Who Shot dJRt

Sorry, dumb people bring out the worst in me.

LOL, seriously?

Jan. 6 never happens if he doesn't 1) lie about the election being stolen and 2) egg is idiot cultists that actually believe him on

I agree with d2_e4, this is just hack level sophistry. The opposite of the fun inflatable punching bag clown type of sophistry

I guess you bringing out the worst in yourself constantly is why you are this way

Pittsburgh and it's suburbs are one of the most liberal areas of the country. It does become conservative quickly when you explore areas like Butler, but Pittsburgh is moar liberal. There are many liberals in western Pennsylvania who enjoy hunting and target practice. It's wrong to associate guns with the right wing.

I don't think the benefits outweigh the negatives of consumers owning things like .308 caliber ARs or 50 caliber sniper rifles. There should at least be special licenses, background checks, or insurance for non hunting rifles and shotguns.

You are making two different points.

(1)

There is a strong implication that guns should have been kept out of the hands of the shooter, as it should have been known that he was a danger. With what we know at the moment, the only indicators that he was a danger were that he was a loner at school and bullied for the way the he was dressed. Until we have some kind of Minority Report technology (which there has been some, with quite troubling effects, but that's a different thread), we have to go with the information that was available at the time, and at least right now, there isn't anything that would have justified depriving this specific 20 year old of his right of possessing a firearm.

You are not alone, FWIW. We hear the take that "this person should not have been able to get a gun" all the time, which is why I am reacting to it. Sometimes it is even true. And there have also been times in the recent past where somebody commits an act of horrific violence with firearms that were 100% legally possessed, and no current law could have possibly prevented it from happening.

(2)

The other point you are making is that the laws should be different, to basically make it very difficult to possess a firearm. Whether your plan is practicable is not the issue. The issue is that it is all a pipe dream. We have a constitution that specifically does not allow your solution. Any national politician that suggests restricting gun ownership the way you are suggesting would be instantly targeted and promptly voted out of office (or worse). When your idea is basically impossible to enact in this country, you are not proposing any real solution.

Maybe Trolly's implication that there should be a higher age restriction for the possession of firearms is correct. Maybe it should be raised to 21, like alcohol and cigarettes. I do think that there should be something that prevents kids from getting their hands on firearms, but that is maybe a product of the culture where I grew up. I didn't grow up in an area with a gun culture or where hunting was prevalent. My school didn't have any kind of clubs that involved guns. As a result, it is very easy for me to say that kids anywhere shouldn't be able to possess firearms, when there are large parts of the country where hunting and shooting are a big part of life from when children are young, and those people will all strongly disagree.

Good post Donk. Only comment is lol @ the country where you can own a gun before you can drink and smoke.

Do we agree on this? Because the conversation simplifies a lot if we agree 20-year-old guys shouldn't have open access to firearms.

I don't disagree. In my opinion, the typical 20 year old is not mature enough to possess a firearm. While you and I may agree, I am not sure that the majority of Americans agree with us. I expect that most people in areas where gun use is taught in schools, or that have sanctioned school shooting clubs, would strongly disagree.

A lot of words to pretty much say, "theres nothing we can do!". There are a million different things we can do. Step one is holding gun owners accountable.

Step 2 is addressing the implication that someone would be murdered for suggesting tighter restrictions on gun ownership. Thats a pretty massive leap to make to justify inaction

The overwhelming majority of Americans support tighter gun laws, but this is beside the point as you didn't ask me about public opinion. You asked me

and the (obvious) answer is

Smoking is 18+ in USA.

Let's assume that the father did not know that his son was mentally ill or had any violent designs on Trump. If that is the case, how can we hold the father responsible for the actions of his 20 year old son? We are not talking about a profoundly mentally ill 15 year old and parents that bought him a handgun knowing that. We are talking about a legal adult that liked to shoot guns as a hobby, that presumably has never broken a law with a firearm prior to Saturday. What did the father knowingly or recklessly do in order to cause his son to take a shot at the former president?

If there are new facts that come out to light that show the father should have known what his son was doing, that would be a different story.

I didn't suggest that people would be murdered for suggesting tighter restrictions on gun ownership. Not sure where you got that.

Smoking age is 21+ in the USA. it has been since 2019.

So what factors indicate he's not allowed to own a rifle? Being 20 is not one of them.

Although you and I may agree 20 is too young, the law does not agree.

I guess I don't know what "or worse" means. Maybe just a light beating? The prevailing sentiment is that gun owners would rather die in a hail of bullets than give up their guns.

The father owned the rifle, registered in his name. He should be accountable for it. I don't see any ambiguity here. This country places no value on life, and that should change.

Maybe I wasn't clear: I don't think 20-year olds should have unsupervised access to an AR-15. Being 20 is a key factor in my determination of whether this dipshit should have been wandering around with a rifle.

Do we actually agree on this? It's very confusing having a conversation where you tell me what your opinions might hypothetically be.

We obviously do hold gun owners accountable if they commit crimes with their guns. I assume that you are talking about holding gun owners accountable if someone else commits a crime using the owner's gun.

In all states, you are at risk of civil or criminal liability in that scenario, although mens rea requirements vary. For example, in all fifty states, you are potentially in big trouble if your buddy asks to borrow your gun so that he can shoot his girlfriend, and you knowingly give it to him. What mens rea requirement would you like to see for civil liability (e.g., intentional conduct, recklessness, negligence, strict liability)? What mens rea requirement would you like to see for criminal liability?

Wow. Had no idea.

I'm pretty sure handguns are regulated in the way all guns or at least all non hunting guns should be.

You have to pass a background check and be 21 years old to get a handgun. That's pretty sane.

A big part of the problem with guns and gun culture is the hijacking of the NRA by Russia. They've gone off the rails totally.

You have to have your weapon secured and inaccessible by anyone other than the registrant. If a registrants gun is used in crime they are an accessory to that crime.

If your gun gets stolen its a rigorous reporting process

There's no requirement for any gun but a handgun or other specialized weapons to be registered.

Yeah, is problem

Everyone says I'm MAGA rah rah, Trump fan boy, etc. They are wrong.

General GOP positions I don't care for:

Religion is lol.

Even though I was in the infantry for 12 years, I'm not a big gun advocate. I don't own any guns or have a gun license. Heartbroken at all the shootings that happen. Some reform would be nice there.

Abortion - women should be able to choose. I actually don't think Trump personally cares much for this issue, but of course the voting block does so may need to cater to them.