This will be the norm.

There is no fix for stupid people. Especially stupid ones with a gun and a bullet. I mean, who leaves a loaded gun, unattended in a house with a 5 year old?

People who have the attitude that a gun is the same kinda thing as a kitchen gadget or a screw driver.

Too bad you can't (un)qualify them with a test.

Morons who leave their loaded guns laying around for little kids to play with need to be prosecuted and sent to the big house for very long sentences. WTF is wrong with this country? Why is the right to possess a weapon of death more sacrosanct than the life of an innocent human being?

Playing with a loaded rifle that was on display and loaded in the house.

I'll never forget it. They went out shopping leaving junior at home to play and came home and junior's brains were scattered around the living room.

I was about 10 years old when this happened and no, I never forgot about it. It ruined the lives of so many people, not to mention the boy that lost his life.

Millions of Americans manage quite easily to keep firearms out of the hands of children. There are just a lot of stupid irresponsible people out there.

If people are too irresponsible to own guns, then the second amendment needs to be changed . . . like back to pre-Heller. Every Tom, Dick and maniac shouldn't be allowed to own as many guns as they can afford to buy.

Pre-Heller?

The citizenry has owned personal firearms since the country was founded.

I find the argument you provided extremely lacking - people are irresponsible in virtually everything we as a species do, and yet we seek to punish only those who are negligent in practically every case. Why should this be different?

These accidents are rare and this is not breaking news. Defensive gun uses occur hundreds of times per day, if we posted each one in LBN it would have to be renamed LBN-DGU.

gun use" statistic.

I recently had an opportunity to read through posts on the DU2 archive on the topic of guns, and I could tell you are quite knowledgeable on the subject as a whole. Although, lately it seems like you've been going with a more simplistic approach when this topic comes up.

There's a guy, his name is David Hemenway and I'm pretty sure he hates guns. He really hates the idea of ordinary folks being able to walk into a store and purchase a firearm. Even that gun control "academic" cites defensive gun use in the ~65K per year range. I think that is extremely low but it's a good starting point considering the source.


Hope you are doing well.

necessary. That counts as a "defensive gun use" and gets gunners all excited. Other "defensive gun uses" are, "a scary black man approached my car and I showed him I was packing and he walked away. " A high percentage of gun fanciers are just racists and intimidaters who make junk up in their sick minds.

That's the kind of truth that got me banned from the DU gun club, the Gungeon.

paranoid racists...which I don't think is an accurate or fair characterization. But to each their own, I respect that you have a somewhat unique opinion. I like to read the more lively or nuanced gun control responses when these threads come up.

It's sad that you were blocked from GC&RKBA, because one has to use extremely over the top rhetoric before being blocked from the Gungeon. If you'd like to apply for reinstatement, I would gladly lobby the host and the other regulars on your behalf. Depending on what you did, I'm not sure it would help...but generally speaking the regulars there don't have thin skin.

Personally, I'm not offended by opinions, even if they are in bad taste from time to time. You see, only three people have ever been blocked from GC&RKBA...meanwhile the gun control group doesn't even allow dissenting opinions. I accidentally posted there, immediately self deleted, and was blocked shortly after. Gun control advocates do not like to engage in debate or have their beliefs challenged. They need safe spaces in order to thrive. But not Hoyt, you always seem happy to discuss these topics, even if the outcome is implying that gun owners are incredibly racist individuals...which just isn't true.

Gun owners are incredibly diverse.

I live in a diverse area, and the makeup of the crowds at the range, stores, and the shows seems to reflect the makeup of the area. One of the gun stores in my town reminds me of an Apple store. No kidding. The range looks like an upscale spa or Neiman Marcus.

To each their own. Gun control advocates shouldn't try to slander gun owners. The only thing we all have in common is that we own a gun. Gun ownership stretches across political boundaries, race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and economic status.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef017ee7f4128c970d-640wi

http://a2.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_365,w_652/sd8o2vcefwokj9gyfnmn.jpg

you'd see a whole shit-ton of non-white people there. I live in the burbs of Atlanta, actually within a few miles of both a police station and a gun range / gun store. I've always been surprised at how many African Americans, cops, and women go there. They have overflow parking across the street, and I usually change my driving routes on the weekends when the pedestrians clog the street going back and forth between parking and the range.

up on the Saturday after Sandy Hook to buy so-called assault rifles.

