Deleted
Joined: Jun 23, 2024 15:04:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2015 8:26:41 GMT -5
link
Too bad he didn't shoot his mom first like the other idiot did....
yeah, too bad there weren't more murders ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/sad.png)
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 5, 2015 12:44:37 GMT -5
Purpose and intent would come into play. The purpose of a car is for transportation. It is only misuse of a car that would ever result in death. The purpose of a cell phone is communication. Death can basically only result from the individual's own misuse of the phone. The purpose of most knives is not to kill. They can certainly be used that way, but that is not necessarily what they were designed for. The purpose of at least the vast majority of guns IS to kill...something.
It is correct that the cause of death does not matter in being any more or less dead. It may very well matter in making sense of the death. We are able to understand and come to grips with tragic accidents much better than we can senseless violence. We accept that tragic accidents can happen to anyone, regardless of fault. Senseless violence shakes one's faith in who we are as a people, and how we live.
Is it your belief that the vast majority of guns fail at what they were designed for? Most pistols are never used to kill anything. I think you are most likely wrong when you say that pistols were designed to kill. I think they were designed for many reasons. Some for sport, some for security, some for the coolness factor, some to mask insecurity, etc. I do not think very many people purchase a pistol with the idea that it will be used to kill. If people really thought they would be using their gun in a life and death situation, wouldn't they get more training? I do not know if you have guns or not, but if the goal was to shoot paper targets for fun, how much training would you want? IF the goal was to kill someone, how much training would you want? I do not think most guns are made for killing people if you are talking about the American civilian market. Certainly they can be used to kill just as a car can be. Well, they sure as hell weren't designed to beat eggs for an omelet, hammer in nails, or to get you to work faster. They're weapons, pure and simple.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 23, 2024 15:04:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2015 7:31:44 GMT -5
Is it your belief that the vast majority of guns fail at what they were designed for? Most pistols are never used to kill anything. I think you are most likely wrong when you say that pistols were designed to kill. I think they were designed for many reasons. Some for sport, some for security, some for the coolness factor, some to mask insecurity, etc. I do not think very many people purchase a pistol with the idea that it will be used to kill. If people really thought they would be using their gun in a life and death situation, wouldn't they get more training? I do not know if you have guns or not, but if the goal was to shoot paper targets for fun, how much training would you want? IF the goal was to kill someone, how much training would you want? I do not think most guns are made for killing people if you are talking about the American civilian market. Certainly they can be used to kill just as a car can be. Well, they sure as hell weren't designed to beat eggs for an omelet, hammer in nails, or to get you to work faster. They're weapons, pure and simple.
The vast majority of guns bought in America are not bought with the intent of killing someone with it. Many guns are bought with the purpose of bringing a sense of security, a purpose they achieve.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 6, 2015 8:34:22 GMT -5
It is funny that the media has made a stand to keep him as 'out of the press' as possible, and that may have made things worse. I have heard so much shit about this guy it is insane. Because there isn't a prominent source saying exactly what the deal is, people are making up stuff left and right to suit their political agenda and continue to hate whoever they already hate. Are we sure it was a man? Those bitches be crazy, maybe it was a woman on her period. The only fact not in dispute is that the shooter was wearing an "I (heart) Snow Leopards" tee-shirt. Just sayin'. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/actnatural.png)
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Oct 6, 2015 10:25:44 GMT -5
In today's news I came across an article that relates to the latest shooting. www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/ here are a couple of notes out of the article. The potential for that kind of outcome is why most police agencies strongly recommend that concealed carry holders only use their weapons as an absolute last resort, and not intervene in robberies or other crimes in which they’re not directly involved. David Chipman notes that even police officers are told that if they encounter a crime in progress while off-duty, “maybe the best thing to do at that time is not to take lethal action but instead try to be the best witness you can be.”Yeaa, the best course of action if you come up on a crime is to whip out your cell phone, record it even if you are a police officer, While a number of conservatives declared that Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, the scene of a mass shooting last week, was a gun-free zone, the truth is that several concealed carry holders were present, and they wisely decided to leave their guns holstered. Were they in the classroom with the shooter? If they were, why did they not help the man that tried to keep the shooter out of the classroom. www.stripes.com/news/us/he-just-tried-to-do-the-right-thing-veteran-tried-to-block-oregon-shooter-1.371511 Comments??
