Las Vegas: Another teenager has become part of the "guns and school" uproar that the media is in, but officials say that nobody at the Northwest Career and Technical Academy was in danger. Eighteen-year-old Jake Howell was arrested after he was allegedly found in possession of an unloaded assault rifle, as well as ammunition and an assortment of other weapons.
This doesn't sound like nobody was in danger, does it? (sarcasm)
Reports indicate that Howell was on school property in a vehicle when a parent who was on campus spotted the gun in the backseat of the car. The parent alerted school police, who called Las Vegas Metro officers, and the arrest was made without incident.
"The individual did have rounds in the car, several small knives, and a few other things in his vehicle. There was no threat. There was no altercation. He cooperated fully with the officers once they made contact with him," said Captain Ken Young.
Jake reportedly told officials that he was there to visit a friend, but there are no other real details on why he had the assault rifle and several knives with him. What's more, officials have yet to address why this incident didn't pose a threat to everyone on the campus. This is especially after the Sandy Hook school shootings that took the lives of 20 children.
Photo: CESVegas
Crime analyst, profiler & future criminologist Chelsea Hoffman can be found on Huffington Post or Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case. You can follow her on Twitter @TheRealChelseaH or contact her via her personal blog. Fan the Facebook page for updates on missing persons cases, issues in civil rights and details on Chelsea's fiction works.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 26
You jumped the shark in this one...
silly jo jo
You literally did repeat everything I covered in the story, and JoJo, that IS silly. There's no TOS violation there. Don't be rude.
I asked you to show me how the title was misleading. A teen brought an assault rifle to a school. Period. Come on now, lol.
I don't mind your stories so much as your bias...
Weve had similar incidents since the shooting, not sure how people find this at all entertaining. Just because it didnt happen to them doesnt mean it is any less tragic.
No I didn't. You repeated almost verbatim what's in the article.
I don't mind your stories so much as your bias...
And you still choose to read them, why?
If it is your intent to be a left-wing propagandist, your bias is too overt...you should tone it down a little...
You're being silly again, Jo Jo -- and btw, isn't calling someone (rather venomously might I add) a "left-wing propagandist" a TOS violation? Pointing out how silly you're being is a TOS violation according to your logic....so if that's a TOS violation, then your attacks are certainly violations ;)
I'm still waiting on a civil, intelligent and clarified explanation as to how my title was misleading and how you seem to think the body of the article didn't include the things you say it didn't. (When it did lol)
Jo Jo, maybe you're just lashing out because you're upset that these gun nuts are getting ANY coverage in blogs and media reports. After all, these stories further point out just how out of hand guns are getting, especially when they're being brought on school properties ESPECIALLY after 20 kids were shot.
The fact that you drag political affiliation into this article shows that you feel like your political POV is under attack -- so naturally any piece pointing out a factual story about a teen bringing an assault rifle to school will make you uncomfortable, because it only further publicizes the fall of the gun culture.
It's okay to be frightened Jo Jo -- it's NOT okay to lash out at anyone who displays a differing opinion than yours when you're not being forced to listen to said opinion. Furthermore, it's NOT okay to lash out at others just because you fabricated a conflict in an article you undoubtedly inserted your own subtext in to.
Have a good one Jo Jo lol
@Amanda -- Nothing in this discussion has anything to do with me "toning it down" -- the "Toning it down" decision is based on how I treat people OFF of Gather News. Not Gather members themselves. Nothing has changed as far as how I conduct myself on Gather. :P :P :P <3
my "toning it down" speech on FB was in regards to some of the mean and vile things I've said to people OFF of gather, like on FB and on Twitter.I won't chew people out as much when they contact me with their nonsense.
In other words; "tone it down" means I'm just going to not respond to trolls and rabble rousers.
I'm not toning down on my political opinions. Though I do not think I went that heavy on them at all in this post. I'm also not toning down my analyses of crimes. Unless it's for good reason.
