Felons apparently don't want to purchase "trigger locks" but make sure they have that protection, in this case, to apparently "guard" her MJ stash.

Maybe 50 years in the slammer might sway her mind a bit.

I am glad they are going after the mom. It is about time the law started holding the parents responsible when little kids get their hands on the parent's gun. I also hope they investigate what was going on at the uncle's house that made this kid ant to run away and to feel that he needed a gun for protection. This leads me to believe that the kid may have been abused at the uncle's house. Kids do no run away and feel they need a gun for protection because they were simply punished or grounded. This makes me think something far worse was going on and that this kid was being abused either physically or sexually at the uncle's house. It seems likely that the mom lost custody of the kid because of the drug charges and was placed in the care of the uncle instead of in the foster care system. Unfortunately, this seems to have taken the kid from a bad situation and put him in one that was far worse. I hope that this kid gets the help he needs and is placed in a safe home to live in. It is pretty clear that this will not be with the mom since she is facing prison time. I certainly hope he is not returned to the uncle since something was obviously very wrong there for the kid to want to run away.

If the NRA had their way they would ban trigger locks.

I would just be happy if parents took responsibility for their children, PERIOD.

If the NRA had their way they would ban trigger locks.

You are so full of it; and I don't support the NRA, I support the second amendment foundation. I don't like the NRA because they are fear mongers just like the majority of the United States government, just like you are doing with that absurd statement.

I would just be happy if parents took responsibility for their children, PERIOD.

@ StephAce I totally, 100% agree with you!

JS in SD, certainly it is possible, and should be looked into, but just because a kid wants to run away, that doesn't mean it is as a result of abuse. To assume so is jumping to conclusions. I "ran away" on more than one occasion as a kid, and it had nothing to do with being abused. Usually it was because my mom or dad pi$$ed me off, and I had a tendency toward drama. Could just as easily be the case with this kid. Maybe shouldn't tar the uncle without a few facts in hand.

Sandy, Missouri

If the NRA had their way they would ban trigger locks.

You have a point here. I have heard several statements from spokespersons for the NRA that do come close to your statement.

Guns have but one purpose and no other... that purpose is to kill.

Killing in itself is not an evil, some times in some situations it becomes necessary. But the problem arises with the NRA in their current philosophy that everyone must have a gun. Certain individuals should never be allowed ownership or even access to weapons. All others need to prove competence in handling and maintaining a weapon before being allowed to walk among us with a weapon. This is how we did it in the Marines and I believe the other armed services do it the same way. I also assume that all of our law enforcement agencies follow similar guides. We do this for cars, yet cars have other purposes than to kill.

I believe this is what any of the frames of our Constitution meant and fortunately for the NRA, none of our forefathers are here to correct them reguarding the second amendment.

JS in SD

I certainly hope he is not returned to the uncle since something was obviously very wrong there for the kid to want to run away.

I thought you had followed this story in a previous thread? The child had been in the custody of his grandmother who passed about a year ago and the uncle stepped up. The boy apparently was not happy because he missed his grandmother.

Patrick Cochran said the boy's grandmother adopted him, but she died a year ago and he became the child's legal guardian. He said he lives with the boy's father, and the boy's two sisters.

It is a strange situation to say the least but it is what it is.

The boy, 9, had told his friends he planned to run away from his uncle’s house, where he lives, and that he planned to bring a gun with him for protection.

I wonder if he feels safe at his home.

Police believe the boy took the gun from the glove compartment of his mother’s car and then packed it in his backpack on Feb. 22. One minute before the bell rang that day, he dropped the backpack on his desk, and it discharged, shooting 8-year-old Amina Kocer-Bowman, who remains at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

Obviously transporting a gun without proper safety concerns. What ever happened to three steps to firing when transporting a gun.

There is something really wrong when people feel the necessity to see the World via the barrel of a weapon. Paranoia.

This kid watches way too much TV and violent shows. Even if there is violence in his home, assuming it is without guns since everyone involved is still unshot and alive, he would not associate guns with protection.

Plenty of kids run away or talk about running away. I sure did and it wasn't because I was abused. People who believe otherwise do not understand children very well. I knew a couple of kids who these days would be considered abused and they were afraid to run away from home for fear of being caught and getting a whipping so no, him wanting to run away was definitely no indicator of abuse and running your mouth about something so horrible with no proof is one of the main reasons I hope I am never arrested for something I didn't do since most juries these days use rumor and speculation as proof for conviction.

