Another Scool shooting, this time closer to home: St. Mary's MD

[Larry]

42 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Would you say the same about a knife ?

How about car keys?

 

I agree with your intent, but in application it gets squirrely.

 

"Knife" is about as honest as most of your deflections.  And as deserving of a response.  

 

But thinking about it, "car keys" might be an analogy that's worthy of discussion and comparison.  

 

I'm pretty sure that cars kill more people per year than guns do.  They certainly can be as deadly.  

 

There's obviously differences.  A kid who grabs the car keys and heads to school probably isn't planning on threatening anybody with deadly force.  If he kills somebody, it will be an accident.  The kid who takes a gun to school probably is.  (At least planning on threatening, if not necessarily planning on killing.)  

 

If a teen takes Daddy's keys without permission, drives to school, and kills somebody, should the parents be liable?  (For not keeping the keys away from the kid?)  

 

[twa]

And if he does it to purposely run someone over?

 

Don't know what your objection is to the knife example, been several students bringing them.

 

They also bring guns w/o intent to kill.

 

 

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, twa said:

And if he does it to purposely run someone over?

 

Don't know what your objection is to the knife example, been several students bringing them.

 

They also bring guns w/o intent to kill.

 

 

 

Well, that's cool, then.  

 

Record one vote for "Parents can leave guns laying around the house completely unsecured, and have no responsibility if their kids (or anyone else) picks them up and kills somebody with them, as long as the parents didn't give them permission to kill anybody".  (Because parents aren't required to lock up the kitchen knives.)  

 

 

[twa]

There is a real difference between responsibility and legal liability.

 

But I can get on the forcing responsible behavior train, ya might not like the stops though.

[TheGreatBuzz]

The fact that I, the resident gun nut, is about to make this point should tell you all something.

 

Comparing a gun to a knife or car keys is dumb.  Leaving easy access to a gun in a house with children (17 is still a child) OR known unstable people should be a crime based on what the main purpose of a gun is.  A knife or car doesnt have the MAIN purpose of hurting other humans.  A gun does (yes self defense falls under this.  If someone intends to hurt me, i plan to hurt them first).  Now if the kid broke into a safe or cut a lock to get to it, i could see that being different.  But just left out in the open is wrong when you have kids, etc.

[twa]

I was not comparing them, I was illustrating the problem with legislating responsible action onto 3rd parties.

 

Can you tell me what gun is designed for school shootings or illegal actions though?

Most of mine have been rather inert over the decades.

 

Requiring them to be secured means the kids and visitors are the real threat, which leads to restricting their access to other means of killing.(which I am fine with, most certainly in cases where unstable people are present)

 

I disagree 17 is a child, though many people fit that description even much later in life.

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

But what about shovels and snowmobiles?

 

*touches chin thoughfully*

[Larry]

51 minutes ago, twa said:

I was not comparing them, I was illustrating the problem with legislating responsible action onto 3rd parties.

 

Can you tell me what gun is designed for school shootings or illegal actions though?

Most of mine have been rather inert over the decades.

 

Requiring them to be secured means the kids and visitors are the real threat, which leads to restricting their access to other means of killing.(which I am fine with, most certainly in cases where unstable people are present)

 

I disagree 17 is a child, though many people fit that description even much later in life.

 

 

 

"Don't require parents to keep their guns in a safe.  Require them to keep their kids in one."  

 

[twa]

27 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

"Don't require parents to keep their guns in a safe.  Require them to keep their kids in one."  

 

 

It would reduce them shooting up schools/knifing folk and other undesirable behavior.

 

Ya can't argue with science.

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, twa said:

I was not comparing them, I was illustrating the problem with legislating responsible action onto 3rd parties.

 

Can you tell me what gun is designed for school shootings or illegal actions though?

Most of mine have been rather inert over the decades.

 

Requiring them to be secured means the kids and visitors are the real threat, which leads to restricting their access to other means of killing.(which I am fine with, most certainly in cases where unstable people are present)

 

I disagree 17 is a child, though many people fit that description even much later in life.

 

 

You don't see the difference between a parent leaving easy access to a firearm and easy access to a spork?

 

I don't think any gun is designed for school shootings. But I do recognize that some are better at it than others. You forget who you're talking to. I'm the pro-gun one here.

 

You are right that children in visitors are the deadly weapon. Remember people kill people not guns kill people. But keeping one deadly weapon from accessing another deadly weapon seems like a good idea. Especially if it's a parent in that deadly weapon is their child. At some point parents have to be responsible for what their children do. And you can disagree that 17 is a child. But I'm pretty sure the law says that 18 is an adult their 417 is a child.

[Llevron]

wait do we know he left that gun just lying around? Cause if so I need to delete a few posts. 

[twa]

17 yr olds can be tried as adults( one of our many legal quirks) parents have limited liability but many responsibilities.

 

Once you arrive at the person choosing to kill/injure is the real danger even a spork can be a deadly weapon......certainly bladed objects and motor vehicles

 

[Springfield]

Twa’s new grand idea:  Arm teachers with sporks because they’re just as deadly as guns.

[steve09ru]

also, things can be locked up and still be broken into.  there's a difference between a safe place for a child vs. safe place for an almost adult as the latter can pretty much break into anything.  just simply locking it in a drawer or gun cabinet won't stop someone who is 17 years old from accessing it.

[tshile]

twa i know what you're doing and you're not wrong in thinking there's a good conversation to have about changing legal liability and how to draw the line.

