American Gun Ownership Highest In 18 Years

[11B4V]

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

1. Improper clearing of the rifle= Parents fault

2. Improperly stored= Parents fault

3. #1+#2= Charge the parents with at least Neg Homicide.

Sad thing is, a $3 trigger lock would have prevented this. Even with a round in the chamber. Even with the parents voilating #1 & #2 above.

CHARGE THEM.

[Caliga]

Cumberland County.

That's the third world, y'all.

[The Brain]

3. #1+#2= Charge the parents with at least Neg Homicide.

Is that even a crime in that part of the US?

[fhdz]

3. #1+#2= Charge the parents with at least Neg Homicide.

Is that even a crime in that part of the US?

[Caliga]

Is that even a crime in that part of the US?

[derspiess]

Apparantly there is a market for this sort of insanity.

Ask Ed

[garbon]

instead of in jail.

Nah, don't be silly. 
This is America; shooting folks in the face is barely a faux pas.  It's a presidential vice.

Or rather it's vice presidential.

Wouldn't have figured you for a whoosh.

I disliked the word order.

[Berkut]

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

1. Improper clearing of the rifle= Parents fault

2. Improperly stored= Parents fault

3. #1+#2= Charge the parents with at least Neg Homicide.

Sad thing is, a $3 trigger lock would have prevented this. Even with a round in the chamber. Even with the parents voilating #1 & #2 above.

CHARGE THEM.

Why charge them with a crime?

This is a tragedy, but parental negligence leads to serious injury or death for children all the time - car accidents being the #1 culprit, of course.

They are morons (honestly, buying a rifle for a 5 year old was the first clue), but being stupid is not a crime, and there isn't any reason to send them off to jail. It won't "punish" them, because how can you possibly imagine that any punishment could be worse than being responsible for the death of your child? And it won't deter anything, since the people that are stupid enough to buy rifles for their five year olds and stupid enough not to secure said rifles are stupid enough to think that such a thing could not possibly happen to THEM anyway.

[The Minsky Moment]

Apparantly there is a market for this sort of insanity.

It's a function of the politicization of the underlying issue.

There are all sorts of reasons why a household might keep a dangerous weapon in the house but a toy for a small child is not one of them.  No one would think a giving a 5 year old their own set of butcher knives to play Gordon Ramsey, or pesticides to play farmer, or a chemistry set with TNT in it. 

But the political battle over gun control has pushed partisans to extreme positions, and to extreme cultural stances.  So that it is not enough to defend the negative liberty right to purchase and own firearms for whatever lawful purpose one desires; rather the ownership and use of firearms must be extolled as a positive good and as an essential cultural expression in any or all possible manifestations.  That is the dynamic that leads to ready reception to a marketing campaign promoting the sale of guns for 5 year olds.

[Malthus]

Apparantly there is a market for this sort of insanity.

It's a function of the politicization of the underlying issue.

There are all sorts of reasons why a household might keep a dangerous weapon in the house but a toy for a small child is not one of them.  No one would think a giving a 5 year old their own set of butcher knives to play Gordon Ramsey, or pesticides to play farmer, or a chemistry set with TNT in it. 

But the political battle over gun control has pushed partisans to extreme positions, and to extreme cultural stances.  So that it is not enough to defend the negative liberty right to purchase and own firearms for whatever lawful purpose one desires; rather the ownership and use of firearms must be extolled as a positive good and as an essential cultural expression in any or all possible manifestations.  That is the dynamic that leads to ready reception to a marketing campaign promoting the sale of guns for 5 year olds.

4 year olds.

The 5 year old got it as a present last year. 

[The Brain]

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

1. Improper clearing of the rifle= Parents fault

2. Improperly stored= Parents fault

3. #1+#2= Charge the parents with at least Neg Homicide.

Sad thing is, a $3 trigger lock would have prevented this. Even with a round in the chamber. Even with the parents voilating #1 & #2 above.

CHARGE THEM.

Why charge them with a crime?

This is a tragedy, but parental negligence leads to serious injury or death for children all the time - car accidents being the #1 culprit, of course.

They are morons (honestly, buying a rifle for a 5 year old was the first clue), but being stupid is not a crime, and there isn't any reason to send them off to jail. It won't "punish" them, because how can you possibly imagine that any punishment could be worse than being responsible for the death of your child? And it won't deter anything, since the people that are stupid enough to buy rifles for their five year olds and stupid enough not to secure said rifles are stupid enough to think that such a thing could not possibly happen to THEM anyway.

The law: a smorgasbord where Berkut decides what applies on a case by case basis.

[Barrister]

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

White told the Lexington Herald-Leader the boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn't realize a bullet was left inside it.

1. Improper clearing of the rifle= Parents fault

2. Improperly stored= Parents fault

3. #1+#2= Charge the parents with at least Neg Homicide.

Sad thing is, a $3 trigger lock would have prevented this. Even with a round in the chamber. Even with the parents voilating #1 & #2 above.

CHARGE THEM.

Why charge them with a crime?

This is a tragedy, but parental negligence leads to serious injury or death for children all the time - car accidents being the #1 culprit, of course.

They are morons (honestly, buying a rifle for a 5 year old was the first clue), but being stupid is not a crime, and there isn't any reason to send them off to jail. It won't "punish" them, because how can you possibly imagine that any punishment could be worse than being responsible for the death of your child? And it won't deter anything, since the people that are stupid enough to buy rifles for their five year olds and stupid enough not to secure said rifles are stupid enough to think that such a thing could not possibly happen to THEM anyway.

Not sure I agree that general deterence isn't applicable here.  It sends the message to society at large that you have to store your firearm safely.

Under the standards here though I don't know if crim neg is made out.  Civil negligence, sure, but to make it criminal your negligence has to be "wanton or reckless disregard".

Now mind you we would prosecute for unsafe storage of a firearm, and upon conviction ban them from owning any firearms.

[Malthus]

Nothing quite says "safety" like a 4 year old's first firearm. 

Apparantly there is a market for this sort of insanity.

"It's a Crickett," White said, referring to a company that specifically makes guns, clothes and books for children. "It's a little rifle for a kid. ...

Heh, I thought this must be wrong - I mean, I can imagine a "youth rifle" but I cannot imagine a company deliberately promoting guns to such young children.

So I looked at the company website and, while they don't expressly say "buy our guns for your 4, 5 or 6 year old", they *do* proudly post user testimonials from folks who have:

"Just wanted to drop you a note, to let you know what a great product you offer. I just recently bought two Crickett .22's, one pink and one black. They are exceptionally accurate, and just the right size for my 5 and 7 year olds. They are awesome and we couldn't be happier. Thanks So Much!!!!!"

---Travis

Check out the "kid's corner" - mostly has pics of very young kids with guns - I assume the ones with actual babies are just for the cute factor. 

http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php?osCsid=p38cacquj25qhl3gd0mun3ucd5

What is the little girl with the pink rifle in the 4th row holding? 

[crazy canuck]

since the people that are stupid enough to buy rifles for their five year olds and stupid enough not to secure said rifles are stupid enough to think that such a thing could not possibly happen to THEM anyway.

If people are found to be criminally responsible for the profoundly stupid act of giving a 4 year old a rifle then that might create at least some awareness among gun nuts that such a thing should not be done.

[DGuller]

DGuller, I think you have to turn yourself in

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Pasted one line too many.