Why blame the guns?
Asked by
josie (
30934
)
March 4th, 2010
Regarding extra-familial violence: Guns are not the problem, but increasing levels of sociopathy certainly is a problem. Why not be real and get rid of the sociopaths?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
120 Answers
Why not be real and realize that a gun is a part of the problem….....
Would you even know how to identify a sociopath…..? Everyone can identify a gun, you don’t know if the clerk at your grocery store is a sociopath and what they will do when they get home.
Great idea and all but where would you hide all these crazies?
So what do you propose? Knocking on doors, asking if any sociopaths are inside and asking them to leave? Maybe it could be a question on the census form.
I like how so many so-called progressive folk are quick to look at the socio-economic reasons behind so many current issues, but when it comes to guns they go into ban them all for the children!!! mode.
Here’s a novel idea: how about instead of blaming inanimate objects for crimes, we look at why these crimes are committed in the first place, and take steps to eliminate those problems- like poverty.
@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard: I agree with you for the most part. However, what I think people on both sides of the issue misunderstand about the term “gun control” is that it means “controlling of guns” not “banning of guns.” Personally, I have no problem with guns I used to quite recently until I had an epiphany but I do think that any joe shmoe off the street shouldn’t be able to go in and buy one. Many people balk at the idea of waiting periods and extensive background checks. However, this can catch the sociopaths the asker speaks of. The Virginia Tech shootings could have been prevented if there had been a waiting period or if the background check had been more extensive. I also think that people who own guns should be required to take some kind of safety course and learn how to properly maintain a gun and also prevent things like accidental shootings I’m thinking young kids or theft of the weapon. I don’t know the exact statistics but a number of robberies and crimes are committed with stolen guns. I don’t mean guns bought on the black market necessarily, I mean guns that were in people’s homes that the criminal stole.
Anyway, I have no problem with people owning guns but I think if you’re going to own a dangerous weapon, you should have the training and responsibility to own one.
Since all psychopaths wear t shirts saying they’re psychopaths rounding them all up is remarkably easy right?
It’s either that or we take prevenative measures to make sure crazy people don’t have access to weapons in those cases of psychopaths where their violent disposition isn’t so visibly obvious.
“Why blame the guns?”
Ignorance.
Everyone is aware there is no push to take away guns, right?
Guns are the problem. If the people who kill could not get a gun, then there would be less violence. It is idiotic to fall back on the “Guns, don’t kill – people kill” mantra and expect anyone to believe that you have an intellect. (And I am a life-long shooter and gun owner…)
You can use the same argument against controlling drug use. Drugs aren’t the problem, it is the socio-econimical conditions that lead to drug use. Drugs don’t cause crime, people on drugs cause crime. I will make you a deal. You can keep your guns if I can keep my weed.
“If the people who kill could not get a gun, then there would be less violence.”
Replace the word “gun” with any other word, getting the same result.
People that kill will always find a way to do it.
And, I will have to resort to killing them with a frozen chicken.
@ChazMaz And, I will have to resort to killing them with a frozen chicken.
Put it in a stringbag first, that way you can still roast it.
@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Poverty doesn’t cause crime, though it does seem to correlate with it. More likely there is a third thing that contributes to both.
People are pretty darned good at killing each other with whatever means they have. Knifings are pretty common in urban slums in China and in many parts of Europe.
Most guns that cause the horrible street violence we see on the television are illegal anyway. My friend’s dad is a coroner at the Detroit Medical Center and he’s told stories about what automatic AK-47 gunfire does to a victim.
My girlfriend is originally from a county in Maryland that has one of the highest per-capita gun ownership rates in the country. It’s also one of the lowest violent crime counties in the region.
The problems here are social problems. I don’t think removing legal gun ownership is going to reduce violent crime, since people are just going to go find guns or some other way to kill whoever they’re going to kill. Sort of like how people do illegal drugs anyway. And shoot each other over them.
@noyesa What county in MD? A fairly rural one? Or very affluent one? One where there is little crime and social problems in general? In those communities there is little gun violence whether everyne has on eor not, but that does not prove that people are the only problem and not the guns. Because if you go to a county where there is a lot of violence, if no one had a gun, the violence would probably drop drastically. Especially random shootings.
