7 year old arrested with pellet gun

[AGB]

Apr 29, 2013 14:29:49 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 29, 2013 12:55:18 GMT -5 AGB said:

Well, that is a bit different than your original comment, so thanks for clarifying. I'm still not sure what information from the kid or the adults in the household would lead to searching the home for items that are legal. We don't have laws regulating storage where I live, are there where this took place?

I don't know what that information would be either.  Again just speculating on why they arrested the kid.

The issue for me is keeping children safe. The situation of the pellet gun on the bus was scary from the standpoint of all those little faces staring at a gun in the hands of a kid who obviously didn't have a proper respect for it (or he wouldn't have taken it in the first place). Was it not loaded by chance or did the uncle at least keep the ammo and weapon stored in different locations? Don't know that. As to the "legal" storage issue, it is possible to recklessly endanger the children living in a home and not do anything "illegal". If the adults in the house are not providing a safe environment, then it is legitimate {IM(not so)HO} for the government to become involved.

Is a home not a safe environment by default when there are firearms in the house? Is this about children and safety, or the method of potential injury and/or death?  I admit I don't catch everything on these boards, so maybe I missed where people where advocating for search warrants and CPS interventions over pools and pillows. 

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2013 14:57:28 GMT -5 AGB said:

... maybe I missed where people where advocating for search warrants and CPS interventions over pools and pillows. 

Were paramedics called to resuscitate the kid who had drowned in the pool? If you have a pool and you don't teach your kid how to swim or keep a locked gate between the kid and the pool, you are recklessly endangering your child. If you teach them how to swim or provide an adequate fence, then it is not an unsafe situation. Pillows? As far as guns in the house: Either locking them up or adequately teaching a 7 year old to not take it to school should be a minimal expectation for keeping kids safe.

[AGB]

Apr 29, 2013 15:10:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 29, 2013 14:57:28 GMT -5 AGB said:

... maybe I missed where people where advocating for search warrants and CPS interventions over pools and pillows. 

Were paramedics called to resuscitate the kid who had drowned in the pool? If you have a pool and you don't teach your kid how to swim or keep a locked gate between the kid and the pool, you are recklessly endangering your child. If you teach them how to swim or provide an adequate fence, then it is not an unsafe situation. Pillows? As far as guns in the house: Either locking them up or adequately teaching a 7 year old to not take it to school should be a minimal expectation for keeping kids safe.

It was actually a hypothetical pool, based more on statistics concerning unintentional deaths than an emotional response to the words "pellet gun". 5-9 yr olds are over 6 times more likely to die in motor vehicle related incidents, 2.3 times more likely to die by drowning, and 1.5 times more likely to die from fires/burns, yet rarely do these deaths provoke the same knee jerk reaction in the people claiming to be all about child safety. Is it about safety, or is it about guns? Do you feel the same urge to involve the police and cps when you see your neighbors' pool is not fenced in? Should there be a search warrant issued to see what other evils might be lurking in that home?

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2013 16:40:59 GMT -5 AGB said:

Apr 29, 2013 15:10:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Were paramedics called to resuscitate the kid who had drowned in the pool? If you have a pool and you don't teach your kid how to swim or keep a locked gate between the kid and the pool, you are recklessly endangering your child. If you teach them how to swim or provide an adequate fence, then it is not an unsafe situation. Pillows? As far as guns in the house: Either locking them up or adequately teaching a 7 year old to not take it to school should be a minimal expectation for keeping kids safe.

It was actually a hypothetical pool, based more on statistics concerning unintentional deaths than an emotional response to the words "pellet gun". 5-9 yr olds are over 6 times more likely to die in motor vehicle related incidents, 2.3 times more likely to die by drowning, and 1.5 times more likely to die from fires/burns, yet rarely do these deaths provoke the same knee jerk reaction in the people claiming to be all about child safety. Is it about safety, or is it about guns? Do you feel the same urge to involve the police and cps when you see your neighbors' pool is not fenced in? Should there be a search warrant issued to see what other evils might be lurking in that home?

Yes.

[mmhmm]

As do I, billis.  Kids standing up in cars, or out of carseats, or bicycling on the street without proper protective gear, or unfenced, unprotected pools with children playing around them make me just as angry as a child carrying a gun (any kind of gun) to school.  It's up to parents to keep their children safe from harm in the best ways possible.

[billisonboard]

We aren't talking about a pellet gun in a drawer.  We are talking about a pellet gun that was taken onto a school bus by a 7 year old boy.  So what would be analogous situations.  With the swimming pool:  If I have to come over and pull a drowning kid from an unprotected pool.  Cars:  A child hanging out of a window as the car travels down a highway.  Fire:  An unsupervised child playing with matches. 

