General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by james0246

Actually, criminal negligence can lead to imprisonment. If you leave a loaded gun lying around where children often frequent, you can be charged with negligent endangerment of a child, and if a someone dies due to your negligence, you can be charged with negligent homicide. So, it's not simply an issue of torts.

But that's not really a gun issue anymore, but rather one of child protection laws. You can't leave a child alone in a car to run into a bank in a hot day during summer, but you certainly wouldn't be charged with criminal negligence if you left your wife in the car instead.

Conversely, in a household with no children, on what basis are you going to base your storage regulations on?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by kyp275

But that's not really a gun issue anymore, but rather one of child protection laws.

It doesn't matter if it is a child or an adult. Criminal negligence is criminal negligence. If your gun (or some other property) harms another and you left it in a position to harm another, then you are at fault.

Originally Posted by kyp275

You can't leave a child alone in a car to run into a bank in a hot day during summer, but you certainly wouldn't be charged with criminal negligence if you left your wife in the car instead.

Your wife is a seperate individual. You are not expected to care for her, and unless you purposefully (or accidentially) locked her in (and she can't get out), you are not responsible for her actions or their conclusions. If she were mentally or physically handicaped, though, you could be held responsible.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Conversely, in a household with no children, on what basis are you going to base your storage regulations on?

The next door neighbor kids. The kids down the block. The kids passing by. Or how about simply any adults you may bring over for any reason. Or even someone breaking into your house and finding loaded guns just lying around.

There are systems in place that prevent or at least penalize anyone from negligently harming others or through their own negligence helping to harm others. Just because you are a bachelor misanthrope living alone doesn't make you an island unto yourself, and it doesn't excuse you from laws geared toward other members of society or simply laws designed for "the greater good" (if you leave a loaded weapon lying around and then someone breaks into your house and steals the gun, then you are in small part responsible for the actions of that gun since you negligently left it loaded and ready for anyone to use, but if someone breaks into your house and then takes your unloaded gun from it's safe/gun locker/dwarer/etc and then loads it, then you are not negligent).

[Vexx]

Here's part of the problem. I can keep a rather large quantity of gasoline in my home. Propane, bleach, chlorine, fertilizer, poisons, welding equipment, lawn mowers, chainsaws, edgers, flame throwers (yes, for brush clearing). "Proper storage" is a fairly flexible term for those in the legal sense. Never mind the automobile itself (a very deadly device). Proper storage includes the concept of "ease of access by authorized users".

However, some days I'm thinking the average American is getting too stupid to have electricity in their house - much less all this other stuff.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by james0246

It doesn't matter if it is a child or an adult. Criminal negligence is criminal negligence. If your gun (or some other property) harms another and you left it in a position to harm another, then you are at fault.

Uh, calling it negligence for letting under-aged children unfettered access to weapons and/or other dangerous household item is one thing, saying the same thing when no children are involved is quite another.

I think you're over-simplifying things a bit, whether something remains a tort claim or rising to the level of criminal negligence depends entirely on the specific language of the law and the particular circumstances of the case. I'm not entirely sure what exactly it is you're arguing for, but there was two distinct threads of discussion here:

Me vs Vallen on his idea of criminal liability, and with Don on civil liability, maybe you're getting the two mixed up?

[james0246]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Me vs Vallen on his idea of criminal liability, and with Don on civil liability, maybe you're getting the two mixed up?

That's the problem, negligence can be both criminal and/or civil. You can be imprisoned for some forms of negligeance, and you can be sued for others (or both). I'm not mixing up your discussions, I'm explaining that they are one and the same and enacting policies for one directly relates to the other.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Here's part of the problem. I can keep a rather large quantity of gasoline in my home. Propane, bleach, chlorine, fertilizer, poisons, welding equipment, lawn mowers, chainsaws, edgers, flame throwers (yes, for brush clearing). "Proper storage" is a fairly flexible term for those in the legal sense. Never mind the automobile itself (a very deadly device). Proper storage includes the concept of "ease of access by authorized users".

