Connect with us

Politics

Are Schools More Dangerous for Children Now? The Stats Might Surprise You

A lot of hyperbole is being thrown around that schools are more dangerous for our children than ever before.

Published

on

As we struggle as a nation to once again find answers to the disturbing and horrific trend of mass school shootings, a lot of hyperbole is being thrown around that schools are more dangerous for our children than ever before.

“It’s been happening everywhere,” said a very shaken Paige Curry, interviewed by the media shortly after the shooting at her high school in Santa Fe, Texas on Friday. “I was thinking it was going to happen eventually.”

This statement shook many concerned parents and citizens to their core: are our children expecting to be killed at school now?

Trending: City Unanimously Rejects US Flag Mural In Front of State House, But Pushes Through BLM Artwork

It is easy to understand why Ms. Curry thinks this way, considering the way we as a nation react to school shootings. We understandably tend to stop everything and focus on the horrific crime, wondering how on earth we could let this continue to happen.

take our poll - story continues below

Trump or Biden, who will win?

  • Why wait until November 3? Show all of America who you're voting for in 2020  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

While the images of a heartbroken community paying homage to the young victims of the latest shooting is evocative and tragic, and we certainly need to address the root cause of these shootings as a nation, their prevalence is not necessarily indicative of an overall trend, The Washington Times reports.

While Secretary of Education under Obama, Arne Duncan, dramatically suggested this week a nationwide boycott of schools until “common sense gun reform” is passed, statistics show this isn’t necessarily the best approach to keeping children safe from homicide.

“If safety is the goal, then keeping children in school is likely better than the boycott Mr. Duncan is proposing,” The Washington Times’ David Sherfinski explains. “The National Center for Education Statistics, looking at numbers from the 2014-2015 school year, found that less than 2 percent of homicides involving school-age children occurred at school.”

“From 1992 to 2015, the total was less than 3 percent, the center found,” he continues, adding “Children spend more than 13 percent of their time at school.”

The narrative on the left, is, of course, rife with misperceptions about just how unsafe schools are in the wake of a trend of mass school shootings. Simple common sense dictates that, as tragic as it is, less than two dozen students and teachers killed in a handful of annual incidents does not in any way indicate our schoolchildren are at serious risk of being killed in a mass shooting on their school campus.

In fact, The Washington Post reports, “the statistical likelihood of any given public school student being killed by a gun, in school, on any given day since 1999 was roughly 1 in 614,000,000. And since the 1990s, shootings at schools have been getting less common.”

So perhaps rather than rely on dramatic, fear-mongering rhetoric, we need to look at the deeper reasons behind school shootings and a culture of death and violence that drives these young men to commit these acts. However rare, it’s hard to imagine school shootings will end any time soon, and however safe our schools already are, securing them further would be a very good place to start.

 

Save conservative media!

News

New Report Reveals Ohio Democratic Party Received $300K In Federal Coronavirus Relief Loan

Published

on

The whole point of the Paycheck Protection Program that was put together earlier this year at the beginning of the lockdowns put in place due to the coronavirus was supposed to provide relief for small businesses who would be left devastated by the sudden and massive loss of income that would come about as a result of these safety measures. However, it seems the Ohio Democratic Party received a sizable chunk of cash to keep them going too. Now that doesn’t seem right, does it? via The Washington Examiner: Campaign finance reports show that the loan, amounting to $333,867, was approved by the U.S. Small Business Administration on April 30, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. In May, a tweet critical of the Trump administration’s program was posted on the group’s official Twitter account. “With so many small businesses shut out from receiving PPP loans ⁠— while nearly 300 publicly traded companies received more than $1 billion from the program⁠ — local governments across Ohio are stepping up to help small businesses, which are often the center of their communities,” the tweet read. https://twitter.com/OHDems/status/1262735869628297217 A spokeswoman for the party came out and actually attempted to defend their receiving the federal funds by saying 20 jobs were saved. “The purpose of the Paycheck Protection Program is to help organizations cover payroll and benefits, and that’s precisely what it has been used for ⁠— to ensure our entire team continued to work and earn a paycheck and retain their health coverage during an unprecedented public health crisis,” Kirstin Alvanitakis said. The Ohio Republican Party slammed the Democrats for taking the money. Evan Machan, the Ohio GOP spokesman, said, “We did not need to apply for these funds. Under the leadership of Chairman Timken, our financial situation is strong, and we were never at…

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s Campaign Developing New Strategy To Draw Big Crowds To Rallies; ‘Can’t Have Repeat Of Tulsa’

Published

on

President Trump’s rally that was held in Tulsa, Oklahoma was super hyped up by media outlets across the Internet with expectations of crowd attendance being astronomically high. As it turns out, not many folks actually showed up to the event, something that deflated Trump’s campaign a bit and has now prompted them to change direction. The new strategy the campaign is looking to employ includes increased safety measures to make folks feel comfortable enough to attend the event, as many believe fear of the coronavirus prevented many individuals from attending the Tulsa rally. Here’s more on this from The Washington Examiner: “We can’t have a repeat of Tulsa,” a campaign official told NBC News, referring to Trump’s upcoming rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, this Saturday. The president’s rallies resume as many states grapple with upticks in coronavirus cases, prompting state and local leadership to halt reopenings and introduce new public health orders to prevent the spread of the virus. Unlike the indoor venue the campaign chose for its Tulsa rally, the president will make his appearance in an open-air airport tarmac hangar this weekend. Health experts have said outdoor events are less risky than large gatherings indoors, but also stress that the virus can still be spread. An official from the White House noted that Trump understands that people may not come out the way they did in 2016 due to fears over catching COVID-19. When the rally was held in Tulsa, masks were offered to those who showed up to the event, but many of them didn’t bother to wear them. Several staffers and a couple of prominent attendees ended up testing positive for the coronavirus. Masks are apparently going to be strongly encouraged at the New Hampshire rally, though the campaign said they will not be mandated.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

 
Send this to a friend