@all I think it is both problems at once, as many have suggested above, it is not mutually exclusive. This is the first time in my life I have lived in a place that I feel like most people own a gun, and violent crime is pretty bad not too far from me. No one I knew had a gun growing up, it was never part of any discussions, it simply never even occured to me to won a gun, and I grew up in the suburban NY and DC.
I understand the feeling of wanting a gun in case you meet up with someone who wants to hurt you who might be armed himself. Guns can be the great equalizer. I think we should have controlled guns better 30 years ago, get in front of the problem. Once there are guns everywhere all over town, then it is the norm to have a gun, and then everyone feels like they have to have a gun. Countries that have stricter gun control, or at minimum it simply is not customary to own a gun do have lower gun violence.
According to this guy, that issue has been thought out and decided upon!
@josie And, from what I understand funding for mental illness care in our country has been significantly reduced. Some mentally ill are not bad people, but in horrible environments, and act in violence out of fear, not sociopathic tendencies. I would love to fix the bad environements/communities we have around our country, it is a disgrace and an embarrassment. Just shipping the sociopaths to an island won’t cure it, there is something more fundamental going on that needs to be fixed, so it doesn’t just happen again. Our prison system kind fo proves that. We do try to get these violent criminals off of the streets, and a new crop just pops up after them.
@JLeslie It is a rural county. In a state that is generally strict on gun laws, considering Maryland consistently has some of the highest state-wide crime rates in the country, in contrast to being one of the wealthiest and most-educated.
@noyesa I grew up in MD, and it has changed quite a bit from when I was there. The crime is in more places now, but DC (which of course is not MD) and certain surrounding areas had bad crime when I was there. I lived in Montgomery Village, which has gone way down hill, although still beautiful, I find it such a shame. Palm Beach Couty in FL is very rich, but the bad areas are very bad. In fact when I lived in Montgomery County it was the richerst county on the east coast. By the time I got to Palm Beach county it was the riches county on the east coast. Not sure who holds the title now. Averages many times mean nothing I have found.
Anyway, rural is rural, and I would guess little gun violence happen in most rural places. Fewer gangs, and organized crime.
@JLeslie Montgomery County is still one of the wealthiest counties in the country. Prince George County has improved, but is still pretty notorious for having such a high number of murders for a suburban county, and still acounts for a pretty significant number of the murders in Maryland. Howard County is also very affluent. Many parts of Maryland have improved while others have declined pretty significantly. Gun ownership seems to have less to do with it and the social problems created by suburban exodus, white flight, and economic segregation.
Detroit, DC, Baltimore. All three cities have extremely high crime rates, are extremely segregated, and are generally very poor. All three also have some of the most affluent, educated, and prosperous suburbs in the country. DC is extremely strict on gun control, and there’s little disparity between gun ownership in the suburbs or city in Detroit and Baltimore. Yet these cities, which have been destroyed by some of the worst demographic migrations in US history, are rife with murders and crime problems.
Some sociopaths have access to guns, while others use their fists instead, because a gun is not available when they get angry. We should blame the gun too as it become a powerful ally.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too if they have a gun.—Eddie Izzard
@noyesa Well, if the gun control is strict in one city or county, but the county next to it isn’t, it isn’t too hard to go next door and load up so to speak. There would have to be a massive effort across the US; probably impossible.
I agree that socio-economics have a tremendous amount to do with the problem. I would love to know how to fix it. I blame teenage pregnancy a lot, and an education system that is not putting enough emphasis on secondary education to help our children set goals and become aware of the adult life they have in front of them. I want to make sure vocational programs are available, help for a college education if they are suited for that, and exposure to many different industries and possibilities. Head start is distracting from the importance of our teenagers in my opinion. Lastly, it takes a village, is an important phrase I think. Plenty of us grew up as latch key kids, but we are not criminals, we care about our neigbors, and want to do the right thing. There is some sort of downward spiral going on, has been for a while.
I don’t see why the gun lobby is so defensive about this. Banning guns isn’t even on the table. I think most reasonable people know that criminal activity is what we don’t approve of.
Protect your home? Sure! Go for it. Just take reasonable precautions so your gun isn’t stolen or played with by small children.
Going target shooting? Awesome. Enjoy.
