Texting can be deadly
Just briefly heard on radio that someone shot and killed a man in a Florida movie theatre cause he was texting. I was recently in a theatre and a woman's phone kept ringing every 15 minutes. I wanted to break it but wouldn't go that far !
jerseycash5Heard it too. They said it was a cop that shot another man. It is annoying but really, shoot someone? Hot head!
Karen821 
iPhone-imal 
Calico696 
M & K While I don't carry a gun, nor do I own one, I would mentally like to bop someone in the head for texting or talking on a cell in certain places. Like the guy on the cell phone while I was trying to fill out all the forms at the surgeon's office. And he was sitting under the sign that said "please turn off all cell phones". It's also very annoying when you are in a theater and the light from the phone is on b/c someone is texting. What happened to consideration for others. The above is a very tragic story, but I hope it makes some folks realize how annoying they can be with the phone.
Ms Fishy First you get raped by the price of a movie ticket and refreshments, only to have some ignoramus obnoxiously texting during said movie. It's enough to make someone temporarily insane...
Lori...since '73 I love the people at the gym who think the machines are phone/texting booths. Get your a$$ off the machine and go to the corner. Drives me nuts. Shooting someone over it, that's horrible.
MeisterNJ Yes, shooting someone for it IS horrible. It really is annoying though. Why would anyone need to text a 3 year old?
Another example of senseless gun violence.
From what I heard on the radio, the victim was texting during previews, not the feature movie.
Just when I started feeling like I'm some sort of dinosaur, now I'm glad I don't text. My cell phone isn't even set up for it ... it's one of those "dumb phones" and it usually isn't turned on ... I just check it for messages a few times a day.
Andy Loigu Andy - I'm with you - old school flip phone by choice - I do not text - would rather talk - and I get pissed when someone actually texts me
5catmom The shooter is a retired police captain... one of the chosen ones who, even in retirement, is allowed to carry a gun anywhere and everywhere because they are "more responsible" with firearms.
In reality, he is a retired thug who was used to having "civilians" (note, police are civilians too) submit to his authority without a peep.
I'm so sick of the "gun" violence phrase... it's "violence" period. This is a man with anger management and authority issues that did not originate from the piece of metal carried on his belt.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/breaking-retired-cop-shoots-and-kills-texting-man-at-lone-survivor-movie/
Mark Mc. just so i am clear... some are "blaming" the vitcim for doing something annoying that cause the man to snap and shoot him?????
Darwin It was only time before the Hl regulars emerged from the darkness to add there "thoughts" to a horrible situation. To think the majority of responses above feel this killing is unfortunate, they do feel texting in a theater is "annoying", and the "light" from the phone" annoys this person....... may teach others NOT to text in theaters because you might be annoying others and could be murdered!
Now, waiting for the gun nuts to justify this shooting, apparently, the shooter was carrying a concealed weapon in the theater. In this scenario, was there any advantage for self protection from the "annoying texter"? Just shoot the husband, and the wife was wounded trying to stop a bullet from killing her husband!
The attempted humor,"do not text on my lawn" , wow! Why would anyone text a 3 year old, DOES IT REALLY MATTER, her dad is dead!
QUINLAN106 He should have killed himself too, so he can rot in hell sooner and not cost Florida taxpayers money to keep him in jail. Its the typical mentality.
guns don't kill people. phones do.
Here's another texter: http://www.today.com/video/today/54065564/#54065564
mistergoogle "It was only time before the Hl regulars emerged from the darkness to add there "thoughts" to a horrible situation."
It wouldn't be much of a discussion board without... well.. discussion. Would you rather we just channel our thoughts to each other like Carnac the Magnificent?
"Now, waiting for the gun nuts to justify this shooting, apparently, the shooter was carrying a concealed weapon in the theater."
Nobody is justifying anything. Here are some facts - that theater is a gun free zone... but AHA! retired police are exempt from that "law" (in many states, you can still carry a firearm just about anywhere but it would be considered trespassing if someone saw the weapon and that person refuses to leave). We just get pissed because every gun control law on the books has a carve-out for law enforcement. I don't want to take their right to carry away, I think everyone should have the same carve-out (by eliminating the law).
This, at first glance, appears to be a non-justifiable shooting. It's not self defense if you stay and argue for 5 minutes with someone and then decide to shoot them. The shooter left AND CAME BACK after the argument had started. Some popcorn may have been thrown, but that's hardly a deadly weapon.
Texting and driving bad, texting during movie previews, big deal.
The guy could have changed seats or even complained to management.
I think it's about time that businesses start "no cell phone" policies. Of course the "entitled" will ignore these policies, but maybe it will cut the annoyance down 50%.
This story has a little bit of everything when it comes to the modern ills of America: senseless gun violence, the entitled cell phone user, the mentally ill senior citizen... sometimes "gallows humor" is the only way to try and make sense of it. I did think better of it and try to remove it, but Calico had already posted after me. My apologies Quinlan, you're right, at least as far as my comment. Too insensitive for public consumption.
"So right, no need to pull out a gun."
Agreed. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. In fact, by carrying a gun you should be MORE willing to walk away from any argument that can potentially escalate (whether it's your fault or not), else everyone's life can be irreparably changed.
I think the vast majority of people that carry weapons operate this way. Situational awareness and the willingness to walk away are solutions #1 and #2. Firearms are a last resort for when violence is thrust upon you and there are no other options.
Not to fault the victim, but both parties could have solved this by simply moving to a different set of seats.
How about the the theaters using technology to block the cell phones from getting reception. Metal fragments in paint/wall paper..thick walls etc. The fault is entirely with the shooter, but in this day an age, there must be a way to block the signals from getting into movie theaters. If you would need to make a call, step out of the theater. This would make the movie going experience more pleasurable for everybody.
Nancy I see bumper sticker Iman........
And really. We polish off close to 1,000 people a month via guns that don't kill people, 250 a week, that's almost one a day for every state in the union. With that kind of regularity, the fact that a texter becomes one of them is a little funny. Isn't it?
I mean this boat passed sad a few thousand bodies ago, tragic of few years ago. Might as well move on to smiley.
Nancy - Until the first time there's a story about how someone couldn't make a 911 call from within a theater, or a doctor not getting a call/page from a patient, or your kids get into a car accident and they need to reach you, or the alarm company trying to call because your house is on fire... then there would be outrage about how that business compromised everyone's safety.
I 100% agree with your last statement. More often than not, it's personal responsibility and consideration for others that is the solution to the problem, not more laws, rules, or technology.
Just another bad situation that happened in a country of 317 million people. To say that these things happen sounds terrible, but here we are with another event having 1 in 317 million (a 0.000003%) chance. Last time I checked crime rates are still going down; certainly they will never go to zero.
I agree that personal responsibility and consideration of others would cut down on this kind of thing. And no, darwin, I'm not "blaming the victim", just commenting on a trend.
justintime While I don't understand why you would text a 3 year old , it certainly doesn't merit getting shot. And if the light from a phone bothers you that much maybe you need to up your medication or stay the hell home !!
Missrx Why is everyone talking about banning cell phones. How about banning guns from theaters?
Calico - I meant a no gun policy. Metal detectors.
Missrx, if a person needs to sit and play with their phone the entire time during a move, maybe THEY should stay home and go to Redbox.
Tracy There were 25 ppl in the theater so safe to safe if this guy was bothering the nut job so much the nut job could have found an empty seat away from him. And it also says the guy was texting during the previews.
And 3 yr olds don't have cell phones or can even read so maybe he was texting the babysitter who was watching the 3yr old. But yeah let's focus on who he was texting and not the crazy person with the gun.
Darwin, you're about a billion times more likely to encounter an a-hole with a cell phone than a crazy bastard with a gun. I'm sure if people here had more personal experiences where someone came in and shot up the theater when they were watching a movie, they would definitely share that experience as well. Fortunately, not many people have that in their anecdotal data banks.
From one article I read:
"Cummings said the man in the back row - later identified as Reeves - got up and left the auditorium, presumably to get a manager. But he came back after a few minutes, without a manager and appearing upset. Moments later, the argument between the two men resumed, and the man in the front row stood up."
That's not going to look good for his (Reeves) defense... He was knowingly armed, and knowingly entering (or continuing) an argument. Borders on premeditation to me...
Reeves is an ex-SWAT chief (maybe he taught better tactics than "shoot first, ask questions later...").
Reeves also has a son on the Tampa police force. Hope that apple falls far from the tree...
Presumably, he was returning to where his wife was sitting after attempting to resolve the situation with a manager to no avail. I don't know whether that will help or hurt his defense. The other guy did allegedly confront him about reporting him to management, so that's mitigating right there, if he didn't continue the argument before then.
He'll get charged with murder 2 and will possibly plead to man 1.
