6 year old shoots his teacher

a reply to: andy06shake

I think that it's always been the case, the difference being that women used to do things in the home rather than in factories.

There's an English language idiom that I was taught "cottage Industry", I'm told that it originated with women running small businesses out of their homes. Usually things that could be done sitting down while watching small children.

In my country women were a mainstay of farming for thousands of years, right up until we mechanised. Here it wasn't until maybe the 1950s that we had a middle class where men could afford to support women unless they came form a wealthy family.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I'd like to say that I knew right from wrong, and I'm pretty sure that I did, but 6 year olds have very little impulse control.

On that point, I have to agree 100%.

6 years old was also a very, very long time ago for me. I have to admit that my memory may not be the sharpest in regards to how angry I could get. I was a bit of a hellion myself.

I'm noticing a theme here, you're talking about long guns used for hunting and farming. Most of these shootings happen with hand guns.

No, I'm talking about both. Those guns in the glove boxes and under the seats were not long guns. They were handguns, usually .22 or .38 caliber. 9mm/.380 hadn't caught on yet back then.

We did have more long guns than handguns, simply because there was more need for them. A handgun is for personal defense at close range; little more. A long gun is more for hunting and long-range use. I believe we still have more long guns around here than handguns, although probably not by as great a margin as before. As crime increases, the need for personal short-range protection increases.

I have to point out that most of the present gun control ideals being bantered about seem to be around a long gun: specifically the Armalite Rifle Model 15 (AR-15). The AR-15 is one of the worst choices for a close-range shooting spree, being bulky, hard to conceal, slow to aim, and heavy compared to a handgun. The fact that many shooters choose the AR-15 is simply a corroboration to my theory that we need more firearm education.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: theatreboy
I agree there is something wrong.

How we have gotten to the point of people solving there problems by killing others, I don't know.

It would be interesting to see the kid's home life.

Kids have always wanted to do things like this. It's hardly new that a kid day dreams about bumping off a teacher.

What's changed is that unsecured guns have become more accessible. You've got way more people simply stashing guns in draws or glove compartments where kids can get to them.

I agree that there is more reckless behavior with firearms these days. It's insane IMO, but I can totally believe that people leave firearms laying around loaded with the safety off. If you are so paranoid about being assaulted or having a home invasion, carry a side arm at all times, sleep with the damn thing if you have to. Other sporting type firearms can be locked up, unloaded with the ammo locked up in a different location. If you aren't hunting or sport shooting, no need to have those firearms loaded and ready to go or unsecured for thieves to easily steal.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

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

Plenty of schools here in the UK now have metal detectors AaarghZombies and have done for quite some time.

My understanding was it's the same on your side of the pond.

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.

No i did not really, i thought they were commonplace to be honest.

I remember back when it was considered extreme for schools to have security guards. Now school districts have their own swat teams.

A lot of our secondary schools have their own Police office and officer.

When did America become a Robocop movie?

Im not sure that it has, but im not there so can only speculate.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well, the jinn ain't about to go back into the bottle, that's a given.

My thinking on the matter is that if a woman chooses to remain in the household, and bring up the kids, as opposed to going out to work, that should be allowed, and her prerogative.

The world don't work that way through, well not unless you are rich or don't want nice things for the kids and family.

In this day of age, both sexes are required to work, that's just the way it is.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If there's any perforating to be done, it should be after a person has been brought before a jury of their peers and sentenced to perforation after a fair and impartial trial in a court of law.

I agree; the point of having personal self-defense is that self-defense does not include revenge. Self-defense applies only in those situations where one's life, the lives of others, or even some property rights are in imminent and immediate danger.

My response was intended to point out that even in those instances, where the use of a firearm could be justified, it is still incumbent on the parents, not the child, to provide it. As you say, young children typically have very little impulse control.

This isn't the old west.

The Old West wasn't the Old West. That is just dramatization from movies.

The dynamics of human nature have not changed, however. We still have bad people who do bad things. It is the right of every person to defend themselves when necessary... just not recommended for a young child to have that kind of power over others' life and death.

TheRedneck

a reply to: MykeNukem

This was all hypothetical and admittedly, rhetorical.

Dangerous rhetoric, however.

Of course I wouldn't want that to happen, but we were discussing "hypothetically" if that IS what happened, I'd support it.

I wouldn't. If a child has to take such drastic steeps to defend themselves, my next question is, where were the parents? Why were they so apathetic as to allow things to proceed this far?

Kids know when somethings not right.

However, they do not always know how to resolve the situation.

That's why we have this thing called "parents."

TheRedneck

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: andy06shake

Kids are quite perceptive and can be cruel... teach caught a cap from a 6 year old for some reason.

Teacher obviously sucks, You're Fired!

Nah. The teacher should have been armed. If the teacher was the armed "good guy with a gun",and shot the armed 6-year-old, this would be a different story.

Everyone is a victim in this story, there are no heroes... only one perspective is required and that is to process it thru that lense, the victims perspective.

If everyone is a victim, then that's a lot of perspectives there. Anywho, I don't know what that has to do with the prospect of the teacher being armed, and shooting an armed 6-year-old.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

When did America become a Robocop movie?

If memory serves, about a year or two after Robocop was released.

