Ten years after school shooting, community remembers, sees few changes after 6-yr-old Kayla's death

[onehandle]

The gungeon is all excited about some high school paper thin bit of 'data' posted on some gun website ten years ago. If we're going in the way back machine...
____________________________________

Kayla was here. She flew through the air on swing sets here. She dreamed of owning a pair of Barbie sneakers and sometimes chased boys on playgrounds here. Vivid memories remain, but there are few reminders of the shy little girl whose death 10 years ago many thought would change the world forever. Six-year-old Kayla Rolland died on Feb. 29, 2000, after a boy shot her in the chest inside their first-grade classroom at Buell Elementary School. It shocked the world. It shocked us.

snip...

The three men who were punished in connection to her death — the 6-year-old boy who shot Kayla went into the care of protective services but was too young to be criminally charged — completed their prison or probation sentences by 2004.

snip...

Michael Moore cited Kayla’s death and other gun tragedies to support his major theme in “Bowling for Columbine” — that the influence of guns in American culture has produced a firearms-related murder rate unrivaled worldwide in numbers, media attention and government sanction.

Also, Tammy Smith, 23, of London, England, set up a Facebook page four years ago in an effort to raise awareness about gun safety and to change American gun policies. “I wanted people to know that poor innocent children like Kayla can end up just being a statistic because of these policies,” she said.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2010/02/ten_years_after_school_shootin.html

[msongs]

1. 2nd amendment has NO RKBA age limits...6 ur olds have a right to open carry nt

[Pavulon]

3. Boy that stupid shit right off the bat..

its like you guys have no material content to provide so just post nonsense..

[Zoeisright]

4. Yeah, like you guys have such deep intellectual reasoning ability.

"It's MY gun so you can't have it!!" NYaaaaahhhh!!

That's the sum of your stupid shit argument. Tell that to the multitude of dead killed by the guns you adore.

[Pavulon]

8. I really loved statistics. It was one of my favorite courses.. Looking at DATA

from the FBI readily proves that crime is dropping. That "assault weapons" are not relevant in criminal activity. More people are stabbed than shot with all rifle types.

Statistics show us that over 50% of gun death is suicide.
Statistics show us minorities are over represented in gun violence. (in criminal justice system as well)
Statistics show countries like Canada with similar laws have a fraction of the US death rate.
Statistics show cities with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest rates of shootings.

Now given that FACT. Why should I pay the price for the incompetence of the people we elect?

I find it offensive that these people would (on both sides) would rather ignore the problems and pass bullshit than fix the issues.

If you are poor and black you are FUCKED. Can you see a golf course from your house, you are fine.
Got insurance to cover the cost of treatment for Depression or other disorders? You have a much higher chance. NONE, FUCKED, 72 hour hold, back on you ass.

This is a simple issue. Mental health, Drug laws, and directly addressing minority communities destroyed by drug culture and family destroying behavior will stop the violence.

Problem that is much harder and more expensive than passing some bullshit law.

[one-eyed fat man]

27. And the really sad truth

".............family destroying behavior will stop the violence."

Much of that behaviour has its roots in the "War on Poverty" and Great Society. When the welfare rules were written so that black women drew more money if there were no men in the house, things started to decline. Historically black families had been more cohesive than white families. There were fewer out of wedlock births and what are now derisvely seen as "middle class values" had a firm hold on black society. Economist Thomas Sowell argues that the Great Society programs only contributed to the destruction of African American families, saying "the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life."

War on Poverty Revisited

Uncle Sam's Plantation: How the Welfare Bureaucracy Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It

I am old enough to remember when it was different. It might be quaint, but how does a boy become a man when his available and visible role models are pimps, dealers, thugs?

[Katya Mullethov]

30. I remember

But there are so many vested interests riding on this one . All the people that "earn" their rice bowl as prohibitionists and social workers and section 8 landlords and grocery stores (except Detroit) and on and on and on . It's the prefect machine baby , the prime mover I mentioned yesterday , and you might as well try and repeal gravity .


ETA Detroit (you cant have one there , they will empty it out in a months time . )

[cleanhippie]

15. Who proposed that argument? Or are you just fabricating things again?

Who made that argument? Please, show me where someone actually made that argument.

Or did you just make it up like the rest of your emotional bullshit?

[shadowrider]

21. Adore? Adore? I don't adore my gun. I respect it, I treat it gingerly and I keep it clean

Adore? Not so much.

