Mock

(07-01-2015, 06:50 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]If you ever feel like addressing why current laws are no good and why prosecutors don't use them, we're all eyes to read about it.

I don't know who your "we" is Jimbone.

I would hate to think every set of eyes missed, at least three separate times in the last couple of pages, the opinion/observation that I posted addressing that very issue.

For your reference:
-Post 1666, paragraph 2
-Post 1694, paragraph 2
-Post 1792, paragraph 5, sentence 2

I contend, in all seriousness, that it is not difficult to understand what I've posted multiple times.

I suspect there are several factors involved and there is not one answer to your question. I've addressed one possible factor, from my observation. And, I understand that your opinion and observations differ from mine. That's not a problem, for me.

Whatever the reason(s), I'd like to see parents who are negligent with their unlocked loaded guns charged/prosecuted, and gun safety laws or regulations or other measures invoked, consistently across states.

Right now, even when the circumstances are very similar, the LE response is often not. I am aware that's also true in many other types of cases.

(07-01-2015, 06:58 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

I'd be interested in knowing why. They do the same damn thing when a baby is left to cook in a car. Sometimes they prosecute but many times they don't and will say something to the effect of "we can't punish them anymore than they punish themselves". That's nuts to me.

I guess you don't count as 'we'. Sorry for you.

Please see Post 1666, paragraph 2, Post 1694, paragraph 2, Post 1792 (actually post 1702), paragraph 5, sentence 2 for the answers you seek.

So now you're being condescending Jimbone, for shame!

You claimed that I never addressed something that I already had several times, so I pointed you (and any other waiting eyes) back to where it was posted.

That certainly doesn't mean that Duchess or anybody else, even if they recall the one possible contributing factor that I addressed, has to consider it a full or definitive explanation. I didn't make or imply such a claim.

I posted my observation, my wish, and my suggestion/opinion. And, I responded to people who replied and batted some things around a bit. I read and understood your posts and opinions in the process.

That's really all there is to it and I don't see a problem.

(07-01-2015, 06:00 PM)blueberryhill Wrote: [ -> ]Do we really want a reputation as a violent, gun slinging society.

Yes.

(07-01-2015, 06:58 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-01-2015, 06:50 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]why prosecutors don't use them

I'd be interested in knowing why.

As I posted upthread (at least 3 times! haha)..... just from my observation following the news stories, it seemed to me that location is a factor.

I had a chance to do some research tonight. Only fourteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that impose criminal liability on persons who negligently store firearms, where minors could or do gain access to the firearm.

California (criminal and civil liability both apply)
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts (gun safety locks required at all times except when gun is being carried by the legal owner)
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Texas

So, in the other 36 states, there is no law specifying that failure to keep unlocked loaded guns out of children's reach is criminally or civilly negligent behavior.

That leaves a lot of room for subjectivity when determining whether to charge/prosecute the adults when minors unintentionally shoot/injure/kill in 36 states.

IMO, subjective factors might include how the state regards gun safety/control in general, the D.A.'s culture and sympathies, the perception of the adults' general parenting, etc... I think those same subjective factors likely come into play in the other 14 states sometimes too, but not as often because there is a clear law and LE would have to justify not charging/prosecuting.

STUDIES

Background Research
Researchers have found that millions of children live in homes with easily accessible guns. Approximately one of three handguns is kept loaded and unlocked and most children know where their parents keep their guns.

On average, over 16,000 individuals in the United States are treated each year in hospital emergency rooms for unintentional gunshot wounds and a study found that 8% of accidental shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

In one 2006 study, 73% of children under age 10 living in homes with guns reported knowing the location of their parents’ firearms, and 36% admitted they had handled the weapons; 39% of parents who reported that their children did not know the storage location of household guns and 22% of parents who reported that their children had never handled a household gun were contradicted by their children’s reports.

In July 2004, the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education published a study examining 37 school shootings from 1974-2000. That study found that in more than 65% of the cases, the attacker got the gun from his or her own home or that of a relative.

As of July 2015, there are no child access prevention laws at the federal level, and federal law does not generally require gun owners to safely store their guns.

Safety Locks and Devices - Research Results
The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of accidental deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock and a “loading indicator,” a safety device that indicates whether a firearm is loaded and a round remains in the chamber.

A study released in 2005 found that the practices of keeping firearms locked, unloaded, and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms serve as a “protective effect” and may assist in reducing youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored.

The safe storage of firearms also helps prevent firearms from being stolen. Firearms stolen from residences play a significant role in gun trafficking.

A national survey conducted in January 2013 found that 67.2% of respondents support laws requiring gun owners to lock up any guns in the home when not in use to prevent handling by children or teenagers without adult supervision.

Source Citations: http://smartgunlaws.org/safe-storage-gun...y-summary/

Wonder what the state ti state numbers are for kid shootings?
Curious as to whether the states with negligence laws are better or worse than those without?

I don't know the answer to that Six.

There is historically and currently too much variance in how shootings, injuries and deaths are classified by ERs, hospitals, MEs and LE within the same state, much less across states, to get a meaningful number.

But some studies have been conducted measuring the results of Child Access Prevention law enactment.

-In twelve states where such laws had been in effect for at least one year, unintentional firearm deaths fell by 23% from 1990-94 among children under 15 years of age. Source: Peter Cummings et al., State Gun Safe Storage Laws and Child Mortality Due to Firearms, 278 JAMA 1084, 1084 (Oct. 1997).

-A study evaluating the association between CAP laws and suicides among youth found that such laws were associated with an 8.3% decrease in suicides among 14-17 year olds. Source: Daniel W. Webster et al., Association Between Youth-Focused Firearm Laws & Youth Suicides, 292 JAMA 594, 596-98 (Aug. 2004).

-A study found that the practices of keeping firearms locked, unloaded, and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms serve as a protective measure to reduce youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored. Source: David C. Grossman et al., Gun Storage Practices and Risk of Youth Suicide and Unintentional Firearm Injuries, 293 JAMA 707, 711-13 (2005), at http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/pdf/LockboxJAMA.pdf.

Most comprehensive firearm studies are ten or more years old. One of the Executive Actions that Obama signed after Sandy Hook authorized funding for more in-depth and updated firearm research. I hope some meaningful and unbiased updated research is underway.

(07-01-2015, 11:51 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Little kids have always been shooting themselves with loaded guns, there just wasn't as much coverage and awareness of the problem back when you were a kid.

Because the CODs are all over the board, it's impossible to say with certainty whether it's happening more or less these days. I think some modern guns are easier to fire, and that may result in younger children pulling the trigger more frequently than in the past. But, it might also be true that more modern guns have safeties, so it's happening less frequently. In either case, the fact is that it is happening.

Just because a problem wasn't in the public eye back in the day, doesn't mean it didn't exist, obviously. It is however wrong not to address it rationally today and instead deny it exists, try to justify it rather than solve it, or ignore it altogether when the problem results in serious harm or death to children, IMO.

That's where we will disagree. I do not believe it was a problem back in the day. I believe it is a relatively new issue. If there was a issue in those days the media would have ben on it like a duck on a junebug. After all its all about the ratings and death brings a increase in ratings.
IMO , This all seamed to change about the time that parents were told they couldn't whoop their kids ass as punishment. In my days we would have gotten our asses whooped so hard we wouldn't be able to sit for a week, had we touched a gun without a adult there. Now all you can do is talk to the kid or scold them. Big F'n deal.
Then you add in the realistic video games they play nowadays that they can pick out the gun they want to kill people with and start gunning down people , instead of the good old pong game that I had and it teaches kids its fun to kill.
In my day we were trained in proper safe handling of a firearm and were allowed to shoot them often. Nowadays its not politically correct to talk about your kid having a firearm, let alone teach them how to shoot one. Hell the kids will get in trouble now for a pop tart pistol where I was able to take a real 1911 45 acp to grade school and do a presentation on how to disassemble and reassemble it. I just couldn't bring the ammo to school, and that was in 6^th grade.
We were even taught about guns at the boys club in those days. We had bb gun competitions, as well as 22 rifle competitions right there in the range at the boys club. No parents were required to attend these events. Just 1 adult to monitor a dozen or more pre teens with firearms in hand.
So I don't think there was a problem with this back in the day, and I was raised in those times and seen what went on. Where as today, even with the modern guns that do have loaded chamber and ready to fire indicators , like mentioned above, it seams to be a common occurrence .
Unless you can show me hard facts against my thinking I will never believe it.

It's fantastical to insist that back when you were a kid guns were everywhere and no kids unintentionally shot themselves or others, F.U.

It's like insisting that children were hardly ever abducted off the streets back then and it has become an epidemic when, in fact, statistics prove that more children were abducted back in the day.

Or, like insisting that incest is new because children back then didn't talk about it and the adults involved, of course, lied about what caused the child's resulting injury.

Or, like insisting that prison breaks used to be rare and have become a much bigger problem today, when the data proves that, in fact, they occur way less often than they did in the previous few decades.

It's a fact, not an opinion, that there is significantly more national news coverage of local stories by significantly more media sources which are accessible to significantly more people than when you were a kid. Just because you didn't hear about it then and it doesn't fit your ideal/agenda, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Likewise, just because you hear about something much more frequently these days doesn't mean it's happening much more frequently.

As I said, I don't know if unintentional child shootings are happening more or less frequently now than when you were a kid. But, I know they've been happening as long as millions of children have had intentional and unintentional access to guns.

However, it's an acknowledged problem that meaningful statistics for firearm related injuries and deaths are difficult to come by due to variances in reporting and other factors; hopefully it's a problem that is being addressed. So, I can't give you statistics.

I don't want to change your beliefs anyway F.U., you seem very emotionally invested in clinging desperately to them, though they conflict with common sense and all statistical probability.

