Preventable Tragedy

[71MUSTY]

Reminds me of people who say seat belts don't save lives & they'll cite one incident where someone drowned because they couldn't get their seat belt off when their car plunged into a river.

Yes, perhaps the daughter may have been able to defend herself in this one incident, but in the first half of 2016, 65 children were killed by guns left lying around the house unsecured.

Can you provide your source for that number?? Is that in California?, Nation or world?

And it has already been established the law did not and could not have saved even one of those lives, only punished the gun owner after the fact.

[edgerly779]

A homeowner left his loaded rifle under bed and his 8 year old killed the neighbor a 5 year old he just plead guilty in civil case and has to pay 562,000 dollars and wa sentenced criminally to 3 years in jail. He also had 3 other firearms around house with ammo nearby unlocked. Has 12,8.6 year old children.

[71MUSTY]

A homeowner left his loaded rifle under bed and his 8 year old killed the neighbor a 5 year old he just plead guilty in civil case and has to pay 562,000 dollars and wa sentenced criminally to 3 years in jail. He also had 3 other firearms around house with ammo nearby unlocked. Has 12,8.6 year old children.

No that is not possible. We have a law that prevents that.


j/k sort of. Sad really, but obviously the law didn't save a life.

[baggss]

Yes, perhaps the daughter may have been able to defend herself in this one incident, but in the first half of 2016, 65 children were killed by guns left lying around the house unsecured.

Millions of starving, oppressed, enslaved and otherwise abused children around the world (not to mention in the US) and you are worried about the 65 from a first world country that have been killed by stray firearms? Seriously? Your priorities are WAY out of whack here.

Reminds me of people who say seat belts don't save lives & they'll cite one incident where someone drowned because they couldn't get their seat belt off when their car plunged into a river.

Yes, perhaps the daughter may have been able to defend herself in this one incident, but in the first half of 2016, 65 children were killed by guns left lying around the house unsecured.

Perhaps she could have defended herself? Perhaps? Really?

Reminds of that guy that says "perhaps" the child could have defended themselves when in fact they most definitely would have defended themselves. Same logic you deem as flawed and complain about above, it just suits your argument vice theirs.

[GW]

Many things in life are preventable. Why pick only this one?

Because when ****ups happen with guns, it gives even more fuel to the anti's.
And when a kid dies it gives legitimacy to every bit of the "It's for the children" BS that the anti's are so fond of barfing on us.

Frankly, if someone is stupid enough to leave a gun where his kid can kill himself with it then its probably a good thing he's out of the gene pool, but when the consequences of that stupidity reach outside of that family circle then yes, there is a valid reason for the rest of us to speak up.

[meno377]

This is what is wrong with the practice of "Securing guns only when kids are around." There are situations where kids may arrive when the gun owner is not aware of it. Or, as we get older, we may forget where every gun in the house is, and the one that is forgotten is all it takes for a lifetime of regret. Any gun that is not being worn should be in a lockbox - whether it's the law or not; it's just common sense. There is NO excuse for these tragedies today when there are quick-access lockboxes available. How "Your daddy kept guns back when you were kids" is irrelevant. No five-year-old can be expected to always obey his parents...even those "special" kids who are smarter than everyone else's.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/my-...L&ocid=DELLDHP

OP. While I agree about personal responsibility to lock your firearms when children are present, spreading a blanket law won't solve the problem. No way to enforce such a law. Regarding the story, I only had to read 3 paragraphs to know that the father was stupid leaving a loaded gun unsecured while taking a shower. That was his lack of personal responsibility.

[ChuckDizzle]

There is 2 sides and 2 perspectives. I know the people in this story personally. Closely related to me, and because of gun locks, their kids were not able to defend themselves against an intruder who brutally murdered 2 of their kids with a pitchfork. Can gun locks save lives? Maybe....Can they cost a life? Maybe....You decide.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/1...urdersgun.html

There are also multiple accounts stating that the gun was actually never locked up or unloaded, it was in fact on another end of the house, loaded, and hidden.

