[nbcnews.com]
[examiner.com.au]
[edition.cnn.com]
[news.sky.com]
[nbcnews.com]
[foxnews.com]
[edition.cnn.com]
[people.com]
[people.com]

@MattHardy If you have something to say, say it, I don't plan to click all day. Last, do you disagree that all weapons are the method, not the cause? It is the people who use the weapons.

@Alienbeing The cause? Singular? Not "a cause," one of many contributing factors?

@MattHardy I see you love word salads as most socialists do.

@Alienbeing English can be a bit tricky for the non native speaker. I'll try to explain in simple enough terms for you.

Do you think that the people holding the weapons are the only thing that matters when other people are harmed by weapons? Or are there other things that can be part of the cause?

@MattHardy I am sure I have a MUCH better education in English than you.

I think that the person who uses the weapon has sole responsibility for the subsequent action. This notion can be easily proven because without the "holder's" action, nothing would have happened.
Personal responsibility may be a foreign concept to you.

@Alienbeing I see that you weren't just being deliberately obtuse, you really couldn't be bothered to click on any of those links.

@Alienbeing So you've had some time to click on the links now. And you've gone silent. Let's just use the first one as an example and highlight the flaw in your logic

You say that you think that the person who uses the weapon has sole responsibility for the subsequent action. This notion can be easily proven because without the "holder's" action, nothing would have happened.

However if the 2 year old girl hadn't been playing here with brother, nothing would have happened. Does she have sole responsibility for the subsequent action or is your logic flawed?

If the 3 year old hadn't been holding the weapon then nothing would have happened. Does he also have sole responsibility for the subsequent action or is your logic flawed?

If the father hadn't taken his kids to a friends house to watch basketball then nothing would have happened. Does he also have sole responsibility for the subsequent action or is your logic flawed?

If the person who lived there hadn't invited people to smoke some weed and watch a game then nothing would have happened. Does he also have sole responsibility for the subsequent action or is your logic flawed?

If one of the father's friends hadn't hidden a loaded weapon between the cushions of a couch where children could find it then nothing would have happened. Does he also have sole responsibility for the subsequent action or is your logic flawed?

If the basketball teams hadn't played a televised game that day then nothing would have happened. Does everybody on both teams and the company that televised it all have sole responsibility for the subesquent action or is your logic flawed.

Yes that's absurd.

The proposition is that "if x hasn't done y then the harm wouldn't have happened implies x has sole responsibility for the harm"

Following that logic leads to absurd outcomes. As such the proposition is disproved.

You would have thought that a person who's bio said they were an ex lawyer would have a better idea about the concept of culpability.

@MattHardy Your reply is naive. Apparently you do not believe a person is responsible for his/her actions, so you run to find who or what is responsible. In the first example you cite, the parents were the responsible party. Humans must cause a gun to be involved. Guns don't walk around, or shoot by themselves.

The remainder of your reply in merely a repeat of some sort of your first example.

The simple fact is guns are inanimate objects. Who uses them or how they are used is the sole responsibility of a human or humans. A gun may may it easier to kill or injure, but the repsonsibility is always a human.

Your feeble attempts only show you reject the concept of personal responsibility.

@Alienbeing You have no idea how much I'd respect you for being able to identify and admit your mistake. Such a shame.

I merely wished you to clarify your statement as a foolish person might use similar words to to suggest that since one person was responsible then no-one else shares responsibly.

You're incorrect that the parent was the responsible party. Not only are you once again using the singular form in "the responsible party" but the person most culpable in that scenario is the person who hid a loaded weapon where children could find it. You may argue that the parent might have had some knowledge of the sort of environment where he was taking his children in which case they may be somewhat culpable too but that does not detract from the culpability of the person whose gun it was.

Can we now agree that culpability in these cases:

1. does not always lie exclusively with the person holding the weapon,
2. does not always lie exclusively with one single person.

I will agree with you that culpability always lies with humans. Weapons do not possess the characteristic of moral agency required for culpability. Even ones that can move about and kill by themselves (e.g. autonomous drones)

@MattHardy I was perfectly correct regarding the parent(s). Just because you don't believe in personal responsibility does not make me incorrect. Most people do believe in personal responsibility, I have NO respect for thoise that do not, so you will understnd when I tell you that I could not care less if you respect my position or not.

