Very, very sad…
A 6-year-old girl who was shot in the head while her father was cleaning a gun has died, the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office reported.
Whenever I post a link to one of these tragic stories, I usually get a bunch of angry comments in the thread accusing liberals of wanting to take away everybody’s guns. But I’m just trying to make the point that under most circumstances, guns don’t make you and your family safer, especially if you have young children in the house.
You want to protect your kids? Get a dog. They tend not to blow your head off while cleaning them, and they’re a helluva lot more fun to play with.
Sad indeed. My sympathies go out to the family. But the object lesson isn’t about guns themselves, it’s gun safety! Would anyone here be so stupid as to start cleaning a gun:
a) with a small child in the room,
b) making damn sure that there wasn’t a round in the chamber before cleaning it?
I know damn good and well that if I was polishing up the ol’ shooting iron, I’d be the only person in that room, if for no other reason than to protect my family from just such a situation.
I agree that it’s sad. But I’m not ready to blame the gun or the gun owner yet (I understand the police have arrested him for manslaughter).
After all, more kids get killed by cars backing out of their driveways, and we don’t normally call for an end to car ownership, do we? We also have more children killed by home fires caused by unattended candles (which are merely decorative except in a power outage).
That being said, I think having a gun in a household is indeed something which requires an extraordinary degree of care, especially if there are small children. The guns – and ammo – need to be locked away in a good gun safe when not being immediately transported or cleaned. Care needs to be taken to make sure they cannot fall into the hands of small children, and also they cannot be stolen by someone who breaks into the house.
And as pointed out earlier, there’s no excuse for having a round in the chamber while the gun is in the house, much less so while it is being cleaned. A firearm should be cleared – and checked and re-checked – to make sure it is completely unloaded before it is even put in the car to return home from a hunting or shooting trip, much less before it gets into the house.
So for all those reasons, I really think if we are going to require licenses and a test to operate a car, we need the same for firearms. Amend the 2nd Amendment, if necessary, to do so.
As for using a gun for home protection, a handgun or rifle is a risky method of home protection in the dark, with adrenalin flowing. You are more likely to fire off all the rounds and not hit the target, yet have the bullets passing through walls into adjoining bedrooms where others are sleeping. If you must have a gun for home protection, choose a shotgun. Lots of stopping power, all you have to do is point it in the general direction, it’s easy to load, and an errant pellet is less likely to kill the neighbor next door.
But just make sure you aren’t killing your daughter’s boyfriend who’s just trying to sneak out of the house after a late-night visit – unless that’s your intent.
“You want to protect your kids? Get a dog.”
This is the advice that self-defense experts give most people. The fact is, successfully defending yourself with a gun is a highly skilled task requiring a degree of training and experience that only military veterans ordinarily have acquired. As for the conservatives who keep reminding us they’re armed, in the event of civil war, I expect self-inflicted casualties on their side to sufficiently attrite their forces to decide the issue in short order. Remember the bumper sticker implying that clowns and guns don’t mix?
I find myself in agreement with Joe on this one. Certainly this is a tragedy, and it seems heartless to point to the bereved parent as the primary culprit, but it’s true nonetheless.
The parent made a stupid mistake that cost the life of a child.
Children are killed and maimed when their parents don’t keep them buckled into their car seats, but we don’t blame the car, even though there are alternative methods of transportation.
If it were possible to somehow wave a wand and make all guns disappear, I’d do it in a heartbeat. If it were possible to have a police force that could actually prevent violent crime, rather than simply catching the perpetrator, I’d be thrilled.
And I even recognize the data that says that keeping a weapon doesn’t make my familiy statistically safer.
But my home and family are not statistics, and even where I live, within a few miles of the Gig Harbor city limits, police protection is thin at best. My choices are to protect my own family, or let the Deputies identify the bodies.
While I might wish that there was a better answer, until there is, I and my neighbors will be ready to defend our families.
Oh, and as to the comment about getting a dog. It seems to me that there have been more stories in the recent past about the family pet attacking a child than there has been about gun accidents hurting a child.
With the gun, at least, it requires a person to take some sort of action in order for harm to come. Dogs, even though they can be wonderful companions, are still independent animals, and any dog large enough to defend your family is also large enough to harm them.
