This kind of pisses me off

[pipmaster1971]

Yes, it saddens me greatly that two kids were killed, and personally I feel that there may be a case to prosecute the gun owners (although one would need to see the actual cases in more detail).

What upsets me is that this made it to a top story of an international news site. During the same period how many kids drowned? Were killed in DUI accidents? Were murdered? Overdosed because they found their parent's prescription drugs? Died from a fall? Died in a house fire? However, because they were shot, for some reason it was worse?

Something I can never understand about the anti-gun brigade, I get the impression that they think it's fine for a kid to die, providing that death wasn't caused by a firearm? But when we propose firearm safety education that may actually prevent this sort of tragedy, they get all bent out of shape and angry at such an idea.

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

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

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

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

The injured boy was expected to make a full recovery, police said.

The incident in Las Vegas happened on Thursday night after the girl's brother found a loaded 9mm handgun inside their home.

It went off while he was holding it, hitting his sister in her torso.

According to police, the father was home at the time and the gun appears to have been improperly secured.

The shooting involving the two brothers happened in Gray Court, South Carolina, also on Thursday night. They and their father were staying at the home of a family friend.

Laurens County Sheriff Ricky Chastain said it appeared the younger boy found the gun under a bed and accidentally shot his brother.

The injured boy was flown to hospital, where he underwent surgery, he said.

No charges have been filed in relation to either case.

Gun debate

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

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

The father in that case has been charged with child endangerment.

In the US, the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. There are thought to be more than 200 million firearms in private hands.

Advocates of gun control face tough opposition from gun owners.

Critics of the current gun laws link high levels of gun crime and gun-related injury with high levels of gun ownership.

 

[Big_Red]

Oh, those evil guns are at it again.

 

[Tooth]

The thought of this happening to a kid is terrible. I have three kids of my own. My thoughts and prayres are with the families. That being said. The reason this makes headlines is that it is a political issue that the liberal media loves. It is shamefull how bias they are. Have you noticed every time obambi screws up there is a Palin story.

 

[dagwag77]

Irresponsible licensed gun owners are our biggest pain in the ass, as responsible gun owners. They're the ones we need to cover for, and frankly, the idiots that don't properly secure firearms around their kids.... well, they deserve what they get. Its not the kids fault, or the guns fault, its daddy's fault! Just don't make me pay because some dad thinks its easier to leave an unsecured gun around for his kids to play with than to lock it up and have un-ventilated kids.

 

[strangenh]

I have no problem with fully enforcing civil and criminal negligence and recklessness laws against the parents in these cases. No new law is going to change this behavior - it's already criminally negligent at least. Education and PSAs will probably help (Eddie Eagle comes to mind), but new laws? Unlikely to change a thing. Enforce the existing ones with real penalties, and publicize their enforcement.

That all said, I agree with pipmaster - these incidents are "news" not because they're common, but because relatively speaking they are quite rare, and because they serve an agenda.

 

[jakes01234]

Irresponsible licensed gun owners are our biggest pain in the ass, as responsible gun owners. They're the ones we need to cover for, and frankly, the idiots that don't properly secure firearms around their kids.... well, they deserve what they get. Its not the kids fault, or the guns fault, its daddy's fault! Just don't make me pay because some dad thinks its easier to leave an unsecured gun around for his kids to play with than to lock it up and have un-ventilated kids.

Well said....

 

[Mike S]

The OP makes a great point in that I just did a quick google search and at least 7 kids were killed in July alone by drunk drivers, most of the stories were only "local" news. I'm sure there were more than that as well, like I said, I just gave the results a precursory glance.

Sad.

 

[jakes01234]

i do think that enforcing the laws are a good idea but how would they make sure the guns are properly stored in your house? random house checks? its supposed to be the parents/ peoples responsibility to do the right thing and especially if you have little kids to keep them locked up.... the government set rules that should be followed and should not need to check up on adults to make sure... ( i break rules all the time just saying)

 

[hayes1966]

Events like this should never happen if the gun owners were responsible enough. Accidents do happen but they should not happen with firearms.

 

[RI_John]

I think the responsible adult should go to jail for a long time. There is zero excuse for leaving a loaded 9mm sitting out where a 3 year old can take it and shoot someone. As gun owners, instead of being defensive about tragedies like this, we should speak out with outrage and disgust.

