The only way to stop a . . .
 

What is the only way to stop a four year old that has a good guy's gun? :(

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3042312.html

Anyone showing off a bed full of loaded weapons deserves to be accidentally shot with one of them. Too bad it happened to his wife.

The question has been why was the gun loaded? Who keeps their gun collection loaded when there are kids around? You would think that a trained LEO would be more cautious than this while hosting a party. Inexplicable tragedy, IMO.

Indeed. :(

I don't necessarily find "law enforcement" and "good guys" synonymous.

http://www.pamplinmedia.com/go/42-ne...-for-6-million

All I can say is wow, Marc. It's a good thing he was fired.

Totally inexcusable and irresponsible. Want gun laws that would save lives, this should be criminal. Your gun, your responsibility. Maybe it will teach people to keep your weapons unloaded or locked properly.

Which kind of defeats the self-protection idea , no?

There are no children here so ours are loaded, chambered with the safties on and always within arm's reach. Don't even think about coming in uninvited.

Wow, imagine growing up and going through life knowing you did that, even if it was by
accident.


Carl

This IS criminal. Involuntary manslaughter at least, negligent in my view. Hopefully charges will be filed.
The damn sheriff isn't helping any by calling it a terrible accident. It's not an accident, it's willful disregard.

Here's yet another example where a 5-year old shoots his 2-year old sister with his own gun.

A 5-year-old boy accidentally shot his 2-year-old sister to death in rural southern Kentucky with a rifle he had received as a gift last year, authorities said....(T)he boy received the .22-caliber rifle as a gift. He said the rifle was kept in a corner and the family didn’t realize a bullet was left inside it...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...946_story.html

At the risk of sounding like a callous prick, I don't feel the least bit sorry for the parents here.

I have a big issue with the media irresponsibly advocating guns.

I grew up in military family and we were taught that guns are something you have, not something you talk about. The philosphy is something akin to talk softly and carry a big stick.

Today we have talk trash and carry an arsenal. It's palpably different.

You can own a gun for protection and it still be safe. I have a home defense weapon that has a combo trigger lock, 10 second removal, simple as that. Lock them up or have a safety device. With fingerprint locks and such becoming more affordable there is no excuse.

If a parent buys a kid a youth rifle, even a .22, why wasn't there a lock on it? That would be teaching the kid responsible ownership. There is never an excuse for one of these tragedies, simply poor ownership safety.

You're right, Mike. Inexcusable is what I should have said instead of inexplicable. Could be I'm listening to too much LaPee-err. Every one of these accidental shootings could have been easily prevented.

Of course it is. However, those who buy into the notion that "guns don't kill people" are unlikely to take such precautions.

As much as I do not support the NRA the last thing they preach is have a loaded gun in your home. Like the NRA or not they preach gun safety and if their guidelines were followed thing like this would not happen.

Right. And if those guidelines are followed the gun owner is totally defenseless if an intruder breaks into their home unexpectedly.

Kind of speaks to the very reason why guns in the home are more dangerous than useful.

In the 1980s the NRA was reasonable. They frequently reminded members that people are more likely to shoot a family member in a moment of passion than shoot an intruder.

Like everyone else, the NRA got bit by the greed bug during the 1990s. They haven't sweated the fever out yet.

At that time, they truly represented their shooting sports enthusiast membership. Now, they represent the manufacturers. FWIW, the profit margin and demand for AR-15's and similar assault weapons is significantly higher than for conventional sporting arms. That's what much of this fight is about.

They did? Frequently? I'm sure you could find some examples then.

Or your lazy ass could if you were genuinely interested. But you aren't.

You might've bitten off more than you can chew with that challenge, Was. ;)

I follow the guidelines, like I wrote above a simple trigger lock disables a firearm, and is removable in seconds. There is responsible home defense ownership despite what anti-gun preachers believe. I'd rather have a locked safe gun then be a defenseless victim.

Barbara, what are you gonna do if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night? Hope those police get there quick.

