Boy lived within arsenal of 98 guns: 11-year-old, dad and grandmom charged in shooting of playmate

Star Ledger ^ | 07.13.06 | TOM HAYDON

[IIntense]

Talk about insecurity problems.

Problem or not, "annoyance" is the word you want. Newbies trigger an automatic response from some Freepers: Troll alert!!!

How lame.

[Centurion2000]

One gun is too many in the hands of irresponsible people

Who decides?

[Steamburg]

Clearly, the child's choice to harm someone must be blamed on inanimate items. If this logic holds true, every son of a car salesman will run over people. Or, libriarian's children will assault people with books. If you have more than one butter knife you really better be careful.

Stop the madness, its the evil in the hearts of men not their tools that do evil.

[TomServo]

Problem or not, "annoyance" is the word you want.

Speak of the devil.

[IIntense]

I don't know where you're inventing the three years and up argument. The boy was eleven years old.

Yes, he is 11 years old, which puts him in the category of children three years old and up. I guess the question to ask would be, "At what age should children have access to loaded weapons?"

We don't know if it was an accident or not. It can't bring the dead boy back, but I hope it was an accident. Either way, the adults are liable; they should have secured every gun in the house.

[metmom]

I said nothing about limiting gun ownership. You read into that and accused me of something I did not say or imply. Gun ownership is more that OK; it's a 2nd amendment right that shall not be infringed.

What I understood americanstratergist to mean is that there is something wrong with the mentality of someone who would have that many guns in a townhouse. I didn't read into it at all that he thought that the owning of 98 guns was wrong. What you totally missed was the recognition that someone who collects ANYTHING in excessively large quantities is usually considered to be obsessive. What if were 98 knives, telephones, bicycles, skateboards? Would that be considered normal if one wasn't a dealer in those items?

I could see a serious collector having that many but I also would expect them to be stored properly and that any children around them would be much more responsible than that. The article in no way stated that this family was a collector. Most of the guns were unsecured. It sounds like there's a deeper problem there.

You may have quoted one entire sentence but it was still taken out of context of the entire post. Not a very good excuse.

[an amused spectator]

People who are of good moral character have the right to own a weapon, but once you buy 98 of them, then you know that something is very wrong.

Since you study military history and are a fan of General Patton, I'll cut you some slack and let you off with a quick Freeper quiz:

Q How do you know when you have enough guns?

A When you don't know how many guns you have.

So, for instance, if you have 98 guns, but know that you have 98 guns, then you don't have enough guns. BLOAT, BLOGT, rinse, lather, repeat.

[Godebert]

So you are stating that people who have collections of "ANYTHING" have "something wrong with their mentality". They are not "normal" and are "obsessive". Ok....I got it.

BTW.......who decides what is an "excessively" large quantity? You?

[Godebert]

"I didn't read into it at all that he thought that the owning of 98 guns was wrong."

Well....perhaps the sentence were he wrote the following might have provided you with a clue:

"People who are of good moral character have the right to own a weapon, but once you buy 98 of them, then you know that something is very wrong."

Sometimes folks just mean what they say.

[ArrogantBustard]

but once you buy 98 of them, then you know that something is very wrong.

Oh, really? Is 97 OK, but 98 a sign of psychosis?

Do you think there's something wrong with me?

Huh? Do ya?

Or maybe you want to think things through, here. Maybe you'd like to rephrase that. Maybe you'd like to consider that, perhaps, it's not the size of somebody's collection of [whatever], but the way he handles it that is important.

[an amused spectator]

AB, he's a ninth grader. Give him credit for having an opinion on this most testy of boards.

;-)

[ArrogantBustard]

1) On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

2) I was dealing with this very sort of pinheaded nonsense in the real world, yesterday, so my patience for it is a bit short.

3) If he really is a 9th grader, I suppose that his thinking a collection of 97 guns is OK is better than average thinking.

[misterrob]

Gotta love those gunnies who love their hardware and 2nd Amendment rights so much that they cannot acknowledge that some people are too stupid and irresponsible to keep them.

[absolootezer0]

Q How do you know when you have enough guns?
A When you don't know how many guns you have.

A When you can't think of another gun you could possibly want.

[justshutupandtakeit]

When those owning this many guns do not properly store them or limit access to the immature or irresponsible even ONE is too many. Idiots are excluded from 2d amendment protections.

[Myrddin]

The adults in the household are held responsible for the behavior of the minor children in their care. That includes proper handling of firearms. Leaving loaded firearms in an unsecured condition with non-family members visiting the home is negligent behavior. I have loaded weapons on the premises, but they are protected in a quick access 5-button safe. My kids are safe around the weapons, but I have no idea about the people they may invite to visit.

In this instance, the 11 year old was clearly not trained properly to safely handle firearms. The failure to train him has cost the life of a 12 year old visitor and will rain plenty of legal problems on the heads of his parents.