6 year old shoots his teacher

Some additional information.

www.lbc.co.uk... qLVYaymnKG5A

Seem like the teacher was going to confiscate the gun, and that’s when she shot her.

Ms Zwerner had just finished reading students a story and was about to go to an art class when the child pulled the handgun.

Still don't tell us where the child got the weapon through.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Yikes, is all that I have to say to this.

You do realize that 90 percent of schools don't have metal detectors, and even those that do are mostly in tough inner city areas.

Just a further update, by the looks of things, Richneck Elementary School, did indeed have metal-detecting capabilities "but choose not to routinely subject pupils to tests", which is kind of what i suggested.

a reply to: AOx6179


There are so many problems that lead up to these terrible outcomes, I have worked as playground aides in a couple different states and witnessed so much:


First and foremost is the drug problem/alcoholism affecting the parents which ultimately damage the children through either mental abuse/physical abuse/neglect/molestation in some cases (usually someone staying in the home, or an uncle) that are there to supposedly watch these poor kids while their parents are doing god knows what, usually partying it up.

Irresponsible people and drug dealers don’t lock up their illegal guns, they keep them close by. This is why kids get access to them. All the responsible people I’ve known who are gun owners do don’t divulge where their gun safes are, and their kids don’t even know where they are kept until they are adults.

I use to see kids act out in the schools I worked at, and my heart went out to them. They clearly were having problems at home. So much covering up by the parent/s it is sickening.

Drugs/neglect and abuse is the #1 factor imo, throw in some hard financial times with zero opportunity and you have a recipe for disaster that affects us all 🥲

a reply to: andy06shake

Makes a lot of sense. I'd wager, based on that info, that the child didn't come to school intending to shoot anyone... had the gun and thought it was "cool." Probably pulled it out to show it off to a classmate. Teacher sees gun, tries to get it from the kid, kid fires it to "protect" its gun. Teacher goes down.

I say it makes sense because unless it was a very tiny gun, the kid probably didn't have the arm strength at 6 years old to accurately aim it. A point blank situation seems much more believable. I also have trouble with a 6-year-old planning and carrying out an intentional shooting... a 16-year-old? Sure. But at 6 years old the average kid has the attention span of a redne... SQUIRREL!


Which brings me back to the education paradigm. The kid was probably enthralled by the fact they had an actual gun because they are going to see guns on TV, in movies, and in video games. Without really understanding what a gun is, it looks cool to a kid, a taboo that entices them. I've seen this same principle in adults of late when I tell them my "shooting range" is my back yard and it covers 16 acres; I can fire my weapons any time I want and not even walk more than a dozen steps from my house. Several of those adults were from your neck of the woods (the UK). They have never even held a gun in their hands, and the idea of holding that much power entices them.

At six years old, I knew exactly what a gun was, and I knew not to touch them without Dad being there. There was no mystery, no taboo, no "Wow! This is cool!" The gun became exactly what it is: a tool. Like any tool, careful use of it makes it safe and useful, while careless use makes it dangerous. As a matter of fact, I have one tool that I consider more dangerous than a gun: a chainsaw. I wouldn't let a 6-year-old touch it either (my father actually kept me away from them until I was 16, while I was shooting a .22 rifle before age 8).

I'll point out one more thing: we don't know where the gun came from yet so this is perhaps not relevant to this one instance, but it is relevant to many others. I have said many times that my guns are kept on display or within easy reach, and are typically loaded and ready to go. That's true, and it was true for Dad when I was a kid. But what some people apparently don't get is that I am constantly watching them! Every time I walk into the house, my eyes go to the TV to make sure it is still there, then to the gun rack to make sure they are undisturbed. If I walk by the front door, I check to make sure the handgun is there as I left it. It's a habit, because in the wrong hands those are dangerous tools. If anyone did manage to get hold of one of my guns, I would know about it within less than an hour... probably within minutes.

That's just responsible gun ownership. But it's not taught, to anyone. I learned it because Dad did it... I could catch his eyes scanning the gun rack constantly every time he walked by. But today, too many people shove the gun in a drawer somewhere and forget about it, assuming it will still be there when and if they have a need for it. A kid can take the gun and they might not know, short of an incident occurring with it, for months. A responsible gun owner should check their guns at least several times a day, especially if there are others around, more especially if there are children around.

I'll also point out that it is hard to do that when the guns are locked in a safe. All you can do is make sure the safe is there. If a kid gets the key... you might never know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Makes a lot of sense. I'd wager, based on that info, that the child didn't come to school intending to shoot anyone... had the gun and thought it was "cool." Probably pulled it out to show it off to a classmate. Teacher sees gun, tries to get it from the kid, kid fires it to "protect" its gun. Teacher goes down.

