6-years old kid shot his teacher

[alhoon]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/age-virgi...152002616.html

The gist: A six years old kid, shot and severely injured his teacher. The shooting was not accidental, they had a fight and then the first-grader shot his teacher. Obviously that happened in USA.


The obvious: This shooting wouldn't be stopped if there were armed teachers in the vicinity. A teacher or policeman with a gun out, simply wouldn't be able to shoot at a kid. And if a person CAN shoot at a 6-years old at any circumstance, that person shouldn't be anywhere near guns.

The ridiculous: Gun advocates go "this is rare!" and mention thee other shootings by 6-years old, four total, in the past 20 years: " 2000 in Michigan and shootings that injured other students in 2011 in Texas and 2021 in Mississippi." <=== sooo... 4 shootings by 6-years old in 23 years and 2 in the past 3 years. Let's see how many other areas have... Well, I didn't find any number. Thus there are probably no six-years old shooters in the entire EU. And if there are any, they may be 1-2 in the past 23 years, not 4, despite double the population.

The other things mentioned in the article: Ehh... how exactly you try a 6-years old!?

So, I would like to discuss whether this will convince anyone that more guns are not the answer + how should that particular attempted murder be handled because frankly I have no idea. Knowing 6-years-olds, they have very little understanding of the consequences of their actions. That one may have been from a mostly nice family that had a gun hidden in a closet, the 6-years old found it and decided to play the bad gangster. And shot his teacher.
That means that the parents are not necessarily horrible parents. But they did have a gun that found its way on the kid's hands so no awards for them either...

[Kyriakos]

The only defense against a bad 6 year old with a gun, is a good 6 year old with a gun.
But in seriousness, pretty tragic :/ And while the US is the most impressive country for opportunity/good quality of life, it is also filled with such death traps.

[conon394]

Well obviously he was a member of well regulated militia so nothing for it.

[Cyclops]

Too many guns in thd community. No possible change in the foreseeable future.

[conon394]

Too many guns in thd community. No possible change in the foreseeable future.

You want to tell me something depressing I don't know? How about this how come Alito and his ilk can dig up Originalist thinking by finding a 16th century witch finder general to overturn roe but can be bother to notice the primitive fire power that the framers could imagine back in the day.

[Cyclops]

Dunno, maybe the Founders wanted everyone packing military equipment, SCOTUS seems to think so, but of course 2A is an ammendment, so not really originalist. More of a fashion statement TBH.

Money talks so whatever rag of legal thinking removes barriers to sales is likely to be held sacred for rhe purposes of.

[conon394]

Dunno, maybe the Founders wanted everyone packing military equipment, SCOTUS seems to think so, but of course 2A is an ammendment, so not really originalist. More of a fashion statement TBH.

Money talks so whatever rag of legal thinking removes barriers to sales is likely to be held sacred for rhe purposes of.

"maybe the Founders wanted everyone packing military equipment"

I believe they did in the context of well regulated militia you know the things the state runs. But I also believe they simply had no concept of a day when a teen with room full of kids could be thought to have potentially sufficient fire power that several hundred armed law enforcement official would hesitate to rush him. Or that one man in Las Vegas could gun down over 60 people and wound what 400 or so with one gun and not have been simply beaten to the ground at say shot 3 or 4. Lets recall theirs was a world or misfires and black powder (massive amounts of smoke - which is why in a military context repeating weapons were initially opposed aside from straining ammo re supply the fact you quickly blinded yourself)

[antaeus]

I guess we need to do the usual.

This case, while shocking, is unusual. If there is justification for light or no gun regulation, then the sad reality is that there is an element of scenarios like this baked into the system. We have cars, we have car crashes - some of them by children who shouldn't be behind the wheels. Countries with more strict gun controls than the US also see occasional errors of judgement by children who have gained access to guns. Etc etc.

So now the tragedy of this individual scenario has been batted aside, we're back to where these threads always end up - looking at the legal framework that allows for these kinds of situations to become more common than otherwise...

The usual questions: Did the writers and amenders of the constitution mean for everyone or anyone to be able to carry firearms unfettered, or did they mean something different? Did they mean for the wording here to be relatively ambiguous or was it more clearly related to specific scenarios that they knew and could envisage?

And above all, with the ability to amend the constitution also baked in to current governmental systems, shouldn't this be a conversation about whether our current legislators are doing their job?

[Sir Adrian]

The US needs Romania style gun control yesterday.

[Kyriakos]

Probably with current tech and material available in supermarkets, it should be relatively easy for all but the most dumb to build some type of makeshift fire-gun (obviously with significantly less power than an actual firegun, but still can be lethal).
Then again, assuming there won't be a very prominent black market for such, it'd still mean the would-be attacker has to spend some time building it, so reflect on what they are about to do; unlike just taking the family gun.

