Parents who buy their children guns at all need to all be evaluated. There is seriously something wrong with giving children something whos intended purpose is delivering lethal force.
I don’t find it weird for hunting, but giving a child unrestricted access to firearms is insane to me given children are not able to assess risk the same way adults do.
A lot of "adults" don't seem to assess the risks either.
Oh, I don't mean temporary custody under controlled and hopefully educated circumstances, but those who hand it over completely. A kid simply does not need that power nor have the responsibility for full time custody.
Hell, the government wants people 18+ before they'll hand someone a gun and let them go die for something...
Smoking and drinking age is 21. Maybe gun ownership age should be bumped up too.
then so should the voting age.
Why is that?
if you can't make the decision to drink, buy a gun, or whatever else because you're supposedly not "mature" enough to do, why the fuck should you be trusted with choosing who makes those laws? while you're at it, raise the age to enroll in the military. if you can go die for your country at 18 you should be able to buy a beer, vote, and buy the gun they'll hand you at boot.
conversely if you want to lower the voting age, as some democrats suggest, then so should the drinking age, gun purchasing age etc.
there's simply no logic in being 'mature' enough for one and not the other.
It's not about principle of freedom or maturity. The legal age of drinking is where it is because of young adults drinking and driving. You can have layers of maturity that isn't give/take all responsibilities. An 18 year old should be allowed to vote because they're just as responsible as any adult to provide themselves their own food and shelter. Unless you think it should be illegal to kick someone out until they're 21.
drinking and driving.
prob not the best example
I'm lost, why?
Because there are plenty of people who drink and drive in all age groups maybe?
Yea but before they raised the age limit to 21 it was crazy insane.
Agree. It should be 98.
They'll take you at 17 with parent's permission.
Hell, the government wants people 18+
No, I'm pretty sure that was some ancient Christian pro-lifers who came up with that rule. Government would take people younger if they could.
"... if they could."
Yea that's kinda' EXACTLY the point... they CAN make it that way, but haven't. The entire point is that modern Republicans are far more despicable than most any kind of politician from history. Yes, that includes slavers.
It takes an entire additional level of evil to step BACK IN TO social problems, and that's 100% of the modern GOP platform: bring back problems that were already solved.
Before he passed away, my kids' grandfather bought all his grandkids their first 22 rifle. Some of the cousins were still infants but he wanted to buy them something. He was a prolific hunter and marksman. My kids guns all lived in the safe until they were old enough to shoot them, and now they live in the safe when not in use. You can give guns to kids all day long, that's not the problem and the gun is not the problem.
You can give guns to kids all day long, that’s not the problem and the gun is not the problem.
The problem is not appropriately assessing whether the child in question she be allowed the gun. Are they responsible, are they going to use it for valid purposes. This holds true for, well, everyone always. A lack of reasonable regulation is the actual problem. I am glad you have responsibly managed the distribution and use of firearms for your children. We should do that for everyone.
A lack of reasonable regulation
There are hundreds of firearms laws on the books. What new law is both reasonable and would accomplish anything?
Mandatory psych eval and home inspection every 5 years.
lol. how? the logistics of personnel alone is never going to happen.
It's almost like we should be getting something for our tax dollars other than a pittance at retirement and a genocide in the middle east.
Fuck that, no way in hell people would allow authorities to inspect their private property inside their homes as a prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right.
The "Constitutional" right to have weapons on you 24/7 and use them the second you are afeared is brand new. The actual text has a whole other half making clear that it's for a well regulated militia. I had my room and weapon inspected in the military. So can you if you want that gun. If you have a problem with order and discipline then you don't get a gun.
Nope, that's all bullshit and you're lame for spouting it.
Fortunately, what I said is fact and there's never going to be a goddamn thing you can ever do about it. Our gun rights are extremely well protected.
Your idea of gun rights are one SCOTUS decision away from going back to the way they were in the late 1700's. Kept at home and regularly inspected by the local militia. They've even set the historical standard as precedent. Now it's just a game of judges willing to actually use that standard instead of making shit up to create a new right from whole cloth.
It could go the other way though, most people don't know the court isn't capped at a certain number. But everyone knows you can repeal an amendment. And the rubber band effect is coming. How many kids will it take before people demand the entire amendment be scrapped? I don't know, but the idea grows every year. With every high profile shooting. You can compromise now or have all guns banned down the road. That's the outlook.
Yeah sure. I'll believe it if I see it, and not before.
I will not be giving up any rights, period.
It's all a sham. You never had a real right to hurt other people.
A well regulated militia made up of people who were supposed to bring their own guns and ammunition that they were proficient in using. The Militia Acts make this pretty clear, along with the Federalist Papers. The intent was that an armed population could be called on by the States to resist an invading army, be that army foreign or the standing Federal army. It also was an evolution of English law enshrining rights to self defense.
If we change the sentence slightly and say "The free flow of goods and services being essential to the safety and functionality of the economy, the right is the people to keep money and travel freely shall not be infringed", would not imply that you are only free to leave your house and have cash if you are engaged in business.
People in good standing, registered with their town/county/state militia, and subject to the regulations thereof.
The idea that every farmer was a minutemen and that was our defense plan is a Hollywood level simplification of history. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers make this very clear. Furthermore the founding fathers wanted a standing Army eventually. They knew a militia would not work forever. The idea was always for a standing Army to take over in the future, with the State militias to balance out any shenanigans by the federal army.
And again the state militias were not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They were regulated affairs much closer to a national guard unit than a shooting club.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was part of the militia, and still are today. Title 10 outlines that all able bodies men not enlisted in the military or national guard is part of the unorganized militia. The founders feared a standing army, while knowing it was inevitable and useful, and the militia was one of the balances of power between State and Federal power.
Hamilton layed out clearly that intention in Federalist 29. "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." ... "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."..."if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
The intent of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the existence of an armed populace that would protect themselves and their neighbors from any threats.
Right and when's the last time you reported for drill?
It was 2013 for me.
You looked right past the part where he talks about an actual militia, not just every citizen. Maybe critically read that instead of just using bits to confirm your bias.
If this heartwarming story of responsible gun ownership is actually true, Mr/Ms Anonymous Voice On The Internet — y'know, because I believe every anecdote I read on social media — you are probably one of <1000 people in 336,000,099 (the 2024 population of the United States).
…it's hard to believe that your family is anywhere near the norm. You are 0.1% of 0.1% (yes, I made that up too).
This, friends, is a great demonstration of why math and science courses are so important. Science teaches critical thinking skills. A lack of critical thinking skills often leads people to make things up to explain phenomena instead of questioning their assumptions and seeking factual information.
Mathematics, especially statistics, provides a framework by which people can critically evaluate the validity and significance of numerical values as well as generate realistic, informed estimates. A lack of basic math skills causes many people to be unable to evaluate relative proportions and effect sizes of event drivers.
That is when your brain stops really growing and developing, it's not some threshold of social or intellectual maturity.
If anything, people become less adaptable, less open-minded, and less cooperative after that. It's not something we get to lord over young people, it's a mark against us olds for being less capable of growth.
Your frontal lobe contains brain areas that manage who you are — especially your personality — and how you behave. Your ability to think, solve problems and build social relationships, sense of ethics and right vs. wrong all rely on parts of your frontal lobe.
Experts know this because of a railroad foreman named Phineas Gage. In 1848, an accidental explosion at a railroad construction site propelled an iron rod through Gage’s head, destroying the left side of his frontal lobe. Before the accident, Gage was a calm, respected leader among his coworkers. Gage survived, but after the accident, his personality changed. He would lose his temper, act disrespectfully and constantly use profanity.
However, Gage’s personality changes weren’t permanent. Four years after his accident, Gage moved to Chile in South America and became a stagecoach driver. Somewhere in late 1858 or early 1859, a doctor who examined Gage said he was physically healthy and showed “no impairment whatever of his mental faculties.”
While Gage mostly recovered from the accident, he died from seizures in San Francisco in 1860. The seizures were very likely the result of damage from the accident. However, his case remains one of the most useful in modern medicine’s understanding of what the frontal lobe does, especially when it comes to your personality.
The Pre-Frontal Cortex
One of the biggest differences researchers have found between adults and adolescents is the pre-frontal cortex. This part of the brain is still developing in teens and doesn't complete its growth until approximately early to mid 20's. The prefrontal cortex performs reasoning, planning, judgment, and impulse control, necessities for being an adult. Without the fully development prefrontal cortex, a teen might make poor decisions and lack the inability to discern whether a situation is safe. Teens tend to experiment with risky behavior and don’t fully recognize the consequences of their choices.
I find it weird they don't just lend a gun to their child for hunting. Why give them their own personal gun? What's the point?
Hunting is a cultural thing for many, and you often start with a smaller caliber while you’re young and learning. I guess I would compare it to a parent buying their kid their first baseball/softball glove. Parents often pass down a love for sport, most just don’t involve killing stuff.
There's literally nothing stopping them from passing down their cultural love for hunting while only lending their children guns.
You’re not wrong, but it’s still why they do it as far as I can tell from having friends that hunt and were taught by their fathers.
Well I grew up with a dad that hunted and took me hunting, I was even an Eagle Scout, but I didn't actually own a gun until later in my 20s. There's just no good reason for kids to have their own guns and it needs to stop.
Also, gotta be honest, now that I'm older I think hunting is kinda fucked up in itself. I'm not gonna try to fight that battle tho lol
"Hey son, here's a firearm, let's go kill something, systematically eviscerate and skin it, and then consume its flesh while taking joy and pride in each step of the process. Oh, don't ever do this to humans or dogs." I dunno, seems pretty weird to me.
You're loosely describing most of human history.
