Father accidentally shoots, kills son

[Espe]

Nuclear missile flyswatter.

Yeah simple, basic, obvious protections for people who aren't gun nuts = nuclear flyswatter.

Another fine example of your logic

[the game]

Still having a really hard time believing this was an "accident" as the locals are claiming.

I'm so glad you are here to solve this mystery. The police department should just ask you what happened. I mean your logic of "it doesn't make sense to me so it has to be on purpose." is pretty ironclad.

[Stormdash]

How is requiring training and screening a punishment to responsible gun owners? If they are as responsible as you claim, they would be willing to take the few hours it would take to receive training and that would mean that idiots also receive the training. But instead, they bitch and moan about "UNREGULATED!" when requiring training would likely reduce "accidents" and the like which would cause people to not be as interested in restricting gun access.

It's that it's an overbroad requirement and really can't survive either form of heightened scrutiny? Can we also go ahead and have training and screening before people can vote? Voting is much more likely to cause misery in other people's lives than owning a firearm.

[Elegiac]

It's that it's an overbroad requirement and really can't survive either form of heightened scrutiny? Can we also go ahead and have training and screening before people can vote? Voting is much more likely to cause misery in other people's lives than owning a firearm.

A mandatory civics course in high school as a prerequisite for voting would be beneficial, yes.

[Stormdash]

Yeah simple, basic, obvious protections for people who aren't gun nuts = nuclear flyswatter.

Another fine example of your logic

My logic comes from an actual understanding of (not to mention investment in) constitutional law. Your ideas all require pretending that the document simply doesn't apply to guns at all. No, not because "regulations of any kind", but because of how impositions on a civil liberty are scrutinized, how the burdens are on the government to justify them, not on the individual to justify their right.

- - - Updated - - -

A mandatory civics course in high school as a prerequisite for voting would be beneficial, yes.

A 90% score on this quiz would be nice, but the point is this -- to put up such a requirement, the government would have to demonstrate that requiring it served a compelling state interest, and that the requirement was the least restrictive possible means of serving that interest. That's called "strict scrutiny", one of the two forms of heightened scrutiny.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well I may be off a bit, I really started counting at the NFA of 1934, So not quite 100 years yet.

Ah yes...the definitive "Gungrabber" FDR and his notorious NFA. Restricting the critical need for untrained civilians to own Machine Guns. Truly a great miscarriage of American Justice.

[Elegiac]

A 90% score on this quiz would be nice, but the point is this -- to put up such a requirement, the government would have to demonstrate that requiring it served a compelling state interest, and that the requirement was the least restrictive possible means of serving that interest. That's called "strict scrutiny", one of the two forms of heightened scrutiny.

I daresay given how critical voting is to the basic functioning of a republican form of government there's compelling interest in ensuring that voters are as informed as possible.

And in the case of guns, yeah, gun violence speaks for itself.

[Stormdash]

I daresay given how critical voting is to the basic functioning of a republican form of government there's compelling interest in ensuring that voters are as informed as possible.

Well, the closest test case was literacy tests, which were obviously struck down. Generally speaking, if the court decides that strict scrutiny is even the standard of review, the government action will almost always fail as a factual issue. But conceptually, if someone could contrive a literacy/civic knowledge test that would address the Court's concerns about Jim Crow laws, than it could survive -- but it would still need to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal.

[TITAN308]

Ah yes...the definitive "Gungrabber" FDR and his notorious NFA. Restricting the critical need for untrained civilians to own Machine Guns. Truly a great miscarriage of American Justice.

Not just machine guns, but suppressors, SBR, SBS, among other things.

Things that were not used in a lot of crimes, but they needed to make an example for those stinky poor people ($200 tax stamp) and gangsters.

And many of our EU counter-parts will point out, suppressors can be bought over the counter in most Euro nations and are considered a hearing device. But us? Nah, those ninja assassins use them. =/

So yea, that was about the time they started chipping away.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Not just machine guns, but suppressors, SBR, SBS, among other things.

Things that were not used in a lot of crimes, but they needed to make an example for those stinky poor people ($200 tax stamp) and gangsters.

And many of our EU counter-parts will point out, suppressors can be bought over the counter in most Euro nations and are considered a hearing device. But us? Nah, those ninja assassins use them. =/

So yea, that was about the time they started chipping away.

I see you've downgraded from "Fucking over" to "Chipping away".

SBR's and SBS' were used in a lot of crimes though. I can agree that suppressors may have been overkill, though. Also, the NFA has been chipped away over the last 80 years as well. And as regards that $200 tax...well...all I'll say about that is that it has not been adjusted to the current dollar...so it has much less of a prohibitive effect now than it did then.

I can agree that suppressors are overkill on that list...all I can think of that might explain that is maybe the most common use of suppressors at the time was for criminal activity. Hey, maybe if you were to come to the table to talk about sensible gun laws...that's something you could iron out.

On the other side of the scale though you've had multiple Supreme Court Victories...one was even against the NFA itself which cuased much of tthat act to be reworked. The NRA has effectively blocked the CDC from researching gun violence. There's been lots of give and take regarding gun laws.

So, no...I'm not buying this victim mentality that gun owners are constantly on the losing end of things.

[Citizen T]

If someone who knows how to shoot starts shooting at you, you are likely dead anyway. And there is a much higher chance of someone shooting at you if everyone is able to purchase guns freely.

