Two-year-old boy shoots himself dead with father's gun

Sparks

steddyeddy wrote: »

What?

The NAS said that none of the published studies in the US had data or data processing that could be trusted.

Buona Fortuna

Oh dear another US gun tragedy.

I'm reminded of the Walmart one weeks ago as well.

I haven't used a firearm for a good few years but I was always taught that the thing was to be "made safe" when not in use or being transported. That's to say that the weapon isn't cocked and that there is no round in the breech and the safety is on.

The gun control argument in the States is irrelevant in a way because there are so many legal and illegal guns in circulation. I do wonder why there isn't better education about the use of guns.

Un Croissant

walshyn93 wrote: »

Where's the study that says that I walshyn93 am more likely to have my gun taken off me. Or that a physically fit 30 something male is more likely to have his gun taken off him. Just because other people hesitate or otherwise f-up doesn't mean I'm not capable of self-defence. Without being too cocky about it I have a gun and the burglar doesn't I fancy my chances.

Pew pew!!

catallus

Pew-pew-pew!!!

Sociopath2

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Oh dear another US gun tragedy.

I'm reminded of the Walmart one weeks ago as well.

I haven't used a firearm for a good few years but I was always taught that the thing was to be "made safe" when not in use or being transported. That's to say that the weapon isn't cocked and that there is no round in the breech and the safety is on.

The gun control argument in the States is irrelevant in a way because there are so many legal and illegal guns in circulation. I do wonder why there isn't better education about the use of guns.

Excellent post, a gun culture deeply entrenched in a nations history and constitution won't ever disappear.

It's so closely bound in people's minds to the founding principles of the United States that people who approve of it will defend it as a basic liberty.

It's easy for us to mock it as we live in almost the polar opposite environment; firearms are a very tightly restricted privilege here.

It would be feasible to take all the legally held firearms in this country out of circulation relatively fast. It was done for certain classes of firearms during the Troubles and the Gardai are considering doing it again if I understand the recent proposals correctly.

But in a country like the US? I don't think it could ever be done on a scale that would make an appreciable difference.

Education about firearms and tackling other issues around them would go further than restriction or prohibition.

Sparks

Sociopath2 wrote: »

It would be feasible to take all the legally held firearms in this country out of circulation relatively fast. It was done for certain classes of firearms during the Troubles and the Gardai are considering doing it again if I understand the recent proposals correctly.

1) You're referring to a Temporary Custody Order. Only one's ever been called for, in 1972, and they only last for 30 days.

2) In 1972, one was called for and during the 30 days, everyone's firearms certs expired. The Gardai then refused to accept applications for any firearms other than airguns, .22lr rifles and shotguns (this was both a Garda and Ministerial policy, not a law). The Supreme Court found in 2004 and again in 2010 that this policy was unlawful (it was, in effect, the Minister overruling the Oireachtas). This is why pistols are being licenced again here (though there are now 30% fewer pistols per capita than before the policy).

3) You could still call for a TCO today. You could also ban certain classes of firearm. That's not what the Gardai are proposing and what they are proposing is not only daft, but will make a hames of the law (not that it's great right now). We only just got out of the Oireachtas Joint Committee presentations on this yesterday. But if the Minister thought it was a real problem, she could ban these things tonight with the stroke of a pen. The thing is, the Gardai say it is a problem and over six hundred and fifty court cases in the District, High and Supreme Courts have seen Judges say it isn't and the Gardai are wrong.

And 4) None of this would prevent people being unfit parents, which is the real problem here.

robindch

Sparks wrote: »

robindch wrote:

And obviously, if you don't have a gun in the home, then your child can't ever die from self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

Yeah, having good parents and gunsafes works just as well.

Not sure how they make safes where you live, but where I come from, safes can be opened. That's the point of the door, isn't it?

And having just checked, I see that Adam Lanza, the gun enthusiast who perpetrated the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, had a gun safe, which suggests that your comment that "good parents and gunsafes works just as well" is a little short of being fully accurate.

In any case, I'd also have thought that "good parents" would do everything possible to keep their kids away from guns - not having them at all would be a great start, though you clearly disagree!

Los Lobos

Stories like this are heartbreaking, America sure have a mad way of thinking. A loaded gun in the glovebox, seriously. I know its conditioning, but on this side of the planet, its mind boggling.

