S. In the article it states that the child acquired the firearm from an extended family member who had recently moved out. (S)He may have had it secured in his/her room, and the parents may not even have been aware of it.

I blame him/her for not taking it when they left, but there may be other circumstances, such as (s)he was moving to a location that forbids firearm possession, Chicago, D.C., etc... Of course in that instance, it should have been left with the parents to properly secure it.

Ken N, you're reading WAY too much into this without knowing the facts. Most of what you said about the gun's owner was pure speculation. Fact remains that an adult gun owner did not properly secure or lock up a gun and and 11-year-old took it to school. That was the point. And there should be stiff penalties for that.

There are penalties for that. So you should all be happy.

IF it is accurate that the gun belonged to a relative who moved out, it is still the parents' responsibility to ensure that their home is a safe environment. Frankly (again, if the report is accurate) the gun owner should lose his/her license due to irresponsibility, and the parents should have some sort of a penalty for not noticing an improperly stored weapon in their home. I know kids find and hide things, I get that. I know things will definitely slip past a mother or father's radar. BUT... ultimately if it is in your house, it becomes your responsibility, to a point.

He seems to feel that every citizen should arm themselves. Wonder where he got that idea?

Maybe the Mayans were right after all...Civilization was detroyed around 12/21/2012.

and if banning firearms worked then Chicago would have the lowest gun violence in the nation among metropolitan areas. So would Los Angeles, and DC. It is not a gun issue it is a culture issue. We are VIOLENT people. We breed it, we train our kids to it, we immerse them in violence and gore their entire lives. We teach them that they need to get even at all costs.

Everyone likes to take the easy road. lets ignore the joke of a mental health system we have and the lack of treatment options and permanent stigma that keeps folks from seeking treatment. No lets not look at that because that is a VERY complex problem. Lets kneejerk and go after the guns and pretend that will make us safe. We went that route for a number of years, and the violence persisted. We banned "assault weapons" -(i.e. black evil looking rifles), and took handgun concealed permits away from most law abiding citizens and it did not stop. The Columbine kids made bombs out of propane tanks ( thank God they did not go off) but nobody called for banning propane.

We had a group of kids racing downtown in my town who ran over a group of people in front of Dairy Queen. Nobody screamed to get rid of cars or to raise the min driving age. We severely dealt with those kids who were driving.

Simple fact is we will NEVER prevent people bent on death and destruction from doing it. What we can do it empower people and train them to deal with it when it happens and maybe just maybe focus on detecting and treating people with mental health issues before they go berserk. But that is a long term, difficult problem so we don't have the attention span for that in this country.

There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for allowing a 6th Grader to have access to a gun. I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that it was 'left' behind by an extended family member. How can we teach our children responsibility (especially with a GUN), when the members of their own family can't even RESPECT a gun and the power it wields.

I know people are against new gun laws, but as far as I am concerned, the parents need to be charged with a crime. This is unacceptable and its' time America GOT TOUGH on this. Enough is ENOUGH.

The child probably has been indoctrinated by the parents. If we are going back to the Old West, when everybody was carrying guns to defend themselves, then HANGINGS SHOULD ALSO COME BACK.

if ANYONE SHOOTS SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A GUN, THEY NEED TO HANG. NO QUESTIONS ASKED, no more of the BS of "human rights of criminals"or all that other BS that lawyers use to defend assassins.

You shoot, you hang! criminals need to HANG!

......and only criminals will have handguns. yeah, that'll work. (Huge eye roll)

and only criminals will have handguns. yeah, that'll

Why are you so afraid of criminals hanging, if they are the ONLY ONES with weapons? Are you a CRIMINAL?

And while you guys sit here arguing with each other over who did what and who was responsible or irresponsible and who should have a gun and blah blah blah....

HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT KIDS ARE NOW SO SCARED AND DAMAGED BY WHAT HAPPENED ON FRIDAY THAT THIS IS WHAT SOME FEEL THEY MUST DO TO KEEP THEMSELVES SAFE.

My heart is breaking all over again.

HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT KIDS ARE NOW SO SCARED AND DAMAGED BY WHAT HAPPENED ON FRIDAY THAT THIS IS WHAT SOME FEEL THEY MUST DO TO KEEP THEMSELVES SAFE.

