Vacaville toddler fatally shot by boy playing with gun

[stevedeshazer]

Source: Contra Costa Times

A toddler died this afternoon after being shot in the head, Vacaville police said.

According to police, the 2-year-old girl, who was not identified, was shot accidentally by her 8-year-old brother, who was playing with the weapon. The girl was taken by ambulance to VacaValley Hospital where she was pronounced dead.

Emergency crews responded to the call shortly after 2 p.m. Police said no arrests have been made but the case remains under investigation.

Read more: http://www.contracostatimes.com/crime-courts/ci_13404857

---

This is tragic. Why do people leave loaded guns around children?

[TheWraith]

1. Generally because they're inattentive parents.

They're the same people who leave bottles of Draino lying around, open windows without screens, and on. Unfortunately stories like this--which are still a rarity in America--convince people that they need to be terrified every single second of their lives about something happening to their kids, no matter how remote the odds. A tiny bit of common sense--like locking up your guns and not leaving toddlers unattended--will go a long way.

[aquart]

4. Or not having a gun in a house with children.

Cute of you to try and blame Drano.

[Pavulon]

5. It is a crime to leave a weapon unsecured.

so this started with a criminal act.

[paulsby]

72. depends on the state

it is not illegal in many states.

in mine it is not illegal to leave a weapon in a house unsecured.

[TheWraith]

75. What about with small kids around?

I'd bet that leaving an unsecured gun around kids is a violation in every state--of child endangerment laws, if nothing else.

[paulsby]

88. no, it's not

why do you "bet" this?

i am a LEO in WA state. i know the law. there is no such law that criminalizes leaving an unsecured gun around kids.

also, define "small kids"... just so i know what you mean

[WriteDown]

98. And I'm a SCORPIO in Texas....

:)

[TheWraith]

116. Perhaps not where you live.

Here in New York, allowing a person under 14 access to a long gun, or a person under 21 access to a handgun (including by negligence), is a crime. As far as I'm aware, there are similar rules in most states.

[paulsby]

118. that;s why these statements are so silly

'it's a crime to' do X w.o the qualification "in my state" or whatever.

simply put, people fail to recognize the extent to which criminal law (and law regarding guns is no exception) varies significantly state to state.

simply put, there are plenty of places where one can legally carry a firearm after drinking.

[CBGLuthier]

89. not illegal. Just fucking stupid

But I guess u would argue that too .

[paulsby]

90. no, i argue facts

i don't engage in speculative silliness.

are you faulting me for pointing out the truth (tm)?

the truth is it not illegal in many jurisdictions.

facts matter.

i think leaving unsecured firearms around small children is stupid. fucking stupid. we agree.

[slackmaster]

110. It is illegal in California, but you can't be prosecuted unless someone is injured or killed

Someone under 16.

Gun safety needs to be taught to all kids in public schools, since so many parents are clueless.

[Euromutt]

140. Vacaville's in California

'Nuff said.

[Xithras]

108. In California it's a felony to leave a loaded weapon accessible to a child, if it's used by the kid

These parents, or at least one of them, is probably looking at prison time for this. California law is pretty explicit...if you leave a loaded and unlocked firearm out and a kid picks it up and fires it, the adult responsible for that firearm is going to prison. No if's, and's, or but's.

Which is as it should be (and I'm a gun owner).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Reading is fundamental.

[TheWraith]

34. Blame Drano? Did you even read what I said?

Leaving kids unsupervised around dangerous things is dangerous. Unless you're saying that a kid can't die from anything in the world other than a gunshot wound, then you're simply being contrary.

[paulsby]

73. geting rid of bathtubs will save more kids

than getting rid of guns , even if we COULD get rid of guns.

[virgogal]

2. God almighty,what's the matter with some people?

[abelenkpe2]

3. My pop was in the military

Yet he would never bring a weapon into our house. He did not want them around his kids.

Oddly, after his own kids grew up and left home he and my mother decided they wanted guns and now have several while homeschooling and raising my sisters three kids.

At least he cared enough while I was growing up. I blame FOX news for this change.

No seriously. I wish they would be taken off the air.

RIP little girl.

[harmonicon]

6. My dad never even let us shoot guns, and definitely wouldn't have them in the house.

He had been a Green Beret in the army and had sharp-shooter medals, but had no interest in weapons after that (that had been long before I was born). The sad thing is that it's people like him who won't have guns around children, while the people who do probably have no idea how to use them properly in the first place.

I don't want to take away anyone's first amendment rights, but, Jesus, there has to be some better way of screening who should and should not have a weapon in the house.

[Pavulon]

7. This is covered under existing statutes. Stupid people

are free to breed and break laws that should be common sense. Like not leaving weapons unsecured or driving drunk with little johnny in the car.

[SteveM]

16. Accidental firearms-related fatalities (esp. among youths) declining...

This from May, 2007 issue of Outdoor Life, based on a report by the NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL:

"...accidental firearms-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths continue to decline significantly... Firearms-related fatalities fell 40 percent between 1995 and 2005, the greatest decreases in percentage of all measured types of accidental fatalities in the U.S.... All this occurred at a time when American gun ownership is at a record high -- more than 290 million guns owned and 47.8 million households having at least one firearm."

Note: The number of firearms owned by civilians is now estimated to be over 330 million.

This data suggests that gun owners are taking the necessary steps to better secure firearms to prevent accidents in the home -- something other families should do with regard to deaths by falls, drownings, electrocution, etc. It certainly puts paid to the notion that "more guns = more crime/murders." (There is ample data to show that murder rates by firearms have also dropped during this time period.)

When growing up, our family owned at one time over forty firearms; I and each of my brothers had our own shotguns and revolvers by the age of 14. We were schooled in how to use them.

[stevedeshazer]

29. Cool. Got a link?

:)

[doc03]

37. During that period just about every state has

also passed CCW laws. According to the gun grabbers those accidents were supposed to increase. CCW would result in streets running with blood and dead bodies.

[ProudDad]

65. Unimpeachable source...

:sarcasm:

[spin]

201. I had firearms in the house around my daughter...

as she was growing up.

I was careful to make sure she had no access to loaded weapons when she was very young.

Both my wife and myself enjoyed the hobby of target shooting handguns. I reloaded my own ammo, so my daughter had plenty of exposure to firearms and to shooting at an early age. Because she was interested, we took her shooting with us when she was eight or nine wears old. I cut down the stock of a .22 bolt action single shot rifle for her to use.

After about six months she wanted to try handguns. None of my weapons would fit her hands, so I bought a .22 caliber S&W Kit gun for her to use at the range.



I placed a lot of emphasis on safe gun handling. She became quite proficient with the little revolver.

After a few years and a growth spurt, she was able to handle bigger revolvers. She fell in love with my favorite handgun, an S&W model 25-2 .45 acp target revolver. This revolver is the same size as Dirty Harry's .44 mag.



One night after she returned home from work, an intruder attempted to break into our house. Alerted by the burglar alarm, she entered the kitchen to find him forcing open the sliding glass door. She pointed the big N frame S&W revolver at him and he fled.

Not all people are incompetent at training children to be safe around firearms.

[Treo]

210. Of course, you know that the grabbers are having caniptions looking at your gun porn no? NT

[spin]

221. Never thought about it to be honest, but...

the thought makes it more fun to post pictures of firearms.

[McCamy Taylor]

8. You take drivers ed, a test and buy insurance to operate a car, but any moron can buy a gun

and leave it under his pillow for his child to find.

