Toddler Dies After Mistaking Gun For Realistic Wii Controller

[ponderingturtle]

What's the lobby you spoke of? The Pharmacudical Lobby?

The mechanics/methods of how such laws are passed have changed. Take communication for example. Voters can be a lot more educated about an issue (for both viewpoints) in less time than 100 years ago.

The health care debate doesn't seem to support this position.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Stand your ground refers to not having to run and hide in your closet if someone breaks into your house (or if you have a very friendly jury, your neighbor's house but you're taking a huge risk there).

Or have any legal issue if you say grab your gun and start the confrontation.

That's not the same thing at all as "showing your masculinity" and not backing away from a potential fight, which concealed carriers absolutely have an obligation to do in every state that allows CCW. Otherwise pulling a gun is considered "escalation" and it's earned you a homicide charge.

Yea right. See Joe Horn.

 

[Drudgewire]

Yea right. See Joe Horn.

Exactly who I was talking about in the first quote. It's nothing short of a miracle he's not in prison, and if the same evidence had been presented to almost any other grand jury he would be. But I see no point in trying to convince that to someone who actually wants to believe our self defense laws lean towards...

Or have any legal issue if you say grab your gun and start the confrontation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly who I was talking about in the first quote. It's nothing short of a miracle he's not in prison, and if the same evidence had been presented to almost any other grand jury he would be. But I see no point in trying to convince that to someone who actually wants to believe our self defense laws lean towards...

I have seen all kinds of people calling him a hero, and remember another gun nut talking about how he made definite plans on how to manipulate a potentially dangerous situation to justify killing someone.

How about in the Jena Six then, one of the incidents that lead up to that was a boy who in a confrontation went to his car and got his shotgun out, the people who took it away from him were the ones charge with doing something wrong there as well.

 

[Drudgewire]

How about in the Jena Six then, one of the incidents that lead up to that was a boy who in a confrontation went to his car and got his shotgun out, the people who took it away from him were the ones charge with doing something wrong there as well.

Yes, that's a perfect analogy because they were charged with taking a gun away from him and not a premeditated gang attack on an unarmed person days later.

I can't believe I fell for the troll bait. On to ignore you go, where you should have been ages ago.

 

[BadBoy]

America doesn't have a "gun culture", any more than it has a "car culture" or "fast food culture". All of these things are prevalent; but they hardly define who we are as a nation.

Well, just saying it doesnt make it so. I belive that these things are part of a Western (US led) culture and a type of western empire. They in themselves dont define America, but they do contribute to its definition. To say US isnt a Car culture is a very odd thing to say. Maybe times are changing but from what I can see cities and townes are built around the necessity of having a car. One way to perhaps understand it better is to compare with another country and the differences become a stark contrast. It becomes obvious, at least at some level that these things DO contribute in defining what America is.

What far too many people on the anti-gun side, especially the non-Americans, either fail to realize, or ignore outright, is that America is no more violent than any of the nations whose people we absorbed. The overwhelming majority of violence in this country is gang-related, per the FBI and DOJ statistics; and fueled by drug prohibition. It's not about poverty,

And yet you just implied the violence comes from your immigrants (at least thats what it sounds like to me). Is this a veiled way of suggesting that its your afro-american population that are the problem? Or do you mean something else. Please explain. I would imagine the issue is more complicated than that.

 

[luchog]

Well, just saying it doesnt make it so. I belive that these things are part of a Western (US led) culture and a type of western empire. They in themselves dont define America, but they do contribute to its definition. To say US isnt a Car culture is a very odd thing to say. Maybe times are changing but from what I can see cities and townes are built around the necessity of having a car. One way to perhaps understand it better is to compare with another country and the differences become a stark contrast. It becomes obvious, at least at some level that these things DO contribute in defining what America is.

US cities are not built around the necessity of having a car. In fact, in many major US cities, relying on an automobile can be quite problematic and expensive.

US cities, like Canadian, Austrialian, or anyone else with a similar geography, are built to our geography. The necessity of automobiles in much of the US is an artifact of our geography -- our very large available space and dispersed populations. Buidling up is far more expensive than building out; and public transportation is far more economically viable where the population is concentrated in a small area, than it is where people are spread out of a much larger one. Land-locked coastal cities such as New York, Seattle, or San Francisco tend to have good public transporation systems, as well as retailers who include delivery as a standard service; and are far less personal-automobile-friendly than more sprawling "flatland" cities like Dallas, Los Angeles, or Chicago. There is also the issue of major population centers being very widely seperated. European countries are, by contrast, have much more concentrated populations, and less seperation between major population centers; thus making public transporation much more economically viable; and individual transportation less necessary.

