The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Larks2242 251]

Some sad news today....

 

I don't think even the most pro gun person could argue why its a good idea for 5 year olds to have their own rifles, they can't comprehend the dangers and responsibilities at that age.

 

In fact  they should be at least 14, where they have a good understanding of the situation.

 

I'm a big advocate of teaching gun safety in school, people should learn and educate themselves instead of all this fear.

 

Its like power tools, you fear the saw, your gonna misuse it and maybe even lose a hand, with proper education however you can be a master carpenter.

[Duke87 1,070]

In this case, the rifle was made by a company that sells guns specifically for children — "My first rifle" is the slogan — in colors ranging from plain brown to hot pink to orange to royal blue to multi-color swirls.

 

What is this I don't even... Am I reading The Onion?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Alas, abuse of the privilege often results in tragedy.  Nobody in his right mind gives a working firearm to a small child, then is so careless as to leave it loaded leaning against a wall.  Parents should be charged.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Alas, abuse of the privilege often results in tragedy.  Nobody in his right mind gives a working firearm to a small child, then is so careless as to leave it loaded leaning against a wall.  Parents should be charged.

Charged with what? If it is not illegal for children to own guns, then parents should be immune from the potential consequences as well. You can't make something like this legal, but then charge people for when it inevitably goes wrong at some point. And playing the blame game serves no purpose here, they still have a living kid who needs parents now more than before. 

[Larks2242 251]

Alas, abuse of the privilege often results in tragedy.  Nobody in his right mind gives a working firearm to a small child, then is so careless as to leave it loaded leaning against a wall.  Parents should be charged.

 

Depends on what you define as a child, agreed five is too young, but where to draw the line?

 

Some people are more mature and mentally older then others.

 

Also depends much on how you were raised, for me I basically raised myself but my grampa shoots, so I wasn't sheltered from guns, I learned to respect them at a young age, however I get that people that don't know what they are doing are likely to have an accident. 

 

In fact sometimes they can be more responsible and more mature and faster reacting then adults, but that is getting off topic.

 

I'm just not convinced a blanket age law/restriction is the right direction, things like hunting is still considered part of growing up.

[Duke87 1,070]

Something about being allowed to handle a gun ten years before you're allowed to handle a car just doesn't make sense to me.

 

But, that's up to the people of Kentucky to decide.

[Larks2242 251]

Well with cars isn't there the issue of height?

 

 

Someone that age can't really see the road and if anything is in the way can they?

[Duke87 1,070]

There is, but if there were mini cars for kids to drive, we still wouldn't allow it because a 5 year old cannot responsibly control something capable of hurtling along at 70 MPH, because it can easily kill people, including the operator, if done incorrectly. And the same is true of a gun, even if it's a mini gun designed for little hands.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

I'm sure if the prosecutors were harsh enough, they could try charging the parents with negligent homicide. My uncle hasn't let my cousins touch his guns and they're 10 and under.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well with cars isn't there the issue of height?

 

 

Someone that age can't really see the road and if anything is in the way can they?

There is also the fact that at age 5, children lack a certain degree of hand-eye coordination that is required to safely operate a vehicle, as well as that they are that point still unable to accurately process all the information like traffic rules, what other people doing, etc. Their reaction times would less predictable than those of healthy adults. And there is of course the legal issue, as someone of 5 can't really be prosecuted if he goes way to fast. 

 

I suppose with kids and guns the problem is that not everyone gets taught properly to respect the gun and what it can do and that you should never ever point it at someone or something you do not want to shoot. That is a lesson a 5 year old won't truly understand until he or she is older. And then you get things like this, where kids get real guns and play with them like they are plastic toys. 

[AcmeSigns 97]

I was probably 5 or 6 when I first started handling real guns. I was taught & taught & taught proper gun handling and that it was not a toy. I also used to play 'cowboys & indians' with some of my urchin friends using cap guns. We all knew the difference between a toy and the real thing and while we would easily point a cap gun at someone we would never have thought to do that with a real gun. I guess it's all in the upbringing.

 

As for the liability factor in the case of the above mentioned tragedy...if the parents aren't going to be responsible enough to ensure that the firearm was stored safely (unloaded) then many states here say that you will be held accountable (unsure on what Kentucky's stance is). If we know that someone may be coming over with young children we always lock our guns away (we can't be certain what someone elses kids may or may not know) and, quite honestly, we've got them scattered all over the house.

 

Not entirely off topic but one of my newest favorite quotes belongs to Ted Nugent...'If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective'.

[metarvo 710]

The presence of real guns for kids is news to me.  I mean, I've heard of kids getting their hands on regular real guns, but I didn't know that kid-sized models were being made.  For all I knew, even the toy guns that looked like real ones were being banned.

