Conn. Senate OKs machine gun ban for children

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. :confused:
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
but I have a hard time getting any real outrage going over it.
Click to expand...
yeah, but its either argue with people here, or actually accomplish something today.

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 porn, operate heavy machinery, or work in factories.
Click to expand...
Again, you're confusing legitimate concerns with wild hysterical hype... :rolleyes: This is getting boring...

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."
Click to expand...
Actually, that would be a 15 year old kid.

Why let people have common sense when the government knows so much better than you...
 
Can't we hold a parent responsible for being stupid without having a law against the particular flavor of stupid that was going on?
Click to expand...

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.
 
And have a nice day.
Click to expand...
You too brotha, and I mean that...
No hard feelings

Can't we hold a parent responsible for being stupid without having a law against the particular flavor of stupid that was going on?
Click to expand...
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.
 
When else has a kid been harmed shooting an MG?

When has ANYONE been harmed shooting an MG?
Click to expand...

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:D
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
The is a substantial difference in an 8 year old and a 15 year old.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Belated...

Quote:
Not being a legal beagle - don't normal laws against negligence handle this?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Having your kid die seems to be punishment enough
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the guy that murdered his parents, and then asked for mercy at sentencing on the grounds that he was an orphan:p

WildputtingontheblackcapAlaska TM
 
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.
 
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.
 
Some of the involved adults are already being charged with negligence under existing laws. So this new law is just political showboating.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top