Nobody's rights are worth one innocent life.

Tragedy for both kids. The 6yo will bear that his entire life.

The father has been charged with felony child endangerment. This is far from the norm where authorities usually go "Oh what a tragic accident" and then do nothing about it.

It is nice to see that the authorities at least make an effort to see that the gun owner is held accountable for his negligence.

like Ben Cason suggests?

Guns don't kill 3 yr olds, 6 yr olds do.

Once you are out of the womb, you're on your own.... pro lifers.

If you're willing to spend 100's for a quality self defense personal protection device, 100's for ammo, why not 80 bucks for a good pistol safe???

I can understand that POV also, but it can't save lives stuck on top of the fridge, so it may as well be in a safe.

Or do you prefer the loaded weapon under your pillow your pillow at night so you can shoot te'rists and "thugs"?

'Merika!

I was going to post saying that trigger locks are even cheaper, but that deflects from the real issues -- human nature is very fallible and guns are very dangerous. Trigger locks will be left off by accident, gun safes left open, kids will find the keys... the list of potential screw ups that WILL happen is endless.

Our country is gun obsessed, to its detriment. imho

tragedy is something that happens to someone else. No worries! I got this!

Locks are free and I think gun lock boxes should be also. Now the "gun safety" people will scream about that. People need to use them all.

You can't control what people do and people make mistakes.

no matter how often some innocent person dies from a gun, the gun apologists all say there's nothing we can do, and that taking guns away simply isn't the solution.

I say, confiscate the guns.

Ok, tell us your plan for accomplishing that.

you sure are taking this personally, aren't you?

I'm interested in hearing what the plan would be, how it could be accomplished?
How about you? Are you in favor of confiscation? If so, then what would be your plan to accomplish this?

simultaneous to the deportation of 11 million Mexicans.

Other than hand-wringing, I mean.

Although to give an actual response I'd start with a buyback program. I'd also require all guns be licensed and registered, and all gun owners go through a periodic re-licensing and gun safety training. It would be somewhat analogous to cars and drivers' licenses.

I'd require some sort of liability insurance. If you lose a gun or it's stolen you need to report that immediately, and if in, say, the first six months after that report your gun is used in any sort of crime, there are sanctions. And don't whine about it's not your fault if your gun is stolen. It's your responsibility to keep it safe from thieves. And if your gun is used in a crime, or your kid finds it and kills his little brother, or sister, or mom while out shopping, you lose all rights to own a gun forever. And if you're caught with one after that, you serve serious jail time.

Otherwise, if you just throw up your hands and say, "Oh gosh, oh golly oh, gee, what a tragedy here, totally unpreventable," you're part of the problem.

Other countries get along with a fuck of a lot fewer guns, don't have mass shootings, don't have crap like a six year old shooting and killing is little brother.

The other thing that is totally overlooked is that it's not just the deaths that occur, but the woundings and maimings. Apparently all those are okay, too.

I just sincerely wish that all of the gun apologists would get to have someone they love killed by a gun. You're the ones who don't seem to mind, so take it on.

You said you support confiscation of all guns, I asked what's your plan for accomplishing that.

Buy back programs are perfectly legal as long as it's voluntary, not forced like what happened in Australia.

I would be ok with licensing of firearm owners, much like IL's FOID card, registration is a no go with me, the govt has no right nor business knowing what firearms I own.

Liability insurance? For what purpose? Insurance companies won't pay for the criminal use of a firearm.
I have no problem with reporting it lost or stolen, honest firearm owners do that now, my problem is holding the owner responsible for the criminal use of a lost or stolen firearm even if the owner didn't report it.

Confiscation is difficult at best. How about a government subsidy of say, $200 for every person who buys a gun. Gun makers would raise prices by the same amount. This would protect profits.

The NRA doesn't give a shit about the lives, constitutional rights or any of these other silly "bad guy / good guy" arguments.

It's about protecting profits. As gun ownership continues to decline, the subsidy increases. Republicans will be for it because government money will go to the "right people". Maybe even add $50 for being a white gun buyer as a sweetener.

which the SCOTUS has already ruled unconstitutional, it sounds like you want to make firearm ownership unreachable to the poorer segment of the population.

