Gun goes off in Middle Ga. classroom

[onehandle]

Police in Dublin say a 15-year-old is charged with having a firearm on campus after a handgun he was carrying discharged in a classroom and a bullet fragment struck another student.

Dublin Police Chief Wayne Cain says the 15-year-old told authorities he brought the gun to Dublin High School on Monday for self-protection. Cain says he was putting the gun in his backpack when it went off.

Cain says a bullet fragment ricocheted off the floor, striking the leg of a 17-year-old student, causing a bruise.

Cain says the 15-year-old was being held at a Youth Detention Center pending a hearing. He says the gun belongs to a family member.

http://www.ajc.com/news/gun-goes-off-in-357223.html

[Deep13]

1. I'm off two minds on this.

One, obviously school officials cannot tolerate firearms in classrooms. Obviously. OTOH, I can see why a student would bring one. If officials refuse to protect students from bullying, one has to expect they will find their own rememdies. Providing a secure learning environment would go a long way toward keeping guns out of schools.

[gorfle]

31. It's pretty cut-and-dry.

The bottom line is you can't allow children to make life-or-death decisions like this.

If you say it's OK for kids to bring firearms into schools for self-defense, then you allow them for any and all reasons.

I do not support children being able to freely carry firearms under their own recognizance.

[Deep13]

33. As I clearly said, "obviously" the school cannot tolerate firearms in school. nt

[PavePusher]

55. Then the school must provide adequete security.

Good luck with that one. Not an easy or inexpensive task.

[TPaine7]

36. True, with one caveat.

I would allow concealed firearms in the possession of trained teachers.

I do not fault a child for bringing a gun to school who is in fear for his life or who fears severe bodily harm. It is unconscionable to force someone into an environment where he cannot defend himself and then fail to protect him. The school should be liable for any and all injuries and deaths.

Providing a secure learning environment is the key to a lot of things, including learning. Disruptive students should be expelled or at least separated. Better that 29 students learn their lessons and one student doesn't than that 30 students remain uneducated.

[Botany]

2. Gee I hope the gun wasn't hurt

I hope that the gun lovers can get there ASAP to protect that precious
gun from being hurt or even put to death.

[onehandle]

4. The NRA is on it. They will make sure the innocent gun is released.

One more gun in circulation is one more citizen protected from their own shadow.

Or one more liquor store knocked over.

Or one more dead kid.

[Botany]

6. Good because in some cases that poor gun is melted down in brutal ...

.... death.

I own guns and hunt too. The #s about guns and gun victims are just brutal.

[Katya Mullethov]

8. The trick is to toss them into the crucible

While they are still attached to the social parasites .

[pipoman]

37. What #s would that be?

The #s about guns and gun victims are just brutal.

The 80,000,000 gun owners with 300,000,000 guns? The 30,000 gun deaths including 15,000 suicides? The ratio of gun ownership to deaths of around 2600:1? Or the overall ratio of guns to death of around 10,000:1?

[YllwFvr]

62. Or one more dead kid.

You mean bruised. She was bruised

[benEzra]

7. And who, might I ask, is OK with 15-year-olds packing pistols to class?

Oh, that's right, NOBODY.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[SteveM]

9. At the end of the yellow-pricked toad, handle will find someone, SOMEone. nt

[Glassunion]

10. Actually...

I hope the gun is taken away, and never returned to the relative.

#1. The kid should be charged.
#2. The family member should be charged.

I went to a shitty high school. I was in a minority group so small, there were only three of us in the entire high school. One of which was killed by being run over by one of the police officers that patrolled our school. My first day, my freshman year, I was assaulted and humiliated on the bus before I even arrived at the school. By the third week of class after my 2nd trip to the hospital my mother pulled me out of that school, she lied to the school board and stated that we lived in another district. She claimed her work address was our home address. We pulled it off well into my sophomore year. When the school board caught on, they dumped me right back into the other school. I gave it a try, however it was not going to happen. I dropped out.

