Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Today's gun sadness features a 3 year-old boy killed playing with a small pink handgun he mistook for a toy   (rawstory.com) divider line 102
    More: Sad, South Carolina, handguns  
•       •       •

14317 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Feb 2013 at 3:41 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-05 02:32:54 PM  
9 votes:
If you have guns, if you own guns mostly we would prefer you have them in a lock box," Greenville Police Media Relations Officer Jonathan Bragg told WYFF. "At least have them out of the reach of children.

"we would PREFER?"

the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.
2013-02-05 02:31:07 PM  
9 votes:

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?
2013-02-05 02:34:41 PM  
5 votes:
Regardless, even my gun nut father agrees that people should be made to go through safety classes and firearms training before being allowed to own a firearm.

Human negligence and ignorance will generally outweigh human malice.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 02:31:32 PM  
5 votes:
In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter.
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry.


Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me.
2013-02-05 02:51:21 PM  
4 votes:

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.

i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.

Wouldn't any parent want to keep their kids safe? I'm finding this story to be particularly upsetting for some reason. I almost feel like the parents set the kids up to kill themselves.
You already know I'm a total gun nut, totally a Second Amendment goofball.
But I'm also a parent. I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.


The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.
2013-02-05 02:37:15 PM  
4 votes:

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


When were toasters designed to kill?
2013-02-05 04:07:51 PM  
3 votes:

HotWingConspiracy:  

This assumes the only consideration is body count. It's not.


If the very low incidence of self inflicted fatalities due to kids playing with guns is remotely a reason to ban or further control their use then there is a whole catalog of objects and activities that should be headed for the chopping block first.
2013-02-05 04:00:42 PM  
3 votes:

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.


Actually, the number of kids under 12* who were killed in gun accidents in 2010 (last year of records for CDC) was 41.

Yes, it was only 41.

I chose 12 as the cut-off because that's a common age a youngster might get a hunting license, and I wanted to exclude hunting accidents, but even if I ran the number all the way up to 17 (18 being adults), the number is still only 98.

Yep.  Less than 100 per year.

For comparison, roughly the same number die in bicycle accidents (94).

Source:   CDC  WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999-2010
2013-02-05 03:55:24 PM  
3 votes:

Dixon Cider: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

When were toasters designed to kill?


www.bbc.co.uk
2013-02-05 03:54:30 PM  
3 votes:

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives. Or wait no... child then finds a fork and stick it in a toaster, because... reasons.
2013-02-05 03:45:33 PM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.


For someone who spends all day talking about politics and public policy, you have zero idea about how either of them work.
2013-02-05 03:14:21 PM  
3 votes:
So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?  Or is this just pertaining to guns?

Maybe we should take the internet away from everyone since a small minority of people use it to exploit children.  If ONE CHILD IS SAVED!
2013-02-05 02:58:15 PM  
3 votes:

Dixon Cider: When were toasters designed to kill?


Oh goody, this hackneyed argument again that completely misses the point -- in this case, that the parent was negligent. LOCK UP YOUR DANGEROUS CRAP, ASSBAG. That's the point. But go ahead and tremble at guns, because they're certainly the cause of F*CKING NEGLIGENCE.

vartian: A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.


And hey, how about quoting the oft-debunked Kellerman study too? That'll help!

unyon: No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.


You're right. I think we should assign primacy to causes of preventable child death and ban the offending products/acts in order of danger. Swimming pools, cigarettes, and improperly installed car seats, I'm looking at you!
2013-02-05 02:48:03 PM  
3 votes:

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


A toaster actually does something useful. A gun simply endagers your entire family.
2013-02-05 02:43:41 PM  
3 votes:

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


This is stupid parenting. It is a gun issue, but this could happen with anything else in your house that looks attractive to a kid.  If you put Drano in a pink sippy cup and leave it out, you're probably going to end up with a similar result.  If you have kids in the house, you keep guns under lock and key out of reach of little hands.  And for the life if me, I don't know why anyone would own a pink gun if they have kids.
2013-02-05 02:38:40 PM  
3 votes:

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

But by all means, keep shooting each other.  You're doing more damage to yourselves than your enemies could ever hope to.
zeg
2013-02-05 11:28:38 PM  
2 votes:
Sorry, guys. Everyone thinks they're more responsible than the typical gun owner. It's partly a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect, but mostly due to a sort of negative confirmation bias. Most gun owners have not had a serious accident, but they read stories like this one and conclude that they are special---something they are doing or some characteristic they have makes them more qualified to possess a gun than the person in the story.

That is not true.

Ok, in extremely rare cases, it's true---there are hopelessly irresponsible people out there, and there certainly are some people who are extraordinarily responsible and attentive. But in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's just pure unfettered luck. You are almost certainly not special, just lucky enough that you haven't yet made a mistake in circumstances where it leads to serious injury or death. Most of the people who get shot aren't especially irresponsible, they just made a mistake at the wrong time. (And, incidentally, claims that you've never and will never accidentally leave a gun unsecured, not even for a moment, are utterly implausible.)

