• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

Do you think you should be able to just order a guy over Amazon and get it delivered to your front porch? Does the inability to do so encroach on your rights?


In case I did not make it clear enough, this has been illegal since the GCA of 1968...

Talk about foresight...
 
I asked for your opinion on the law. I didn't ask for you to restate the law. Just because something is illegal, it doesn't mean there aren't people who want it to be legal.

Are you someone who wants it to be legal to get guns delivered to your doorstep like other items bought online?

Is that clear enough?


No, I do not. I would rather follow the federal laws currently on the books, and have those enforced. I doubt I have stated otherwise. Certain state laws I have problems with, and I have noted those in detail. Is that clear enough?
 
What's clear enough is that you'll go to any lengths to tow the NRA/gun manufacturers' propaganda.

You'll even protect the ability of criminals and terrorists to walk into gun shows with a wad of cash and walk out with whatever weapons they wish to use.

You'll even say nonsensical things like "banning high capacity magazines " is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding such devices. No matter how definitively he wants to say there us. It just isn't so.

He doesn't care that there is indisputable evidence that lives were saved in Tuscon when the shooter reloaded. That's not relevant to what he's been told must be spewed to the public.
 
What's clear enough is that you'll go to any lengths to tow the NRA/gun manufacturers' propaganda.

You'll even protect the ability of criminals and terrorists to walk into gun shows with a wad of cash and walk out with whatever weapons they wish to use.

Really? I have recently supported Coburn's background check, I suggest you look that up. Feel free to suck up to DiFi and Pelosi, their colleages in Congress are not buying their BS anymore. DiFi's amendment went down 60 to 40, is that not enough?

You'll even say nonsensical things like "banning high capacity magazines " is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding such devices. No matter how definitively he wants to say there us. It just isn't so.

Only a handful of states deem some magazines high capacity, the majority just call them magazines. Easy to look up, feel free to do so...

He doesn't care that there is indisputable evidence that lives were saved in Tuscon when the shooter reloaded. That's not relevant to what he's been told must be spewed to the public.

Funny you said the same thing with Newport a few posts back, yet magazines were found with unfired rounds. In Tucson, the shooter reloaded due to a 33 round magazine failing due to a spring breaking. Think he could not have done the same with 15 round magazines?

May I ask a question about the police shooting at a blue pickup truck 105 times? I mean, they were looking for a man in one manufacturer's truck, and not two women in another manufacturer's truck, but fired 105 times?
 
And each time he stopped to reload, he could have been stopped. But you'd rather protect the killer than the victims.

At least be honest and admit there is nothing in the Constitution about expanded magazines.

Here it is:

"AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Guns are fully functional without the expanded magazines.

There is nothing there that justifies your position.
 
And each time he stopped to reload, he could have been stopped. But you'd rather protect the killer than the victims.

At least be honest and admit there is nothing in the Constitution about expanded magazines.

Here it is:

"AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Guns are fully functional without the expanded magazines.

There is nothing there that justifies your position.


Which part justifies your opinionated restriction?


It appears that you still have not bothered to read Heller or McDonald...
 
8-Year-Old Boy Shoots Friend In The Head

Denton police said an 8-year-old boy accidentally shot his 5-year-old friend in the head with a .22 caliber rifle on Saturday morning.

It happened while the two boys were in a bedroom alone at a home in 2700 block of Stockton Street in Denton.

Officers said two adults and one teenager were also inside the house when the shooting happened around 11:30 a.m. on Saturday.
 

"UPDATE: Denton police say they have no filed charges but there is still an open investigation. Police could refer the case to a grand jury when the investigation is complete."

According to a commenter, leaving a firearm where it is accessible to a minor is against the law in Texas. This is the problem. The law is there, but these people don't seem to ever get prosecuted. Why not?
 
Probably because it wasn't his own child who got shot.
 
Probably because it wasn't his own child who got shot.

Regardless, this has to be the standard, no matter whose kid it is. One thing the pro-gun folks are absolutely correct about is the laws we have already have to be enforced.
 
Regardless, this has to be the standard, no matter whose kid it is. One thing the pro-gun folks are absolutely correct about is the laws we have already have to be enforced.

I understand, but it's hard to disagree with not prosecuting the parents of a child who was accidentally shot.

