The only way to stop a Bad 6-year old with a Gun...
A teacher has life-threatening injuries after being shot by a 6-year-old student at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News Friday afternoon.
In a press conference Friday evening, city officials said the shooting was not accidental, that it happened in a first-grade classroom when a male student started arguing with a teacher and that the teacher's injuries were life-threatening. Everyone else in the school building -- faculty, staff, and students -- were safe.
...
“I'm in awe, I'm in shock and I'm disheartened,” Dr. Parker said. “Today, our students got a lesson in gun violence, and what guns can do to disrupt not only an educational environment but a family, a community."Dr. Parker said the division's existing security measures include random metal detection.
I went through the comments on Zerohedge for this article and it was fascinating.
The first thing people did was ask "why did the child feel so threatened?" In other words, the 6-year old must have been justified in shooting the teacher.
Then someone noticed that the child had a single parent. So the blame was on the father for not raising the child properly. No one noticed that we are talking about a toddler not acting like an adult.
Then, of course, the blame shifted to gun-free school zones. Put another way, that we would prefer our teachers shooting 6-year olds in class.
Comments
ya think they could make a gun child proof
like bottles of aspirin?
question everything
Remember the early SNL sketch
about the new arthritis pain reliever with the secret ingredient “Triopenin”? Like that. 1975, and Carlin was on, with Billy Preston…
Looking for a clip of that that will embed here: the one on Yarn won’t.
And on edit- I just realized that that bit was from S1E1, the very first SNL show ever. Jeez, how did I forget that? Guess I slept since then...
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
sounds like you give Ukrainians weapons to defend
themselves and end up to help them killing nilly-willy all they don't like.
Oops, I should not say that, right? Not my day today.
https://www.euronews.com/live
Our government entertains pointless violence
from decade to decade around the world. And you have violence promoted in movies and on TV as "action" and "drama."
Clearly the kid wanted to get in on the action.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
best example of the absurdity of the gun debate yet
We go round and round about the correct reading of the Second Amendment's confusing language. As an unrepentant cynic, I firmly believe that every argument about "a well regulated militia" and the "right to keep and bear arms" boils down to an effort to get the result you want, whether in favor of restriction of fire arms or against it. So let's set the sophistry aside and look at it as a policy question. The six-year-old packing heat is a superb argument for doing away with guns. For most of my time on this long, strange trip through life in the USA, I have thought that getting rid of guns altogether would be a wonderful thing, just not very likely to happen. I looked at guns pretty much like I looked at cocaine, something that made people believe they feel better, but too dangerous for sanity. Based on that premise, I more or less opposed banning either thing as creating more trouble than it's worth. But discouragement of both seemed valuable.
This horror story notwithstanding, I no longer, even in the abstract, support the idea of confiscating guns. I have now gone past my squeamishness about the carnage that would ensue from prying the vile devices from the cold dead hands of the gun nuts. I continue to scoff at the hoary wingnut argument about The People needing guns to defend themselves from jackbooted Government Oppressors. In such a civil war, "The People" would be routed in no time. But watching these last three years of mandated medical treatments around the world has forced me to re-think the issue.
In Australia, a country which pursued what I thought was a wise ''buy back" strategy of dis-arming civil life, the government went hog wild with its Medical Fascism and rounded up disobedient people without compunction. I do not believe the cops and quasi-cops charged with executing the roundup would have had much enthusiasm for the task if they knew that they would have to roust crazy people with guns. The effort would have been a perpetual SWAT routine and the government would not have had such an easy ride toward national obedience.
Our last line of defense against tyranny` of any stripe is the reluctance of cops and soldiers to kill us. The definition of a successful revolution is when the troops decline to fire on the citizenry. Anything that could help us reach that end should not be abandoned.
We live in a jungle and we must never forget that.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Of course.
However, it must be remembered that *we* are the jungle.