Rip little dude.

Sparks

robindch wrote: »

Not sure how they make safes where you live, but where I come from, safes can be opened. That's the point of the door, isn't it?

Where I come from, they have locks. That's the point of the key.

And having just checked, I see that Adam Lanza, the gun enthusiast who perpetrated the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School,

Robin, shove it. Lanza was not a gun enthusiast, he was a clinically diagnosed mentally ill teenager who murdered his own mother to steal her rifle when the law prevented him buying one of his own. But hey, you're the one who dislikes facts that disagree with your position as we've pointed out before when you thought peer-reviewed journals were worthless.

In any case, I'd also have thought that "good parents" would do everything possible to keep their kids away from guns - not having them at all would be a great start, though you clearly disagree!

Not having them is one method. Having them in a locked safe is another.

Both methods are a long long long way from the criminal negligence that is leaving a toddler alone in a car with a loaded firearm that has a round in the chamber. And if you weren't so intent on trying to get a dig in at me personally, you'd see that.

Manic Moran

steddyeddy wrote: »

What idiot with a kid buys a gun without manual safety.

Me, though I object to the 'idiot' bit.

Manual safeties do nothing useful, they are a sop to poor gun handling. If you can't rely on your kid not fiddling with the gun, you can't rely on the kid not fiddling with all the fiddly bits on the gun, to include the manual safety which can be fiddled off quite easily.

For the record, my stored-loaded-and-chambered, manual-safety-free SIG is in a fingerprint lockbox.

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Could they legislate more harshly for people who don't keep the gun at least moderately secure? Say 10 years in prison if your child manages to shoot themselves? Or is that taking too much freedom?

No reason they can't be. The penalty for this is up to three years right now in California if the kid does something illegal with it. Though if the kid kills himself, it's not likely to be fully applied as the parents will be deemed to have already been rather significantly punished by the loss of their child.

kylith wrote: »

I'm wondering what the statistics are for people who have been killed by intruders when the intruder has found their gun or disarmed them. A weapon you don't know how to use/ are not fully prepared to use belongs to your opponent.

This is absolutely true. This is, however, a matter for the individual firearm owner to honestly decide for himself, and not legislate the decision away from on the basis that some people will decide wrongly, as if often proposed. I always qualify "Expert" (Top bracket) in my annual pistol qualification with the Army, and I have shot at people before. Why should my demonstrated ability to use a firearm be removed because some people, in the moment of truth, choke? And besides, those who do aren't necessarily any worse off: There's no reason to presume that the opponent didn't bring along a weapon of his own anyway.

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

If there was more relaxed gun laws then someone nearby might have had a gun and been able to shoot the gun out of the child's hand with their own gun.

Facetious arguments like this contribute nothing to the discussion.

I want to know who got killed because their gun was unloaded and would have survived if it was lying around loaded.

I don't believe any such figures exist, or if they are, they're hard to find. Either way, the issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court: One cannot mandate in the US that a home defense weapon be stored unloaded. The practical reason for this should be obvious: You are going to wake up groggy and scared. Futzing around with ammunition is not the first thing you want to be doing while you assess just what your situation is and bring yourself up to par, if you actually have that much time.

As far as I recall the stats, you're about five times as likely to end up dead in an altercation with a buglar if you have a gun in the home. And obviously, if you don't have a gun in the home, then your child can't ever die from self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

Not quite. There's something like a 'more likely to kill you than a burglar if you have a gun in your home' figure, but the stats for 'if you actually try to defend yourself with a gun' are in the favour of the firearm user. After Newton, Obama directed the CDC to look into just where the focus should be, see http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf, page 16. " Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"

MarkAnthony

walshyn93 wrote: »

Where's the study that says that I walshyn93 am more likely to have my gun taken off me. Or that a physically fit 30 something male is more likely to have his gun taken off him. Just because other people hesitate or otherwise f-up doesn't mean I'm not capable of self-defence. Without being too cocky about it I have a gun and the burglar doesn't I fancy my chances.

My limited understanding of studies is they usually use a sample more than 1.

As for self defence, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The US has a lower murder rate than Ireland. This would seem to indicate that the US is safer. Some would argue that this is due an armed society being a polite society. It's not an argument I buy in all honesty.

