Texas boy, 4, fatally shot by 5-year-old sibling

[sinkingfeeling]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42931496/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

TELFERNER, Texas — A 4-year-old boy is dead after being shot in the stomach by a 5-year-old sibling who was playing with a bolt-action rifle in the family's Texas home, authorities said.

Victoria County authorities said the children's parents were at the home in Telferner in southern Texas when the shooting happened late Wednesday.

Chief Deputy Terry Simons told the Victoria Advocate that investigators are trying to determine why the children were left unsupervised. The parents drove their wounded son to a nearby grocery to meet with paramedics, who then rushed the boy to a hospital.

Telferner is in southern Texas between Houston and Corpus Christi. The boy's parents drove him to the Telferner Grocery and Market to meet with paramedics, who then rushed the boy to Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, the Advocate reported.

Authorities have not released the name and gender of the other sibling
*************************
Entire article included above.

[cleanhippie]

1. Ban poor parenting.

[fascisthunter]

2. very irresponsible

to late... a mistake that leads to death.

[patrice]

3. Most of us are trying to understand gun advocates, but they are their own worst enemies.

They work against themselves fairly often. Is it really possible to say that this sort of thing does not matter?

[cleanhippie]

5. No one says it doesn't matter.

But it is irrelevant.

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Would you say that 'doesn't matter' equals 'not important'?

World English Dictionary
irrelevant (ɪˈrɛləvənt)

— adj
not relating or pertinent to the matter at hand; not important

[cleanhippie]

23. It depends on what we are talking about.

In the bigger context of gun control, it is not important at all.

In the context of irresponsibility and poor parenting, it is very important.

[Missy Vixen]

18. All gun fatalities are "irrelevant" to certain parties, aren't they?

They're not "irrelevant" to the person that's now dead, but hey, don't let me rain on your "Second Amendment is the only important one!!!!!!!1111!!!!!" parade.

[cleanhippie]

22. True, but in the context of the bigger issue, it is quite irrelevant.

[LanternWaste]

40. One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic.

Or in other words...

"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic."
Joesph Stalin

[cleanhippie]

45. So you are quoting Stalin?

Does that give you some kind of credibility or something?

[jpak]

69. They accept thousands of gun deaths each year as the price to pay for "freedom"

need to break a few eggs to make the omelet etc.

an acceptable death toll

yup

[dionysus]

11. i'm not that big into guns, but to be fair, you don't hear a lot about the responsible owners,

because they're not in the news for allowing someone to get killed.

[cleanhippie]

24. For "allowing someone to be killed"?

You mean "for killing someone", right?

[dionysus]

36. if you want to pick nits. if you're cleaning your gun and it was loaded and you accidentally shot

someone, vs leaving a loaded gun around for a little kid to find and play with, and it goes off.

what the hell is the difference? both are cases of deadly irresponsibility.

obviously they shouldn't have left a loaded firearm where children could get to it!

[cleanhippie]

42. It not nitpicking, there is a huge difference.

But on your last statement, I FULLY agree.

[hack89]

17. It matters - it is simply that it is very rare

Guns don't even begin to approach the death toll for young kids from cars, poisoning and drowning.

If you were concerned about the safety of kids and saving lives was the main criteria, guns would be about 7 or 8 on your list of problems to solve.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[cleanhippie]

25. Exactly.

[sinkingfeeling]

33. One every 2 hours and 45 minutes isn't 'very rare' in my view.

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-report-2009.html

The latest data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 3,184 children and teens died from gunfire in the United States in 2006—a 6 percent increase from 2005. This means one young life lost every two hours and 45 minutes, almost nine every day, 61 every week.

Of these deaths, 2,225 were homicides, 763 were suicides and 196 were due to an accident or undetermined circumstances. Boys accounted for 2,815 of the deaths; girls for 369 deaths. More than five times as many children and teens―17,451―suffered non-fatal gun injuries.

[hack89]

39. There is a major flaw with those figures

children = anyone 18 and younger. Care to venture how many dead gang bangers are 18 and younger? A good proportion of those dead and injured are criminals.

The real answer is to rationalize our drug policies - take away the reasons to kill.

And don't forget - gun deaths and injuries due to crime and accidents are at historic lows. And they continue to decline every year. You have never been safer.