I remember going to zerohedge a few times back around the Fukushima disaster, because they had a few well-educated commentators when hard news was scarce. But other that that, the whole place is significantly more right-wing than Atilla the Hun, and the consensus on almost all topics involves shooting the hell out of it. Their solution to everything is inevitably “more guns”.
I can’t stomach that- so thanks for reading there and posting a synopsis.
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
@usefewersyllables @usefewersyllables
Very astute comment. I agree with you. It is implicit in my argument here.
I have no idea what you are talking about with the zero hedge reference. I have seen lots of references to it, and I assume it is a wingnut website. I'm also guessing that your invocation of it as the source for my opinion is intended as an insulting dismissal of my point of view.
So what?
If you disagree with the idea that trying to confiscate all the millions of guns that exist in this country is unwise, you might consider stating how you think it would be accomplished without causing more problems than it would solve. If you disagree with the tolerance for gun nuts that I have now adopted, I respectfully state that I don't give a shit, but I would sincerely think through any reasons you might suggest to change my mind.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
Not at all.
I am truly grateful that there are people who are still willing to go there and report back, and no insult was intended in any part of my comment.
I find myself actively disgusted by the idea that the solution to every societal problem is to buy more guns and shoot more bullets at whatever it is. I have a very basic, visceral disagreement with the idea that guns solve anything, let alone everything. I do not need to read that over and over in essentially every thread, ad nauseam.
I have no solution to suggest. If confiscation or a buyback were attempted, only the relatively sane people would participate. The completely insane gun nuts would not, and there would be no stopping them. One ex-military ex-friend here in town is very proud that he has accumulated a bigger arsenal and ammo stockpile than the local police and sheriffs departments combined, and is just waiting for the shit to hit the fan to provide him what he calls a “target-rich environment”. I regard that as de facto evidence of profound mental illness, but nobody gives a shit about what I think.
There is no solution to the gun problem- that ship sailed in the early 1800s. I do not own a gun, do not want one, and will not stay in a room with one, or allow one in my home under any circumstances. If the ammosexuals get their desired war in the streets and I can’t somehow get out of here to a saner place, my solution will be to find the nearest crossfire and walk into the middle of it.
Allow me to clarify further. If possessing a firearm with the intent to immediately annihilate anyone who offends me becomes a requirement for daily existence, I will opt out in the only way remaining to me. If society becomes so much more broken that I would find myself forced to buy a firearm, I would only need one round of ammo for it.
Your mileage may vary. Make sense?
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
Yes
Your point of view is actually close to mine. I hate guns and have never fired one. I do have a weapon in my residence that was loaned to me by an old friend some 40 years ago when I was involved in a heavy intra-union dispute. I had been surreptitiously tipped off of a plot being hatched to plant some kind of dope in my car to get me in trouble with the law. A good friend who happened to be a gun nut urged me to arm myself after I took legal steps to insulate myself from that kind of set-up, by filing an affidavit with a local magistrate detailing the warning I had gotten and then sending copies of the affidavit to the various union officials that might be in on the plot. My secret source later told me of a frantic search for the identity of my informant. Upon hearing of all this shady intrigue, my gun nut buddy convinced me that my adversaries might escalate their campaign against me, and urged me to buy a gun. I told him that I could not conduct a gunfight even to save my own life due to my incompetence with guns. He brought me a shotgun and showed me how it worked. Even though I did not believe I could do anything to prevent a determined assassin from killing me, I accepted the loan that eventually turned into a gift. It remains zipped up in a closet to this day. A more recent gun owning friend told me that the weapon and the four shells in the zipped-up bag should still be perfectly competent if I needed to blow somebody away if I felt the need.
I confess that my pacifist leaning does not preclude the possibility of using the fucking thing if somebody tries to harm my wife or myself. I would not bet on my chances of winning a gunfight, but a gun nut friend assured me that few potential assailants will hang around after hearing a shotgun blast. Who knows? Worth a try in a tight spot.
Although I no longer favor total abolition of firearms, I have no respect for the fetishistic idea that we need more guns, or that the "fast draw" solution of shooting armed bad guys before they kill makes any sense as public policy.