I've been in plenty of gun stores there too. Heck, just a few years ago, one on the appropriately named Old Dixie Highway was running videos on YouTube of the best gun to have "if a brown person walks across your lawn."

Confederate flag pistol grips were popular there too. Sorry, my experience is very different from yours, right in your backyard it sounds like.

But to answer your question (slightly out of order):

Chantilly, VA
Bangor, Maine
Fort Worth, Texas
Costa Mesa, CA
Albany, New York 


With the exception of Albany and Fort Worth, the other shows were held in cities with very small African Amerian populations. There are people of all races at shows in large African American population centers in my experience. At the range I see a very diverse crowd as well.

I'm not going to argue the point with you, it's your opinion. But I don't think all or even most gun owners are bigots.

Here is a story you might enjoy.
http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/12/250445228/african-american-gun-club-hopes-to-help-curb-youth-violence

"makeup of the crowds at the range, stores, and the shows seems to reflect the makeup of the area..."

No doubt, as humans we feel compelled to allege instances which publicly validate our biases, regardless of their authenticity.

We have plenty of law to address this situation.

Is one too many!!!!

Children die from many irresponsible adult items, hobbies, and tools. Should all be banned? I have enough shit under my sink to kill a schoolhouse, but I keep the chemicals locked with a child latch when kids are in my house. It is the responsibility of the adults to keep the dangerous stuff away from children.

It's unreasonable and frankly nuts to want to get rid of anything that is dangerous to kids from adult life.

We start and stop with guns. Period. Yes, children (and adults) will die from other causes, and we can address those in other ways. Subject here is guns. Stop trying to deflect from the subject. We CAN stop those deaths if we have the will.

The desire to control others is a sick obsession for some people. It's not even remotely liberal! It's a classic aspect of right-wing politics to believe that the common riff-raff are incapable of handling some object/subject/topic and much defer to their rightful masters because it's too dangerous for them. The right for common people to own guns is no different than other rights guaranteed to citizens. I often notice the intellectual dishonesty on this topic is similar to those that oppose abortion. They too oppose a right because they believe it hurts children, and they rationalize their restrictions in same way in pretty much every aspect. I have no intention of staying silent and not defending civil and political rights.

I'm tired of the authoritarian strain that has infected the party and threatens to kill liberalism from within.

There's lots to be made from guns.

where children have access to it, then *maybe* less of these tragedies will occur.

Why will a little prison time stop someone, when the loss of a child obviously won't. I have no condolences for the father, it was his fault, and he deserves to live with it the rest of his life.

Condolences for the mother and siblings, who will also have to live with this the rest of their lives.

and represent far fewer deaths than poisoning, falls, drowning, electrocution, and other categorized deaths. Considering the huge increase in the number of firearms which has occurred in the U.S. over the last 20 years, something is Already working. Have any ideas what that something(s) is?

One thing for sure: MSM is far more interested in these deaths than, say, electrocution.

"Actually, these deaths have been falling for years; less than 100/year..."

No, not actually less than 100/year...but 94 this year to date; 278 in 2015-

"So far in 2016, at least 94 children younger than 18 have picked up a firearm and accidentally shot themselves or someone else, according to data from Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun-control group funded by former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg. The advocacy group, which compiles shooting data using news reports, found that 278 such shootings occurred in 2015."

Source

But my question is:
What is the magic number of accidental, unintended, no-one could have foreseen, responsible gun-owner "caused" kids' deaths that will convince defenders of the "Gun" that there actually is a problem?

government data which classifies kids as 15 or younger, not the self-serving 18 yoa.

There is a problem with accidental childhood deaths. But, hopefully those who treat the problem seriously -- with action and money -- will continue to FURTHER reduce these deaths. It is not for culture warriors and holier-than-thou types to lazy to start a movement to set standards. All clear with that?

If he had stashed it safely away without bullets in it—and not been open-carry obsessed—his daughter may still be alive.
Just a guess.
Very, very sad. I just can't imagine leaving a loaded gun on a table—with children in the house.

