....and this is why we need more guns......(sarcasm)

This is another example of a 'responsible' gun holder being irresponsible with their guns and putting the public at risk. The parents should be charged with a crime.

Jersey Michael

My opinion, no... kids can't vote until they are 18... get a drivers license... etc

Again, this is where the RIGHT defends the NRA 'stance' by not wanting to have "stronger gun control laws, background checks, and restrictions' to prevent ILLEGAL gun ownership. I don't know about you, but when I buy some over the counter drugs, I am required to show my drivers license so the govt can track exactly what I purchase. Why should gun owners be ANY different from that? Why shouldn't we have stronger 'penalties' as President Obama supports when GUN owners (legal and illegal) break the law. Oh wait, there is no connection here to the NRA. Its the "head in the sand and not our fault" routine.

It's unfortuante that law abiding citizens have to experience a loss of 'freedoms' because of citizens who "BREAK" the law... Welcome to America.

Jersey Michael,

I never said the child should have a gun in school. He shouldn't. There are already several laws that say he shouldn't (No guns in NYC, no guns owned by a minor, no guns in schools) and yet he did.

Why would adding more laws that say the same thing have an effect?

ItsAboutTime,

Background checks are already required by law. They go much deeper than just showing a driver's license.

I'd agree that there needs to be harsher punishments for people who violate gun laws. People like this mother make gun owners who are actually responsible look bad.

Scubasteve58001

But if you keep the guns out of the hands of the good kids, how will they protect themselves from the bad kids?

Jersey Michael,

So you're just a troll I guess? And here I was, trying to have a reasonable discussion. My mistake.

Scubasteve58001

No. There are many gunshows where you do not have to have a background check to purchase a gun. It needs to be universal. However, I do question how the govt would monitor the 'personal' selling of guns amongst citizens. The drivers license reference is to prove that all Americans have to show ID to purchase some over the counter medications, it should be the same standard with everyone being required to have a background check. Thank you for the post.

Jersey Michael

Please homeschool your children or at a minimum, keep them out of the public school where mine go.

Well, not all the facts are clear from the report. Is it her gun, or her husbands? Or did the kid get it elsewhere and Mom found out? I can understand her trying to sneak the kid and gun out seeing all the hoo-hah that ensued, although that doesn't excuse it. But the fact remain that this kid got that gun somewhere, and the owner should be in major trouble.

And this points out the fallacy of the NRA's position; unless you put in full-blown security (body searches, metal detectors, etc), all the armed guards in the world won't prevent things like this. And meanwhile a bunch of grade-schoolers had to cower in fear; nice lesson to teach.

I'll agree with the NRA on one point; guns per se aren't the problem. It's gun owners and it's obvious not all are responsible. Test, license, and register them before they get a gun, rather than wringing our hands after each disaster....

Scubasteve58001

The story is about a 7 year old who brought a gun to school, kinda hard to have a serious discussion about that. But I'll try. With the laws the way they are now, 40% of all gun sales don't do background checks. Which means that the remaining 60% are from the gun manufacturers. So of the guns being manufactured 20% goes to law-abiding citizens and 40% are being resold to people who don't want a background check. The criminals getting guns out number the good guys 2 to 1. I don't want to take away any law-abiding citizens gun, but I am in strong support of universal background checks.

The only good thing in this is that the mother did discover the gun was missing from its usual place. How else could she have know to go back to the school to check? When she didn't find it, she notified school officials. That was the right thing to do, and she will pay for it.

I am pro-gun, but when you have kids you need to take more things into consideration. My father removed every single firing pin from his guns when we were growing up in response to some kind of trigger lock. He kept those pins in one place, while the disassembled guns were in two other places. Only he knew which pieces went together. At the very least, this mother should have had a trigger lock on that gun, but in addition, it should not have been someplace where this kid could just slip it into his book bag.

Anyone who things that registering guns is the thing to do needs to stop for a minute and understand what a huge database that would be and how much it would take on limited resources to maintain. You might also check out the Supreme Court decision on Haynes vs US (1968).

ItsAboutTime,

Technically, if I were to sell you a gun, I'm supposed to find a licensed gun dealer to sell it to, and then they would sell the gun to you after doing the proper background checks.

The so called "Gun Show Loophole" is BS. It should be closed. Everyone who buys a gun should undergo a full background check, including mental health evaluation.

Scubasteve,

There is some common ground, just hope the dingbats in Washington can find it.

Jersey,

I agree. There are 5-10% on the right that want everyone to be able to buy tanks and rocket launchers and whatever. And then there are 5-10% on the left that want all guns banned from everyone.

There are reasonable people in the middle.

And I'd definitely agree that Washington is full of dingbats, although I might use a stronger word.

I've come across a lot of things after working 13 years in criminal law and/or case management. Unfortunately, little surprises me anymore - except the alarming rush for people to pack more heat as opposed to using more fire power between their ears.

