Sebastian Swartz, 9-Year-Old Boy, Dead After Shooting Himself With Father's Gun In Ohio

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Huffington Post

Sebastian Swartz, 9-Year-Old Boy, Dead After Shooting Himself With Father's Gun In Ohio
Posted: 02/27/2013 4:10 pm EST

A 9-year-old who accidentally shot himself with his father's gun has died.

Sebastian Swartz of Decatur, Ohio, died on Tuesday, a week after he shot himself in the head with his dad's Glock handgun, according to WKRC.

WXIX reports on what authorities believe led to Swartz's fatal injury:

The initial investigation indicated the gunshot was the result of an accidental discharge of a handgun. A witness at the scene confirmed the sister of the boy tried to take the gun from him before it went off.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/27/sebastian-swartz-dead-fathers-gun_n_2776042.html

[slackmaster]

1. The dad may not have been adequately trained in gun safety. The basics should be taught in school.

Every person who graduates from high school should have been offered an opportunity to learn about the importance of securing weapons, and how to safely unload the most common types of firearms.

[Fresh_Start]

3. NO WAY. I don't want to waste school time with guns.

I just want the parents whose children get injured from their own guns to go to jail.

[a la izquierda]

47. Thanks.

Kids can't even grasp basic English grammar.

[JoeBlowToo]

6. Truly amazing response...a gun in the home is like...well, a loaded gun...

OBJECTIVE:

Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS:

We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS:

During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS:

Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

[slackmaster]

16. That's commonly called the "body count fallacy"

The bizarre notion that the only way a gun can be used defensively is to shoot someone with it.

[CANDO]

49. Fallacy?

If a criminal intruder has been deterred without a shot, how is it a fallacy for a study to count the actual times a shot was fired, causing injury or death vs harm to those whom the intent was to protect? You're saying real, countable numbers are a fallacy? I grant you that intruders are scared away at the sight or sound of an armed resident, but that situation in no way takes away from the findings of real "body counts" in these studies. Sort of an apples and oranges argument on your part.

[JoePhilly]

9. Bullshit. You should have to demonstrate proficiency BEFORE you can purchase a gun. Period.

You want a gun. Fine. Go pay for the training and pass a certification test to demonstrate that you know how to use the weapon and that you know how to keep and maintain it safely.

You should also have to carry formal weapon insurance as well.

[JoeBlowToo]

11. Since when does passing a driver's test prevent reckless driving?

Same thing with guns.

[JoePhilly]

12. If you are reckless, you get ticketed.

And since you mention cars.

We need graded gun licenses, and mandatory insurance before you can purchase.

And then fines, and potential lose of license, or even jail, for misuse of your weapon.

Thanks.

[JoeBlowToo]

14. Won't happen as long as politicians lick the boots of the NRA...

We can't even get a universal background check.

[JoePhilly]

17. I described what I think should happen.

And it might not happen soon. But its what should happen.

[Bjorn Against]

23. It does prevent reckless driving, it does not stop it but it does prevent it

Forcing people to prove they understand the rules of the road certainly is preferable to letting people drive who have absolutely no understanding of traffic laws.

Gun handling should NOT be taught in schools however, instead there should be a licensing process to get a gun which requires mandatory classroom time and testing which the person applying for the license can pay for themselves.

[primavera]

64. Thank you!!

I get so weary of hearing the same perennial gun nut talking point that, unless gun control measures can instantly and completely eradicate all tragedies, they're clearly ineffective and therefore not worth discussing. By that reasoning, we should have no laws whatsoever, since not one law in the entirety of recorded history has ever met so high a threshold for success.

[slackmaster]

18. You're not going to get your way on that. We don't have to prove proficiency before we can vote,

or exercise any other civil right.

[Paladin]

34. The Next Time A Ballot Is Used To Turn A School Into A Slaughterhouse.....

...I'll give your flimsy argument some thought.

[juajen]

37. Generaly speaking, you usually do not get knocked in the head or shot through the heart

with a voter registration card. Damm these pesky facts.

[roxy1234]

58. Those pesky facts

We voted for Bush and Bush illegally invaded Iraq resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Still think irresponsible voting doesn't kill?

[Fumesucker]

65. Actually we didn't vote for Bush

The Felonious Five voted for Bush.

Al Gore won a clear majority of the popular vote and more than likely won Florida too.

[harmonicon]

72. You're allowed to vote for National Socialist parties, join the KKK, publish racist propaganda, etc.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean that you doing it is ok.

I agree that most proposed gun control measures will never happen for the same reason you suggest. However, I also think that gun ownership and advocacy while a protected constitutional right is generally appalling and will increasingly be perceived as such.