Hunting deer? Why not? Canadians do it and their gun problems nationally are totally non existent.
Most people want responsible gun ownership. Personaly if it takes you an extra week to get a gun to make sure some whack job doesn’t go all Virginia Tech on innocent people I have to think that’s reasonable. I don’t want to take your guns. Just be cool with your guns.
As for openly displaying them as the Starbucks for no other reason than saying “I can do this so fuck you” well that’s going just a tad overboard.
@Captain_Fantasy I agree. “They” have convinced the right wing gun owners that everyone wants to take away their guns. I don’t know any democrat/liberal who wants to outlaw guns altogether. They just want stricter rules for obtaining a gun.
My opinion has been stated here for the most part, but here we go…
Guns are not the problem. The problem is lack of gun safety awareness and a lack of aide to those who are mentally unstable. For example, the Comlumbine shooters showed innumerable signs that they needed help. I’m willing to bet that if someone (a parent, a teacher, ect.) would have listened, that the massacre wouldn’t have happened. And if someone is angry enough to murder someone, the absence of a gun won’t stop them.
The gun trade would become an identical twin of the drug trade. Those who really wanted to get guns (i.e. criminals) would still be able to get them. You’d still see gun violence after illegalization.
A third point is the whole reason that the 2nd amendment is in the constitution (I believe). Guns are meant to be the very last defense against a tyrannical government. And with an armed citizenry, a gov’t is less likely to become tyrannical.
@OperativeQ I’m not against gun ownership, but it’s worth noting that the second ammendment was written in a time when the only difference between the british army and the minute men was some fancy suits and funny looking wigs. These days, a well-armed populace doesn’t really stand a chance against the US armed forces (nothing really does, for that matter) so it’s a question of whether or not this percieved benefit outweighs the, if true, cons that it brings.
@noyesa You’re right on that note, but it’s better than nothing. People need gun education. They need to be taught proper usage, safe storage, and that they aren’t some sort of devil stick.
The simple fact of the matter is that guns have no inherent purpose other than to make things dead. This is not true with knives, axes, a Lead Pipe or a Candlestick.
The 2nd Amendment clearly mentions gun rights being granted in order to maintain a well-regulated militia. When I’m hearing every other week about a 3 year old getting shot by his big brother because Daddy left the loaded gun on top of the television, there needs to be a little more regulating going on.
@Seek_Kolinahr, so what about all 8 of my guns (everything from vintage World War rifles to modern semiautomatic “assault” weapons) that I have re-purposed into expensive long-range paper punches?
@Seek_Kolinahr, I’ve never heard of a baby being killed with my guns either.
@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Unfortunately, we can’t write laws specific to individuals. We must decide which is more important – a few adults’ recreational activity, or the lives of innocent children with parents too moronic to take simple precautionary measures (such as not having a gun in the goddamned house). I, personally, side with the babies.
@Seek_Kolinahr
The 2nd Amendment clearly mentions gun rights being granted in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.
The 2nd amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
^^That’s pretty clear to me.
When I’m hearing every other week about a 3 year old getting shot by his big brother because Daddy left the loaded gun on top of the television, there needs to be a little more regulating going on.
That is a very bad thing. Maybe instead of blaming the gun, you could blame the insanely irresponsible father?
lets ban cars. They kill people all the time. If you think people with violent crimes on their records or drug dealers buy guns from Wal-Mart then you are majorly mistaken. In any town or city you can find at least one guy willing to sell you a gun. If you take guns from people who wont use them to rob or kill you then those who do will know an honest guy like you walkin the street is a perfect target. Background check I agree with yes. It wont change anything. Maybe test whats used in food that causes cancer. Doesn’t that kill people. Of course only cigarettes and tobacco products do that. Violence will never end. Even the weather is violent. Maybe ban hurricanes. It’ll do about as much to take away guns.
@Seek_Kolinahr, You do have a point. Where we differ is the method of dealing with this. I think there is a serious lack of responsibility in this country that is culturally ingrained, and this needs to be addressed through education (parents need to stop sucking), rather than authoritarian police action (confiscation, bans, etc.) Either way, I still respect you, and I’m glad we can talk about this without me shooting you, or you drilling a hole in my head.
