TEXAS RAMPAGE: Authorities Release the Identity of the 17-Year-Old Gunman

It’s about intent…and the argument that stealing a car and accidentally killing some one. And stealing a gun and intentionally hurting or killing someone.

A cars purpose is to provide transport. A guns purpose is to shoot a projectile. And most of the time it’s purpose is to shoot that projectile at some one. Whether with malice or in self defense.

INTENT of the individual and purpose of the object. A cars purpose is not to kill.

No … it would not have prevented it because he didn’t use an AR or other rifle, he used a shotgun and a pistol. Even if every AR had been confiscated and destroyed (as some of the more radical anti-gun folks want) it would not have prevented this shooting. My point is simple … banning certain guns … even all guns … will not stop mass killings. It is trite, almost beyond words, but guns do not kill people, people kill people. Take away their guns and they will still kill.

Oh brother…

You’re buying into something that is just wrong.

Blaming and punishing people who did not commit the crime.

You can try to justify it all you want, but it is still wrong.

Come on, let the liberals have their dream. :wink:

Intent may matter to the law, but it does not matter to the dead.

Not buying into anything. I’ve had this belief for about 30 years now.

Tugging at my heart stings Samm??? You should know I’m Konssurvative…i have no I heart!

That would be correct. If Are didn’t exist the three shootings this week still happen…and never thought ARs were the issue anyway.

Of course. What rights are you talking about specifically?

No.

It’s not. The parents didn’t intend to kill anyone in either case.

Not the intent of the parents.

Seriously, “I didn’t mean to kill him/her” is of no comfort to the dead or their families and loved ones. There is no real difference between being negligent with the security of your guns and the security of your car keys if it results in the death or injury of innocent people.

I could get behind much of that.

it’s impossible to find a solution to any issue if people just want to argue.

And that’s my point. I’m speaking from a legal standing. If you own a gun, and you don’t safe guard it you are going to be held responsible. It’s call contributory negligence. And if YOU want these shootings to end that’s part of the solution. Like it or not.

How? What? The deranged killers will change their minds because their parents will go to jail? Hell that would probably be a bonus to most of them. Or what? The parents who are so clueless as to not realize they’ve raised a kid so totally lacking empathy and a soul he could commit mass murder are going to be responsible enough to keep their guns locked up at all times to keep them away from them? When they could easily accomplish the same thing without any law that would punish them for not doing so?

My parents had a safe when I was a kid, didn’t take me long to get the combination, not that tough a task when you live in the same house.

It’s nice of you to say it so clearly - the number of american children who are murdered in school with guns is an acceptable price for you relative to your right to buy a guy hassle free.

Here is the NRA celebrating the roll back of the Obama rule re: forbidding those not mentally capable of handling their own money from buying a gun.

That bill essentially equates mental health with your ability to handle your own money. If you aren’t mentally capable of cashing your own checks, you should not own a gun - according to the Obama rule. The NRA opposes that.

Here is a op-ed on a mental health firearm bill that the NRA backed in 2015 - I understand it’s an op-ed, but rather than wade through the bill from scratch, the author makes my point for me. I believe there are links to the legislation in the piece:

The NRA bill, though, equates release with health and stability. Forget the doctors, the courts, and the wishes of family members – the NRA bill restores gun rights, and returns a person’s guns, immediately and automatically. That’s regardless of a person’s mental health condition, and regardless of the risks or likelihood of relapse.

Think about it. Your loved one – with the aid of antipsychotic drugs, and as resources for long-term inpatient care facilities continue to shrink – leaves the hospital. Over time, the risk that he’ll harm himself will diminish. There may come a time when you’re more comfortable – and he’s more comfortable – with the idea of him having his hunting rifle back, or buying a new one.

But as far as the NRA is concerned, your loved one can leave the hospital and buy a gun on his way home. Once he leaves the hospital, the FBI would have to remove his name and record from the background check system.

1 Like

If you are too dangerous to own a gun, you are too dangerous to be walking around free. As guns are far from the only way to kill someone.

The liberal position seems to be, we must allow those who are dangerous, who we think might snap and go on a killing spree go free and as a consequence the people who aren’t dangerous must give up their right to self defense. No sale.