I wouldn't blame the uncle. Any kid would not be 100% comfortable living with someone OTHER than their parents. It doesn't mean the uncle did anything wrong. I'm sure that by the time the boy got to the uncle he had major issues, and was probably sick to death of being moved around. I also read someone (not sure how true) that the uncle had to take his brother (the boy's father) in also. Maybe that's the reason he wanted to run away. You never know. But I think the blame starts & stops with his parents...

This is one of the most heart wrenching events I have ever read. Two innocent children are likely to be destroyed because of the goddamn sorriness of the adults responsible for their nurturing. I am beside myself over the condition of the little girl. I fervently hope she will survive and be able to grow up with her family. Additionally, for the sake of all that is good and right, someone, please, go to the aid of that little boy. He is not to blame for any of this. He desperately needs love, support and stability. Toward that, I am willing to help in any way, those charged with his welfare might ask. Same with the little girl. Mac Forrester

Guns have but one purpose and no other... that purpose is to kill.

ALPHA-OMEGA, are you serious? You mean I am using the the guns I have for the wrong purpose? I use them only for target shooting, nothing else. I will never use them for anything else because I keep them unloaded and locked up. they are not weapons, they are sporting equipment. Making a blanket statement like you did shows that you are either very careless or very ignorant. By the way, I do not support the NRA and I am a pacifist, but I like target shooting. I also think the 2nd amendment does not give anyone the right to own a gun, because they are not mentioned specifically. It refers to arms, not firearms.

Ron,

I think Alpha is serious, and I agree with him. Guns are tools, to be used as the user wishes. It is, however, a tool originally designed to be used to kill. The user may use them for some other purpose, as you do, but that doesn't change their designed purpose. Much the same way a common claw-hammer is designed as a wood-working tool, to drive and remove nails, I have also used them to open walnuts, some people have used them to bash a skull in.

Please note that I said "originally". There are guns that have been built specifically for purposes that might make them impractical for killing, such as for target shooting, but they are still capable of doing so.

And, no. You haven't used yours for a wrong purpose..., you've used it as you wanted to, I.E., to practice a sport you enjoy. And you also use and store it responsably! More power to you, I enjoy target shooting too.

From his statements, I gather that Alpha is neither careless or ignorant, but a retired Marine, well-trained in weapons and their safe use.

BTW, the use of the word 'Arms' in the 2nd amendment refers to weapons. Encompassing guns, rifles, and pistols. It doesn't mean limbs attached to shoulders.

Tools can be utilized for their intended purpose and humans will always invent new uses for them. Weapons are just that built to kill. The same shells utilized to flatten cities and sink U-boats sat in our ranch house as ash trays. Funny thing though, without the input of humans the shells and weapons just sit there. Humans are the killers not the weapons.

Don't have time to teach your children proper procedures than don't keep weapons around. We have rights and being able to own a weapon is one of them. With rights come responsibilities and free choice as to have one or not. The rest is common sense.

The same shells utilized to flatten cities and sink U-boats sat in our ranch house as ash trays.

Hopefully they had the cordite removed!!!

a) it is elementary school. b) budget cuts

Those aren't good enough reasons. Screw the sports and the art and music classes, bring in the metal detectors!

How about stupid-parent detectors instead?

Metal detectors cost money, you need one at bus entrance and the office entrance, and you need people to monitor them. Imagine TSA at school. And that's less money for books and paper.

The mom should have never had the gun. Toss her in jail. And find out what's going on at the uncle's, that the kid was trying to run away from. Was he being punished with no video games for a week, did he had to eat his vegetables, or something far worse?

Oh-they're still using books and paper? I thought they all had laptops in school these days! You can make everyone use one entrance. Great, toss the mom in jail and check on uncle. I agree but that's a typical American REACTIVE solution. Try being PROACTIVE and spend the money on metal detectors! The teacher's can take turns monitoring the machines. Oh wait, the unions would have a field day with that! God forbid if they had to do something extra without additional pay or benefits!

ThinkTank: You dont seem to take your pseudonym too serious.. the reasons MKB gave are probably the main ones..