You have the right to keep a killing device in your house. I have the right to stigmatize you for that.

[apocalypsehow]

97. Yes, we are: owning a gun and casting a vote are in no way comparable, for one thing;

for another, you need to check your trends and demographics, pal. The GOP - the party of "pro-RKBA" and "gun rights" and all the rest of the racist nonsense - is fading from the scene. The vast majority of young people, immigrants, and people of color vote Democratic: the future is with our Party, and progressive policies in particular. The country is going Blue.

Sensible gun laws and regulations - much like Massachusetts and Canada - is coming to the United States of America, my friend. The days of America's bloody gun culture and the pro-NRA lobby is coming to an end. You can bank it.

[sofa king]

107. The term "well-regulated militia' comes to mind.

That's the primary difference between gun ownership and all other specifically granted rights. None of the others are prefaced by a demanding and explanatory clause which asserts regulation up front.

"The militia" is commonly defined as every citizen capable of mounting an armed defense, which is why (almost) anyone can own a gun. But that gun ownership must also be regulated. Not can be, not should be--it friggin has to be well-regulated, as demanded by our Founders... and, apparently, Jesus, if you're John McNaughton.

Clearly, when incidents like these are daily news, gun ownership is not being regulated all that well. That is a problem that JESUS HIMSELF DEMANDS MUST BE FIXED.

[Squinch]

59. But if we require that they actually show some responsibility we are violating their

rights! Rights that come from the Magna Carta! Or something!

Anyhow, they will feel WRONGED because they have TOLD us that they are responsible gun owners, and we aren't taking their word for it!

[primavera]

62. That's the crux of the problem, alright

Gun owners perceive themselves to be beneficiaries of an inalienable right, to which they are automatically entitled merely by virtue of breathing. Any hint that what they understand to be a right should be contingent upon demonstration or even acknowledgement of any responsibility whatsoever and they feel like some sacred cow right is being violated. What can you do? This is America, we believe in "freedom" to do anything we want no matter what harm it causes others, not in responsibility.

[City Lights]

21. Pass.

[Politicalboi]

22. No, what they need to do is

If YOU own a gun in your house. YOU should be REQUIRED to take YOUR kids to gun school. Otherwise, don't bother applying to get the gun in the first place. And maybe if children live in the home, you should also be required to have a safe that is ALSO registered with your gun. No safe, no gun. And if your kid doesn't want to go to class, you are shit out of luck in owning one.

[slackmaster]

25. There are a lot of wishful but impotent "should" statements in that short paragraph.

[MichiganVote]

27. Um, small point. The Dad did not shoot himself. A 9 year old did.

And in case you haven't heard? Schools teach academic subjects. They're not your one stop shopping place, they don't babysit your kids, they aren't for sale to the nearest NRA and so long as other avenues exist for gun safety, schools will not be "teaching" kids to use guns.

[slackmaster]

29. The boy shot himself because his father failed to adequately secure his weapon.

Safe storage is an important aspect of basic gun safety.

[MichiganVote]

32. I think that's an obvious point.

[FarPoint]

31. Maybe in your family...

but many parents, such as myself, do not want gun culture to be taught like metal shop or home economics class.

I say fight to bring back drivers education in schools.

[slackmaster]

33. Teaching kids how to be safe is not teaching them any kind of negative culture.

Will your children know what to do when (not if) they find themselves in proximity of a firearm that hasn't been properly secured?

I know from experience that people who haven't been taught the basic principles of gun safety do the same two stupid things when they have a chance to pick up a firearm.

1. They pick it up and put their index finger through the trigger guard, and

2. Point or aim it at something

They do this without even checking to make sure the weapon isn't loaded. This is normal behavior for people whose behavior is modeled after poor gun handling on TV and in movies, rather than training from a qualified instructor.

[FarPoint]

38. I understand you safety education training goals.

I just do not agree in any capacity that it should be common in schools.

I prefer to focus on other already neglected issues like the drivers ed programs and safe sex education....

[slackmaster]

39. I'm with you on driver's ed. There are so many bad drivers on the road now.

It's frightening.

[Bjorn Against]

40. If I had kids I would teach them to be safe by teaching them to stay away from guns

I would NEVER allow the school to force my kid to use a gun, the gun safety classes I would want my kids to learn do not involve teaching them to shoot they would involve teaching them to stay away from guns. My kids would learn about guns, but they would learn about them in the context of how dangerous they are and how dangerous the NRA nut jobs are.

[slackmaster]

41. Sooner or later they would grow up and no longer be under your control

The best way to raise children is to raise them into adults who can take care of themselves.

...the gun safety classes I would want my kids to learn do not involve teaching them to shoot...

