PDA

View Full Version : Conn. Senate OKs machine gun ban for children


JWT
April 30, 2009, 08:48 PM
Associated Press
April 30, 2009
HARTFORD, Conn. - The Connecticut Senate has passed legislation banning people from letting anyone under 16 years old handle or shoot fully automatic machine guns in the state.

The legislation stems from an October incident in which an 8-year-old Ashford boy died when he accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi during a gun fair in Westfield, Mass.

The Senate passed the bill on a 31-2 vote Thursday. It now awaits House action.


Seems like another knee jerk reaction by politicians to a very, very unfortunate accident. It's difficult to legislate common sense and that is what was missing when the 8 year old was shot.

OnTheFly
April 30, 2009, 09:15 PM
I'm sure there is a law that will allow the DA to prosecute the individual for negligence. Why do we need laws for every possible situation?

Fly

Capt_Vin
April 30, 2009, 09:50 PM
Why do we need laws for every possible situation? Simple...just another way for the government to control us and every aspect of our lives, no other reason.

KLRANGL
April 30, 2009, 10:03 PM
New constitutional amendment: "Common sense being necessary for a free state, The right for Darwin to implement his theories shall not be infringed"

Any inside info as to if this CT law will pas?

OnTheFly
April 30, 2009, 10:28 PM
Why do we need laws for every possible situation? Simple...just another way for the government to control us and every aspect of our lives, no other reason.

Yeah...I actually knew that. My question was kind of rhetorical. :D

Fly

Al Norris
April 30, 2009, 11:47 PM
Moving to L&CR...

Wildalaska
May 1, 2009, 12:51 AM
We dont let kids under 16 drive, buy smokes, drink, play hockey without faceshields, go to strip joints, operate excavators, etc etc why should they blast machine guns?

Get a grip guys, its not the end of the world. The candle of freedom isnt being blown out by this puff of air from the Ct legislature.

WilditsallaboutperspectiveAlaska TM

4V50 Gary
May 1, 2009, 01:02 AM
It was very bad supervision.

stargazer65
May 1, 2009, 05:58 AM
Get a grip guys, its not the end of the world. The candle of freedom isnt being blown out by this puff of air from the Ct legislature.

I agree it's not the end of the world. I just hate to see this kind of knee jerk gun legislation. It's poor leadership, makes you wonder what's next.

mskdgunman
May 1, 2009, 06:53 AM
I think the problem is with Govements (any of them) trying to legislate common sense which we all know is impossible. When a politician feels impotent on a particular matter, the instinct is to try and pass a law regulating that behavior. Sometimes a particular behavior doesn't attract the atention of a law maker until it touches them personally...then it's a big deal and something needs to be done NOW! Our current pending seatbelt law is a prime example. A politicians child gets killed in an accident while not wearing a seat belt and all of the sudden it's a major issue. The whole incident with the child getting killed with the Uzi was bad supervision and bad luck. Law's won't change that

tyme
May 1, 2009, 07:36 AM
The legislation stems from an October incident in which an 8-year-old Ashford boy died when he accidentally shot himself in the head with an Uzi during a gun fair in Westfield, Mass.

Would the boy be any less dead if he'd accidentally shot himself in the head with a 1911 or Hi-Power? No? Then everyone who voted for this legislation on the basis of that event should be kicked out of office.

We dont let kids under 16 drive, buy smokes, drink, play hockey without faceshields, go to strip joints, operate excavators, etc etc why should they blast machine guns?

Get a grip guys, its not the end of the world. The candle of freedom isnt being blown out by this puff of air from the Ct legislature.

Failing to object when legislators pass laws based on freak events, particularly when the law only addresses a particular subtype of those freak events and ignores the fact that many other situations not covered by the laws can have equally tragic outcomes, is one reason so many things are over-regulated in so many countries including this one.

Why just automatic weapons? Why not a law that prohibits children under 16 from playing with high explosives, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, too?

What problem does this legislation seek to address? If it seeks to address children shooting themselves in the head with firearms, it fails because it addresses only a tiny fraction of the firearms used in those cases. Of course nobody (sane) wants to ban children under 16 firing any firearms, primarily because of the hunting tradition (and secondarily because many people recognize target shooting as a relatively safe activity that's legitimate for children as well as adults), so legislators pass BS laws like this in an attempt to pander to their constituents.

