• 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

Les Grossman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that this is some silver bullet that will end unnecessary gun deaths, but the notion that because crime x happens, there's no point in law y is just absurd to me. People still drive drunk, should we abolish drunk driving laws? Of course not.

I understand your sentiment, but I just think that, unfortunately, this is the type of epidemic that requires taking what may be considered drastic measures to get people's attention. Maybe you're right, and maybe we should start with revoking their right to own a firearm and probation...maybe that works, but I'm just not sure it gets enough attention to get the point across.

I do, though, agree with 923 in saying that if there are guns in the house accessible to the child, then social services should have the latitude to intervene. If, say, a school counselor finds out little Johnny told his buddy in class that his dad keeps a loaded 38 in the sock drawer, I want social services in that household immediately before little Johnny is lying in the floor with a bullet in his head.
 
Agreed. Surely the NRA would be behind common sense punishments and preventative measures to address parents who aren't responsible gun owners. Maybe we can at least get bipartisan agreement on that.
 
PhDeac said:
Agreed. Surely the NRA would be behind common sense punishments and preventative measures to address parents who aren't responsible gun owners. Maybe we can at least get bipartisan agreement on that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It isn't that difficult to lock up a gun and to keep the ammo locked in a separate location.
 
Wrangor said:
Agreed. It isn't that difficult to lock up a gun and to keep the ammo locked in a separate location.
Click to expand...

The NRA would totally oppose any law that punished keeping a loaded gun in easy reach. Because you never know when a team of heavily armed criminals will break into your house and you need to be able to swing into action with your piece, John Woo style, within a bullet-time second. This happens all the time in America I am told.

Was just in a Facebook thread yesterday with a fraternity brother who was informing us all about how he really needs a submachine gun to feel secure. Apparently there are squadrons of meth addicts who are eager to raid his whitebread suburban house.
 
I'm not saying that this is some silver bullet that will end unnecessary gun deaths, but the notion that because crime x happens, there's no point in law y is just absurd to me. People still drive drunk, should we abolish drunk driving laws? Of course not.

People still own cars, and buy alcohol, should we abolish...?? Objects or activities?
 
But over the years we have made drunk driving laws much tougher on everyone from bartenders to drivers. You oppose making stronger laws and stronger punishments for guns.

You are bringing up something you refuse participate in similarly. Thus your post is ludicrously transparent and without merit.
 
elkman92 said:
I'm not saying that this is some silver bullet that will end unnecessary gun deaths, but the notion that because crime x happens, there's no point in law y is just absurd to me. People still drive drunk, should we abolish drunk driving laws? Of course not.

People still own cars, and buy alcohol, should we abolish...?? Objects or activities?
Click to expand...

I'm confused. You're making the opposite stand of what you usually say.
 
elkman92 said:
I'm not saying that this is some silver bullet that will end unnecessary gun deaths, but the notion that because crime x happens, there's no point in law y is just absurd to me. People still drive drunk, should we abolish drunk driving laws? Of course not.

People still own cars, and buy alcohol, should we abolish...?? Objects or activities?
Click to expand...

Lowering the BAC limit for drunk driving equals magazine size restrictions...
 
Ball State Deac said:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/1-year-old-tennessee-girl-in-critical-condition
Click to expand...


mmm. this guy clearly is a good, responsible person who makes excellent decisions.
kevin-sayre.jpg
 
PhDeac said:
I'm confused. You're making the opposite stand of what you usually say.
Click to expand...

Maybe I phrased it poorly. Surely it is legal to consume alcohol, and separately, drive cars. It is not legal to do both to some extent. However, as the media always relays it in almost any type of shooting, it is the fault of the firearm. However, the media never portrays the deaths of those due to impaired driving as the fault of car manufacturers, brewers and distillers. I simply find that odd...
 
Last edited:
That's absolute crap. The shooter is always blamed.

The difference is a car isn't designed to kill people. It does so if operated improperly. A gun kills people by design.

When it was found that seat belts could save lives, car manufacturers were forced to add. When advances in brakes and glass were made, they were mandated.

We know that having a larger capacity for guns can lead to people being illegally killed, but you oppose protecting the public for this.

When cars are sold, we know who sold and who bought it. This is even the case when a mom gives a car to a son, or an uncle gives a car to a niece.

You oppose the same procedures for guns. For you a private party asking Joe Blow, "are you a criminal" should absolve the seller from any criminal charges.
 
We have detailed statistics and research on which cars are safe and which malfunction the most. Why can't we have the same research on guns?
 
Because the NRA and gun manufacturers made such studies illegal.
 
elkman92 said:
Not sure if this got much play in the media...

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting. This is good news overall.

Of course there are two ways to spin these stats. The pro-gun spin is "gun crime is down, why do we need more gun regulation?" The anti-gun spin is you still have over 11,000 people a year getting killed by guns, and nearly a half-million nonfatal gun victimizations.

Note the stat that less than 1% of crime victims report using a firearm to defend themselves. Again, two possible spins - if more people had guns, we'd have more prevention of crimes, vs. it appears that the widespread availability of guns isn't doing much to reduce crime.

Another possible spin is the commonly quoted belief of many pro-gun organizations that there are a lot of unreported attempted crimes deterred or prevented by gun owners. That's obviously outside this study but that needs to be rigorously examined because it is a really important consideration one way or another.
 
Deacon923 said:
mmm. this guy clearly is a good, responsible person who makes excellent decisions.
kevin-sayre.jpg
Click to expand...

elkman, take a look. Do you a see a picture of a gun, or a picture of the guy who was being reckless with said gun? Who's being blamed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top