General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe child saw the handgun in the parents’ bedroom and put it in his mouth, where it went off.
At least the Legislature has its priorities straight.
ASHEBORO, N.C. A 2-year-old boy was accidentally shot when the toddler found an unsecured handgun at his residence on Spring Valley Road, just outside the Asheboro city limits, Saturday afternoon just before 2 p.m.
Randolph County Sheriffs Det. M. Reynolds said the father rushed the child to Randolph Hospital. He was then transported to Brenner Childrens Hospital in Winston-Salem. Reynolds said the latest information from the hospital was that the child was expected to survive.
Reynolds said the family mom, dad and three older siblings were at home at the time. The child saw the handgun in the parents bedroom and put it in his mouth, where it went off.
This was a very tragic accident. It is so fortunate that the little boy is expected to survive, Reynolds said.
RALEIGH, N.C. State House lawmakers voted Wednesday to forbid law enforcement officers from destroying fully-operating firearms, even if they were used in a crime.
House Bill 714, "Disposal of Abandoned Firearms," says that, if a firearm is fully functioning and still has a legible identification number, sheriffs and other law enforcement officers cannot destroy it, regardless of its background.
Instead, they would have to sell it at a public auction to a licensed dealer or permit-holder, keep it for department use or training or donate it to a museum or historical society.
Judges would no longer have the authority to order the destruction of a weapon confiscated in a criminal case.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Roland99
(53,342 posts)oh wait....
to me IT IS a crime
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Forever maybe. Bullet through the mouth.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you don't watch your two year old, at least clear the house of guns and other dangerous things.
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)ask that they stop watching "Storage Wars" to pay attention to the kids! What kind of monster are you?!
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)Firearms and ammo needed for the hordes of "zombies" trying to get their food after "the shit hits the fan.". No doubt there are just too many weapons laying around to be properly put away, and Daddy is itching to shoot something.
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)how every on-line purchase they make gives their address to someone who will have exact locations of "supply dumps" all over the country
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)No way is there an obvious (say, via mail) trail to her fortress. She has been buying ammo whenever, in smaller amounts, in person, in multiple states. She is pretty good at staying off the grid unless you are her friend or are the government or her professional organization.
I'm glad I don't have to exert the effort to keep up with her since she's an ex-friend now. I hope her ammo doesn't blow up like that couple's in Idaho. I think he was a state legislator.
premium
(3,731 posts)but if I remember right, it was the gunpowder they had stored in their gun room that blew up, ammo, on it's own, doesn't blow up.
Found it.
http://newsradio1310.com/investigators-unsure-what-caused-idaho-legislators-house-to-blow-up/
They never determined what caused the explosion, but ammo in a fire will just cook off, not blow up.
zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)zerosumgame0005
(207 posts)but there are so many fools out there reacting in fear and not thinking ahead
timdog44
(1,388 posts)responsible after being irresponsible enough to have a child in the first place. I mean if you don't have enough DNA to start with you should not be passing that lack down the line.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)This is criminally negligent.
It is only merely "a very tragic accident" to the
"no one could have foreseen" crowd.
historylovr
(1,557 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)At the least they should be slapped with felonies so they can't ever own another gun and endanger their other kids.
Rebl
(149 posts)These supposed adults going to get away with this? They need to be arrested and charged with endangering a child and or child abuse. I'm getting sick of them getting away with this negligence. We need to make an example of some of these parents and send them to jail.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)KG
(28,752 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)How many dead Americans do we need before we do something about this?
apparently 30,000 a year isn't enough for the gun nuts.
premium
(3,731 posts)there are millions and millions of responsible gun owners in the country.
And your 30,000 a year, a little more than 50% are suicides.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)Last edited Tue May 21, 2013, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)
If someone wants to end their life, they're going to find a way to do so, whether by gunshot, overdose, hanging, CO poisoning, whatever.
Better mental health care would go along way to reducing the number of suicides.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)An honest to goodness internet psychic.
If that's what you want to believe, have at it, I don't care what you think the implication is.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)gundaMENTALISTs.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)Sgent
(5,857 posts)While your correct that your not going to stop someone who is intent on suicide and is healthy, such as a Japanese General committing suicide after WWII, most suicides are not of this type.
If one of the other, less lethal, methods are used, its much more likely the person will end up in the hospital where they can receive the help they need, rather than a morgue.
