Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 8:49:01 GMT -5
Specifically, what struck me most when reading the Atlantic article is this:
Once upon a time, not so very long ago, drunk driving wasn't stigmatized to the degree it is now. Now there's broad agreement that it's a dumb ass criminal move that could kill people, but watch an old movie sometime--it's not treated that way.
It sounds like in "out of my cold dead hands" America, a similar shift needs to happen on gun safety.
Just as I drink, but would never, ever drive while drinking, gun owners need to find it similarly unthinkable that they'd be less that 100% responsible about their guns.
And just as it is unacceptable for anyone here to drive until and unless they have a license (which can be revoked if you prove yourself unworthy of it), so it should be for gun owners.
A certain substantial percentage of Americans seem to think it's cool and sexy to be irresponsible about guns. (Just as it was once cool and sexy to oh, sexually harass women or drive recklessly after a couple of martinis). That's the attitude we need to stigmatize.
ETA:
And sure, other stuff is certainly going on with our yound men, and yes, we need to look into that. But I think it's hard to look at us and at the UK and Australia and not think our gun culture is a big problem.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 20, 2018 19:42:57 GMT -5
On our way to see Deadpool 2 today, my soon-to-be-a-high-school-graduate son and I were discussing this stuff, from gun culture, to assault weapons, to the saturation of society with violent imagery, to the fetishizing of weapons (and other stuff), to the search for notoriety, to school shootings.
Some things he said/noted (I'm not saying he's right or wrong, just throwing this out there as some anecdotal evidence of what an engaged young person thinks about some of this stuff):
1) He thinks the Sante Fe school shooting has been downplayed, if not largely ignored, by, well, pretty much everyone (I think he has something of a point, though maybe he's overstating it).
2) He thinks the idea that there's too much violent imagery, that this is somehow causal (from video games to movies), is ridiculous.
3) He thinks that most offered "solutions" by the pro-gun crowd re how to prevent school shootings are stupid. He was particularly critical of the Sante Fe sheriff's position on there being too many way in and out of the school. He (rightly, imo) sees a panopticon-like prison playing the role of "school" if we were to follow this sort of path.
4) He doesn't think the "problem" (the proliferation of school shooters) is generational insofar as he thinks it's not the kids who are broken, but rather the parents and other adults (and the society they--we--have wrought).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2018 21:25:05 GMT -5
Oh, do not even get me started on the "schools have too many doors!" thing. That is some epic stupid there. Has that sheriff ever chatted with a fireman? Has he ever heard of The Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire? Has it occurred him that doors could be ways for students to escape?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 21, 2018 8:04:33 GMT -5
When news of the Sante Fe shooting first broke, what I heard were reports that as many as eight people had been shot and there were possibly one or two deaths. I heard this on the radio and the reporter also said that the shooting began with the shooter walking into an art class and shooting a girl there. I thought that was an odd sorta place to start such a spree, to be honest, but then I'm hardly in the mind of the shooter. Anyway, perhaps some clarity: www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44194074Seems like the art class story was correct, because he went there looking for her, shot her, then kept going.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on May 21, 2018 11:58:31 GMT -5
Just to respond to one question Cass had, I think: I'm not aware of any Texas laws that require gun owners to lock or otherwise secure their weapons. In a place where people are allowed to carry weapons in public, I suppose it might be possible to come up with something but I don't think it'd happen here right now. Even right now, I should say.
And on the issue of prosecuting parents, I've been thinking about that, wondering what we'd charge them with. One fundamental premise of criminal law is that we don't hold someone responsible for the crimes of another person -- even a child. So a parent would have to either have direct knowledge of an imminent shooting or intentionally provide a weapon, something like that.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 21, 2018 12:05:54 GMT -5
Reckless endangerment?
Provided parents:
a) failed to secure weapons and ammo that could be easily accessed by minors in their care; and...
b) were aware of mental health/anger issues of those same minors.
