Five year-old accidentally shoots and kills four year-old sister...

[zanne]

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2985

Watch video.

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I can't. Can't do it.

:cry:

[jaxx]

5. I can't either.

Guns and little kids.....it should never happen.

[gorfle]

17. Tragic.

In the wake of a tragedy like this one, there are important questions that should be asked: Why hasn't the gun industry instituted basic safety features to keep children from accessing and firing handguns? The gun industry could, if it so desired -- or mandated through legislation -- create a host of common sense features that would reduce the lethality of guns. For example, minimum trigger-pull standards would help prevent very young children from being able to pull a gun's trigger.

Most, if not all new handguns produced today have internal locks.

Consumers don't want heavy trigger pulls. The heavier the trigger pull, the more adverse the effect on accuracy.

One wonders what other mandated legislation would make up the "host" of "features" they have in mind?

And secondly, why are parents leaving loaded handguns in the home where children can gain access to them?

This is the only valid point in the article. The blame here lies solely with the parents. Not with guns, not with the firearm industry - with the parents.

Did the gun dealer and/or gun manufacture appropriately warn the parents that by owning a firearm, they have put their children and themselves at greater risk of violence, either through an unintentional shooting or a suicide?

What kind of moron would buy and keep a deadly weapon without realizing the risks involved? What exactly should the firearm industry to about this? Put a sticker on all guns that says, "Danger, you could shoot yourself with this!"?

There is plenty of blame to go around in a tragedy such as this. But leave no doubt, that the gun industry is also partially to blame for their incessant stone-walling of common sense safety measures.

No, there is not plenty of blame to go around, though some would love to use tragedies like this as a tool to leverage against people other than the parents, who are directly and solely at fault.

[liberal N proud]

2. Yeah everyone should have a gun

This is so sad.

[MercutioATC]

3. "Minimum trigger-pull standards"???? God, how ignorant can some people be?

A gun with a trigger heavy enough to stop a 6-year-old from pulling it would be unusable. Accuracy depends on keeping the gun pointed straight...something increasingly difficult as trigger weights increase.

I wish that people who knew nothing about guns would stop coming up with "solutions".

[zanne]

9. Could you try to show some respect for a dead four year-old?

Sensitive post, Mercutio. :sarcasm:

[SteveM]

15. You have yet to show respect, only your agenda.

[MercutioATC]

16. How does calling the suggestion ridiculous "disrespect" a 4-year-old?

It's a tragic event, but making up silly ways to stop it from happening again won't help anything.

[spoony]

47. You wallow in blood like a pig in slop and would dare call

anyone else's posting insensitive?

[zanne]

51. Could any of you gun "enthusiasts" tell me, once and for all...

WHY I would want to take away any of your freedoms? What's in it for me? Unless I'm in it to protect other people, why do I make these posts? WHY? You've come up with so many reasons that I do this; you think I'm an "annoying bitch" and that's supposed to be a reason? Would you please stop and think for a minute? What do you think is in it for ME when all I get from you people is insults? You can't really think I just want to "grab" your guns. What is the REAL reason for the insults?
If you've read my posts before, as some of you claim, do you really think insults will make me go away? What gives with you?

[spoony]

54. No, like a stubborn stain I have no doubt

that you'll remain right where you are, adding nothing but background distortion. And I don't give a flying fuck why you are against gun rights or "what's in it for you"--what offends me is how you go about it with your bloody-shirt waving.

[zanne]

55. Well, that was a well thought-out, reasoned answer, spoony.

Can't even think about it? I know it's hard for you to see evidence of gun violence on this forum, but I think the "bloody shirt-waving" is done by people who glorify unchecked gun sales and ownership and disregard the need for public safety. Guns create the bloody shirts, by the way.

[spoony]

56. If you see the "abortion bus" on the street, covered with photos

of mutilated fetuses, are you likely to listen to anything they have to say? Me neither. That's what you are to me. You don't post arguments or statistics. You just wave corpses in our faces and pretend you're making a profound point. You say you want an answer. I haven't seen a question. Shock value is no substitute for logic, and in the latter I have found you sorely lacking.

