[00:00:05] Speaker A: You're listening to casual talk radio where common sense is still the norm, whether you're a new or a longtime listener. We appreciate you joining us today. Visit
[email protected] and now here's your host, Leister.
[00:00:21] Speaker B: Another day, another mass shooting, and I think this one's under the threshold to be officially qualified as a mass shooting. I'm going to qualify it as a mass shooting simply because a school was involved and quite a few were injured. I think the count was up to nine total that received some sort of injury. Three deceased. They got it wrong. They said five, but seems like they've revised that to three deceased. If you didn't hear about this, this was Abundant Life Christian School in the state of Wisconsin. There is a this one's kind of this one's got a lot of press because it's a Christian school.
I don't know that because there's shootings to happen all the time.
And this one stands out because it's a Christian school that was targeted. You would expect it to be the least likely to be targeted. But people have speculated that because it was a Christian school, that's why the shooting happened. And I'm going to say that that's not it. But I do think, based on what we would hear after the fact, and I'll talk about this in a minute, I do think that some of the values and teachings in said school may have contributed to the actions of this person.
So the alleged person who did this, one of students, Natalie Roop, now 15 year old, dead. So I don't know. I don't know if Natalie killed herself or was taken out. I don't have that information at this point.
But dead but goes in there and just shoots the place up. Now, kind of the problem here is there's no agreement, no consensus on the gender of the person. And it's suspicious because many of the outlets, the official outlets, refuse to list gender. I don't like that because if it was a blatant male, they would be outright saying it's a male.
In this case, it appears to be a female, but there's questions about whether or not it's a natural female.
When you look at the pictures that are circling around, it certainly does look like a female to my eyes, but you certainly can't tell these days. But it looks like a female to my eyes. The theory there's a social media account and they said it's the person's account. It's a photo of them doing the okay symbol, what appears to be a bathroom stall, sitting down in the bathroom stall. I don't know that's evidence of anything. But the theory is that it may be a, you know, person identifies trans. I suspect that it's not a transgender person. I suspect it's actually a very, very radical feminist.
They. The manifesto is floating around.
The manifesto gives the impression that this is a. This is a very troubled young lady because she's making statements that are just complete anti men. Just anti men. Like, if you think about feminism, feminism, true feminism, let me stress, true feminism was never about being anti men. That was never the point. Feminism at the core was always about fighting for equality for women, not anti men sentiment. There was always an understanding that men are a necessary, you know, contributor to society. It's just the equivalent behavior and activity and treatment. None of that existed at the time feminism hit a peak. So I would qualify this as an extreme radical anti man feminist.
Extreme radical.
There. There hasn't been very many of these that I can recall in history. You know, there's the Rapinoe or whatever her name is, the purple hair soccer player, you know, and a few select others. But you don't see this too much of, oh, that one girl from a Snow Woke whatever, Rachel Ziegler. Her, I would consider her a radical anti man feminist. Straight up when she said Prince Charming was essentially sexually molesting. And that's why they're changing.
You are a radical anti man feminist if you believe these things. So, yeah, I would include her in that situation. But this one here, again, I don't see male in the frame, in the appearance in anything of what I see.
She just seems like a very troubled young lady that snapped. And again, if we're. If this school was teaching traditional Christian beliefs and principles, the idea of a nuclear family, Adam and Eve, you know that no matter what you hear throughout the Bible, there's always traditional gender roles. Transgenderism is not a thing there. You certainly have things like Sodom and Gomorrah, but it's presented as an evil, right? It's. It's presented as a sin. So if you hear that you're constantly here, then you've been somehow indoctrinated in a certain belief that contradicts that teaching. It's easy to understand how somebody would snap and go postal. No pun intended. Social media name on this now background search was done on this person across various online. Apparently was an obsessed with things like Columbine shooting and just killing and mass killing and guns and just. It's the most disturbing that you would ever see. It completely flies in the face of the narrative that men are the violent offenders every time when you see this. And that's why people thought this feels like it's a guy that's pretending to be a girl. Again, I see no evidence that's the case. It looks like it's just a straight up troubled female there. There's. I don't see male in this at all. I see a stroke, straight up troubled female in this. And she talks about parents don't want her and she's not loved and she's alone and she's on her own. And all of these different things that you hear that are.
