[FM75]

billw55, on 2013-May-03, 14:59, said:

This is bizarre. We have laws prohibiting the direct marketing of alcohol and tobacco to minors. But not guns? Gosh.

Obvious gross negligence by the parents. To me this is on par with the fundies who kill their kids with faith healing (a.k.a. refusing to get medical help). Those parents are charged criminally - these ones should be too.

Firstly, it is not clear that they are marketing to minors. It seems that they are marketing to the parents of minors (follow the money).

Even so, tobacco is bad for you when you use it as it is intended. Alcohol is as well for kids since they are not full sized. Guns are only dangerous when used incorrectly, or when used correctly against dangerous people.

I won't disagree though on the parents. Somehow there are a lot out there that forget that there kids need their protection and they are not "small adults". I have seen parents bragging about 6 year old climbers leading a route. Sure they can follow safely, but leading involves all sorts of decision making that they are not smart enough to understand. Same with guns. Some things should only be allowed while supervised.

[mikeh]

FM75, on 2013-May-03, 22:23, said:

Firstly, it is not clear that they are marketing to minors. It seems that they are marketing to the parents of minors (follow the money).

Even so, tobacco is bad for you when you use it as it is intended. Alcohol is as well for kids since they are not full sized. Guns are only dangerous when used incorrectly, or when used correctly against dangerous people.

I won't disagree though on the parents. Somehow there are a lot out there that forget that there kids need their protection and they are not "small adults". I have seen parents bragging about 6 year old climbers leading a route. Sure they can follow safely, but leading involves all sorts of decision making that they are not smart enough to understand. Same with guns. Some things should only be allowed while supervised.

Guns are designed to turn living entities into dead entities. Full stop.

Give a gun to enough young children and the odds are that someone, and sometimes more than someone, will end up dead.

There are many legitimate purposes for gun ownership and few would advocate banning them entirely. But there is no legitimacy for manufacturing and selling guns to be used by toddlers. Try looking at the stats on annual accidental deaths by firearm in the US. Then add suicides, and shootings by people acting in anger or when drunk or high. When a device is so susceptible to misuse, it is inherently dangerous. When it is so susceptible to misuse that its availability to adults results in thousands of deaths a year, then giving it to a 5 year old is insane..and marketing it to be given to a 5 year old is repulsive.

I leave it to your imagination what I think of a poster who defends such marketing.

[Fluffy]

Reminds me of that old question, put a child in fornt of a red button that destroys the world... the question is not if he will push it, it is how long will it take him to do so.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-03, 16:40, said:

I am curious about what charge/sentence the boy will be given.

I don't know what they will charge him with, but he should be charged and sentenced for having stupid parents.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-03, 16:40, said:

I am curious about what charge/sentence the boy will be given.

I'd be surprised if either the boy or his parents are charged with anything.

The boy is clearly too young to be responsible for his actions.
The parents should be charged with negligent homicide or some such, however, I doubt this will happen.

The combination of

1. Sympathy for the family for losing a child
2. The Kulturkampf surrounding gun ownership

probably means that a prosecution wouldn't be successful.

FWIW, I am horrified (though not particularly surprised) that this tragedy occurred.
However, its unclear to me that prosecuting the parents would accomplish anything useful.

Its not going to bring the child back from the dead.
I doubt that there is any deterrent value.
I doubt that this will make the parents feel any worse about themselves.

The one thing this will do is cripple their ability to provide for their remaining child.
(And I don't think that this rises to the occasion where the child should be taken away from the parents)

[Winstonm]

However, there does seem to be a case for these parents losing their right to own and bear arms.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2013-May-03, 23:42, said:

Guns are designed to turn living entities into dead entities. Full stop.

Wrong. Guns are designed to project force at a distance. Yes, most guns, properly or improperly used, can result in a dead target, but that is not the design goal.

Fluffy, on 2013-May-04, 03:17, said:

Reminds me of that old question, put a child in fornt of a red button that destroys the world... the question is not if he will push it, it is how long will it take him to do so.

Ender's Game. Of course, IIRC Ender was twelve, not five, when he annihilated the Formic, and he didn't know he was doing it because adults told him it was a simulation, a game, not real.

Winstonm, on 2013-May-04, 07:25, said:

However, there does seem to be a case for these parents losing their right to own and bear arms.

The government giveth, and the government taketh away. All hail the government!

[ggwhiz]

I'm as shocked and saddened by this as anyone but imagine that the parents are completely devastated (if human).

On that proviso I would leave them alone except to provide the counseling they will surely need to have 1/2 a chance of raising the 5 year old into an eventual life without therapy. I WOULD go after the providers of this odious product like a Tasmanian devil.

I once read about a successful lawsuit against an RV company for not specifying that when you put it on cruise control you had to stay in the drivers seat. Why are companies like this still in business?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-04, 09:27, said:

Wrong. Guns are designed to project force at a distance. Yes, most guns, properly or improperly used, can result in a dead target, but that is not the design goal.

