Unfortunately, accidents can happen in many ways.

How many children died from chicken pox?
How many children died because they were left in a hot car?
How many children died from eating rat poisoning?

Stick to the issue. 100 children died because their parents are careless assholes who undoubtedly describe themselves as "responsible gun owners". I'm sick of the gun nuts constantly taking every shameful death imposed on an innocent child and turning it into a "shit happens" kind of statement.

except probably chicken pox should result in someone never getting done paying as the OP suggests? People tend to like to punish others for things there is no chance could happen to themselves and sympathize with people doing things they can imagine themselves involved in.

But the same applies...."accidents" caused by someone's negligence should be uniformly punished regardless the means..

Which is worse: A parent who leaves a kid in a locked car on a hot day or a parent who leaves a loaded gun where a child can get at it? Same question about the parent who leaves the gate to the pool area open and a child falls in and drowns.

Speaking of getting tiresome, I'm getting tired of the gun control crowd exploiting children by making accidents or negligence cases that involve firearms into a gun control issue.

making accidents or negligence cases that involve firearms into a gun control issue."

That would almost be funny if it didn't involve the deaths of children. That's a mindset that I will thankfully never understand or agree with, I would be ashamed if I did.

Neither the interior of the car nor the pool is designed to kill. Guns are.

Negligence with any of these objects can cause the death of a child. The intended purpose of the object is irrelevant.

If I had to choose among the three, I would say it was the parent that locks the child in the car. In that situation, the child will have been extremely uncomfortable even if it survives and the parent would almost certainly have known the child was there. In the other cases, it's possible nothing happens.

Guns have the purpose of killing. Death by a loaded gun is an intended consequence.

By definition, an accident is unintended.

It's negligent and irresponsible because the owner of the gun knows that the risk of injury or death is high because of the very nature of the instrument. That's why normal people leave the weapon unloaded or locked.

Leaving a loaded gun where a child can get it is certainly negligence.

When I was 4 and he was 6, he invited me over to his house to show me "something neat". It was a pistol that was kept in a coffee table. He opened up the drawer and started to reach for it, but then his father started cussing up a storm and I ran out of that house as fast as my legs could carry me.

get's arrested, charged, sometimes with murder!

None of this accidental bullshit we hear about every fucking day when a child finds a gun and bang,
somebody's kid is a dead bloody mess.

If we stop gun deaths that is progress!
Gunners should lose their gun rights if they are the ones responsible for the child's death.
And it ain't no fucking accident it is negligence!

Negligence is a cause and an accident is the result. Most accidents are caused by negligence of some kind or another.

Negligence that results in a child's death is terrible regardless of how the child actually dies. In that situation, there is no better or worse negligence.

...we ran the numbers, and this is an acceptable number of dead kids.

It is the same calculus made by the Ford Motor Company when it decided to keep on selling the Pinto in the 70s. They figured the profit outweighed any potential liabilities. Very simple balance sheet.

And it makes me sick.

Nice job.

Nothing new, same old lame excuses rehashed.

They're getting faster.

secured guns they are not accidents, they are due to gun owner negligence. It is time that society starts to call them exactly what they are and accidents is not it.

Edit to add: For those incidents where the deceased is a relative to the negligent gun owner I don't have any sympathy for the family. If you properly secure your gun(s) crap like this wouldn't happen. For non-relative innocent victims, their families should sue the negligent gun owner into 100% total financial ruin, i.e. take every last dime and leave them with a legally mandated financial IOU they have to live with for the rest of their lives. Money is god in this country and if common sense or a belief in the idea of sanctity of life is not enough to get someone to secure their gun(s) maybe the prospect of permanent financial ruin might. I doubt it though. Stupid is as stupid does and there is always the idiot that thinks that is could never happen to him.

"Negligence"?

be taken to prevent them.

I don't have much issue with the post, just that it shouldn't be isolated to one form of negligence referred to as an accident. ..

The same should apply to those who leave their firearms unsecured.

is involved in negligence commonly referred to as an accident resulting in someone's death should never get done paying regardless the means?

I don't understand that question. If someone fails to secure their firearm and it accidentally kills or injures someone, they should be held liable.

States essentially that someone should never get done paying in such an instance. I'm asking if the same fate should await anyone involved in any negligence based "accident", or does it only apply to gun "accidents"...

Swimming pools=exercise & leisure


Guns=killing.

~ Self defense? Other methods of self defense are not usually lethal, or at least death is not the expected outcome

~hobby? Well, that hobby usually kills other people and not the person having all the fun


Firearms have a practical use in rural living, to hunt (again, to kill) or to protect from wild predators (yup, to kill). There is no practical purpose to be in possession of a firearm in an urban or suburban situation, its stupid and dangerous IMO.

