An image of Brandon Kuiper on a Facebook prayer page for him titled Pray for Bandon D-Hustle. Michigan Live reports
A medical examiner has ruled homicide as the cause of death for 16-year-old Brandon Kuiper, who was shot in the face March 6 in the basement of a Tallmadge Township home.Naturally there's not even a mention of the lawful owner of the gun. My opinion is any time a kid gets ahold of a gun some adult should go to jail and lose his gun rights forever.
Kuiper died of a gunshot wound, Dr. David Start determined in an autopsy Monday, March 12.
Police responded around 9:15 p.m. March 6 and found Kuiper with critical head injuries.
Ottawa Sheriff's Lt. Mark Bennett said a group of six teens had been in the basement that night. At some point, there was talk of a game of "Russian roulette."
Kuiper was shot in the head with a .22 revolver allegedly by Richard Usher. There is no evidence of animosity between the two, though Usher now faces felony charges of manslaughter and using a weapon in the commission of a crime.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Just some adult, or do you admit that an investigation and trial is appropriate first?
ReplyDeleteIn most cases it takes very little to determine who owned the gun. But, since you want to be so careful about this, we should have registration.
DeleteThat has too many consequences, intended or otherwise, as you showed in the post about California today.
DeleteUmm... you mean gets a hold of a gun and does something bad with it, right? Or do you want to send a parent to jail for taking their 16 year old kid to the range and watching them shoot sub 1 MOA groupings?
ReplyDeleteThe Federal minimum age for the purchase (not possession however) of any modern powder firearm is 18 years, for a long arm and 21 years for handguns, provided that such handguns are sold at a FFL dealer, otherwise the minimum age is only 18. One must be at least 21 to register a NFA item. Similar restrictions apply to all modern powder based ammunition, as such rifle and shotgun shells are restricted to those who are at least 18, while handgun ammunition must be sold to persons over 21. There is no federal prohibition against children (such as the ones described in Mike's post) possessing long arms (the minimum age for handgun possession is 18).
DeleteThe minimum age for possession of any firearms under any circumstances ought to be raised to 21 (or preferably 25) years. In accordance with such, the age of majority and age of consent should also follow suit, all to be set at 21 (or 25). Adult children (American rednecks) with guns is bad enough. Allowing their intolerable offspring to be armed is even worse. How could anyone disagree? Such a prohibition would have no effect on any of those involved in the discussion, so why would anyone oppose such a "ban"?
You probably feel disdain towards the bearing of arms by juvenile parties (those who are under 21 or 25). Nobody who is involved in this debate would be affected by such a prohibition, so why not ban it?
Koba, it's that pesky freedom thing again. Annoying, isn't it, that some people prefer freedom to being controlled?
DeleteFreedom, yeah, like letting 15-year-olds drive and vote and join the military.
DeleteKoba/E.N./Whateverotherdictatoryoucaretomimic, I even care about rights that don't apply to me. I support gay marriage, for example, even though I personally have no need for such a right. I support legalized marijuana, even though I wouldn't smoke it. I support freedom of all speech and all religions, not just my own. So no, I don't feel disdain for what you describe and won't go along with your proposal.
DeleteKoba, why not ban it? Because I prefer being free. Because I prefer that other people be free, too. Because freedom, all freedom, is precious and fragile. It is in the nature of government to always seek to increase the control it exercises over citizens. Even if it doesn't affect me directly, another person losing his or her freedom lessens my freedom because it makes the next attack on freedom a little bit easier.
DeleteKoba, in my example, I was talking about an adult teaching their teenage kid to shoot a gun- supervised. Do you think that should be banned?
DeleteThe act which you described is a Felony in a multitude of States.
DeleteWhy shouldn't such an act (training juvenile parties in the use of lethal weapons) be prohibited, outside of (compulsory) military service that such parties (under 21) may be involved in.
Nobody who would comment here, or have any political thought for that matter, would be affected by such a prohibition. Conservatives generally support restrictions on the actions of youthful (commonly delinquent) parties. Leftists support restrictions barring the possession and use of small arms by mere civilians. If you are not affected, and you probably object to the use of weaponry by infantile parties, why would you oppose such a prohibition? If you don't like it, why not just ban it?
Let's go through due process first, shall we?
ReplyDelete