Peter Claver wrote: If those people can't keep their guns safe.. then I would *love* to be shown how a lone teacher in a room of fighting teenagers can. Please do educate me.
Did you see how many teachers are taking courses? Are you that damn blind? I bet not ONE of those irresponsible parents got any education on the safety.
If a teacher can't do something so simple, they shouldn't be teachers.
If those people can't keep their guns safe.. then I would *love* to be shown how a lone teacher in a room of fighting teenagers can. Please do educate me.
you're right...and yet over one MILLION defensive uses a year. The VAST majority without a shot fired.
you're right...and yet over one MILLION defensive uses a year. The VAST majority without a shot fired.
and yet, cars- with no intention of being designed to kill- do so more than guns. The lady in MI who ran her daughter over (and the poor little girl died)....blames the car manufacturer. We need to ban cars because of so many killings and people who can't be safe with them.
Actually, most of us know you can't. Outlaw stupid. The case with the four year old shows unsafe /bad/stupid weapon handling practices. Just on it's face, I suspect the case was eligible for at least 6 criminal charges, depending on jurisdiction some could be felony.
If six existing laws didn't stop it what law do you propose that would have?
Make it illegal for parents to have an unattended gun around children under 18...make it a neglect case. It's idiotic to say it;s wrong enough for them to be charged after, but not wrong enough for us to take some prevention against it.
Make it illegal for parents to have an unattended gun around children under 18...make it a neglect case. It's idiotic to say it;s wrong enough for them to be charged after, but not wrong enough for us to take some prevention against it.
Child neglect is already in the books. This falls under it (the child getting the gun and hurting itself). Child abuse still happens.
It's the culture and education that will help. Not some new law.
j3_photo wrote: Child neglect is already in the books. This falls under it (the child getting the gun and hurting itself). Child abuse still happens.
It's the culture and education that will help. Not some new law.
I mean BEFORE it happens. Right now most CAP laws only apply after the child hurts themselves, and not all states have adopted these laws. It should be a felony to leave a child alone with a gun AT ALL. No loaded guns out where a child can reach them while someone is sleeping, that is just idiotic on so many different levels.
Make it illegal for parents to have an unattended gun around children under 18...make it a neglect case. It's idiotic to say it;s wrong enough for them to be charged after, but not wrong enough for us to take some prevention against it.
As you did not provide a link to the case of the 4 year old, I can not address specific rules/regs...
I do know however that in a LOT of jurisdictions, the laws you describe already exist.
As well as "reckless endangerment". failure to maintain control of a weapon", negligence, etc. etc.
My point being you would probably be QUITE surprised to discover what laws are already out there and applicable to each of these cases in their jurisdiction....yet bad, evil, nasty shit still happens.
By the way, if you are seeking to prevent a bad thing before it happens...how do you know they are leaving a weapon unattended in the presence of a four year old? Would that not require someone to call it in? or are you going MUCH further than that and suggesting some kind of government "inspection"...
I mean BEFORE it happens. Right now most CAP laws only apply after the child hurts themselves, and not all states have adopted these laws. It should be a felony to leave a child alone with a gun AT ALL. No loaded guns out where a child can reach them while someone is sleeping, that is just idiotic on so many different levels.
define "child"...I have to ask, since the new ACA considers them up to 26 years old.
I agree, my four year old playing with my 38, bad idea...my 16 year old having access to a defensive weapon when I am not home...different story.
I mean BEFORE it happens. Right now most CAP laws only apply after the child hurts themselves, and not all states have adopted these laws. It should be a felony to leave a child alone with a gun AT ALL. No loaded guns out where a child can reach them while someone is sleeping, that is just idiotic on so many different levels.
It should be a felony to leave a child alone period- but laws still don't stop idiot parents.
La Lana wrote: I mean BEFORE it happens. Right now most CAP laws only apply after the child hurts themselves, and not all states have adopted these laws. It should be a felony to leave a child alone with a gun AT ALL. No loaded guns out where a child can reach them while someone is sleeping, that is just idiotic on so many different levels.
j3_photo wrote: It should be a felony to leave a child alone period- but laws still don't stop idiot parents.
define "child"...I have to ask, since the new ACA considers them up to 26 years old.
I agree, my four year old playing with my 38, bad idea...my 16 year old having access to a defensive weapon when I am not home...different story.
Most standards of a child are under 18. While I see your point about the 16 year old...there isn't much of a point in saying someone under 18 can't buy a shot gun if they have access to one through their parents.
