Another tragedy brought about by yet ANOTHER "responsible" gun owner

[zappasguitar]

"Gun nuts"? Really? Please share with me exactly what I have said to earn that little moniker? Especially since you claim to want to have a discussion.

Now, what I am actually saying is that if you have people who blatantly ignore basic safety rules and federal laws, adding another law to the books would not change anything.

If they bought the gun new, there would have been a lock of some sort with it. Trigger locks cost very little, but they did not buy and use one. But you expect a new law would have changed that?

The problem is not a shortage of laws. It is criminal neglect by the parents. Additional laws would not have changed that at all.


Now, if you want to call this done and stop posting, that is fine. But don't even try and pretend that you wanted a rational discussion and everyone else started calling names and spewing bile. I tried repeatedly to explain my position and question you about yours. You simply resorted to ridicule and over simplification. When that didn't work, you ignored every point made by anyone else and resorted to calling names yourself.

Let me know when you want to have a real and rational discussion. I would be happy to participate in one for a change.

And some kind of license that required the occasional gun safety class and periodic re-certification could address new technology that owners who've had their guns for a while might not know about.

Sounds simple, but BY GOD we can't make gun owners spend a Saturday afternoon sitting in class...if we do, the next stop would confiscation of all guns.

 

[Bonestorm]

I think negligent homicide is a pretty serious charge. Add to that the death of their two year old child and I am thinking that these people face a lifelong punishment.

In Kentucky, reckless homocide gets you 1-5 years. That's diddly shit. And considering that their 5 year old now has to live with the fact that he shot and killed his little sister for the rest of his life, that's hardly punishment enough.

But the only way to enforce these laws would be to enter people's homes to check. Otherwise we are not preventing tragedies like this. We are simply adding to the list of charges we can file against them.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how laws are generally enforced in the United States. We don't, as a general rule, check to make sure people are doing things they are supposed to do and that they aren't doing things that they aren't supposed to do. We punish them when they get caught. I see no reason why this enforecement mechanism wouldn't work here. People comply with these kinds of laws not because they are afraid the man is going to check in on them, but because if they get caught violating the law the penalties would be severe and they don't want that. That fear would indeed help prevent tragedies like this. It wouldn't stop them, but it would help prevent them.

Also, too, I don't see the trouble with adding to the list of charges we can file against people that do this stuff, but that's me.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

I think negligent homicide is a pretty serious charge. Add to that the death of their two year old child and I am thinking that these people face a lifelong punishment.

But the only way to enforce these laws would be to enter people's homes to check. Otherwise we are not preventing tragedies like this. We are simply adding to the list of charges we can file against them.

yup ^

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

In Kentucky, reckless homocide gets you 1-5 years. That's diddly shit. And considering that their 5 year old now has to live with the fact that he shot and killed his little sister for the rest of his life, that's hardly punishment enough.



I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how laws are generally enforced in the United States. We don't, as a general rule, check to make sure people are doing things they are supposed to do and that they aren't doing things that they aren't supposed to do. We punish them when they get caught. I see no reason why this enforecement mechanism wouldn't work here. People comply with these kinds of laws not because they are afraid the man is going to check in on them, but because if they get caught violating the law the penalties would be severe and they don't want that. That fear would indeed help prevent tragedies like this. It wouldn't stop them, but it would help prevent them.

Also, too, I don't see the trouble with adding to the list of charges we can file against people that do this stuff, but that's me.

I guess I am looking for ways to prevent tragedies like this, in spite of the ignorance of the parents. But, as I have said before, a free society is not a safe place to live.

I have no real problem with requiring safe storage of firearms when they are not in use or being carried. I don't think it is going to do a lot to prevent situations like the one listed in the OP.

 

[Timshel]

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/crickett-rifle-marketing-kids

On Tuesday, inside a rural Kentucky home, a five-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister. The boy had been playing with a .22 caliber single-shot Crickett rifle made and marketed for kids. The children's mother was reportedly outside the house when the shooting took place, and apparently didn't know that the gun contained a shell.

"Just one of those crazy accidents," said the Cumberland County coroner, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Clearly the issue of parental responsibility is at the center of this tragedy. But against the backdrop of the Newtown massacre and ongoing national debate over regulating firearms, it also points back to the big business of guns—including how the industry profits from products aimed at children.

The Pennsylvania-based maker of Crickett rifles, Keystone Sporting Arms, markets its guns with the slogan "My First Rifle." They are available with different barrel and stock designs, including some made in hot pink to appeal to young girls.