I'm perfectly aware of the destruction that can come out the barrel which is targeted at someone wishing to do me or my family harm via a direct threat to our personal safety.

Adore?

Sheesh

[SteveM]

23. I see you've hung around to show your intellectual prow(l)ess...

You have a deep-seated hate-on for people in this forum. You need to clean it up for your own good, but more importantly, for the good of progressive politics. Are you a Third Rail Democrat?

[Katya Mullethov]

28. I much prefer hearing " You people " .

Doncha just hate us ?

[proteus_lives]

32. Actually.....

The sum is:

"These are my rights, you can't and won't take them away."

I say it but I know control freaks like you are incapable of understanding. Ah, well.

[jazzhound]

37. Extreme mendacity on display.

The sum total of our arguments is nothing as you characterize, as anyone who even casually follows these discussions recognizes very quickly.

[TheMadMonk]

18. Given that that has long been a staple of the gun rights crowd's arguments...

...when it's an adult-adult encounter and the "naughty" man has a gun, and the good guy doesn't, I don't see any problem with using it to "slap" the gun happy around.

I have seen people here suggest (more than once) the armed thugs in schools problem should by addressed by arming the teachers.

I have seen time and time again, the proposal that more guns is the solution to problems involving guns.


People claim to be foursquare behind responsible gun ownership and yet they opose with all fervour any attempt to limit legal gun ownership by the irresponsible, claiming it to be the thin edge of the wedge that will be used to disarm them too.

People die in enormous numbers because of irresponsible gun ownership and management and those who claim to be responsible gun owners/handlers try to tell us the solution is more guns.

Go figure why people jump into these threads with sarcastic suggestions that if the kid had been armed everything would be hunky dory.

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. Okay, show some examples of what you claim.

You have made the arguments, so they are yours to defend. There are any number of search engines available to all those

with Internet service, so you should have no problem finding examples of what you claim:


"I have seen people here suggest (more than once) the armed thugs in schools problem should by addressed by arming the teachers."

Granted, some have suggested this. How would *you* deal with this problem?


"People claim to be foursquare behind responsible gun ownership and yet they opose with all fervour any attempt to limit legal gun ownership by the irresponsible, claiming it to be the thin edge of the wedge that will be used to disarm them too."

Show examples from DU, if you would

"People die in enormous numbers because of irresponsible gun ownership and management and those who claim to be responsible gun owners/handlers try to tell us the solution is more guns."

As above.

[Pavulon]

20. Because they are out of honest commentary. Thats why they do it. Like "first"

on a thread, it marks you.

Now I have clearly defined what I think the solution to the violence is in the US. It is quite simple. It has nothing to do with new gun laws.

There is not one single new law that is needed to make gun ownership "safer".

Please layout what limits you speak of.. Define irresponsible as well.

[SteveM]

24. Your animosity is showing...

"I don't see any problem with using it to 'slap' the gun happy around."

Who is "gun happy?" Is this a made-up image with which you can smear, stereotype and demean those with whom you disagree? Sure looks like it. Frankly, I don't even know what you are talking about when you use "it" to 'slap' around anyone.

Having armed properly-trained teachers or other full-time on-campus adults to thwart the armed thugs is not a bad idea. Do you have evidence where this would be ineffective?

"I have seen time and time again, the proposal that more guns is the solution to problems involving guns."

You need to cite sources, here. You made the claim, you defend YOUR position. Can you handle it?

Same with this: "...they o(p)pose with all fervour any attempt to limit legal gun ownership by the irresponsible, claiming it to be the thin edge of the wedge that will be used to disarm them too." Those who are adjudicated mentally incompetent, or who have a criminal record are barred from owning firearms. You are wholly disingenuous here. On one note, you seem to see the light. Gun-controllers/prohibitionists do indeed try to find the "thin edge of the wedge" to disarm, only not with your made-up reason. Please read up on the mission statements of gun-control/prohibitionist organizations.

"People die in enormous numbers because of irresponsible gun ownership and management and those who claim to be responsible gun owners/handlers try to tell us the solution is more guns." Again, you are completely disingenuous by saying "...the solution is more guns." No one has advocated this. Cite sources. Provide links. Give data. Are you incapable of basic argument? You may wish to visit the web site of the National Safety Council where they show that childhood deaths by firearms are low and have been trending low for some 15 years.

