5 yr. old Texas boy fatally shoots himself with babysitter's gun

[nixium]

BTW, this chick is only facing 2 years in prison for this.

2 years. Max.

Quite a the deterrent indeed.

God you gun nuts are really sociopaths.

 

[xBiffx]

So just to understand you better, you consider it perfectly acceptable to lose a certain number of people, including children per year, as a part of gun ownership? And you wouldn't want *any* laws tightened or any new technology introduced to make it safer?

I'll answer that. Yes, that is perfectly acceptable. Life is not without risk. You live in a fantasy world full of unicorns and rainbows if you think that having a law is going to change that. We also live in a free (starting to wonder) society and nothing comes without consequences, good and bad.

But please, feel free to pass laws "for the children". I'll be expecting your draft of the "Anti Choking on Food Bill" very shortly.

 

[irishScott]

I'm as rabid a supporter of the 2nd as any, but I'm equally rabid about criminal negligence, which is clearly what this was.

Anytime a child accidentally shoots themselves with an adult's gun that adult should be held criminally liable IMO.

 

[irishScott]

BTW, this chick is only facing 2 years in prison for this.

2 years. Max.

Quite a the deterrent indeed.

God you gun nuts are really sociopaths.

God you really are an idiot.

Is she a continuing danger to society? Is she a career criminal? 2 years in prison and a felony conviction on your record is nothing to sneeze at.

The issue here is education. We could use some form of mild licensing to good effect, but the gun control advocates and their crusade to eliminate all guns from society and utter disrespect for legal, responsible gun owners have made that impossible. And the NSA revelations haven't helped all that much either.

 

[Tom]

I would suggest you buy a good full sized or even compact pistol without many safety features, take it shooting and then put the best bio-metric lock you can find on it. Tell us how it goes.

That's my point. We don't need seperate bio-metric locks.

We need new firearm designs that incorporate safeties that require an authorized user to fire.

Properly designed, this wouldn't interfere at all with authorized use, but would prevent many types of other uses.

There's really no reason why firearms have to work basically the way they have since the 19th century.

What's the objection to considering it ?

 

[TerryMathews]

That's my point. We don't need seperate bio-metric locks.

We need new firearm designs that incorporate safeties that require an authorized user to fire.

Properly designed, this wouldn't interfere at all with authorized use, but would prevent many types of other uses.

There's really no reason why firearms have to work basically the way they have since the 19th century.

What's the objection to considering it ?

The technology doesn't exist for one.

 

[Tom]

The technology doesn't exist for one.

I'm talking about what should be possible, I think.

 

[Pulsar]

She's being charged after the fact, after the damage was done. The vast majority of people charged with DUI haven't killed anyone on a highway or caused an accident. Yet I've NEVER heard of anyone being charged with careless storage or handling of a gun when there wasn't also a bad consequence - death, injury, or a kid running around with a loaded gun - caused by that carelessness.

Edit: Note also that the babysitter is being charged with "abandoning or endangering a child." That's not a "firearm safety" law. It's a general law.

What on earth is your point?

DUI is a crime. They are arrested after the crime if police catch them. Many people who perpetrate DUI's get away because the cops don't see them. Some end up killing people.

Being negligent with a weapon is a crime. The person is arrested after the crime if police catch them. Many people who perpetrate weapon negligence get away because the cops don't see them. Some end up killing people.

A gun is a weapon. A car is a weapon.

Endangering a child is endangering a child. Whether you put that kid in a car and crash it, or leave a gun out.

You need to do some serious soul searching. It sure looks like you're lieing to yourself about why you want gun laws passed. Because, based on statistics and fact, it isn't because they're super dangerous. There are any number of other things are more dangerous, that cause more injuries, and that cause more deaths.

I think you'll find at the root of it all, you believe guns are unnecessary. Perhaps they even scare you. Both of which aren't gun owners problem.

 

[Pulsar]

I'm talking about what should be possible, I think.

They are working on it. Right now the technology is extremely problematic. Though I think most gun owners wouldn't have a problem having their weapons biometrically set to only work with certain people. Until the time when the systems actually work, no one wants them on a weapon.

