Start them young..

[Big RR]

From what I have heard (and I have not googled it to check) Virginia makes it a crime to recklessly store firearms in a way to allow them to be used to harm someone. True, reckless is a higher standard than negligent, but I imagine it should likely apply here.

[BoSoxGal]

Virginia code:

§ 18.2-56.2. Allowing access to firearms by children; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of fourteen. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to authorize a child under the age of twelve to use a firearm except when the child is under the supervision of an adult. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "adult" shall mean a parent, guardian, person standing in loco parentis to the child or a person twenty-one years or over who has the permission of the parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis to supervise the child in the use of a firearm.

1991, c. 537; 1994, c. 832; 2020, c. 742.

[Bicycle Bill]

Virginia code:

§ 18.2-56.2. Allowing access to firearms by children; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to recklessly leave a loaded, unsecured firearm in such a manner as to endanger the life or limb of any child under the age of fourteen. Any person violating the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to authorize a child under the age of twelve to use a firearm except when the child is under the supervision of an adult. Any person violating this subsection shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. For purposes of this subsection, "adult" shall mean a parent, guardian, person standing in loco parentis to the child or a person twenty-one years or over who has the permission of the parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis to supervise the child in the use of a firearm.

1991, c. 537; 1994, c. 832; 2020, c. 742.

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but since the 6-year-old shot an adult instead of someone under the age of fourteen, paragraph 'A' doesn't apply.
And all the parents of the six-year-old need to say is that they didn't authorize the child to use the firearm, and that takes paragraph 'B' off the table.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but since the 6-year-old shot an adult instead of someone under the age of fourteen, paragraph 'A' doesn't apply

Very lawyerly, I'd say. OTOH another lawyer might say that the life and/or limbs of the 6-year old were endangered. Might have shot itself . . . might have been outdrawn by the teacher . . . who knows? After all, "endanger" does not mean "damage"

[BoSoxGal]

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but since the 6-year-old shot an adult instead of someone under the age of fourteen, paragraph 'A' doesn't apply

Very lawyerly, I'd say. OTOH another lawyer might say that the life and/or limbs of the 6-year old were endangered. Might have shot itself . . . might have been outdrawn by the teacher . . . who knows? After all, "endanger" does not mean "damage"

The elements of the statute would be met by the fact that this six year old shot his teacher IN A ROOM FULL OF SIX YEAR OLDS WHOSE LIVES WERE ENDANGERED BY THE PRESENCE OF THAT LOADED GUN!

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but since the 6-year-old shot an adult instead of someone under the age of fourteen, paragraph 'A' doesn't apply

Very lawyerly, I'd say. OTOH another lawyer might say that the life and/or limbs of the 6-year old were endangered. Might have shot itself . . . might have been outdrawn by the teacher . . . who knows? After all, "endanger" does not mean "damage"

The elements of the statute would be met by the fact that this six year old shot his teacher IN A ROOM FULL OF SIX YEAR OLDS WHOSE LIVES WERE ENDANGERED BY THE PRESENCE OF THAT LOADED GUN!

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

That was subsumed in "who knows". Anyway, I never read the story - just the head line

[Big RR]

Even without other children present, I would make the case that a loaded gun is always a danger to the life or limb or a six year old, so storing it where the cild could get it is a violation of the law.

[Burning Petard]

"I would make the case that a loaded gun is always a danger to the life or limb or a six year old"

Yep. My semi-senile memory says that children that age or younger in the Philly area in the last 12 months have been hit by bullets that have penetrated walls or windows or doors from the outside while the child was inside their home.

snailgate.

[BoSoxGal]

The news today is that the six year old’s backpack was searched by school administrators before he shot his teacher.

How hard is it to find a 9mm in a six year old’s backpack? Packs for kids that age aren’t that large, after all. Or was he so sneaky that he hid it elsewhere and then back into his pack after the search?

Anyway now they will be screening all their grade schoolers through a metal detector before school every day. What a world we made.

[Gob]

Searching 6 year old kid's backpacks, let alone for guns, shows how low things have sunk there.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It was hidden in a peanut butter sandwich.

[Econoline]

When I was a child, there were plenty of guns around, but I would never have taken one to school or shot anyone because I feared my mother.

Just out of curiosity, how many of those guns were semi-automatic pistols with ≥10-round magazines? How many were semi-automatic rifles with ≥30-round magazines?