"Go figure why people jump into these threads with sarcastic suggestions that if the kid had been armed everything would be hunky dory." You have made up a straw man and you know it. The reason "why people jump into these threads with sarcastic suggestions" is because that is ALL YOU'VE GOT. You have lost a culture war founded on hate and meanness. And you are only getting more shrill.

And you very well know it.

[TheMadMonk]

34. Who is "gun happy"? The sort who's varriation on the bare bub on the rug....

...photo, surrounds said bub with fireams and ammo belts. The sort who maintains huge arsenals against "That Day". The sort that keeps a handgun in every room of the house including under bub's crib mattress. Sara Palin's family in other words, and there are plenty out there.

Hmmm, I have all the evidence in the civilised world, that nowhere else does anyone consider it necessary to even contemplate the idea of arming teachers against their students.


Not at all disengenuous. I actually strongly support responsible gun ownership. I do not support the prohibition of gun ownership. I think what the Australian (my) government did after the Port Arthur Masacre was an abomination.

On the other hand I don't have a problem with a three day wait, if that's what it takes to make a check of records that might post date the obtaining of a permit. I don't have a problem with requiring that individual firearms be linked to the owner's permit, and that any transfer of owership be registered. I don't even have a problem with temporarily sequestering a person's firearms in special circumstances, such as during divorce proceedings or other traumatic household event. All of these things and more have been vehemently opposed or had that oposition commented upon here.


I hear gun proponents saying "the solution is more guns" because that is what people all too often (entirely absent snarky efforts like the one that prompted this exchange) do say in circumstances where the presence of another firearm MIGHT have made a difference. The nutter in the Unitarian church a little while back attracted just this argement. And exactly the same meme can be seen in the "hole" around all of those exemplary posts where firearms were successfully used against intruders/attackers.

Anyone can play "scenarios" with 20-20 hindsight and the luxury of unlimited time. In retrospect I can save the Scott expedition to the South Pole, Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia. In retrospect I can do almost anything. In the thick of things, I usually do pretty much what everybody does without some sort of prep time. I freeze or do the bolt. Instantaneous responses to sudden threat situations aren't all that common. Correct instantaneous responses are even less common. Even with training, incorrect responses are numerous enough to put Wikileaks at loggerheads with the Pentagon over 90,000 odd examples of such fuckups.


Childhood deaths by firearm are low because as a rule they do not participate in gun crime or fall victim to it. Where guns do kill kids, it is often in circumstances where sensible restriction would have made a difference, even if it were simply not supplying ammo to gun opponents. The one thing which truly separates the use of firearms offensively from virtually any other weapon or method of killing is that their use leaves the least room for reflection/reconsideration or outside intervention.


That you call this a culture war is somewhat suggestive. You're the one that is making this a question of ideologies by doing so. I'll accept the basic premise in the wording of the constitution and 2nd ammendment that allows for the pitting of an armed populace against wrongful government. What I don't accept is that all discussion must be measured against this metric and that ANY potential or tangental restiction in law be opposed.

Excuse me. What does the bloody law now have to do with a hypothetical future situation where there to all intents and purposes WILL BE NO LAW? Who cares if "THEY" (the govt./feds) know who has the guns in times of law and order? They can't come after all of them at once. As for restrictions (or even prohibitions) on certain classes of high powered weapons so bloody what? Apart from the sheer joy of blowing shit up, what real utility do they have? If you think you'll be going head to head with the US Army, as some of those dwelling right on the fringe obviously seem to think, you've already lost. Geurilla warfare demands maximal (and intelligent) use of minimal resources not big weapons and lots of them.

Fully automatic weapons, RPGs, the occasional obsolescent tank and thousand gun secret caches won't make a scrap of difference, odds are the Feds DO know where most of those are and have action plans in place to ensure they won't be available in the situation of a citizen uprising. If you LEGITIMATELY possess firearms in those numbers, the feds almost cetainly have a very detailed file on you even though you have successfully prevented them from having an ennumerated list of guns on the premesis.

The possible (and almost certainly limited) future benefit to gained from minimising of open and detailed records does not (at least in my opinion) outweigh the harm caused by a thriving blackmarket now. Taking a man's guns in the middle of an acrimonious divorce is not a fascist infringment on his constitutional right to participate in an armed uprising come the day (hyperbole and tongue in cheek fully acknowledged) it is a reasonable defence of his estranged spouse's and children's rights to life. Automatic crossmatching of mental health and firearms records, and a knock on the door (and a possible citation for not voluntariliy surrendurring) is not a massive threat to the day of the revolution.