I know the NRA will have a screaming fit, but we need gun classes, gun tests, gun insurance and gun safety.

[Pavulon]

10. And laws that make leaving a weapon unsecured illegal...wait

they have those and human troglodytes still break them. Or just have a gun tax, like a poll tax. Just ban poor people and minorities from gun ownership, I am sure that would solve all the problems. (no not really)

You cant fix stupid. two idiots managed to fly a commuter plane into the ground while commenting on the amount of ice on the wing and you really think classes will fix this?

[ZombieHorde]

19. Do you think we should get rid of driving tests? nt

[Hoopla Phil]

142. Do you think we should have gotten rid of voting tests?

[Treo]

18. Actually the NRA provides every single one of those services. NT

[ProudDad]

66. And none of it's mandatory

And the NRA would kick, scream, lobby, pay off and burn an AK47 on your lawn if you even HINTED that you'd like to make them mandatory...

[Hepburn]

77. Isn't that just the absolute truth!

I dislike the NRA intensely. I have a guy pal who is a member and who just loves guns. The problem is that he gets NRA political bullshit and I have to debunk this crap quite often...and he keeps telling me how the NRA is such a great source of info.

Talk about political RW nuts...:puke:

[Treo]

82. As would I NT

[Hoopla Phil]

143. They would be unconstitutional. Tests before voting have already been

ruled unconstitutional. Do you think we should bring those back?

[ProudDad]

144. Hardly (n/t)

[SteveM]

22. Gun classes and gun safety are good things if they are not abused...

Certainly, if one goes afield to hunt, hunter education is a good thing and is in place around the country. And in order to carry concealed, most states have range tests, written tests, finger-printing, picture I.D., etc. But in the home, there should not be requirements by law because of the potential for abuse and abridgment of the Second Amendment. The various states have an interest in requiring tests and permits when a gun is taken from a private premises; but even here, a state/locality can abuse the process by leaving discretion to local authorities, hence "may issue" laws in NYC. Most states have "shall issue" laws which provide a bright-line standards which cannot be abused by local governments. Exception: Vermont has no requirements to carry a concealed weapon.

I'm not sure what you mean by "insurance."

Please be advised that most gun-control measures that remain in place or have been proposed are based on the tried and true Jim Crow legislation that restricted firearms ownership by blacks in the South. In New York City, the "Sullivan Laws" restricting ownership were passed in the 'teens during a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, esp. against Italians.

SEE: www.georgiacarry.org Search locally for the Heller Brief, submitted by georgiacarry to the SCOTUS. Excellent summation of the racist roots of gun-control.

[doc03]

32. The NRA has its faults but they have always

supported and encouraged gun safety. I took an NRA Safe Hunter course in 4H over 46 years ago. I also took an NRA Handgun Safety Course and acquired a CCW permit this month.

[Treo]

50. Congratulations

Did you do the Wal Mart walk yet?

[doc03]

93. Wal Mart walk? n/t

[Treo]

107. The Wal Mart Walk

I once did an informal poll on thehighroad.org and a pattern developed that most people when they got their CHP tended to go to Wal-Mart the very first time they went armed out in public. Apparently it was some type of "rite of passage" and people called it "The Wal-Mart Walk"
Here's a link if you want to look at it
http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=340073&highlight=Wal-mart+walk

[doc03]

109. No and I don't intend to, I see no

reason to carry in Walmart. If I saw someone robbing a Walmart I sure as hell wouldn't risk my life trying to stop them. I'll have to check, I just assumed they had a no guns policy. Shortly after we got our CCW law in Ohio someone dropped their gun at a local K Mart. The gun discharged and put a hole in a shelf, K Mart has a no guns sign posted now. I was just curious about the training program and took it because it was there I guess. The only time I may possibly carry a loaded weapon is if I go fishing alone late at night, I have run across some nutjobs in that situation before.

[Treo]

111. The Wal Mart Walk

Was more of a joke and the thread is kind of funny. Our local Wal-Mart isn't posted if you are found carrying concealed all they can do is ask you to is leave. I can't predict when I may need a gun so I carry it every where I am legally allowed to, including college (Gotta love Colorado).

[ieoeja]

117. Yup, that's why I go nowhere without a jaws-of-life, medical kit, ...

... gallons of water, rations, gas mask, duct tape, etc. People seem to think I'm paranoid, but as you just stated, you can not predit when you many need it.

That jaws-of-life does get heavy at times.

[Treo]

119. Preparedness

I have three days worth of MREs a -10 sleeping bag and a gallon of water in my car all the time, I live in Colorado it's considered normal here. I also have an AAA recommended first aid kit in my car and carry a barrier device W/ me at all times (no point in having a CPR card otherwise) I also carry a gun because I live in colorado and occasionally find bear poop in my front yard. Ditto rabid raccoons, skunks, foxes and coyotes.

I also carry a gun because I'm gettin kinda old to fight off a mugger W my bare hands.

I also carry a gun because about half of my ex in-laws are gang bangers one of whom is in jail partially because of my wife's testimony ( revenge is a bitch) they have also threatened to kill my daughter to get the SIL's kids (kids that are frequently at my home) back and they mean that shit

I carry a gun because theres been about 7 home invasions 2 or three drive bys and one really good murder in my neighborhood this year.
ETA
According to last nights news a mountain lion was sighted 3 times in the busiest part of town

Any further questions?

[ieoeja]

122. You have *imminent* cause for carrying a firearm.

You will have to forgive me. My own family ran into similar issues and availed themselves of the carry laws.

But most people making that claim have no more reasonable expectation for imminent use than your average person which marks *them* as paranoids. Again, my own family mocked a member mercilessly who carried needlessly (a lot of idjits did as soon as CCW became legal). Frankly, we found his walking around family dinners with a pistol on his hip kind of rude.

I made fun of him for carrying it openly as soon as CCW became legal since, of course, it was ALWAYS legal to carry openly. I embarrassed a lot of idjits over that fact.

[Treo]

123. The difference is

I don't have a problem W/ them carrying a gun. Sure the odds are a million to one but what if you're the one? When George Hennard drove his pick up truck through the window at Luby's there were 5 people in the restaurant who had guns in their cars. The reason you only hear about Susanna Hupp is because the other 4 were killed. Her "Million to one" moment came when the killer stopped W/ his back to her not 12 feet away unfortunately somebody had decided she shouldn't carry a gun in public. As a result she watched the killer murder her father, her Mother was the last victim.

If you meet the criteria for a CHP go for it!!

[PavePusher]

131. Gosh. If I knew when "imminent" was going to occur...

I'd make sure I was elsewhere then. Since my precognition sucks elephant dick, I carry all the time. Doesn't mean I'm expecting or wanting to use it. Am I an 'idjit' for doing so? Do I deserve to be made fun of?

[Treo]

137. Hey Pave, remember what you told me

This poster's at least partially receptive let's try to make a friend here.

[PavePusher]

162. You're right. Apology offered below.

Sigh. Crow, it's better with ketchup. (Well, hot sauce actually...)

[ieoeja]

159. It makes you appear paranoid. And, yes, people probably make fun of you all the time.

But not wanting to hurt your feelings, they do it behind your back. I know this happens all the time where I grew up in southern Indiana. And these people making fun of the "carry at all times" crowd are Democrats who usually vote for the Republican presidential candidate solely because they don't trust national Democrats on the subject of firearms.

