Can parents sue a public school when a shooting occurs?

[SKL]

You wouldn't report a stolen car?  Really?

 

 

 

 

 

Well let's say someone stole my car on Dec. 21, the day after I left for my vacation, and I didn't realize it until I returned on January 7, because no, I don't always know for 100% sure where my car is.  I know where I left it and I know it should still be there.  But if someone has taken it, I will not know that until the next time I go outside with the intention of driving it.

 

And I am not fighting against reasonable laws about responsibility for our guns.  I am speaking against unreasonable proposals, such as being held liable for a crime committed by my stolen gun if I haven't physically confirmed its whereabouts every single day.

 

[swimmermom3]

Along the lines of this thread, if a university declares on allows carrying on campus and a student is shot by another student, can the university be sued?  In this case, a college has chosen to allow students to carry even when a significant portion of the student body spends some time impaired.

 

ETA: I just found out that our state is a mandatory campus carry state. Not sure how I feel about that. That is for concealed carry and campus buildings, but not grounds, are exempted.

Edited January 25, 2018 by swimmermom3

[SKL]

When I initially asked started this thread, I thought that more people would be in favor of metal detectors.  The psychological assurance (IMO), plus the chance that they might deter a would-be shooter, was where my thinking was.   I am surprised at the responses here, but my eyes have been opened to other ways of thinking.  Thank you for keeping the conversation civil!!

 

This reminds me of the first time I was getting ready to fly with my kids on vacation.  I wondered how to explain the security process, including why we were not allowed to bring certain things such as liquids past security.  If I explained that these procedures were to prevent bad guys from bombing planes, then wouldn't that plant a fear of terrorists / being bombed out of the sky?  And how is that fear helpful in any way, to the child?

 

I would much rather that it never crossed my kids' mind that their school could be a site of terrorism / extreme violence.  Because in reality, that is extremely unlikely, even though it has happened a statistically small number of times.  They are much more likely (though still very unlikely) to be killed driving to and from school / activities.

[poppy]

Well let's say someone stole my car on Dec. 21, the day after I left for my vacation, and I didn't realize it until I returned on January 7, because no, I don't always know for 100% sure where my car is.  I know where I left it and I know it should still be there.  But if someone has taken it, I will not know that until the next time I go outside with the intention of driving it.

 

And I am not fighting against reasonable laws about responsibility for our guns.  I am speaking against unreasonable proposals, such as being held liable for a crime committed by my stolen gun if I haven't physically confirmed its whereabouts every single day.

 

 

I actually posted that exact scenario in one of my replies above..... if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun while you are on a 2 week Disney vacation, of course you're not liable. But in my scenario, you explain it to a judge. Let's not treat "I was on vacation when my gun got stolen" the exact same way as "I have 50 guns that I lost in the past 2 months oops".  Which is where we are right now.  Where we are right now makes the black market. 

 

Which,  of course , is why so many people  think they need to own a firearm, and why people think gun reform is impossible - so many illegal guns out there already. Which is why it is so frustrating to argue this point. 

[OrganicJen]

I actually posted that exact scenario in one of my replies above..... if someone breaks into your house and steals your gun while you are on a 2 week Disney vacation, of course you're not liable. But in my scenario, you explain it to a judge. Let's not treat "I was on vacation when my gun got stolen" the exact same way as "I have 50 guns that I lost in the past 2 months oops". Which is where we are right now. Where we are right now makes the black market.

 

Which, of course , is why so many people think they need to own a firearm, and why people think gun reform is impossible - so many illegal guns out there already. Which is why it is so frustrating to argue this point.

What I think makes a lot of these conversations frustrating personally, is that I feel like it's viewed as an all or none thing. Someone suggests something that for instance, could save a lot of children's lives. Then people point out the flaws, as there will always be some, and give scenarios where some children will still be killed. So unless all gun related deaths or gun related deaths of kids are going to be prevented by a law, then it seems that the argument is to not do anything because there will be ways around it for some or it wouldn't work in some scenarios. But the way I personally view it is that if a building full of kids was on fire, I would want to save as many as I could instead of not trying to save any at all just because there might be some who are hiding somewhere and I miss them or there might be some in an area of the building I can't get to, or I might get hurt etc. My plan for going in that building may not be perfect and may not save all of the kids, but at least it could save some and some parents won't bury their kids that week. It just feels like with the gun issue, one side comes up with ideas to try to save some, and the other side says no that won't work because it won't save everyone, and since no idea will be perfect and save everyone then nothing gets done and we just stand and watch the kids being burned in the building arguing about why this plan or that plan isn't perfect. I guess I feel like there is this requirement put out there that if there are any scenarios in which a plan or law might not be perfect and prevent all tragedies, then it's better to not change anything at all. That's the part that feels frustrating to me. I just think that just because an idea can't help everyone, it doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing for the ones who it can help. Preventing some kids from accidentally or intentionally killing themselves or others is worth it to me even if we can't stop every single kid from accessing a gun, and even if it means that laws that affect my gun ownership change because even though I own guns, they are just objects, and I'd be willing to sacrifice them if it meant decreasing the number of kids dying from guns and the number of parents who have to bury their children. I don't believe that we should do nothing unless we can prevent every tragedy...preventing just some tragedies is still a good thing. Anyway, that's just my opinion and I don't intend it as an attack on anyone. I just think all or none is an approach that doesn't get us anywhere because no solution will be perfect and there will always be scenarios in which some tragedies will still occur.