Children shooting themselves is tragic, but this sort of pandering and playing on the emotions of the public for political gain is even more tragic.

alloy
May 1, 2009, 07:48 AM
4V50 Gary said: It was very bad supervision
I remember when it happened, and those are/were my thoughts. On the other hand i have no issue with those clown signs at the amusement park that say "you must be this tall":)
Maybe we need an all encompassing law against accidents. :rolleyes:

I don't know what the frequency/stats are on kids under 16 shooting themselves in the head with machine guns while under adult supervision, but i suspect the percentage is low enough to not need a special law. As far as it goes, they really shouldn't even be let outside of the house, the little monkeys.

The Connecticut Senate has passed legislation banning people from letting anyone under 16 years old handle XX XXXXX fully automatic machine guns in the state.

Evidently they can't even fondle/inspect an unloaded one at a museum now?? Can they still climb on the anti-aircraft gun or into the B-52 tail gunner's position? Idiotic, haven't read the bill but if it's as reported in the OP....:barf:

ilbob
May 1, 2009, 08:33 AM
Why do we need laws for every possible situation?
A person who should have known better handed a loaded machine gun to a child. You should not have to tell anyone how bad of an idea that is, but apparently some people feel it is their right to do stupid things.

OnTheFly
May 1, 2009, 09:07 AM
Get a grip guys, its not the end of the world. The candle of freedom isnt being blown out by this puff of air from the Ct legislature.

Nobody is calling for anarchy, just that our elected officials use common sense. I think tyme has it nailed below.

Children shooting themselves is tragic, but this sort of pandering and playing on the emotions of the public for political gain is even more tragic.

In aviation, as with many industries, when a trend of accidents/incidents appears, then procedures are implemented to mitigate the risk. When one accident/incident occurs and it reveals a gaping hole in policy/procedure, then new policy/procedure is developed to address the issue. Though the single occurrence is rare since the task of flying a plane is not uncharted territory, and aviation is already heavily regulated.

If there was a trend of children under the age of 16 shooting themselves, then it might be understandable that new legislation would be proposed; however, I highly doubt this is the case. Referring to aviation again...when a pilot does something that causes an accident, incident, or just an unsafe situation, the FAA has the ability to violate them under the "Careless and Reckless" clause. That is to say, if you weren't breaking any regulations, but knowingly did something that was dangerous, you can have your license revoked, suspended, or at least have a bad mark on your record. We already have similar laws on the books. Cause the death of a person due to your negligence and you can be charged with manslaughter.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46367&stc=1&d=1241186454

If the guy above dies, does there have to be a law against using an electric hand tool, on a metal ladder, in a pool or can we just expect people to use common sense?

Fly

Kreyzhorse
May 1, 2009, 09:14 AM
You can't make a law against every freak occurance that happens. Sadly this young boy died, but was certainly the exception, not the rule.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 1, 2009, 09:41 AM
Not being a legal beagle - don't normal laws against negligence handle this?

In TX, we had a tragic incident where a young boy fired a 454 Casuall (IIRC) and the end of the barrel recoiled and hit him in the head - killed him. So should we ban by calibers. There was a case where a Desert Eagle 50 AE recoil caused a second shot to decapitate the shooter on the range and it was a range employee. So ban heavy recoiling guns?

I think special laws like this are just political posturing or ill thought out. Normal legal processes could handle this incident.

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 09:58 AM
This isn't about legislating against "accidents."

This is about legislating against handing fully automatic weapons to children.

As was said above, we're not allowed to hand kids booze, cigarettes, cars, etc. Which is a good thing.

No need to get everyone's panties in a knot because this law involves some sort of gun.

jg0001
May 1, 2009, 09:59 AM
There was a case where a Desert Eagle 50 AE recoil caused a second shot to decapitate the shooter on the range and it was a range employee.

Got a link to that story? I tried googling for it out of curiosity. [I'd like to know what happened to the extent it helps avoid getting in the same situation.]

Al Norris
May 1, 2009, 10:12 AM
This isn't about legislating against "accidents."

This is about legislating against handing fully automatic weapons to children.
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this law is nothing more than knee-jerk legislation. It serves no real purpose.

