METEA MEDIA

Filed under Editorial

Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






“Police! Police!” Armed officers filter into the classroom where piles of furniture sit, shielding everyone huddled in the corner. “Put your hands up,” They say as they scan the area. A sea of quivering arms lifts in the air. Sobs escape the mouths of classmates while phones buzz, noting frantic calls and texts from parents and other loved ones. One of the officers goes toward a girl laying on the floor. Scooping her up into his arms, she’s rushed out of the classroom and even more cries and shrieks can be heard spilling from peers. Bodies accompanied by blood pooling underneath can be seen lining the hallway as everyone is evacuated out of the building.

Taken from videos captured by students, images like this one have since been burned into the brains of those attending and teaching at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Nikolas Cruz walked inside the Parkland school at around 2:19 pm and then approximately 8 minutes later walked out having committed one of the deadliest school shootings in the United States on February 14, 2018, according to a report done by the New York Times. Cruz, carrying multiple behavioral warnings along with him throughout his life, was able to purchase an AR-15 style rifle at the ripe age of 18-years-old. This was the weapon he used to take the lives of 17 people on a day that was meant to spread love and joy. An individual known not only for his disturbing social media presence, but someone with a variety of complaints against him, claiming that he was “a school shooter in the making,” was able to legally get a hold of a gun and commit a mass shooting in an institution that is meant to facilitate learning and growth. In a place that should always feel safe.

On behalf of The Mane broadcast journalism staff, Ginan yearbook journalism staff, and The Stampede news journalism staff, we are speaking today in one voice: We want change.

Students have a right to feel safe in school and we need to enact laws that ensure that. Since the first mass school shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, killing 13 people and injuring 21, there have been 48 fatal K-12 school shootings, which have since taken the lives of 127 students and staff.

This is unacceptable.

Schools are supposed to promote education and positive discussion. Students should be worried about passing Trig, not surviving it. Guns have proven to be far too accessible for those who shouldn’t have them and something has to change in order to make our schools safe again. Life is precious and should not be taken senselessly. This is not a partisan issue. Laws need to be passed and regulations have to be put in place. Everyone can get behind the fact that our hallways should be filled with echoing school bells, not gunshots.

Students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School agree. In the two weeks they took off before returning to school after the attack, they managed to organize one of the largest anti-gun protests in the United States. They spent those two weeks raising their voices, calling out the National Rifle Association and those affiliated, and helping pass a bill that raises the age to buy firearms from 18 to 21 in the state of Florida. This is the first progression towards the efforts of gun control in almost nineteen years. On top of that, they mourned the 17 students and teachers they lost on Feb. 14.

In light of this renewed motivation to keep our public safe, empowered students across the map are organizing together in a nationwide student-led walkout today. The protests, serving as a memorial to those who lost their lives in the Parkland shooting, are also aiming to call upon legislators to make a change. While some schools are banning any form of protest and passing out disciplinary action for those who take part in it, other administrations are using this as an opportunity to teach their students about the importance of raising their voices.

Unfortunately, the topic of gun-control poses many heated conversations and starkly opposing opinions regardless of whether the debate is about school shootings or the rise of crime. Cries from the NRA and their supporters can be heard regarding everyone’s right to bear arms, but it’s important to keep in mind that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment was created when our constitution was signed in 1787 by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.

The constitution was framed at a time when the United States needed structure, shortly after the American Revolution, and this entailed forming a government that gave the people a voice. Creating gun control laws is not taking away the right of the Second Amendment, but rather abiding by that amendment for the purpose of safety in our country.

The point is not to change the structure that our country was built on. The point is to make our country safer and make schools a place where kids aren’t afraid to go.

We want to know why is it that the United States has the most national coverage for mass shootings in schools, but policies still have yet to follow. We are the only country that has not made any changes in legislation for there to be a visible decrease in shootings per year. According to a report done by CNN, “Americans own nearly half (48 percent) of the estimated 650 million civilian-owned guns worldwide.” Part of the problem is the easy access that citizens have to own a firearm.

We weren’t the first well-developed country to have a mass shooting, but we are one of the first well-developed countries that haven’t made any strides for change. There have been many proposals or plans for gun regulation but none of them ever got passed. The recent bill in Florida following the Parkland incident is only the first step in pushing Congress towards making more policies and making our educational facilities safe.

This is no longer a partisan issue, it has become a life or death issue.