[PavePusher]

161. Well, Treo just reminded me that I may have come off sounding hostile.

If so, you have my apology. My bad.

However, I have to ask, where do we draw the line for paranoia? Is it 'paranoid' to carry a spare tire in your car, have fire/smoke/CO alarms in your house, health insurance? I've never had my house burn down, but I carry insurance for that. I've actually had things stolen more times than I've used spare tires or had smoke alarms go off. I've been involved in (stopped or cleaned up after) assaults more times than I've ever needed health insurance.

I think the relevent statistic (I can't find the cite for it right now) was that something like 1/3 to 1/2 the general population will be a victim of a violence in their lifetime, and some 3 million+ violent crimes occur per year.

How is it I'm paranoid again?


And I'm not so insecure that people making fun of me behind my back bothers me. I can't deal with every 'idjit' in this world. If they don't have the courage of their convictions to speak to my face they are not worth my time.

[ieoeja]

166. About your stats.

"something like 1/3 to 1/2 the general population will be a victim of a violence in their lifetime, and some 3 million+ violent crimes occur per year."


A pretty small percentage of those would justify the use of a firearm. I've been a victim plenty of times. My friends are amazed that my mouth hasn't resulted in my being a victim more often. Certainly the last time I was knocked on my ass, I deserved it, came up laughing and admitted as much.

The "offender" being female -- hey, she was a BIG gal, okay? -- sort of didn't give me much choice but to laugh at myself.

[Treo]

167. There's a big difference

between you letting your mouth right a check your ass can't cash. and really being a violent crime victim.

New Life Church in Colorado Springs pays the city to post off duty cops in their parking lot to direct traffic after their services. The Police were on site when the shooting started . million to one odds and the shooter was dead before 911 dispatch was able to contact the officers on scene and It was a civilian who volunteered to do security for the church that took him out.

To throw out a classic anti line if it only saves one life isn't worth letting citizens have the means of self defense?

[ieoeja]

168. So you believe there are 3 million violent crimes every year that justify the use of a firearm? (nt)

[PavePusher]

170. Umm... what part of 'violent crime' do you not understand?

What level of 'violent crime' do you believe allows me to defend myself, and at what level do I just have to take it?

What moral or legal principal says I must risk physical injury in my defense, instead of using tools that will hopefully help to keep the criminal from actually touching me?

[Treo]

172. And will very likely cause the criminal to end the attack

W/ out anyone getting hurt.

[ieoeja]

177. *You* said there are 3 mil violent crimes per year and that I have a 1in2 or 1in3 chance ...

... of being a victim. I suspect those figures include violent crimes of a level that do not rise to a level that allows you to defend yourself with a firearm, even as a threat.

In fact, the laws on self defense allow only for a reasonable response. In the example I gave above, she committed a violent crime. I would have been legally justified in hitting her back. On the other hand, knocking her down and kicking her a dozen times would have gotten me arrested. And a jury of my peers would have judged my response unreasonable.

Pulling a gun on her would certainly have had the same result.

My point is, there are a LOT more cases like that every day than the sort of crimes you guys keep talking about. And I strongly suspect the figures you quote from include a LOT more cases like that than the sort of crimes you are thinking about. I believe the odds of being the victim of a crime that justifies the use of a firearm -- or knife or baseball bat or big fucking rock -- are much, much, much lower than you believe them to be.

[Treo]

179. Nope

You (by your own admission) instigated the incident had you struck her back it would have been mutual combat

I believe the odds of being the victim of a crime that justifies the use of a firearm -- or knife or baseball bat or big fucking rock -- are much, much, much lower than you believe them to be.

Did you know you can forcibly rape someone W/ out any of those things? Did you know that people are killed every day W/ nothing more than bare hands? I am a former boxer if I were do attack an octogenarian W/ osteoporosis bare handed would she/he not be justified in using a firearm in self defense? Go back and rethink your scenario

[ieoeja]

181. Nope

I said something insulting to someone a week earlier. That does not legally justify her hitting me a week later.

The "it only takes once" argument I expected. You seem to be arguing that any threat of violence whatsoever justifies the use of a firearm. If that is your argument then, dude, you just went from "paranoid" to "biggest fucking pussy on the face of the planet".

[Treo]

184. I am trying to remain civil please return the courtesy

You seem to be arguing that any threat of violence whatsoever justifies the use of a firearm.

Actually I'm responding to your contention that almost no threat of violence justifies the use of a fire arm. That would be true if the only people that were attacked were males in good physical condition between the ages of 17 and 35. Firearms are used to stop crimes 2.5 million times a year in this country, often with out firing a shot. many time the victims in these instances are women, elderly, people, or infirm people. there's enough disparity of force between the average female and the average male that I would recommend the female be armed any time she's seriously attacked by a male. I taught martial arts for a couple of years on the average the females couldn't stand up to the males.

You also might want to look at your local crime stats criminals almost never work alone and they're rarely unarmed.

If you want to prove your manhood by standing up against the bad guys go right ahead. Please don't deny me the right not to.

[Euromutt]

202. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is your friend

Specifically, the study Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf

During the period studied, 26% of non-fatal violent crimes involved the use of a weapon; weapons were used in 49.7% of robberies, 23.6% of assaults, and 8.0% of rapes.

That's not the full range of violent crimes that would justify use of lethal force in self-defense, mind you, because a sufficiently large "disparity of force" between assailant and victim will also do it, e.g. an able-bodied young adult attacking a disabled person or senior citizen, attackers outnumbering the victim 3 to 1 or more, that sort of thing.

[PavePusher]

206. Again...

What level of 'violent crime' do you believe allows me to defend myself, and at what level do I just have to take it?

I'll open the question furthar: what level of 'violent crime' allows me to defend myself with a firearm? If the criminal is only going to punch me, does that qualify? Does he have to punch me multiple times?

How am I supposed to know s/he will only punch me once? Or twice? Or five times?

You are claiming there is a standard, please define it.

[Treo]

171. There probably are

How do we quantify that? When I was 18 I was approached ( I can't say attacked because they never got a chance) by five guys armed W/ bats and tire irons. As soon as they realized I was carrying a gun they took off. I remember one yelling "oh shit he's got a gun" and one daring me (while he's beatin' feet) to "use that gun if you're so brave" Was I justified? would Annie Le have been? Central Park Jogger? John Lennon? the quarter of all American women who will be sexually abused at some point in their life time?

What's justified? As far as I'm concerned a break in of a private residence constitutes justified.EDIT How often does that occur in a year/EDIT You gettin' a well deserved beat down from some woman , not so much.

[PavePusher]

130. WalMart's corporate policy is...

to follow the laws of the state the store is located in. If a person is carrying legally, open or concealed, it's O.K. with WalMart.

Some store and regional/district managers are confused on this, but a few calls to headquarters usually fixes it.



doc03 wrote: "No and I don't intend to, I see no reason to carry in Walmart. If I saw someone robbing a Walmart I sure as hell wouldn't risk my life trying to stop them."

The reason to carry in public is not neccesarily to stop a robbery, but to defend yourself if attacked. What would you do if the robber tried to take you or a family member hostage, or started to beat them in the head....

That is sort of the entire purpose of getting that permit...

[Euromutt]

149. I believe Wal-Mart corporate policy is to allow whatever local law allows

In other words, the only Wal-Marts where you can't carry concealed are those in Illinois and Wisconsin, because you can't carry concealed there legally anyway. That's probably why there's a "Wal-Mart walk"; it's the one nationwide chain where they'll let you carry.

