Local News reports
A toddler is dead after being shot by a 3-year-old sibling, according to Radcliff police.
Officers said they received a call about an accidental shooting about 3:30 p.m. Saturday.
Police said when officers arrived at the home on Keith
Ct., they found that a 13-month-old had been fatally shot by a
3-year-old.
Investigators said they believe the 3-year-old found a
pistol in the home and caused it to accidentally discharge while playing
with it.
Every day, day after day. When will it be enough? When will the biased gun-rights fanatics stop telling us these deaths are too few to worry about, to few to expect them to be inconvenienced any further? What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
When will it be enough for what, Mikeb? I get your feeling on the subject, but what action do you want? You make lots of vague suggestions, but what specific law would have prevented this? Note that apparently we're dealing with legal guardians who leave these two children and a loaded gun together, so we're not talking about responsible people to begin wth. What new law would have kept this from occurring?
ReplyDeleteMikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that we will have to defer to Mr. Camp's expertise in the area of the law, just as we have had to in the areas of history, weapons and western shootists. There is NO law ever made that will keep people from doing stupid shit like driving drunk, paying their taxes, beating their wives, abusing their children, using drugs, paying their debts or anything else. Laws just don't fucking work, EVER! We know this because everybody breaks all of the laws all of the time.
Okay, I was joking; Greg Camp is a putz who's perfectly content to say that it's alright to KILL people that he perceives to be a threat--'cuz, you can't have bad peoples runnin' around loose-- but gets quite perturbed if someone suggests that there might be a way to keep 3 yo from killing their siblings. Some people might say he's delusional, I'd say he's a sociopath.
BTW, can you imagine what sort of pain that 3 yo will be carrying through life--all so that the gunzloonz don't have to be inconvenienced? Wow, more "family values" from the reiKKKwing.
Okay, I was just kidding.
In other words, Democommie, you have no answer to my question. Appeals to emotion aren't an answer. Neither is spouting nonsense. What new law would prevent a situation like this, given the likely nature of the family in question?
DeleteAh, dear democommie! I had to swing by for a bit of your refreshing wit and wisdom.
ReplyDeleteIf Greg Camp is so convinced that laws will be ignored, why is it that he is even worried about them being passed?
The solution to these circumstances is fewer guns as well as safer guns, and requirements for better screening. If you start with the premise that you are going to do something effective about removing guns from the hands of those who should not have them -- you know, like 3 year olds -- and work your way to those who should have them because they legitimately NEED them or have a serious use for them (which does not include gratifying one's delusional hero fighting dangerous bad guys fantasy) then we get much closer to preventing tragedies like this, and all the other senseless and stupid tragedies. But Greg wants to allow more lax gun laws, so he can wear a gun shoved in his pants, even if it kills innocent 3 year olds, because he doesn't reason critically, he operates on emotions --- and not particularly deep ones at that. Love you democommie! Drop on over to penigma more often - I miss you!
Why don't you come around here more often, Dog Gone? Oh, right, when you can't control the conversation, you take your toys and go home.
DeleteLook at your comment. Unlike Mikeb, you've just admitted that you don't want guns in the hands of private citizens. Your solution is clear: Ban guns. Your friends here won't admit to wanting such a solution. You're wrong, and they're misguided.
By the way, guess how many persons have been killed by my guns during the time that I've owned them. Here's a hint: It's a number invented in India and imported by the Arabs.
Greg, You just said "unlike Mikeb." Does that mean I've finally convinced you I don't want to "ban guns?"
DeleteI think he meant you don't blatantly call for banning guns like DG does. I am sure he still thinks in the end your policies that try to prevent something like this would end up being a gun ban in the end. Maybe that is what you don't understand. I think Greg understands that you claim to not want to ban guns, but practically speaking, what policy short of a gun ban would prevent accidents like these from happening? I understand that yes there could be a law that forbids people from letting their kids have access to a gun, and if it does happen then the person responsible could have their gun rights revoked if found guilty in a court of law, but that would be after the fact right? What would the law do to actually prevent this situation? If guns are still allowed to be owned, shootings will happen regardless of the law. People make mistakes whether they are accidental or just negligent. I don't see how you establish a screening processes that would weed these people out 100% that would not also weed out people that would be 100% safe with weapons. So if you can, please explain the proposals that would prevent this situation from occuring that would not be in essence a gun ban.
DeleteThanks, Jim, you said everything that I'd have said.
DeleteMikeb, I think that you're confused. Not a liar, just confused. Dog Gone is something else entirely.
My policies would cut down on a lot of these incidents - without depriving you guys and guys like you of your so-called rights.
DeleteMike - name a policy and how it would cut down on these incidents any better than current laws. Then we can debate concrete ideas and not generic policies.
DeleteJim are you joking. Are you that new around here that you haven't seen any?
DeleteMikeb, Jim's not joking and neither am I. I've been around here a while now. What you've proposed won't solve the problems that you wish to solve, nor will they be harmless to good gun owners. When you use language like "so-called rights," you're giving away your true feelings. That's one of the reasons that we doubt you when you claim not to want to ban guns.
DeleteFirst and foremost, this is a tragedy. And it is just as tragic as a baby or toddler that drowns in a swimming pool or dies from drinking a household chemical.
ReplyDeleteThe crazy thing is that more children will indeed drown than will die from accidental gunshots this year. I personally know a family whose toddler drowned in their pool. And my niece nearly drowned in a lake when she was a toddler. Where is the outcry? Where is the push to hold those parents accountable? Where is the push to ban swimming pools and fence of all bodies of water?
All that aside, the single most effective way to reduce accidental gunshots is education. There are only 600 deaths a year from accidental gunshot wounds. Simple safety training and public pressure to apply that training could virtually eliminate accidental deaths.
Swimming pool deaths have nothing to do with it, and the fact that education is important may be true but it also is not the solution.
DeleteSwift and sure loss of gun rights for fucking up with a gun in any way, that's the solution for two reasons. No repeat offenders and the others will be that much more careful if they know the old excuse of "it was only an accident" doesn't work any more.
Oh, Greggie! It's not that there are no laws to propose that might limit the senseless and needles (and avoidable) shooting death that occur when easily obtained and totally unsecured weapons fall into the hands of people who don't know how to use them--it's that you and your gunzloonzpalz will NOT countenance ANY law that inconveniences YOU. You do not give a fuck about anybody but yourself and YOUR absolute and limitless right to be a fucking moron wit teh gunz.
ReplyDelete"First and foremost, this is a tragedy. And it is just as tragic as a baby or toddler that drowns in a swimming pool or dies from drinking a household chemical."
In some states (the ones that have sensible laws) people are sued in civil courts for gross negligence or indicted and tried for negligence, endangering a child or maintaining an attractive nuisance when something like a child drowning in their pool or drinking malathion (it happened in Massachusetts, several years ago) or some other poison that was improperly stored.
"There are only 600 deaths a year from accidental gunshot wounds."
Well, I'm sure that's a great comfort to the parents and other loved ones and friends, "only 600", gosh; the parents of the kids who were shot with someone else's gun by someone else's kid must be thrilled that those stats are so trivially low. I'm just as sure that the parents of those children are all, like, "Yo, leastwise it was quick and he didn't suffer from bein' drowned!".
And what about the kids that shoot other kids? They must be consoled, in some sense, to know that their playmate or sibling won't have to go through his early years with the constant threat of drowning over his head.
We're not minimizing the pain that a parent feels upon losing a child. At the same time, social policy has to be based on what will affect large numbers. Six hundred out of 300,000,000 is not sufficient. I don't expect you to understand this.
DeleteGreg, why only divide by every single gun in the country? Why don't you estimate the number of stars on the galaxy or the number of grains of sand on the beach.
DeleteBecause stars and sand have nothing to do with the question, as Dog Gone would tell you if she were the critical thinker that she claims to be. The accident rate as a proportion of the population is relevant.
DeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDeleteNo, actually, it's not about "social policy" at all. We have laws in place and spend billions of dollars every year to keep even ONE child from dying of easily preventable causes. That they fail to do so is a demonstration of the stupidity and selfishness of people who don't think that the rules apply to them.
You don't give a rat's ass about the kids, that's obvious. What you care about, all that you care about in regard to your penis substitutes, is your unfettered ability to amass any and all that you want. A competent mental health professional could help you with that OCD re: teh gunz.
