I don’t really care if someone gets shot, or not, to be honest.
Your kid brings your weapon to show and tell, you have lost your guns and the power to own or handle them. Period.
You waive your weapon around at your neighbour? Same.
Carrying your weapon where you shouldn’t? Same.
Threaten to get your gun? Same.
Improper storage? Not registered? A stolen gun? Convicted of violence or threats against your spouse? All same. No guns for you.
Zero tolerance.
This would be a great place to start.
My mother was exactly the sort of person who would think she heard an intruder in the house and wind up shooting a family member who got up to pee at 2 am. So growing up we had no firearms in the house, period. (Mom also had some serious depression issues - another reason not to have firearms in the house).
Yet my dad did go hunting a few times when invited to do so when we lived in West Virginia - he kept the guns somewhere other than home. Inconvenient? Sure. But less inconvenient than dead family members. And he still could go hunting.
Under your proposed rules parents with children under 18 who still wanted to hunt or do target shooting could continue to do so - but they’ll need outside-the-home storage to secure their firearms. If my dad could do that in the late 1960’s there’s no reason it couldn’t be done today. Seems to me that would cut down on accidents and idiot owners.
There are ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access and still allow responsible gun owners to use guns responsibly.
Putting the liability on the gun owner is putting it exactly where it belongs. “Rights” has a twin sister, and her name is “responsibility”. They used to go everywhere together but, for some reason, she has been increasingly missing these days. It’s time for that relationship to be reaffirmed.
Not everything is about prison, I’m not sure why that is the only thing that you ever leap to.
Absolutely quite a bit of probation, and a revocation of their right to have a pool, if they had a properly secured fence and simply missed closing the gate.
OTOH, if they don’t even have a fence around their pool, then that’s a much higher level of negligence, and a bit of time served may deter other parents from making the same mistake.
Yes. I’m pretty sure that in most states, that would be the case if they killed someone in another car due to their negligence, not sure why it should be different that the victim was their own child.
And if it’s not? Prison?
What do you think about swimming pools?
Leaving your kid in a hot car (or backing over them in the driveway) involves a clear specific act (or omission) that directly results in a negative outcome. Certainly many accidental firearm injuries fall into that category – shooting someone while cleaning your gun; opening fire on a strange noise at night and inadvertently shooting your child, or girlfriend, or a stranded motorist, or the police. I’d think that most of the time a gun “just goes off” that’s not really true. But this thread isn’t really limited to those – it’s focusing, it seems, on a more general “negligent storage” theory.
It was hard to easily find clear statistics on accidental gun deaths in children – most of the statistics get skewed by intentional homicides and suicides committed by teenagers (and those are off-limits in this topic). But, it’s fairly clear that the number of accidental deaths of children from swimming pools (and hot tubs) far exceeds the number of accidental deaths of children from firearms. The same is true of accidental poisonings from household chemicals and (surprising to me) indoor plants.
Maybe you need to keep bleach in your house. But no one needs a swimming pool (or a philodendron) and obtaining one is a voluntary decision. I’d wager that every toddler who dies in a swimming pool (or hot tub) is the result of some sort of negligence – negligence in watching the child; negligence in securing the pool; both.
Do we apply the same rule to other optional voluntary dangerous things? Should Bode Miller be in jail? Should his wife? Should the neighbor who owned the pool?
Even the idea of an attractive nuisance doesn’t generally extend to criminal consequences which is what the thread seems to be about (and which people seem to be supportive of).
Maybe we can talk about children acquiring improperly secured guns from their parents instead of making this about everything else that might pose a possible danger?
Just a thought.
I think I haven’t heard anybody arguing that parents whose children drown in their swimming pools should be exempt from criminal prosecution for negligence.
AIUI, the argument in favor of not prosecuting parents in hot-car-death situations is that such situations really are the result of a mere momentary, though catastrophic, mental malfunction rather than negligent carelessness. Deliberately deciding to have in your household an optional possession that’s intrinsically dangerous to children, such as a gun or a swimming pool, is not a momentary mental malfunction, and it seems reasonable that it should carry a different level of responsibility.
So when the OP asks whether gun owners whose children misuse guns with tragic consequences should be exempt from prosecution, I think it’s somewhat off base to attempt to argue that that’s analogous to sympathy arguments for parents who accidentally leave children in hot cars with tragic consequences. Which is why I said so in my earlier post.
I am often told in gun debates that once an item is no longer in your possession, you are no longer liable for what happens with it.
Based on that it shouldn’t matter if a kid gets ahold of a gun and waves it dangerously, fires off a shot that doesn’t hit anyone, shoots and only injures someone, or kills someone. The crime is not what the kid did with the gun, the crime is allowing the kid to get ahold of the gun in the first place.
As to what criminal penalties are involved, I don’t think that a bit of prison should be out of the question, but that can be debated. What should not be debated is that the adults who were negligent in allowing a child to get unsupervised access to a gun should never be allowed to own a gun again.
Sure, there are exceptions. If you do your due diligence, and a kid just happens to be a prodigious safecracker, then what can you do, right?
