Quote of the Day: Child Access Prevention Gun Laws Are A Deterrent Edition

Christopher Ingraham (courtesy washingtonpost.com)

“[Child Access Prevention] laws are less about punishing negligent gun owners after the fact and more about nudging responsible ones to prevent something terrible from happening. Laws help shape societal norms. If six little kids have been able to get hold of grandpa’s gun and shoot someone with it this year, it suggests that many folks have a dangerously casual attitude toward leaving loaded guns out in the open.” – Christopher Ingraham in Why toddlers keep shooting people with their grandparents’ guns [via washingtonpost.com]

comments

  1. avatar pres stone says:

    what a moron. if they are RESPONSIBLE then they wouldn’t leave it lying around. EXPLETIVE DELETED GCAs (Gun Control Advocates) are EXPLETIVE DELETED. They lack even basic analytical skills.

  2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    “Laws help shape societal norms.”

    Wrong. WRONG. WRONG!

    If one looks at the ‘structure’ of societies, laws are shaped from the values, mores and norms of that society. Laws are “internal” to the structure, not outside it shaping it.

    This is one of the most common, and frustrating, misunderstandings of the role of “law” on society that exists…that laws ‘shape’ norms. This is simply a variant of “legislating morality,” and it’s pretty clear that that does not work. Ever.

    The belief (or claim) that laws can shape social norms is as Statist a view as one can get. That the State is SUPREME, even above the society that creates and operates that State is just absurd.

    It’s so far from anything that makes even the first sense that I wonder if these nincompoops know this but intentionally misrepresent the nature of law in social structure as a means to manipulate.

    Society does not conform to their desired norms, so they use all the social institutions to ‘correct’ that … education, law, economy, etc. Like most things “Progressive,” they’ve got it exactly backwards. Those things are determined by the values of the society.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Progressives are living contradictions.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      If this guy were correct, then Prohibition would have led to a nation of teatotalers.

      1. avatar younggun21 says:

        This. The same could be said regarding the anti-drug laws, the anti speeding laws, the anti murder laws. The good people aren’t going to sell hard drugs to kids, the good people aren’t going to be driving 50mph over the speed limit, and the good people aren’t going to murder but those that will do any of these things are going to do them regardless of the punishment.

        Not to say that we shouldnt have laws in place for these things, but rather, the point of the laws in place are to punish and legally remove people that do these things from society so they don’t have a chance to do them again. Not to shape their twisted morality. There is no evidence for this being the case.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Exactly. The morals/ethics of individuals determine their decisions, not law.

      3. avatar Cliff H says:

        And in the 43 years since Roe v Wade there would be no more organized opposition to abortion.

        1. avatar 1%jlp says:

          Contrary to popular belief prohibition did indeed work. The idea was to get people off of hard liquor and it did just exactly that because hard liquor became so expensive that working people turned to drinking more beer.

          The “Roaring Twenties” and the Prohibition era are often associated with unchecked use and abuse of alcohol, yet the statistics tell a different tale. According to a study conducted by M.I.T. and Boston University economists in the early 1990s, alcohol consumption actually fell by as much as 70 percent during the early years of the “noble experiment.” This included consumption of all alcohol not just hard liquor.

          It was big money that got the law receded. The Government realized that the underworld was making money tax free that would be paid to them if it was legalized. This is also the same reason Marijuana is being legalized in so many states today. Just as the Government woke up to how much money they were missing out on during prohibition the shock today of the money the Government is making on weed sales is like history repeating itself again in some ways.

          So the argument will then be did keeping marijuana sales illegal reduce consumption. The answer is actually yes as studies show that in other countries where it was made legal it then dropped the prices and that consumption did indeed increase both because of the price and that it was now legal to use.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “According to a study conducted by M.I.T. and Boston University economists in the early 1990s, alcohol consumption actually fell by as much as 70 percent during the early years of the “noble experiment.”

          OK, I’ll bite. How the heck are we supposed to believe that MIT et al could determine in the early 1990s just how many people were defying a federal law 70 years earlier? Did the criminals leave documentation of their felonies for posterity? That does not seem likely, nor does this supposed “study” seem authentic. Statistics can say anything you wish them to, if you just make them up. Do de term “gullible” strike a familiar note?

        3. avatar jlp says:

          The reason MIT and Boston are respected universities is that they do not make stuff up and their research would not be research if not backed up with verifiable facts. If you want an answer to your question you would have to study their report and then and only then could you critique it and have people read your opposing view point if it too was based on research that would give a counter view to it. Right now you have none.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “The reason MIT and Boston are respected universities is that they do not make stuff up and their research would not be research if not backed up with verifiable facts.”

          Flag on the play. Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

          Sorry. Their supposed reputation in YOUR mind does not constitute data.

          Answer the question asked. How do they KNOW who violated the laws in at that time? Not estimated, not conjectured, not modeled somehow. What measured data do they have?

          You do have a citation to such measurements, right?

        5. avatar jlp says:

          I would say before making a fool of yourself you should have looked at how they conducted their research and the methodology they used. Then and only then you would have had to conduct your own research to try and disprove them. I have seen in the past just such critiques and often it boils down to nit picking not anything of major importance in regards to the overall validity of the findings unless we are speaking of politics then both sides must be studied to get at even a semblance of the truth of the matter.

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I would say before making a fool of yourself you should have looked at how they conducted their research and the methodology they used.

          Since you’re the one who cited the research, did you provide the source, to allow for such analysis?

        7. avatar jlp says:

          Now your engaging in tit for tat. No University would get government research money which they take and reap often huge monetary rewards if their research was not conducted according to established norms and had no validity. If your right wing paranoia leads you to believe that all University research is invalid because it may have some Liberal people conducting it then its up to you not me to do the leg work to prove or disprove your paranoia. I personally would not waste my time trying to prove that a statistic conducted by MIT might have been 69.999 per cent rather than the more accurate 70 per cent. That is right wing nut grade paranoia.

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Now your engaging in tit for tat. No University would get government research money which they take and reap often huge monetary rewards if their research was not conducted according to established norms and had no validity.

          So, instead of producing the research you cited, you’re going to double down on the appeal to authority fallacy?

          If your right wing paranoia leads you to believe that all University research is invalid because it may have some Liberal people conducting it…

          Straw man arguments are also a logical fallacy.

          …then its up to you not me to do the leg work to prove or disprove your paranoia.

          No, that’s not how this works. You cited the research, so it is not our job to do your leg work to produce the cited research.

          I personally would not waste my time trying to prove that a statistic conducted by MIT might have been 69.999 per cent rather than the more accurate 70 per cent. That is right wing nut grade paranoia.

          Apparently, you won’t even waste your time producing the research in question.

      4. avatar 1%jlp says:

        %jlp says:

        February 10, 2016 at 16:48

        Contrary to popular belief prohibition did indeed work. The idea was to get people off of hard liquor and it did just exactly that because hard liquor became so expensive that working people turned to drinking more beer.

        The “Roaring Twenties” and the Prohibition era are often associated with unchecked use and abuse of alcohol, yet the statistics tell a different tale. According to a study conducted by M.I.T. and Boston University economists in the early 1990s, alcohol consumption actually fell by as much as 70 percent during the early years of the “noble experiment.” This included consumption of all alcohol not just hard liquor.

        It was big money that got the law receded. The Government realized that the underworld was making money tax free that would be paid to them if it was legalized. This is also the same reason Marijuana is being legalized in so many states today. Just as the Government woke up to how much money they were missing out on during prohibition the shock today of the money the Government is making on weed sales is like history repeating itself again in some ways.

        So the argument will then be did keeping marijuana sales illegal reduce consumption. The answer is actually yes as studies show that in other countries where it was made legal it then dropped the prices and that consumption did indeed increase both because of the price and that it was now legal to use.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Seems like I’ve seen this before!

    3. avatar CGinTX says:

      There’s “shouldn’t” versus “doesn’t” and I’m not sure you can say that laws DON’T help shape societal norms. I’m not talking about morality, which derives from natural laws, but “safety” – the example that first came to mind was seat belts and car seats. As folks on the, ahem, later portion of their century of life they get to shoot for on this earth have seen, seat belts and car seats have seen utilization climb greatly as a result of ever more stringent laws mandating their use (effectively, criminalizing their non-use). Today, there is clearly an increased societal norm to use these devices than existed in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s hard to fathom that the laws didn’t push that change.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        That’s just people responding to incentives, in this case, negative incentives. That’s not the same thing as actually changing societal norms.

        The proof? Look at people’s seat belt utilization when there’s little risk of punishment. Many people live in neighborhoods where the mail is delivered not to their specific home, but to a bank of mailboxes on the street. Watch sometime and you’ll see people stop, unbuckle their seat belt, exit their vehicle, retrieve their mail, re-enter their vehicle and drive home without buckling up. They figure they’re not going very far, very fast, and there are no police cruisers in the neighborhood to catch them, anyway. So why bother?

        You’ll see the same at the neighborhood drug store, grocery store, or convenience store, especially later at night. People figure they’re not going very far and aren’t likely to get caught, so they skip the seatbelts. They’ll even go without strapping in their infants in car seats under these quick trip circumstances.

        You’re far less likely to see this behavior on the morning commutes or while dropping off kids at school, because there are more police or others who would turn them in and they’d suffer the disincentives. That’s not a change in societal norms, though, just in one’s risk/reward calculation.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Jonathan – Houston,

          I believe both factors come into play. This seat belt example is an excellent example. I remember when my state enacted seat belt laws. Prior to enactment, my family rarely used seat belts. After enactment, my family always wore seat belts. At this point, even if there were no seat belt law, I would always wear my seat belt. And the explanation is two-fold:
          (1) A law led me to view wearing a seat belt as “normal” and I am now “comfortable” wearing a seat belt. More than that I now feel “uncomfortable” when I do not wear a seat belt … even if I am just driving around private property.
          (2) There is substantial demonstrable benefit to wearing a seat belt in a vehicle crash. Therefore I want to wear a seat belt.

          So, the law got me started and a significant demonstrable benefit keeps me coming back for more.

          I believe the same could apply to child access prevention for firearms. Parents who have a lackadaisical attitude to firearms storage will now feel an incentive to make sure irresponsible children cannot access the family’s firearms. After doing that for a while, it will become second nature and the demonstrable benefits will cause parents to embrace the requirement and keep doing it.

        2. avatar Mk10108 says:

          Uncommon Sense is correct. Laws do change behavior. Seat belt example is perfect however remove threat of a ticket how many would comply? In the case of securing weapons, government mandates additional paperwork, requires storage of documents, punitive action after a tragedy and jail. In addition government now has a foundation to implement, as Canada does, inspecting firearm storage in homes.