I found another way to cheat the system. My mom had me enrolled into a remedial high school, where classes were only 5 hours a day. What I did was at the same time I enrolled for classes at the local community college, and as long as I remained non-matriculated, I could take whatever courses I qualified for.

There are major problems in our schools, if a child feels afraid for their lives just going to class there is something far deeper than just bringing a gun to class.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Botany]

34. I hunt and own guns.

The bury your head in the sand approach that allows people to deny the fact that
more guns in circulation = more gun deaths and tragedies

Fact if a gun is fired in anger the odds are better then 20 to 1 that it will be used on
the gun owner or somebody the owner of the gun knows are real.

Fact I lost a dear friend to gun violence

Fact as soon as there is a gun tragedy w/ in minutes you will see some person or
group coming forward to say that it was not the fault of the gun(s) but a lack of law
enforcement actions.

[oneshooter]

35. Then you need to turn your guns in

to the nearest law enforcement office. This is for the sake of the children. After all, to quote you "more guns in circulation = more gun deaths and tragedies".:evilgrin:

After all, it's for the children! :puke:



Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[pipoman]

38. How about supplying us with a link to the source of your 'facts'?

he bury your head in the sand approach that allows people to deny the fact that more guns in circulation = more gun deaths and tragedies

The stats just don't support your fear. The number of gun deaths has been declining on all fronts for over 20 years, yet every single day there are more guns than the day before. How do you explain this glaring contradiction to your assertion?

[Botany]

39. States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

States With Higher Levels of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates
Harvard School of Public Health

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html

For immediate release: January 11, 2007

Boston, MA -- Firearms are used to kill two out of every three homicide victims in America. In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of homicide, researchers at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.09.024

, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues and , used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.

Matthew Miller, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Injury Prevention at Harvard School of Public Health, and his colleagues David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, used survey data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide. Respondents in all 50 states were asked whether any firearms were kept in or around their home. The survey found that approximately one in three American households reported firearm ownership.
Analyses that controlled for several measures of resource deprivation, urbanization, aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, and alcohol consumption found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men. In these analyses, states within the highest quartile of firearm prevalence had firearm homicide rates 114% higher than states within the lowest quartile of firearm prevalence. Overall homicide rates were 60% higher. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide was driven by gun-related homicide rates; non-gun-related homicide rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership.

These results suggest that it is easier for potential homicide perpetrators to obtain a gun in states where guns are more prevalent. “Our findings suggest that in the United States, household firearms may be an important source of guns used to kill children, women and men, both on the street and in their homes,” said Miller.

[X_Digger]

41. Ahh, another Hemenway hit piece..

You do realize that's like me posting a 'study' by the NRA, right?

Hemenway also fails to prove any measure of causation- areas with higher gun ownership also frequently have a higher crime rate- however, no causation has been established. Do people in those areas purchase more guns because they're more likely to be the victims of crime, or vice-versa?

[Botany]

43. It was published in a peer reviewed professional journal

Social Science and Medicine. You don't publish material in those journal w/ out
passing rigorous criticism by qualified people in the field.

[X_Digger]

46. Did you actually read the study?

Or did you just read the abstract / press release and take it for granted that the data backs it up?

Hemenway did not take into account neighborhood crime rate when comparing the control against the selected area. There were significant differences between rates of home ownership, drug use, crime, race, living single or as part of a family.

Which still doesn't even get to the core issue, that there was no causation.

[Botany]

49. you are right there is no link between guns and gun crimes

and Prof. Hemenway should be working @ Burger King

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/david-hemenway/

[X_Digger]

50. "link" - "associated with" - "related to"

[onehandle]

58. 'Studies and research are wrong when they are against me.'

Botany wins.

[X_Digger]

59. Care to sit at the grown-up table and actually discuss?

See post 46.

I'll ask you the same question.. have you read the study in question?

[cowman]

60. Of course he

hasn't, all he can do is spout off what he thinks a cute platitudes. Every time he posts his "cute anti-gun comments" he gets shot down, figuratively speaking

[X_Digger]

56. And an appeal to authority..

I ask again, did you read the study? Or are you just appealing to authority without doing the real research?

[GreenStormCloud]

65. I will buy his book (Used) and post a review. Look for it in a couple of weeks.

I am expecting to have a fairly easy time debunking it.

[Euromutt]

51. You quoted the press release, which is not peer-reviewed

"Science by press release" is frequently a red flag for a skeptical approach (see: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3813).

The value of pre-publication peer review is often overestimated. To paraphrase Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, peer review is a method (and a crude one at that) of establishing the acceptability of a finding, not its validity. That is, passing review is an indication that the study's finding has been arrived at without obvious methodological errors, but even then, there can be serious discrepancies between a study's findings and the conclusion published in the abstract and press release. To quote Dr. Amy Tuteur, MD (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2889):

<...> a lot of bad analysis gets by reviewers at leading medical journals. That’s why it is so important to read a scientific paper in full, not just the abstract. All too often, the data in the paper does not support the conclusion in the abstract.

This is why the real peer review starts only after a study has been published, because that's how the wider scientific community becomes aware of the study, and other researchers see if they can replicate its findings. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of published research eventually turns out to be wrong. And that's not a problem; it's just how science works. The point is that the publication of a study in a peer-reviewed journal does not in and of itself prove the study's findings (let alone the conclusions drawn by the researchers) are correct.

[GreenStormCloud]

64. When it comes to guns, that "rigorous criticism" become naive acceptance by the medical community.

When those studies are post here, we regularly shoot them full of holes. For one thing, those studies NEVER take into account whether or not the guns involved are legally owned, or illegally owned.

[paulsby]

67. the problem is looking at criminology issues

and applying an epidemiology methodology to them.

that is fraught with problems

diseases do NOT work the same way that crime does.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. I noticed they (and you) left some important qualifiers out

From the last line of the abstract linked:

Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

Just a slight oversight, amirite?

[Euromutt]

45. A typical case of correlation being presented as causation

I will point out, as I already cone many times on this forum, that "associated with" means a correlation can be established; it does not mean causation has been established, or which way the causal relationship runs. To compare, the presence of insulin in a household is strongly "associated with" someone in that household having diabetes. Does that mean that insulin causes diabetes? Of course not. Similarly, it is entirely possible that a higher rate of firearm homicide in a particular area prompts more people to acquire a firearm for self-protection.

Moreover, when attempts are made to establish prevalence of firearm ownership by survey, it has to be taken into account that respondents may falsely deny owning firearms. For a variety of reasons, gun owners may be reluctant to tell a complete stranger on the phone that there are firearms in the household, especially in areas where residential burglaries or legislative attempts to restrict firearm ownership are more common. One study found that 10.3% of respondents known to hold hunting licenses, and 12.7% of respondents known to have a handgun registered to them, denied owning firearms when interviewed (Rafferty, Ann P. et. al. "Validity of a household gun question in a telephone survey." Public Health Reports. May-June 1995 v110 n3 p282(7)).

Then there's the fact that this study was produced by the team of Matthew Miller, David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, who are noted for producing studies that invariably conclude that Guns Are Bad, and whose output should therefore be examined with a measure of skepticism. The fact that this is "science by press release" (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3813) should also put the reader on guard.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. That doesn't say what you said earlier.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. You lost a friend to gun violence, own guns yourself, and tell us guns are dangerous

It appears you support gun control for others, but not for yourself

I will accept your moral viewpoint when:

1) You have personally destroyed ALL guns and ammunition in your possesion, or have seen it done in front of your
eyes. And after that,

2) Pledge to never again posess guns and/or ammunition. Ever.


