This will make national news...hopefully everyone lives.

 

At least 4 students hurt in shooting at Chardon High School, shooter still at large

Published: Monday, February 27, 2012, 8:18 AM    Updated: Monday, February 27, 2012, 8:40 AM

John Horton, The Plain Dealer By John Horton, The Plain Dealer

 

CHARDON, Ohio -- At least four students have been injured in a shooting this morning at Chardon High School.  The shooter has not been found.

 

Geauga County Sheriff's spokesman John Hiscox confirmed there had been a shooting in the school, but would give no details shortly after 8 this morning.

 

A local official confirmed the number of students.  A local official said three boys and a girl were injured. Four ambulances, from Chardon, Kirtland, Burton and Chesterland, are waiting at the door of the high school at 8:15 a.m. 

Little information has been made available.  Chardon police and sheriff's officials said the school was on lockdown. Parents are crowding just off school grounds.

 

The shooting happened in the cafeteria, according to a waiting parent, Jessica Bryant, whose daughter, Allison, a freshman who had seen it and texted her.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/02/at_least_4_students_hurt_in_sh.html

I remember during the late 1990s when it seemed like there was a rash of school shootings.  I thought that had ended...hopefully everyone here is alright.

That is f-ed up news.  I heard it on the radio this morning and hits a little more close to home.  I grew up there and went to that HS.  Sounds like four students were hit but doesn't appear any of them are life threatening.

surprised it wasn't in Mentor, with its rash of bullying->suicides

 

I can imagine the marginalized turning militant, fighting back Columbine-style

According to USA Today about 8 minutes ago at 9:42 they have the suspected shooter in custody.

What exactly does it mean when the police say the school is locked down,  which seems like the general practice during school shootings. Are the doors chained or something? Isn't that like trapping the prey just to get the predator, or is the term more metaphorical?

It's usually more metaphorical.  Usually just means students are sitting somewhere not doing anything under the supervision of staff while the cops and admins walk around deciding what they should do (send kids home? Allow parents to pick them up? what type of searches should we do, who needs to stick around for questioning etc.).

 

 

According to my mother one of the teachers chased the suspect out of the building or something.

Police stated that one victim has died.  Craziness...

Police stated that one victim has died.  Craziness...

 

What is Ohio's violent crime rate compared to all the other 49 states?  Ohio seems particularly dangerous, and who would of thought, Chardon....

This data is a bit old but in 2006 Ohio was ranked 27th for Violent Crime

 

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

This data is a bit old but in 2006 Ohio was ranked 27th for Violent Crime

 

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

 

Thanks.  I figured we would have been much closer to the top 10.  I remember last year the man outside of Akron (Copley Township) went up and down his street killing 7 people.  Seems like it's getting out of control.  I know this is suburban crime.  Crime seems to be spilling out of Ohio's extremely dangerous cities and into the suburbs as well.  A few weeks ago my high school chemistry teacher my junior year was shot and killed leaving her house in Canfield, Ohio. 

A lockdown is issued when an intruder is in the building, or a student with a gun in this case. The teachers and students are advised to close and lock the door, turn off all lights, and sit in the safest corner of the classroom. Nobody is allowed to walk the halls or make any noise.

This isn't the type of crime I consider "spilling out" of urban areas. We aren't talking about theft or burglaries. Most of the perpetrators of these types of crimes are dealing with some very serious mental issues.

That is f-ed up news.  I heard it on the radio this morning and hits a little more close to home.  I grew up there and went to that HS.  Sounds like four students were hit but doesn't appear any of them are life threatening.

Unfortunately, one student has died. 

 

I wonder what the owner of that gun was thinking when he bought the pistol that was used to kill a student.  If he lived in Chardon, he really didn't need a pistol to defend himself.  Chardon is a peaceful community.  I shop in Chardon often and don't feel like I need a pistol to control my fate.  Even if somebody mugged me at Giant Eagle, I doubt that bringing a pistol would affect whether I lived through the confrontation.

 

Maybe the owner carried a lot of money as part of his job.  I doubt it.  In any case, whoever bought that gun was irresponsible in where he kept it.  It got into the wrong hands.

Maybe the owner carried a lot of money as part of his job.  I doubt it.  In any case, whoever bought that gun was irresponsible in where he kept it.  It got into the wrong hands.

 

For every gun used in a violent crime, there has to be an irresponsible ex-owner, right?

