Gun Control Debate #5

[MaryG12]

imo they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The mother allows a 9 year old to be able to access guns and ammo. THIS is why gun control needs to be tightened. A loaded gun shouldn’t be accessible to a child unless they have STRICT adult supervision in the circumstances of hunting or at a range. Do these people not realize what a gun is ffs?

Sounds like a case of no parenting, of which there is no shortage of in the USA


smh

 

[Blef]

Sounds like a case of no parenting, of which there is no shortage of in the USA


smh

I agree. And if I were a responsible gun owner I would be extremely angry that some people have such a nonchalant attitude to guns. This example shows exactly what is wrong with gun control in the US when a child can just pick up a loaded gun and shoot a sibling in the home with it over something. I know people like Bobcat keep their guns in safes, and supervise their kids when they use them. That’s the way it should be. There should be no way a child has open access to guns and ammo without a parent controlling that. This is where irresponsible parents who leave a gun around for a child to pick up and use should be held fully responsible for the consequences of the moronically lax gun safety.

 

[human]

I agree. And if I were a responsible gun owner I would be extremely angry that some people have such a nonchalant attitude to guns. This example shows exactly what is wrong with gun control in the US when a child can just pick up a loaded gun and shoot a sibling in the home with it over something. I know people like Bobcat keep their guns in safes, and supervise their kids when they use them. That’s the way it should be. There should be no way a child has open access to guns and ammo without a parent controlling that. This is where irresponsible parents who leave a gun around for a child to pick up and use should be held fully responsible for the consequences of the moronically lax gun safety.

But but but....... guns are to protect against criminals coming to the house. What good is a gun in a safe?

 

[Woodland]

The gun debate is political. What's bizarre is allowing a political protest in school. The protest organizers (Women's March Youth Empower) are all left wing democrats. There wasn't any bipartisan organization in my opinion.

The way this is worded implies this is fact and everyone must agree.

I don't find the gun debate political - to me the gun debate is about unfettered access to high powered guns that are being used to mow down innocent people at public gathering places.

That's not political imo. Some can make it political if they wish - kindly do not include me in that group.

 

[human]

The way this is worded implies this is fact and everyone must agree.

I don't find the gun debate political - to me the gun debate is about unfettered access to high powered guns that are being used to mow down innocent people at public gathering places.

That's not political imo. Some can make it political if they wish - kindly do not include me in that group.

Great post. It is the same to me as supporting finding a cure for cancer or supporting after school programs, etc.

 

[bobcat]

imo they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The mother allows a 9 year old to be able to access guns and ammo. THIS is why gun control needs to be tightened. A loaded gun shouldn’t be accessible to a child unless they have STRICT adult supervision in the circumstances of hunting or at a range. Do these people not realize what a gun is ffs?

You can make more and more laws, but you still won't prevent tragedies like this from happening. And prosecuting the mother- what's that going to accomplish? I'm thinking she's already being punished enough with the loss of her daughter. Tighter gun control, what's that going to do? The police still won't be going into people's houses every day to make sure their guns are locked up. Seriously, what law exactly is it that you think would have prevented this? Do we also need more restrictions on lighters and matches so kids don't accidentally light their house on fire?

 

[CoverMeCagney]

:sigh:

 

[human]

You can make more and more laws, but you still won't prevent tragedies like this from happening. And prosecuting the mother- what's that going to accomplish? I'm thinking she's already being punished enough with the loss of her daughter. Tighter gun control, what's that going to do? The police still won't be going into people's houses every day to make sure their guns are locked up. Seriously, what law exactly is it that you think would have prevented this? Do we also need more restrictions on lighters and matches so kids don't accidentally light their house on fire?

Good point, That is why lighters are made kid proof and there are safety matches!

Exactly. Making more laws that make sense.

Wearing seat belts, helmets, and so on.

As far as the mother, maybe, just maybe a prison sentence will inspire people because keeping guns away from kids means nothing to some people. Prison will, I imagine.

Laws laws laws. Why do we bother. Men beat wives, parents beat children, people speed. Why bother!

 

[flourish]

You can make more and more laws, but you still won't prevent tragedies like this from happening. And prosecuting the mother- what's that going to accomplish? I'm thinking she's already being punished enough with the loss of her daughter. Tighter gun control, what's that going to do? The police still won't be going into people's houses every day to make sure their guns are locked up. Seriously, what law exactly is it that you think would have prevented this? Do we also need more restrictions on lighters and matches so kids don't accidentally light their house on fire?

Well I guess it's time to just throw up our hands and give up! Because, clearly, too many don't care enough about dead/traumatized/injured/terrified students and refuse to even consider budging an inch.

Just let it stay how --no, let's not stop until every American citizen is always packing and we'll all be so safe and happy forever and ever. Or we'll wonder wtf happened to our children and society. If any one is left to see the aftermath.

I mean, it's not like we've significantly decreased drunk driving over time, or decided child labor wasn't actually awesome, or civil Rights movement occurred....nope, the US has an inability to change, so let's just give up to the gun lovers.

Because damnit, those founding fathers, in all their long-sighted wisdom certainly knew and expected and are cool with our modern weapons and that gets to take precedence over the safety of children and other citizens.

[emoji93]

 

[flourish]

You can make more and more laws, but you still won't prevent tragedies like this from happening. And prosecuting the mother- what's that going to accomplish? I'm thinking she's already being punished enough with the loss of her daughter. Tighter gun control, what's that going to do? The police still won't be going into people's houses every day to make sure their guns are locked up. Seriously, what law exactly is it that you think would have prevented this? Do we also need more restrictions on lighters and matches so kids don't accidentally light their house on fire?

