This is why we need better gun laws

[Sixty Two]

Neighbor's Dad Charged in 6-Year-Old's Shooting Death
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51872915


4-year-old grabs loaded gun at family BBQ and accidentally kills wife of Tennessee sheriff’s deputy
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/08 ... fs-deputy/


Childhood gun and shooting accidents are not rare.
They are one of the top ten leading causes of accidental death for all age groups outside of newborns and infants.
http://pediatrics.about.com/od/safety/a ... idents.htm

[Sixty Two]

Anyone who owns guns and don’t keep them in a safe place should be prosecuted.

[Wneglia]

Anyone who owns guns and don’t keep them in a safe place should be prosecuted.

I agree, and the same should apply to unattended swimming pools, as they are 20 times as likely to cause death in children as firearms.

Cause of accidental death Rate per 100,000 children age 1 to 7 (data from CDC)

Drowning 2.0
Car accident, child passenger in car 1.3 to 2.2
Hit by car while walking 1.3
Fire (not including house fire) 1.2
House fire 1.1
Suffocation 0.6
Fall 0.2
Bicycle 0.1
Poison 0.1
"Unintentional struck by or against" 0.1
Firearm 0.1

[Leo Lyons]

Anyone who owns guns and don’t keep them in a safe place should be prosecuted.

I agree, and the same should apply to unattended swimming pools, as they are 20 times as likely to cause death in children as firearms.

Not to mention unsecured furniture than can topple
Also ban foods that can remotely be a cause of allergens
All states should join New York city in banning soft drinks 16oz. and over
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Good grief.

Somehow the phrase "guns don't kill people......" comes to mind.

Anyone who owns guns and don’t keep them in a safe place should be prosecuted.

But only if they're involved in an accidental shooting; which most states do prosecute. I know my guns are in a safe place; right where I can get my hands on them...in a hurry.

[O Really]

I don't know why you guys are so quick to jump off the subject of guns and the deaths and injuries caused by improper use of them. Each item you mentioned is different and comes with different risks and penalties for negligence. Leave the pool gate open and a kid drowns in there and see how quickly you get served. But these recent incidents weren't accidents. Not saying the four-year old in this incident or the 5-year old in Kentucky should be charged with murder, but in both instances it seems they went to retrieve a gun, pointed it at another kid and pulled the trigger. Not an "accident." What's wrong with making people be held as accountable for safe-keeping of a deadly weapon as they are for their pool? Oh yeah, there's no "National Pool Association" funded by the pool manufacturers, is there.

[neoplacebo]

Yeah, it seems gun advocates are too quick to rationalize other common hazards as being somehow equivalent to having a gun pointed and fired at you. The most common route this takes is the drunk driver example. It's just not the same thing. Aiming and firing a weapon is not in any way equivalent to a drunk driver crashing and killing himself and / or someone else; the drunk driver has no intent to cause harm, but is merely acting under the influence of an intoxicant. Well, I suppose you can equate these two situations, but not in the way the gun advocate would like (the handling and operating of a weapon seems to have an intoxicating effect on some folks). In any case, I would much prefer falling into a loaded (full) pool than an unloaded (empty) one, just as if I were being pistol whipped, I would prefer the gun to be unloaded. ok

[Leo Lyons]

Oh yeah, there's no "National Pool Association" funded by the pool manufacturers, is there.

Give it a couple of years. There will be a "National Gun Confiscation Association" funded by liberal interest groups.

Strange thing. They can tax tobacco out the ying-yang to prevent smoking, but it seems that alcohol is protected by powerful lobbying to hold it's prices down;
hence those who drink and drive can readily afford alcohol. Come to think of it, I've never heard of an accident caused by driving under the influence of tobacco.
(unless someone happened to drop the fire in their lap) Oh yeah, there's that cell phone thingy too. We need better laws concerning them.

Smart phones and SmartCars------owned by people who ain't.