Get back to us when you have done these things. Until then, thy name is hypocrite.

kthxbye

[Botany]

47. Save me the lecture and your simplistic philosophical argument.

You have no idea what I went through.

I spent 6 weeks going to visit my friend who was in a coma in the hospital as
the result of a .38 slug in her throat which filled her lungs w/ blood and stopped
the flow of O2 to her brain before she got to the hospital.

BTW she died w/ in 6 months ... her Dad dropped dead of a heart attack not long
she died.

[cowman]

48. And save me

your sob story, I watched friends guts spill out, I've watched children die horribly, I've treated hundreds of gunshot wounds over the years I'vw been a Paramedic so don't give me your crap about someone close to you dying, been there done that

[pipoman]

52. Sorry you went through that

but surely you understand that it is never a good idea to legislate based on anecdotes, statistics must determine the necessity for legislation, especially legislation which limits Constitutionally enumerated rights. Therefore I may understand your feelings in as much as I would blame any inanimate object for someone's death, I opt more the negligent human if there is one. I too however behave differently based on anecdote. The chances that I will need a gun either in my home or on my person (though I don't currently carry) is that if I need it and don't have it, I and/or my family are in danger. My chance of house fire is very small, I just can't afford not to have smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, and fire insurance.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. And *all* of the awful things your friend went through were caused by a PERSON...

...not an inanimate object.

You seem to have recovered from this enough to be able to own more of the same inanimate objects, which are just
as potentially dangerous when mishandled.

You know, you may actually be a very safe gun owner, and if you are I'm glad of it. But to come here and say, in effect:

"Guns are dangerous, in fact one was used to horrible effect upon a friend of mine. I watched her slowly die.
But I still own and use some of the same dangerous objects."

while lecturing others about their posession of same is quite hypocritical.

[paulsby]

68. i lost a friend to a scumbag convicted felon murderous asshole

the fact that he used a gun is a fact, but it does not change my viewpoint on RKBA etc.

why should it?

[cowman]

44. I don't give

a good gawd damn if you hunt, the 2nd amend isn't about hunting, and I lost friends in Vietnam but I don't blame a gun for that, I blamed the Pols that sent us to a civil war that we had no business being involved in

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Pray tell why would you own guns if you actually believed that crap?

[YllwFvr]

63. Then you are negatively biased already

if you lost someone to gun violence.

There are gun crimes all the time, but its not an epidemic like the knife violence is in the UK. People will kill each other no matter what, the tool doesnt matter. We were killing each other thousands of years before guns were dreamed of. If guns are banned we will still kill each other. Mass murder doesnt need a gun.

See: 9/11
Oklahoma City Bombing

How about this one?
From wikipedia
The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people (38 grade-schoolers and 7 adults) and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–12 years of age)

Bombs, quite easy to make and can jack stuff up better than any firearm. You dont even need to be around when they kill. Better than a gun, you can get shot back when you use them.

Lets ban cow poop

[paulsby]

69. not necesasrily

i lost a good friend to gun violence and i am certainly not negatively biased.
it didn't change my viewpoints on RKBA one iota.

nor should it.

i lost a good friend skiing fwiw.

i didn't stop skiing nor did i suddenly think people shouldn't be allowed to ski

[shadowrider]

3. This can't be

There a multiple, multiple laws on the books that prevent a 15 year old from possessing, owning and carrying a gun. Oh, that's right, only law abiding people obey laws.

[sharesunited]

11. The solution then would be to reduce the availability of guns. Obviously.

[slackmaster]

13. Things are either available or they are not.

"reduce the availability of guns" is codespeak for banning them.

[sharesunited]

15. Not quite. Morgan silver dollars are available as collectibles.

They no longer circulate in commerce.

[slackmaster]

18. So, you are saying that Morgan silver dollars are available.

Analogy fail.

