Boy, 3, fatally shot during gun game. ... During WHAT?

[Robb]

LAPORTE, Ind. — A northern Indiana man faces reckless homicide charges for the shooting death of his girlfriend’s 3-year-old son.

LaPorte County authorities filed the charges Monday against 24-year-old Zachariah Grisham, saying he shot Lance Wilson on Sunday while they were playing a gun game in their Michigan City home.

Sheriff’s Sgt. Andrew Hynek tells WNDU-TV and WSBT-TV that Grisham was pointing a handgun at Lance while the boy was pointing a toy gun back. Hynek says investigators don’t believe the shooting was intentional, but that Grisham must be held responsible.

Read More: http://www.azcentral.com/news/free/20130917indiana-boy-fatally-shot-during-gun-game-police-asy.html

When 12 people are killed with a gun all at once, it's a national tragedy. When 30 people are killed with a gun over 24 hours, it's an average day in America.

[DreamGypsy]

1. Yup

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-boyfriend-held-in-3yearold-indiana-boys-shooting-death-20130916,0,1486629.story

Investigators found that Lance and Grisham had been playing a game, with the boy using his hand to pretend to shoot Grisham, and during the game, Grisham took out a handgun and, thinking it was not loaded, pulled the trigger, Szilagyi said. The boy was shot in the head, he said.

[RC]

2. Always treat all guns as being always loaded and ready to fire.

When will the gun nuts learn guns are dangerous killing machines and not toys?

[jeff47]

9. They won't.

Simply put, large numbers of gun owners are unable to handle their weapons with the proper level of care. Which is why we need gun control. Gun owners and their organizations have failed.

[RC]

10. That is pretty obvious to most people.

But for the people that we need to get through to, they take any attempt to make this country safer as a personal affront to their "Right" to own and use dangerous machines that are killing innocent people on a daily basis.

[joeglow3]

15. define "large numbers"

[jeff47]

27. 14,767 in 2010 (latest year with stats)

There were 14,767 accidental shootings reported to the CDC in 2010. Stats for non-fatal shootings in 2012 are not available yet, and fatal shootings for 2011 and 2012 are not available.

If you'd like to run your own report:
Go here: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

Click "Unintentional", "Firearm" and submit. That gives you the non-fatal cases. (14,161 in 2010)

Then go here: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

Click "Unintentional", "Firearm" and submit. That gives you the fatal cases. (606 in 2010)

And before you try to toss out "But more people were killed by cars!!!!" you have to keep in mind we've banned plenty of products for deaths far below this level. For example, cribs with a side that can be lowered were banned for a much, much lower rate of injury.

ETA: Those stats don't include suicides, btw. Those would also be reduced as other methods tend to leave time for the person to reconsider.

[krispos42]

34. I know, right?

It's why accidental gun deaths decline every year! Complete lack of safe handling on the part of all those gun owners.













Obviously, what we're doing now simply isn't working. At this rate, we'll have no kids accidentally killed with guns in a generation or two.

[jeff47]

43. Nice cherry picking

I really must commend you on selecting groups so that your statistics line up so nicely with your thesis. It is truly impressive. I really love sticking with fatalities, since you can claim improvements in medicine as improvements in gun safety. I'd argue it's on-par with the tobacco industry.

Now, let's take a peek at non-fatal, to strip out improvements in medicine. And add in everyone 20 and older since they make up the vast majority of the population.
(source: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html)
2011: 14,675
2010: 14,161
2009: 18,610
2008: 17,215
2007: 15,698
2006: 14,678
2005: 15,388

Huh...it's almost as if it's a noisy more-or-less straight line instead of the massive improvements you're claiming. While the population has grown a little since 2005, it hasn't grown massively to overwrite the gains you are claiming.

(Edit: First version has all non-fatal instead of accidental non-fatal)

[krispos42]

44. Sorry, I thought since the OP was about kids, I should post info about kids

Obviously I'm being unreasonable.



Okay, let's look at this then:

2001 to 2011, all ages, non-fatal firearm wounds

Format: year / raw number / US population / raw rate

2001 17,696 284,968,955 6.21
2002 17,579 287,625,193 6.11
2003 18,941 290,107,933 6.53
2004 16,555 292,805,298 5.65
2005 15,388 295,516,599 5.21
2006 14,678 298,379,912 4.92
2007 15,698 301,231,207 5.21
2008 17,215 304,093,966 5.66
2009 18,610 306,771,529 6.07
2010 14,161 308,745,538 4.59
2011 14,675 311,591,917 4.71


Gee, look at that. From 6.21 to 4.71 in a decade.