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Oct 6, 2015 10:43:49 GMT -5
While a number of conservatives declared that Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, the scene of a mass shooting last week, was a gun-free zone, the truth is that several concealed carry holders were present, and they wisely decided to leave their guns holstered.
Were they in the classroom with the shooter? If they were, why did they not help the man that tried to keep the shooter out of the classroom.
One report from a guy that was concealed carrying on campus was that he was afraid that the SWAT team would mistake him for the shooter and shoot him instead of the actual shooter. He was not in the classrooms where the shooter was shooting, but said that if the shooter came into the classroom he was in, he was going to defend himself.
He has a good point. If he went roaming the halls with his gun, how would the SWAT team know that he was on their side and was not the shooter?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,062
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 6, 2015 12:12:31 GMT -5
While a number of conservatives declared that Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, the scene of a mass shooting last week, was a gun-free zone, the truth is that several concealed carry holders were present, and they wisely decided to leave their guns holstered.Were they in the classroom with the shooter? If they were, why did they not help the man that tried to keep the shooter out of the classroom.One report from a guy that was concealed carrying on campus was that he was afraid that the SWAT team would mistake him for the shooter and shoot him instead of the actual shooter. He was not in the classrooms where the shooter was shooting, but said that if the shooter came into the classroom he was in, he was going to defend himself. He has a good point. If he went roaming the halls with his gun, how would the SWAT team know that he was on their side and was not the shooter? I'm guessing the police would shoot anyone with a gun and figure everything out later. Unless you were wearing a uniform, and even then, there have been cases of policemen accidentally shooting each other in the heat of a gun fight with a criminal.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,062
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 6, 2015 12:19:40 GMT -5
link
Too bad he didn't shoot his mom first like the other idiot did....
This gets back to my point that people who know they are living with a mentally ill person who has violent tendencies ought to be partly liable for what happens if they keep an arsenal in the house. The kid, according to neighbors, was never friendly and always appeared to be 'having a tantrum.' The people who lived underneath him heard him pacing the floors all night when his mom was at work. He'd previously been in a mental health facility. While he had attended some college, his ability to go to school or to work seems sketchy at best. But the mom, a rabid advocate of gun ownership, kept all kinds of weapons and ammo in her house. When the police came to tell her that her son was the one doing the shooting at the college, she initially denied it could be him. She's a nurse, for fuck's sake. Don't all nurses have at least some MH training? I understand she was his mom and loved him, but she had to know he wound tight. Would it have been the end of the world if she just locked all her guns and ammo into a gun safe and hid the key from him? You know, just as a precaution, when he's working himself up into this rage and pacing the floors all night? And the dad bears some blame, too. Apparently he hasn't seen the ex wife or kid in a couple years, and he's claiming he didn't know guns were in the house - sorry, not buying that. He couldn't deal with the ex wife or the kid and just walked away. He knew his kid was troubled, he knew his wife loved her guns, he should have had the sense that God gave a gnat and recognized a second Sandy Hook was in the making.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 6, 2015 12:56:14 GMT -5
link
Too bad he didn't shoot his mom first like the other idiot did....
This gets back to my point that people who know they are living with a mentally ill person who has violent tendencies ought to be partly liable for what happens if they keep an arsenal in the house. The kid, according to neighbors, was never friendly and always appeared to be 'having a tantrum.' The people who lived underneath him heard him pacing the floors all night when his mom was at work. He'd previously been in a mental health facility. While he had attended some college, his ability to go to school or to work seems sketchy at best. But the mom, a rabid advocate of gun ownership, kept all kinds of weapons and ammo in her house. When the police came to tell her that her son was the one doing the shooting at the college, she initially denied it could be him. She's a nurse, for fuck's sake. Don't all nurses have at least some MH training? I understand she was his mom and loved him, but she had to know he wound tight. Would it have been the end of the world if she just locked all her guns and ammo into a gun safe and hid the key from him? You know, just as a precaution, when he's working himself up into this rage and pacing the floors all night? And the dad bears some blame, too. Apparently he hasn't seen the ex wife or kid in a couple years, and he's claiming he didn't know guns were in the house - sorry, not buying that. He couldn't deal with the ex wife or the kid and just walked away. He knew his kid was troubled, he knew his wife loved her guns, he should have had the