You must log in or register to comment.

itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu3p75i wrote

> Although the child is too young to be charged with a crime, the gun's owner or parents could face charges for allowing the gun out of their possession.

At some point we have to figure out how to break the generational trauma and give these poor goddamn kids a chance at life.


Chippopotanuse t1_iu3sruq wrote

I’m sorry - “Could?!??” The parents “could” get charged with a crime?

There is only ONE way a 7-year old takes a gun to school. And that’s if the parents are way beyond grossly negligent in the storing of their firearms.

The parents NEED to be charged with a crime that bans them from ever owning or possessing firearms again.


dance_rattle_shake t1_iu478gx wrote

No, there's two ways. They could have handed it to him.


Phrag t1_iu50tsf wrote

So we're not even going to consider that he may a highly developed super-fan of Lock-picking Lawyer with a plot to frame his parents just before Halloween so he can keep all the candy they bought for other kids and go trick-or-treating...?


gimpwiz t1_iu6joh6 wrote

Truthfully, kids are kind of fucking stupid yet often much smarter than we give them credit for. At age 7 I had overheard and memorized my parents' password and knew how to get into their safe ...

Realistically, it's negligence at best like 99 times out of 100, but sometimes the kid figures out stuff nobody reasonably expects them to.

One reason I'm very hesitant to own any firearms is because I assume my kid is gonna be way too fucking clever (in dumb ways.) My wife asked if I wanted to get something for self defense and I was like, the security required to truly make it proof against an obnoxiously motivated child also would take me ages to get through. Not a problem for a toy to take to the range, a problem for self defense where seconds count.


JoshSidekick t1_iu54vaw wrote

They’re responsible gun owners. It’s not their fault the kid isn’t. /s


meltyourtv t1_iu6kgyt wrote

How do we know he didn’t acquire the gun from a friend? How do we know there isn’t an arms trafficking ring at this elementary school?


psychicsword t1_iu4a5no wrote

> There is only ONE way a 7-year old takes a gun to school. And that’s if the parents are way beyond grossly negligent in the storing of their firearms.

The kid could have broken into the gun safe. Some of them are very poor security devices despite being marketed to stop exactly this kind of thing from happening.

When I was that age I routinely broke into my dad's workshop that he had locked up to keep me away from his power tools. I had enough time that I would try every combination over a few weeks until I got the code to work.


AboyNamedBort t1_iu4gt94 wrote

If a little kid can access your gun you were not responsible enough and should be banned from owning a firearm.


ADarwinAward t1_iu54ctg wrote

> should be banned from owning a firearm

Of course. But that’s also assuming whoever owned the gun did so legally and wasn’t already banned from owning a gun. The original article linked by this article doesn’t give any info on who the owner was or whether it was legally owned. The cops are still investigating who and where the gun came from.


[deleted] t1_iu4im9z wrote



psharpep t1_iu4jsna wrote

> It is absolutely possible that the parents took reasonable steps to safeguard their gun from their kid and that the kid defeated all of those efforts to gain access secretly anyway.

Disagree. The fact that a 7 year old was able to break in is an existence proof that whatever gun safe they had was criminally indadequate. A 7 year old isn't using an angle grinder or thermite - this is basic, basic safety.

If the parents want to own a gun, fine - but when they chose to do so, they implicitly accepted criminal responsibility for securing that gun and any consequences for failing to do so. If they don't want that liability, or they're unable to manage that liability (as is clearly the case), they shouldn't own a gun - period.


[deleted] t1_iu4l9f9 wrote



devAcc123 t1_iu4n4iq wrote

Lmao it’s a 7 year old child

If you can’t figure out how to prevent a literal 7 year old from accessing a gun you are in no way shape or form responsible enough to own a firearm with a child in the house


psharpep t1_iu4nbd5 wrote

That's exactly my point. Most gun locks by themselves are woefully unsafe and inadequate, and, if you're a gun owner, the buck stops with you to keep it safe.

I grew up around guns, with my family owning over a dozen. Not once was a loaded gun ever kept in the house. Not once was ammunition stored together with the gun. Both were kept in steel safes with both a pick-resistant key AND a six-digit combo when at home, and often they were kept offsite (i.e., away from kids - me) in a small 24/7 storage locker.

It's really not that hard or expensive to do gun ownership right - these parents have no excuse.


walthamresident927 t1_iu4n6q0 wrote

You realize how stupid saying “maybe the child broke into the thing made by adults to keep other adults out” is, right? He didn’t break into a gun safe. He picked up a gun lying around


jojenns t1_iu4l3fo wrote

The kid is 7. If you cant outsmart your 7 year old to keep a gun secure then you just shouldn’t have a gun.


CommodoreQuinli t1_iu53xuq wrote

I can’t outsmart the squirrels trying to get to the bird feeder but they probaly conjure up ways to get in 24/7 while I only try to stop them once I’m a blue moon.


