Texas 4-year-old dead after shooting himself with father’s gun

[M14 Shooter]

Are you in favor of charging any person, who has his/her gun used in the commission of crime, with a felony...?

On what basis?

Criminal negligence.

A term that has a specific meaning
Can you prove both components?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Someone has to speak for them.

The NRA and it's members seem quite happy to ignore all these deaths.

Then speak the truth and say the reason the kid is dead is his crappy parents.

Are you in favor of charging any person, who has his/her gun used in the commission of crime, with a felony if it can be proven that person did not adequately secure his weapon?

That depends.

If a weapon is stolen and not reported I can see charging the owner with something. I don't know about a felony.

I would rather see the actual perpetrator charged and sentence to life in prison without parole.

 

[Nosmo King]

Texas 4-year-old dead after shooting himself with father?s gun | The Raw Story

“This is not a case of a responsible homeowner having a weapon for protection,”

“He kept saying, ‘I messed up. I messed up,’” Harris explained. “He’s in mourning. He’s in pain and feels a lot of self guilt… Despite the choices he made and the lifestyle he was leading, it doesn’t take away the love a father has for a son.”

These horror stories don't seem to result in the nutters looking at their own choices and making responsible choices.

The father should be charged. He knew what he was doing, he knew the possible consequences of his choice and he did it anyway. He should be held responsible.

Really, I think if the gun nuts were always held responsible for their insane choices, we just might be looking at a different situation.

"Freedom isn't Free" is what they keep saying. Their 'freedom' to keep guns in the house is paid for with the blood of the innocent.

Doncha know any restrictions on gun ownership or even how guns are stored is an infringement on their rights? Guns are too cool to be restricted. Violence is somebody else's problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not everyone drinks and drives, but we make drinking and driving illegal.

We do not, however, make posession of cars and and alcohol illegal, as you propose w/ guns.
ALL of your examples fail along these same lines.

 

[ArmyCowboy]

On what basis?

Criminal negligence.

A term that has a specific meaning
Can you prove both components?

Using the reasonable person criteria, absolutely.

If a person fails to secure a weapon (for example, leaves it in plain view in an unlocked vehicle), then that person should be held liable and charged if that weapon is used in commision of a crime.

 

[editec]

What newly proposed gun restriction would have prevented this tragedy?

NONE!

Hell folks, this kid killed himself with an illegal gun.

NO LAW on the books or proposed would have saved this child.

 

[S.J.]

The right to own a firearm is guaranteed in the second amendment. If someone is irresponsible with their gun and someone is killed because of it, they can be prosecuted, but it doesn't give government the authority to take gun rights away from the rest of society.
The purpose for gun control is to disarm the citizens so they will be defenseless against the government. No other reason.

 

[Esmeralda]

Not everyone drinks and drives, but we make drinking and driving illegal.

We do not, however, make posession of cars and and alcohol illegal, as you propose w/ guns.
ALL of your examples fail along these same lines.

We do not make owning a car illegal, but we do have many laws in place regarding driving a car and owning a car. One has to have a driver's license to drive a car. Does one need a license to have a gun? One has to have legal documents regarding buying a car. For example, you cannot own a car without a license to drive one. You have to have your car in good condition to take in on the road. Your can be inspected at any time if it appears to be without proper breaks or lights, etc. There are all kinds of restrictions about owning a car.

If we had those types of restrictions regarding gun ownership, it would help a lot. I am actually not one who says people have to give up guns completely, but I am one who wants restrictions on buying, owning and using them.

My examples are not meant to be taken as absolute parallels. My examples have to do with risky behavior. A car is not a deadly weapon. Alcohol is not a deadly weapon. Don't be so literal.

 

[Esmeralda]

What newly proposed gun restriction would have prevented this tragedy?

NONE!

Hell folks, this kid killed himself with an illegal gun.

NO LAW on the books or proposed would have saved this child.

If this man did not have a gun, or if the gun had been locked up, the child would not be dead.

 

[bodecea]

What newly proposed gun restriction would have prevented this tragedy?

NONE!

Hell folks, this kid killed himself with an illegal gun.

NO LAW on the books or proposed would have saved this child.

Exactly....it's crying over spilt milk.

 

[Esmeralda]

What newly proposed gun restriction would have prevented this tragedy?

NONE!

Hell folks, this kid killed himself with an illegal gun.

NO LAW on the books or proposed would have saved this child.

Exactly....it's crying over spilt milk.

A dead child is "spilt milk"? omg.......

 

[bodecea]

What newly proposed gun restriction would have prevented this tragedy?

NONE!

Hell folks, this kid killed himself with an illegal gun.

NO LAW on the books or proposed would have saved this child.

Exactly....it's crying over spilt milk.

A dead child is "spilt milk"? omg.......

The phrase refers to anything that cannot be changed. Can this poor boy be brought back? Yes or No?

 

[emilynghiem]

Parents should be held responsible for accidental drownings but no one proposes a pool or toilet ban. This is anti self defense hysteria.

That analogy is a bucket of horse shit and you know it. A gun is a weapon, a pool and a toilet is not. There should never be any accidently drownings of children without someone being held accountable. Loss is not enough. Letting a three year old cross a freeway is incompetent and a crime.

Dear KND and LOL: I agree with both your statements, good points!
Neither are CARS supposed to be "weapons" but if you look up the stats on the website for Kids And Cars, those incidents are equally dangerous and more common than gun deaths.