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/H...../dog.bite/
A quick check of news stories on Google seems to indicate that dog attacks are actually more of a problem than accidental shootings. I’d need to spend more time researching to be sure, but it looks as if keeping a large dog for protection is actually more dangerous than keeping a gun.
I’d agree with Roger that for the great majority of people, a gun is not the best method of protection. Even in the hands of trained professionals, when the adrennalin is flowing, you are unlikely to hit your target.
I once saw a video of a policeman who was involved in a traffic stop, when the passenger jumps out of the car and starts shooting at the officer. The officer fires back. Now, you have a suspect firing over the front-left fender of the car, and the officer firing from the rear-left fender, and both of them empty their firearms without hitting anything! The suspect ends up throwing his empty gun at the officer and takes off running, with the officer in pursuit on foot.
I figure is a presumably well-trained police officer cannot hit his target some twelve-feet away in the heat of battle, what hope does an average homeowner have? He/She’s more likely to miss completely and have the gun taken away from them.
As for dogs – when my children were young we had a chow, which was great protection for the house. The dog was gentle but protective of it’s family, didn’t bark unnecessarily (usually just let out a low growl to let us know somebody was coming towards the house). Chows have kind of a bad reputation, which worked to our advantage, but most of the time our chow wasn’t a concern. The only problem was that she was really wary of anyone wearing mostly dark colors, for some reason. We were living in Edmonds at the time, and the police uniforms were all black. My biggest worry was that some day she was going to bite a policeman.
Oh, the other problem was that our chow loved to get out of the fenced yard. She could dig under fences or chew through them, only to trot up to our front porch and wait there for us to return. I think it was in her genes – her father was a real escape artist, a local legend.
Yeah Goldy, ask Dan Savage about dogs for protection — for instance, pit bulls.
If you don’t want a gun you don’t have to get one. I don’t recommend that idiots get one, nor people who are unable to responsibly handle one around children.
I should also mention that growing up in the South, I found that the process of cleaning a gun was also a method of communication.
On more than one occassion as a teenager, I would arrive at a house to pick up my date, and go inside for the obligatory meeting with the parents. Sometimes the father “just happened” to be sitting at the kitchen table, cleaning his guns, as we had a “pleasant” conversation about where I was going to be taking his daughter on our date, what we were going to be doing, and what time she was expected to be home. Of course he didn’t need to say anything about what the consequences would be if I didn’t behave myself – the process of him cleaning his guns made that readily apparant. For all I knew, he might not have even had any ammo for all those firearms, but that was NOT a chance I was inclined to take.
Honestly, I do not think people in general are responsible enough to own guns anymore. People have gotten too stupid and irresponsible.
@4 Contrary to popular belief, cops are not well trained in combat shooting. They receive a minimal amount of shooting instruction sufficient only to “qualify” on a firing range, i.e., they’re required to demonstrate that they can hit a paper target that’s not moving or shooting back.
Even soldiers aren’t all that well trained, a notorious example being the 1989 Tacoma Hilltop shootout between a group of Fort Lewis Army Rangers at a barbecue and a bunch of drug dealers at a crack house across the street. The combatants exchanged over 300 rounds, but no one on either side was hit. If I was those guys’ commanding officer, I’d have them out on the firing range at 0400 hours every day, until they demonstrated they can hit something. Even if it took 20 years. This is supposed to be their job, you know.
@7 Well, at least half of them, anyway.
I can’t find the stats now, but I remember seeing that in a huge percentage of burglaries the bad guys entered the house through an unlocked door, window or garage door. So, lock everything up tight, get a dog and maybe get a .22 to go out in the woods and stalk tin cans every now and again.
Whether or not a gun makes you safer has nothing to do with the right to own one. If you don’t want a gun don’t own one. The odds of you or your kids getting shot while some guy is cleaning is gun is incredibly low.
@5
The question is, who is going to measure the responsibility and/or idiocy of people? Most people who are irresponsible have no clue that they aren’t responsible. Few idiots would every cop to being one. I can’t see your average dude missing a chromosome or two standing at the gun counter at Walmart saying to the poor salesperson, “Yeah sorry, I’m honestly too stupid to handle this. Think I’ll check me out some fire axes instead..”
