This is a discussion on Parents will be prosecuted within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Personally I believe these laws are only enacted so that someone, anyone, is available to be prosecuted. If we can't go after someone because of ...
Personally I believe these laws are only enacted so that someone, anyone, is available to be prosecuted. If we can't go after someone because of age, then lets hang their parents or even the movie producers that made a movie similar to the crime.
Someone has to pay afterall.
In this case, I cannot say. I can make no assumptions or lay claim to some knowledge that hasn't been reported. None of us know. Am merely suggesting that it could go beyond face value, as any situation can.
As for a car, it's just another tool, sure. But when it's taken and someone's run over, then the same questions are worth asking. I'm of the opinion that a 4yr old driving a car over someone is one thing; that a 12yr old doing the same is something different; and someone with his/her own driving license doing it is something different still. In each of these three cases, there is a changing degree of contributing control on the part of parents/educators that help the child to the knowledge of doing whatever it is he/she is doing. Generally, parents can be looked at for the areas of right and wrong, or access to things around the home. But by 24yrs of age, by golly, if you decide to commit a homicide then you're on your own, utterly and completely. Just as it should be. But, at age 4? Someone else should have pulled a finger out and had better knowledge of your whereabouts, control over the car and other dangerous things around the house, at least until you were old enough to know the difference.
Still not convinced? Okay, how about an educator that brings a loaded shotgun to his middle school, leaving the shotgun on the cafeteria floor for all 12yr old children to find (and use, if they're interested). No contributing negligence in this case? None at all? I daresay, even in Texas, eyebrows would be raised over that one, asking the educator what the lesson plan was for the day.
Opinions vary. So do the codified moral standards of communities, in the form of laws. Good thing they do.
The media kept calling it an accident.
It angers me as well to see this.
I take the curiosity of my firearms out of all my boys heads. They don't think twice about the firearms, and could careless about them.
I drill into them should they ever see on at a friends house, get away quickly and tell an adult.
I do keep my CC one on me at all time, also have several lockbox/safes in the house, so if I have to show can lock em up quickly.
Cars come up a lot as a to use as an argument about guns.
As in most of those cases it amounts to . The topics are night and day IMHO.
For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27
The law doesn't require that a parent ensures inaccessibility. It's perfectly legal to leave loaded guns accessible. The goals aren't just competing. They're contradictory.Nothing is absolute. Gun rights don't exist in a vacuum. Much like your gun rights stop the moment they butt up against my property rights, the right failure to ensure a 12yr old child is going to be safe around firearms stops when it butts up against another person's right to life. In short: competing goals must coexist. It's called civilization.
These parents are from a small rural Texas town where experience with guns, even for children, is very likely common place. Are you conceding that we don't have enough information to condemn these parents as irresponsible just simply on the fact that they left a gun (not even necessarily a loaded gun) accessible to a twelve year old and someone was killed?Shouldn't be the case, I agree. Nothing is absolute.
Here's what you said earlier. This and your other comments have implied to me that you believe that by the mere fact that 12 year old kills his friend with a shotgun that the parents were irresponsible.
If adults (a) fail to ensure the child is trained AND (b) negligently leave their firearms lying around for use by whomever, then they absolutely deserve a bit of legal attention heaped upon their shoulders ... especially if someone gets shot or dies due to "accident" as a result. My $0.03.None of that mattered. They left a gun (possibly even unloaded) accessible to a 12 year old, and the 12 year old shot someone with it. That's all that's required to draw the conclusions you and many others have made.We are, all of us, basing what little we're opining on a spartan list of facts and impressions noted in a single, brief news article. NONE of us has hard evidence about any of it. Not about whether it was homicide or murder. Not about whether he had parents who give a darn. Not about whether he was a "typical" Texan who popped out of the womb with an I.V. karma drip full of knowledge about drinkin', stompin', shootin' and cowboyin'. Who's to say. This wrangling is ridiculous, given the paucity of facts at this point, as it's all supposition. All of it. None of us were there. The writer of that story, too, I'll warrant.