Suicide by gun is the most lethal, most consistent, and easiest method (in terms of effort) to commit suicide. There are definitely other ways -- some probably more lethal -- but they aren't as easy to execute as pulling the trigger of (usually) your parents gun.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)Almost all other forms of suicide allow an avenue or two to intervention. Gun's don't allow too many second chances when the muzzle is pressed up to skin.
A lot of things could go to reducing suicides. First and foremost, a living wage. Another, better access to dental services. And also very high on any list: Keeping firearms properly secured.
The fraction of firearm incidents which are straight up negligence is truly frightening.
premium
(3,731 posts)and I pretty much agree with everything you say here.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)sorry about that, meant to put CO, damn fingers got going faster than brain.
Thanks for catching that, I'll edit it.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Apparently you think it would cut the rate in half.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)I think this idea that not considering suicides as part of the problem with gun violence is total bullshit.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)Get some new pics.
So what are they doing that's illegal? After all, that's what we're talking about here, right?
Just out of curiosity, you've said that you've had several people pull guns on you, why? Judging by your attitude here towards gun owners, I think I know why, but I'd like to hear it from you.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)is that the best ya got?
You gonna answer the questions pending? Or should I take it that you've been bested again?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)he was a former armed robber.
premium
(3,731 posts)he's been asked several times, he usually comes back with something like, enjoy your guns, hug your guns, things like that.
I didn't know that about the armed robber thing, if true, then, yeah, he would certainly have guns pulled on him several times.
patrice
(47,992 posts)The photos only show that people are willing to kill EXCLUSIVELY FOR GUNS and NO other reason, so these numbers don't matter, because of the "principle" of the thing known as a gun.
That's why, rational and responsible gun owners (those who don't deny our rights to know who owns that PRIVATE kind of power in our midst) aside, that's why they are resisting background checks. They need anonymity because they will kill for gun-ownership if/when they choose, without regard to the will of those whom they affect by their actions. It's NOT about people, whom they tell us are the ones responsible for what their INNOCENT guns do, that's a lie, a PRIVATE lie subsidized by our WAR taxes and outed by the fact that, though they say guns aren't evil, gun users do evil, they resist gun users' background checks, with great political fanfare, and fund raising on a basic lie: no matter what they say about the Constitution, the "rights" they claim are actually privileges endowed on them by ONE fact, and NO other facts, that fact is gun ownership. They, therefore, do not act on behalf of anything collectively human, but specifically for divine guns, exclusively, and for no other motive. This is why all of the numbers of people's lives that the rest of us have been crying about are meaningless to those whom I am referring to here. Doubt that they are real? Ask 5K+ dead American soldiers, about 1 million dead Iraqis and Afghanis, 3-5 million WAR refugees in just the last decade, 1-2 million of whom are ORPHANS and then tell me again what this god-almighty principle is.
Logical
(22,457 posts)available you are clueless. Guns are almost 100% effective. Other methods are not. Do more reading.
premium
(3,731 posts)Of course suicides would go down, but better mental health care would go along way towards dropping the suicide rate in the country.
Logical
(22,457 posts)You DID say that!
premium
(3,731 posts)I did say that, but nowhere did I say that suicides wouldn't decrease if guns were outlawed. And it's true that if someone is determined to end their life, they will find a way to do so, gun or not.
Logical
(22,457 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)if guns were banned, which was your original post directed at me.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.
premium
(3,731 posts)UNTIL THEY ARE NOT.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)There are tens of millions of responsible gun owners in the country, or are you of the same mind as him?
Pelican
(1,156 posts)What's most important is how they feel and that everyone conform to their standards of behavior... for their own good of course.
SunSeeker
(51,696 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)then, yeah they're a fucking moron and should be criminally charged and their kids removed.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)SunSeeker
(51,696 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)which is pretty obvious that this gun wasn't. Parents should be criminally charged and never be allowed to own another gun.
SunSeeker
(51,696 posts)Just having a gun in the home increases your chance of suicide 5 times.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Find a better home for the surviving kids.
We provide far too many rights to parents at the expense and sometimes demise of their innocent offspring.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)and the child should be put in a better home. No accident, pure negligence and they should be held accountable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Nothing to see here, move along.
Ilsa
(61,698 posts)Cause her mental anguish, there is something seriously wrong with her.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Now the law says melting down guns is wrong. Guns are people. People are just target practice.
premium
(3,731 posts)I hope Child Services visited this home to check on the welfare of this child.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Legislators give away AR-15s for donations. Banks, radio stations, charities give them away. And Libertarians give free rifles to people in zero tolerance cities, and they all defy all regulations. They are favored as Christmas and birthday gifts for children.
