Even this was avoidable.

[Mobuck]

I don't consider a 14 year old as a "child" in the sense of being too young to understand danger and be responsible. Being uneducated is something else altogether.
This type of behavior is the result of inadequate parenting by failing to enforce rules of courtesy and respect for another's possessions in addition to failure to give firearms safety lessons.
I grew up in a house with guns and raised my kids/grandkids likewise. Playing with toy guns does not preclude knowing firearms safety and even my 6 YO grandson knows the difference between a real gun and a toy.

[Mello2u]

MLeake

We are discussing multiple issues here.

One issue is responsible handling and storage of firearms. I agree that in cases where there is any likelihood of unsafe persons (kids, mental incompetents, etc), the best practice is to lock up firearms. As I noted earlier, I secure my own.

Another issue is one of legal liability. While I do think the responsible thing to do is to keep one's firearms out of the hands of the unsafe, I don't think legal liability should attach for the actions of people who are not members of the household, period.

Firearms generate an emotional response, particularly from antis, and I understand that. Logically, however, if a kid wanders into my barn, grabs a pitchfork, axe, or chainsaw and then hurts another kid with it, should I expect a horde of accusers to scream at me for not locking up my pitchfork, axe, or chainsaw?

Should I expect to be held morally and legally liable if a family member's guest steals the keys to my truck from the kitchen counter, then steals my truck and has an accident?

If the answers to the above two questions were "no," then please explain the legal/moral difference with regard to firearms.

As a practical matter, it's safest to lock them up. As a legal matter, this should not be mandated, nor should the failure to lock up guns be any more criminal than the failure to lock up car keys, kitchen knives, or liquor cabinets.

To your list you might add prescription drugs (usually in a bathroom cabinet) and household chemicals (usually under the kitchen sink).

Some states have legal decisions which use a balancing test, the cost and effort to secure the item versus the amount of damage that could be done if the item were misused. Where the effort and cost is small in relation to the amount of potential harm, states tend to hold a person negligent (lack of reasonable care) if some damage is done and they did not secure the item that was misused by a third party.

As the scales tend to balance, the courts less often find negligence.

I remember tanking the car keys when no adult was around, my brothers and sister were someplace else too, going out to the car which was in the back of the house; and driving it forward and backwards about 10 times. All of about 25 feet in each direction. I doubt I exceeded 3 miles per hour. I was 13. Got my Louisiana driver's license at age 15.

[therealdeal]

maybe legally you are right, MLeake. besides that, I believe guns are a seperate entity(just my opinion). We don't hear about pitchforks killing people by accident.

I would like to say a 14yr old should know better, but I won't go there and maybe she shouldn't know better afterall.

The first thing my dad taught me about guns was to Never point them at someone. I had this beat into my head before I ever held one yrs later. Of course, just because that was my experience doesn't mean it was everyone else's too. Kids and young adults many times do point and shoot firearms out of some weird inclination, but pointing one at someone is a no-no and the main ingredient. Kids need to be taught this.

Also and sadly, young children due to smaller hands and/or less physical strength seem to shoot the weapon by somehow manipulating the weapon to point at themselves.

[therealdeal]

MLeake, as to your first post(the longer one): while I sympathize with your opinion and actually agree with many points(if not all of them), we are talking about a gun and not an altered cub cadet riding lawnmower. Please don't misconstrue that last sentence - I understand your point. I just think the example was different, that is all. Remember, no charges were brought upon this man. He isn't legally guilty of a crime here, and this tragedy can't be reversed. Nobody tried to crucify this guy, MLeake. Also remember, this man DID forget to make the weapon more safe; this usually wouldn't have happened.

[TailGator]

While I largely agree with MLeake, there is a limitation that we need to recognize. In the story that started this thread, a responsible person was devastated by the events that happened when he left his gun out for a short time. I agree that that particular person should not be punished, but I also know that our society includes a large number of people who do not feel responsibility, remorse, or grief. The only thing that keeps the latter group from leaving loaded guns laying around completely unprotected (among other irresponsible practices) is the fear of criminal and civil consequences. I don't know how to write a law or policy that separates the responsible person to whom a tragedy occurs from the irresponsible individual who invites tragedy without thought or remorse.

[jason_iowa]

I worry that I have gotten to lax since I live alone. My nephew who is 6 and loves all things weapons is not allowed in my basement when he comes over. I want to start teaching him gun safety. I got us a pair of model 94 22 revolvers with consecutive serial numbers;-) to start him out on but my sister is an ardent gun hater and says he is to young. What do you guys think? I think the sooner he learns they need to be respected and that they are not toys the better.

[aarondhgraham]

I think it's the proper time for you to introduce your nephew to the
Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program.

You're in a tough spot there,,,
Most of will agree that some training/indoctrination is in order,,,
But on the other hand the child is your sister's son and she has the final say on his activities.

Other than recommending Eddie Eagle,,,
I have no workable strategy.

Good luck.

