Prosecutors have charged a 15-year-old boy in an accidental shooting that wounded his friend in a St. Paul home this week.
The Ramsey County attorney's office charged the boy Tuesday with reckless discharge of a firearm within a municipality and possession of a pistol/assault weapon by a person under 18 years old, said Dennis Gerhardstein, office spokesman.
Police have said that the 16-year-old victim was shot in the abdomen with a small-caliber rifle, and that his injuries were apparently not life-threatening. It happened Monday night when the 15-year-old was playing with the gun in the basement of his home in the Como.
The 15-year-old's mother was home at the time and drove the victim to the hospital, police have said.
It's part of the nonchalance with which we treat these cases that the parents who own the gun and allowed the youngsters to play with it are not charged.
" that the parents who own the gun and allowed the youngsters to play with it are not charged."
ReplyDeleteThe police seem to have done a thorough job of charging the teen. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the mother knew what was going on in the basement. In fact, there is nothing in the story that indicates which one of the boys owned the weapon.
Minnesota DOES have a safe storage law, so since the parent wasn't charged, you could surmise that the weapon didn't own it.
You could surmise that, or you could figure that even in the enlightened North there's a nonchalance about these things that's a big part of the problem.
DeleteA person who is 15 years old is not a "youngster". A minor? Yes. Youngster? No.
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, a 15 year old is responsible enough to know that they should:
(a) NOT be "playing" with a firearm,
(b) NOT point a firearm at another person, and
(c) NOT pull the trigger while the firearm is pointing at someone.
At what age can a minor be responsible around firearms? It varies of course and it is up to each parent to determine that. As a guideline, I picture most children age 12 and older are responsible enough to leave firearms alone. At the very least, if a minor is old enough and responsible enough to baby sit, they are old enough and responsible enough to leave firearms alone.
-- TruthBeTold
All the more reason for charging the responsible adult gun owner. The age at which you think a kid SHOULD BE responsible for his actions is besides the point. These young people cannot legally own and "play with" guns. There must be a responsible adult somewhere. Oh where oh where is he (or she)?
Delete" It varies of course and it is up to each parent to determine that."
DeleteAnon, While I agree with your comment that the age at which children are responsible enough to use firearms should be left to the parent, there are many areas in which there is potential to make this a hazard.
For example, this article makes no mention of the parent being aware the firearm was even there. One concern I have is that leaving a firearm openly accessible opens you up to potential danger caused by anyone who is invited into your home. Are all of your kids' friends he has over responsible enough to be left alone with a firearm? For that matter, how about any of your friends?
While it might have once been commonplace to be able to have an easily accessible gun cabinet in the home, or the vehicle, many standards of polite behavior have fallen by the wayside as the years have passed. The biggest one seems to be, if it doesn't belong to you, leave it the hell alone! I'm not talking about toddlers, I'm talking about people that should know better, right up to adults.
Another is the total ignorance of firearms and that they can be dangerous. The feeling that making it up to a certain level of Halo or whatever makes you an expert. Then the first thing they do is pick up a real gun and pull the trigger to see if its loaded. An example of this is Mike's posting about the teacher in Japan, who, for some reason loaded what he thought was a toy gun and found out it wasn't the hard way.
My belief is that firearms safety should be taught in the schools. However I don't see that happening anytime soon, though it did seem to be effective with safe sex.
That being said, while you SHOULD be able to decide that, at the end of the day, the parent is ultimately responsible for keeping firearms in a safe condition in the home. If you have no kids, the dynamic changes since you have more control over who comes and goes at your home.
Was all that to say you agree with me?
DeleteI denounce safe storage laws that criminalize families whose responsible minors are able to defend themselves and family members from home invaders.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, adults should make sure that young children can never access firearms in their home. At some point when children are old enough and responsible enough, older children (perhaps teenagers) should be able to access a firearm to defend themselves and their siblings (and possibly even a parent or grandparent) from home invaders.
At what age can older children be responsible? Every case is unique and it is up to a child's parents to teach them safety and instill responsibility.
-- TruthBeTold
What the hell's wrong with you? Laws don't "criminalize" people any more than guns go off by themselves. Laws and guns are not capable of taking such actions.
DeleteOnly a human person can decide to obey or disobey a law.