[Wneglia]

I don't know why you guys are so quick to jump off the subject of guns and the deaths and injuries caused by improper use of them. Each item you mentioned is different and comes with different risks and penalties for negligence. Leave the pool gate open and a kid drowns in there and see how quickly you get served. But these recent incidents weren't accidents. Not saying the four-year old in this incident or the 5-year old in Kentucky should be charged with murder, but in both instances it seems they went to retrieve a gun, pointed it at another kid and pulled the trigger. Not an "accident." What's wrong with making people be held as accountable for safe-keeping of a deadly weapon as they are for their pool? Oh yeah, there's no "National Pool Association" funded by the pool manufacturers, is there.

Are you saying there are prosecutable criminal liabilities associated with neglectful pool deaths? If not there should be, just as there should for gun accidents caused by failure to have the firearm secured.

[O Really]

Oh yeah, there's no "National Pool Association" funded by the pool manufacturers, is there.

Give it a couple of years. There will be a "National Gun Confiscation Association" funded by liberal interest groups.

Strange thing. They can tax tobacco out the ying-yang to prevent smoking, but it seems that alcohol is protected by powerful lobbying to hold it's prices down;
hence those who drink and drive can readily afford alcohol. Come to think of it, I've never heard of an accident caused by driving under the influence of tobacco.
(unless someone happened to drop the fire in their lap) Oh yeah, there's that cell phone thingy too. We need better laws concerning them.

Smart phones and SmartCars------owned by people who ain't.

So - you want to discuss gun safety and legislation or something else?
The only people who have ever considered "confiscation" as a viable option are the paranoid loons, propagandists, and conspiracy theorists. In my case here, I'm talking about enforcing the same levels of liability for negligence regarding guns as is applied to most everything else. Do you have a problem with that?

[O Really]

Are you saying there are prosecutable criminal liabilities associated with neglectful pool deaths? If not there should be, just as there should for gun accidents caused by failure to have the firearm secured.

"Criminal negligence" is highly dependent on facts and circumstances, and unless the pool owner were really egregious about the violation (of fence requirements, for example), it isn't likely to be pursued. Most of the lawsuits are civil, but substantial. But it's pretty easy to find examples of huge awards for relatively minor negligence, like leaving the gate unlocked or unhitched when you know there are little kids around. With guns, if there is no criminal charge, in a lot of instances the matter just goes away.

[Leo Lyons]

In my case here, I'm talking about enforcing the same levels of liability for negligence regarding guns as is applied to most everything else. Do you have a problem with that?

No, I agree with your statements, to an extent.
What makes anyone think that stricter gun laws are going to be any more enforceable than the laws that we already have that prohibit drunk driving?
Oh sure, stiffer penalties and all that, but drunks and murderers haven't been eliminated.

[O Really]

Oh sure, stiffer penalties and all that, but drunks and murderers haven't been eliminated.

I can't think of any crime that has been totally eliminated solely through enforcement, although there might be some. Total elimination isn't a realistic goal. But check with Texas and Florida about the number of drunk driving cases they had after they changed their law (used to be it was OK to drive while drinking, just not drunk) and in Florida when they outlawed drive-through windows at the liquor store. No way is a speed limit totally enforceable, either, but those who claim to know say that a lower speed limit reduces traffic fatalities, even if most people exceed it. Part of the purpose of a law is to be able to punish someone for their action, not necessarily only to try to prevent that action.

[Ombudsman]

Two children are dead, their father is hospitalized and their mother charged with murder, according to Pickens County homicide investigators.

Arrest warrants show that Susanna Simpson is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of her children, Carly, 7, and Sawyer, 5, and the attempted murder of her husband, Michael.

Read more: http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-news/oc ... z2TIs2npv3

Now how did a woman who killed her kids get a gun in the first place?

[Sixty Two]

In my case here, I'm talking about enforcing the same levels of liability for negligence regarding guns as is applied to most everything else. Do you have a problem with that?

No, I agree with your statements, to an extent.
What makes anyone think that stricter gun laws are going to be any more enforceable than the laws that we already have that prohibit drunk driving?
Oh sure, stiffer penalties and all that, but drunks and murderers haven't been eliminated.

