4-year-old fatally shoots sister, wounds brother

[Amused]

Singling out guns because of accidental shootings is silly. You've been duped by gun grabbers into thinking this is some HUGE problem that must be addressed before all else. The factis, accidental shootings lag FAR behind most accidents.

Are 600 accidents a year too many? Of course. However, the number has been dropping steadily as more people become educayted in gun safety.

Deaths Due to Unintentional Injuries, 2000 (Estimates)

National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2001 Edition, pp. 8-9, 84

All Automobile.............................43,000

Falls............................................16,200

Poisoning by solids, liquids........11,700

Pedestrian..................................5,300

Drowning...................................3,900

Fires, burns................................3,600

Suffocation by ingested object....3,400

Firearms...................................600

Poisoning by gases, vapors.........400

All other causes.........................14,500

TOTAL.......................................97,300

Unintentional firearm deaths broken down by age:

0-4.........20

5-14.......60

15-24.....150

25-44.....190

45-64.....110

65-74......30

75+.........40

Total........600

 

[Amused]

The purpose of a gun is to make me equal to the criminal with a gun. Guns make men (and women, especially women) equal.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: KC5AV
The purpose of my gun is not to kill. The purpose of my gun is to protect myself and those dear to me. If I have to kill someone to accomplish that, so be it. The gun has a valid purpose... just like anything else. Just because you choose to disagree with my belief doesn't invalidate my argument.

Just because you choose to disagree with my belief doesn't invalidate my argument.

What about my robber theory?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ndee

there are tons of different studies actually. My point is still valid. If the guns would be a lot harder to get, so that not every Joe Schmoe has one -> less accidents. But what do you think about my theory that when a burglar isn't threated that NO ONE will be killed?

So you are asking me to give up my right to defend my property?

They've done that in England. Even going so far as to sentance one poor bloke tolife in prison for killing an armed burgler. And what have they gotten for it? The highest violent and property crime rates in the world among first world nations.

Sorry, but I have a right to defend my rights, with my life if I so choose.

 

[Ferocious]

Most deaths in the house due to guns are family/homeowner related.....not due to criminals.

That said.....these parents were quite irresponsible.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: KC5AV
The purpose of my gun is not to kill. The purpose of my gun is to protect myself and those dear to me. If I have to kill someone to accomplish that, so be it. The gun has a valid purpose... just like anything else. Just because you choose to disagree with my belief doesn't invalidate my argument.

Just because you choose to disagree with my belief doesn't invalidate my argument.

What about my robber theory?

When the public lies down and no longer defends themselves, or their property, it becomes open season for criminals. Your theory sucks.

 

[KC5AV]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: KC5AV
The purpose of my gun is not to kill. The purpose of my gun is to protect myself and those dear to me. If I have to kill someone to accomplish that, so be it. The gun has a valid purpose... just like anything else. Just because you choose to disagree with my belief doesn't invalidate my argument.

Just because you choose to disagree with my belief doesn't invalidate my argument.

What about my robber theory?

The chance the he might threaten me is not a chance I'm willing to take. I'm not trying to invalidate your argument. You are free to believe as you choose, but don't try to tell me that I'm wrong for my beliefs. I believe that my chances are better if I am armed.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

there are tons of different studies actually. My point is still valid. If the guns would be a lot harder to get, so that not every Joe Schmoe has one -> less accidents. But what do you think about my theory that when a burglar isn't threated that NO ONE will be killed?

So you are asking me to give up my right to defend my property?

They've done that in England. Even going so far as to sentance one poor bloke tolife in prison for killing an armed burgler. And what have they gotten for it? The highest violent and property crime rates in the world among first world nations.

Sorry, but I have a right to defend my rights, with my life if I so choose.

I'm not getting into the American Law and about all those stupid cases. Indirect, yes, I'm asking you to give up the right to defend your property with a gun. I'm also aware that there ARE responsible gun owners but when I read stories about a 4 year killing his sister and brother(per accident), Columbine, etc., I start to think that guns suck.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most deaths in the house due to guns are family/homeowner related.....not due to criminals.

That said.....these parents were quite irresponsible.

There are between 1.5 and 2 million defensive gun uses annually. The vast majority resulting in no shots fired, but a life and property saved. The "guns are X more likely to kill you or a family member" stats are a joke. Pure propaganda.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

there are tons of different studies actually. My point is still valid. If the guns would be a lot harder to get, so that not every Joe Schmoe has one -> less accidents. But what do you think about my theory that when a burglar isn't threated that NO ONE will be killed?

