Has anyone on here ever argued that negligence by parents that results in a kid getting their hands on a gun not be met with prosecution?
I haven't seen that. Those parents, or parent if single, should absolutely face charges.
That was a big topic for a concealed weapons class in Florida in that you MUST keep your firearm(s) secured or result in prosecution.
I agree with that you never see charges brought forth on this if it does happen.
Another one that isn't so simple. This goes back to the continued push back against gun reform and control. I keep hearing many on here say, just enforce the laws. What law and standards of a criminal act are you referring to? There isn't a common law across the country and where there is the language bootstraps the prosecution from bringing a strong criminal case. Criminal negligence is a different standard than just plain old I accidentally left my gun out and my child shot themselves or the gun went off on accident and I shot my girlfriend. Couple this with the fact that the manufacturers don't have to worry about a lawsuit and we just keep chugging along letting people be idiots while doing nothing to change the required standard for ownership of a gun because the NRA and gun lobbyists will never allow it to occur.
The past decade has seen legal measures to prevent gun negligence systematically dismantled. The 2005 Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act statutorily inoculated gun manufacturers and dealers from most claims of negligence in gun deaths. This is even more dangerous than it may first sound. Many people unfamiliar with guns assume that they are designed with simple safeguards against unintentional shootings, but this is not always the case. Glock handguns, for example, have no external safety: If a round is chambered and the trigger is squeezed, the gun fires. As Aaron Walsh, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia, put it, “With any other product in the world there would be no Glock company because they would be sued out of existence. You don’t have a safety? That can’t be right.”
Because the firearms industry enjoys exceptions from normal liability, more of the burden for preventing negligence falls to gun owners. Until recently, responsible gun ownership has to some extent been enforced through gatekeeping: State laws limit who can own guns and carry them in public. But advocates for expanded gun rights have been shifting away from an older gun lobby talking point—that we should stop passing new gun control laws and simply enforce the laws we already have—and toward a strategy of dismantling existing legal safeguards. The push for “constitutional carry”—gun carrying by anyone, anywhere, with no licensing required under the pretense that this is a right granted by the Constitution—has radically loosened restrictions on who can own guns and where they may carry them. In several states people may now carry guns on college campuses. In Michigan, guns may be carried openly at K-12 schools. In Iowa, a resident may not be denied a permit to carry a gun in public based on the fact that he or she is blind. In Georgia and other states, guns may be carried in churches and bars. In six states, resident adults may carry concealed handguns with no licensing or training required. Pediatricians in Florida are legally prohibited from asking new parents if they have guns in the home.
With preventative measures falling apart, punishment seems the only remaining legal recourse for enforcing responsibility with guns. But we are not responding to negligence, even egregious negligence, as one might expect. Unintentional shootings frequently go unprosecuted because they don’t always clearly rise to the level of crimes, explained Pete Theodocion, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia. “If we are going to take away a person’s liberty and put a person in a cage, we typically require that person to have the mindset of ‘I’m going to do harm now’ as opposed to just acting like a dumbass,” he said.
Yet some of these cases are appalling. A man in Washington practiced drawing a loaded handgun and unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend’s daughter. A man in Florida twirled a handgun on his finger and killed a pregnant woman. A man in New Mexico handed a loaded rifle to his six-year-old daughter, who unintentionally shot her sister in the neck. None of these gun owners was prosecuted. The district attorney in the New Mexico case told the Farmington Times, “The father did not follow basic and universally accepted firearm safety rules” but “the problem is that the standard for criminal negligence is higher.”
Has anyone on here ever argued that negligence by parents that results in a kid getting their hands on a gun not be met with prosecution?
I haven't seen that. Those parents, or parent if single, should absolutely face charges.
That was a big topic for a concealed weapons class in Florida in that you MUST keep your firearm(s) secured or result in prosecution.
I agree with that you never see charges brought forth on this if it does happen.
Another one that isn't so simple. This goes back to the continued push back against gun reform and control. I keep hearing many on here say, just enforce the laws. What law and standards of a criminal act are you referring to? There isn't a common law across the country and where there is the language bootstraps the prosecution from bringing a strong criminal case. Criminal negligence is a different standard than just plain old I accidentally left my gun out and my child shot themselves or the gun went off on accident and I shot my girlfriend. Couple this with the fact that the manufacturers don't have to worry about a lawsuit and we just keep chugging along letting people be idiots while doing nothing to change the required standard for ownership of a gun because the NRA and gun lobbyists will never allow it to occur.
