• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Father says son who took gun to school 'made a bad mistake'

Why should he be given the benefit of the doubt? He brought the gun to school. That's not a normal thing to do. If he were at home and it accidentally when off when he was playing with it, sure, but not when he made a decision to take it out of his home and bring it around other people.

In the end, we know nothing about his intentions. He either intended to harm people or he didn't. I'd rather get all the information before drawing conclusions. That always seems to be the smart thing to do.

no, it's not normal, but he wasn't brought up normally. we don't know his intentions, but he didn't get the put, point it and pull the trigger. for all we know he wanted to show it off to his buddies. you're right, we should try to ascertain his intentions, but in the meantime, putting him away probably won't help.
 
Yes he does belong there period. This is not a normal little boy we're talking about ruining. This is a pscho.

what proof do you have of that? seriously?
 
Yes he does belong there period. This is not a normal little boy we're talking about ruining. This is a pscho.

Your posts have done nothing but display a clearly hyperbolic conclusion regarding the boy's mental state based on....supposition and idiotic assumptions...and really nothing else. So incredibly thankful you have absolutely no control over what happens to this boy. Your policy would ruin this child for life on the basis of unfounded fear and illegitimate conclusions.
 
The proof is he brought a loaded gun to school. Is that not proof enough?

No it isn't. Action means far less than intent.

If a boy shoots his sister intentionally because she stole his Cheerios we have a problem.
If a boy shoots an intruder intentionally because he's threatening the family we have a hero.

Intent matters. And since you know nothing of intent you cannot make sure a rash, stupid judgment.
 
Do you have an actual point here or was this just a hypothetical attempt at eliciting an emotional response?

It was a valid point.

Depending on this boy's history, he may not belong in detention at all. Nine-year-old boys do stupid things. I do wonder how in the world a gun would go off in a backpack, but that's why things like that are called accidents.

His life should not be ruined because of a mistake if there is no prior history of bad behavior. I agree with the poster who said, "Let the boy go home to dad, and put the mom in jail."

If, however, he does have a history of bad behavior -- out of the norm stuff -- then I think detention and counseling is the exact right thing.
 
yes, I made my point.

It was a valid point.

Depending on this boy's history, he may not belong in detention at all. Nine-year-old boys do stupid things. I do wonder how in the world a gun would go off in a backpack, but that's why things like that are called accidents.

His life should not be ruined because of a mistake if there is no prior history of bad behavior. I agree with the poster who said, "Let the boy go home to dad, and put the mom in jail."

If, however, he does have a history of bad behavior -- out of the norm stuff -- then I think detention and counseling is the exact right thing.

It would only be a valid point if the scenario that Thunder gave bore any real resemblance to what actually happened. As it stands, he’s just trying to make anyone without a trigger lock look like an accident waiting to happen.

Maggie, my contention here is not whether or not the boy deserves jail, it’s that people seem to think that passing additional laws will somehow make criminals more law abiding. As far as the gun going off in a backpack, it does depend on the actual type of gun, but generally speaking you don’t throw a gun into a bag with a bunch of other stuff without ensuring that the trigger is covered. Even if the gun has a safety that can be engaged, a loose gun is begging something to get inside the trigger guard and safeties can be knocked off. This is the reason that it’s generally not a good idea for a woman to carry in a purse either.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't. Action means far less than intent.

If a boy shoots his sister intentionally because she stole his Cheerios we have a problem.
If a boy shoots an intruder intentionally because he's threatening the family we have a hero.

Intent matters. And since you know nothing of intent you cannot make sure a rash, stupid judgment.

Intentions with the gun are irrelevant. He brought a gun to school. That is not normal behavior. He belongs in a psych ward til the age of 18.
 
Intentions with the gun are irrelevant. He brought a gun to school. That is not normal behavior. He belongs in a psych ward til the age of 18.

And, again, it is very good you aren't involved in the decision making in this case. Your posts are nothing but rash, uninformed judgments.
 
Both of you are putting words in my mouth, and demonstrably have little to no knowledge of firearms. At no point did I suggest that loaded firearms be left unsecured… I merely pointed out that a convicted felon is not likely to be too concerned with following the law. Please do your best to keep your hoplophobic biases in check.

Btw, there are loaded weapons without safties around my two small children 24 hours a day and neither have managed to pick one up, much less take it anywhere. Are you horrified now? Am I an irresponsible parent or what?
It's not the gun, it's the parent. I grew up in an armed household and the guns were semi-secured but I was taught from an early age that guns are not toys, you don't handle it unless you need to use it or clean it, you don't point at anything you don't want to shoot, they should always be treated as loaded, they are a great responsibility and you can't unkill something.
 
Intentions with the gun are irrelevant. He brought a gun to school. That is not normal behavior. He belongs in a psych ward til the age of 18.

