Boy (4) shoots baby sister in US city (Vegas)

[jannyk]

Source: BBC

A two-year-old girl is in a critical condition after being shot by her four-year-old brother at their home in Las Vegas, police say.

Reports said the girl's brother found a loaded 9mm handgun inside the home. It went off while he was holding it, striking his sister in her torso.

It comes less than a week after a five-year-old boy died after shooting himself in the head.

He had found a handgun inside his father's vehicle outside a Las Vegas pharmacy.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8168465.stm

[aquart]

1. Shouldn't this be in our jolly gun section?

[depakid]

3. Two of these tragedies in one American city makes news overseas

Whereas in the states, it's largely ignored outside the local area. The real story is that these and other repeated shootings are an acceptable consequence of policy choices.

Rather like people dying from lack of health insurance- or going bankrupt because they or a family member is injured or falls ill.

Acceptable situation here- appalling state of affairs abroad.

[ejbr]

14. + 1 n/t

[Lorien]

23. +2. nt

[Pavulon]

31. Yep, policy on stupid. DWI, fried chicken, beer, demerol and oxy

kill. These stories are about stupid motherfuckers. Only a stupid shit leaves a gun out with a 4 year old. This stupid shit has no bearing on any firearm I own locked in a safe.

While terrible for the family, the shooter is not responsible for that death, the PERSON who left an unsecured weapon is.

Canada has similar forearms laws and not a fraction of the us problems. Mental health, 50% of death is suicide, is a factor.

Some mythical gun ban that will happen right after jesus christ returns to play a set at the garden are not worth the air to discuss.

[DBoon]

33. "an acceptable consequence of policy choices."

See pro-gun posts below for examples.

[eqfan592]

43. More like a consequence of civil liberty.

But we mustn't word it that way because then it actually sounds like a progressive ideal. I oppose most new gun control legislation and gun bans for the same reasons I opposed the Patriot Act. But of course I'm sure you're unable to see the parallels.

The fact that many politicians and talking heads are allowed to go on TV and intentionally deceive the population is a consequence of the "policy choice" that is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It was this "policy choice" that allowed Bush and Co to manipulate the US into a totally unnecessary war that cost thousands of American lives and possibly over a million Iraqi lives. By your "logic" the 1st Amendment should be done away with as a poor "policy choice" in the name of "safety."

But that would only make sense if you ONLY saw the bad that came out of something like freedom of speech. We all understand that far more good comes out of the 1st Amendment than bad, but that we have to take the bad with the good. Yet you cannot seem to make the same connection when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. You see stories like the OP's and you think that such things completely out-weigh all the good that comes out of it, such as the hundreds to thousands of people that use their firearms for defensive purposes each day, and the lives that are saved as a result of that. Your view point has narrowed to the point where only the negative stands out. What causes this in someone is likely different from one person to another, but the result is the same.

It's time you opened your eyes to see the whole picture.

[depakid]

77. Kind of like the court decision equating money- including corporate money with free speech

An acceptable consequence of that "freedom" is a dysfunctional health care system- and economic collapses driven by Wall Street.

And so much more....

It's time you opened YOUR eyes to the big picture.

[elocs]

40. I'm sure it will end up there eventually. Just send an alert. n/t

[ccharles000]

2. how very sad

[BunkerHill24]

4. Darn! I feel for the family

I think guns kill, period. I know the saying that "people kill, not guns", but we need to have a way to let our selves know that we no longer need guns...that Brits aren't coming to invade us, hence no militia required.

[RC]

6. Maybe, but those evil Canadians might invade and force their socialized health care system on us.

Ever think about that?
I'd better put one of these :sarcasm: here. There is always someone that can't figure things out.

[irislake]

37. You betcha!

[proteus_lives]

22. One of the main problems.....

Is people think we no longer need the 2nd Amendment. You mentioned the second part only.

Please tell us, why don't we need guns and what other rights do you consider disposable?

[Pavulon]

29. Swimming pools, texting while driving, beer, and fried chicken kill

This is really simple. If you are a stupid motherfucker you leave a gun where a 4 year old can get it. In this state it is a crime.

That same stupid fucker will drive drunk and kill you, drink 10 beers while little johnny drowns in the pool, they are just stupid.

You dont need toilet paper, you can shit and wipe with your hand. However need is not a factor in legal ownership of firearms.