The past decade has seen legal measures to prevent gun negligence systematically dismantled. The 2005 Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act statutorily inoculated gun manufacturers and dealers from most claims of negligence in gun deaths. This is even more dangerous than it may first sound. Many people unfamiliar with guns assume that they are designed with simple safeguards against unintentional shootings, but this is not always the case. Glock handguns, for example, have no external safety: If a round is chambered and the trigger is squeezed, the gun fires. As Aaron Walsh, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia, put it, “With any other product in the world there would be no Glock company because they would be sued out of existence. You don’t have a safety? That can’t be right.”
Because the firearms industry enjoys exceptions from normal liability, more of the burden for preventing negligence falls to gun owners. Until recently, responsible gun ownership has to some extent been enforced through gatekeeping: State laws limit who can own guns and carry them in public. But advocates for expanded gun rights have been shifting away from an older gun lobby talking point—that we should stop passing new gun control laws and simply enforce the laws we already have—and toward a strategy of dismantling existing legal safeguards. The push for “constitutional carry”—gun carrying by anyone, anywhere, with no licensing required under the pretense that this is a right granted by the Constitution—has radically loosened restrictions on who can own guns and where they may carry them. In several states people may now carry guns on college campuses. In Michigan, guns may be carried openly at K-12 schools. In Iowa, a resident may not be denied a permit to carry a gun in public based on the fact that he or she is blind. In Georgia and other states, guns may be carried in churches and bars. In six states, resident adults may carry concealed handguns with no licensing or training required. Pediatricians in Florida are legally prohibited from asking new parents if they have guns in the home.
With preventative measures falling apart, punishment seems the only remaining legal recourse for enforcing responsibility with guns. But we are not responding to negligence, even egregious negligence, as one might expect. Unintentional shootings frequently go unprosecuted because they don’t always clearly rise to the level of crimes, explained Pete Theodocion, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia. “If we are going to take away a person’s liberty and put a person in a cage, we typically require that person to have the mindset of ‘I’m going to do harm now’ as opposed to just acting like a dumbass,” he said.
Yet some of these cases are appalling. A man in Washington practiced drawing a loaded handgun and unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend’s daughter. A man in Florida twirled a handgun on his finger and killed a pregnant woman. A man in New Mexico handed a loaded rifle to his six-year-old daughter, who unintentionally shot her sister in the neck. None of these gun owners was prosecuted. The district attorney in the New Mexico case told the Farmington Times, “The father did not follow basic and universally accepted firearm safety rules” but “the problem is that the standard for criminal negligence is higher.”
I agree there should be laws that punish parents who leave guns out and children access them. But you mentioned something else that I never understood. You said gun manufactures don't have to worry about it. But why should they? They don't do anything wrong. If someone misuses their product and willingly or not kills someone, why should they be responsible? Do we ever hold car manufactures responsible for accidents (beyond a defect in the car) or Jack Daniels for every DUI, or JA Henckels when someone gets stabbed? Why would guns be the one exception where the manufacturer is responsible for what someone does with their product, when they themselves have broken no laws? Its not like they are illegally making these guns are illegally adding banned features or something.
Has anyone on here ever argued that negligence by parents that results in a kid getting their hands on a gun not be met with prosecution?
I haven't seen that. Those parents, or parent if single, should absolutely face charges.
That was a big topic for a concealed weapons class in Florida in that you MUST keep your firearm(s) secured or result in prosecution.
I agree with that you never see charges brought forth on this if it does happen.
Another one that isn't so simple. This goes back to the continued push back against gun reform and control. I keep hearing many on here say, just enforce the laws. What law and standards of a criminal act are you referring to? There isn't a common law across the country and where there is the language bootstraps the prosecution from bringing a strong criminal case. Criminal negligence is a different standard than just plain old I accidentally left my gun out and my child shot themselves or the gun went off on accident and I shot my girlfriend. Couple this with the fact that the manufacturers don't have to worry about a lawsuit and we just keep chugging along letting people be idiots while doing nothing to change the required standard for ownership of a gun because the NRA and gun lobbyists will never allow it to occur.
The past decade has seen legal measures to prevent gun negligence systematically dismantled. The 2005 Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act statutorily inoculated gun manufacturers and dealers from most claims of negligence in gun deaths. This is even more dangerous than it may first sound. Many people unfamiliar with guns assume that they are designed with simple safeguards against unintentional shootings, but this is not always the case. Glock handguns, for example, have no external safety: If a round is chambered and the trigger is squeezed, the gun fires. As Aaron Walsh, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia, put it, “With any other product in the world there would be no Glock company because they would be sued out of existence. You don’t have a safety? That can’t be right.”
