You know, the other thing I think about with this issue is that more teenagers are killed or seriously and sometimes permanently injured in hand to hand combat than with guns.

Kids are violent.

They learn it from us grown ups.

Hey...

Can you please identify the responsible party or object in this case, in your opinion, of course.

FWIW: here is your ever-reliable Fox News to answer your question...
Note: These are only "school-shootings"

Fox News
2/28/12

School shootings and where students got their guns
The article goes on with school shootings in 2006 and 2005.
.

FIFY.

Then we let them drive cars. It's a wonder we're not extinct.

I'll start with whichever adult allowed a child access to a loaded weapon or a weapon and ammo.

Or were you assuming the gun went to the store, bought ammunition,
loaded itself, jumped into the student's backpack and then fired a round by itself?

In addition to the charges brought against the boy, the boy's mother would seem to be culpable of reckless endangerment for not securing the firearm (there's nothing about the boy trespassing in the mother's home to get it). The firearm can be configured for safe carry in the backpack even under the conditions of the pack being slammed down; so, it was a matter of human negligence that the firearm was either left "cocked and with the safety off" by the mother; or, configured that way by the boy. That was neither a safe configuration for firearm storage nor any manner of carry. The safety should not be off until one is ready to pull the trigger. For backpack carry, there shouldn't have been a round in the chamber either.

The boy claimed he was going to run away. A similar situation could have developed if his mother had recklessly left her car keys in her car and the boy got in and drove away then hit someone because he didn't know how to properly control the vehicle.

People don't kill people, cars do!

That's another sign of the times. We no longer teach kids safe & proper gun handling. Ya'll have seen pics of my 4 year old shooting. We've taught the kids they can look at or handle any weapon in our home as long as they ask first & we go thru the proper clearing procedures. This way the guns aren't a mystery or forbidden fruit. They learn they are a tool that has to be treated the same way as my chainsaw, circular saw, etc.

BTW, my 28 year old still comments on his first gun lesson. I took him out and shot a cantaloupe. I told him that is what would happen to his head if he messed with a loaded gun. Funny the things that stick in their minds

The boy is responsible. He's 9.

That's the law in Washington. The mom's not responsible, nobody else. He's being charged.

Who *should* be responsible, tha's a different conversation.

Oh, well its Washington ... you should have said that.
Ya know what they say about peeps in Washington, right ;)

Don't mess with nine year olds.

OK, on a more serious note, you stated "in your opinion."

After reading the article I took this out...

Huh??? Gotta be more to that part of this story.

ALets look into this some more ...

In third grade, I was in Tuscon AZ for a year. A kid in my class brought a handgun to school for show and tell. I'm a little hazy on the details, but I'm pretty sure the teacher held onto it for the boy for the day but let him hold it and show it in front of the class for show and tell. She didn't let him pass it around. And I think she asked him if it was loaded, and he said it wasn't, but I never saw her check for herself. That part of the memory is pretty foggy.

He had found it in the desert on the edge of town and had gone shooting with it. He told the story of when he shot a prickly pear cactus, and when he went to look at the bullet hole, he saw that he had killed a lizard or some other small animal that was behind the cactus.

This was 1976. Different times.

Guns don't kill people, parents kill people

I think (in my opinion, hmm?) the law in Washington is not what it should be. I don't think a nine year old should be held responsible in this case, though that is how our laws are written. I believe the owner of the gun should be responsible. I'm all for personal responsibility and shit, and I don't know what kind of squawking the 2nd amendment fundies have made but there oughta be a law, y'know?

Otherwise, why not just have some little kid be your triggerman, be the babysitting bank robber or whatever. Who is the fucking adult in charge here? It had better not be a nine year old, running away from home who takes a gun cause he's scared.

Guns don't kill people. People who rail about how guns don't kill people and how we need to educate kids about proper gun use but guns are lying around everywhere and for some reason the gun buddies don't actually get together and have this discussion so person number one has all their guns locked up so the kids can't get to them and decided kid number 1 didn't need the big gun talk yet because he couldn't access the gun closet but kid number 1 has a friend who is kid number 2 whose parents have educated about gun safety and therefore don't lock up their guns so kid number 1 and kid number 2 play together and gee whillickers why weren't all the parents doing what they were supposed to do to prevent kid number one from taking the really cool neato gun from kid number 2's house and shooting his sister like educating him and keeping guns locked up? Guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns do. Sometimes their offspring gets involved.

