I think if all involved here were to take (or retake) an NRA/Hunter safety course there would be little if any bickering here. Bottom line, secure or carry your weapon. This guy did neither and should be held accountable. Laws stating your responsible aren't anti gun any more then DWI laws are anti car.
3-year-old shot in Face
- Thread starter CrazyIvan007
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I agree that the woman shouldn't have had the guy around in the first place. However there is a distinct difference between direct and indirect responsibility.
I believe the woman should be charged with the appropriate crime: trespassing. The article states that the landlord kicked them out a month prior.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if DCFS came and took her kid away but she hasn't actually done anything that should be considered a crime. The guy did because his actions directly lead to the accident. The woman's actions were indirect causes at best.
CrazyIvan007
New member
Knives and sharp objects were a TOOL originally developed as a weapon, designed to kill animals and other humans.
So, I ask, if you have kids, do you lock your kitchen knives in a lock box? Do you think parents with children should?
Yes, guns were originally designed as weapons. But, they have become so much more than that, just as knives. They are used for sport. They are used as collector's goods, just as a model of a U-Boat or something sitting on a shelf. That's why I don't make a distinction when it comes to purpose of design, as many things pose a danger.
And don't get me wrong, I am on the fence, I kind of agree with your arguments. I just don't think I can accept them 100%.
So, I ask, if you have kids, do you lock your kitchen knives in a lock box? Do you think parents with children should?
Yes, guns were originally designed as weapons. But, they have become so much more than that, just as knives. They are used for sport. They are used as collector's goods, just as a model of a U-Boat or something sitting on a shelf. That's why I don't make a distinction when it comes to purpose of design, as many things pose a danger.
And don't get me wrong, I am on the fence, I kind of agree with your arguments. I just don't think I can accept them 100%.
Not exactly. Knives and sharp objects were equally as useful as cutting. In fact many of the earliest artifacts that are considered the precursors to knives weren't wieldable (is that a word? I don't think it is..) as weapons.
I keep my sharp knives out of reach from young children. By the time a child is old enough to be able to reach a sharp knife in my home that child understands that they are dangerous and could hurt someone. There is no reason a three year old should ever be holding a steak knife in my house.
Does a classic Mustang kept in a garage all day change the fact that it was designed as a vehicle for transportation?
No. A collector gun in a case is still designed to be a weapon.CrazyIvan007
New member
A car stored in a garage is not required to be licensed, insured, emission tested or registered. So no, they are not treated the same as vehicles used for their designed purpose.
So if they are used for weapons, we should not allow them but to those who would use them as weapons, I.E. military, police, CCW permit holders, etc...?
And like I said, purpose of design makes no distinction to me. Purpose of the user is what does make a distinction.
So if they are used for weapons, we should not allow them but to those who would use them as weapons, I.E. military, police, CCW permit holders, etc...?
And like I said, purpose of design makes no distinction to me. Purpose of the user is what does make a distinction.
All of which are only required for use on public roads. I can keep an unregistered, uninsured car on my property and I can drive it unlicensed all I want...on my property. It's still a car which is still designed to be a mode of transportation. Regardless of whether I use it for getting from point A to point B or if I use it to race around a track it's still a vehicle designed for one purpose: transportation.
Even the car I currently have on a dyno, a car that can't do a damn thing but spin its wheels on the drum, is still a means of transportation. Just because I don't use it as such does not change its original purpose.
Where does this leap come from? Nowhere have I suggested that you must intend to use a weapon for it to be a weapon or to own one.
And in most cases I'd agree.
But guns are different. Cars, knives and chainsaws are not under attack. We cannot be lax in our recognition of guns as weapons or we risk handing over useful ammunition to the antis. Ignoring their design as weapons shows us as irresponsible. We need to remind the world that we are responsible with firearms because that is the best way to support our cause. Many here may not care what anyone else thinks and that's a worrying thought. Some think that antis can be scared away from the voting booths.
Also, the article only gives a vague description of what the guy is being charged with. I doubt there's a law on the books with that exact phrasing so I'd be willing to bet that this guy is being charged with the same thing he'd be charged with had he given the kid a K-bar or a circular saw blade.
CrazyIvan007
New member
I never said they escape their original designed purpose. I said the purpose of their design makes no distinction. A danger is a danger. There is no level difference between danger. If you die from something, you have died. Does it matter if you were shot, stabbed or bashed in the head with a baseball bat? Does it matter if you fell off a cliff or choked on a piece of pie at a restaurant. There is no difference, you are dead. The thing that makes a difference is the INTENT of the situation. Was it the intent to kill someone, to hurt someone? If not, it is an accident. There MAY be civil claims and damages by the family, but I don't agree with criminal charges.
I made that jump because it was similar to your jump from saying I don't see a difference when it comes to what something was DESIGNED to do. I never said the design of something changes just because you use it for something different. I said it was not an issue to be considered. I know you don't think that, but it was just silly that you said I thought a gun wasn't intended to be a weapon just because it sits on a display rack. I never said that...
