OT: 8th Grader steals teacher's gun from coat pocket

Well it happened. An 8th grader stole a teacher's gun from his coat pocket and took it home. So much for letting teachers carry concealed weapons. The teacher did not have the weapon "secured".

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20 ... s-gun-home

And note. This school is an alternative school for troubled kids so something like that could be expected. Teacher was in violation of the law but current law says schools are gun-free zones. Cannot have a gun on school property.

So we should give guns to all 8th graders so that they won't steal from their teachers.

Problem solved.

Arm them all, the good kids could shoot the bad ones that steal. I hope more are good than bad, or if not may they be better armed. Jim

VikingGnome wrote:So much for letting teachers carry concealed weapons.

Well, OK. Obviously, one teacher in Mississippi violating the law obviously invalidates the entire concept.

Can we shut down all the Catholic churches and schools because one priest sexually abused young boys?

My guess would be that some 8th graders steal and some don't. At least, that's the way it used to work when I was in the 8th grade.

I remember when one student stole the teacher's compass in my 8th grade drafting class and stabbed him 3 times before the teacher could steal it back.

Stuff happens. Maybe it's not meant for this world to be perfect? So don't go blaming people for having to go through the 8th grade.

VikingGnome wrote:Well it happened. An 8th grader stole a teacher's gun from his coat pocket and took it home. So much for letting teachers carry concealed weapons. The teacher did not have the weapon "secured".

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20 ... s-gun-home

And note. This school is an alternative school for troubled kids so something like that could be expected. Teacher was in violation of the law but current law says schools are gun-free zones. Cannot have a gun on school property.

Obviously this teacher was NOT trained to CC in a school was he? He also broke the law didn't he? So EXACTLY what is your point?

IF schools allowed CC those teachers would be trained and this training would teach them how to store their weapons so that the kids can't not get their hands on them.

Another knee jerk reaction.

Conrad wrote:

VikingGnome wrote:Well it happened. An 8th grader stole a teacher's gun from his coat pocket and took it home. So much for letting teachers carry concealed weapons. The teacher did not have the weapon "secured".

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20 ... s-gun-home

And note. This school is an alternative school for troubled kids so something like that could be expected. Teacher was in violation of the law but current law says schools are gun-free zones. Cannot have a gun on school property.

Obviously this teacher was NOT trained to CC in a school was he? He also broke the law didn't he? So EXACTLY what is your point?

IF schools allowed CC those teachers would be trained and this training would teach them how to store their weapons so that the kids can't not get their hands on them.

Another knee jerk reaction.

The knee jerk reaction is to assume that the world will conform to one's preconceptions. That is equally true for those who assume that all those guns in schools would automatically create a blood bath (which I hasten to add VikingGnome did not say or imply) and for those who assume that everyone who carries will be trained and competent so accidents will never happen. Somebody who knows the subject needs to try to model the outcome of concealed carry in schools quantitatively and make some kind of evidence-based prediction which set of effects will predominate. I assume concealed carry in school will deter some crazies and reduce the amount of damage others cause, but how many deaths will be prevented? These events are actually quite rare: one or two a year in a nation of 330 million. How many nuts will just move on to playgrounds or shopping malls? On the other hand, if you add guns daily to literally hundreds of thousands of classrooms, there will be accidents. We all know good drivers with good records who one day daydream through a stoplight. Expert woodworkers who go years without error and then cut a thumb off. Humans are fallible so accidents happen. It is unreasonable to think that the effects will all go one way or the other, but there ought to be a predictive technique for estimating whether the occasional small tragedies likely to result from this course of action are likely to outweigh the benefits. Insurers and risk managers who understand accident rates should turn their attention to this and give us some information we can use to formulate policy so we don't just rely on wishful thinking or ideological prejudices.

PST wrote:

Conrad wrote:

VikingGnome wrote:Well it happened. An 8th grader stole a teacher's gun from his coat pocket and took it home. So much for letting teachers carry concealed weapons. The teacher did not have the weapon "secured".

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20 ... s-gun-home

And note. This school is an alternative school for troubled kids so something like that could be expected. Teacher was in violation of the law but current law says schools are gun-free zones. Cannot have a gun on school property.

Obviously this teacher was NOT trained to CC in a school was he? He also broke the law didn't he? So EXACTLY what is your point?

IF schools allowed CC those teachers would be trained and this training would teach them how to store their weapons so that the kids can't not get their hands on them.

Another knee jerk reaction.

The knee jerk reaction is to assume that the world will conform to one's preconceptions. That is equally true for those who assume that all those guns in schools would automatically create a blood bath (which I hasten to add VikingGnome did not say or imply) and for those who assume that everyone who carries will be trained and competent so accidents will never happen. Somebody who knows the subject needs to try to model the outcome of concealed carry in schools quantitatively and make some kind of evidence-based prediction which set of effects will predominate. I assume concealed carry in school will deter some crazies and reduce the amount of damage others cause, but how many deaths will be prevented? These events are actually quite rare: one or two a year in a nation of 330 million. How many nuts will just move on to playgrounds or shopping malls? On the other hand, if you add guns daily to literally hundreds of thousands of classrooms, there will be accidents. We all know good drivers with good records who one day daydream through a stoplight. Expert woodworkers who go years without error and then cut a thumb off. Humans are fallible so accidents happen. It is unreasonable to think that the effects will all go one way or the other, but there ought to be a predictive technique for estimating whether the occasional small tragedies likely to result from this course of action are likely to outweigh the benefits. Insurers and risk managers who understand accident rates should turn their attention to this and give us some information we can use to formulate policy so we don't just rely on wishful thinking or ideological prejudices.

