- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
The UK should expell US diplomats over this, or at least cease all US trade talks.
We didn’t even expel them when one of them killed somebody in the UK…
YSK that Americans will liberally (!) provide, carry and use their weapons for everything except the second amendment intended purpose.
Forming a militia to protect from foreign invasion?
I should withdraw my original comment. I spent a while re-researching the original intent, the Heller case and some of the subsequent cases to its current interpretation.
I believe it was originally intended to prevent federal overreach. Except that when there was a belief by some people that that had happened and there was an invasion of the capital. That confused me. I don’t know what the rights and wrongs were - apparently the alleged overreach wasn’t adjudged to be severe by anyone.
jfc DO NOT COME TO THE UNITED STATES
Well, don’t visit the US. This is just one of the many reasons to avoid that place.
What’s madness to me is that people in my country have a holiday to the US booked… and are still going.
My safety is worth more than a few sunk thousand
In a different universe, in a different timeline, maybe we wouldn’t be stuck so far up America’s arse and do something sensible like putting the damn country on a travel ban list.
There are already travel warnings issued for the US.
And unfortunately, the UK cannot go about starting international spats and trade wars with the US. That’s a one way ticket to heavy recession and mass poverty.
The most we can realistically do is travel warnings and publishing stories like this.
Weren’t there travel warnings issued recently? Although this event doesn’t seem related to those concerns. In the US getting shot is kinda like getting struck by lightning - statistically very unlikely, but still happens all the time.
For Brits, while there’s many possible worse interpretations, the usual reason for US law to function this way is if the weapon was fired by a very young child.
And yes, we have a “usual” regarding children getting their hands on firearms. That sucks in it’s own special way.
US law seals many records in cases for child offenders.
If the weapon was fired by a child too young to understand firearms, that could result in no charges - although it’s more usual to see a charge against the caretakers in such cases.
Disclaimer: Since tone doesn’t convey in text - I want to clarify I’m not trying to advocate for the US system. I just want to share that there are explanations - in addition - to our usual ones.
None of what I’ve shared is meant to attempt to address the concerns that must come with having a gun culture.
Everything still sucks in this situation, and everyone has a right to how they feel about it.
Whatever else we feel, we can all agree we need to find ways to do better than this. Nothing is okay about this.
(And yes, I know I’m saying that in one country where this kind of thing still routinely happens.)
Even if she was shot by a young child, shouldn’t charges be brought against the parents or anyone responsible for letting that child have access to a lethal weapon ?
That would be negligence charges, yes, which is what went to the grand jury. The grand jury, for the record here, is a bunch of randomly selected people - not the cops, or a prosecutor, or anything like that. Its a jury. And what this jury decides is not guilt, but whether or not there is enough evidence that supports the charges to bring it to a trial.
And that grand jury decided there was not.
I’m not aware of (and was unable to find) any specifics around what actually happened, so there may be a very good reason why this was the case.
I’m not defending the decision here, just explaining the situation. It was investigated, the police brought someone and evidence to a prosecutor, a prosecutor brought it to court, and a jury decided the charges didn’t fit the evidence to bring forward to a criminal trial. That is all we really know.
All I know about grand jury was my sibling was on it, a cop tried to convince them that having a machete in the car should be an extra crime (carrying a weapon, maybe) and they were all like “no bro you absolutely need a machete here occasionally, some of us garden and stuff” and the cop seemed shocked they didn’t just nod along and do what he said.
Yep, thats how its supposed to work.
Which is why there may be a perfectly reasonable issue as to why it didnt go any further.
I don’t know what happened here exactly, but there can be cases where a parent did take appropriate measures (by definition), but the child got through them anyway. For example, a child watches a safe being locked/unlocked and gets the password, or guesses the password (maybe it’s the same as mum’s phone password), etc. Or broke a glass case.
Sounds like those weren’t appropriate measures if someone can get round them so easily.
When I had a shotgun license, my shotgun was in a locked gun cabinet inside a locked room. The cartridges were in a separate locked case out of sight in another room, and I had the only keys for all 3 locks, all of which were on my keychain which was on my person at all times.
When I didn’t have them on me, they’d be in the hidden space behind the hinged piece of skirting board behind my bed.
As someone who likes to break into things (legally, with permission, blah blah blah) I can assure you that no amount of locks will keep a determined individual from something, especially if they know the schedule of the people they’re concerned about and if they have an effectively unlimited time with the thing they’re breaking into.
Locks will deter, not prevent, theft or unwanted handling. If there’s a way to access it, it is accessible to anyone with time and intent.
I like picking locks and even if I don’t have the skill for a certain lock, I’ve opened them by accident just by trying over and over. I just needed time.
A gun safe by itself is not enough.
A locked door is not enough.
I know someone who used to take the firing pins out of every firearm, which would then be in a locked box in a floor safe under his bed. Guns in a locked safe, with a locked closet and locked room door. That was when he had nieces and nephews that came over a few times a month. Once he had his kids, the guns went to storage at his dad’s house. His reasoning? He used to steal alcohol from his parents cabinet as a teen and they tried many many times to make it harder but he always managed to get to it. “I always found a way, so could my daughter”
My own firearms have cable locks through the chambers, they’re locked in a keyed safe, and the safe is in a locked closet. The only copy of the safe key that isn’t either on me or my wife is in a hollowed out 2x4 that looks like it’s part of the ceiling in my attic just in case I ever lose my key but need into it.
I don’t have kids so I’m not concerned with someone who has a lot of time on their hands, but never underestimate how determined someone can be when they’re told “you aren’t allowed in there”
All of this is basically to say “the only way you’re keeping someone permanently away from the guns in your house is to NOT HAVE GUNS IN YOUR HOUSE”
Unrelated,
which was in my person at all times.
Sorry the phrasing just gave me a giggle.
However, when it comes to criminal charges, they do have to draw a line where “accidents happen”
You may also need to have a gun be reasonably accessible for self defence in an emergency.
I’m not picking sides by the way, but I’m just sort of reckoning how something like this could happen with no charges.
Amazing how this shit happens so often here or at least it seems that way.
Americans like to pretend as if we are the only country with a gun culture… We are not… We are the only country where your mean gun owner is a mouth breather