While kinda true, doesn't our acknowledgement of firearms as an 'extra' danger to children and people give them fuel to add to the fire? From my stance, a firearm is just another thing that while used for defense, poses no greater harm than the other things we have discussed. By pointing out the added danger to firearms, we are pointing out that they are not just an average collector item, an average defense tool, an average inanamate object, but a killing tool that adds an exoborant amount of danger to family and life. I believe a firearm offers NO additional harm to anyone above and beyond other things that can cause death in everyday life. There will always be dangers to life and limb in the world. To say one is worse than another is just confusing to me.
Anyway, I think we've blabbed our positions enough, it is getting a bit cloudy. I half agree with you, but not enough to support it being a law. I'm done.
I made that jump because it was similar to your jump from saying I don't see a difference when it comes to what something was DESIGNED to do. I never said the design of something changes just because you use it for something different. I said it was not an issue to be considered. I know you don't think that, but it was just silly that you said I thought a gun wasn't intended to be a weapon just because it sits on a display rack. I never said that...
While kinda true, doesn't our acknowledgement of firearms as an 'extra' danger to children and people give them fuel to add to the fire? From my stance, a firearm is just another thing that while used for defense, poses no greater harm than the other things we have discussed. By pointing out the added danger to firearms, we are pointing out that they are not just an average collector item, an average defense tool, an average inanamate object, but a killing tool that adds an exoborant amount of danger to family and life. I believe a firearm offers NO additional harm to anyone above and beyond other things that can cause death in everyday life. There will always be dangers to life and limb in the world. To say one is worse than another is just confusing to me.
Anyway, I think we've blabbed our positions enough, it is getting a bit cloudy. I half agree with you, but not enough to support it being a law. I'm done.
non, I got what you were saying 
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my argument
I just worry about public perception of gun owners. Like I said, some of the guys here don't care what the antis and the rest of society thinks and that worries me. Antis and fence-sitters vote.
I worry about anything that puts the RKBA at risk.
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on my argumentI just worry about public perception of gun owners. Like I said, some of the guys here don't care what the antis and the rest of society thinks and that worries me. Antis and fence-sitters vote.
I worry about anything that puts the RKBA at risk.
Look, if you want to tell the anti's that all of your guns are made to kill people, then fine. Tell them that, and you'll gain their approval.
My guns are not made to kill people. If the anti's don't like my statement, then that's their problem. They're gonna want to ban all guns, anyway, regardless of whether I tell them that my guns are made to kill people.
None of it really matters to the child who is now dead. Which makes all of this thread drift irrelevant and, frankly, a boring exercise in futility.
My guns are not made to kill people. If the anti's don't like my statement, then that's their problem. They're gonna want to ban all guns, anyway, regardless of whether I tell them that my guns are made to kill people.
None of it really matters to the child who is now dead. Which makes all of this thread drift irrelevant and, frankly, a boring exercise in futility.
My thoughts based on what I have seen from the antis is the opposite: isolating firearms as "weapons" and categorizing them as an elevated danger only confirms the antis position. Such position is exactly what they use, to the letter in fact. My previous points enumerate that. Saws, grills, stoves, cars, etc. are all equally capable of making kids and bystanders just as hurt or dead and do so much more often but there is no fear and loathing assigned to them in such capacity. If safety by eliminating risk and eliminating accidental deaths were the concern, logically the greatest threat--the one that ends up making the most people dead--would be addressed first, IF the intent is producing fewer accidental deaths. Or at very least an accidental death being considered on equal plane with another. But no. There is no such concern for the injury or death itself in so much as pertaining to the person. The problem to them is the injurer and not the injury.
JuanCarlos
New member
If you leave your gun in your nightstand when you go on vacation, you are an irresponsible gunowner. You're increasing the odds of all manner of bad things happening, from a thief taking your gun to your "houseitters" kid shooting themselves in the face. Why? Because you're too lazy to secure your weapons before you leave and replace them when you come back?
This is the kind of irresponsible gun ownership that leads to mandatory "safe storage" laws and outright bans.
+1.
Every time safe storage laws are brought up I hear most pro-gun folks talking about how nothing like that should be mandated, and instead firearms owners should merely be held responsible for the outcomes of their decisions. That way if I want to leave my 14-year-old who has had ample safety training access to my firearms for self-defense, I have that option...while at the same time those who would leave their 3-year-old access to their firearms through negligence can be held accountable if/when something happens.
I can get behind that. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree.
But suddenly we have a bunch of people who no longer seem to think that any accountability should take place, and it puzzles me. If we're going to hand the average citizen the responsibility to own firearms (which we should), we also need to hold them accountable when they're grossly negligent with those firearms.
Which is exactly what happened here.
Equally as ignorant is the belief that accidents and worst case scenarios should be responded to by laws. We have way too many laws in total, and worse, we seem to have fallen into some kind of fantasy world thinking where mandating things by law is perfect the way to steer people into an ideal pattern of living.
- Status