^ Yes

Maybe the owner carried a lot of money as part of his job.  I doubt it.  In any case, whoever bought that gun was irresponsible in where he kept it.  It got into the wrong hands.

 

For every gun used in a violent crime, there has to be an irresponsible ex-owner, right?

I don't follow your line of thought.

This has been the lead story on the NY news stations all day, but as with everything Ohio related, they couldn't get through it without botching something up, like pronouncing Geauga with a hard g.

Maybe the owner carried a lot of money as part of his job.  I doubt it.  In any case, whoever bought that gun was irresponsible in where he kept it.  It got into the wrong hands.

 

For every gun used in a violent crime, there has to be an irresponsible ex-owner, right?

I don't follow your line of thought.

 

My point is, if most gun owners were being as careful with their guns as the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment voices sometimes imply, tragedies like this could never happen (or at least not with guns).

The NRA / weapons industry cite that the gun purchasers are not the cause of killings like these.  The NRA / weapons industry argument does not take into account that some purchasers really don't care who they sell their firearms to on the secondary market. 

 

There is also a possibility that the assclown who owned the gun (when the minor took it) had purchased it and did not secure it properly.  That irresponsible handling of the weapon would have been a key factor in today's killing.  That is a hypothetical scenario, we don't know what happened.

The NRA / weapons industry cite that the gun purchasers are not the cause of killings like these.  The NRA / weapons industry argument does not take into account that some purchasers really don't care who they sell their firearms to on the secondary market. 

 

There is also a possibility that the assclown who owned the gun (when the minor took it) had purchased it and did not secure it properly.  That irresponsible handling of the weapon would have been a key factor in today's killing.  That is a hypothetical scenario, we don't know what happened.

 

That's what I'm getting at.  If you want to own a gun, whatever happens with it after you take possession/title is your responsibility.  That means if you sell it or it is stolen and it is used in a violent crime, you are culpable. 

live coverage:

http://bcove.me/i72zzfsu

Maybe the owner carried a lot of money as part of his job.  I doubt it.  In any case, whoever bought that gun was irresponsible in where he kept it.  It got into the wrong hands.

 

For every gun used in a violent crime, there has to be an irresponsible ex-owner, right?

I don't follow your line of thought.

 

My point is, if most gun owners were being as careful with their guns as the NRA and other pro-Second Amendment voices sometimes imply, tragedies like this could never happen (or at least not with guns).

 

it's bad parenting, all the way around. 

 

1.  Keeping guns in the house unsecured for kids to get their hands on

2.  Not keeping a close eye on what your kid is bringing to school

3.  Not keeping a close enough relationship with your kid to even know if he/she is troubled about some kids at school & thinking about doing something dumb or desperate

The NRA / weapons industry cite that the gun purchasers are not the cause of killings like these.  The NRA / weapons industry argument does not take into account that some purchasers really don't care who they sell their firearms to on the secondary market. 

 

There is also a possibility that the assclown who owned the gun (when the minor took it) had purchased it and did not secure it properly.  That irresponsible handling of the weapon would have been a key factor in today's killing.  That is a hypothetical scenario, we don't know what happened.

 

That's what I'm getting at.  If you want to own a gun, whatever happens with it after you take possession/title is your responsibility.  That means if you sell it or it is stolen and it is used in a violent crime, you are culpable. 

 

That's a pretty ridiculous standard.  Culpable for what a thief does with your stolen gun?  Why not a stolen car, or a stolen chainsaw?

This isn't the type of crime I consider "spilling out" of urban areas. We aren't talking about theft or burglaries. Most of the perpetrators of these types of crimes are dealing with some very serious mental issues.

 

 

Exactly! people act like violent crime only exist in the inner city! Today's unfortunate event makes it evident it doesn't.

Either there are two students dead now, or the media has some explaining to do -

 

Speaking the in past tense regarding •Chardon shooting victim Demetrius Hewlin* - http://www.cleveland.com/chardon-shooting/index.ssf/2012/02/chardon_shooting_victim_demetr.html

 

"A Cleveland hospital identified the slain student as Daniel Parmertor".... link also contains a quote from his family which confirms that this student actually did die - http://news.yahoo.com/1-dead-4-wounded-ohio-school-shooting-185050022.html

 

I think the actuallity is that Parmertor died ad Hewlin is in critical condition.  At least I hope that's it and they're not both dead.  Either way, horrible reporting by the PD as the story leaves you to wonder whether there is a second victim (or perhpas that the first victim - who wasn't part of this group of friends the gunman was apparently targeting - was misidentified)

A lockdown is issued when an intruder is in the building, or a student with a gun in this case. The teachers and students are advised to close and lock the door, turn off all lights, and sit in the safest corner of the classroom. Nobody is allowed to walk the halls or make any noise.

