Preventable Tragedy

[ScottsBad]

Reminds me of people who say seat belts don't save lives & they'll cite one incident where someone drowned because they couldn't get their seat belt off when their car plunged into a river.

Yes, perhaps the daughter may have been able to defend herself in this one incident, but in the first half of 2016, 65 children were killed by guns left lying around the house unsecured.

65 out of 340,000,000. Kids are more likely to get hit by lightening than be shot by accident. I guess we should outlaw lightening too.

You people are unbelievable.

[ChuckDizzle]

You know I never pegged you for a whining liberal crybaby until I read your posts in this thread.

I'm a whiny liberal because I want people held responsible for their actions? I thought conservatives were the family values/ personal responsibility crowd.

[dwalker]

I'm a whiny liberal because I want people held responsible for their actions? I thought conservatives were the family values/ personal responsibility crowd.

No, you want someone PUNISHED for something that they did not do, and is no different than a child using a knife, car, pills, alcohol, or any one of the gamut of things that will kill humans to do harm, intentional or otherwise, just because the tool used is a gun.

That is wrong, and deep down you know it.

[CALI-gula]

I'm a whiny liberal because I want people held responsible for their actions? I thought conservatives were the family values/ personal responsibility crowd.

Should we hold the two fathers that negligently allowed their kids to incorrectly set-up or play on hammocks as pointed out earlier, that led to their deaths, responsible for their actions?

Among so many other "negligent" unintentional actions that lead to their kids' deaths, shall we hold them responsible for their actions too, whereby you mean prison time or extraneous fines?

I agree that the issue is preventable, I agree it's senseless, and hurts us all as gun owners because anti-gun politicians try to use it for their agendas. But how is it any different than the thousands of other preventable deaths kids suffer due to similarly negligent mishaps where guns are not involved?

BECAUSE none of those serve a political agenda, which is ironic in how much of this thread is actually pushing the same. Demanding a plan, or demanding punishment of the father with prison time is just asking for support of unjustified laws aimed at gun ownership versus that lack of laws that address so may other ways that kids die due to mindless actions of inattentive fathers.

Laws and prison time haven't prevented murder, rape, bank-robberies, embezzlement, and more. Laws and prison time won't stop a preventable tragedy... after the fact.

Education does that, and we need to repeatedly remind gun owners on safety, but eschew laws that do nothing bu infringe with zero results on improving safety.

.

[tanks]

...
Laws and prison time haven't prevented murder, rape, bank-robberies, embezzlement, and more. Laws and prison time won't stop a preventable tragedy... after the fact. ...
.

They do prevent it happening a second time. Also, I'd submit that we'd have more crime if there were no consequences.

[morfeeis]

These people are the same types who refuse to wear seatbelts because they insist they will be thrown free from the wreckage and survive with scrapes.

The fact we needed to make laws regarding seatbelts, child safety seats, and storing firearms shows just how willfully ignorant many people are.

So many failures in logic in this statement i am now ill and have to take the rest of the day off.

[ChuckDizzle]

Should we hold the two fathers that negligently allowed their kids to incorrectly set-up or play on hammocks as pointed out earlier, that led to their deaths, responsible for their actions?

Among so many other "negligent" unintentional actions that lead to their kids' deaths, shall we hold them responsible for their actions too, whereby you mean prison time or extraneous fines?

I agree that the issue is preventable, I agree it's senseless, and hurts us all as gun owners because anti-gun politicians try to use it for their agendas. But how is it any different than the thousands of other preventable deaths kids suffer due to similarly negligent mishaps where guns are not involved?

BECAUSE none of those serve a political agenda, which is ironic in how much of this thread is actually pushing the same. Demanding a plan, or demanding punishment of the father with prison time is just asking for support of unjustified laws aimed at gun ownership versus that lack of laws that address so may other ways that kids die due to mindless actions of inattentive fathers.

Laws and prison time haven't prevented murder, rape, bank-robberies, embezzlement, and more. Laws and prison time won't stop a preventable tragedy... after the fact.

Education does that, and we need to repeatedly remind gun owners on safety, but eschew laws that do nothing bu infringe with zero results on improving safety.

.

Good question, and a legal threshold issue would be whether either one is an inherently dangerous activity. Whether we like to believe it or not the use of firearms is inherently dangerous from a legal standpoint. This analysis comes from the fact there is no way, under proper, intended use for that danger to be mitigated.

Inherently Dangerous

inherently dangerous adj

1
: of, relating to, or being an activity or occupation whose nature presents a risk of grave injury without the use of and sometimes despite the use of special skill and care
2 : of, relating to, or being an instrumentality or product that poses a risk of danger stemming from its nature and not from a defect

- See more at: http://dictionary.findlaw.com/defini....oKo2MMfw.dpuf

Firearms, when working properly, exhibit deadly force each time they are fired. That's why I want to keep one for protection of myself and my family.

A hammock, no so much. And as far as other weapons like knives, bats, etc. none of those are capable of reaching their deadly potential with as little as a few pounds of force for less than a second. Again, there's a reason why firearms are a part of my home defense plan rather than a sword or spear.

Now, addressing your premise that laws aren't worth having if they don't stop people from breaking them. This is simply fallacious. As you have pointed out we have a myriad of laws that people break, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have them. Unless of course you are going to go full anarchist on us, which I have to admit isn't an entirely crazy ideal as long as there is some consistency across the spectrum for the one who believes in it.

Laws aren't only about deterrence. They are about justice for the victims as well. While recidivism is a huge problem with most criminals there exists one category of criminal by contrast that doesn't often commit the same crime once released. Murderers. Crazy right? Yet murderers have the longest prison sentences than any other type of crime. Non-violent offenders have the highest recidivism rates. If the criminal justice system was all about deterrence the penalties for non-violent crimes would be much higher, and the penalties for murder would be much lower.