Parents should feel confident sending their kids to school and that it is a safe environment for learning. How many more mass shootings have to take place before things truly start to change? This was the question that sparked the attention of Parkland students and led to a generational movement. Change and policy on guns are long overdue and students aren’t afraid to share their opinions. The voices of students are erupting and the only thing left is for our politicians to listen.

About the Photographer
Isabella Gonzales, Graphic Designer
Isabella Gonzales is a senior and a new graphic designer. This is her first year on staff and she is also on Metea’s varsity badminton team and National Art Honor Society. She enjoys photography, hiking, and doing the New York Times crosswords; however, when she’s not doing these things, you can find her on Instagram...
88 Comments

88 Responses to “Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can”

  1. Alexa Jordan on March 13th, 2018 11:17 pm

    This editorial is absolutely AMAZING. YOU have a voice Metea Valley! WE ARE CHANGE!

  2. johnny apple on March 15th, 2018 9:31 pm

    the sad fact that nobody at this school is realizing is the fact the not many people actually cared about the walkout. Most people just walked out just to skip class. It should have been done after school to show how many people actually cared about this.

  3. sebastian on March 14th, 2018 7:21 am

    man i like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Reality Doctor on March 14th, 2018 7:24 am

    So True.

  5. no on March 14th, 2018 7:31 am

    I would think that the constitution was supposed to be made not only for the present but also the future, oh wait, it is.

  6. Susan Dixon on March 14th, 2018 12:01 pm

    Have you heard of the First Amendment???

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  7. no on March 14th, 2018 3:04 pm

    Ok? I’m missing your point. What do you think would be a step closer to solving mass shootings?

  8. darkstripe on March 14th, 2018 1:43 pm

    you do realize the constitution was originally supposed to be rewritten every twenty years right

  9. Argument Analyst on March 14th, 2018 9:36 pm

    Using some of the key words of this comment, I ran a quick Google search on this. The first article was from the National Public Radio, a source known for having a liberal bias. The second article to come up was from The Flat Earth Society, which is a train wreck itself. The third article seemed a bit more reliable. However, the issue was addressed very briefly by quoting what Thomas Jefferson had said about the Constitution. The fact that I only saw this quote from Thomas Jefferson weakens this claim, considering the fact that the constitution was written by a conglomeration of the top government officials of the time. One opinion carries little weight. Even as I delved deeper into the research, nothing much came up about any of the other authors of the Constitution saying anything about rewriting it every twenty years. Granted, it is obvious that the constitution should change over time, but that’s what the amending process is for. If you so wish to respond to this with a counter-argument, be my guest. I appreciate your argumentation.

  10. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 7:18 am

    where is your proof of this?

  11. no on March 15th, 2018 7:41 am

    It wasn’t. Andrew Jackson simply believed it should. And whatever, I agree that the constitution needs to adapt as times change. However there’s no point in changing it if that change is useless and detrimental.

  12. tired on March 15th, 2018 7:38 am

    Ah yes, let’s listen to the wisdom of people with the advanced technology of the muskets. The dangerous weapon that was so inaccurate you had to line up a row of them to hit anything.
    My guy the constitution is 200+ years old, sensible legislation does not impede on anyone’s rights. It’s quiet literally been updated and interpreted from its founding. The 2nd amendment is one of the only things we take absolutely literally without exception. (Even the first amendment, randomly mentioned above, has limitations. Schenck v United States)
    Making it slightly harder to get a gun isn’t a ban, it’s not unconstitutional, it’s just common sense.
    If you’re deemed too dangerous to be in a school, you really should not be able to buy a weapon. It’s just ridiculous.

  13. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 11:31 am

    it’s odd that you mention common sense. wouldn’t be common sense to set up a constitution for the future instead of the present? well in case you didn’t know that’s what they did, they set it up for the future. and for the musket argument take it this way. what did the revolutionaries have? (muskets). what did the Brits have? (also muskets). it isn’t the fact they had muskets but the fact they had weapons that are the same to their enemy that are lethal and able to defend their land, liberty, and life. the only thing that has changed is the fact that we upgraded from musket to modern sporting rifle. but the ideology stays the same. if we control guns the way some are saying, then the criminals are gonna have all the ar-15s and AKs while the law abiding are stuck nothing

  14. no on March 15th, 2018 12:12 pm

    You can’t buy a gun if you’re dangerous. The reason Nicholas Cruz could is because the government failed at their job. The FBI was reported 33 times and they did nothing, even when he was shooting chickens in his backyard. The school police officer also abandoned his post and duty, simply staying outside the school as the shooting was taking place. And what do you mean by harder to get a gun? You can’t get one if you’re a felon, have any past criminal charges of violence, or if you’re mentally unstable. It’s a full background check my guy.