 

Even though nothing is said in the article about this, I wonder what video games that kid was playing if any.  I bet SimCity wasn't one of them.  I've heard kids of all ages at stores and other places talk about playing M-rated games as if there's nothing unusual about doing so at such a young age, so you never know.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ I think the argument about video games and violence has been settled long ago.  It is not worth discussion.  On the other hand, if the State of Kentucky doesn't have some kind of "bad parenting" statute on the books, then I will be surprised.  In any case, there is an unwritten 'duty of care' in most legal systems when it comes to children.

[metarvo 710]

I don't know about Kentucky laws, so I'm speaking of what I know from my state and the nation as a whole.  When the kids that commit crimes are that young, sometimes the parents get charged with neglect (and the kids get taken away as a result).  I don't hear of kids that young going to juvie, though.  Usually, they just end up in the foster care system, and few people are going to want to adopt a killer.  Now, it's a different story with teenagers.  From what I've seen, the parents are rarely implicated in the crime if it is committed by a teen.  The teen either goes to juvenile or is charged as an adult in extreme cases and sent to regular prison.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Oh come on, not the video game argument. Besides, this kid was 5, not even old enough to play most of those games anyways. 

 

As for the supposed bad parenting, the kid could legally own a gun and legally handle said gun, so the parents did nothing wrong there. The gun wasn't 'safely stored' because the kid was using the gun like kids do. You know, shooting at stuff. And then this happened. The worst you can say about them is that they allowed their children to use guns without adult supervision. Then again, if you grow up around guns and you raise your kids around guns, it is easy to lull yourself in a false sense of security. 

 

Anyways, how does charging the parents do anything but add more trauma to this case? They lost their child, which is incredibly hard for them but charging them won't bring the dead child back. Taking their other kid from them only makes the situation worse for them. Putting them in jail while they have to cope with the fact that they made a mistake and now lost everything, while they have to survive in the super hostile environment of the US prison system is even more traumatic.The brother that shot his sister is to young to be charged and on top of that it was an accident. He has to cope with the fact that he shot and killed his sister and taking his parents away from him and putting him in foster care is only making his already traumatic situation even worse. 

 

No, charging the parents here serves no purpose other than kicking someone who is already down, and should be considered an unethical and gross waste of taxpayer money. I hope the DA realizes this and chooses not to prosecute. 

[FreewayofFlight 41]

 

As for the supposed bad parenting, the kid could legally own a gun and legally handle said gun, so the parents did nothing wrong there. The gun wasn't 'safely stored' because the kid was using the gun like kids do. You know, shooting at stuff. And then this happened. The worst you can say about them is that they allowed their children to use guns without adult supervision. Then again, if you grow up around guns and you raise your kids around guns, it is easy to lull yourself in a false sense of security. 

 

 

Even though the child can legally own and handle the gun, in most cases, they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions. That is why it is the parents responsibility to teach them the difference of what is right and wrong. Most likely, this was a terrible accident, this just shows that those who are careless or under-educated about gun safety are the ones at risk for these type of incidents.

 

Remember this story? About the 8 year old who accidentally killed himself with an Uzi at a Gun Expo?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6121915&page=1#.UYQJkqI3vLk

 

In both cases, the responsible adults should have had the understanding to:

 

A.) Keep loaded/unloaded guns out of the reach of children when the parent is not watching them.

B.) Have the common sense to know that if you can't handle the gun safely, then you should not expect a child to.

C.) Hammer it home to kids that you DO NOT point guns at other people.

 

In both cases were the result of negligence, simple as that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Of course the DA should not prosecute, but the charges should be laid and well publicized even if the parents remain anonymous.  There is a serious need of a good scare for people who buy "junior" firearms for their very much underage kids. 

 

I should think the minimum age for something like that should be seven or eight, with some very strict rules and some gun range training.  You can't have kids playing cops and robbers with real weapons, and they need to know the difference and the parents need to be sure that they do.  This is one place where parents cannot abdicate their duty to the kids.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Of course the DA should not prosecute, but the charges should be laid and well publicized even if the parents remain anonymous.  There is a serious need of a good scare for people who buy "junior" firearms for their very much underage kids. 

 

I should think the minimum age for something like that should be seven or eight, with some very strict rules and some gun range training.  You can't have kids playing cops and robbers with real weapons, and they need to know the difference and the parents need to be sure that they do.  This is one place where parents cannot abdicate their duty to the kids.

Its not like those people just don't care, its just something most people think won't happen to them. 

 

Compare it to having kids who ride their bikes for fun. Riding a bike can be pretty dangerous, a child could fall from his bike and break a limb, or worse, he could be riding it on a road without paying proper attention and get hit by a truck. Now take this story, and replace the gun part with bike, and the part where he accidentally shoots his sister with he gets run over by a large truck while riding his bike on the street. Would you charge or prosecute the parents for negligence because they should have been watching their kid ride a bike?