But I am toning down how I treat others. :)
Accusing people of this behavior is uncalled for and unnecessary. All that was asked was that you not repeatedly post the same comment. If this is simply so you could fix errors that are caused by a disability then I understand, but must still ask you to reread your posts before hitting submit so as to prevent the need to triple or quadruple post each comment you make. This is not in any way targeting your disability that you've only recently claimed to have. That is simply asking you to have the same courtesy for Gather members that we all must have. I would ask anyone to stop repeat-posting whether they're disabled or not, and again, there was no way for me to know about your disability until now.
So again, please be respectful of the rules by keeping your comments on topic. There's no need to fling accusations toward Gather and its writers over things that nobody could possibly know without you pointing it out. I have already stated that this could be a decent/good discussion without the off topic back and forth and comments that I felt (at the time) were spam. Let's try to get this back on topic and discuss the article. You're free to post whatever opinion you have, I only simply asked that you not double, triple, etc etc post. I said nothing about anything else you're bringing into this.
Otherwise, I'm not going to be dragged into this kind of argument. I'm going to play Sims 3
In the future, you should make it publicly known ahead of time that your behavior is the result of a disability if you want people to treat you in away so as to cater to your disability. Otherwise, it's in extremely poor taste (and a little over the top, might I add) to accuse people of discriminating and targeting you due to a disability that they aren't even aware of you having.
That is all that needs to be said. If you have anything more to add to this discussion please do so, but it IS a violation of the TOS to continually derail topics. We've established that you have a disability, and I've established that you can't accuse people of targeting you online when they don't even know you, don't know about your disabilities etc. The end. End of discussion.
Moving on.
There is a difference.
This situation has already been diffused and ended.
To my way of thinking ALL weapons, by definition, are assault weapons simply because they can become a weapon ONLY if they are used to assault something.
Were the airplanes that crashed into the WTT assault weapons? Well, they were used to assault and they definitely were weapons as the bodies of thousands testify to. Same can be said of pens, guns, cars, hands, feet, or any other type of object used as a weapon to assault someone.
Since the teen had an unloaded rifle in his car, and was not using it to assault anyone, there is no way it can even be termed a "weapon" since ANYTHING can BECOME a weapon, but NOTHING is INHERENTLY a weapon.
That makes the underlying article both misleading and biased.
A) ALL weapons, by definition, are assault weapons simply because they can become a weapon ONLY if they are used to assault something
I completely disagree with your diffinition/analogy of what is or is not an assault weapon. You have attempted to present a phiosophical discription as being sufficient to cover all thing used as a weapon. {i.e.} Stating, that anything which can be used to assault another person as being an assault weapon, is only accurate in rationalizing an assault. However, it is not true nor accurate in the normal categorizing weapons.
When people speak or discuss weapons in specific terms of firearms, knives, clubs, rocks and bombs, etc. which are the most commonly used weapons in an assault by people on people crime, these weapons are segmented into specific classifications.
{i.e.}
Knives - kitchen, chefs, pearing, stake, butcher, pocket, etc.
Clubs - sticks, maces, trunchens, bats, limbs, bludgens, etc.
Rocks - stones, pebbles, river, lava, desert, spear, bolders, etc.
Bombs - pipe, car, nuclear, mines, personnel, aerial, land, ect.
Guns - hunting, simi auto, automatic, target, pistol, rifle, assault, etc.
Note, each of the above referenced categories, having many more sub types which I did not list in the various named classifications.
As to what is considered to be an assault weapon in terms of firearms, most logical adult minded people, those within the military and law enforcement officers, would consider such weapon would have one or more of the following;
1) military style design
2) ability to fire rapidly
3) large capacity ammunition magazine
4) high velocity caliber
5) military caliber
6) military flash hider
7) military bayonet attachmen
8) a stock which can be extended or retracted
9) non defensive weapon
10) non hunting weapon
B) NOTHING is INHERENTLY a weapon.
You must be joking, inasmuch as the complete American military arsenal was puposely designed as weapons. From the smallest 9mm Berretta simi auto pistol to the nuclear bomb and everything in between is "Inherently A weapon"
But really, leaving an assault rifle in view inside your vehicle? They sell for $900 and gangbangers are always looking for one to steal because they have a felony on their record and they can't buy one without getting a "clean" friend to by it for them at a gun store.