If the OP is accurate, setting such an arbitrary age (16) is just stupid. Go to any third world country and you will find 16 yr. olds quite capable of handling full auto firearms. Ask anyone who has been in close combat.

Wildalaska
May 1, 2009, 10:20 AM
Failing to object when legislators pass laws based on freak events, particularly when the law only addresses a particular subtype of those freak events and ignores the fact that many other situations not covered by the laws can have equally tragic outcomes, is one reason so many things are over-regulated in so many countries including this one.

Why just automatic weapons? Why not a law that prohibits children under 16 from playing with high explosives, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, too?

Theres a loophole then..add that stuff too.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this law is nothing more than knee-jerk legislation. It serves no real purpose.

Alternatively, it can lookied at as a solution to a problem that has arisen. One mans knee jerk is another mans "don't let under 13s be deli clerks and use the slicer" :)


Go to any third world country and you will find 16 yr. olds quite capable of handling full auto firearms. Ask anyone who has been in close combat.

There is something logically wrong with that argument but being I just woke up and am starting to get tummy stress due to an impending 14 hour flight, I just cant think of it....:D

WildwhereislarvatuswhenineedhimAlaska TM

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 10:22 AM
While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, this law is nothing more than knee-jerk legislation. It serves no real purpose.

It serves the purpose of outlawing handing automatic weapons to kids under 16.

Which is a good purpose.

And entirely consistent with other good laws we have banning giving dangerous things to kids.

So, while you're entitled to your opinion, absolutely this is a good law which may do some good and will do no harm.

B. Lahey
May 1, 2009, 10:24 AM
We dont let kids under 16 drive, buy smokes, drink, play hockey without faceshields, go to strip joints, operate excavators, etc etc why should they blast machine guns?


Um... Because I got to blast machine guns when I was 11 or 12, it was fun as hell, and other kids should be able to have the same experience?

I wouldn't be half the gun nut I am today if it hadn't been for stuff like that.

.22s are great, but if you let a kid shoot the guns he wants to shoot, that's even better.

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 11:06 AM
Some of the underage laws baffle me, this one included.

For instance, last time I went to the grocery store I got a bottle of wine. The cashier was under 18, so she had to call another guy over to scan the bottle. Apparently she might get drunk from running a bottle over a scanner.

Shouldn't parental responsibility take a place somewhere? Some kids are ready to shoot at a young age (even machine guns), and some aren't. It's up to the parent to decide when the kid is ready, not the legislature.

Where do we draw the line between laws protecting kids and the government overstepping on parental responsibility and discretion?

Glenn E. Meyer
May 1, 2009, 11:25 AM
Bah, I can't find a link - too many hits and no combos worked.

The story, IIRC, was that some guy buys a Desert Eagle 50 AE at the gun store or rents it. There is an indoor range. Dude goes to the lane and the gun is too much for him. He leaves the gun and tells the range employee that he can use up the box of ammo. The employee is found with two rounds fired. The analysis was that the first round recoil brought the gun back and he spasmodically fired one back into his head.

I don't think I dreamed it. :confused:

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 11:30 AM
It's up to the parent to decide when the kid is ready

No, it's not.

I have zero interest in letting parents decide when a kid is "ready" to drive a car, drink, work in the **** industry, operate bulldozers, or handle automatic weapons.

No one has to like it, but it's a fact that a minority of adults are so damn careless or destructive that -- as in this CT case -- they'd decide that kids are "ready" for all of the above when they're 8 years old. And then there's suddenly huge danger for the kids and us.

Laws are written to protect against aberrant behavior, not the norm.

Where do we draw the line between laws protecting kids and the government overstepping on parental responsibility and discretion?

You're right, that's the question (except these laws don't just protect the kids; they protect adults too, and society). And that all gets worked out in the neverending debates among the public, their representatives, and the courts.

KLRANGL
May 1, 2009, 11:35 AM
Laws are written to protect against aberrant behavior, not the norm.

Haha, are you Kyles mom from South Park by any chance? WHAT?! WHAT?! WHAT?!

You must know what is better for someone then their own parents, that makes you special...

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 11:37 AM
I have zero interest in letting parents decide when a kid is "ready" to drive a car, drink, work in the **** industry, operate bulldozers, or handle automatic weapons.

