Indiana child fires handgun found in sofa at Ikea

Exactice said:

How how would Gun Control have helped?

This was a lack of responsibility, retention and awareness of retaining a firearm. Has NOTHING to do with "Gun Control"

Owning, maintaining, and deploying a firearm is a RESPONSIBILITY. If you LACK that you should also lack the right to maintain one. Just like a criminal loses their right.

Click to expand...

Allow me...

- The gun owner here should face charges for having an unsecure weapon (which was unnecessarily chambered) and endangering the lives of others.

But he won't. Instead, gun owners will rush to his rescue to define his "Rights" and insist that the real story here is that we teach our children about guns in Preschool. Once again, the lowest denominator wins in an ideological crusade to defend against the dastardly liberal who wants our guns. And the idiot will go on celebrating his "Right" by continuing to treat his weapon as a mere metal object to play with as he teaches his kid to do the same.

Actually holding idiots accountable for how they handle, store, and carry their weapons would go a long way towards addressing that flippant gun culture we have. This, would be actual gun control. But in the end, we seem to prefer idiots doing back flips while armed, giving a nine year old an uzi so she can accidentally kill an instructor, or whatever else foolish things we do while imagining that we are responsible.

Ikari said:

But an improperly secured weapon, taken into a place which prohibits firearms, certainly does. It's demonstrates disregard of foreseeable consequences.

Click to expand...

"Improperly secured" is a post facto conclusion, and for there to be "reckless endangerment" then the weapon would have to be known (or ought reasonably to be known) NOT to be secured.

"Corporate policy" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "reckless endangerment".

Top Cat said:

You cant make this **** up.

Click to expand...

Sure you can, and, on a good day, you can do it without giggling so loudly that they come and take you back to "The Home".

Top Cat said:

Yeah we should send our children to be indoctrinated by the NRA? Pass

Click to expand...

You choose to pass on protecting children from accidental gun violence?

Fascinating.

The same "wonderful " organization that fights making safety classes mandatory for gun owners so that **** like this NEVER happens.

Instead teach children how to overcome the blatant stupidity of gun owners.

You cant make this **** up.

Click to expand...

A parent is free to hate guns and to try and have them banned -- that's all well and fine.

But a parent who refuses to teach his child not to touch guns and to report finding a gun to an adult is a total f*cking idiot.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Seems reasonable to me.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's reasonable at all. The Second Amendment is a Right that comes with a very profound responsibility. Abusing that Right should not come with a sort of three strike rule. Performing flips, handing your nine year old an uzi, giving a deranged kid access to the guns in a closet, and simply allowing a pistol to fall out of your pants for a kid to play with should have big consequences.

It's just amazing to me that the weapon's-heavy military practices a zero-tolerance when it comes to weapon's handling, but civilians see no real need for repercussions for an "accident."

TU Curmudgeon said:

But wouldn't that be an "infringement" on the "right to keep and bear arms" something that the Constitution of the United States of America says "shall not be infringed"?

Click to expand...

Isn't that the joke?

- We decided a long time ago that this Right comes with age. We have already decided to infringe.

- And isn't it very telling that while the NRA freaks completely out over the idea that an 18 year-old can't purchase weapons, it is strangely silent on the fact that one must be 21 in many states to actually "bear?" Somewhat obvious what the real concern is.

MSgt said:

Instead, gun owners will rush to his rescue to define his "Rights" and insist that the real story here is that we teach our children about guns in Preschool.

Click to expand...

Those who prefer dead children (who know nothing about guns) to live children (who know not to touch guns) are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Don't be an idiot -- teach your child not to touch any gun he finds and to immediately tell an adult.

Or -- please don't breed.

HowardBThiname said:

You choose to pass on protecting children from accidental gun violence?

Fascinating.

Click to expand...

I pretty sure his point was that the problem is not the kid who found a toy, it's the supposedly responsible gun owner who lost his deadly weapon.