I have never suggested that children should be taught how to shoot in school. I'm talking about defensive behavior, teaching them how to avoid doing something stupid when they encounter a firearm some time in the future.

[Bjorn Against]

45. No they would not be under my control, but they would be educated about guns

And when I say educated I mean truly educated, in other words they would know that the NRA talking points are lies. I doubt they would ever want to touch a gun after being presented with the cold hard truth I would present them, but if they did they would at the very least know of the very real danger guns pose and they would likely handle them far more safely than the people who are falsely taught that guns make your home a safer place.

On edit: I do support teaching kids not to do something stupid with a gun, I think it is important for them to know not to be as dumb as an NRA member.

[harmonicon]

73. Should children also be taught to disarm bombs? (nt)

[slackmaster]

74. Only if they really want to be taught to disarm bombs

There is training available for that, but it costs either money or a multi-year commitment to military service.

[harmonicon]

75. So why do you think guns should be different?

I say if people want to learn to handle guns, they could join the military. My father was an army sharp-shooter, but he's never personally owned any weapons. Why should people learn these things in high school? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[slackmaster]

83. Guns have a multitude of applications, and can be used safely with proper training.

My father was an army sharp-shooter, but he's never personally owned any weapons. Why should people learn these things in high school?

Because there is a significant probability that even a person who never owns a gun will at some point be in a situation where a gun has not been properly secured, or is being handled in an irresponsible manner.

[harmonicon]

84. There is basically no situation where that will happen.

I'm 34 years old. Never have I been in a situation where I've been around a gun that's not properly stored and been aware of it. I assume the same goes for my 74 year old father.

Really, what you're suggesting is patently silly. Should we all be trained to wrestle gators, because we might find ourselves in a position where that's needed?

What "multiple applications" do guns have? There are the kind made for killing animals, and the kind made for killing people. That's two applications. Are they also used for cooking or something?

[slackmaster]

85. Target shooting and collecting are the most common uses for firearms

Most gun owners neither have a gun deployed for self-defense, nor do they hunt.

There is basically no situation where that will happen.

O RLY? The topic of this thread is about a child who died because someone didn't properly secure a firearm.

Most people don't "get" gun safety without being taught to do so by an experienced person.

[harmonicon]

88. You know, there's a far more simple solution than what you suggest.

It goes like this: don't fucking have a gun. Boom! Problem solved! If you don't want people in your house to die, the first step to ensuring this is to keep your home free of devices designed for killing people.

I don't have kids, but if I ever do, there's a simple way I'm going to make sure they're as safe as possible when it comes to being harmed by an insecure gun. 1. I will never have a gun in my home. 2. I would never let my children into the home of someone who did own a gun.

Do you think children should be playing around in a house where someone builds bombs? Really, I go back to that analogy. Do kids need to know how to disarm bombs? Of course not, because that would be ridiculous.

You say a child died because someone didn't properly secure a firearm. Why is the securing of it the step you focus on for the cause of death? The gun performed admirably. It did just what it's designed to do. Maybe the part to focus on is not where or how the gun was kept, but that it was around at all.

[slackmaster]

93. Would you allow your children to ride bicycles in the street, or drive cars?

You say a child died because someone didn't properly secure a firearm. Why is the securing of it the step you focus on for the cause of death?

Because I don't presume to judge whether or not it is appropriate for anyone other than me to make the personal choice to own a firearm, or anything else. However, I do feel strongly that people who do choose to own them must take steps to secure them properly at all times.

[harmonicon]

99. I really don't give a shit what you do with guns in your own house.

Use it to open cereal boxes or whatever one of it's multiple uses may be. That's none of my business. If you want to stroke a machine gun while you watch old John Wayne movies in your basement, be my guest.

I feel that people who own guns are responsible for what is done with them, and I would hope that the owner of the gun used to kill this child is charged with manslaughter, at the least. I would also hope that civil and criminal charges are brought agains everyone in the chain involved in putting a killing device in the child's hands, from the designer and manufacturer on down to the store where the ammunition was purchased.

Are there bicycles and cars designed and manufactured for killing people? If there are, no, I would not let my children use those.

[slackmaster]

101. My reference to transportation was in regard to your claim that you would try to prevent your child

...from being killed.

A person, especially a young one, is FAR more likely to die in a transportation-related accident than by gunshot.

Over the course of a lifetime, the probability of being the victim of a firearm accident or even a crime are very small compared to other ways that people die prematurely, some of which are preventable and some not.

If you want to stroke a machine gun while you watch old John Wayne movies in your basement, be my guest.