"Let's take these plant babies and grind them into a pulp, drown it, let it be eaten by a bunch of tiny monsters until they fart enough gas, and then burn it" also sounds kinda weird. Welcome to the universe; shit's a little whack.
Anything sounds weird if you abstract it enough.
Yeah Nathan Pyle has made a whole living out of doing this with Strange Planet.
You're loosely describing most of human history.
To play devils advocate, you're arguing an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy.
Just because we've historically operated in a certain way, it does not mean it is morally permissible behavior.
The appeal to tradition has been used to argue in favor of slavery, racism, and a lot of other horrendous human behavior.
So? It's patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers. Pointing out logical fallacies isn't an argument.
It's patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers.
I never said they do.
Pointing out logical fallacies isn't an argument.
I wasn't staking any claims in this argument. Just pointing out how yours is invalid.
I did so because it's constructive criticism to promote better reasoning. But of course you're too immature to receive constructive criticism, so you defensively deflect it instead.
Edit: oh wait you're not even the user I was speaking to..
I think it was an appeal to natural order, not tradition.
One time after GPS became pretty well available a court somewhere was called upon to decide whether, now that we have this cheaply available magical system of maritime navigation, is it negligent to crash into the rocks and destroy the vessel because you were still using a sextant and navigating by the stars? I mean, that's the way we've always done it. That's an appeal to tradition.
I disagree. It was clearly an appeal to tradition, given his specific reference to human history (traditional human hunting behavior). But the appeal to nature is also a logical fallacy anyway.
I'm not even condemning hunting, btw. It's necessary in some cases for healthy animal populations.
This is far past the point of mattering, but the actual thing I was targeting was the statement "seems pretty weird" by stating that in the context of human history, hunting is objectively not weird, that is to say, unusual or abnormal, at all.
And I mean, if we're trying to entertain logical rigor, I don't think the original "appeal to vibes" is exactly a good start.
What? How is that weirded than "let's go to mcyd's and get you some nuggets"
I'm guessing that user would probably find CAFO/factory farm supplied nuggets just as "weird"/bad. If not worse. Certainly more cruelty there vs hunting.
Both are awful. Go vegan!
Not my point. The comment I replied to was highlighting that killing and preparing your own food is perverse, as compared to normal food shopping practices. They made no claim of veganism, so I didn't go there.
Veganism is great for a lot of folks, but before that, I think meat eaters should be fully aware, accepting and ready to see how meat is prepared. And they should be ready to do it themselves if they are willing to eat meat.
You're just turning people away from your cause by inserting it where it isn't relevant.
Turning people away lol, like there's a gate. Go vegan or die trying.
For me hunting is about connecting with the people who lived on the land for millenia before I came along.
I'm pretty sure they didn't use firearms millenia[sic] ago. They had dysentery, though, maybe try that instead. That's more authentic if you really want to connect.
You're right. Probably won't try dysentery. There is something intimate and connective in how we choose to procure and prepare food, and in being alone and quiet in remote wilderness, relying on our senses and wit, strength, respect for nature and its fruits. I don't want to do exactly as the indigenous people did, or even as the colonists did. Going hunting once or twice a year is enough for me. Part of a tradition.
"Intimate" snuff, skinning, eviscerating, and consumption is not making this any less weird.
Well no, not when you make it weird. That's a you thing.
Could be harvesting watercress from a drainage ditch or going somewhere remote to forage whatever. Obtaining, preparing, and eating food, is intimate.
intimate adjective
in·ti·mate ˈin-tə-mət
2 : of a very personal or private nature
Doesn't get much more personal than eating, lest we're talking about eating people. See, now it's me that's making it weird.
None of what you said is clever or addressed that killing animals, ripping off their skin, tearing out their viscera, and eating their flesh is creepy, especially given the amount of planning, tools, etc, that is requires. Don't conflate that with foraging watercress. It's a bad, lazy argument.
You kill for pleasure. I don't care if it's tradition, religion, or whatever other excuse you tell yourself, you kill for pleasure. And that's creepy. And I'm not interested in continuing his or any further conversation with you.
I don't think hunting animals is creepy at all and i have never fired a weapon in my life. I eat animal meats every day, is that somehow less creepy? Because someone else did all those 'creepy' steps?
No; go learn about industrial meat production.
You're so cool and smart the best word you can come up with is "creepy." Bud, you're a straight up joke. Is fishing creepy too?
Oh boy, wait until you hear about this type of animal called omnivores. They can survive off vegtable but they still hunt and eat meat because obviously they're evil strange and un-natural.
Exactly. They don't have to kill, but they do so for pleasure. But miss me with that argument from nature bs.
You're calling something that happens in nature all the time un natural then asking that I don't bring up nature. Okay buddy, want me to not bring up everything that makes tour argument ridiculous too? Or just the ones you don't have a canned response for?
I know you're not referring to hunting rifles, but it is very common to give those as gifts to teenagers when they are old enough to get a hunting license. In some places that's 12 years old.
My parents also made me take a course on gun safety tho....
And they wouldn't let me use it unless it was with them....
So this lady definitely still deserves her sentence. Also, no kid needs and AR or a pistol.
Some of that stuff you mentioned needs to be mandatory IMO. I'm talking about gun safety lessons for all firearm owners.
It's the pro-gun community that insists they shouldn't be. They'll literally send you death threats for trying.
Ok?
It's absolutely moronic that we need licenses to drive but not to own and operate firearms.
I just thought it was important to note why this kind of thing doesn't already exist.
Just say that the lessons will be given by the NRA at a price and they'd probably lose most of their institutional backing pretty quickly. Money talks to republicans.
Exactly. Only difference would be essentially making basic safety courses mandatory.
The NRA is already the largest gun safety education organization in the USA. Their hunter's safety education programs are basically ubiquitous across the USA wherever people go to get their first hunting license.
Gun safety should be a mandatory class in education. Probably a multi-stage class starting with an age appropriate class in Elementary school, a more advanced class in Middle school to demystify and take some of the taboo cool factor out, and again in High school. Range time should be incorporated in High school, and maybe Middle school. We all know abstinence only education doesn't work.
My dad is a gun collector, so I was around them my entire life, but gun safety was also part of my entire life. We understood what they were and what they could do. So if my friends ever said "can we see your dad's guns?" It was always "no."
That's good, and I can relate to your experience growing up respecting firearms, but children should simply not be trusted to have access.
There have been many experiments in which children find a weapon and the parents who claimed their children knew better were horrified to see them handle the staged weapon.
Children simply don't have the logical portion of the brain developed. Even in teenagers, their amygdala (emotionality, anger, fear response) is nearly fully developed, yet their prefrontal cortext (executive control, rational thinking, emotional regulation, thinking of future consequences) is still severely underdeveloped. [1]
In fact, the prefrontal cortext isn't fully developed until our mid 20s, and possibly a few years longer for those of us with ADHD. [2] This is why teenagers display heightened risk-taking, are bad at controlling their emotions, restraining themselves, and thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Under supervision is one thing, but unsupervised access to a firearm is a patently bad idea. With that said, I did have access to a firearm (.22) and I acted responsibly as a minor (only used it for target practice). But I absolutely should not have had access to it.
In some places that’s 12 years old.
Whyyy? Hunting is a dangerous sport that is 100% not required that utilizes lethal weaponry. If a parent wants to take their kids hunting, they should be 100% responsible for them including having the license and owning the firearms. 16 seems like the bare minimum to allow children to engage with weaponry, but probably older to own.
There's a huge difference between giving a child unrestricted access to a firearm, and taking them sport shooting in a controlled environment. I've helped with beginner shooting courses for kids in scouts. There is an adult with each kid, one round loaded at a time, etc. You can similarly control the environment hunting by using blinds, etc, where you oversee the use of the firearm, loading of round etc.
I'm not big into shooting, but from a safety perspective there are ways to hunt and sport shoot with kids in a very controlled way.
Keep in mind, a person earlier in this convo said some kids get one gifted when they get a hunting license, which can be as early as 12, so you're basically attempting to change the entire claim being made... Clearly, in many situations, kids ARE ending up with a firearm under their sole ownership.
Having a .22 under the Christmas tree and having unsupervised access to it are two very different things. I know plenty of people who got rifles for their younger children but keep them in a safe with their own guns until the kids are older.
Yes, and are those parents on trial for manslaughter? You guys are completely forgetting the context in which this is being asked. If they're retaining control until the kid is older... they're likely being responsible and would be found totally fine under any serious proposal.
The parents are on trial for manslaughter because they gave their kid a gun like you might give your kid an action figure, with zero restrictions or teaching about respect for life whatsoever. There is a right way to handle kid's access to guns and many wrong ways.
Yes, and you fucking morons keep saying that as if ANYONE is saying we'd want to take THOSE guns. You fucking idiots are using the context to get offended instead of using it to understand what is being asked for.
Stop being offended over something not even being asked for here. It's pathetic.
Calm down and stop using straw man arguments. The only one acting offended here is you.
Yes, because ypu morons keep acting as if I said, "yea, we should clearly restrict all guns from all children at all times."
Learn to fucking read before you all go on and on about responsible gun ownership. WE KNOW!! We're not talking about responsible gun owners. The entire topic has never been about responsible gun owners having any rights removed. "evaluated" does not mean, "take guns", ffs.
Why don't you learn to read?
Because I was actually fucking agreeing with you.
Yes, IMO these parents do need to be, as you put it, evaluated, so that we can tell apart the responsible tutors from the irresponsible asshats like the woman who got charged.
We have evaluation systems for firearms literally everywhere else in the world. Fuck, in the US, you have evaluation systems for cars but not fucking guns.