[sinkingfeeling]

47. How does that make a difference? Dead is dead.

[hack89]

49. I guess so

just as long as the conduct of criminals is not used to restrict my civil rights I agree that it is a sad situation - that's why I suggested a change in our drug policies. Too often, though, the conversation veers towards "sensible" gun laws and other restrictions on law abiding gun owners. That's why I think it important to look at the actual details.

[sinkingfeeling]

51. One child, under the age of 18, is killed by a gun shot every 2 hours and 45 minutes. That's fact.

[Missy Vixen]

54. Not to the NRA

It's more important that other people's kids die so they can keep their precious guns. I'll even submit that the guns are more important than the health and safety of their own children.

I'm sure we'll see the talking points here in 3...2...1.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Maru Kitteh]

82. Couldn't agree with you more. Greedy theives with tiny dicks and massive compensation issues.

Especially the women.

[hack89]

55. Some of which were killed participating in criminal activities - thats a fact too. nt

[cleanhippie]

62. Bwahahahahaha!

How many die in a car?

[Missy Vixen]

53. What about my civil right to remain alive?

What about my civil right to be free from gun violence?

Oh, I forgot: That's "irrelevant", right?

Perhaps I should also mention that one is "safer than ever" till they find themselves wounded or dead from a workplace or domestic-violence related shooting, for instance. I'll bet Christina-Taylor Green's parents thought she'd be perfectly safe attending a political rally at a grocery store in Pheonix...

[hack89]

56. There is no such right

but I will double check the Constitution just to be sure.

Facts are facts - gun violence rates have been in a constant decline for decades and continue to decline. You are safer now then you were last year and next year you will be even safer.

[Missy Vixen]

66. That whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't the

Second Amendment, so it's moot, right?

I'll be safe as can be, just as long as I'm not anywhere near the next spree shooting, a mentally ill person who's managed to get their hands on a firearm, or someone who thinks all problems are solved at the point of a gun.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[hack89]

81. Enumerated rights are one thing

phrases from the declaration of Independence are something less. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights define your civil rights. The right not to be killed or harmed is not one of them. Now it is a crime to kill and harm you, but you can't take away someone else's civil rights because of potential harm.

[TorchTheWitch]

57. take away the reasons to kill???

Can't be done. Gun violence has little connection to drug dealing and way down on the list of reasons people kill. Gun violence is cultural, and in any culture that allows nearly unlimited ownership and use of guns with little to no oversight it's inevitable that people will turn to guns as a way to solve their problems for the simple reason that the more something is accepted the more it's likely to be used.

The early west was full of gun violence... everyone prominently displayed their guns and shot people for little to no reason. Yet there were no illegal drugs involved. The reason that culture went away is because laws got tougher, law enforcement started taking them seriously and the average person got tired of feeling unsafe with all the gun violence and a culture of curtailed gun use started to flourish and eventually outweighed the desire to show off with guns and use them to solve the mildest of disagreements.

It's the exact same cultural acceptance and the idea that your guns make you "cool" that had cowboys swaggering about showing off with their guns as gangbangers and wanna-be gangbangers do today, and in both cases have them shooting people with little to no provocation.

[hack89]

59. So what is it about our present culture that has driven gun violence to historic lows?

just curious what your perspective is.

[Marrah_G]

How does one live with themselves after causing the death of their child

due to their own negligence? Do Texans have to take gun safety courses before being able to own a gun?

[MountainLaurel]

48. They move the blame to someone else

Let's face it, if these folks were big on accepting responsibility, they wouldn't have left a gun where a child could access it.

When my brother almost died after shooting himself with a gun my father stored in the top of the hall closet, it became my mother's fault for leaving an 8-year-old alone for 5 minutes. He didn't think he played any role in it whatsoever.

[valerief]

4. Guns don't kill people. Rifles kill people. nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Obamanaut]

13. Spoons make people fat. nt

[LanternWaste]

43. And anonymity behind keyboard make people type stupid things. nt

And anonymity behind keyboard make people type stupid things. nt

[Obamanaut]

65. And typing something twice gives it more emphasis.

And typing something twice gives it more emphasis.

Now, that was fun.









