As TTAG has reported, there have been three firearms accidents involving children in Washington state over the last three weeks. While one wonders how many automobile accidents have claimed young lives in the same time frame, gun control advocates’ reaction to the trio of tragedies was depressingly predictable. On Wednesday, the Seattle Times ran an article on the accidents: After third child is shot, some say state’s gun laws are too lax. Only not really. The piece was hardly gung-ho for gun control. Into the breach steps letter writer Bob Geary, who proclaims that “We need to stop killing children with their elder’s guns.” Mr. Geary follows his outrageous statement with a three-part plan to prevent firearms accidents involving children . . .
First, all guns must be registered so we know who owns them and where they should be. This should be a national database.
Second, gun owners must have liability insurance for their weapons, as we require of the owners of automobiles.
Third, the owner must prove that he/she possesses an effective trigger lock for each weapon.
In time, common sense will prevail among responsible gun owners, who are the vast majority, and the liability insurance industry will identify and deny insurance to the miscreants who are the cause of the problem.
The Second Amendment was not intended to institutionalize stupidity. Reasonable people can make reasonable accommodations to prevent future tragedies.
“Reasonable people” might beg to differ.
One could ask how many sports injuries there were involving children. Or how many swimming pool incidents. Or how many car accidents. Of how many falls down staircases. Or how many …
But the fanatics are never interested in exploring other ways kids can get hurt.
Obviously he owns no firearms, especially for defensive use, or he wouldn’t have suggested the infamous trigger lock.
“Sir, please hold off on murdering my family until I can unlock my gun.”
On the other hand, if you need to be able to access your weapon quickly, it should be carried – not under the front seat in your minivan parked outside.
That’s what pisses me off about these morons. What possible reason could you have for stashing your gun under the seat of your car when you get out to pump gas? Don’t you have a holster? Why not?
I can’t speak for Washington and gas stations but there are many places were you can’t pack a gun while otherwise legaly carrying, e.g. having to run into a bank or post office.
This is true, J but as a carry holder you should know your allies. You should only visit shops and restaurants where the gun is welcome. This looks like a case of the fool has a gun to show off but is afraid to bring it places he can. Long and short – he seems ignorant to his rights and has paid the price. You don’t get a weapon without knowing the rules and common sense practices that have to be followed.
If in all cases he was right for having removed the weapon because the station did not allow them; a gun lock is $10 away and often comes with a gun.
Yea, I got my girlfriend a Bersa .380 Thunder for Christmas and it has a trigger lock built into the gun – needless to say, she doesn’t use it.
Sam, Your sarcastic nonsense doesn’t really say anything. It’s easy to mock the other side, anybody can do that. It’s get’s old.
Extreme safe storage laws would indeed render your having guns in the home less effective in case of an emergency. But, if obeyed, they would put an end to these so-called accidents.
But isn’t there a middle road? How difficult would it be to somehow secure your gun from the kids and still have it accessible? I think could do it. A little common sense is all that should take.
So why are you reluctant to blame the gun owner when something like this happens?
“mikeb302000 says:
March 18, 2012 at 06:22
Sam, Your sarcastic nonsense doesn’t really say anything. It’s easy to mock the other side, anybody can do that. It’s get’s old.”
You would know
“Extreme safe storage laws would indeed render your having guns in the home less effective in case of an emergency. But, if obeyed, they would put an end to these so-called accidents.”
Some use of sense is what would end the accidents. Concealing and carrying your firearm for one.
“But isn’t there a middle road?”
Yes, read above.
“How difficult would it be to somehow secure your gun from the kids and still have it accessible?”
Not hard at all. It is called conceal and carry. The word conceal being literal and the word carry being literal. How many kids do you hear of disarming a chap and then getting shot?
“I think could do it. A little common sense is all that should take.”
Common sense is not so common. You prove this by simply not knowing that conceal and carriers who conceal and carry seldom, if ever, have their guns removed from their person. If you are someone who is taking off and putting your gun away to do such mundane things as getting some gas you are not conceal and carrying. You are fiddling with a gun.
“So why are you reluctant to blame the gun owner when something like this happens?”
Who is reluctant? This guy should be shot.
Good one, Buuur. I’d expect nothing less from you. “The guy should be shot.”
And I expect nothing less from you. You would give him a medal. He is a disadvantaged person who simply made a mistake afterall. Maybe when he climbs in your window to do a good thing you could get him some help?
So all guns must be registered and all owners must have insurance and a gun lock. Because as we all know, nobody has ever been injured or killed by a registered and insured gun with a lock on the floor of the closet.
