Three-year-old kills brother in accidental shooting

[panzerfaust]

Source: Sydney Morning Herald (Oz)

Police in central California say a two-year-old boy has died after being accidentally shot by his three-year-old sister.

Bakersfield police sergeant Greg Terry said the girl apparently found a .45 calibre semi-automatic handgun under her parents' bed on Wednesday afternoon and accidentally shot her brother.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/threeyearold-kills-brother-in-accidental-shooting-20090528-bosi.html

---

My thought is that the weapon was being kept for 'home protection'

And, truly, if one does feel the need to keep a weapon for that purpose, it must be easily accessible - and thus it follows that, in a certain number of cases each year, it will be accessed by accident, with sometimes tragic results.

My heart goes out to the family struck with this devastating event, yet I must question the decision to have this weapon at all.

[skooooo]

1. "guns don't kill...3 year olds kill"

:eyes:

[JI7]

2. isn't under a bed one of the worst places to keep a gun when you have little kids ?

[onehandle]

3. You know, a gun's just a tool... Actually a citizen since it's the only inanimate object...

...singled out in the Constitution.

Won't somebody think of the gun!

[Chulanowa]

4. The boy made himself a victim

If he had been armed like a responsible citizen, he might have been able to deter his assailant. This will keep happening so long as the 2nd amendment rights of toddlers keep getting thrown under the bus by the liberal socialist democrats!


:sarcasm:

[AlexDeLarge]

17. Don't you mean thrown under the bed?

[mwb970]

24. The only safe world is one in which all toddlers are armed.

How else can they protect themselves?

[skooooo]

30. true that. nt

[joshcryer]

27. Let's be honest, you actually believe that. I mean, you believe some idiots believe that.

No rational person would consider your (rather unoriginal and commonly irreverent) statement very appealing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

96. That's under the bed, not under the bus. nt

[ejpoeta]

5. i hate guns. i don't ever want one in my house. and to have it right where a kid can get it!!

what is wrong with people!

[Flagg]

6. If only the 2 year old had had a gun...

[barbtries]

7. this is why

there will never be a gun in my house

[EvilAL]

8. Awful tragedy, easily avoided

with proper gun storage by the parents. Even if you feel you need fast access to your gun in case of a break-in or for protection there is NO reason to have it loaded. Revolvers have speed-loaders and semi-automatics, like in the OP, require you to pop a magazine in and pull it back to cock it. I've fired many semi auto's and a 3 year old, even though they could pull it back depending on the model and ease of retraction, should never have been able to perform this.. I think it was loaded, not just having the clip inserted, I mean bullet in the chamber, no safety. Inexcusable.

[DrDan]

9. a child's death by firearm EVERY 3 HOURS

Yet the gun lobby blathers on that more children are killed playing football than via guns - like this justifies it.

Our obsession with guns is blatantly reckless.

[pipoman]

16. Really

as tragic as each death is, do we have to lie about the numbers? One every three hours is simply ludicrous and a flat out lie. It doesn't help, in fact I contend that the constant lies such as this from the gun control lobby has had the same effect as the lies from the war on drugs/reefer madness lobby...destroyed their credibility and efforts. According to the CDC the number between ages 0-15 is in the 1.75 per/day range and has been declining nearly every year for 2 decades.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[Fumesucker]

20. As far as I can tell the drug war is still at full throttle..

Let me know when "drugs" are legalized and regulated and those imprisoned for "drug crimes" are set free and we can talk some more about how the drug war industry has "lost its credibility".

[Tesha]

21. Somebody's lying here, but it's not the poster you replied to.

The discrepancy in the stats is whether or not
you consider a 15-19 year old to be a child.
The stats cited by the person you replied to
*DO* make that assumption; yours don't .

And somehow, I'll bet you knew the difference
was that simple but you deliberately chose not
to explain that and instead posted an NRA
talking point.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

51. It's not just including 15 - 19-year-olds

The stats DrDan cited include deaths from criminal activity and law enforcement. It's dishonest to refer to those as deaths of "children".

[DrDan]

55. 3006 deaths in 2005

http://cdf.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Safe_Start_Gun_Report_map&JServSessionIdr010=v1boali438.app13a

1 EVERY 3 HOURS!

[slackmaster]

58. Less than half the number who died from transportation-related injuries

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Put it into perspective.

