More on the Charlotte 4-Year-Old Victim

[mikeb302000]

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/they-think-everything-is-toy.html">Further to Jade Gold's post

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/09/24/2636210/4-year-old-killed-in-accidental.html">The Charlotte Observer reports

A 4-year-old southwest Charlotte girl died Saturday after she was accidentally shot, possibly by a cousin as young as 3, relatives said.

Family members of the victim say a young cousin apparently pulled the trigger. The cousin's age is undetermined, but Observer news partner WCNC-TV is reporting the age as between 3 and 5.

Erin Melendez, 37, was charged with storing a gun in a manner accessible to a minor.

North Carolina is better than most states in that it requires some form of safe storage for the guns. But the pathetic truth is this:

The gun owner is guilty of a misdemeanor if a child gets the gun and then uses it in a crime or causes an injury or death.

A misdemeanor, can you believe that?

Unintentional shootings in 2008 took the lives of 37 children across the U.S. who ranged in age from infant to 10 years old, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2007, there were 40 children in the same age group who died in accidental shootings.

I'm not sure those numbers tell the whole story. For sure there were a number of kids wounded too, some seriously. But you know what the pro-gun folks say to this don't you? They say it's ONLY 37, or it's only a couple hundred if you count all the wounded ones too.

They remind us that there are so many million kids out there or there are so many million guns out there. Divide by one of those numbers and you see how insignificant the child deaths really are, statistically speaking. They rush to point out that more kids are killed playing on the monkey bars in the park, or some other non-sensical comparison, anything to deflect attention from the guns and gun owners.

They even have a joke for it, "It's for the children," they say, to mock attempts at prevention.

Well my response is to implement http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">the one-strike-you're-out rule. Even if http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/cleveland-8-year-old-brings-moms-gun-to.html">a kid brings an unloaded gun to school like we saw the other day, one violation that endangers a child, and you forfeit your gun rights, period.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. That's going to bring them out.

:hide:

[petronius]

2. Setting aside your apparent disdain for statistics, how many deaths or injuries

do you think your one-strike rule would prevent? Or, put another way, have any of the 37 (or hundreds) in a given year ever actually been second strikes?

(By the way, is it true that more kids are killed on monkey bars than by finding guns? And if so, why shouldn't we remove that bit of playground equipment? It would be a simple matter to rip them all out and melt them down...)

[pnwmom]

3. The point of such a rule would be to deter OTHER people -- not those with previous first strikes --

from being careless with guns, by warning them of the extreme consequences if they are.

Obviously, there are relatively few who are involved in "first strikes." But each death is an avoidable tragedy. And this could further reduce that number.

[petronius]

20. So you think this would provide a deterrent, but the thought of losing a child somehow doesn't?

:shrug:

[Atypical Liberal]

34. EXACTLY.

This is the huge, gaping flaw in the argument that you somehow need the force of law to force people to protect their children.

If the possibility of your children DYING from unsecured firearms in your home is insufficient to make you secure your firearms, nothing will.

These kinds of people are simply in denial. They don't think it will happen to them. More laws won't change their minds.

[mikeb302000]

6. My idea is base upon the presumption that

someone who lacks the common sense and intelligence to to the point of fucking up in this way once, is incapable of learning from their mistake. Common sense and intelligence cannot be taught. If you are so lacking in these qualities, you are a danger and unfit to own guns.

[jmg257]

17. Why do you think the eldery and handicapped are a danger & unfit?

Are there specific reasons you see such people as criminals?

Is it just another inaccurate presumption based on your own self-experience?
You are near 60 - do you still consider yourself a criminal? Is this why you view all other elders as a danger? As unfit?

Are you handicapped too?

[mikeb302000]

35. you lost me, man

where did the elders and handicapped come from?

[jmg257]

44. Your Venn diagram....the one where you equate elderly and handicapped with criminals, abusers, etc.

"A = criminal gun owners
B = law-abiding gunowners
AUB =all of the in-between guys, including but not limited to the following.

1. anyone who has ever violated a gun-law but has never been convicted of a felony.
2. anyone who abuses his wife or children in any way but has never been convicted of it.
3. anyone who is addicted to drugs and/or alcohol but has not yet been disqualified.
4. anyone who has ever dropped a gun or caused a negligent discharge.
5. anyone who has become elderly or otherwise physically incapacitated.