So you are asking me to give up my right to defend my property?

They've done that in England. Even going so far as to sentance one poor bloke tolife in prison for killing an armed burgler. And what have they gotten for it? The highest violent and property crime rates in the world among first world nations.

Sorry, but I have a right to defend my rights, with my life if I so choose.

I'm not getting into the American Law and about all those stupid cases. Indirect, yes, I'm asking you to give up the right to defend your property with a gun. I'm also aware that there ARE responsible gun owners but when I read stories about a 4 year killing his sister and brother(per accident), Columbine, etc., I start to think that guns suck.

If the accident had happened with ANY other object or substance, would you blame it in such a knee-jerk fashion? No.

You've been conditioned to believe, above all else, that guns are evil. Had she sprayed draino all over them you wouldn't be calling for bans. But she finds a neglegent parent's gun, and you want to rob everyone of their freedom.

 

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Most deaths in the house due to guns are family/homeowner related.....not due to criminals.

That said.....these parents were quite irresponsible.

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Not exactly.

This is true only if suicides by members of the household are counted among the 'injured family members or friends' and only if 'used against an intruder' is defined as 'shot dead'. Which means, its not true if you have to 'cook' the definitions in a way that is designed to produce a desired outcome.

There are a number of material problems with the now-infamous study from which this 'fact' came, which has time and time again been discredited, the author of this study even going as far as admitting that he knew the methodology used was bogus, but decided to publish it anyway because 'he agreed with its conclusions' (A. Kellermann).

First, it presumes all guns kept in homes are kept for personal protection, when a substantial percentage of firearms are kept for sporting, recreational, or collecting purposes and not for personal protection. A study which purports to measure the protective value of firearms kept for personal protection should try to narrow its sample down to firearms kept for personal protection.

Second, it was no accident that the author counted suicides to arrive at his number of 'injured family members or friends'. There are more suicides in the US annually than murders from all causes of death and accidental firearm deaths combined. Suicide is rather preventable no matter how many firearms a home may contain - don't put a gun to your head, or in your mouth, then the trigger. Simple.

Moreoever, it is highly flawed to reason that, because a suicidal person may not have access to a firearm, no suicide will occur. Wrong. "Gun free" Europe and Japan have some of the highest suicide rates in the industrialized world, as high or higher than the US, which means they seem to get along with the business of killing themselves just fine without guns, as do thousands of people who commit or attempt suicide in the US without the benefit of a firearm.

Third, more than a dozen studies, a few sponsored by the US Department of Justice, have found that the vast majority of protective or defensive gun uses (PGU/DGU) do not result in injury or death to the alleged 'criminal' (be it an intruder, mugger, rapist, etc.). Brandishing or displaying a firearm, or firing a warning shot (not advisable), proves more than sufficient to put a criminal to flight in the majority of protective gun uses.

Yet the study from which this 'fact' came only counted 'intruders shot dead' as its measure of protective gun use, deliberately failing to include 'intruders scared away' or even 'intruders wounded but not killed'. This is a bit like measuring the effectiveness of your local police department by counting only the number of 'criminals shot dead' by police, failing to consider arrests and convictions as valid measures of police effectiveness.

In fact, the author acknowledged as a caveat in the study that his analysis of firearm protective uses should have included the many police reports of attackers or intruders being wounded or scared away by a home owner with a gun that he had encountered during his research, but he decided to disinclude them and submitted the study for publication, anyway, which was enthusiastically published by the New England Journal of Medicine without peer review.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

there are tons of different studies actually. My point is still valid. If the guns would be a lot harder to get, so that not every Joe Schmoe has one -> less accidents. But what do you think about my theory that when a burglar isn't threated that NO ONE will be killed?

So you are asking me to give up my right to defend my property?

They've done that in England. Even going so far as to sentance one poor bloke tolife in prison for killing an armed burgler. And what have they gotten for it? The highest violent and property crime rates in the world among first world nations.

Sorry, but I have a right to defend my rights, with my life if I so choose.

I'm not getting into the American Law and about all those stupid cases. Indirect, yes, I'm asking you to give up the right to defend your property with a gun. I'm also aware that there ARE responsible gun owners but when I read stories about a 4 year killing his sister and brother(per accident), Columbine, etc., I start to think that guns suck.