"I would be ok with licensing of firearm owners, much like IL's FOID card, registration is a no go with me, the govt has no right nor business knowing what firearms I own.'

Last edited Sun Oct 18, 2015, 07:36 PM - Edit history (1)

there are appox. 300 million unregistered weapons in the country, according to the FBI, personally, I think there's more, these are firearms the govt has no idea where they are, who has them, etc., so, as I said, the govt would never be able to confiscate firearms in this country.

My opposition to registration is based on the 4th Amendment, and AFAIC, the govt has no right nor business knowing what firearms I own.

(forgetting for the moment about a well-regulated militia). It doesn't say anything about being your right to keep it a secret.

as does the ACLU.

That would preclude them inspecting your firearm, or taking it, but not simply knowing about it.

it's about being secure in your home and papers,
The ACLU is also concerned about privacy issues with registration.
The bottom line is that my belief is that the govt has no right, nor business knowing what firearms I own.

"...registration is a no go with me, the govt has no right nor business knowing what firearms I own."
What, are you one of those"the govment out to get me" types? Are you a doomsday prepper going to hold off the feds from invading your compound?
You own a device that was created for the express purpose to kill. Don't argue with me about how it is used. How it might be used in a given situation and the specific reason it was created are very different. A car, if misused, could kill or hurt someone. The specific reason it was created was as a form of transportation. Lots of everyday items, if misused, could kill someone. A firearm is in a rare category of a thing created for the express purpose to kill.
Again, not how it might be used, but the reason firearms were created. Firearms were not created for home self-defense or to target shoot. The first created firearm was by the Chinese, it was called a fire lance and it was created to kill in war. The first known personal firearm was created by the Italians, it was created to kill in war.

My point is that by owning a device which has the express purpose to kill, not how it might be used, means whatever rules we impose for their distribution, ownership and use is always fair.

How many fucking times do I have to say this?
I don't fear the govt taking our firearms, it will never happen, I'm not one of those conspiracy nuts who think the govt is planning on taking control of the country by mass confiscation of firearms.

And I'm not some prepper nut that's planning for the........................., I'm retired Army with over 40 years in, we own a small farm in AZ, we pay our taxes, follow the laws of AZ, so take your little accusations and place them where it's dark and smelly where they belong.

My opposition to registration is based on the 4th Amendmet, I don't believe the govt has any right, nor business knowing what firearms I own.

You choose to own a device that was created for the express purpose to kill, any laws governing the distribution, ownership and use of firearms is therefore fair.
No different than dynamite. It was created for the express purpose to destroy. Buildings, rocks or people.
Because of that we created laws about the distribution, ownership and use of dynamite.
How is this, practically speaking, any different?
Again, not about how it might be used but why it was created. Don't say "2nd amendment" either.
Dynamite can kill 1 person or dozens. So can a firearm.
How is this, practically speaking, any different?

They will both just sit there inert until there is human interaction, good or bad.

And you did make it personal when you accused me of being a prepper, or on of those nuts that thinks the govt is out to get me.

I have no problem with licensing firearms owners, like what IL does, but registration of firearms is a no go for me, as I've said numerous times, the govt has no right, nor business, knowing what firearms I own.

Same could be said for a tank or a frying pan for that matter. Both could be used to kill but only one of them was created for a very different purpose.
A firearm or TNT, were created for the express purpose to kill or destroy. Again, how they might be used and the purpose they were created for, are two very different things.
I don't care about hunting or target shooting.

Every other modern economy on Earth has managed to create laws that still allow for gun ownership in controlled situations, protect public safety and have less (none) mass shootings than us.

Not sure why that is asking so much.

Some folks are very simple.

as witnessed by some of the posts to my question.

violent 'defensive gun use' seem to me to be the predominant motive for buying firearms, especially handguns. I'm reminded of the Muddy Waters lyric, 'I hope some screwball starts a fight', when I think of someone spending hundreds of dollars for a handgun, as if it were hundreds of lottery tickets. Fantasies of heroic 'DGU' are about as likely to come true as fantasies of lottery $millions.

