DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Indiana middle school shooting

I ask you do the same thing bro LOL at the end of my post I said those weren't necessarily directed at you specifically and more of a general brainstorming of questions.

I did notice your post and suggestion. It's stupid of me to complain about the lack of reasonable suggestions then turn around and not at least give a suggestion that appears to be reasonable some due consideration. My apologies.

Laws that punish people who have either given these shooters weapons, or who's negligence provided easy access to weapons... I think there can be something there.

There absolutely is precedent that says negligent actions can be serious enough to become criminal.

Bases on my experience, there are some considerations for the crafting of such laws:

-Sometimes laws will use the term knowingly or reasonably should have known... you'd have to prove that the person who provided the weapon did so in the face of a likelihood it would be used in such an act. Or, knowing that there are possible safety concerns, failed to take reasonable measures to secure the weapons from that person.

The challenge with terms like knowingly and reasonable is that often you can't create specific definitions for each. This can be both bad and good: Bad because it leaves much up to interpretation but it's also Good because it isn't so narrowly defined that you have you have people skipping out on technicalities.

The next step would be in determining what would be deemed a suitable punishment if found guilty of such a law. There IS a difference between criminal negligence and conspiracy.

So let's say we craft something that we both feel pretty good about, how do we get others on board? I think it's an easy sell for those in the camp of more gun control. I think you could have more success than you might think bringing the other side on board BUT...

... I don't think many people are going to agree that it would be an effective deterrent. Even outside this issue, there's too much of a philosophical debate on whether or not laws actually deter criminal behavior and I think it's extremely difficult proving it. I'm not taking a hard stance saying it can't be done, but I wonder if it's the difference between getting enough votes or not, if it's a point worth fighting for?

And for the "it would have happened anyway" crowd, I think you can counter with an argument similar to why you would hold accountable the person who gave their car keys to someone who was obviously drunk, and that person later killed someone in a crash.


I think you could have something bro. And a law like this I think could be reasonably crafted and worded that doesn't create slippery slopes or unnecessarily restrict anyone's Rights.

That was a very interesting read Clem, thanks for posting it. It's an interesting train of logic. What I don't think I agree with is the final assessment that there is no "cure" coming.

I'm not sure I like that comparison because I interpret it to mean that this is something you can force to stop happening, or is something that has to run it's course just as actual riots lose their energy over time.

It smacks of an all or nothing solution and I don't buy that. I think there are many facets to this issue that need more consideration.

1) Swish caught flack for saying it's mostly white people doing these shootings. He also mentioned in another thread how it's mostly white people doped up on psych meds. Color commentary aside, maybe he's stumbled on to a correlation? Many of these shooters are on meds. We need to look at that: just what the hell are these chemicals doing to us? (everyone, not just white people LOL)

2) Almost to a T these people are outsiders, bullied, and they lash out. What kind of societal culture are we living in? As adults, look at how much we've allowed "dialogue" to devolve. It's almost never an exchange of ideas in a civil manner. Rather, they're keyboard power struggles... it's not about convincing, or converting, or educating.. it's about winning. Taking Power. Remember "If you're not first, you're last" ~Ricky Bobby.

If this is how the adults are acting, it's what the kids are emulating. Can it be a surprise then, when someone who is an outcast, our trampled on, views the situation in terms of power vs. powerlessness, that they resort to a method that allows them to seize Power?

If there was a way to measure the decline in civil discourse, I'd be willing to bet we'd see a pretty stark and direct correlation between it's de-evolution and an increase in these types of incidents.

These obviously aren't the only aspects, but IMO, these are 2 aspects that if paid attention to and efforts to remedy were made in earnest, we could actually make some headway in saving lives.

it all depends.

for example, in Germany, you have to take a mandatory EMT course before you take your driver's license test because its required by law to stop and render aid if you see a car accident.

i don't think it would be out of the question to require NEW gun purchasers to take a mandatory course on gun safety and security. you can grandfather in everybody else who already has CCW's and/or own guns overall, but all new purchasers must take the course.

that would be a huge determent, because then nobody can play stupid about how their guns were stored, or how they were stolen.

obviously the law would have to be written that way gun owners aren't punished for straight up robberies, like their guns are locked up properly, by regulation, but still get jacked.

but your gun laying under the mattress? or on the floor of your minivan? and then something happens, you need to be punished for that.

we have far too many illegal guns on the streets, we have far too many legal gun owners being careless with their gun storage, allowing their kids to get a hold of said guns and commit mass shootings, suicides, or accidental injuries.

but yea, the problem is that the idea in no way restricts gun owners from owning guns, but they will make it about that anyway.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but have any of you even once thought that understanding why so many youths think violence is the answer and then trying to find ways to identify and provide guidance for those children might be way more effective than altering gun laws?

