Boy, 2, dies after shooting self

[onehandle]

Source: AP

CORSICANA, Texas (AP) — Police say a 2-year-old boy has died after accidentally shooting himself in the head at a North Texas home while his father was nearby.

Corsicana police on Thursday identified the victim as Kinsler Davis.

Police Chief Randy Bratton says the father called 911 on Wednesday night to report the shooting. The wounded boy was transported to a Corsicana hospital and then on to a Dallas hospital where he died later Wednesday.

Bratton says the boy apparently found a handgun in a bedroom. The child's 35-year-old father was in the walk-in closet of the bedroom at the time of the shooting.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Boy-2-dies-after-shooting-self-at-Corsicana-home-4501719.php

---

Another NRA Success Story.

[Warpy]

1. Another dolt of a parent

who didn't at least put the damned thing out of reach.

Toddlers move like lightning and you have to be prepared that they'll grab just about anything that's near them.

[Xipe Totec]

4. Does he qualify for a Darwin award?

Or does he have to fix the root problem first?

[AndyTiedye]

28. No, the Idiot (Who Left the Gun There) Can Still Breed

Would have qualified for a Darwin award if the kid had shot him dead, or shot his balls off.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. He has no one to blame but himself.

Guns don't kill two year olds, two year olds kill two year olds.

This is why we need responsible gun owner classes in the womb!

[jberryhill]

17. We need to give more kids guns

If there was another two year old with a gun, then he could have been stopped.

[tarheelsunc]

21. I was going to post something to the same effect. eom

[BlueDemKev]

3. Damn...

...what an IDIOT. Leaving a loaded gun lying around where his two-year-old child could find it?

[harmonicon]

68. According to the NRA, the gun should have been in the child's room.

You know, to keep the family safe. Never mind that having a gun anywhere in a house makes everyone in the house less safe.

[BlueDemKev]

96. Wait a second...

...I hate the NRA with passion, but most gun owners do NOT advocate that. Many of my friends own guns and they are kept locked up and only one person (usually dad) knows where the key is. Also, the NRA, to their credit, sponsors the Eddie Eagle Program which teaches children of preschool-age through the third grade to NEVER touch a gun and if they find one, to immediately tell an adult.

That said, there are many morons who believe that there should be a gun under every seat cushion of their house. That is totally ridiculous.

[PotatoChip]

101. OMG. Not sure whether to laugh or cry at that video. (nt)

[BlueDemKev]

116. For the NRA, that's a very BENIGN video!

[hlthe2b]

6. How many has this been in past months? Do these "responsible" gun toters learn NOTHING?

Damn it all. And F>>>K the NRA and its enablers

[Tx4obama]

11. Here's a link

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

The chart on the link above shows gun 'deaths' per day, the kids are the little people/figures.

[billh58]

20. According to the

Gungeoneers, this sudden increase reports about children being shot and killed is just an anomaly due to Liberal media bias. Besides, a few gun deaths are to be expected in order to protect our freedoms, and are really no big deal.

Now it seems that we are supposed to ignore these deaths because actually doing something just may cost us votes in the next election. We need, say the Gungeoneers, to concentrate on more (unspecified) important matters in order to assure NRA members that we are not coming for their gunz.

NRA apologist bullshit right here on DU. How noble they are.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. By all means, point me to one that says its 'liberal media bias'.

Because I don't believe you for one second.

[brett_jv]

52. I don't know about here on DU ...

But I'd bet dollars to donuts the freeper types nowadays are constantly whinging about how the 'liberal media' is giving 'excessive' coverage to gun deaths (esp. those involving kids) in this country, ever since 'Obama started lobbying to take all our guns away'. Meanwhile, I'd imagine they're saying 'the media' is ignoring every other cause of kid's deaths i.e failing to report them unless they involve guns.

No doubt, it's all part of a grand 'lie-beral media conspiracy' in service of the 'Global Leftist's' ultimate dream of taking away our 'Constitutional Rights'. It portends the nefarious goal of Hilary's Lesbian UN Shock Troopers implementing the 'new world order', i.e. taking over 'Merica, and forcing us all to abort our fetuses, marry people of our same sex, and give all the rich people's money away to the Cadillac-Driving Negro Welfare Queens and Kings.

I don't even have to LOOK to know that this is exactly what they're constantly complaining about, I already know how these people think. Been watching 'em for 20 years now.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. The reference made by the poster I was responding to

above, "Gungeoneers", is directed at people here on DU that post in the 'Gungeon', a segment of the board for discussion about firearms and policy, wherein most of the posters are gun owners, and ALSO democrats/progressives/etc.

That is why I objected. I have no doubt people in freeperville refer to the 'liberal media' in the negative all the time. After all, reality has a clear 'liberal bias'.

[billh58]

73. The actual term

used was "corporate media," but we all know that Faux Snooze and the other right-wing media obeys the NRA and doesn't "over report" gun violence.

