Not at all, I understand your words and meanings just fine. But you have drawn some wrong conclusions and I disagree with your “solutions”.
For example, since some people drink, drive and kill people why don’t we ban cars. I can promise you it will save lives. And apparently that is the only part of any equation that matters to you. Letting a few bad apples ruin it for the millions of law abiding citizens is not a good way of dealing with the bad guys.
As a matter of fact I’m pretty sure we are already doing the best we can to curb irresponsible or criminal behaviors without sacrificing any more individual rights and freedoms. The very sad fact is that criminals will always act in a criminal manner. You cannot legislate it away.
This next point gets lobbed back and forth too much on these boards but… making guns illegal will only remove them from honest people. Criminals will still find a way to get them. And probably pretty easily. Maybe there was a time in this country when that genie could have been put back in the bottle, but no more. There are too many guns for that to work now.
Liability insurance for anyone who owns gun. Might make people more likely to store in gun safe and less likely to loan a gun to someone. Haven’t really heard pros-cons debated about that.
Which is really interesting, because the probable right answer is actually (as demonstrated in many other first world democracies) closer to 1.05 on the spectrum defined by your choices.
Has no one considered the possibility that these two assailants were time travelers from the future? Perhaps that baby would have grown up to be another Hitler, but ten times worse. Perhaps there was a large scale debate among the time travelers board over whether or not to intervene, and this was their first ever breach of the non-interference policy that has kept them out of meddling with history thus far. Not even Hitler was a big enough nuisance to warrant interference. But THIS baby? This baby was bad news.
The two teens incarcerated over the event would’ve gone on to be minor generals in SuperHitler Army. They were just framed by the time travelers here to both cover their tracks and to ensure that their evil minds were kept out of power. The mom herself said the kids who did it didn’t look that old.
So because America doesn’t live up to your delusional fantasies some how America is to blame? :rolleyes:
A lot of people that aren’t allowed to have guns have guns illegally. So your solution is to pass a law that makes it extra extra illegal for them to have guns? Holy shit I think you’ve solved the problem. Why if we just make it extra extra illegal then they’ll all realize the error of their ways and turns their guns in.
Harder? What you mean like Obama allowing guns to be sold to criminals and then transferred to drug gangs in Mexico? That harder? Yeah, that’ll show those criminals.
It’s already illegal to sell guns to criminals and Obama is still doing it. How will making a few more help when the fucking president is breaking the laws already on the books?
I’m amazed over this story. Like some other posters my immediate reaction upon reading the initial news item was, “bullshit - she shot the kid.” Then they announced an arrest.
Is it strange that I find it much more believable that a mother would kill her child in a brutal fashion such as this and blame it on a random attack by a stranger than I would an actual brutal random attack by a stranger? I mean, it’s just so over the top. I can see exchanges like this happening in every state of the union - that is, “give me your money” - “no” - struggle ensues and someone pops a cap.
But, “I’ll just shoot your baby in the face?” That shit only happens in movies. Doesn’t it?
I read about this news at another forum. May the Lord be with that baby’s family.
God bless you and them always!!!
Holly
P.S. And if those who took that baby’s life have no remorse then may they rot.
To me, the most staggering thing is that the way they figured out who the shooters might be was to check attendance records at school. It just boggles my mind for some reason.
“Oh we had a deliberate murder at point blank range of an infant in a stroller? …Call the junior high!”
I mean, just… fuuuuuuck!
Regards,
-Bouncer-
PS: Guys like this shooter need to die by lethal injection… of ebola. Or maybe rabies. Something really horrible anyways.
One solution is to reduce the overall number of guns in a given community, thus making ‘illegal’ guns less likely to be obtained. The point is to give incentives to folks that currently own guns* legally* to turn in their weapons…when weapons become scarce, the value goes up, and only the most successful crims can afford to purchase them: certainly not some scungy fucking teenagers who want to do a bag-snatch and shoot a baby’s head off.
Gun buyback schemes have had some degree of success both in the US and in Australia (where in 1996, after the Port Arthur massacre, the government outlawed certain categories of firearms and mandated they be turned in for cash compensation).
Sure, it isn’t going to stamp out gun-crimes entirely: nobody is suggesting that. But every gun that is turned in is potentially one less gun that can be utilised to commit a violent crime. Given enough time and changes in community attitudes, who knows what could be achieved!
I just read that during the initial court hearing, the mother of the shooter said “I love you” to her son. I don’t know…I love my daughter more than anything, but if she did something so heinous…I don’t think I could utter those words. I mean…this is more than some robbery gone wrong. If the mother of the infant is to be believed (which I think she is), he killed the baby out of spite. If I were his mother, I’d be making myself scarce because his actions make it pretty clear how shitty of a parent I was.