Yep, that is what, among other things, I said in the other thread.

I'll just say this: In a thread, I believe you started, something along the lines of.......heck, I won't even try to remember the names.....

But, it was something along the lines of 'people react to how they're treated." Forgive me if I have that wrong.

Clem had a nice post about his tutoring, and how he made sure his students knew what he expected from them.


Wouldn't it be just so awesome if every kid had someone that cared, and made them toe the line as to what is acceptable, what is expected of them, etc?

in literally every mass shooting thread, at some point people talk about root causes, and talk about the culture here in America.

i'm not trying to be a jerk, but please actually pay attention instead of creating narratives that dont exist.

I'm not taking sides, Swish. I am not trying to win a damn debate. I could care less if they make stronger gun laws. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

What I am trying to do is find real solutions to the problem. I taught for years. I understand the mindset of many of our young people.

I am NOT arguing w/you. I'm trying to help!

i didn't say one word about you taking sides.

i also didn't say one word about trying to argue.

what i did was point out the fact that we always talk about gun culture and violence when it comes to mass shootings. so you implying that:



is a false narrative, because we ALWAYS talk about the very thing you want us to consider.

Okay. Carry on.

Swish, you are correct. We always talk about it and it is absolutely something we need to find ways to improve.. however, changing the entire culture of violence and broken homes and lonely bullied kids is, at best, generations away.. and even if we could accept that it's a 50 year plan to change it, I wouldn't know where to start..

We need to address what we can address right now..

As has been stated on this board many times, most of these shooters are pretty much law abiding (or at least non-violent) folks, right until they aren't. The deterrent part of this is simple, it's not to deter the shooter.. not much you can do there since all of them, even though many have mental issues, are still fully aware that walking into a school and shooting people is illegal.

The deterrent is to deter mom and dad or grandpa or the neighbor or whoever else might be careless with their guns who have NO INTENTION of becoming a criminal... Maybe they notice that Timmy has been acting weird lately, distant, maybe you found some off-the-wall stuff in the Google search history.. I don't know.. but if you know you could be on the hook if he takes that gun out of your unlocked nightstand and uses it.. just maybe you are more careful about it.

As we talk about this I'm reminded of GW Bush in the years following 911.. talking about how many potential events would be stopped that we didn't even hear about... also talking about how the good guys have to be right every single time and the bad guys only had to be right once... this is similar, but we still have to do what we can do to make it as difficult as possible.

I still prefer the K.I.S.S. method for things in life.

If parents Both Mothers and fathers would just love their children enough to spend the time to talk with their children, interact with them every day, pay attention to them, keep an eye on them, set an example for them, and discipline them. You wouldn't see most of the problems we have today.

It's not as one dimensional as you are claiming. Also, the majority of talk centers around gun control and turning our schools into forts.

I haven't seen the talk of how our society in general and our schools in particular are actually nurturing poor behavior. Kids who have emotional problems are given more and more accommodations while the teachers and the rest of the student populations pays the consequences.

We are teaching our children that poor behavior equates to receiving more rewards and fewer consequences. I'm not being mean or insensitive. Instead, I am suggesting that we identify and provide help to the students who are showing signs of emotional disturbance. I also believe that what I am talking about is strongly linked to The Pygmalion and Golem Effects that I wrote about in the Everything Else forum.

Your being honest ... thats not real popular in here or way more importantly in OUR COUNTRY today ... there’s so many root causes for our lack of respect for each other and how kids are raised these days ....

Crap ... this morning on the radio they were talking about on a new video game coming out in the beggining of June .. Active Shooter ... it puts u in a school with an AR-15 ...

Kids need strong adult supervision especially in todays world and there’s a serious lack of it ...

Want to hear something crazy? I actually agree with everything that you just said

But I am not sure the issue is what the schools are teaching the kids. Kids are not learning proper behaviors at home. I guess the reason for this is not a simple thing to figure out , but I feel the biggest problem is the break down of the family unit. Marriage is no loger held as sacred, isnt it like 50% of marriages end in divorce? And the rate of kids born out of wedlock goes higher and higher every year.

The schools can help , but they can not be held responsible for raising these kids.

I am love the idea about mandatory gun training and storing training actually. I have stated that several times on this board before.

However, as a CCW holder - lets say I am lawfully caring my firearm, and I am asked to not bring it in an establishment or court building. I am then REQUIRED to leave it in my car. Then said car gets robbed and the gun is stolen from the glove box etc. How would this law work with that?

I dunno, but I do know you can lock your glove box.

