6-year-old student shoots teacher in Virginia classroom, police say

[The Kilted Heathen]

How many repubs are for cashless bail, or for not securing the border more than it is?

Don't know, don't care--it's completely irrelevant to the problem that we're having, try as Republicans might to make it relevant.

Illegal immigrants have killed and raped people here in America. This is what I am referring to.

Cool. So again; did illegal immigrants supply the gun that allowed this 6-year-old to shoot their teacher? How about the kid that shot up Uvalde? Oh! Or maybe these villainous Illegal Immigrants supplied guns to Conservative Murdererhobo - sorry, Superhero - Kyle Rittenhouse

The call is coming from inside the house. We have a problem with gun violence in this nation, and it's not at blame of immigration - illegal or not. And since everyone wants to drag their heels and give nothing more than Thoughts And Prayers™ whenever children are murdered en masse, we need to reach a conclusive solution. No one needs guns.

Again, why do you think people own guns? Is it just because they have a fetish?

You tell me, you're the one that wants to keep them, no questions asked. Sure seems a weird fetish to me.

You don't just want to take away my right to own a gun, you want to take away my right to defend myself and my family. Why?

I asked you directly if home defense (part and parcel to defending yourself and your family) is your reason for having a gun. You said no. So which is it? How often, on average, would you say your put into danger where you need your pew pews to ward off the Big Bad Criminals?

 

[Secret Chief]

Some more info:

Virginia school district where 6-year-old allegedly shot teacher has had three school-related shootings in 17 months

Small price to pay for the constitutional right to bear arms eh. The country has turned into an idiocracy.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Don't know, don't care--it's completely irrelevant to the problem that we're having, try as Republicans might to make it relevant.

I was responding to your comment.

Cool. So again; did illegal immigrants supply the gun that allowed this 6-year-old to shoot their teacher? How about the kid that shot up Uvalde? Oh! Or maybe these villainous Illegal Immigrants supplied guns to Conservative Murdererhobo - sorry, Superhero - Kyle Rittenhouse

No, I never said they did. Again I was responding to your comments about me.

The call is coming from inside the house. We have a problem with gun violence in this nation, and it's not at blame of immigration - illegal or not. And since everyone wants to drag their heels and give nothing more than Thoughts And Prayers™ whenever children are murdered en masse, we need to reach a conclusive solution. No one needs guns.

I never said illegal immigrants were the cause of gun violence in the US. Never.

Saying no one needs guns is like saying no one needs cars. Both kill people because people use them to kill others. We have a violence problem in the US not a gun problem. A gun never killed anyone just sitting there.

You tell me, you're the one that wants to keep them, no questions asked. Sure seems a weird fetish to me.

I never said there should not be any regulations about gun ownership. Some people should not be allowed to own them. What I said was a person does not need a reason to own a gun. You seem to have a fetish with the word fetish. I have never owned a gun.

I asked you directly if home defense (part and parcel to defending yourself and your family) is your reason for having a gun. You said no. So which is it? How often, on average, would you say your put into danger where you need your pew pews to ward off the Big Bad Criminals?

Why does that matter? All it takes is once and it happens every day. Over 500 homes each day are burglarized resulting in violence toward the occupants. What you want is for the criminal to have the advantage by having a gun and the occupant having nothing. Pass all the gun laws you want, people will still own guns because they want to protect their families etc.

Are you going to answer my question I have asked twice now? Why do you think people own guns?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No, I never said they did.

Cool cool. So because immigrants didn't provide guns to some of the worst mass shootings we've seen in recent years, bringing up "Maybe if Dems did this that and the other for border security" is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Saying no one needs guns is like saying no one needs cars.

Nope, false equivalency and I was just waiting for this one to show up. A vehicle has the purpose of going from point A to point B. It is meant for travel, not manslaughter, and we have severe punishments when it is used to kill.

A gun has one purpose. To kill. No one needs a gun.

What I said was a person does not need a reason to own a gun.

I think that anyone who wants a deadly weapon needs an express reason for it. It's not a toy.

