Slashdot Mirror
US Toddlers Involved In Shootings On a Weekly Basis (washingtonpost.com)
New submitter fremsley471 writes with this story by Christopher Ingraham about shooting accidents involving children 3 and under in The United States. There were at least 43 cases this year of shootings involving a toddler. The Washington Post reports: "This week a 2-year-old in South Carolina found a gun in the back seat of the car he was riding in and accidentally shot his grandmother, who was sitting in the passenger seat. This type of thing happens from time to time: a little kid finds a gun, fires it, and hurts or kills himself or someone else. These cases rarely bubble up to the national level except when someone, like a parent, ends up dead. But cases like this happen a lot more frequently than you might think. Briefly sifting through news reports found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself."
Is there any reason at all for this to be on Slashdot, except to push a general political agenda?
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
The problem is likely much worse. Few events that should make the news are more quickly swept under the rug than accidental shootings. The ones that do make it through end up either buried in the back-most of the back pages, or written off in creative ways. A particularly egregious example of the latter made the slashdot front page years ago as Accidental Wii Suicide when a toddler got ahold of dad's loaded, unlocked revolver that was sitting within her reach and killed herself.
And of course what happens to the gun owners (if they are lucky enough to not be the ones shot)? Generally nothing. Not even charges investigated, law enforcement just says "shit happens" and walk away.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I am a gun owner. I have a permit and I carry daily. I support our rights to own firearms and refuse to give mine up. I believe that anyone who does this has a great responsibility to society to be trained, secure their weapon, and to be responsible. It should be a felony to leave a weapon unsecured and unsupervised. If a child acquires a weapon from you and uses it to harm himself or commit a crime you should be charged with a felony.
Only if you prove you took adequate steps to secure your weapon (safe, trigger locks, etc) should you be able to walk away free. We need to encourage responsible gun ownership and punish irresponsible gun ownership. These types of situations are preventable simply through education and a little bit of punishment.
Where are the laws that put the parents 100% responsible for any of their children under the age of 18? Oh your 14 year old decided to shoot a bunch of people? Where did he get the guns? Oh your house, you're going to jail for the rest of your life along with your child.
Less guns means less gun violence.
There are places in the world where there is very little gun violence.
Those places all have one thing in common: Less guns.
I love my country, but if you don't think it's insane that small children are shooting people on a regular basis with weapons, legally purchased or not, you are part of the problem.
So, I find that there are generally two arguments:
--You can't take my guns
--Ban all the guns
My thoughts are that, the "Ban all the guns" group is wishful thinking. That ship has sailed, and if you try to ban guns, then only outlaws will have guns, and I don't think that's any good.
For those folks that want guns, I think that's all fine and well and good, but the owner of the gun must be held criminally responsible if the gun kills anybody. If your toddler picks up the gun and kills grandma, you are on the hook for murder. If a gun is available to a toddler (or anybody, really), you can count on the toddler to kill somebody. Period.
I don't have a gun in my house, but if I want one, I still want to be able to have one. But if my kid shoots somebody with it, I need to be put in jail because of it.
It boggles the mind, however, that somebody would be dumb enough to think a toddler wouldn't pick up a gun and explore their world - like the woman that was killed when her toddler pulled the gun out of her purse while shopping at Wal Mart. That's just stupid, and she paid the price.
First, I agree that this particular story probably shouldn't be on ./ . Secondly, I am biased on the issue of gun control. I think that responsible citizens should be allowed to own and use guns.
The real issue is gun safety. I shot my first gun when I was 3. You better believe that my dad kept his firearms locked up unloaded with the ammo in a different safe. Each of us (my sister included!) were taught how to safely handle guns. We knew to stand behind whoever was shooting, aim the barrel at the ground until we were ready to shoot, how to hand the gun to the next person in line, etc. If you are going to have weapons, store them properly so they aren't mistaken for toys by toddlers, and teach gun safety to everyone near them. Perhaps there should be a gun license (or a certificate for having completed a safety course) which must be shown when purchasing firearms.
You shouldn't lose your second amendment right. You should lose your child.
The NRA supports this... So these shootings are a win for them.
