>

There's nothing to indicate that the child is still in the mother's custody.
The solution that no one wants to hear is a massive increase in the number of teachers and admins working at each school, as well as a large increase in the number of schools themselves, all of which will cost an enormous amount of money that taxpayers will need to foot the bill for. 
You can't maintain effective control of any situation where you're outnumbered 30-1, and as a result of those numbers being so badly skewed at every level (in the classroom, in the hallways, etc), violent behavior is allowed to fester. On top of that, you have to do so much goddamn paperwork to discipline any student at all due to how litigious our society is, so at a very pragmatic level taking any kind of action can be a massive drain on an already strapped resource (the teacher's time/energy). 
Cramming more workers into a situation isn't a guaranteed fix, but at a really basic level, you can't solve a 50-person problem with 5 people. >

The issue is capitalism.  It doesn't incentivize social needs that don't have enough return.  Education is investment, it doesn't turn a profit, it provides a return.  And it takes over 12 years to start seeing any of it.
​
And in our capitalist system, the return is too long and too little to compete with other investments.  So private capital seeking return doesn't seek to educate, it seeks a quick return speculating or maybe innovation if it can get Uncle Sam to throw it enough bones to make it a sure thing.
​
If we all seek to take more from a system than we provide, the system dies.  Another name for capitalism is parasitism. >

Til, American property taxes are capitalism.
Fund your schools! >

So according to this article, apparently there is little to no discipline for unacceptable/violent behavior.  Darn consequences from seemingly well-intentioned policies. >

Yeah but instead of addressing the issue which is that schools are punished for reporting accurate statistics, it seems to imply that zero tolerance policies were a good thing. They weren't and acting like they helped anything other than perception is simply false. This was a 6-year-old. They're clearly was other issues at play here. >

Zero tolerance is too strict, but there definitely should be more discipline than there is now in many districts. >

I absolutely agree as long as the disciplinary actions are actually effective. Often, we shoulder this responsibility on the school when it really isn't. We have a severe lack of mental health care funding in this country and ultimately that is the bigger problem. Also, if you break it down further all of these problems stem from poverty. >

Half of Americans will tell you the solution is more guns. If the teacher had a gun she could have shot back. Not sure how that helps but OK. >

It's not. We already have a lot on our plate. the last thing we need or want is another bullshit responsibility is to maintain a heavy weight of something like a weapon. if something were to happen and the teacher had a weapon, our focus is still the kids and making sure they are safe... NOT getting something to shoot back. then you'll get people criticizing the choice. it's neither safe or ethical. >

But have you thought about internalizing John Wayne fantasies? Maybe watch Yellowstone for that weekly dose of "righteous gun justice"? Maybe you just need to go to a gun range after listening to FOX News tell you who the new "enemy" is, and picture "them" on the cutout while you blast a weeks wages worth of ammunition downrange?
Have you tried being a scared conservative instead of just judging them?
^^^/s ^^^because ^^^it's ^^^necessary >

xD I can guarantee that's what people think... but it times of actual crisis, we don't give a shit about ourselves and need to do everything to keep the kids safe. it's actually quite sad people think this is viable~ as if we can just become some COD hero in the span of a couple, valuable seconds. >

Well, I think it can be chocked up to a complete lack of empathy. These people get their rocks off picturing themselves being a "Walking Tall" hero with their firearms, and its completely foreign to them that you and I wouldn't share their fantasies. So we have to be liars, in their view. >

Obviously the only thing that can stop a first-grader with a gun is another first-grader with a gun. >

" legally purchased the gun but that it was unclear how her son gained access to it. A Virginia law prohibits leaving a loaded gun where it is accessible to a child under 14,"
I'm not going to imply she kept it locked up as required. However this is an opportunity to spread some awareness regarding lockboxes.
Most pistol and bedside lock boxes are hammered dog shit. Even the State certified and approved ones. I've watched the lockpickinglawyer open them with a fork, a spoon, piece of plastic or even lego bricks. Sometimes he gets them picked open faster than using the correct unlocking procedure.           
Ditto for most cabinet style "Firearm Lock boxes" and many "Safes". They are often not capable of keeping a determined teenager out of them, let alone adults.      
It would behoove anyone who has purchased something along those lines, to seek out information on how the lockbox or safe they rely on has been defeated, and potentially re-evaluate their situation. Your firearms may not be nearly as locked up as you may think. >

The child was six, your argument is a straw man. >

Did you miss where they said;
 I'm not saying the gun was locked up in this case...... and that this is a good opportunity to spread awareness and safty information!!?? >

No because he’s bloviating about things that he is opining about. Thus the straw man. >

Did you really whip out your mastery of a thesaurus and use those nice vocab words just to say it was to long for you to read!!?? Also it's not an opinion, most cheap safes and gun case locks can be picked easily...... which is true! >

It’s as if your own attempts at loquacious answers, changed me entirely, my eyes are now blind to you, and my ears which once heard are now deaf! >

Are you doing okay man!? >


Newport News police said the 6-year-old’s mother legally purchased the gun but that it was unclear how her son gained access to it. A Virginia law prohibits leaving a loaded gun where it is accessible to a child under 14, a misdemeanor crime punishable with a maximum one-year prison sentence and $2,500 fine. No charges have been brought against the mother so far. [emphasis added]

Why no charges against the mother? Is the child still in her custody? If so, why/how? If the gun used in the shooting is the mother's, evidence would suggest she's in clear violation of the law. Harsh as it may seem, mother and child should be in separate custodial care for a period not less than several months, and the mother should be obliged to demonstrate to a family court judge's satisfaction that she can prove a SAFE home environment for the child INCLUDING no access to firearms. That means CPS should be able to inspect the home WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING whenever they deem appropriate for at least 2 years. Yes, that'll make the mother's life Hell, but she seems to owe that at least to the teacher.