3-Year-Old Colorado Boy Dies From Accidental Gunshot

bowserb said:
Cesare Beccaria (Philosopher, politician & criminologist) 1794: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Click to expand...


:hand:
 
bowserb said:
Not changing the subject. Just replying to others' remarks.

I originally said the stepfather should be charged with a crime, under one or more of the hundreds of thousands of laws already in existence everywhere in this nation. I further said that no one should own a gun without a way to securely store it, adding that if one cannot afford a gun safe, one cannot afford to own a gun. I still feel that way. The stepfather should be arrested, charged, and sentenced to a prison term, and that event should be widely reported--at least as widely reported as the original tragedy. It has been proven that certainty of punishment is far more effective a deterrent to crime than severity of punishment that is rarely given. And make no mistake about it. What happened here was a crime.

OK "evince"? Back on subject?
Click to expand...

They you must also be for all cars being equipped with lock out devices?
 
Lorca said:
Bullshit. The MOST basic tenet of the 2A is a gun in the home, period. To KEEP and bear arms.

So this was not 'unfettered, absolute access.' It was owning and keeping a gun.....and the idiot didnt secure it around small children.

Parents have to do many things to protect their kids in the home, even against deadly things, so it's not just about guns. These parent f*d up.
Click to expand...

PCSO: Arizona boy, 14, dies driving girl, 13, boy, 9

The boy took his family's vehicle without permission Monday and was speeding down Shires Road northbound when he lost control of the vehicle and it rolled several times.

The owner of the car should be charged with a crime, for not having a KEY SAFE.
Do you also promote this idea?
 
The Dude said:
3-Year-Old Colorado Boy Dies From Accidental Gunshot

A 3-year-old Colorado boy has died after what authorities say was "an accidental gunshot wound to the head."

Police in Frederick, Colo., a town about 30 miles north of Denver, said Tuesday that the boy has been identified as Sheine Steine, according to the Longmont Times-Call.

"We have no reason to believe this was other than an accidental firing of the gun while the child handled it," Frederick Police Chief Gary Barbour said in a statement.

Police arrived at the boy's home Monday morning around 10 a.m. after Steine's mother Dione Warren found him on the ground, not breathing and bleeding from the head. Despite the amount of blood, Warren told 911 she thought the boy had fallen and struck his head on a bedside table. According to 7News, police found the preschooler's body next to his mother's bed and a semiautomatic handgun next to his head.

Police said that the bullet had ricocheted off the wall, leaving blood spatter evidence behind, and then landed on the bed where it was found.

The boy was rushed to Exempla Good Samaritan Medical Center in Lafayette Monday morning, but was pronounced dead at 11:15 a.m..

KDVR reports that the gun, a .40-caliber Glock, was legally owned by the boy's stepfather, identified as Jeremy McCollem, who was not at home during the shooting.

According to Denver's CBS affiliate, the shooting remains under investigation, with authorities still determining who shot the gun and if the gun was locked up.
Click to expand...


Too bad there wasn't a good three-tear-old with a gun to prevent this senseless shooting!
 
bowserb said:
Cesare Beccaria (Philosopher, politician & criminologist) 1794: "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Click to expand...

Horseshit!
 
bowserb said:
Another case of a tragedy that could have been avoided or minimized. An open gun safe is not a safe. Mentally disturbed kid, and his mother leaves unsecured guns out. Too late to prosecute her, since her drugged son killed her first. If the principal of the school had a Glock in a locked drawer, she could have been a hero instead of a victim. Nut cases like Lanza always cave when confronted with deadly force. One shot from her gun, and he'd have run or maybe even shot himself then, rather than later. Instead we make teachers be martyrs. Then we pass more laws against law abiding citizens. AR-15s? More people are murdered every year in the U.S. with baseball bats than with all rifles (source: FBI "Crime in the United States 2012"), of which AR's are only a portion.

