10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence

I was suggesting it as a solution to the safety problem and saying that the law can’t solve the problem of accidental gun deaths. I don’t think that what happened in Charelston was a result of someone leaving the safety off in the presence of a child, so I can’t see how its relevant to my point.

Isn’t that what I said, though? Kris proposed they be charged with murder, I pointed out that wasn’t possible: that criminal negligence would be the highest charge possible. Also, in such cases, the sentences are often reduced because the death of a child is considered a form of punishment. The risk of losing a child is a far greater incentive to keep guns safe than the risk of a couple of years in prison to any normal parent.

I was simply proposing a continuation of the status quo, which is what you seem to be suggesting as well.

They aren’t my buddies. Those posts weren’t relevant to the question I was answering, which was “Where exactly did I [Peripheral] express “personal hatred?” If I did, you need to show where.”, which is why I didn’t mention them.

My response was completely relevant to your point, just as your response was irrelevant to mine. I was criticizing your ridiculous claim the gun community can solve gun problems on their own without laws to make sure they do so. It’s clear from many gun deaths, including the ones in Charleston, that much of the gun community is toxic and helps produce shootings like the one in Charleston. They are not the ones to solve our gun death problems on their own.

No, it’s not what you said at all. This is what you said:

So, unlike me, you want no jail time for parents who kill their children by negligently leaving guns unsecured. And just because the risk of losing a child is a greater incentive doesn’t mean we shouldn’t add to that incentive the fear of jail time, or rightly punish those killing their children through negligence. Some gun-owning parents abuse and don’t care about their children, so laws punishing negligent gun-owners is the only incentive for them to secure their guns.

And neither of us were arguing for the status quo. As I showed with your post, you don’t even agree with current laws giving jail time to negligent gun-owning parents. I, on the other hand, want an addition to the status quo with mandatory safety courses helping to prevent such gun deaths, as well as our current laws giving jail-time to negligent gun-owning parents. So, we are not suggesting the same things at all.

Firstly, you didn’t show any of my posts were “hatred” at all; I made that clear above. Secondly, the fact you and Uccisore ignored them, when most of them were ruder than my posts, and met your inaccurate definition of hatred, shows how biased you are. I addressed Uccisore, not you. But you still chose to waste time wrongly labeling a group of my posts as “hatred.” That, and your ignoring those other rude posts, shows your lame bias. I suggest you work on your own posts instead of wasting your time listing my non-hateful ones.

I agree they are not. I never said they were the right people to solve all gun death problems on their own. I only said that they were a part of the solution to deaths through gun negligence. Most people who have guns are very safety conscious - they should work to remind each other about gun safety especially around children. It’s a sensible suggestion, no?

The current U.S. laws do not necessitate that such parents go to jail. They are often not sent to jail where the judge feels they have suffered proportionally. e.g. startribune.com/dad-s-remors … 213317921/

Yes, I am arguing for this to continue. It should continue to be on a case by case basis though - if there isn’t sufficient evidence the parent is affected by the death (e.g. they were abusive before), then sentencing should commence.

The current laws are sensible and should be kept as is. That was all I was saying to Kris.

I ignored all of yours too, until you asked about them.

You absolutely said they should do so on their own, as you made it clear they should do so without the law being involved…and I can’t believe you want the law to stay out of gun deaths:

So, try to read your own posts better. And, as I said earlier: Of course, it’s a problem for the law to solve. The crimes committed with those guns break the law, so the government writing and enforcing the laws are exactly the people who should be improving/changing the laws to solve the problem. And your romanticization of gun-owners is remarkable. Many gun owners are alcoholics, mentally ill, racist (Charleston again), uneducated, gun-worshipping, and do not get along with other gun-owners. The fact you think they could actually solve our gun death problems is mind-blowing.

So, gun owners should improve their own gun-safety, but they are definitely not the ones to do so on their own.

Brevel, what exactly do you do for a living? I’m truly curious. You can’t just give one case as an example for what punishments are usually given out. Many parents have been given jail time for the negligent gun deaths of their children, even those who suffered much remorse. You again treat the children as property of the parents instead of human beings within their own rights. When another human’s rights are violated through negligence of another, and it leads to that persons death, then they need to be lawfully punished for it. The fact you feel otherwise is pretty sad.