MB Ianimal - I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer, so I don't know what "legally" applies, but my point is if he (Reeves) knew he had to return to the scene to meet/pick up his wife, and he knew that he was armed and upset, a different set of decisions must be made.
The proper thing to do is to make absolutely sure a manager accompanies you back to the theater, or gets your wife on your behalf. Going back into the "lion's den" for any reason if you're armed and angry would not look good to me if I were on the jury.
But as I alluded to way above, this guy's mentality was probably that he was just going to take care of another "punk" like he did on the force for years.
And here's another nugget... It seems to be a habit of his.
From http://tbo.com/news/crime/suspect-in-theater-shooting-goes-before-judge-today-20140114/
Assistant state attorney Manny Garcia told the court Reeves has a habit of confronting those in the theater with phones. Garcia said he was contacted late Monday by a woman who said she had a similar incident with Reeves in December.
“She was at the Cobb movie theater when she was confronted by the defendant for texting,” Garcia said. “He was glaring at her the entire time.”
Garcia added that Reeves followed the woman to the bathroom when she got up during the movie, which “made her feel very uncomfortable.”
I just read that he was, in fact, charged with murder 2. No premeditation, just heat of the moment.
The guy has a right to be upset at people who use cell phones when they are strictly prohibited in the theater. If the person using the phone complies and doesn't argue about it, I don't know how a heated argument would ensue. The person in the wrong should desist and apologize. He didn't. Then the old guy went to management and the younger guy confronted him for doing that upon his return, instead of practicing his STFU skills. He then stood up and threw something at the old guy.
I'm not saying that he deserved to get shot or that the old guy isn't a bit crazy, but there was more than one jack wagon in that theater.
And at EVERY SINGLE POINT in that sequence of events, the man who knew he had a gun in his pocket was free to de-escalate the situation in a number of ways that didn't involve pulling a trigger.
Both men were stupid, yes. But only one is an alleged murderer now.
Contrary to popular belief, carrying a gun doesn't/shouldn't give you the desire to get into more fights. It gives you the responsibility to walk away from them.
I don't disagree with you. He should go to jail for what he did. But what kind of person throws popcorn at an old man?
Are you really surprised or expect anything less from Florida. A state full of gun nuts that can't wait to stand their ground. Besides Florida is America's Wang
We'll probably never know what was said between these men, but maybe Reeves insulted the young man's wife, or said something about his daughter. Or maybe the young guy was just being an ass, but throwing popcorn is several notches below what most people would consider "fighting".
If I recall the rules from high school, the proper response to incoming popcorn is to dump your soda on the guy...
Nope. The proper response was to get your hands up as quick as you can. The popcorn tossing was just to distract you from the right cross that was coming behind it (-;
Nice to see the local police still have professional courtesy for an alleged murderer...
Handcuffed IN FRONT of his body, and no escort as he strolls on over to the nearby police cruiser. Someone even managed to serve him a nice cold bottle of water.
How many pairs of boots do you think you or I would have on our necks if we were involved in a shooting?
"Contrary to popular belief, carrying a gun doesn't/shouldn't give you the desire to get into more fights. It gives you the responsibility to walk away from them."
Agreed but you are clearly in the minority here. Most people, gun owners or not, are too quick to play tough guy. Just look at the prevailing attitudes in the threads related to bullying.
This is why I believe that "not all" people should be allowed to have guns. It is clear that there is a less than trivial amount of people too unstable to own a gun.
emaxxman emaxxman - Is this anecdotal evidence, or do you know a statistically large enough sample of gun owners to justify your statement? I agree that people can get heated here, but I trust that very few, if any, of our fellow HL'ers would make the leap to murder regardless of how much we argue. Many of us own guns and no shots have been fired...
Going on CDC/FBI numbers, the amount of people who criminally use guns to murder people is, in fact, quite trivial numerically. Yes, each case in and of itself is tragic, and those responsible should be held 100% accountable, but "not allowing" the 99.99999% of other people to do something based on someone else's crime is a very slippery slope that should be reserved for extremely unique situations with proper due process.
Those who violate that trust because they are tough guys, will undoubtedly run afoul of the law at some point, at which time their rights will be revoked (via incarceration). I do believe in restoring rights upon release/completion of probation, though. If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted outside of jail.
"Contrary to popular belief, carrying a gun doesn't/shouldn't give you the desire to get into more fights. It gives you the responsibility to walk away from them."
Oh come on, it what universe is that a given? Gee, I have a gun. Therefore I have been given the responsibility to walk away from fights. But wait, he texting. Now he's yelling at me, He tossed popcorn..... "In the words of Khan Noonien Singh in the immortal Wrath of Khan, “He tasks me, he tasks me and I shall have him. From Hell’s heart I stab at thee!”"
And seat belts and air bags make you drive slower too.
MG, just because you wouldn't trust yourself with a gun in public, don't project your inadequacies of self control onto the rest of us.
I said it give you the RESPONSIBILITY of walking away. Each person has to provide the ABILITY to see that through.
Heck, if I wanted to I could walk around town armed to the teeth right now and no "law" will physically stop me. In fact, there's a good chance I wouldn't even get caught because I have chosen not to be a cold blooded killer getting into fights on every corner..
I think you may fall into the category that emaxxman alluded to above....
My money is on that old man cowboy did not have his gun on him when he went into the theater - signs saying no guns allowed- which is crazy that there even has to BE a sign saying that. Perhaps the manager said it was just previews which pissed old man cowboy off even more. Then he went to get his gun -
just like a common thug in Newark would do.
Does it matter who the victim was texting?
Blackcat Blackcat - I'm curious if something like that happened too, but until some info regarding how long he was gone/statements from the manager/etc. are released it would just be severe speculation.
Not that we haven't speculated on other facts, but based on the statements that have been released there's at least somewhat of an accurate picture about what happened inside the theater.
It could go either way, I think. "No Guns" signs do not have the force of law in Florida, so I doubt he would be a good little Boy Scout and disarm before entering, especially as ex-LEO with a sense of entitlement.
Mark Mc, wow, I can't believe he followed the woman to the bathroom! Too bad she didn't report him for that. And what the heck is his wife doing during all of this?!?
I think I'd pass on movie outings that always resulted in confrontations because my husband's a jerk...
"Does it matter who the victim was texting?"
Yes, I agree...but my question is, does it matter that the victim was even texting at all?
Trying to look outside of the box here, I would think when your dealing with an unstable person (a walking time bomb), most likely anything is going to trigger them off. Who knows, a sneeze, loud munching on popcorn, anything could have provoked this man to lose it.
You just never know the type of person your dealing with and what they are capable of. It's very scary and I would just try to ease the situation and walk away, but unfortunately the victim did not do that, if he did he might still be alive today.
positive , don't do it, don't start , . . . . not gonna do it . . . . not gonna start, oh no, here we go . . .
type . . . .delete . . . . .re-word. . . . type again . . . delete again . . nope, just not gonna do it . . . . ., not gonna, . . . . . .
nope, gonna stick with my new years revolutions . . . . . . . .
type, delete, type, paste quotes, add links, . . . . . .nope, not going there,
delete, delete, delete
don't feed the trolls, they don't eat normal, everyone knows they eat abby-normal, don't feed em' , it's bad, real bad.
BrotherDog positive, I think it does matter to an extent, and has to do with what ianimal wrote above. Had the victim put his phone away when asked, perhaps that would have been the end of it. Obviously, the victim wasn't feeling apologetic, but rather confrontational.
This stupid man died over mind numbing bullshit. If he really had to text his 3 year old then realize the world does not revolve around him and go to the lobby and then come back.
iJay Seriously what the heck is wrong with people today? Yes, the guy texting was annoying but the retired cop should NOT have shot him.
I have been to the movies that I got suck sitting next to some jack@$$ who thought it was okay to bring their infant twins to a 10pm movie while I paid for a babysitter for my children. Was it fair that I got stuck sitting next two complete jerks who have no consideration for the rest of the theater? Let me tell you those babies were fussing or crying through out the movie until they were kicked out.
Mommyof3 Tracy, I understand that the victim could have eased the situation rather than exasperate it. However, a person that shoots another person over a trivial argument and self defense is not needed, well to me that person is capable of shooting anyone over anything that annoys them.
You are right, the victim could have just let it go and complied, but I doubt he even imagined the idea that if he didn't it would be the end for him.
Mark...not gun owners...people in general. Mental illness is a growing issue in this country. Stable minded, educated, responsible people owning guns....that's fine. People who are willing to fight over a text message or kill over one...that's not fine.
And as I've stated before, I don't believe in gun bans for all. I've actually inquired about gun lessons for myself. I simply believe in gun bans for some.
So sad. May the texter RIP . Scary that the shooter was a retired police officer, but sadly, I'm not too entirely shocked considering it happened in Florida. Home of Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, etc...etc... There must be something in the water down there.
EG_1982 The only gun bans I would ever support are for individuals who have demonstrated through THEIR OWN actions, that THEY are not responsible enough to own a gun.