@Just_some_guy I honestly and truthfully support your notion of doing away with cars.
Fuck public transportation.
I would agree with getting rid of cars if everyone lived in New York or Chicago. Unfortunately, we don’t. At least, I don’t. It’s a mile and a half to get out of my neighborhood, much less to anything that resembles civilisation. That’s more like 15 to 20.
@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard
I don’t think the USA is ready to give up guns entirely (though I would support it). I do think there needs to be more regulation. I support proposed bans on handguns. It would allow people to feel comfortable in the ability to protect their own homes (they could still have a rifle/shotgun), and make it much harder for children to shoot themselves or each other. It would also cut down on the number of firearm suicides.
@Seek_Kolinahr That we have a society almost completely dependent upon cars doesn’t necessitate cars, but it does mean that removing them from out lives altogether is virtually impossible and something up with which no one will put.
It seems to me that the gun issue really doesn’t have any grey area. People against guns act as if it does, but really how could you stop some idiot from buying a gun even if he gets a background check. A dumb, lazy, or irresponsible person who is morally incapable of shooting someone could still leave it lay around. I have 2 guns. A hunting rifle from my childhood and a handgun. I don’t understand why people cant use trigger locks. If nothing else the need to unlock it gives you time to think of why you are using it. Maybe it should be mandatory to any gun dealer to include a protective locking device for all guns sold. At least then the idea of safety is planted in the mind of the purchaser right off the bat. It may or may not help but it will not infringe on my rights, and I imagine will not bring up the cost very much.
I suppose that makes sense, since you don’t need a gun to hurt or kill someone. I’ve got things right here I could do that with.
Like Eminem said, can music load a gun and cock it for you, too? Haha.
I don’t really like the idea of firearms but I’m most certainly not against them either.
Also I’m not sure if psychopathy is always the problem, and when it is it’s not the only problem, nor do I believe that there’s an “increase” in it. I’m sure such a disposition was as abundant back when we used to carry rapiers at out sides.
Violence is a part of man’s nature, and as such cannot be rid of simply by eliminating weaponry, or certain types of people.
@Symbeline violence is a part of man’s nature but there are areas of the world, and even parts of our country that more civilized than others, less violent. I don’t buy into your statement, it is no excuse.
@JLeslie Not making no excuses, just saying that violence as a whole is a lot more complicated as an issue than we usually see it as.
@Captain_Fantasy As for openly displaying them as the Starbucks for no other reason than saying “I can do this so fuck you” well that’s going just a tad overboard.
Why a) do you believe this person’s reason for wearing a firearm has anything to do with a ‘fuck you’ and why b) is doing something that is legal ‘overboard’?
When people speak of ‘exercising second amendment rights’ it reminds me that muscles, skills, traditions – many things – shrink and weaken when they aren’t used. It is my contention that people’s negative reaction to something legal and once relatively commonplace has more to do with distaste than any rational fear.
Someone has to have an ignorant knee jerk solution.
@jaytkay There’s always a push to take away guns. It just doesn’t always have the power and position to accomplish anything.
um.. gun ban is on the table…. eric holder said last year, obama had it on his to do list, but he was presently busy with current problems. .. it will show up sometime soon….... blaming a gun, for a murder, is like blaming a car, or beer for a drunk driver killing someone. ... the only difference is we have a constitutional right to own guns. ..... how about we make some nice severe consiquences for gun misuse. say.
steal a gun = 10 years in prison.
use a gun in a crime= 20 years prison minimum, no parole
murder someone with a gun….. life in prison..
obviously it still wont prevent all crime, but it will damn well make a lot of people think twice before they misuse a gun.
lots of people want to blame states with less strict gun laws, with the violence and presence of guns in a city with strict gun laws… like new york city/ virginia. supposedly bad guys get their guns from virginia. if that is the case then, then if virginia has less strict gun laws, should virginia not have naturally more murder, than a state with strict gun laws?
@buck19delta Do you think it will curb crime? Don’t we already have laws for these things? I have no idea if punishment deters crime, I have never read an essay or study on it. I know it works in some countries…steal and your hand is cut off…but in America, among citizens who seem to have little hope about the future, who grow up in warlike zones where gunfire is pretty common, and jail is commonplace, I don’t know if increased prison sentences will work? Do you know if three strikes works?