It's like when it comes to guns the whole world all of a sudden believes that all parents are good and smart and attentive and etc and so on...poppycock. That's an awful big fantasy world you create (and even suspension of disbelief doesn't help here) for the "right" to wave a big old piece of stupid metal around.


lookout in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Thats the question I was trying to answer as well.
Legally, it is the uncle. However, I don't see how he should be held responsible for this.
IMO, the mom's boyfriend should be in serious shit for having a loaded firearm in the glove box of his car.
I wonder how the boy knew it was there and how he got access to it.
Was the frikkin car also unlocked???
A whole lotta WTF going on here.

yeah sarcasm and all... whatever.

this is obviously vastly more serious than sticks and stones, right? It is clearly an accident, and a terrible one, but a preventable one. The greatest mistake was made by the gun owner, but there is no criminal penalty for the gun owner's mistake. THAT is the part I'm complaining about.

Parents, imperfect parents, I'm not just a customer, I'm the fucking leader of the pack. I get that. Big, avoidable mistakes ... shit.

It's the parent/adult in charge/gun owner's mistake. But it is the two kids that are paying the price. That's wrong.

It isnt the uncle. that's what I'm trying to explain here. the uncle is NOT LEGALLY responsible for shit here.

Sarcasm? I assure you I wasn't being even slightly sarcastic.

Now git up thar on your little doggie and ride off into the sunset, pardner.

See, that was sarcasm.

I don't follow the fallback (finger in dimples) "oh gee I'm such an imperfect parent...chuckle I'm such a human being" excuse when it comes to kids getting their hands on firearms. Fuck that. You'd walk across fire to save your kid but you won't give up your fucking gun or be more "perfect" about it. (By 'you' I mean the general 'you')

Simple really.

Well, I didn't choose the quote button for your post, infinite monkey, but I'm sure I read a sentence in the post of your that said something to the effect of "lock up your sticks and stones". That was the sarcasm I was referring to. Perhaps you edited it out, perhaps I'm imagining it. Upon rereading your post now, there doesn't seem to be anything sarcastic about it.

I am not up in arms over your remarks, I am deeply saddened about this story in my area. I'm also very upset that our law is written the way it's written. Even if a civil suit is brought successfully against the mom/boyfriend/uncle whomever, I don't think that's enough of an incentive to strongly motivate people who own firearms to take reasonable precautions to keep them safe.

I understand. I don't agree with the law either. I think I was using the thread as a rant area. (Clear the Rant Area...INCOMING.)

I did have a line about sticks and rocks but I edited it out: it was from an old conversation I had with my ex after Columbine and it didn't really fit here.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's very sad. Violence makes me very sad, intended or not. I can't even watch my local news anymore.

Because if the kid had only had a knife, or bat, or circular saw, or fist, the damage would have been less.

My guess is that the criminal mother's boyfriend took it out and showed it to him, maybe as a threat, or maybe to show the kid how "cool" he is, cause all the cool kids pack heat. Maybe he showed it to him because his dick is small.
I'll bet he is. I don't know that I agree with it, but he IS the kid's legal guardian.

Classic jibes with: Cars kill people

No...
Cars are operated to transport people, sometimes people are killed or only hurt.
Guns are operated to kill people, sometimes people are only wounded.

Trying to figure out who is responsible is very close to blaming the rape victim for being raped.

The NRA, with Grover Norquist and the other Board Members, are responsible by politically stopping
any reasonable and effective legislation to deal with our society's ability to control guns.
Likewise, the people who support the NRA are only slightly less responsible.

If you love the idea of hunting, but blindly accept the consequences
of the NRA's position, some independent thought might helpful.
.

Guns are operated to shoot targets, VERY RARELY people are killed or only hurt.

How many people are killed or hurt by cars vs. guns?

I think that's disingenuous.

No more than "Guns are operated to kill people"

Guns are operated to provide food.
That better? If not, I can add to the list.

