2 year old shot in head by 4 year old. (Houston, TX)

by kwintestal 63 Replies latest social current

  • xenawarrior
    xenawarrior
    It is purely and simply a gun control issue - if guns are available then people will be shot ... including kids.

    No, actually it's a people control issue. That woman should have had that firearm secured and she should have been educated about the need for and importance of that. It's a very tragic situation but the gun is not to blame, the moron who owned the gun is. When I was the same age that little boy was, we lived in a pretty bad area of Chicago. There was a loaded shotgun in my parent's room propped up in the corner. None of us would have dared touch it.

    Growing up there were guns in most of the homes of my relatives. They were hunters and avid sportsmen. All of the children were educated about the dangers of firearms and when we were old enough my Grandfather taught us how to shoot one and we'd shoot at beer cans lined up on a fence. When the boys were old enough to go deer hunting and expressed a desire to do so, they went through a gun safety course. Most of the kids I grew up with had the same type of experience with guns in their homes. We were taught respect for guns and they were therefore not a danger to us as kids.

    The fact is that gun control in the U.S. as it has come about through legislation has done little to control the criminal's ability to obtain one.

    Instead of taking away my right to own a gun when I've been trained and know how to use one, why not require gun safety training in order to get one? There is a waiting period for gun ownership anyway- why not add one more step? Either provide certification that you have already completed a gun safety course or enroll in a class before you can pick it up.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't have to pass any sort of intelligence or "sense" test to get a gun?

    No, and they don't require it for buying a car or even a Bowie knife either.

    We don't have guns generally avaulable and so tend to have far far fewer gun related accidents.
    Oh really?
    http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

    * England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. 4

    4 "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm . England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).

    BBC News Online: UK


    Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK
    Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

    A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

    The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

    The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.



    Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place
    David Bredin
    Campaign for Shooting


    But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

    The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

    rest of the article is here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1440764.stm

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

    3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.

    The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales

    Publication Dat, Professor, Simon Fraser University
    Email: [email protected]
    Telephone: (604) 291-3652

    Executive Summary: Widely televised firearm murders in many countries during the 20th Century have spurred politicians to introduce restrictive gun laws. The politicians then promise that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence and "create a safer society." It is time to pause and ask if gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence.

    Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.

    rest of the study here:

    http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seems you have some cleaning up to do in your own backyard.

    darned formatting !!

  • purplesofa
    purplesofa

    My ex loved guns. He brought home a little pearl handled pistol he wanted me to have to carry in my purse. I hate guns. I thought he took it took work with him.

    I was babysitting two little girls after school and my son was about 2 i think. I am in the kitchen at the sink and I hear this shot and then a clink behind me. I go in the living room and there is my son sitting on the one girls lap with that gun in his hand. He shot it off.......it looked like a toy.......the gun was on the fireplace mantel in its case.

    The washer and dryer were directly behind me in the kitchen........The bullit went thru the living room wall and hit the back of the washer that faced the kitchen sink.

    My ex carried the bullit in his pocket for years and we never had a gun in the house after that.

    Try explaining that to the little girls mother!

  • simplesally
    simplesally

    I grew up as a police officer's daughter. He was an undercover agent. We had several loaded guns in the house. I was 6, my sister 4, when at least I can remember we knew where the guns were. We were allowed to use them to 'play with' but we had to ask permission first and were never allowed to point them at each other. Well, guns are quite heavy to run around with and it's no fun to shoot and say BANG BANG and point somewhere else. Our interest in guns was very little. I would guess that my dad always kept the safety on but I know for sure there were bullets in the guns.

    A sharpshooter friend of mine has encouraged me to get a gun as a single mom. I don't think I need one where I am, which is a pretty safe neighborhood. However, the advice was this:

    • 1st round = blank (but has a very loud noise)
    • 2nd round = pepper bullet
    • 3rd round = live round

    The reasoning is that if a child gets the gun, or a stranger, the first two rounds are not deadly. The pepper one will hurt but it sure won't kill anyone. The child should throw the gun down crying after bullet number one! You, as the gun owner, know you will have to fire 3 TIMES for the force to be deadly.

