Aguila Blanca
Staff
The incident occurred on January 23. Does anyone have any updated information? I'd like to know whether or not the gun used was obtained [by the shooter] legally.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Benton, KY, school shooting
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
I haven't seen anything officially released on this. There is a report that the shooter got it from a closet at his home. https://www.salon.com/2018/01/25/in-wake-of-school-shooting-a-look-at-how-kids-get-guns/. You may know that the shooter's mother is a reporter for a local newspaper and went to the school to cover the story. When she got there, she learned she was part of the story.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Tom, what's left to know is exactly how the shooter obtained the gun. The reason is that I maintain a spreadsheet of mass shooting and school shootings. No, I'm not a potential shooter with a macabre interest in such events. I want statistics to disprove the lie that gun-free zones make us safer. While i'm at it, I can use the same database to compile statistics on whether or not background checks prevent shootings.
To that end, I need to know if the shooter obtained the gun legally, or if it was bought on the black market or stolen. The Sandy Hook shooter, for example, killed his mother at home before going to the school. I think we can chalk that one up to classifying the guns he used as stolen.
Based on the article to which KyJim provided the link, apparently Kentucky doesn't have a safe storage law and the gun was stored in a place where the kid had easy access to it. However, although we can probably presume that the gun was in the house legally, I think we can equally presume that the mother didn't give her son permission to take it to school for the purpose of killing other students. That leaves me with with a conundrum: Do I classify it as "obtained legally," or do I classify it as 'stolen"?
Obviously, it helps my argument to classify it as stolen, but I want to be as intellectually honest as possible (unlike our opponents on the anti-gun side). How would you folks classify it?
BTW -- for those who might be interested, going back to before the Columbine school shooting, and excluding terrorist bombs (Oklahoma City) and aircraft (9/11), the tally as of now stands at
Killed by guns in gun-free zones -- 367
Killed by guns in non-gun-free zones -- 171
Wounded by guns in gun-free zones -- 881
Wounded by guns in non-gun-free zones -- 178
Obviously, gun-free zones are not accomplishing what they are intended to accomplish. And let's not forget that the worst school massacre in U.S. history (Bath Township, MI, 1927, 44 killed and 58 injured) did NOT involve firearms. The weapon of choice was dynamite -- the perp blew up half the school. (He tried to blow up the entire school, but the charges under one wing failed to explode.)
To that end, I need to know if the shooter obtained the gun legally, or if it was bought on the black market or stolen. The Sandy Hook shooter, for example, killed his mother at home before going to the school. I think we can chalk that one up to classifying the guns he used as stolen.
Based on the article to which KyJim provided the link, apparently Kentucky doesn't have a safe storage law and the gun was stored in a place where the kid had easy access to it. However, although we can probably presume that the gun was in the house legally, I think we can equally presume that the mother didn't give her son permission to take it to school for the purpose of killing other students. That leaves me with with a conundrum: Do I classify it as "obtained legally," or do I classify it as 'stolen"?
Obviously, it helps my argument to classify it as stolen, but I want to be as intellectually honest as possible (unlike our opponents on the anti-gun side). How would you folks classify it?
BTW -- for those who might be interested, going back to before the Columbine school shooting, and excluding terrorist bombs (Oklahoma City) and aircraft (9/11), the tally as of now stands at
Killed by guns in gun-free zones -- 367
Killed by guns in non-gun-free zones -- 171
Wounded by guns in gun-free zones -- 881
Wounded by guns in non-gun-free zones -- 178
Obviously, gun-free zones are not accomplishing what they are intended to accomplish. And let's not forget that the worst school massacre in U.S. history (Bath Township, MI, 1927, 44 killed and 58 injured) did NOT involve firearms. The weapon of choice was dynamite -- the perp blew up half the school. (He tried to blow up the entire school, but the charges under one wing failed to explode.)
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Looking over my chart, I discovered that I also don't have an answer to this question for the Bronx-Lebanon hospital shooting in June of 2017. If I remember correctly, the weapon was an AR-15 and it was in New York, so the firearm itself was probably illegal and the answer is probably "No" -- but I don't have anything concrete to confirm that.
I think we can equally presume that the mother didn't give her son permission to take it to school for the purpose of killing other students. That leaves me with with a conundrum: Do I classify it as "obtained legally," or do I classify it as 'stolen"?
Ah. I didn't know the full context to the question. All I've been able to glean is that he got it "from a closet." Interestingly enough, the rallying cry from Shannon Watts' Twitter feed has been "how does a 12-year-old get a gun in America?"
So, my guess is nobody knows exactly how it was acquired. As you said, it's doubtful the rightful owner gave him permission to take it to school, so "stolen" would probably be the safe classification.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's certainly the direction I'm leaning, and as fuzzy memories resurface I believe that's what I concluded in the case of a school shooting out west a year or two ago (I think on or adjacent to an Indian reservation).Tom Servo said:Ah. I didn't know the full context to the question. All I've been able to glean is that he got it "from a closet." Interestingly enough, the rallying cry from Shannon Watts' Twitter feed has been "how does a 12-year-old get a gun in America?"
So, my guess is nobody knows exactly how it was acquired. As you said, it's doubtful the rightful owner gave him permission to take it to school, so "stolen" would probably be the safe classification.
Does anyone think "stolen" is not a fair or proper classification?
In The Ten Ring
New member
Unless he had permission to take the firearm(s), those were "stolen." He violated the gun free zone law also.
The people that obey gun prohibition rules are not the sort that would violate more serious rules such as murder. People inclined to commit murder are not inclined to obey gun prohibition rules. It's common sense that seems to confuse so many on the Left.
The people that obey gun prohibition rules are not the sort that would violate more serious rules such as murder. People inclined to commit murder are not inclined to obey gun prohibition rules. It's common sense that seems to confuse so many on the Left.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's a given, but that's a separate column in the spreadsheet and that speaks to the question of whether or not "gun-free" zones do anything to protect us. As the numbers I cited above show, the answer is "No." The question of background checks and legal gun possession is a different question and a different issue. Related, but different.In The Ten Ring said:He violated the gun free zone law also.