I think the point being that owing a gun comes with responsibility, and if a firearm owner can’t be bothered to be trained and secure their firearm safely, then they shouldn’t be a firearm owner. Follow up on the car ownership analogy, you need a license, have to pass a test, have proof of insurance, can be ticketed for infractions, must meet safety requirements for children, ad nauseum.
Maybe rephrase that people who do not take the responsiblity that comes with second amendment rights are disgusting.
Don’t insist that my tax dollars pay for another person’s optional want. Why should those unbridled wants trump mine? Public libraries, wildlife or nature sanctuaries are a far, far greater societal good.
I don’t ‘need to accept that’ and knuckle under to an unending stream of demands from people who want to indulge their want to have guns in their homes.
After the child is shot, it is too late. And the adult, unless a full psychopath, already has been punished.
The adults who should be punished are the large number who carelessly store their guns and have been lucky so far.
What I don’t know is how enforce this in a free society. But I do know that lots of kids can get to grandfather’s hidden guns while being smart enough not to.
Perhaps, but have they been punished to the full extent they should be? When a child is struck by a car accidentally the parent suffers a great loss, and the same thing happens when a child is struck by a bullet. The difference between the two is the indifference the parent had when it came to the safety of the child when it comes to gun securement. Should parents in each case receive the same punishment?
If I dose granny’s meds wrong and accidentally kill her, is her death alone, punishment enough?
I think not. Otherwise people could pretty easily off granny without consequences.
If you demonstrate, through your neglect, poor gun handling practices, you should absolutely lose your right to have guns. No second chance.
Education and programs to encourage better behaviour? No. The NRA has spent a couple of generations or more, assuring us that’s their focus and what they are all about. Taking them at their word, that has been a complete and total fail. Time to take a different approach clearly.
More US children die from gunshots in a year, than on duty police officers or military personnel. It’s time to change that.
I agree with this. Lots of good people are too impulsive to be trusted to consistently store a gun safely. Gun ownership should be a privilege not a right (and I think the Supreme Court was O.K. with that through almost all of U.S. history).I (who does not have a gun) would put myself in that impulsive group. What I can’t figure out is how to implement.
You stipulate here an accident rather than elder abuse. So there is no criminal intent. I myself have accidentally misdosed myself, and do not think it fair to punish me. Now, what I didn;t ever do is give myself more than double a dose. More than double would raise the question of criminal intent.
To seriously address that, you need to bring back routine autopsy, as in the 1950’s. A start would be to include autopsy in boilerplate living will text that overly trusting seniors are free to cross out.
Punishing a tiny group who already is punished by natural consequence, while the rest go without any sanction, will do nothing to help this.
The opposite approach also has merit: make guns plainly visible to eliminate the mystic & intrigue. That’s what I did. We have three children, and guns were commonplace in our house from the time they were born. While I didn’t have loaded guns around, none were locked up and all were easily accessible. They looked at them the same as a drape or coat rack, like they were part of the home’s furnishings. We also participated in target practice in the backyard starting when they were young, which gave them respect for guns. They’re all over 18 now, and I never had a single problem with children & guns.
And can you prove that the parents of those children were NRA members or went through any gun safety program or even read any safety information? Unless you can you cannot say such education programs are failures. For all you know child gun deaths could be multitudes higher if not for such programs. You can’t prove either way so your blanket statement is inappropriate.
There can be all sorts of safety programs, drivers ed, first aid, etc… If someone chooses to ignore what they’ve been told the liability is on them not he training itself.
Those things already do receive funding. There are many things that I pay for with my taxes that I would rather not fund as well.
If you are worried from a fiscal perspective, then I would say that saving the cost of one medicaid funded trip to the ER to deal with a child’s accidental shooting injury will pay for quite a number of gun safes.
It’s not about whether or not they will have guns, they will. This is about harm reduction.
And if they shoot the neighbor, the babysitter or the mailman? Is the parent “punished”?
Or who have had only minor incidents, where the child brandished the gun dangerously, but was intervened before anything happened, or there was a discharge, but no one was hurt, or someone was hurt, but not severely.