[zanne]

63. If you've paid any attention at all, you'll see that I do state arguments and statistics.

Maybe you don't want to see that, or me as a person at all. You seem to be a very angry person who is not interested in the other side of the gun argument.

[gorfle]

57. Why.

WHY I would want to take away any of your freedoms?

Zanne, it's pretty obvious. Folks like you are well-meaning. You want to stop people from dying and being injured by firearms. I understand. That is why you want to take away the freedom of owning firearms. It's understandable and noble.

Where we disagree is:

1) If you got every law-abiding citizen to turn in their firearms tomorrow, I suspect gun violence would carry on the same as always for a long, long time. Consequently, I'm not interested in giving up my family heirlooms and valuable property to chase the pipe-dream of reduced firearm violence.

2) Many pro-firearms folks believe the primary intent behind the second amendment is to allow The People to replace or counter federal military power. While we hate gun violence, we don't hate it enough to give up that ability.

So in short, I don't believe you can come up with any reasonable restrictions on firearms that will make a dent in firearm violence and preserve the ability for The People to replace or counter federal military power.

[zanne]

64. Well, I'm glad you don't think I'm just trying to piss you off. nt

[flor de jasmim]

4. Why do they keep saying "an accident no one saw coming"??!!!

Having a loaded gun in the home is an accident waiting to happen, particularly when it is not under lock and key. I feel for the family, but I am also angry that we still do not have better gun control enforcement (and no tasers in the home either--was it only this morning, or perhaps yesterday, that we learned of a man who had tased his 8-year old boy).

[lapfog_1]

6. Reporter "It was an accident that no one saw coming"

Uh... gun was loaded with 1 bullet chambered, gun was someplace not locked up, the children (5 and 4) knew where the gun was and could get to it. The children were left unattended.

no one could see that coming...

:sarcasm:

[Wickerman]

7. Unsafe gun storage is a crime

my sympathies to the family.

[StClone]

8. Collateral Damage

Awful incidents and accidents will happen no matter how well-meaning, well-trained, careful or not. We must all live with the fact guns are deadly and innocent bystanders will die. Its the cost of freedom. God I hope no one accidentally shoots me.

[zanne]

10. What do you mean, St.Clone? nt

[StClone]

12. That hand guns are dangerous

[zanne]

14. OK. I thought you were seriously calling the 4 year-old "collateral damage". nt

[StClone]

42. They are

[iverglas]

21. I think you are calling the child "collateral damage"

I can't see any other interpretation.

We must all live with the fact guns are deadly and innocent bystanders will die.
Its the cost of freedom.

Well, I guess living with the fact that cars are deadly and innocent bystanders die is one of those things we do, too. Meanwhile, we have speed limits, we prohibit operating while intoxicated, we require licences and revoke them when there is cause, we insist on functional brake lights, ... .

Has freedom been sold out?

What is "it's the cost of freedom" supposed to mean? Living with the ill effects of something because efforts to prevent those ill effects would be an impairment of freedom?

Or are you seriously suggesting that this child's life has somehow paid for someone else's freedom? Sounds like it. Maybe you could explain who struck the bargain, and who the kid's agent was.

[Tejas]

27. because that's all you have

"I can't see any other interpretation."


I........never/don't/refuse to.......see any other interpretation.



fixed. ;)

[iverglas]

29. and the other possible interpretation(s) would be

[iverglas]

49. so

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=169716&mesg_id=169827


OK. I thought you were seriously calling the 4 year-old "collateral damage". nt
zanne
May-05-08 05:38 PM
#14

They are
StClone
May-05-08 09:35 PM
#42


Any more questions?

Always glad to help.

[StClone]

43. Hand gun ownership is a Freedom

People are accidentally killed by them and we have to live with that.

[iverglas]

44. that's so cute

I always like it so much.


People are accidentally killed by them and we have to live with that.