If guns kill people, then pencils miss spel words.

[w8liftinglady]

8. unfortunately,gun fatalities by children in Texas are almost commonplace.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0609-11.htm

[hack89]

16. Accidental gun death is very rare - drownings are an order of magnitude greater

On edit: For Texas only

for ages 1 to 14:

Guns
2000 14 deaths
2004 5 deaths
2007 8 deaths

Drownings
2000 102 deaths
2004 70 deaths
2007 78 deaths

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

the trend has been downwards even as population and number of guns increases.

[w8liftinglady]

30. I've taken care of both... dead kids from GSW and Drownings

bear in mind my partner is a big gun owner/vet/teacher/Democrat... gun ownership without training in a household with children is as dangerous as pools without safety devices.

I have arranged for organ transplant for children under 10 with both causes of death.
Thanks for the data.I'll save for future reference

[Arugula Latte]

9. Sad but predictable

Just more "collateral damage" in gun crazy 'Murika.

[cleanhippie]

27. Wow, how more wrong could you be?

Any facts to back up your absurd claim?

[Arugula Latte]

28. Um, yeah, this is a gun nut country and there are a buttload of guns everywhere

and lots and lots of kids get shot and die every year.

DUH!

[cleanhippie]

32. So, no, you cannot.

Got it, thanks.

[hack89]

44. Gun deaths are at historic lows and still declining

you have never been safer.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

[Arugula Latte]

77. I'm sure that makes the dead kids feel much better.

[hack89]

80. Stupid argument

are you really saying that it has to be zero? Does that standard apply to drunk drivers or swimming pools?

[ParkieDem]

10. This is tragic.

I have no idea how the parents will live with themselves.

To be clear, this is not a simple case of a handgun being left out and a kid just playing with it. This is a large, heavy, bolt-action rifle that you really need to know how to use in order to shoot. I don't care how strict our gun control laws may get, no state is going to put heavy restrictions on this type of a firearm. This is very different from handgun control.

[LeftinOH]

12. A better headline: "Careless parents allow children to play with firearms."

[malaise]

14. No - a child killed another child because of

careless parents

[apocalypsehow]

15. And yet another "enthusiast" leaves one of his lethal little toys laying around, and another dead

child is the result of his carelessness and irresponsibility.

Why is it so many "law-abiding gun owners" seem unable to live up to the label "responsible gun owner"?

[ManiacJoe]

20. Usually it is for the same reasons that

for owners of any dangerous tool_x, "law-abiding" does not equal "responsible". Laziness is often high on that list.

[apocalypsehow]

35. Funny, though, that that "tool" turns out time & time & endless time again to be a gun...

I mean, you just don't hear of many children accidentally killing their siblings or the next-door neighbor kid with random power tools their parents left laying around.

That's just a funny old coincidence, I reckon.....

[hack89]

75. Houshold poisons kill more kids than guns

swimming pools too - the underlying cause for all these tragedies are lazy or ignorant adults. It has nothing to do with guns per se.

[apocalypsehow]

78. "It has nothing to do with guns" - Wrong. It has everything to do with irresponsible "enthusiasts"

who leave their lethal little toys laying around for anyone to pick up and play with: the consequences are usually deadly.

Now, I recommend you scroll back up to the top of this OP and re-read the story. It is not about "household poisons." It is not about blowtorches. It is not about fiddles. It is not about rakes or shovels or baseball bats or any of the other myriad diversionary "but...but...but...X-Y & Z kill more people per year!!! Why don't you talk about banning them?!?!" objects that one can normally find in most households.

IT. IS. ABOUT. GUNS.

Follow that? G-U-N-S.

So we're going to talk about guns, not all the rest of that jazz, or we're not gonna talk at all. I'm not wasting one second of posting time talking about everything else but guns, when guns, and their easy availability, and the irresponsibility of a good many "enthusiasts" is the issue at hand. Capiche?

And I say this: that "enthusiast" is more proof that there are far too many guns in far too many irresponsible hands for the health & safety of this country. Another dead child is but one more piece of anecdotal evidence that this is so. And I further say that twenty to thirty years from now, fifty at the most, as this country becomes more diverse and more Blue, i.e., more progressive, and more civilized, the "enthusiasts" are going to find that the country has moved on from the era of immaturity around this issue and toward a more sane policy when it comes to guns.