Actually the NRA is the premier organization for firearms safety instruction, both for civilians and law enforcement. Preventing such accidents is the NRA's primary mission. Political activism is a secondary thing forced upon them.
The NRA believes that all firearms owners should seek competent safety instruction when buying that first firearm. They certify instructors, develop training materials, etc. They just don't believe in a government run system for such training since state government could deprive a citizen of ownership by failing to provide instructors or materials for mandated classes. Such things have been done in the past.
Hell, such games are still occurring, note the closing of all department of motor vehicle offices in some "black" counties in alabama just as drivers licenses will be required to vote.
Guns are tools and, like many other tools, can be misused. Would there be the same outrage if a toddler got hold of a cordless power drill and accidentally injured his grandmother with it? Granted the chance of a fatal injury is higher with a firearm, but the responsibility for proper access and use of any tool is with both the user and owner - and I would argue on a sliding scale of which one is most capable of being most responsible.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
True. Although there are other places to talk about those things. Not as many places to talk about things that are more associated with Slashdot.
I don't complain when truly big news stories bubble up here, but I have to admit, I am wondering why I am reading bland gun control articles here when I could be going twenty other places to read the same article.
It's not like I am going to read about Linux kernel mods on Salon.com.
According to:
http://www.livescience.com/448...
10 people die of drowning every day.
Therefore guns are aprox 70 times safer than pools.
Why there is no anti-pool agenda?
if you're so stupid as to leave anything remotely dangerous where a 2 year old can get to it (especially if it's in the back seat of a car with the child in the back), you should lose right to be a parent
There fixed that for you. Little gits getting hurt with guns and making an issue about it is imply a anti-gun lobby ploy to tug at your heart strings. The fact is two years are injured by all sorts of things all the freaking time. How may two years drink toxic household products each week? I don't imagine they print all those mr.yuck stickers because that does not happen. Yet nobody proposes enhanced background checks to purchase drain cleaner or banning its sale/possession. Instead they propose a simple requirement to have child proof caps on these things. They are not entirely child proof but hey there is very little that will resist a two year old left to have their way with it unattended.
Sensibly we already have rules that require firearms to be locked up where kids can't get them. It still happens just like kids still get poisoned. Anecdotally I bet more of us know someone who has had their stomach pumped, than somone injured while 'playing' with a gun.
How many toddlers are hurt by kitchen knives?
electrical outlets?
heavy objects knocked of tables?
Falls onto hard surface such as stone from furniture?
How often is the relative severity of such injuries greater than those related to their accidents with firearms?
The simple fact is being two years old is very dangerous because two year olds are mobile, curious, but nearly without experience and highly limited in capability for judgement. It strains credibility that a person who could be so negligent as to leave a loaded gun where a two year can get it, is otherwise capable of keeping that child safe. Every responsible parent I know with children that small immediately scan new spaces for anything that could be a potential threat before turning their child loose. If you leaving loaded gun out I am sure there are plenty of things around with the potential to be nearly as dangerous you are doing nothing about.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
So isn't this essentially arguing for Disneyfying the world to keep kids safe?
Ban all porn (or at least require training in the proper handling and storage before downloading that file).
Alternatively ban or require sex education (even though there is scant proof comprehensive sex education reduces teen pregnancy. Ditto banning it).
And of course all manner of food, drugs, video games, D&D, etc.
It just strikes me as peculiar that some will argue for personal responsibility and freedom of choice when their favored thingy is under fire, and in the same breath argue for regulation and restriction when it is someone else's favorite thingy.
And in the past few decades we have moved increasingly towards Disneyfying the world. I would just like some honesty to which degree the world should cater exclusively to children.
Here is some context from the CDC:
Every day, over 300 children in the United States ages 0 to 19 are treated in an emergency department, and two children die, as a result of being poisoned.
