America's Gun Violence

the Republicans offer their thoughts and prayers.  

pjhawks said:

the Republicans offer their thoughts and prayers.  

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.

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dudeman said:

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.”

https://newrepublic.com/article/121632/why-are-states-so-reluctant-prosecute-gun-negligence-crime

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. 

can we designate Montana as a sort of Israel for the gun nuts? problem solved. vaggar99 for world president!

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

benjs said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

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.

my2hands said:

vaggar99 said:

can we designate Montana as a sort of Israel for the gun nuts? problem solved. vaggar99 for world president!

PJ plays Jeff's hometown every few years, so how about Wyoming instead? 

You have to give up something to get something...

So I saw this "meme" posted yesterday on one of my friend's instagram page in response to the Youtube shooting:



My response to this is:
"When your immediate reaction is to point out what "team" the shooter was on and you still refuse to admit we have a problem."

HughFreakingDillon said:

HesCalledDyer said:

So I saw this "meme" posted yesterday on one of my friend's instagram page in response to the Youtube shooting:



My response to this is:
"When your immediate reaction is to point out what "team" the shooter was on and you still refuse to admit we have a problem."

I can't see the meme you posted at work, but I'm assuming it has something to do with most shooters apparently being democrats/liberals? if so, let's be honest here....if the shoe was on the other foot.....you don't think there would be "all mass shooters are republicans!" memes swirling the interwebs and constantly used as talking points against the gun lobby?

Meme is a fuzzy picture of a kid's face with the caption "When the shooter is female, muslim, vegan, AND shot people in an area with strict gun laws so you can't blame the NRA, republicans, or white males for the shooting."

my2hands said:

Still dont know why being vegan matters and why it's been mentioned a million times

I guess because some people tend to equate veganism with assumed pacifism, and this case seems to contradict that?? Or maybe because some other people tend to equate veganism with a brand of fanaticism? Or both?

my2hands said:

Still dont know why being vegan matters and why it's been mentioned a million times

Because Team Conservadeev has to win, and only someone on Team Libtard would be vegan.