[SKL]

I also support reasonable measures that will save some lives.  But I do not support criminalizing reasonable behavior. 

 

"Explain it to the judge and maybe he will accept your explanation" is not acceptable to me in the situation being discussed above.  I should not have to be in court over something I did not do wrong.  If you'd ever been sued over a death that you were not involved in, you might understand the concern.  [We were joined to a wrongful death lawsuit on the basis that by hiring security guards to protect our patrons, we supported the idea of security guards, so it was partly our fault that a guy across the street was shot by a security guard we had no connection to.  While this was ridiculous, we had to hire a lawyer and fight it in court.  It was stressful, expensive, and stupid.  Also there is probably a public record somewhere saying we were allegedly involved in someone's murder.  Not cool.  The fact that the deceased has a grieving family does not make it more cool.]

[OrganicJen]

I think the way I view it in terms of liability, is that there are lots of things I can choose to own that increase my chances of a lawsuit so I weigh the pros and cons and decide if owning that thing is worth it or not. Although not a thing, my dog was pointed out to me as a liability by my insurance agent (she's a breed they restrict coverage for) and it made me think about the risks I accept by choosing to own her. Even if my yard is fenced but a kid in the neighborhood leaves my gate open and I don't realize, she could get out and knock someone down and hurt them and although I didn't do anything wrong and was responsible with her, my choice in owning her could lead to another person's injury and I could pay for it or at least have to defend myself. I think of it as a risk I'm willing to take by owning her. So if a law required I lock up my guns and store them a certain way or be held accountable, then it would just be a factor I would have to use in determining if the risk was worth it for me to own them, just like I do with my dog.

Edited January 25, 2018 by OrganicJen

[eternalsummer]

Putting aside moral responsibility, I think part of the issue is that the right to own a gun is in the Constitution.  It makes it harder, both public-perception wise and probably also legally, to put various limits on ownership (though of course there are already many).  There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car, or to own a dog, or anything else like that.  

 

It's similar in some ways to the difficulty in limiting the right to vote - anything that seems to restrict that right at all gets challenged vociferously from whatever side feels it would be infringed.  For example, many people oppose legislation requiring voter ID because they fear it would disenfranchise people who have trouble getting an ID; others want voter ID because they think their vote might be otherwise diluted by people who are voting illegally.  

Edited January 25, 2018 by eternalsummer

[Bluegoat]

Gun store owners and firearms dealers  are legally obligated to report any weapons that are stolen.

That is all I'm really asking for here.

If you gun is stolen, report it. 

Make it not ok to keep track of your firearms.

 

Criminals get guns from straw purchasers, mostly.  People buy guns with the intent on selling them for profit on the black market. If the gun is ever traced back to the original purchaser, he can can safely "oops I lost it".   200,000 guns PER YEAR are "lost".  If you get mad about illegal guns and criminals, get mad about straw purchasers and the black market, and maybe think of ways to change what's happening.

 

To me that's a more common sense solution than installing armed guards and metal detectors in every school.  And concert hall, and church, and wherever we have to protect ourselves next.

 

I think that it would be useful to have a good deal more information on what "lost" looks like.  I don't know that 'd assume that it was mostly guns stolen from a private house, even ones just just kept in a drawer.  

[OrganicJen]

Putting aside moral responsibility, I think part of the issue is that the right to own a gun is in the Constitution. It makes it harder, both public-perception wise and probably also legally, to put various limits on ownership (though of course there are already many). There is no constitutional right to own or drive a car, or to own a dog, or anything else like that.

 

It's similar in some ways to the difficulty in limiting the right to vote - anything that seems to restrict that right at all gets challenged vociferously from whatever side feels it would be infringed. For example, many people oppose legislation requiring voter ID because they fear it would disenfranchise people who have trouble getting an ID; others want voter ID because they think their vote might be otherwise diluted by people who are voting illegally.

That's a good point, but I think for me personally, when rights compete with each other such as the right to life vs right to own guns, that's where additional factors such as morality etc come into play and I feel that personally if my right to own guns means I have to accept certain restrictions and risks or choose not to exercise that right, but those restrictions will help ensure the right of life to others which I feel comes above all other rights, especially for children, then I'm personally okay with that.