I am a gun owner. I do not belong to the NRA.
I use them almost exclusively to shoot at targets.
I have not killed anything with any of my guns in years.
I did not keep the guns in my home when my children were young.
I educated my sons (daughter not interested) about them.

That's a lovely pome.

Yes

great, now ...
How many people are killed or hurt by cars vs. guns?

I can atest to using guns for food. Many nights my protein comes from what I have hunted. Plus I think it is far more humane for the animal than the slaughterhouse route.

What is the point of such a question ?
How about airplanes and swimming pools ?
But if you must...

How many laws are there about the safety and operations of cars vs. guns ?

These are the points of my arguments:
- cars are pretty close to being a necessity in our society, guns are not
- cars have laws written about their safety and operations, guns do not
- cars require a driver's license to be operated legally, guns do not

Now ask yourself why do we have more effective legislation for cars, but not for guns.

My answer is there is a hysteria over guns in the US, that has been
created and promoted by the NRA via Grover Norquist and fellow Board members.

As such, those who support the NRA positions on gun control
also share the responsibility for all it's consequences.
.

You're assuming we all agree that more legislation in regards to cars, pools, airplanes, and just about any damn thing is a good thing.

I've got guns. My kids know I've got guns. My kids know not to touch my guns but I still keep them secured when I'm not carrying them because kids are people and people do dumb shit. If my kid gets his hands on my gun and hurts or kills someone, I will be responsible for that. Morally, criminally, and financially. I'm fine with that.

-I don't need a lawnmower, you shouldn't be allowed to have one.
-There's a shitload of laws on safety (manufacture/sale) and operation (use) of guns.
The difference is not in legislation, but enforcement, so why is that?
-Cars are an order of magnitude bigger threat to the public.
-Revenue potential in the enforcement of car laws... much, much higher.

According to Sarah Brady, the Brady bill stopped 23,000 felons from buying handguns in the first month. I don't have the figures but I'm sure the total is in the hundreds of thousands to date. The Brady bill makes it a federal felony to attempt to buy a gun, if you aren't eligible. So how come of those hundreds of thousands of people that have blocked, not one has been procecuted... not one. Because there's no revenue to be made?

Oh there's a hysteria all right, you can see it in your mirror.
The hysteria of anti-gun zealots proclaiming guns to be the equivalent of the Black Plague/cancer/halitosis combined.
While gun owners are merely stalwart. :haha:

Seriously though, Norquist & company are using the contentious issue of guns as a political tool. More of the divide and conquer strategy, the us vs them, making as many single issue splinter groups as possible, so they can control the government.

And you're playing into it as much as NRA members, with...
Yeah well take that back or I'll shoot you. :p: You see the problem with your manifesto, is you're holding every NRA member personally responsible for that kid killing his tormentors. C'mon, that's so irrational nobody will take you seriously but the choir.

Kids have been killing kids forever. He could have run them down with a stolen car, and you're sadly mistaken if you think one person can't kill two with a knife, in a surprise attack.

Finally, all the laws in the world won't stop the urban gang-bangers, they don't have a lot of concern for rules. They are already breaking the law by possessing and carrying, before they ever use it.

Now I agree there are many people acting irresponsibly. They carelessly allow access to guns by people that shouldn't. They also burn down buildings, leave pets & children in hot cars, OD on their prescriptions, and text while driving. You can't keep people from being stupid by legislation.

Yes, but natural selection is obviously not working.

I think Darwin's theory is wrong.

Maybe natural selection can be overwhelmed by overbreeding. Or we have too many laws protecting fools from themselves already.

Trayvon Martin

Go, go, go NRA

"Justified" homicides have tripled in Florida since the 'stand your ground' law went into effect.

Just think...without that law, many of those people might still be alive.

I am not anti-gun. I know how to shoot and we have a gun at home (safely stored). I am anti-allowing idiots to have dead-making capabilities.

The problem is the idiots don't just shoot each other. Let the idiots kill the hell out of each other. hell, I'd sell tickets.

It's us innocent bystanders who pay the cost for their ego-boosts. Can't they just masturbate or something?

Fuckers.

