The teacher shot by a 6-year-old still worries, a year later, about the other students in the room
apnews.com
A year after she was shot by her 6-year-old student in a Virginia classroom, former teacher Abby Zwerner said she still worries about the other children who saw it happen, and wonders how they’re faring.
Wounded by a bullet that struck her hand and chest and punctured a lung, Zwerner rushed the other first-graders into the hallway before she collapsed in the elementary school’s office.
“I hope that they are enjoying school, enjoying their second-grade year,” Zwerner, 26, told The Virginian-Pilot newspaper. “I hope that they’re still kind to their classmates, kind to teachers. I hope that they still have happiness, and that their happiness wasn’t completely stripped away.”
You are viewing a single comment
LiberalGunNut™ here! Not too many ideas out there for laws that actually make a difference and will stand up to 2A challenges, but I got one.
Drop the fucking hammer on anyone who allows a non-authorized person access to their weapon(s). No idea how this actually looks as a law, but I'm sure you get my drift.
I've heard arguments pro and con regarding safe storage. For example; I'm not one to legislatively tax poor people for exercising a right. But lockboxes are plenty cheap enough. If you want to step up from a cheap lock-box, $80 and an hour of work, and you got a Harbor Freight wall safe installed. (They're great BTW!)
And such a law doesn't need to specify containment! "Anyone gets hold of your gun, concrete and steel box for you." Bet people would pay fucking attention!
🥱
Reducing the disparity in wealth has a direct impact on the amount of people who want to lash out at society by killing indiscriminately.
Give people reasons to live so they don't make up reasons to kill.
Unfortunately, liberals and conservatives love to unite on greed because they're both in on it.
My dude I don’t think the six year old that shot her was economically anxious
My point still stands.
🥱 Does it?
The parents were though
Is this true?
What data are you using to back this claim? Most school shooters seem to come from middle class to rather affluent families. How do you guys manage to pivot every thing to class warfare?
I was walking down the street and I stubbed my toe: "Ow how can the proletariat suffer the injustice of tripping over uneven sidewalks while the rich continue to exploit us!"
This is like a meme level comment at this point.
Edit: to everyone downvoting: Prove me wrong. Give me the data. Show me that income or class had a considerable impact on these active school shooters.
The closer we get to the root of the problem, the more people we'll find that contribute to it and the fewer we'll find that are willing to acknowledge it.
I'm sorry you're too innocent or delusional to believe that money doesn't impact nearly every aspect of our lives.
You willfully neglected the whole point of my comment. Show us the data that school shooters are influenced by income or class warfare? Not even Marx would stoop as low as you guys do to frame every. Single. Issue. Through. One. Single. Lens.
I'm not here to argue with you, lol.
Clearly!
Because you don't have an argument. All you have is "class warfare". You don't have concrete paths to solutions. Just virtue signaling. That's it. That's all you got.
Okay. Believe whatever you want.
Give me something more than "the class warfare of the burgeosie is indicative of the increased prevalence of school shootings". Im always open to changing my beliefs
There've been a bunch of initiatives the past couple years (since Biden took office) to provide free gun locks and lock boxes. There's really no excuse not to have one.
I have not heard of this at all.
Yep. A bunch of police departments give out cable locks if you just ask. I bought one for $4 because I don't want to go to the police department for any reason and I use it to lock my helmet to my motorcycle.
It's not a perfect solution but it's cheap and helpful.
I'd like to know more!
Punishment for irresponsible gun storage wouldn't make a dent. All it would achieve is putting more people in jail, not actually preventing mass shootings.
Ban semi auto guns. Bolt / lever / pump / hammer (etc) action weapons only. That is plenty for hunting and defense scenarios.
Realistically, it'd have to be a long, multi phase roll out of voluntary surrenders, followed by crime enhancements, followed by open warrants.
You seem to have dropped this.
And who do you imagine is voluntarily surrendering? Not sure what you propose here.
Doesn't that contradict your second sentence?
As far as bans go, some people obey the law, some do not. There's also this.
All of your questions are addressed my first, succinct, comment. There's no point in arguing with you if you're going to ignore the points, I know where this goes.
Edit - ok, you had one point that wasn't addressed. 2A. You have the right to bear arms. Multi action guns are arms. Just like we don't have a right to full automatic guns, we don't have a constitutional right to semi automatic guns.
Plenty of people on the left would voluntarily surrender their guns.
under no pretext
My man
The 2^nd^ Amendment exists for the purpose of ensuring "the security of a free State." Bolt / lever / pump / hammer (etc) action weapons don't cut it for that purpose in the 21^st^ century.
Instead, we should take a page from Switzerland: issue everybody a military-standard assault rifle and force them to train with it, but don't let anybody keep any ammo.
The 2nd amendment states that a well regulated malitia is necessary for the security of a free state. It does not state that armed citizens are necessary.
Before you bring up DC vs Heller, please first address how using originalism to rewrite the constitution is reasonable by an appellate court.
Ever look up the definition of "militia?" It's literally every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. I mean, sure, it needs a little updating to get rid of the sexism and ageism, but it really is pretty much "everybody!"
Please stop leaving out the important parts. Clarifying components of a law are very important. Your link clearly states that there are 2 classes of the militia and the 2nd class is unorganized and therefore not part of the "well regulated militia". The unorganized militia is everyone not in the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Additionally, by your interpretation, anyone over the age of 45 would not be a part of the militia and would therefore not have a right to bear arms. Including Heller who would therefore have lacked standing. Would you agree? If you do not, please explain.
That just means it needs to be better regulated, which is exactly what I proposed to do.
What part of "sure, it needs a little updating to get rid of the sexism and ageism" did you not understand?
I was editing my prior comment while you were writing this. Please see the updated version.
I think you've misunderstood the link you provided. Part of the militia is explicitly not regulated because the civilian population is not part of the National Guard.
No, I understood just fine (condescend much?). You, however, misunderstood what I wrote, which is proposing to CHANGE THAT by imposing weapons training requirements on everybody, National Guard or not.
How far can the American 2nd amendment allow? Where, between a sling shot and a nuclear warhead, is the line in the sand?
Ummm, no.
That may or may not work while not reducing rights. Hmm... I'd give it a go.
"But I need my gun at the ready at all times! Plus there is one time I saw the lockpicking lawyer pick a gun lock and I'm certain all thieves have seen it."
I've seen that shit argued soooo many times. Unless it is 100% failsafe, there are still a stupid amount of people that will think it's useless. It reminds me of people who do not wear seat belts because they heard about one person who was saved because they were thrown from a car. They will use that 0.01% of times to curse their own irresponsible behavior.