Not suitable for children?

[sfc 0]

Quote

Quote

Dead kid is OK?
Some of those 30,000 pages need some changes.

So you want to make "STUPID" a felony?

It's already there, negligent homicide I think.

I'm thinking of whether regulation could have prevented this.
This is a case where the regulations were apparently followed by law abiding folks. The regulations did not work.
A regulation preventing kids using guns below the age of 10 in public places would have prevented this. Not saying that this is the right regulation, but it would have worked.

[Trent 0]

You simply cannot make laws to give people common sense. I always wonder why so many people want MORE laws, MORE legislation, MORE things they cannot do because of a very few stupid people. You just can't protect people from themselves, laws or not.

The desire some of you have for punishment in this case can be solved in civil courts. That motivation seems to work better than whether or not something is illegal.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,400]

>Has anyone here ever heard of an 8 year old accidentally shooting himself in the
>head with an automatic weapon while shooting at a pumpkin at a gun show?

Are you really going to argue that a 9 year old who shot himself in the head at a gun show while shooting at paper targets has NOTHING to do with this?

Young kids shoot themselves with some regularity. That's a fact of life. If there were an easy way to reduce the incidence of that I'd be for it. If there was a way that might work but would make it much harder for lawful gun users to get guns, I'd be against it.

>I predict that the gun show will be banned.

Sadly, I would agree. A good example of how a little more thought beforehand (whether through voluntary rules, new regulation or legislation) might have prevented a bigger problem (like the death of a child and the closing of the show.)

[sfc 0]

Quote

Also, I predict that the gun show will be banned.

If they don't get sued out of existence.

They don't deserve to exist if they allow a 9 year old to handle a fully automatic weapon, irresponsible gun usage has a negative impact on all legal users, the less there is of it the better.
I have young kids and I would not want them to be able to go to a gun show which does this, what if the round had gotten out of the range and hit someone else.
I'm far more in favor of this show loosing its license to operate than some big law that bans lots of other things for lots of other people.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

You simply cannot make laws to give people common sense. I always wonder why so many people want MORE laws, MORE legislation, MORE things they cannot do because of a very few stupid people. You just can't protect people from themselves, laws or not.

The desire some of you have for punishment in this case can be solved in civil courts. That motivation seems to work better than whether or not something is illegal.

We don't need MORE laws, we need better laws, and better enforced laws.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[LadiDadi 0]

Quote

>Has anyone here ever heard of an 8 year old accidentally shooting himself in the
>head with an automatic weapon while shooting at a pumpkin at a gun show?

Are you really going to argue that a 9 year old who shot himself in the head at a gun show while shooting at paper targets has NOTHING to do with this?

No. That wasn't my arguement at all. My argument was that there should not be a broad and sweeping law enacted because of this one incident. A child has no business WHATSOEVER shooting an automatic weapon. Ever. In any setting.

It was always my understanding that loaded weapons were not allowed at gun shows. Granted I haven't been to one in years so this may have changed.

I remember my dad's response when people were horrified that he and my mom would dare to take their two little girls to gun shows - "They are much safer there with regards to guns than they are anywhere else in the country." If anyone trolled gun shows in the South in the late 70's they may have seen two little blonde girls playing with Barbie dolls under a dealer's table. That was us. We were also the two little brats who liked to get balloons and pop them just so we could hear the entire room go totally silent for a moment. Brats.

Kids shoot themselves all the time and that is a completely preventable tragedy. Preventable by the parents of those children.

With regards to this particular kid, (at least) two adults let him down and now he's dead. His parent(s) who allowed him to handle the weapon and the 'instructor' who agreed.

Like I said - I was under the assumption that loaded weapons were not allowed at gun shows. If this were the case, there would be no discussion here.

If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you.
****************************
Be like the cupcake and suck it up.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Young kids shoot themselves with some regularity.