          Suppose you receive a speeding ticket, it’s not a reach for government to determine you may be equally negligent in firearm storage, triggering a knock at your door.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Laws do change behavior. Seat belt example is perfect however remove threat of a ticket how many would comply?”

          I picked up a shiny new, very fast car in the spring of 1971, and the bride and I agreed that given it’s purpose (extralegal) we would pick up seat belts right at that moment. When travelling, even less law abiding, we fastened the shoulder harness as well. I’m not sure exactly, but I think it was a decade before anybody finally passed a law requiring it. We have worn them ever since, including a 6-year stint overseas, where they were not required. Darwin and I agree, they should not *be* required. People with sense would still wear them, just like all with sense leave their seat belts fastened on airplanes.

          The question concerned “grandparents”, and the answer is that they are no longer accustomed to small children, or undisciplined children, being around the house, and when you don’t move as fast anymore, you need to keep your guns closer.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          Sorry but Darwin most likely would not have agreed with you. I base this on the fact that studies done in regards to the educational level of people show that the higher level of education the more likely that they are to believe in the use of safety devices and far more likely to state that no adult has the right to act so irresponsible that it leads to the death or injury of anyone not only children but other adults as well.

          I should have added earlier that even if it is legal in your state not to lock guns up that are loaded when there are children in the house this does not make you immune from lawsuits over the death or injury of anyone, not just children. Suppose your wife is sick and incapacitated. You hire a maid to come in and do some mundane cleaning. When she is cleaning she bumps a Glock or other such pistol that has no manual safety that may even be laying under a piece of discarded clothing. The guns trigger catches on something and fires off either injuring her or killing her. Then you are going to be sued big time and lose easily so what good will it do you if it was legal to keep a loaded gun in the house without at least a proper trigger lock on it. No jury I know of would give you any leeway on that one. You would pay out big money over that one and if it happened to be a visiting child you would not last longer in court than a snow ball in hell.

          No law is a panacea as there are always Morons who will not listen to reason but there are many people when faced with the loss of finances and personal freedom that will indeed change their behavior when it comes to locking up guns when children are in the house. Some children left alive is always better than no children left alive and no sane person would argue against that statement.

        5. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Actually, no, Uncommon Sense is not correct. Over 300 million people in the country. You can find an example of anything with anybody, including yourself.

          We’re talking public policy here, so anecdotes don’t cut it. We have to focus on the major factors, not sporadic influences. If laws were oh so effective in transforming social norms, the underlying beliefs and adherence to them for their own sake and not just because of incentives, then a helluva lot more bad behaviors would have vanished already. They do not because the beliefs and adherence haven’t taken root.

          You can deny this, but it’s silly to do so. The proof is in how people behave when no one’s looking, no one’s listening, and no one will ever find out. It’s not pretty. You using seatbelts now without force of law compelling you now is just habit. It’s imprinting, not a change in core beliefs, because seatbelt usage is trivial to accomplish. There’s no significant conflict between beliefs and benefits to overcome. The habit is easy to follow.

          But, hey, I’m open-minded. Let’s hear your long list of serious laws, not chicken crap seatbelt usage, that are so inveterate that you’d be comfortable abolishing and trusting in the social norms they’ve allegedly instituted.

          It’s been some six decades since Ike’s civil rights laws. Surely racism has been excised by now, right? Repeal the laws and let’s all live in integrated harmony! Laws against murder, burglary and robbery have been around for a while. Are you willing to give up your guns and leave your doors unlocked, or are you starting to doubt that whole “laws transform beliefs” theory?

        6. avatar jlp says:

          quote:————-You can deny this, but it’s silly to do so. The proof is in how people behave when no one’s looking, no one’s listening, and no one will ever find out. It’s not pretty. You using seatbelts now without force of law compelling you now is just habit. It’s imprinting, not a change in core beliefs, because seatbelt usage is trivial to accomplish. There’s no significant conflict between beliefs and benefits to overcome. The habit is easy to follow. ———————-Quote

          Horse manure it matters not what changed peoples behavior rather than that it has changed their behavior and by changing their behavior seat belts, trigger locks and other safety devices to numerous to mention have saved many lives and continue to save lives. You would be the first to go back to cars without safety glass or children riding in their mothers laps so you would not have the added expense of buying a child safety seat. It matters not whether people believe in what they are doing but that they do it and do it they have as history has proven your insane rants wrong. When its the law most people conform to the law especially when they begin to realize that yes seat belts save lives (often their own) and trigger locks do too and to bad if its inconveniences you for I second taking it off. I have used them for years and I assure you they are not a left wing Communist conspiracy.

          Your real problem, one you will not admit to is that you do not want to be inconvenienced no matter how many people get killed or how many peoples lives are destroyed as your Narcissism is paramount and to hell with everyone else.

    4. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Spot on, JR.

      Laws are coercive by nature. They punish behavior, they do not shape or reinforce morality.

    5. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Exactly. Go tell the people on the south side or the west side of Chicago murder is illegal.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, but, they don’t speak English.

    6. avatar Wiregrass says:

      If you didn’t post this on the WP site, you should. People that consistently read WP to reinforce their political opinions need to see this kind of thinking to even begin to pull their heads out of their asses.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        I don’t post at WP, but feel free to plagiarize at will. It’s the message that counts, not me saying it.

    7. avatar jlp says:

      If I read your rant correctly you do not think that there should be any laws that punish Morons who leave loaded guns lying around for children to pick up and shoot themselves with. Well lets face facts laws do indeed change societal behavior and your rant flies in the face of history.

      Remember how many idiots used to fight tooth, nail and claw the laws that made people wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets. It was all supposed to be a Left Wing or an Insurance Company conspiracy. Decades later most people would not think of not wearing their seat belts or putting on their motorcycle helmet. The same is true with the new gun laws that penalize Morons from ending up killing their children or worse someone else’s children. Making an example of them by sending them to prison sends a loud and clear message that if you do not act like a responsible gun owner you will not only go to prison but never own legally another firearm the rest of your life. That alone is enough many times to get through to some of these cement heads in regards to them having no regard for the lives of children. When there neighbor goes to prison the dim light bulb comes on in their heads and they know they will be next if they do not obey the law designed to protect children.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The federal government has no authority to require anybody to protect his/her own life by wearing seatbelts, helmets, bulletproof vests, or anything else. It is simply not their business, but mommies insisted we pass a damn law instead of taking junior’s keys away until he learned to behave.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “Progressives are living contradictions.”

        –barnbwt, TTAG

        1. avatar jlp says:

          No we are level headed realists who well aware of History in regards to what has shaped our past influenced and often dictated the future. History is something the radical right often lacks knowledge of and when they do have some knowledge of it the knowledge is not often complete and what little of it they have is misunderstood. Is it any wonder the Conservatives think Hitler was a liberal.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          No we are level headed realists who well aware of History in regards to what has shaped our past influenced and often dictated the future. History is something the radical right often lacks knowledge of and when they do have some knowledge of it the knowledge is not often complete and what little of it they have is misunderstood. Is it any wonder the Conservatives think Hitler was a liberal.

          Quoted for posterity, as some of the most elitist bovine excrement I’ve read.

          It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.

          – Ronald Reagan

        3. avatar jlp says:

          I like your quote form Reagan. History proved he was the biggest enemy of working class people we have ever had as a resident. His trickle down economics really worked great by destroying the working class and letting every penny flow down over the rich and powerful heads. We ended up without even on trickle. You could not have picked a worse example to quote.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “No we are level headed realists “

          Only in your own mind, after you redefine level headed realist as “agrees with me.”

          It is often said that Progressivism is a mental disease. Your State-loving commentary on this page certainly supports that hypothesis.

        5. avatar barnbwt says:

          Reagan was certainly conservative, and more certainly wrong about a lot of things. But he had liberals pegged, which is why the quote is so biting. He was a Californian governor; he knew all about progressives, and this is why he was so successful (if you call his policies successes) in working with them. He was able to craft emotional appeals to his proposals, and rope as much liberal support as he needed by exploiting their ideological weakness.

          Peace through forced disarmament. Strength through feminization. Solidarity through diversity. Wisdom through censorship. Inclusion through stratification. Toleration through castigation. Living. Contradictions. Every last one of you.

          All it takes to fool a liberal is to phrase something so it ‘sounds’ right; there is no analysis of cause, effect, or even whether or not the promised result is likely or possible. “Free health care, yo!” Now it’s gonna be “free college, bro!” Conservatives are bad about this, too; phrase something so it sounds like an enemy they’ve been set up to oppose will be harmed or hindered, and they’re yours. Too many Americans are in it for either free shit or to hurt other people. Libertarians just want to be let alone, and believe it or not most Americans are probably libertarian (i.e. too lazy to actively pursue imposing their views on others, themselves) but have shacked up with political parties with more ambitious goals.

  3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “Research shows that these laws work. A 2005 study found that in 10 states, the laws prevented 829 injuries in 2001, saving $37 million in medical costs”

    Maybe it’s just too early in the morning, but I’m trying to figure out how they think they know that…
    Are they sure it wasn’t 828 injuries and $36.925 million? I’m getting another cup of coffee.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I imagine they could only estimate the benefit.

      Suppose a state had been averaging close to 50 injuries a year prior to enactment. After enactment, injuries immediately dropped and settled down to an average around 20 injuries per year.

      Thus, it would be fairly reasonable to claim that the state’s safe storage law prevented 30 injuries per year. And the monetary savings would be the average cost of an injury times those 30 injuries that did not happen on average.

      Such an analysis and claim is quite a bit more dicey if the trend had been steadily decreasing for decades (as is actually the case in the United States) and if additional factors could be responsible for the decline (like a sudden large push for more training or public service announcements).

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        More like, dropped and settled down around 50.6 per year.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      They pulled it out of their ass Tom.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That’s no fun, and Tom already knew that, anyhow.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      TIO, statistics are much easier to understand if you make them up yourself. See, now? That one is pretty obvious, yet you can bet that our government paid someone handsomely to falsify it, and has not figured that out, yet.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Once again until you would review the study in its entirety engaging in your own wild speculation that it just has no validity shows that it is more likely you rather than they that are as you say, making stuff up.

  4. avatar Mk10108 says:

    “[Child Access Prevention] laws are less about punishing….

    Nope. I had to sign 2 documents stating ability to lock my weapons. Something about becoming a felon if I didn’t. That’s punitive.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Wait, wait, wait. WTF are you taking about? Sign what? Where and when? I have missed something, here.

