Skip to main content

What would reduce gun violence? More corporal punishment says one person...

I read a letter-to-the-editor in the Columbus Dispatch today, which, three hours later, still has me in a pose that you'll likely be able to find under "WTF" in the urban dictionary. The letter was written by Bruce Miller of Columbus, Ohio, entitled, "Gun violence rose from lack of discipline."

I'll allow Mr. Miller to explain his solution to the issue of gun violence himself, picking up at around the midway point of his letter:

"...How many Sandy Hook schools, Aurora, Colo., theaters and Charleston churches do we need for our government leaders to realize that gun control is not the answer? We need to bring back corporal punishment in the school system and at home.

As a 56-year-old, I can still remember times when I got the so-called 'board of education' at home and school, but today that is outlawed, at least in school. The young people growing up today do not have the discipline they need, yet they are the common denominator in much of today's violence.

The murder of four adults last week in South Linden, and the fact that a 16-year-old has been charged, is testiment to that. Government leaders need to reform the root of the problem while treating the symptom today."

I love how Mr. Miller believes a trend can be confirmed by one incident.

"Gun violence is all about the kids nowadays not getting enough discipline! Did you hear about that one 16-year-old that killed four adults last week? That just goes to show you!"

While he's at it, he might as well make the following claims:

- "Did you hear about that 3-year-old that accidentally shot his mother? Just goes to show you babies are cold-blooded killers and need to be shaken more!"

- "I read just the other day about this gay dude yelling at a neighbor's dog that bit him. What did I tell you? Homosexuality leads to the verbal abuse of animals!"

- "Didn't I tell you he was the greatest pitcher in the history of baseball? He couldn't have better illustrated that fact by getting the first batter out in the first inning of this game!

Secondly, how did the mass shootings Mr. Miller mentioned prove gun control isn't the answer? None of these incidents resulted in the federal government passing stricter gun control laws. President Obama did all he could with the power he had to prompt executive orders pertaining to gun violence, however, not even after 20 6- and 7-year-old kids were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary school did Congress pass stricter nationwide gun laws. So, his point is moot. He would have made just as much sense (meaning none at all) if he uttered the following line:

- "These gun crimes just go on to show that crack and heroin legalization in this country is not the answer!"

Finally, while some middle-aged to elderly adults still believe corporal punishment is the way to go, research is not on Mr. Miller's side here.

I just Googled "corporal punishment studies" and here are the top results:

- "Parent's Use of Physical Punishment Increases Violent Behavior Among Youth"

- "Physical punishment tied to aggression, hyperactivity"

- "Study links physical punishment of kids to adult mental disorders"

- "Hitting Kids Increases Their Risk of Mental Illness"

- "Physical Punishment and Mental Disorders"

I think you get the picture. There are hundreds of such printed studies which all say the same exact thing: An increase in corporal punishment leads to an increase in violent behavior and mental disorders.

So Mr. Miller and those like him may want to rethink their position. An increase in corporal punishment wouldn't decrease gun violence; it'd likely increase it. Let's also think a little more logically and consistently about such matters. How much sense does it make to believe hitting this nation's youth will decrease gun violence, yet passing stricter gun laws won't?

Mr. Miller: "What's with all this gun control talk? That's not going to do anything to decrease gun violence!"

A common sense voice in his head named Woodstock: "It's worked in states where it's been implemented and in other countries..."

Miller: "Whatever! That's NOT the answer!"

Woodstock: "Okay, so what is the answer?"

Miller: "Beating our kids again! At school, at home, everywhere!"

Woodstock: "Uh... Say what?"

Miller: "You heard me! With our hands, our belts, paddles, whatever we can find! We smack them hard and smack them good!"

Woodstock: "Wouldn't that lead kids to become more angry, to think violence is the answer, and thereby be more prone to being violent themselves?"

Miller: "Uh..."

Exactly...

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2015/07/02/1-gun-violence-rose-from-lack-of-discipline.html

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=corporal+punishment+study

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...