# Stupid, irresponsible gun owners



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local.../02/24/gIQA2oZHXR_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop

This has been percolating around the periphery of my attention for the last few days.  Essentially, as I can tell, the 9 year old boy was on a visitation at his mom's house over the weekend.  While there, he picked up a .45.  I am assuming that the handgun is a legally owned, registered weapon, either his mom's or someone she knows.  

He takes the gun to school, and, when he drops his backpack on his desk, the gun discharges, shooting a young girl in the stomach.   She's still alive.

First, I want to be clear that this isn't about gun rights.  I am in no way suggesting that guns should be banned.  

This is also not about whether guns are bad, evil, a right or anything like that.  

What this is about is the lack of responsibility in this situation on the part of the registered gun owner.  As I was driving in the car, listening to the news, the question was asked on the air, "A judge will decide today who is responsible in the shooting."  WTF???  

Is there any doubt that the registered owner of that weapon is 100% responsible?  Seriously?  That guy should be facing all of the charges in this case.  Not the 9 year old boy.  And, further, he should be paying for the medical bills, including counseling, to the family of the young girl who was shot. 

There is an appalling disconnect in our country between responsible gun ownership and the responsibility for gun ownership.  "Oh, I'm a responsible gun owner.  Until my nephew gets my .45 out of my side table drawer and shoots my neighbor's kid or takes it to school to show it off and accidentally shoots another student, and then it's just a shame... not my fault, mind you, but a dang tragedy."  

I know that there are lots of parents on these boards.  What would you do if you got a call from your school telling you that your daughter was "accidentally" shot in the stomach?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

I agree, with the exception of responsibility based on what a person either "knew, or should have known."

For example, in the case you cited above, the gun owner was clearly negligent IMHO.

However, if someone had broken into his home, stolen the weapon, and then used it in a crime, he would not be responsible.

So I can't give a blanket condemnation, but in this case, I completely agree with you.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree, with the exception of responsibility based on what a person either "knew, or should have known."
> 
> For example, in the case you cited above, the gun owner was clearly negligent IMHO.
> 
> ...


If it was reported stolen, of course, he would not be culpable.  Just as if your car is used in a bank robbery, but you've reported it stolen, you're not responsible.  

That is not what I'm referring to.  I'm talking about the kid who is showing his friend his dad's gun and shoots him on accident.  The kid, like this one, who takes the gun to school and it discharges accidentally in his backpack.  These stories are not uncommon.  They happen regularly.  They're common enough that they are often not "news." 

And the two facets of this that burn my *** are that, first, they're considering charging the child with a litany of crimes up to 3rd degree assault.  Second, that the registered gun owner, as far as I can tell, isn't being held in any way responsible.  Not financially and not criminally.  The entire situation is, in my opinion, unjust.

When I talk about requiring gun owners to have liability insurance it's for exactly these situations.  For those of you without medical insurance, if your child is shot in the stomach and will require ongoing medical care, probably (this is speculation) including counseling for an indeterminate amount of time, do you have any idea how much money you're talking about?  And for those of you WITH medical insurance, you'll probably be okay financially, but should your insurance policy have to cover these bills?  Shouldn't the person who is responsible be liable?  And shouldn't that person be the registered gun owner?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> When I talk about requiring gun owners to have liability insurance it's for exactly these situations.



I agree with your statements above until this point.  Although I understand why you would want such a thing (and I agree it would be good; I have liability insurance with my renter's insurance), it can have unintended consequences.

First, how do we ensure that everyone who owns a gun has liability insurance pro-actively (before a shooting)?  I can think of no way to do that without knowing who owns firearms; that's registration, which I'm against.

Second, it can have the effect of denying poor people the right to own guns if they cannot afford or obtain such insurance.  Since gun ownership is a right and not a privilege in the USA, that would be (IMHO) an unreasonable intrusion.  I do not believe you would use this as a form of 'defacto' gun control, but many would.  The prohibitions on 'Saturday Night Specials' years ago was intended (and admitted as such by the anti-gun lobby) to restrict people from buying 'cheap' guns.  Cheap guns are often all people can afford.  By making an appeal to 'common sense' gun control, the function was to keep poor people from having guns; and that was actually the intent.

Forgive me for being wary of such proposals.  Even when well-meant, as I am sure you intend, history has shown that 'common sense' gun legislation are often nothing more than back-door gun prohibition laws.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 24, 2012)

The child should not be held responsible for the (accidental) shooting. The owner of the gun should be. 
The old west was won with the gun. But you can probably bet your bottom dollar that there were a host of accidental shootings/deaths because of the gun. People were just as stupid and irresponsible back then as they are today. Oh sure, the gun was a way of life  back then and yeah probably a LOT more people knew how to handle them better than most people today. Yet those are the positive stories we've heard about it. 
It's when those who were prone to being anti-gun activists came into power (city, county, state, federal government) that all these anti-gun laws started cropping up. They stupidly blame the inanimate object called a gun for the problem when it is the owners of the inanimate object that should bear the burden. Same with cars. 
Please don't drag the insurance companies into the picture, if they get into it by making new policies to cover stuff like that, and end up paying hundreds of thousands on claims, then they'll lobby even harder to get guns out of everyone's hands (including responsible owners) faster. 
In this instance with the backpack, as a judge I would've held the owner of the firearm responsible for not having their weapon locked down and kept out of the child's reach. Nuff said.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 24, 2012)

It's a tragedy, and definitely a simple case of negligence.  

However, to insist that gun owners have liability insurance is not practical.  

Should we require every person in this nation to have liability insurance for owning medicines?  After all, there are far more children who have died from eating large amounts of fruit-flavored chewable aspirin, simply because they thought they were eating candy.  A good number of these aspirin overdose deaths were from kids who shared bottles of fruit-flavored aspirin with their friends.  Are aspirin owners liable as well?  

Should we require every person in this nation to have liability insurance for having bicycles in their family?  Far more children die in bike accidents than those who did from negligent firearm accidents.  Should bicycle owners, or the ones who bought the bicycles be held liable when children recklessly ride their bikes?  

In *any* of the above situations, it's up to the parents to provide the information to their children, to be familiar with things before handling them.  Children should not touch medicine bottles until they know darn well what they are, and know of the consequences.  They shouldn't be riding bicycles until they have demonstrated that they are responsible handlers, know the safety rules, and obey them.  

However, it's up to the parents to make that choice.  You can't legislate every kind of behavior, and to put an unfair mandate on lawful firearms owners (criminals who own guns will most likely thumb their noses at such a proposal) won't really make a dent in the overall picture, since the number of firearms accidents in this nation are miniscule compared to other causes.  

If you are in favor of mandating such liability insurance for firearms owners, then you really have no choice but to do so for the above as well.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with your statements above until this point.  Although I understand why you would want such a thing (and I agree it would be good; I have liability insurance with my renter's insurance), it can have unintended consequences.


I know.  We've talked about it before, and I will readily admit that there would be consequences. But, in my opinion, the pros exceed the cons.





> First, how do we ensure that everyone who owns a gun has liability insurance pro-actively (before a shooting)?  I can think of no way to do that without knowing who owns firearms; that's registration, which I'm against.


It could be part of the purchasing process.  You either bring in proof of insurance before you get the gun or you provide proof of insurance to the State where you are registering the weapon.  Honestly, while this is something that would need to be figured out, it's not a serious hurdle.  Off the top of my head, I can think of several working models that could be adapted. 





> Second, it can have the effect of denying poor people the right to own guns if they cannot afford or obtain such insurance.  Since gun ownership is a right and not a privilege in the USA, that would be (IMHO) an unreasonable intrusion.  I do not believe you would use this as a form of 'defacto' gun control, but many would.  The prohibitions on 'Saturday Night Specials' years ago was intended (and admitted as such by the anti-gun lobby) to restrict people from buying 'cheap' guns.  Cheap guns are often all people can afford.  By making an appeal to 'common sense' gun control, the function was to keep poor people from having guns; and that was actually the intent.


Poor people are still legally required to carry liability insurance for their cars.  Will there be an issue with uninsured gun owners, as there is with uninsured motorists?  Sure.  But that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do. 

If poor people choose to purchase a gun, they will need to also purchase liability insurance.  And if they don't carry the necessary insurance, they'd be breaking the law just as uninsured motorists break the law.  





> Forgive me for being wary of such proposals.  Even when well-meant, as I am sure you intend, history has shown that 'common sense' gun legislation are often nothing more than back-door gun prohibition laws.


I get it, and I'll make a couple of things clear.  I go down this path because if I stick to a purely emotional level and something like this happened to one of my daughters, I'd at the very least track the gun owner down and beat them to within an inch of living.  I find that it helps me to try and think of a more constructive solution.  

Second, I know that there are problems inherent in increasing regulation, requiring registration of all weapons owned and a legal requirement to carry insurance on them.  I get that.  I just flat out think it's the right thing to do.  Nothing will be perfect.  What we have now... the situation as it stands... is the opposite of perfect.  It's unjust.  That a 9 year old boy is potentially facing criminal charges and a 9 year old girl is still in the hospital lucky to be alive while the registered gun owner hasn't even to my knowledge been identified is just wrong.  Flat wrong.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

Grenadier, is the gun owner responsible?  It's that simple.  In your opinion, in this situation, should the gun owner be held responsible?  And if so, what does that mean to you?  

I'm not talking about bikes or aspirin, although I'd like to see the mortality stats on those out of curiosity.  I'd bet when you get into the percentage of homes where bikes exist or aspirin exists, they're safer than homes with guns, but that's anecdotal.  I'll check it out if I get a few moments today.  All of that aside, a slippery slope argument doesn't hold water.  Slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason.  The idea that requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance has no bearing on bikes or aspirin.  

Here's actually a better analogy.  If my son goes over to your house and your son gives him a lethal or near-lethal dose of your prescription oxycontin.  Would you be liable?  I should think so, although it's still not a perfect analogy.  

I'm talking about something that not everyone is legally allowed to own.  And I'm talking about something that is easily preventable, and where it does happen is a clear case of negligence.  There is no circumstance I can envision where your pre-adolescent son shoots mine with your gun and it's not your fault.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> I know.  We've talked about it before, and I will readily admit that there would be consequences. But, in my opinion, the pros exceed the cons.It could be part of the purchasing process.  You either bring in proof of insurance before you get the gun or you provide proof of insurance to the State where you are registering the weapon.  Honestly, while this is something that would need to be figured out, it's not a serious hurdle.  Off the top of my head, I can think of several working models that could be adapted. Poor people are still legally required to carry liability insurance for their cars.  Will there be an issue with uninsured gun owners, as there is with uninsured motorists?  Sure.  But that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.



I think a lot of people are not aware of the fact that most states do not have any form of registration, so there is no "when you go to register your gun."  Also, it's perfectly legal for me to buy a gun from my neighbor or at a garage sale or via a classified ad.  When private sales occur, there is no background check, no registration, etc.  All your proposal would catch would be people who buy guns in gun stores or gun shows or who live in states where registration is required.

As to people being required to carry insurance on their vehicles; quite true.  But owning a car, or driving it on public roads, has not been shown to be a civil right.  Owning a gun is.  It does complicate things.

Not to belabor the point, but there would be no reason one could not require a person to carry insurance before being allowed to speak; in case they should incite a riot or something.  I know, slippery slope.  Just sayin'.



> If poor people choose to purchase a gun, they will need to also purchase liability insurance.  And if they don't carry the necessary insurance, they'd be breaking the law just as uninsured motorists break the law.  I get it, and I'll make a couple of things clear.  I go down this path because if I stick to a purely emotional level and something like this happened to one of my daughters, I'd at the very least track the gun owner down and beat them to within an inch of living.  I find that it helps me to try and think of a more constructive solution.
> 
> Second, I know that there are problems inherent in increasing regulation, requiring registration of all weapons owned and a legal requirement to carry insurance on them.  I get that.  I just flat out think it's the right thing to do.  Nothing will be perfect.  What we have now... the situation as it stands... is the opposite of perfect.  It's unjust.  That a 9 year old boy is potentially facing criminal charges and a 9 year old girl is still in the hospital lucky to be alive while the registered gun owner hasn't even to my knowledge been identified is just wrong.  Flat wrong.



I understand your basis, and although I don't agree with you in this case, I absolutely understand how you get to your conclusion.  And sadly, I don't have a better recommendation to make.  Not doing anything (which would be my position on the gun control/registration/insurance requirement) would mean this sort of thing continues to occur.  Of course, I do favor prosecuting the idiot who left the gun accessible to the child.  And I also favor gun safety education.  One of the sad side-effects of an anti-gun movement in the last generation has been that all public-school education about gun safety has been stricken.  One must not only not own guns, one must not talk about them.  That's a bit sad.  I think I've mentioned that I was given my first shotgun as a Christmas present when I was 10, and kept it, along with the shells, in my bedroom closet.  I commonly hunted with my dad before school, and then took my gun with me into the classroom and hung it in the cloakroom with my coat, taking it home at lunchtime.  And our school itself had an old (unused) 22 caliber rifle range in the basement; marksmanship was once taught in public schools, along with gun safety.  It's a shame basic firearm safety cannot be taught in the public schools anymore.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think a lot of people are not aware of the fact that most states do not have any form of registration, so there is no "when you go to register your gun."  Also, it's perfectly legal for me to buy a gun from my neighbor or at a garage sale or via a classified ad.  When private sales occur, there is no background check, no registration, etc.  All your proposal would catch would be people who buy guns in gun stores or gun shows or who live in states where registration is required.


Right.  I've outlined before how I'd do it, and it would be based on the working model of car ownership.  You are licensed to drive.  In addition, you register every car you drive.  It's in your name and when you sell it to a friend, you transfer the ownership through the State.  And you are required to carry liability insurance in order to drive it.  It's not a perfect system, but it works.  

I'm suggesting to you that, in my opinion, the current laws are broken or inadequate.  

At the same time, I think that we waste our time restricting ownership to certain kinds of weapons.  If you want to own an "assault rifle" fine, get an endorsement on your license, just as you would get a motorcycle endorsement on your drivers license.  If you want to get a grenade launcher, great.  Just do it legally, get the appropriate endorsement after demonstrating that you've got the experience to handle it.  Just as the guys who drive 40ft trailers commercially get specific licenses to demonstrate that they can handle those.  

Point being, I realize I'm talking about legislation that will likely never go further than myself.  But telling me what the laws are now isn't all that relevant when my entire point is that these exact laws are, in my opinion, unjust, if they lead to situations such as the one in the OP.  





> As to people being required to carry insurance on their vehicles; quite true.  But owning a car, or driving it on public roads, has not been shown to be a civil right.  Owning a gun is.  It does complicate things.
> 
> Not to belabor the point, but there would be no reason one could not require a person to carry insurance before being allowed to speak; in case they should incite a riot or something.  I know, slippery slope.  Just sayin'.


And yet there are people who are denied the "right" to purchase a weapon.  It's a constitutional right.  I get that.  I'm not talking about impinging upon that right.  I'm talking about requiring people who choose to exercise their right to own a gun to be held responsible for any damage to person or property caused by negligence on their part.  Insurance is, frankly, just one way to do this.  I'm open to hearing some alternatives.  





> I understand your basis, and although I don't agree with you in this case, I absolutely understand how you get to your conclusion.  And sadly, I don't have a better recommendation to make.  Not doing anything (which would be my position on the gun control/registration/insurance requirement) would mean this sort of thing continues to occur.  Of course, I do favor prosecuting the idiot who left the gun accessible to the child.  And I also favor gun safety education.  One of the sad side-effects of an anti-gun movement in the last generation has been that all public-school education about gun safety has been stricken.  One must not only not own guns, one must not talk about them.  That's a bit sad.  I think I've mentioned that I was given my first shotgun as a Christmas present when I was 10, and kept it, along with the shells, in my bedroom closet.  I commonly hunted with my dad before school, and then took my gun with me into the classroom and hung it in the cloakroom with my coat, taking it home at lunchtime.  And our school itself had an old (unused) 22 caliber rifle range in the basement; marksmanship was once taught in public schools, along with gun safety.  It's a shame basic firearm safety cannot be taught in the public schools anymore.


Thanks, Bill.  

As an aside, my kids' high school does have a marksmanship team on their JROTC program.  My kids are both doing drill, but it's there.  Anyone who wants to join the team learns gun safety and all of that.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> Grenadier, is the gun owner responsible?  It's that simple.  In your opinion, in this situation, should the gun owner be held responsible?  And if so, what does that mean to you?



As I stated, the gun owner is indeed negligent.  It's up to the jury to decide whether or not criminal and / or civil charges should stick, once they get all of the facts of the case.  

For example, did the child break into a gun safe?  Did the child intentionally disable a trigger lock (like Handgun Control Incorporated once showed everyone how to do in a commercial)?  Was the child aware of what he was doing?  It comes down to a matter of whether or not the gun owner took precautions in the first place.  If he did, and if the child intentionally and knowingly defeated those precautions, then I'm not sure that you can charge the gun owner.   Again, this is for a jury to decide.  



> I'm not talking about bikes or aspirin, although I'd like to see the mortality stats on those out of curiosity.



This article is a bit dated, but it does bring some chilling statistics regarding children:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25407198

Compare this to firearms deaths in children:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

You're looking at 150 deaths per year from firearms, assuming that we count 24 year old adults (and younger) as children.  




> I'd bet when you get into the percentage of homes where bikes exist or aspirin exists, they're safer than homes with guns, but that's anecdotal.



Reverse causation arguments do not hold much water at all.  Otherwise, one would think that diabetes is caused by insulin, simply because there's a high percentage of people who own insulin who have diabetes...  



> The idea that requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance has no bearing on bikes or aspirin.



You're trying to essentially force undue burdens on law abiding firearms owners, thinking that it can ease the financial burden on others in the case of misuse.  It's no different than forcing such liabilities on aspiring or bike owners, only that you would have a much better response doing so on the latter two, given the number of deaths that come from such things.  

I assume that your goal is to help ease the pain of others financially, in the case of misuse.  Am I correct?  If that's the case, then your energies aren't being spent as efficiently, since there are greater targets to be shot at.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

Grenadier said:


> As I stated, the gun owner is indeed negligent.  It's up to the jury to decide whether or not criminal and / or civil charges should stick, once they get all of the facts of the case.
> 
> For example, did the child break into a gun safe?  Did the child intentionally disable a trigger lock (like Handgun Control Incorporated once showed everyone how to do in a commercial)?  Was the child aware of what he was doing?  It comes down to a matter of whether or not the gun owner took precautions in the first place.  If he did, and if the child intentionally and knowingly defeated those precautions, then I'm not sure that you can charge the gun owner.   Again, this is for a jury to decide.


So, what I'm getting from this is that you think the current laws are adequate.  Let the system work it out.  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.  I'm trying to understand.  If so, that's fine.  I disagree.  





> This article is a bit dated, but it does bring some chilling statistics regarding children:
> 
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/25407198
> 
> ...


Thanks.  I'll check those out, and I'll also look at the actual stats on the CDC website.  It's going to have to wait until I've got more than a minute or two at a time, though.  





> Reverse causation arguments do not hold much water at all.  Otherwise, one would think that diabetes is caused by insulin, simply because there's a high percentage of people who own insulin who have diabetes...


As I said, it's anecdotal.  And as I also said, it's irrelevant. 





> You're trying to essentially force undue burdens on law abiding firearms owners, thinking that it can ease the financial burden on others in the case of misuse.  It's no different than forcing such liabilities on aspiring or bike owners, only that you would have a much better response doing so on the latter two, given the number of deaths that come from such things.


I'm not.  As I said, I'm looking for a better way.  I am saying that our system is broken and I believe that we (collectively) can fix it.  As I said to Bill, "I'm talking about requiring people who choose to exercise their right to own a gun to be held responsible for any damage to person or property caused by negligence on their part. Insurance is, frankly, just one way to do this. I'm open to hearing some alternatives."

So, what's your alternative?  Once again, if you think things are fine the way they are, we can just agree to disagree.  If, however, you agree with me that this situation and others like it are unjust, what would you do about it?  What's YOUR suggestion?





> I assume that your goal is to help ease the pain of others financially, in the case of misuse.  Am I correct?


At the VERY least.  At the bare minimum.  





> If that's the case, then your energies aren't being spent as efficiently, since there are greater targets to be shot at.


Pun intended, I presume.  But I'd like to hear from you more on this.  If your son shoots mine with your gun, where are my energies better spent?


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> So, what I'm getting from this is that you think the current laws are adequate.  Let the system work it out.  I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.  I'm trying to understand.  If so, that's fine.  I disagree.



Exactly.  Give the system a chance.  It's not a perfect system, but until something better comes along, I'll stick with it.  Hmm, did I just steal a line from Magnum Force?  



> As I said, I'm looking for a better way.  I am saying that our system is broken and I believe that we (collectively) can fix it.



I do agree with you, that there are probably better ways.  I simply don't agree with your proposal, that's all.  Your heart is in the right place, though.  



> But I'd like to hear from you more on this.  If your son shoots mine with your gun, where are my energies better spent?



If my theoretical son shoots yours, and if he did so after intentionally defeating all of the safety precautions that I would have theoretically taken (guns locked away, etc), then no, it's not my fault.  The odds of my theoretical son doing such a thing would be almost non-existent, since I would have educated him on firearm safety very thoroughly.  

Otherwise, you would have to hold the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold liable as well, since they certainly did not allow the construction of pipe bombs in their houses, yet those two cold blooded murderers did so.  

Now, if I carelessly left my firearm loaded, and in plain sight and never educated my theoretical children on firearms safety and responsibility, then yes, there could certainly be charges, and if a jury thought that I should face such charges (whether criminal or civil), then that's what should happen.  Let the system do its work. 

The issue, though, isn't a very significant one, since there are very few firearms-related accidental deaths of children in this nation, and especially miniscule compared to other causes.  Forcing such insurance ownership would be like crafting legislation that adds extra punishment on the abusers of super exotic designer drugs.  While what they're doing is wrong, and certainly illegal, it's of very little impact, since such abusers are extremely rare, and there are already laws on the book that address this.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

Just to put some information out there, because it came up in the course of the conversation.

According to the CDC, there were 114 unintentional, firearm related deaths for kids ages 0-19 in 2009.  There were 89 unintentional pedal cyclist deaths in the same age group.

In 2010, there were 3019 *non-fatal*, unintentional, firearm related injuries for kids ages 0-19 in 2010.  Just to make the point that we're not talking about just the children who are killed.  

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 24, 2012)

Steve said:


> Just to put some information out there, because it came up in the course of the conversation.
> 
> According to the CDC, there were 114 unintentional, firearm related deaths for kids ages 0-19 in 2009.  There were 89 unintentional pedal cyclist deaths in the same age group.
> 
> ...



I strongly question the CDC's stat gathering, especially since they've been known to fudge things (see the Kellerman fiasco that made them the laughingstock of the research world for a while). 

Fair enough, but at the same time, we can also look at other statistics from the NHTSA:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811156.pdf

Even with the great drop in deaths from cycling, we're looking at a total of 93 deaths in 2008, for children up to ages 15 (instead of the 70-ish reported by the CDC for that year), and 13,000 injured.  Both figures are higher than their firearms counterparts when we look at the same age groups, especially when you count non-fatal injuries, where the cycling crowd has a 4X+ greater level.  Again, it basically makes the firearms-related accidental casualties quite miniscule in comparison.  

I'll be frank about these stats...  I really don't like the idea of considering 18+ year olds as "children."  



In the end, our statistics war here still will not change the fact that bringing forth requirements for liability insurance for firearms, bicycles, pogo sticks, etc., will not make any significant impact at all on this nation.


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

No problem.  If you want to mess with the stats, you can restrict the results by custom age groups.  I included 0 to 19 because they use a 15-19 age group.  

Regarding this being a war, believe me, my intent isn't to use them in that way.  I posted them for three reasons.  First, because you brought up stats and I said that if I got a minute to look it up, I would.  Second, because I was surprised to see that bicycle related deaths were actually lower.  And third, to emphasize that I think it's important to also include non-fatal injuries.  We're not just talking about kids who are killed.  

I'm pissed off and I'll readily admit it.  This entire situation is so stupid it makes my blood boil.  But I'm still not anti-gun.  I'm not ranting about banning anything or amending the constitution or anything overly extreme.  

I'm interested in seeing whether I'm the only one who thinks this situation is unjust, and to hear what you guys think can be done.  What's the solution to holding gun owners responsible for being responsible gun owners?


----------



## billc (Feb 24, 2012)

Isn't the parent responsible, financially, for any damage a kid does, from breaking a neighbors window to accidentally shooting a girl in the stomach?  Also, there are millions of gun owners whose children don't accidentally shoot their classemates, it wouldn't be right to burden them for the few who do.  At this point I don't believe we know if the firearm was legal or not.  For all we know the firearm could belong to the drug dealer boyfriend of the mother.  Is there anymore info. on the situation?


----------



## Steve (Feb 24, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Isn't the parent responsible, financially, for any damage a kid does, from breaking a neighbors window to accidentally shooting a girl in the stomach?  Also, there are millions of gun owners whose children don't accidentally shoot their classemates, it wouldn't be right to burden them for the few who do.  At this point I don't believe we know if the firearm was legal or not.  For all we know the firearm could belong to the drug dealer boyfriend of the mother.  Is there anymore info. on the situation?


Why isn't that right?  How many auto accidents have you been in, Bill?  Do you carry liability insurance?

And again, by "few", you mean thousands each year.  Right?

Finallye, if the gun belongs to a drug dealer boyfriend of the mom, is that drug dealer boyfriend any less culpable?  Conversely, if the gun _doesn't_ belong to the parent, why would the parent be responsible in this case?


----------



## hongkongfooey (Feb 28, 2012)

I want to know why the boy had stolen the handgun in the first place.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 7, 2012)

Licensing and insurance requirements for a RIGHT are inconceivable to me.  Should you have to carry a million dollar liability policy in order to speak in case someone feels bullied by your words and kills themselves?  Should you need a permit to be free of unlawful search?   What about paying a fee to Vote?

It all amounts to the same thing, IMO.   As far as I am concerned, the answer does not lie in restricting a right (at which point it is no longer a right, is it?) but rather in holding people accountable for the misuse of said right:  

Don't deny me the Right to Own a firearm because you are afraid a criminal might commit a crime with one, penalize the criminal for their use of the firearm in the crime.   

And Yes, Steve, I recognize that you say you are not trying to Ban guns but when you go on to say that we should have to have insurance, you are IMO putting restrictions on that Right.  And, Comparing it to say, Driving, which is NOT a constitutionally protected right is really really NOT the same thing.

As far as the Shooting itself is concerned, without more info it's hard to chime in.  Was the gun lying in the open?  Was it tucked away in a forgotten shoebox in the back of some closet the kid happened to find and no one knew it was missing?  Was it taken from a bedside drawer where it is kept for home defense because the family lived in a dangerous area?  How long did the kid have it, was it gone long enough for someone to even know? All of these questions would, to me, go a long way twords being able to formulate anything other than a gut opinion on the case.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 7, 2012)

Steve said:


> And again, by "few", you mean thousands each year.  Right?



Its actually 0.0010054817949593988% of the total estimated population of the United States.  So, By comparison it is a tiny tiny number... even if you only consider it as a percentage of estimated firearm owners in the US it still comes to less than 1% somewhere around .015% depending on what figure you use to do the calculation.   While I don't mean to trivialize any deaths or injuries caused accidentally by the firearms, it is still a _*statistically*_ insignificant number... certainly not high enough to justify punishing the other 99.85% of law-abiding/responsible gun owners.


----------



## Steve (Mar 7, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Licensing and insurance requirements for a RIGHT are inconceivable to me.  Should you have to carry a million dollar liability policy in order to speak in case someone feels bullied by your words and kills themselves?  Should you need a permit to be free of unlawful search?   What about paying a fee to Vote?
> 
> It all amounts to the same thing, IMO.   As far as I am concerned, the answer does not lie in restricting a right (at which point it is no longer a right, is it?) but rather in holding people accountable for the misuse of said right:


So then, you believe that anyone should be able to buy guns?  What about ex-cons or the mentally ill?  





> Don't deny me the Right to Own a firearm because you are afraid a criminal might commit a crime with one, penalize the criminal for their use of the firearm in the crime.


Do you drive a car?  I'm guessing that you are now required to carry a liability policy on that car, and still you've managed to figure that out.  I'm sure that if you wanted to buy a gun, you'd do the same.  No one would be denying you the right to own a firearm.  And the sky isn't falling, either.  





> And Yes, Steve, I recognize that you say you are not trying to Ban guns but when you go on to say that we should have to have insurance, you are IMO putting restrictions on that Right.  And, Comparing it to say, Driving, which is NOT a constitutionally protected right is really really NOT the same thing.


And there are already restrictions.  There are, for the record, restrictions on all of our constitutional rights.  You have the right to free speech, but libel and slander are against the law, for example.  





> As far as the Shooting itself is concerned, without more info it's hard to chime in.  Was the gun lying in the open?  Was it tucked away in a forgotten shoebox in the back of some closet the kid happened to find and no one knew it was missing?  Was it taken from a bedside drawer where it is kept for home defense because the family lived in a dangerous area?  How long did the kid have it, was it gone long enough for someone to even know? All of these questions would, to me, go a long way twords being able to formulate anything other than a gut opinion on the case.


The child was found guilty of three charges including 3rd degree assault, unlawful possession of a firearm and bringing a gun to school.  The sentence has been deferred for 12 months. 

The mother and her boyfriend have both been arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm, I'm glad to say.  We'll see what happens.


----------



## Steve (Mar 7, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Its actually 0.0010054817949593988% of the total estimated population of the United States.  So, By comparison it is a tiny tiny number... even if you only consider it as a percentage of estimated firearm owners in the US it still comes to less than 1% somewhere around .015% depending on what figure you use to do the calculation.   While I don't mean to trivialize any deaths or injuries caused accidentally by the firearms, it is still a _*statistically*_ insignificant number... certainly not high enough to justify punishing the other 99.85% of law-abiding/responsible gun owners.


That's a fair opinion.  I don't agree, but there you go.  Bikes were brought up earlier, and it was actually more likely to occur than a bike accident.  And still most places have helmet laws and safety regulations.  Statistically, 3000 injuries and deaths a year is significant enough.  

And it also bears repeating that I entertain no delusions that a requirement to purchase liability insurance will ever go further than discussion on a forum.  The forces at work are too powerful and a bill like this would never get passed.  That doesn't, however, mean that I've heard any better ideas.  And I'll ask you what I asked others.  If not this, then what?  How can we better hold gun owners responsible for the damage caused by their incompetence?  It happens thousands of time each year, and in each case there are medical bills, sometimes funeral bills, and other costs associated with a gun injury.  Some last a lifetime.  Under our current system, if my kid is playing with your kid at your house and is shot by your gun, I'm probably SOL on getting any help with the costs.  I could sue you, but that's iffy.  You might get a fine and you're done with it and can move on.  But your irresponsibility may very well have led to financial ruin for my family.  How is that just?  What ideas do you have?  I'd love to hear them.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 7, 2012)

Let me counter that with a few points:

1) as I said before the "You have to carry Liability on your car" or "wear a helmet on your bike" is not even in the same realm... the right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT... driving a car is not.
2) We need to set a baseline for responsibility.  What constitutes Irresponsible gun ownership?
3) If your fear that your child might be one of the 0.0010054817949593988% that gets shot is enough of a deterrent that we need to assure every gun is locked up and accounted for at all times, what is MY recourse against you if I cannot access my gun quickly enough to protect my family and someone is injured or killed as a result?  Watch this video.  This is fictional of course, but I often feel this is exactly what the "Compromises" to my RIGHT would be like if people had their way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wypFgcqHyvc&feature=player_embedded

Also, I ask you, what control do you have in place to make sure, if my kid is playing at your house, that your kid wont stab him with a kitchen knife? 

I think the answer to that is the same answer to how to prevent an accidental shooting:  You teach your kid better.  I think we demonize guns and gun ownership in this country, and as a result we don't teach our kids about guns, gun responsibility, and the dangers of guns...  then they get curious and they play.  I grew up in a house full of loaded, accessible firearms... but I also knew how dangerous they were and was taught respect for them: I NEVER handled them without an adult present, and never had an accident growing up.  I think it's that simple.  You dont hide it so little Timmy doesn't know about it, and you DISCIPLINE you kid, instead of thinking that Timmy is a precious little snowflake and raising your voice to him might make him feel bad, so its better to talk about his feelings when he shoots Sally next door after he finds your gun hidden in the closet.


----------



## Steve (Mar 14, 2012)

These are related stories, so in lieu of starting a new thread, I thought I'd just post them here.  More stupid, irresponsible, "responsible" gun owners.  

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._latest-shooting-critical-condition-young-boy

In the above article, a toddler was left alone in a minivan while mom goes into the convenience store and the dad pumps the gas.  The child knows where the gun is, moves from the back seat up to the front and shoots himself.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017727656_childshooting12m.html

In this article, a 5 year old shoots his 7 year old sister and kills her.  The gun owner is a police officer.  

While the children in these articles are the children of the gun owner, the basic point is the same.  That these kinds of things happen to even responsible gun owners.  I'm not trying to in any way suggest that the gun owners are bad people.  I'm sure that they are not, and my heart breaks for them.  

My point is that where guns are involved, these kinds of things happen... even to responsible, experienced, licensed gun owners.  

And once again, I will reiterate that I'm not overly attached to my proposal above.  I'm VERY interested in hearing from you guys, experienced gun owners, your ideas.  

Cryozombie, I'm sorry I missed your post above, but since I'm revisiting the thread, I'll answer your questions.

First, restrictions already exist on gun ownership.  I'm not suggesting that anyone's right to bear arms be impinged.  Rather, I'm suggesting that with responsible regulation, the right can be expanded to include weapons currently illegal.  It's not about restriction.  It's about accountability, in my opinion.

Second, irresponsible gun ownership is often visible only after the fact, which is why I would propose that the requirement to carry a liability policy be universal.  In the articles above, the two situations occurred with weapons owned by "responsible" gun owners.  

Third, I don't know about your statistic, but according to the CDC, there are about 8 or 9 kids shot each day in unintentional firearm accidents.  Just under 1 per day dies.  I posted those earlier, along with links to where I got them.  I know that others have issues with the CDC, but I don't know where else to find mortality and accident related information, so take it for what it is.   It was admittedly a surprisingly high number, IMO.  

And in light of these two incidents, so close to the event I mentioned in the first post, how you'd respond to your own final paragraph.  While I can agree that education is a part of it, that's not the entire story.  Kids in families with parents who know (or should know) better STILL get ahold of guns and still shoot themselves, their siblings, their parents or people from outside their family.  It's always accidental.  It's always heartbreaking.  But it's not just people failing to educate their kids.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 14, 2012)

You cant legislate responsibility and you cant test for it.  I dont know exactly what your suggesting is the solution but each individual case no matter how tragic is still far fewer then any other way kids get hurt.  No one ever crys about outlawing swimming pools and far more kids are hurt and die in pool accidents from irresponsible parents.  Its only the "evil" gun people want to ban.


----------



## Steve (Mar 14, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> You cant legislate responsibility and you cant test for it.  I dont know exactly what your suggesting is the solution but each individual case no matter how tragic is still far fewer then any other way kids get hurt.  No one ever crys about outlawing swimming pools and far more kids are hurt and die in pool accidents from irresponsible parents.  Its only the "evil" gun people want to ban.


Homeowners are required to carry insurance for their pools.  I'm suggesting something similar for people who choose to own guns.

As I mentioned earlier, bike accidents are actually less common than gun accidents.  It happens more often than you might think.  About 8 times per day, statistically.  

The CDC does show drowning statistics, but doesn't distinguish private pools from any other venue (such as beaches, rivers, public pools, floods or tubs).  

Total nonfatal drowning/submersion:  6018
Fatal drownings:  922

So, for every pool, river, beach, flood, tub or whatever.  

And just to be very clear, if you think I'm suggesting outlawing anything, you aren't reading my posts.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 14, 2012)

Steve said:


> And just to be very clear, if you think I'm suggesting outlawing anything, you aren't reading my posts.



No I wasnt saying that.  I just dont understand what your looking for.  If all you want gun owners be required to carry insurance that really does nothign to solve the problem of irresponsible gun owners.  It just makes others pay for the stupid ones with higher premiums for all.  Also how would you enforce it?  You cant just knock on peoples doors and say let me search your house for guns and when you find one demand proof of insurance.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

Steve said:


> Homeowners are required to carry insurance for their pools.



Actually, as a homeowner with a pool, I can tell you this is not true.  If you carry a Mortgage, you typically have to have an insurance policy.  If you have a pool, the insurance company often recommends a higher liability limit and they charge you higher premiums.  But (here at least) if you own your home outright and choose not to carry insurance, you don't need separate just because you have a pool.

Also take into account "easy set" and "Inflatable" pools that are only set up seasonally.  I bet almost no one carries insurance on these, but some of them are as much as 4 feet deep... I wouldnt doubt that a) More Parents see these as "kiddie pools" and don't supervise their kids as well around them and b) that they DO count twords the drowning statistics for kids.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 14, 2012)

Steve said:


> Homeowners are required to carry insurance for their pools. I'm suggesting something similar for people who choose to own guns.
> .



As Cryo pointed out, this isn't quite true about pools. More to the point, it's not likely that I could keep the pool in my backyard a complete secret-unlike my guns, which might be just the way I like it.

Of course, in my case, the guns themselves are part of our household inventory for insurance purposes-that is to say, so we can receive compensation for them should we have to make a claim in the case of fire, natural disaster or burglary.


----------



## Steve (Mar 14, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> No I wasnt saying that.  I just dont understand what your looking for.  If all you want gun owners be required to carry insurance that really does nothign to solve the problem of irresponsible gun owners.  It just makes others pay for the stupid ones with higher premiums for all.  Also how would you enforce it?  You cant just knock on peoples doors and say let me search your house for guns and when you find one demand proof of insurance.