While I agree with your approach in principle ... models are only as accurate as the input data. I just don't think there is enough data yet to evaluate the effectiveness of having concealed carry policies in schools. So until they try it for a while and collect some data, any model the insurers and risk managers come up with will be biased at best and totally foolish at worst. Of course allowing the data to manifest is what is being challenged by wishful thinking and/or ideological prejudices by the OP.

I've cut the older quotes for brevity.

DreamStalker wrote:While I agree with your approach in principle ... models are only as accurate as the input data. I just don't think there is enough data yet to evaluate the effectiveness of having concealed carry policies in schools. So until they try it for a while and collect some data, any model the insurers and risk managers come up with will be biased at best and totally foolish at worst. Of course allowing the data to manifest is what is being challenged by wishful thinking and/or ideological prejudices by the OP.

First, I don't agree that the OP engaged in wishful thinking, etc. That post only made the point that something we all know could happen now has happened. I didn't see any added conclusions like "so the whole idea is a failure."

Second, we can at least use the full measure of school massacre deaths as an upper bound of how many can be saved, and use what we know about accident rates to estimate the harm. What are we planning: one gun per classroom, two per school, one per thousand students? What is the accident rate per gun? I have no idea. Is it .001 per gun per year? Whatever it is, empirically, someone could do some estimating before we try arming a nation of teachers as an experiment to see what the data tells us. It is possible to model plans in a way that you know is rough but could produce results so convincing that they avoid the need for expensive and potentially dangerous testing with the lives of real children.

"The substitute, who reportedly has a concealed carry permit, brought the weapon into the building last Thursday after arriving by motorcycle at the school"

"Teacher" brings gun to school, kid gets a hold of it. Instant headline! Yay for gun control. Libbies eating it up

I like the strategy. It is to maintain control and keep the govt safe. Your safety is not a top priority, light jail sentences and parole....Security theater. Well played!

VikingGnome wrote:Well it happened. An 8th grader stole a teacher's gun from his coat pocket ....

Why was the gun IN HIS COAT POCKET (he wasn't even wearing the coat, I gather)????

PST wrote:I've cut the older quotes for brevity.

DreamStalker wrote:While I agree with your approach in principle ... models are only as accurate as the input data. I just don't think there is enough data yet to evaluate the effectiveness of having concealed carry policies in schools. So until they try it for a while and collect some data, any model the insurers and risk managers come up with will be biased at best and totally foolish at worst. Of course allowing the data to manifest is what is being challenged by wishful thinking and/or ideological prejudices by the OP.

First, I don't agree that the OP engaged in wishful thinking, etc. That post only made the point that something we all know could happen now has happened. I didn't see any added conclusions like "so the whole idea is a failure."

Second, we can at least use the full measure of school massacre deaths as an upper bound of how many can be saved, and use what we know about accident rates to estimate the harm. What are we planning: one gun per classroom, two per school, one per thousand students? What is the accident rate per gun? I have no idea. Is it .001 per gun per year? Whatever it is, empirically, someone could do some estimating before we try arming a nation of teachers as an experiment to see what the data tells us. It is possible to model plans in a way that you know is rough but could produce results so convincing that they avoid the need for expensive and potentially dangerous testing with the lives of real children.

Well I do have the advantage of having experienced the OP's previous views/position on this topic ... viewtopic.php?p=787597#p787597

It would still be biased without real data. Insureres could not establish that seat belts had greater benefit than harm until they had real data. Even empiracal methods require real data. As for accidental gun related deaths, I think it is very low in single digit percent with suicide being by far the largest group of gun related deaths (like more than 3/4s). Also, the entire nation need not be armed for gathering useful empirical data --- that is just ... wishful thinking.

I guess we could look outside the USA and assume cultural and economic variables to be the same (which they are not). How many children die in school gun deaths in Switzerland and Yemen? (the two next highest per capita gun ownership countries). My guess is probaly not many if any. I think the mass shootings we have seen covered by mass media lately are due to mental health issues (prescription psychotropic drugs in particular) ... not the level of gun restrictions or ownership.

If the teacher carried the gun legally and secured it so that no one else had access (and he was properly trained, had a high "boiling point", etc.), where's the harm?

Maybe the kid was being bullied at school, or abused at home.
We never get the whole story. Most journalists ought to be lined up and whipped.
--along with their employers.

chunkyfrog wrote:Maybe the kid was being bullied at school, or abused at home.
We never get the whole story. Most journalists ought to be lined up and whipped.
--along with their employers.

Journalists?

That profession faded away back in the 1980's.

The kid was more likely looking for money in the teacher's pocket (a joke in and of itself ), not a gun.