Via CNN:

Accused child shooter's father convicted of manslaughter


(CNN) — It was a shocking case that drew national media coverage. An 11-year-old Detroit boy was accused of fatally shooting a 3-year-old last year with his father's gun.

On Wednesday, the 11-year-old's father was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and a felony firearm charge, a prosecutor said.

Curry Bryson will be sentenced on April 20, said Maria Miller, an assistant prosecuting attorney for Wayne County, Michigan.

Bryson was acquitted of second-degree child abuse.

"Bryson was shocked when he heard the verdict," Bryson's attorney, Jerome P. Barney, told CNN. "We didn't expect conviction."

Bryson's son, police said, shot the 3-year-old boy in a car parked behind his father's Detroit residence in August.

Barney told the Detroit News last year that Bryson was not home at the time of the shooting; two other adults were there, the attorney said. Bryson is a good father who takes care of his son, Barney told the newspaper.

"The facts of the case are ... Curry wasn't at home when this happened," Barney told CNN. "He was at work and got a call (about) what happened."

Prosecutors said last year that the boy took the handgun from his father's bedroom closet, threw it out a window, retrieved it and got in the car.

A short time later, the 3-year-old entered the same vehicle, prosecutors said.

It's unclear what happened after both boys were inside the vehicle, but the younger child was shot once in the face and killed.

"He always had a smile on his face, always smiling, and he loved his sisters," Denishia Walker, mother of 3-year-old Elijah Walker, said in August.

She described the older boy's family as friends of her family.

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death, but he was cleared of the charges after he was diagnosed as developmentally disabled, Barney said.

The father is getting exactly what he deserves. He needs to pull felony time for leaving a firearm where that kid could get to it. Especially, when the guy wasn't home to supervise the kid.


I would say it's just another day in the Detroit Demilitarized Zone. But carelessness knows no geographical boundaries.

 d-usa wrote:

Bryson's Lawyer wrote:Bryson is a good father who takes care of his son, Barney told the newspaper.

Is he, though? Is he?

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Bryson's Lawyer wrote:Bryson is a good father who takes care of his son, Barney told the newspaper.

Is he, though? Is he?

Didn't you notice that the charge of child abuse did not stick, so he must be a good parent.

Unlike these guys:

(CNN) — The parents of a toddler have been charged with child abuse after their 3-year-old son shot them both, according to a New Mexico criminal complaint.

The shooting happened last Saturday afternoon at a motel in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The couple was shot apparently after the child grabbed a .45-caliber handgun from his mother's purse and fired one shot, striking both his father and his pregnant mother.

Both parents were arrested Thursday on a charge of child abuse without great bodily harm, according to a state criminal complaint. The boy and his 2-year-old sister, who also was in the room, were not injured in the incident.

Hrm, not sure I agree with this verdict. Yes, he did an irresponsible thing with a firearm, but there were other adults there at the time who should have had far more responsibility concerning the child's actions, and the kid went out of the way to plan how to obtain possession of the firearm, the latter fact is what really nicks me here, if a kid is going to wait till the father is gone, retrieve the weapon, get it outside without the other adults noticing, and go play in a car with it, kid probably could have figured out where a key for a lock was at some point too. If someone is aware of something, really wants it, and has physical access to it, locked up or no, they can probably eventually get it. Same reason no IT professional or Locksmith is going to guarantee data security against someone with physical access to a device. Had the kid been alone and immediately accidentally shot himself or the like, then I'd say the verdict might be just, but when there's multiple other adults there that missed everything, and the kid knows about and *really* wants the gun, it's hard to stick it to the father like this, to my mind at least.

 Vaktathi wrote:
kid probably could have figured out where a key for a lock was at some point too. If someone is aware of something, really wants it, and has physical access to it, locked up or no, they can probably eventually get it. If someone is aware of something, really wants it, and has physical access to it, locked up or no, they can probably eventually get it. Same reason no IT professional or Locksmith is going to guarantee data security against someone with physical access to a device.

No set of locks is going to prevent break in, but insurance companies will still require locks before they insure you, because those locks are effective in greatly reducing the likelihood of break in. That's the central principal here - increased measures will never reduce the chance to zero, but they will greatly reduce the overall chance.

What you're arguing, in effect, is that it becomes okay to make no effort, or minimal effort, at prevention, because it's possible that greater prevention might not have worked anyway. I don't see how any legal system, or society in general, can work on that concept.

Instead I think this establishes a pretty reasonable standard – if you bring a gun in to a situation and take little to no measures to ensure that gun doesn’t end up in the hands of a child, you’re responsible for what the child does with that gun.

It's not clear what 'developmentally disabled' is a euphemism for here, but stuff like this tends not to just happen completely out the blue. If the 11 year old had 'issues' then the gun should have been more secure because he couldn't be trusted not to do something crazy. The thought that went into stealing the gun and getting it outside without other adults seeing it seems very concerning to me.

I agree that the father should be held responsible for negligently leaving his firearm where a child had ready access, but are the other two adults who were in proximity (the father was at work) when the child was shot being charged with anything?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I agree that the father should be held responsible for negligently leaving his firearm where a child had ready access, but are the other two adults who were in proximity (the father was at work) when the child was shot being charged with anything?

It could be possible that they were unaware of the firearm being stored unsecurely.

Very sticky topic... but I guess this mother should be charged with manslaughter as well then, based on the postings here.

http://www.people.com/article/teen-boy-shoots-kills-burglar-south-carolina

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death,

Don't you guys have laws in the USA that says that children don't get charged for this sort of thing, because they're minors and thus not legally responsible for their actions with regards to crime.

Seems totally different to how we handle this sort of thing in Britain and Europe...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death,

Don't you guys have laws in the USA that says that children don't get charged for this sort of thing, because they're minors and thus not legally responsible for their actions with regards to crime.

Seems totally different to how we handle this sort of thing in Britain and Europe...

No, they are just handled differently. Being below 18 doesn't give you a free pass.

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death,

Don't you guys have laws in the USA that says that children don't get charged for this sort of thing, because they're minors and thus not legally responsible for their actions with regards to crime.

Seems totally different to how we handle this sort of thing in Britain and Europe...

No, they are just handled differently. Being below 18 doesn't give you a free pass.

Not saying that it gives anybody a free pass, but comparing other first world nations, the age of criminal responsibility ranges from 14-18 depending on the country.

With the USA being a first world democracy, I thought they would have something similar, which was why I expressed surprise at it being lower in the USA.

I'm not boned up on the specifics, but it seems to be a case by case basis. I've seen a lot of minors charged as adults for the more egregious things.

In this case, by the kid throwing the gun out the window before going downstairs to retrieve it, shows he knew he was doing something wrong, since he didn't want the other adults to see him with it. He totally should be facing charges for this.

normally don't post in these things but I do have a serious question. I realize they most likely can't release the 3 yo's identity and I'm the first, as a mother of three boys, to understand that sometimes your kids are just seriously good at escaping your care... but really, where were this child's parents? This is what is really most upsetting to me. Yes, guns can be bad and kids playing with guns as we've seen time and again, is horrible. But knowing how the 3 yo was left unsupervised, that's important.

Talking about unsupervised, I dislike the way the father is reported in the above. It implies he should not have been at work. How else do you provide for your child? Maybe the other two adults were supposed to be watching the 11 yo. Who knows.

I just really really dislike the way our media tends to 'report' the news. Sigh. This is only one example.

 Guildenstern wrote:
normally don't post in these things but I do have a serious question. I realize they most likely can't release the 3 yo's identity and I'm the first, as a mother of three boys, to understand that sometimes your kids are just seriously good at escaping your care... but really, where were this child's parents? This is what is really most upsetting to me. Yes, guns can be bad and kids playing with guns as we've seen time and again, is horrible. But knowing how the 3 yo was left unsupervised, that's important.

Talking about unsupervised, I dislike the way the father is reported in the above. It implies he should not have been at work. How else do you provide for your child? Maybe the other two adults were supposed to be watching the 11 yo. Who knows.

I just really really dislike the way our media tends to 'report' the news. Sigh. This is only one example.

I too was wondering why a 3 year old was playing in a car with an 11 year old. Not a lot of potential good available in that scenario at all. Who ever was supposed to be supervising that poor 3 year old kid failed miserably.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not boned up on the specifics, but it seems to be a case by case basis. I've seen a lot of minors charged as adults for the more egregious things.

In this case, by the kid throwing the gun out the window before going downstairs to retrieve it, shows he knew he was doing something wrong, since he didn't want the other adults to see him with it. He totally should be facing charges for this.

I agree TOTALLY, he should get locked away for 10 years minimum. That will surely help A KID realize he did something wrong. Because blowing away his toddler brother's face surely did not much of an impression...



On topic: "Easy access to unsecured firearms is a deciding factor in a majority of unintentional child gun deaths," [...] "These tragedies are entirely preventable, but many states have yet to adopt policies that would make it harder for children to access negligently stored firearms." (http://everytown.org/)

 treslibras wrote:

On topic: "Easy access to unsecured firearms is a deciding factor in a majority of unintentional child gun deaths," [...] "These tragedies are entirely preventable, but many states have yet to adopt policies that would make it harder for children to access negligently stored firearms." (http://everytown.org/)

Okay, so if the law mandated the gun owner kept the gun unloaded in a safe locked up inside another safe locked up inside a steel vault of a room, and the ammo stored separately under similar conditions, how would tragedies like this be prevented? Do you think law enforcement should be able to come into the homes of all gun owners and spot check their storage methods?

The reality is, some feth head will leave his/her gun accessible and some kid may die as a result. In this particular case, even if the law had mandated some storage mechanism even you would approve of, if the parent does not follow the law, all the law does is give the prosecutor something else to charge. Being convicted of manslaughter and a felony weapon charge ought to be enough to cover that, no?

The key to how dumb the argument is in this part of what you quoted:

make it harder for children to access negligently stored firearms

It will never be harder for children to access negligently stored firearms. If they are negligently stored, kids can get access. No policy or law is going to make it harder to access a negligently stored firearm. Negligently stored already implies some liability if some event occurs due to the method of storage, hence the term 'negligently'.