You talked about outlawing pools.  I inferred that was in response to me.

Re solving irresponsible gun owners, that's not solvable.  I'm trying to hold them accountable.  As I said earlier, if my kid is at you're house or in your car and is shotby your son, on top of anger, sadness, shock or whatever, I'm also looking at what could potentially be financial ruin.  My son could be looking at lifelong medical bills, presuming he survived.  Its not about solving; itis abou nt accountability, even when there is no criminal charge.

I'd be okay with any idea that improves accountability.  You have a better idea?  I'm all ears (eyes).


Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------



## Steve (Mar 14, 2012)

Good points regarding pools.  Terrible analogy, ballen.  

Cryo, what about the rest?  As I said before, I'm open and want to hear from you guys.  This is, I hope, discussion.  I'm receptive to well reasoned points.  But if you insist there's no problem, we will just have to agree to disagree.  This is occurring far too often, and the penalties and accountability just are not commensurate to the situation, IMO.


Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

Steve said:


> Cryo, what about the rest?  As I said before, I'm open and want to hear from you guys.  This is, I hope, discussion.  I'm receptive to well reasoned points.  But if you insist there's no problem, we will just have to agree to disagree.  This is occurring far too often, and the penalties and accountability just are not commensurate to the situation, IMO.



Well... the numbers I used were the same as yours... I plugged the CDC numbers into a percentage calculator along with the population of the US... and then for the other I took what is an Estimate of gun ownership in the U.S. from federal statistics.  So as far as the numbers go we should be more or less on the same page, except you are showing it as total number and I am showing it as percent of population.  

If I can use another analogy for a minute, there are an average of 1.8 million ER visits as the result of injuries sustained during an assault every year.  This number *only accounts for the people who seek treatment*... and does not include people who are killed or not severely wounded during the assault.  This is significantly higher and, IMO, more of a danger than the .15% of all Firearm owners that have accidents involving children:  but it is a fact consistently forwarded by the Anti Gun crowd as so unlilkley to ever actually happen to you, that there is no reasonable purpose for having a firearm.  So I have to wonder, if we believe that (and I don't, and I know you aren't saying that you do either, I'm just saying if we do) then the considerably lower number for accidental shootings really should ALSO be considered so remote as to not warrant any further restrictions also, wouldn't that stand to reason?

Now, of course I don't have any ready solutions to the .15% that it may happen to... but I do think holding 99.85% of gun owners responsible for that .15% is... asinine? at best... It's as crazy as Illinois banning Draino sales because it was used in a whole 2 assaults, carried out by 1 disturbed individual.  As it stands, we have laws on the books to address these issues, and the courts can currently decide on the cases that do occur... I'm not sure we need more, and certainly not something that Penalizes almost 100% of legitimate, responsible firearm owners for the actions of only a couple of owners who either are irresponsible, or have some statistically bad luck.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh, and on a side note, it's easy for someone to say "Well look, here's three, all in a row, what do you make of that"

And my best response would be, while three deaths is pretty sad, the other 222,999,997 firearms in the US apparently didn't kill any kids during those couple of days.


----------



## Steve (Mar 14, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Well... the numbers I used were the same as yours... I plugged the CDC numbers into a percentage calculator along with the population of the US... and then for the other I took what is an Estimate of gun ownership in the U.S. from federal statistics.  So as far as the numbers go we should be more or less on the same page, except you are showing it as total number and I am showing it as percent of population.
> 
> If I can use another analogy for a minute, there are an average of 1.8 million ER visits as the result of injuries sustained during an assault every year.  This number *only accounts for the people who seek treatment*... and does not include people who are killed or not severely wounded during the assault.  This is significantly higher and, IMO, more of a danger than the .15% of all Firearm owners that have accidents involving children:  but it is a fact consistently forwarded by the Anti Gun crowd as so unlilkley to ever actually happen to you, that there is no reasonable purpose for having a firearm.  So I have to wonder, if we believe that (and I don't, and I know you aren't saying that you do either, I'm just saying if we do) then the considerably lower number for accidental shootings really should ALSO be considered so remote as to not warrant any further restrictions also, wouldn't that stand to reason?
> 
> Now, of course I don't have any ready solutions to the .15% that it may happen to... but I do think holding 99.85% of gun owners responsible for that .15% is... asinine? at best... It's as crazy as Illinois banning Draino sales because it was used in a whole 2 assaults, carried out by 1 disturbed individual.  As it stands, we have laws on the books to address these issues, and the courts can currently decide on the cases that do occur... I'm not sure we need more, and certainly not something that Penalizes almost 100% of legitimate, responsible firearm owners for the actions of only a couple of owners who either are irresponsible, or have some statistically bad luck.


I'm not sure where you're headed.  Assault is illegal, isn't it? I genuinely don't get the correlation to what we're talkinga bout.  

Regarding the three deaths, we're talking about three in this area.  But statistically, once again, we're talking about 8 per day... not quite one death per day.  It's a matter of perspective, and as I said before, I understand that some might not think there's a problem.  If that's the case, we'll just have to disagree.  I think it's a real issue.


----------



## Steve (Mar 15, 2012)

@Ballen, just wanted to add one more thing.  It's about accountability, as I said, but I also think licensing would help with irresponsible owners.  Just as we have to take both a practical and written test in order to get a license, renew the license periodically and re-take the tests, and also get endorsements in order to operate different types of vehicles, such as motorcycles, a similar system for guns would help ensure that people who own them are at least fundamentally trained in safe operation.

I know that's not a popular idea with gun enthusiasts.  I also know that registration of guns isn't a popular idea, but we do it with cars across our country and almost everyone still drives one.  No one is barred from owning whatever kind of car they want and can afford.  They are, however, required to register each car and carry a liability policy, as well as a State issued license to legally operate the car.

@cryozombie,  another follow up here.  When we talk about drownings, we're averaging right about 3 kids drowning each day in any body of water anywhere, including pools, beaches, rivers, lakes, bathtubs and whatever else.  We're talking about 2 kids every 3 days being shot on accident and dying. If it's a matter of scope, what's your bar?  Clearly, this exceeds my threshold, but where's yours?  How often would this have to occur before you'd agree that there's an issue?  

