PDA

View Full Version : Yet another really tragic shooting



epoxyboy
05-04-2013, 02:57 AM
:mad:WTF were these people thinking? NO five year old needs their own firearm, and no way is a kid that age remotely close to being able to really comprend the required level of discipline. FFS, they can literally not even tie their own shoelaces at that age, for the most part.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/single-shot-chest-killed-kentucky-toddler-police-article-1.1333069


Wait for the NRA to start blithering on about the benefits of teaching firearms safety at young age, in an effort to smokescreen the real problem.


Pete

seanz
05-04-2013, 03:06 AM
Pete, we tried this one already..........it went to fisticuffs pretty quickly. This one might not last too long either, but a lot of the Americans are asleep, so we'll give it a go.



What got me (after the initial shock) was that the boy was playing with the rifle. Did the adults not know that a real gun shouldn't be allowed to be treated as a toy?

Peerie Maa
05-04-2013, 03:08 AM
Did that already, but the thread poofed after nine posts.

hokiefan
05-04-2013, 03:12 AM
The REAL tragedy is that on average there were 84 other gun deaths that day in the US. Maybe reported locally, but no big stir.

Bobby

seanz
05-04-2013, 03:15 AM
Did that already, but the thread poofed after nine posts.

The one I posted to had a lot more posts than that. Unless it was a thread that morphed into a discussion of this topic. Third time lucky?

The Bigfella
05-04-2013, 03:24 AM
Its OK, its someone else's kid. Doesn't matter. The 2nd is more important. My rights are paramount. The kid should've had pre-school training so he knew better.

epoxyboy
05-04-2013, 03:28 AM
Pete, we tried this one already..........it went to fisticuffs pretty quickly. This one might not last too long either, but a lot of the Americans are asleep, so we'll give it a go.



What got me (after the initial shock) was that the boy was playing with the rifle. Did the adults not know that a real gun shouldn't be allowed to be treated as a toy?
Sorry, had an internet free day fixing things that I've had a gutsful of waiting for EQC to pay out on, and missed the poofing. It looked like one of those places parodied in The Simpsons with that classic line " Yee har, I shot me a tractor!". Too many idiots too casual with too many guns.

Pete

seanz
05-04-2013, 03:34 AM
had an internet free day fixing things that I've had a gutsful of waiting for EQC to pay out on

Good for you. Y> My herculean task for this Winter is demolish the lounge chimney so we can seal up the Southwest wall from the cold. The chimney has pulled away from the wall and you don't really realize how much heat a chimney lets out when a fire isn't there to heat (compensate?) for it. Can't see a rebuild completion before 2015 now.

epoxyboy
05-04-2013, 03:42 AM
Good for you. Y> My herculean task for this Winter is demolish the lounge chimney so we can seal up the Southwest wall from the cold. The chimney has pulled away from the wall and you don't really realize how much heat a chimney lets out when a fire isn't there to heat (compensate?) for it. Can't see a rebuild completion before 2015 now.
whatever you do, dont use a hoover that you love and cherish to clean up the mess when you take the chimney out. The mortar dust will trash the motor, clog the filters and render the whole thing useless. Dont ask me how i know. And curtain off as much of the room as possible with plastic sheet before you start. Trust me on this BY:D.

Pete

seanz
05-04-2013, 05:30 AM
I'll only take it down to just above the logburner, then seal off the outside wall with ply etc. (that's the plan anyway) so there shouldn't be too many problems with dust in the house. What's holding up the brick surround inside the lounge I have no idea. The surround, mantle and hearth are 'fine' and seem undamaged but the chimney is leaning out from the house on a 10 degree angle......well 2/3 of it is anyway. ;):)

tizziec
05-04-2013, 06:16 AM
This wasn't a tragic accident, this was stupidity to the nth degree.

1.. really, 5 years old!?!?!?!?!

2. from what I read "the gun was kept leaning up against a corner in the living room" WTF folks... two small children in the house? DUMB DUMB DUMB!!!!!! Why not just toss a kid's favorite toy to the bottom of the pool then leave the back door open, then go take a shower and leave the kids alone.

3. Sometimes I feel like I am the only lerson who ever had gun safety drilled into my head concerning putting one away loaded!!! And get this.... we didn't have guns in our house, it was drilled into my head because OTHER family members did!

This crap makes me VERY angry! I want my kid to have friends, I want my kid to go play at other kid's houses, I don't want to have to show up first to do a parental stupidity check every time!

LeeG
05-04-2013, 07:31 AM
Maybe some folks are confused about the purpose of guns. If they think it has totemic power to secure rights or is a symbol of (insert a verity) then you'd want to have it around, like a rabbits foot or holy book.

Peerie Maa
05-04-2013, 07:48 AM
Maybe some folks are confused about the purpose of guns. If they think it has totemic power to secure rights or is a symbol of (insert a verity) then you'd want to have it around, like a rabbits foot or holy book.

Well, I have seen some bibles big enough to be lethal if dropped from a height.

Flying Orca
05-04-2013, 10:26 AM
Its OK, its someone else's kid. Doesn't matter. The 2nd is more important. My rights are paramount. The kid should've had pre-school training so he knew better.

Nah, the 2yo should have been packing. And all his 2yo buddies. They would have taken out the perp in a righteous moment.

Paul Girouard
05-04-2013, 12:24 PM
Think of it as natural selection! To many people anyway , thinning of the herd is always good for the group/ collective / herd, etc.

elf
05-04-2013, 12:28 PM
The mother wasn't upset. She just felt that the little girl was with God and that was better than being on earth, so what was all the fuss about.

Must be interesting to have such a philosophy about life.

bogdog
05-04-2013, 01:22 PM
A local court judge where the shooting took place said giving guns to kids this age is typical for this area with very infrequent harm coming from it. That doesn't really seem to fit with number of gun deaths for that state for children but who knows? NRA-ILA lobbying has made getting reliable statistics harder each year from states regarding gun deaths.

The Bigfella
05-04-2013, 04:07 PM
what a projection!
are you complaining that she's not miserable enough... just how are you measuring this?

We use you as the standard by which we judge the rest of America.

hanleyclifford
05-04-2013, 04:33 PM
The NRA wants firearms training for youngsters, and you complain about that. The kids (and the parents) in the present case obviously didn't get any, and you complain about that. So what do you want? Oh, I know; ignorant rednecks in southern Kentucky shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

skuthorp
05-04-2013, 05:02 PM
A local court judge where the shooting took place said giving guns to kids this age is typical for this area with very infrequent harm coming from it. That doesn't really seem to fit with number of gun deaths for that state for children but who knows? NRA-ILA lobbying has made getting reliable statistics harder each year from states regarding gun deaths.
Collateral damage.
But then you seem to be a good way along to an undeclared war on each other.

hanleyclifford
05-04-2013, 06:50 PM
Are you from southern Kentucky? Southern Martha's Vineyard:ycool:

John Smith
05-04-2013, 07:19 PM
Anyone got a constructive suggestion as to where they would draw the line at gun ownership? I can't believe anyone here thinks young children should have unsupervised access to firearms.

Working from that belief, how would you word a bill that would keep guns out of the hands of those who don't keep them safely locked and away from kids?

Would you support random traffic stops to make sure small children were properly in proper child seats? Would you support random checks of gun owners with children to see if the guns are properly stored?

It would appear, judging by posts here that these parents did nothing illegal.

Is anyone here fine with that?

Flying Orca
05-04-2013, 07:23 PM
Spoken like a true @$$HOLE. Go ahead and push the button, I don't care.

I'm not offended by your language, and in this instance I'll wear it. I'd love to know why my comment pushes YOUR buttons, though - I've simply redirected a commonly encountered argument in order to demonstrate its absurdity. A little verbal aikido, if you will.

hanleyclifford
05-04-2013, 07:33 PM
Anyone got a constructive suggestion as to where they would draw the line at gun ownership? I can't believe anyone here thinks young children should have unsupervised access to firearms.