@buck19delta Not necessarily. It depends more on the citizens within the state, then the law in that state. But, if they cannot get guns anywhere, then there still might be an overall reduction in gun crime.
one big problem with gun crimes, is the gun charges are very often not pressed, or they are dropped, or early parole is given. gun violence is a big problem, the penalties should be as severe as possible. we have lots of people taking up space for minor , and non violent crimes, house arrest those guys, and give the violent ones nice long prison time…
if all guns were banned, then obviously gun crime would drop. fortunately its protected by the constitution.
the first amendment gives us all free speech, it also gives us things we dont want, hate speech, porn, etc. should we give up freedom of speech, just to get rid of the things we dislike?.....
now dont get me wrong. i am for guns, but im not against tightening up gun laws. id go for banning gun sales from person to person, that do not go thru a background check.
i have no problem with waiting periods.
i have no problem with a general gun permit, simular to a drivers license, complete gun safety course, background check etc.
i think we need to tighten up a lot ways guns can be purchased, and try harder to keep bad guys from getting them, but to ban them, or prevent average law obeying citizens from having guns, is completly against what the country was founded on.
unfortunately….. no matter what we do…. there will be murder with guns, even mass murder. its unfortunately a reality we have to live with, with guns in our society, the good done by guns, far outseighs the bad. just as the misuse of vehicles, resulting in death, and drunk driving,and simple car accidents, is far outweighed by the good the vehicles bring to our society.
@buck19delta I did not mean to say all guns, I am fine with hunting, protecting your property, etc. Like I said I support the 2nd amendment. I mean if it were made more difficult and even throughout the country. Even states with tougher laws you can still get a gun. Just for some more background, I think it is difficult to be Jewish and not be in favor of the second amendment, and I am Jewish. You gotta wonder what would have happened in Germany if all of those Jews were armed. The majority of Jews are very liberal on most issues, but support the right to bare arms, I don’t know if it is for the reason I stated, which is my reason, I never really discussed the reason with them, but it seems to be what I have found when I talk to other Jewish people. I am torn on how to solve the gun violence issue. I don’t think I have the answers, not at all. My approach is not to be adversarial, but just to learn more about peoples opinions on the issue. I think it is actually a very complex issue.
@buck19delta You finished just before me. I think we probably agree overall. It’s complicated :)
In Florida it is 10, 20 life.
Point 10
Shoot 20
kill life
its a complicated issue. the sad thing is, no matter what we do, there will always be gun violence, its a terrible, unfortunate thing. ...its just something we have to live with, the same as automobile deaths. cars kill 50,000 people a year….
There’s always a push to take away guns. It just doesn’t always have the power and position to accomplish anything.
No, actually there is not. There’s no impending legislation, there is no discussion of it outside paranoid circles and NRA fundraisers.
um….... once again, eric holder, said on tv, obama plans/ is going to attempt, to reenact the so called assault weapon ban….... from the horses mouth….....california has passed laws restricting people next year, to buying no more than 50 rounds of ammo a month, plus micro stamping of ammo, that will cause gun prices in california, to go up a considerable amount. there is ALWAYS a attempt in the works to pass laws restricting gun ownership.
@JLeslie Okay, you ban guns and I’ll go become a master gunsmith.
I mean, how awesome is that? I can be Nullo von Fluther, Master Gunsmith.
Oh, and you can make a perfectly good AK-47 in your own home, if you know what you’re doing. Kalashnikov’s design was that good.
@jaytkay
This is a push. There are others.
@Nullo Make all the guns you want. I never said I want to ban guns. Just when you make them, keep them locked up preferably in a safe place, and have a record of them of some sort, so if you are robbed maybe there will be some sort of way to identify the guns. I know most people who are nervous the liberals are going to try to get rid of all the guns don’t want their firearms registered or on record anywhere, just in case legislation does change and they come to everyone’s house and round up all of the guns.
@jaytkay GA.
The government wants to ban guns for one reason only.
To prevent a revolution. Which IS our right if necessary.
@ChazMaz
your on the money with that one….
@chazmaz I can definitely agree. As life in the US starts to become more and more a struggle for middle class people the fact that they have guns could become an issue.
Actually in States where gun possession is permitted. Crime is down.
States like California are a train wreck.
But these issues, in the big picture of things are trivial. It is used to distract you and to get pity and fear from of you. So you will disarm.
Successfully preventing a revolution.
there is hope.
the hearing by the supreme court the other day, hearing about chicago’s handgun ban.
chicago= this ban is a guns vs life issue, the supreme court usually rules on the side of life in these decisions.
justice scalia= we usually rule on the side of life, but not always… the abortion ruling is where freedom was chosen before life.
i firmly believe they will find chicagos ban unconstitutional, just like dc’s ban. which is good for gun owners, the supreme court is finally getting around to making rulings about 2nd amendment issues. this ought to make it more clear to politicians what they can and cannot do, to restrict gun ownership.
Edited. Absolutely brilliant answer posted to wrong question :(
@nullo Asking Starbucks to prohibit guns is not a push to take away your guns.
@jaytkay No, it’s not. But do you really think that the Brady people would stop at Starbucks? Seriously? Starbucks is their monster-of-the-week.
most gun owners, are not against reasonable gun restrictions. unfortunately, there are no limits to gun restrictions, once one is passed, they start on another, its like stepping stones. this is why sometimes reasonable laws, are fought against so hard.
@ChazMaz That is kind of what I meant, at least it is along the same lines. I think of the second amendment is for citizens to be able to protect themselves not only against the wayward criminals, but also against our government if necessary.
It is a good last line of defense. Pity that more people don’t realize that.
@buck19delta Hey, welcome to Fluther!
Who honestly thinks the American people will ever organize themselves well enough to stage a coup against their own government? We’re willing to be photographed naked by the government just to get to Chicago in three hours. Americans are sheeple – they’ll take whatever their government gives them, as long as they don’t have to give up their guns (that seems to be the only freedom worth fighting for).
“Who honestly thinks the American people will ever organize themselves well enough to stage a coup against their own government? ”
You apparently have no idea. The Militia in this country is mighty strong. Keeping as low a profile as possible.
A friend of mine on facebook just updated his status to say that a three year old shot herself by accident thinking it was part of a wii game set.
@JLeslie
Great. One more reason for me to be pissed off at this country in general.
Gods, I can’t wait to get the frack out of this barbaric nation.
@JLeslie
Oh, and the best part is they’re not pressing charges against the father. Wonderful. Just like the father of the dead 3 year old in my state is getting off scot-free, too.
But, you know, you go to prison for a year for smoking dope. Not for indirectly murdering your children.
@Seek_Kolinahr
One can always hope that the act will get together.
Gun accidents, like all accidents, are accidents. Would YOU want to be prosecuted for an accident?
The man is at worst a fool, not a monster. Teach him how to properly store his guns and let him go. The grief will be punishment enough.
@Nullo
That is unacceptable.
Loading a pistol, putting it on the coffee table, and walking out of the house while there’s a toddler playing three feet away is not an accident.
And just as people that drive drunk get punished. So will improper use of a handgun.
@Seek_Kolinahr
Unless I am mistaken, the article says that the guy loaded a pistol, went outside to investigate strange noises, found none, then came back inside and put the gun down on the coffee table without thinking about it.
Or were you referring to my proposed treatment of the guy?
i read the story….. the guy was a dumbass for leaving a loaded gun where a young kid could get to it. i believe florida will arrest you, if they find out your kids have access to guns left unattended, and also prosecute manslaughter charges for this kind of accident.
let me be clear though. this was not a accident. in the military, if you pull the trigger, and your gun goes off, unintentionally, they do not consider it a ” accidental discharge”, its a “negligent discharge”., and quite often your punished for it… this was pure carelessness…... if the gun fell off a shelf, due to a train passing, and vibrating the house, and hit the floor, and went off, and killed the child, THATS accident. this is not much different than parents who have a 12 foot python in the house running loose, with a small child, and are shocked when the big assed snake kills…both parents should face some charges. tragic yes, accident? not really.
“the guy was a dumbass for leaving a loaded gun where a young kid could get to it.”
Yep.
“this was pure carelessness”
And like stupid lazy.
When children are around. The gun is either on my person or locked up.
