• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One-year-old shot dead by 3-year old in Cleveland home.

it is about the parents's carelessness ,not gun control I think and that is one of the reasons why I believe not everybody should be allowed to have guns
 
One-year-old shot dead by 3-year old in Cleveland home

Right to bare arms? Shouldn't that right come with responsibility not to have a loaded gun where kids can get hold of them? Surely this is common sense. Another senseless and preventable death...face palm

Gun control? No?

Yes, in this country we have a right to bare arms, unless the laws recently changed and we all have to cover them with sleeves like Muslim and Amish women.
 
One-year-old shot dead by 3-year old in Cleveland home

Right to bare arms? Shouldn't that right come with responsibility not to have a loaded gun where kids can get hold of them? Surely this is common sense. Another senseless and preventable death...face palm

Gun control? No?


No indeed.


It's tragic, but more toddlers die from drowning than gunshot. More children die in car crashes than by gunshot. More children die from parental abuse or neglect than by gunshot.


Solve those common problems and then we can talk about rare outliers like gun accidents, which have been trending lower for decades.
 
I wonder why "People will be held accountable for this tragedy", while other tragedies are just considered "accidents".

Accident:


Accident:


Seeking to arrest:


The word accident doesn't even appear in the OPs article or headline.

One of these things is not like the others :thinking
Kentucky: Caroline Sparks :nails

Pennsylvania: Owen Harris :usflag2:

Cleveland: Braylon Robinson. :waiting:

Does that give you a clue as to why there might be a different standard?
 
Last edited:
And of course Texas has the right approach to this issue. Make it a crime for doctors to discuss gun safety with parents with young kids. And thank goodness the NRA is on board with banning conversations about gun safety!

Texas May Ban Doctors From Discussing Guns With Their Patients | ThinkProgress

Likewise, I sure hope no physician discusses car seats/seat belts with parents, or the importance of, and how to limit children's access to deadly cleaning chemicals, etc.
 
No indeed.

It's tragic, but more toddlers die from drowning than gunshot. More children die in car crashes than by gunshot. More children die from parental abuse or neglect than by gunshot.

Solve those common problems and then we can talk about rare outliers like gun accidents, which have been trending lower for decades.

That's bizarre reasoning. A more rational approach would be to attempt to solve all those problems. It's not as if society can only focus on ONE cause of child death at a time. If your point was there is no problem worth worrying about, just say that. But if it's worth worrying about, then it's worth addressing.
 
One-year-old shot dead by 3-year old in Cleveland home

Right to bare arms? Shouldn't that right come with responsibility not to have a loaded gun where kids can get hold of them? Surely this is common sense. Another senseless and preventable death...face palm

Gun control? No?

We can't fix all stupid. Nothing wrong with a legal gun in the home. Smart, many would say.

A loaded gun? A gun accessible to a three-year-old? With a safety either off or so easy to operate that a BABY can do it? A mom who's apparently clueless? Most times you can't fix THAT stupid...
 
That's bizarre reasoning. A more rational approach would be to attempt to solve all those problems. It's not as if society can only focus on ONE cause of child death at a time. If your point was there is no problem worth worrying about, just say that. But if it's worth worrying about, then it's worth addressing.


I wrote a few lines, not a dissertation.

First of all, there is no gun control law that will actively prevent idiots from doing stupid things, or bad people from doing criminal things.... short of a total ban and confiscation and EVEN THEN you'd mostly just disarm the law-abiding. With 300 million plus guns in the country, that bird has flown; Pandora has opened the box; the Genie will not be stuffed back into the bottle.

Second, what I wrote is a matter of perspective. People who get hysterical about ONE child dying in a firearm accident don't seem to get the same hysteria about the far greater number of children mashed to a pulp in traffic accidents. The reason why is usually hypocrisy: the child accident is merely an excuse to advance an anti-gun agenda.

Thirdly, it almost always seem like "addressing the problem" means "more restrictions on law abiding gun owners" that typically wouldn't have made a difference in the case being cited. We've seen that this slope is not merely slippery, it is greased and there are people trying to push. Give the anti-gun elements in government ONE new gun law and they want ten more; let them have NICS and they want registration and AWB's and more. So why bother compromising on an issue involving essential liberty, when the odds are any new "laws" won't solve anything and will simply be used to stage the next agenda item?


Those with a hidden agenda like to scream "If it saves one child it is worth it!"

No it isn't. We could save one child each year (or more) by reducing the parts-per-billion of arsenic in drinking water to 10% of its current allowed level... but the cost to revamp our water systems would be enormous, more than our society would be willing to pay. This was already decided a few years ago.

We could probably eliminate thousands of children dying in traffic accidents by limiting all traffic to 15mph with governors installed in all vehicles... but we don't. The societal cost would be too high in lost time and wages and delays getting goods to markets.