Working from that belief, how would you word a bill that would keep guns out of the hands of those who don't keep them safely locked and away from kids?

Would you support random traffic stops to make sure small children were properly in proper child seats? Would you support random checks of gun owners with children to see if the guns are properly stored?

It would appear, judging by posts here that these parents did nothing illegal.

Is anyone here fine with that? In Massachusetts the mother would be in jail now.

Flying Orca
05-04-2013, 07:35 PM
Yep. I'll bite.

Gun ownership allowed for licenced shooters only. To get a licence, do (and pass the requirements of) an appropriate safety course. Juniors permitted with licenced adults, but denied carry provisions.

Guns to be stored in approved gun safe with ammunition in separate locked compartment.

Guns to be registered.

Five year horizon on licence.

Gun safes to be inspected every five years. Guns too. If all guns not present... ouch.

Throw in very strict handgun controls and I'd say you've got it.

hanleyclifford
05-04-2013, 07:35 PM
Yep. I'll bite.

Gun ownership allowed for licenced shooters only. To get a licence, do (and pass the requirements of) an appropriate safety course. Juniors permitted with licenced adults, but denied carry provisions.

Guns to be stored in approved gun safe with ammunition in separate locked compartment.

Guns to be registered.

Five year horizon on licence.

Gun safes to be inspected every five years. Guns too. If all guns not present... ouch. We already have most of that in Massachusetts.

Flying Orca
05-04-2013, 07:37 PM
We already have most of that in Massachusetts.

I think such standards have to be national; no point in strict in-state regulations if you can drive for half an hour and evade them completely.

elf
05-04-2013, 08:21 PM
what a projection!
are you complaining that she's not miserable enough... just how are you measuring this?

That's what the little girl's grandmother said according to this report from CNN online - the first report to come out after the shooting:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting

Riddle said she is devastated, but comforted knowing that her granddaughter is in a better place.
"It was God's will. It was her time to go, I guess," she told WLEX. "I just know she's in heaven right now and I know she's in good hands with the Lord."

Flying Orca
05-04-2013, 08:27 PM
Anyone else think there are disturbing parallels between that kind of fatalism and the fatalism of a suicide bomber?

LeeG
05-04-2013, 08:33 PM
Gotta accept your situation whatever it is

seanz
05-04-2013, 08:53 PM
Anyone else think there are disturbing parallels between that kind of fatalism and the fatalism of a suicide bomber?

Aspirational fatalism?


Once you give up control of your life to a higher power you can say and do almost anything, God willing.

elf
05-04-2013, 08:59 PM
Once you give up control over your life to a "higher power" anything you say or do is because the higher power willed it.

But whether the fatalism precedes the abdication of control or results from it is, to me, a more useful question.

seanz
05-04-2013, 09:15 PM
Once you give up control over your life to a "higher power" anything you say or do is because the higher power willed it.

But whether the fatalism precedes the abdication of control or results from it is, to me, a more useful question.

Does fatalism produce religion, or does religion produce fatalism? Is that your question?

hanleyclifford
05-04-2013, 10:16 PM
Aspirational fatalism?


Once you give up control of your life to a higher power you can say and do almost anything, God willing.That depends on which god you are worshipping.

elf
05-04-2013, 10:47 PM
Not cherry picking. Both parts are in my quote.

epoxyboy
05-04-2013, 10:48 PM
The NRA wants firearms training for youngsters, and you complain about that. The kids (and the parents) in the present case obviously didn't get any, and you complain about that. So what do you want? Oh, I know; ignorant rednecks in southern Kentucky shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.
Five year olds are NOT developmentally (sorry, more than one syllable) with it enough to understand and consistently apply any gun safety training that they are given. Just like they will happily talk to strangers, run out onto the road without looking and try and pat dogs that want to rip their face off. All this, in spite of being told not to do those things many, many times by parents, teachers, policemen and other responsible adults. If you have had kids, you KNOW it is true. I am not against firearms safety training for youngsters - at an appropriate age, and five isnt it. I cant believe the absolute assinine stupidity of actually designing and manufacturing firearms targetted (no pun intended) at this age group. And how do you know "they obviously didnt get any training"? Wasnt it just a couple of weeks ago that some sheriffs deputy's wife got shot, when one of the kids picked his personal firearm up off the bed, and killed her? Or are you suggesting he had no firearms training either?

Pete

hanleyclifford
05-04-2013, 10:52 PM
Five year olds are NOT developmentally (sorry, more than one syllable) with it enough to understand and consistently apply any gun safety training that they are given. Just like they will happily talk to strangers, run out onto the road without looking and try and pat dogs that want to rip their face off. All this, in spite of being told not to do those things many, many times by parents, teachers, policemen and other responsible adults. If you have had kids, you KNOW it is true. I am not against firearms safety training for youngsters - at an appropriate age, and five isnt it. I cant believe the absolute assinine stupidity of actually designing and manufacturing firearms targetted (no pun intended) at this age group. And how do you know "they obviously didnt get any training"? Wasnt it just a couple of weeks ago that some sheriffs deputy's wife got shot, when one of the kids picked his personal firearm up off the bed, and killed her? Or are you suggesting he had no firearms training either?

Pete No argument here: 5 years old is way too young for firearms training or use.

mikefrommontana
05-04-2013, 11:44 PM
you must have missed my response the other night... the target market is proud papas... secondly, the training of kids would seem to have been left off of the parents who were CERTAINLY at an appropriate age before the little boy turned five and shot his sister...

But honestly, does that make it a good idea? If the target market is proud papas, then should they be held responsible for how the weapon is used/misused?

Granted, one would hope that the loss of a child would be punishment enough, but if everybody accepts the fatalism that it is the will of the Almighty, then anything goes.........Should it?

Nicholas Carey
05-05-2013, 01:18 AM
No argument here: 5 years old is way too young for firearms training or use.

My dad's rule was no guns, toy or otherwise. Once I turned 12, the promise was that he'd teach me to use real guns. Idea was, playing with toy guns teaches all sorts of bad habits and encourages thinking of guns as toys. I think that that's a pretty decent plan.

beernd
05-05-2013, 04:46 AM
That's what the little girl's grandmother said according to this report from CNN online - the first report to come out after the shooting:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting[/FONT]

Was it also God's will to go and buy a 5 year old a 'toy' that shoots real .22 ammunition?

The fact thet there are toy manufacturers who produce real guns in handy formats so 5 year olds can easily handle them, and retailers selling the things has me flabbergasted.
So the NRA wants gun safety lessons for kids, starting at what age 2 years?

I give up, I really give up.
This insanity is beyond my grasp.

hokiefan
05-05-2013, 04:56 AM
Saw tonight on TV , a session from a dash cam on a Police car in the US.
The Police pull up behind a car , the driver jumps out and starts blazing away at the Police with an AK47 !.
How come that sort of weaponry is allowed on the streets?.
Rob J.

Its not. It takes a serious license to own a fully automatic weapon in the US. Those guys aren't jumping out of cars blazing down cops.

If what you saw was real, it was a completely illegally owned weapon.

hokiefan
05-05-2013, 05:19 AM
Then how did this person get it ?.
This sort of weaponry is sold in the USA , right ?.
Rob J.

A lot of $h!t is sold illegally. I mean pot, crack, meth, LSD are all illegal. But if I wanted some I could get it done with a little ground work...

hokiefan
05-05-2013, 05:27 AM
I'm not talking about drugs , I'm talking about buying AK47's , are they being sold in the USA ?.
OK , I did a quick search , look what I got. http://www.bing.com/search?q=AK47+for+sale&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC .
Rob J.

If you want one, and have the $$$ I'm quite sure you can get one. Not being connected, it would take me awhile. But I believe it could be done...

hokiefan
05-05-2013, 05:32 AM
Why buy an AR15 , when you can have an AK47 !.
Look at this http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/8/2/Guns/Rifles/AK-47-Rifles.htm .