Life often imitates art. Unfortunately.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No one has ever seriously suggested that teachers be armed so they can shoot 6-year-old kids. Normal people have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. You're just using hyperbole to inject an argument where there isn't one.

The actual suggestion is, was, and has been that school staff who are legally able to and who wish to be allowed to carry a gun be allowed to do so voluntarily for self-protection against armed invaders and mass shooters. I also think they should have to undergo additional training due to the tight confines of the average school and the special dynamics. The school resource officer (cop on duty) would be the best person to conduct this training.

It is also not a "fix." The fix will take much longer. Those with your political bent have spent 40 years getting us to this point; it will not be "fixed" in a week. The idea of allowing armed teachers is a stop-gap measure at best.

Please at least get the concept right if you're going to oppose it.

TheRedneck

Please people...read the article...

First off...no one died!!!

Drew, who had earlier said the teacher was in critical condition, said Friday evening her injuries were considered life-threatening but that there was "some improvement in the last update that we got."

Secondly...nobody knows where the gun came from yet!!!

"We'll get the investigation done, there's questions we'll want to ask and find out about. I want to know where that firearm came from, what was the situation," Drew added.

OP LINK

Every other comment is crucify the parents...

If the parents are responsible yes...but nobody knows yet...yikes!!!

Senseless killing...WTF...nobody is dead! You screaming doesn't take away from facts here!!!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Dalamax

I thought you Scots were all about freedom? What happened, did you run out of blue paint?

Aye brave heart was a movie Dalamax.

What we are not about is guns in schools, or on our streets, or in the hands of the public bar the likes of farmers fro pest control.

And since banning the things, have not had a mass school shooting since Dunblane, so there is that also.

Oh wait... is that actually a nation? because Arlington County in my State I believe is larger than the entire nation of Scotland lol.

I love how when people (mostly Europeans and Brits) who seemingly have no idea about relative landmasses proclaim how good they are when comparing themselves to the whole of the United States.

Yup Merica would have a whole lot less problems with only 5.4 million people...

a reply to: jerryznv

Come on, maaaaaan! Don't go confusing the issue with facts!

Facts? Facts? We don' need no stinkin' facts!


TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jerryznv

Come on, maaaaaan! Don't go confusing the issue with facts!

Facts? Facts? We don' need no stinkin' facts!

TheRedneck

Right...I know...what am I thinking?

Forget facts...

Carry on!!!

a reply to: iamthevirus

Oh wait... is that actually a nation? because Arlington County in my State I believe is larger than the entire nation of Scotland lol.

I'm not quite sure size counts that much.

The British empire held sway over about a third of the planet at one point after all and look at where they came from.

And then their is the Roman empire which originated from just one city in what is now Italy.

Scotland and her people helped shape and colonize your own nation, just as much as England or Ireland did.

Even more so in some respects, considering how many 33rd-degree Scottish rite masons walk the walk and hold sway over so many things that are American in this day of age.

I love how when people (mostly Europeans and Brits) who seemingly have no idea about relative landmasses proclaim how good they are when comparing themselves to the whole of the United States.

You seem rather obsessed with size iamthevirus, one has to ponder why that is?

Yup Merica would have a whole lot less problems with only 5.4 million people...

If you say so, can't see why all the same given the unused/uncolonized land that is available in the USA.

Seem like you have plenty of space for a lot more than 5.4 million people given that more than 1/3 of U.S. land is used for pasture alone.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No one has ever seriously suggested that teachers be armed so they can shoot 6-year-old kids.

People most certainly have suggested that teachers, even kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade teachers, be armed. A movement even!

There is always a chance of armed teacher or security person shooting an armed student, regardless of their age. If it was a police officer being threatened by an armed 6-year-old they would shoot without hesitation. Heck, they even shoot barking family dogs!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

No one has ever seriously suggested that teachers be armed so they can shoot 6-year-old kids.

People most certainly have suggested that teachers, even kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade teachers, be armed. A movement even!

There is always a chance of armed teacher or security person shooting an armed student, regardless of their age. If it was a police officer being threatened by an armed 6-year-old they would shoot without hesitation. Heck, they even shoot barking family dogs!

There is a movement...I 100% support it!

An armed teacher can deter an armed intruder...an armed teacher can protect children from a active shooter (or any danger)!

Yes 100% arm teachers...train them...protect the children at all costs!

Are you suggesting this isn't a good idea?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

People most certainly have suggested that teachers, even kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade teachers, be armed.

Not for the purpose of shooting little children!

Do you think there is some physical law of nature that prevents grown people from entering a kindergarten school with a gun and shooting?

TheRedneck

a reply to: jerryznv

Are you suggesting this isn't a good idea?

I'm suggesting that in such a scenario, there is always the chance of an armed student being shot by a teacher. There is also a chance of a teacher shooting an unarmed but violent student, too.

Good idea? I don't have an answer.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Not for the purpose of shooting little children!

The teacher is in the ICU with life threatening injuries. Do you think if the teacher had been armed and shot first, she would have been justified to assert self-defense? I do.

EDITED to add: Don't forget, my post was in response to a poster who said the 6-year-old was probably justified in "capping" the teacher.