I clearly remember that campaign. The NRA was an organization for sportsmen and conservationists back then. They were actually not for hand gun ownership at all. Now it is full of "shooting sport enthusiasts." BIG difference.

Mike, I am not anti gun ownership. I believe there is an appropriate time and place for guns. I just don't think the average joe needs to be armed to the hilt.

As for my own protection, I believe that preventative measures are the first line of defense. With all the security technology available today, preventative measures are not that difficult.

I've lived in some of the highest crime areas in my state and have had to defend myself and my family and done it without any guns. (Or police intervention).

Sometimes being able to think clearly and act efficiently is far better than going off half cocked with an itchy trigger finger just looking for trouble.

Just wondering, Mike.... How many times have you had to use your gun on an intruder in the middle of the night?

Never and hope it stays that way. Weak argument, all it takes is once and you'll be glad you were prepared.

Security systems you can wipe your ass with them. Make sure you advertise the brand on your house so they know to cut the phone wire before kicking the door in. How many times has it happened, once is too many.

Most are cell based now, Mike.

Motion sensor lights, web based IR cameras, cell phone security systems, hardened door jambs, steel doors that look like wood and bars on lower story windows are all easy measures to deter would be thieves.

A German Shepard isn't too bad of a deterrent either.

Not a weak argument. I don't know anyone who advocates using guns on a mid night intruder who has actually faced that situation and used their gun in a way that was effective for defense. However, I know several people who have faced that situation and their guns were useless because, as responsible gun owners, they had their guns and ammunition properly stored. And, I know one person who had their gun loaded and handy and the intruder strong armed it away and used it on them.

Sounds like you don't know much about what is available in home security technology these days.

I sometimes wonder how much cell phone use has cut down on the sort of breaking and entering crime...a criminal cannot disable the landline like in the old days to be sure no one could contact the police. Any one going into a home illegally today has to know that the place is "wired" (as in wireless!) and that there will be 2 or 3 cell phones per house.

You know murders have decreased in Los Angeles to about 300 per year; they used to average about a 1000 per year in the 90s I believe. It seems to me that much more people are getting killed by non-criminals with guns rather than by crimnals with guns. Let's face it when you hear about a murder on the news you either assume it is domestic or gang related. How often is someone shot by a complete stranger?

Indeed! In our case the Feline Horde here would never forgive me if we got one:D.

The fact remains that it's far more likely that someone in your family will be shot with your gun than an intruder. For the record, I've owned guns for about 50 years, have taught NRA Hunter Safety, am a NRA Distinguished Expert in smallbore, and am currently a range safety officer at my local range. However, I've never conceived of my modest arsenal (~10 guns) as a means of personal protection. All remained locked in a safe with ammo locked up separately.

As disposable as you are to a home intruder.

My house has never caught fire but you can bet I have smoke detectors and extinguishers.

You still dodge the question, when your prison of a house with the inmates answering the alarm system have not stopped the intruder what is your plan?

I live in rural suburbia. By the time law enforcement would get here at night we could bake a batch of cookies for them. Perhaps it is different where you live. Most home invasions were cases out before they happen so your deterents can all be useless.

I also live on the outer edges of suburbia. However, if I were to ever get an intruder (pretty unlikely as a large number of Montgomery County's finest live near me), I'd rather let him take whatever he wanted than put a bullet in him. I've lived in downtown DC and New Orleans and felt the same way there.

Mike, I did answer your question. You just don't want to hear it.

Preventative measures are the first line of defense.

And, my house is not a prison. Paranoid, I am not. Taking logical, safe and reasonable precautions is what I advocate.

Your answer is prevention not intervention. The answer is you have no intervention at all just a phone call to authorities. But you also fail to believe anyone else is capable of owning a firearm for home defense and it not harm them instead. M

Someone breaking in your home to steal your things late at night does not care about your life. They are not just going to take your things if you discover them, they will kill you to not be caught. Keep living with your heads in the ground.

Mike,
Your opinion doesn't change the facts.
Guns in the home are more likely to kill or injure friends and family members than be used for self defense.


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

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/gunsafe.pdf