You were doing pretty well at keeping your cool and maintaining a rational tone in our conversation until this. I'm sorry I pushed you over the edge, but I'm not responsible for your ad hominem attack.

[harmonicon]

102. I was being serious. It wasn't meant as an ad hominem attack.

For the record, I'd be more worried about you opening cereal boxes with a gun than just stroking one while you watch a film. Sometimes I sit with my guitar or ukulele while I watch films. Some people don't like musical instruments but do like guns. Their choice.

You - and everyone else - has to stop this crazy attempt to equate killing devices with transportation devices. It doesn't make sense. When cars kill people, it's not because the car was performing as designed. When guns kill people, it is because they were performing as designed. It's like asking if I think people shouldn't eat because their food could be poised. Could you please switch to food next? "Well, people die from eating food, blah blah blah." It doesn't make any more sense, but at least we won't have to read about cars anymore.

[slackmaster]

103. I'm not trying to equate weapons with vehicles. I'm talking about probabilities.

Something that few people have a good grasp of.

If you were to investigate the realities of risk, you might find some surprises - Things that you worry about a lot that aren't very likely, and vice-versa. The data is available, and it tells a very different story than the talking heads on your TV and the bloggers on the Web tell.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

ETA a firearm in the home poses an extraordinary risk only if it is kept loaded and not secured, and there are children or other unqualified people present. Unloaded and locked in a safe, it creates no risk at all.

[harmonicon]

105. There is one way to mitigating risk involving guns that is foolproof:

Don't have them in the home. Don't have them anywhere that you'll be in day-to-day life.

If you want to have a gun, that's your choice. Really, I don't mind. However, when someone is killed with a gun in a home, there is really only one thing to blame for that, which is brining a gun into the home. No matter what else may be done regarding storage or safety training, the one thing that would make all of the irrelevant is not bringing a gun into the home in the first place.

This is why I think arguing that there should be mandated gun safety training is absurd. Step one to not accidentally shooting yourself with a gun is to never touch a gun. There is no step two. It's unnecessary.

[kestrel91316]

35. Wrong. The dad should never have been allowed to take possession of a gun

without psych testing, a background check, a lengthy gun safety training course, AND providing proof that he had a secure place to store them.

It is entirely the responsibility of gun owners, and NOT their family members, to learn and know how to apply gun safety. This is poor parenting and irresponsible gun OWNERSHIP. Stop blaming the victim.

[slackmaster]

36. More wishful thinking "should" statements. You don't have to get psych tested or take a course...

...in order to vote.

This is poor parenting and irresponsible gun OWNERSHIP. Stop blaming the victim.

The victim was a 9-year-old boy. Please point out where you think I blamed him.

[frylock]

43. no, the basics should be taught at the point-of-sale..

gun safety has no fucking place in the public schools. training should be MANDATORY prior to the purchase of a gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. The only safety education being advocated here consists of:

Stop, don't touch, leave the area and get an adult.

Steps that work even in the case of a firearm that was left in the bushes in a playground by some fleeing criminal or some shit. Children may encounter firearms from sources you cannot control or anticipate, not just negligent parents that leave guns around the house.

Police officers can and have left them in public restrooms, for instance.

Spending some time on the 'don't touch/get an adult' training is pretty low hanging fruit.

[Squinch]

53. If you want to have a gun, do this on your own time and with your own dime. It's your hobby,

take responsibility for it. Don't try and fob off the safety training for your hobby onto the schools.

Seriously. If you want us to believe in the responsible gun owner, show us a gun owner who actually takes responsibility for his hobby.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Did you not read a word I just said?

People who are not responsible, lawful gun owners, can leave firearms in places children that have NO CONNECTION to the firearm owner might encounter. A gun tossed in the bushes by a fleeing criminal. A gun lost by some idiot. A gun left out by the parent of a friend of the kid in question.

You could always ask the parent of your kid's friends if they have guns in the house, doesn't mean they answer truthfully.

You are taking an 'abstinence only' approach to this. There are 300+ million firearms in this country. It is entirely possible for the children of people who do not own guns to come into contact with them through even entirely unlawful means.

[Squinch]

86. Herein lies the problem.

I know that the NRA has put it out that this "abstinence only" comparison is a good one, but once again, they have misled you.

Let's review. Sex is a biological imperative. Guns are a hobby, like fly fishing or building ships in bottles. I know you want to think that guns are not a hobby, but unless you are a cop or a soldier, they are. Being against gun safety classes in school is not like calling for abstinence only sex-ed, just as being against fly-fishing classes in school is not like calling for abstinence only sex-ed. There is no comparison.