[Irreverend IX]

30. If you want to prevent children's deaths...

Ban plastic buckets and private swimming pools, as those are the leading causes. If you want to exploit tragedies so you can shred the Constitution, on the other hand...

[Tiggeroshii]

5. Guns don't kill people

4 year old kids who play with loaded weapons kill people. Shit, but what we need is less regulation and a greater acceptance of the 2nd amendment so as to protect ourselves from state tyranny. If every house doesn't have at least ten loaded weapons, we are not safe. In fact, I have reason to believe that the truth behind why this child killed his sister was due to the fact his sister did not have a gun herself.

Sorry if this sounds overly vindictive and well, rather arrogant(it is); but I feel stories like this only make gun advocates look increasingly stupid as they try to arm increasingly more people.

[zanne]

9. You speak the truth, Tiggeroshii. nt

[Tiggeroshii]

66. Thanks!

=)

[xchrom]

15. oh. my.

:spray:

[proteus_lives]

19. not arrogant...stupid.

These type of stories are issues of safety and training. That kid killing his sister has nothing to do with gun advocates or the 2nd Amendment. It is about a parent too stupid or lazy to keep their weapons out of reach of children too young to know how dangerous they are.

[Tiggeroshii]

61. Do gun advocates try to make it easier for people to get ahold of guns?

With looser gun laws come lower standards for safety and training. This is a direct result of policies that have spawned from gun advocates' fervent defense of the 2nd amendment, and the insistence that more people ought to have guns. "If the Virginia Tech students all had guns, that wouldn't have ever happened.'' Yes, because long before that ever happened they would probably fail to lock it up, or have it stolen, and a similar incident as this would have caused an even worse massacre. The fact is that making gun laws looser allows more people to get ahold of guns -both legally and illegally who SHOULDN'T have guns(such as the case above which was legal). And allowing more people to get ahold of these guns allows for more incidents to take place as standards are loosened.

Unless you advocate increasing standards for gun ownership so that incidents like this don't happen as often? Say, making it a prerequisite to be honed in safety and training before owning the gun? Then we might be more on the same page.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. What laws have been loosened?

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. And the more guns, the more likely a kid will grab one and kill his sister

It's not as much about loosening laws as it is about putting more guns in our communities. As soon as CCW passed in my area, I figured it would only be a matter of time before we saw more kids bringing guns to school. And in my district, that has proven true. Now I am waiting for a gun at school to kill an innocent kid.

[Pavulon]

104. How does CCW correlate

I assume your state has laws against unsecured weapons around kids. In NC breaking that rule (among many others like dwi, assault, or others that indicate instability) gets your ccw pulled. You are using false logic. There is no correlation between presence of a gun and violent acts.

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. Guns in the home are 22 times more likely to kill someone you know than a bad guy

you think you need the gun to protect yourself from.

[Pavulon]

109. So a PERSON in the home is more likely to kill

a family member with a gun. A gun is like a hammer, it requires human intervention to use. I dont understand how a ccw correlates with gun crime. CCW background and rules are stringent. The bad guy could be someone you know.

[X_Digger]

110. Cite, please?

If you're referring to the early Kellerman study, he claimed the number was 43x, then in a later study said 2.7x. What both studies failed to mention though, was that in 40% of the cases he studied, the person who, keeping a gun in the house, then later being killed by a gun- was killed by a gun brought into the house from outside, not their own. (Kellerman didn't take into account that a person likely to keep a gun in the home for self-defense might have done so because they live in a neighborhood with high crime where they are actually more likely to be shot.)

[slackmaster]

122. Body Count Fallacy

Defensive use of a firearm usually does not involve firing it, much less killing someone.

[Lorien]

27. That's right. They aren't made to kill people

:eyes:

[Tiggeroshii]

59. They're made for

...umm...

:think:scratching an itch, right?

[redwitch]

73. Autobiography of a pistol by Ellis Paul

I'm a pistol, a forty-five,
I just shot two men in this hot-house dive.

Now I'm smoking - burning hot barrel of metal.
Believe it or not, I was bought by this guy named ray,
A card carrying member of the nra,

But he left me out in his car one day,
And now the finger on my trigger hasn't seen it's sixteenth birthday.
Some things they never tell you when you're riding the assembly line.
Like who'll be the hands to hold you and what's their state of mind - -
Hey, I'm not much bigger than a pointed index finger.
So who am I to lay the blame?
I'm only here to cause some pain...