Aarond

[Brian Pfleuger]

He doesn't need a gun to learn gun safety.
If mama says no to guns then no guns.
It should be fairly easy to convince her that he should learn gun safety however. Whether she likes guns or not she should certainly want her son to know what to do if he ever encountered one.

[jason_iowa]

Just to make it clear I have no intention of giving a 6 year old a gun. It will stay at uncle jason's house until he is 21. He knows his uncle and papa carry and that he is never to touch them. He is more then curious though and kids love things that moms say they can't have.

Thank you for the link ill check that out. I just worry that the hands off policy will not cut it forever god knows it did not for me. I was hounding my dad and uncles to teach me anything and everything from cars and motorcycles to guns and swearing well before 6 and got a few uncles chewed out by the parents for teaching me things. I survived though.

Don't kick me off the forums but my sister took after her big brothers and we are all die hard bleeding heart liberals. I'm the only one who read past the first amendment on the bill of rights however. Everyone here knows how difficult it is to talk to an irrational gun hater but its my duty as an uncle to get it done so ill keep on her about it for the next couple of years.

[mdd]

Any adult visiting my home (happens very rarely) is warned at the door that my firearms are loaded, they are not toys, & they are not to be handled outside my presence. If someone wants to shoot my firearms I'm more than happy to oblige them...just not inside my home. If children are present, all firearms are stored in the safe without exception.
Mark, if it were my child that did what yours did she would be given a serious educational opportunity coupled with a draconian revocation of privileges. But, that is your household not mine & I'm not telling you how to steer your ship. Just stating my reaction would be much stronger than using her Christmas present fund to buy a new safe (although I would do that too).

[ClayInTx]

Or the woman who was awarded $1M (I think) for spilling hot coffee in her own lap...

Actually, the woman, Stella (somebody), should have been sued by McDonalds for being so stupid.

The initial award, by the jury, was close to three million IIRC, but the judge, by a legal process called remittur, reduced it to about six hundred thousand.

I spoke with a lawyer, who seemed to have access to more information than the general public, that the actual amount was later settled for a bit over two hundred thousand. The scuttlebutt was that McDonalds was about to actually sue her, or appeal, for, essentially, being too stupid to drink coffee and bringing about a case which should have been thrown out of court.

This was the case which brought about tort reform by legislators not informing their selves of the facts and being, essentially, too stupid to be making laws.

[federali]

It seems that if our children are now taught about gay and alternate lifestyles, they can also receive a short block of instruction on firearms safety. The story mentioned happens over and over again. Just the names change. You know how it goes:
"my dad has a real gun."
" Cool, lemme see it!"

You can fill in the rest. Interestingly, hand someone a gun, even experienced gun users,and most often, their trigger finger automatically curls around the trigger.

[manta49]

Leaving a loaded unattended in a house is irresponsible.
Why was the gun loaded in the first place.

[briandg]

Going through these, a "normal" person would be reading each one, and remarking about how irrational every one of those posts are.

"keep them locked up" (get rid of them!)
"Teach them" (get rid of them!)
"just like every other dangerous thing" (things aren't dangerous, guns are dangerous!)
"kids/parents/owners/so forth need to take responsibility for their own stupidity, and learn not what to do." (People shouldn't own things that can be used by kids to hurt themselves!)
"my home, my rules, stay out of my *** and you won't get hurt" (Atractive nuisance lawsuit!)

It's a frame of mind and perception. We see things in a more tactical and wider view. Prevent injury by complcated means, like training, locks, etc.

(prevent injury by getting rid of those damned guns!!!!!)

[briandg]

Leaving a loaded unattended in a house is irresponsible.
Why was the gun loaded in the first place.

BS.

Why was it loaded? Because here in America, we have these things called "criminals" and once in a while criminals break into a person's home, and present a threat to the virginity of our daughters, among other things.

We, in america, value our daughter's virginity, among other things. we also take measures to prevent these goons from doing criminal actions.

THIS IS BEING RESPONSIBLE. PREVENTING MURDER AND/OR PHYSICAL HARM FROM BEFALLING YOUR FAMILY.

Please don't waste my time telling me that england is safe. I've seen enough of your sports hooliganism, and just watched riots in the streets. We need to thank england and other parts of europe for having inspired our local idiots to start sports riots and wall street riots.

[briandg]

I probably need to toss into this conversation and clarify, he did own a gun safe. the loaded gun was kept in the gun safe. it was momentary negligence combined with violation of restricted space and childhood foolishness that put the gun into the hands of the girl. I get the feeling that some people aren't realizing that this was a mistake, not a pattern of negligence.

[MLeake]

therealdeal, yes, it was a gun, not a riding mower. And perhaps pitchforks don't easily go off by accident. On the other hand, cars driven by teenagers kill more kids than do guns, year after year. For that matter, cars driven by drunks kill more kids than do guns, year after year. Those cars are dangerous; they should all be garaged, and the keys should be secured.

Dangerous items are dangerous items. Some get more media attention than do others.

And while nobody has crucified the gun owner in this particular story, look at all the responses from people who - based on the written laws and case law in their own areas - speculated that he would likely be charged. In many parts of the US, the gun owner likely would in fact have been charged; I feel that is not the way things should be.

