~Vladimir Lenin

Unfortunately, school shootings have become ever more common in this modern age, especially in the United States. Instead of responding with shock and astonishment like in the New Haven school shooting, today we almost feel numb to new school shootings that happen almost so much more often today. Although the 18 number is misleading- many of those 18 really refer to shootings that happened to happen around schools instead of when school is in session itself, the amount of school shootings defined as “occurring inside a school while in session” is still far higher than ever before. Just today, a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas left many casualties and injuries, as well as a sense of fear.

In response to particularly one of the shootings, Parkland, many students in the country wanted stricter gun control laws. In a lot of ways, this concept does make sense- make it harder for criminals to get guns, so less will have guns. However, today, we will focus on an issue that has less to do with gun control and more to do with the vulnerability associated with schools.

In schools, there are often from 500 to over a thousand students that, for seven hours a day, crowded in one building along with 50-100 staff members. The entire school is usually unarmed- meaning that a shooter could possibly stay active for a long time, especially if law enforcement outside of schools refuse to go in, like in Parkland. Can we really trust the lives of thousands of students and staff on several law enforcement officers? A lot are brave and would risk themselves to save students and teachers inside the school, like the police officer stationed outside Santa Fe High School did, but others, like Parkland’s law enforcement, did not engage.

In most schools, the typical choice of action is either to go into lockdown or to escape the area. I remember once, when I was in high school and a lockdown drill was issued, my teacher saying “If something like this was really happening, I’m not about to sit here and wait for us to get killed.” I agreed with a lot of the class- we really shouldn’t have been sitting there hoping that we would come out alive. Running isn’t that much better- bullets travel faster than feet and the chaos that ensures could actually be even more deadly. The fact is, our schools really being so defenseless really makes them vulnerable to such attacks. No matter whether we have extremely strict gun regulations or loose ones, many criminals will find a way to obtain a gun (like in Germany, where over 80% of all weapons are illegal, over 20 million of them), and our schools would be as defenseless as ever.

We need to solve this relative defenselessness of schools. Other than one or two officers stationed outside who may or may not want to get involved, the school really doesn’t have a way of subduing a shooter until police arrive, which could be anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes. Even the police may not rush in as soon as they arrive.

Perhaps, arming teachers may be an option. Of course, this process would have to be heavily enforced. We do not want situations like this:

https://nypost.com/2018/02/28/teacher-with-gun-sparks-school-lockdown/

To ever happen to our schools again. However, if we only allow teachers who pass a comprehensive mental exam along with physical tests to wield a firearm, school shootings could possibly be over earlier. People like the football coach in Parkland and the subduer of the shooter at the Waffle House are heroes, whether they admit it or not, for putting their own lives at risk to subdue a dangerous criminal who might harm or kill others. If the football coach had a firearm, he could have potentially walked away with his life, while being able to successfully subdue the shooter. If the disarmer of the Waffle House shooting had one, he could have potentially had a much safer time than the dangerous, yet courageous stunt he did.

School Shootings can be one of the most tragic events in the news. The horrifying reality of potentially a school a few miles down the road being next is all too common, due to the vulnerability and safety issues schools have. Perhaps, with physically qualified and mentally-stable teachers being able to defend students, schools can become more secure and safe.

But, really, what is Hate Speech? The most obvious answer would be- speech that is hateful. But what constitutes as hateful? And isn’t freedom of speech protected under our Bill of Rights?

I could say “Man, I love peanut butter” and a mom with a child allergic to peanut butter could assume that as “hate speech.”

Last week, I overheard a couple of college girls who were mad about somebody wearing a “Straight Pride” shirt on campus. One of them said “We should report this to the principal for hate speech.” Hate Speech? Or just mad that somebody doesn’t agree with them?

Unfortunately, “Hate Speech” is used too much today to undermine someone with a different opinion.

One of my favorite YouTube channels is MikeTheCop, a former police officer who exposes myths about law enforcement. He’s really helped me understand why police officers do what they do, although sometimes I may not agree with him. A week or two ago, I watched a video of his called “Cop Written Up For Mis-Gendering Driver.” The video was about a police officer who mistakenly checked the wrong gender for someone he had pulled over. Mike expresses his opinion in this issue in his video, and a few days later, I find out that the video was taken down for Hate Speech.

“Really?” Was my first response. Nowhere in his video did he attack anybody, the driver, the cop, or anyone else. Yet, his video was taken down and a strike given to him.

Here is his response video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_I2rmojn_g&t=5s

Unfortunately, you can’t see his original, because, obviously, YouTube thought it was too offensive.

The simple fact is, “Hate Speech” is up to the eye of the beholder, the person or organization in charge. The reason why the First Amendment was made was to combat the censorship that so many other countries at the time had, and many still have today. Voltaire, a French philosopher who promoted freedom of speech, was thrown into the Bastille for expressing his opinions. Do we want a world where someone can punish you for not agreeing with them? To censor people because of Hate Speech directly crosses the very concept of Freedom of Speech.

But what about “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?”

While it is true that speech that could be hateful can potentially infringe upon someone’s pursuit of happiness, should such speech be banned because of precisely that? If that was the case, each of our 350 million people in the United States would have to be polled and any words they found offensive would be put on a national word blacklist. If that was the case, something as simple as “I like America” could put somebody in jail since some illegal immigrant from Mexico thinks its offensive. Even worse, saying “I like Doritos” could be offensive to somebody who swears by Lays chips. We really can’t have both. We either can have safety or freedom. We really can’t have both.

In honesty, the best thing to do against hate speech is not to censor it, but to present a strong argument against it. We don’t teach the world about the evils of Nazism by censoring Nazi symbols or ideas, but by teaching the world about fairer and more just ideals.

I hope we can handle our freedom.

Back when I was in the 6th Grade of Middle School, there was a special coding class for programming that seemed to be a lot of fun. Guess what, it was for girls only (and I was a boy). Yes, that’s right. Hypocritical, isn’t it. Girls only, in a supposed equal nation sexually.

I want these opportunities to be guarded by only my ability, not my race, gender, or my person in general otherwise. This means, instead of having these girls only opportunities give out to make equality, I want these opportunities to be given out equally, so the real judgement depends on their abilities.

When Martin Luther King Jr. made his rousing “I Have A Dream” speech, he said these words:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Notice, he particularly emphasized that pure equality was not practical, as he said that everybody should be judged by their content of their character, not by their skin color. This means the same for gender as it does for race. This particular class I am talking about is judging people by their gender, even if it has the intention of making equality. In other words, they are making inequality by trying to be equal. The real solution of equality is to try to give the same opportunities for everyone. We should strive to give everybody the same opportunity rather than give one gender, race, or otherwise an advantage over another.

More stuff will be posted later in the week, real news, not just this weird message.