 

In both cases.....it turns out he didn't attend Chardon, but Lake Academy.  The witness that was at the table said he was a former member of this particular clique, and one of his victims was dating his ex-girlfriend.  If all this is true, the "bullying" card doesn't really play here.

The NRA / weapons industry cite that the gun purchasers are not the cause of killings like these.  The NRA / weapons industry argument does not take into account that some purchasers really don't care who they sell their firearms to on the secondary market. 

 

There is also a possibility that the assclown who owned the gun (when the minor took it) had purchased it and did not secure it properly.  That irresponsible handling of the weapon would have been a key factor in today's killing.  That is a hypothetical scenario, we don't know what happened.

 

That's what I'm getting at.  If you want to own a gun, whatever happens with it after you take possession/title is your responsibility.  That means if you sell it or it is stolen and it is used in a violent crime, you are culpable. 

 

That's a pretty ridiculous standard.  Culpable for what a thief does with your stolen gun?  Why not a stolen car, or a stolen chainsaw?

 

Because neither of those tools have a primary use that includes killing.  Just about anything can be used as a weapon.  A gun is ONLY a weapon.  If someone wants to own a gun, there need to be responsibilities that come with it.  If that someone can't handle those responsibilities, including keeping them out of the hands of criminals, they shouldn't be allowed to have one.  I think it would give a gun owner serious incentive to keep track of their weapon if they knew that their carelessness would be punished.

From their website:

 

"Many of the students attending The Lake Academy are considered 'reluctant learners' and may be struggling with a variety of individual problems, such as: substance abuse /chemical dependency, anger issues, mental health issues, truancy, delinquency, difficulties with attention/organization, and academic deficiencies."

 

http://www.lcesc.k12.oh.us/public/ESC/programs_lakeacademy.cfm

 

My home town had a similar school that was a step below Juvie for kids that, for example doused the baseball field with gasoline, and set it on fire after partaking in some wet weed.  These kids were really still part of the school even though they disappeared for a while.  But I still agree that bullying doesn't appear (at the moment) to quite fit.

The reason the announcement about the 2nd student, Russell King, having passed away were conflicting was because he was on life support. He was taken off of it. A 3rd child is also on life support and it's not looking very good (Demetrius).

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.19

 

2923.19 Failure to secure dangerous ordnance.

 

(A) No person, in acquiring, possessing, carrying, or using any dangerous ordnance, shall negligently fail to take proper precautions:

 

(1) To secure the dangerous ordnance against theft, or against its acquisition or use by any unauthorized or incompetent person;

 

(2) To insure the safety of persons and property.

 

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of failure to secure dangerous ordnance, a misdemeanor of the second degree.

 

Effective Date: 01-01-1974

The NRA / weapons industry cite that the gun purchasers are not the cause of killings like these.  The NRA / weapons industry argument does not take into account that some purchasers really don't care who they sell their firearms to on the secondary market. 

 

There is also a possibility that the assclown who owned the gun (when the minor took it) had purchased it and did not secure it properly.  That irresponsible handling of the weapon would have been a key factor in today's killing.  That is a hypothetical scenario, we don't know what happened.

 

That's what I'm getting at.  If you want to own a gun, whatever happens with it after you take possession/title is your responsibility.  That means if you sell it or it is stolen and it is used in a violent crime, you are culpable. 

 

That's a pretty ridiculous standard.  Culpable for what a thief does with your stolen gun?  Why not a stolen car, or a stolen chainsaw?

 

As Clevelander17 said, both of those examples were created for a purpose other than killing. The gun was killed expressly for that purpose.

 

I'm not against gun ownership, but I am for responsible gun ownership, and there has to be a higher standard of responsibility for owning a weapon than for owning a tool. We require testing and licensing and insurance for car ownership, we should at least have some similar level of gun owners training / monitoring. At the very least, a gun owner should be required to provide reasonable care that the gun will not be stolen, or used by someone who isn't supposed to have it (i.e. kept locked up), and a gun owner should have to go through a training period / testing to ensure they know how to properly care for, use and store that weapon.