And the dead people are doing their best Redd Foxx imitating Tonto imitation:

Who 'we', white man?

[StClone]

45. What are you talking about?

So you don't live with the fact people die accidentally from handguns?

This kid is dead and I have to live with it just like the fact three kids in my city have died accidentally in the past.

We can blame the parents. But, the fact is that handguns are a solution for self-protection and have a negative side. Live with the fact that accidents will always happen and innocent people will die.

Gun proponents have their right to own guns. With that they should just shut the hell up but they are allowed to shoot their mouths off.

[iverglas]

46. and here I thought

human sacrifice had been abolished a little while ago.

Seems I was wrong. In the US, 4-yr-olds are to be sacrificed on the altar of the gun gods.

I'm still curious who negotiated this deal for the 4-yr-old in question.

Her life is the price that "you" have to pay for your freedom.

And she got what out of this?

Aren't there laws to protect 4-yr-olds from having such bad deals negotiated for them??

[StClone]

52. Do something about it

I have.

[gorfle]

60. What we get out of this.

I'm still curious who negotiated this deal for the 4-yr-old in question.

Our founding fathers negotiated this deal for all of us who live and enjoy the freedoms secured by this great nation.

Her life is the price that "you" have to pay for your freedom.

And she got what out of this?

She got nothing other than the privilege to live in one of the greatest free nations on earth for 4 years. Do the people who die as a result of our having the freedom to bear arms get short-changed? Of course. The question is not what they get out of it, the question is what do we all get out of it. And the answer is simple: We all retain the right to resist oppression and tyranny by force of arms. We retain the tools powerful enough to secure all other rights by force if necessary. We retain the ultimate measure of freedom. This is what all Americans "get out of it" - even those who eschew the right to keep and bear arms. For they live under the protection that we possess even if they refuse to possess it themselves.

[iverglas]

61. I swan

You couldn't make this stuff up.

And if I made it up and attributed it to gun-luvvers, I'd get accused of hating.


The question is not what they get out of it, the question is what do we all get out of it.

Yeah. Now try looking in the mirror.

The question isn't whether you think you need a firearm to hand at all moments because the bogey man might try to git you or a tyrant might try to ... I dunno, whatever tyrants do. It's what you all suffer as a result of your society (and what we all suffer as a result of your society and the world) being awash in small arms.

The four-year-old is actually dead. You, you're just imagining bogeymen and tyrants.


For they live under the protection that we possess even if they refuse to possess it themselves.

Tell it to the four-year-old.

Ooops, wait, you can't. She's dead.

[gorfle]

68. Replies.

Yeah. Now try looking in the mirror.

OK, I did that. I saw an intelligent person with a firm understanding of the Constitutional principles my country was founded on, who possesses the courage to live up to the vision of our founding fathers. Next task?

The question isn't whether you think you need a firearm to hand at all moments because the bogey man might try to git you or a tyrant might try to ... I dunno, whatever tyrants do. It's what you all suffer as a result of your society (and what we all suffer as a result of your society and the world) being awash in small arms.

Well I dont' know how many times you want to go round and round on this. Compared to the number of firearms and firearm owners in this country who lawfully possess them, what we suffer is minimal compared to the suffering that comes to unarmed people in their time of need ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7385078.stm ).

The four-year-old is actually dead. You, you're just imagining bogeymen and tyrants.

Yeah, I'm sure our founding fathers just imagined it all. Perhaps all tyranny passed from the world at the turn of the 18th century.

Tell it to the four-year-old.

Ooops, wait, you can't. She's dead.

So why would you suggest it?

[gorfle]

59. Just so.

that's so cute I always like it so much.

People are accidentally killed by them and we have to live with that.

And the dead people are doing their best Redd Foxx imitating Tonto imitation:

Who 'we', white man?

Going down this road again, are we?

