Kindergartner suspended for pink bubble gun threat

[SkullKing]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...n-threat?lite=

Essentially a girl was playing with a pink bubble gun, and got suspended for it.

This makes no sense whatsoever. A few years ago I wouldn´t even believe something like this could actually happen.

[protege]

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Yep, aren't zero-tolerance policies a bitch?

[Greenday]

Essentially a girl was playing with a pink bubble gun, and got suspended for it.

Actually, it was more like the girl threatened to shoot herself and a fellow student, but just happened to own a bubble gun and that's what the family is saying she was talking about.

[Bloodsoul]

Honestly read the title as "pink bubble gum."

[HYHYBT]

Honestly read the title as "pink bubble gum."

Same here.

The thing is, it's impossible to form a meaningful opinion without knowing exactly what was said. And the article says *nobody* knows that.

[RedRoseSpiral]

Even if the girl had said she was going to shoot herself and others, she is FIVE years old. She is not a terrorist or making terroristic threats. She should not have been interrogated for 3 hours without a parent there. Depending on the severity of the "threat" she should either be sat down and explained to that it's not appropriate or taken to a shrink to get down to the deeper issues that are making her feel that way.

The US needs better psychiatric care starting at younger ages along with better gun laws. Labeling young children as terrorist is not the way to go.

[HYHYBT]

I don't have a problem with the "without a parent there" aspect... at least not until *after* they found out what was going on. Not until they know it's not a threat she's heard at home, for example.

[PepperElf]

Even if the girl had said she was going to shoot herself and others, she is FIVE years old. She is not a terrorist or making terroristic threats. She should not have been interrogated for 3 hours without a parent there. Depending on the severity of the "threat" she should either be sat down and explained to that it's not appropriate or taken to a shrink to get down to the deeper issues that are making her feel that way.

The US needs better psychiatric care starting at younger ages along with better gun laws. Labeling young children as terrorist is not the way to go.

i'm mixed on this.

interrogated without a parent? no. suspended? no.

but I do think she should be punished for threatening to kill someone - even if she "meant" a toy gun. it doesn't matter... threatening to kill people is wrong.


as for a shrink? i think that's a bit harsh... children do talk shit sometimes when they're angry. sometimes it's just a case of teaching them how they should and shouldn't express themselves.

i don't think they need to be classified as mentally ill at that age just for being mad enough to talk shit.

but i DO believe it should be nipped in the bud. perhaps not as harsh as what they did, but certainly let her know that such threats are not tolerated.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I think the problem is, PepperElf, is that we don't know if she said "I'm going to kill you" or if the conversation was "I have this pink gun, it shoots bubbles, but I forgot it. I'll remember it next time and then shoot all of you and then myself too!"

No one knows what was said except the kids, and we all know how kids omit or just forget things - especially when adults ask leading questions.

So since the information is so scarce, I can't really form an opinion. I think that the girl should've been sat down and talked to, calmly, but not interrogated. She was probably too terrified to remember what she said, same with the other kids.

[PepperElf]

I think the problem is, PepperElf, is that we don't know if she said "I'm going to kill you" or if the conversation was "I have this pink gun, it shoots bubbles, but I forgot it. I'll remember it next time and then shoot all of you and then myself too!"

No one knows what was said except the kids, and we all know how kids omit or just forget things - especially when adults ask leading questions.

So since the information is so scarce, I can't really form an opinion. I think that the girl should've been sat down and talked to, calmly, but not interrogated. She was probably too terrified to remember what she said, same with the other kids.

well i did agree she shouldn't be interrogated - esp without the parents there.

although i do understand a "no gun" policy that even applies to toys. i had my gun taken away from me in grade school - 3rd or 4th gun. didn't get in trouble for it but the teacher explained "no guns applies to all gun, even this one".

(gun in question was a thumb-sized gun from an action figure, all molded plastic).


so yes i was punished for bringing it it. not a harsh punishment mind you, ... tho i can't remember if she gave it back to me.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

although i do understand a "no gun" policy that even applies to toys. i had my gun taken away from me in grade school - 3rd or 4th gun. didn't get in trouble for it but the teacher explained "no guns applies to all gun, even this one".

(gun in question was a thumb-sized gun from an action figure, all molded plastic).

so yes i was punished for bringing it it. not a harsh punishment mind you, ... tho i can't remember if she gave it back to me.

I can understand a "no gun" policy as well. If she was planning on bringing a pink bubble gun someone should've said, "Sorry, you can't bring that to school it is against the rules. You can play with it at home after school."

Here's the thing though. I understand the "no gun" policy - but do the little kids? I'm 23, so I obviously understand the issue and what guns are. It is entirely likely that either they don't tell the kids about the "no gun" policy, or they do tell them, but not clarify that the rule includes all guns. I could totally see a teacher going, "Don't bring guns to school. They are dangerous and can kill people and are bad" but then omit "This includes toy guns, just so everyone can feel safe." So what little kid would think that their pink, bubble shooter would fall under the policy if the things they aren't allowed to bring to school are dangerous and can kill people?

Obviously, I'm assuming, but I wish these "NO TOLERANCE FOR GUNZZZ" stories would tell us if the little kids were informed and clearly informed of the policy.

Sorry about your little model guns. I hope you got them back. Though I think I would've brought in my little figurines that don't have weapons because they are magic users just to spite the teacher - yes I was a mini, passive aggressive spiteful little sprite. Amused my parents.

[Mytical]

If I had a nickle for every time some girl said "I am going to kill you!" when I was growing up..I could probably buy a gallon of gas . This is usually followed by being chased, and may or may not have ended with mud being throw depending on the situation. Usually because I was a brat, and had done something like pull on pigtails or put a frog on them, or some other idiot thing boys did to girls they liked to get their attention. I seriously doubt a five year old would mean a real gun, or mean real harm..not saying it CAN'T happen, but highly unlikely.

[draco664]

Sorry. I read this and I can only draw one conclusion.

The terrorists have won.