That is of course debatable, and some states can even obscure the matter further, but the general idea of proper storage is understandable (leaving a can of propane, or a bag of needles, or a gun, etc in your front yard doesn't seem like proper storage, but what about your back yeard? Now that is debatable), and if it not then we all need to go back to school.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Here's part of the problem. I can keep a rather large quantity of gasoline in my home. Propane, bleach, chlorine, fertilizer, poisons, welding equipment, lawn mowers, chainsaws, edgers, flame throwers (yes, for brush clearing).

I believe: having mass quantities of those items... the person would be considered as a possible terrorist.

[Ithekro]

Yet there are plenty of people in rural areas that stock up due to not really going into town (possibly 20 to 60 miles away or more) to get those things for months to even years. Most of that stuff we don't buy very often in urban areas, and in many cases we can have a bottle of something last for years because we don't have much need, and when we use it we go buy another bottle someplace, or go to a place like Costco and buy in bulk so we don't need to go looking for more regularly.

[DonQuigleone]

@kyp275 I was not aiming for Civil Liability, but as james0246 is indicating, negligence. The concept of a "Duty of Care" encompasses both the Tort you refer to and negligence. If your property is involved in harming another human being, and you have taken insufficient reasonable precautions then you are criminally negligent. The law is quite flexible on what is or isn't negligence.

If you fail to secure any of your dangerous possessions you could very easily argue you are being negligent. I would consider keeping a gun should be thought of similar to keeping a pit-bull. Both can be exceedingly dangerous, and both must be kept in a secured manner so that they don't injure others. In the case of a gun, that includes taking the necessary precaution against theft. After all, if your brother, or your daughter was killed because a local bully stole his neighbor's gun that was carelessly left lying around, how would you feel? You would feel the neighbor had been negligent.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

To you gun people (or anyone else for that matter) -- is anything on this list deemed unreasonable?

I take issues with 3 of those:

Assault Weapons Ban

Leaving the merits of the term aside (the fault of the term has be discussed plenty of times in this thread already, suffice to say that it's a political term with little meaning behind it), it is a pointless law that arbitrarily bans certain firearms based on literally nothing but what they look like.

A pistol grip or a plastic stock, or a bayonet stud (LOL?) does not turn a rifle into lolomgwtfbbqmachineassaultweaponofDOOOM!

Magazine Ban

Pointless and ineffective while negatively impacts reliability of existing firearms. Vexx have iterated on the issue about reliability of reduced-capacity magazines, but ultimately this isn't going to do jack, other than making "pre-ban" magazines price go up for awhile. There are billions of regular capacity magazines out there already, what's a ban on making new ones gonna do?

Ban the possession of armor-piercing ammunition and its transfer to anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

Misleading and vague.

If they're talking specifically about actual AP rounds, that's one thing. But all too often you see people qualifying a round as "armor-piercing" simply because they cannot by stopped by a regular "bullet-proof" vest.

First, no vests are bullet-proof, second, kevlar vests are only designed to stop pistol rounds - most rifle rounds will be able to defeat kevlar vests without ballistic plates, a ban with that sort of qualifier would pretty much mean a blanket ban on every single rifle cartridge.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

@kyp275 I was not aiming for Civil Liability, but as james0246 is indicating, negligence. The concept of a "Duty of Care" encompasses both the Tort you refer to and negligence. If your property is involved in harming another human being, and you have taken insufficient reasonable precautions then you are criminally negligent. The law is quite flexible on what is or isn't negligence.

If you fail to secure any of your dangerous possessions you could very easily argue you are being negligent. I would consider keeping a gun should be thought of similar to keeping a pit-bull. Both can be exceedingly dangerous, and both must be kept in a secured manner so that they don't injure others. In the case of a gun, that includes taking the necessary precaution against theft. After all, if your brother, or your daughter was killed because a local bully stole his neighbor's gun that was carelessly left lying around, how would you feel? You would feel the neighbor had been negligent.