She did not buy that weapon. Her parents gave it to her, and more violence is WRONG! According to you, we should just feel bad and do NOTHING, right?

and if banning firearms worked then Chicago would have the lowest gun violence in the nation among metropolitan areas. So would Los Angeles, and DC.

Again, NOT true. If you look at the most violent metropolitan areas (e.g., New Orleans, Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City — I know you conservatives love to vilify Chicago, but it isn't even in the top 15 and LA doesn't even make the top 30), there are many demographic, cultural, and economic factors that contribute to high gun violence. You don't know whether violence would be even worse if firearms weren't regulated. In fact, it's very likely that it WOULD be worse.

To say that gun control doesn't work just because some areas with gun control also have gun violence is tantamount to saying that hospitals don't work because everyone who's in a hospital is sick.

Ah well, another loser was born.

Ken N, you're reading WAY too much into this without knowing the facts.

S. Heriger, And you're assuming things about the parents (much less not reading the article):

This is a total lack of responsibility on the part of the parents. The parents should be immediately arrested for allowing an 11-year-old access to a gun.

and the article states:

Horsley said the student obtained the gun at home from an extended family member who moved out of the family’s house last week.

Since you made such a large ASSUMPTION, " total lack of responsibility on the part of the parents", you're no better. So who is calling the kettle black? And you might want to follow your own advice you gave Ken...quit making assumptions "without knowing the facts."

Most of what you said about the gun's owner was pure speculation. Fact remains that an adult gun owner did not properly secure or lock up a gun and and 11-year-old took it to school. That was the point. And there should be stiff penalties for that.

Yes, the " Fact remains that an adult gun owner did not properly secure or lock up a gun and and 11-year-old took it to school." I agree but that adult wasn't one of his parents, unless you consider "an extended family member" a parent.

Crimmey, why can't people look at the facts and if none exist quit making assumptions. Making assumptions or "reading into it" which is it?

How is it this whole entire first-thread went by with nobody commenting on how this 6th grader will not be allowed back in normal school ever again. S/he will have a juv. felony on their record, may even do time in a juvenile facility, then will spend the rest of their school days in an "alternate" school. All because s/he was terrified that some crazy might come shoot up their school. And nobody thinks this is a bit extreme?

Now, I'm not saying that little Timmy/Tammy should just be given a hug, a little re-assurance and sent back to class gunless. But, on the other hand, actually turning this child into a delinquent is not the answer.

The fact that the relative didn't take a weapon to a place where it wasn't allowed, shows they were somewhat responsible. The downside is that there could have been tragic consequences if that gun fired while the kid was waving it around.

This kid obviously only took the gun to school to show it off and not to defend himself (and certainly not to shoot anybody), but you guys are letting your emotions get the better of you because of the Newtown shooting. This kid should be expelled and the pistol should be confiscated permanently. Done deal. I'd agree that assault rifles and large capacity magazines should be banned, but that's about it. That would be irrelevant in this case anyway since this was a tiny .22 caliber pistol.

Waving a gun around on the playground is not taking it to school out of fear. It is a threat of harm to other students. This child should not be allowed back into public school. It's easy to say you brought it to protect yourself in case of a school shooting. My guess is this child would have brought it regardless and heard adult conversation about allowing guns into schools and thought this made a good excuse.

Actions have consequences. Words can lead children astray. Think about what you are saying in front of your own kids or what they are hearing. If you have guns in your home, this could be your kid.

A terrible tragedy results in mass murder of elementary school children by a mad gunman. It is broadcast on television for days on end for all to see. This sparks furious debate (in almost every home in the nation) by gun rights advocates vs. gun regulation advocates.

A child in Utah (one of the most conservative states in the nation) finds a non-secured gun in the home. Which side of the debate was most likely cheered by his parents? Children of his age side with the view held by their parents. School has suddenly become a very dangerous place to him. He is told that he must go to school. He has heard that if the teachers and staff had been armed, this would never have happened.

