Avoiding Tragedy: Keeping Kids Away From Guns

[SecularMotion]

Franklin Co.,VA - Franklin County Deputies say it was an accident Monday, when a 12 year old boy got a hold of a handgun; it accidentally fired and killed his 7 year old brother.

"We need everyone to just make sure that they're putting their guns in a safe location. That doesn't mean on top of the hutch, in the top of the closet, or in the back of a closet. Kids are curious” said Lieutenant Phillip Young of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office.

Monday morning, a 7 year old Franklin County boy, was killed after his brother, deputies say, got a hold of a loaded handgun. It accidentally went off, killing him instantly.

In a special ABC News report exposing the lethal combination of kids and guns, it was revealed that every other day in the U.S. a child is killed by a firearm. The report also revealed that the old mainstay, when a child comes across a gun, to not touch and tell an adult, is far from what happens when they're left alone.

http://www.wset.com/story/25313841/avoiding-tragedy-keeping-kids-away-from-guns

[SheilaT]

1. And the idea that maybe

the better decision would be not to have a gun in the house in the first place just doesn't come up?

If there's no gun to be found in the first place . . . oh, hell, why even bother.

[Eleanors38]

7. It is worth "bothering!" And others ARE "bothering."

Accidental childhood deaths due to firearms have been declining for years, and are now lower than drowning, electrocution, and other named categories used by the National Safety Council. Further, there is a major on-going campagn, Project Child Safe, which advocates safe gun storage at home.

Something is working, because people ARE bothering.

[SheilaT]

10. A quick google search on drowning deaths

tells me that from 2005-2009 about 3500 persons drowned each year in this country. Fatal, unintentional, non boat related drownings. About 1 in 5 of the victims were children. And in 2008 and 2008 just under 3,000 children were killed each year from guns.

Fewer drownings than shootings? It doesn't look like it.

Plus, tens of thousands more are merely injured each year from guns. Yes, there are many who are permanently damaged from near-drowning, but the numbers still don't match the gun carnage.

[gejohnston]

11. please cite your shooting deaths

the CDC puts the number of accidental shootings of children at 62 (0-12). I'm guessing that the number you are using are defining children as 0-24 and not necessarily accidents. If that is the case, and probably is, then it is not a valid comparison. If you break it down by location, most of those are likely to be in places where legal gun ownership is little to nonexistent.

[SheilaT]

16. Well, let's see. I found one piece

that says US Child Gun Deaths Rose 60 Percent in ten years.

And another that talks about how the child gun deaths are often misreported.

I do get tired of the claim that the gun deaths have fallen as if that somehow makes them okay. Or that the kids who find a loaded gun and then shoot and kill another kid is somehow a tragic and totally unforeseeable accident.

So are you willing to say that you'd be perfectly okay if it were your child who were to be killed by a gun because, after all, it's a tragic and unforeseeable accident and oh, by the way, those deaths have been diminishing. Even though they really have not?

[gejohnston]

17. and who are these pieces written by?

and their analysis was based on what?

I do get tired of the claim that the gun deaths have fallen as if that somehow makes them okay. Or that the kids who find a loaded gun and then shoot and kill another kid is somehow a tragic and totally unforeseeable accident.

No one said it makes them "OK". I get tired of propagandists who talk about "gun violence" yet ignore the other 80 percent of violent crime. I get tired of the same propagandists who talk about "gun suicides" but don't seem to give a rat's ass about he other 48 percent of suicides.
Then there is the dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy of Bloomberg and his ilk. MDA is a fiction created by a PR firm started by a former Monsanto PR executive. I have zero respect for an argument that depends on personal attacks, appeals to emotion, and stringing together logical fallacies trying to trump facts and reason. Do you think Bloomberg or any of the economic and political elites give a shit about saving lives? No. Did the right wing John Howard give a shit about the lives about Port Author? No. They were simply political capital to give him the chance to pressure Australian States to adopt laws that he wanted simply because he personally believe in private gun ownership.

So are you willing to say that you'd be perfectly okay if it were your child who were to be killed by a gun because, after all, it's a tragic and unforeseeable accident and oh, by the way, those deaths have been diminishing. Even though they really have not?