"Stand Your Ground" does not mean "Give Chase." The articles I've read seem to indicate that Zimmerman followed Martin, but a lot of what happened is unclear, although Zimmerman did look beaten up when the cops got there.

What I haven't seen is a map showing the convenience store and the locations of Martin's and Zimmerman's homes. May or not make a difference in an understanding of what happened.

I heard the 911 tape on the radio yesterday, want to listen to it again.

Abortions increase.

Go, go, go, Democrats.

How about if we made being stupid a felony, or is that just a stupid idea?

The cost of prisons would bankrupt the few taxpayers left.

Do they? I think they're at record lows. But the latest data I could find was from 2008, so that may have changed.

Oregon Sets Assisted Suicide Record

Go, go, go Oregonians

;) Yes, we don't have to eat a gun here in Oregon.
You can go to Georgia for that.

And circle gets the square!

..

It seems that killings are just fine when suits YOUR purpose, only instead of enabling armed citizens to kill in the name of security, you enable doctors to kill in the name of convenience! Barbarian, hypocrite, and as an Oregonian ... ACCOMPLICE!

Trayvon Martin didn't ask to be "secured".

Perhaps if he had, he'd still be alive just like the person who claims to have secured himself from him. Duh.

Classic, shall we start a "dueling headlines" ... go get the guitar

I don't know about every "yesterday", but last March 14th....

3-year-old kills self with gun in car in Washington
ASSOCIATED PRESS March 14, 2012
Anytime you want an update, just search Google News for "child killed gun"

And then today, there is this...

Lake Stevens Journal
Alison Dempsey-Hall
Mar 22, 2012

In light of recent child gun accidents, awareness raised
for need of Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program
So, who does the politicians call for help
... none other than ......(wait for it)............ the NRA !
WOW ! 21,000,000 children in all 50 states
- somehow Eddy Eagle is not working for 3 year olds.

Ouch ! such name-calling :eek:

Call me when you, or someone close to you, is terminallly ill.
Oh wait, I probably won't be around then.

Take a few minutes to read our law (ORS 127.865 (2)).
You just might want to come to Oregon or Washington.
... and until, then as Reagan said, I won't hold your youth against you. ;)
.

Stop. Don't Touch. Get an adult.

Pretty straightforward, even for the average 3 year old.

Eddie Eagle is a very basic firearms safety program.

Locking up a gun doesn't make it safer. Learning to respect one does.

Around 75 children under 5 die in firearms related incidents.

350 children under 5 drowned in bathtubs, pools, hottubs, and other water sources in the home.

How's that campaign to ban water going?

You old people are so funny! :lol:

Actually, my Spec. Ops. medical training included euthanasia. When operating in denied areas, situations can occur in which someone becomes mortally wounded; but, can neither be taken with the rest nor left behind without risking compromising the mission (that many other lives may depend on) if the mortally wounded lives long enough to be captured and interrogated.

You've probably heard the saying: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." If you've forgotten what it means, that's OK, I won't hold your advanced years against you. ;)

--------------------------------------------------------

"But think of the children." - The last refuge of a hypocrite.

Were any of the owners of the guns that killed these kids members of the NRA?

What's with all these diversions... abortions, assisted suicides, drownings ?

Dwellars are bright enough to know none of these have anything to do with guns killing people.
Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
... and guns would still be killing people just the same

If you know this is happening, what do you propose ?

One was the daughter of a police officer.
I don't know if he was a member of the NRA.

ETA: He was one of two gun owners that had CCL's

A reasonable extension of your rhetoric would have been:

Abortions might be brought to zero
Assisted suicides might be brought to zero
Drownings might be brought to zero
Shootings might be brought to zero

Then you could have asked for proposals on how to accomplish it; but, you didn't. Instead you went off with language that irrationally attributes actions to man made objects that aren't capable of acting on their own.

Where others see analogies, you see diversions: that's because you're set on one course of action that you see as a panacea while others see it as a placebo. You can't get rid of all guns any more than you can get rid of everything people can drown in, that people can use to commit suicide; or, ways people can perform an abortion.

You exhibit the same kind of mindset that causes me to think of some people as gun fanatics, in your case an antigun fanatic. There's no real room for discussion with those in either group. You've convinced me that your question was rhetorical.