Statistically speaking, a gun in the house increases your risk of injury or death. This is not speculation, there is solid scientific evidence of this (http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502) and, tellingly, essentially no evidence that having a gun in the home provides any meaningful protection on average. You think that your gun is going to help you fend off a violent intruder, and it's a very compelling image reinforced by movies and television. But it's a delusion. Occasionally a gun might prevent a crime, but those anecdotes are not evidence that guns are a good idea. You have to look at the numbers, and statistically, you or a loved one is far more likely to be hurt (accidentally or intentionally) by that gun than saved by it.

So, sorry, you are not special. The statistics apply to you, too.
2013-02-05 05:25:07 PM  
2 votes:

mrexcess: OrangeSnapper
In 2010 there were 232 justifiable homicides by firearm in America, according to the FBI

The problem with this statistic is that it doesn't tally all the instances where someone used a gun to defend themselves without causing a justifiable homicide, either because the gun was never fired, or only warning shots were fired, or only wounded the criminal.


And it also doesn't include all the times guns were used and the gun was never fired or it only wounded the victim. Because we're making valid comparisons.

Next.
2013-02-05 05:14:30 PM  
2 votes:

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.


Ironically, more children are born from pools of accidental discharge.
2013-02-05 04:11:06 PM  
2 votes:

Zasteva: How many of those were EASILY preventable by having the gun where the child couldn't get to it (on owner's person, or in a gun safe)?


Probably a small fraction of those.

Why?

Because some significant number of those accidents have to be from the adult farking up.  So, maybe half.

In a nation with as many guns and gun owners as we have,  that's a remarkably small number.
2013-02-05 04:09:24 PM  
2 votes:

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


I just want to point out why this type of argument is a bad argument.

While it's true that more people are killed by things other than guns, the fact remains that the primary purpose of a car is to safely transport people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a toaster is to safely toast bread. The primary purpose of electricity in the home is to provide power to operate appliances which have passed safety inspections and certifications to minimize the risk of injury or death.

The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

So aside from anything else that people want to argue about regarding gun control laws and assault weapons, please just stop bringing up the arguement that people get injured and killed through the misuse of items that are part of everyday life.

But to get back to your point, yes, I agree that this is totally the result of negligence on the part of the parents.

The idea of having kids and owning guns, but taking no precautions to keep the guns out of the kids hands when they are not supervised, is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.
2013-02-05 04:06:22 PM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.

More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.

Actually, the number of kids under 12* who were killed in gun accidents in 2010 (last year of records for CDC) was 41.

Yes, it was only 41.

I chose 12 as the cut-off because that's a common age a youngster might get a hunting license, and I wanted to exclude hunting accidents, but even if I ran the number all the way up to 17 (18 being adults), the number is still only 98.

Yep.  Less than 100 per year.

For comparison, roughly the same number die in bicycle accidents (94).

Source:   CDC  WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports, National and Regional, 1999-2010


And far more suffer non-fatal injuries due to bicycle accidents, than firearms accidents.
2013-02-05 04:06:17 PM  
2 votes:

justtray: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

Just the cost of doing business, apparently.


Pretty small cost.  The odds of it happening are almost a million to 1:  the actual rate of kids age 0 through 17 who die in gun accidents is 1.3 per million.  (98 out of a population of 78,181,467).  (Source:   http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html )

That's a remarkably low number for a nation with nearly as many guns as people.  We must be doing something right, the rare tragedy notwithstanding.
2013-02-05 04:04:57 PM  
2 votes:
Guns aren't supposed to be "cute."

Stop farking around. If you need a gun in a certain color, you don't nee a gun.

Also:

i48.photobucket.com
2013-02-05 03:59:14 PM  
2 votes:

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.


What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...
2013-02-05 03:51:41 PM  
2 votes:
As much as i am a proponent of the 2nd, i think the latest fashionable thing of painting weapons bright colors to make them less scary so that children and women will wan to use them is a bad idea. they are weapons, tools of death, they should be scary so that they are treated with respect.
2013-02-05 03:51:04 PM  
2 votes:

vpb: In 2011, Arizona state Sen. Lori Klein (R) was criticized after she pointed her loaded raspberry-pink handgun at a reporter.
"Oh, it's so cute," Klein told the reporter as she aimed the gun's laser pointer at the reporter's chest, adding that the firearm's lack of a trigger safety should not be a reason to worry.

Sounds like a responsible gun owner to me.


The fark!?  That's assault with a deadly weapon!  The reporter would have been within rights to kill the biatch.
2013-02-05 03:50:14 PM  
2 votes:
As a female, this "gotta have everything in pink" bullshiat is getting ridiculous.  Pink tool belts, hammers, hand tools, GUNS?!? WTF?

Come on; if you're going to carry/own a gun have it look like a gun and not a toy.  And be responsible with it.
2013-02-05 03:39:21 PM  
2 votes:
God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.
2013-02-05 03:26:32 PM  
2 votes:
It's assholes like this that make the two or three dozen responsible gun owners in this country look bad.
2013-02-05 03:25:34 PM  
2 votes:
I will agree with the gun faction in this thread.