If responsible gun owners are worried about their fellow gun owners not being responsible, then they need to get squarely behind legislation that requires all gun owners to be responsible - or pay a steep price if they are not. Yet, they are not doing this. Instead they are hiding behind an extremist group that lobbies for more and more gun sales, and refuses to take any responsibility for the effects of the glut of guns.

If pro gun people are so concerned about the effects of their hobby, they need to show it, and take steps themselves to mitigate that problem. What they don't need to do is require that everyone else take the responsibility for the effects of their hobby.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Let me stop you right there.

I don't follow or listen to the NRA. I was a member years ago because it was a requirement to access the closest range to my house, and I wanted to use it. I have canceled both memberships years back. I was then subjected to harassment-levels of begging to re-join and send money. Anything that I get from them is eaten by the junk filter in e-mail, or goes directly into the wood stove. I do not listen to them. I am not a member. They can fuck right off for all I care. So don't try and smear me with that guilt by association shit.

Now that we have that out of the way.

"Let's review. Sex is a biological imperative. Guns are a hobby, like fly fishing or building ships in bottles. I know you want to think that guns are not a hobby, but unless you are a cop or a soldier, they are. Being against gun safety classes in school is not like calling for abstinence only sex-ed, just as being against fly-fishing classes in school is not like calling for abstinence only sex-ed. There is no comparison."

I would be amenable to this argument IF the safety education in question was about USING firearms safely. It is not. It is 'LEAVE IT ALONE AND GET AN ADULT'. Training that I received in elementary school more than 20 years ago, delivered as part and parcel of a larger safety lecture by 'Officer Friendly'. Remember that program?

"If responsible gun owners are worried about their fellow gun owners not being responsible, then they need to get squarely behind legislation that requires all gun owners to be responsible - or pay a steep price if they are not. Yet, they are not doing this. Instead they are hiding behind an extremist group that lobbies for more and more gun sales, and refuses to take any responsibility for the effects of the glut of guns."

In the real world, this is total BS. Police officers, in the course of their jobs, highly trained and competent, have lost firearms in public places children might come into contact with them. You could institute the death penalty for such negligence, and it would still happen. HOWEVER, that is not to say there shouldn't be both, or that there isn't value in both. Absolutely careless gun owners should be held to account when a firearm is negligently left where a child can access it. There is ALSO value in teaching kids that guns are not toys, and should not be touched or played with. That doesn't mean a kid won't try, but as I am often told, if it saves one kid...

"If pro gun people are so concerned about the effects of their hobby, they need to show it, and take steps themselves to mitigate that problem. What they don't need to do is require that everyone else take the responsibility for the effects of their hobby. "

What a delectable strawman you've constructed there.

Let's replace 'pro gun' with 'pro driving a car' and see if that holds up, when the question is teaching a kid how to safely cross a street? Fails miserably doesn't it? There are more firearms than cars in this country. Your argument is predicated on the idea that it is POSSIBLE to child-proof access to every gun in this country. A laudable goal, but so unimaginably laughable, it's barely worth discussing with you, because you cannot ensure at minimum that a fucking bank robber is going to care that he threw his gun in the bushes by an elementary school as he fled the scene. Same for people who have stolen firearms. Same for people who carry them regularly. Same for people who carry them as part of their professional employment. Accidents happen, negligence happens, malicious behavior happens. You can address those with penalties, but none of it puts a child's brains back in his or her skull AFTER the fuckup.

[Squinch]

89. OK, let's replace pro gun with pro driving a car.

In my youth, we were taught how to safely cross the street by our parents, our siblings, the people with whom we crossed the street. The schools were not considered responsible for teaching us how to safely cross the street. They still are not. No one is offering "street crossing" classes or a "street crossing" day.

I understand that, though many DUers are calling for full fledged gun classes to be taught in schools, that many others are calling for a day or a couple of days or a few hours dedicated to "get an adult." That might have been a very good idea in your day.

Today, because of the way schools work, there is not enough time to fit in science, social studies, physical education, sports, or vocational training. There are no extras. I do not support putting your gun safety day ahead of science or social studies. If we had the leeway to offer a day here and there on "non curricular" subjects, fine. But we don't.