Rob J.

Don't want either. Were I to buy a gun it would be a Remington 870 shotgun, or a .22LR bolt action. But honestly I have a need for neither today.

hokiefan
05-05-2013, 05:55 AM
The point is with enough $$$, patience, and a bit of smarts you can buy whatever you want. Not having any desire to go to jail, it would take me awhile. My thieving a$$ uncle should be glad for that, as its enabled him to survive all these years.

Cheers,

Bobby

hokiefan
05-05-2013, 06:21 AM
But according to those sites , they can be bought legally , if you have a licence.
Where do you get the licences , out of a Wheatie packet ?.
Rob J.

Yeah, it can be done legally. The license isn't trivial, the ordinary criminal or gang-banger won't have one...

skuthorp
05-05-2013, 06:24 AM
The REAL tragedy is that on average there were 84 other gun deaths that day in the US. Maybe reported locally, but no big stir.

Bobby

Uh huh.

hanleyclifford
05-05-2013, 07:03 AM
My dad's rule was no guns, toy or otherwise. Once I turned 12, the promise was that he'd teach me to use real guns. Idea was, playing with toy guns teaches all sorts of bad habits and encourages thinking of guns as toys. I think that that's a pretty decent plan. Best post of the thread so far, and maybe the month. This goes to the heart of the larger problem. Guns are never toys. The same logic apples to video games and other trivializations of violence.

Garret
05-05-2013, 07:23 AM
But according to those sites , they can be bought legally , if you have a licence.
Where do you get the licences , out of a Wheatie packet ?.
Rob J.

The license to own an automatic is called a Class 3 Federal Firearms License (FFL). No one can legally buy an automatic weapon without one & you get it from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) of the US Gov't. The process involves a very serious background check, usually including interviews of family/neighbors and, when issued, gives any law enforcement agency the right to search your home/store/office without a warrant or notice 24/7 (to ensure the weapon is where you said it was). Since the law went into effect (1930's I believe) - no crime has ever been committed with a legally owned & licensed automatic weapon.

The Bigfella
05-05-2013, 07:27 AM
The license to own an automatic is called a Class 3 Federal Firearms License (FFL). No one can legally buy an automatic weapon without one & you get it from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF) of the US Gov't. The process involves a very serious background check, usually including interviews of family/neighbors and, when issued, gives any law enforcement agency the right to search your home/store/office without a warrant or notice 24/7 (to ensure the weapon is where you said it was). Since the law went into effect (1930's I believe) - no crime has ever been committed with a legally owned & licensed automatic weapon.

Wouldn't one think that the extension of this to weapons that kill and maim 300 or so a day would be a good idea?

skuthorp
05-05-2013, 07:32 AM
Plenty of them available to smugglers, they get in here occasionally too. The US has a long coastline and a big international shipping trade. If you are outside the law anyhow and have the cash......................

hanleyclifford
05-05-2013, 07:33 AM
Wouldn't one think that the extension of this to weapons that kill and maim 300 or so a day would be a good idea? A technicality: if the fully automatic feature is defeated, as in the AR 15 series, the weapon is not covered under the law cited by Garret. Good point for discussion since any good gun buff can restore the feature.

Garret
05-05-2013, 07:33 AM
Once you give up control over your life to a "higher power" anything you say or do is because the higher power willed it.

But whether the fatalism precedes the abdication of control or results from it is, to me, a more useful question.

IMO, it's not just fatalism, it's pure intellectual laziness. I don't have to think about anything because God will do as he will. WWJD - I'm too damn lazy to figure it out for myself. It's not my fault - it was God's will. God meant for me to leave the gun there because he wanted her dead for "some higher purpose".

Obviously there are many genuinely religious folks who do not think this way, but there are large #'s who do. Stupid is as stupid does.

Garret
05-05-2013, 07:38 AM
Wouldn't one think that the extension of this to weapons that kill and maim 300 or so a day would be a good idea?

I'm not disagreeing - but where do you draw the line? If it's OK to own a 6 shot .223 for varmint hunting or a .308 for deer hunting, where is the point at which it becomes a weapon that should be banned/controlled? I get where you're coming from - just don't know how you actually do it.

hokiefan
05-05-2013, 07:39 AM
My dad's rule was no guns, toy or otherwise. Once I turned 12, the promise was that he'd teach me to use real guns. Idea was, playing with toy guns teaches all sorts of bad habits and encourages thinking of guns as toys. I think that that's a pretty decent plan.


Best post of the thread so far, and maybe the month. This goes to the heart of the larger problem. Guns are never toys. The same logic apples to video games and other trivializations of violence.

We had friends with the same rules. Their boys never saw a toy gun. But looking out their back window they were quite chagrined to see their boys playing war with sticks and fingers for guns. That part of being a little boy is pretty universal.

I grew up playing war, and cowboys & indians with my air rifle. I shot many a friend with a dirt clod from my air rifle. But when I learned to shoot a real rifle at 11 I was taught gun safety. All guns are loaded. Period. Never cover anything with the muzzle that you don't intend to kill. The old man running the rifle range was a hard ass, and because of that we're all still here. Mr Smith who ran the rifle range at Boy Scout Camp Siouan was the same sort. But because I already knew the rules he and I got on fine. As I got older I spent more of my mornings at camp on the rifle range, and more of my afternoons on the waterfront. Looking back it was a pretty good life...

Cheers,

Bobby

Kevin T
05-05-2013, 07:42 AM
IMO, it's not just fatalism, it's pure intellectual laziness. I don't have to think about anything because God will do as he will. WWJD - I'm too damn lazy to figure it out for myself. It's not my fault - it was God's will. God meant for me to leave the gun there because he wanted her dead for "some higher purpose".

Obviously there are many genuinely religious folks who do not think this way, but there are large #'s who do. Stupid is as stupid does.

Good point.

I'd add that ignorance at least has the possibility of being "cured", but stupid seems to be forever with some people as you so perfectly pointed out in your last sentence.

Stupid is terminal and we witness it here in the Bilge almost daily.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

Garret
05-05-2013, 07:42 AM
Then how are the illegally owned AK's getting around ?.
Rob J.

??? How does anything illegal get around? As mentioned above, drugs are illegal, but there are plenty. It's illegal for anyone under 21 to drink, but how many people have never had a drink until 21?

When there's a demand, people will fill the demand. Any automatic that is owned illegally is not coming from those purchased legally - as the license holder has to immediately report any stolen guns & is held responsible for any not reported.

John of Phoenix
05-05-2013, 09:10 AM
Then how are the illegally owned AK's getting around ?.
Rob J.
Semi autos are legal and easily modified to full auto.

John Smith
05-05-2013, 09:17 AM
In Massachusetts the mother would be in jail now.

Is that because she's have broken a law in Mass.?

I'm not arguing in support of small children have guns without parental supervision, or having guns at all, or even older children. I'm just saying it can be difficult to put someone in jail if they've broken no law; unless we deem them an enemy combatant.

I've gotten virtually no support for my idea that inherited guns are probably the biggest part of our gun problem. My brother, who passed last week, has a substantial collection of guns he's been quite proud of. I have no idea what will happen to it. I'm guessing my nephew will grab some, and I'm guessing my nephew would not pass a background check. He's an adult, but he has kids, and I'd wager he'll not take too much care as to keeping whatever guns he takes as to his kids getting their hands on them.

hightop
05-05-2013, 09:35 AM
In Massachusetts the mother would be in jail now.

I would think anywhere that the parents would be guilty of(or at least should be charged with) child endangerment, leaving a loaded firearm unattended within reach of a five year old,and also I guess a two year old!

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 09:43 AM
But honestly, does that make it a good idea? If the target market is proud papas, then should they be held responsible for how the weapon is used/misused?