Gun owners open carry so they can intimidate people at public meetings. Some cities and states mandate a gun in every home. This won't stop in states calling deaths and injuries accidents. It will keep going on.
I'm less affected at the deaths in these gun worshipping families than I was before. They have escaped this blighted world, it's possible their families will learn nothing, since the law keeps on giving them a free pass.
The people I'm concerned with are the peaceful ones who have to live alongside this mentality. And how easily gun owners are believing they have reasons to kill others. Some say they are ready to kill a lot of people for political reasons, or just for coming for their guns. Buying a machine gun or assault rifle with the ability to shoot many rounds as if in a war zone is a plan to commit mass murder.
See the pregnant mother. No doubt this picture will be an iconic image in their home as her child is born and grows up. We will have to live with these gun worshippers.
rightsideout
(978 posts)Just give ole St Nick and those other folks some turbans and you got yourself a scene right out of Somalia. LOL.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)With the demise of Jim Crow-era gun-control laws since the mid 20th Century, the "gunnies" by your logic must have less fear of "blacks with guns." In fact, those who want more gun-control laws seem to fear most those guys with turbans.
Google up 1968 Gun Control law blacks guns and see what you find. Then try NYC Sullivan Laws anti Italian sentiment.
Get worried, indeed.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)Thanks for the NRA-sanctioned history lesson, though. That one never loses its amusement factor, no matter how many hundreds of times you guys haul it out. Next time you're at the shooting range, or trying to scrape together some extra rounds of ammo at the local gun store, why don't you openly share your love of "those guys with turbans" with the crowds at those places, and let us know how it goes?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)I find it disturbing that you challenge me to "show my love" for midEast/Hindi people in front of others. That's similar to the kind of crap I heard as a kid when challenged by some of my redneck friends about being a "n_____ lover." Why do you do this? It doesn't even fit in with the demonization/stigmatization campaign some controllers are bent on.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And that grinning idiot should be locked up for life.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)this was criminal negligence and the parents should be charged with such.
WTF does it take to make people realize that firearms, when not in use, should be locked up, especially if there are children in the house.
malaise
(269,157 posts)Fuck the NRA and its enablers
DCKit
(18,541 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)...Jadarrius shot himself and now, Walker...is being charged with culpable negligence, which is a third degree felony.
His Uncle, 29-year-old Jeffrey Walker, left the gun in the room he shared with the toddler, where he found it in a backpack. Walker purchased the gun at a gun shop in the Tampa Bay area and also had a concealed weapons permit.
Tragically, the child's parents, 21-year-old Jasmine Bell and 22-year-old Trentin Speights, were in their bedroom at the time of the shooting...
http://globalgrind.com/news/3-year-old-jadarrius-speights-shoots-kills-himself-uncles-gun-tampa-photos
This was a permitted gun. Not saying he should not be charged, but the application of these laws seems uneven given so many are not charged. That may mean that the law is going to take a harder look at these deaths, which seem to be happening every day now.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014477845#post89
I don't see any difference in this case, and this Uncle appeared to have done everything right, including keeping it out of sight, except the gun was loaded.
Walker was a law-abiding gun owner, did it all the right way, even had a CCW. But it wasn't called an accident, was it?
My conclusion is that just being 'blah' in the USA carries an inherently unjust penalty.
JustAnotherGen
(31,879 posts)That we need to start treating negligent parents as such - Negligent. It's a form of abuse. Maybe if a few of these folks started going to jail - the rest will grow up and watch their children.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Deep13
(39,154 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)it's not like babies world wide put objects in their mouths every day.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)It's the only way to protect innocent firearms from reckless toddlers!
Let's see, lesson one. "Keep firearms away from children...."
ileus
(15,396 posts)It's of very little use out of your reach.
If your're not going to keep it on your person it needs to be locked up.
It's also nice to see illegal firearms rehomed to people who'll take care of them properly.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)of considering outright gun confiscation?
I just want to be reassured that all of the gun apologists out there are perfectly okay with little kids being killed or maimed this way.
This child is going to live, but he is going to be horribly disfigured is my best guess.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)and promote more guns in more places.
premium
(3,731 posts)or any way, but calling for gun confiscation is just plain stupid, especially when you know damn good and well that it ain't ever going to happen.