DooDooBrownz t1_iu4j5ck wrote

ok let's say he did. if you got a kid you better be storing your shit unloaded with a trigger lock so an easy to guess code is not a fucking excuse


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu4vu33 wrote

What is the point of an unloaded, trigger-locked home-defense firearm? I have a small pistol safe in my bedroom so that I can keep it loaded and ready to rock.


JoshSidekick t1_iu55cws wrote

I hope we don’t read about it later, then.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu55qoz wrote

What is the point of a safe if you are going to leave it unloaded and and put a trigger lock on it. What good will that be if you ever actually need it in an emergency?


DooDooBrownz t1_iuhxlsg wrote

same as a loaded one under your pillow. what are you fucking rambo to whip out a pistol and start blasting any time you hear a noise?


Smith-WessonPat t1_iuhzzyc wrote

What the hell do you think people get gun safes for? To keep them secure but accessible. A trigger lock on a gun that is in a safe is just stupid.


HeartFullONeutrality t1_iu5d0n8 wrote

The point is that no one gets killed accidentally.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu5dh3u wrote

That is just silly. That is what the safe is for. An unloaded gun, in a safe, with a trigger lock on it is not going to be available for you to use in an emergency.


HeartFullONeutrality t1_iu5ec8i wrote

Is the USA such a shithole country that people routinely engage in shootouts with armed intruders in their own homes? Must be terrifying to live there.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu5f24p wrote

Absolutely not, but it does happen from time to time even in the safest areas. People who are unfortunate enough to live in really unsafe areas have a much higher likelihood of needing a firearm to protect themselves at some point. Keeping a firearm in a safe, with a trigger lock, and unloaded makes it completely useless. Why would you even bother having a firearm that can't save your life if you needed it to? So dumb...


HeartFullONeutrality t1_iu5itv5 wrote

Well the question is... Can they truly save your life, or is it just placebo? Multiple countries (richer, poorer, safer, more violent) seem to do just fine without them...


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu5mlve wrote

Guns aren't going anywhere in the US so it is prudent to know how to actually use them. That train has already left the station; bad people will always be able to get guns so I want to have mine as well. I am very proficient with firearms as it is a hobby of mine and I spend a lot of time shooting. A hobby that has a side benefit of being able to protect my family if that unlikely event ever occurs.


frenetix t1_iu5kscf wrote

I'm generally pro-2A, and I don't care if you want to sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow with your arms around a warm AR-15 if that's what you're into, that's your right. But the right to be in control of a device that is intended to kill others ("save your life", as you say, since when you shoot someone you don't have any control if they live or die), implies that you should also have the responsibility to not let that firearm into the hands of someone who could use it to harm themselves or others. Like a 7 year old. Or a thief. And that having that responsibility means you should face consequences for letting that happen. So if you don't want to lock your shit up, it's on you if it goes missing and causes harm.

I enjoy shooting, but I don't own my own guns because I don't want to bear that responsibility. If you do, that's great, but you should pay the consequences if you fuck up.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu5n49t wrote

Did you read a single thing I said? My two bedroom pistols are in a safe that my 7 and 9 year old kids can't get into. Since they are in the safe, why would I put a trigger lock on them? The safe is going to slow me down enough as it is in an emergency but it is a necessary thing. Having to then remove a trigger lock and load the gun after opening the safe makes absolutely zero sense.


frenetix t1_iu5p9ei wrote

You do you, my man. All I'm saying is that in exchange for being prepared for an emergency in this way, you should bear the responsibility if things get out of your control.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu5ptpr wrote

What is getting out of my control with having my guns in a safe in my bedroom? This is insanity.


psharpep t1_iu4knuo wrote

> When I was that age I routinely broke into my dad's workshop that he had locked up to keep me away from his power tools. I had enough time that I would try every combination over a few weeks until I got the code to work.

Which is one reason why a combination lock (especially the three-number ones that are common on gun safes) are woefully inadequate for gun safety. Part of the responsibility is on marketing and inadequate regulation around gun locks, but most of the blame is on the consumers of said locks (the parents), who should either a) know better or b) not own a gun.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu4vmbm wrote

Three-digit combinations are common on gun safes? Both of mine are 6 digit codes.


septagon t1_iu4ngom wrote

This is ridiculous to the extreme. A proper gun safe is almost adult proof. What's being described here is precisely "beyond grossly negligent in the storing of their firearms".


psychicsword t1_iu4s6ze wrote

Lockpickinglawyer opened one of them up with a twig.

You can argue that this isn't a "proper gun safe" but the law doesn't require that people spend $1000 on a secured to the building vault with 3" steel walls and an attack vetted locking mechanism.

Many of the marketed as "secure" gun safes on amazon and in sporting goods stores are not going to keep an adult out and some are barely able to keep anyone out but are often viewed and marketed capable of doing that.


septagon t1_iu4u6te wrote

Proper being defined as something that would keep your 7 year old out, not what the Chinese listing on Amazon says. Any responsible parent and gun owner would agree. The problem is they're not either of those and in the end if that child gets hurt because of it it's fully their fault.


scolfin t1_iu56x61 wrote

It's adult-proof if you're opening it properly, but not as secure as promised if you're getting creative in how to get it open. There's a Burn Notice quip about how a lot of very secure doors are in walls that you can punch through, but my reference is that I find it difficult to open a pill bottle my dog bit the cap off of this morning (why she likes chewing those caps I have no idea).