A whopping 24% decline in the rate.


Now, as to your argument of medical treatment being the reason...









The homicide rate has fallen in line with the assault rate, as well as crime in general.


Now, since all attacks on a person are recorded EITHER as a homicide or an assault, if the rate of attacks was constant but the increased medical care resulted in fewer deaths, then the number of assaults should go up as the number of murders goes down.

That's not really obvious in the numbers, now is it?

Let's not also forget that cities, which are generally considered to the be hotbeds of violence compared to suburban and rural areas, have had a lot of hospitals closed due to costs and budget cuts.


Hospital Closures Stress Health System

Exec pay, for-profit chains driving hospital closures?

Bad debt triggers hospital closings around U.S.

Four Los Angeles Area Hospitals To Shut Down


So our medical care may be improving in a technical sense, but it seems that availability is shrinking.


And let's not forget that, supposedly, our guns are more lethal than ever before! Look at how many AR-15s there are out there! And AK-47s! And large-capacity magazines! And the ammunition gets better and deadlier every month!



And yet, some how... people are being more responsible with their guns.


And this is per capita, not per firearm. Thanks to the continual promotion of ineffective gun-control measures by Democrats, the number of guns in America is growing faster than the population is.

If the rate of accidental discharge could be measured per-gun instead of per-capita, the drop would probably be more dramatic.

[jeff47]

45. Ah yes, the numbers start going south, so it's time to change the subject

So you've wandered off from accidental shootings to criminal shootings. And then claim the lower crime rate is proof of improved gun safety.

Oh, and you can't use the total population as your measure. You have to use the number of gun owners or gun households. Because the rate of households with guns is actually shrinking. Those households with guns are buying multiple weapons, but the total households with guns is dropping.

Gotta give you credit for continuing to try to pile up the bullshit. Still doesn't fix the "accidentally-shooting-14k-per-year" problem.

[krispos42]

47. All non-fatal gunshot wounds is what I used... same as what you posted.

Which would include both criminal and accidental numbers... same as you posted. In fact,I posted the exact same numbers as you did, years 2005-2011, plus an additional 4 years.

And I included the per-capita rate. You somehow... failed to mention that. There's a term for that... what's it called again? Sherrylicking?



And funny how I can't use the total population numbers, but you can. Really funny how that works, huh?

[jeff47]

48. And now we're on to accusing others of what you're doing.

Which would include both criminal and accidental numbers... same as you posted.

Nope, my numbers excluded criminal. You just have to click the "unintentional" box on the site I linked.

In fact, you started with those numbers, and then suddenly veered off into criminal.

And I included the per-capita rate. You somehow... failed to mention that.

Because as I just said, the per-capita rate is not an appropriate measure. Because the rate of gun ownership is going down.

If you use a per-capita rate of gun injuries, you are making the claim that the rate of gun ownership is constant. And it isn't. It is dropping.

And funny how I can't use the total population numbers, but you can.

Funny how I never used the total population, and only based my claim on the number of accidental shootings.

[krispos42]

54. No, yours did not

Your post's numbers:

2011: 14,675
2010: 14,161
2009: 18,610
2008: 17,215
2007: 15,698
2006: 14,678
2005: 15,388


My post's numbers:
2001 17,696 284,968,955 6.21
2002 17,579 287,625,193 6.11
2003 18,941 290,107,933 6.53
2004 16,555 292,805,298 5.65
2005 15,388 295,516,599 5.21
2006 14,678 298,379,912 4.92
2007 15,698 301,231,207 5.21
2008 17,215 304,093,966 5.66
2009 18,610 306,771,529 6.07
2010 14,161 308,745,538 4.59
2011 14,675 311,591,917 4.71


The orders are reversed (mine are ascending, yours are descending, by year), but the total numbers are the same.

2011 = 14,675, for example.

So, that's strike one. You used the same numbers as me, and either didn't realize it because they were sorted differently, or didn't care to correct yourself.

