Sunday, July 26, 2009

Las Vegas Kids and Guns

USA Today reports on the latest gun tragedy in Las Vegas.

A 2-year-old girl was in critical condition Friday after being shot by her 4-year-old brother at their Las Vegas home, police said.

Police were investigating how the boy got the 9mm handgun. Cassell said their father was home when the shooting happened about 8:30 p.m. local time Thursday. It was not immediately clear if the father would face any charges.

"At this time it appears the (boy) was able to gain access to the weapon because it was improperly secured," Cassell said.

"Not immediately clear" whether he would face any charges? I don't know what to say about that. It sounds like a joke.

Once before we discussed the bloody relationship between kids and guns. Amazingly, the commenters, for the most part, refused to admit even the fact that there is such a problem. That analysis included children between 5 and 14 years of age, which essentially excluded older teens who might be involved in gangs as well as very young kids like in today's story.

If I were a gun owner who sincerely believed in the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and who equated that right with "freedom" itself, I'd feel a certain responsibility for this kind of collateral damage. Wouldn't you?

At first glance, this story from Las Vegas might seem like a one-off anomaly. Unfortunately, that's not the case at all.

The shooting came less than a week after a 5-year-old boy shot and killed himself with a handgun inside his father's vehicle outside a Las Vegas pharmacy. That father, 31-year-old Alex Kopystenski, has been charged with felony child endangerment.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. MikeB,

    I've been not commenting here on purpose, but when you deliberately LIE I am going to call you on it.

    Once again you are flat out LYING
    the commenters, for the most part, refused to admit even the fact that there is such a problem.

    We have never said there isn't a problem. NOT ONCE You Lying sack of Excrement. PROVE IT. SHOW a comment from a pro-gun rights advocate on your blog that denies there is a problem!!

    What we have pointed out over and over again is the SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM.

    Since I'm including this, I doubt it will see light of day. If you do it will be interesting to see your response.

    who equated that right with "freedom" itself, I'd feel a certain responsibility for this kind of collateral damage.

    You don't take responsibility for the collateral damage for your computer or camera, do you?
    Why do you expect us to take responsibility for the criminal actions of others when you don't take responsibility for the criminal actions of others?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob, Thanks for the comment, I've missed you around here.

    As usual you're using the word "lying" a bit loosely. I realize no one ever said literally there is "no problem." But what many of you have said is the percentage is incredibly small, what you yourself admit to as the "scope of the problem."

    So, I guess what we've got is my being a bit loose when I say you guys said there's no problem and you being a bit loose when you say I'm lying.

    Does that about sum it up?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob, One other thing. Phrases like "deliberately LIE," "flat out LYING" and "You Lying sack of Excrement," are not acceptable.

    Please have another look at the commenting policy. I revised it recently just for you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MikeB,

    You admit that no one said there isn't a problem, but those are the exact words you use.

    What do you call it when someone deliberate distorts or misstates a factual statement? I call it a lie.

    If you want to discuss the issues, then tell the truth. Don't lie. I will not stand by and allow you to lie unchallenged.

    Love the update, it covers when you personally attack myself, my friends, my family, my fellow bloggers. What a crock. Personal attacks will be rejected at your discretion. You are the one doing most of the personal attacks.

    You do it ever so politely, but they are still personal attacks.

    Physician, Heal thyself

    ReplyDelete
  5. MikeB,

    sorry I can't let this go, but dang it words have meaning.

    You used the words "the commenters, for the most part, refused to admit even the fact that there is such a problem..

    then you turn around and say I realize no one ever said literally there is "no problem."

    So, which is it? Either we've refused to admit there is a problem or we haven't said that?

    If you use hyperbole it is one thing, but to state something that is not factually true is another. Stating a factually incorrect point when you know it isn't true is lying. You lied when you said we refused to admit there is a problem.

    Instead of being honorable about your lie, you attack me for calling you out. Is that what you learned to do as a Marine so many years ago or did you learn to attack people seeking to set the record straight later?

    To put this into proper perspective is what I'm trying to do. You never answered the question I asked on my blog, why?