To me, that means they committed a violent crime against another (whether knife. baseball bat, or gun, etc.) or have been adjudicated mentally ill through due process. Upon completion of probation/incarceration/parole or completion of medical treatment their rights should be fully restored - with perhaps a 2 or 3 strikes and you're out permanently clause. Enforcing any of this is still effectively impossible, but hey... baby steps...
"Crimes" that should not qualify for a loss of rights are possession or "it looks scary" laws (crimes against the "state"), *unsubstantiated* accusations of domestic violence, non-violent felonies, etc.
I know, I'm weird... I prefer people actually get judged based on their own merits/faults... It seems that's not how the world works (especially NJ) with firearms laws though. I think that partly stems from the fact that in high profile crimes, as rare as they are, the perpetrators often kill themselves, and since there is nobody alive to bring to justice, people lash out at anyone else who shares even the most irrelevant commonality to that person (i.e. other gun owners) with knee-jerk reactions.
Anyway, I'm glad to see you have an open mind and that we share some common ground.
Just FYI - I believe Shongum will be holding NRA Basic Pistol classes on April 12, July 12, and October 11 ,if the calendar is to be believed. Cost is $175 and the club is only a few minutes away from Hackettstown/Mansfield.
http://shongum.org/trainingprograms.html
I will probably be attending also, as this is a prerequisite for the Personal Protection in the Home course, as well as satisfying a training requirement for Florida's concealed carry license.
Oh brother.... after following another texting movie goer to the bathroom, I hope he doesn't get away with "Stand your ground"...
http://gma.yahoo.com/accused-movie-theater-shooter-said-39-fear-being-182255343--abc-news-topstories.html
LVMom - He's on pretty shaky SYG territory.
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/01/stand_your_ground_has_nothing.php
Mark, I'm curious as to what your opinion would be as to the minimum age for gun ownership.
jd2 Mark,
I can not agree with you more or less on this one. Give this guy probation, an anger management course, maybe pick up a few cans at the curb, and restore his constitutional rights ASAP. Probably just a one time thing, just a bad day. After all, there's more texters out there! Times a wasting.
I am sorry for seeming so banal on this one but given all the people we shoot every year, given all the reasons we shoot them for, and given all the places/times/positions we shoot them in, this one just seems to highlight the lunacy we call our constitutional right in America.
I mean look that the bright side. Only one guy died, a drop in the blood bucket. And think of the message it sent to bad texters and movie goers everywhere. I might just take in a show tonight if I can just find where I put my RPG. Oh right, lent it to the kids for show n tell.
Thanks Mark
from the article "Police briefly considered "Stand Your Ground," but realized it didn't apply and arrested Reeves and charged him with second degree homicide."
I can't believe it was even considered.
Jd2, what's the minimum age for religion or speaking?
By the way, children can own guns today... BB guns, Cricket .22's, etc. are very common. Good parenting dictates that firearm safety rules apply, of course.
MG - every time you open your "mouth" I'm more convinced than ever that you do have a mental defect and seriously would not be someone I trust with a gun - or the RPG's that you (through thinly veiled sarcasm) seem to so desperately want.
What part of "hold them 100% responsible" can you not get through your skull?
If that punishment is life in prison, then yes, his rights are revoked during that sentence.
If the courts think he can be "cured" in 5 years and then released back into society, then he should be released as a FREE man. Otherwise, why the hell is he out?
In the meantime, why are MY rights revoked for something HE did?
JD2 - Just as a followup, heres the "compromise" I'd be willing to accept (unlike the bastardization of what some people think compromise means - i.e. I'll only take half of your money this time...)
The right to carry a concealed firearm in public is the same age that one is eligible for military service (17 with parental consent, otherwise 18). Below that age, one must open carry with direct parental supervision (who don't also need to be armed, but must be present).
In addition, to ensure firearm safety (again, not the bastardization that currently means "gun control"), schools must participate in NRA Eddie Eagle firearms safety courses, along with MADD/DARE/sex ed, etc.
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/
Mark Mc-in regard to the pic of the murderer with his hands in front, strolling to cop car, they allowed it because he was a cop. Always special treatment.
Mark, let's just say for now that I'm not a friend of guns. I respect your viewpoint though, which I think you present well.
Fair enough jd2.
If there's anything that I (or fellow firearm owners) can do to clear up any questions or concerns you may have about guns in general, current laws, or just curiosities about how they work, etc. don't hesitate to ask.
Despite what some people here try to portray us as, we're generally just your friendly neighbors!
Gee, last time I agree with you. Must have been that mental defect you're so sure of.
If you agreed with me you sure did a poor job of expressing it. All I saw was a mockery of what this guy's punishment should be, followed by a nice display of hyperbole, as if all gun owners want to blow up the nearest theater.
He has to serve time, at least 20 years. He took a life. That guy is gone, he has to pay.
"The only gun bans I would ever support are for individuals who have demonstrated through THEIR OWN actions, that THEY are not responsible enough to own a gun."
Marc I value your opinion on this matter and as a gun owner i agree with most of what you say. Going on your above statement, what are your thoughts on the parents of the NM school shooting. Their 12 yr was able to take their shotgun and bring it and use it at school. Do you feel they should no longer be allowed to own guns since they clearly did not have it locked at home? I am curious of what your thoughts are to gun owning parents who do not seem to practice gun safety at home with young children present. should they be banned from owning a gun based on your above statement?
I don't believe in blanket *pre-emptive* bans or onerous laws regarding storage or how much/little access parents may give to their children regarding firearms. Many millions of children have safely grown up with dad's or granddad's shotgun or rifle merely leaning against the back door of the kitchen - and they were taught to respect it (and most likely also how to use it safely). That seemed to work for about the first 200 years of this country's history, so what has changed? Certainly not the guns (and before the "muzzle loaders are safer" crowd chimes in, keep in mind that semi automatic firearms have been around since approximately 1885).
Now where it gets tricky is after a crime has been committed. Again, it's not black and white. Were the parents completely negligent - never having evaluated their child's attitude towards guns, but merely leaving their own self defense weapons accessible? Perhaps they tried keeping it somewhat secure and the kid was able to get to it anyway - maybe he found the keys or broke the door to the gun cabinet. Not everyone can afford a $5,000 gun safe that weighs 800 pounds (which aren't impenetrable anyway) and light duty gun safes generally only keep the honest people out.
So without knowing this, I don't have the answer. Just like I don't have the answer if parents should always lose other rights if their child bullies someone on Facebook causing them to commit suicide... or their teenage son sexually harasses/molests someone. Sometimes the punishment rolls up to the parents, and sometimes we recognize that children are still unique individuals responsible for their own thoughts and actions.
Not picking on Mark since he is espousing the same ole tire gunrunners crud, but his argument for guns for all with as liberal a holding policy as possible stinks. Here's my point: when it comes to kids shooting kids or shooting themselves, there are no accidents, there is only tragedy and, most likely, but not a given, negligence.
Unfortunately it's moral negligence since most often there is no law or the law deems it a terrible accident.
Here's what Mark and the guys-for-guns think: "I don't believe in blanket *pre-emptive* bans or onerous laws regarding storage or how much/little access parents may give to their children regarding firearms"
OK, this is the pre-emptive strike, the crux of Mark's biscuit, his point. No bans on how much access parents allow kids to guns. Why?
One reason is: . "Many millions of children have safely grown up with dad's or granddad's shotgun or rifle merely leaning against the back door of the kitchen"
Now this is true for Chinese communism, is that OK? It's true for tuberculosis, is that OK? No cure needed?
"and they were taught to respect it (and most likely also how to use it safely)." Of course we don't know this to be true, it's just a supposition based on the fact that they are not all dead. Of course, we don't know the converse either. That is, we don't know how many shot each other or their friends by "accident" as the law likes to call it.
But we do know the reported numbers. And the NYT reports that folks think the real number may be over 50% higher due to unreported "accidents." And we do know that it's mostly boys with guns mostly shooting themselves or other boys. Girls must be more "respectful" Mark.
We also know that since Sandy Hook, 213 kids have been gunned down, at least 36 by "accident" which usually means Dad or Mom left the gun out. Some headlines:
"Arizona 3-year-old dies after accidentally shooting himself with parent's gun" (AP)
No charges filed at time of article
"Sheine Stein, 3, of Frederick died of 'accidental gunshot' to head, coroner rules" (Times Call News)
Seems to be an "accident."
"Sheriff: Four-Year-Old Killed After Accidental Shooting" (OzarksFirst.com)
Opps, another accident.