[frankq]

If the adults in the house are not providing a safe environment, then it is legitimate {IM(not so)HO} for the government to become involved.

I know I said I was outta here, and I will be, but I had a question. When do we start pulling these kids out of homes where the parents don't believe in medicine or vaccines? How many kids have to die from easily preventable diseases and curable illnesses before the government "gets involved". After all, it's about a safe environment ...........

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2013 18:00:45 GMT -5 frankq said:

If the adults in the house are not providing a safe environment, then it is legitimate {IM(not so)HO} for the government to become involved.

I know I said I was outta here, and I will be, but I had a question. When do we start pulling these kids out of homes where the parents don't believe in medicine or vaccines? How many kids have to die from easily preventable diseases and curable illnesses before the government "gets involved". After all, it's about a safe environment ...........

That is a very difficult issue to deal with in our society. Not much middle ground there. With guns it is much easier to tell people that they need to safely store their constitutional protected guns so that their children will not have free access to them when there has been a demonstrated problem with that access than it is to force medical treatment on a person's child when that person has a constitutional protected right to exercise religious freedom.

[AGB]

Apr 29, 2013 16:43:44 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 29, 2013 16:40:59 GMT -5 AGB said:

It was actually a hypothetical pool, based more on statistics concerning unintentional deaths than an emotional response to the words "pellet gun". 5-9 yr olds are over 6 times more likely to die in motor vehicle related incidents, 2.3 times more likely to die by drowning, and 1.5 times more likely to die from fires/burns, yet rarely do these deaths provoke the same knee jerk reaction in the people claiming to be all about child safety. Is it about safety, or is it about guns? Do you feel the same urge to involve the police and cps when you see your neighbors' pool is not fenced in? Should there be a search warrant issued to see what other evils might be lurking in that home?

Yes.

Daaaaaamn.... can I say that here? But I will give you credit for consistency.

[EVT1]

Apr 29, 2013 18:12:37 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Apr 29, 2013 18:00:45 GMT -5 frankq said:

If the adults in the house are not providing a safe environment, then it is legitimate {IM(not so)HO} for the government to become involved.

I know I said I was outta here, and I will be, but I had a question. When do we start pulling these kids out of homes where the parents don't believe in medicine or vaccines? How many kids have to die from easily preventable diseases and curable illnesses before the government "gets involved". After all, it's about a safe environment ...........

That is a very difficult issue to deal with in our society. Not much middle ground there. With guns it is much easier to tell people that they need to safely store their constitutional protected guns so that their children will not have free access to them when there has been a demonstrated problem with that access than it is to force medical treatment on a person's child when that person has a constitutional protected right to exercise religious freedom.

Disagree- only an adult has the right to refuse medical treatment. A child has no ability to consent or reject. IMO if a child is presented to an emergency department that can be helped then the parents do not get an option.  At some point you are an unfit parent- and letting your child die of a treatable condition makes you an unfit parent or an insurance company.

[EVT1]

BTW quit calling this a toy. A toy gun is a cap gun or non functional thing- a pellet gun is a gun.  And I mentioned earlier- what are you 'toy gun' advocates going to do when a cop shoots a child pointing the 'toy' at them?

[Green Eyed Lady]

That's already happened, evt1.  Google Jaime Gonzalez from Texas.  He was shot and killed by police because he refused to put down a weapon which turned out to be a pellet gun.  Another child - age 13 - was paralyzed after being shot by police who couldn't tell the weapon he was aiming was a pellet gun.  That happened in LA, I believe. 

[billisonboard]

Apr 29, 2013 23:24:14 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

... IMO if a child is presented to an emergency department that can be helped ...

I think that your adding this element to the situation supports the fact that it is a difficult issue in our society. How is the child "presented to an emergency department"? By the parent? By a governmental official? What does "can be helped" mean? If there is a treatment for a condition that has a 99.99% chance of saving a child, does the parent have no right to refuse it? 50.01% 50% 49.99% 22.73%

It is a challenge for the aesthetic surgeon to make good-looking people more handsome. But it is even more rewarding to "normalize" people who are isolated because of their ugly facial expression so that they may be reintegrated into a group of friends from which they may have already anxiously withdrawn. Children with Down's syndrome are frequently concealed from the public by their parents. The children suffer from two disadvantages: Their mental abilities are limited and they have ugly facial features.(1) www.ds-health.com/psurg.htm

Do we force parents to "help" their child with Downs in this manner (or conversely not allow them to force a child to undergo this cosmetic procedure)?

Although I have my view on the whole issue, it is an area that I believe it is not my right to force my view (either individually or through my government) on others.