I call 'troll.'

Sorry glitter, are you a teacher?

Are you?

Living in the area, only 2 schools have metal detectors that I know of and they're high schools this isn't exactly New York and the one school with a problem doesn't allow students to carry back packs for good reason but for the most part your not going to see a lot of gun related violence in the schools unless its the high school and in my time in the public schools in Bremerton we only had one gun related incident and it was stored in a locker and security got to it during first period no drugs are the major problem in the schools here

When I was in school it was common for the students and teachers to have a firearm in their vehicle at school especially during hunting season. There were four high schools in my town and there was not one school shooting while I was in school. In fact there was not any kind of gun related incident. Of course that was a different time. Most households had at least one firearm and the kids were taught respect for the friearm and to shoot at an early age. They were also taught respect for adults and not only expected to behave in school but were punished if they didn't both at school and again at home.

duh.... and start school 30 t0 90 minutes early and put how many extra people at those lines to open backpacks and use extra hand held sweep detectors?

Three hundred to five thousand students and open campus's, my what a logistical nightmare.

oh yes and one detector will need manning during the whole school day with at least one person at the door..... but the D.C. lesson learned was that this is not much good when you shoot that person. We are looking for guns and someone who might use them are we not?.

Maybe we can do as the gun lobby says and let all them students come armed. Do these comments make anyone feel more secure?

Think... think...think... nobody seems to do this anymore anymore anymore and anymore.

Yeah lets turn schools into ariports. Lets make the jobs of teachers not only to teach but to scan students with wands. Thats what we should do. I went to my junior highschool with metal dectectors and it was a pain. I had to take off my belt everytime and even loose change would go off on those things. You had to come super early into class. I felt even less safe with those metal dectectors around because it gave me the vibe that my school was a bad school and it was. Elementary schools should not have metal detector. This is a time to learn to enjoy going to school and not feel like a criminal.

And schools don't have metal detectors why?

Because school incidents that invlolve firearms are less common that the media would lead you to believe. I would never let any child of mine go to a school that has felt the need to treat their students like possible criminals. It is different than driving a car or flying on a plane -- in our country, going to school is becoming a RIGHT instead of a PRIVILEGE -- its demonstrated by the fact that as a parent you face criminal charges if your child does not go to some sort of schooling or getting some sort of education; whether it be home schooling or some other institutional learning facility.

because you are more likely to win the lottery or be struck by lightning than be shot in school... and because we choose to live free and not in a prison/police state

in our country, going to school is becoming a RIGHT instead of a PRIVILEGE

Since the early part of the last century it has been a right. There is a movement funded by (?) that seems to want it turned back into a privilege. Pocket the money rather than educated all of our children. A couple years back, I was conversing with a guy in North Carolina that was looking for a county in the USA that had no children so that he could avoid school taxes. I told him to check out 'Hades' county in Death Valley California.

Doh!

and because we choose to live free and not in a prison/police state

Huh?

Define "police state" please.

Would that be a country in which you can experience the cops or other officials kicking in your door in the middle of the night, searching your house and person without a warrant, arresting you and holding you incognito forever without charging you or allowing you access to an attorney?

Would it be a country where government officials can limit your freedom of movement without a court order, without your ever having been arrested or even charged with anything?

Too late. You're already living in one. Wake up and smell the coffee.

ThinkTank, when I attended high school we didn't have metal detectors, and we never had any shootings either. How do you explain that?

carolanne1

STUPID STATEMENT ALERT! CAROLANNE IS TROLLING!

I hope you're just trying to troll, because if you live in the USA you don't live in such a country. Even when there is a miscarriage of justice here, the victim has recourse through the law. Why do you and your ilk insist on making such blatantly stupid and divisive statements such as this?

Rider, I hate to be the one to tell you... you're wrong.

But that's okay. I suspect you'll know soon enough. I assume that you're young because you call people names when you don't agree with them, and you mistake your opinion for fact. But possibly not. I've noticed a lot of 40 year olds going on 12 on Newsvine.

According to the Constitution of the United States you could say we do live in a police state. The Executive branch is in charge of the Enforcement of the laws enacted by the legislative branch. So that means the office of the President is the #1 cop! (oh my gosh are we in trouble)

Only the District of Columbia had laws like this, disassembled firearms or trigger locks on firearms in their own home, and these laws have been deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court.