Probably well over 36 of these "accidental" murders are because someone left a gun out. There's not a lot of 3-year old lock picking going on out there. And sure Mark, the numbers are low so who really needs to care. Even if the NYT is correct and the number is 50% higher, it's just a child-sized drop in the blood bucket. Yet for some ungodly reason, we choose to call these tragedies, "accidents" and most often the investigation ends with that being the case. After all, haven't the parents suffered enough? And shouldn't we be constitutionally free to leave our "shotgun or rifle merely leaning against the back door of the kitchen." After all, the vast majority of kids survive.
But then, in your tome, you put on your thinking cap and try to come up with guns-in-kids-hands negligence guidelines like "Were the parents completely negligent - never having evaluated their child's attitude towards guns," What the heck is a "child's gun attitude?" Probably starts with, "cool, let's shoot it." And why do the parents have to be "completely negligent," wouldn't just a little dab of negligence do it? And did the child overtly overpower the gun's safety storage, anyone could see that as a mitigating factor. But not by a three or four year old.
The NRA, and it sounds like Mark, oppose any sort of safe storage laws since more kids are killed in other manners so protecting kids from guns should not be addressed (the tuberculosis argument). Over 20 states can't even find a parent negligent for doing whatever with a gun in the house if a kid gets it. There are no laws on the books to charge them for gun negligence. The NRA, and Mark, don't support enacting them either. The Gun lobby has also stopped any regulation by the Consumer Product Safety Commission so forget any technological fixes although this is seen as a long shot anyway.
So, where does that leave us. For the most part, we as a nation believe that leaving guns about with little kids about is not an negligent activity. Mark agrees unless "complete negligence' is apparent, whatever that is. When kids shoot themselves, we call it an accident, bereave with the parents, and go home. No harm, no foul.
I say there's a dead kid. Why? If there is negligence, defined by the legal dictionary as: "conduct that falls below the standards of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm," then throw the legal book at them, lock them up, and maybe, just maybe, the next yo-ho will think twice before leaving the handgun on the table to go and grab a beer. Maybe Grandpop will think twice before leaving the gun leaning and walking away. Lock em up. There was no accident, only a tragedy. And the aggrieved party is not the parent, it's the dead kid.
How can you, your gun buddies, and the NRA think differently about guns and kids?
I apologize in advance, while factual, this one is a bit hard to read: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?_r=0
Just saw this in my hometown newspaper.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140116/NEWS01/301160150/child-shoots-child-Detroit
another heartbreaking story ---seriously - - people really need guns in their homes? are you kidding me? maybe need a gun library --go check it out when you need it and return it when you're done --if you are found sane first................
MG - I'll be the first person to call someone who leaves a gun around an unsupervised 3 year old a stupid irresponsible ass. If the 3 year old gets hold of the gun and shoots themselves or others it is definitely negligence on the part of the parents.
Same as if the 3 year old got access to a kitchen knife... or was suffocated with a plastic bag that had been laying on the floor... or fell into a pool when the gate was left open.... or walked into the street when nobody was looking... or any number of other tragedies that responsible parents should have prevented - without needing a law to tell them to do so.
But there comes a point in every child's life when they start to prove they are responsible with handling knives, and plastic bags, and pools, and looking both ways before they cross the street, and yes - even guns. The scale starts tipping away from parental negligence towards personal responsibility (on the child's part)... and unfortunately there are still pure accidents. Do you still blame your parent's negligence when you get in a fender bender (how dare they leave those car keys laying around), or cut yourself when you're slicing veggies (they should have locked those sharp knives away!)?
I think that's why at 8, 10, 12 years old we can't automatically say "there should be a law against that!!!" when a child has access to a gun. I had access to guns when I was that age... my brother was probably out hunting by himself at that age. We didn't shoot up our schools. So it isn't purely "access to a gun" that can be legislated away to prevent these situations.
My husband has been handling guns since he was 6 years old. This was a way of life for him and his family. Hunting got them through the lean months. They needed meat in the freezer.
That said, he is the most respectful firearms owner and hunter I have ever met.
Just because you have access to guns doesn't mean you are going to go and shoot people.
Nobody disputes the tragedy of any accidental death, 5catmom, but here's a bit of perspective. I'll keep my analysis to "children" age groups, even though I don't consider 24 year olds to be children...
From CDC data for 2010 (not cherry picked for any reason other than it was one of the first Google results that had charts in a readable format - links are below).
Below 1 year of age approximately 93.5% of deaths were health related. "Unintentional Injuries" account for the rest, but ~90% of those were from accidental suffocation. Sounds like we should be banning plastic bags as a starting point.
Between 1 and 24 years of age, the leading cause of death is, in fact, Unintentional Injuries. You would think accidental shootings would be a major subset of those, right? Actually, no. Only in the 10-14 age group does "Unintentional Firearm" even squeak into the top 10, far outpaced (17:1) by the leading cause: motor vehicle accidents. I suggest we enact a law that car keys must be stored in child proof safes... for the children of course.
It is unfortunate to see homicide and suicide mixing in as well, peaking in the teen/twenties groups - although still not a leading cause of death. If we want to enact laws to save children's lives (between 1 and 14, say...) we would be exponentially more effective by addressing motor vehicles, fires, suffocation, drowning, and poisoning. Do you suggest people have mental health checks to prove sanity before buying a car, zip-loc bags, candles, tylenol, or swimming pools, too?
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_All_Deaths_By_Age_Group_2010-a.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.pdf
I'm not a gun advocate nor am I against guns but I'm sure there are many very responsible gun owners out there as there are many irresponsible ones out there too.
To me, this is not about cell phones or guns, it's about a mentally unstable person that lost it and killed another person. He could have killed him with a knife and the victim could have agitated him with something/anything other than a cell phone, I pointed that out in a previous post.
Not sure why so many people are not focusing on the mental state of the offender, but focusing more on the material objects that were involved.
The same reason people focus on global warming instead of overpopulation. The real problems have ugly solutions that we can't even consider, so we focus on the irrelevant in an attempt to make ourselves feel like we're doing something.
Here's another interesting tidbit...
Firearms (accidental or intentional) aren't even in the top 10 *injuries* for any age group...
But again, plenty of results for cars, knives, falls, fists, bicycles, suffocation, poisoning, bites...
Sounds to me like guns are some of the safest objects you can have in your house.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCI_Nonfatal_InjuryTreated_In_Hospital%20Emergency_Dept_2011-a.pdf
Yes Mark, but cars and bicycles don't elicit the same conditioned response as guns.
Pavlovs bell is to dogs as guns are to .....
http://m.wcvb.com/news/boy-7-faces-assault-charge-after-spencer-classmate-stabbed-with-pencil/-/17428308/23871184/-/fpobi6z/-/index.html
Let's ban pencils....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22636/Boy-12-stabbed-baby-brother-death.html
Let's ban knives....
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/video/man-stabs-cvs-employee-while-on-drugs-and-four-loko/2191339920001
Let's ban drugs....oh...wait....we have already made drugs illegal and people still manage to get their hands on them. Making guns illegal will certainly remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens, but the criminals and crazies will still find a way to get their hands on them.
YoumustbeaDUMBacrat Ian: the economic effects of global warming will continue to gain "relevance" as the human suffering from those effects increases.
Mark, if the gun industry put 1/100th of the safety design development effort into their product that the auto industry was regulated to do, the US would be a safer place.
And yes, I agree with you on negligence of all those items but might raise the "it's a stupid kid" bar higher than nine.
I do think it's creepy that we like to call these child deaths "accidents." Look, it's a boo boo, Johnny got a gun." It's a HUGE difference from a kids's controlled usage of a gun for sport with parental support than a young kid just picking one up when no one is around.
Overpopulation is the ultimate cause of global warming. Not carbon dioxide, that's just a symptom of the larger problem. When the planet has two or three (or more) times the number of human beings that it can sustain, there are bound to be problems. Over abundance of waste products and under abundance of resources will continue to escalate.
But it's easy to say that we need to cut carbon emissions, not so easy to say that we need to kill 2 out of every three people on the planet to attain a stable and sustainable population. So, we wait for a cataclysmic event or disease for nature to restore the balance on her own. Perhaps the effects of global warming will ultimately serve that purpose. Hopefully long after I'm gone.
"Mark, if the gun industry put 1/100th of the safety design development effort into their product that the auto industry was regulated to do, the US would be a safer place."
Guns are EXTREMELY safe when used PROPERLY. Most guns have at least one safety, many have 2, and some have 3 or more that all need to be deactivated before firing a round (the attached image is an example of a gun with two safeties plus the need to intentionally pull the trigger AFTER both have been deactivated). Also, if I *intentionally* run you over with my car, is that the fault of "safety" devices such as airbags, ABS, or traction control? Do we blame Ford or Chevy for drunk drivers? Worst. Analogy. Ever. Mr Google.
"I do think it's creepy that we like to call these child deaths "accidents." Look, it's a boo boo, Johnny got a gun." It's a HUGE difference from a kids's controlled usage of a gun for sport with parental support than a young kid just picking one up when no one is around."