We as a society decide that a certain number of deaths, yes even child deaths, are acceptable so we can zip down the highway at 70mph or more. So yes, we as a society value certain freedoms higher than a few lives.


The Second Amendment is about far more than hunting or self-defense. An armed person is a free person; a disarmed person is subject to whatever abuse an armed attacker wishes to inflict, often as not.



"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
 
And of course Texas has the right approach to this issue. Make it a crime for doctors to discuss gun safety with parents with young kids. And thank goodness the NRA is on board with banning conversations about gun safety!


Likewise, I sure hope no physician discusses car seats/seat belts with parents, or the importance of, and how to limit children's access to deadly cleaning chemicals, etc.
Gun safety isn't a medical condition and not what I want my grandkids' doctors doing when medical care is so costly and hard to schedule. If the doctors are worried about gun safety they can hand of gun safety pamphlets from the NRA who have very comprehensive gun safety programs all over the country.

 
One-year-old shot dead by 3-year old in Cleveland home

Right to bare arms? Shouldn't that right come with responsibility not to have a loaded gun where kids can get hold of them? Surely this is common sense. Another senseless and preventable death...face palm

Gun control? No?

Of course it comes with responsibility. But this is no call for a gun grab. "Preventable death"? Non-slip mats in the shower would save more lives than grabbing all the guns. You crusading for that too? Water and gravity are responsible for far more "preventable deaths". So why use that line here? It's nothing more than emotional fodder for political propaganda.
 
WTF was this "mother" doing and why did she not know the gun was lying around? It is like junkie homes with kids and there is heroin and needles laying about throughout the house.
 
Gun safety isn't a medical condition and not what I want my grandkids' doctors doing when medical care is so costly and hard to schedule. If the doctors are worried about gun safety they can hand of gun safety pamphlets from the NRA who have very comprehensive gun safety programs all over the country.

And we need a LAW making it illegal to discuss those things? Give me a break. I don't know your kids, but I imagine they're quite capable of hearing a few words about gun safety with no long term psychological damage, and if they really don't want to hear it, they should be capable of telling their doctor that without needing the state to step in and BAN that discussion. Maybe the NRA could work with physicians instead of treat them as the enemy for discussing....GASP!!!!l GUN SAFETY WITH PARENTS OF YOUNG CHILDREN!! THE HORROR!!!
 
I wrote a few lines, not a dissertation.

First of all, there is no gun control law that will actively prevent idiots from doing stupid things, or bad people from doing criminal things.... short of a total ban and confiscation and EVEN THEN you'd mostly just disarm the law-abiding. With 300 million plus guns in the country, that bird has flown; Pandora has opened the box; the Genie will not be stuffed back into the bottle.

Second, what I wrote is a matter of perspective. People who get hysterical about ONE child dying in a firearm accident don't seem to get the same hysteria about the far greater number of children mashed to a pulp in traffic accidents. The reason why is usually hypocrisy: the child accident is merely an excuse to advance an anti-gun agenda.

Thirdly, it almost always seem like "addressing the problem" means "more restrictions on law abiding gun owners" that typically wouldn't have made a difference in the case being cited. We've seen that this slope is not merely slippery, it is greased and there are people trying to push. Give the anti-gun elements in government ONE new gun law and they want ten more; let them have NICS and they want registration and AWB's and more. So why bother compromising on an issue involving essential liberty, when the odds are any new "laws" won't solve anything and will simply be used to stage the next agenda item?


Those with a hidden agenda like to scream "If it saves one child it is worth it!"

No it isn't. We could save one child each year (or more) by reducing the parts-per-billion of arsenic in drinking water to 10% of its current allowed level... but the cost to revamp our water systems would be enormous, more than our society would be willing to pay. This was already decided a few years ago.

We could probably eliminate thousands of children dying in traffic accidents by limiting all traffic to 15mph with governors installed in all vehicles... but we don't. The societal cost would be too high in lost time and wages and delays getting goods to markets.

We as a society decide that a certain number of deaths, yes even child deaths, are acceptable so we can zip down the highway at 70mph or more. So yes, we as a society value certain freedoms higher than a few lives.

OK, then your point is gun accidents and deaths for children isn't a problem worth worrying about, or at least not worth worrying MORE about. That's fine. I was just pointing out that there is no need to solve problem X before moving on to problem Y.

The Second Amendment is about far more than hunting or self-defense. An armed person is a free person; a disarmed person is subject to whatever abuse an armed attacker wishes to inflict, often as not.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

I don't feel like getting into a discussion about the broader issue of the the 2nd Amendment. I own several guns and have been shooting since I was a child, so I'm not pushing for any kind of ban.

But you lose credibility citing made up quotes attributed to the Founders to prove a point. I've seen that quote many times, and have never been able to find any evidence Washington ever said those words, or anything close to it.
 
I'm not sure that I agree that making a law that obligates a firearm owner to "reasonable" secure his weapon where children cannot get to it or face a fine/ prison won't motivate anyone, but having said that, I'm much, much more in favor in owners changing the culture of what is acceptable and what is not. Laws can be the start, but it requires people to do the rest if it is going to be truly effective, but one thing I do know is the justification of doing nothing because owners will do it anyway isn't the right way to go either.

Seat belts are one of the best examples I can think of of laws that morph into effective culture change. When I was a kid no one wore them, today a parent with a child in the car without a seat belt is scorned by other members of society.

Enough people were motivated by the law initially, but later on it became an idea enforced by the reasonable expectations of society. If you rescinded the seat belt law, I think a vast majority of people would still wear their seat belts due to societal pressure.

We need the same kind of culture change when it comes to firearms.

given there are more firearms now than at any time in AMerican history and accidental shootings are decreasing, I think this has happened
 
OK, then your point is gun accidents and deaths for children isn't a problem worth worrying about, or at least not worth worrying MORE about. That's fine. I was just pointing out that there is no need to solve problem X before moving on to problem Y.



I don't feel like getting into a discussion about the broader issue of the the 2nd Amendment. I own several guns and have been shooting since I was a child, so I'm not pushing for any kind of ban.

But you lose credibility citing made up quotes attributed to the Founders to prove a point. I've seen that quote many times, and have never been able to find any evidence Washington ever said those words, or anything close to it.



Ah. "You own guns and have been shooting since childhood and not pushing for any kind of ban." Lovely.

That's what all the anti-gunners tell us these days. It's like a script. It gains you not one whit of credibility any more.

So leaving aside no proof on your part that Washington didn't say what he is widely attributed to have said, let's ask what is it YOU DO WANT to do?


More gun control I suppose? Just a guess... :roll:
 
No indeed.


It's tragic, but more toddlers die from drowning than gunshot. More children die in car crashes than by gunshot. More children die from parental abuse or neglect than by gunshot.


Solve those common problems and then we can talk about rare outliers like gun accidents, which have been trending lower for decades.

And far more children in the US die or are injured from gunshot than in the rest of the developed countries in world combined :(
 
And far more children in the US die or are injured from gunshot than in the rest of the developed countries in world combined :(

Well those countries, such as England, are slaves to the government. The weak an unarmed public couldn't stop your government from doing whatever they wanted. Look at North Korea. It's not impossible.
 
And far more children in the US die or are injured from gunshot than in the rest of the developed countries in world combined :(



And yet that number is still very small compared to a 315 million plus population, and has been declining for decades, and is TINY compared to kids getting mashed dead in car crashes.... yet we don't see this furor over thousands of child traffic deaths.
 
Well those countries, such as England, are slaves to the government. The weak an unarmed public couldn't stop your government from doing whatever they wanted. Look at North Korea. It's not impossible.

Slaves because we don't have (or more importantly want) guns in our homes eh ? :lol:

Heres why

Gun deaths in children: Statistics show firearms endanger kids despite NRA safety programs.

The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.
 
Slaves because we don't have (or more importantly want) guns in our homes eh ? :lol:

Heres why

Gun deaths in children: Statistics show firearms endanger kids despite NRA safety programs.

The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.

That may be so. Doesn't make what I said false. You are completely defenseless as a public. I feel sorry for you :-(

Meanwhile. I have a nice over-and-under double barrel shotgun and an AR15 :)
 
And yet that number is still very small compared to a 315 million plus population, and has been declining for decades, and is TINY compared to kids getting mashed dead in car crashes.... yet we don't see this furor over thousands of child traffic deaths.

All developed countries have traffic deaths they are a sad constant of modern life. Gun deaths are not. Why is this extra lethal firearms factor almost absent in other such countries ? There is also the difference between accident and intent too. Firearms deaths are more often than not intentional and not accidental like auto crashes
 
All developed countries have traffic deaths they are a sad constant of modern life. Gun deaths are not. Why is this extra lethal firearms factor almost absent in other such countries ? There is also the difference between accident and intent too. Firearms deaths are more often than not intentional and not accidental like auto crashes

Also likely to be suicide. But I don't think people are running around intentionally shooting kids, and for accidental deaths, guns come in pretty low for kids. If the goal is to maximize impact on infant mortality rates, there are other places to turn to before guns.
 
Last edited:
That may be so. Doesn't make what I said false. You are completely defenseless as a public. I feel sorry for you :-(

Meanwhile. I have a nice over-and-under double barrel shotgun and an AR15 :)

Who are we supposed to be defending ourselves against that would require us to have such an arsenal. Ze Germans ? , The Zulu's ?, The Mafia ?
 
Back
Top Bottom