|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 28, 2014 21:48:20 GMT
the club and the child's father, who I understand was present (filming the child shooting her instructor) should both be prosecuted. Agreed. Parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children up to coming of age. That might focus a few minds. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 28, 2014 21:53:47 GMT
Well, that as well, but he should be held responsible for allowing her to be in that situation. God only knows how this will affect her in years to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 28, 2014 22:17:18 GMT
She will be marked as a killer for the rest of her life and that is very sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 28, 2014 22:26:28 GMT
.....and she will have to live with the memory of seeing the life dripping out of the man who she shot. It doesn't bear thinking about. Did her father really, honestly believe that she would be better off there than at home?
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 29, 2014 4:05:09 GMT
I'd like to think that other American parents will learn from it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 6:18:42 GMT
I'd like to think that other American parents will learn from it... Wishful thinking Martin...the phrase collateral damage comes to mind. I suspect it will take a bit more than one sad death to change the mindset of the gun lobby. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Aug 29, 2014 7:11:35 GMT
Holding parents accountable for the actions of thier children to 16 or 18 would be contrary to the children's act and hundreds years of jurisprudence based on individuals being accountable for their actions.
It would also have the unintended consequence of reducing children to slaves. If my child's actions could send me to jail the they would lose all autonomy.
It would be disastrous for any kind of functioning society.
Also the Psychological consequences of any trauma are determined not by the trauma in-itself but how your cultural reference group perceive it and deal with it . It is highly likely this will be seen as an incident associated with gun use. Unfortunate but a risk inherent to gun use by the child , her parents and her peers .
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Aug 29, 2014 8:12:43 GMT
"Friendly fire"
|
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Aug 29, 2014 9:30:54 GMT
Holding parents accountable for the actions of thier children to 16 or 18 would be contrary to the children's act and hundreds years of jurisprudence based on individuals being accountable for their actions. It would also have the unintended consequence of reducing children to slaves. If my child's actions could send me to jail the they would lose all autonomy. It would be disastrous for any kind of functioning society. Absolutely. There is no way such an absurd law could either be policed or enforced unless children were under parental observation 24/7. It would penalise parents whose upbringing of their children was faultless, if, for example the child in question was 'led astray' by another child. |
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Aug 29, 2014 9:36:27 GMT
the club and the child's father, who I understand was present (filming the child shooting her instructor) should both be prosecuted. Agreed. Parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children up to coming of age. That might focus a few minds. Do you have any children? How would you be able to police their behaviour once they were old enough to be out on their own? Clearly in this case the parent was present and to some extent implicated in the accident (eg his filming might have distracted his daughter) but hard cases make bad laws. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 29, 2014 15:07:42 GMT
Do you have any children? How would you be able to police their behaviour once they were old enough to be out on their own? Yes, I do. The age limit could be set to something reasonable like 16. It would not be easy and would require a paradigm shift in society behaviour, but it could be done. The change in upbringing would be brought about by better teaching of morality and good behaviour. This would be instilled from an early age. There are many precedents in previous societies where teenagers grew up learning from their parents and helping the family, none of this marauding the streets crap. As I said, it would focus the minds of parents wonderfully to make them responsible for the transgressions of their children. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Aug 29, 2014 15:44:40 GMT
MartinT , you are bonkers , in the nicest possible way , but bonkers none the less .
What causal connection do you think there is between a 15 year old's behaviour and thier parent !! To hold them responsible is absurd . You have taken a problem [ percieved by you ] and come up with just about the most bonkers solution it is possible to conceive. Well done for that .
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Aug 29, 2014 15:57:08 GMT
 sometimes it takes bonkers to make changes for the better. As for causal connection, there are reasons for thinking that a child behaves as he or she is brought up, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Aug 29, 2014 17:26:22 GMT
I do. And I think the major important years are pre school. Once you let them out on to to the big wide world your up against the world.
I can tell of 2 of my 3 boys that watching myley Cyrus twerk her visible buttocks on MTV is objectifying women pursuant of a capitalist culture that sells an illusion of sex for profit. But get together with thier mates and all they see is her arse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2014 17:48:57 GMT
As far as I understand it, the right to bear arms in the USA is a right to bear them in defence of the country. If that is the case, then there's rather too much 'defending' going on in my opinion. And I speak as someone who owned and used firearms for most of my life. I don't think that's right. The amendment was constituted so as to give people the right to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, the thinking being that if the population is armed the state can't get away with too much. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I would respect a democratic decision to allow people to own guns. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Aug 30, 2014 10:00:37 GMT
So to make the UK safer we need guns. Odd I don't feel I'm missing one at the moment
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 10:28:58 GMT
So to make the UK safer we need guns. Odd I don't feel I'm missing one at the moment Neither do I, but in the US almost everyone is armed so people feel safer (and some argue are in fact safer) if they have a gun. As with religion and pretending to believe in a supernatural being, any politician in the US is forced into supporting gun ownership if they want to get elected. |
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 30, 2014 11:41:26 GMT
I don't think it's true that almost everyone in the US is armed.
There are more guns in circulation than ever before, but this is due to fewer people owning more than one.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisB on Aug 30, 2014 11:52:23 GMT
Thanks for putting me right on the reason for the amendment, by the way. Interesting, but again, I expect none of us would interpret the original intention as being in order to put a weapon like that into the hands of a frail little girl.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Aug 30, 2014 12:09:37 GMT
So to make the UK safer we need guns. Odd I don't feel I'm missing one at the moment Neither do I, but in the US almost everyone is armed so people feel safer (and some argue are in fact safer) if they have a gun. As with religion and pretending to believe in a supernatural being, any politician in the US is forced into supporting gun ownership if they want to get elected. Classic gun death is punters being killed by their own guns (I read somewhere I believed) And good old religion, great mix Two big reasons for me to stay put in the UK |
|
sometimes it takes bonkers to make changes for the better.