The sirens --
I can hear them, they're singing ...
They're singing my song,
"when the sun sets, I get upset --

Darkness fills me and I want to light up the world"...

Would you believe I've seen better days?
I starred in westerns and won rave reviews.
Now I sit on a shelf, tagged for judgment day.
I've got to change the jury's point of view.
You see, guns don't kill people, it's the bullets that do.
I said guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Yeah, the bullets do

[primavera]

123. Right, they're actually deeply misunderstood espresso machines - n/t

[eqfan592]

44. Of course, that only makes sense....

...if you have a very myopic view point and can ONLY see the bad things that happen as a result of gun ownership.

Let's apply your same standard to other rights and see how stupid you look for supporting things like the 1st Amendment (which was used to manipulate the nation into the Iraq war, which was very costly both in terms of human life and monetarily).

Open your eyes and see the whole picture, because your myopic view point is NOT helping.

[Tiggeroshii]

58. Is making gun ownership easier for incompetent and irresponsible people to get ahold of them helping

?

How is expanding "gun rights" and allowing people to get ahold of them who really shouldn't get ahold of them a good thing? I think you probably know that most gun crimes are done with stolen firearms.From this you can easily infer that a lot of people who own guns are irresponsible enough not to lock them up appropriately, or leave them in places that can be more easily taken. With such irresponsibility and utter delinquency in regard to these weapons, do you honestly think it's better to have a policy such as ours that allows for idiots who let their 4 year kid play with their gun? You are misplacing the term "myopic," my friend. Myopic, would be not being able to understand the simple connection between gun policy in the United States and it's clear effect on the actions of the populace.

Tell me. What would be your solution to preventing incidents like this? Would your proposal be something along the lines of lock up requirements and the like -thus further restricting ''the right to bear arms?" Or would it be to do nothing and assume such incidents are a result of simply human error? If it's the former, you and I are more on the same page then you may think.

[eqfan592]

74. You can't legislate responsiblity.

Otherwise we'd never have issues with ANY crime, ever. Your logic would dictate that we can't afford to live in a free society because we can't control the responsibility of our individual citizens.

I do not support "lock up" requirements, unless they allow for people to keep firearms nearby in fast release safes (such as biometrics) for home defense purposes, and the government would have to be willing to pay for them for people who would want to make use of them if they intend on making them a requirement (home defense is a concern for poor and rich alike).

But even that I am leery about honestly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

86. Surely you have an example of gun advocates trying to force weapons on people.

Don't worry you don't sound vindictive or arrogant? Petty and ignorant are much better choices.

[proud2BlibKansan]

99. +1

[greiner3]

7. This would not have happened;

If "Mary" had been carrying and gotten off the first shot.














For those who need it;













:sarcasm:

[Blandocyte]

8. Too many guns out there

Given the natural stupidity and carelessness of people, guns should be harder to get-- preferably nearly impossible. It makes me sick to think about all the guns bought to protect the owner from bad guys who are figments of gun makers' ad campaigns, especially when the end result is an accidental shooting. Doubly when it's a kid who's the victim.

[zanne]

10. Watch out....here come the gun advocates.. 1, 2, 3........nt

[proteus_lives]

20. 4, 5.

Yeah, we'll come because we want to remind people not to destroy American rights because of accidents and fear.

[Tiggeroshii]

60. Without gun laws the way they are, these "accidents"

which have resulted in some of the worst killing sprees of our time; would likely have not occurred. Funny thing is, Cho passed a mental health screening before receiving his legally purchased fire arms. Also, without gun laws the way they are, 90% of Mexico's gun crimes would not be done with weapons purchased in the United States.

You said: "...because we want to remind people not to destroy American rights because of accidents and fear."

What about the right not to be over run by drug cartels who get their weapons a few miles north? Is that a right that Mexicans even deserve? No. OUR right to get guns any way we'd like, however we'd like is far more important. :eyes:

[X_Digger]

62. Captain Hyperbole to the rescue!

"90% of the guns that Mexico sent to the BATFE to be traced (roughly 6k guns) came through the US"

suddenly becomes..

"90% of Mexico's gun crimes would not be done with weapons purchased in the United States"

Perhaps you really should read up on the subject.

Mexico seized over 30k guns last year (according to the MX consulate). ~6k were suspected of coming from US manufacturers. The serial numbers from those guns were sent to the BATFE and 90% of those were confirmed as having passed through the US. We don't know how many of them were sold to the MX government, how many were sent to Central America and found their way north into MX, or how many the state department itself sold as part of military aid in the war on drugs.

