Phila. 4-year-old shoots himself

[onehandle]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

A 4-year-old Philadelphia boy was in critical condition and undergoing emergency surgery Saturday night after he found a gun under his mother's pillow and shot himself in the chest, police said.

The shooting happened about 6:55 p.m. in a bedroom of a house on the 6200 block of Cardiff Street in the Mayfair section in Northeast Philadelphia, police said. Authorities said the youngster shot himself once in the left side of the chest with a .38-caliber handgun.

It was not immediately clear who else, if anyone, was home at the time of the shooting. A police spokeswoman said late Saturday that detectives would interview the boy's mother.

"All we can tell is, it was accidental," 15th District police officer Chris Bennett said Saturday night.


Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20120408_Phila__4-year-old_shoots_himself.html

[MarianJack]

1. A Cautionary Tale K&R!

PEACE!

[SamG]

2. A gun under the pillow of mother's bed in a home with..

a four year old? Come on!

Where is the intelligence of the mother, presumably the gun owner?

[Walk away]

3. Are you implying that in order to own a gun you need to be intelligent? Somewhere the NRA is...

Screaming it's collective head off! This poor baby was unlucky enough to live in a country glutted with guns and available to everyone.

[Snake Alchemist]

55. Should only be available to property owners. Or maybe some sort of intelligence test. nt

[JDPriestly]

84. Why property owners?

Everybody owns some property. Even homeless people may own a plastic bag or the clothing on their backs. What in the world is the significance of being a property owner?

What a strange term. I've only heard it used by right-wingers thus far.

[Snake Alchemist]

89. land owners of course. nt

[Skittles]

85. LOL - PROPERTY OWNERS

surely that was a JOKE!!!

[Snake Alchemist]

88. glad you picked up on that. nt

[baldguy]

5. Because "guns don't kill people" & "guns keep people safe"

The NRA has spent decades & millions of RW dollars to ensure people believe this shit. The fact that thousands of innocents die each year because of their propaganda campaign doesn't concern them in the least.

[geckosfeet]

9. You can't legislate against "the stupid".

Or - all the legislation in the world won't help dim people take simple safety precautions.

[Crunchy Frog]

47. But you can (potentially) legislate against the stupid owning guns.

Or at least insist that they be licenced like cars, and that people go through and pass a basic course on safety and proper usage. That would rob us of our precious liberties though. So, the situation with this boy is unfortunate, but a necessary sacrifice for the greater good.

[Snake Alchemist]

54. Maybe a writing test? nt

[hack89]

77. The NRA would love guns to be licensed like cars

think about it:

1. A simple test that 95 percent of the population can pass.
2. No criminal background check
3. No waiting period to get a license.
4. The license is accepted everywhere in the country.


We allow extremely stupid people to drive cars - they pose a greater danger to you than any gun owner.

[geckosfeet]

79. In many states, gun owners ust be licensed.

Or more exactly, you must be licensed before you can buy a gun.

Then again ther are some states where, well, all you need is a drivers license. And anyone can get one of those.

[PavePusher]

94. "many states"? I don't think so....

www.handgunlaw.us

[geckosfeet]

96. Ok. For concealed carry you need a license. In my state you need a license to buy, own and fire

a gun. In some states you can own and buy without a license but you cannot carry concealed. You also need your license to buy ammunition.

On edit: The link seems to address concealed carry and not ownership specifically. Many states do require permit or licensing procedure before you can carry concealed. Ownership and buying may be different matter. I will state browsing each states gun laws, but I suspect that many states don't restrict buying.

[Walk away]

59. If you can't pass a driving test you can't drive...

Maybe there should be the same criteria for people who need to own guns. That should cut down on gun ownership by about 90%.

[NutmegYankee]

60. how do you figure 90%?

[Walk away]

98. Most gun owners are not college educated. As the level of education goes up....

gun ownership goes down. Now you may believe that there is no correlation between intelligence and higher education but how do you explain that most gun owners are republicans?

90% is just my guess. As far as I can determine the degree of intelligence of people who want unrestricted gun ownership hasn't been measured.

[Upton]

99. "most gun owners are republicans?"

perhaps technically that statement is correct, but it looks to me like Democrats are well represented.. I guess they're just not educated enough to give up their RKBA and agree with you..

