Guns in the news again

[catsittingstill]

 This time because a five year old boy shot and killed his two year old sister.  Accidentally, though at that age whether he *could* kill on purpose is kind of a philosophical question.

What there is no doubt about is that he did it using a rifle made and marketed for kids his age.  What kind of person gives a five year old a gun?  Well, whatever kind of person it is, they seem to be common enough to support a specialty market.

Also according to the article the community is rallying around the family and appears to believe that this was just a horrible accident that could happen to anyone.  I beg to differ.  It could not happen to people who don't have guns.  It also could not happen to responsible gun owners, because responsible gun owners would have come back from target shooting with their child, and immediately removed the firing pin from the rifle (presumably discovering it was loaded in the process), locked the rifle up in one place, and locked the firing pin up in a different place, preferably offsite.  

It's just that there are people who want to own guns, but think safe storage practices are too much trouble.  They call themselves "responsible" but what they mean is "I haven't had a serious accident yet."

I think it's a lot of trouble to be responsible with a gun too.  It's one of the reasons I don't own one, in spite of having used them on occasion.

If only there was some way to get guns out of the hands of irresponsible people, you know?  Before we have one kid dead and one kid growing up with the knowledge that either he was to blame, or his parents were.

Comments

[doomspark]

From what I read - and with the disclaimer that *all* I know about this is what I read on news websites - the rifle was "kept in a corner" when not being used. When I read that, my thought was "Idiot parents made a *really* bad decision and this is the result."

What defines a responsible gun owner depends on that person's situation. As I have no kids at home (except for the cats - more about that in a moment), I keep my weapons loaded and usually have one on my person. If we are expecting company (with or without children), the guns are locked in a footlocker in my closet, and the closet is locked as well. Unexpected company cools their heels outside until guns are secured.

Many parents are, alas, convinced that their children "know better" than to handle a firearm unsupervised. Kids haven't developed the ability to look beyond the "now", and think about what they're doing. That's part of what makes them "kids" instead of miniature adults.

At one point recently, we had a handgun with so light a trigger pull that it was quite possible that the CATS could set it off by accident. We owned that gun for two days and then sold it as not being worth the risk.

[catsittingstill]

I agree with you that children do not always remember, much less follow, even rules that their lives depend on, which is why it is very important to secure their environment so that breaking the rules will not kill them.

And I agree that idiot parents made a really bad decision. I just think a few more people up the line made bad decisions also. Like the person who decided to design and market guns for five year olds, and all the people who bought them, keeping the company in business. We'd want our kids to wait until they had reasonably mature judgement to have sex--it's not like they make *condoms* sized for five year olds--but we'd put lethal force in their hands? What?

And I agree that a handgun that goes off that easily should be modified or disposed of.

But it seems to me that keeping them loaded and available is an unnecessary risk. The chance that you will need to use it is so tiny, and the chance that there will be an accident or one brief moment of bad judgement, while not large, is ever present. I don't understand. Why not reduce the risk by storing your guns unloaded? If you are in danger--if you're being stalked or something and your risk is much higher than most people's--you could always keep just one gun loaded and still reduce the risk from the others.

[doomspark]

My wife is a prosecutor who puts seriously bad people in prison for long periods of time and keeps them there. She regularly receives credible threats against herself and me by extension. Ergo, our risk is considerably higher than your average person and warrants keeping our firearms loaded and available.

I agree that marketing real (as opposed to toy) guns to minors (17 and under) is really stupid, since you have to be 18 to legally purchase a rifle and 21 to legally purchase a handgun (Florida law; your jurisdiction may differ). It's one thing for a parent to take a 9 year old to the range and teach the kid how to shoot a weapon - with the parent right there to control the situation. But it's quite another thing to give a 9 year old a weapon and expect him/her to always make adult decisions with regards to that weapon.

On securing environments: it's not just a matter of putting up anything that's dangerous (or potentially so). Some dangerous things cannot be moved (hot stoves, for instance). Parents MUST take responsibility for their children, and watch them like hawks especially in unfamiliar environments. Virtually all accidents involving guns and children happen when the parent / guardian is not paying attention.

[catsittingstill]

Oh, I see, that would be a special situation, yes. I hope you will never have to use them, but I understand why you would want something handy.

And I agree that some dangerous things can't be moved but it's also true that no one can be vigilant 24/7. There is a happy medium between turning the house into a padded room and turning the parent into a Siamese twin of the child. I think that happy medium is more easily found when as many hazards as possible are removed from the environment.