And in the end, even you must acknowledge, a significant number of gun owners are not defending their rights out of high minded allegiance to the constiution or nation, but simply because they like to play with noisy, destructive toys and don't want that taken away to any degree.

[SteveM]

36. Some straw, here...

"Hmmm, I have all the evidence in the civilised world, that nowhere else does anyone consider it necessary to even contemplate the idea of arming teachers against their students."

Actually, what I said in effect. was that qualified teachers/full-time staff should be on-hand to protect against the next schoolyard spectacular. Who said they should be armed "against their students"? Not I. There are schools/school districts who are so removed from LEOs it would be foolish NOT to have qualified staff armed in the event some nut case decides to shoot up the school.

"On the other hand I don't have a problem with a three day wait, if that's what it takes to make a check of records that might post date the obtaining of a permit. I don't have a problem with requiring that individual firearms be linked to the owner's permit, and that any transfer of owership be registered. I don't even have a problem with temporarily sequestering a person's firearms in special circumstances, such as during divorce proceedings or other traumatic household event. All of these things and more have been vehemently opposed or had that oposition commented upon here."

I don't know about the effectiveness of a 3-day wait, and it may be unconstitutional. Remember, anyone who lies on the form from an FFL is in violation of the law. I do not favor "linking" firearms to an owner's permit. What is beneficial about that? Or about any "transfer of ownership be registered?" This is gun registration and is a non-starter for virtually all 2A advocates. "Temporary sequestration" is gun confiscation by the government where there is no due cause; divorce is not a crime. If there is "trauma" in a household, it should be reflected in criminal proceedings in accordance with the 5th Amend.
Yes, these have been opposed, and I count myself among the opposition.

"I hear gun proponents saying "the solution is more guns" because that is what people all too often (entirely absent snarky efforts like the one that prompted this exchange) do say in circumstances where the presence of another firearm MIGHT have made a difference. The nutter in the Unitarian church a little while back attracted just this argement. And exactly the same meme can be seen in the "hole" around all of those exemplary posts where firearms were successfully used against intruders/attackers."

No one has advocated "the solution is more guns." You may "hear" this, but it is not being said. Merely posting examples of where firearms have been used successfully against threats in extremis (and there have been many such examples) is not to advocate "the solution is more guns." Perhaps one day someone will be able to construct a research model which can link the presence of more firearms to a reduction in crime, but I don't see it (I'm a reasonable man), and most folks here don't see it. The examples are probably in response to the no-comment crime blotter stuff posted by gun-control advocates, and to refute the oft-expressed notion that guns only increase the harm to the user or increase crime. (One noted Democratic Party consultant said on PBS that she still believes "more guns = more crime," which is demonstrably unproven.)

"Anyone can play "scenarios" with 20-20 hindsight and the luxury of unlimited time. In retrospect I can save the Scott expedition to the South Pole, Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia. In retrospect I can do almost anything. In the thick of things, I usually do pretty much what everybody does without some sort of prep time. I freeze or do the bolt. Instantaneous responses to sudden threat situations aren't all that common. Correct instantaneous responses are even less common. Even with training, incorrect responses are numerous enough to put Wikileaks at loggerheads with the Pentagon over 90,000 odd examples of such fuckups."

I don't really know what to say about this. Firearms used by citizens to thwart crime is an eminently personal thing, and not social policy, but there is considerable evidence from Florida and Texas that many such uses have thwarted crimes. BTW, in the vast majority of these cases, a gun was never fired.

"Childhood deaths by firearm are low because as a rule they do not participate in gun crime or fall victim to it. Where guns do kill kids, it is often in circumstances where sensible restriction would have made a difference, even if it were simply not supplying ammo to gun opponents. The one thing which truly separates the use of firearms offensively from virtually any other weapon or method of killing is that their use leaves the least room for reflection/reconsideration or outside intervention."

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Childhood gun-related accidents are low and falling, according to the NSC; in fact, the rates have fallen faster than all categories listed by the Council. As for crime-related child victims, the best way to get these numbers down is to aggressively pursue the CRIMINALS. I don't know what you mean by "...not supplying ammo to gun opponents." Further, when threatened by an attacker, I am not interested in "reflection/reconsideration or ouside intervention," the latter being particularly unrealistic in most situations. I am interested in self-defense.

