Florida girl, 7, dies after accidentally shot by her father

[Judi Lynn]

Florida girl, 7, dies after accidentally shot by her father
By: Associated Press
Posted: 7:02 AM, May 4, 2015
Updated: 13 mins ago

PANAMA CITY, Fla. (AP) — Police say a 7-year-old Panama City girl died after her father accidentally shot a handgun.

The shooting happened Sunday morning at Andrews Place Apartments. Police say the child was taken to Bay Medical Center Sacred Heart, where she later died.

The News Herald of Panama City reports the child was shot in the head.

An investigation continues but police say it appears to be accidental.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/state/florida-girl-7-dies-after-accidentally-shot-by-her-father

(Short article, no more at link.)

It's a relief, isn't it, to learn it was an accident, instead of deliberate?

[marym625]

1. Just too sad

If they don't start punishing parents when horrific things like this happen, it will never stop

[upaloopa]

2. I have a hard time using the word accidental

to describe these shootings. I feel it is negligent homocide.
If we can have stand your ground we need some way of punishing people who unintentionally shoot people.
The pendulum needs to swing back to rational thinking concerning hand guns
You can fuck around with your gun just about anywhere but if someone else gets shot, sorry accident.
If you kill someone with your car there is retribution why not guns?

[brer cat]

5. I agree.

To me the use of "accident" somehow makes it ok and it isn't ok. A child is dead due to negligent behavior by the parent.

[Lurks Often]

8. It's called manslaughter, the problem is the DA's rarely choose to charge the person with the gun

Why a DA chooses not to charge the person who either was handling the gun or the person who left a loaded gun where a child could get to it, is something you would have to take up with them.

Personally I think in both cases the person should be charged with manslaughter or at the very least, involuntary manslaughter.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. IMHO you're pretty much spot on

As far as the frequent lack of charges and convictions I suspect that we, as a society, accept a far too great degree of irresponsibility and carelessness. It took years to cut into the DUI toll that was killing off innocent drivers, passengers and pedestrians. Similar changes and campaigns will likely be needed for firearm negligence.

[BrotherIvan]

12. Yes!!

If gunners want the right to carry the gun anywhere and everywhere, there should be stiff penalties if that gun is discharged in anything but self-defense (as they claim is their reason for being armed 24/7, heh). If the gun harms anyone in any way, the owner goes to jail unless that gun has been reported stolen for at least 24 hours (with exceptions). People need to be more responsible for their damn guns and if they finally admit that accidents with guns are inevitable, then we can finally have a sane discussion about gun control.

[oneshooter]

13. Wilol you hold vehicle drivers to the same standard? n/t

[BrotherIvan]

15. Conflating cars with guns is disingenuous

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. Why is negligent driving different from negligent carry? n/t

[BrotherIvan]

17. Well, we do have plenty of laws against that don't we

No driving drunk or high, texting, cell phones: the laws on this improve apace without much pushback. I don't see anyone screaming about their gawd-given right to text while driving. It's dangerous, people get killed, so we make laws so it doesn't happen again.

Guns are by their very definition deadly weapons. And yet, people and even children are shot every day, whether intentional or an accident. Every other industrial nation in the world has had a response to tragedies with much stricter gun control, EXCEPT the US. By every measure, the US is exponentially higher in gun deaths and now we top most first world nations combined for police shootings, the reasoning for which is our heavily armed society.

It's as plain as day to anyone by all logic. It is borne out by history and every fact in the world that a country awash with guns is far less safe than one with strict gun control. It's just a fact, like the earth orbiting around the sun. Any argument to the contrary is just plain false and without any basis in fact.

[gejohnston]

18. not true

actually gun accidents are rare.

Guns are by their very definition deadly weapons. And yet, people and even children are shot every day, whether intentional or an accident. Every other industrial nation in the world has had a response to tragedies with much stricter gun control, EXCEPT the US. By every measure, the US is exponentially higher in gun deaths and now we top most first world nations combined for police shootings, the reasoning for which is our heavily armed society.

Mexico and Brazil are industrialized countries. Their gun laws are strict, and their murder rates are astronomical.
If you are talking about Europe and the UK, their murder rates were the same before any gun laws were passed. They instituted these laws in the early 20th century were because of the "red scare", not crime control. None of them saw a drop in murder or suicide rates.
Their gun laws vary with the country. Many of them have more liberal laws than you give them credit for. The UK is an outlyer in Europe just like New Jersey and DC are in the US.