It would take an act of Congress and then it would have to get past the SCOTUS, and then the incoming Congress, which would be made up of the party that didn't vote for confiscation, would repeal that law so fast, it would make heads spin.
What should happen is these parents should be criminally charged and the child removed from the home.
Robb
(39,665 posts)A rhetorical ancestor of yours had a great argument here about all the things that should've been done instead of suffrage.
premium
(3,731 posts)Really? I mean, seriously?
Robb
(39,665 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)AA do vote in the South, now, care to answer my question? You really believe that gun confiscation will ever happen?
Here's another question, you think the congress would ever pass a law like that, and would the SCOTUS ever uphold such a law?
Robb
(39,665 posts)If every handgun was made illegal tomorrow, why would anyone bother going out and "confiscating" them?
We didn't go door-to-door in this country the day after it was made illegal looking for heroin. When someone is caught smuggling heroin, their heroin is taken away because it is illegal to possess and distribute.
You can pretend it will never happen, because it will never happen the way you describe it -- which is the same kind of shit-stirring nonsense the segregationists did to promote fear among their racist colleagues.
It took almost 60 years to get a SCOTUS that would reverse itself and recognize the unconstitutionality of state-sponsored racial segregation. I don't support any kind of gun "confiscation," but it's silly to assume it will never happen.
premium
(3,731 posts)that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)10. Georgia
9. Arkansas
8. Missouri
7. New Mexico
6. South Carolina
5. Mississippi
4. Arizona
3. Alabama
2. Alaska
1. Louisiana
Much more detail at the link:
http://247wallst.com/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/2/
Note they now are majority GOP and or Teabagger. With the exception of AZ, NM and AK, they were all slave states. This mentality still exists.
Those are the states with the highest rate , not the states with the most gun violence.
The highest "rate" and the highest "amount" are two very different things.
Robb
(39,665 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Yeah, you're right, places with "higher rates" have a much bigger problem than places that lead the nation in actual numbers.
That the gun-murder capitol of the nation has a lower "rate" than other places with far less of a problem in the eyes of some folks, shows what a farce "rates" are, and is illustrative of why that particular form of "measure" is chosen by them.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Rate is the proper measure, not total number. Because total number is affected by total population.
Example:
10,000,000 people live in city 'A'.
50,000 people live in city 'B'.
If 1,000 people are shot in city 'A', but only 500 are shot in city 'B', which one is worse?
A little math reveals you have a one-in-10,000 chance of getting shot in city 'A'. You have a one-in-100 chance of getting shot in city 'B'.
You are one hundred times more likely to get shot in city 'B', despite the fact that there were fewer total shootings. You'd have to be an idiot, or desperate to deflect, in order to argue absolute numbers are more important than rates.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I live near a small town we'll just call bumfuck, for sake of discussion.
"Bumfuck" has a real, factual and true population of 34 people.
If someone commits suicide in "Bumfuck" with a gun, thats 1 in 34.
Thats a RATE of 2941 per 100k. If one were to look ONLY at that rate, it would seem bumfuck has a suicide epidemic of monumental proportions on their hands, wouldn't it? Gee, is there something in their water or what?
What the "rate" folks do, is to note places like Montana and other states/places with a small population, and then use a rate based on that small population.
On the other side of the coin, a larger population example of say 20 million, with the same rate, would have 1188200 hypothetical suicides. For sake of discussion, well call it "megaville".
So say this hypothetical city of megaville DOES have a gun suicide epidemic. Say 100000 commit suicide with guns. Thats 200 per 100k. A rate roughly 14.5 times lower that Bumfuck. If one ignores the exact numbers, it sure looks like bumfuck has a huge problem on their hands, compared to megaville, doesnt it?
Have a nice day.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)or spouse, or even a cousin, is killed or maimed, you're okay with that.
And they did it in Australia. And England. We could do it also. But so long as all of the gun deaths and woundings don't really matter to a lot of people (Gosh, it's only a trivial percentage of our population) then these things will continue to happen. I just wish the only ones to get hurt would be the actual careless gun owners themselves.
premium
(3,731 posts)nobody here has said that a child getting killed or maimed is ok.
Australia and England didn't have the 2A, no Congress will pass that kind of law, and no SCOTUS would uphold it.