 CptJake wrote:
Do you think law enforcement should be able to come into the homes of all gun owners and spot check their storage methods?

Do they not already? If not why not?

Guns should never be left where anyone can get to them except for the owner, let alone an 11 year old with developmental issues.

Sad story, all around.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Do you think law enforcement should be able to come into the homes of all gun owners and spot check their storage methods?

Do they not already? If not why not?

No they don't, because they can only come into your home with good reason and a warrant. If the police suspect you are leaving loaded firearms in easy reach of children they are welcome to try to get a warrant, but otherwise they are required to keep their nose out of your business. This isn't the UK where you have to agree to police inspection in order to own a firearm.

Also due to little or no requirement for firearm registration, there's often no way they would even know who owned a gun and who didn't. Even if there was a registry, it would be a huge cost in terms of finances and manpower to have officers constantly going around checking people's houses, due to the large number of firearm owners in the US compared to the UK.

I was about to post pretty much what CptJake said.

The only way to reduce these kinds of incidents, is through proper education (read parenting) where if you decide to be a gun owner, involve your children from an early age on gun safety. From my first cap gun my dad bought me, I was in training. He watched and observed how I handled it, and reprimanded me when I misused it. Instilled a great amount of respect for firearms, and to this day, I'm still not comfortable with my guns.

Of course there will always be people who don't take owning firearms seriously, and we will have to read about them in the news.

Proper education, it really is that simple.

What is the NRA's advice on gun storage?

 Nostromodamus wrote:

No they don't, because they can only come into your home with good reason

That's a very good reason.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

No they don't, because they can only come into your home with good reason

That's a very good reason.

Not good enough to override the 4th amendment to our constitution.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

No they don't, because they can only come into your home with good reason

That's a very good reason.

Like I said in the part you didn't quote, if the police suspect you are letting kids get hold of loaded firearms, they are welcome to try to get a warrant.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

No they don't, because they can only come into your home with good reason

That's a very good reason.

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the NRA's advice on gun storage?

From: https://eddieeagle.nra.org/parents/

We encourage you as a responsible parent and citizen to reinforce these ideas by repeating this message and discussing it with your child. According to federal statistics, there are guns in approximately 40% of all U.S. households. Even if you do not have a firearm in your home, chances are that someone you know does. Your child could come in contact with a gun at a neighbor's house, when playing with friends, or under other circumstances outside of your control. We encourage you as a responsible parent and citizen today to...

Make sure all firearms cannot be reached by anyone who should not have access to them without your consent. Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons, especially children.
Keep ammunition securely stored where a child or any other unauthorized person cannot reach it.
Talk to your child about guns, and gun safety. By removing the mystery surrounding guns, your child will be far less curious about guns, and more likely to follow safety rules.
Make sure your child understands the difference between a toy gun and a real gun, and the difference between "pretend" and real life.
In a home where guns are kept, the degree of safety a child has rests squarely on the parents and gun owner. Parents who accept the responsibility to learn, practice and teach gun safety rules will ensure their child's safety to a much greater extent than those who do not. Parental responsibility does not end, however, when the child leaves the home. That is why it is critical for your child to know what to do if he or she encounters a firearm. The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® program has no agenda other than accident prevention -- ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun.

And: https://eddieeagle.nra.org/faqs/

What are Gun Owners’ Responsibilities?

Most states impose some form of legal duty on adults to take reasonable steps to deny access by children to dangerous substances or instruments. It is the individual gun owner’s responsibility to understand and follow all federal and state laws regarding gun purchase, ownership, storage, transport, etc. Contact your state police and/or local law enforcement agency for information specific to your state.

It is the parent’s responsibility to ensure that guns are stored safely. NRA’s longstanding rule of gun storage is to store your guns so that they are inaccessible to any unauthorized users, especially your children and the children that visit your home. Gun shops sell a wide variety of safes, cases, and other security devices. While specific security measure may vary, a parent must, in every case, assess the exposure of the firearm and absolutely ensure that it is inaccessible to a child.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the NRA's advice on gun storage?

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

There you go. NRA advice is to store the guns and ammo inaccessibly to children and unauthorised persons (i.e. locked up.)

This guy obviously failed to follow the proper advice.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


With the USA being a first world democracy, I thought they would have something similar, which was why I expressed surprise at it being lower in the USA.

You'd also expect they'd have incarnation rates on part with other countries, no death penalty, maternity leave, guaranteed time off, sick leave, public health care, or any number of things. If in general you're surprised when you hear about something think "I thought we didn't do that anymore" and it turns the story is from the US, then just understand that the answer to your question is "Yes. The US still does that and a lot of them are really proud of it".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There you go. NRA advice is to store the guns and ammo inaccessibly to children and unauthorised persons (i.e. locked up.)

This guy obviously failed to follow the proper advice.

Yep. And now he's going to jail.

Sad, but that's why you should lock your gak up. Whether the other 2 adults there are also culpable is irrelevant. Whether they also stand trial for neglect, manslaughter, being d-bags is irrelevant. It was his gun, and an 11 year old kid was able to get his hands on it.

Edit: with whom are you arguing? or are you? I came into this late.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There you go. NRA advice is to store the guns and ammo inaccessibly to children and unauthorised persons (i.e. locked up.)

This guy obviously failed to follow the proper advice.

And he is convicted of manslaughter and a felony firearm violation.

What is your point? Did anyone try to claim he did properly store his firearm? I may have missed the post where that happened.

My point is that since there aren't any official regulations concerning safe gun storage he should have followed the NRA's advice.

I don't think anyone has claimed that it is a good thing to leave a loaded gun lying around just anyone including children can pck it up.

 Chongara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


With the USA being a first world democracy, I thought they would have something similar, which was why I expressed surprise at it being lower in the USA.

You'd also expect they'd have incarnation rates on part with other countries, no death penalty, maternity leave, guaranteed time off, sick leave, public health care, or any number of things. If in general you're surprised when you hear about something think "I thought we didn't do that anymore" and it turns the story is from the US, then just understand that the answer to your question is "Yes. The US still does that and a lot of them are really proud of it".

Americans don't get sick leave, paid holidays or maternity leave?

Bloody hell!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My point is that since there aren't any official regulations concerning safe gun storage he should have followed the NRA's advice.

I don't think anyone has claimed that it is a good thing to leave a loaded gun lying around just anyone including children can pck it up.

He should have followed common sense, regardless of laws/regulations/NRA advice. Of course it is also disingenuous to claim he left a loaded gun lying around. From what I gather he had it in a closet. From that article, it is unclear as to whether maybe it was 'hidden' or if the closet was locked and the kid new how to open it, if the kid was disobeying his father by going into the fathers bedroom/closet (I had to put a deadbolt on my bedroom door at one point because my oldest sone decided stealing from my wife and I was acceptable behavior). Heck, we don't even know for sure it was loaded or if the kid loaded it. We assume it was loaded, but unless there is more info than the article in the OP, we are not sure.

Clearly there was enough evidence he was negligent or the verdict would not have been decided the way it was. But even storing it in a closet is a bit different than leaving 'a loaded gun lying around'.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Americans don't get sick leave, paid holidays or maternity leave?

Bloody hell!

People with hourly jobs don't get paid holidays, but they do get double overtime (generally) if they work during the holiday. As a salaried person, I've gotten holiday pay for the last 20 years. Stay in school, kids.

Paternity/Maternity leave is certainly paid here, but what you get varies by state and by company. Some companies, like mine, go above and beyond the required minimums.

We also do get sick days. If you exceed your sick day allotment, you can get more time off if you need it, but it will be unpaid.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Americans don't get sick leave, paid holidays or maternity leave?

Bloody hell!

It's up to the company in most cases. For example, at my work I get 2 hours sick time per month. I can build that up month after month but any time off I take beyond that is unpaid (so I can effectively only take a paid day off due to sickness once every 4 months). I get 60 hours a year vacation/holiday time to use as I see fit. A lot of people in similar positions to me at other companies get a lot less, if any. The only holidays I get off are Thanksgiving and Christmas, anything else (like Independence Day) is time and a half.

I think I get 5 sick days a year. I spent 3 from having the flu a few years ago. I was pissed as I had taken the flu vaccine that year, but we're getting off topic, I guess.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


With the USA being a first world democracy, I thought they would have something similar, which was why I expressed surprise at it being lower in the USA.

You'd also expect they'd have incarnation rates on part with other countries, no death penalty, maternity leave, guaranteed time off, sick leave, public health care, or any number of things. If in general you're surprised when you hear about something think "I thought we didn't do that anymore" and it turns the story is from the US, then just understand that the answer to your question is "Yes. The US still does that and a lot of them are really proud of it".

Americans don't get sick leave, paid holidays or maternity leave?

Bloody hell!

Well, it's not a constitutional right, but most salaried jobs have paid sick/holiday leave. Paid maternity leave is common as well, but varies wildly and is generally lower than most EU nations (something many politicans rail about).

But if you're flipping burgers at mcdonalds for 20 hours a week, yeah. You probably don't get a lot of paid time off.

 kronk wrote:

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Yeah, well we Americans want the government digging into our private lives as little as possible. Just one of the things that make us different.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

Or maybe the multitude of training programs they offer, not just to members, is already available and can be taken advantage of.

Why do you insist on trying to tie the NRA to cases like this? Anything in the article tie the negligent gun owner to the NRA? Do you somehow see the NRA as responsible for the actions of every individual gun owner (they are not, nor should they be.)

Is the idea of personal responsibility too hard to grasp? The guy in the article failed and has been convicted. What are you looking for here?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death,

Don't you guys have laws in the USA that says that children don't get charged for this sort of thing, because they're minors and thus not legally responsible for their actions with regards to crime.

Seems totally different to how we handle this sort of thing in Britain and Europe...

Yeah, in the Netherlands kids under 12 are not even legally capable of committing crimes.
For some reason there has yet to be an enterprising 11yo who takes advantage of this to become the biggest crime lord in Dutch history

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

That is just an asinine statement. There are literally hundreds of millions of firearms owned by millions of private owners which NEVER are involved in a negligent act. Clearly SOME gun safety is being adhered to by the very vast majority of gun owners in the US.

 djones520 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Yeah, well we Americans want the government digging into our private lives as little as possible. Just one of the things that make us different.

Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

 CptJake wrote:

That is just an asinine statement.

No its not. All firearms should be safely secured because if they aren't events like the one that started this thread will occur far more frequently. There really is no way to argue against that.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Yeah, well we Americans want the government digging into our private lives as little as possible. Just one of the things that make us different.

Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

Just out of curiosity, are you a gun owner?

If not, his statement probably still holds true, you are not for the gov't invading your privacy, just the privacy of those you don't like.

Frankly, that is an abhorrent philosophy to me.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


With the USA being a first world democracy, I thought they would have something similar, which was why I expressed surprise at it being lower in the USA.

You'd also expect they'd have incarnation rates on part with other countries, no death penalty, maternity leave, guaranteed time off, sick leave, public health care, or any number of things. If in general you're surprised when you hear about something think "I thought we didn't do that anymore" and it turns the story is from the US, then just understand that the answer to your question is "Yes. The US still does that and a lot of them are really proud of it".

Americans don't get sick leave, paid holidays or maternity leave?

Bloody hell!

The short answer is "Sometimes". I was painting with a broad brush for dramatic effect but none of those things are federally mandated. Some states may set laws about them but not all, generally the more conservative the state runs the fewer of those things you'll see. Even where they aren't mandated, many employers will offer them to stay competitive in the workplace especially for jobs that requires skills or education.

There certainly are places you could be in the US and have none of those things be mandated, and non voluntarily provided by employer.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

That is just an asinine statement.

No its not. All firearms should be safely secured because if they aren't events like the one that started this thread will occur far more frequently. There really is no way to argue against that.

Again, it is asinine, because facts show your are very wrong. Again, the VAST majority of gun owners and guns are not ever involved in a negligent incident. Clearly the oil and water analogy is faulty. There really is no way to argue against that.

When the NRA, one of the advocates of guns owners has many gun safety programs, there are tons of state and county sponsored gun and hunting safety programs, and every new gun sold comes with a lock, you cannot make your case that gun safety to Americans is like oil to water.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

Perhaps we can make sure there's an officer to do the rounds every night to make sure we didn't leave the stove on or make sure we're keeping our household chemicals and medications in a safe place too, or to make sure our cutlery drawers are securely fastened and our electrical outlets suitably plugged. Pool owners should also be checked frequently to make sure it's covered so nobody drowns, and anyone with access to waterfront should be checked to make sure they have a fence in place lest a child wanders in and gets swept away. Don't forget the parking break inspector, we wouldn't want a vehicle to roll over an unattended baby.

Or we could just stop trying to police everyone's private life and treat people like they're capable adults until proven otherwise.

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Yeah, well we Americans want the government digging into our private lives as little as possible. Just one of the things that make us different.

Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

Just out of curiosity, are you a gun owner?

If not, his statement probably still holds true, you are not for the gov't invading your privacy, just the privacy of those you don't like.

Frankly, that is an abhorrent philosophy to me.

Maybe not, but maybe he'd be fine with the police coming in to ensure his medicine cabinet is locked, that his pool (if he has one) is secure, that all of his electrical sockets have covers on them, or all of his knives are in out of the way places.

Surely he's not saying that if one dangerous thing should have the police invading homes to ensure they are safe, then none of the other myriad of dangerous things in houses that cause accidental child death shouldn't have the same requirement.

 djones520 wrote:

Surely he's not saying that if one dangerous thing should have the police invading homes to ensure they are safe,

Of course your home is safe, if they are invading it you can shoot them.....

I genuinely have no idea why having a mandatory physical check of your gun storage arrangements is in someway equating to some kind of totalitarian state.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

2010 saw 606 people nation wide die from accidental discharge. Rheumatoid Arthritis killed nearly 3 times as many people. Obviously it's a huge problem...

I got into many arguments on the topic of gun control so I will try to keep it sane.

I figure if the gun is for "sport" and all that entails I would be a supporter of a trigger lock, separate ammo storage and some kind of lockable case for the firearm.
Keys would be on my key-ring which I typically keep on me since I am always paranoid of getting locked out of the house.

It gets much more difficult for those who believe in gun availability for security.
Like with computer security: "Anything completely secure is unusable.".
The only argument I saw that would safeguard against "unauthorized use" and "availability" is holstering the weapon and keeping it on you.
Not my thing and some companies may frown on bringing your firearm to work.

In the end, a sad tragedy.

We may have to off-set these discussions with stories of how guns in our homes saved our lives.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

That is just an asinine statement.

No its not. All firearms should be safely secured because if they aren't events like the one that started this thread will occur far more frequently. There really is no way to argue against that.

An estimated 40% of households have at least 1 gun in them (some factoid I saw recently but can't be bothered to go research).

Are there 100 million accidental gun cases a year? No? OK then.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Nice insult, sir.

I guess Nanny-State and the UK are synonymous terms?

Does the state also make sure you're eating a balanced meal, brush your teeth after each meal, and tuck you in at night?

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Yeah, well we Americans want the government digging into our private lives as little as possible. Just one of the things that make us different.

Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

Just out of curiosity, are you a gun owner?

If not, his statement probably still holds true, you are not for the gov't invading your privacy, just the privacy of those you don't like.

Frankly, that is an abhorrent philosophy to me.

I am a gun owner. I still agree that they should be inspected for safety.

 djones520 wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 kronk wrote:

We have this thing called Due Process in the US. If the police want to come into my home, they certainly can IF they have a search warrant or have established probable cause.

So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

Yeah, well we Americans want the government digging into our private lives as little as possible. Just one of the things that make us different.

Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

Just out of curiosity, are you a gun owner?

If not, his statement probably still holds true, you are not for the gov't invading your privacy, just the privacy of those you don't like.

Frankly, that is an abhorrent philosophy to me.

Maybe not, but maybe he'd be fine with the police coming in to ensure his medicine cabinet is locked, that his pool (if he has one) is secure, that all of his electrical sockets have covers on them, or all of his knives are in out of the way places.

Surely he's not saying that if one dangerous thing should have the police invading homes to ensure they are safe, then none of the other myriad of dangerous things in houses that cause accidental child death shouldn't have the same requirement.

What you described happens in the US when adopting a child. I believe it is referred to as childproofing a home, which I am fine with.

Soooo, what?

 Guildenstern wrote:
normally don't post in these things but I do have a serious question. I realize they most likely can't release the 3 yo's identity and I'm the first, as a mother of three boys, to understand that sometimes your kids are just seriously good at escaping your care... but really, where were this child's parents? This is what is really most upsetting to me. Yes, guns can be bad and kids playing with guns as we've seen time and again, is horrible. But knowing how the 3 yo was left unsupervised, that's important.

Talking about unsupervised, I dislike the way the father is reported in the above. It implies he should not have been at work. How else do you provide for your child? Maybe the other two adults were supposed to be watching the 11 yo. Who knows.

I just really really dislike the way our media tends to 'report' the news. Sigh. This is only one example.

I assume the other two adults were the three year old's parents or babysitters. They could have been watching the children play at a non-helicopter-parent distance and been totally responsible. Three year olds love playing "beep beep" in cars, pushing buttons and pulling levers. If the adults had no idea about the gun, they just would have been watching to make sure the 11 year old wasn't doing anything overtly harmful, and their first clue something was wrong might have been the loud bang.

It sounds like the 11 year old planned out this attack in such a way that even responsible adults wouldn't have been able to prevent it. Who expects an 11 year old to conceal a gun and bring it to the play area?

I'd certainly like to think that the 11 year old didn't plan anything, he probably just saw his dad's gun, thought it was cool, and hell, probably wanted to show it off, and the 3 year old was probably the only one around who would have potentially been impressed and wouldn't have taken it from him. Doesn't excuse or condone anything, but again, I certainly hope that 11 year old didn't intend for that to happen.

I've known plenty of 11 year olds who would have planned and executed such a thing is they had the opportunity. Middle schoolers are not innocent.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I've known plenty of 11 year olds who would have planned and executed such a thing is they had the opportunity. Middle schoolers are not innocent.

Especially with the plenty of easily accessible TV shows to imitate. though that would be a parenting thing.

Honestly besides the cost, i wouldn't ever want an unsecured gun in my house. especially during gatherings, service calls and the likes. not that i would want the government telling me i have to. but a tax writeoff or insurance deduction would be welcomed.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

I can find some parallelism with all this since I own a couple "usable" swords under lock and key because I "like" them.
I also took Kendo so it ties in a bit with the sport/hobby.
It IS a dangerous thing to have around and could result in a similar outcome if taken out to be played with.

Having the State "invade your privacy" is common for other things like when I adopted my kid they inspected the home to see if it was suitably safe for placement.
I do agree with them that babies are dangerous.
I know the more paranoid gun collectors think the whole point is for the government to have no idea what everyone has so they cannot be rounded up when the dictatorship takes command.

There is little to be said on this matter other than lock the dangerous stuff away (like chemicals!) or keep control of it by being on your person.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

No, but the evidence does indeed suggest literally tens of millions of gun owners who go from birth to death without being involved in a negligent incident involving a firearm MUST be practicing some safety measures. Otherwise we would see an increase in safety related issues rather than a decrease, even as firearm ownership goes up.

So again, the premiss that gun safety and US firearm ownership don't mix is clearly wrong. The very vast majority of gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures. It really is just ignorant to argue against that. You and Silent Puffin are free to do so, but it is ignorant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

Having the State "invade your privacy" is common for other things like when I adopted my kid they inspected the home to see if it was suitably safe for placement.
I do agree with them that babies are dangerous.

This is one of my favorite arguments.

I too have adopted kids and have endured invasive home studies.

Yet the vast majority of kids are not adopted, and the state does not invade the privacy of potential parents having their own kids. Why does the state only care about some children? Why don't all potential parents have to accept the invasion of privacy?


The answer lies in the fact that many of the kids being adopted are in state care until adopted out, and that the state is involved in every adoption to some extent (an adoption is a legal process done through the courts).

This is why it is in no way similar to gun ownership.

