Mom of 6-year-old who shot his teacher sentenced to 2 years in prison in state case
Mom of 6-year-old who shot his teacher sentenced to 2 years in prison in state case
The Virginia mother of the 6-year-old boy accused of shooting his first grade teacher was sentenced on Friday to two years in prison for child neglect.
You're viewing a single thread.
As a non-US citizen I'd like to reiterate that you can get rid of this idiocy only by banning guns.
Not interested in American opinion regrading this one, sorry, it's a super simple fact with no discussion worth wasting time for us.
'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
(... from almost 10 years ago now jesus)
Statistically, most Americans agree with much stronger gun controls. Even a significant portion of the conservative block. It's the few holding the rest of us ransom.
That would be because there are many people who have no idea about firearms trying to legislate firearms. When the laws are written and constructed in such a way that it makes it so that the commoner is a criminal then the law is not viable. Stop sticking ridiculous riders on your bills and legislation.
This is the only issue you’ll be downvoted for saying that about.
Abortion, internet security, immigration, healthcare, etc is all fine to say that about but not guns.
I have zero consideration for my karma score. If I bother commenting it's so others will read and possibly read into what I'm speaking of and further inform themselves.
Oh I get it. I just hoped to add to it is all.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/text
Just for reference, the latest assault weapons ban would have banned everything that is not a bolt action rifle pump action shotgun lever action rifle or a revolver from the early 1900s. And with the overlapping restrictions many of those would also be banned for capacity weight or other arbitrary addon definitions.
For example a single action shotgun from 1880 would be classed as an illegal assault weapon as it has the capability to: "accept a detachable ammunition feeding device at some location outside of the pistol grip." It does not matter that it is a single action. Shotgun the fact that there are devices specifically invented to assist with reloading makes it an assault weapon as the law is written.
I would rather live somewhere that bans guns by people who know nothing about guns than live somewhere where they aren't banned but still regulated by people who still know nothing.
Not interested in American opinion regrading this one
Kind of shitty to assume that all Americans have the same opinion, no?
Everyone from a country has a the same opinion. That newborn baby in Russia agrees with Putin on everything. There aren't +8 billion humans with their own pov, there are about 190 of us.
Experience has taught me that unfortunately, while you don't all have the same opinion, most do reject the simple premise of the original comment, for various reasons, whether they're "left" or right.
Just so you've had the experience of meeting one, I am an American who is for banning guns.
I salute you.
Well, there can of course be different opinions, but in reality every type of pro-gun argument is debunked (from my point of view) in r/gunsarecool. There's a megathread or sidebar that counter-argues every single opinion with proper citation, and also counter-argues every single counter-counter-argument. And then every counter-counter-counter-counter argument is also debunked there.
And to me thus the US pro-gun arguments look like just an exhibition of arguments I've seen and already countered better than I can.
Oh how magnanimous of you. Thank you for allowing more than one opinion to exist in a nation of 329,000,000 people. You sir are a king among men.
That didn't address what I said at all, so I'll just repeat it:
Kind of shitty to assume that all Americans have the same opinion, no?
I find it frustrating when people make a statement, and then say they aren't interested in hearing a specific group's opinion. It's rude af.
Just because you have an opinion doesnt make it valid.
🪞
True, but simply stating that doesn't change my opinion
I doubt he was trying to change your opinion.
I, from the UK, once had a 'conversation' about gun control with an American on Reddit. What brought this about was the day before a 9 year old girl was killed by a stray bullet from a drive-by. One moment she was in her bedroom doing some homework, and the next she was dead.
After a lot of back and forth with him getting more flummoxed and aggressive he then said something like "If she was outside playing like a normal kid then she wouldn't have been killed."
Yep, he blamed her.That was the time I realised it was a waste of everything talking about it.
people who argue that their right to guns is more important than a persons right to life is inherently moronic, and shouldn't be listened to.
One thing I've learned is that, if you write a comment with reasonable
balance of views and still get attacks, the posters are people without proper trainings on critical debates.In case of the gun ban, it's even worse because most people never lived in the rest of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Are guns legal in: El Salvador, Venezuela, Eswatini, Jamaica, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, and Columbia?
All of those nations have higher firearm death rates than the US.
