Deputies are investigating after a 17-month-old baby was shot by his or her sibling in a Cleveland County home on Thursday, according to the sheriff's office.
The sheriff's office said the child was admitted to Carolina's Medical Center for observation after being shot by his or her 3-year-old sibling.
Deputies said the shooting appears to be accidental but they are continuing to investigate.
Children WILL constantly amaze you with what they can do and what they really know. Like "secret" compartments". Nothing stays hidden from a child because they are fascinated by literally everything their parents do.
ReplyDeleteJust hiding a firearm and not properly securing it is asking for trouble. That being said, they are looking at possibly filing charges. That is the decision of the prosecutor, notwithstanding what the Sheriff has said.
"The case remains under investigation by the sheriff’s office.
“We’re compiling the case and will present the case to the D.A. to determine if any charges will be filed for failure to secure a firearm,” Shores said.
Carper said he expects his daughter to be discharged from the hospital Friday. He said doctors were keeping her overnight Thursday only as a precautionary measure."
" Carper, who regularly submits a parenting column to Gazette sister paper The Shelby Star and is a church youth leader, said the child was already using the injured arm to feed herself Thursday night in the hospital."
Wonder what his next column will be about.
http://www.gastongazette.com/spotlight/3-year-old-shoots-17-month-old-sibling-updated-1.273619?page=0
You're always very clear about the need to safely store guns where kids might get at them, but you seem to stop short of supporting legislation requiring it. Am I right?
DeleteSpeaking for myself, Mikeb, I recognize the difference between what should be a law and what is in the category of good advice.
DeleteIf safely storing guns in the home is good advice, what would the harm be to make it compulsory by law? More people would do it and there's no down-side that I can see. Of course the adolescent-minded gun owner who resents being told what to do by the government would already be the type to not store his weapons safely. So again, there's no down-side.
DeleteOf course to you gun owners being arrested, jailed, guns confiscated, rights stripped for life, is not a downside to "compulsory by law".
DeleteBecause it's not necessary for everyone to have the same level of storage, and it's wrong to pass so many laws.
Delete"You're always very clear about the need to safely store guns where kids might get at them, but you seem to stop short of supporting legislation requiring it. Am I right?"
DeleteMike, my reluctance to support legislation comes mainly from my observations of how a supposedly "reasonable" law can take on a life of its own and grow to terrifying dimensions, not unlike the old black and white monster movies I was so fond of as a kid.
Plus, once government gets its foot in the door, they are never happy with it having been passed. They feel the need to make it grow in some small way every session. Perhaps someday society will have matured to the point where a legislator can campaign proudly on the claim that last session no bills were passed, though I don't see that happening soon.
A good example of this creeping growth is congresscritters beginning to push for background checks on ammunition. New York's SAFE Act has taken the lead, even though they don't seem to have a background check in place yet.
And California is apparently going to be pushing for this legislation also.
"State Senate Democrats will push to require a comprehensive background check on anyone seeking to purchase ammunition, and to require a one-year permit for ammunition purchases."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/01/10/california-democrats-will-push-background-checks-for-ammunition/
ss, I appeal to your basic honesty and sense of fair play when I say how the hell can you say that? Half-a-million guns are stolen each year, ALL of which by definition go straight into the criminal world and most of them were improperly stored. Don't you think legislation would make the difference for the vast numbers of law-abiding gun owners who for various reasons haven't been exactly scrupulous about safely storing their guns at home? That would then cut the numbers of stolen guns down which in turn would save lives. That's what's to be gained, saving lives. Your concerns seem minor in comparison.
DeleteWhat do you say?
Sarge is correct, and it's a part of the discussion we've all had here for a while now. We can't trust gun control advocates. Give you an inch, and you'll take a mile, and any ground lost to you is lost with no compensatory gain.
Delete"Of course to you gun owners being arrested, jailed, guns confiscated, rights stripped for life, is not a downside to "compulsory by law"."
DeleteWho said all that has to happen to those guilty of not safely storing their guns. Even under my version of gun laws, first offenders would not suffer any of those things.
"I appeal to your basic honesty and sense of fair play when I say how the hell can you say that? Half-a-million guns are stolen each year, ALL of which by definition go straight into the criminal world and most of them were improperly stored."
DeleteMike, your statement demonstrates a basic disagreement with the definition of safe storage. I honestly haven't checked, but I believe the majority of safe storage laws in this country address the issue of preventing access to firearms by children. The article that we are discussing here is exactly that issue.
Minnesota has a safe storage law that addresses this issue in a way that I believe contributes to the safety without interfering with the concept of firearms also being available for self defense.
Your argument in favor of including theft of firearms illustrates the mindset of the ever expanding scope of legislation. Perhaps a better solution to that would be to mandate more secure homes for everyone by setting higher standards for building codes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2SNOP3ras
I listed all kinds of common penalties, but you wouldn't strip them of their rights on first offense? I thought you're all about "one strike you're out "?
Delete"Even under my version of gun laws, first offenders would not suffer any of those things."