It's as plain as day to anyone by all logic. It is borne out by history and every fact in the world that a country awash with guns is far less safe than one with strict gun control. It's just a fact, like the earth orbiting around the sun. Any argument to the contrary is just plain false and without any basis in fact.

According to the National Academy of Sciences study in 2004 and a Library of Congress study of each countries gun laws, there is no such correlation. BTW, you are not using logic. In fact, it is based on at least one logical fallacy.

[BrotherIvan]

19. I don't have time to argue guns with gunners

But here are far more up-to-date findings than your 2004 study. As you know, the gun lobby has been very succesful in squashing evidence and government inquiry into gun deaths because if the actual facts that gun control works were to get out the public would support it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html

There’s another important difference between this country and the rest of the world. Other nations have suffered similar rampages, but they have reacted quickly to impose new and stricter gun laws.

Australia is an excellent example. In 1996, a “pathetic social misfit,” as a judge described the lone gunman, killed 35 people with a spray of bullets from semiautomatic weapons. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons and shotguns, tightened licensing and financed gun amnesty and buyback programs.

At the time, the prime minister, John Howard, said, “We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.” The laws have worked. The American Journal of Law and Economics reported in 2010 that firearm homicides in Australia dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

Text of Harvard Literature Review

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49 85-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. So, in other words...

...you don't have an argument, you just have HEMENWAY!!!!



No one on DU has yet made it to my ignore list but you're headed in the right direction.

[BrotherIvan]

21. Oh good, please DO IT NOW

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Don'cha be tellin' me whata do.

[BrotherIvan]

22. And by the way, your smilies are on the thread about the death of a 7 year-old girl

But that is the mark of a true gunner. YOUR DEAD KIDS DON'T TRUMP MY RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. So if we made all guns illegal, what would we do...

...when we discovered folks still had 'em and weren't just handing them in?
Start a house-to-house?
Build gun detectors for the cops?
Would those with guns buy gun detector detectors?

My 'smilies' are an appropriate reply to those HEMENWAYs of yours that pollute this thread.

So it would appear you have plenty of time to argue about 'smilies' but no time to discuss the topic for which this group exists. Your logic is overwhelming.

[gejohnston]

25. NYT Op Ed is a lie by ommission

Hemenway is a shill whose department is funded by the same people who astro turf Brady Campaign. Also, none of his studies are verified by independent researchers.

The NYT op ed missed some important information. First, Australia has no federal gun control laws, each state does. Before the National Firearms Agreement, each state was a patchwork but all of them had licensing, including Tasmania where the shooting took place, and some had registration. The shooter did not have a license (which he wouldn't qualify for given his low IQ and history of violence) meaning he obtained them illegally. One of the weapons was stolen from a police evidence room. The murder rate started dropping before the NFA, and continued the same rate. Among other things, the NFA made the state laws more uniform. Also, there have been mass murders since then. Most of them by arson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders
How effective was it reallY?
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

Do criminals use legal guns?
No, biker gangs make their own machine guns and sell them. Also, there is a problem with smuggling.
http://soundmoneysa.co.za/2013/05/australia-invaded-by-a-smuggled-automatic-weapons-after-gun-ban/
you know what else that op ed forgot to mention? Many of those registered guns confiscated from licensed gun owners did not make it to the furnace. In fact, many were sold on the black market by greedy contractors and cops.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-guns-in-hands-of-outlaws/2007/02/09/1170524303919.html
http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/1997/1997-12_the-great-australian-gun-buyback.html

BTW, legal gun ownership rate is the same if not higher than before the NFA and the number of legally owned guns are about the same.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Well...

...this is the US. People don't go to jail without a trial.

People need to be more responsible for with their guns.

...then we can finally have a sane discussion about gun control.

We just did.

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. I strongly agree: negligent homicide.

In the shooting world, the term "accidental discharge" seems to be on its way out, replaced with "negligent discharge." These incidents simply cannot occur if basic firearms safety procedures are followed. There is no excuse.

These procedures are not exactly rocket science, either. Failing to follow them is not a matter of not comprehending simple things like "treat every gun as if it is loaded" or "never put your finger on the trigger unless you are prepared to destroy whatever the muzzle is pointed at." It's a matter of not treating the handling of a deadly weapon as the serious business it always is.

