Crime Our national tradition continues: Multiple fatalities in TX HS Shooting

[machidafan99]

No, that's absurd. Where does that rabbit hole end?

I think at best, you could try to come up with stricter gun storage laws across the board, but that will met with resistance too, as some will argue that it would put them in danger to not be able to easily access their guns, when they need them.

Holding parents partially responsible is not absurd. It's common sense.

 

[Soul Crusher]

I dont think its a gun or shooting problem. Everyone jumps on the "gun" issue and completely fucking ignores the actual problem. Why not skip the how and go to the heart of the why? Kids get bullied. Some kids cannot handle it, so they react and shoot people. Everyone of these fuckers were bullied. To make guns the main argument is absolute ignorance. That is all.

Some people just want guns banned. They'll even go as far as saying that if you don't ban them and stop viewing them as a tool for self defense, then you're a monster that is fine with gun violence, schools shootings etc

 

[HereticBD]

Holding parents partially responsible is not absurd. It's common sense.

But only if they kill with a gun, right? What about knives? Hammers? Cars? Prescription drugs?

It's ridiculous. If they didn't properly store their guns, where it's required by law to do so, that's one thing, but just a blanket law where you're held legally responsible for your kid murdering people is absurd. Not only that, but think of the societal impact. Kids are sheltered enough as it is. Now put legal risk to parents for what their kids might do, into the fold. You may as give the parents a leash to keep their kids from doing anything they can't control.

 

[dontsnitch]

No, what I'm suggesting is necessary to make any real difference goes way further. I'm saying they either have to own up to being fine with the gun violence, schools shootings etc, or they need to give up the idea of firearms for common self defence. I think as a nation they've already made that decision.
Until that changes the rest of it is meaningless political theatre as far as I'm concerned.

I don't disagree with your statements in general, what I disagree with is, if I'm reading you right, your negative characterization of the pro gun side's attitude.

The reason people bring up car fatalities is because the same rationale applies to the number of deaths we tolerate. We tolerate a certain amount of fatalities because we find the point where freedom and security meet by enforcing a limited number of restrictions. We find a happy medium.

To me, suggesting that someone approves of gun deaths because they are happy with the current legislation is like suggesting you want more car crashes if you don't want to lower the speed limit on a certain street.

 

[Seaside]

How about the parents? Parents should be charged as an accessory to murder until their kids reach the age of 18. They are the adults and need to control the firearms in their household.

What if they get gun outside house?

 

[spamking]

Holding parents partially responsible is not absurd. It's common sense.

For each and every act their kids commit until 18 or just specific ones?

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

No more or no less than the left being ashamed of their inaccurate rhetoric . . .

What lobbying organization on the left is comparable to the scope of the NRA? And can you provide rhetoric where such a group actively labels people they disagree with as "the enemy" like the a NRA has?

 

[spamking]

No, what I'm suggesting is necessary to make any real difference goes way further.

Only way to make any real difference is to stop focusing on the guns/how and look at the why . . . and implementing physical barriers to discourage these events.

I'm saying they either have to own up to being fine with the gun violence, schools shootings etc, or they need to give up the idea of firearms for common self defence.

Seriously? Are condoning motor vehicle deaths and other MVC related incidents simply because you may drive a car?

I think as a nation they've already made that decision.
Until that changes the rest of it is meaningless political theatre as far as I'm concerned.

Again, it's only meaningless if folks refuse to actually discuss the root cause of these issues . . . it isn't guns.

 

[spamking]

What lobbying organization on the left is comparable to the scope of the NRA? And can you provide rhetoric where such a group actively labels people they disagree with as "the enemy" like the a NRA has?

Exactly how much money do you think the NRA sends to politicians? Now how much does Planned Parenthood lobby with?

And way to completely misinterpret the crap that Dana Loesch might say to fit your point of view . . . do you honestly believe she's advocating for folks who disagree with the NRA to be "the enemy"?

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't disagree with your statements in general, what I disagree with is, if I'm reading you right, your negative characterization of the pro gun side's attitude.

The reason people bring up car fatalities is because the same rationale applies to the number of deaths we tolerate. We tolerate a certain amount of fatalities because we find the point where freedom and security meet by enforcing a limited number of restrictions. We find a happy medium.