[Walk away]

119. Most gun owners are republican. Thank you for providing a graph! nt

[rrneck]

103. Income goes up with highet education

along with improved police protection And lower crime rates.

[PavePusher]

106. Wow, no bigotry there.

Just relace "gun owner" with "african-american" (or any other ethnicity/demographic/interest group) and see how fast this gets locked.

[primavera]

109. False comparison

One does not choose to be African-American. Whether one owns a gun is a conscious choice one makes for oneself.

[PavePusher]

117. It's also a Constitutional Right. n/t

[Walk away]

121. So was slavery at one time. It doesn't make it right, moral or good for the country. nt

[PavePusher]

125. Ensuring the right to efficient means of self-defense isn't "right, moral or good for the country"?

What a very odd concept.

[Walk away]

131. I get that you are incapable of understanding why guns are a problem.

Slave owners could parrot several ways in which slavery was the very life blood of this country. Now we look back at them as ignorant racists. People evolve. Sometimes a whole generation die off before thing get better.

[NutmegYankee]

128. Funny, I don't see slavery in the Bill of Rights.

Of course, that's because it was never a right. It just existed at the time and the Constitution left the status quo in place. The same for the lack of women's suffrage.

On the other hand, the Bill of Rights...

[Walk away]

134. I never said Slavery was in the Bill of Rights. It is clearly in the body of the Constitution...

"Provisions in the Original Constitution

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons [i.e., slaves].
Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due"

The Constitution is a living document. As society evolves it does as well. Maybe we'll see a brand new Amendment for gun ownership some day!

[PavePusher]

135. At least you are refering to the correct mechanism for change.

The Amendment Process. Used 17 times with only one revision. Not bad.

Good luck with your efforts.

[NutmegYankee]

136. You stated "so was slavery" in response to the statement "It's also a Constitutional right".

My point is that statement is flat out false. Congress required an amendment to ban slavery as it was not within its powers under article I to do so. That lack of power to ban it never made slavery a right. Rights are legal principles of freedom or entitlement. There was never a right to own slaves. It just was the economic and social system at the time.

As for banning guns - that would be the first amendment eliminating a right.

[Walk away]

120. I am just stating facts. If you think the truth is racism then I'm betting you are a ...

gun owner as well!

[PavePusher]

124. Seems to be false on the education front, as shown by the evidence in your post #123.

Anyway, college degreee is not a reliable indicator of intelligence. I've met plenty of degreed idiots, of every political bent.

But your elitism is noted.

[NutmegYankee]

115. Tests on gun ownership would be quite easy to pass even for high school dropouts.

Most of these people (Rural folk to urban elitists like yourself) grew up with firearms and can easy pass any test. As for me, I hold a Master of Science and a Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering. I find it humorous that you believe we (gun owners) are all stupid. The arrogance... You and your gun grabbing compatriots just continue a popular divide here on DU. Rural vs. Urban. But that's to be expected - according to some of you, we rural folk are all republicans anyhow. And you wonder why we lose elections. Get a fucking clue. You cannot lead this nation to a better and more fair society by alienating the countryside.

[Walk away]

122. I did not say that ALL gun owners are stupid. For a supposedly intelligent...

person you didn't bother to actually read my post before you replied. Let's hope you don't use a gun the way you answer a post. Although I wouldn't be surprised.

[PavePusher]

126. Your insinuation was obvious.

So is your walk-back.

[Walk away]

133. I am not walking back. I was not stating an opinion.

I do not believe all gun owners are stupid. I believe that the availability of guns to everyone who wants them and laws that let them carry them in public outside of their homes are stupid.
That is my opinion.

[NutmegYankee]

127. Oh I read your post completely, and my reply was spot on.

You can try to dodge, but everyone reading your post understands what you imply. And then to start off this one with the statement "supposedly intelligent". Do you read what you write? Not that I really care what you think; earning two engineering degrees from highly rated universities is proof enough of my intelligence. But it does highlight your condescending attitude for other DUers who disagree with you on gun control.

As for your attitude, consider this: It's people like you who are the Republican's best allies. Your arrogant attitude and that of some others in our party towards gun owners and rural culture in general went a long way to putting the Republicans into power in Congress in the 1990s. Many rural people whom would benefit greatly from Democratic economic and social policies and programs are driven away by these attitudes.