[Bluegoat]

In general some type of penalty for not reporting a stolen firearm in a timely manner seems reasonable.  While it may seem draconian, we know that this loophole is being used to put firearms on the streets via straw purchases.

Locked up for life when be considered an extreme punishment, but a misdemeanor charge with a large fine seems reasonable. Doing so would cause legitimate gun owners to keep track of their guns (and I would wager this group would be largely unaffected by the law) but would make it difficult for those will ill intent to pass firearms on with a brush off response of "it was stolen".

 

A question seems to be, what is timely in this context?  If they are kept in a lock-up, and used once a year, it could be a while.  My thought would be upon discovery but that would maybe not be as useful at preventing guns being stolen as some might hope.

 

I think what people really object to is the idea that not reporting, or even not locking them up properly, equals being liable for a crime someone else decides to engage in.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A question seems to be, what is timely in this context?  If they are kept in a lock-up, and used once a year, it could be a while.  My thought would be upon discovery but that would maybe not be as useful at preventing guns being stolen as some might hope.

 

I think what people really object to is the idea that not reporting, or even not locking them up properly, equals being liable for a crime someone else decides to engage in.

 

Upon discovery would be the correct time.

 

The thing is the issue isn't really about guns that are actually stolen during actual burglaries - trust me the majority of the time those are the ones being reported.  (From personal experience if your home is burglarized one of the questions asked is if you have any guns and if so please check and see if they are missing.) The "it was stolen but I didn't report it defense" is being used to cover up black market sales.  If someone who was licensed to store dangerous chemicals used that same defense they would quickly lose their license.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by ChocolateReignRemix

[eternalsummer]

That's a good point, but I think for me personally, when rights compete with each other such as the right to life vs right to own guns, that's where additional factors such as morality etc come into play and I feel that personally if my right to own guns means I have to accept certain restrictions and risks or choose not to exercise that right, but those restrictions will help ensure the right of life to others which I feel comes above all other rights, especially for children, then I'm personally okay with that.

 

 

I can totally get the moral aspect of it, and people's differing feelings about their personal moral responsibility when it comes to guns or dogs or cars or anything.  I'm just saying that legally, to impose these moral ideas on other people in society, it is a lot easier with dogs or cars because there is no constitutional right to grapple with (or at least, not so explicit a constitutional right).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I can totally get the moral aspect of it, and people's differing feelings about their personal moral responsibility when it comes to guns or dogs or cars or anything.  I'm just saying that legally, to impose these moral ideas on other people in society, it is a lot easier with dogs or cars because there is no constitutional right to grapple with (or at least, not so explicit a constitutional right).

 

We already limit other Constitutional Rights (speech, religion, unreasonable search and seizure, etc) as needed to protect the welfare and safety of others.  So it can be done.

[eternalsummer]

Sure, but we are more careful about how we limit those rights than we are about how we limit the right to own a dog or drive a car, and I would say that there is in  general more resistance to change when it comes to constitutional rights than when it comes to more trivial things.

[OrganicJen]

I can totally get the moral aspect of it, and people's differing feelings about their personal moral responsibility when it comes to guns or dogs or cars or anything. I'm just saying that legally, to impose these moral ideas on other people in society, it is a lot easier with dogs or cars because there is no constitutional right to grapple with (or at least, not so explicit a constitutional right).

Yep it definitely makes it a more complicated issue. For me, amendments to the constitution in and of themselves show that it is meant to and can be amended as needed. We amend it as we learn and grow as a society just as we have always done with the constitution...so I find it ironic when people want to fight so hard on a constitutional issue that was an amendment in the first place and argue that because the constitution says so, there can be no change or progress...like they are arguing that it's in the constitution so it can never change, yet it's an amendment and therefore a change and there have been lots of amendments as we as society have progressed. So yes, I totally agree that the constitutional issues make it more complicated for sure...but, if the constitution was meant to be set in stone forever and not ever amended as the world and our society changes and learns, then it's scary to think where we would be. Anyway, it just feels to me like we are still so far from change and too many kids are dying and people are suffering because our society is so divided. I own guns and if a law were created that could save lives and it made it where I didn't feel it was worth it to keep them anymore because of the remote possibility of being held responsible for another person's death, I would be fine with taking that risk or giving them up. I think there are other gun owners out there too who feel the same way but those of us who do are typically not the most vocal of the gun owners. I feel there should be a lot of restrictions including the types and number of guns private citizens can even own and honestly, if they banned all guns and philanthropists paid thousands for each gun turned in to be melted down and destroyed I'd actually be fine with that too. I'd be okay with only bear spray and my dogs and if mountain lions got to some of my cows then that would be okay to and I'd find another way to deal with it. I don't condemn people who disagree with me or think they are immoral, I think we all just have our own perspectives from our own lives and experiences and beliefs that guide our personal moral compass. I wish I could see in the future to know how this all turns out in a few hundred years.

