Split Thread: 6 yr old in custody after shooting teacher

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Where on Earth did you get this fantasy?

The press coverage. I have seen criticism of the school but there hasn't been an examination of the role of gun culture.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

The parents are of course culpable, this doesn't mean the school wasn't in error too. The fact the kid is 6 years old does not mean they should not have taken the reports more seriously. It's the USA, school shootings are a real thing. The school knows this. The kid had serious issues. The school knew this.

The parents failings led to the kid getting hold of a gun. The schools failings allowed that kid to actually use that gun.

This, this right here. So from a preventative standpoint, what do we do?

The school system is pretty much under our direct control. We could have safeguards in place by tomorrow ******* morning that would prevent 99% of such incidences.

Getting guns out of the hands of irresponsible nitwits in private home will be a many years long fight. It's fight that we can't give up on, but it is solidly the long game.

So yeah, blame the parents for their part. But the immediate heat has to be on the end we have direct control over.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Thermal

This, this right here. So from a preventative standpoint, what do we do?

The school system is pretty much under our direct control. We could have safeguards in place by tomorrow ******* morning that would prevent 99% of such incidences.

Wait. There are over 100 incidences of six year olds shooting people in class?

Quote:

Getting guns out of the hands of irresponsible nitwits in private home will be a many years long fight. It's fight that we can't give up on, but it is solidly the long game.

So yeah, blame the parents for their part. But the immediate heat has to be on the end we have direct control over.

The problem is that it is just deflection. The real problem is the totally irresponsible and immature gun culture in the USA and people who want that to continue use the school as a "look a squirrel" distraction.

What needs to happen is that the parents need to be prosecuted for negligence and put in the slammer for a bit. You might find then that other parents with both guns and young children will start behaving a bit more responsibly.

You all are sitting here saying that elementary school teachers have got to become trained security professionals as if that's perfectly reasonable.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Wait. There are over 100 incidences of six year olds shooting people in class?

Doesn't matter if the threat is 6, 16, or 60. Safety protocols are basically the same.

Quote:

The problem is that it is just deflection. The real problem is the totally irresponsible and immature gun culture in the USA and people who want that to continue use the school as a "look a squirrel" distraction.

And as I said, that's the long game. The short game is dealing with the cards we have in front of us right here, right now. That's mitigating the clear and present ******* danger. We can't go full-on Gestapo and start kicking in doors today. We can take a teacher's report of a child carrying a gun seriously.

Quote:

What needs to happen is that the parents need to be prosecuted for negligence and put in the slammer for a bit. You might find then that other parents with both guns and young children will start behaving a bit more responsibly.

Do you really think that would be a deterrent to others? Like how the death penalty lowers murder rates? Oh, right...it doesn't. Irresponsible nitwits will continue to be irresponsible nitwits. It's right there in the name. "Oh, it won't happen to me. I know what I'm doing".

Quote:

You all are sitting here saying that elementary school teachers have got to become trained security professionals as if that's perfectly reasonable.

If you are responsible for children, yes you better God damned well be prepared to reasonably protect them. That doesn't mean be a Navy SEAL. It means by the fourth report of a kid carrying a gun, maybe you want to start taking that **** seriously?

Call a cop. The teachers don't need to be ******* ninjas.

[plague311]

LoL it'll take me a second as I get my eyes back in focus. I rolled them so ******* hard I think I caused myself physical damage.

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

Oh yes, implement a solution that a) makes schools more dagerous,

A ******* school resource officer makes schools more dangerous? Because you're in a thread talking about a 6 year old shooting a teacher. I've never heard of an SRO shooting a student, a teacher, or anyone else for that matter. So I'll need a source for this statement. Anything that says SROs make schools more dangerous. Take your time, I'll wait.

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

b) highly increases racist incidents in school and

Highly, huh? Well that's a bold claim there fella. Got a source for it? I don't mean the one-offs, or the few instances we've seen in the news. Those are unacceptable, but I'm going to need something that covers this "highly" claim, cause that sounds like absolute bull **** to me.

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

c) leads to the criminalisation of children being children. As we've seen in places like Uvalde that system will work perfectly. Absolutely genius solution!

Speaking of genius, Uvalde didn't have a ******* resource officer, did they? No, they had a team of cops that responded to the shooting and didn't engage because they were either too chicken ****, or were told not to. Either way, it was dumb as hell.