The US is no more a "car culture" than Canada or Australia. The US has what is best described as an "independence" or "individualst" culture, quite different from the collectivist culture common to much of Europe; and most of our institutions are based around this attitude. Cars can be a part of that, since they're an individual mode of transport; but again, this is driven far more by geography than anything else.

One thing the US does have is a "big car culture"; that is, if we do own vehicles, they tend to be much more toward the larger end of the spectrum-- SUVs, Trucks, and Minivans. With the huge jump in fuel prices in the last 5 years, smaller, European-style autos are becoming more popular; especially fuel-efficient small-engine and hybrid types (eg. Toyota Prius, Cooper Mini, and SmartCar).

And yet you just implied the violence comes from your immigrants (at least thats what it sounds like to me). Is this a veiled way of suggesting that its your afro-american population that are the problem? Or do you mean something else. Please explain. I would imagine the issue is more complicated than that.

I'm not even going to bother discussing anything with you as long as you keep trying to put words in my mouth and engaging in this sort of well-poisoning garbage. It's perfectly clear I wasn't saying anything of the sort; and I find your thinly-veiled and diversionary accusations of racism little more than a disingenuous attempt to evade a point you're unable to address.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Agreed, I was not arguing that poll numbers should make the slightest difference in how we regulate/legislate. But ServiceSoon made the claim that the NRA represents a majority viewpoint, and without some kind of better evidence, I find the claim to be laughable.

What do you think about this:

The NRA has a higher mean approval rating among likely voters than President Obama.

 

[TheDaver]

To hell with regulations, just make the sentencing is appropriate when serious injury or property loss results from people’s stupidity.

Punish the idiots/criminals, not everybody else.

 

[babbits]

Badboy, most of the massacres in America happened in gun free zones.

Are you suggesting that if all students carried semi-automatic firearms to school, there would be fewer deaths?

 

[rwguinn]

Badboy, most of the massacres in America happened in gun free zones.

Are you suggesting that if all students carried semi-automatic firearms to school, there would be fewer deaths?

sigh...
Right over your head

Criminals, by definition, often break the law

 

[babbits]

One has to wonder.

The STEP-father left a loaded Smith & Wesson handgun out on a table? Where a 3-year-old could reach it?

(Grounds for a charge of reckless endangerment, at the very least.)

The mother testified that the child 'likely' confused the game controller and the loaded gun?

If my child had died of a gunshot wound, I think my thoughts and emotions would be elsewhere than speculating about why she had done it. I'd be racked with simple shock and grief.

And the child aimed it at her own chest, and not at the screen?

Maybe a case of late abortion, because 'new daddy' isn't too fond of a nuisance toddler?

Susan Smith's alleged motive was that she wanted a relationship with a man who had no interest in a "ready-made" family.

I trust the investigators checked both mother and 'boyfriend' for gunshot residue.

"According to the American Anthropological Association, more than 200 women kill their children in the United States each year. Three to five children a day are killed by their parents. Homicide is one of the leading causes of death of children under age four, yet we continue to "persist with the unrealistic view that this is rare behavior," says Jill Korbin, expert on child abuse, who has studied mothers who killed their children."

http://crime.about.com/od/female_offenders/a/mother_killers.htm
------------
(Over 500 kids are killed by firearm accidents each year in the U.S.

http://www.momlogic.com/2009/09/gun_accidents_kill_500_kids_each_year.php

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

At least the gun accidents lead the murdering mothers, so far anyway.)
----------------

 

[EGarrett]

Between all the finger-pointing and strawman arguments being thrown around...why don't we drop the red herrings (like the whole issue about the Wii controller) and just NOT LEAVE UNLOCKED LOADED GUNS AROUND CHILDREN.

 

[Bikewer]

Have not commented on this thread yet....I agree with Babbits' post. There are many dangers to young children, and responsible parents and adults make every effort to "child proof" the home from the many hazards a young child might encounter.