[eternalsummer]

Sure, eventually you could see an amendment to change or erase the 2nd - but I don't see it happening now, or any time soon.  The first 10 are I think harder to change than the subsequent ones (not in legal/procedural terms, but in functional terms - they are enshrined in a way).

[eternalsummer]

Well, I'd be okay with the government looking through my internet history and listening to all of my phone calls.

 

But the criteria for doing away with the Bill of Rights isn't whether one person (or even a fair number of people) are comfortable with it.

[OrganicJen]

Really, you'd be okay with losing your entire year's income to bears, lions, coyotes, and bobcats? I'm not. Come out tonight, at 0200 when the lion challenges my dog to take the sheep, again. Just like every night. You can join me in collecting lambs ripped in half and having horses put down with their hindquarters eaten.

Yes I would be okay with it. And yes I have had livestock killed by mountain lions. At the point we have reached with mass shootings and constant gun deaths, I feel okay with being restricted to a shotgun or no gun at all if it is for the greater good of our society as whole. I honestly am not desensitized to all these shootings, they are heart wrenching and I'm willing to make changes in my life if it helps to prevent them. I'm fine if laws make it so I can't own a gun at all and have to pay someone who is allowed to, to hunt the mountain lion for me or whatever the rules say I should do. Honestly, anything is better than all these kids dying.

[clementine]

https://www.denverpost.com/2013/12/23/columbine-parent-how-do-we-stop-the-next-school-shooting/

 

This article is old, but very good.

[OrganicJen]

I don't really understand articles like that. I guess what throws me is that there are bullies in lots of other countries too, but the countries with gun restrictions and different cultural beliefs about guns don't have mass school shootings, so why wouldn't we look to the variable of guns instead of the constant of bullying?

[swimmermom3]

I can totally get the moral aspect of it, and people's differing feelings about their personal moral responsibility when it comes to guns or dogs or cars or anything.  I'm just saying that legally, to impose these moral ideas on other people in society, it is a lot easier with dogs or cars because there is no constitutional right to grapple with (or at least, not so explicit a constitutional right).

 

Yet we continuously debate denying women the right to make reproductive choices with their own bodies, sometimes to the point of denying them their own life based on a personal sense of morality. Often these are the very gun owners who don't see a level of morality and personal responsibility in leaving a loaded gun on the nightstand. I don't know. 

 

ETA: I appreciate your posts and am not looking for a debate on the above topic. Just sort trying to think it through in reference to your initial point.

Edited January 25, 2018 by swimmermom3

[OrganicJen]

Well, I'd be okay with the government looking through my internet history and listening to all of my phone calls.

 

But the criteria for doing away with the Bill of Rights isn't whether one person (or even a fair number of people) are comfortable with it.

I don't think anyone wants to do away with the bill of rights, just to acknowledge that it's okay to amend the constitution as we have always done as we have felt it was needed.

[swimmermom3]

Really, you'd be okay with losing your entire year's income to bears, lions, coyotes, and bobcats? I'm not. Come out tonight, at 0200 when the lion challenges my dog to take the sheep, again. Just like every night. You can join me in collecting lambs ripped in half and having horses put down with their hindquarters eaten. 

 

:grouphug: I'm sorry, Margaret.

[eternalsummer]

Yet we continuously debate denying women the right to make reproductive choices with their own bodies, sometimes to the point of denying them their own life based on a personal sense of morality. Often these are the very gun owners who don't see a level of morality and personal responsibility in leaving a loaded gun on the nightstand. I don't know. 

 

ETA: I appreciate your posts and am not looking for a debate on the above topic. Just sort trying to think it through in reference to your initial point.

 

Well, I think the issue with this, at least among conservatives (which I am), is that the right to privacy, which is the part of the constitution on which the right to an abortion is guaranteed, doesn't seem to be (to me) justification for legalized abortion.  I think this is because many pro-life people think differently about the essential nature of a fetus or embryo than pro-choice people do, at least that is my understanding.

 

So it's not a matter of a personal sense of morality, for pro-life people, any more than the right of a 2 year old to life is a matter of a personal sense of morality.  It's more of a disagreement about to whom our common moral beliefs apply, I think.

[eternalsummer]

I don't think anyone wants to do away with the bill of rights, just to acknowledge that it's okay to amend the constitution as we have always done as we have felt it was needed.

 

 

I guess I meant one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, not the thing as a whole :)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Really, you'd be okay with losing your entire year's income to bears, lions, coyotes, and bobcats? I'm not. Come out tonight, at 0200 when the lion challenges my dog to take the sheep, again. Just like every night. You can join me in collecting lambs ripped in half and having horses put down with their hindquarters eaten.