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

Even though a lot of what you say might make sense where a Constitutional right is not involved - like driving, the way the Amendment has been interpreted by the supreme court means much of what you propose is un Constitutional. You don't have to get a "license" to exercise a Constitutional right.

There is a process to modify the Constitution if you don't like what it says or its interpretation. We are going to have to change things Constitutionally to modify this or Citizens United.

Start here..

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/416Pu0iTsqL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Permits are legal, insurance is legal, limitations are legal.

If you don't believe a state has a right to issue carry permits, you should move to some other county.

This has been argued many times. It is constitutional to prevent dangerous people from easy access to guns.

You are changing your argument. Dangerous people - once convicted of a crime - can be deprived of their Constitutional rights. Are you saying that a license is required to go to church? Stand in the park on your soapbox? To be treated equally? You can't treat one of the Constitutional rights differently just because you don't like it. A lot of people don't like the Constitutional rights granted to everyone. Too bad - work to change it by either a Constitutional Amendment or a case that will bring about a different interpretation.

The Supreme court says it is a Constitutional Right to "keep and bear arms". It also includes the phrase "shall not be infringed".

What part of what I'm saying do you not understand?

So what's the name of the militia you belong to?

the Supreme Court basically said anyone - not just militia members - had a right to keep and bear arms.

Goggle the decision. It is your arguments that have been shown to be lacking... no militia membership required.

ad hominem attacks don't really strengthen your position.

The founding fathers did not put words in the Constitution for no reason.

Even decisions that have been later reversed were not declared unconstitutional, they just implemented a new interpretation of the law.

From 1920 to 1933, prohibition was the law of the land, but the government couldn't charge someone who made or drank booze in 1919 based on an Amendment that was ratified in 1920.

I don't see how a Firearms Identification Card indicating one has been trained in firearms safety and passed a background check is different from a Voter Registration. Both require being registered with the state that one has met the requirements to exercise that right.

It's just listing yourself as a elector. There is no fee or qualifications other than being a citizen.

Likewise, the Supreme Court has upheld bans on high-capacity magazines. Don't think it is as all or nothing as you suggest.

and required AR-15's and other modern-looking civilian rifles made between 1994 and 2004 to have nonthreaded muzzles and nonadjustable stocks. No guns were banned, and AR-15 sales easily tripled 1994-2004, so I'm not sure that's a very good example. A strict reading of D.C. v. Heller would seem to protect AR-15's and such (under the "in common use for lawful purposes" test), but we'll see. Still, given that more Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt, and they are the most popular civilian rifles in U.S. homes, such bans aren't going anywhere.

A small handful of states have instituted bans on rifle handgrips that stick out, adjustable stocks, and other "modern" features, but you can still own an AR-15 in California or New York if you put a straight stock on it and don't call it by a Prohibited Name of Ickiness.

I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed arbitrary bans on civilian magazine capacity either way, but it's hard to imagine that a minuscule 10-round limit would pass strict scrutiny, if anyone bothered to apply it. The very first repeating rifles ever made (the 1861 Henry, and Winchesters since 1866) had capacities of 15, 30-round magazines hit the market in the early 1870s, and 13+ round pistols have been common since the 1930s, so it's hard to make a case for threatening 50 million people with prison for possessing items that have been mainstream since the 1860s.

Accordance with the provisions and restrictions of the license.

Do you know any holders of drivers licenses that drive under the speed limit?

themselves and their family. Cuz that's most important. Right?

What, after all, is one dead kid (or several, for that matter) compared to the right of every Tom, Dick, and Nutbag to own an arsenal?

Dead children are just collateral damage to the NRA.

"Too bad, kiddo!' is their motto.

What kind of moron leaves his gun on the table with a 5-year-old in the house? Not only should he never be allowed to own a gun again, he should not be allowed to ever raise children. They should be taken away. He is a disgrace to humanity.

http://www.projectchildsafe.org/

Not your fault, Haley.

Thank God for tireless patriots like this

casually leave them laying around loaded?

But your family will miss you terribly.



I read the entire article...which I didn't want to. Half of is about how the Dad handled his weapons so well, educated the kids, etc. WTF? That's Garbage...it wasn't locked up and out of reach. What was he planning to take it with him to the Angry Birds movie?