[deleted] t1_iu4p4rc wrote



psychicsword t1_iu4rprx wrote

What you believe should happen doesn't change what is currently allowed to happen under the law.

Unfortunately it is very much possible that the parents took steps that were circumvented which would be a valid defense against the type of crime you are referring to. As such it would be a waste of everyone's time to drag that out into court if that is what the evidence showed happened.

If they did in fact have no gun safe or locking mechanism then yes they should be charged but under the laws right now someone using a lock they though was adequate is not likely to be charged and if they were they wouldn't be convicted.


jojenns t1_iu4gunw wrote

Yes that could be it. Kid broke into the family gun safe


Ok_Entertainment2301 t1_iuc73nu wrote

Idk man.

When I way 9 in NH new kid moved in next door. He worked out the safe to his dads gun safe and showed me it. Pretty freaking coo! 😎

Kid ended up being a dick and threw my shoes in the pond during a bike ride. I was pissed! Took a wiz in his cologne. He said he was going to come shoot me. Never did... the moved a few weeks later. 🤷

Kids are smarter than your realize.


Chippopotanuse t1_iucw7a2 wrote

Ummm…read what you just wrote.

Sounds like “for a short while, I also lived next to assholes who didn’t properly secure their guns. The kid was a terror, threw my shoes in the pond, and at age 9 he was already threatening to shoot me with a gun he’d be able to sneak out of his dad’s shitty gun safe. Thank god we moved away from that shitshow.”

Seems like confirmation of what I’m talking about. Shitty parents, who need guns for whatever reason, who use a safe that’s so easy to get into that a 9-year old can do it, raising a kid who predictably thinks it’s an acceptable flex to threaten gun violence.


50calPeephole t1_iu4bn9y wrote

It's Dorchester, the kid could have found it on the way to the bus stop.

Not likely, but possible. Police investigate these things to make sure before they throw the book at someone they're throwing the book at the right person.


Maxidaz t1_iu4i0hm wrote

i am sorry there are not guns just laying around on the streets of dorchester


50calPeephole t1_iu4jfmk wrote

The statistical chance of recovering a dropped gun used in a crime in dorchester is not 0. Incidents do happen, hopefully these things are recovered responsibly by PD, but that is not always the case.

The sidewalk of dorchester isn't your neighborhood FFL, but let's not pretend nobody has ever found a gun in a bush there.


inconspicuousmallard t1_iu4q6gz wrote

Happened to me and my friends when I was in like 5th grade

One of my friends picked it up, luckily some old dude saw and took it from us


RogueInteger t1_iu4yd7h wrote

Been living in Dorchester for 5 years and have yet to find random guns on the side of the road.

But sure it could happen. Does it happen? It can/could, but I wouldn't be so general in saying it does happen in Dorchester. I don't think I know anyone that has found a glock just sitting on the side of the road.


Livid_Bank_7341 t1_iu5cd6o wrote

well that’s because glocks are in very high demand, it’s more likely you’d find a Hi-Point sitting on the side of the road


RogueInteger t1_iu5d2b2 wrote

There's actually a decent amount of nerf darts.

Some of these kids are wild.


zaahc t1_iu4d5c5 wrote

Police don't throw the book at anyone, their teammates the prosecutors do. And police don't "make sure" the book is being thrown at the right person, they make sure the book recipient is someone that will be a likely win for the prosecutor. Often those are the same people, but there are plenty of times when it's not.


[deleted] t1_iu4jt6j wrote



50calPeephole t1_iu4lrwj wrote

Sure I have, and it's been getting better, but let's not pretend it's some bastion of paradise- generally speaking when it still ranks between a C and F on most contemporary neighborhood safety lists.

It's middle of the road when compared to other places in Boston, and it certainly isn't Fall River, but then again it's no Wayland either.


RogueInteger t1_iu4yzfa wrote

Dorchester has roughly the same size population of Cambridge, and is as large as the next three neighborhoods of Boston combined.

The idea of broad brush strokes on such a large and diverse neighborhood is laughably out of touch.


50calPeephole t1_iu52auc wrote

And yet just about every neighborhood reviewing system does it. Maybe the fantasy that Dorchester is a great place and not just an ok place is laughably out of touch.

The latest data indicates Dorchester's overall crime rate is 16.3 per 1k and its 2017 homicide rate was up and 12.8 per 100k.


RogueInteger t1_iu5bq49 wrote

> And yet just about every neighborhood reviewing system does it.

Right, so the context is uneven because unlike things are being merged into like things. It's formulaically analyzing unlike places for comparison.

You can literally look at crime maps and discern this with little ambiguity. Same for murders.

You could draw a line down dot ave and have a vastly different result. The difference is that without understanding the size of the neighborhood, and the neighborhoods within it, the broad brush strokes aren't representative of the size and population of Dorchester nor does it represent each of the neighborhoods it's comprised of.


