Why kids shouldn't get guns

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well I for one am appalled.

I don't care who wrote it, I think it makes a lot of sense. Also I wonder if you haven't misunderstood Jefferson's "false idea of utility", because it sounds to me like it's the notion of banning guns which carries the false idea of utility.

[Tunnelcat]

TC, cars and swimming pools and all those other consumer items you point to are not supposed to hurt the consumer in the course of normal operation so when that proves to be happening it is going to cause people to seek protection from faulty products...
The rifle that the five year old used worked exactly as it was designed to!
The faulty component was the end user. Therefore the solution to the problem isnt the manufacturers responsibility. So your analogy is lame.

Same with the swimming pool example. The faulty end user. But you'll notice that the pool manufacturer is not held responsible for someone's child drowning in their pool. It's STILL the owner's responsibility. But when those owners either abdicated or failed in their responsibility to protect those who couldn't swim from drowning in their pools, the solution was to enact "building codes" that required a perimeter fence be installed around any existing backyard residential pool to "prevent" such accidents. This should be especially apparent when it involves a loaded lethal weapon that is sitting in a household with children around.

So what do you do in an accidental shooting involving a child, in which the owner was at fault? I'm not talking about taking away someone's guns because they allowed an accident to happen, although that should be up for debate. Stupidity is no reason to neglect the fact that someone died and someone was at fault for allowing that to happen in the first place. Some things are NOT accidents, they're preventable mistakes. There's no do-overs when someone dies.

What I am talking about making sure that stupid or inattentive parents aren't even allowed to let their children have unattended access to a lethal weapon. In other words, a loaded weapon should not be left lying around when no adult is in attendance. It should be against the law. At those times, said weapons must be locked up for the safety and welfare of all children in any household, even if those children seem familiar with the use of those weapons. The reasonable expectation is that children do NOT know how to safely operate a weapon, by themselves, without adult supervision, period. Sometimes people have to be protected from their own stupidity, whether they like it or not. It's done with laws and regulations all the time. It's not some new socialistic concept.

Setting traps for burglars is very illegal...at least here in PA

It is here too, but I think it SHOULD be legal. My home is my castle. Someone wants to break in, all bets are off. I should be able to legally have alligators in a moat, or bear traps in the hallway, for protecting my property when I'm not here. I mean, it's legal to SHOOT at a burglar when you're AT home. That pesky self defense requirement always gets in the way of stopping bad guys.

[Krom]

Same with the swimming pool example. The faulty end user. But you'll notice that the pool manufacturer is not held responsible for someone's child drowning in their pool. It's STILL the owner's responsibility. But when those owners either abdicated or failed in their responsibility to protect those who couldn't swim from drowning in their pools, the solution was to enact "building codes" that required a perimeter fence be installed around any existing backyard residential pool to "prevent" such accidents. This should be especially apparent when it involves a loaded lethal weapon that is sitting in a household with children around.

So what do you do in an accidental shooting involving a child, in which the owner was at fault? I'm not talking about taking away someone's guns because they allowed an accident to happen, although that should be up for debate. Stupidity is no reason to neglect the fact that someone died and someone was at fault for allowing that to happen in the first place. Some things are NOT accidents, they're preventable mistakes. There's no do-overs when someone dies.

What I am talking about making sure that stupid or inattentive parents aren't even allowed to let their children have unattended access to a lethal weapon. In other words, a loaded weapon should not be left lying around when no adult is in attendance. It should be against the law. At those times, said weapons must be locked up for the safety and welfare of all children in any household, even if those children seem familiar with the use of those weapons. The reasonable expectation is that children do NOT know how to safely operate a weapon, by themselves, without adult supervision, period. Sometimes people have to be protected from their own stupidity, whether they like it or not. It's done with laws and regulations all the time. It's not some new socialistic concept.

How do you enforce this hypothetical rule? Constant in home supervision by the police of all gun owners with children? You will have to forgive me for thinking this is probably the dumbest idea I've read all week. There is simply no way to enforce a rule like that without destroying the economy, the constitution and the bill of rights all together. Be realistic here, building codes are nothing like your proposal, building codes can be enforced because buildings are large, publicly visible objects that are quite impossible for children to move.

This whole incident is basically the poster case for the quote: "It could be that the entire purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.". There really is nothing that needs to be done to further address this incident, the punishment has already been enforced and these people will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

And again:

The one thing you can't legislate away is stupidity.

