3-year-old shot in Face

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CrazyIvan007

New member
http://www.click2houston.com/news/14188587/detail.html

I am a bit concerned about this article. The guy wasn't supposed to have the gun, probably. The lady didn't want the gun in her house, but he had it in there anyway.

But, the guy is being charged with "Officials said the boyfriend would be charged with...and making a gun accessible to a child causing serious bodily injury."

So, you can be criminally charged with a crime for an 'accident' like this???

Why don't they charge the woman with "Child Endangerment" or something if that is the case?

Sure these people were stupid to let the kid have access to the gun. But, accidents happen.

UGH...
 
Well, the kid got shot because the guy was grossly irresponsible with the gun. Yes, he should be held accountable. This was an accident but it was his fault.
 
What circumstance can you imagine in which a three year old gets his hands on a gun left lying around that doesn't speak to gross negligence?

Someone's at fault but it's not the three year old. What about the mother? Well, she didn't know the gun was even in the house in the first place though one could argue that she should have been watching her child. However at the end of the day the guy is responsible for leaving a loaded gun in a place easily reached by a child.
 
Leaving a gun in your nightstand, you go on vacation and have a friend come & water your plants, feed your cat. You don't really tell her there are guns around because, what is the point? One day her child is sick, so she keeps him out of daycare. That day, she brings her kid with her, he finds the gun and an accident ensues. There was no pre-arrangement to keep her kids out of the house because you really didn't even think about it. You are held responsible for leaving a gun where it could be easily accessed by a child.
 
You are responsible for your firearm 24/7, no excuses. The mere fact this child had a loaded weapon is this guys responsibility.

As for it being an 'accident', no. It was the effect caused by the gun owners irresponsible storage of his firearm.

Sorry to sound anti to some folks, I'm absolutely not. But to not respect your firearms great potential to kill is inexcusable. 3 years old is far to young to be claiming he was training the child in proper use and handling which IMHO would be the only scenario where a child is holding a loaded gun.

I hope this scenario serves to illustrate that laws to hold gun owners responsible for what happens because they were too casual with their guns are not only out there, but in my opinion are legitimate.

If you leave your keys in your car and your 3 year old kid starts it up and hits someone or injures themselves, ought you not be held responsible?
 
Leaving a gun in your nightstand, you go on vacation and have a friend come & water your plants, feed your cat. You don't really tell her there are guns around because, what is the point? One day her child is sick, so she keeps him out of daycare. That day, she brings her kid with her, he finds the gun and an accident ensues. There was no pre-arrangement to keep her kids out of the house because you really didn't even think about it. You are held responsible for leaving a gun where it could be easily accessed by a child.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I didn't think of it and thus I am responsible. There is no excuse for "not thinking" when it comes to firearms.

If you're going on vacation then you obviously are not going to be home to use that gun in self defense. Thus there is no reason it should be laying on your nightstand. If someone breaks in and sees that gun it's going to get stolen and could possibly be used in a crime.

There is no excuse for this situation. The guy was responsible for the kid shooting himself.
 
So if your child drowns, you should be charged criminally for not properly securing the pool. If your child hurts himself riding a bike, you should be criminally charged for not making him wear a helmet. If your child is on a trampoline and hurts himself, you should be criminally charged for buying it. If your child burns himself on the stove, you should be criminally charged. If your child electrocutes himself with an outlet in your house, you should be criminally charged. If your child suffocates at night on his own vomit, you should be criminally charged for not having a vital-sign baby monitor. If your child is bitten by your dog, you should be criminally charged. If your child ingests a cleaning solution/chemical, you should be criminally charged. If your child hurts himself on your stairs, you should be criminally charged. Your child gets hurt in a car accident that is your fault, you should be criminally charged. If your child swallows a quarter or a lego or something else and chokes, you should be criminally charged.

???

Everything in life poses a hazard to a child, not just a gun. There are always precautions you can take to avoid those issues, but to be criminally charged for an accident, is wrong, in my opinon. I see this ability to charge for this as total anti-gun, because of the lack of laws for so many other hazards posed to children. And as I said, accidents happen.

So my question is, where does it stop and when are anti-gun and general laws concerning this type of thing enough for you?
 
353.jpg



Pools, bikes, trampolines, stoves, wall outlets and quarters are not designed to kill. Guns are.

There is a very big difference between a child accidentally hurting himself by falling into a pool and a child hurting himself by picking up a damn gun. Yes, greater care must be put into keeping that gun out of that kid's hands because that gun is a tool specifically designed to kill. Ignoring that, disrespecting the power of a firearm, is grossly irresponsible and a clear sign that the individual does not have the maturity to own one in the first place.

And in some of the cases you mentioned, yes criminal charges should apply. If you have an open pool and you let your three year old run around unsupervised then you sure as hell are responsible if he falls in and drowns.
 
Purpose of design does not really create a distinction in my mind. Death or serious bodily harm can be the result of many things. I don't believe laws should be in place for accidents, within reason.

Negligent homicide, perhaps, but not accident.

Don't get me wrong, I think this guy in the story is a fricken moron idiot. I don't treat my weapons this way and would never think of having a gun accessible to a child in such a manner. So, I hope you don't think I am negligent with my handling of my firearms.