I see, while I don't have any issue against the sentiment, I don't really see how you'd go about implementing it.

First, what would be considered adequate precaution against theft? Hidden in a drawer? a closet? a small safe? a gun locker bolted to the foundation? Many keeps a loaded weapon next to their bedside at night, would that be against the law? Secondly, I'm not sure I like the concept that something can be legally considered inadequately secured against theft inside one's own home to begin with. If safety is the only concern, should household chemicals or gasoline be under lock and key? or outlet plugs mandatory for households with small children? Taking the pit bull example, what would you consider to be adequate as far as securing the dog? fences? leash?

As for your scenario, the local bully better hope the police got to him first.

Originally Posted by james0246

That's the problem, negligence can be both criminal and/or civil. You can be imprisoned for some forms of negligeance, and you can be sued for others (or both). I'm not mixing up your discussions, I'm explaining that they are one and the same and enacting policies for one directly relates to the other.

Not sure how you got the impression that I don't know what criminal negligence is, the entire point of my initial response to Vallen was that a simple system where the owner of a gun is automatically responsible for any crimes the gun is used isn't going to happen, nor is it a good idea.

That is of course debatable, and some states can even obscure the matter further, but the general idea of proper storage is understandable (leaving a can of propane, or a bag of needles, or a gun, etc in your front yard doesn't seem like proper storage, but what about your back yeard? Now that is debatable), and if it not then we all need to go back to school.

Good point, a propane tank on the front lawn probably isn't considered proper storage, but attached to a grill in the backyard? no problem, even though the only difference is about 10 seconds of walking for most people.

[Kaijo]

For those who don't watch the Daily Show, you may want to watch the one last night. In it, we have congress critters insisting that existing laws are good enough, and that the ATF should enforce the laws on the book.... and then Jon reveals just how badly the NRA has put congress critters up to diluting the strength of the ATF.

So part of the solution needs to be to allow the ATF to enforce the laws we have.... since the NRA has neutered the ATF and forbid them from enforcing laws we already have.

There Goes the Boom - Part 1
There Goes the Boom - ATF - Part 2

[GDB]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Why is it that deaths by guns seemingly so much worse than death by other means?

Because the ease of which for massive causualties. The only other means by which one could do so would be vehicles and bombs, the former regulated and the latter illegal. A gun can kill a large group of people very quickly, over a moderate range of distance. A knife, for example, could potentially cause massive causualties, but only at a short range. Arm reach, specifically. Whereas a gun could kill from one end of a football field to another, or more realistically in terms of scenerio, one end of a room to another.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I see, while I don't have any issue against the sentiment, I don't really see how you'd go about implementing it.

First, what would be considered adequate precaution against theft? Hidden in a drawer? a closet? a small safe? a gun locker bolted to the foundation? Many keeps a loaded weapon next to their bedside at night, would that be against the law? Secondly, I'm not sure I like the concept that something can be legally considered inadequately secured against theft inside one's own home to begin with. If safety is the only concern, should household chemicals or gasoline be under lock and key? or outlet plugs mandatory for households with small children? Taking the pit bull example, what would you consider to be adequate as far as securing the dog? fences? leash?

If improper storage of chemicals/fuel/animals that you own caused death or injury, then yes, you are negligent.

Implementation is simple. No one inspects your home. But if things go wrong and it is because you didn't do the right thing, you get the book thrown at you. This is how modern society has always worked. This isn't about treating guns any different to anything else; this is how hazardous materials are treated in society. I can be careless about the fuel cans in my backyard. But if it caused the neighbourhood to be burned down then there is hell to pay when they trace the fire source back to me.

