Two-year-old Caroline Sparks killed by five-year-old brother

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So there are laws mandating child proof caps on aspirin but no laws against providing 5 years with lethal firearms?

There are safe storage laws in some states.

Too bad there wasn't one in Kentucky... A 2-year-old might still be alive.

But, .... meh.... "collateral damage"... At least no one's "rights" were made inconvenient.

LadyJazzer wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So there are laws mandating child proof caps on aspirin but no laws against providing 5 years with lethal firearms?

There are safe storage laws in some states.

Too bad there wasn't one in Kentucky... A 2-year-old might still be alive.

But, .... meh.... "collateral damage"... At least no one's "rights" were made inconvenient.

You mean like the rights of the women in Kermit Gosnell's "Little Shop of Abortion Horrors" in Philadelphia?

Here's how they're marketed:

[youtube:34u4daku][/youtube:34u4daku]

I almost bought my daughter a pink Cricket (got a Rossi, instead). They're available at Wal-Mart.

However, my daughter is 12 - and in my opinion - old enough to shoot (but only with my close supervision).

We have a firm rule in my home - guns are tools, not toys. I never have tolerated "gun play" or "toy guns" in the home --- and we only shoot when I'm supervising, and we're at a range. Any use outside those parameters is subject to severe punishment. Finally, ammunition is stored in a lock box - and only parents have keys (we clean guns whenever we shoot - so the chance of having a loaded firearm sitting around is zero).

As far as the parents are concerned - I do feel it was negligence. 5 years old is way, way too young for a firearm (and I never have allowed toy guns). Having a loaded gun sitting around also seems really foolish and irresponsible.

However, with a dead child - I think there's already plenty of punishment to go around. I do think I'd prosecute them, but would waive time in prison, and would be damn sure they can never own another firearm, ever again (at least not legally).

I agree with everything you said BB, and I even agree there should be no jail time because I know as a parent, I would be in agony for the rest of my life due to the loss and guilt.

I don't think the way a gun is advertised makes any difference since a kid can't buy a gun without the parent. It's the parent that needs to keep a 5 year old away from guns, and fire, and sharp objects....

agree completely, Rick.

My bet - the parents will get an ambulance chasing attorney who files a lawsuit against Cricket,
charging they market irresponsibly to children. The parents will be awarded somewhere around
10 million dollars by the court (attorneys will take 7.5 million of that).

Frankly, I think that is a downright lousy outcome ---

You cannot purchase any firearm unless you're over 18 (the child cannot "own" a gun).

It is the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that it's always used as intended.

Finally - this is an unfortunate reminder that a gun is a gun is a gun.

You end up with famous last words thinking "oh it's only a .22."

bailey bud wrote: agree completely, Rick.

My bet - the parents will get an ambulance chasing attorney who files a lawsuit against Cricket,
charging they market irresponsibly to children. The parents will be awarded somewhere around
10 million dollars by the court (attorneys will take 7.5 million of that).

Frankly, I think that is a downright lousy outcome ---

You cannot purchase any firearm unless you're over 18 (the child cannot "own" a gun).

It is the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that it's always used as intended.

Finally - this is an unfortunate reminder that a gun is a gun is a gun.

You end up with famous last words thinking "oh it's only a .22."

How can they? Bush Signed 2005 Law Protecting Gun Makers From Being Sued. The NRA saw to that...

I personally hope they do... Not because I'm against gun manufacturers...But at some point a conversation between the McNeil Brothers had to have gone something like this:

McNeil-1: I have an idea for niche market to make millions. GUNS for kids!

McNeil-2: Great idea...Of course, you realize sooner or later some kid is going to get killed with one...

McNeil-1: Yeah, but we'll be shielded from liability...If a couple of kids get killed, it's not our fault... But we'll make LOTS OF MONEY!!

So, that's really it... Capitalism vs. kids lives... Hmmmmm... Easy choice...for some. But they'll continue to make LOTS OF MONEY!!!!