I just see a bit of anti-gun sentiment in this type of law, isolating a child death/injury to the misuse of a firearm.

It doesn't really pertain to this story, but I believe if you have children who have regular or non-regular access to your premesis under 16 and say over the age of 6 and purchase a gun, you should have proof of sending that child to a basic firearm safety course. People in this day and age are morons, and to give a child a bit of knowledge from a good source could be the difference between life & death. And, if you can spend hundreds of dollars on a gun, you can afford to send your kid to a $25 safety course. This kind of contradicts my belief about the other law. But, I just see this as a good way to keep these goofy, reactive, laws from having to be created. We need to be more proactive, not just about guns, but about many things. Too many stupid people have kids...lol.
 
Pools, bikes, trampolines, stoves, wall outlets and quarters are not designed to kill. Guns are.
Click to expand...

Not a single one of my guns is, "designed to kill." A firearm is designed to accurately and reliably project a bullet to where I want it to go.

Anyway, what a terrible tragedy. I'll pray for everyone involved. So sad! :(
 
Is a car designed to combine air and gasoline in a combustion chamber in preparation for ignition? No, it's designed to be a mode of transportation and the process of internal combustion is what allows it to act as a mode of transportation. In that came vein a gun is designed as a weapon. What you described is the manner in which it operates as a weapon but it is a weapon nonetheless.

The point is that a firearm deserves a lot more attention and respect than a pool, trampoline, quarter or anything else that is not a weapon. There can be a number of reasons why a child would be on a trampoline or in a pool but absolutely no reason why a three year old should ever have his hands on a weapon. Ever.
 
Is the fact that they're touching a gun or potentially in danger what bothers you? Isn't lethal harm what it is because of the result, not the process? So many anti gun squids are always more bothered by the fact that something is a problem because of the specific involvement of that particular inanimate object in gross disproportion to the occurrance of the harm it produces. It seems it doesn't bother them in the slightest if the same kid had been run over by a car or struck by lightning. But God forbid they should get shot! Oh no! If they get electrocuted by sticking their finger in a socket, sad, but thank God they didn't touch a gun--that's their stance.
 
Is the fact that they're touching a gun or potentially in danger what bothers you?
Click to expand...
No, what bothers me is the irresponsibility of allowing a child to handle a weapon. What bothers me is that tragedies like this give more fuel to antis and are very easily avoidable by practicing responsible firearms ownership. What bothers me is that lack of complete and total condemnation of this individual and anyone else that allows a child that young to access a weapon makes the rest of us look like irresponsible morons that shouldn't have any sorts of guns whatsoever.

What bothers me is the complete lack of recognition of guns as weapons. When one loses that level of respect for them one does not retain the same level of responsibility around them.
It seems it doesn't bother them in the slightest if the same kid had been run over by a car or struck by lightning.
Click to expand...
Nonesense. There isn't a decent human being out there that wouldn't be bothered by a child being run over by a car. Pretending that antis are somehow insensitive and uncaring does nothing to further the argument.
 
"You can't fix stupid."
~Ron White

If being stupid is a crime, then we need to build more prisons and have an armed guard in everyone's house to prevent accidents.
 
:rolleyes:

When being stupid results in someone else's death, yes it should be a crime. You mentioned it yourself: negligent homicide. This man's actions directly lead to an injury of this child. The fact that it was with a gun not only shows his irresponsibility as an adult but shows his gross irresponsibility as a gun owner.

I'd hold the same contempt for someone that went on vacation and left their gun on the nightstand, ripe for theft.
 
This kid didn't die, and accidents should not be a crime. It is a very thin line drawn between "negligent homicide" and "accidental death." I believe that line should be thoroughly detailed. I, myself, can not detail that line, but believe it does in fact exist. Basically, though, I believe negligent homicide to be a situation where you know something can cause harm, but disregard it anyway. Something like knowing a car will explode on impact, but allowing it to be distributed to the public anyway and someone dying as a result of their negligence. This guy should be charged with child endangerment, but not a crime relating to a firearm (other than if he posessed it illegally).
 
No but others have. However this kid shouldn't have a bullet go through his face that could very well have killed him. It happened because this guy was irresponsible. It was his fault.
 
The adult in charge would have been just as negligent and the 3 year old being equally dead if the inanimate object in question was a nail gun, blowtorch, chainsaw, large kitchen knife, etc. : A gun is a TOOL with potentially dangerous unintended effects just as any other. Not one iota different. Anything else is connotation and semantics. The purposes to which a firearm serves may be uncomfortable to you, but that has no bearing on the reality of the matter. Negligence + dangerous inanimate object = bad consequences.
 
Well, if you ask me, I think it is the woman's fault for getting involved with a drug dealer/user. He was not the father of the child, yet she allowed him to be around the kid as a poor influence and pose a dangerous situation. I have no mercy for women (or men) who put themselves in a dangerous relationship and then complain when something bad happens. I don't think she should be criminally charged, but perhaps relocating the child to another family may be the best bet. Obviously this woman can not make choices in best faith for her child's welfare.

But, the guy left the gun, creating a possible harmful situation to the child. He was charged as a result of the accident. Then, do you believe the woman should be charged for allowing a dangerous man into her house, where the child resided?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top