[geckosfeet]

118. Ahhhh, please see Vermont. Lots of liberal gun owners there. And in MA.

I would counter suggest that gun safety and responsibility are proportional to education.

[Walk away]

123. I would counter that anecdotal comments are worthless. Maybe this will help.

[link:http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx|

[geckosfeet]

129. I would counter counter suggest, that reading comphrehension is in fact

a by product of education. And that your "helpful" link says nothing about gun safety. It also indicates that there are many college educated households containing firearms.

So, your point is poorly made and intellectually off target. But that's all right. I anecdotally knew what you meant.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/119/6/e1271/T1.expansion.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022346898903220
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf

[Walk away]

130. My post said nothing about gun safety. You were contesting my post. You are the one off topic.

Therefore, I won't bother to read your list of links. Enjoy imagining your excessively large brain.

[hack89]

87. What percentage of the population can pass a drivers test?

95 percent judging by the lousy drivers I see every day.

[Remmah2]

112. As long as the test applies equally across the board.

Civilians, law enforcement, military, politicians and criminals.

No problem.

[Joseph8th]

4. Easy fix...

... repeal the 2nd Amendment.

[TBF]

6. Wouldn't even need to do that -

interpretation can vary. What's a militia?

[primavera]

21. Hell, not even that much

The term is "well regulated militia." Even if you imagine, as Scalia and the gun nuts do, that everyone is a militia member, where's the "well regulated" part? No, the only way the Second Amendment stands in the way is if you totally chuck out the language of the Second Amendment, as, unfortunately, the fascist majority on this Court did in Heller.

[TBF]

22. ...

[AtheistCrusader]

37. According to US Code, every male between the ages of 17 and 45, automatically is.

[primavera]

39. Fine

How anyone can automatically be considered well regulated merely by virtue of breathing, but this America, we tend to assume that mere breathing satisfies most requirements. But we can at least agree that men outside the ages of 17 and 45, and no women, have any constitutional basis for gun ownership and so should be required to turn in their firearms, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Nope.

The 2nd specifies the People. Just like the First doesn't protect freedom of the press for only those people who went to journalism school.

[primavera]

65. So your reference to the US Code is what?

Totally meaningless, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. It is one definition of Militia.

It is not the only one, but it is at least a 'minimum' definition.

It also covers females under certain circumstances, so it's not completely sexist or ageist.

[NutmegYankee]

52. You totally do not understand well regulated.

The phrase meant something different in the 18th century. The amendment, in modern speak, states that because citizens familiar and skilled with firearms are needed for defense of the free state (in case of invasion or insurrection) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall no be infringed. This of course makes perfect sense in the 18th century as the USA did not have a standing army. If the militia was called up for defense, regular citizens would show up in their own clothing and carrying their own firearms and gear ready to set up a defensive line someplace under the guidance of officers.

Naturally, a citizenry that can own firearms for hunting and sport will be far better in defense (without much training needed) as opposed to the peasant armies of Europe at the time, who often were forbidden to own arms. This still holds even today - Should a foreign force invade the USA and we needed to call up the militia to hold a region, the citizens who own hunting rifles or sport shoot are going to be far more useful and effective. The entire point was the allow citizens to own their own arms.

[AlbertCat]

62. The phrase meant something different in the 18th century

So did "arms"

So we are free to own a flint lock.

Or do we interpret the 1st part (I wonder why the militia stuff comes FIRST?) a la 1780's and the rest a la 21st century?

[NutmegYankee]

63. A flintlock is a firearm. A bolt action cartridge rifle is still a firearm.

Both ignite and burn gun powder to produce gasses to propel a bullet down a barrel. The ignition method has evolved a bit, but then again, the flintlock was an evolution on the matchlock, which was also a firearm. They even had pistols back then.

Your post is Non Sequitur. Technology has changed! The meaning of the words arms has not. The phrase "To Arms" or "arm yourselves" still means exactly what it did in the 18th century.

[Marengo]

132. And what was a "flint lock" in that time?

[primavera]

64. Yes, it is very convenient...

... when "historical interpretation" allows one to transmogrify the meaning of something that doesn't say what you want it to say into something that suddenly means exactly what you want it to say. Personally, it's my conviction that the Second Amendment actually refers to Tahitian mimes who wear pink polkadot tutus. Trust me, in 18th century speak, it makes perfect sense.