Being gifted a gun is not being given unrestricted access to that weapon. I was gifted a shotgun at 15 and I never saw it unless my dad was present. It stayed in his safe until we went shooting together. When I moved out and showed him my own safe was ready, I got it from him and that was that.
What I'm saying is you're complaining about something no one is asking for. No one has even mentioned doing anything negative towards people who responsibly teach their kids about guns.
I gave my kid a BB gun, but it stays in a safe. I also gave my son a pocket knife for camping that stays in my night stand unless we are camping.
You can give something to a kid without letting them have unsupervised access. I gave my kids steam decks, but limit their screen time.
I agree the original comment lacked specificity. You could gift a gun in a responsible or irresponsible way, and I've seen both.
Edit: and the comment about gifting a rifle also mentioned that in their personal situation they had to have a parent to use it.
Indeed, and that's exactly what they'd be evaluated on. Responsible gun ownership should be the only kind of ownership protected under the 2a. Responsible gun ownership should not include sole ownership by those that cannot even join the military.
Maaaybe under odd edge cases where a kid gets to be their own guardian, but eh.
Outside of America, buying a gun at all is rather grounds for evaluation. Inside America, it's still mental but #theConstitution.
For families who participate in hunting and shooting sports, I can see giving the child their own gun, make it their responsibility to clean and maintain it, choose what optics or other accessories they put on it, etc.
I don't support letting them have unrestricted access to it as a minor though. It should be locked up whenever it's not in use under adult supervision.
I have a casual interest in guns, don't currently own any but may someday when my budget allows (it's pretty low on my priority list.) I do have a lot of friends who own guns though, many of them have had their "own" gun since childhood. All of their parents though were very strict about gun safety, none of them had free access to any guns or ammo until they were adults, and sometimes not even really until they moved out and took their guns with them because even as adults living at home with their parents some of them didn't have the key/combo to the gun safe, so in a sense they still kind of had to ask for their parents' permission if they wanted to take their guns out to go hunting or shooting into their 20s.
I think rottenhouse was charged with 1st degree only and not 2nd degree, which was ridiculous. Trying to prove he had a premeditated intent to kill that night was a bad strategy by the prosecution. They would have gotten a conviction if they charged 2nd degree or even manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, or whatever.
Its hard not to have conspiratorial thoughts when realizing that the only reason rottenhouse got off scott free was because he wasn’t properly charged. They could have charged him with 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter and let the jury decide, but for whatever reason they only charged 1st, even though they couldn’t prove intent.
From the moment that trial started I was so frustrated because I knew they wouldn’t be able to prove intent which was necessary for the charges. I’ll never understand why they didn’t properly charge him.
So that's why the guy went free ? I did wonder but never bothered to research it
that and the judge wanted to adopt him as a son
what
yea it was crazy i watched the whole stream for some reason
He wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's nonsense. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment.Here's the wiki.
I watched almost the entire trial live, and it was clear as day that his actions were textbook self defense. The prosecution had essentially no evidence - at one point they argued that Kyle had a desire to shoot people because he plays Call of Duty. I'm not making that up.
Everyone I've talked to about this incident who believes he should've gone to jail were unaware of what actually happened. The media lied about what happened and smeared his character leading up to the trial, so I'm not surprised that people think he's a murderer. I am extremely disappointed though that the media blatantly lies this way in order to push a narrative or agenda, and people who consume it do little to no research to check it's accuracy.
Edit: Clarity below
Incorrect. The Wikipedia article is not specific on what type of murder charges he faced.
All murder charges come with a degree. He had 6 charges, all first degree. Search for Kyle Rittenhouse Charges and the first result should be the AP article.
First degree charges require that intent and/or premeditation be proven.
I agree he wasn’t guilty of intent, but they would have had a conviction if they went with a lesser murder charge. By entering a riot with a loaded open carry firearm, against curfew ordinances, crossing state lines with a firearm he was not allowed to possess, they could have easily proven 2nd degree homicide, not premeditated.
They were trying to prove intent because that is what they charged him with.
I also watched every moment of his trial.
I'm sorry, looks like I got that wrong. I didn't realize the wiki omitted that.
The NPR article I found that explained this also says that the jury was asked to consider lesser charges but still acquitted. I'm not sure what lesser charges exactly, but I assume it was second degree accounts. For first degree intentional homicide, Wisconsin law lists "mitigating circumstances" that downgrade first degree charges to second degree charges if proven true. It's 940.01, found here.
No worries, the case was complex for sure.
The lesser charges were 2nd degree intentional homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide.
For the 2nd degree intentional charge, the prosecution would still have to prove intent. The key difference is that with 1st degree intentional, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. With 2nd degree intentional, they would have to prove that he had the belief that he was acting in self defense but that his belief was unreasonable.
For the 1st degree reckless, they would have had to prove ‘utter disregard for human life’, which I don’t believe is what happened in this case.
The lesser charge that the prosecution asked for but was ultimately denied was ‘2nd degree reckless homicide’. It is my personal opinion, having watched the whole trial, that they would have gotten a conviction on that charge.
Without an intention to kill, and without an utter disregard for human life, he recklessly put himself into a situation where he believed he was acting in self defense, but that belief was unreasonable. 2nd degree reckless homicide, 25 years.
The judge denied that lesser charge because he said that he thought it would be overturned on appeal… not really his call but that’s the way it played out.
Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.
I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn't live in and got away with it.
What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom's house),to help protect his family friend's business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.
This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.
And he wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.
Thanks for this. I knew some of this but for some reason just adopted the "Rittenhouse bad" brain worm. Maybe it was things like how quickly he fell into the arms of the alt-right crowd and seemed to be fine embracing them. Who knows. But thanks for the refresher. I think I needed that.
He'll get what's coming to him
edit: jeez guys I was just trying to lighten the mood but yeah you're all spot on
I mean, has George Zimmerman gotten anything that's "coming to him?"
Seems like he's been in a total shit storm of events, but suffered consequences for nothing.
Rittenhouse will have his nose so far up the maga go fund me grift should anything ever happen, he'll never know anything more than a minor inconvenience.
Last I looked he was in financial ruin which is why he had to sell the gun on ebay. He filed multiple failed lawsuits that were dismissed. His wife divorced him. Accused of intellectual property theft.
He does seem to have an "uncanny" ability to avoid criminal liability though.
and what, pray tell, is "coming to him"?
A job at Fox News
money and celebrity status and whatever he wants to do with that basically. kill some libs and get away with it and you're a hero to conservatives
i wonder how you feel about the guy that literally approached him with his gun out? or the guy that tried to smash his head in with a skateboard? are they 'heroes' to liberals? how are they any better if so?
Interesting stance, because his first victim wasn't armed, and Rittenhouse testified that he knew he wasn't armed.
He did rush a deranged person running around looking for an excuse to shoot people, that's true though.
Now, after Kyle murdered that dude, would you say other people in the area might be right to fear an armed murderer, and consider him a viable threat to their
and others safety?
the kid was out looking for people to shoot, and had just shot someone. the pistol came out in an effort to get the assault rifle out of the kids hands.
ok so you didn't pay attention to anything that happened, nor did you listen to any of the testimony given from either side. i now understand you're arguing from a place of feeling not logic or facts. have a good day.
I watched the whole goddamn trial as they streamed it in real time
so you have selective hearing?
go back to Reddit
you're the one that's twisting shit to fit into YOUR narrative, not the actual court proceedings. but ok.
You're not saying anything. You're just telling me I'm wrong. your words are completely empty. this is not what I would call an interesting discussion. I probably wouldn't like you in real life.
unfortunately he won't
Have you seen any pictures of him lately? I saw some last summer and he looked like shit. Put on 40 lbs and his face was flushed red. Looked like a young Alex Jones in the making.
I watched the whole trial. The verdict was definitely just, but her lawyer didn’t do her any favors. At one point, in a moment of frustration, her lawyer exclaimed ‘I’m going to kill myself’, at a trial for a mother of a kid who killed a bunch of kids.
She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.
She said “I’m sorry” about a thousand times, which I am convinced was an intentional strategy to associate the defense with being sorry.
They weren’t supposed to use the shooters name but she used it three times in her opening statement.
Most of her objections were not valid legal objections, but just argument.
The whole thing was a train wreck, I actually feel bad for her (the attorney not the defendant).
You:
She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.
Article:
But, during the defense's questioning, Smith suggested that police intimidated and threatened Meloche into providing his testimony, so prosecutors pushed back and sought to allow the judge to include evidence that the two had an affair. Prosecutors argued that Meloche was not pressured, but that he didn't want information about their affair to become public.
Smith was the lawyer. Sounds like the lawyer fucked up.
You're saying the same thing as the OP? "She" being the lawyer.
Maybe read the first paragraph
🤦♂️ might want to work that bud
The defense opened the door by going down a line of questioning which would permit the prosecution to cross based on texts which were previously ruled off limits. She was given a chance to move on to a different line of questioning, but she (defense attorney) insisted on continuing with that line of questioning, with full knowledge that all of the texts would then be admitted, just so she could make her point about the witness potentially being intimidated by the police.
She was trying to say that the witness was threatened with loosing his job, in reality the witness was intimidated about his wife finding out he was having an affair with the defendant.
After the dramatic exchange between defense and prosecution where the prosecution insisted that the judge force the defense to clearly state that thy are ok with the full text exchange being admitted, she agreed, saying “I have no problem with all of the texts being admitted, I have no problem with opening the door”
Her next question to the witness was “did you feel that the police were intimidating you by telling you that you might loose your job”… he responded “no.” So there was no payoff for the defense on that line of questioning. Then the prosecution asked during cross “were you worried about your wife finding out that you were having an affair with the defendant” and he replied “yes”.