This is a negligence issue, not a gun control issue.
2013-02-05 03:14:29 PM  
2 votes:
Pink guns are so lame.  Carrying a pink handgun is the equivalent of this.

1.bp.blogspot.com

You don't look tough yet feminine, you just look stupid.  Get a regular goddamn gun.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 02:37:55 PM  
2 votes:

FlashHarry: If you have guns, if you own guns mostly we would prefer you have them in a lock box," Greenville Police Media Relations Officer Jonathan Bragg told WYFF. "At least have them out of the reach of children.

"we would PREFER?"

the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.


It used to be that that would happen in some places, but the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.
2013-02-05 02:26:50 PM  
2 votes:
More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!
2013-02-05 10:56:13 PM  
1 votes:

vygramul: Not all rights ARE equal. A store's property rights trump your second amendment rights. They can ban you for bringing a gun onto their property. However, the store's property rights are secondary to other civil rights, as they cannot ban you for bringing a black person onto their proper


SO where did the GED in law come from? U of Cracker Jack?

All rights are equal, but my rights do not override yours, that is why people and entities can regulate actions on their property. Like Drew or his agents (the admins) can bring on bannation becasue of what you say, their right to control the property (FARK) over rides your first amendment right to blather what they consider offensive on their property.

Take a 7th grade Government class and have them explain it to you!
2013-02-05 10:43:42 PM  
1 votes:
WTF people, I own 4 long guns all used for hunting or target shooting.   My gun safe is bolted to the wall so it can't be stolen, and my 11yr. old doesn't know where the keys are hidden.   jackasses who leave handguns under pillows, in desk draws, or anywhere someone (a child) can access them deserve the outcome of their negligence and should be prosecuted.    I was brought up to respect guns and seriously disciplined if i made a mistake handling a firearm in a less than totally safe way.  I thank my dad for instilling those values in me, and pass them on to my daughter.
2013-02-05 08:31:38 PM  
1 votes:

pippi longstocking: I'm just happy that one of the next generation of retarded violent ghetto trash won't mature.


Why should he? You never did.
2013-02-05 07:30:41 PM  
1 votes:
I go back to registration.  National database and you are responsible for storing and securing your gun.  If it's used in a crime you will at the very least have to answer for it in court and face charges if deemed negligent. If a criminal broke into your house and blew open your gun safe with a bomb, maybe not negligent.  If your kid just picked it up off a table while you were at work and sold it on the street, negligent.
2013-02-05 06:19:28 PM  
1 votes:
I'm coming late to the picnic, I know, but I find that whenever I ask one of these NRAphiles about "sensible legislation," they start telling me stories.

Wayne LaPierre is a REALLY good storyteller. There's probably nobody finer when it comes to ensuring that no sensible gun legislation is ever passed on the basis of something he just made up on the spot. "Women need assault rifles to defend themselves because what if they're alone in the house and they've called the police and there's eleven intruders and the clip in the handgun only holds ten rounds and the cops won't show up for twenty minutes OH MY GOD THEY FOUND HER THEY'RE OPENING THE CLOSET DOOR FIRE LADY FIRE!"

And the neat thing is that he can always add one to the number of intruders. Limit clips to fifteen rounds? Sixteen intruders. Limit clips to twenty rounds? Twenty-one intruders. They've used these stories to strip away requirements for gun safes, gun locks, background checks and waiting periods. They've used these stories to ensure that the mentally ill have easy access to military grade weapons and unlimited ammunition. They can ALWAYS whip up a hypothetical showing why nothing should ever change.

After some police officers got shot trying to rescue a woman from a domestic violence situation, someone suggested that maybe people who have restraining orders against them for domestic violence reasons should have their guns taken away for a while. You know, so police officers don't get shot from bedroom windows while trying to help domestic violence victims escape an abusive situation. Just a thought.

The local version of the NRA instantly crapped itself. Because what if it turns out the woman was lying about the abuse and in reality she was the abuser and now she has a domestic violence restraining order against her husband and he doesn't have any guns now so she can come in with a gun and shoot him any time she wants.

Seriously. THAT WAS THE RATIONALE.

The whole "disarm domestic abusers" thing lost momentum, though whether it was because of the NRA's flights of fancy, I don't know. Anyway, nothing got done. Nothing WILL get done.

Nothing's going to change, I'm going to shake my tiny fists in impotent anger next time something like this happens, and we'll all get on with life.
2013-02-05 06:11:41 PM  
1 votes:

TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?


No, but we now build homes with the electrical system meeting code that would cause the breakers to kick on, thereby preventing the toaster with a fork in it from doing anything dangerous.  What the NRA wants to no code, no breakers, and a bright pink toaster with a fun-shaped fork for kids to play with.
2013-02-05 05:32:43 PM  
1 votes:

ProfessorOhki: lostcat: ProfessorOhki: lostcat: The important detail that isn't in this list is that the majority of these deaths occurred because of some behavior on the part of the deceased, or through natural causes. Peope tend to get a little more upset about death that is caused by someone else, intentionally.