The firearms culture in this country is deep rooted and nothing is going to change that, sorry but it's a simple fact of life whether you like it or not.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)it's okay for these things to happen, because after all, the 30,000 a year gun deaths are only a fraction of the population, besides which half of those deaths are suicides, which is apparently okay, then you really are saying these deaths are okay.
And even if those other countries didn't have the second amendment, they did get rid of guns. If this were truly a civilized country, then we'd get rid of them too.
Uzair
(241 posts)They always say "Nobody is saying it's OK" and then in the next breath start to make excuses for why it's totally OK to have this level of gun violence. They don't really care, and I wish they'd just fucking admit it.
The most ironic part is that the other countries that have solved the problem have NOT gotten rid of guns. They just made them harder to get, and forced people to ACTUALLY be responsible gun owners, as opposed to the bullshit that is the second amendment. You CAN get a gun in Canada, the UK, and Japan. But you have to pass tests and get licenses and register them.
But the gun nuts are too selfish. They don't want to do those things. They like having it be so easy to get their guns. And they constantly say so while at the same time paying lip service to "not wanting these things to happen". Maybe nobody WANTS these things to happen, but they DO HAPPEN, and it's about GIVING A SHIT and maybe trying to stop these things from happening. Not pretending like nothing can be done, as if it hasn't already been done SUCCESSFULLY in every other civilized nation.
It's actually quite sickening. I've had people here call my views "extreme". Extreme as, I suppose, the law of the land in Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, pretty much most of Europe, actually, and everywhere else where they don't have a gun problem. Extreme. Jesus Christ.
Response to premium (Reply #56)
Uzair This message was self-deleted by its author.
Uzair
(241 posts)They even post here, every single day, making excuses to keep their precious guns safe every single time a child is killed by a gun, which it seems is almost every single day. They will change the subject, place the blame on everything and everyone else, and ignore ALL the facts.
Response to Uzair (Reply #95)
premium This message was self-deleted by its author.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because guns are low on the list of things that kill children. Why such guns be treated differently?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The other things you are talking about have primary purposes other than killing.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is about guns? Ok.
Why not stricter laws on storage? Perhaps mandatory safety training? As a society, we think it possible to regulate short of outright bans other things that kill kids . Why not the same for guns?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)Get rid of all the fucking cars on the road, because clearly they are contributing to the number of deaths in this country.
Then, even more importantly.....swimming pools. So many children die in them, that we need to forbid any new pools from being built, and since we can't confiscate the existing ones, they must all be filled in with concrete, so no more children die needlessly.
That's just a start, as I'm sure there are lots of other things in our society that we'll need to eliminate before we can talk about limiting guns, in any capacity.
At least cars and pools are not guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, so their disposal should be easy enough to effect.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but I will ask you - why can't measure short of banning reduce gun deaths?
SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)By my estimation though, those on the side in favor of guns, wants NO LIMITS WHATSOEVER. No background checks, no limits, NADA, ZIP.
Because, as they say....even a teeny tiny limit is just a step towards total global confiscation, and the end of our society as we know it. You know, dogs & cats living together....MASS HYSTERIA!
hack89
(39,171 posts)rickyhall
(4,889 posts)Wouldn't it make better sense for the guns to be destroyed so the gun makers can sell more? Just askin
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)collectible guns can fetch big money at auction. If someone is turning in the guns because they've cleaned out grandpa's estate, and the weapons still function, I can see the rationale for selling them just like any other government asset.
In many cases, they are turned in because they are not fully functional, or they've been illegally modified (sawed - off shotguns). My question is this: some of these buybacks have gotten other kinds of weapons, like live WWII era grenades. What is to be done with those?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They are not covered by the second amendment and are an explosive device. Just like a bomb is not covered. I think most are training rounds that are no danger, just like the empty tubes that are shown to be real "live" rocket launchers by the police and news. They are worthless non-usable empty tubes but it fits the narrative of some.
rug
(82,333 posts)I can't believe he survived.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)A GSW to take out part of the face, shatter the cervical spine, jaw or teeth, shredding the lip, tongue or throat won't repair itself with time, only surgery and years of expensive care, if at all.
Survive does not mean thrive, the child may be end up being disfigured or disabled for the rest of his life. Emotional or nervous trauma is a possibility.