@buck19delta
The story I linked to above (with the 6 year old pulling a gun off the top of the TV and shooting his 3 year old brother) happened in Florida. No charges filed so far.
@Nullo
“Without thinking about it”
Case in point.
@Nullo I am not arguing either way on whether he should go to jail or not, I am undecided, but I have a question. If a man, not the father, had left a loaded gun in the house in the child’s reach, maybe a neighbor or a relative, and the same thing happened, do you think that father would want the person punished for leaving the gun? Would you? Or, would it still be just an accident?
In that example, it is called restitution.
@JLeslie
You are asking two separate questions, not posting both ends of a dilemma.
The father would certainly want the person punished. And it would still be an accident, much like the mess that drunk drivers kill people with is also an accident, and the way that chain-sawing your foot off is an accident.
My own contention was that the father’s grief over the accident would be punishment enough. In the case of a less-interested third party, who lacked the same emotional investment, more institutional forms of punishment would likely be in order.
I vehemently disagree that the perceived grief of the parent is punishment enough.
A parent’s job – their sole purpose of parenthood – is to keep their child safe and healthy. If the parent neglects to feed their child and they die, they are charged with child neglect. If they punch the child in the face and leave a mark, they are charged with child abuse. If they fail to take the child to a doctor and the child becomes sick and dies, they are charged with neglect.
Why, if there’s a gun involved, does failing to provide a safe living environment not constitute neglect and abuse?
@Seek_Kolinahr
And if a kid climbs a tree, falls out, and breaks his arm, is it abuse or neglect on the part of the parents? I mean, how dare they not cut down all the trees in the yard, amirite?
This is neither a case of child abuse or neglect, but one of carelessness and possibly foolishness.
I don’t know what kind of people your parents are, but I know that if either of mine found themselves to be the cause of my own untimely demise, they would hardly be able to live with themselves. Locking them up might be a mercy, even.
There is a certain bitter irony to the safe living environment; the gun had been drawn and loaded to ensure precisely that.
If a kid falls out of a tree, that is obviously an accident.
The parent loaded the gun. The parent put the gun on the coffee table. The parent left the child in the room with the gun on the coffee table. The parent walked away from the situation.
If I put a set of steak knives in my son’s crib, it would not be an accident if he stabbed himself, as I am the one that put him in the dangerous situation.
@Seek_Kolinahr
A thing can either be accidental or deliberate, correct?
The father loaded the gun. Deliberate.
He went outside to see if he needed to use it. Deliberate.
He set it down. Deliberate.
He forgot about it. Deliberate? No.
The girl picked up the gun. Deliberate.
The girl shot herself. Deliberate? No.
Or are you suggesting that the man deliberately left the gun out, hoping that his daughter would shoot herself?
The man had a good reason to have a gun out. You would have no good reason whatsoever to put knives into your son’s crib. And a living room is not the same as a crib.
The child was not alone with the gun, either; you seem to forget that her mother was right there.
There was no good reason for the gun to be on the coffee table, or anywhere else in easy reach of a three year old.
@Seek_Kolinahr I thought about that. Suppose there really was a prowler outside? Wouldn’t do you much good to put the gun away, I’d wager (though I will say again that his choice of location was not wise). From there he forgot about it – perhaps even in the same manner that one forgets about the television remote once he sets it down. Forgetfulness happens.
And now he must spend the rest of his life trying to cope with the grief and loss and the guilt (and I’d bet that there’s now enough tension between himself and his wife that they may get divorced), the stigma… I’d say that he’s slated for plenty of punishment.
I’m surprised that nobody -least of all your semi-Vulcan self – is going after the mother, who is equally responsible for the well-being of her family.
I’m equally surprised that you find that a person responsible for negligent homocide is undeserving of punishment beyond what his own conscience may or may not serve him.
@Seek_Kolinahr
I’m a surprising guy.
Homicide not “homocide” is a deliberate act. The man would have had to intentionally shoot his daughter. Accidentally shooting his daughter through the middle would be manslaughter. A little girl shooting herself is an accident brought about by the improper storage of a firearm.
I have the tendency to assume that parents are -unless clearly not – as kind and loving and inclined to grief over mistakes and loss as my own. I see no indication that this family is different in this respect.