As for your scenarios: the "dumpster gun" and the "bank robber's gun thrown into the bushes" are fantasies, or so rare as to be negligible in their numbers. Children find guns in their homes. Because their parents are stupid and irresponsible. Or in the home of a friend whose parents are stupid and irresponsible. These are gun owners. Probably gun owners who call themselves responsible. There is nothing impossible or laughable about the idea of actually making them responsible. If there were jail penalties for the gun owners whose guns are involved in crimes due to the gun owners' irresponsibility, they would become responsible pretty quickly. Kids wouldn't be finding unmonitored loaded guns in the nighttable, or in the car, or in the basement. This would all be moot.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. The more numerous example of the negligent gun owner in the home

is already prosecuted. One was thrown in jail for it in the city next door to us just a few months ago, convicted of criminal negligence. (Oddly a police officer in the next town east did the SAME EXACT THING and was let go, but w/e)

I agree, the 'dumpster gun' is, in most towns, a black swan. But I suspect we aren't talking about the same sort of training either. When you say one to two days devoted to it... That throws red flags for me. How many ways can you say 'stop, don't touch, leave the area, get an adult' before the kids tune you out anyway? Our class was short, or rather, a fragment of it. Covered other things as well, like remembering where we live, crossing with the light, smoke alarms, shit like that. It didn't take a day, let alone two, and I would consider investing that much time into it to be an absolute crying waste of time, because you'd be lucky to hold a kid's attention on this for an entire hour.

And the people who advocate teaching these kids HOW TO SHOOT to engender 'respect' for the firearm, can fuck right off, and I assume they are trolls. My high school had a rifle team, but admission to it was elective, and extra curricular. You couldn't put the whole school through it if you tried, in a year.

By all means, require safe storage. Have penalties for negligence. Sentence augmentation, etc. But that only gets you partway, and only as a form of redress when the adult is actually negligent. I have witnessed such negligence in my own family, and it gave me fucking nightmares. I'm totally on board with you there. But a practical 'don't touch' message at school isn't a bad thing, and would cost practically nothing to deliver. Bookend it onto the anti-drug use message they are doing anyway. Done.

[Squinch]

94. Well, hot damn!

If you can get behind mandatory sentencing for gun negligence that results in death or injury, I think you and I are in agreement!

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Not only that

I'd require something like community service/firearm training even in the case of non-death/injury. We put drunk drivers into it whether they hit anyone or not. Same sort of negligence, in my eyes.

[Squinch]

96. .

[AtheistCrusader]

98. You know we're not allowed to come to an agreement right?

Might open up a black hole or something

[Squinch]

100. I would joke that something like that happened in Fla, but it's too sad what happened to that guy.

[Blue_Tires]

44. As it has been mentioned before...

If you need a formal class to learn you shouldn't leave a loaded sidearm in the vicinity of children, there's not much else to say...

[Squinch]

51. Gosh. We're shocked, shocked I tell you, that you feel the need to say this and thereby

fob off the responsibility for gun safety from the gun owners to the schools.

Cause, you know, you NEVER did that before.



Do you know any other songs?

[slackmaster]

52. I never said it was the responsibility of anyone but the gun owner. I'm suggesting...

...that schools can help people do the right thing by doing what schools do best - Teaching.

[Squinch]

54. You are saying the schools should teach how to be safe around your hobby.

Your hobby, your responsibility. It does not belong in schools in which there is no time to teach science, social studies, physical education, sports, or vocational training.

We've had this conversation before ad nauseum. I have no interest in rehashing it with you.

[slackmaster]

55. It's not about me.

It's about safety in general.

[LanternWaste]

67. Would that class apply to any and all products...

Would that class apply to any and all products with the potential for danger, or merely firearms.

[slackmaster]

69. Like drugs, sex, and cars, improperly handled firearms pose an extraordinary hazard to people

Just firearms, and it doesn't take more than an hour to teach basic survival skills.

The kind of situation where danger arises occurs suddenly and without warning. For example, you're at a party where people are drinking. One person unexpectedly produces a handgun that he or she just purchased, and it gets passed around.

Too many inexperienced people will do exactly the wrong thing when that happens. I think teens should be taught how to assess the danger and react appropriately - The best reaction may be to get up and leave, depending on the circumstances. Young people are naturally curious. Teaching gun safety demystifies weapons and solidifies the concept that they are dangerous and not toys.

[Blandocyte]

70. Covering the subject in a health/wellness class would be a good idea

It would fit into topics like suicide prevention and accident prevention. It wouldn't take very long to teach the proper steps to take when one finds an unsecured gun.

If it's true that there are way too many guns out there and that so many are unsecured, it makes sense to teach how to avoid hurting yourself with them.

[slackmaster]

71. Teaching is like giving a young person a tool. The tool gets put into the toolbox, and may never...

...be used.

OTOH when faced with a novel situation such as finding an unsecured weapon, a person who has some kind of tool to deal with it has a better chance of doing the right thing than someone who has no suitable tools.

If it's true that there are way too many guns out there and that so many are unsecured, it makes sense to teach how to avoid hurting yourself with them.

I always drill into young people the importance of securing weapons, as well as how not to handle them dangerously. Another tool in the box.

