The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 1, 2009, 11:35 AM   #26
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
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...
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:37 AM   #27
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
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 is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:40 AM   #28
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
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.
chemgirlie is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:44 AM   #29
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:54 AM   #30
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
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.
chemgirlie is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:55 AM   #31
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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
Quote:
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! And not by me!

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)
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:56 AM   #32
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,835
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.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell
B. Lahey is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:58 AM   #33
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Quote:
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.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:59 AM   #34
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book

Last edited by KLRANGL; May 1, 2009 at 12:04 PM.
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:01 PM   #35
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
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.
chemgirlie is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:08 PM   #36
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:12 PM   #37
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,835
Quote:
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.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell
B. Lahey is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:12 PM   #38
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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... 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
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book

Last edited by KLRANGL; May 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM.
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:13 PM   #39
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:18 PM   #40
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Quote:
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.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:21 PM   #41
TonsofOregonBrass
Member
 
Join Date: March 10, 2009
Posts: 39
we need to stop protecting stupid people

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.
TonsofOregonBrass is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:24 PM   #42
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
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?
chemgirlie is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:24 PM   #43
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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... This is getting boring...

Quote:
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...
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:31 PM   #44
MedicineBow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 297
Quote:
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.
__________________
Dulce bellum inexpertis
MedicineBow is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:35 PM   #45
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
And have a nice day.
You too brotha, and I mean that...
No hard feelings

Quote:
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.
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 12:36 PM   #46
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
So how exactly does one go about outlawing all forms of irresponsibility while defining each so that it isn't vague?
chemgirlie is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 02:08 PM   #47
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 02:10 PM   #48
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
PS Im willing to argue that a machine gun is inherently MORE dangerous that any other firearm
That's just because you're a fan of low-hanging fruit.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 02:33 PM   #49
B. Lahey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 2,835
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.
__________________
"A human being is primarily a bag for putting food into; the other functions and faculties may be more godlike, but in point of time they come afterwards."
-George Orwell

Last edited by B. Lahey; May 1, 2009 at 07:20 PM.
B. Lahey is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 05:32 PM   #50
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15724 seconds with 8 queries