Uh, most kids killed by guns aren't intentional, right? Like this story?

I give up. People just walk in in the middle of a discussion, missing the bulk of the debate, and make some comment that completely misses the point. Too annoying.

You mean like drawing a line between intentional increasing the emotional response in the context of an article about an unintentional death? Yeah, those people should probably just sit quietly.


Can you see that there would be a different public reaction to the following news stories:

1. Person kills self with gun

2. Person killed by stranger with gun

3. Child killed while playing with gun

4. Person shot to death in argument that escalated to gunfight

My assumption would be that the biggest public outcry would come from story 2, followed by story 3.

People tend to be upset by the notion of someone murdering someone else for no apparent reason. It upsets our desire for a world in which things happen for a reason.

Using death statistics to show that gun deaths make up a small number of murders, and that murders are just a small percentage of total deaths does not take into account our desire to live lives in which we don't die at the hands of strangers.

Most of us can accept that we my die in an accident, where there was no intent (although carelessness is almost as bad). Most of us can accept that we will die of a disease, especially if we do not take particularly good care of ourselves.

But people react to the idea of another person killing them intentionaly, and will little or no provocation.

Don't believe me? Look at the plots of action/suspense films where revenge is a motivating factor for the protagonist.

You don't get a very good revenge story when the vengence is against some cancer cells, or the guy who had a seizure while driving and accidentally killed the family member.
2013-02-05 05:31:18 PM  
1 votes:
Y'know, since everyone's always saying that guns are necessary to protect one's home and that a gun safe or trigger lock is outrageous because of the need to immediately destroy what ever made a loud crash in your living room, be it a burglar or your puppy, then how about having unlocked gun storage boxes that, when opened, immediately fire off a cellular call to 911 and start a 125 dB siren? After all, if it's an emergency, then you better get some help quick from your neighbors and the authorities.

And of course, if it's a domestic violence situation or a kid accessing the gun, then all the better that people be notified to come help.

Discuss amongst yourselves.
2013-02-05 05:27:54 PM  
1 votes:

Zelron: Okay, so the Supremes decided that the well regulated militia and the right to bear arms are two different things.

That being said, as Congress is the body that makes laws, they can certainly define what "arms" are.  And if they decide that arms are swords, or muzzle loading muskets, then you're welcome to bear those.


No, it wouldn't work that way, and such a narrow definition would be unconstitutional. Consider if Congress decided to define "speech" as "selections from a pre-approved Federal Dialog Option Form, including box (a) "Hello"; box (b) "I love the President!"; box (c) "Of course you can search my papers and possessions!"; etc." Would you think that other speech wouldn't be protected under the first amendment and that such a definition would be constitutional?
2013-02-05 05:23:21 PM  
1 votes:

Zelron: jst3p: Tell me which of the regulations being discussed by the White House would have prevented this death.

The answer to that question has no bearing on the discussion.  We can't change things that have happened in the past.


You misspelled "none of them".
2013-02-05 05:16:29 PM  
1 votes:
Gosh who would have ever thought there would be terrible consequences for making guns LOOK LIKE TOYS!
2013-02-05 05:08:33 PM  
1 votes:

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.


We already do regulate swimming pools, and nobody here is talking about "banning" anything.
2013-02-05 05:07:12 PM  
1 votes:

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.


nobody's seriously talking about banning handguns. they're talking about background checks, trigger locks, and possibly banning high-capacity magazines.
2013-02-05 05:06:56 PM  
1 votes:

Jay Bundy: Dumb kid. Dumb parents.

I agree with a gun ban as long as you get all the criminals to give theirs up too. It worked with drugs right!


You may "agree" with a "gun ban" - but I don't see anyone here proposing one - anymore than they are proposing a "car ban". Reasonable regulation is not confiscation. Straw man is made of straw.
2013-02-05 05:04:24 PM  
1 votes:
Regarding guns vs. toasters vs. cars.  Over the years a lot has been done to make toasters and cars safer.  With regard to toasters, not only do we have grounded plugs, but if they're near a sink we have GFDI outlets to prevent electrocutions, better plugs and cords less likely to be frayed. 
With regard to cars we have, collapsable steering wheels, rear-view and side view mirrors, windshield wipers, rear windshield wipers, lap belts then three point belts and automatic belts, driver side air bags then passenger side airbags then side airbags, tempered glass, head lights, tail lights, brake lights, anti lock brakes, mufflers, catalytic converters, crumple zones, backup radar/cameras, emergency/parking brakes, safety interlocks to prevent the car from being started with it in drive and/or without a foot on the brake, ALL states require proficiency tests for driving and require periodic renewal of licenses, periodic safety inspections, car registration, radial tires, snow chains, studded tires, tinted windows, rear and front defoggers, ability to unlock just the drivers side door, panic alarms, cruise control that's interrupted by stepping on the brake, roll cages, baby car seats, rear facing baby car seats, latch system for installing baby car seats, unleaded gasoline, lines on the road, green/red go and stop lights then green/yellow/red go/caution/stop lights, street lights, rumble strips, various travel directional signs such as "keep right", hands free cell phones, sun visors, hazard lights, fog lights, daytime running lights, run flat tires, windshield washer fluid, and they're working on various collision avoidance technologies.

So, when you have to hold a button down before you can start your gun by pulling the trigger, or when you have a gun AND infrastructure that is designed to minimize accidents, or a gun that disables itself from being able to fire when someone ACCIDENTALLY pulls the trigger, then maybe you can start comparing them to toasters and cars.
2013-02-05 05:03:07 PM  
1 votes:

MyRandomName: More children die from pools than accidental gun discharge.

Ban pools if you are serious.


Stop softballing it. What we need to do is ban children.
2013-02-05 05:01:58 PM  
1 votes:

odinsposse: jso2897: Exactly. Cars were not designed to kill, yet we license, register, and insure them, and license their operators.
Why should guns not be treated the same? Like cars, they are dangerous tools, and capable of killing - whatever their intended use.

Because they aren't cars? Cars are only brought up because if you go by deaths per year cars need more regulation than guns.

lostcat: odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.

So there is no purpose to a gun?

There's no inherent purpose to any inanimate object. It's magical thinking to assign some archetypal purpose to one.

It doesn't matter that people may not use their guns, or when they do it's only to put holes in paper targets. The gun industry does not market their products as "a great way to put holes in paper," or "a fun object to keep in a locked box."

I would argue it matters a great deal. Why shouldn't we deal with the reality of how guns are used rather than base it on the made-up motivations we assign to them?


And yet, any reasonable and responsible gun owner will tell you that you should never point a gun at anything that you don't  want to destroy, and that ignoring that "made-up motivation" as you're doing is the height of irresponsibility.
2013-02-05 04:58:11 PM  
1 votes:

Click Click D'oh: justtray: Allow me to retort this stupid argument further - we already do register to vote.

So then you have absolutely zero objection to making people take a voter education class and getting a state issued ID (that they have to pay for) before being allowed to vote?

Just making sure that you want to apply unconstitutional infringements of rights equally...


Stop digging. Your hole is deep enough.
2013-02-05 04:53:22 PM  
1 votes:

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


No, you blithering idiot-troll, the answer is NOT more guns.  The answer is for people who own guns to be responsible with their guns.  Whoever owns the gun that killed this kid should be looked up for criminal negligence.

Oh yeah, your old, worn out, tired "more guns" response is, well, old, worn out, and tired.  Give it a rest already.
2013-02-05 04:52:15 PM  
1 votes:

rufus-t-firefly: Nope, can't see any connection to the "killing" thing there.


Yes, because the only paper target available for use are law enforcement qualification targets.....
2013-02-05 04:49:01 PM  
1 votes:
Dixon Cider:
More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

clane:
you keep seeing stories like this because Liberals want to keep pushing that button to scare everyone.  89 people died today in car accidents lets see how many articles make it into Fark or the New York Times about that.

United States of America
CURRENT DEATH TOLL - REAL TIME
from Jan 1, 2013 - Feb 5, 2013 (3:46:19 PM)


Abortion: 118440
Heart Disease: 63899
Cancer: 53756
Tobacco: 34192
Obesity: 29991
Medical Errors: 19050
Stroke: 14668
Lower Respiratory Disease: 12102
Accident (unintentional): 10618
Hospital Associated Infection: 9671
Alcohol: 9769
Diabetes: 7113
Alzheimer's Disease: 6431
Influenza/Pneumonia: 6005
Kidney Failure: 4177
Blood Infection: 3269
Suicide: 3606
Drunk Driving: 3303
Unintentional Poisoning: 3102
All Drug Abuse: 2443
Homicide: 1641
Prescription Drug Overdose: 1465
Murder by gun: 1123
Texting while Driving: 585
Pedestrian: 488
Drowning: 382
Fire Related: 342
Malnutrition: 271
Domestic Violence: 143
Smoking in Bed: 76
Killed by Falling Tree: 14
Struck by Lightning: 8
2013-02-05 04:47:37 PM  
1 votes:

odinsposse: lostcat: So your argument is that guns were designed to sit in gun safes or to be used for target practice...(Practice implying what? Practice for putting more holes in paper?)

No. It's that saying "Guns were designed to kill" is a meaningless phrase and not an argument of any kind.


Calling that phrase "irrational" is also intellectually lazy.

And as for the hobby angle...

1.bp.blogspot.com

Nope, can't see any connection to the "killing" thing there.
2013-02-05 04:36:18 PM  
1 votes:

JungleBoogie: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Surpheon: What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...

But he's right. The automotive yearly slaughter, about 30,000 people a year, is a fact.

But here's the problem with guns. The NRA looks at the Chris Kyle incident, or Newtown and shrugs and says, "This is unavoidable." And that answer is not acceptable to many of us. That's the wrong answer, one we refuse to accept.

There were about 8500 firearm murders in 2011.

So - both issues are worth addressing seriously. Car safety is being addressed, albeit in a haphazard fashion. But there have been tremendous advances in the past 40 years. Gun safety is not being addressed at all.