 

[exdeath]

I'm as rabid a supporter of the 2nd as any, but I'm equally rabid about criminal negligence, which is clearly what this was.

Anytime a child accidentally shoots themselves with an adult's gun that adult should be held criminally liable IMO.

This. Nobody here who isn't an idiot is arguing otherwise.

The bulk of the debate is people arguing preemptive action up to and including bans and infringing the rights of non negligent gun enthusiasts on the mere hope just 1 life will be saved.

Eg precrime and forcing everything to live in bubbles for their own good...under threat of a government gun imagine that! "If you do something that has a chance of killing you we will kill you first!" and "only the government can kill people, and we will kill anyone who says otherwise to maintain a monopoly on killing people!"

 

[Tom]

They are working on it. Right now the technology is extremely problematic. Though I think most gun owners wouldn't have a problem having their weapons biometrically set to only work with certain people. Until the time when the systems actually work, no one wants them on a weapon.

While that's encouraging I also would like to see better safeties that aren't bio-metric but might be along the lines of cell phone locks.

This would require some electronics.

 

[irishScott]

While that's encouraging I also would like to see better safeties that aren't bio-metric but might be along the lines of cell phone locks.

This would require some electronics.

Which would have to withstand potentially 10s of thousands of rounds of physical shock, actually slamming into the ground multiple times, and still function reliably. Good luck.

Not to mention it would then require two hands and fine manipulation under stress just to get the gun in a fire-able state. Hell no. I've already got one layer of that on my bedside gun via my gunvault, and that's in exchange for the advantage of people not stealing it if they break in and I'm not home. It's also a 4 button pad with large, tactile buttons that are widely spaced, something that wouldn't be possible on a handgun.

If some day someone can develop an instantaneous biometric safety ala James Bond's PPK in Skyfall, I'll be among the first customers. Until then I'm not going to castrate a defensive weapon just to appease some other peoples' insecurities.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

They have devices to prevent guns from getting into the hands of children and others.

Wait

For

It

They're called safes.

Biometric pistol safe

http://www.homesafetystore.com/stor...r-Biometric/?gclid=CM-Qmv6As7oCFeHm7AodgUIAUA

Full gun safe.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Home...rd1615717&WTz_l=SBC;BRprd1615717;cat104367780

They even have accessories for storing pistols as well.

http://www.cabelas.com/product/Home...rd1615717&WTz_l=SBC;BRprd1615717;cat104367780

 

[Agent11]

So just to understand you better, you consider it perfectly acceptable to lose a certain number of people, including children per year, as a part of gun ownership? And you wouldn't want *any* laws tightened or any new technology introduced to make it safer?

It's called being a realist. Anything and everything can cause a death, and many common things do. As for firearms laws, they are already pretty damned tight. I would challenge you to find anything more tightly regulated.

As others have said, more children drown in a pool than are killed by firearms. . . Yet I do not see you clamoring for pool law reform. Which means you are mobilized by the firearm aspect of this case, not the dead child.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm talking about what should be possible, I think.

If this technology exists and doesn't cost $10,000 then why isn't in my car?

A car has a million times more working space and undergoes 1/1000th the physical stress.

Not to mention the average gun is under $1,000 and the average car is in excess of $20,000 (new).

Again, this technology does not exist. Not in anything approaching cost effective.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The question becomes how much burden do you put on manufacturers and how much ease of use do you steal from operators by mandating such things for what is essentially statistically irrelevant.

one of the many beauties of firearms is that they ARE simple. 100% mechanical. it either works or it doesn't.

adding any sort of "biometric" feature is going to create yet another mode of failure. on top of that, when someone REALLY needs to operate a firearm in self defense, the biometric mechanism WILL fail at some point.

simply put, it's a solution looking for a problem.

we need to quit wrapping people in bubbles and have people understand that there are risks and consequences to things.

 

[Kadarin]

I might consider a biometric feature if and when Law Enforcement also relies on it. Until then, forget it.

 

[nixium]

God you really are an idiot.

Is she a continuing danger to society? Is she a career criminal? 2 years in prison and a felony conviction on your record is nothing to sneeze at.