This non-secured gun seems to be the perfect solution. He can hide it in his back-pack. When that madman attacks his school, he will shoot the villain dead. He can't help bragging to his friends. He proudly displays proof to the doubters. He is arrested and declared unfit to ever return to a normal classroom.

His parents conveniently have this story of a visitor that must have mistakenly left the gun for the child to find. Despite the fact that most visitors check their bags for valuables before they leave and the fact that almost all guns are expensive. Regardless, safety in the home is the greatest responsibility of all parents.

What's wrong with this story? How would you judge this frightened child and his dangerous reactions? This is precisely why no-tolerance policies will never work. This is the very reason we have judges and juries in our courtrooms (despite efforts to tie their hands with mandatory sentencing).

@ haggisbingo #1.11

Thank you NRA for this horrible gun culture we live in...

Yeah that's right, the NRA produces all those Hollywood movies, and video games that expound the virtues of vigilantism and violence. and you call us "Nuts"? What a joke.

something to think about, in the early 80's when I attended high school (about 500 students), you could walk across the street to the parking lot and count conservatively 75 guns in the vehicles there, High powers, shotguns and even a few pistols. If guns were a danger, why didn't we have a shooting once a week? could it be Responsibility? "Oh no we can't have none of that"

And to all you "this child with an 'unsecured' gun paranoia should think about this. Perhaps that kids had been properly trained (even though he took it out and showed it to his friends), it was unloaded.

For those of us who have grown up around guns, there is no mystery. Nothing to fear, only to respect.

When I was 10 or 12, I took my(paid for with my own money) single shot shotgun to school (it was disassembled) along with a weekend bag because I was going to stay at friends house and go bird hunting over the weekend.

As per my previous post you why I could do this? Strange as it may sound, I had responsible parents who taught me how to behave properly and to respect those things that needed respect.

To the rational people in the room, I know that the right thing to do is to fight for what you believe. But how can you argue or have a reasonable debate with those who will not listen to reason. These people are only responding in an emotional knee jerk mentality, they lack the ability to think critically. For Example:

A common thread here is that many of these shootings happen in gun free zones. (Guaranteed no one can shoot back)

I am trying to think of a time when there was a massacre at a gun show or a shooting range.(if more guns equal more crime, why there not more killings at places where there are guns)(to be honest, I am trying to find a single event, but they are extremely rare)

Unfortunately, our courts have determined that mentally ill individuals have the right to refuse treatment (an unintended consequence of liberal legislation following the movie One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest).

Up until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun) or even a BAR(both were heavily used during WWII). Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)? It was not uncommon to walk into a hardware store and buy a case of dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 80 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Without the Father, the mothers too becomes irrelevant as they are busy earn a living, instead caring for their young. This is left to the daycare and schools. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant. History is irrelevant.

My point is, since the 60's and the Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real Man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it is more successful than the alternative.

As far back as the Whiskey Rebellion, the government has used Federal Militia, later the National Guard to "restore" order. And as recently as the '70's, there have been several clashes between the National Guard and civilians, especially during labor disputes, but other protests as well, witness Kent State and Mississippi. It is definitely not unheard of for the Government to use military forces to impose its will upon the populace. Thus far, it has been, relatively supported by the majority, but what about the day it isn't?

The liberals always seem to be claiming the "Rich Elite" and "Corporate America" are manipulating the government. Well, who is going to oppose them when they take over? And for those of you who say "Four guys armed with AR-15s in a SUV will be a threat right up until a drone sees them at which point they'll become a crater." Well there are about 50 million gun owners, and now doubt a large number of them are veterans. There are about 1.5 million active duty in the USDOD, and I would hope that at least a 1/3 would defect and commandeer some equipment on the way out. It would be a difficult task no doubt, but I have no doubt who'd win.

But hey, your not going to rock the boat now are you? Things are going your way right? Obama is in the White House, and the ACA is the law of the land. You are doing exactly what they want.

So, how about you liberals accept responsibility for your role in this massacre? the Blood is on your hands, as so many of you are fond of shouting at the NRA.

The 2nd amendment says, "Arms" not muskets, rifles, pistols, hunting guns. And it covers Modern Firearms just as the 1^st Amendment covers TV, Movies, the Internet and the Porn Industry. But yeah, what ever the Military has, if I can afford it, then I can own it. Just like health care, if I can afford it, I can have it.
When is the Government going to subsidize my right to “Keep and Bear Arms"?