[magical thyme]

78. every person who buys or already owns a gun should be required to be licensed

after passing a test in gun safety and handling. There are plenty of courses already offered through various clubs and organizations. We license car drivers, we license hunters, we license fisherman, we license clammers, we license worm-diggers, we license lobsterman; should be the same for guns.

In my opinion of course. I plan on getting a gun after taking a safety course after I sell my house here. I need it for protection; I'm rural, far from the police and we've had multiple burglars coming and going over the 10 years I've lived here, along with threats to my animals.

Actually, I'm thinking of getting a gun without ammunition, just to let my neighbor across the street see it and assume I'm armed. He's cased my place repeatedly (he left a cigarette butt behind my garage last February and destroyed my dog's tie-outs when he did me a "favor" and mowed my lawn without my knowledge or permission last summer) and is my #1 suspect in the disappearance of certain tools from my garage.

[slackmaster]

79. The rights to drive, hunt, fish, clam, dig worms, and take lobstahs aren't enumerated in the Bill...

...of Rights.

[magical thyme]

80. the bill of rights does not necessarily preclude licensing or regulation

Strictly out of curiosity, can a 6 year old walk into a store and buy a gun? Or is there some regulation prohibiting that?

[primavera]

81. I'd like to hear the answer to that one, too

Gun rights advocates are so quick to fall back upon the second amendment as all the legal authority they need for access to firearms. Yet, if the second amendment is as inviolable and unassailable as they would seem to suggest, how do RKBA proponents swallow the fact that guns are regulated at all? If a person's right to bear arms is so absolute, why don't we allow toddlers to own uzis? A toddler is a "person" and an uzi is an "arm," so what's the problem? Yet few gun enthusiasts would advocate allowing children to own and use machine guns. If we're willing to constrain the second amendment and regulate guns at all, how is it any different to apply the same common sense that tells us that toddlers shouldn't have uzis to impose common sense requirements like mandatory background checks or basic gun safety education requirements in order to be issued a license to own a gun?

[slackmaster]

82. No, federal law prohibits sale of a long gun to anyone under 18. For handguns, 21.

The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

[magical thyme]

106. if the federal government can regulate gun sales

then they can require licensing. They can regulate that guns can only be legally sold to people who are trained and licensed to handle them. The gun companies should appreciate that, since they could sell training as an add-on service.
They could make it a felony to sell a gun to somebody who couldn't show a gov-approved training certificate or license, something along those lines.

And on the topic of felonies, a friend of mine from high school is married to a man who she told me is not allowed to own or carry a gun, so his guns are in her name and she carries them in and out of state forests when they go hunting. I'm guessing he is a felon; iirc felons are prohibited from owning guns. If so, the 2nd amendment is not absolute; not all men have the right to bear arms.

[Hoyt]

104. Unfortunately, lots of so-called responsible gun owners are just a tragedy waiting to happen.

No teaching guns in schools, unless it's designed to teach kids that our generation's view of guns is uncivilized and bad for society.

[LonePirate]

2. This boy would still be alive if there was not a gun in the house.

[slackmaster]

4. ...or if the weapon had been properly secured out of reach of the child.

[JoeBlowToo]

7. Then it would not be an effective self defense option...

therein lies the problem.

[secondvariety]

20. Decatur looks like a wide spot in the road (literally).

Doubt it's a place where armed self defense is a necessity, but I could be wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decatur,_Ohio

[JoeBlowToo]

24. The problem is not that there is an actual need for the weapon...

The problem is that so many Americans believe that they are about to be attacked by home invaders and brown skinned marauders. It is called paranoia. And that is what drives people to keep a loaded pistol in the bedside table or under the pillow.

[secondvariety]

28. Which leads to a

nine year old boy blowing his head off with said pistol. And so it goes, over and over and over...

[juajen]

42. Actually, after talking to several gun owners that I know,

they say they have to have arms equal to our army, in case our army comes after them to confiscate their guns. I suppose they will get some drones next. I honestly expect something like attack by drone to happen in this country, on our soil, sometime in the very near future. Sad times!

[Dash87]

60. They sound like a bunch of doofs

All that money spent to protect themselves from the boogeyman.

[bossy22]

50. is it paranoia?

or is it preparedness? Are people that keep fire-extinguishers in their homes and cars paranoid as well? Are people who have security systems in their homes (usually in wealthy low crime neighborhoods) paranoid

Or could it be preparedness?

I really think this is an individually answered question. Most people don't "need" guns for defense, just like most people don't need fire extinguishers either. It's a choice which i think should be made by the individual- I'd hate to have it where the government decides I don't "need" a gun and therefore can't have one. and if you own a gun this is the risk you take. Yes, there will always be accidents, which lead to tragic events like these. But the same goes for such things as backyard pools- which IIRC kill more kids a year than gun accidents.

