View Single Post
Old 2012-12-17, 12:43   #11
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

5×223 Posts
Post The PRIVILEGE to bear arms (continued)

Last but certainly not least, with this new framework of rules, regulations, and controls in place, the penalties need to be severely increased for failing to keep one's legally owned firearms out of the reach of those who have no business with them. For instance, in the Connecticut case, it is believed that the shooter had mental illness issues. His mother therefore should have never allowed him access to firearms (it has been noted that she took him to the shooting range on several occasions, and encouraged him to fire the guns), especially since (if we adopted the new rules above) he would never be allowed to own them himself with a confirmed diagnosis of mental illness. Similarly, if a child or teenager accesses Dad's .22 and heads off to the garage and injures themselves, or worse, massacres their school, Dad should be held as liable as a parent might be for allowing an underage child to drive a car and commit manslaughter by running over a pedestrian. The penalties here would be harsh, and deliberately so, to send the message of responsibility. In the Connecticut case, I would say that the estate of the shooter's mother should be subject to full attachment by the victims, for instance. Had she lived, she should have been subject to a charge of accessory to 28 counts of manslaughter, if not outright murder. There are many gun owners that have small children, that don't even have the common sense to invest in trigger locks. If losing their child to a gun accident isn't enough to make them take responsibility, then perhaps a decade or two in prison would fit the bill.

The United States is quite different from many smaller nations that have outright banned weapons, just as it is different from other nations in an economic and political sense. This country is incredibly vast and much more heavily populated than many in Europe, for example, so there are going to be times and places (e.g. Maine) where the police simply aren't readily available for every emergency. Therefore, there probably should be an option to maintain a firearm for home defense. Also keep in mind that our neighbors to the south will gladly import as many drugs and guns as our friendly neighborhood criminals would like to have, so completely eliminating guns from American hands will ensure that American victims will end up on the wrong end of guns, banned or not. In the UK, for example, one does not generally hear about the illegal trafficking of weapons from France or Spain, do they? And lastly, let us not forget that even in one of the most peaceful countries on Earth, we are never guaranteed total freedom from violence. So while some would scream "total gun control now!" and others would scream "free guns for all!", the answer is definitely somewhere along the spectrum between the two, a lot closer to the middle, yet leaning ever so slightly towards the "control" side. With our government's seeming inability to compromise on anything, however, one wonders how many more times we will have to witness this kind of horror before someone, somewhere proclaims that enough is enough and takes responsibility before the list of public sanctuaries has gone completely blank, and grade-school children must fear for their lives to simply go to school each day. The thought of little JonBenet Ramsey has been with me this weekend. As tragic as her death was at six years old, now we have JonBenet times 20. I pray that we do not become desensitized too quickly.

Last fiddled with by NBtarheel_33 on 2012-12-17 at 12:58 Reason: fix spacing and links
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote