Girl, 3, shoots herself

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Daily Mail

Girl, 3, shoots herself
March 10 2010 at 09:25AM
By Mail Foreign Service

A US toddler accidently killed herself after mistaking her stepfather's handgun for a Nintendo Wii control.

Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan, 3, shot herself in the stomach with the .380 caliber, semi-automatic weapon after finding it lying on a table in the living room.

Her mother was sitting at the computer just a few metres away while her three-month-old brother was also lying nearby.

Investigators said that the child had probably mistaken the weapon for a Wii control.

Read more: http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=iol1268201814680G642

[Trajan]

1. Loaded weapon

Child ....

Together at one location ....

Even for a single moment ....

Death .....

Willful ignorance ....

Stupid death ...

[TheWraith]

111. Personally I think this story smells suspicious as hell.

They just HAPPEN to own a very rare game controller that looks like a real handgun?

And the stepfather just HAPPENS to take out his real, loaded, unsafetied handgun while the girl is playing?

And he just HAPPENS to leave it unattended in a place where she would confuse it with the game controller?

And she just HAPPENS to shoot herself with it, instead of say the TV?

And it just HAPPENS to be a fatal wound instead of, say, hitting her foot?

Reckless negligence and stupidity is one thing. But to me this smacks of a cover story for something else.

[JI7]

2. i'm leaning towards supporting going after parents for something like this

just leaving it on a table, especially with a 3 year old in the home ?

[Chemisse]

3. I have a problem with arresting parents who are careless

And wind up causing their child's death.

I think the loss of a child is the worst thing that can ever happen to anybody, and it is an ample punishment in and of itself, particularly since the parent must suffer from the guilt as well.

[Scout]

8. i don't have a problem with it. n/t

[PassingFair]

21. No problem here either...

I wonder if they would feel the same
if it was THEIR kid who found the gun
lying around on someone else's coffee
table.

[Shell Beau]

37. Exactly. I bet there would be a lawsuit.

This is unacceptable. I am sure the parents are in unbelievable agony, but a message needs to be sent that this in not ok. It is such a senseless avoidable tragedy.

[Chemisse]

85. Who are you talking about? Me?

That would be different because the offender would not be the same person who lost the child.

[CBGLuthier]

10. nonsense

Stupid negligence must always be punished.

This was stupid.

[Luciferous]

25. I don't have a problem with it. Leaving a loaded gun lying around

with a 3 year old and a 3 month old in the house, and the mom was sitting right there when the girl shot herself. I don't have any sympathy for the mother.

[Love Bug]

31. I don't and I am a parent

Some things are so preventable as to settle in my mind any question about responsiblity. Leaving a loaded weapon within reach of any child is one of them. Not only should they go to jail, the other child should be taken from them for it's own safety.

Sometimes children are accidently killed by their parents and I have all the sympathy in the world for them. But this situation? If anyone here has a reasonable explanation other than a complete psychotic breakdown for such negligence, I'd like to hear it.

[Chemisse]

86. Yeah I guess you are right

I am thinking of the accidental deaths of children due to carelessness or forgetfulness of the parent. They break my heart; they could happen to any of us.

But this one was not just careless, it was reckless and negligent. And it would never happen to any decent parent.

[Tempest]

34. This goes far beyond careless

This is in the arena of criminally negligent and creating an unsafe environment for the children.

[snooper2]

67. bingo

nt

[Trajan]

52. Some states have laws against this 'careless'ness ...

For this very reason ....

Gun ownership entails at least MINIMUM responsibility for it's safe usage and storage ...

It is against the law to do this in California .... and I am sure other states as well ...

This is dangerous ignorance ....

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[Maru Kitteh]

65. You make the erroneous assumption that all parents give a shit

They do not.

All blatant incidents of neglect should be prosecuted, whether it's leaving loaded guns in the coffee table or death by cooking in the car.

[AlinPA]

75. Lock them up and let them think about it without any outside distractions. nt

[jmowreader]

84. I have a problem with not arresting those who carelessly cause their child's death

"If I make it look like an accident I will get away with it."

[Chemisse]

87. The kind of thing I am thinking about

Is what happened in Maine the other day. A little 4 year old boy died when he was swept away in a river while on a hike with his parents and baby brother.

I am sure they are very good parents, but just one moment of looking away, or letting go of the child's hand at the wrong time, and the child is gone - forever. I think all parents have had careless moments, but most of us were lucky enough not to have anything bad happen during them.

The pain and the guilt would be far worse than any jail time for a family like that.

Clearly, leaving a gun laying out is way past carelessness.

[jmowreader]

96. That's a true accident, and certainly that shouldn't be chargeable

What I'm thinking of is a case like the one in the OP, or someone who leaves the baby in the back seat to broil, or someone who doesn't fasten the pool gate. Not everyone loves their children. Someone who was just sick and tired of them might be tempted to leave a loaded pistol within easy reach, or strap the baby in the car seat, go to the mall in August, and go in for five or six hours without the baby. If you go to the childfree lists, you'll find that many of those people think ALL roasted-baby deaths are actually murders. I don't know if they all are, but I don't think NONE of them are either.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

118. Charge them too. If the river was running that strong they should have kept control of a toddler.

[Midlodemocrat]

93. I don't.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. I think they should be prosecuted for leaving poison in arms reach, swimming pools...

without child alarms, kids not wearing helmets, not putting kids in a car seat, leaving a kid locked in a car alone, leaving small children unsupervised at home and leaving a loaded gun within a toddlers reach. Prosecute them for all of it.

[pipoman]

13. It already happens

in almost every state there are laws specific to guns, and in states without specific to guns there are child endangerment laws in place. These parents will almost certainly be charged as they should be IMHO, just as they should be if they forget their child in a hot car or leave their child unattended or with access to a swimming pool resulting in drowning (which drowning accident btw kills around 10 times more children than accidental use of guns do).

[Roland99]

23. Negligent Homicide

[pundaint]

4. He thought he heard a prowler, then left the gun on the table? That doesn't

have the ring of truth. We wont sell a bottle of aspirin that a child can open, how is it we sell guns that children can fire?

[Pavulon]

15. Knives, antifreeze, the hot water tap, and swimming pools, depend on parents

not to kill their kids. These people basically executed their kid. Same as if they left them by the pool, did some lines and left for 30 minutes to go screw.

Their actions are directly responsible for the outcome, they should be charged with a felony.

[Mimosa]

104. ^ amen!^

I'm for gun rights and I say charge them. And never ever permit them to own weapons.

[onehandle]

19. And he changed his story.

At first he said that he had the dog out to 'chase some dogs away.' Now he says he thought he heard a prowler.

He's full of something.

[Euromutt]

128. Because bottles of aspirin don't need to be opened at a moment's notice

A firearm intended for defensive purposes, by contrast, does. There isn't a law enforcement agency in this country that is prepared to touch a gun that comes with an internal lock, and they're not interested in "smart gun" technology either.

Similarly, there's not a huge market for "child-proof" epinephrine auto-injectors either.

[weareallzombies]

5. I don't agree with punishing the parents I guess but

Seriously, who leaves a loaded handgun on a table around small children? These people should be banned from owning firearms as this accident proves they are too stupid and irresponsible to own one.

[Pavulon]

14. NO they should be charged with a felony, then unable to own firearms

this type of stuff is avoidable with the smallest amount of effort. These people are felons in my state and should be charged if the law allows where they live.

[Love Bug]

32. "unable to own firearms" is unenforceable in this country

I don't want to get into a discussion about gun control but the fact is in this country, anyone who really wants a gun can get one. The only way to make sure those parents never have access to a firearm again is to keep them in jail.

[Alcibiades]

112. 18 U.S.C. 922(g)

It is enforced. There are thousands of people serving time in federal prison for this.

[Euromutt]

129. No more so than anywhere else

There isn't a country where the gun laws, and enforcement thereof, are stringent enough to prevent anyone who is sufficiently determined to lay their hands on a firearm illegally from doing so. Even in a police state like China, there's a flow of firearms and ammunition into the criminal circuit, generally directly from the factory, via a combination of corruption and incompetent inventory-keeping.

[bigwillq]

80. Who else is to blame

but the parents? :shrug: Long jail sentence for them both.

[Sebastian Doyle]

92. They should also be sterilized

Because they're obviously too fucking stupid to be trusted with a child ever again.

[Fumesucker]

6. I"m sure the family felt much safer with that gun in the home..

I have a situation like that with some people I know, there is a gun that I think their kids could get to, I've tried to talk to them but it's basically hopeless. "The kids know not to touch the gun."

If you have kids either put the fucking guns in a secure gun safe and leave them there or get them out of the house..

I knew two kids when I was growing up that got shot, one by a friend when they were playing around with pistol and the other one managed to shoot himself in the belly with a rifle.

[stanwyck]

78. "The kids know not...." Right. And not a one of us EVER

did anything our parents told us not to do. Like...smoke pot. Have sex before marriage. Drink too much. Drink underage. Stay out after curfew. Hitchhike. Eat too much. Eat too little.
There's a lot we "know not" to do. And we do it.
Guns are an absolutely irresistable temptation to children.
Why take that risk?

[Chemisse]

89. I remember seeing a videotape of kids left alone with a gun

It was a study about whether children will obey their parents directive to never touch a gun, even when nobody is around. (Of course it was not a loaded gun; I don't even know if it was a real gun).

Every single kid eventually picked up the gun. The curiosity was far too powerful.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

115. When growing up, my parents had unlocked guns in the house. They probably didn't know I knew.

Deep in the back of the closet. An old 12ga pump shotgun (JC Higgens), SKS (still in the cosmoline packing), and a model 94 .30-30
Stumbled across them one day looking for firecrackers and other mischeivous items. Videogames didn't exist back then. :)
No ammo anywhere to be seen. No gun locks. I was probably 9-10 yrs old.

I recall hearing my dad say he had an "assault rifle" if we ever needed one but he never shared it with me.
My paretns never hunted or went shooting. Never really spoke about guns either so I knew VERY little about them.
I wasn't 100% ignorant. I had a bb/pellet gun I was allowed to use at grandma's in the countryside - so I knew the most basic rules.
I admit, when home alone, I would get the guns out and marvel at them. My favorite was the "buffalo gun" (winchester 94). :eyes:
They were all so BIG and heavy with this stale metal & oil smell about them. Like a small hidden treasure - nothing like the movies.
I would check thier chambers and work the actions to ensure no rounds were present. They were never loaded.
For hours I could handle and more or less play hunter or army man... storming the second floor bathroom looking for "charlie".

Mom caught me once and dad tanned my hide - then he taught me all about them.
How to safely handle them, how to work them, how to clean them, why owning a firearm is important... said someday they'd be mine.
Now they're sitting in my safe. That SKS and model 94 are still unfired. :D

[Chemisse]

116. That must have been so fun

How many kids get the real thing to play with? Lucky they were never loaded!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. I got a gun for Christmas when I was 11. It was a lot of fun.

Still have it many, many years and probably over 10,000 rounds later.

[oneshooter]

141. I got my first rifle, a Remington Nylon bolt action,

almost 50yrs ago. Like you I still have it, used it to start my boys into shooting. My youngest(11)is currently the "owner" of the rifle. It will be passed down to my grandchildren, and then, hopefully, to their children.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

137. Unfortunately, few kids get to "play" with guns...

I don't like the term "play" since much of practice shooting is done at home: without ammo of course, and involving make-believe targets "flying" by, practice in trigger control, and holding the arm steadily. But you bring up an important point. Not many kids get to "play" with guns, hence the attraction of something which has (despite the "gains" in Second Amendment rights) been anointed with the "don't touch," or "bad," finger-wag. From this we get the beginnings of irresistible attraction. Part of the problem is the increased urbanization/suburbanization of society which results in all things rural being suspicious, foreboding, foreign.

Many rural kids still know what it is to hunt a pheasant cock; urban kids know how to walk the cock. Big difference.

[SteveM]

133. I saw that. It was in a school setting, and the kids had only a "short course..."

Having one course on guns -- "don't touch, call an adult" -- doesn't cut it.

I'm not sure that all a kid should know about guns can be accomplished in a school setting. This is a family responsibility, though it can be augmented by schools. I have my doubts if the Eddie Eagle program in schools is any more effective than the DARE programs.

[SteveM]

132. "Guns are an absolutely irresisitable temptation?" I don't agree...

From a very early age (seven?), I was taught never to point a gun at anyone, and to drive the point home, my Dad let me fire a revolver at an oil drum. Over the years we learned to load, fire, clean and store shotguns, rifles and handguns, and by age 13 I had my first revolver and shotgun. There was NO irresistable temptation for me, as a child or as an adult. This came about by some very solid, prosaic reasons: as children, we were taught about firearms, their uses and their dangers.

Prohibition is what usually engenders a prurient interest in the thing/behavior banned. While I do not advocate allowing kids to smoke pot, have sex, drink, etc. before emancipation, that does not mean that the child should remain ignorant of these subjects altogether. At least with firearms, once you know how to handle them (and once the interest in them dies back to reasonable levels), they do not become habit-forming.

Our family had at one time over 40 firearms. Everyone knew the location of the keys to the gun cabinet; we were ALL from an early age charged with protection of the family.

[Callisto32]

134. "Guns are an absolutely irresistable temptation to children."

No. They are not.

I was raised with guns in the house. I stayed away from them until old enough to handle them responsibly because my parents cared enough to teach me the dangers associated with them.

"Don't mess with the guns" is no harder than "don't mess with the stove."

If someone is incapable of teaching their children this, they should not have guns.

To suggest that anything is an absolutely irresistible temptation is absurd on its face.

[ejbr]

7. The man is an idiot no matter how you spin it...

either 1) he, tragically, leaves the gun on the table and goes back to bed for the 3 yr. old to get hold of or 2) leaves the gun on the table and goes back to bed for the prowler/intruder to get a hold of once he/she gets inside. Stupid,stupid,stupid...although, one could argue that he was exceptionally tired, causing a serious lapse in judgment.

[Blandocyte]

9. Saw the story on local news; the police chief

was showing the similarity of the Wii gun to the gun the girl had used.

A total ban on handguns would result in fewer of these things laying around houses, and give fewer stupid parents the opportunity to leave one sitting on a table.

And, yes, bad people would still be able to scrounge a gun up, but it would be more difficult with fewer in circulation. And, yes, cars kill, too, but unless I can get in my AR to drive to work, I'd rather ban guns than cars.

Your ballistic performance may vary.

[Pavulon]

12. They cant even get a weed ban to work,coke, and hookers, all banned

but they can all be had, at one time with a phone call. this is a criminal act by the parent. in NC not securing a weapon is already a crime. The parents should be charged. Just like it is not my problem , or budweisers for that matter, when some drunk kills a family of four this has no bearing on my personal rights and choices.

Never mind the reality that any political party even proposing such a ban would be out of office before the finished the press conference.

[pipoman]

17. I liken this to

weapons and drugs in prison. They are expressly banned, the prisoners have absolutely no freedom or privacy what so ever, yet drugs and weapons are readily available in most prisons....how in the world does anyone propose to effectively enforce a ban on anything for which there is a demand in a free society?

[LanternWaste]

64. Or murder. Or theft. Or even domestic violence.

"They cant even get a weed ban to work,coke, and hookers, all banned..."

Or murder banned. Or theft banned. Or even domestic violence banned.

[Pavulon]

125. act vs thing.. weed vs theft

making murder punishable makes sense. banning booze, not so much.

[Euromutt]

130. Here's two concepts for you: malum in se, and malum prohibitum

Malum in se means "an ill in and of itself," and indicates actions we (as a society) consider crimes because they directly cause physical or material harm to others (e.g. murder, rape, assault, theft).

Malum prohibitum means "an ill because it is prohibited," and indicates actions that do not directly result in harm to others. At best, these are actions that are forbidden because they are considered likely to cause situations that are likely to result in physical or material harm to others. Most violations of the traffic code are mala prohibita; speeding or driving under the influence, for example, are not directly harmful, but they are prohibited because engaging in such activities are deemed to create an unacceptably high risk of physical and/or material harm.

With mala prohibita, the question must continually be asked whether the harm that is supposedly averted outweighs the infringement of personal freedoms that outlawing the activity in question imposes. Hence the common situation that it's illegal to get behind the wheel while plastered, but not to get plastered per se.

[pipoman]

16. You realize that

private swimming pools kill multiples more children accidentally than guns do? Wanna ban swimming pools too?

[Bill McBlueState]

22. no, swimming pools have purposes other than killing people

Your analogy is pretty obviously flawed.

[bossy22]

24. but many kids die in private swimming pools

plus they aren't a necessity in life. I have lived my entire life without my own swimming pool. Plus there are public pools with lifeguards.

i'm not advocating a ban on pools, im just pointing out the silliness of "banning guns in the home for safety reasons" and not advocating banning private pools.

[pipoman]

79. No, certainly you understand

that your suggestion that guns don't have purposes other than killing people is what is flawed?

http://www.usashooting.com/

There are millions of people who compete in events every single weekend, often at a venue near you, just as there are millions of people who ride dirt bikes, and race cars, and skydive.

over 300,000,000 guns in the US, around 15,000 non suicide deaths with guns in the US. per/year, even giving that many individual crime guns are responsible for multiple deaths, that ratio 20,000:1 that any particular gun will be used in a crime in a given year. Cars, boats, motorcycles, swimming pools, snow skis, football players, are no safer than guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. That's funny I've owned over 30 firearms and not a one has killed a single individual.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. You're right ownership of swimming pools isn't protected by the Constitution.

[Euromutt]

131. Why do possible purposes make a difference to the body count?

For starters, the notion that firearms' only use is to kill people is bullshit. Oft-repeated bullshit, certainly, but bullshit nonetheless. Even with firearms that are primarily designed to inflict trauma on humans, these can be successfully employed to repel an assailant without killing him, by the threat of lethal force alone. According to the best available information, over 90% of defensive gun uses prevent the completion of a violent crime without a shot being fired, much less anyone being wounded or killed.

I mean, good heavens, police officers don't carry firearms solely to kill people, do they?

Moreover, what does it matter what the intended purpose of an item is? The people who die as a result of misuse of the item are no less dead merely because the item wasn't meant to kill them. Arguably, the fact that an item wasn't intended to be lethal, but proves to be so anyway, makes it a greater public safety hazard than an item of which it's universally acknowledged that it's capable of inflicting lethal injury.

[Callisto32]

135. Like sports?

The same way guns are used in sports?

[SteveM]

138. What is wrong with having things designed to killl people?

[Blandocyte]

26. Getting shot usually damages the victim

swimming pools usually don't damage the swimmer. If it's a choice between banning guns and banning pools, I'd say that unless I can enjoy a nice relaxing swim in my Smith & Wesson, I'll choose banning guns.

Your ballistic performance may vary.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

74. Are you even trying? that argument is pitiful.

I enjoy a nice relaxing swim in pools without dying.
I enjoy nice relaxing shooting without dying as well.
I can even enjoy competition involving either as well.
Dangerous behavior in/around swimming pools can lead to death.
Dangerous behaviour with/around firearms can lead to death.

As you can see, it all boils down to the owner/user and responsibility.

About the only real difference between the two is I can put a gun in my pocket or car.
I can enjoy the benefits of lawful firearm ownership just about anywhere. :) :hi:

[pipoman]

81. You want to try that again?

gunshot victim is to drowning victim, what Olympic shooter is to Olympic swimmer....surely you see this? What you said was, "Getting shot usually damages the victim swimming pools usually don't damage the swimmer." victim ≠ swimmer, get it?

[piratefish08]

41. guns have one purpose. one.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

71. To shoot bullets.

What the operator does with that purpose is up to them.
Only weak minded people attribute the unlawful actions of people to inanimate objects.

Criminally negligent behavior is to blame here. No way should a child be left with a loaded gun in the same room.

[slackmaster]

113. They serve as financial investments for me

:hi:

[pipoman]

83. Tell it to these guys

http://www.usashooting.com/

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

120. To punch holes in paper target and cans right?

[Callisto32]

136. One purpose, many applications.

Just like a knife.

[SteveM]

139. Do you have a point? Are you making a judgment? What do yo mean?

[Chemisse]

90. It doesn't matter if it is a swimming pool or a loaded gun

The parents have the weighty responsibility to protect their children from them.

There is certainly no need to outlaw guns, but they could be made a bit safer. Just as pools are required to be fenced in so toddlers can't wander into one, guns can be better childproofed.

[pipoman]

94. Well, not really

we agree that this is a case of negligence on the part of the parent(s). But there are no federal laws requiring fences around pools, only local ordinances and maybe some state laws. Gates left open, or patio doors open, what then? No, it is a parents responsibility to keep all dangerous items out of their child's reach. There are safes of every type and price for just that purpose...that is the answer to childproofing. And again, drowning happens 10 times more often to children than accidental shooting...10 times...there are gun(s) in 1 in 3 homes in the US and around 100 minors killed annually in accidental shootings.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[Chemisse]

95. I assumed all states had laws requiring pools to be fenced in

Does anybody here live in a state that does NOT have that law?

[pipoman]

98. And does the law actually do anything?

there are 900 to 1000 kids drowning every single year. Apparently laws are not keeping kids from drowning, huh? Actually, maybe fences aren't either??

[Chemisse]

106. That pool picture makes me want to go swimming!

But yeah, every summer little children die in pools. It is horribly sad. I'm pretty sure drowning is the number one cause of accidental death in children (although car accidents may top it).

[CTyankee]

99. Hmm, could I hold up my local 7-11 brandishing a picture of my swimming pool?

Now THAT would be interesting....

"Yer money or your life! What'll it be, drowning in this swimming pool or your life"

[pipoman]

101. No, I don't think that will work out for ya,

but this one has in fact worked on more than a few occasions..

[CTyankee]

102. Will do. I'll disguise my swimming pool in the pocket of my jacket!

Then I'll point at my victim!

Brilliant!

Thanks for the hint...you're a doll...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. So criminal action should dictate rights to the law abiding?

[Euromutt]

126. "Backovers" kill more under-15s than unintentional GSWs

A "backover" is when someone inadvertently backs a vehicle over someone standing, sitting or walking behind it. The NTHSA estimated that in 2007, there were 221 fatal backovers, in 99 of which the victim was under 15. By comparison, the number of under-15s killed by unintentional GSWs is around 60/year, of whom the majority are in the 10-14 age group.

[Vinca]

11. I hope the parents face some kind of criminal charges.

Leaving a loaded weapon around in reach of a toddler is about as negligent as it gets.

[Odin2005]

18. Idiot parents.

Poor kid. :(

[onehandle]

20. Another man scared of his own shadow gunning up.

More guns in homes = More dead kids.

[Blandocyte]

27. Don't you realize

that the gun magazines are full of scary pictures of robbers and home invaders to motivate us to buy guns? We need guns to protect us from the models hired to portray those bad guys!

:sarcasm:

[onehandle]

29. Those are models!?

Oh, man. I've been cutting out their photos and posting them around the neighborhood.

I thought these were the exact guys smashing their way into our homes at any second.

My apologies to Senator Pink Leather Shorts and his crew.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Euromutt]

127. How often has it been pointed out to you that that assertion is not supported by data?

According to the CDC's WISQARS, in the period 1981-1990, the number of persons aged 0-14 killed annually by unintentional GSWs averaged ~265 (crude rate 0.51/100,000); the number of persons aged 0-14 killed by GSWs overall averaged ~700 annually (crude rate 1.34).

In the period 1999-2006, the number of persons aged 0-14 killed annually by unintentional GSWs averaged ~69 (crude rate 0.11); the number killed by GSWs overall averaged ~413 annually (crude rate 0.68).

In broad terms, from the 1980s to the 2000s, adjusting for growth in population, the number of children (defining children as individuals aged 0-14) dying from GSWs dropped by almost 50%, while the subset dying from unintentional GSWs dropped by almost 80%; even as, during the same period, the estimated number of firearms in private ownership increased by ~60% (from ~150 million in 1981 to ~250 million in 2006) and the estimated gun ownership rate (i.e. the number of privately owned firearms relative to the population) increased by about 15% (from ~7,000 guns/10,000 inhabitants in 1981, to ~8,000/10,000 inhabitants in 2006).

The claim "More guns in homes = More dead kids" is demonstrably untrue and I cannot understand how you can keep repeating it as if it were fact when it has been pointed out innumerable times in this forum that it is not.

[SteveM]

140. Looks like he may be covering up a crime...

But "more guns in homes = More dead kids" is wrong. This needs to be corrected.

The National Safety Council has data which shows that the number of accidental deaths of kids via firearms has been DECLINING since the mid-1990s, even while the number of firearms in American civilian hands has gone UP by over 100,000,000. This makes it clear that your gun-control meme is wrong in the most fundamental sense.

Why do you keep repeating this baloney? You know it isn't true.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[xsquid]

35. Should drunk drivers that kill someone lose their right io own cars?

If the answer to that is yes then it would be to both.

[unblock]

42. when it comes to mental illness, people who are a clear danger to themselves or others get locked up

even if they have yet to cause any actual harm.

why on earth should people who have actually killed other people through something like drunk driving or firearm negligence be free at all, let alone free to repeat their criminal negligence.

[xsquid]

108. I'm not saying they should be free, just that we should be consistant

in these things. Someone that kills in an car accident (drunk or not) is just as liable as someone that accidently kills in a gun accident, period. A certain segment is big on posting gun accidents, but where are the auto accidents? Why not post them also? They kill more people.

[unblock]

109. agreed, lots of inconsistencies in our society

car accidents are simply too commonplace, people just aren't overly excited about them unless there's a twist.
these days the car accident has to be caused by sexting or shaving your bikini area to make the news.

[whopis01]

46. They should lose the right to drive them and in some places already do.

I don't know about other locations, but in Florida a DUI manslaughter conviction carries a mandatory permanent revocation of your driver's license. The use of the term 'permanent' is a little questionable, because you can be eligible for a hardship reinstatement after 5 years - but there is no guarantee of that.

Interestingly enough, in Florida, they would lose the right to own a firearm as well for a DUI manslaughter conviction.

[xsquid]

103. Revocation of your drivers license is not

the same as never being able to own a car again. In fact there is nothing to keep you from legally buying a car, you just can't drive it. Supposedly that is, many Not the same thing unless someone is proposing allowing people to buy guns but not shoot them.

Drunk driving was a bad examole anyway on my part. Permanently revoking someones right to own a gun for an accident would be like permanently revoking someone's right to own a car if they got in an accident and killed someone NOT drinking. Particularly if there was negligence involved in both scenarios. Drunk driving death would equate to drunk handgun death.

[whopis01]

105. I understand that it isn't the same thing

In fact, I explicitly said that they should lose their right to drive them (not their right to own them).

The point of revocation is to prevent someone from (legally) operating a vehicle. Whatever mechanism you wish to use to prevent someone from (legally) operating a firearm for similar behavior is fine - doesn't necessarily have to prevent ownership, just operation.

The vehicle example isn't a bad one - vehicular homicide can lead to license revocation even when there is no DUI charge involved. Reckless behavior with a firearm should lead to similar penalties.

[xsquid]

107. I'm not disagreeing with you, just making a point we need to be consistant.

[Last_Stand]

59. Yes.

I would go so far as to say that he is too stupid to breed also.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

72. Under the due process of law, he will likely lose his right to own guns.

With Due Process... as it should be.

[Love Bug]

30. Jesus. H. Christ.

What the FUCK is wrong with those parents?

[NoodleyAppendage]

33. Real News Title: "Dumbass Parents Kill Daughter Due to Their Negligence." n/t

J

[Shell Beau]

36. Holy shit. This is unacceptable.

That poor poor baby girl. Why would they leave a loaded gun hanging around?

[Jennicut]

38. Oh come on. Any idiot has to know that a loaded gun and a toddler are a horrible situation.

I have two young girls (4 and 5). I would never EVER do that. It is common sense, parenting 101. But some people seem to lack it apparently...

[piratefish08]

39. a loaded gun without a trigger lock in ANY house with ANY age children is negligent.

period.

I'm not totally anti-gun, but FUCK!

Some people are just SO fucking stupid....................

this story makes me sick to my stomach..............

[slackmaster]

44. Trigger locks are inadequate

A safe offers real protection. There should be a federal tax break for anyone who buys one.

[CTyankee]

47. What is the logic of keeping a gun in a safe, if the whole purpose is to stop an intruder?

"Excuse me, Mr. Robber, while I go down to the basement to get my gun in the safe...now, what was that code again?...just a minute while I look it up...I know I wrote it down somewhere...."

[slackmaster]

48. Why do you assume that I keep firearms for the sole purpose of stopping an intruder?

See my profile.

There are plenty of reasons for keeping firearms in one's home. I choose to keep mine securely locked up even though I am the only human in the house. I do that for two reasons:

1. To preserve their value against theft or corrosion, and

2. To prevent them from falling into the hands of an evil person who would misuse them, in the event my house is burglarized.

Please don't make blanket assumptions about people.

[CTyankee]

68. Calm down. I was talking about keeping a gun in the house for protection against intruders.

Not people who are sportspersons or hunters. In the latter case it makes perfect sense to lock them away. But I can't understand the logic if applied to people who keep guns to protect their property or lives against intruders and there are plenty of people who DO fall into that category. In fact, some people argue that you are safer in your home with a gun. Right here in CT we had a horrendous home invasion a couple of years ago and it was a major topic of discussion. The homeowners didn't have a gun. People argued that if they had, the wife and two daughters would not have been raped and killed. This is not an argument I would make but you must agree that there are those who DO make that argument...

[slackmaster]

69. Please see reply #63

If you keep a loaded weapon for protection, you have to keep it under your control. You can't leave it lying around, especially if there are children present.

Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools.

[CTyankee]

73. Also, people who drink to excess and go for the gun during a moment of anger

need to recognize that they are putting their family members at risk, when they have the gun in a drawer and easily retrieved. I don't know how to solve that problem (until, sadly, after the incident). I am sure that learning about gun safety is a good thing, but there are people who can be rational when attending gun safety classes but don't think of the effect of alcohol and having an unsecured gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

122. Kind of like those that drink and find unsecured car keys, eh?

[slackmaster]

70. See reply #63

Leaving a loaded weapon unsecured is not an option unless you live alone, and I don't do that even though I do live alone.

Gun safety should be taught in public schools.

[SteveM]

143. There shouldn't be a great mystery, here...

Any firearm you do not anticipate using for self defense should be locked up and ammunition locked up separately. The exception? A self-defense weapon. This rests near me when I am at home in bed; otherwise, I lock the handgun up and store the box when I leave. Upon return, the gun is unlocked and ready for use. Other folks who keep firearms for self-defense have other procedures. In other words, arms used for self-defense in the home may be loaded for that purpose. The key is proper storing depending on who (if anyone) is in the house.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

63. A firearm that is kept for personal defense must be under the owner's control at all times

If you aren't carrying it on your body, it should at least be secured in a quick-opening storage container.

Many types are available.

http://www.deansafe.com/guhasa.html

[slutticus]

88. biometric safes. That's pretty slick. Not too expensive either.

[TheWraith]

114. You can buy quick-release safes that fit in a nightstand.

30 seconds and you have your weapon, but it's still secured against people who shouldn't touch it. Like kids.

