General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMy humble opinion on shooters
Name them. Tell their stories. Document their motivations and illnesses. Show their families. The friends. The Discord members. The gun sellers. The ammo sellers. Their manifestos. Etc.
Stop pretending that never saying their names to prevent their martyrdom will solve anything.
Dig deep. Be journalists. Tell the story. Force these killers and their killings down our throats.
Nothing else seems to work. Why not use our interconnected world to tell these horror stories and the monsters who perpetrate them.
No privacy. No rest for whoever or whatever creates killers.
End rant.
roamer65
(36,748 posts)In Michigan, its now a crime to have a improperly stored gun in a house with minors present.
OAITW r.2.0
(24,803 posts)What we don't know are the dead. Let's make them the story.
Frasier Balzov
(2,682 posts)This would randomize the punishment to gun commerce in way which correlates to the randomness experienced by the victims.
Straw Man
(6,628 posts)This would randomize the punishment to gun commerce in way which correlates to the randomness experienced by the victims.
There are laws regulating the sale of guns. If they didn't comply with those laws, then yes, they should be shut down. If they did comply, how are they liable for the crime?
Capricious and arbitrary justice isn't justice. You might get some pleasure out of the retributive aspect of your plan, but is isn't justice.
Frasier Balzov
(2,682 posts)Is there a public policy reason to treat a gun dealer any more harshly than a car dealer whose customer causes a horrible crash?
The only difference I can think of is the nature of the product itself.
At present, the law is fashioned to treat these products too much alike with regard to the merchant's risk.
That risk is what's missing or, more precisely, has deliberately been removed so that commerce in firearms will not be impeded.
And who wants commerce in firearms to not be impeded by imposing the risk of misuse on the merchant?
People who want to promote guns and ammunition in the hands of the public, that's who.
People who equate American-style individual freedom with the power to conveniently kill and injure.
To me, the difference between guns and cars merits disparate treatment of the merchants.
You are lucky enough to sell guns until the day your luck runs out. Just like the luck of the dead and injured victims ran out.
Straw Man
(6,628 posts)That risk is what's missing or, more precisely, has deliberately been removed so that commerce in firearms will not be impeded.
And who wants commerce in firearms to not be impeded by imposing the risk of misuse on the merchant?
There is no other product on the market anywhere in the world for which the risk of misuse lies with the merchant who has sold the product legally. Misuse is something completely beyond the merchant's control.
If you want to make private ownership of firearms illegal across the board, have at it. If you succeed, then the only merchants will be black marketeers, whose arrest and prosecution would be justifiable. But to randomly assign blame to someone who followed the law? No -- not with any pretense to justice. You may think there is some warped symmetry of tragedy in your scheme, but it is completely indefensible ethically.
roamer65
(36,748 posts)Especially if no background check was performed.
moondust
(20,030 posts)Made me wonder if he was maybe a Proud Boy or Oath Keeper who could have been pissed off about the new J6 convictions and didn't want to "stand back and stand by."
WarGamer
(12,515 posts)WarGamer
(12,515 posts)Captain Zero
(6,870 posts)Due to Republicans thwarting every attempt at controlling assault weaponry.
Rhiannon12866
(207,016 posts)GreenWave
(6,832 posts)was showing it every day on prime time.