sense that God gave a gnat and recognized a second Sandy Hook was in the making. You really want a law that requires people to lock away their firearms when somebody diagnosed as mentally ill (or alternatively, somebody deemed to be mentally ill in the judgment of the firearms owner) would otherwise have access to them? How would such a law work? Would I be responsible for the guests and workers in my house? Just my children? If they knew where the location of the key was to access the weapons, would that be a violation of the law? What if I argued in court that I didn't reasonably judge an individual (e.g. my son) to be mentally ill? How do the courts assess whether this is a reasonable defense? If a diagnosis of mental illness is used, what kinds of mental illness qualify? If my grandmother suffers from seasonal depression, am I required to lock up my guns and hide the key from her? If my son is frequenting anarchist websites, does that require me to do the same? What is my motivation to comply with these laws? How are they enforced? Does the punishment only apply if and when my weapons are used in a homicide? Should the mothers and fathers of kids turned gang bangers be summarily jailed for keeping weapons in their houses if their children commit homicide? Will an expert panel determine whether I ought to have locked up my firearms (based on the shooter's behaviour in the years prior to the shooting) and the courts find me liable for the shooting if and only if the panel returns "yes"? Do you truly see anything actionable here? More good than bad coming from laws like this? Or is this not just a manifestation of your desire to punish an unrepentant gun enthusiast and negligent parent?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 6, 2015 13:47:27 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,793
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 6, 2015 13:58:37 GMT -5
It will be interesting how the 11-yea-old boy got access to his father's firearm. And if the firearm was not properly secured, will the father be punished too.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Oct 6, 2015 14:06:54 GMT -5
It will be interesting how the 11-yea-old boy got access to his father's firearm. And if the firearm was not properly secured, will the father be punished too. The father should be punished exactly as if he pulled the trigger himself. Maybe that will stop irresponsible idiots.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,062
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 6, 2015 15:28:20 GMT -5
This gets back to my point that people who know they are living with a mentally ill person who has violent tendencies ought to be partly liable for what happens if they keep an arsenal in the house. The kid, according to neighbors, was never friendly and always appeared to be 'having a tantrum.' The people who lived underneath him heard him pacing the floors all night when his mom was at work. He'd previously been in a mental health facility. While he had attended some college, his ability to go to school or to work seems sketchy at best. But the mom, a rabid advocate of gun ownership, kept all kinds of weapons and ammo in her house. When the police came to tell her that her son was the one doing the shooting at the college, she initially denied it could be him. She's a nurse, for fuck's sake. Don't all nurses have at least some MH training? I understand she was his mom and loved him, but she had to know he wound tight. Would it have been the end of the world if she just locked all her guns and ammo into a gun safe and hid the key from him? You know, just as a precaution, when he's working himself up into this rage and pacing the floors all night? And the dad bears some blame, too. Apparently he hasn't seen the ex wife or kid in a couple years, and he's claiming he didn't know guns were in the house - sorry, not buying that. He couldn't deal with the ex wife or the kid and just walked away. He knew his kid was troubled, he knew his wife loved her guns, he should have had the sense that God gave a gnat and recognized a second Sandy Hook was in the making. You really want a law that requires people to lock away their firearms when somebody diagnosed as mentally ill (or alternatively, somebody deemed to be mentally ill in the judgment of the firearms owner) would otherwise have access to them? How would such a law work? Would I be responsible for the guests and workers in my house? Just my children? If they knew where the location of the key was to access the weapons, would that be a violation of the law? What if I argued in court that I didn't reasonably judge an individual (e.g. my son) to be mentally ill? How do the courts assess whether this is a reasonable defense? If a diagnosis of mental illness is used, what kinds of mental illness qualify? If my grandmother suffers from seasonal depression, am I required to lock up my guns and hide the key from her? If my son is frequenting anarchist websites, does that require me to do the same? What is my motivation to comply with these laws? How are they enforced? Does the punishment only apply if and when my weapons are used in a homicide? Should the mothers and fathers of kids turned gang bangers be summarily jailed for keeping weapons in their houses if their children commit homicide? Will an expert panel determine whether I ought to have locked up my firearms (based on the shooter's behaviour in the years prior to the shooting) and the courts find me liable for the shooting if and only if the panel returns "yes"? Do you truly see anything actionable here? More good than bad coming from laws like this? Or is this not just a