50calPeephole t1_iu5dgtj wrote

I get what your saying, but for reporting dorchester is dorchester and the towns reputation is based on the reports generated within. This isn't a "It's that neighborhood's problem", the schools intermixed, the police and fireintermixed, quite simply, it's dorchester.


RogueInteger t1_iu5eg0o wrote

There are problems unique to neighborhoods and streets within Dorchester. And to make geographically narrowly defined issues applicable to the broader space isn't sensible if you have any understanding of Dorchester at all.

You're bringing up weird data points that actually don't support your argument. Kids in Dorchester can register for schools in multiple neighborhoods outside of Dorchester, police precincts cover different areas of Dorchester (meaning you can't go into THE Dorchester PD HQ, you go into a precinct), and firestations are unique to even smaller precincts than the police. There's like 3 within a half mile of me.


abhikavi t1_iu5cbqa wrote

> It's Dorchester, the kid could have found it on the way to the bus stop.

Statistically, way less likely than finding it laying around their own house.

I do think it's more plausible than the Lock Picking Lawyer safe-breaking wunderkind ideas being discussed above though.

I mean, I'm sure most responsible people toss their guns in the Charles after they're done with them for exactly this reason, so a kid doesn't pick one up on their way to school, but you can't count on everyone to be responsible.


RelatableBojackMemes t1_iu5pklo wrote

Says someone who has never lived there...


50calPeephole t1_iu5tnd1 wrote

Says someone who has no idea where the fuck I've lived and worked.

I specifically stated "not likely" but in the country I grew up in people were innocent until the facts proved their guilt. When this was published there were no facts on where the gun came from, and other potential explanations, even as indicated "not likely" are still possibilities.

I've literally linked a story of someone discarding a firearm running from the police in dorchester which was luckily recovered. I know its unpopular, but Dorchester isn't a paradise, it is meh to ok at best and had its own crime problems in certain neighborhoods, but guess what, those certain neighborhoods are still Dorchester.

These are all facts. I know it sucks when it's your own back yard but figures don't lie, Dorchester needs to do better. Don't pretend like I'm saying that you can walk to any street corner and pick up a glock like it's afganistan or something, nobody has ever said that, so calm down.


RelatableBojackMemes t1_iui3e4o wrote


>I specifically stated "not likely" but in the country I grew up in people were innocent until the facts proved their guilt.

My statement isn't saying it was the parents fault by any means. I did not say they were guilty of anything; I only stated that you're not from here. It is literally possible to find a gun anywhere where guns are sold and distributed legally and illegally and where gangs operate.

>I've literally linked a story of someone discarding a firearm running from the police in dorchester which was luckily recovered.

You could find a similar story in every city in America.

>These are all facts. I know it sucks when it's your own back yard but figures don't lie, Dorchester needs to do better.

Dorchester needs to do better? It's part of Boston. BOSTON needs to be better to itself and they could do it if they wanted to. The reason they don't is because City Hall doesn't understand the generational and familial violence that happens in these neighborhoods. They don't understand how gangs work, they don't understand how children are manipulated, all they do is over fund police and under fund violence prevention.

Like I said you're not from here. You don't know the issues just because you can Google a statistic. I dunno man. You just sound angry for no good reason.


tacknosaddle t1_iu4cqqk wrote

>Police investigate these things to make sure before they throw the book at someone they're throwing the book at the right person.

Will this investigation take longer than the average time for a torch to burn out?

Asking for a friend.


jcowurm t1_iu5qyz3 wrote

Foolish to think that gun was owned legally. Or the "Parents" could even legally own a firearm.


oby100 t1_iu4soc5 wrote

In Massachusetts that will probably happen.

We have really weird gun laws where your local police have unilateral rights to reject your license to carry without reason needed. My understanding is that any incident involving any iffy use of your firearm will almost certainly to taking away your license to carry


Chippopotanuse t1_iu4ul3w wrote

No…this isn’t true.

And even though gun folks hate Maura Healey…they can thank her for repealing that:

> Police chiefs in Massachusetts can no longer reject applicants for licenses to carry firearms simply because the person lacks a good reason to carry a gun, according to guidance state Attorney General Maura Healey issued in response to a recent United States Supreme Court ruling.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu4wj35 wrote

Thank Maura Healey? Uhhh, no. Thank SCOTUS. Healey had no choice and never would have done this if not forced.


Chippopotanuse t1_iu4z7yd wrote

Awww. Too bad you hate an attorney general who follows the law, “Smith-Wesson” Pat.

Even though the current SCOTUS is politically compromised, she STILL follows the law and requires local law enforcement to do the same.

So please go back to living in fear of your fellow Massachusetts residents (with all your guns you need for safety), and you are also free to blow up pumpkins with an AR at the range.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu53o7p wrote

I don't live in that state anymore. 35 years was enough.


Chippopotanuse t1_iu5471g wrote

Thank you so much for moving away. We are so grateful for your decision to make our state better and safer.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu54kdo wrote

hahaha, MA is safer because I'm gone? You're an ass.