"That you call this a culture war is somewhat suggestive. You're the one that is making this a question of ideologies by doing so. I'll accept the basic premise in the wording of the constitution and 2nd ammendment that allows for the pitting of an armed populace against wrongful government. What I don't accept is that all discussion must be measured against this metric and that ANY potential or tangental restiction in law be opposed."

I agree with "I don't accept is all discussion must be measured against this metric." My comments are addressed to the approach taken by so very many gun-controllers in these pages who morally condemn 2A advocates (merely survey the many comments on these threads to see this, or review Kates and Kleck's The Great Gun Control Debate for an "early" history of the culture war foundations of gun-control. I stand by my characterization. As for "ANY potential or tangental restriction in law be opposed," if you check back in this thread you will see considerable philosophical agreement on the extension of the NICS to include all firearms purchases. There is considerable problem with implementation of such a scheme, esp. over the potential for government registration (a non-starter) and whether or not the federal government has authority to enact such a scheme beyond regulation of FFL dealers, but there is reasonable consideration of this by 2A advocates.

"Excuse me. What does the bloody law now have to do with a hypothetical future situation where there to all intents and purposes WILL BE NO LAW? Who cares if "THEY" (the govt./feds) know who has the guns in times of law and order? They can't come after all of them at once. As for restrictions (or even prohibitions) on certain classes of high powered weapons so bloody what? Apart from the sheer joy of blowing shit up, what real utility do they have? If you think you'll be going head to head with the US Army, as some of those dwelling right on the fringe obviously seem to think, you've already lost. Geurilla warfare demands maximal (and intelligent) use of minimal resources not big weapons and lots of them."

I do not wish for the government to know who has firearms. As Jarad Diamond (Guns, Germs and Steel) has said, the first (on his list) solution to keeping states ("kleptocracies" -- again, his statement) is to take guns away from the population, and reserve to the state the means of violence and control. I don't want to give the Gov. any more help in this regard. As for "big calibers," I have no need for them, but the right to keep and bear arms is not one based on my need or someone else's. (It should be noted that during the Revolution, most musket calibers were well over .50) If it is merely the "sheer joy of blowing shit up," what business is it of the government? I don't know anyone who is making a connection between "big weapons" and any future "geurilla warfare;" after all, the standard round for an M-16 (or AR 15 semi-auto) is .223.

"Fully automatic weapons, RPGs, the occasional obsolescent tank and thousand gun secret caches won't make a scrap of difference, odds are the Feds DO know where most of those are and have action plans in place to ensure they won't be available in the situation of a citizen uprising. If you LEGITIMATELY possess firearms in those numbers, the feds almost cetainly have a very detailed file on you even though you have successfully prevented them from having an ennumerated list of guns on the premesis."

I agree on the "big stuff" and "fully automatic," but then these have already been under severe restriction AND registration. This is not an issue. The rest of your paragraph concerns hypotheticals to be countered by another hypothetical: "I'm sorry, officer. I had a boating accident in the middle of Lake Okeechobee, and lost all my firearms. Good day."

"The possible (and almost certainly limited) future benefit to gained from minimising of open and detailed records does not (at least in my opinion) outweigh the harm caused by a thriving blackmarket now. Taking a man's guns in the middle of an acrimonious divorce is not a fascist infringment on his constitutional right to participate in an armed uprising come the day (hyperbole and tongue in cheek fully acknowledged) it is a reasonable defence of his estranged spouse's and children's rights to life. Automatic crossmatching of mental health and firearms records, and a knock on the door (and a possible citation for not voluntariliy surrendurring) is not a massive threat to the day of the revolution."

I believe, in the event of authoritarian ("fascist?") take-over, the government would use whatever list it had, surely; but I would not wish to give them a road map. As for black markets, they always thrive where there is prohibition or near-prohibitionist conditions. Again, the object here is to zero-in on the repeat violent criminal, and to lessen the social conditions which breed this type of thug; prohibition is (often no so) cheap, easy and ineffective. Taking guns away during an "acrimonious divorce" is a violation of not only the Second, but the Fifth Amendments (the favorite target of many on the right and the left), regardless of how "fascist" it is. If a spouse or child is threatened, then the ever-active child protective services should be active in removing those threatened from a violent spouse. In this manner, we don't have to worry about guns, knives, clubs, etc. I'll listen to your "automatic crossmatching of mental health and firearms records" for more specifics.