(Also possibly significant is the fact that in 1970 there were only ~100 million guns in the US, compared to >400 million today. Not to mention the 24/7 "If it bleeds, it leads" news cycle, which makes copycat crimes much more likely.)

[Econoline]

The time has come to stop believing that there is some acceptable level of firearm control that (supposedly) controls a dangerous product while still following the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and start campaigning for the removal of that Amendment entirely.

And before you say that it can't be done, I refer you to the 21st Amendment, which completely and totally repealed the 18th Amendment (prohibition).  If we can acknowledge that we made a mistake with that amendment, we can certainly acknowledge that we have made a mistake in retaining, unchanged, the 2nd Amendment.

The circumstances surrounding the passage of the 2nd Amendment and the 18th Amendment were so completely different as to make any comparison absurd.

But even given the impossibility of REPEALING the 2nd Amendment, it should be possible to AMEND the 2nd Amendment slightly, in order to clarify the meaning of the first 4 words ("A well regulated Militia") and the last 4 words ("shall not be infringed").

In particular, it should be obvious to anyone reading it that "shall not be infringed" does *NOT* mean "shall not be regulated"—especially given the use of the word "regulated" at the beginning of the same sentence. (For that matter it might also be helpful to have a clearer definition of the phrase "the security of a free State"...hmmm?)

[BoSoxGal]

Thought some of you might appreciate this piece from the guardian: Paul Auster: ‘The gun that killed my grandfather was the same gun that ruined my father’s life’
Paul Auster at home in Brooklyn.
In this extract from his new book, Bloodbath Nation, the novelist details the chilling murder his family hid for five decades – and why fixing the US’s deadly relationship with firearms will take gut-wrenching honesty

[Burning Petard]

Yep. Gut wrenching honesty. A hundred years ago Americans could legally own fully automatic machine guns, and did.The laws funneling down who could own, possess, carry firearms have increased as the problem of American shooting each other has increased. This is a demand driven phenomenon. Class I drug restrictions have not caused reduction in deaths by illegal drug use. Too damn many individuals want to kill others for less and less provocations.
The 'wonderful' ground-breaking, landmark Brady Bill, if passed and fully enforced years before Pres Raygun was shot, would not have done anything to hinder that shooting of the president and his press-secretary.

Without reducing the desire to kill, the increased laws restricting legal gun possession will continue to be a meaningless gesture, joining with thoughts and prayers.

And by the way, I have been recently exposed to a program working to change people in jail. It has as a basic, that violence is caused by low self esteem.It also recognizes the pattern of giving trophies for just participating does not do it.

[Jarlaxle]

55 years ago, ANYONE could buy just about anything not full-auto...cash and carry, or even mail order. You could buy a no-shit Solothurn anti-tank cannon, mail order.

[Econoline]

Yeah, maybe anyone COULD, but how many people actually DID?

And why are there FOUR TIMES as many guns in circulation now than there were then? What percentage of those guns sold in the '60s were semi-automatic (and how many of those routinely used 30-round [or more] magazines?), and how does that compare to the percentage of the firearms sold in, say, the past 10 years?

[Burning Petard]

Yes Mr. Econoline (can I call you Van for short?) WHY oh Why do so many more people think they need those guns now? That is the question that must be solved and the culture changed. Any gun that uses a detachable box magazine can use a thirty round magazine--just make the 6 round mag longer with a bigger spring. Why were so many customers back then buying the M! Carbine (WWII Era semiautomatic, sold with teflon coating in choice of color including pink) and not bothering to buy the 30 rd mag that was available? It may seem easy to just ban guns, but the easy answer is usually also the wrong answer. There is an important truth in the old slogan that people kill people.

snailgate

[liberty]

This is a wake-up call, but it's not about guns. It's about the state of our culture. People are beaten up and killed over the slightest perceived insults. Courtesy and consideration are considered a weakness that no real man tolerates. A while back, I was leaving Wendy's store and saw a guy approaching; he was black, by the way, I held the door open for him. He took the door and said you better hold it open for me. He perceived my consideration as a weakness. We live in a sick society where generosity is the act of a fool, and courtesy the act of a coward. How does society turn those kinds of attitudes around you? You don't. The culture just sinks into deeper depravity.

[Scooter]

A while back, I was leaving Wendy's store and saw a guy approaching; he was black, by the way, I held the door open for him. He took the door and said you better hold it open for me.

I'll take "Total Bullshit that Never Happened" for $800, Alex.