[depakid]

65. Put in perspective, transportation is necessary

Having guns in the house is not-

[krispos42]

70. Transportation is necessary, self-defense is necessary

However, cars are not necessary for transportation, and guns are not necessary for self-defense.


Ban cars and guns. Then your choices are either the evil evil socialism solutions (buses, trains, and the police) or the muscle-driven solution (bikes, walking, impact weapons, martial arts).

[DrDan]

73. the primary purpose of cars is transportation - the primary purpose of guns

is to kill and/or maim.

[krispos42]

81. Yup. n/t

[slackmaster]

93. Self-defense is necessary

The "primary" purpose of a firearm is to propel a projectile at high speed for whatever purpose the user needs to accomplish.

[DrCory]

106. Irrelevant...

From a public safety perspective, dead is dead.

[Howzit]

119. Can't have a drive-by without cars...

Intent is your primary killer. Second and third are stupidity and negligence, as in the case of leaving the gun laying around where a kid could get to it. The kid could have drowned or suffocated in a bucket of water or plastic bag left on the ground.

[depakid]

74. So called "self defense" results in dead children

and the bottom line is that keeping a gun in the house makes that house LESS safe and MORE LIKELY to be involved in a violent crime- typically domestic violence related- or a tragedy.

And I'll go one further- for every one of these tragedies, more blood is on the hands of those who'd promote the proliferation of firearms.

[krispos42]

82. How do you define "children"?

Do you mean when an adult killed a 17-year-old mugger?


Well, that's a dead child, in the technical sense.


I dislike arguing with the term "child" simply because it implies dewy-eyed six-year-olds with infectious grins and SpongeBob Squarepants backpacks.

[rl6214]

100. Bullshit

I have three children ages 14-22. I have had firearms in my home ever since the first one was born and have NEVER had any incidents with any of my firearms, EVER so your assertion that firearms make a home less safe is bullshit.

[Tesha]

108. Ahh! "Argument by anecdote". How typically pathetic. (NT)

[Euromutt]

104. Whereas kids killed in MV collisions aren't really dead?

and the bottom line is that keeping a gun in the house makes that house LESS safe and MORE LIKELY to be involved in a violent crime- typically domestic violence related- or a tragedy.

In the same way that keeping insulin the house makes it more likely someone in the house will develop diabetes.

Your "conventional wisdom" concerning the causal relationship between guns in the house and violent crime is based on a massively flawed study done by Arthur Kellermann (among others). Essentially, Kellermann started off by looking at homicide victims, and then selected as their control group people who weren't dead, but were in similar socio-economic circumstances as the homicide victims; that's a problem of biased sampling right off the bat, since a homicide victim is by definition more likely to have been the victim of a violent crime than someone who isn't a homicide victim. Then they looked at the variable of a gun in the home, found that the dead guys were more likely to have had one, and concluded that the gun was the causal factor. The problem was Kellermann et al. didn't control for a number of variables, including arrest records, police responses to domestic violence reports, and alcohol and drug abuse. They also didn't bother to establish that the gun kept in the household was used in the homicide; as it turned out, very frequently it wasn't.

When other--professional criminologists instead of "public health experts"--analyzed Kellerman's data, they found that the study group (i.e. the dead guys) were more likely to have had arrest records, alcohol and/or drug problems, and a history of violence. In three cases, the "perpetrator" of the homicide was listed as "Seattle PD." Essentially, the study group had been more likely to be involved in criminal activity than the control group; as a result, they had a higher tendency to make violent enemies, and that, in turn, caused them to keep guns in the house.

This was the second or third study of Kellermann's that was thoroughly discredited, to such an extent that he avoided subsequent studies being similarly eviscerated by simply to refusing to publish his raw data.

[DrDan]

69. oh brother - so that makes it right?

give me a break

[slackmaster]

94. No, of course not

But MOST of those deaths are the result of criminal activity.

I see a huge disconnect between my collection of curios and relics, legitimate activities like hunting and target shooting, and criminal misuse of firearms.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. It is dishonest to claim that a 16 yr old criminal is not also still a child. nt

[DrDan]

47. a "lie"????? Why would I lie?

http://cdf.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Safe_Start_Gun_Report_map&JServSessionIdr010=v1boali438.app13a

3,006 deaths in 2005.

8.2 per day.

How many hours between useless deaths - 3.

[Tesha]

107. I specifically stated that you were not lying. (NT)

[DrDan]

122. I was responding to the earlier post - that stated the statistics were a lie

not referring to your post - I think we are in complete agreement about this issue.

