So the recent incident is a parent who was irresponsible with what he owns. There's another perp with obvious problems that should have been seen. There are easy solutions to protect the schools. Yet you still want to focus on limiting law abiding citizenry.
Guns - staunch 2nd Amendment posters, help me
- Thread starter thewop
- Start date
Did the parents own the guns or not?
Would the parents be 100% liable if they 'got drunk' with the kid, then handed him the car keys to go pick up more booze with their car - and he killed 10 people in a crash? Pretty certain we put parents in jail for that.
If "law abiding" means when you own a gun, and allow your kid access to it, so you end up AS liable and criminally responsible for his actions with YOUR gun, I'm all for it.
Source data comes from a study by Radford University and Florida Gulf Coast.
Interesting. Peaked in the 70's and 80's but has dropped quite significantly. Still not dropped to 1960's levels yet though.
Still I'm not sure if the connection can be made. The two activities seem to be very different and serial killers (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to have more diversity in age then rampage shooters who are almost always under 30 (with some rare exceptions).
So what?
It puts them on notice. Make them fully criminally liable for any weapons the kid has access to, or they have and allow him to get.
Ownership must carry "responsibility". "Regulation" - just as 2A requires.
Because you're asking for a lawsuit, that's what. I agree with you...it just isn't that simple...calling a parent and telling them you think their kid might be capable of shooting up the school. The next call you take as an administrator may be from a lawyer.
It is indeed a "loophole"; UNTIL a real-time database is set up, so if I sell my gun to Jim Baxter, I log into the database (in realtime) and enter the info. Jim Baxter has 24-48 hours to do the same and acknowledge the purchase, or he loses his gun rights.
Possibly.
One could also make the argument that if these "kids" hadn't shot up schools, would they be the types that go on to become serial killers?
It's just a theory.
There are no definitive records kept, but I've read a few articles that suggest the numbers peaked in the 80's and have been dropping since. The motivations for both overlap so much I don't think it's possible to separate serial from spree entirely.
The @sshole with van in Canada and the loser in CA with a gun both killed out of sexual frustration, big time motivator for serial killers. Bundy started his madness quietly and calculated and ended with a berserker mode spree at FSU, touching both categories. One of the main reasons I think we are seeing more grandiose displays is because of technological advancements in communications and forensics. It's got to be a lot harder to get away with old way, so these guys go with a larger display.
No; I am asking for criminal liability for irresponsible ownership, when it leads to deaths.
Just like for cars - get drunk and run over a family on an oceanside pier, you end up in jail.
If you're responsible and not drunk, and your tire hits road debris that knocks you out of control and into a family on the sidewalk = you aren't liable, provided you were driving the speed limit (gasp! another "regulation!")
No, you call a parent and inform them your child is a behavioral issue in school. When the flag is up that the home/guardian also owns firearms, the guardian is read a statement that those need to be kept from the "behavioral problem", as the gun owner is now on notice that any crime the kid commits with YOUR weapons means you get to go to jail for the same crime.
If "dad" wants to ignore it, fine. But he can spend 25 years in prison thinking about how easy it would have been to lock the guns up, or temporarily remove them from the home UNTIL the kid moved out.
You mean like if parents got drunk with their kids, and handed them car keys to go pick up more booze for the family?
Cuz, we already put parents in jail for that.
Ehh despite DNA evidence it's still hard as hell to catch serial killers.
Although the media thing may lend itself to more grandiose displays.
You can look at a few rampage killers and connect their motivations to that of serial killers. Incel guy may be one of those guys.
But it seems like most of them you can't. Rampage killers generally want everyone to know why they did it. Serial killers just do it because they like it.
Is revenge usually a motivator for serial killers because rampage shooters revenge seems to be the #1 motivator.
This is the kind of dishonest, out-of-context gamesmanship that makes these issues so hard. That Obama executive order was badly flawed, overbroad, and almost certainly unconstitutional. Even many people in favor of more strict gun control did not support it. It was a hamfisted order intended more for PR than anything else, with little care or thought apparently given to its ramifications or implementation and it was rammed through via EO against the advice and research of numerous institutions and universities...but let's use it as a convenient hammer against Trump and repiblicans.
