You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
If she legally owned the firearm, instilled values of 'it's not a toy' and such: I wouldn't hold this view. . . this is purely based on her as a person, a mother, and how she's incapable.
A screaming comes across the sky.
It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Since much of this thread is speculation, let me throw out another speculative position.
First, what we do know from the article is:
He didn't show the gun or tell anyone about it. That rules out show and tell.
He didn't brag about having the gun. That rules out bragging rights.
He did not shoot, or threaten to shoot, anyone. That rules out any revenge or desire to hurt anyone at the school.
In fact, apparently no one knew that the gun was in his back pack until it went off. (Why it went off unassisted in a back pack is another matter for conjecture)
Therefore, it is just possible that the kid was expecting trouble on the way home or at home. With the track record of the mother and father, it seems to me like this is entirely possible.
No parent with a history of drug and other abuses, or with a history of violence, failure to pay child support, and various other violations, to a degree that removes the child into alternative custody, should have visitation rights without supervision, if at all.
Last edited by American; 02-27-12 at 12:45 PM.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
You guys realize that with rights, comes responsibilities, right?
Originally Posted by Jerry
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.