It should be a felony to leave a child alone period- but laws still don't stop idiot parents.
Laws don't stop altogether...they deter. If social services walks in and sees around a 4 year old there's not much they can do unless there's a law against it.
Laws don't stop altogether...they deter. If social services walks in and sees around a 4 year old there's not much they can do unless there's a law against it.
As pointed out above, laws similar to your suggested concepts already exist in a lot of jurisdictions.
In the case of an "average" gun owner, why would social services just happen to walk in?
As to my 16 year old having access to my weapons. She has limited access. And yes, I have both legal and moral responsibility for that decision.
Education, respect, responsibility. ..it is a system that has worked for MILLIONS of us. Doubt me?
50-80 million gun owners, 250-300 million guns (depending on which numbers you accept)....if we were all the caricature we have been painted in SB...
It should be a felony to leave a child alone period- but laws still don't stop idiot parents.
Define child and alone. A lot of accidental shootings happen when parents are home. They also occure in CCW homes where parents have had training. Training doesn't force someone to be responsible or have common sense. Because that's what this boils down to, common sense.
As pointed out above, laws similar to your suggested concepts already exist in a lot of jurisdictions.
In the case of an "average" gun owner, why would social services just happen to walk in?
As to my 16 year old having access to my weapons. She has limited access. And yes, I have both legal and moral responsibility for that decision.
Education, respect, responsibility. ..it is a system that has worked for MILLIONS of us. Doubt me?
50-80 million gun owners, 250-300 million guns (depending on which numbers you accept)....if we were all the caricature we have been painted in SB...
And as I pointed out...those laws are mostly for AFTER a child has hurt themselves. Social services was an example...I've seen people get them called on them for idiotic reasons or because someone was angry. Or if a cop happens to be there or a family member calls it in.
So YOUR 16 year old may have limited access, but this isn't just about you. It doesn't make sense for the law to say 16 is too young for someone to own a gun,but parents are welcome to allow their children to guns anytime and all the time.
Define child and alone. A lot of accidental shootings happen when parents are home. They also occure in CCW homes where parents have had training. Training doesn't force someone to be responsible or have common sense. Because that's what this boils down to, common sense.
I am not sure how much gun safety is taught in certain training programs. On a FB post there were some proud gun owners boasting about how they have children, and they leave their loaded guns by them at night, but they taught their kids to not touch it. IDK any kid that doesn't get curious..
I mean to be to be asleep and have loaded guns around children while you are sleeping is lacking common sense. People are more afraid of someone busting through their door in the middle of the night then they are about their small children grabbing the gun and hurting themselves or someone else.
La Lana wrote: I am not sure how much gun safety is taught in certain training programs. On a FB post there were some proud gun owners boasting about how they have children, and they leave their loaded guns by them at night, but they taught their kids to not touch it. IDK any kid that doesn't get curious..
I mean to be to be asleep and have loaded guns around children while you are sleeping is lacking common sense. People are more afraid of someone busting through their door in the middle of the night then they are about their small children grabbing the gun and hurting themselves or someone else.
There you are...now go take a course.
People are more afraid because it happens more often than a curious kid finding a gun in the drawer.
People are more afraid because it happens more often than a curious kid finding a gun in the drawer.
How do you know? You aren't protecting your kid when you directly put them in danger. Most break ins occur during the day, not at night when someone is sleeping.
La Lana wrote: How do you know? You aren't protecting your kid when you directly put them in danger. Most break ins occur during the day, not at night when someone is sleeping.
And how well have attempts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons worked?
Let's see....
The United States
Soviet Union (now Russia)
China
France
United Kingdom
India
Pakistan
Israel
North Korea
And soon maybe Iran....
So tell me again how well that has worked?
Why haven't any nuclear weapons been used in warfare since 1945?
Maybe because the people who have them know that if they use them, someone else will turn them into radioactive dust?
So you agree with the argument that Iran having WMD would be a good thing and make the Middle-East a safer place? After all there would be mutual deterrence between Iran and Israel then. Let's have the Saudis some nukes too while we're at it.
Given that every of the 100+ regimes on this planet would love to get their hands on nukes (let alone every terrorist organization), I'd say the limitation of nukes has been pretty successful. Other than India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, no one else since the original members of the nuke club / UN veto powers has managed to develop nukes yet.
Imagine the small arms trade worldwide would be regulated like that. It would save hundreds of thousands of lives throughout the world and thousands in the US.