It is clear that the inference was to Liberal media such as Rachel Maddow, the NYT, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2815070

BTW, really nice defense of the NRA down thread. You've done yourself and your Gungeoneer buddies proud.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Actually, Fox reports it as well.

They have an advertising revenue model to uphold, after all.

I do not agree with your inference about Krispos42's statement.


I don't care if you like what I said about the NRA downthread or not. I am normally very vocally critical of the NRA for their political shenanigans, but on this particular issue, it is working to reduce accidental gunshot victims, fatalities and otherwise.

In order to obtain my hunting license, I was required, by a law the NRA supported the passage of, to take an 11 hour safety course on firearms handling, and hunting regulations.

11 fucking hours. It takes less time than that to re-up certification for asbestos abatement in a public space.

But, I do not mind, because I too desire to see accidental gunshot victims reduced to "0", and I approve of the current trend in those statistics.

Would you prefer the non-political wing of the NRA not be involved in this capacity? What other entity would take up the work of this sort of training, do you imagine? The political wing of the NRA may be infested with the worst malignant tumors of humanity in the far right political spectrum one can imagine, but that doesn't automatically invalidate every last fucking thing the rest of the org does.

(Though I would not blame you for keeping a skeptical eye on them. I do as well)

[billh58]

81. And I don't

Agree with your take on the Head Gungeoneer's take on "corporate media." I'm not going to get into yet another pissing match with you (I''m sure that you don't remember the back-and-forths with me in the Gungeon), and it is not you or your kind that I'm trying to educate about the evils of the extreme proliferation of lethal weapons in this country. That would be a lost cause, as is having a "civil" discussion with NRA-apologists.

So shoot straight, oil it up, and be well...

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Would it be possible for us

to agree to disagree on Kris's statement, without the rancor?

Yes, I remember our discussions in the past. I am trying to be amenable here.

[BlueStreak]

38. And about half of them from Texas. What a coincidence.

[dimbear]

7. The author of the piece has an odd understanding of the word accident.

More like 'did something on purpose with no idea of the result.'
Tragic.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. It's negligence, not an accident.

Pure negligence. Many gun owners shun the term 'accidental discharge', they are all NEGLIGENT discharges.

[BlueStreak]

39. It is more than negligence

Negligence implies a lack of caution or preparation. I think these are far worse because negligence is often used to describe freak coincidences that probably should have been avoided. This is not a freak coincidence. This is child endangerment. Having a loaded gun in the house with an infant is no different than dangling a toddler by his shoestrings from a 40-floor balcony. That is not negligence. It is something much worse.

"Judge, how was I to know the shoestrings wouldn't hold?"

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I don't think the analogy is valid/accurate but

I see where you are going with it, and tend to agree. Criminal Negligence would normally be the statute that agrees with your position, I believe.

[BlueStreak]

44. I was thinking more of the common use of the word, not the legal term.

We both agree these are nothing remotely close to an " accident". Whatever word describes the most reckless form of child endangerment and neglect -- that's the word I would use.

I think my point is that it is an ACTIVE act to decide to put children in that situation. It isn't just bad luck. It is no different than leaving a dish of rat poison right beside the baby's strained peas.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. We agree perfectly.

That is exactly the level of negligence I would ascribe to such an act. Exactly the sort of behavior I wish to discourage, by prosecuting these acts, as I am discussing with another poster downthread.

[dimbear]

48. Well said.

Poor kid.

[rightsideout]

8. My pet Iguana is the same way

He's two years old and gets into everything. He especially likes to get into closets. I'm sure if we had a gun in the house he'd find it.

Sorry to make light of this tragedy. But if this country insists on being armed to the hilt this stuff is going to continue to happen . . . every day. You would think after all the media attention on guns, people would be more careful. But no. Duh.

The American Pediatrics Association suggests families with young children should not have guns in the house. There's a reason for that recommendation.

[pacalo]

9. In addition to background checks, I see the need for IQ tests.

This has become an everyday occurrence, yet these neglectful, irresponsible parents are not learning from others' tragic experiences.

[olddots]

10. Yea-hah gotta protect your kids ya know

Wayne must sleep well at night ( gets his oxys from Rush )

[rickyhall]

12. Negligent Homicide

Can't we lock up these stupid bastards? Maybe if parents had to face jail time they'd quit leaving their damn guns lying around. Maybe not...

[jberryhill]

19. Unlikely

The penalty inherent in this sort of thing is worse than any jail sentence. These incidents destroy the lives of all connected to them.

I mean, what would be a worse penalty:

1. We'll lock you up for x years, or

2. We'll kill your child.

Well, if you think about it, these people GET option 2.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. These deaths are trending down, BUT

I don't see any reason not to ALSO prosecute it.

That's kind of the point right? To discourage people from making the same mistake.
Father was clearly negligent. I'm not sure why the outcome would be considered fair punishment for the crime he committed?

[jberryhill]

30. And if they have other kids...

...then clearly what we ought to do is bust up the family and do more damage.