Once would be bad enough, but if some of them are regularly doing so, then I'd suggest that they have real problems

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[LadiDadi 0]

Quote

They don't deserve to exist if they allow a 9 year old to handle a fully automatic weapon, irresponsible gun usage has a negative impact on all legal users, the less there is of it the better.
I have young kids and I would not want them to be able to go to a gun show which does this, what if the round had gotten out of the range and hit someone else.
I'm far more in favor of this show loosing its license to operate than some big law that bans lots of other things for lots of other people.

I couldn't agree with you more. This gun show should have not allowed this to happen. This PARTICULAR gun show should never be allowed to operate again.

Ten bucks says the parents of this kid sue the gun show operators...

If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you.
****************************
Be like the cupcake and suck it up.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

>However I worry that knee-jerk legislation would either be too broad and effect legitimate uses . . .

Agreed. Right after an incident like this is often the worst time to implement new rules, because the mothers-against-XXXX are out in force. (And besides, then the kid is already dead.) Much better to put in those rules _before_ such an incident happens, although lately we have seen incredible resistance to even the most basic of new regulations.

That's because gun-control folks push for legislation based on emotions rather than logic. It's currently a FELONY for me to own 13 round magazines that my XD 45 ACP can use. It's currently a FELONY to own a .223 caliber mag fed AR-15 but it's ok for me to own a .308 caliber mag fed M1 SOCOM II. Don't worry I'm sure it won't be long before the M1 will be illegal as well.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[normiss 622]

You're close.
We have the laws.
Someone should be in jail.
I was shooting at that age too ...
22's and 410's...guns a kid that age can handle, supervised and safely so.

[Trent 0]

Quote

We don't need MORE laws, we need better laws, and better enforced laws.

You still cannot make laws that will protect people from themselves. We can't just take everything that might get someone hurt and make it illegal. I know that you as a pilot and skydiver would argue that ridiculous laws and lawsuits have greatly hurt our ability to keep our hobbies from becoming prohibitively expensive.

Oh, hello again!

[kelpdiver 2]

There's no question that poor judgement is the cause here. When I take adults to a range and give them a semiautomatic for the first time, I give them a single round in the chamber so they can experience the recoil for that model. The gun range in Henderson (Las Vegas) that rents automatics does something similar - you have to file one shot with reasonable accuracy before they permit automatic fire.

Is new legislation necessary, or can those involved be prosecuted under current laws? Dunno, but even fuzzier would be what law would prevent this sort of one off event. Personally I think this one falls on the parents.

[billvon 2,400]

> My argument was that there should not be a broad and sweeping law
>enacted because of this one incident.

I agree. A new Brady Law would be a mistake.

Now, an NRA guideline that says "children under age XX or size XX should not use automatic weapons or weapons with a recoil greater than X" might be a much better idea. Could even make it a requirement as part of the insurance gun shows carry.

>I was under the assumption that loaded weapons were not allowed at gun shows.

And that's a reasonable assumption. A poor response to this would be "therefore we should ban gun shows." An equally poor response to this would be "there's no problem with loaded weapons provided you're not an idiot, so there's nothing we can fix." Unfortunately, most discussions concerning guns seem to immediately polarize to the two extremes.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Now, an NRA guideline that says "children under age XX or size XX should not use automatic weapons or weapons with a recoil greater than X" might be a much better idea. Could even make it a requirement as part of the insurance gun shows carry.

Those are all basically unknowns, so the end result would be no minors or no one under 21 (the skydiving answer to a problem).

[Trent 0]

Quote

Those are all basically unknowns, so the end result would be no minors or no one under 21 (the skydiving answer to a problem).

To be fair, he did say "guideline" and "should", not "law" and "must". Much like our BSRs. The age limit on skydiving comes from a liability standpoint and the fact that people under 18 can't legally sign away rights in most places. That is an example of self-regulation due to the threat of monetary loss in the event of a lawsuit. Seems to work.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 2,400]

>so the end result would be no minors or no one under 21 (the skydiving
>answer to a problem).

Skydiving is a good example. There's no US law prohibiting children from skydiving, and hence Rook Nelson and Jeff Mullins can skydive with their dads if they want. Most drop zones, though, follow USPA rules, which say you have to be 16 years old. Further, most up the limit to age 18 on their own since they don't want to deal with parental permission efforts.

