To "JoeBlow" sounds just like a paranoid person.The fact is
that my friends and I grew up in homes where we knew where our parents kept
their guns. None of us touched them because we knew that guns were not toys.The NRA has nothing to do with it.My children are curious,
but they also know that guns are not toys, and don't bother touching real
guns.Here is the problem with putting the gun in a safe.What do you do if you have an intruder? Do you just tell the intruder to wait
up while you open your safe? I can have a shot gun out and loaded in less than
a minute. How about you?
Sounds just like an NRA response. Any solution that doesnt involve the gun. Or
the gun owner.There are 2 issues.Some kids are young and
curious. Some are a bit older but troubled.The best cure is to not
give them the opportunity. Lock um up.I am quite confused as to why
you or anyone else does not see the value and wisdom in securing the guns. It
is beyond me.
To "CHS 85" and "JoeBlow" and "Karen R." the solution is
not more regulation on gun owners or more punishment. The solution is
education. The parents have to deal with mixed messages that are sent to the
kids each day. On one hand they are being told by the schools that gun are evil
and even something that resembles a gun is evil. Then on Friday night they go
and watch the latest action movie where guns are treated like toys and are
glorified. So, the kids are curious about guns, so when they get the
opportunity to handle the "forbidden fruit", they do so.If
schools dropped their lame policies of not allowing anything that even remotely
resembles a gun, even a poptart, on campus and simply taught kids that gun are
tools, and that a real gun should be treated differently than a pretend or toy
gun, you would demystify guns and kids wouldn't care if their parents kept
a gun next to the sugar in the kitchen.I grew up in a house where we
knew that real guns were not toys and to not touch them unless you were hunting
or at the gun range.
According to KSL they were riding in a truck and the kid took the gun out of a
This turned into a pretty funny thread.You all are having a
discussion about why you have guns in your home and how you secure them. Then
along comes Redshirt, and starts with the "you liberals all want to
disarm..." and you all fell for his rant by engaging him, when in fact no
one had said anything at all about taking guns away.That's
exactly why some of us engage here to call "foul" on the language,
illogic, and falsehoods routinely told by the right. Come on
don't let him get by with a false premise then proceed to spin a yarn based
A gun owner brings into his home a risk. He assumes this risk because he
believes the benefit it provides - self-protection - outweighs the risk.To be a "responsible gun owner" and mitigate the risk to
children, the gun owner is supposed to secure his weapon. Securing the weapon -
either by locking it up or locking up the ammo - often precludes it from being
readily available in the event that self-protection is necessary.So
people either 1) don't secure their weapons, thereby increasing the risk of
unintentional harm; or 2) secure them, thus rendering useless the gun's
purported purpose.Guns don't make us safe. They make life -
and us - more dangerous. @ airnaut - your first post:With all due respect, I think your rationale for being a gun owner surrenders
to rather than fights the fear-mongering that feeds the paranoids you're
arming yourself against. And all of this spells $$$ for the gun industry. This
is now the true purpose of the NRA - the gun industry's marketing arm. I
find it all grotesque and obscene.
OK red.Dad keeps a loaded firearm in their dresser drawer.Dads 8 year old finds it and accidentally shoots and kills the neighbor
boy.If this was your son who got killed, you would not see any
culpability on neighbor dad?And BTW, "manly men" (did you
really use that term? I'm still chuckling) who "know how to handle
guns responsibly" keep them locked up. In my mind, that is what
"responsibly" means.Lastly, your post is all over the map.
How did this devolve into a gun owner's rights back and forth argument?Whether it is the parent's right or not is not the issue here. The
issue is that the weapon was not secured properly. Would you allow
your 9-year-old to have access to the car keys to take the car for a spin
whenever they want? Do you let your 9-year-old use big knives and the stove
unsupervised? Our job as parents is to protect our kids - even from themselves.
This story is NOT a 2nd Amendment rights story.