0-19 is a bigher range, but 300 per Friggin DAY! The parent poster is absolutely correct this is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things that threaten the children. Our resources would be better directed elsewhere. The problem is not the guns so much as it is caretakers that are stunningly negligent! In the care of sort of person that could 'accidentally' allow something as obviously dangerous as fire arm to end up in the hands of a child, these same children were almost certain to be severely injured by something else sooner or later. The fact it was a gun is simply coincidence.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
For the most part, it is physically impossible for a toddler to chamber a round in most guns (unless we're talking about a revolver, but they represent a very small percentage of pistols these days). I, personally, never keep a round chambered in my pistol I carry regularly. I can pull the gun, turn the safety off, operate the action, and be ready to fire in about a second. I am not in high risk situations from day to day, like law enforcement, where the chances of me needing to operate my gun with one hand while fending someone off with the other is very likely. I can guarantee that almost every one of these people whose toddlers fired their pistol are not in high risk situations either.
So my question is why do so many people feel the need to have a round chambered at all times?
Further, I think a part of the problem is guns like Glocks have no actual safety. My conceal carry weapon has a safety which locks the action, prevents the trigger from being pulled, and physically prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin. It also serves as a de-cock mechanism. If I were to carry a round chambered, I would have the gun de-cocked, and since it is also double-action, I can just flip the safety and pull the trigger (which takes a tremendous amount of pressure when not cocked), which is still vastly safer in the hands of a child. Not only do Glocks not have safeties, but you can't de-cock them either. They are weapons designed more for military and police type use, where nothing should come in the way of the fun firing when the trigger is pulled.
So the problem is two-fold: 1) Don't keep a round chambered unless you feel the need to discharge the weapon is imminent. 2) If you have children, select a gun that has actual safety mechanisms (you know, a "safety") that enhances safety and prevents accidental discharges or operation by children.
Better known as 318230.
Wait. I can't tell: was GP supposed to be liberal or libertarian. Your statement seems to imply you think GP is liberal, an interesting notion for someone who expressed a libertarian sentiment.
Were you upset by their claim that it was a conservative court that reached a decision that is presented as liberal? Then just ask for a citation. But resorting to an ad hominem just means you don't have an argument.
I'm not even a conservative, but the reading of the 2nd amendment as a right of the government to arm it's own forces seems rather silly.
If you are going to gut the constitution, do it right and just repeal the 2nd amendment. The supreme court gets a lot of stuff wrong, but that wasn't one of those things.
In the United States there are approx 310 million guns owned by civilians. Let's not take into account millions of the weapons owned by military, police, Social Security Agency and other similar organizations.
Coincidentally, there is approximately one gun per one person in the US>
If there are 43 cases that involved, per year, that means there is approximately 0.000000143 probability that the toddler will be involved. Let's do some analysis here... There is an estimated number of more than 1,500 per year who win one million or more dollars per year in the United States. Statistically, 30 toddlers will win one million dollars before one of them is involved in accident.
There is one crucial difference. "Involved" does not mean there is a fatality.
Conclusion is very simple: The quoted number is statistically insignificant. Vaccination complications cause higher mortality than there are accidents involving guns. To finalize, there are many issues to be resolved before this topic is escalated. And put that gun to safe away from kids.
Again, you are committing historical fail and probably doing it on purpose.
The existence of the militia was never dependent on the existence or lack of existence of a national army. Even when a standing Army existed on this side of the pond, it was not considered unnecessary.
The original purpose of the NRA aligns nicely with what a colonial would think of the 2nd Amendment.
If anything, the founding fathers would get rid of the US Army rather than the 2nd Amendment. The state of modern tech probably would not change that.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
More great historical fail...
"Well regulated" in this context means that people are trained and skillful enough to immediately serve alongside the regular Army. This occurred both before the revolution and during it.
Also, the regular Army of the US as well as a number of other nations (England, Finland, USSR) have benefited greatly from having civilians well trained in the use of weapons.
Being "well regulated" means that I can operate the current infantry rifle and consistently hit a target at 200m.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Sounds like a lot of them are.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Sure, I hear that all the time. But what about plain old "kids who have been shot by guns recently" contributes to making Slashdot a place I'd go to over say, CNN or Salon or Fox News, or DailyKos?
News for Nerds may not just be tech, but seriously, these sorts of articles are all over sites that have nothing at all to do with nerds.
Your argument is like saying that nerds are humans, therefore any news that concerns humans is News for Nerds. Therefore, we should just cut and paste the AP wire into Slashdot.
More to the point, does every single article everywhere have to talk about guns?