http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcwebe...hree-year-old/
A few years ago, there was an incident involving a three year old who tragically lost his life due to a gun accident. The police department already had a precaution for all of its employees who owned a gun, a $36 safe commonly sold at Wal-Mart and such. They didn't test the units and after the story came out, the company and the department didn't bother recalling the units.

As the story is passed around on other sites, the same old argument of responsible citizens know how to control their guns is brought up again. Some even scoff that their own guns are stored in a safe bolted to the ground. Maybe some keep them in their bed bunkers? But who really expects people to shell out over $1000 for a safe to hold guns they paid up to a few hundred for, when can do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost?

But who really expects people to shell out over $1000 for a safe to hold guns they paid up to a few hundred for, when can do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost?

But you can't do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost. Why would you shell out $36 for a safe that doesn't work? You might as well buy a plastic tub to store your guns in. Than again, I do not have nor plan to have children, so I have no need to lock them up.

One random question, do the cognitive abilities that enable a three-year-old to crack these crappy safes also allow the child to learn right from wrong, about dangerous objects, etc.? Does the three year old know not to touch the stove or run into the street without looking? If not, then the child should not be left alone, am I correct? This page on child development suggests they should not be left alone: http://www.pbs.org/parents/childdeve...ree/index.html

And my last random thought. The number one cause of death for 3-5-year-olds is accidents, with motor vehicle accidents the largest proportion. The other top accidental causes of death for preschoolers are drowning, fire, falling and poisoning. I searched "cause of death preschoolers" on Google and none of the results on the first page say anything about firearms or guns. Child gun death statistics that the gun control lobby uses are deceiving. http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

In 2007 there were 1520 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group (out of 74,340,127 children) and 3067 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1547 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. In other words, in 2007 most "child gun death victims" were actually adults.

With the prevalence of guns in the United States, I'm surprised how few child deaths related to firearms there are, the crappy safe notwithstanding. Teenage suicide using firearms can be a problem in places where gun ownership is high. Where gun ownership is low, they tend to throw themselves in front of trains.

Originally Posted by Spokker But you can't do it cheaper for a fraction of the cost. Why would you shell out $36 for a safe that doesn't work? You might as well buy a plastic tub to store your guns in. Than again, I do not have nor plan to have children, so I have no need to lock them up. One random question, do the cognitive abilities that enable a three-year-old to crack these crappy safes also allow the child to learn right from wrong, about dangerous objects, etc.? Does the three year old know not to touch the stove or run into the street without looking? If not, then the child should not be left alone, am I correct? This page on child development suggests they should not be left alone: http://www.pbs.org/parents/childdeve...ree/index.html And my last random thought. The number one cause of death for 3-5-year-olds is accidents, with motor vehicle accidents the largest proportion. The other top accidental causes of death for preschoolers are drowning, fire, falling and poisoning. I searched "cause of death preschoolers" on Google and none of the results on the first page say anything about firearms or guns. Child gun death statistics that the gun control lobby uses are deceiving. http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm With the prevalence of guns in the United States, I'm surprised how few child deaths related to firearms there are, the crappy safe notwithstanding.

To be fair, you can touch a hot stove and live to learn from that mistake. You or your accidental target might not live from a gunshot, and it will certainly be more traumatic. One point of regulation and laws is to reign in the stupidity and ignorance. Of course it isn't good to leave a three year old alone, just like it's bad to drive while heavily intoxicated. What things can be done to prevent a few hundred child deaths, then? Maybe something involving gun control or hopefully education is one of them.

Personally, I didn't expect such incidents to be exceptionally common, but less senseless death is better, right?

I'd be most concerned with intentional gun violence by deranged individuals who should have been weeded out rather than given legal gun ownership; I don't just mean people who go ballistic and massacre innocents, but also those who are angry and decide it's okay to shoot someone.

Edit: So many claim guns for self-defense, but less lethal weapons (pepper spray, tasers, or something) should be just fine for the type of situation they're expecting.

Hot stove? Perhaps some permanent scaring but probably not death. You are correct there. Not looking both ways before you cross the street? Death is likely, or perhaps permanent disfigurement. Can three-year-olds learn to open doors and run outside when a parent is not looking?

But don't get me wrong, the safe sounds like an incredibly crappy safe. They would not get my safe-related business. I'm against safes in general, a belief that has been influence by Ben Stern, Howard Stern's father. It makes you a target. Some of the boys in the neighborhood see you hauling a safe into your house, they might become a bit curious about what you're going to put in there. So I have no respect for consumer-level safes.