I would say that generally implies "negligence" on the part of the parent, but still an "accident" on the part of the child. Same as if parents leave prescription drugs lying around and the kid gets a hold of them (with poisoning being a more frequent cause of death than accidental firearms incidents, per the CDC charts above).
The answer to the population problem isn't killing two out of three people, it's helping third world countries to modernize. That's the most affecting thing we can do to slow population growth. The next best thing we can do is reduce our per capita impact, and therefore reduce our effective population size.
Gadfly "The next best thing we can do is reduce our per capita impact"
How do we do that in a society whose economy is based 100% on consumption? Not sure how that will work. I agree Gadfly, but it's not going to happen with our economic system as it stands today. Big changes are needed but no one will want them, so we'll just keep doing what we've been doing until it can no longer be sustained. Sad, but historically true.
Bravo, the first gun safety was invented in 1872; that's some technological track record for safety enhancement improvements over the past 142 years.
And how does this help your argument that gun makers think about safety when you say: "Also, if I *intentionally* run you over with my car, is that the fault of "safety" devices such as airbags, ABS, or traction control? Do we blame Ford or Chevy for drunk drivers? Worst Analogy. Ever."
Really. So do I need to match you with the number of intentional shootings per year? Cuz it's pretty darned close to auto deaths and intentional shooting deaths certainly blows intentional car murders, poison murders, etc. I mean are you really trying to compare a child's death due to someone negligently leaving a gun out to the intentional murder by car (of which there are very few)? Do you actually see a comparison between the two or are children killed when guns are left laying about unimportant since their numbers are smaller than some other form of child death?
And are you really suggesting that the only issue that should be worked is the one at the very top of the death ladder? Should we perhaps rate child deaths lower since they weigh less too?
I stand uncorrected that "if the gun industry put 1/100th of the safety design development effort into their product that the auto industry was regulated to do, the US would be a safer place." How can you discount this since the gun industry has put zero safety design enhancement in their products in over a century?
Perhaps adding a technological safety enhancement is unimportant to you. Perhaps you think the gun makers can not develop any new safety features over the past 142 years beyond using the same century-old one multiple times. I mean they could be that stupid, mean, money-hungry or all-of-the-above. Perhaps you feel it's safe enough and these kids don't matter or that the parents were probably negligent but got away with it. I don't.
I think almost everyone of these parents should be found guilty of negligence. I think gun makers are indeed smart enough to design modern low-cost safety features to help.
Imagine if the gun makers did give a squat or were regulated to care and they could boast the same improved safety statistics that automakers can make since the invention of seatbelt followed by other safety design features. I mean all we are trying to do is protect the kids from all the guns lying around. It's not an overly complicated technological problem. Is that too much to ask? I mean when it comes to constitutional rights, 3yr, 4yr, 6yr olds etc. shooting themselves and their friends seems to put a real dent into "pursuit of happiness."
By the by: "freedom advocates" said the same thing about seat belts that you are saying regarding child safety designs for guns. Just can't believe that you don't care enough to save a child from a gun laying about.
Considering that the function of guns hasn't changed much in 150 years, I don't think the safeties need to change much either.
Safeties are designed to assist in limiting the accidental discharge of a firearm, much like ABS and other safety features are intended to assist with accidental loss of control of a vehicle. Cars are very complicated machines, requiring software that makes 1000's of decisions per second to activate and moderate all of their safety features.
Guns are very simple. A spring causes a hammer or striker to move forward ~1/4" to hit a primer. The safeties just have to prevent that one simple mechanical motion. The fact that manufacturers have found ways to incorporate three or more separate safeties to prevent this simple motion and package it all into the palm of your hand is pretty impressive. No batteries to go bad, no computers to program and update firmware, and very very rare mechanical failures.
The fact that the media produces a report every time these firearm safeties fail to do their job means that it is, in fact, a remarkably rare event. We only hear the stories of the car that launched off the cliff because the brakes failed, not the million others that managed to stop safely at the edge.
"Just can't believe that you don't care enough to save a child from a gun laying about."
I never said that, but no law will ever accomplish this. There are "smart" guns out there, but they are relatively unreliable and expensive. Still, if parents so choose, they are free to purchase them.
What do you propose? Make it illegal to have unlocked guns in houses with children? How would you enforce that without throwing away the 4th amendment?
first safety was invented much earlier than 1872, flintlocks and cap locks have a 'half cocked' position where the trigger won't pull, if the hammer is in the half cocked position, the trigger is locked out, this is a safety mechanism. not sure what year they started with them, could be as far back as 1700, and maybe earlier.
that's why we have that commonly used phrase that exists in usage even today;
"don't go off half-cocked"
this means be sure to pull the hammer all the way back before pulling the trigger.
Many guns (1911's in particular) still have the half-cock position as a final layer of safety.
If for some reason the hammer was to fall without both safeties disengaged and the trigger pulled fully to the rear (such as if there is a mechanical failure on the sear), the hammer catches on the half-cock position to remain away from the firing pin.
See, yet ANOTHER safety feature...
You seem to say why bother spending any time protecting children from loose guns lying about as if it's a matter of personal rights of freedom. As I said, I would enact gun negligence laws in every state and then enforce them. I would take the "accident' out of these criminally negligent acts.
It would be nice to rectify the ease that kids can shoot kids via product design but really doubt these yo-ho's who leave them lying about would actually pay more to be able to leave them about safely for children. And it's apparent that the gun makers don't have a clue on design and that the advocates could care less since more kids die in car accidents. So why support product safety designs to thwart a few deaths by gun negligence? Why indeed.
And to say the gun has not changed in the past 150 years seems to miss a few enhancements especially in firepower. We barely had the repeating rifle by that time, didn't we? We just have not improved any safety features especially where children are involved. But hey, why should we. Lightning kills more so why bother.
So no need to write five responses back to this one, I get your point, you've had it for some time. No change, no problem, something else is worse. And sure, you agree that these people are stupid, but fact remains that most states don't even have laws on the books to even call leaving your guns about for kids to play with a negligent act.
I am just not OK with that and saddened that it does not bother you and your ilk.
"As I said, I would enact gun negligence laws in every state and then enforce them. I would take the "accident' out of these criminally negligent acts. "
So with your zero tolerance law, these would result in negligence charges against the parents for allowing their children to access firearms:
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/8978-second-amendment-victory-14-year-old-uses-gun-to-protect-family-from-intruder/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQg0SD_AT-k
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/10/20/12-year-old-girl-home-alone-uses-family-gun-to-shoot-intruder/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiiQQP4-Ijw
http://sellingthesecondamendment.com/tag/example-of-children-defending-family-with-gun/
"And it's apparent that the gun makers don't have a clue on design and that the advocates could care less since more kids die in car accidents."
So enlighten me, what safety enhancements would you add that could detect whether the person holding the weapon should be "allowed" to fire it. I can name at least half a dozen existing safety designs that prevent weapons from unintentionally firing, but apparently there's some magic that I'm missing. Don't hold out on us - you obviously know the answer...
"And to say the gun has not changed in the past 150 years seems to miss a few enhancements especially in firepower. "
You're right... it's only been about 110 years (not 150) since the development of some of the most powerful handgun rounds (.45ACP designed in 1904) and some of the most powerful rifle rounds (.50 BMG designed in 1910). You do realize the military uses LESS powerful calibers in their service rifles today (.223 / 5.56mm) compared to WWI and WWII (.30-06 caliber).
Some of *the most popular* handguns today are model 1911's... guess where the name comes from.
Most of the enhancements over the last 100 years have been in ergonomics, manufacturing precision, and reliability - not necessarily lethality.
"I am just not OK with that and saddened that it does not bother you and your ilk."
I'm saddened that you keep trying to put words in my mouth. I don't like the fact that anyone needlessly dies, but you seem to think that putting a few extra words on a piece of paper is going to do a damn bit of good to prevent that, and you're flat out wrong.
You better add a category to your new law for negligent storage of these items too...