However, that has **** all to do with this situation, right? Had a school resource officer been on-site he would have had the authority to search the child and remove the gun. It's one of the things that they do is respond to situations like this.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by plague311

LoL it'll take me a second as I get my eyes back in focus. I rolled them so ******* hard I think I caused myself physical damage.



A ******* school resource officer makes schools more dangerous? Because you're in a thread talking about a 6 year old shooting a teacher. I've never heard of an SRO shooting a student, a teacher, or anyone else for that matter. So I'll need a source for this statement. Anything that says SROs make schools more dangerous. Take your time, I'll wait.



Highly, huh? Well that's a bold claim there fella. Got a source for it? I don't mean the one-offs, or the few instances we've seen in the news. Those are unacceptable, but I'm going to need something that covers this "highly" claim, cause that sounds like absolute bull **** to me.



Speaking of genius, Uvalde didn't have a ******* resource officer, did they? No, they had a team of cops that responded to the shooting and didn't engage because they were either too chicken ****, or were told not to. Either way, it was dumb as hell.

However, that has **** all to do with this situation, right? Had a school resource officer been on-site he would have had the authority to search the child and remove the gun. It's one of the things that they do is respond to situations like this.

You want to excuse insanity, go right ahead. Me, I'll continue to live in acountry which doesn't eat its own.

Continue blaming the wrong people America, I'm out.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

You want to excuse insanity, go right ahead. Me, I'll continue to live in acountry which doesn't eat its own.

Continue blaming the wrong people America, I'm out.

It's not that. It's that there are two levels of problem here: the wide one, and the immediate. A lot of us are pissed that the immediate, easy to handle problem was not handled.

If you have a person starving in front of you, do you blame the redistribution of wealth and society at large, or might you put that on the back burner for a bit and get the brother a sandwich? This school said "**** you. Starve."

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

.....
Do you really think that would be a deterrent to others? Like how the death penalty lowers murder rates? Oh, right...it doesn't. Irresponsible nitwits will continue to be irresponsible nitwits. It's right there in the name. "Oh, it won't happen to me. I know what I'm doing".
.....

Actually, the whole point of laws is that most people do obey them, and the few who don't get punished. Most people generally observe the traffic laws, and when they don't they can be ticketed. Most people who need money don't rob banks. People who commit murder usually expect to get away with it. If laws requiring safe storage of firearms were passed, with some high profile prosecutions in cases like this one, most people would comply most of the time, especially if accompanied by clever publicity campaigns ("It's noon and you're at work. Do you know where your guns are?").

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

You want to excuse insanity, go right ahead. Me, I'll continue to live in acountry which doesn't eat its own.

Continue blaming the wrong people America, I'm out.

I didn't excuse a ******* thing. You do know words have meanings right? Er maybe in your country that's not a thing? I'm also not blaming anyone. In fact, at this point I'm glad you're "out" because you obviously either didn't read anything I posted, or couldn't comprehend it. Either way, glad you're happy in your country, maybe you guys will get noticed for your "better than you" uppity, condescending bull **** sometime soon. We all have to be known for something!

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Actually, the whole point of laws is that most people do obey them, and the few who don't get punished. Most people generally observe the traffic laws, and when they don't they can be ticketed.

While I get your point, acting in public is going to have markedly more compliance than private behavior. Few people will be openly blowing a bone in areas where it is illegal, but feel quite free to do so in the privacy of their homes.

Do you think Americans will freely submit to random home inspections, to insure proper storage? I'd bet my left nut that the odds are better of declaring Kanye West King of the Americas. If someone is dumb enough to leave guns around, I doubt a fine will improve their intellect. I mean, a fine or confiscation kind of pales in comparison to having people killed, and they pretty clearly don't mind that risk.

Quote:

Most people who need money don't rob banks. People who commit murder usually expect to get away with it.

Not because it's illegal, though. It's because robbing a bank requires violence, or the credible threat of it. Most people aren't psychopaths who are willing to kill, hence, no robbing-leverage.

Quote:

If laws requiring safe storage of firearms were passed, with some high profile prosecutions in cases like this one, most people would comply most of the time, especially if accompanied by clever publicity campaigns ("It's noon and you're at work. Do you know where your guns are?").