The "we" in this case are all Americans. We Americans have the right to keep and bear arms enumerated in our Constitution. Its intent was clear - The People were to be armed so as to be able to counter or replace federal military power, in addition to repelling invaders. A consequence of this wide-spread access to firearms means that we Americans will have to suffer the consequences when some few of them are misused.

[iverglas]

62. people as objects

It's quite obvious that this is how you regard everyone else in the world: as objects.

A consequence of this wide-spread access to firearms means that we Americans will have to suffer the consequences when some few of them are misused.

YOU "AMERICANS" are not suffering a fucking thing. THE DEAD FOUR-YEAR-OLD suffered a gunshot wound, and then suffered DEATH.

What have YOU suffered -- collectively or individually?

NOTHING.

You are engaging in human sacrifice.

People are objects who are deserving of no concern whatsoever, in your world. They are objects who suffer the consequences of policies based on ensuring that YOU, individually and as a segment of the population you belong to, get what you want.

What you want is guns. You can dress that up in all the finery you want, but that's what it is.

You want guns.

If what you want is freedom and democracy, then it looks like high time you did something to preserve/restore them.

The damn thing being, as usual, that if freedom and democracy are ever lost where you live (yeah, I'll move into your fantasy world for a second here), it's going to be because all of the people who want guns voted to get rid of them.

But then there they'll all be, standing muzzle to butt with you, trying to overthrow the tyrants they voted in ...

You make me laugh. Seriously. Hard to be serious when you're laughing like this, but seriously.

[gorfle]

67. No man is an island.

It's quite obvious that this is how you regard everyone else in the world: as objects.

No, I regard them as people who deserve the right of self-destination, and self-preservation.

YOU "AMERICANS" are not suffering a fucking thing. THE DEAD FOUR-YEAR-OLD suffered a gunshot wound, and then suffered DEATH.

What have YOU suffered -- collectively or individually?

NOTHING.

I tend to agree with Mr. Donne:

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

You are engaging in human sacrifice.

Yes, we are tolerating the sacrifice of some so that the rest may enjoy the liberty that bearing arms insures.

People are objects who are deserving of no concern whatsoever, in your world. They are objects who suffer the consequences of policies based on ensuring that YOU, individually and as a segment of the population you belong to, get what you want.

It's not about me, nor some segment of the population, it's about The American Way of Life as our founding fathers sought to set it forth. They, not I, set up our system of government specifically with the intent that The People of this nation should have free and ready access to firearms. No doubt brigandry and other abuses of arms were known to them as they have been throughout recorded history. And yet they did not seek to set up a nation whereby the people had no arms. This was intentional - they saw the risks inherent of being disarmed in the face of oppression and set our governing documents specifically so that this right would not be overlooked.

Besides which, if there is anyone around here who considers people objects, it's you, Ms.-fetuses-aren't-human-beings.

What you want is guns. You can dress that up in all the finery you want, but that's what it is.

You want guns.

Yes, I want guns. For specifically the reasons that our founding fathers also wanted them.

If what you want is freedom and democracy, then it looks like high time you did something to preserve/restore them.

In case you didn't notice, we are full in the throws of doing it right now. Wait until November. Hopefully, Barak Obama will be our next president.

The damn thing being, as usual, that if freedom and democracy are ever lost where you live (yeah, I'll move into your fantasy world for a second here), it's going to be because all of the people who want guns voted to get rid of them.

That may be as it may. Having guns does not guarantee freedom, nor have I ever claimed such. Apathy, ignorance, greed - all can overcome even an armed citizenry. This is no reason to discard firearms and simply hope one never finds oneself in need of them.

But then there they'll all be, standing muzzle to butt with you, trying to overthrow the tyrants they voted in ...

Better to be armed to overthrow tyranny, regardless of its source, than to have to face it unarmed.

You make me laugh. Seriously. Hard to be serious when you're laughing like this, but seriously.

My first reaction is to be angry at being laughed at. But then I think of what our founding fathers would think of you laughing at one of their basic tenets of liberty. I think they would weep for you and all like you who have become so complacent in your freedom that you are unable to fathom the possibility of having to personally fight for it. I wonder if they feared people like you more than the specter of tyranny itself.