Classic case of don’t ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.
I didn’t read the article, I watched every moment of the trial.
This is good news and it’ll be better news when I see a father getting nailed for giving his sons guns
Cute that they tried to flee before trial. Shit parents AND insufferable cowards to boot!
Oh! I stand corrected and grateful to hear it, thank you. No /s, I’m glad you updated me
Certainly!
As a 2A Advocate / Gun Guy all I can say is GOOD. Parents who do this deserve to held legally responsible.
Does that include all the children who kill themselves with their father's gun?
If a minor gets a gun and does something illegal, including killing themselves, the parents should 100% be charged. There is no scenario where it would be ok for a minor to get access to a gun without supervision and approval by their parents.
Works for me. Now you'll have to get the pro-gun crowd to accept mandatory safe storage laws.
Mandatory safe storage laws do nothing. you're assuming that because it's a law people will follow it. Safe storage laws are tack on penalties that are simply feel good laws for the anti gun crowd.
Exhibit A with his gun in a drawer. But it's okay, we don't need you to follow it, we just need something to charge you with when you don't
Not sure how I feel about that one. 1. I believe suicide/assisted suicide shouldnt be 100% illegal.
2. I would have to say that a kid who slits their wrists or overdoses would have to see the same charges there. Someone wanting to kill themselves always has the means. Run at a cop with a knife, happened earlier today. Step in front of a truck, off a bridge, down all the pills in the medicine cabinet. If I had done any of those when I was a teen, I don't think my parents should be charged with it. I think due to it having an effect on another person's life is where it comes in.
Not knowing exactly what your child is going through and how much it is effecting them I would say all parents are guilty of. It is near impossible. Negligence might be a charge in some way, but charging them with manslaughter is a lot
My point is that the guns should be secured in such a way that even if the kid wanted to kill themselves, the gun is not an option. It’s locked away.
I believe suicide/assisted suicide shouldnt be 100% illegal.
Not what assisted suicide is. People seeking assisted suicide have terminal illnesses and want to die with as much dignity and as little trauma as possible.
"They can just blow their brains out in the bedroom with a cool gun" isn't a solution, it's the pro-gun crowd trying to pretend they're actually deeply compassionate people for advocating dogshit gun laws.
I would have to say that a kid who slits their wrists or overdoses would have to see the same charges there. Someone wanting to kill themselves always has the means.
Not how suicide works. Means reduction has been repeatedly shown to be an effective method of suicide prevention.
But it doesn't stop there. Only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt will go on to die by suicide but functionally nobody survives an attempt with a gun.
And of course, what's currently the suicide method of choice for radicalized teenagers? Grabbing a poorly secured gun and killing as many people with it as you can before the police shoot you in the head or you get bored and blow your brains out.
But I guess if we didn't supply them with semi-automatic weapons, they'd just go out and do a mass hanging or mass wrist slitting instead.
If a minor gets a gun and does something illegal, including killing themselves, the parents should 100% be charged.
Sounds good on paper but that's going to a lead to a LOT of parents in prison when their minor child gets involved with gang activity. I understand your sentiment but the idea doesn't have enough nuance to be practical.
That is a good point, but it should still be on the parents to secure the guns. If you own a gun, it’s on you to also buy whatever you need to keep that gun locked up and safe.
You gonna send that second kids mom to jail because her Son stole a gun and killed his father? Do you envision her prison sentence happening during or after she heals up from her own gunshot wounds?
I'm not trying to be jerk here, I'm trying to expose the need for nuance in these kinds of discussion. Not everything is as simple as "Lock 'em Up!".
I looked through each of your examples and, unless I missed something, none of those cases involved a minor getting the parents insecure gun. First one was a theft from a gun store, the second doesn’t state any details on where the gun came from, and the last one was a gun stolen from police.
My comments re: parents being responsible is for cases that the parents’ gun is taken by the minor and used in a crime, not any gun crime committed by a minor.
Again, if I missed something, please let me know.
I don't have kids. No kids ever visit my house. I don't flaunt my gun ownership, nor do I leave them laying about. Why do I need a safe?
You always supposed to have a safe. You're supposed to keep it in a safe, even if you don't think you need to.
When people talk about irresponsible gun ownership, you're the type of person they're talking about. It's people like you who just don't care. You're not being responsible with your weapon.
What would a safe change in this specific case?
No you're supposed to have a safe. It's got nothing to do with this case it's just about gun safety in general.
explain to me why? my guns are secure. I have no children. I don't have kids in my life what so ever. they aren't laying around on tables or nightstands. explain why.
Why are you arguing with me I don't make up the law.
You are supposed to have a gun safe, you're supposed to secure your weapons. It's your choice if you don't do it whatever your justification is is irrelevant.
That is not the "LAW". in some states it might be, but it's not federal law at all.
Because it’s a deadly weapon and it’s your responsibility that it is secured (not necessarily a safe). Part of responsible gun ownership.
(not necessarily a safe).
Um. wasn't that kinda my question? I didn't say they were not 'secure'.
My apologies for the confusion then, though my use of the word “safe” was secure. Keeping a gun hidden in a sock drawer != safe, though there are other ways to secure something.
Sure, i can understand that. I think there are a lot of people here that think guns somehow just up and shoot people on their own. I get what you're saying.
Why do we need bet our lives on you not lying? Why do we have to tolerate people who leave handguns in cars and secure rifles with threats of domestic violence all so you, a special special snowflake who pinkie promises they're responsible, don't have to buy a safe?
What would a safe change in this specific case?
What a plot twist, a pro-gun poster who can't look beyond themselves and what they want and see the wider problems of gun ownership.
Please explain to me how the situation i described would be any different if my guns were in a safe, rather than a locked closet?
And surprise surprise, he's slow too.
"I will never drive drunk so what good are DUI laws?"
you still haven't answered any questions. just thrown insults.
Theft. Any time you aren't home your house turns into an unattended armory for thieves.
So answer me this. If a 'thief' breaks into your LOCKED house, steals your car keys, takes your car and kills someone else in a car accident, are you liable?
oh right so someone else breaking the law is somehow my fault? got it.
In answer to your question I'll say "It would depend on the circumstances." A weapon retrieved from a nightstand, or a mothers purse, and used by a small child to kill themselves is a very different situation than a teen who accesses a gun safe without permission.
Honestly pepper spray and bear spray are 100x more effective than a gun in most situations. The intent is usually to disable not to kill, and pepper spray eliminates a need to have any serious hesitation. That 0.5 second hesitation about whether to take a life with a gun could mean life or death in a defense scenario.
Why did you gender that?
Why did it upset you?
A weapon retrieved from a nightstand, or a mothers purse, and used by a small child to kill themselves is a very different situation than a teen who accesses a gun safe without permission.
Both are a failure to prevent a child from accessing a firearm.
Why did it upset you?
Because it's unnecessary.
This and this are both failures; gendering the failing parent simply isn't required.
Both are a failure to prevent a child from accessing a firearm.
Yes but they are only similar in the broadest sense; a child grabbing a loaded gun out of Mom's Purse or Dad's Nightstand are very different scenarios from a teen who destructively opens a gun safe or steals the key to it.
Safe storage for firearms is desirable but requiring the prosecution of those who made a good faith effort and failed is not.
Because it's unnecessary.
Damn well wait until you find out how many gun deaths are unnecessary.
Safe storage for firearms is desirable but requiring the prosecution of those who made a good faith effort and failed is not.
Then that prosecution can determine if a good faith effort was made or if the parents were negligent with the storage of their firearms, rather than the usual pro-gun stance of "every solution must be 100% effective (except ours) while never even mildly inconveniencing us and if you try and make it actually happen we'll kill you".
This was the case where the parents decided to be tried separately right? I wonder if we’ll see both end up in the same sentence.
There's a good chance the father takes a plea deal. The general consensus was the mother was the harder trial. There was some poor performance by her lawyers, but I doubt it counters the father being the one that purchased the gun.
She can get fukt
Gun manufacturers should take note, they are one step away from fault now.
So before you say that, read the article. She refused to take her kid home when the school said he wasn't mentally okay because she "couldn't" miss work.
The CEO of her company testified she absolutely could have missed the day for her kid.
Turns out she wanted to meet her affair partner instead of helping her child suffering from a mental breakdown.
I don't know the situation, but of course the CEO will say that, whether she'd be punished or not
This is probably 100% true, but in the article it is stated that the defendant agreed with it during trial.
I assume that the defense would demand evidence of that without just accepting it because it's a pretty big point in the prosecutions case. They would probably check to see if something like that was in the employment contract, and presumably it was otherwise they would have objected when it was stated.
Companies are smarter than to leave paper trails of things like retaliation or manipulation of employees for taking days off. Not saying it was actually happening, but if it was I wouldn't expect there to be hard evidence anyway. The learned from having to fight Unions in court.
But again it would be in the defenses interest to massively investigate that claim. If there was any doubt that that was true it could be used as a defense.
Oh okay, good to know, thanks
Gun manufacturers can afford lawyers and congressmen....some poor slob with a day job can't do that.
Justice done, but ultimately this doesn't solve anything.
Good. Piece of shit should have never had kids.
Now go for the gun manufacturers next!
I don't see practically how you could do that. If it's legal for people to buy guns then it must be legal for people to make guns.
The manufacturers are also not the ones making decisions on who the guns are sold to, it's the gun stores that are doing that. Go after the gun store owners that don't run proper background checks.
Parents who buy their children guns at all need to all be evaluated. There is seriously something wrong with giving children something whos intended purpose is delivering lethal force.