Again, I am becoming more convinced that either I have changed or else progressives have been far more punitively motivated than I believed.

But "lock 'em up" is not a productive solution to every social problem. It's really something of a last resort.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. This sounds like the 'criminals won't obey background checks, so lets not even try' logic.

I absolutely disagree. Such mitigating factors can play into the sentencing, and judges have considerable leeway. Still, the crime needs to be prosecuted.

Why on earth let this slide, just because he's lost his child?

[jberryhill]

37. Do you know why suicide is legal?

There is not one state which has a law against suicide.

It's illegal to assist, encourage, or facilitate one, but not to actually do it.

The analogy to background checks is the most absurd logic. The background checks are a CRIME PREVENTION measure. That failure of understanding is that of the NRA saying "nobody got arrested for it".

The point of background checks is to PREVENT sales to criminals. If a criminal tries to purchase a gun, then the purchase fails if the check says be can't buy one. Indeed it is the primary POINT of the background check law not to run around arresting people - it is to prevent at least some sales.

People who think every problem can be solved with a jail cell, are a whole lot like the people who think they can solve them with guns.

Judges these days DO NOT have a lot of sentencing leeway because nutbars in the state legislatures have long had the notion that mandatory minimums for just about everything will prevent those sort hearted liberal judges from taking into account, oh, things like reality or justice.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. It is unlawful to ATTEMPT suicide.

Successful completion carries the antidote to any possible criminal charges.

(Supreme Court of Maine in the case of May v. Pennell, 101 Me. 516, 64 A. 885, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 286, 115 Am. St. Rep. 334, 8 Ann. Cas. 351.)


The point of punishing a crime like the negligent act in the OP is to raise awareness and discourage others from committing the same crime. I never said the problem can be 'solved' with a jail cell.

I am primarily concerned with criminal justice in this case (and other cases) where a person is HARMED.

If a parent neglected a child to death, would you similarly assume they have 'suffered' enough? I would not. Neglect/negligence, similar failure point in this case.

[jberryhill]

42. Only etymologically

Legally, no. In legal terminology, "negligence" has little to do with the term "neglect" in relation to child care.

If you want to criminalize child death from mere negligence, then we are going to have to throw in the swimming pool drownings, the guy who didn't check his rearview mirror in the driveway, the rock thrown from the lawn mower, and a lot of auto passenger fatalities.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Yeah, I'm ok with prosecuting those.

The idea is to reduce negligent fatalities, yes? Then do.

Hell of a lot better than prosecuting people for having the wrong kind of vegetation in their pocket.

[jberryhill]

46. You're really missing a step

You seem not to grasp how deterrent effects work. These tragedies get more local media attention than the jail sentences du jour.

Hearing about some kid drowning in a swimming pool does more to affect the behavior of othe parents than does hearing about someone going to jail.

If the situation is symptomatic of an abusive or otherwise criminal domestic situation, it usually will shake out in the investigation in the first place. So, if you want to get at the truly shitty parents instead of someone who missed a stop sign, the consequences - and the attention given to them - serve a more chilling deterrent effect.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. And if it's someone else's kid?

I'm still missing the magic mechanism by which having it be your own kid is a get out of jail free card.

[jberryhill]

49. It's not a get out of jail free card

...and I didn't say it was.

Criminal law is a blunt instrument. Reflexively believing, with no data, that it would in general do more good than harm is simply being irrational.

On edit: ah, I understand where you are coming from now. Of course, "If shootin' 'em won't fix it, lockin' 'em up will." It's like the duct tape/WD40 duality - if it moves and it shouldn't, duct tape : if it doesn't move and it should, WD40.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. You still haven't explained why the exception for negligence leading to death for your own child.

You only disagreed with my characterization of it.

If I allow a negligent condition that kills my neighbor's kid (something like an attractive nuisance, like a pool, AFTER several warnings, and in violation of local ordinances for the fence or whatever) I am certainly civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable.

Why would the same not be true of my own child?

Please explain the mechanism.

[pipoman]

60. I'm with Jerry on this one..

Following the accidental death of a child, whether through parental negligence (which most accidental death of children can be attributed) or some freak occurrence, parents and other family become clinically depressed. Can you imagine a courtroom with a jury, and a prosecutor bringing in LEOs to describe the crime of criminal negligence which has been charged? After the LEOs and medical examiner's testimony, who's next? Family members pleading to leave the parent(s) alone? Describing act after act of the charged parent demonstrating the completely selfless love shown by the parent to the dead child prior to the child's death. Sixty boxes of kleenex later, the jury nullifies and the prosecutor looks like a heartless beast for bringing it before the court in the first place..

Next is the question of "criminal intent", which is another significant obstacle in these types of cases..

I do believe there should be a mechanism for charging the most egregious acts of negligence, but most accidental death of children resulting from the negligence of a loving parent just isn't where I want our justice system spending it's resources.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Yes, I can imagine it, because I have witnessed it unfold.