[Will Robinson]

TC, we don't outlaw swimming pools for all households because some parents let their children drown....we don't pass pool fencing laws that also contain extra provisions in the verbage that enables the government to then confiscate pools under the pool fencing law...etc.

So if you want to keep making those comparisons you'll need to allow for that unique situation when discussing the way we gun owners balk at what you so eagerly, and foolishly, accept as common sense legislation that is, IN FACT, loaded with additional provisions to achieve the end goal of outlawing guns!

You lose all credibility by being, at best, willfully ignorant, or at worst, purposefully misleading.

[Spidey]

Yea, I can’t see the validity of the intended use, because the issue here in the misusage.

[Ferno]

What I am talking about making sure that stupid or inattentive parents aren't even allowed to let their children have unattended access to a lethal weapon. In other words, a loaded weapon should not be left lying around when no adult is in attendance. It should be against the law.

so if this law is to be made a reality, guess what happens next?

A criminal breaks into a house, KNOWING that the owner doesn't have a loaded weapon in the house at all, and also knows it takes more time for a person to load a gun than the criminal needs to find him.

This law has basically fucked the legal citizen over by giving the criminal more ammo. Good call TC.

[Jeff250]

Well I for one am appalled.

I don't care who wrote it, I think it makes a lot of sense. Also I wonder if you haven't misunderstood Jefferson's "false idea of utility", because it sounds to me like it's the notion of banning guns which carries the false idea of utility.

I think you're right about Jefferson's comment. But I also think that most quotations of founding fathers are just appeals to authority in disguise.

[Tunnelcat]

How do you enforce this hypothetical rule? Constant in home supervision by the police of all gun owners with children? You will have to forgive me for thinking this is probably the dumbest idea I've read all week. There is simply no way to enforce a rule like that without destroying the economy, the constitution and the bill of rights all together. Be realistic here, building codes are nothing like your proposal, building codes can be enforced because buildings are large, publicly visible objects that are quite impossible for children to move.

This whole incident is basically the poster case for the quote: "It could be that the entire purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.". There really is nothing that needs to be done to further address this incident, the punishment has already been enforced and these people will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

And again:

The one thing you can't legislate away is stupidity.

I guess I have to agree with you. My idea was a purely hypothetical gut reaction, and unenforceable for a all practical purposes. You can't stop people from being stupid, or doing stupid things with their children or possessions, despite the best intentions of society. Sometimes well meaning people, mostly liberals, want to write all sorts of laws to try and stop stupidity and they just don't get that it's just not possible. It's just too bad that stupidity keeps repeating itself over and over, despite the constant examples and reminders of those who have already made the ultimate mistake. That's life ....... and death.

Ferno, I guess if you want to keep a loaded weapon in the house for self-protection, better make sure you don't have any children around that can get at that weapon. I can't think of any way, short of locking up that weapon, to keep the 2 apart that wouldn't infringe upon someone's personal rights or ability to use that weapon in a hurry. If a parent values their child's life more than self protection, they will have to make a choice. That's why if I'm expecting someone in my house with a child, I unload and move my pistol to a safe place out of reach.

[Will Robinson]

Use one of these quick access safes and it makes life mo betta
You can bolt them to a surface and they have an alarm if someone fails to guess the combination more than three times.

[woodchip]

Ferno, I guess if you want to keep a loaded weapon in the house for self-protection, better make sure you don't have any children around that can get at that weapon. I can't think of any way, short of locking up that weapon, to keep the 2 apart that wouldn't infringe upon someone's personal rights or ability to use that weapon in a hurry. If a parent values their child's life more than self protection, they will have to make a choice. That's why if I'm expecting someone in my house with a child, I unload and move my pistol to a safe place out of reach.

Tell me TC, do you also lock up the kitchen cutlery, the medicine cabinet, rat poison or liquor bottles you may have around the house? Just curious as those items kill more children each year than firearms do.

[Top Gun]

Smart parents make sure that each of those are stored out of a child's reach, and there are locks designed to secure cabinet doors against wandering hands.

[woodchip]

I agree TG but as is frequently demonstrated, there are any number of not so smart parents.

[Aggressor Prime]

Another case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -game.html

My parents let me use guns, on a firing range, but I didn't have access to them in the normal day. And my parents were serious about that restriction. Kids can't understand the seriousness of guns. It takes someone into their adult years (at least 18, but more likely around 25 when the brain has fully developed) before they understand the permanence in their actions to prevent themselves from doing something crazy (in which play is confused with reality as has happened in these two cases; although the younger you are, the harder it is to see the difference).