So, we should institute standards. We can have gun safes that are certified to be at least very difficult for a child to get into. We can require that a gun in the home is either secured on an adult’s person, or secured in the safe.
If we find that someone has kids, and they leave a loaded gun in the couch cushions, or in an unlocked nightstand, then they should, at the very least, no longer be allowed to have guns.
I have no problem using taxpayer dollars to subsidize proper safes, or for training classes to instruct people on how to keep their guns out of the hands of kids, if the concern is that protecting children from gun accidents is too costly for some. But at some point, adults need to actually take responsibility here.
This is often countered by people that say “Of course such safes and training should be available to all!”, purposefully ignoring the fact that unless such classes and safety equipment are mandatory they are pretty much useless.
Well, I don’t think the OP is asking whether gun owners should be exempt (and I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone argue that parents should be absolutely exempt in such situations). Rather, the premise of the thread seems to be whether we should have a policy in favor prosecuting parents (or, stated alternatively, do we treat firearms differently from other dangerous things that frequently harm children – like swimming pools and plants).
The argument in favor of such a policy (I assume) is that it would help deter negligent storage of firearms. One of the arguments with hot car deaths is that there is no need for a criminal prosecution – the tragedy of the death of a child is sufficient punishment for the parent and the story itself should be sufficiently deterrent for others (this is how I understood the “piling on” comment in the OP). Obviously, it’s not really sufficient since car deaths keep happening, but I think the argument applies here (at least where the “mishap” harms the gun owner’s child). And the counter-arguments apply too.
And I’m not sure I’ve ever come across an argument that we should aggressively prosecute parents or pool owners, even though that is a bigger danger to small children.
Personally, I say start with making them mandatory. Then deal with the cases where someone has difficulties in getting access to them.
Yeah, the only time I ever see those arguments brought up is when they are being used to distract from the discussion that others are trying to have.
He’s asking whether limiting our response to sympathy for their plight is appropriate, versus a policy of pursuing criminal charges:
To me, saying that sympathetically refraining from prosecuting the parent is “the proper response” is equivalent to saying that the parent shouldn’t be prosecuted.
So, what is the difference?
What exactly do you propose? Every time a parent loses a child thru their negligence, they go to prison? For how long?
You are long on questions/ short on ideas here.
The choice to have a pool is also deliberate. More small kids die from drowning.
Have you read the OP?
Because, as I have said, the DA and police often consider the loss of their own child punishment enough.
No. Fines and no more guns allowed until no more children in the house.
Zero Tolerance is always the wrong way to go. I have Zero Tolerance for Zero Tolerance.
Do you suggest the same about parents smoking in the home or having a unsecured pool?
Why ? Pools are a much greater danger to small children than guns. Same with fires, often caused by parent smoking in the home. Not to mention the 50000 deaths from second hand smoke, many of which are children in the homes of smokers.
Accidental misuse of guns in the home does not seem to be that much of a danger compared to everything else for younger kids. (older teens, due to non-accidental use, are at danger from guns)
There is absolutely no reason or excuse to smoke inside your home if you have small kids. Guns have a purpose- but smoking does not. Pools are a much bigger danger, but are hardly a need.
It seems like, again, you just want to send gun owners to prison. Do you actually care about the children who are dying or just punishing gun owners?
I did read the OP, and the question is whether that assessment is the right one. The potential loss of one’s child is obviously not enough of a deterrent to prevent people from being careless with their firearms. So, it does seem as though being proactive, and giving an extra incentive to be safe is necessary.
How about the loss of your neighbor’s child when your child gets ahold of your unsecured gun and kills them? Is that loss enough?
You are the one that continually says that once a gun is out of your control, what happens is no longer your responsibility, so do you think that there should be any difference if your toddler shoots themself, your other child, or someone else’s child? If the child is merely injured, the parent didn’t lose a child, so does the justice system need to make up for it?
I don’t disagree, but what is your form of enforcement? Do we actually check up on parents, to make sure that they have properly secured their firearms, or do we wait until something happens?
Well, since accidental gun deaths to small children are a very minor cause, they do seem to be a pretty good deterrence.
I didnt claim that the loss was enough, read what I said again.
I am neither a DA nor a Police officer.
No, I have not said that. There is a difference between leaving a unsecured gun where a kid can get ahold of it, and a burglar breaking into your home, opening the safe, stealing the guns, then selling them to a drug dealer who then kills someone. I dont know how you’d equate both of those as once a gun is out of your control, what happens is no longer your responsibility,. That is ridiculous.
We cant do that. However, what we can do is make sure every gun is sold with at least a trigger lock, the the gun buyer has it explained to them at the point of purchase. Also I would think we could subsidize the sale of biometic gun safes. Those are great.
Now, often a gun accident isnt lethal. Maybe the kid isnt even harmed. When the police arrive, they ask how the gun was secured. If a good answer isnt forthcoming the gun is confiscated on the spot and the case turned over to the DA, who will ask a judge to order all guns taken away (secured somewhere safe until all the kids are 18 or a FMV paid), then possible fines. Sometimes the police have to enter a house for other unrelated issues and if a unsecured gun is noticed, the same. Only homes with children.
The OP doesn’t include the words “accidental” or “small”.