A kid with no criminal history killed 10 people with a shotgun and a revolver. Are we going to ban shotguns and revolvers now?
Is "banning" guns the only possible solution you can come up with? Really?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A kid with no criminal history killed 10 people with a shotgun and a revolver. Are we going to ban shotguns and revolvers now?
How would you have prevented this particular incident?Is "banning" guns the only possible solution you can come up with? Really?
Do you not think people will be willing to fund this to keep their kids safe? They fund keeping their money, homes, cars, politicians, safe.Legislation may very well include cops in schools, but then that will obviously cost money, and making it law that they must be there, and making funds available to ensure they are there leaves districts/schools without excuse for not implementing.
You have to be very naive to believe legislation is going to fix it completely, but it can be used as a tool to send a message to students that we're serious about doing something, send a message to gun owners that they must ensure their guns are not made available to anyone but them outside their own supervision (make them liable when bad things happen with guns they're responsible for).
Continuing to refuse to discuss it is a losing battle, while taking it head on while they have the majority is a winning move for R's. It will likely take compromise, maybe it's giving up something in terms of what types of weapons are available to who, what means are available to obtain them, or what responsibilities gun owners have to ensure their weapons aren't used by anyone but themselves.
I honestly believe that if R's would pass something before the mid-terms, they'd stand a good chance of retaining the house. I see no downside to it whatsoever.
It's not simply "sending a message" to them.You have to be very naive to believe legislation is going to fix it completely, but it can be used as a tool to send a message to students that we're serious about doing something,
send a message to gun owners that they must ensure their guns are not made available to anyone but them outside their own supervision (make them liable when bad things happen with guns they're responsible for).
How would you have prevented this particular incident?
So...a 16 year old who is trained and competent with a hand gun should not be allowed access to one to defend themselves in their own home? What about a 19 year old college student living at home? If the gun is stolen do owners still get charged with murder? Do we presume it was stolen, or are we just taking a big dump on the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing? What if they took all reasonable steps, but still had someone else get ahold of their gun? Who decides what those reasonable steps are? What would an owner be charged with precisely? Murder, accessory? Not sure I am super comfortable with the concept that someone can be held criminally responsible for the actions of another that they had no knowledge of. Even highly trained psychiatrists admit that they cannot predict violence. There are many studies on this. But, now, every citizen is supposed to be able to do this with regard to close family members...in which the relationship often makes it hardest to see clearly?It's not simply "sending a message" to them.
And, of course you will not "fix it completely". Can you reduce it to being a "rarity" as opposed to a "weekly event"? I'd bet you can.
This is legislation that is needed: IF you fail to secure your weapons and anyone under 21 obtains them and uses them in a shooting, you share full legal/criminal responsibility for those weapons. If it's someone >21, you still have criminal liability, but less severe.
NRA should be pushing FOR legislation like this AND pushing the message that it is NOT OK to allow others to have access to your guns - YOU own them, YOU "regulate" them, just as the 2A states. Violations = you lose your ownership rights for 10 years or more at minimum. Our military recruits are taught to keep track of their weapons at all times; when they should be loaded and when not. If you want to cite 2A as "well regulated militias", then civil owners should be following those same criteria.
Will it suck when a parent goes to jail for 10+ years for a crime committed by their kid or associate who got hold of their weapon? Yes, but that's the deterrent, so start making examples of people who cannot be responsible, and encourage owners who CANNOT be responsible to give up their weapons so they do not end up in the same boat.
Deterrents work. And might have worked here, as well as in several other cases where fully legal (and non-assault-style) weapons were used. The assault weapons issue is different, and different legislation should address those.
Limit ownership to 21 and up; you want to own a gun at <21, join the military and learn your gun safety and ownership responsibilities there. Or a police force, after you've gone thru their academy training.
It's like PSAs: "Know where your weapons are at all times: YOU are responsible for them and for crimes committed using them". That's called "personal responsibility", and it should be a higher standard for those who choose to own weapons that kill schoolkids and who have minors living with them - particularly if those minors have behavioral issues, but really anyone.