You do realize that it wasn't long ago that children would bring guns to school in order to learn how to use them, right?
 
It's not the gun, it's the parent. I grew up in an armed household and the guns were semi-secured but I was taught from an early age that guns are not toys, you don't handle it unless you need to use it or clean it, you don't point at anything you don't want to shoot, they should always be treated as loaded, they are a great responsibility and you can't unkill something.

Thank you! For some reason, it's impossible for some people to wrap their head around this. More laws won't make guns safe. Responsible, law-abiding gun owners make guns safe. The gun owner at the crux of this incident was neither responsible nor law-abiding.
 
what we do know is that the gun went off while in his backpack, right? seems to me that a nine year old should be given the benefit of the doubt here.
I think the kid gets the benefit of the doubt. However he will need counseling IMO for a myriad of reasons most of all he could be at risk for PTSD, no rational or sane human being wants to kill anyone or harm them grievously and as well with counseling he can have a rundown on why this happened and what can be done to come to terms with it and learn a VERY important lesson. The mother belongs in the slammer for child neglect, and felon in possession.
 
Why should he be given the benefit of the doubt? He brought the gun to school. That's not a normal thing to do. If he were at home and it accidentally when off when he was playing with it, sure, but not when he made a decision to take it out of his home and bring it around other people.

In the end, we know nothing about his intentions. He either intended to harm people or he didn't. I'd rather get all the information before drawing conclusions. That always seems to be the smart thing to do.
There are tons of stories about kids bringing guns to school, sometimes at younger ages than this child. In fact when my older cousins went to HS they attended with a bunch of people who kept shotguns in their trucks to go hunting after class. They don't allow it at that school anymore but that used to be a common sight.
 
Yes - obviously the mothe rdoesn't have a single braincell left in her head after all that meth she's done.

I'd be surprised if it was a legal firearm at all.
Not legal by any means. She had prior drug related convictions thus couldn't own a gun due to felony statutes passed in the nineties.
 
It was a valid point.

Depending on this boy's history, he may not belong in detention at all. Nine-year-old boys do stupid things. I do wonder how in the world a gun would go off in a backpack, but that's why things like that are called accidents.
First rule of carry, secure the weapon. Depending on what model firearm the .45 was it could have had a more slack trigger where a light bump could fire it. Some models have less than adequate safeties, etc. There are a million factors that could have contributed to a loosely carried gun neglegently discharging.

His life should not be ruined because of a mistake if there is no prior history of bad behavior. I agree with the poster who said, "Let the boy go home to dad, and put the mom in jail."
I don't think the entire book should be thrown at the kid, but it wouldn't be terrible for him to experience mild legal consequence for this. Sometimes mistakes are the best teachers. Though I don't want that innocent little girl to lose her life over that, hopefully she pulls through.
If, however, he does have a history of bad behavior -- out of the norm stuff -- then I think detention and counseling is the exact right thing.
Same response.
 
right, keep your guns in the house around the kids, without a trigger lock.

that's pure genius.


I raised a child. I never used trigger locks. Guns were locked in my gun cabinet unless they were on my person or under my direct control, until my son was old enough to be trusted around unsecured firearms.

We're talking about a crackhead mom here.... trigger lock laws aren't going to faze her, she was already ignoring a law that she wasn't to have any guns already.
 
View attachment 67122928

View attachment 67122927

Local News | Father says son who took gun to school 'made a bad mistake' | Seattle Times Newspaper

I'm the first one here to suggest that there be tighter controls on firearms. This whole thing is sickening. And obviously the Mother will get sued at the very least in a civil suit. But I am at a total loss to understand how prosecuting this 9 year old boy, AND keeping him from his custodial parent is a good idea in the wake of this tragic accident.

Putting a 9 year old boy in jail accomplishes what here?

At least he's being prosecuted as a juvenile. His actions did lead to the severe injury of another, and for that there are legal repercussions. He likely didn't mean to do so, was being a dumb kid as kids oft do. The punishment shouldn't be too heavy handed because this was an accident; but there needs to be punishment in general. Locking him up, probably not so much.

The mother I don't think should be legally liable for the actions of the kid; but she should be financially liable (i.e. civil court).
 
I'm the first one here to suggest that there be tighter controls on firearms.

Hitler and Stalin got tough on guns after they got in power. You're in good company. Surely the prohibition of alcohol worked. In fact it really made the mob a lot of money. Is the war on drugs working?
 
The mother I don't think should be legally liable for the actions of the kid; but she should be financially liable (i.e. civil court).

You gotta ****tin me? She leaves a loaded gun where a child can get to it and she shouldn't be held liable?

WTF?
 

godwins-law-9796.jpg
 
You gotta ****tin me? She leaves a loaded gun where a child can get to it and she shouldn't be held liable?

WTF?

IE: "I didn't read the article and have no clue what's really going on"
 
Back
Top Bottom