Nailed it. ^^ Teachers I know already aren't too keen on calling some parents over much more mundane things such as sliding grades, uneven attendance, poor behavior, etc. Now the teacher is responsible for calling the parents of a potential madman, who themselves may be pretty wacky and hence, where the kid may be "getting it", and explaining that they think that their kid may be a potential shooter?
I think this idea needs a lot more thought as to how that could really work. To me, if there is anything in this line of thought, law enforcement should be contacted so there is a professional element involved. No offense to school teachers, but I think this is asking an awful lot of them as currently described.
Many EO's are by nature badly flawed but that doesn't stop either party from using them. That's an entirely different discussion.
The point is and remains what have Republicans done (dems haven't done much either btw) to address school shootings in terms of actionable items?
....cuz arming them and expecting them to all "Play Rambo" with "more guns" = Way Easier
'Member that time a GA teacher was holding people hostage, recently?
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43217142
"More guns" is the "solution" for gun manufacturers. NOT for gun owners.
Learn the difference.
Did I say that? ^^ Or is it just Joe being Joe and steering the conversation off into the ditch with supposition and drama? For a guy that presents himself as intelligent you sure make up a lot of shit when you post.
No, but that is a common solution given by many conservatives (at least on here). Just a heads up!
I think both angles should be examined, and the only solution I see is that both sides give something. I see only upside for Republicans for passing legislation that gives some in terms of gun control (closing any existing loopholes making it possible for mentally ill, or people to obtain guns without full background checks), as well as addressing other issues you suggest, as in "easy solutions to protect the schools." I also think attempting to address the root causes of what makes the kid act out is also due.
We'll never solve it completely, but this endless standoff between gun activitists and the far left is not going to solve anything. Ever.
They haven't done much. And neither have democrats (what dems HAVE done has mostly been counterproductive and pandering). But, for both sides, lack of meaningful action isn't because they are bad people with bad intentions, or that they are in the pocket of some interest or another...it is because it is a very difficult issue. Freedom and rights colliding with safety is a messy arena, and has been for as long as this country has existed. Contrary to popular sentiment, there are very few, if any, common sense fixes that can be quickly implemented to address or prevent these tragic events. Even ardent supporters of gun control measures concede that they almost universally would not prevent events that we are reacting to, but fall back on the "we at least need to do SOMETHING" mantra. But that is not a good enough reason to trample constitutional rights or to restrict other citizens ability to acquire means to defend themselves and their families. Whatever we do needs to be well reasoned, evidence based, and preserve the rights of law abiding citizens. And we need to also be cognizant that in a country of 300+ million people, there are going to be anti-social psychopaths perpetrating horrific events from time to time...and while we should by no means just throw our hands up about it, we should also not knee-jerk with half-baked, draconian measures when it happens.
He's gonna pretend he's never stated nor implied it now.....
And my basic POINT was that the administrative "task" of warning parents of behavioral issues - when that data can be LINKED with gun ownership in the house by administrators OR local police, is EASY as compared to the other (primary) 'solution' presented by alleged Conservatives.
And I say "alleged" Conservatives, because it seems virtually NO Conservatives want "personal responsibility" for firearms ownership to come into play at all here. "I want my guns, but I don't wanna be held accountable for when li'l Billy-Bob-Junior takes them off my shelf and uses them to shoot up a school"
....cuz registering and real-time tracking of guns is 'knee jerk, half-baked and draconian', compared to how we track other forms of property, like cars, houses, and stocks/large banking transactions.
"Guns is special, people" - we cain't track them like we do other stuffs, cuz........GUNS!!!
Then reply to the "many conservatives" that are saying that...NOT as a reply to a quote that I wrote.
It is infuriating that "many liberals" cannot actually hold a conversation with someone that they disagree with without jerking the wheel over into the ditch with some way off base comment like that.
I agree with the overall point you are making.
I do think that we can do a much much better job with mental health care in this country though. That is the first step I would take. We can also do a much better job with school security as well. Those are fairly simple and have limited impacts on freedom. They do and will cost money however. That is the real hangup on those two areas.
He's gonna pretend he's never stated nor implied it now.....
...
Are you talking about me Joe? Because if you are...let's not pretend anything. Let's have YOU, Mr. Personal Responsibility, show me where I ever said that, "....cuz arming them and expecting them to all "Play Rambo" with "more guns" = Way Easier"
Let's go big fella...show me where I said that.
I think Joe was just preparing for the very typical response that we "liberals" get when proposing solutions. You would have to ask him.
