Mass Shooting

[Mighty_Zuk]

42 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Depends. In rural america its not unreasonable for kids to have access to firearms. Even rifles. Many kids hunt from a pretty early age. 
 

Even if locked up, kids have plenty of time to attempt to circumvent many security measures. They do live there. 

I'm referring to penalties incurred not from the mere act of the children accessing those weapons, but the act of a shooting attack with said weapons, which logically should incur a punishment for both the child who committed the attack, and the parents who enabled his access to a deadly weapon.

[R011]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If they get them from home, what penalty do the parents typically incur?

Usually no ciminal penalties unless the weapons were illegally obtained or possessed by the parent.   Some parents have faced civil suits.  I don't know how successful they've been.  Some minors have manged to buy a firearm illegally, especially if they'e in a gang or otherwise involved in crime.  In those cases, the family is usually too disfunctional for the parent to have control and there's no point suing someone on welfare.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I'm referring to penalties incurred not from the mere act of the children accessing those weapons, but the act of a shooting attack with said weapons, which logically should incur a punishment for both the child who committed the attack, and the parents who enabled his access to a deadly weapon.

If a kid uses a parent's car to commit a crime are the parents also liable? If an 18 year old has normal access to a car starting at age 16 and then uses that car to commit a crime, how is that a sudden criminal liability for the parents? 

How do you infer a criminal liability after the fact for something that would otherwise be lawful to have access to?

 

[Burncycle360]

Of course parents should secure firearms, but safe storage laws amounts to backdoor warrantless search. The answer is no.

[rmgill]

There have been numerous incidents where kids have used firearms to defend their home from intruders. 

Doughnut Operator does a breakdown...
 

 

[Ivanhoe]

[Murph]

Who the heck is that tool?

[Angrybk]

"nutpicking" is the term -- you'll always find a dumbass on social media who says something completely offensive and ridiculous. 

[Skywalkre]

A nobody... wasn't worth repeating their stupid.

[Angrybk]

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I think the point they're making is not that guns cause people to kill, but rather that they enable them to kill more people.

This is not something that should be disqualified from any logical, civilized debate. And no, I do not have an opinion on the 2nd amendment.

Firearms are more popular than ever in the US -- there are about 20 million AR-15 variants in private hands and probably slightly more firearms in the US than there are people. It's honestly not a thing that's much up for debate anymore. (I'm not being weepy about this, it's just a fact of life).

Oddly enough, as a Big City Blue State Liberal I've become less and less of a gun-control guy. I have no desire to own a firearm (not for moral reasons, I just don't see much use for it -- I got a heavy metal rod for home defense). Gun ownership is wildly popular in large parts of the US and it's a stupid hill for Democrats to die on. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Angrybk

[Rick]

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I think the point they're making is not that guns cause people to kill, but rather that they enable them to kill more people.

This is not something that should be disqualified from any logical, civilized debate. And no, I do not have an opinion on the 2nd amendment.

Define the bolden in "...the point they're making..." I think I know what you mean, I just don't want to wrongly assume. 

[Stargrunt6]

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

Depends. In rural america its not unreasonable for kids to have access to firearms. Even rifles. Many kids hunt from a pretty early age. 
 

Even if locked up, kids have plenty of time to attempt to circumvent many security measures. They do live there. 

I wouldn't call Nashville "rural."

She was 28 years old and had a career.  That keltec is about $300.  Guarantee that AR is budget and you can get them cheaper if used. 

 

I want to know how she trained and what she was saying on socials, especially discord DMs.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Stargrunt6

[Tim Sielbeck]

4 hours ago, R011 said:

Usually no ciminal penalties unless the weapons were illegally obtained or possessed by the parent.   Some parents have faced civil suits.  I don't know how successful they've been.  Some minors have manged to buy a firearm illegally, especially if they'e in a gang or otherwise involved in crime.  In those cases, the family is usually too disfunctional for the parent to have control and there's no point suing someone on welfare.

There is a case pending in Michigan where the state is trying to criminally penalize the parents.

[Tim Sielbeck]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

If a kid uses a parent's car to commit a crime are the parents also liable? If an 18 year old has normal access to a car starting at age 16 and then uses that car to commit a crime, how is that a sudden criminal liability for the parents? 

How do you infer a criminal liability after the fact for something that would otherwise be lawful to have access to?

 

Supposedly if the perpetrator is a minor their parents could be held liable for any personal/property damage that minor might cause.  The idea being that a minor is the responsibility of the supposed adults.

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

I wouldn't call Nashville "rural."