It's possible. Requires a lot more faith in people than experience with the ******* has led me to retain, but possible. Basically, I think responsible people already would be responsible about weapon storage around children. Those who aren't...well, I'm guessing they are beyond help right out of the gate.

I mean, the kind of person who would leave a gun around for a 6yo to be able to take to school is not likely going to be swayed by action/consequence protocols. Because they are stupid and/ or psychopaths.

Actually, this OP story never got around to explaining how exactly this kid got a hold of the gun. Did he rappell up this high shelf we keep hearing about with his handy lockpick set, while mom was making coffee (and consequently forgetting that she was supposed to supervise the little psycho in class that week)? Is Yosemite Six Gun here like an American Ninja Warrior, climbing and lock picking? This "oh yeah man, we stored the Taurus safely and responsibly" line is laughable.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

....
Do you think Americans will freely submit to random home inspections, to insure proper storage?
....

Aw, c'mon, nobody suggests that, anymore than anybody would accept home searches for cocaine. The point is that a law would set a standard for compliance, and if someone was caught in violation -- as in this case -- he'd be subject to prosecution. Right now there's no actual standard for gun safety. This mother apparently thought she was doing enough. If the law said something like "Firearms must be stored unloaded in an approved locked container" (with an approval standard) a lot of people would comply. It would become the norm.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Aw, c'mon, nobody suggests that, anymore than anybody would accept home searches for cocaine. The point is that a law would set a standard for compliance, and if someone was caught in violation -- as in this case -- he'd be subject to prosecution. Right now there's no actual standard for gun safety. This mother apparently thought she was doing enough. If the law said something like "Firearms must be stored unloaded in an approved locked container" (with an approval standard) a lot of people would comply. It would become the norm.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Aw, c'mon, nobody suggests that, anymore than anybody would accept home searches for cocaine.

Then it would be toothless. This family claims the gat was stored safely, and the kid was basically Danny Ocean. Might be a hard burden of proof in a lot of cases. IIRC, the Sandy Hook shooter got his weapons from secured storage. And when the parents were home, would the gun be permitted to be at the ready, for home defense? I'd think gun guys would be uncompromising on that point.

Quote:

The point is that a law would set a standard for compliance, and if someone was caught in violation -- as in this case -- he'd be subject to prosecution. Right now there's no actual standard for gun safety. This mother apparently thought she was doing enough. If the law said something like "Firearms must be stored unloaded in an approved locked container" (with an approval standard) a lot of people would comply. It would become the norm.

Still calling BS on this. No way was this gun stored in any way safely, if a literal 6yo got a hold of it loaded, while mom or whoever was apparently right there (I don't assume he was alone and got himself off to school).

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Then it would be toothless. This family claims the gat was stored safely, and the kid was basically Danny Ocean. Might be a hard burden of proof in a lot of cases. IIRC, the Sandy Hook shooter got his weapons from secured storage. And when the parents were home, would the gun be permitted to be at the ready, for home defense? I'd think gun guys would be uncompromising on that point.
.....

If the law defined safe storage, the mother would have known that she was not in compliance. And there are gun safes with biometric locks that can be opened instantly. Snapping in a magazine or loading a revolver with a speedloader or popping shells into a shotgun takes a couple seconds. How often do people need to keep a firearm at the ready against an invasion? If that's really how they feel it should be in a holster on their belt. Maybe those people should invest in an alarm system first.

There's no reason why this mom couldn't have had one of these.
https://www.amazon.com/awesafe-Gun-S...gun-safes&th=1

Adam Lanza lived in a house full of guns. His mom bought some for him. They were not secured.

Quote:

COHEN: That's right, Audie. Prosecutors say that all of the guns that they found at the home were bought by Nancy Lanza; that is, not by her son Adam. When they were in the house, they also found an open, unlocked gun safe that didn't appear to be forced open. And they also found a holiday card from Nancy Lanza to her son, with a check. And he was supposed to use the money in the check to buy himself a gun.

https://www.npr.org/2013/03/28/17561...ons-ammunition

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Don

The press coverage. I have seen criticism of the school but there hasn't been an examination of the role of gun culture.

Then maybe you don't understand how the press works here. The current headlines are covering the teacher's frustration with the school not responding to her telling them the kid showed the gun to another kid on the playground. That's the headline because it should be the headline. The school screwed up—big time.

Our news media sells controversy, sensation and scandal. You expect to see an exam of the gun culture? That's old news. They have covered the mother claiming the gun was locked up.