Business has boomed since the company's inception in 1996, according to its website. In its first year, it had four employees and produced 4,000 rifles for kids; by 2008 it had greatly expanded its operations, with 70 employees and an output of 60,000 rifles a year. KSA's site states that its goal is "to instill gun safety in the minds of youth shooters and encourage them to gain the knowledge and respect that hunting and shooting activities require and deserve."

But a visit to the "kids corner" page reveals a gallery of photos that some people might find unsettling:



Then again, KSA's approach to arming America's tykes may be no less disturbing than the post-Newtown boom in bulletproof backpacks and school clothes.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

we should mandate the installation of breathalyzers on every car too.

I agree and every private sale of a vehicle needs to have a back ground check, done on the buyer, so that we can close the auto sale loophole.

Just think how many lives could be saved:
Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.

MY GAWD, THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN

 

[canceled.2021.1]

No it won't because as I stated earlier...I'm not engaging you and your idiotic, thread diverting bullshit today.

I humbly accept your concession. BTW ask anyone, there was nothing in my first question that diverted your thread. You can make an argument for the second although that was not my intent.

My first question was directly related to your OP you are just to chicken to answer.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So this was just poor parenting and no actual law could have prevented this? As a non gun owner I am curious about the storage and trigger lock requirements. I'm not a gun guy. I don't own one and I don't go shooting them. If I ever did own a gun however it would be for safety reasons for my family. How long does it take to go from your bed while sleeping (as an example) to your storage locker and take off your safety clip? I'm thinking if you are awaken at night by a burglar in your house and you need to grab your gun quick.

Firearms with trigger locks are better used as a club and if they're locked in a safe, you would do better throwing the safe at the intruder.

 

[Socrtease]

My youngest son has been the "owner" of a .22 lever action rifle since his first birthday. He is now 7 and has gone to the range several times with his grandfather to fire it. When not at the range he has no idea where that gun is stored. He has learned physical control,and discipline when at the range. He has learned to respect firearms at the range, and he has learned that if he happens upon a firearm when he is not with an adult he is to immediately find one and tell them. This last point I know because he found an old gun out in a pecan orchard and immediately ran back to his grandfather's house and told him, never once touching it.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

And some kind of license that required the occasional gun safety class and periodic re-certification could address new technology that owners who've had their guns for a while might not know about.

Sounds simple, but BY GOD we can't make gun owners spend a Saturday afternoon sitting in class...if we do, the next stop would confiscation of all guns.

LOL That was awesome Zap.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL That was awesome Zap.

Imagine that... One fearmongering nut lol with another

 

[USFREEDOM911]

This "unenforceable" angle is fucking stupid. Laws against drunk driving aren't unenforeceable because people drive drunk. Laws against murder aren't unenforeceable becuase people kill other people. And laws mandating trigger locks and storage requirements aren't unenforceable becuase people might not follow them.

And given the discussion as to what penalties should the parents face, trigger lock and storage laws shoudl impose very harsh penalites for non-compliance where the gun ends up being accessed by a minor and death or serious bodily injury results. It shouldn't be a question as to what the charges and penalties shoudl be . These harsh penalities might result in more people complyign with the trigger lock and safe storage requirements.

You need to re-read the presentation; because the "unenforcable" part came from the suggestion that increasing back ground checks would have stopped this, in some way.
Show one example where someone has been arrested; before they were drinking and driving.
Show one excample where someone has been arrested for murder; before anyone was murdered.
Show how a law requiring storage and/or locks (which some States already have) would have prevented this tragedy.

 

[Steelplate]

Firearms with trigger locks are better used as a club and if they're locked in a safe, you would do better throwing the safe at the intruder.

Do you fear intruders? I'd be willing to bet(depending on your location) that you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being the victim of a home invasion.

Overwhelmingly, if you are going to be robbed, it's when no one is at home. In the case of an unoccupied home being burglarized.... not having your guns secured results in them being stolen and potentially being used in violent crime.

I think I'll take my chances on the lightning strike, rather than live with the potential guilt of police finding my stolen weapon at a homicide scene.

But....to each their own.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Do you fear intruders? I'd be willing to bet(depending on your location) that you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being the victim of a home invasion.

Overwhelmingly, if you are going to be robbed, it's when no one is at home. In the case of an unoccupied home being burglarized.... not having your guns secured results in them being stolen and potentially being used in violent crime.

I think I'll take my chances on the lightning strike, rather than live with the potential guilt of police finding my stolen weapon at a homicide scene.

But....to each their own.

