I have to admit, I'm curious to see the actual drawing. All we know is it's a picture of a gun. That could mean a lot of things. I like to think it's a picture of an old-fashoined blunderbuss. Or maybe a Marvin the Martian styled ray gun, or an 18th century duelling pistol, or a starter pistol for that matter. Better yet, maybe it was a picture of a gun with a flag popping out of the barrel that unfurls to read BANG!

With no context whatsoever, I certainly don't know what to make of it.

That was the shooting that the Boomtown Rats wrote I Don't Like Mondays about. I thought it sounded familiar.

Yes, he may be well aware of such episodes. I don't think that matters in the slightest.

It doesn't mean that a drawing of a gun has anything to do with the act of taking an actual gun in hand, loading it, pointing it at a fellow human being, and attempting to end their existence. You may find my examples absurd - I find the correlation between drawing something and the act of doing something absurd. If all a child draws is guns, then yes, there is some concern there. But one drawing, with no prior history, no threats, no nothing - that is ridiculous.

What if he likes guns - is it not ok to like guns, ever? What if he actually drew his BB gun? I learned about Uzi guns when I was studying Israeli history - what if I decided to draw one? What if he drew a knife? What kinds of knives are ok to draw? A Bowie knife in American History class during discussions of the Alamo? A butcher knife, because he watches Top Chef? A table knife? Would that be too pointy, too threatening? What if he has studied dadaism and wanted to draw random objects?

In other words - this is all thoughtcrime bullsh.t and it's one of the worst symptoms of a society in fear. The suppression of thought....of art.....of self-expression....of actually recognizing the fact that a gun exists.....this is pretty damn messed up in my book.

Soon after Columbine hit, my high school friends had their play CENSORED by the staff. It's a musical titled "Working" which was written many years before. In the play a young office worker has a monologue about how he hates his coworkers and talks about killing them - not in any real sense, just out of frustration. Everyone has said at some point or another "I just want to strangle them!" or "I swear, if he does that just one more time, I'll kill him." Even so, the staff CENSORED the play (I just hate that word, one of the ugliest used in a free country) and my friend was left making strangling gestures without his lines.

Pretending things don't exist is not going to fix anything. Sorry Brad - this is a hot button issue with me. :)

To be fair, though, we don't know if the child had a history, and we can't know because they don't release their information. Had he made threatening remarks to a teacher or a classmate? Had he lashed out violently before?

And then I suppose it begs the question-- if someone makes a threat ("I'm going to get a gun and shoot you," for instance) and then takes passive-agressive action (say, drawing a gun on an assignment) is it still thoughtcrime? Or a valid reason to talk to and perhaps punish a child?

I'm feelin' ya, CP. I don't understand why people are so afraid. Columbine was an aberration in the day-to-day scheme of things. A reminder to stay in touch with our children; to love them more than we love ourselves. It was not a mandate to bubble-wrap them in 14 layers of pussyfication.


That said, I think that a gun drawn on a homework assignment is a valid reason to bring the boy in for a talk. Depending on the child's history, this could be anything from an informal, discreet, chat with a school counselor to a serious and direct discussion with the child and his parents. But I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario in which a suspension is the appropriate course of action. If this child does indeed have a 'past history' or is raising actual red flags - as opposed to bogeymen red flags that so bedevil CP - I don't see authority's boot being all that constructive. Surely we can do better for the angry and disenfranchised youth than poking and calling them flawed.

Total agreement with SacTown here. Whether it's schools or courts, the tricky question is always what to do with the person. To me, while I would like more context, the drawing of a gun on homework is cause for concern. If the kid had drawn a swastika, we would not speculate that perhaps he liked its symmetry or was thinking about its ancient origins that predate the Nazis' appropriation of the symbol. We'd say, "What the f*** is this?"

Back in my grade school days, us boys used to draw pictures of guns (usually big guns, like tanks, cannons, missile launchers, machine guns) and actually turn them in for a grade. Granted, it was art class, but weaponry, whether military or science fiction related, was an extremely common subject, and didn't raise an eyebrow. (Though, I imagine our art teachers probably ROLLED their eyes after the umpteenth battle zone picture they received per week.) I have to wonder if this kids' picture, though inappropriately doodled in the margins of a homework assignment, came from this same place. (We liked this imagery because we associated it with exciting comic books and movies we had seen.)

We don't know the history of this kid. You seem to be designing one. I think that erring in the name of keeping the school safe is better than something bad happening. I also would like to point out that if there was a shooting and warning signs were ignored, quite possibly the same people who are bashing the school now would bash the school for doing nothing.

No one's saying the boy shouldn't like guns. No one's saying that drawing a gun is bad. Drawing a gun on homework is not cool and can be seen as a threat by someone. It's inappropriate. I think the children of this school will be thinking twice before doing something like this again.

This is not a suppression of art. If this was done in an art class, I'd say cool. But it doesn't seem like it was. There are times to express yourself in art, even illustrating a creative writing piece with pictures but on homework that seems to not have required pictures, it's inappropriate.

Your examples are going to extremes, claiming suppression of everything. What the kid did was wrong and he paid the price.

Steps were not taken before Columbine and now people are criticizing a school that's trying to prevent another one. I'd rather people learn from mistakes in the past than just ignoring them. I mean, what's really being suppressed is the past and the history of violence in schools.

Haw haw! :D I just found the infamous gun picture:


Hmmm. It barely even looks like a gun! :D

Very true, but it's still an interesting hypothetical question. Assuming an ideal kid, or even semi-ideal (not a perfect angel, but never done anything that deserved more than an occasional talking to or lunch detention). Would suspension be the right reaction if that kid did this?