Just like the fallacy that society would be safer if everyone was armed walking around; I'm yet to be convinced that, generally, people are safer blundering around in the dark with a weapon they have most likely never fired before.

Given the rareness of armed (fatal or otherwise) home invasions in Ireland I assume given the safer nature of the US it's actually extremely rare there too. All in all having a 'gun under the pillow' seems to be the statistical equivalent of turning up to a commercial airline flight wearing a parachute.

Besides, it's much more fun dealing with burglars with a blunt object. If they are armed I don't fancy it turning out well for the homeowner even if the homeowner is armed themselves. In fact it's much more likely that the burglar would panic, shoot you and you've lost your life over a flat screen and a PS4. Seems a bit of a waste to me.

That's not to say that guns aren't awesome fun but so are dildos and I just don't think children should have access to either or that they should be carried around in public.

Micky Dolenz

MarkAnthony wrote: »

My limited understanding of studies is they usually use a sample more than 1.

As for self defence, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The US has a lower murder rate than Ireland. This would seem to indicate that the US is safer. Some would argue that this is due an armed society being a polite society. It's not an argument I buy in all honesty.

Just like the fallacy that society would be safer if everyone was armed walking around; I'm yet to be convinced that, generally, people are safer blundering around in the dark with a weapon they have most likely never fired before.

Given the rareness of armed (fatal or otherwise) home invasions in Ireland I assume given the safer nature of the US it's actually extremely rare there too. All in all having a 'gun under the pillow' seems to be the statistical equivalent of turning up to a commercial airline flight wearing a parachute.

Besides, it's much more fun dealing with burglars with a blunt object. If they are armed I don't fancy it turning out well for the homeowner even if the homeowner is armed themselves. In fact it's much more likely that the burglar would panic, shoot you and you've lost your life over a flat screen and a PS4. Seems a bit of a waste to me.

That's not to say that guns aren't awesome fun but so are dildos and I just don't think children should have access to either or that they should be carried around in public.

That's not true. The bolded part.

walshyn93

MarkAnthony wrote: »

My limited understanding of studies is they usually use a sample more than 1.

As for self defence, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The US has a lower murder rate than Ireland. This would seem to indicate that the US is safer. Some would argue that this is due an armed society being a polite society. It's not an argument I buy in all honesty.

Just like the fallacy that society would be safer if everyone was armed walking around; I'm yet to be convinced that, generally, people are safer blundering around in the dark with a weapon they have most likely never fired before.

Given the rareness of armed (fatal or otherwise) home invasions in Ireland I assume given the safer nature of the US it's actually extremely rare there too. All in all having a 'gun under the pillow' seems to be the statistical equivalent of turning up to a commercial airline flight wearing a parachute.

Besides, it's much more fun dealing with burglars with a blunt object. If they are armed I don't fancy it turning out well for the homeowner even if the homeowner is armed themselves. In fact it's much more likely that the burglar would panic, shoot you and you've lost your life over a flat screen and a PS4. Seems a bit of a waste to me.

That's not to say that guns aren't awesome fun but so are dildos and I just don't think children should have access to either or that they should be carried around in public.

My point was that that statistic isn't something you should base your decision on whether to own a gun or not. You can do your own risk assessment based on the factors that apply to you.

How did you go from blunt objects are better to they're gonna shoot you anyway so pretend you're asleep?

Manic Moran

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Given the rareness of armed (fatal or otherwise) home invasions in Ireland I assume given the safer nature of the US it's actually extremely rare there too.

Sortof. The home invasion (Burglary rates) in the US and the UK are approximately the same, but the 'hot' burglary rates (i.e. the homeowner is still around for the incident) is just over half that of the UK in the US. (If memory serves, about 54% in the UK, 28% in the US). It can be surmised that burglars who are afraid of getting shot by a homeowner take greater pains to make sure that the home is actually empty before breaking in. This thus reduces the chances that either burgler or homeowner are at personal risk and, perversely, may well make everyone safer.

Skylinehead

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That's not true. The bolded part.

Not even close to being true, theirs is 4 times ours.

Micky Dolenz

There has to be a middle ground somewhere. I'd have no problem with the likes of Sparks or MM having as many guns as they want, because they clearly have a healthy respect for them and have an actual use for them.

It's how anyone can get a gun in certain parts of the US which is a bit of a worry or how a civilian can obtain an assault rifle or machine gun, licensed or not.