But no funeral, not yet, so it's just an 'accident', a preventable event, but it was not negligence according to the law there. Yup.
rug
(82,333 posts)avebury
(10,952 posts)community are not willing to hold negligent gun owners criminally liable for the death/injury of children in incidents like this I really wish that the main stream media would stop printing stories like this. Nothing has changed and nothing will change. Negligent parents like this are not deserving of even one iota of sympathy but deserve society's total contempt. Let them suffer their fate in total silence and isolation. The story indicated that the family had three other children. Other parents would be total fools to allow their children anywhere near this family's home.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it's quite a Freudo-Marxist Gordian knot
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This is NEGLIGENCE.
As a gun owner with a kid, I have NO problems with prosecuting people for this level of negligence. You can't really fail your child worse than leaving a gun around. (Without an overtly malicious act, anyway)
geomon666
(7,512 posts)It's ok for the child to be destroyed but that gun will live on forever.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)the gun safety class he attended.
Initech
(100,102 posts)If you have a kid that should be your number one responsibility as a parent, bar none!!!!! I'm tired of reading these senseless tragedy stories that could easily be prevented had these stupid fucking parents taken the one precaution any parent should take. If you have kids keep your guns locked up. If you can't do that then don't own guns. It's that simple!
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)The source for the story is the father who took the toddler to the hospital.
The gun is not identified.
Does anyone - even the anti-gun crowd - know of a gun with a trigger pull that is so light that two-year old can put it into their mouth and cause it to be fired?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)That people would develop a blase attitude toward guns is no surprise: the idea that guns are just another tool promotes such stupidity. The NRA, the gun manufacturers, and their imbecile dupes (the poor dumb clowns think any of this is about the "constitution" or "liberty" or "tyrannical government" promote this idea. And when a two year old eats a barrel and it goes boom, they all tut-tut the parents. Check yourselves, you monumental assholes: you did this with your bullshit.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)to have an unlocked gun in your house when children live there. The law also says ammunition must be stored away from the gun. I don't know why a parent would not follow these practices even if it were not the law.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)randr
(12,414 posts)It is a crime that resulted in a injury to a child. The prosecution of people who allow children to get their hands on weapons will put a stop to this senseless carnage.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)But of course you are most correct. This is a crime. A crime of the highest magnitude. The senseless endangerment of their own children. Leaving the means of killing laying around is a crime. It is also not an accident when one child shoots another. They have been taught to aim and shoot a gun. They just do not know the results or consequences of doing that. But an adult does and an adult put the gun where it did not belong.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)While good instruction is important for anyone who contemplates owning & using guns, too many times the "instructor" is T.V. and video games. Most of the times this will wash over, and be of little consequence when arms are properly secured (NOT the case here). But guns left accessible and the only teacher is flickering on a screen, you have a problem.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Come out, you folks and join the outcry so these irresponsible people can be held responsible for their lax and reprehensible oversight of child safety!
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Nevermind the whole gun debate, but WHY--guns lying around, guns given to kids as gifts---have these people actually lost their minds?
I know, a stupid question.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)nothing to see here
jeff47
(26,549 posts)...with the Mongol hordes storming your house, you don't have time to load your gun!!!
At least, that's the argument the gun fans use - they have to keep the gun loaded so it's ready for use at a moment's notice.
salin
(48,955 posts)guns have become a part of the "pro-life" gop movement. I don't agree with the extreme pro-life movement - but I understand it. This, giving "life protection" to an inanimate object that can be used to destroy life, is just absurd.
Why is a gun more important to make sure it is never destroyed than say a plastic bag. Oh - because it has been elevated to a special right per the right to bear arms.
Okay - than because we have the right to free speech - and tape recorders (and their more modern relatives of digitized recordings) are related to speech - than these devices and recordings should have the same protection per destruction.
What - that is ridiculous? Yes it is. But tell me how the parallel is not equally ridiculous, on what grounds are the arguments different? Except perhaps a) recordings and recorders of words can not take life and b) there isn't a multimillon dollar lobbying group/public persuasion groups (re: propoganda) behind one while there is such money/influence peddling behind the other.
indepat
(20,899 posts)liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)Warpy
(111,339 posts)with as much publicity about it as possible because it's the only way other parents are going to learn that kids are stupid around guns and the damned things need to be locked up.
valerief
(53,235 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)where children can get them.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)the only thing that will stop this is to prosecute the parents for involuntary manslaughter.
Guns kill kids by accident or kids get their hands on guns--parents go to jail.
Would stop it real quick.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Truth in reporting..."where it went off". I think not.