  5. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

    The idea that you don’t, as opposed to can’t, legislate morality is part of the faux Libertarian assault on the rule of law. All law is moral based. We don’t outlaw the unwarranted taking of life for some utilitarian reason. We outlaw it because we believe it is wrong. Law is the embodiment of a society’s moral code.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      “Law is the embodiment of a society’s moral code.”

      Or at least it should be.

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        What you can’t legislate is moral behavior. That is why we have criminals.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Exceptions don’t define the rule.

          As a society, we don’t like ‘crime.’ Just because some people fall outside that belief does not mean the moral value is absent.

          A society is a collection of individuals. Humans are not insects.

          As such a collection, there is a “norm” of behavior with certain societal pressures…things like picking your nose in public. There are behaviors that have more serious pressures…mores…

          Then there are “values.” These are defined as consensus beliefs regarding right and wrong. These are things that the collection as a whole holds “proper,” but there are ALWAYS individual exceptions.

          Some individuals are permanent exceptions. For example, someone that does NOT value human life and things killing for any purpose is a-ok. That such people exist does not negate the fact that the huge, vast majority of the society does value human life.

          Some individuals are temporary exceptions. These are situational criminals, such as crime-of-passion murderers. They value human life in general, but lost that value for a period.

          Laws do NOTHING to stop any of this, and no legislation can possibly change it. ALL laws can do is punish the violations after the fact.

          It is both theoretically (in social theory) and practically impossible to legislate morality. But that’s not the same thing as saying all laws are 100% aligned with every moral or every human act 100% of the time.

        2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          Demonstrably false. Do you go to the bar and get smashed and get in your car and drive off? I bet not because it puts you at legal risk. Of there were no law against driving while impaired I bet you would since your judgement is impaired. Just because not all are deterred doesn’t mean laws don’t deter.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “Demonstrably false.”

          Wrong. I’ve got 100+ years of social theory research to back me up, plus 10,000+ years of actual human observation of societies.

          “Do you go to the bar and get smashed and get in your car and drive off? I bet not because it puts you at legal risk.”

          Nope. You are wrong. I don’t do this because I think it is wrong to do it. That you are wrong is exemplified by the myriad of people that do it despite the “legal risk.”

          “Of there were no law against driving while impaired I bet you would since your judgement is impaired.”

          You’d lose that bet.

          I don’t drink and drive at all at this stage in my life and it has NOTHING to do the law. In fact, the law says I CAN drink SOME and drive, so long as I am below the state’s defined “legal limit.”

          But I don’t even though the law says I am “allowed” to. Why do you think that is?

          Hint: It has nothing to do with the law. My behavior is not determined by the law, just like those that get to BAC = 0.30 and drive anyway despite the law.

          “Just because not all are deterred doesn’t mean laws don’t deter.”

          Laws can deter, but they cannot dictate what is “right” and what is “wrong.” An individual’s view of right and wrong is what (collectively) determines normative behaviors across a population.

          We are not talking about individual decisions to do or not do something. For a law to determine behavior, the drug war, prohibition, CT “assault weapons”…all these things would be done deals.

          If the law had the power this guy is suggesting, there would have been no “blowback” from Bloomberg trying to outlaw certain sized sodas and stuff like that.

          Separate individual exceptions and behaviors of an individual from collective “normal” and you will see why what he is saying is factually and demonstrably impossible. It has been tried and failed throughout human history.

          Or, you won’t see it and you will stubbornly cling to some nonsensical belief that The State can tell people what to believe, how to act … if we only had the “right set of laws” to make it happen.

          I don’t care.

        4. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          “What you can’t legislate is moral behavior. That is why we have criminals.”

          Criminality and morality are not synonymous… I can cheat on my wife, which is immoral based on my beliefs, but not illegal based on our society.

          Behavior is punishing or reinforcing, at its basis, period. Laws are punitive (i.e.,coercive) in nature, and coercion is always a negative/ punisher when dealing with the function of behavior. A law cannot reinforce “morality”, it can only punish “immorality”, both being highly subjective concepts.

          It’s not my opinion, it’s a fundamental princple of behavior science. One does not have to know or understand the function of behavior for it to function.

        5. avatar barnbwt says:

          You can legislate morality, but all you’re really doing is punishing immoral behavior. They are not at all the same thing, and instead of pushing society towards morality, excessive morality laws tend to result in very a-moral people who no longer rely on themselves to determine right or wrong as individuals. Which is why the most effective laws are those involving demonstrable damages, since punishing those who cause damages is a universally-agreeable moral intrinsic to the human condition.

      2. avatar Sean in MT says:

        I think it kind of goes both ways. Malum in se laws are on the books because we as a society see an inherent “badness” in certain things: Murder, rape, rooting for the NY Yankees. But we also have malum prohibitum laws, which are a paean to our inner tyrant. When people let their inner tyrant run wild, they become criminals, or worse, politicians. They then pass laws regarding any and all things: Banning 32 oz. Big Gulps, blue laws, gun waiting periods, mag bans, etc. Worse sill, we let them set up bureacracies under the Executive Branch of government run by mini-tyrants who believe that they have the power to create whatever laws they want with no accountability.

        Our master barristers Paulsen or Dirk Diggler could probably go into it better than me. But I could’ve sworn that barring an intentional act of negligence (like driving 140 mph down a city street) mostly these kinds of things fall under civil actions and not criminal ones. If we outlaw being a dumbass half the country or more will have to be locked up.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          The point is, though, the malum prohibitum are always colossal failures with widespread non-compliance.

          They simply do not alter the behavior they are designed to prevent. In some cases, they make it worse and more widespread.

    2. avatar Bob R says:

      “All law is morality based.” Wow, you are delusional. So it’s moral to kidnap and throw someone in a cage for possessing a leaf some assholes in suits in Washington decide they don’t like?

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Typical faux Libertarian thinking. I guess it’s ok to toke up and do damage to someone else or become a social burden because personal autonomy or something.

        1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          If the planet was fermented and drank instead of cut up and smoked would you feel it to be more in keeping with moral standards?

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Law is the embodiment of a society’s moral code.”

      I could believe that between 100 and maybe 1000 laws governing a society fit that description, but here in America we are working on hundreds of times that many. That has left the expression of a society’s desires and gone directly into government gone wild, controlling the public for government’s benefit.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Child safety laws are not the Government controlling the pubic for their benefit. That is so moronic is laughable. Rather it is a government that is taking car of the minority of its citizens that do to lack of education or responsibility are putting children at risk of death or injury. If we take your position further its a government conspiracy that requires child safety seats as it is the right of the mother to hold her child in her lap during an auto accident that due to her ignorance actually will crush the child between her and the dash board. But right wing fanatics will scream its her right to freedom to maim or kill her own child by not obeying the law. Sane people shake their heads in utter astonishment that anyone would for a moment adhere to such nonsense.

        1. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

          I fully believe people have the right to be stupid and the freedom the suffer the consequences of their stupidity without a modicum of sympathy from the rest of us.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          Do you even realize what you have just stated. Taking this philosophy farther would mean that everyone has the right to act stupid and speed and crash into innocent people and kill themselves as well as others. This is no different than saying people have the right to kill or injure other people because they are too lazy and shiftless and cheap to buy and use a trigger lock.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          aking this philosophy farther would mean that everyone has the right to act stupid and speed and crash into innocent people and kill themselves as well as others.

          No, that’s actually saying something completely different.

          Everyone does have the right to act stupidly. No one has the right to cause harm to another. Thus, when one exercises the right to act stupidly in a manner that causes harm to another, then the one who acted stupidly is held responsible for the harm caused.

          You cannot stop people from acting stupidly. Prior restraint is an unconstitutional and immoral violation of individual liberty.

          This is no different than saying people have the right to kill or injure other people…

          That’s a nice Straw Man you’ve got there.

          …because they are too lazy and shiftless and cheap to buy and use a trigger lock.

          A trigger lock is not some magic talisman, and doesn’t take the place of personal responsibility.

          I intentionally and willfully do not own, and will not use, a trigger lock. If a firearm in my house is loaded, it is loaded for a specific purpose. Otherwise, it is unloaded. Thus, it is counter-productive to put a trigger lock on a firearm that is loaded for specific purpose, and it is pointless to put a trigger lock on a firearm that is unloaded.

          Your desired “safe storage” laws would make my household less safe, not more safe.

        4. avatar jlp says:

          quote————————No, that’s actually saying something completely different.
          Everyone does have the right to act stupidly. No one has the right to cause harm to another. Thus, when one exercises the right to act stupidly in a manner that causes harm to another, then the one who acted stupidly is held responsible for the harm caused.

          You cannot stop people from acting stupidly. Prior restraint is an unconstitutional and immoral violation of individual liberty.——————–Quote

          Without even realizing what you have just stated you actually just agreed with me. The new laws would do exactly what you have just stated. Make people legally responsible for causing harm to others which traffic laws already do and safe storage laws would do exactly the same and people would know exactly what would happen to them if they failed to obey them. Having no law lets people assume there would be no consequences or that since there is no law that would be an argument for acquittal or a slap on the wrist in court. And your nonsense about unconstitutional is pure balderdash as you are saying people have the right to harm others because it might infringe on your constitutional freedom to commit death and destruction. We already have laws against shouting fire in a theater which according to your twisted thinking is against constitutional freedom of speech. No constitutional right is without sane limits otherwise we would even be allowed to own our own personal nuclear weapons to be used on our neighbors if their dog happened to shit on our property.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Without even realizing what you have just stated you actually just agreed with me. The new laws would do exactly what you have just stated. Make people legally responsible for causing harm to others…

          So, your contention is that, without safe storage laws, a firearm owner is not legally responsible if/when a firearm he owns is negligently unsecured and subsequently used to cause harm to another?

          Having no law lets people assume there would be no consequences…

          Apparently, that’s exactly what you’re saying. Do you really think that’s true? A firearm owner cannot be held responsible for negligent manslaughter (for example) without safe storage laws being in place?

          And your nonsense about unconstitutional is pure balderdash as you are saying people have the right to harm others because it might infringe on your constitutional freedom to commit death and destruction.

          Please review the definition of prior restraint (you know, that which I actually said was unconstitutional?) and get back to me.

          We already have laws against shouting fire in a theater which according to your twisted thinking is against constitutional freedom of speech.

          There are no such laws. Are you saying that there are actually laws that make it illegal to shout “fire!” in a theater? What about if the theater were, you know, on fire?