[Tiggeroshii]

69. Right.

and statistically, that would probably be an accurate estimate. We didn't poll every single person who voted in this last election but most polls came up to be within 5 or 10 percent margin of error. Even if it was 80 percent, that would still be far more than an acceptable rate for such a thing to happen.

[X_Digger]

81. You do realize that..

.. your statement doesn't hold up in light of my post, right?

If 30k guns are seized, and 6k of the serial numbers are sent to the US, and 90% of them are of us origin.. that means 18% of the guns seized in MX are from the US.

Now, how many guns are used in gun crime in MX and what percentage are seized? If we assume 50% (that's being generous).. then 9% of the 'crime guns' in Mexico come from the US- 9%.. not 90%.

[proteus_lives]

78. So?

Cho slipped through the cracks. Name me one system or law that is infallible and I'll bite.


"Also, without gun laws the way they are, 90% of Mexico's gun crimes would not be done with weapons purchased in the United States. What about the right not to be over run by drug cartels who get their weapons a few miles north? Is that a right that Mexicans even deserve? No. OUR right to get guns any way we'd like, however we'd like is far more important."

Excuse me, isn't that the problem that the Mexican government should be dealing with? I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights for other countries. They have their own governments.

[geckosfeet]

11. Possibly. But an unloaded locked gun can't shoot anyone. One certainty -

there are far too many careless, irresponsible, untrained gun owners who directly or indirectly cause death and injury. They should be prosecuted for death and injury that results from their failure to follow the law.

[Dappleganger]

35. No, too many parents out there.

Who are complete idiots.

[eqfan592]

45. Hmmm, maybe we should start requiring...

...licensing and knowledge tests for people before it is legal for them to have children? It's the same logic the gun-control advocates use, after all.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. This shit will never stop.

Until we start locking up owners that leave these weapons where kids can get at them.

[slackmaster]

13. Locking parents up after their kids have been shot will not solve the problem

So-called "child access pervention" laws apply only after something terrible happens. The only real solution is education.

Teach basic gun safety in public schools.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. It might serve a wake up call to those with careless gun storage habits.

[slackmaster]

18. We have a CAP law in California, and there are still way too many gun accidents

Think about being a DA and having to decide whether to prosecute a parent whose negligence led to the death of his or her child. The family has already suffered a devastating loss. Is locking up the parent who screwed up going to make things better for the other survivors? Would doing that make the community safer?

Being pro-active is always better for everyone.

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. OK, how do you get the message across to irresponsible owners?

Example:

My son-in-law's father is a big miltary guy, does all the parades and ceremonies, past commander of a VFW post, etc.

Some years ago my grandkids - 8,7, and 3 were out riding in the backseat of his car when a loaded pistol (his) slides out from under the drivers seat.

If not for the fact the kids were securely belted in, any one of them could have picked it up an who knows what...

After grandmother gathers up the gun he just shrugs, like it's no big deal. "Well, nothin' happened" was the best he could offer.

He'd no more leave a box of matches or jugs of household chemicals out where the kids could get at them - why a gun?

[slackmaster]

54. Your son's FIL failed to practice safe handling, and you are lucky that seatbelts restrained kids

Seven or eight years old is when I would recommend teaching children the basic safety rules for firearms. In that situation the rule is "don't touch it".

[InkAddict]

21. It might, yet who hasn't on occasion slept through the alarm clock's

noisy racket.

Here, again, someone's fear and freedom came first; responsibility not so much - This family has paid a great price for their unconsciousness of social responsibility and privilege. A tragedy, to be sure.

[proteus_lives]

17. +1

:thumbsup:

[Honeycombe8]

28. If you have to teach "keep guns out of hands of tots" to someone, that person

is too far gone to learn anything.

That is common sense. We don't need to spend millions of dollars trying to teach common sense.

I grew up in a hunting area. Anyone who knows anything about guns, knows where to keep them, how to maintain them, and how to use them.

These idiot parents were truly negligent, and should be charged criminally accordingly. You can't teach "how not to abuse your children" to people who would abuse their children. It's just decent values, decent behavior, and commons sense, which can't be taught.

[slackmaster]

55. There are a lot of people who own guns and haven't been taught basic safety

I was lucky to have a stepfather who had been a firearms instructor in the Navy and hunted for food when he was a kid.