DeleteMike, please be real. How many times have you posted an article regarding an accidental shooting due to improper storage where you have complained that someone isn't immediately arrested? Quite a few times by my recollection.
Sarge, I believe he is talking about the offense of improper storage which could be revealed at a home inspection as part of his licensing scheme, or on serving a warrant, or any other time you're foolish enough to let a police officer into your home (in MikeB's world). An accident doesn't have to happen. Then there's calling the police to report a home burglary, where you could be charged with the crime of improper storage, which of course will lead to the inevitable unintended consequence of the police not being called.
DeleteYour point about existing law only being for child access prevention, not anti-theft, is one that I have made to Mike several times. I don't know of a single anti-theft law in this country, even in the strongest anti-gun municipalities like DC and Chicago. It appears you haven't found any either. Mike said he was sure they exist, and he would point it out when he came across it, but so far he hasn't.
"Who said all that has to happen to those guilty of not safely storing their guns. Even under my version of gun laws, first offenders would not suffer any of those things."
DeleteMike, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Can you explain how I might be mistaken?
"What I'd like to clarify is exactly to whom this sanction should apply. The simple answer is anyone who does anything wrong with a gun.
1. dropped gun
2. negligent discharge
3. improperly stored weapon in the hands of a child
4. improperly stored weapon stolen
5. brandishing
6. lost gun
7. bringing a gun to the airport because you forgot you had it
Obviously, each of these can have a wide range of consequences and should not all result in the same exact punishment. A judge would have discretion concerning the appropriate jail time, fines, etc., but the forfeiture of gun rights is not up for bargain."
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/08/one-strike-youre-out.html
ss said, "Mike, your statement demonstrates a basic disagreement with the definition of safe storage."
DeleteNonsense. When I talk about safe storage you know very will what I mean. And there's been no "ever-expanding" aspect to it. Guns either should be on your person or in a safe. That would not only eliminate most of the kid shootings but it would also eliminate most of the gun theft. Do you deny that those would be the results? Most lawful gun owners would obey the law and lives would be saved.
TS, who often knows what I think better than I do, already answered. Earlier in the thread we were talking about simply failing to safely store guns. If all my ideas had the weight of law behind them, there would still be a judge to determine the differences between, let's say, when a kid is shot and killed by his younger brother or when a gun registered to you is stolen because you kept it under the pillow. In the former case, the guy might still get some leniency on the time spent in jail and in the later case for a first offense, the only result might be the loss of the guns.
DeleteDo me a favor, will ya. Stop trying so hard to catch me out and find contradictions in what I stand for. It gets to be a drag. I stand for gun owners being held strictly accountable for their negligence and stupidity. I don't know what you stand for. If you deny the obvious benefits of mandating safe storage laws in spite of the arguments I've made in this thread, I don't know what to think.
Mike, where do you stand on guns not being "properly" stored but nothing bad happens. Crime with loss of rights as punishment? No body hurt, nothing stolen, but cops find guns laying around the house.
DeleteMikeb, what you advocate is a drag on liberty. You must believe that your proposals are good ideas, but we disagree with them not because we're bad people, but because we know them to be worthless.
DeleteThere is no proof they are worthless, in fact history shows they did work.
DeleteA person who insults others, is dishonest in his evaluation of statements. openly encourages illegal activity, is a bad person.
TS, it's hard to picture how the simple failure to store guns properly would be discovered if no other crimes were involved. But I would say, for that as for any gun crime there has to be a charge and conviction so there's a record of the offense. For a first timer, I wouldn't mind if all the sanctions were suspended.
DeletePlease don't turn this into another fucking pain-in-the-ass attempt at finding contradictions in my various comments on this subject. I'm really getting tired of that. I find that kind of argument on your part to be in bad faith.
Mikeb, when we show you the inconsistencies in your position, that demonstrates how wrong you are. But you won't give up on your beliefs.
DeleteIn this case, I'm not trying to catch you with a "gotcha", I'm just trying to find out where you want the crime line to be drawn. Example, it's not a crime to leave a loaded gun lying around even with kids in the house. The crime occurs if the child obtains the weapon unsupervised. So if the kid listens to what Eddie Eagle says, there is no crime.
DeleteIf you make the crime at simply storing it in an unsecured manor, with or without kids in the home, then you can be arrested if it is discovered. True, mostly it wouldn't be discovered, but I gave cases above, like the police executing a warrant for something unrelated, or acting on a tip from a neighbor, etc. It sounds like you want that to be a crime, right?
You're asking me this again? Why? Didn't I answer it just above?
DeleteWe are dealing with an instrument that can kill if it is dropped, or improperly stored. It's not like dropping a pencil, so yes, punishment should be more severe.
ReplyDeleteLaws have to cover everyone. Exceptions cannot be made simply because you claim you don't do such actions. Just because you never speed doesn't mean there is no need for speeding laws. Just because you store your gun safely doesn't mean there is no need for safe storage laws, because the facts tell us that some guns not safely stored end up killing people. I accept the idea that saving even one life is worth the precaution of simple inconvenience, and your right to own a gun is not infringed by that simple inconvenience.