[EVT1]

Just a little plinking rifle- perfectly fine for a child:

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/01/18000685-five-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-sister?lite

     A 5-year-old Kentucky boy who received a .22-caliber rifle as a gift accidentally shot and killed his 2-year-old sister on Tuesday, according to state police

     He said that the family did not realize that there was a shell inside the gun. The firearm was kept in a corner, he said

     “It’s a Crickett,” Cumberland County Coroner Gary White told the paper. “It’s a little rifle for a kid.”

     The shooting occurred while the boy was playing with the rifle, police said. It was “just one of those crazy accidents,” White told the Herald-Leader


Really.  You sure looking around after some kid has a gun on a bus is a bad idea when people like this are out there?

[frankq]

Really. You sure looking around after some kid has a gun on a bus is a bad idea when people like this are out there?

No, but I think continuing to say that this kid had a "gun" on the bus is wholly inaccurate. This is the kind of word game that fans the embers into flames.

[Deleted]

By all accounts, including the thread title, it was a pellet gun.  It isn't a kitten.  The word gun is right in there.

[billisonboard]

May 4, 2013 8:55:52 GMT -5 frankq said:

...

No, but I think continuing to say that this kid had a "gun" on the bus is wholly inaccurate. ..,

So what exactly should we call this "item" that he had on the bus.

[frankq]

A pellet gun, or a BB gun. Call it what it was, not what you want it to be seen as.

[billisonboard]

The world's largest list of penis euphemisms. Enjoy

Maybe we need a list like this for "guns"

[Deleted]

May 4, 2013 9:06:27 GMT -5 frankq said:

A pellet gun, or a BB gun. Call it what it was, not what you want it to be seen as.

Back at you.

Actually, my lay understanding is that pellet guns and BB guns are not the same things.  Calling it a BB gun would be inaccurate.  Calling it a gun is accurate.

[billisonboard]

typed that too quickly. still looking

[frankq]

Pellet guns and BB guns are actually the same thing, firing a very light projectile with spring or air pressure and in most cases, BB guns also shoot pellets. Yes, there are competition air guns of specialty. In it's basic form, is it a "gun"? I guess, but I think it's safe to say that some people out here want it to be viewed as the same and as dangerous as a "real" gun that uses a powder charge and exponentially heavier projectile fired at much higher speeds. Everything has it's inherent hazard, but calling it a "gun" and equating it with, say a .45 revolver is inaccurate.

[frankq]

Think what you want bill, just trying to keep it reasonable out here....Crafty, if you want to equate BB guns to real guns that's your issue. I'm sure the event that sparked this thread has long been dealt with by now. The whole thing has been overblown.

[billisonboard]

May 4, 2013 9:20:13 GMT -5 frankq said:

Think what you want bill, ...

Really, wow, you are going to let me do that. Thanks frank.

Now if only moonbeam would let me post it.

[EVT1]

Ummm- it shoots a projectile and can be lethal.  How is this not a real gun?

[billisonboard]

May 4, 2013 11:26:16 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

...How is this not a real gun?

There are different classes of guns with different rules governing each of them. Well, that is until someone says that in regards to the Second Amendment and then arms are arms.

[jackthelad]

I doubt very much if he would have killed someone with a pellet gun, what concerns me more is parents that buy a rifle for a 5 year old,(they say it is called my first gun) then they leave him alone in a room with a 2 year old sister. He shot and killed his sister, and the adults said they didn't realise it was loaded. The trouble with Americans, they have a cavalier attitude to guns, all guns, pistol or rifle. If they gave these people a brain scan, I am sure they would have difficulty finding one.

[frankq]

There are different classes of guns with different rules governing each of them. Well, that is until someone says that in regards to the Second Amendment and then arms are arms.

Ok, let us know the next time a bunch of people are killed with a pellet gun. You guys are taking this to the ridiculous. I'll leave you to it.

Oh, and since we're suddenly invoking the Second Amendment so literally here, I guess the gun debate in general is over..........

[frankq]

Really, wow, you are going to let me do that. Thanks frank.

This wasn't meant to be sarcastic, but if you want to act like an ass as opposed to engaging in a rational debate, so be it....

[billisonboard]

The ongoing "debate" is an absurdity. A seven year old is arrested with something and we are debating whether it is a "gun" or a "pellet gun". We are debating whether some hunk of metal is an "automatic", "semi-automatic", or not "automatic" at all. 1, 8, 10, 30, 100, more. We debate what some group of guys over 200 years ago "really" meant in a collection of 27 words, three commas, and one period.

Human beings are going to go on maiming and killing each other with fists, or guns, or bombs. As this ongoing debate continues, we are all just jerking ourselves and each other off without any possibility of changing that simple fact.