Granted, one would hope that the loss of a child would be punishment enough, but if everybody accepts the fatalism that it is the will of the Almighty, then anything goes.........Should it?

It doesn't look to me that anyone in the bilge accepts the fatalism you refer to... not even me... isn't yours just another 'what-if' argument?

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 09:56 AM
I should add... marketing to the parents of children is ubiquitous here in the States. Why pick out a single item (the .22 rifle) when so much work is done to get 16 year olds to beg for fast red cars for their graduation? Also, remember Joe Camel? It’s everywhere.

Further adding: there was NEVER a chance I would have left such a thing as the rifle within reach (unsupervised) of a 5 year old or even a 14 year old… but then I had lots of safety training from my parents and my personal (Pat McManus style) old man. Dad didn’t like guns but he got me a similar rifle for my 15th birthday… a tribute to him as he wanted to make sure that I didn’t get near them without supervision at least at the start… so he involved himself just for that purpose. Dad also was in construction all his life and knew something about spotting ‘accidents’ before they happened… like pounding into me to never step on a piece of lumber that was out of place and not expressly part of scaffolding… no boards laying on the ground, for instance.

Safety was trained into me from a very young age. So it follows that the parents in this tragic family were out of that loop and gun-safety for either one of them should have saved a life years after that training happened.

elf
05-05-2013, 10:04 AM
Of course it follows, Phillip. What doesn't follow is that those parents failed to figure that out, or had an attitude towards life with prevented them from figuring that out, or weren't intelligent enough to figure it out.

And most of all, aren't really devastated by what resulted, because they have a crutch which keeps them from thinking and taking responsibility for their behavior.

The real question is what to do about people like this? Put them in jail for being gullible? Or dumb? Restrict access to the device they aren't wise or smart or ethical enough to use in a way we regard as sensible? Let them win Darwin awards and hope people like that don't mess with the wider society?

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 10:07 AM
Of course it follows, Phillip. What doesn't follow is that those parents failed to figure that out, or had an attitude towards life with prevented them from figuring that out, or weren't intelligent enough to figure it out.

And most of all, aren't really devastated by what resulted, because they have a crutch which keeps them from thinking and taking responsibility for their behavior.

The real question is what to do about people like this? Put them in jail for being gullible? Or dumb? Restrict access to the device they aren't wise or smart or ethical enough to use in a way we regard as sensible? Let them win Darwin awards and hope people like that don't mess with the wider society?

as to their personal devistation... you have no way to kn ow that beyond reading your bias into it... and that can cut both ways... better leave off such bias

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 10:09 AM
What to do... educate as many people as possible and stop the social terrorism of punishing the parents of an children pointing fingers in schools... just plain oppressive and terroristic

elf
05-05-2013, 10:35 AM
as to their personal devistation... you have no way to kn ow that beyond reading your bias into it... and that can cut both ways... better leave off such bias
devastation

I quoted the grandmother. She said she was devastated but accepting because she believed God meant it to happen.

If you think that kind of attitude leads to long-term rethinking of attitudes and responses, you're dreaming.

Ian McColgin
05-05-2013, 10:40 AM
“Kindly describe how the statement above (emphasized in bold) is true.” [#19] Actually this has been addressed in several different threads and it’s likely this is more a pro forma diversion than a real question, but in case the question is authentic:

From the Washington Post

We won’t know the cause of gun violence until we look for it

By Jay Dickey and Mark Rosenberg,July 27, 2012

A few years ago, one of us came across a young woman who had just been hit by a car. She was the mother of two young children and one of Atlanta’s star runners. I found her unconscious and bleeding profusely from a severe head injury. She died in my arms while I tried to resuscitate her.

Her death was tragic, but it wasn’t “senseless.” In scientific terms, it was explicable. The runner, who had competed in 15 marathons and broken many records, wore no lights or reflective vest in the early-morning darkness; she crossed the street within crosswalk lines that had faded to near-invisibility; there were no speed bumps on this wide, flat street to slow cars down.

Scientists don’t view traffic injuries as “senseless” or “accidental” but as events susceptible to understanding and prevention. Urban planners, elected officials and highway engineers approach such injuries by asking four questions: What is the problem? What are the causes? Have effective interventions been discovered? Can we install these interventions in our community?

The federal government has invested billions to understand the causes of motor vehicle fatalities and, with that knowledge, has markedly reduced traffic deaths in the United States. Since the mid-1970s, research has inspired such interventions as child restraints, seat belts, frontal air bags, a minimum drinking age and motorcycle helmets. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 366,000 lives were saved through such efforts from 1975 to 2009.

Through the same scientific, evidence-based approach, our country has made progress understanding and preventing violence. Once upon a time, law-abiding citizens believed that violence generated by evil always had existed and always would exist. By the mid-20th century, that sense of fatalism was yielding to discoveries by social scientists, physicians and epidemiologists. Now a body of knowledge exists that makes it clear that an event such as the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., was not a “senseless” occurrence as random as a hurricane or earthquake but, rather, has underlying causes that can be understood and used to prevent similar mass shootings.

We also recognize different types of violence, including child abuse and neglect, sexual assault, elder abuse, suicide and economically and politically motivated violence. Like motor vehicle injuries, violence exists in a cause-and-effect world; things happen for predictable reasons. By studying the causes of a tragic — but not senseless — event, we can help prevent another.

Recently, some have observed that no policies can reduce firearm fatalities, but that’s not quite true. Research-based observations are available. Childproof locks, safe-storage devices and waiting periods save lives.

But it’s vital to understand why we know more and spend so much more on preventing traffic fatalities than on preventing gun violence, even though firearm deaths (31,347 in 2009, the most recent year for which statistics are available) approximate the number of motor vehicle deaths (32,885 in 2010).

From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries.

One of us served as the NRA’s point person in Congress and submitted an amendment to an appropriations bill that removed $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount the agency’s injury center had spent on firearms-related research the previous year. This amendment, together with a stipulation that “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” sent a chilling message.

Since the legislation passed in 1996, the United States has spent about $240 million a year on traffic safety research, but there has been almost no publicly funded research on firearm injuries.

Jay W. Dickey, Jr. was the U.S. Representative from the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas from 1993 to 2000.

Dr. Mark Rosenberg oversaw research into gun violence and prevention at the Centers for Disease Control in 1996.

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 11:04 AM
devastation

I quoted the grandmother. She said she was devastated but accepting because she believed God meant it to happen.

If you think that kind of attitude leads to long-term rethinking of attitudes and responses, you're dreaming.

you 'see' what you want to see...

Glen Longino
05-05-2013, 11:50 AM
you 'see' what you want to see...

You certainly do!

John Smith
05-05-2013, 02:05 PM
I would think anywhere that the parents would be guilty of(or at least should be charged with) child endangerment, leaving a loaded firearm unattended within reach of a five year old,and also I guess a two year old!

I would agree it SHOULD be illegal. Question is: is it?

There's no law that I know of against being stupid. If it's legal to sell the Cricket (gun) aimed at 5 year olds, it must be legal to give it to them. What, if any, laws are attached to this?

John Smith
05-05-2013, 02:10 PM
I should add... marketing to the parents of children is ubiquitous here in the States. Why pick out a single item (the .22 rifle) when so much work is done to get 16 year olds to beg for fast red cars for their graduation? Also, remember Joe Camel? It’s everywhere.

Further adding: there was NEVER a chance I would have left such a thing as the rifle within reach (unsupervised) of a 5 year old or even a 14 year old… but then I had lots of safety training from my parents and my personal (Pat McManus style) old man. Dad didn’t like guns but he got me a similar rifle for my 15th birthday… a tribute to him as he wanted to make sure that I didn’t get near them without supervision at least at the start… so he involved himself just for that purpose. Dad also was in construction all his life and knew something about spotting ‘accidents’ before they happened… like pounding into me to never step on a piece of lumber that was out of place and not expressly part of scaffolding… no boards laying on the ground, for instance.

