Shooting sparks gun-law debate

[WhiteFeather]

Here is an example of how you can debate this kind of emotional topic and how there is a different standard (in people's minds) for the same results PLEASE read the comments at bottom.

BTW I am sorry for the families loss.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/242578

Shooting sparks gun-law debate
Teen accused of leaving gun out

It was a tragedy that easily could have been prevented, according to Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman.

Had Randall Hoover, 18, of Ephrata, followed the rules set by his parents, and placed his shotgun and shells up on a rack and out of the reach of small children on Sept. 5, his 5-year-old cousin, Andrew, would likely still be alive.

Instead, Hoover, who was intent on making a trip to a nearby store, left the shotgun and shells on a table in a barn on the family's Earl Township farm. His 6-year-old brother found them, loaded the shotgun and shot and killed Andrew.

Hoover knew the boys were interested in the gun and saw them playing near the barn, Stedman said, but he still failed to put the weapon and ammunition out of harm's way.

"(Hoover) was well aware of what he was supposed to do, but he was in a hurry and he made a choice and a child is dead," Stedman said. "I'm sure he didn't intend for that to happen.

"I'm sure he's devastated by it and our hearts go out to him and everybody involved, but still, if you choose to handle a deadly weapon, there is a responsibility that goes along with it."

On Monday, New Holland police charged Hoover with recklessly endangering another person for his alleged involvement in the shooting.

It's a broad-based charge, Stedman said, that covers an array of incidents in which someone acts with "criminal recklessness."

At least 26 states have laws in place that specifically hold adults accountable when children get their hands on guns and use them to hurt themselves or others.

And at least 15 states have laws that require gun owners to lock up their firearms and ammunition when they're not in use.

Pennsylvania has neither.

The state does require that all guns sold in the state be sold with child-safety locks, which prevent a firearm from being discharged.

But no law requires gun owners to actually use those locks.

"The pro-gun interests in Pennsylvania have always opposed those types of statutes," said Havertown attorney Daniel J. Siegel, a 1981 graduate of Franklin & Marshall College.

Over the past three decades, Siegel has served on the boards of several now-defunct gun-control organizations in the state, such as Handgun Control Inc., that have pushed for safe-storage and child-access-prevention gun laws in Pennsylvania.

"The Legislature is too afraid of the gun lobbyists to do anything," he said.

Dan Vice, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, based in Washington, D.C., said the value of such laws is clear.

Massachusetts has both, he said, and it "has the lowest gun death rate in the continental United States."

"It's very difficult for kids and criminals to get hold of guns in Massachusetts, whereas, in Pennsylvania, it's very easy for them."

The Brady Center criticizes Pennsylvania for the absence of safe-storage and child-access-prevention laws, stating on its Web site there is "no state requirement that gun owners take responsible steps to prevent children from gaining easy access to their firearms. Gun owners are not held accountable for leaving loaded guns around kids, even if a young child shoots themselves or someone else with a gun left in plain sight."

Stedman pointed out there may be no specific gun-control laws that hold them accountable, but there are other laws that do.

"(Hoover) is not charged with an intentional crime; he's charged with recklessly endangering another person," Stedman said.

"We don't want it to happen again. That's the real goal here, and you know there are situations out there where people are not taking the precautions they should."

New Holland Police Det. Jonathan Heisse said that before Hoover was charged, he discussed his department's plans with the families of both boys, as well as with leaders in the local Mennonite community.

Heisse, however, declined to discuss the details of those discussions.

Sources said the community believes Hoover shouldn't go to jail for the incident, but that he should be held publicly accountable.

"The thinking was, if nothing happens, then nothing good can come from this," one source said.

Siegel said, "It's a shame a child has to die to call attention to the importance of gun safety."

If Pennsylvania had safe-storage and child-access-prevention laws, Vice said, the mere existence of those laws would raise public awareness.

"They remind gun owners of the importance of keeping guns away from kids and warn them of the criminal consequences that could result if they don't," he said.

Whether or not Pennsylvania should have safe-storage and/or child-access-prevention gun laws is irrelevant to Stedman.

"I'm not a legislator," he said. "And I'm not making any announcement about, 'This is how you should store your guns or you're going to get charged.'

"The idea is to have accountability for this particular case and hopefully raise awareness."

Note the "pipes" guy got game and points out the preduices against firearms and how a gun owner is held to a higher standard with laws than others for similar crime / result.


Showing 5 most recent comments out of 21 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article

QUOTE (badmuffy @ Sep 24 2009, 10:31 AM) I'm so tired of hearing gun nuts talk about their rights. No one ever mentions the victims of gun deaths and their rights. What about that little boys right to grow up? QUOTE


I'm a "gun nut" muffy, and you have a point.
Especially since conservatives are the first ones to object to legal technicalities that get criminals off the hook. "What about the rights of the victim ? "
Where I think this all goes wrong is in the highly selective and prejudiced choice to prosecute this young man.
Considering that the number of children who die from accidental gunshot wounds is very, very small, maybe as small as 40 or 50 a year, but that hundreds of kids die in farm accidents, (quite appropos to this discussion), or drownings, or burns, etc., it's not unreasonable to think that we "gun nuts" might consider ourselves a bit singled-out.
We, and the NRA who represents us, are whole-heartedly in favor of reasonable gun laws that work. But we should not be expected to accept being held to a different standard of what is reasonable, or subjected to a catch-all reckless endangerment charge, especially for a constitutionally guaranteed right.
If this were more about children than guns, the police and DA would be much busier.