I'm also thoroughly disappointed that after *thousands* of years, axe manufacturers still can't figure out how to make these things safer.
http://extramustard.si.com/2013/12/15/teen-attacks-brother-medieval-axe-mini-bat-video-games-nebraska/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/teen-girl-charged-with-attempted-murder-after-axe-attack-1.1322145
http://ewn.co.za/2013/07/05/Teen-axe-murderers-grandmother-dies
http://www.nbc12.com/story/12875152/hanover-teen-pleads-guilty-to-ax-attack-video-released
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/21301531/teen-attacks-dad-with-hatchet
Mark; don't feed the trolls. this guy lives to argue, it makes his day and he is on record as enjoying tweaking those who with he disagrees, It's a true character flaw for which he is unrepentant, unapologetic, and in my own opinion, unaware of how caustic his personal behavior really is. (makes himself a 'cyberbully')
good posts by the way, keep up the good work, there are more people who agree with you than disagree,
Mr. G - you are wrong in your Socratic techniques, you are making up words and meanings, ascribe them to those on the other side, then spewing your vitriolic bunk arguments with statements that the original posters have never made but have come out of your own fantasy world.
this is wrong and you know it, so stop it now, cut it out and debate with intellectual honesty and in good faith. your strawman techniques are not valid and they demean you and your arguments, with your resulting pretzel logic looking as comical as it is nonfactual and just plain wrong.
so think it through and evolve, give it a shot, you can change for the better if you try hard enough, stop putting words and meanings into other peoples mouths and then arguing with these strawman extrapolations that were never expressed and not in evidence just to further your own personal agenda talking points. We are onto your games.
for the discussion: There are many cases of parents being charged with reckless endangerment for leaving out guns where very young children can get access to them, one in south jersey just in the last year. The NRA has designed, championed and initiated programs that work with DA's in several large cities to prosecute to the full extent of law crimes that are committed with firearms. these programs have been very successful in sending more criminals to jail for longer periods of time when the crimes included the misuse of firearms. (both in Philadelphia and Richmond and other locations). Negligence, reckless endangerment are included in these efforts. Many times prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges against grieving parents in these situations. that needs to change. New laws are not necessarily required, but the approach by DA's and prosecutors needs to include these concepts.
No young child should be running around with a loaded gun, and when one of these tragedies occurs, then the parents should be charged fully under existing law. this is isn;t happening, but it could if we emphasize it.
why not try that approach?
(and please for the love of god, stop with these strawman responses, they just aren't working for you)
So true BrotherDog... we have laws in place to ascribe blame where the blame lies...
But that's not good enough for some people. If the laws we have aren't working (or worse, not being applied) let's just pre-emptively make things more illegal-er, right?
That'll learn 'em!
Maybe the difference of opinions is this:
Mark sees a society of intelligent, if not ignorant in some respects, people who can rationalize and understand risk, and therefore make educated decisions about how to manage those risks that exists in our lives. Addressing any problem involves education to resolve our ignorance rather than lawful dictates meant to provide the illusion of enhanced safety at the expense of limits being imposed on responsible citizens.
Mrg, meanwhile, continues to assume that we are *all* uneducated, unable to understand the basic premise of risk and thus need to be told by the supreme source of intelligence in the US, our government, what it is that the government must do to protect ourselves from our own stupidity (a government, mind you, run by the same stupid species it wants to control). Meanwhile, in his attempts to press his cause via long-winded obfuscations, he forgets (intentionally, perhaps) to correlate these unfortunate instances with their statistical significance relative to other life risks, which are many, boldly ignoring them just to satisfy his need for the control of others to suit his own personal beliefs.
Or something like that ;-)
"So with your zero tolerance law, these would result in negligence charges against the parents for allowing their children to access firearms:"
I never said that, you did. I said "I would enact gun negligence laws in every state and then enforce them. I would take the "accident' out of these criminally negligent acts." Putting laws on the books and enforcing them is not zero tolerance.
"So enlighten me, what safety enhancements would you add that could detect whether the person holding the weapon should be "allowed" to fire it."
I do not have the centuries of experience that these folks do or even you so it's a silly question. But someone should try at least. And your and the NRA's response that other things are worse is no reason to not try.
"I'm also thoroughly disappointed that after *thousands* of years, axe manufacturers still can't figure out how to make these things safer."
The ole "well other things kill people too so guns lying about without adequate controls is just OKdoky with me" argument. Like "old age kills more people than cancer so why find a cure. I mean old age gonna get you anyway so why bother brother? You bother because you might save 260 children from shootings; you might save 260 families from destruction and, frankly, you might save gun lovers from yet another stain of inhumanity.
"Tweaking is a true character flaw."
Oh the inhumanity of it all especially since you spend the next couple hundred words doing far, far worse than that to which I stand accused.
"Mr. G - you are wrong in your Socratic techniques, you are making up words and meanings, ascribe them to those on the other side, then spewing your vitriolic bunk arguments with statements that the original posters have never made but have come out of your own fantasy world."
Of course you have no examples of any of this but (and just for fun):
"Socratic techniques" defined by the free dictionary as "A pedagogical technique in which a teacher does not give information directly but instead asks a series of questions, with the result that the student comes either to the desired knowledge by answering the questions or to a deeper awareness of the limits of knowledge."
Oh, so that's what I'm doing. Go figure. Well, "a student's got to know his limitations..."
"making up words" hmmm....since it's Socratic Method and not technique and since I gather you punted on the actual definition....... Speaking of which: "strawman extrapolations," you got some good combinations to try to define.
Nope. My assertions stand. If you feel that nothing needs to be done about kids shooting themselves and each other with guns just lying about , that the status quo is the best that can be done, that more kids die in other fashions so why bother trying to fit it, then I say you are not bothered by it and that saddens me.
Now, you bring up some NRA programs and that sounds cool. However, first, as I has stated: MANY states do not have child access prevention laws. Matter of fact, fewer than 27 states have laws on the books. Therefore, it is very difficult to prove negligence in 25 states for folks to leave guns around for ready access by children. Kind of like Mark's famous knife or axe example; there is no gun negligence law to prosecute against. Obviously, the NRA's program is doing nothing in those states. So what is the NRA doing about that:? And, for you and Mark, who feel negligence should be punished, what do you think about that? And why don't the gun makers and the NRA stand up and shout about it?
In states that have laws on the books, it is hard to say the laws actually help since prosecutors don't enforce the law. Often "compassionate" cops and prosecutors feel that enough tragedy has transpired. They have suffered enough. A kid shoots himself with a gun on a coffee table and BDog, Mark and their kind say horrible accident, axes kill more kids than guns. Well, so do the cops and prosecutors. But leave the same kid in the car in the summer with the windows rolled up and........
You say the NRA is helping but cite no sources. Please cite some sources. I say they aren't and here are the quotes from the NRA News Host: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/08/nra-news-fights-for-the-right-to-leave-unsecure/197479
So there you have it folks. You can be for guns but are you really for allowing kids to shoot kids and parents not being charged? Do you really feel it's OK for the gun makers not to try for product safety improvements to stop kids from killing kids? Or is it just me?
And I leave you with this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/guns-120-kids-newtown-article-1.1391208
Pretty good summary justintime. More eloquent than I could have put it... then again, I'm an engineer, so logic and quantitative analysis are stronger than my persuasive writing skills. ;)
Mark, writing and communication are my weak areas but thanks for the kind words anyway. Like you, I too am an Engineer and also possess that oh-so-terrible skill that allows us to problem solve and create solutions based in the real world. It's a curse, I tell you, to be able to put our emotions aside to see through the bull crap and get to the root causes of problems (especially when our emotions are telling us to do something different). ;-)
misterg, no one will argue with you that deaths you've linked to aren't sad tales of life as a human being. No one. OK? I think all that Mark has been doing is putting those accidents into perspective. Extrapolating the numbers in that last article you linked to, we're talking about 80 deaths a year. Sad? Absolutely. Preventable? Probably, but through more education and not by more legislation. But an "epidemic" as posited by the article? Not even remotely close.
thanks mr. g, by you deliberately missing the point of what was expressed and responding as you did demonstrates amply what i presented to you, good job.
the NRA has worked hand in hand with the DA's in both Richmond Va, and in Philadelphia Pa, to bring ALL applicable gun related charges in cases that were being prepared for court.
After several years of actually applying the existing gun laws that were already on the books both cities saw a marked reduction in gun crimes. this is good , and it was at the instigation and support of the National Rifle Association. (which is made up of over 5 million regular everyday Americans)
The cities were commended for their efforts in reducing crimes by major media outlets. They gave credit to the DA's office without crediting the NRA program that started it all. Ignoring the good efforts of NRA helps to feed their goal of character assassination. That is what floats your boat as well. (pathetic if you ask me)
this was about 15 years ago if my memory serves me correctly. Too bad you won't recognize these 'common sense' efforts, in your rush to denigrate everything NRA. typical for you.
Three on one and I still can put it through the hoop....
JIT: Just can't believe the stance you are taking on children shooting children. I do agree it is not an epidemic, not a big number. Sometimes a logical, quantitative, statistical extrapolation determining the value of one life versus another does not cut it. Not with children when one solid answer to stem the tide would be to call the actions of adults perpetrating these horrors as criminal negligence. What is the harm, the risk, the cost, of doing that?
While I understand your feeling that I seem to desire to instill the rule of law, or regulate solutions every problem, that is just not true. However, beyond your fallacy, the horror of children shooting children due solely to the negligence of adults leaving guns lying around versus your feeling that "these unfortunate instances with their statistical significance relative to other life risks, which are many, boldly ignoring them just to satisfy his need for the control of others to suit his own personal beliefs" seems once again to discount this negligence as a lesser evil versus "other life risks" and any reasonable law aimed at punishing adults for the overt act of negligence. I think that is absurd. It seems absurd not to afford these children the same protection you would provide for a dog locked in a car on a hot day.