 

 

 

 

Yes I would be okay with it. And yes I have had livestock killed by mountain lions. At the point we have reached with mass shootings and constant gun deaths, I feel okay with being restricted to a shotgun or no gun at all if it is for the greater good of our society as whole. I honestly am not desensitized to all these shootings, they are heart wrenching and I'm willing to make changes in my life if it helps to prevent them. I'm fine if laws make it so I can't own a gun at all and have to pay someone who is allowed to, to hunt the mountain lion for me or whatever the rules say I should do. Honestly, anything is better than all these kids dying.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that farmers and ranchers should divest themselves of arms to protect domestic livestock from wild animals. Loss of property, loss of wealth, and tremendous suffering on the part of the animals are not usually the goals, nor usually considered acceptable fallout, of gun control debates.

[OrganicJen]

I guess I meant one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, not the thing as a whole :)

I still would prefer we just agree on restrictions that will help and not just ban and destroy all guns or ban private citizen's guns, but my point is that even if it came to that, I'd be okay with giving them up. If we as a society come to that decision and it can save lives, then fine, I'll give them up. I really just think we have gotten so out of hand that if it takes getting rid if them all then fine with me, I'll make whatever changes I need to in order to deal with it.

[eternalsummer]

The thing is, when you say fine, let the government have this massive control contrary to my Constitutional rights, we must save the children! - it makes sense and I get it.  I feel the same way about government surveillance - prevent another terrorist attack, read all of my emails and listen to all of my phone calls and follow me around everywhere; I might be inconvenienced but it's worth it (to me).  

 

The problem is that when the shoe is on the other foot - when you've given the government the power to override individual liberty in this situation, because the results are worth it to you - a government doesn't always stop there, and some day the other side is in power and you're @#$%ed.

[OrganicJen]

 

 

 

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that farmers and ranchers should divest themselves of arms to protect domestic livestock from wild animals. Loss of property, loss of wealth, and tremendous suffering on the part of the animals are not usually the goals, nor usually considered acceptable fallout, of gun control debates.

I would not expect to be left in a situation where my livestock could be killed and nothing could be done about it, my point is that if I as a private citizen could not own a gun to protect them anymore, I would be okay with someone who is employed for that purpose doing it instead. I would expect there would have to be certain jobs where guns would be required even if private citizens couldn't have them. I'm wouldn't think our country would agree to me not owning a gun anymore without a solution for protecting my livestock and I would be fine having to have a livestock predator management official allowed to have guns and pay them to do it for me if it came to that. I'm fine with changes like that if it's what has to be done. We have mountain lions and bears and our cows are small dexters but if there has to be a solution whwre I don't personally get to own a gun then I'm willing with how severe the problem has become to make changes.

[swimmermom3]

Actually, that's not it.  I mean, sometimes it is, but not always.

 

Sometimes it's....I disagree with doing THAT because of these problems. 

 

Sometimes it's...ok, I see X problem with THAT, so how would we get around that.

 

Sometimes it's ...I see X problem with THAT, so is X problem WORTH dealing with to solve Y.

 

Sometimes it's....first, lets make sure that Y is actually a real problem before we do THAT.

 

Sometimes, it's a combination of all of the above.

 

I said in an earlier post, I don't necessarily disagree with the concept of requiring people to report a lost or stolen gun.  But, what does that actually MEAN?  Does it mean you go to jail?  Does it mean you pay a fine?  Does it mean you are only in trouble if your lost/stolen gun is used in a crime?

 

Devil's in the details.

 

I have said in previous threads, I do think there are things that could be done.  I just think it's important to make sure that what laws do get passed are effective, non redundant, and don't cause more problems than they fix.  But it feels like some people feel like getting ANY law passed is better than nothing and that discussing to make sure that the laws that get passed will WORK....takes so long it's like doing nothing. 

 

The only way to do the part in bold is to keep talking to the other side, not just preaching to the choir. OrganicJen said it much more eloquently than I have on both gun threads about the "all or nothing" folks.  I agree with you in that passing an ineffective law just to pass a law, is pointless. It is also the equivalent of refusing to do anything.

 

I don't think that someone who shoots twice a year should have to check on the location of their guns every day. However, if you have kids in the house, especially teens, you might want to look a little more often. How or if to legislate that, I don't know.

 

If you are the idiot that left your loaded gun out and your 3rd grader puts it in his backpack, takes it to school, and accidentally drops the bag which sets off the gun, striking a classmate in the abdomen, you should get to go to jail and pay for medical expenses. If you are the guy cleaning his gun in an apartment and the gun goes off accidentally, goes through the wall and strikes another tenant, you are liable.  

 

When drivers screw up and have too many tickets or a drunk driving offense, they often have to go take safety classes. Why can't gun owners do the same?  I know, these are just small things and they don't get to the root of the violence.

 

You asked earlier if it was as black and white as scarcity being the difference in gun violence in other countries. I think to a certain extent that "fear of the other" does come in to play as well as culture.

 

Switzerland has a lot of guns and the same "don't take my guns attitude" we have, but the culture around guns seems to be quite different. Guns are elevated to a fetish level in this country. There is a lot of emphasis on "sexy," "manly," "powerful," "dangerous," "rebel," "hero," and "patriot." Unfortunately for me, several of the gun owners I know IRL are big, loud-mouthed asshole men who get a charge out of intimidating others. Did I mention, short-fused? Which is why it's good for me to come here and talk to women gun owners.

 

Sorry, Happy. Still thinking out loud. I should probably quit doing that. :tongue_smilie:

[swimmermom3]

I still would prefer we just agree on restrictions that will help and not just ban and destroy all guns or ban private citizen's guns, but my point is that even if it came to that, I'd be okay with giving them up. If we as a society come to that decision and it can save lives, then fine, I'll give them up. I really just think we have gotten so out of hand that if it takes getting rid if them all then fine with me, I'll make whatever changes I need to in order to deal with it.

 

I don't want to ban guns. I think ranchers should keep their guns. Sport shooting at the range? Fine. Hunting? Fine.

 

What I think I want to see is the reasonable and responsible gun owners say, " We recognize that gun violence is out of hand. Here is what we think can reasonably be done and that we are willing to do to counteract some of the violence." Don't laugh, please.

 

It's a lot different than "Don't touch my effing guns. Dead kids are just the price you all pay for my freedom. Mass shootings are God's will."

 

Why can't gun ownership be handled like car ownership? Yes, I know, car ownership isn't in the Constitution. Why can't the nearly 8 million people with 8-140 guns have a special license with extra precautions. Kind of like getting your commercial driver's license. License, register, background check, no felons or domestic violence folks, and safety classes. Penalties if you are stupid and negligent. 

 

I understand that after every mass shooting, gun owners feel like non gun owners want to throw a bunch of legislation at them and non gun owners view  gun owners as callous and unfeeling, refusing to concede on anything.

 

Why can't there be a middle ground?

 

I think I am having a Pollyanna day. :tongue_smilie:

Edited January 25, 2018 by swimmermom3

[OrganicJen]

My perspective is different. I feel like 1 was too many. I remember after Columbine that all I heard at first was that this is unacceptable and our country would not stand for this and there would be sweeping reform to make sure it couldn't happen again. But then we did stand for it, and there wasn't sweeping reform, and from my perspective it just feels like we've decided that this is America where we have certain individual liberties and by the way, your kid may get shot but that's the price we pay. I don't feel any number of school shootings are okay and I think after one we entered the realm of "a lot." I just have a different perspective about what is a lot of kids getting shot. It is definitely a complicated isdue but going back to the all or nothing thing, I just think when we always find a reason that a solution isn't perfect instead of giving in and making some sacrifices in order to stop our kid's from being sacrificed, we just won't make progress and it keeps shifting the focus from our kids right to life, to our right to bear arms. I really believed what I was hearing after Columbine that there would be sweeping reform but it feels like we just decided the consequences of sweeping reform were too great.

[QueenCat]

NM 

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by QueenCat

[swimmermom3]

Never mind. I think I am getting tired and slow-witted.

 

Edited January 25, 2018 by swimmermom3

[MotherGoose]

So, OJ, you'd be okay with the bear chasing your children? You know, since you'd be waiting 6+ months for the approved hunter to get there. Or being scared to walk to the barn after dark unless there were three of you since you can't be armed when the coyote leaps out at you when you open the door? Oh wait, having three of you would make no difference then. He just takes the closest one. Or not being able to shoot the rabid coon who is killing your flock in front of you? Do you have coywolves yet? Think as big as wolves, smart as coyotes, but with some dog genes so there's NO fear of of humans at all. They kill for fun, taking 60+ sheep a night. I have a friend who had to get out of the business altogether. He had the largest flock of registered Shetlands in the US. No longer. Maybe you have DOW officers who will come out at 0330 night after night. I have a DOW officer just 2 miles up the road. Last time we called him--it was two weeks before he showed up. By then, they won't pay because the coyotes had gotten to the carcasses and they don't pay on varmint kills. And they don't pay when the lion takes 6 of your registered animals. Period. I don't know where you live, but where *I* live, we might as well just shoot the whole herd/flock now, as if we're waiting for DOW to come take care of predators, we'd be laughed at. Someone mentioned being able to retain shotguns. A hint: don't ever shoot a bear with one. You'll be dined on by a very angry bear!

Agree. When a crisis strikes with animals, you don't have time to call someone. My crises also normally occur when my husband isn't home, so that leaves me to have to deal with it.

[swimmermom3]

Agree. When a crisis strikes with animals, you don't have time to call someone. My crises also normally occur when my husband isn't home, so that leaves me to have to deal with it.

 

With kids too. I think there is a law somewhere.