We cannot agree on divided responsibility. You fail to realize that irrespective of any or all prior actions, it would be the sole responsibillty and act or lack of act, as solely respects the holder of the weapon.

I assure you thaat your position would not stand up in court. The person using the weapon would be convicted. Others may be conviced also, such as the parents in your example, but of other things.

@Alienbeing How do you reconcile your verdict with the authorities not charging the father or the three year old boy who was holding the gun but charging the gun's owner with "failing to safely store a firearm, and carrying a concealed firearm"?

By the way, you keep saying I don't believe in personal responsibility. I have no idea where you got that idea.

@MattHardy I never try to reconcile other jurisdiction or jury verdicts. First I know I don't have all the facts, and second many such decisions are not explainable.

Why do I say you don't believe in personal responsibility???? BECAUSE you have excused the personal responsibility of people in every exchange you have made thus far.

@alienbeing It's been amusing to gently goad you into making a fool of yourself.

I've watched you assign sole responsibility for a tragedy to a three year old boy. I've seen you absolve anyone else of any wrongdoing at all.

Then without a hint of irony you've accused me of excusing people's personal responsibility without being able to give any example of me doing so. All I've done is say that holding others to account for their failings in no way reduces the responsibility of the person charged in this crime.

However at this stage I'm going to leave it there.

The extreme nature of your willful ignorance is probably just you trolling but I'm starting to worry that I'm ridiculing someone I should really be pitying.

I wish you all the best.

@MattHardy What is truly amusing is that you make a fool of yourself and then project that onto others. Your inability to recognize responsibility blinds you to many things.

In closing, get a social education, you need one. Until then the best advice you can get is keep your ignorant conclusions to yourself.

I too watch a lot of both. Your assertion is incorrect. knives, automobiles, 2x4's, Succinal Cholate and ethylene glycol are also popular means of murder in both places.

@Normanbites Only on British TV will you find the murder method to be staking the victim out on the lawn and then using a catapult to pelt him to death with his own collection of rare wines.

A country flooded with guns that fetishsizes guns and gun violence is a root cause.

@Druvius Yes, that is part of it. There is so much that the government could do but don't in favor of supporting their preferred religious dominance.

Ready access to mental health care coupled with a legal mechanism to force treatment upon an individual at family and/or community request would also be highly effective in reducing gun deaths.

@FvckY0u This was the point Mike Moore made in Bowling For Columbine. "They did not listen, they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will?"

@FvckY0u It's still relevant. Sadly.

I agree with some elements of the NRA's arguments. However, I think there is plenty of room for a decision process to determine who should be permitted to own a a firearm and who shouldn't.

@Normanbites We can't take away a constitutional right but we can limit their scope. The NRA advocates for their members just as they should. That's why we need legislation to limit the scope of what the 2nd Amend covers. If Courts say we can't have such legislation then NRA has done their job and we have a genuine mess for society. That's why Judges are supposed to be well educated and not working for a religious mob. Religion and guns...Obama was exactly right but it offended the extremists. Should have told them to fuck off and die right then.

@rainmanjr Where did I advocate taking away constitutional rights?

@Normanbites By suggesting there are people who, by our estimation, shouldn't own a gun. There are such people but making that determination might step on their right to own one. In fact, it probably will for a very small population but every constitutional wrong counts for such a philosophical idea. Rights. I think the bigger problem is that OUR constitution needs updating. We can remove the 2nd by outlawing militias. They are no longer needed as we have official Military and Police and are proving far more dangerous than beneficial. If we do that then the Right to self protection can more easily be abridged for such judgment which takes it away. It becomes more of a public health aspect.

@rainmanjr This would be fine if we could trust our government. I come from the "Kent State" era .... so No!!

@Normanbites That was a long time ago. Even Neil Young doesn't do the song, anymore. Trust may be too strong a word for government, any government, and that's why American govt has layers of checks which hopefully keep a listing ship from sinking. There's nothing for it as govt is absolutely needed to form a community around.

@rainmanjr It might have been "a long time ago" to you. To me, it was within my lifetime and seems like last week. That coupled with the number of people I would label as "nuking futz" holding public office, I want some measure available to protect myself and others from corruption. The more fully automatic the better.