Growing up in an area where we got school holidays for various hunting seasons, and the NRA taught gun safety to 2nd graders at the public school during school hours, I’ve seen a lot of idiots with guns and the havoc created. My favorite 10th grade incident was the dudes who stood around in a circle shooting at a snake with shot guns. Between the lost teeth, facial scars and days missed from school, it made a great story post graduation…… Where these kids parents responsible? Ahhh no…. Were they incurable idiots… Yeah, history played out that way…
You need a license to operate just about every other lethal form of equipment… Why not guns?
Guns, like many other things in life (such as drinking alcohol, or driving on snow) are “stupidity amplifiers”. An ounce of stupidity under normal circumstances becomes a ton of stupidity in the presence of firearms.
A few years ago I attended an excellent handgun safety course taught at the local firing range. The instructor really stressed her four safety rules:
1. Every gun is loaded, even if you “know” it’s not.
2. Don’t point the gun at anything you don’t want to shoot.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you’re ready to shoot.
4. Don’t shoot at anything unless you know what’s behind it.
The guy in the story violated #1 and #2, and possibly #3.
Very sad indeed. My condolences to the family.
Keith @ 12: I agree with your gun-safety protocols. I started target shooting at a young age, participated in my first competition at age 8, sponsored by the Jaycees. I learned gun safety the right way, and was very carful about it.
When I was in High School I was in Jr. ROTC, the first day they put us on the gun range with M-14’s some wise guy started taking pot shots at the HVAC system up by the ceiling, causing a ricochete. I stood up, laid my M-14 down, walked up to the First Seargent, and announced to him that I wasn’t going to be anywhere near a room full of idiots with loaded weapons, and I walked out the door and sat down outside. A few seconds later he came out the door and sat down beside me. “I’m joining you! I didn’t live through Korea and two tours of duty in ‘Nam to get shot by a fifteen year old on a gun range!” he said to me.
Great quote. That sums things up perfectly.
I think I’ll name my next band the Stupidity Amplifiers!
Otter said:
“Honestly, I do not think people in general are responsible enough to own guns anymore. People have gotten too stupid and irresponsible.”
11/17/2008 at 11:03 am
Shit, we could say that about a lot of things, not just guns!!
Where was the outrage from Goldy when the father rolled his kid into the fire.
You know what the common theme between the infant dying in the fire and this young child dying of a gunshot wound? Booze. There is the stupidity amplifier.
drool @17
You know what? I’m pretty sure we would all agree here that having an open fire pit does not increase the safety and security of toddlers within its proximity.
I’d say, the same is generally true about guns.
@11: Because driving is not a right guaranteed by the US Constitution, whereas gun ownership is.
A 90 lb. Akbash dog is great with the kids and will not only gladly take on any human intruder, but bears and wolves as well.
In the close confines of a house, my dog and me with a knife and pepper spray are a deadly combination for any interloper with bad intent.
@15: I bet your band will be way loud!
@19: I think everyone should have the right to keep and bear a musket from 1776. Guns were very different back then – loading one took quite a while.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say that people have a right to keep and bear an fully automatic Uzi submachine gun.
@21
“Nowhere in the constitution does it say that people have a right to keep and bear an fully automatic Uzi submachine gun.”
Nor does the constitution state that you may not! However, if I want one, and I have no criminal, or mental health, record then why shouldn’t I be able to get one? Because you’ll be uncomfortable? Why is that my responsibility? Why I want it, and what I might want to do with it is totally irrelevant, as long as I maintain control of the weapon, and don’t use it in an unlawful manner. Or do you contend that gun owners should be “punished” proactively?
#18 Goldy
or compact tractors:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news.....ccide.html
It would seem you have a dislike for firearm posession by private citizens. I do not.
Also, please check ou thow you get your statistics. I could say the same about automobiles. You carry your kid around in one, yes? You should take the bus. Cars are dangerous. Did you know if you do not own a car it lessens your chance of being in a car accident?
I think those that are against firearm psession/ownership should put a sign in their front yard saying that there are no firearms on the property. That should cut down the crime at that location.
Yeah. let’s blame the gun.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....irl18.html
Another drunk with something dangerous be it a gun or a car.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms doesn’t extend to all kinds of weaponry (full automatic machine guns, explosives, Howitzers, etc.) because we know you can’t maintain control of those weapons and use them in a lawful manner. It ain’t punishment. In this country you have the right to be let alone and enjoy your individual freedoms (subject to everyone else’s rights), but the flip side of that is that because we aren’t keeping tabs on you we’re not going to trust you with anything unreasonably dangerous to us either.