HowardBThiname said:

You choose to pass on protecting children from accidental gun violence?

Fascinating.





A parent is free to hate guns and to try and have them banned -- that's all well and fine.

But a parent who refuses to teach his child not to touch guns and to report finding a gun to an adult is a total f*cking idiot.

Click to expand...

I said nothing about taking away your little binky. Make some more **** up.

You think the NRA is the only way to teach children about guns? Just because I don't own a firearm doesn't mean I will rely on the very same people who are greatly responsible for allowing idiots to own firearms without making sure they can pass a simple safety test.

TU Curmudgeon said:

"Improperly secured" is a post facto conclusion, and for there to be "reckless endangerment" then the weapon would have to be known (or ought reasonably to be known) NOT to be secured.

"Corporate policy" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "reckless endangerment".

Click to expand...

It was obviously not secured properly, which meant the owner had not taken the necessary steps to properly secure it. The corporate policy certainly does have something to do with it since people visiting a location that prohibits firearms would naturally assume that they would not have to encounter or be wary of firearms. If one does not secure their weapon properly in an environment where people can reasonably assume there is no threat of random firearm, one has disregarded the obvious and foreseeable consequences of improper firearm handling.

Clearly reckless endangerment.

HowardBThiname said:

But a parent who refuses to teach his child not to touch guns and to report finding a gun to an adult is a total f*cking idiot.

Click to expand...

You know, if you'd inserted the word "absolutely" between the words "a" and "total" (and changed the "a" to "an") I'd be agreeing with you 100%.

As it is I can only agree with you 99.999%.

HowardBThiname said:

Those who prefer dead children (who know nothing about guns) to live children (who know not to touch guns) are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Don't be an idiot -- teach your child not to touch any gun he finds and to immediately tell an adult.

Or -- please don't breed.

Click to expand...

Sure, that'll teach the idiot about losing his deadly weapon. Stupid child.

Ikari said:

It was obviously not secured properly, which meant the owner had not taken the necessary steps to properly secure it.

Click to expand...

If you are talking "Common Sense" you are correct. If you are talking "Law" you are not.

Ikari said:

The corporate policy certainly does have something to do with it since people visiting a location that prohibits firearms would naturally assume that they would not have to encounter or be wary of firearms.

Click to expand...

That, at law, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with negligence. The only penalty for "violating a corporate policy" is to be refused service by the corporation and there are no civil or criminal sanctions available.

Ikari said:

If one does not secure their weapon properly in an environment where people can reasonably assume there is no threat of random firearm, one has disregarded the obvious and foreseeable consequences of improper firearm handling.

Click to expand...

Nice try, and the judges always need a good laugh. Your position would mean that if one does not secure their weapon properly in an environment where people CANNOT reasonably assume there "is no threat of random firearm" then it would NOT be "reckless endangerment".

Ikari said:

Clearly reckless endangerment.

Click to expand...

"Common Sense" - yes. "Law" - no.

That's why the gun's owner isn't being charged with anything.

TU Curmudgeon said:

If you are talking "Common Sense" you are correct. If you are talking "Law" you are not.



That, at law, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with negligence. The only penalty for "violating a corporate policy" is to be refused service by the corporation and there are no civil or criminal sanctions available.



Nice try, and the judges always need a good laugh. Your position would mean that if one does not secure their weapon properly in an environment where people CANNOT reasonably assume there "is no threat of random firearm" then it would NOT be "reckless endangerment".



"Common Sense" - yes. "Law" - no.

That's why the gun's owner isn't being charged with anything.

Click to expand...

There could be reckless endangerment in areas where its posted firearms are allowed, but also people choosing to patronize such a place would also have higher expectation of diligence.

The law is that the accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions. By not properly securing his firearm in an environment full of other people not expecting firearms, he had certainly disregarded the foreseeable consequences of loosing his firearm.