Because the firearms industry enjoys exceptions from normal liability, more of the burden for preventing negligence falls to gun owners. Until recently, responsible gun ownership has to some extent been enforced through gatekeeping: State laws limit who can own guns and carry them in public. But advocates for expanded gun rights have been shifting away from an older gun lobby talking point—that we should stop passing new gun control laws and simply enforce the laws we already have—and toward a strategy of dismantling existing legal safeguards. The push for “constitutional carry”—gun carrying by anyone, anywhere, with no licensing required under the pretense that this is a right granted by the Constitution—has radically loosened restrictions on who can own guns and where they may carry them. In several states people may now carry guns on college campuses. In Michigan, guns may be carried openly at K-12 schools. In Iowa, a resident may not be denied a permit to carry a gun in public based on the fact that he or she is blind. In Georgia and other states, guns may be carried in churches and bars. In six states, resident adults may carry concealed handguns with no licensing or training required. Pediatricians in Florida are legally prohibited from asking new parents if they have guns in the home.
With preventative measures falling apart, punishment seems the only remaining legal recourse for enforcing responsibility with guns. But we are not responding to negligence, even egregious negligence, as one might expect. Unintentional shootings frequently go unprosecuted because they don’t always clearly rise to the level of crimes, explained Pete Theodocion, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia. “If we are going to take away a person’s liberty and put a person in a cage, we typically require that person to have the mindset of ‘I’m going to do harm now’ as opposed to just acting like a dumbass,” he said.
Yet some of these cases are appalling. A man in Washington practiced drawing a loaded handgun and unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend’s daughter. A man in Florida twirled a handgun on his finger and killed a pregnant woman. A man in New Mexico handed a loaded rifle to his six-year-old daughter, who unintentionally shot her sister in the neck. None of these gun owners was prosecuted. The district attorney in the New Mexico case told the Farmington Times, “The father did not follow basic and universally accepted firearm safety rules” but “the problem is that the standard for criminal negligence is higher.”
I agree there should be laws that punish parents who leave guns out and children access them. But you mentioned something else that I never understood. You said gun manufactures don't have to worry about it. But why should they? They don't do anything wrong. If someone misuses their product and willingly or not kills someone, why should they be responsible? Do we ever hold car manufactures responsible for accidents (beyond a defect in the car) or Jack Daniels for every DUI, or JA Henckels when someone gets stabbed? Why would guns be the one exception where the manufacturer is responsible for what someone does with their product, when they themselves have broken no laws? Its not like they are illegally making these guns are illegally adding banned features or something.
My point was about the fact that there aren't strong safety requirements for guns because the industry isn't being held accountable. If you buy a car, a circular saw or most any other modern tool, there is some sort of safety feature required to protect from accidents outside of intended use. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but several guns are sold without a safety so when there is one in the chamber it's always "hot". It wouldn't prevent every incident, but neither do seatbelts, airbags or machine guards. If the manufacturers could be held accountable for their lack of safety features, they would quickly change how they did business. No way will they ever change their production process unless they are forced by law or lawsuit and right now neither is happening anytime soon.
Is it? That is odd.... I'm actually interested to know wtf is up with her; she's a real anomaly (no, not as interested as I am in the victims being okay).
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
But not surprising given the NRA’s and gun manufacturers’ aggressive marketing to women in the last decade. It was just a matter of time. Or more likely, it’s because she played violent video games, came from a broken home or was a “responsible” gun owner until she decided she didn’t want to be.
But not surprising given the NRA’s and gun manufacturers’ aggressive marketing to women in the last decade. It was just a matter of time. Or more likely, it’s because she played violent video games, came from a broken home or was a “responsible” gun owner until she decided she didn’t want to be.
If only the teachers at YouTube had guns.... wait no teachers there? Well if only boy didn’t play violent video games....wait not a boy? Are we sure this is a shooting? I mean it has nothing in common with the others except for the gun and we all know that isn’t part of the problem at all.
If only the teachers at YouTube had guns.... wait no teachers there? Well if only boy didn’t play violent video games....wait not a boy? Are we sure this is a shooting? I mean it has nothing in common with the others except for the gun and we all know that isn’t part of the problem at all.
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
You’re right, it surely would have been avoided it there were so many “gun free zone” signs up that she couldn’t even make her way in. All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
It's their fault. They need metal detectors and armed security.