I realize there are others, please feel free to mention them in the comments. And I apologize for the disproportionate diagram. The AUB section should be much, much larger.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All related to those who are "unfit" and "dangerous".

Despicable. Why the hate, man?

[mikeb302000]

77. now I get ya.

You realize I don't mean all elderly and all handicapped, right? Some 80-year-olds are perfectly capable of responsibly handling guns. Some are not. Did I have to spell that out?

Same with handicapped people. Physically incapacitated, as far as gun ownership goes, means blind or quadraplegic, something like that, maybe advanced Parkinsons.

Where did you get the idea that I "equate" them with criminals? I said nothing like that. What I said is the folks in that middle category cannot have guns, but for varying reasons.

[jmg257]

85. Yes - it would be better if you spelled it out.

Because otherwise it seems you are quite often being severly & overly broad in your opinions of A LOT of people - and those opinions are usually very negative.

It is not easy to give you the benefit of the doubt when deciding exactly who you are being critical of, who you are comparing and equating them to, or why.

[petronius]

27. Why do you assume that? Can you point to a significant set of people who,

having committed or been close to a horrible error that harmed a child, failed to learn from the experience to the extent of repeating it?

[Lionessa]

4. Automobiles kill WAY more children than guns, and they're ruining our environment, so let's get rid

of the right to drive and all cars first. K?

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. Same old stupid argument

try something different for a change.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. It's called prioritization.

This issue, isn't. (high priority)

[TheCowsCameHome]

30. No,

it's only a kid.

:sarcasm:

[AtheistCrusader]

50. And I care more about thousands from all sorts of stupid causes

over 17 of them.

It's a number that is trending down anyway, accidental shootings of all sorts have been steadily declining since the 50's.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. Has nothing to do with it being a kid

it has to do with it being such an absurdly small number.

~40 accidental deaths a year in a nation of 300+ million isn't worth worrying about. You cannot prevent everything my friend, and it is foolish to even try.

[TheCowsCameHome]

62. Wow.

You_do_have_a_problem.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

63. How do you figure?

You're suggesting I have a problem because I do not thing public policy should be made based on statistically insignificant aberrations? Because I don't think that a few dozen accidents a year justify the destruction of a natural right?

Whatever man - believe as you wish. Some of us use our brains, as well as our hearts.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. By all means, elaborate.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. Still waiting....

Can you elaborate on what exactly the problem is?

I'm not the only one who wants to know either.

[Lionessa]

66. If you really cared about kids, you'd care about cars. You don't about kids,

you care about gun regulations. To sit there and say that the 1000s of kids killed in cars don't matter and cars aren't a problem, but the 100s of kids killed with guns do matter and guns should be banned, proves that the issue for you is guns, not kids.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. And the true crime of it is

the car is ignored because it is useful to that poster. It is convienient to use.

Nevermind that we *use* firearms. Nevermind the amazing due dilligence some 80 million americans show in having such a tiny number of accidents. Nevermind that our firearms do not threaten our entire biosphere. nevermind that peak oil may see wars with human casualties in the hundreds of thousands to millions.

You know. nevermind all that. Less than 100 kids a year. That's the big deal.

[Atypical Liberal]

33. And hypocrisy. n/t

[mikeb302000]

36. yeah, the car comparison is stupid. nt

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. What was the penalty for your illegal gun ownership?

What sort of penalty was there for your admitted criminal activity involving a firearm?

[mikeb302000]

38. we weren't talking about me.

you already know that what I did or didn't do 30 years ago is not an open subject. It's off topic and the only reason you bring it up is that you think it's some kind of witty personal attack, and that my not talking about it makes me guilty. You've probably read all the Linoge posts about it and some of the others, if you're bringing it up. So now I'm telling you. I'm 58, what I did when I was 25 has nothing to do with this post and I don't respond to your bullshit interrogation.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. You need to justify your outrage.

If you are upset that improper storage of a firearm only merits a misdemeanor, one naturally wonders what sort of punishment an admitted firearm criminal such as yourself would consider appropriate for his own crimes before casting judgement on the crimes of others.

Otherwise, your credibility is shot.

[jmg257]

55. Maybe we should. As an elderly illegal gun owner, your experiences may be valid

when discussing gun control in general, and specfically your views on guns, gun owners, the elderly, the police, etc. You may put way too much emphasis on your own quirkiness and criminal behavior with regards to firearms when forming your opinions on others, when you try to decide what is best for others.