Somebody has to deflate tens of millions of gun owner fantasies periodically to sate their appetites for more and more powerful weapons.

On 'Democracy Now' a day or two after the debate last week, a young Goucher College prof suggested that no one be permitted to have a firearm without first having been shot and wounded.

That was hyperbole, but how about taking a cue from anti-abortion legislation and making prospective firearm customers watch hours of videos of gun massacre aftermaths, with Sandy Hook as the first reel?

Don't like that? Give us something better.

How about being serious and answer the question?

Give us your plan. What are you gun-humpers willing to give up to stop this madness?

That's really fucked up.

Curious as to where you think you would have the American public on your side?
And do you really think firearms owner would sit still and not fight back, in the courts and legislatively?
And do you really think there wouldn't be armed insurrection against the govt if all legal avenues failed?

I find your position on this to be, well..............vile and disgusting.

If you have something better, spill it. All I'm getting from your side is crickets. Either put up or get out of the way.

Add in mandatory liability insurance, registration in a national database, VIGOROUS enforcement, stiff penalties for violations (maybe here's where we put the public hangings? ), and I'll sign on!

There ARE things a majority can agree on.

and not because I think the govt will use it to confiscate firearms, that's never going to happen, but because I of the opinion that the govt has no right, nor business knowing what firearms I own.
The ACLU is opposed to a national registry also on privacy grounds.

Liability insurance? If you mean insurance against an accidental shooting, ok, but insurance companies won't pay out for criminal acts with a firearm, and, do you really want to add to the coffers of the NRA?
They already offer insurance for their members, if liability insurance were mandatory, the NRA would become one of the biggest insurers of firearms.

I'm all for VIGOROUS enforcement and very stiff penalties for violations of local, state and federal firearms laws.

Make people who make their own ammo would face a federal crime, and give people a year to get rid of their guns or face a mandatory 20 years in prison. Allow gun ranges to rent guns to shoot ONLY at their facility. Allow hunting to some who rely on it to survive ONLY. We have the power to do it.

it's part and parcel of the 2A.
Curious as to where you think you would get the support needed for such laws?

Legally, gun owners would be entitled to be paid the value of the firearms they'd be surrendering. That's what they did in Australia when they banned certain (not all) firearms.

So, average $500/gun, and 300 million guns in the US. Gonna get very, very spendy, very fast.

Also, you'd first need to repeal the 2nd Amendment before you even started outlawing firearms or the ammunition that they use, which requires what, 2/3 of the states to approve?

and then 3/4th's of the states to ratify it.
IOW, it would take only 13 states to deep six any change to the Constitution.

Kind of like stop growing weed or stop brewing meth.

Mexico, all of South America and Asia is glad to fill the vacum for the prohibitionists. It's worked so great in the war on drugs they should have the same results as a war on ammo, right ?

A lot of firearms are in a caliber made and used worldwide like 9mm and 7.62. So many billions of rounds are prodused for the wars and a lot ends up on the retail shelves. A large percentage of plinking 7.62 ammo today comes from Russia. Before you yell ban it all, think back to 'ban drugs' history.

So what laws were broken by this ex gangbanger Dad who 'bought' the gun from a gangbanger he knew (and who knows where that banger got it ? Was a NICS check made on the purchase, or was it an illegal straw purchase or 'gasp' a stolen gun changing hands in gangland ? Chicago with some of the stringest gun purchase/ownership gun controls in the country and this criminal Dad had no problem circumventing the law for his refrigerator magnet. The article states charges on child endangerment, where are the numerous charges for the broken Chicago gun laws ? Chicagos onerous strict gun control laws failed to save this childs life because of a criminal who cares less for 'laws' ignored the laws. So the answer is no ammo fpr anyone in the country. Wonder if that would work for weed or alcohol or cocaine etc etc.

The tragedy is a toddler is dead because a criminal had access to a firearm (how many bets he was a felon too ?).

He lives to jump on anyone who suggests Confiscation.

