• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Stray bullet kills toddler in her home

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< Until people realize that its the innocent dying from guns nothing will change. We'll just continue to keep burying little children and innocent people, while these gun nutts stand and quote the 2nd Amendment like a bunch of morons. >>



Accidental deaths involving firearms are at all time lows. It is illegal to discharge a firearm in Yonkers as well as inside the city limits of most cities in the US. How will more laws prevent stupidity and total disregard for those laws we have now?

It seems the idiots have been identified!
 
scauffiel: You're funny.

There were 42,000 traffic deaths last year. 14,000 were from Alcahol. Of the amount left, 72% were caused by some type of speeding or other taffic law violation.

So thats 42000-14000*.28= ~7,840.

Since when is 7,840 close to 65,000?
 
My view is, you have the right to drive a vehicle, if you can pass the test, why shouldn't it be the same for something that is as potentially dangerous, especially when a gun is made solely to kill.

because it says in the constitution that you cant.
 
I've given up debating the 2nd amendment fallacy, just because so many advocates of it are too busy shoving their heads up their asses to realize that the amendment was written during a time when the general populace was requested to help in the war effort. The "right to bear arms" is not meant to allow every man, woman, and child to own a gun, but is rather meant to provide allowance should a militia be required. The common man has no business being in a militia, nor are we under threat of war. hence, no guns necessary.

This is a moot point, seeing how if we do ban guns, only criminals would have them. And we can't round up all the stupid people and shoot them because that would be genocide. Unfortunately, all we can deal is rally for stricter gun conrol methods and bear with the fact that there is an amazing percentage of the populace who is stupid.
 
<< Maybe I am mistaken, but I don't think you need a license to own a rifle or shotgun in the US, do you? Just if you want to use it for hunting. Not like a handgun, where you need a permit? >>

GF- You don't need a license to own a rifle or shotgun in NYS, you just need to pass a NICS check. This is a NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK CERTIFICATE, which is checked against a national database and is valid for 5 yrs. There is a 5-7 day waiting period, then you can pick-up your gun. As for handguns, it's a process that takes 3-4 months and you must have 4 non-relative character references and go through a complete local, state and federal background check. You're required to submit a picture and 3 sets of fingerprints that go to the local sheriff, state police and the feds in Wasington DC.


<< Back in europe you take psycho-test (evaluation) before they issue you a license >>

In NYS, you must sit through a pyscho evaluation with the local sheriff's office and submit medical records showing that you've never been treated for a mental illness. The laws here are stricter than you think.

This incident was very unfortunate and must be horrible for a parent to witness and this guy should receive the death penalty. But, I don't think a whacko firing a stray bullet is really a cry for stricter GUN CONTROL. Maybe it wasn't his gun or it was stolen? GUN CONTROL will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns, nor will criminals turn them in. If you own a gun, you must be responsible and know the consequences if you're going to point it in the direction of an individual. The best GUN CONTROL is educating and training gun owners to be responsible.

 
amnesiac 2.0: Good point. Just what I was about to post...


What does the Second Amendment Mean?

How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.

The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.

The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent

The Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment ? the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."

When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" ? a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.

The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 ? hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.

The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

The Second Amendment Today

In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.

Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia ? the National Guard ? has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues


 


<<

<< Until people realize that its the innocent dying from guns nothing will change. We'll just continue to keep burying little children and innocent people, while these gun nutts stand and quote the 2nd Amendment like a bunch of morons. >>



Accidental deaths involving firearms are at all time lows. It is illegal to discharge a firearm in Yonkers as well as inside the city limits of most cities in the US. How will more laws prevent stupidity and total disregard for those laws we have now?

It seems the idiots have been identified! >>



This is the type of moronic stuff I'm talking about. What the hell does accidental deaths being at an all time low have to do with this little girl's death, genius? 1 death is 1 too many. The stats are absolutely mind blowing. We don't need citizens to have guns. I am tired of making laws that we can see full well that people have problems obeying. So now forget regulation, its time to take them away. Now you go and tell that little girl's parents about how "accidental deaths are at an all time low". Tell that to her parents as they put her little body in the freaking cold ground. Idiot. You people make me sick to my stomach. I got a little girl who will be 2 and this just bring me to tears. She is sitting on the f'in couch with her teddy bear and dies by a stray bullet. And you sick bastards continue with your we need our gun bs. You people absolutley suck. :|
 
1 death is 1 too many.

So using your logic, we need to remove alcohol, cars, knifes, baseball bats, chewing gun, and every other item that has ever cause a death, from the planet. Because as we all know these items when used incorrectly, cause many, in some cases thousands, of needless deaths every year.