[Tesha]

125. 'Kay; thanks! (NT)

[Statistical]

116. 19 isn't a child.

How about the CDC
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

custom report.
ages 1-17
year 2006
type: firearm

1587 deaths

of course this incident is an accident.

number of accidental firearm deaths: 102

[slackmaster]

49. Let's see, that would make eight per day, or 2,920 per year...

Which is ALMOST true if you include "children" up to age 18.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Our obsession with guns is blatantly reckless.

Death of any young person is bad enough as it is. You don't need to spin it with hyperbole and exaggerations.

[DrDan]

53. 3006 in 2005

http://cdf.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Safe_Start_Gun_Report_map&JServSessionIdr010=v1boali438.app13a

And I repeat - our obsession with guns is blatantly reckless.

[slackmaster]

56. Only if you include "children" up to and including age 19, which is dishonest

And all intents, including criminal and law enforcement activity.

And I repeat - our obsession with guns is blatantly reckless.

Speak for your self, DrDan. I collect firearms as a hobby and an investment. It's not an obsession for me at all.

[DrDan]

57. nor is it for me - I obviously am referring to the collective "our" - not individual obsessions

[slackmaster]

63. What do you suggest be done about it, DrDan?

I am very interested in your opinion.

[DrDan]

71. we need control, registration and enforcement

[patriotvoice]

91. Please be more specific: there are already controls, registration, and enforcement in place.

The only things missing are biometric trigger locks, GPS tracking, and door-to-door inspections.

[ima_sinnic]

10. what kind of dumbass would store a loaded gun under a bed w small children present?

fucking asshole moron(s). I guess putting it out of children's reach would have been too "inconvenient."

[DrDan]

11. I would guess there are millions of "dumbass's" doing exactly that

living in fear generated by the gun industry.

[AlexDeLarge]

19. With aiding and abetting by

the fear-mongering Repugnants.

[mwb970]

26. Why don't they just shoot their family members themselves and be done with it?

Oh, that's right. A lot of them do.

[redqueen]

37. "dumbass's"?

What's that about?

You sure it wasn't fear generated by the gang wars which is generated by the war on drugs?

[Scout]

12. my niece's EX-husband did just that

he is a fucking asshole moron ... i don't know what she saw in him :shrug:

thank god no one was hurt and he is no longer in their lives

she didn't want a gun at all, and he lied to her about getting it and went out and did it anyway. but hey, he was a law-abiding gun owner is what the gun nuts always say. he got all the right permits and there were no safe storage laws in their state.

[depakid]

14. "...there were no safe storage laws in their state."

Where they exist, the NRA is going after those, too.

SAN FRANCISCO — The City is being sued by gun owners and gun-advocacy groups because of a local law that says firearms have to be locked up or kept disabled.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court Friday afternoon, challenges a local restriction that forces handgun owners to either store their guns in a locked container or disable them with trigger locks. Mayor Gavin Newsom signed the law into effect in August 2007.

National Rifle Association attorney Chuck Michel, who filed the case, said the locking restriction interferes with citizens’ rights to immediately defend their families.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/San-Francisco-slapped-with-gun-lawsuit-45374737.html

My bet is that they're going to find that they've overreached this time.

[TheWraith]

31. Actually, the SF law is pretty clearly illegal.

It goes WAY beyond "safe storage," requiring that a gun be physically disabled. Washington DC had a pretty much identical law on the books which was struck down as unconstitutional by DC vs. Heller, on the grounds that totally disabling the weapon makes it impossible to use for legally protected self defense. If all SF had was a responsible storage law, they'd be golden.

[depakid]

52. We will see what responsible is- and you may well find that it's not what the NRA wants it to be

I sure wouldn't want to be the attorney arguing for a storage requirement that's killing kids (which is essentially what they're doing).

[Taitertots]

103. Because Responsible is

Making unenforceable, arbitrary, and capricious laws is responsible.

But being the single largest supplier of firearms safety and training, thats unacceptable.

[Scout]

112. "firearms safety and training"

i wonder if that guy who shot his own dick stuffing his gun in his pants took that NRA safety and training course....
:eyes:

[pipoman]

113. You really do have a penis fixation don't you?

You do know that the story you are referring to happened in Germany?

[Scout]

114. oh yes, i think about penises, their size, their shape, if they curve left or right

how long they are, the circumference, if they're circumcised....

yes, i just think about penises all the time i do

:rofl:

me and freud, we're just fixated on phalli

eta: ALL my DU posts always have a penis reference, why don't you search them?

[pipoman]

121. Since you asked, yes..yes you do seem to...

"do you jack off to it when you clean your gun? rofl that was a penis reference by the way, so you can make fun of me for it"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=216365#220540

"ask the United States Marine Corps about that gun/penis confusion thing...."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=201188#201205

"Yeah, that bitch just grabbed poor John by the cock, and dragged him kicking and screaming off somewhere and made him fuck her!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5615296#5617787

"poor JE, that little penis was just too much for him! that bitch Rielle"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5615296#5617827

"no one is saying the man's opinion holds no weight because he has a penis"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5519277#5544778

"for one thing, no one knows if a man's penis is "cut" or not"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5337097#5337298

"so you're saying men can rule the world, but that 6 inch penis is too much for them to control? n/t"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3774622#3775454

"Women are from Bras, Men are from Penis"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=8591412#8591624

Jus' a quick little search ya' know...I had no idea the chronic nature of your affliction...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Scout]

123. uh huh, right

8 posts out of over 5000 constitutes "ALL my DU posts"

apparently you don't recognize sarcasm either

:rofl:

[Taitertots]

124. Obviously he didn't take and abide by firearms safety instruction

The NRA specifically warns against unsafe handling procedures like that.

[slackmaster]

60. San Fancisco's safe storage law is illegal, and the state of California has one anyway

Cities can't make up their own rules on firearms in California.

[MountainLaurel]

46. My father n/t

[JayMusgrove]

13. Simply amazing that parents can be so stooopid

but there is no intelligence test for a parent.

All parents should be smart enough NOT TO....

1) store the gun anywhere, (kids won't touch a gun?)
2) leave the 2 yr old and 3 yr old alone without supervision in the room with the gun.

Maybe it would be better if the 3 yr old had shot the stupid parents.
They are too stupid to own a gun.

[Sultana]

15. I blame the parents

how could they be so stupid *shakes head*

[47of74]

38. Every time I think there can't possibly be anyone dumber on Earth

I'm always surprised.

[blue sky at night]

18. don't forget.........

the life of the three year old is forever ruined. She faces an uncertain future now, her parents will probably divorce over the incident and she will be marred by the guilt....let's hope she forgets the whole thing when she grows up. Guns are apple pie, this little boy is merely road-kill, get used to it america, it will never change.

[Fumesucker]

22. This is so common in the US that we have to read about it in an Australian newspaper?

If American newspapers publish stuff like this they know they will be inundated with messages telling them how they are "liberal bleeding hearts".

[depakid]

25. It's currently on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald's internet edition.

A number of reasons for that- partially because Australians consider things like this to be appalling tragedies-

-but also because Aussies know that there but for grace of God (and our 1996 firearms buyback and licensing provisions that include a Safe Storage Inspection) go we.

[TheWraith]

33. You do know that violent crime in Australia has surged since the gun buyback, right? nt

[redqueen]

39. Is that so?

Have a citation for that by chance?

[TheWraith]

42. Certainly. Right here.

Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.

The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).

The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.

http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats/

***

Gun ownership is rising and there is no definitive evidence that a decade of restrictive firearms laws has done anything to reduce weapon-related crime, according to NSW's top criminal statistician.

...

Nationwide, the proportion of robberies involving weapons is the same as it was in 1996, while the proportion of abductions involving weapons is higher, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics fiures reveal. They show a mixed result in firearms-related offences since the mid-1990s. There has been a fall in firearms murders (from 32 to 13 per cent) but a rise (19 to 23 per cent) in attempted murders involving guns.

"I would need to see more convincing evidence than there is to be able to say that gun laws have had any effect," Dr Weatherburn said. "The best that could be said for the tougher laws is there has been no other mass killing using firearms .

"There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence …

"There has been a more specific … problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html

[depakid]

50. Just more NRA talking points taken out of context

Snopes discusses the matter here:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

And peer reviewed research looks at the buyback's effectiveness here:

Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key component of gun law reforms.

Objective: To determine whether Australia’s 1996 major gun law reforms were associated with changes in rates of mass firearm homicides, total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides, and whether there were any apparent method substitution effects for total homicides and suicides.

