New Gun Regulations In The US Would Be Really, Really Stupid

[bennyboy]

Nothing like turning a tragedy with no good solution into a political agenda...


What you want to do? Put mom in prison and the kids in an orphanage? That' ll teach the little monster...

Criminalize stupid? That' s gonna fill a few prisons.....


Exactly what kind of legislation do you think you can dream up that prevents this sort of thing?

*raises hand enthusiastically*

Oh oh.  Me. . . me me me.  Teacher, I know this one.  I can answer!

How about-- civilians can't own guns?  Then, they won't have guns lying around, and their children won't shoot each other in the head?

News flash-- the red coats are not showing up in frigates to enforce unfair cheese taxes. You can take a break from the firearms for a bit!

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't.  If you really sit back and consider how many guns there are in the us, the thing that would strike you is how -low- our gun crime, injury, and death stats are compared to the number of guns per cap and the same anywhere else.  

When it happens, and it does happen, we just don't enforce our laws.  Whatever preventative benefit those laws have to coerce better behavior among law abiding people ( the overwhelming majority of gun owners), better than our already good behavior all things considered, just isn't going to work until we do.

I get it, don't get me wrong. When a parent loses a kid we think "what could we do to them that's worse than that" - still. I know, they're bawling, it's the worst thing that could ever happen to them..and it's going to be a bad look...it certainly wont help anyone running for office....but we have to charge them with the crime(s) they committed.

[Amarok]

Nothing like turning a tragedy with no good solution into a political agenda...


What you want to do? Put mom in prison and the kids in an orphanage? That' ll teach the little monster...

Criminalize stupid? That' s gonna fill a few prisons.....


Exactly what kind of legislation do you think you can dream up that prevents this sort of thing?

Yes because the pro gun crowd never use tragedy to push "MORE GUNS ARE THE ANSWER!!!" agenda

[onlinebiker]

Nothing like turning a tragedy with no good solution into a political agenda...


What you want to do? Put mom in prison and the kids in an orphanage? That' ll teach the little monster...

Criminalize stupid? That' s gonna fill a few prisons.....


Exactly what kind of legislation do you think you can dream up that prevents this sort of thing?

Yes because the pro gun crowd never use tragedy to push "MORE GUNS ARE THE ANSWER!!!" agenda

You are talking out your ass.

" More guns" is not something promoted by even a plurality, let alone majority of pro-gun rights groups - but something the anti- gun folks use as an indictment against the pro- gun.

And - you figure if you repeat it often enough - people will believe it.



Nice try Herr Goebbels...

[zebo-the-fat]

Simple solution, ban the public ownership of firearms, with possible exceptions for farmers where there are dangerous animals. I can see no reason why a normal person needs a gun. People who like to use guns for things like target shooting would need to keep them locked at the gun club when not in use.
I cannot remember the last time something like this happened in the UK, but then here we are not terrified that a neighbor is going to shoot us.

[Homeless Nutter]

Mom isn' t getting " off the hook".

She' s got to live with that shit forever.

No, nobody lives "forever".

And what about her kid, the one who's going to have to live with having killed his sister? Why is the kid getting a worse "punishment", than the mother - since he's going to have to live with this (as well as - most likely - resulting disorders, like PTSD and impaired hearing) arguably longer? Unless - of course - he blows his brains out at some point, because of psychological complications stemming from this childhood trauma.

I'm not saying the mother has to go to prison for the rest of her life, but how come her guilt is enough of a punishment? What if a parent through negligence allows his/her child to fatally overdose on prescription pills, or something - would living with that also be enough?

I suppose if she was a psychopath - then jail would be appropriate.

So, if she's mentally ill - she should be locked up for this, but if she's not - it's "cool"? Sounds logical...

She should lose her guns - and the right to own them. 

Wait... What? She's supposed to be deprived of the right to protect her home and her remaining children from all the dangers supposedly awaiting unarmed Americans, like burglars, rapists, drug cartels, governments, and - I don't know - bears? Surely, you'd be leaving that family for dead...

As far as " deterance to others" - do you really think most people would find jail more of a deterance than their child dying of a gunshot? Most mothers I know would willingly do jail time to prevent such a thing. Or, at least I would like to think they would.

Am I wrong?

Of course you are, though not necessarily about mothers' preferences regarding their children's deaths and jail time.

What "deterrent to others" - and generally gun control - is supposed to accomplish is to change the perception of gun ownership, from being a cool, fun, everyday thing that every f*ckwit is born entitled to - to a huge responsibility and a privilege. Americans treat guns like toys - that's the root of the problem.

Sure - the gun deaths aren't going to cause US population to significantly decrease. They're statistically not very significant. But a generation after generation of kids growing up bombarded with the news about kids getting murdered in schools and such - that's bound to have psychological implications on a national (perhaps global) scale. Because children don't understand statistics. From what I remember - growing up is stressful enough, even without the possibility of being brutally killed by another child. And then dumb old f*cks are shocked, that "kids these days" prefer to stay in their bedrooms on their phones...

