I used to have an inert (no primer, no powder) .50BMG round and the empty case of a Mk 19 round, with the link around it, on my desk at work. One day, when the boss from the other site was in town, the .50BMG round ‘disappeared’ from my desk for a couple of days, but showed back up the day he left. I figure that as he’s a GFW he ‘had it checked out’ to see if it’s real.
Of course it’s real, it has mass and occupies space, Schrodinger.
I decided I didn’t like my stuff being coon-fingered, so mow it’s on my desk at home, and now I’ve got a nasty, greasy tie-rod end on my desk. Nobody has bothered to pick it up.
Around here you can be CHARGED WITH A CRIME for that. (tho a similar story happened after memorial day around here with a spent .30-06 blank from an honor guard salute. No charges were filed, as it would have lead to questionings from the people of a dumb law…just a suspension) But here in Mass you need a permit to OWN a gun, as well as ammunition and/or COMPONENTS!
Yep spent shells are illegal to posses by non permitted peoples.
While, I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies, I’m reserving judgement on this one in the absence of a few facts. What is the policy? How long was the suspension? No where does it say in the article that the suspension was based on a “zero tolerance” policy – that it wasn’t evaluated on its own circumstances. What bothers me about the article – and gives me cause to believe the suspension may be appropriate – are the quotes of mom where she, on multiple occations, explains how the shotshell posed no risk. While that’s true, mom bases that belief on the fact that the are blanks, not because they had already been fired. As readers here know, blanks themselves can pose a substantial risk. My point is that the policy ought to be broad enough that it prohibits people who lack the understanding of how people can be hurt by things firearms and ammunition related from bringing such things to school.
In the end, I think that a policy prohibiting the bringing of any firearms/ammunition related parts/components to school is fair and should be enforced. At the same time, each case should be judged (and penalties applied) on their own merits.
Oh I see, one day suspension. No big deal. It seems that this case may have been evaluated more on the individual circumstances than by applying a zero tolerance policy – as was the case with the kid who got a 5 (cut to 3) day suspension for simply drawing a gun.
No argument that’s probably the case. My point is that if the student gets a pass because it poses no risk, that opens the doors of liability when the next student brings a (live) blank and someone does gets hurt.
When people sustain injuries from firearms/ammunition related events, the conversation usually starts with “I didn’t know…”.
School policies for things like this have to be so broad that people who know very little about firearms can understand them. Better to have broad policies that keep our playgrounds free of firearms related items than let ignorant parents make the decision if something is safe or not.
What about ballpoint pens made from spent casings? A friend picked up one of those from a gun show recently. I guess they’d suspend her for that as well, since it is a “component”?
No need to delve into details here folks. This is stupid. Where my kids go to school they have a shooting team, an archery team, and kids who hunt sometimes wear the spent case from the cart that killed the deer, etc., on their belts as a ornament. Strangely, no one gets killed by it. Instead they tend to focus on, here it comes….Oh, SHIIIIT!…education.
Damn right “live” blanks are dangerous, though.
Two words: Brandon Lee. As in, son of Bruce.
He didn’t get killed by a blank. He got killed by a squib that was propelled by a blank. Slight difference.
There was another actor, though, that did get killed by a blank. Can’t remember his name, but he put a pistol loaded with blanks up to his head and pulled the trigger, thinking nothing would happen. The wad from the blank was driven through his skull and into his brain, killing him.
After reading it, I don’t think there was a violation of policy. But even if there were, suspension certainly wasn’t mandated. Maybe the kids attitude, prior history of discipline, etc. are contributing factors?
October 29th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Just my opinion ….
Zero tolerance was developed to allow highly-trained monkeys to run schools, rather than education professionals.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:39 am
You give the monkeys too much credit
October 29th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I used to have an inert (no primer, no powder) .50BMG round and the empty case of a Mk 19 round, with the link around it, on my desk at work. One day, when the boss from the other site was in town, the .50BMG round ‘disappeared’ from my desk for a couple of days, but showed back up the day he left. I figure that as he’s a GFW he ‘had it checked out’ to see if it’s real.
