South Carolina woman kills escaped jail inmate who kicked down her door, sheriff says

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

And people may choose to transport their children in a vehicle regardless of what others recommend.  I am all for adults being responsible relative to guns as I have said many times, but as I also said, you cannot fix stupid and although I hate seeing the stories of kids being killed in any manner, if their parents are so irresponsible there is nothing any laws, or recommendations can do.

Well we can and do remove children from homes. The problem is that system is reactionary. Generally something bad has to have already happened. 

 

I started this conversation with the question of whether we can find middle ground. People want easy access to their firearms for personal protection. Can we find a way to do that while also minimizing risks to children? Education sounds great but I doubt it is enough to truly keep the children safe. What about technology? I don't know what's out there with regards to firearm tech.

 

Also - if your response is "what can laws do?" then do you think we shouldn't even have laws about car seats? Why not just make it a recommendation but no requirement?

Edited December 6, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Often in vehicles that have completely bald tyres*.

 

*should be the mandatory spelling

I dont get it ? 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, bcking said:

Well we can and do remove children from homes. The problem is that system is reactionary. Generally something bad has to have already happened. 

 

I started this conversation with the question of whether we can find middle ground. People want easy access to their firearms for personal protection. Can we find a way to do that while also minimizing risks to children? Education sounds great but I doubt it is enough to truly keep the children safe. What about technology? I don't know what's out there with regards to firearm tech.

 

Also - if your response is "what can laws do?" then do you think we shouldn't even have laws about car seats? Why not just make it a recommendation but no requirement?

There is nothing wrong with what you are suggesting.  A gun safe makes it hard to use a gun when it is really necessary to do so.  But as I said a few pages back, a top drawer of a dresser, or a closet shelf, are about all the deterrent any infant or toddler would need.  Much the same as a under-sink cabinet of household cleaners vs. a shelf in the laundry room.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

There is nothing wrong with what you are suggesting.  A gun safe makes it hard to use a gun when it is really necessary to do so.  But as I said a few pages back, a top drawer of a dresser, or a closet shelf, are about all the deterrent any infant or toddler would need.  Much the same as a under-sink cabinet of household cleaners vs. a shelf in the laundry room.

Toddler yes (top shelf somewhere). 6+ year olds can get into all sorts of places. Especially like this time of year, searching for Christmas presents etc...

 

Just not something I would gamble with, but that's just me. I'm fine with other people choosing to take the risk I just hope they realize it is a risk. I'm sure many of the families who have lost children to accidents thought they were just fine.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I hear what you are saying.  Any time a child dies, it is a terrible thing.  Whether it is via an accident with a gun, falling into the family pool, killed by the family dog, drinking household chemicals, misdiagnosed by the family pediatrician, run over by a rushed parent backing out of the driveway, slipping and falling in the bathtub, SIDS... can’t think of much worse things than losing a child.  But the reality is that the 100 accidental gun deaths you mentioned are not even statistically relevant in the overall scheme of things - over 23,000 infants died in 2016.  0.43%, using your figure (not sure what year, but you get the picture).

 

From the CDC: “Every hour, nearly 150 children between ages 0 and 19 are treated in emergency departments for injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes. More children ages 5 to 19 die from crash-related injuries than from any other type of injury.”

 

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/InfantMortality.htm

 

Not by any means am I faulting you for not wanting a gun in your house.  But for the past 95 years (to my personal knowledge), my family has had loaded guns in the house. And we have had just as many gun deaths/accidents in our household as you have.

[Dashinka 23,211]

15 hours ago, bcking said:

Well we can and do remove children from homes. The problem is that system is reactionary. Generally something bad has to have already happened. 

 

I started this conversation with the question of whether we can find middle ground. People want easy access to their firearms for personal protection. Can we find a way to do that while also minimizing risks to children? Education sounds great but I doubt it is enough to truly keep the children safe. What about technology? I don't know what's out there with regards to firearm tech.

 

Also - if your response is "what can laws do?" then do you think we shouldn't even have laws about car seats? Why not just make it a recommendation but no requirement?

So if new parents decide to take their infant to the grandparents against the advice of a Dr. the child should be removed from the home?  I know I travel quite a bit overseas, and I almost always see parents traveling with children that appear to be weeks or months old, not really sure that qualifies for removal, but whatever.