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
You’re right, it surely would have been avoided it there were so many “gun free zone” signs up that she couldn’t even make her way in. All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
Yeah, you're right, why even consider this a shooting because it's an outlier and messes up the narrative. We need an asterisk for this one.
The only anomaly I see is that we have a female suspect. Domestic violence being carried out with a gun is not an anomaly in this country.
Maybe the NRA was right.
"In a 2015 ad, spokeswoman Dana Loesch warned "every rapist, domestic abuser, violent criminal thug and every other monster who preys upon women" that their "life expectancy just got shorter" thanks to the millions of women buying guns."
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
You’re right, it surely would have been avoided it there were so many “gun free zone” signs up that she couldn’t even make her way in. All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
You read what you wanted to read in PJSoul’s post. Literally all she commented on was that this was interesting and an anomaly because it was a female shooter, which differs from the norm. The “... in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it” is just your words. To say that because female shooters are so few compared to male shooters and therefore can’t be used meaningfully in homicide statistics is just plain bullshit.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
You’re right, it surely would have been avoided it there were so many “gun free zone” signs up that she couldn’t even make her way in. All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
You read what you wanted to read in PJSoul’s post. Literally all she commented on was that this was interesting and an anomaly because it was a female shooter, which differs from the norm. The “... in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it” is just your words. To say that because female shooters are so few compared to male shooters and therefore can’t be used meaningfully in homicide statistics is just plain bullshit.
It was more of a response to drawing conclusions such as were in your snarky post on how to avert an attack. I never said that it should not be used in homicide stats...those were your words, not mine. You read what you want to and create “just plain bullshit”. My point was that there was probably very little that could have averted this attack, plain and simple.
Is it? That is odd.... I'm actually interested to know wtf is up with her; she's a real anomaly (no, not as interested as I am in the victims being okay).
Think how awesome it would be if the thoughts were formulated with more than half a brain and the prayers were actually received by something! Then... we'd really be rocking it.
Think how awesome it would be if the thoughts were formulated with more than half a brain and the prayers were actually received by something! Then... we'd really be rocking it.
To be fair, Feinstein also stated that she would be keeping the victims and their families in her prayers, but she has at least tried to pass legislation to address these issues.
Has anyone on here ever argued that negligence by parents that results in a kid getting their hands on a gun not be met with prosecution?
I haven't seen that. Those parents, or parent if single, should absolutely face charges.
That was a big topic for a concealed weapons class in Florida in that you MUST keep your firearm(s) secured or result in prosecution.
I agree with that you never see charges brought forth on this if it does happen.
Another one that isn't so simple. This goes back to the continued push back against gun reform and control. I keep hearing many on here say, just enforce the laws. What law and standards of a criminal act are you referring to? There isn't a common law across the country and where there is the language bootstraps the prosecution from bringing a strong criminal case. Criminal negligence is a different standard than just plain old I accidentally left my gun out and my child shot themselves or the gun went off on accident and I shot my girlfriend. Couple this with the fact that the manufacturers don't have to worry about a lawsuit and we just keep chugging along letting people be idiots while doing nothing to change the required standard for ownership of a gun because the NRA and gun lobbyists will never allow it to occur.
The past decade has seen legal measures to prevent gun negligence systematically dismantled. The 2005 Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act statutorily inoculated gun manufacturers and dealers from most claims of negligence in gun deaths. This is even more dangerous than it may first sound. Many people unfamiliar with guns assume that they are designed with simple safeguards against unintentional shootings, but this is not always the case. Glock handguns, for example, have no external safety: If a round is chambered and the trigger is squeezed, the gun fires. As Aaron Walsh, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia, put it, “With any other product in the world there would be no Glock company because they would be sued out of existence. You don’t have a safety? That can’t be right.”
Yet some of these cases are appalling. A man in Washington practiced drawing a loaded handgun and unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend’s daughter. A man in Florida twirled a handgun on his finger and killed a pregnant woman. A man in New Mexico handed a loaded rifle to his six-year-old daughter, who unintentionally shot her sister in the neck. None of these gun owners was prosecuted. The district attorney in the New Mexico case told the Farmington Times, “The father did not follow basic and universally accepted firearm safety rules” but “the problem is that the standard for criminal negligence is higher.”