This doesn't excuse a parent or adult of negligence when they let their child obtain a firearm, children and firearms require adult supervision. It is up to you, as a parent, to determine whether or not you give your child important information about firearms.

Most guardians do not inform their child about the ramifications of firearms, responsibility is key -- firearms are capable of killing when a human being pulls the trigger. If you have firearms in your home it is the guardians responsibility to teach your child these things, if your child is not capable of being responsible lock up the firearm or don't keep one in your home -- its your choice.

Don't need a background check at a yard sale. My next door neighbors had the American flag out and a number of guns for sale the month after 9/11. All you had to do was hand over the money and you had a gun.

*will repost

Don't need money. The most common reason for a break-ins after "to get money" is "to get guns".

How did that guy Timothy McVeigh make a living anyway, was he not a good gun toting law abiding citizen who sold the guns he pilfered? And he did not like government buildings.

charging the parents, it sounds like they are the irresponsible ones

Parent (not "s") and it sounds like even the one does not qualify for that title. The kid has troubles all around and now he will have to live the rest of his life knowing what he did to that girl.

S**t happens but we now live in a society that glorifies violence and hateful thought more than ever before. Whatever happened to the fifties and sixties when the only thing to fear in school was an occasional brass knuckle(s) or switch blade and a metal detector was a scientific instrument?

Maybe the uncle was trying to establish some right and wrong rules, and the boy wanted to go follow in his mom's footsteps instead.

Elk, he's NINE. He was running away and thought the gun would protect him. Home life sounds just peachy, can't imagine what he was running away from...

The adults involved should be charged with the crime. The boy should be given counseling and a new home!

Damn straight. Remember when you were nine? Can't vote, can't do time.

I agree, it sounds like this boy has a really horrible home life. I sincerely hope he isn't charged, I haven't read that he would be.

What is going on with a 9 year old that he thinks he needs a gun for protection? Kids with a decent home life don't think like that. Like Wants to Know said, he should be given a new home. Definitely counseling, both to deal with what's gone on in his life up til now, and to deal with having shot a little girl. I think there's still enough time for him to have a good life if his situation improves and he has parents that act like parents.

This poor little girl, I can't believe she survived injuries like that. I pray she fully recovers.

I hope they thoroughly investigate this entire thing. His mom, her boyfriend, and the uncle this child has been living with. I hope they are all charged with any crimes they've committed.

Good grief, I missed the last line of the article! This poor kid IS being charged. How horrible. I hope they rethink this, it doesn't seem fair. He didn't even fire the gun, it discharged accidently. There was no intent.

Folks, he's 8 YEARS OLD! Death, even serious injury are very hard to understand at that age. There was apparently no malice, just a little boy who made a horrible mistake he never should have been able to make. To simply say he hasn't been raised well...he's not DONE being raised. 3rd grade...were any of us as mature as we are now by 3rd grade?

I understand the frustration and anger. But let's try to focus it where it belongs-->the "parent" who had the weapon illegally and didn't keep it away from him.

glitter1017

Elk, he's NINE. He was running away and thought the gun would protect him. Home life sounds just peachy, can't imagine what he was running away from...

Patrick Cochran said the boy's grandmother adopted him, but she died a year ago and he became the child's legal guardian. He said he lives with the boy's father, and the boy's two sisters.

@ the rest in this sub thread

Yep he is 9 or 8 but sounds like he has a LOT of life experience. He understands DEATH and wanted the gun to protect him from harm. Looks like probation which will disappear if he behaves at 18/21. One of the charges will be possessing a firearm on school grounds so it is fair katherine. Oh and why charge the uncle?????

The kid was living with his grandmother after the parents lost custody but she died and he was sent to live with the uncle. That is a lot of changes for a little kid. And uncle is probably stricter than the parents and grandma ever was.