    How much is "too many"? In 7 years, 554 kids infant to14 have died from firearm related accidents.

    Is that too many for people to have their rights? What number is too many for people to exercise the right to keep and bear arms?

    Because that is what you are trying to do, use the death of children to restrict or remove our rights. Isn't that correct?

    So, what number is too many?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bob asked, "You never answered the question I asked on my blog, why?"

    I certainly did answer that one, in fact I thought it was rather eloquent what I said.

    Was it an oversight on your part, Bob, or are you lying about this? Or did you not consider what I wrote an answer, therefore you say I "never answered?" That would still be a false statement though.

    I'm asking again, Bob. Try to knock off the name-calling. It's becoming a drag, again. It puts me in a position to respond in kind, then we degenerate the whole discussion into a stupid shit storm.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MikeB,

    You didn't answer the question. I asked what number is TOO Many.

    You said, and I quote:
    Bob, That’s a hard question to answer. I would guess that if the less-than-1-percent answer you guys always seem to come up with were true, I’d have to agree that’s too few to worry about. But, if the approximately 10% that I’ve suggested is true, then we’re definitely over the line. So the true answer lies somewhere in between.

    Giving a range, especially a range in the form of a percentage isn't answering the question. I asked for a single NUMBER. Not a percentage.

    Heck, you didn't even say a percentage of what!!!!

    I'm not lying, I am stating the absolute truth. You didn't answer the question. You avoided the question.

    MikeB, do you have proof or not that we refused to admit there is a problem? Either you do or you didn't tell the truth. This is binary set solution here.

    Either we for the most part refused to admit there is a problem or not. EITHER OR.

    Either you have proof of us refusing to admit it or you lied.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The question Bob asked on his blog was

    How many?

    That is all I want to know. We hear all the time that know matter how well behaved gun owners are, that “too many” are breaking the law. We hear almost every time a Concealed Handgun License holder breaks the law that “too many” are doing so.

    Since the anti’s know how many is “too many”, I want to know when does it start being too many. That shouldn’t be a hard question to answer, should it?

    Is one life lost due to firearms being misused “too many”? 10?

    What is the number that will be used to strip people of their rights? Please spell it out for me.


    mikeb your response in total read

    Bob, That’s a hard question to answer. I would guess that if the less-than-1-percent answer you guys always seem to come up with were true, I’d have to agree that’s too few to worry about. But, if the approximately 10% that I’ve suggested is true, then we’re definitely over the line. So the true answer lies somewhere in between.

    Please state what part of that is answering the question. It looks more like dodging the question. You simply state it is hard to put a number on it and then say that it is somewhere less than the 10% fantasy you have and more than the less than 1% fact based number we have presented.

    As to your eloquence. There is none. Shakespeare was eloquent, Lincoln was eloquent, I'll even give you that Barack is eloquent. Your answer was merely a pocket admission that you don't know what your talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gun owners have a responsibility to secure their firearms from little hands. There are many different options for doing this, and different ones are best for different situations. Then you have people like me who don't have kids and don't even have that concern, except for when friends with kids come over, in which case all guns go in the safe.

    The difference between the gun control people and Second Amendment advocates is you guys want to prescribe a one size fits all solution through the law, usually the worst one, which is the trigger lock, or through pie in the sky technologies that don't exist like "smart" guns. We prefer to do it through educating gun owners, and considering accident rates have been dropping while the number of guns has been rising, I think we're doing a pretty good job.

    Sure, there are irresponsible people you can't reach, but those people are likely going to be irresponsible irrespective of what the law says.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As tragic as these events are, a child accidentally shooting another child is still a rare occurrence.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d20-Why-do-children-need-guns

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sebastian, Thanks for your comment. It's always a pleasure to read what you have to say. You're a respectful and serious man.

    Bob, You're right, I'll try to be more precise when I characterize what you guys have said. It's only fair since I don't like it when you mischaracterize what I say.

    About that question of yours that I responded to with a percentage range instead of a hard number, sorry, I can't do better than that. If that proves your point in some way, fine.

    And for our friend Reputo, I'll try to be more eloquent.

    ReplyDelete