 

Be honest with yourself here, would you constantly watch your child ride on his bike around the street? Would you do it if you knew the child had been riding bikes pretty well for the past year now, on an almost daily base? No one has time to watch their kid like that, and no one will think it normal to charge you for neglect if your child gets involved in a traffic accident, because as a society we accept that riding bikes can be dangerous, especially for kids, but that it is impractical to expect parents to supervise their kids every time they go out and play. And for that we will not go after parents in such a fashion. 

 

Well the same thing works for guns. If you grew up in an area where guns are as normal as bikes are over here, then it is easy to forget that guns can be really dangerous if you are not careful. Just like bikes. And if there is no law that specifically states that children are only allowed to operate a gun under adult supervision, just like there are no laws that state that children can only ride bikes when there is adult supervision, then if it goes wrong, no one can or should be held responsible for it, and all we can do is grief over it and accept that this is just one of those things that can happen. 

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Compare it to having kids who ride their bikes for fun. Riding a bike can be pretty dangerous, a child could fall from his bike and break a limb, or worse, he could be riding it on a road without paying proper attention and get hit by a truck. Now take this story, and replace the gun part with bike, and the part where he accidentally shoots his sister with he gets run over by a large truck while riding his bike on the street. Would you charge or prosecute the parents for negligence because they should have been watching their kid ride a bike?

 

 

This is not an accurate comparison, because you are bringing a third party into the situation (parent, child, truck driver). And in generally all cases, if a truck driver hits a child, or anyone else for that matter, he is automatically at fault and he will pay in either legal action or insurance. Again, there are cases where accidents happen, but in this case, it is the truck driver's responsibility to watch the road for potential hazards.

 

The parent still has an obligation to observe their child and instruct them to never play near a busy or high-speed road (i.e. Country road with a 55 MPH Speed Limit). Children are inherently curious and will attempt to take risks like getting closer and closer to a river bank or a highway and the parent or responsible adult should scold the child if they try to do so.

 

It is the same principle when letting a kid use a gun. If the parent does not properly instruct the child how to handle the guy safely and TAKE IT AWAY when they cannot watch the child, then the potential for accidents go up. In the case that we are discussing now, I agree that this is a case of negligence. Whether charges are brought is up to the laws of that state.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

Compare it to having kids who ride their bikes for fun. Riding a bike can be pretty dangerous, a child could fall from his bike and break a limb, or worse, he could be riding it on a road without paying proper attention and get hit by a truck. Now take this story, and replace the gun part with bike, and the part where he accidentally shoots his sister with he gets run over by a large truck while riding his bike on the street. Would you charge or prosecute the parents for negligence because they should have been watching their kid ride a bike?

 

 

This is not an accurate comparison, because you are bringing a third party into the situation (parent, child, truck driver). And in generally all cases, if a truck driver hits a child, or anyone else for that matter, he is automatically at fault and he will pay in either legal action or insurance. Again, there are cases where accidents happen, but in this case, it is the truck driver's responsibility to watch the road for potential hazards.

 

The parent still has an obligation to observe their child and instruct them to never play near a busy or high-speed road (i.e. Country road with a 55 MPH Speed Limit). Children are inherently curious and will attempt to take risks like getting closer and closer to a river bank or a highway and the parent or responsible adult should scold the child if they try to do so.

 

It is the same principle when letting a kid use a gun. If the parent does not properly instruct the child how to handle the guy safely and TAKE IT AWAY when they cannot watch the child, then the potential for accidents go up. In the case that we are discussing now, I agree that this is a case of negligence. Whether charges are brought is up to the laws of that state.

 

Accidents happen on less busy roads as well. But fine, replace road with ravine, rail crossing or some other hazard, there are plenty of things that can kill children if they are not careful when they are playing. Kids simply cannot accurately judge the situation and the danger they are in if they are not careful, they cannot assess the consequences of their actions and even if as a parent you tell them not to do something, even if you punish them if they don't, kids will still go there to play. Besides, it may only take one time of breaking your parents rules for it to kill you. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The arguments in recent posts seem to be there for the sake of argument.  I will not participate further.

[Duke87 1,070]

Someone has made a 3D printable gun.

 

So, can't buy a gun? No problem, just download and print one!

[LexusInfernus 908]

A troubling development. For Americans it matters little, as the American state never had a monopoly on violence. But European states usually did and now those monopolies are in danger. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Someone has made a 3D printable gun.

 

So, can't buy a gun? No problem, just download and print one!

So what?  Will it fire without exploding?  The material in a 3D printer is ABS which is fine for plumbing but i doubt is does well containing explosions.

[hym 358]

 

Someone has made a 3D printable gun.

 

So, can't buy a gun? No problem, just download and print one!

So what?  Will it fire without exploding?  The material in a 3D printer is ABS which is fine for plumbing but i doubt is does well containing explosions.