 

The OP article had no reference to any children in the home, so this discussion is really off topic, but as we do agree that being a responsible gun owner is really what is necessary here, I still fail to see what more can be done other than proper education of the adults.  Sure, technology might add something, but in my experience, technology can be defeated, and children seem to be experts at getting around technology.

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So if new parents decide to take their infant to the grandparents against the advice of a Dr. the child should be removed from the home?  I know I travel quite a bit overseas, and I almost always see parents traveling with children that appear to be weeks or months old, not really sure that qualifies for removal, but whatever.

 

The OP article had no reference to any children in the home, so this discussion is really off topic, but as we do agree that being a responsible gun owner is really what is necessary here, I still fail to see what more can be done other than proper education of the adults.  Sure, technology might add something, but in my experience, technology can be defeated, and children seem to be experts at getting around technology.

In what world did I ever suggest removing children from the home if they visit their grandparents? I said we can and do remove children from houses in certain circumstances. I didn't talk about what those are. I see this a lot in these forums.

 

It's all about accepting risks and benefits. People seem to have a big issue understanding that here. I'd tell a family that, if possible, grandparents should visit you. If they can't? Then you decide how important it is. Same with flying to visit family and at what age.

 

The article and the intiial discussion was about having a loaded gun easily accessible in the home for protection. My whole point is that it IS on topic to talk about how that gun for personal protection could get a child killed. Claiming this is off topic is exactly what I find so wrong with how some people talk about firearms.

 

6 hours ago, Satisfied said:

I hear what you are saying.  Any time a child dies, it is a terrible thing.  Whether it is via an accident with a gun, falling into the family pool, killed by the family dog, drinking household chemicals, misdiagnosed by the family pediatrician, run over by a rushed parent backing out of the driveway, slipping and falling in the bathtub, SIDS... can’t think of much worse things than losing a child.  But the reality is that the 100 accidental gun deaths you mentioned are not even statistically relevant in the overall scheme of things - over 23,000 infants died in 2016.  0.43%, using your figure (not sure what year, but you get the picture).

 

From the CDC: “Every hour, nearly 150 children between ages 0 and 19 are treated in emergency departments for injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes. More children ages 5 to 19 die from crash-related injuries than from any other type of injury.”

 

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/InfantMortality.htm

 

Not by any means am I faulting you for not wanting a gun in your house.  But for the past 95 years (to my personal knowledge), my family has had loaded guns in the house. And we have had just as many gun deaths/accidents in our household as you have.

Absolutely motor vehicle accidents are much bigger burden on child mortality. A comparison between firearms and motor vehicles is frequently brought up here to try to suggest guns aren't a big deal. As is always said, the different is the utility for motor vehicles is much higher. They are far more necessary for how people's lives function. Therefore they are used and are present far more (which of course increases the numbers), and because of their necessity society has to accept somewhat higher risk until we develop safer more reasonable alternatives. Believe me though I'd love to live in a community where I could walk everywhere I needed, but still had access to everything a city has (small town with easy train access to the city). That would be ideal. My wife had that in the UK and it's a shame she had to move here instead of me going there.

 

You also brought up statistics that aren't directly comparable. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps to intentionally improperly compare. I've been talking about young children (honestly forget the age range but it was certainly understand 10), and only deaths. Then you bring up children under 19, and injuries.

 

If we want to talk about that - there are roughly 2.5 firearm related injuries presenting to EDs in children under the age of 19. That is a much more directly comparable number. Still much lower, but again we have far far more motor vehicles in use every day and far more need.

 

Oh and another interesting statistic - 9 out of 10 firearm related deaths in children under 14 in ALL OECD countries occur in the United States (we are 25% by population, just FYI). I know people on these forums really get uncomfortable comparing the US to other high income countries but I find statistics like that embarrassing.

Edited December 7, 2018 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

Oh and around 30% of households have firearms, compared to 91% who have a motorvehicle.

 

So a smaller number of households make up the children who suffer firearm related injuries. Another reason why comparing the numbers are difficult.

 

Not to mention it is perfectly possible to say we have more than one major problem with childhood safety. In general we rank very poorly among OECD countries when it comes to keeping our children safe, in a variety of ways.

[Dashinka 23,211]

15 minutes ago, bcking said:

In what world did I ever suggest removing children from the home if they visit their grandparents? I said we can and do remove children from houses in certain circumstances. I didn't talk about what those are. I see this a lot in these forums.