ETA: oh, I see PavePusher beat me to it.

[AzNick]

222. Because Walmart shoppers are traitors

And they should be shot?


JUST KIDDING.

[PavePusher]

129. You're getting the situations a little mixed up.

"You take drivers ed, a test and buy insurance to operate a car"

Correct. You don't need any of that to BUY a car. You don't nned any of it to drive on private property. Only if you take it onto public roads.


In most places,you don't need any classes or licences to buy a gun and keep it on private property, but you do need them if you carry them in public.

Clearer now?

[Hoopla Phil]

141. Your car example is not correct.

you do not need any of those things to drive the car on private property. Now if you want to insist on those things for carrying a firearm in public you may be correct, but that would be a debate for another thread.

SCOTUS has ruled that a test in order to exorcise a right is not constitutional. This was done many years ago to keep black people from voting.

[Euromutt]

147. There's no shortage of gun owners, including NRA members, who would agree with you in the abstract

And that includes myself (yes, I am a member of the NRA, albeit a reluctant one). In principle, I would support a gun owner licensing scheme. In practice, well, that's a different kettle of fish.

The problem is that the well has been thoroughly poisoned in the past by certain mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs etc. who decided to implement a higher degree of gun control than legislation warranted by the simple expedient of not holding the classes or the examinations, or holding them at inconvenient times and places, infrequently and without much prior notice.

The reason the NRA, and many gun owning non-NRA members, oppose should seem uncontroversial "reasonable, commonsense" measures like this is largely because they've been abused in the past (and continue to be--you try getting a carry permit in NYC if you're not Sen. Charles Schumer, Donald Trump, Robert DeNiro, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., etc. or in Contra Costa county, CA, if you don't contribute to the sheriff's political campaign fund), so really, certain advocates of gun control have made themselves its own worst enemy by demonstrating why government cannot be trusted with those powers.

[proteus_lives]

11. When kids are in the house, your weapons have to be in a safe place.

Safety regs are there fore a reason.

[DissedByBush]

14. Regs don't help

You can only hope for some common sense.

Remember that guy who left his kid in the car when he went to buy drugs, and the kid disappeared?

There's just nothing you can do to prevent the actions of people this incredibly stupid.

We have guns. They're in safes and the kids don't know the combinations.

[proteus_lives]

17. That's what I meant by regs.

I didn't mean gov or local rules I meant common sense safty. Sorry, personal habit, I call personal rules regs.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Clearly, the boy was just asserting his second amendment rights.

The above was sarcasm.

[jgraz]

46. Clearly the solution is to make sure toddlers can shoot back.

Also sarcasm.

[Frank Cannon]

91. Hear hear. And if the toddler was packing heat, this might not have happened.

That was sarcasm too.

[boilinmad]

99. GUNS FUCKING SUCK

....no sarcasm here.

[PavePusher]

132. Not really.

No more so than any other inanimate object.

People, on the gripping hand... People suck big, fat, sweaty buffalo dick.

[AtheistCrusader]

212. Haha I caught myself slipping in Mote terminology a few days ago.

I wish someone worthwhile would turn that into a couple-part movie.

[PavePusher]

216. Joss Whedon or Peter Jackson could probably swing it.

But their budget estimate would make people scream. Of course, if they did it right, they'd make more money than Ghod.

[AtheistCrusader]

211. What? Since when? Mine must be broken then.

Well, trying to find .303 SAV sucks, but it doesn't fuck either.

[Euromutt]

217. You're thinking of vacuum cleaners

Vacuum cleaners totally suck. At most, you might say that guns blow.

[Euromutt]

157. Neither "keep" nor "bear" equals "discharge"

Not even the most hardcore 2nd Amendment fundamentalist is going to assert that you have the right to discharge a firearm, from any location you like, in any direction you like.

Here's a helpful hint: satire only works when it bears some relation to the opinion you're trying to mock. Otherwise, you're just some twat who thinks he's way smarter than he actually is.

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. The parents were protecting their kids with that gun.

Home invasions & things like that.

[SteveM]

23. Don't know what those parents' motivations were, but mine is for protection...

I keep a loaded firearm by my bed in the event of a break-in. Odds are low. Odds are low my house will burn down, but I carry insurance for that as well. My precaution is not unusual. Tens of millions of Americans exercise this precaution every night, and little accidental carnage has resulted; in fact, accidental firearms-related deaths among youths have been in significant decline over the last 10+ years.

[The_Casual_Observer]

38. Odds in that house are now 50%

[jgraz]

58. And now they have one less kid to protect

Problem... SOLVED.

[ProudDad]

67. It really worked out gud for thim, din't it?

[Flagg]

124. Worked like a charm...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Treo]

20. The parents were dead wrong and should be prosecuted

That said, don't hold me (or MY guns) accountable for their stupidity.

[Hepburn]

78. Why not?

Unless you think guns and small children do not mix under any circumstances, then you are in the same boat as the idiot parents.

JMHO

[LeftyMom]

21. I lost a friend to an accidental shooting many years ago.

His childhood best friend shot him by accident after they found an adult family member's gun. Two families were utterly destroyed in one moment.

People need to wise the hell up and realize that the risks of having guns and kids in the same house just aren't worth it.

[Treo]

26. I got shot myself by an idiot

several years ago. it was far more the idiot's fault than the gun's

[LeftyMom]

30. Did that make your gunshot wound hurt any less?

Because I assure you, whoever or whatever gets blamed, my friend is still quite dead. And guns don't belong in homes where minors can get them. Period.

[Treo]

31. No it didn't

And I agree it is the parent's responsibility to ensure that the weapons are secure. It's the parent's responsibility , not the government's and I don't wish to be held accountable for the actions of an idiot

[LeftyMom]

33. The government mandates parental responsibilities all the time.

Feeding your kids, providing them needed medical care, making sure they get an education, using a car seat and then a seat belt, all of these things are mandatory for a child's protection and well-being.

[Treo]

36. So do you propose

that the government be allowed to enter my home and inspect my arrangements for securing my weapons W/out a warrant, at any time they choose?

Oh wait every weapon I own was purchased used in a private sale (I.E. no NCIS check and no 4473 IOW my guns legally don't exist) shall I register them as well so the government knows which homes to inspect for weapons violations?

Far more children die every year from ingesting household poisons than are killed in firearms related deaths should the government have unlimited access to your home to ensure that you are properly storing such chemicals?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Treo]

43. Go back and read my post we agree on more than we disagree on

We both agree that weapons should be secured around children, I just think that the parents can be prosecuted under existing child neglect laws, instead of enacting new laws. I don't want the government involved in how I secure my weapons because I'm not sure where they'd stop. In D.C. the law (until recently) stated that your firearm must be disassembled . locked up and stored separate from any ammunition. If a home invader kicked down your door in the middle of the night do you think such a gun would be of any use?

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Treo]

47. Hi j

You're still on top of your game it only takes one post to tell you're a grabber

[jgraz]

48. For you, it took zero.

Since you long ago decided anyone who doesn't share your far-right views is a "grabber".

[Treo]

49. So, tell us J

Should the government mandate safe storage procedures?

[jgraz]

53. Of course.

Gun nuts should be safely stored where they can do as little harm as possible.

I'm thinking Oklahoma.

[Treo]

55. well I tried

But I guess all this is above your (Joyce Foundation)pay grade

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[jgraz]

69. I see your new strategy to convince us you're safe around firearms to act like fifth graders.

How's that working out for ya?

