Woman shoots grandson; thought he was an intruder

[Sousuke 1,214]

No. But, there is a body of thought that suggests that because firearms are primarily weapons, there should be some limits on ownership. One of those limits could and should be a mandatory requirement that new gun owners should attend classes to learn basic firearm safety and responsibility, including the legal implications of opening fire on other human beings. As a bare minimum, this could prevent a goodly number of accidents in the home. Would that not be better than shrugging shoulders and dismissing the accidents as merely the actions of stupid people who can't be prevented from doing stupid things with firearms in order to be able to claim that the US is better because everyone (almost) can buy a gun without restriction?

It depends on the interpretation of constitutional rights.

If you believe no barrier should be between you and that right then requirements as you suggest them may be unconstitutional.

For instance, should voters have to take an exam to be eligible to vote? Given how many people our leaders kill every day I'd say a person's vote is MORE dangerous than a firearm in the hands of a private citizen.

[Curmudgeon 227]

As per current interpretation it may or may not be, I am sure most gun owners think that it clearly is but if there was a political will to actually do something about firearms accidents and not just sweep them under the carpet as the inevitable consequence of the right to bear arms, the constitution could be amended to make provision for such requirements if it was necessary.

A constitutional change on voting rights would be far more intrusive and reaching into the rights of the individual than some requirement to attend gun safety classed in order to improve public safety. However, if enough people wanted to change it, I am sure it could be changed as well. While the constitution is pretty robust, it's not set in stone or immutable.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[Boiler 43,399]

Just include it in the school curriculum.

[Sousuke 1,214]

Just include it in the school curriculum.

Ironically it was in mine (went to private school though)

[Boiler 43,399]

Ironically it was in mine (went to private school though)

Me too, and that was in the UK.

[novedsac 355]

Yeah, what was that kid thinking? Being thirsty, wanting nana, he totally deserved it!

I used to think that saying "Who's there" would have been a good thing to do to avoid such a situation, but VJ told me that it was a tactical mistake that would wind up with me getting killed! Because I would let the intruder know I was in there! Thanks VJ!

Awe - he was after her bingo money so he could buy junk food at the school cafeteria. She knew it.

Ban junk food.

Ban Bingo.

[Curmudgeon 227]

I am not sure you could mandate it in the school system. That probably would tread on too many shoes and wouldn't get much in the way of approval from those who currently vigorously object to any more restrictions on firearm ownership.

[Boiler 43,399]

I do not believe that is the case, 4H for example.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

You are deflecting about this"safety course" rigamarole.

The issue is, should people be ready to shoot anything that goes bump in the night? Should people dream about how they need to shoot intruders? People on here say that asking who is there or waiting a second to assess the situation is bad. They say that shooting someone running away is good, because that person was in their sacred castle.

I say that's bunk.

You say "oh, safety course, responsibility, family!" That is deflection.

I am not talking about gun control or banning cars. I am talking about the current s

tate of discussion about "home invasion" and how it is harmful.

Whatever you say. You're good at drama.

Thank you for some sense.

And who in this thread suggested otherwise?

There is nothing a safety course would do to prevent stupid.

Just like driving lessons don't prevent all accidents and alcohol awareness doesn't' stop all drunk driving.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

No. But, there is a body of thought that suggests that because firearms are primarily weapons, there should be some limits on ownership. One of those limits could and should be a mandatory requirement that new gun owners should attend classes to learn basic firearm safety and responsibility, including the legal implications of opening fire on other human beings. As a bare minimum, this could prevent a goodly number of accidents in the home. Would that not be better than shrugging shoulders and dismissing the accidents as merely the actions of stupid people who can't be prevented from doing stupid things with firearms in order to be able to claim that the US is better because everyone (almost) can buy a gun without restriction?

Some states already require a safety course.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You are deflecting about this"safety course" rigamarole.

The issue is, should people be ready to shoot anything that goes bump in the night? Should people dream about how they need to shoot intruders? People on here say that asking who is there or waiting a second to assess the situation is bad. They say that shooting someone running away is good, because that person was in their sacred castle.

I say that's bunk.

You say "oh, safety course, responsibility, family!" That is deflection.

I am not talking about gun control or banning cars. I am talking about the current state of discussion about "home invasion" and how it is harmful.

No people should not shot at anything that goes bump in the night. That is responsible, much like drunk driving, not using a child seat, letting your kids eat too many sugary treats and playing video games all day, They should make sure it is an intruder, then aim center of mass and slowly pull the trigger. Night sights help.

I have come in late. So you are asking is home invasion harmful, that depends ? You gonna invade a whiny anti-gun liburul who thinks blowing a whistle will run you off or a good ol boy who takes protecting his family as a duty.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

No people should not shot at anything that goes bump in the night. That is responsible, much like drunk driving, not using a child seat, letting your kids eat too many sugary treats and playing video games all day, They should make sure it is an intruder, then aim center of mass and slowly pull the trigger. Night sights help.

I have come in late. So you are asking is home invasion harmful, that depends ? You gonna invade a whiny anti-gun liburul who thinks blowing a whistle will run you off or a good ol boy who takes protecting his family as a duty.

I think you mean irresponsible.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I think you mean irresponsible.

Opps I did it again

Thanks for the catch

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I don't. There is nothing idiotic about those who pander to the fears of others and market guns to them. They are making a bundle of money and couldn't care less about the number of deaths by GSW in our country.

It is easy to recite the mantras of the NRA and other groups and pretend we have nothing to do with it. As a society we are responsible for those who get hurt by unfit gun owners. As a society we enable them and look the other way hiding behind the constitution and pretending it has nothing to do with us.

Yea, so as a society we're responsible for pedophiles, violence against women, drunk drivers, tax evaders, corporate fraud, political corruption, bestiality, subway perverts, rapists, drug addicts, etc etc. People aren't responsible for anything they do, it's always someone else's fault. Pass the blame, take no responsibility for your own actions. Everyone is a victim.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yea, so as a society we're responsible for pedophiles, violence against women, drunk drivers, tax evaders, corporate fraud, political corruption, bestiality, subway perverts, rapists, drug addicts, etc etc. People aren't responsible for anything they do, it's always someone else's fault. Pass the blame, take no responsibility for your own actions. Everyone is a victim.

I'd say this incident is the fault of the person who fired the gun and shot the little boy. I'd imagine the woman feels horrible about it, as she should.

However, there is also a degree of collective responsibility as well.

For example, whenever you hear about a mass shooting, the suggestion for preventing similar acts always seems to involve more guns (including handing them out in schools). You tend to hear the same justifications too - everything from constitutional freedoms being worth breaking a few eggs, to euphemisms like how a gun is a 'seat belt' for walking the streets.

No one is prepared to admit that the proliferation of firearms in this way might have unintended consequences, like creating a climate of fear that results in a grandmother shooting a little boy in the dark because she thinks he's a burglar.