I don’t know what to tell you. When it comes to school shootings, it’s politics all the way down. There’s a reason that the US is the only developed country selling bullet-proof gear in the back-to-school section.
it gives a reason for the first sentence. ‘The sky is blue. Blue light gets scattered more than other colors.’ Same idea, only the guy stated it in a very terse way so I can see how it would not be easy to follow the logic implied therein.
How do you go about explaining terrorism and evil to young kids without storybooking it?
Guy says kids don’t need to have terrorism explained to them:
Bro kids today are fully aware about terrorism
Guy provides a reason why kids don’t need to have terrorism explained: they already learn about it in the form of school shooters, who are terrorists:
School shooters are … terrorists
Guy makes an assertion in the middle of the previous sentence that doesn’t really have much to do with it:
mainly right wing
Whether or not that part is true has no bearing on the rest of it. But what his second sentence had to do with the question in that it provided context/an example showing how kids already learn about terrorism.
Bro kids today are fully aware about terrorism
School shooters are mainly right wing terrorists
Assuming OP is from that country.
Other countries exist? 🤯
What does your last sentence have to do with the question
Question is about explaining terrorism to kids.
Kids go to school.
School shooters famously also target schools.
Kids are aware of terrorism due to the constant threat of a school shooting.
Yeah I got that, but no one asked their political stance lol
I don’t know what to tell you. When it comes to school shootings, it’s politics all the way down. There’s a reason that the US is the only developed country selling bullet-proof gear in the back-to-school section.
Lol it’s so funny That you’re a typing bag of hammers. Lol. Good one bro.
it gives a reason for the first sentence. ‘The sky is blue. Blue light gets scattered more than other colors.’ Same idea, only the guy stated it in a very terse way so I can see how it would not be easy to follow the logic implied therein.
I didn’t follow but thanks for being kind and explaining
OP asks how to explain to kids about terrorism:
Guy says kids don’t need to have terrorism explained to them:
Guy provides a reason why kids don’t need to have terrorism explained: they already learn about it in the form of school shooters, who are terrorists:
Guy makes an assertion in the middle of the previous sentence that doesn’t really have much to do with it:
Whether or not that part is true has no bearing on the rest of it. But what his second sentence had to do with the question in that it provided context/an example showing how kids already learn about terrorism.