MarkAnthony

walshyn93 wrote: »

My point was that that statistic isn't something you should base your decision on whether to own a gun or not. You can do your own risk assessment based on the factors that apply to you.

The problem with that assessment takes us back to the moron/gun ownership correlation.

How did you go from blunt objects are better to they're gonna shoot you anyway so pretend you're asleep?[/QUOTE]

I didn't.

MarkAnthony

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That's not true. The bolded part.

Quite right, thank you for the correction. 1.2 v 4.7.

walshyn93

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The problem with that assessment takes us back to the moron/gun ownership correlation.

How did you go from blunt objects are better to they're gonna shoot you anyway so pretend you're asleep?

I didn't.[/QUOTE]

You don't think a homeowner with a gun is likely to successfully defend himself. You are wrong.

MarkAnthony

walshyn93 wrote: »

You don't think a homeowner with a gun is likely to successfully defend himself. You are wrong.

A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed, if they are (which they're more likely to be if they think the homeowner is armed) is just as likely, if not more likely to kill you than you are to kill them. They have the element of surprise and likely a few mates.

Probably best just to plant a minefield in the lawn.

Buona Fortuna

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed, if they are (which they're more likely to be if they think the homeowner is armed) is just as likely, if not more likely to kill you than you are to kill them. They have the element of surprise and likely a few mates.

Probably best just to plant a minefield in the lawn.

They'd just stick to the path.:D

robindch

Sparks wrote: »

Where I come from, they have locks. That's the point of the key.

Not sure how your keys work, but the keys I'm familiar with can get lost or stolen or the safes can get broken into in other ways.

Sparks wrote: »

Robin, shove it. Lanza was not a gun enthusiast [...]

The NYPost suggests otherwise - that he was a "regular" visitor to shooting ranges where he "blasted away targets using his mom’s small arsenal of guns" - something I'd have said was one of the main indications of a gun enthusiast.

Sparks wrote: »

Not having them is one method. Having them in a locked safe is another.

And if they could never be taken out and used to shoot people, then I'd be right up there supporting the storage of guns in "gunsafes".

MarkAnthony

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

They'd just stick to the path.:D

TBH any burglars in my gaffe will be dealt with by the dildo.

Buona Fortuna

MarkAnthony wrote: »

TBH any burglars in my gaffe will be dealt with by the dildo.

Pretty sure you'd do time for that.:)

MarkAnthony

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Pretty sure you'd do time for that.:)

2.— (1) Notwithstanding the generality of any other enactment or rule of law and subject to subsections (2) and (3), it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—

I know, I know might be difficult to convince a jury

Bruthal

dodderangler wrote: »

Possibly most retarded question ever
Well done sir

Or more possibly, the worst case of incorrect reading of the post:pac:

BorneTobyWilde

The main argument for being allowed to own and carry guns is not for protection from others ,but rather protection from the Government . Protection against tyranny .
But I doubt the men and women on the street buy guns for this reason. The guns law of the 1700's really have no place in 2014 .

Absoluvely

dodderangler wrote: »

When are they gonna fcukin learn. Guns are to be stored in a locked gun safe and nowhere else. Simple as. I got my licence on the grounds that my firearm is stored safely in a gun safe and safe is to be bolted to the floored.
Americans they really are brain dead.
Poor kid

Well there's an awfully racist comment.

MarkAnthony

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

The main argument for being allowed to own and carry guns is not for protection from others ,but rather protection from the Government . Protection against tyranny .
But I doubt the men and women on the street buy guns for this reason. The guns law of the 1700's really have no place in 2014 .

It does actually if you're talking about the second amendment but the current interpretation of the second amendment requires some of the words to be removed.

walshyn93

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed, if they are (which they're more likely to be if they think the homeowner is armed) is just as likely, if not more likely to kill you than you are to kill them. They have the element of surprise and likely a few mates.

Probably best just to plant a minefield in the lawn.

A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed? Calm down Mayweather. Who do you think you are?

MarkAnthony

walshyn93 wrote: »

A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed? Calm down Mayweather. Who do you think you are?

Sorry my mistake thought you were trying to have a serious conversation. Ha, ha calm down calm down, to me to you!

walshyn93

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry my mistake thought you were trying to have a serious conversation. Ha, ha calm down calm down, to me to you!