This isn't intended to be a trap.  I know that we all have thresholds.  I'm just asking whether you've ever given thought to where yours is on this issue, and if so, what it is.  My threshold with gas prices was right around $3... when it bumped over, I got increasingly angry and started looking at alternatives to fuel.  A lot of people I know are getting that angry as gas prices bump up to $4/gallon.  For some, it might be $5/gallon.  Point is, we all have a limit of what we find acceptable on any given topic, whether it's taxes, gas prices or social issues like gun regulation and control.  On this topic, what's your threshold?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 15, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'm not sure where you're headed.  Assault is illegal, isn't it? I genuinely don't get the correlation to what we're talkinga bout. .



The anti gun crowd often uses the excuse that statistically you are so unlikely to ever be attacked that you do not actually need a weapon.  over 1.8 million attacks a year = Statistically unlikely.

If that same metric were applied to your concern

 Since only .15% of firearms will ever injure a child, its statistically unlikely that we need to regulate them in some way.



Steve said:


> Regarding the three deaths, we're talking about three in this area.  But  statistically, once again, we're talking about 8 per day... not quite  one death per day.  It's a matter of perspective, and as I said before, I  understand that some might not think there's a problem.  If that's the  case, we'll just have to disagree.  I think it's a real issue.



Ok, 8 per day comes to 2920:

ok, so we are taking about just under 3000 a year. According to the CDC: 

In 2003, nearly 285,600 children ages 14 and under were treated in the US for bicycle-related injuries.

Drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related  death among children ages one to 14. The majority of drownings and  near-drownings occur in residential swimming pools.

Heck the Consumer product safety commission says that there are 2600-2800 serious or fatal injuries from CHEERLEADING every year... which makes cheerleading AT LEAST as dangerous as a gun.

While I do understand your concern, and yes, I concede that nearly 3000 kids injured or killed is a lot, considering that Bicyles, Swimming Pools and Playground Equipment pose a _*much much much*_ larger risk, I wonder why your concern lies in what is, again a statistically improbable situation when compared to the population and number of firearms available, and not in actually protecting kids from something that is actually likely to do them harm, no, things we actively encourage our kids to do.


----------



## Steve (Mar 15, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> The anti gun crowd often uses the excuse that statistically you are so unlikely to ever be attacked that you do not actually need a weapon.  over 1.8 million attacks a year = Statistically unlikely.
> 
> If that same metric were applied to your concern
> 
> ...


Once again, pools aren't completely out of proportion to unintentional gun accidents.  My kids are around pools often.  In Texas, where I grew up, I was around them almost daily.  I seldom saw a gun in Texas, and my kids didn't see one up close until they joined JROTC in high school.  In other words, they are exposed to water all the time.  They saw a gun zero times, that I'm aware of, in their first 14 years of life.  That they are statistically only three times more likely to drown than to be shot on accident by a friend is, to me, alarming, particularly considering the relative exposure to each.  

Bikes are the same.  Almost every kid has a bike.  Weather permitting, they ride them all the time.   We're talking almost every kid in the USA.  I'd be shocked if the percentage of kids under 18 who own or have owned a bike is less than 95%.  Considering the pervasive exposure to bikes, and the idiocy of most kids, it's not surprising that they get banged up.  But what's the mortality rate?  According to the CDC, there were 120 deaths.  About the same number of deaths caused by unintentional firearm related accidents.  

But, all of that aside, you bring up two good points.  First, I'm not trying to wrap kids in bubbleplastic.  Living is inherently risky.  Second, there are efforts made all the time to keep kids as safe as possible, even when they choose to participate in risky activity.  Cheerleading (or football or any other contact sport where injury is likely) involves a parent's release and involvement making it completely apples and oranges.  While I can choose whether or not to allow my child to compete on the cheerleading squad or the marskman team in JROTC, unless you choose to tell me, I would have no idea that your son is playing with your gun until one of them is in the ER.  That's very different.  

I hope I'm being clear.  It's early and I'm in need of a cup of coffee.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 15, 2012)

Steve said:


> @Ballen, just wanted to add one more thing. It's about accountability, as I said, but I also think licensing would help with irresponsible owners. Just as we have to take both a practical and written test in order to get a license, renew the license periodically and re-take the tests, and also get endorsements in order to operate different types of vehicles, such as motorcycles, a similar system for guns would help ensure that people who own them are at least fundamentally trained in safe operation.


Im not sure a License is the way to go because it can then be used as a method of control. You want this type of gun you pay this much you want that type of guy you have to pay more ect. places that are anti-gun could make the fees so high normal people couldnt afford it. Im not apposed to say a manditory gun safety class. In Maryland you need to take a class before you can buy a gun. I would be ok with that as long as the class was free or a very small fee. However as seen by the police officer in your above post even training on gun safety wont prevent some accidents. 



> I know that's not a popular idea with gun enthusiasts. I also know that registration of guns isn't a popular idea, but we do it with cars across our country and almost everyone still drives one. No one is barred from owning whatever kind of car they want and can afford. They are, however, required to register each car and carry a liability policy, as well as a State issued license to legally operate the car.


Im against registration of guns simply because It a revenue soucre nothing more or less. Im not sure the orig intent of vehicle registrations other then perhaps an anti-theft and identification method but now all it is used for is to make money for the state. Registering a gun wouldnt do anything but make money for the Govt since the registration is not marked on the gun and most people dont open carry guns anyway so having a registered gun wont change anything. Guns for the most part are "registered" withthe Govt when you buy it anyway. I can run a serial number trace on most modern guns and track the current owner, previous owners, and where it was bought so adding a new "registration" would simply be a tax on gun ownership and would do nothing to fix the propblem you address. Education is really the only way to prevent this from happeneing and has nothing to do with the guns itself. ALL gun accidents are preventable guns dont just jump up and shoot people. And sadly all the education in the world wont stop it. Look at all the "education" on the harm of tobacco use and it still a billion dollar industry.


----------



## ballen0351 (Mar 15, 2012)

You bring up an interesting point about the "Threshold."  Is there a limit or Threshold on a constitutional right?


----------



## Carol (Mar 15, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> You bring up an interesting point about the "Threshold."  Is there a limit or Threshold on a constitutional right?



Depends on whether one  personally approves of how others exercise the right


----------



## Steve (Mar 15, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> You bring up an interesting point about the "Threshold."  Is there a limit or Threshold on a constitutional right?


Simple answer is yes.  While we all have personal thresholds, there is well established precedent for limiting or regulating "rights."  For example, there are limits to our right to free speech, just as there are already some limitations on our right to bear arms.  

So, both legally and personally, I'd say that the answer to your question is yes.


----------

