Toddler kills himself with mother's gun

[Phoenix86]

I'm also for amendments to our 2nd amendment to make guns safer and to do our best to ensure that the people who choose to have them will do so in a proper, trained manner. The right to bear arms can and should come with more conditions. Maybe an education requirement where training is mandatory and the government can foot the bill (otherwise it becomes an unfair burden on exercising this right). Maybe ongoing bi-yearly requirements to be current with gun training and being cleared by a professional otherwise you can lose your gun license and the police come to your house and take away your gun (just because you qualify for a gun now doesn't mean your mental state will always be in such a qualifying state many years down the line). Maybe pushing for more smart guns that detect unauthorized use. Just throwing ideas out there with the hopes that they can minimize accidental shootings such as this.

If people are serious about protecting themselves against attackers they also need to be required (IMO) to be serious about keeping their weapons safe.

I have issues with logic like this. Guns are allowed, good. Guns sometimes kill people, bad. Limit guns=limits bad, right?

No. It doesn't really work that way.

You want to limit ILLEGAL use of guns, for murder, assault, robbery, etc. Actions that are illegal on their own standing, but guns assist. You don't want to CRIMINALIZE gun use, there's already a crime to punish with the act associated with it's use. Enacting another law won't stop someone from violating it.

Putting restrictions on people LEGALLY using guns doesn't reduce ILLEGAL use. That only limits people already following the law surrounding it's use. Limiting their access doesn't limit HOW they use it.

If they want to ILLEGALLY use a gun, they will obtain one ILLEGALLY. Bypassing any law you put in place to limit LEGAL use.

edit: if you want to consider enacting law to prevent accidental use, training is cool and should likely affect it. However, I tend to think people asking for this are using the weight of criminal use to justify the change in the law. Go ahead and look at how many people die to accidental discharge and explain why we're bothering with constitutional changes for such a tiny amount of people.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I have issues with logic like this. Guns are allowed, good. Guns sometimes kill people, bad. Limit guns=limits bad, right?

No. It doesn't really work that way.

You want to limit ILLEGAL use of guns, for murder, assault, robbery, etc. Actions that are illegal on their own standing, but guns assist. You don't want to CRIMINALIZE gun use, there's already a crime to punish with the act associated with it's use. Enacting another law won't stop someone from violating it.

Putting restrictions on people LEGALLY using guns doesn't reduce ILLEGAL use. That only limits people already following the law surrounding it's use. Limiting their access doesn't limit HOW they use it.

If they want to ILLEGALLY use a gun, they will obtain one ILLEGALLY. Bypassing any law you put in place to limit LEGAL use.

edit: if you want to consider enacting law to prevent accidental use, training is cool and should likely affect it. However, I tend to think people asking for this are using the weight of criminal use to justify the change in the law. Go ahead and look at how many people die to accidental discharge and explain why we're bothering with constitutional changes for such a tiny amount of people.

Part of the reason guns are so easy to get illegally is because of legal gun owners. I've never had a gun stolen but I would imagine that many of the guns on the street (illegally owned) are acquired through theft from legal gun owners.

A friend of mine had his car stolen many years ago and he happened to have a gun in the trunk at the time. That gun actually found its way back to him many years later when a Sheriff knocked on his door asking about the gun (because it was registered to him and they recovered it at the scene of a crime). He still had the paperwork from when he reported it stolen so that was the end of that. He actually was able to get the gun back but quickly sold it to a gun store.

Then there are the really stupid laws regarding private party transfer that completely bypass the background check required to buy a gun new. How the hell that is legal is beyond me. You have to pass a background check to buy a gun from a gun store but if you go to a gun show you can buy one from some guy in the parking lot with no background check? WTF?

 

[blankslate]

I was not saying that swimming pools and guns are the same. What I was refering to as the same or similar is the guilt that the person feels who let his child die in either an unattened swimming pool or an unattended firearm. I was talking about the guilt....that a person feels.

The fact that the guilt is the same doesn't mean that a person shouldn't be prosecuted in situations where their irresponsible neglect leads to the death of a toddler.

*e2a*
I thought we had replied to each other before. I realize we hadn't; mea culpa.

....

 

[JulesMaximus]

The fact that the guilt is the same doesn't mean that a person shouldn't be prosecuted in situations where their irresponsible neglect leads to the death of a toddler.


....