 

It's all about accepting risks and benefits. People seem to have a big issue understanding that here. I'd tell a family that, if possible, grandparents should visit you. If they can't? Then you decide how important it is. Same with flying to visit family and at what age.

 

The article and the intiial discussion was about having a loaded gun easily accessible in the home for protection. My whole point is that it IS on topic to talk about how that gun for personal protection could get a child killed. Claiming this is off topic is exactly what I find so wrong with how some people talk about firearms.

 

Absolutely motor vehicle accidents are much bigger burden on child mortality. A comparison between firearms and motor vehicles is frequently brought up here to try to suggest guns aren't a big deal. As is always said, the different is the utility for motor vehicles is much higher. They are far more necessary for how people's lives function. Therefore they are used and are present far more (which of course increases the numbers), and because of their necessity society has to accept somewhat higher risk until we develop safer more reasonable alternatives. Believe me though I'd love to live in a community where I could walk everywhere I needed, but still had access to everything a city has (small town with easy train access to the city). That would be ideal. My wife had that in the UK and it's a shame she had to move here instead of me going there.

 

You also brought up statistics that aren't directly comparable. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps to intentionally improperly compare. I've been talking about young children (honestly forget the age range but it was certainly understand 10), and only deaths. Then you bring up children under 19, and injuries.

 

If we want to talk about that - there are roughly 2.5 firearm related injuries presenting to EDs in children under the age of 19. That is a much more directly comparable number. Still much lower, but again we have far far more motor vehicles in use every day and far more need.

 

Oh and another interesting statistic - 9 out of 10 firearm related deaths in children under 14 in ALL OECD countries occur in the United States (we are 25% by population, just FYI). I know people on these forums really get uncomfortable comparing the US to other high income countries but I find statistics like that embarrassing.

If it is about risk vs benefit, then we can discuss the comparison between how many  children are killed in an firearm accident vs the number of children that die due to medical malpractice. It could be argued that the benefit of seeing a Dr. outweighs the risks, but the risks are still there. In both cases it comes down to unfortunate human induced accidents.  Like I have said many times, I have never advocated letting a toddler have access to a firearm, and I have also said that proper education of both the adult and eventually any children is the correct way to proceed.  To me that seems to be the best middle ground for any of the situations.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

If it is about risk vs benefit, then we can discuss the comparison between how many  children are killed in an firearm accident vs the number of children that die due to medical malpractice. It could be argued that the benefit of seeing a Dr. outweighs the risks, but the risks are still there. In both cases it comes down to unfortunate human induced accidents.  Like I have said many times, I have never advocated letting a toddler have access to a firearm, and I have also said that proper education of both the adult and eventually any children is the correct way to proceed.  To me that seems to be the best middle ground for any of the situations.

You seem very interested in the medical malpractice thing, as am I. I'll gladly have an discussion about it if you want to make a thread. In this thread it is verging on "whataboutism". You do know society can have multiple problems simultaneously? Just because we have a bigger problem, doesn't mean a smaller problem doesn't exist. This thread was about firearms in the home, and the very first thing YOU said (you started the thread) was "I guess it was a good thing she wasn’t required to keep her personal protection unloaded and locked up." The whole reason people talk about keeping firearms unloaded and locked up is for safety, and that is primarily for safety of bystanders (children and others). That is what I've been talking about here. A direct connection to your opening statement.

 

I've acknowledged education can help and I'm all for that. However, any expert in childhood development will tell you that education will NOT be sufficient in the younger population. There would likely be debates about even when it would work. Even adolescents don't always respond to just education. In certain situations we have to do more to protect them because they are still minors and we are responsible for them. Even if we exclude adolescents, certainly education is of dubious use in the youngest children (which is why I was originally focusing on them). I didn't want to bring up statistics for firearm injures for children <19 years of age, I only did so more recently when another "whataboutism" came up regarding motor vehicles and injuries in children <19. If we do want to make comparisons (even though they don't really add anything to the discussion), we have to at least make valid comparisons.