Originally Posted by ID2006 I'd be most concerned with intentional gun violence by deranged individuals who should have been weeded out rather than given legal gun ownership

Like gang members? Last I checked, they do not use legally obtained weapons. The gun control lobby counts the 18 or 19-year-old gang member who pissed off the wrong thug and got shot as child gun death victims. http://jpfo.net/filegen-a-m/gcstatpad.htm

Originally Posted by ID2006 Edit: So many claim guns for self-defense, but less lethal weapons (pepper spray, tasers, or something) should be just fine for the type of situation they're expecting.

Your aggressor likely has something a bit more powerful and effective than pepper spray.

Also, self-defense is one reason cited to own a gun. Another is specific fascination with the weapon itself, like a toy train hobby. The other big reason is probably based on principles. This is something I believe I have every right to own. You say I can't, therefore I want it even more. I get this way about photography. In all honesty I probably don't want to take as many photographs as I do, but I will take them simply because I have a right to, and some try to stop me.

Originally Posted by Spokker ...But don't get me wrong, the safe sounds like an incredibly crappy safe. They would not get my safe-related business. I'm against safes in general, a belief that has been influence by Ben Stern, Howard Stern's father. It makes you a target. Some of the boys in the neighborhood see you hauling a safe into your house, they might become a bit curious about what you're going to put in there. Like gang members? Last I checked, they do not use legally obtained weapons. The gun control lobby counts the 18 or 19-year-old gang member who pissed off the wrong thug and got shot as child gun death victims. http://jpfo.net/filegen-a-m/gcstatpad.htm

Unless the gang violence cases involved a legally obtained gun, they're irrelevant. I'm only talking about legally obtained weapons that go to people who should not have been allowed gun ownership. I realize that there are those who would just acquire illegally, but there are also those who wouldn't be bothered or wouldn't know how.

As for the safe thing, that's almost irony. Surely there is a more discrete way to bring a safe into your house.

Edit: I looked for some legal gun statistics, but I didn't find anything. Guess I'm not sure how to go about it.

But again, a lot of the gun deaths we see do not happen simply because a gun exists. The gun is the instrument used. Many commit suicide with a firearm, but when a firearm is not present they will overdose, jump off a bridge or throw themselves in front of a train. The underlying cause of the problem is mental illness, not the availability of weapons. I wish people would kill themselves with guns instead of throwing their ass in front of my train, delaying my commute for three hours minimum each time, if they are going to do it. I'd rather they seek mental help first, of course. I think that's what you are supposed to say.

Similarly, accidental child gun deaths, including the ones where they fudge the numbers to include 19-year-old gangbangers, are a symptom of bad parenting. In absence of a weapon, the child could easily jump off an air conditioning unit and hurt themselves that way.

But no way do I intend to take away from the crappiness of that safe. They should write a negative review on Amazon about it.

Originally Posted by ID2006 Edit: I looked for some legal gun statistics, but I didn't find anything. Guess I'm not sure how to go about it.

Well, I really liked these Jews for Guns guys, myself. For non-polarizing crap I tend to go to the DOJ or the FBI. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

But yeah, nothing about legal vs. illegal guns. I think a good proxy for what you might be thinking about is removing all the gang-related crimes, as those crimes are usually committed with an illegally obtained weapon in regions with a high level of gun control. Then we'd see what's left over, presumably homicides involving legally obtained firearms but it would not be exact. Another big but is that homicide does not necessarily mean murder. A proportion of firearm-related deaths will be justified uses of self-defense.

Originally Posted by Spokker Hot stove? Perhaps some permanent scaring but probably not death. You are correct there. Not looking both ways before you cross the street? Death is likely, or perhaps permanent disfigurement. Can three-year-olds learn to open doors and run outside when a parent is not looking? But don't get me wrong, the safe sounds like an incredibly crappy safe. They would not get my safe-related business. I'm against safes in general, a belief that has been influence by Ben Stern, Howard Stern's father. It makes you a target. Some of the boys in the neighborhood see you hauling a safe into your house, they might become a bit curious about what you're going to put in there. So I have no respect for consumer-level safes.

Judging from your statements, it seems unlikely that you would leave your guns secured from accidental discharge even from using a trigger lock. Combined with your other comments on firearms in general, it's even more unlikely that you've ever even fired a gun.

Like gang members? Last I checked, they do not use legally obtained weapons. The gun control lobby counts the 18 or 19-year-old gang member who pissed off the wrong thug and got shot as child gun death victims. http://jpfo.net/filegen-a-m/gcstatpad.htm

Those guns come from somewhere. Just because the end up in the hands of someone that shoots someone doesn't mean that there is no legitimate chain of ownership. Maybe if gun owners secured their guns better or were more scrupulous with who they sold to, there wouldn't be so many illegally obtained guns on the street.

Originally Posted by dohdough Judging from your statements, it seems unlikely that you would leave your guns secured from accidental discharge even from using a trigger lock. Combined with your other comments on firearms in general, it's even more unlikely that you've ever even fired a gun.