Your point is moot. They aren't prosecuting her. And, quite frankly, I agree with that decision.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I have issues with logic like this. Guns are allowed, good. Guns sometimes kill people, bad. Limit guns=limits bad, right?

No. It doesn't really work that way.

You want to limit ILLEGAL use of guns, for murder, assault, robbery, etc. Actions that are illegal on their own standing, but guns assist. You don't want to CRIMINALIZE gun use, there's already a crime to punish with the act associated with it's use. Enacting another law won't stop someone from violating it.

Putting restrictions on people LEGALLY using guns doesn't reduce ILLEGAL use. That only limits people already following the law surrounding it's use. Limiting their access doesn't limit HOW they use it.

If they want to ILLEGALLY use a gun, they will obtain one ILLEGALLY. Bypassing any law you put in place to limit LEGAL use.

edit: if you want to consider enacting law to prevent accidental use, training is cool and should likely affect it. However, I tend to think people asking for this are using the weight of criminal use to justify the change in the law. Go ahead and look at how many people die to accidental discharge and explain why we're bothering with constitutional changes for such a tiny amount of people.

My reply was only for possible minimization of accidental deaths. This thread topic does not discuss the illegal use of a gun. Rather, an accidental one.

I'm not even desiring to limit guns, but we need more training and education on the part of gun owners. Like I said, if they're serious about self-protection, the state should require them to get educated and maintain that education on how to safely use their weapon. Considering that this object can more easily inflict massive harm to many individuals than something like a knife could, I think it's also prudent to somehow ascertain the mental state of someone in a somewhat continuous manner. Maybe a check every half year or quarter. It won't be foolproof, but at the very least we can say "we tried to prevent this."

I could walk into the gun store today and after passing a background check and waiting a week, I could be a gun owner with no training and no appreciation for the weapon, and leave my weapon unsecured and have a child accidentally kill themselves with it.

It's like we as a society aren't even *trying* to prevent this.

 

[blankslate]

Your point is moot. They aren't prosecuting her. And, quite frankly, I agree with that decision.

I lost track of the replies and thought the person replied specifically to me. My bad I shouldn't have replied to him. was about to edit my post to reflect that.

And you're free to agree with that decision and I won't say your wrong but I vehemently disagree with you.

But at least I don't live anywhere near that grossly negligent person and they won't be near me or mine.


....

 

[JulesMaximus]

Are you shitting me? This actually happened to someone you knew?
OMG, being a parent is stressful as hell.

I am a new parent and the worst possible thing I can imagine is losing a child.

One of my best friends lost his 14 year old son and only child a couple summers ago. He was hiking up in the Rockies and suffered from high altitude sickness and died. He went to sleep and never woke up.

You can't imagine the pain he has gone through and still goes through. I can only imagine it and even then it doesn't scratch the surface. I think it is the worst thing a person could ever experience by far... and that is an understatement. :'(

 

[JulesMaximus]

I lost track of the replies and thought the person replied specifically to me. My bad I shouldn't have replied to him. was about to edit my post to reflect that.

And you're free to agree with that decision and I won't say your wrong but I vehemently disagree with you.

But at least I don't live anywhere near that grossly negligent person and they won't be near me or mine.


....

Well, I guess the DA didn't agree with you either.

What possible good could come from prosecuting her? A lesson to other parents? That is a really stupid argument. I have a 12 year old son and I've got news for you, I'd take jail over the death of my child any day. She is already suffering the worst possible sentence, a lifetime without her child.

 

[JulesMaximus]

People suggesting we scrutinize the dangers of swimming pools or automobiles the same way we scrutinize firearms are simply being dishonest or deceptive. Most firearms are purposely designed to kill or maim other people. Arguing you need firearms to protect yourselves from others with firearms simply perpetuates a feedback loop, because the more that people demand unfettered access to them, the easier it is for people with bad intentions to obtain them.

The argument over gun control is kind of like the same sex marriage argument in the 90's. Progressive types believed in it, but were too cowardly to come out and say it because it was too bold of a position then. Well let me come out and say it. Gun violence, and particularly these mass shooting events, are a uniquely American problem among developed nations, and is borne almost entirely out of the easy availability of guns in this country. The way guns have been so thoroughly woven into the cultural fabric of this country can best be described as a cultural defect. The societal costs of having them so accessible grossly outweighs any benefit, and therefore the long term goal should be to almost entirely eliminate private gun ownership in this country. I'm sure many of you are just aghast at such a crazy statement, but please take a moment and articulate WHY it is so crazy? Would you argue that the homicide rate, particularly these mass homicide events, would continue unabated in the absence of guns? Are you just afraid of the transition period to a gun free society, when roving gangs of armed bandits would be running through your neighborhood to kill you? Do you love going to the shooting range so much that you just don't give a damn about all the gun violence? Before you try to get off easy and just label me a commie without addressing my points, please explain why this is so crazy.


And for the record, I own 5 guns. I wouldn't feel like less of a man if they suddenly disappeared

:thumbsup: I agree with you actually... and I also own guns (13 of them, 6 of which are handguns).

 

[blankslate]

Well, I guess the DA didn't agree with you either.

What possible good could come from prosecuting her? A lesson to other parents? That is a really stupid argument. I have a 12 year old son and I've got news for you, I'd take jail over the death of my child any day. She is already suffering the worst possible sentence, a lifetime without her child.

That's his prerogative of course not mine.

Sending the message don't be fecking neglectful with firearms around children or anywhere for that matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXRbA1GiGtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GofW1qngtlE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3PQ9FoYyGQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1_7g3PcvD0


Good on you for being a caring parent, I'll have to trust that you're more careful with your firearms (especially around kids) than this woman was, admittedly not a hard feat though.


....

 

[Phoenix86]

Part of the reason guns are so easy to get illegally is because of legal gun owners. I've never had a gun stolen but I would imagine that many of the guns on the street (illegally owned) are acquired through theft from legal gun owners.

Correct, the only real way to reduce illegal gun use is to reduce the gun pool. That however goes directly against the constitution. I don't see that changing much.

Also, I don't want to say I'm against reasonable gun control. Backround checks and training are important. They just won't reduce crime significantly. They are far more likely to reduce accidents. It's just that accidental gun deaths are in the range of ~1000/year (recalling from memory).

 

[jtvang125]

That's why I asked regarding the differences. In California, if you don't have a CC permit, the bullets better be a lock away from the gun itself. And if you have a CC permit, I'm sure there are safety measures that you have to follow.

I'm still trying to figure out how a toddler could deactivate a Glock's safety while shooting himself in the chest - if it was indeed a Glock.

Just a little clarification, in CA inside your own home you can legally carry or store your guns however you like (loaded-chambered, loaded-unchambered...etc). When you do store them you must have them securely locked so that no children or unauthorized person can get access to them. If this happened in CA she likely would have been charged for not keeping the firearm secured.

While transporting your handguns without a CCW they must be unloaded and in a case secured by a lock. There's nothing that says you can't have a loaded mag but not inserted in the locked case but it's obviously safer to just not have anything loaded incase you get pulled over and searched. And your glove compartment and trunk are not considered a locked case.

I'm not completely certain about long guns (rifles and shotguns) but I believe they just need to be unloaded and in a case, locked or not. Ammo should be stored in a place not easily accessible.

 

[blankslate]

Backround checks and training are important. They just won't reduce crime significantly. They are far more likely to reduce accidents.

Agreed. There probably should be free refresher courses as well for range members. Firearms safety imo does require reinforcement training for most if not all people.


...

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Correct, the only real way to reduce illegal gun use is to reduce the gun pool. That however goes directly against the constitution. I don't see that changing much.

Also, I don't want to say I'm against reasonable gun control. Backround checks and training are important. They just won't reduce crime significantly. They are far more likely to reduce accidents. It's just that accidental gun deaths are in the range of ~1000/year (recalling from memory).

The Constitution can and has been changed. The intention of an amendment is to have a living document that changes with the needs of the times. Whether or not people can get changes to be made to our amendment is another story however.

I don't see it changing easily. But I could see it changing legally if there was enough societal and political will.

BTW Australia did just this after their Port Arthur Massacre and told everyone to turn in their guns. The result is almost non-existent gun-related violence and crimes compared to the US and the prices of guns on the black market skyrocketed to being out of reach of the vast majority of criminals. So yes, criminals can still get guns, but most end up not getting them because the barrier to getting them is so high.

Also, mentally unstable people can't get them because your friendly neighborhood paranoid-as-fuck dealer isn't just going to sell anyone a gun, and if they do, it'll be $4,000 for a handgun and crazy amounts for ammunition if you're a criminal who actually wants to get good at, you know, using your crime weapon of choice. And then where would you go to train with said gun? If you're a criminal who is so intent on using a gun that you will pay thousands of dollars for it, you'll probably want to get GOOD at using it too. So the price of admission into the criminals-with-guns-club is very high, much higher than as it stands now in the US.

So if a criminal still gets a gun even under these completely unfavorable market conditions then they must already be financially stable, not to mention they'll be paying $4,000 for a handgun... less money to use for other things.

After spending more than 20 years under this law, the vast majority of the Australian people do not regret turning in their guns.

I'm not being sarcastic though when I say that I still like guns and I still like that I am able to own one. I just wish we could do more so innocent people don't get hurt. The facts surrounding Australia are just to point out that it won't be the end of the world if a country's citizens are disarmed of guns. Forget about using your AR to defend yourself against a tyrannical government. A bunch of militiamen in the woods with ARs aren't going to win against a tyrannical government with drones.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Agreed. There probably should be free refresher courses as well for range members. Firearms safety imo does require reinforcement training for most if not all people.

...

I would LOVE it if I could get free, professional, and comprehensive firearms training when I purchase a gun. As it stands, I have to spend considerable amounts of money for training, range time, and ammunition, which actually places a big burden on me if I want to be a SAFE gun operator. If I want to be an UNTRAINED gun operator, it's simply the price of buying the gun.

That's pretty messed up.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Agreed. There probably should be free refresher courses as well for range members. Firearms safety imo does require reinforcement training for most if not all people.


...

No, it really doesn't. There are basically three cardinal rules of safe gun handling.

1) Treat every gun as if it was loaded and always check to make sure it is not loaded when someone hands you a gun.
2) Do not point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot (I don't care if it is unloaded-you NEVER point a gun at another person).
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

Not sure what more you would need to know. If you follow these simple rules 100% of the time, you will never have an accident.

I can go years without touching a gun and go to the range with these three rules and never have an accident or need additional training/refresher courses.

Gun safety at home is simple. Keep guns locked up.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

No, it really doesn't. There are basically three cardinal rules of safe gun handling.

1) Treat every gun as if it was loaded and always check to make sure it is not loaded when someone hands you a gun.
2) Do not point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot (I don't care if it is unloaded-you NEVER point a gun at another person).
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

Not sure what more you would need to know. If you follow these simple rules 100% of the time, you will never have an accident.

I can go years without touching a gun and go to the range with these three rules and never have an accident or need additional training/refresher courses.

Gun safety at home is simple. Keep guns locked up.

Reinforcement will not hurt, especially in something that is seldom used. It's not like driving a car where most people 'practice' every day and it's constantly on your mind.

 

[Jerem]

Just a little clarification, in CA inside your own home you can legally carry or store your guns however you like (loaded-chambered, loaded-unchambered...etc). When you do store them you must have them securely locked so that no children or unauthorized person can get access to them. If this happened in CA she likely would have been charged for not keeping the firearm secured.

While transporting your handguns without a CCW they must be unloaded and in a case secured by a lock. There's nothing that says you can't have a loaded mag but not inserted in the locked case but it's obviously safer to just not have anything loaded incase you get pulled over and searched. And your glove compartment and trunk are not considered a locked case.

I'm not completely certain about long guns (rifles and shotguns) but I believe they just need to be unloaded and in a case, locked or not. Ammo should be stored in a place not easily accessible.

CA DOJ says trunk is OK as a locked container. I do remember reading that if your rear seat folds down and can be done without a key than that is a problem.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel

 

[Phoenix86]

The Constitution can and has been changed...

Did you even read my post? Are you completely ignoring how your proposed changes wouldn't affect illegal gun use?

You site an example which contradicts your point. AUS significantly reduced available guns which led to significantly reduced illegal gun use.

Your proposal will not reduce available guns. It'll reduce accidents gun death, which is so insignificant it should be only monitored.

Then you made the amazingly out of touch statement that what works for AUS will work for the US.

Go look it up:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Page 19-22, table 10

Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34)
505

If whatever change you enact is 100% effect it would have saved 505 lives in 2013. Out of 130K total accidental deaths.

You know what, you have convinced me. This is totally a subject worthy of national, wait not, constitutional attention. While we're at it, we can set the bar there at 500/year. Anything causing more immediately requires constitutional amendments to correct it.

That, or you're being ignorant.