There ARE existing regulations on proper fuel storage, pet control, pesticides, etc. And the expectation is that if you don't do the right thing, you might be able to get away with it if you are lucky and nothing happened; but if something DID happen then you share the blame.

We are not asking you to be any more than be a responsible gun owner. The same way we expect the fuel for your lawn mower is not going to be a fire hazard, or that your pet python isn't going to eat the neighbour's cat. There are guidelines for all of these things. Not rocket science, and more importantly not new. You really should know this.

[Solafighter]

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Solafighter

See, it only matters if one thinks that less ammo capacity makes a difference. It either does or it doesn't.

To simultaneously claim that lower ammo capacity is meaningless, yet claim that it makes it difficult to shoot things and you want to fight against it, is paradoxical.

Put it simply the restriction is not meant to be perfect, but a middle ground. Anti Gun people would rather that you don't have any bullets at all. The lower capacity is a compromise. To ask "why smaller capacity?" is assuming you are ignorant of why we want to restrict firepower.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I take issues with 3 of those:

Assault Weapons Ban

Leaving the merits of the term aside (the fault of the term has be discussed plenty of times in this thread already, suffice to say that it's a political term with little meaning behind it), it is a pointless law that arbitrarily bans certain firearms based on literally nothing but what they look like.

A pistol grip or a plastic stock, or a bayonet stud (LOL?) does not turn a rifle into lolomgwtfbbqmachineassaultweaponofDOOOM!

So many people have said so many things about the "definition of an assault weapon"; and here you are lambasting it as defined based on "how a gun looks". It should be based on firing rate: X-number of bullets fired per minute (or with a single squeeze of the trigger).

Personally, civilian guns should be limited to one squeeze - one bullet. And if you can fire X-number of bullets with X-number of squeezes per minute, then I applaud your skillz.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Magazine Ban

Pointless and ineffective while negatively impacts reliability of existing firearms. Vexx have iterated on the issue about reliability of reduced-capacity magazines, but ultimately this isn't going to do jack, other than making "pre-ban" magazines price go up for awhile. There are billions of regular capacity magazines out there already, what's a ban on making new ones gonna do?

The point is probably where I bolded it. That's a matter of "inconvenience"; and therefore, it is dismissed as I had requested. Likewise, the increased price on the "pre-ban" magazines. That is also a matter of "inconvenience".

As for the higher capacity magazines -- people will either (a) shoot 'em up, (b) have them confiscated, and/or (c) keep them as collectors items. Eventually, those will get phased out.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Ban the possession of armor-piercing ammunition and its transfer to anyone other than the military and law enforcement.

Misleading and vague.

If they're talking specifically about actual AP rounds, that's one thing. But all too often you see people qualifying a round as "armor-piercing" simply because they cannot by stopped by a regular "bullet-proof" vest.

First, no vests are bullet-proof, second, kevlar vests are only designed to stop pistol rounds - most rifle rounds will be able to defeat kevlar vests without ballistic plates, a ban with that sort of qualifier would pretty much mean a blanket ban on every single rifle cartridge.

If said weapon deters the ability for law enforcement to do its job, then yes, it should be banned too. Either that, or reduce the gunpowder for civilian rifle cartridges.

Case in point: if it is something used by the military or law enforcement, then civilians have no business having it. Want to use military grade weapons? Then sign up; and join the military or law enforcement.

[Bri]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Implementation is simple. No one inspects your home. But if things go wrong and it is because you didn't do the right thing, you get the book thrown at you. This is how modern society has always worked. This isn't about treating guns any different to anything else; this is how hazardous materials are treated in society. I can be careless about the fuel cans in my backyard. But if it caused the neighbourhood to be burned down then there is hell to pay when they trace the fire source back to me.

It would be very hard for prosecutors to prove negligence after a gun is stolen as people would have an strong incentive to lie about the nature of the reported theft and to tamper with evidence. It also does not sit right with my sense of justice that an individual, who was the victim of theft, is penalized for not protecting their property better. Nor does it reduce the incentive for criminals to steal weapons.

