Pinellas toddler dies when he finds his father's gun and shoots himself
Source: Tampa Bay Times
EAST LAKE — A toddler died Wednesday afternoon after he found his father's gun in the family car and shot himself, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said.
Read more: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/child-shot-self-in-east-lake/2214619
How many more children have to die till we come to our senses?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)He's going to have a much harder time enjoying his guns now because of this. Children are so inconsiderate of the feelings of others.
Orrex
(63,220 posts)Another horror, all too common.
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts) 
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
Exultant Democracy
(6,594 posts)But of course these mythical responsible gun owners like the grandpa who definitely locked his gun safe, or the women how had her gun in a special safe holster in her purse are immune to the odds...
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)These idiots need to be sent a message that it is reckless and stupid to leave guns where kids can find them.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
Sancho
(9,070 posts)People Control, Not Gun Control
This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
safeinOhio
(32,714 posts)It works in that country, lots of private gun ownership and very little gun crime.
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
samsingh
(17,600 posts)anything decent done about 'people control' are still forced to preface their argument with something like: 'hey I love guns, have many of them, but let's have some controls so that innocent people stop getting killed'.
I like your points. the debate should not be about coddling gun owners through misinterpretation of the 2a. but it is and will be for a long time.
many of the people being killed are being done so by guns kept by family members who strongly support the nra and ignore all the other people being slaughtered by guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they will go into the insurance business like AARP (insurance companies will be falling over themselves to get the NRA stamp of approval). They will then offer a discount on insurance premiums for NRA members. In one fell swoop you have given them two large guaranteed revenue streams and have expanded their membership by an order of magnitude.
Btw - liability insurance for guns is dirt cheap. Lets not forget that insurance companies will not pay out for crimes or negligence - no insurance company will ever put themselves in the position of paying out for a Sandy Hook. Actual gun accidents are rare and have been falling steadily for decades. That is why gun ownership has no impact on home insurance premiums while a swimming pool or the type of dog you have does.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)the idea of required insurance is a way to force people to have proper gun security, training, etc. or else it will cost a lot more. If you have a dog, no fire alarm, etc., then your homeowners costs more. If you live in a flood zone in Florida, your homeowners is more expensive. We're talking apples and oranges on this kind of insurance vs. homeowners. If you have kids or someone seeing a psychologist in the home, etc., in order to get the license would require insurance which would require a gun safe (or else your premium would double).
This is a required policy for gun use that covers the results of gun discharge: death, medical, damage, emergency response, legal defense.
Most importantly!! Read this...
Insurance companies keep statistics!!! That's something the NRA and others don't do now. With required insurance, there would be reports on gun ownership, accidental deaths, accidental discharges, and so on!
Then the NRA (and their own insurance company) would quickly discover they were paying out for medical (when shooting themself) and lawsuits (when blasting the guy in the seat next to you at the movie results in a wrongful death) for their covered gun possessor. Even the gun manufacturers might be included in future lawsuits so the insurance would be necessary.
hack89
(39,171 posts)insurance companies will not put themselves in a position of paying for criminal negligence or outright criminal behavior. The insurance companies know that the accident rate for guns is low - it is the reason I pay a pittance for umbrella liability insurance for my guns.
Let me ask you this. The common refrain is that the NRA has a disproportionate impact on gun politics in America. Given a huge increase in revenue and memberships, just how long do you think that insurance requirement will last? Think of what a NRA that is ten times more powerful than they are right now would mean to the future of gun control in America.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)and there's no one who can remember hardly any liability - one of the safest sports ever! We still have to pay a small annual premium...
PLUS we have boat inspections for safety equipment, weather preparation, etc. It keeps everyone safe. The insurance companies keep us appraised of the few accidents that occur - and because of their records we have new rules and equipment.
The idea of insurance for a license is two fold:
1.) Right now, no one is keeping records on shootings OR THE PEOPLE who have accidents, cause deaths, etc. I don't care if they "pay off" or no for a "crime" or not. I only want the unsafe people to find it difficult to possess a gun. The insurance records would make it harder for statistically dangerous people to get (or afford) insurance.