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Interesting strategy idea Sally. Sounds like it could prevent alot of accidental deaths, but you'd need to be quick and confident and able to count to three.

    btw folks, a dog is far better protection for your home and person than a gun is, if a tad higher maintainence.

  • bisous
    bisous

    If you don't own a gun, you don't have to worry about gun *accidents*. Many of these tragic occurrences happen in households where there are experienced gun owners, have taught their children about gun *safety*. Children's power of reasoning is not what we credit them ... anyone see the televised situations where young children are provided gun safety lessons and then placed somewhere where a gun can be found? and then .... continue on to pick it up, play with it, etc. It is astounding.

    Just because some gun owners or people from gun-owning families did NOT experience a tragedy doesn't mean they won't continue to happen ... needlessly.

    edited to add: Here are some examples of the tests I am referring to

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-06-04-boys-guns.htm

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/26060_guns05.shtml

  • xenawarrior
    xenawarrior
    edited to add: Here are some examples of the tests I am referring to

    Both articles you listed referred to the same single test.

    If you don't own a gun, you don't have to worry about gun *accidents*. Many of these tragic occurrences happen in households where there are experienced gun owners, have taught their children about gun *safety*.

    Just because some gun owners or people from gun-owning families did NOT experience a tragedy doesn't mean they won't continue to happen ... needlessly.

    In reality there are very few of these types of accidents. That is not to say that they aren't all tragic. But it seems that this is how you would solve it:

    Personally I feel the only individuals who should possess guns are law enforcement or military, after being trained and ongoing completion of training for safety.

    So my rights to own a gun should be taken away because of the mistakes of others? Should your right to drink alcohol be taken away because some idiots have gone out and gotten drunk and gotten behind the wheel of a car and killed others in the process?

    Here are some real statistics about the deaths of children:

    Fact Sheet: The Real Story On Kids' Deaths

    CauseNumber (Ages 0-14)Number (Ages 0-4)
    Motor-vehicle2,591 819
    Drowning943 568
    Fires and flames593 327
    Mechanical suffocation601 508
    Ingestion of food, object*169 169
    Firearms86 19
    Source: Figures are for 2000. National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition, at 10-11, 129.
    * The "Ingestion of food, object" category is underreported in the first column since the NSC did not include death rates for "5 to 14 Years."
  • avishai
    avishai

    Yup, xena.

    But, I will agree. It is ABSOLUTELY a gun control issue.

    The issue of a parent not controlling her gun. Not locking it up, leaving it where a four year old could get it. But since guns are a hot button issue, people choose to demonize them, even as you saw, the stats are low, and we never see the stats of lives SAVED by guns, intruders chased out, shot, etc. They tend not to publish those stats, do they?

    We also don't see the stats of dumbass parents that leave out meds, steakknives, razors, etc., etc, equally dangerous things that kill kids every single day. Same thing. It's a parental neglect, stupidity issue. If she's that stupid to leave a gun where a four year old could get it, who knows, she may have let them die in a hot car the next day. Poor kids. She needs to go to prison and never see them again.

  • bisous
    bisous

    Sometimes personal *rights* should be sacrificed to better the society you live in. As far as alcohol goes, while I believe you are comparing apples to oranges, I believe a like correlation to my suggestion regarding guns (extreme limitation of individual rights) would be a one strike rule ... I believe once someone commits an alcohol-related crime, their rights should be severely reduced. For example, permanent loss of the right to drive, own a vehicle and be insured. Special identification which attempts to eliminate their right to purchase or be served alcohol. If they injure or kill another driver while intoxicated, heavy prison time. I also believe any parent who has not guarded their weapon adequately and it results in injury or death should also be subjected to lengthy prison time.

    Before you break out your usual toxic reply, please keep in mind my husband was killed by a drunk driver. Does this influence my opinion? Damn Skippy.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    In the usa, doctors kill more people than guns do. Perhaps doctors should be outlawed, or really strictly controled by the federal govt.

    S

  • avishai
    avishai
    btw folks, a dog is far better protection for your home and person than a gun is, if a tad higher maintainence.

    Bullshit. I've lived in two houses where the dog has been killed before a home invasion robbery.

    In the usa, doctors kill more people than guns do. Perhaps doctors should be outlawed, or really strictly controled by the federal govt.

    By a HUGE margin

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit