Another US mass shooting

Remove this Banner Ad

Genuine question:
When you mention freedom fighting and pioneering are you referring to the American Revolution and the wild west era?

I can't think of more recent/any examples of freedom fighting (maybe the civil war?) but nothing from the mid 19th century onwards. Interesting if the way that is taught in schools is prominent in the American psyche as a rationale for wanting guns.

I understand the 2nd amendment but are the same individuals as passionate to not amend something like the 7th amendment? The right to a civil jury trial if the value of the case is worth more than $20 - with that $20 remaining unchanged since it was ratified in 1791.
Yes actually I am referring to the earlier eras. As a kid in the 60s, Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett were on TV and movies, and I had a coonskin hat and a toy flintlock that fired caps when I maybe 5-7. I had those Classic Comics of the Last of the Mohicans and similar stuff. Don't forget F- Troop. :) Our national identity and myths were based on settling a new continent. I visited some French and Indian War battlesites as well then. Of course the old west is rife it too. From the pioneering defending themselves against 'savages', massacres, gunfighters, and so on, it is just part of the history we're taught and in entertainment we consumed. Westerns and WW2 movies dominated. They were hero figures.
The Civil War of course is huge, but oddly not from a glorification of the fighting standpoint. Maybe more of an aloof view of battles, strategies, and slavery. Post Vietnam, maybe things changed as we entered the information age.
I talking in gross generalities. I was outer suburban kid from a family that was very outdoorsy. My grandparents hunted deer and gamebirds. They never kept a trophy, just froze what they didn't right away for when we visited. I fished with them every summer. My friends and I all had bb guns for plinking things in the surrounding countryside. My dad took me to a gun safety course when I was in junior high. Maybe more urban kids would have had different experiences.
But I have to maintain that gun are deeply a part of at least the earlier generations subconscious. Maybe millennials and younger, through more choices, received different cultural training.

As to the amendments, my take is that 2nd is now a deeply politicized issue with little chance of anything being done either way. However, if a political group decide to make the 7th a hot topic, like what happened to abortions and guns, then maybe they will be hot to change it.
I've posted before on the topic; I have many friends with guns. They have all been responsible owners as far I have seen, mostly support a lot of the proposed restrictions. Even the guys with ARs and AKs, who have them purely because they could, are not the 'from my cold, dead hands' types. They are just boys with bb guns grown up. Instead of fixing up old cars, they go out to ranges or the open prairie and shoot at targets.
Its a numbers game to me. There will always be a certain number of people who lose their s**t and act out in some violent way. Having more guns around means the higher likelihood they will be used is those situations, to deadlier effect than say a knife or hammer. Fewer guns, few casualties. The problems as I stated before, you will never be able to get them back now. They need to target the manufacture and trade in the military types, the smaller machine pistils types, etc. Try to at least get back to only hunting and sport target shooting types.
 
Yes actually I am referring to the earlier eras. As a kid in the 60s...

Thanks for taking your time on such a detailed reply.
As an outsider looking in, it's hard to disagree with your assessment.

I'd probably like to throw in one last variable which is the impact of Communism on US culture. From religion to its modern relationship with guns I think some of these societal trends formed as a defence against that.
It'd be fascinating to see a parallel universe where post WWII US isn't obsessed with Communism and whether that would have an impact on modern day USA.

Agreed though that in the real world today it's very much political and the genie is well and truly out of the bottle with guns. Hard to see a pathway back.
 
Thanks for taking your time on such a detailed reply.
As an outsider looking in, it's hard to disagree with your assessment.

I'd probably like to throw in one last variable which is the impact of Communism on US culture. From religion to its modern relationship with guns I think some of these societal trends formed as a defence against that.
It'd be fascinating to see a parallel universe where post WWII US isn't obsessed with Communism and whether that would have an impact on modern day USA.