Safety was trained into me from a very young age. So it follows that the parents in this tragic family were out of that loop and gun-safety for either one of them should have saved a life years after that training happened.

I feel like I'm beating a very dead horse, but isn't this the heart of the debate. The gun advocates talk about how responsible many gun owners are, and no one is denying that. They don't want laws passed that will infringe upon the law-abiding, safety minded, responsible gun owners. There's a clear implication in that position that they are not happy with guns being in the hands of those who are not responsible owners, who do not take care so that kids or others have access to their guns.

The question I have is: why not stop arguing over this and suggest how we protect the responsible gun owners and, at the same time, have some laws in place for those irresponsible gun owners?

John Smith
05-05-2013, 02:11 PM
as to their personal devistation... you have no way to kn ow that beyond reading your bias into it... and that can cut both ways... better leave off such bias

Nothing we can do will undo this tragedy. The question is how we prevent future similar tragedies.

John Smith
05-05-2013, 02:20 PM
Car analogies only go so far. If we passed legislation tomorrow that, beginning in 1016 all cars would have to be equipped with some new safety device, by 2036, by virtue of cars wearing out, almost all cars on the road would have that device.

Guns don't give us the courtesy of wearing out. A gun sold today, unless turned into police at some point, is forever in the public's hands.

Just like many fail to observe driving rules and laws, a large chunk of gun owners will fail to meet whatever safety measures they are supposed to meet. Even areas, such as mines and oil rigs, where there are periodic inspections to insure safe operation don't follow the law.

One need not pass a test to be a parent. One does need to pass a test to drive a car, but that is done in public view. How are we supposed to enforce any regs on gun storage in the privacy of homes?

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 02:25 PM
I feel like I'm beating a very dead horse, but isn't this the heart of the debate. The gun advocates talk about how responsible many gun owners are, and no one is denying that. They don't want laws passed that will infringe upon the law-abiding, safety minded, responsible gun owners. There's a clear implication in that position that they are not happy with guns being in the hands of those who are not responsible owners, who do not take care so that kids or others have access to their guns.

The question I have is: why not stop arguing over this and suggest how we protect the responsible gun owners and, at the same time, have some laws in place for those irresponsible gun owners?

suggestions have been made and shouted down... the shouters want only their solution... anything falling short of their desire must not be tried lest it actually work

S.V. Airlie
05-05-2013, 02:37 PM
Anyone got a constructive suggestion as to where they would draw the line at gun ownership? I can't believe anyone here thinks young children should have unsupervised access to firearms.

Working from that belief, how would you word a bill that would keep guns out of the hands of those who don't keep them safely locked and away from kids?

Would you support random traffic stops to make sure small children were properly in proper child seats? Would you support random checks of gun owners with children to see if the guns are properly stored?

It would appear, judging by posts here that these parents did nothing illegal.

Is anyone here fine with that?IN THEORY sounds possible. In reality, never happen. Not enough manpower in law enforcement to do much about those who have broken these laws unless someone dies. Then, enough police to enforce on or two laws for one incident.

Flying Orca
05-05-2013, 02:44 PM
IN THEORY sounds possible. In reality, never happen. Not enough manpower in law enforcement to do much about those who have broken these laws unless someone dies. Then, enough police to enforce on or two laws for one incident.

I suspect the majority of gun owners would comply with strict safe-storage laws; they do in other countries. You don't have to have a LEO checking up on every single person in order for tighter laws to effectively reduce casualties.

Paul Pless
05-05-2013, 02:51 PM
suggestions have been made and shouted down... the shouters want only their solution... anything falling short of their desire must not be tried lest it actually workThe only suggestion that I have seen you endorse has been universal firearm safety courses for school children. I know this is a huge reach, but might you explain to me how such a program would have prevented the Gabby Gifford mass shooting, the Aurora Colorado mass shooting, the Newtown mass shooting or even the five year old shooting of the two year old that we have discussed recently? If you are unwilling or unable to support your own suggestions then you deserve to be 'shouted down'. . .

Donn
05-05-2013, 03:09 PM
If you are unwilling or unable to support your own suggestions then you deserve to be 'shouted down'. . .

Wrong. Shouting down another member is against forum rules.

Paul Pless
05-05-2013, 03:10 PM
fart

Its a figure of speech that I borrowed from Phillip. He hasn't been shouted down here as he claims. He likes to make himself out to be a victim, when in reality he's just in a very small minority. Its pathetic really. . .

hanleyclifford
05-05-2013, 03:19 PM
I suspect the majority of gun owners would comply with strict safe-storage laws; they do in other countries. You don't have to have a LEO checking up on every single person in order for tighter laws to effectively reduce casualties. Precisely the case here in Massachusetts. The US could do well looking at the laws here.

Donn
05-05-2013, 04:00 PM
f Its pathetic really. . .

What's pathetic is the way you and others react to his posts and threads. You have no self control.

S.V. Airlie
05-05-2013, 04:14 PM
I suspect the majority of gun owners would comply with strict safe-storage laws; they do in other countries. You don't have to have a LEO checking up on every single person in order for tighter laws to effectively reduce casualties.
And we get only criminals who end up with guns. Seems to be that segment who won't abide by the laws don't ya think? that will cause trouble don't ya think?

hanleyclifford
05-05-2013, 04:30 PM
The military including militias abide by strict storage and control regulations. Should we expect any less from ourselves?

S.V. Airlie
05-05-2013, 04:31 PM
AND which law enforcement agency is going to enforce this? Portland?

Flying Orca
05-05-2013, 04:50 PM
And we get only criminals who end up with guns. Seems to be that segment who won't abide by the laws don't ya think? that will cause trouble don't ya think?

If everyone waited for the perfect solution to every problem, there would be no progress. Perhaps if you were to focus on incremental improvements, you would see encouraging results.

You know, the same way the rest of the civilized world has.

Garret
05-05-2013, 05:25 PM
Part of gun ownership should include proper storage facilities .
And guns found by Police out of those storage facilities should mean jail time for the owners.
Apart from that , if owners have storage and don't use it , then they deserve that bullet in the head.
Rob J.

Wow. You seem really bitter. You've been bouncing all over the bilge describing an America that only exists in your mind & then you come out with "they deserve that bullet in the head". Please stop & think about what you are saying.

S.V. Airlie
05-05-2013, 05:29 PM
Portland if the guns are found during a crime, Fine!

If you want a police state it would be on your shoulders and others. I've read enough history about how a police state slowly and methodically erode what I would consider rights. I see that happening now but, only in specific circumstances carried out for the "Good" of the majority of course.

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 06:00 PM
The only suggestion that I have seen you endorse has been universal firearm safety courses for school children. I know this is a huge reach, but might you explain to me how such a program would have prevented the Gabby Gifford mass shooting, the Aurora Colorado mass shooting, the Newtown mass shooting or even the five year old shooting of the two year old that we have discussed recently? If you are unwilling or unable to support your own suggestions then you deserve to be 'shouted down'. . .

Paul... your reading comprehension is lagging again... "suggestions have been made" does not claim that I made any of them... you should have known that but you chose to use my statement as a point to attack... you are consistant at this

it doesn't matter who made the suggestions at all... suggestions have been made and met with scorn... a CLEAR pattern of behavior

Paul Pless
05-05-2013, 06:03 PM
suggestions have been made and met with scorn...and how have gun rights advocates treated the suggestions from gun control advocates?

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 06:05 PM
and how have gun rights advocates treated the suggestions from gun control advocates?

some have been met with scorn... did you assume I would lie?

The Bigfella
05-05-2013, 06:06 PM
some have been met with scorn... did you assume I would lie?

Do you want an honest answer to that?