Yes, the biased liberal gun-hating media jumps on stories like these to further their agenda, and no, they rarely report accidental falls, drownings, etc. but the last thing we need to be saying is "guns don't kill people" in cases like this, but be publicly and LOUDLY blasting the criminally negligent "parents". (as some of us here are)

 

[strangenh]

i do think that enforcing the laws are a good idea but how would they make sure the guns are properly stored in your house? random house checks? its supposed to be the parents/ peoples responsibility to do the right thing and especially if you have little kids to keep them locked up.... the government set rules that should be followed and should not need to check up on adults to make sure... ( i break rules all the time just saying)

Perhaps you misunderstand me. Enforce when negligent/reckless harms occur. Publicize. Educate. These "accidents" are rare, but they happen whether or not the state has child-safe storage laws. As you say, absent a police state, you can't "enforce" storage laws except after the fact. Since there are already severe criminal laws in every state regarding causing harms through recklessness (and negligence in many, depending on the harm), we should call for enforcement of those laws, with real penalties, and publicize and educate.

I liken these storage laws to seat belt laws - ultimately education has proven more effective than sanction in bringing about safer behavior.

 

[JasonG]

I work for the CT office of a business largely based in the UK. My UK counterparts are absolutely befuddled as to why I'd want to own a pistol. What's sort of amusing is they seem to think all Americans are pro-gun and have several each.

Also worth bearing in mind that UK news sources are almost uniformly far more sensationalistic than US news sources. They will generally present things in very extreme terms at all times.

 

[theGringo]

Critics of the current gun laws link high levels of gun crime and gun-related injury with high levels of gun ownership.

 

[mikem317]

I liken these storage laws to seat belt laws - ultimately education has proven more effective than sanction in bringing about safer behavior.

Very true. Education is the key to both of these issues. And it is more effective.

But you have to ask: What happens if they know it's effective and that's why they're pursuing other means.

Right. They couldn't care less about your safety. It's all a ruse for the government to grab more and more power from you. Period.

 

[RI_John]

Retarded gun owners are why the antis gain traction with the undecideds on laws like requiring trigger locks. The undecideds hear a story like this, then hear an anti screech about "common sense gun laws like triggers locks to save the children", and the undecideds side w/ the antis because, IMO, we gun owners don't "get in front" of the story and show similar outrage.

Imagine you don't own a gun, but don't really care, and there is a bill in your state that requires trigger locks on all guns and you can ask your senator to support it or not. And you read a story like this and on the anti side you hear:

"OMG, the poor child. The poor, poor child. If only we had some common sense gun laws that required parents to lock their guns. Good lord, we have child proof caps on medicine, liquid bleach, and every other dangerous liquid. Why can't we have a "child proof cap" on guns? We CAN if you vote for this bill. The child you save could be your own!"

and on our side you hear-

"Guns don't kill people. Firearms aren't evil. People should watch their kids. A trigger lock takes too long to remove when you need it. Cops don't have trigger locks. We already have enough laws."

Who's side do you think the undecided will come down on????

We need to fight fire with fire and ALSO make address the fears people have of children dying needlessly. Acknowledge the senseless, pointless, easily preventable shooting and then turn the attention, with much anger, back on the true cause of the tragedy-- the idiotic, criminal parents.

 

[pipmaster1971]

Retarded gun owners are why the antis gain traction with the undecideds on laws like requiring trigger locks. The undecideds hear a story like this, then hear an anti screech about "common sense gun laws like triggers locks to save the children", and the undecideds side w/ the antis because, IMO, we gun owners don't "get in front" of the story and show similar outrage.

Imagine you don't own a gun, but don't really care, and there is a bill in your state that requires trigger locks on all guns and you can ask your senator to support it or not. And you read a story like this and on the anti side you hear:

"OMG, the poor child. The poor, poor child. If only we had some common sense gun laws that required parents to lock their guns. Good lord, we have child proof caps on medicine, liquid bleach, and every other dangerous liquid. Why can't we have a "child proof cap" on guns? We CAN if you vote for this bill. The child you save could be your own!"

and on our side you hear-

"Guns don't kill people. Firearms aren't evil. People should watch their kids. A trigger lock takes too long to remove when you need it. Cops don't have trigger locks. We already have enough laws."

Who's side do you think the undecided will come down on????