Would it be better to say that Mandatory gun safety and 'merica! don't mix?

 sebster wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
kid probably could have figured out where a key for a lock was at some point too. If someone is aware of something, really wants it, and has physical access to it, locked up or no, they can probably eventually get it. If someone is aware of something, really wants it, and has physical access to it, locked up or no, they can probably eventually get it. Same reason no IT professional or Locksmith is going to guarantee data security against someone with physical access to a device.

No set of locks is going to prevent break in, but insurance companies will still require locks before they insure you, because those locks are effective in greatly reducing the likelihood of break in. That's the central principal here - increased measures will never reduce the chance to zero, but they will greatly reduce the overall chance.

What you're arguing, in effect, is that it becomes okay to make no effort, or minimal effort, at prevention, because it's possible that greater prevention might not have worked anyway. I don't see how any legal system, or society in general, can work on that concept.

Instead I think this establishes a pretty reasonable standard – if you bring a gun in to a situation and take little to no measures to ensure that gun doesn’t end up in the hands of a child, you’re responsible for what the child does with that gun.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have locked up the firearm, he should have, just that I think that with the circumstances present, between the kid's apparent planning and determination, and the two adults actually present at the time failing to properly keep an eye on things, I think that lumping everything on the father is inappropriate.

I guess its no so much that I disagree with the verdict as the situation in general. There was a multitude of things that went wrong here, failure to properly store the firearm is just one, with the heavy emphasis on that singular aspect being selectively applied in a situation where its *possible* (and not like 1-in-a-million possible, but practically possible) proper storage may not have made a difference. At least from my perspective, if the other adults were there and knew a gun was in the house, they should all be facing the charge or none of them should.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

No, but the evidence does indeed suggest literally tens of millions of gun owners who go from birth to death without being involved in a negligent incident involving a firearm MUST be practicing some safety measures. Otherwise we would see an increase in safety related issues rather than a decrease, even as firearm ownership goes up.

So again, the premiss that gun safety and US firearm ownership don't mix is clearly wrong. The very vast majority of gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures. It really is just ignorant to argue against that. You and Silent Puffin are free to do so, but it is ignorant.

Not really, it is ignorant to assume that the vast majority of gun owners practice safety measures just because there is not a huge amount of incidences. What proof do you have that these gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures? Just because somebody goes their whole life without being in a vehicle accident while intoxicated, does that mean that person never drives drunk?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
There really is no way to argue against that.

Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

You claimed, bluntly, gun safety and the US don't mix. I provided very clear evidence that is wrong. I showed that one of the largest gun advocacy agencies has many safety resources, I showed state and counties having programs, I showed the fact that literally hundreds of millions of guns are NEVER involved in a negligent incident. There is even a Federal program ( http://thecmp.org http://thecmp.org/safety/ ). And yet, you stick with your argument.

Just because we have all those things, does not mean people use them.

No, but the evidence does indeed suggest literally tens of millions of gun owners who go from birth to death without being involved in a negligent incident involving a firearm MUST be practicing some safety measures. Otherwise we would see an increase in safety related issues rather than a decrease, even as firearm ownership goes up.

So again, the premiss that gun safety and US firearm ownership don't mix is clearly wrong. The very vast majority of gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures. It really is just ignorant to argue against that. You and Silent Puffin are free to do so, but it is ignorant.

Not really, it is ignorant to assume that the vast majority of gun owners practice safety measures just because there is not a huge amount of incidences. What proof do you have that these gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures? Just because somebody goes their whole life without being in a vehicle accident while intoxicated, does that mean that person never drives drunk?

If theyre actually driving drunk on a routine basis (i.e. more than just the once or twice in college type deal) then they almost assuredly have either been in an accident or gotten a DUI. Nobody is perfect, but poor firearm safety, much like drinking and driving, gets very obvious very quickly when someone does it as a matter of course as opposed to a brief hiccup one or twice over the course of their entire life.

Given how statistically rare negligent discharge deaths are out of a population of 315 million + with as many guns to boot, I'd say theyre pretty damn safe overall.

Vaktathi wrote:If theyre actually driving drunk on a routine basis (i.e. more than just the once or twice in college type deal) then they almost assuredly have either been in an accident or gotten a DUI. Nobody is perfect, but poor firearm safety, much like drinking and driving, gets very obvious very quickly when someone does it as a matter of course as opposed to a brief hiccup one or twice over the course of their entire life.

While I wish you were right about this, you are really not. Quite a few places are very lax on drinking and driving. I mean, look at Mississippi. It is legal there.....

Carrying a firearm in public (concealed or openly) while intoxicated is legal where I live, but that doesnt mean people do it (anything bad you'd do in such a situation is already illegal anyway) or that we have more shootings and negligent discharges than anywhere else (far fewer than many places with strict public intoxication and firearms laws in fact). Generally however, if people are engaging in this kind of behavior routinely, theyre going to muck themselves up quickly.

Also, using Mississippi as an example is basically cheating, I mean...that place is just so...well, they make Florida look organized and respectable

 Vaktathi wrote:
Carrying a firearm in public (concealed or openly) while intoxicated is legal where I live, but that doesnt mean people do it (anything bad you'd do in such a situation is already illegal anyway) or that we have more shootings and negligent discharges than anywhere else (far fewer than many places with strict public intoxication and firearms laws in fact). Generally however, if people are engaging in this kind of behavior routinely, theyre going to muck themselves up quickly.

See, there is your problem. You are generalizing the issue. A lot of people do not get caught in this behavior, even if they do it routinely. You are saying if somebody is doing something wrong, they will eventually get caught. That is just not true.

 d-usa wrote:
Via CNN:

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death, but he was cleared of the charges after he was diagnosed as developmentally disabled, Barney said.

This is the part that chaffs my arse. The kid took premeditated action to evade being seen with the gun and then used it to kill a child. He was a threat then and without any charges is still a threat now. Except that he's likely learned that his disability, whatever it is, is now a license to keep him out of trouble in the future. Yea, the father deserved being charged because he neglected to lock up his firearm, but the kid needed some sort of penalty levied against him, too.

I'm generalizing because I'm talking about a wide ranging issue in a nation of hundreds of millions of people with hundreds of millions of guns, in close proximity to people all the time. With yearly accidental firearms deaths about ~500-600, compared with ~11-13 thousand yearly drunk driving deaths (about ~2200% higher), I think its ok to say that, for lethal devices, people are overwhelmingly acting in safe and responsible manners.

Sure, sometimes people never get caught. They are exceptions, rare ones, at least if we're talking people engaging in such behavior routinely, because, by their very nature, these acrivities have odds that catch up.

 Breotan wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Via CNN:

The 11-year-old initially faced manslaughter and felony firearm charges in connection with the death, but he was cleared of the charges after he was diagnosed as developmentally disabled, Barney said.

This is the part that chaffs my arse. The kid took premeditated action to evade being seen with the gun and then used it to kill a child. He was a threat then and without any charges is still a threat now. Except that he's likely learned that his disability, whatever it is, is now a license to keep him out of trouble in the future. Yea, the father deserved being charged because he neglected to lock up his firearm, but the kid needed some sort of penalty levied against him, too.

I dunno man, I did a lot of things when I was young that put other kids in harms way. A lot of my friends did things when I was younger that personally put me in harms way. We did not intend to harm or kill each other, we were just stupid kids doing dumb things. We never used handguns, but I had plenty of BB gun wars that could have maimed and/or killed depending on trajectory.(Caught a BB on the side of my eye socket one day, decided I was done after realizing how lucky I was) Had some sword battles with "real"(crappy forged, not sharpened blades) that could have killed and/or maimed if swung hard enough and in the right spot. Never with the intention of maiming or killing.

I am not 100% sure, but I would assume that an 11 year old would not take the weapon with the intention of harming another. He probably did not have a good grasp on life and death, which I would assume is why they did not seek legal action against him.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm generalizing because I'm talking about a wide ranging issue in a nation of hundreds of millions of people with hundreds of millions of guns, in close proximity to people all the time. With yearly accidental firearms deaths about ~500-600, compared with ~11-13 thousand yearly drunk driving deaths (about ~2200% higher), I think its ok to say that, for lethal devices, people are overwhelmingly acting in safe and responsible manners.

Sure, sometimes people never get caught. They are exceptions, rare ones, at least if we're talking people engaging in such behavior routinely, because, by their very nature, these acrivities have odds that catch up.

Are accidental firearms deaths the only deaths you can relate to improperly stored firearms? Furthermore, should we only be worried about accidental discharges when they end in a death?

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

Or maybe the multitude of training programs they offer, not just to members, is already available and can be taken advantage of.

Why do you insist on trying to tie the NRA to cases like this? Anything in the article tie the negligent gun owner to the NRA? Do you somehow see the NRA as responsible for the actions of every individual gun owner (they are not, nor should they be.)

Is the idea of personal responsibility too hard to grasp? The guy in the article failed and has been convicted. What are you looking for here?

The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Are accidental firearms deaths the only deaths you can relate to improperly stored firearms?

Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Furthermore, should we only be worried about accidental discharges when they end in a death?

No, but the numbers I was pulling was to show in general the scales we are talking about here. Mainly I wanted to highlight how relative to other issues like drunk driving, people being negligent with firearms is not a major problem given the numbers involved. Out of 300 million + firearms in the US, having 500-600 deaths amounts to one in half a million people per year for the US. For potentially lethal devices, thats insanely good.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Seems like a gun registry could solve that

A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Seems like a gun registry could solve that

Actually, it would not. It would just be a more expensive, and ineptly run, version of the system of dealer held 4473s we have now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

Or maybe the multitude of training programs they offer, not just to members, is already available and can be taken advantage of.

Why do you insist on trying to tie the NRA to cases like this? Anything in the article tie the negligent gun owner to the NRA? Do you somehow see the NRA as responsible for the actions of every individual gun owner (they are not, nor should they be.)

Is the idea of personal responsibility too hard to grasp? The guy in the article failed and has been convicted. What are you looking for here?

The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

Insofar as mentioning that the NRA offers training and safety programs for members and non-members alike, sure.