For every problem there’s a solution that’s easy, simple and dumber than a box of hammers.
Wow, who knew one could advocate tyranny and stupidity with just three short rules?
And I immediately tune out anyone who uses “we” to lump me in with with someone like this. If you can’t be bothered to hold individuals responsible for their own actions or inactions, then you’re not worth listening to.
Well, it’s entirely clear to me that a national gun registry will help to save childrens’ lives.
Once we’re all in the database, Prez O can declare a special Day – let’s call it “Save the Children From Horrible Painful Death Day” – and he can then use his new powers under the previously-named Commerce Clause to arrange for all police in all states and cities and towns to go out and confiscate every gun owned by every legal gun owner everywhere.
Later that evening, once the guns are all in the crushers (at least the ones he’s not sending down to Caesar Chavez and the drug cartels as a little present), BHO will attend the celebration in Holder’s office, where he’ll be heard saying to general laughter “well, the damned rubes had better be happy clinging to their Bibles, ‘cuz their guns are MINE!”
Whereupon Holder will lean over and whisper something in BHO’s ear. BHO will start laughing uncontrollably, and finally, with tears of laughter in his eyes, he’ll nod to Holder and say “well, they can cling to them for four more days, I guess. You’re sending the Bible Registry out to all of the police chiefs tomorrow?”
A National Gun Registry…for the children!
“The Second Amendment was not intended to institutionalize stupidity.” Apparently it does in Bob Geary’s case.
The point above that scares me the most is the insurance requirement. On its face, to the uninvolved and uninitiated, having CCWers carry personal liability insurance may seem like a reasonable compromise. Some even might say it is a fair trade off, but I shiver to think of having to submit an inventory list from my gun safes. I’d be less worried about government confiscation than providing to an unscrupulous insurance agent (or a hackable database) what could become a “shopping list” for a bad guy to visit my house to fill.
The insurance idea is floating around out there. It was raised in the legislature here in MA a few months ago, sidelined, but it may resurface. Accordingly, it is probably a good idea to begin considering our best arguments against it.
Once you start requiring insurance to exercise a Constitutional right, it effectively strips that right from those who cannot afford the insurance.
“Insurance” is just another attempt to make owning firearms too expensive and bothersome for people to go through the hassle.
I think the average American is aware that slobs will continue to be dangerous with anything, even kitchen sponges. I think a voting majority understand that CCW is a necessity given the growth of gangs and drug-driven devil boys. I, for my part, think we should focus, on our pro-2Am sites, on those (non-cops, cops, people of all colors and hair styles) who let their loaded guns get into the hands of children, or who otherwise handle their firearms carelessly. (We’ve had both cops and others leave their guns out without bothering to remove the magazine and the chambered round…unbelievable.) Those who are careless with firearms are, for practical purposes, amongst our greatest political enemies. Yet, so far this week we’ve taken the side (in the posting) of the Sanford idiot and the Wilkes-Barre idiot. Oh, the horror.
First, all guns must be registered so we know who owns them and where they should be. This should be a national database.
Really, most guns are already registered and even on FTF transfers, the BATF can usually figure out whose gun it is with a few phone calls.
Stolen guns are another matter, but Registration would not cure that problem.
BGs getting guns from relatives or friends would not be solved by a Registry either.
“First, all guns must be registered so we know who owns them and where they should be. ”
Why?
The right to own and use guns is most often discussed, in polite society, as if the main reason for the existence of the right is to provide us with a means of self-defense against criminals.
But that’s not entirely true.
The Constitution was written by a bunch of guys who had just finished securing their freedom, through force of arms, from a government that had lost its legitimacy to govern this country.
It’s nice to have a means of fending off the bad guys, certainly, but it’s even more important that we stay armed against the day when another set of politicians decides that they’re tired of running a country whose citizens have all of these pesky “rights” that interfere with their proper sense of servility to Government.
And in the meantime, until that happens, I’d like each and every politician to sleep just a bit nervously in the knowledge that millions of guns are out here, tucked away against the day when they try a power grab too far.
So, why would I ever allow a government to keep close tabs on my guns?
“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” — Thomas Jefferson.
“First, all guns must be registered so we know who owns them and where they should be. This should be a national database.”
They really don’t give a shit about the other requirements, this is the only thing that matters to them.
“While one wonders how many automobile accidents have claimed young lives in the same time frame”
In 2006 in the state of Washington (the last year The Google had data for) 7 children aged 1-4 died in car accidents, 1 died do to something firearm related, 9 drown, and 3 suffocated.