I couldn't agree more. This nine year old boy has not had much in the way of parental love and guidance, or he wouldn't be looking to run away and take a handgun for protection. I feel deeply sorry for the children in America and the world, because many don't receive the love, food, and care that they so rightly deserve. This boy has a mother who is a drug dealing felon, can't take care of her own offspring, and yet she can afford an expensive H&K .45 calibur weapon. Besides parental neglect, he will now be psychologically scarred for life, and his eight year old classmate Amica will be physically and psychologically scarred for the rest of her life. Some people who give birth are not fit to be called parents, but all parents who choose to have children should be held accountable for their upbringing and their actions. Governmental agencies and social programs can't dictate parental qualifications, they can only deal with the misfits. Giving birth today has become a method for many to increase their government compensation for doing nothing and contributing nothing. Parents should teach by example, and this young child has had very poor teachings on which to base his decisions.

Sandy,

The mom was a felon, which means she couldn't legally own a gun, so she didn't go out and spend $800-$1200 on a legal H&K. She probably took it in trade for services rendered, or got it in an alley somewhere for $50 & a dime bag. Or it was her 'boyfriends' gun.

The 1911 also has a grip safety that would prevent this but there is no such thing as a safety with a chambered round. I had a rifle with a safety "on" that discharged when the butt struck the deck straight down from only 18 inches. That round miss my head by less than a foot. If there is no need to chamber a round do not do so and remove the live round from the chamber at the point you no longer need it.

Alright, a 1911 does not have a "butt" are you talking about the magazine well?

There is a Slide Safety on a 1911 that could fail, I concede this; however there is also a grip safety that disconnects the sear from the trigger if it is not depressed -- you have to be holding onto the firearm grip (grip safety) for it to fire.

There is no way you can tell how far a round missed you, its totally impossible unless you can see "as fast as a speeding bullet," or around 1000fps for a .45 (1911.)

I call a big smelly BS on this one.

One thing I have always understood: All firearms should be treated as if they were loaded.

Nate you do have a lot to learn about life and not be so much into yourself that you cannot see that before your eyes.

Did you know that my rifle does have a butt and a trajectory is very easy to calculate if you know anything about anything and at a couple of foot going straight up you have no problem with ballistics drop and if you have any powder stipling you do not need inches or feet you just know that you are very close. (there is also a grip safety that disconnects the sear from the trigger if it is not depressed) you got this one right and if you treat handling a weapon like you converse maybe you need to think about putting it up before some near you is injured.

Nate From Portland

I call a big smelly BS on this one.

One thing I have always understood: All firearms should be treated as if they were loaded.

I agree with the second sentence. I suggest you reread what was posted. There were two sentences.

I had a rifle with a safety "on" that discharged when the butt struck the deck straight.....

Seeing where the barrel of the rifle was would give a clue as to where the bullet traveled as well as a gas trail.

Nate you just do not seem to get it do you? I a rifle goes off within two feet of your head and that round travels in any direction I think that anyone here but you will call it close. That is why you seriously need consider putting up your weapons before you hurt yourself or those around you.

(One thing I have always understood: All firearms should be treated as if they were loaded.)

It is not treating as if loaded that is important, it is how you perform that function of treating as if loaded that is the important part. And yes there is a difference but I will let you figure that one out for yourself.

And this is something you will also not believe but is also a fact. About fifty years ago when I still had my eyesight and quick brain functions I could follow low velocity rounds I fired against a snow backdrop. It was like seeing a diminishing period go out a hundred yards and hit the snow and ricochet up till it hit the snow again. I amazed me hunt-en buddies by walking out a couple hundred yards and returning with the business end of the bullet. But now days if I can make out a target at a couple hundred yards I am happy.

Enough is enough and this has nothing to do with a weapon being where a weapon should not be and the resulting consequences. Bed time acometh. Semper Fi and keep your powder dry.

The Big Alpha/Omega

Twice Retired and Never Fired

The gun has been identified NOT as a 1911A1 or clone, but a H&K .45, but not what specific model, so I'm not sure as to what exact safety(s) and safety features it may have had. Also a factor is how well the gun was maintained, which I suspect was not very well considering the people that had it, and that it was illegaly obtained (no known maintenence history).

But whatever safetys or such it has..., they are never to be trusted! Any gun is always to be treated as loaded, cocked, and ready to fire. Never bang, bump, or otherwise carelessly mishandle them.

I too (also in my younger military years), have seen the bullet traveling. Firing a 1911A1 with govt. ammo, the velocity is 870 fps, and against a white-painted target, it is common for the shooter to actually see the bullet sometimes. I have also had that very same thing happen with a rifle, an M-14, in my case ( that feursurrlluggin', over-engineered safety broke).