          There are laws against causing harm through the exercise of the freedom of speech. But even under such laws, the harm must be committed before those laws can be brought to bear. Those laws cannot prevent the harm by preventing the exercise of the freedom of speech. (Remember your homework assignment: prior restraint.)

        6. avatar jlp says:

          Quote: So, your contention is that, without safe storage laws, a firearm owner is not legally responsible if/when a firearm he owns is negligently unsecured and subsequently used to cause harm to another?

          Having no law lets people assume there would be no consequences…

          Apparently, that’s exactly what you’re saying. Do you really think that’s true? A firearm owner cannot be held responsible for negligent manslaughter (for example) without safe storage laws being in place? Quote:

          You remind me of a drowning man grasping at straws along the bank. Admit it you have lost and be man enough to admit it. Now in your desperation you posting nonsensical replies trying to twist what I have said not once but numerous times. Laws change behavior for the majority of people while a lack of a law leads many to believe that they can get away with reckless behavior because there is no law specific to their behavior which does not necessarily mean that they cannot be sued but that does not mean the law suit will always be won just that most of the time it will be won. The problem is without the law prison time is not assured as it should be and would be with a specific law. History has already shown that. I cannot make it any more simple than that.

          Quote:————————-There are no such laws. Are you saying that there are actually laws that make it illegal to shout “fire!” in a theater? What about if the theater were, you know, on fire?————————

          More desperation with nonsensical replies. If there was a fire no one would be charged for yelling fire and if there was no fire, yes dear genius there is a law that would put you in prison for saying it. Just off the top of my head they could get you for inducing panic which would result in loss of life or injury even if the particular jurisdiction did not have a law specifically mentioning the word “fire”. So what you are attempting to do is play a game of semantics while trying to ignore the truth of the original statement which was Constitutional rights in general including freedom of speech are not unlimited because they never were intended to be, common sense would tell anyone that. I might add there have been plenty of people sent to prison for using racial epitaphs as well which according to your twisted view is a Constitutional right that has no limits. Jail time for actions proven to be hate crimes are often clinched when the accused was proven to use racial epitaphs while committing said crime which often carry stiffer sentences than if the same crime was committed but no racial epitaph was used. A crime of passion can often be proven which can carry less jail time than the exact same crime committed while using hate speech. So do you have unlimited freedom of speech in all cases. No you do not as court cases and the law prove that beyond a doubt.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Laws change behavior for the majority of people while a lack of a law leads many to believe that they can get away with reckless behavior because there is no law specific to their behavior …

          Spoken like a true Statist, and demonstrably false. Case in point: 100,000,000 firearm owners, with 350,000,000 firearms, almost all of which existing in states without your safe storage laws – and there is no bloodbath of accidental deaths due to irresponsible/unsafe firearms storage.

          If there was a fire no one would be charged for yelling fire…

          But, according to you, there are laws that prohibit “yelling fire in a theater”.

          …and if there was not a fire, yes dear genius there is a law that would put you in prison for saying it.

          [citation needed]

          Just off the top of my head they could get you for inducing panic which would result in loss of life or injury even if the particular jurisdiction did not have a law specifically mentioning the word “fire”.

          So, the offense would not, in fact, be “yelling fire in a theater”, but rather inducing panic – and the law in question would involve inducing panic, and not “yelling fire in a theater”.

          So what you are attempting to do is play a game of semantics while trying to ignore the truth of the original statement which was Constitutional rights in general including freedom of speech are not unlimited because they never were intended to be…

          No, what I am attempting to do is to point out that a) prior restraint (i.e. laws against an act on the basis that it might cause harm) is unconstitutional, and b) actual laws involve harm actually caused through an action that coincidentally may involve the exercise of a right.

          An actual harm must be demonstrated in order for the exercise of first amendment rights to be deemed unlawful. That means that the exercise must take place first, and any law that prohibits the act from taking place in the first place is unconstitutional.

          You do realize sane people are reading your bizarre comments?

          Yes, I am aware that, fortunately, more people than just you are reading my comments.

          I suggest you take a visit to the grave yards of children and tell that to grieving parents who’s children got shot by other children that had access to guns due to right wing nut cases like yourself that acted irresponsibly by not keeping loaded guns out of their hands.

          Keep waving those bloody shirts!

          You can ignore the dead in grave yards but sane people do not.

          For every one person who dies accidentally due to negligent discharge of a firearm, about 250 people die accidentally due to other causes. Why do you ignore all of them in the grave yards?

        8. avatar jlp says:

          I am not even going to respond to this rant. I think you are so over the top in nonsense that it is better to let people read through the rant and shake their heads.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I am not even going to respond to this rant. I think you are so over the top in nonsense that it is better to let people read through the rant and shake their heads.

          Translation: “I can’t articulate a coherent response, so I won’t even bother trying.”

          Thanks for playing.

  6. avatar James says:

    So wait. We have current laws on the books to deal with situations like a kid accidentally shooting someone. We can charge the parent or grand parent with reckless endangerment or some similar charge. But now the answer to preventing future incidents is……….more laws.

    He is right when he says these laws he proposes are not about punishing negligent gun owners, because we could be putting an emphasis on it now with appropriate charging. These laws are all about punishing all gun owners because it makes him feel superior. It also spares him having to make a judgment on individuals, instead allowing broad brush harassment of a group of people he doesn’t like.

  7. avatar jwtaylor says:

    An extensive set of legal codes and laws is the hallmark of an immoral society.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Very well said.

      If a society “valued” a certain behavior, that behavior would occur regardless of the laws. That laws are “needed” to try to get people to behave certain ways is indicative that the individual people that make up that society do NOT value that behavior.

      And, his argument fails completely on another level anyway: no matter what laws are on the books, there are ALWAYS people that break them. Murder, armed robbery, rape, forgery, theft…all against the law. Yet all of these happen every single day.

      All laws CAN do is provide a mechanism of punishment. He’s just wrong.

  8. avatar Yup says:

    Laws do not shape societal norms. Societal norms shape laws. Not to mention, this law is bullshit.

  9. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    Hold on just a minute. So you’re telling me that the possibility of a small child shooting and killing themselves or a family member or friend ISN’T a deterrent to these negligent gun owners, but a new law WILL be? This guy has a rather deficient understanding of human psychology and motivation.

    1. avatar Bob R says:

      ^ this. In my observation, leftist liberals do not possess the ability for critical thinking.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      This!!!!!^!*{>|%

      I was about to comment but you beat me to it. If a parent or guardian is not willing to protect (or educate) their children on guns resulting in their death, they probably aren’t going to care about a law that says they need to.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That is spot on! Well said.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Actually you just answered your own question. No the senseless death of children has no affect on other irresponsible gun owners otherwise they long ago would have changed their behavior. Child accidental shootings prove that over and over. Really what have you been drinking today? You can only get through to a Narcissist when something affects him personally like jail time and loss of his money. The death of other children other than his own means nothing to him and sometimes even the death of his own children affects a Narcissist not a wit.

  10. avatar the ruester says:

    Put simply, he wants us to acknowledge that we share in the guilt of criminals who use guns.

    Like how he acknowledges his liberal nonsense inspired generations of Americans to embrace the culture of lawlessness and disrespect that breeds most violent cr…. oh, wait…

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Ooo. Another excellent point. Well done.

  11. avatar Reggie Browning says:

    They nudge responsible owners to prevent something terrible from happening? So being indirectly responsible for some innocent person being killed isn’t enough of a deterrent? But the fear of being punished for violating storage laws is? That’s really selfish.

  12. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Three words: Merced Pitchfork Massacre.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    It seems that the Wapo continually cr_ps out journalists that think they speak for us, or that think we believe they have the slightest notion of gun possession/care/storage, etc.

    Don’t even click the link.

  14. avatar PeterK says:

    Why is it these people think some law on the books is more of a deterrent than actually injuring or killing someone with negligence? How can you be so blind?

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      I think one simple answer to how they can be so blind is an individual vs State thing.

      The (excellent) suggestion that “not wanting to hurt someone” is a deterrent is “individual.” It comes from the heart of a person. It’s not “collective” and there is really no way to determine it or force it.

      Or control it.

      A law, on the other hand, is a collective “solution” dictated by the State. To suggest this assumes the State has “all power” over individuals, even and including a falsely assumed power to guarantee 100% compliance with the collective’s rules.

      There simply is no room for “individual” in the Statist thought process…that if something is against the law, it won’t happen.

      That this is never born out by practical reality is irrelevant. The selling of the State as the solution is all that matters.

  15. avatar James69 says:

    Part of the problem is the “modern parenting” where children have NO boundries and do whatever they damm well please. I’ve had friends come over with their kids. Ages 2 – 12 and they just wander the house going into rooms and plundering around, until I or my wife catches them. We watch all children like hawks now.

    1. avatar PeterW says:

      Exactly
      “it suggests that many folks have a dangerously casual attitude toward leaving…” …their young children irresponsibly unattended!
      FIFY

  16. avatar Craig says:

    Nearly 1000 children drown in backyard pools and most are ages 1-6. 250 kids drink drano and eat advil. 120 fall out of windows and 35 die from being left in hot cars….responsibility extends waaaaaaaaaaay past firearms. Pools kill nearly 20 times as many kids as accidental firearms discharge when not monitored or secured by adults

    1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      And all too often even when children are being watched. Not all adults are capable of truly monitoring the activities of children. Have you ever tried to keep track of an active 2 year old? Now consider that many of the caregivers and watchers are elderly, disabled in some way, and can’t move as fast as a child. Add to that the all too common over indulgence of many relatives for childish antics, and the prescription for tragedy is evident.

      I told my son that I could not care for his small sons alone, since I’m partially disabled and mostly deaf. The two boys are wonderful and I love them too much to take a chance on not being able to keep up with them.

      Reasonable, responsible people take every precaution they can to prevent accidents and potential hazards of all kinds, including finding appropriate care for children when they are not present. Irresponsible people never will make that effort, regardless of the “law.”

  17. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    For what grandparent is incarceration a greater punishment than the agony of not only losing a grandchild, but bearing responsibility for that loss through one’s own negligence?

    If the prospect of losing that grandchild is not sufficient incentive initself to secure your firearms either on your person or via another effective means, then no law is going to “nudge” you in that direction. You’re already too stupid or too callous to be influenced.

    Such laws are entirely punitive. I’m not arguing for or against such laws on that basis, just that such laws largely serve society’s retaliatory purpose. They don’t shape societal norms on guns. They reflect societal norms on vengeance.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    As always, the statists of the left (and right) want the government to inflict more violence against the people that government is supposed to serve. That’s exactly why the Second Amendment exists — as a check and balance against government violence.