Chippopotanuse t1_iu57mk4 wrote

Yup. Any place is safer when one-dimensional, negative assholes like you leave.

All you do is shit on folks and discuss guns constantly.

Get a grip and get a life.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu5879q wrote

This is my "talking guns" username. I'm just right across the border though!


Chippopotanuse t1_iu58lx3 wrote

Too afraid to have all your gun insanity associated with your alternate user names?

Pathetic. Stand by your words or STFU.

Have fun in your new state.


Smith-WessonPat t1_iu58zcv wrote

No, its just because fragile idiots (I won't mention any names) love to report pro-gun talk. You sound like a really delicate person.


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu3yltq wrote

>The parents NEED to be charged with a crime that bans them from ever owning or possessing firearms again.

The problem is this sort of presumes the gun that started this whole thing was bought legally in the first place.

If the gun was illegally acquired then banning them from legally acquiring a gun isn’t really punishment is it?


Either people seem to be misunderstanding my comment, or I didn’t articulate myself correctly (more likely).

The parents should face jail time, fines, etc.

Actual consequences.

My point is if they already are shown to possess illegal firearms, then banning them from legally possessing firearms doesnt seem like much punishment in and of itself.

Important, sure, but not severe.

Someone who has shown a history of driving with a suspended license isn’t really punished by further suspending their licenses.

The parents deserve something more severe.

It should include banning from legally owning firearms, but that ban should be addition to the punishment, not the sole consequence.


Chippopotanuse t1_iu3z3y9 wrote

If the gun was bought illegally, that’s another crime the parents should be charged with. But we don’t know how they acquired it.

I’m fine holding folks accountable for breaking the law when it comes to firearms. Whether it’s negligent ownership or illegal purchases.


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu42kac wrote

Totally agreed.

I agreed with your original premise, just wanted to clarify that banning future firearms as a punishment is only a punishment if they originally followed the law.

Understood that if the gun was acquired illegally that’s a new crime in and of itself.


Chippopotanuse t1_iu44kkg wrote

Banning firearm possession creates an entirely new category of criminal jeopardy if they are found in possession.

Felon in possession is a serious crime. And when prosecuted, almost always ends in a jail sentence. Almost always a man. Almost always a US citizen. With an average sentence of 5 years.

Here are some stats for anyone who cares:

  • 97.7% of felon in possession of a firearm offenders were men.

  • 94.5% were United States citizens.

  • 97.6% of felon in possession of a firearm offenders were sentenced to prison; sentences varied widely by whether a mandatory minimum penalty applied in the case.

  • The average sentence for all felon in possession of a firearm offenders was 64 months.



NoMoLerking t1_iu46i8l wrote

If the gun was bought illegally the parents can just play dumb. Gun? What gun?


DocPsychosis t1_iu47bcm wrote

It turns out that defendants can still be prosecuted even if they don't confess!


NoMoLerking t1_iu48ggj wrote

That requires a lot of detailed and difficult police work though.


tacknosaddle t1_iu4dsdt wrote

You think you're making a wise point, but you are not.

If the gun is owned by one of the parents or another adult in the home and it is legally owned there are a host of charges related to securing a gun and ammunition that they can be charged with.

If the gun is owned by one of the parents or another adult in the home and they are not permitted to legally own the gun then there are additional charges that they will face.

Your comment tries to pretend that the punishment will be non-existent if it is illegally owned because they will just go out and illegally acquire another gun, but the reality is that they are in more trouble because of it.

So, nice try but a swing and a miss and the downvotes demonstrate that most people see right through your silly trick.


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu4foaw wrote

>Your comment tries to pretend that the punishment will be non-existent if it is illegally owned because they will just go out and illegally acquire another gun, but the reality is that they are in more trouble because of it.

I never said punishment would be non existent.


The premise was that if they already acquired an illegal firearm, then a felony on their record that prevents them from legally obtaining a firearm isn’t a huge deterrent or obstacle from obtaining one since they’ve already proven the ability to.

I didn’t say that the illegal possession carried no other consequences (fines, jail time, probation) just that legal ownership of weapons in the future is a slap on the wrist in the scheme of things.

If you habitually drove with a suspended license, a further suspension of your license isn’t a huge punishment in and of itself.


tacknosaddle t1_iu4lkyd wrote

If you want to have this discussion maybe you should actually look at the laws for illegal gun possession and the penalties for subsequent offenses. You come off as foolish implying that there are no consequences or that it's a "slap on the wrist" when the minimum sentence jumps from 18 months to five years of incarceration?

You're the only one who is talking about this strawman who gets busted for illegal possession of a gun and is punished by being denied the ability to get a gun permit. Try bringing the conversation to a more realistic set of events.


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu4pu4i wrote

> it's a "slap on the wrist" when the minimum sentence jumps from 18 months to five years of incarceration?

The banning of future ownership of firearm is the slap on the wrist, not the jail sentence.

They’ve proven they can get guns illegally so what use is telling them they can’t do it legally?

I never said the jail time was a slap on the wrist.