If the accident had happened with ANY other object or substance, would you blame it in such a knee-jerk fashion? No.

You've been conditioned to believe, above all else, that guns are evil. Had she sprayed draino all over them you wouldn't be calling for bans. But she finds a neglegent parent's gun, and you want to rob everyone of their freedom.

My English isn't that good and I tired but yeah, guns ARE evil in my opinion.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ndee
How useful is a gun in every-day-use? 🙂 There's my point 🙂

So everything in your house is for day-to-day use? You're saying that you use everything that is in your house every day?

Kitchen knives can kill.
Lawnmowers can kill.
Shovels can kill.
Ovens can kill.

You have no point.

I use kitchen knives, I use lawnmowers, I use shovels and I use the oven daily. Not exactly EVERY day but it has a use. I'm wondering what that gun was for.

home defense. Are you that dense?

Guns serve a purpose, as do all things. A gun is merely a tool, much like a hammer is for nailing wood together, or a car is for getting you places. Both can be used for death. Proper gun safety was NOT followed in the case, and the parents are to blaim. If the kid had drank some drano, are you gonna place a ban on draino? Or if the kid had run over someone in a car because the keys were left in it, are you gonna blaim the car or the parents?

Your argument holds no merit.

flawed arguments. everything has a degree. you can defend yourself with a bomb. you can kill someone with a pencil. you can save yourself with an automatic rifle. just about how practicle is a gun? yes, it will save your life, but is it too far a degree (risk, danger for the purpose). killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

Ok, you defend yourself with a bat or whatever you want from an intruder with a gun. I'll keep a gun. See who comes out in better position.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

there are tons of different studies actually. My point is still valid. If the guns would be a lot harder to get, so that not every Joe Schmoe has one -> less accidents. But what do you think about my theory that when a burglar isn't threated that NO ONE will be killed?

So you are asking me to give up my right to defend my property?

They've done that in England. Even going so far as to sentance one poor bloke tolife in prison for killing an armed burgler. And what have they gotten for it? The highest violent and property crime rates in the world among first world nations.

Sorry, but I have a right to defend my rights, with my life if I so choose.

I'm not getting into the American Law and about all those stupid cases. Indirect, yes, I'm asking you to give up the right to defend your property with a gun. I'm also aware that there ARE responsible gun owners but when I read stories about a 4 year killing his sister and brother(per accident), Columbine, etc., I start to think that guns suck.

If the accident had happened with ANY other object or substance, would you blame it in such a knee-jerk fashion? No.

You've been conditioned to believe, above all else, that guns are evil. Had she sprayed draino all over them you wouldn't be calling for bans. But she finds a neglegent parent's gun, and you want to rob everyone of their freedom.

My English isn't that good and I tired but yeah, guns ARE evil in my opinion.

A silly belief.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Amused

A silly belief.

Well.



DaiShan: I threat a burgler with my hands(NO weapon at all) and you threat him with a gun, I'm wondering who will get shot first, who will freak out earlier. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth was cool back with the Neanderthalers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

A silly belief.

Well.



DaiShan: I threat a burgler with my hands(NO weapon at all) and you threat him with a gun, I'm wondering who will get shot first, who will freak out earlier. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth was cool back with the Neanderthalers.

To believe an inanimate object is evil is silly.

If you threaten an armed burglar, it will not matter if you are armed or not. They will not be "sporting" and meet your challenge in kind. They will use whatever they have to fight you off. If they have a gun, they will use it whether you are armed, or not. You have a very unrealsitic view of how criminals act.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Well, I won't have any guns in my house. Simple as that. I see no use for them. I don't go out and shoot helpless animals in the wild and I don't go shoot for "target practice."

I personally don't see the fascination that some people have with guns myself, but to each his own. It's just that I won't be dealing with them.

Same here, the only guns I like are the ones that I can operate with a mouse click 😉

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

A silly belief.

Well.



DaiShan: I threat a burgler with my hands(NO weapon at all) and you threat him with a gun, I'm wondering who will get shot first, who will freak out earlier. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth was cool back with the Neanderthalers.

To believe an inanimate object is evil is silly.