I'm stating that "families which are notified, which HAVE arms in the household, should be held to a higher standard".
If your kid runs to school with a kitchen knife out of the drawer, there's not a whole lot anyone can do about that, because no one generally keeps their kitchen utensils locked up. Guns are different. So, take responsibility as an owner if your kid is "goofy".
So...a 16 year old who is trained and competent with a hand gun should not be allowed access to one to defend themselves in their own home? What about a 19 year old college student living at home? If the gun is stolen do owners still get charged with murder? Do we presume it was stolen, or are we just taking a big dump on the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing? What if they took all reasonable steps, but still had someone else get ahold of their gun? Who decides what those reasonable steps are? What would an owner be charged with precisely? Murder, accessory? Not sure I am super comfortable with the concept that someone can be held criminally responsible for the actions of another that they had no knowledge of. Even highly trained psychiatrists admit that they cannot predict violence. There are many studies on this. But, now, every citizen is supposed to be able to do this with regard to close family members...in which the relationship often makes it hardest to see clearly?
No, you are right. This is all just totally easy, straightforward, "common sense" stuff...not half-baked, impractical nonesense...and F the NRA or anyone else who is uneasy with it. I mean, where are their two paragraph solutions to this wildly complex issue?
I could support this, but see no particular reason why every gun owner need to be "pre-notified" about their responsibilities,... just make it law,... If you own a gun, you are responsible for your gun.... I would however limit their criminal liability to being an irresponsible gun owner, not a murderer...
Not sure I am super comfortable with the concept that someone can be held criminally responsible for the actions of another that they had no knowledge of.
I could support this, but see no particular reason why every gun owner need to be "pre-notified" about their responsibilities,... just make it law,... If you own a gun, you are responsible for your gun.... I would however limit their criminal liability to being an irresponsible gun owner, not a murderer...
Lol, so you got nothing.
Okay, so i guess that is a yes to dumping all over being innocent until proven guilty, all parents are expected to have more powerful discernment of psychological issues and prediction of violent actions than trained psychiatrists, and anyone under 21 isn't allowed to defend themselves with a firearm. Good plan joe.Then make sure you purchase a safe or other method to ensure no other person or minor can obtain access to your weapon. That's YOUR responsibility. HOW you decide to do it is up to YOU. If someone gains access, then you FAILED in your responsibility. I'm sure the 'free market' can come up with all kinds of solutions for you.
If you are not comfortable with them, then put your gun in a safe-deposit box until your kids move away, or you no longer have someone who'd be considered a 'risk' that might access your weapon.
Owning a car is a RESPONSIBILITY. Owning a gun must be a similar RESPONSIBILITY. If that responsibility scares you, then reconsider your options.
We can actually start on multiple fronts. There's no need to limit the response to a checklist.Mental health is a big problem, I completely agree with this. I don’t know what the solution is, but we need to start there imo.
Not for minors or <21. You allow someone HS or college age to access your weapon and commit a crime, you own the crime, do the time.
That is what is known as a "deterrent". And in many cases, it works. Not all, but many.
It is not a perfect solution; it is a step in the right direction.
Like I said, I wouldn't push the criminal liability issue to the point where an irresponsible gun owner becomes a murderer. I think a $100,000 fine plus a year of jail time would suffice,... This would be an adequate, reasonable and achievable deterrent....
Should we give a legally licensed teenagers parent a DUI too?Really? Drunk driving laws for BAC are "nothing"? Cuz it seems those have dramatically reduced that problem.....
(or, were you fully unaware of that?)
Okay, so i guess that is a yes to dumping all over being innocent until proven guilty
More gun control is not the answer.We can actually start on multiple fronts. There's no need to limit the response to a checklist.
Should we give a legally licensed teenagers parent a DUI too?
....along with losing ownership rights in perpetuity....
More gun control is not the answer.
Of course laws prohibiting behavior reduces said behavior. Does it stop people from drinking and driving completely? No. We have laws on the books now for gun control. Does it reduce crimes? Certainly. We will never be able to stop gun violence completely. Does the death penalty stop murder? No. You’re arguments change depending on the subject matter.Really? Drunk driving laws for BAC are "nothing"? Cuz it seems those have dramatically reduced that problem.....