You’re soo primed to argue you’re missing the idea and jumping to refute points I never made.


tacknosaddle t1_iu4ra0w wrote

>You’re soo primed to argue you’re missing the idea and jumping to refute points I never made.

The reason you're being downvoted is because you're ignoring the real world punishments for ones that don't exist. My bringing those consequences up is not to "refute points" you made but to steer the subject to that real world.

So it's not me missing the idea or jumping to refute imaginary points, it's that you started with a ridiculous premise and were deservedly called out for it.


scamp41 t1_iu4as7n wrote

Yes what's the point of laws if criminals don't follow them? Great point.


tacknosaddle t1_iu4e3no wrote

Yeah, California could save themselves a lot of money by avoiding criminal trials if they just got rid of murder laws since OJ got away with it anyway.



charons-voyage t1_iu3utr1 wrote

The parents dgaf unfortunately. Feel so bad for the kids. PSA: don’t have kids unless you want them.


BasicDesignAdvice t1_iu4l49f wrote

> PSA: don’t have kids unless you want them.

How do you know they didn't want them?

Lots of parents want a kid but aren't up to taking care of them. Very different than not wanting them. This includes economically secure parents.

Not to mention the other myriad variables that go into it.

Increasing access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunity will simultaneously improve outcomes for all children and cause people to have fewer children.


Whyisthissobroken t1_iu45ok4 wrote

#1 - pro choice, reinforcement of birth control in grade school and high school.

#2 - jobs jobs jobs. High paying ones. Take those who are not working and get them jobs.

#3 - Jobs can equal health care. But yes, better low cost healthcare.

#4 - day care to help those who have kids. And not just any daycare, hands-on, moral/ethical lesson plan day care. These kids are not getting it at home.

Then wait 20 years.


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu47779 wrote

Jobs require training and education, and education requires being raised to value (or see the value in) learning.

If you don’t prioritize or outright resent education, you cannot find meaningful work.


Whyisthissobroken t1_iu49hfa wrote

It's lots of dials that all need adjustments. You are 100% correct.

I dated a woman years ago who worked in the Boston City schools. She was a kindergarten teacher. She said if a student cannot take off their coat, hang it up and come back to her - she said they could not pass Kindergarten. She said most kids could not do that. They couldn't follow 3 steps of instruction.


tacknosaddle t1_iu4epqn wrote

Related to #4 but universal pre-K starting at 3 years old with free before and after school care that involves available tutoring.

There can be a huge discrepancy in learning for kids entering at 5 years old between those from a poor family and a middle-class one. Minimizing or erasing that difference is a huge step in improving the odds of the poor kids moving up the economic ladder. Kids who are well behind in 2nd grade have little chance of catching up and are less likely to graduate high school.

On the other side that can free up parents/caregivers to work more which can help the kids right now as well as padding their future.


AboyNamedBort t1_iu4gzbd wrote

Boston has free pre k.


tacknosaddle t1_iu4kbt5 wrote

Yes, but "free" and "universal" are two different things. There are not seats for every kid at 3 & 4 years old (by state law there must be one for all 5 year olds). It's luck of the draw whether your kid gets one or not. In fact, most seats for 3 year olds go to kids with identified learning disabilities and if you don't have an older sibling already in a school to get preference the odds get kind of long to get in. They've been expanding access, but it needs to be universal.

Washington, DC had much worse schools than Boston not too long ago but they are ahead of us on universal pre-K and it's demonstrating that the results are worth the investment.


BasicDesignAdvice t1_iu4l8ud wrote

> High paying ones

Or pay more at the jobs that already exist.

> But yes, better low cost healthcare

By moving toward a single-payer system like medicare for all.

> day care to help those who have kids

Not even remotely enough supply. Universal pre-K would be a massive boon to society, but nah. Those kids should suffer instead while we blame their underemployed and under-educated caregivers who themselves cannot access economic opportunity, or are flat-out denied it.


UltravioletClearance t1_iu46y0a wrote

Best Boston politicans can do is let the tech bros move into their neighborhood because there's no new housing for them, drive up rent prices, and send everyone else packing.


Born_Ad_4826 t1_iu4b2s1 wrote

Uh..."let"? That's just what's happening, my dude.

And ahh yes, the old, "let's solve the problem of extreme wealth inequality by getting rid of those pesky broke people" in one neighborhood.


_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_iu4u2sw wrote

> Take those who are not working and get them jobs.

Like military service? We also need more police.


Whyisthissobroken t1_iu52565 wrote

Anything that pays more than 25 an hour.


_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_iu551jv wrote

Those jobs don't come instantly. Do you honestly think that I worked my way up the McDonalds chain without starting as a fry cook?

The military has always been a way into higher paying jobs.


skipjack10 t1_iu40fi7 wrote

Can you please elaborate on what “break the generational trauma” means?


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu41s3a wrote

Imagine growing up in a house with unsecured (possibly illegal) firearms as normal. Think about how you’d be raised. What would your goals and priorities, hell, your reality be?

This kid is doomed to fail, and not because anything innate in him, but his environment.