What you want is for the criminal to have the advantage by having a gun and the occupant having nothing.

Oh do I now? Tell me, where's the burglar going to get a gun if there aren't any? Do you have statistics for how many violent break-ins are deterred successfully with a gun? Or is this just platitudes?

Are you going to answer my question I have asked twice now? Why do you think people own guns?

I don't know, and I don't care.

 

[We Never Know]

At the very least if the gun came from the home, the parents should be charged for the crime and for endangering the welfare of a child.

6-year-old student shoots teacher in Virginia classroom, police say

"NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — A 6-year-old student shot and wounded a teacher at his school in Virginia during an altercation inside a first-grade classroom Friday, police and school officials in the city of Newport News said"......

"Drew said the student and teacher had known each other in a classroom setting. He said the boy had a handgun in the classroom, and investigators were trying to figure out where he obtained it. The police chief did not provide further details about the shooting, the altercation or what happened inside the school"......

"The police chief did not specifically address questions about whether authorities were in touch with the boy's parents, but said members of the police department were handling that investigation"......

https://www-pbs-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/6-year-old-student-shoots-teacher-in-virginia-classroom-police-say?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#amp_tf=From %1$s&aoh=16731155230586&referrer=https://www.google.com&ampshare=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/6-year-old-student-shoots-teacher-in-virginia-classroom-police-say

Just seen on the news that they are reporting it was his mothers gun that he brought to school.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Cool cool. So because immigrants didn't provide guns to some of the worst mass shootings we've seen in recent years, bringing up "Maybe if Dems did this that and the other for border security" is completely irrelevant to the topic.

You need to actually read what I have said in context. I brought this up not to indicate immigrants are the reason for the gun violence. I brought it up to say the democrats may have more support for gun control if they supported things that actually reduced violence. The dems support cashless bail, an unsecure border etc. These lead to higher crime rates therefore people are in need of a gun more than ever. If you want less guns ownership support things that will reduce violence. You seem to want to support things that increase crime and then take away our means to combat the crime.

Nope, false equivalency and I was just waiting for this one to show up. A vehicle has the purpose of going from point A to point B. It is meant for travel, not manslaughter, and we have severe punishments when it is used to kill.

A gun has one purpose. To kill. No one needs a gun.

So what? So if I want a gun for a paperweight I can have one then? You want to blame an inanimate object for violence, blame the people not the instrument. If a car is intended to kill we prosecute the people that did the killing. If a gun is used to kill we prosecute the people that did the killing. They used both objects for the same illegal purpose.

I think that anyone who wants a deadly weapon needs an express reason for it. It's not a toy.

Neither is a car. The problem is you already said there is not reason anyone needs a gun so your assertion that someone needs a reason is meaningless. You want no gun ownership at all.

Oh do I now? Tell me, where's the burglar going to get a gun if there aren't any? Do you have statistics for how many violent break-ins are deterred successfully with a gun? Or is this just platitudes?

The idea that 400+ million guns that we know about in the US will evaporate after an amendment is passed is naïve at best. Your ideas will increase gun violence not stop it. You are naïve.

This happened today: Tell this woman she does not need a gun.

Louisiana woman shoots and kills home invasion suspect to protect her children: police

I don't know, and I don't care.

Then you have nothing meaningful to say about the subject if you don't understand why people own guns. You want to make policy without being informed.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You need to actually read what I have said in context.

No, I think I'll stick to what's relevant. Because this pundit-pushing, all this "The dems, the dems, the dems" is not it. It is, as said, irrelevant.

If you want less guns ownership support things that will reduce violence.

So Medicare for all, including comprehensive mental care? Social programs for rehabilitation, rather than Corporate-owned institutions for incarceration (the prison industrial complex) that is a pipeline for gang affiliation, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism? Proper allocation of funds for sufficient education? A livable minimum wage to ensure a decrease of poverty rates? Equitable housing to decimate homelessness?

Yeah, those would be great! But we all know how the Right feels about all that...

