Gun Ownership Results in Death of Children

yes, children have been killed becuase of guns in their homes; but their deaths are not caused by gun ownership in it of itself, but because parents don't know how to lock their guns up properly. If gun owners locked their guns up properly and kept them in places where their children could not find them, there wouldn't be any deaths.

Yes, owning a gun makes me and my family safer. I ,like the VAST majority of gun owners, am responsible and my guns are locked and unaccessible to the children (and criminals without industrial metal cutting tools).

But if I needed my gun in between the 911 call and the police getting here, I would have it available. What would you be doing during that timeframe? I'm always amazed at the people that have a burglar alarm to alert them to an intruder, but not plan on how to protect their family while they wait.. Baseball bat ? Golf club? Good luck with that. My father turns 70 this year. I'm not sure he'd fare very well against an assailant with a 9 iron.

As mentioned by others... Using a few examples of tragic accidents to make your case is very misleading to those who don't look too closely. But that's the point isn't it?

It sounds to me like the accident with the child was through the fault of his mother and her friends negligence, and thoughtlessness. DId it mention his mother telling him that a gun was not safe ? Why did they just leave the gun where a three year-old could have acsess to it?
I have lived, all my life, in a house that used guns , shot guns and carried permits for guns. I remember being five when I first saw a rifle. My brother was loading the car for a shooting activity with some other men and their sons, and looked like he needed help. I'm sure he could have used some, but he was aware that giving me anything that he was holding would have hurt me. He redirected me to the cooler elsewhere, so that he could take care of the guns without worrying about me. That is responsibilty. From the time they came out of the case till they went in a car, two people were always watching them.

You mannaged to find an irresposible parent that owned a gun.
First I will give you that the parents were negligent in not securing the firearm in a safe place. That is the only place your opinion is worth reading. A firearm is an inanimate object. Like My Dad,My GrandFather, and my Drill Instructor told me many years ago. A firearm is stupid. It can NOT do anything until a human tells it to do it. I have raised four children and I have quite a few firearms . I am a Right to Carry Holder and my children have not shot themselves. These parents failed to maintain proper safety, and I feel sorry that this happened, and they will be tormented for the rest of their lives for being stupid about proper safety proceedures. No matter how you slice it ypu can not make stupidity illeagal.

According to the CDC, some 2,200 children ages 1 to 15 die in car accidents per year vs. 600 from guns . IMO, one is too many in either case, but let's get real. In a world where the average human IQ is around 100, a very large cross section of the population is necessarily below average. For those of subnormal intelligence, it doesn't make a speck of difference what tool you put in their hands, whether it's a turkey baster or a nuclear weapon. They simply aren't bright enough to use tools without causing themselves, or others, harm.

Does the author of this piece truly give a rip about saving children? If so, their agenda should be first and foremost ridding the country of automobiles. This is especially true considering two out of three fatal car accidents are caused by people who are NOT drunk.

Still, I do believe anti gun lobbyists serve a useful purpose. These are the folks who make up the cross section of the population who are not only unable to use tools safely, but openly recognize the fact and freely choose not to use tools. That really is a good thing. From some of the comments I've seen, I'd be scared silly to see dangerous weapons in their hands.

I just wish there were some way to take away their automobiles. After all, we have plenty of highly trained, and highly skilled operators of public transportation , so there's really no reason they should own a car. Plus, you can look at the statistics from any area where cars are not used and see the death rates from auto accidents are admirably low.

maybe it's time to change your position.

You claim: “owning a gun in many instances places our children in grave danger.”

I’m sorry, but on what ACTUAL RESEARCH is your claims based?
The federal government lists the total firearm related deaths for children (0-14) as 251 out of 4,178,898 or 0.69 per day; while there were 2,716 in the same age range, 7.44 per day, that drown. (CDC WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 2006) While each death is a tragedy 4 children die each day in the U.S. from parental neglect and abuse. (National Center on Child Abuse Prevention, 1998 Annual Survey) and Over 13 teenagers die every day in automobiles,
SEVEN are behind the wheel. (U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, 2001).

If guns are the problem: Name the U.S. cities with STRICT gun control laws AND crime rates LOWER than the national average.

Whom do you propose should bear the responsibility of protecting you and your loved ones if not you?

The courts have ruled that police have NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS; despite the non-binding slogan “protect and serve” on their cars :

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody )

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Besides: If YOU are unwilling to protect your loved ones by all means, including with a gun, why should a police officer risk his life to save something that is of such little value that even the OWNER is unwilling to protect it?

Name the last massacre that WASN’T in a “Gun-Free Zone”.
Or how about naming 5 massacres in “Gun-Rich Zones”.

Yes, owning a gun kills children .
So does owning a car. But if everyone drove their cars responsibly, according to all applicable laws, this wouldn't be true.
So does buying a plane ticket. But if planes were perfectly maintained and there were no extenuating circumstances like weather, this wouldn't be true.
So does walking across the street. But if parents always looked both ways, and nobody ever ran red lights and always yielded to pedestrians this wouldn't be true.
While some of the above examples are a bit ridiculous, so are all the arguments presented by the anti-gun agenda. The fact is, some people are irresponsible. Whether you're talking about guns , driving, taking medication , paying their bills; whatever. You CANNOT change the behavior of irresponsible people.
However, if you look at the number of legal gun owners in the U.S. vs. the number of violent crimes and accidents attributed to them, you will see they are among the safest group, statistically.
While the story above is tragic, it was the result of irresponsible parents. Parents who would leave a loaded gun so obviously accessible to a 3 year old child, probably leave poisonous chemicals like bleach within easy reach as well. But where is the anti-bleach agenda in this country?
Another thing the author forgets to mention is the myriad other ways children die in this country at much higher rates than gun accidents, most of which are also preventable.