You have to weigh the risks of either decision. However, California law covers this already, if you trust your child to defend themselves with a firearm then you are free to allow them such access as you see fit. If they instead take it to school and shoot some people you just better be prepared to face the consequences of that decision as well.

[ChuckDizzle]

OP. While I agree about personal responsibility to lock your firearms when children are present, spreading a blanket law won't solve the problem. No way to enforce such a law. Regarding the story, I only had to read 3 paragraphs to know that the father was stupid leaving a loaded gun unsecured while taking a shower. That was his lack of personal responsibility.

We just saw above the law being enforced. Gun owner spent 9 months in jail because his son killed the neighbor kid.

I don't know where the fallacy came from that a law is only worth having if it deters every instance of the crime's occurrence. If that were the case we wouldn't have any laws, because people still break them anyways.

Sometimes laws are about justice for the victims, not just deterrence.

[ChuckDizzle]

Millions of starving, oppressed, enslaved and otherwise abused children around the world (not to mention in the US) and you are worried about the 65 from a first world country that have been killed by stray firearms? Seriously? Your priorities are WAY out of whack here.

So because not all problems are solved and some problems are more pressing there is no point in addressing any one issue?

Yeah, 65 are dead, and hundreds more injured. Gunshot wounds aren't like the movies, most people survive. A lot of them suffer from paralysis, debilitating brain injuries, and a lifetime of medical complications.

Imagine you are shot accidentally by a kid in Wal-Mart who pulled mom's j-frame out of her purse. You don't die, you spend the rest of your life in a wheel chair, pooping in a bag, knowing you will never make love to a woman, or man if that's your thing, again. But you won't sue, it was her freedom to give her kid access to that gun right?

[baggss]

So because not all problems are solved and some problems are more pressing there is no point in addressing any one issue?

Addressing anyone of them is ok. Maybe become involved in your community. Become a qualified instructor and help teach safety courses to people and so on. Asking for more nonsensical rules (not that you specifically are) that are impossible to enforce while not particularly enforcing the rules we have is just stupid. Accidents and irresponsibility are still going to happen regardless of the laws on the book. How many kids a year OD on drugs that their parents leave sitting around? Possession and use of many if not all of those drugs is illegal yet it still happens. Pretending that some new rule would have potentially saved any one of those 65 kids cited above is ludacris.

Imagine you are shot accidentally by a kid in Wal-Mart who pulled mom's j-frame out of her purse. You don't die, you spend the rest of your life in a wheel chair, pooping in a bag, knowing you will never make love to a woman, or man if that's your thing, again. But you won't sue, it was her freedom to give her kid access to that gun right?

I could get run down in the street by a kid who steals a car or is joyriding in their parents car. So what? Random **** happens all the time in life, if you dwell on it you'll go insane. Maybe I would sue, maybe I would not. Not being that position makes it hard to say.

What I DO know is that no law barring someone from doing something keeps bad things from happening OR stops people from doing it. If you think the only civilians carrying guns here in CA are the folks with CCW permits, you are stupid, yet doing so IS in fact illegal. Drugs are illegal, yet we condone their use regularly, while millions of people (far more children than are injured by random firearms incidents like the one in question) are injured or die either directly or indirectly from their use. Passing a law saying people can not carry guns on their person or in their baggage (purses, backpack, fanny packs etc.) is impossible to enforce and isn't going to stop people from doing just that if want to.

[tanks]

...What I DO know is that no law barring someone from doing something keeps bad things from happening OR stops people from doing it. ...

There are quite a few laws that stop me from doing stuff and I am sure it is the same for a lot of people.

Driving over 100 miles an hour for example

If consequences are severe enough plenty of people will obey the laws. Yes, some won't and then the law will deal with them if they get caught.