  15. me on March 14th, 2018 7:54 am

    I mean the law is very outdated and old fashioned. If you think about prohibition, which was later repealed, it was a product of its time. It just goes to show, maybe with enough public out-cry, we can make change.

  16. mae strip tywyll yn anabl on March 14th, 2018 9:33 am

    Those who wish to cause harm will find a means of doing so. No walk out will change violence, no gun law will stop shootings. There is no utopia, there will always be danger, this is a pathetic excuse to get out of class.

  17. r on March 14th, 2018 11:37 am

    Well said

  18. Susan Dixon on March 14th, 2018 12:04 pm

    I beg to differ. The rule of law can change things. It worked in Australia. It worked in Japan. And, it will work here, once we get people into office who care more about the citizens of this country than taking the NRA’s money.

  19. рука моего гуца on March 14th, 2018 1:35 pm

    I was birthed in an asian country and I will tell you that people will find ways to kill one way or another. There was a case where this kid got his head cut off in a subway right in public.

  20. Bree de Change on March 14th, 2018 8:47 pm

    Bacteria adapt to antibiotics. Just like that we adapt, we change. As a country it’s our job to make the dosages stronger and stronger. Until staphylococcus bacteria and gun violence stop plaguing society.

  21. bepis on March 14th, 2018 3:03 pm

    Well, the amount of actual violent crime didn’t decrease, it stayed around the same level. And what do you define as “working”?

  22. bepis 2: electric boogaloo on March 15th, 2018 6:15 pm

    Violent crime? Not particularly, as the decrease seen is consistent with what other countries without gun laws experienced as they came into the 21st century.. Mass shootings? Yes. Undeniably. Before the gun laws of 1996, Australia had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years prior to Port Arthur massacre and subsequent gun laws. In the years after, there were none (excluding family-related shootings that technically qualify as mass shootings due to the multiple victims; these do not really fit the sense of mass shootings in our discussion as they were done with a motive on a smaller and personal scale). The country went from a mass shooting every 0.72 years to completely eradicating them. The gun laws worked.

  23. Some Background info on March 14th, 2018 4:30 pm

    To start Susan you failed to address the statement that “Those who wish to cause harm will find a means of doing so.” which shows only a hatred for guns and not for unnecessary deaths.
    In Australia there was a growing hatred for gun deaths in the country after nearly 150 people were killed in the years running up to 1996. When 37 people were killed they decided enough was enough and they placed a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. While there is growing hatred for gun deaths in the US, it is not at a point where the majority of the population will support a massive gun ban.
    In Japan after the imperialist age ended in Japanese defeat in ww2 the country adopted a pacifist view. No one was supposed to have guns. The first guns were introduced for the police when the US (which was basically ruling the country) started requiring the police to have guns. Slowly people became allowed to own guns but only after major background checks.

    In both of these countries it is important to understand that guns were never a part of their identity and they have nothing anything like the 2nd amendment so the majority of citizens did not feel they were being striped of rights.

  24. Bree de Change on March 14th, 2018 8:52 pm

    Isn’t it a right being stripped away when a gunman shoots an innocent?
    The right to love who you want to love. The right to fight your fights and win your battles. The right to eat ice cream over the summer. The right to have children of your own. The right to share a Christmas dinner with your mom and dad, your aunts and uncles, your cousin brothers and sisters.

    The right to live?

    I think losing the right to own guns is a very small price to pay for the thousands of rights lost when a candle burns out.

  25. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 11:36 am

    All of those you just listed aren’t rights, they’re privileges. the only thing you listed was the right to live and how are we to protect that if we cant arm ourselves. the majority of people don’t want to take that vital right but there are terrorists, criminals, and mentally ill people who seek to take that from you and they will take it from you any way possible. they will acquire their weapons illegally if needed and proceed as if the law never existed. the only chance we have against them is to arm ourselves and protect our rights.

  26. Bree de Change on March 17th, 2018 4:09 pm

    People like that school shooter had the means to buy a gun, that is why that mass shooting happened. If we got rid of guns, we’d definitely see a drop in school shootings because a lot of these school shooters are amateurs, and they’re not going to go out of their way to go to get illegal arms if we make it extremely difficult.