The point is, your personal interpretation is just that - personal interpretation, nothing more. True, the Fascist Five on the Court similarly believe that the drafters of the Constitution were smoking crack when they put in that whole well regulated militia bit and really didn't mean it as anything but a lark, but then, they're also the same raving psychotics who concluded that there was no actual need to count votes in Bush v. Gore and who held that elections should be purchasable by the wealthy in Citizens United. You can judge for yourself how sound their reasoning is.

[NutmegYankee]

66. Whereas you chose to discuss the current Supreme Court...

I was talking about our Founding Fathers and the language commonly in use at the time, which is history, not personal interpretation. Funny that the dismissal of history comes from someone on this board. I'm normally used to hearing that from right wingers.

[primavera]

67. You mean...

... like from your five buds on the Supreme Court who, alone in legal history, chose to embrace your interpretation of the Second Amendment, kind of like those right-wingers?

[NutmegYankee]

68. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

I despise Thomas and Scalia, but they did make a proper decision. It is rare, but sometimes they make a decision I agree with. And this wasn't alone in legal history. Lower courts had ruled both ways.

[primavera]

70. Yep, and wrong the other 1438 minutes out of the day.

Personally, I wouldn't care for those odds.

[NutmegYankee]

71. The odds are bad.

But they were right at least once when they needed to be. I'll take 99% wrong over 100% wrong.

[primavera]

74. Lol!

Fair enough. I'm glad you like their decision.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. A militia is a four year old boy with a gun he got from under his mom's pillow.

I'm certain that that's what the framers had in mind.

[TBF]

76. IKR ... nt

[Snake Alchemist]

56. Even easier. A writing or intelligence test for those that want a gun. nt

[NutmegYankee]

57. Keep in mind that a lot of people write far better than they type. nt

[hack89]

91. Escaping into a pure fantasy may be easy

but I suspect ultimately you will be disappointed.

The 2A will not be repealed in your lifetime.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. Sad

Another family's self inflicted injury due to guns. So much for defending the family with guns.

[Hepburn]

8. Guns don't kill children -- pillows kill children

Right?

[aikoaiko]

10. An easily preventable tragedy.

I recommend quick access metal lock boxes for the home.

[IMG][/IMG]

Every one of these accidental shootings and deaths is a tragedy, but the last I heard these terrible events were declining in frequency even as more gun are being owned.

[Hepburn]

11. So if it's a "quick access" box...

...how does that prevent anyone -- particularly a child -- getting to the gun?

[krispos42]

14. They're safes with keypads

One brand, Gunvault, has the buttons in the pattern of the human hand. But tap in the correct code, and the safe unlocks for like 10 seconds. Reach in and grab your gun.

Enter the wrong code in 3 times, and the safe locks for 15 minutes.





Gunvault also makes one that recognizes finger prints.


They're not really "thief-proof", as you can steal the safe and pry it apart later, or even pry it apart in situ with a big screwdriver or something, but they keep the curious kids away from your gun.


I have one myself. My kid doesn't know about, and if he did, he still couldn't get in.

[BiggJawn]

16. I have one of these

And I don't even have kids in the home. No grandkids, no visitors.
Press in the combination and it opens.

Can probably be defeated by a crowbar, but might be proof against a meth tweaker looking for stuff that can be grabbed quickly.

It's so easy and not all that expensive to keep guns out of curious kids hands. It's even easier to teach them basic gun safety when they hit school age.

[aikoaiko]

15. Good question Hepburn. They have combinations.

Mine, the AMSEC, has 5 mechanical push buttons that must be pressed in a certain order to unlock the box.

Some, like the one Krispos posted, have electronic buttons.

And some have biometric finger print readers.

Some have keys, but I don't like keys because a child can find them.

[krispos42]

32. Mine had a key and a push-button combination

I made a "safe" out of two nested lengths of square-cross-section steel tubing and put all the keys inside that with a combination lock on the outside. One way or another, you need a combination to get into my little gun safe.

[obamanut2012]

18. They have keypads like a safe

They are inexpensive and everyone with kids in a home should have one. They take literally 15 seconds to get into.