Actually in my state a parent does have the right to allow their underage child to consume alcohol with their consent.

This isn't about **** or driving. It's about an activity that many people (underage kids included) participate in.

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 11:40 AM
Laws are written to protect against aberrant behavior, not the norm.

When the law makes normal people who are not hurting others or violating other's rights criminal we need to consider changing the law.

For example, prohibition made many "normal" people criminals. The solution was not to crack down more on alcohol, the solution was to change the law to suit the needs of the people it governed.

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 11:44 AM
You must know what is better for someone then their own parents, that makes you special...

Yep, many of us know more than a minority of parents do. And we pass laws to make sure that kids don't do things that would hurt them or hurt us.

Nothing new there.

This isn't about **** or driving. It's about an activity that many people (underage kids included) participate in.

Sure it is. It's about laws that prevent parents (or anyone else) "deciding" that kids should be allowed to do a bunch of things that are dangerous to themselves and us.

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 11:54 AM
Yep, many of us know more than a minority of parents do.
Shouldn't parents who allow their kids to do harmful things be held accountable.

And by harmful things I don't just mean being stupid with firearms. Stupid things also includes perfectly legal stuff like playing around deep water if the kid can't swim, eating peanut butter cookies if the kid has an allergy, etc.

We don't need laws for every single stupid thing that kids/parents can do.

Even if we try and go through all of the possibilities there will still be somebody who manages to get creative and come up with something on a whole new level of stupid that wasn't banned.

Wildalaska
May 1, 2009, 11:55 AM
It's about an activity that many people (underage kids included) participate in.

Like consensual sex and the law tries to stop that too :)

WildweshouldmaybefocusonrealissuesAlaska ™

PS
No need to get everyone's panties in a knot because this law involves some sort of gun.

I missed that...the Gunwoobie has been invoked! :DAnd not by me! :eek::p

I think I need a gunwoobie hat!!! I have in my head a picture of Lou Costello ready to be sacrificed to Vingo the volcano god whilst wearing a sarong and a fez with a open mouth fish on the top while dancing girls undulate around him singing "O Vingo of the Mou- oun-tain, O Vinjo jingo Vingo jingo*insert tahitian drums and hip sashay here* (See Pardon My Sarong 194(2?))

Anyway, I need a fez with a.....glock, yes a glock on top so that I can put it on when folks freak out over some silly excersize in posturing by some two bit legislature in an economically deprived state....I personally think energy should be saved for the big issues and yes, I am aware of creeping incrementalism or what not and no, I dont view banning machine guns for 16 year olds as the first step to confiscation and tossing patriots into camps to be reindoctrinated by Marxist babes with birkenstocks, dreads and unshaved armpits..

So whoever photoshops me a Gunwoobie hat gets a T Shirt of some type

Domo arigato, hai! Sumimasen, watashi wa bakaa gaijin! (I'm practicing)

B. Lahey
May 1, 2009, 11:56 AM
Shooting machine guns under proper supervision is no more dangerous than shooting any other gun.

Banning kids from one sort of gun opens the door to ban them from all other sorts of guns, and youth shooting is possibly the most important way for people to be introduced to firearms in a safe and normal way.

By the time I was 16 I had no interest in guns, everything I learned about them I learned before 16 and after 25. Between those years all I cared about was beer, girls, and crazy music.

If we start cutting kids out of the shooting sports we are going to have a bunch of irresponsible 25 year old noobs as the youngest generation of shooters. And that will suck because I have known some of those dumbasses.

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 11:58 AM
We don't need laws for every single stupid thing that kids/parents can do.

Right. Just the real dangerous ones. Like, say, handing an Uzi to an 8-year-old.

KLRANGL
May 1, 2009, 11:59 AM
Yep, many of us know more than a minority of parents do. And we pass laws to make sure that kids don't do things that would hurt them or hurt us.
Unfortunately you got that part right. So wheres the law that says children under the age of X cant swim? You'd save more lives there than with this law for certain. What about the law where children have to use training wheels until a certain age?
If you can compare a law that says children cant use automatic weapons to the law where you have to be 18 to join the **** industry, you got things mixed up...