You might say, such corruption is impossible. But until you can explain to me how Donald Trump managed to get elected, I'm not going to buy it.

@Normanbites I'm 63. He won the office because Dems gave up in two significant ways: Women did not turn out to vote for her and Dems didn't fight for the Electoral votes. Just like they didn't get behind Gore so he gave up.

@rainmanjr Sure, the Dems are screw ups, that's no surprise. What you haven't explained is the ground swell of support he got from conservatives. I know several conservatives. Most claim they didn't vote for him and the religious extremists are not a majority of their party .... so go ahead explain that.

And for 63, it seems you do not have much of a long term memory. If our government can be trusted to do the right thing, explain the Flint Michigan water supply.

The UK also has access to affordable mental healthcare that is unparalleled in the US. Just say'n.

We have knife control legislation.

@MattHardy So, what's next? Screwdriver control legislation?

@Normanbites In the UK an offensive weapon is any object designed, modified or used to cause harm to another human being. If you attack someone with a screwdriver, then using an offensive weapon elevates the crime from actual bodily harm to grievous bodily harm, a far more serious offense. If you carry a screwdriver that has been sharpened to make it a more effective weapon then you can be charged with possession of an offensive weapon. So yes there is legislation that covers screwdrivers as weapons.

@MattHardy Anything to avoid making the fact of being a "dangerous nutball" from being illegal in and of itself.

@Normanbites most laws I'm aware of concern what people do rather than what they are.

@MattHardy How is being a "dangerous nutball" NOT linked to what one does?

The real problem in "my" approach is defining what it is one does that defines them as a "dangerous nutball".

However, I submit, though a very difficult problem, this is more surmountable than the current alternative. Which is, to define all objects that can be dangerous in the hands of a dangerous nutball as "offensive weapons" and keeping them out of the hands of everyone.

For example, if I were a dangerous nutball, I might force a large uncooked potato into your air passage. Now what? Ban all uncooked potatoes?

@Normanbites It is hard to kill 26 people within seconds with an uncooked potato.

@Normanbites I didn't say that it wasn't linked. We still regulate people on their actions rather than the nature of their existence.

We don't have much problem defining what actions are dangerous. A dictionary definition of dangerous does most of the heavy lifting right there.

And like I described earlier if you use a potato to cause harm to another human being then that action makes it an offensive weapon which in turn affects the charges that may be levied against you.

You don't have to regulate everything that's potentially harmful as that broad definition is limited only by human imagination.

However if there is a clearly defined category of thing that is observed to be linked with numerous harmful events, then it only makes sense that regulation of those things may be a useful exercise to reduce that actual observed pattern of harm. Examples include operating a vehicle, disposing of human effluent and the sale and use of narcotics.

@MyTVC15 No, but you can do it with castor beans. What is your point?

And actually, entire families have been killed with green (questionably) cooked potatoes.... Just for your information.

[smithsonianmag.com]

@MattHardy People with tendency to do harm to others can be identified and it is a progressive pattern. Bullies, perpetrators of domestic violence and road rage are fair examples. Once one has been identified as falling in these categories, they should submit to mental health treatment or forfeit access to firearms, sharp objects and possibly freedom. I think that would be far more effective.

@Normanbites that's not exclusive, we do both. People who exhibit those behaviors are indeed penalised for doing so.

@Normanbites Really, you do not know what my point is? Apparently you have never read or seen the descriptions of the carnage that results when a madman decides to go into a school, a grocery store, a theater, a church or an Independence Day parade with an assault weapon. None of it could have been done with a potato. It could not have been done with a sack of potatoes. And I like your idea of bullies getting mental health help. Our former president, who is now fomenting the type of violence we are talking about might get put into a MH facility. But really, that is not how it works in a "free" society.

@Normanbites I'm a teacher. I have to take part in "lock down drills" several times per year. Those drills will do nothing for me or my students if anyone gets in there with an assault rifle, but if they show up with potatoes, I think I can handle it.

@MyTVC15 Let me make it simpler just for you. The problem is not the weapon or tool. The problem is the madman. Get it? Bet not!

@MyTVC15 I am not going to elaborate how potatoes could be used to kill many. They can, but there are also madmen. So it would be reckless for me to continue elaboration of this method.

Again, the problem is not the weapon, tool, or food substance. It is the madman. Deal with the root cause!!