There are 8760 hours in a year (365 days x 24 hours / day). One person dies every 17 minutes in a car wreck.1 One person dies about every 60 minutes from a firearms-related incident.2 Both issues are worth addressing. Both issues are important.

==================
1 Car deaths per hour: 30196 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = 3.44 deaths per hour.
2 Firearms deaths per hour: 8583 deaths per year / 8760 hours per year = .98 deaths per hour.


Ok... would love to see the stats on "how man people drive to their destination per hour" vs "how many people defended themselves per hour".  Utility matters.
2013-02-05 04:34:11 PM  
1 votes:

Dimensio: GAT_00: God Bless an America where this not only happens but is defended by gun owners.

I have attempted to locate a posting in which the reckless and negligent storage of a firearm in a location accessible to a small child was defended, but I have found none. Are you lying again?


So then, a law that would require safety measures (gun locks, gun safes) be applied under penalty of negligence would be OK then?  How about a national advertising campaign federally funded by the CDC, ATF, Health Depts encouraging gun locks and safes in addition to highlighting the dangers of guns in the home too?  Would that be ok?
2013-02-05 04:28:59 PM  
1 votes:

stonelotus: how many cars killed kids today?


So, you think guns should be regulated at the same level as cars?

Safety standards, licensing (after written and proficiency tests), annual registration,regular inspections, liability insurance...
2013-02-05 04:28:32 PM  
1 votes:

Frank N Stein: I truly feel bad for the poor mauser


I wouldn't.  Someone went and upgraded it to a SMLE...
2013-02-05 04:27:04 PM  
1 votes:
Just for clarification, was he a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun?
2013-02-05 04:26:32 PM  
1 votes:

lostcat: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

I just want to point out why this type of argument is a bad argument.

While it's true that more people are killed by things other than guns, the fact remains that the primary purpose of a car is to safely transport people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a toaster is to safely toast bread. The primary purpose of electricity in the home is to provide power to operate appliances which have passed safety inspections and certifications to minimize the risk of injury or death.

The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.

So aside from anything else that people want to argue about regarding gun control laws and assault weapons, please just stop bringing up the arguement that people get injured and killed through the misuse of items that are part of everyday life.

But to get back to your point, yes, I agree that this is totally the result of negligence on the part of the parents.

The idea of having kids and owning guns, but taking no precautions to keep the guns out of the kids hands when they are not supervised, is absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid.


Actually this is a particularly bad argument. The "guns are designed to kill" argument is totally irrational and has no value. Design has little to do with how we should regard something. The overwhelming majority of gun use is either sitting in safes or putting holes in paper. They are not killing or harming anything. There are plenty of things we use without regard for their design. Viagra was designed to treat heart disease. WD-40 was designed to prevent rusting. The Slinky was designed for use on naval ships.

So the design, or intent if you're into anthropomorphism, of an object has little bearing on how we actually use it and it is senseless to treat it based on that rather than the real world way they are used.
2013-02-05 04:26:08 PM  
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2013-02-05 04:23:33 PM  
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: It looked like a pink gun, not a toy.


You should tell the kid that.  He's going to be so embarrassed.
2013-02-05 04:22:38 PM  
1 votes:
FTA: "Pink handguns and Hello Kitty assault rifles have been part of an effort to get firearms in the hands of women and younger groups in recent years."

Well...it worked.
2013-02-05 04:20:09 PM  
1 votes:

Surpheon: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

What? Are you deaf? I couldn't even take my kid home from the hospital without having the child seat inspected. If a celebrity is caught driving with their kid in their lap it's headline news. There are safety fairs with police and firemen to talk about children and vehicle safety. MADD built the foundation of their righteous anger machine on the documented death of children.

Your statement is so stupid I'm starting to suspect this reply is going to earn a 'That's the Joke' prize...



So why do we not see stories on Fark every time a kid gets killed in a car accident?

Sure there are laws and organizations that are devoted to safer driving. Just as there are even stiffer laws, and organizations for safer firearms.

But the media outcry is focused on guns. Hysteria sells, and you're buying.
2013-02-05 04:15:50 PM  
1 votes:
"Deputy Coroner Jeff Fowler ruled the shooting an accidental homicide."

We need to hold folks who allow children access to unlocked/loaded guns responsible, the same way we treat drunk drivers. I didn't mean to just doesn't cut it anymore.  HOW was this pretty pink gun accessible to a 3 and 7 year old?

THIS was not an "accident!"

/Yes, I realize locking you gun in a safe unloaded renders it pretty much useless in a home invasion scenario, but when you have a 3 and a 7 year old in the house maybe that is not a house that need to be protected by a homeowner with a gun and might better be served with an escape plan,  Yeah, the bad guy would still be alive, but then, so would your kids.
2013-02-05 04:15:07 PM  
1 votes:

lostcat: The purpose of a gun (especially a handgun) is to do harm.


That isn't necessarily wrong.  Unless, of course, you think that violence is always wrong.  In that case, you are a naive Pollyanna.