Of course it’s real, it has mass and occupies space, Schrodinger.
I decided I didn’t like my stuff being coon-fingered, so mow it’s on my desk at home, and now I’ve got a nasty, greasy tie-rod end on my desk. Nobody has bothered to pick it up.
Regards,
Rabbit.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Around here you can be CHARGED WITH A CRIME for that. (tho a similar story happened after memorial day around here with a spent .30-06 blank from an honor guard salute. No charges were filed, as it would have lead to questionings from the people of a dumb law…just a suspension) But here in Mass you need a permit to OWN a gun, as well as ammunition and/or COMPONENTS!
Yep spent shells are illegal to posses by non permitted peoples.
October 29th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
You give the monkeys too much credit
Benefit of the doubt, you know!
October 29th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
While, I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance policies, I’m reserving judgement on this one in the absence of a few facts. What is the policy? How long was the suspension? No where does it say in the article that the suspension was based on a “zero tolerance” policy – that it wasn’t evaluated on its own circumstances. What bothers me about the article – and gives me cause to believe the suspension may be appropriate – are the quotes of mom where she, on multiple occations, explains how the shotshell posed no risk. While that’s true, mom bases that belief on the fact that the are blanks, not because they had already been fired. As readers here know, blanks themselves can pose a substantial risk. My point is that the policy ought to be broad enough that it prohibits people who lack the understanding of how people can be hurt by things firearms and ammunition related from bringing such things to school.
In the end, I think that a policy prohibiting the bringing of any firearms/ammunition related parts/components to school is fair and should be enforced. At the same time, each case should be judged (and penalties applied) on their own merits.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Oh I see, one day suspension. No big deal. It seems that this case may have been evaluated more on the individual circumstances than by applying a zero tolerance policy – as was the case with the kid who got a 5 (cut to 3) day suspension for simply drawing a gun.
http://www.kpho.com/news/13943838/detail.html#
October 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
the article says the shell was empty and had ‘blank’ written on it. sounds like a spent shell to me. could be wrong, of course.
October 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
No argument that’s probably the case. My point is that if the student gets a pass because it poses no risk, that opens the doors of liability when the next student brings a (live) blank and someone does gets hurt.
When people sustain injuries from firearms/ammunition related events, the conversation usually starts with “I didn’t know…”.
School policies for things like this have to be so broad that people who know very little about firearms can understand them. Better to have broad policies that keep our playgrounds free of firearms related items than let ignorant parents make the decision if something is safe or not.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
What about ballpoint pens made from spent casings? A friend picked up one of those from a gun show recently. I guess they’d suspend her for that as well, since it is a “component”?
October 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Damn right “live” blanks are dangerous, though.
Two words: Brandon Lee. As in, son of Bruce.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
No need to delve into details here folks. This is stupid. Where my kids go to school they have a shooting team, an archery team, and kids who hunt sometimes wear the spent case from the cart that killed the deer, etc., on their belts as a ornament. Strangely, no one gets killed by it. Instead they tend to focus on, here it comes….Oh, SHIIIIT!…education.
October 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
He didn’t get killed by a blank. He got killed by a squib that was propelled by a blank. Slight difference.
There was another actor, though, that did get killed by a blank. Can’t remember his name, but he put a pistol loaded with blanks up to his head and pulled the trigger, thinking nothing would happen. The wad from the blank was driven through his skull and into his brain, killing him.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Regolith, i think you are talking about Jon-Erik Hexum. He gave himself a darwin award.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
For those still interested, the Des Moines public school policy in question is located here (See page 6/7):
http://www.dmps.k12.ia.us/schoolboard/ElementaryDisciplineCode2009.pdf
After reading it, I don’t think there was a violation of policy. But even if there were, suspension certainly wasn’t mandated. Maybe the kids attitude, prior history of discipline, etc. are contributing factors?
::hangs head at his own flip flopping::
October 29th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Zero tolerance is the nuremberg defense.
Even worse is the propaganda going on here. Guns=BAD! BOOGABOOGABOOGA!
Not to mention all the other items in that school that can be used as “improvised” weapons.