They're symptomatic of depression, they're symptomatic of troubled home, they're symptomatic of no father figure. They're symptomatic of a lacking, I don't want to say lacking religious background because that's not even the case. It's more like if your parents. Because she's in the Christian school for a reason, right? So you expect that there's some expectation of following those beliefs. But is it possible that you don't have the fundamentals to go along with it? Like, it doesn't matter if you send somebody to Christian school. If you don't have a household that believes and practices the same thing and nurtures those values as somebody's daughter. This is some. This was somebody's daughter. If that mother was not constantly reinforcing the benefit and value of having a father figure and the benefit and value of having a husband and the beauty, potential beauty of having a boyfriend and, and growing old and all these things, then what good is it? You also have to think, where would that. That, you know, that's, that's, that's learned behavior. You don't grow up being a man hater. That's learned behavior. So per. Perhaps, and I don't know for sure, but perhaps there was abuse in the home. I'm talking, you know, husband, wife, perhaps there was abuse. Perhaps there's sexual abuse. Perhaps there's some sort of abuse that should be investigated. Absolutely. With this. Because you don't expect somebody like this to just go postal and shoot up, you know, kids at a Christian school, much less a school, much less your peers.
But when they did the announcement and I, this is what me off. When they did the announcement on this, the guy, the, you know, police chief or whatever, he basically says, you know, there was no, far as I know, there was no metal detectors, nor should there be. It's a safe space. That is what I'm going to be talking about. And it'll come across as a rant and I don't care. Because if there's one thing that me off more than anything else other than stupid people, but I'm talking just normal routine. If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's when a child is harmed in something that is preventable, it you literally will piss me off if I know that harm has been brought to a child and it was preventable. So I'm one of those who does not believe in gender reassignment surgery. I'm one of those who believes in the idea of gender dysphoria, a mental illness. I'm one of those who loves and has loved lesbian people, gay people, bisexual people, as friends, as colleagues, as co workers.
They A lesbian was one of the best friends I ever had. Cool as a fan. But when you talk about a child and you talk about mutilating them because they seem to feel like a certain different gender than what they were born as. Now you've crossed the line for me because we accept if a parent takes a knife to their child, they're going to get locked up. So I question why then it's okay for a doctor to take a knife to that same child. I question why. I hear schools saying they're going to keep it secret when a kid wants to talk about transgenderism or something else and we have to hide it from the parents. We used to, back in my day, we used to teach kids, if a stranger and by the way, your students, your teachers and all the people at your school, they're strangers. They're effectively strangers. We used to teach that if a stranger says to, hey, keep this a secret or this will be just between us or don't tell nobody, that usually is a red flag that it's going to be a child abuser of some kind. So when we hear stories about in the school system that that's what they're doing, they're saying to the kids, keep this secret from your parents. And yet we don't treat that as child abuse. We know what the game is. We know what it is. We know how they're slipping it in because there's certain influencers who are telling you this is acceptable behavior. It's not. It's child abuse. It's child abuse to discuss those topics with a child.
It's child abuse to physically mutilate said child. It's child abuse to do puberty blockers. It's Child abuse to convince a child that there's something other than what they were born as. It's child abuse to tell a child. Consider we have accepted a child is not mature enough at the age of, say, 13 to smoke or to drink or to effectively have sex or any of that. We accepted they are not mature enough to handle that yet. We say they're mature enough to be able to handle mutilation to their body that is, in many cases, life altering. I'm sorry, it's child abuse. And I will say it's child abuse until the cows come home, because it's child abuse. If you're one of those that says, this is my child, I'm their parent. I'm going to do what I want to do. You're free to do it, just like I'm free to say that you're abusing your child by supporting such a thing, you're not really supporting them. You're harming them. And it will harm them for the rest of their lives. Once they turn 18, I'll even say 21. Let's go extreme. Once they turn 21, you're on your own, right? You make your own decision. You're an adult. You're effectively adult 18. But we've said you're not mature enough to handle drinking until you're 21. So. Okay, let's. Let's be consistent here, right? If we say you're not mature enough to handle drinking until you're 21, then we should say you're not mature enough to make this decision on your own until you're 21 years old. I'm cool with that. Selective service. We say the moment they turn 18, you're fair game to go into the military and we can draft you so you can get killed. We're cool there. We don't do selective service when you're 13, 14 years old. Why? Because we understand they're not mature enough to handle that type of responsibility or that type of danger. I'm saying it. All of this that I'm seeing doesn't make any sense. Which is why when I initially saw people talk about this as a transgender child, I had to go deeper because it didn't make any sense. But if we go by the stats, that would be the expectation that it's basically a boy or a male who has done this. From what I can tell, it was not a boy and it was not a male. It just happened to be a very, very troubled young lady who was fixated on school shootings, fixated on death. Fixated on Columbine, liked guns, clear mental health situation. But the whole anti male messaging coming from this person absolutely just disgusts me. It disgusts me because