Four-year-old boy shot dead by four-year-old cousin on Detroit west side

a5pj

http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/national/4-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-on-detroits-west-side-by-4-year-old-cousin1389974689091

Here's my main concern with the gun debate other than school shootings and people committing mass shootings in random places. This happens everyday and the children suffer.
An adult was even present when this happened and wasn't able to stop it.

gimmesometruth27

nope, guns are not the problem. if that other kid had one, he could have disarmed the first kid.....

unsung

Yeah, why would we ever want to hold an adult accountable???

It's easier to blame an object that can't be offended.

Goofy liberals.

gimmesometruth27

unsung said:

Yeah, why would we ever want to hold an adult accountable???

It's easier to blame an object that can't be offended.

Goofy liberals.

goofy liberals?

what is the political philosophy/ political party that will defend that object at all costs? you know, that object that humans time and time again prove that they can not handle. that object that kills more people by accident than any other object. you know, the philosophy/party that thinks it is obscene to ever suggest we do background checks for prospective gun owners. the party who goes on and on about liberty, yet is the first party up inside a woman's vagina making her carry a baby to term? the party that is on the verge of self destructing because their core principles are out of touch with the rest of the country. and people on your side of the issue have the gall to call me goofy?

unsung

You're goofy because you blame a device for problems instead of getting to the core of the issue. You need to get inside these people's heads and determine why they don't value life.

And since you've already turned this into abortion lets compare stats. Roughly 12,000 people in the US last year were killed in some fashion by a firearm, yet about 1,250,000 lives were terminated by abortions in the same time period. That's a lot of lost potential at a ratio of over 100:1. It's all tragic. So a woman has the right to end life but I shouldn't have the right to defend mine or those in my family by the means I currently have?

You talk about party politics, that's irrelevant. Do some research and you'll find that the lousy NRA is responsible for most of the anti-gun laws in this country. In fact they even endorsed Harry Reid for re-election because he secured funding/helped with regulations for a huge gun range in Nevada. I'm not a member, because the NRA compromises rights, I do not.

Again let's discuss why these incidents occur and move on from blaming a device that can not operate itself. I maintain that since gun safety classes and shooting teams were removed from high schools that these senseless and tragic accidents have increased. You want to point fingers at parties? It wasn't the NRA that removed these classes and teams from schools my liberal friend.

backseatLover12

One motto I live by: Don't even bother arguing with Republicans. Nothing but a waste of time.

Meaning YOU, unsung. All you can do is point a finger. That's what republicans do. Rather than look at themselves, look for real solutions and considering opening their mind a little bit, you'd rather sit there and blame liberals. What a joke. Solves nothing.

unsung

I'm not a Republican, newb.

And I didn't blame liberals for anything, I'm saying to find the cause, and not blame an inanimate object.

Welcome to AMT.

brianlux

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Homicide

Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides.

On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.

Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.

Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides.

Suicide

Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths.

Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm.

On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010.

White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010.

A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers.

Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010.

More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend.

The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked.

Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%).

http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

gimmesometruth27

how can a conservative be pro life? they can not make the argument about a million potential lives being eliminated when they do not believe in funding birth control and condoms, and they do not believe in funding food stamps and medicaid. how can we handle an extra million babies that people can not afford if they do not want to pay for anything to either a, prevent the pregnancy, or b, care for the born baby?

as far as guns go, access to guns is the problem. the number of guns available is the problem.

it is easy to shoot someone. you don't have to be right up on someone to feel their breath on your face when you shoot them. it is very impersonal to shoot someone. guns makes mass murder easier because it is impersonal. you stab someone, or choke someone with your bare hands, THAT is personal. i guaranfuckingtee you that most people who murder with guns are incapable physically or emotionally of murdering someone with a knife or their hands. this is why the gun is the problem.

backseatLover12

unsung said:

I'm not a Republican, newb.

And I didn't blame liberals for anything, I'm saying to find the cause, and not blame an inanimate object.

Welcome to AMT.