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Are you venting about gun owners, or trying to 'help'?

If venting, you're definitely rocking the MrBenchley approach...

If you're trying to 'help', all I can say is:

Cui bono ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x182351

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. You even wrote that like a fifth grader, impressive.

[jgraz]

121. Sorry, Dave, was the wording too advanced for you?

Just let me know. I can translate it to toddler for ya.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

138. I am just glad to see our consultant from the Joyce Foundation back again.

Read your post real slow and see if you can find your mistake.

[Euromutt]

165. Is it a strategy when there's no attainable objective?

Let's face it, jgraz, nobody's ever going to convince you of anything where firearms are concerned. You've got your mind firmly made up, and tightly closed to evidence that contradicts your preconceived notions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

183. He was a consultant for the Joyce Foundation of course his mind is made up.

Just like many of the Joyce Foundation's "facts".

[Treo]

185. He doesn't come here for debate he just likes to poach gun looneys in the gungeon NT

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

187. Just as long as people know who he really is.

[Treo]

188. I tend to think we should just stop engaging him .

Just a quick blurb pointing out that he's a paid hack for the other side and move on

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. You'll notice he doesn't respond to me much.

[Treo]

192. I've noticed that as soon as you hit him W/ an actual fact he runs NT

TYPO

[Euromutt]

218. Only to pop up elsewhere regurgitating the same talking points

...pretending they haven't been debunked a dozen times or more already. That's actually what I find most irksome.

[Hepburn]

81. I noticed it on another thread....

...the posts scream "gun looney." You know their motto, it starts with something about, "Prying a cold, dead toddler from my hands..."

[PavePusher]

133. So, if a set of parents fails to properly use a car seat...

that means we ban cars, right?

[Hepburn]

79. Sooooooo....

....being a good parent is NOT something the government should monitor? Then I am sure that you would therefore agree that child abuse is a private matter, right?

GMAFB...

[Treo]

84. Quit a spectrum between "good parent" and "abuser" don't you think?

I don't think the government should set the standard for how I store my firearms. I keep all my firearms locked in a safe if I'm not using them. I have a key and my wife has a key. The grandkids aren't allowed in the storage room unaccompanied. AFAIC that's suitable.

If you think the government should dictate how I store my firearms , will you accept them setting the standard for how you store household chemicals?

How do you propose to enforce these standards? You'd have to start W/ registration (against current federal law) so the government knew who all had guns. Let me know how that works out for you. would you support warrant-less searches to verify that the standards were met?

Seriously, tell me how you'd do it.

[Hepburn]

86. Wow...

...you have got the NRA patter down pefectly. I just love apple and oranges comparisons. And you have grandchildren in the house with your aresenal...shudder...

Congrats for being so gullible! Guns don't kill children....other children kill children. Isn't that the motto...???

[Treo]

87. So, you're not interested in answering the question? got it .

BTW not only are my grandkids in the house I carry a gun around them al the time.
TYPO

[Hepburn]

94. When you ask a legit question then and only then...

...will you get a legit answer. BTW: Are you familiar with the term "child endangerment?" Apparently not...

You know where you can put your NRA talking points. When one of your grandkids is injuried or dies ~~ gawd forbid ~~ cuz of your bullshit love of guns over them, come and talk to me about legit questions again, OK?

[Lance_Boyle]

112. How is Treo endangering children? By keeping his firearms secured?

You are obviously anti-firearm and that's fine. For you. There is zero sense in trying to universalize your personal choice in this matter.

But as a lawyer you should know how to argue better than you are demonstrating here. For instance, I believe it has been stated upthread that "child endangerment" is a crime already on the books that can be applied when... children are endangered. What Treo described as his firearms storage practice could not reasonably be considered "child endangerment" anywhere, except in the fevered imaginations of a gun grabber.

[Treo]

114. You're a grabber dear

As far as you're concerned there is no legitimate reason for a civilian to own a firearm. Therefore you're not going to find anything I say in the defense of firearms owners appropriate. Any modern firearm is an inanimate, mechanical object. It can not do anything(except maybe fall on your head) W/ out human intervention a gun isn't anymore evil than a frying pan. You have ignored the fact that I have stated several times in this thread that A.) all firearms should be securely (mine reside in a safe)stored when not in use and B.) that the parents should be prosecuted under existing child neglect laws. Instead you've been screaming "gun loooney" . Please tell me how the mere fact that I have a concealed handgun about my person endangers my grand kids. Is the gun going to jump out of my holster on it's own and start shooting them?

TYPO

[Euromutt]

155. You want "child endangerment"? I have some statistics for you

From your sig file, I infer you are a dog owner. CDC statistics indicate that some 2% of the US population is bitten by a dog every year; at present, that means 6 million people. Of those, some 800,000 require medical treatment, and of those over 300,000 need to visit the emergency room. The majority (60-70%) of victims requiring medical treatment are children. Children are disproportionately likely to be bitten in the face, neck or head; of victims under 10 years old, 77% suffered injuries to the face. Permanently disfiguring injuries, as in literally "scarred for life."

And lest you think your Scottie couldn't possibly be a problem, there are plenty of cases of smaller dogs attacking children. To cite an extreme example, in October 2000, a six week-old newborn was mauled to death by the family's 4-pound Pomeranian. In fact, 77% of biting victims are attacked by a dog belonging to family or friends.

Oh, I'm sure you are a responsible dog owner--or so you'd like to think, anyway--but we can deduce the minimum percentage of dog owners who are not responsible from the fact that an estimated 50% of domestic dogs in the US are not vaccinated for rabies, despite every state requiring it. I have a three year-old son who likes to explore the neighborhood, and in the past six months, he's been menaced by at least five different dogs, all of which were off-leash and had access to the public highway, despite my city being entirely a "dog control zone." I've lost count of the number of violations I've witnessed of leash laws where the dog didn't behave in a hostile manner towards my kid.

Bottom line: a large part of why I carry pepper spray and a large-caliber handgun is because of your fellow dog owners, lady. Are you willing to surrender your pooch to be destroyed because a large number--possibly a majority--of people who own dogs are too irresponsible? To compare, in 2007 (the most recent year available on WISQARS), 2,303 persons under 15 were admitted to ERs for dog bites; 845 were admitted for gun shot wounds, even though there are way more privately owned guns than dogs. You tell me what's the bigger threat to public health and safety. Does the AKC issue "talking points"?

At least my guns can't get out of the safe, stroll off my property and bite a neighborhood kid in the face of their own accord.

[SsevenN]

160. Fantastic post and points Euromutt. NT

[jeepnstein]

156. You'll get no answer from this one.

They need to keep their real intentions hidden. As usual, they resort to insults and emotional appeals rather than getting to the point.

[Euromutt]

154. Speaking as a parent...

No, I most emphatically do not need the government to monitor whether I measure up to some legislator's or bureaucrat's idea of what constitutes a "good parent." And as Treo rightly points out, there's quite a wide gap between merely not "being a good parent" and actually engaging in child abuse.

But if you want to go that route, I can point to a couple of things you might want to take aim at before you try gun ownership. Refusing necessary medical procedures (e.g. a blood transfusion, an appendectomy, or chemotherapy and radiation treatment for lymphoma) for your child on the basis of religious or "philosophical" grounds constitutes more direct child endangerment than keeping a gun in the house. Refusing to have your child vaccinated for non-medical reasons not only endangers your own child, but also anybody who cannot be vaccinated but comes into contact with your child.

