Mass Shooting & Gun Violence catch-all | Kentucky Sheriff kills KY Judge in courthouse?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 519
  • Views: 8K
  • Politics 
I started teaching in 1989, prior to Columbine we practiced fire drills. Going into my high school right after Columbine was tension filled for days. Eventually, active shooter drills became a regular occurrence. As a society, we all have a responsibility to end this madness and return our schools to a place that is safe for learning.
 
Put the parents in prison. Every single time. No questions asked. No possibility of parole. Lock them up. The child is an extension of the parent. If people want guns in their household, they take this responsibility. Lock the parents up, take all of their assets, and throw away the key.

Every. time. this. happens.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Put the parents in prison. Every single time. No questions asked. No possibility of parole. Lock them up. The child is an extension of the parent. If people want guns in their household, they take this responsibility. Lock the parents up, take all of their assets, and throw away the key.

Every. time. this. happens.
Click to expand...
If the kid gets guns from some source other than the parents, and the parents did absolutely nothing wrong or negligent, you think there should be strict liability against the parents? There are very few areas of criminal law with strict liability. As a general rule, we require criminal intent (mens rea) with every crime.

One consequence of this rule would be parents abandoning troubled children to the foster system if they know they are going to have criminal liability for anything the kid does. I would think we want a society that incentivizes parents to help troubled kids, not abandon them.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Put the parents in prison. Every single time. No questions asked. No possibility of parole. Lock them up. The child is an extension of the parent. If people want guns in their household, they take this responsibility. Lock the parents up, take all of their assets, and throw away the key.

Every. time. this. happens.
Click to expand...
I’ve been making this argument for years. The “accidents” wherein a child gets hold of a gun left unsecured by a parent and shoots a sibling or a classmate is criminal negligence on the part of the parent. This kid should be charged as a child. He’s 14. His voice probably still cracks occasionally. He may still have sheets that feature a marvel character on his bed. Can’t vote for another 4 years. Can’t buy a beer for another 7. But hey, let’s show how tough we are by charging him as an adult to absolve all the thousands of “responsible gun owners” who leave their firearms unsecured from their kids.

Recent cases suggest things are changing for the better, but damn it’s a slow march and the delay is costly.
 
Last edited:
TarHeelGrad said:
I'll take my chances with someone throwing a blunt object at me from 50 yards away, as opposed to a gun.
It's been said ad nauseum, but bears repeating. The main issue with guns is that a) you don't have to be within arm's length to kill them, b) you are able to kill/maim multiple people quickly and c) there is no easy way to defend yourself from attack. I'll take my chances against a knife or a blunt object.
Click to expand...
Sure, and that’s well and good if we are starting from scratch. We aren’t, though. There are more guns than people in the United States. The cat is already out of the bag, and can’t be put back in.

So what do we do? Universal background checks? Absolutely. Magazine capacity limits? All for it. Red flag laws? Go for it. I’m not even against an AR ban (although one would never pass). But once again, I just don’t think these things would move the needle as much as some people think.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
I’ve been making this argument for years. The “accidents” wherein a child gets hold of a gun left unsecured by a parent and shoots a sibling or a classmate is criminal negligence on the part of the parent. This kid should be charged as a child. He’s fucking 14. Can’t vote for another 4 years. Can’t buy a beer for another 7. But hey, let’s show how tough we are by charging him as an adult to absolve all the thousands of “responsible gun owners” who leave their firearms unsecured from their kids.

Recent cases suggest things are changing for the better, but damn it’s a slow March and the delay is costly.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between negligent storage of a firearm and WMHeel's "no questions asked" policy. The Michigan parents were both convicted of criminal negligence. Travis is arguing for a much more draconian policy of strict liability for the parents.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
True. and guess what? We have common sense attempts at minimizing them and their consequences. Guard rails on certain sections of roads. Manufacturers constantly trying ti improve crash safety of cars. Procedures and maintenance checks of all airplanes before flights. Procedures and safety checks before and during surgeries. And can you believe it, doctors and hospitals are allowed to be sued for negligence.

Now compare that to gun regulation, safety measures and requirements, all blocked by the NRA and gun nuts. Thoughts and prayers are the only answer. Very effective.
Click to expand...
My reason for bringing up driving, flying, and healthcare was not to compare those sectors to firearms, but simply to show that risk needs to be considered in context of prevalence. Make whatever decision you want, just make sure you are making an informed one. For example, would homeschooling your kids because you are afraid of them getting shot be a logical response? I don’t think so, but opinions can differ.
 
Calheel said:
If the kid gets guns from some source other than the parents, and the parents did absolutely nothing wrong or negligent, you think there should be strict liability against the parents? There are very few areas of criminal law with strict liability. As a general rule, we require criminal intent (mens rea) with every crime.

One consequence of this rule would be parents abandoning troubled children to the foster system if they know they are going to have criminal liability for anything the kid does. I would think we want a society that incentivizes parents to help troubled kids, not abandon them.
Click to expand...
I assumed wmheel was limiting the parental responsibility to cases of obvious negligence and my response was in that context.

But I could be wrong.
 
The shooting today in Ga is about 10 miles from where I previously lived. It's about 15/20 miles from where my daughter now lives.

Is this when we send out thoughts and prayers or is it too early? 😢

I'm not against gun ownership, but there has to be something done. When 14 year old kids are taking military guns to schools, people should be able to get past their fear that the gobernment is going to take their guns and work together to standardize ownership requirements.
 
2ManyBlueCups said:
Sure, and that’s well and good if we are starting from scratch. We aren’t, though. There are more guns than people in the United States. The cat is already out of the bag, and can’t be put back in.

So what do we do? Universal background checks? Absolutely. Magazine capacity limits? All for it. Red flag laws? Go for it. I’m not even against an AR ban (although one would never pass). But once again, I just don’t think these things would move the needle as much as some people think.
Click to expand...
Move the needle on school shootings or gin violence?

The number one cause of death of people ages 1-19 is guns.
 
2ManyBlueCups said:
My reason for bringing up driving, flying, and healthcare was not to compare those sectors to firearms, but simply to show that risk needs to be considered in context of prevalence. Make whatever decision you want, just make sure you are making an informed one. For example, would homeschooling your kids because you are afraid of them getting shot be a logical response? I don’t think so, but opinions can differ.
Click to expand...
The risk of those things are low due to government regulations.

Seat belts aren’t there because car companies thought it was a good idea. Idiots didn’t want them either.
 
2ManyBlueCups said:
Sure, and that’s well and good if we are starting from scratch. We aren’t, though. There are more guns than people in the United States. The cat is already out of the bag, and can’t be put back in.

So what do we do? Universal background checks? Absolutely. Magazine capacity limits? All for it. Red flag laws? Go for it. I’m not even against an AR ban (although one would never pass). But once again, I just don’t think these things would move the needle as much as some people think.
Click to expand...
As you've rightly pointed out, we've tried absolutely nothing, and we're all out of ideas.
 
2ManyBlueCups said:
Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that gun violence has largely plummeted this year. So, something is working. Perfect can’t be the enemy of good.
Click to expand...
Homer: Ah, the Bear Patrol must be working! Not a bear in sight
Lisa: That's specious reasoning
Homer: Thank you, Lisa.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock
 
superrific said:
Homer: Ah, the Bear Patrol must be working! Not a bear in sight
Lisa: That's specious reasoning
Homer: Thank you, Lisa.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away
Homer: How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock. But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock
Click to expand...
So you think nyc was lying when she posted those stats earlier in this thread?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top