That said, two other things. One, the number of fatalities from accidental gunshot wounds in this country is small, and for those under 15 it's minuscule. Two... I don't think that this case was an accident as claimed.

[proteus_lives]

49. No it isn't.

I grew-up in a house with loaded guns. My parents were responsible. I didn't know where they were when I was too young to understand and when I was old enough I didn't mess with them because my folks taught me firearms safety and ethics.

This story is about bad parents, not guns.

[SteveM]

142. Trigger locks aren't very effective, esp. if they are not used...

The ones which I have been provided (upon purchase of the firearm I get one whether I like it or not) don't work or really don't fit. I would also point out that locking mechanisms internal to the firearm are also unreliable: I had one in my .22 target revolver, and it ended up affecting the mainspring's tension such that the gun would fire only 2/3 the time, the rest being miss-fires or the dreaded hang-fire. Some of these devices make a weapon more dangerous.

The decline in childhood deaths via gun accidents (demonstrably proved by National Safety Council data) shows that increasingly, most parents follow gun safety procedures, even as the number of firearms in civilian hands has gone up significantly. I use safes and lock boxes, with ammunition locked in a separate box. This allows one handgun available for immediate bed-side use. No children live in my house.

Personally, I think the "Wii" connection is a cover for a crime in this instance.

[xchrom]

40. Recommend

[onehandle]

43. Another American gun tragedy. nt

[proteus_lives]

50. Another American parenting tragedy.

I know you hate facts but try and focus.

[guitar man]

45. Fucking Idiot!!

I have a 4 year old daughter. I own guns. The guns are locked up where the child CANNOT GET HOLD OF THEM!! EVER!!

The fuck is wrong with some people? :grr:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[guitar man]

60. I used to hunt

Haven't hunted in years. I still like to target shoot and 3 of them are antiques, passed down to me by family. I have one that I can unlock and get to pretty quick in case of an intruder. There's an alarm and an 80lb APBT/Pointer mix for the intruder to deal with upon entry, so I have time to get my weapon while the dog is chewing on their ass :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[guitar man]

66. Yeah, I lost my taste for wild game

I used to love Quail and Duck when I was growing up on the farm and would hunt them to eat, but don't care much for them anymore. I still like a little venison now and then but don't eat enough of it to justify killing a deer. I always hunted for things to eat, I never trophy hunted.

[buckrogers1965]

51. Nothing to do with a game.

Everything to do with criminally irresponsible parents that caused the death of their child.

Are they going to sue the game company now, cause somehow it is the game companies fault that these assholes left a gun out?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[thelordofhell]

58. I am outraged!!

They let a 3-year old play with a Wii?

[asdjrocky]

62. Do you really think it's appropriate to make a joke right now?

[Chemisse]

91. Glad you could get a few chuckles

Out of the tragic death of a tiny little innocent girl, who had the misfortune to be born of stupid people.

For some reason, I don't see the humor.

[thelordofhell]

97. I'm not joking

These "parents" casually put a loaded firearm close to a game controller and the "story" is the child couldn't tell the difference? I think the weight and the metal should have been a big giveaway. If the child can play video games, the child should have been able to tell the difference........unless the story is complete bullshit.

Here's my take, the adults were fighting, the man had a gun, it went off, child was shot, "parents" freaked and made up this whole, "she thought it was a game controller" nonsense. They should be arrested for murder and the other child taken away.

[omega minimo]

76. may she rest in peace

[JerseygirlCT]

77. What the hell kind of adults leave a loaded gun where a child can get it?

Any adults present in that home while that gun was there, plus the gun's owner, should be arrested.

[ncteechur]

82. Guns don't kill people, 3-year old toddlers kill people.

[aikoaiko]

100. I thoughtless moment led to a tragedy of a lifetime.

Yes, the gun owner was negligent.

Most of the parents I know will admit to close calls when they weren't paying attention. The difference between a close call and tragedy is sometimes luck or paying attention a few seconds sooner.

[L0oniX]

110. Sad and shocking but I have to wonder why these kinds of posts appear here...

Mostly no one would know this happened of course but "IMO" posts about improper gun use or handling are here because some people have an agenda against guns. One should keep in mind that over 1/2 of DU'rs have guns according to polls. As that is the case, these kinds of gun posts serve to divide the DU community more than serve as needed information. Good luck with your agenda.

I am sure there are many children killed by our soldiers with our guns in other countries ...but of course that isn't as important or as shocking. Just trying to keep things in perspective.

[SteveM]

144. Sometimes the gun-control agenda is an addiction: they just can't help it.