[Honeycombe8]

111. My pt. is...you CAN'T be taught common sense. What happened here was NOT

a failure to comply with a safety restriction, so to speak. It was the failure to keep a gun out of the hands of a tot. That is a common sense rule. Like not sticking your hand in an open flame. Yeah, we could teach a course telling people not to stick their hands in open flames. But if someone is the kind of person who needs to be told that, they are either incompetent, or they WANT to stick their hands in open flames. The course doesn't help anyone who would do such a thing in the first place.

You can't teach common sense. You either want it and have it, or you don't.

[slackmaster]

117. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who aren't competent to handle them is a basic safety rule

There is no such thing as common sense.

[Honeycombe8]

125. We have to agree to disagree. I'm from a hunting state. I have attended

no gun safety course.

But I, like others who have been around guns, have the common sense to do away with any possibility that a child will get his or her hands on a loaded gun.

First rule of common sense: If you have a tot in the house, you probably shouldn't have guns in the house at all, unless you have a very good reason (gang activity nearby, or your job requires you to carry a gun, etc.)

Second rule of common sense: If you have children in the house, your gun should be kept unloaded and locked up somewhere, and the bullets kept elsewhere. The key, of course, should be hidden somewhere else, also.

Common sense. It comes in handy. Gun courses are unnecessary for things like what happened here.

[Dappleganger]

36. In agreement, the punishment needs to be extremely severe.

As gun owners we recognize the dangers and responsibilities, as well as the state law regarding having guns in the home. We have multiple precautions in place.

[proteus_lives]

25. Typical comments on this tragic accident.

The fear and ignorance of anti-RKBA Democrats is astounding. Like repugs and the patriot act.

When tragedies like this occur, it's a listen in proper storage and care of firearms. The parents should be charged with negligence. When you have a firearm in a house with children too small to be instructed in the danger of firearms, they must be kept in a safe place.

[Beavker]

26. So GOP, answer me this...

Was the hand gun properly registered?
Even if it is, does he have a concealed weapons permit?
Even if he has all this...your point is lost on those who actually care about this kind of thing.

People kill people, not guns? How come I can't walk about with a bomb in my back pack? You think my handgun is going to defend me against the eminent Al Qaida attack that you claim is coming? No. I need a fucking bomb, try to get that through legislature would ya?

Oh, you can't? Why? Because a Bomb is too big of a liability if it gets into the hands of the wrong people (i.e. N. Korea, Iran, Terrorists). But guns aren't?

This proves you wrong on every level.
In the mean time, lets try protect your constituents against their true threat...themselves.

[benld74]

32. GUNS dont kill people,,,

people who, buy guns and leave them out so kids can find them and kill other kids accidently, kill people.

[TankLV]

48. It's about the OPPORTUNITY - GUNS do kill people...

If COWARDLY FRIGHTENED gun nuts weren't so IRRATIONALLY afraid all the time, and these GUNS weren't around - then THESE KIND OF SENSELESS PREVENTABLE TRAGEDIES wouldn't happen!!!

It's not a really hard concept...

like:

you have a knife in the back of a drawer in another room and you're having an argument with someone - it's unlikely that you'll go look for and find that knife to do any damage.

but have that same argument in the kitchen where the knife is on the counter right next to you, then it's EXTREMELY likely that that knife will be used to the detriment of one of the parties.

same thing with guns.

eliminate the accessiblity to guns, and guns used in tragedies gets eliminated.

it's really very simple.

[X_Digger]

63. So simple, it's a truism / tautology..

Less of 'X' object means less of 'X' object misuse.

Less knives? Less knife crime! Less knife accidents!
Less baseball bats? Less baseball bat crime! Less baseball bat accidents!
Less frickin laser beams? Less frickin laser beam crime! Less frickin laser beam accidents!

Notice not less crime, just less crime with a certain object.

What you're forgetting is the substitution principle. A simplistic example is red cars. The national insurance institute determines that there is a disproportionate amount of traffic accidents involving red cars. Next legislative session, red cars are banned. Lawmakers scratch their heads next year when the pverall accident rate doesn't go down.

Similarly in your example, the guy who doesn't have a gun in the kitchen picks up a knife and stabs the person he's arguing with.

[Paladin]

79. Perfect Example Of What Passes For Critical Thinking In The Gun Militancy Movement. (n/t)

[X_Digger]

82. Act least I'm using logic, not emotional flailing. n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

98. Liberal gun owner here...

I'm not part of the "Militancy Movement" and I'm not entire sure what that is.