[BlueJazz]

3. I can't vote to punish a parent who accidentally kills their offspring.

[DashOneBravo]

26. With a weapon?

What are we going to do? Give them three or four chances to fuck up?

Charge them every time.

[BlueJazz]

27. Second time= yes

[DashOneBravo]

29. WTH?

Really? Twice? That's two dead children.

I don't think you'll find a lot of support for that.

[BlueJazz]

34. That's the way I feel.

[DashOneBravo]

50. There is no

excuse for that happening. It's not luck that gun safety groups have been working to lower the number of deaths

[SheilaT]

52. I can.

It's not as though the risks of gun ownership are unknown.

Maybe if more parents were punished, the rest of the idiot gun owners would finally get a clue.

[Romeo.lima333]

4. not accidental it's negligent homicide for which he ought to be locked up

[BlueJazz]

28. I would forgive anybody...the first time.

[lastlib]

31. NO. It's time to say "ENOUGH!"

There have been enough "accidents" that every gun sucker ought to be *on notice* that accidents are no longer acceptable. Control your own weapons, or we will do it for you--that needs to be the price of having this Wild-West free-for-all with the guns. If you have an "accident", take your lumps and deal with it, or else turn 'em in before an "accident" happens.

[BlueJazz]

35. It's going to happen again and again. There's nothing we can do about it. Humans make errors.

With all the millions and millions of weapons out there, I'm actually surprised that it "only" happens a few times a month.
You/we Americans are worked to death, don't get enough sleep, not very much free time, stressed to death....and probably seeing a Doctor for some ailment.
Again, I'm surprised that it doesn't happen more.
I take no glee in saying this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. "Control your own weapons, or we will do it for you" Kindly define 'we' for us, if you would

I suspect that there's some false consensus syndrome at play here, given the state of
gun control politics.

You are aware, are you not, that the number of these negligent (I agree, they are not accidents) child deaths have been decreasing in recent years?

[SheilaT]

54. So it's okay to kill one kid.

Makes me think everyone out there deserves at least one murder before being held to account.

[BlueJazz]

55. It's never Ok to hurt anybody in any way. Part of my feeling on the subject is rather selfish.

1. I figure the parent has to live with their actions for the rest of their lives.
2. We don't usually send people to jail who run red lights and injure/kill other people.
3. It can cost 20-25 thousand a year to house one person.
4. I believe most people like myself are not hard-core about forgiving these type of crimes/accidents. Mine is jail=45%
No jail=55%

[SheilaT]

60. At the risk of repe

you're perfectly okay with the dead kid. Well, one dead kid anyway.

Sometimes people who run red lights and kill or injure others do get sent to jail. More often, it seems, than those who because they think they must have a gun in the house that is then used to kill someone. Nonetheless, conflating guns and cars just doesn't work.

[hack89]

6. No, it is not a relief

it is an unimaginable tragedy.

[ileus]

7. Where do you point your muzzle...I think there's a rule about this.

When followed no harm comes to anyone if a ND should happen.


I remember when a friend of mine killed his wife with an ND...He showed up at work several weeks later and explained how everything went down. He started with "Damnit I've grown up with guns, I knew better." Problem is he didn't do better...



Safety first, shooting a loved one never.



Stay safe and carry on.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Just my opinion

Shooting a family member while handling a firearm at home because: you forgot it was loaded, you thought the safety was on, you didn't know...
...these are all negligence.

An accidental shooting is when a parachutist unexpectedly lands in your otherwise safe line of fire.

[Eleanors38]

11. This is so sad. Fortunately, these kinds of "accidental" shootings are getting rare...

Less than 65 children under the age of 15 are killed each year by a gun. That number has been in decline for years as responsible parents take measures to secure firearms in their homes, and learn about safe handling of guns.

[lastlib]

32. Tell that to the seven-year-old........

oh, wait, she's dead.

Less than 65 children under the age of 15 are killed each year by a gun.

that must be your town.......from what I'm seeing, that's roughly the number so far this year.....and it's barely May.

[hack89]

38. I suggest you arm yourself with actual facts from the CDC

the conversation is more productive when both sides use facts instead of personal impressions.

[Eleanors38]

39. No, that is the whole nation. I find it peculiar anyone would argue more deaths

have occurred in the face of reality; it suggests the "cause" ( gun control/bans) is FAR more important than not only the truth, but the recognition that real progress has been made in the social problem of childhood accidental deaths-by-guns. Only by recognizing hard facts can anyone see what needs to be done, what has worked, and what doesn't work.

I would no sooner tell that to a family member/victim of gun violence, than you would cite "data" to the family member/victim of accidental drowning, a far greater threat to children than improper storage of guns. So we probably have that in common.

[DashOneBravo]

33. That's a small number

Good thing we have gun safety groups putting out cable locks and spending hours training.

[Eleanors38]

40. As mentioned in my other response, ONLY by recognizing hard facts

can we have any hope in determining what works, what doesn't and what needs to be done.

Pro 2A posters must CONSTANTLY refute the faith-based belief among prohibitionists/controllers that childhood deaths via guns is somehow out of control. The hard data is there. They won't see it, or more likely see the facts, but nevertheless keep their "faith" alive as an essential component to their propaganda campaign.

Like you I think the falling death rates are a result of a long-term safety campaign by gun manufacturers, foundations, publications, and others.

[SheilaT]

53. So 60 or so kids per year killed with guns is perfectly acceptable?

What if one of those kids is your child? Or your brother? Or cousin? Or the kid of your best friend? Still acceptable?

Really? What kind of a monster are you that you can point to a dead child, one you know personally, and say, that's OK?

As far as I'm concerned, none of those deaths are acceptable.

[Eleanors38]

59. Let me deconstruct your falsehood for you...

It is your thin-air characterization that these deaths are "acceptable;" therefore, any questions/attacks based on your gross falsehood are irrelevant. This is a common ploy used in many discussions, and you would be well-advised to not engage in such a mediocre approach. Try something constructive, like trying to figure out WHY these deaths are falling.

[SheilaT]

61. Well, all the posters who proudly point to how very

few are really killed every year by guns, or that such deaths are diminishing, are in reality saying that the number killed -- whatever the actual score is -- is perfectly okay.

I don't give a flying fuck why those deaths might be fewer. That any of them occur is beyond outrageous. I just get so tired of the shoulder shrug, "Oh well, what a sad accident".

[Eleanors38]

64. "[You] don't give a flying fuck why those deaths might be fewer." Re-read Your statement and tell

me or anyone else why you are here. It is self-evident you are not concerned about how to reduce childhood gun accidents, but you do have a peculiar interest in outrage.

Again, the falsehood you promulgate ("...is perfectly okay&quot discredits whatever you are trying to accomplish.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. *That* statement needs to be immortalized on the 'Stuff Gun Control Advocates Say' page:

"What are your nominations for words or phrases used by the pro-control side?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

Willful ignorance: It's not just for fundie creationists!

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. "I don't give a flying fuck why those deaths might be fewer." Why not?

Has it not ocurred to you that knowing why there are fewer deaths would help
immensely in reducing the number even further? I'm pretty sure most here would agree
with me that this would be a good thing. You are, of course, free to disagree...

Also, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your opening claim. It is mere
conjecture, impelled by prejudice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. So how well have those appeals to ridicule been working for ammophobes lately?

Serious question.

Those that find them funny already agree with them, which is fine...but the target
(no pun intended) of the japes seem to be spurred on, not discouraged by them.

I invite the disinterested reader to see, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172164512

The OP discusses how gun owners organized to stop an anti-gun billboard campaign,
other DU gun owners chimed in- and the controllers resorted to their old standby, genitalia jokes.

When I asked one disgruntled poster just how much *they* were going to contribute
towards the rental of billboards, now that space wasn't going to be donated....silence.

Don't get me wrong, I encourage the making of juvenile jokes, the reposting of
snarky cartoons, and waiting around for handouts from a multibillionaire authoritarian-
"activism" like that has helped to make gun control what it is today...

[Eleanors38]

41. We have enough hate. You should reconsider the no-longer-hep approach

of "shaming" those you despise. It was the in-thing among some prohibitionists a few years back, but it doesn't work; in fact, it is entirely counter productive and only breeds confrontation from a weakened position.

[LVR10509]

42. Sarcasm & smilies are entirely inappropriate

Such a shame that this society thrives on the ability of just about anyone to instigate the comment trolls. You copy & paste a tragedy and watch the opinions fly. Bravo... Your work is done, apparently.