"Fourth-grader Israel Tavares said kids were herded into the back of his classroom and told to say quiet."

Hey Zeus, proofreading isn't that hard. nbcnews.com, do your editors have any previous experience...at reading?

Need a job Bob?? Apply for the proofreading job then see how well you do with thousands of articles a day.

Personally I believe the woman did the right thing by telling authorities about the weapon. She most likely, legally or illegally, had the weapon in her purse for her own protection and possibly the kid stole it from her purse. If she checked and found it missing after dropping her kid off, what's she to do. I believe she did the right thing.

Scubasteve58001

I agree with you but might add that people going to gun shows with a concealed carry permit would not need a background check since they have already been screened. No CC permit then a background check should be mandatory at gun shows.

I have many weapons but nothing like an assault weapon. I don't believe they should be in the hands of the public but the 10 bullet limit is a little too strong. I feel that 12 is a good number for a handgun since the accuracy of a hand gun is poor and if attacked by two of three gang members you might need that many. Just my thoughts.

Some of you people are either incredibly "low information, low intelligence" or just starting a conflict where none exists to suit your agenda!...typical low information liberal mentality really...lol.

The gun was illegally obtained in the first place. This is not a law abiding person. More gun laws and restrictions will not stop idiots like this woman because THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT OPERATING WITHIN A LAWFUL FRAMEWORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This actually enforces the argument that the problem is stupid people who obtain weapons ILLEGALLY!!!

No thanks, Larry, I'm an engineer with a nice job. But, you know you have a problem when an engineer can proofread better than someone whose sole purpose is to catch these things.

Publishing articles with these simple mistakes really gives off an unprofessional appearance.

Robin,

You can use whats between your ears if you want....I garantee packing heat will make for a more favorable outcome for you than "the force" if you are ever threatened with your life.

Screw the gun laws..We need parenting permits issued before being allowed to spew forth infants.

Troy - I've got a capable body and mind to respond to what I need to. I don't need a firearm to protect myself. And I don't intend to live in fear of what "might" happen.

Yo Liberal Leftys what part of criminal possession of a weapon do you not understand keeps this woman from being on the responsible gun owner list don't you get??????????

Love your straw-man attacks on the NRA and LAW ABIDING gun owners every time a story like this comes out, so much for all the talk by the left that Oblamo wasn't going to go after our guns if he was re-elected, he wasted no time at all after all.

I'd like to make a point to all you Libtards out there

1. I don't like abortion I think they should be outlawed, thats my right to not like it. You all will say

a. Don't have one

b. It's legal

c. I don't have the right to force my "beliefs" on others. (That is my Favorite one)

Well guess what those exact same answers apply to your wanting to outlaw guns, but one better WE HAVE THE 2nd AMENDMENT BACKING US.

Both guns and abortions cause the deaths of living beings, neither are 100% necessary,(yes some abortions are at times medically necessary, don't freak).

So trade ya - our guns for your abortions, deal????????????

Scuba,

This gun was likely bought before the laws went into affect so they would not apply to how they obtained the weapon in this case. The problem with these laws is not the law itself but the enforcement.

Robin,

That is admirable and in most cases, sufficent. I wish I felt that confident and safe but idiots like the mother and son in this article make me want to carry more and not less.

Don't misunderstand, I do not like guns, other than for hunting, in the slightest. I admit to being nervous about having guns in the house with two teenage boys myself. However, I can garantee without a shadow of a doubt that they in no way shape or form would ever be able to access all the components to put together a useable firearm in my home. Otherwise they wouldn't be there period.

I just think that this is a perfect case in point why law abiding citizens should not be in the spotlight in this war on guns, rather, idiots like this mother in fact should.

People like this are the reason lots of us feel the need to "pack heat" legally.

Geowil,

It's a handgun. You have to be screened even before these new "executive orders" (laughable powerless jargen)) I just love how you make $hizzit up to suit your viewpoint....lmao!

Bluesman,

I'd vote for that anyday!

I have to laugh at all the idiots on here making comments about the NRA and needing more gun laws. They obviously either can not read or did not bother to read the article. This was an illegally owned gun that was not properly secured by the owner, allowing it to get into the hands of a little kid. No new law is going to stop things like this and nothing about the NRA has anything to do with this event. There are already laws in place that are supposed to keep things like this from happening, the problem is the lack of enforcement. On top of that, the only way to stop this would be placing metal detectors at the entrances to every school and the liberals scream against this because they feel it turns schools into a prison atmosphere. There are just some things that you can are not going to be able to prevent no matter how many laws you pass. Just because laws exist does not mean that people are going to follow them. This is the reason that the mother is facing a number of very serious felony charges, she broke the law. Stop screaming for more laws and start working towards getting the ones we have enforced a little better. And do not scream about things like this happening when you are against the one sure fire way of preventing it, having kids go through metal detectors when they enter the school. And for the record, I am not sure I am in favor of metal detectors as I do not want schools to become like prisons. However, unlike the liberals ranting on here I recognize that not having them means that there will be incidents like this.