[MotherGoose]

My perspective is different. I feel like 1 was too many. I remember after Columbine that all I heard at first was that this is unacceptable and our country would not stand for this and there would be sweeping reform to make sure it couldn't happen again. But then we did stand for it, and there wasn't sweeping reform, and from my perspective it just feels like we've decided that this is America where we have certain individual liberties and by the way, your kid may get shot but that's the price we pay. I don't feel any number of school shootings are okay and I think after one we entered the realm of "a lot." I just have a different perspective about what is a lot of kids getting shot. It is definitely a complicated isdue but going back to the all or nothing thing, I just think when we always find a reason that a solution isn't perfect instead of giving in and making some sacrifices in order to stop our kid's from being sacrificed, we just won't make progress and it keeps shifting the focus from our kids right to life, to our right to bear arms. I really believed what I was hearing after Columbine that there would be sweeping reform but it feels like we just decided the consequences of sweeping reform were too great.

What if the sacrifices and reforms were in the area of comprehensive mental health services for everyone and aggressive anti bullying legislation and treatment? People don't commit mass murder unless they are very troubled, and most of the school shootings are related to bullying. Normal people have guns to hunt, to target practice, to protect themselves. Normal people don't bully, normal people aren't cruel. I know that kids aren't kind, always, but I'm talking about it rising to such a level that this sort of retailiation occurs. People who are criminals or mentally ill kill people. The rights of people to refuse mental health treatment are well documented. Perhaps those rights should be revisited. I am not necessarily a proponent of what I'm saying, but I do think it should be considered. If you have a right to own or not own guns, you have a right to comply with or refuse mental health treatment. They are all rights that the government can take away.

[poppy]

Ok, so....if the question is "no number of school shootings is -ok-"  Then what is a school shooting defined as? 

 

If we want to find a solution to a problem.....we need to know just what the problem is. 

 

I'm confused by this.

Do you not know?

Or are you playing devil's advocate on the "pro" side of school shootings?

Or are you pretending to be the only rational person in the room?

 

[eternalsummer]

I think she's saying, for the purposes of the discussion, some of the things counted as "school shootings" probably shouldn't be counted (or maybe they all should, but it is a broader definition than many people probably think they are working with).  On the other hand, there is a somewhat fuzzy area - when you think of a school shooting, or when I do, I think: disturbed kid brings a gun to school and kills a bunch of other kids.  I don't think: gang shootout in the hallway after school.  I don't think: suicide (with no one else shot or shot at).  I don't think: accidental discharge of weapon at community college training center.

 

But maybe the gang shootout, at least, should be included.  Maybe the suicide should be included.  Hard to say exactly, but should be defined specifically I guess.

[swimmermom3]

The thing is, when you say fine, let the government have this massive control contrary to my Constitutional rights, we must save the children! - it makes sense and I get it.  I feel the same way about government surveillance - prevent another terrorist attack, read all of my emails and listen to all of my phone calls and follow me around everywhere; I might be inconvenienced but it's worth it (to me).  

 

The problem is that when the shoe is on the other foot - when you've given the government the power to override individual liberty in this situation, because the results are worth it to you - a government doesn't always stop there, and some day the other side is in power and you're @#$%ed.

 

I get what you are saying, but isn't this exactly what we are asking for in banning abortion? How do you enforce that without the government? You will take taxpayer dollars to incarcerate pregnant women? You will go through their medical files. Deny them birth control. Leave them with an abusive husband who's furious at their pregnancy?  Chose what treatments they can have. Perhaps you will take their children from them? You will institutionalize those that are mentally ill so that they don't harm the fetus. They are already in jail. If they are sexually assaulted or emotionally abused anywhere in there, it's okay. They are criminals. You will use the government to tell a husband that his wife must die in order to satisfy your moral code. Now, when the broodmares are done delivering their product, you'll need a system to take care of those babies. That's where the government again steps in, right?  Government nurseries? So, it's okay to use the government to deny women their very existence and to completely upturn and potentially destroy their lives, but not to limit Jim Bob from owning 250 guns?

 

I think I need nachos and vodka.

[eternalsummer]

I think the idea with banning abortion is that, for people who see the fetus as having an equivalent right to life as a 2 year old, you're just banning killing an innocent human being, which we already do.

 

Jim Bob with the 200 guns is a separate question - for people who believe in the right to own 200 guns, I think they see it as a morally neutral proposition (that is to say, they don't think Jim Bob with the guns is hurting anyone or violating any moral code).

[Bluegoat]

Upon discovery would be the correct time.

 

The thing is the issue isn't really about guns that are actually stolen during actual burglaries - trust me the majority of the time those are the ones being reported.  (From personal experience if your home is burglarized one of the questions asked is if you have any guns and if so please check and see if they are missing.) The "it was stolen but I didn't report it defense" is being used to cover up black market sales.  If someone who was licensed to store dangerous chemicals used that same defense they would quickly lose their license.

 

Yes, but this is what I was getting at - if upon discovery was the rule, they could fairly easily claim that they did not realize the gun was missing.  Which I think would decrease the utility in terms of eliminating those people as owners.