But being an old hat to the internet, and based on your posts (in this thread and the GAP thread), anybody who has spent five minutes on 4chan or Something Awful can tell that you're trolling. At least, in these two trending threads.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Probably not, but they're the only ones we can directly tie in with actual data rather than getting into the vagueries of what-ifs and whatabouts, just like we cant calculate deaths and damages from DUIs from the effects of stuff like delayed traffic and mental anguish. AFAIK theres no reliable data for stuff like stolen guns if thats what you are asking.

Seems like a gun registry could solve that

Probably not. We have registries of various sorts. Have for decades. Anything controlled under the NFA (machine guns, short barreled rifles, rockets, etc) is on one. The ATF has no idea how many machine gun records it has lost, but its a fair few. Every year people find something in an attic and rush to find paperwork so they can show the ATF its registered because the ATF cant keep track of it.

Likewise, California has an "assault weapon" registry. My father owned weapons that had to be registered, and over a decade after he sold them out of state, multiple phone calls *and* certified letters later, he couldnt get *off* the list so CA still thinks he owns them...even though he hasnt for many years and no longer lives in the state. Furthermore, I cant recall nor find any examples of a crime having been solved via these registries.

Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

 CptJake wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Having the State "invade your privacy" is common for other things like when I adopted my kid they inspected the home to see if it was suitably safe for placement.
I do agree with them that babies are dangerous.

This is one of my favorite arguments.
I too have adopted kids and have endured invasive home studies.
Yet the vast majority of kids are not adopted, and the state does not invade the privacy of potential parents having their own kids. Why does the state only care about some children? Why don't all potential parents have to accept the invasion of privacy?
The answer lies in the fact that many of the kids being adopted are in state care until adopted out, and that the state is involved in every adoption to some extent (an adoption is a legal process done through the courts).

Yes and all they are doing is their "due diligence" to avoid being blamed later if something unfortunate happens, so yeah you have an agreement.
I have mused over the fact that people who have children born to them do not seem to get the guidance of an adoption.
The threat of a "spot" inspection being possible could help ensure certain minimum standards are met.
OSHA is not required to inform ahead of time of an inspection as an example for keeping companies honest.

This is why it is in no way similar to gun ownership.

I had not stated anywhere at all that it is "similar" to gun ownership.
I was making the point that they "could" enforce inspection for other things like safety for their "ward" so why not for gun safety?
Owning a gun can be a "legal process", it sure is in Canada.
I suppose people in the USA equate it as going out to buy a blender but really now.

I suppose there is precious little point in the government poking it's nose into citizen's homes to ensure they are not being stupid.
Darwin handles that readily enough.

I think the thing that gets my nose out of joint is this outlook that it is a God-given right to own a gun and pretty much do what you want with it without many words like accountability and responsibility being used until someone inappropriate gets a hole put in them and then it is dismissed as the person being "stupid" with their firearm... nothing to see here.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

No. 4473 forms are stored by the retailer\dealer for 20 of years, but the government does not have any record of this data.

There is no general federal firearm registration in the US. Some states require and maintain registries, and the federal government does track NFA items, but these are both very, very rare.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

No. 4473 forms are stored by the retailer\dealer for 20 of years, but the government does not have any record of this data.

There is no general federal firearm registration in the US. Some states require and maintain registries, and the federal government does track NFA items, but these are both very, very rare.

So what you are saying is, a theoretical federally run gun registry and No. 4473 forms have absolutely nothing in common?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the NRA's advice on gun storage?

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

 treslibras wrote:
(http://everytown.org/)

A gun control advocacy group, so not an impartial source

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
So checking on the conditions where firearms are stored is a criminal matter so they aren't checked at all? The US mindset is a very strange place.

When I had firearms the police checked where they would be stored as part of the whole process of applying for a license. This can only be a good thing, of course gun safety and the US go together like oil and water.

The US has plenty of gun safety measures. We just do not think that law abiding citizens should be disturbed and have their private residences entered at any time by the police without either probable cause, or a warrant.

This helpful chart showing data from the CDC should show you that you are very much mistaken in your belief that "gun safety and the US go together like oil and water."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the NRA could do a subscription scheme so members would get a guy coming round their house to set up their gun safe.

They already provide resources; http://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2013/12/26/options-for-safe-gun-storage/
Also just about every new gun comes with a lock, or one may be easily obtained through the NSSF. Of course it should be noted that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group, actually opposed plans by the DoJ to assist with this program.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Except for the tiny little fact that the US has one of the highest rates of accidental firearms related deaths in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Number 12 in the world. Luxembourg has a higher rate of accidental firearm death, which much fewer firearms in the country.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Of course your home is safe, if they are invading it you can shoot them.....

I genuinely have no idea why having a mandatory physical check of your gun storage arrangements is in someway equating to some kind of totalitarian state.

Speaking of asinine statements.
If you are uncertain as to why you feel that the police should have absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause then I do not know how I can explain that to you.

Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

Please clarify what you mean by "tied to this case". Is AAA tied to any case involving a traffic accident caused by negligence?

You are going to have to explain to me how that chart you linked proves anything you are arguing here. It just proves that there are less accidental deaths from firearms than everything else combined. Which makes sense.....

Also, not a single person has said that police should have absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You are going to have to explain to me how that chart you linked proves anything you are arguing here. It just proves that there are less accidental deaths from firearms than everything else combined. Which makes sense.....

My apologies if I was unclear, I thought that it was patently obvious that if the claim that gun safety and the US are like oil and water then the accidental deaths would be significantly higher than they are.

As to your second point one poster here was arguing that the ownership of firearms should give the police automatic right to enter a private residence. That in effect gives them "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
You are going to have to explain to me how that chart you linked proves anything you are arguing here. It just proves that there are less accidental deaths from firearms than everything else combined. Which makes sense.....

My apologies if I was unclear, I thought that it was patently obvious that if the claim that gun safety and the US are like oil and water then the accidental deaths would be significantly higher than they are.

As to your second point one poster here was arguing that the ownership of firearms should give the police automatic right to enter a private residence. That in effect gives them "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probable cause"

I don't think that chart puts out the information you think it does. I don't even know what the numbers are on those columns or what any of the other accidental deaths are. It is not obvious even a little bit.

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I don't think that chart puts out the information you think it does. I don't even know what the numbers are on those columns or what any of the other accidental deaths are. It is not obvious even a little bit.

The numbers are very clearly indicated as to what they stand for. And I thought it was obvious that when it said total for accidental deaths, that it meant all accidental deaths. Total accidental deaths obviously, and in its plain English meaning, means total accidental deaths.

If that is still a source of consternation for you perhaps this is clearer;


According to the CDC about 0.6% of all accidental deaths in the US are firearm related.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

Which is not what was argued earlier. The argument was that the police should have right of entry just because someone enjoys a legally protected right. There was no qualification given. Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

If we had a graph like that post 9/11, we would have never gone to war with anyone.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

I wonder how many shootings this invasion of privacy and civil liberties has prevented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If we had a graph like that post 9/11, we would have never gone to war with anyone.

Sadly we still would have. In times of crisis governments love to be seen to be doing something, the consequences can be addressed later.

For 2007, whats it like now? or a year or two ago.

Oh god where has the time gone :/

 Desubot wrote:
For 2007, whats it like now? or a year or two ago.

Oh god where has the time gone :/

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Page 84 shows the rate is now 0.2 per 100,000. Or by comparison to other accidental deaths;
- five times less likely than drowning
- four and a half times less likely than dying in a fire
- thirty three times less likely than dying in a motor vehicle accident
- twenty one times less likely than falling

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

Why are they inspecting you on a Friday Night? Also, why does that prevent you from going out? That is some real fancy nonsense you are spouting.

Dreadclaw, I hope you are able to catch the differences between the two charts you posted. One has really no specifics, just really general and misleading. That second graph is MUCH better at getting the point across. But your point is still silly. Can you show me where anybody has proposed that police be able to walk in to your house at any time? Please, quotes? Also, did you know if your child dies from consuming improperly secured chemicals you can be charged with negligence? We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be.

Also, just because something does not happen that often does not mean we should ignore it and let it continue. We can put forth laws to lower that number further and they can be implemented in a reasonable way. I mean, a lot of people do not have sex with animals. But, there are still laws against it. Should we get rid of those just because it doesn't happen that often?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

Why are they inspecting you on a Friday Night? Also, why does that prevent you from going out? That is some real fancy nonsense you are spouting.

Why a friday night? It's called "an example". The time really doesn't matter at all. Substitute Thursday morning if you choose, or whatever. And why does it prevent you going out? Because you just brought up the subject of inspections requiring the presence of the person being investigated.

The point I was making (which seems to have flown over your head) is that scheduling an inspection to make sure somebody is following a practice is pointless as the person will make sure the conditions are satisfactory to pass the scheduled inspection and they can be as lax as they like inbetween them.

The real nonsense is you expecting a pre-arranged inspection to catch someone being irresponsible. If you want to enforce ethics, inspections must be random, and the idea of police randomly invading your privacy with no warrant or probable cause is repulsive to many of us, contrary to Constitutionally protected rights, and oftentimes unenforcible.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Also, just because the police have a right to mandatory inspection does not mean they have "absolute power to enter your home at any time, with no notice, and without probably cause" at all. Not even a little bit. You know, you can have mandatory inspections that are scheduled? Did you also know that it can still be illegal for an inspection to occur without you there? Did you know that you could write these things in to a law in order to stop things like you have suggested from happening?

"Fancy going for a drink friday night mate?"

"Sorry, I can't, I have a mandatory police inspection coming up on friday night, I hope I have everything securely stored!"

That sort of policy will absolutely ensure that everyone complies with firearm safety on a regular basis. Foolproof!

Why are they inspecting you on a Friday Night? Also, why does that prevent you from going out? That is some real fancy nonsense you are spouting.

Why a friday night? It's called "an example". The time really doesn't matter at all. Substitute Thursday morning if you choose, or whatever. And why does it prevent you going out? Because you just brought up the subject of inspections requiring the presence of the person being investigated.

The point I was making (which seems to have flown over your head) is that scheduling an inspection to make sure somebody is following a practice is pointless as the person will make sure the conditions are satisfactory to pass the scheduled inspection and if they are irresponsible they will continue to be so afterward.