Obviously you are obsessed with guns, gun-related rights, etc. Maybe even irrationally obsessed. Something has to explain the vileness, the hate, the sheer goofiness.
Some of your views are downright scary.

It may be quite interesting to know more - probably not - but maybe!

[ileus]

86. did your guns end up killing people?

Of course your actions don't matter in this debate...

[X_Digger]

8. So your 'one strike you're out rule' would preclude YOU from owning a gun, right?

I mean, since you fall into the intersection between A and B in your nice little diagram, right?

[Atypical Liberal]

11. You mean this diagram?

"After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years." - Mike B.

[mikeb302000]

78. thanks - I'm in a class of my own nt

[mikeb302000]

39. read my answer to AL, same goes for you. nt

[X_Digger]

54. That's not an answer, I notice. hrmm. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

9. On safe storage, etc.

North Carolina is better than most states in that it requires some form of safe storage for the guns. But the pathetic truth is this:

The gun owner is guilty of a misdemeanor if a child gets the gun and then uses it in a crime or causes an injury or death.

A misdemeanor, can you believe that?

"After the military I owned guns both legally and illegally over a period of about 15 years."

What sort of punishment do you feel that you deserve for your admitted criminal firearm ownership?

Unintentional shootings in 2008 took the lives of 37 children across the U.S. who ranged in age from infant to 10 years old, according to statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2007, there were 40 children in the same age group who died in accidental shootings.

I'm not sure those numbers tell the whole story.

That's probably because you know, as we all do, that 37 people dying in the whole country is statistically insignificant. No doubt each case was tragic and traumatic for the people involved. But the fact that in spite of record numbers of firearms in circulation that there were less than 40 unintentional shooting deaths of children under 10 means that it hardly ever happens.

Let's compare it to unintentional drowning. There were 647 unintentional drowning deaths by children aged 0-10 in 2008.

For sure there were a number of kids wounded too, some seriously. But you know what the pro-gun folks say to this don't you? They say it's ONLY 37, or it's only a couple hundred if you count all the wounded ones too.

They remind us that there are so many million kids out there or there are so many million guns out there. Divide by one of those numbers and you see how insignificant the child deaths really are, statistically speaking. They rush to point out that more kids are killed playing on the monkey bars in the park, or some other non-sensical comparison, anything to deflect attention from the guns and gun owners.

They even have a joke for it, "It's for the children," they say, to mock attempts at prevention.

This is called "objectively looking at the data". And when only 37 people died in a year from a given thing, that is pretty insignificant in the grand scope of things. And it is because it is so insignificant that the hop lops have to resort to heart-string tugging stories of children to try and further their agenda. This is why "It's for the children!" is a joke.

[Iktomiwicasa]

10. 647 unintentional drowning deaths of children...

....Jeebus, we better ban high-capacity swimming pools as a first step....eventually people will see the wisdom of this, and put safety locks on water taps.

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Just about every single cause of death is higher than firearms.

Everything I checked was. Poisoning. Falls. Drowning.

Every single cause of unintentional death that I checked for 2008 resulted in more deaths than firearms.

[Iktomiwicasa]

14. Yup

[ileus]

15. but guns kill and scare people....especially europeans.

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. Lame

but if it's all you have, so be it.

[petronius]

21. Can you elaborate?

:shrug:

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. Yes.

This should be in the swimming pool forum.

It has nothing to do with gun deaths, nor do automobiles, which is an lame old favorite comparison by the gunnies.

[petronius]

23. Are you sure? Do you think Iktomiwicasa just started talking about drowning

because it's a pet peeve of his or something? No relevance to the thread at all? Think hard now...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. The point of mentioning drowning and automobile deaths...

...is obviously to illustrate just how few deaths there really are from firearms in the grand scheme of things.

If you're going to get worked up over a few dozen deaths from a firearm accident, then really the much larger number of accidental deaths from drowning or cars should throw you into a fit of apoplexy.

[Atypical Liberal]

26. These comparisons are completely valid.

This should be in the swimming pool forum.

It has nothing to do with gun deaths, nor do automobiles, which is an lame old favorite comparison by the gunnies.

The comparison with gun deaths is completely valid. The OP makes the case that even though only about 40 children under the age of 10 die each year from firearms, that we should all be shocked by this statistic and somehow galvanized into action.