Strike two is that, while you may not like the per-capita rate because it adjusts for population changes but not guns-in-home changes, then you most certainly not like raw number rate, because it adjusts for neither. And yet, you posted raw numbers and only began crying "foul" after yours were shown to be less than adequate.

Strike 3 is that the levels of gun ownership by household has been pretty consistent the last decade or so. It certainly hasn't dropped by 24%.




That's from the Violence Policy Center polling and CNN. As you can see, it starts at, hmmm, maybe 37% in 2001, jumps up to maybe 39%, falls down to maybe 35% by 2010. Now, since each percentage point is worth 900,000 homes, I find it hard to believe it varies that much year to year, but I think 38% or 37% for the decade we're talking about is reasonable. Margin of error, and all that.

So take the raw rate and multiply by 2.67 for the accidental firearm injury rate, non-fatal, for gunowning houses.

[SunSeeker]

23. Gun nuts will always treat their guns as toys because that is what they are to them.

The sick thing is, these people ENJOY shooting. It is their entertainment. So to then try to convince them that these are dangerous weapons, and should not be out just for kicks, is just not going stick.

[RC]

26. That is a good point.

[SammyWinstonJack]

38. Why do these gun idiots always 'think' their guns aren't loaded but never 'think'

to actually inspect the gun before pulling the trigger?


Too stupid to own a gun.

[RC]

42. That is a good question. Especially since there is usually a clip in the weapon.

Just what do they think that thing is for anyway?

[Jenoch]

46. A gun without a 'clip' does not mean it is unloaded.

There are too many people who do not know this. Are you one of them?

[RC]

49. I know that, but that is not what I was getting at.

All too often the clip, magazine, bullet holder thingy, is kept in the gun, no matter the state of load. How often do we read the magazine was elsewhere when some innocent party was shot with an unloaded gun? I don't remember ever reading something like that, unless he was cleaning the weapon. And even then, it is still right there on the coffee or kitchen table or desk.

[Jenoch]

50. Of course people should not be leaving guns on tables and desks.

Every gun should be treated as if it were loaded, with or without the magazine. Handguns are almost universally stored with a magazine in the gun and there is nothing wrong with that. Rifles with extended magazine are almost universally stored without the magazine in the gun. All are 'loaded' however.

If someone were to hand me a semi-auto handgun, the first thing I do is to remove the magazine and check its contents, then move the slide to make sure the gun is unloaded, then the magazine is re-inserted onto the gun.

[defacto7]

56. Because Russian roulette is too fun.

Do you think they play these games because it's not going to shoot? Adrenalin is addicting and the rush of adrenalin is unmistakably higher when the gun is loaded. The mistake is that they don't think they will pull the trigger by accident, not that they don't know it's loaded.

Most people know when their weapon is loaded. It's the addiction to power and adrenalin that makes them unable to control themselves. That's what I think.

Gambling is the same, just less at stake.

[Mojorabbit]

8. Either he is an idiot or he meant to shoot that child. nt

[sakabatou]

25. Stupid!

[denverbill]

3. Oh if it hadn't been a gun it would have been a knife game they were playing.

Or the man pretending to run over the boy with his car.

Sorry it's really hard to even come up with a good NRA talking point on this one.

To me, it's shit like this that should make it obvious to people that arming everyone is not the answer to gun violence. Eventually, a child will die because a teacher brought a gun to school. Either the kid will find it unattended or it will go off accidentally.

[shenmue]

4. So sad

Who plays a gun game with a kid that young and a real gun? Whatever happened to water guns?

[Jackpine Radical]

12. If the kid had been armed he could have defended himself.

Hey Wayne, do I get the job now?

[defacto7]

58. see post 56

I don't want to be redundant but I think it's a good point.

[Robb]

7. Pink, actually.

[B2G]

13. What a stupid post. nt

[Ishoutandscream2]

22. No kidding.

It never stops around here.

[okieinpain]

6. man talk about darwin. I want to laugh but it's not funny at all. n/t.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

11. 'Darwin' is when you improve the gene pool by removing yourself

This is just tragic.

[MNBrewer]

28. It wasn't his own son.

[marions ghost]

14. Long jail time

would stop this kind of crap.

Duh, oops, I shot the kid. Loooooong jail term....