He may simply have brought it to school to show his pals and it all went pear-shaped when the teacher noticed what he had in his hand.

Certainly, make a modicum more sense than the little fellow bringing a gun to school to kill the teacher over some kind of gripe or issue he had with her.

Don't make it right or permissible but i have to imagine that the incident being an accident is a preferable scenario than attempted murder by 6 year old.

a reply to: KTemplar

Irresponsible people and drug dealers don’t lock up their illegal guns, they keep them close by.

There are two, and only two, legitimate reasons to own a gun. I'm discounting the fact that a person should be able to own one if they choose; that is a vanity reason. I'm speaking pragmatically.

One is hunting/food acquisition. Locking a gun in a safe is fine for that, because it will only be used when hunting and that is an activity that can be planned.

Two is self-protection. Locking a gun away when it is there for that reason completely negates the need to have it in the first place. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, they are not going to stop while I fumble with my keys to get a gun to shoot them with. Seconds count. I've been in situations where I have been attacked, and there is no time out for preparation.

If someone comes up to my house threatening me, they are not going to politely wait while I get my gun out. As it is, I can be armed within mere seconds in either case. So far, neither of those situations have occurred, because everyone who knows anything about me knows the guns are handy at all times. Criminals may not obey laws, but they do seem to have a universal aversion to having new orifices poked in them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake

He may simply have brought it to school to show his pals and it all went pear-shaped when the teacher noticed what he had in his hand.

I agree. It may or may not have been actually "accidental"; it could have been a spur-of-the-moment decision on the part of the child to actually shoot the teacher... as we have agreed, kids can make poor decisions at that age. Either way, given the age, I would still not consider the shooting an intentional crime.

I think you're right; we are seeing eye to eye for once.


TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


I get what you are saying.

Do you or have you ever had little kids, and if so, were you ever afraid they might get access to your firearms? Just curious, not judging!

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you're right; we are seeing eye to eye for once.

Aye, it's actually quite refreshing.

I'm sure they will get to the bottom of the matter once the teacher manages to give her account combined with any information authorities manage to glean from the child.

Could have ended a whole lot worse i suppose for both the teacher(canny be nice to get shot through) and the child.

Imagine the kind of chaos that could have happened for instance if he had taken the gun out whilst in the playground and attempted to show off?

Could have been a few dead kids on the cards if that went down.

Suppose we should be rather thankful that the teacher noticed the weapon when she did.

I can remember people bringing the likes of air pistols to school when i was a lad, and some poor sod getting shot in the head at playtime, who then had to get the pellet pulled out and received a couple of stitches.

The fellow just got suspended for a week if memory serves, then again it was a different time in the world back then, and we were a little older, probably about 9 or 10.

Aye weans do indeed do stupid things.

a reply to: KTemplar

Yes, I raised two children. While they were young, I did take extra care that the guns were in their designated spot, but they were always accessible. We never had an issue.

Of course, both of my kids knew what a gun was and what it was for. They learned to shoot as I did, with the lower-powered guns under direct, continual supervision until they were old enough and mature enough and safe enough to be trusted. They still were not allowed to touch them without specific permission.

I remember being asked one time why the movies were so unrealistic when it came to firearms. I simply told them that they were seeing what people who knew nothing about firearms thought about firearms.

Education is the key here... not restrictions, not conditions, not fancy technology... simple education. Nothing else will ever stop the shootings. But we can keep trying, of course.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck



Thank you for your reply, You seem like a responsible, intelligent, organized person.

Unfortunately, in a lot of these cases, the parents are not. I am really curious to know if it was an unregistered gun.

a reply to: KTemplar

With authority comes responsibility; with great authority comes great responsibility. A firearm is a tool designed to kill. Ownership of a gun dictates that with the authority it grants (the ability to easily kill) comes great responsibility.

Responsibility is a learned behavior. No child has ever been born responsible. They all learn responsibility from their parents.

That's where we missed the boat. We now have parents who do not teach their children to take responsibility because they do not know to take responsibility. They do not know to take responsibility because their parents did not take responsibility. Some of that is economic, as today both parents are expected to work outside the home; some of it is social, as today it is considered acceptable to delegate responsibility; some of it, as explained above, is simply generational.

We were warned what we were bringing about. We were told. But we were told by people who were old and wise, and who we thought couldn't possibly understand the "new Utopia" we were building. Turns out, they understood much better than we did. Those of us who realized that and started warning others were old ourselves by the time we realized it, so we were ignored as well.