Scubasteve: you say NYC does not allow handguns, but didn't the Supreme Court just overturn a similar law in Chicago?

I thought the entire point of that case was that local government could NOT ban handguns.

Maybe I'm wrong. Then again, maybe the NRA will send lawyers (guns and money) to help this woman.

Hey, don't sweat it. It's just a 2nd Amendment thing.

You can use whats between your ears if you want....I garantee packing heat will make for a more favorable outcome for you than "the force" if you are ever threatened with your life.

Really? Are you safer with a gun? If you said yes, well, how do you know that? Do gun owners live longer than non gun owners?

FYI ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

I'm quite sure that the study referenced in the link will not affect your thinking because you like guns.

If the NRA has its way, loaded guns will be just another standard school supply on kindergarteners' lists....with crayons, glue, and kleenex.

OK, the Mom and Kid may have a legal challenge or two to face but look at the bright side:

The Kid has a bright future as the NRA School Poster Boy.

No joke....I'll bet when this news broke there were High Fives all around at NRA headquarters.

Aren't children governed by the constitution? The second Amendment doesn't mention an age so shouldn't he have the same rights as all Americans?

Eek the Eek,

That wouldn't be a very big database at all as databases go. Every driver's license is in a database and there's more drivers than registered gun owners. Or if you want to get into real big databases, consider that casinos store information about every single pull of every single slot machine on the floor.

@RobinsSerendipity - love the comment about people not using more firepower between their ears. I am in agreement with you about being able to defend myself without carrying around a gun. That is just plain cowardly.

I'll take the 1:18690 (those are the odds) chance of being murdered by not packing a gun. If you seriously need a gun (security blanket) with you at all times to defend yourself, you're a coward. If anyone steps to me with a gun, they'd better make good use of it because they won't like the outcome.

Granted, if you live in the ghetto, grizzly country, or aren't able bodied, it makes sense. If you're able bodied and still taking your gun with you to the grocery store, the bank, etc. etc. you're lacking a spine.

@Davey 1.36

That study is flawed. It is very similar to another study, which was rejected by peer review, because the researchers didn't take into account the fact that the people they are studying may own guns specifically because they are more likely to be shot (i.e. are in a dangerous area or have dangerous people near them). I mean, think about it: there are 300 million firearms in the US in approximately 60 million households, yet there aren't millions of gun homicides in America each year-- there are only some 10,000-12,000 (there were 11,078 in 2010) and only some 55,000 non-fatal assaults. If the simple fact of owning a firearm in your home really increased your chances of being shot so dramatically, then we should see a lot more firearm related injuries or death each year, but we don't. There are other, more pertinent factors at play.

Try this from Duke university:

http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm

Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5

Also this:

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

Which shows that guns are used to defend against crime (989,883-1,029,615 incidences) at more than twice the rate at which firearms are used to commit crimes (436,000).

(Above stats from http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp).

And none of that has anything to do with "mother of the year" from the article and her unruly child. Just wanted to point out the flaws of the study you cited, flaws which are consistently pointed out during peer review of such studies, yet which always seem to find their way into these conversations as though they were gospel.

@Nolan comment 1.41

Granted, if you live in the ghetto, grizzly country, or aren't able bodied, it makes sense. If you're able bodied and still taking your gun with you to the grocery store, the bank, etc. etc. you're lacking a spine.

Your attempt to equate carrying a firearm to one's courage (or penis length, IQ or anything else) is an intrinsically flawed argument. Your suggestion means that any woman who carries a firearm in their purse is a coward, even though any idiot could see that their 5'2", 110lb "able-body" is no match for Mr. Rape-Date's 6'3" 200lb physique. There's a reason that Colts were called "the great equalizer." It doesn't matter if an assailant is bigger than the other person, faster, stronger, etc. because the business end of .45 is going to even the odds. The vast majority of people that I know who carry daily do so for the same reason that a boyscout carries their pocket knife: "always prepared."

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a firearm owner and I do carry, though not on a daily basis.

And here's something that may shock you:

High School Rifle Team

Yes, by god! There was a time, not that long ago, when most high schools had a rifle team and (gasp!) they brought their guns to school with them every day. When did we become so insufferably sniveling?*

*That is not meant in any way to be a justification for the woman in the article, nor her child, bringing a loaded handgun to school. That's obviously a case of poor parenting and neglectful firearms ownership.

Do guns make you safer? Any data to prove that?

It is amusing that you dismiss scientific studies that show gun harm (skewed, you know), and then you tell me about a telephone survey that shows gun benefits.

Troy, you were quite a gentleman in your response to me. Thank you.

Nolan - I just feel like I'm more in control using my training as opposed to an object for protection. I can respond with flexibility and will never have to worry about another being caught in the cross fire.

I love it when you hit libtards with facts and their eyes glass over like the facts don't exist. Still waiting for one of you libs to take up our offer of our guns for your abortions.

