Comments

1
Damn right, Goldy. The father is obviously incompetent as a paretn and a gun owner.
2
I thought liberals were supposed to be compassionate. That father will be tormented for the rest of his life. We don't punish people for such tragedies in a compassionate society.
3
Eh, I don't think jail would help anyone. If people aren't already afraid of keeping guns in their homes because of accidental shootings and deaths, the threat of a one year jail sentence wouldn't make them think twice.

Sentence him to 5 years of community service, where he goes around to churches and schools talking about the dangers of keeping firearms in the home.
4
#2
The same excuse used back in the day by drunk drivers: but gun nuts never learn from experience.

So sorry your penis substitute kills and maims thousands of children, but I guess it's okay because you'll be tormented for the rest of your life by guilt.

Won't you?
5
Not only that, you'd be taking the father away from his family (the baby girl is expected to survive) to put him in jail and making the mother find a job and try to find day care for her babies. Time to put away the pitch Goldy, it's unbecoming to you.
6
@4: Another uncompassionate liberal.
7
So, if he was just the child's step-father, or mom's boyfriend, then this would have been a crime because he wouldn't have felt bad enough? If you feel badly enough about facilitating a shooting, felony charges aren't filed?
8
In the 70s and later (due to MADD and others) drunk driving laws and penalties for these 'accidents' where greatly enhanced. Fathers and mothers were taken away from their families and thrown in jail. All for getting tipsy one night.

We don't really consider them accidents anymore, even though we might still call them that. At some point we'll make the same distinction regarding unsecured firearms and children.
9
@6
"Liberals" would treat this guy, dumbass that he is, with a thousand times more compassion than your petty, manipulative little mind could imagine.
10
@2

We don't punish people for experiencing tragedies. But we should punish them for causing tragedies.
11
@5 So, turd, let's hear you defend all the cases where a father was busted for pot, sentenced to jail, and resulted in a child being raised without a father figure. Cause that's what Nancy Reagan's war on drugs has done.

Go ahead, tell us that throwing men in jail and creating a generation of fatherless children has been a good thing. Your side does continue to support that, you know.
12
Well, considering he currently writes in an unpaid position, I'm sure The Stranger will have no problem hiring him for pennies on the dollar.
14
@12 that could actually be interesting.
15
@3 community service, fines and probation could be appropriate in these cases. Most convicted drunk drivers, for example, don't do serious jail time for a first offense. But there needs to be some kind of punishment involved, this was caused by negligence; he failed to reasonably keep his children safe.
16
@8

Absolutely. Once we stopped all this "they've been punished enough" and "they have to live with what they did" excuses, and started throwing them in jail, drunk driving declined. It's not about punishment. It's about changing behavior.

Throw irresponsible gun owners in jail, and their irresponsible behavior will change.
17
@raindrop, how does wingedkat @3's suggestion strike your sense of compassion?
18
Attention gun owners: your sock drawer is not a "secret compartment".
19
@2,
So, in your (politically conservative, yes?) view, people should NOT be held accountable for their actions?

Just wondering.
20
@11 - Why do you jump to that conclusion? The enormous cost of warehousing prisoners for drug offences is changing at a bipartisan level. Even Rick Perry wants to change it.

@17- Yes, that would be a just thing to do. Punitive in the right way, but still keeps the family together.
21
@19: Compassionate conservatives/libertarians most certainty do believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. I've only been commenting on overly harsh pitch fork mentality Goldy has.
22
justin carper, parenting expert writes: As parents, it is imperative that we teach our children the difference between right and wrong. We want them to know what things are culturally acceptable and what things are frowned upon.

http://www.shelbystar.com/opinion/column…
23
more parenting expertise from jc in the comments section: Respecting authority is something that is taught, thus it is the parents responsibility to teach their children "why" they should respect authority.
24
@raindrop Are you seriously going to pull that "Compassionate conservative" bullshit on us?
25
Hey Raindrop, you know who should be the object of compassion in this horrible situation? The fucking kid who was shot.

Whinging about the lack of "liberal compassion" for an obvious idiot whose actions endangered (and nearly killed one of) his own children is about as disingenuous and hypocritical as complaining about not showing compassion to a rapist or child-molester. Compassion should be reserved for those who are harmed through circumstances over which they have no control - like these kids - and not for people who are either too stupid or self-absorbed to exercise control over situations they could have very easily prevented - like this irresponsible parent.
27
@2: Could you explain how bad someone has to feel about a crime before society is supposed to decide not to punish them for that crime?

For example, if someone murdered your signficant other, but felt really bad and depressed about it, you would advocate for them to never be punished by the courts, right? Since you are so compassionate, after all.
28
@27: Non Sequitur, but lets take your "jealous ex" scenario where there is both prior motivation and intent. Neither of which are involved in this case.
The answer to your first question is in the law and at the discretion of the judge. Every case is different.
29
@28 "judicial discretion" often translates into "middle and upper class white people get away with it".
30
@28: Nothing was said about intent or anything about a "jealous ex." You claimed that people who feel bad enough about their crimes should not be punished farther.

So I am asking you if you would advocate for someone who killed someone very close to you to not be punished by a court if the killer felt really bad about it, and would carry guilt the rest of their lives. Imagine the killing was a result of incredibly excessive negligence and not necessarily murderous intent, if it makes it easier.