Hmm.......interesting.
 
you know, I was going to make a new year's resolution to stay away from gun-related threads here on ATOT, but wow, I can't stay out of this one.

I love the "it was only one person who was killed" comment....can you even imagine a worse way for a person, let alone a small child, to die?

The fact that 150+ people per day die in car accidents is a DIFFERENT ISSUE! I think that is a staggering number, I really do, and I think that driving under the influence of alchohol is actually a much bigger problem in America than gun control/issues are, but again, that is a DIFFERENT ISSUE!

I don't think it is realistic to expect America to accept a total gun-ban. However, the NRA has pushed any actual discussions on reasonable compromises of gun-ownership so far off the tables of any political arena it is ridiculous. Owning a gun is second in responsibility only to having a child or another human being under your care. It really is when you think about it. What other item that people buy is designed to kill?

I don't think banning guns is the answer in the USA. If people want to own a gun to feel more secure in their own homes (probably a very false sense of security, but to each his own), then fine. If hunters want to own guns to hunt in areas where legal hunting is, fine. Both of these types of gun owners are fine with me, though I would like to see a bit more done on the background check/testing phase. Again, this is not buying a permit to build a fence in your yard, this is buying a device that is meant to kill people. Clearly, this background check should include PENDING CHARGES, but this points to another problem, that is the lack of tie-ins between the law enforcement agencies in the country, but again, that is another issue.

I suppose collectors should also be allowed to buy guns, but again, with very specific regulations in place.


However, beyond these three types of gun owners, I don't really see a need for anything else.

How do we get rid of the guns that are not legally owned now? I don't have all the answers...gun buyback programs have had mixed success..how about destroying guns that are confiscated in crimes/arrests?
 
so fatdog

DUI shouldn't be illegal?

dont' take peoples arguments to extremes just to do so.

truth is this was a tragedy that could have been avoided.

how can anyone argue against strict testing in order to own guns.

You hear it all the time "driving is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT", if so then why is owning a GUN a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE.

I'm not against guns. i plan on owning one myself in the very near future. I still believe that before i'm given the right to own that gun I should be tested.
 
how can anyone argue against strict testing in order to own guns.

I don't, and I'm not.

Classy said:

So now forget regulation, its time to take them away. .

I'm only pointing out how extreme his view is. A friend of mine lost his 10 year old daughter last year in an auto accident. She was with her babysitter along with several other children in the car, when the woman lost control and hit a pole. My friends daughter was the only one killed. By Classy's logic, this is sufficient cause for an out right ban on cars. Right?

 
If people want to own a gun to feel more secure in their own homes (probably a very false sense of security, but to each his own),

I own a gun, and I used it to drive off an intruder in the middle of the night a while back. Whether he was intent on robbery or something else I don't know, and to be honest, don't care. Do I feel more secure with? You bet.

I agree with a lot of what you say. The problem lies in the slippery slope that developes when people start regulating guns, and the permits to use and own them. Once you start, it gets easier and easier to limit more and more until none are left. I don't have any answers either, but an outright ban on an right our forefathers saw fit to put in the bill of rights scares me no end.
 
First off, I want to say thanks to Mooseknuckle, for answering my question. I didn't realize laws here were so strict on that, thats great to hear.

Secondly, nowhere did I mention adding any new laws to the lawbooks for this. I merely stated that I would like to see people have to undergo mental evaluations to have to own a firearm. That would prevent so many people from ever obtaining a gun that shouldn't have one. Do I want guns outlawed? No, and you will never find me saying differently. I just want innocent people protected somewhat better than she had been. Case in point, my brother in law is bi-polar and schizophrenic. He went nuts, and held my mother in law and his uncle hostage in their home for a few hours. It took eight cops to get him out, and when they did, they found a shotgun and a rifle in his apartment loaded and ready to go. They were his guns, so they were not stolen or gotten illegally. How does that happen? When he was caught, all he did was rant about shooting my son (who was then two) in the head. Do you have any idea how that feels for a mom to hear that? And to know I came that close to losing my son, its horrifying. And just last week, a 13 year old shot a 11 year old in the back here with an unattended loaded shotgun. A tragedy? Absolutely. One that could have been avoided? Maybe.. seems the kid had some serious mental issues, so why is a gun allowed in the house with him? So many of you act like these incidents are so few and far between. But in all actuality, they happen alot, all over the US. And the media just stopped reporting most of them besides locally, because its nothing new anymore. I guess what I am saying is we can't depend on our neighbors and friends to protect us by making the right decisions, but maybe our government could help out a little more in that department. Instead of wasting money on laws that don't work, lets try a different approach.