    Think about how difficult it is to hijack a plane, it’s because it’s illegal. Also, why can’t everyone have atom bombs to protect themselves?

  27. Talen Horton-Tucker on March 14th, 2018 12:37 pm

    What u finna do? you talking crazy asl ofn

  28. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 8:03 am

    congratulations, you did absolutely nothing to help the conversation, if you are going to post make it worthwhile and start a discussion

  29. anonymous on March 14th, 2018 12:48 pm

    Then why has every country that has imposed stricter gun laws had success in reducing mass shootings? The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year period from 1979 to 1996 but none in the succeeding 19 years, is worth examining. The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons. According to the Australian Coalition for Gun Control, should the mass shooting rate have continued beyond 1996, there should’ve been about 16 more. But there weren’t. There were none.

    The US and gun control right now is like being on fire and trying to use fire to stop the fire despite all the evidence pointing to water putting out fire. Gun control stops mass shootings, not more guns. That has been proven time and time again. THIS is what we’re walking out for. To indicate that we’re just trying to get out of school is ludicrous. There’s a problem that needs fixing, and we have to make it happen.

  30. no on March 15th, 2018 8:07 am

    Gun crime decrease, but actual violent crime didn’t. More people are saved by guns in america then killed and most gun violence actually occurs in gun free zones.

  31. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 8:14 am

    gun control will not stop mass shootings. Period. there are millions of guns in America and probably a million “assault rifles” (as some people like to call it) alone in the US, if someone wanted a gun they could get one. even if you try and restrict the availability it will only hurt those who follow the law and put them at risk for a host of other things. there is a massive influx of illegal black market weapons available to the mentally ill. Guns are not the problem but rather how we look at mental health. psychiatrists are rare and barely active in schools where they are needed the most. Teen health is an understated issue among schools, probably even a worse problem than school shootings (it may have to do with the fact that it is the cause of school shootings being that almost every school shooter had a background of mental instability).

    and stop bringing up the using fire on fire argument, it’s an analogy that makes absolutely zero sense to the topic. a person with a gun cannot be compared to an elemental force. fire cant prevent a shooting or start one so stop using the analogy

  32. darkstripe on March 14th, 2018 1:42 pm

    we banned arson but people still set things on fire. so we shouldn’t ban arson anymore according to this logic because it’ll happen anyway! besides, who knows, a good guy with a fire might stop a bad guy with a fire!

  33. anonymous on March 14th, 2018 9:58 pm

    When did I ever say to ban guns? Gun control is things like having actually good, effective background checks. Go look up the gun buying process in Japan and note how few gun deaths there are. It would be ludicrous and impossible to actually ban or take away all guns. I’m not anti-second amendment. Also, do you have any idea how much it takes to train soldiers to shoot at other humans? It’s non-trivial. Or consider this: there exist pictures of Ronald Reagan perfectly okay with nothing out of the ordinary 2 SECONDS before he was shot. He was surrounded by 3 secret service agents and 4 others with guns. So yeah, we’ll just train our teachers to be better than the presidential secret service. And maybe even shoot at other students who could have a gun. Sure.

  34. no on March 15th, 2018 12:16 pm

    Well of course gun crime lowered when there were less guns. But actual violent crime did not. Guns save more than they kill. Gun homicides are far trumped by the amount of self-defense cases there are related to guns.

  35. anonymous on March 14th, 2018 10:00 pm

    *apologies, I thought you responded directly to my comment. Ignore my first sentence.

  36. Blitz on March 15th, 2018 9:26 am

    Nah man, that’d burn down the country. Actually, that might not be a bad idea at this point…

  37. concerned voice on March 14th, 2018 3:16 pm

    But that’s the thing – that’s why we need these protests. All of the great social movements in our history have started with one person or one voice or one group or act of peaceful protest; look at the Civil Rights movement. If they had never done anything, where would we be now? I get your point – I get feeling burned out and hopeless in this world we live in but whatever the cause it, we have to start somewhere.

  38. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 8:20 am

    that’s a great point that is important to the soul of protests, but the issue is broader than that, but for a protest to matter it needs to have value. In metea this is not the case. to many people here pay attention to mass media and social media and refuse to be free thinkers and formulate their own well backed up opinion. they hear protest and talking what they have heard from biased sources don’t take the time to look at the facts but rather walkout on to the street and say things that have little value.