An alternative would simply be to drastically increase punishment for the illegal possession of fire-arms and maybe even most other types of weapons. Similar to the possession of narcotics which can put a felon away for decades. Require all firearms to be registered and it should put a serious dent in the black and grey market. Most gun owners might not object, although those mistrustful of the government will.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by GDB

Because the ease of which for massive causualties.

This is somewhat in the vein of one of my points earlier, what exactly makes the casualties in one mass shooting scenario "worse" than casualties created in other means? I'm not going to say that gun doesn't make it easier to kill, because it does, but like I said earlier, what is the overall impact of these restrictions? were there precipitous drops in OVERALL violent crimes and deaths in the countries that enacted strict control? is 10 people shot to death at one time in a month somehow worse than 10 people stabbed to death over the same month?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Implementation is simple. No one inspects your home. But if things go wrong and it is because you didn't do the right thing you get the book thrown at you.

Again, what exactly is "proper" here? a drawer in a nightstand? lock box? a safe bolted to a cement wall with a 5 inch steel door?

You say that if someone stole my weapons, I should be responsible for the crimes he commits with it, so should I also be responsible if someone stole the propane tank on my grill and the gas for my snowblower and used them to destroy a house?

To simultaneously claim that lower ammo capacity is meaningless, yet claim that it makes it difficult to shoot things and you want to fight against it, is paradoxical.

Because you're not taking into consideration the differences in circumstances. In a sport shooting situation such as a 3 gun competition, you're very limited in the number of magazines you can carry. The same thing goes in many home defense scenarios, most people will probably only have whatever is loaded in their firearm.

In those mass shooting situations, the shooters have multiple preloaded magazines carried on their vests, and backpack full of ammo, and they certainly wouldn't care about what the NY governor said about how many rounds he can load in a mag.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

So many people have said so many things about the "definition of an assault weapon"; and here you are lambasting it as defined based on "how a gun looks". It should be based on firing rate: X-number of bullets fired per minute (or with a single squeeze of the trigger).

Uh, have you ever read the law? Here, this is the AWB's definition of what makes a rifle an "assault weapon"

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock - because improved ergonomics for end-users (especially short people! ) makes the rifle a weapon of mass destruction.

Pistol grip - same with above, only now for people with large or small hands.

Bayonet mount - because this is so totally world war 2, and nothing makes a rifle more dangerous like adding a KNIFE to it.

Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one

because the visibility and size of the unburned powder obviously makes a huge difference in the lethality of the rifle.


Muzzle device that enables launching or firing muzzle-mounted rifle grenades

Because this is totally world war 2 where people still use muzzle-mounted grenade as oppose to externally mounted grenade.

Personally, civilian guns should be limited to one squeeze - one bullet. And if you can fire X-number of bullets with X-number of squeezes per minute, then I applaud your skillz.

...you realize that's how things are already right? one trigger pull per shot IS semi-automatic.

The point is probably where I bolded it. That's a matter of "inconvenience"; and therefore, it is dismissed as I had requested.

reliability is a matter of "inconvenience"? are you serious? maybe you should tell the police that they can cut their budget by choosing the most unreliable and cheap weapons, after all, it's just a matter of convenience whether they work all the time or not.

Sorry, in a self defense scenario, reliability is anything but a matter of convenience, and further weakening the reliability of magazines - already the most unreliable part of a weapon, can be catastrophic.

As for the higher capacity magazines -- people will either (a) shoot 'em up, (b) have them confiscated, and/or (c) keep them as collectors items. Eventually, those will get phased out.

good luck with confiscation.

If said weapon deters the ability for law enforcement to do its job, then yes, it should be banned too. Either that, or reduce the gunpowder for civilian rifle cartridges.