If you have that mindset, what’s the purpose of having any laws.

There are numerous areas of law that are designed to regulate behavior within society, and understanding the purpose of these multifarious areas can sometimes be confusing. For example, many people wonder what the purpose of criminal law is. Criminal law is quite important, and its purpose is twofold. First, criminal law is the avenue by which public morality is expressed. Second, criminal law is used to set boundaries within society.

http://www.purposeofcriminallaw.com/

[Stinger]

Oh yeah, there's no "National Pool Association" funded by the pool manufacturers, is there.

Give it a couple of years. There will be a "National Gun Confiscation Association" funded by liberal interest groups.

Strange thing. They can tax tobacco out the ying-yang to prevent smoking, but it seems that alcohol is protected by powerful lobbying to hold it's prices down;
hence those who drink and drive can readily afford alcohol. Come to think of it, I've never heard of an accident caused by driving under the influence of tobacco.
(unless someone happened to drop the fire in their lap) Oh yeah, there's that cell phone thingy too. We need better laws concerning them.

Smart phones and SmartCars------owned by people who ain't.

So - you want to discuss gun safety and legislation or something else?
The only people who have ever considered "confiscation" as a viable option are the paranoid loons, propagandists, and conspiracy theorists. In my case here, I'm talking about enforcing the same levels of liability for negligence regarding guns as is applied to most everything else. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, he has a problem with it. It doesn't fit his simplistic narrative. But he did actually try to discuss a topic.

[Leo Lyons]

Yes, he has a problem with it. It doesn't fit his simplistic narrative. But he did actually try to discuss a topic.

Like you just did?

[Leo Lyons]

Part of the purpose of a law is to be able to punish someone for their action, not necessarily only to try to prevent that action.

Now you're getting the idea. I was waiting to see if someone would catch on. We have good laws, and in a majority of the states, good lawmen who
have sworn to uphold those laws....but it seems that money has a sneaky little way of getting into the due process picture. Like f'instance, attorneys who know
without a shadow of doubt their client is guilty, but will tread water to get them off the hook because of big bucks to be had. Then there's liberal judges who
dole out light sentences or even suspended sentences; or the "born again" judges who thinks that the poor "lost" victim of society needs a second chance.

"Better gun laws" will work just like drunk control, dope control, sky-high tobacco taxes, child support enforcement, etc. etc. etc.

[Leo Lyons]

Oh yeah, and this:

This is why we need better dog laws:

Better Laws Needed

[O Really]

Part of the purpose of a law is to be able to punish someone for their action, not necessarily only to try to prevent that action.

Now you're getting the idea. I was waiting to see if someone would catch on. We have good laws, and in a majority of the states, good lawmen who
have sworn to uphold those laws....but it seems that money has a sneaky little way of getting into the due process picture. Like f'instance, attorneys who know
without a shadow of doubt their client is guilty, but will tread water to get them off the hook because of big bucks to be had. Then there's liberal judges who
dole out light sentences or even suspended sentences; or the "born again" judges who thinks that the poor "lost" victim of society needs a second chance.

"Better gun laws" will work just like drunk control, dope control, sky-high tobacco taxes, child support enforcement, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, there's a lot of money to be made in defending gun law violators. I hate to tell you, but most defendants are not OJ. But it's not whether a defense attorney tries to do the best s/he can for the client,as s/he is sworn to do, but a matter of the legal structure and culture regarding gun violations. It's a matter of whether prosecutions are pursued when a person negligently leaves a gun around and it's used in a crime. It's not the "liberal" judges that are handing out the "light" sentences on gun violations. Are you listening to yourself? The "libs" are anti-gun; the "libs" are letting gun violators off easy; the "libs" are defending the gun violators for money; the "libs" are trying to take away our guns....and yada ad infinitim.

[O Really]

Oh yeah, and this:

This is why we need better dog laws:

Better Laws Needed

Maybe better laws are needed, but I'd suggest we wait to see what lawsuits arise from this first. I bet the dog owner will be in way worse trouble than the couple of yayhoos in Kentucky that let their kid shoot his sister.