I'd tell you to say "license and register" instead, but he probably has alerts set for those words as well.

then leaves it in a place where his children can grab it.

"The couple just moved into the home, and Santiago thought the refridgerator was too tall for any of his children to find the weapon resting atop it, Rayyan said.

'Nobody knew the gun was there,' he told The News.

'He said in his eyes, that was the best spot, on the back of the fridge, because the kids couldn't find it.'"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-boy-6-accidentally-shoots-brother-father-charger-article-1.2401877

They live in a terrible neighborhood. Charging the father isn't going to help that.

My initial reaction to reading about the charge was, "It's about time!" Now I'm rethinking that. Will he be convicted and do time? Get fired? What about the rest of the family?

It's a tragic situation in so many ways.

Obviously, what he thought was wrong, as was leaving a loaded weapon in an unsecured place. That they live in a "terrrible neighborhood" doesn't change that. He "protected" his son into the grave.

FWIW, I knew a boy who died in similar circumstances. An uncle had the gun for self protection and kept it under the mattress, thinking kids would never look there.

of his sibling. Cuz freedumb and libertea.

it a "tragic accident" and no one suffers any penalty for the negligence and stupidity that caused the child's death.

I grew up with rifles and so did my kids and grandkids. They were and are never accessible to them. We live very rural and I would bet most people in rural Western SD have rifles in their home but I don't hear of children being shot.

I'm not sure the father would be charged.

That is probably why he didn't get the "tragic accident/stuff happens" treatment.

How tragic and sad.

it's about time an adult was charged in a case like this. There's no such thing as an accident when a child can access a loaded gun.

I can guarantee this will happen, again and again.

There is just no fix for stupid. With 300M guns, which is way out of control, I would imagine there are quite a few stupid people still out there.

IE: Well damn, I hid the gun in the junk drawer. I didn't think anyone would look there.

How many 6 year old children actually know what a real gun can do?

This is sickening, and sadly, will be part of the news for a long time to come.

It amazes me how many of these child shooters usually aim for the head. Where do they learn that..TV?

You have made this possible.

Take a moment to contemplate how fucked up this chart is, and even the most hardcore gun nuts cannot justify:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/people-are-getting-shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

So tried of every serious debate being shutdown by any moron that can say "2nd amendment". When the fuck did your so-called "right to bear arms" supersede my right to walk around in public without feeling like my town is under some sort of paramilitary marshal law?
Nothing says "feeling safe" like being in a store and have 3 strangers in tactical gear, rifles and pistols on their hips walk in. Not to mention there is no conversation I am having with someone I know is armed, including a cop, in which they are not always going to be "right". That is bullshit. I don't give a shit if you tell me you are "a good guy with a gun". Don't care what you say, you are one argument or one beer from being a "bad guy with a gun".

You can only continue to deflect or hobble these conversations saying "2nd amendment" for so long before the ability to shape and effect real solutions is taken out of your hands. Eventually we will all tire of it and change the rules without your input.

You made an implied threat based on the fact that you and your 80 million friends are armed. The whole "from my cold dead hands" bullshit.
So, at the end of the day, you get to decide because having a gun means you are always "right"?
Thank you for making my point. Glad we live in such a civil and enlightened society.

I made no such implied threat, so quit your lying.
I said without the co-operation of the 80-90 million firearms owners, you won't get any significant gun control laws passed.

With a gun owner, the implied threat is always there.
That is really the problem. A gun owner has the ability, with a twitch of their finger, to kill me or someone I care about. I want to make laws to protect myself and others from that, to at least midigate the risk. Yet, I'm the asshole. I should just go live in another country. I'm anti-American. I'm violating your rights.

It may not have been what you implied. A gun on your hip means you are always "right".

Not all courts have seen it quite the same way. I like this one:

"Aymette v. State, 21Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), In Aymette, the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment , the court wrote: “The words ‘bear arms’ … have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment.”