And when they do, and laws in line with Chicago, California, and D.C. are passed nationwide (and Heller is overturned, as it surely will be with one more progressive justice), well, then, those "law-abiding gun owners" are going to get the chance to prove they are just that, and turn their handguns and assault rifles in. That is a day worth seeing, but, alas, and sadly, this four year old child, killed by an "enthusiasts" carelessly mislaid firearm, won't be here to see it.

Edit: typo.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[apocalypsehow]

83. "your hysteria...your fantasy" - My,my. For someone so seemingly unconcerned about ongoing access to

lethal little toys that have no place in a civilized society outside the hands of law enforcement or the military, you sure do seem, well, a bit overheated, shall we say, yourself.

Myself, if I was confident that something I had a yearning - nay, more like a craving - to possess and tote around was going to be legal forevermore, I wouldn't feel the need to run around a discussion forum spraying personal attacks and logical fallacies hither & yon.

Methinks you are actually a bit worried about that future: and, trust me, it's coming. You see, the country is becoming more like Chicago, more like California, more like D.C., as the country continues to diversify and trend more progressive.

With that trend is going to come gun control laws just like Chicago, just like California, just like D.C. - nationwide. And one day, just like Australia, sure enough.

So you keep telling yourself that the United States is going to be an "enthusiasts" paradise forever and ever, world without end. I have a feeling one of us is going to be surprised to find they were on the wrong side of history all along. And I doubt it's going to be me.

[hack89]

84. So the issue is not really the number of deaths, is it?

you want to ban guns regardless of how few they kill? Because I can't see any other explanation of why you refuse to address the issue of steadily declining gun deaths.



How do you explain this picture for example? Huge drop in gun murders in the past 20 years. How is that possible with such a huge increase in guns and gun owners? Could it be that the vast majority of Americans can be trusted to use guns responsibly?

[apocalypsehow]

85. The issue is a dead four year old, and the irresponsible "enthusiast" whose gross negligence made

him dead. Remember him?

But I understand your desire to talk about something - anything - else. That's a nice little graph you got up there, and I'm glad you posted it. It shows over 8,000 deaths a year by handguns; about 3,000 a year by "other guns."

That is unacceptable to progressives who wish to live in a civilized society, I'm here to tell yah. Others may think 11,000 deaths a year via firearms is an acceptable price to pay for continuing to grant the privilege - gun ownership is a privilege, not a right - to "enthusiasts" to arm themselves with deadly weapons.

Progressives, however, do not: that is not a liberal value. And I'll tell you again:

Methinks you are actually a bit worried about that future: and, trust me, it's coming. You see, the country is becoming more like Chicago, more like California, more like D.C., as the country continues to diversify and trend more progressive.

With that trend is going to come gun control laws just like Chicago, just like California, just like D.C. - nationwide. And one day, just like Australia, sure enough.

So you keep telling yourself that the United States is going to be an "enthusiasts" paradise forever and ever, world without end. I have a feeling one of us is going to be surprised to find they were on the wrong side of history all along. And I doubt it's going to be me.

Period.

[hack89]

86. You are trying a little too hard

trying to convince yourself that you are not on the losing side?

In American, more freedom over time has been our history and tradition. That tells me you are wrong. Civil rights always win in time. Always.

[apocalypsehow]

87. You are trying very hard to avoid talking about the subject of the OP: that dead four year old boy.

I would too, were I you.

"Civil rights always win in time"

Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. And that privilege, by your own graph, kills 11,000 Americans a year. I notice you're no longer interested in discussing that. But no matter: believe whatever you wish. Being on the wrong side of history is not a crime. But one day possessing a handgun or assault rifle - unless you're a cop or a soldier in performance of your duties - will be. Bank it.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

29. Why? Because it simply isn't true.

You made up a statement that you THINK is accurate, but it is not.

[apocalypsehow]

31. My "statement" is a spot-on presentation of fact - as a certain four year old child could no doubt

tell you, if he weren't dead thanks to the gross irresponsibility of his "enthusiast" parents....

[cleanhippie]

34. Oh, I see. Since when did one event a broadbrush it make?

Do you even KNOW what the real stats and facts are? I'm guessing not.