None of this media coverage means people aren't blaming the parents for the kid having access to the gun. When it comes out how the kid got access to a supposedly locked up gun you will see that headline.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Thermal

... Actually, this OP story never got around to explaining how exactly this kid got a hold of the gun. Did he rappell up this high shelf we keep hearing about with his handy lockpick set, while mom was making coffee (and consequently forgetting that she was supposed to supervise the little psycho in class that week)? Is Yosemite Six Gun here like an American Ninja Warrior, climbing and lock picking? This "oh yeah man, we stored the Taurus safely and responsibly" line is laughable.

It's going to come out eventually, hopefully when the parents are charged with child endangerment. That's the law which applies here; one need not have a law on safe storage of guns given there is/are laws against letting kids get access to them.

Originally Posted by Bob001

... The point is that a law would set a standard for compliance, and if someone was caught in violation -- as in this case -- he'd be subject to prosecution. Right now there's no actual standard for gun safety. This mother apparently thought she was doing enough. If the law said something like "Firearms must be stored unloaded in an approved locked container" (with an approval standard) a lot of people would comply. It would become the norm.

Probably no more would than already do because there are laws already depending on the state.

Gun Storage Laws by State

Quote:

Twenty-seven states also have gun storage laws that are designed to protect children from accessing guns. These types of laws can take a variety of forms depending on the state. For example, some states, including California, impose criminal liability if a minor is likely to gain access to a gun because it's stored negligently.

These types of gun storage laws vary when it comes to whether the gun must be loaded or if the child has to actually gain access to it in order to hold a person criminally liable. On the other end of the spectrum, certain states, including Colorado and Nevada, only prohibit a person from recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally providing a gun to a minor.

It's also important to note that some states that have gun storage laws addressing children's access to guns impose civil liability in addition to imposing criminal liability.

Virginia
I don't see a safe storage law on the page.

Originally Posted by plague311

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

b) highly increases racist incidents in school ...

Highly, huh? Well that's a bold claim there fella. Got a source for it?

It's a complex issue and there's another thread on it somewhere:

Study Confirms School-to-Prison Pipeline

Quote:

Children who attend schools with high suspension rates are significantly more likely to be arrested and jailed as adults – especially Black and Hispanic boys – according to new research that shines a spotlight on the school-to-prison pipeline.

Data have long shown that Black and Hispanic students experience suspension and expulsion at much higher rates than white students, and that as adults, they're also disproportionately represented in the county's prison system.
...

The End of Police in Schools

Quote:

In Denver, as in most other school districts that partner with police departments to provide security, black and Hispanic students face disproportionately high rates of discipline and referrals to the juvenile justice system.

During the 2018-19 school year, for example, 29% of referrals to law enforcement were for black students, despite black students accounting for only 13% of the district's student population, according to the Advancement Project. And from 2014 through 2019, there were 4,540 police tickets and arrests of students within Denver schools – 87% of them students of color.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

....There's no reason why this mom couldn't have had one of these.
https://www.amazon.com/awesafe-Gun-S...gun-safes&th=1

I can think of a few reasons.

1. She didn't care.
2. She actually had one, yet her bookcase scaling safecracking son knew the bypass code.
3. She couldn't afford a $100 safe. I mean, come on. She could only afford a Taurus, man.
4. She has the mechanical sense to recognize a cheap piece of **** that is borderline worthless. Here's a video of a 9yo old breaking into a similar one with household hammers in under two minutes, showing all the locksmithing savvy of a chimpanzee:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

I could prob get into one of those Barbie doll boxes in under 10 seconds.

How would a full tilt $1000 standing gun safe hold up? Here we have another pair of apes with nothing more exotic than a pair of Harbor Frieght crowbars. Under two minutes and in:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Point being, please don't think either Amazon toyboxes or even big steel gun safes are going to stop even the average bufoon. Locks, as they say, are for honest people.

Quote:

Adam Lanza lived in a house full of guns. His mom bought some for him. They were not secured.

Untrue. It is not known if the safe was locked prior to killing his mom, and getting the key/combination from her. Or he already had it (he was an adult). I highly doubt she had a safe full of guns and just habitually left the door swinging open.


None of this really matters, though. Biometric safes are great as long as they are feel-good measures, to tell yourself you are being responsible. Or maybe to put a few seconds of delay for someone getting the gun. Hey, that's better than nothing. It's just not a reasonable safeguard against someone as smart and strong as the average poodle.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

.....
4. She has the mechanical sense to recognize a cheap piece of **** that is borderline worthless. Here's a video of a 9yo old breaking into a similar one with household hammers in under two minutes, showing all the locksmithing savvy of a chimpanzee:

I could prob get into one of those Barbie doll boxes in under 10 seconds.

How would a full tilt $1000 standing gun safe hold up? Here we have another pair of apes with nothing more exotic than a pair of Harbor Frieght crowbars. Under two minutes and in:
....

Great. Nothing works. Nothing will ever work. Just leave all the guns piled on the coffee table and hope for the best.

Locks are intended to make theft harder, especially against six-year-olds, not impossible. Why lock your front door when you know a thief can kick it in? Why lock your car when you know someone can just break the glass? Bank vaults can be blown open with explosives. The idea is to encourage the attacker to find an easier target.

Originally Posted by Thermal

Untrue. It is not known if the safe was locked prior to killing his mom, and getting the key/combination from her. Or he already had it (he was an adult).

If he could open the safe -- as seems likely -- then obviously the guns weren't secured against him, which is the issue here. This was an anti-burglar safe, not an anti-crazy-son safe.

[mgidm86]

Yes there are laws in Virginia as I already posted. Nothing specific about safes:

Quote:

Virginia law does not require a locking device to accompany the sale of a firearm (although the federal law applies).

Virginia law also does not require firearm owners to lock their weapons, although it is unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of 14.

First of all, where could one leave a gun in a home outside of a safe that is secure against a child finding it? Kids snoop. No matter where you hide it someone can find it.

This is why safes exist! If you have a safe are you gonna hide a lot of cash in the sock drawer? A six year old is not going to use a crowbar on a safe.

So yes laws were broken. Probably a misdemeanor. Yay. But what if that negligence caused the death of someone? Still a misdemeanor?

There are so many important things that are broken in this country I don't know how it can ever be fixed. Really depressing.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Great. Nothing works. Nothing will ever work.

You could find work as an NRA spokesman. "Oh, this dimestore junk isn't effective? Let's just throw up our hands and give up. Just not possible to have an actually effective safe that a child (literally, a child) might find difficult to break into".

Quote:

Just leave all the guns piled on the coffee table and hope for the best.

Or maybe...just maybe....require a grown up method of safe storage? Like, one that would likely cost much more than the gun? Like, something that might reasonably secure the killing tool? Crazy, I know.

Quote:

Locks are intended to make theft harder, especially against six-year-olds, not impossible. Why lock your front door when you know a thief can kick it in? Why lock your car when you know someone can just break the glass? Bank vaults can be blown open with explosives. The idea is to encourage the attacker to find an easier target.

All of which is fine for protecting a laptop. We are talking about killing tools. Some of them are mass murdering tools. I'm going to stick to my argument that the needed security far exceeds a household deadbolt's intent as a deterrent.

And I agree with you, btw. Locks will readily discourage punks and drunks, and they do that well enough. A murderer though is not so easily deterred.

Quote:

If he could open the safe -- as seems likely -- then obviously the guns weren't secured against him, which is the issue here. This was an anti-burglar safe, not an anti-crazy-son safe.

What's that you say? We can't trust the occupants who might gain access either? Yeah, how about that?

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Yes there are laws in Virginia as I already posted. Nothing specific about safes:




First of all, where could one leave a gun in a home outside of a safe that is secure against a child finding it? Kids snoop. No matter where you hide it someone can find it.

This is why safes exist! If you have a safe are you gonna hide a lot of cash in the sock drawer? A six year old is not going to use a crowbar on a safe.

So yes laws were broken. Probably a misdemeanor. Yay. But what if that negligence caused the death of someone? Still a misdemeanor?

There are so many important things that are broken in this country I don't know how it can ever be fixed. Really depressing.

This may be the problem in prosecuting the parents;

Quote:

it is unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of 14.

My guess is a child of six could load a gun. If the gun was left unloaded and the child loaded it then it would appear to be no criminal offence under Va law. Civil liability may still apply, but they may have few assets, and putting a family on the street to earn lawyers a fee may not be what anyone wants.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Planigale

This may be the problem in prosecuting the parents;

My guess is a child of six could load a gun. If the gun was left unloaded and the child loaded it then it would appear to be no criminal offence under Va law. Civil liability may still apply, but they may have few assets, and putting a family on the street to earn lawyers a fee may not be what anyone wants.