 

We don't educate young children to not drink toxic cleaning liquids and then just hope for the best. We don't educate young children about how to remain safe in the home and then just leave them home alone (or at least you shouldn't). For the youngest children even just placing the gun "out of reach" (high cupboard) may be sufficient, but then once they are ~6-8 even that may be enough. Kids will naturally go for things that parents say are "out of reach" for them. At that age then education plays a role, but even properly educated children still make mistakes. A 10 year old child can be taught about the dangers of a firearm and still be curious, sneak into the bedroom, pull out the firearm, and accidentally pull the trigger. Are you going to blame the child? Are you going to say they weren't "educated enough"? That seems harsh. 

 

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The OP article had no reference to any children in the home, so this discussion is really off topic, but as we do agree that being a responsible gun owner is really what is necessary here, I still fail to see what more can be done other than proper education of the adults.  Sure, technology might add something, but in my experience, technology can be defeated, and children seem to be experts at getting around technology.

As previously said, your opening sentence was talking about safe storage of firearms. This is DIRECTLY on topic. What is off topic is medical malpractice and vehicular injury.

 

8 hours ago, Satisfied said:

I hear what you are saying.  Any time a child dies, it is a terrible thing.  Whether it is via an accident with a gun, falling into the family pool, killed by the family dog, drinking household chemicals, misdiagnosed by the family pediatrician, run over by a rushed parent backing out of the driveway, slipping and falling in the bathtub, SIDS... can’t think of much worse things than losing a child.  But the reality is that the 100 accidental gun deaths you mentioned are not even statistically relevant in the overall scheme of things - over 23,000 infants died in 2016.  0.43%, using your figure (not sure what year, but you get the picture).

 

From the CDC: “Every hour, nearly 150 children between ages 0 and 19 are treated in emergency departments for injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes. More children ages 5 to 19 die from crash-related injuries than from any other type of injury.”

 

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/InfantMortality.htm

 

Not by any means am I faulting you for not wanting a gun in your house.  But for the past 95 years (to my personal knowledge), my family has had loaded guns in the house. And we have had just as many gun deaths/accidents in our household as you have.

My family has been driving vehicles for around that long and to my personal knowledge we haven't had any children injured in car accidents. I guess we can stop using car seats now?

[Dashinka 23,211]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

You seem very interested in the medical malpractice thing, as am I. I'll gladly have an discussion about it if you want to make a thread. In this thread it is verging on "whataboutism". You do know society can have multiple problems simultaneously? Just because we have a bigger problem, doesn't mean a smaller problem doesn't exist. This thread was about firearms in the home, and the very first thing YOU said (you started the thread) was "I guess it was a good thing she wasn’t required to keep her personal protection unloaded and locked up." The whole reason people talk about keeping firearms unloaded and locked up is for safety, and that is primarily for safety of bystanders (children and others). That is what I've been talking about here. A direct connection to your opening statement.

 

I've acknowledged education can help and I'm all for that. However, any expert in childhood development will tell you that education will NOT be sufficient in the younger population. There would likely be debates about even when it would work. Even adolescents don't always respond to just education. In certain situations we have to do more to protect them because they are still minors and we are responsible for them. Even if we exclude adolescents, certainly education is of dubious use in the youngest children (which is why I was originally focusing on them). I didn't want to bring up statistics for firearm injures for children <19 years of age, I only did so more recently when another "whataboutism" came up regarding motor vehicles and injuries in children <19. If we do want to make comparisons (even though they don't really add anything to the discussion), we have to at least make valid comparisons.

 

We don't educate young children to not drink toxic cleaning liquids and then just hope for the best. We don't educate young children about how to remain safe in the home and then just leave them home alone (or at least you shouldn't). For the youngest children even just placing the gun "out of reach" (high cupboard) may be sufficient, but then once they are ~6-8 even that may be enough. Kids will naturally go for things that parents say are "out of reach" for them. At that age then education plays a role, but even properly educated children still make mistakes. A 10 year old child can be taught about the dangers of a firearm and still be curious, sneak into the bedroom, pull out the firearm, and accidentally pull the trigger. Are you going to blame the child? Are you going to say they weren't "educated enough"? That seems harsh. 

 

As previously said, your opening sentence was talking about safe storage of firearms. This is DIRECTLY on topic. What is off topic is medical malpractice and vehicular injury.

 

My family has been driving vehicles for around that long and to my personal knowledge we haven't had any children injured in car accidents. I guess we can stop using car seats now?

How is that off topic, we are discussing risk vs reward.  Everything in life is relevant to that discussion.