"And in the end, even you must acknowledge, a significant number of gun owners are not defending their rights out of high minded allegiance to the constiution or nation, but simply because they like to play with noisy, destructive toys and don't want that taken away to any degree."

I don't advocate anyone treating guns as a toy, but the question is: why take away guns "to any degree?" Because they "play with noisy destructive toys?" As much as you and I would be repulsed by some idiot's attitude toward guns, that is not sufficient to use restrictions or bans.

Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts. I welcome further discussion. Excuse my lack of editing.

[spin]

38. It's rare to see a poster here recommend that everybody should be armed ...

In fact, I can't remember any posts that promoted that idea from pro-RKBA posters. I do remember a lot of posts from anti-RKBA posters claiming that the pro-PKBA supporters want everybody to be armed.

Not everybody should chose a firearm for self defense. When people ask me about getting a gun for self defense, I always ask, "Could you severely injure or kill an individual who is attacking you and threatening your life or the life of a family member?" I tell them to carefully consider the question for a day. I mention that shooting another person goes against basic human nature. It's not an easy thing to do and if you hesitate the attacker can grab your weapon and use it against you.

Some people have taken the day to consider and decided they could not shoot another individual and therefore a firearm would be a stupid choice. Usually they thank me for asking my question.

Some people abuse alcohol and there is no doubt that alcohol and guns are a lethal combination. It's best for a person with this problem to avoid owning firearms.

Some people have anger management problems and guns are not for them.

Some people have volatile relationship with a significant other. Best to avoid entering firearms into the equation.

Some people are unwilling to take the time to learn how to safely handle their firearms and some are unwilling to take the time to become proficient with their firearm. If you are unwilling to learn basic firearm safety or don't have the time to take your firearm to a range and practice, then guns are not for you.

You also made this comment:

"And in the end, even you must acknowledge, a significant number of gun owners are not defending their rights out of high minded allegiance to the constiution or nation, but simply because they like to play with noisy, destructive toys and don't want that taken away to any degree."

I will agree that I find shooting an enjoyable hobby and that many of my firearms are noisy and destructive. I have a considerable amount of money invested in my hobby and I definitely don't want the government to take my firearms for no reason.

Obviously you are not interested in shooting handguns as a hobby. That's fine with me, you can collect stamps, climb mountains, sky dive or race high powered vehicles or what ever else you wish. As long as you are not endangering other people, I have no problem. I wish that you would extend the same response toward those who enjoy shooting and not oppose their hobby as long as they do not endanger others.

[Euromutt]

33. Whoever said that "more guns is the solution to problems involving guns"?

And in this, I should emphasize the word "solution." Respecting the citizen's right to effective means of self-defense doesn't address the myriad causes of violent crime, and I don't think you're going to find too many people on this forum who would contend that it does. There's no shortage og pro-RKBA posters with suggestions on how we should try to prevent violent crime from occurring in the first place; legalizing drugs, more funding for mental health care, etc.

Now, "more guns" as an immediate response to "problems involving guns" is a different story, but then, that's hardly a controversial concept. When you call the police to report a violent crime in progress, your object is to bring more guns into the situation to deal with the ones already present. What the pro-RKBA side generally advocates differs only from what the anti-RKBA side advocates to a matter of degree; both sides concede that force is the most effective response to force. The pro-RKBA side just thinks that it would be more effective if the force can be employed by the prospective victims, rather than making the victims wait for police response so they can bring force to bear.

Go figure why people jump into these threads with sarcastic suggestions that if the kid had been armed everything would be hunky dory.

I figure it's because they don't have an original thought in their heads so they just go with the stock, knee-jerk, bullshit straw man.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[benEzra]

13. Thanks...you just added a dollar to my "Glock fund" :-)

2nd amendment has NO RKBA age limits...6 ur olds have a right to open carry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=324844&mesg_id=325098

:eyes: :)

[SteveM]

22. Ah, yes. Trained in the Gingrich School of Potty-Wall Finger-Painting. nt

[Pavulon]

2. You guys make something really simple complex on purpose.

if you own a gun and dont secure it , you are responsible if your kids uses it. That is the law here. Very simple.

You people are to chicken shit to address the disparity in crime based on race and income. The lack of mental health care contributing to suicide. Drug laws drive this.

So instead of addressing root cause you are stuck in a loop chasing after gun policy. You should just stop and be honest.