Doesnt matter, you are responsible for that gun, if you leave it in your car and it is stolen, you are resposible.

If I remember correctly, you're not big on gun safes. It takes too much time to get the guns out of the safe for when that home invasion takes place, and the intruders won't let you politely ask to go get your guns. So you like to have them on hand at all times, even when you're watching tv with the fam.

Do you feel the same way about the car?

You lock your car, it's stolen, and the felon causes an injury/death accident - you still responsible?

And for the record, I'm FOR proper training with guns, and storage.

In my opinion, if the gun is out of site (glove box or center console) and the car is locked.. then the person who broke into your car is completely responsible.. if the gun is sitting on the passenger seat and the window is down, then I would put that on you.. somewhere in between is "the line"..

We are all going to reach differences of opinion on exactly what is "reasonable"... or what level of extra effort it should take to obtain the gun by the criminal and where exactly that line should be drawn.. but I think it's great that so many are at least willing to participate in the conversation..

Thats probably a good question and I am not sure I really have a good answer . My onoy thought on it is that a car purpose is not to kill someone , or something . It is just an unfortunate possible side effect of using that technology. Even if the peron intentionally uses it to hurt someone , that is not the intended purpose of a car, or anything thst is not a weapon, really.

True, but how do you prove it wasn't locked in there?

Lets say I put my gun under the seat, its stolen. I report it ot the police, they say "where was the gun", and I reply "it was locked in the glovebox".

How do you ascertain it was not locked?

So basically the law is junk. I leave the gun on the seat, it gets stolen.

Officer - "where was the gun located"

Citizen not wanting to go to jail - "I locked it in the glove box"

Officer - "well, since we have no way to prove that otherwise....you are free to go"

The purpose of an object has no meaning in its actual use. Viagra was originally thought to be used for hypertension. and well.....

Youre right , there is no difference between something designed and produced to kill things , and something that is designed and produced to provide transport .

[/quote] Doesnt matter, you are responsible for that gun, if you leave it in your car and it is stolen, you are resposible. [/quote]

Do you feel the same way about the car?

You lock your car, it's stolen, and the felon causes an injury/death accident - you still responsible?

And for the record, I'm FOR proper training with guns, and storage.[/quote] Thats probably a good question and I am not sure I really have a good answer . My onoy thought on it is that a car purpose is not to kill someone , or something . It is just an unfortunate possible side effect of using that technology. Even if the peron intentionally uses it to hurt someone , that is not the intended purpose of a car, or anything thst is not a weapon, really. [/quote]The purpose of an object has no meaning in its actual use. Viagra was originally thought to be used for hypertension. and well.....

[/quote] Youre right , there is no difference between something designed and produced to kill things , and something that is designed and produced to provide transport . [/quote]One was designed and is vastly used to provide food and protection. So because someone wants to use it for another purpose, you agree that's not its intended use - thus no reason for the laws....

if its in your glovebox, then even if somebody broke into it, oh well.

but we're talking like leaving your gun on the floor of the car, where your kids has easy access to it. or leaving it visible in the car.

the laws can be written to account for those cases.

but overall, i still support the idea of holding irresponsible grown ups responsible if they leave their weapons un-secure, and it leads to criminal activity.

i understand your point, but the reality is that in most cases, it's gonna be pretty clear whether or not a weapon was left in a nonsecure location or not.

and as the best example, you're gonna have a hard time convincing me that a mom should have the right to leave her gun laying on the floor in the minivan with her child inside. or a parent who didn't lock up their weapons, which lead to their minor using it in a mass shooting.

Im not trying to convince you or anyone, I am merely making a point that these are the types of things that need to be talked about and considered.

The point I am trying to make is this. the saying "we need common sense" gun laws. Ok, tell me what they are?

Stronger background checks - ok, what does that entail? Explain?

Holding parents responsible? - Ok, sounds like a good idea I agree. But can you prove that it was not locked up? Can you disprove it was? Etc.

Mandatory testing and training - I have said multiple times this should be a requirement for a CCW permit. Are you ok with the government financing a training and requirement program for this? Or do you want the NRA to provide these (they do in a lot of states already)? Are you ok with tax dollars going to the NRA for supplying these courses?

My point is, its all well and dandy to throw out talking points, but no one has an answer for or explanation for real material when the time comes to talk about it.

(and im not saying you in particular, im saying in general, the majority anti gun rights people).

Hold on.




I pretty much agree with you.

Why would someone put their gun in their car, on the seat?

That's asking for a break in - to get the gun. Same thing as with any valuables.

Guy walking by your car - bad guy - and he sees a gun on the seat, or a cell phone, or a diamond necklace? He's gonna take it.