I am all for people owning and carrying weapons. But you are responsible for the weapons you carry and to the consequences when you are not responsible with that weapon. I believe this individual could clearly be charged with reckless endangerment if the government of Indiana had wanted to.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Canada tried that and there were only a few minor problems:

1. it didn't work;
2. it cost about 10 times more than projected;
3. it didn't work;
4. permits ended up being issued by the bushel basked just to keep up with the number of applications;
5. it didn't work;
6. it was so inaccurate that the police found it to be useless;
7. it didn't work;
8. people didn't bother to register their guns;
9. it didn't work;
10. having no data base listing who had guns, "the system" had no way of knowing who was supposed to be registering guns; and
11. it didn't work even though it was supposed to work as long as everyone agreed with what it was supposed to do and then did what they were supposed to do in order to produce the result it was supposed to produce.

When you combine that with the statistical fact that Canadians tend to be more "law abiding" than Americans, the odds are that an American "national registry" REALLY wouldn't work.

Click to expand...

Unless there are more ways than one to go about doing it...

Top Cat said:

I said nothing about taking away your little binky. Make some more **** up.

You think the NRA is the only way to teach children about guns? Just because I don't own a firearm doesn't mean I will rely on the very same people who are greatly responsible for allowing idiots to own firearms without making sure they can pass a simple safety test.

Click to expand...

You specifically said you'd "pass" on the NRA's program to teach children to stay away from guns.

In fact, you said:

Instead teach children how to overcome the blatant stupidity of gun owners.

Click to expand...

That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads it.

Nice attempt at backpedaling -- but, no cigar.

MSgt said:

Sure, that'll teach the idiot about losing his deadly weapon. Stupid child.

Click to expand...

What's more important to you?

Punishing the idiot who lost his weapon -- or saving a child's life?

They're not even in the same ballpark.

HowardBThiname said:

You specifically said you'd "pass" on the NRA's program to teach children to stay away from guns.

In fact, you said:



That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads it.

Nice attempt at backpedaling -- but, no cigar.

Click to expand...

Apparently you have limited comprehension skills. Where did I say I wouldn't teach my child about the dangers of firearms?

Oh wait. I didnt. I simply said I would never send them to be indoctrinated by the Sleazy assholes at the NRA.

That it needed explaining says a lot about you.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Maybe it would help you out if you realized that my position is that BOTH the "MORE Gun Nuts" and the "LESS Gun Nuts" are out of touch with reality.
I plead guilty to having had a sound education in the pr.........

Click to expand...

Again my apologies, My assumption that this is my first interaction with you, so I was likely unfamiliar with your stance on the Firearms debate. Please accept my apologies for making a specified assumption!

Im a known idiot to all, but I am doing my best to trying to educate myself on politics and being more invoked, while still lacking computer typing skills as well as grammar. I hope you can over look that and work with me on the political education part.

Adopted by Extremes, This I agree... I feel that it is the will of the people and NOT of the government to blanket restrictions. I agree to the point that with the basis of the constitution that is WHERE the law should stand. Then the rights of the states or basic governance at the actual individual level should be up to the Actual people. So the extreme cry babies during the Florida tragedy that want BLANKET BANS is ridiculous. Florida that being a very lax state to begin with, if they CANNOT even govern or protect their "rich county" what gives them the right to speak on be half and enforce a nationwide law.

I completely agree of the tenet of constitutional law. While that being said then the questions then asked, when I criminal is found guilty and then forcible has firearms removed does that violate the inalienable rights?
The States that have voted as a whole to have COMPLETELY different firearms acquisition laws and processing from acquisition, Texas vs California, Hawaii For Florida. Is there a conflict due to their process of these "inalienable" rights?