If guns are illegal in any of the nations with higher firearm death rates than the US, then can you acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue? Maybe culture has something to do with it?
you just named countries well known for organized crime and corrupt government officials.
I don't think it is the same
then can you acknowledge that banning guns is not the only issue? Maybe culture has something to do with it?
Can you acknowledge that some issues require addressing multiple factors? Or can your brain not handle that level of complex thought?
I literally said "banning guns is not the only issue."
Learn to read before you start insulting someone else's intelligence.
The "issue" is not banning guns.
The issue is people dying en masse repeatedly from guns.
Get that straight. Banning guns is a partial solution that helps to address the issue in literally every single western country.
Get what straight? Your views even though many other people in this comment chain say banning guns is the solution?
Banning guns is a partial solution that helps to address the issue in literally every single western country.
Really? Another person said it's gun control, not banning.
the fuck are you trying to say here???
Banning guns is the only issue. Full stop.
Why are you swearing at me and using multiple question marks?
ok tone police
You'll understand when you're older.
You'll understand when you haveore than two brain cells. Every one of your posts reeks of "I'm an edge lord who lives in my parents basement and have no idea how to interact with people or how the world works". I suggest you fix that before trying to impose any of your views on others.
What a snowflake.
Rules:
- Be civil
be civil to my nuts bitch
Ok.
Did you not read the part where they said that dumb Americans can shut up and keep their idiocacy to themselves?
Like honestly, this is the DUMBEST fucking argument I've ever heard.
Multiple factors contribute to the both the rate and severity of violent crime, congratulations Einstein! Now answer me this, when multiple factors contribute to something happening, and you want to stop that something from happening, do you a) sit around and do nothing and say it's impossible to address in any way shape or form cause the solution requires addressing multiple factors, or do you b) try and address all the factors contributing to it, starting with the easiest and most obvious ones?
Like Jesus Christ, think with your fucking brain, not the lead dust poisoning it.
Calm down and people might take you seriously.
Say something that's not a brain dead NRA argument if you want people to not insult your intelligence.
Tell us again how when multiple factors contribute to a problem that means you can't address any of them.
That was your argument right?
Tell us again how when multiple factors contribute to a problem that means you can’t address any of them.
That was your argument right?
Where did I ever suggest that? You can quote me so there's no ambiguity.
Or just admit you're making up bullshit that's easier to argue against because you can't address what I'm actually saying.
Oh I'm sorry, your arguing that El Salvador and the US have comparable levels of law enforcement and border control?
Oh I'm so sorry I mistook your dumbass argument that has no merit for a different dumbass argument that has no merit.
making up bullshit that’s easier to argue against because you can’t address what I’m actually saying.
Lol, there you go doing it again.
your arguing that El Salvador and the US have comparable levels of law enforcement and border control?
I'm arguing the exact opposite of that. You should really brush up on your reading comprehension. Try to address what's being said instead of playing leapfrog with yourself like someone who is chronically reddit-brained.
Your argument is that gun control is not the answer to reducing gun crime, because, El Salvador bans guns and has a high rate of gun crime.
It's a dumbass argument and we're all waiting for you to explain how it's not.
Guns are legal in all those countries besides Venezuela. Cos guns are legal in most of the world. It's just they are generally controlled. And Venezuela is on the verge on collapse anyway. I don't think this is the slam dunk argument you think it is.
Guns are legal in all those countries besides Venezuela. Cos guns are legal in most of the world.
Then why doesn't most of the world have a firearm homicide rate comparable to that of the US?
Literally suggested a reason for that with my very next sentence.
So you don't think guns should be banned?
You're not arguing in good faith here. I've answered you're initial, idiotic, comment. I've answered your second, idiotic, comment that was highly selective in what it quoted of me as if it was trying to "gotcha" me. And now this horseshit? I've already alluded to how most of the rest of the world does it, I suggest you go read up on it rather than trying to push your agenda on me.
After a lot of back and forth with him getting more flummoxed and aggressive
You think guns should be banned, tried to argue that it's just 'gun control' that's the issue, then when pressed on it you retreat and resort to petty insults.
I accept your unconditional surrender.
