News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
As a 2A Advocate / Gun Guy all I can say is GOOD. Parents who do this deserve to held legally responsible.
Does that include all the children who kill themselves with their father's gun?
Why did you gender that?
In answer to your question I'll say "It would depend on the circumstances." A weapon retrieved from a nightstand, or a mothers purse, and used by a small child to kill themselves is a very different situation than a teen who accesses a gun safe without permission.
Honestly pepper spray and bear spray are 100x more effective than a gun in most situations. The intent is usually to disable not to kill, and pepper spray eliminates a need to have any serious hesitation. That 0.5 second hesitation about whether to take a life with a gun could mean life or death in a defense scenario.
Why did it upset you?
Both are a failure to prevent a child from accessing a firearm.
Because it's unnecessary.
This and this are both failures; gendering the failing parent simply isn't required.
Yes but they are only similar in the broadest sense; a child grabbing a loaded gun out of Mom's Purse or Dad's Nightstand are very different scenarios from a teen who destructively opens a gun safe or steals the key to it.
Safe storage for firearms is desirable but requiring the prosecution of those who made a good faith effort and failed is not.
Damn well wait until you find out how many gun deaths are unnecessary.
Then that prosecution can determine if a good faith effort was made or if the parents were negligent with the storage of their firearms, rather than the usual pro-gun stance of "every solution must be 100% effective (except ours) while never even mildly inconveniencing us and if you try and make it actually happen we'll kill you".
If a minor gets a gun and does something illegal, including killing themselves, the parents should 100% be charged. There is no scenario where it would be ok for a minor to get access to a gun without supervision and approval by their parents.
Works for me. Now you'll have to get the pro-gun crowd to accept mandatory safe storage laws.
Mandatory safe storage laws do nothing. you're assuming that because it's a law people will follow it. Safe storage laws are tack on penalties that are simply feel good laws for the anti gun crowd.
Exhibit A with his gun in a drawer. But it's okay, we don't need you to follow it, we just need something to charge you with when you don't
Not sure how I feel about that one. 1. I believe suicide/assisted suicide shouldnt be 100% illegal. 2. I would have to say that a kid who slits their wrists or overdoses would have to see the same charges there. Someone wanting to kill themselves always has the means. Run at a cop with a knife, happened earlier today. Step in front of a truck, off a bridge, down all the pills in the medicine cabinet. If I had done any of those when I was a teen, I don't think my parents should be charged with it. I think due to it having an effect on another person's life is where it comes in.
Not knowing exactly what your child is going through and how much it is effecting them I would say all parents are guilty of. It is near impossible. Negligence might be a charge in some way, but charging them with manslaughter is a lot
My point is that the guns should be secured in such a way that even if the kid wanted to kill themselves, the gun is not an option. It’s locked away.
Not what assisted suicide is. People seeking assisted suicide have terminal illnesses and want to die with as much dignity and as little trauma as possible.
"They can just blow their brains out in the bedroom with a cool gun" isn't a solution, it's the pro-gun crowd trying to pretend they're actually deeply compassionate people for advocating dogshit gun laws.
Not how suicide works. Means reduction has been repeatedly shown to be an effective method of suicide prevention.
But it doesn't stop there. Only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt will go on to die by suicide but functionally nobody survives an attempt with a gun.
And of course, what's currently the suicide method of choice for radicalized teenagers? Grabbing a poorly secured gun and killing as many people with it as you can before the police shoot you in the head or you get bored and blow your brains out.
But I guess if we didn't supply them with semi-automatic weapons, they'd just go out and do a mass hanging or mass wrist slitting instead.
Sounds good on paper but that's going to a lead to a LOT of parents in prison when their minor child gets involved with gang activity. I understand your sentiment but the idea doesn't have enough nuance to be practical.
That is a good point, but it should still be on the parents to secure the guns. If you own a gun, it’s on you to also buy whatever you need to keep that gun locked up and safe.
So I'm curious, what are you charging the parents with in this case or this one or this one.
You gonna send that second kids mom to jail because her Son stole a gun and killed his father? Do you envision her prison sentence happening during or after she heals up from her own gunshot wounds?