I agree there should be laws that punish parents who leave guns out and children access them. But you mentioned something else that I never understood. You said gun manufactures don't have to worry about it. But why should they? They don't do anything wrong. If someone misuses their product and willingly or not kills someone, why should they be responsible? Do we ever hold car manufactures responsible for accidents (beyond a defect in the car) or Jack Daniels for every DUI, or JA Henckels when someone gets stabbed? Why would guns be the one exception where the manufacturer is responsible for what someone does with their product, when they themselves have broken no laws? Its not like they are illegally making these guns are illegally adding banned features or something.
My point was about the fact that there aren't strong safety requirements for guns because the industry isn't being held accountable. If you buy a car, a circular saw or most any other modern tool, there is some sort of safety feature required to protect from accidents outside of intended use. I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but several guns are sold without a safety so when there is one in the chamber it's always "hot". It wouldn't prevent every incident, but neither do seatbelts, airbags or machine guards. If the manufacturers could be held accountable for their lack of safety features, they would quickly change how they did business. No way will they ever change their production process unless they are forced by law or lawsuit and right now neither is happening anytime soon.
That's true. I wouldn't opposed to requiring a safety on new guns. But would that take away some responsibility from the gun owner? I have no problem holding the gun owner fully responsible for negligence. And anyone who leaves a loaded weapon near a child probably isn't going to worry about a safety. Someone who accidentally shoots someone while cleaning a gun because they didn't check to make sure it wasn't loaded first probably won't check the safety either. There should just be strict laws for gun negligence. Don't pass the buck to the manufacturer. I know in California for every new gun you buy you have to purchase a new gun lock. Doesn't matter if you own 100 locks already, you need to buy a new one with every new gun, and CA is one of the few states who do have strict laws about storing guns, you can and will be criminally charged when kids get to them. Many states are not as strict. I think those are fair laws for gun owners.
I was so heartened to see a photo of someone very close to me in one of Saturday's marches carrying a sign that said "Books not guns" (a rather private person or I would post the photo). Kids reading more books are going to be less apt to go shoot someone. More books for kids!
The kids at the school I’m student teaching at are OBSESSED with guns. They point their fingers at each other and “shoot” all the time, even though it’s strictly against the rules. They draw them on their papers when they are supposed to be working on stuff. It’s crazy. These are six year olds. Some of them even know the names and models of different guns.
me and my friends were like that too in the early 80's. that was normal for us. we knew the names of a few basic ones. rambo movies, awnold movies, etc.
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
You’re right, it surely would have been avoided it there were so many “gun free zone” signs up that she couldn’t even make her way in. All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
You read what you wanted to read in PJSoul’s post. Literally all she commented on was that this was interesting and an anomaly because it was a female shooter, which differs from the norm. The “... in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it” is just your words. To say that because female shooters are so few compared to male shooters and therefore can’t be used meaningfully in homicide statistics is just plain bullshit.
It was more of a response to drawing conclusions such as were in your snarky post on how to avert an attack. I never said that it should not be used in homicide stats...those were your words, not mine. You read what you want to and create “just plain bullshit”. My point was that there was probably very little that could have averted this attack, plain and simple.
“...would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it”. To me, that very clearly reads as data which should not be seen as a valid data point (aka an outlier).
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Can't wait to here how this latest attack could've been averted if YouTube HQ had armed security. That and the fact that this was a handgun will most definitely have people dismissing the problem with semi auto rifles and for any change besides more good guys with guns.
You’re right, it surely would have been avoided it there were so many “gun free zone” signs up that she couldn’t even make her way in. All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
You read what you wanted to read in PJSoul’s post. Literally all she commented on was that this was interesting and an anomaly because it was a female shooter, which differs from the norm. The “... in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it” is just your words. To say that because female shooters are so few compared to male shooters and therefore can’t be used meaningfully in homicide statistics is just plain bullshit.
It was more of a response to drawing conclusions such as were in your snarky post on how to avert an attack. I never said that it should not be used in homicide stats...those were your words, not mine. You read what you want to and create “just plain bullshit”. My point was that there was probably very little that could have averted this attack, plain and simple.
“...would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it”. To me, that very clearly reads as data which should not be seen as a valid data point (aka an outlier).
You’re right, we should now just conclude that all vegan women are threats now... That would be drawing major conclusions, so no we should not. I don’t know how more elementary to spell this out for you, you obviously are just trying to demonize and stir shit up.