we should never have young girls like this who are against men at that point. We've already failed them long before they had a chance to turn 18. And understand, like you think about it, if this girl had lived to be 18, she gets into the workforce, she's going to be surrounded by men, okay? And you get this anti man sentiment in their mind and they try to hit the workplace. It's sink or swim out there. You all know this. You're adults. It's sink or swim. If you're surrounded by a bunch of men and you come at them with an anti male sentiment, you're not going to survive very long. And that's why I'm so disturbed. Hearing an anti man sentiment's even a thing for somebody who's not yet hit 18. Like if you hit 18 and you dated two or three times and you had bad boyfriends because you have bad taste in men, you go after the bad boy, you don't go after the nice guy, that's one thing. But to just be completely to this point ready to shoot up a Christian school because you don't like men, something's dastardly wrong in that household. And I speculate, and that's all it is, is speculation that it's something. A failure of the parenting, a failure of the mother, a failure of the father, if the father was even there. And if the father was there, the father may have failed not only this girl, but also her mother. It's a parenting failure. We should call that out.
But when I heard that police chief talk about no metal detectors, nor should there be, and said, quote, this is a safe space. Let me be clear here. There's no such thing as a safe space. Safety is a preventative topic. It is not an assumptive topic. What do I mean? Safety is something that you implement as a preventative measure. By its definition, safety is not assumed. If you go to the ballpark, you are not safe. If you go to a concert, you are not safe. If you get on a plane, you are not safe. If you get on a boat, you are not safe. If you go to the buildings and not in New York, you are not safe. If you walk down the street, you are not safe. There's no such a thing as a safe space. Your safety is only as good as the preventative measures taken. That's why there are such a things as what Bouncers for clubs, because they understand clubs. There's no safe space, so they need bouncers, they need security. That's why you just saw a CEO get gunned down in the street, because why? His safety regime was nowhere to be seen. Safety is not assumed. Safety is preventative. It may or may not exist. By default, it doesn't exist. Something has to make it exist. The only way to protect children from school shootings is to do the bare basic that I don't understand why we don't do it, which is simple. You should not be able to walk onto that school ground from anywhere off the perimeter. I want to see a fence all the way around the perimeter. You should be forced to walk through a dedicated entrance. Remember in the olden days it was just a building and it only had one door, and that was the only way you're getting in. That was at a time that we didn't have mass shootings happening. But now we've just opened it up, We've dropped our guard because of this myth of a safe space. There's no such a thing as a safe space. We need single entrance. Single entrance should have security. Metal detectors. You are required to drop your bag on that conveyor belt and walk through the metal detector. We're going to scan your bag and look for not only guns, but also knives. Because think about it, folks. Why does your kid need to have the ability to walk in there with any weapon? It doesn't even matter if it's a gun. But we don't seem to care because we've had this notion that our kids are by default safe when they go to school, when the truth is they're less safe going to school than they would be going with you to work. Think about that. You would probably be better off taking your kid to work with you if you could, than having your kid go to school, having your kid go to a nursery, having your kid go to somebody else's house, a babysitter's house. That's the world we live in. Do I agree with it? No, but that's the reality of it. Which is why I say hearing somebody trash the idea of a security screen. Simple security screen process that takes all of eight seconds for somebody to drop your bag and walk through there, get your bag, go to class. You can leave campus all you care to without being screened. But I want to see that when you walk into the campus, we're going to at least try to identify the presence of a weapon to avert. And it's a natural deterrent. You're told as an adult just having a security system is a deterrent. Having the lights on is a deterrent. You do these things because safety is a preventable measure, not an assumptive one. Okay? You do it as a preventative, to be preventable. Right? You want to make sure that an incident's not going to happen. So you implement certain things to prevent an incident from happening. It's not assumed. The assumption is that you are at risk at all times. Think about it. If you're driving down the road, why do you think that every car now comes with an airbag? Remember, they didn't always come with an airbag. Remember there was a time when you were not required to buckle up a seat belt. Remember there was a time that locks were not power in your car. Remember there was a time when cars did not by default come with alarms. Remember there was a time that you didn't see the vast majority of homes didn't have an alarm system. Remember that security cameras were not available to the residentials. I want you to listen to what I'm telling you. Security, safety, your protection is all about what you do for it. It is not assumed. The right answer is to protect the schools and protect the kids because it becomes a deterrent. You don't have to go extreme, but the bare minimum you could do is simply scan those bags and scan those pockets when they walk in that door to make sure to intercept any weapons so that they can't just go postal. And then we blame the tool. It's not the gun's fault. The gun didn't go off on its own. This is not a Republican versus Democrat thing. It has nothing to do with it. This is a kid. She has nothing to do with maga. She has nothing to do with any of that stuff. Regardless of what she celebrated. She went nuts. Bottom line, she was highly troubled. She had mental issues that have nothing to do with political spectrum because she can't vote.