You may have your bad feelings about me wanting the regulate everything, to have big brother take care of everything, to entitle every aspect of our life needs, it's your opinion. But in this case, not only is that generalization not true, but it is just outright silly when it comes to writing and applying negligence laws for child access prevention. And then following up with enforcement when appropriate.
BDog: apples n oranges. The NRA program that you can not seem to source targets gun crime for sure. It is doubtful that they are targeting child access prevention negligence which results in a child shooting another child or themselves. As you said, you could wipe out every child shooting and it would not affect the crime statistics in the manner you mention. Especially since when a child shoots himself or another child, it is most often not classified even as a homicide. Applies n oranges.
And for an organization as HUGE as the NRA, two cities, fifteen years ago, is a start. What have they done lately?
Gotta love engineers. "We are so logical so we have to be so right." Have yet to see one that is analytical or quantitative when it comes to social issues much less technical issues. The lack of actual analysis, statistics or even sourcing in this thread bears witness to that. But I am used to being ganged up by them.
"JIT: Just can't believe the stance you are taking on children shooting children."
And what stance would that be misterg? What kind of twisted mind must you have that you read something into the words I wrote that's simply not there? Oh, that's right - the kind of mind that wants diversion and confusion so as to provide the illusion that you and only you know what the hell you are talking about. I'd ask you to read my words again, but then your track record is 100% against you for understanding anything that your extremely small and narrow mind can grasp. You know, you wouldn't be so bad if you said something like "yeah, I get what you're saying but...." Instead it's the same old same old immature misterg tossing the manure to see what sticks.
But man, you are tiring! Now that I think about it, that's probably your goal, a "win" through attrition! Sorry I can't oblige. Maybe another day lol.
I believe your stance is to solve the problem of children shooting children because guns are negligently left laying about is: "through more education and not by more legislation." Remember?
Now I do believe that the NRA has been providing "more education" since 1871. Does not seem to be doing the job.
Perhaps you want our school system or government to offer lessons?
Like I said, just can't believe your stance. And stop the name calling, branding and bashing. It is beneath you.
"The lack of actual analysis, statistics or even sourcing in this thread bears witness to that. "
Plenty of the facts (and sources) that you seek are presented in the articles here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-facts/
Perhaps this one is most relevant at the moment:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/ny-times-keeping-guns-away-from-children-is-pure-propaganda/
I know you won't read them because they may be too logical and quantitative for you, so you'll find some strawman or ad hominem attack to levy against them (or Robert Farago, who runs the site) which will make you *feel* better..
However, many of these article have been written by Nick Leghorn, a former risk analysis contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. To say that he "gets" risk management, politics, law, and the technical aspects of firearms more than you or me is quite an understatement.
If you disagree with anything he's written, don't bitch about it here. All articles at that site welcome comments at the end, and there's even a phone number and email address that goes direct to the editorial staff. I'm sure they'd welcome your enlightenment.
Well, you're right about one thing - it is beneath me.
As for my stance, you definitely missed the point.
the NRA has been promoting the proper use and role of firearms and gun safety and awareness since the organizations inception in 1871. One of many current NRA programs is geared towards educating very young children:
New Missouri Law Encourages Schools To Teach First-Graders About Gun Safety
"In between learning how to read and perform simple addition, some Missouri first-graders may soon also be taught gun safety."
"On Friday, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed into law a bill that includes a provision encouraging Missouri schools to teach a National Rifle Association-sponsored, gun-safety class to some of the state’s littlest learners. "
"Schools that offer the program are eligible to apply for additional state funding."
"The NRA course is called the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program and it has been offered in states across the country since its inception in 1988. "
"The program is designed to “promote the protection and safety of children” and teaches students that if they see a gun they should, “STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult,” according to the program's website. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/missouri-schools-gun-safety-first-graders_n_3606639.html
parents who leave guns out in the open for young children to access unsupervised should be held accountable, and it looks like many of these tragedies are being prosecuted for reckless endangerment under existing laws. this should be happening with more regularity, and the NRA supports holding parents and caretakers accountable:
from mr. g's article at the daily news linked above comes these quotes
On Christmas 2012, two children accidentally killed themselves with guns. Sincere Tymere Smith, 2, found his father’s weapon in their Conway, S.C., home and pulled the trigger, killing himself. His father was criminally charged.
In February, another Memphis boy, 4-year-old Joshua Johnson, shot himself and died while playing with a handgun he found in a shoebox. His mother was sleeping nearby. She and her boyfriend were charged with reckless homicide and reckless endangerment, respectively.
In Toms River, N.J., a 4-year-old boy shot and killed his 6-year-old neighbor Brandon Holt with an unsecured rifle in April. The shooter’s dad, Anthony Senatore, was arrested for leaving the gun accessible to children. He plans to contest the charges, but last month Brandon’s grieving parents, Ronald and Christine, also sued Senatore and his wife Melissa for “negligence and recklessness” that led to their son’s death.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/guns-120-kids-newtown-article-1.1391208#ixzz2qr7MES6B
BrotherDog - That proves my point that we don't need firearm specific laws. If there is negligence that can be proven, existing laws cover it.
Here's what Mr. Google wants though... some bills pending in New Jersey for the upcoming 2014 session:
A1230 / S516: Increases criminal penalties if leaving loaded firearm within easy access of minor results in injury or death.
Problem is, there is NO exception for self defense. If anyone under 16 uses a gun to protect themselves or their family (like the examples I posted above), the parents are guilty of a felony, no questions asked.
A673: Requires firearms to be unloaded and securely locked or stored within home.
Even if you have no kids, the government will now tell you how to store your personal property while you are on your private property.... not withstanding the fact that it's COMPLETEY unenforcable without unwarranted entry and search of your house, you're now a felon if you have a loaded gun on your nightstand (again - even if you don't have any children present in the house).
Shall I list the other *65* gun control bills ALREADY pending introduction in the NJ Assembly and Senate this year? Granted, a small handful are positive for gun rights, but the vast majority are written with the viewpoint that justintime mentioned above - we're all (except for police - always a carveout for police) too stupid to handle firearms, so we need someone to babysit us and what we possess.
"As for my stance, you definitely missed the point." Yes, I quoted you JIT. My bad.
Mark, as BDog said well, the issue we are discussing is: "parents who leave guns out in the open for young children to access unsupervised should be held accountable"
Your first link is about guns in general and not children shooting children with guns or negligence calling for national child access prevention laws and enforcement (or across the nation at the state level).
Within that first link, your second link is embedded and it basically focuses on a broad brush approach covering all shootings of children including drive-bys, mass murders, suicides, and does not focus on what we are talking about. So no need for me to rebut, seen it, done it, on other threads.
BDog's comments look more interesting, will get to them on next break.
BDog: On the training program, hats off on the sourcing, Huffington! Heh, heh. On the face of it, sounds good although one might argue that teaching kids to cover for negligent adults in putting the cart before the horse especially since they will be trading math, science, etc. for that coverage. But hats off for the effort anyway.
You left out some of the conclusions in the article: "However, according to Think Progress, research has not proven that the program decreases participants' rates of death from guns. Think Progress references a study that found the instruction “went unheeded when children were given scenarios and asked to role-play a response.”
Nonetheless, while another study says the program is designed to attract the next generation of NRA members, the Missouri bill explicitly states that course instructors must remain neutral and refrain from making "value judgments about firearms.”
According to CNN, local parents have mixed feelings on the legislation.
"I think I'm a lot more interested in teachers and the legislature being focused on math, science and reading for our first-graders instead of an NRA curriculum. I trust the parents to teach the kids properly about the power of guns. That is where the responsibility lies, not in a school curriculum," Missouri parent Amy Jordan Wooden told the outlet.
Another parent, Cathy Peters, disagreed. "There are too many kids who grab the guns and kill their cousins. I agree, I think they should know gun safety. It would be helpful," according to CNN affiliate KCTV.
It is currently unclear if the bill will actually be effective in encouraging schools to adopt the course, per Fox News.
Language regarding the Eddie Eagle program was included in the larger public safety bill HCS/SB 75. The law also requires all school personnel to participate in a “simulated active shooter and intruder response drill conducted by law enforcement professionals.”"
Like I said, hats off. However, while the program teaches students to verbalize the message (mouth the words like parrots), it does little to change behavior. NRA needs to add behavioral and role playing lessons to better help. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342889
However, however, this is all for protecting children after the horse has left the barn. I still say we need to have laws on the books for child access protection and we need to enforce those laws. In 50% of the states, those laws are on the books and in the other 50%, due diligence needs to be paid to enforcement. We should not be content with "they have suffered enough. That does not help the next victim. Sounds like the Dogman agrees.