[Dash87]

16. I'll say it - The guy with the gun is dumber than a box of bricks.

This is just mind-numbingly stupid if I'm getting this story right - who 'plays' with a real gun that might be loaded, and then pulls the trigger? This guy must have the IQ of a broken rock.

[LittleGirl]

17. LaPorte Indiana

BFE about 60 miles from Chicago. Hillbilly country side proud to be an 'merican...patriot country. ewwww. damn it. Grew up near there. Have a Father-in-law (ex) that still lives there. sheesh.

[AnneD]

18. Sadly...

I see many of these parent bringing their kids to school. Common sense is not as common as it use to be.

[MynameisBlarney]

20. Nowadays

Common sense can get you ridiculed by certain folks.

[ileus]

19. Firearms aren't toys.

While not designed to kill, they will cause death if improperly used.

Be safe and enjoy shooting with the family....not to be confused with shoot the family.

[SunSeeker]

24. Conflicting advice: "Be safe and enjoy shooting with the family."

First you say firearms aren't toys, then you suggest people use them exactly as that.

Who the fuck needs to go shooting with the family? There are way more family friendly forms of entertainment. How about playing with a ball instead of a gun?

If firearms aren't toys (and of course you are right about that), then fucking treat them as such. Maybe then, just maybe, people will get the idea that guns in fact are not toys.

[ileus]

32. We hit the batting cage early Saturday morning.

mid day as a family we hit the range, then late that evening we got in the pool for probably the last time this year. It was a little cold, but I'll keep the pump on until the end of October.

Anyway it's easy to enjoy family time at the field, range, and pool. There's plenty of time for each activity....Lucky for us it was a Saturday without football (had a game tonight)

This Sat I'm on call and we have a 9:30 am game, we probably won't hit the range but we should get a short bikeride in then some fishing. We'll probably hit the range on Sunday, my son and daughter need more seat time before youth day (deer) on the 28th, and I'm still breaking in a new home defense 45acp that I'll probably run 50 rounds through while we're waiting for the barrel to cool on the 7mm-08.

[SunSeeker]

35. I feel sorry for your kids. nt

[ileus]

36. Naw don't feel sorry for them.

both straight A students, one active in band, softball, tennis, 4H. The other MX racing, football, a (garage band (@9 LOL)
Both have everything kids could want tablets, phones, ipods, laptops everything electronic. One parent is a healthcare administrator the other an engineer and we spend every non working minute with them doing all sorts of family activities. They have pretty much the perfect life...don't feel sorry for them they're GTG. Life is good...

[whopis01]

33. Firearms are designed to kill

I suppose you could argue a certain percentage are made specifically for competition shooting - but by and large firearms are designed to kill.

What else would their purpose be?

[Iggo]

37. They're not designed to kill?

Wow!

[laundry_queen]

41. No kidding. LOLOL. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

39. "While not designed to kill..."

what are they designed for?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

40. Yes, guns *ARE* designed to kill.

That they can also be used to shoot through a target to merely simulate killing someone does not mean that they aren't designed to actually kill someone.

What planet are you from?

[etherealtruth]

51. What? Surely, you jest ...?

"While not designed to kill"

[Sand Wind]

21. Guns as toys...and a real gun involve...

There is a cultural problem here, yes.

[ManiacJoe]

29. The Four Rules of Gun Safety

http://www.itstactical.com/warcom/firearms/colonel-jeff-cooper-carry-conditions-and-firearm-safety/

Violate one of the rules and you will scare folks.
Violate two or more and someone will probably be shot.

There is no excuse for what Grisham did.

[SunSeeker]

30. Here's a gun safety suggestion: Don't own a gun.

[ManiacJoe]

31. For some people that is a good suggestion.

I always get a good chuckle out of that picture.

[Frustratedlady]

53. Is it just me or are others getting suspicious about all these children being shot?

I hate to think that way, but it just seems to me that it would be a convenient way to get rid of a kid that was a burden. I can't believe there are that many stupid people who leave their guns lying around or let a child play with one. Can a 2-year old even pull the trigger?

Way too many such events.

[Robb]

55. A two year old absolutely can pull a trigger.

There is also a science to determining who fired a weapon, from where, and into whom that is quite accurate. Lots of practice, sadly.

[defacto7]

57. I think it's addiction to adrenalin and the gamble that causes these "accidents".

Instead of reposting... please see post #56