    The Founders were big on checks and balances. It’s amazing how smart they were.

  19. avatar dph says:

    I believe safe storage laws (child access prevention) are generally part 1 of a 2 part plan. First pass the safe storage law, later when the uproar over the initial law dies down pass the second part, mandatory and unannounced inspections of homes for verification that the law is being followed. Anti gun forces in Washington state were at one point trying to push just such a law through. Since it really is impossible to know which house may contain a firearm I can only assume that the plan was to go door to door and try to inspect every house if the law passed. I also believe that these laws have absolutely nothing to do with safety and as usual everything to do with making the RKBA as difficult and expensive as possible, so as to discourage as many as possible from owning a firearm or to turn the firearm owner into a criminal who’s guns may be taken away for not following the law.

    1. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

      Now mind you i am not apologizing or making excuses for The People’s Republic of Kommifornistan.

      However Ca has for longer than I’ve been a gun owner had CAP style laws. The plus side is that each and everyone one of them require the injury of a child or injury by a child before the specific statute has been violated.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “mandatory and unannounced inspections of homes for verification that the law is being followed”

      Another reason to fight tooth and nail against any form of registration. If anti-gun fools are invaded by a dozen police searching every room for an unsecured gun two or three times in a year, I can guarantee that shit will STOP! OTOH, once gunowners are separated from actual citizens, out there on the fringe, they can be persecuted at will, as hard and as often as necessary to make them surrender their guns to the local recycling service, the cops, who will be selling huge stores of guns and ammo.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Quote——————-“mandatory and unannounced inspections of homes for verification that the law is being followed”
        Another reason to fight tooth and nail against any form of registration. If anti-gun fools are invaded by a dozen police searching every room for an unsecured gun two or three times in a year, I can guarantee that shit will STOP! OTOH, once gunowners are separated from actual citizens, out there on the fringe, they can be persecuted at will, as hard and as often as necessary to make them surrender their guns to the local recycling service, the cops, who will be selling huge stores of guns and ammo.———————Quote

        Wow you have now twisted a child safety law into full blown paranoia over registration and jack booted storm troopers breaking down your door none of which were part of the discussion or proposed law to begin with. Even in European countries that have had such laws for decades and have far less guns than the U.S. there is not enough police or money to break down peoples doors over a law mandating child safety locks. Austria has had such a law for years a people still buy guns every day there.

        1. avatar Don says:

          But in the UK licensed gun owners go to jail for not having their gun cabinet properly locked when the bobbies stop by for an unscheduled firearms check. In New York the police can do a firearms check on licensed owners without a warrant. It’s not that much of a stretch. Education and PSA’s on the media, gun safety taught in schools, will do far more in further reducing the number of child involved firearm incidents than more and more statutes.

        2. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

          Precisely.
          Why would any civilized society want to be anything like either NYC or the UK?

        3. avatar jlp says:

          I would agree with you that educational programs are always a benefit but I would not be opposed to inspections because we should send people to jail that leave loaded firearms laying around for children to pick up. If they are obeying the law and have the gun in a desk safe or have a trigger lock on they have nothing to worry about and after a few sensational news stories the rest of the Morons will be scrambling to obey the new law “or else”. Its a shame it had to come to this but irresponsible gun owners brought all this on themselves.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          …but I would not be opposed to inspections…

          Have you ever even read the Constitution? PROTIP: skip ahead to the Fourth Amendment.

          …because we should send people to jail that leave loaded firearms laying around for children to pick up.

          (Brought to you by the Department of Pre-Crime.)

          If they are obeying the law and have the gun in a desk safe or have a trigger lock on they have nothing to worry about…

          Spoken like a true statist: if a citizen isn’t breaking any laws, then he has nothing to fear from the government violating his rights to look for unlawful activity.

          Fourth Amendment: read it. Then read the Fourteenth Amendment.

          Its a shame it had to come to this but irresponsible gun owners brought all this on themselves.

          Brought what, exactly? And how have “irresponsible gun owners” brought it upon themselves? If the best safety record of any group is sufficient to bring about violations of gun owners’ civil rights, then what of other groups with far worse safety records?

        5. avatar jlp says:

          Quote—————————Brought what, exactly? And how have “irresponsible gun owners” brought it upon themselves? If the best safety record of any group is sufficient to bring about violations of gun owners’ civil rights, then what of other groups with far worse safety records?—————————Quote

          Only a mentally ill person like yourself would ignore the body count. Remember when you posted that the body count was not high enough to persuade you that it was worth the inconvenience to use a simple trigger lock or desk safe.

          Statistics on dead children as well as numerous reports every year complete with grieving parents not only on TV but on computer that millions of people have seen except you of course who continue to deny any of this ever happens.

          People are on the sane side while you babble about maybe this would happen and the home owner would be found dead with a handgun with the trigger lock still on. Show me the legions of documented cases of this. You can’t now matter what bizarre excuse or propaganda twist you come up with.

          I have followed the gun issues since 1962 so don’t even dare to give me any of your usual paranoia or fantasies. The facts are child killings happen and continue to happen and your paranoia is a fantasy of what might happen some day. I think the death ratio favors the children since its “Many cases to your “Zero” side of the equation. Again where are all the dead people with trigger locks still on their guns?

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Only a mentally ill person like yourself would ignore the body count.

          What body count?

          No, really: what is the actual number (with citation, please)?

          Statistics on dead children as well as numerous reports every year complete with grieving parents not only on TV but on computer that millions of people have seen except you of course who continue to deny any of this ever happens.

          You and I both know you won’t provide those statistics; so I’ll do it for you.

          Here are the latest numbers from CDC (2013):

          http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unintentional_injury_2013-a.pdf

          <1 years: Accidental Firearm not in top 10 (#10, Unintentional Fire/Burn, has 17)
          1-4 Years: Accidental Firearm not in top 10 (#10, Unintentional Struck By/Against, has 33)
          5-9 Years: Accidental Firearm #10, 15
          10-14 Years: Accidental Firearm #9, 24

          Note: the numbers for 2014 are similar, but you have to use a web-based query to get them:

          <1 years: Accidental Firearm not in top 10 (#10, Unintentional Struck By, has 4)
          1-4 Years: Accidental Firearm #10, 22 (1.8%)
          5-9 Years: Accidental Firearm #9, 14 (1.9%)
          10-14 Years: Accidental Firearm not in top 10 (#10, Unintentional Struck By/Against, has 13)

          So, of all children that’s a total of 39 (2013) or 36 (2014) killed accidentally per year, due to unintentional firearm discharge. The children who shot themselves or another child are a subset of that number. Those who did so because of an unsecured firearm a a subset of that number.

          There’s no “body count” here. Your appeal to emotion fails.

          People are on the sane side while you babble about maybe this would happen and the home owner would be found dead with a handgun with the trigger lock still on. Show me the legions of documented cases of this.

          I don’t need to do so, in order to assert that I have the right not to be forced to assume that risk.

          The facts are child killings happen and continue to happen…

          No, they don’t. See that actual statistics, above.

        7. avatar jlp says:

          Mister you are really not playing with full deck. I am beginning to think that you really believe all this nonsense that you post. Your alone as no one who has a TV set or computer would not be aware of the problem. We see it all the time on the news which of course you will say has conjured up everything that they report on. The problem does not exist because you refuse to believe it does exist. Sorry that’s no reality and 300 million people who watch the news would recommend you see a psychiatrist

        8. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I am beginning to think that you really believe all this nonsense that you post.

          Why, yes: I do believe the CDC statistics that I cited and quoted. Your move, Captain Ad Hominem.

        9. avatar jlp says:

          Quote:—————————Fourth Amendment: read it. Then read the Fourteenth Amendment.—————-

          The New York law obviously passed Constitutional muster.

          And remember the Constitution does not mean what is says it means. It means what the Supreme Court says it means regardless of the Founding Fathers intentions even if they were spelled out in plain English. Now neither you or I will agree this is the way the Supreme Court should behave but that is the way they do behave and the side that has the most Justices is the side that will twist the Constitution any way they want. History has proven it many times and both each side of the Court are as guilty as the other.

          Some background info on the 4th Amendment.

          Fourth Amendment case law deals with three central questions: what government activities constitute “search” and “seizure”; what constitutes probable cause for these actions; and how violations of Fourth Amendment rights should be addressed. Early court decisions limited the amendment’s scope to a law enforcement officer’s physical intrusion onto private property, but with Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court held that its protections, such as the warrant requirement, extend to the privacy of individuals as well as physical locations. Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.

          Lets re-read the last part.

          “but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.”

          Which means they can do anything they damn well please and have as long as the Court upholds it. And obviously they did in the New York Law. So your 4th Amendment is meaningless in the real world and the Constitution cannot jump out of its glass case and come to your aid. As Mao Zedong once said “Power comes out of the barrel of a gun” and the Court is backed up by plenty of Military and Law Enforcement guns all aimed right at you. That’s reality.

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The New York law obviously passed Constitutional muster.

          There’s a New York law that authorizes non-probable-cause searches (i.e. “inspections”)?

          And remember the Constitution does not mean what is says it means.

          You may wish that to be true, like the good statist you are.

          History has proven it many times and both each side of the Court are as guilty as the other.

          The difference between you and me is that you not only seem to be okay with that, but desire to see it taken even further.

          Law enforcement officers need a warrant for most search and seizure activities, but the Court has defined a series of exceptions for consent searches, motor vehicle searches, evidence in plain view, exigent circumstances, border searches, and other situations.

          Which of those exceptions apply to inspections of homes to verify conformance to firearm safe storage laws? Which such law in New York has passed constitutional muster in that regard?

        11. avatar jlp says:

          Your lack of reading comprehension and your refusal to face the reality and legality of the New York law proves you live in your own myopic world of fantasy. Its the law there and if you live there you obey the law “or else” and even you should know what that means.

        12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Your lack of reading comprehension and your refusal to face the reality and legality of the New York law proves you live in your own myopic world of fantasy.

          Speaking of reading comprehension: I merely asked you to name the law you’re talking about. Is that even too much to ask?

          Are you talking about the NY SAFE Act? (Not likely, since it includes nothing about warrantless searches for safe storage violations, as far as I know.) Some other law?

          Can you even be bothered to answer that simple question?

        13. avatar jlp says:

          First you asked me no such thing but now you are. Second I did not bring up this law you did and now your are implying this law does not exist. Brother you really are a nut case.

        14. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Now you’re just talking yourself in circles.

  20. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I know this is going to make me sound callous, but SIX?

    Six households with irresponsible firearm owners is the example to infringe on the rights of 300 million other people?