manifestation of your desire to punish an unrepentant gun enthusiast and negligent parent? Virgil we already have laws on the books like this. If you are negligent and leave loaded fire arms around your house and your small child finds one and kills a neighbor's kid, you can be sued for negligence. If your dog, who has a history of biting people, gets loose in the neighborhood and kills a toddler, you will be sued for negligence. If you are a bar tender and keep giving drinks to a man who is so drunk he can't walk, you (and the bar) will be sued for negligence when he runs over a car load of teenagers. If you are an adult and buy a keg of beer for a bunch of underage teenagers and one of them gets drunk and drives off a cliff, you will be sued for negligence. I would be willing to bet that lawyers are already in contact with the families of the victims to draft a lawsuit against the mother. After all, the families sued Adam Lanza's mom (don't know what the settlement was on that, if any). www.cnn.com/2015/03/14/us/connecticut-sandy-hook-lawsuits/Why do you think a person with a mean dog could be sued but someone who armed their mentally ill and violent son can't? And I really hope to God that if you have a suicidal grandma in the house that you do lock up your weapons. My DH's cousins' daughter got hold of her brother's pistol and shot herself in the garage, leaving behind two toddlers. She'd been dealing with depression and post partum issues for nearly two years, so everyone in the family knew she had problems. How do you think her brother and parents feel about that? This is totally about punishing a negligent parent. I would feel the same way about a woman who knowingly married a sexual predator and brought him into the house with her preteen daughter, or a parent who kept a pack of feral dogs in the backyard and one kills his kid, or a parent that let his teenage son drink beer in the house and then he drives drunk and kills someone. Parents have a responsibility to protect their kids, and to protect the rest of society from their kids (if necessary). Not a question of being against gun enthusiasts. I know a lot of those, and almost all of them have gun safes to secure their weapons (mostly to keep people from stealing them) and are very geared towards safety. I would imagine most gun enthusiasts are pissed at this woman for being so casual with her weapons.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 6, 2015 15:34:33 GMT -5
My son's family has quite a few guns. They're kept in a locked gun cabinet. Only my son has a key to that cabinet. The oldest grandson has his own home now and took his guns with him. He also has a locked gun cabinet. Gun safety is as important to them as owning a gun, thankfully. They take it seriously.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,486
|
Post by thyme4change on Oct 6, 2015 17:02:40 GMT -5
While a number of conservatives declared that Oregon’s Umpqua Community College, the scene of a mass shooting last week, was a gun-free zone, the truth is that several concealed carry holders were present, and they wisely decided to leave their guns holstered.Were they in the classroom with the shooter? If they were, why did they not help the man that tried to keep the shooter out of the classroom.One report from a guy that was concealed carrying on campus was that he was afraid that the SWAT team would mistake him for the shooter and shoot him instead of the actual shooter. He was not in the classrooms where the shooter was shooting, but said that if the shooter came into the classroom he was in, he was going to defend himself. He has a good point. If he went roaming the halls with his gun, how would the SWAT team know that he was on their side and was not the shooter? I'm guessing the police would shoot anyone with a gun and figure everything out later. Unless you were wearing a uniform, and even then, there have been cases of policemen accidentally shooting each other in the heat of a gun fight with a criminal. My husband has to go through training in case there is a shooter in his building (and other acts of violence /terrorism.) One of the things that was stressed was how to react to law enforcement. They are just people and have to make snap judgments. Don't run to them. Make eye contact, keep your hands showing, don't yell and scream.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 7, 2015 0:26:02 GMT -5
You really want a law that requires people to lock away their firearms when somebody diagnosed as mentally ill (or alternatively, somebody deemed to be mentally ill in the judgment of the firearms owner) would otherwise have access to them? How would such a law work? Would I be responsible for the guests and workers in my house? Just my children? If they knew where the location of the key was to access the weapons, would that be a violation of the law? What if I argued in court that I didn't reasonably judge an individual (e.g. my son) to be mentally ill? How do the courts assess whether this is a reasonable defense? If a diagnosis of mental illness is used, what kinds of mental illness qualify? If my grandmother suffers from seasonal depression, am I required to lock up my guns and hide the key from her? If my son is frequenting anarchist websites, does that require me to do the same? What is my motivation to comply with these laws? How are they enforced? Does the punishment only apply if and when my weapons are used in a homicide? Should the mothers and fathers of kids turned gang bangers be summarily jailed for keeping weapons in their houses if their children commit homicide? Will an expert panel determine whether I ought to have locked up my