Author Topic: The Armed Citizen - October (Read 805 times)

Steve · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2004, 06:41:36 PM »

RPM, a syou probably know, I'm a right wing conservative in about every sense of the word. I think anyone who ever has kids in their house should have their guns in a safe/locks.

I also think that anyone who is negligent w/ their handguns should be charged as if they committed the crime.

In otherwords, 2 boys find a gun. Thery play w/ it and one ends up dying. Negligent gun owner should be charged w/ negligent homicide, IMHO.

NUKE · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2004, 07:18:20 PM »

what Steve said

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2004, 07:40:34 PM »

What Nuke said.

simshell · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2004, 07:48:13 PM »

wow i live about 10 miles away from that Waycross

gunlocks are a must to many times i read about kids playing and finding a fully loaded handgun

J_A_B · « **Reply #19 on:** October 16, 2004, 07:55:30 PM »

"In otherwords, 2 boys find a gun. Thery play w/ it and one ends up dying. Negligent gun owner should be charged w/ negligent homicide, IMHO."

The age of the kid should play a part too. If a weapon is stored so poorly that 4 year olds get at it and can operate it...then yes there's a problem. However if the kids are more like 14....then they're both smart enough to get past any safety featues, and should also know better than to even try. In the case of older kids, the one who kills his buddy deseves to get to think about it in confinement until he is 21.

If you're determined to have a loaded pistol around if you have small children (not really a great idea to begin with; at the very least the magazine should be separate), I'd advise at least using something like a 1911. Having a lot of built-in safety and being single-action, not many small children are going to even be able to operate it. If you have something like a basic double-action Glock then you're just begging for trouble.

J_A_B

rpm · « **Reply #20 on:** October 16, 2004, 09:37:39 PM »

What Steve said.

Honestly, I am pro-gun. I just hate NRA propaganda.

Steve · « **Reply #21 on:** October 16, 2004, 09:45:59 PM »

Quote

However if the kids are more like 14....then they're both smart enough to get past any safety featues, and should also know better than to even try.

So in our example, two 14 year olds find a gun in a house, play w/ it and one ends up dying of a gunshot wound..... the gun owner is in no way responsible?

Sox62 · « **Reply #22 on:** October 17, 2004, 12:19:27 AM »

I agree that kids should be taught to be responsible with guns,but having said that kids are...well,kids.Best to assume they'll do something foolish.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta in the headboard.Anytime there are children coming over,it's locked up tighter than Fort Knox.

J_A_B · « **Reply #23 on:** October 17, 2004, 12:23:50 AM »

"So in our example, two 14 year olds find a gun in a house, play w/ it and one ends up dying of a gunshot wound..... the gun owner is in no way responsible?"

Re-read my post. I didn't say anything so cut-and-dry. It depends on the situation.

What I'm saying is that the older the child is, the more culpable he is for his own actions. What would be parental negligence in the case of 5-year-olds, might not be if you have 14-year-olds involved.

In the case of the quote I pasted above, the answer is "not enough information".

Did the two kids find the gun laying on the living room table while their parents are passed out drunk in the next room?

Or, did Kid 1 invite Kid 2 over after school while his parents are still at work, sneak into his parents room (which is normally off-limits) and rummage through his parents' drawers until he found the pistol and ammo because he wanted to show off?

How would YOU react to those scenarios? Is the gun owner equally responsible in both cases? Steve, you sound as thouh you want to hold the gun owner fully responsible any time a minor uses a gun to commit a crime. Is that how you feel?

J_A_B

TweetyBird · « **Reply #24 on:** October 17, 2004, 12:39:26 AM »

There's a statistic out there that says 75 crimes are prevented with a gun to 1 accidental killing with a gun. Its not broken down to how many of the 75 are violent crimes, but it is worth thinking about. As orther have stated, the rank and file officers who face violent crime everyday, believe owning a gun is the best protection a citizen can have against violent crime. I have no problem with citizens owning guns. I do have a problem thinking the registration of guns is somehow unfair or unconstitutional.

I believe Norway is great example of how strict gun registration would be in the US. The registration in Norway is strict, gun ownwership is high, and gun crime is low.

Perhaps strict gun registration could cut the numbers of accidental gun killings in half.

Steve · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2004, 01:40:08 AM »

Quote

Is the gun owner equally responsible in both cases?

Yup, IMO when it comes to gun ownership, negligence that leads to a minors death/injury, the owner should be held accountable. 5 years old, 14 years old.. all the same. If you own a gun ( I own several) you are responsible for keeping them safely stored.

Quote

..hold the gun owner fully responsible any time a minor uses a gun to commit a crime.