I believe there should BE common sense limitations and I do believe that while the 2nd Amendment stands there are PEOPLE regardless of the 2nd amendment that are NOT qualified to handle nor posses a firearm. In my opinion the burden of Proof lies on the individual to be responsible to represent their responsibility. The opposite goes, if they do something to discredit their responsibility they must earn it back somehow. (This is not a perfect answer, just a "debate" answer)


Interesting interpretation "Inalienable" I dont think I have thought this deep, And coming to "common" sense. there has to be some truth to your point that it is NOT so LITERAL in its use. (let me think this through a little more)

The Law enforcement office may not be required. TRUE, it depends, BUT the fact that through negligence through a civil case, the intent is to make the party that sustained the loss "whole again" while not the best terminology, that is the intent of civil and criminal judgments right? Those that suffer gain restitution/closure?




As for malice, that again is case by case circumstance by circumstance. NO way perfect. Yes some people get away with murder, It happens there are travesties in our justice system..... It never perfect, BUT instead of us trying to be a perfect justice system, WHY NOT as HUMAN's trying to act in more humane and BETTER ways first. (Totally different topic, my apologies for diverting)




As for the R word..... total interpretation, per my signature, as you can imagine my thoughts on Firearms. those are the BASIC 4 fundamentals of FIRE arm SAFETY "R"ules LOL if you do NOT violate ANY one of them the likely hood of a accidental discharge is almost impossible. Veteran here, I had a specialty in the Army NEVER in my career did we have a firearm discharge in the armory just sitting there by itself PERIOD.

So Responsibility in my eyes falls on ALL... the Owner of the Firearm, the Parents of the Child and even the child. I have a 2-1/2 yr old and an 11month yr old. My 2-1/2 knows what a firearm is and I stress to her all the time about what it is and how to handle. It started with nerf toys and those "flying saucer" disk pistol thingies. Children are NOT stupid... but are basically mini adults. You teach them they learn..... "responsibility"

Manc Skipper said:

Every day dozens of well regulated militiamen (the reason people who really shouldn't be near them are allowed weapons.) cause danger, if not actual harm, to innocent bystanders.

Click to expand...

You come from a country where the loyal kneeling subjects sacrificed their rights and are now having those same subjects hacked to death in the streets, to which your pathetic subjects look to forget kneeling and just lay down and die and ban ****ing kitchen knives. What makes you think anything you have to say on this subject has any bearing on free people?

MSgt said:

Allow me...

- The gun owner here should face charges for having an unsecure weapon (which was unnecessarily chambered) and endangering the lives of others.

But he won't. Instead, gun owners will rush to his rescue to define his "Rights" and insist that the real story here is that we teach our children about guns in Preschool. Once again, the lowest denominator wins in an ideological crusade to defend against the dastardly liberal who wants our guns. And the idiot will go on celebrating his "Right" by continuing to treat his weapon as a mere metal object to play with as he teaches his kid to do the same.

Actually holding idiots accountable for how they handle, store, and carry their weapons would go a long way towards addressing that flippant gun culture we have. This, would be actual gun control. But in the end, we seem to prefer idiots doing back flips while armed, giving a nine year old an uzi so she can accidentally kill an instructor, or whatever else foolish things we do while imagining that we are responsible.

Click to expand...

Agreed the Firearms owner should face some type of consequence. PERIOD.

Im a gun owner and will NOT rush to the slights of his rights..... Extremest will do so though agreed. But I think the General public as a whole..... would see this differently/

As for children to be taught? Why NOT, Does it hurt the child in any way shape or form to provide SAFETY instructions? What it is, what it does, what to do if you come across one? You do NOT have to bring a firearm in class, you do NOT have to force a view or a child to like or dislike, Its like teach my kids not to play with matches.....

I agree with the holding idiots accountable. I am a PRO 2A, but I am also a Pro Responsibility advocate. IF I violate one and put people in danger and they SAID they must remove my firearms until I can earn my responsibility again, meaning I must go to another safety course etc etc. That to me is RESPONSIBLE firearms ownership.

