• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

School shooting this morning . . .

You really should keep discussions relating to Australias gun Laws out of your arguments.

You have a different culture and different laws there than we have here in Australia. Australians have never had a constitutional right to own firearms. I don't own a gun nor do i know anyone that does (other than law enforcement personel). The average Australian has never owned a firearm. You simply cannot compare the two Countries and it constantly amazes me when I see posters here that do.

Most of us are reasonable people and understand that America has a great history of an armed populace with the majority of gun owners being responsible law abiding citizens.

Carry on and thanks for listening.

:peace

It amazes me how few people consider culture to be the major factor.

Legality doesn't determine who owns a gun. Desire does.
 
Even more amazing is the Nevada Police openly stating they may bring charges against the parents.....which as far as I know Nevada doesn't have any law concerning intervention over a Child using a firearm. So how can they be stating they could bring the Parents up on charges. Especially if they didn't know the kid took the Weapon in the first place?
 
Even more amazing is the Nevada Police openly stating they may bring charges against the parents.....which as far as I know Nevada doesn't have any law concerning intervention over a Child using a firearm. So how can they be stating they could bring the Parents up on charges. Especially if they didn't know the kid took the Weapon in the first place?

If they don't have a law that holds parents responsible for their under-aged child shooting someone with their gun, they should. If they prove the weapon came from his parents' home? Somebody ought to go to jail.
 
Im certain the gun actually killed her and ran off.

Dead student but no gun = not worthy of national attention and certainly doesnt merit a thread on DP.

There is no cause of death in that case yet, but there are plenty of others like this one.

A 24-year-old Phoenix woman is dead after a fatal hug with her 18-year-old boyfriend. The victim, identified as Amanda Mosley, was shot by a gun that accidentally discharged after being tucked down the front of the teenager’s pants.

Mosley reportedly complained the gun was “making her uncomfortable,” and as the young man removed it from the waistband of his pants, the firearm misfired and shot her. She was rushed to the hospital where she died from her injuries.
Girlfriend Dies in 'Hug of Death' When Teen Makes Fatal Mistake | CafeMom

I wonder if there will be any charges filed in this case. It seems that guns keep going off on there own.
 
If they don't have a law that holds parents responsible for their under-aged child shooting someone with their gun, they should. If they prove the weapon came from his parents' home? Somebody ought to go to jail.
What would you charge them with, and would you also advocate for parents being jailed in every incident of, say, an accidental poisoning?
 
What would you charge them with, and would you also advocate for parents being jailed in every incident of, say, an accidental poisoning?

I'm not familiar enough with criminal code to suggest the actual charges. Gross negligence? I don't know. But something. And, if my child had been one of those injured? I'd own their home.

As to your accidental poisoning question? If you leave rat poison next to the Cheerios, and your 2-year-old dies? You should go to jail for manslaughter. Or something. This is called personal responsibility. We need to embrace it.
 
I'm not familiar enough with criminal code to suggest the actual charges. Gross negligence? I don't know. But something. And, if my child had been one of those injured? I'd own their home.

As to your accidental poisoning question? If you leave rat poison next to the Cheerios, and your 2-year-old dies? You should go to jail for manslaughter. Or something. This is called personal responsibility. We need to embrace it.
I agree that in all those cases there ought to be some criminal charges. I dont know if prison is the answer, but certainly something. As I said throughout the whole Sandy Hook ordeal...it is tragic that instead of having the discussion about adequately securing firearms, the rhetoric jumped straight to assault rifle bans, magazine caps, waiting periods, and background checks.
 
As I said throughout the whole Sandy Hook ordeal...it is tragic that instead of having the discussion about adequately securing firearms, the rhetoric jumped straight to assault rifle bans, magazine caps, waiting periods, and background checks.

I completely agree.
 
Im sorry...thats just silly. The 'gun' did not "accidentally discharge". It may have been discharged accidentally...but it didnt go off by itself.

I don't know how silly it seems to that dead girls parents. Perhaps the gun didn't like her coming between it and it's owner. Stephen King has written a lot about inanimate objects developing feelings. Do you think the boyfriend should be charged or not? How about the parents of that 12 year old that killed his math teacher with their gun?
 
If they don't have a law that holds parents responsible for their under-aged child shooting someone with their gun, they should. If they prove the weapon came from his parents' home? Somebody ought to go to jail.

Mornin Maggie. :2wave: They are just one of 27 states that don't. But if they went to work and then the kid took the gun. There is no way for them to know. Even if they had the gun locked up. So I don't think they should be charged for the actions of another. How could the state prove intent?

Course that doesn't mean they aren't open to a lawsuit by those involved.
 
Mornin Maggie. :2wave: They are just one of 27 states that don't. But if they went to work and then the kid took the gun. There is no way for them to know. Even if they had the gun locked up. So I don't think they should be charged for the actions of another. How could the state prove intent?

Course that doesn't mean they aren't open to a lawsuit by those involved.

Gun safe.
 
I don't know how silly it seems to that dead girls parents. Perhaps the gun didn't like her coming between it and it's owner. Stephen King has written a lot about inanimate objects developing feelings. Do you think the boyfriend should be charged or not? How about the parents of that 12 year old that killed his math teacher with their gun?
Do you know how silly YOU sound in all of this?

Should the boyfriend be charged. Well...lets see...who stuck the weapon down the girls pants? Who stuck the loaded weapon with a round chambered down the girls pants? If it is the weapon that was pictured on the website, who stuck the loaded weapon with the hammer in the locked position down her pants? Answer that question and we are on our way to an answer as to who might be charged.