I think they are happening more frequently now than then. Back then it happened and we were also less likely to hear about it than now because as HOTD stated we have way more news coverage now. But I think we also have more people now and way more guns on the street than back then, more stupid people too.
Back then Everyone Respected guns, at least everyone I ever knew. You never saw anyone waving a gun about or just left them laying around the house.
Now they do, I think partially because of the influence or video games, videos and the like.
That coupled with the Dumbing Down of America is a bad combination, people are going to die.

^ Your belief that unintentional child shootings are happening more frequently these days conflicts with F.U.'s belief that they weren't even happening back in his childhood Six.

And, while like you, the NRA acknowledges that unintentional child shootings were indeed a problem back in the day, your belief that the problem is increasing conflicts with the NRA's stance.

The NRA also points out that the number of fatal firearm accidents among children has been decreasing nationwide since the mid-1970s. The NRA argues that this declining rate of unintentional shootings is a result of the numerous programs it has created to teach the public about safely keeping a gun at home.

Source: Page 28, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcon...ontext=ulj

The linked source (good research/read) also cites several specific cases of unintentional child shootings from the 1980s and 1990s.

The internet is what brings this in your face. News true or not so true is at our fingertips making us think things happen more often than in the past.

Immediate access to an enormous volume of media reports via the internet can prompt people to question whether things are happening more frequently or whether we're instead just seeing/hearing about those things more often. That's true.

I've asked myself that question in regards to many different topics. So, since the internet also supplies me with immediate access to a massive amount of validated/cited data and facts, I simply check to see which is true, as I suspect millions of others do.

The internet doesn't make people think anything. Neither the internet nor media is responsible for some individuals' inability or unwillingness to pursue objective knowledge, to apply critical thinking, or to simply exercise common sense when assuming a position or making an argument. That's an individual choice and/or weakness which has been around since before the internet, just like child shootings.

And.........speaking of failure to exercise common sense, police departments are using media to issue warnings to the numbskulls who figure it's a good idea to carry around a new Smart Phone case that looks like a gun.



Cops want them banned because they look real enough that it could force an LEO to open fire in reasonable belief that a threat is posed.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/07/02/p...hone-case/

I don't agree with the ease with which guns can be purchased (at gun shows and such). That needs to change. AFTER...although I've never seen it applied to guns, what about thumb print technology? Only the registered owner's thumbprint enables the gun to be fired. If it's stolen? It won't work anyway. If little Johnny gets his hands on it, it won't work anyway. If you want to sell the gun (or give it away), you go through some proper channels and waiting periods and highly licensed gun dealers (reputable) have the top secret ability to change the thumb print to the new, registered owner.

Okay, it gets a little improbable towards the end there but I think the thumb print concept has some merit.

FU wouldn't easily be able to teach his grandchildren to shoot though. Gotta think about that.

One other point regarding stolen guns...most phones now have (I believe) a kill switch in them so if your phone is stolen, the phone can be disabled and therefore worthless. Cuts down on the motivation to steal the stupid things. Guns should have a remote disable feature. User...taking guns to the next tech level.

User thats all fine for all new gun purchases going forward. But (theres always a but don't ya know) What the hell to do with the millions of guns already out there?
I am not interested in changing mine over, but I would like to have a new one with all that stuff built in just for the cool factor.

I like the idea of smart-guns a lot, but don't think they'll be a reality in the short-term future.

Here's a piece I read about them last year.

Snip:
Smart-gun advocates say the technology will stop kids from shooting themselves with their parents’ guns, undermine the market for stolen guns, and protect law enforcement from having their guns used against them. "We need the iPhone of guns," said Ron Conway, a Silicon Valley investor, referring to the phone’s fingerprint unlock. Conway is backing a $1 million contest for smart-gun technology. "We want gun owners to feel like they are dinosaurs if they aren’t using smart guns," he told the Washington Post.

Opponents counter that the technology adds an unnecessary failure point — you don’t want to fumble with a fingerprint unlock if someone is breaking into your home. They also fear the spread of laws like New Jersey’s, since similar proposals have been introduced in other states and in Congress. "The NRA does not oppose new technological developments in firearms," the group writes on its website. "We are opposed to government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire."

Criticism also comes from a surprising place: The Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, which has a long list of objections to smart guns. "There is this idea that the smart gun is a catch-all solution," says director Josh Sugarman, but people use their own guns in murders and suicides most of the time anyway. "Even if every gun was a smart gun, it would affect a very small percentage of gun violence in this country."

The focus on smart guns cannibalizes funding and attention that should be put toward gun-violence research and the fight to stop military-grade weapons from being sold to civilians, Sugarman says. And while smart guns tend to grab headlines, there is little evidence that people actually want them.

Full piece: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/5683504...-guns-away

Smart guns may save lives and in 100 years they may see the difference, but they wont help a thing right now. All they will do is make the price of the guns we already own double. Glad I already own everything I need/want. Plus I might make a few bucks when I thin the heard a bit. With over 150 guns I guess I could sell a few and use that money to buy more ammo. Or maybe a silencer or two.