[AtheistCrusader]

213. My parents kept a loaded double-barrel in the hall closet my entire life.

Knew it was there. Knew what it was for. Knew not to touch it.

No one has ever been shot with that weapon.


If you are going to have firearms accessible around children, certain training precautions must be taken.

[doc03]

35. You been hunting with Chaney? n/t

[TheWraith]

40. Dammit, you beat me to it!

Mine was going to be "Harry Whittington, is that you?"

[Demobrat]

24. One of my neighbors is a gun nut

who's constantly boasting about his collection and threatening to shoot people. And he's a drinker. There are two toddlers in that apartment, and I always wonder where he keeps his guns. And if they're loaded.

[TheWraith]

41. Please call the police. Seriously.

It's illegal to even touch a gun if you're intoxicated. It's also illegal in most places for an alcoholic or someone with substance abuse problems to own a gun.

[Treo]

51. Can you cite a statute that makes it illegal to touch a gun while intoxicated?

I agree it's incredibly stupid but I don't think it's actually illegal (at least here in Colorado)

[jgraz]

57. Lemme guess -- you're in FAVOR of drunks carrying guns.

In other words, if someone proposed a law prohibiting you from carrying a weapon while intoxicated, you'd oppose it.

[Treo]

61. Please see my thread on the subject in "Guns"

My personal rule is Guns and intoxicants don't mix My question was in regards to his statement that it is illegal to touch a firearm while intoxicated. I am fairly certain no such law exists in Colorado and I asked for clarification. But, you knew that didn't you?

[TheWraith]

74. In Colorado it's 18-12-106, "Prohibited use of weapons."

18-12-106. Prohibited use of weapons.

(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if:

(d) The person has in his or her possession a firearm while the person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S. Possession of a permit issued under section 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to its repeal, or possession of a permit or a temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to part 2 of this article is no defense to a violation of this subsection (1).

[Hepburn]

80. Oh...give you the NRA award for gun stupidity....

...since it is supposedly legal to be drunk and fuck around with a gun, then in your book it is OK.

That's what society needs more of...drunks with guns. :eyes:

[anigbrowl]

83. Perhaps we'll get lucky and he'll mistake one for a telephone

Booze + guns + small kids = bad combination.

[Hepburn]

96. Any two of the three in any combination is bad news, IMO. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

214. Post taken at face value, if he's threatening to shoot people, that's assault.

[Treo]

219. In Colorado it's felony menacing IF he has a gun in hand when does it. NT

[Demobrat]

56. And say what? My neighbor has guns, booze and children in the same house?

I don't think that's illegal. Stupid, yes. Illegal, no.

[Treo]

59. Tell them exactly what you said here and ask them to do a welfare check nT

[TheWraith]

62. Say the same thing you did here.

Point one, if your neighbor is using his guns while drunk, he's committing a crime that'll likely lose him his gun rights.

Point two, if the guns are stored unsafely it's a child endangerment issue.

[benEzra]

101. Having alcohol in the house does not mean you are a drunk...

unless you subscribe to fundy views on alcohol. We have wine and Mike's lemonade in our fridge, guns in a gun safe (including a couple of ZOMG SCAWWY! ones), and two kids, the oldest (10) being a special-needs kid. Our kids are at FAR less risk than if we owned a swimming pool, but if we could afford it, we'd own a pool as well.

Risks can be intelligently managed; that's what our brains are for, after all.

[Demobrat]

103. I've seen him drunk many times,

and heard him boast about his guns while drunk. But I've never seen the guns. For all I know it's all BS. Now if I ever did see him drunk with a gun I'd have the cops at the building immediately. But at this point I have no reason to believe he's broken any laws.

[benEzra]

113. Oh, quite so. I was just cautioning against generalizing from your neighbor

to the rest of us.

[AtheistCrusader]

215. You said "threatening to shoot people", which of course, is a crime.

So call it in.

[ProudDad]

68. Hell, here in bat-shit crazy mofo republican Arizona

they just made it legal to carry a gun into a bar...

Soon they're going to do away with carry permits entirely...

1st time Felons can already purchase guns here after they've served their time...

Funny place, Arizona. Too damn many republicans and too many cowardly dems...

[TheWraith]

71. You can carry a gun into a bar in a large majority of states.

You just can't drink.

Anyway, I wouldn't worry about carry permits. Vermont has no permit requirement for carrying concealed either--it doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

[Treo]

85. 1st time Felons can already purchase guns here after they've served their time...

That's a violation af the gun control act of 1968. You may believe that's the case but I doubt very seriously it's true. No convicted felon would pass an NCIS check FAIL

[WriteDown]

100. More evidence that we should require licenses to have kids. nt

[ProudDad]

146. Check it out... I did

This is bat-shit crazy fucking Arizona...

There's a god damn fucking gun show somewhere in town every other fucking week...often in the freakin' downtown convention center...

(In fact, surreal moment of the century; there was a fucking gun show going on right next to the Dalai Lama's get together with 8000 of his closest Tucson friends a few years ago. Fucking surreal...Greatest Evil right next door to the Dalai Lama's Greatest Good..)

And at fucking gun shows, ya' can buy any damn thing ya' want -- no checks...

[Treo]

150. Okaaaaaay

That’s not entirely true, you can buy from a private party at a gunshow W/ out a background check. You can buy from a private individual anywhere in the state W/ out a background check. You can not buy from an FFL anywhere unless you get a background check and that doesn’t change the fact that law prohibits felons from purchasing firearms. I can by weed in Arizona (I could probably buy it at a gun show) that doesn’t mean that I can legally posses it.

In fact, surreal moment of the century; there was a fucking gun show going on right next to the Dalai Lama's get together with 8000 of his closest Tucson friends a few years ago. Fucking surreal...Greatest Evil right next door to the Dalai Lama's Greatest Good..

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

You might want to actually read the gun control act of 1968 and chapter 13 of the Arizona criminal code. Also,(and this is just a suggestion) Post sober, you'll make much more sense

[PavePusher]

163. The frequency of the profanity...

generally is inversly proportional to the lucidity/factuality/relevance of the post.

[Treo]

173. Ya think? NT

[BillDU]

25. Seems unintelligent

"People need to wise the hell up and realize that the risks of having guns and kids in the same house just aren't worth it."

With all the rabid drug addicts and stuff around I'm sure glad my dad had a gun in the house. Never needed to use it but it sure was good to know.

[SteveM]

27. The parents should have secured this weapon...

The best way to prevent accidents with firearms is to train children in the safe use of firearms and to secure them when not in use (the exception to this is when a responsible adult or adolescent is charged with the duty of protecting the household when parents are not present).

By the time I was fourteen, I and my brothers were quite familiar with revolvers, shotguns, and rifles; in fact each of us had our own .22 revolver which we kept in our own rooms. We had no fear when our folks were attending a function or "on a date."

[xchrom]

28. ...

'According to police, the 2-year-old girl, who was not identified, was shot accidentally by her 8-year-old brother, who was playing with the weapon.'

[truthisfreedom]

42. Horrible for everyone involved.

Unimaginable tragedy, and no doubt there will never be an end to it for this family.

[Arugula Latte]

44. Oh well. More carnage...Ho hum....Guns guns guns guns guns for everybody!

We need more guns! Woohoo! More more more! More shootings! More collateral damage! Yay America! We're number one! Gosh, I can only hope there will be another routine mass slaying of a family of five or some more workplace slaughter. Gotta have more blood and gore! Guns guns guns guns guns!