What kind of "remorse scale" should the courts use, and how are they to prove remorse, by the way?
31
The parents here are as guilty as if they would have pulled the trigger. Just because someone they deeply loved got killed does not mean this isn't severe negligence or manslaughter. I feel awful for the family. A life is gone, and although the toddler killed his sister on accident, the parents willfully acted irresponsibly. It's that irresponsibility that should be punished. A drunk driver who kills someone is also acting irresponsibly and I think that crime is a good comparison for this one. Having children is a huge responsibility. Owning a gun is a huge responsibility. Neither of these take much of any qualification however the ease of acquisition does not imply lack of responsibility. The parents should feel bad and they should also be held accountable. No more guns for them, period. Regular mandatory check-ins with CPS until their surviving kid is out of the house. Probation for years. Some sort of fine that ideally goes toward safe gun ownership education.
32
@15,

Drunk drivers get those kinds of punishments when no one's been hurt by their reckless negligence. If a drunk driver hits and seriously hurts or kills someone, they get a prison sentence. The same should apply to reckless gun owners.
33
@28
The answer to your first question [how bad someone has to feel about a crime before society is supposed to decide not to punish them] is in the law and at the discretion of the judge.
Also, color of the victim's skin and color of the perpetrator's skin.
34
@Raindrop I reached that conclusion not by jumping, but instead by reading countless letters, articles, and forum posts by your fellow conservatives out in the world we both live in.

Fun fact, even the remorseless monster and conservative apostate David Frum is horrified at legal weed. So one can easily assume he is still for the status quo, jailing small-time users and dealers, perpetuating the lost generation ruined by the failed War on Drugs.

I do not have any way to actually ask Mr. Frum for specifics of how he feels about legal weed but many many conservatives are constantly expressing their belief that locking up pot smokers is a 'winning strategy'. And unlike Charlie Sheen, far too many people take them seriously.

35
@7,

Only when the victim is a child and the responsible party is a parent, because a child is merely the property of the parent, like a pet.
36
Thank god his kid shot his own child, this guy would really be up shit creek if it had been the neighbor kid.
37
@30: Of course, given that scenario. Like a loved one killed by a drunk driver. That person knowingly broke the law by drinking and driving.
There's no reason for you to think I'm advocating a "remorse scale" -- and to participate in such silly tangential discussions is a waste of everyone's time.
38
@28

Okay. How about this scenario: at the end of a long day, an auto mechanic forgets to do one small, but important, task. He goes home. The next day the car owner picks up her car and drives away. As a result of the unfinished task, the driver loses control of her car and crashes into the sidewalk. A three year old and a 17 month old are both hit. Booth survive, but the 3 year old will be in a wheelchair for the rest of her life and the 17 month old will be brain dead.

Obviously, the auto mechanic is utterly distraught at the tragedy his careless negligence has caused. His life, and mental health, will never be the same. Is that punishment enough?

My opinion is that it's not. Negligence that results in grievous bodily harm is a crime and it needs to be punished, no matter the implement of that negligence.
39
@38

Agreed. And that mechanic was required to attend years of schooling and get certified to ensure steps aren't missed and no one gets hurt.
40
@38: Yes, punishment is warranted for that case but as @3 noted punishment or can take different forms, such as community service. In the case you described, I see no reason to put that mechanic in prison for years and years as otherwise he would still be a productive member of society.
41
@37,

That father will be tormented for the rest of his life. We don't punish people for such tragedies in a compassionate society.


Of course you are, liar.
42
I wonder if this "parenting column writer" is of the mindset that when one of your kids hits the other, the one who was hit gets to hit back, in retribution. If that is the case, I hope that they will wait until his daughter has fully recovered from her gunshot wound & maybe has grown a little bit stronger overall, before she gets to take a shot at her brother. The family that shoots each other, shoots together! (or something like that)
43
Another human sacrifice to the Gun Fetish Death Cult.
44
@37: Your refusal or ability to answer the most basic hypothetical about your ideas should tell you about the validity of that idea, or lack thereof.

Ever think that maybe your silly platitudes do not work in the real world, which is why you can never answer such simple questions about them?
45
@6 Uncompassionate liberal? You are way off base, this parent is irresponsible.
46
I've said before there should be consequences in these cases, but I think taking away the parents' right to own a gun, along with fines and a term of CPS supervision to make sure they don't put their kids in other danger, are the right punishments. So, raindrop, what about that? (I'm assuming that your answer is NO WAY, IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!)
47
"Not only that, you'd be taking the father away from his family (the baby girl is expected to survive) to put him in jail"

Well, they might survive if he's not around to put loaded weapons around, don't you think ?

"and making the mother find a job and try to find day care for her babies."

EXCUSE ? ME ? What mother nowadays hasn't to find a job and to find day care for her children ? What kind of high-paying job is that guy doing ?

Oooh, yes, RELIGION. The only way to make a buck is dimming the others' intelligence, isn't it ?
48
It's not "idiot hillbillies" causing most of the accidental or intentional gun deaths in the USA. Most of them are caused by your precious, blameless African-Americans.
49
@48: It says words but it doesn't show its work.

Please wait...

and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.