[Sergeant Thorne]

You know, when I was young I may not have understood the concept of death in the same way I do now, but my parents were definitely able to communicate the seriousness and the finality of it before I was even 8. It regarded: staying out of the street, electrical outlets, firearm safety, .... I had a pretty sobering childhood, from that perspective. I think you're placing too high an intellectual price-tag, so to speak, on simply understanding that death is bad, and death is the end of everything you know. From as far back as I can remember it was a very serious thing. It would have been unthinkable to "do something crazy" with regard to someone's life.

[woodchip]

So while many of you are thinking how much death is caused by firearms, perhaps we should look at the latest Pugh research pole:

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware "

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/ ... c-unaware/

So even though many more firearms are in American hands, using them in crimes has plummeted dramatically yet by how the liberals present it to the uninformed voters, guns are the bogeyman and we should be afraid of anyone who possesses them to the extent 2 students were suspended for using pencils as make believe guns :

"But Suffolk Public Schools spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw says a pencil is considered a weapon when it's pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made "

http://www.wric.com/story/22179556/suff ... il-was-gun

So I wonder how much this fear mongering is affecting kids to the point they become fascinated with firearms in a unhealthy way and use them in a unhealthy way.

[CUDA]

"But Suffolk Public Schools spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw says a pencil is considered a weapon when it's pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made .

SO using that same logic. as long as I don't point a gun at someone it shouldn't be considered a weapon.

[woodchip]

And what happens to our fingers if we point them at someone and go "Pow Pow"

[Sergeant Thorne]

[youtube]5szj61BEHP4[/youtube]

[Aggressor Prime]

I'm not against teaching kids how to shoot. I was in the Boy Scouts myself and loved shooting. But I am against kids owning guns. People need to be responsible adults before they can possess a firearm. That said, I am all for the freedom to bear arms, seeing that freedom as a necessary form of protection. But let the adults protect. Kids still need time to learn. And considering the growth rate of most kids, they need that full 18-25 years to make a wise decision. The reason why I'm willing to give guns to 18 year old men and women is because 18 is the drafting age. Personally, I would rather see that age lifted to 25 so that people, biologically speaking, have fully mature brains before they have to take a life. Such would not only bring more wisdom to the act of killing, but prevent a great many of the increased side effects that come with traumatizing a brain that is still in development (e.g. post traumatic stress). But the time may come in which a child's parents get killed and he has to take the parents' guns and defend himself and his siblings. For that reason, train your kids how to shoot; but still lock up your guns.

[Tunnelcat]

And what happens to our fingers if we point them at someone and go "Pow Pow"

Don't do it to a cop at night in the dark. You just might end up dead. You may get arrested at the very least.

http://www.infowars.com/man-arrested-ch ... r-at-cops/

[callmeslick]

So while many of you are thinking how much death is caused by firearms, perhaps we should look at the latest Pugh research pole:

"Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware "

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/ ... c-unaware/

how does that timing coincide with the last major gun legislation overhaul.....which, IIRC was early in Clintons first term?

[callmeslick]

And what happens to our fingers if we point them at someone and go "Pow Pow"

Don't do it to a cop at night in the dark. You just might end up dead. You may get arrested at the very least.

http://www.infowars.com/man-arrested-ch ... r-at-cops/

hell, for that matter, don't reach for your wallet too quickly, either. Some poor fellow in NYC a few years back caught around 42 rounds for doing so.

[MD-1118]

"But Suffolk Public Schools spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw says a pencil is considered a weapon when it's pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made .

SO using that same logic. as long as I don't point a gun at someone it shouldn't be considered a weapon.

But it isn't a weapon. It's a tool.

Maybe we should ban parents instead.

[CUDA]

"But Suffolk Public Schools spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw says a pencil is considered a weapon when it's pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made .

SO using that same logic. as long as I don't point a gun at someone it shouldn't be considered a weapon.

But it isn't a weapon. It's a tool.

Maybe we should ban parents instead.

Maybe we should ban teachers. apparently they don't know the difference.

[Isaac]

let's ban bans

[MD-1118]

"But Suffolk Public Schools spokeswoman Bethanne Bradshaw says a pencil is considered a weapon when it's pointed at someone in a threatening way and gun noises are made .