Design: Observational study using official statistics. Negative binomial regression analysis of changes in firearm death rates and comparison of trends in pre–post gun law reform firearm-related mass killings.

Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides, but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed.

The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the
same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

Full paper: http://www.iansa.org/regions/asiapacific/documents/AusGunLawReforms.pdf

[TheWraith]

59. You're citing a biased source which has a vested interest in proving it works.

Specifically, an organization which endorsed the gun ban and loses credibility if it doesn't work. The numbers compiled by the Australian government, which I provided a link to, tell a different tale.

[depakid]

72. Hogwash- it's peer reviewed science in the British Medical Journal!

Which involves something called analysis- which you appear to be wholly unfamiliar with- though the Australian government which knocks your bogus connection, is- which is why they (and the vast majority of everyone else down under) knows that the buyback has been a success.

BTW: by comparison- how do you think Australia's stats match up to gun ridden America's?

Quite a few more murders, eh? Among other crimes.

[krispos42]

67. But there is no significant change in total homicide rates

And no mention if there were non-gun mass killings.

[depakid]

76. Errr...better look at another graph and do some actual analysis (and update that talking point)

Note the gap in the trend line (from peer reviewed reseach)

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/12/13/gr_guns_narrowweb__300x362,0.jpg

And in further study:

AUSTRALIA'S gun buyback has saved between 128 and 282 lives each year, a report says.

The report, by Dr Andrew Leigh from the Australian National University in Canberra and Canadian academic Dr Christine Neill, says the gun buyback has affected homicide and suicide rates.

They say their findings discount a previous study in the British Journal of Criminology in 2006, which found the buyback had no impact on either gun homicide or suicide rates.

Dr Neill said statistical models used in that study were not appropriate and results were inconsistent.

"Since the gun buyback, the non-firearm homicide rate has stayed stable, and the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen," he said.
"We find reductions in both gun homicide and gun suicide rates that are statistically significant.

"Our best estimates are that the gun buyback has saved between 128 and 282 lives per year."

The report comes a week after the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, in which Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University and committed suicide.

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/GunBuyback_media.pdf

[krispos42]

80. Ah, I didn't see this before

Hmmm... the slopes of the two lines (blue and green) are the same at the discontinuity point. Which means that the rate of decrease is about the same.


The study implies, then that the gun-confiscation program advanced the firearm homicide rate in 1996 to where it would have been in about 2010 if the program hadn't existed. In other words, if you extend the blue line (pre-confiscation firearm homicide rate) to about 2010, you get where the green line (post-confiscation firearm homicide rate) was in 1996 or '97.



However, I'll continue to note that this is GUN homicides, not TOTAL homicides.

[depakid]

84. The non-firearm homicide rate remained steady as did non-firearms suicides

Which has been estimated to have saved between 128 and 282 lives per year.

(Considering the already low homicide numbers, that's a significant percentage).

[krispos42]

89. Right, I read that in the report, but I was trying to correlete that...

... with the eseentialy flat nature of the homicide graph I displayed previously. There are 22 millions Aussies, the Aussie homicide rate is 15 per million per year, so they should have about 330 murders per year.

If the information about the number of lives saved per year is true, then the Aussies are cutting their homicide rate by between 39 and 85 percent. Yet, it's not reflected in the gov't graph.

:shrug:

Dunno.

[Euromutt]

120. So says one analysis...

... another analysis says otherwise. Unsurprisingly, the study by public health experts says the gun control measures were effective, whereas the study by criminologists says it was not. That's the usual state of affairs when it comes to studies on gun control.

Personally, I'm highly skeptical of the Leigh/Neill study (which was incidentally not published in a peer-reviewed journal, unlike the Baker/McPhedran study they discounted), not least because they seem to fail to take into account one rather important fact: the percentage of Australian homicides committed using firearms had been on the decline since 1969, and that decline had been accelerating for two decades prior to the National Firearms Agreement. If you'd care to look at Australian Crime: Facts and Figures 2004 (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/facts_and_figures_2004.pdf) from the Australian Institute of Criminology, specifically Figure 11 on page 17, you can see this trend quite clearly in the graph. The combined effects of the Port Arthur massacre and the implementation combine to form no more than a brief wobble in the curve, with negligible effect on the long-term trend.