On the criminal charges, Sincere Smith's father was charged with Involuntary Manslaughter and released on $500 bail. Later he was indicted by a Grand Jury for Involuntary Manslaughter and Unlawful Conduct Towards a Child. Smith was given the maximum five year sentence. Not bad. (South Carolina)
For Joshua Johnson, Jessica Johnson indicted on reckless homicide, boyfriend on reckless endangerment. Jessica pleaded guilty, got "diversion" which means she "will have to talk to other young parents about the dangers of not protecting children" according to The Commercial Appeal (Memphis). Her "time" consists of "10 weekends of jail time, 100 hours of community service, drug screens, parenting classes and telling other parents how her son Joshua died." Boyfriend got the same. Ouch, a few weekends and 100 hours.
Senatore case is ongoing, next court date 1/27/2014 but as you can see, 50% of those charged, and that's a small number, did not really even do any time nor suffer any real consequences.
Amazing, among these three states, only South Carolina gave a 5-year sentence using other laws. South Carolina does not have child access prevention laws but does host a very high level of child shootings; one of the highest in the nation.
But the numbers of folks indicted is far lower than the number of children shooting children with guns left lying about. And of those indicted, as this sample shows, most get light sentences (they have suffered enough) which does little to help the next victim. And, of course, in NJ the case continues.......:>(
Good stuff BDog. Here's mine: http://smartgunlaws.org/child-access-prevention-policy-summary/
The NRA cares about crimes committed with guns and has worked hard over the years to address it. The NRA supported and promoted this with the cooperation of the feds. This project should be adopted by all jurisdictions that want to see a decrease in gun related crimes.
Project Exile began as a Richmond, Virginia effort to fully enforce existing federal laws against violent criminals with guns and drug dealers carrying guns on the streets of that city. In three years, the gun murder rate in Richmond has been cut in half and the program has been adopted with similar success in Rochester, Birmingham, Oakland, and other cities. In recent months, the states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, South Carolina, and Colorado have adopted state models of the program, and a number of other cities and states are considering similar programs.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2000/nra-praises-us-house-for-national-pr.aspx?s=project+exile&st=&ps=
Project Exile was a federal program started in the late 90's I think during the Clinton administration that the NRA supported and lobbied Congress to fund. It's intent is to shift crimes that include "illegal TECHNICAL gun possession" to federal court which carries a 5 to 10 year minimum.
It does not target child access prevention and does little to punish gun negligence perpetrators or solve children shooting children with guns left lying around unless the gun is in ownership of a "prohibited" person (i.e. prior criminal).
Was kinda trying to stick to that aspect of kids shooting kids since leaving guns around for kids kind of fits with deadly texting and since someone else started us down this thread. But if you want to tangent and talk about guns in general or mass murders by LCM, there's some threads for that although I think we've beaten that horse to death, brought it back to life, and beat it again :>)
the purpose was to document the NRA's efforts to promote safe, responsible, and accountable gun ownership.
these parents, care-takers, babysitters, off duty cops, all who leave loaded weapons within easy reach of toddlers should be brought up on significant charges of neglect, willful indifference, reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter etc.
whatever charges can be brought, should be, judges, DA's etc, should not be giving breaks to off duty cops who behave recklessly with their own children or with children of friends and family,
they all need to be held accountable,
but as indicated by Mark above, new laws about keeping guns and ammo under lock and key are not always applicable, and that does set up a situation where one cannot defend oneself if their gun is locked and unloaded.
punish the irresponsible behavior under existing laws.
I have no problem with gun safety training. However the NRA Eagle program might be more effective if behavioral training was added. Heck, that would let kids play with guns which I am sure the NRA gun maker backers would approve of :>)
But as I noted BDog, 50% of the states have various child access prevention laws which makes what you desire, prosecuting these idiots who leave guns lying around, easier to accomplish (and probably less expensive too). For the other 50% of the states to use "plain ole negligence" laws is just more difficult, not impossible, but more difficult.
BDog: I can't speak to Mark's diatribe on pending NJ laws, the only good ones he says are the ones "positive to gun rights.' But New Jersey already has child access gun prevention laws on the books along with negligent storage laws, liability for child access even whether or not injury is caused (see provided link above).
You probably also missed the part in the link that shows how: "Child access prevention laws have been shown to be effective at reducing unintentional firearm deaths among children.
•One study found that in twelve states where such laws had been in effect for at least one year, unintentional firearm deaths fell by 23% from 1990-94 among children under 15 years of age.
•A 2004 study evaluating the association between CAP laws and suicides among youth found that such laws were associated with an 8.3% decrease in suicides among 14-17 year olds.
•A 2005 study found that the practices of keeping firearms locked, unloaded, and storing ammunition in a locked location separate from firearms serves as a protective measure to reduce youth suicide and unintentional injury in homes with children and teenagers where guns are stored."
Note that these findings are based on adding CAP laws on top of basic negligence laws which you, Mark, and JIT feel are sufficient. If facts are our friends it seems that CAP laws add value and I just don't see the downside unless the law is written poorly. I just wish the NRA training could have such positive results in the reduction of child to child shootings.
.
depends on what the cap laws actually state.
adults, heads of households, caretakers etc, need to be able to exercise their rights to self defense without undue encumberment. (sp?, is encumberment an actual word? it just flunked my speckie spell check!))
if the cap laws say that firearms have to be locked in a case, with the ammo locked in a different case, then i would have a problem with it.
there are ways to accomplish all three goals, protecting kids, holding adults accountable, and not impeding self defense
"However the NRA Eagle program might be more effective if behavioral training was added. Heck, that would let kids play with guns which I am sure the NRA gun maker backers would approve of :>)"
Eddie Eagle *IS* behavioral training, but you just HAD to jab at the NRA again, didn't you?
Some tidbits from the Eddie Eagle program website:
* Eddie Eagle is an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules: If you see a gun: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.
* The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children.
* Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use.
* The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members.
http://eddieeagle.nra.org/rules.aspx
Put simply, Eddie Eagle is all about safety, not about selling guns or even promoting interest in guns, and is strictly forbidden from being near guns or mentioning the NRA. But people will ridicule the program just because the NRA thought of the idea, and "OMG gunzz are scary!"
"If facts are our friends it seems that CAP laws add value and I just don't see the downside unless the law is written poorly."
Have you read any law regarding firearms that *wasn't* written poorly. As I described above, the current law (and its proposed change underlined in the following PDF) in NJ is poorly written by the fact that it does not cover self defense within one's home:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A1500/1230_I1.PDF
You could *possibly* stretch section 1(b)2 to cover it, but my interpretation is that the minor is the one doing the unlawful entry (i.e. a kid breaks in and steals your gun). Do you want to bank on 3-5 years of prison time and $15,000 on that chance?
Pick a law and I'll point out plenty of poor wording. When you have a rat's nest of laws that have been tweaked year after year after year to chip away at 2nd Amendment rights, you end up with the pile of bull excrement that we have in NJ.
Bdog: we have an accord, I agree.
Mark,
Re NRA, Eagle, behavioral training: read the link(s) above, but no and no jab, just a recommendation from a study of the training. And a fine one, easy one, beneficial one for all, including the gun makers. And hey, everything the NRA does is about selling guns, come on. I really don't have a problem with it, just see BT as a win-win. Nice parroting though, I see you did exactly what the study said the kids do :>)
"Have you read any law regarding firearms that *wasn't* written poorly"
Yes, starting with the first one called the 2nd amendment.
With the amendment to the NJ CAP law you mention, you miss the point. The point is not how the gun was used but how the gun was obtained. The child should be protected by the NJ self defense law based on Castle Doctrine.
However, if the gun was illegally obtained, or illegally passed to the minor, the adult might be charged under the CAP law even though the child would be spared based on the NJ self defense law. Yet in reality, I doubt any prosecutor would even bother to file charges.
The CAP law is on the books, has been for awhile now, this is an amendment, got any examples of either child be charged or parent in a self-defense shooting based on this?
"Pick a law and I'll point out plenty of poor wording" OK. Second amendment. Have at it sport :>)
OK, I would not have included the "militia" prefatory clause. Then there would be fewer words for people who misunderstand the intent (as well as the historic meaning of "regulated") to pick at.
Well I am impressed that you would even think of airbrushing it! Bravo.
So to sum up these mono, duo, and multi-logues; when kids kill kids (including themselves) it is probably not a horrible accident as we like to call it but more likely adult negligence which we all feel should be prosecuted when appropriate and provable. I further feel that basic negligence laws should be augmented with specific CAP laws to ease the prosecution's burden in these cases. Of course such laws should not trample on the 2nd, as the founding fathers intended it.
Education is also valuable even when focusing on kids but studies have shown that the educational message should be augmented with behavioral training (role playing) for the best possible transfer of the message.
Let's move on........
Commenting is no longer available.