My wingnut friendly point is limited to the abstraction of the pigs having to worry about all those millions of guns already loose in our society. Whereas I used to think that was a bad thing, now I buy the wingnut logic of guns being a meaningful deterrent. This is a function of my view that civilization is just about done -- it's a jungle out there.
I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.
I’m not sure
if it is more likely that I’ll be killed by a pig or an ammosexual. I’d prefer “neither”, but the choice is probably not up to me. I remember sitting waiting for the bullets to come through the walls of our now-burned house, while “sheltering-in-place” while the cops were SWATting the residence down the block a couple years ago. I guess that, in the final analysis, it really doesn’t matter much.
However, having said that, my ex-military ex-friend says that a pump-action shotgun is the perfect home defense weapon: most intruders will hear that “chunk-chunk” Rambo sound made by chambering a round, and flee.
On the other hand, if the intruder is a pig that busted down the wrong door, they’ll hear that sound, fear for their lives, simply kill you on the spot, and be regarded as heroes by their peers. It’s a conundrum…
Twice bitten, permanently shy.
A six year old is not a toddler.
My brother killed his first rabbit when he was five.
I shot a crow when I was 7.
BOTH of us knew and understood bullets kill.
Parents in Texas go to prison for their children getting hands on guns and causing injury.
Metal detectors should be non-random.
A nutty or angry kid managing to get hands on a gun and doing harm is a problem to be fixed particularized to that location and situation.
I agree with fire that with what we are seeing around the world, gun safety should be limited and not a broad brush that diminishes the 2nd Am. I also agree we can argue the interpretation of that Am. day and night until we die of old age.
But this is a bad time, bad environment to discuss taking the guns of a free people that have the right to possess them, and reinforces the need for how the duty to protect innocents from the harm they can do.
*edit:my 5 yr old brother shot that rabbit ON THE RUN. I shot the crow ON THE FLY.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Subject line changed so to not let this get sidetracked
I don't intend to get into a debate here about what is a toddler, a child, etc.
I just want to focus on the fact that this example is the end result of "the solution for a gun problem is always more guns."
When the "bad guy with a gun" is a 6-year old, when your solution is to have a shoot-out between a teacher and a small child inside a classroom, then your point of view is insane.
It has nothing to do with more guns.
It is about how to safely deal with the guns we already have.
Juvenile cases are typically sealed, the public prohibited from being in the court room, seeing any documents.
Speculate, and that is all we can ever do. We do not know if the child is competent, if the teacher had molested him, if his parents taught him to go after racists, or even if this case involved people of differing races.
We do not know, and will never know anything beyond a 6 year old shot a school teacher.
If the teacher survives, he/she can possibly make a statement, if the state prosecutors permit.
It is an isolated event that doesn't give rise to Constitutional Amendments.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Strongly disagree
The only way that someone can come to that conclusion is if you don't want to do anything substantial.
We'll know everything substantial in a day or two.
It was a SIX YEAR OLD. Of course he wasn't competent to make that kind of decision.
That's a reach based on nothing.
No, it's a milestone. And it'll happen again.
A wikipedia search
suggest this is not a milestone shooting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_Sta...
I want to clarify competency. No child is competent to stand trial for crimes, no child is competent to make a binding contract, as examples. My query is whether or not the child that did this shooting has mental disabilities or a normal IQ.
In the coming days, we will hear from the police, neighbors, family members, but that may not give us the truth. Facts surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting are still in controversy.
Raising issues of motive, such as racial bias, or assault, are typical investigative queries. By now, investigators have already factored in those possible motives. It is not a reach. It is built in to the process of solving crimes.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
What would you suggest to fix this problem?
Do you think that we shouldn’t have access to guns just because someone that shouldn’t have one might? Serious question not trying to be a D.
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
Your government will allow it to happen though.
Then you might want to reword this
Do you think that we shouldn’t have access to guns just because someone that shouldn’t have one might? Serious question not trying to be a D.