Redshirt1701Deep Space 9, UtYou arguement is moot.You
say it like only Liberals drink, do drugs, have abortions, or make movies with
guns or violence.and Republicans don't.Moot.Meanwhile -- Republicans have sent 1 million Americans to Afgahnistan
and Iraq and killed 100's thousands with REAL guns and REAL weapons, not
imanginary movies.You still don't get it.You never
did answer the question -- Why should I be held Liable for a child
slipping and falling on my snow covered sidewalk, and NOT be held
accountable for a child who gets shot by an unsecured gun?
To "JoeBlow" I was not commenting on the original letter, but on your
ilk's response. You want to ban guns or else severly punish gun owners.
Why stop there? Why not follow the Asian example and have people register
knives over 6 inches long? If you are ready to put somebody in prison if
another person gets injured with a gun, why not do the same for baseball bats or
other objects that are used more frequently to injure or kill people?To "airnaut" let met get this straight. Liberals have been using
scare tactics with our kids with respect to gun for decades. Meanwhile their
Hollywood movie producers show actors using guns like toys. On top of all of
that, liberals have been promoting a culture that devalues manly men who know
how to handle guns responsibly. Now that you have nearly destroyed the
possibility that a responsible man would have a gun, you complain that there are
gun accidents?Do you also complain that after getting people drunk
and encouraging them to drive that they get into accidents?
Let me get this straight "anything goes" pro-gun people -- I
leave alcohol out and children get hurt - I'm liable.I leave poison
out and children get hurt - I'm liable.I leave sharp objects out and
children get hurt - I'm liable.I don't shovel the snow off my
sidewalks and children get hurt - I'm liable.I leave a gun out
and children get hurt - I'm NOT liable?Do you see
"anything" wrong with that?If not - am I truely feel sorry for
Requirements:Military Personel - Back ground Check, annually Trained and
Certified.[personal weapons are banned on all military installations, all issued weapons locked and secured in the ARMORY].State and
Local Police Force - Back ground Check, annually trained and cetrified.[personal weapons are banned, all issued weapons locked and secured in the
ARMORY].Private Citizens?None of the above.
Red, So, let me understand. The letter was about securing firearms
in the home. So, are you against that?When knives and baseball bats
become the go-to weapon of choice for homicide and suicide in the home, it may
be necessary to address that. Until then, lets have adult conversations about
real issues.And to your over-the-top conclusion, very few people
(yes, there are some crazies out there) want to "disarm the populace".
But it is much easier to argue against against banning guns than responsible
ownership. And frankly, I could really care less what you do in your
home. Until it affects others.Do you take the same approach to
alcohol and second hand smoke?
Great letter, spot on. The NRA and some gun owners want to have their cake and
eat it too. If you own a gun and don't secure it than you should be liable
for the results. Personally, I choose to do the safest thing for my family and
that is to not keep a firearm in the house. That's a fact supported by
undeniable data. People who keep a firearm in the home are more likely to have
one of their family become a victim of that weapon than they are to use it on an
Good letter but nothing but talk on the commentator end. When you pass laws to
make it easier for a 12 year old to own a weapon without the proper training
then don't preach about responsibility. All owners should be competent,
responsible and legal and most here have fought to have it otherwise.
Ok liberals, lets apply the same standards to all weapons that are typically
used to kill.Do we now need to increase punishments for any accident
involving a knife? Imagine your teenager cuts themselves with a knife and needs
stiches. You are now charged with attempted homicide for letting them use
it.Got that kid in little league. You better have a vault to store
the bat in. We wouldn't want any harm coming from that.Why do
you want to disarm the populace? For a group of people that complain about
privacy so much, you sure are adamant about being involved in what I do in my
SCfanMy post has no suggestion as to who should or shouldn't be
prosecuted, nor any suggestions for new laws, but can I at least presume that no
one, including gun owners, wants preventable tragic violence?
The misuse of a right is punishable by law, e.g., Amendment 1 doesn't mean
you can libel or slander people. A person who leaves a gun lying around for kids
to shoot each other with is guilty of negligent homicide in my book. But the NRA
will NEVER accede to such a law. That is my problem with the NRA.
Mtn Tracker, my dad thought the same thing. I still sought them out, when left
to my own devices.Locking them up was the only deterrent.