And one thing I don't understand....... why are so many of you acting like someone is trying to get your right to bear a firearm taken away? If your mentally sound and responsible, then why would the thought of a test upset you.....?
 


<< Kashawn Jones, 20, of Mount Vernon, was captured in Troy, N.Y. and charged with second-degree murder, Yonkers Police Commissioner Charles Cola said Thursday. >>

haha, me thinks that with a name like "Kashawn Jones", we aren't talking about some red-neck hunter who had one too many beers and decided to go do some target practice. I'm betting "Kashawn" is an urban misfit with a lengthy criminal record. Probably a gang-banger who just acquired himself a new toy - illegally.
 
In my opinion, this is the exact reason why there is a need for very strict gun control.
What we have now is nonething more than a big joke.
 


<< You don't need a license to own a rifle or shotgun in NYS, you just need to pass a NICS check. This is a NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK CERTIFICATE, which is checked against a national database and is valid for 5 yrs. There is a 5-7 day waiting period, then you can pick-up your gun. >>

I know that at least in my country, you'll have to be a full- or part-time hunter (and thus have a license for that as well), before you can even request a huntingrifle. For other types of rifles and heavy firearms, you'll have to a member of some organization as well. A license to own a rifle will never be given to the average citizen, no matter how clean his or her criminal record is.

In order to obtain a handgun, you'll have to have a clean criminal record, pass the psycho-evaluation test and above all, you must have a good reason to own a gun. Self-defense is not good enough. If you're a member of some shooting club, you can get a gun, otherwise, unless you're a cop or something, the chance to obtain a gun legally is very small.

Is this effective? I would say it is. I know of just one person who owns a gun of all my relatives and friends (and their parents), and he is a hunter. Also, of all people who are killed by firearms each year, most of them are criminals who were shot by other criminals.
 


<< Also, of all people who are killed by firearms each year, most of them are criminals who were shot by other criminals. >>

That's funny, the same is true in the United States. Most gun-related injuries and deaths are either suicides, which account for more than 50% of all gun deaths, or criminals killing criminals in pursuit of criminal life-styles and activities. Our suicide rate is no worse than most "gun free" European countries.
 


<<

<< Also, of all people who are killed by firearms each year, most of them are criminals who were shot by other criminals. >>

That's funny, the same is true in the United States. Most gun-related injuries and deaths are either suicides, which account for more than 50% of all gun deaths, or criminals killing criminals in pursuit of criminal life-styles and activities. Our suicide rate is no worse than most "gun free" European countries. >>

Got some statistics we can compare?
 
"You mean like a drivers license test? Something like the prevention that that incurs? Lessee, last time I checked there were approximately 65,000 truly responsible and tested driver deaths annually on the highway. Any guesses as to how many times MORE that is than violent gun deaths? Are you all for speed governors on cars? A simple device that stops your car from accelerating beyond, say, 55 mph? Nah, let's make it 45 mph. We'll save lives right? It HAS to be good. We could even demand accelerometers so that you can't speed up TOO fast - for that could hurt someone too. To hell with that, we can cure the obesity problem here in the U.S. AND the death toll at the same time - bicycles.

Let's take it a step further. How many children/spouses/others die every year from abuse? I propose we put multiple cameras in every house with a stiff penalty for messing with them. The camera would be watched by your local government, to make sure nothing untoward could happen. That'll stop abuse, right? You're not against something like that are you? I mean, if you are truly responsible you won't care who's watching you, right? After all, YOU wouldn't do something that someone may consider bad, some day, would you?

Don't even get me started on "responsible" people and alcohol.

How far do you want to go?"

Amen!
 


<< Got some statistics we can compare? >>

I'll provide the stats from my side of the Atlantic (from the National Institute of Mental Health):

US suicide rate for 1998 (a typical year): 10.4 per 100,000.

The total number of suicides in 1998 was 30,575 (31,204 in 1995; 30,535 in 1997).

Suicide out-numbered homicides (18,272) 3 to 2.

Suicide by firearms was the most common method for both men and women, accounting for 58% of all suicides.

Canada's rate was 13.2 per 100,000 in 1996 and 12.3 per 100,000 in 1997, down significantly from Canada's 26 suicides per 100,000 in 1987 (from Stats Canada).

Also see:

International Suicide Rate Comparison
 
I speak some French, even less Spanish, and that's neither French nor Spanish. ;-)

In those countries who have strict gun control, their suicide rates are as high and often higher than the United States. Conclusion: Guns play no appreciable role in suicide. When you restrict access to guns, people just use other methods to commit suicide.

Net benefit to suicide rates from strict gun control: None.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top