Originally Posted By Mr X <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/04/21/forgotten.gun/index.html" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US...dex.html</a> I wonder if this family still cares deeply about their right to own a gun? "The CDC says three children per day, on average, died in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005, the last year data are available."
Originally Posted By Mr X How does that work, exactly? Is it illegal to give a gun as a gift, for example?
Originally Posted By DyGDisney That's what I'm not clear on. She said a former employer had given her the gun as a gift (odd gift!). That shouldn't be legal (don't know if it is though) because you have to go through a screening to buy a gun and you have to have a license.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I just checked, apparently you can buy a gun and give it as a gift. Go figure.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Disregard my post #2 then. I just can't believe someone can give a gun as a gift. There is something wrong with the gun laws in this country. I guess the lobbyists rule the roost.
Originally Posted By pecos bill That depends entirely on who you are giving the gun to. Imagine the horror of someone giving their son his first 22 rifle. Dont demonize guns, but perhaps give a thought to the irresponsible idiots who should be trained in the proper handling of them.
Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta Ok Ill bite. *sigh* I'll take the opposing view if no one else is, but first things first. It is against the law in every state to place a loaded weapon where a minor can gain access to it. This gun was loaded, in an unlocked box, in the bottom of the closet. This is not an issue of lax gun law. This is an example of parental stupidity. This is 100% clear cut fault of the parents, which is the case 99.9999% of the time when minors get mom or dad's gun in the home. Second, there is no "family" gun. To say this is like saying the family gun is like the family dog. There is MY gun or guns, and MY 100% responsibility for MY gun(s). My guns are stored in such a way that it is physically impossible for my kids to gain access. This is an nfortunate incident, and if the child dies, it will beca tragety. Just two weeks ago, there was a story in the news of a grandmother backing a car over a child. Well, how is this different? Lopts of people live without cars. It isn't a necessity. This story has absolutely zero substance toward an argument against the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You can give a gun as a gift in Florida, but not to someone who couldn't buy it. I think giving a gun as a gift is an absolutly stupid thing to do. What must you know to give a gin? Well the recipient cannot be a convicted felon, cannot have a dishonorable military discharge, cannot be psychologically unsound, the list is long. Best not to give guns. Bottom line: I'm not being unsympathetic, but this is clearly the mother's fault. She should have gotten rid ofvtjis years ago If she didn't want it. Get rid of it? How? Almost any pawn shop will buy it.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>Almost any pawn shop will buy it. <<< Then who do they sell them to? Do they have to go through the same process a gun shop does with screening?
Originally Posted By piperlynne >>Then who do they sell them to? Do they have to go through the same process a gun shop does with screening?<< In Arizona, they do. I purchased a gun from a pawn shop and had to fill out all the paperwork for it. Not sure about other states. . .
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Just two weeks ago, there was a story in the news of a grandmother backing a car over a child. Well, how is this different? Lopts of people live without cars. It isn't a necessity.>> Some urbanites get by without cars. For most people, having a car is a necessity to accomplish many basic tasks. How many people need to have a gun to accomplish basic tasks?
Originally Posted By ecdc Let's stick with the car analogy. People are frequently charged with involuntary manslaughter for being distracted when driving and then causing an accident that results in a death. How many of us can say we've never been distracted when driving, by changing the radio, or looking at something out the window. That could be us. But this case says it's being treated as a "tragedy" and no charges have been filed. That seems to be a common theme in these accidents. I'm fine saying that it's a person's fault and not the weapon's fault. But where's the harsh penalties for those who are responsible for this kind of irresponsibility? Conservatives are usually all for tough laws to deter people. Where's the law that says these people ought to be locked up for life? That'd deter someone, wouldn't it? (I'm not arguing for that necessarily, but I am curious as to the lack of inconsistency often preached from gun owners.)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***My guns are stored in such a way that it is physically impossible for my kids to gain access.*** Might I ask why you own guns? It's just curiosity, if it's too personal a question, feel free to tell me you don't want to discuss it. I'm always curious about peoples' motivations for owning weapons (protection/hunting/cause they're cool etc...). I have to admit, living in a gun free society for so long, I'm tempted to buy one if/when I move back home "just because I can".