No rational country would spend billions of dollars to save one child. How many others would die as a result? With limited resources, we have to spend our money in ways that will have the largest effect.
DeleteDemmocommie I believe you are mistaken. All citizens -- including Gred -- care about children. I care about children so much that I am willing to take on the liability and hassle of carrying a sidearm 24/7 so that I can stop a violent attack on a child if I encounter such an attack.
DeleteWhat we really disagree about is which approach benefits the most children. Well right now people with firearms accidentally kill about 600 people a year in the U.S. ... some fraction of which are children. So how many children would die every year in violent attacks if we removed guns from the hands of citizens? In other words how many children's lives do we save per year with guns?
You are only focusing on the down side of firearms ownership. What about the up side?
Thanks, Capn Crunch. I wouldn't have spent the last thirteen years of my life teaching--much of that with high school students--if I didn't care. But since we want laws and social policies that actually work, rather than feel-good measures that will accomplish nothing, we're the cold-hearted bastards.
DeleteIn terms of proportion, I've been alive for about 13,000 days and have never once felt the need to have a firearm. That someone feels the need to carry one around all the time seems absurd to me. When I think about carrying one with me, it seems I'd just be more likely to escalate some conflict into a violent one.
ReplyDeleteUnknown, no problem. Don't carry. No one's telling you that you must. Just don't try to stop others from doing as they choose. We're not running around causing widespread damage. But why do you use the word, need? By your logic, I don't really need to wear a seatbelt. I do it anyway.
DeleteUnknown,
DeleteI am glad that you appear to be exercising good judgment in choosing not to carry ... concerned that you would escalate a conflict (unnecessarily I presume). Along the same lines, I know I am not going to escalate a conflict and that is why I feel comfortable carrying. And the fact that over 300,000 other people in my state carry daily without unnecessarily escalating conflicts shows us that the sky is not falling.
I am not armed so that I can escalate a conflict. I am armed in case someone else escalates a conflict to the point of violence. Then and only then I will respond with the minimum amount of force/violence necessary to defend myself. That is the whole point of armed citizens.
Instead of fleeing from conflict, I'd be more apt to STAND MY GROUND which would likely end up worse for all parties involved.
Deletehttp://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
DeleteThe stats are just overwhelming. More likely that myself or a loved one will be hurt or killed by my gun than it will be used in self-defense or legally justifiable shooting.
Unknown, Thanks so much for you very sensible comments.
DeleteUnknown,
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of statistics in that link. I am suspicious of them and would have to review them. If the data behind the numbers are accurate, they could also be misleading -- whether on accident or on purpose. I am confident that criminals cause the overwhelming majority of firearm injuries and deaths. And suicides (with a firearm) actually outnumber murders. When you take away criminal actions and suicides, you will find that armed citizens cause at most a couple thousand accidental deaths and injuries a year. And yet they use firearms to defend themselves countless thousand upon thousands of times a year. So the notion that a firearm is more likely to harm than help a citizen is not based on experience.
So conduct your own "reality check":
(a) Has a criminal ever attacked a citizen that you know?
(b) Has any of those citizens that you know (who do not have felony criminal records) ever harmed a person with a firearm? Ask your family and friends to ask the same two questions of themselves. What you will find is that armed citizens are not a cause for alarm. If they were, our anti-gun media would be all over it.
And the website that you linked asserted that "Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession ...". If that pool of individuals includes criminals, it wouldn't surprise me at all because something like 90% of murders with a firearm are criminals attacking other criminals during illegal activity. And what does "in possession" mean? Does it mean that they have immediate access to a firearm on their person? Or does it mean that they simply own a firearm which could be anywhere -- whether on their person or at home in a gun safe? This is critical because people who live in high-crime neighborhoods might very well be armed more often than citizens who live in low-crime neighborhoods. Of course citizens in high-crime neighborhoods will be assaulted more often than citizens in low-crime areas and that will skew the numbers as well.
Now I am not saying that you should own a firearm. All I am saying is that they are a valuable tool and citizens should be able to choose whether to own one. If you believe you would not control your temper in a confrontation, then don't own one. If you have a family member that could be suicidal, don't own one.