    I am sorry for the loss to those families affected.

    But keeping it in perspective…. Six? This is important to anyone other than those six families?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You are being willfully ignorant. Listen; if it saves ONE child’s life, and is what I want, then no cost to you is too great. I think we can all agree on that, for the children and for my power and control.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Now who is making stuff up. There have been a hell of a lot more accidental shootings of children than just 6. And I guarantee you if it was your kid and even if it was only six (which is ridiculous) you would not be screaming about the fact that I will not be inconvenienced when it comes to saving a child’s life. Your a perfect example of Narcissism at its worst.

  21. avatar DrVino says:

    ” Laws help shape societal norms.”

    Yes. They impose a reference point for what is normal, acceptable. By making something illegal you establish a new “normal”. It readjusts people’s thinking. Not immediately, but over the course of years, generations. It’s one way to enact Eric Holder’s goal of “brainwashing people about guns”.
    THIS is why so many bad laws which will ultimately get struck down are dangerous.

  22. avatar jlp says:

    Drunk driving laws have saved hundreds of thousands of people. Before they cracked down on drunks the statistics show how appalling the carnage on our roads were. Any nut case that says you cannot change the morality or behavior ignores the history of laws. No not everyone will follow them but the majority of sane people know if they break the law sooner or later they go to prison and lose financially as well big time so when you appeal to their greed and stinginess this affects their behavior as well.

    I have always maintained that if you have children in the house the guns must be not accessible to children or tragedy will result. The Right Wing nut case will counter saying “I trained my children ” to safely handle firearms. Nothing wrong with this but children are children and you can give them all the training in the world and often they ignore it or worse another child comes to play with them and knows nothing about firearms and ends up getting hold of a loaded gun and accidentally kills someone or in some horrific cases admits he wanted to kill another child. We have deranged children just as we have deranged adults in this world. This is looking at “the real facts of life” not some Right Wing propaganda that “I have complete freedom to do anything I want in my own home”. NO you do not if you end up killing people especially children due to your Moronic irresponsible behavior.

    When you see the results of drunk driving laws let alone the laws against leaving loaded weapons lying around when you have children in the house, yes the laws do save lives and if that life just happened to be your own child your ranting’s about loss of the freedom to be a Moron goes out the window.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      The first drunk driving law in the United States was passed in 1906. How much ‘carnage’ was on the highways prior to that?

      Another point: Subsequent laws and increases in legal penalties did not happen alone. They also corresponded in time to TREMENDOUS public awareness campaigns to get people to become more aware of the dangers. Driver’s Ed also has emphasized the dangers.

      So, how can you claim a “sole source” causation for your pet “solution” to the highway death by drunk driver problem? Did the “laws” deter people from driving drunk, or did they do less drunk driving because of higher awareness of the dangers?

      The truth is probably that it was at least some complicated combination of many factors. Not the least is that it has become socially unacceptable to drive drunk, get a DUI and people started seeing the advantages of calling cabs and / or utilizing designated drivers.

      Laws are reflective of acceptable behaviors. They can exert and influence in some cases, but they do NOT stop people from doing things. Or…have we eliminated murder, robbery and rape completely?

      Ultimately, each person’s behavior is that person’s responsibility. It does not matter one whit if something is against the law or not; each individual chooses to act a certain way regardless of what the law is.

      Statists will never see it this way, because Statists by definition think everything comes from the State…including telling people what is right and wrong. That alone is immoral and assumes no individual sovereignty or personal liberty can exist.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Quote—————–
        Ultimately, each person’s behavior is that person’s responsibility. It does not matter one whit if something is against the law or not; each individual chooses to act a certain way regardless of what the law is.———-Quote

        I will not argue with your point and that is it can be often just more than “A” caused “B” to happen but I do not go along with the major thrust of your response at all. You ignore that the “major factor” was peoples awareness that they would be going to jail, have a record, have high insurance rates, be sued and lose, which might and probably would bankrupt them for life. That is first and foremost the major reason the laws worked as they hit them were it hurt the most, right in their pocket book and loss of personal freedom not to mention their loss of a job which many could not replace.

        You are right when you speak of public awareness campaigns through educational programs also but how much of this was sandwiched in with the reality of the accompanying information and reality of the jail time and monetary loss.

        In conclusion if we re-read your statement in the above quote we see it is 100 per cent in error as the majority of people’s behavior has been and will continue to be altered because of the consequences of the harsh drunk driving laws. History has already proven it.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “the consequences of the harsh drunk driving laws.”

          Agreed, but you should express that those consequences, in particular, are the ENFORCEMENT, which is what has changed people’s behavior. In 1981 I was going to school in Merced CA, and we were briefed the first day about this bar a couple miles from base, where the cops sat EVERY NIGHT waiting for someone to come out and start his car, the whole world knew it, it was no secret, and they got several customers every night. People just could not believe they were going to be in the shit for drinking and driving. It’s now 35 years later, does anyone think you will NOT catch hell if John Law catches you DUI? It has taken decades for society in general to become accustomed to harsh punishment for DUI, it would be similar if we were going to strictly enforce speed limits, police forces would have to be YOUGE, I don’t think people would put up with it.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I know plenty of people who do obey speed limits because of the outrageous fines they must pay often over $200 dollars and no it does not take a lot of police to put the fear of the law into them. The same is true of any law when people get nailed for breaking the law or see their neighbors or friends get nailed believe me it has an impact on their behavior and the abeyance of laws.

          I think all states should pass child safety laws in regards to locking up a gun at least with a trigger lock and nail people to the wall that cause injury or death because they failed to do so. It short order the majority of the other irresponsible morons would realize that they would not escape the law if they caused needless deaths and yes the majority would indeed start to obey such laws as no one wants to lose their job, their wealth over law suits or their freedom with imprisonment and all justly deserved I might add. Like it or not more and more states are passing such laws and its long overdue.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I know plenty of people who do obey speed limits because of the outrageous fines they must pay often over $200 dollars and no it does not take a lot of police to put the fear of the law into them.

          I think there’s a difference between malum in se laws and malum prohibitum laws. Speeding, largely, is the latter. There is no inherent harm to others caused merely by speeding; thus, the only reason for people to regulate their behavior is the risk assessment involved in incurring a fine for receiving a citation for speeding.

          Some people (post-high-school me, included) will drive at (well, near) the speed limit, simply out of common courtesy (drivers will reasonably expect other drivers to be driving at/near the speed limit, and therefore doing so will facilitate an orderly flow of traffic). The risk/fear of getting a speeding ticket has absolutely nothing to do with the decision. Passing police cars clocking drivers doesn’t bother me, because I’m already not going a speed that the police officer would worry about.

          I think all states should pass child safety laws in regards to locking up a gun at least with a trigger lock and nail people to the wall that cause injury or death because they failed to do so.

          Why do safe storage laws need to be part of the equation? Someone who owns a firearm is responsible for the use of that firearm, regardless of how it is stored, or any statutory requirements for how it is stored (excepting, obviously, illegal acts to obtain/use the firearm, such as theft). The inherent harm of a child shooting himself or another should be sufficient grounds to hold the firearm owner responsible.

          On the other hand, safe storage laws such as what you suggest present their own inherent risks/harm: a locked-up firearm is useless if needed in an emergency situation. If someone breaks into my house, they’re not going to wait patiently while I remove a trigger lock.

          Do my surviving family members get to hold you accountable if I and/or other family members get killed as a result of following your safe storage laws?

        4. avatar jlp says:

          quote:——————– Why do safe storage laws need to be part of the equation? Someone who owns a firearm is responsible for the use of that firearm, regardless of how it is stored, or any statutory requirements for how it is stored (excepting, obviously, illegal acts to obtain/use the firearm, such as theft). The inherent harm of a child shooting himself or another should be sufficient grounds to hold the firearm owner responsible.————Quote————————————–

          You do not live in reality. Safe storage laws are a must because without them too many people will have no incentive to use safety devices and they do not which results in the current unnecessary lose of life we now currently have. That’s reality not your philosophy chanted out on your balcony while viewing the world through rose colored glasses.

          Quote———————–On the other hand, safe storage laws such as what you suggest present their own inherent risks/harm: a locked-up firearm is useless if needed in an emergency situation. If someone breaks into my house, they’re not going to wait patiently while I remove a trigger lock.———————————–

          Pure typical right wing paranoia. If you live in an area that you feel you cannot access a gun fast enough you either mover or carry a gun on your person. When you are not armed in your own home with the gun on your person they make desk safes that open with a touch of a couple of buttons and the gun can be in the safe loaded and ready to fire. Even in homes that are very small by the time someone breaks down a door which makes a tremendous crash they still must figure out which room you are even in. All this would give you time to access your weapon from a desk safe or even remove a trigger lock and even sing a few bars of your favorite song before the person breaking in even found you. I used trigger locks and desk safes and I had no trouble accessing a handgun so fast that no living human could have ever made it in the house and through the house before I would have had time to access then gun and calmly emptied an entire magazine into him so I know your paranoia is completely unfounded.

          Quote———————–Do my surviving family members get to hold you accountable if I and/or other family members get killed as a result of following your safe storage laws?————————Quote:

          As stated above your paranoia is not based on reality and if you enjoy going bankrupt because of lawsuits because you failed to protect the lives of children or even adults as well as possible prison time then leave deadly weapons laying around for children to shoot themselves with or adults who may not have ever even held a handgun who could suffer the same fate. And remember you will be singing a far different tune if the children who are killed happen to be your own. Then the dim light bulb will go on in your head far, far to late to be of any use to you.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You do not live in reality. Safe storage laws are a must because without them too many people will have no incentive to use safety devices…

          If the risk of injury or death of a family member is not incentive enough to cause one to handle firearms responsibly in the home, do you really think that laws will make any difference?

          …and they do not…

          First: use or non-use of safety devices is not the issue; rather, the issue is responsible vs irresponsible handling and storage of firearms. Second: do you have have any statistics to cite regarding your assertions?

          …which results in the current unnecessary lose of life we now currently have.

          100 million firearm owners. Over 350 million firearms.

          500 annual accidental deaths due to negligent discharge of firearms – only a(n unknown) subset of which involves firearms obtained due to irresponsible storage.

          I’ll let you do the math.

          That’s reality not your philosophy chanted out on your balcony while viewing the world through rose colored glasses.

          Reality is that the risk of accidental death due to negligent discharge of firearms barely registers as a blip on the radar of accidental deaths – much less, of total deaths. It is a non-issue. Firearm owners are extremely safe – and only becoming moreso, even as firearm ownership continues to rise.