firearms (based on the shooter's behaviour in the years prior to the shooting) and the courts find me liable for the shooting if and only if the panel returns "yes"? Do you truly see anything actionable here? More good than bad coming from laws like this? Or is this not just a manifestation of your desire to punish an unrepentant gun enthusiast and negligent parent? Virgil we already have laws on the books like this. If you are negligent and leave loaded fire arms around your house and your small child finds one and kills a neighbor's kid, you can be sued for negligence. If your dog, who has a history of biting people, gets loose in the neighborhood and kills a toddler, you will be sued for negligence. If you are a bar tender and keep giving drinks to a man who is so drunk he can't walk, you (and the bar) will be sued for negligence when he runs over a car load of teenagers. If you are an adult and buy a keg of beer for a bunch of underage teenagers and one of them gets drunk and drives off a cliff, you will be sued for negligence. I would be willing to bet that lawyers are already in contact with the families of the victims to draft a lawsuit against the mother. After all, the families sued Adam Lanza's mom (don't know what the settlement was on that, if any). www.cnn.com/2015/03/14/us/connecticut-sandy-hook-lawsuits/Why do you think a person with a mean dog could be sued but someone who armed their mentally ill and violent son can't? And I really hope to God that if you have a suicidal grandma in the house that you do lock up your weapons. My DH's cousins' daughter got hold of her brother's pistol and shot herself in the garage, leaving behind two toddlers. She'd been dealing with depression and post partum issues for nearly two years, so everyone in the family knew she had problems. How do you think her brother and parents feel about that? This is totally about punishing a negligent parent. I would feel the same way about a woman who knowingly married a sexual predator and brought him into the house with her preteen daughter, or a parent who kept a pack of feral dogs in the backyard and one kills his kid, or a parent that let his teenage son drink beer in the house and then he drives drunk and kills someone. Parents have a responsibility to protect their kids, and to protect the rest of society from their kids (if necessary). Not a question of being against gun enthusiasts. I know a lot of those, and almost all of them have gun safes to secure their weapons (mostly to keep people from stealing them) and are very geared towards safety. I would imagine most gun enthusiasts are pissed at this woman for being so casual with her weapons. Fair enough, as long as we're acknowledging it's about punishing negligent parents after the fact. Unfortunately I don't think it will have much of an effect as a deterrent. Either a parent doesn't perceive the risk of their child committing murder, or else does perceive the risk but has chosen to ignore it in spite of the already grave consequences. Adding "potential lawsuit" to "son shoots up a school" isn't going to tip the scales much. I also worry that the vast majority of situations in which such suits would be filed would simply be visiting sorrows on sorrows. Realistically, we'd get the guardians of any dependant convicted of murder being sued regardless of circumstances. This would include the parents of gang members, single working parents failing to keep close tabs on their children, drug-addicted parents, parents of non-violent children who just "snap" (and we have seen such cases in recent years), etc. Even if the court doesn't find these defendants at fault, being dragged through a lawsuit is punishment in and of itself. The question is whether we'd be doing more harm than good by suing the lot of these parents simply to ensure that those not devastated by their child's crime still suffer the effects a bit.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 7, 2015 0:30:53 GMT -5
My son's family has quite a few guns. They're kept in a locked gun cabinet. Only my son has a key to that cabinet. The oldest grandson has his own home now and took his guns with him. He also has a locked gun cabinet. Gun safety is as important to them as owning a gun, thankfully. They take it seriously. I highly doubt a locked cabinet would have stopped this guy or any other mass shooter in recent history. But for kids or suicidal individuals, yes. Better safe than sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 23, 2024 15:04:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 8:55:31 GMT -5
I thought gun violence was going down year after year. Is that not true? Maybe the thing to do is continue that ride instead of changing.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,793
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 7, 2015 8:59:13 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 23, 2024 15:04:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 9:11:47 GMT -5
How would you separate out what is working to facilitate individual shootings going down from what is facilitating mass shootings going up? If something is helping individual shootings to go down we certainly want to keep that. (if it is legal to do) eta: added caveat
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,793
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 7, 2015 9:13:40 GMT -5
How would you separate out what is working to facilitate individual shootings going down from what is facilitating mass shootings going up? If something is helping individual shootings to go down we certainly want to keep that. Great if individual shootings are going down. But not so great mass shootings are going up, no?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 23, 2024 15:04:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 9:17:51 GMT -5
