chuck green
But what about the parents?
By Chuck Green
Denver Post Columnist
March 1 - Upon hearing news that a 6-year-old boy shot a 6-year-old girl to death in a first-grade classroom Tuesday, the president of the United States issued his response while attending a Democratic fund-raising event in Florida.
According to The Associated Press, the president "decried the shooting and challenged Americans to take gun safety into consideration during this year's presidential elections." In other words, it's the government's fault. There need to be more laws.
For example:
Did the little boy have a concealand-carry permit?
Did the little boy purchase the weapon from an independent dealer after failing a background check by a licensed dealer at a gun show?
Did the little boy use false identification when purchasing the weapon?
Did the little boy use an illegal automatic weapon in the assault?
Did the little boy have an older person - possible a 9-year-old child - purchase the gun on his behalf?
Certainly, this tragedy must be government's fault because there aren't enough laws to control guns.
Certainly, it can't be the fault of the boy's parents.
Nothing is the fault of parents anymore. It's even become a fact of national policy - the president didn't even utter the words "parents" in his first reaction to the first-grade shooting in Michigan. All he talked about was the upcoming presidential election, as if politicians in Washington - not the killer's parents - are somehow responsible for what happened in a small school room in an obscure town called Mount Morris Township.
Certainly, it can't be the parents' fault.
Just ask Eric Harris' parents or Dylan Klebold's parents.
Of course, we can only imagine what they might say, since they have been hiding behind their lawyers for the last 10 months. They aren't talking to you or to me any more than they apparently talked to their own kids before the two teenagers massacred 13 people at Columbine High School last April.
It isn't that they haven't had the opportunity. Since the day of the murders, any journalist in the world would be willing to provide them a global amplifier. But they'd just prefer to sit back and listen to the president suggest that the answer to society's problems is more laws, not more parenting.
And that brings me to this:
Thirty years ago, when there was more parenting and fewer gun laws, there were far, far fewer kids killing people.
Why do you suppose it is that no politician is suggesting that the solution to America's ills reside in the kitchen rather than in the Congress?
It might just be that pollsters are telling candidates that voters believe the truth hits too close to home.
...
It is nice to see our views reflected in the paper. Now if only we could get cover stories. But I'll settle for more commentaries for now.
Erik
But what about the parents?
By Chuck Green
Denver Post Columnist
March 1 - Upon hearing news that a 6-year-old boy shot a 6-year-old girl to death in a first-grade classroom Tuesday, the president of the United States issued his response while attending a Democratic fund-raising event in Florida.
According to The Associated Press, the president "decried the shooting and challenged Americans to take gun safety into consideration during this year's presidential elections." In other words, it's the government's fault. There need to be more laws.
For example:
Did the little boy have a concealand-carry permit?
Did the little boy purchase the weapon from an independent dealer after failing a background check by a licensed dealer at a gun show?
Did the little boy use false identification when purchasing the weapon?
Did the little boy use an illegal automatic weapon in the assault?
Did the little boy have an older person - possible a 9-year-old child - purchase the gun on his behalf?
Certainly, this tragedy must be government's fault because there aren't enough laws to control guns.
Certainly, it can't be the fault of the boy's parents.
Nothing is the fault of parents anymore. It's even become a fact of national policy - the president didn't even utter the words "parents" in his first reaction to the first-grade shooting in Michigan. All he talked about was the upcoming presidential election, as if politicians in Washington - not the killer's parents - are somehow responsible for what happened in a small school room in an obscure town called Mount Morris Township.
Certainly, it can't be the parents' fault.
Just ask Eric Harris' parents or Dylan Klebold's parents.
Of course, we can only imagine what they might say, since they have been hiding behind their lawyers for the last 10 months. They aren't talking to you or to me any more than they apparently talked to their own kids before the two teenagers massacred 13 people at Columbine High School last April.
It isn't that they haven't had the opportunity. Since the day of the murders, any journalist in the world would be willing to provide them a global amplifier. But they'd just prefer to sit back and listen to the president suggest that the answer to society's problems is more laws, not more parenting.
And that brings me to this:
Thirty years ago, when there was more parenting and fewer gun laws, there were far, far fewer kids killing people.
Why do you suppose it is that no politician is suggesting that the solution to America's ills reside in the kitchen rather than in the Congress?
It might just be that pollsters are telling candidates that voters believe the truth hits too close to home.
...
It is nice to see our views reflected in the paper. Now if only we could get cover stories. But I'll settle for more commentaries for now.
Erik