This is one of the false arguments you guys love. Consider this. Cars and swimming pools and toys which can suffocate are already regulated. If guns were treated with as much common sense attention, those losses would be at a minimum too. But they’re not, thanks to you gun rights activists.
Cars, swimming pools and toys are regulated more than guns? What are you smoking, Mike?
Our cars have shown numerous safety hazards and kill many more than guns. Toyota anyone? I own one. Wish I didn’t but do. My gas pedal hasn’t killed us yet 😉
Swimming pools are regulated? Wow! That’s a new one. Have a read…
Drowning Statistics
• Each day in the United States, nine people drown.
• For each death caused by drowning, there are 1-4 nonfatal submersion accidents serious enough for the victim to be hospitalized.
• Drowning is the second leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14.
• Drowning is the leading cause of accidental injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4.
• Male children have a drowning rate more than two times that of female children. However, females having a bathtub drowning rate twice that of males.
• Among children ages 1 to 4 years, most drownings occur in residential swimming pools.
• Four-sided fencing that isolates the pool from the house and the yard has shown to decrease the number of drowning injuries anywhere from 50 to 90 percent.
• More than half of drownings among infants (under age 1) occur in bathtubs, buckets or toilets.
• Nonfatal drownings can result in brain damage that may result in long-term disabilities including memory problems, learning disabilities, and permanent loss of basic functioning.
• Nineteen percent of child drowning fatalities take place in public pools with certified lifeguards on duty.
• Roughly 5,000 children 14 and under go to the hospital because of accidental drowning-related incidents each year; 15% die and about 20% suffer from permanent neurological disability.
• Seventy-seven percent of those involved in a home-drowning accident had only been missing for five minutes or less when found in the swimming pool; 70% weren’t expected to be in or near the pool at that time.
• The most common place for a 1-4-year old child to drown is in a home swimming pool.
• In nearly 9 out of 10 child-drowning deaths, a parent or caregiver claimed to be watching the child.
Yeah, good one, Mike.
Toys!? Toys! Love this one. Have a read…
Statistics
In 2006, 22 toy-related deaths were reported by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission involving children under the age of 15. Riding toys were the No. 1 cause for toy-related deaths, with toy nails, pegs and rubber balls also causing fatalities. The majority of these deaths occurred because of motor vehicles or suffocation caused by the toys.
Additionally, there were an estimated 220,050 toy-related injuries in 2006. These injuries were treated in hospital emergency rooms and include children of all ages. However, 165,100 of these injuries happened to children under the age of 15. These injuries included lacerations, bruising and abrasions, with the head and face as the most affected areas. Riding toys were again the No. 1 cause.
Of the injuries and fatalities caused by riding toys, 75 percent of them are related to motor vehicles. Riding toy injuries and deaths can also be related to falls and drowning.
In 2002, choking was responsible for 54 percent of all toy-related fatalities. Balloons were responsible for 43 percent of those deaths, while the rest were caused by drowning, suffocation or traffic collisions.
Nearly 50 percent of all toy-related injuries occur to the head and face, with the mouth, eyes and ears being most affected.
Every year the cost of emergency room treatment for children under the age of 4 that have suffered toy-related injuries is more than $385 million.
Nearly 60 percent of toy-related injuries happen to male children.
Nice. Love those regs. And let’s not even go to the fact that China sells us poison everyday through fantastic vendors like Wal-Mart. My kid is getting to an age where she wants to paint. I certainly am not buying it from Wal-Mart because the Chinese kill a quarter million babies each year trying to pocket money from not adding an expensive ingredient to formula.Instead they add a ‘marker’ chemical to fool the quality tests, a poison. If they would do that to milk I can’t imagine what is in paint. And these are just from reports that the locked down media there get to release.
Nice argument though, Mike. Was fun.
Buuur, Thanks for all that info, but it doesn’t address my point. All those things have restrictions on them which have brought down the deaths and injuries already. Especially cars with licensing, registration and insurance requirements.
If guns were treated the same, which has not been possible because of the gun lobby financed by the NRA and gun manufacturers and you guys, the deaths and injuries would be cut way down too.
But you don’t what that. And why don’t you want that? Because you’d be inconvenienced. You’d have to jump through a couple more hoops, maybe. You wouldn’t be allowed to sell a gun to someone privately. You’d have to be responsible for your guns in a way that you don’t have to now.
Ah, the old guns and cars argument. Here’s how that plays out.