I call a big smelly BS on this one.

Nate, if your holding the rifle when it goes off, two things you're instantly aware of..., 1, where your head is..., and where the rifle was pointed when it went "Bang". And since bullets don't often make radical changes in direction after leaving the barrel, it's not hard to imagine how close it traveled past you.

Do not worry, the gun lobby is working on this right now, its getting harder and harder to push guns to women so now they are targeting the younger generation to sell their wares too.

The NRA is a bunch of fear mongers; I support the SAF -- (the) Second Amendment Foundation.

Not a member of NRA, however they promote youth gun safety/education. They do not promote youth gun possession without adult supervision.

@alpha

its getting harder and harder to push guns to women so now.

Actually women were the fastest growing segment of handgun sales. "the number of women buying guns for personal defense increased 83 percent."

Guns have but one purpose and no other... that purpose is to kill.

Killing in itself is not an evil, some times in some situations it becomes necessary. But the problem arises with the NRA in their current philosophy that everyone must have a gun. Certain individuals should never be allowed ownership or even access to weapons. All others need to prove competence in handling and maintaining a weapon before being allowed to walk among us with a weapon. This is how we did it in the Marines and I believe the other armed services do it the same way. I also assume that all of our law enforcement agencies follow similar guides. We do this for cars, yet cars have other purposes than to kill.

I believe this is what any of the frames of our Constitution meant and fortunately for the NRA or SAF, none of our forefathers are here to correct them regarding the second amendment.

What is so hard about safely storing a weapon? Trigger locks, gun safes? Hell, throw the dam thing in an old tool box and slap a master lock on it if you have to. Its not hard to do people. If you can afford the gun and ammo then you can afford safe storage options to. No more excuses, especially with children in the house.

I do have to agree; when you have children in the house you should not allow you children to have unsupervised access to firearms. Even though my father locked up his firearms, I would break into my dads safe and credenza all the time, he had firearms but I was taught better than to use a firearm against a human being, as a child I UNDERSTOOD the responsibility.

Parents don't care to teach their child that responsibility anymore, the subject of "guns" are becoming Taboo.

A good safe that, as a child, I wouldn't have been able to break into costs in the range of $1,000, firearms cost much less than this usually.... we could go the route of the government subsidizing safes, but then that would just hurt our national debt and everyone would call foul .

john-3403713

What is so hard about safely storing a weapon? Trigger locks, gun safes? Hell, throw the dam thing in an old tool box and slap a master lock on it if you have to.

They give away safety locks. Some guns come with one in the case, mine did. The problem is that a lot of the guns kids get their hands on are not legal in the first place or the responsible person (owner) is irresponsible.

As nate from portland states: We no longer teach responsibility. Too many want to sue and we have created a nanny state. It used to be parents taught kids to be aware of consequences now we cater to their every immature whim for fear of "them" coming to take us to jail and place our children in foster care.

@ timlmillinois I agree with you 100%

Last year I was the victim of an armed robbery in broad daylight in a grocery store parking lot. A gun would have been completely useless to me because the robber approached me from behind. By the time I knew he was there, he had a gun on me at point blank range. All I could do was give him my puse and hope he did not shot me for the heck of it.

We are OVERRUN with guns in this Country. Any idiot can get a gun anytime, thanks to your NRA. And don't give me that crap about the second Amendment. The state has always had the right to impose reasonable restrictions on all our civil liberties (i.e., you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause does not mean you have to give drivers licenses to blind people, etc.).

The NRA has managed to convince (with lots of money) our lawmakers and the public that the second amendment is a super amendment completely immune from any reasonable state infringement. The NRA serves the gun manufacturers and the allmighty dollar, not you, the individual gun owner. In fact, their overreaching puts people, like you and me, at risk from too many criminals with guns.

Lorifromky

We are OVERRUN with guns in this Country.

Please define overrun. It's a sensational word with no basis in fact. Australia at one time was overrun with rabbits, now I hear they have some form of toad problem. There are roughly 90 guns per 100 people in the USA. Roughly 1 in 4 people actually own one or more guns. According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2008 there are 255,917,664 registered passenger vehicles or roughly 82 per 100 people.

