Thinking the unthinkable

I assumed she had family in the area. Did she drive herself home the next day with a still blown hamstring?

> The toddler in the accident had the last slot of the day. So, are you recommending that she could've just waited all night in the waiting room? For 4k I would have.

> She just did what the doctors recommended.

I can certainly understand that, but also don't think it needed a hospital stay. The MRI doesn't fix anything, it just tells you how bad things are. She could have had a relative drive her home, sleep in her bed, and drive her back the next day.

For the record, I broke my arm playing softball 3 years ago. The paramedics wanted to drive me to the hospital. I told them no, because I knew it would cost 1-2k for the 10 minute drive. Instead I had a friend do it. They didn't ask me to stay overnight for my x-ray, but i did wait for several hours. If for some reason they had asked me stay because it broke (the machine) or wouldn't be ready, you can guarantee I would not have. I know it's really expensive, and there isn't anything they would be doing for me. I'd have gone home and been miserable for free instead of staying and been miserable for 4k.

Sometimes you need to question what doctors tell you. They are in the business of helping people, but they are also for profit. Maybe they assumed your insurance would cover it, but that doesn't mean it was necessary.

Just a factual side-note:

"Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school.

_cough_

Just this past spring: A gunman has shot dead a teacher and three children at a Jewish school in the French city of Toulouse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17426313

I'm not saying it isn't possible that there is some benefit, I am saying that any benefit would be pretty small, and that the cons easily outweigh the pros in my opinion. Self-defense is an argument that is more easily understood so I tend towards that, but to me it's secondary to the freedom and liberty you mention.

Is it really that much of a benefit to "only" have 8 kids die in a classroom? I guess if you happen to be one of the 18 it is, but these are both really really awful occurrences and getting rid of guns only maybe makes it a bit harder with other cons we've already mentioned.

I'd like to point out, that this is an anomaly of anomalies. Columbine was the most famous of these school shootings, and "only" 13 died there. Most of the time these crazy people end up killing themselves sooner. I suspect this guy was just a bit more off his rocker, and if all he had was a knife he would have still killed more than 8.

to your questions: > 1) In the US is his mother criminally or civilly liable for not preventing his access to the weapons?

He killed her before this started, so no.

> 2) Do you think that she should be?

Much harder question. I think there is probably a case to be made civilly, but probably not criminally. I do think that she shoulders a lot of the blame as I mentioned elsewhere in the thread here - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4930678 - and in your parent I said:

"That being said, I think this person's access to guns should have been limited, by his mother. She knew he had a problem, she should have at the very least had them in a safe that he didn't have the combination to."

I don't it would be too hard to prosecute a civil case against her given his prior behavior.

I don't think taking guns away from everyone makes the country a better place though. I'd prefer more people to be armed than less, but that's just my opinion.

>Close gun show loophole. There is no gun show loophole. It is just a private sale. but see below..

>Regulate private sales. This I might be ok with, but... how would you suggest we regulate private sales?

This doesn't sound like a very easy problem to solve. I'm certainly not ok with you saying I can't sell my personal property, but if you come up with a really good way of doing this I'd probably be ok with it. I'd love for the government to give us access to their background check information, but we've tried that and they haven't been willing thus far. Many people that I know who do sell their own guns from time to time require that the buyer have a HCP. If they know they have a handgun carry permit, they know they have passed a background check. However, since only a tiny percentage of people have this, I don't think it's a reasonable requirement.

>Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons. How could you possibly know this? If we somehow find a way to regulate it, then it wouldn't be possible legally. If we don't, or if they do it illegally once a system is place, there is simply no way of knowing it happened. There is also the problem of every felon having a first time. You could sell it to someone who never committed a crime and then they can use it to commit their first crime. Let's stop trying to find someone new to blame for everything. The guy who shot the person is the one to blame. Isn't that enough?

There are reasonable adjustments we can make that can absolutely have an impact. Reasonable people (of which you appear to be one) should work toward reasonable adjustments instead of spreading fear about the government taking away the property you already have.