Guns for entertainment is even sillier, in my opinion. There is a lot of air guns for those who really love to shoot. Otherwise, if we should indulge people who want to shoot their rifles for fun in their spare time, should we indulge people who want to shoot a military aircraft too?

I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun, I just don't see the point of it all. Lots of countries do fine without soft gun laws, and yet the US, as always, wants to be different from everyone for some weird reason.

Contrary to popular belief every shot that comes out of a firearm (even those aimed at people) doesn't produce a fatality. There are instances of police (obviously "someone who knows how to shoot") having fire fights in distances as short as the length of a car with both officer and criminal emptying magazines without either hitting the other. Even if someone shoots at me and hits me, the odds are very high that I'll not be dead and will still be able to draw my weapon and at least attempt to defend myself - which is better than just laying down and dying.

[TwoNineMarine]

Which is why we could use proper screenings and training requirements as well as more stringent background checks with no loopholes and more modifications including high capacity magazines made illegal.

You know, basic, bare-bones protections for people who aren't gun nuts. Seems obvious.

Still having a really hard time believing this was an "accident" as the locals are claiming.

What the hell would any of those do against a guy who legally owned a weapon and accidentally fired it?

I can answer that one Trebek! Nothing for 500!

Have you ever had hot brass land on you? That shit hurts like a motherfucker. I fully understand his reaction. What I don't approve of his having his finger on the trigger.

The annoying thing is you are using this terrible accident to push gun control that literally would have done NOTHING to prevent this.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm so glad you are here to solve this mystery. The police department should just ask you what happened. I mean your logic of "it doesn't make sense to me so it has to be on purpose." is pretty ironclad.

We need him to replace the Director of the FBI.

Shit would be solved in no time. No more fucking around.

[Stormdash]

While the father lost his presence of mind at the range, he clearly still has more moral perspective about... y'know, responsibility and agency and how inaniminate objects work than the anti-gun movement standing on his son's body to shout their agenda --

“The gun didn't kill my boy. I did,” Brumby, 64, said.

“Every round in the gun is your responsibility. When it fires you need to stand to account for it. That's what I've spent the last two days doing, accounting for my operating error.”

New York Daily News

Didn't know this part -- the fatal shot was apparently a ricochet off the ceiling of the indoor range. That really doesn't change everything he did wrong, he still broke the same two of the four rules, but... I don't know, it horrifies me slightly less, to know he wasn't so unaware that he actually muzzled his kid.

[Ghostpanther]

While I agree with you on the fact that people can and will still do stupid things even with proper training don't you find it a little odd that there is no pre-requisite to owning a gun knowledge wise?

You don't have to show any kind of competency to own a gun, not how to shoot it, maintain it, or basic fire arm safety knowledge. I guess in the end it probably wouldn't change much, but still as you say I have to prove some basic competency to drive a car, you would think the same would be required for owning a gun.

There should be a required safety and proper use for a firearm when buying one. Unless you can prove you have had training such as a combat role in the military or previous police training. My point was mainly to dispute a person needs a lengthy class course to safely use a firearm.

[Glnger]

every gun owner is a "responsible, and well trained" and "no one could have seen this coming"

remember all that "we're trying to help you" stuff I was saying in the last gun death related thread...
If only this guy listened, Instead he shot his own son, and probably soon himself after he stops saying literally word for word the type of statements the NRA puts out after a white guy goes off and does a mass shooting.

[TITAN308]

every gun owner is a "responsible, and well trained" and "no one could have seen this coming"

And every Muslim is a "terrorist" right?

Are you about to trail off on one of your bigoted ramblings again?

[Glnger]

And every Muslim is a "terrorist" right?

Are you about to trail off on one of your bigoted ramblings again?

nah, I don't need to. you know what I'm going to say. so we're making progress.
at least it wasn't you.
:It will never happen to you:

[Espe]

Have you ever had hot brass land on you?

Actually I have. You know what I didn't do? Try to fish it out with the hot gun I just shot it from.

There is more to this story than what has been said. The father just got away with shooting his son. Actual background checks might've prevented him from ever owning a weapon, as clearly he wasn't someone who should have been allowed to own firearms in the first place.

It's telling that simple, responsible laws make you react in such a way.

[TwoNineMarine]

Actually I have. You know what I didn't do? Try to fish it out with the hot gun I just shot it from.

There is more to this story than what has been said. The father just got away with shooting his son. Actual background checks might've prevented him from ever owning a weapon, as clearly he wasn't someone who should have been allowed to own firearms in the first place.

It's telling that simple, responsible laws make you react in such a way.

I agree he shouldn’t have fished it out of his shirt or whatever.

What I don’t get is why you insist that a Dad wanted an excuse to shoot his 14 year old boy.

Your anti-gun crusade is showing.

[Espe]

I agree he shouldn’t have fished it out of his shirt or whatever.

What I don’t get is why you insist that a Dad wanted an excuse to shoot his 14 year old boy.

Your anti-gun crusade is showing.

I'm not on an ant-gun crusade, I have suggested simple, obvious improvements to gun laws in the US that could save innocent lives.

As for what happened to this boy I don't believe we have the full story. It just doesn't add up. You don't fish out a hot casing with a hot gun you just shot. Doesn't make sense.