How would you separate out what is working to facilitate individual shootings going down from what is facilitating mass shootings going up? If something is helping individual shootings to go down we certainly want to keep that. Great if individual shootings are going down. But not so great mass shootings are going up, no? Of course that is right. My question is how would you do whatever it is you want to do about mass shootings so as not to affect individual shooting incidents dropping? I assume you want to not change things, laws, whatever and inadvertantly (sp) cause individual shootings to rise.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,793
|
Post by Tennesseer on Oct 7, 2015 9:52:54 GMT -5
Great if individual shootings are going down. But not so great mass shootings are going up, no? Of course that is right. My question is how would you do whatever it is you want to do about mass shootings so as not to affect individual shooting incidents dropping? I assume you want to not change things, laws, whatever and inadvertantly (sp) cause individual shootings to rise. I don't have the answer nor can one person solve the problem. It would and will require many people to be involved to fix the problem.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 23, 2024 15:04:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2015 11:18:49 GMT -5
Not counting police, is it true that there are more good, reasonable people carrying guns now then ever before in history? If it is true, is that a good thing, a bad think or not relevant to anything?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Oct 7, 2015 14:55:30 GMT -5
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 7, 2015 21:27:55 GMT -5
What the hell is wrong with this 11 yo boy ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/shocked.gif) He has stupid parents.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 7, 2015 21:34:56 GMT -5
She will be charged for sure- they may give her a pass and go for a lesser charge than what she is guilty of- but they cannot let it go- because it would send a message to every irrational gun owner that it is perfectly fine to shoot into a moving vehicle based on assumptions and lack of need to defend themselves or others. An assault with a deadly weapon conviction and confiscation of her gun(s) would be a good start.
|
|
fishy999
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 9, 2015 20:40:43 GMT -5
Posts: 629
|
Post by fishy999 on Oct 7, 2015 21:38:00 GMT -5
That may be so, but at 11 my first reaction to being told I couldn't play with a puppy was not to shoot someone, and I had ready access to a gun and ammo. At 11 yo, you know what life and death is, and you know the difference between reality and make believe. Yep, parents were culpable, but ther is something severely wrong with this kid. Did you read the story? It is really out there- the kid dropped the shotgun out of the window- another child picked it up- the mother locked the door to the trailer- it's so out there- pretty much the story of a shotgun's journey through the hands of children- WTF is wrong with this country?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,062
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 8, 2015 7:19:05 GMT -5
Virgil we already have laws on the books like this. If you are negligent and leave loaded fire arms around your house and your small child finds one and kills a neighbor's kid, you can be sued for negligence. If your dog, who has a history of biting people, gets loose in the neighborhood and kills a toddler, you will be sued for negligence. If you are a bar tender and keep giving drinks to a man who is so drunk he can't walk, you (and the bar) will be sued for negligence when he runs over a car load of teenagers. If you are an adult and buy a keg of beer for a bunch of underage teenagers and one of them gets drunk and drives off a cliff, you will be sued for negligence. I would be willing to bet that lawyers are already in contact with the families of the victims to draft a lawsuit against the mother. After all, the families sued Adam Lanza's mom (don't know what the settlement was on that, if any). www.cnn.com/2015/03/14/us/connecticut-sandy-hook-lawsuits/Why do you think a person with a mean dog could be sued but someone who armed their mentally ill and violent son can't? And I really hope to God that if you have a suicidal grandma in the house that you do lock up your weapons. My DH's cousins' daughter got hold of her brother's pistol and shot herself in the garage, leaving behind two toddlers. She'd been dealing with depression and post partum issues for nearly two years, so everyone in the family knew she had problems. How do you think her brother and parents feel about that? This is totally about punishing a negligent parent. I would feel the same way about a woman who knowingly married a sexual predator and brought him into the house with her preteen daughter, or a parent who kept a pack of feral dogs in the backyard and one kills his kid, or a parent that let his teenage son drink beer in the house and then he drives drunk and kills someone. Parents have a responsibility to protect their kids, and to protect the rest of society from their kids (if necessary). Not a question of being against gun enthusiasts. I know a lot of those, and almost all of them have gun safes to secure their weapons (mostly to keep people from stealing them) and are very geared towards safety. I would imagine most gun enthusiasts