We need to fight fire with fire and ALSO make address the fears people have of children dying needlessly. Acknowledge the senseless, pointless, easily preventable shooting and then turn the attention, with much anger, back on the true cause of the tragedy-- the idiotic, criminal parents.

I actually agree. Sometimes we can be our own worse enemies. I think many of us don't take this line because its "not our fault". But I don't think that does us any good. We need to take a hard line on these idiots. Myself, if my guns are not on me, or in my line of site, they are locked away from prying hands.

 

[jakes01234]

Perhaps you misunderstand me. Enforce when negligent/reckless harms occur. Publicize. Educate. These "accidents" are rare, but they happen whether or not the state has child-safe storage laws. As you say, absent a police state, you can't "enforce" storage laws except after the fact. Since there are already severe criminal laws in every state regarding causing harms through recklessness (and negligence in many, depending on the harm), we should call for enforcement of those laws, with real penalties, and publicize and educate.

I liken these storage laws to seat belt laws - ultimately education has proven more effective than sanction in bringing about safer behavior.

agreed....

 

[RI_John]

I actually agree. Sometimes we can be our own worse enemies. I think many of us don't take this line because its "not our fault". But I don't think that does us any good. We need to take a hard line on these idiots. Myself, if my guns are not on me, or in my line of site, they are locked away from prying hands.

Yup. And keep in mind, the story we're talking about here is a shooting by a THREE YEAR OLD. The usual arguments decrying kids not learning gun safety at an early age don't apply to 3 year olds. If you trust your 3 year old to know not to touch a loaded handgun, you're an idiot and a soon to be criminal.

 

[KMaurer]

I've always believed that a big part of the problem is the attitude of the judicial system. It's a lot like it used to be with drunk driving "accidents" not that long ago. Prosecutors were reluctant to pursue criminal charges aggressively, legislators couldn't be bothered to write really tough laws, and juries were loathe to convict. The general attitude was that driving under the influence was something that most people had done on occasion, and if something horrible happened it really came down to some sort of "act of god". Besides, the people involved had really suffered more than the system could ever impose, particularly when the killed, crippled or disfigured were often their own families. The result was that we shook our heads and gave them what amounted to stern lecture not to do it again. That's how we used to treat people who got plastered and ran down school girls in crosswalks or backed over their own toddlers in their driveways, and it how we still treat people responsible for 3 year old boys with their brains splattered all over the wall or 6 year old girls who'll spend the rest of their lives in a wheel chair.

What we need is to create a responsible gun owners' version of MADD, (SANS - Shooters Against Negligent Scum?) to hold everybody's feet to the fire until the legislatures and the courts have no choice but to treat these fools as they deserve. Rather than sitting around grieving about these "terrible accidents" that have befallen their families, these gun owners should be sitting in jail cells, contemplating the likelihood that they'll spend the next 10-20 years explaining to the other cons in the yard that they're there for killing their own kids, but it really wasn't their fault.

Just my $0.00000137 after taxes and inflation.

Ken

 

[Business]

They fight guns because they see it as somethign easy to ban. If a kid drowns its hard to ban swimming, a kid dies crossing the street there not gunna ban driving. if a kid chokes are they going to ban eating? there just people who aren't happy unless there pissing and moaning about something and guns are an easy target.

 

[RI_John]

I've always believed that a big part of the problem is the attitude of the judicial system. It's a lot like it used to be with drunk driving "accidents" not that long ago. Prosecutors were reluctant to pursue criminal charges aggressively, legislators couldn't be bothered to write really tough laws, and juries were loathe to convict. The general attitude was that driving under the influence was something that most people had done on occasion, and if something horrible happened it really came down to some sort of "act of god". Besides, the people involved had really suffered more than the system could ever impose, particularly when the killed, crippled or disfigured were often their own families. The result was that we shook our heads and gave them what amounted to stern lecture not to do it again. That's how we used to treat people who got plastered and ran down school girls in crosswalks or backed over their own toddlers in their driveways, and it how we still treat people responsible for 3 year old boys with their brains splattered all over the wall or 6 year old girls who'll spend the rest of their lives in a wheel chair.

