Minnesota has such a law. “Child” is defined as under the age of 14.
A quick skim of states that have this law shows ages of 14, 16, 17, and 18 used to define a child. Minnesota is one of five that use 14. (From the Brady Campaign.)
Whoops. I’m part wrong. These laws only address liability if a child gains access to a firearm improperly stored.
That gives me an idea of a way to keep kids from smoking crack – make it illegal to possess the stuff.
Oh, wait… :rolleyes:
You keep crack in your house?
If I had to guess I would point to Illinois having a much larger city in Chicago than any of the surrounding states. I doubt the tough streets of Ames, Iowa puts out the tough criminals that the south side of Chicago does.
The rest of your rant is spot on though.
This is why I said what I said in post #6 of this thread … urbanized/metropolitan areas are far from likely to adopt firearm carry laws of any sort specifically due to the fact that they are urbanized.
I was disagreeing with your guess that the reason for Illinois having a higher rate of armed and aggravated assault was due to disallowing concealed carry. I don’t think that post #6 addresses that but I might be misunderstanding it.
Not all school shooters have been friendless Goths. Some have been church-going kids mad at their girlfriends. Since you’re never going to make all teenagers happy and contented (unless we drug 'em all) it might be a good idea to limit the damage. No kid with a knife is going to kill quite so many kids as this one did. (Though I agree that gun control laws wouldn’t have made any difference in this case.)
Oddly, though, I bet many of those deadset against gun control laws also vote against school bond issues, which means that the counselors get laid off, which means that it is less likely for the school to detect possibly troubled kids early.
I’m interested in some amplification on the bolded part, if you’ve the time and inclination. I’d not heard of this before, and I don’t honestly see how it could be enforced.
Or was that a whooshing noise I hear?
I’m not saying you’re wrong here, but cite, please?
Of course, the media will latch on to the most sensationalist story they can, which includes black trenchcoats and Marilyn Manson (or whatever shock-puppet the kiddies like these days), but you have to be seriously deranged or sociopathic to walk into a school or workplace and start gunning people down. I daresay nobody does this straight out of the blue, even if it may seem like it to the causal observer.
I’m not going to argue that a reduced access to firearms wouldn’t prevent some of these incidents, but that goal is not really feasible; despite all the feel-good gun buybacks and turn-ins, there are plenty of firearms in the country and would remain so if they were made illegal today. Gun control laws tend to concentrate firearms into the hands of criminals, who by definition don’t really care about the laws to begin with, and unless a proposal addresses that fact it is doing more harm than good.
At any rate, my point was that, at least in the most publicized cases, there were clear indications of inappropriate behavior on the part of the perpetrators and a widespread knowledge of the bullying and harrassement that was at least a partial stimulus to the attack; and yet, the focus has been on some simple thing that can be criticized and banned, be it films, video games, homosexuality, or access to firearms. The true cause, rather than symptom or tangent, was largely avoided because it involved a change in culture rather than simple writing a law or campaigning against some easily identified “sin”. Few people ever want to take on the difficult problems, and would rather offer snappy solutions that comfortably fit on a bumper sticker.
Stranger
Stranger,
Not only did your post hit home with what I had hoped to say about the issue, but this last line of yours just cracked me up … I read it back twice and then a third time and realized “that would make a FANTASTIC bumper sticker”. Although, it would have to be a pretty long sticker, I guess. 
I want to emphasise your post for people like Ethilrist:
In Britain, the police generally do not carry firearms at all, and in most jurisdictions in the U.S. I’d venture a guess that most off-duty police are required to have their service revolver or pistol and a badge on them at all times. I know it is that way in California for sure.
Sam
Of course, Richie is going to blame the acres and acres of gun shops that line all the inner suburbs for that.
But not Morton Grove! 
Sheesh, when I was going to high school in a nice middle class 'burb in Cali, we found a pipe bomb in our school and had to evacuate. They called in the Berkley bomb disposal unit. We were lucky that the person who made it was a poor chemist. If I’d made a couple, I could have taken out a couple hundred students.
Nope, no whooshing. If you’re on parole for a felony and your PO comes over and finds a gun that your friend left on the table while he was going to the bathroom you’re going to jail. If you own a business and one of your employees has a gun there accessible by you, you’re going to jail. They don’t care that it’s not yours.
I can’t imagine that even amongst the most anti-gun of police officers or police chiefs in the US that this would garner support. Police unions would never stand for it. The notion of armed police and of being a cop 24/7 is too strong in the US.
And isn’t that the result of a successful gun control policy? The goal of gun control is to reduce the number of guns in circulation to a point where it’s difficult to get one even illegally, and not even the cops need guns. I know this isn’t a realistic short-term goal for the US, but you’ve got to start somewhere.
It’s the result of a different culture.
Starting by removing the guns from cops is probably ill-advised.
What exactly is the difference? The Brits don’t value freedom? :rolleyes:
I didn’t mean that. I meant if we start making more strict gun control laws, eventually we’ll reach a point where it’s difficult for criminals to get guns, and ultimately to a point where cops don’t need guns 24/7.
I’d say a few things about the effectiveness of British police (based upon a few anecdotal comments by English friends) but it’s getting far enough from the OP to become a major tangent. Needless to say, any gun control policy in this country based upon “reduc[ing] the number of guns in circulation to a point where it’s difficult to get one even illegally” is so divorced from reality as to be considered absurdly fanciful. That aside, it merely reduces violence to the physically stronger against the weaker or less numerous.
I’ve had occasion to “use” (i.e. display or threaten to display with full intent and understanding of consequences) a firearm for self-defense in three different incidents. I was fortunate in all of these not to have to discharge the weapon. In each case, not having the gun would have seriously compromised my ability to defend myself, even though I have some modest amount of training in martial arts and boxing. Having grown up around firearms and being properly instructed in the safe use and handling thereof, I just don’t regard small arms as being these avatars of evil and destruction that others do, I guess. I’ve used firearms for several purposes not relating to shooting people or committing crimes, and having one in hand has never made me want to kill someone or knock over a liquor store.
My point here is that gun control and harangues against gun ownership tend to focus on the gun as being some causative element in crime, rather than the attitude and abuse of liberties of the perpetrator. It is neither appropriate nor effective (as evidenced by cities such as Chicago, New York, and Washington DC) to claim that a prohibition on legal ownership of firearms will result in a reduction in criminal behavior. There are significant social causes for the tendency to violence seen in American society (and no, they aren’t unique to us Yanks; it’s just apparent in comparison to the developed nations of Europe for sociological reasons to complex to address here) that go beyond access to weapons.
But most people, even engineers and scientists :rolleyes:, fail to grasp the difference between causation and correlation, and the notion that passing a law will fix social problems is as widely accepted as it is incorrect.
You want to change the social attitudes toward violence? Start showing the realistic consequences of atavistic behavior and violent conflict. Make efforts to prevent the childhood adoptation of attitudes of physical intimidation as a legitimate means to enhance social status. Remove chronic pathological influences from society permenantly. Most importantly, offer some kind of hope of escape from the kind of deperation and futility shared by the elements of society most prone to succumbing to violent, predatory behavior. This doesn’t mean government handouts, or feel-good picturesque pony-and-dog shows, it means…well, it means making a lot of changes that are not straightforward, or easy, or can be neatly fit inside some simple program. I don’t pretend to have any trival answers, but gun control is (largely) a red herring that serves only to distract attention from the real problem and make politicians look to be doing “something” regardless of its resultant efficacy.
JMHO.
Stranger