442
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 199 points 10 months ago

Parents who buy their children guns at all need to all be evaluated. There is seriously something wrong with giving children something whos intended purpose is delivering lethal force.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 108 points 10 months ago

I don’t find it weird for hunting, but giving a child unrestricted access to firearms is insane to me given children are not able to assess risk the same way adults do.

[-] tim-clark@kbin.social 79 points 10 months ago

A lot of "adults" don't seem to assess the risks either.

[-] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 45 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Oh, I don't mean temporary custody under controlled and hopefully educated circumstances, but those who hand it over completely. A kid simply does not need that power nor have the responsibility for full time custody.

Hell, the government wants people 18+ before they'll hand someone a gun and let them go die for something...

[-] USSEthernet@startrek.website 9 points 10 months ago

Smoking and drinking age is 21. Maybe gun ownership age should be bumped up too.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] devnull406@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

Before he passed away, my kids' grandfather bought all his grandkids their first 22 rifle. Some of the cousins were still infants but he wanted to buy them something. He was a prolific hunter and marksman. My kids guns all lived in the safe until they were old enough to shoot them, and now they live in the safe when not in use. You can give guns to kids all day long, that's not the problem and the gun is not the problem.

[-] III@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

You can give guns to kids all day long, that’s not the problem and the gun is not the problem.

The problem is not appropriately assessing whether the child in question she be allowed the gun. Are they responsible, are they going to use it for valid purposes. This holds true for, well, everyone always. A lack of reasonable regulation is the actual problem. I am glad you have responsibly managed the distribution and use of firearms for your children. We should do that for everyone.

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

"A lot of "adults" don't seem to assess the risks either."

Your frontal lobe on average fully develops at 25 and for some when they're older.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3129331/

[-] AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

That is when your brain stops really growing and developing, it's not some threshold of social or intellectual maturity.

If anything, people become less adaptable, less open-minded, and less cooperative after that. It's not something we get to lord over young people, it's a mark against us olds for being less capable of growth.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)
[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 38 points 10 months ago

I know you're not referring to hunting rifles, but it is very common to give those as gifts to teenagers when they are old enough to get a hunting license. In some places that's 12 years old.

My parents also made me take a course on gun safety tho....

And they wouldn't let me use it unless it was with them....

So this lady definitely still deserves her sentence. Also, no kid needs and AR or a pistol.

[-] 520@kbin.social 32 points 10 months ago

Some of that stuff you mentioned needs to be mandatory IMO. I'm talking about gun safety lessons for all firearm owners.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 22 points 10 months ago

Outside of America, buying a gun at all is rather grounds for evaluation. Inside America, it's still mental but #theConstitution.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UmeU@lemmy.world 85 points 10 months ago

I watched the whole trial. The verdict was definitely just, but her lawyer didn’t do her any favors. At one point, in a moment of frustration, her lawyer exclaimed ‘I’m going to kill myself’, at a trial for a mother of a kid who killed a bunch of kids.

She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.

She said “I’m sorry” about a thousand times, which I am convinced was an intentional strategy to associate the defense with being sorry.

They weren’t supposed to use the shooters name but she used it three times in her opening statement.

Most of her objections were not valid legal objections, but just argument.

The whole thing was a train wreck, I actually feel bad for her (the attorney not the defendant).

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 84 points 10 months ago

Shame it didn’t go this way for Rittenhouse.

[-] UmeU@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

I think rottenhouse was charged with 1st degree only and not 2nd degree, which was ridiculous. Trying to prove he had a premeditated intent to kill that night was a bad strategy by the prosecution. They would have gotten a conviction if they charged 2nd degree or even manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, or whatever.

Its hard not to have conspiratorial thoughts when realizing that the only reason rottenhouse got off scott free was because he wasn’t properly charged. They could have charged him with 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter and let the jury decide, but for whatever reason they only charged 1st, even though they couldn’t prove intent.

From the moment that trial started I was so frustrated because I knew they wouldn’t be able to prove intent which was necessary for the charges. I’ll never understand why they didn’t properly charge him.

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

So that's why the guy went free ? I did wonder but never bothered to research it

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

that and the judge wanted to adopt him as a son

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[-] beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 10 months ago

This is good news and it’ll be better news when I see a father getting nailed for giving his sons guns

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 35 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[-] Retrograde@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago

Cute that they tried to flee before trial. Shit parents AND insufferable cowards to boot!

[-] beefbot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 10 months ago

Oh! I stand corrected and grateful to hear it, thank you. No /s, I’m glad you updated me

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 42 points 10 months ago

As a 2A Advocate / Gun Guy all I can say is GOOD. Parents who do this deserve to held legally responsible.

load more comments (49 replies)
[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Waiting for conservatives to tell us the 2A protects a child's right to own a gun. Come on, they've earned it guise!

[-] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Thumbnail looks like Mitch McConnell has reconsidered his stance on drag.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

There's things they chose to be that are far worse than "unattractive".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] easydnesto@sh.itjust.works 17 points 10 months ago

This was the case where the parents decided to be tried separately right? I wonder if we’ll see both end up in the same sentence.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

There's a good chance the father takes a plea deal. The general consensus was the mother was the harder trial. There was some poor performance by her lawyers, but I doubt it counters the father being the one that purchased the gun.

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

She can get fukt

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 11 points 10 months ago

Gun manufacturers should take note, they are one step away from fault now.

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago

So before you say that, read the article. She refused to take her kid home when the school said he wasn't mentally okay because she "couldn't" miss work.

The CEO of her company testified she absolutely could have missed the day for her kid.

Turns out she wanted to meet her affair partner instead of helping her child suffering from a mental breakdown.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago

I don't know the situation, but of course the CEO will say that, whether she'd be punished or not

[-] Chee_Koala@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

This is probably 100% true, but in the article it is stated that the defendant agreed with it during trial.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

Justice done, but ultimately this doesn't solve anything.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
442 points (97.8% liked)

News

23549 readers
4315 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS