No kid deserves to get killed but we'll never be able to make all kids safe from being killed. Kids with idiots for parents who are unable to provide a safe environment are probably more likely to be killed. Gun or no gun. And the apple usually doesn't fall far btw.
I agree, but what is wrong with making MORE kids safe from being killed? Why does it have to be all or nothing?
How do you propose to make more kids safe from being killed? Take them away from there idiot parents?
how long does it take to get? im not sure ive never been in a situation like that, and im not one of those gun owners with a hard on for self defense or whatever. if a situation ever arises though, youll be damn sure ill be happy as fuck that my weapons were locked up instead of there being a chance the burglar finds it before i wake up and then what? there are millions of scenarios that dont include the homeowner blasting a crook with his 44 dirty harry style. but guns can be fun to shoot and provide great protection if it is ever necessary. if it ever came a time that i needed to remove a trigger lock in the middle of the night, well, that would probably take me all of 30 seconds? all ill say is, if you are really that paranoid, then there are a bunch of things you can do to decrease possibilities of there being an intruder in your home.
P.S. do it for the children, is the worst kind of appeal to emotion Nazi claptrap making the rounds. Ban the Big Gulp...for the Children. Ban transfats. For the Children. Stop Fossil fuel...for the Children.
I don't believe I should be limited or have to give up the right to protect my family because of idiots and gang bangers that have nothing to do with me. We can't and shouldn't be making laws that punish law abiding citizens because we have idiots in our society. Thats no way to run a free country. There's a registered sex offender that lives nearby me. I see him all the time. His photo and vehicle description are readily available on the internet. I wouldn't take comfort in the fact that my family members were "only" raped, rather than killed like a bunch of gang members fighting over turf would have been. Thats what these guys are trying to sell us with these stats. If you want to eliminate gun ownership in this country you better be putting armed police officers on every street far and wide to protect people from all the crime that could happen. Otherwise you're leaving a lot of people sitting ducks.
Considering, that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no inherent duty to protect you, you are very right Police, by their design, are able to solve crimes after the fact, or prevent serial crimes, at some point. Its not rocket science,.
well it looks like the prosecuters are bargaining the jury for charges such as third degree murder or manslaughter.......and child abuse. hhmmmmm...thats interesting and clearly the chances of getting a conviction will increase to a degree. the conspiracy view of this would say that there HAS to be some sort of conviction, right. possibly to appease the masses?? not gonna get too crazy here as i am not a legal minded person per say, but semi-following this trial and watching/reading the news media coverage a bit has given me quite the bitter taste. really makes u wonder if martin pulled the trigger would the commentary be as consistent.
Prosecution did the best they could to prove a man guilty of a charge that did not fit. This case was over charged from the very beginning (which is very common). This has been a very heated case to say the least. Mark O'Mara has been phenomenal during this trial.
And statistically, your kids are much more vulnerable to relatives, family friends, clergymen, scout leaders, camp counselors and prep school instructors than they are to registered sex offenders. Those databases are just another misguided attempt by the government to create laws to appease hysterical suburban housewives overreacting to a few bad apples. I can't believe you're in favor of that but against gun control.
I'm not sure how I feel about the jury being allowed to consider Manslaughter at this point when the trial has been about 2nd Degree Murder. There's an argument for forcing the state to be specific in charging to avoid abuse of power issues in the pre-trial phases and during the trial itself. The odds are stacked heavily enough in favor of the state in almost all cases anyway. I'm not sure it is a wise thing to give the state a mulligan at the end if they screwed everything else up beforehand in a push to get a harsher sentence or a plea bargain. This isn't a justice issue, it's a constitutional liberty issue. "We're going to charge this guy with X, but we're going to find him guilty of something anyway if we can't prove it" is a terrible place to have the criminal justice system when the results are so heavily skewed against defendants as it is.
They can also be shot. Ah, yea - I like to know about the convicted rapist down the hill. I suppose you'd rather not? I think convicted criminals should be treated as such.
Don't you also want to know who in the neighborhood has been convicted of DUI? How about simple assault? Burglary? Drug dealing? These are all crimes that are more likely to impact you than a sexual assault against you or someone you know.
Well, not all registered sex offenders are violent rapist, first off. Lots of people on those lists are there because of consensual statutory rape convictions, for example. In my neighborhood there's a guy who was convicted of some kind of indecency because he was sunbathing in his backyard and someone saw him naked. More to the point, if these people are so dangerous we need to know where they are at all times, they should never be let out of prison in the first place. Tying a digital scarlet ribbon around their necks doesn't protect your kids at all. You are really an extremely paranoid individual.
And will you use this information to carefully keep track of everybody in the category to make sure they can't harm you? Seriously, the thing that gets you is something you'll never see coming. Spending most of your time watching other things is just going to make you more vulnerable to the thing that gets you. Put another way: the deer at the river that spends a lot of time watching the bushes gets dragged in by a gator and eaten.
That database gives some detail about there offense. So I would know if it was indecency vs. a rape. I don't need to know where they are at all times or follow them around. It's just nice to know that I can tell my kids - stay away from THAT house and THAT guy. Being prepared to defend myself and my family doesn't make me paranoid. I don't expect to ever have to use my guns for that purpose but if the unfortunate event ever does come up I'd prefer to have a weapon than to sit there in fear wishing I did. It gives some peace of mind knowing we are protected. I think not being prepared to defend yourself and your family is actually quite stupid. I imagine a lot of the people in Boston wished they had a weapon when an armed terrorist was running loose through their town.