I have no children in the house, but I also have one.

[onehandle]

19. I agree. Gun ownership should be heavily regulated. nt

[aikoaiko]

28. And it is heavily regulated. Glad you agree.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. More ruined lives

thanks to the guns are great mentality.

[krispos42]

33. I wonder how many people that would never have a gun in their house...

...due to safety concerns have things like pools.

[TheCowsCameHome]

44. Lame comparison,

but not unexpected.

[NutmegYankee]

53. Not really. Drowning is a major killer of children.

There are tons of things that can harm children in a home. Each requires some responsible efforts to prevent access by children. You put a fence around the pool. you child lock the sink cabinet that contains those nasty chemicals, and you lock up your firearm.

[provis99]

48. children can choke on peanut butter too!

oh my god, your brilliant deductive skills win the argument!

[krispos42]

80. They certainly can't compare with yours.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

13. I wouldn't argue against owning a gun, but...

... If you've got kids, at least have the sense to lock them up where the little ones can't get to them.

[SamG]

17. My point exactly! The adult with the gun here...

lacked what most of us would call common sense when raising children.

I will never see the need for a handgun in my home, but I am lucky enough to be able to choose where to live, to avoid unsafe areas, to keep my doors and windows locked. These are the best defenses, (no defense is perfect), against crime, not gun ownership.

Probably this adult gun owner doesn't enjoy what I enjoy, and felt safer with a gun in her possession, but used lax or lazy habits as to where the gun was and where the four-year-old was.

[slackmaster]

20. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools

No adult should be ignorant of the importance of storing firearms safely when they are not in use.

[TheCowsCameHome]

23. ....as if it would have made much difference here.

Anyone stupid enough to leave a loaded gun under their pillow with a youngster in the house shouldn't have guns, or kids, for that matter.

[slackmaster]

24. It couldn't hurt. I also believe every child should be taught how to swim.

[primavera]

25. Since most people do not wish to own a gun...

... why impose that requirement universally at the public school level? I agree wholeheartedly that no one who owns a gun should have the opportunity to do so without training in gun safety, but why not impose that requirement upon those who wish to own a gun when they seek to obtain a license?

[slackmaster]

26. Because guns are common, even a person who doesn't own one is likely to encounter one at some point

Everyone should know how to safely unload the most common four or five types of firearm.

ETA as with sex education I think parents should be able to opt their kids out of gun safety education, but IMO it would be foolish for them to throw away an opportunity for free information that could save a life.

[Hoyt]

27. Maybe we ought to teach kids guns are bad and don't touch like poison ivy or something.

[krispos42]

35. Abstinance-only education?

Yeah, that's been disproven. Even the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program, while a nice attempt at this, doesn't really work.


Besides, advocating ignorance is the hobby of the conservatives, not the liberals.

[Hoyt]

38. Right wingers are behind most gun proliferation in this country. Some liberals hitch a ride for

their love of guns.

[krispos42]

42. Saturn's moon Iapetus has an equitorial ridge like a walnut. n/t

[NutmegYankee]

61. Polls show that 50% of Democrats own firearms.

Put down the crack pipe - you've had enough hits.

[primavera]

69. I'd like to see the source for that claim

After all, gun proponents don't accept that gravity exists without requiring posters to provide citations proving it; let's see yours.

[LAGC]

82. It's actually 40% of Democratic-leaning households.

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

The above poster may be thinking of some of DU's own internal polls, that show about 50% of us owning at least one gun.

But that's still a significant amount. I don't think the gun-haters do themselves any favors by alienating gun owners when there are so many in our own party.

[primavera]

86. Okay, so that's households...

... not individual Democrats. A household may have several people in it, perhaps only one of whom chose to purchase and own a gun, yet the "household" will still be considered "gun-owning" for purposes of this statistic. Indeed, it's possible that not even one person actually chose to own a gun to be included in this figure - they may have inherited or received a gun as a gift and never bothered to throw it away. My father was a Democrat who hated guns, but inherited one from his father when he passed away and, since he didn't feel comfortable just throwing a dangerous weapon into the trash, he let it collect dust in his attic for thirty years. My father-in-law was a gun nut who kept trying to give me guns until he finally passed away. Had I not loathed guns so thoroughly and adamantly refused such gifts, I'd probably have a dozen collecting dust in my attic by now. Yet, for purposes of this statistic, a whole household would still be recorded as "gun owning" without regard for such details. Defined that way, yes, I can believe that. Thanks for posting the source!