I have not once stated my position on the issue. Wouldn't call what I said a petty insult either, more a statement of fact about your idiotic comments, but if you're thin skinned/wrong I can see how they could be interpreted that way. Stop trying to gotcha me, you're not very good at it, and it's just making you look dumber. The arrogance in your final comment says a hell of a lot about your character too, and like the rest of your comments here, it's not saying much good.
"That was the time I realised it was a waste of everything talking about it."
getting more flummoxed and aggressive
This seems to apply to ya'll.
You are not from a country, you are giving advice to that country, and you say you have no interest in what people from that country have to say.
I must admit in terms of ability to persuade people to your side this is a rather bold strategy. "Hi I have no stake in the outcome, strong feelings about the outcome, and I don't care what you the person who lives with the outcome thinks. Also you should do what I say".
I genuinely know you are correct. To be honest with you, I don't like what I wrote.
What's still interesting to me, this horrible human, is that I also gave up convincing Americans on guns and yet still can't stop posting. The endless debates on the internet about a topic that we outsiders tend to think has a simple single solution made me write that comment. I couldn't stop myself. Apologies.
He's not wrong. If we want to get rid of the idiocy. If we're willing to live with it, and based on our actions, we apparently are, then we don't need to ban guns.
I didn't comment if they were right or wrong. I commented on how they spoke. You can be right or wrong, persuasive or not.
I find it is easier to convince people of what I believe when I first don't insult them.
From a pro-gun stance, most of the discussions are useless anyway.
Americans are so backwards when it comes to valuing human life. There's no point in engaging them on anything at all, so it's best to block/ban people like Chitak the thundertard.
b b but my sport makes me feel good!
and mountain climbing will only injure me
i want an exciting sport that will hurt others
not the only way
Or the mother could.have practiced proper gun safety.
The kid could have done this woth a knife that was left in her purse
No she couldn't, bad faith horse shit.
You think she couldn't have stabbed her teacher ?
Stabbings happen every day in the United states. They are one of the easiest weapons to get a hold of.
oh my god you kids comparing guns to knives are the dumbest fucks.
when the resource wars bring you in you're not allowed a gun, since a knife is just the same level
Have you even read the story? No, given the same circumstances I don't believe a six year old with a knife would have been able to stab his teacher through her hand and into her chest. If you honestly believe otherwise I can only conclude you have no idea:
a) what a gun is. b) what a knife is. c) what a six year old is.
Considering I own multiple guns and multiple knifes I can tell you that a knife can easily go through a hand and into a chest and a six year old would be more than powerful enough to do so.
Perhaps you only have experience woth butter knifes and steak knives. But I have seen a high quality cooking knives take off fingers like it was a butter knife going through warm butter.
So it's six year olds you're not familiar with. Right you are chief, you keep on believing. Makes you wonder why militaries go to all the expense of having guns when knives are exactly the same don't it.
I may not be as familiar as you are it seems. However I have multiple young children in my family amd some friends have children ranging from a few months old to teenagers. I certainly know how strong a five year old can be.
You should know that knives and bayonets have been used effectively in militaries the world over for over a century
But you know that and just do t want to admit it.
You're vastly overestimating how strong a six year old is, the effective range of a six year old with a knife and underestimating how much faster and stronger an able bodied grown adult is in comparison and how relatively easy it is to defend yourself from a six year old you're literally facing down when they're limited by their own strength.
The bayonet is a weapon of last resort, the US army haven't trained with them in more than a decade and last fought a bayonet battle 70 years ago, there's not a professional army on the planet who's primary weapon is an edged blade. More bad faith horse shit.
6 year olds are first graders and typically have very close interactions with teachers. It doesn't take much for a 6 year old to stab through a person's hand and into a person's chest. Also my point is more thay the child could have taken a knife from thier parent as easily as a gun and then went on to stab the teacher. In both instances the result could end in death.
Knives are responsible for a lot of deaths and there have been mass stabbings in the news recently
To quote you
The kid could have done this woth a knife that was left in her purse
Which is absolutely disingenuous. The teacher was facing the child reaching out for the gun when the child shot. Next time you're around a child in that age range have a game of slapsies, even with your fingertips touching and you having to hold still until the child tries to slap your hand they'll struggle to get you.
Both knife and gun could absolutely result in a death by a six year old given the right circumstances but they're not equivalent, not even close.