Figure 10, moreover, indicates that the number of murders and manslaughters seem to have remained more or less stable from 1993, with the highest number of murders occurring in 1999 (after the NFA). Assuming the population grew in that period, that does imply a decrease in the overall homicide rate, but even so, it started prior to the NFA, and can therefore not be attributed to the NFA.

[krispos42]

92. Correction:

The blue and green lines are TOTAL gun deaths, not GUN HOMICIDES like I thought they were. This number must include homicide, manslaughter, suicide, and accidents.


So then the "lives saved" quote is not "murders prevented"; it's everything.


Just wanted to clarify this.

[depakid]

48. No, it's not so

Just more NRA lies- one of which is discussed here:

Australia shoots back at NRA: Government says crime hasn't increased since gun ban

The Australian government officials have accused the National Rifle Association of using inaccurate statistics in a new television ad about gun crime down under. The NRA ad, which claims Australia's recent passage of draconian gun control laws has increased gun crime significantly, is presented as a television news story and claims crimes involving guns have increased in Australia since the laws were introduced in 1996.

Australian Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the gun-rights organization to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.

"I find it quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform laws introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of firearms in the United States," Williams said.

The top Australian prosecutor also said he sent a letter to NRA president and actor Charleton Heston asking for an immediate withdrawal of the information.

The Australian ban followed an April 29, 1996, shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, who opened fire with military-style rifles, killing 35 people and injuring 19. He is currently serving a life sentence.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15322

[TheWraith]

54. You're citing World Nut Daily as more reliable than the government's own stats?

I provided a link to the damn Australian government statistics which showed all violent crimes since 1996.

[depakid]

68. Happens to be where the article was- there are others citing the Federal Governments reaction

And with to you claims of a "surge" because of the firearms buybackw -that sound you might hear are millions of Australian laughing at you. Snopes has already discussed why that's full of shit- as anyone familar with crime (as well as Australian officials) can tell you.

[depakid]

78. Oh looky, it's also archived on a gun policy site!

http://www.gunpolicy.org/Articles/2000/210300.html

[krispos42]

62. Got a gov't graph

Dammit, I just realized I misspelled "Australian" in the file name. *sigh*

[depakid]

77. Doesn't seem to be anything peculiar with the trend line- unlike the graph I posted above...

Nothing whatsoever to make a connection with the gun buyback. But then, hey, I happen to like quantitaive analysis and much prefer it to empty numbers and sophistry.

[krispos42]

79. I know you do...

...we had this discussion before :-)


But the effects are slight, when when you're trying to extrapolate a slight change with a relative handful of data points it doesn't work as well as, say, working on medical study with hundreds or thousands of people.

We also don't know if the effects (less homicides) are because of gun control, some other factor, or a combination.


When did Australia legalize abortion?

[depakid]

83. The gap in the trend line is clear and convincing with respect to homicides

That's the kind of thing we look for in program evaluation.

Another interesting point is that it's actually true that, in large part that "only criminals have and use guns." Mainly ethnic bikie gangs who control the drug trade and tattoo parlors, etc. in West Sydney suburbs. Thing is though- they only shoot each other!

In the town where I spend part of the year (and if all goes well- soon the rest of my years) has about 500,00 people in the area. I can't recall the last shooting. I think there was one up the Hunter a couple of years ago. These kid shootings are basically unknown anywhere on the continent these days- which is why they make big news- even when they come from the states. I think there was one involving some teens who shot their father about 18 months back on the North Coast.

Same with family shootings- and of course- mass shootings. Don't have 'em. Worst thing I have to worry about is drunken sops from the hotel (pub) down the street.

Or sharks. Or deadly spiders and snakes. Or Blue ringed Octopus. Or swooping magpies. LOL.

By contrast, Portland had a mass shooting this year- and many, many shootings. Salem just had a double shooting two days ago. Drive by in a park.

So yeah, I think the laws down under are preferable to the state of affairs here- even in mellow Oregon.

[krispos42]

86. Forgive me for saying so....

... but you appear to be getting lulled into a false sense of security. There has been no dramatic drop in violent crime in Australia. The assault rate is up, the rape rate is up, the homicide rate is essentially flat.

Yet you appear far more relaxed than conditions in Australia warrant, simply because gun ownership and gun-related crime is down.


Just making an observation.

[krispos42]

87. Forgive me for saying so....

... but you appear to be getting lulled into a false sense of security. There has been no dramatic drop in violent crime in Australia. The assault rate is up, the rape rate is up, the homicide rate is essentially flat.

