"Making the penalty high enough they won't act" - do you think these mass shootings would not occur if the penalty for them was death?
Oregon's Mother Sounds Like Some Posters Here...
- Thread starter slieb85
- Start date
How about this. I chose to keep unsecured(not locked up, not trigger guarded) guns in my home while raising minors under the age of 18.
While I'm drinking beers and complaining about the gubmint' on the front porch of my double-wide, this bad After School Special script unfolds....
In a fit of rage over puppies, my 11 year old grabs the pistol I keep under my pillow and shoots the neighbors 8 year old.
Since I'm a deadbeat already, no one is going to come after me for any civil suit money.
The State took my murdering son away in cuffs, so I don't have that burden anymore. The only back-handed positive is the neighbor saved some money on an undersized casket. Is that the end?
Or, should my miserable existence at least serve as a warning to others?
Should a judge in an effort to build a responsible society, give me 3-5 years for being a worthless human being that was to sloth-like to supervise my children and keep him from killing someone else's child?
That parent has one degree of separation from the crime and could have/should have been able to influence that situation out of existence.
Hold someone accountable.
Oooooooooooh "how I truly view gun ownership."
Sick burn bro.
Here's how I view gun ownership, so that when you're trying to be a smart ass you might actually make sense.
I personally despise the vast majority of gun enthusiasts. I think they're compensating by buying these things. They aren't for me, and I'll never own another one that isn't a shotgun (for bird hunting). But, I respect (and sincerely believe) the fact that guns are necessary in this society. I just don't believe that AR-15s, and other similar type weapons, are necessary. I think those weapons do much more harm than good.
Even then, I wouldn't propose taking everyone's AR-15s. I'm open to discussion about limiting shooting capacity, special licenses (with more extensive background checks), or any other solution that lets you and yours keep your small weiner compensation machines.
Perhaps, you might actually get more support if you could articulate your reasons for wanting these guns, when they are clearly a harm to society. It's what we ask pot enthusiasts to do, right? Tell me why this, in a utilitarian sense, is more positive for society than negative. Tell me why our society should bear the negative consequences of you having hobby guns?
Usually, when I ask these questions, people default back to the tired answer of "the 2nd amendment affords me that right", which, while somewhat (in my view) true, isn't all that helpful in this debate. If that's the route you want to take, then we can just stop engaging in discussion because it's going to go nowhere (until, hopefully we amend the 2nd to make it explicitly say what I understand it to mean).
As for the rest of your post, you're clearly misunderstanding the thrust of my argument. I'm not saying you shouldn't take this woman's guns because of Asperger's, nor that you shouldn't take an ex-cons guns because of his previous activity, I'm saying that your side doesn't want that. At all. Because this woman is, apparently, a mentally healthy, tax paying member of society, with no criminal record. Can you imagine the outrage if the farking federal government swooped in and took her guns away, from your side? Or from some guy who was in jail for mail fraud/white collar fraud? Some former CEO wants to go hunting with Dick Cheney and the federal government strips him of his right to hunt? That's gonna be OK with y'all??? Please.
My argument this entire stupid thread has been to try to point out why the "take insane people's guns" line, espoused so frequently by you guys, doesn't practically work, because, either you're taking her guns or you're giving her son guns. Because, functionally, there wasn't a difference between the two of them until the shooting.
There are child endangerment laws for that. You're using the wrong methods to punish the wrong activity.
Accountable for what? You seem to admit there wasn't anything wrong UNTIL the child grabbed the pistol. You are saying he should be ALLOWED to have the guns.....................but shouldn't let his kid shoot people.
One degree of separation from the crime? Shall I presume that "degree" is intent, or even knowledge? This reeks of absurdity.
Your miserable existence can serve as a "Warning" in ways other than going to prison.
Let's try a different scenario, presuming it leads you to the opposite result:
Great dad keeps a pistol under his pillow. While mowing the lawn his 11 year old grabs the pistol he keep under my pillow and shoots the neighbors 8 year old.
So I presume this is not a charge/trial/conviction..............but based on what? How can someone be deterred if largely non-relevant facts completely determine relative guilt. (as opposed to knowledge, intent, etc.)
Also, you appear to be differentiating between wealth. BECAUSE he is a deadbeat we need jail, which would be in opposition to a rich person who you appear to be ok with in a civil suit.
i.e. it is the lack of money that = prison.
i.e. it is the lack of money that = prison.
Why is responsibility for what goes on in your home such an out of bounds idea?
I know personal accountability to Libs is like Silver to Werewolves, but come on. Wishing guns out of reality isn't working either.
That is what you've boiled this down to? Then it makes your scenario quite pointless.
What a worthless strawman. My guess is the people who you are arguing against don't want to "wish" guns out of reality, they want to do it.
You've confused me with someone else, I'm a big supporter of the 2A, likely much more so than you.
No. Both cases were examples of irresponsibility leading to death.
I don't think my stance would change much if it were an unattended child in a swimming pool.
You would make a great NRA lobbyist, you know.
I know. Gun rights for all, including felons.
Also, stop pretending you are talking about child endangerment, this thread isn't about an 11 year old.
Anytime you use the term "Straw man", or "Echo Chamber" on HROT you owe a drink.
I'm all for parents taking responsibility for their child's education, economic well being, emotional support and safety. That is becoming rare, as responsible parenting is becoming rare.
Parenting is viewed as a responsibility of the school, day-care, the other spouse.
These examples of children shooting themselves, friends, parents, siblings, classmates accidentally, or intentionally are egregious.
I am all for an unlimited right to bear arms. But, when your negligence leads to the death of another, especially in your own home, you should bear responsibility.
More so, then what is on the books today.
I'm unsure of your point here. Do you want to make the ACA stronger? Do you want to force the states to insure those 5 million? Do you want to force people to get a mental health check up? Are you asking we spend more money on PSA's to advertize to crazy people? This doesn't read like the ACA has a problem. It reads like states run and occupied by crazy people have a problem.
You stated ACA has opened MI up - yet we see fewer MI patients going. YOu read too deep into things instead of just taking it for what it is.
Anyone who uses the "you only have guns to compensate for something" isn't worth having a discussion with. Just pure childish stupidity.
And to answer your question, society isn't being endangered by my hobby guns and never will be. I'm responsible, not mentally ill, don't deal drugs, and keep my guns locked securely in a safe.
You do realize the vast majority of gun deaths are the result of gang wars and mentally ill people offing themselves and others don't you?
I read your article on the matter. It concludes the ACA has expanded access. It goes on to say that States are blocking access and that people still need to be told that mental health is now covered under the ACA. I'm just doing my part to let the crazies know help is now available, provided you don't live in a red state.