Do you ever say someone was killed by a knife? My kids learned at a young age of what to do and not to do with guns. They grew up in a culture where their friends were also trained if there were guns in their homes. The fact of the matter is that according to the CDC they are in fact diminishing are in the two digits. The crime of one person should not diminish the rights of millions. That is authoritarian, that is illiberal, and it is repugnant.

Public policy should be based on facts and reason only. Not emotion, junk science put out by public health shills (ever notice that gun control advocates never cite studies done by criminologists, but instead of accuse them of being NRA shills? All of the "pro gun control studies" are non peer reviewed or published in medical journals and are done by non-scientists?).

Speaking of criminologists, studies dating back to the Hart study in the 1970s to the Kleck/Mustard study (and even done by the "anti gun" Phil Cook) show that 100k-2M people successfully defend themselves from criminal attacks each year with a firearm. The CDC uses the more conservative number. Of course almost all are without a shot being fired. Are you willing to say that someone should have to hope that the cops will show up just in the nick of time just like they do in the movies? Guess what, they don't. Are you perfectly OK with someone being killed or maimed because they did not have the means to defend themselves? Or do you share Paul Quander's, DC's Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, view that

“The problem is, if you are armed, it escalates the situation. It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”

Yes, he really said that in a town hall. Of course you don't always walk away whole, and of course Quander has his armed guards as does Bloomberg.
See, I can play the appeal to emotion game too.

[Eleanors38]

13. Your "3,000" includes some rather old "children"

(the NSC keeps it below 15), and deaths other than by accident, the subject of the OP.

Sorry, but my contention holds.

[Jgarrick]

2. I think children should only handle guns under adult supervision. What do *you* think?

[blueridge3210]

4. Good luck with that.

The poster clearly has no interest is actually discussing anything per the SOP of this group.

[Jgarrick]

5. Hope springs eternal.

[blueridge3210]

6. Hope is a good thing, the best of things. (NT)

[SevenSixtyTwo]

3. If it's not

In the owner's possession and complete control, it should be locked in a gun safe. It's really easy to do.

I wonder how many children are killed or maimed each day by cell phones that accidentally text while driving?

[Straw Man]

8. Safe storage starts with education.

As does safe handling.

I have a few problems with the wording of the article. One gun "accidentally fired"? The other "accidentally went off"? Without human agency? No. Someone pulled the freaking trigger. That's what makes guns "go off."

Education, folks. For safe storage and safe handling.

[Brown Coat]

9. Lieutenant Young is spot on.

"Kids are curious”
Do how do we deal with this?

Option 1: ban weapons based on cosmetic features and mag capacity
- this would not save have saved this kids life, or any kids from what I can tell. This is a very bad way about saving kids lives.

Option 2: don't expose your kids to firearms. For all intents and purposes they don't exist. They will find out about them on their own time, hopefully they don't shoot someone by accident.
-this is better than option number one but not much

Option 3: Take the time to educate kids. Satisfy their curiosity and make sure that they understand that a firearm is not a toy like they see on tv. Make sure they know the consequences of their actions.
-This is by far the best option. The Eddie Eagle program is an excilent example.

[Jenoch]

12. Minnesota has a safe storage law for homes with children under 18.

Guns must be locked in a safe, cable locked, or trigger locked, or locked up in some manner. Another accepted safe storage manner is to remove the bolt on a bolt action rifle or to dismatle a handgun and storing the parts separately. The ammunition must be stored away from the gun.

[Eleanors38]

14. Does the law exempt when the gun is in service?

Say, in an open lockbox by the bed, ready to go with the cylinder full?

[Jenoch]

15. I don't know the answer to that.

If the lockbox is locked with either fingerprint or the four digit code to open it, I think it it legal. I suppose it would be legal for a loaded gun in a large safe would also be legal, but I don't store them that way.

Edit to add: I might not have all the details of the law correct. I do remember police department giving away cable locks and trigger locks free when the law was passed about ten years ago. I have a large gunsafe for long guns and handguns.

[ileus]

18. If it's out it should be on your side...

hard for a personal protection device to save/protect lives if it's out of your reach.

Otherwise it should be locked up.


Safety first...