  39. burned out on March 15th, 2018 5:08 am

    sadly, you’re right, people will always find a way to hurt others. What we can’t do is eliminate violence, but the best we can do is try to reduce it and if we don’t try and help solve this issue of gun control, the problem will just escalate and more lives will be lost. So, yes, you may see this walk-out as useless since the problem of violence will still continue, but isn’t it worth a chance if we know in the end it could probably reduce the chances and maybe someday, even a hundred years from now or even more, this never happens again?

  40. Susan Dixon on March 14th, 2018 11:57 am

    Extremely well written editorial. We need intelligent, determined young people to help us put an end to this insanity. I do not want to live in a country run by politicians who are in the back pockets of the NRA. I do not want our teachers to be forced to arm themselves in the classroom. And, I do not want our people to be afraid to walk the streets or go to school. NRA enthusiasts say that “guns do not kill people – people kill people.” My answer to them is that people WITH guns kill people. The sole purpose of a gun is to kill. The Walk-out today was powerful. You are off to a really good start. Don’t stop now. Join the March For Our Lives in Glen Ellyn on March 24. And get out there and vote the NRA out of office for all our sakes!

    An MVHS Parent

  41. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 9:03 am

    being that you are an adult I would have expected you to look into this a little more.
    People with single shot rifles can kill people
    people with knives can kill people
    people with hammers can kill people
    even people with a syringe of air can kill people

    point is if a person wants someone dead, they’ll find a way. Legal or illegal. A gun is merely a tool that cannot move on its own and is just a piece of metal. for example, take China. a communist strict no guns country. so a group of people resorted to a mass stabbing that resulted in the death of 29 people. banning certain guns or limiting them will only hurt the law-abiding, and for the NRA, they support the law-abiding, therefore, I support them

    also, the sole purpose of a gun is to kill (a couple side purposes like hand-eye coordination and recreational things) but if it is to kill, it is not only to kill innocents but rather those looking to do harm and those who are committed to doing evil. so comes the main question of this discussion, the value of life, even if that life is killing off others

  42. darkstripe on March 15th, 2018 12:57 pm

    here’s the thing though: a gun is much easier to kill a person with than with a knife. try to imagine hunting deer with a knife vs hunting deer with a gun, which is easier? a school shooter always looks for the easiest path

  43. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 9:46 pm

    and the path with the weakest targets as well, shooting a soft target will be much easier than shooting at a target with a firearm. so as you said, if a school shooter looks for the easiest path wouldn’t be common sense to avoid those that are armed? hence preventing some school shootings?

  44. axiet on March 16th, 2018 8:01 am
  45. Balin Hoag on March 14th, 2018 12:38 pm

    guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

  46. darkstripe on March 14th, 2018 9:30 pm

    People kill people much quicker, faster, and easier with guns.

  47. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 12:04 pm

    so that’s why we should restrict them? that’s the point, that’s a power few things have
    its common sense if you have someone who wants to defend with a gun, they should be able to do so for the sake of people who don’t want to defend themselves

  48. axiet on March 16th, 2018 8:01 am
  49. Someone Educated on March 16th, 2018 9:36 am

    And people die everyday because of other causes, even more than guns do. It’s a lethal machine with different purposes, people are blaming guns instead of people who are actually pulling the trigger. A pen could kill someone should we ban all pens? I guess we should ban everything that could kill someone and live in a utopia with no crime, no hate, and unicorns flying around because that will totally work…. not.

  50. Blitz on March 15th, 2018 9:26 am

    So I’m reading this as “people kill because they feel like it.” Would you also agree that video games are what make people violent and want to kill? Because statistically, murders go DOWN for a while after a violent game is released.

  51. Aidan Weddle on March 14th, 2018 1:23 pm

    I support the peoples right to have guns, but they should be more regulated. More tests before you can get them, but we don’t need to ban all guns.

  52. no on March 15th, 2018 9:36 am

    There are enough tests. You can’t get a gun if you’re a felon, have committed violent crime, or have any mental disability or disorder. The reason for this recent shooting was the failure of the government to do its job. Nicholas Cruz was reported around 33 times to the FBI and they did nothing. He was shooting chickens in his backyard for gods sake. The police officer at the school did nothing, he stood outside instead of doing his job. The government failed us and were blaming it on guns.