 

 

At this point, a few rounds is probably the best that you could get out of it.  However, this misses the real issue.  If 3D printers do take off like they are expected to, gun control legislation is meaningless.  Everyone would have the ability to fabricate his or her own personal AR-15 without having to go through all of that pesky government regulation stuff.  Sure, you'd need the ability to fabricate high quality metal parts, but it's only a matter of time before people figure out how to do this.  People have already demonstrated that it is possible to take a normal inkjet printer, modify it with metallic inks, and print metal components.  It's only a matter of time before someone puts all the pieces together.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@hym.  Well, let us hope the cost of this remains relatively out of reach. 

 

Of course some assembly is required, and this also requires some skills that most people are too lazy to acquire.

 

This technology will be very hard on the manufacturing industry in general.  Small appliances will be next, no doubt.

[hym 358]

@hym.  Well, let us hope the cost of this remains relatively out of reach. 

 

Of course some assembly is required, and this also requires some skills that most people are too lazy to acquire.

 

This technology will be very hard on the manufacturing industry in general.  Small appliances will be next, no doubt.

 

General consensus seems to be that 3D printers will follow the same price trends as most computer hardware.  Namely, it will start out expensive, but will eventually get cheap enough that most individuals can afford to buy one.  (Not necessarily a top of the line model, but a decent printer nonetheless.)

 

This is one of the complaints that the pro-gun lobby has with the gun control lobby.  We are moving to a world where their ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of those not fit for them are going to become increasingly irrelevant.

[LexusInfernus 908]

General consensus seems to be that 3D printers will follow the same price trends as most computer hardware.  Namely, it will start out expensive, but will eventually get cheap enough that most individuals can afford to buy one.  (Not necessarily a top of the line model, but a decent printer nonetheless.)

 

This is one of the complaints that the pro-gun lobby has with the gun control lobby.  We are moving to a world where their ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of those not fit for them are going to become increasingly irrelevant.

 

That is flawed logic. No law has ever stopped a man from committing murder if he really wanted too, and that never stopped the government from making laws saying that you can't murder people. 

 

Laws can be made surround the use of 3d printers to manufacture guns. Either by making it illegal to use 3d printers for such a purpose and arrest everyone who tries, or by setting up industry standards that are so high that 3d printers are too expensive for people to make them. If the government really wants to, it can make it very hard for people to get guns through 3d printers. 

[hym 358]

 

General consensus seems to be that 3D printers will follow the same price trends as most computer hardware.  Namely, it will start out expensive, but will eventually get cheap enough that most individuals can afford to buy one.  (Not necessarily a top of the line model, but a decent printer nonetheless.)

 

This is one of the complaints that the pro-gun lobby has with the gun control lobby.  We are moving to a world where their ideas for keeping guns out of the hands of those not fit for them are going to become increasingly irrelevant.

 

That is flawed logic. No law has ever stopped a man from committing murder if he really wanted too, and that never stopped the government from making laws saying that you can't murder people. 

 

Laws can be made surround the use of 3d printers to manufacture guns. Either by making it illegal to use 3d printers for such a purpose and arrest everyone who tries, or by setting up industry standards that are so high that 3d printers are too expensive for people to make them. If the government really wants to, it can make it very hard for people to get guns through 3d printers. 

 

 

The efficacy of all this assumes a level of control that the government may not be able to command.  If an individual buys a 3D printer, how is anyone going to know how he is using it?  The 4th Amendment prevents the government from searching your house without a warrant, which can't be obtained without probable cause, and the purchase of a 3D printer is by no means reasonable proof that the owner intends to manufacture a weapon with it.

 

For what it's worth, some lawmakers are already attempting to pass laws surrounding the use of 3D printers for making guns, and those proposals are already meeting resistance.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

The efficacy of all this assumes a level of control that the government may not be able to command.  If an individual buys a 3D printer, how is anyone going to know how he is using it?  The 4th Amendment prevents the government from searching your house without a warrant, which can't be obtained without probable cause, and the purchase of a 3D printer is by no means reasonable proof that the owner intends to manufacture a weapon with it.

 

For what it's worth, some lawmakers are already attempting to pass laws surrounding the use of 3D printers for making guns, and those proposals are already meeting resistance.

 

If a law would be set up like that, it probably ends up being a penalty in the way having pot or unregistered firearms can be a penalty. They won't search you for it, but if they do find it when they search your property for some other reason, it just gets added to the list of offenses for which they can prosecute you. This would be the most ineffective way of regulating it though. If they really want to prevent people from using 3d printers to make guns, they are better off just making it very hard to get a 3d printer as a private individual. That would make them unprofitable which means they remain expensive, which means it only gets more difficult to get them. 

 

And as far as Im aware, there is no constitutional right that says every American can have a 3d printer.