Why are you gun nuts so adverse to personal responsibility when it's convenient.
Mikeb, do you recognize that laws can be unjust?
DeleteWhat's unjust about making parents responsible for their children's behavior? We do it every other form of minor crime.
DeleteThere are ways to deal with unjust laws. The point of my comment to Truth be Told is that people are responsible for their actions. If you decide to disobey what you think is an unjust law then you may have to suffer the consequences. But you cannot blame the law, you cannot say the law did something to you.
DeleteAn unjust law has no moral force. The fact that it has physical force only makes it dangerous at times to oppose.
DeleteThat's our criminal thinking Greg. Only laws HE thinks are OK, will he follow, otherwise, he doesn't follow the law.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteWith your claim that all laws must be disobeyed, you clearly seem to be missing Greg's point regarding blind obedience of unjust or immoral laws. I believe there was a group of people a while back that tried the just following orders defense. A socialist group called the Nazis.
Might I suggest a bit of reading on a play called "The Night Thoreau Spent In Jail".
"The play is based on the early life of the titular character, Henry David Thoreau, leading up to his night spent in a jail in Concord, Massachusetts. Thoreau was jailed for refusing to pay a poll tax on the grounds that the money might be used to pay for the Mexican-American War, which he opposed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Thoreau_Spent_in_Jail
Or read Civil Disobedience, by Thoreau himself. Martin Luther King, Jr. saw Thoreau as one of his inspirations for fighting unjust laws.
Delete" If you decide to disobey what you think is an unjust law then you may have to suffer the consequences."
DeleteCivil disobedience means breaking the law. Have the courage of your convictions, and go to jail as many citizens have for burning draft cards and other acts of civil disobedience.
Snowden is a criminal, a traitor; and he did not even have the courage of his convictions, he ran like a guilty criminal. Yes, that would mean a long legal fight and time in jail.
Did Thorough blame the law like you guys keep doing, or did he take responsibility for his decision to disobey it and take his punishment?
DeleteProtesting and being arrested is one approach. There are others. I'm not talking about methods of resisting unjust laws here because that's a debate about tactics. I'm saying that an unjust law has no moral force.
DeleteAnd Edward Snowden is a hero who exposed the gross violations being done by our government. Mikeb, I hope you don't go along with Anonymous's claim there. Your leftist card would be revoked if you did.
That's our criminal lying coward Greg. Defend illegality, again.
DeleteYou guys are dodging the question. It all began with Truth be Told's unfortunate phraseology. He said "laws criminalize people." I object to that for the reasons I mentioned already a few times. What say you about that, ss and Greg?
DeleteLaws at times make crimes out of things that shouldn't be criminal. Those laws have no moral force.
DeleteOf course we have to go by what a criminal lying coward defines as a crime. No thanks.
DeleteI see guns the same as alcohol and tobacco. It should be an adult activity. Only when you are of legal age should you be able to buy, use, and own a gun. A parent cannot legally allow their 12 year old child to drive, even with parental consent. If you are underage, your parents consent does not make it legal for you to use alcohol, or tobacco.
ReplyDeleteActually, a parent can allow a child to drive on their own property. And unlike alcohol or tobacco, a gun doesn't stunt a child's growth or cause other harmful effects when used appropriately.
ReplyDeleteNO, a gun just kills. "On their own property." You just dream up excuses for gun shot deaths.
Delete"...to drive on their own property." What part of gun shot death do you get out of that?
DeleteYour twisting words don't even reflect my comment. Typical for the cowardly liar of this site.
DeleteGreg, the "on your own property" argument about car laws is really bullshit. You love to throw percentages at me, but when probably one-tenth of one percent of cars are being driven on private roads, you use it. That's hypocritical and inconsistent.
DeleteMikeb, Anonymous claimed that a parent cannot give consent to a twelve-year-old to drive. That's wrong. On the family's property, a twelve-year-old can drive, and in farm country, that's not uncommon. I can't help it that you citified leftists never get out of your rabbit warrens.
DeleteThe cowardly liar has to twist words, because he has no thruth to stand on.
DeleteNo surprise Greg thinks running away from the law is the right thing to do, he is this sites criminal lying coward.
ReplyDelete