And I have witnessed a double standard based on various factors like race, or employment within the police department.

We had two local cases recently, of children left in vehicles with firearms, in which the child shot either itself, or a sibling. One 'normal' set of parents, one police officer.

Guess which went to jail?

http://www.king5.com/news/Charges-in-Tacoma-toddler-shooting-144495945.html
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Girl-shot-by-sibling-in-Marysville-police-officers-van-142212385.html

Both were charged, one was convicted.

I can't think of a much more egregious act of negligence than letting a child obtain access to a firearm. I really can't. And I am a gun owner, with kids, and I assume this sort of conversation is discoverable at trial, should I fuck up myself.

[pipoman]

117. I believe the inequality

within the justice system is a separate issue..it occurs across all criminal law...I've seen it too..

I agree that letting a child get a hold of a firearm is bad..I just don't believe it is worse than the many other acts of negligence on the part of parents who's child is killed..often not prosecuted or prosecuted under statutes not carrying much or any jail time..

[pipoman]

57. I completely agree with your

take in this subthread..completely..there is and should be a means for criminal prosecution for the completely egregious negligence, but as a rule our society has never spent a lot of time prosecuting parents who leave their household cleaner cabinet open resulting in a child being poisoned...It's about compassion and the utility of extra punishment.

[Blue_Tires]

91. What if the dad doesn't learn his lesson

And a month from now "accidentally" shoots the wife while cleaning his gun? (or any similar repeat incident) Should he get jail then?

They can at least make sure dad never owns a gun again...there's no objection to that, is there?

[jberryhill]

93. I agree the guns should be taken away, absolutely

My suspicion is that a lot of these situations ultimately end in divorce, and that the kids the other spouse, and a whole lot of things are taken away.

[avebury]

63. Negligent gun owners should be locked up.

If a parent's love for his/her child is not strong enough to provide a safe home environment what will? I refuse to accept any excuses or call these incidents accidents. Rational people would recognize the inherent danger in leaving loaded weapons where they can be accessed by children and possible consequences.

I would have no problem with looking at any of the idiots right in the face and telling them point blank: You must not love your child because you obviously were not too concerned about his/her safety. I would love to see laws passed that would remove any additional children from a home where incidents like this occurs. As far as I am concerned, idiots like these do not have a right to maintain custody of any other children. When people are found guilty of severe animal abuse, the courts sometime prohibit them from owning future animals - the same should hold with children.

[pipoman]

67. Are you talking about

all child deaths resulting from parental negligence, or just those involving guns?

Oh, and the foster system in this country is always the best place for children..

[avebury]

89. Gun Deaths.

It is time that society starts holding these idiots criminally liable for their negligence. How else does society have any hope whatsoever of changing things? If the love of a parent for a child is not adequate for the parent to act responsibly then how else to you propose to safeguard their children? If these idiots know that, if their child (or children) are killed or seriously injured due to their negligence that they WILL end up in jail and you actually start throwing these idiots in jail then perhaps people will actually be serious about properly securing the guns in their homes.

You have to start somewhere and take serious steps to show these idiots that society will no longer tolerate their behavior. If they see that there is actually real life consequences (jail time and loss of children) for their negligence then there might be hope to start changing things. For crying out loud, a drunk driver can lose his/her driver's license and go to jail, some animal abusers can lose the right to own a pet, a parent can go to jail if their child is truant in some school districts, but a gun owner's negligence can cause the death or injury of a child and the gun owner does not go to jail? That is seriously messed up.

[pipoman]

107. As stated many times before..

there are many, many children killed annually because of the negligent acts of parents..not properly securing swimming pools, allowing kids to ride bikes without helmets, ATVs, poisonings, locked in hot cars, etc., etc. If we are going to charge and jail gun accidents, then why should all these others..many which are far more common than gun accidents..not be charged and jailed?

[colorado_ufo]

94. Why not add to this the "worst" penalty of all?

The parents - or whoever permitted the circumstances of the accident to be in place - should be forbidden to ever own another firearm of any kind.

Now, THAT might deter them!

[SoCalMusicLover]

13. Another Day, Another Shooting

Who really cares anymore? The gun lovers will never give up their guns, so things like this will happen from time to time.

It's like when someone dies of a drug overdose, and we shrug and say, that's a shame. But unexpected? Ehhh. Guns just doing what they're designed to do, not a big surprise really.

[sigmasix]

14. willfully stupid?

Is this an accident or a case of willfull stupidity? Since the NRA is working so hard to make sure "responsible" gun owners recieve no punishment when babies are killed by their gunz, shouldn't we be wondering why this "father" will not have to spend the next 20 to 40 years in prison?
I'm so tired of the excuse that the dead child is punishment enough for the irresponsible gun owner. This approach towards justice for these dead babies is not working.
Parents that create an atmosphere conducive to the murder of their own children with their gunz should spend life in prison- The NRA disagrees; they would prefer to have the parents free to purchase more gunz so that the murderous atmosphere they create can be expanded to include the children of non-gun owners.