You are basically only here to sit up on your high-horse, feeling all superior, and to pass blind (aka ignorant) judgment on a young man who made a mistake. It was an accident, you heartless ignoramuses. No stiffened gun-control laws, or upgraded consequences for those who MAKE MISTAKES will go back in time and prevent this tragedy. Think about it - how will stiffened penalties and gun-owners "thinking twice" before A, B and C prevent whatever happened at Andrews Place Apartments? HOW will it prevent malfunctions? Is anyone an expert on what happened in this case? I don't think so...

She did not deserve to die but HE does not deserve your judgment OR your hostility. He is punished forever for the mistake he made. He will have to live with this mistake for the rest of his life. Nobody knows exactly what happened outside of maybe him, his poor deceased little girl and GOD Almighty.

He will bear the weight of this FOREVER. The lot of YOU are only here as long as it is entertaining for you to wield your almighty debate-points and your "expertise" on the operation of semiautomatic handguns.

Why don't you all do something USEFUL like sending his family a donation to help them? They are planning a funeral for a 7-year-old girl and will have to think about maybe some psychiatric care and therapy for her father. But, I'm sure it's more entertaining to sit here and read everyone's all-knowing motherfucking opinions.

PS - Save your fucking eye-rolling emoticons for where it's less disrespectful.

[cyberswede]

43. If fewer people had guns, fewer people would be accidnetally killed by guns.

Firearms Deaths by Mode of Death for Children <15 Years of Age
Top 10 Countries - Rate per 100,000



http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

[LVR10509]

44. Logical, but...

I'm not here to argue with facts; just with the idiocy people feel free to throw around based on things they do not know. Obviously, if her father did not have a gun at home then this child would not have been accidentally shot.

This was my cousin and it's kind of infuriating to see people making erroneous assumptions based on a pretty vague news-brief.

[cyberswede]

45. I'm very sorry this happened to your family.

People here are just venting frustration over what they see as lax gun laws that allow for things like this to happen. Many are motivated by anger about innocent people being killed, and an impotence to change the system, particularly due to the strength of the gun lobby in this country.

It's nothing personal about your cousin - it's more about lashing out against the unfairness of the death of a child.

[LVR10509]

46. I totally get it...

...but the original was flippant. I get where it's coming from but many people here are talking about this father like what they say is FACT when they know NOTHING of the circumstances.

It IS unfair that a child is dead; but how unfair is it that he will live with the knowledge of what happened? How does anyone HERE have nerve to say that he was careless or stupid, etc. when they do not know the entire scenario? I cannot pass judgment on anyone without knowing 100% of the detail.

That is all I'm saying. I'm not saying people aren't entitled to be enraged about the death of a child. Thanks.

[uppityperson]

47. my condolences to your family, I can not imagine the pain.

[LVR10509]

48. Much appreciated; thank you

[icymist]

49. I am sorry for your loss. The whole event is tragic.

eom

[SheilaT]

51. This is exactly why I think guns

should be confiscated.

I am so incredibly sick of all the justifications for these deaths. Not a single one should occur. It's rather amazing that other countries get by without the ubiquitous ownership of guns, and more to the point, their citizens don't die from guns at the incredible rates ours do.

Confiscate the guns. Pure and simple. Take them away. Make gun ownership something that requires many stages of justification.

I just wish that only those who apologize for guns would be the only ones who would die from guns. Unfortunately, it's mostly the innocents who die.

Plus, while I can look up deaths from firearms, I cannot look up wounding and maiming. I suspect that those wounded and maimed outnumber the dead by several orders of magnitude, but those somehow never show up in the gun debate.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. In 2011 in the US according to the FBI UCR...

Last edited Sat May 9, 2015, 10:34 AM - Edit history (1)

...there were 751,131 aggravated assaults; an aggravated assault is a perpetrator causes or attempts to cause serious injury.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

Of those 21.2% involved a firearm. That's a bit over 159,000 incidents.

Such incidents may be cases where one person involved in an altercation draws a gun and fires whether the bullet strikes someone or not. Also included in that number are crimes such as kidnapping and rape where the gun was used as a threat to subdue the victim.

About 73,883 firearm injuries due to all intents are recorded for 2011. Those would include attempted suicide, criminal assault, law enforcement shootings, negligence, accidents, etc.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

[Straw Man]

58. Congratulations.

I just wish that only those who apologize for guns would be the only ones who would die from guns. Unfortunately, it's mostly the innocents who die.