Yet you appear far more relaxed than conditions in Australia warrant, simply because gun ownership and gun-related crime is down.


Just making an observation.

[TheWraith]

32. Actually, it's very uncommon.

What you're seeing is the media magnification effect. A handful of sensational stories creating the impression of a much larger problem. Another prime example is child abduction. There's less than 200 child abductions by strangers in the US per year. That makes the odds literally one in a million. But the media, hyping a handful of high profile cases, has made everyone think that it happens every second in every city. The perspective on numbers relative to the size of the country is never kept.

There are about 800 accidental deaths from firearms per year in the US. Only a small fraction of those involve children. A lot more kids are killed by cars, by parental abuse, by accidental falls. But none of those are as "sexy," or as low-down tabloid exploitive, as a story about a little kid accidently shooting another because their parents didn't have two IQ points to rub together. "If it bleeds, it leads."

[Fumesucker]

34. But it's not in the US media..

Which was my point, we had to read about it in the Australian media.

Edited to add: And let's face it, dog bites man stories are not usually in the media where man bites dog stories generally are.

The more uncommon an occurrence is the more likely it is to get into the media.

Hence, this story should be in the US media if your assumptions about the media and the number of accidental child shootings are correct.

[TheWraith]

40. It's been in the US media.

As have several other similar cases.

I'm not going to speculate about what motives the Aussie media owners might have for going overseas to find a story like this. Fact of the matter is though my point remains: the statistics do not bear out the idea that there's an epidemic of accidental child shootings. Of course, none would be better than any at all, but I never expect there to be zero such cases any more than I expect there to be zero car accidents, zero drownings, or zero of anything else. Reasonable precautions can do a lot, and in this case would have prevented the accident. But they can't prevent all accidents, or all crimes, or all stupidity. We live in an inherently unsafe world, and we need to recognize and accept that, because living in fear of unlikely accidents isn't living at all.

[Fumesucker]

41. Without at least some fear of unlikely accidents..

Then people do not take precautions.

Obviously the parents of these children did not fear that their kids would find the gun and shoot one another.

[TheWraith]

45. Reasonable precaution, yes. Unreasonable terror, no.

Reasonable is not storing a loaded gun where a child can access it. Reasonable is teaching your kids about strangers. Unreasonable is thinking that nobody can ever own guns responsibly. Unreasonable is thinking that if you don't handcuff your child to yourself in the supermarket, they're going to be whisked away by pedophiles the moment you pause to pick up milk.

And the expectation that everyone will be reasonable is also, in itself, unreasonable. Trying to teach common sense to people who have none is a fruitless exercise. Yes, it would have prevented this particular incident, but people who do act responsibly cannot babysit the people in the world who don't.

[RaleighNCDUer]

98. Neither is living in fear of unlikely bad guys who you need to defend

yourself against - even if it costs the life of a family member.

[Euromutt]

105. It [i]is[/i] in the US media

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30984832/
Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-boy-shot-accident,1,6109034.story
KTLA (Los Angeles): http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-bakersfield-shooting,0,1184658.story

I'll skip the local Bakersfield stations and newspaper (the Californian), but the ones I've listed are regional to national.

[sinkingfeeling]

36. A quick Google search shows this story is breaking all over with over 45,000 hits.

[Fumesucker]

43. But the Australian media was posted here first..

And given how quickly people tend to post stuff on LBN then it would seem that the Australian media got it first.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. If you have a gun, you treat it with respect

which means it is put in a place where kids can't easily get it. It is not loaded. The safety is on. You can have bullets nearby so if you hear a home invasion taking place, you can "lock and load" quickly. Far better to take these precautions that to have this tragedy happen.

[xchrom]

28. recommend

[bdamomma]

29. oh how horrible, what is a frigging gun doing under the bed?

with two toddlers around, this negligence makes me sick.

[slackmaster]

61. It was being stored irresponsibly and illegally

California law makes it a crime to store a firearm in a negligent manner so that a child gets it and gets injured or killed.

[Tim01]

35. Not as common as parents backing over their own children with the car.

[happygoluckytoyou]

44. GRIEF OF THE PARENTS... GRIEF OF THE GIRL... LIFE OF THE BOY... HISTORY OF THE NRA... all tragic

weapons to be registered
education administered
some qualification for owning weapons beyond "i want one"

PARENTS WILL HAVE TIME IN JAIL TO ADD TO THIS MESS

[Blandocyte]

64. Horrible Waste

and for what? Even the gun fans on the board readily admit that most guns owned by civilians aren't used against "bad guys." So here is a case of another gun that statistically speaking would probably never have been used against a threat inside the home but was used to kill a child.

