so that we can better serve our students. If the school districts can see these as a positive why can't the rest of us.

I am not sure how well I answered your question but I hope that if you have any more you feel free to ask. Further more I would maybe suggest taking some time out of your schedule to maybe look into these types of schools in your area and maybe volunteer there. I bet it would be very rewarding or at least educational as to what may be going on in those schools.

Here is a good link to a report on Alternative Education in America:

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411283_alternative_education.pdf
 
Last edited:
Agreed on the gun control, but the last thing we need right now is the loss of more constitutional rights. Banning guns is the exact opposite of the real solution.

It's ironic how a nation that prides itself on the right to bear arms is so uneducated and terrified of them. (Being terrified of things in general seems to be more american than anything else these days, but that's for another thread.) Take Switzerland... They have only a small army, and rely on militia for national defense. Almost all of their able-bodied men keep full military assault rifles in their homes, and are fully trained in their use. For those, they have strict amounts of ammunition that are tracked by the bullet to help prevent criminal use, but handguns aren't so tightly regulated (they try, but there are large loopholes where people can easily obtain unregistered ammo). Despite all this, their handgun murder rate is almost 4 times lower than ours, and that's even when you account for the population difference. A quick Google found a 1992 survey: The US had 13,429 handgun murders with a population of 254,521,000. That's 5.28 murders per 100,000 people. Switzerland had 97 handgun murders with 6,828,023 people, for a rate of 1.42 per 100,000.

Why? Guns are ingrained in Swiss society; they know how to use them, they respect them and treat them as what they are: tools. More effort needs to be put forth in this country to move us toward that same concept. Not fear and banning of guns, but an understanding and respect for guns. Instead of taking them away, if you put them in the right hands they can cancel out their own inherent negatives. The Founders knew this.
 
Last edited:
Agreed on the gun control, but the last thing we need right now is the loss of more constitutional rights. Banning guns is the exact opposite of the real solution.

It's ironic how a nation that prides itself on the right to bear arms is so uneducated and terrified of them. (Being terrified of things in general seems to be more american than anything else these days, but that's for another thread.) Take Switzerland... They have only a small army, and rely on militia for national defense. Almost all of their able-bodied men keep full military assault rifles in their homes, and are fully trained in their use. For those, they have strict amounts of ammunition that are tracked by the bullet to help prevent criminal use, but handguns aren't so tightly regulated (they try, but there are large loopholes where people can easily obtain unregistered ammo). Despite all this, their handgun murder rate is almost 4 times lower than ours, and that's even when you account for the population difference. A quick Google found a 1992 survey: The US had 13,429 handgun murders with a population of 254,521,000. That's 5.28 murders per 100,000 people. Switzerland had 97 handgun murders with 6,828,023 people, for a rate of 1.42 per 100,000.

Why? Guns are ingrained in Swiss society; they know how to use them, they respect them and treat them as what they are: tools. More effort needs to be put forth in this country to move us toward that same concept. Not fear and banning of guns, but an understanding and respect for guns. Instead of taking them away, if you put them in the right hands they can cancel out their own inherent negatives. The Founders knew this.


:thumbsup:

well said

rep for you
 
A quick Google found a 1992 survey: The US had 13,429 handgun murders with a population of 254,521,000. That's 5.28 murders per 100,000 people. Switzerland had 97 handgun murders with 6,828,023 people, for a rate of 1.42 per 100,000.

And then look at the same stats for Japan...where guns have been banned since like the 50's....

Country Handgun Murders 1992 population Handgun Murder Rate
( per 100,000 )
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05


GUNS - Myths, Facts and Statistics - continued
 
Not contending that Switzerland has a high murder rate (albeit nothing compared to the US), but Switzerland is one of the few countries on the list where guns aren't either outright banned, or practically so. It takes what would be considered a crime in our country (denial of a basic and constitutional freedom) to achieve those numbers, and history has proven over and over that trading liberty for safety is never a good thing in the long run. If a loved one of mine were harmed by a firearms crime, my reaction would not be 'Why aren't guns banned?', but 'As a law abiding citizen, why was my loved one not able to protect his or her self?'