 

[Phoenix86]

I would LOVE it if I could get free, professional, and comprehensive firearms training when I purchase a gun. As it stands, I have to spend considerable amounts of money for training, range time, and ammunition, which actually places a big burden on me if I want to be a SAFE gun operator. If I want to be an UNTRAINED gun operator, it's simply the price of buying the gun.

That's pretty messed up.

I just heard an ad for a gun range that was offering exactly that. With every new gun purchase. Not sure what you consider "comprehensive" but it was CCW class + range time with an instructor.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Reinforcement will not hurt, especially in something that is seldom used. It's not like driving a car where most people 'practice' every day and it's constantly on your mind.

Would it hurt? Probably not but it isn't necessary either. Once you are ingrained with those simple rules you don't forget them.

I took a hunter safety course back in the early 90s to get my hunting license but apart from that, I have had no formal firearm safety training. And I'd say that 80% of the hunter safety course was in survival techniques and had nothing to do with guns.

There is a 20 question test you have to take when buying a handgun in CA but it is ridiculously easy to pass. I hadn't bought a gun in more than a decade and hadn't studied at all for this test and aced it, not a single question did I get wrong.

 

[JulesMaximus]

CA DOJ says trunk is OK as a locked container. I do remember reading that if your rear seat folds down and can be done without a key than that is a problem.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel

I'm a middle aged white man. Police don't search my car when I get pulled over.

 

[Kelvrick]

No, it really doesn't. There are basically three cardinal rules of safe gun handling.

1) Treat every gun as if it was loaded and always check to make sure it is not loaded when someone hands you a gun.
2) Do not point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot (I don't care if it is unloaded-you NEVER point a gun at another person).
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

Not sure what more you would need to know. If you follow these simple rules 100% of the time, you will never have an accident.

I can go years without touching a gun and go to the range with these three rules and never have an accident or need additional training/refresher courses.

Gun safety at home is simple. Keep guns locked up.

I think we've added a fourth. Always be aware of your target and what is behind your target.

I've a staunch supporter of the right to own, carry, and use guns but I am also a staunch supporter of training and safety. I would say 80% of the people I see at the range are potentially (not paying as much attention) unsafe and 15% are very unsafe. I would love for there to be required training, but the monetary requirement for training is steep. Instruction is often $100-$200 per day. I've spent more on training and the required ammunition than all my guns combined and I doubt 95% of gun owners out there are willing to do the same.

Here in California, we already have the DROS fee when purchasing a firearm. I wouldn't mind if that fee went up in exchange for funding various training facilities and instructors that people can take advantage of. It might not even have to go up, there are already excess funds that has already been raided for politician pet projects.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

I always love the let's make guns illegal crap.

Yes...because making guns illegal will fix the crime right? Wait...murder is illegal, armed robbery is illegal, yet these thing still happen.... let's think about that.

 

[Kelvrick]

I'm not opposed to that, but I understand why other people are. Modifying the law to add more restrictions to gun ownership will never be enough for some people. Whatever vestige of the second amendment is left will always be a point of contention until it is gone altogether. People have a habit of forgetting all the things that have gotten limited or restricted in the past and focusing solely on what is left.

If you need an example just look at smokers. First they got shoved into smoking zones, then they got kicked to the curb, then they were made to vacate the curb. Now they can barely get in sight of the curb.

If anti-smokers were content to stop at the first step and say "Good thing we got those smokers over there in the corner. Now we can move on to a completely different problem", then maybe you could say that we're safe allowing restrictions to be placed on gun ownership. That didn't happen though. People kept pushing. Enough was never enough. If smokers had just resisted the first step in the process like the NRA resists each and every mention of restricting gun ownership, maybe they'd STILL be fighting over that step with every one after it having never been implemented. Instead smoker just rolled over and did what they were told. So what the NRA is really doing is establishing a holding pattern. As long as activists are quibbling over banana clips and assault rifles they never get around to handguns and hunting rifles. Don't let them get a foot in the door because if you do, they're coming all the way in eventually.

I agree completely. When an activity or group of people are targeted, there is no middle ground by the ones who are doing the pushing. We currently have a bill going through in California that wants to take away the exemption from licensed concealed weapons permit holders from being able to take their firearms on school grounds. Now, I'm wondering what crimes have ever been committed with guns from a licensed CCW holder. The costs is often over $500, requires a deeper background check, and statistically, license holders commit less crimes than police officers. It really makes no sense. It will not stop anyone who wants to shoot up a school from taking a gun to a school and shooting people.