MDMAlliance said:
killerzX said:
binary solo said:
Well here it is illegal for parents to give a kid an age restricted game to play. So it's likely in this scenario that the parents (assuming it's them who let him have the game) would be prosecuted for letting him play the game. And it's a legal requirement to keep firearms locked away and unloaded, so whoever's gun that was would have been prosecuted, and most likely lose their gun licence and thus have all their guns taken away.
But in the USA there is no legally enforceable age rating for games, and it's legal to keep a loaded gun under your pillow, there's no law under which the parents / gun owner can in anyway be held to account for creating the conditions for that allowed this kid to carry out this fantasy. It's situations like this that make me question my view that parents should be the final arbiter of what they let their kids watch and play (if I let my boys play games that are in a higher category of age restriction then I am acting unlawfully. I fully agree with having laws that make age ratings on games legally enforceable on retailers meaning they can't knowingly sell a game to someone who is under age. But I mostly don't agree with laws that say parents can't let their kids play games that are age restricted. In situations like this though there should be some sort of legal accountability on the people who gave this kid the game to play.
Terrible tragedy, but 100% preventable if certain adults were a bit more responsible.
And yet GTA will be the object of all the parent and family groups' ire. |
as for the video game. no there is no law against giving your kid the game. as it should be.
and there is no law regarding how you store your firearm. as it should be.
but there is a law, for example reckless endangerment, that the parents can, should, and likely will be charged with for leaving a gun out, within reach of a child.
it is illegal to have a easily accessable firearm for a child.
|
I don't agree with that. I don't think making a law on how you store your firearm would harm people as much as not having one. I am quite sure that the law would only go into effect when a case like this happens. Or if someone sees it and reports it. I think that's fair and the only argument against it I can think of is when people say they need their weapon "right away" in case they are in danger. Honestly, I don't think there are even close to a handful of cases where you wont have enough time to get it ready in time to "protect yourself."
Also, the whole "reckless endangerment" and "easily accessable firearm" things are not really quantifiable.
|
what i mean by that is the is no federal law stating you have to secure your firearm under lock and key. but there are laws on how you have to store it if minors can get easy access to it. but there is no set law, "you have to secure your firearm this designated way or youre in violation of the law"
