A fine reason to ban weapons

[ QUOTE ]
You say this is a fine reason to ban weapons, indicating you blame the firearm for the death, then you say the parents should be fried, indicating you believe the parents' negligence is behind the fatality.

Why should the parents be punished if the fatality is caused by the existence of the inanimate object?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Trantor]

Fry the kid...I thought children and mentally subnornmal citizens where the usual death penalty fodder in the good ol' US of A

[ACPlayer]

Negligence.

I have long been opposed to the death penalty on this forum.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Negligence.

I have long been opposed to the death penalty on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how does banning a weapon help to solve the "real" problem of parental negligence? Had it been a baseball bat, would you be calling for a ban on baseball bats? (and before you use the "but guns are made for killing..." argument, consider that baseball bats have long been used as a weapon)

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


I have long been opposed to the death penalty on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that we most certainly need the death penalty on this forum. If not here, obviously on OOT.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
So how does banning a weapon help to solve the "real" problem of parental negligence?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't but it is one less thing they can be negligent about.

[ QUOTE ]
Had it been a baseball bat, would you be calling for a ban on baseball bats?

[/ QUOTE ]

Had it been a baseball bat it wouldn't have ended tragically. They were young children playing. It wasn't their fault they were just being children. Yes the parents are to blame for their negligence and they will live with that for the rest of their lives but as a father of 2 young children myself I know how curious, ingenious and resourceful they can be when they are determined to play with a 'toy'. I don't want a complete ban, I want much stronger restrictions on where a gun may be kept. Parents are negligable, all parents, and I see nothing wrong with helping them out even if they disagree.

[ACPlayer]

Pretty much where I am at.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't but it is one less thing they can be negligent about.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. Just as we need to keep guns out of the hands of kids, we need to keep anything they can screw up out of the hands of the incompetent. How about starting with gambling? If we eliminate gambling, we can eliminate the suffering caused by those who neglect the economic well-being of their families by stuffing their paychecks into slot machines. They are probably drinking while they do that, so let's eliminate alcohol too. Those are some serious areas of neglect, probably a lot worse than guns. I'm sure the great minds here can come up with a host of things we can do to legislate personal responsibility. If they can't, I recommend Al Gore and John Kerry as sources.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't want a complete ban, I want much stronger restrictions on where a gun may be kept. Parents are negligable, all parents, and I see nothing wrong with helping them out even if they disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the symptoms of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. I'm guessing that about half the people reading this do not see the absurdity of that quote.

Let me rephrase the concept:

1. We have restrictions on guns, especially as regards access by children.

2. Parents are negligent, and don't always follow those restrictions.

3. Therefore we need more, and stronger, restrictions.

If negligent parents are not following the current restrictions (because they are too burdensome, or they simple can't be bothered), what on earth would lead anyone to think that they would follow even stronger restrictions?

You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.

Rather than controls on who has guns, it would make a lot more sense to have controls on who has children. But in this messy little country of ours, both of those things are against the Constitution.

There are more than enough laws on the books regarding gun ownership. Recent combined state and federal projects to enforce existing laws have resulted in significant decreases in crime and in gun pocession by criminals. Laws mean nothing if they are not obeyed and enforced. Passing more laws does nothing but give the law-makers and do-gooders a warm and fuzzy feeling.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Well said. Just as we need to keep guns out of the hands of kids, we need to keep anything they can screw up out of the hands of the incompetent. How about starting with gambling? If we eliminate gambling, we can eliminate the suffering caused by those who neglect the economic well-being of their families by stuffing their paychecks into slot machines. They are probably drinking while they do that, so let's eliminate alcohol too. Those are some serious areas of neglect, probably a lot worse than guns. I'm sure the great minds here can come up with a host of things we can do to legislate personal responsibility. If they can't, I recommend Al Gore and John Kerry as sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whilst it is true many more children are hurt by their parents inability to control themselves over personal vices it is not quite the same as a child being injured or injuring another because they found their parents 'toy'. Having said that you are making a very valid argument and I have no counter-argument. I draw a line where I believe restrictions are fair and where they are not. As far as guns are concerned I believe the laws of the US and nearly all its states fall short.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the symptoms of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting a different result. I'm guessing that about half the people reading this do not see the absurdity of that quote.

Let me rephrase the concept:

1. We have restrictions on guns, especially as regards access by children.

2. Parents are negligent, and don't always follow those restrictions.

3. Therefore we need more, and stronger, restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You presume that the current restrictions are sufficient and that further restrictions will do little to avert future tradegies. I do not.

[ QUOTE ]
If negligent parents are not following the current restrictions (because they are too burdensome, or they simple can't be bothered), what on earth would lead anyone to think that they would follow even stronger restrictions?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your saying that enforcement is a big part of the problem then you are right but that doesn't mean that existing laws are enough.

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So don't try?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot legislate away stupidity and incompetence. You can't make your house 100% child-safe, and you can't make the world 100% idiot-safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

So don't try?

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't try to eliminate stupidity and incompetence through legislation, not because it's impossible (even though it is impossible), but rather because it's unjust. The fact that it's impossible is just gravy.