The real nonsense is you expecting a pre-arranged inspection to catch someone being irresponsible. If you want to enforce ethics, inspections must be random, and the idea of police randomly invading your privacy with no warrant or probable cause is repulsive to many of us, contrary to Constitutionally protected rights, and oftentimes unenforcible.

So, you are saying that once somebody has been inspected, they are going to take out all their weapons, load them and randomly place them over the house or something?

It is not real nonsense. The real nonsense is thinking that people are only going to be compliant during an inspection and all other times they are going to be incredibly irresponsible. That kind of goes against the argument that everybody is already being responsible and storing their weapons correctly. Also, lets stop using invading and crap like that. Your weapons do not even have to be in your home during the inspection. You could keep a safe in the shed, like I know some people do. You could have trigger locks on your weapon and you could just bring them out and show them on the porch. You are making a lot of assumptions about this that make no sense.....

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So, you are saying that once somebody has been inspected, they are going to take out all their weapons, load them and randomly place them over the house or something?

If someone is keeping a loaded gun by a bed or behind a door or in a closet for the purposes of defense, absolutely. Or if someone is lax in their handling and storage and only cleans up for inspection time to avoid fines or jailtime, sure.

Make sure it all looks nice for the inspector and then as soon as he's gone, you can go back to not keeping them in the government-approved condition until the next scheduled inspection. The idea of scheduled inspections making anything safer is laughable.

As an example, my household consists of 2 adults.The only visitors to the house are our parents. I often have firearms out of the safe and may or may not have one loaded by my bed at times. I do not deem this irresponsible behavior, but it would not comply with the law you are suggesting. If such a law were to go into effect, I could quite easily make everything look nice for the inspector and then go back to my old ways when he leaves. It does absolutely nothing to change the situation.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So, you are saying that once somebody has been inspected, they are going to take out all their weapons, load them and randomly place them over the house or something?

If someone is keeping a loaded gun by a bed or behind a door or in a closet for the purposes of defense, absolutely. Or if someone is lax in their handling and storage and only cleans up for inspection time to avoid fines or jailtime, sure.

Make sure it all looks nice for the inspector and then as soon as he's gone, you can go back to not keeping them in the government-approved condition until the next scheduled inspection. The idea of scheduled inspections making anything safer is laughable.

Okay, so a scheduled inspection would do a few things. It would prove that a person is capable of correctly storing a firearm by showing they have the equipment, education, and willingness to do so. Now, nobody said they could not store a weapon in a place by a bed or behind a door or in a closet. Those are perfectly normal things and you can do those and be safe at the same time. I think you are assuming that I think guns should be locked in a safe 24/7 when not in use and that is just not true.

But you are right, scheduled inspections would do nothing. They have absolutely no benefit at all....

To reply to your edit: Where did I suggest that the law requires a weapon be locked in a safe at all times? You are assuming an awful lot about my stance and jumping to worst case scenarios to prove your point.....

Sorry, I assumed you were for the requirement of storing firearms in safes due to this comment:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Don't speak for me. As an American I think that gun owners should be inspected to make sure that they are not fethheads leaving their guns laying around for children to play with.

But I still disagree with the notion of any kind of police inspection, scheduled or otherwise, unless they have probable cause to suspect someone of doing something illegal and have obtained a warrant.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Dreadclaw, I hope you are able to catch the differences between the two charts you posted. One has really no specifics, just really general and misleading.

You felt that a graph using CDC figures showing the total number of accidental firearm deaths against the total number of accidental deaths in the US was "misleading"? What was confusing or ambiguous about it?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
That second graph is MUCH better at getting the point across. But your point is still silly. Can you show me where anybody has proposed that police be able to walk in to your house at any time? Please, quotes? Also, did you know if your child dies from consuming improperly secured chemicals you can be charged with negligence? We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be.

I have already demonstrated that at least one user in this thread wanted the police to consider the fact that a firearm is owned as probable cause to enter the home, thus driving a horse and stagecoach through the 4th Amendment and the right to due process. What that means de facto and de jure is that the police then have a right to enter the private residence at any time. The poster did not attempt to outline a scheme of notification.

You dodged the question; Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, just because something does not happen that often does not mean we should ignore it and let it continue. We can put forth laws to lower that number further and they can be implemented in a reasonable way. I mean, a lot of people do not have sex with animals. But, there are still laws against it. Should we get rid of those just because it doesn't happen that often?

Your bestiality comparison is a complete non sequitur, and at no time did I suggest that laws be repealed because they have don't happen that often. I won't ask you for quotes to demonstrate when I asked for these laws to be repealed as no such quote exists. As you are aware we have laws dictating the punishments for leaving a firearm unattended which leads to injury. The solution to what is a statistically insignificant problem is not to throw out 4th Amendment.


If you believe that merely by having a gun at home, or a child in the home, that your civil liberties may be suspended then I have nothing further that I can say to you as your position is wholly unreasonable. Out of curiosity are your posts here being vetted by a government official, or is the First Amendment not subject to your desire for arbitrary government inspections?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Dreadclaw, I hope you are able to catch the differences between the two charts you posted. One has really no specifics, just really general and misleading.

You felt that a graph using CDC figures showing the total number of accidental firearm deaths against the total number of accidental deaths in the US was "misleading"? What was confusing or ambiguous about it?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
That second graph is MUCH better at getting the point across. But your point is still silly. Can you show me where anybody has proposed that police be able to walk in to your house at any time? Please, quotes? Also, did you know if your child dies from consuming improperly secured chemicals you can be charged with negligence? We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be.

I have already demonstrated that at least one user in this thread wanted the police to consider the fact that a firearm is owned as probable cause to enter the home, thus driving a horse and stagecoach through the 4th Amendment and the right to due process. What that means de facto and de jure is that the police then have a right to enter the private residence at any time. The poster did not attempt to outline a scheme of notification.

You dodged the question; Household chemicals cause more deaths per year than firearms. Should the police be able to inspect private residences at will to ensure that those are stored safely?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, just because something does not happen that often does not mean we should ignore it and let it continue. We can put forth laws to lower that number further and they can be implemented in a reasonable way. I mean, a lot of people do not have sex with animals. But, there are still laws against it. Should we get rid of those just because it doesn't happen that often?

Your bestiality comparison is a complete non sequitur, and at no time did I suggest that laws be repealed because they have don't happen that often. I won't ask you for quotes to demonstrate when I asked for these laws to be repealed as no such quote exists. As you are aware we have laws dictating the punishments for leaving a firearm unattended which leads to injury. The solution to what is a statistically insignificant problem is not to throw out 4th Amendment.


If you believe that merely by having a gun at home, or a child in the home, that your civil liberties may be suspended then I have nothing further that I can say to you as your position is wholly unreasonable. Out of curiosity are your posts here being vetted by a government official, or is the First Amendment not subject to your desire for arbitrary government inspections?

Well, when your graph has Causes of Death on it and the two causes of deaths are listed as "Total" and "Firearms Related" it throws off the relation of "Firearms Related" to everything else. It also makes it look as if "Firearms Related" is incredibly low as it does not show what all is within "Total". If you look at the second graph you posted, do you see that by comparison to some of the other things, it is not that low? While it is still low, you are better able to compare it to things that are around its level. Posting something against a "Total" number does nothing to tell me how the actual total breaks down in comparison. You understanding?

Also, I did not dodge the question. You just asked something that I never said should be a thing. So the answer to your question is no. But I do think they should be able to have scheduled visits to ensure that guns are properly locked as well as chemicals are stored away properly. I have already been over that in this thread once.

I never said that you said we should repeal any laws. That is why I asked you that question. It follows your line of reasoning. If something does not happen often, why have a law?

I never said anything about suspending civil liberties. A home inspection is not unreasonable. Because, even though you seem to think I have been saying it the whole thread and I have not, I am against random inspections and I am advocating for scheduled inspections.

And lastly, what?

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Well, when your graph has Causes of Death on it and the two causes of deaths are listed as "Total" and "Firearms Related" it throws off the relation of "Firearms Related" to everything else. It also makes it look as if "Firearms Related" is incredibly low as it does not show what all is within "Total". If you look at the second graph you posted, do you see that by comparison to some of the other things, it is not that low? While it is still low, you are better able to compare it to things that are around its level. Posting something against a "Total" number does nothing to tell me how the actual total breaks down in comparison. You understanding?

0.6%, or 0.2 per 100,000, is "incredibly low" no matter how you choose to look at it - even when compared to other causes of accidental death.
In no way was the initial graph misleading, unless you believe that total accidental deaths could mean something other than total accidental deaths

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Also, I did not dodge the question. You just asked something that I never said should be a thing. So the answer to your question is no. But I do think they should be able to have scheduled visits to ensure that guns are properly locked as well as chemicals are stored away properly. I have already been over that in this thread once.

You were claiming that firearms were so dangerous that the police should have the ability to inspect their storage without probable cause or a warrant, but I see that your contempt for civil liberties is universal. So at least you are consistent.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I never said that you said we should repeal any laws. That is why I asked you that question. It follows your line of reasoning. If something does not happen often, why have a law?

I was loathe to ask you for examples of asking for laws to be repealed in this thread, now I am going to have to insist so I can try to see where your misunderstanding is coming from.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I never said anything about suspending civil liberties. A home inspection is not unreasonable. Because, even though you seem to think I have been saying it the whole thread and I have not, I am against random inspections and I am advocating for scheduled inspections.

You are advocating for the end of privacy, due process, and the 4th Amendment based on the possession of perfectly legal items -.that is suspending the civil liberties of people who choose to possess them. Home inspections are wholly unreasonable. The police need a lawful reason to enter your home uninvited. The mere possession of a legal item is not sufficient grounds for the police to enter your property uninvited. You are proposing massive government reach into the private lives of citizens for a problem that is at best minimal.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
And lastly, what?

Again if you can give me specifics on what you are having issue with I can help you with your misunderstanding.

Did you read anything I wrote?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is the NRA's advice on gun storage?

http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx

Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Many factors must be considered when deciding where and how to store guns. A person's particular situation will be a major part of the consideration. Dozens of gun storage devices, as well as locking devices that attach directly to the gun, are available. However, mechanical locking devices, like the mechanical safeties built into guns, can fail and should not be used as a substitute for safe gun handling and the observance of all gun safety rules.

