Another start to the school year, another shooting; nothing will change

#501
#501
luthervol said:
I clearly answered that question. Yes they should be held responsible.

Do you believe the father of the boy in this week's shooting should be held criminally responsible in any way?

I say yes...100%
What is your answer?
Click to expand...

So, a parent should be held responsible for crimes of their kids? If yes, where you plan on putting all those parents in Chicago, they don't house them even now? What happens if the parent is already in jail?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL
#502
#502
luthervol said:
I clearly answered that question. Yes they should be held responsible.

Do you believe the father of the boy in this week's shooting should be held criminally responsible in any way?

I say yes...100%
What is your answer?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have said so several times.
 
#503
#503
hog88 said:
I understand your problem with facts but here ya go.

Drowning Prevention & Facts
Click to expand...
lol.....Holy cow how concrete can one human be????

I know more drownings happen in pools but that in no way means it is more dangerous.

Would you rather place your unsupervised 2 year old grandchild for three minutes in a kiddie pool, the deep end a swimming pool, or in a rip tide in an ocean?

Good grief people - please get a clue. We know which is more dangerous...AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHERE MOST DEATHS HAPPEN.
 
#504
#504
LouderVol said:
the issue is that you are arguing about the POSSIBLE damage, vs the real life ACTUAL damage.

you argue against what COULD happen, we argue against what IS happening.

you have to make up a hypothetical worst case scenario to have a point, we can point to real life happenstances.

more kids die in the kiddie pool than the rip tide because of the mindset you push. don't worry about the day to day thing that does kill the kids, just be afraid of the wild ocean rip tide that might kill your kid. and instead of teaching the kids how to be safe and avoid the dangers of either, you just want to ban the rip tides, leaving them vulnerable whenever they do come across one.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's just an accurate assessment of danger.
 
#505
#505
luthervol said:
lol.....Holy cow how concrete can one human be????

I know more drownings happen in pools but that in no way means it is more dangerous.

Would you rather place your unsupervised 2 year old grandchild for three minutes in a kiddie pool, the deep end a swimming pool, or in a rip tide in an ocean?

Good grief people - please get a clue. We know which is more dangerous...AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHERE MOST DEATHS HAPPEN.
Click to expand...

The bold points to the fallacy of your argument, a responsible adult (parent, grandparent or stranger) wouldn't leave an unsupervised 2 year old near a body of water.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, 82_VOL_83, MemphisVol77 and 6 others
#506
#506
luthervol said:
lol.....Holy cow how concrete can one human be????

I know more drownings happen in pools but that in no way means it is more dangerous.

Would you rather place your unsupervised 2 year old grandchild for three minutes in a kiddie pool, the deep end a swimming pool, or in a rip tide in an ocean?

Good grief people - please get a clue. We know which is more dangerous...AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHERE MOST DEATHS HAPPEN.
Click to expand...

The issue would be is many parents think it is safe to leave a kid in a kiddie pool, and probably you as well. I am not sure if anyone has any real significant worse odds than the other, quite immaterial as well.
 
#507
#507
luthervol said:
That's simply nonsense.

The death toll in the food court will be drastically different. One of those differences could have been you loved one.

You guys have absolutely no ground on which to support your argument.
Click to expand...
I've been away from the discussion for a while so forgive me if I'm missing something.

Should we ban all guns? That's really the only way to resolve the issue completely from your stance.

If not which guns are acceptable and which should not be?

Given the stated reasons the founding Fathers afforded us the right to bear arms, how could we properly ensure the government is held in check and accountable to the people? Given the MIC obvious influence over our elected government is this not dangerous territory?
 
#508
#508
hog88 said:
The bold points to the fallacy of your argument, a responsible adult (parent, grandparent or stranger) wouldn't leave an unsupervised 2 year old near a body of water.
Click to expand...
That has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.
 