[Treo]

52. You really should lay off the caffeine , especially this late. NT

[Demobrat]

54. Absolutely! If the two year old had had a gun

she'd probably be alive today.

[defendandprotect]

63. ...."guns don't kill people.... " ...."inattentive parents kill kids" . . .!!!

[Hepburn]

95. Oh and here I thought the meme from the gun looneys is...

..."Guns don't kill children -- children kill children."

[ProudDad]

64. That takes care of one more potential "gun owner" the Darwin Effect gotta love it (n/t)

[Treo]

70. So, you're celebrating the death of a 2 YO ? That's some serious progressive concern for your fell

[proteus_lives]

135. Wow, you like being a POS don't you?

Celebrating the death of child.

By your name I assume there are less-then-proud children. If one of them dies, be sure to post about it so we can make smug remarks about the Darwin Effect.

[ProudDad]

145. Too bad ... they moved this stupid thread to the gungeon

There's complete ignorance concerning the meaning of :sarcasm: here...

Bye, bye...I'll leave you to your penile substitute love fest...

[Treo]

151. Wow, 145 Posts before the Penis references showed up

We must be making progress

[proteus_lives]

153. So unoriginal....

Plus you nicely sidestepped and won't defend your vile comment. (coward)

Nothing unusual of course. You're usually less than nothing.

[JNelson6563]

92. Ok, here's what I think should happen here.

First of all, whoever left this gun where these kids could get it needs to lose all rights to owning firearms. Then they should face charges of some sort and, lastly, someone should carve I AM A DUMBASS on their forehead so as to warn any who come in contact with this moran.

Julie--who wonders what the gun nuts here would say if it was their 2 yr. old who was killed

[Hepburn]

97. Amen to your last statement:

If the child had been a child or grandchild of a gun nut, bet me the attitude coming from these loones that we can see on this thread sure as hell would be different.

Sheesh...guns and kids ~~ not a good combination under ANY circumstances. PERIOD.

[Demobrat]

115. If the child had belonged to a gun nut

there is no way in hell easy availability of guns would be at fault. It would be the shooter's fault, or the child's fault for getting in the way of the bullet. But take responsibility for the death and misery they cheerlead for every day? You will never see that from a gun nut. Even if it's their own child who pays with it's life.

[Treo]

128. Actually

I see most of the "gun nuts" here holding the parents squarely accountable for failing to securely store the weapon. It's the grabber who are resorting to stereotypes and emotional arguments

[Demobrat]

164. Of course they hold the parents accountable.

Who else would they hold accountable? Themselves, for fighting every day of their lives to insure that guns are readily available to anybody who wants one? Of course not. The question is not who they hold accountable when somebody else's kid is killed. Of course it's somebody else's fault. What do you expect them to do? Admit to the blood on their hands? Duh.

[Treo]

169. Wow

That is so nonsensical I ,literally, almost don't know how to reply. California has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books. Apparently they even have a law (Children's Firearm Accident Protection Act of 1991) mandating safe storage of firearms. Apparently firearms aren't (legally) readily available in California to anyone who wants one, yet this still happened.

How am I responsible for that?

For the record I oppose all gun control legislation. just so you know who you're arguing with.

[Demobrat]

174. Of course you do.

And of course you bear no responsibility for the results of your efforts. I have never heard of a gun nut who did. You're no different from a Republican who opposes health care for all but takes no responsibility for the resulting deaths. The results of your actions are ALWAYS someone else's responsibility.

[Treo]

175. I'd say YOU'RE responsible for this

I mean come on, it happened despite your best efforts to remove guns entirely from civilian hands. Obviously, you aren't working hard enough and YOU are responsible for this child's death.

Or maybe the fact that this happened in a state where civilian gun ownership is about as regulated as it can get w/ out being an outright ban tells us something about gun laws (which the parent's clearly weren't obeying anyway)

[Demobrat]

176. Well DUH!

OF COURSE you would! Gun nuts ALWAYS find somebody else to blame for gun violence. What's the alternative? Admitting responsibility? Ain't gonna happen. That would take real courage, the kind that can't be faked behind the barrel of a gun.

[Treo]

178. I'm going to ask again

What does the fact that this happened in a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country tell you about those gun laws?

What does the fact that the child protection act of 1991 mandates safe storage laws and this still happened tell you?

Or do you just want to troll the "gungeon" looking like an idiot ?

[Demobrat]

180. Gun laws have nothing to do with it.

Once the guns have been manufactured it's too late. This country is awash in guns, legal and illegal, and anybody who wants one can get it with no problem. You know it and I know it. The only way to stop the gun violence is to stop the manufacturing of guns and get the existing ones off the street. Of course that would mean cutting into the profits of the corporations who so happily profit from the violence, and we can't have that, now, can we?

As for looking like an idiot, the day I give a rat's ass what some cowardly gun nut thinks of me you can go ahead and shoot me.

You. Are. Responsible. For this death and the deaths of all the innocent victims. You fought hard and you won. Now there's nothing left to do but be proud of your accomplishment. May God help you.

[Treo]

182. If nothing else you certainly live up to your name.

But at least you're passionate about something (even if it's the wrongthing) and that's a plus

The only way to stop the gun violence is to stop the manufacturing of guns and get the existing ones off the street.

You know they've already tried this in England right? They totally banned civilian ownership of firearms confiscated every weapon they could find ( from the law abiding the criminals still have guns) and the Brits are now happily killing each other W/ knives. The response of the Crown has been to implement their failed firearms policies on knives but it's proved rather difficult because of the Millions of knives in kitchens all across Britain.

Of course we could bring the DEA in on this after all, their total ban on growing (manufacture)and selling Marijuana has worked out so well hasn't it?

So why don't you come up with a viable option and get back to me?

TYPO

[oneshooter]

186. The strange thing is that I raised 3 sons with guns

and nobody got killed, or even injured, unless you count two cases of "M1 Thumb". All of my collection reside in 650# metal safes, only my Loving Wife and myself know the combinations. They were raised with full knowledge of what a firearm can do, the safe way to handle firearms, the 4 rules, and how to safely load and unload the firearms they are allowed to use. All 3 are competition shooters, and one just passed his EMT test. He is currently undergoing AIT at Fort Hood.
I am NOT responsible for some others lack of common sense, failure to control his/her weapons, and generally idiocy! No more than you are responsible for a drunk driver running a red light at high speed at night, while texting, and with no lights on.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Demobrat]

189. I have never fought for the right of anybody to drive drunk.

Have you fought for the right of every Tom, Dick and Nutjob who wants one to own a gun? You are responsible for the result.

[Treo]

191. Do you have any actual facts that you'd like to present ?

Perhaps an opinion you'd like to explain? Or did you just run down to the "gungeon" to spew invectives?

[Demobrat]

195. What invectives?

Everybody is responsible for the results of their actions, even gun nuts. They just don't like to be reminded of it, because the results are so vile. Why not just admit it? The right of anybody who wants one to own a gun, and the rights of the gun manufacturers to profit from the violence, are more important to you than the lives of the thousands of innocent victims killed by guns every year, including the two year old in the OP. It's obvious, so why pretend otherwise?

[Treo]

197. Can you cite these thousands of innocent victims? NT

[Demobrat]

199. Read the news.

The FACTS are that thousands of innocent people are killed every year as a direct result of the easy availability of guns fought for so valiantly by you and your ilk.