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 06:13 PM
Do you want an honest answer to that?

go ahead... whatever trips your trigger

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 06:13 PM
BTW, this is a gun thread not started by me

Paul Pless
05-05-2013, 06:16 PM
what it really comes down to is that you (Phillip) don't want to talk about anything of substance in these threads that you participate in, you just want to play semantics. . .

The Bigfella
05-05-2013, 06:19 PM
what it really comes down to is that you (Phillip) don't want to talk about anything of substance in these threads that you participate in, you just want to play semantics. . .

The position to consider is whether those semantics constitute bullying, under cover of "oh poor me"

seanz
05-05-2013, 06:27 PM
BTW, this is a gun thread not started by me

This an anti-gun thread. We established recently that you only start hobby-gun threads. So, of course it wasn't started by you. You would never ever start an anti-gun thread.


what it really comes down to is that you (Phillip) don't want to talk about anything of substance in these threads that you participate in, you just want to play semantics. . .

Nobody's going to pick him for their team, he can't play semantics.......he just shows up at training for the kool-aid.









:)

epoxyboy
05-05-2013, 07:44 PM
Suggestions are just that. Suggestions. Without some concrete action, a lot of time, and a huge amount of "give" from the pro-gun lobby we will keep reading about mums, dads, kids, grandparents etc meeting untimely ends. I know there is a certain "the rest of the world can go f**k itself" attitude when we criticise the US about this gun stuff, but from the outside, it is beyond bizarre.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Without making a prolonged and substantial effort to reduce the number of fireams, both legal and illegal, in circulation, nothing is going to change.
Serious question Phillip - do you ever travel overseas in civilised western countries (heck Canada, even :d), and do you feel more unsafe or vulnerable there without a gun close at hand?

Pete

Garret
05-05-2013, 07:58 PM
Canada? Canada??? OMG, I get so scared up there. I mean those people are so polite they have to be hiding caches of weapons so they can attack the US again. Oh wait - we attacked them. Well - whatever - they are scary!

Phillip Allen
05-05-2013, 09:15 PM
Suggestions are just that. Suggestions. Without some concrete action, a lot of time, and a huge amount of "give" from the pro-gun lobby we will keep reading about mums, dads, kids, grandparents etc meeting untimely ends. I know there is a certain "the rest of the world can go f**k itself" attitude when we criticise the US about this gun stuff, but from the outside, it is beyond bizarre.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Without making a prolonged and substantial effort to reduce the number of fireams, both legal and illegal, in circulation, nothing is going to change.
Serious question Phillip - do you ever travel overseas in civilised western countries (heck Canada, even :d), and do you feel more unsafe or vulnerable there without a gun close at hand?

Pete

I have been to 12 other countries and NEVER carried any weapon, let alone a gun.
I was running every day when I went to Brasil... Sao Paulo, specifically... up and out of the hotel at 0430 and all around the local streets... no weapon... the local axe murderers crossed the street to avoid me... :)

epoxyboy
05-05-2013, 10:20 PM
I have been to 12 other countries and NEVER carried any weapon, let alone a gun.
I was running every day when I went to Brasil... Sao Paulo, specifically... up and out of the hotel at 0430 and all around the local streets... no weapon... the local axe murderers crossed the street to avoid me... :)

Actually to be fair, I probably should have directed the question at people who regularly carry in the US, and I dont know if you do.
The point being, if somebody carries in the US for whatever reason, but doesnt feel unsafe in other countries where they cant, what is the factor that makes them OK with being gun deprived.

Or are they actually not OK with their enforced gunlessness, and spend all their time walking around feeling nervous about it?


Pete

Phillip Allen
05-06-2013, 07:09 AM
This is the video I saw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehM5IhU-aEw .
What a fun place to visit !.
Rob J.

the VIDEO!!!??? You said you saw all this... that carries quite a different idea of what you experienced... you experienced a VIDEO?

Garret
05-06-2013, 07:50 AM
the VIDEO!!!??? You said you saw all this... that carries quite a different idea of what you experienced... you experienced a VIDEO?

No - he said he saw other things.

He was just commenting that this town would be a fun place to visit.

John Smith
05-06-2013, 08:02 AM
suggestions have been made and shouted down... the shouters want only their solution... anything falling short of their desire must not be tried lest it actually work

Please refresh my memory. I don't recall anything being suggested by the pro-gun side as a positive approach to keeping guns out of the hands of those who ought not have them. I've seen a lot of posts about how the poster is a responsible gun owner, but nothing I can recall that would insure all gun owners are responsible or any methodology to insure they are responsible in their gun ownership.

The anti-gun side offers ideas that, IMO, are nice soundbites, but enforcing them doesn't seem likely.

John Smith
05-06-2013, 08:04 AM
I suspect the majority of gun owners would comply with strict safe-storage laws; they do in other countries. You don't have to have a LEO checking up on every single person in order for tighter laws to effectively reduce casualties.

NO offense, but that's na´ve. How many people would abuse traffic laws if there were no cops patrolling the roads and highways? No radar or helicopters? With no one to catch them, we'd have a lot more speeders.

TomF
05-06-2013, 08:11 AM
NO offense, but that's na´ve. How many people would abuse traffic laws if there were no cops patrolling the roads and highways? No radar or helicopters? With no one to catch them, we'd have a lot more speeders.No offence, but it's not naive. It's the way things are in Canada, and probably AUS.

Do ALL gun owners voluntarily comply with safe storage laws? No. But most do. Most Canadians are fairly honest on our tax returns too, but not all.

John Smith
05-06-2013, 08:13 AM
And we get only criminals who end up with guns. Seems to be that segment who won't abide by the laws don't ya think? that will cause trouble don't ya think?

I'm on record as saying I've seen nothing proposed that, IMO, will solve the problem of gun violence. That said, I have seen some thing proposed by those who wish to cut down on the violence.

The other side has proposed arming teachers and more guns.

There does seem to be a common belief that not all people should have access to guns. Why then cannot both sides offer suggestions as to how to reach that objective?

I personally believe we are reaping what we have sowed. The bottom line is we have an extremely heavily armed public, and we cannot change that. We cannot track the guns already in the public's hands, especially as they pass on after the owner's death.

The only thing we can do, IMO, which no one seems to have offered up, is modify buildings so getting any kind of substantial weaponry through the door or window would be virtually impossible.

I think that we could offer to buy gun collections from estates at fair market value. That gets laughed at, but the family may need the money and not want the guns. If we don't buy them, they'll find someone who will. And they won't ask questions.

In practical terms, we will always have an extremely well armed public. We cannot take the guns and we cannot track the guns. This is the country we wanted, and it's the country we have.

As popular as background checks are, I've not seen an honest discussion of how they would work; same as no discussions on the 'mechanics' of a balanced budget amendment.

John Smith
05-06-2013, 08:15 AM
The military including militias abide by strict storage and control regulations. Should we expect any less from ourselves?

Again, how do you enforce it. How many more people would drive too fast if they weren't doing so under the threat of radar, helicopters, and other police presence?

How people keep guns in their own homes is something we have no way in hell to follow.

Flying Orca
05-06-2013, 08:17 AM
NO offense, but that's na´ve. How many people would abuse traffic laws if there were no cops patrolling the roads and highways? No radar or helicopters? With no one to catch them, we'd have a lot more speeders.

What Tom said; I would add that a certain scofflaw attitude (I will stop short of saying "outlaw mentality") which may be found in the USA is almost certainly part of the problem.

Garret
05-06-2013, 08:22 AM
What Tom said; I would add that a certain scofflaw attitude (I will stop short of saying "outlaw mentality") which may be found in the USA is almost certainly part of the problem.

It's not an outlaw mentality - it's just that those laws apply to other people, not me.... (I was going to insert a smiley here, but upon a moment's reflection I think the statement is too true to get one)

John Smith
05-06-2013, 08:23 AM
Part of gun ownership should include proper storage facilities .
And guns found by Police out of those storage facilities should mean jail time for the owners.
Apart from that , if owners have storage and don't use it , then they deserve that bullet in the head.
Rob J.