Clearly more consistent law enforcement and safety practices among CITIZENS is not only good for preventing gun abuse, but also for reducing crime itself.
So that should solve both problems at once!

If this is where all citizens can agree, why not focus there and join forces?
I believe that is what worked in Texas, for the groups for and against to
work together on gun safety, and I would also include education and training
in law enforcement and conflict resolution to detect, correct and prevent abuses from
escalating into later violence. Most cases of aggression have advance warning signs of conflict or unresolved issues with the people involved. Very few have no warnings at all.

I gave Thanks to both of you for your comments!
I hope you encourage more people to work together in unified ways to ensure consistent law enforcement, public safety, and prevention of abuse violence and crime. Thank you!

 

[Skull Pilot]

What newly proposed gun restriction would have prevented this tragedy?

NONE!

Hell folks, this kid killed himself with an illegal gun.

NO LAW on the books or proposed would have saved this child.

No law that could be put on the books would have saved this child.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Criminal negligence.

A term that has a specific meaning
Can you prove both components?

Using the reasonable person criteria, absolutely.
If a person fails to secure a weapon (for example, leaves it in plain view in an unlocked vehicle), then that person should be held liable and charged if that weapon is used in commision of a crime.

Why?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

A term that has a specific meaning
Can you prove both components?

Using the reasonable person criteria, absolutely.
If a person fails to secure a weapon (for example, leaves it in plain view in an unlocked vehicle), then that person should be held liable and charged if that weapon is used in commision of a crime.

Why?

"Why" what?

If you mean why should the person be held liable, they failed to secure a firearm that was used in the commission of a crime.

While citizens have to right to own weapons, that right does not alleviate their responsibility inherent in the ownership of a weapon.

I keep mine in a safe with a fingerprint lock. If I failed to secure the weapon and it was stolen and used to kill someone, my negligence would be a contributing factor in the murder, and I should be held liable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not everyone drinks and drives, but we make drinking and driving illegal.

We do not, however, make posession of cars and and alcohol illegal, as you propose w/ guns.
ALL of your examples fail along these same lines.

We do not make owning a car illegal, but we do have many laws in place regarding driving a car and owning a car

Indeed.

One has to have a driver's license to drive a car.

On public property.
Not to buy one, own one, keep it in n your properrty, or opwerate it on private property.
We dionl;t require a license to do these things with cars - why, then, with guns?

One has to have legal documents regarding buying a car. For example, you cannot own a car without a license to drive one.

Absolutely false. NO state requires a driver's license to buy a car, own a car, or keep the car on your private property.

You have to have your car in good condition to take in on the road.

You need keep your can in no specific condition whatsoever to buy it, own it, or keep in your garage/narb/whatever, or to use it on private property.

Your can be inspected at any time if it appears to be without proper breaks or lights, etc.

Not for purchase, ownership, posession or use on provate property

There are all kinds of restrictions about owning a car.

Indeed, all of which have been considered in detail.
Given the above, you do believe you still have a point here?
if so, what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Using the reasonable person criteria, absolutely.
If a person fails to secure a weapon (for example, leaves it in plain view in an unlocked vehicle), then that person should be held liable and charged if that weapon is used in commision of a crime.

Why?

"Why" what?
If you mean why should the person be held liable, they failed to secure a firearm that was used in the commission of a crime.

That was used in the comission of a crime - by whom?

 

[ArmyCowboy]

Why?

"Why" what?
If you mean why should the person be held liable, they failed to secure a firearm that was used in the commission of a crime.

That was used in the comission of a crime - by whom?

What exactly is your point here?

Do you have one or are you trying to nitpik this to death?

 

[Esmeralda]

We do not, however, make posession of cars and and alcohol illegal, as you propose w/ guns.
ALL of your examples fail along these same lines.

We do not make owning a car illegal, but we do have many laws in place regarding driving a car and owning a car

Indeed.


On public property.
Not to buy one, own one, keep it in n your properrty, or opwerate it on private property.
We dionl;t require a license to do these things with cars - why, then, with guns?

Absolutely false. NO state requires a driver's license to buy a car, own a car, or keep the car on your private property.


You need keep your can in no specific condition whatsoever to buy it, own it, or keep in your garage/narb/whatever, or to use it on private property.

Your can be inspected at any time if it appears to be without proper breaks or lights, etc.

Not for purchase, ownership, posession or use on provate property

There are all kinds of restrictions about owning a car.

Indeed, all of which have been considered in detail.
Given the above, you do believe you still have a point here?
if so, what?

I believe you are purposely ignoring the point of my post; or perhaps you are too literal minded to be able to understand what I am saying. The comparisons are not to be taken as absolute parallels but as examples of restrictions put on risky behavior. Whatever laws may apply to public or private use of a vehicle, that's not the point. One needs a license to operate a car, at least on public property. Is every gun owner going to use their gun only at home? Never take it outside the home? If they take it outside the home or use it outside the home, do they have a license to use it there? Did the man who went back to his home and got his gun and then went and shot a man who caused a fatal accident have a license to take the gun and use the gun outside of his property?

In any case, the specifics cannot be parallels. The specifics need to apply to the aspects of gun ownership, not car ownership. So, it would help, if you want to have an intelligent discussion, not to be disengenuously literal minded.

My point was we have laws about risky behavior that puts oneself or others at risk. There should be such laws regarding the ownership and use of firearms.