[rrneck]

104. If they "loathed" they'd get rid of them. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

113. The NRA is a lying, right-wing organization, and its advocacy shouldn't be permitted here.

Why are you advocating for a right wing, lying death cult?

[primavera]

29. I see your point

Although I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of shifting the onus of responsible behavior from those who elect to own guns onto those who have not made that choice. If you wish to own one of these dangerous, life-taking devices, well, I unfortunately can't stop you, but it's your choice to own it, not mine; the responsibility for its safe use and storage lies with you. Now you want me to be responsible for the safe handling of this device because you, as the owner, may fail to practice responsible gun safety and leave your loaded weapon lying around? While I will concede that, in the real world in which we live, what you propose probably has merit, I still don't like it - it feels like you're making your problem my problem.

[slackmaster]

34. People change their minds about things over time. Today's kid who says he or she will never own...

...a gun, may decide to at age 30.

...Now you want me to be responsible for the safe handling of this device because you, as the owner, may fail to practice responsible gun safety and leave your loaded weapon lying around?...

It's unfortunate, but there will always be idiots out there who don't do the right thing even when it's been drilled into them.

[primavera]

43. And if/when they do change their minds...

... then they will be free to take a gun safety class, won't they? That will be their choice and I will be the first to commend their decision to take responsibilty for their choice to own a firearm.

In the meantime, it's still fausting the burden of a minority's choices onto a nonconsenting majority.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. You might live perfectly well, served 100% by light rail

but you'd still teach your kid how to safely cross the street, right? Your kid could find a gun that was used by a criminal, months after the crime having been tossed, if the police didn't find it.

The type of education that the poster you responded to typically consists of 'stop, don't touch, get an adult'.

[bread_and_roses]

81. Oh, like kids always follow "the rules? - right?

My spouse grew up in Good Ol' Boy Country and he and his buds were in the woods with rifles or shotguns or whatever at age twelve - shooting at everything in sight including each other. He's told me what they actually did out there, and it's a miracle none of them were killed. And yes, they were indeed taught proper safety - but at twelve, absent adult supervision, they acted like the kids they were.

I'm sure those who want to normalize weaponizing everyone, everywhere, at all times, would love that - but, no, "basic gun safety" has no place in our public schools.

[PavePusher]

95. "...absent adult supervision, they acted like the kids they were..."

...applies to everything kids do.

And no-one is talking about "normalize weaponizing everyone, everywhere, at all times"... except the pro-restrictionists. I wonder why that is?

[slackmaster]

100. I didn't say anything about giving guns to kids

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

..."basic gun safety" has no place in our public schools.

If you want your kids to remain ignorant about gun safety or any other subject, that is your prerogative. I learned the rules when I was 10 years old, and it's never done me or anyone else any harm. I've personally taught the basics to more than 100 people, and will continue to do so.

[gejohnston]

30. I think both sides on the gun issue can agree on this

If you have small children and decide to keep a loaded pistol, please keep it in one of these.
http://www.gunsafes.com/Pistol-and-Handgun-Safes.html

I hope the kid pulls through.

[ZHerolds73]

105. Makes you think

That the phrase better safe than sorry could be used here to teach parents with small children about the responsibility of owning a gun. I don't know the woman's situation, but it sounds like this was a preventable accident, preventable by storing the gun in a safe vs. a pillow that the child has total access to.

Personally, I grew up with an aura of respect and fear of guns, my pop wouldn't let us near him while he cleaned his guns until we were old enough to understand and respect their danger.

I'm with you, I hope the child has a speedy recovery.

[barbtries]

31. sigh.

poor baby.

to all you pro gun, pro NRA DUers (which seems to me a contradiction in terms):
how you gonna use that weapon to "defend" yourself if you have to keep it locked up so tragedies like this don't happen? if you believe you must have a gun in case someone breaks into your home, do you really think that person is going to wait while you go get your gun out of its safe place?

or are tragedies such as this just the cost of doing business and, oh well?

flame away. i have to go take my dog 90 miles away so will be away from the computer for a good long time and you can get your licks in.

even once is too much, but this happens over, and over, and over.