I have to wonder about the ages of people who feel that is how things should work. I spent most of my childhood in Maine, in the '70s, and I can assure you that between my friends and I, most of us had access to unlocked firearms. Yet none of us harmed ourselves, nor anybody else; even though some of us might not have known better than to handle the guns our parents thought we didn't realize were on the closet shelf, behind their headboards, etc, all of us knew not to point real firearms at ourselves nor others.

And if any of us had been caught doing so, we'd have been grounded, and possibly not sitting so comfortably.

The older I get, the more we creep toward the nanny-state. Orwell and Ayn Rand seem more on point with each passing year.

[manta49]

BS.

Why was it loaded? Because here in America, we have these things called "criminals" and once in a while criminals break into a person's home, and present a threat to the virginity of our daughters, among other things.

We, in america, value our daughter's virginity, among other things. we also take measures to prevent these goons from doing criminal actions.

THIS IS BEING RESPONSIBLE. PREVENTING MURDER AND/OR PHYSICAL HARM FROM BEFALLING YOUR FAMILY.

Please don't waste my time telling me that england is safe. I've seen enough of your sports hooliganism, and just watched riots in the streets. We need to thank england and other parts of europe for having inspired our local idiots to start sports riots and wall street riots.

Yes we have criminals in the UK and a few virgins, and as for valuing your daughter's virginity locking her in the house would be more effective than worrying about criminals And as i live in N Ireland i have seen armed violence all my life but would still not leave a loaded gun house in the house. As i said irresponsible.

Was he in the house if not why was it loaded.

[briandg]

mleake, living in this corner of the state, and particularly his county and city almost gave him blanket immunity from prosecution. All of the questions that would ordinarily be considered came up with good answers.

Was he a dirtbag? No, he was a good person.
Criminal record? Nothing
gross negligence? not really.
Obvious reasons for charges? none.

Almost every native born person in this town will own a firearm. We are a hunting, fishing shooting community. Owning a gun is normal and accepted, and there was nothing out of the ordinary happening there.

Put the case in baltimore, philadelphia, boston, or maybe san francisco, it is almost certain that he would have wound up in trouble.

[briandg]

Was he in the house if not why was it loaded. ?

Read the post. he was downstairs, where the kids should have been, they went into places they were not supposed to go while his attention was on other things.

In reality, his loaded and accessible handgun was also offering a measure of protection to all of the girls in the group.

Nobody is denying negligence on the part of the owner. The question is, how badly negligent he was, and whether his mistake should be considered the sole author of the tragedy, and what portion of blame falls on his shoulders and how to distribute the blame to the girls involved. His daughter led them into forbidden territory. the other took the loaded gun out of the holster and shot one of the children.


A prosecutor will break this event down into the smallest of details, present the bits that support his goals to a jury, and the defense will enter the parts that minimize the responsibility of the gun's owner. The jury will have to decide .

[manta49]

I feel bad for the guy and all concerned i am sure they are devastated.

Maybe it should be seen a warning to others Never leave a loaded gun untainted especially if there are children about. I think that should go without saying.

[briandg]

That's why the thread was named "even this was avoidable." One of the basic ideas of gun ownership is that safety has to be absolute, and a person can never lose sight of it, not for a second. Going downstairs for a cup of coffee and leaving it out (if that is what happened) led to catastrophe. Even the smallest of things can have enormous consequences.

Which is why people choose to walk around with a concealed weapon. even in the tiniest, most mundane moment, even in your own bathroom, the lightning may strike. People have been killed in their own showers. many have died in their own beds, many die in their cars. It honestly is like lightning striking.

I am among the people who are willing to accept the occasional tragic story, because other tragic stories are being averted.

I'm not comfortable with it, but I accept it.

[Iron Man]

I guess I am bad. When I get home I peal off my holster and lay my loaded pistol on my nightstand (sometimes I may have two or three out, all loaded). The only people who live in my house is my wife and me. However, if any of my kids are coming to visit I require they call me first so I can be sure everything is locked away or worn.

[PawPaw]

When the girls entered the room Monday night, one of them, another 14-year-old girl, spotted the .38-caliber weapon and removed it from the holster, assuming it was not loaded. She pointed the gun in a joking manner at the girl and the weapon discharged, the sheriff said.

“No one has been referred for charges and no one is in custody,” * said.

Amazing. One 14-year-old girl shoots another one and no one is referred for charges. It's one thing to double-guess the homeowner, but the basic fact remains that one 14-year-old girl picked up a gun and shot another girl.

Yeah, we can "coulda, woulda, shoulda" to our hearts content, but that doesn't change the basic fact that one girl killed another girl. I'm fairly sure that some law should apply to that fact.

[briandg]

Juvenile, no record, none involved wanted to press charges, and nobody wanted an honor student at a private school with a promising future to have her life messed up any more than it already has been.

That's one thing I'm pretty certain about. There wasn't any point in sending this kid into the court system. There is already punishment enough. There is still hope for her. If she was tried, she was going to be completely ruined.

My thoughts.