 

This whole incident nauseates me, more so because it could have been prevented.

 

Edit: I see Mr. Sparkle posted the Ohio Code that speaks to that. I'm glad we have those laws on the books. I'm disappointed that no one cares to actively enforce them.

A lot of the early media stories were assuming that this incident had to do with bullying (or, perhaps more accurately, were quoting sources that implied such reasoning).  However now some reports seem to indicate that this may have had something to do with one of the victims dating the shooter's ex-girlfriend. 

Sounds like his parents weren't ozzy and harriet either.

Here come the gun comments.  Not sure why it's surprising to me each time something like this happens that someone thinks its the fault of an irresponsible gun owner or that someone had access to a gun and the we need harsher gun laws in order to correct these problems.  Stop treating the sympton and start treating the problem.

 

Reality is we had a troubled youth who was at some point reached out for help (FB and Twitter postings) and no one cared or was paying enough attention to him to do anything about it.  Comes from a broken home, didn't seem to have many friends...basically didn't have the proper support system a child needs to properly develop and thrive in life.

 

The fact that he was able to obtain a gun and use it as the avenue for expression isn't relevant to the problem.  If guns or firearms didn't even exist, this kid's anger and frustration was going to boil over at some point, in some fashion, and cause some people harm.  It's a cry for help.  "Do you care about me now?"

 

I just think its realy sad when something like this happens that the primary thing people want to focus on are gun laws.  You're completely missing the point and are only clouding the issue with another hot button issue that simply distracts from actually solving the problem.

Agree with shs96.

I don't think you can make any judgments unti you know how he obtained the gun.  Why do you think law enforcement raided the places this kid lived?  We'll see how that plays out.  He could have picked a reasonably secure lock and stolen the gun he used.  But he could have also used a gun that was being maintained in violation of the law.

 

We don't need harsher gun laws (at least not on non semi-automatic weapons.... another thread).  But we absolutely do need to enforce the laws which are on the books no matter how upset the NRA and its supporter may get.

Sorry, I just disagree. The reason people focus on things like this is because when we were kids, there weren't enough guns out there, or access to them easy enough, that this was any kind of regular problem you had to deal with as a daily part of going to school. No metal detectors were needed, there were no students getting guns and killing other students. You might get your ass beat, but nobody could just easily grab/get a gun and go on a rampage.  I do not know of ANYONE who had guns when we were growing up, and I went to a lot of people's houses. Kids did not have any clue how to use a gun and would have been terrified to pick one up, the very small exception would be those families who were active hunters, and they were very rare. I think the dramatic rise in number of guns and availability of guns directly correlates to the increase in shootings at schools of all stripes here in the US. We have a gun culture problem that is bigger than any other country. Getting more guns does not fix things, it makes it worse. You are free to disagree.

 

Gun-related deaths per year, circa 2002:

 

1.United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000)

2.Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000)

3.France – 255 (0.389/100,000)

4.Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)

5.United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000)

6.Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)

7.Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000)

 

^ I don't think the proliferation of handguns is the entire explanation, but it's a large part of it, and I agree that gun control is an absolute necessity, and I don't understand the arguments against it. That said, any particular act is going to have many causes - but the difference between TJ Lane with a knife or a crossbow and TJ Lane with a handgun is obvious, and anyone who suggests that mental illness is the root problem - fine, can you guarantee treatment of mental illness? Can you even guarantee detection before someone goes off the deep end? Is that just a societal 'cost' we should all be willing to accept?

 

Even if most gun owners are responsible, how does that suggest that regulation is unnecessary? Most heroin users are functional, should we legalize it? Most drunk drivers never get caught, does that make it alright? They're all inherently dangerous activities/instruments that have to be regulated. Certainly gun ownership should not be forbidden, but it should be limited, and anyone who believes the Second Amendment forbids gun control forgets it was intended to facilitate militia, and not handgun proliferation. (I am constantly amused by the fact that most Second Amendment 'supporters' believe in a literal reading of the Constitution, but not literal sentence construction.)

 

Outlaws will still get guns, but the fewer guns we permit to slip through the cracks, the fewer they will get. There is, and should be, no law against a responsible, law-abiding, and registered/trained citizen owning a firearm for the purpose of personal defense or recreation, but those regulations need to be strict, they need to discriminate based on age, criminal records and mental illness, and they need to be enforced with unforgiving, draconian uniformity. That enforcement would actually serve the interests of gun advocates by making it clearer when and where private guns are permitted to be owned, carried, and used.