Also, and perhaps more importantly many cons on here do the exact same thing as well.
I have proposed numerous solutions to this issue in many threads on here over the years and cons (not you specifically) don't like any proposed solution. Yet, they offer nothing in return. That gets frustrating and I'm sure you can appreciate that
Tell us more about these easy solutions. I'm not being sarcastic - I am interested in learning what measures you think we can take to protect kids in school. What we are doing now is not working very well.
That's a pretty poor effort to tie those two events together. I agree that gun owners should be responsible to safeguard their weapons but from everything I've read, they didn't hand him these guns knowing that he was planning to do harm. Getting the kid drunk and handing him the keys is not the same as the kid taking the guns when the parents weren't home.
Should the parents also be jailed if the kid gets drunk on his own and then takes their car keys while they're away or asleep?
I agree. I think school security is an area where we can move more quickly, although there are costs there. Much of that can and should be handled at the local level by the people most closely affected and most knowledgeable of their particular situation. I am agnostic on arming teachers. I can see advantages and pitfalls there that I don't know enough to intelligently comment on.
Mental health is a much thornier issue. I think there is a clear connection to certain medications and this recent uptick in these events, but these are still exceedingly rare events statistically, and how you identify people who are true threats is exceedingly difficult. But, it probably is a data-point that can be combined with several others to establish some sort of reasonable guideline for restricting access to firearms...but, man, that it still really difficult, and we are nowhere close to it right now.
I think while costly, some additional school safety measures are needed. As to the arming teachers solution, I will just say I prefer to use trained law enforcement instead.
Part of the issue with mental health care is lack of proper funding. I can tell you about many cases where a person needs help but takes weeks or months or more to get that help. We have a shortage in certain areas of this country. Also, many insurances have limited options.
Both of these issues could be helped by additional funding. That is not an issue held in high regard by the right. Obviously the gun issue is not even touchable. Where does that leave us?
I can appreciate much of what you have written, thank you. ^^
However, specifically as it relates to Joe...I have experienced this very phenomena with him previously. Where he reacts, or certainly appears to react to one of my posts because he has quoted it and is replying to it, in some off the wall and childish manner.
When confronted...he excels at throwing dust in the air and feigning innocence...usually after he has intimated that I have said one thing or the other that when challenged, he has yet to back up one time. Yet he persists. It is quite annoying.
They certainly did not safeguard the weapons and take reasonable precautions to prevent his access.
If they left a bunch of booze on the kitchen table with the car keys? You BET they'd be held liable for it.
We, as a society, should probably hold guns to a higher standard with regard to 'minors', don't you agree?
Wow.
I don’t even....wow.
If you honestly think guys like Adam Lanza and James Holmes and Nikolas Cruz are just modern day Jeffrey Dahmers with better weapons then I’m not sure there’s any framework for continuing this discussion.
There are significant differences between serial killers and mass shooters. Mass shooters typically are on a suicide mission and want to take out as many people as possible in the process. They pick a public target, shoot as many people as they can in the brief amount of time they have before police arrive, then either shoot themselves or commit suicide by cop. Sometimes they chicken out at the last minute, but suicide usually is in the plan.
Apart from the murdering, serial killers are pretty much the polar opposite. Not only are they not suicidal, they often go to great lengths to cover their tracks and avoid capture so they can go on killing indefinitely. They are methodical and calculating. They often prefer a specific demographic - prostitutes or college coeds or children. Dahmer had a thing for gay men. They will often carefully choose each victim and then track them for days or even weeks to learn their routine and choose just the right time and place to capture them. They usually rape and/or torture their victims before finally killing them. They carefully dispose of the body and then begin planning their next victim.
It’s not even close to a valid comparison.
As I'd stated....that is the COMMON meme set out by 2A backers.
More guns.
Pretty sure you've been backing that 2A bus; did you explicitly stated 'arming teachers' or 'more armed officers in schools' or 'metal detectors'? I have no idea, but those are basically the ONLY "solutions" that gun-nuts have put forth on this - ZERO regulations on guns, despite the 2A they love to quote has the word "regulated" right in it.
Then offer up some options as solutions, instead of de-facto siding with the NRA which IS proposing those as the only 'solutions'.
Clarify for us: DO YOU SIDE WITH THE NRA on this position? Because if so, then my statement is spot-on.
Similar threads