Pretty sure he just lost custody, as he should, except under supervision.

He may lose custody, but thanks to the 2nd Amendment, his guns will be much more difficult to take. Thank God and good news for him.

Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

that energy /life is never destroyed. It just changes forms.

Other than that we must believe in the powers of darkness to extinguish life.

Of course no one really knows but it gives some comfort to such a senseless act. JMO.

WTF is wrong with people. A 45 is one bad ass, powerful pistol. Who is dumb enough to leave a LOADED 45 sitting on the table in a home where there are toddlers present? This idiot needs to be prosecuted for child neglect, among other things. What a complete, incompetent idiot.

and the burden of loss and guilt he will have to carry for his carelessness. If he is like most parents, it will be almost unbearable.

Maybe he could atone by trying to teach other gun-owning parents, whose children are so far still alive, how he was the cause of his little girl's death.

A gun culture. A gun nut has to have a gun everywhere they go.

Just like car owners. What would our roads be like if no one had to get a license? The blind would be driving.

The Bill of Rights - and specifically the 2nd Amendment as currently interpreted by the supreme court, says you are wrong.

You don't have to get a "license" to exercise a Constitutional right.

There is a process to modify the Constitution if you don't like what it says or its interpretation.

...high capacity magazines. States have also regulated concealed carry. As for modifying the constitution, why not just appoint a justice who respects State's rights, since right now there is a 5-4 split?

The 2nd doesn't say what you think it says. And if you think the interpretation by the fascist five, who have been wrong on just about every goddamned thing, is a correct judgment, you are in bed with pigs.

Read it again, the whole thing, not just the second of two subordinate parts.

This is like a drunk driver killing a kid. Complete negligence.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/local-news/new-orleans/st-john-sheriff-5yearold-kills-self-with-fathers-gun/39666450

There are dozens of these per year, now - and they seem to be increasing. Gun nuts are winning the war against those of us looking to tame America's gun madness, and children are suffering and dying as a result. Fuck the nutters.

I'm not glad the girl died. But I'm ashamed to say I'm glad this careless clod will suffer his whole life knowing he murdered his own daughter.

I guarantee you the conservative law enforcement in this Louisiana town will find an excuse not to press charges, saying it was just an accident and that the father has "suffered enough". If it was a black family, you can bet there'd be all sorts of "child endangerment" charges.

Again - fuck the nutters.

Talk about trauma. Watching your sister accidentally shoot herself. Or, worse, later blaming yourself if you were engaging in any horseplay that lead to the accident.

Father should face criminal charges.

https://www.google.com/#q=child+drowns&tbm=nws

This isn't latest breaking news. It's sad and pathetic that the father didn't secure his gun, but it isn't LBN.

defending the NRA and its Second Amendment misinterpretation. How many accidents does it take to satisfy the blood lust of depraved fetishists? No other country in the world is as uncivilized as "exceptional" America.
A well regulated militia has uniforms and intense training to be ready for any attack.
It's no guarantee for whisky swilling reprobates to walk the streets brandishing weapons.
The NRA fights for the rights of the mentally unbalanced because people who have thought disorders and make loose associations should have a firearm in the event they use bad judgment and .......................

Even though a 5yo should know the basics of gun safety you can't take that kind of risk.

It's not even the first one this week.

Are you happy now, gun nuts? Actually, I know you don't give a shit about anyone else. You don't care about the "collateral damage" that only happens BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY FUCKING GUNS.

They don't care who dies, as long as the precious isn't threatened.

COWARDS

As long as they have an unfettered "right" to have all the guns they could possibly buy, they will support no restrictions to this right. Won't even support gun locks, a requirement that all gun sales get run through the federal database, or even ban cop killing bullets. They care more about the guns/rifles than human life.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR03132: (Ban on "Cop-killer bullets", Public Law 99-408; passed 8/28/1986)

This law was extended to all rifle calibers that matter in 1994.

Thanks for the information. I'm glad this was done.

What new burden should I face as punishment for the crimes of those bad parents?

What draconian restrictions do you propose as a solution to an extremely rare tragedy?