You don't leave valuables in open sight in your car. Well, I don't.



Should my house be treated the same? Cool. I don't leave weapons, or diamonds, or cell phone, etc, in open sight from my house windows. Only way anyone can get my valuables is by - get this - breaking in to my house. Crime.

I think the term "anti-gun rights" is far too often used towards anyone wishing to see common sense measures used to attempt to lessen gun crimes. I know a lot of pro gun advocates that feel some stronger regulations make sense.

I don't really have answers to your questions though. I share some of your concerns as well. It's like strengthening mental background checks. Would that mean anyone who has ever been treated for depression or ever had counseling for anything isn't qualified to own a gun?

The devil is in the details and depending on who is imposing such laws will go a very long way in how restrictively they're written.

Also, whats the difference between a locked glovebox and a locked car? Again, not harping on you, just trying to show how things are written and things are perceived to be are not always the same.

So your saying if the gun was under the seat, but the car locked that's jail for the owner, but if the car is unlocked and the gun is in a locked glove box, its not on their hands?

There are lot of ways these things can go and the wording way laws are written are important.

Well again, i certainly believe holding people responsible for irresponsible gun safety and storage is a common sense gun law.

there are plenty of prevention methods that can be used to help deter criminal activity, or negligence that leads to criminal activity.

i've stated for years on this board that mandatory gun course should be required for everybody.

because if everybody does it from the jump, then there's no need for people to have a CCW license. we already trained them from the jump.

i've also stated for years that this should be a state funded course, with only the potential gun purchaser having to foot the cost of a small registration fee, like how we pay for a license and tags.

i've also stated another way to prevent abuse from the government is to make it mandatory that the government MUST show up to court within a 30-60 day window from the date of placing someone on the no-fly list AND the terror watch list, in order to state their case as to why the defendant was placed on said list. that way, people have a quick and fair day in court, oversight is being practiced, and minimum abuse of power/fraud happens.

i've given real explanations plenty of times on here. so have other people.

the pro gun guys need to come to the table quick, because the more these mass shootings happen, the less the country is gonna listen to whatever pro-gun excuse comes next. you might not like that reality, but thats the reality.

I agree with this in theory, I would just like to see the exact written proposal before I would sign off on it. That's why I keep giving you "what ifs". Its not to be a dink, I promise, its for others to realize how easily things like these can be construed to get a broad agenda pushed, and people's bill of rights trampled.

We agree whole heartedly on this.

We agree again, however I highly doubt many on the left would EVER agree.

I am ok with this, however is that disenfranchising the poor from obtaining a weapon? Guns are already expensive, and it seems that adding more expense to them is now pushing it that only the wealthy or those well off can afford them. I would have to see the cost.

I would have to compromise and say 30 tops. between state, local, and federal they can get it done by 30 days.

Thats probably a good question and I am not sure I really have a good answer . My onoy thought on it is that a car purpose is not to kill someone , or something . It is just an unfortunate possible side effect of using that technology. Even if the peron intentionally uses it to hurt someone , that is not the intended purpose of a car, or anything thst is not a weapon, really. [/quote]The purpose of an object has no meaning in its actual use. Viagra was originally thought to be used for hypertension. and well.....

[/quote] Youre right , there is no difference between something designed and produced to kill things , and something that is designed and produced to provide transport . [/quote]One was designed and is vastly used to provide food and protection. So because someone wants to use it for another purpose, you agree that's not its intended use - thus no reason for the laws....[/quote] yeah because handguns are designed for hunting in mind, please , try harder next time

[/quote] Thats probably a good question and I am not sure I really have a good answer . My onoy thought on it is that a car purpose is not to kill someone , or something . It is just an unfortunate possible side effect of using that technology. Even if the peron intentionally uses it to hurt someone , that is not the intended purpose of a car, or anything thst is not a weapon, really. [/quote]The purpose of an object has no meaning in its actual use. Viagra was originally thought to be used for hypertension. and well.....

[/quote] Youre right , there is no difference between something designed and produced to kill things , and something that is designed and produced to provide transport . [/quote]One was designed and is vastly used to provide food and protection. So because someone wants to use it for another purpose, you agree that's not its intended use - thus no reason for the laws....[/quote] yeah because handguns are designed for hunting in mind, please , try harder next time [/quote]

Top to bottom, right to left. I guess I have to highlight things for you now as well. . . . .

[/quote]One was designed and is vastly used [color:#FFFF33]to provide food and protection.[/quote] OK, so how does it provide food and protection, by killing , right ? So you just changed the words but they still mean the same thing

Swish needs to give you guys his helmet.

still working on that quote button, eh?