I'm talking about accidental shootings.

J_A_B · « **Reply #26 on:** October 17, 2004, 07:06:03 AM »

"I'm talking about accidental shootings."

What is an "accidental" shooting?

How accidental is it if somebody takes a pistol out of a drawer, flips off the safety, loads it, charges it, aims it at his friend, and pulls the trigger?

I don't care how old the perpetrator is--it is a deliberate, specific action. There's no "accident" involved. "Accident" is a word which, unfortunately, suffers from gross mis-use these days.

This is why age is important. If you're talking about a pre-school child, they don't have the level of mental development to be culpable for their actions. A teenager does (usually). These sorts of things need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, which incedentally is why we have a juvenile justice system.

Your stated idea of negligence seems rigid irregardless of the child's age. However that interpretation is incorrect. It's pretty negligent for a parent to leave an 18-month-old baby home alone for a couple of hours, but is completely acceptable to trust your 16-year-old alone for the afternoon.

Let me put it this way--the GUN isn't the issue. The kid's level of mental culpability is the issue. If you sit a baby on the edge of a filled bathtub then go into the other room to talk on the phone and the baby drowns....are you going to be liable? You bet! However, if your 14-year-old manages to drown in the tub, then usually that wouldn't be negligence. As children age, although they're still treated as minors under the law, they also become more accountable for their own actions.

J_A_B

lazs2 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2004, 10:25:43 AM »

What is the difference between the stories??

To answer your question RPM... One example is a lengthy, emotional and preachy speech about an event that happens less offten than kids drowning in 5 gallon buckets in their own backyard.

The NRA ones are about events that happen 800 to 3million times a year (depending on if death or injury resulted)

I think you function on hate... you are probly young so it is more emotion than hate... You pick a person that you can't possibly know or even know the circumstances of their lives and decide to hate them vehemently.... George Bush and Wayne LaPiere are examples... there are probly a few more.... What is interseting is that you probly agree with a lot of the things they are doing but your hate drives you to deride every single little thing they do no matter if it is right or wrong.

Drunky... not sure what you meant? is it tripe for a woman to shoot an armed felon who has backed her into a corner?

lazs

Drunky · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2004, 05:41:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Drunky... not sure what you meant? is it tripe for a woman to shoot an armed felon who has backed her into a corner?

lazs

I believe everyone should have the right to arm themselves.

Did you notice the underlined words in the italicized sentence? She picked up a pistol from the nightstand and the perp was immediately killed from a shotgun wound to the head.

Sounds like fiction to me if they can't keep the facts straight. That is why I call it tripe.

I'm sure there are real cases of people properly defending themselves with firearms without having to make stuff up. It undermines the cause when people create fabrications even with the best intentions.

rpm · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2004, 06:36:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
What is the difference between the stories??

To answer your question RPM... One example is a lengthy, emotional and preachy speech about an event that happens less offten than kids drowning in 5 gallon buckets in their own backyard.

The NRA ones are about events that happen 800 to 3million times a year (depending on if death or injury resulted)

I think you function on hate... you are probly young so it is more emotion than hate... You pick a person that you can't possibly know or even know the circumstances of their lives and decide to hate them vehemently.... George Bush and Wayne LaPiere are examples... there are probly a few more.... What is interseting is that you probly agree with a lot of the things they are doing but your hate drives you to deride every single little thing they do no matter if it is right or wrong.

lazs

Wow, Laz is now a mindreader, albeit a very bad one. I'm not sure if you are or ever have been an NRA member but I was for many years. I got beaten down by the non-stop flux of mail asking for money signed by LaPierre. The postage on junk mail alone negated my NRA dues.

As for my picking stories about people I never met, tell me of your long association with the people in the NRA's stories. I'm very interested in hearing about them. Do tell.

I'm also not sure you understood the reasoning of my counter logic posts, either. You obviously don't have a position based in reality if you think as many children drown in 5 gallon buckets as are killed by guns. You might want to do a smidgen of research and attempt to wrap your mind around both sides of the issue before posting a cut and dried, NRA approved propaganda message. If you don't think the term propaganda fits the NRA's mailings, try looking up the definition of the word.

Oh, I'd love to be young and dumb again, but I'm long past either of those terms being applicable to me. I'm also sure I'm more familiar with Bush than you care to credit me (nice attempt at changing the subject). I tend to dig a little deeper than 10 second soundbites before I form an opinion. Remember, I endured 4 years of him popping up on TV as the owner of the Texas Rangers (altho he was only 1 of many minority owners) prior to his Gubenatorial run and then his stint as my Governor.

Please Dr. Mephisto, err I mean Laz, tell me more.