But as you say Mark, if no requirements exist in the law re securing weapons, it's a no-go in Texas right now. And perhaps this event might--at the very least--prompt some legislation that requires firearms to be kept securely, when not in use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2018 12:49:17 GMT -5
Just to respond to one question Cass had, I think: I'm not aware of any Texas laws that require gun owners to lock or otherwise secure their weapons. In a place where people are allowed to carry weapons in public, I suppose it might be possible to come up with something but I don't think it'd happen here right now. Even right now, I should say. And on the issue of prosecuting parents, I've been thinking about that, wondering what we'd charge them with. One fundamental premise of criminal law is that we don't hold someone responsible for the crimes of another person -- even a child. So a parent would have to either have direct knowledge of an imminent shooting or intentionally provide a weapon, something like that. Of course you're right that generally we don't hold people responsible for the crimes of another person (somewhere on here there's a thread where I discuss precisely that with regard to gun sellers and manufacturers who comply with all applicable laws but merely have the bad luck to sell a gun to someone who uses it in a crime). But if there were specifically a law requiring owners to keep weapons secured, and they were in violation of that law, I would think they could be prosecuted for that. An admittedly imperfect comparison might be a homeowner who leaves his swimming pool unsecured; he can be held liable if a child drowns in it. We do hold people responsible for negligence that results in accidents
|
|
|
Post by markesq on May 22, 2018 8:48:45 GMT -5
Yes, I think the first (and necessary) step would be a law requiring gun owners to secure their weapons.
Cass, your swimming pool analogy is applicable, I think, just to civil liability and not criminal, but maybe that's actually an option? Weak sauce after a mass murder, of course, but if parents were sued by the families of victims that might stoke some sort of change. Of course, most gun-owning parents will not believe their kid would do anything, so maybe not...
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on May 23, 2018 12:06:49 GMT -5
Don't some states have laws about keeping weapons secured? If only a lock box? I could be wrong on that.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 23, 2018 14:13:39 GMT -5
Some states require it in homes where children could gain access. And they vary widely in transportation restrictions. For example, in Maryland you can only carry a firearm in your car locked in the trunk, unloaded, stored separately from ammo, and only if you are traveling directly between your home and a firing range. Whereas in most Western states, it's legal to keep a loaded handgun under your seat or in your glove compartment. Which will get you an automatic felony in most of the East Coast.
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 24, 2018 13:51:28 GMT -5
Re: Amadan's post, I've noticed that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause applies to Driver's Licenses, but not Concealed Carry Permits. I've never been able to find the legal justification for that, though. I don't mean the "because, guns, ZOMG!!!!!111" justification, I mean a legal rationale for the disparity. Either the clause is valid, or it is not. Picking and choosing seems illegit to me.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 24, 2018 15:05:24 GMT -5
Well, no one has pushed the issue at the Supreme Court. And frankly, I doubt they ever will. It's a potential lose-lose-lose scenario for people who want expansive gun rights.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Sept 6, 2018 6:45:10 GMT -5
Well, your assessment of him being a coward is based on one single action (or non-action, as it were), i.e. not going in makes him a coward, while I guess going in would have made him, what? A hero? That's a pretty harsh line, especially since--as you do allow--proper procedure is no doubt to wait for back up. Regardless, one cannot argue in good faith that if he had gone into the school, the outcome would have necessarily been any different. That said, I don't have any bones to pick with people who lost their children, their friends, and so on. You'll note that my issue is with people like Trump and Israel throwing Peterson under the bus. They are using him to cover their own asses, to make themselves seem better, and/or to "prove" that they are compassionate. The last is what perhaps bugs me the most, because they're far from alone in this regard. People--a lot of people--are using these deaths and their impact on families as a club to silence any sort of disagreement , to advance their points of view and agendas. Peterson is just a tool for them, as well. While they may actually care to some extent about these deaths, whatever actual compassion they have is far outweighed by their self-righteous and cynical use of people's real suffering and pain. Trump is certainly the poster child for this right now, but he's got a shit ton of company. As to Peterson being haunted by this, I'm sure that's going to be the case. If he's any sort of a decent person--and prior to this moment, everyone seemed to think he was--he'll second guess himself for the rest of his life. He doesn't need a loud-mouthed President's help for this, nor does he need the help of the outrage crowd on social media, whose self worth is sustained only by shitting on all other people. Peterson deserves to be shit on. He gave the wrong commands and people died. Why would Peterson say that? Oh, because he froze? Or he fucked up? Or he crapped his pants and chickened out while people were dying? Or maybe he was just a coward. Let's not overthink this. UPDATE:Jesus wept.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Sept 6, 2018 12:00:23 GMT -5
"Peterson was allowed to resign with full pension."
Disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Oct 29, 2018 11:16:16 GMT -5
|
|