[baggss]

If consequences are severe enough plenty of people will obey the laws. Yes, some won't and then the law will deal with them if they get caught.

100MPH? Really? So you don't drive on SoCal freeways where the average speed is either 60 or 120?

Sadly, the consequences for most crimes are being reduced instead of tightened, which only leads to the laws being even less effective.

[meno377]

We just saw above the law being enforced. Gun owner spent 9 months in jail because his son killed the neighbor kid.

I don't know where the fallacy came from that a law is only worth having if it deters every instance of the crime's occurrence. If that were the case we wouldn't have any laws, because people still break them anyways.

Sometimes laws are about justice for the victims, not just deterrence.

What if his son killed the neighbor's kid with a knife? A law specifically designed to mandate locking your firearms is pointless. Personal responsibility is key.

The New Jersey father pleaded guilty in 2014 to child endangerment after his 4-year-old son accidentally used the gun to shoot and kill Brandon Holt, a 6-year-old neighbor, at Senatore’s Toms River home

Child endangerment shouldn't be specific to firearms. The story is unfortunate, but it's the neglect from the father not to place his rifle back into his safe.

"To leave this rifle under the bed for five or six months, in this court’s mind, is an act of willful or wanton disregard of the rights of another,” the judge said, according to the Press. “There were children in the house."

[CALI-gula]

Hmmpph. Iowa Girl, 13, Dies After (Unsecured) Hammock Accident.

This was last week, just within days of the girl on which this thread is based. I see no difference other than one is a gun so it gets overblown attention and turned into a political issue, while the other is discounted to "freak accident" even though there are equally negligent elements present on behalf of the father that led to the hammock accident.

This was ALSO a "preventable" tragedy, but it fails to get the hype this story did; WHY do you think that is? The story contains no comparison to deaths or inclusion of anti-hammock organizations calling for their ban.

But here you go... be careful what you wish for: http://kidsindanger.org/

Do we need laws, signs, and a funded campaign to ban hammocks along with mandated use of DOJ-approve hammock locks? Lock up your hammocks.

Iowa Girl, 13, Dies After (Unsecured) Hammock Accident

So do we blame the father for:

A) Not locking up the hammock so that kids would not misuse them, or

B) Not bedding the brick pillar deep enough into the ground which led to it toppling over when used as a hammock support by a yound girl?

http://time.com/4339279/hammock-death-girl-iowa/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...pses/84497482/

A 13-year-old girl in Iowa died after she jumped onto a hammock, causing an attached brick pillar that was supporting it to collapse on her head, police said.

Peri Sagun, of Des Moines, was rushed to the hospital but could not be saved after the incident at her home Saturday, the Des Moines Register reports. The teenager and her 16-year-old sister had tied one end of the hammock to a tree and the other to a 5-foot-tall brick light post, according to the newspaper.

AND....


Funeral set for Boy, 13, Who Died after Hammock Incident - May 2, 2010

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/201...mock-davie-boy

His father, Sean Kerr, 41, had left his son's room for less than 15 minutes, and when he returned, he found the hammock around his son's neck, a police report said. The report did not explain how the teen became entangled in the hammock.

Due to the above, I vote to make May national "Hammock Safety Month" and demand a plan.


.

[ScottsBad]

So because not all problems are solved and some problems are more pressing there is no point in addressing any one issue?

Yeah, 65 are dead, and hundreds more injured. Gunshot wounds aren't like the movies, most people survive. A lot of them suffer from paralysis, debilitating brain injuries, and a lifetime of medical complications.

Imagine you are shot accidentally by a kid in Wal-Mart who pulled mom's j-frame out of her purse. You don't die, you spend the rest of your life in a wheel chair, pooping in a bag, knowing you will never make love to a woman, or man if that's your thing, again. But you won't sue, it was her freedom to give her kid access to that gun right?

You know I never pegged you for a whining liberal crybaby until I read your posts in this thread.