Fuck the NRA and other baby-killing domestic terrorists with gunz.

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. The NRA works so hard to prove that guns are simply harmless tools that their idiot flock treat them

like harmless tools.

This isn't complicated: they propagate a false idea of the inherent danger of these weapons, and then everybody acts surprised when gunner shitheads develop a blase attitude toward these weapons. No. It is not a surprise. It is precisely the response one would expect given the rhetorical gymnastics all gunners are forced to do on behalf of the gun manufacturing industry and the dealers. Gunners have to invent the harmlessness of the weapon, then poo-poo when other gunners treat the weapon as harmless. This child is dead because of NRA propaganda and the stupidity of the gunner flunkies.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Not true.

Look, the NRA is pretty fucked up politically (and this is why I refuse to give them money to access certain gun ranges) but no other organization has done ANYWHERE near as much to discourage the sort of death that occurred in the OP.

ALL the training they administer is tied into preventing situations like that. ALL of it. And the NRA can be fairly credited with contributing to the halving of the number of kids killed in this manner over the last 50 years.

I know it's fun to shit all over the NRA at every turn, and politically speaking, they deserve it for opposing things that fuck, they've SUPPORTED in the past (background checks, and registration even). But THIS issue the NRA is on the right side of, and works diligently to REDUCE accidental deaths from guns; from hunters, to joe schmoe, to children. And it is working.

The last one of these stories posted, the father was a police officer, and the kid got his service weapon, shot and killed his mother. You gonna blame the NRA for that one too?

[harmonicon]

69. Your reasoning is astounding.

You reason that the NRA prevents such deaths, as if without the NRA gun ownership and access would be at the same levels as today. That's insanely faulty reasoning. You can't take one thing about the organization for granted and ignore everything else.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Without the NRA I might fairly assume certain types of weapons would not be available.

For instance, so-classified 'assault weapons'.

In the context of the OP, I do not assume there would be fewer guns overall, sans the NRA, and the lack of higher cyclic rate or more military-like weapons is not relevant. There is no firearm mild enough as to be safe for a child to put it to their head or look down the barrel, and pull the trigger.

On the flipside, the NRA has supported legislation that issues gun locks with new purchases, removes sales tax from gun safes, making them more accessible to people on a budget, etc. Then on top of that the training stuff, ALL of which is engineered from a 'safety first' standpoint.

The NRA is schizophrenic. It has two wings. One is a functional, rational, single-issue entity that seeks to keep Americans armed and capable/competent. The other wing is a bat-shit insane political entity that is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. It really hurts their credibility, I think, but on this particular issue, the NRA as a firearm safety advocate, is on the correct side of the issue, and the accidental gunshot/death rate decline over the last 50 years reflects it.

[harmonicon]

80. I wouldn't expect an NRA apologist to understand that correlation does not equal causation.

Sorry for taking your time when you could have been using it to apologize for other corporate lobbying groups which help cause the death of children; I don't know, diamond mining, maybe.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Logical fallacy: genetic.

You did nothing to rebut my claim that the NRA is at least partially creditable with the decline in accidental death/injury over the last 50 years, in the area of firearms.

If pointing out that ONE SINGLE BRIGHT SPOT makes me a NRA apologist, then, whatever man. Do whatever floats your boat, I don't really care if you want to discuss things anymore or not.

[harmonicon]

87. Seriously, do you not get that correlation does not equal causation?

Maybe the NRA has certain programs that attempt to reduce death or injury with personal killing devices, but they are the single largest lobbying organization promoting personal ownership of devices designed for killing human beings. As a result, you can not just pretend that things would have otherwise been the same and judge some of their "safety" initiatives on their own. If you had a group that was purely working towards safety (pro-tip: real home gun safety means not having guns in your home. If the NRA doesn't teach that, they're not really working towards home safety in terms of guns), perhaps you could track their influence in these terms, but the NRA?

You are literally apologizing for the NRA. If that does not make you an apologist for the NRA, I don't know what would.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. You have objected based on

correlation not equally causation, which is fine, but you offered nothing to support that.

Recall that I said PARTIAL credit. I choose my words carefully in these matters.
The NRA itself has made less-carefully-worded claims in the past, and had them fact-checked.
http://potusnews.net/2013/02/wayne-lapierre-of-nra-says-fatal-firearms-accidents-are-at-the-lowest-level/

I agree with that article. Their safety education (which goes FAR beyond JUST the eddie eagle program) is likely due partial credit for that reduction. Partial credit is due to other factors like emergency medical care. (Also note, in my carefully worded statement, I included injuries. Again, I choose my words very carefully)

I disagree with this statement:

"pro-tip: real home gun safety means not having guns in your home. If the NRA doesn't teach that, they're not really working towards home safety in terms of guns"

Simple substitution of your subject with another subject (say, the oft-repeated 'pools' comparison, an attractive nuisance that kills children, and is electively owned) one can see the statement is a meaningless extreme.