Are you going to authorize warrantless police checks in the home to insure all guns are properly secured?

Just as a thought, what is wrong with taking a more defensive posture? Bulletproof glass or bars on the ground floor windows would have prevented Sandy Hook. Metal detectors at doors would have prevented aurora. We can modify buildings to make them far less likely to house a massacre. Doing so would create jobs.

To my mind, these things are at least doable. I don't like the idea of making going to school like boarding a plane, but it seems a more possible and productive direction to go.

I'm also sure that buying back guns from estates is an idea with some merit.

What, exactly is the goal. Keep our kids and public safer? Disarm the public? I'm trying to find ways we can accomplish these things.

Let me address those posters who own guns and are responsible in how they keep them. One day you will die. What happens to your guns? Will your kids be as responsible with them as you are? Will their kids? You are mortal. Your gun collection is not.

TomF
05-06-2013, 08:25 AM
It's not an outlaw mentality - it's just that those laws apply to other people, not me.... (I was going to insert a smiley here, but upon a moment's reflection I think the statement is too true to get one)Like the notion that a protest march on Washington by potentially thousands of people openly carrying loaded weapons should proceed? And security precautions like those that might happen around a WTO meeting would be evidence of Government's tyranny?

John Smith
05-06-2013, 08:27 AM
No offence, but it's not naive. It's the way things are in Canada, and probably AUS.

Do ALL gun owners voluntarily comply with safe storage laws? No. But most do. Most Canadians are fairly honest on our tax returns too, but not all.

How can you possibly know how most people store their guns?

Garret
05-06-2013, 08:30 AM
Like the notion that a protest march on Washington by potentially thousands of people openly carrying loaded weapons should proceed? And security precautions like those that might happen around a WTO meeting would be evidence of Government's tyranny?

'zactly

Though the former's just plain insanity.

tizziec
05-06-2013, 08:35 AM
Like the notion that a protest march on Washington by potentially thousands of people openly carrying loaded weapons should proceed? And security precautions like those that might happen around a WTO meeting would be evidence of Government's tyranny?


Oh that march is a total duck and cover moment!!!

TomF
05-06-2013, 08:37 AM
How can you possibly know how most people store their guns?I can't in an absolute sense, but can speculate from other data.

uptick in sales of gun safes, trigger locks etc. since they became mandatory.
personal acquaintance - yes, I know real live people who hunt.
3rd party knowledge - friends who describe how their hunting friends store their weapons.
police reports. Verifying safe storage of firearms is standard practice in any domestic call. Speculating here that this demographic might be less likely to store firearms according to the law.


When there's an incident leading to firearms charges, they're infrequent enough that they tend to be reported in the paper. At least here in New Brunswick. Yes, there are some who get charged with improper storage etc., incidental to something else bringing the police's attention into play.

John Smith
05-06-2013, 08:37 AM
I remember years ago talking to an insurance guy from Traveler's insurance. At the time he'd been their for about 20 years. He'd processed a lot of claims for loss of stuff in cars. In the 20 years he'd never seen a claim for a Kodak camera; always a Nikon or some other expensive unit. Never a claim for a Robert Hall suit.

Maybe this is just the public in the USA, but, as he put it, every car accident seemed to be viewed as a way to make money. This led to the insured needing to list before hand what might be in their car and produce receipts. I know people who drove their cars into trees, and tried to convince the judge it wasn't their fault.

Maybe it's because we've been taught all our lives that we enjoy freedoms that creates this attitude. I don't know. I am sure that that a lot of people only obey traffic laws for fear of being caught. Many disobey them in spite of that fear. We have many people driving without insurance or licenses; although either is quite illegal. I'm sure they have a higher probability of getting caught out on the highway than they have in how they keep their guns.

I've also known people who see nothing wrong with linking up for free cable tv. Or buying pirated music. Good, church going, Christians.

The question that seems continually avoided: What to do with those gun owners who are NOT responsible in their gun storage?

TomF
05-06-2013, 08:41 AM
...The question that seems continually avoided: What to do with those gun owners who are NOT responsible in their gun storage?I don't know the remedies in Canadian law on that - but suspect that for an incident that only involves unsafe storage there's probably a fine. If the incident included some dangerous use of the firearm, it would probably involve confiscation and prohibition from owning a firearm for a certain period. IIRC, some classes of conviction lead to a lifetime prohibition, just as some classes of automobile offence lead to a lifetime suspension of your license.

American laws tend to be a lot more Draconian in their punishments than Canadian ones ... so I'd expect the penalties to be proportionately more harsh in the US.

John of Phoenix
05-06-2013, 11:15 AM
That was an interesting article (Ian's post #77).
Recently, some have observed that no policies can reduce firearm fatalities, but that’s not quite true. Research-based observations are available. Childproof locks, safe-storage devices and waiting periods save lives."some have observed" - that would include me. Because...

From 1986 to 1996, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sponsored high-quality, peer-reviewed research into the underlying causes of gun violence. People who kept guns in their homes did not — despite their hopes — gain protection, according to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Instead, residents in homes with a gun faced a 2.7-fold greater risk of homicide and a 4.8-fold greater risk of suicide. The National Rifle Association moved to suppress the dissemination of these results and to block funding of future government research into the causes of firearm injuries.

Since we have enough legislators who allow (and some who demand) this research to be stifled, there is no possibility of making any progress to reducing gun violence. As I've said before (and stand by it again), "Nothing is going to change. You can only hope that you and yours are not a victim of gun violence."

------------------
What's the (pun alert!) over & under on "unfortunate incidents" occurring at the upcoming open carry protest march?

Garret
05-06-2013, 11:52 AM
That was an interesting article (Ian's post #77). "some have observed" - that would include me. Because...

Since we have enough legislators who allow (and some who demand) this research to be stifled, there is no possibility of making any progress to reducing gun violence. As I've said before (and stand by it again), "Nothing is going to change. You can only hope that you and yours are not a victim of gun violence."

------------------
What's the (pun alert!) over & under on "unfortunate incidents" occurring at the upcoming open carry protest march?

Interesting indeed. Of course the NRA is impartial & wants us to have all the facts...

People are still trying to gauge what the incidents will be.... ;)

John Smith
05-06-2013, 12:00 PM
I don't know the remedies in Canadian law on that - but suspect that for an incident that only involves unsafe storage there's probably a fine. If the incident included some dangerous use of the firearm, it would probably involve confiscation and prohibition from owning a firearm for a certain period. IIRC, some classes of conviction lead to a lifetime prohibition, just as some classes of automobile offence lead to a lifetime suspension of your license.

American laws tend to be a lot more Draconian in their punishments than Canadian ones ... so I'd expect the penalties to be proportionately more harsh in the US.

I think my point is that, sans an incident, how would the powers that be know whether or not an individual is keeping his weapons secure? I don't know about Canada, but in the US we can't keep unlicensed drivers off the road. I see no way to insure all guns are responsibly cared for and secure.

The object, I'm guessing, is to avoid incidents.

Maybe we need to create "war zones" where people can play gun games and shoot each other. Meet in the street at sundown like we glorify in the old west. Have areas where they can play at gang wars with live guns and ammo, killing each other, but confining the danger to those who willingly participate.

Peerie Maa
05-06-2013, 12:08 PM
Just as a thought, what is wrong with taking a more defensive posture? Bulletproof glass or bars on the ground floor windows would have prevented Sandy Hook. Metal detectors at doors would have prevented aurora. We can modify buildings to make them far less likely to house a massacre. Doing so would create jobs.

To my mind, these things are at least doable. I don't like the idea of making going to school like boarding a plane, but it seems a more possible and productive direction to go.



And whilst you are about it, bullet proof the school bus and build bullet proof walkways that connect the bus door to the school door. Oh and you will have to lock the kids up without time to play in the fresh air.