Specifically, we should restrict a Constitutional right because of these few deaths each year.

But when we look at other causes of death, like drowning, or poisoning, or falls, we can see that far, far more, children are dying from just about everything else.

[TheCowsCameHome]

29. Yup, that makes it right.

You win.

:crazy:

[Atypical Liberal]

32. I'm glad you agree. Thank you for your concession. n/t

[PavePusher]

37. No-one said what you are claiming.

No-one said "It's O.K., there's no problem here....", they are saying it is not sufficient justification to infringe a Civil Right.

Nice try at the insinuation/obfuscation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. Reminds me of the anti-vaxer posts in this GD thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1931245#1970252

One poster in particular got quite upset when it was pointed out that the several dozen deaths (mostly from undetermined causes, mind you) of young women after they had gotten a Gardasil injection came from a cohort of 35 million.

Statistical analysis has a nasty habit of derailing emotional arguments- that's why those with an agenda tend to dislike it....

[TheCowsCameHome]

43. Speaking of obfuscation -

bringing up automobile and swimming pool deaths has WHAT to do with gun related deaths?

Oh, man..............................:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You've outdone yourself, PP

Go take a nice open carry bike ride in AZ park and clear your head.

[PavePusher]

47. It demonstrates an issue with irrational prioritization.....

and the fear-mongering of the pro-restrictionists.

P.S. I did, and I will. Thanks! Weather was great here this weekend, but a little warm. Going to be a bit cooler first half of this week, great cycling weather....

[mikeb302000]

40. haven't you read some of the takedowns of stupid

comparisons like guns and swimming pools? If you haven't or if you can't figure out the difference for yourself, you should get out of the echo chamber and open up your mind.

[Atypical Liberal]

58. It's pointing out irrational prioritization.

haven't you read some of the takedowns of stupid comparisons like guns and swimming pools? If you haven't or if you can't figure out the difference for yourself, you should get out of the echo chamber and open up your mind.

Oh yes, I've read them.

But there is a reason for making the comparison.

It shows that the people who are all up in arms about 37 accidental deaths from firearms every year are irrationally prioritizing those causes of deaths ahead of others that cause far more deaths.


In other words, if you are not out on a crusade against child deaths from falls, poisoning, or drowning, you have irrationally skewed priorities. There is much lower hanging fruit to go after than accidental firearm deaths.

[ileus]

13. How do they do it in europe?

[rrneck]

16. Oh looky

Punitive government at the service of self indulgent ideology.

:rofl:

[rl6214]

25. You want someone to read your ideas?

Don't put a blind link to your blog. Until you do that you a just another anti-gun zealot trying to further your agenda while making a buck off of the unknowing people that click on a link.

You answered that question about your illegal gun ownership yet?

[ileus]

31. He doesn't even care enough about his agenda to comment in other threads.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. First and foremost, we actually *cherish* Democratic Underground as a forum of ideas.

As opposed to a free opportunity to entice people to click on an ad-supported blog.

Secondly- The Republicans are willing to overlook Ollie North's illegal arms trading, thanks to his anti-Communist stance. I'm not, and I think the both of you should have done time for violating the various gun and/or munitions regulations you have admitted to.

[mikeb302000]

72. I have a hard time believing that

DU, judging by the attacking commenters I've encountered, is anything but a forum of ideas. Have you read the half-dozen personal attacks on this thread alone by Atypical Liberal?

My personal blog to which I frequently link has no ads.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. Opposition to gun control

is neither a republican nor democrat stance. Most thinking people disagree with the idea of gun control and recognize it as nothing but a pointless waste of time which empowers criminals and endangers the general public.

[mikeb302000]

73. in order to back up that ridiculous statement

you'd need to do some fancy cherry picking.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. Really?

Do explain. Seriously. I really want to know how you arrived at THAT conclusion.

[mikeb302000]

79. well, let see.

"Most thinking people disagree with the idea of gun control and recognize it as nothing but a pointless waste of time which empowers criminals and endangers the general public."

I happen to think exactly the opposite is true. In order to prove such a position, either one of us, it would take some biased survey tailor-made to get the results we want.

How can you control for "thinking people?" How can you control for "recognize it as nothing but a pointless waste of time?"

You can't. Get it?

Most thinking people understand that the folks who own guns should be better controlled and screened, especially for mental health problems. Most "thinking people" realize it's an NRA trick to argue repititiously that gun control punishes the law abiding and enabled criminals.