Lighters and matches have changed significantly in the past few decades.

 

[flourish]

bbm

Yes you did. Very clear. IMO you were just being toyed with. Baited. I find it helps just to not take the bait. You were being sincere in your posting which is why you felt the need to clear that up, but there really was no misunderstanding imo. Here is a great example of how it works: ( just substitute anti-semites for practically anything, and you get the drift, it will help you recognize when not to bother IMO):

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

-Jean-Paul Sartre

Thanks! I just substituted "right wingers" and you're right! It totally works! How handy!
Eta it works with "gun advocates," too!

Heck, it works for any party with whom I disagree!

 

[bluesneakers]

Thanks! I just substituted "right wingers" and you're right! It totally works! How handy!
Eta it works with "gun advocates," too!

Heck, it works for any party with whom I disagree!

You're right! Kinda fun. I'm going to try some other sweeping generalizations and see if they work too.

 

[bobcat]

Lighters and matches have changed significantly in the past few decades.

Really? How so? I bet my 10 year old daughter could still light a fire with one if she wanted to.

 

[flourish]

Really? How so? I bet my 10 year old daughter could still light a fire with one if she wanted to.

Oh did I say they are child proof? No, no I did not. I said they have changed. Which they have. They have an easily removable "child resistant" piece which makes it more difficult. I'm well aware some children can still use them--we did an experiment in my preschool to see, even.

But that's not what I said, bobcat. So are YOU saying lighters and matches are exactly the same as they were in your childhood or can you bring yourself to recognize they have changed?

 

[bluesneakers]

Tylenol.

The killings did have a measurable, positive impact, however: a revolution in product safety standards. In the wake of the Tylenol poisonings, pharmaceutical and food industries dramatically improved their packaging, instituting tamperproof seals and indicators and increasing security controls during the manufacturing process.

The result has been a dramatic reduction in the number of copycat incidents — although it may be of little solace to the families of the seven killed in Chicago. But now, as the FBI brings modern technology to bear on a case long gone cold, perhaps they can hope again for something else tangible: at long last, some criminal charges

I don't remember anyone saying "Don't bother. People are going to poison each other anyway."

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1878063,00.html

 

[MaryG12]

Good point, That is why lighters are made kid proof and there are safety matches!

Exactly. Making more laws that make sense.

Wearing seat belts, helmets, and so on.

As far as the mother, maybe, just maybe a prison sentence will inspire people because keeping guns away from kids means nothing to some people. Prison will, I imagine.

Laws laws laws. Why do we bother. Men beat wives, parents beat children, people speed. Why bother!

What we need is reinforcement of existing laws.

I am fine with registered handgun ownership, including any registration numbers on the weapon itself. Same with hunting rifles.

The other problem is this:

If too many laws are made, it can and will be difficult for people to obey all of them.

Thus reinforcement of existing laws.

 

[bobcat]

Oh did I say they are child proof? No, no I did not. I said they have changed. Which they have. They have an easily removable "child resistant" piece which makes it more difficult. I'm well aware some children can still use them--we did an experiment in my preschool to see, even.

But that's not what I said, bobcat. So are YOU saying lighters and matches are exactly the same as they were in your childhood or can you bring yourself to recognize they have changed?

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter. That's not the point. The point is, what kind of "gun control" would prevent things like this from happening?

I can only think of one way- ban guns entirely and confiscate all existing guns. Of course it still wouldn't totally eliminate all accidents like this, as many guns would still remain in homes. But eventually, maybe after 100 years or so, guns would be pretty rare. But if just "gun control" is the solution, exactly what does that mean?

 

[Woodland]

You can make more and more laws, but you still won't prevent tragedies like this from happening. And prosecuting the mother- what's that going to accomplish? I'm thinking she's already being punished enough with the loss of her daughter. Tighter gun control, what's that going to do? The police still won't be going into people's houses every day to make sure their guns are locked up. Seriously, what law exactly is it that you think would have prevented this? Do we also need more restrictions on lighters and matches so kids don't accidentally light their house on fire?

Not sure how one can rationalize this statement.

What happens when someone uses a gun to kill a group of innocent people? Laws kick in, recourse ensues - assuming the shooter does not die in the same incident. It's something as opposed to nothing. Laws are also meant to be a deterrent when enforced - to warn others what can happen to them if they break the law. Laws don't necessarily fix stupid though - they just help victims to a certain degree.

So if parents/other family/guardians are prosecuted for allowing a minor access to a gun, regardless of what happens, it would serve to prevent some, not all, future incidents with guns. If this particular mother walks with no consequences for her actions, then she is not punished imo. She will suffer the loss of a child, but that was her fault. Imo, it would be really incompetent of LE if they lock this child shooter up and do nothing to the mother.

The police should charge people for unlocked guns if they arrive at an address for another reason - and jail time and or hefty fines should be handed out. That would be the deterrent against carelessness - which is all it takes for someone to die from a gunshot.

All jmo.

 

[Woodland]

Really? How so? I bet my 10 year old daughter could still light a fire with one if she wanted to.

And if you allow the access and opportunity for a 10 year-old to light a fire would an insurance company jump at the chance to cover any losses?

 

[flourish]

I don't know, but it doesn't really matter. That's not the point. The point is, what kind of "gun control" would prevent things like this from happening?

I can only think of one way- ban guns entirely and confiscate all existing guns. Of course it still wouldn't totally eliminate all accidents like this, as many guns would still remain in homes. But eventually, maybe after 100 years or so, guns would be pretty rare. But if just "gun control" is the solution, exactly what does that mean?

Oh right now it doesn't really matter... It mattered enough for you to bring it up first. Whatever.