And don't give me that crap about the second Amendment. The state has always had the right to impose reasonable restrictions on all our civil liberties (i.e., you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause does not mean you have to give drivers licenses to blind people, etc.).

Reasonable restrictions on Rights I can give you. What is your point about the Second Amendment and restrictions? BE REASONABLE

Arguing driving license vs gun ownership is apples and oranges. Gun ownership is a RIGHT. Driving is a privilege. Now here is a funny one for you. Being BLIND does not disqualify anyone from owning a gun. It is not a restriction though one would think it is common sense? PLEASE don't confuse Rights with privilege they are VERY different.

, their(NRA) overreaching puts people, like you and me, at risk from too many criminals with guns.

Show us where the NRA says criminals should have guns. Please link to a cite. Mind you I don't care for the NRA for my own reasons but don't spew unsubstantiated rhetoric from the pro control side and I will do my best to not spew rhetoric from the pro gun (NRA) side.

I define "overrun" to mean a situation in which most criminals have easy access to guns. Case in point being the convicted felon in this news story who had the gun this little boy took to school.

The "right" I was talking about with the drivers license analogy is not a right to drive, but the Constitutional right to equal protection under the law (guaranteed by the 14th Amendment). Fundamentally, the right to equal protection is the right to be treated the same as everyone else under the law, any law. Drivers licenses are granted pursuant to the law, friend. Hence, the fact blind people cannot obtain a drivers license is an excellent example of a state-imposed restriction against the 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

Anyway, the NRA routinely opposes reasonable measures (such as waiting periods and background checks) that restrict access to guns and they routinely lobby for exemptions to these protections for gun shows, etc. The NRA is all about promoting gun sales.

I am not anti-gun. I am not anti-Second Amendment. I just don't think it is any more important than the other Constitutional Amendments. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions on gun access to prevent losers like the criminal in this news story and the thug who robbed me, from having guns. That's all.

Lori

No LAW will ever 100% prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Yes we can do our best to prevent it from happening but just like DUI we will never ever be 100% effective, unless we ban all driving and turn it over to the computers.

So the NRA is a lobby/PAC. I keep asking those who say they want reasonable laws to propose some and I have yet to get much that is REASONABLE. I am not sure just what a waiting period gets us. 20 odd years ago when I purchased my first gun I had to wait 15 days by law. When I picked up the paperwork saying I could now go have my gun I was told I could have picked it up an hour after I applied, being in the military helped. In this day and age 15 days serves no real purpose. Even a 72 hour "cooling off" period serves no purpose other than buyers remorse. Would you agree that ONCE someone has waited for their first gun that all future gun purchases should be on the spot? Show us some reasonable ideas here, PLEASE. Otherwise it is all talk.

As to the loser here. Where and when did they get the gun would be a starting place. Something I have seen in many instances is that someone gets convicted on a felony or domestic violence and Law Enforcement never checks if they possess a gun. It is possible to get gun restrictions it is just necessary to enforce the laws that already exist before we start writing new ones to ignore.

was charged on Thursday with assault and unlawful possession of a firearm.

Really can't argue with either one. He could be charged under the federal "Safe schools act" if someone wanted to make it a federal case.

I really do understand your frustration and anger; and I often share it. But, as a parent who is pretty involved in the schools my children attend (one in elementary, one in middle school, one in high school, and one in college) most of the parents, teachers and administrators I meet genuinely care about the kids, the schools and the communities they are in.

It's easy when we read of such tragedy caused by negligence to become convinced this is "normal". It's not. We do need to work harder to make sure someone doesn't pay this high a price for a horrible mistake. The "parent" needs to be held accountable. But please, don't convince yourself this is what goes on even a large % of the time.

Yes--there is such a thing as an "accident." People don't intend to run their cars into someone else's car, for the most part, but when it happens there is often someone who is to blame. In most cases, it was negligence. Simply because something is an accident does not mean that no one has to take the blame if there was, in fact, negligence.

The little boy was in school, and schools prohibit weapons on the premises. He has to be punished--mostly to get it on his record so that if he repeats the action, the punishment will be more severe. Also, this will allow someone to monitor the situation at his home to make sure he is not, himself, being abused. Probation sounds like a good alternative--he will not be allowed to simply forget the event and repeat it, but will have to think about it for a while. This will disappear from his public record when he is 18.

