quote:

Another vote for penalizing the victim, not the criminal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

No I posted a story and link in answering another posters question on did the shooter have legal gun ownership... so forgive me I thought you had read my post 165... please do i am still interested in your answer.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Bama, just out of curiosity, how would you 'increase the penalty' when the shooter is already dead?

The same way keeping me from getting a gun would bring them back to life.
The only people currently considered the cause of the problem are those who have them for hunting, target practice, and self defence. When need to penalize people who get them illegally and people who misuse them.
Make the penalty for illegal possession stiff enough to discourage them. Enforce what we have. Neither the Aurora nor the Charlston shooter should have been able to get a firearm legally under current law. Same with Columbine. It happens time and time again. If current law were enforced it would make a big difference. If we did something about mental health issues it would make a big difference. Enforcement of the penalties for even attempting a purchase of a firearm by a felon would make a big difference, this is only prosecuted about 1% of the time.
But none of these things are inforced, they only affect criminals. Most gunaphobes want to go after those of us who follow the law. This means one of two things.

A they believe in the trickle down therory of crime fighting, hit the general population and eventially it will trickle down to the criminals

or

B they are more interested in controlling the general population than they are in fighting crime.

Don't you think that it makes more sense to aim laws at the criminal element than at the general population.

Making laws targeting the criminal element doesn't really dissuade them. Notice that murder is illegal pretty much everywhere.

But legal gun owners need to be responsible with their firearms, keeping them secure, and out of the hands of anyone that shouldn't have access.

If your dog gets out and bites the postman, you are legally responsible. If someone is driving your car and wrecks it, you can be held financially responsible. Why should a gun be any different?

In my state if someone steals your car and has an accident you aren't responsible, if someone steals your gun why should you be responsible for their actions. Another vote for penalizing the victim, not the criminal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Bama, just out of curiosity, how would you 'increase the penalty' when the shooter is already dead?

The same way keeping me from getting a gun would bring them back to life.
The only people currently considered the cause of the problem are those who have them for hunting, target practice, and self defence. When need to penalize people who get them illegally and people who misuse them.
Make the penalty for illegal possession stiff enough to discourage them. Enforce what we have. Neither the Aurora nor the Charlston shooter should have been able to get a firearm legally under current law. Same with Columbine. It happens time and time again. If current law were enforced it would make a big difference. If we did something about mental health issues it would make a big difference. Enforcement of the penalties for even attempting a purchase of a firearm by a felon would make a big difference, this is only prosecuted about 1% of the time.
But none of these things are inforced, they only affect criminals. Most gunaphobes want to go after those of us who follow the law. This means one of two things.

A they believe in the trickle down therory of crime fighting, hit the general population and eventially it will trickle down to the criminals

or

B they are more interested in controlling the general population than they are in fighting crime.

Don't you think that it makes more sense to aim laws at the criminal element than at the general population.

Making laws targeting the criminal element doesn't really dissuade them. Notice that murder is illegal pretty much everywhere.

But legal gun owners need to be responsible with their firearms, keeping them secure, and out of the hands of anyone that shouldn't have access.

If your dog gets out and bites the postman, you are legally responsible. If someone is driving your car and wrecks it, you can be held financially responsible. Why should a gun be any different?

In my state if someone steals your car and has an accident you aren't responsible, if someone steals your gun why should you be responsible for their actions. Another vote for penalizing the victim, not the criminal.

Guns need to be secured. Period. Not stolen out of unlocked cars. Terminally stupid needs to be criminalized and penalized.

In this case, I'm thinking the guns likely belong to the mother. If so, she should be charged as an accomplice, on some level at least. Criminal negligence maybe?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Bama, just out of curiosity, how would you 'increase the penalty' when the shooter is already dead?

The same way keeping me from getting a gun would bring them back to life.
The only people currently considered the cause of the problem are those who have them for hunting, target practice, and self defence. When need to penalize people who get them illegally and people who misuse them.
Make the penalty for illegal possession stiff enough to discourage them. Enforce what we have. Neither the Aurora nor the Charlston shooter should have been able to get a firearm legally under current law. Same with Columbine. It happens time and time again. If current law were enforced it would make a big difference. If we did something about mental health issues it would make a big difference. Enforcement of the penalties for even attempting a purchase of a firearm by a felon would make a big difference, this is only prosecuted about 1% of the time.
But none of these things are inforced, they only affect criminals. Most gunaphobes want to go after those of us who follow the law. This means one of two things.

A they believe in the trickle down therory of crime fighting, hit the general population and eventially it will trickle down to the criminals

or

B they are more interested in controlling the general population than they are in fighting crime.

Don't you think that it makes more sense to aim laws at the criminal element than at the general population.

Making laws targeting the criminal element doesn't really dissuade them. Notice that murder is illegal pretty much everywhere.

But legal gun owners need to be responsible with their firearms, keeping them secure, and out of the hands of anyone that shouldn't have access.

If your dog gets out and bites the postman, you are legally responsible. If someone is driving your car and wrecks it, you can be held financially responsible. Why should a gun be any different?

In my state if someone steals your car and has an accident you aren't responsible, if someone steals your gun why should you be responsible for their actions. Another vote for penalizing the victim, not the criminal.

Guns need to be secured. Period. Not stolen out of unlocked cars. Terminally stupid needs to be criminalized and penalized.

In this case, I'm thinking the guns likely belong to the mother. If so, she should be charged as an accomplice, on some level at least. Criminal negligence maybe?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Do you think careless gun owners have some responsibility in what happens with their unsecured weapons?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Do you think careless gun owners have some responsibility in what happens with their unsecured weapons?

Depends on what you mean.
If they are stolen no.
If they drop it off in babies crib yes.
If you leave a gas can in the back of your pickup truck, someone steals it and sets fire to a school do you think they should be responsible?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The situation is bad enough as it is. Why inject things that have nothing to do with it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
The victim in this case has some responsibility don't you think... If you leave a loaded gun where a child can kill himself or another do you have some responsibility?

If you leave a loaded gun reasonably unsecured where a criminal can get it and he robs or kills someone with it...should you not share some responsibility in the crime?

If ford sells a vehicle where they know a fuel tank can explode in an accident... should they share responsibility with the driver that ran into the back of the vehicle?

If a baby cokes on a small part of a toy should the toy producer share responsibility with the mother that left the child unattended.

Why would or should gun owners not share some responsibility for their carelessness.... it is no different than the above examples.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

That may be, but the guy lived with his mom, and they went shooting together from what I've read. So I feel like they were legitimately hers. But she allowed him unfettered access to them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Do you think careless gun owners have some responsibility in what happens with their unsecured weapons?

Depends on what you mean.
If they are stolen no.
If they drop it off in babies crib yes.
If you leave a gas can in the back of your pickup truck, someone steals it and sets fire to a school do you think they should be responsible?

If you give your keys to a drunk, who is responsible for the damage of the inevitable wreck?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So if a gun owner leaves a loaded gun on the seat of a an unlocked car... a criminal opens the door takes it out then shoots and kills someone that is ok with you? The owner has no responsibility to reasonable keep his weapon out of the hands of a criminal... is that your position.... If so you should not own a weapon of any kind.

quote:

If somebody lifts it and runs up the tab