Gun Control

Yeekim · May 2, 2013

For at least the third time this month, a young child has shot and killed someone. On Tuesday afternoon, a five-year-old boy fatally shot his two-year-old sister in Cumberland County, Kentucky with .22 rifle the five-year-old was given as a gift.

"It's a Crickett," Cumberland County Coroner Gary White told the Lexington Herald-Leader. "It's a little rifle for a kid.

The rifle, which was usually stored in one of the home's corners, was inadvertently left loaded, according to White. The boy's mother was home at the time of the shooting.

The little boy's used to shooting the little gun," White said, before saying the shooting will be ruled accidental. Just one of those crazy accidents.

'Murica. The one place where Kinder Eggs are considered hazardous and illegal, yet a rifle is a perfectly normal gift for a 5-year old.

:rolleyes:

anandus · May 2, 2013

I wonder if the parent's will be sued for neglect/abuse?
It surely shows you're unfit as a parent if you give your children guns?

Akka · May 2, 2013

galdre said:
Should we outlaw martial arts then too? After all it's original intent was to harm others.

Bugfatty300 said:
As opposed to a bow and arrow which you advocated using in place of a gun earlier in this thread? You're not being very consistent in your arguments.

I specifically pointed that the main problem with a gun/nuke/etc. is how effective it is. THIS is the problem. Practically anything can be used as a "weapon" if you really want to be a nitpick, but comparing a baseball bat to a gun is completely absurd because of the actual power and convenience of the first compared to the second.

Flying Pig said:
Well, we've already established that the odds of my using it intentionally to commit a crime are practically zero, my odds of causing harm through negligent use are practically zero, the chance of it being used by anybody not under my direct supervision is practically zero, and the chance of it causing harm through malfunction is again practically zero. Now I bring back the baseball bat analogy, which I can own with none of those guarantees. A utility calculation: (harm from baseball bat) * (likelihood of said harm) > (harm from rifle) * (likelihood of said harm).

=>

Akka said:
A nuke with the detonator separated, too heavy to even lift, is even less dangerous than that, as you can't even use it to bash the head of someone. Guess we should allow people to buy nukes.

Also, saying "I won't use intentionnally X to do something bad" is nice and all, but if we were using this reasoning, we could as well simply forfeit laws and ask people "will you be a nice man ?". Please.

Yeekim · May 2, 2013

anandus said:
I wonder if the parent's will be sued for neglect/abuse?

Based on the original news story, it does not seem that way.
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://gawker.com/2-year-old-girl-shot-to-death-by-5-year-old-brother-486174051

anandus said:
It surely shows you're unfit as a parent if you give your children guns?

In most parts of the world, that would be the case.

bhsup · May 2, 2013

anandus said:
It surely shows you're unfit as a parent if you give your children guns?

Seriously? So then surely you're unfit as a parent if you have an in-ground pool installed.

Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/water-safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

SS-18 ICBM · May 2, 2013

You'd be irresponsible if you didn't cover the pool or restrict access to it from a small child if you weren't there to supervise. Just as leaving the gun loaded was an unfit thing for a good parent to do.

Yeekim · May 2, 2013

VRWCAgent said:
Seriously? So then surely you're unfit as a parent if you have an in-ground pool installed.

What the beep does a 5-year old need a personal, functional rifle for? To enlist in the "well-regulated militia"?

JohannaK · May 2, 2013

You're not unfit as a parent if you own a gun. You are if you give one to your 5-year old with ammo at his disposal.

Goodfella · May 2, 2013

I'm pretty sure if more parents let their kids play with guns, guns would pretty quickly top the charts by a large margin for unintentional child deaths.

JohannaK · May 2, 2013

Also, that. The perception that pools are safer than guns make most gun-owning parents to be more careful with the interaction child-gun than pool-owning parents with the child-pool interaction.

Flying Pig · May 2, 2013

Akka said:
Also, saying "I won't use intentionnally X to do something bad" is nice and all, but if we were using this reasoning, we could as well simply forfeit laws and ask people "will you be a nice man ?". Please.