  53. max on March 14th, 2018 1:26 pm

    NRA NRA NRA NRA !!! join the NRA!!!

  54. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 9:05 am

    as much as I agree with you, try and contribute to the conversation please, for example, why SHOULD someone join the NRA? (i am a member of the NRA btw 🙂 )

  55. Kyle on March 14th, 2018 1:27 pm

    I support the NRA and on the next walk out i we should all sit in our seats and instead if of banning all guns we should create more strict rules. Walking out will not do anything to change peoples mines.

  56. рука моего гуца on March 14th, 2018 1:31 pm

    Personally the “protest” I thought was not effective. First, I thought that this activity was bipartisan, but it seemed like just another anti gun protest. Maybe I didn’t really get the memo but people’s posters definitely didn’t reflect bipartisanship. Another problem was how no one, except for the front row, could hear ANYTHING. Sarah had an interesting speech for a couple minutes, none of which I heard a single word being uttered. Overall, I found this “protest” to only be effective to those that wore orange shirts and did NOT help educate how they were going to solve anything, more of a “We’re mad!”.

    Person on Megaphone: “GHJKDSLAUNUELSNDKWAL!!”
    Crowd: “YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!”
    Person on Megaphone: “SHUFJSKLBWAUFLBJKLSBEUI!!!”
    Crowd: “WHOOOOOOOOOH”

  57. darkstripe on March 14th, 2018 9:32 pm

    so you want it to be bipartisan and have one goal in mind? how’s that going to go down without being super vague? just asking, i want to see how your idea of this would play out

  58. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 12:34 pm

    so you don’t want it to be bipartisan? that’s the most effective way of discussion and actually solves problems. bipartisan is actually two conflicting ideas agreeing to disagree and having a discussion, which is not what happened on the 14th, it was all biased rhetoric which didn’t solve anything

  59. darkstripe on March 16th, 2018 9:09 am

    you didn’t answer my question. what would be the message your version of it would have, without said message being vague (like “we need to protect schools”, as that doesn’t go into how we would do so? i want to know

  60. прямой белый самец on March 16th, 2018 12:38 pm

    it’s not that we need to protect schools, but how we should protect schools, the entire walkout centralized on one incorrect solution to the problem instead of discussing other viable options to solve this problem.

  61. Blitz on March 15th, 2018 9:23 am

    I didn’t hear a WORD they were saying. Nothing. Absolute silence from them. I don’t even think the Megaphone was on xD

    How did you hear what they were trying to say more than the crowd? You’re messed up, man.

  62. Blitz on March 15th, 2018 9:24 am

    Also is your keyboard okay? It may be suffering from gibberish-typing abuse.

  63. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 9:28 am

    I agree this walkout was highly ineffective and biased to one side, very little constructive discussion

  64. Abby on March 14th, 2018 6:26 pm

    claps for this great article

  65. Bree de Change on March 14th, 2018 8:31 pm

    Dear students at Metea,

    A) “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”.
    My question to you is this; if a good man is a man, he can get angry. If a man with a gun has fingers, he can pull the trigger. So, if an angry man with a gun has fingers what is he going to do?

    B) “If you illegalize guns, the only people with the guns are gonna be the bad guys”
    Yeah that’s what batman said too. BUT, let me tell you a secret, if a “bad guy” walks into this school with a gun, and guns are still legal, it’s STILL possible get shot because we are not allowed to carry concealed weapons in school, and I’m 98.288% sure your dad is not going to get here on time to save you, unless he’s the Flash (pls hit me up with an autograph).

    C) Yes, I do see both sides of the argument. Yes, maybe banning guns won’t have an immediate effect and instead it may produce a counter movement with heightened gun activity. However, it’s all or nothing. To curb a student we don’t give them a “partial detention”, to give justice to a murder victim, a murderer does not receive a “partial” life sentence. So, to see a change in the world we can’t have a “partial” movement, or a partial law. We can’t say “Ok, how about a compromise; if you’re 21+ you can own a gun, and if you’re 20 and below you can BORROW a gun. Here’s your temporary gun access pass” That’s not going to work. Nor is regulation. People will still buy and sell guns, but if we make the laws harsh enough, we may be lucky enough to cause a dent in the data set.

