Six-year-old in custody after shooting teacher

[win231]

Disagree! Then only criminals will have handguns and our Government will not fear the people. There's that pesky thing called the 2nd Amendment that allows us to protect ourselves both from domestic and foreign foes. You have the right to be disarmed, must you attack my right not to be, because your afraid?

Controllers like to dictate what others should do. Gives them a sense of power.

 

[Sawfish]

Controllers like to dictate what others should do. Gives them a sense of power.

Personally, I would think that it's obvious that on a forum for seniors, there's no point in trying to lecture from the high ground in a self-righteous sort of way. This might work on Reddit, where the average age seems to be 30 or so, but any window of success by brow-beating someone into figurative submission from the "I'm-holier-than-thou" moral heights would have been slammed shut years ago.

In short, it just ain't gonna work here.

 

[CallMeKate]

Changed my mind about posting what I'd posted. So I'm editing. It would do no good and just tend to upset me because I'm a proud American.

 

[Catballou]

Hey I looked up Canada, you guys are trying hard to catch up. Look, during the truckers strike you learned how much freedom your country has lost, so picking on the 2nd amendment is very disappointing. I guess you would have been happier if the criminal used maybe a hatchet or sword, knife or what ever. England the most gun controlled place has an up tick on stabbings and bombs, but low gun killings. Hey got news for ya, it's not the gun it's the person. If you put the gun on a table fully loaded and leave it there nothing will potentially happen until someone picks it up and then it's nothing but a tool in the right or wrong hands.

Side note, did you notice who is in the White House, the NRA isn't one of the Government's favorite organizations. Still Canada's very beautiful. Not nice to say I shouldn't be proud of my country. But I do object to some of its people.

Yep, and more gun control is the answer.... as you say, bullshit!

https://www.netadvisor.org/2015/11/...cent-more-murders-than-republican-red-states/

But we find that no gun zones make easy targets for the criminally insane.

Personally, I would think that it's obvious that on a forum for seniors, there's no point in trying to lecture from the high ground in a self-righteous sort of way. This might work on Reddit, where the average age seems to be 30 or so, but any window of success by brow-beating someone into figurative submission from the "I'm-holier-than-thou" moral heights would have been slammed shut years ago.

In short, it just ain't gonna work here.

Personally, I would think that it's obvious that on a forum for seniors, there's no point in trying to lecture from the high ground in a self-righteous sort of way. This might work on Reddit, where the average age seems to be 30 or so, but any window of success by brow-beating someone into figurative submission from the "I'm-holier-than-thou" moral heights would have been slammed shut years ago.

In short, it just ain't gonna work here.

You're probably right. There's no reasoning with people who aren't horrified by the carnage taking place in their country's classrooms and instead insist that gun laws shouldn't be more restrictive. That attitude is so messed up. I have to wonder how they'd feel if one of their grandchildren was blown away by a guy with an automatic weapon.

 

[Sawfish]

You're probably right. There's no reasoning with people who aren't horrified by the carnage taking place in their country's classrooms and instead insist that gun laws shouldn't be more restrictive. That attitude is so messed up. I have to wonder how they'd feel if one of their grandchildren was blown away by a guy with an automatic weapon.

Strawmen and hyperbole probably won't work, either.

 

[CallMeKate]

Anyone know the statistics (real question) on how many of the mass murders/school shooters/every other murderer would actually follow the "gun laws" that would be in place? I'm thinking... maybe zero? "I'm not going to shoot up the mall today because I'm not supposed to have this gun and I don't want to be a naughty boy/girl."

 

[win231]

Anyone know the statistics (real question) on how many of the mass murders/school shooters/every other murderer would actually follow the "gun laws" that would be in place? I'm thinking... maybe zero? "I'm not going to shoot up the mall today because I'm not supposed to have this gun and I don't want to be a naughty boy/girl."

Exactly why gun restrictions don't work. It's really surprising how many people aren't capable of such simple logic.
Especially the....older people on this forum who should know better.

 

[hollydolly]

Anyone know the statistics (real question) on how many of the mass murders/school shooters/every other murderer would actually follow the "gun laws" that would be in place? I'm thinking... maybe zero? "I'm not going to shoot up the mall today because I'm not supposed to have this gun and I don't want to be a naughty boy/girl."

seems to work well enough in the UK and every other western country... just sayin'..

 

[Sawfish]

seems to work well enough in the UK and every other western country... just sayin'..

I understand your point, no problem. If I could be assured of two things: no criminals had any guns; and I could rely on police intervention to protect my puny aging body from physical assault by younger more robust individuals, it would go a long way to getting me to agree to "no guns:.