MY state already has ridiculous hoops and loops JUST to obtain (Mental health Medical Waviers, Back ground Check, 2 week waiting period, Permit to Acquire, NO open Carry, Will issue chief of police CCW, RAP back program), BUT its for the BENEFIT of all and I still have the potential to acquire. So why is IT SUCH an issue? While I think the loops and hoops are ridiculous if I comply and am responsible I can have basically all the firearms I deem necessary.


So Gun Control on 2 levels, literal and figuratively. This situation lacked responsibility PERIOD on both fronts.

Ikari said:

There could be reckless endangerment in areas where its posted firearms are allowed, but also people choosing to patronize such a place would also have higher expectation of diligence.

Click to expand...

OK, so we've eliminated "breaching corporate policy" as a factor in "reckless endangerment", haven't we?

Ikari said:

The law is that the accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

Click to expand...

True, and if the person was doing something that past practice had shown was "reasonably safe", exactly what is it that they were ignoring?

Ikari said:

By not properly securing his firearm in an environment full of other people not expecting firearms, he had certainly disregarded the foreseeable consequences of loosing his firearm.

Click to expand...

Again we are back to the SUBJECTIVE element aren't we?

Ikari said:

I am all for people owning and carrying weapons. But you are responsible for the weapons you carry and to the consequences when you are not responsible with that weapon.

Click to expand...

"Responsible" is another subjective term.

Ikari said:

I believe this individual could clearly be charged with reckless endangerment if the government of Indiana had wanted to.

Click to expand...

So do I.

However, without further evidence, I don't see that there was any "reasonable prospect of conviction" and launching a prosecution where there is no "reasonable prospect of conviction" is an abuse of process.

Mr Person said:

Unless there are more ways than one to go about doing it...

Click to expand...

Yep.

You could start with a simultaneous house to house search of every place in the United States of America and "sequestration" of all firearms found until the owner had completed the registration process (at which time they would have their firearms returned [upon presentation of personal identification documents to prove that they were, in fact, the person who was legally allowed to possess the firearms {which would, just incidentally, result in the clearance of just about every outstanding arrest warrant then on the books}]).

Of course, every one of those now legally possessed firearms would have to have some sort of non-removable tracking device attached to it (a device which the legally entitled owner would have to pay for - of course).

Alternatively, you could rely on "voluntary compliance" (with very substantial mandatory incarceration sentences attached for violation of the "National Undefeatable Tracing System" legislation.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Yep.

You could start with a simultaneous house to house search of every place in the United States of America and "sequestration" of all firearms found until the owner had completed the registration process (at which time they would have their firearms returned [upon presentation of personal identification documents to prove that they were, in fact, the person who was legally allowed to possess the firearms {which would, just incidentally, result in the clearance of just about every outstanding arrest warrant then on the books}]).

Of course, every one of those now legally possessed firearms would have to have some sort of non-removable tracking device attached to it (a device which the legally entitled owner would have to pay for - of course).

Alternatively, you could rely on "voluntary compliance" (with very substantial mandatory incarceration sentences attached for violation of the "National Undefeatable Tracing System" legislation.

Click to expand...

I can't argue with you about this because I do not know exactly what Canada did, but I guarantee what canada is not like the things that I think might potentially work in the long term. The things I think might potentially work would take decades to have any real effect, but then, I don't think a delay in function is a reason not to do something on its own.

As for existing guns? Yeah, probably there isn't much in the way you can do. As to guns built in the future? Perhaps, as long as one understand any such thing would take decades.




I didn't go into my full set of thoughts because context, etc.

Exactice said:

Again my apologies, My assumption that this is my first interaction with you, so I was likely unfamiliar with your stance on the Firearms debate. Please accept my apologies for making a specified assumption!

Im a known idiot to all, but I am doing my best to trying to educate myself on politics and being more invoked, while still lacking computer typing skills as well as grammar. I hope you can over look that and work with me on the political education part.