Nobody agrees on an age limit. Which is it, 18 or 21? Or was it 14 when a minor (not a child) can be tried as an adult? Or was it much older when you were holding adults gun owners responsible for leaving guns accessible to other adults?Suffice to say: responsibility is also not absolute, at least when we're speaking of children. It's why the absoluteness, if you will, occurs at a higher, agreed-upon age limit (ie, 18, or 21). C
What day in your children's life will you feel comfortable trusting that they are responsible and well trained enough to leave a firearm accessible to them, and how will you ever know that you're right?Can't get complacent, it only take one bad time to change your life for ever. SAFETY!!
Consider the truth. Whatever possibilities I tossed out for consideration are there because they're possible, not due to my having made presumption one about the reality of this specific case. Why? Well, simply, because we don't have many facts to go on.
And, at the end of the day, forum discussions about handling certain situations are, at the core, about taking a small amount of data that's known at the time and being able to run down the list of possibilities sufficiently well, considering the alternatives sufficiently well, such that we don't make a deadly and irreversible decision when it really does matter.
Doesn't mean I agree with the sentiments. Doesn't mean I necessarily think that way. And it certainly doesn't mean I'm condemning anyone, merely for voicing possibilities that might turn out to be correct or incorrect, in the specific case. It only means I'm offering up alternatives for consideration in the possibility that others might want to think that way. Understand, now??
Generally speaking, you're probably correct. In this case though, who's to say? You're not saying we can say for certain, simply because the child is a Texan, are you? I don't know those parents, nor whether they took any opportunity to teach this child about right and wrong, about firearms, about the rules of the house.These parents are from a small rural Texas town where experience with guns, even for children, is very likely common place.
The sheriff might well know the family, the child and the motives that haven't been made public. If so, then he/she has the way of things and is on better footing than we are.
I concede there is not enough information in that quip of a news article to make any judgments on less than all the facts. We've just got supposition at our disposal, really. That, and the short comment by the sheriff about the "handling" of the gun. That ain't much to go on.Are you conceding that we don't have enough information ...
Again, for those who would twist such things: I offered up the possibilities because, without facts to go on, it's possible that contributory negligence played a part. Can't tell, in this case.
Either you're misinterpreting what I've written, or I am not writing clearly enough.Here's what you said earlier. This and your other comments have implied to me that you believe that by the mere fact that 12 year old kills his friend with a shotgun that the parents were irresponsible.
Let's give it another whirl.
In any situation involving a less-than-fully responsible child, in the opinion of many communities around the country (by virtue of their state statutes) there can exist at least two areas of responsibility:
- outright responsibility for the act in question; and
- contributing responsibility, possibly, for those who committed an agreed-upon negligence without whose help the situation would not have occurred.
That's just the way things are. That doesn't mean I have condemned anyone. That doesn't mean I see things that way. That means that many state legislatures have put into place statutes that hold people to certain standards that include the possibility that aiding and abetting someone in their commission of an act is, itself, contributing to the act. That's what we do with criminals. In the case of contributory negligence, it's what many communities do with those in our society who are less than full citizens held fully culpable for all aspects of their actions and the results. And on this point, here's basically all I said: that it's worth consideration, circumstances depending.
If a state legislature has put into law the age limit at which a person is expected to hold a citizen's full legal rights and responsibilities, then I think it's reasonable to suggest that the consensus in that state is what's specified in the statute. (That's what I said. Not those other things you said I said, or thought I said.)Nobody agrees on an age limit. Which is it, 18 or 21?
Last edited by ccw9mm; February 1st, 2009 at 02:37 AM. Reason: gramur
It might be 8. It might be 18, 24, or never because my responsibility to make that decision as a parent doesn't get any easier when they turn 18. Now, if I make that decision, on what basis would you or anyone else judge if I've made a responsible decision as a parent? It seems we agree that the Texas law doesn't give us that basis since that's exactly the wording we see in this story.