And he’s going to raise his kids the same way.

It’s a negative feedback loop.

If you don’t somehow break the loop and get to this kid, he’s going to be a product of the system, and produce more of the same.


Wtf_is_this1234 t1_iu40zwf wrote

It's the idea that since the child's parents were also born into poverty, that it's not the parents' fault that they behave irresponsibly, and that by punishing the parents, you increase the likelihood that this child will grow up to be irresponsible as well, and the cycle will continue to repeat itself.

Basically, it means that they should get a free pass since they already suffered enough. The problem with this of course is that it creates two classes of people in society-those who can follow common sense laws and those who get a free pass to do whatever they want because they are apparently incapable of determining right from wrong.


tschris t1_iu4hqb5 wrote

This is not correct at all. Generational trauma means that the parents experienced a horrible event or events as a child and grew up into fucked up adults who then expose their children to traumatic events and the cycle continues.


_Hack_The_Planet_ t1_iu4twqh wrote

> give these poor goddamn kids a chance at life.

By letting them bring guns to school?


Wtf_is_this1234 t1_iu3y7mg wrote

So basically what you're implying is that no one should be held accountable for this?


itsonlyastrongbuzz t1_iu42c2g wrote

Breaking generational trauma would mean providing this kid with proper role models, and undoing the influence of his dead-beat parents.

IE: giving him goals and a future beyond his neighborhood.

You cannot undo, fix, or forgive the parents. Not once did I ever even hint at absolving the parents negligence, you inserted that.

But for Christ’s Sake we’re talking about a seven year old child here who probably doesn’t understand they did anything wrong.

I’m not ready to write off a second grader as a lost cause.


Wtf_is_this1234 t1_iu4322c wrote

I don't think anyone suggests charging the 7 year old, but the parents should be held accountable somehow.


[deleted] t1_iu41jmt wrote



Khatanghe t1_iu4aklp wrote

And this comment is the 2022 way of saying “I support systemic poverty” without saying just that.

Seriously - if someone points out ways in which poverty negatively influences peoples’ lives and your only response is to deflect blame onto the people making these observations you’re just attempting to derail the conversation to avoid talking about the issue.


Born_Ad_4826 t1_iu4bkoo wrote

Nice work on the teacher's part but goddamn can you imagine that moment when you first see it in the kid's backpack or whatever? Heart stopping.


MojitoSipper t1_iu4r3c9 wrote

When I was that age I would bring stuff to school to show to my friend because I thought it was cool. Kid probably brought it to school not knowing how deadly a gun could be and the drama it brings in this current environment. Blame should be on the parents for not being responsible gun owners and locking it up properly.

I doubt the kid was going to do something malicious with it.


User-NetOfInter t1_iu4vm8a wrote

“Look at what I found under my parents bed!!!”

Wouldn’t be surprised if this was what he was going to tell his friends verbatim


escapefromelba t1_iu575z6 wrote

Just happened this week in my son's junior high - kid brought in a pellet gun to sell to another kid - they tried to do the exchange in the cafeteria at lunch. Both suspended.

Moral of the story is kids are dumb.


-OmarLittle- t1_iu5qvan wrote

I was little older than 6. My friends and I would regularly bring our realistic-looking, battery-powered AK-47 water guns into the woods and set off fireworks pretending we were shooting. One random day, the cops were called on us and officers confiscated our water guns but didn't find our fireworks in our backpacks. Our parents weren't called either.

I'm grateful that happened bc it could've ended a lot, lot worst. Thank goodness they don't sell real-looking water guns like that anymore. Stupid kids!


gimpwiz t1_iu6m8fm wrote

I bought a bullet keychain from the USS Intrepid museum gift shop and brought it to school - even at the time I knew it might get me into serious trouble but I still showed it off. Children aren't terribly smart.

(Yes it's harmless but when has that stopped schools?)


adaquestionade t1_iu5q9j7 wrote

You literally can't pay us enough to deal with shit like this and yet outside of the upvotes on this sub most people seem to think we don't deserve it.


dvdquikrewinder t1_iu5xgop wrote

Everyone wants to support the teachers until it comes to actually compensating fairly


Born_Ad_4826 t1_iu4c83p wrote

Just wanted to add that this is in no way acceptable but does happen... Not just in urban communities, but all kinds of places where families have guns. It doesn't necessarily reflect on the school

I know folks are going to 💩 on BPS and BPS families, etc. But just wanted to provide some context. Here's two stories from NH from the last 10 years.


MrDelicious84 t1_iu4wvgy wrote

I’m not shitting on BPS, but the area IS flooded with unregistered firearms. If you take a scroll down BPD’s Facebook page or talk to someone working in District 13, you’ll find that they’re confiscating street guns from teenagers on a daily basis.


Born_Ad_4826 t1_iu70lqm wrote

Yeah, I mean when there's stuff in the community it unfortunately often shows up at schools... So they have to deal with how it impacts the littles (or teens). Just glad no one got hurt


cheerocc t1_iu47x5b wrote

One of the reasons why we left the Lawrence school system. My daughter was in the 5th grade at the time and there was some "love triangle" going on with a boy and 2 girls in my daughter's class. One little girl was jealous that the boy talked to the other girl more so she came to school the next day with a meat cleaver and threatened the other girl. That's just one example that comes to mind.