I was just drawing a parallel for the rule in rural is that folks out in the country have kids who have guns. Heck, there's the meme of high-school kids in West Virginia going to a football game over in Virginia and getting in trouble with the local principal because they have shotguns in their truck windows. The Virginia principal brings this up with the West Virginia school principle who points to HIS shotgun in his truck window wondering what the problem is. 

2 hours ago, Stargrunt6 said:

She was 28 years old and had a career.  That keltec is about $300.  Guarantee that AR is budget and you can get them cheaper if used. 

Apparently 'she' was 28, but lived with parents who didn't know she had the guns at all. 

 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Tim Sielbeck said:

Supposedly if the perpetrator is a minor their parents could be held liable for any personal/property damage that minor might cause.  The idea being that a minor is the responsibility of the supposed adults.

 Civilly liable sure. Criminally is far longer of a stretch. 

[Stargrunt6]

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

I was just drawing a parallel for the rule in rural is that folks out in the country have kids who have guns. Heck, there's the meme of high-school kids in West Virginia going to a football game over in Virginia and getting in trouble with the local principal because they have shotguns in their truck windows. The Virginia principal brings this up with the West Virginia school principle who points to HIS shotgun in his truck window wondering what the problem is. 

That's pretty funny and very WV.

1 minute ago, rmgill said:

Apparently 'she' was 28, but lived with parents who didn't know she had the guns at all. 

 

Not hard to do.  Those guns aren't that big and some parents never step in their adult kids' rooms.  She could always leave them with a friend or in a storage unit. 

[Tim Sielbeck]

9 minutes ago, rmgill said:

 Civilly liable sure. Criminally is far longer of a stretch. 

That is what I meant.

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours ago, Rick said:

Define the bolden in "...the point they're making..." I think I know what you mean, I just don't want to wrongly assume. 

Anyone who highlights the abundance of firearms in a gun rights debate.

8 hours ago, rmgill said:

If a kid uses a parent's car to commit a crime are the parents also liable? If an 18 year old has normal access to a car starting at age 16 and then uses that car to commit a crime, how is that a sudden criminal liability for the parents? 

How do you infer a criminal liability after the fact for something that would otherwise be lawful to have access to?

If it's a kid without a license, then yes. To a lesser extent than using a firearm, but yes definitely. If the kid has a license, and has his own keys to the car, then parents should not be liable in any form.

But I don't understand why you try to use such an irrelevant analogy. There's almost no comparison between the two. A car is parked out in the open, everyone knows where it is and what it does. At some point every person above a certain age is likely to have a license to operate it. And access is shared between family members or friends. You can let other people who don't have a drivers' license to use it as passengers, and in the US at least a person without a license can use it, in public, while under supervision. 

On the other hand, a firearm is to be concealed at all times, both when carrying and at home - in a safe. Most people are unlikely to have a gun license, and not everyone can acquire one. Access can be shared between license owners, but not between family members or friends who typically won't have a license of their own. There is no way for people to utilize it in any capacity without a license, not even under supervision.

So to steal your parents' car, if you have a license, does not actually break any law (unless they file a complaint). Stealing a firearm breaks at least multiple laws, and it means the parents did not conceal it properly (kid knew where it is), did not store it properly (knew how to open the lock/safe), allowed it to reach an unlicensed user, and allowed it to be used without their supervision. 

I don't know how many of these are laws, but at the very least parents should be liable to an extent. Not fully, because it can be an innocent mistake, but even innocent mistakes don't exonerate people, much like running over a pedestrian can be an innocent accident, but the driver would usually still incur a penalty of some sort.

 

I think that without touching the 2nd amendment, gun crime could be reduced notably by increasing deterrence. A kid may feel like he's at a tipping point and decides to kill a few other kids, but maybe some of them would think they're personally ready for this, but don't want their parents to suffer any more consequences.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

19 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

Of course. The press uses hoodrat stuff to vastly pump up the numbers so that John and Jane Q. Surburbia think that they are at great risk from a mass shooter, and more amenable to more government/less citizenship.

Heck, don't be surprised when the pro-pedotrans crowd uses the Nashville tragedy to pump up the "violence against trans" narrative. Who's gonna check to see whether the ballyhooed numbers are for trans victims vice perpetrators?

Plenty of people using it as an opportunity best I can tell.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/twitter-restricts-marjorie-taylor-greene-after-tweets-about-trans-people-and-nashville-shooting/ar-AA19c1fw

[FALightFighter]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

On the other hand, a firearm is to be concealed at all times, both when carrying and at home - in a safe. Most people are unlikely to have a gun license, and not everyone can acquire one. Access can be shared between license owners, but not between family members or friends who typically won't have a license of their own. There is no way for people to utilize it in any capacity without a license, not even under supervision.

...