I don't know if there is a way back to adults taking responsibility for themselves at this point. There may not be. But I wish we would at least try instead of continuing to skirt responsibility in favor of laws that never work as planned. When will we finally have enough of the senseless shootings to stop talking and start acting responsibly ourselves?

The end of the road we are on is abject defeat and societal horror. I will resist any further progress toward that goal as long as I live... but after that, you guys are on your own. Don't blame me when you get what you asked for.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

Perhaps one might start by registering firearms, licensing users, and ensuring that there is adequate training in firearm safety (with refresher courses every few years) without exception?

Pick one. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

There is absolutely no reason why several measures cannot work together. Like with road usage laws, where there is synergy in having several that work together to reduce accidents.

When society demonizes firearms by making it so damn difficult to own and practice with one, one also prevents firearm education.

One can be educated in things without tactile contact and repeated unsafe use of firearms also does not train anyone in safe use.

That's what we have been doing, and we are seeing the results. So we get to choose whether we will restrict ownership and proper usage of the gun, or if we will educate society in the proper and safe use of a firearm. One or the other.

Wise regulation would include mandatory education. They aren't separate.

I choose education. It worked for quite a while.

Suicides and accidents make up some significant portion of the firearms statistics. It isn't just about what criminals do.

Suicidal people will make suicide attempts whether they have access to a gun or not. The number of ways to kill the human body is practically infinite.

But firearms top the list for rapidity and lethality in suicides.

Accidents will happen as long as people are careless, be it with guns, cars, chainsaws, nail guns... heck I still have a scarred thumbnail from being careless with a utility knife 40+ years ago! The best way to prevent accidents is with proper training... see above.

If training is simply by use of firearms, and is not structured and moderated, then the same accidents may occur during 'training' as in use. Mere use of firearms does not equate to safety training.

And many criminals will continue in their preference to use forearms to commit crimes if firearms are highly available and unregulated.

So you want to outlaw machine tools too? Any hobbyist, garage machinist can make a gun.

I was suggesting primarily a process of registration, licensing and education. Regulation of firearms is not 'outlawing' them all.

Even people with no mechanical aptitude can purchase an already assembled fully functional firearm from non-specialist retailers.

Very few who have misused firearms manufacture their own weapons and some who have manufactured their own firearms have ended up with them blowing up in their face.

Criminals will continue to have guns no matter how tightly they are regulated. Criminals do not obey laws; they do what they want. That's why they are criminals.

TheRedneck

Regulation, while it has not totally stopped all gun crime, has reduced the incidence of firearm related crime in every country where it has been applied.

The implementation of regulation also takes time to have full effect, especially where people may secretly harbor unregistered firearms. Part of the regulatory framework therefore needs to be the criminalization of unlawful possession of firearms. People will be prosecuted if they are caught in illegal possession of a firearm, even if they have committed no other crime.

a reply to: chr0naut

When I look at the data (not statistics) between 1970 and 2022 and how it relates to guns...well I'm amazed.

What a different time that was!

I'm a 1970's kid...so I remember those days well...and the 1980's, 1990's, early 2000's...yes it was a different time.

I think about how much the world has changed...how many new laws we have...and how much worse the world seems to be!

I hope we figure it out soon!

a reply to: chr0naut

There is absolutely no reason why several measures cannot work together.

There is when one measure negates the other.

One can be educated in things without tactile contact and repeated unsafe use of firearms also does not train anyone in safe use.

No, one cannot "be educated in things without tactile contact." That is a lie. Experience matters, like it or not.

That's probably why all those laws and regulations have so many unintended consequences. People think they can really learn a subject thoroughly by just reading. They cannot; you cannot.

We learn more from mistakes than we do from successes. That's a known fact. That's where "direct, continuous, and responsible" training comes in. Under direct, continuous, responsible training, mistakes can be corrected before consequences set in.

Wise regulation would include mandatory education.

That would be a start.

Hunting is big in Alabama, almost a rite of passage. Anyone applying for a hunting license in Alabama must show proof of completion of an NRA-approved firearm safety course before it is issued. No one's rights are violated; guns are not restricted; the courses are often free so there's no economic disadvantage; yet hunting accidents have dropped significantly since that was implemented. I fully support that law.

firearms top the list for rapidity and lethality in suicides.

Only because they are efficient. If someone is intent on committing suicide, they will do so.

If training is simply by use of firearms, and is not structured and moderated, then the same accidents may occur during 'training' as in use.

Is there something wrong with your monitor? It's almost as though you cannot see all the words used.

Try reading all the words if you want to have a mature conversation. I do not debate with children... of any chronological age.

I was suggesting primarily a process of registration, licensing and education. Regulation of firearms is not 'outlawing' them all.

Then why does "regulation" always involve outlawing?

You're probably one of those people that thinks the "AR" in "AR-15" stands for "Assault Rifle." It doesn't; it stands for "Armalite Rifle Model 15." Armalite was the company who developed the frame.

Very few who have misused firearms manufacture their own weapons and some who have manufactured their own firearms have ended up with them blowing up in their face.

I know this may be a new term for you, but look up the definition of "Black Market."

Regulation, while it has not totally stopped all gun crime, has reduced the incidence of firearm related crime in every country where it has been applied.

So the USA does not have school shootings?

Chicago (severe regulation on every firearm known) has no crime? Really?

Look up Kennesaw, Georgia sometime. A while back, they passed a city ordinance that every household in the city must have a firearm (exceptions for those legally unable to comply). Violent crime dropped overnight to record levels. *Even though the city did not aggressively enforce the policy... just knowing most homes had a gun was apparently enough to dissuade crime.

And in any case, is the goal to reduce "gun crimes" or to reduce "violent crimes"? Apparently it is to reduce only "gun crimes" since no one ever looks at the statistics for violent crime in these discussions. If you're not trying to reduce violent crimes, then it becomes obvious you just hate guns.

Get your paws off mine.

The implementation of regulation also takes time to have full effect, especially where people may secretly harbor unregistered firearms.

We have been restricting firearm use for 40 years. How long do you expect it's going to take to complete this grand experiment of yours? How many people will needlessly die in that time?

You, sir, are reckless and dangerous.

TheRedneck

a reply to: nolabel

if he had took a tire iron.. we gonna ban them? Kitchen knife?

stop blaming the tools... and look to the real problem... The parents

a reply to: TheRedneck

NJ schools are starting to hire armed security guards:

www.audacy.com...

Rather frightening.

originally posted by: AOx6179
a reply to: tanstaafl
A question: are you with your children 24/7?

Either myself or my wife, almost always, yes. There are exceptions of course, but that doesn't mean we relinquish 100% absolute control over our children, for everything from what foods they are provided, to what they are taught.

There is a big difference between someone sitting temporarily to watch them, and having any authority over them when it comes to decisions about their welfare.

Everyone around your children will make a difference in your child's life.

To a small extent, yes, but that is mostly irrelevant.

They will admire people other than you, look to other people than you, talk to other people than you, learn from other people than you.

You seem to be failing to understand the difference between 'influence', and 'authority'.

When you say 'It takes a village to RAISE a child' - raise, in that context, imparts some element of authority - just like the State claims AUTHORITY over our children even today, to force us to send them to schoolsindoctrination centers, or inject toxic chemicals into them.

Do they not have teachers other than you?

We do homeschool, but yes, they take occasional classes for different things, but that has nothing to do with our authority over them.

Do you provide your own healthcare?

Yes, for the vast majority. If one of them breaks a leg, I'll take them to get it treated/set, but again - nothing does or can happen without my/our permission.

If youre the only voice in your child's life then how will they learn beyond.....you?

Again, you are confused. I'm not talking about my children not having any interactions with other people.

I'm saying that those interactions don't equate to relinquishing 100% absolute authority and control over anything that affects their mental and physical wee being. Those decisions are mine and my wife's alone.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: tanstaafl
Although I disagree with the unapproved applying corporal punishment, what if they were taking urgent action to prevent loss of life?

I'm talking about normal every day kids stuff.

If my kid is wielding a gun at school, then what happens, happens, and I wouldn't fault anyone if in their honest efforts to disarm my kid or prevent them from hurting others, something bad happened to my kid.

I would, however, demand to know what happened, all details, see all video surveillance unedited of the event, etc.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm saying that those interactions don't equate to relinquishing 100% absolute authority and control over anything that affects their mental and physical wee being. Those decisions are mine and my wife's alone.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting you give up authority over your kids. The phrase "it takes a village to raise a child" has been abused to try and remove parental authority; however, that is an abuse of the phrase.

The actual correct use of the phrase is exactly what others have been saying: the village, your neighborhood and those people you come in contact with, will all have some influence on your child. If they exert a poor influence, your job will be much harder; if they exert a positive influence, your job will be much easier. The intent is not to remove your authority, but to place some measure of responsibility on those around you.

You are now talking to a guy who has literally begged for jail time over this issue. I once told the head of DHR, "You touch my kids and I will bury your ass on this mountain." She wasn't the only person to catch that sentiment, either; there were others. So don't think I have any problem whatsoever with you having complete authority over your children.

The thing is, you can't always control the influence others have on your children. That's where the village comes in. They will influence your children, like it or not, some in very minor ways and others in perhaps major ways. They have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner that does not influence your children in a negative way.

TheRedneck