Again, you show a significant misunderstanding of the law. Grief or remorse from one’s actions do not automatically free one from legal punishment for their crimes. If a drunk husband started shooting in the air and shot his best friend, would you let him go because he was remorseful? I hope not. And, as I said before, punishment also prevents parents who don’t care much to secure their guns or face punishment. I mentioned that key element before; I’m not surprised you chose not to address it.

You said a lot more to me, and I showed you were wrong. And I’ve made it very clear our current laws are not sufficient. You haven’t shown in any way that I’m wrong. And what country are you from anyway that allows you to feel you can judge our laws?

And, as I said before, I never asked you about them; I asked somebody else. So, you should have stayed out of it.

See below:

‘This’ is clearly a referrent to the problem in the previos paragraph. It’s called an anaphoric reference. Surely somewhere on your PHD course you learned about these? I did not say that the gun community should solve all gun problems, only the problems of accidental child deaths.

Well, my comment was that parents are often let off jail under the current laws. I didn’t say ‘usually’. ‘Often’ and ‘usually’ have different meanings. Here are other examples -

My point is that they have already been punished. You have two children right? Which would be a bigger punishment for you - one of them dying, or you going to prison for a year? I can guarantee you that the former is a much bigger punishment - worse than life in prison, probably worse than a death sentence for yourself. After such an event, a two year prison sentence would be inconsequential.

No, obviously feeling sorry is not a get out of jail free card! But where grief is considered life ruining, this can be taken into account when sentencing - as in the examples above where judges have applied this principal.

My specific job title is so narrow that if I told you, you’d probably be able to google it and find out who I am, which I wouldn’t feel comfortable with. However, I work on ELT textbooks for a major ELT publisher in the UK.

It is not just a referent to the problem of the previous paragraph. So, you clearly don’t understand “anaphoric references” either. You not only ridiculously claimed gun owners can solve the accidental gun problems they themselves have caused without any involvement of the law–yeah, keeping the law out of things that kill people makes great sense–you also clearly said: “just because there’s a problem, doesn’t mean that you need to change the law to try and solve it,” which applies to all gun deaths. So, whatever courses you took clearly didn’t teach you what an anaphoric reference is or how to use it… :wink:

And again, the fact you want to leave children’s lives in the hands of people who have shown no capability as a group to stop accidentally killing children is reprehensible.

Firstly, if it is often, but not usual, then you can’t say it is the norm to let parents off for negligently killing their own kids. Secondly, you don’t even have evidence to show it often happens that way. Either way, you haven’t been able to counter my point that children are not parents’ objects. So, when parents kill them by negligently leaving guns unsecured, they deserve no more leniency than if they killed a non-family member…unless you don’t think children are citizens and humans as much as adults. If you don’t, that’s truly heinous.

And you never told me what you do for a living. I truly hope you’re not embarrassed by it.

These are four anecdotal pieces of evidence that don’t come close to proving, much less supporting a trend. This is why I asked you what your job is. You don’t seem to have any understanding of what constitutes sufficient evidence. There have been many cases where convicted rapists have been given almost no time. That doesn’t mean that is the norm or should be. And as I said before, the real debate isn’t over what the law has been, although I’ve won that one as well, it’s over what it should be. And as I said, we need jail time for negligent killers of children, including parents, to both sufficiently punish them and to keep parents ,who don’t care that much about their children, securing their guns.

Again, if you have a problem with that, you clearly undervalue the deaths of past children killed by unsecured guns and future children who will be killed by them. The fact you care more about the killing parents is ridiculous. A perfect example of that is your being against gun safety courses that would save children’s lives because they would “patronize” the parents…just unreal.

I got your ridiculous point and countered it with it not being punishment enough. Grief and remorse are not enough punishment for someone who negligently killed someone they were supposed to protect. So, your argument is a red herring. Of course, if my negligence led to one of my children’s death’s that would be the worse punishment, but I would still deserve the punishment of the law. We don’t send home killers just because they feel bad. And I will say for the umpteenth time: punisment is also for the prevention of future similar crimes. So, we also jail murderers, rapists, burglarers, and negligent killers of children to prevent other people from doing those crimes. Do you got that?