        6. avatar jlp says:

          quote———————Reality is that the risk of accidental death due to negligent discharge of firearms barely registers as a blip on the radar of accidental deaths – much less, of total deaths. It is a non-issue. Firearm owners are extremely safe – and only becoming moreso, even as firearm ownership continues to rise.————–quote

          I think any sane person would have been totally ashamed as a human being to blatantly state statistical numbers and claim that its an acceptable blood and carnage number in regards to the number of dead children if the death count is below a certain number. Again if it was your own kids you would not be quoting such nonsense. As long as it is not your own children your attitude seems to be, “who cares how many kids get killed” as I cannot be inconvenienced with acting like a responsible adult.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I think any sane person would have been totally ashamed as a human being to blatantly state statistical numbers and claim that its an acceptable blood and carnage number in regards to the number of dead children if the death count is below a certain number.

          You’re the one waving the bloody shirt.

          I will not concede the if it saves just one life argument. Sorry, not sorry.

          Again if it was your own kids you would not be quoting such nonsense. As long as it is not your own children your attitude seems to be, “who cares how many kids get killed” as I cannot be inconvenienced with acting like a responsible adult.

          You keep presenting the false dichotomy of the only alternative to safe storage laws is to act irresponsibly. I do not need laws to cause me to act responsibly. Further: safe storage laws will not prevent children from being killed – my children, or anyone else’s.

        8. avatar jlp says:

          Quote———————-You keep presenting the false dichotomy of the only alternative to safe storage laws is to act irresponsibly. I do not need laws to cause me to act responsibly. Further: safe storage laws will not prevent children from being killed – my children, or anyone else’s. Quote———————-

          You do realize sane people are reading your bizarre comments? I suggest you take a visit to the grave yards of children and tell that to grieving parents who’s children got shot by other children that had access to guns due to right wing nut cases like yourself that acted irresponsibly by not keeping loaded guns out of their hands. You can ignore the dead in grave yards but sane people do not.

        9. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

          Responsible parenting is not dependant upon the use of mechanical restraints.

          Relying soley on a mechanical safety device is the height of irresponsiblity.

        10. avatar jlp says:

          Quote—————–Responsible parenting is not dependant upon the use of mechanical restraints.

          Relying soley on a mechanical safety device is the height of irresponsiblity.——————quote

          And for those that have a grasp on the reality of raising children to completely ignore the advantages of mechanical safeguards is the height of lunacy. We do not live in a perfect world especially when it comes to the behavior of children. Two thousand five hundred years ago a Greek philosopher complained that “todays children exhibit no common sense, do not listen to the advice of parents and do not respect their wishes”. Now if that is not a History lesson to heed then you may suffer the consequences of not heeding it.

        11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          And for those that have a grasp on the reality of raising children to completely ignore the advantages of mechanical safeguards is the height of lunacy.

          Statists gonna state.

        12. avatar jlp says:

          I am sure 2,500 years of history in regards to children ignoring parental advice never happened because you say it did not. Get real.

        13. avatar Andrew Lewis says:

          And the rug rat either ends up dead or scarred for life because he has blood on his hands. Sounds like they are suffering to me.

        14. avatar jlp says:

          Quote—————-First: use or non-use of safety devices is not the issue; rather, the issue is responsible vs irresponsible handling and storage of firearms. Second: do you have have any statistics to cite regarding your assertions?——————–

          Statistics, are you a moron? All you have to do is turn on the TV set and see the funerals. There have been many just this year alone. But of course to you if the death count is below a certain number this is acceptable so that you will not be inconvenienced with using a trigger lock.

        15. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Statistics, are you a moron? All you have to do is turn on the TV set and see the funerals.

          Statistics? We don’t need no stinkin’ statistics. We’ve got anecdote!

          That might be the most unintentionally hilarious things you’ve written yet. Thanks for the irony. I LOLed.

          There have been many just this year alone.

          How many, exactly? The historical number (over the past decade or so) is 500 (ballpark) per year – and that’s total accidental firearms-related fatalities. Is the variation in the number this year statistically significant?

          But of course to you if the death count is below a certain number this is acceptable so that you will not be inconvenienced with using a trigger lock.

          You keep implying that my use or non-use of a trigger lock has some impact on the overall risk of accidental firearms-related fatalities. Your implication is specious and untrue. My use or non-use will have zero impact on that risk. Laws that require my use of a trigger lock will likewise have no impact on my non-contribution to that risk.

          Laws that require the use of a trigger lock will likely have zero impact on that risk for anyone, because the people who act irresponsibly will continue to do so, regardless of those laws.

        16. avatar jlp says:

          And as the body count piles up you stand there and say, nahhhh not enough to make me support a law that stops children getting killed, it will still inconvenience me.

          Quote——————–Laws that require the use of a trigger lock will likely have zero impact on that risk for anyone, because the people who act irresponsibly will continue to do so, regardless of those laws.————————–Quote————————-

          And you left out speeding tickets because it is useless to have them because everyone in America will speed because they do not care if they have to pay fines or get killed driving recklessly or get sued because they killed someone. Just let them go because they will do it again anyway so why punish any of them. And do not forget fines or jail time for cheating on your income tax as this has no deterrent on anyone because they will all do it anyway so why punish anyone right?

          The real facts are laws do indeed change the majority of peoples behavior, if it did not we would not bother to pass any laws and a child safety law is not an exception to this rule. Because you continue to argue against this over and over again I think you really need mental help. You are really way out there in the twilight zone.

        17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          And as the body count piles up…

          There is no body count piling up. Firearm ownershio is at an all-time high, and related accidental deaths, both in number and rate, are at an all-time low.

          …you stand there and say, nahhhh not enough to make me support a law that stops children getting killed, it will still inconvenience me.

          Facts not in evidence. You still have yet to prove that your safe storage laws would stop children from getting killed.

        18. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Pure typical right wing paranoia. If you live in an area that you feel you cannot access a gun fast enough you either mover or carry a gun on your person.

          Where I live – or where anyone else lives – is none of your business. We all have a right to ensure the security of our person, no matter where we live. Some people – the ones who most need firearms for their own self-defense – cannot afford to move. I appreciate you articulating your elitist prejudice toward such people, though.

          Further: home carry (something frequently advocated on this site) does not apply while one is sleeping. In case you were unaware: during the night (while most people are sleeping) happens to correlate well to many home invasion robberies.

          If you want to use a safe for your gun, go right ahead and do that. I’m curious why you think you have the right to dictate the self-defense practices of others?

          I used trigger locks and desk safes and I had no trouble accessing a handgun so fast that no living human could have ever made it in the house and through the house before I would have had time to access then gun…

          Good for you?

          …and calmly emptied an entire magazine into him…

          This sounds like typical anti-gunner gun-play fantasy. If you harbor such ideas, you might want to seek professional help.

          …so I know your paranoia is completely unfounded.

          Typical, progressive use of psychological projection.

          As stated above your paranoia is not based on reality and if you enjoy going bankrupt because of lawsuits because you failed to protect the lives of children or even adults as well as possible prison time…

          The only way that would happen is if someone actually caused injury or death with a firearm in my possession – which would remain true whether safe storage laws were in effect or not. (Why is this point so difficult for you to grasp?)

          Otherwise: how would the authorities know that I am failing to comply with safe storage laws, and hold me accountable to that failure?

          …then leave deadly weapons laying around for children to shoot themselves with or adults who may not have ever even held a handgun who could suffer the same fate.

          Right – because the only alternative to safe storage laws is to “leave deadly weapons lying around”?

          And remember you will be singing a far different tune if the children who are killed happen to be your own.

          That won’t happen, because my children know age-appropriate firearms-handling practices – because I taught them those practices, intentionally. And there are no unsecured firearms available to other children or adults who may happen to be in my home. Oddly enough, I didn’t need Nanny State laws in place in order for me to ensure safety and security in my home.

          Then the dim light bulb will go on in your head far, far to late to be of any use to you.

          More progressive, elitist arrogance and condescension. How boring.

        19. avatar jlp says:

          Quote—————Where I live – or where anyone else lives – is none of your business. We all have a right to ensure the security of our person, no matter where we live. Some people – the ones who most need firearms for their own self-defense – cannot afford to move. I appreciate you articulating your elitist prejudice toward such people, though.—————————–Quote

          If you had any reading comprehension I already outlined what a person could and should do if he cannot move or does not desire to carry a gun on his person within the home. Please pay attention to what I have been saying.

          Quote—————————–Further: home carry (something frequently advocated on this site) does not apply while one is sleeping. In case you were unaware: during the night (while most people are sleeping) happens to correlate well to many home invasion robberies.

          If you want to use a safe for your gun, go right ahead and do that. I’m curious why you think you have the right to dictate the self-defense practices of others?

          I have already outlined, if you had been paying attention that bed side safes can be accessed in less than a second which is a small inconvenience yes, but it in no way prevents instant access to a firearm. Unlike you I have used such devices so do not throw any of your bullshit at me. There was one occasion when I had a gun in my had before my feet even hit the floor and yes I had to access the desk safe, it in no way made me feel that I would have been more vulnerable than if I had not had it in use.

          And your statement what right do I have to dictate. Again your thinking is twisted. Its not my right its a civilized societies right to protect children from callous nut cases like yourself that but convenience above the lives of children.

          As stated above your paranoia is not based on reality and if you enjoy going bankrupt because of lawsuits because you failed to protect the lives of children or even adults as well as possible prison time…

          quote————The only way that would happen is if someone actually caused injury or death with a firearm in my possession – which would remain true whether safe storage laws were in effect or not. (Why is this point so difficult for you to grasp?) ————quote.

          Good Lord what does it take to penetrate that cement head of yours. Child safety laws would indeed be followed by law abiding clear thinking sane people because they would be aware of the consequences of violating the law which would prevent many of the needless deaths that are happening right now. I now paraphrase your comment “Why do you not grasp such a sane solution”. No law is perfect and yes some will not obey but not having any law is far worse because no one has to obey it and history has shown too many think they can get away with letting deadly weapons lay around the house both in terms of deaths, lawsuits and possible prison time.

          Quote——————-That won’t happen, because my children know age-appropriate firearms-handling practices – because I taught them those practices, intentionally. And there are no unsecured firearms available to other children or adults who may happen to be in my home. —————–Quote

          Well thanks for at last being honest and admitting you have been lying just to try and win the discussion. Do you even realized you just admitted you did indeed have no loaded firearms laying around for access by children or adults. Is this not what I have been advocating from the very beginning.?