You're starting to show how little you know about firearms. Proper weapons function requires a specific amount of pressure, what you're proposing would turn them into little more than funny looking baseball bats.

and while you're at it, why not also remove your 4th amendment protection? let's give law enforcements the ability to just walk in and search or tap the phones of anyone whenever they want; or let them beat confessions out of suspects, hold people in confinement indefinitely, and add in some additional evidence to make sure it sticks! Why let those pesky laws about rights and such deter law enforcements from doing their job, we should turn all of the the US into Gitmo!

Case in point: if it is something used by the military or law enforcement, then civilians have no business having it. Want to use military grade weapons? Then sign up; and join the military or law enforcement.

The only case in point here is that you should probably learn a bit more about firearms first. Small arms are inherently simple, and the technology hasn't really changed all that much in the past century. When people like you talk "military-grade", you think of automatic machine guns, and then look at a civilian look-alike and go OMGWTFBAN, even though functionally the two is vastly different. What you're proposing is akin to saying civilians should have no business owning military-grade vehicles, and then qualify the definition of military-grade vehicles as "things with wheels driven by an engine".

[Ithekro]

Basically the point is that "Assualt Weapon" is an term that means nothing for all practical purposes.

The words they want is "Assualt Rifle", but those are for the most part already banned just by being fully automatic weapons (illegal for many decades now).

"Assault Weapons" is basically all cosmetics that make a rifle or pistol look threatening and scary. It will ban a weapon for its looks rather than its function, as there are other weapons that are fundimentally more dangerous that are not covered as "Assualt Weapons" because they don't have those cosmetic features.

It is an idiot law written by idiots back in the 1990s.

Note: Semi-automatics are weapons that will use the force of firing the weapon to reload a new bullet into the chamber. But it will not fire another shot until you pull the trigger again. (you cannot hold the trigger down and get more than one bullet to fire with a semi-automantic. You have to let go and pull again to get off another shot). Some revolvers can be considered semi-automatic weapons as the act of pulling the trigger will move the next chamber turn into position to fire and raise the hammer again so that when the trigger is fully pulled you fire another shot without having to pull back the hammer.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by kyp275

This is somewhat in the vein of one of my points earlier, what exactly makeAgain, what exactly is "proper" here? a drawer in a nightstand? lock box? a safe bolted to a cement wall with a 5 inch steel door?

You say that if someone stole my weapons, I should be responsible for the crimes he commits with it, so should I also be responsible if someone stole the propane tank on my grill and the gas for my snowblower and used them to destroy a house?

Are you implying that responsible storage of firearms is foreign to you?


No, seriously. Are you telling me you have no idea what I am talking about in terms of secure weapon storage? You don't have a gun safe?

If you have an explosives permit and lose the dynamite from insecure storage, then yes you are in trouble. Using a propane gas tank as your example is not fooling anyone, no one is going to steal one for a bomb. They would just buy one as they aren't regulated or licensed. So your scenario doesn't make sense.

It would be very hard for prosecutors to prove negligence after a gun is stolen as people would have an strong incentive to lie about the nature of the reported theft and to tamper with evidence. It also does not sit right with my sense of justice that an individual, who was the victim of theft, is penalized for not protecting their property better. Nor does it reduce the incentive for criminals to steal weapons.

If your weapons are secured in a manner that is socially responsible, no one is going to blame you if someone drilled through your gun safe and took the weapon. You seem to be missing my argument; that responsible weapon storage isn't to prevent thefts entirely, but to make sure everyone behaved responsibly. Being a victim of theft does not excuse one from not securing their weapon responsibly. If despite normal precautions, theft still occurred, so be it. But leaving guns lying around should have consequences.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Are you implying that responsible storage of firearms is foreign to you?


No, seriously. Are you telling me you have no idea what I am talking about in terms of secure weapon storage? You don't have a gun safe?

If you have an explosives permit and lose the dynamite from insecure storage, then yes you are in trouble. Using a propane gas tank as your example is not fooling anyone, no one is going to steal one for a bomb. They would just buy one as they aren't regulated or licensed. So your scenario doesn't make sense.