Kids who really want to get in the air and who don't have a parent who is an expert skydiver/has an in at the DZ have the option of wind tunnels, where they can go at any age.

Thus skydiving is a good example of protecting childen while not requiring any new laws, and while not keeping them out of the sport completely.

[LadiDadi 0]

Quote

Could even make it a requirement as part of the insurance gun shows carry.

How about "A gun show is not a gun range"?

That seems really simple to me. Maybe it's too simple and that's why no one has bothered to make that little rule.

If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you.
****************************
Be like the cupcake and suck it up.

[AWL71 0]

Exactly. I have been to gun shows all over the southeast and I have never been to a gunshow with a range. Every gun show I have been to does not allow loaded weapons of any kind and that is a good thing.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[downwardspiral 0]

That's a horrible idea. One accident and now we can't have a firing range at a gun show? That doesn't make sense.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 2,400]

>How about "A gun show is not a gun range"?

Seems like a commonsense suggestion. But even that suggestion resulted almost immediately in a "that's a horrible idea" reply.

I mentioned before that most discussions concerning guns seem to immediately polarize to one of two extremes - and we're seeing it happen again here. Which, unfortunately, is why commonsense voluntary regulation often doesn't work, and all to often is replaced by wide-ranging political solutions.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Those are all basically unknowns, so the end result would be no minors or no one under 21 (the skydiving answer to a problem).

To be fair, he did say "guideline" and "should", not "law" and "must". Much like our BSRs. The age limit on skydiving comes from a liability standpoint and the fact that people under 18 can't legally sign away rights in most places. That is an example of self-regulation due to the threat of monetary loss in the event of a lawsuit. Seems to work.

But then he threw in - maybe it should be an insurance requirement. And there's your defacto ban, even if not present in actual law. Skydiving just runs without the insurance requirement, but gun shows typically lease a facility for the weekend, and there has been a lot of backdoor bans on them from politicians by setting unmeetable requirements.

And yes, Bill, that's why there is always hostility to these proposals. The Bay Area doesn't have gun shows or many gun stores anymore. It's either difficult, or unneccessarily expensive to buy a gun around here. And thanks to the 10 day wait, going elsewhere in the state isn't a very effective solution.

[downwardspiral 0]

Common sense? Seriously!? Now I understand why you didn't bother responding to my first post in this thread.

She's essentially saying the reason this accident happened is because there was a gun range at a gun show when in fact neither of those two have anything to do with the cause of the accident.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[LadiDadi 0]

Quote

Seems like a commonsense suggestion. But even that suggestion resulted almost immediately in a "that's a horrible idea" reply.

I knew it would somewhere. Every single arguement can be met with a but.

Don't let your children handle automatic weapons "But little Billy is great with an Uzi."

Instructors shouldn't instruct small children on big guns "But then how will they ever learn" or "But if the parents say it's okay"

Gun shows shouldn't be gun ranges "But then how will I know if the gun is the right one for me"

Gun shows shouldn't exist "But where will I ever be able to find an 1865 Dickson and Nelson musket in pristine condition"

Guns shouldn't exist "But what about all the responsible gun owners"

It can go on forever. The people who want total gun bans and the people who want little to no regulation on guns and gun ownership are the loudest two voices people hear. The middle ground needs to get a bit louder.

If you can't laugh at yourself, I'll be happy to do it for you.
****************************
Be like the cupcake and suck it up.

[JackC 0]

Quote

But then he threw in - maybe it should be an insurance requirement. And there's your defacto ban, even if not present in actual law.

If insurance companies decide they can limit their risk exposure by insisting that kids don't get to shoot, that's exactly what will happen.

[billvon 2,400]

>maybe it should be an insurance requirement. And there's your defacto
>ban, even if not present in actual law.

Why would that be a "defacto ban?" That's like claiming demos have all been banned because of insurance requirements.

>Skydiving just runs without the insurance requirement . . .

I think you may have missed one of the primary reasons USPA exists.

> but gun shows typically lease a facility for the weekend . . .

Sorta like, say, the World Freefall Convention or the Laughlin boogies.