I'm not trying to be jerk here, I'm trying to expose the need for nuance in these kinds of discussion. Not everything is as simple as "Lock 'em Up!".
I looked through each of your examples and, unless I missed something, none of those cases involved a minor getting the parents insecure gun. First one was a theft from a gun store, the second doesn’t state any details on where the gun came from, and the last one was a gun stolen from police.
My comments re: parents being responsible is for cases that the parents’ gun is taken by the minor and used in a crime, not any gun crime committed by a minor.
Again, if I missed something, please let me know.
I don't have kids. No kids ever visit my house. I don't flaunt my gun ownership, nor do I leave them laying about. Why do I need a safe?
You always supposed to have a safe. You're supposed to keep it in a safe, even if you don't think you need to.
When people talk about irresponsible gun ownership, you're the type of person they're talking about. It's people like you who just don't care. You're not being responsible with your weapon.
What would a safe change in this specific case?
No you're supposed to have a safe. It's got nothing to do with this case it's just about gun safety in general.
explain to me why? my guns are secure. I have no children. I don't have kids in my life what so ever. they aren't laying around on tables or nightstands. explain why.
Why are you arguing with me I don't make up the law.
You are supposed to have a gun safe, you're supposed to secure your weapons. It's your choice if you don't do it whatever your justification is is irrelevant.
That is not the "LAW". in some states it might be, but it's not federal law at all.
Because it’s a deadly weapon and it’s your responsibility that it is secured (not necessarily a safe). Part of responsible gun ownership.
Um. wasn't that kinda my question? I didn't say they were not 'secure'.
My apologies for the confusion then, though my use of the word “safe” was secure. Keeping a gun hidden in a sock drawer != safe, though there are other ways to secure something.
Sure, i can understand that. I think there are a lot of people here that think guns somehow just up and shoot people on their own. I get what you're saying.
Why do we need bet our lives on you not lying? Why do we have to tolerate people who leave handguns in cars and secure rifles with threats of domestic violence all so you, a special special snowflake who pinkie promises they're responsible, don't have to buy a safe?
What would a safe change in this specific case?
What a plot twist, a pro-gun poster who can't look beyond themselves and what they want and see the wider problems of gun ownership.
Please explain to me how the situation i described would be any different if my guns were in a safe, rather than a locked closet?
And surprise surprise, he's slow too.
"I will never drive drunk so what good are DUI laws?"
you still haven't answered any questions. just thrown insults.
"No but you don't understand, I'm not driving drunk so how would DUI laws change anything".
how do safe storage laws reduce gun violence?
you're still throwing out strawman arguments.
Have you tried shooting them with your poorly secured firearms?
wow. great. much burn. so raw. Still can't answer the question.
Oh honey, it's been repeatedly answered for you, you've just been too slow to pick up on it.
I hope you're intentionally trying to make me waste my time cause otherwise holy fuck, you sure are unarmed on the internet.
Oh then be a dear and point out EXACTLY where it's been answered. Cause all I see is snark and avoidance.
Nah. It's time for you to learn how to think for yourself rather than having people spoonfeed you information and opinions.
Besides, having you unable to see things right in front of your face makes gun owners look much worse.
You haven't said a single thing here. you've literally just made fun of me all the while avoiding the question. I don't NEED your "opinion". I know the law and I know where I stand with it. I want you, someone who said I'm wrong, to tell me exactly how I'm wrong, without calling names, or making strawman arguments. You literally have not answered a single question. You're playing everything by the "i know jack shit" playbook. You simply can't tell me the answer to my question. You say I'm wrong but refuse to tell me why. Leads me to believe YOU'RE the one that's been spoon-fed information and you're too dim witted to parse it into something you can put into words yourself.
Didn't read.
Theft. Any time you aren't home your house turns into an unattended armory for thieves.
So answer me this. If a 'thief' breaks into your LOCKED house, steals your car keys, takes your car and kills someone else in a car accident, are you liable?
oh right so someone else breaking the law is somehow my fault? got it.