It is possible to render a firearm inert and safe for storage in your home. Period. Non-ownership of firearms is not the only method to eliminate the risk of a child accessing a firearm.

Edit: Upthread I used the word 'contributed' not 'partial'. I would consider then synonyms in this context.

[billh58]

97. You might as well

be arguing with an NRA tree stump. The NRA apologists have an answer (albeit a bullshit answer) for everything, and they insist on having the last word. The NRA is just a misunderstood organization that really, really has ALL Americans interests at heart, they say. The NRA represents ALL American gun owners they say. The NRA's only goal is to protect the Second Amendment they say. Mom, apple pie, Old Glory, and the American Way are all wrapped up in, and personified by, a gun they proudly proclaim.

It's sad in a way, because when the Gungeon was the only place that these discussions could be held on DU, they pretty much ruled the roost, and verbally browbeat anyone who dared to say nasty things about their precious gunz. Now that DU has allowed this topic to be discussed outside of that swamp of gun porn, the Gungeoneers are on the receiving end of the vitriol that they grew so accustomed to dishing out. They are now "reaching out" and asking for "dialog." Right. Still walks like, looks like, and talks like...

American demographics are changing, and a groundswell of public sentiment is gathering in support of rolling back the insane proliferation of lethal weapons in this nation. There are growing calls for legislation aimed at accountability, and responsibility as a requirement for the purchase and tracking of a gun.

Reasonable gun control is coming, and the "cold dead hands" NRA apologists will gradually disappear into the fog of insignificance.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Man, look at the size of that straw man. You can see it from orbit.

Might want to get your eyes checked. I have been, and in other threads, ALWAYS have been highly critical of the NRA from a political standpoint.

Pointing out ONE good thing they have done on ONE issue does not equal all this bullshit: "The NRA is just a misunderstood organization that really, really has ALL Americans interests at heart, they say. The NRA represents ALL American gun owners they say. The NRA's only goal is to protect the Second Amendment they say. Mom, apple pie, Old Glory, and the American Way are all wrapped up in, and personified by, a gun they proudly proclaim."

Put words in someone else's mouth.

[harmonicon]

99. Are you not just an NRA apologist, but also a member, by chance? (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

102. I am not a member.

I was, once, a long time ago, because membership in the NRA was a pre-requisite to access a particular gun range closest to my home. (This is often the case with ranges, and reveals some of the scam nature of the NRA itself.)

I was not willing to maintain that membership, so I have moved on, and no longer use that range, and will not go back as long as that is a requirement. I also made that quite clear to the range owner the last time I attended the range meeting.

(As I have mentioned in many threads in 'the gungeon' in the past)

[harmonicon]

108. Good for you.

Now, please stop carrying water for them. You're only doing yourself a disservice by it.

[AtheistCrusader]

109. I don't get it.

I don't see how pointing out the ONE thing they don't completely suck at, is carrying water for them.

Especially since I do nothing but criticize them on every other topic. Is it necessary to ENTIRELY demonize an org like that to make a point? Why? Isn't the clearly demonstrable, very bad ideas they have on the political field now, enough?

Does one positive thing really amount to 'carrying water'? That seems a strange position, to me.

[harmonicon]

110. It does matter, and it does make a difference.

It's like people saying, "Well, Mussolini made the trains run on time, so fascism wasn't/isn't all bad." It's the same crap that drives me nuts when people ass-kiss a Republican the ONE TIME the do something that isn't completely terrible. There aren't many people or things that are 100% evil. Jumping to their defense makes you an apologist for all of the crap they do. "Well, they let prisoner x have whatever he wanted for a last meal, so what's so bad about the death penalty?"

[AtheistCrusader]

111. Except...

I am not saying the equivalent of 'facism wasn't so bad'. I have explicitly described the NRA as a piece of shit. That they do one thing right doesn't absolve them of that, and I have made that quite clear.

I asked another poster earlier, but maybe you can answer it. If not for the current safety training offered from NRA sources, what group would step up and offer it?

300 million firearms in play, give or take, isn't it better that some people BE trained on safe storage, safe use, hunting safety, etc? Who will perform that function if the NRA imploded and vanished, today, right now?

[harmonicon]

112. I feel like we're ships passing in the night here.

If it weren't for the NRA, there wouldn't be so many guns in private ownership. They're a lobbying/advertising group for gun manufacturers and resellers. Of course they do the absolute minimum it takes for them to stay in the game, and part of that is making sure that the pawns in their game don't off themselves on "accident" too often. They only have these sort of programs because it advances their larger agenda.

To me, it seems like when BP runs ads about all of their "clean energy" initiatives. Yeah, they have to have a horse in that race to stay in the game, but the real profit comes from elsewhere. It doesn't mean (though it's what they would like) you should defend BP for not practicing 100% evil.

[AtheistCrusader]

113. No, I get what you are saying but

Let's say BP developed a new method to cap deep sea wells that became the industry standard safety tool for blowouts for ALL drilling corporations, and that tool worked.