No one mentions that in 100% of mass murders in modern times, the perps were either on, or previously on, behavior altering drugs. When I was a kid, it was easier to get a gun. You could buy a rifle at the Western Auto store or Sears. However, behavior problems were not treated with drugs, and guess what? One almost never heard of mass murders. Now we have expensive and punitive gun control laws, with kids on prescription mind-altering drugs, playing video games with nonstop killing and watching movies where heroes and criminals alike are nonstop killers. But then Hollywood and the drug companies are big political contributors, so they can't even share in the responsibility for what happens, nor can absentee parents.

End of rant...for now!
Click to expand...

I was hunting rabbits on the family farm, at the age of 12.
Got a bolt actions single shot .22 for Christmas.
We always had plenty of rabbits to eat; because I got real good with it, but never had the "urge" to shoot anyone or anything else with it.
 
Guns are uniquely dangerous. They are portable, especially handguns, and can cause so much harm, so quickly, that they deserve well above average care and control. To own a gun is to take on a serious responsibility. It's interesting that two items that have come up over and over on this thread are guns and cars. These are two objects that of themselves are as harmless as any object can be. However, they are also two things that grip the interest and imagination of kids--especially boys--like nothing else. Look at Ralphy in "A Christmas Story". While I don't look at life through the movies, this one, in its portrayal of a boy wanting a Daisy Red Ryder Carbine, rings true for me (as well as every other former boy I'm aware of). It's how boys are. It's how I was a very long time ago.

I never had a "real" gun until 1965, when I had one provided to me, along with some training and an opportunity to "practice" with it. I got out of the Army in 1968, but I never got a gun of my own until a couple years later, when the place where I lived had a rash of traffic light carjackings. Got a little H&R revolver. At home I kept it in a locked metal cash box. A few years later, I gave it to my mother, who had become worried about crime in her neighborhood. Now, my younger sister has it, and her son complains about the cost of ammunition. Sorry. Give it back.

Fast forward to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. I lived in one of the places where a couple hundred thousand New Orleans "evacuees" came to escape the devastation and create their own. Crime in some parts of the city was so bad that the FBI never holstered their guns when driving through, even though the mayor proclaimed no increase in crime. That was when my wife and I decided it might be a good time to get our concealed handgun licenses, along with one daughter and son-in-law (the other daughter doesn't believe in guns...where did I go wrong?) After getting some training, I also got interested in shooting as a leisure time activity. I wondered if I could be a better shot with an AR-15 than I think I was with its earlier iteration, the M-16 A1, so I bought one, which is a fairly straightforward process in our country, unlike many parts of the world...especially those parts of the world who always seem to call on America to fight their wars for them. I was also thinking about a small farm and becoming a gentleman farmer in my retirement, so the AR would be helpful in dealing with varmints. I bought a shotgun, as well, for the same plus home defense in the interim.

So now, our household has a couple of .45 caliber handguns, one of which is, of course, a Colt model 1911, an AR-15 rifle, and a 20-gauge shotgun. I don't think that makes me a gun nut, and from what I have read on this forum, maybe half here would agree, while the other half probably think even one gun makes a person a gun nut. So be it. Thank goodness, this is still America, and I can make these choices for myself. One thing I have come to believe strongly is that we are responsible for our own safety. With police response times of 20-30 minutes or longer even in the city, we need to be able to defend ourselves from attacks by one, two, or more criminals. With continued training and practice, I think my household is as ready as we can be.

We're also quite aware of how dangerous our self-defense, anti-varmint weapons are. With visiting 4 and 6 year old grandchildren, I know how quickly they can be into something, and that something cannot be a gun. When I read stories like the one leading this thread, I can only imagine how horrible it would be to lose one of those little girls, one of whom loves to dance or the other who is interested in sharks, or that little boy who loves to play Portal(r), to a gun accident. That's enough for me to make certain that there are no accessible guns in this house, except for the one in my IWB holster, which also gets locked in a GunVault(tm) overnight. I don't need a law to make me want to keep my guns safe. I'm not so sure about others, though. Some people are just oblivious to the dangers until it is too late. Those are the people that most personal safety laws are aimed at: seat belts, helmets, child safety seats, etc. Most of us would use them anyway; others need to be told.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
PCSO: Arizona boy, 14, dies driving girl, 13, boy, 9

The boy took his family's vehicle without permission Monday and was speeding down Shires Road northbound when he lost control of the vehicle and it rolled several times.