A horrible waste of a life, and horribly tragic consequences for the family. That gun should have been locked or on the person of an adult.

[Taitertots]

101. What are you talking about?

Estimates for defensive firearms use are between 800,000 and 2,000,000 every year.

[Euromutt]

117. Bit of a double standard there

So here is a case of another gun that statistically speaking would probably never have been used against a threat inside the home but was used to kill a child.

Statistically speaking, fewer legally owned firearms are used to kill children than are used in self-defense or defense of others. You can't reasonably hold up this case as being representative just because it fits your preconceived notions.

[Blandocyte]

66. Sorry, Dupe Post. Please Delete

and for what? Even the gun fans on the board readily admit that most guns owned by civilians aren't used against "bad guys." So here is a case of another gun that statistically speaking would probably never have been used against a threat inside the home but was used to kill a child.

A horrible waste of a life, and horribly tragic consequences for the family. That gun should have been locked or on the person of an adult.

[RamboLiberal]

75. Dumbass parents fault

I'm tired of this talking point to try to ban guns from the rest of us who are responsible.

Every gun is sold with a lock. Many new firearms have a built in lock mechanism. You can buy a key gun safe for less than $30. You can buy quick access electronic gun safes from $125 to $300.

You can't legislate away stupidity! A tragedy sure, prosecute the dumbass parents. Hell I'd sentence them to speak in front of gun safety classes for the next 20 years.

[miyazaki]

85. the chance of loaded guns kept in the home

to be used for self defense, when children are present, has and will always pose
a greater threat to the innocent children than ever the chance of using it for
the intended purpose. A simple fact that proves itself all the time.

[truthisfreedom]

88. Guns suck.

[Thickasabrick]

90. When in the crap are parents going to be held responsible for

these senseless deaths? Fine, have all the fucking guns you want but when you leave one around for a child to pick up - at the very minimum you should be charged with manslaughter and locked away for a couple of years.

[slackmaster]

95. We do have a safe storage law in California - The parents in this case COULD be prosecuted

Does it really make sense to do so? (I don't mean to imply that I know the answer. I don't.)

[jeepnstein]

99. Yes it makes sense to do so.

Nothing will bring back the lost life. Prosecution will help serve as a reminder that gun owners are held responsible for proper handling of their firearms. Someone was careless, someone paid with their life.

[Taitertots]

102. They should have joined the NRA

The NRA is the single largest provider of firearms safety training and information. The NRA gave me trigger locks for all my guns.

This is no accident. It is negligence. Had that person been following even the most basic firearms safety protocol this wouldn't have happened.

[aikoaiko]

109. I don't "question the decision to have this weapon at all", but I do question the storage of it

I urge people with guns to use quick access lock boxes for thier loaded home defense handguns.

This is the one I use. Its an AMSEC mechanical pushbutton lockbox. Its sits on the piano.

[RedCloud]

110. If i had a dollar for each time my older sis wanted to accident me away...

I wouldn't have to work anymore.

[jody]

111. If it is a "45 calibre semi-automatic handgun", several questions arise: (1) why was a round in the

chamber and (2) was it double action for starters.

I don't believe most three-year old children can chamber a round, cock the hammer, and then fire the handgun.

On the surface given minimal knowledge from the media report, it appears the gun-owner was negligent.

[Euromutt]

118. A Glock 21, to be precise

So, striker-fired with no external manual safety. It's generally the smartest course of action to have round chambered if you're carrying it for self-defense in public, but if you're going to use it as a "night stand gun" (in this case, "holster-under-the-mattress gun") it's generally smarter to keep it cleared with a loaded magazine next to it. Especially with small kids in the house. Actually, with kids in the house, a quick access lock box is really the way to go (I use a "Titan gun vault" http://www.titangunvault.com/).

[Statistical]

115. GunVault

And, truly, if one does feel the need to keep a weapon for that purpose, it must be easily accessible - and thus it follows that, in a certain number of cases each year, it will be accessed by accident, with sometimes tragic results.

It won't keep out a determined thief but it will keep out a curious child (or adult guest).

I can (and have) opened it in dead of night awoken from a sleep in about 3 seconds.