Depends on the gun. A six-year-old might figure out how to load cartridges into a revolver. Might be a lot harder to insert a magazine into a pistol and rack the slide. If the gun and ammo are stored separately, that would make it harder, too.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Planigale

This may be the problem in prosecuting the parents;


My guess is a child of six could load a gun. If the gun was left unloaded and the child loaded it then it would appear to be no criminal offence under Va law. Civil liability may still apply, but they may have few assets, and putting a family on the street to earn lawyers a fee may not be what anyone wants.

Enter Alex Baldwin.
Where does no country for people without guns finally get traction?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Thermal

.....
Or maybe...just maybe....require a grown up method of safe storage? Like, one that would likely cost much more than the gun? Like, something that might reasonably secure the killing tool? Crazy, I know.

All of which is fine for protecting a laptop. We are talking about killing tools. Some of them are mass murdering tools. I'm going to stick to my argument that the needed security far exceeds a household deadbolt's intent as a deterrent.

A locking box that provides security equal to a deadbolt would be a vast improvement over conditions in many households, like this one, and in the current environment it's probably the most, maybe even more, than could be expected. Requiring a safe that might cost thousands of dollars would likely be seen by legislators and judges as an infringement on the 2nd amendment. And from everything I've read, burglars first of all look for unlocked doors and windows, next for doors that can be opened with a credit card. Deadbolts are pretty effective deterrents for their purpose.

Originally Posted by Thermal

What's that you say? We can't trust the occupants who might gain access either? Yeah, how about that?

That goes back to the entirely different question of who can buy a gun and what kind of gun? If Adam Lanza had only been able to get his hands on revolvers and bolt-action rifles, his death toll would have been lower, the kids would have had a better chance to get away, and the adults would have had a better chance to overpower him. Nobody has any legitimate use for an AR15, and most people in most parts of the modern world live quite nicely without them.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Bob001

A locking box that provides security equal to a deadbolt would be a vast improvement over conditions in many households, like this one, and in the current environment it's probably the most, maybe even more, than could be expected. Requiring a safe that might cost thousands of dollars would likely be seen by legislators and judges as an infringement on the 2nd amendment. And from everything I've read, burglars first of all look for unlocked doors and windows, next for doors that can be opened with a credit card. Deadbolts are pretty effective deterrents for their purpose.



That goes back to the entirely different question of who can buy a gun and what kind of gun? If Adam Lanza had only been able to get his hands on revolvers and bolt-action rifles, his death toll would have been lower, the kids would have had a better chance to get away, and the adults would have had a better chance to overpower him. Nobody has any legitimate use for an AR15, and most people in most parts of the modern world live quite nicely without them.

Except it would emasculate movie projects.
In countries like New Zealand movie makers must rely on conversations, and that is bleak.

[Planigale]

Although slightly off topic, suicide is a major cause of gun deaths, and surprisingly small barriers reduce suicide deaths. Having a notice with a help line number on bridges and cliffs works. Selling paracetamol /acetaminophen in lots of eight reduces suicides. Having a requirement to separate gun and ammunition and locked storage would reduce gun suicide even for the owner with the key.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Bob001

A locking box that provides security equal to a deadbolt would be a vast improvement over conditions in many households, like this one, and in the current environment it's probably the most, maybe even more, than could be expected. Requiring a safe that might cost thousands of dollars would likely be seen by legislators and judges as an infringement on the 2nd amendment. And from everything I've read, burglars first of all look for unlocked doors and windows, next for doors that can be opened with a credit card. Deadbolts are pretty effective deterrents for their purpose.



That goes back to the entirely different question of who can buy a gun and what kind of gun? If Adam Lanza had only been able to get his hands on revolvers and bolt-action rifles, his death toll would have been lower, the kids would have had a better chance to get away, and the adults would have had a better chance to overpower him. Nobody has any legitimate use for an AR15, and most people in most parts of the modern world live quite nicely without them.

Had a look and in the UK a police approved safe for ammunition will cost around £169 https://www.safe.co.uk/products/5-pi...o-cabinet.html If you had a legal gun in the UK you’d need 2, one for the ammunition, one for the gun, so it will be £340 - and that was literally the first item that came up on my search. Given the numbers that would be needed in the USA and mass manufacturing I am sure it would easily be well under $200 to get something that would do the job.