The issue here is education. We could use some form of mild licensing to good effect, but the gun control advocates and their crusade to eliminate all guns from society and utter disrespect for legal, responsible gun owners have made that impossible. And the NSA revelations haven't helped all that much either.

Which part of 2 years MAX didn't you understand? It doesn't mean she's even going to get the 2 years. And in gun happy Texas, probably with most of the jury packing, she probably wont get max (or released early because of good behavior)

Here's the penalty for manslaughter while drunk: 2-20 years, $10k in fines, etc
http://www.dfwdwi.com/intoxication-manslaughter/

You gun nutters don't get it. The 2nd amendment is fine, but the penalties for civilian misuse should be *severe*. If this bitch knew she was facing 2-20 in prison and assorted penalties for leaving guns unguarded in the presence of children, maybe she wouldn't have dozed off leaving it on a fucking coffee table. Or how about not giving a gun to a teenager? She isn't allowed to drink for another 2 years but she can carry a weapon whose express purpose is to kill things? Holy fuck you guys are screwed in the head.

Someone just lost their child because of this girl's stupidity, and all you nutters can talk about is how it's OK if a few children get killed a year so long as you can play Rambo with your guns.

Hey, I like guns too, and I want to get one, but I respect its power. That doesn't stop me from requiring very strict laws to their use, and having the book thrown at people who treat it like its a harmless toy.

The real icing on the cake is that in Texas she can actually own guns again after 5 years from her conviction!

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-convicted-felon-own-a-shotgun-in-texas--74178.html

 

[nixium]

It's called being a realist. Anything and everything can cause a death, and many common things do. As for firearms laws, they are already pretty damned tight. I would challenge you to find anything more tightly regulated.

As others have said, more children drown in a pool than are killed by firearms. . . Yet I do not see you clamoring for pool law reform. Which means you are mobilized by the firearm aspect of this case, not the dead child.

If anything that fact is extremely worrying. If something like a pool, whose express intent is NOT to kill people, kills so many children, we should be even more careful of something whose only purpose is to kill things.

As for regulation.. there's definitely a problem when someone who isn't allowed to drink is allowed to have one, and is so poorly trained that she leaves it LOADED in a house with kids.

And apparently you Rambo types think that 2 years max is more than enough punishment for her.

 

[Pulsar]

Which part of 2 years MAX didn't you understand? It doesn't mean she's even going to get the 2 years. And in gun happy Texas, probably with most of the jury packing, she probably wont get max (or released early because of good behavior)

Here's the penalty for manslaughter while drunk: 2-20 years, $10k in fines, etc
http://www.dfwdwi.com/intoxication-manslaughter/

You gun nutters don't get it. The 2nd amendment is fine, but the penalties for civilian misuse should be *severe*. If this bitch knew she was facing 2-20 in prison and assorted penalties for leaving guns unguarded in the presence of children, maybe she wouldn't have dozed off leaving it on a fucking coffee table. Or how about not giving a gun to a teenager? She isn't allowed to drink for another 2 years but she can carry a weapon whose express purpose is to kill things? Holy fuck you guys are screwed in the head.

Someone just lost their child because of this girl's stupidity, and all you nutters can talk about is how it's OK if a few children get killed a year so long as you can play Rambo with your guns.

Hey, I like guns too, and I want to get one, but I respect its power. That doesn't stop me from requiring very strict laws to their use, and having the book thrown at people who treat it like its a harmless toy.

The real icing on the cake is that in Texas she can actually own guns again after 5 years from her conviction!

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-convicted-felon-own-a-shotgun-in-texas--74178.html

You really don't understand, do you? The MANNER in which the child was killed - gun, knife, nuclear bomb... doesn't matter in this case. It was the reason why the child was killed - negligence - that creates the penalty. It's about intent. Or lack thereof. The penalty would have been the same if the child had gotten into a running car, thrown it in gear, and gotten run over.

You simply want a harsher sentence attached because a gun is involved. Even though it's the exact same lack of judgement that could have gotten this child killed in a hundred other ways.

Thankfully, that's not the way the law works.

 

[Pulsar]

As for regulation.. there's definitely a problem when someone who isn't allowed to drink is allowed to have one, and is so poorly trained that she leaves it LOADED in a house with kids.

