I said that taking guns away from everyone was the wrong answer and you imply that I wasn't thinking but merely being a knee-jerk reactionary.
No, I was not implying, I was asking. Some people don't bother to read a thread, particularly if it is longer, before they post their own comments. Therefore I was questioning if your previous post was a reaction to this thread, or to the situation in general.
But nobody wants to do the right thing and make the commitments needed to help troubled kids. If the kids aren't troubled then they won't shoot up a school or something equally tragic.
No one can agree on how you help troubled kids. I don't think there is even a set criteria for what makes a kid troubled. I've read a few articles recently where people are saying that the reason that these things happen is that the government has taken god out of schools. Presumably, those people would think one of the ways to help troubled kids would be to put god back in schools. Many others would strongly disagree.
NO that wasn't a knee-jerk reaction and I am insulted that you would that it was purely reactionary. I tried to give a thoughtful comment or two and you dismissed it casually. On something this important, trust me that I wasn't being flippant or dismissive. On the other hand, you appeared EXACTLY that way.
You read way more into my question than was intended.
On the other hand, they don't raise nearly so much of a squawk about movies about assassins and hit men and wars. So the prudes must want us to be fighters, not lovers. Society is inconsistent and then wonders why we get kids who know violence but not love.
That is the way of capitalism. Money is king. If violent movies make money, then there will be a lot of violent movies. Society cannot be consistent because society is a collection of all individuals. As individuals, we have different morals, ethics, and beliefs. And those morals, ethics, and beliefs frequently change. It wasn't all that long ago that Rock n Roll was considered evil.