Anti-gunners tend to think that fighting off burglars is somehow easy and that people who want guns to shift the balance in their favour are cowards or weak.

MarkAnthony

walshyn93 wrote: »

Anti-gunners tend to think that fighting off burglars is somehow easy and that people who want guns to shift the balance in their favour are cowards or weak.

Wha?

Although I do tend to think people who spend an inordinate amount of time thinking they're going to get broken into and interfered with tend to be nervous nellies.

walshyn93

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Wha?

Although I do tend to think people who spend an inordinate amount of time thinking they're going to get broken into and interfered with tend to be nervous nellies.

Inordinate amount of time? Do you have house insurance?

MarkAnthony

walshyn93 wrote: »

Inordinate amount of time? Do you have house insurance?

No I've a gun.

K4t

steddyeddy wrote: »

The intruder is more likely to have a gun because of the nuts demanding the rights to have guns.

Of course, but that doesn't mean homeowners should feel obliged to lead by example and relinquish their right to own firearms.

AlanS181824

Awful, Jesus Christ America!

2011

steddyeddy wrote: »

What idiot with a kid buys a gun without manual safety.

A safety catch is not designed to make a firearm "child proof". Many firearms do not have a safety for example revolvers. Children and guns do not mix period. Even in a controlled environment such as a shooting range safety catches should never be relied upon.

As a responsible target shooter and parent I always unload, dismantle and split the gun up between two secure gun safes. If I felt the need to have a loaded gun "for protection" I would move somewhere safer in a heartbeat.

There really should be some mandatory punishment if your child ever manages to touch a gun. I actually don't believe this couple should just be left to wallow in their guilt.. They should be put in prison, not for rehabilitation, just fairness.

seamus

walshyn93 wrote: »

A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed? Calm down Mayweather. Who do you think you are?

A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.

Homeowners having guns, makes you more likely to die in a violent burglary.

Irish burglars don't carry guns, and generally don't carry any kind of weapons. In fact burglaries where the burglar and the homeowner come into physical contact are so rare that they usually make the national news. Why? Because when a burglar breaks in, he has no expectation that someone's going to put a bullet in him. He just wants to take your TV iPad and run.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

A homeowner doesn't need a gun if the burglar isn't armed, if they are (which they're more likely to be if they think the homeowner is armed) is just as likely, if not more likely to kill you than you are to kill them. They have the element of surprise and likely a few mates.

They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.

TeaBagMania

seamus wrote: »

A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.

Homeowners having guns, makes you more likely to die in a violent burglary.

What a load of bollocks, you have no idea what’s going thru a burglars mind. They might be there to steal your TV, rape, kiddie fiddler, put a gun to your head and drive you to the ATM and empty some of your bank account, the list goes on and on.

You know why home invasions are so low in Texas, because the criminals know almost everyone has a gun and the laws are on the side of the home owner.

The smart burglars would pick somewhere in California as the gun laws are very strict and your chances of meeting an armed home owner drop considerably.

seamus wrote: »

They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.

And I have the element of knowing the layout of my home as well as every noise the house makes and creak of the wooden floors; they also don’t know where I am in the house, basement, first floor, second floor?

By the time they make their rounds im awake and ready for them

walshyn93

seamus wrote: »

A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.

Homeowners having guns, makes you more likely to die in a violent burglary.

Irish burglars don't carry guns, and generally don't carry any kind of weapons. In fact burglaries where the burglar and the homeowner come into physical contact are so rare that they usually make the national news. Why? Because when a burglar breaks in, he has no expectation that someone's going to put a bullet in him. He just wants to take your TV iPad and run.

They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.

Yeah because burglars never rape. Families never get tied up in their home. Christ. They don't even want your tv anymore. Those are worth f-all on the black market these days. They often confront you with a weapon and demand cash, take your atm, tie you up or knock you out and come back and rape or kill you or your family if the PIN you gave them is wrong. When they're inspecting the bedrooms to find daddy daddy can be cocking his pistol for the scumbag.

Where there are a lot of guns, burglars don't "come prepared" they choose a different profession hen the risk reward profile shifts dramatically. The reason they commit burglary is generally to avoid confrontation like in armed robbery, but that doesn't mean you should consider them a benign annoyance and wait for them to politely leave with your tv. Your home is your castle. If people can walk through it against your will with impunity then it's no home at all.

firefly08

2011 wrote: »

...