And calling people "goofy liberals" is not pointing the finger?

Whatev. The fact that you insist on calling people newbs only shows that your ego can't stand adversity from someone who hasn't been around as long as you. Get over yourself.

Idris

I Can't wait for a device that only allows the owner of the gun to use/fire it, FIngerprint recognition type thing. Of course that doesn't solve the problem of the tons of guns already on the streets and in homes.

Responsible gun ownership does exist, locking them away and/or keeping them out of a childs reach, I mean its just common sense.

I've had some friends and family members who have been hurt and even killed by people who've used guns on them. If guns didn't exist or were banned, would they still be alive? Maybe, or maybe the killers would just find another way to kill. Like killers did before the advent of guns.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Idris said:

I Can't wait for a device that only allows the owner of the gun to use/fire it, FIngerprint recognition type thing. Of course that doesn't solve the problem of the tons of guns already on the streets and in homes.

Responsible gun ownership does exist, locking them away and/or keeping them out of a childs reach, I mean its just common sense.

I've had some friends and family members who have been hurt and even killed by people who've used guns on them. If guns didn't exist or were banned, would they still be alive? Maybe, or maybe the killers would just find another way to kill. Like killers did before the advent of guns.

You are correct. Responsible gun ownership does not exist. People on this forum have admitted that they have their guns loaded, ready for use, and lying around the house. Some think 'responsible gun ownership' means you haven't shot anyone.

Guns are supposed to be locked in a locker or safe aside from its ammunition. This is the standard and prescribed 'responsible' method of storage. The argument against this is a paranoid person saying, "How the hell am I going to shoot the bad guy with my guns stored that way?"

My question to that fear-filled response is: what is the proportion of accidental shootings compared house invader shootings?

mickeyrat

Ban the ammo. Ban the legality of allowing self loading. Have all the fucking guns you want. NO AMMO!!!!! Problem solved. 2nd amendment in my limited understanding does not guarantee ammo or access to ammo.

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

Ban the ammo. Ban the legality of allowing self loading. Have all the fucking guns you want. NO AMMO!!!!! Problem solved. 2nd amendment in my limited understanding does not guarantee ammo or access to ammo.

i will do you one better. ban the manufacture of all guns and ammo within the united states for 10 years. run those companies out of business, and make people hoard their guns and ammo. i guarantee people will not be so careless in shooting people when they know they have a finite supply of ammo, and then, god forbid, they might actually have to fight someone with their fists.

goingtoverona

hehe thirty, I think that's directed at me because I remember saying something like that. quick question, if a person has a gun for self defense, how can they use it to defend themselves if it's locked away? what a complete idiot you would have to be to have a gun inaccessible if you have a gun for self defense and need it to defend yourself. you're saying I have to keep my guns locked up because of what? non existent children? because if a guy breaks into my house steals my guns and kills people it's my fault not his? what horse shit.
and you're right btw, there is no responsible gun ownership, just like there's no responsible car ownership, no responsible alcohol/tobacco consumption, no responsible knife ownership.
oh and thanks for the stats blux, I thought cars killed more people than guns, but luckily since they weren't meant to kill I don't give a shit about the people that are killed, that's just life, right guys?

goingtoverona

oh and thirty, what does this mean?

My question to that fear-filled response is: what is the proportion of accidental shootings compared house invader shootings?

I don't understand what point you are trying to convey.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

oh and thirty, what does this mean?

My question to that fear-filled response is: what is the proportion of accidental shootings compared house invader shootings?

I don't understand what point you are trying to convey.

The comment wasn't directed at you specifically, Verona. To be honest, I couldn't remember specifically who- only how many said they have loaded guns lying around their house for fear of bad guys lurking outside of it (why else would you have a loaded gun lying around?). I understand though: if I was a scaredy cat... I'd probably do it too.

Are you serious? How could a person struggle with the question I posed?

