The Denver Post
A Kansas man whose gun was used to accidentally kill a 5-year-old boy was sentenced to 16 years in prison Thursday.
In December, 2011, Adam Dean Laham was visiting friends who lived at the Eagle Crest Apartments, in Lakewood, and slept in a room belonging to three children, ages 3, 5 and 6.
Laham, 24, put his Kel-Tech semi-automatic handgun on a box he was using as a nightstand in the bedroom.
On the morning of Dec. 23, the adults were in the living room and the children went into their room to play video games.
Family and friends told a Wichita, Kan., television station in 2011 that the adults heard a shot and ran into the bedroom. They found the 3-year-old still holding the gun. He had shot his older brother at point-blank range.
Later, police found numerous guns inside the apartment, all loaded, all with a round in the chamber.
Laham pleaded guilty In Jefferson County District Court last November to negligent child abuse resulting in death. While on bond awaiting sentencing, he was arrested three times on drug and gun charges in Kansas and Arkansas, according to the District Attorney's office.
Prior to the incident, he qualified as a lawful gun owner. Isn't that a hoot? Is it any wonder why we don't trust gun owners to act responsibly?
The problem is obvious. A large percentage of so-called lawful gun owners are guys like this who have yet to sustain their first felony conviction. Because of the gun-rights fanatics' efforts, led by the NRA and gun manufacturers, these hidden criminals have all the rights and privileges as everyone else.
The solution is obvious. The rights of all gun owners need to be infringed a little bit more. That doesn't mean they can't own guns, that simply means they need to be better qualified and more strictly regulated. And, as importantly, when they do something wrong with a gun, they need to lose their gun rights entirely.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Pro rights fanatics.
ReplyDeleteWe need to infringe their rights a little more.
You acknowledge the rights and even the language of the constitution which says Shall Not Be Infringed.
You sound as vile as a person talking about Free Speech fanatics, Voting Rights fanatics, Due Process fanatics, etc. You then compound this with stupidity that keeps you from seeing the parallel.
Pound Sand, We will not go along with your recommendations.
Given the report here, it's highly unlikely that this man was a "lawful gun owner." It is against the law to possess firearms if you use illegal drugs. His behavior tells me that he probably bought his gun from one of his fellow criminal buddies. He's the kind of person that the law can only deal with by locking away for a long time.
ReplyDeleteAre you pretending that gun owners don't get high and drink too much, except in rare cases?
DeleteUntil these people are arrested and convicted of a felony, they are lawful gun owners just like you.
That's why we need that sub-category: hidden criminals.
I'll answer your question for myself. No. I don't get high or drink too much. I don't like that feeling of being out of control.
DeleteBy definition, if he was an illegal drug user he was not a legal gun owner. That is the law.
Good smear tactics there, Mikeb. Try to lump me in with drug addicts. I'd say that gun owners drink to excess and use drugs at about the same rate as the population in general. But alcoholics and illegal drug users are breaking the law if they have guns. That makes them criminal, whether hidden or otherwise, not lawful.
DeleteHere's the key point, though. We cannot restrict rights of people who have been convicted of nothing. Doing so would be an intolerable exercise of government power, a violation of due process, among other rights.
RM, prior to arrest and conviction, the worst he could have been is a hidden criminal. m Technically he would have been a lawful gun owner.
DeleteDon't tell me you want to overlook the innocent-until-proven-guilty think like Greg does?
Mikeb, you can't have it both ways. Let me clarify for you:
Delete1. Illegal drug users are banned from purchasing firearms.
2. The evidence suggests that this fellow was an illegal drug user.
3. If #2 be true, he was committing another crime by buying a gun.
Now, he hasn't been convicted of that crime, so in our legal system, he's not a convicted criminal. That much is clear. What you're hinting at wanting is the ability to deny guns to people who are merely suspected of having committed a crime, even if there's no investigation in progress and no case having been filed.
If all you want is for people who are on trial for felonies to have to surrender their guns until the case is resolved, that's something that we could discuss. But I'm certain that you want so much more.
"That makes them criminal, whether hidden or otherwise, not lawful"
DeleteFinally we may be making some progress. Hidden criminal is a subset of lawful gun owners for the simple reason that they have not been arrested and convicted of their crime.
I'm not hinting at anything especially that we deny guns to someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime. What I'm saying straight out is the group you belong to, lawful gun owners, is chock full of hidden criminals. The problem we have is you all look the same.
No, no, no--Mikeb, why can't you think clearly? A "hidden criminal" is not a lawful person. Do you understand that a definition limits the possible meanings of a word?
DeleteBut let's consider your statements here:
1. If our society is so filled with criminals, we have bigger problems than the presence of guns. My contention, supported by evidence, is that in fact, most people and most gun owners abide by the law.
2. You correctly tell us that we cannot take away rights without due process resulting in a conviction. That's been the core of my argument all along. Thanks.