unintended consequences? firearm edition

[BlaqueKatt]

I was thinking about something today, after getting horribly mad about the 5 year old who "accidentally" shot his sister.

I put accidental in quotes because I do not believe there are accidental shootings, only shootings that are the result of negligence*, as accident implies nothing could be done to prevent it, it's no one's fault, no one is to blame(which is why the terminology was changed to "vehicle crashes" from "car accidents")

I was just pondering, is this an unintended consequence of blaming guns for gun violence(knee jerk reactions, and political agendas included) rather than taking extra steps to address background checks, mental health, firearm safety? We blame guns, not the person, so when there's a negligent shooting, we still blame the gun, rather than the negligent person, because to do otherwise would require looking at the aforementioned issues.

People rarely get charged for negligent shootings, so it becomes the perfect way to commit murder(just as leaving a small child in a vehicle is never charged-due to the "they've suffered enough" mindset), because of the near cognitive dissonance required to blame a person for one action, but blame an inanimate object for another. So we blame the inanimate object for both.


*if giving a loaded rifle to a 5 year-old, that doesn't have the mental capacity to understand firearm safety rules, much less enroll in a firearm safety class(which I, as a firearm owner believe should be mandatory, as well as proficiency testing-just FYI), isn't negligent, I do not know what is.


What say you all?

[siead_lietrathua]

because when people want to do things to control the ability for negligent people to obtain firearms, like background checks etc, people get up in arms and do the "but guns don't kill people" rants. they want the problem of gun violence solved but then stopgap any attempts to actually control it. it's kind of a no-win situation at this point.
people do blame the person for the shooting, but taking the guns out of the hands of nutters makes people balk.

i'm gonna speak as a legit crazy-person here. crazy people should NOT have guns! background checks or hell even a mental health check SHOULD be mandatory to keep guns out of the hands of people like me. give people like me the chance to be alone with a gun and bad shit can happen**. but normal people don't seem to understand that keeping guns from the crazy people like me is a good thing. because my "right" to have a gun is worth LESS than someone else's right to safety.
and if a person threatens violence and death over "having guns taken away", well, then maybe they're one of the crazies too!

**i am forbidden from owning guns by my partner because of my mental health issues and when i am in a rational mind i agree with him.

[BlaqueKatt]

because when people want to do things to control the ability for negligent people to obtain firearms, like background checks etc, people get up in arms and do the "but guns don't kill people" rants.

That actually in my experience(which, as always, may differ from yours), happens with the "must ban things" kneejerk reactions, not as much with the "stricter checks, testing, licensing, actual regulation" type stuff. Though I tend to hang around responsible firearm owners(former military, LEOs), WE WANT better regulation, and the enforcement of current laws, because that regulates people, the ones doing the bad things, banning things regulates the things, and furthers the problem with "blaming guns for gun violence".

No one tries to ban cars to stop drunk driving do they? The focus is on the people, however with firearms the focus is almost never on the people(there is truth to the political comic linked in the OP)

[Duelist925]

That actually in my experience(which, as always, may differ from yours), happens with the "must ban things" kneejerk reactions, not as much with the "stricter checks, testing, licensing, actual regulation" type stuff. Though I tend to hang around responsible firearm owners(former military, LEOs), WE WANT better regulation, and the enforcement of current laws, because that regulates people, the ones doing the bad things, banning things regulates the things, and furthers the problem with "blaming guns for gun violence".

No one tries to ban cars to stop drunk driving do they? The focus is on the people, however with firearms the focus is almost never on the people(there is truth to the political comic linked in the OP)

It may be the case that you and other responsible firearms owners want better regulations--but the lobbyist groups and politicians representing the "Average" gun owner don't, hence why even a watered down compromise heavy gun control bill was shot down by the senate recently.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote

The head of the NRA even saying that just expanded background checks are the first step towards confiscation.

[Greenday]

The problem with most gun legislation is that they are mostly feel good measures.

Assault Rifle bans.
Magazine size restrictions.
Etc.