To me, suggesting that someone approves of gun deaths because they are happy with the current legislation is like suggesting you want more car crashes if you don't want to lower the speed limit on a certain street.

Yes, I fully admit that I'm fine that the number of people that die in motorcycle accidents (potentially including myself), is the price paid for the freedom to ride a motorcycle. I even admit that a part of those fatalities are caused by my unwillingness to legislate speed/horsepower restrictors and mandatory abs/traction control systems (although moderated by my support for mandatory wearing of helmets, licencing and mandatory rider training).
There's no difference as far as I'm concerned, except that saying you are fine with school shootings and a homicide rate about four times that of comparable nations as the price to pay for your right to own a firearm for common self defence, seems like a more questionable cost/benefit analysis. Mostly because it's not the gun owners that are exclusively the victims of that decision.

 

[machidafan99]

But only if they kill with a gun, right? What about knives? Hammers? Cars? Prescription drugs?

It's ridiculous. If they didn't properly store their guns, where it's required by law to do so, that's one thing, but just a blanket law where you're held legally responsible for your kid murdering people is absurd. Not only that, but think of the societal impact. Kids are sheltered enough as it is. Now put legal risk to parents for what their kids might do, into the fold. You may as give the parents a leash to keep their kids from doing anything they can't control.

They are responsible for their children.

 

[dontsnitch]

Yes, I fully admit that I'm fine that the number of people that die in motorcycle accidents (potentially including myself), is the price paid for the freedom to ride a motorcycle. I even admit that a part of those fatalities are caused by my unwillingness to legislate speed/horsepower restrictors and mandatory abs/traction control systems.
There's no difference as far as I'm concerned, except that saying you are fine with school shootings and a homicide rate about four times that of comparable nations as the price to pay for your right to own a firearm for common self defence, seems like a more questionable cost/benefit analysis. Mostly because it's not the gun owners that are the victims of that decision.

With the exception of saying "fine with school shooting", which is not the equivalent, that would be "fine with the number of school shooting", I agree.

So yeah, cars and guns are going to produce innocent victims and we tolerate a certain amount. To argue the exact cost benefit seems like a good exercise, but i think it's hypocritical to suggest those that disagree with your exact conclusion do so because they are somehow sinister, despite your own tolerance for innocent deaths. At the very least this is hardly helpful.

 

[machidafan99]

For each and every act their kids commit until 18 or just specific ones?

well, in most states parents are responsible for all malicious or willful property damage done by their children.

Every state has laws for parental liability for all kinds of acts of their children.

I see no reason not to extend this to bodily harm and acts of violence.

Hopefully, it will at least motivate parents to really keep the guns far away from their little crazies.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

 

[Ruprecht]

With the exception of saying "fine with school shooting", which is not the equivalent, that would be "fine with the number of school shooting", I agree.

So yeah, cars and guns are going to produce innocent victims and we tolerate a certain amount. To argue the exact cost benefit seems like a good exercise, but i think it's hypocritical to suggest those that disagree with your exact conclusion do so because they are somehow sinister, despite your own tolerance for innocent deaths. At the very least this is hardly helpful.

I don't know about sinister, I just think they aren't weighing up the costs and benefits objectively because of their own self interest and disbelief in the effectiveness of a regulatory solution.

 

[dontsnitch]

I don't know about sinister, I just think they aren't weighing up the costs and benefits objectively because of their own self interest and disbelief in the effectiveness of a regulatory solution.

Now that I can accept.

If someone wants to suggest better, realistic regulations, people will listen, guaranteed. It just seems that too often it's just rhetorical.

 

[Bay Area]

It’s time to take them all away. Enough is enough. Give people a month and then start kicking doors in.

Yeah let' punish hard working law abiding citizens

 

[spamking]

well, in most states parents are responsible for all malicious or willful property damage done by their children.

Every state has laws for parental liability for all kinds of acts of their children.

I see no reason not to extend this to bodily harm and acts of violence.

Hopefully, it will at least motivate parents to really keep the guns far away from their little crazies.

It's sad that it even needs to be on the table . . . but unfortunately, some parents are worthless.

 

[spamking]

I don't know about sinister, I just think they aren't weighing up the costs and benefits objectively because of their own self interest and disbelief in the effectiveness of a regulatory solution.

That's because the regulatory solution isn't solving anything . . .

 

[Thai Domi]

You will lose.