Nothing new there.
aaaactually... in the span of our country, passing laws to protect people from themselves is a rather new idea... Sure you got prohibition, but I don't remember bike helmets being required for kids until about the late 80s. Then there are seat belt laws, which weren't around until well after cars were invented. Its very new, and its very wrong.

I personally think energy should be saved for the big issues and yes, I am aware of creeping incrementalism or what not and no, I dont view banning machine guns for 16 year olds as the first step to confiscation and tossing patriots into camps to be reindoctrinated by Marxist babes with birkenstocks, dreads and unshaved armpits..
I mean you're pretty much mostly right. Its not worth getting into a fit over. Doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't say it isn't right. You don't seem me writing my legislator on the issue anytime soon.

Right. Just the real dangerous ones. Like, say, handing an Uzi to an 8-year-old.
You wana back that up with statistics? How many kids in the US have accidentally died from shooting a full auto weapon?

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 12:01 PM
Right. Just the real dangerous ones. Like, say, handing an Uzi to an 8-year-old.

Allowing kids with allergies around peanut butter is real dangerous too, but legal.

Ah Wild, you made me laugh... and now I have a very strange image in my mind and I can't seem to get it out.

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 12:08 PM
passing laws to protect people from themselves is a rather new idea

A. The 8 year old should have protected himself? You're missing the point of the law.

B. Oh, definitely, there are a lot of new ideas that have arisen over the last centuries. Heck, anymore we don't even let parents decide that kids can quit school at 8 and go work in factories. It's new-fangled ideas like this that will destroy this country, I tell you.

Allowing kids with allergies around peanut butter is real dangerous too, but legal.

I'm glad you agree with me that a law like CT's, dealing with one category of clearly dangerous behavior, is one of those good places to draw the line.

B. Lahey
May 1, 2009, 12:12 PM
clearly dangerous behavior

But it's not. This was one freak incident that resulted from the failure of a parent to supervise his kid.

When else has a kid been harmed shooting an MG?

When has ANYONE been harmed shooting an MG?

Hint: It doesn't happen. Ever.

KLRANGL
May 1, 2009, 12:12 PM
You're missing the point of the law.
Not so much. People like YOU think they know more than people like MY parents, and feel the need to tell them what to do.

Oh, definitely, there are a lot of new ideas that have arisen over the last centuries. Heck, anymore we don't even let parents decide that kids can quit school at 8 and go work in factories. It's new-fangled ideas like this that will destroy this country, I tell you.
there you go confusing legitimate concerns with wild hysteria driven hype... :rolleyes: oh well, cant win em all...

I still invite you to show some facts showing that it is indeed a "dangerous" behavior...

Edit: wow, look at all these irresponsible parents :( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVwI0SST-lk

JuanCarlos
May 1, 2009, 12:13 PM
Not being a legal beagle - don't normal laws against negligence handle this?

More than likely, but it's a tougher standard to prove. It's easier to show that you did X and X is explicitly illegal than to show that you did X and X is negligent.

Why just automatic weapons? Why not a law that prohibits children under 16 from playing with high explosives, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons, too?

Are you sure those aren't already against the law? I'm pretty sure letting anybody handle WMDs is illegal, and as for high explosives those are usually pretty closely regulated as well.

Um... Because I got to blast machine guns when I was 11 or 12, it was fun as hell, and other kids should be able to have the same experience?

I wouldn't be half the gun nut I am today if it hadn't been for stuff like that.

I'm betting you'd still be quite the gun nut if you hadn't fired machine guns until 16. Shooting machine guns is kinda like sex; regardless of what age you first do it at, you will want to do it every day after that for the rest of your life. ;)

Some of the underage laws baffle me, this one included.

For instance, last time I went to the grocery store I got a bottle of wine. The cashier was under 18, so she had to call another guy over to scan the bottle. Apparently she might get drunk from running a bottle over a scanner.

This probably has more to do with the risk that underage cashiers (or servers in restaurants) will sell alcohol to their fellow underage customers, whereas 18-year-olds are (theoretically) more mature and also probably easier to prosecute.

But I could be wrong.



As for the law in question, I'd say it's probably best to just leave this to be prosecuted under general laws against negligence, but I have a hard time getting any real outrage going over it.

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 12:18 PM
People like YOU think they know more than people like MY parents, and feel the need to tell them what to do.