No one wants to own their shit. No one wants to take responsibility. If you get fucking drunk and drive your car causing death. YOU did it. Not the beer company, not the car company.

YOU OWN IT. Until we stop treating people like children and make them own their shit this will continue.

[X_Digger]

5. Sad, really.. that's all you got?

Appeals to emotion using a twisted propaganda mockumentary?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onehandle]

10. Why don't you call Michael Moore a 'fat liberal?'

Don't hold back.

[X_Digger]

12. He's misguided.

Last time I saw him, he'd lost weight. Who knows, maybe he's not so fat these days.

Sicko was okay, Capitalism was waay too heavy handed for me. The last movie of his I really enjoyed was Roger & Me.

[PavePusher]

14. Is that some sort of litmus test for liberalism?

'Cause I think Moore is rather a jerk and an idiot.

And the irony of his wail about the American medical system, while being himself morbidly obese... eh?

[cleanhippie]

16. Isn't he?

I mean, he is fat, and he is a liberal.

Not sure what that has to do with his (and yours) misguided and willfully ignorant position regarding the 2nd Amendment.

[SteveM]

25. You're showing again. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

9. Dedrick Owens

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVWilsonControl700.html

The shooter, who took his uncle's gun from the crack house he was living in with his mother and siblings. The kid who had stabbed a student with a pencil. The kid who told the sheriff he fought with the other children because “he hated them.”

No, little Dedrick Owens's family could be called a lot of things, but normal wasn't one of them. The family's collective police record reads like something out of an Iceberg Slim or Donald Goines novel. His 28-year-old father is in jail - again - and his mother has 'demons' that prevent her from coping with the pressures of keeping a job, paying rent and raising her three children. She left her two boys with an uncle. That's when a sad story turned sordid. The uncle was a drug dealer whose home was a crack house.

Even though he had only been present in the school for two weeks or so before he shot his classmate dead, he had already built up a reputation as a bully, indeed, he had stabbed another white pupil. There was, however, never any discussion of his being removed from the school after this first incident.

When Owens attempted to push her around, as he had so many others, she pushed back and he fell over. Swearing to get even with the girl who had humiliated him, he went home, got a .32 automatic from the crack house where he was living, and returned to confront her.

Immediately before he turned and shot Kayla at point-blank range, he had pointed the pistol at another little girl and said, "I hate you".

Teachers and parents also rushed to tell their stories. Dedrick, they said, was a problem child. He was hostile and bullying and once stabbed another classmate with a pencil.

I can't imagine how they must be feeling to know their little boy took somebody else's life," they said.

"I can't imagine which family is feeling worse."

I can.

I can imagine which family is feeling worse.

I can also imagine a family who don't give much of a flying f - - -.

[krispos42]

11. Wow, sounds like a dream childhood

I expect Mattel to begin producing the "Dedrick Owens Dream House" any day now.

[virginia mountainman]

17. LOL! The OP just fell off that bike...

?1258136307

[SteveM]

26. Every now and then he has to...

lance that hate-filled boil on his butt. But he misses even then.

[Katya Mullethov]

29. More of a Pilonidal Cyst

That means " Hair Nest " ya know .


And to crash SO MANY TIMES ! I havent been hanging around here that long but this cat crashes his brains out almost EVERY LAP !!! And he never notices , never acknowledges it , never learns anything , and never quits . I admire tenacity almost as much as honesty , but one is no good without the other .

To continue skimming through articles and/or only read the headline, then immediately assume whatever predisposed bias is held forth only to get sent over the bars , again and again and again and again smacks of riding angry . Thats why I dont worry , there isnt anyone out there that hates me merely because I carry two guns , there isnt anyone out there that wants to prevent me from carrying them simply because they hate me . They arent so full of hate as to be blind to EVERYTHING laid in front of them . Oh no . No worries here mate .

[SteveM]

35. Synthetic animosity -- the future of the Internet.

[Katya Mullethov]

39. It's been ten years has it ?

Has wee Dedrick managed to become yet another statistitc of streetgun crime and streetgun violence spurred on by the ready availability of streetguns to children ,terrorists ,and criminals at gunshows ?

Streetgun IS one word isn't it ? Maybe it should be all caps...... STREETGUN


Tip of the day : When tattooing the name of your street on the back of your neck in an Old English font, never use all all caps as it renders it indecipherable .

[proteus_lives]

31. Ban 6 year-olds. It's the only way we'll be safe.