I agree whole heartily with your last statement. Which is why my favorite feature of our law here in California is that it is posted at your FFL as a reminder to those who have kids, or may have kids around the firearms they are picking up.

Our safe storage law doesn't infringe on anything. If you choose to show your child where the guns are, how they work, and when to use them to shoot an intruder the law can't be used against you. It is a very simple logical exercise, if you give your kid permission to access the firearms the law doesn't apply to you, if your kid doesn't have permission to access the firearms why wouldn't you take reasonable steps to prevent them from doing so?

[ScottsBad]

I'm a whiny liberal because I want people held responsible for their actions? I thought conservatives were the family values/ personal responsibility crowd.

Your concern is misplaced relative to the numbers of people dying for other reasons. There are 340 million people in the US approximately 24% of those are children. 65 children died out of 81,600,000. That is an incredibly small number.

I am all for doing something about those who are so obviously at fault that they need punishment, but let's realize these are accidents. MAny children drown in pools and ponds each year. Do we criminalize those too.

I believe civil actions are enough in most cases.

You are just adding to the hysterical nature of the gun debate.

[ChuckDizzle]

Your concern is misplaced relative to the numbers of people dying for other reasons. There are 340 million people in the US approximately 24% of those are children. 65 children died out of 81,600,000. That is an incredibly small number.

I am all for doing something about those who are so obviously at fault that they need punishment, but let's realize these are accidents. MAny children drown in pools and ponds each year. Do we criminalize those too.

I believe civil actions are enough in most cases.

You are just adding to the hysterical nature of the gun debate.

We aren't just talking about deaths though. More than twice that number are shot and survive. But yeah, it is a small number, and that's ok, it doesn't meant that it isn't worth providing a mechanism in the criminal justice system in the unlikely event that it does happen.

As I already addressed above there are pool storage laws in place, commonly known as the Swimming Pool Safety Act. Nobody has criminalized pools, however there are regulations in place regarding the safe "storage" of those pools.

Now the civil action idea is certainly an interesting one. And I'm inclined to agree with you, especially because I once wrote a paper on the idea that the criminal justice system should only exist as an enforcement arm of the civil court system. I would argue that in the above case linked in this thread criminal time is not only unnecessary, but would only serve to hinder the defendant's ability to properly compensate the plaintiffs.

[baggss]

We aren't just talking about deaths though. More than twice that number are shot and survive. But yeah, it is a small number, and that's ok, it doesn't meant that it isn't worth providing a mechanism in the criminal justice system in the unlikely event that it does happen.

So where does it end? Should there (or is there?) be a law to punish general negligence such is the hammock example above? Should those father be held criminally liable for the death of that girl because they were, for all intents and purposes, as stupid as the guy who left his gun out? Should we rule out the fact that just because a pile of brick 5 feet hight doesn't SEEM as dangerous a gun, it in fact can be?

[Win231]

Should we hold the two fathers that negligently allowed their kids to incorrectly set-up or play on hammocks as pointed out earlier, that led to their deaths, responsible for their actions?

Among so many other "negligent" unintentional actions that lead to their kids' deaths, shall we hold them responsible for their actions too, whereby you mean prison time or extraneous fines?

I agree that the issue is preventable, I agree it's senseless, and hurts us all as gun owners because anti-gun politicians try to use it for their agendas. But how is it any different than the thousands of other preventable deaths kids suffer due to similarly negligent mishaps where guns are not involved?

BECAUSE none of those serve a political agenda, which is ironic in how much of this thread is actually pushing the same. Demanding a plan, or demanding punishment of the father with prison time is just asking for support of unjustified laws aimed at gun ownership versus that lack of laws that address so may other ways that kids die due to mindless actions of inattentive fathers.

Laws and prison time haven't prevented murder, rape, bank-robberies, embezzlement, and more. Laws and prison time won't stop a preventable tragedy... after the fact.

Education does that, and we need to repeatedly remind gun owners on safety, but eschew laws that do nothing bu infringe with zero results on improving safety.

.

Using rare, freak accidents to prove your point indicates sheer desperation on your part. It's like saying "It is perfectly safe to jump out of a plane without a parachute because I read about this guy who did it & survived."

[dwalker]

Using rare, freak accidents to prove your point indicates sheer desperation on your part. It's like saying "It is perfectly safe to jump out of a plane without a parachute because I read about this guy who did it & survived."

With that reach you should be in the NBA

[r8dr rider]

Horrible tragedy that can happen to anyone. But I have let my kids now I have guns and that they are never to touch them without mommy or daddy around. I think kids that are sheltered from guns become inquisitive and things like this happen. Not to say the father never showed his daughter a gun but if she was told they aren't toys she Igbo have known not to play with it.

[Monkeywrench]

Sheriff lieutenant leaves gun on bed, daughter shoots other daughter, no charges.

http://abc30.com/news/madera-county-sheriffs-lieutenants-daughter-8-shot-by-sister-10/516619/

[CALI-gula]

Using rare, freak accidents to prove your point indicates sheer desperation on your part. It's like saying "It is perfectly safe to jump out of a plane without a parachute because I read about this guy who did it & survived."

You say they are "freak". In my household, a kid being shot by a firearm due to a negligent discharge would be about as freak as a kid getting killed by use of a hammock. I've already explained why.

No desperation at all. All things are relative, and you wish to generalize and apply some father's freak accident of leaving his gun out to where a child can get it to EVERYONE.

You are expressing your desperation well beyond anything that I'm presenting would appear as so.

.