Well, in this case it means three references from individuals of good character, including one who knows you in a shooting capacity and one who does not, to say that you are a 'nice man'. It also means checking your records to ensure that you have no criminal record or history of alcoholism or substance abuse. It further requires certification from your club that you are actually a target shooter, and an interview from the police to satisfy them that you are of good character. Bear in mind that you can buy a knife with none of that.

bhsup · May 2, 2013

SS-18 ICBM said:
You'd be irresponsible if you didn't cover the pool or restrict access to it from a small child if you weren't there to supervise. Just as leaving the gun loaded was an unfit thing for a good parent to do.

So then it's not giving the child the gun so much as not supervising them with it and ensuring it is secured properly when they are not using it. Glad we got that cleared up.

Muhammed · May 2, 2013

VRWCAgent said:
So then it's not giving the child the gun so much as not supervising them with it and ensuring it is secured properly when they are not using it. Glad we got that cleared up.

Not sure if serious?
Are you saying that putting a gun in a childs hand is acceptable if the gun is secured and unloaded?

Flying Pig · May 2, 2013

Do bear in mind that a significant part of my job is putting loaded guns into children's hands and teaching them how to use them.

Muhammed · May 2, 2013

Flying Pig said:
Do bear in mind that a significant part of my job is putting loaded guns into children's hands and teaching them how to use them.

...Que?

Perfection · May 2, 2013

I fired guns when I was a kid.

Flying Pig · May 2, 2013

Muhammed said:
...Que?

I'm a cadet instructor. I run one of the best junior shooting teams in this country. A few weeks ago I was with the Great Britain Under 19 target rifle team in South Africa, coaching and instructing the eight best young riflemen and women in the UK. I see absolutely nothing dangerous about them, and I rest assured that what we do in getting people involved in a disciplined and regulated sport does a great deal of good in building their characters.

Muhammed · May 2, 2013

Flying Pig said:
I'm a cadet instructor. I run one of the best junior shooting teams in this country. A few weeks ago I was with the Great Britain Under 19 target rifle team in South Africa, coaching and instructing the eight best young riflemen and women in the UK. I see absolutely nothing dangerous about them, and I rest assured that what we do in getting people involved in a disciplined and regulated sport does a great deal of good in building their characters.

Ah

Not kids but youngsters, and we're in the sports department.. Cool!

bhsup · May 2, 2013

Muhammed said:
Not sure if serious?
Are you saying that putting a gun in a childs hand is acceptable if the gun is secured and unloaded?

I am very serious. And I'd even go so far as to say it is acceptable to put a loaded gun in their hands after sufficient instruction on use and safety. I never shot anyone with my guns when I was a kid.

Just because other people have an irrational fear of guns, those of us that do not should not be restricted.

JollyRoger · May 2, 2013

GhostWriter16 said:
The short answer is that if you were in a world which was sparsely populated enough that an ICBM could be used to kill one person and only one person, that should be legal. Of course, this world doesn't really exist, but if we suddennly only had a hundred people on the planet, spread across the world, I would think it would make a lot of sense to change our ICBM laws (Not that it would MATTER, but you get my point.)

The long answer is that I basically agree with what Walter Block says in this article:

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf

After the first few exercised their ICBM rights, we might have that world. Don't want to be collateral damage? Don't associate within ICBM fallout distance of someone deserving to be killed.

Gun Control

What do you think of controlling guns?

Ban all guns!

Ban certain guns/weapon modifications

Restrict who can get guns/certain guns, and try to remove the illegally owned guns

Don't ban any guns at all! 'MURICA!

Deity

Errorist

Moody old mage.

Deity

Deity

Oscillator

Deity

Heroically Clueless

Showing results for

Heroically Clueless

Utrinque Paratus

Deity

Warlord

Utrinque Paratus

Warlord

The Great Head.

Utrinque Paratus

Warlord

Deity

Slippin' Jimmy

Similar threads