[petronius]

36. Check out the sub-thread up above - small safes using combinations,

biometrics, or even keys can be very quick to access and very secure from children.

(Hope your dog is OK...)

[barbtries]

83. thanks

i did see that after i had posted. better than anything other than no gun at all imo.
thanks for your good thoughts. he's with my son now while i vacation in DC all next week with my grandsons. !

[DesertRat]

40. How sad

I hope he's okay.

[Turbineguy]

41. I wonder why

this child's Mother felt the need to keep a gun under her pillow.

[Crunchy Frog]

45. We obviously don't have enough guns in this country.

If she could have gotten hold of two guns, then she could have shot the person who was shooting at her...or something.

[disndat]

46. Where's the proof that the kid shot himself?

Of course I am for gun control, but there could be a lot of other possible scenarios.

[Odin2005]

58. Disgusting that this tragedy brings out the anti-gun nuts.

Maybe we should ban household cleaners, too, based on that reasoning.

[primavera]

72. So what are the gun nuts doing here?

Waiting for a bus?

[Comrade Grumpy]

73. Wow. What a bizarre post.

Poster is "disgusted" that a child's near death experience with an unsecured hand gun brings calls for gun control, er, I mean arouses "the anti-gun nuts." On a Democratic discussion board, no less.

Only in America...

[TheCowsCameHome]

78. You forgot bathtub falls

You gunnies are getting sloppy.

[onehandle]

90. Back, back into the dark corner of DU. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

92. Disgusting that it brings out the pro-gun nuts.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

114. Yes, it's disgusting that we're tired of seeing children being slaughtered with guns every day

Funny what you call disgusting.

Whose side are you on?

[Alcibiades]

93. We had something similar happen here in Durham

A couple of miles from my house

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10654311/

The father was charged. They called it in as "A call to 911 initially reported the incident as a head injury after a child had fallen off a counter."

What the news story didn't say is that the gun was kept in the cookie jar, which seems to be just about the dumbest place to put it.

[starfox172]

97. was he standing his ground?

fyi pa has a castle doctrine law

[Devil_Fish]

101. What was "accidental"? leaving a loaded gun where a 4 year old could find it, or the 4 year old

shooting himself in the chest?

The mom should be charged with child endangerment at the very least.

[Remmah2]

102. Why would a mother sleep with a .38 under her pillow?

Probably a reason.

[primavera]

110. Paranoia?

Maybe some gun owning friend convinced her she needed to defend herself from the imaginary monsters under her bed.

[savalez]

107. When there are kids in the house

your days of doing barrel rolls across the bed and coming up shooting are OVER!!!!!

Lock it up. <--period.

[ileus]

108. A pistol under the pillow does you no good, either carry it or lock it up.

That is if you have kids in and about the house.

If you're a home with only adults store them ever how you see fit.


A pistol under your pillow does you zero good unless you're withing arms length....

[primavera]

111. I've often thought the same thing

So many gun owners seem to feel that owning a gun will somehow enable them to defend themselves against an intruder or a mugger or whatever, but an intruder or mugger who has a gun will be anticipating using it, so s/he will likely have it drawn and ready for immediate use at the time you encounter him/her. In contrast, the victim is apt to be surprised, having not expected to be accosted in their home or on the street or wherever, so they're going to have to locate their weapon, draw if, cock it, release the safety, and aim it before it's going to be an effective tool for self defense. Do gun owners imagine that, while they're doing all of that, the assailant is going to simply sit there whistling, patiently waiting for them to ready their weapon?

[NutmegYankee]

116. In a break in you will normally be alerted by noise.

Living in a quiet rural area, I'm going to hear you break in. And if the dog doesn't rip you to pieces first - you will then deal with an alert homeowner.

[Broderick]

137. Accidental?

I don't think so. Sure, the boy had an accident but it is no accident that he had access to a loaded firearm.

[onehandle]

138. Any time a child gets access to a firearm, somebody should face criminal charges.

Period.

[Broderick]

139. And not a slap on the wrist either

This so makes me angry. A child of 4??? They don't know any better. Leaving any access to a lethal weapon is criminal.