If you threaten an armed burglar, it will not matter if you are armed or not. They will not be "sporting" and meet your challenge in kind. They will use whatever they have to fight you off. If they have a gun, they will use it whether you are armed, or not. You have a very unrealsitic view of how criminals act.

It's not like I'm running around and propagating that guns are EVIL but you get the point. Guess what? I wouldn't threat the burglar at ALL. Most criminals are not pros. They are afraid to use their weapon and when they are under pressure, I'm sure they use it more like when they're not under pressure. How come that you have such a realistic view of how criminals act?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

A silly belief.

Well.



DaiShan: I threat a burgler with my hands(NO weapon at all) and you threat him with a gun, I'm wondering who will get shot first, who will freak out earlier. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth was cool back with the Neanderthalers.

To believe an inanimate object is evil is silly.

If you threaten an armed burglar, it will not matter if you are armed or not. They will not be "sporting" and meet your challenge in kind. They will use whatever they have to fight you off. If they have a gun, they will use it whether you are armed, or not. You have a very unrealsitic view of how criminals act.

It's not like I'm running around and propagating that guns are EVIL but you get the point. Guess what? I wouldn't threat the burglar at ALL. Most criminals are not pros. They are afraid to use their weapon and when they are under pressure, I'm sure they use it more like when they're not under pressure. How come that you have such a realistic view of how criminals act?

Because I, and my employees, have been the victims of many armed robberies in my stores. Criminals are afraid of armed civilians and will avoid them. They favor unarmed victims. Burglars don't want to be threatened, and will flourish in such an atmosphere.

Go ahead and be a sheep. I choose not to be.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: Amused

A silly belief.

Well.



DaiShan: I threat a burgler with my hands(NO weapon at all) and you threat him with a gun, I'm wondering who will get shot first, who will freak out earlier. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth was cool back with the Neanderthalers.

To believe an inanimate object is evil is silly.

If you threaten an armed burglar, it will not matter if you are armed or not. They will not be "sporting" and meet your challenge in kind. They will use whatever they have to fight you off. If they have a gun, they will use it whether you are armed, or not. You have a very unrealsitic view of how criminals act.

It's not like I'm running around and propagating that guns are EVIL but you get the point. Guess what? I wouldn't threat the burglar at ALL. Most criminals are not pros. They are afraid to use their weapon and when they are under pressure, I'm sure they use it more like when they're not under pressure. How come that you have such a realistic view of how criminals act?

Because I, and my employees, have been the victims of many armed robberies in my stores. Criminals are afraid of armed civilians and will avoid them. They favor unarmed victims. Burglars don't want to be threatened, and will flourish in such an atmosphere.

Go ahead and be a sheep. I choose not to be.

I would be a sheep and let the police deal with it. If someone threatens you with his bare-hands and someone with a gun, which person would you shoot first?

anyway, I'm going to sleep now. Nice evening 🙂

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused
The parents left a 7 year old, a 5 year old and a 4 year old home alone??? And they left a loaded, unlocked gun in the home with them???

The parents should be charged with second degree murder.

Littlehouse on the Prairie?


Right. Lock up the kitchen Knives, household chemicals, baseball bats and anything else that may be used to commit harm to another. While you're at it build a room lined with wrestling mats floor to ceiling and lock them in it. We had guns around the house since I can remember, in dads closet, hanging over fireplace etc and never touched them unsupervised and we were all latch-key children. Your plan is exactly what the gungrabbers want eventually charging he manufacturures with murder. Some kids are just fusked in the head accept this and move on but resricting millions of others rights and blaming the already grief stricken parents for murder IMO is a travesty of justice and slipery slope into many other things. What If the kid brought his parents scissors to school and stabbed another student? Murder then?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: ndee

I would be a sheep and let the police deal with it. If someone threatens you with his bare-hands and someone with a gun, which person would you shoot first?

anyway, I'm going to sleep now. Nice evening 🙂

police rarely stop a crime in progress

 

[00Jones]

Originally posted by: MrCodeDude

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis
Four year old kids should learn to be responsible with guns.

How does the kid just "find" the gun? My dad has a BB gun for shooting pigeons and it's in the top cabinent that I can barely get to.

but you know where it is! :Q

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

BANG BANG!!!

BANG BANG!!!

 

[GnomeCop]

I dont want to know your name, I just want , bang! bang! bang!
I dont want relationship, I just want , bang! bang! bang!