You have just publicly wished for the death of those who hold opinions that don't jibe with your own.

No one is making "justifications for these deaths." What people are doing is disagreeing with the simplistic and ultimately futile solutions proposed by those that would deny rights to everybody based on the transgressions of some.

But it's nice to know that you want me dead. Gives me a warm feeling, it does.

[SheilaT]

62. What I wish is that those who blithely

say that all these gun deaths are perfectly acceptable, including one kid per family, would be the ones to suffer from the all too ready presence of guns. I don't think any of these deaths should ever happen. Period. I think that those who allow guns to be used so negligently should be punished.

Meanwhile, I understand that Congress is trying to pass a law that would force every state to accept every other state's conceal carry rules. Too many states allow almost anyone to have a gun. Felons, for instance. So why is it the NRA itself won't allow people to carry guns where they have their offices? You'd think they'd happily welcome guns.

[gejohnston]

63. say what?

say that all these gun deaths are perfectly acceptable, including one kid per family, would be the ones to suffer from the all too ready presence of guns. I don't think any of these deaths should ever happen. Period. I think that those who allow guns to be used so negligently should be punished.

Yes, negligence should be punished. However, unsecured household chemicals like Drano kill ten times more children. Should those parents be prosecuted as well?

Meanwhile, I understand that Congress is trying to pass a law that would force every state to accept every other state's conceal carry rules.

Not rules, just the permit. On the slim chance the bill actually passes, it predict it will be struck down as violating the 10A as it should.

Too many states allow almost anyone to have a gun. Felons, for instance.

There is no state that allows felons to have guns. It has been a federal crime for a felon to possess a gun since 1938. It became a mandatory minimum of five years in 1968. Canada and Germany on the other hand, do allow nonviolent felons to own guns once they complete their sentence.

So why is it the NRA itself won't allow people to carry guns where they have their offices? You'd think they'd happily welcome guns.

Not true. They even have an indoor range.

[SheilaT]

65. Really? More than 30,000 kids die every year from drinking Drano?

Wow! Obviously the caustic chemical industry is doing an excellent job of covering this up.

The NRA itself is working to get guns back in the hands of felons. And there are loopholes in the federal laws. I'm not even considering the fact that it's possible for anyone to buy a gun without a background check at places like gun shows.

And even if they have an indoor range, I keep on hearing that the NRA won't allow anyone to carry at their headquarters nor at their various conventions.

30,000 kids a year die from Drano. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that statistic. I get that number because you tell me ten times as my kids die that way as from guns, and the official statistics are that around 3,000 kids die from guns on a yearly basis.

A while back a DUer was posting a weekly update on children under age wounded or killed by guns, and I believe he was simply culling news reports he found, not tracking down actual hard statistics. It was pretty astonishing and depressing.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. Apparently you have a skewed definition of "child"

My understanding of "child" is 12 and under. For calendar year 2011, 226 children of the 52,913,509 children in the US died involving a firearm. Suggesting that 3,000 "children" are shot and die annually quite a stretch.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

[gejohnston]

69. not even close

Wow! Obviously the caustic chemical industry is doing an excellent job of covering this up.

No, you redefined accident and child.

The NRA itself is working to get guns back in the hands of felons. And there are loopholes in the federal laws. I'm not even considering the fact that it's possible for anyone to buy a gun without a background check at places like gun shows.

Are you saying that someone busted for a lid of pot 20 years ago should be barred from owning a gun? Actually, that is what you are saying. If it isn't an issue in countries like Canada and Germany, why should it be here? BTW, felon could be somebody growing the wrong plants in the wrong state. Very few felonies are violent crimes. Most sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers, who still also must undergo background checks. Also, according to the Wright/Rossi study, criminals don't go to gun shows. Or at least, they didn't in the 1980s.

And even if they have an indoor range, I keep on hearing that the NRA won't allow anyone to carry at their headquarters nor at their various conventions.

That is because the people who start that are liars. The last one was a lie started by Shannon Watts, former Monsanto flack hired by Bloomberg to be the face of MDA made it up in a tweet. The sources you listen to carried it without checking the facts. Without lies, emotionalism, and logical fallacies, the prohibition lobby would have no arguments. That is why support for gun control, especially gun prohibition, has been falling since 1959. Increased access to accurate information allows on the fence people to look things up for themselves and weigh the evidence for themselves.