You want to blame an inanimate object for violence

And you still want to lean on False Equivalence so very hard. A gun has one purpose. It does not matter that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and blah blah blah; a gun has one purpose.

You want no gun ownership at all.

Uh, yeah. I already said that.

This happened today: Tell this woman she does not need a gun.

I would sooner take a wet fart straight to the face than anything from Fox Entertainment. But hey, this happened seven months ago. Tell those parents that Salvador Ramos needed his guns. This happened two months ago. Tell those families that Anderson Aldrich needed his gun. This happened six years ago. Tell those 43 families that Omar Mateen needed his arsenal. This happened five years ago. Tell those families that Stephen Paddock needed his guns.

I mean, the list goes on and on.

Oh, but Rheams - your dead Louisianian - was out on parole! So much for prison reforming criminals...

Then you have nothing meaningful to say about the subject if you don't understand why people own guns. You want to make policy without being informed.

Here's what I'm informed of, Cliz; a six year old shot his teacher. Not an immigrant, not a criminal, not a dirty Lib or a lazy Dem. A First Grader. A child. And it wasn't an accident, either, it was a knowing action. He MEANT to shoot her. I know that children are growing up with [REDACTED] Active Shooter Drills as though that's a normal thing they should have to worry about, because people in this pre-Apocalyptic dystopia are so infatuated with their guns that we'd rather put a single door on a building than even think to blame guns. I know that only NINE DAYS into 2023, 11 children under the age of 11 have been killed by gun violence. You might be able to ignore that, but that's 11 children too many.

I don't care why anyone wants a gun, or why they feel the need to own a gun. The "solutions" aren't helping, and people like you would rather blame video games and rap music, "weak borders" and "lax" prison systems, pointing to cars as though that's some grand [REDACTED] rebuttal rather than do anything about the problem. Gods forbid we actually breach into discussions of more social programs to reduce the root problems that cause crime, because "ThAt'S cOmMuNiSm".

So [REDACTED] the guns, and [REDACTED] any flaccid excuse to clutch the pew pews tighter.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hmm. Doubt a "Good Guy With A Gun" would have stopped that. Gun legislature sure would.

How would you legislate against something that's already a crime??? That makes no sense. Where is it legal for a child to bring a gun into school anywhere? Some adult is already criminally negligent here, at least.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Well, that's already been answered quite a bit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you legislate against something that's already a crime??? That makes no sense. Where is it legal for a child to bring a gun into school anywhere? Some adult is already criminally negligent here, at least.

And putting the mother away for a while might be what is needed in this case. I doubt if the kid will be successful with his "self defense" case.

Locally a school kid took his dad's gun to school and killed several of his close friends. The father had managed to go around a law that kept him from owning a gun. HIs go around was not legal. He went to prison for a few years because his breaking the law was a big part of those kids losing their lives.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, I think I'll stick to what's relevant. Because this pundit-pushing, all this "The dems, the dems, the dems" is not it. It is, as said, irrelevant.


So Medicare for all, including comprehensive mental care? Social programs for rehabilitation, rather than Corporate-owned institutions for incarceration (the prison industrial complex) that is a pipeline for gang affiliation, white supremacy, and domestic terrorism? Proper allocation of funds for sufficient education? A livable minimum wage to ensure a decrease of poverty rates? Equitable housing to decimate homelessness?

Yeah, those would be great! But we all know how the Right feels about all that...


And you still want to lean on False Equivalence so very hard. A gun has one purpose. It does not matter that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and blah blah blah; a gun has one purpose.


Uh, yeah. I already said that.


I would sooner take a wet fart straight to the face than anything from Fox Entertainment. But hey, this happened seven months ago. Tell those parents that Salvador Ramos needed his guns. This happened two months ago. Tell those families that Anderson Aldrich needed his gun. This happened six years ago. Tell those 43 families that Omar Mateen needed his arsenal. This happened five years ago. Tell those families that Stephen Paddock needed his guns.

I mean, the list goes on and on.

Oh, but Rheams - your dead Louisianian - was out on parole! So much for prison reforming criminals...