No, you liberals are just like Pavlov's Dog, The MSM starts saying something, and you just pick it and start yipping too, until the politicians do something stupid (e.g. the Community Restoration Act of 1994)

When you can prove that banning, or confiscating Automatic or Semi-automatic Arms in the UNITED STATES will successfully reduce crime and the risk of Socialist Government control, then I will relinquish my weapons. I have shown IRREFUTABLY, that access to deadly weapons is not the cause of this, nor is banning them a reasonable solution. PROVE ME WRONG.

You cannot continue to use the UK, Canada and Australia as examples. These are relatively monolithic ethnic countries, of a small population. If you wish, I can show you an equivalent population selected from regions in this country in which the crime rate, THE WHOLE CRIME RATE(murder, rape and theft) are lower than those countries. And guess what these regions have a large number of guns in them.

This is the N R A stand on having guns locked up:

PLEASE
PLEASE
PLEASE read this.... note the word

O P P O S E S

Mandatory Storage—NRA opposes requiring gun owners to lock all guns when at home, because locked guns cannot be used for self-defense and such a law would be enforceable only by home inspections by the police.

"Microstamping" and "Encoded Ammunition"—NRA opposes requiring that cartridge cases be marked with serial numbers and registered to gun owners.

Protecting FFLs—NRA supports a law to prevent BATFE from revoking firearms dealers' licenses for insignificant technical violations.

Terrorist Watchlist—NRA opposes legislation to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the watchlist, because the FBI will not say who is on the list or why, and the legislation would violate the 5th Amendment by preventing a watchlisted person from challenging the FBI in a fair and open hearing in court.

"Smart" Guns—NRA opposes requiring that guns have expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire. D.C.

NRA endorses More Guns, Less "Gun Control,"

NRA IS proud that there are more guns and gun owners in the U.S. than ever.

NRA takes credit for their lobbying that has made , "gun control" significantly reduced in the last decade.

The federal waiting period on handguns ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported national instant check.

Congress refused to renew the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine ban, allowing it to expire in 2004.

NRA influence in Congress allowed that 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry.

Forty-two states have Right-to-Carry, and 48 states prohibit cities from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law.

.

.

.Source:

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2012/nra-ila-firearms-fact-card-2012.aspx?s=firearms+fact+card&st=&ps

Terrorist Watchlist—NRA opposes legislation to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the watchlist, because the FBI will not say who is on the list or why, and the legislation would violate the 5th Amendment by preventing a watchlisted person from challenging the FBI in a fair and open hearing in court.

So you are in favor of violating a citizens 5th Amendment Rights because it is inconvenient?

Don't get me wrong, I oppose any one on the "watch list" from getting a gun too, but if I am an innocent citizen, and have been placed on the watch list by mistake. Why should I have no legal recourse to correct this injustice, and exercise my God given rights.

Ah well, another loser was born.

Geez Shipwrecked. Don't be so hard on yourself. -_-

Is this how freedom dies?

Rockyroad-531554

Is this how freedom dies?

No. Freedom dies when someone, who thinks they are superior than you, makes laws to restrict inalienable human rights. We all have duties and responsibilities to ourselves and our families; we also need to pay our dues to prevent those fanatically superior entities from becoming our masters. It's all about power. Power breeds corruption. The people of Scotland, after their tragedy renewed their rights and got all private hand guns banned in the whole of England. It's about what is good and right and learned lessons. Guns kill. When was the last time a massacre happened because they were shot with a bow and arrow? It's just so sad that it takes the slaughter of young children, for the public to realizes that they can vote to bring about a good and lasting change and peace.

n one cares that his life is going to be ruined over charges that stem from something another kid said and no adult saw and there is no proof of? heck i guess that means bigfoots are real and so are werewolves because i heard kids say they saw those too

reportedly claiming he wanted to protect himself in the event of a school shooting

You know, I hear this rhetoric from 40 year olds also. What's the difference between bringing a gun to school for protection and having one at home for protection? Both seem silly to me (although I bet the 40 year old needs it more to overcompensate for certain.....shortcomings).