If guns were treated like cars:
1. You could get a simple license from the state for a nominal fee, and only have to take a test that any idiot could pass. You’d only have to renew it every 10 years.
2. You could kill and injure people with your gun while drunk, and still have your lawyer get your gun back because you need it for work.
3. You could carry in any state at any time – because possession of a gun is honored nationwide. It’s also considered a basic American civil right.
4. You would see commercials on TV pushing the newest, latest guns which you could lease for just $25 per month, (subject to the fine print).
5. You could finance a fancier gun than you can really afford by taking a five-year loan with approved credit.
6. You would have a gun safe built into every house. In the upscale houses, you would have three gun safes. Inexpensive houses and mobile homes would just have a gunrack by the door.
7. You’d have gun storage lockers at the shopping mall in which to store your rifle while shopping.
8. You could buy ammunition at the 7-11. Full-service station means they’ll reload your magazines for you.
9. If the price of ammunition rose 20%, the federal government would relaese war reserves of ammo to bring the price back down to the consumer’s comfort level.
10. Every 16-year-old would be looking forward to the day when he could take the family revolver to school.
11. Schools would have shooter’s education classes to make sure the kids could pass the test. They would show gory films of gunshot wounds. The squeamish would throw up.
12. Old people who can hardly see would still be permitted to shoot in public, because to disarm them would be to damage their self-esteem.
13. There would be such a thing as a “public weapon” for the masses.
14. You would have MADS: Mothers Against Drunk Shooters. MADS would conduct a campaign of public education – instead of trying to use the force of government – to prohibit irresponsible drinking
and shooting.
15. You’d have businesses like “Jiffy Gun-Clean” to make life more convenient.
16. You’d have huge eyesores where piles of guns are left to rust in the open at “Gun Junk Yards.”
17. The Japanese would be trying, and succeeding at taking over the market for efficient, reliable high-quality guns. The Koreans would be trying to sneak in at the low end of the market. The Germans would be selling premium brands based on better workmanship.
18. Ted Kennedy would have shot Mary Jo Kopekne instead.
Copyright 2000 Rob Miller
MEGA slow-clap
“Buuur, Thanks for all that info, but it doesn’t address my point. All those things have restrictions on them which have brought down the deaths and injuries already. Especially cars with licensing, registration and insurance requirements.”
Yet still the number one killer of children is cars – despite all those safety features, laws and restrictions. The second is drowning – despite all the effort we put forth to make our pools safe. Burning to death in at number three. Suffocation at number four (bags for toys anyone?). Walking down the street is number five. Hernia comes in at number twenty, Mike. Guns come in at number fifteen and don’t even make a dent in the rate – 14 – that’s it 14 deaths in 2002 or .46%. You tell me how many kids chocked on plastic (it’s 40 or 1%). Tell me how many drowned (it’s 160 or 5%). How many had unintentional parental injury (it’s 1176 or 38%). Car accidents? (621 or 21%). You know. You seem to think that guns are the bad guys here for children. But studies and numbers show it is just the parents.
“If guns were treated the same, which has not been possible because of the gun lobby financed by the NRA and gun manufacturers and you guys, the deaths and injuries would be cut way down too.”
To what? Less then not even half a percent? Really? Do you think more laws would have stopped those 14 deaths country-wide back in 2002? The answer is no. Some jaded kid breaking the law can break that number in one school shooting.
“But you don’t what that. And why don’t you want that? Because you’d be inconvenienced. You’d have to jump through a couple more hoops, maybe. You wouldn’t be allowed to sell a gun to someone privately. You’d have to be responsible for your guns in a way that you don’t have to now.”
No, I don’t believe in millions more dollars being spent that will do nothing. We have it in Canada and let me tell you we had a lot more shootings than 14 in 2002. The idea is ridiculous and serves only to advance a notch in the gun lobbies belt so you fools can feel justified in idiotic ranting. In short I think your movement is a pointless waste of time and money. I think my taxes are better spent on things that can change or help the U.S.
Compared to every other method of biting it you mentioned those losses already ARE about as low as they can conceivably get. Unless this is one of the posts where you hate your own numbers again.
Why are gunfreaks families always getting attacked by crazies?
Are you people stupid? Learn not to get in a situation where u need a gun. Move out of the hood Crackerboy’s.
Move out of the hood? Considering criminals will go where they feel they can score the best….. Which leaves everywhere wide open. Idiot. You talk as though crime will stay only in one area or select areas. You act as though when tyranny rears its ugly head that it will only be in select areas. Lay off the drugs….wait they only stay in the hood too. Idiot
Comments are closed.