Lot of parents don't care what their kids are doing so therefore the kids don't care. You can have the best school with tons of money but it starts at home. You have plenty of kids that comes from terrible school system and succeed, because the parents and the kids care.

Most of the teachers and kids were great in the Lawrence system, but there were some violent few that we weren't taking any chances with.

School ended for that year and we were in OUT!!!!!!


riski_click t1_iu4noq2 wrote

Lawrence is a really tough system, vastly underfunded, and the teachers are very underpaid.. Unfortunately, most people in the Lawrence school system don't have an opportunity to leave it..


cheerocc t1_iu55rlx wrote

Yeah i get, it's a tough situation for many people there but it's also not a dead end. I came from a Chelsea school system that's historically been bad. If you look up "worst school system in MA", Chelsea will always be on the list. My siblings and I all made it out of there and went to college (Boston College, Northeastern, and Bentley College) so there's hope.

My point is, regardless of your situation, if you have the support and motivation from your parents as well as yourself, you'll do well regardless of where you are, type of school system, etc....

They key is to have the care and motivation to make it out.


OgTyber t1_iu58a99 wrote

Good for you man! Growing up in Eastie and seeing Chelsea in the old days. That's no easy feat for you and your family. Again congratz


-cochise t1_iu58z3z wrote

Lawrence is funded about as well as Acton actually.


riski_click t1_iu5d1x8 wrote

exactly. But Lawrence is 89% low-income students (vs 11% in AB), 72% non-native English speakers (vs 21% in AB) and 94% high-needs students (vs 28% at AB). The fact that the per student-funding is about equal only paints half the picture.


[deleted] t1_iu6hg4n wrote



adaquestionade t1_iu6rv4l wrote

> it’s a more polite way of saying this kid doesn’t have a family who gives a shit

LOL ok. Spoiler alert: There are more than a few rich families that think the same way; tradeoff is a lot of poorer families DO care but don't "show up" in the way that you want them to.

Source: I went to school with a lot of rich kids and now teach a lot of poor kids.

You can be in a shit situation and care about your kids' education. The two are not mutually exclusive. Jesus Christ, find an ounce of empathy.


cheerocc t1_iu7mqy8 wrote

I went to their gym for a tournament and that gym is the best I've seen so far from any schools around the area.


TeaWithMingus t1_iu4pfsw wrote

As a 15 year veteran teacher working in an affluent suburb of Boston, the pandemic did a number on our schools, teachers, parents, and kids. So many people have quietly quit their responsibilities. We have so many behavior problems, kids barely coming to school, parents that have totally checked out, and kids with unmonitored phones that are getting into all kinds of online shenanigans. I can’t even imagine what the situation is like in poor urban schools. Boston as a community and other communities will face social and communal problems for many years because of the dysfunction the pandemic left. Our leadership both in the state and city need to step up and do more. Not saying some of these issues weren’t there before, but things have definitely increased dramatically.


kjmass1 t1_iu57hv9 wrote

I see a lot of teachers/districts saying they can’t afford to match the salaries that Boston offers their teachers…like sometimes taking the highest paid gig comes with draw backs, like a shitty commute, and having to deal with situations like this. I’m sure most teachers would give up a little salary to teach in Wellesley so they don’t have to deal with a 7yo coming to school with a loaded gun.


jeanie111 t1_iu63uuy wrote

This is why I'm glad I'm not a teacher,


ValkyriesOnStation t1_iu4l11p wrote

Sounds like another day in this Hellscape we call America


LennyKravitzScarf t1_iu5q4iu wrote

How did he pass the background check?


jcowurm t1_iu5r7y7 wrote

Backround check? Only backround we will find here is the number of crimes that gun was involved in.


LennyKravitzScarf t1_iu5snvr wrote

No, I mean when the 7 year old way buying the gun, how did the background check not catch that he was 7?


jcowurm t1_iu5t3lr wrote

Oh my bad lol. It appears you forgot about the classic lick of simply adding a 0 to the number though. The backround check thought he was 70! You cannot really blame them, adding 0s is how Joe Biden won after all! /s


Tight_Accident2053 t1_iu6zinf wrote

Omg I was telling my friend at school yesterday that me and my uncle went turkey hunting and a kid goes to the principal and tells them I said I was gonna shoot up the school. It pisses me off because I didn’t say anything even close to that so now I’m suspended for something I didn’t do


False_Flagg t1_iu50m47 wrote

This is why I like the .45, sometimes even a grown woman can't rack the slide/ chamber a round.


No-Garlic-2664 t1_iu53gpd wrote

The parents are lowlife pieces of shit, but somehow the entire conversation will be twisted to how this is all the fault of ordinary, decent people for not giving enough of muh heckin funding.

Fuck off, reducing this issue to money is a dishonest lie