are pissed at this woman for being so casual with her weapons. Fair enough, as long as we're acknowledging it's about punishing negligent parents after the fact. Unfortunately I don't think it will have much of an effect as a deterrent. Either a parent doesn't perceive the risk of their child committing murder, or else does perceive the risk but has chosen to ignore it in spite of the already grave consequences. Adding "potential lawsuit" to "son shoots up a school" isn't going to tip the scales much. It's already a significant deterrent. As I mentioned, all the gun owners I know are responsible ones who keep their guns locked up. Most gun owners do. Are they concerned the guns will get stolen from their house and used in a crime, or that their toddler will find one and kill himself, or their teenager will load up with them and kill a bunch of people and the parent will get sued - maybe all of the above. Responsible gun owners keep their guns locked up to keep their home safe and their neighborhood save and, probably at least a little bit, to make sure they have no liability. People who are not responsible with guns, and who therefore help cause a tragedy, should be punished. I also worry that the vast majority of situations in which such suits would be filed would simply be visiting sorrows on sorrows. Realistically, we'd get the guardians of any dependant convicted of murder being sued regardless of circumstances. This would include the parents of gang members, single working parents failing to keep close tabs on their children, drug-addicted parents, parents of non-violent children who just "snap" (and we have seen such cases in recent years), etc. Even if the court doesn't find these defendants at fault, being dragged through a lawsuit is punishment in and of itself. The question is whether we'd be doing more harm than good by suing the lot of these parents simply to ensure that those not devastated by their child's crime still suffer the effects a bit. No, this will not lead to guardians of any dependant being sued. If you buy a keg for your 16 year old and his buddies and let them have a party in your basement, then one of them goes out drunk driving and kills a bunch of people, you will get sued. If your kid goes to someone else's house, gets drunk and then kills a bunch of people, you will not - because you are not being negligent in allowing your 16 year old to leave the house. If you own an aggressive dog but keep him in your backyard, behind 10 foot fences, but someone takes wire cutters and cuts a hole in your fence while you're away, you will not get sued if he bites someone (as long as you can prove someone maliciously made the hole) - but if you take him to the neighborhood BBQ and let him off leash and he mauls a couple kids, you will be sued. I'm kind of surprised you want to avoid the whole personal responsibility thing by talking about 'sorrows on sorrows' - if you do something stupid and people get killed or hurt, you OUGHT to experience sorrows on sorrows. Pretty sure that goes right back to the Old Testament.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Oct 8, 2015 8:36:11 GMT -5
Change "probably at least a little bit" to "occasionally a tiny bit" and we agree.
Responsible owners are responsible. They know the dangers and they take steps to avoid them*. Irresponsible owners are either ignorant of the danger or neglectful of it. Either way, if they're not concerned about their kids killing people or blowing their limbs off, they're probably not worried about the liability from their kids killing people or blowing their limbs off.
You want to bet?
They probably wouldn't win the suit. I'll give you that much.
I'm not sure if you've ever seen the families of murder victims on newscasts, in courtrooms, or on TV interviews, but expecting that people will generally be rational, forgiving people in the wake of a murder is not a horse you want to bet on. People want blood. If they can get blood from mom and dad too, all the better.
Mom and dad took reasonable precautions and there's no hope of winning a case against them? Somehow I doubt the victim's family will agree 95% of the time.
Of course I believe in justice and that negligence should be punished. I also believe in the power of vengeance, even against the undeserving. If we want to go OT, it included provisions for men guilty of involuntary manslaughter to escape the wrath of the victims' families in sanctuary towns. Manslaughter or no, the families didn't really give a damn. That's the state people are in after the death of a loved one. They want their pound of flesh. I'm saying that what we gain in terms of holding negligent parents accountable must be discounted by what we lose in having more-or-less responsible parents dragged through the courts purely out of vengeance. It may well not be worth it.
It's also prone to punishing the disadvantaged. The mom who lives in a neighbourhood full of drug addicts who sleeps with a pistol in the drawer next to the bed. Her son gets it out one day without telling her and shoots somebody. Now mom is going through twice the hell because she didn't have her weapon responsibly locked away. But do we really want to bankrupt her? I mean she probably told the kid, "If somebody ever breaks into the house, call 911, go into my room, get the gun in the drawer, and stay there until the police come."
Oop. Sorry mom. Your kid turned out to be a rotter. Now you've been shamed and bankrupted too.
Is this justice? That's what I'm worried about.
*don't ever make this argument as it pertains to avoiding frat boys hanging "Freshman Daughter Drop-off" banners from their booze barns; you'll regret it
|
|