[TruthJonsen]

Could this be a hate crime? Black children get a lot of whitey-hate messages these days. This is on top of the unfortunate normalization and acceptance of thug culture.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...n=true#image=2

Was everyone in authority intimidated and slow to act because of the child’s race? No one wants to be accused of supporting the school-to-prison pipeline and systemic racism.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Darat

Had a look and in the UK a police approved safe for ammunition will cost around £169 https://www.safe.co.uk/products/5-pi...o-cabinet.html If you had a legal gun in the UK you’d need 2, one for the ammunition, one for the gun, so it will be £340 - and that was literally the first item that came up on my search. Given the numbers that would be needed in the USA and mass manufacturing I am sure it would easily be well under $200 to get something that would do the job.

Safes like this are widely available in the U.S. for as little as $100 or so. Thermal doesn't think they provide a suitable level of security.
https://www.walmart.com/search?q=gun...sort=price_low

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Safes like this are widely available in the U.S. for as little as $100 or so. Thermal doesn't think they provide a suitable level of security.
https://www.walmart.com/search?q=gun...sort=price_low

In the UK, you can't keep a handgun at home at all, in a safe or not, IIRC? The ones Darat shows would be for storage at a gun club, which I'm guessing is more than a commonly secure location to start with.

What I'm thinking here is the mentality of someone who sleeps with a gun under their pillow. They want it out and ready, not going to the safe and opening it and loading and chambering and all when the hypothetical intruder is already at their bedroom door. And under Darat's model, they'd have to go to a second safe for the ammo. This is all assuming that she has an extra couple hundred to throw around for the cardboard box level of security. The toybox safes are great for stalling off accidents, like a six year old picking up a loaded gun, and for generally keeping a lid on them against rushed snatch and runs. My point was that what most people find to be security is a flipping joke, and when you feel compelled to keep mass murdering tools, a higher standard of securing them would be reasonable? No? A bridge too far?

Also, agreed on your earlier point about semis being utterly unnecessary for civilian use. And I say this as a hommes that likes to shoot (longuns, 12 ga shotgun and .22LR plinkers
mostly). The UK, Australian etc models make a lot of sense to me, and I'd like to see semis and most handguns done away with in the States. But I think we can agree that it ain't gonna happen any time soon, so I think the focus has to stay on regulating the living **** out of the genie that is already out of the bottle.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Planigale

Although slightly off topic, suicide is a major cause of gun deaths, and surprisingly small barriers reduce suicide deaths. Having a notice with a help line number on bridges and cliffs works. Selling paracetamol /acetaminophen in lots of eight reduces suicides. Having a requirement to separate gun and ammunition and locked storage would reduce gun suicide even for the owner with the key.

Yes.
My brother is a doctor but profoundly troubled.
He has said that if he had a gun he would have shot himself.
In NZ there are no guns so he continues to live his troubled life.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Thermal

This, this right here. So from a preventative standpoint, what do we do?

The school system is pretty much under our direct control. We could have safeguards in place by tomorrow ******* morning that would prevent 99% of such incidences.

Getting guns out of the hands of irresponsible nitwits in private home will be a many years long fight. It's fight that we can't give up on, but it is solidly the long game.

So yeah, blame the parents for their part. But the immediate heat has to be on the end we have direct control over.

In USAia? Not a chance.

[Ryan O'Dine]

It seems to me if the parent had enough time to accompany the child through the school day, they had enough time to homeschool them. I know there are evidence based reasons for mainstreaming disabled children, but I feel there should also be limits. Every child in that class who witnessed the gunplay is going to be traumatized, and it's hard to believe this is the first time such a child traumatized his peers.

Maybe this particular boy is not an actual psychopath, but that would define a limit for me. As I understand it, you can't socialize a psychopath, pretty much by definition. There comes a time when the safety and needs of the other children have to matter.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Samson

Yes.
My brother is a doctor but profoundly troubled.
He has said that if he had a gun he would have shot himself.
In NZ there are no guns so he continues to live his troubled life.

Fortunately, he doesn't live in the USA, where he would have the freedom the blow out his own brains and the means to do it. And if he lived here and didn't do it, just wait a while, somebody else will do it for him!