Now...should the parents be charged. Well...first off...WHO was the shooter? Seriously...48 hours and we havent seen a picture, dont know anything about the boy, his family, the circumstance, how he obtained the weapon, etc. Why is that do you suppose? Wouldnt you say thats a bit abnormal, considering they HAVE the shooter? If it is determined that the parents didnt take at least some measures to adequately secure the firearm, then yes...I believe there should be charges filed, just as I said during the Sandy Hook shootings.
 
:roll:

Policing can be a dangerous job and therefore not for everyone. Some of the danger is physical; there is an ever-present possibility of attack or of being asked to perform physically taxing tasks. Another kind of danger, though, is psychological and can come, as mentioned, from thoughts of the possibility of danger or, more likely, from the stresses of being exposed to negative events in the lives of others.

When asked about stress, officers most frequently mention the police organization itself as a stressor. The need to make decisions on the streets or highways, but then to have those decisions so frequently questioned by the public, the media, and senior officers within the department, leads many officers to feel they are constantly under scrutiny for even the most routine activities.

Becoming a Police Officer: Risks | Education.com

Today’s law enforcement officers face a multitude of dangers in their everyday duties that rival the threat of getting shot. For example:


Foot pursuits
Vehicle pursuits
Responding code 3 (lights and siren)
Making an arrest
Traffic control
Heat stroke
Stress
Duty equipment
Biohazard exposure/sun exposure

Officers are exposed to these dangers on a daily basis.

The real dangers of police work are not what you think - Lodinews.com: Behind The Badge

"There are more people out there who are bad guys and could care less about killing you," he said. "I don't think the public has a clue as to what law enforcement goes through every day -- the stress they are under or all the bad things they see."

A decrease in law enforcement officers killed doesn't mean the job is getting that much safer or criminals have become less violent toward police. What it may suggest, though, is that law enforcement officers have become smarter.

Manning, the criminal justice professor, cites three major factors in helping keep more officers alive: 1) increased use and proven effectiveness of bulletproof vests; 2) improved education and procedures for hostage and other potentially perilous situations; and 3) the advent and rise of specialized units to deal with the bigger crises.

Dangers real, but deaths increasingly rare for police officers - CNN.com
I will just stop you now and tell you to go to the academy, graduate, pin a badge on, holster your weapon and go on patrol for a few years.
Then you start telling me about law enforcement.
 
One could not help but notice that you opted for a fast drive by attack rather than any evidence to support the claims and allegations made.

I followed your lead, Master.
 
No where have I said I was opposed to self defense. Quite the opposite actually. I'm not sure why you argue things not said, but ignore what was said.

Try again.
You are clearly anti private gun ownership. Most people own guns for defence of home and protection of life.
 
I will just stop you now and tell you to go to the academy, graduate, pin a badge on, holster your weapon and go on patrol for a few years.
Then you start telling me about law enforcement.

Nonsense. I have those who have to speak. You can read them.
 
You are clearly anti private gun ownership. Most people own guns for defence of home and protection of life.

Not remotely. You're just trying to excuse your lack of reasoning ability. Worry less about me and more about the points you should address.
 
That's still not a guarantee either.....then there would be that issue for the Court over intent.

Intent isn't a prerequisite of conviction for negligence. A drunk driver didn't intend to t-bone a car and kill six people. A guy who didn't put a lock on his fence whose neighbor's child drown in the pool didn't mean for that to happen. The act (or negligence) stands on its own. And if it's not negligence to leave a handgun and ammunition where a young child can get hold of it I don't know what is.
 
Perhaps the first thing you and the gun lobby need to then do is to classify all Americans into those two categories so we know which ones are deserving' of their Constitutional rights and which ones are not at all 'deserving' of their Constitutional rights.

Then after you accomplish that task, you will need to offer an amendment to the Constitution to act upon that distinction.

btw- PROLIFERATION is a perfectly good English language word with a very specific meaning which describes perfectly the significant of the numbers of guns in America over the last two decades.

1) there is no gun lobby. Guns don't lobby. It is a lobby to preserve constitutional rights for humans

2) the federal law already decides that-there are those who can own firearms and those who cannot through the operation of due process of law

3) as I noted Proliferation is a loaded term used by anti rights activists to convey something sinister about honest people being armed.

even though the number of legally owned firearms in non government hands has increased significantly, the rate of gun violence and accidental shootings have decreased
 
No, you haven't. Your poor reasoning skills and over emotional reaction make it seem that way to you. But an honest person, if you are one, would address what is said. Can you do that?

again, another attempt to deflect from the fact that you have uttered opinions that are not supported by reality or expertise. The dishonesty is all on your side
 
Intent isn't a prerequisite of conviction for negligence. A drunk driver didn't intend to t-bone a car and kill six people. A guy who didn't put a lock on his fence whose neighbor's child drown in the pool didn't mean for that to happen. The act (or negligence) stands on its own. And if it's not negligence to leave a handgun and ammunition where a young child can get hold of it I don't know what is.

Well.....that's understandable. But now say the gun was locked up in the safe and the kid still got the gun. If a prosecutor went forward with the case and it was so. Even the worst attorney out there should be able to win that case.

Then.....turn around and sue the state for their trying to railroad the parents over negligence.
 
Well.....that's understandable. But now say the gun was locked up in the safe and the kid still got the gun. If a prosecutor went forward with the case and it was so. Even the worst attorney out there should be able to win that case.

Then.....turn around and sue the state for their trying to railroad the parents over negligence.

I doubt the state would pursue a case like that. There has to be a bad act. If someone had their gun locked up in a gun safe and the key appropriately unavailable, what criminal negligence would there have been? Although in a civil trial, the parents would probably still lose.

But let's face it. If this kids' parents had HAD a gun safe and the key appropriately unavailable, we wouldn't be posting in this thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom