Mother of school shooter found guilty.

A surprise verdict by the jury. Now parents can be found responsible for their kid's crimes.


Good. It's about time parents are found responsible for repeated, flagrant neglect. Which is what this was.
 
Bloody hell, you must have a lot of enemies. What did you do when they last broke in?

Not sure if you're aware but most robberies are by people unknown to the homeowners. We have a lot of enemies in this country, they're known as violent criminals. Most of them are black. A few of them are white. Most of them try to target the weak who have no known enemies and no reason to think they need a gun. But we like to defend ourselves from these violent people with firearms that are ready to go, not ones that have to be assembled as the bad guy is busting in through the back window.
 
Not sure if you're aware but most robberies are by people unknown to the homeowners. We have a lot of enemies in this country, they're known as violent criminals. Most of them are black. A few of them are white. Most of them try to target the weak who have no known enemies and no reason to think they need a gun. But we like to defend ourselves from these violent people with firearms that are ready to go, not ones that have to be assembled as the bad guy is busting in through the back window.
Does/do your dog/s not bark when there's a noise outside. I have three, what a racket, I bet any would be burglar runs a mile.

This is the thing with America's gun problem. The problem is, the stats are about people getting shot. The "good guy" is willing to shoot others, arming up in the belief they need to do this. And why are people running about, called the bad guy, with guns? Because the 2nd arms the unsuitable. So America is in a vicious gun circle, you are defending yourself from a problem created by it's constitution.

Makes me wonder how an American gun nut dresses themselves in the morning.
 
They would never do this to a baby mama, who loses interest in her son the minute they are old enough to talk back and either has no man in his life, or a string of them.
Actually, they do that to them all the time.


 
Not sure if you're aware but most robberies are by people unknown to the homeowners. We have a lot of enemies in this country, they're known as violent criminals. Most of them are black. A few of them are white. Most of them try to target the weak who have no known enemies and no reason to think they need a gun. But we like to defend ourselves from these violent people with firearms that are ready to go, not ones that have to be assembled as the bad guy is busting in through the back window.
Most gun deaths are suicide and domestic violence, and a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.
 
Most gun deaths are suicide and domestic violence, and a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.
The king of the specious argument strikes again...if the gun kills one bad guy do 43 people in the household die?...
...if the gun never kills anyone [even "a bad guy"] then the likelihood goes from 43% to infinite without a death...specious claims are your only refuge.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.
We know who you are hence the necessity for the right to bear arms.
 
Last edited:
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, as I posted, I am a believer in 'strict liability'......you own the gun, you own the benefits of that gun, and you own the harms of that gun. Period.

Sure, it could be stolen out of your pick-up, even your bedside nightstand. But, if it is used to shoot the 7/11 clerk the owner of record bears a share of the liability for that harm. Period.

Guns must come with a higher burden of responsibility than say, vehicles, ball bats, knives. All of which can kill or injure. But guns are different. We all know that. They have a purpose. We know what that is and thus we assume the responsibility that they are secured for only that purpose.....and not allowed through negligence or mendacity to be used outside of that purpose. We own the gun. We know it's potential for harm. It's lethality. And, we chose to introduce it to our society, our community. Therefore, own a responsibility for its harms.

That is not to say that if some thief steals from the front seat of your F-150 and then kills his cheating girlfriend that the 'owner-of-record' is wholly responsible for the harm done to her. No. Rather, he shares in the liability. The trigger-puller bears most of the liability and needs be punished accordingly. But a degree of penalty must fall upon the OOR who failed to take enough measures to secure the weapon.

IMHO
So you punish the victims of crimes for being a victim, what stupid fucking approach to life.
 
Which is the lie, safer guns in the UK as the stats prove, or the sarcastic picture of a US school bus with the winking eye (did that bit of sarcasm clear your head at 33,000 feet?)

She wasn't a responsible gun owner, say paid the price. This conviction might make others buckle their ideas up, especially if more cases follow.

Are you annoyed she was found guilty?
I’m not annoyed at her being found guilty I’m annoyed when an asshole what’s to take away the rights of law abiding citizens, you know like you.
 
Most gun deaths are suicide and domestic violence, and a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

It's a skewed statistic. Of course homes without guns won't have a gun that will kill someone who lives there. But they also have zero chance of survival in the event of an armed robbery. Just like someone is a million times more likely to die in a car crash if they own a car. I mean, duh. That doesn't mean anything.

Guns are used for self defense millions of times a year. There are not millions of people shot in homes by their own guns. So it's a skewed statistic to push an agenda. Its worthless. Brandishing a gun stops most robbers in their tracks. But not having one has NEVER been a reason a robber has stopped their assault.
 
No, they aren't. The very fact that the number of ESTIMATED DGU's ranges from 39,000 to 5 million says that there's no way to quantify it.
Then you can’t say that number isn’t true then. Even you admit it could be as high as 5 million. If you don’t want a gun don’t own one, no one is forcing you to buy a firearm. Let other make the choice for themselves
 
Then you can’t say that number isn’t true then. Even you admit it could be as high as 5 million. If you don’t want a gun don’t own one, no one is forcing you to buy a firearm. Let other make the choice for themselves

Actually, that shows how unlikely the five million number is... what is the criteria? I had a gun and it made me feel safer when I saw someone who scared me?

The numbers are bullshit. No body, no DGU.
 
Actually, that shows how unlikely the five million number is... what is the criteria? I had a gun and it made me feel safer when I saw someone who scared me?

The numbers are bullshit. No body, no DGU
Doing a little backpedaling as usual
 
I cited the 5 million figures to show how absurd it was.

Sorry you don't understand absurdity.
I do I also understand you’re moonwalking your way through the conversation now.
Don’t get a gun if you don’t want one let other do what they prefer
 

Forum List

Back
Top