I've never owned or fired a gun. I've been successfully disarmed. If I do obtain a weapon, it would be a social faux pas and I would lose friends and family because they have been similarly disarmed and put off of guns.

Those guns come from somewhere.

Like the ATF.

Originally Posted by Spokker I've never owned or fired a gun. I've been successfully disarmed. If I do obtain a weapon, it would be a social faux pas and I would lose friends and family because they have been similarly disarmed and put off of guns.

LOLZ...what the does "disarmed" mean and why do you even give a what they think when having someone tell you not to do something makes you want to do it more?

Like the ATF.

If by that, you mean the ATF was powerless to prosecute straw purchasers and confiscate weapons because local prosecutors couldn't make a case due to lax gun laws, then you'd be right. Be we both know you don't mean that.

Originally Posted by dohdough LOLZ...what the does "disarmed" mean and why do you even give a what they think when having someone tell you not to do something makes you want to do it more?

Where I live it is socially unacceptable to have a weapon. The "someone" you are talking about is government, law enforcement, etc. For others, this is a reason to own guns, not for me. For me, this applies to photography in public places.

If by that, you mean the ATF was powerless to prosecute straw purchasers and confiscate weapons because local prosecutors couldn't make a case due to lax gun laws, then you'd be right. Be we both know you don't mean that.

Or just end the war on drugs and the cartels won't have such power and you won't need to concoct crazy gun tracking schemes or worry about lax gun laws ruining said crazy scheme.

Originally Posted by Spokker Where I live it is socially unacceptable to have a weapon. The "someone" you are talking about is government, law enforcement, etc. For others, this is a reason to own guns, not for me. For me, this applies to photography in public places.

LOLZ...that "someone" I'm talking about are your friends and family. And you don't strike me as the type of person that cares too much about what's "socially acceptable." As for your photography, I hope you're not the type to be at the playground snapping shots of kids like a creep because you like being a contrarian.

Or just end the war on drugs and the cartels won't have such power and you won't need to concoct crazy gun tracking schemes or worry about lax gun laws ruining said crazy scheme.

Ummm...yeah, that crazy scheme that you're talking about didn't seem to happen they way you're implying it did according to those fine folks at Fortune Magazine. Either way, ending the Drug War doesn't mean legalization or commuting the sentences of non-violent offenders. What you're describing is a red herring because it's less about the "war" and more about the federal appropriation of power and authority to engage in that war. State's rights, right?

It's really ed up that those kids can figure out how to open those safes regardless of cheapness and any gun owner that purchases them cannot purport to be a responsible one.

A lock and key safe sounds like it would solve the problem here. Who buys an electronic safe at $35 and expects it to be the real thing?

And from Walmart? Damn.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by dohdough LOLZ...that "someone" I'm talking about are your friends and family. And you don't strike me as the type of person that cares too much about what's "socially acceptable."

I care about my significant other's opinion on the matter. Gun ownership is not a deal breaker for me but it is for her. On the other hand, there are some deal breakers for me that are not deal breakers for her. If you want to be in a relationship, there is a give and take.

As for your photography, I hope you're not the type to be at the playground snapping shots of kids like a creep because you like being a contrarian.

I photograph at rail stations, but photographing children in public is not illegal. People have been investigated for photographing their own children at the beach or public pools, for example. That's how crazy the crackdown on photography has gotten.

What makes me mad is the prohibition of photography in taxpayer-supported places like train stations. Eleanor Holmes Norton has been a strong ally for photographers in this arena. There used to be a great speech by her about this on YouTube but I can't find it now.

Either way, ending the Drug War doesn't mean legalization or commuting the sentences of non-violent offenders. What you're describing is a red herring because it's less about the "war" and more about the federal appropriation of power and authority to engage in that war. State's rights, right?

Ideally, states would decide for themselves the kind of drug laws the want through the democratic process. I would be attracted to a state with full legalization of at least marijuana and decriminalization of everything else, at a minimum. And if federal drug laws were struck down, wouldn't the president have the power to pardon non-violent offenders charged under federal law?

And if the federal government told states they cannot criminalize drug sales, possession and use, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I can compromise there.

Actually, I'm not, but it's doubly amusing to see you off your game tonight by pulling a bob with this. If you had Asperger's, I'd actually leave you be, but since you said you don't, then I don't need to hold back.

Can't backpedal now. All your posts will now be required to display a disclaimer talking about how we need to be more tolerant of mental illness. The Gawker article is being written about it now. I hope you don't work for Aflac.

Originally Posted by dohdough edit: Enough about you and back on topic. It's really ed up that those kids can figure out how to open those safes regardless of cheapness and any gun owner that purchases them cannot purport to be a responsible one.

No argument that the safe is of poor quality and construction.