I teach my son that violence is very rarely the answer, but that sometimes, again very rarely, it's the only appropriate answer.   Then I give the spiel about not initiating it.
2013-02-05 04:13:40 PM  
1 votes:

bradkanus: So I need to pay the price every time somebody does something stupid or allows something terrible to happen?


I wouldn't worry too much about it. If you had to pay a price for stupidity you'd have a life sentence in debtor's prison ten times over by now.
2013-02-05 04:08:28 PM  
1 votes:

ferretman: FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?

Locks and gun safes prevent you from being able to get quick access if needed, that's why they are not required.


shall not be infringed.... what does it mean?
2013-02-05 04:05:32 PM  
1 votes:
Sad?

No.

Preventable tragedy perpetuated solely because four million borderline psychopaths with god complexes want to continue living their paranoid Mad Max fantasies without any regard for the consequences or any responsibility for preventing them stops being sad after about the 200,000th victim.

Now it's just boring.
2013-02-05 04:00:27 PM  
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

[t0.gstatic.com image 309x163]


Pretty much they intended for the citizens to be armed with weapons comparable to the opposition (or if you are comparing long rifles to standard issue muskets, superior weapons).  And I'm sure they didn't think of telephones, radios, television, the internet, smart phones and so on when they wrote the First Amendment, either.  But, here we are.
2013-02-05 03:59:11 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Oh yes, I forgot. The right to firearms trumps everything else, including the right to live.


It's almost like if that gun had been properly locked up the kid would not have died. So a person caused that death, not the gun.
2013-02-05 03:57:58 PM  
1 votes:
Here's my idea. You kept to keep your guns as the law was written and intended....I'm pretty sure your law was never designed to keep fully automatic rifles and large caliber multishot handguns.

t0.gstatic.com
2013-02-05 03:57:20 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

"It's not the gun, it's the negligent parents."

Take equation, remove gun. Child lives.


Remove negligent parent, child lives.
2013-02-05 03:57:18 PM  
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Tragic, but the number of kids who accidently kill themselves playing with guns is tiny compared to the number who die in swimming pools every year.

And?


In the context of the overall gun debate incidents like this shouldn't carry great weight. As a society we have a tolerance for acceptable risk for tragic accidents - hence why residential properties are allowed to have swimming pools, the risk of kids shooting themselves thinking a gun is a toy is well below the risk associated with a large number of other items or activities.
2013-02-05 03:56:40 PM  
1 votes:
TwistedIvory
"All I've seen is that you opened up the thread with a tired one-liner that doesn't at all address the issue, and then you've followed up with ad hominem fallacies and insults. I'm all for having an actual dialogue. Until you're ready to engage in such, however, I'll leave you to your own fantasies and images of me as some Ted Nugent-revering, gun-waving redneck.


This
2013-02-05 03:55:12 PM  
1 votes:

TNel: blahpers: TNel: You said you can judge someone's mental ability just by their name as per my quote of you.

To be fair, he said he could judge someone's mental ability based on what they decided to name their kid, not by their own name.

Yeah I did realize that afterwards but tomatoe tomato it's still the same. But the name screams non-white so that's good enough for him.


Oh, bless your heart.
2013-02-05 03:53:04 PM  
1 votes:
cdn.media.discovermagazine.com
2013-02-05 03:52:39 PM  
1 votes:

unyon: TwistedIvory: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

Because of course this wasn't at all a case of negligence on the part of the parent. I mean, kids are killed by sticking forks into toasters but we don't ban electricity, do we?

No, but if more than 500 kids a year were killed every year from toasters, you can be damned sure that there would be an outcry.


More the 500 kids a year are killed in car accidents. I'm not hearing an outcry.

Gun owners: Secure your damn weapons.
2013-02-05 03:51:58 PM  
1 votes:
It shouldn't matter if a gun looks like a toy. If a kid is able to gain access to it, something has already gone very wrong.
2013-02-05 03:51:52 PM  
1 votes:

Cyno01: Queer guns? Whats a republican to do!?


I dunno, support Pink Pistols.
2013-02-05 03:49:02 PM  
1 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Tragic, but the number of kids who accidently kill themselves playing with guns is tiny compared to the number who die in swimming pools every year.


And?
2013-02-05 03:47:37 PM  
1 votes:
Darwin awards come in many forms.  This is the saddest of them.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-05 03:43:11 PM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.

wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?


"This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."
  -Heller V Dist of Columbia
2013-02-05 03:38:55 PM  
1 votes:

TNel: Nabb1:

The kid's name was "Tmorej."  I doubt Ma is the keynote speaker at any Mensa meetings.

So because their parents named them a weird name that makes them stupid?  I mean I had no say on what my name is and neither did you.   Or should I get out the "that's racist" gif for you.