[ileus]

81. and by most you mean king mike right?

[PavePusher]

48. DKos is "Republican conservative idiots"?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ileus]

49. well we all do have one thing in common....You...

don't know what that means but there you have it.


So why don't you comment in other posters threads?

[Atypical Liberal]

52. Easy!

What is it about you guys that distinguishes you from the Republican conservative idiots with whom I argue on the other blogs? You sound and act just like them.

Simple:

I am against the wars in the Middle East, as they are imperialistic endeavors designed to protect the financial interests of a few mega-corporations and wealthy individuals.

I support a woman's right to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever.

I believe we should have a Single Payer Health Care System that provides health care to everyone.

I believe in protecting the environment through regulations that prevent predation by financial interests.

I believe in empowering individuals to protect their interests, and I believe in individuals organizing in groups to protect their interests.

I support gay marriage and GLBT rights in general.

I support affirmative action.

I believe that the concentration of wealth that we see in this country is as dangerous a concentration of power as any the founders attempted to prevent, and that it should be countered.

These are the main points by which I define myself as a "liberal" or "progressive".

I also believe in the individual right to keep and bear arms. I understand this is not a mainstream liberal tenet but I believe this is because many liberals have come to value collective action so highly they have forgotten or just distrust individual action.

[ileus]

53. I think most of us agree with that list....maybe we're not european enough for him.

[jmg257]

57. Here I thought it was because we are Democrats, usually correct, and smarter and better looking. nt

[PavePusher]

59. My women are strong and all my kids are above-average...

Ooops, I mean....

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. +1

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

82. el pot meet el kettle.

[rrneck]

56. I believe in people.

I believe we owe it to each other to make a better world for all of us. I believe good government is the best day to do that.

I believe that if I can't help someone personally or through good government I shouldn't tell them how to help themselves.

I believe that people are more important than ideology.

I believe that any ideology that doesn't take into consideration the reality of people's lives and helps them live better only exists to support itself, and if allowed to fester can result in great injustice.

I believe that anyone that promulgates an ideology for their own aggrandizement lacks compassion, reason, and any sense of justice. If they do so for profit they are the worst sort of thief.

I believe that anyone willing to inflame peoples emotions for profit or personal aggrandizement is the worst sort of person engaged on the oldest and most scurrilous occupation known to man.

[Hoopla Phil]

60. Why are you asking a question when you've got so many to answer?

[RSillsbee]

65. More on Mike's criminal past

By his very own words and admission, MikeB302000 is a self-professed criminal – a criminal who, apparently, disobeyed the very laws he supposedly supports, and wants more of. Furthermore, MikeB302000 has repeatedly and incessantly lied and covered up about this illegal activity in the past, and is only now admitting to it because some folks were able to dig up the original, damning admission. Could it be that “the woman with the earrings” is so obessed with punishing law-abiding American citizens for owning firearms because he knows that if he were to focus on the criminals, he would be focusing on himself? Could it be that our resident bigot wants to drag us all down to his own level, rather than face up to his own culpability and criminal nature? After all, if he forces all of us to be in the muck with him, we cannot exactly call him out for being dirty (or so he believes)…"

[rl6214]

70. Have you seen his facebook page? He's got 23 people who like it

:rofl:23:rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[ileus]

80. no guns beyond this point.

[mikeb302000]

75. I'm laughing too hard to type

You know nothing about me. That comment is nothing more than a personal attack. That's how you guys do, when you can't win the argument straight up, you attack, and repeat.

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. "You know nothing about me". And yet *you* slander people *you* do not know here.

Sauce for goose, et cetera...

You're not the first gun prohibitionist here to claim to have telepsychological ability, nor the first to have admitted
illegal gun ownership. Hell, you're not even the first expat to claim to know from a distance how USAian gun owners think
and denounce them accordingly ("the converts always sing loudest in church" effect).

But you certainly are the most mercenary. Brings to mind the line "Wants me to send a donation, cause he's worried about my soul"

[MicaelS]

84. Anonymous Goes After the Pepper Spray Cop's Personal Info

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5007092

See what some people can do when finding out the a person's real identity? Especially if said person has engaged in illegal activities?

[Union Scribe]

69. Jade Gold

That is the worst porn name ever. It's just two colors, for goodness sake.