Conn. Senate OKs machine gun ban for children

[KLRANGL]

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]

Belated...

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]

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]

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

WildputtingontheblackcapAlaska TM

[KLRANGL]

Yeah, i might have been slightly kidding

WildputtingontheblackcapAlaska TM

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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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]

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]

Some of the involved adults are already being charged with negligence under existing laws. So this new law is just political showboating.

[johnwilliamson062]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by WildAlaska

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/...7&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]

I have zero interest in letting parents decide when a kid is "ready" to drive a car, drink, work in the porn 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.