I don't keep loaded weapons in my house, and when my kids were younger I didn't keep any kind of weapon in the house. Now that my kids are old enough to know better, I do keep them locked and cased, with the ammunition stored separately.

Anybody who keeps a loaded and unlocked firearm where a child can get at it should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment or manslaughter.

[NeoConsSuck]

102. I'm curious

if you are using the guns for self defense, how could your present gun/ammo arrangement ever help you in a home invasion?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

121. I have a cat

I also have better odds of being struck by a meteor than getting involved in a home invasion. I'm a white, middle-class, suburbanite. The most serious offenses in my neighborhood are tax evasion and plaid golf pants.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

34. Breaking: 5 year old girl does not shoot sister

In millions of homes in the US with guns and responsible owners a 5 year old girl did not get access to a gun and shoot her sister.

One child out of millions did, and people on a website called DU clutched their pearls and branded all guns as evil, shrieked, and asked the government to protect them from the evil boogeyman.

[eqfan592]

46. NAILED IT!!

Ohhhhh, what's that, folks??? Got nothing to say when somebody calls you out on the SHOCKING level of BS you've been spewing while you were trying to exploit a tragedy such as this, like some rotten republican espousing the merits of the Patriot Act would? Nothing at all to say to this? Not even a half hearted defense of your narrow mindedness?

[TankLV]

49. Because MOST of us are SANE and do not go around with an IRRATIONAL fear of everyone and everything

and think we NEED a gun for "protection" and to be quickly accessible ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

but that's too hard for you gun nuts to understand...

[RC]

67. More guns just feed the paranoia of the gun nutzs

You gotz two of 'em? I'd better have at least three for self protection.
Hand guns were designed for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill people. Canada has a much better answer for guns than we do.

[eqfan592]

76. And you're no better than the above poster.

As I said to him/her, open your eyes or shut your mouth. Otherwise you're no better than a freeper.

[RC]

80. My eyes are open.

And tell me, what is the freepers view on guns? Hmmmm?

[eqfan592]

75. That you think that's the only way we think...

...shows you have no understanding of the issue. You are no more or less sane than I. Accept it. Open your eyes, or shut your mouth.

[JonQ]

47. You know

a child is at a far greater risk going over to his buddies gun-free home to swim in their pool than he is staying in a home with a loaded gun. But that's based on meticulously collected statistics and hard facts, not "oh my god won't someone please think of the children" emotional hysteria.

Don't get me wrong. This is an absolute tragedy and I don't imagine the parents will likely forgive themselves any time soon. And proper gun precautions should certainly be promoted.

But I don't see it as a license to begin pruning the constitution.

[X_Digger]

64. Don't harsh the lovejoy, man..

If they can't use children as a justification for whatever damnfool thing they want to push through, what else do they have? c'mon..

[dhpgetsit]

38. With rights come responsibilities.

While I support the right to bear arms, I also support laws mandating the responsibilities that go along with gun ownership. Guns need to be locked/disabled when not in use.

The gun owner is guilty of criminal negligence and homicide. And guilty means he surrenders his right to own a gun.

[Pavulon]

39. Agree,

I support the constitution here but there are systems that allow a firearm to be accessed very quickly when needed. Finger print aware safes are an example. It is just common sense, prevents accidents and your weapon being used against you or stolen to be used in crime. I also agree a person who causes a death, like this parent or guardian should never own a gun again or at least have to petition a judge after a multi year ban.

[Wendio]

41. Why do most articles

state "it" went off?
Like the gun decided to just shoot on it's own???
It went off while he was holding it.
I was not aware a gun could fire without someone actually pulling the trigger.
Is it just me or do others notice this as well?

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

57. But can a 4 year old pull a 9mm trigger?

[Pavulon]

105. Only if they have access to it. they can eat 1000mg of oxy

if some idiot leaves it out. Trigger pull varies from 4 to 12 lbs on most weapons.

[slackmaster]

84. That's just poor writing - use of passive voice when obviously a person DID something

Nothing unusual in contemporary "journalism".

[fascisthunter]

42. very sad

[Tim01]

50. I can put up endless posts about alcohol killing kids and adults. Lots more than guns.

But people like drinking, so the deaths are acceptable.

People like to attack anything they don't personally want or need.

It is the same reason fundies attack gay marriage. Not important to them.