Rob, you make it sound like someone can't be both pro-choice and pro-gun. Ever heard of "libertarians?"

I love it when you hit libtards with facts and their eyes glass over like the facts don't exist.

???

Still waiting for one of you libs to take up our offer of our guns for your abortions.

Totally. I am for gun control and I while I support a woman's right to have an abortion, I would trade that for gun control. But, you are bluffing. You would not trade your guns for anything.

I guess you all missed the real point of the comment; demanding our guns be taken away is the same as demanding abortion being stopped.

All the reasons libs give why we have no right to call for abortion control apply to your demanding of gun control, exactly the same 100%.

Rob, no one is demanding all guns be "taken away" except for crackpots like Feinstein and her ilk. What people are asking for varies, but I kind of like the idea that if we got tough on enforcing the laws already on the book, we'd be a lot better off. A story recently ran about how people fail background checks due to lying on their 4473's, and yet nothing comes of it.

I don't think a new "assault weapons ban" will work, because it didn't work before, and all it seems like is a way to use it as a justification for more legislation under the guise, "we didn't do enough." I don't like the idea of a national registry, especially not after what happened in NY, and NY has implemented some ridiculous firearm laws in the past few weeks. So don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, a shooting enthusiast, and I own several of the "evil firearms" included in any assault weapons ban.

But here's the point: You can't compare abortion to firearms. They are nothing even remotely related. If you want to make the argument to ban alcohol, fine, but comparing banning abortion to banning firearms is only hurtful to your argument.

@Davey

Sorry, I meant to include an aside that stated something to the effect that these studies often come to different conclusions depending on the manner it which the study is conducted. My fault for not including that. But here's something that is irrefutable: FBI crime statistics show that violent crime is decreasing year after year even though gun ownership is increasing year after year. If firearms really were the boogeyman that so many people insist they are, shouldn't violent crime be increasing as ownership increases? Care to explain that factual disparity of the argument?

Some people see the reduction in violent crime as a direct result of the increase in gun ownership. But, this shows more than anything that some people have an agenda and they are looking for any bits of information to support their position. Very common human characteristic.

But you asked a legitimate question. With so many variables, it is difficult to say for sure, but let me point you to one person's thoughts on this subject. The author is Steven Levitt. He is a profressor of economics. And, Levitt's emphasis on economics is not financial. He uses the traditional definition of economics: "the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services"

I'll let you read it for yourself. I hope you read it all the way through. Levitt really is a smart guy, and a good writer.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

Good luck.

Matt - You can't compare abortion to firearms.

Both are legal.

Both are used to kill a living being

Both are optional (in most cases, agree some may be medically needed)

Having one is up the the individual

Not having one is a personal choice.

Both have one side telling the other side it needs to stop.

Main difference is one is protected by the US Constitution / Bill of Rights.

So not so different after all, so as liberals love to say to conservatives about abortion.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT FORCING YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS.

Actually comparing the two makes perfect sense, so how is it so different???????

Guns are used to kill people. Abortions terminate a fetus. A fetus is not a person. When an abortion is performed, no one dies. Guns kill people. When someone is mudered with a gun, a crime has been committed. When a fetus is terminated, there is no crime.

What belief is being forced on gun supporters?

A fetus is not a person. When an abortion is performed, no one dies.

Hey it that helps you sleep at night to think like that so be it, but a "fetus" is very much alive.

If a fetus is not alive then what is it???? If it is not a person then what is it, because left alone it most definitely will become a person???? Even a parasite fights to live.

http://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/randy-atkins-baby-photo-lead1.jpg?w=600

Just a little photographic proof that a fetus is ALIVE.

Guns kill people. When someone is murdered with a gun, a crime has been committed.

Guns don't kill anyone, millions of guns in the US have never been used to shoot or kill anyone ever, people use guns to kill other people but they use all sorts of things to do that anyway. Just because someone is killed with a gun doesn't make it murder.

What belief is being forced on gun supporters?

That you don't want us owning guns, you know our 2nd Amendment Right, so if you any sense what so ever you should be able to see they are exactly the same, so lay off our gun rights until you are willing to see abortion right go too.

Guns don't kill anyone

Guns, esp hand guns, are the murder weapon used most often in the US.

so lay off our gun rights until you are willing to see abortion right go too.

Hmm, OK, if you sign up for stricter gun laws, I'll sign up to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Deal?

Exactly......did the kid have a high capacity magazine? He might have needed to fend off a school shooter.

......OR perhaps earn an extra scoop of "Texas Straw Hat" from the lunch lady for all his crime fighting efforts.

Somehow Eric Cartman from South Park is coming to mind: "RESPECT MY AUTHORITAE!"

LOL!

Now that is funny!

parents have the responsibility to keep their guns secure and locked up and keeping your children safe and when the two combine YOU go to jail !