  66. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 12:55 pm

    1. your first part didn’t make sense, what are you trying to convey????
    2. for your second part you didn’t actually answer the question at hand, you just said “it’s STILL possible get shot” clarify on that if possible but you didn’t acknowledge how the solution to this isn’t having students arm themselves but rather teachers (if they feel so) and more school resource officers. You simply put it in the view that we’re all screwed because he has a gun and we don’t, which is why we need armed guards at schools
    3. and you said it yourself harsh gun laws will only create an equal and opposite reaction causing an abundance of gun violence and deaths and you also said we would get LUCKY, luck has absolutely nothing to do with it and I’m not gonna bet lives on luck so don’t expect others to, id rather bet my life on someone else with a gun.

  67. darkstripe on March 15th, 2018 12:58 pm

    good post op

  68. Someone Educated on March 15th, 2018 8:13 am

    Our youth is so stuck on being a bandwagon we aren’t using our brains and common sense, this walkout was useless and proved nothing and was supposed to be a memorial for the 17 students who lost their lives but turned into a anti-gun protest with a bunch of clueless children yelling guns are bad but don’t know a thing. Based on this I guess we should have a protest for cars killing people, we need to ban cars because they kill people. Now how much sense does that make? none. Nearly 1.3 people die from road crashes a year, 3,287 a day. Compared to the amount of gun related deaths a year is 13,000. 62% of these deaths is from suicide. That is 8,060 deaths from suicide. Why don’t we have a walkout for the amount of suicides a year and suicide prevention? Yet a school shooting sparked this much motivation for people to focus guns as a problem. I’m amazed by the amount of people who only care when a large amount of people begin to care. This was a sad day in history and the children who died will be remembered but it’s so rude and ignorant to turn a walkout for the kids who died into something about feelings and supported behind uneducated people. Gun control won’t solve anything because a criminal will find a way to commit a crime. For example, Marijuana is a illegal drug but it’s the most common and easily attainable drug in the community. Now that actual facts have been stated I will go on about how guns provide for this country. Guns aren’t walking out of homes killing people now are they? There are law abiding citizens who have plenty of firearms, to protect their families with and themselves with. The argue of gun control is irrelevant and impractical, this country was built on guns and you will not take away my second amendment right over your feelings.
    Come and take it.

    https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/
    http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics

  69. bobby jiones on March 15th, 2018 8:23 am

    We should take away guns from the military because they cause many deaths too. Every country should just fight with pillows and love. I hate guns and i hate how it can provide us protection.

  70. :b:eter on March 15th, 2018 8:39 am

    taking guns out the equation isn’t going to stop dangerous people

  71. Caleb Berry, a proud patriot on March 15th, 2018 10:31 am

    Ma’am what do you truly know about the NRA or guns? Do you acknowledge the fact that the deadliness of guns is what makes them important to the second amendment? Guns are violent, its true, but you forget to acknowledge the whole point of the second amendment completely. Don’t of things you haven’t researched, or let alone thought about. Also, the fact you are a parent of a Metea student gives you no credibility, in fact, I’m starting to give adults less credibility when they claim to have more credibility simply because of their age. Its ironically childish, and an uneducated response to any problem.

    Ask yourself these two questions:
    Will violence always exist in humanity?
    Does this make violence ever justified ?

    The answers will always be yes to both questions besides your opinion.

    We don’t have a gun problem. Our problem lies in the value of human life and the weakness of the modern american populous. The more we value life, and the stronger (mentally and physically) people get, the more America will go back to its righteous roots in freedom. Only then will giving power to the people via an armed society will result in peace and not violence. The preservation of our constitution is more necessary now than ever before.

  72. darkstripe on March 15th, 2018 1:08 pm

    “the weakness of the modern american populous”
    so apparently we were stronger back in The Days when only straight white men had full rights? hmmm
    also i like how this comment says we don’t have a gun problem when australia’s out here without a single mass shooting since 1996 and we have a gun violence rate 8x higher than our neighbor canada. like yeah that has to be a coincidence. of course
    one last thing: “don’t of things you haven’t researched” needs a grammar check

  73. прямой белый самец on March 15th, 2018 9:54 pm

    have you ever taken into the thought that the integration of firearms into this society is way to far done to be undone? for example, Canada and Australia don’t have an amendment about the right to protect your freedoms with firearms as well as the fact that those stats are only on gun violence, not general violence. one thing the 2nd amendment does is not just prevent gun violence in some instances but actually all kinds of violence

  74. darkstripe on March 16th, 2018 8:20 am

    if the second amendment prevents “actually all kinds of violence” then it does not appear to be working. i’d like to see your proof it stops violence so we can discuss.