30,000 kids a year die from Drano. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that statistic. I get that number because you tell me ten times as my kids die that way as from guns, and the official statistics are that around 3,000 kids die from guns on a yearly basis.

Children, who the CDC defines as 12 and under, is something like 100 by negligent gunfire. The number you are using are 15-24 who are members of gangs or innocent bystanders murdered by gangs.

A while back a DUer was posting a weekly update on children under age wounded or killed by guns, and I believe he was simply culling news reports he found, not tracking down actual hard statistics. It was pretty astonishing and depressing.

The fact that it is reported in national news means it is rare. Somebody drops a pistol in some small town in Utah makes national news because it is rare. A drug dealer murdering one of his 15 year old mules for "employee theft" in South Chicago or DC isn't national news because that is what most of that 3000 are.

[SheilaT]

70. Well, according to MSNBC

Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics. An additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed adolescents to 10,000 each year.Jan 27, 2014

They do seem to be using age 20 as a cutoff.

In the 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), 7,391 children under the age of 20 had been hospitalized for injuries from firearms and the majority of those gunshot injuries —4,559—resulted from intentional firearm assaults. 2,149 of those injured were accidents, and 270 were suicide attempts. Of the children who were hospitalized, 453 – 6% – died from their injuries.

Link to the article:
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children

So once again, I'm back to the excuse making for all the gun deaths. It's okay if it's gangs. It's okay if it's a drug dealer. But I see people here essentially saying it's okay if one kid in the family dies from gun negligence. It's okay because the numbers are decreasing.

Meanwhile, other countries don't experience this idiocy. And don't bother to come back at me with statistics on war zones and countries like Somalia. What's happening right here is unacceptable. Or at least unacceptable to me.

[gejohnston]

71. Lawrence O'Donnell

He is dishonest, makes shit up, a disgusting religious bigot (which begs the question, how is his Mormophobia any different than Glenn Beck's Islamaphobia?), and an all around asshole. IOW, is just like Bill O'Reilly, just another arrogant, self important bigot who thinks just because he had an over privileged childhood and now has a TV show, that give him the right to push his bullshit on others.
To me "MSNBC says" equals some right winger saying "Rush says". They don't do news or journalism (OK, I'll have to give Chris Hayes credit going to Ferguson) they do commentary and speculation.

Yes, they are using 20 as a cut off. They also don't put any of it in context do they? That doesn't negate anything I said does it? Do you seriously think some gang banger is going to say "was in a shoot out with a rival gang"?

So once again, I'm back to the excuse making for all the gun deaths. It's okay if it's gangs. It's okay if it's a drug dealer. But I see people here essentially saying it's okay if one kid in the family dies from gun negligence. It's okay because the numbers are decreasing.

No. Just that if they are in gangs and drug dealers, banning guns won't do anything. What you are saying is "the violence problem in Chicago, NOLA, Detroit, DC, and Baltimore isn't the fault of failing schools, closed factories, corrupt and incompetent city officials but it is really the fault of the deer hunter in Montana, the competitive target shooter in Long Island, and the jewelry store owner with a CCW."

Chicago and DC have defacto bans. IL has a licensing scheme, so they don't go to another county. Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores either. See Wright/Rossi study. Did the Charlie Hebdo go to a gun shop in Paris to get their machine guns? No, they bought them out of a car trunk at a Brussels train station. If drug dealers can get cocaine and heroin into the US, how hard is it for them go get guns? Very easy even in places like UK and Australia. In Australia, gangs just make their own sub-machine guns.

[virginia mountainman]

72. Confiscation??!

LOL!! why don't you come and get them!!! OR, just who will you send to do your "dirty work"??

[GGJohn]

74. Wow!!!

So you want firearms confiscated?
Are you going to be on the teams that go door to door trying to seize those firearms?
Or are you just another keyboard commando sitting safely behind your puter willing to let others do your dirty work?

[virginia mountainman]

73. Lets give you some perspective..Lets deal in facts, instead of emotions.

Information from the National safety Council : http://www.nsc.org/learn/safety-knowledge/Pages/injury-facts.aspx

For unintentional injuries.



Now tell me why firearms should be such a high priority?