Well, if you agree it isn’t a get-out-of-jail card, then stop saying it should be. And the grief obviously isn’t life ruining since most parents who kill their kids in such a way go on with their lives, in jail or not. So, don’t exaggerate things. I will say again: they killed their kids with their negligence; their grief and remorse shouldn’t spare them from deserved punishment, particularly when anyone can say they feel bad. Stop worrying so much about the killers and worry a bit more about their victims and other killers’ future victims.

I’m sorry, you can easily tell me what you do and what your education is without revealing who you are.

i guess it depends where you live. If it’s fucking Texas, then maybe, yeah, you should probably teach kids to handle firearms. But i assure you, half the homes in my state do not contain firearms.

If so, then probably not by very much. You still have to pay people to do the dirty work. And if you don’t do it in high school then you have the benefit of NOT having taught every high school graduate in town how to shoot someone.

Meh, i’m concerned with consequences. Whether it happens at the state level or the federal one is mostly besides the point for me. In fact, regulation at the federal level has the upside of not allowing for as many exceptions to the rule as legislation at the state level.

Well, that’s true about all statistics. But, you’re the one who puts so much weight on statistics, not me.

Blah, blah.

People on BOTH sides argue in bad faith, that doesn’t mean ALL of the people on either side are.

i hate to play the “you’re paranoid” card in the gun control debate, but sometimes it’s the only sensible card to play. Never in the history of this nation have guns that were previously legally owned been confiscated. Even when automatic weapons were banned in the 1980’s, existing weapons already owned were grandfathered in, and indeed, many of those weapons can still be legally purchased on the private market.

This statement applies to all gun deaths, I agree, and to may things beyond that.

However, it doesn’t preclude the changing of some laws to avoid gun deaths. If you think it does, you need to work on your logic.

In fact, I believe that the ideal scenario would be to change the constitution, outlaw all guns in America and then remove all guns from people. However, this is never going to happen, and given this, in the interim I don’t see how any of the measures you are suggesting are going to make much difference and be anything other than a waste of resources.

That’s not actually an argument. Just stating that it is not punishment enough does not constitute an argument that it is not punishment enough.

If losing a child is a worse punishment, then its also more of a deterrent, too. Let’s say that there was a mandatory 5 year prison sentence in such cases. Would you say to yourself ‘geez, I better not leave a loaded gun lying around my house, because if one of my children shoots themselves I’ll go to prison for five years’? I don’t think you would - I think the prospect of one of your children shooting themselves would be the true deterrent, no matter what the prison sentence involved would be.

I am proud of what I do, which is why I don’t feel the need to go on to internet message boards and make up a new job.

So this just happened:

msn.com/en-us/news/crime/sev … ailsignout

Obviously, this is a preliminary report, but i’m guessing the problem here is not racism or poverty, but rather just a deadly weapon in the hands of the wrong person.

i also consider the above to be yet another piece of evidence that belies the position claiming gun violence in the US is not a problem worth addressing.

You’re still doing it. You’re going to get banned some more.

Doing what? You posted that whole post of mine without addressing one specific quote of mine. And, of course I’m going to be banned some more. You clearly have a bias against me as you feel free to ban me without pointing to what I did wrong. That’s not equitable moderation.

If you ban me again without clear cause, as you did last time, I’ll just spend my “banned time” on the other Philosophy forum where they don’t do that. The moderators there actually address posts against them and make clear what posters did wrong.

Well, I’m assuming this would be a state thing anyway, right? Obviously the federal Government has no fucking business whatsoever implementing either your proposal OR mine.