We annually have dozens of young kids killed in faulty cribs, by venetian-blind cords, by falling appliances... One could go on in this vein for some time. I would imagine that deaths-by-firearm for very young children are indeed rather rare; considerably rarer than would be deliberate parental homicide.
If "banning" everything that could endanger a child were practical, it would be a rather odd world....

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, that's a perfect analogy because they were charged with taking a gun away from him and not a premeditated gang attack on an unarmed person days later.

And clearly being in an argument and going to get a gun is not an issue, as the kid who did that got no charges. Nothing wrong with making a point about bringing a gun to an argument.

 

[grunion]

Between all the finger-pointing and strawman arguments being thrown around...why don't we drop the red herrings (like the whole issue about the Wii controller) and just NOT LEAVE UNLOCKED LOADED GUNS AROUND CHILDREN.

You will kindly excuse me, Mr. Thread Cop, but to me the issue is precisely about the Wii Controller, and toy guns in general. Unfortunately the pro-gun people around here have turned it into another pro-gun thread, but that was not my thought.

I will not argue the point about leaving unlocked loaded guns about when children are left unsupervised because I think it would make a rather silly thread.

>>>>>>Don't leave unlocked loaded guns around children!

>>>>>Yeah, that would be a really bad idea.

>>>>Really? I grew up in a house with unlocked loaded guns around and I am OK.

>>>Well in the majority of cases is a bad idea.

>>Well it should be up to the parents, not up to the government to say whether they could or not.

>Whatever, just don't do it.

I wrote the OP because I was bemoaning not only the irresponsible behavior of these parents (about which there hasn't been, nor could there be, any argument that their actions were defensible), but because otherwise sane, nice, intelligent people continue to encourage their pre-sentient children to play with toy guns.

 

[pgwenthold]

Have not commented on this thread yet....I agree with Babbits' post. There are many dangers to young children, and responsible parents and adults make every effort to "child proof" the home from the many hazards a young child might encounter.

We annually have dozens of young kids killed in faulty cribs, by venetian-blind cords, by falling appliances... One could go on in this vein for some time. I would imagine that deaths-by-firearm for very young children are indeed rather rare; considerably rarer than would be deliberate parental homicide.
If "banning" everything that could endanger a child were practical, it would be a rather odd world....

Of course it would. Then again, pretty much every house has cribs, appliances, and even venetian blind cords. And the number of kids that die because of them are...pretty small. And when it is discovered that cribs have some defect that leads to them causing injuries, the first thing that happens is that there is a recall of the product, and it makes the news and everything.

Now, how many houses have loaded guns lying around unsupervised where toddlers can reach them, and how often in those places, do serious injuries occur?

You seriously don't think there is a difference between "1 in 10 million venetian blind cords cause death" and "1 in 50 loaded weapons lying around cause death"?

 

[GreyICE]

Of course it would. Then again, pretty much every house has cribs, appliances, and even venetian blind cords. And the number of kids that die because of them are...pretty small. And when it is discovered that cribs have some defect that leads to them causing injuries, the first thing that happens is that there is a recall of the product, and it makes the news and everything.

Now, how many houses have loaded guns lying around unsupervised where toddlers can reach them, and how often in those places, do serious injuries occur?

You seriously don't think there is a difference between "1 in 10 million venetian blind cords cause death" and "1 in 50 loaded weapons lying around cause death"?

1 in 50 guns doesn't cause a death. You've obviously attached weasel words to your statement ('lying around' is completely undefinable) but yes, the risks are comparable.

As for the dangers, we do not recall deadly poisons when they result in death, nor knives, nor anything else where an integral function causes injury. Venetian blind cords do not necessarily strangle their user - using a single cord is equally viable, and it was just poor design that lead to the deaths. Knives have to be sharp to work, drano has to be lethal to work, and guns have to fire bullets to work.

It's the 'unintended function' that makes something recall-worthy.

 

[pgwenthold]

1 in 50 guns doesn't cause a death.

Reading comprehension problem?

 

[Cavemonster]

As for the dangers, we do not recall deadly poisons when they result in death, nor knives, nor anything else where an integral function causes injury.
It's the 'unintended function' that makes something recall-worthy.

We've already got mandatory child-safety locks on poisons.
Do we have those on guns?

You're suggesting that guns should be treated similarly, right?