Who is suggesting
a shootout is the solution? If anyone were making that suggestion, I would consider them insane.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Criminal activity
in NZ has increased among the younger population since covid times. There have been numerous offences, sometimes dire, among 13-16 year olds recently.
Although I believe the pervasive presence of violence in all forms of media are partly responsible, it doesn’t fully explain why much of it is committed by youth who probably don’t spend much time watching media. The increasing number of gangs and members has a lot to do with it. For many whose life is empty of basic life needs, gangs can be attractive. When there’s no supportive family life or place to call home the need of a sense of belonging, as in gangs takes its place.
That’s interesting
I’ve been reading how countries that have been much more sane than America are now having problems with gun violence and wonder what is behind it. Countries that have a better quality of life than most Americans never had this problem until a few years ago. So what is behind so many societies changing? I’ve long thought that if people here had a better life with parents who aren’t stressed about money and jobs and schools that had enough teachers to pay attention to kids who had enough to eat without being made pariahs for being poor things would be different.
Another thing to look at is the number of kids who are on mood altering drugs which have long been documented to Fck up people’s minds. Almost every school shooter has been on some drug or another, but authorities rarely look into this.
So what are you seeing over there that might explain this?
On edit you didn’t say guns were a problem, just violence. But it’s what I’m seeing in the news.
I do think part of our problem is both the cop and military culture here and how our country likes to solve problems with weapons and violence. From TV shows to real life our way of life revolves around violence and guns.
Putin isn’t going to make you homeless or kill you or deny you health care.
Your government will allow it to happen though.
I think your observations are sensible snoopy
I think the diminishing quality of life for many since covid contributes to it, especially those already compromised. The increasing number of gangs, as I mentioned, has something to do with it. A few years ago Australia started sending back to NZ their criminal gang members based on the fact that they were born in NZ even though they lived and were raised almost entirely in Australia. Being from Australian gangs they were in many cases more powerful than the local ones, and started setting up shop here. They have stronger connections with the black market of guns and a strong competitive influence here.
I’m not knowledgeable about the influence of mood altering drugs prescribed to children but my guess is that also plays a part.
Unfortunately as a result of these changes here more cops are carrying guns in their vehicles, but at least there is somewhat of a robust discussion regarding its validity.
We are still in a country that was not our homeland
From the beginning, on an unmapped trail apparently
Right now,
I am trying to get a father to have limited and supervised visitation with my mother/client's little kids.
Father has a girl friend, he lives with her, and she had a 3 and a 2 year old. He went off to work the night shift. Her 3 yr old son wandered into their bedroom, grabbed the pistol the boyfriend/father of the year in my case left on the nightstand, in reach of sleeping mom, and shot his baby sister. Killed her. Mom is facing prison. Boyfriend/father, the one I am suing, was found to be non-complicit in the murder.
The very gun intended for safety of the household was the murder weapon that was used to kill a baby.
Adults can do better.
Seems boyfriend/father of the year did call sleeping beauty to tell her to put the pistol on safety. She slept through the call.
I consider this sort of thing very situational and isolated.
On the adults, not the Constitution.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
@on the cusp That's a horrific thing.
That's a horrific thing. I wish they'd make safes large enough for rifles a tax credit, fully refundable as they say. Maybe work it out somehow for thems that already have one.
I have teens who grew up with firearms and hunting from the time they were old enough to walk. I put all my firearms in the safe. When I weigh the odds of needing one vs the results of some high school friend fooling around while I'm not home, distraught teen over break up, etc, it just doesn't seem worth it. Just my personal calculation. If it was just me and the wife I'd keep a few firearms around where they'd be handy.
Not sure how that guy can live with himself.
Charges against him were dropped.
The heavy sleeping Mom is facing prison.
I would likely keep all guns in a safe until kids were teens. I would want a parent around, just for good measure.
I have no sympathy for the man or woman whose lack of judgment caused a death.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981