Sure, rifles were invented a long time ago for target practice or to shoot at tea pots (I don't think they had beer cans yet). The soldiers that died in the 100 year war were all unfortunate accidents. The musketeers just mistook the colorful uniforms of their enemies for targets (or colorful tea pots).

Bogus, rifles are designed to kill (or injure) living entities. Biljart cues are designed to project force at a distance. And yes, when improperly used, they could kill a living entity, but that is not the design goal.

I find it frightening that someone who doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a biljart cue is allowed to own a rifle... or a biljart cue.

Rik

[hrothgar]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-04, 10:36, said:

Sure, rifles were invented a long time ago for target practice or to shoot at tea pots (I don't think they had beer cans yet). The soldiers that died in the 100 year war were all unfortunate accidents. The musketeers just mistook the colorful uniforms of their enemies for targets (or colorful tea pots).

In much the same way, chainsaws were originally intended as juggling aides.
The whole cutting trees thing was just a fortunate coincidence...

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-04, 10:55, said:

In much the same way, chainsaws were originally intended as juggling aides.
The whole cutting trees thing was just a fortunate coincidence...

On the other hand, the art of euphemism thrives...

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-04, 09:27, said:

The government giveth, and the government taketh away. All hail the government!

You seem to have a distorted concept of my viewpoints. I am not in favor of, say, government ownership of Apple. At the same time, I am not against government being the sole payer for national healthcare.

In other words, I try to find the best shoe to fit the foot rather than pretend I have a one-size-fits-all solution to complexities.

[Winstonm]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-04, 10:36, said:

Sure, rifles were invented a long time ago for target practice or to shoot at tea pots (I don't think they had beer cans yet). The soldiers that died in the 100 year war were all unfortunate accidents. The musketeers just mistook the colorful uniforms of their enemies for targets (or colorful tea pots).

Bogus, rifles are designed to kill (or injure) living entities. Biljart cues are designed to project force at a distance. And yes, when improperly used, they could kill a living entity, but that is not the design goal.

I find it frightening that someone who doesn't know the difference between a rifle and a biljart cue is allowed to own a rifle... or a biljart cue.

Rik

Guns were designed to project force at a distance, in order to kill at a distance.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-03, 11:41, said:

While I am not familiar with California's "implied malice" law, and it is not even within my area of expertise, just from your presentation of it it sounds like a stupid law.

Even without this law, it seems like such incidents could be prosecuted as manslaughter. But IANAL.

billw55, on 2013-May-03, 14:59, said:

This is bizarre. We have laws prohibiting the direct marketing of alcohol and tobacco to minors. But not guns? Gosh.

The Constitution doesn't have an explicit provision regarding alcohol and tobacco consumption; the 2nd Amendment makes it harder for the government to regular the gun business.

The iconic "Joe Camel" character used in cigarette ads was forced into retirement in the 1990's on the grounds that it was appealing to children, and violated that law. But without seeing how this company marketed the guns, other than by designing them to be more "kid-friendly", it's hard to say whether they're doing something similar.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2013-May-04, 16:05, said:

But without seeing how this company marketed the guns, other than by designing them to be more "kid-friendly", it's hard to say whether they're doing something similar.

You might consider starting by googling the phrases "my first rifle" and “quality firearms for America’s youth”.

(There is a clear difference between this and Joe Camel, in that five year olds don't have the $$$ to purchase guns, so these campaigns are targeting parents rather than the children)

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2013-May-04, 16:05, said:

The iconic "Joe Camel" character used in cigarette ads was forced into retirement in the 1990's on the grounds that it was appealing to children, and violated that law. But without seeing how this company marketed the guns, other than by designing them to be more "kid-friendly", it's hard to say whether they're doing something similar.

Law is only part of the solution. We can at least hope that when a very large consensus emerges it will have an effect. It will not totally solve a problem but in fact laws do not totally solve a problem either. Parents talk with other parents. I have a dimly remembered story on this, as I often do. When I was pretty young, I had an air rifle. You could build up the power by repeatedly opening and closing a lever. At full power it was quite a weapon. Somewhere along the way, I no longer had it. I cannot recall how this happened, I think I just didn't notice. Perhaps my parents did not realize its power when they got it, and when they did they just quietly took it back. Another possibility, quite likely at that time and place (St. Paul, 1940s) someone came over and asked my father if he was out of his mind, and explained that if Kenny was going to be playing with an air rifle it was not going to be in the same yard with his kid. I had a shotgun for hunting when I was about 12. So this was earlier, but not much. Maybe I was ten. Too young, and too loosely supervised. We were careful, we knew we had to be careful, but it's too young.