No, the answer is society is too afraid to do the bare basic to protect our children. The bare basic is to just simply put up a simple security screener and lock down the perimeter to where you can't just walk on that campus. You got to go through at least one security guard to make sure you get on there with no weapons in pocket. And I challenge and nobody's come with an answer to my satisfaction. Why is it that you're okay with TSA screening off a metal detector and possibly running a body scanner and possibly groping and fondling you and you have no problem subjecting your kids to that when you're flying, but you have a problem with a simple metal detector for your kid to walk into school, you are part of the problem. If you have no issue with TSA doing their garbage to get on a plane and you think that's more dangerous when it's really not statistically than having your kid walk into a school where they could easily get shot up. Not because of the tool. It has nothing to do with the tool. Because even in states that have the most locked down laws for gun management and gun ownership, you still have these shootings. The priority is the issue. You don't have your priorities straight. You need to understand, if you're cool with it on the airports and on the TSA side, you should be basic cool with it on the school side for the same reason, which is safety and protection and doing something to help keep people safe. Remember, statistically, you are less likely to die in a plane crash than you are to get shot. I want to hit you with that. You can look it up yourself. So why are you okay being groped and fondled and scanned twice at TSA and at the airports, but you have a problem for some reason because you think schools are a, quote, safe space in having our kids stay safe with a simple deterrent that is proven to be effective. In the systems where you see those kinds of metal scanners and metal detectors, you don't see this kind of chaos. You might see gang fights and gang violence and all that. You don't see them getting killed by knives and guns. The worst you might see is bats and sticks and something else that's not metal. Guess what? If your kid's tough enough, they're going to be able to fight back off that you're not gonna be able to fight back because some troubled girl decided to bring her dad's gun. And by the way, she called her dad stupid. You're not gonna be able to fight back on that. Your kid's not gonna be able to fight back on that. Are you okay with the idea of sending your kid to school not knowing if they're gonna make it home? And I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm saying this to get you to think and understand and consider.
Why is there such a resistance to having simple security metal detectors? This is not about what you think should be the case. We should all be safe. And it has nothing to do with it. This is the reality. The reality is your safety is about what you're willing to do to be safe. If we're okay with it in tsa, you should be okay with us to school. I'm not suggesting that your kids should be subjected to pat downs every time, but maybe I'm saying at a bare minimum, their backpacks, their body should be run through a scanner when they walk in there. Walking out is whatever you want to do. Sure. They could pick up a pair of scissors and go stab somebody. I would rather have that than have some gun brought in there by some inept parents. Kid and shoot up the kid to where you don't even know they're going to come home. The answer is not giving them cell phones so that they can call home to make sure they're okay. Listen to what you're doing. You're avoiding what needs to happen. What needs to happen is we need to protect our kids in the schools with something very basic that's going to help them stay safe, even if nothing more than a deterrent. That's the reality. Meanwhile, this is a developing situation because we still. They're still trying to flesh out motives. The manifesto helps because it helps understand that this was a very troubled young lady. What I'm trying to do with my limited platform is let people understand the way I think, which is you all are fighting the bare basic obvious. Perimeter security is effective, but the lack of perimeter security creates a soft target. A soft target means they're going to go after that. That's what you don't want. You want it to be a deterrent. Does it suck? Yes. But a lot of things suck in life and you suck it up and move forward again. I'll repeat, you should not want a world where you have to question when you drop that kid off or when they go and walk to school, that you might never see them again.
But that has nothing to do with the weapon. It has everything to do with a lack of safety and a lack of security. Because we're, for whatever reason, afraid to simply put basic measures in place to keep our young people safe. And that I find absolutely unacceptable and disgusting and distasteful for anybody who thinks that way.