[alhoon]

"maybe the Founders wanted everyone packing military equipment"

I believe they did in the context of well regulated militia you know the things the state runs. But I also believe they simply had no concept of a day when a teen with room full of kids could be thought to have potentially sufficient fire power that several hundred armed law enforcement official would hesitate to rush him. Or that one man in Las Vegas could gun down over 60 people and wound what 400 or so with one gun and not have been simply beaten to the ground at say shot 3 or 4. Lets recall theirs was a world or misfires and black powder (massive amounts of smoke - which is why in a military context repeating weapons were initially opposed aside from straining ammo re supply the fact you quickly blinded yourself)

Perhaps they did, but I honestly believe they trusted the people to change laws and articles that were no longer in the best interest of "we the people."
And if you told the founders that there would be 3 school shootings by 6-years olds within 10 years, they would go back and rewrite the constitution putting the 1st article as: "The constitution should be rewritten in its entirety every 20 years and people that arm 6-years olds should not be involved in that rewriting". You see, back in 18th century the USA founders probably thought it OBVIOUS that you shouldn't arm 6-years olds to kill their teachers.

The usual questions: Did the writers and amenders of the constitution mean for everyone or anyone to be able to carry firearms unfettered, or did they mean something different? Did they mean for the wording here to be relatively ambiguous or was it more clearly related to specific scenarios that they knew and could envisage?

And above all, with the ability to amend the constitution also baked in to current governmental systems, shouldn't this be a conversation about whether our current legislators are doing their job?

I also wonder about that.

[conon394]

Perhapsthey did, but I honestly believe

theytrusted the people to change laws and articles that were nolonger in the best interest of "we the people."

I agree very much on this. They certainly made that clear both in the Constitution and essentially by their actions in replacing the Articles of confederation and being participants in the revolt against England. If brought back to life life and recovered from their culture shock I'm pretty sure most of the Framers would be surprised that we still cling to so much of a document designed for 13 small colonies clinging to the Atlantic seaboard for a nation that vastly different and larger and more diverse and facing challenges that were unimageable went article 2 was written. In passing got to say I think they be really disappointed in allowing the size of house become so small relative the population.

[alhoon]

In passing got to say I think they be really disappointed in allowing the size of house become so small relative the population.

That is a very good point too... First-past-the-bar districts work much better with smaller districts. In 1800 elections, New York State had 10 representatives for a population of less than 600K people. Now they have 26 people to represent 20 million people! I understand that for a country of 300M people there can't be a representative for each 60K people, but it should be over 1000 representatives IMO, like three times as many as they have now.

[conon394]

There is a web site about that games how how the number would look. One thing it (800-1000 seats which I think would work) would do is balance out more than now (given the senate) the power of empty states with their two senators and almost no people.

[alhoon]

There is a web site about that games how how the number would look. One thing it (800-1000 seats which I think would work) would do is balance out more than now (given the senate) the power of empty states with their two senators and almost no people.

800 are too little. Regardless, 1000 seats would make gerrymandering less effective. I think we need a new thread though Conon

[The spartan]

I think the sad truth is that this is just the reality of America. These events are the bargain we made as a nation to have the freedom to have access to these weapons. We can quibble and try to have band-aid solutions like restricting sales of new firearms or ammunition, but this would do little to change the situation and would cost extreme amounts of political capital to accomplish. There are way too many firearms, and they are far too durable of items, to "get rid of" once they are in society. Trying to seize them from society would be akin to triggering a civil war.

So, this is what it is. We are going to have stories in the US of 6 year olds shooting their teachers and that's just what it means to be in America. Hm, I think there is even a song that mentions this...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Cyclops]

Yep, Smith and Wesson have US society by the balls. Better not make them angry.

[alhoon]

Well obviously he was a member of well regulated militia so nothing for it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/superinte...153402583.html


Apparently, the security officials in that school (because we all know USA elementary schools need several well trained security officials) thought the same as you.
Well, not really. But they had a tip the kid was packing heat, did a search and didn't find the gun. Look, I admit I would NOT have taken seriously a hint that a 6-years old is carrying a hidden gun to shoot someone with it.

[antaeus]

Look, I admit I would NOT have taken seriously a hint that a 6-years old is carrying a hidden gun to shoot someone with it.

Really? Children of that age have the empathy development of a sociopath. Of anyone of any age group, if I was told a person was bringing a real gun to shoot someone, and that person was a 6 year old... In a country where firearms are freely available, I'd be worried more than any other demographic.

They have no sense of long term consequence, either for themselves or the other.

[alhoon]

Really? Children of that age have the empathy development of a sociopath. Of anyone of any age group, if I was told a person was bringing a real gun to shoot someone, and that person was a 6 year old... In a country where firearms are freely available, I'd be worried more than any other demographic.

They have no sense of long term consequence, either for themselves or the other.

You are... right. You are absolutely right!
I guess living in a country where guns are NOT lying around, I didn't have to think about it and how a kid would consider it a toy. We often read sad stories of schoolkids that grab their parents guns to play and end up killing themselves or their brothers.