Clickondetroit.com reports this:
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said Thursday she charged a 10-year-old boy with bringing an unloaded handgun to his Detroit school.
The boy has been charged with carrying a concealed weapon, possessing a weapon in school and minor in possession of a firearm in public.
I'm sure gun folks are in favor of putting all the focus on the 10-yar-old and none on the grandfather, whose gun it was. This is how they continue to shirk their responsibility.
The Houston Chronicle reports this:
A New Caney Independent School District student was taken into custody after authorities said he brought a pistol to school, officials said today.
The student, 13, is a seventh-grader at White Oak Middle School, 24161 Briar Berry Lane in Porter.
The student has been charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm and having a gun at a prohibited location — both third-degree felonies. Also, the student will face a mandatory one-year expulsion, officials said.
A meeting for parents has been scheduled at the school's cafeteria at 7 tonight to discuss the incident, officials said.
They're going to talk to the parents. I should hope so.
What's your opinion? Don't you think the laws and the attitudes are too soft on the parents of these kids? The one boy is 10-years-old, for crying out loud. Why do gun owners continue to defend these appalling examples of improper gun security in the home? Is the dilemma faced by gun owners about how to keep the gun safely away from children yet sufficiently accessible for an emergency too much for them to cope with? Do they tend to fault on the side of accessibility at the cost of safety and security?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Do you accept responsibility for the the actions of non gun owners?
ReplyDeleteDoes the school accept responsibility for the "gun free zone" failing? Couldn't they also do more? Or are gun free zones just a way to shirk the responsibilty of providing a safe environment, seeing that criminals ignore them anyway?
ReplyDeleteDo you think we need the "Gun free zone liability act" to encourage actual enforcement?
We can't make guns disappear, and we wouldn't if we could, so what do we do?
If they live in my home and are under my authority, why, yes, yes I do accept responsibility to whatever extent the law requires it.
ReplyDeleteYour question is, of course, nonsensical and a false equivalency. The term "responsible gun owner" would, to any thinking individual, imply that the gun owner was, in fact, responsible in his behavior re: operating and securing his weapons--whether at home or outside his home.
My children, as well as millions of others, did not take guns to school that day.
ReplyDeleteMine never did, nor could they as our home was gun-free.
ReplyDeleteWow! How did I 'survive' living in a blue-collar neighborhood of a big city for 28 years without a gun to 'protect' me?
Maybe it was just dumb luck, eh?
No matter how you deal the cards, the final guilt must lie with the gun owner who allowed the conditions to exist that enabled an idiot kid to pick up and take the gun.
ReplyDeleteListen, I have a question which might be worth a new post.
The Supreme Court just ruled that Corporations have the same rights of free speech as an individual does regarding campaign contributions.
This effectively gives them a much louder "free speech" than you or I coud ever hope to have.
Followeing the logic that corporations are "people too" in regards to the first amendment, doesn't it seem that the other individual rights of the constitution apply to them as well?
Like the second amendment?
I don't defend parents who let these things happen. And parents are always held responsible for the actions of their children. But that doesn't mean I should be held responsible for the actions of other people's children -- my own are plenty, thank you. And my guns are always secured.
ReplyDeleteBut DGU's happen multiple times a day, even if you just go by what Claytom Cramer posts (or do a google search yourself) and most don't make it into the news. But these stories do make it into the news because they're so rare.
Micro, Thanks for a fascinating angle on this. Corporations will have a more powerful 1st Amendment right than individuals.
ReplyDeleteI like Stephen's point too. Gun owners shouldn't be held responsible for the misdeeds of other gun owners' children. Except of course in the collective sense. Gun owners who work hard to resist and limit sensible gun laws, are indeed, if only indirectly, responsible.
"Why do gun owners continue to defend these appalling examples of improper gun security in the home?"
ReplyDeleteWhy do you continue to make broad accussations?
"Except of course in the collective sense. Gun owners who work hard to resist and limit sensible gun laws, are indeed, if only indirectly, responsible."
ReplyDeleteGun laws limiting the rights of all gun owners, not just those who are irresponsible is one way to go. Another way to go is harsher penalties for the offenders. Personally, this is the side that I am on.
Do you accept responsibility for the the actions of non gun owners?
ReplyDeleteMr.kaveman, this borders on being a non sequiter....
I am a non gun owner...so what is it I am supposed to be responsible in relation to this post?
I recently successfully trained my dog not to chase tractors...any other requests?
Microdot said:
ReplyDeleteI am a non gun owner...so what is it I am supposed to be responsible in relation to this post?
I recently successfully trained my dog not to chase tractors...any other requests?
Under the shared responsibility theory, you are responsible for all dogs that chase tractors and tractor chasing in general.
FWM said, "Under the shared responsibility theory, you are responsible for all dogs that chase tractors and tractor chasing in general."
ReplyDeleteI have to take issue with that. Micro would only be responsible for the SCARY dogs that chase tractors.