[JitterbugPerfume]

51. a gun has one purpose

and that is to kill someone or something

[Pavulon]

52. or poke hole in paper.

lots of paper poking.

[jannyk]

53. BBC headline now reads "Two toddlers shoot siblings in US"

While I was sleeping, there was yet another incident :cry:

<<Two young children have been shot by their siblings in the space of 24 hours in the United States.

In Las Vegas, a two-year-old girl was in a critical condition after being shot by her four-year-old brother at their home, police said.

In South Carolina, a four-year-old boy was shot in the stomach by his three-year-old brother after the little boy found a gun.

The shooting involving the two brothers happened in Gray Court, South Carolina, also on Thursday night. They and their father were staying at the home of a family friend. Laurens County Sheriff Ricky Chastain said it appeared the younger boy found the gun under a bed and accidentally shot his brother.

The two incidents come less than a week after a five-year-old boy died after shooting himself in the head. >>


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8168465.stm

[krabigirl]

56. What losers had loaded guns, unlocked, in a house with little ones? idiots, horrible parents.

[Jennicut]

65. Exactly. I have a 5 year old and a four year old. Never ever would I have loaded guns around the

house for them to accidentally shoot and kill themselves with. Horrifying. I don't even let them in the kitchen when I open the stove!

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. LIFE IN PRISON!!!No Parole!!! Wait til Bubba gets his hands on him!!!

:sarcasm:

Not far off from the Punishment Fetish DUers, though.

[24601]

112. No, what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas! n/t

[baldguy]

72. The gun owner is entirely responsible for controlling access to the weapon at all times.

The trouble is caused by the NRA/GOP & the gun worshipers who slavishly follow them, who want no licensing, no registration, no records of ownership kept, and no accountability. They stupidly mistake this total irresponsibility for "freedom". As a result, thousands of people are sacrificed each year.

[slackmaster]

85. It's funny that you mention things that would NOT have prevented this tragedy

...no licensing, no registration, no records of ownership kept, and no accountability...

The only thing that will prevent this kind of incident is EDUCATION. Licensing, registration, records of ownership, and "accountability" mean nothing.

[baldguy]

94. And yet, no charges have been filed in either case.

Gun-worshiping morons whine that we should enforce the laws we have, but the laws we have obviously don't work.

States have the obligation to ensure that gun owners have the appropriate education & training, license those who do, and charge those who are licensed but allow their weapons to kill. Note: the education & training should come first, then licensing, then ownership. The NRA/GOP wants the process to be completely backwards: GUN first (always), THEN training (but not required) - and no licenses whatsoever. As we are seeing, this is a recipe for disaster.

[slackmaster]

95. Please explain how filing charges against a parent after a kid gets shot would prevent shootings

The only viable solution is gun safety training in public schools.

We teach kids about the dangers of unprotected sex, of drugs, and poor dietary choices. In some states we still teach kids how to drive safely.

Basic gun safety is a valuable life skill.

The NRA/GOP wants the process to be completely backwards: GUN first (always), THEN training (but not required) - and no licenses whatsoever.

Owning a gun is a basic civil right. We don't require licenses for people to vote, have jury trials, be secure in their persons, or write mindless drivel on the Internet.

[baldguy]

96. No training no licensing is required in Nevada. How does that prevent shootings?

Guess what: IT DOESN'T! At least if a person had to pass a training program & get a license before he got his gun, and he knew he would spend some time in prison if he allowed his gun to hurt someone or be used in a crime - he would take precautions to prevent it.

Gun-worshipers want to have the power to kill, but they don't want the responsibilities that go with it.

[slackmaster]

97. I'll repeat this for your benefit just one more time

Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools.

That way, everyone (not just people who will some day buy guns) would at least have been exposed to the valuable lesson of how to be safe around firearms.

ETA licensing and registration are non-starters in most states. They're just not going to happen.

[baldguy]

101. When would the 4-yr old be exposed to your theoretical, non-mandatory gun safety instruction?

[slackmaster]

103. The idea is for the DAD to have had gun safety instruction at some point in his life

So that he would understand the importance of keeping firearms properly secured.

:argh:

I was taught correctly when I was young, by a highly qualified instructor who happened to be my stepfather. That man clearly was not.

[Paladin]

106. But If People Don't Get That Instruction, Who Gives A Fuck, Right?

Not as if the gun militancy movement is going to support making such training in any way mandatory, right?