[Treo]

203. Ok when it get's to the point of you essentially just spewing hate we're done NT

[friendly_iconoclast]

208. "Everybody is responsible for the results of their actions"

Except the parent(s) who improperly and illegally stored their gun, it seems.

[friendly_iconoclast]

194. Yeah, but do you think people should be allowed to drink and/or own cars?

If so, by your own standards, you are responsible for drunk drivers.

[Demobrat]

196. Not at the same time.

Your argument is ridiculous.

[Treo]

198. It's not HIS argument it's YOUR argument W/ a twist. NT

[Euromutt]

209. So anybody who is planning to have a drink...

...should sell his car first? And then buy a new one when he's sobered up?

[oneshooter]

204. No I haven't fought for "the right of every Tom, Dick and Nutjob who wants one to own a gun"

I have fought for all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. If a person abuses and or misuses those rights then they should be punished by society. If you do not agree with these rights then change the law. Till then you can rant and rave all you want, that is among your rights.

Still all and all I am not responsible for the loss of this child. The parents are, and society needs to punish them.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Euromutt]

225. Nor has has anyone "fought for the right of every Tom, Dick and Nutjob who wants one to own a gun"

The idea that persons adjudicated "mentally defective" should be barred from owning firearms is universally accepted. The idea that persons who have committed crimes using a firearm can't be trusted to own one again is almost universally accepted. Your case has to be pretty fucking thin if you have to resort to assigning collective blame for an action that never actually happened.

The fact is that you just can't get rid of stupidity and inattention with legislation. The number of children under 10 killed annually with firearms in the U.S. is about a third of the number who are killed by a family member backing a motor vehicle over them, generally in their own driveway. Am I responsible for that because I'm not writing my congressman to make back-up cameras obligatory in every vehicle sold in the United States?

[friendly_iconoclast]

193. He's also responsible for backyard pool drownings and dog bites.

That is, if he publicly states people should be allowed to own pools and/or dogs.

Hey, I'm just using his logic...

[Demobrat]

200. And out comes the same old worthless argument.

People die in cars so guns should be available to anybody who wants one. Ya, right. Next.

[Treo]

205. Or we could use your argument

Since a small percentage of total drivers abuse the privilege and drive drunk, we need to make it more difficult for sober and responsible drivers to get licenses. Better yet we should just take all the cars off the road

[Demobrat]

220. Not sure why I'm bothering but

just once, here are the FACTS: Cars and pools have legitimate uses other than killing. Almost all deaths that result from misuse of cars and pools are accidental. Guns have no legitimate use other than killing. Most deaths that result from the use of a gun are deliberate. Therefore, you are comparing apples to oranges. Not that I would expect you to suddenly put down your willful ignorance and get it. That would mean looking in the mirror with your eyes wide open.

[friendly_iconoclast]

223. You might get somewhere if you stop ranting like a teabagger frothing about healthcare

Until you get Congress and 2/3 of the states to agree with you, you're SOL

Until you stop blaming gun owners who don't handle their guns in an irresponsible and/or criminal manner
for the the ones that do, you will not get much support for such an approach.

Like it or not, gun control or gun prohibition is not an election winning approach, and all the moralizing, sermonizing,
sanctimonious hand wringing, and downright character assasination directed at gun owners won't change that.

Your approach cost Anne Richards the governorship of Texas and launched Shrub on his path to the Presidency.

So, go ahead and keep doing what you're doing. The Republicans love it...

[PavePusher]

224. "Guns have no legitimate use other than killing."

Seriously? Are you being willfully arrogant, or are you just naturally ignorant?

Hunting (for food, NOT 'sport')
Competitive and recreational target shooting
Self defense (And the object is not to kill the criminal, but to make them STOP. If they die in the process,
that's the risk THEY decided to take.)


I'll let you do the next three as an academic exercise.

[friendly_iconoclast]

207. You've yet to admit your moral responsibilty for child porn & neo-Nazi websites

Flagrantly using an uncensored Internet conncection. Shocking, I say, absolutely shocking.

I'll bet you've even supported the ACLU in their fights against censorship on occasion.

[Euromutt]

158. Sayeth the dog owner

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, the number of children (ages 0-14) admitted to emergency rooms for treatment for dog bites is about three times that of the number admitted for GSWs. Dogs and kids is a significantly worse combination than guns and kids, not in the least because guns are inanimate objects and you can teach your kids how to handle them safely. That, and gun owners know guns are capable of inflicting injury, whereas dog owners tell themselves "oh, my dog doesn't bite!" Until he does, and leaves some toddler with facial scars for life.

The fact is that "toddler killed with gun" is newsworthy because it's a rare occurrence. "Toddler maimed for life by dog" is neither.

Get back to me when you've had that mutt gassed for the sake of public safety, lady.

[robo50]

102. I sort of share your anger and sentiment. But I also imagine that

any poor parent facing this lifelong burden from this point forward would be facing punishment enough.

Then there is how to deal with the 8 year old, old enough to know what a horrible accident he was involved in.

There is plenty of suffering and misery from this event without much need for punishment through the legal system, in my opinion.


However, it ALSO would be good for this household to give up gun ownership.

[JNelson6563]

104. I disagree

Apparently a child's safety isn't a big enough reason for some to keep the guns safely locked away. For these people it may take the knowledge that prison awaits if a child gets a hold of their unsecured gun. There have been enough stories like this one to show that the risk of death to an innocent child doesn't serve as a strong enough motivator. There needs to be a risk to *them*.

Julie

[robo50]

105. Well, I see your point, and appreciate you disagreeing with me. But I wonder

I honestly don't know how good a deterrence putting a parent in jail will be for other foolish parents.

There is also a minor child, (8 yrs) who would suffer immeasurably by putting one or both parents in a jail.

[JNelson6563]

127. Ugly business all around.

Thanks for the civility in spite our disagreement. :hi: :toast:

Julie

[PavePusher]

134. No gun owner here is celebrating the death of a child.

Insinuating so is rude, mendacious and inflamatory.

In fact, most of the gun owners here agree with your first two sentances.

[Taverner]

120. That's right near here - fuck!

And people ask me why I don't just get a gun....

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"

[Flagg]

125. If only the toddler had had a gun...

It would at least have evened out the odds a bit.

[grantcart]

126. 14

[proteus_lives]

136. If you have guns and children in the same house...

You need safety lesson and to put the gun in an inaccessible place until they are old enough to understand.

[aikoaiko]

139. If you know someone with handgun and kids, get them a quick access lockbox as a present.

I know a lot of gun folks who keep a revolver in the nightstand drawer when they are single or have no kids, but sometimes don't get lock boxes when kids come. When you have kids there are lots of bills and some how the lock box gets placed low on the priority list.

Give one as a present to a family member or friend. You'll be glad you did.

This is mine with my revolver in it that I keep on my piano in the living room. It cost $125. I bought one for my friend when he had his first kid and keeps his Glock 17 in it by the bed.


This one is the basic Gun Vault model that is popular. It runs between $100-120.


There are some biometric ones out there too, but are a little pricier.

[Euromutt]

148. I'll second that

I'm a fan of the Titan Gun Vault myself: http://www.titangunvault.com/gun-safe/
Mind you, when I bought mine the thing was $100 cheaper than it is now.

[proteus_lives]

152. +2

Good idea and very thoughtful!