. If I felt the need to have a loaded gun "for protection" I would move somewhere safer in a heartbeat.

That's a luxury that many people in America don't have. "Safer" almost invariably means "more upmarket" and is just not an option in many cases.

Deleted User wrote: »

There really should be some mandatory punishment if your child ever manages to touch a gun. I actually don't believe this couple should just be left to wallow in their guilt.. They should be put in prison, not for rehabilitation, just fairness.

Problem is, they likely won't be charged at all. I'm not familiar with this particular case but it's fairly common in these situations. Prosecutors have total discretion. They see their job being basically to hand down maximum jail time for the taxpayer's dollar, and they typically don't bother with cases if it would be hard to secure a conviction. The prevailing attitude tends to be "they've suffered enough, let it go".

seamus wrote: »

A burglar just wants your fncking TV. He has no interest in getting in any kind of altercation with you and would prefer that you just weren't aware he was there.

And it's only a TV. Do you think it's OK to shoot someone dead for stealing a TV? Cos I don't.

The problem is that if you arm all the homeowners, then burglars know they need to come prepared, and rather than try and sneak around without waking you up, they're more likely to just walk into your bedroom and loose some shells into your head, or beat you up and tie you up to ensure that they don't get shot.



They not only have the element of surprise, they have the element of preparedness. They're ready and focussed to use the weapon. A homeowner who has just been disturbed from a peaceful slumber, is not.

They frequently don't have the element of surprise. It's not unusual for them to just kick in the door or window. Unarmed occupants in those situations have little choice but to sit and wait for whatever's coming to them. Armed invasions of occupied homes and businesses are pretty frequent where I live, and a good proportion of them end with the invaders being shot.

NachoBusiness

Latest installment..

A three-year-old has shot his father and pregnant mother inside a motel room in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The boy was able to remove a loaded handgun from his mother’s purse, before shooting his father in the lower backside on Saturday.

The bullet then exited the man’s body and struck the pregnant woman in the shoulder, according to local police.

Both parents were treated at a nearby hospital. The father has since been released, but the mother, who is eight months pregnant, was hospitalised.

She is believed to be in a stable condition, however the condition of her unborn baby is unknown.

Liam Neeson has yet to comment.

mikeym

In many American homes the guns arent locked away in a secure place.

Why was there ammunition in the gun in the first place?

Hope the father is proud of himself.

diomed

^
I defend the right of the two-year-old to keep and bear Arms.

K4t

steddyeddy wrote: »

The intruder is more likely to have a gun because of the nuts demanding the rights to have guns.

I agree with you on this. The question then becomes about whether the private individual's right to hold a firearm is more important than the public need for safety from firearms, which would probably mean revoking the right for any private citizen to hold a gun. It's a tricky process and there is gun control. Obama is more focused on healthcare insurance for all for which is more commendable and achievable imo.

BattleCorp

Bad parenting, pure n simple, leaving a gun where a child could access it.

Egginacup

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yeah exactly. Hence, gun rights.

300 million guns. Even if you got 99% of them that still leaves 3 million guns in the hands of people who chose to act outside the law. What does that mean for the rest of the population?

So then why not legislate to allow the average Joe arsehole have a flame thrower or hand grenades if there is such a need for weaponry?
Why, if there is such a threat out there, can't someone have explosives and rig them up all around the perimeter of their damn house?
Surely if you had bombs connected to trip wires all over the place you wouldn't even need a gun since this mythical bogeyman intruder would be blown to atoms before even getting to your bedroom window.
No?

Egginacup

K4t wrote: »

I agree with you on this. The question then becomes about whether the private individual's right to hold a firearm is more important than the public need for safety from firearms, which would probably mean revoking the right for any private citizen to hold a gun. It's a tricky process and there is gun control. Obama is more focused on healthcare insurance for all for which is more commendable and achievable imo.

A very simple question ....call it a comparison if you like, would be:

How many people have preserved their own lives thanks to the ownership of a firearm as opposed to those who have died as a result of the unintended defensive purpose of a firearm?

Put more simply or bluntly, do the pros outweigh the cons? Because if not then something ought to be revisited and redressed.