It would be interesting to compare the number of 'accidental shootings' (like the ones we hear of all the time where a 4 year old grabs their uncle's gun and shoots their cousin)... compared to the number of 'house invader shootings' (where Granny uses her gun to shoot dead a house invader). Sorry for any confusion- I'll try to use some pictures and one syllable words next time for you.

You might have to elaborate on comparing irresponsible gun ownership to irresponsible tobacco ownership. Call me daft now, but I'm not following you at all here.

goingtoverona

hehe yeah i'm like joe pesci in casino when the feds are watching him. I got my hand over my mouth and when any old man walks past i'm like what's this guy doing? who is this guy? something's up. I just love how you choose my emotions for me. and i'm not understanding what you're talking about with the struggle with your question. I wanted to know what point you were trying to get across about looking at the relationship between accidental shootings and house invader shootings. it's funny you're talking about dumbing stuff down for me, but you didn't even answer my question. wow. so for the second time, what's your point about comparing accidental deaths to home invader deaths. why would it be interesting to compare the two?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

hehe yeah i'm like joe pesci in casino when the feds are watching him. I got my hand over my mouth and when any old man walks past i'm like what's this guy doing? who is this guy? something's up. I just love how you choose my emotions for me. and i'm not understanding what you're talking about with the struggle with your question. I wanted to know what point you were trying to get across about looking at the relationship between accidental shootings and house invader shootings. it's funny you're talking about dumbing stuff down for me, but you didn't even answer my question. wow. so for the second time, what's your point about comparing accidental deaths to home invader deaths. why would it be interesting to compare the two?

Don't give yourself too much credit for being clever here. I did respond to your intial query in appropriate fashion: there didn't really need to be a point to a question that is prefaced with, "It would be interesting to compare..."

To that end: I would speculate that the number of 'accidental deaths' would be dramatically more than 'home invader deaths'. Is the preparation worth the risk? In my mind... no.

I would also assert that owning a gun to prepare for a home invasion is tantamount to not swimming in the ocean for fear of shark attack. The odds are unbelievably in your favour, yet you feel the need for precaution anyways.

goingtoverona

yeah i just wanted you to come out and say it rather than the subtle hints of what you mean. which is that for you it's a numbers game, people don't need guns because the odds of an accidental shooting are a lot greater than the necessity for defense. that's great and all but in the instances where a gun would be warranted, what do you tell those people? sorry your family got kidnapped and you couldn't defend them, sorry you got raped at gunpoint and couldn't defend yourself, but hey the kid of an irresponsible parent is probably alive today because only the criminals have guns now? yeah i'd pass on that.
also, if you lock your doors, wear a seatbelt or own insurance, you are afraid something bad will happen, why is preparing for or being ready for bad things to happen a bad thing?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

goingtoverona said:

yeah i just wanted you to come out and say it rather than the subtle hints of what you mean. which is that for you it's a numbers game, people don't need guns because the odds of an accidental shooting are a lot greater than the necessity for defense. that's great and all but in the instances where a gun would be warranted, what do you tell those people? sorry your family got kidnapped and you couldn't defend them, sorry you got raped at gunpoint and couldn't defend yourself, but hey the kid of an irresponsible parent is probably alive today because only the criminals have guns now? yeah i'd pass on that.
also, if you lock your doors, wear a seatbelt or own insurance, you are afraid something bad will happen, why is preparing for or being ready for bad things to happen a bad thing?

I would tell them, "Thank God you had that 12 gauge shotgun in your house and used it to protect yourself!" because nobody here is suggesting a complete ban on guns.

I'm all for preparing for bad things to happen and safeguarding yourself. This is why I am suggesting gun reform. Safeguard your country from more harm by limiting the types of weaponry available to the public. Why must you accept another school shooting as a necessary aspect of life?

The people that have these breakdowns we bear witness to aren't typical 'bad guys'. Typical 'bad guys' generally shoot other typical 'bad guys' that encroach on their business practices. These Adam Lanzas and James Holmes types are merely people that have lost their minds and simply taken advantage of the easy access to advanced weaponry to express their rage or sorrow.