I don’t find it weird for hunting, but giving a child unrestricted access to firearms is insane to me given children are not able to assess risk the same way adults do.
A lot of "adults" don't seem to assess the risks either.
Oh, I don't mean temporary custody under controlled and hopefully educated circumstances, but those who hand it over completely. A kid simply does not need that power nor have the responsibility for full time custody.
Hell, the government wants people 18+ before they'll hand someone a gun and let them go die for something...
Smoking and drinking age is 21. Maybe gun ownership age should be bumped up too.
then so should the voting age.
Why is that?
if you can't make the decision to drink, buy a gun, or whatever else because you're supposedly not "mature" enough to do, why the fuck should you be trusted with choosing who makes those laws? while you're at it, raise the age to enroll in the military. if you can go die for your country at 18 you should be able to buy a beer, vote, and buy the gun they'll hand you at boot.
conversely if you want to lower the voting age, as some democrats suggest, then so should the drinking age, gun purchasing age etc.
there's simply no logic in being 'mature' enough for one and not the other.
It's not about principle of freedom or maturity. The legal age of drinking is where it is because of young adults drinking and driving. You can have layers of maturity that isn't give/take all responsibilities. An 18 year old should be allowed to vote because they're just as responsible as any adult to provide themselves their own food and shelter. Unless you think it should be illegal to kick someone out until they're 21.
prob not the best example
I'm lost, why?
Because there are plenty of people who drink and drive in all age groups maybe?
Yea but before they raised the age limit to 21 it was crazy insane.
Agree. It should be 98.
They'll take you at 17 with parent's permission.
No, I'm pretty sure that was some ancient Christian pro-lifers who came up with that rule. Government would take people younger if they could.
"... if they could."
Yea that's kinda' EXACTLY the point... they CAN make it that way, but haven't. The entire point is that modern Republicans are far more despicable than most any kind of politician from history. Yes, that includes slavers.
It takes an entire additional level of evil to step BACK IN TO social problems, and that's 100% of the modern GOP platform: bring back problems that were already solved.
Before he passed away, my kids' grandfather bought all his grandkids their first 22 rifle. Some of the cousins were still infants but he wanted to buy them something. He was a prolific hunter and marksman. My kids guns all lived in the safe until they were old enough to shoot them, and now they live in the safe when not in use. You can give guns to kids all day long, that's not the problem and the gun is not the problem.
The problem is not appropriately assessing whether the child in question she be allowed the gun. Are they responsible, are they going to use it for valid purposes. This holds true for, well, everyone always. A lack of reasonable regulation is the actual problem. I am glad you have responsibly managed the distribution and use of firearms for your children. We should do that for everyone.
Mandatory psych eval and home inspection every 5 years.
lol. how? the logistics of personnel alone is never going to happen.
It's almost like we should be getting something for our tax dollars other than a pittance at retirement and a genocide in the middle east.
Fuck that, no way in hell people would allow authorities to inspect their private property inside their homes as a prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right.
The "Constitutional" right to have weapons on you 24/7 and use them the second you are afeared is brand new. The actual text has a whole other half making clear that it's for a well regulated militia. I had my room and weapon inspected in the military. So can you if you want that gun. If you have a problem with order and discipline then you don't get a gun.
Nope, that's all bullshit and you're lame for spouting it.
Fortunately, what I said is fact and there's never going to be a goddamn thing you can ever do about it. Our gun rights are extremely well protected.
Your idea of gun rights are one SCOTUS decision away from going back to the way they were in the late 1700's. Kept at home and regularly inspected by the local militia. They've even set the historical standard as precedent. Now it's just a game of judges willing to actually use that standard instead of making shit up to create a new right from whole cloth.
It could go the other way though, most people don't know the court isn't capped at a certain number. But everyone knows you can repeal an amendment. And the rubber band effect is coming. How many kids will it take before people demand the entire amendment be scrapped? I don't know, but the idea grows every year. With every high profile shooting. You can compromise now or have all guns banned down the road. That's the outlook.
Yeah sure. I'll believe it if I see it, and not before.
I will not be giving up any rights, period.
It's all a sham. You never had a real right to hurt other people.
A well regulated militia made up of people who were supposed to bring their own guns and ammunition that they were proficient in using. The Militia Acts make this pretty clear, along with the Federalist Papers. The intent was that an armed population could be called on by the States to resist an invading army, be that army foreign or the standing Federal army. It also was an evolution of English law enshrining rights to self defense.
If we change the sentence slightly and say "The free flow of goods and services being essential to the safety and functionality of the economy, the right is the people to keep money and travel freely shall not be infringed", would not imply that you are only free to leave your house and have cash if you are engaged in business.
People in good standing, registered with their town/county/state militia, and subject to the regulations thereof.
The idea that every farmer was a minutemen and that was our defense plan is a Hollywood level simplification of history. The Federalist and Anti Federalist papers make this very clear. Furthermore the founding fathers wanted a standing Army eventually. They knew a militia would not work forever. The idea was always for a standing Army to take over in the future, with the State militias to balance out any shenanigans by the federal army.
And again the state militias were not every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They were regulated affairs much closer to a national guard unit than a shooting club.
Every Tom, Dick, and Harry was part of the militia, and still are today. Title 10 outlines that all able bodies men not enlisted in the military or national guard is part of the unorganized militia. The founders feared a standing army, while knowing it was inevitable and useful, and the militia was one of the balances of power between State and Federal power.
Hamilton layed out clearly that intention in Federalist 29. "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss." ... "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."..."if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens."
The intent of the 2nd amendment was to preserve the existence of an armed populace that would protect themselves and their neighbors from any threats.
Right and when's the last time you reported for drill?
It was 2013 for me.
You looked right past the part where he talks about an actual militia, not just every citizen. Maybe critically read that instead of just using bits to confirm your bias.
The intent was to enable settlers to help genocide the Natives. The Revolutionary War was fought to allow settlers to expand West.
If this heartwarming story of responsible gun ownership is actually true, Mr/Ms Anonymous Voice On The Internet — y'know, because I believe every anecdote I read on social media — you are probably one of <1000 people in 336,000,099 (the 2024 population of the United States).
!detroit@midwest.social
!michigan@midwest.social
Less than 1000 responsible gun owners? We're just making up numbers now?
Oh, absolutely. Where would you put that impossibly quantifiable number? 10? 10,000,000? More? Less?
My point being that every gun-owning household in the United States isn't like yours and with almost weekly occurrences like the Oxford school shooting, the Michigan State University shootings of 2023, the Perry, Iowa school shooting, even the Detroit five-year-old who shot himself in the face among his playmates while their parents were out of the home, or the Lansing toddler who did the same with his father's gun…
…it's hard to believe that your family is anywhere near the norm. You are 0.1% of 0.1% (yes, I made that up too).
This, friends, is a great demonstration of why math and science courses are so important. Science teaches critical thinking skills. A lack of critical thinking skills often leads people to make things up to explain phenomena instead of questioning their assumptions and seeking factual information.
Mathematics, especially statistics, provides a framework by which people can critically evaluate the validity and significance of numerical values as well as generate realistic, informed estimates. A lack of basic math skills causes many people to be unable to evaluate relative proportions and effect sizes of event drivers.
"A lot of "adults" don't seem to assess the risks either."
Your frontal lobe on average fully develops at 25 and for some when they're older.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3129331/
That is when your brain stops really growing and developing, it's not some threshold of social or intellectual maturity.
If anything, people become less adaptable, less open-minded, and less cooperative after that. It's not something we get to lord over young people, it's a mark against us olds for being less capable of growth.
Decision Making and Reward in Frontal Cortex
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3129331/
Your frontal lobe contains brain areas that manage who you are — especially your personality — and how you behave. Your ability to think, solve problems and build social relationships, sense of ethics and right vs. wrong all rely on parts of your frontal lobe.
Experts know this because of a railroad foreman named Phineas Gage. In 1848, an accidental explosion at a railroad construction site propelled an iron rod through Gage’s head, destroying the left side of his frontal lobe. Before the accident, Gage was a calm, respected leader among his coworkers. Gage survived, but after the accident, his personality changed. He would lose his temper, act disrespectfully and constantly use profanity.
However, Gage’s personality changes weren’t permanent. Four years after his accident, Gage moved to Chile in South America and became a stagecoach driver. Somewhere in late 1858 or early 1859, a doctor who examined Gage said he was physically healthy and showed “no impairment whatever of his mental faculties.”
While Gage mostly recovered from the accident, he died from seizures in San Francisco in 1860. The seizures were very likely the result of damage from the accident. However, his case remains one of the most useful in modern medicine’s understanding of what the frontal lobe does, especially when it comes to your personality.
The Pre-Frontal Cortex
One of the biggest differences researchers have found between adults and adolescents is the pre-frontal cortex. This part of the brain is still developing in teens and doesn't complete its growth until approximately early to mid 20's. The prefrontal cortex performs reasoning, planning, judgment, and impulse control, necessities for being an adult. Without the fully development prefrontal cortex, a teen might make poor decisions and lack the inability to discern whether a situation is safe. Teens tend to experiment with risky behavior and don’t fully recognize the consequences of their choices.
I find it weird they don't just lend a gun to their child for hunting. Why give them their own personal gun? What's the point?
Hunting is a cultural thing for many, and you often start with a smaller caliber while you’re young and learning. I guess I would compare it to a parent buying their kid their first baseball/softball glove. Parents often pass down a love for sport, most just don’t involve killing stuff.
There's literally nothing stopping them from passing down their cultural love for hunting while only lending their children guns.
You’re not wrong, but it’s still why they do it as far as I can tell from having friends that hunt and were taught by their fathers.