First of all, these parents need to be arrested and have their guns taken away. They are obviously not responsible enough to own firearms. Period.

2nd, this is the utopian future that the NRA and the most ardent pro-gun advocates are lobbying for. Sounds fun, doesn't it?

and if banning firearms worked then Chicago would have the lowest gun violence in the nation among metropolitan areas. So would Los Angeles, and DC.

you do know that from Chicago you can drive to Indiana in like 20 minutes, and from DC you can be in Virginia in like 5, right?

RI Mom, you've attacked so many reasonable, logical statements it's actually difficult to figure out which side you're on.

I do not support a ban on weapons, but I do support personal responsibility. Lock up you damn weapons!

Does the word “fear” mean anything to anyone here? This eleven year old kid is to be punished for the rest of his childhood for being afraid. The Newtown incident has been blasted on every medium out there and the child has to have at least some information on it and he is scared. Should he have brought a gun to school, no but how many of you are always rational when confronted with fear? He did what made sense to him in his 11-year old brain. He needs counseling to help him deal with all of this, not punishment. If he had taken it out and threatened someone that would be different but he didn’t do that. He just wanted to be able to stop a bad man if one made it into his school and to him, that made sense.

As hard as the Newtown situation has been on every parent across the US, it has been twice as hard on every child old enough to understand a little of what happened. They need help, not a bunch of adults out to practice the old “the beatings will continue until morale improves” approach.

This child is not a criminal stop treating him like one! What he needs is reassurance by the Police that should be walking the halls of his school. We need more people to get involved in protecting our children and we need our parents to put their guns away where they are safe and again assure their children the police and adults will be there for them. This was a wake up call and we are sorry we missed up.

If this kid had simply had the gun in his backpack, I would go along with those who say he should not be treated as harshly as they are treating him. However, the fact is that he took the gun out and threatened other students with it. This is not having the gun for self defense, this is committing a criminal act. This is the reason that this kid should receive the harsh punishment they are talking about, not because he brought the gun in his backpack. You can not have a kid waive a gun around and threaten other students with it and then allow him back in the school like nothing has happened. Obviously the other children are now afraid of him and they should not be forced to have to confront that fear every school day.

chicory: The Second Amendment was an amendment to the original document. Apparently, those in charge thought it was a good idea at the time. Was it amended by "fanatically superior entities"? Not an intent to goad. Someone, OMG, changed the original, sacred document.

Is this a good idea - a bad idea? That is one angle that I've yet heard discussed. The Second Amendment could be overturned legally, if our elected (such as they are) officials chose to do so. What then, an armed revolution that some of us have so openly threatened? Fortunately, they are few, and from what I've read, clearly nowhere near the top of the bell curve.

What's worse than not having an honest debate about guns ? : listening to some pompous arrogant self-righteous douchebag like Piers Morgan on CNN, shouting down a guy he didn't agree with, so he could look good in front of those kids' families on the set.

We need to have an honest debate about protecting public spaces and schools, while letting responsible gun owners enjoy their hobby. CNN is not helping.

Since everyone is so crazy since the shooting happened let me ask this question.

Where were all these armed police when the shooting happened??

When seconds count, police are mere minutes away.

Doesn't matter if this ungrounded self-centered twit of a tween is a pathological liar and the parents the model of perfection, with the truth likely somewhere in the middle. Crazy violent men begin as crazy violent boys - triggered usually around the time of puberty. Take just one day anywhere on the planet and examine who is always the problem; there is something powerfully broken with the XY humans. If our world survives another hundred years, which is doubtful, two things will get us there:

1. Mandatory birth control to limit the billions of humans, many of whom are a predatory waste of flesh;

2. Discovery of the genetic markers for mental illness, with mandatory testing of all males prior to age 12.

Louie Gomert must feel like a proud parent, too.

Don't presume to speak for the NRA.

You're right. The NRA speaks for itself. Guns, guns and more guns. Everybody armed to the teeth. What a wonderful world it would be!

Why not? They remain strangely silent. Or hadn't you noticed?

From the NRA dot org website:

More guns, less crime isn't just "quite possible," it's a fact.