[randr]

5. The Dad should be tried and sent to prison

Enforce existing laws. If there are no laws against allowing children access to weapons lobby for them.
A death penalty attached to this sort of thing will put an end to innocent children dying as a result of the criminally ignorant.

[JoeBlowToo]

8. sure, just like death penalties curtail homicide...

Criminologists' Views on Deterrence and the Death Penalty

A recent survey of the most leading criminologists in the country from found that the overwhelming majority did not believe that the death penalty is a proven deterrent to homicide. Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.

Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

[JoePhilly]

10. And clearly life in prison is no deterent either. Let's drop all laws about murder.

After all, they don't prevent all murders.

[JoeBlowToo]

13. Try following the discussion...the poster claimed that death penalties would prevent

owners from leaving their weapons out for children to hurt themselves with.

[JoePhilly]

15. If you own a gun, and some one else is killed accidentaly because of your neglegence ...

the penalty should be severe.

I would not go with the death penalty, but a shrug sure isn't enough.

[Squinch]

57. Maybe we should give people prizes when they commit murder. Because of that incarceration

thing not working

[secondvariety]

19. It's not always about deterrence.

Sometimes it's just about the punishment fitting the crime. I'm not arguing for or against the death penalty, though.

[JoeBlowToo]

26. Negligence is not usually prosecuted in our society...

In Western jurisprudence, concurrence (also contemporaneity or simultaneity) is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus ("guilty action&quot and mens rea ("guilty mind&quot , to constitute a crime; except in crimes of strict liability. In theory, if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with the mens rea then no crime has been committed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrence

[secondvariety]

30. Criminally negligent manslaughter

is prosecuted. I'd think this case fits the bill.

[randr]

66. My initial reaction, which continures to this moment,

is always one of horror when I learn of children dying as a result of this sort of action.
I am, as many here at DU, no supporter of the death penalty.
The event we are discussing takes me over the top and my ire gets the best of my emotions.
That aside I am sure far stricter laws and the possibility of the most severe penalties will have an effect on the problem.
People will whine about government interference but even the most anti-regulatory put on a seat belt these days.

[Squinch]

56. Not the death penalty, but yes, a jail penalty for the death that occurred as a result of his

negligence. It would make people actually pay attention to where they leave their guns lying around.

[brett_jv]

48. This is horrible sad and tragic story ...

My heart goes out to everyone who's been touched by it. May this youngster RIP.

I just thought that, ya know, after 50 posts of nothing but pro-gun/anti-gun back and forth as a result of the posting, somebody ought to maybe ... express condolences.

This being said ... guns really do suck.

[Nevernose]

61. A sensible proposal for a legislative solution

Mandate that all gun sales, starting immediately for new firearms and a twelve month grace period before applying it to used gun sales, include a trigger lock.

Under the recent DC ruling it couldn't be mandated that they be used, but we can and should mandate that the option be (literally) given. The cost would be negligible -- they probably cost less than a dollar to manufacture in quantity -- and would probably save some lives.

[ManiacJoe]

76. Gun sales already include locks.

Many places will give them away for free otherwise. Usually they are the better cable locks, not trigger locks, but locks none the less.

The problem is getting folks to actually properly store the gun via locks or safes or whatever.

[Jennicut]

68. Lock up your guns people. My kids are 7 and 8. If I had a gun it would be totally locked away

in a safe, unloaded. This is a simple concept. And people like this call themselves parents. Being a parent means being responsible. I watch my kids like a hawk. They get annoyed by it. But safety first, always. This was a totally avoidable death of a little boy way too young to die.

[apocalypsehow]

91. I store my shotgun seperately from the shells for it, the former in a locked safe. I cannot imagine

a situation where it is ever acceptable for an adult to leave a firearm laying around for kids to get their hands on.

Spot-on post!

[Jennicut]

108. Thanks.

I just get so angry when I see something so totally preventable, if only common sense was used.

[avebury]

77. The father should go to prison.

Parents who do not take the time to properly secure their guns when there are children in the house need to be sent to prison when incidents like this happen. Society needs to stop coddling these idiots and hold them liable for their negligence. A parents love for their child should be sufficient to make sure that their child is in a safe environment. If love is not an adequate motivating force, maybe the chance of a long prison sentence might result in more prudent behavior.

[apocalypsehow]

90. Tragic. The cost of unregulated gun fetishism in this country claims another life. Some jerk can't

be persuaded to look after or lock up his deadly little toy, and kids, being kids, start fooling around with it and now we got a dead 9-year old in Ohio.