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Or a child.

They can be unfit to own a gun, not own a gun, and still be perfectly fit to have a child.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

They can be unfit to own a gun, not own a gun, and still be perfectly fit to have a child.

Which bring us to the concepts of reproductive licensing and felony dysgenesis, which are a bit off-topic.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

They can be unfit to own a gun, not own a gun, and still be perfectly fit to have a child.

Heh, sure. I mean, you can be fit to both own guns and raise kids; or be unfit to own guns, but fine with kids; or good with guns, but not fit to have kids; or fit for neither.

And as far as specifically these parents, well, we don't really know for sure, obviously, and won't until all of the facts come out, and experts deliver their judgment. Still, you clearly think, given the mother couldn't keep her gun safe, that she isn't fit to own guns, and I agree. And further, given that both father and mother were unable to keep their child away from harm's way, his own as well as others', and a somewhat special needs child at that it appears, then I'd say they're probably not fit to be parents either.

Again, these are just somewhat casual and entirely provisional observations. We don't actually know, sitting here, and at this time, about their fitness or otherwise about either thing. Still, we opine away, right? And both these opinions seem reasonable enough, I should think.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

Heh, sure. I mean, you can be fit to both own guns and raise kids; or be unfit to own guns, but fine with kids; or good with guns, but not fit to have kids; or fit for neither.

And as far as specifically these parents, well, we don't really know for sure, obviously, and won't until all of the facts come out, and experts deliver their judgment. Still, you clearly think, given the mother couldn't keep her gun safe, that she isn't fit to own guns, and I agree. And further, given that both father and mother were unable to keep their child away from harm's way, his own as well as others', and a somewhat special needs child at that it appears, then I'd say they're probably not fit to be parents either.

Again, these are just somewhat casual and entirely provisional observations. We don't actually know, sitting here, and at this time, about their fitness or otherwise about either thing. Still, we opine away, right? And both these opinions seem reasonable enough, I should think.

I think you have no idea how hard it is to manage a child with behavioural issues. You could be the best parent in the world but that child is still going to throw tantrums. As they get older the tantrums become more physical and more sophisticated. Impulse control is a real issue. perfect parents can have children who are unmanageable. I am no expert, but I have done child psychiatry clinics, and some of the parents are saintly. I cannot believe how much care they put in. The parents may have been negligent regarding the gun, but I don't think that means they were evil. If they had had a normal child (and they may have) they may be excellent parents. to be clear, I don't think the child is evil. I suspect the child is autistic with impose control issues. I suspect some form of medium secure long term care is inevitable, but the chid should remain at home as long as possible. That usually means until adolescence, when they become too bg to be manageable by parents.

[junkshop]

Keeping a loaded gun where a child can access it is negligent gun ownership.

Keeping a loaded gun where a child can access it is negligent parenting.

[Chanakya]

Originally Posted by Planigale

I think you have no idea how hard it is to manage a child with behavioural issues.

Uhhhh ...Why on earth would you think that? Or have any kind of view about that at all, one way or the other?

What about how to look after dolphins? What do you think about how well I'm informed on that?

Quote:

You could be the best parent in the world but that child is still going to throw tantrums. As they get older the tantrums become more physical and more sophisticated. Impulse control is a real issue. perfect parents can have children who are unmanageable. I am no expert, but I have done child psychiatry clinics, and some of the parents are saintly. I cannot believe how much care they put in. The parents may have been negligent regarding the gun, but I don't think that means they were evil. If they had had a normal child (and they may have) they may be excellent parents. to be clear, I don't think the child is evil. I suspect the child is autistic with impose control issues. I suspect some form of medium secure long term care is inevitable, but the chid should remain at home as long as possible. That usually means until adolescence, when they become too bg to be manageable by parents.

What about dolphins? Would you agree that dolphins aren't evil either?


-----

Kidding. (In case you missed the emojis!)

Clearly crossed wires somewhere there. I don't disagree with the substance of what you're saying, but none of it has anything to do with what you've quoted me saying. I'm not thinking, or saying, what you seem to have thought I'm saying. Either I've expressed myself very badly indeed; or else you've yourself, in reading that, supplied stuff that wasn't there at all; or else it's simply a case of crossed wires, as happens sometimes. That's fine, no issues; but this is just to point out that you're ...talking about something completely different than what I've said here.