I think corona-2947073 paraphrased the NRA stance perfectly.

It’s not the NRA or the events of last week driving gun sells we all know that. Its fear that people may some day not be allowed to buy guns they want to buy that is driving the sales. The Obama administration has caused gun sells to sky rocket since we was elected back in 2008. lol Nice work Obama...

So if you are going to continue to blame the NRA you would also be blaming our founding fathers who felt it was important enough to put INTO the Constitution. The one thing you forget is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, not the wacko's, do you really think they belong to the NRA!

"The right to bear arms" had a whole different meaning in those days. The "militia" were to be armed so that they could fill in the ranks of the army if/when the time arose. That is not what's going on today.

say no: The NRA just LOVES scared old white people!

you would also be blaming our founding fathers who felt it was important enough to put INTO the Constitution

The Founding Fathers also felt it was important enough to ask that the "militia" of armed citizens be WELL REGULATED. The NRA practically exists with the sole purpose of preventing firearm possession from being well regulated.

Don't invoke the Constitution or the Founding Fathers, because if anyone hates the Constitution or the Founding Fathers, it's the NRA.

AndresTM,

From what I've read, the word "regulated" had a slightly different meaning back when the Constitution was written.

It is also possible that the founding fathers wanted arms of the time in the hands of private citizens so that if it became necessary to call up and "regulate" the militia, they would have arms.

The Obama administration has caused gun sells to sky rocket since we was elected back in 2008. lol Nice work Obama...

Obama has nothing to do with this.

IGNORANCE has EVERYTHING to do with this and that's what the retar right has a lot of.......utter Ignorance.

From what I've read, the word "regulated" had a slightly different meaning back when the Constitution was written.

Thanks for the clarification. However, by the same token, we could argue that everything had a slightly different meaning back then. It made sense then for citizens to be well armed to protect their democracy; it doesn't make sense now. We the citizens don't need weapons to protect our democracy from tyranny. This is too large and powerful a country to be taken over by a tyrant, either from within or without. The second amendment is an outdated piece of legislation.

Conservatives love to take the Constitution face-value; well, if we're going to look at it face-value, let's look at the whole thing and say that not only does it allow for, but it ASKS for regulation concerning firearm possession. If we're going to take a more revisionist approach, then let's be consistent with that and shed a revisionist light on the entirety of the text.

AndresTM,

It seems to me that the authors of our Constitution chose their words very carefully. Had they meant that citizens were to be permitted only muskets, they would have so stated. But they didn't. They wrote "arms" because their intent was, as you say, to provide the citizens of our new nation the means with which to combat tyranny in perpetuity.

Your assertion that such vigilance and preparation is no longer necessary astounds me. At a time when Germany was likely the most civilized nation in Europe, perhaps in the world, my grandfather was a young business man in Berlin. This was before and during the Nazi rise to power. Grandfather was among the scoffers who thought the Nazi's were simply crazy idiots whose ideas would never be accepted by the majority of Germans and that the National Socialists were just a flash in the pan, never to acquire any significant power.

In 1939 my grandfather was permitted to flee Germany and leave his business and family with nothing more than clothing and emigrate to Shanghai, China, the only place in the whole world that would accept him because he was a Jew.

His, and the incredulity of his fellow citizens, created just the right environment wherein the very thing that they said could not possibly happen, would not happen, did actually occur. How then, I ask you in all sincerity, can you in good conscience and with adherence to sound logic, say that we in this country are totally immune to tyranny simply because we're so large and powerful.

And again, the word to which you point as the key to your argument for regulation, is not the same word that is was when placed into the Second Amendment.

Well said.

I don't think you necessarily need officers, but you shouldn't be able to just walk into a school unless you have a right to be there. Yes, sometimes the perpetrators of these crimes are people that have access to the facility, but in this latest case it would have helped to have the outside doors locked.

Fire laws.

Ever hear of them?

Besides, the doors at Sandy Hook WERE locked. He broke in, anyway.

The building I work in is locked from the outside. We have no problem exiting it. Theaters, restaurants, a lot of buildings have doors that will allow you to exit when they are locked. So your snarky comment about Fire Laws really has no validity, does it? Especially since you go on to say the doors WERE locked. Which I hadn't heard before.