When they are, why does any of the rest matter? Shouldnt all negligent acts result in the same consequences?

99.99% of gun owners will never kill anyone. Math has never been the strong point of gun control groups.

deliberate act on the part of the gun owner. Any deaths or injuries resulting from the discharge of that gun ties right back to that initial deliberate act. No way can you claim accident.

and many other deliberate acts of negligence. Are they all to have the same consequences if someone is injured or killed?

laws relating to texting and driving resulting in legal ramifications if you text & drive and then get into an accident. More and more it is becoming a recognizable criminal act (as is drinking and driving).

Swimming pools have always been viewed as potential liability issues as reasonable people realize that pools can act as a "magnet" to unwanted visitors. Not properly securing access to a pool is just plain asking for trouble. For example, if you have an 18 month child who gets outside by a pool with no adult (or trained swimmer) around, it it not hard to figure out what might go wrong. There is always the possibility that a homeowner could be charged with negligence or child endangerment with a child's pool related death. Civil suit is always an option.

When it comes to child endangerment or negligence there are numerous situations where criminal charges could be filed but are not. An actual act may not be a criminal in and of itself, but the circumstance surrounding the act may have the potential to raise it to the level of a criminal act.

Unsecured guns where children kill themselves or someone else?

There are rarely any charges.

And that is bullshit of the highest order.

Compounded "accidents" or bad judgment. ..it just doesn't happen.

What is bullshit is pretending they are...

Not even when they are responsible for someone elses child. Not even if they are negligently discharging a firearm and maim or kill someone.

It is complete bullshit.

Group. If someone posted that the NRA took issue with some government statistics imagine the howls. ..

Authoritarian asswipe

Just not allowed to do speculative analysis. ..the numbers are and have been compiled.

That starts with being able to categorize incidents in ways that allow for the best flexibility in terms of analysis. However, it really starts with having adequate funding to do the data analysis in the first place, some the CDC hasn't had.

The CDC is highly qualified to do such rigorous analysis.

With more dire consequences than not being able to do scientific analysis. ..the data is available for anyone who wishes to do that off the public teet. Maybe school funding, infrastructure, food and nutrition services, medical services, ...need we continue with a list of underfunded government services?

The CDC compiles data and raw statistics. There are those who pretend they don't.

So that explains why the CDC's numbers would be lower.

Gun nuts have decided their fetish is more important than science.

You can't have it both ways: hamper the ability of the CDC to collect data, then choose to believe that (faulty) data because it tells you what you want to hear.

I hate gun apologists.

They release the data, they don't do speculative analysis. ..pretending that Michael Bloomberg is anything but an authoritarian hack is, well, I guess your privilege. ..

Provide the legislation that backs up this claim.

Doesn't answer the question asked. That's a twofer.

And his former Monsanto shill Sharon Watts.

It's kind of embarrassing that anyone would want to promote faulty and biased research.

I'll stick with the CDC data and conclusions, thanks very much.

...by a gun because of adult negligence is one too many.

Last edited Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:07 PM - Edit history (1)

that makes them expendable. The the gun buying age was lowered to birth, children would get protection from the "pro-life" crowd.

Be it because of negligence, an accident, or on purpose who ever OWNS the gun gets a life sentence

Who cares about some dead kids

or throw your kid in 'to teach him to swim', then yes, by all means, treat them the same.

The difference between the drowning false equivalency is that leaving a gate open for a pool is negligence, absolutely. It's also usually accidental (yet people do get charged for it). However, for a child to kill themselves or another person with a gun, that gun must be deliberately, actively loaded, THEN 'forgotten'. There is one act that is deliberate and active, and the other is accidental and passive. Also, it's a double negligence, because if you are a responsible gun owner, you don't leave any gun lying around loaded. Plus, then you are leaving it lying around with a child around. As I said, it would be like dangerous driving with your child in the car (like street racing or something), or it would be like throwing your kid in the pool, or enticing them to jump in and then leaving them alone. There are 2 decisions involved with firearm deaths - one deliberate and one accidental - and only one decision - usually accidental (and passive) - in leaving the gate open (and well, car wrecks are usually a chain of events, often times not just the fault of one party). Not in the same realm even, really. It's a false equivalency.

If parents with a pool leave the pool unsecured and the kid walks out and drowns then you want life in prison also.
Your hatred of guns blurs your logic.

Like when they say, 'truthfully' or "To be honest" that usually means they are getting ready to tell you a whopper.