knowntomeQUOTE (Bigmaclender2 @ Sep 24 2009, 02:04 PM) You are getting far too radical-relax a bit and debate. I want to know why this 18 year old would be held accountable if he commited another crime. Example. Let's say that he knew that drinking while driving (even if it is underage) carrys the risk of death or the death of someone else. They still choose to take the risk and he gets behind the wheel. He ends up crossing the double lines and hits someone head on and they die instantly. He gets charged with vehicular homicide and sent to prison. Wouldn't this be a similar scenario. He knows that guns kill and still chose to risk that the kids would listen and was lazy and didn't put it back, right? QUOTE

I see what you're trying to get at but the post that knowntome posted is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Take DUI for example. When someone drinks it is guaranteed 100% of the time that their driving ability is hindered dramatically and they are putting others at risk INTENTIONALLY. When someone leaves a dangerous object lying around, whether it be a gun, a lighter, a knife, their keys in the car, and a million other things they are not INTENTIONALLY putting someone at risk (albeit stupid to do so). To use the DUI analogy, a gun owner would have to carelessly be firing the gun in a residential neighborhood to make them equal. There is 100% chance they are putting others at risk but they're not intentionally trying to kill someone. If they do they get arrested for manslaughter / murder. If you have children I'm willing to bet my house that there were times that you have left a knife somewhere it was accessible to children, or maybe a lighter or pack of matches. The reason your child doesn't touch them is because everytime they see you with it you reinforce the fact that "This is VERY dangerous...don't EVER...EVER touch this". Your child is well educated and knows to leave the knife alone even if it's sitting on the counter. If your child wasn't educated and started playing with the knife and got killed would there be a bunch of people up in arms to outlaw knives? No...you'd see a million posts saying what an idiot the parent was for leaving it out but I'm sure they wouldn't be charged. Why is it then that guns are singled out? The scenarios are no different what so ever yet people's reactions are completely different. I agree, the kid was a complete idiot, he gives well educated gun owners a bad name, he has to live with this forever. Should he personally be not allowed to own a gun for a certain period of time...sure, I'd buy that. Because then you're punishing the idiot and not the gun. The bottom line is that people leave things within reach of children all the time that could cause accidental death yet when it happens they don't jump to try and outlaw what caused it, yet because it was a gun, they do. I bet if you walk into Lowe's right now that every single blind in there has pull strings on them. They've killed a lot of toddlers by strangulation. Should we outlaw them?
pipesJust one more point I want to make. I looked for some statistics on accidental deaths. These aren't from 2008 but are the most recent I could locate.

Accidental Deaths age 0-1

636 suffocated
63 drowned
26 poisoned

ages 1-4

139 suffocated
454 drowned
31 poisoned

ages 5-9

149 drowned
40 suffocated
15 poisned
14 firearm

Young teens

162 - drowned
70 suffocated
34 firearms
28 poison

Older teens

This was shocking 5,552 motor vehicle

If you look at these it's obvious that MV, Suffocation, drowning and poison by FAR outnumber firearms. However, you see nobody trying to outlaw ANY items associated with these deaths. The reason being is that it's usually some sort of household cleaner, or blanket or toy. Things everyone is FAMILIAR with and everyone UNDERSTANDS. They look at it and say, well duh, if you used it correctly that wouldn't have happened. The same holds true for firearms. the problem is too many people aren't familiar with them so therefore do not understand and we all know how people just love to go after something they don't understand.

I hope you are ALL learning how to take the emotional element out of the equation, counter with facts and show the persecution of gun owners for an agenda.

Sad stories like this and no one to debate them with arguments like “pipes” & others presented is why we have so many gun laws in PA.

I don't know "pipes" or any poster are even a member of PAFOA, thanks anyway for putting the uncomfortable truth out there

Why I made mention of comments like this. In open floor debates on gun bills some anti-gunner will take part of story like this tragedy as " A REASON" to enact some anti-gun law like Mandatory trigger locks, storing all firearms in locked safes, Lost and stolen etc.

When WE can craft talking points like this and get them to pro gun Reps to use in floor debates "IT ROCKS" and the bills, amendments die on the floor.
Also works the other way with Pro-gun bills like HB 40, giving Reps talking points crafted by gun owners helps wins battles where is counts.

This is how anyone of US on PAFOA can win a battle, if WE take the time to get involved in the political process instead of just sitting on the sideline and complaining.

Want to help protect your rights by crafting talking points? go here
http://forum.pafoa.org/pennsylvania-...-sb-842-a.html


.

[ksig1869]

interesting

[NY Refugee]

A very sad, as is the case with the death of any child.

So lets use it to promote an agenda and ignore the facts, these reports get old and its clear that the reporter was on an agenda with who he choose to quote.

[Warpt762x39]

It doesn't matter what happens to the guy legal wise. He has to live with that the rest of his life. He's not going to be able to look at any member of his family without feeling it. That's gonna stick with him longer than just about any jail sentence they might consider throwing at him.

[mak47]

I don't see how having a law requiring safe storage would have prevented this death.

This 18 year old kid acted irresponsibly. He placed his desire to go to the store, over his responsibility to keep these young kids safe. All he had to do was put the gun away before running to the store, it would have taken a minute--but he still didn't do it.

If the thought that one of these kids might get killed because a gun was left out didn't occur to him, then why would a potential criminal charge for not storing a gun properly?

The argument is laughable on it's face. We all know this, but it always needs to be said.

It's a terrible tragedy that this happened and my prayers go out to the family of the child. Stories like this always have a way of making me reassess my own behaviors when it comes to gun safety, hopefully it will for others as well so things like this don't have to happen again.