Would it be a 'fascism isn't so bad' sort of thing to acknowledge that they developed something that would actually protect the oceans if they OR OTHERS fucked up?

(I realize this is a serious stretch as hypotheticals go, given the technical challenges of drilling in deep water, and the neglect the safety equipment of the entire oil industry receives...)


I tend to agree, the NRA does serve as a promoter or sales evangelist for firearms. So yes, they foment an environment where this sort of safety education is necessary. However, they neither initiated that environment, nor are they the only reason for that environment existing. They simply contribute. And in all fairness, that was their mission statement from day 1, after the civil war.

Edit: Injected 'or others' to reflect the industry-wide nature of the hypothetical drilling safety equipment.

[harmonicon]

114. It's hard to draw parallels here.

To live in a modern world, we all need the power grid, or a way to simulate it in our homes (self-suficient generation, mobile hot-spot internet connections, etc.) No one needs to own a gun.

I am for every individual's right to own a gun, because I'm all for individual freedoms. I don't think you or anyone else should, but you've decided to, and I would defend that right of yours just as much as I would defend any other right. That said, I'm against a strong lobbying group working to advance their own interests by using our intrinsic rights as an excuse to reap a profit at all costs.

[AtheistCrusader]

115. And on that note, we agree.

I feel the political lobbying wing of the NRA is not only of dubious purpose (industry sales, rather than civil rights), but it is also of vastly outsized power, given the scope and scale of its influence.

I honestly just didn't think that saying one thing about what I perceive to be a singular positive aspect of it, would be taken as an attempt to whitewash any of that. It certainly seemed to go over in that manner. For that I apologize, it is not how I intended it.

Personally, I would go beyond simply viewing the political element of the NRA as a sales front, I would go so far as to call them con artists, given the exhortations to panicked fear, and 'donations' that they are constantly bombarding people with. It's worse than Glenn Beck pimping Goldline. It's insane to see.

[billh58]

100. If you will notice

my response did not mention "political standpoint," yet that is the only part of the NRA's positions that you deny supporting?

I wasn't going to get into a pissing match with you (again), but I just had to point out the hypocrisy of NRA apologists. You agree with most of their policies aimed at the proliferation of gunz with absolutely no regulation or oversight, but don't agree with their politics. Does that about sum it up? You DO realize that they are absolutely nothing BUT a political lobbying organization don't you, and that the "words" I used come from the NRA?

Now you may, in true NRA apologist fashion, have the last indignant word. Try not to sputter...

[AtheistCrusader]

103. That is not true.

The NRA is a two-wing organization. One half political action, the other half mundane firearms training/safety and such.

I would say the political action side overshadows everything else the NRA does at this point, but that doesn't mean the safety training and education components no longer exist, or are no longer utilized. They do, and they are a force for good, and there is no reason to overlook that, however justifiably angry you may be at the political action component of the organization.

As an aside, I believe that marginalizing and demonizing even those components has contributed to the political radicalization of the political side. 20 years ago, this was not nearly such an issue. The NRA even supported the Brady NICS bill. An influx of politically rational people to the org could simply vote the assholes out and fix this, but, being that the NRA is political plutonium right now (such that even I will not join it under any circumstances) it's pretty much going to have to collapse and be replaced utterly. It no longer represents what it was built to do.

Once upon a time, the NRA actually advocated for and passed things we call common sense gun control today. Now, they stonewall everything. Un-doing that is problematic.

[AtheistCrusader]

104. Also, you don't seem to be able to keep issues in frame.

"You agree with most of their policies aimed at the proliferation of gunz with absolutely no regulation or oversight, but don't agree with their politics."

Proliferation 'with absolutely no regulation or oversight' *IS* their current political position. Why are you suggesting they are separate? That is, in fact, precisely the problem, as the NRA leadership has become entirely politicized.

Again, you attempt to put words in my mouth. *I* do not agree with that policy. *I* support background checks. *I* even support registration, even though I have dim hopes of it ever being accomplished.

And yes, the NRA is MORE than just a political entity. It's devolving into one, but there are still non-political elements. For starters, the hunter safety education, CMP, and other safety training programs. The Eddie Eagle program does not teach or encourage kids to fire guns. It consists of 'stop, don't touch, leave the area, get an adult'. That's all.

Recognizing that those elements aren't political, or haven't been politicized doesn't mean I personally don't support gun control measures.

Please, oh please, stop trying to demonize people you are talking to, and stop putting words in my mouth. It's fucking pointless, because I'm not going to let you paint me with that brush. Nor is it 'getting the last word in'. You falsely attribute some shit to me, don't pretend I shouldn't be motivated to correct the record.

I support universal background checks. I support universal registration. Square that with your 'NRA apologist' bullshit.

[billh58]

105. Bully for you!

Now go kiss your gun and tell it that you will always be there for it...

[AtheistCrusader]

106. I can only guess why you would think people do that.

None of my guesses would be terribly flattering about you though.