 

As to the rest, it seems like you are implying we have to keep children completely sheltered from life.  I doubt that is what you mean, but as I have said countless times, it is the adult that should be educated to make the proper decisions and then share that education with the children as they mature.  I was taught from a young age what not to do, we never had locks on cupboards, or anywhere else where we could potentially get into trouble, and I turned out just fine.  Is it better to put in some protection while the education process is ongoing, sure, but it still takes education, and if children grow up with improper education, then how will they learn when they are an adult.

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How is that off topic, we are discussing risk vs reward.  Everything in life is relevant to that discussion.

 

As to the rest, it seems like you are implying we have to keep children completely sheltered from life.  I doubt that is what you mean, but as I have said countless times, it is the adult that should be educated to make the proper decisions and then share that education with the children as they mature.  I was taught from a young age what not to do, we never had locks on cupboards, or anywhere else where we could potentially get into trouble, and I turned out just fine.  Is it better to put in some protection while the education process is ongoing, sure, but it still takes education, and if children grow up with improper education, then how will they learn when they are an adult.

You should know what we are talking about...you started the thread.

 

We are talking about firearms in the home, and you specifically brought up how they are stored in the very first post. How they are stored has a direct impact on accidental firearm injuries in children, since children get access to the firearms from their families. How they are stored also has an impact on 'Personal protection'. They are two sides of the same discussion. Ignoring one side is irresponsible.

Edited December 7, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 23,211]

The original article had nothing to do with children in the home, then you engaged in a bit of "whataboutism" with your first response.  If we are bringing up other items then everything relative to risk vs reward is open for discussion.  People can own firearms and still have children in the home and nothing happens, people can take their children in the car and nothing happens, people can have drugs in the home and nothing happens.  It is all relevant to the discussion as it has progressed.  I am all for personal choice in this case, and if someone wants to make poor personal choices, then they have to face the potential consequences just like the guy that was offed in the original story.  Luckily for homeowner they were able to respond, and if their were children in the house, she may have saved them as well.  Otherwise, there may have been some orphans if she did not have the option she had.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 hours ago, bcking said:

Oh and around 30% of households have firearms, compared to 91% who have a motorvehicle.

 

So a smaller number of households make up the children who suffer firearm related injuries. Another reason why comparing the numbers are difficult.

 

Not to mention it is perfectly possible to say we have more than one major problem with childhood safety. In general we rank very poorly among OECD countries when it comes to keeping our children safe, in a variety of ways.

I wasn’t trying to mix up the statistics, it’s just what I could find on the CDC.  I KNOW there is a number out there about child firearm deaths (because I have seen it before), but it wasn’t in my purview yesterday.

 

The crazy thing is that things are MUCH safer today for kids than when you and I were kids.  I think about riding in the car in the rear window, my first car seat that was made of metal with a foam cover, racing downhill on my bike with no helmet on, riding horses with no saddle and only binder twine for reins... it’s amazing I am alive today.

 

Also, as to the fact you presented about cars being more prevalent today (which is accurate), it wasn’t always that way.  Guns used to be a much more common commodity.  But times have changed.

[bcking 3,157]

20 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The original article had nothing to do with children in the home, then you engaged in a bit of "whataboutism" with your first response.  If we are bringing up other items then everything relative to risk vs reward is open for discussion.  People can own firearms and still have children in the home and nothing happens, people can take their children in the car and nothing happens, people can have drugs in the home and nothing happens.  It is all relevant to the discussion as it has progressed.  I am all for personal choice in this case, and if someone wants to make poor personal choices, then they have to face the potential consequences just like the guy that was offed in the original story.  Luckily for homeowner they were able to respond, and if their were children in the house, she may have saved them as well.  Otherwise, there may have been some orphans if she did not have the option she had.

I've said this many times now, can't say it any clesrer.

 

The original article was about a woman defending herself. You posted it and made some comments about how it's a good thing she didn't have it safely stored and unloaded.

 

You made the topic of the thread about gun storage by making that comment in the original post.

 

the concept of "whataboutism" is sailing over your head because you don't like an even balanced debate about the issue you brought up. You'd rather just make flippant comments about a subject and intentionally ignore the parts of the subject you don't like.

 

This is why we can't have interesting discussion here. People who make threads don't actually want even balanced discussions about a topic. They want it to either be one way or another. They can't handle that there are two very relevant sides to many issues. Too much to deal with. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by bcking