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."
I know people are going to cry "Second Amendment" and everything, but if you're so stupid as to leave a weapon 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 your right to own a gun. I have nothing against responsible gun owners - which are likely the vast majority of gun owners - but there's a very visible minority who seem to act like guns are a fun toy to play with or just leave lying around instead of the dangerous weapons that they really are.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
43, huh?
http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/N... "Unintentional suffocation - which also includes strangulation and choking on food or other objects - killed 1,176 U.S. children in 2010."
Just search a little and find all the other ways toddlers kill themselves and others. One of my friends with kids described it as largely being comprised of keeping his kid from killing himself all the time until he got old enough to try to kill himself less often. That's what happens when anything dangerous is anywhere near a toddler for whatever small amount of time it takes for them to do the wrong thing with it - and there are LOTS of dangerous things around, with plastic bags being higher on the list than firearms.
Is there any reason at all for this to be on Slashdot, except to push a general political agenda?
It's worse than you might think.
By associating toddlers with gun shootings they're making an emotional argument against gun ownership.
In short, we need to clamp down on gun ownership because we've now inflated the likelihood of a tragic incident in the minds of the reader. We do this by showing the enormous, large number without context, and by making it seem continuous and ever present.
Consider what your teenage daughter might think on reading the headline: One child a week gets shot! OMG!
This is just another non-evidence-based appeal for gun control, brought to light because the democrats are using the issue to help get elected.
And then, of course, they'll do nothing. Again.
Think it through. What contextual information might put the "one toddler a week" meme into perspective, and make it seem less important?
Where are the moderators keeping Slashdot on target for nerdy rather than pure, unadulterated SJW fodder?
Ironically, I may get modded down, demonstrating the answer.
Nerds have guns too, and kids. And brains with which to analyze such issues. Failing to talk about public policy issues that affect society would deprive the world of much nerdly wisdom.
Considering the motto is "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters" and that most of the college kids reading Slashdot 15 years ago are old enough now to have toddlers, I'd think that'd put this firmly in the "Stuff that Matters" category. Then again I find it more interesting that your first instinct is denigrate those who'd advocate the prevention of these tragedies, as if toddlers killing themselves and other people is some noble goal worth protecting.
Its more about focus than audience.
Yes, I'm of an age to have children now. However, there is no lack of places where I can read this sort of article.
Where else would I go to if I just wanted to aggregate tech news?
You don't have to answer that. I may find out myself if this gets too silly.
Seriously. At least the articles about the gender imbalance in tech are actually talking about tech jobs. What does this have to do with tech?
Paying attention to the fact that the government rarely uses it's firearms compared to the number of citizens who use them. There were 30,000 gun deaths last year and 90,000 injuries. Most of those (although some are) are not from the government shooting a gun.
ergo, you have more to fear from a citizen with a gun than a cop..
Who is why us liberals make fun of the libertarian and conservative fear of the government.
This is the USA, nobody has personal responsibility for anything.
You can kill a motorcyclist with your car because you were texting and you get off with merely a slap. Come on back when you are ready to apply personal responsibility and consequences across the board.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
In a wider context, we must enjoy gun violence or we'd have done something about it by now. Way I see it, you've got one of two options: Ban guns, like Australia did, or just give everyone a gun, require them to carry it at all times, and let the games begin! I know which one I'm rooting for!
Or I guess we could keep doing what we're doing and let evolution take its course. Maybe in a few generations we'll be able to dodge bullets like Neo in The Matrix.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Remember how important stare decisis was to John Roberts before he became Chief Justice? For most of the history of the United States, conservatives like Warren Burger didn’t find any right to own a gun in the Second Amendment. It was only the Roberts Court that found such a right where none existed:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
The NRA is not the slightest bit interested in gun safety, that’s a smokescreen. They’re the lobby for the arms industry.
It was also written at a time when groups of armed men could defend themselves against a belligerent government.
Now that the government has tanks, cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons, a pistol or machine gun won’t stop them. Hence, we don’t need to own guns.