#1 cause of death for children are motor vehicles. Should we ban cars?

#2 is drowning. Should we ban swimming pools? Going to the beach?

#3 is fires/burning. Should we ban fire? Smoking? Defective heaters? Fireplaces?

#4 is suffocation. Should we strap on scuba tanks to all children?

#9 is death from falling. Should we make our kids wear nerf suits from head to toe?

#11 is poisoning. Should we be required to watch everything our kids ingest, every minute, of every day, everywhere they may go?

How about leaving guns alone, which is #12 on the list, until you're successful with all those others?

If some people are irresponsible and routinely or momentarily fail to prevent small children from having access to their guns, then they should be punished under the appropriate laws (reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, or whatever that may be). If someone fails to properly keep knives out of reach of a child and that child stabs itself, you don't propose to ban non-governmental ownership of knives. If some moron buckles their 2 year old into the front seat without a child seat of their car and that child is injured or killed, you don't propose to ban non-governmental ownership of automobiles arguing that public transportation will fulfill our transportation needs. I know some people are horribly irresponsible. I've read the horror stories too. That's why my handgun is in my nightstand inside of a biometric (fingerprint) safe so that my 3 year old son can't get to it, but if the drug dealer that has followed me home twice decides to break in I can keep him from harming my son rather than just calling the police to come put me and my family in body bags. Some people are stupid and irresponsible. However, many are very responsible. When the irresponsible cause others harm they should be punished, but the responsible should not punished due to others' irresponibility or incometence.

In 2001, 41,611 people died in car accidents. Clearly, then, car ownership is a public safety epidemic that must be curtailed.

I grew up in a house hold around firearms. I was taught from an early age to respect them and to know what kind of damage they are capable of if misused. Even with the access I had to them as a child, I never dreamed of using one to solve any altercations I may have encountered. My heart goes out to those who have lost children because they, as parents were incapable of doing their job and teaching their children to respect them. A gun is simply a tool, nothing more. A child could take a sword to school and do as much damage as a gun can. A kid could take his fork from lunch and stab the person next to him and kill him. How many children have been killed by rocks?

I am sorry if my chosen past time makes you uncomfortable, I truly am. I have made offers to many who oppose firearms to come out to my range and allow me to teach them about firearms and operate a few of them in a controlled environment where safety is of the utmost importance.

I hold a degree in Actuarial Science and Quantitative Risk Analysis and I can tell you without any doubt that stats can be made to say whatever the presenter wants them to say. I grew up in a house with many firearms, some automatic, and never had an incident where either I, or one of my sisters, ever misused one. We were taught at an early age to respect our folks and obey them and that meant not to touch the firearms without their permission. I am currently a Loss Control/Risk Manager and can tell you that there are many dangers in your home that pose a greater risk to your children than firearms. I remember watching a mother on a talk show talk about how her teenaged stepson broke into the parents locked bedroom and retrieved their pistol and accidentally shot her son and paralyzed him. She said that both of the children were victims and the fact that the pistol was in the house was a tragedy waiting to happen. Is there no personal responsibility anymore? One thing I do not understand about the gun argument is that many of the anti-gun people who would rather see 100 innocent people deprived of the right to a firearm if it could prevent 1 criminal from misusing it are the same people who would rather see 100 criminals go free than see one innocent person go to jail. Does this make sense to anyone?

The latest data I can find on this matter is from the CDC using WISQARS tool. For unintentional (accident) death-by-firearm for year 2005, ages 0 - 18 (not just 'children' but minors) the data show 154 fatalities out of 77,546,344 minors. Sorry, but that's not very alarming.

For suicides during the same year and for the same age range it was 600 even. Again, that's not very alarming considering the number of minors.

How about unintentional drowning? 1,057. Same year, same age group. Unintentional poisoning? 456. Residential fire? 479. Motor vehicle? 5,870. My point in all of this is that 'children' die in a variety of ways more frequently than they do at the end of a gun, and stopping some guy at a cash register with another ill concieved law will not make these already low numbers go down.

I have never understood this argument for taking away guns. Sure there is some degree of risk involved in owning a firearm, but public safety and health can NEVER be allowed to trump our rights as citizens of these United States. Otherwise we might as well rename the country "The United Socialist States of America." Oh, and be prepared to kiss you right to speech against the government and your right to protection from illegal search and seizure to be "temporarily suspended" until they catch all outstanding criminals and hate crime perpetrators. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that even the government recognizes AT LEAST 1.5 million defensive handgun uses per year... that means hundreds of thousands of lives saved, if not millions every year. Also, check your statistics, because every year more children under the age of 7 drown in toilets and bathtubs than die from firearms. Why have I not seen an argument entitled "Toilets and Tubs, Are Your Children Safe in Your Own Home?"

I see the merits of both sides, but your discussion should discuss hard facts, trends, etc. Out of 100 million+ households in the U.S. there will surely be tragedies that occur with guns, but what has the behavior of houses with guns resulted in? More deaths? Less? More crime? Less? More safety from robberies? Less? As a group you should be better educators.

"every day innocent children accidentally kill themselves or are killed by another child" - that is an outright lie at worst, and a complete stretch of the truth at best. If you include children killed by gang members AND include gang members killed by gang members, then yes every day would certainly be true. To make such a statement you have to consider everyone under the age of 20 a child & completely innocent. If you want to end gang violence you need to lock up the gang members, not disarm law abiding citizens.