lohud dot com
Despite its tough gun safety laws, New York is among 23 states that don’t hold adults legally liable when children are involved in accidental shootings involving an unlocked gun kept in the home.
Nationally, 617 children 14 or under died in unintentional shootings between 2001 and 2010, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Most of the victims — 513 — were boys. Non-fatal accidental shootings are much more prevalent.
New York’s Health Department estimates an average 210 young people under 20 are treated at hospitals in the state each year for unintentional firearm injuries. An average 75 are hospitalized overnight.
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is making safe storage of guns in the home a legislative goal for 2014. It’s lobbying states to enact laws that make adults liable on charges of child abuse or criminal negligence if a gun used in an accidental shooting by a child isn’t securely stored, locked or rendered unusable.
I find it hard to believe that only half the states have laws about this. I also find it hard to believe that pro-gun fanatics would oppose such initiatives, but they do, don't they?
Are you going to berate these Moms for suggesting there are only 60 accidental child gun deaths per year?
ReplyDelete"only 60 accidental child gun deaths per year?"
DeleteONLY!
How many deaths would it take for you to agree there is a problem?
I knew you would say that.
DeleteThe "only" refers to the CDC figure which Mike says is should be doubled anytime one of us quotes it.
Yeah, it's higher than that. So?
DeleteWhy do you oppose safe storage laws?
For two reasons, Mikeb:
Delete1. The laws that you propose are a blunt instrument. How about just having laws against harming innocents?
2. You offer nothing in return.
Yes, argue numbers and disregard the deaths, Typical lying criminal coward.
DeleteThat "not offering anything in return" bit is pretty stupid, Greg. We're not negotiating. Safe storage laws would save children's lives and cut down on the gun theft. I repeat, why would you oppose it?
DeleteYour side always demands compromise. Well, what are you willing to give up in return? Your proposals wouldn't save lives, since the people who are leaving guns available to children aren't likely to comply with the law anyway.
DeleteNo, Greg, my side is not always demanding compromise. What honest and sincere people on both sides of the argument are doing is trying to find the right thing and enforce it.
DeleteJust listen to gun control advocates in the news. They're always demanding compromise. Of course, the reality is that they're demanding that we give up yet another piece of our rights for nothing in return.
DeleteNo, they're not demanding compromise. They're demanding sensible laws like universal background checks and safe storage laws, what you call giving up your rights. What a laugh, and you called us histrionic.
Delete"Your proposals wouldn't save lives"
DeleteAnother lie from the site liar.
“We want to change the culture around so-called ‘accidental’ shootings,” said Shannon Watts, the group’s founder. “We have all these incidents of children getting hold of adults’ guns and either shooting themselves or an adult or another child.’’
ReplyDeleteI'm actually in agreement with this statement. Its also interesting to note that a gun rights group and firearms manufacturers are mentioned as having programs to stress safe storage of firearms.
As for the New York SAFE act, they were in such a hurry to pass it without it being read, or to keep those opposed to it to comment, that they made a lot of mistakes that had to be fixed after the fact. It isn't surprising that safe storage slipped through the cracks.
"gun rights group and firearms manufacturers are mentioned as having programs to stress safe storage of firearms."
DeleteThis is meaningless and useless. We need the law behind it. People who fail to secure their guns and get caught, like when some kid gets shot as a result, should be punished appropriately.
But, I'm glad you can agree with some of our positions. Keep that up and you'll lose your status as a gn-rights fanatic.
I just came upon something that might suggest the Moms' next project. Apparently after their attempt at forcing both Staples and Starbucks to ban legally carried firearms in their venues, it looks like they might be setting their sights higher and will see if McDonalds can be convinced to bend to the will of their imagined monetary power.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping they pick another boycott day, if I'm lucky, they'll pick one on a day I'm picking the kids up for the weekend. My youngest loves chasing through their playsets.
"As Breibart News reported on September 26, the campaign to ban guns in Starbucks succeeded only inasmuch as Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz asked patrons not to open-carry their firearms in the coffee shops. He did not ban the possession of concealed carry firearms on store premises, however, and he went out of his way to say customers who ignore his plea and openly carry firearms will still be served.
Subsequently, MDA began pressuring Staples to ban guns in all their stores. Per Staples' policy, allowing or forbidding law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons is at the discretion of each individual store. MDA wants Staples CEO Ronald Sargent to force all stores to ban guns, period. So far, Staples has not capitulated.
According to Politico, MDA is now "preparing a similar effort aimed at McDonald's," readying a push for the same thing they failed to get from Starbucks, an all-out ban on guns in all McDonald's stores. Such an effort would include banning law-abiding citizens from carrying concealed firearms."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/14/0-For-2-Moms-Demand-Action-Targeting-McDonald-s-For-Gun-Control
Public pressure to get a corporation to change its policies. You describe that (their attempt at forcing) as some kind of criminal act?
DeleteGood luck on their efforts. They will need it. They don't have millions to buy votes like the NRA does.
"They don't have millions to buy votes like the NRA does."
DeleteAnon, McDonalds doesn't need to buy any votes. As far as I know, all property owners get to decide who can or cant come onto their property. Though most businesses try to get people to come to them, not stay away.