If you want to own serious firepower, go someplace where there is no society to bother you or care what you do. And consider whether you might be trying to compensate for something. :)
@22: And I suppose you want wmds too? Remember what happened to the last guy to pretend he had wmds…
Yeah Goldstein, I’m sure whatever little rat-dog ankle biter you have will save you. Ignorant douche-bag.
My question is, beyond what an idiot this guy is, will he be prosecuted?
Wait, I know, “he’s suffered enough, his family is suffering, he’ll have to live with this the rest of his life, blah, blah, blah.”
Well, if a neighbor child had been there with his child and been killed, he’d be facing jail time. Why is it different because it’s his child? I see no difference.
An Iraq vet just got sentence to 11 years for road rage where he fired a gun into a car. And that was with the judge giving him some leeway. Are we saying you can be an idiot and kill your child and have no punishment (by society, not by his guilt)?
I’d like him to go to jail but if not, NO MORE GUNS for this jackass. Ever.
@25
“The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms doesn’t extend to all kinds of weaponry (full automatic machine guns, explosives, Howitzers, etc.) because we know you can’t maintain control of those weapons and use them in a lawful manner.”
How do we know that? How do we decide what is appropriate for an any given individual? Is it a handgun? A rifle? A shotgun? Something else? You either have a right, or you don’t. Would you agree?
Perhaps since some are far more glib than others, the right to free speech should be regulated so that the less verbally facile don’t have to face the embarassement of interacting with their more fluent fellow citizens. Afterall, we can’t know what might be done with that speech, can we? And since the pen is mightier than the sword, by extension we might say that the word is mightier than the gunpowder.
“It ain’t punishment. In this country you have the right to be let alone and enjoy your individual freedoms (subject to everyone else’s rights), but the flip side of that is that because we aren’t keeping tabs on you we’re not going to trust you with anything unreasonably dangerous to us either.”
Again, you either have a right, or you don’t. Rights are intrinsic, they aren’t “granted” by the government. Society is a compact, willingly entered in to. It isn’t supposed to be a straight jacket. If you have to coerce your citizenry, by withholding or modifying individual rights, then your societal foundation is a lot more fragile than you realize.
Nope. Not all rights are absolute. Take the First Amendment: Freedom of speech, a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, does not give you free rein to incite a riot, slander your neighbor, publish someone else’s copyrighted material, commmit securities fraud, or blast AC/DC (or, I don’t know, ABBA) at top volume at 3 a.m. in your sleepy residential neighborhood. Just like your Second Amendment right to bear arms (a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state), your First Amendment right of free speech is not unlimited.
Look back at the Holmes quote (@ 25). It’s really no surprise that the limits on our individual rights lie where they run up against other people’s rights.
Of course, you don’t have any right to keep others from embarrassing you. My new favorite free speech quote showed up in this week’s news:
@30
I absolutely agree about my rights not infringing upon yours, and vice versa. Seems like where we disagree is where exactly that line resides.
CnR @ 21:
Fuck yeah, it will be loud. I need a band to cleanse my musical palate of playing the same shitty lounge music over and over again. In so many words, one of these days I’m gonna snap in the middle of playing “Brick House” and put my head through a card table.
Don’t get me wrong, “Brick House” ain’t a bad song……
But play it at least once a night.
Six nights a week.
Twenty to twenty-five weeks a year.
For twelve years.
And people wonder why I’m crazy!
You all should follow the story closely. I’m acquainted with somebody involved in the story. There is most definitely a reason he was arrested. You are not getting the full story in the media yet.
To the poster who posted on stupidity amplifiers:
Alcohol + Firearms = Really stupid.
I can’t say more but you’ll see it in the papers I’m sure.
The issue is not a Constitutional right to ownership but “license to operate.”
Own all the guns you want, but if you operate it without a license you’re subject to penalty. That’s the concept.
It sure seem to me that there is a public interest in regulating the use of instruments of deadly force. Esepcially because our representative government means that we are regulating ourselves.
@34
You start down the path of “licensing” rights, and you are NOT going to like where you end up.