The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 1, 2009, 06:10 PM   #51
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
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.
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 1, 2009, 11:48 PM   #52
stilettosixshooter
Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 86
Belated...

Quote:
Quote:
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!
stilettosixshooter is offline  
Old May 2, 2009, 02:20 AM   #53
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Quote:
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
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 2, 2009, 11:27 AM   #54
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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
Wildalaska is offline  
Old May 2, 2009, 02:58 PM   #55
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
Yeah, i might have been slightly kidding

Quote:
WildputtingontheblackcapAlaska TM
I thought you wanted a fez cap with glock on it?
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 09:56 AM   #56
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,842
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 3, 2009, 08:38 PM   #57
jg0001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
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.
jg0001 is offline  
Old May 4, 2009, 07:27 AM   #58
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Some of the involved adults are already being charged with negligence under existing laws. So this new law is just political showboating.
stargazer65 is offline  
Old May 4, 2009, 08:36 AM   #59
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,845
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; May 4, 2009 at 09:08 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old May 4, 2009, 09:07 AM   #60
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,845
Quote:
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.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old May 4, 2009, 09:21 AM   #61
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old May 4, 2009, 01:46 PM   #62
JuanCarlos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
Quote:
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.
JuanCarlos is offline  
Old May 4, 2009, 02:42 PM   #63
OnTheFly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Location: SE Nebraska
Posts: 780
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
__________________
I told my wife I was scheduling a mid-life crisis. It was either a Harley or guns. Secretly, I've already decided on guns. :-)

Bang... Bang... Bang...
OnTheFly is offline  
Old May 4, 2009, 04:03 PM   #64
jg0001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
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?
jg0001 is offline  
Old May 5, 2009, 02:43 PM   #65
tyme
Staff
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
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.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner)
“Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum)
“It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg)
tyme is offline  
Old May 5, 2009, 03:03 PM   #66
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,573
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.
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.
5whiskey 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 04:53 PM.


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 0.10153 seconds with 8 queries