Perhaps I think too well of others?
If there is a prowler outside the gun should be on his person. Prowler busts through the door with gun in hand and shouts, “nobody move!” How convenient that this guys gun is right out there for the taking.
@Nullo I think you may have a little of there but for the grace of God go I going on? I don’t want to put words in your mouth though. Like I said I am not sure where I stand, but I think maybe you can see this accident happening to anyone, the same way someone who has had a few glasses of wine and then driven home empathisizes with someone has a crash while under the influence, knowing that person probably has driven with a drink in them only twice in their life, they are not the typical DUI type person, just made one error in judgment. The thing is I never drink and drive, so I have little empathy. This father loved his child I am sure. Maybe he rarely leaves his gun out? So one foolish mistake, I think that is what you are saying.
@Nullo I don’t mean to say you have made this mistake yourself in the past.
Edited by me
Fuck it. Who cares if innocent children die because Daddy has to have a pistol in the house. Who wouldn’t agree that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to leave loaded, unlocked guns in the house with children, and no one should give it a further thought. In fact, that little girl should have known better than to touch Daddy’s gun. It’s really just the Darwin effect, if you think about it.
@Seek_Kolinahr
I’d said that leaving the gun out was foolish of him. Twice. Possibly three times. Our only point of disagreement is on the severity of the punishment and, apparently, the necessity of gun ownership.
@JLeslie Kindasorta. “Familiarity breeds contempt,” the fable says. I’ve noticed it myself: I’ve become a lot more comfortable with firearms since I got one of my own. Though I’ve never neglected to pop out the magazine and chambered round before putting it away, I can see how someone might be careless now and then. The appropriate counter is to train the owner in the proper handling and storage of a gun, and reinforcing it whenever possible. The local range masters are very good about that, and are quick to enforce the “only point the gun where you want to send a bullet” rule.
@Nullo Comfort might be part of the problem. I don’t mean you have a problem, I mean that this father might be so comfortable about being around guns, he did not take it seriously enough. Look, I come from a household of what could happen, so I have little tolerance. My mom insisted the handle of a pot always be turned to the side while cooking on the stove, nothing paper or plastic left on a stove…don’t you know it years after having these and more drilled into me as a child I had a neighbor whos 4 year old daughter wound up with third degree burns down her body when she hit a handle and had boiling water spill onto her. The mother told the story without angonizing about having left the handle sticking out. She seemed to not be punishing herself, although of course she was devastated her child had been harmed.
I had a relative who set her kitchen on fire because she had plastic on the stove and had mistakenly turned on the burner and left the room. I have been to that relatives house since and she was still leaving non cooking things on the stove and kept plastic bags inside of the oven. Some people just don’t want to think bad thngs can happen, they think it is paranoid behavior. I think they need to respect the dangers that exist regarding the stove and fire. Same with the gun, it can kill someone.
We don’t kow from the article if this father frequently left his gun out from what I remember, it just says that he had it out because at the time he thought there was a prowler.
Sometimes, even seat belts can kill.
The difference is, the gun is meant to kill. Maybe some people’s guns fire rainbows and kittens, but every one I’ve ever seen fires bullets. And bullets are deadly. They’re made that way. It’s no state secret that if a gun goes off, someone’s going to get hurt.
“the gun is meant to kill.”
No, it is meant to keep you safe (secure) and alive.
@JLeslie Oh, certainly. Training in the proper handling of firearms is key to safe, responsible ownership. I imagine that if firearms were more prevalent in society, like cars are, there would be more people who would learn the precautions before getting one.
@ChazMaz
by maiming and/or killing someone else, or threatening to do so.
That statesmen can apply to anything.
@ChazMaz
Please, name one function that a firearm performs that does not include firing bullets at breakneck speed.
~facepalm~ If guns shot rainbows and kittens, it wouldn’t be much of a deterrent.
Know what else is a deterrent? A dog. A baseball bat. A security system. Anything heavy you can throw. Not showing off things worth stealing to your meth-head neighbors.
You are right!
I prefer a gun.
@Nullo I would argue that in TN it is commonplace to own a firearm, people talk about their guns all of the time, they should know better. I live in TN.
@josie—- I think we should get rid of both sociopaths AND guns!
Answer this question 