Mark B Swimming pools can be and are covered. And supervision when young
children are in lakes or rivers, or the ocean. Life vests. Should a supervisor
of one of those who drown be held accountable for manslaughter if they
weren't properly supervised? AIRNAUTMight be the
most convoluted post I've ever read.
Locking your guns away is not the only thing that should be done. Kids are
curious by nature and love a good challenge. My parents couldn't hide or
lock anything from me as a kid. I always found a way. Most of you know exactly
what I mean. That being said, teach your kids about guns. Kill the curiosity not
the kid. My own three kids have no desire to play with my guns. They've all
held, handled, and shot them. They know what damage they can cause, and how
dangerous they are. I keep them locked up especially at times when friends or
family are over to play. The worst thing you can do is keep it hidden and tell
them not to touch it. That's like showing candy and telling them they
can't have any. Use common sense.
@AZFarmboyWell, if your kid shoots somebody with your gun then the police
investigate how they got it. If we went with JoeBlows law the first time a
parent is charged with multiple counts of murder because their kid shot up a
school it would make you think. I know that my gun is either on my person or
locked up in my safe, specifically because I don't want my daughter near
it.@AirnautI find it telling that you, and many other former
military men and women I know are the most vocal anti war and anti gun people.
It's like you've seen exactly how much damage these things can do so
your more opposed than the masses who've never experienced it.
It's not that complex, really. With rights (gun ownership) come
responsibilities (safe storage and use of firearms). They are inextricably
linked and gun owners should realize that when you demonstrate your inability or
unwillingness to meet your responsibilities, you lose your rights. Our laws
should reflect that when one purchases a gun, for whatever purposes, they must
accept the responsibility of owning a lethal weapon.
A few questions for Mr Dorius:Specifically, what strict
certifications would you suggest that would prevent these types of accidents?
Some cities require that guns be locked away when they are not being carried.
How would a law like this be enforced? Random home inspections? If it's
not enforceable, how effective would it be?JoeBlow's suggestion
is at least enforceable, and does not restrict gun rights.
TB's 8:33 post is amazing to me. No, we can't cover or empty every
body of water and, yes, accidental drownings will continue. But that's not
the question here, because locking guns away from children isn't just
smart, it's easy AND relatively cheap. Maybe TB has a good reason to oppose
this, but he doesn't say what it is. I can't conceive of one. I have
been posting the same thing for years - until they're "needed",
keep your guns locked up!
I am about as anti-gun as they come.However, I own several guns myself.I agree withJoeBlowFar East USA, SC1,000 %"gun owners should be held criminally responsible when their unsecured
weapons are used to cause harm"I also take responsibility and
keep them in a gun safe.BTW -- I am not a hypocrite.If
anyone wants to know "Why" an antigun person has and keeps weapons, it's becasue I an ex-Military.And I do not trust the gun
toting, vigilante, red-necks who think the mean old nasty Government is going to
send tanks and aircraft in and take away their "Freedom".It
is also in case of natural disasters, or the proper authorities of my country
[in the form of County Sheriff, Governor, or President] calls me to take up
arms.Most likely to restore law and order from the self-appointed,
gun-toting, vigilante, red-necks who seek insurrection and over throw the
I agree with Joe.With the power comes the responsibility.Nearly
every accidental gun death could be prevented.But, the NRA would
fight this too, it has to be a free for all or it's not a right?
More children die from drowning than from firearm accidents. We would save more
lives if we banned swimming pools, creeks, lakes and rivers!
I have an absolutely foolproof way to keep any child from accessing a gun in my
home: I don't keep a gun in my home.
I strongly believe in the 2nd Amendment. I also strongly believe that gun
owners should be responsible to secure their weapons. And most do.But "stricter certifications" are not the answer to this problem.I would propose that "gun owners should be held criminally
responsible when their unsecured weapons are used to cause harm"Someone breaks into their gun safe? No harm no foul. A 6 year old gets a
loaded gun from the bedside table and someone dies? Gun owner = Negligent