2.) I was once a member of the NRA and dropped out when they stopped being a safety organization. If state licenses required insurance to possess or use a gun, it would make the NRA a single competitor in a world of organizations. AARP (your example) now has lots of copy cats and they don't have the clout they used to have. The license would mean that part of the NRA (the insurance part) would be REGULATED by state governments - and it would be a commerce regulation, not anything to do with the 2nd amendment! That way, there would be fewer NRA legal challenges. Just like anything else that became profitable and required, a large bunch of other companies and agencies would jump all over the NRA training and insurance bandwagon. I don't think that NRA would do anything except loose influence.
hack89
(39,171 posts)lets not forget that membership dues funds their political PAC which would be separate from the insurance side. They already separate their political activities from their non-profit activities so it foolish to assume that limits on their business activities will impact their political activities.
Secondly - there are records of gun accidents that harm people. The police and emergency rooms are the primary source. The CDC has reams of data.
Finally - the real dangerous people with guns are violent criminals using illegal guns. How does insurance impact them?
Sancho
(9,070 posts)there is virtually no data base like the one insurance would produce!!
You'd fill out an application will all kinds of information, and the actuarial folks would look for all kinds of patterns that you were potentially dangerous (like you were taking a prescription for an emotional illness, or you had kids in the house, etc., etc.). A criminal database is WORTHLESS at preventing potentially dangerous people from possessing or using guns. That's been proven over and over. We need to improve that and insurance is one way - but it does NOT involve a big government agency!
The real dangerous people (like recent mass shooters) are often emotionally or mentally off base, but have easy access to guns, ammo, etc. What about kids who shoot other kids or their mother? Those aren't criminals but clearly there was an unsafe person with an unsecured gun!
Insurance applications would catch some of those people without any kind of violation of rights. You provide the proof of insurability (possibly a background check) and what ever turns out to be necessary: Maybe references from people who know you? Maybe proof of safe storage? Whatever statistically predicts misuse of guns might prevent a PERSON from having a license.
Remember that insurance is simply one part of obtaining a license to use a gun in my view: training, background checks, and other requirements would also apply. The idea is to prevent UNSAFE people from having easy access to guns.
Kermitt Gribble
(1,855 posts)TeamPooka
(24,250 posts)If they don't care, why should I?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)banality of that Sheriff's comments.
Just in case you were not being sarcastic, Democrats in general care about public health and this is a public health epidemic.
TeamPooka
(24,250 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)I share your contempt for that sheriff's attitude. What a douche, eh?
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)when will we grow up
Darb
(2,807 posts)How stupid. Thanks gun culture nitwits.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)This was explained to me years ago and I'm still baffled as to how that works.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)All for an amendment purporsely interpreted to line the pockets of corporations.
SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)I'm sure he is glad that he'll still be able to tuck his gun in at night, and perhaps tell him a bedtime story.
Kids can be replaced, he just needs to boink his wife. But allow the government to take away his guns? That's a non starter.
NBachers
(17,135 posts)If You Act Today: Special ornate display case to show off the bullet to admiring friends and family!
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)charged for not having the gun locked in a gun locker if he wasn't going to wear it, but I don't know the law in Florida.
ileus
(15,396 posts)It's really that simple....a firearm can go from life saving device to deadly device in seconds in the wrong hands.
If it's going to be stored it needs to be locked up...it's really that simple.
LannyDeVaney
(1,033 posts)**
logosoco
(3,208 posts)woman facing child neglect charges for letting her 7 year old son walk to the park alone.
I do feel for these parents and they are going to be hurting the rest of their lives.
I have never owned a gun, so I can't say for sure, but it seems like I would be a little more careful about anyone getting access to it. I would be very nervous about putting a 2 year old alone in a car, much less a car where a gun was in the glove box.
Some people seem to not understand this and I just don't understand. I wish I had the answers because it really hurts to read about these stories so often.
CrispyQ
(36,502 posts)My sister posted that on FB a few days after Sandy Hook. I told her she should hide it, that it was over the top insensitive, hostile, even. It was the biggest fight we've ever had.