I checked with the NRA and there is nothing in the 2nd amendment requiring that guns be secured and kept away from young children.............just ask LaPierre.

I don't get why you liberal lefties get so stupid when you post crap like that... you've NO IDEA where the gun came from, why the kid had it, or how the mother found out that the kid had it... it doesn't say where they found the guy or when.

Stop trying to up your anti-American anti-gun agenda by making crap up.

I'm not against hunting or guns for self-protection, but there are just way too many irresponsible gun owners. In addition to banning assault weapons, there should be a law requiring every gun owner to have guns in a safe or protected with a trigger lock when children are in the home. Too many kids accidentally shoot people when they find guns in a home. Sometimes, you have to protect people from their own stupidity.

Sirlafalot:

If the kid was licensed to carry, was toting the gun in a responsible manner, and felt he could help protect his classmates, what's the problem? More guns in schools will stop the violence we're seeing. Right?

I don't see why the busy body government should require the 7 year olds to be licensed to carry a firearm. Way too much governement interference in our rights! The next thing you know, those damn liberals will want an age requirement where you have to be 10 years old to carry a deadly weapon, leaving all those 7, 8 and 9 year olds with no way to protect themselves!

Yep, more guns in schools is what we need. Lots more guns with warehouses of ammo. Then and only then will our children be safe.

Now, if you'll excuse me, my wife and I are going to have sex in our quest for virginity.

Sadden American 2012:

I don't get why you liberal lefties get so stupid when you post crap like that... you've NO IDEA where the gun came from, why the kid had it, or how the mother found out that the kid had it... it doesn't say where they found the guy or when..

Yeah, those damn liberals getting stupid again. A seven year old shows up for school with a loaded deadly weapon and right away the stupid liberals assume something is wrong!

Next thing you know those stupid liberals will want to limit a ten year old's right to being his grenade launcher to school.

didn't anybody read the article , the mother admitted it was her gun and had it with her the day before and hid it in her kids backpack and rushed to school and claimed he had a dentist appointment to get him out of class to get to the gun, when she noticed it gone she asked her son who stated he let one of his friends have one and she decided to tell principle so they could get the gun back. the principle called police and the gun and flare gun was found and the mother placed under arrest for that action and having a unregistered gun !

and yes there is nothing in 2nd amendment about locking up your guns and that comment alone should ban you from owning a gun. stupid people should loose rights to have any weapons because they demonstrate a lack of responsibility to own one !

You anti-gunners making all your ignorant comments about the NRA: are you all going to start Bahbahbah like the sheep that you are. This is the mother's fault...and she is being punished. GOT IT!!!

Now, if you are afraid of the big bad gun, don't own one. This country was founded by an armed militia, if you don't like it...move your pansy azzes to Mexico. My rights will not depend on the uninformed and unintelligent opinion of 'soccer moms' or 'men with no b*lls'.

I've noticed something. Are those that are pro-gun also pro drug?

If so that would seem problematic.

"...was charged Friday with criminal possession of a weapon, criminal possession of a weapon on school grounds" - sounds to me like the gun was illegal.

The article makes it clear she had the weapon illegally. The question is why and how? Is she a felon, is it illegal where she is to even own a gun? If she was denied legal ownership I would like to know why. And then how she obtained the gun. Find the person who supplied her the weapon and arrest his/her ass too. We need to start to really enforce the laws that exist as well as provide more effective background checks etc.

Happster,

This took place in NYC where it is so difficult to get a gun permit that it might as well be impossible. The odds of her have that gun legally are extremely low. Everything else about harsher punishments for people who violate gun laws, I agree with wholeheartedly.

Eric,

I'm pro-gun and pro-pot, just not at the same time. ;)

Thanks Scubasteve.......for being brave enough to answer......I really am just wondering.

I don't care if Mom had the gun legally or illegally. If her young son was able to access it, she needs to be held accountable! You want the right to have guns, fine. But then as RESPONSIBLE gun owners, you have to be held ACCOUNTABLE when those weapons wind up in the wrong hands. BEING A RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER MEANS BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR WEAPON.

this is not a question of guns but a question of breeding

But we want to have guns in schools, to protect the children!!!

What a stupid statement.

Agreed, I am a gun owner and I dislike the NRA and its tactics, but that is a ridiculous statement.

Obviously she was arrested and charged with several crimes already on the books.The gun was illegal.She broke laws that the hysterical public doesn't seem to know exist.

"They will take my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead, sticky, tootsie roll, covered hand."

I believe the statement was intended as sarcasm.

I must have missed it... where does it say the NRA wants more guns in our schools?

They want armed guards, but how does that equate to "more guns"... that's just a stupid comment.

TJSMN.......do you think criminals will give up their guns??? really???

Armed guards is an absolutely great idea, along with getting rid of Gun Free zones. I proudly carry and would gladly defend you...even though you choose to be a victim.

Ban kids. There's enough idiots in the world already.