The Moms are trying to, a better term is actually coerce McDonalds into banning legal firearm carry in their venues with the threat of lost revenue due to supporters of the Moms declining to visit them.
They are quite within their rights to try as it is completely legal. They attempted it with Starbucks and it didn't really go well for them. I made a point of visiting the local Starbucks on the boycott day and made sure to tell the company why.
I'm not sure why they think targeting a larger company will show more success, but that's cool with me since my kids are always happy to go there.
As for the NRA's millions being able to overpower McDonalds, you have things reversed. The millions wielded by the NRA is chump change when compared to McDonalds.
In 2012, McDonald's Corporation had annual revenues of $27.5 billion, and profits of $5.5 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonalds
The Moms are growing. They might very well become the number gun control group in the country.
Delete"They are quite within their rights to try as it is completely legal."
DeleteThat was my point thanks for making it for me.
They are not forcing anyone, they are promoting the age old "boycott." A perfectly acceptable form of protest against a company.
A boycott in favor of rights is a worthy action. A boycott to violate rights is evil.
DeleteMore lies from the site liar.
DeleteThe boycott is not to violate your rights.
You don't have a right to carry a gun into a place that asks you not to.
But as you stated before, even though Starbucks asks you not to bring your gun into their store, you stated you would anyways.
Thanks for proving yet again, that you are nothing more than a criminal.
All responsible adults want to prevent children from getting their hands on firearms. I have yet to find a single firearms enthusiast who wants young children to handle loaded firearms without hands-on supervision from responsible adults. Of course firearms enthusiasts never ever want toddlers or pre-school age children to handle loaded firearms.
ReplyDelete-- TruthBeTold
The problem then is obvious, not enough gun owners are "enthusiasts." That's why we need stricter laws which the "enthusiasts" will be largely unaffected by since they already comply.
DeleteMikeb, your list again:
DeleteYou support a tribunal to decide whether a person is allowed to own guns or not. You support may-issue policies on carry licenses, enforced nationally. You support bans on magazines of particular capacities and on a long list of types of firearms. You want home inspections to verify compliance with gun laws. You want psychological examinations of gun owners. You want a registry, to be checked after three months and then annually. You want medical examinations of gun owners. You want laws against having ammunition that doesn't go with a registered gun. You want heavy taxes on ammunition and bans on lead bullets.
Will you please stop with this lie about "largely unaffected"?
That's bullshit. Gun loons try to stop any efforts that will lesson childrens deaths by guns. That's proven by the positions by gun loons like you, on this site.
DeleteI don't know if what you describe as Mike's conditions are true, or not; but even if they are, they still don't infringe on your right to own and use a gun. More dishonest bullshit from the site lying criminal coward.
Delete"the campaign to ban guns in Starbucks succeeded only inasmuch as Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz asked patrons not to open-carry their firearms in the coffee shops."
DeleteThey only requested that patrons not open carry. And even then, they wont refuse service. So by my reckoning concealed carry is ok with them. And since that is what I do, no worries.
If they were willing to actually post no carry at their stores, then I wouldn't go there.
Greg, in this thread we're talking about safe storage laws. I guess since you have no decent response to why you oppose them, you need to bring up all the other things I think are necessary. Truth be Told said that gun "enthusiasts" already keep their guns safely stored. I agree with that, assuming we mean the same thing by "enthusiast." My question to you is why not make it a legal requirement? Some of the less-than-enthusiastic gun owners would comply, lives would be saved, theft would be lessened and the true "enthusiasts like yourself would be unaffected. What's wrong with that?
DeleteYou're asking Greg why he would oppose the threat of law to keep his guns away from his kids when he doesn't have kids? Words on a piece of paper don't know the best storage solution for each home. The law doesn't know when children are responsible enough to access guns (lots of variance). I oppose how you often want the threat of law, force, and prison behind your ideas. You also don't consider the impact of self-defense when you propose blanket laws for every situation.
DeleteMikeb, I can't trust your side to stop with just this. And as TS points out, a blanket law like yours is a blunt instrument. But unlike you, I don't see the need to pass a long list of laws to force everyone to do what I think is best.
DeleteGuns belong either on your person or locked up in a gun safe. Not only would that reduce the number of kids who get killed each year it would greatly reduce the number of guns stolen each year which is estimated an a-half-a-million. You should be ashamed of yourself for belaboring the issue. If you guys had any sense, which obviously you don't, we wouldn't need laws about this. But we do.
DeleteThe owner asks that people not carry weapons in his stores, and you say that means: "So by my reckoning concealed carry is ok with them"
DeleteThat's as big a lie as lies come.
Mikeb, as always, you demand laws, rather than seeking a solution that involves freedom.
DeleteHow is requiring you to lock up your extra guns violating your freedom? How is a guaranteed way to cut down on gun theft and child accidents infringing on your precious rights?
DeleteOr, are you going to argue that locking up the guns would not cut down on theft and child deaths? Go on, I dare ya.
"You're asking Greg why he would oppose the threat of law to keep his guns away from his kids when he doesn't have kids?"
DeleteAnother lie comparison. It's about keeping all kids safe. It doesn't matter if Greg has kids, or not. Laws are not based on a single persons situation, or experience.