Something, something, read "Freakanomics," etc. There's "weird names" and "names that appear to have been picked by grabbing some random Scrabble tiles out of the bag."  I'm going with the totality of the evidence, here: a kid named "Tmorej," a pink semi-automatic handgun, a pink semi-automatic handgun that is stored loaded and unsecured in a house with small children.  I fell pretty confident this woman is probably not a person of hefty intellect.  I feel terrible for that child, but the mother is totally to blame for this tragedy.
2013-02-05 03:33:39 PM  
1 votes:
Secure your f*cking firearms!
2013-02-05 03:32:30 PM  
1 votes:
I won't be surprised when the gun nuts go out later and buy every pink gun they can get their hands on because Obama might take them away.
2013-02-05 03:26:32 PM  
1 votes:
Shall we try that again?
i.imgur.com
Daddy would have gotten us Uzis.
/Of course, the MAC-10 submachine gun was basically designed for the suburban housewife
2013-02-05 03:26:25 PM  
1 votes:

Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!


Troll. 0/10. Notified mods, emailed Drew, called the cops. Reported to the FBI, TSA, EPA, CIA, and IRS. Forwarded to NORAD, NATO high command and UN Security Counsel. Please do not leave your internet device, Wayne LaPierre has been dispatched to your location.
2013-02-05 03:25:14 PM  
1 votes:

Dixon Cider: I am in no way better then you... I am just able to have an adult conversation.
Since you were too busy feverishly touching yourself, trying to reply.. I did not expect anything else for you.

Now, finish the bathroom floors and the such. The adults are talking!!


Show me. Show me where you were trying to have an "adult conversation." Show me where you were trying to have a rational discourse; I'll participate in that.

All I've seen is that you opened up the thread with a tired one-liner that doesn't at all address the issue, and then you've followed up with ad hominem fallacies and insults.

I'm all for having an actual dialogue. Until you're ready to engage in such, however, I'll leave you to your own fantasies and images of me as some Ted Nugent-revering, gun-waving redneck.
2013-02-05 03:20:14 PM  
1 votes:

Rapmaster2000: Pink guns are so lame.  Carrying a pink handgun is the equivalent of this.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 250x295]

You don't look tough yet feminine, you just look stupid.  Get a regular goddamn gun.


Actually she looks pretty farkable.
2013-02-05 03:08:31 PM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.


Hell, I'm 45 and I as I look at the picture of the pink gun upthread, I'm having trouble banishing the thought, "I wonder if it tastes like candy..."
2013-02-05 02:52:04 PM  
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.


no farking shiat.
2013-02-05 02:49:15 PM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.

i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.


Wouldn't any parent want to keep their kids safe? I'm finding this story to be particularly upsetting for some reason. I almost feel like the parents set the kids up to kill themselves.
You already know I'm a total gun nut, totally a Second Amendment goofball.
But I'm also a parent. I lock my firearms up. I don't own firearms that look like toys. I keep medicine well out of reach. I keep the draino.. Well I use it if need be and get it out of the house. There has to be something terribly wrong with these parents and it's pissing me off.
2013-02-05 02:48:53 PM  
1 votes:

Nabb1: Dixon Cider: More guns MUST be the answer... I keep seeing stories like this and it reaffirms that notion!!

This is stupid parenting. It is a gun issue, but this could happen with anything else in your house that looks attractive to a kid.  If you put Drano in a pink sippy cup and leave it out, you're probably going to end up with a similar result.  If you have kids in the house, you keep guns under lock and key out of reach of little hands.  And for the life if me, I don't know why anyone would own a pink gun if they have kids.


With the GOP crying that more guns need to be on the street for our own protection... I think my initial post still rings true.
More guns in the world = more chances for this to occur. I am sure parents are not going to get better at their parenting job, anytime soon.

That is all I am saying...
2013-02-05 02:45:49 PM  
1 votes:

R.A.Danny: FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.

I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.


i agree. i'm not opposed to owning handguns for home defense. but a pink gun? in a house with children? that's like giving them a lighter in a room full of oily rags. you are negligent and should be held liable.
2013-02-05 02:43:58 PM  
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: It's the gun's fault, not the parents. This is why the anti-gun lobby will never win.


Until the gun rights lobby can embrace logical regulation like training classes, gun locks, and gun safes, both sides won't settle themselves.
2013-02-05 02:43:10 PM  
1 votes:

FlashHarry: the owner of this weapon should be arrested for manslaughter.


I'm ok with this. It's not really a gun issue if you ask me, it could be any dangerous item.
2013-02-05 02:42:11 PM  
1 votes:
It's the gun's fault, not the parents. This is why the anti-gun lobby will never win.
2013-02-05 02:39:33 PM  
1 votes:

vpb: the Supremes have decided that requiring trigger locks or gun safes violates the constitution.


wait, what now?

how the fark do locks and safes violate the constitution?
2013-02-05 02:39:20 PM  
1 votes:
He was a three year old, male tyranny.  The gun did its job in protecting us from this menace, and our freedom is once again safe.

Pink is an excellent lure for the young tyrannies in our society.  We should be thanking this responsible gun owner for having the wherewithal to choose such an effective color and manner by which to draw in and execute the tyranny.

Thank you for protecting America, Patriot Pink handgun.
 
Displayed 102 of 102 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report