Yep. Welcome to the real world, where we don't let your parents decide that you, when you're underage, can but alcohol, cigarettes, drive a car, work in ****, operate heavy machinery, or work in factories.

And now -- in CT -- your parents don't get to decide to hand their 8-year-old who is standing next to me on the firing line and Uzi because they think he/she is "ready."

Bummer.

TonsofOregonBrass
May 1, 2009, 12:21 PM
Protecting people from them selves isn't the answer. I shot several machine guns when i was 8 and an UZI was one of them. Before i shot it i was told what to expect and how to deal with it. It did have a very lasting effect on my life and definitely helped shape me into who i am today.

Laws that enforce common sense don't help. All they do is delay natural selection. Is it sad that a child died, Yes. I am a parent and can relate, but a law that says no child shooting a machine guns is not the answer. It was an isolated event. The likely hood of it happening again in my life time is slim to none. so why add to the muddle law system to prevent something that is not likely to happen again.

Everyone needs to take personal responsibility for their and their kids actions. laws cannot help you make good decisions they can only help punish the people who make poor decisions. Laws should only be in place to set guidelines for punishment of poor decisions that affect another's rights negatively.

I mean really, suicide is illegal in my state. I cannot see some one who is depressed to the point of suicide saying well i was going to do it, but that would be against the law and i don't want to go to jail for killing myself. :confused:

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 12:24 PM
I'm glad you agree with me that a law like CT's, dealing with one category of clearly dangerous behavior, is one of those good places to draw the line.

Nope, don't agree. I don't think the families of kids with allergies should be banned from having PB in the house either. I don't think allowing a kid to use a machine gun is clearly irresponsible behavior. Under the proper supervision it's a good time, and not somewhere where the law should be. Although the dad in that situation should certainly be held responsible for being a dummy.

So when do you stop making new laws? We would be a lot safer if we wore life vests all the time at the beach, but that would interfere with my sunburn lines, and my daughter's.

Once my daughter is old enough to show an interest in alcohol I intend in sitting down with her and having her first drink with her at around 16 or so (it's legal in my state with consent of the parent) to remove the forbidden fruit aspect. I'm not talking getting wasted. I'm talking about sharing a beer with her while discussing what she and her peers think about underage drinking.

Certainly there are people and parents who misuse alcohol, but should the way I parent be infringed upon because there are dummies?

The same goes for guns. There are others that certainly are stupid and use them irresponsibly. I don't, nor will I let my kid. Should Uncle Sam really be telling me that because there are others who misuse the right, I shouldn't be able to? I'm going to have to say no.

Can't we hold a parent responsible for being stupid without having a law against the particular flavor of stupid that was going on?

KLRANGL
May 1, 2009, 12:24 PM
but I have a hard time getting any real outrage going over it.
yeah, but its either argue with people here, or actually accomplish something today.

Yep. Welcome to the real world, where we don't let your parents decide that you, when you're underage, can but alcohol, cigarettes, drive a car, work in ****, operate heavy machinery, or work in factories.
Again, you're confusing legitimate concerns with wild hysterical hype... :rolleyes: This is getting boring...

And now -- in CT -- your parents don't get to decide to hand their 8-year-old who is standing next to me on the firing line and Uzi because they think he/she is "ready."
Actually, that would be a 15 year old kid.

Why let people have common sense when the government knows so much better than you...

MedicineBow
May 1, 2009, 12:31 PM
Can't we hold a parent responsible for being stupid without having a law against the particular flavor of stupid that was going on?

No. The law would be void for vagueness.

Anyway, that's about it: some people think we should prohibit adults from handing automatice weapons to kids. Some don't.

The legislatures will decide. Be sure to vote!

And have a nice day.

KLRANGL
May 1, 2009, 12:35 PM
And have a nice day.
You too brotha, and I mean that...
No hard feelings

Can't we hold a parent responsible for being stupid without having a law against the particular flavor of stupid that was going on?
On a legal level, not really... at least no more so than already able.
While I dont advocate killing kids, I do advocate having common sense. And life has its little ways of keeping things the way they should be.

chemgirlie
May 1, 2009, 12:36 PM
So how exactly does one go about outlawing all forms of irresponsibility while defining each so that it isn't vague?