          And that statement about your perfect children. Balderdash. Kids are kids and they do foolish things and no matter how much training they receive if you had any experience at all in educational programs for children you would realize how foolish your statement is. Trusting kids implicitly with loaded guns around is like playing Russian Roulette sooner or later their number comes up and they make a foolish mistake when no adults are there to supervise them. That is primary education 101. There have been more than one special on TV showing that kids who have supposedly been trained in firearms’ safety ended up killing other kids even with pellet guns which even adults who are not gun savvy failed to realize can kill, so how in the hell could you expect children to understand all types of firearms completely. They don’t they have not been around long enough to have learned everything.

        20. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Cuz it bears repeating:

          “Statists gonna state”

          Good grief, the intelligence logic failures displayed by the Statist on this page are just jaw-dropping. And jlp thinks jlp knows best and should be making the rules for the rest of us?

          Stunning. And pathetic. And disgusting.

          But, not surprising. Typical progressive nonsense and foot-stamping tantrums complete with “because I say so.”

        21. avatar jlp says:

          I would like to see some of you right wing Morons show me examples of dead Jethro’s laying there with trigger locks still on their guns as opposed to the examples of children who got shot because Morons were inconvenienced to us a simple trigger lock or bead side safe. Again don’t tell me you do not have almost instant access to the gun because I have used them for years.

        22. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          You really, really don’t understand logic at all. Sad.

          “I would like to see some of you right wing

          You have no idea if I am “right wing” or not. All you can glean from anything I have written here is that I am not “Progressive.” I’ve made that pretty clear.

          Ad hominem fail.

          Morons

          You have no idea what my IQ is.

          Logic fail.

          Your attempts to “insult” us into agreeing with you or merely to accept you are ‘right’ are illogical and laughable. Sorry, but anyone with a moment’s experience in actual logic IS LAUGHING at what you keep writing.

          show me examples of dead Jethro’s laying there with trigger locks still on their guns as opposed to the examples of children who got shot because Morons were inconvenienced to us a simple trigger lock or bead side safe.

          Jethro’s? So, a sideways jab that gun owners (or at least those that argue with you regarding Statist laws) are dumb rednecks is your method of rhetoric?

          As I said…please take a logic class sometime.

          How about the examples of children that have gotten access to guns despite things like trigger locks? Or bedside “safes” that have failed to operate (either open when needed or stay closed when needed)?

          Would that shut you up about this “trigger locks save the WORLD” crap?

          You just don’t get it. At all. The “thing” (the gun, the trigger lock) is just that…a thing.

          Mandating the use of locks/whatever is putting responsibility on the State, the lock maker and some larger nebulous “they” rather than the individual at home…the person with the gun.

          “Again don’t tell me you do not have almost instant access to the gun because I have used them for years.”

          Here’s another thing you simply are not getting. I (and I suspect others here) don’t give one wet rat fart what you have or have not done. YOU (and by extension, your loved “state”) have no basis, no business, no right to enter a man’s home or tell him what/how to conduct his business there.

          You have self-appointed yourself “knower of what is right” and in a pompous, self-righteous manner have gone on to insult anyone that disagrees with you.

          This is typical Progressive argument style, straight off the contemporary college campus. Berate. Denigrate. Insult. All while committing tautological fallacy after tautological fallacy without seeing it.

          You are flat out wrong about much of what you have said on this page regarding safety and laws and suchlike. Don’t take silence in replies to mean you “won” anything. Few are debating you because it’s like debating a 3 year old that does not understand all the dimensions and complexity of the discussion.

          You are fixated on “laws fix problems.” Many of us reject that. We use logic and history, and you won’t even provide a citation to a study you claim proves Prohibition Laws “worked.” You were asked repeatedly…and like a spoiled brat said, essentially, “nyah, nyah, nyah, I don’t have to show you…I know I’m right.”

          Tip: Consider, just for a moment “Laws are not the answer to problems like this.”

          That’s a very problem-solving and debate oriented technique…take the “other side” and let your mind run with it. Pretend you had to argue that point in a public debate. Ponder it. Mull on it. Study it.

          See where it leads.

          If, after that, you still believe laws ARE the answer, at least you can do something more than just stomp your proverbial feet and name-call and attempt to berate and insult us into submission.

  23. avatar Big Boy says:

    They are not a deterrent because the incidents all involve irresponsible adults who acted irresponsibly. They can’t honestly claim any deterrent effect because they cannot prove that any incident was prevented by the sction thry demand. If prevented, it is not an incident.

  24. avatar NoVA2A says:

    Seat belt laws and drunk driving laws are easier to enforce. Violations happen on public roads in plain sight of patrolling law enforcement officers who can cite a violator before a tragedy occurs. How does the author propose to enforce safe storage laws BEFORE his particular tragedy occurs? SWAT raids? Warrantless searches? No enforcement of violations…no deterrent effect. Or maybe he wants people to snitch on neighbors…

    1. avatar jlp says:

      That is an easy one to answer. Its a secret Left Wing Conspiracy device called a TV set or another insidious Left Wing device called a Computer. Within nano-seconds everyone in the world would see convicted Morons going to jail for long periods of time as well as paying huge fines as they were led away in handcuffs covering their faces. The bulk of the population that has children and guns in the home would be scrambling to strip stores of trigger locks, bed side safes or even full size safes. Financial survival takes over quite quickly when they realize they would lose permanently their jobs, their personal freedom and their bank accounts.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I think you misread the question.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          That’s a common affliction with those of a Statist mindset.

  25. avatar Hannibal says:

    Yeah because someone who doesn’t care if their kid dies will care if some judge somewhere might not be happy with them.

  26. avatar gs650g says:

    How about car keys? Let’s make laws to force car keys to be secured if children under 26 are in the home

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Longer for sports cars, longer yet for motorcycles.

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Laws help shape societal norms.”

    Well, at least they’re finally up front about what they’re about. This is the “national conversation” that might have, should have, could have started several years ago. What are the “norms” we want to accept, impose, encourage?

    This guy’s problem is that those gunny people just ain’t normal. If it were about violence, he’d talk the balanced statistics of lives lost and saved. If it were about violence he’d talk about the context of how many kids die, or live less than they might have, from all causes. If it were even about violence with guns, he’d talk about children killed by thugs and criminals – on Chicago girl killed in a druggie cross-fire got some press some months back, while the others, dozens, hundreds, for some reason don’t count. (What is this particular form of “White girl in a well – syndrome?” I don’t get it.)

    They kept saying “national conversation.” I do not think those words mean what those folks think they mean. “National conversation” does not mean: “Shut, up, we have explained!” “National conversation” does not mean: “Here we go nudging you into our preferred ‘norms.'”

    Here’s a simple test for someone who offers a conversation: “What do you hope to learn?” If they don’t hope to learn something, it ain’t a conversation. That word does not mean what they think it means, either.

    So, they want to “reshape” a societal norm, where there something like as many lawful guns in this country as there are people; where tens of millions of households have had a gun, peacefully, safely, legally, at one time or another; where the shooting hobby interest organization has membership in the tens of millions; and where the current shape of society is explicitly articulated in the founding covenant of the country. They want to “reshape” a societal norm, which has been codified, locally, for a few hundred years, and frankly, has been a legal, “societal” norm for centuries, arguably a millennium, before that.

    All that reshaping is a bit of an up-hill push, which seems to surprise them. Really, are their notions so weakly held, their self-regard so lacking that they’d cave on some brief shouting of an encoded “Shut up, we explain!”

    So, they’re gonna do what they can to “re-shape societal norms” to get what they want, that you don’t. For the children. These children, not those children. Feeling programmed, yet?

    For some reason, I’m recalling the phrase “Manufacturing Consent.”

    1. avatar jlp says:

      Quote ———————So, they want to “reshape” a societal norm, where there something like as many lawful guns in this country as there are people; where tens of millions of households have had a gun, peacefully, safely, legally, at one time or another; where the shooting hobby interest organization has membership in the tens of millions; and where the current shape of society is explicitly articulated in the founding covenant of the country. They want to “reshape” a societal norm, which has been codified, locally, for a few hundred years, and frankly, has been a legal, “societal” norm for centuries, arguably a millennium, before that. —————————Quote

      Yes and if we went with your warped ideas we would never have allowed child safety seats in automobiles or safety glass in automobiles or back up safety switches on lawn mowers to prevent adults from backing over their own children or safety caps on drug bottles because it must might inconvenience you or trigger locks on guns because it might take you less than a second to remove them thereby again inconveniencing you.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        “Yes and if we went with your warped ideas we would never have allowed child safety seats in automobiles or safety glass in automobiles or back up safety switches on lawn mowers to prevent adults from backing over their own children or safety caps on drug bottles because it must might inconvenience you or trigger locks on guns because it might take you less than a second to remove them thereby again inconveniencing you.”

        PLEASE take a Logic class somewhere. PLEASE.

        You really have no idea how ridiculously asinine you sound?

        Before you start demanding what laws we should have so the rest of us comport to whatever false notions of Utopia, you’d do well do put some effort into improving yourself.

        1. avatar jlp says:

          The laws exist and they were passed for good reason. You can pretend they do not exist and deny they are different from a child safety law but I cannot force you to leave your twilight zone since you believe that we should have no laws because it might inconvenience you in some way. Your paranoia about not being able to have access to a gun is not only proven false but where are all the thousands of dead Jethro’s laying there with guns in there hands with the trigger locks still in place. There are plenty of dead children but even these facts are denied by nut cases like yourself.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          ” I cannot force you to leave your twilight zone since you believe that we should have no laws because it might inconvenience you in some way.”

          Um. Wow.

          [CITATION NEEDED] regarding where I have EVER said anything even remotely like any of that.

          Strawman Much?

          Oh, yes, yes, you do. All over the place in nearly every comment.

  28. avatar Roymond says:

    He has a certain point: leaving one’s guns about where children (or idiots) can get their hands on them is NOT a sign of a well-regulated militia person.

  29. avatar Don says:

    There is a need for education, not regulation. More attention to all forms of child endangerment with a focus on prevention is what’s needed, not ever more laws, that just plays to the prosecutors in this country that want to be able to find a way to charge anybody at any time. Plenty of child endangerment laws already on the books.

    I am reminded of the current trend of making everything a “Hate crime” or “Gun crime” or the latest “Terrorism” if you happen to accidently burn a few acres of barren range land. We’re trying to make crimes more criminal? I don’t think anyone ever did violence to another because they liked them? So where’s the hate and why is it more of a crime if I assault someone of another race or religion, or sex(ual) preference, instead of a white judeo-christian straight male?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email