Here's what I'm informed of, Cliz; a six year old shot his teacher. Not an immigrant, not a criminal, not a dirty Lib or a lazy Dem. A First Grader. A child. And it wasn't an accident, either, it was a knowing action. He MEANT to shoot her. I know that children are growing up with [REDACTED] Active Shooter Drills as though that's a normal thing they should have to worry about, because people in this pre-Apocalyptic dystopia are so infatuated with their guns that we'd rather put a single door on a building than even think to blame guns. I know that only NINE DAYS into 2023, 11 children under the age of 11 have been killed by gun violence. You might be able to ignore that, but that's 11 children too many.

I don't care why anyone wants a gun, or why they feel the need to own a gun. The "solutions" aren't helping, and people like you would rather blame video games and rap music, "weak borders" and "lax" prison systems, pointing to cars as though that's some grand [REDACTED] rebuttal rather than do anything about the problem. Gods forbid we actually breach into discussions of more social programs to reduce the root problems that cause crime, because "ThAt'S cOmMuNiSm".

So [REDACTED] the guns, and [REDACTED] any flaccid excuse to clutch the pew pews tighter.

I think you need to step back and look at this conversation. What was your goal in this conversation? If it was to sway others to consider more stringent gun control laws I think you missed the mark. Emotion is not a good basis for policy. Also please read what other people are saying and get clarification if needed. Reading what others say with the most charitable reading of it and stop using hyperbole. We need to properly and truthfully define the problem so we can address it. I will do the same.

I agree with you that there is too much gun violence in the US. I disagree that getting rid of gun ownership will solve that problem or is even feasible. If you want to talk about that I am willing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you need to step back and look at this conversation. What was your goal in this conversation? If it was to sway others to consider more stringent gun control laws I think you missed the mark. Emotion is not a good basis for policy. Also please read what other people are saying and get clarification if needed. Reading what others say with the most charitable reading of it and stop using hyperbole. We need to properly and truthfully define the problem so we can address it. I will do the same.

I agree with you that there is too much gun violence in the US. I disagree that getting rid of gun ownership will solve that problem or is even feasible. If you want to talk about that I am willing.

I will have to disagree with you. Making guns illegal would not get rid of all problems, but it would get rid of quite a few of them. Guns in the US are both plentiful and cheap right now. Criminals often get their guns from other criminals that burglarize houses and break into cars. If legal guns were banned that would dry up the largest source of illegal guns. Criminals then would have to rely on guns smuggled over the boarder. And the same would apply to ammunition. Guns might still be obtainable but they would no longer be cheap and plentuful.

But I am not an antigun nut. I do not want to see it go that far. I think that reasonable gun control would greatly help with this problem. We do not have to go so far as to ban everyone from owning a firearm.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Just seen on the news that they are reporting it was his mothers gun that he brought to school.

No surprise there, and probably taken from her purse or handbag - just so secure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No surprise there, and probably taken from her purse or handbag - just so secure.

They may find a more secure location for her at least.

Hmm , maybe the kid could argue using the "Stand My Ground" position.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I will have to disagree with you. Making guns illegal would not get rid of all problems, but it would get rid of quite a few of them. Guns in the US are both plentiful and cheap right now. Criminals often get their guns from other criminals that burglarize houses and break into cars. If legal guns were banned that would dry up the largest source of illegal guns. Criminals then would have to rely on guns smuggled over the boarder. And the same would apply to ammunition. Guns might still be obtainable but they would no longer be cheap and plentuful.

But I am not an antigun nut. I do not want to see it go that far. I think that reasonable gun control would greatly help with this problem. We do not have to go so far as to ban everyone from owning a firearm.

What is reasonable gun control?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is reasonable gun control?

That is a valid question. I would say it would depend upon one's goals. The laws to control mass shootings are going to be different from those that are aimed at lowering overall gun violence. Mass shootings may be an easier target. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine. That would help. Hunters may not like it, but limiting the allowable bullet velocity of rounds may help too. I am far from an expert in this, but there are those that could point out what could be properly limited. The previous "assault weapon ban" was all but worthless since that ban was based upon looks rather than on capabilities of firearms.