Well I grew up with a dad that hunted and took me hunting, I was even an Eagle Scout, but I didn't actually own a gun until later in my 20s. There's just no good reason for kids to have their own guns and it needs to stop.
Also, gotta be honest, now that I'm older I think hunting is kinda fucked up in itself. I'm not gonna try to fight that battle tho lol
"Hey son, here's a firearm, let's go kill something, systematically eviscerate and skin it, and then consume its flesh while taking joy and pride in each step of the process. Oh, don't ever do this to humans or dogs." I dunno, seems pretty weird to me.
You're loosely describing most of human history.
"Let's take these plant babies and grind them into a pulp, drown it, let it be eaten by a bunch of tiny monsters until they fart enough gas, and then burn it" also sounds kinda weird. Welcome to the universe; shit's a little whack.
Anything sounds weird if you abstract it enough.
Yeah Nathan Pyle has made a whole living out of doing this with Strange Planet.
To play devils advocate, you're arguing an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy.
Just because we've historically operated in a certain way, it does not mean it is morally permissible behavior.
The appeal to tradition has been used to argue in favor of slavery, racism, and a lot of other horrendous human behavior.
So? It's patently obvious that millions of people go hunting every year without turning into mass murderers. Pointing out logical fallacies isn't an argument.
I never said they do.
I wasn't staking any claims in this argument. Just pointing out how yours is invalid.
I did so because it's constructive criticism to promote better reasoning. But of course you're too immature to receive constructive criticism, so you defensively deflect it instead.
Edit: oh wait you're not even the user I was speaking to..
I think it was an appeal to natural order, not tradition.
One time after GPS became pretty well available a court somewhere was called upon to decide whether, now that we have this cheaply available magical system of maritime navigation, is it negligent to crash into the rocks and destroy the vessel because you were still using a sextant and navigating by the stars? I mean, that's the way we've always done it. That's an appeal to tradition.
I disagree. It was clearly an appeal to tradition, given his specific reference to human history (traditional human hunting behavior). But the appeal to nature is also a logical fallacy anyway.
I'm not even condemning hunting, btw. It's necessary in some cases for healthy animal populations.
This is far past the point of mattering, but the actual thing I was targeting was the statement "seems pretty weird" by stating that in the context of human history, hunting is objectively not weird, that is to say, unusual or abnormal, at all.
And I mean, if we're trying to entertain logical rigor, I don't think the original "appeal to vibes" is exactly a good start.
What? How is that weirded than "let's go to mcyd's and get you some nuggets"
I'm guessing that user would probably find CAFO/factory farm supplied nuggets just as "weird"/bad. If not worse. Certainly more cruelty there vs hunting.
Both are awful. Go vegan!
Not my point. The comment I replied to was highlighting that killing and preparing your own food is perverse, as compared to normal food shopping practices. They made no claim of veganism, so I didn't go there.
Veganism is great for a lot of folks, but before that, I think meat eaters should be fully aware, accepting and ready to see how meat is prepared. And they should be ready to do it themselves if they are willing to eat meat.
You're just turning people away from your cause by inserting it where it isn't relevant.
Turning people away lol, like there's a gate. Go vegan or die trying.
For me hunting is about connecting with the people who lived on the land for millenia before I came along.
I'm pretty sure they didn't use firearms millenia[sic] ago. They had dysentery, though, maybe try that instead. That's more authentic if you really want to connect.
You're right. Probably won't try dysentery. There is something intimate and connective in how we choose to procure and prepare food, and in being alone and quiet in remote wilderness, relying on our senses and wit, strength, respect for nature and its fruits. I don't want to do exactly as the indigenous people did, or even as the colonists did. Going hunting once or twice a year is enough for me. Part of a tradition.
"Intimate" snuff, skinning, eviscerating, and consumption is not making this any less weird.
Well no, not when you make it weird. That's a you thing.
Could be harvesting watercress from a drainage ditch or going somewhere remote to forage whatever. Obtaining, preparing, and eating food, is intimate.
intimate adjective in·ti·mate ˈin-tə-mət 2 : of a very personal or private nature
Doesn't get much more personal than eating, lest we're talking about eating people. See, now it's me that's making it weird.
None of what you said is clever or addressed that killing animals, ripping off their skin, tearing out their viscera, and eating their flesh is creepy, especially given the amount of planning, tools, etc, that is requires. Don't conflate that with foraging watercress. It's a bad, lazy argument.
You kill for pleasure. I don't care if it's tradition, religion, or whatever other excuse you tell yourself, you kill for pleasure. And that's creepy. And I'm not interested in continuing his or any further conversation with you.
I don't think hunting animals is creepy at all and i have never fired a weapon in my life. I eat animal meats every day, is that somehow less creepy? Because someone else did all those 'creepy' steps?
No; go learn about industrial meat production.
You're so cool and smart the best word you can come up with is "creepy." Bud, you're a straight up joke. Is fishing creepy too?
Oh boy, wait until you hear about this type of animal called omnivores. They can survive off vegtable but they still hunt and eat meat because obviously they're evil strange and un-natural.
Exactly. They don't have to kill, but they do so for pleasure. But miss me with that argument from nature bs.
You're calling something that happens in nature all the time un natural then asking that I don't bring up nature. Okay buddy, want me to not bring up everything that makes tour argument ridiculous too? Or just the ones you don't have a canned response for?
I know you're not referring to hunting rifles, but it is very common to give those as gifts to teenagers when they are old enough to get a hunting license. In some places that's 12 years old.
My parents also made me take a course on gun safety tho....
And they wouldn't let me use it unless it was with them....
So this lady definitely still deserves her sentence. Also, no kid needs and AR or a pistol.
Some of that stuff you mentioned needs to be mandatory IMO. I'm talking about gun safety lessons for all firearm owners.
It's the pro-gun community that insists they shouldn't be. They'll literally send you death threats for trying.
Ok?
It's absolutely moronic that we need licenses to drive but not to own and operate firearms.
I just thought it was important to note why this kind of thing doesn't already exist.
Just say that the lessons will be given by the NRA at a price and they'd probably lose most of their institutional backing pretty quickly. Money talks to republicans.
https://www.nrainstructors.org/search.aspx
Exactly. Only difference would be essentially making basic safety courses mandatory.
The NRA is already the largest gun safety education organization in the USA. Their hunter's safety education programs are basically ubiquitous across the USA wherever people go to get their first hunting license.
Gun safety should be a mandatory class in education. Probably a multi-stage class starting with an age appropriate class in Elementary school, a more advanced class in Middle school to demystify and take some of the taboo cool factor out, and again in High school. Range time should be incorporated in High school, and maybe Middle school. We all know abstinence only education doesn't work.
My dad is a gun collector, so I was around them my entire life, but gun safety was also part of my entire life. We understood what they were and what they could do. So if my friends ever said "can we see your dad's guns?" It was always "no."
That's good, and I can relate to your experience growing up respecting firearms, but children should simply not be trusted to have access.
There have been many experiments in which children find a weapon and the parents who claimed their children knew better were horrified to see them handle the staged weapon.
Children simply don't have the logical portion of the brain developed. Even in teenagers, their amygdala (emotionality, anger, fear response) is nearly fully developed, yet their prefrontal cortext (executive control, rational thinking, emotional regulation, thinking of future consequences) is still severely underdeveloped. [1]
In fact, the prefrontal cortext isn't fully developed until our mid 20s, and possibly a few years longer for those of us with ADHD. [2] This is why teenagers display heightened risk-taking, are bad at controlling their emotions, restraining themselves, and thinking about the consequences of their actions.
Under supervision is one thing, but unsupervised access to a firearm is a patently bad idea. With that said, I did have access to a firearm (.22) and I acted responsibly as a minor (only used it for target practice). But I absolutely should not have had access to it.
Whyyy? Hunting is a dangerous sport that is 100% not required that utilizes lethal weaponry. If a parent wants to take their kids hunting, they should be 100% responsible for them including having the license and owning the firearms. 16 seems like the bare minimum to allow children to engage with weaponry, but probably older to own.
There's a huge difference between giving a child unrestricted access to a firearm, and taking them sport shooting in a controlled environment. I've helped with beginner shooting courses for kids in scouts. There is an adult with each kid, one round loaded at a time, etc. You can similarly control the environment hunting by using blinds, etc, where you oversee the use of the firearm, loading of round etc.
I'm not big into shooting, but from a safety perspective there are ways to hunt and sport shoot with kids in a very controlled way.
Keep in mind, a person earlier in this convo said some kids get one gifted when they get a hunting license, which can be as early as 12, so you're basically attempting to change the entire claim being made... Clearly, in many situations, kids ARE ending up with a firearm under their sole ownership.
Having a .22 under the Christmas tree and having unsupervised access to it are two very different things. I know plenty of people who got rifles for their younger children but keep them in a safe with their own guns until the kids are older.
Yes, and are those parents on trial for manslaughter? You guys are completely forgetting the context in which this is being asked. If they're retaining control until the kid is older... they're likely being responsible and would be found totally fine under any serious proposal.
The parents are on trial for manslaughter because they gave their kid a gun like you might give your kid an action figure, with zero restrictions or teaching about respect for life whatsoever. There is a right way to handle kid's access to guns and many wrong ways.
Yes, and you fucking morons keep saying that as if ANYONE is saying we'd want to take THOSE guns. You fucking idiots are using the context to get offended instead of using it to understand what is being asked for.
Stop being offended over something not even being asked for here. It's pathetic.
Calm down and stop using straw man arguments. The only one acting offended here is you.
Yes, because ypu morons keep acting as if I said, "yea, we should clearly restrict all guns from all children at all times."