[cowman]

25. I see that

Onehandle and SharesUnited are here to impart their wisdom to us? So give it your best shot (pun intended). But everytime you do, you get your ass kicked in a figurative sense

[shadowrider]

16. It was already against the law for him to have a gun

What do you want to do, punish law abiding citizens for the action of a 15 year old? Oops, sorry, forgot who I was responding to.

[benEzra]

17. Like 80 years of prohibition backed by extraconstitutional powers

has made it impossible to obtain cannabis? Uh-huh.

Maybe we should make it double super illegaler for 15-year-olds to take guns to school. :eyes:

[cowman]

26. Yeah lets

put him on double double probation

[rrneck]

19. I am impressed

at your ability to twirl continuously and never get dizzy.

[gorfle]

20. Another solution.

The solution then would be to reduce the availability of guns. Obviously.

Because your solution would infringe on the Constitutional right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, the other solution is to simply tolerate the occasional accidents and abuses of that right by the roughtly 5% of firearm owners who cause problems.

[shadowrider]

23. I would say

LEGAL CCW holders are far, far FAR below 5%, while illegal guns in the hands of those for whom it's already against the law is above that number (gangbangers, thugs, all around bad guys).

[gorfle]

29. on 5%

My number of 5% comes from the fact that if you attributed every violent crime in the United States annually to the 40-80 million firearm owners in the United States, it would only amount to about 5% of firearm owners being involved in violent crime.

The reality is, of course, that not all violent crime even involve firearms, so in actuality the number is much lower.

So every time someone like sharesunited advocates eliminating or restricting firearms, they are basically saying that 38 to 76 million law-abiding people should be penalized for the criminal actions of less than two million people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. No the solution would be to enforce the existing laws. Obivously

Making sure a student did not feel the need to be armed at school for protection would be a good thing as well

[DrDan]

5. thank goodness there is still a law so this kid can be charged

and thank goodness he did not kill the other student

[sharesunited]

12. If everyone in school were armed, wouldn't additional shots have been fired in response?

[slackmaster]

14. Who suggested that everyone in the school should be armed?

Other than you.

[gorfle]

22. doubtful.

Even if there were CCW permit holders on the campus who had firearms, just because a shot goes off does not mean that every one with a firearm pulls it out and starts randomly shooting in response.

Just as a police officer would, a CCW permit holder would assess the situation and respond accordingly.

Why do you assume irrational behavior on the part of CCW permit holders when they have been statistically shown to be virtually beyond reproach?

[paulsby]

70. this is a good point. fwiw, in my investigative experience CCW'ers are rather reluctant to fire

even if obviously justified (of course, so are cops ime and according to studies i have read)

i investigated a case where a guy shot and killed a cop. two people that i interviewed had guns.

one of them got out of his car and got his gun out, but by that time, the suspect had emptied his gun (the slide was locked back). he did not feel justified shooting this person as he walked away.

now, legally speaking, he could have ordered the man to stop and if he didn't stop, have shot him .

the man had just executed (literally stood over the cop and emptied his gun into the guy's head).

that would be justifiable under WA deadly force law. the man need not allow the fleeing murderer to get to a position of safety and./or additional ammo.

the other actually had her gun out WHILE the man was shooting at the cop (before the cop fell to the ground). she didnt fire because she wasn't confident in her backstop. there was an apartment building a hundred yards or so beyond.

yes, it's an anecdote.


i have others, and i've also read the FBI/DOJ data

[proteus_lives]

27. Ignorant.

Only someone with zero experience and understanding of firearms would think that.

[cowman]

32. Which would

be SharesUnited and Onehandle judging by their anti-2nd amend posts

[gorfle]

21. How could this happen in a gun-free zone?

.

[shadowrider]

24. It doesn't among LEGAL owners

but bad guys never were or are much concerned with things like laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Putting it in his backpack?

Why was it OUT of his backpack? Show and tell?

Someone was being criminally stupid.

[old mark]

66. The gun did not "go off" - he pulled the trigger while showing it off to the kids

at school.

Another bullshit story.

mark