(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Nine-year-old Kansas boy suspended from school for offering to trade a .38 caliber handgun for an Xbox.

Sounds almost reasonable, right?

Then you read that article, and realise that the gun wasn't taken from the school, brought to the school, was never intended to go to school, and, in fact, had nothing to do with the school at all. There were never any threats made about the school or any teachers or students.

"Because the school district has a zero-tolerance policy against weapons and because the gun could have been taken to school, the boy who offered the trade has been suspended." - Emphasis mine.

So... now you're suspending students for *having access to* firearms?

Nine years old is way too young to be trusted with a gun. That's not the bloody point. This has nothing to do with the school.

Comments

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Well, when I was in school, getting caught shoplifting, after school, was enough to be suspended.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

It's all about getting children used to living in a totalitarian society, so that they don't question or buck the system when they get older.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

But he's already bucking the system. He's breaking into his grandfather's home and stealing weapons and ammunition.

(I mean, it's not like not doing this requires you to live in a totalitarian society, but what the hey...)

[torrain.livejournal.com]

ObQuibble: Given that the gun was in his backpack the night before, and given that he was expecting to make the trade with his classmate, I think the "was never intended to go to school" may be overstating it.

This actually pisses me off considerably less than a lot of the school-related stuff you post. I would want to get a little more information and then sit down and think about it for a bit before coming to a conclusion, but I can see this falling within the reasonable bounds of what I understand in loco parentis to be (roughly, attempting to ensure the safety and acceptable behaviour of all your students).

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Read the article. The trade was not intended to happen at school, merely with a classmate. The gun was never supposed to go to school - a backpack is just a place his grandfather is unlikely to look, and a convenient concealed carrying case.

Nowhere in that article does it suggest that there was a school day between him and the trade, and both he and the other student say it wasn't going to happen at school.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

*tips hat* Gotcha. From my understanding of the article, Sharon's grandson thought the trade was still on[1], and since the school officials were called first and I missed the line about the trade taking place at Sharon's house, assuming it would take place at school seemed reasonable, especially in light of him moving the gun to his backpack[2] instead of keeping it in the garage where it had been for ten days and where his grandfather still hadn't found it.
---
[1] I am somehow assuming that even if the classmate expected the trade to still happen after he told his mother about it, he was disabused of the notion in short order.
[2] I can, perhaps, understand the concept of a nine-year-old not taking his backpack to school. But it is strange to me, and certainly not my initial interpretation. As you say, it's a carrying case, and if he's not going to have the gun leave the house, why carry it anywhere?