For general gun violence I would try to put controls how buying handguns. Training would be a must. More intense background checks would be a must. Limiting who can legally sell a gun would be a must. And so would proper storage. Ask @Revoltingest about that. He is a handgun owner I believe and is responsible. I am neither right now. I do not own any guns, but I would hope that if for some reason I ever decided to own one that I would take the steps necessary to learn how to use it properly and store it properly. Many many years ago I did have a hunting rifle but my hunting days are a thing of the past. I would need a refresher course for even owning one of those again. Oh, and way way back in the day the NRA was a valid organization. I learned proper gun usage from an NRA course. That was before they became the "guns for everyone" extremists that they are today.

What the progun people do not realize is that even if they do not abuse gun rights, there are those that do. And they are a bigger threat to their gun rights than anyone else is. Keeping guns out of the hands of "bad guys" would be the first step to securing gun rights for everyone else.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think you need to step back and look at this conversation.

Cool. I disagree.

What was your goal in this conversation?

Express disgust in our nation's obsession with guns to the point we'll try everything aside from actually fixing the problems that cause children to be shot and killed.

Emotion is not a good basis for policy.

No, but decades of data on gun violence and death, gun related crimes, and contributing social factors that are know to contribute sure is. The problem has been well defined. The causes are known, and a course towards correction and healing was easily possible; increasingly that becomes more and more difficult and no, that is not hyperbole. And even more difficult is that whenever these solutions are brought forward, we typically get partisan screeching about communism. So...

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Cool. I disagree.


Express disgust in our nation's obsession with guns to the point we'll try everything aside from actually fixing the problems that cause children to be shot and killed.


No, but decades of data on gun violence and death, gun related crimes, and contributing social factors that are know to contribute sure is. The problem has been well defined. The causes are known, and a course towards correction and healing was easily possible; increasingly that becomes more and more difficult and no, that is not hyperbole. And even more difficult is that whenever these solutions are brought forward, we typically get partisan screeching about communism. So...

Ok, so we are both frustrate with the gun violence. So now what? Will you compromise anything short of not allowing anyone to own a gun? If so, what would be those compromises? If not, then you need to advocate for an amendment to the constitution.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

That is a valid question. I would say it would depend upon one's goals. The laws to control mass shootings are going to be different from those that are aimed at lowering overall gun violence. Mass shootings may be an easier target. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine. That would help. Hunters may not like it, but limiting the allowable bullet velocity of rounds may help too. I am far from an expert in this, but there are those that could point out what could be properly limited. The previous "assault weapon ban" was all but worthless since that ban was based upon looks rather than on capabilities of firearms.

I can agree on limiting magazine size.

For general gun violence I would try to put controls how buying handguns. Training would be a must. More intense background checks would be a must. Limiting who can legally sell a gun would be a must. And so would proper storage. Ask @Revoltingest about that. He is a handgun owner I believe and is responsible. I am neither right now. I do not own any guns, but I would hope that if for some reason I ever decided to own one that I would take the steps necessary to learn how to use it properly and store it properly. Many many years ago I did have a hunting rifle but my hunting days are a thing of the past. I would need a refresher course for even owning one of those again. Oh, and way way back in the day the NRA was a valid organization. I learned proper gun usage from an NRA course. That was before they became the "guns for everyone" extremists that they are today.

What the progun people do not realize is that even if they do not abuse gun rights, there are those that do. And they are a bigger threat to their gun rights than anyone else is. Keeping guns out of the hands of "bad guys" would be the first step to securing gun rights for everyone else.

I am all for keeping the guns out of bad guys. As long as it does not take them out of the hands of the good guys instead.

I am for required training and changing the way we do background checks and sell guns.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can agree on limiting magazine size.

I am all for keeping the guns out of bad guys. As long as it does not take them out of the hands of the good guys instead.

I am for required training and changing the way we do background checks and sell guns.

How about storage at home. This case would have been avoided if the mother stored her gun properly.