SO using that same logic. as long as I don't point a gun at someone it shouldn't be considered a weapon.

But it isn't a weapon. It's a tool.

Maybe we should ban parents instead.

Maybe we should ban teachers. apparently they don't know the difference.

We could always ban both, make sure we have all our bases covered. Or on a more serious note, we could institute a parental licensing programme, and make the teacher requirements more comprehensive and stringent.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think AP needs to consider that children and young adults will continue to own firearms despite his 18-25 sensitivities, and it will almost never be for self-defense. You might also consider that it was not a self-defense weapon which was used here, which to me means it's silly to even pretend like it's part of the topic.

Also, MD-1118, I say to hell with your parental licensing ideas, because I'll be damned if I'm going to bring my children up in a world where the fools legislating who can parent are not the ones truly responsible to parent themselves, and that's where the real downfall of your idea is. A great many people didn't care for the way my parents brought us up (conservatively), and here we are 20 years later and it has become clear just how much they knew. Stupid idea, man. Really, truly terrible. I mean aside from the fact that this is America and a man's family is his own ★■◆●ing business. We didn't institute a representative government to help us handle our affairs in the home. If you want a police state, maybe you'd better go find an existing one and try to distinguish yourself there.

P.S. By the way, I don't see how there is a need to ramp up teacher requirements here. This lady is probably very intelligent, and possibly very capable, but she's clearly as crazy as you are and needs a few well-grounded people to sit her down and talk some common-sense into her. A pencil pointed like a gun is not a weapon (this is when you make fun of her), it's a threat, and a threat from a child not in a position of power or authority should be taken as such, which means jerk your own pencil, duck behind the nearest desk, and return fire until the outcome is decided.

[MD-1118]

I think AP needs to consider that children and young adults will continue to own firearms despite his 18-25 sensitivities, and it will almost never be for self-defense. You might also consider that it was not a self-defense weapon which was used here, which to me means it's silly to even pretend like it's part of the topic.

Also, MD-1118, I say to hell with your parental licensing ideas, because I'll be damned if I'm going to bring my children up in a world where the fools legislating who can parent are not the ones truly responsible to parent themselves, and that's where the real downfall of your idea is. A great many people didn't care for the way my parents brought us up (conservatively), and here we are 20 years later and it has become clear just how much they knew. Stupid idea, man. Really, truly terrible. I mean aside from the fact that this is America and a man's family is his own **** business. We didn't institute a representative government to help us handle our affairs in the home. If you want a police state, maybe you'd better go find an existing one and try to distinguish yourself there.

P.S. By the way, I don't see how there is a need to ramp up teacher requirements here. This lady is probably very intelligent, and possibly very capable, but she's clearly as crazy as you are and needs a few well-grounded people to sit her down and talk some common-sense into her. A pencil pointed like a gun is not a weapon (this is when you make fun of her), it's a threat, and a threat from a child not in a position of power or authority should be taken as such, which means jerk your own pencil, duck behind the nearest desk, and return fire until the outcome is decided.

Hah, good ol' Thorne. Never change, man.

I'm not saying parenting should be regulated by the evil gub'munt. What I am saying is prospective parents should be evaluated for common sense, because while I am all for rights and freedom and doing things the way you want to do them, I also think that some people are unfit to be parents on the grounds that they are straight up retarded. So these parents from the OP bought a gun to teach their kid how to hunt or shoot or whatever. Fine, that's cool. There is no excuse, however - no excuse whatsofraggingever - for what happened. They should be punished for criminal negligence. Who doesn't keep their gun locked safely out of reach of children? Come on man, I know you like your freedoms but you have to admit that stupidity of this level is a crime.

PS it's good to be back, I missed you guys.

[CUDA]

And how far do you take that? do you prosecute the parents for every thing the child does, shop lift? Use drugs? Kill or injure some one with a car? Get a speeding ticket? And until what age. That is the ultimate nanny state. You think reproductive rights is an issue? try passing what you just suggested.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I'm not saying parenting should be regulated by the evil gub'munt.

What I am saying is prospective parents should be evaluated for common sense, ...

A government that can "evaluate for common sense" is regulating.