 

The fact that gun owners always are now pre-emptively rushing to defend their interests against some spectral threat to their freedom when school shootings happen is an indication of how deep the problem has become. I have yet to see a serious government proposal that would actually take guns away from responsible owners. That our government is one particularly vulnerable to special interest lobbies just makes it worse.

Here come the gun comments.  Not sure why it's surprising to me each time something like this happens that someone thinks its the fault of an irresponsible gun owner or that someone had access to a gun and the we need harsher gun laws in order to correct these problems.  Stop treating the sympton and start treating the problem.

 

Reality is we had a troubled youth who was at some point reached out for help (FB and Twitter postings) and no one cared or was paying enough attention to him to do anything about it.  Comes from a broken home, didn't seem to have many friends...basically didn't have the proper support system a child needs to properly develop and thrive in life.

 

The fact that he was able to obtain a gun and use it as the avenue for expression isn't relevant to the problem.  If guns or firearms didn't even exist, this kid's anger and frustration was going to boil over at some point, in some fashion, and cause some people harm.  It's a cry for help.  "Do you care about me now?"

 

I just think its realy sad when something like this happens that the primary thing people want to focus on are gun laws.  You're completely missing the point and are only clouding the issue with another hot button issue that simply distracts from actually solving the problem.

 

Agreed, but I feel the same way about the "bullying" thing.  It's a big hot button issue lately where the most politically incorrect thing that can be suggested may be to get rid of "zero tolerance" and punish bullies harshly and victims who fight back mildly if at all. That's what solved this problem more often than not in earlier less "sensitive" times. 

 

When the story first broke all we heard was bullying-bullying-bullying.  Ironically, I suggested a romantic relationship as a possible alternative cause on a friend's FB comment long before we knew anything.  Now it seems like he shot some former clique-mates, including one who was dating his ex, and in-school bullying could not have been the issue because he did not even attend Chardon High.

Yeah, I don't really get the "disease" vs. the "symptom" argument.  Putting aside personal liberty, I'm pretty indifferent to the strategies law enforcement uses, as long as they reduce the risk of crime (which may be an open question for gun control, I have no idea).  I'm OK that we have a police force and not just an army of social workers.  And saying that a criminal will just get a weapon anyway doesn't really help us draw the line about which weapons should be available to retail buyers (grenades?  rocket launchers?), which is really the question.

The point is, if gun laws were enforced to the strictest extent of the law, we still have a kid with problems on our hands with a propensity for violence.  If you're suggesting that had he not been able to access a gun, he wouldn't have caused a problem, you're naive.  He's going to turn to something.  A gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a gardening spade...or maybe he goes down a non-violent path and turns to drugs, alcohol and becomes another high school drop out who who at some point indirectly causes societal problems.  Or kills someone in a drunk driving accident.

 

This isn't about guns.  This is about raising our youth and putting personal accountability on us parents to do the right thing by our kids.  You know, maybe not be raised by a father who beats the mother of his son (as well as other women).  Or go to extra mile to make sure the kid whose Dad is a repeat domestic violence offender and mom is nowhere to be found is not going to end up doing something like this.

And I don't own a gun and I don't want to own a gun.  But access to guns does not have a direct correlation to gun related violence.  Violence in general is a refelction of society.  If people are using guns to carry out violence, it has nothing to do with gun availability.  It has do do with a culture that creates this environment where you're getting all pissed off that you decide to shoot someone.

 

Of course, people will instead just perseverate over the minutia of the gun laws and never consider "if no one wanted to use a gun to harm people, it wouldn't matter whether there was a gun available or not."

I have to disagree shs96.  Holding a gun provides courage to a coward which he will not have walking into the cafeteria with a gardening hoe.  You don't hear too often about a person going into a crowded room and just starting to stab people at random, or beat them with a baseball bat.  Whether it is a school cafeteria, a post office, or a political event in Arizona, a gun is almost always involved in these types of situations. 

 

What we have here is a smaller, troubled kid who had entered a "goth phase" (why does it always seem to be these "goth" kids doing this?) and I don't think he could have built up the courage to do what he did without a gun.