1. The act of 1837-8, ch. 137, sec. 2, which prohibits any person from wearing any bowie knife, or Arkansas tooth-pick, or other knife or weapon in form, shape or size resembling a bowie knife or Arkansas tooth-pick under his clothes, or concealed about his person, does not conflict with the 26th section of the first article of the bill of rights, securing to the free white citizens the right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.
2. The arms, the right to keep and bear which is secured by the constitution, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and constitute the ordinary military equipment; the legislature have the power to prohibit the keeping or wearing weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare.
3. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand, and the rulers on the other; and although this right must be inviolably preserved, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States

I guess it's okay to pack nukes but leave the Bowie knife at home.

who purchased his firearm illegally breaking who knows how many state and potentially federal laws. He failed to properly secure his firearm.

This guy spit on the firearm safety rules that the NRA has promoted for several generations, he violated at least several state laws in acquiring the gun, and he put people's lives in danger with how he chose to handle the gun. But, that's all the NRA's fault?

Get real, this guy had no business with firearms or the responsibility of parenthood.

He thought he had to have a gun to protect his family.

Imagine for a moment what he must be going through.

The "former" gang banger, who wantonly violated various firearm laws to obtain the firearm and then didn't bother to properly secure it. Of course hs is going to spin some tale to make him sympathetic to the prosecution. if he was a former gang banger, why didn't he go through the process to obtain a Firearm Owners ID, then proceed to purchase and register the firearm in accordance with all applicable state and local laws? Some former criminal.

Why is it, that when dealing with gang bangers you seldom find controllers willing to enforce the laws?

"Santiago, a former member of the Spanish Cobras gang, told police he bought the gun from a fellow gang member for protection, the Chicago Tribune reported. Police are now tracing the weapon.

Santiago's sons — Eian, 3, and his big brother — were playing their game when the eldest found the gun on top of a refrigerator and accidentally fired it around 9 p.m., police said. Eian died in a hospital about three hours later.

His brother’s name has not been released and police have not charged him.

Santiago was working late at Papa Ray's Pizza, where he is a manager, when his wife, Angie Lasalle, called him with the news, according to friend and coworker Rayyan.

'He was in shock,' Rayyan told the Daily News. 'He couldn't understand his wife, she was crying so much.'"

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-boy-6-accidentally-shoots-brother-father-charger-article-1.2401877

Please try to have a little understanding of the circustances that get kids into gangs in the first place. Santiago got out and this happens. What punishment can be worse than losing his son this way?

BTW, I've been robbed at gunpoint more than once by "gang bangers" but I can still have compasion for them. They were all babies once.

Of course he is going to claim that he is a former gang member. If he truly is a former gang member, why would he violate the states gun laws?

buy guns from friends too. I doubt many of them even know what their state's gun laws are.

Why don't you ask him instead of me?

engages in illegal firearms transactions or anyone defending the criminal who was reckless in securing his firearm which led to the death of a child.

This guys actions are inexcusable.

He's a manager at Papa Ray's Pizza. He thought the top of the tall refrigerator was the safest place for the gun, that the kids couldn't reach it. He's not the first to make such a mistake.

Off the top of my head I can think of a case where a five-year-old got a chair, got the gun off the top of a cabinet and shot his little sister dead. More recently a boy got into his grandfather's gun case, found the loaded handgun behind the long guns and killed his baby brother while his mother was in the kitchen. "I'm sorry, mom. I shot Corbin."

Never underestimate the ingenuity of a child.

In this case Santiago may have feared reprisals because he left the gang but they live in a neighborhood where shootings are common. This is one of those rare cases where keeping a gun for self defense and defense of home and family may have been justified. I'd have preferred a security system but maybe they couldn't afford one (and what's the response time?). I was once advised by a security salesman that it's cheaper to get robbed (I just had been). The employees were getting robbed in the security company's parking lot.

You read the article so you know what the mother posted on Facebook: “PLEASE LET MY FAMILY GRIEVE IN PEACE LEAVE OUT ALL YOUR NEGATIVE N RUDE COMMENTS TO URSELF”

he illegally purchased a firearm, thus making him a criminal.

That has to be horrible for all involved.

I'm glad they charged him. They should start charging every gun owner that leaves a loaded weapon unsecured and someone gets hurt or killed.