When I was in 9th grade the cute 10th grade boy who lived down the street from my best friend invited me to go skeet shooting, so obviously I said yes.
It was the first time I’d ever seen a gun. It was amazing to me that his parents allowed this to occur with zero supervision whatsoever. Granted, he was 16, but still…
I, too, missed by a mile. I require stationary targets!
Not necessarily true. I know lots of hunters who wouldn’t think of shooting (intentionally) another human but assess firearms in terms of ability to bring down game. I grant you that this is a form of “killing something”; but not a person
My guess is all of them have played through the zombie apocalypse scenario in their head, and that this partially justifies their desire to have a gun.
I can tell you for certain that this is not the case for one of them.
I also would say that I know 16 others well enough to say that this isn’t the case, either.
To be certain, we all know that any firearm will harm and possibly kill another person. And many of us are also veterans who have been trained with the understanding that we might be called upon to shoot to kill another person. But this doesn’t mean that “I’m going to shoot someone” is the first thing that comes to mind when we see a firearm.
I guess I shouldn’t have used those words, since it seems to imply more than a passing thought.
I meant a passing thought. I think you’d have to have a severe lack of imagination to not even register the fact that guns kill people.
Of course you could immediately dismiss the thought, because for example you’re a pacifist, but I just think the thought has to be there.
I brought this up in the first place, because I don’t think that children have any idea that they can kill a person. And if for some reason they had to, I don’t think the average child would know how to do it.
Totally agree with this. And I think this doesn’t “register” until someone (including a pet) they know and love passes away.
I think of it more in terms of kids not grasping how final / permanent death is. It’s not like being kicked in the shins where it hurts for a day and then you’re fine.
Like my niece’s bus driver died 18 months ago or so. She is newly in shock over it every few months when it dawns on her again that her bus driver is never coming back.
Agreed. I think we fail to teach kids about death because it’s too depressing.
There is tons of death in children’s stories-- but the story rarely dwells on it.
Bambi’s mom is murdered, but the movie moves on in about 5 seconds.
There’s also a lot of near-death, resurrections, and ghosts that all take the finality out of it.
I remember vividly crying when I was still in elementary school (though I forget what grade) because I can’t fathom the thought of my mom dying.
I had no prior exposure to death at that point. Not sure what got to me that day. But I remember being confused why nobody was as sad as I was knowing that everyone eventually dies.
My kid, while puttering over homework, yesterday. For no reason at all shouts:
“I wouldn’t stick a knife into my heart! I wouldn’t kill myself!”
“What? What made you even think of that?”
“I don’t control my thoughts! My thoughts control me!..
…You know what made me think of that? The play, Giselle.”
ifyp
I mostly agree, but I think there needs to be some in-between liability for guns that are stolen from an unlocked compartment in a locked dwelling which, let’s face it, will continue to happen regardless of the law. I think a possible life in prison in that case is too strict; and gun owners in that situation should be incentivized to report the theft as quickly as possible, rather than try to fudge the ownership records.
That can all be worked out in the courts in the civil trial where all of the gun owner’s assets are being taken away. (Including the guns.)
Oh, I had understood the proposal to be a criminal statute, where the former gun owner would be guilty of the same crime as the thief who uses the gun, which would avoid the need to distinguish a theft from intentionally lending the gun. But perhaps I’m mis-remembering.
I think “all assets” is too harsh.
How about: the gun owner is their butler for a week?
I disagree. If your firearms are not under your personal control, they need to be in a locked container. An unlocked drawer in a house, even if the house is locked, is not secure enough.
I’m writing this from a room where I know for certain that no other person has set foot in about 10 years. My pistols would probably be safe in a desk drawer. Nevertheless, because I believe in maintaining positive control over my firearms, they stay in a gun safe when I’m not going to the range.
Reference suspected, but failed to note.
My reasoning is, there are a lot of people who keep a gun at home in a drawer who think that’s “safe enough”. And there are many who want to be armed as much of the time as possible, but sometimes they drive places where guns aren’t allowed, so they leave it in the car. I want the penalties to be harsh enough to make them change their ways, but not to ruin their life.
So, it’s ok for them to be responsible for ruining (i.e. ENDING) someone else’s life?
Poor gun owners. I need to have more pity for them
DTNF was reacting to my opinion that a gun owner should be held criminally or civilly liable for what happens with their gun, unless/until it is properly transferred to someone authorized to possess a gun, with a few limited exceptions like a gun being stolen despite the owner having taken proper steps to prevent such (like keeping it in a gun safe).
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that they should be held guilty for specific crimes committed by the gun, or that they should forfeit all assets…but I do think some sort of penalty would be appropriate.
Gotcha. I like that proposal better. At the risk of making things complicated, I’d call for a sliding scale between lending a gun to felon, to leaving it in the glove compartment, to keeping it in a locked safe.
Some stolen guns are used to murder people, while others are thrown in a river. For civil cases, I’m okay with liability being based in part on things the defendant can’t directly control; but for criminal cases, I think it should be based on his own, intentional decisions, not the outcome of a random process.
ETA: and I really do want to incentivize people to report gun thefts, so prompt reporting needs to be some kind of mitigating factor without creating additional evidence against the former owner.
In the discussion of holding individual gun owners liable, i think there is the danger of holding a few unlucky individuals guilty for society’s systemic and political failure to pass sane gun regulation.
I’d be very happy to hold gun companies liable. And gun vendors.
I think it’s ok to treat gun ownership like driving a car. There is some liability assumed there.
But i do not think owning guns is a vice that should be treated similarly to, say, drunk driving.
I’m not sure what that distinction would look like in practice.