Wait a few more years. Another generation of young people paranoid about gun-death just might tip the scale in favor of gun control measures - possibly much more drastic, than what could be done now, if gun owners weren't acting like a bunch of stubborn morons, who love their weapons more than their children.

[The Valkyrie]

As far as I'm concerned the mother's guilty of negligent manslaughter at least.

People have had the book thrown at them for less. Stupidity - and this was fucking stupid - has consequences.

[onlinebiker]

Mom isn' t getting " off the hook".

She' s got to live with that shit forever.

No, nobody lives "forever". Nit picking there son.

And what about her kid, the one who's going to have to live with having killed his sister? Why is the kid getting a worse "punishment", than the mother - since he's going to have to live with this (as well as - most likely - resulting disorders, like PTSD and impaired hearing) arguably longer? Unless - of course - he blows his brains out at some point, because of psychological complications stemming from this childhood trauma.

I'm not saying the mother has to go to prison for the rest of her life, but how come her guilt is enough of a punishment? What if a parent through negligence allows his/her child to fatally overdose on prescription pills, or something - would living with that also be enough?

Show me a case where the parents of a kid OD' D or drank poison and died - went to jail. Never seen one of those.

I suppose if she was a psychopath - then jail would be appropriate.

So, if she's mentally ill - she should be locked up for this, but if she's not - it's "cool"? Sounds logical...

She should lose her guns - and the right to own them. 

Wait... What? She's supposed to be deprived of the right to protect her home and her remaining children from all the dangers supposedly awaiting unarmed Americans, like burglars, rapists, drug cartels, governments, and - I don't know - bears? Surely, you'd be leaving that family for dead...

Rights can be taken away by a court of law as punishment - even your right to suck air.

As far as " deterance to others" - do you really think most people would find jail more of a deterance than their child dying of a gunshot? Most mothers I know would willingly do jail time to prevent such a thing. Or, at least I would like to think they would.

Am I wrong?

Of course you are, though not necessarily about mothers' preferences regarding their children's deaths and jail time.

What "deterrent to others" - and generally gun control - is supposed to accomplish is to change the perception of gun ownership, from being a cool, fun, everyday thing that every f*ckwit is born entitled to - to  a huge responsibility and a privilege. Americans treat guns like toys - that's the root of the problem.

You don' t understand the difference between rights and priviledge. You fail High School Civics class.

Sure - the gun deaths aren't going to cause US population to significantly decrease. They're statistically not very significant. But a generation after generation of kids growing up bombarded with the news about kids getting murdered in schools and such - that's bound to have psychological implications on a national (perhaps global) scale. Because children don't understand statistics. From what I remember - growing up is stressful enough, even without the possibility of being brutally killed by another child. And then dumb old f*cks are shocked, that "kids these days" prefer to stay in their bedrooms on their phones...

Wait a few more years. Another generation of young people paranoid about gun-death just might tip the scale in favor of gun control measures - possibly much more drastic, than what could be done now, if gun owners weren't acting like a bunch of stubborn morons, who love their weapons more than their children.

Yeah, kids might believe the bullshit the likes of the Brady Bunch Campaign spew.

Hell - some of them believe the Pope.

There' s always gullible ones.

---

We don't.  If you really sit back and consider how many guns there are in the us, the thing that would strike you is how -low- our gun crime, injury, and death stats are compared to the number of guns per cap and the same anywhere else.  

When it happens, and it does happen, we just don't enforce our laws.  Whatever preventative benefit those laws have to coerce better behavior among law abiding people ( the overwhelming majority of gun owners), better than our already good behavior all things considered, just isn't going to work until we do.

I get it, don't get me wrong.  When a parent loses a kid we think "what could we do to them that's worse than that" - still.  I know, they're bawling, it's the worst thing that could ever happen to them..and it's going to be a bad look...it certainly wont help anyone running for office....but we have to charge them with the crime(s) they committed.

Are you going to jail everyone who attempts suicide?

It' s against the law in most states and theoretically carries a jail sentence.


Some laws don' t get enforced because they' re outdated, unconstitutional or just dumb.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So irresponsibility will continue to be the gun culture's paradigm. Got it.

[bennyboy]

Yes because the pro gun crowd never use tragedy to push "MORE GUNS ARE THE ANSWER!!!" agenda

You are talking out your ass.

" More guns" is not something promoted by even a plurality, let alone majority of pro-gun rights groups - but something the anti- gun folks use as an indictment against the pro- gun.

And - you figure if you repeat it often enough - people will believe it.

Nice try Herr Goebbels...

Literally every time there's a school shooting, some NRA spokesperson goes on TV and say that if the teacher had a gun, lives would have been saved. Well, if the teacher didn't have a gun, but you want him to have one-- that's one more gun.

I gotta say-- guns are tools for putting holes in living things. Since the living things in question are other citizens, then it is against our interest in the social contract to make that tool widely available.