But practically speaking, there are estimated to be near 400M guns in the US. This completely changes the reality of the situation to what amounts to the individual needing to be prepared for a stand off with an armed ill-wisher.

This is NOT a bad part of town.

Do you see much of this in the UK or Canada or Aus?

 

[hollydolly]

I understand your point, no problem. If I could be assured of two things: no criminals had any guns; and I could rely on police intervention to protect my puny aging body from physical assault by younger more robust individuals, it would go a long way to getting me to agree to "no guns:.

But practically speaking, there are estimated to be near 400M guns in the US. This completely changes the reality of the situation to what amounts to the individual needing to be prepared for a stand off with an armed ill-wisher.

This is NOT a bad part of town.

Do you see much of this in the UK or Canada or Aus?

the answer to your question is NO.... that's not to say I wouldn't see or know of it happening in the cities or high crime towns which I'm very sure I would... but fortunately I live in the country..

 

[Trish]

I understand your point, no problem. If I could be assured of two things: no criminals had any guns; and I could rely on police intervention to protect my puny aging body from physical assault by younger more robust individuals, it would go a long way to getting me to agree to "no guns:.

But practically speaking, there are estimated to be near 400M guns in the US. This completely changes the reality of the situation to what amounts to the individual needing to be prepared for a stand off with an armed ill-wisher.

This is NOT a bad part of town.

Do you see much of this in the UK or Canada or Aus?

I have never seen anything like that and tbh if I did, I would want to own a weapon, those people inside must have been terrified.

We had friends who, when they had their first child, decided to move out of London. The house they bought needed renovating but it was beautiful and in a lovely, peaceful, secluded setting. Not long after moving there, the husband was at home alone working on the house and decided to take a nap on the sofa. He woke up shortly afterwards with a foot on his head! Someone was climbing through the window! Fortunately the husband was a fit guy and the intruder was an unarmed chancer who thought the house was empty.

 

[Farrah Nuff]

there are estimated to be near 400M guns in the US

Are those estimates of the guns that both criminals and law abiding citizens together possess? And estimated as of when?

It would seem to me that if no guns are ever surrendered by either side, that estimates in future years will only increase. So, if there were 800M guns circulating in the US, what's the point? Evenly divided, how many guns does one need to defend themself and guns of what type? How many of those guns, estimated in your source, were smuggled in from the UK or Australia or Canada, would you estimate?

It would seem that those countries found some way to get crime and guns under control in ways that the US cannot. Maybe the US can take a note from their playbooks and see why it works there but would not work here. How were those countries able to solve a problem that the US can't?

 

[Sawfish]

Are those estimates of the guns that both criminals and law abiding citizens together possess? And estimated as of when?

It would seem to me that if no guns are ever surrendered by either side, that estimates in future years will only increase. So, if there were 800M guns circulating in the US, what's the point? Evenly divided, how many guns does one need to defend themself and guns of what type? How many of those guns, estimated in your source, were smuggled in from the UK or Australia or Canada, would you estimate?

It would seem that those countries found some way to get crime and guns under control in ways that the US cannot. Maybe the US can take a note from their playbooks and see why it works there but would not work here. How were those countries able to solve a problem that the US can't?

Well, I posted the link, anticipating that someone would want to know, so if you've read the article, you know as much as I do.

I was looking for a figure that at least one known source used because I have no idea, at all.

So far as comparing the US vs any other modern industrialized nation, it must first take into account that the same part of the constitution (Bill of Rights) that ensures freedom of religion, speech, warrantless searches, etc. also ensures the private ownership of firearms. This is not a way to dodge your questions. There are procedural ways to change theis. It requires a constitutional amendment to change parts of the constitution, and it's been done before: prohibition was reversed and slavery was was made unlawful. If we are to remove right to bear arms, first we need an amendment.

If it passed, I'd of course comply.

But the reality is, how then would you confiscate the formerly legally owned firearms--390M estimated, many of which are completely off the record? Would you offer market compensation? Would you go door to door and conduct searches? This would be in direct violation of the 4th amendment protection against search and seizure, so we'd have to have an amendment that takes away that protection, as well.

Until the vast bulk of firearms have been taken out of circulation, I'd not feel safe surrendering mine if I felt that other less law abiding individuals would hide theirs, to use against me later, possibly.

Or we could simply support a police state with the power to search and confiscate.

No easy path.

So the 2nd is kinda like the Christian idea of original sin.

