Nas wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Yeah, you said you're not saying the kid shouldn't be punished, but then argue that his armed carjacking is no more inherently dangerous than any other, and that people who don't like COVID lockdowns can't likewise want him punished.
Speaking of dishonesty.
Yes, any middle school child should be punished for committing a crime. Especially a violent crime.
I had an issue with the belief by Peeps and others that we need to punish them harsher than we currently do. In order for harsher penalties to even remotely make sense, you would have to show me that we have an epidemic of middle school kids committing violent crimes. There is absolutely no evidence of that anywhere in America.
It is absolutely a fact based on available data that someone is far more likely to contract Covid-19 than be carjacked. It's not even close either. Someone is also far more likely to die from Covid-19 after contracting it than they are getting shot after getting carjacked. Once again, it's not even close.
Somehow, you and MANY others are not only freaking out about the carjackings, but demanding that we impose harsher penalties on middle school kids who are almost never involved in these violent crimes. While at the same time being dismissive of COVID-19 and complaining about the protocols that businesses and governments are putting in place.
I don't want to be carjacked and shot or die from Covid-19. The data says that I have a better chance of dying from COVID-19. If I was going to freak out about anything it would be Covid-19 over middle school criminals.
And yet you're arguing against "increased" punishment for a child who has by all available accounts never been punished for their armed carjacking. You say you are for punishing people for crimes, even children, but have argued to the high heavens (even bringing up COVID!) that a child who has yet to be punished for repeated offenses should be severely punished for their most recent violent offense.
Also:
https://everytownresearch.org/report/notanaccident/Quote:
Analysis of the over 2,000 incidents in the #NotAnAccident Index in which a child unintentionally shot themself or others in the period 2015 through 2020 reveals the following:
Shootings by children are most often also shootings of children. Ninety-one percent of those injured or killed in unintentional shootings by children were also under 18.4
Seven in ten of the unintentional child shootings occurred in homes, whether in the home of the shooter, the victim, a relative’s house, or another home. Unintentional shootings occurred most frequently when children were likely to be home: over the weekend, in the summer, and during school holidays.
The two age groups most likely to be both shooters and victims were teenagers 14 to 17 first, and then preschoolers five and younger.
...
Finally, unintentional shooting deaths and injuries are as likely to be self-inflicted as inflicted by someone else.11 But since stages of brain development vary widely from infants to adolescents and teenagers, we also examined the proportion of incidents in which a child shot themself or someone else broken into two age groupings: children ages 0 to 9 and 10 to 17. We found that among the younger group, roughly two-thirds of the incidents involved the child shooting themself with one-third having shot someone else. For the adolescent and teenage group, the proportion was inverted. Rougly 40 percent were self-inflicted incidents and 58 percent involved the young person shooting someone else.
Adolescents handling guns often shoot someone else, suffice it to say.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