Negligent homicide. The parents should be charged, convicted, and sentenced. It is the consequences of individual responsibility. If the parents are not charged then we are confirming the message that we are not responsible for our individual choices but society must take care of us with more product liability regulations, larger safety nets, a larger "nanny" state, etc.

Whenever you bring children into the world, you are responsible for their safety except for "acts of God". The close proximity of matches/gasoline, scissors/electrical outlets, and ammo/guns are not "acts of God".

(Looks as if LJ wants to exploit this as the liberals exploited Newtown shooting.)

LadyJazzer wrote:

bailey bud wrote: agree completely, Rick.

My bet - the parents will get an ambulance chasing attorney who files a lawsuit against Cricket,
charging they market irresponsibly to children. The parents will be awarded somewhere around
10 million dollars by the court (attorneys will take 7.5 million of that).

Frankly, I think that is a downright lousy outcome ---

You cannot purchase any firearm unless you're over 18 (the child cannot "own" a gun).

It is the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that it's always used as intended.

Finally - this is an unfortunate reminder that a gun is a gun is a gun.

You end up with famous last words thinking "oh it's only a .22."

How can they? Bush Signed 2005 Law Protecting Gun Makers From Being Sued. The NRA saw to that...

I personally hope they do... Not because I'm against gun manufacturers...But at some point a conversation between the McNeil Brothers had to have gone something like this:

McNeil-1: I have an idea for niche market to make millions. GUNS for kids!

McNeil-2: Great idea...Of course, you realize sooner or later some kid is going to get killed with one...

McNeil-1: Yeah, but we'll be shielded from liability...If a couple of kids get killed, it's not our fault... But we'll make LOTS OF MONEY!!

So, that's really it... Capitalism vs. kids lives... Hmmmmm... Easy choice...for some. But they'll continue to make LOTS OF MONEY!!!!

Of course none of your post focuses on the responsible party (the parents). But as long as you have the opportunity to bash a big bad company...

Parents can't be help responsible... After all, the government's current opinion is that we the people don't have enough sense to keep ourselves or our loved ones from becoming Darwin Award candidates. Big evil corporations can take advantage of us because we're stupid and don't know better. The government is the one and only saving grace that's going to keep the morons in the general population safe from ourselves and the evil corporations that prey on our stupidity.

LadyJazzer wrote:

bailey bud wrote: agree completely, Rick.

My bet - the parents will get an ambulance chasing attorney who files a lawsuit against Cricket,
charging they market irresponsibly to children. The parents will be awarded somewhere around
10 million dollars by the court (attorneys will take 7.5 million of that).

Frankly, I think that is a downright lousy outcome ---

You cannot purchase any firearm unless you're over 18 (the child cannot "own" a gun).

It is the purchaser's responsibility to ensure that it's always used as intended.

Finally - this is an unfortunate reminder that a gun is a gun is a gun.

You end up with famous last words thinking "oh it's only a .22."

How can they? Bush Signed 2005 Law Protecting Gun Makers From Being Sued. The NRA saw to that...

I personally hope they do... Not because I'm against gun manufacturers...But at some point a conversation between the McNeil Brothers had to have gone something like this:

McNeil-1: I have an idea for niche market to make millions. GUNS for kids!

McNeil-2: Great idea...Of course, you realize sooner or later some kid is going to get killed with one...

McNeil-1: Yeah, but we'll be shielded from liability...If a couple of kids get killed, it's not our fault... But we'll make LOTS OF MONEY!!

So, that's really it... Capitalism vs. kids lives... Hmmmmm... Easy choice...for some. But they'll continue to make LOTS OF MONEY!!!!

Do you honestly believe the gun maker was more responsible than the parents for this tragedy?

Shiny nickel plated revolvers used to be the rage in the 40's and 50's. Those would have been very tempting to kids but I don't remember any gun companies being sued for accidental kid deaths in these pre-Bush days.