So home invasions only occur to people who "deserve" it and it's nothing for other people to worry about.
The rest was just you attempting to support the idea that MORE LAWS are automatically going to solve the problem and yet every State has laws against speeding, theft, murder, bank robbery, etc. and yet they still occur.
Why is that?

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

My youngest son has been the "owner" of a .22 lever action rifle since his first birthday. He is now 7 and has gone to the range several times with his grandfather to fire it. When not at the range he has no idea where that gun is stored. He has learned physical control,and discipline when at the range. He has learned to respect firearms at the range, and he has learned that if he happens upon a firearm when he is not with an adult he is to immediately find one and tell them. This last point I know because he found an old gun out in a pecan orchard and immediately ran back to his grandfather's house and told him, never once touching it.

Excellent! Now THIS is responsible gun ownership and parenting.

 

[Steelplate]

So home invasions only occur to people who "deserve" it and it's nothing for other people to worry about.
The rest was just you attempting to support the idea that MORE LAWS are automatically going to solve the problem and yet every State has laws against speeding, theft, murder, bank robbery, etc. and yet they still occur.
Why is that?

No...that's not it at all. Try again...especially...READ MY LAST SENTENCE.

I do not fear home invasion... I would rather have my guns locked up so if my home is robbed when I'm away....I don't get a call six months down the road from some police station somewhere saying....Mr. plate? Steel Plate? We found your gun that you reported stolen six months ago...it was found in the hand of a dead man who was shot in a street fight....or worse yet....a shootout with cops where an officer was killed.

Fuck that.

 

[Don Quixote]

When will these gun nuts learn? All the sadness that family must endure from this day forth...and all because they just HAD to prove a point to us "gun grabbers"


Kentucky 5-year-old gets rifle as gift and shoots 2-year-old sister dead


A 5-year-old boy in Kentucky shot and killed his 2-year-old sister on Tuesday while playing with a .22 caliber rifle that he was given as a gift, state police said in a statement.

According to the Lexington Herald-Leader, the shooting happened at the family’s home in Cumberland County around 1 p.m. The 2-year-old girl was later pronounced dead at Cumberland County Hospital.

The girl was identified as Caroline Starks by Cumberland County Coroner Gary White.

White said that the boy had been given the rifle as a gift last year and that the mother had been at home when the shooting occurred. The rifle was normally kept in a corner of the home, but family members did not realize the gun had been loaded.

“It’s a Crickett,” the coroner explained. “It’s a little rifle for a kid… The little boy’s used to shooting the little gun.”


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/...le-as-gift-and-shoots-2-year-old-sister-dead/

yeah...a "little" gun that still kills just as dead!

a 22 is one of the most deadly firearms because it penetrates a body easily, but rather than exit the body, it ricochets around inside the body doing enormous damage.

i used a single shot 22 as a learning weapon - one of the things i was taught about firearms is never to assume it is loaded or unloaded, always check a firearm's 'load' status when you handle it regardless of what anyone tells you about its load status.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Firearms with trigger locks are better used as a club and if they're locked in a safe, you would do better throwing the safe at the intruder.

That depends on the safe. I have, as I said before, a biometric pistol safe that opens in less than one second. The gun is secure until I put my finger on the pad.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No...that's not it at all. Try again...especially...READ MY LAST SENTENCE.

I do not fear home invasion... I would rather have my guns locked up so if my home is robbed when I'm away....I don't get a call six months down the road from some police station somewhere saying....Mr. plate? Steel Plate? We found your gun that you reported stolen six months ago...it was found in the hand of a dead man who was shot in a street fight....or worse yet....a shootout with cops where an officer was killed.

Fuck that.

Then you're in favor of having all vehicles being equipped with ignition lock out devices.
That way you won't receive a phone call from some police station somewhere saying....Mr. plate? Steel Plate? We found your car that you reported stolen...it was found to be involved in a head on crash with a school bus that killed 30 children...it was being driven by a drunk.

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

Do you fear intruders? I'd be willing to bet(depending on your location) that you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being the victim of a home invasion.

Overwhelmingly, if you are going to be robbed, it's when no one is at home. In the case of an unoccupied home being burglarized.... not having your guns secured results in them being stolen and potentially being used in violent crime.

I think I'll take my chances on the lightning strike, rather than live with the potential guilt of police finding my stolen weapon at a homicide scene.

But....to each their own.

Your statement is only true if you think the statement that if a gun is locked in a safe you are better off throwing the safe at them. There are several brands of firearm safe that can be opened very quickly in the dark.