No one was killed, please read before posting

Hey, OCinLA, you dropped your sense of humor. Do you want it back?

Yes please

Freebird, what comment did you find funny?

BAD PARENTING BIG TIME.

I am pro gun, but I can't argue with that. Owning a weapon is a HUGE responsibility and the ability for a 7-yr old to gain access to a weapon and goto school with it without the parent knowing is an EPIC FAIL. She should spend time in jail, get a record, and never be allowed to legally own guns EVER AGAIN.

To purchase a weapon in New York is NO EASY TASK. A @!$%#load of paperwork and a @!$%#load of money to do it legally. I wonder if this was indeed a legally owned gun or not. If not, she is screwed and then some.

As a legal and responsible gun-owner weapons are supposed to be secured when not on your person. I have a biometric safe and a biometric strongbox on my nighttable. Only my finger or a key that I have stored at my bank's safe-deposit box can open these containers. Parents need to seriously consider their current security protocols in their homes to ensure that children cannot gain access to a firearm. It is their responsibility to train their children that guns are not a toy and not for them until they are of age. It is also their responsiblity to teach their children NOT take weapons to school.

I wonder if there is a father involved in this. If not, enjoy your immediate future in a foster home, junior!

I am surprised that the National Shooting Sports Foundation hasn't stepped forward to advocate safe, responsible gun handling to include how to protect children from firearms. I mean their headquarters is right there in Newtown, CT:

www.nssf.org

You would think they would be a LOT more vocal about gun safety...Disappointing.

:-\

The mom made a terrible, terrible mistake. I imagine when she discovered her guns missing from home, her intent was to retrieve them without scaring the crap out of everyone at the school. But give her credit for fessing up when she didn't find the guns in the backpack. There should be some punishment for this, especially to send a lesson to other gun owners who have kids in the house.

right but how do you regulate parenting?

Phillips' Milk of Magnesia?

WinWin... stop.

You've no idea how the kid got the gun, how the mom found out he had a gun, who owened it, and all the rest of the speculatory comments being made.

If you have no insight on what happened, stop guessing and making it sound like you know...

Spit my drink out, thanks I needed that laugh!

This kid is NOT dangerous, he's SEVEN, you idiot. He just wanted to be "cool" and show the gun off to his friends, and likely had no idea of the repercussions. Like I said, he's a SEVEN year old. No child that young can TRULY grasp how dangerous guns are unless they have actually seen somebody shot. What's dangerous is leaving a firearm unlocked where your children can get ahold of it.

My father had a rifle, with teloscopic sight, he even showed it to me once(unloaded). Him and his friend used to target practice up in the mountains. Aside from that one time, he NEVER left it unlocked.

Well that is still dangerous. The 7 year old might not be Intentionally dangerous, but an unsupervised 7 year old with a .22 is certainly dangerous.

I was at an outdoor range once and the guy in the stall next to me had his two kids with him, they were about 6 or 7. Both kids had .22 revolvers. The little girl was OK, and not a bad shot come to think of it. The boy though... he made me nervous. He was waving the gun around and at one point fired a round into the ground. He almost shot himself in the foot. His father wasn't paying attention. Fortunately the range safety officer WAS paying attention and put a stop to it...

The point is, children shouldn't have unsupervised access to guns. Children do childish and stupid things, because they are children. The 7 year old in this case could have shot someone or even himself without intending it. It happens all the time. A .22 is particularly dangerous because the small bullets are soft and can shatter on hitting a bone leaving fragments of lead in a persons body.

I agree that the parent should be held most responsible in this case. It is the job of (and in most cases the law) a responsible gun owner to secure her weapons from minors, felons or anyone else that is not supposed to have them.

You morons... dude was just joking.

Wasn't a very funny joke, but he was just joking... lighten up!!

he even showed it to me once(unloaded).

Ah I used to love the days at my grandparents sitting on the porch while my family shot at targets (with loaded guns). I grew up with guns of all sizes, was constantly around them and while I was fascinated by them, I never had a desire to even touch one of their guns. I was told they were only for adults and I respected that until I became an adult (can I use that word - respect - or has it been striken from the English dictionary yet?). I'm not saying it's wrong for teenagers to learn to fire a rifle and go out target shooting or hunting with pop (I live in urban upstate NY so that's not the most typical thing around here), but being a good parent and not being careless go a long way when raising the next responsible gun owner in the family. I had a BB gun. My parents made me prove to them I was responsible enough to own a real gun before I could even have that. And they made me treat that BB gun like it was a real gun - I even had my own locking cabinet for it. You can have guns and you can have kids, but if you don't have brains you probably shouldn't have either.

What a stupid statement.