Old enough to vote. Old enough to be drafted. Old enough to drive a car, and old enough to leave home. No longer considered a minor in the eyes of the law.

But because she can't drink, she shouldn't carry a gun?

I'm not even going to go into why the drinking law is at 21, but let's just say it's not at ALL the reason you think it is. Go look it up.

You keep throwing around the word 'nutter' every time someone says something you don't agree with. Do you really think that helps you make your point?

 

[nixium]

You really don't understand, do you? The MANNER in which the child was killed - gun, knife, nuclear bomb... doesn't matter. It was the reason why the child was killed - negligence - that creates the penalty. It's about intent. Or lack thereof. The penalty would have been the same if the child had gotten into a running car, thrown it in gear, and gotten run over.

You simply want a harsher sentence attached because a gun is involved. Even though it's the exact same lack of judgement that could have gotten this child killed in a hundred other ways.

Thankfully, that's not the way the law works.

The penalty for misuse of something that is expressly used for killing people always has to be harsher. Gun, grenade, nuclear bomb whatever. The whole idea is to deter people from treating it casually and instill a sense of respect for whatever it is.

Same as hate crime laws. Why is there a harsher sentence if someone beats up someone else because of their race? A beating is a beating, after all.

 

[nixium]

Old enough to vote. Old enough to be drafted. Old enough to drive a car, and old enough to leave home. No longer considered a minor in the eyes of the law.

But because she can't drink, she shouldn't carry a gun?

I'm not even going to go into why the drinking law is at 21, but let's just say it's not at ALL the reason you think it is. Go look it up.

You keep throwing around the word 'nutter' every time someone says something you don't agree with. Do you really think that helps you make your point?

See posts like this are why the nutter tag.

None of those (except for the draft) have anything to do with killing people.

And oh, driving cars. Interesting. What's the procedure for getting a license again? Oh that's right, passing a written test, a driving test, proving that she's physically able to drive a car, making sure she has insurance, and finally obeying all the legal requirements of driving/being on the road. And this is for a car. Something not designed to kill people.

For something designed to kill people, the requirements have to be way more stringent.

 

[z1ggy]

The penalty for misuse of something that is expressly used for killing people always has to be harsher. Gun, grenade, nuclear bomb whatever. The whole idea is to deter people from treating it casually and instill a sense of respect for whatever it is.

Same as hate crime laws. Why is there a harsher sentence if someone beats up someone else because of their race? A beating is a beating, after all.

Holy balls are you are a dumb turd. If you think guns are SOLELY created to kill PEOPLE then you are an extremely dense, sheltered individual.

I can promise you that 99.999% of citizens who legally purchase a gun, do not intend its use to be that of taking a human life.

And as far as your point about driving tests, etc... Here in CT (overall, liberal state) we are allowed to carry on us. I carry. To get my permit to carry and purchase firearms, I had to pass a written test, pass a physical test (shooting accurately at a range with my instructor) and then pass an interview with a CT state trooper about my personal history, etc etc.

Oh but wait, I bet the mother of Adam Lanza did all of the same things. So the issue wasn't that she wasn't a safe user of the firearms she owned..It was she was an idiot and left them all out for her mentally ill son to kill her and others with. So back to my main point in previous posts.. this is NOT a gun problem or concern; it is a people problem. People with guns need to act responsible.

 

[Tom]

You really don't understand, do you? The MANNER in which the child was killed - gun, knife, nuclear bomb... doesn't matter in this case. It was the reason why the child was killed - negligence - that creates the penalty. It's about intent. Or lack thereof. The penalty would have been the same if the child had gotten into a running car, thrown it in gear, and gotten run over.

You simply want a harsher sentence attached because a gun is involved. Even though it's the exact same lack of judgement that could have gotten this child killed in a hundred other ways.

Thankfully, that's not the way the law works.

Laws can be written so the manner matters. Like using a gun to commit a robbery increases the penalty.

And your car analogy is useful. Most cars aren't running all the time. They are easily locked.

It's entirely possible this woman thought her gun was locked, by being misinformed by someone about the "effectiveness" of many gun's safety designs.