Saturday, January 29, 2011

5-Year-Old Brings Gun to School

It happened in Florida, what a surprise. I suppose the boy should probably be tried as an adult, I mean, he's old enough to know better. Am I right?

Here's the funny part.

Florida police are trying to figure out how a 5-year-old boy came into possession of a loaded handgun that he dropped inside a pre-kindergarten class.
They're trying to figure it out, isn't that a riot?

What's your opinion? Do you think Florida should loosen up on all those silly gun laws that interfere with people's 2nd Amendment rights?

Please leave a comment.

14 comments:

  1. My first thought was to wonder if the gun had a safety, and was it on, or a trigger lock.

    In addition to resisting any limits on gun purchases, or the kind of guns, there is what seems to me ludicrous resistance to laws mandating basic safety requirements, such as keeping guns under lock and key (hello - gun safe?) or with some sort of protective lock that is useful for ensuring the safety of children. It also slows down, if not outright preventing, possible hasty use of guns in emotional circumstances. It wouldn't stop every instances, but even the few seconds necessary to unlock a gun from secure storage or a trigger lock can help prevent tragic gun violence.

    I'm sure the gun fanatics (they're way beyond being merely pro-gun) will object that if you can't do some crazy quick draw maneuver out of an action movie or a video game, you can't use your weapon to defend yourself and your home!

    Yeah, well the reality is if you're in a situation that requires anything other than a calm, deliberate, unrushed shot, you're more likely to be a menace to yourself, others, and property than you are to be effective against an intruder or other criminal. If you have time to reasonably shoot, you have time to unlock first.

    In the real world, shooting in haste nearly always means an error in judgement.

    Opposition to reasonable gun safety laws nearly always comes from those who regard guns as fetish objects. They give a priority to that fetish expression even over the safety of children - in this case, it was a music class full of children.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They're trying to figure it out, isn't that a riot?

    Is it your contention, then, that they should just (somehow) know how he got the gun?

    Should they act on this (mystically obtained) knowledge? Arrest someone?

    Should the jury also (magically) possess this knowledge, and convict the accused?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe he saved up his allowance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Zorro, I believe that what Mikeb is referring to is that somewhere an adult was clearly careless and negligent with their gun storage.

    I think the distinction between a loaded gun and a not loaded gun without access to ammunition interests me in this regard as well, which was not detailed.

    Not too good on their childcare responsibilities either, possibly, whoever the adult(s) in question turn out to be. That too me was a concern, frankly to me, a bigger concern.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This falls under a parental responsibility issue, not a gun control issue.

    The answer is simple, better education of the public, and hold people accountable. You can't legislate stupid out of society with laws.

    ...Orygunner...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dog Gone, yes I was referring to the obvious adult who was responsible, probably the dad. But Zorroy knew that, he's just breaking balls again. Even Orygunner partly got it. He's just trying to differentiate between "a parenting issue" and a "gun storage or gun responsibility issue." The problem is in this case they're the same thing.

    In Florida they're reluctant to say, "The police are investigating the boy's parents." Instead, making every attempt to diffuse the responsibility they said "trying to figure out..."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dog Gone, yes I was referring to the obvious adult who was responsible, probably the dad. But Zorroy knew that, he's just breaking balls again.

    And you think the police should do what you do, and just assume that, and act accordingly? Or is it that you think the media reporting the story should make the assumption, and blame the father, with absolutely no evidence.

    Have you noticed that the media invariably refers to Laughner as something along the lines of "the alleged gunman," or "the accused shooter"? It's pretty clear he did it, but responsible reporting requires qualifying the description until he has been proven to be the perpetrator.

    You, on the other hand, think it's "a riot" that the kid's father is not already convicted of culpability, in the court of public opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, not convicted, but investigated and perhaps named as the obvious and most probably culprit. Why do you strive so hard to excuse misbehaviour when that misbehaviour involves guns?

    "They're trying to figure it out," is going too far with this fair reporting of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, not convicted, but investigated . . .

    So you don't think he's being investigated?

    . . . and perhaps named as the obvious and most probably culprit.

    It's not a reporter's job to tell the reader what he/she thinks "probably" happened.

    Why do you strive so hard to excuse misbehaviour [ooh--British spelling--aren't we fancy?!] when that misbehaviour involves guns?

    What I'm "excusing" is the reporter's sticking to facts, rather than speculation.

    "They're trying to figure it out," is going too far with this fair reporting of yours.

    Ah--now I see the problem. You think I'm being too fair. The thing is, I don't really believe in the concept of "excessive fairness."

    ReplyDelete
  10. And come to think of it, how 'bout you explain how it's "a riot" that they're "trying to figure it out," but then you say that you want the incident "investigated" ("No, not convicted, but investigated . . . ").

    Isn't "investigating" pretty much the same thing as "trying to figure it out"?

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're right "trying to figure it out" is possibly the same as "investigating." I just thought it sounded funny with a bit of lean in the direction of not really blaming the right person.

    What do you think about the parents whose supervision and gun management is such that their 5-year-olds are caught with guns in the kindergarten? That's the real point. Do you excuse them the same way you excuse the poor gun owner whose gun is stolen from the nightstand by a burglar?

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're right "trying to figure it out" is possibly the same as "investigating." I just thought it sounded funny with a bit of lean in the direction of not really blaming the right person.

    Did you even read the article past the first couple paragraphs? I ask for a couple reasons. The first is your apparent desire to imply that the article is trying to cover for the gun owner, and hide responsibility, when in fact, the article fairly strongly implicates someone:

    The boy told authorities that he found the firearm inside the vehicle that he had come to school in -- one which Griffith said belonged to the youngster's stepfather.

    The second is your casual assumption that it was "probably the dad," (not the stepdad)--and actually, another article would seem to shed some doubt on that:

    The boy got the gun from the floorboard of his mother's car.

    In other words, reporting that "they're trying to figure it out" doesn't really seem like such "a riot," does it?

    And the fact that you try to frame the issue as some kind of "pro-gun conspiracy" on the part of the media, to paint gun ownership in a better light, is hilarious. You and your grandiose victimisn.

    What do you think about the parents whose supervision and gun management is such that their 5-year-olds are caught with guns in the kindergarten? That's the real point. Do you excuse them the same way you excuse the poor gun owner whose gun is stolen from the nightstand by a burglar?

    There would seem to have been some grossly irresponsible, idiotic behavior here on the part of some adult. I, however, will wait for more--much more--information, before I start laying blame. I guess that's what you call "going too far with this fair reporting," eh?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Guess you don't have much of a reply to that, do you? Not much of one you could have.

    The funny thing is that I wouldn't normally even have bothered pointing out the nitwittery of your jumping to conclusions without first ascertaining the facts--if I pointed that out every time you did it, I wouldn't have time for anything else. No, what I couldn't stay quiet about was the fact that jumping to those conclusions wasn't enough for you--you had to make fun of the CNN story's author, for not jumping to those conclusions.

    Then you had to imply that his failure to do so was motivated by some insidious desire to protect an irresponsible gun owner from blame, because you think that protecting one irresponsible gun owner from the blame he deserves protects all gun owners from some sort of blame that you bizarrely think they would share.

    Actually, that's more than just the "funny thing," as I put it in the previous paragraph. To quote you, "Isn't that a riot?"

    ReplyDelete
  14. Zorroy, You're right. What could I say to such a complete torpedoing of my post. I've always said you're one of the best. I especially liked your turning around the grandiose victimism thing on me.

    I'm glad you agree there was "idiotic (criminal?) behaviour on the part of some adult," even if I got some of the facts wrong.

    ReplyDelete