[zanne]

50. NO I will NOT live with that!

As long as I can still speak and write to the people who make the laws, I'll be fighting to put an end to needless gun deaths and so should you.

[gorfle]

58. Cars and guns.

Well, I guess living with the fact that cars are deadly and innocent bystanders die is one of those things we do, too. Meanwhile, we have speed limits, we prohibit operating while intoxicated, we require licences and revoke them when there is cause, we insist on functional brake lights, ... .

Likewise we prohibit by law operating firearms while intoxicated, we require licenses for their use in public and revoke them when there is cause, and firearms are as bound by product liability as any other product.

What is "it's the cost of freedom" supposed to mean? Living with the ill effects of something because efforts to prevent those ill effects would be an impairment of freedom?

Just so. The People must remain armed so as to retain their ability to replace or counter federal military power, as our founding fathers intended. The result of The People being armed means that some few of those people will misuse their arms.

[slackmaster]

11. Shame on the parents for not securing their firearm

There is no reason for this kind of thing to happen, ever. Many means of securing firearms are available at reasonable cost.

[aikoaiko]

13. A reminder to many of us to keep our weapons secure.

I know what that father was thinking -- those kids can't get to gun 6 feet high on the top of the bookshelf. And he was probably correct for the first few years, but then he wasn't.

[bossy22]

18. there is only one person to blame

the parent- im sorry the gun industry has nothing to do with it

the parent fucked up- he failed to store his gun safely and/or failed to teach his son gun safety...no matter what the guy is at fault.

Though in his defense, he did seem to try to lessen the risk by putting the gun in a hard to access place for a child- but never underestimate children.

[IowaGirl]

40. You are right. Guns should be under lock and key if there

are children in the house. There is no place high enough to prevent their access. My 2 year old built a tower to climb to the highest point in a closet to get my sewing box when under the supervision of a babysitter. Ammunition should also be stored separately.

[bossy22]

41. agreed

I used to be able to get the presents my parents hid that were all the way in the attic- i used to have to build a tower on a step stool to reach the hole to climb through- but hey i did it and i was only 6

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Thoughts and Prayers to the family of the little girl.

I hope the family is okay with zanne's exploitation to make a political point.

David

[catnhatnh]

20. Yep-I've read a ton of her posts.....

Over, and over, and over, and over, day in and day out she steps in to post articles that slam legitimate gun owners. No tragedy no matter how horrible it makes the gun owners look is ignored. She obviously has no class since she shamelessly points to each toddler and child slain, as if that proves something.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. She doesn't post that frequently.

She gets very angry when someone posts about a gun being used to save someone's life. Just a little hypocrisy is all.

David

[iverglas]

25. well hey, as long as we're gossiping

You post a whole lot and most of it is drivel prompted by failure to even attempt to understand what you're reading, accompanied by blobby allegations like this one that are based on nothing and have no purpose but to denigrate another member of DU.

She gets very angry when someone posts about a gun being used to save someone's life.
Just a little hypocrisy is all.

Well, it's time you and your little chums started putting your money where your big mouths are.

You have made an allegation about another DU member that portrays her as having an unsavoury personal characteristic, and as doing something very specific.

So what I want is the evidence of the allegation you have made --

She gets very angry when someone posts about a gun being used to save someone's life.

That should be easy.

If you can't come up with evidence, then what you do is retract the statement. You can still believe the statement to be true all you like, and you can still believe whatever you choose to believe about anybody. But if you are going to make allegedly factual statements about someone here, then it's time you manned up and backed them up with something.

Make this one a first.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. They usually respond so angrily that they get deleted.

So it would be hard to go back and get deleted posts. Nice try though. I guess you won't make anymore posts insinuating that DU members beat their dogs or wives then. A kinder, gentler Iverglas. I like it.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. I do have an example though.

NCevilDUer responded to one of my posts last week by writing F@% You, 4 times in 2 posts. They both got deleted, so see I can't prove that it actually happened.