What we need is to create a responsible gun owners' version of MADD, (SANS - Shooters Against Negligent Scum?) to hold everybody's feet to the fire until the legislatures and the courts have no choice but to treat these fools as they deserve. Rather than sitting around grieving about these "terrible accidents" that have befallen their families, these gun owners should be sitting in jail cells, contemplating the likelihood that they'll spend the next 10-20 years explaining to the other cons in the yard that they're there for killing their own kids, but it really wasn't their fault.

Just my $0.00000137 after taxes and inflation.

Ken

+x, that is perfect.

 

[dsm]

What we need is to create a responsible gun owners' version of MADD, (SANS - Shooters Against Negligent Scum?) to hold everybody's feet to the fire until the legislatures and the courts have no choice but to treat these fools as they deserve.

Please don't wish for that.

MADD is to drinking what the Brady Campaign is to shooting. Maybe worse. The founder of MADD left the organization about 25 years ago because they were becoming too over the top, and have only gotten worse since then. She said MADD "has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned".

If all they wanted to do is along the lines of what I think you are suggesting, pushing for just (sufficient) punishment for people who have committed a crime, well it's hard to argue with that. But that's not what they are about, they are about creating more government control over people and creating more criminals. It's about making criminals of people because they might commit a crime.

I find many of the points in their eight-point program rather disturbing:

1. Resuscitate the nation's efforts to prevent impaired driving.

Ok, I have to admit I don't know what this really means, if anything. But honestly, it doesn't sound good to me. When a lobbying group talks about "the nation's efforts," all I hear are more Federal laws and taxes.

One of their goals that I'm guessing comes under this category is the idea that every car should have some kind of device that detects if the driver has been drinking. They call it "voluntary" but who would really volunteer for this? You can be sure that once they develop the technology they will push hard on both the government and car companies for it to be included in every car.

http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/D...minate-Drunk-Driving/Advanced-Technology.aspx

2. Increase driving while intoxicated (DWI)/driving under the influence (DUI) enforcement, especially the use of frequent, highly publicized sobriety checkpoints.

Yeah, that's what I want, more government checkpoints stopping people who are under no suspicion of any crime, just to make sure that they are doing the right things and going to the right places. How about instead we stop people after we have evidence or suspicion of a crime?

From their web page on checkpoints, "Law-abiding people are sent on their way within minutes." Very nice. Why hassle law-abiding people at all?

http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/D...-Eliminate-Drunk-Driving/Law-Enforcement.aspx

3. Enact primary enforcement seat belt laws in all states.

Just what we need, more nanny laws and another excuse for the police to be able to stop vehicles and hassle drivers and ask questions that aren't any of their business. Now you can sit through the "Do you have any weapons in the car?" experience with a cop with a chip on his shoulder just because you chose not to wear your seatbelt.

4. Create tougher, more comprehensive sanctions geared toward higher-risk drivers.

I think this is about ignition interlocks, which they push hard for. I have to admit I'm a little vague on the details of this one.

5. Develop a dedicated National Traffic Safety Fund.

Great, just what we need. Another Federal government program with all the associated beaurocracy, centralized planning, and new taxes to go along with it. Lets have even more of the Federal government telling our states and localities what kind of laws they need to have and how they must enforce them. This is where in the constitution?

6. Reduce underage drinking.

The problem I have here is the definition of underage. Same problem I have with the Federal handgun restrictions for under 21. If someone is old enough to fight and die for their country, they are old enough to drink and buy a handgun. If you want to change the age of majority to 21 for all purposes, then lets consider it. I'm sure I'll get plenty of disagreement on this one.

To me, this is trying to fix a parenting issue in the wrong place, and also helps to ensure against even the remote possibility of responsible college campus drinking.

7. Increase beer excise taxes to the same level as those for spirits.

Nice, more Federal taxes. If you think more Federal taxes on beer as a way to prevent drunk driving is a good idea, why stop there with that logic? How about some nice new ammo taxes to help prevent murder?

8. Reinvigorate court monitoring programs.

Another one I'm a little vague on, but I know they are big on "victim impact statements," where a victim's family appears before the court and makes a personal statement to try to influence sentencing. I'm against this, as I think justice should be blind and even-handed. Someone who kills a homeless person with no family and no friends to speak for them should receive just as harsh a punishment as someone who kills a person who has a famility to come to court and cry in front of the judge and jury. Believe me, I'm not unsympathetic, but I don't think that's how punishments should be decided.

 

[Big Daddy 45acp]

I think we need a Federal law prohibiting pre-teens from using guns.