I think that without touching the 2nd amendment, gun crime could be reduced notably by increasing deterrence. A kid may feel like he's at a tipping point and decides to kill a few other kids, but maybe some of them would think they're personally ready for this, but don't want their parents to suffer any more consequences.

 

Who says that a firearm is to be concealed?

What is a "gun license"? There is not such thing in my state, nor in any state that I have lived in AFAIK. States have had concealed carry licenses, and pistol permits, but no "gun license" either to purchase or use.

In my state, any adult can use a firearm with any sort of training or licensure. 

A kid that is mentally disturbed enough to go on a killing spree isn't going to be deterred by possible repercussions to their parents. A mentally ill adult even less so.

Your entire post is just foolish.

[sunday]

Concealed carry, Israel style

Edited March 29, 2023 by sunday

[rmgill]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If it's a kid without a license, then yes. To a lesser extent than using a firearm, but yes definitely. If the kid has a license, and has his own keys to the car, then parents should not be liable in any form.

 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

But I don't understand why you try to use such an irrelevant analogy. There's almost no comparison between the two. A car is parked out in the open, everyone knows where it is and what it does. At some point every person above a certain age is likely to have a license to operate it. And access is shared between family members or friends. You can let other people who don't have a drivers' license to use it as passengers, and in the US at least a person without a license can use it, in public, while under supervision. 

A vehicle is large common place tool that can kill. Nice France had a mass murder of 87 with a truck. 

Firearms are also common place tools that can kill. 

Legally speaking we compare various similar things and ideas to test the validity of the legal arguments. What other things are parents going to be criminally liable for if their kids obtain and misuse them? 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

On the other hand, a firearm is to be concealed at all times, both when carrying and at home - in a safe.

Well, the kid is going to know where it's at. He/she lives there. I knew where my father's guns were. My wife knows where my guns are. I expect any resident to know such things. But then not all firearms are hidden away. My carry piece goes into my night stand. A friend has firearms around his house and his daughter knows where they are including the ones that are hers. 
 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Most people are unlikely to have a gun license, and not everyone can acquire one. Access can be shared between license owners, but not between family members or friends who typically won't have a license of their own. There is no way for people to utilize it in any capacity without a license, not even under supervision.

In the US, licenses to own or carry are not consistent across the nation. In Georgia there's no license required to own ANY firearms. There is a license to carry but that's optional for various reasons and to grant carry in other states. More than 25 states in the US have what's called constitutional carry. You can carry a firearm, hand gun really, around on your person with out a license. 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

So to steal your parents' car, if you have a license, does not actually break any law (unless they file a complaint).

Well, if you don't have legal access it is stealing. Complaint or not. It's a crime whether or not they press charges. That you steal a car when you have a license doesn't change the nature of the theft. 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Stealing a firearm breaks at least multiple laws, and it means the parents did not conceal it properly (kid knew where it is), did not store it properly (knew how to open the lock/safe), allowed it to reach an unlicensed user, and allowed it to be used without their supervision. 

But if it was stolen, how are they liable? If someone with or without a license steals your property you're criminally guilty? How's that work at all? 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't know how many of these are laws, but at the very least parents should be liable to an extent. Not fully, because it can be an innocent mistake, but even innocent mistakes don't exonerate people, much like running over a pedestrian can be an innocent accident, but the driver would usually still incur a penalty of some sort.

The problem here is you have a second person who's the actor. You're trying to attribute guilt, potentially mens rea to that person for the acts of a third person whom they have no control over. 
 

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

I think that without touching the 2nd amendment, gun crime could be reduced notably by increasing deterrence. A kid may feel like he's at a tipping point and decides to kill a few other kids, but maybe some of them would think they're personally ready for this, but don't want their parents to suffer any more consequences.

These people that go on spree shootings are out to destroy god as it were. This latest one was willing to shoot 9 year old children and then go after her parents too. Presuming that these disturbed children or adults don't want to cause their parents problems is quite honestly, exceedingly mistaken. 
 

 

[Rick]

15 minutes ago, sunday said:

Concealed carry, Israel style

Ghastly tattoos. 

[Tim the Tank Nut]

1 hour ago, FALightFighter said:

A kid that is mentally disturbed enough to go on a killing spree

when you already can't tell what gender or sex you are then you're pretty far down the nutcase highway anyhow..

As far as the comment above about the "trans Martyr" we have the choice of ignoring stupid and letting it fester or turning the sunshine on it and let it wither.  The unwillingness of so many to speak up on things like transitioning minors are a big part of what lets nightmares happen.  When you tel a child over and over that you can "be anything" they'll eventually believe it and then be shocked when the real world intervenes and says "no, you can't BE ANYTHING" just because you want it or say so,