Comments
The past decade has seen legal measures to prevent gun negligence systematically dismantled. The 2005 Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act statutorily inoculated gun manufacturers and dealers from most claims of negligence in gun deaths. This is even more dangerous than it may first sound. Many people unfamiliar with guns assume that they are designed with simple safeguards against unintentional shootings, but this is not always the case. Glock handguns, for example, have no external safety: If a round is chambered and the trigger is squeezed, the gun fires. As Aaron Walsh, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia, put it, “With any other product in the world there would be no Glock company because they would be sued out of existence. You don’t have a safety? That can’t be right.”
Because the firearms industry enjoys exceptions from normal liability, more of the burden for preventing negligence falls to gun owners. Until recently, responsible gun ownership has to some extent been enforced through gatekeeping: State laws limit who can own guns and carry them in public. But advocates for expanded gun rights have been shifting away from an older gun lobby talking point—that we should stop passing new gun control laws and simply enforce the laws we already have—and toward a strategy of dismantling existing legal safeguards. The push for “constitutional carry”—gun carrying by anyone, anywhere, with no licensing required under the pretense that this is a right granted by the Constitution—has radically loosened restrictions on who can own guns and where they may carry them. In several states people may now carry guns on college campuses. In Michigan, guns may be carried openly at K-12 schools. In Iowa, a resident may not be denied a permit to carry a gun in public based on the fact that he or she is blind. In Georgia and other states, guns may be carried in churches and bars. In six states, resident adults may carry concealed handguns with no licensing or training required. Pediatricians in Florida are legally prohibited from asking new parents if they have guns in the home.
With preventative measures falling apart, punishment seems the only remaining legal recourse for enforcing responsibility with guns. But we are not responding to negligence, even egregious negligence, as one might expect. Unintentional shootings frequently go unprosecuted because they don’t always clearly rise to the level of crimes, explained Pete Theodocion, a criminal defense attorney in Augusta, Georgia. “If we are going to take away a person’s liberty and put a person in a cage, we typically require that person to have the mindset of ‘I’m going to do harm now’ as opposed to just acting like a dumbass,” he said.
Yet some of these cases are appalling. A man in Washington practiced drawing a loaded handgun and unintentionally shot and killed his girlfriend’s daughter. A man in Florida twirled a handgun on his finger and killed a pregnant woman. A man in New Mexico handed a loaded rifle to his six-year-old daughter, who unintentionally shot her sister in the neck. None of these gun owners was prosecuted. The district attorney in the New Mexico case told the Farmington Times, “The father did not follow basic and universally accepted firearm safety rules” but “the problem is that the standard for criminal negligence is higher.”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/us/youtube-hq-shooting/index.html
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
But you mentioned something else that I never understood. You said gun manufactures don't have to worry about it.
But why should they? They don't do anything wrong. If someone misuses their product and willingly or not kills someone, why should they be responsible?
Do we ever hold car manufactures responsible for accidents (beyond a defect in the car) or Jack Daniels for every DUI, or JA Henckels when someone gets stabbed? Why would guns be the one exception where the manufacturer is responsible for what someone does with their product, when they themselves have broken no laws? Its not like they are illegally making these guns are illegally adding banned features or something.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Ah feels good to be number 1 no ..
All kidding aside, I believe pjsoul mentioned that this incident was somewhat of an anomaly in many ways and probably would not benefit any argument that tries to draw major conclusions from it. Anomalies are hard to avoid whatever measures are taken.
The only anomaly I see is that we have a female suspect. Domestic violence being carried out with a gun is not an anomaly in this country.
Maybe the NRA was right.
"In a 2015 ad, spokeswoman Dana Loesch warned "every rapist, domestic abuser, violent criminal thug and every other monster who preys upon women" that their "life expectancy just got shorter" thanks to the millions of women buying guns."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/us/who-is-nasim-aghdam-youtube-shooter/index.html
Columbus-2003
Cincinnati-2006
Columbus-2010
Wrigley-2013
Cincinnati-2014
Lexington-2016
Wrigley 1 & 2-2018
Aww... that's so thoughtful!
Think how awesome it would be if the thoughts were formulated with more than half a brain and the prayers were actually received by something! Then... we'd really be rocking it.
I know in California for every new gun you buy you have to purchase a new gun lock. Doesn't matter if you own 100 locks already, you need to buy a new one with every new gun, and CA is one of the few states who do have strict laws about storing guns, you can and will be criminally charged when kids get to them. Many states are not as strict. I think those are fair laws for gun owners.
but none of us shot anyone.
www.headstonesband.com
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
That would be drawing major conclusions, so no we should not.
I don’t know how more elementary to spell this out for you, you obviously are just trying to demonize and stir shit up.