What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Another Mass Shooting: It's Those Darn Video Games!

Status
Not open for further replies.
First Time said:
Yep...reports surfacing that some students didn't feel comfortable going in today. As usual...this could have been prevented.
and as usual...the ammophiles pull out the "I thought schools were gun free zones" "guess the criminals just don't follow laws"
I'm so *** sick of it.
Student in custody is 15. You can't tell me he didn't have easy access to a gun...and I'd bet a legal one too.
Click to expand...

I don’t think there is anything wrong with holding a gun owner liable if they’ve done something negligent but I doubt it happens very often. How successful are parents keeping liquor away from their kids? It’s the same idea with guns.
 
Drew S. said:
I don’t think there is anything wrong with holding a gun owner liable if they’ve done something negligent but I doubt it happens very often. How successful are parents keeping liquor away from their kids? It’s the same idea with guns.
Click to expand...

My parents were pretty damn successful with it. I had my first drink on my 21st. Guns and liquor can be locked up in the home. That standard should be the minimum. And absolutely parents should be held responsible when junior uses their gun to murder.
 
Drew S. said:
I don’t think there is anything wrong with holding a gun owner liable if they’ve done something negligent but I doubt it happens very often. How successful are parents keeping liquor away from their kids? It’s the same idea with guns.
Click to expand...

They were accessories to murder- they are liable for their guns, and them being used properly. But they were not, and were used to murder kids in cold blood. Should be sent to jail, or at least the parents of the kids should make sure the family has zero resources to live on for the rest of their lives. Their gun took the lives away from kids.

If they are not successful at keeping them from kids, then either they should not have guns or they should not have kids. There are locks for them- many designs. This isn't rocket science.
 
MichVandal said:
They were accessories to murder- they are liable for their guns, and them being used properly. But they were not, and were used to murder kids in cold blood. Should be sent to jail, or at least the parents of the kids should make sure the family has zero resources to live on for the rest of their lives. Their gun took the lives away from kids.

If they are not successful at keeping them from kids, then either they should not have guns or they should not have kids. There are locks for them- many designs. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

I’ll let a lawyer give the official answer but if they took precautions an average person found reasonable they wouldn’t be negligent. There is only so much one can do.
 
Reports that the suspect's father purchased the gun used in the shooting on Black Friday. The parents are refusing to let him talk to police and have hired an attorney for him.
 
unofan said:
No, but a lot of people are conditioned by every police procedural on tv to believe that lawyering up and exercising your right to remain silent are bad things.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of good videos on YouTube about this. The over-caffeinated prof is probably my favorite though.

but shut the fuck up Friday is also good.
 
In 150 years guns are going to be like slavery now. People will think "how the hell did anyone justify that?" And the answer will be the same: greed, tradition, and stupidity.
 
RaceBoarder said:
That is probably the most chilling video I have seen on the web in a LONG time...

Smart move by those kids. Literally their lives were in the balance...
Click to expand...
When we had to do the drills for this stuff when I was in high school (20 years ago, how sad is that?), I long maintained a stance that if I heard gunshots it was “fuck your lockdown, my chair is going through that window and I’m out of here.”
 
Jimjamesak said:
When we had to do the drills for this stuff when I was in high school (20* years ago, how sad is that?), I long maintained a stance that if I heard gunshots it was “fuck your lockdown, my chair is going through that window and I’m out of here.”
Click to expand...

Somebody went to a rural high school...

GettyImages_460498124.jpg


* try 40


 
Last edited:
No, my high school had a second floor, it just fell off in the earthquake. After that they kinda decided to build it out on ground level.

(Tall buildings + Blue Clay Soil + 9.0 Earthquakes = No es bueno)
 
Drew S. said:
I’ll let a lawyer give the official answer but if they took precautions an average person found reasonable they wouldn’t be negligent. There is only so much one can do.
Click to expand...

That's a terrible defense. And I don't see that as a defense for allowing a weapon loose to murder people. They supplied the gun to the shooter, who was their minor kid. Minor kids are not as responsible, or we would not call them minors. So the parents have a LOT of liability in this case.

The fact that clear threats have come out prior to this- roughly the same time as the shooter apparently got this gun- yea- "nothing could be done" is not an excuse. The kid should not have been given a gun at all.

Responsible parents would have gifted the gun, but have had it stored in a secure gun locker only to be used in the supervision of the parents. IMHO, for all we hear about responsible gun owners, doing that is average.
 
unofan said:
No, but a lot of people are conditioned by every police procedural on tv to believe that lawyering up and exercising your right to remain silent are bad things.
Click to expand...

Given everyone's pretty obvious liability, it is the smart move. If the parents say the wrong thing, they could easily end up in jail.
 
MichVandal said:
That's a terrible defense. And I don't see that as a defense for allowing a weapon loose to murder people. They supplied the gun to the shooter, who was their minor kid. Minor kids are not as responsible, or we would not call them minors. So the parents have a LOT of liability in this case.

The fact that clear threats have come out prior to this- roughly the same time as the shooter apparently got this gun- yea- "nothing could be done" is not an excuse. The kid should not have been given a gun at all.

Responsible parents would have gifted the gun, but have had it stored in a secure gun locker only to be used in the supervision of the parents. IMHO, for all we hear about responsible gun owners, doing that is average.
Click to expand...

Is that what happened here? If they did give him the gun obviously they would be liable but if he took it from them it’s on him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top