A useful quote:

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
-- Jeff Snyder, Oct 20, 1994
 
Last edited:
why was my loved one not able to protect his or her self?'

well...if nobody but the armed forces and cops had guns...then why would she/he need a gun to protect themselves when tazers and knives are available?...or martial arts?

And for the people who think they have a right to bear arms...you adding to the fire to firepower for the criminals.

Japan has about half the population as the states...now double their number of gun deaths and they wouls still have an annual rate of about 120 people. And a percentage of 0.1% per 100,000 people.


Now argue that America has 13,429 deaths compared to the speculated 120 deaths that Japan would have.....in 1992...

welcome to 2007...where it's glamorous to do mass shootings...
 
Last edited:
banning guns does not remove them from physical existence. if someone wants a gun they will find one. look at DC.

when you find the 'gun eliminator' let me know. til then, i'm keeping my p228 and my 4 mags handy.
 
every city has the ability to train dogs to sniff gunpowder...and if a known criminal that has any prior convictions of violence can easily have their house and property searched by said dogs. And legislation should pass stricter laws like Florida has tried...have a gun in a crime...go to prison for 5 years, use a gun in a crime and get 10 years...kill someone with a gun during a crime and get life with no parole.

If you are actually a law abiding citizen that wished to bear arms...then bare them safely in a safe locked up in a house where kids and criminals can't get to them. And raise the price of bullets to more than what a pack of ciggs cost....or more.
 
And raise the price of bullets to more than what a pack of ciggs cost....or more.

have you priced ammo lately? that one is taken care of. as for the rest, i'm a responsible gun owner; the only projectile weapon others can get at in my hizzous is mah airsoft p226 ;)

i use it to scare my parrot when he screeches. and it works.
 
I grew up in New Mexico, my father was an advid gun collector, and my mom always had a .22 revolver next to her...hell, I've got a nice collection as well...but I gave them to my dad. But once I lived in Japan...saw the difference in cultures, and felt actually safe in one of the slums in the biggest city over there....thats when I no longer felt the need to have a gun. I haven't touched or fired a gun since I was 21, and now I'm 35...and still have no need or want for one...and I've lived in a slummy area in CT..and still didn't feel the need for one.
 
i grew up in New Mexico too, and I've lived in some rough places all over this country. I've never used my gun against another human or animal. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the gun or know how to use it; it just seems irresponsible to let criminals know more about something than i, as a law-abiding citizen, do.
 
And your going to be in a situation one day where you have it, a bad guy will do something threatening towards you, and you've never been trained to actually pull the trigger to inflict harm towards a person...and your brain is going to freeze...and he's just going to grab the gun right out of your hand and use it on you....

or your going to use it on them due to a rush of adrenalin, and he was prolly a guy just wanting to bum a cig...and now your a murderer.

both cases happen everyday... a tazer or pepperspray will give you the chance to get away...and it will not put the person in the ground....if your only reason for owning a gun is for self defense...then think about what the good and the bad can be. And if your emotionally stable and ready to accept the final outcome that will happen.
 
urgh. there's no compromise with you, which is fine. and i in general like most of your posts. but i'm just not going to agree with your stance on this, which is also fine.

i took the CCW course and passed; i regularly go to the range and practice; i make smart choices on where to go and when so that i don't find myself in crappy sitches that may require gun usage; but i feel i could do what is necessary to halt a crime i happen to walk into. the goal is not to use the weapon, but to be comfortable and secure with the idea of using it, and to know the consequences, and to bear the responsibility, along with the right to participate in our society.

i'm pretty much done here as beating dead horses only makes for a bloody fist.
 
small game season opens saturday, I'm gonna take my 12ga and go assisaniate some furry little critters.
 
Spoken like someone who's never once been in a real life violent altercation.

That's why I refuse to argue this point any further. You will never get through to people who have their heads both in the clouds and in the sand at the same time.

:blah::deadhorse:
 
Back
Top