Agreed though that in the real world today it's very much political and the genie is well and truly out of the bottle with guns. Hard to see a pathway back.
In my lifetime, communism was only ever the bogeyman. The Vietnam domino, Reagan and the fall of the wall, and finally China's switch to capitalism. I remember being taught it was a idealistic social model that can't work in the real, especially with large populations. 'Communist' countries were just authoritarian dictatorships using communism as tool for control.
IIRC Communism had some traction in the early 20th century in the labor movement. It started getting demonized then I think as a defense by factory owning class. Then McCarthy used it for political warfare at the onset of the Cold War. Regardless I don't think it would ever have taken off, hippie communes aside. Animal Farm is used at schools for a reason; it is what happens in the real world.
 

Log in to remove this ad.


Half of me thinks that this is just a sop towards doing something after the act. But also if it could be a way of holding accountable gun owners from not securing their weapons in the home (especially after their son was showing signs of mental health issues).
I suppose it would vary from state to state but if it was national law it could at least say to gun owners we are not stopping you from owning guns but you are fully responsible for their use while they are in your possession. It might make people think a bit more.
 

Half of me thinks that this is just a sop towards doing something after the act. But also if it could be a way of holding accountable gun owners from not securing their weapons in the home (especially after their son was showing signs of mental health issues).
I suppose it would vary from state to state but if it was national law it could at least say to gun owners we are not stopping you from owning guns but you are fully responsible for their use while they are in your possession. It might make people think a bit more.
I guess if it's not guns that kill people but people that kill people, then they may as well go after the people that facilitate the people killing people. Maybe it's just taken this long for them to realise that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
 

Half of me thinks that this is just a sop towards doing something after the act. But also if it could be a way of holding accountable gun owners from not securing their weapons in the home (especially after their son was showing signs of mental health issues).
I suppose it would vary from state to state but if it was national law it could at least say to gun owners we are not stopping you from owning guns but you are fully responsible for their use while they are in your possession. It might make people think a bit more.

Yep, might stop the next dumb parent from literally supplying the weapon.
 
Yep, might stop the next dumb parent from literally supplying the weapon.
Blaming the people that bought the perfectly legal product seems a good way of deflecting attention from the real problem and with American justice seemingly the way it is, represents a good opportunity to criminalise some but not others.
 
Defense attorneys have said James Crumbley did not know Ethan knew where to find the gun at home and that school officials seemed more concerned about him harming himself, not others.

what a weird defense, yeah the gun wasn't locked away but how was I to know that the kid knew where it was, and why should i have even cared when the school seemed to think he was only going to shoot himself anyway
 
Blaming the people that bought the perfectly legal product seems a good way of deflecting attention from the real problem and with American justice seemingly the way it is, represents a good opportunity to criminalise some but not others.
Agree…
but in this case, didn’t the dad gift an 15 year old a gun… obviously with bullets

I’m fine with going for the parents in this case .

Easy, don’t gift a gun to your teenager. Probably won’t be charged then.
 
Yep, might stop the next dumb parent from literally supplying the weapon.

You mean 'Stop the parents from assisting their child to exercise his or her 2nd amendment rights'.

It shifts the blame to parents in a way I'm not comfortable with.

Imagine you're a single mother, inner city, working 3 jobs on (US) minimum wage just to make ends meet. Your childs father is in prison and was never around when he wasn't. Your child is hanging with the wrong crowd, and not listening to you.

Is it fair you go to prison when he shoots someone during some gang related bullshit?
 
You mean 'Stop the parents from assisting their child to exercise his or her 2nd amendment rights'.

It shifts the blame to parents in a way I'm not comfortable with.

Imagine you're a single mother, inner city, working 3 jobs on (US) minimum wage just to make ends meet. Your childs father is in prison and was never around when he wasn't. Your child is hanging with the wrong crowd, and not listening to you.

Is it fair you go to prison when he shoots someone during some gang related bullshit?
If it is a firearm you purchased and failed to store correctly, yes.
 
Ok, so should parents also be responsible when their teenage kids on P plates get drunk and kill someone on the road?
If they got the alcohol from home sure. Remembering this is the USA context with an odd by our standards approach to alcohol too.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Agree to disagree then.

For mine, all this precedent does is shift the blame for gun massacres onto parents who are all too often powerless to do anything to stop it.

The real culprit is the second amendment, not the parents.
oh agree, and the corrupt supreme court who wont do squat, fellating the gun lobby as they do.
but something to discourage the possession of firearms is still worthwhile
 
but something to discourage the possession of firearms is still worthwhile

By sacrificing a few families to the power of the same SCOTUS and gun lobby to achieve?

The mum in this matter was particularly hard done by. All she did was try to ensure gun safety by taking him to the range.

Ill be interested to see if the parents seek leave to appeal to the SCOTUS under a 2A argument.
 
By sacrificing a few families to the power of the same SCOTUS and gun lobby to achieve?

The mum in this matter was particularly hard done by. All she did was try to ensure gun safety by taking him to the range.

Ill be interested to see if the parents seek leave to appeal to the SCOTUS under a 2A argument.
if they have too much fear to purchase the gun in the first place, there may be some small benefit. That is all.
 
Ok, so should parents also be responsible when their teenage kids on P plates get drunk and kill someone on the road?
Not necessarily, maybe if they knew the kid was drunk and tossed them keys regardless, but imo ownership of a gun comes with a different level of responsibility because a gun is solely designed to kill, whereas a car is merely a means of transportation.
 
It's just feeding into the idea that the individual is always the problem and not the system.

We don't need to change anything we just need to keep punishing individuals

Agree with this in general

But in this case, their son was calling out for help. His diary entry a year prior he said “that he needed help for his mental health “but my parents don’t listen to me so I can’t get any help”


They then buy him a gun. As a gift. Leave it accessible.



He draws a picture. On a maths assignment.
On the drawing of a shooting he writes “The thoughts won’t stop. Help me. Blood everywhere. The world is dead.”

Teacher is alarmed - calls parents in.
Suggests they take him home to get some help. Parents cut the meeting short. Go to work.


Same day, goes to class. He kills 4 innocent students. Their families will never, ever recover.


maybe it stops the next dumb parent buying their teenager a gun.
 
It's just feeding into the idea that the individual is always the problem and not the system.

We don't need to change anything we just need to keep punishing individuals
Isn't this an example of the system changing though? As in fine, we can't seem to do anything about free-for-all gun laws because of the broken political system, but we can do something about the inevitable consequences by using existing law
 
Not necessarily, maybe if they knew the kid was drunk and tossed them keys regardless, but imo ownership of a gun comes with a different level of responsibility because a gun is solely designed to kill, whereas a car is merely a means of transportation.

A gun is one of the most pointless non essential items to function on a day to day basis.

There is no logical reason/benefit for civilian ownership of a gun
 
Ok, so should parents also be responsible when their teenage kids on P plates get drunk and kill someone on the road?
I know I replied earlier, but then was watching an older US sitcom
In that they referenced if a minor (think partying 19-20 year olds) was to get drunk on alcohol in their house then go and crash the car while drunk they (the parents) would be liable

then went looking for parental responsibility laws and found this article



and according to this site parental responsibility laws have been a thing since 1846.
Which means that this is really an extension of existing laws in the USA, so not such a huge bridge for them (I don't think Australia has equivalent but also I'm no lawyer)
 
Not a mass shooting but a tragic shooting of an unarmed innocent 15 year old kidnap victim by California Police that happened in 2022. The video and audio footage just released shows she was shot by one of seven deputies after escaping from the vehicle and following clear instructions to move toward them.

Take a look at just how many shots are fired by police during the incident - many of them hitting the verge and crowded highway surrounding the incident. The death of an innocent victim all but assured by their shot-happy idiocy.

The willingness of law officers in the US to irrationally use their firearms in some sort of first resort herd mentality is very much a part of the US gun control problem.

 
I watched something where the presenter said that in some places in the US, the police are told to fire as much as possible all at once so later on they can say they panicked.

Accompanied by body cam footage of two cops scaling some front stairs and shooting full magazines down an enclosed front porch in the dark. It was the person who lived there just entering their house.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top