Enough-2735007, I didn't necessarily mean police, but more or less personal who simple walk around the campus and areas just around the campus keeping watch. I speak at quite a few high schools, and from the outside looking in, seeing roaming officials or personal definitely slows you down when it comes to committing a crime, where as knowing there's only 1 or 2 people, you don't second-think as much.

But in all actuality we know the main reason is to stop kids from skipping class, sneaking on/off campus, and drug sales.

I had a shooting at my HS years ago (I won't say the name), but I can tell you, years before that we had security guards walking the campus. And there was a good chance if you were skipping you'd get caught. Then they got rid of a few roaming security guards then BOOM a shooting. It was targeted so no backlash, but regardless you get moving bodies, you fruther minimize this. You don't need to "better" gun laws at all.

Most locks and glass (even in schools) aren't going to stand up against 5.56mm and larger. If there is a window within 5 feet of the ground any determined attacker will easily gain entry. Sorry but you are not safe anywhere.

Enough-2735007: The elementary school was locked. The shooter shot through glass to gain entrance to the building.

Jen's point was the gun didn't belong to the parents and they may not have even known it existed. I don't think she missed anything.

And there are stiff penalties for ANY adult who allows a kid access to an unsecured gun. How is it you don't know that?

Praying and hugging is fine. But after that, we have to actually talk about how to fix things.

Shawn D, I agree, it is very sad that an 11 year old should have to live in fear. And taking that gun to school was one of the worse things he could have done. If someone did attempt an attack does anyone believe that the 11 yr old would even know how to remove "safety" or how to aim. And if he was so fearful he would have been shaking I would assume. It's a sad situation all the way around. The only thing that could be of help is that children don't usually dwell on such things. They tend to bounce back in a short amount of time, thank God!

Maybe we could start down the road of avoiding the fear by not making a shooting front page news for days on end in an attempt to suck every bit of sensationalism from the incident. Then when the shooter is convicted, we could emphasize the penalties given instead of the trauma to the victims. Sure, every victim's story deserves to be told, but not everyone should hear all the details. Children shouldn't.

Personally, I believe that we have sufficient laws on the books already.

The story is pretty clear - the 11-year-old brought the gun to impress and intimidate other children. He was waving it around, pointing it, and verbally threatening to hurt people with it. The "brought it for protection" BS was just a feeble-minded lie (after in custody) to reduce his punishment. It matches his lie about the parents giving permission to take the gun to school.

Shawn D:

Thats sad. An 11 year old living in fear.

Or an 11 year old looking for an opportunity to show off a gun off to his or her classmates, assuring that coveted place of the ultimate playground bully. But maybe the kid's an idiot who really thought that having a gun would be a heroic thing to do, instead of knowing karate.

No worries.... the more guns the better, or so they keep saying....

Why not arm all of our school children? Surely the NRA would support such a move?

Nobody thinks it's a good idea, that is why the kid is being expelled and will never be permitted in a traditional classroom setting again.

Which is a shame.... We can't even send our kids to school anymore without worrying about society's ills.

Imagine how an 11 year old child felt when watching the news and seeing all of the crying adults and children? Maybe utterly defenseless? Without hope?

If we aren't going to to do something legally, let's just arm every last man, woman and child and go back to the days of the wild wild west....

If that was how he was feeling, I wonder why he was brandishing the gun at other children and threatening them with it on the playground?

Read it again Enough

Hardcoffeeat6am

Read it again Enough

---

The student was charged with one count of possession of a dangerous weapon on school property and three charges of aggravated assault, which is a third-degree felony, involving the alleged waving of the weapon at other students in a threatening manner.

That's per the article. I'm somehow not feeling "poor child" here.

Also according to the school “We teach these kids on a regular basis that they have a responsibility to keep their school safe.” Which is exactly what the child was wanting to do.

Until he started threatening the other kids with his gun.

Read it again Enough

This kid did not bring the gun to be safe - he brought it to threaten classmates. After he was taken into custody for the felony, he made up the lie about protection, and the lie about his parents giving permission to bring the gun.