 

but i don't think you're ever going to get anywhere with the spork stuff until it becomes an epidemic, like guns have.

 

you're going to have to save that for a well-chosen group of people to discuss. not really an out in the open "but what about sporks" kind of thing

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

wait do we know he left that gun just lying around? Cause if so I need to delete a few posts. 

 

I certainly don't know that he did. 

 

I'm simply creating a hypothetical, to ask to the people who assert that the Gun Donor has no responsibility. 

[Llevron]

51 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I certainly don't know that he did. 

 

I'm simply creating a hypothetical, to ask to the people who assert that the Gun Donor has no responsibility. 

 

Got it. I wasn't trying to insinuate i just wanted to make sure I wasn't looking like a loon here. For what its worth I do agree with you that if he did something reckless or otherwise stupid that ended up with his kid using his gun to kill someone - and that stupid thing isn't a crime - then you would be right and he should be punished for it even if he didn't break a "law"

 

I just wasn't ready to admit that yesterday. 

[visionary]

 

[Springfield]

Ouch.  Man.  Just terrible.

[LadySkinsFan]

Horrible. Peace be with this girl and her family and friends.

[twa]

7 hours ago, steve09ru said:

also, things can be locked up and still be broken into.  there's a difference between a safe place for a child vs. safe place for an almost adult as the latter can pretty much break into anything.  just simply locking it in a drawer or gun cabinet won't stop someone who is 17 years old from accessing it.

 

One that has decided to kill can certainly go to extremes.

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, twa said:

 

One that has decided to kill can certainly go to extremes.

 

Stabbing someone to death is pretty extreme.  Shooting someone with a gun is using a tool for its purpose.

[twa]

Just now, Springfield said:

 

Stabbing someone to death is pretty extreme.  Shooting someone with a gun is using a tool for its purpose.

 

You are reaching and ignoring that people that have decided to kill are gonna be extra motivated.....but since you mentioned it.

 

Did they need killing?

A guns purpose is determined by the user.

[China]

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

A guns purpose is determined by the user.

 

Yes, because we all know that a gun is best used for cooking bacon.

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

This excerpt is from a larger article about violence and it's origins. I am using this excerpt to particularly address males who attack and sometimes kills their female partners/spouses. Link to the article follows.

 

In the fiercely argued and timely study “Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny” (Oxford), the philosopher Kate Manne makes a consonant argument about sexual violence. “The idea of rapists as monsters exonerates by caricature,” she writes, urging us to recognize “the banality of misogyny,” the disturbing possibility that “people may know full well that those they treat in brutally degrading and inhuman ways are fellow human beings, underneath a more or less thin veneer of false consciousness.”

 

Manne is arguing against a weighty and well-established school of thought. Catharine A. MacKinnon has posed the question: “When will women be human?” Rae Langton has explored the idea of sexual solipsism, a doubt that women’s minds exist. And countless theorists talk about “objectification,” the tendency to deny women’s autonomy and subjecthood, and to scant their experiences. Like Fiske and Rai, Manne sees a larger truth in the opposite tendency. In misogyny, she argues, “often, it’s not a sense of women’s humanity that is lacking. Her humanity is precisely the problem.”

 

Men, she proposes, have come to expect certain things from women—attention, admiration, sympathy, solace, and, of course, sex and love. Misogyny is the mind-set that polices and enforces these goals; it’s the “law enforcement branch” of the patriarchy. The most obvious example of this attitude is the punishing of “bad women,” where being bad means failing to give men what they want. But misogyny also involves rewarding women who do conform, and sympathizing with men (Manne calls this “himpathy”) who have done awful things to women.

 

As a case study of misogyny, Manne considers strangulation—almost always performed by men on female intimate partners—which she describes as “a demonstration of authority and domination,” a form of torture that often leaves no marks. Other forms of expressive violence are very much intended to leave marks, notably “vitriolage,” or acid attacks, directed against girls and women in Bangladesh and elsewhere. Catalysts for such attacks include refusal of marriage, sex, and romance. Then, there are so-called family annihilators, almost always men, who kill their families and, typically, themselves. Often, the motivation is shame, but sometimes hatred is a factor as well; and sometimes the mother of murdered children is left alive, perhaps notified by phone or a letter afterward—See what you’ve made me do. The victim is also the audience; her imagined response figures large in the perpetrator’s imagination.

 

Manne delves into the case of Elliot Rodger, who, in 2014, went on a killing spree, targeting people at random, after he was denied entry to a sorority house at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He slew six people and injured fourteen more before killing himself. In a videotape, Rodger, who was twenty-two, explained that women “gave their affection and sex and love to other men but never to me.” And then, talking to these women, he said, “I will punish you all for it . . . . I’ll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you.”

 

Manne makes clear that Rodger wasn’t objectifying women; he was simply enraged that their capacity for love and romance didn’t extend to him. Manne’s analysis can be seen as an exploration of an observation made by Margaret Atwood—that men are afraid that women will laugh at them, and women are afraid that men will kill them. For Manne, such violent episodes are merely an extreme manifestation of everyday misogyny, and she extends her analysis to catcalling, attitudes toward abortion, and the predations of Donald Trump.

 

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/27/the-root-of-all-cruelty?mbid=social_facebook_aud_dev_kw_paid-the-root-of-all-cruelty&kwp_0=693969&kwp_4=2469076&kwp_1=1044639