David

[iverglas]

33. how fascinating

NCevilDUer has not posted in this thread.

You made an allegation against zanne.

I asked for substantiation of your allegation against zanne.

What put it in your head that I would be interested in a tale about NCevilDUer?

The attention deficits one sees ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. I know what you meant I was posting an example of angry posts being deleted.

One that was a little more current that people may remember. As far as zanne, she has had me on ignore for months. I do respect that about you Iverglas. You at least have the guts to stand and fight. As smart as you are I sometimes don't feel it's a fair fight in my case, but thats alright.

David

[zanne]

65. Did you run to the mods with that, Fire Medic? nt

[Midlodemocrat]

48. Right. Because she's only been here three years

longer than you. :eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. She doesn't post these threads daily.

That's what was implied and that's what I responded to. You can go through the gun forum and see if you can find them posted everyday if you would like, but they aren't there.

David

[Tejas]

24. It;'s been said that antis who

propose that gunowners are potential murderers are actually the ones that have a problem. The anti espousing the hate is subconciously going through the motions and would possibly be the last person on earth that should be in possession of a firearm.

The same could be said for those that constantly vent in the form of posts about horrible incidents.


Sounds silly huh?



The ANTI-GUN speaker from the MILLION MOM MARCH that hunted down a man and EMPTIED A GUN into him comes to mind.


Food for thought.

[iverglas]

28. "food for thought"

If you're not much concerned about nutrition and don't care what kind of pointless drivel you fill your head up with.

Smart people are more careful. Get enough of that drivel in your head, and it's likely to come dribbling back out.

Like it just did in your post.

[Tejas]

36. wow, and gun-nuts get accused of being "closed-minded" - um, okay n/t

[iverglas]

39. they do?

Oh look, another bit of drivel I didn't need in my head. Unsubstantiated drivel at that ...

Why anybody would bother with "close-minded" when there are so many much more accurate and relevant adjectives ...

[iverglas]

23. why?

I hope the family is okay with zanne's exploitation to make a political point.

Even if we accepted your characterization, someone in the family would appear to bear the lion's share of responsibility for the child's death.

Why should anyone give a crap whether the family is okay with anything?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. Because that would be the kind thing to do.

Clearly the parent that left the gun out is responsible, but a 5 year old pulled the trigger. I wouldn't want to lay that kind of blame at a 5 year olds feet. Kindness goes a long way, you know. I'm glad to know your opinion on this though.

David

[iverglas]

32. what the fuck?????

I wouldn't want to lay that kind of blame at a 5 year olds feet.

You appear to be implying that someone here has laid / would lay the blame for this incident on the five-yr-old.

Why else would you announce to us that you wouldn't want to do that?

No reason occurring to me, I ask why you would choose to imply that someone else was doing / would do that.

If you want to pretend that someone blaming "the family" means that someone was blaming the 5-yr-old, maybe you can find a sandbox with a bunch of 5-yr-olds in it who will listen.

Mind your gunz while you're there. A cunning lot, 5-yr-olds.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. I implied no such thing.

I simply said I wouldn't want to do that. A rational reading of my post would understand what I meant. I'll go ahead and explain it though. The 5 year old will feel enough blame over this, I would hate for him to somehow stumble upon these posts in 6 or 7 years and mistakenly think that nice progressive people were blaming him for his sisters death. I hope that clears it up for you.

David

[Tejas]

37. We know you didn't,

some people will still.........well, you know.

[Irreverend IX]

38. How are your efforts to control private swimming pools going?

Those things are involved in a lot more child deaths than guns. After all, I know you're not the kind of person who would use selective outrage to try to push through a narrow-minded and irrational agenda.

[zanne]

66. Well then, by all means let's just add gun deaths to the total.

No big deal, right? Aslong as you can have as many guns as you want and can carry them around with you, the rest of us should all be willing to live in danger of gun deaths. It's all about you, Nabeshin.