Are there any stats on how widely they are actually used?
I tend to agree. And start prosecuting these “it just went off!” mishaps, too. You know, the guy who comes back from the range, or a weekend hunting trip, and blows his wife’s brains out, and then tells the police, “it just went off!”
“Just went off” my ass. Someone gave themselves a 30-06 divorce under the guise of a “mishap” and got away with Murder 1. Hit them at least with Manslaughter.
Could you link to that happening? I’ve never heard of that
I don’t have any aside from my friends, that have kids, all having one of which I’ve only seen three of them. Also owned vs used would make the distinction difficult too.
I haven’t seen any that literally said it just went off and the wife ends up dead - but I’ve seen plenty of stories about guns “accidentally” going off and killing/injuring someone while the gun was being cleaned. One thing I’m sure of is that they aren’t all accidents. The second thing I’m sure about is that someone was at least negligent - because while there are firearms that require you to pull the trigger to disassemble and clean them , if you properly unloaded it, there is no round to fire.
I’ve heard the same stories, and find them sickeningly plausible, but a quick google search didn’t turn up any ‘confirmed’ examples. Probably because it can all be suspicious as hell, but as long as spouse 1 doesn’t admit to intending to kill spouse 2, it’s all a matter of horrible conjecture. Perhaps someone with better google-fu can find one, because I’m sure in this day and age of search histories, someone was arrested after such an event and there were 20 pages of ‘make it look like an accident’ sites.
But yes, at the very, very least negligent.
Got it, so this was just you indulging in fantasy.
I’d say a gun is more dangerous. It can do far more damage, far more quickly, than your examples. This is compounded by the fact that it is often not the child who is handling it that is harmed, but someone else.
Thank you for your efforts, but not happy to have my worst suspicions confirmed. And yep, it seems the key factor in a prosecution is stupidity as I expected.
I hope the prosecution is careful and diligent.
I grew up in rural shit farming communities. “Everyone” had guns and gun safety was drilled into all of us. The standard always consider a gun loaded, know what’s behind where you’re aiming at, etc.
Taught by redneck farmers and sheriffs that were prolly in the Klan and they brokered none of this namby pamby apologistic BS about “accidents” or “tragedies” or lack of personal “accountablility.”
The line is very clear for me. If a child in your house can access a firearm and something happens, then the parent(s) are fully accountable. No discussion. No extenuating circumstances. Strict liability.
Full disclosure. I have an autistic child. The only way I can guarantee there will be no firearm accidents in my home is to never have a firearm in my home. By the way, I also guarantee my daughter won’t fall out of the second story by having cantilevered windows locked shut with all of the handles removed. I’ve got a whole host of other things I do to prevent “accidents”. If you’re a loving parent, it’s the least you can do for your child. And from a legal perspective, ain’t no 2nd Amendment right that gives a parent a free pass for a firearm accident in their home. You don’t want me on your jury if you can’t bother to be responsible in your own home. Thanks for playing.
I grew up in a tiny town in Northern Idaho, and there is nothing magical about growing up in a rural community that stops a child from acting like a child. They fight, they skip school, they “borrow” the family car, they sneak out at night and they play with things they shouldn’t play with, just like kids in the Big City.
I was thinking the same, but ISTM that a deliberate choice to keep a gun in a home with a small child involves more accountability than the involuntary brain misfire that leads to those hot-car tragedies.
I agree that leaving a gun where a child can get at it is probably often more of an involuntary brain misfire than culpable negligence. But the choice to have the gun in the child’s house in the first place is a voluntary decision, not a brain misfire.
Most parents don’t really have a choice about having to transport their kid in a car fairly regularly as part of their routine. ISTM that keeping a gun is much more optional, and it’s reasonable for the responsibility assigned to mishaps arising from that choice to reflect that.
Yes, good points.
Often, the Police and DA think losing a child is punishment enough.
In some states there is a separate criminal charge for not locking up your guns in a house with small children. That is a good law.
#1 small child accidental death is drowning. Pools, etc. Automobile deaths are also high, even higher as the child gets older. Fire and suffocation are right up there. For older teens it is auto then guns. For 1-4 guns are the #9 cause of accidental death.
So, if the parents leave the gate to the pool unlocked and the child dies= Prison? If the Mom texts and gets into a accident and her child dies= prison?
If you have a child, then the gun must be secured- biometic safe, trigger lock, gun safe, etc. I suppose a exception could be made for a older teen, but I’d rather not.
There is a big difference between losing a child, and throwing a child away.
It seems like, just as in the other thread, these proposals to treat guns differently for liability purposes than any other item on the planet is simply a way to outlaw firearms indirectly.
Are we talking about all children? Most states allow a “child” to get a hunting license at age 15, which means that he or she can hunt without adult supervision. These proposals would make every hunting accident by a child, supervised or not, the full responsibility of the parents. Further, under these proposals that age would be raised to 18, with the parents forbidden to hunt while the child is under 18 because they don’t want this strict liability for their children.
I get it. You guys don’t like guns. But any reasonable discussion in this area has to recognize that guns are legal, and that the standard for imposing liability is due care, and due care is not having a Fort Knox type safe and a 100% guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen.
There are an unlimited number of ways to describe what a standard isn’t.
What do you think the standard is (or should be)?
It is simply impossible to answer. You have most of a semester on negligence in torts class in law school, and jury trials are had every day to determine whether this or that act was negligent. It is extremely fact specific and depends on an infinite number of variables.
I think most people can see the difference between letting your responsible 16 year old take his rifle hunting and giving a 13 year old a handgun. I’m not attempting to set any baselines or benchmarks, but there is still parental autonomy and the reasoned judgment of the community if bad things happen.
Surely you would be willing to set the bar a bit higher than this extremely unlikely example:
How about a loaded gun in an unsecured parent’s nightstand, or under a parent’s pillow? Would those examples pass muster as a possible standard?