Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So if a child throws a stone at your child , the teacher should not take the stone away, (Original Post) farminator3000 Dec 2012 OP
Either that, or hire more people to watch the kiddos with rocks in their hands. TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #1
I respectfully disagree etherealtruth Dec 2012 #5
As a compromise, might I suggest a good guy with a rock? (nt) Posteritatis Dec 2012 #8
I say potato. slackmaster Dec 2012 #2
Wow xoom Dec 2012 #3
Or ban all rocks? dkf Dec 2012 #4
It wouldn't make sense to "ban all stones" because stones have kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #9
Or hunt for food. God forbid that is ever needed but who knows. dkf Dec 2012 #10
There are two things going on: The stone, and the child. Gregorian Dec 2012 #6
You are touching on the sarisataka Dec 2012 #7
No. proud2BlibKansan Dec 2012 #11
However, that is not what happens ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #12

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)
5. I respectfully disagree
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:06 PM
Dec 2012

The answer would be to have those overseeing the children armed with guns.

More guns, more guns, more guns, more guns ...

Sorry I was channeling the gun nuts for a moment. I hate when that happens. All I can do is suggest more guns for every situation.

in all seriousness ... the NRA/ gun nuts really and truly can't see the how irrational their responses are. It is frightening.

 

kestrel91316

(51,666 posts)
9. It wouldn't make sense to "ban all stones" because stones have
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:17 PM
Dec 2012

many purposes, and killing people is probably one of their LEAST frequent uses. And this is aside from the fact that stones are ubiquitous and a part of earth.

Unlike guns, whose sole purpose is to kill people.

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
6. There are two things going on: The stone, and the child.
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:08 PM
Dec 2012

I see most discussions involve the stone, and rightfully so. I see almost no one willing to discuss the child. Or the parents of that child. Ultimately, the problem is not the stone.

I apologize that I used your thread to say this, because it is tangential to what you asked.

sarisataka

(18,774 posts)
7. You are touching on the
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 01:16 PM
Dec 2012

long term solution. One side ignores that as steadfastly as the others insist on 'more rocks'. Neither position solves the problem, just postpones it

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
12. However, that is not what happens
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:45 PM
Dec 2012

Under the Zero Tolerance mantra, the child attacked is considered just as guilty as the attacker.

They tried that on one of my daughters based on an off campus event. The school lost and some involved lost a fair amount of respect for it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So if a child throws a st...