Hardening the building just moves the nutter with the gun outside.

John of Phoenix
05-06-2013, 12:11 PM
US we can't keep unlicensed drivers off the road. I see no way to insure all guns are responsibly cared for and secure. You're right, but unlicensed drivers are dealt with quite harshly. So it should be with violators of gun storage laws (if any exist) - if there's an incident, the hammer comes down.

In a similar fashion, AZ prosecutes parents whose unsupervised kids are involved in swimming pool accidents/deaths. In a bizarre twist, there are no corresponding laws concerning guns.

Phillip Allen
05-06-2013, 12:14 PM
You're right, but unlicensed drivers are dealt with quite harshly. So it should be with violators of gun storage laws (if any exist) - if there's an incident, the hammer comes down.

In a similar fashion, AZ prosecutes parents whose unsupervised kids are involved in swimming pool accidents/deaths. In a bizarre twist, there are no corresponding laws concerning guns.

it seems to me to acomplish that storage law world require micro managing people's castles... is that what you have in mind? government micro managing people's homes?

TomF
05-06-2013, 12:21 PM
it seems to me to acomplish that storage law world require micro managing people's castles... is that what you have in mind? government micro managing people's homes?We don't micro manage people's castles here. We simply prosecute when an incident occurs which draws the attention to a contravention of the law.

Most responsible, law abiding people ... abide laws. Gun owners included. As a result, we've fewer accidental discharges, and fewer firearms thefts. For what it's worth, those are simply empirical facts - which have been repeated in AUS and the UK.

hanleyclifford
05-06-2013, 12:22 PM
it seems to me to acomplish that storage law world require micro managing people's castles... is that what you have in mind? government micro managing people's homes? Phillip, We have solid storage laws here in Massachusetts; and coupled with detailed license investigations, they have developed a fairly good safety record here. I have never had my home arbitrarily searched but would have no problem demonstrating my compliance to law enforcement. We did this in the military, and should we expect any less of ourselves now?

Phillip Allen
05-06-2013, 12:23 PM
Phillip, We have solid storage laws here in Massachusetts; and coupled with detailed license investgations, they have developed a fairly good safety record here. I have never had my home arbitrarily searched but would have no problem demonstrating my compliance to law enforcement. We did this in the military,and should we expect any less of ourselves now?

perhaps we could all live in barracks... that would solve some problems :)

hanleyclifford
05-06-2013, 12:29 PM
perhaps we could all live in barracks... that would solve some problems :) Yes, but I've lived in a few barracks...and that carries it's own set of problems. I even had to do a board of enquiry on a barracks shooting (AD) once. Ain't nowhere safe, Phillip.:)

TomF
05-06-2013, 12:29 PM
perhaps we could all live in barracks... that would solve some problems :)Personally, would you respect a law which said you should keep your firearms locked, with the ammunition (and presumably, reloading supplies locked in a separate location?

I expect you would follow the law. And that most other firearms owners would do the same - many already do this, on their own steam.

It's not unlike laws about getting a driver's license, or a safety check on one's car. Some folks drive without a license, and circumvent car safety checks ... but they're the minority. And the roads are safer for us all becaue the laws exist.

Ian McColgin
05-06-2013, 12:41 PM
Again, compare auto deaths and injuries versus firearms deaths and injuries. Because auto deaths and injuries are declining while those from firearms are rising, if the present trends continue, they will be equal in a couple of years.

Now pause a moment to consider how many autos are on the road in daily use by how many people and carrying how many people more. There is no way that in terms of human hours of use autos can be considered anything like as dangerous as firearms. There is no problem with any lawful citizen getting a car. Registration rules establish limits on what sort of car one can have for what purposes - aka "street legal." No harm there. Drivers are licensed for whatever grade of vehicle - motorcycles, autos, various sizes of truck, commercial passenger, bus, etc. etc. No big problem there.

Even major cultural behaviors are subject to change. I'm old enough, as are many here, to recall when despite some weakly enforced laws, alcohol was essentially a mitigating factor in auto accidents. Now we accept that it's a real crime.

Nothing's perfect. There are still unlicensed or uninusure drivers on the road. There are still fraudulently registered vehicles and VIN numbers can be messed with enough to make the stolen car market a small, risky but still functional market.

But I am pretty sure even the most foam at the mouth NRA lobbiest would not try to convince Ford that a lobbying campaign against automobile laws makes any sense.

John of Phoenix
05-06-2013, 01:01 PM
So it should be with violators of gun storage laws (if any exist) - if there's an incident, the hammer comes down.
it seems to me to acomplish that storage law world require micro managing people's castles... is that what you have in mind? government micro managing people's homes?


We don't micro manage people's castles here. We simply prosecute when an incident occurs which draws the attention to a contravention of the law.

Most responsible, law abiding people ... abide laws. Gun owners included. As a result, we've fewer accidental discharges, and fewer firearms thefts. For what it's worth, those are simply empirical facts - which have been repeated in AUS and the UK.Where did you get the idea I wanted anything micromanaged? Cops don't check everyone's license at the corner stop sign but when an unlicensed driver gets stopped, the penalty is severe. Tom aptly points out how the law works in other parts of the world. I said, "If there's an incident, the hammer comes down."

No need for inspections and NO ONE wants to take your precious, Precious!

Garret
05-06-2013, 01:10 PM
I think my point is that, sans an incident, how would the powers that be know whether or not an individual is keeping his weapons secure? I don't know about Canada, but in the US we can't keep unlicensed drivers off the road. I see no way to insure all guns are responsibly cared for and secure.

The object, I'm guessing, is to avoid incidents.

Maybe we need to create "war zones" where people can play gun games and shoot each other. Meet in the street at sundown like we glorify in the old west. Have areas where they can play at gang wars with live guns and ammo, killing each other, but confining the danger to those who willingly participate.

We'll never keep 'em all in safe location. Just as we'll never keep all the unlicensed operators off the road.

However, you could require a receipt (or verified picture) for a gun safe - just as you have to show a valid license, registration & insurance for inspection.

ETA: Please don't search for a perfect answer - there ain't one. Let's try to get some common sense ideas passed & build on them. The problem didn't occur overnight & won;t be fixed instantly either.

tizziec
05-06-2013, 01:16 PM
Hmmm I have a local code enforcer who will come and check if my pool is safe, why not check if guns are safe while he is at it... it gets a decent enough pay stipend to add a little more to his job than checking pack yard pools and making sure no one throws out too much big stuff on clean up day :)

Garret
05-06-2013, 01:26 PM
Hmmm I have a local code enforcer who will come and check if my pool is safe, why not check if guns are safe while he is at it... it gets a decent enough pay stipend to add a little more to his job than checking pack yard pools and making sure no one throws out too much big stuff on clean up day :)

Because swimming pools aren't a 2nd amendment issue. Or is the right to keep pools & swim bare the 42nd amendment? I lose track.... :)

tizziec
05-06-2013, 01:29 PM
Because swimming pools aren't a 2nd amendment issue. Or is the right to keep pools & swim bare the 42nd amendment? I lose track.... :)

Geeze even free speech is limited with liable and slander... Good lord people, it's a gun, it has the potential to kill simply by being dropped wrong with loaded!!! Get over yourselves!!!!
This is the kind of hard headed BS that makes gun owners look NUTS!!!!!

Garret
05-06-2013, 01:34 PM
Geeze even free speech is limited with liable and slander... Good lord people, it's a gun, it has the potential to kill simply by being dropped wrong with loaded!!! Get over yourselves!!!!
This is the kind of hard headed BS that makes gun owners look NUTS!!!!!

Well, yeah. You are just figuring out that people argue this topic differently than any other in the US?

I was joking (a lame one I know), btw.....

tizziec
05-06-2013, 01:37 PM
The right to address grievances is FAR more important than keeping a weapon, as is the right to vote and control the make up of govt! Now THOSE are revolutionary ideas!