#510
#510
LouderVol said:
the issue is that you are arguing about the POSSIBLE damage, vs the real life ACTUAL damage.

you argue against what COULD happen, we argue against what IS happening.

you have to make up a hypothetical worst case scenario to have a point, we can point to real life happenstances.

more kids die in the kiddie pool than the rip tide because of the mindset you push. don't worry about the day to day thing that does kill the kids, just be afraid of the wild ocean rip tide that might kill your kid. and instead of teaching the kids how to be safe and avoid the dangers of either, you just want to ban the rip tides, leaving them vulnerable whenever they do come across one.
Click to expand...
Should ask Luth if his kids crying in despair when Trump was elected was a direct response to the conditioning from his fanatical out-spoken hatred of a single person that is not like him, or didn't meet his approval.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#511
#511
KB5252 said:
I've been away from the discussion for a while so forgive me if I'm missing something.

Should we ban all guns? That's really the only way to resolve the issue completely from your stance.

If not which guns are acceptable and which should not be?

Given the stated reasons the founding Fathers afforded us the right to bear arms, how could we properly ensure the government is held in check and accountable to the people? Given the MIC obvious influence over our elected government is this not dangerous territory?
Click to expand...
No gun debate from me.
But
No - I do not support banning all guns.
Yes - I very much do support control and regulation.
 
#513
#513
lawgator1 said:
No. Guns are a different class of quick and deadly. Plus, guns are the tool these kids repeatedly are using and its clear to all that guns are the weapon by far mostly used for these.
Click to expand...
This completely ignores the substitution effect. For example, Great Britain pretty much eliminated guns among the lower classes and, SURPRISE! Knives have now become the weapon of choice with laws and regulations being promulgated to deal with it. Keep it going and we're going to eventually find something really, really lethal will be used to kill people and lots of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
#517
#517
GVF said:
Should ask Luth if his kids crying in despair when Trump was elected was a direct response to the conditioning from his fanatical out-spoken hatred of a single person that is not like him, or didn't meet his approval.
Click to expand...
The level of stupidity exhibited in your post would be hard to surpass.
 
#518
#518
#519
#519
hog88 said:
I don’t disagree with you on holding parents responsible for being irresponsible. What I’m trying to figure out is where you (LG) draws the line.

So far per your own posts the parents are only responsible if their kid uses one of their guns to commit mass murder and not responsible if the kid uses something else in the house. Is that your position?
Click to expand...
He sees your trap and is doing everything possible to ignore it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, 82_VOL_83, MemphisVol77 and 3 others
#521
#521
hog88 said:
@lawgator1

Why do you refuse to discuss or answer?
Click to expand...


I thought I had. If a kid is making threats and the parents don't act, that sounds more like civil liability to me. If the kid is making threats AND the parents do something which enables them, i.e. gives them a gun for Christmas, I think that is so irresponsible as to yield criminal liability.
 
#522
#522
GroverCleveland said:
He sees your trap and is doing everything possible to ignore it.
Click to expand...


What trap? I don't see him as trapping me. I misunderstood earlier what he was asking and have answered. Threats alone, I'd day no criminal but civil if the parents do not act. Threats plus a gun, yes, that's criminal.

Part of this is that in the current environment we know there is an allure to use a gun to attack a school. So it takes on a special place, giving a kid a gun that is.
 
#523
#523
luthervol said:
Or maybe it's just an accurate assessment of danger.
Click to expand...
but the potential damage is not the only controller of "danger". exposure and knowledge offer varying multipliers as well. you just ignore the multipliers that don't support your argument, and cherry pick the data that helps you. we look at the whole picture to offer a more objective outlook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL and MemphisVol77
#524
#524
lawgator1 said:
I thought I had. If a kid is making threats and the parents don't act, that sounds more like civil liability to me. If the kid is making threats AND the parents do something which enables them, i.e. gives them a gun for Christmas, I think that is so irresponsible as to yield criminal liability.
Click to expand...

Thank you. So your position is that a parent has to actually give the kid the gun they use in a crime for them to be subject to criminal responsibility and not just having accessible guns in the house?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top