Learn to fucking read before you all go on and on about responsible gun ownership. WE KNOW!! We're not talking about responsible gun owners. The entire topic has never been about responsible gun owners having any rights removed. "evaluated" does not mean, "take guns", ffs.
Why don't you learn to read?
Because I was actually fucking agreeing with you.
Yes, IMO these parents do need to be, as you put it, evaluated, so that we can tell apart the responsible tutors from the irresponsible asshats like the woman who got charged.
We have evaluation systems for firearms literally everywhere else in the world. Fuck, in the US, you have evaluation systems for cars but not fucking guns.
Being gifted a gun is not being given unrestricted access to that weapon. I was gifted a shotgun at 15 and I never saw it unless my dad was present. It stayed in his safe until we went shooting together. When I moved out and showed him my own safe was ready, I got it from him and that was that.
What I'm saying is you're complaining about something no one is asking for. No one has even mentioned doing anything negative towards people who responsibly teach their kids about guns.
I gave my kid a BB gun, but it stays in a safe. I also gave my son a pocket knife for camping that stays in my night stand unless we are camping.
You can give something to a kid without letting them have unsupervised access. I gave my kids steam decks, but limit their screen time.
I agree the original comment lacked specificity. You could gift a gun in a responsible or irresponsible way, and I've seen both.
Edit: and the comment about gifting a rifle also mentioned that in their personal situation they had to have a parent to use it.
Indeed, and that's exactly what they'd be evaluated on. Responsible gun ownership should be the only kind of ownership protected under the 2a. Responsible gun ownership should not include sole ownership by those that cannot even join the military.
Maaaybe under odd edge cases where a kid gets to be their own guardian, but eh.
Outside of America, buying a gun at all is rather grounds for evaluation. Inside America, it's still mental but #theConstitution.
For families who participate in hunting and shooting sports, I can see giving the child their own gun, make it their responsibility to clean and maintain it, choose what optics or other accessories they put on it, etc.
I don't support letting them have unrestricted access to it as a minor though. It should be locked up whenever it's not in use under adult supervision.
I have a casual interest in guns, don't currently own any but may someday when my budget allows (it's pretty low on my priority list.) I do have a lot of friends who own guns though, many of them have had their "own" gun since childhood. All of their parents though were very strict about gun safety, none of them had free access to any guns or ammo until they were adults, and sometimes not even really until they moved out and took their guns with them because even as adults living at home with their parents some of them didn't have the key/combo to the gun safe, so in a sense they still kind of had to ask for their parents' permission if they wanted to take their guns out to go hunting or shooting into their 20s.
Shame it didn’t go this way for Rittenhouse.
I think rottenhouse was charged with 1st degree only and not 2nd degree, which was ridiculous. Trying to prove he had a premeditated intent to kill that night was a bad strategy by the prosecution. They would have gotten a conviction if they charged 2nd degree or even manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, or whatever.
Its hard not to have conspiratorial thoughts when realizing that the only reason rottenhouse got off scott free was because he wasn’t properly charged. They could have charged him with 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter and let the jury decide, but for whatever reason they only charged 1st, even though they couldn’t prove intent.
From the moment that trial started I was so frustrated because I knew they wouldn’t be able to prove intent which was necessary for the charges. I’ll never understand why they didn’t properly charge him.
So that's why the guy went free ? I did wonder but never bothered to research it
that and the judge wanted to adopt him as a son
what
yea it was crazy i watched the whole stream for some reason
He wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's nonsense. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment.Here's the wiki.I watched almost the entire trial live, and it was clear as day that his actions were textbook self defense. The prosecution had essentially no evidence - at one point they argued that Kyle had a desire to shoot people because he plays Call of Duty. I'm not making that up.
Everyone I've talked to about this incident who believes he should've gone to jail were unaware of what actually happened. The media lied about what happened and smeared his character leading up to the trial, so I'm not surprised that people think he's a murderer. I am extremely disappointed though that the media blatantly lies this way in order to push a narrative or agenda, and people who consume it do little to no research to check it's accuracy.
Edit: Clarity below
Incorrect. The Wikipedia article is not specific on what type of murder charges he faced.
All murder charges come with a degree. He had 6 charges, all first degree. Search for Kyle Rittenhouse Charges and the first result should be the AP article.
First degree charges require that intent and/or premeditation be proven.
I agree he wasn’t guilty of intent, but they would have had a conviction if they went with a lesser murder charge. By entering a riot with a loaded open carry firearm, against curfew ordinances, crossing state lines with a firearm he was not allowed to possess, they could have easily proven 2nd degree homicide, not premeditated.
They were trying to prove intent because that is what they charged him with.
I also watched every moment of his trial.
I'm sorry, looks like I got that wrong. I didn't realize the wiki omitted that.
The NPR article I found that explained this also says that the jury was asked to consider lesser charges but still acquitted. I'm not sure what lesser charges exactly, but I assume it was second degree accounts. For first degree intentional homicide, Wisconsin law lists "mitigating circumstances" that downgrade first degree charges to second degree charges if proven true. It's 940.01, found here.
No worries, the case was complex for sure.
The lesser charges were 2nd degree intentional homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide.
For the 2nd degree intentional charge, the prosecution would still have to prove intent. The key difference is that with 1st degree intentional, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant was not acting in self defense. With 2nd degree intentional, they would have to prove that he had the belief that he was acting in self defense but that his belief was unreasonable.
For the 1st degree reckless, they would have had to prove ‘utter disregard for human life’, which I don’t believe is what happened in this case.
The lesser charge that the prosecution asked for but was ultimately denied was ‘2nd degree reckless homicide’. It is my personal opinion, having watched the whole trial, that they would have gotten a conviction on that charge.
Without an intention to kill, and without an utter disregard for human life, he recklessly put himself into a situation where he believed he was acting in self defense, but that belief was unreasonable. 2nd degree reckless homicide, 25 years.
The judge denied that lesser charge because he said that he thought it would be overturned on appeal… not really his call but that’s the way it played out.
Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.
I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn't live in and got away with it.
What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom's house),to help protect his family friend's business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.
This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.
And he wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.Edit: He was charged with first degree accounts, the wiki doesn't state this. However, the jury considered lesser charges and still acquitted. Here's an NPR article that goes into more detail.
Thanks for this. I knew some of this but for some reason just adopted the "Rittenhouse bad" brain worm. Maybe it was things like how quickly he fell into the arms of the alt-right crowd and seemed to be fine embracing them. Who knows. But thanks for the refresher. I think I needed that.
He'll get what's coming to him
edit: jeez guys I was just trying to lighten the mood but yeah you're all spot on
I mean, has George Zimmerman gotten anything that's "coming to him?"
Seems like he's been in a total shit storm of events, but suffered consequences for nothing.
Rittenhouse will have his nose so far up the maga go fund me grift should anything ever happen, he'll never know anything more than a minor inconvenience.
Last I looked he was in financial ruin which is why he had to sell the gun on ebay. He filed multiple failed lawsuits that were dismissed. His wife divorced him. Accused of intellectual property theft.
He does seem to have an "uncanny" ability to avoid criminal liability though.
and what, pray tell, is "coming to him"?
A job at Fox News
money and celebrity status and whatever he wants to do with that basically. kill some libs and get away with it and you're a hero to conservatives
i wonder how you feel about the guy that literally approached him with his gun out? or the guy that tried to smash his head in with a skateboard? are they 'heroes' to liberals? how are they any better if so?
Interesting stance, because his first victim wasn't armed, and Rittenhouse testified that he knew he wasn't armed.
He did rush a deranged person running around looking for an excuse to shoot people, that's true though.
Now, after Kyle murdered that dude, would you say other people in the area might be right to fear an armed murderer, and consider him a viable threat to their and others safety?
the kid was out looking for people to shoot, and had just shot someone. the pistol came out in an effort to get the assault rifle out of the kids hands.
ok so you didn't pay attention to anything that happened, nor did you listen to any of the testimony given from either side. i now understand you're arguing from a place of feeling not logic or facts. have a good day.
I watched the whole goddamn trial as they streamed it in real time
so you have selective hearing?
go back to Reddit
you're the one that's twisting shit to fit into YOUR narrative, not the actual court proceedings. but ok.
You're not saying anything. You're just telling me I'm wrong. your words are completely empty. this is not what I would call an interesting discussion. I probably wouldn't like you in real life.
unfortunately he won't
Have you seen any pictures of him lately? I saw some last summer and he looked like shit. Put on 40 lbs and his face was flushed red. Looked like a young Alex Jones in the making.
I watched the whole trial. The verdict was definitely just, but her lawyer didn’t do her any favors. At one point, in a moment of frustration, her lawyer exclaimed ‘I’m going to kill myself’, at a trial for a mother of a kid who killed a bunch of kids.
She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.
She said “I’m sorry” about a thousand times, which I am convinced was an intentional strategy to associate the defense with being sorry.
They weren’t supposed to use the shooters name but she used it three times in her opening statement.
Most of her objections were not valid legal objections, but just argument.
The whole thing was a train wreck, I actually feel bad for her (the attorney not the defendant).
You:
Article:
Smith was the lawyer. Sounds like the lawyer fucked up.
You're saying the same thing as the OP? "She" being the lawyer.
Maybe read the first paragraph
🤦♂️ might want to work that bud
The defense opened the door by going down a line of questioning which would permit the prosecution to cross based on texts which were previously ruled off limits. She was given a chance to move on to a different line of questioning, but she (defense attorney) insisted on continuing with that line of questioning, with full knowledge that all of the texts would then be admitted, just so she could make her point about the witness potentially being intimidated by the police.
She was trying to say that the witness was threatened with loosing his job, in reality the witness was intimidated about his wife finding out he was having an affair with the defendant.