Right, which is why I made the point I did. You, and other anti-gun people have a hard on for making sure that people don't actually have reasonable access to firearms or true information about them.  Which is why forcing propsective gun owners to jump through hoops to 'educate' them so you have one more way to make owning a gun irritating and one more grounds on which to say people can't have one is the solution you prefer. Actually educating people about firearms was never the point, as you've demonstrated above- if educating people about firearm safety [i]actually leads to more people knowing about firearms safety[/i], then fuck it, you aren't interested anymore. 
    That's what people who defend the 2nd Amendment have to deal with, and that's why we're against things that seem 'sensible' to you- because everybody in the conversation knows you're using the veneer of sensibility to further erode 2nd Amendment rights.  I propose something [i]actualy[/i] sensible, you're against it because it doesn't have that "Treat gun owners like potentially dangerous misfits that need to me monitored and managed" aspect you crave.  That attitude you NEED to cultivate in order for your next 'sensible idea' to be accepted. 
  Compare it to the First Amendment:   Instead of teaching First Amendment rights in school, how about we make people who want to engage in political speech get licenced by the State first, just to make sure they are [i]properly educated[/i] in how to safely and correctly exercise their First Amendment rights?  No? Instantly see the problem there?  Does it immediately make you think it would be a staging ground for further restrictions?  Do you resent the implication that 'political speech' is an inherently dangerous thing that the Government needs to monitor to make sure only the right people are doing it?  Well, there you go. All of that is true of your suggestions with people's 2nd Amendment rights too, and I'm not going to take seriously being called 'paranoid' because I refuse to pretend your motivations toward the 2nd Amendment are well-intentioned.

Yes, of course I have a bias against you. You’re a shitty poster who derails threads to whine about personal gripes, and I don’t want you on ILovePhilosophy as long as you behave that way. Fortunately, the specific thing you are doing wrong is condemned in a sticky that existed long before your arrival, so there’s no concern for unfairly applying the rules. Now, if you have anything further to say that has nothing to do with gun control in this gun control thread, I suggest you either make a thread in Off Topic about it or take it to private messages.

If you want specifics, it’s very simple: Stop shitting up threads on my forums with long-winded diatrabes that have nothing to do with the threads’ subject. For example, if you find yourself replying to a thread called “Blah Blah Blah Abortion Blah” you should be thinking “Does what I’m typing have anything to do with abortion?” If the answer is ‘no’, then you should stop typing it, or type it somewhere else.

This is not hard. This is a rule I almost never have to enforce, because people seem to get it.

Actually, the federal government has plenty f-----g business implementing similar proposals that Ugly and I have suggested, and are currently considering doing so.

Wrong, repeating this red herring over and over doesn’t make it true. Every proposed new gun law Ugly and I have proposed, which are the most commonly proposed by most gun safety people do not prevent reasonable access to firearms or true information to anyone in anyway.

Demanding safety courses for first time gun owners is not “forcing prospective gun owners to jump through hoops,” it is forcing them to learn what they need to learn to prevent unneeded gun deaths. If a gun owner can’t appreciate that and can’t spend that little time to learn that, he or she shouldn’t be owning a gun. And not wanting unnecessary gun classes in high schools is not saying "fuck it;’ it’s not wanting unnecessary gun courses for students who don’t want it or need it.

Another classic NRA red herring. Nobody has threatened the 2nd amendment in any way, especially those who propose mandatory waiting periods/gun checks and mandatory safety courses for new gun owners. So, address those sound proposals themselves, instead of putting up false straw men arguments.

This is both a red herring and a false equivalent. Poorly used free speech isn’t killing an inordinate amount of Americans, and American children, every year or helping facilitate mass shootings like the one in Charleston. So, the comparison is ridiculous and a bit offensive.

How impressive. After all your whining about my supposed attacks and hatred, the best you can do is a hateful phrase like “You’re a shitty poster,” with no evidence whatsoever. That’s remarkably academic of you. I would deservedly return the sentiment in kind, but my schools taught me better. And I didn’t start the personal gripes, you and Ugly did, particularly you when you espoused your unsupposted gripes against me…just like this one. And again, you haven’t shown anything I have done that breaks the rules of your sticky. You just make more unfounded nebulous attacks without showing one quote of mine supporting them. And I have the right to respond to those nebulous attacks.

Again, that’s not specific at all. To be specific, you have to show exactly where I was “shitting up threads on my forums with long-winded diatrabes that have nothing to do with the threads’ subject.” You have yet to do so, and it is clear you can’t. And as I pointed out before, Ugly started the off-topic thread, not me. Of course, the bias you showed above and in other posts led you to blame me.

Now, let’s move on to the thread topic.