Discussions / Live Q&A’s

You make two important points, and I would also offer one corrective.

First, you wisely point out that at least much more often than not, zero-tolerance programs lead to foolish and even dangerous rigidity, even undermining the very society they were intended to aid.

Second, you point out the the age of the "offender" should be taken into greater consideration.  Also seems more than reaonable as we typically do that even when kids use real pistols, not pastries.

The corrective?  That the issue is not simply one of addressing physical safety -- at least not in school.  Schools are educational settings, and as such, are about nurturing the healthy development of the students, not simply assuring their physical safety.  As such, one could reasonable argue that some response was in order here, but something punitive?  That just seems wrong.  and something as strong as a suspension?  That just seems nuts!

Unless you are offering yourself as an example of the the results of bad education, you may want to check the difference between "are children", as wrote, and "our children", which is what I think you intended.  Don't get me wrong, I am terrible speller so I make mistakes like that all the time.  The difference between you and I is that I don't blame supposedly incompetent teachers for everything that goes wrong -- at school or elsewhere.

You are simply factually in error regarding the 80% of NY HS grads not being able to read, as you are about how unqualified teachers are.  They are not perfect to be sure, and the public schools of this country are beset with a variety of problems including problems with some teachers, but what that has to do with this case, I am not sure.

You are half right.  We both over act and over re-act, each one encourages the other.  We have a mass shooting in a school and then toss kids out of school for "toting" pastry-shaped pistols.  

A comment made by a parent in another case such as this one when objecting to their kid's suspention:  "It's not like we don't know guns are bad.  We do". Whoa!

We will NEVER have reasonable gun laws in this country if the debate is lead, as it now often is, by those who think guns are inherently good, and those who think they are inherently bad.  Guns are however, dangerous and we need people to acknowledge that too.

Flexibility and the brains to use it.  You are a wise 68 year old woman -- even if you can't make pastry art! 

I think the brittleness we are seeing -- on both sides of this issue -- is driven by the incredible fear and mistrust which permeates so much of our culture.  Unless we address that, then it will be hard to follow your advice.  Let's hope that conversations like this help.

We agree about the "rightous anger", at least about it being misplaced, but please don't allow understand of the fear people feel post-Sandy Hook, to become an excuse for foolish rules, foolishly applied.  This is especially important as you must know that this case is being trotted out to scare people about the "real intentions" of all people who support stricter gun laws.  So ironically, in the name of getting guns out of school, the school gave a great counter-argument to their own opponents!

I am not sure that I like your assumptions any better than hers!  And the reason that I did not mention it, is simply that I can't take the time to respond to every element of each comment or question.

Interestingly, and disturbingly to me, your two sets of assumptions reflect a new trend in America:  we have few gun owners and yet own, as a nation, far more guns.  Actually, that should trouble us all as it reflects a growing polarization over an issue -- gun violence -- that will require everyone at the table, and everything on the table, if we hope to address it meaningfully.

I don't know about them preventing the little boy from learning, but you are right that too often we make rules when we feel powerless to do anything else, and implement them most strictly when we feel most out of control.

It would have been interesting to use the pastry gun incident as way to talk to the kids about guns, what real fears they may have in light of stories they know or have heard the adults in their lives discussing.  Certainly, no good came from throwing a liitle kid out of school because he played with his food!  Not to mention that the "offending pastry" was supplied by the school's breakfast program!  Maybe the school should be held accountable for arming minors, or at least for providing "weapons grade materiel"!!

You are making a real and important distinction.  Toy guns can, and often do, look very real.  And if that is true, as it has been for trained police officers, imagine how real they can look to other kids.  Clearly not the case with a jam-filled treat. 

BTW, especially when dealing with kids, a BB gun is plenty real.  No, not typically as devastating as one which fires bullets, but catch a bb in the eye and you will be devastated by the results.

It is a serious question because it is being taken seriously enough to warrant being fought over in court.  So, like it or not, it reflects some real tensions and terrors -- some well-placed and others not, about guns in our society.  THAT'S why a case that should have been seen as silly, wasn't, and that is why we are taking this conversation very seriously.

You see, I think that the point.  When people who are okay with weapons talk about "hounding" other human beings and "making their lives a living hell", lot's of other folks get nervous, and not entirely without reason.

As someone who acknowledges that guns both take and save lives -- though the latter is mostly achieved by taking or threatening to take yet other lives -- you would do well to make your case in a less threatning way.  That is, of course, unless you want those who may disagree with you about guns, to have their worst fears about gun-supporters confirmed and sight even harder to curtail what I bet you think of as constitutional rights.  In other words, you are working against yourself.

Well, since we elect those who govern, if gov't is not, as you claim, good at common sense, then we should all look in the mirror.  The gov't is us! 

Of course, you are correct that we often confuse what is commonly or widely believed with that which is truly sensible.  In that vein, I would sugges that whatever view one takes regarding the issue of guns, it't worth re-checking you assumptions i,e, the "common sense" of your community and those who share your views.  In both camps, we see plenty of example where nobody wants anything like facts to make them reconsider an already fiercely held position. 

100% correct.  While there are examples of zero-tolerance positions for a few things, they are mostly examples of what you describe so well -- excuses for not taking the time and thought needed to work out policies that make sense, accept that context counts, and that rarely are any two cases exactly the same.

It's not that am opossed to rules and norms.  In fact, without them, we come apart, both as individuals and as a society.  But the more norms and rules we have, the more interpreters and interpretations we need.  It's arguably the animate premise behind our Constitutional system, and with all of it's flaws, it's a pretty good system!

Wow, you threw me a curve!  I thought you would have said that there seems to be some fascination that most, if not all, kids have with guns.  Actually there is plenty of evidenc to support that conclusion.  Instead you made a claim that it's society's fault.  Unfortunately, for you, there is less evidence of that, or that kids interest in guns necessarily leads to violence.

Let me be clear, I am a supporter of stronger AND smarter gun laws.  Any argument that places the reason for any complex issue -- be it gun violence or child development -- in one place only, is playing a very dangerous game. 

Simple answers to complex questions are seductive, especially when the question is as scary as gun violence.  They promise to make the problem go away.  Unfortunately, simple answers to complex questions are also almost always wrong.  I really hope that everyone from those who imagine that we need no legislation regarding weapons, to those who defend the absurdity of punishing a little boy for "brandishing" a pastry -- however it is shaped -- bear that in mind.