After the dramatic exchange between defense and prosecution where the prosecution insisted that the judge force the defense to clearly state that thy are ok with the full text exchange being admitted, she agreed, saying “I have no problem with all of the texts being admitted, I have no problem with opening the door”
Her next question to the witness was “did you feel that the police were intimidating you by telling you that you might loose your job”… he responded “no.” So there was no payoff for the defense on that line of questioning. Then the prosecution asked during cross “were you worried about your wife finding out that you were having an affair with the defendant” and he replied “yes”.
Classic case of don’t ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.
I didn’t read the article, I watched every moment of the trial.
This is good news and it’ll be better news when I see a father getting nailed for giving his sons guns
James Crumbley's trial is set for March
e; added a link
Cute that they tried to flee before trial. Shit parents AND insufferable cowards to boot!
Oh! I stand corrected and grateful to hear it, thank you. No /s, I’m glad you updated me
Certainly!
As a 2A Advocate / Gun Guy all I can say is GOOD. Parents who do this deserve to held legally responsible.
Does that include all the children who kill themselves with their father's gun?
If a minor gets a gun and does something illegal, including killing themselves, the parents should 100% be charged. There is no scenario where it would be ok for a minor to get access to a gun without supervision and approval by their parents.
Works for me. Now you'll have to get the pro-gun crowd to accept mandatory safe storage laws.
Mandatory safe storage laws do nothing. you're assuming that because it's a law people will follow it. Safe storage laws are tack on penalties that are simply feel good laws for the anti gun crowd.
Exhibit A with his gun in a drawer. But it's okay, we don't need you to follow it, we just need something to charge you with when you don't
Not sure how I feel about that one. 1. I believe suicide/assisted suicide shouldnt be 100% illegal. 2. I would have to say that a kid who slits their wrists or overdoses would have to see the same charges there. Someone wanting to kill themselves always has the means. Run at a cop with a knife, happened earlier today. Step in front of a truck, off a bridge, down all the pills in the medicine cabinet. If I had done any of those when I was a teen, I don't think my parents should be charged with it. I think due to it having an effect on another person's life is where it comes in.
Not knowing exactly what your child is going through and how much it is effecting them I would say all parents are guilty of. It is near impossible. Negligence might be a charge in some way, but charging them with manslaughter is a lot
My point is that the guns should be secured in such a way that even if the kid wanted to kill themselves, the gun is not an option. It’s locked away.
Not what assisted suicide is. People seeking assisted suicide have terminal illnesses and want to die with as much dignity and as little trauma as possible.
"They can just blow their brains out in the bedroom with a cool gun" isn't a solution, it's the pro-gun crowd trying to pretend they're actually deeply compassionate people for advocating dogshit gun laws.
Not how suicide works. Means reduction has been repeatedly shown to be an effective method of suicide prevention.
But it doesn't stop there. Only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt will go on to die by suicide but functionally nobody survives an attempt with a gun.
And of course, what's currently the suicide method of choice for radicalized teenagers? Grabbing a poorly secured gun and killing as many people with it as you can before the police shoot you in the head or you get bored and blow your brains out.
But I guess if we didn't supply them with semi-automatic weapons, they'd just go out and do a mass hanging or mass wrist slitting instead.
Sounds good on paper but that's going to a lead to a LOT of parents in prison when their minor child gets involved with gang activity. I understand your sentiment but the idea doesn't have enough nuance to be practical.
That is a good point, but it should still be on the parents to secure the guns. If you own a gun, it’s on you to also buy whatever you need to keep that gun locked up and safe.
So I'm curious, what are you charging the parents with in this case or this one or this one.
You gonna send that second kids mom to jail because her Son stole a gun and killed his father? Do you envision her prison sentence happening during or after she heals up from her own gunshot wounds?
I'm not trying to be jerk here, I'm trying to expose the need for nuance in these kinds of discussion. Not everything is as simple as "Lock 'em Up!".
I looked through each of your examples and, unless I missed something, none of those cases involved a minor getting the parents insecure gun. First one was a theft from a gun store, the second doesn’t state any details on where the gun came from, and the last one was a gun stolen from police.
My comments re: parents being responsible is for cases that the parents’ gun is taken by the minor and used in a crime, not any gun crime committed by a minor.
Again, if I missed something, please let me know.
I don't have kids. No kids ever visit my house. I don't flaunt my gun ownership, nor do I leave them laying about. Why do I need a safe?
You always supposed to have a safe. You're supposed to keep it in a safe, even if you don't think you need to.
When people talk about irresponsible gun ownership, you're the type of person they're talking about. It's people like you who just don't care. You're not being responsible with your weapon.
What would a safe change in this specific case?
No you're supposed to have a safe. It's got nothing to do with this case it's just about gun safety in general.
explain to me why? my guns are secure. I have no children. I don't have kids in my life what so ever. they aren't laying around on tables or nightstands. explain why.
Why are you arguing with me I don't make up the law.
You are supposed to have a gun safe, you're supposed to secure your weapons. It's your choice if you don't do it whatever your justification is is irrelevant.
That is not the "LAW". in some states it might be, but it's not federal law at all.
Because it’s a deadly weapon and it’s your responsibility that it is secured (not necessarily a safe). Part of responsible gun ownership.
Um. wasn't that kinda my question? I didn't say they were not 'secure'.
My apologies for the confusion then, though my use of the word “safe” was secure. Keeping a gun hidden in a sock drawer != safe, though there are other ways to secure something.
Sure, i can understand that. I think there are a lot of people here that think guns somehow just up and shoot people on their own. I get what you're saying.
Why do we need bet our lives on you not lying? Why do we have to tolerate people who leave handguns in cars and secure rifles with threats of domestic violence all so you, a special special snowflake who pinkie promises they're responsible, don't have to buy a safe?
What would a safe change in this specific case?
What a plot twist, a pro-gun poster who can't look beyond themselves and what they want and see the wider problems of gun ownership.
Please explain to me how the situation i described would be any different if my guns were in a safe, rather than a locked closet?
And surprise surprise, he's slow too.
"I will never drive drunk so what good are DUI laws?"
you still haven't answered any questions. just thrown insults.
Theft. Any time you aren't home your house turns into an unattended armory for thieves.
So answer me this. If a 'thief' breaks into your LOCKED house, steals your car keys, takes your car and kills someone else in a car accident, are you liable?
oh right so someone else breaking the law is somehow my fault? got it.
Why did you gender that?
In answer to your question I'll say "It would depend on the circumstances." A weapon retrieved from a nightstand, or a mothers purse, and used by a small child to kill themselves is a very different situation than a teen who accesses a gun safe without permission.
Honestly pepper spray and bear spray are 100x more effective than a gun in most situations. The intent is usually to disable not to kill, and pepper spray eliminates a need to have any serious hesitation. That 0.5 second hesitation about whether to take a life with a gun could mean life or death in a defense scenario.
Why did it upset you?
Both are a failure to prevent a child from accessing a firearm.
Because it's unnecessary.
This and this are both failures; gendering the failing parent simply isn't required.
Yes but they are only similar in the broadest sense; a child grabbing a loaded gun out of Mom's Purse or Dad's Nightstand are very different scenarios from a teen who destructively opens a gun safe or steals the key to it.
Safe storage for firearms is desirable but requiring the prosecution of those who made a good faith effort and failed is not.
Damn well wait until you find out how many gun deaths are unnecessary.
Then that prosecution can determine if a good faith effort was made or if the parents were negligent with the storage of their firearms, rather than the usual pro-gun stance of "every solution must be 100% effective (except ours) while never even mildly inconveniencing us and if you try and make it actually happen we'll kill you".
Thumbnail looks like Mitch McConnell has reconsidered his stance on drag.
There's things they chose to be that are far worse than "unattractive".
It’s more the facial expression than a comment on attractiveness.
It makes sense that if there's one confirmed turtle person, there's probably more than one out there
This was the case where the parents decided to be tried separately right? I wonder if we’ll see both end up in the same sentence.
There's a good chance the father takes a plea deal. The general consensus was the mother was the harder trial. There was some poor performance by her lawyers, but I doubt it counters the father being the one that purchased the gun.
She can get fukt
Gun manufacturers should take note, they are one step away from fault now.
So before you say that, read the article. She refused to take her kid home when the school said he wasn't mentally okay because she "couldn't" miss work.
The CEO of her company testified she absolutely could have missed the day for her kid.
Turns out she wanted to meet her affair partner instead of helping her child suffering from a mental breakdown.
I don't know the situation, but of course the CEO will say that, whether she'd be punished or not
This is probably 100% true, but in the article it is stated that the defendant agreed with it during trial.
I assume that the defense would demand evidence of that without just accepting it because it's a pretty big point in the prosecutions case. They would probably check to see if something like that was in the employment contract, and presumably it was otherwise they would have objected when it was stated.
Companies are smarter than to leave paper trails of things like retaliation or manipulation of employees for taking days off. Not saying it was actually happening, but if it was I wouldn't expect there to be hard evidence anyway. The learned from having to fight Unions in court.
But again it would be in the defenses interest to massively investigate that claim. If there was any doubt that that was true it could be used as a defense.
Oh okay, good to know, thanks
Gun manufacturers can afford lawyers and congressmen....some poor slob with a day job can't do that.
Justice done, but ultimately this doesn't solve anything.
Good. Piece of shit should have never had kids.
Now go for the gun manufacturers next!
I don't see practically how you could do that. If it's legal for people to buy guns then it must be legal for people to make guns.
The manufacturers are also not the ones making decisions on who the guns are sold to, it's the gun stores that are doing that. Go after the gun store owners that don't run proper background checks.