>>>>>>>...perhaps that or related to the judge. I think part of the problem is that these kids criminals are juveniles and were not charged as adults..thus sealing their names. In addition to that blunder,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why is charging minors as juveniles a blunder? I don't think minors should ever be charged as adults. Given what we now know about brain development, I'd find it easier to argue that some adults should be charged as juveniles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>
>>>>>Given what we know about brain development I see no problem charging juveniles as adults. Teenagers brains are more inclined to impulse and risky behavior but that does not mean they do not understand right from wrong. Children start this process around age 7 as they can rationalize decisions based upon known outcomes. ie Whether to play ball in the house knowing they will get in trouble. They can also make social decisions based on relationships with peers. ie : If I do A the other kids will like/make fun of me.
>>>>>
>>>>>While the prefrontal cortex takes until around age 25 to fully develop, that should not give carte-blanche to minors to run amok and blame their "undeveloped brains" for their actions. We all have undeveloped brains. The process of brain reorganization is ongoing throughout our lives, yet it's a very small percentage of us who break capital laws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All the more reason NOT to make mass killing machines easily available to them. I really am hoping that "common sense will prevail"..
>>>
>>>Sounds good. Time to ban anyone under 25 from the using the following "mass killing machines":
>>>Automobiles
>>>Heavy equipment
>>>Personal air or watercraft
>>>Pyrotechnics
>>>Fertilizer
>>>Bleach & Amonia
>>>
>>>I suppose I could go on for a few thousand more but if these don't make the point sink in nothing will.
>>
>>They don't make the point. Those things are not intentionally designed and used to kill. It is not their purpose.
>>
>>You generally present the conservative position in an intelligent way so I am not going to insult you. It just surprises me that you made that argument.
>
>There are over 200 million privately owned guns in this nation.
>In 2008, 303,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
>http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
>
>That's 0.1% if none of those was used in repeated crimes. If the only purpose of guns is to kill people they're terribly ineffective. ;)
>
>Blaming the object is never the proper course. Blame the person. Don't blame the gun, blame the criminal. Don't blame the cellphone, blame the idiot looking at it instead of the road. Don't blame the automobile, blame the drunk starlet driving it into oncoming traffic.
>
>Perhaps if someone in the theatre had a weapon, things would've turned out much better.
>http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-71-shoots-alleged-robbers-internet-cafe/story?id=16800859

Banning guns in the USA at this point would be impossible. Having some better control over who ends up with them would be nice though. Between the gun shows and being able to get one online it's just to easy for a criminal or some mentally unbalanced person to end up with one. Plus I can't think of any realistic (legal) reason anyone would need an AK47. Allowing all US citizens to own a gun was at one time a good idea (notice that no one invaded the USA - probably in part because they know everyone over here has a gun) but times have changed.