It's usually not a matter of just restricting a select group from having guns. It's legislation to keep guns out of everyone's hands. There is no reason why a perfectly sane, law-abiding citizen shouldn't be able to own an assault rifle. I believe we should have background checks, require licenses to sell weapons, mandatory safety classes. And most pro-gun people would probably agree. But then we have states like mine (NJ) where perfectly sane, law-abiding citizens can't even carry a gun strictly for protection (The only people allowed to have CCPs are cops and security workers who use guns). There needs to be a happy medium and it seems like one side wants to ban guns all together so people feel they might as well fight all gun measures since it feels like the attack on guns will never stop.

[Gravekeeper]

Another good question is why the FUCK is there a gun manufacturer that sells colourful designer rifles for 4 year olds?

This is a bad idea. Yes, that's from their website (Which they took down and are now hiding in a hole ) and yes they say the gun is for 4-10 year olds.

[Rapscallion]

Guns for that age range are not for self-defence - nobody could expect a four-year-old to recognise a threat with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It's to indoctrinate another generation of customers.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Guns for that age range are not for self-defence - nobody could expect a four-year-old to recognise a threat with a reasonable degree of accuracy. It's to indoctrinate another generation of customers.

Rapscallion

Or...to make some family outings easier. State I'm in is big on hunting. Like the first day of hunting seasons might as well be holidays huge. And kids go out with their dads...even as young as 4.

Now, I don't hunt (not my thing) but if that's what these families do (and some do hunt for the purpose of eating), why shouldn't a child be trained early, if that's what's expected?

[Rapscallion]

Dunno - over here we sometimes like to let children be children.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Which is, historically, a recent thing, and one that not all cultures, or families, subscribe to.

Frankly, if a family who consistently uses and is around guns wants to teach their kids proper use and safety at a going age, great. Emphasis on responsible use.

[Andara Bledin]

Dunno - over here we sometimes like to let children be children.

Letting children be children is a privilege, and not one that every family can afford.

Plus, your definition of what letting children be children is not the same as everybody else's.

Either way, firing guns is fun. I know I was shooting a BB gun at age 4. I also know that I didn't have the first freaking clue where any of the guns were kept, but still was given dire warnings about my own life expectancy if I ever touched one without permission.

Education will always be more effective for reaching the goal of safety than banning, particularly when the item in question has reached a certain ubiquity.

If you don't believe that, then just compare the difference between education and abstinence programs with kids having sex.

[Gravekeeper]

Now, I don't hunt (not my thing) but if that's what these families do (and some do hunt for the purpose of eating), why shouldn't a child be trained early, if that's what's expected?

A 4 year old cannot comprehend lethal force. If you give him a brightly coloured rifle, that's a toy. No matter what you tell him.

[Kheldarson]

A 4 year old cannot comprehend lethal force. If you give him a brightly coloured rifle, that's a toy. No matter what you tell him.

Now, I don't agree with the brightly colored part (and most folks I know around here don't either) so I'll agree with you there.

To an extent.

A four year old CAN comprehend "Do not point guns at other people". You can even reinforce that with toy guns.

[Andara Bledin]

A 4 year old cannot comprehend lethal force. If you give him a brightly coloured rifle, that's a toy. No matter what you tell him.

A 4-year-old actually can comperehent lethal force.

They may not be able to explain it in proper terminology, but death and the permanence of it is not necessarily an alien concept.

I lived on a ranch when I was very little and we raised our own poultry and ate at least one of our cows. Also, we buried more than one beloved pet during that time.

Of course, this all goes back to education and knowledge. If a child hasn't learned about death, they shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a weapon of any sort.

And I agree with you on the coloration. Weapons should never be made to look like toys.

[Gravekeeper]

A four year old CAN comprehend "Do not point guns at other people". You can even reinforce that with toy guns.

No four year old obey's the rules 100% of the time. Otherwise parenting would be pretty easy. The very article we're talking about demonstrates that the problem perfectly. The child had owned and was experienced with shooting the rifle, but he still went and got it and started playing with it the moment mom was out of sight. Resulting in his sister's death.

There's been an odd rash of similar shootings in the last 2 months.

A 4-year-old actually can comperehent lethal force.

They may not be able to explain it in proper terminology, but death and the permanence of it is not necessarily an alien concept.

Actually, no, a four year old can't grasp the finality of death. Children don't begin to develop a good grasp on what death entails until 6-10. Before that it is very difficult for them to grasp it and they are very likely to blame themselves for a loved one not coming back.