It’s not about punishment for punishment’s sake, it’s about threatening punishment as a deterrent for unsafe behavior. At the very, very least, if a child gets ahold of a gun and uses it in an unsafe manner, that adults who allowed that to happen shouldn’t be allowed to have guns anymore.
I’m sure that if you have kids, you love them quite a bit, and would be devastated by their loss, I’m sure the vast majority of parents feel this way. However, I don’t know that that is true for all parents. So, for those who love their guns more than their kids, maybe the threat of having their guns taken away would be enough of a deterrent to get them to properly secure them.
Some elder abuse is excused as accidents. At the same time, I don’t know that all “accidents” involving children and firearms are not actually the parents intentionally murdering their children. It’s not a frequent issue, but it does happen.
Once again, it is not about punishment for punishment’s sake, it is about deterrence.
So, are you saying that someone should have to pass a test to demonstrate that they know how to handle guns safely before they can have access to them? I agree with that.
No, I did not say that and you damn well know I didn’t.
I was simply refuting an unprovable statement that such programs are a failure. It’s success nor failure can be determined either way.
Your household and your choice. And I would have taken the same tactic (which I think is a good idea btw) once I brought the guns back into the house when they were in the age range I specified. Going back to the OP in a sense, both scenarios are based around a responsible gun owner planning ahead for the kids in the house and (in your case since I didn’t have any) carrying through with a reasonable course of action. If you don’t adjust your thinking, just like any other form of household ‘child-proofing’, then mishaps become much more likely.
The NRA has done a good job on training. But they screwed up when they formed the NRA-ILA. They should have left the lobbying to organizations like the GOA and JPFO.
I’m really not sure if I follow what it is that your point is here, then. You contradicted @elbows point that the NRA’s attempts at promoting gun safety are inadequate by claiming that they are inadequate because people don’t take them, or if they do, they don’t pay attention in them.
You brought up driver’s ed. We don’t just have someone take a class and give them a license, we test them. When we teach first aid, we don’t just give them a certification for CPR, we test them to make sure they know how to do it correctly.
I’m not sure what relevance the examples that you gave are to whatever point you were making.
But, just so we are on the same page, you do not think that people should be required to be be able to demonstrate basic firearm safety before they are given access to them? If so, now I understand your position, but I disagree rather strongly with it.
I think using a real world example is a fine idea, but forgive me for waiting until I have more than a 3 sentence summary. This is not being dismissive, and I won’t ask for a 24 page report, but at least some additional detail. May I ask you to bring it back up when we have a more complete story?
Well, not a lot to go on, but certainly more. I think the pieces I want to know are as follows:
Whose gun was it? The driver (mother of the boy doing the shooter presumably)? The owner of the car if different? Someone else with access but not the owner of the car? Because this is going to determine in large part who I would consider liable.
Whatever the answer to # 1, was the driver of the vehicle, who was unarguably responsible for the children, aware that the firearm was in the car. Because even if it wasn’t theirs, but she was aware of the firearms presence, that’s a flag.
How was the firearm secured? Honestly, this is the least important issue - obviously it wasn’t well enough, but I would want to know if it was for example in a TSA approved safe for firearm transport, a trigger lock, or absolutely nothing.
And I already am developing a bias against the driver for leaving three kids in a car while they went shopping. Yeah, 11, 11, and 9 isn’t super young, but if they were in there for any length of time (which I don’t know), it isn’t a sign of what I would consider responsibility. But it’s an unproven bias - I don’t know how long they were away, and I know that in most cases (not this one obviously) that it could be less risky to leave them in the car for a few minutes than leave them alone at ‘home’ completely unsupervised longer. Damn bias.
If these ‘’‘children’’’ couldn’t pass the paper bag test then they should have been shot to death for merely being in the presence of a gun.
If these children could pass the paper bag test then this is a terrible tragedy that we, as a community, simply can’t discuss now while these terrible wounds are so fresh.
I think parents should face criminal liability. If they get jailed for driving around town drunk with a kid in the car, they should get jailed for leaving a loaded firearm in the home within reach of a child. It’s rare that I defend gun rights peeps, but the ones I’ve spoken to about this issue have similar feelings on this specific issue.