Yes, I know they're responsible and it was their stupidity that caused it. They're also probably dumb, redneck hillbillies who are all about "merica". But, I cant imagine what some of these parents must be going through after one of their own kids shoots and kills one of their other children. What are we going to do? Lock up the parents and leave the kids as wards of the state? The parents are probably already suicidal over the whole deal. Do we just lock up one parent? How do we choose? It's easy to take a hard line stance to promote your own political agenda, but realistically the few cases where this applies will do little to help anybody and only hurt the already grieving family.
 
I understand, but it's hard to disagree with not prosecuting the parents of a child who was accidentally shot.

Yes, I know they're responsible and it was their stupidity that caused it. They're also probably dumb, redneck hillbillies who are all about "merica". But, I cant imagine what some of these parents must be going through after one of their own kids shoots and kills one of their other children. What are we going to do? Lock up the parents and leave the kids as wards of the state? The parents are probably already suicidal over the whole deal. Do we just lock up one parent? How do we choose? It's easy to take a hard line stance to promote your own political agenda, but realistically the few cases where this applies will do little to help anybody and only hurt the already grieving family.

Yep. First off, if the parent is too stupid to lock up their guns so junior can't hurt himself or someone else, then they should absolutely be removed from that home. Secondly, if it takes locking people up for what I would consider criminal negligence to force some kind of behavior modification (as well as removing their ability to further own a firearm due to convicted felon status) then so be it. Enough with the kid gloves for these "responsible" gun owners. There has to be zero tolerance for gun negligence or this will never change, because apparently the possibility of your kid dying isn't enough.
 
Yep. First off, if the parent is too stupid to lock up their guns so junior can't hurt himself or someone else, then they should absolutely be removed from that home. Secondly, if it takes locking people up for what I would consider criminal negligence to force some kind of behavior modification (as well as removing their ability to further own a firearm due to convicted felon status) then so be it. Enough with the kid gloves for these "responsible" gun owners. There has to be zero tolerance for gun negligence or this will never change, because apparently the possibility of your kid dying isn't enough.

I agree it's criminal negligence, but I think some discernment should be used in these cases.

The "if the parent is too stupid" argument sounds nice, but it's also very simplistic. Doesn't mean the kids are actually better off. Also, doesn't mean the parents wont have legal rights to their kids once they're done serving their sentence. I'm not saying the parents should be absolved from all punishment and liability. But, I think once a sibling accidentally kills another sibling...shipping the parents off to prison for 3-5 years may not be the best thing.

Also, the "zero tolerance" argument just doesn't work. We have "zero tolerance" on a lot of crimes....they still occur every day. And, at a far, far greater rate than kids accidentally shooting their siblings.

Again, I don't mind some sort of punishment for the parents. Remove their rights to own a gun. Place them on probation that's monitored by DCF. Whatever. I just think calling for their heads and screaming for them to be sent off to prison after one of their kids just died is reactionary and, most likely, counter productive.
 
I agree it's criminal negligence, but I think some discernment should be used in these cases.

The "if the parent is too stupid" argument sounds nice, but it's also very simplistic. Doesn't mean the kids are actually better off. Also, doesn't mean the parents wont have legal rights to their kids once they're done serving their sentence. I'm not saying the parents should be absolved from all punishment and liability. But, I think once a sibling accidentally kills another sibling...shipping the parents off to prison for 3-5 years may not be the best thing.

Also, the "zero tolerance" argument just doesn't work. We have "zero tolerance" on a lot of crimes....they still occur every day. And, at a far, far greater rate than kids accidentally shooting their siblings.

Again, I don't mind some sort of punishment for the parents. Remove their rights to own a gun. Place them on probation that's monitored by DCF. Whatever. I just think calling for their heads and screaming for them to be sent off to prison after one of their kids just died is reactionary and, most likely, counter productive.

Generally, I agree with this assessment with one major caveat: the death of a child because of negligence with a firearm by an adult should trigger big scrutiny by local social services as to whether the remaining children should remain in that home. For comparison, in some jurisdictions children are routinely removed from their parents when marijuana is found in the home, even with no evidence of abuse or the child having access to or witnessing the parent using the drug. If that is the line for unfitness to parent, surely leaving loaded guns around passes that line.
 
Back
Top