Swiss info
The first child to die from gunfire in Yellowstone National Park in three-quarters of a century was a 3-year-old girl killed over the weekend by a bullet shot from her father's handgun at a popular lakeside campsite, park officials said on Sunday.
Little information was released by authorities about the toddler's death since her mother called emergency dispatchers on Saturday to report that her daughter had shot herself at the Grant Village campground on the shores of Yellowstone Lake.
The legislation allowing visitors to carry guns in the parks was tacked on to a credit card bill passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama.
The measure was backed by gun-rights proponents like the National Rifle Association, but opposed by groups representing park rangers and retired National Park Service employees.
Supporters said it would provide uniformity to a patchwork of firearms regulations that allowed guns in public lands overseen by the U.S. Forest Service and federal Bureau of Land Management, but not in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Opponents said the law would heighten risks for visitors and park employees, embolden poachers and complicate prosecution of wildlife crimes.
I know what we can expect from the gun-rights fanatics. Only one kid-death in three years ain't so shabby. It's probably better than the national average. So what's the big deal.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Please clarify what your argument is: is it, "Any children's deaths are too much, so if a child has died in a place we allow guns, we shouldn't allow guns there anymore."
ReplyDeleteOr is it something else more nuanced?
Yes, any child death is too much. Every one of them dies because of an unfit adult gun owner. We need to raise the bar.
DeleteAccording to that argument, we're going to have to simply ban all guns--kids have been killed in stores, restaurants, parking lots, parks, etc. So there is no place that one can carry a gun that a child has not died in such a place. And even if the gun is not carried, children have been killed in their own homes, so we'll have to ban guns there, using your logic.
DeleteNo, that's not the only option. What we can do is enact and enforce strict gun control laws which would disarm many of the unfit ones who are responsible for the major part of these incidents. Which, by the way would not affect much at all. You'd continue to enjoy your passion for guns.
DeleteHow does that square with the statement: "Any children's deaths are too much, so if a child has died in a place we allow guns, we shouldn't allow guns there anymore."
DeleteAre you going to allow guns into parks, restaurants, walking down the street, etc. just because you've done extra screening of the owners?
What is your possible justification for allowing guns in such situations? Is it because not enough children have died yet to move you to action?
"We need to raise the bar." That's your line. The problem is that you have no evidence supporting that demand. One incident in four years certainly does not provide enough evidence to say that no one should be allowed to carry a firearm in the park, any more than one bear mauling would be enough to say that we should close off the park to visitors.
ReplyDeleteGreg! That's a cold-hearted thing to say! Why should we allow people to go there when they could die unnecessarily? They could stay home and leave the bear's home undisturbed! And then nobody dies!
DeleteExcuse me while I go scrub my hands that typed that with lava soap for 5 minutes.
DeleteFirearms in the parks is not the issue. Firearms in the hands of unfit gun owners is the issue.
DeleteAnd you have no reasonable means of defining who is fit or unfit.
DeleteThen why did you bring up the statistic that this is the first child's death in a park since guns were allowed there? You certainly gave the impression that you were talking about the idea of allowing guns into the park--and you agreed that I had appropriately summarized your argument on that basis above.
DeleteA person who cannot keep his gun out of anyone else's hands, is unfit. Most gun shot incidents happen when someone who should not have a gun, gets a gun from a legal owner. Obviously these legal owners are negligent in securing their guns.
DeleteAnother example where the professor(?) disregards any life, in favor of his right to own a gun.
ReplyDeleteAre you the professor from Gilligan's Island? I mean, disregard word definitions, or claim deaths are acceptable because you have a "right." Laughable. Looney. Gun looney.
Too bad. Not. This is what happens when morons believe the NRA. There is NO reason to carry a weapon in Yellowstone. Weapons make you stoopid, because they convince you to rely on the weapon instead of thinking. Gunsuck thinking is stoopid thinking.
ReplyDeleteAh, another post by this anonymous troll who cheers for the deaths of the relatives of gun owners saying that it's "Good by [him]."
DeleteHell yes. When a gunsuck is killed by a gunsuck gun, it is a win - win for all normal people. I dance a little jig at every dead kid. Own a gun, your kid's chance of making 21 is decreased by 10-15 %.
DeleteAnonymous @ 3:35AM: "I dance a little jig at every dead kid."
DeleteDie in a fire, Anonymous.
"I dance a little jig at every dead kid."
DeleteThat's not what you described as "Darwinian sarcasm," Mike. That's just a load of sick and perverse bile.