(or, were you fully unaware of that?)
What do you mean LOLWUT?LOLWUT?
If you did NOT secure your weapons, you FAILED in your responsibility as a gun owner.
Full stop.
Now, if you have the police stop over and they see your safe drilled out or bashed to pieces, that's probably a fairly reasonable defense - but not if you, yourself are taking it apart as they show up at your door to cover your own ass....
No...i got that. Nobody under 21 is allowed to defend themselves with a firearm in your world.Remember....we're not allowing minors to own guns outright.
You scoured the entire internet and that is the best Russian you could come up with???this is the only russian fantasy i have:
Why can't it be part of the answer?More gun control is not the answer.
I don't really have time to scour the whole internet, unlike conservatives who seemingly have no other life!You scoured the entire internet and that is the best Russian you could come up with???
Shame on you... damn liberals.
The number of minors killed by accidental discharges dwarfs those who are killed at school every year. I strongly suspect it also dwarfs - by an even larger margin - the number of juveniles who successfully use a weapon in self-defense. I'm not counting those who intentionally kill themselves, either. Should we allow children to drive on the premise that - despite the resulting carnage - they might save a life once in a while?No...i got that. Nobody under 21 is allowed to defend themselves with a firearm in your world.
Of course laws prohibiting behavior reduces said behavior. Does it stop people from drinking and driving completely? No. We have laws on the books now for gun control. Does it reduce crimes? Certainly. We will never be able to stop gun violence completely. Does the death penalty stop murder? No. You’re arguments change depending on the subject matter.
No...i got that. Nobody under 21 is allowed to defend themselves with a firearm in your world.
Says the guy with 5 times the posts I do... and 1 less job I presume.I don't really have time to scour the whole internet, unlike conservatives who seemingly have no other life!
What do you mean LOLWUT?
You are saying that someone would have to prove that their weapon was safeguarded (though pretty short on details of what that entails...so far I have just seen safe and deposit box)...otherwise they are charged by default. That is the definition of guilty until proven innocent..
We do allow people under 21 to drive. Permits at 14 in Iowa. We conduct our wars largely on the backs of 18 and 20 year olds. You can suspect about numbers, but if this were to be implemented the way Joe is suggesting, it would not just take guns away from minors and 18 to 21 year olds...it would effectively remove them from accessibility in a home for self defense for anyone without them having to subject themselves to extreme exposure to legal jeopardy. Joe talks about deterrent...the deterrent effect of firearms in a home is pretty well documented and significant. I wouldn't be so quick to throw it overboard to attempt to combat events that, while acutely catastrophic, are still extreme statistical outliers.The number of minors killed by accidental discharges dwarfs those who are killed at school every year. I strongly suspect it also dwarfs - by an even larger margin - the number of juveniles who successfully use a weapon in self-defense. I'm not counting those who intentionally kill themselves, either. Should we allow children to drive on the premise that - despite the resulting carnage - they might save a life once in a while?
A kid with no criminal history killed 10 people with a shotgun and a revolver. Are we going to ban shotguns and revolvers now?
LOL...so, guilty until proven innocent. Just stop digging Joe.Um, no, it is not.
A. Are you the legal owner? Yes
B. Did you secure that weapon so your kid could not obtain access to it? No
Guilty.
YOU decide on what "securement" YOU are comfortable with. If your kid is responsible and sane, then maybe that security is simply telling them not to use it w/o permission. If your kid is looney and hotheaded, then you'd better consider a safe and a key or combo system to keep him away from it.
If it is YOUR gun and he uses it, YOU must explain how he got hold of it and have evidence he used "substantial and unusual methods" to break your security. Hell, we can set up security STANDARDS for this stuff, like we do for many other things, and the NRA can frickin ENDORSE them....
LOL...so, guilty until proven innocent. Just stop digging Joe.
You have 4 jobs. Maybe you should improve your greeting skills.Says the guy with 5 times the posts I do... and 1 less job I presume.