 

[Farrah Nuff]

Well, I posted the link, anticipating that someone would want to know, so if you've read the article, you know as much as I do.

Well, I looked for the link you say you posted but all I see is a vudeo from you. Can you tell me the message number or repost the link because no, I haven't read it or known of it until now.

I was looking for a figure that at least one known source used because I have no idea, at all.

Nor fo I but since you mentioned "estimate" I thought not an actual but guessed number.

So far as comparing the US vs any other modern industrialized nation, it must first take into account that the same part of the constitution (Bill of Rights) that ensures freedom of religion, speech, warrantless searches, etc. also ensures the private ownership of firearms. This is not a way to dodge your questions. There are procedural ways to change theis. It requires a constitutional amendment to change parts of the constitution, and it's been done before: prohibition was reversed and slavery was was made unlawful. If we are to remove right to bear arms, first we need an amendment.

But the constitution doesn't have any requirement that citizens be armed, or does it?

If it passed, I'd of course comply.

How nice of you to follow the laws of the land, were they in effect.

But the reality is, how then would you confiscate the formerly legally owned firearms--390M estimated, many of which are completely off the record? Would you offer market compensation? Would you go door to door and conduct searches? This would be in direct violation of the 4th amendment protection against search and seizure, so we'd have to have an amendment that takes away that protection, as well.

That's a sticky wifket isn't it though? How about of people surrendered them just because it seemed the "right thing" to do? There's no law against following one's conscience, is there? There could be some form of compensation, with the cost for that borne by all citizens. Door to door seems a little impractical but by whatever means necessary to ensure compliance, if ever it became or becomes law. And the amendments to the constitution can themselves be amended.

Until the vast bulk of firearms have been taken out of circulation, I'd not feel safe surrendering mine if I felt that other less law abiding individuals would hide theirs, to use against me later, possibly.

I understand that many people don't trust others very much or well. That doesn't help much of anything, as I see it.

Or we could simply support a police state with the power to search and confiscate.

No easy path.

That's your opinion but I've visited Australia and it didn't feel like a police state there. I've not visited the UK but I've never considered it to be a police state. Canada, I'm not clear on their policies dealing with guns but they don't have our problems it seems.

You seem possibly open to reason but as you say and I agree, the answers are not and will not be easy ones. But yo do nothing and continue as we have seen thus far doesn't seem like a great solution either. Doing nothing, changing nothing, has brought us to this point, where six year olds have access to guns and use them to shoot people. That's where changing nothing has taken us. Gun control has never been tried in any meaningful measure, to my knowledge. If you know differently, I'd love it if you shared.

 

[Catballou]

Are those estimates of the guns that both criminals and law abiding citizens together possess? And estimated as of when?

It would seem to me that if no guns are ever surrendered by either side, that estimates in future years will only increase. So, if there were 800M guns circulating in the US, what's the point? Evenly divided, how many guns does one need to defend themself and guns of what type? How many of those guns, estimated in your source, were smuggled in from the UK or Australia or Canada, would you estimate?

It would seem that those countries found some way to get crime and guns under control in ways that the US cannot. Maybe the US can take a note from their playbooks and see why it works there but would not work here. How were those countries able to solve a problem that the US can't

Are those estimates of the guns that both criminals and law abiding citizens together possess? And estimated as of when?

It would seem to me that if no guns are ever surrendered by either side, that estimates in future years will only increase. So, if there were 800M guns circulating in the US, what's the point? Evenly divided, how many guns does one need to defend themself and guns of what type? How many of those guns, estimated in your source, were smuggled in from the UK or Australia or Canada, would you estimate?

It would seem that those countries found some way to get crime and guns under control in ways that the US cannot. Maybe the US can take a note from their playbooks and see why it works there but would not work here. How were those countries able to solve a problem that the US can't?

It seems the U.S. doesn't want to solve the problem. Members of Congress are more concerned with the financial support they receive from the NRA than they are about children being massacred in classrooms. Paranoid, gun-toting citizens are more concerned about their precious right to bear arms than they are about children being massacred in classrooms. These are the major differences between the U.S. and the other countries you've mentioned. U.S. gun ownership is so far out of control, you have to wonder what's in store for the future. It doesn't look pretty.

 

[Farrah Nuff]

It doesn't look pretty.

Not pretty at all but that's just the opinion of a few here it seems.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that the US doesn't want to solve such problems. I'd just say thst the US is populated by many stubborn people who either refuse to or can't see past the nose on their faces, unless they happen to be looking at someone they feel in danger of, down the barrel of their rifles or handguns. And those people vote, in very great numbers, when they think their tights are being at risk of violation.