 

However, simply because he used a gun, doesn't mean that lax gun control was the cause.  But Ohio law does address this issue and if a violation is found from the source he did obtain the gun, then there certainly will be some cause for discussion.

The point is, if gun laws were enforced to the strictest extent of the law, we still have a kid with problems on our hands with a propensity for violence.  If you're suggesting that had he not been able to access a gun, he wouldn't have caused a problem, you're naive. 

 

I think people are suggesting that he might stab one person instead of shooting 4 people.  I really have no idea if gun control laws are effective, so it's never my first response to something horrible like this.  But I don't understand dismissing them out of hand just because there are underlying roots to violence or because no policy will ever stop all crime.

That is f-ed up news.  I heard it on the radio this morning and hits a little more close to home.  I grew up there and went to that HS.  Sounds like four students were hit but doesn't appear any of them are life threatening.

Unfortunately, one student has died. 

 

I wonder what the owner of that gun was thinking when he bought the pistol that was used to kill a student.  If he lived in Chardon, he really didn't need a pistol to defend himself.  Chardon is a peaceful community.  I shop in Chardon often and don't feel like I need a pistol to control my fate.  Even if somebody mugged me at Giant Eagle, I doubt that bringing a pistol would affect whether I lived through the confrontation.

 

Maybe the owner carried a lot of money as part of his job.  I doubt it.  In any case, whoever bought that gun was irresponsible in where he kept it.  It got into the wrong hands.

 

I used to work in Chardon.  It's a really nice place.  I'd go shopping at Wal-mart after work at 1am without any concerns about safety at all.  I went to a Chardon football game wearing the visiting teams colors and didn't catch any grief....in fact when I overheard a kid saying "they should have won" and couldn't hold back a quite justifiable snicker, his friends who overheard me also laughed. 

 

However, I'd still own my gun if I lived there and perhaps people that do are part of the reason it's such a safe place.  In the highly unlikely event that some punk tried to rob someone outside their house, there'd be no memorials or rallies in memory of the useless little freelance socialist.  People respect each other out there, that means respecting property, respecting privacy, and just plain respecting.  And respecting the right to defend such goes with all that.

 

As for the owner being responsible, now come on.  If someone leaves their car unlocked and some 15 year old high on crack steals it and hits someone, should the car owner be held responsible?  Not only no, but hell no....

The point is, if gun laws were enforced to the strictest extent of the law, we still have a kid with problems on our hands with a propensity for violence.  If you're suggesting that had he not been able to access a gun, he wouldn't have caused a problem, you're naive. 

 

I think people are suggesting that he might stab one person instead of shooting 4 people.  I really have no idea if gun control laws are effective, so it's never my first response to something horrible like this.  But I don't understand dismissing them out of hand just because there are underlying roots to violence or because no policy will ever stop all crime.

 

I'm not dismissing them out of hand, I'm suggesting that among the issues to address when trying to ensure something like this doesn't happen again, enforcing or changing gun laws would not be my first priority.  Yet that seems to end up grabbing most of the attention.

^^Does a car fall under the dangerous ordinance statute?  Not only no, but hell no...

 

"in memory of the useless little freelance socialist" - huh?

 

^I disagree.  Most of the talk I hear centers around the failure to identify this kid's mental disorders, which were obviously quite severe.  Most of the clamoring about gun laws is coming from the gun lobby which feels the need to unnecessarily do damage control whenever something like this happens.  In their eyes.... it couldn't...... ever....... be even partially the fault of an irresponsible gun owner who failed to secure his/her dangerous ordinance.

Demetrius Hewlin has been pronounced dead...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/chardon-shooting/index.ssf/2012/02/third_student_dies_after_shoot.html

I have to disagree shs96.  Holding a gun provides courage to a coward which he will not have walking into the cafeteria with a gardening hoe.  You don't hear too often about a person going into a crowded room and just starting to stab people at random, or beat them with a baseball bat.  Whether it is a school cafeteria, a post office, or a political event in Arizona, a gun is almost always involved in these types of situations. 

 

You don't hear about beatings and stabbings because it's not news worthy.  There's not the associated story line of guns and gun control to couple with it.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

Again, let's say this kid didn't have a gun.  Yes, he's not shooting other kids.  Can I prove that he would have stabbed someone yesterday instead?  Or beat them with a bat?  No.  But I will not be convinced that this person would not have been a problem in some way shape or form down the road.  So we stop him from shooting someone and the problem is solved?