This blog has featured some of the ideological arguments for gun control. One notices that policy debates arise soon after a tragedy has taken place with both sides of the divide stating even more loudly why any tragedy would not have happened had there been less freedom with gun purchase or with stronger gun control policies. As reported here by AP in the Boston Herald, the recriminations are back following the indictments after the death of a child at a gun show.
Looking at the sad incident at a gun show during which a child suffered fatal injuries while firing an Uzi, I have to state my view that this debate is taking on the same tired lines. It is clear here that there's no direct and clear culpability as this was a self-inflicted wound albeit aided by very poor supervision. To my mind though, I favour freedom and parental responsibility but worry that a child should be allowed to fire an Uzi at a gun show. the court case and the acrimony merely ensure that a proper discussion for gun control and regulation will not occur.
Admittedly, the law in Massachusetts allows children to fire shot guns or rifles with parental consent. I create the distinction that an Uzi would probably require more careful handling than the other two and to allow any 8 year old to take shots does not betray sufficient care. It is also surprising that a law enforcement officer is attached to a corporation that sponsored the show.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Your concern is poorly placed. Accidental deaths for children (real children, not the 19 year old thugs who shoot each other in drug wars) are near the lowest form of accidental deaths. In fact, only death by poison gas and All Other rank below firearms. Out of a population of 60 million plus, there were only 75 accidental deaths by firearm for children in 2005. You can see the CDC's numbers on that here.
This was a sad event, but no more tragic that a child drowning in a pool or being killed in a car accident.
If you read the other gunnies in my blogroll, you will see us pretty much condemn this event as a clear cut case of stupidity. Fully auto firearms are fun to shoot, but for someone of that age they should have been given a fixed mounted gun rather than something so small and even then, they should have had an ADULT to hold the child's hands.
However, the reason there is no 'proper' discussion on gun control is because those who believe in it start with a false set of premises. As more and more states adopt liberal gun laws (48 states now have some form of concealed carry, some with no licensing required at all), none of the gun banners' "Blood in the Streets" or "Wild West Shootouts over parking spots" have ever come true.
The last time I checked, criminals simply don't obey laws. Those who use guns in crimes are willing to commit murder and I do not see what law you could put in place that would make them think "I don't care if I kill this lady, but I'm not going to risk the extra year in jail for carrying a weapon!"
Thanks Robb for your comment. You provide a source for data and make the arguments against uninformed gun control legislation strongly. However, I hope that you do not misunderstand me to state that there should be more controls. My purpose was to suggest that poor supervision led to this tragic event and the death of a child then presents a situation where there is mere rehashing of the tired ideas one has heard before from both sides.
I did not suggest anything about criminality from gun owners a there's no evidence for this. I know that criminals will be able to find weapons through whatever market. Still, the poor supervision at this gun show gives one the impression that more care is required and that a child should be more closely supervised if she must be allowed to fire such a powerful weapon.
Post a Comment