The owner of the car should be charged with a crime, for not having a KEY SAFE.
Do you also promote this idea?
Click to expand...

The Dude was so disturbed with the revelation that this family didn't have a key safe, that it made him groan. :)
 
bowserb said:
I don't disagree with required training. Background checks are already the law. I might require a statement on the Form 4473: Do you affirm that you have locked secure storage for this firearm? What I would not do is the "checkups to see how people are storing". In case of an accident, the police investigating would check for presence of a gun safe. If none, then a federal charge (lying on Form 4473) could be added to the reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, etc. We cannot have more police state invasions of privacy, that are so easily abused. We have enough out of control government agencies already (DHS, for example.)
Click to expand...

You're assuming all gun owners live in their own property. Suppose someone lives in a multi-story apartment complex. You're going to tell them they need a 900+lbs safe in their 3rd story unit to exercise their Constitutional right? You are, despite your claims otherwise, incredibly anti freedom.
 
NUDE ZOOK'EM! said:
You're assuming all gun owners live in their own property. Suppose someone lives in a multi-story apartment complex. You're going to tell them they need a 900+lbs safe in their 3rd story unit to exercise their Constitutional right? You are, despite your claims otherwise, incredibly anti freedom.
Click to expand...
No, they need a safe big enough to hold their gun(s). For $70 and 20lbs, you can get this:
http://www.amazon.com/SentrySafe-X0...F8&qid=1383164293&sr=8-7&keywords=pistol+safe
This will hold a couple of handguns easily. It can be bolted to a wall or shelf, but its main value is keeping out curious hands. A thief could take the whole thing. If I had it in an apartment, I'd bolt it to something not easily moved. No. It would not work for a rifle. If I couldn't have a safe for the rifle, I'd probably take it apart, or at least remove the bolt and put a cable lock through it.

And, no, I don't think I'm anti freedom. With rights come responsibilities. We have too many people in this country exercising rights and not acting responsibly. I think the first amendment is one where irresponsible rights exercising has hurt many people (thinking of the Gannett newspaper reporter who published a list of gun owners in her county.) If you're going to own something as dangerous as a gun, you are responsible for securing it.
 
bowserb said:
No, they need a safe big enough to hold their gun(s). For $70 and 20lbs, you can get this:
http://www.amazon.com/SentrySafe-X0...F8&qid=1383164293&sr=8-7&keywords=pistol+safe
This will hold a couple of handguns easily. It can be bolted to a wall or shelf, but its main value is keeping out curious hands. A thief could take the whole thing. If I had it in an apartment, I'd bolt it to something not easily moved. No. It would not work for a rifle. If I couldn't have a safe for the rifle, I'd probably take it apart, or at least remove the bolt and put a cable lock through it.
Click to expand...
All that needs to be said.

And, no, I don't think I'm anti freedom.
Click to expand...
No one thinks they're anti-freedom, but many many people are. Bad precedent, good intentioned or not, will not magically lead to good precedent in the future, and you openly advocate for bad precedent.
With rights come responsibilities. We have too many people in this country exercising rights and not acting responsibly.
Click to expand...
This is the mantra of all anti-freedom thinkers the world over. That that actions of the few should be the condemnation of all.
I think the first amendment is one where irresponsible rights exercising has hurt many people (thinking of the Gannett newspaper reporter who published a list of gun owners in her county.)
Click to expand...
And yet you do not propose limiting the 1A rights of other because of the irresponsibility of this individual. Yet that is, indirectly, exactly what you fight for. Rights that we as a people have won do not exist in individual vaccums where you can infringe upon one with impunity and expect that similar infringements will not occurs to others. They exist together as a whole and what you do to one will inevitably befall others. It is no coincidence that Diane Feinstein, one of the most fascist members of Congress our country has ever seen, not only supports 'gun control' but supports the idea of the government determining who is and is not a 'legitimate journalist'.
If you're going to own something as dangerous as a gun, you are responsible for securing it.
Click to expand...
And such precautions are individual in nature, or do you pretend that a singular model for a country of over 300,000,000 people can possibly exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top