I very much believe that the answer to our gun problem lies in a large part with a change in attitude. Laws will follow. I quit hunting when I was in my 20s. I came to the sensible conclusion that I am not Daniel Boone, I am a mathematician who would go out maybe once in the fall and try to shoot something, preferably not myself, a fellow hunter, or a cow. I decided to stop this nonsense before someone got hurt. I am not really interested in stopping others from hunting, although it's a fact that when I was quite young I came within not all that many inches of getting an arrow through my head from an archer. There are a lot of people out there who have a highly inflated idea of their own abilities and judgment with weapons. "Oops, sorry" doesn't really work.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-May-04, 17:26, said:

I very much believe that the answer to our gun problem lies in a large part with a change in attitude.

That would be nice, but I don't know if it's enough. 90% of the American public is in favor of universal background checks, yet it still couldn't pass in the Senate a week ago, presumably because of the power of the NRA lobby.

In fact, it seems like attitudes have changed. About 50% of households owned guns in the 70's, it's down to about 30% now. That's probably why the firearm industry relies on lobbyists so much, they don't have a mandate from the people.

We managed to pull it off with the tobacco industry -- you watch "Mad Men" and it feels so weird to see everyone just casually lighting up. But the tobacco industry had a backup plan -- they increased their overseas marketing to make up for reduced domestic demand. But most other countries have gun control laws, so it would be difficult for the gun industry to make significant inroads there. If they're fighting for their corporate lives, it's harder to fight them just with "attitudes".

[ArtK78]

barmar, on 2013-May-04, 16:05, said:

Even without this law, it seems like such incidents could be prosecuted as manslaughter. But IANAL.

Certainly. But not as murder. There is a significant difference.

barmar, on 2013-May-04, 16:05, said:

The Constitution doesn't have an explicit provision regarding alcohol and tobacco consumption; the 2nd Amendment makes it harder for the government to regular the gun business.

The Constitution does have an explicit provision regarding the sale of alcohol. The 21st amendment - the one repealing prohibition - explicitly gives all of the power regarding the regulation of the sale of alcohol to the states.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2013-May-05, 20:49, said:

That would be nice, but I don't know if it's enough. 90% of the American public is in favor of universal background checks, yet it still couldn't pass in the Senate a week ago, presumably because of the power of the NRA lobby.

In fact, it seems like attitudes have changed. About 50% of households owned guns in the 70's, it's down to about 30% now. That's probably why the firearm industry relies on lobbyists so much, they don't have a mandate from the people.

We managed to pull it off with the tobacco industry -- you watch "Mad Men" and it feels so weird to see everyone just casually lighting up. But the tobacco industry had a backup plan -- they increased their overseas marketing to make up for reduced domestic demand. But most other countries have gun control laws, so it would be difficult for the gun industry to make significant inroads there. If they're fighting for their corporate lives, it's harder to fight them just with "attitudes".

The tobacco industry is indeed a good example. People, including my mother, were dying horrible deaths from lung cancer while the tobacco industry was altering their product to make it more addictive and running a marketing campaign aime at teenagers. No they didn't admit it and yes they were doing it. Immoral corporations, stupid consumers, and so on. I started smoking when I was 14. Yes, I knew it was harmful. I recall my high school math teacher, when he spotted my package of cigarettes, saying "You still smoking those coffin nails?". We knew.


Sometime around 1980, I don't remember exactly, I spent a semester at Berkeley. San Francisco had just passed a law banning, or at least restricting, smoking in restaurants. There was a grass roots uprising with many signatures demanding a referendum. Momentum was building against such government interference with individual rights. Until it was demonstrated that the signatures were fake and the whole referendum movement was financed by the tobacco industry. At the time I predicted that by 1990 smoking would pretty much be totally outlawed in public places. I was off by a few years, it took longer, but it has happened.

At some point people look at something and say: "This is nuts." Then things change. It doesn't happen overnight, but it happens. I think that ten or fifteen years from now we will look back in wonder at our permissiveness with guns. What in God's name were we thinking? I may again be off on the timing, but I think I am right about the eventual result. Sooner would be much better than later.

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2013-May-04, 05:23, said:

I'd be surprised if either the boy or his parents are charged with anything.

The boy is clearly too young to be responsible for his actions.
The parents should be charged with negligent homicide or some such, however, I doubt this will happen.

The combination of

1. Sympathy for the family for losing a child
2. The Kulturkampf surrounding gun ownership

probably means that a prosecution wouldn't be successful.

FWIW, I am horrified (though not particularly surprised) that this tragedy occurred.
However, its unclear to me that prosecuting the parents would accomplish anything useful.

Its not going to bring the child back from the dead.
I doubt that there is any deterrent value.
I doubt that this will make the parents feel any worse about themselves.

The one thing this will do is cripple their ability to provide for their remaining child.
(And I don't think that this rises to the occasion where the child should be taken away from the parents)

Agree mostly. But I do think there should be a consequence of law, above and beyond the consequence they have already paid. Ideally, they would lose their right to own firearms. I don't know if the law provides for such a sentence. I think in some states, a felony conviction automatically does this. Perhaps it would be appropriate to arrange a plea agreement to a felony charge, with this as the penalty. I just think there should be something.