The people who let him get at the gun deserve greater punishment--and I am glad that they are getting the blame, as they deserve it. The mother does not have to spend any substantial amount of money if she accepts a plea bargain, just as the child did. Only if one tries to fight to clear one's name does it cost a lot--this woman cannot clear her name, as she is at fault.

I would fully expect to be held financially liable if my child did something like this--and I would expect, had I been negligent, to face some sort of criminal charge. I would plea bargain, and it would probably be reduced to a fine. No, I am not perfect--but I expect other imperfect people to be more responsible and to accept the ramifications when they are not.

Well I guess that I would have to respectfully disagree, all we as a society do nowadays is assign blame, it is why we are the most litagous society in the world. If you can tell me that a child from a broken home who is nine years old needs to have a criminal record than I feel sorry for you. Does he need to be punished? I believe so, but punished and criminal record are two different things entirely, also if I"Have an accident" in my car absolutly I am finacially responsible and I believe the mother should be as well as I would think that we need to be responsible for our mistakes but a accident is NOT a criminal act nor is having a gun in a glove box and not checking on it every 5 minutes to make sure our children do not take it. What would stop a young child from taking a dangerous household chemical that they have not been taught as such and taking it to school dropping it and causing their classmates chemical burns? Do we as a society criminally charge the parents then? No we just expect them to pay the medical bills.

"Most likely" means you don't know, doesn't it? Do your homework before you come to class, kids.

One has to say "most likely" because this is not something that can be proven or studied or tested. Those who have figures (whether they are pro gun-control or against it) have too much of an ax to grind, and one cannot trust the data.

How could a person even get data on "accidental injuries due to a gun"? That data probably isn't gathered even in hospitals, and not everyone is going to go to a hospital. One also cannot measure "self-protection" because the point is that a person points a gun at another, and hopefully the other runs away. This information, also, is not gathered. Self-reporting is useless, as people who like guns aren't going to give accurate data.

So, yeah, "most likely" is about the best one can do with this particular figure, denver bill. Have a great day.

Actually yes that data is collected by ERs accross the country and if you had did your research you would know that. Hope you have a great day as well!

@bean

So, yeah, "most likely" is about the best one can do with this particular figure, denver bill. Have a great day.

"most likely" = unfounded BIASED speculation.

We will let YOU check out the CDC data

And I'm sure based on your post that you are qualified to judge who is both mentally and morally incompetent. I choose to live by by the quote " do not judge lest you be judged by our father in heaven".

wait a minute! Did you just judge me??? i guess you don't choose to live a long time. And it's "Judge not, lest ye be judged" nothing about a magic daddy in the sky.

This wasn't a toddler--a child of 8-9 could easily get at a gun on a 7-foot shelf the same way that I could (he's about my height). A gun safe is good for weapons one is storing. A trigger lock is best for one that is around children. We have safety caps on bottles for the same reason.

The whole point in having a pistol is not for hunting but for personal protection, in which case a gun safe or trigger locks are inconsequential. Also if you read the story and my original point was that this child was very seldom in the house so while the mother and boyfriend did make a mistake, to me at least, it was understandable and NOT a criminal act.

Dutch

to me at least, it was understandable and NOT a criminal act.

What part of felon in possession did you not understand?

The course obviously does not work based on the number of accidental injuries and deaths due to guns. The NRA is a relevant to current society as Rush Limbaugh. In fact, he needs a sponsor--perfect fit!

While inflammatory, Jim is obviously correct in saying that the only way to lower child deaths and injuries due to firearms is to educate them about firearm safety, therefore by saying that a organization that educates children and adults about firearm safety is comparable to Rush and irrelevant is in my opinion wrong.

Some schools do have metal detectors. Jim is wrong and his history and spelling are in question as well.

The ACLU can say whatever it likes--but the fact remains that there are metal detectors in a lot of schools. Even the ACLU admits that they are legal in states that permit them, though all students must pass through them as certain populations cannot be selected for screening over others. Please do not make things up.

In any case, metal detectors have limited usefulness--one boy shot the guard at the metal detector and then walked straight in and shot several more in the school. It would have helped in the case with this third-grader, but they are not an absolute help.