Click to expand...

Not a problem (but I will probably need reminding).

Exactice said:

Adopted by Extremes, This I agree... I feel that it is the will of the people and NOT of the government to blanket restrictions. I agree to the point that with the basis of the constitution that is WHERE the law should stand. Then the rights of the states or basic governance at the actual individual level should be up to the Actual people. So the extreme cry babies during the Florida tragedy that want BLANKET BANS is ridiculous. Florida that being a very lax state to begin with, if they CANNOT even govern or protect their "rich county" what gives them the right to speak on be half and enforce a nationwide law.

Click to expand...

Once you understand that the so-called "inalienable" right to "keep and bear arms" is not "inalienable" (and never has been) the debate gets a lot simpler. The question becomes not "Shall we have gun control?" but rather "How should we change the gun control that we do have so that it does what we want it to do?".

However, there are other countries which have

• STRICTER gun control laws than the US does AND have HIGHER rates of violent crimes;
• STRICTER gun control laws than the US does AND have LOWER rates of violent crimes;
• LOOSER gun control laws than the US does AND have HIGHER rates of violent crimes; and
• LOOSER gun control laws than the US does AND have LOWER rates of violent crimes

so it would appear that there just might be some other factor which inclines young males who can't get laid towards shooting masses of children in order to draw attention to their "issue".

Exactice said:

I completely agree of the tenet of constitutional law. While that being said then the questions then asked, when I criminal is found guilty and then forcible has firearms removed does that violate the inalienable rights?

Click to expand...

If the right is "inalienable" then "Yes." but if the right is NOT "inalienable" then "No.".

Exactice said:

The States that have voted as a whole to have COMPLETELY different firearms acquisition laws and processing from acquisition, Texas vs California, Hawaii For Florida. Is there a conflict due to their process of these "inalienable" rights?

Click to expand...

If the right to "keep and bear arms" is an "absolute", then "Yes." but if the right to "keep and bear arms" is NOT an "absolute" then "No.".

Exactice said:

I believe there should BE common sense limitations and I do believe that while the 2nd Amendment stands there are PEOPLE regardless of the 2nd amendment that are NOT qualified to handle nor posses a firearm. In my opinion the burden of Proof lies on the individual to be responsible to represent their responsibility. The opposite goes, if they do something to discredit their responsibility they must earn it back somehow. (This is not a perfect answer, just a "debate" answer)

Click to expand...

Depending on whether you think that the "right to keep and bear arms" is "absolute" and/or "inalienable" your position is 100% sound.

Exactice said:

So Responsibility in my eyes falls on ALL... the Owner of the Firearm, the Parents of the Child and even the child. I have a 2-1/2 yr old and an 11month yr old. My 2-1/2 knows what a firearm is and I stress to her all the time about what it is and how to handle. It started with nerf toys and those "flying saucer" disk pistol thingies. Children are NOT stupid... but are basically mini adults. You teach them they learn..... "responsibility"

Click to expand...

Now you're preaching to the choir.

Unfortunately there is a strong current of "No one is actually responsible for their own actions because they are actually 'victims of society'." abroad today.

VanceMack said:

You come from a country where the loyal kneeling subjects sacrificed their rights and are now having those same subjects hacked to death in the streets, to which your pathetic subjects look to forget kneeling and just lay down and die and ban ****ing kitchen knives.

Click to expand...

Quite right, and that is why the "Intentional Murder Rate" is only 5.35 per 100,000 in the US while it is a whacking huge 1,200 per 100,000,000 in the UK.

And it's also why the "Violent Crime Rate" in the US is a mere 12,996 per 100,000 while it is a totally outrageous 772,000 per 100,000,000 in the UK.

VanceMack said:

What makes you think anything you have to say on this subject has any bearing on free people?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but there is a slim possibility that coming from a country where people don't slaughter children simply because they can't get laid, might have something to do with it.