If it was a child with the weapon, if the weapon belongs to a parent, charge the parent and take away their ability to own a weapon. Weapon should have been secured.
And I still don't see a reason to take my 2nd amend rights away because of something happening on the other side of the nation.
#4 | Posted by boaz
Typical GOTP myopic thinking.
It's only on the "other side of the nation" because it didn't happen to directly to YOU. Wake up Bozo. This could happen anywhere anytime now.
Do you admit yet that gun violence is a public heath concern?
If so then tell the good people why can't we approve a Surgeon General who just wants TALK about these issues so we can start to resolve them?
Let me help you.
Murthy's position isn't particularly controversial in the medical community. Most major doctors' groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, treat gun violence as a public health concern and believe it's an entirely appropriate issue to discuss with patients. And past Surgeons General, including Reagan-appointee C. Everett Koop, have spoken out on the public health threats presented by guns. Koop co-authored a 1992 essay in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) entitled, "Time to Bite the Bullet Back."
But, in today's clown car climate his position is just too damn controversial.
"My concerns with regards to issues like gun violence have to do with my experience as a physician, seeing patients in emergency rooms who have come in with acute injuries; but also seeing many patients over the years who are dealing with spinal cord injuries, post traumatic stress disorder, and other chronic complications from gun violence."
--President Obama's Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Vivek Murthy
And so not only do we not have any leadership addressing the public health issue of gun violence we had no one to speak out about (the now out of control) ebola epidemic in Africa to keep it from reaching our shores.
And I bet you folks don't even feel a twinge of remorse.