Leaving the snarky comments aside, it may be important for you to keep in mind that the rest of the world doesn't automatically conform to your standard.

I know plenty about gun storage methods, what I'm asking is for YOU to define what's "responsible" to YOU, the devil is in the details. I'm certainly not against proper weapon storage, but for me "proper" depends largely on the individual circumstances as opposed to a blanket standard which you seem to support.

If your weapons are secured in a manner that is socially responsible, no one is going to blame you if someone drilled through your gun safe and took the weapon. You seem to be missing my argument; that responsible weapon storage isn't to prevent thefts entirely, but to make sure everyone behaved responsibly. Being a victim of theft does not excuse one from not securing their weapon responsibly. If despite normal precautions, theft still occurred, so be it. But leaving guns lying around should have consequences.

Let's try this one then, what happens when someone stole my car, and then used it as a getaway car in a robbery, and ran over a few people while they were at it? was I "socially irresponsible" because my car key wasn't stored in a safe?

I think it's safe to say that chances are good that I won't be charged with any crimes in the scenario above, so then why is it that it's fine if I "secured" my car by leaving it in the garage, or the driveway, locked or unlocked (I'm sure everyone has done that before) and it was used to kill a two people, yet it's not ok if it was a gun that was stolen from inside the house instead that were used to killed two people? This is veering more into the realm of legal debate, but I'd like to hear your opinion on it.


Edit: This is a comment I saw elsewhere, while I don't agree with everything he said, I agree with many of his sentiments:

I've got a leak in the pipe coming into my hot water heater. It is in the foundation so it is hard to fix. So, I've turned down the temperature in my hot water heater. It doesn't fix the problem, it wouldn't have stopped the water that has already leaked, and I know my foundation will continue to decay from the water that is still leaking, but hey, I've done 'something' and it makes me feel better about the problem. I don't even want to think or talk about what really needs done because it is hard to fix.

We've got young people going on rampages and massacring children. I'm going to make it harder to buy guns. It doesn't fix the problem, I acknowledge that it wouldn't have stopped the killing that has already happened, so I know it won't stop any more killing, but it makes me 'feel better' that I've done 'something.' I won't even talk about the real problem because it is too hard to fix - and it might mean I have to admit I have some culpability in the problem.

The real problem isn't guns. The real problem isn't games or movies. The real problem is a decay in our culture that we've allowed to permeate the thinking of our children. And you are all responsible in some way.

I see kids walking around with their pants hanging off their bottoms like they got them as hand-me-downs from a short chubby cousin, shoe laces missing like they just got out of county lockup, and gang sign tattoos showing like they have 'street cred.' Very few of these are poor kids from 'the hood.' They are middle and even upper class children whose parents can afford to dress them better. Parents who could demand better behavior, but 'enable' their children to worship poverty and crime. Who let their kids listen to rap music performed by celebrities who's claim to fame is their 'street cred' - their criminal activity and 'gangsta' associations. Our culture is one that worships poverty and crime. We worship drug using, wife beating, immoral celebrities. And even if we don't personally, we tolerate it and 'enabled' our children to emulate that behavior. (The President has even entertained these 'celebrities' at the White House.)

But nobody wants to talk about that. We want to blame the guns. We want to blame the games. We do not want to blame ourselves for allowing our children to grow up thinking poverty is good and crime is the way to succeed. It is OUR fault. We are responsible for raising a generation of unmotivated, uncaring, insensitive young adults. But we don't want to address the real problem because we would have to acknowledge our responsibility for it. No legislation by the government can fix the problem of irresponsible parenting.

So, we won't fix the problem - but we'll 'feel better' that we've done 'something.'

I wouldn't lay so much of the blame on pop culture as he did, though I'd add in the tendency for many parents to opt for pills to medicate their kids instead of actually parenting them