It's right there in the article.

I'm wondering about the parents now, claiming that it was another relative (whom they may have kicked out of the house).

They will be.

And the parents are also responsible (if not the gun owners). They are responsible for the boy having access to the gun in their house, and they are responsible for what the boy brings to school (regardless of where he got it.)

Good comment.

An 11yo facing 3 felonies for this is just crazy.

Anyone here think an 11yo kid belongs in prison? For this?

I worked in the prison system (worked there, not an inmate) for 7 years and I did see a 12yo in a full maximum adult prison once. He got there by taking a hatchet to his grandparents, who were raising him, because they would not give him $20 to go to the movies with. He was where he belonged.

Who among you think this kid deserves the same?

I absolutely agree with you. This scared little boy shouldn't be punished so dramatically. Suspend him, transfer him to an alternate school, but drop the felony charges. --And get him into some counseling! He shouldn't spend what's left of his childhood afraid of the Bogey Man.

zero tolerance...it's typically what the schools are required to follow.

the child stole the gun and then told several lies... that is the beginning of this matter and they only added more serious troubles when they brought it to school and AGAIN lied. I cannot help but think this child would have brought the gun even if there hadn't been a shooting. To lie about why it was brought in the first place is telling. If you are afraid and have nothing to hide you wouldn't lie. It sounds to me like this child may have a history of troubles and it just came to a head with this incident.

The article does not say when last week the family member moved out and they stole the gun, for all we know it happened BEFORE the school shootings. That to me is an important fact to find out about. If it was before then they had plans for the gun before the school shooting, and the fact there was no fear when they were threatening other students kind of takes away from them saying they did it out of fear.

What you are all forgetting to mention is the fact that ANOTHER school let a child bring a gun in unnoticed. Being from Utah, and hearing the reports from the local news station, the fact that the child was able to bring the gun into the school without being noticed until 45 minutes before school was dismissed sent all of the parents into an outrage. Some refused to bring their children back to school because of this. Instead of wasting our breath on gun control (something that we cannot control no matter how much we debate) we should focus on the smaller aspect of making schools more safe for our children (something we have more control over) by contacting your childrens school and voicing your fears to the principal. Enough of us did this and now they have increased security measures immensely at the school my children attend.

I think you got the last part wrong -- it's the liberal politicians that routinely send their kids to private school -- in Washington, DC, Sidwell Friends is a special favorite. Didn't think much of Jimmie Carter, but at least he and Mrs. Carter sent their daughter to the local public school.

The child is not a few cards short of a deck. He saw or heard about the tragedy and felt fear...

Kids aren't safe in school anymore and they know it. How about cutting this 11 year old a break and show a bit of compassion?

How many other guns were brought to school this week because of the news? We may never know...

I'd say you were right except for the part about brandishing it in the playground and threatening other children with it.

He's not disturbed, he's scared! At his age he processes the information at an 11 y/o level. Get real!

The owner of the gun broke the law. There will be consequences for that. And no, those are not the 'responsible gun owners' that the pro-gun crowd is extolling. Quite the opposite.

Arrest them for what Nimrod?

Mike, if you need that explained...

Childish name-calling aside, it's not a stupid question. There are federal laws regarding gun safe storage and child access prevention. States also have their own gun safe and storage laws. A quick glance suggests that Utah is one of the more "gun-friendly" states, and the parents may only be guilty if they knowingly put the child in possession of the gun.

There may be some state storage offense I don't see, or a federal law. But parents in the U.S. are not automatically guilty of the offenses of their minor children.

Sad, one of the few things still labeled, Made in the USA

But that doesn't change the fact that he took a gun to school, does it?

But that doesn't change the fact that he took a gun to school, does it?

Why bring a knife to a gun fight?

Idiotic logic, I know; but so is the adage "guns don't kill, people do".

Is it even possible to sensationalize what is possibly the worst gun massacre in U.S. history?

it appears that way, but WE want to know as much as we can. Therefor the media. So far, I think CNN is doing a pretty good job of not going overboard

See my post at 15.1 -- also, post some examples where FOX is pushing for fewer gun rules.

I doubt the kid read any 'posts'.

The parents read it to him before bed.