[slackmaster]

113. Mandatory training to carry a gun, yes, To simply own one, no.

I've made it abundantly clear over several years and thousands of posts that I think people should get safety training. I mean everyone, not just people who want to own them. That way any person who comes across an improperly secured weapon will know what to do. I have personally trained more than one hundred people, including teenagers and adults, who never had the opportunity to learn firearm safety.

People who want to carry one in public need much more than the basics.

Teaching the basics in public schools would make those skills available to everyone without having to make it mandatory.

[baldguy]

114. So, gun owners bare no responsibility for their weapons.

If they choose to ignore the "safety" parts some long-forgotten training course they might have once taken, so what? Being able to pull the trigger is the important part.

The 4yr-old learned that the hard way.

[slackmaster]

116. Gun owners bear responsibility for their behavior, just as everyone else does

We don't force people to take a sex education class before allowing them to have sex. We don't even require people to take a driving safety course before they apply for a driver's license.

If they choose to ignore the "safety" parts some long-forgotten training course they might have once taken, so what?

Some people are going to insist on remaining stupid or ignorant no matter what laws exist.

The 4yr-old learned that the hard way.

He'll never forget it. Too bad his dad insisted on being an idiot.

[primavera]

127. Why do you think gun safety should be universally taught in public schools...

... but not mandatory for prospective gun owners? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here, slackmaster. It kind of sounds like you don't advocate mandatory safety training, yet you think every student in public schools should get this training? Isn't that saying that it should be mandatory not just for gun owners, but for everyone? How does that compute?

I don't understand where your resistance to mandatory gun safety training for gun owners comes from. I mean, I know you are an advocate for education and responsible gun usage, so why is this such a stumbling block for you? You say that we don't require mandatory instruction to obtain a drivers license, but: a.) in actuality, most of us take drivers ed and, at least in the state where I lived, were required to do so if we wanted to obtain a license at the earliest possible age; b.) most states now require an extensive course in motorcycle safety before issuing a motorcycle license; and c.) we're just about the only country in the developed world that doesn't require extensive formal training to apply for a driver's license and we really ought to; and d.) even in the absence of formal training, in every state, you at least have to pass written and practical exams, as well as demonstrate acceptable vision and fitness to safely operate a vehicle. So why is it such a big deal to suggest that, if you want to own and operate a firearm, you have to demonstrate your competence to do so safely?

:shrug:

[onehandle]

83. Guns don't kill people. Gun owners kill people. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

88. Over 90% of the time it is people legally barred from possessing firearms that commit murder...

with firearms.

[onehandle]

90. My statement was 100% correct. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. In this case it was wrong.

[24601]

124. Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines don't own their guns

so I guess they have killed nobody.

Some police departments own the individual weapons, so their police are incapable of killing anyone.

And those thugs nwho use stolen weapons don't own them, so they are off the hook.

Peace

[superconnected]

89. Poor kids. Wonder how guns in the house or nothing their parents are now.

[Quantess]

92. I did not know this part:

The two incidents come less than a week after a five-year-old boy died after shooting himself in the head.

Not too many US media outlets would bother mentioning that three separate accidental child shootings happened in the space of a week.

[Pavulon]

107. Because it is statistically insignificant..

many more children die from other things not as politically interesting. Unrestrained children in car accidents, there are a litany of things that kill people. Stupidity is involved in many of them.

[Mind_your_head]

93. Yeah, I KNEW I shouldn't have clicked on this thread n/t

[KamaAina]

115. Just remember, guns don't kill toddlers...

four-year-olds kill toddlers. With guns. :cry:

[Pavulon]

118. Adults kill toddlers, dwi, child abuse, and negligence

leaving a loaded gun out is an example of an adult taking action that results in death. guns do not just go off and kill people, airplanes do not just crash. There is always a reason, generally a sequence of failures leading up to a mess.

Same in this case.

[Arugula Latte]

119. Isn't the freedom to be heavily armed wonderful? ... USA! USA!

What is the point, anymore. The gun nuts have won. Good luck out there -- hope none of us get shot today. Of course, there's always tomorrow.

[-..__...]

120. We haven't won just yet

Still waiting on a few more SCOTUS decisions to be heard and decided on; and if all goes as expected (incorporation), then the real
battle begins to undo the patchwork of unconstitutional state gun control laws.

Might take a few years, but the wait will be worth it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

126. Yes it is!!!!