Ignorant people make ignorant statements. I have carried a weapon since I was 19. Eleven of those years were serving this country and protecting those in other countries that could not protect themselves from Tierney because their government would not allow them to have weapons. They had to rely on someone else for protection. Who will protect US when the time comes. Today I carry to protect myself and my family. I have never had to draw my weapon on anything other than wild critters on my land and I hope that it is all I ever have to do. But if it comes down to protecting myself, family, friends, and even a stranger in need I will have the means to do so. Unless you have a police officer shadowing every person then they are a target for crime especially in today's society where kids think it's a game to attack people for FUN. When the government realizes that they can take away one right what makes you think that taking away other rights won't follow.

I hope that if you ever need anyone, police officer or civilian, that they are there to keep you from harm.

Please don't breed.....political prisoner.

Charge them and lock their ass up.

That ain't rocket science; lock their asses up for breaking the law.

But I do want to know:
-Was the weapon legally procured?
-Did it have seven rounds in the magazine?
-Was the weapon charged?
-Does the family have a gun safe/vault?

Families that own firearms need to verify and validate their safe gun handling activities. It is solely their responsibility...Or they risk losing it all...Owning a firearm is NOT a laughing matter.

Article states she had the weapon illegally. I want to know how and where she go it. Trace it down and hold everyone who touched it responsible. Will that take time? Sure, but I say it is worth the effort in cases like these.

This is why guns need to be licensed and registered like automobiles... then they can be traced to the source.

@Cameron Ford

Please check out the Supreme Court decision on Haynes vs US (1968). It is good reading.

Not for long.

Better yet, buy a pine box. It is just going into the ground anyway; what a nice way to throw away thousands of dollars. Do the dead care what they are buried in? No, they are dead.

I don't know... if the kid had be caught with alcohol and got in trouble for it would you argue that him being prohibited from drinking was a violation of his 21st amendment rights?

What a stupid statement.

actually the gun was attained illegally but your point is still valid. if someone was dead set on shooting up a school, they could hold it down and act responsibly until the day they don't want to do that anymore. There is no such thing as a permanently responsible gun owner. Anything could happen to someone over a year that could dramatically alter their mental state and that's the problem.

depends on what their definition of an enemy or invader is. quite frankly, i thought my gym coach screaming at me was invasive.

The attack happened in school in China, and though 22 children and 1 adult were injured, no one was killed. And I don't understand your over use of exclamation points??????????????????????? Does that somehow make your misstatement more valid?

When you can kill an auditorium of people or several rooms full of children with just one harley in less than a minute, then I would say background checks for those purchasing harleys, If HD Inc. is advertising them as weapons, as assualt weapons that deliver more killing power i would say they need to change their ads.

By the arguement of the right it would seem that we should do away with all laws. Thou shalt not steal doesn't stop stealing. Thou shalt not murder doesnt' stop murder. Thou shalt not molest little children doesn't stop molesters. Thou shalt not speed doesn't stop speeding. So why have the laws. It's the same reasoning. Gun control laws don't eliminate violence so why have a law...I don't understand this reasoning.

Josephine, never mind, you didn't pull your head out & see what I am saying.

Actually there are a LOT of schools that DO have airport-like security at the school's entry control points. Mostly inner city schools. But to ensure the safety of the children, that is a small price to pay if it prevent another Sandy Hook. Yes, I know Sandy Hook's security was evidently bypassed by that monster breaking through a window, but if the potential was there for the assailant to just walk through the front door because they didn't have a metal detector, that would be devastating since it could have been prevented.

Something tells me a 7-yr old is probably not going to smash in a window to bypass a security checkpoint. They would more than likely not even think about it as they walk through the metal detector and the security guard at the checkpoint would be heralded as a hero.

That would be a real drag if everyone has to empty their backpacks and take off the shoes before they get inside. School day now starts at 4 am.

It is actually quite efficient and like I said there are schools that already have that where there are over a thousand students strong and school still starts on time.

you wouldnt believe the kinda crap kids can sneak past the security doors. that's not a solution to school violence dude.

That is why you have to arm the teachers.

no offense to teachers but they barely have college degrees and they don't have to take a psychological examination to be a teacher. i dont trust them with guns either.

You don't need a college degree or a psychological examination to be a law-abiding citizen and own a firearm.
That monster that massacred those kids at Sandy Hook was approached at least twice by the adults who tried to stop him and he killed. They were willing to forfeit their lives to save the lives of the children they loved. I believe that was six chances by each of those adults to draw their weapon and prevent what actually occurred IF THEY WERE ARMED.

SIX CHANCES TO STOP ONE FROM KILLING TWENTY SIX INNOCENT LIVES.

Give these teachers and faculty members a chance to defend themselves instead of being led to the slaughterhouse.

"...But to ensure the safety of the children, that is a small price to pay..." -- "small"? LOL. We're talking about billions of $ nationwide or we're only talking the NRA's elitist schools? But of course, the GOPs have no problem coughing up that "small" sum, all for the good of our kids.

Give these teachers and faculty members a chance to defend themselves instead of being led to the slaughterhouse. -- You're saying this as if the teachers want to be armed guards all school day long. All these folks are there to teach, not to be gunslingers. Most of them probably despise the NRA antics as much as the majority of Americans do.