...
...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The NRA is the world's foremost organisation promoting gun rights and keeping the law out of gun control. Clearly it's tied to this kind of case, don't you think?

Please clarify what you mean by "tied to this case". Is AAA tied to any case involving a traffic accident caused by negligence?

The NRA has campaign for many years successfully to stop mandatory gun safety such as training and licensing, safe storage, etc.

It offers voluntary training and advice on safe storage etc.

This bloke wasn't licensed, didn't store his gun safely, and as a result, a three year old died. If he had been required by law to store his gun safely, the chance of this happening would have been greatly reduced.

IDK what the AAA is, but guns and cars are completely different things anyway, so I doubt it's relevant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The NRA has campaign for many years successfully to stop mandatory gun safety such as training and licensing, safe storage, etc.

And rightly so because mandatory training has been used in certain states to act as a barrier to exercising a lawful right by placing onerous restrictions on classes, locatio for training, class sizes, times, etc. If encouraging training (tax write off) etc. was done in good faith then this resistance would not be so prevalent
What you appear to be advocating for is essentially a poll tax on the exercise of a legal right which will only serve to disenfranchise the poor and minorities, and given that violent crime may often occur in these communities you are preventing some of those who need that right the most.
What of those who have suffered domestic abuse and wish to avail of their legal right to protect themselves and their families. Onerous requirements do nothing to protect them, and may in fact make them less safe - http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2015/06/nj_gun_association_calls_berlin_womans_death_an_ab.html

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It offers voluntary training and advice on safe storage etc.

Yes, it provides a useful pubic service with voluntary gun safety, Eddie the Eagle program, links on how to obtain firearm locks, safe storage tips, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This bloke wasn't licensed, didn't store his gun safely, and as a result, a three year old died. If he had been required by law to store his gun safely, the chance of this happening would have been greatly reduced.

Nice post hoc argument.
Where are you seeing that he wasn't licensed? I did not see that from what the OP posted

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK what the AAA is,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AAA
The American version of the AA

 Kilkrazy wrote:
but guns and cars are completely different things anyway, so I doubt it's relevant.

So you will never again offer any sort of comparison, or try to demonstrate equivalency, because things are "completely different things anyway, so I doubt it's relevant."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Did you read anything I wrote?

Given that I not only read, but also rebutted your arguments it seems strange that you would feel the need to ask that question.

Well then, your rebutted arguments seem like you never read what I said. Again, I did not say you said to repeal a law. That is the second time I have said it, but you are still acting like I did and asking me to prove you said it. For some reason.....

The chart I already covered by letting you know that comparing a specific thing to a very broad category such as "Total" is very misleading. It does not give a great view of what is involved in "Total". But, I already said this once and you ignored it because Total means Total?

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy and in fact I have gone over multiple ways where you can show you are being compliant and safe without the cops coming in to your home.

Again, I am not advocating for the end of Privacy, Due Process, or the 4th Amendment. To imply that is to not have read anything I said at all. I have, numerous times in this thread, said that I am not advocating for it but you continue to argue I am.

In the end this is my fault, I should have known better when you entered the thread. So I am going to leave, because you are going to continue saying the same things and attempting to put words in my mouth in order to prove your points.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy

Requiring an agent of the government to come into your home in order to exercise a right is pretty much the definition of that I would think.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy

Requiring an agent of the government to come into your home in order to exercise a right is pretty much the definition of that I would think.

It is. Anytime an agent of the government is required to enter your residence to "inspect" anything, your privacy is being invaded. Maybe you've never experienced it before, but as a member of the military I have many times, and it is incredibly invasive.


On an aside, I'd love to hear the suggestions of how we'd acquire the money to pay for the massive expansion in our bureaucracy that would be required to start inspecting as many as 40% of the homes in America.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
The chart I already covered by letting you know that comparing a specific thing to a very broad category such as "Total" is very misleading. It does not give a great view of what is involved in "Total". But, I already said this once and you ignored it because Total means Total?

Strawman.
Total is not misleading, Misleading would indicate that I presented something deliberately designed to obfuscate or confuse. Total has a very clear and plain English meaning. You could have made the argument that it lacks specificity by not showing what it was comprised of, but you did not make that argument.

In any event firearms account for 0.6% of all accidental deaths. It is an "incredibly low" cause of accidental death

 Dreadwinter wrote:
An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy and in fact I have gone over multiple ways where you can show you are being compliant and safe without the cops coming in to your home.

You have advocated for "home inspections", and the ridiculous notions that "Your weapons do not even have to be in your home during the inspection. You could keep a safe in the shed, like I know some people do. You could have trigger locks on your weapon and you could just bring them out and show them on the porch."
You are aware that a shed is still considered private property, correct? And that the police still need probable cause to enter private property?
What about jurisdictions where the display of a firearm, unless being used in self defense, is a crime (brandishing)?

Any time a police officer comes to your home and demands to see an item of private property it is an intrusion into your private life, and good cause/a warrant is required. The legal possession of an item is not sufficient cause for that to happen. This has been gone over multiple times and it seems to be a concept at the core of this discussion that you are having significant trouble acknowledging. Perhaps this will help;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What you are proposing absolutely contravenes the Fourth Amendment, and you have not shown how your proposals respect the law other than bare claims that it does

.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Again, I am not advocating for the end of Privacy, Due Process, or the 4th Amendment. To imply that is to not have read anything I said at all. I have, numerous times in this thread, said that I am not advocating for it but you continue to argue I am.

Then please explain how your proposals for the police having de facto probable cause based on a private citizen's enjoyment of a legal right is compatible with the Fourth Amendment.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
In the end this is my fault, I should have known better when you entered the thread. So I am going to leave, because you are going to continue saying the same things and attempting to put words in my mouth in order to prove your points.

When you are able to acknowledge and understand the core concepts that we are discussing I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

An inspection for safety is not an invasion of privacy

Requiring an agent of the government to come into your home in order to exercise a right is pretty much the definition of that I would think.

It is. Anytime an agent of the government is required to enter your residence to "inspect" anything, your privacy is being invaded. Maybe you've never experienced it before, but as a member of the military I have many times, and it is incredibly invasive.


On an aside, I'd love to hear the suggestions of how we'd acquire the money to pay for the massive expansion in our bureaucracy that would be required to start inspecting as many as 40% of the homes in America.

Oh, it is much higher than that. Dreadwinter would like home inspections of houses that have children;
" We have already been over this and I have already stated that if you have a kid, you home should be safety inspected. Parents are idiots, as proven by the fact that household chemicals kill children. A safety inspection of a house to ensure the safety of a helpless child is not as bad a thing as you are making it out to be."
Of course if we are inspecting the houses of parents are we also inspecting the houses of those In loco parentis?

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh, do the 4473's track firearm sales and register them nationally in a government databank to their owners and then track thefts?

Edit: Man, quote fail!

No. 4473 forms are stored by the retailer\dealer for 20 of years, but the government does not have any record of this data.

There is no general federal firearm registration in the US. Some states require and maintain registries, and the federal government does track NFA items, but these are both very, very rare.

And if a FFL goes out of business, their current 4473s have to be turned over the BATFE Out of Business Records Office. And if I recall correctly, the BATFE has no obligation to destroy the forms after 20 years.

Also, people with CCWs are also listed in State databases (multiple States if your State has reciprocal agreements with others) for quick access by LEOs and 911 operators. But that's to be expected, considering the requirements to get and maintain a CCW permit. You want the other good guys to know that you're legal to carry a concealed weapon when dealing with the law, after all.

I've gotta say, I am anti-gun, but they do have a point. I do get rather grumpy whenever the electrical or water meter people come to visit.

One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

We, certainly from my point of view in England, also share a distrust of the Police. I'm not sure if we experience the same level of abuse from the police in general, or if it is just not in the news or public eye as much though.

I know that I, and most of the people I know, don't have any love for our Police.

I think it depends on where in England. Big cities, particularly London and Birmingham probably feel the same way. Small and medium sized towns tend to have a good relationship with the police I'd say.

I think Glasgow traditionally has a very good relationship with the police as a city though, right?

Or at least that's what my Weegie friends have said.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

My uncle was able to get his German police buddy to try and intimidate my grandmother when my grandfather died, and police officers in the US bring Shaq to a basketball game down the street.

We should be careful to paint with too broad a brush, both positive and negative.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

Being an ex-cop and corrections officer, I can tell you that this "culture of abuse" among U.S. law enforcement agencies is a load of gak overhyped by the media. The only time we had anything to do with people being "kicked out of their homes" was when they got an eviction notice from a landlord, and we were present to prevent further trouble. Occasionally, there were arrests (even landlords got a trip to lock-up if they got out of hand, and wanted to be pricks).


And not once has any officer I worked with, myself, or any I knew ever took anybody's property unless it was evidence or in recovery of stolen property after an arrest. The only time we ever used force against somebody cuffed in my 11 years as an officer was when people were still being combative, even when restrained. I personally applied OC pepper against individuals in cuffs spitting and trying to kick the back glass out of patrol car doors. And that was for the purposes of restraint and putting "spit guards" on them for our safety. Not so we could beat the ever-loving gak out of them. Sure, some of them probably could've used a good ass whipping. But that wasn't part of our job, it would be a rights violation, and it's unprofessional.


Yes, there are bad apples in law enforcement as in every aspect of life. But there is no "epidemic" of police brutality/corruption in this country, except in the eyes of the "DINDU" crowd, the sensationalist media organs, and the asshats that encourage the culture of victimhood.

Never had any problems with any LEO I've met. Been pulled over twice (light out and failed to take nearest lane when turning) and both times they were super professional. Hit a deer and the officer was very helpful. Got a regular customer at work who is an LEO and he's always very pleasant.

Doesn't mean I would want them rummaging through my home without good reason, but I have never experienced anything that would make me distrust any of the local departments or believe they engage in abusive behavior.

Probably just another case of the news finding something that gets them a lot of viewers and running with it, blowing it up to be more of a problem than it really is.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Never had any problems with any LEO I've met. Been pulled over twice (light out and failed to take nearest lane when turning) and both times they were super professional. Hit a deer and the officer was very helpful. Got a regular customer at work who is an LEO and he's always very pleasant.