 

[Catballou]

I understand your point, no problem. If I could be assured of two things: no criminals had any guns; and I could rely on police intervention to protect my puny aging body from physical assault by younger more robust individuals, it would go a long way to getting me to agree to "no guns:.

But practically speaking, there are estimated to be near 400M guns in the US. This completely changes the reality of the situation to what amounts to the individual needing to be prepared for a stand off with an armed ill-wisher.

This is NOT a bad part of town.

Do you see much of this in the UK or Canada or Aus?

Incidents like this probably happen everywhere, but are very rare, unless you live in a very high-crime neighbourhood. That doesn't mean everyone should have a gun in their home "just in case." I've lived in my neighbourhood for 30 years and never had this happen.

 

[Catballou]

Not pretty at all but that's just the opinion of a few here it seems.

And I wouldn't go so far as to say that the US doesn't want to solve such problems. I'd just say thst the US is populated by many stubborn people who either refuse to or can't see past the nose on their faces, unless they happen to be looking at someone they feel in danger of, down the barrel of their rifles or handguns. And those people vote, in very great numbers, when they think their tights are being at risk of violation.

When Obama was in office, he proposed several gun reform bills after the Sandy Hook massacre, but the ones that would have made any difference didn't get past Congress. So, yeah, I think a lot of the blame lies with Congress, especially the Republicans. They are the government representatives who don't care. Oh, and Trump did absolutely nothing about gun laws. He cares only about himself. But that's another can of worms.

 

[Sawfish]

Incidents like this probably happen everywhere, but are likely very rare, unless you live in a very high-crime neighbourhood. That doesn't mean everyone should have a gun in their home "just in case." I've lived in my neighbourhood for 30 years and never had this happen.

I know Portland very well indeed, living here for 35 years, and invest in RE all over the city. This is video is in a pretty upscale area in town.

If I worked at it a bit I can find a lot of stories/videos of home invasions over the last 2-3 years, or I can find photos of what the homeless camps and residents are like, and I can see them every day when I drive from my $900K home to my gym, 2 miles away. The guy in the video was homeless, BTW, and admitted to having smoked meth just before.

As to frequency or likelihood, if you are wrong only once in 20 years, there's a strong likelihood that your life will be profoundly different after that. And the lives of your loved ones.

You are of course free to have your own opinion about the necessity of personal ownership of a firearm. I don't share it and I don't expect that you can make that decision for me, just as I would not insist that you follow my example.

 

[Farrah Nuff]

When Obama was in office, he proposed several gun reform bills after the Sandy Hook massacre, but the ones that would have made any difference didn't get past Congress. So, yeah, I think a lot of the blame lies with Congress, especially the Republicans. They are the government representatives who don't care. Oh, and Trump did absolutely nothing about gun laws. He cares only about himself. But that's another can of worms.

I dunno but that sounds kind of political and that can get you in hot water fast.
There are eyes everywhere, watching what you post and taking screenshots of
what they don't like. That can and will, be used as evidence of your violating guidelines.

Just my experience here and not meant to lecture.

 

[SeniorBen]

A big part of the problem is certain media outlets that keep their audience perpetually outraged and scared, and they do that by lying to them. Covid vaccines are a good example. They've been proven to be safe, over and over, but their media adherents are convinced that it's a conspiracy by shape-shifting reptilian aliens to keep us under control when we all know that it's a Jewish cabal that wants to eat our children and drink our blood. It's just common sense.

NOTE: That's a joke. (Some people need to be told.)

 

[Farrah Nuff]

NOTE: That's a joke. (Some people need to be told.)

Sad to feel the need for such a disclaimer but ultimately true.

 

[multimodAL]

putting myself in the kid's shoes... one minute it's sort of show(off) and tell. then mayhem the next (not unlike tv or games, really.) now all this attention... waitin' to see if all the copykittens will be up to the challenge. gonna need some psychodelics to wrap my head around all this.

 

[multimodAL]

on second thought... i do remember having shot someone when i was around that age. we laugh about it now some 55 years later but yeah, happened to me actually in the philippines during the 60's.

next time i had my hand on a gun about 4 years later was at a boarding school on the north shore of chicago. also everybody used actually used guns in minnesota and arizona during my preteen years.

hmmm... guess i really am not one to speak on the topic.

 

[Teacher Terry]

I live in a state that allows open carry and it doesn’t make me feel safe. In fact if I see a gun I leave the area immediately. If I am at a store or restaurant I also leave.

No one is going to want to send their kids to school or work in one if we don’t get a handle on the situation.