Wildalaska
May 1, 2009, 02:08 PM
When else has a kid been harmed shooting an MG?

When has ANYONE been harmed shooting an MG?

Didnt some girl die at Knob creek shooting a GE Minigun?

WildstuffhappenswithdangerousobjectsAlaska TM

PS Im willing to argue that a machine gun is inherently MORE dangerous that any other firearm:D

JuanCarlos
May 1, 2009, 02:10 PM
PS Im willing to argue that a machine gun is inherently MORE dangerous that any other firearm:D

That's just because you're a fan of low-hanging fruit. ;)

B. Lahey
May 1, 2009, 02:33 PM
Fine, so machine guns are dangerous. All guns are dangerous. But they very rarely hurt anyone. It's a far safer sport than football, I can testify to that much.

The main thing is that 16 is way too high to set the bar. An 11 or 12 year old is way more trustworthy around guns than a 16 year old, they are beyond help at that point. 16 year olds are stupid to the point of being dangerous, younger kids are a blank slate and will take instruction well if you can get them interested.

Machine guns are a great way to get kids interested in guns and they provide an opportunity to teach them. If my grandfather hadn't put that Sterling in my hands at 11, and shown me how much fun guns can be, I probably would not have been interested in guns at all.

All kids should have a chance to shoot a machine gun. It's a safe, healthy, normal experience that can lead to a life of respect for and interest in firearms.

vranasaurus
May 1, 2009, 05:32 PM
Does Connecticutt law actually allow the possession of MG's?

If so how many registered MG's are in the state?

I would guess there aren't many.

Also, I have a serious problem with allowing a behavior for 14-15 year olds based upon an incident involving an 8 year old.

The is a substantial difference in an 8 year old and a 15 year old.

KLRANGL
May 1, 2009, 06:10 PM
The is a substantial difference in an 8 year old and a 15 year old.
I think the point is that there is a substantial difference between one 8 year old and another 8 year old. Or a 15 year old and another 15 year old.

stilettosixshooter
May 1, 2009, 11:48 PM
Belated...

Quote:
Not being a legal beagle - don't normal laws against negligence handle this?
More than likely, but it's a tougher standard to prove. It's easier to show that you did X and X is explicitly illegal than to show that you did X and X is negligent.

Also - who is going to sue the parents for their negligence? Certainly not themselves. Criminalizing the behavior allows the State to step in and hold someone legally accountable for the accident.

Am torn on how I feel about the law - enjoying the points of view from both sides!

KLRANGL
May 2, 2009, 02:20 AM
Criminalizing the behavior allows the State to step in and hold someone legally accountable for the accident.
Having your kid die seems to be punishment enough

Wildalaska
May 2, 2009, 11:27 AM
Having your kid die seems to be punishment enough

Reminds me of the guy that murdered his parents, and then asked for mercy at sentencing on the grounds that he was an orphan:p

WildputtingontheblackcapAlaska TM

KLRANGL
May 2, 2009, 02:58 PM
Yeah, i might have been slightly kidding

WildputtingontheblackcapAlaska TM
I thought you wanted a fez cap with glock on it?

Glenn E. Meyer
May 3, 2009, 09:56 AM
While I'm not for new laws as stated above, if there is existing and applicant law on negligence - I'm for it applying. Basically, I have sympathy for the child but little for the causal adult, despite their grief. Many adults are irresponsible around kids and feeling bad afterwards should not let you off.

jg0001
May 3, 2009, 08:38 PM
This is one of those situations where I find it real difficult not to agree with the lawmakers. Yes, I hate the potential encroachment on other rights, but, hell, 8 year old + machine gun = bad idea.

The end result is that if the gun owners used better judgement in the first place, this freak accident may have been avoided. As it is, this becomes yet another 'poster child' situation for the anti-gun crowd to say how unsafe we ALL are.

stargazer65
May 4, 2009, 07:27 AM
Some of the involved adults are already being charged with negligence under existing laws. So this new law is just political showboating.

johnwilliamson062
May 4, 2009, 08:36 AM
We are quickly genetically engineering the US gene pool into the weakest most pathetic bunch of slobs the world has ever seen. While we are at it, I think we need a no children under 16 around farm equipment law. I know MANY families who have had a child hurt while operating farm machinery they would not be allowed within ten feet of in a corporate factory.