Doesn't mean I would want them rummaging through my home without good reason, but I have never experienced anything that would make me distrust any of the local departments or believe they engage in abusive behavior.

Probably just another case of the news finding something that gets them a lot of viewers and running with it, blowing it up to be more of a problem than it really is.

Oh, I agree. People have to be careful and mindful of their rights regarding searches and seizures. Because besides the aforementioned "bad apples", sometimes overzealous or ignorant LEOs will cross the line.


Ultimately, the only person who can protect your rights is you.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not saying he shouldn't have locked up the firearm, he should have, just that I think that with the circumstances present, between the kid's apparent planning and determination, and the two adults actually present at the time failing to properly keep an eye on things, I think that lumping everything on the father is inappropriate.

I guess its no so much that I disagree with the verdict as the situation in general. There was a multitude of things that went wrong here, failure to properly store the firearm is just one, with the heavy emphasis on that singular aspect being selectively applied in a situation where its *possible* (and not like 1-in-a-million possible, but practically possible) proper storage may not have made a difference. At least from my perspective, if the other adults were there and knew a gun was in the house, they should all be facing the charge or none of them should.

Sure, it's impossible to say that this the direct result of the father leaving the gun where he did. Like you say, the kid might have gotten through a gun safe. Or he might have gotten a gun through some other means, maybe. And with increased supervision, especially of the 3 year old, it's likely this could have been avoided.

I guess the distinction that needs to be made is between ‘directly responsible’ and ‘acted in a dangerously negligent manner that directly contributed’. The guy met the latter, and that’s worth jail time, I think.

And I have no problem with other adults involved being considered for prosecution as well, if it can be established they were clearly negligent. Leaving an eleven year old with a three year old while you are elsewhere on the property is nowhere near negligence, but if the 11 year old’s development disability is severe or dangerous in any way then I can see how it would be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Not really, it is ignorant to assume that the vast majority of gun owners practice safety measures just because there is not a huge amount of incidences. What proof do you have that these gun owners clearly practice some form of safety measures? Just because somebody goes their whole life without being in a vehicle accident while intoxicated, does that mean that person never drives drunk?

Sure, but it then indicates that unsafe gun storage isn’t so dangerous that it requires government resources to enforce safer practices. To continue your drunk driving analogy – if everyone was drink driving regularly but there was only 100 deaths a year across the country, well then it wouldn’t be that dangerous a practice and the current level of police enforcement would be unjustified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
This is the part that chaffs my arse. The kid took premeditated action to evade being seen with the gun and then used it to kill a child. He was a threat then and without any charges is still a threat now. Except that he's likely learned that his disability, whatever it is, is now a license to keep him out of trouble in the future. Yea, the father deserved being charged because he neglected to lock up his firearm, but the kid needed some sort of penalty levied against him, too.

Without knowing the child or speaking to him in depth its impossible to know his state of mind or capacity for reason. Sufficient developmental issues may have made it possible to plan his actions as he did, but still have no concept of the harm he was actually causing.

I'm not saying that is the case, but it appears to be the decision the police have come to. They may or may not be right, but they're in a more informed place than we are to make that assessment.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
One issue that is (to my knowledge) uniquely American, is our mistrust of the police. You see pictures of European police, and they are doing people's dishes, and buying back wedding bands pawned off. Here the police are kicking people out of their homes and eating their food, and kicking handcuffed women. No way would I allow one into my home without a warrant. If the culture of mistrust and apparent abuse ends id still be against it, but more open

I've lived on both sides of the Atlantic and to the best of my knowledge both sides of the pond mistrust their police. I have heard more tales of benevolent US police than I have of benevolent police back home.

I think it does depend on where you're from in Europe, Dreadclaw.

There's a difference in attitude between for example Northern Ireland and the Republic, and between low income areas and middle class areas.

I've had little experience with police in Europe, but my experience with them in Central Asia (Stans) was anything but good.

Once had a police officer try to shake me down for money, until he learned I was US Military. As I understand it, the region is rife with corruption.

My brother's experience in the Middle East and West Africa was similar, sadly.

Well, without him being US military

Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

Canadians don't get to be proud of hockey this year. Not a single Canadian team made it into the NHL play-offs.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

Canadians don't get to be proud of hockey this year. Not a single Canadian team made it into the NHL play-offs.

Well, they always have Crusoe the Dachshund.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/a/u/m/j/i/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1aumj8.png/1460075163034.jpg

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

I have a few 'fun' stories about interaction with police in Panama and a couple other places. Pero usted un gringo, necesita pagar seemed to be the way it was. Being the schmuck I am I tried to refuse to play the game but pay $2 the first time I was pulled over, basically out of shock at how the whole thing went down.

In fairness, the local LEOs were not paid well, treated like dirt unless they had family connections in the gov't, and were trying to get by.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Police in Central and Latin America are known for corruption. For example, if you are ever in a car accident, immediately bail or the police will arrest you unless you pay them off.

Occasionally Mexican police and military units will fire on border patrol agents, almost like they are protecting a shipment of something.

In contrast Canadian police are as annoyingly polite as the rest of Canada, but share the "except for hockey and then we'll kick your ass" personality quirk.

Canadians don't get to be proud of hockey this year. Not a single Canadian team made it into the NHL play-offs.

Maybe so, but we still make up the bulk of the league. Fun fact, when it was Vancouver vs Boston a few years back Lord Stanley's Cup spent more time in Canada when the Bruins won because they had more Canadian players than Van. Probably why Boston won.

Back OT, when I was in grade three I nicked my dad's hunting knife and brought it to school. Not to hurt anyone or anything, but because I thought it was super cool and wanted to show it too my friends.

I also knew that I wasn't supposed to have it, and took measures to hide it. This kid could have been of a similar mindset.

 Da Boss wrote:
I think it does depend on where you're from in Europe, Dreadclaw.

There's a difference in attitude between for example Northern Ireland and the Republic, and between low income areas and middle class areas.

Which supports my point that there is variation in the attitudes to the police that is more than just country specific. And I was not talking exclusively about Northern Ireland - take for example the protests again police in London after Mark Duggan's death. I've heard plenty of people in the Republic complain about the Gardi too

I like cops. Have a brother who is a cop. I respect them and always treat them with respect in my interactions with them.

No way I open my house or property up to them without a warrant though. Has nothing to do with 'fear' or 'hate' and everything to do with expecting them to follow the rules just as they expect me to do so.

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473391286/does-carrying-a-pistol-make-you-safer

Good article IMO, on my phone so I can't copy it here

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473391286/does-carrying-a-pistol-make-you-safer

Good article IMO, on my phone so I can't copy it here

That was a good article.

The part that I would emphasize the most is that it absolutely does require a commitment to spend the time training/practicing to develop a useful reliable skill with a pistol. The common thread between all the good shooters I know is that they make time to practice and take classes.

The scary thing that most people don't realize is that the training requirements for police are sorely lacking too. All the cops I've met that were good shots did a ton of practice on their own time. The typical annual qualifying tests for police departments would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. Shooting a few dozen rounds at the range each year isn't going to do much at all for your competency or accuracy.

I think for Oklahoma I had to shoot 50 rounds to show that I'm competent and qualified to shoot for my CC. And "competent and qualified" isn't actually defined anywhere.

A few years ago there were "NOAA purchased a ton of ammo, why do they even need ammo" articles all over the place. I think once you realized that they have a law enforcement function (department of fishery or something like that) and count the number of law enforcement officers they had, the amount of ammo was just enough for every officer to shoot 15 rounds every month.so unless they spend their own money they would be able to go to the range once a month to empty a mag. That's not near enough, I get more range time than that.

The other good takeaway from the article is that even if you were justified, killing someone still messes you up. I know too many folks who are just hoping to get to use their gun someday. Thankfully they are in the minority.

 d-usa wrote:
I think for Oklahoma I had to shoot 50 rounds to show that I'm competent and qualified to shoot for my CC. And "competent and qualified" isn't actually defined anywhere.

A few years ago there were "NOAA purchased a ton of ammo, why do they even need ammo" articles all over the place. I think once you realized that they have a law enforcement function (department of fishery or something like that) and count the number of law enforcement officers they had, the amount of ammo was just enough for every officer to shoot 15 rounds every month.so unless they spend their own money they would be able to go to the range once a month to empty a mag. That's not near enough, I get more range time than that.

The other good takeaway from the article is that even if you were justified, killing someone still messes you up. I know too many folks who are just hoping to get to use their gun someday. Thankfully they are in the minority.

Agreed. In NC you have to hit the silhouette target with 7 of 10 shots from a distance of 3, 5 and 7 yards. Once you do it the first time you don't have to do it again when you renew unless you let your permit lapse. You shouldn't have to be an expert marksman to own a gun but if you choose to carry you owe it to yourself and society at large to spend the time and money to develop the skill set you need to be reliably proficient and safe.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I think for Oklahoma I had to shoot 50 rounds to show that I'm competent and qualified to shoot for my CC. And "competent and qualified" isn't actually defined anywhere.

A few years ago there were "NOAA purchased a ton of ammo, why do they even need ammo" articles all over the place. I think once you realized that they have a law enforcement function (department of fishery or something like that) and count the number of law enforcement officers they had, the amount of ammo was just enough for every officer to shoot 15 rounds every month.so unless they spend their own money they would be able to go to the range once a month to empty a mag. That's not near enough, I get more range time than that.

The other good takeaway from the article is that even if you were justified, killing someone still messes you up. I know too many folks who are just hoping to get to use their gun someday. Thankfully they are in the minority.

Agreed. In NC you have to hit the silhouette target with 7 of 10 shots from a distance of 3, 5 and 7 yards. Once you do it the first time you don't have to do it again when you renew unless you let your permit lapse. You shouldn't have to be an expert marksman to own a gun but if you choose to carry you owe it to yourself and society at large to spend the time and money to develop the skill set you need to be reliably proficient and safe.

Bad part of it is, despite being a fairly easy course that you can get through pretty quick with proficient individuals, those classes offered at the local community colleges tend to get people in who haven't had that much trigger time. Hell, some of them show up without a gun, and have to borrow another student's.


Oh, it's good to see another North Carolinian on these boards.