[apocalypsehow]

37. The facts as presented in the article bear out my assertion - when you got some counter-facts

to refute that assertion, get back to me. Thanks.

[cleanhippie]

38. Here ya go. Say goodbye to ignorance.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

Be sure to fully explore the ENTIRE site. You will find that legal gun owners are many times LESS likely than the general public to be involved in a gun crime.

Enjoy.

[apocalypsehow]

46. Which is quite relevant to...nothing, actually, in the context of this story. But nice dodge. n/t.

[cleanhippie]

52. Its VERY relevant, considering it is in response to YOUR post, not the OP. But nice dodge.

[apocalypsehow]

67. Simply repeating something that is demonstrably untrue does not magically make it so. n/t.

[cleanhippie]

74. So why do you keep repeating it?

[apocalypsehow]

76. That's question is best answered by the poster doing it - namely, cleanhippie. n/t.

[cleanhippie]

88. Ahhh, the "I know you are but what am I" defense. Well played.

[apocalypsehow]

90. Not quite. More like the "why do you keep repeating things that are demonstrably false?" observation

"Well played"

Your concession is duly noted, and gracefully accepted.

[cleanhippie]

91. Your welcome. I do like to give generously to children.

Now get home before dark, or else mom will be angry.

[apocalypsehow]

92. And we wrap the entire matter up with a pedestrian personal attack. Textbook. n/t.

[cleanhippie]

93. Bullshit. You opened that door

with post #76.

Besides, when one acts like a child, one should not be surprised to be treated like one.

[apocalypsehow]

94. Nonsense, of course: "#76" opened no "doors" other than the one that apparently leads you to believe

that spewing personal attacks is a legitimate manner in which to reply to other posters when the debate is going very badly for your side of the issue.

Which it has, pretty much from the opening bell.

"Besides, when one acts like a child, one should not be surprised to be treated like one"

And yet another pedestrian personal attack, modeled after the first one. Lacks imagination - try a wee bit harder.

[cleanhippie]

95. You tell yourself whatever you need to in order to make yourself feel better.

To be honest, I could care less anymore.

Have the last word, it all yours.

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

96. "I could care less anymore" - Of course. Once you foundered on the facts of the "debate"*, you first

resorted to pure ad hominem, and since that has failed to work very well have now decided that discretion is the better part of intellectual valor, and skedaddled from the discussion with one last parting attempt at salving a bit of injured pride: "You tell yourself whatever you need to in order to make yourself feel better"

Again and again and again, repeatedly, since the opening exchange: textbook.

Your concession is (again) duly accepted, and have a great evening.




*This has been a "debate" only in the loosest sense of the word, of course. One side making factual assertions and the other side replying with a steady stream of personal attacks does not an actual "debate" make.

[LLStarks]

19. In a perfect world, people would be responsible gun owners. We do not live in a perfect world. nt

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[Ikonoklast]

26. What type of imbecilic parent would leave a loaded weapon of any type around small children?

These people need their children put in a safe place, and it isn't with them.

[apocalypsehow]

41. The same kind who quiver in fear at the thought of visiting the local 7-Eleven without an arsenal of

weaponry holstered to their bodies in various nooks & crannies.

[xchrom]

60. +1

[Kingofalldems]

50. What would be wrong with requiring gun buyers to;

1. Take a safety course
2. Also buy a gun lock or someting similar

?

[cleanhippie]

61. Nothing;

as long as we require voters to

1. Take a civics course
2. Pass a civics test

[Paladin]

63. Next Time An Election Ballot Is Used To Kill A Child.....

...I'll give your bullshit comparison some consideration.

[cleanhippie]

64. Its done everytime someone votes republican.

And when you understand that rights don't need approval, we can have a serious conversation.

[Kingofalldems]

68. People don't die voting

A nonsense answer.

[dddem]

71. Voters should also be required to get off their lazy butts and actually vote!

Especially in local elections - which directly affect all the residents of that city or town.

[Canuckistanian]

70. Aw, that's sweet. Another potential SEAL

Probably inspired by the brave, brave men who killed OBL.

[Obamanaut]

72. "Killed" is too harsh. "Euthanized" fits.