Originally Posted By Mr X ***This story has absolutely zero substance toward an argument against the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.*** This story, maybe not. But the statistic of 3 kids a day dead from accidental gun deaths? Pretty compelling if you ask me. Frankly, the 2nd amendment doesn't convince me that anyone has a "right" to a firearm since we maintain our militia in an organized manner (sans conscription, in other words), Even if the second amendment were to apply as written, it's irrelevant and antiquated these days since in order to engage in battle with a "well armed militia" in the 21st century (even a small, third world one), you'd have to have the right to own ANY sort of weapon.....such as a machine gun or a shoulder mounted missile launcher. But those aren't permissible, right? Either you have the right to arm yourself to fight an army, or you don't. In the case of the U.S., we don't (unless anyone you know does possess a personal shoulder mounted missile launcher legally). By the way, the second amendment says NOTHING about home security or hunting or any of the other excuses for owning a weapon these days.
Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta I'll answer both X. 1.) I own them for hunting and home defense. There are many ways to keep them with quick but safe access. Fingerprint safes. Keypad safes. Combination gun safes. 2.) The supreme court disagrees with you on the interpretation of your own 2nd amendment. As for the statistics, even ONE child accidentally shot is TOO many. I totally agree that owning laws and purchase laws should be tougher. Why wouldn't I?
Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta ecdc you give a really good example of how the laws and enforcement of the laws can differ from case to case, or I would even go so far as to say it is "situational ethics" in play. My reply is simple. You said, >>>Let's stick with the car analogy.<<< and >>>...where's the harsh penalties for those who are responsible for this kind of irresponsibility?<<< I think there are laws for this sort of thing, as there are for accidentally killing someone with a car. Gun owners and Conservatives cannot control how the law is enforced. I wouldn't dare even go there. And I'm not copping out. The laws are there. The government is in control of how they are enforced. There are many examples of kids getting hurt or killed with guns in the home, as well as kids getting hurt or killed by automobiles driven by a family member...and further still, in both situations there are many examples of the person responsible not receiving anything further in terms of punishment. What more is there to say on that?
Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta Also, I openly admit that I NEED my vehicle far more than I need by weapons. In fact I really don't NEED either one, but of the two, the car is far more NEEDED. Yes true you are right in this statement, I cannot possibly deny it. I was just saying that to bring one example like this OP brings and then tag it as proof positive that NO ONE should privately own a gun, is EXACTLY like posting an example of a child being run over by a car at the hands of a family member, and then saying, no one should own a car.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***People are frequently charged with involuntary manslaughter for being distracted when driving and then causing an accident that results in a death. How many of us can say we've never been distracted when driving, by changing the radio, or looking at something out the window. That could be us. But this case says it's being treated as a "tragedy" and no charges have been filed. That seems to be a common theme in these accidents.*** I can understand why it's difficult to equate the two though. In the car example, the negligence happened while OPERATING the vehicle, not storing it. If someone was handling a gun, and acted negligently and harmed someone (Cheney cough cough lol), THAT'S a case for involuntary manslaughter or whatever. But for a misplaced gun or an accidentally unlocked cabinet or something..kinda hard to go there. That'd be more like someone left their car running while running in to buy a pack of chewing gum, and a minor accidentally climbed in and started driving. Anyway, like I said, it's hard to keep the analogies in line. I CAN understand some tragic situations where a gun owner simply FORGOT to lock up the gun (the same gun they locked up religiously a million and one times before that day)...which is tragic but not necessarily criminal. Of course, if they had no reason to own the thing, and gun laws prevented ownership in most cases, tragedies such as that could be prevented.
Originally Posted By Chris in Atlanta I think there should be far more rigorous fire arm safety classes governed at the state level for anyone who wants a weapon. I think the course should be difficult and in part designed to weed out people that are likely to do something stupid. Of course that would be discrimination in some way I am sure. In said course, people would have to PAY their own money to take the course, and in the course the potential owner would be taught many things, HOW TO, WHEN TO and WHEN NOT TO, PURPOSE, RESPONSIBILITY, the actual way to store, load, unload, clear a jam, etc... everything a law enforcement officer might learn in terms of safety. I think this could really make a difference.
