And yet 50 states prohibit the operation of automobiles by 8-year-old children. Why is that?
Children (generally) do not legally operate motor vehicles on public roads, true.
But all 50 states do not prohibit the operation of motor vehicles by children.
And I still contend that tens-of-thousands of children shoot safely under proper supervision every year.
While this incident (OP) is tragic, and I believe on spec that some form of negligence was involved in this particular instance, it does not make a good case for “toughening” gun control laws.
In fact, were I “suspicious, paranoid, gun nut,” I might be led to believe that gun control advocates would dearly love to use this incident as a “wedge issue” to attempt to pass a blanket “No Firearms May Be Handled/Discharged By ANYONE Under 18 Years Of Age” type of law.
Because, you know, it’s easier to break the “Cycle Of The Gun Culture” when you can legally insert a “Generation Gap.”
But I would only think that way if I were a “suspicious, paranoid, gun nut.”
Which ones are those?
I worked with a guy who went through the local paper every day looking for kids killed by guns. He put them in scrap books. While I worked with him he was on his 3rd scrap book.
I’m with you.
Fukme - there it is - regular as you like. Never fails to appear.
Are there any dangerous MOABs ExTank?
Only the one that falls on you.
If by “held responsible for this accident,” you mean “beaten to death,” then yes, the soi-disant certified gun instructor who let the kid handle the gun and whoever else authorized it should be held responsible. I except only the father, and only because he has another child who doesn’t need any additional trauma.
one case of felony dumbass is what I am seeing here, but I think pursuing charges would be kinda pointless, I really doubt anyone wanted the kid dead and if thats true then everyone involved is already being punished.
I don’t shoot at noises, or people in funny clothes outside my door; anyone who does richly deserves whatever punishment the courts hand down should someone get hurt from that kind of action.
I wouldn’t even shoot at burglars in my own home unless they failed to comply with my commands, such as, “don’t move,” “drop your weapon ,” and “lie down on the floor face-first and put your hands behind your head.” Since I don’t live in the kind of place that makes me worry about home intrusion, all my firearms are unloaded and locked in a safe.
Mr. Burglar seriously need only worry about Mr. Pokey-Stabbey. That’s hanging on the wall of my bedroom, with a nice edge on it.
And “in my own home” has never, to my knowledge, qualified as “in public.” Homeowner’s policies can cover accidents in the home or on your property; no need for separate “firearm” insurance. Such policies would really only disarm the poor, who live in higher-crime areas and probably couldn’t float the additional money to have any hypothertical “gun insurance.” On a personal note, I find such policies elitist and the epitome of class snobbery.
I don’t know what an “instructor” means at a gun show but when I took small arms training as a kid it was a very involved program (over many weeks) that ended with firing a small caliper handgun with rubber tipped cartridges. The course was specifically designed to teach how to properly fire the gun. How to deal with gun recoil was definitely part of the training.
Without being at the event it sounded more like a carnival then a serious venue to learn gun safety. I personally wouldn’t let an 8-year-old handle a chain saw or circular saw under any conditions. I don’t think they have the presence of mind to follow the safety guidelines. The same applies to this situation.
I’ve seen far too many kids handling guns unsafely at the range I shoot at. The range personnel get complaints about it too, but nothing is done, because parents everywhere are alike - if you tell them they’re letting their kid do something unsafe, suddenly it’s you that’s the problem - not their damn kid who’s balanced on top of a rickety chair firing a .38. And thanks to the efforts of the anti-gun brigade there really are not any other nearby ranges to “vote with your feet” to.
Part of me wonders whether or not anyone not NFA licensed should be firing an NFA weapon, regardless of who gives them permission. It’s illegal for a person to have “possession” of an NFA weapon who is not NFA licensed - so why can they fire one? If a person you knew was a convicted felon walked up to you and asked to fire your gun, and you gave it to them to fire, you can be damn sure you would be arrested if someone found out. So why is it “possession” in one case, and not the other?
FTR, I would repeal silly and ignorant 1986 ban on new NFA weapons, but I also would make it such that “possession” included “firing”, with exemptions for accidental/incidental possession, as well as, of course, as part of a specific training class. That would have prevented this tragedy…unless, of course, someone broke the law.
Indeed. You should never point a thread at someone unless you intend to debate them.
This sounds like a business opportunity. How did the anti-gun brigade make interfere with this?
I don’t like to go to bars with kids in it. Many bars simply don’t allow them in at all. I would think this would be preferable for gun ranges too.
A large number of municipalities use zoning laws to make it effectively impossible to operate either a gun store or a shooting range within their boundries. If I didn’t live near a postage-stamp suburb that allowed a gun store and indoor range to operate, I’d have to drive thirty miles out of the metro area to target shoot.
I thought this was going to be a thread on whether we should be doing so much to nullify Natural Selection in humans. Which is an interesting question, even though loss of children is of course very tragic.
My point is simple-and notwithstanding any complaint about elitism-improper use of firearms creates a risk of harm to bystanders. I contend that it is unjustifiable for one person to put that risk on other people without paying for it. I don’t think that’s elitist.
We agree on your first point-that people who misuse firearms should be punished.
We even, it seems, agree on the point I was making about firearms in your own home–that they can be used in a way that creates a risk for other people (although, by your own account, you don’t create such a risk).
As you perhaps unintentionally point out, an insurance model may not be much of a problem-as homeowner’s insurance will likely cover those with guns in the home (and membership ranges may well take out insurance for those shooting on their premises).
Hence, someone like you may not even need his own gun insurance. (although you don’t seem to disagree that you do use your guns in public sometimes, presumably at the range-and I don’t see why you react so violently when, in fact, you do use your guns in places where, if you weren’t using them properly, they’d create a significant risk to others)
The alternatives, as I note (while keeping the basic principle) are :
-a criminal model (i.e. you screw up with a gun, you go to jail)
-a strict liability model without insurance (i.e. you hurt someone else with a gun, outside of certain very specific circumstances (at least including valid self-defense and faulty manufacture), you’re going to lose a lawsuit to them, and you’re going to pay for the injury you cause.
Remember, the point of such a policy is twofold:
-
To create pressure for people to get firearms training, store their weapons safely, etc, etc.
-
to create a system more effective at insuring that people who use firearms improperly and injure others are held responsible for the injury they cause.
You seem to think I am advocating taking guns away from people. Nothing could be farther from the truth–I’m saying that you’re welcome to try to defend your own home however you want, but if you make my life more dangerous by doing so, the system ought to be better at holding you responsible.
The right system wouldn’t price gun ownership out of anyone’s reach–the cost would be related to risk, so it would encourage people to get training/trigger locks/weapons more appropriate to their setting (i.e. no AR-15 in an apartment block for home defense).
As we may well agree, the effect is likely to be strongest on those who don’t store or use guns as safely as you say you do. I don’t really understand how you get from that to elitism–I don’t care how much money someone has, but if they don’t know how to use a gun safely, in my opinion, they shouldn’t have a gun. I certainly won’t go shooting anywhere near them.
I’d rather make that happen through a system that rationally encourages safer gun ownership, and makes people pay for the actual risks they cause, rather than one that just is an outright ban, or so permissive that people who really don’t know how to use guns (and yes, there are some people at ranges that I used to go to that I’m thinking of) have a very strong incentive to either become safer, or stop doing the thing that’s dangerous.
I went through something similar. I’d like to see every gun owner do so.
what makes this worse is the sport of paintball where the object is to actually shoot someone with a gun.
I don’t have a problem with it. The object is to shoot little balls of paint at people-I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that people can understand there’s a difference.