... because while I am all for rights and freedom and doing things the way you want to do them,

You can't have your cake and eat it too, now which is it? There are two major logical flaws/oversights with talk of instituting a driver-license-esque parenting license. The first is that the state does not have jurisdiction in the home like it does with the road. The state never has jurisdiction in private affairs until a crime is committed between one party and another, and even then there must be a prosecuting party. The second is that you're making a huge assumptive step in believing we can just have a set of guidelines that will ensure these licensed parents do not leave ★■◆● lying around that will bring harm to the children. Do you think that drivers licenses are the answer to speeding? Welcome back. Now straighten up and fly right.

There's a pretty big difference between prosecuting bad parenting for negligence leading to the death of a child, and requiring licensing for parenting in the first place. My only problem with the first is that I feel in our current, criminal, political climate it might well be a matter of making examples of any parental negligence where firearms are involved, instead of matching the punishment to the crime. I don't know if you've got something to say about this kind of prosecution, CUDA, but I didn't have a problem with what Will was saying.

[MD-1118]

And how far do you take that? do you prosecute the parents for every thing the child does, shop lift? Use drugs? Kill or injure some one with a car? Get a speeding ticket? And until what age. That is the ultimate nanny state. You think reproductive rights is an issue? try passing what you just suggested.

If an adult chooses to become a parent, they must also be willing to accept responsibility for it. Are you saying the child should be tried as an adult for a crime he may have been too immature or too undeveloped to fully comprehend and understand? I don't think so. Hence my statement that the adult parent should take responsibility for the child's actions.

Thorne, I don't see the problem if a sufficient majority of the populace agrees on the matter. Yeah, it's an extremely socialistic and idealistic proposition. That being said, it could work if enough people got behind it and stuck with it. I am not saying "give the government absolute totalitarian say in what you can and cannot do in your own home". I am saying "have a comprehensive test that the populace agrees is fair that will determine if prospective parents are the irresponsible, criminally negligent sort who will leave dangerous, potentially life threatening devices and materials lying around easily accessible for their future children". That is reckless endangerment. You don't give a person with Down's a bottle of bleach, razorblades, and a live wire whilst setting them atop a cliff in the middle of a pack of wolves and then wander off. Preferably you don't do any of those things, but my point is that in the case of someone who is mentally handicapped or disabled, there are clear, accepted limits imposed on their personal freedoms for the safety of themselves and others. If a parent cannot guarantee within reason the ability and intent to do the same on their own, then perhaps they should not be permitted to have children.

Also, didn't I ever tell you? I have a habit of navigating mines upside down and backwards.

[CUDA]

You didn't answer my question

[woodchip]

Well if we are going to test people for parenthood, should we also not require the father and mother to both rear the child? One only needs look at single mothers and how the children turn out.

[Krom]

Gee, where have I heard this conversation before? Oh, right: Just a few days back on page 2.

[CUDA]

Gee, where have I heard this conversation before? Oh, right: Just a few days back on page 2.

seems MD wasn't here for that

[MD-1118]

You didn't answer my question

"How far do you take it?" As far as as is legally appropriate. If the child speeds, fine the parent. If the child kills, charge the parent with murder/manslaughter/whatever. If the child lies, do nothing unless it is an instance where an adult would legally be required to tell the truth, such as lying under oath. And you do this until the child reaches the legal age of adulthood. Does that answer your question?

This isn't a perfect solution. It isn't even a solution that is ever likely to come about. It's just my personal take on the problem. I don't think a reactive policy is preferable to this if it means saving lives in the process. After all, the two year old from the OP link is dead now, because someone was a horrible parent. Which is better? Give the adult the right to parent regardless of the consequences, or say, "Oh gee, this guy has shown us that he will leave his rat poison, meat cleavers and Viagra at floor level, unsecured, in his child's bedroom... let's not let him have kids because he is clearly a liability"? Again, if you are going to say that taking away ANY right of a handicapped/disabled person is 'for his or her own safety and good', you should also apply the same logic to prospective parents who are clearly irresponsible and a real threat to others through their incompetence. Blind people can't drive, so they don't get driver's licenses. And driver's license tests are not comprehensive enough either. People who make it quite clear that they will text while driving with a beer in one hand and a joint in the other while looking for something in the floorboard and speeding in a school zone should never, ever be allowed to drive.

given what I know of the average level of intelligence out there, I don't trust the vast majority of their owners from Adam to utilize them responsibly. Of course said stupidity extends to any potentially-dangerous item, but at least in the case of cars there's some level of filtering that goes on beforehand, and you can't kill someone with a swimming pool by waving it in their general direction and having your finger slip

This.

The one thing you can't legislate away is stupidity.

But apparently you can legislate away retardation and a physical lack of mental capacity. Because that is an entirely different and unrelated matter altogether. Riiight.

How do you enforce this hypothetical rule?

How do you enforce any rules? The two year old has human rights too, are you saying we should ignore them because they aren't as important as the parent's rights to be a dumbass?

I guess I have to agree with you. My idea was a purely hypothetical gut reaction, and unenforceable for a all practical purposes. You can't stop people from being stupid, or doing stupid things with their children or possessions, despite the best intentions of society. Sometimes well meaning people, mostly liberals, want to write all sorts of laws to try and stop stupidity and they just don't get that it's just not possible. It's just too bad that stupidity keeps repeating itself over and over, despite the constant examples and reminders of those who have already made the ultimate mistake. That's life ....... and death.

I think I said as much as this in my last post already. It's a highly idealistic proposal, but at least it's an attempt to prevent needless, senseless deaths from occuring in the first place rather than saying HURR DURR IS JUS A BABBY, LET DIS BE A ZAMPEL TO UVVERS.
Parental licensing won't stop it from happening, no. But it will help prevent it, more so than sitting on our thumbs and biting our tongue in the name of tolerance.

To reiterate: I am not advocating banning guns in any way, for you Second Amendment tin foil hatters. I am not advocating taking away the sanctity of one's home in the name of popular consensus. I am saying it is the height of ignorance and inhumanity to allow idiots to have kids when you know the outcome is going to result in the kids being gravely injured or dying.

/end

[CUDA]

You didn't answer my question

"How far do you take it?" As far as as is legally appropriate. If the child speeds, fine the parent. If the child kills, charge the parent with murder/manslaughter/whatever. If the child lies, do nothing unless it is an instance where an adult would legally be required to tell the truth, such as lying under oath. And you do this until the child reaches the legal age of adulthood. Does that answer your question?

SO. if I am 16-17 and not living at home for what ever reason, and I get drunk and kill someone, should the parents be tried for manslaughter?? what if the Child has been removed from the house at 10 and has been living with Foster parents for a couple of years and commits a crime, who do you hold accountable. the Birth parents?? the Foster parents?? or the legal guardian who is the Government?? do we throw our own government in jail as the legal guardian? ( which I would be in favor of FYI )
your premise is so full of holes its mind boggling. there is a reason the courts decided "IF" the parents should be held accountable for their children's actions. and it must be judged on a case by case basis. you cannot blanket indict parents for every mistake your kids make.

qualifier. I am not disagreeing with the premise that parents should be responsible for their kids actions. and the legal aspect has WAY too many variables.
but your parenting skills test approach is
what standards do you set? must you be a college graduate? are single parent household children qualified since they might not have the experience of what both genders bring to the parenting equation? is it an IQ test? or maybe an ethnicity test? Do you allow those with a physical or mental handicaps to be parents? do you jail those that get pregnant without a license? do you force those people to get an abortion if they don't have a license. who do you Jail if the Mother has a license and the Father doesn't. or Vice Verse??

[Sergeant Thorne]

Look, MD, I think if we stepped back from your communist ideas we would find agreement on parent/children issues in our society (I disagree that a parent should be charge with murder if a child murders--that's getting absurd), but you clearly are not appreciating just what is given up in the step from individual sovereignty to collective sovereignty over the individual. How old are you? I don't think the last few generations have received any competent official education on what really sets America apart, which is individual sovereignty, and it's actually very popular in academia to court socialist and communist ideas. It's been stepped on, it's been pushed, and as far as I can tell this administration is trying to distinguish itself in running it out altogether, but if you lose individual sovereignty you lose America.

[MD-1118]

Look, MD, I think if we stepped back from your communist ideas we would find agreement on parent/children issues in our society (I disagree that a parent should be charge with murder if a child murders--that's getting absurd), but you clearly are not appreciating just what is given up in the step from individual sovereignty to collective sovereignty over the individual. How old are you? I don't think the last few generations have received any competent official education on what really sets America apart, which is individual sovereignty. It's been stepped on, it's been pushed, and as far as I can tell this administration is trying to distinguish itself in running it out altogether, but if you lose individual sovereignty you lose America.

27, actually. And while I can agree legislation such as that I have mentioned would cause us to 'lose America' insofar as it would cease to be what it is now, you can hardly claim that we live in the America our founding fathers created. America in its current state is just as full of holes as my proposal. Which is why I'm just generally brainstorming here. Sure, it's not thought out entirely. That doesn't change the fact that a human life is far more important than the right to be stupid. If it doesn't affect anyone, by all means, be as idiotic as you like. But dear god, don't do it at the expense of your children's safety and well-being. Individual sovereignty includes children as well as adults, man. They are individuals.

And I will be the first to say I should not have kids. I don't have the mindset. I procrastinate, I'm extremely forgetful, and I personally think it would be cruel to bring a child into the world as it stands today for no other reason than 'because I can'. In a perfect world, people would self-impose regulation upon themselves. But this isn't a perfect world, so something should be done as opposed to this whole "oh well, hindsight is 20/20" view people seem to have.

SO. if I am 16-17 and not living at home for what ever reason, and I get drunk and kill someone, should the parents be tried for manslaughter??

Nope, if you are emancipated you should be treated as an adult. If you are homeless because you got kicked out then the responsibility should still fall upon the parents.

what if the Child has been removed from the house at 10 and has been living with Foster parents for a couple of years and commits a crime, who do you hold accountable. the Birth parents?? the Foster parents?? or the legal guardian who is the Government?? do we throw our own government in jail as the legal guardian? ( which I would be in favor of FYI )

Case by case basis. I'm all for holding the government responsible when called for, too.

your premise is so full of holes its mind boggling. there is a reason the courts decided "IF" the parents should be held accountable for their children's actions. and it must be judged on a case by case basis. you cannot blanket indict parents for every mistake your kids make.

See above, with the addition that some preventative action is better than doing nothing, and then lamenting the travesty when something could have been done about it beforehand, but wasn't.

qualifier. I am not disagreeing with the premise that parents should be responsible for their kids actions. and the legal aspect has WAY too many variables.
but your parenting skills test approach is
what standards do you set? must you be a college graduate? are single parent household children qualified since they might not have the experience of what both genders bring to the parenting equation? is it an IQ test? or maybe an ethnicity test? Do you allow those with a physical or mental handicaps to be parents? do you jail those that get pregnant without a license? do you force those people to get an abortion if they don't have a license. who do you Jail if the Mother has a license and the Father doesn't. or Vice Verse??

Again, case by case basis. As far as mental handicaps or disabilities go, the way I see it is people apparently think it's fine if a person with sufficient mental deficiency is denied certain rights 'normal' people have, such as owning a gun or living on their own. This is where I have a problem - the bias. Why is it okay to say this about people who are retarded or crazy or disabled, but not just plain stupid? Either give everyone the same rights and privileges, or apply the same logic across the board.

There are always exceptions to every rule, but the bottom line is something should be done, and shooting down my proposal on the grounds that it threatens your rights at home does not equate to doing something about it. What do you propose? If you have a better idea, let's hear it, and if you make a persuasive case then I will ditch this idea in favour of yours.

I'll try to explain my approach again: parental licensing should not be used as the end-all, be-all solution. Parental licensing should be used as a dummy detector to help weed out idiots who think parenting amounts to "Mommy and Daddy are busy Johnny, go watch TV". Children are not cats, they can't be expected to make the right choices on their own or take care of themselves.

[Sergeant Thorne]

If it doesn't affect anyone, by all means, be as idiotic as you like. But dear god, don't do it at the expense of your children's safety and well-being. Individual sovereignty includes children as well as adults, man. They are individuals.

See, there it is again--America is about not needing anyone's permission to be whatever you will be, because we're all on equal footing. You need to take a good hard look at the implications of the idea that it can be otherwise without a fundamental change in who we are. "All men are created EQUAL". You cannot accept the imposition of another man's (or men's) will over your own without accepting the end-result, which is oppression and tyranny. If you believe that oppression and tyranny are a preferable choice to people making wrong choices which result in suffering and death, I would say that historically-speaking you have chosen poorly, but not only that, you have condemned the responsible as well as the irresponsible to oppression.

You say sovereignty includes children. Maybe your thought got lost in incorrect wording, here, because that's just not so. Children are individuals (individuals in development), but what exactly is it that makes them sovereign? Children are not sovereign, they are responsible to, and the responsibility of their parents. Sovereignty implies that they stand equals with their peers, without owing anything to a higher authority.