[jberryhill]

50. You even flushed one out

As I say above - the people who think a jail cell is the solution to every problem are a LOT like the ones who think a gun is.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Uh huh.

'flushed one out'?

[randr]

15. Again and again and again

This is not accident. It is a crime that has resulted in a death.

[marble falls]

16. Why shouldn't dad be arrested?

[pipoman]

61. Maybe no criminal intent? Maybe the high likelihood of jury nullification?

[Orrex]

18. Quick! Somebody tell us how many kids die in swimming pools each year!

Because, you know, it makes it all better and stuff.

[thesquanderer]

95. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun...

...is a good guy with a swimming pool.

[iamthebandfanman]

22. humans are such morons. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. Yet again, good reason to keep your kids away from the homes of gunners

People who keep guns in the same home as small children have poor judgment, and you shouldn't entrust your children to their care.

[jberryhill]

31. +1

[AtheistCrusader]

33. As a gun owner, I agree.

I keep all of mine under lock and key in safes, but not all gun owners do. You just offered prudent advice. There are people whom I will not allow my child to visit their home, for precisely this reason.

And while I have done my due diligence, I would not be offended if another parent refused to send their kids to my home. I understand. All it would take is one mistake on my part, and the results cannot be un-done. It's not for me to say 'I'm safe', so I tell other parents what I have, what I have done to secure it, and I let them weigh the risk of their kids coming to play with mine.

[sikofit3]

59. ++

nt

[harmonicon]

70. People who keep guns in the home demonstrate poor judgement.

A home with a gun in it is less safe than a home without. Bullets kill adults too.

[No Vested Interest]

29. Very sad. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

35. Will the gun owner be prosecuted?

[mountain grammy]

36. "too many children are dying, too many children" Gabby Giffords

[avebury]

64. This may be a tough statement but - to be blunt -

the children that have lost their lives due to idiot gun owning relatives probably would have grown up to be idiotic gun owners themselves. This might be the universe's way of cleaning up the genetic pool.

[spicegal]

55. It's easy to say these people get what they deserve, but sadly these children don't get to choose

their parents and end up the victims of their parents ignorance. Perhaps they should be held more accountable. It's unfortunate that idiots with guns don't seem to know any better then to keep them locked up and away from kids. Well, I guess the only way to stop a good kid with a gun is another kid with a gun. Is that the way it works. In the old days, the NRA focused on gun safety, but clearly that's no longer important to them anymore.

[Kolesar]

56. In my community, the public has to buy trigger locks, because the dumbass gunowners won't

They can afford a gun, but they can't find room in the family budget for a lock. So I get to pay to support their paranoia/hobby.

[sikofit3]

58. Tragic

Another innocent dying from the idiocy of their parents and the gun culture....

[Brigid]

62. How is this not negligent homicide?

[avebury]

65. Responsible parents should find out what the gun

culture is in the homes of their children's friends. I would never allow a child to visit a home where guns are not safely secured.

[onehandle]

66. This is why guns should be tied to owners by license and these records publicly available.

We can see lists of sex offenders. Why not lists of gun owners?

Statistically, they are far more dangerous to your child.

[billh58]

71. Because the

Second Amendment says that I can have as many guns as I want, and that I don't have to be responsible for them. And only us gunners can use words like "statistically," so back off.

[onehandle]

72. Doh!

I forgot. I take it all back.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. If you could hold the sarcasm for a moment...

I know we have our disagreements, but as a 'gunner' in favor of holding gun owners responsible for their actions, please join me upthread in arguing in favor of prosecuting the gun owner in the OP for negligence or criminal negligence. There are people in this thread that don't believe the gun owner should be prosecuted in this case, because he has 'suffered enough' or something like that.


Also, please consider that there are people who are BOTH gun owners AND supporters of background checks, registration, safe storage, and other restrictions on where and how guns may be 'borne'.

I don't actually come here just to fight with people like you, as we did upthread. Technically, our goals are similar.

[billh58]

82. Now pull the

other one...

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Because the ACLU opposes that.

Normally I wouldn't link to the 'Daily Caller', but they conducted the interview with the ACLU lobbyist, and therefore are the original source material, so until some other news org interviews same person for same purpose, this is my best source.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/

[billh58]

85. The ACLU has

also defended the KKK in several matters. What's your point?

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Onehandle asked a valid question. I offered an answer.

The ACLU is interested in preserving our civil liberties, and I find it of considerable interest when they take the high road, even in cases, like you point out, where the subject may be unsavory.

Poster above may not have considered that such lists are a threat to civil liberties in subjects beyond the question of firearms ownership.

[bravenak]

79. How many more babies are going to shoot babies, or themselves?

Is it impossible to keep a gun out of the reach of a two year old?
We need less guns. Now.

[They_Live]

90. 2 years old!

the loaded, unlocked gun was left in reach for a 2 year old.

[valerief]

92. If only he had more guns--gungeoneer logic. nt