  75. Someone Educated on March 22nd, 2018 9:27 am

    We were stronger in the “old days” when a generation wasn’t raised in believing everything will be done for them and raised in an environment where they are told they don’t need to worry about anything and follow the masses of sheep and can’t think for themselves. This generation is pathetic but I still have hope for the amount of well educated, able to think for themselves individuals in this school.

  76. yea sure things will change on March 15th, 2018 11:31 am

    if yall think walking outside your school with signs is gonna change anything your delusional.

  77. A Nice Dude on March 15th, 2018 11:46 am

    Yo but about what about bringing bosco sticks back?

  78. Billy Bob on March 15th, 2018 12:22 pm

    Why are we ignoring the fact that there were four armed officers standing outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School as the shooting was taking place? Similar to the Texas church shooting where the shooter should not have been able to legally obtain firearms and did, the government has failed us. How is further legislation going to help if it is not properly enforced and executed?

  79. ninja on March 15th, 2018 2:14 pm

    So you are saying that we need more government control?

  80. darkstripe on March 16th, 2018 8:21 am

    yes.

  81. Billy Bob on March 16th, 2018 11:06 am

    If a private company was responsible for screening these individuals, mistakes would not be made because they have more incentive to do their job. If they did make a mistake they would go out of business. The government can make a mistake and still continue to exist on our tax dollars. We cannot choose not to pay taxes, they are required as a citizen. More government is not the answer.

  82. Billy Bob on March 16th, 2018 11:26 am
  83. no on March 15th, 2018 2:16 pm

    Thank you

  84. Bree de Change on March 17th, 2018 4:13 pm

    The only thing this comment section has told me is that 70% of the students in my class are most likely going to carry guns if it was legal, and that I will always be afraid of coming to school because there aren’t enough people who want to see a peaceful country with peaceful people. There are more people who want to attack than people who want to prevent.

    Vengeance will only take us so far, and I don’t have enough energy to educate to all the simplistic comments.

  85. прямой белый самец on March 19th, 2018 10:13 am

    that’s a fine excuse for not replying
    but yes I hope 70% will carry a gun because those people want to carry a gun for primarily one reason, self-defense. also, you said, “There are more people who want to attack than people who want to prevent.” so wouldn’t make sense to carry a weapon for self-defense from those wanting to attack? disarming yourself would be letting yourself down because the ones who do harm don’t care about the law but those who want to legally carry have to and then when people (like the ones who marched) want to take away places where they can feel safe, that only increases the vulnerability of the ones at hand

  86. Someone Educated on March 20th, 2018 9:48 am

    Couldn’t have said it better myself, this person you replied to has no idea what they are talking about. When someone carries legally they are using the firearm for their protection or others so they would really be preventing violence than letting it occur when they have the right to bear arms. The amount of people I see that would rather have someone else protect them whether it’s a police officer or whoever is completely idiotic when you have the right to do so themselves. But hey what can I say natural selection right? I’m very proud of the amount of students at Metea that are informed and know their rights and can think for themselves.

Thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. Please note that all comments are moderated. Metea Media will not publish comments if they contain the following:

▸ Rude or obscene language (i.e. swear words, sexual jokes, violent threats, etc.)
▸ Hate speech (i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)
▸ Insults towards a specific student or a teacher
▸ Content that is irrelevant to the article or does not add to the discussion
▸ Submitting comments under somebody else's name

Refer to the student handbook for further specifics on what is considered appropriate.

The Social Media Editor will read and evaluate all comments. Should there be any issues with a particular comment, the Social Media Editor will consult the newspaper adviser and Online Editor-in-Chief.

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




Navigate Right
Navigate Left
  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    “Twitter, do your thing”

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Standardized testing produces standardized students

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: The Stampede endorses John Kasich and Bernie Sanders for Illinois primary election

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: Teachers deserve higher pay with third contract

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: Sochi journalists facing dangerous situations set a good example for aspiring journalists

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: New administration policy is an invasion of student privacy

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: Gay marriage passes in Illinois, but not in schools

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: Gay marriage passes in Illinois, but not in schools

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: Compromise is the key to a successful environment

  • Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can

    Editorial

    Editorial: New technology policy continues tradition of cooperation

Your World. Your Stories. Every Day.
Student Activism: Walking out for those who no longer can