[swimmermom3]

I think the idea with banning abortion is that, for people who see the fetus as having an equivalent right to life as a 2 year old, you're just banning killing an innocent human being, which we already do.

 

Jim Bob with the 200 guns is a separate question - for people who believe in the right to own 200 guns, I think they see it as a morally neutral proposition (that is to say, they don't think Jim Bob with the guns is hurting anyone or violating any moral code).

 

But you are using the government in a way that is also outside the Constitution. You are basically consigning women of child-bearing years to be wards of the state. When I hear that it's okay to kill a woman through medical neglect or to destroy her life by taking away her depression medication or making her lose her job, or destroying her family, I completely do not understand the label of pro-life. Destroying another human being has moral consequences, no matter the age. Do you not think that making women no more than cattle, will not have far reaching consequences. You yourself said that when you give the government tremendous control over your life, it goes too far. Perhaps we will need to sterilize an inferior broodmare with autism. 

 

You tell me to ignore the fact that gun control works elsewhere. Will you ignore the fact that abortion bans do not work elsewhere?

[eternalsummer]

I didn't say anything about gun control working elsewhere; I'm reasonably certain I haven't posted any significant opinions about gun control on this thread, but I could be wrong.

 

I also have zero interest in debating abortion on these forums.

 

I was just addressing the way in which people who are opposed to abortion rights can also be supportive of broad gun rights; again, generally speaking, they see a fetus as having the same right to life as a newborn.  Some differ in the ways you can limit that right, and for what reasons, but on the whole they tend to think that the fetus is as entitled to not be killed as a newborn or child.  People who also believe in less restrictive gun rights (in specific, the right of Jim Bob to own 200 guns, provided Jim Bob is not a felon, etc.) do not see the owning of guns as causing harm in the same way that they see the destruction of the fetus as causing harm.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, but this is what I was getting at - if upon discovery was the rule, they could fairly easily claim that they did not realize the gun was missing.  Which I think would decrease the utility in terms of eliminating those people as owners.

 

Once again - we have tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!

[Bluegoat]

Once again - we have tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!

 

Um - no.

 

Saying that I'm not sure that idea will accomplish what you want really doesn't mean nothing can be done, nor does it mean that I think that.  That seems quite a logical leap.

 

You can always , if you have a reason to think it would work in that way,  say why, I'd be interested to hear.

[swimmermom3]

I didn't say anything about gun control working elsewhere; I'm reasonably certain I haven't posted any significant opinions about gun control on this thread, but I could be wrong.

 

I also have zero interest in debating abortion on these forums.

 

I was just addressing the way in which people who are opposed to abortion rights can also be supportive of broad gun rights; again, generally speaking, they see a fetus as having the same right to life as a newborn.  Some differ in the ways you can limit that right, and for what reasons, but on the whole they tend to think that the fetus is as entitled to not be killed as a newborn or child.  People who also believe in less restrictive gun rights (in specific, the right of Jim Bob to own 200 guns, provided Jim Bob is not a felon, etc.) do not see the owning of guns as causing harm in the same way that they see the destruction of the fetus as causing harm.

 

I am sorry. I didn't mean you personally except to address the use of government to limit rights. 

[swimmermom3]

The thing is, when you say fine, let the government have this massive control contrary to my Constitutional rights, we must save the children! - it makes sense and I get it.  I feel the same way about government surveillance - prevent another terrorist attack, read all of my emails and listen to all of my phone calls and follow me around everywhere; I might be inconvenienced but it's worth it (to me).  

 

The problem is that when the shoe is on the other foot - when you've given the government the power to override individual liberty in this situation, because the results are worth it to you - a government doesn't always stop there, and some day the other side is in power and you're @#$%ed.

 

I can't let this go. I had class and I still haven't had the nachos and vodka. We can't give government massive control to our Constitutional rights, to save the children (and adults) because Jim Bob needs his gun/s, but...we can give government massive control to women's Constitutional rights, to save children?

 

The logic continues to escape me.

[eternalsummer]

I guess I would say, you've already given the government massive control to prosecute murderers, right?  For the issue of Jim Bob having guns, the idea is that Jim Bob hasn't hurt anyone by owning the guns.  For people who see abortion as morally wrong, they see the commission of abortion as hurting other people in much the same way (for some of them, exactly the same way) that murderers hurt other people.

 

That is not to say that abortion isn't a thornier issue, because a pregnancy does impact a woman (and I doubt that more than a tiny fraction of pro-life proponents think women who have abortions should be prosecuted for murder).  But for them, the right to live is the same or very close to the same for the fetus as for the newborn, so violating that right by killing the fetus is a different category of action from owning a gun with which you never kill anyone.

 

Of course, most pro-gun people (all?  almost all?) would say that if you kill someone innocent with the gun, you should be prosecuted for murder.  But just owning the gun isn't the same level of culpability as killing someone.