Those who are advocating arming the teachers are overlooking the fact that they are as flawed and prone to making the wrong decisions as we are. We read almost daily about some teacher molesting a student or being involved in some type of inappropriate relationship with a student. Start arming all teachers and I would bet you will start seeing an increase in shootings in schools. However, this time the armed assailant will be a member of the facility instead of an outside intruder.

You're right. DON'T arm the teachers. Because mentally deranged individuals and criminals next time will heed the sign that states, "This is a Gun-Free Zone" and not bother to shoot at unarmed teachers that might try to stop/disarm them.

While we are at it, let's disarm our military and tell them they need to defeat our enemies with words rather than weap-

What am I saying? That has got to be the most stupidest thing I could ever write about our military...

I am not saying that teachers would be guards or gunslingers. They are still teachers. Just like a mailman is still a mailman and a mechanic is still a mechanic. But in the event something like Sandy Hook happens again, you would rather the teacher just huddle the children and let themselves and their students be killed? In the event of another Sandy Hook, they are no longer teachers, they are either defenders or victims (aka sheep).

Just like any other person that has the right to self-defense, LET THEM DEFEND THEMSELVES.

We're talking about billions of $ nationwide or we're only talking the NRA's elitist schools?

You pulled that number square out of your fifth point of contact, Candy-1505699?
A lot of schools already have these devices, mostly inner city schools. So I will let you do the math again; who do you think those inner cities usually vote for- Democrat or Republican? I will give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Your hatred for the GOP is blindly clear; we get it- YOU'RE A LIBERAL...
Happy now?

PS: From my previous post before this one: Being armed has NOTHING to do with the NRA; it has EVERYTHING to do with the right to self-defense.

So why can't the seven year old have one in school? Why can't I take one on a plane or lay one on the counter at the bank? They're just harmless tools.

Guns are designed specifically to kill. Handguns, extended capacity magazines, armor piercing and exploding bullets are designed specifically to kill people. Those are indisputable facts. People who think otherwise are nuts. The conversation has ended. Only the denials of those to be led off to their padded cells remain.

OOOHHH Rick, You are so right. I went and looked at my guns and ammo and I told them if they did any off those things I was going to make them sorry! They claim to be inanimate objects and can't do any of those things with out somebody firing them. They may be lieing to me so I plan on keeping an eye on them!

For the same reason said seven year old cannot drink, drive, vote or enlist in the military.

Rick: That is correct, guns of any kind were designed to kill, however they are incapable of doing so without an operator. Left alone, like the one sitting on my desk right now, they do nothing.

justa: You might want to put a web cam on them so you can keep an eye on them when you're not home. Much like the mops and brooms in The Sorcerer's Apprentice segment of Fantasia, they may only misbehave when not observed.

plumber..the point is that these inanimate objects have no use by a person other than killing. Again weapons have been and remain part of my albeit liberal culture, and family. Armor piercing bullets have only one function in the hands of an animate object, to pierce armor and kill what's beneath. The animate object could not pierce armor at the rate of 30 to 50 times in a minute without the able asisstance of the inanimate bullet that is inded just a tool whose sole purpose, like the gun tool it is fired from, is to kill. It is not the same as a hammer or screwdriver. They can be used for weapons but that is not their primary purpose. Also its really hard to kill more than one person at a time with a screw driver. (Unless it is an assault screwdriver...my attempt at humor)

Well we should make it illegal to kill people! That should stop them! You folks seem to think criminals like to obey laws. If we make it illegal to kill anyone, problem solved.

I thought we've already made it illegal to kill people in this country.

Some people seem to believe that criminals are a special breed of people in society. Most of the time, it's hard to tell who is a criminal and who is not. All cops are supposed to be good guys, but many aren't. It's not always a we versus them situation. Saying that gun laws only hinder the law-abiding citizens and not the criminals is a very faulty view.

Saying that gun laws only hinder the law-abiding citizens and not the criminals is a very faulty view.

I challenge you to prove this. I stand firmly by the position that Criminals do not respect what the law says, and will act as they see fit, regardless of what the law says.

Likewise, those who choose to comply with the law often can and do find themselves in a position where what was once legal has been made illegal, putting the law-abiding citizen at-odds with the change in laws.

Consider Clinton's Assault Weapons Ban, for example, when the "street-sweeper" shotgun was made illegal - with a Grandfathering for those of us who already owned such items. It became quite difficult to take these out to public ranges to enjoy, without creating a great deal of backlash.

I consider myself both a law-abiding citizen as well as a responsible gun owner. However...

I do own a large number of firearms and magazines that will fall under the current proposal on bans, putting me in a position I do not like to be in - where a change in laws outlaws what was purchased legally under old laws.

I would certainly never "surrender" these items without being fully compensated for the full value of the items in question. That is the same as simply throwing away money, and I wouldn't do that for anyone under any circumstance.