Of course, I am sure many of you operated said machinery while under 16 and graduated from high school with most of your digits and limbs.

When the "zombies" finally do come, they will find this country quite a boring conquest.

johnwilliamson062
May 4, 2009, 09:07 AM
This probably has more to do with the risk that underage cashiers (or servers in restaurants) will sell alcohol to their fellow underage customers, whereas 18-year-olds are (theoretically) more mature and also probably easier to prosecute.
In Ohio there is almost no penalty for someone under 18 selling to a minor(at least for the employee). When I was a cashier and under 18(8 or so years ago), I knew the details, but that is the gist of it.

BlueTrain
May 4, 2009, 09:21 AM
Actually, you can't have a law that enforces common sense because, in a sense, the law enforces nothing. The law sets the rules and the police enforces the law. A law enforcing common sense is vague, which would hardly result in its being voided, but it, like many other laws, would give the police very broad powers, which I doubt you would want. But there are other points here.

One, which applies to most all laws, is where the law is applied or passed. Would you want a national law on this topic or at the state level?

There is usually more than one way to control behaviour, and in this country we usually choose the one that makes less sense. We have a problem with 16 and 17 year olds having accidents, sometimes associated with drinking. We can raise the legal drinking age to 21 but it never occurs to anyone to raise the legal driving age to 18.

JuanCarlos
May 4, 2009, 01:46 PM
Some of the involved adults are already being charged with negligence under existing laws. So this new law is just political showboating.

Depends whether or not they're convicted under those existing laws. Because the facts of the matter (person A allowed child B to fire fully automatic weapon C which led to the child's death) are hardly in dispute. If by some chance they're acquitted because a jury finds that negligence wasn't involved, then this law is no longer political showboating.

Well, in theory. I'd still agree that a law intended to prevent a death or two nationwide per decade is political showboating.

OnTheFly
May 4, 2009, 02:42 PM
If the adults who allowed the child to shoot this firearm are NOT found negligent, then why should there be a law against it? The only reason it is needed, IMO, is if there is a high incidence rate of children under 16 being shot in a similar situation. In fact, the defense of this adult might be able to find a multitude of examples where children shoot full auto weapons without incident.

Fly

jg0001
May 4, 2009, 04:03 PM
In some states, no one under 18 (16?) can operate a deli-counter meat slicer. Why is it a surprise they don't want kids handling uzis?

tyme
May 5, 2009, 02:43 PM
Didnt some girl die at Knob creek shooting a GE Minigun?
If by "die ... shooting a GE Minigun" you mean had it flip over and CRUSH her, then apparently yes.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=153087&postcount=25

In light of this tragedy, I suggest we all call our legislatures and ask them to ban children under 16 from being dangerously close[1] to heavy objects that can flip over or fall... unless the owners/operators of said heavy objects have certification from a competent civil engineering company[2] that said heavy objects are secure and cannot conceivably pin or crush anyone.

I mean, honestly, if this saves just one or two children, it's worth it! How could anyone object?!

[1] 1000 feet? If it's a reasonable distance for prohibiting guns in proximity to schools, perhaps it's a reasonable safe distance between small children and unsafe heavy objects.

[2] i.e. not the company (if any) that signed off on the Dallas Cowboys training facility's replacement roof/canopy that collapsed last weekend.

5whiskey
May 5, 2009, 03:03 PM
I have zero interest in letting parents decide when a kid is "ready" to drive a car, drink, work in the **** industry, operate bulldozers, or handle automatic weapons.

Excuse me fine sir... but don't think that you, or whatever government YOU chose, or anyone else on earth is going to come on my property and tell ME that MY son can't operate farm equipment for his FAMILY. Same thing with an automobile on PRIVATE property. Or handle automatic weapons on my property. You cannot legislate parental supervision. You can hold a parent accountable if there is gross negligence, I'm all for that. It's not for you or any legislator to say whether it's appropriate for my 15 year old son to plow sweet potatos, or run a bulldozer, or drive a vehicle, or shoot a weapon, fully automatic or otherwise.



BTW, this has very little to do with firearms, and more to do with the fact that I refuse to have someone tell me how I can and cannot raise a child on private property. Out in public? Fair game. On my land and I'm not harming anyone, GTFO.