Mock

I predict a tax on the law abiding citizens to subsidize and fund the idiots that abuse the laws and cannot fund the families that have to live with the legacy. I give it 3 yrs maybe less until some knucklehead thinks of it and attempts to implement it. This is the world we live in
And these are the hands we're given.

F.U. sounds like a libertarian. Personally, I'm a communist. I think the gov't should take everyone's kid at birth and put them in standardized boarding school. And it needs to be the world over, not geography broken up by land masses. Stupid. Make the UN into the world gov't.

Until we can reach that ideal tho, and we're pushing America as the land of freedom, I think laws against every little thing are stupid.

America the land of arbitration.

(06-30-2015, 10:44 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Make another law, make another law, make another law. I am so sick of hearing I wish they would make a law against this or that that I wanna puke. We need less government involvement in our private life, not more. Just like locks only keep the honest person out, laws are only followed by the honest people. What good does a law do if people are still gunna break them and, since we are discussing guns, in this case a kid shoots themselves and dies. The kid is still dead, the law didn't help. And I don't wanna hear the tired old, If it only saves one life its worth it.
What we need is some sort of incentive towards gun owners that safely store them. Big buck kick back when a safe is purchased, or a big tax rightoff. Laws people wont listen to. You wanna get their attention talk putting $$$$$ in their pocket. Hell, even I would think about buying a safe if that were the case.

It's gotta suck to be so sickly. I hope you feel better soon.

I'd venture to guess a lot of us tire of hearing about "accidental" child deaths caused by the gun-owning dipshits who spew idiotic rationale about how introducing more guns to more kids and adults is a solution to gun violence. But, it doesn't make me sick or anything. Mostly it's an amused kind of tired.

Anyway, that's a good alternative that you suggested, F.U. I think it would be very smart of the NRA or a private group of organized gun-lovers to pony up the incentive program and secure the money to make it happen. It would be great PR, and it would benefit gun-owners and their families way more than anybody else.

I mean, if dipshits need to be paid to exercise common sense and prioritize their children over their guns and it'll do the trick, I throw my full support behind that incentive-for-safety idea, F.U. Seems it might require legislation (a new law) or industry regulation to implement it, unless you have another plan for how to administer the nationwide program?

(06-30-2015, 11:07 PM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]I think laws against every little thing are stupid.

Me too.

We could lose a lot of existing laws, IMO.

But, child gun deaths aren't "little things" in my book.

Because you have an agenda.



Where's the "Guns don't kill children, Fires/drowning/suffocation do" thread?

Parked cars should be outlawed.

I've seen the chart many times Cutz, probably even somewhere upthread.

And, yes, we have tons of posts and threads about crimes against children (my "agenda", I guess) and child deaths caused by different kinds of dipshit child neglect and endangerment. All of which affect me equally.

But, we're talking about guns in the "Guns" thread. That seems an easy enough connection to understand, to me. Seems it might be more comfortable for some of you if I posted the child gun death stories and opinions in one of those child abuse threads though. I'll consider it.

Okay, I considered it and decided against it. Those stories and opinions fit best here.

I'm also discussing guns in the gun thread. My point is that they're a tool. They shoot bullets, not people. Just like abrasive chemicals are designed to be abrasive chemicals and knives are designed to be sharp. Whether you choose to shoot targets, beer cans, neighbors, escaped convicts, or nothing is your choice. It's perfectly valid to say that the inherent risk in the tool is too high. Unfortunately, it's then subject to comparison to the risk of other tools, whether people like it or not.

(07-01-2015, 12:25 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]I'm also discussing guns in the gun thread. My point is that they're a tool. They shoot bullets, not people. Just like abrasive chemicals are designed to be abrasive chemicals and knives are designed to be sharp. Whether you choose to shoot targets, beer cans, neighbors, escaped convicts, or nothing is your choice. It's perfectly valid to say that the inherent risk in the tool is too high. Unfortunately, it's then subject to comparison to the risk of other tools, whether people like it or not.

I understand your points and comparisons, they've just been brought up, acknowledged, and addressed many times. Which is fine.

I was addressing the specific problem of adults leaving loaded guns in reach of toddlers, leading to injury and death.

Aside from not wanting another law and considering the dead toddlers no real loss because of Darwin and all, is there a reason why you would object to a law or regulation requiring adults to practice guns safety with children on the premises?

I mean, it certainly wouldn't infringe on anybody's 2^nd amendment right to bear tools. If locks were provided free, it wouldn't add any financial burden to gun owners. And, it wouldn't affect responsible guns owners at all because they don't keep loaded guns in reach of toddlers anyway. So, why not?

As I posted to F.U., if there's a better solution, incentive or whatever, which doesn't involve a new law/regulation and accomplishes the same goal (ideally without burden to the tax payers), I'm all for it. Spill it if you've got it.

There's already negligence laws about people keeping their kids safe. Laws don't prevent behavior.

I'd think a prosecutor in any locale could bring child endangerment charges against an adult who leaves firearms out that goes on to cause death or injury to a child. That can and should be done under existing statute.

FWIW, every gun I have purchased has come with a gun lock. I believe they can be had for free as well via somewhere in most communities (PD, health dept, etc).

That said, unfortunately you can't regulate carelessness or stupidity.

People are required by law in every state to have their kid in a carseat. In most cases if you can't afford one you can get them free. Yet drive on any highway and you are bound to see unrestrained kids or someone holding a baby in their lap while driving. Pools have to be fenced in by ordinance in most places. Yet there are frequent stories of children still drowning in pools.

Now there is a law in California mandating vaccination. Penalties now exist for people who don't do it. But there are still going to be people who are not going to comply. And in that margin there will be a few bad situations that go down.

Bottom line is there are shit parents everywhere. Some leave a gun on a table, some don't buckle their kids in the car, and some leave the pool gate open.

It's heartbreaking when someone is irresponsible and kids die because of it. But it's not just guns - in fact it's much more frequently things other than guns.

Just my $.02

(07-01-2015, 01:23 AM)Cutz Wrote: [ -> ]There's already negligence laws about people keeping their kids safe. Laws don't prevent behavior.

We've just circled back to my first post on the subject.

I would like to see negligence laws applied and enforced consistently across the country in regards to children unintentionally injuring or killing themselves/others with loaded guns. Charges should be brought in all cases; it shouldn't matter whether the state is strict or lax when it comes to gun control.

Laws do in fact prevent behavior, Cutz. Otherwise, there would be no laws. If it weren't for fear of being prosecuted and jailed, there would be a lot more crime. Guaranteed negative legal consequences are deterrents for most people. I don't think that's reasonably arguable.

If you go back and read the stories in this thread about deaths caused by children shooting guns, you'll see that most of the parents appear to be otherwise generally decent law-abiding people and parents. They were also undoubtedly negligent in leaving their loaded guns in reach of their children and, IMO, should all have been charged (despite their self-inflicted anguish).

It's a safe bet that all of those parents wish like hell they had not been negligent with their loaded guns and had instead safely stored them. Perhaps they would have practiced gun safety if they had been specifically required to do so by law. Preventing unintentional child gun deaths is more important to me than punishing parents for the negligence that caused the deaths, but they go hand in hand. If all of the parents/adults responsible for the injuries/deaths were charged, I think it would be an effective deterrent to such negligent behavior for some other gun-owning adults with children.

My problem with it is that you're still making guns the culprit when you're aiming gun lockup laws at protecting against negligence. You're never going to pass federal legislation with the gun lobbyists out there. If your goal is negligence, make federal negligence laws for any case where kids die because they weren't supervised properly. You'll save a lot more kids with a lot less opposition.

I do agree with FU's take tho. Getting the NRA on a gun-safety kick, as you mentioned, would be the best bet. Improve their image and make the community more aware.

(07-01-2015, 06:40 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

Bottom line - irresponsible people should have to pay for their lackadaisical attitude. People are dying because of it. These are not accidents!

Agreed

There is no one single issue here, nor a single solution

As I see it, there are too many irresponsible or unqualified folks getting guns, some legal, others not. From my memory about half of these stories involve felons.
There are IMHO also too many generally irresponsible parents out there period, ignoring the additional issue of guns in the house.

Education is the only real cure, trying to take away law abiding folks guns is not. Prison time for the law breakers.

The guns are not the problem, its the people behind them. A gun is a huge responsibility and they require responsible people. Take them away from the idiots.

I don't understand what changed since I was a kid. I mean my parents had firearms all over the place [ my dad was a gun dealer]. Ammo everywhere. Taught me how to shoot and reload ammo by the time I was 7. We watched old shoot-em-up westerns, or war movies. We all had toy guns and played cowboys and indians, played war, had bb gun wars. But we weren't shooting each other or our self with real firearms. What has changed that make kids now a days do it where as we did not ? If we could find the answer to that question we might also find the answer.

(06-30-2015, 11:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-30-2015, 10:44 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ].

It's gotta suck to be so sickly. I hope you feel better soon.

I'd venture to guess a lot of us tire of hearing about "accidental" child deaths caused by the gun-owning dipshits who spew idiotic rationale about how introducing more guns to more kids and adults is a solution to gun violence. But, it doesn't make me sick or anything. Mostly it's an amused kind of tired.

Anyway, that's a good alternative that you suggested, F.U. I think it would be very smart of the NRA or a private group of organized gun-lovers to pony up the incentive program and secure the money to make it happen. It would be great PR, and it would benefit gun-owners and their families way more than anybody else.

I mean, if dipshits need to be paid to exercise common sense and prioritize their children over their guns and it'll do the trick, I throw my full support behind that incentive-for-safety idea, F.U. Seems it might require legislation (a new law) or industry regulation to implement it, unless you have another plan for how to administer the nationwide program?

Hahahahaha, thanks for the laugh HotD, it was a great way to start my day. Ok, so I exaggerated on the puking, but you got my point.

I don't know how to make my idea work, but I am sure smarter people than I could figure it out.

IMO: (my 2 cents)
As was mentioned guns don't kill people, sick people kill people. Notoriety (uproar) comes, because of the disastrous "number" of people that can be killed so quickly by a AK47 (or the like) brandished by only "one" sicko! Or even using a 16 clip hand gun, a sicko can cause mass blood shed. "No law" can stop a sick evil person with a gun from doing harm! Background checks are only as good as the info that can be publicly obtained. Many times inner hatred buried deep in people's souls won't appear on any record. One day that hatred will manifest itself when the sicko wants to do harm, and if they have a gun, "that person" will do the killing, not the gun, the gun was just the tool!
But unfortunately, the gun gets the blame.

As far as kids being accidentally killed, laws for lackadaisical parents/gun owners usually won't be followed. So serious penalties (maybe even LWP) being suffered by the adults involved may/would be some incentive for them to comply with good gun control.