Dad shoots son....thought he was a Turkey? Sad..son died.

[Perchoutofwater]

Which is why my 3 year old can already swim on his own, without any kind of floatation device.

 

 

Both of my kids could swim by 3 as well. Still I have a 6' high fence around my back yard, and a 4 high fence between my back porch and the pool. All the gates have child proof hasps and spring loaded hinges. You take precautions around a pool if you are responsible. Most people take precautions while hunting as well. Unfortunately just like with some pool owners, some hunters are idiots, and don't look for ways to mitigate risks.

[McBoog]

Both of my kids could swim by 3 as well. Still I have a 6' high fence around my back yard, and a 4 high fence between my back porch and the pool. All the gates have child proof hasps and spring loaded hinges. You take precautions around a pool if you are responsible. Most people take precautions while hunting as well. Unfortunately just like with some pool owners, some hunters are idiots, and don't look for ways to mitigate risks.

 

See my sig.

 

All I know is that if my child was killed because of my actions (or lack therof), intentional or not, I would not be alive long enough for anyone to have to decide what they should do with me. If the unbearable sadness and guilt didn't kill me, I probably would just to make it stop hurting. That pain would be worse than death. I could see curiling up in a ball and dying of pure heartache. I can't imagine what he or his family is going through.

[twiley]

Both of my kids could swim by 3 as well. Still I have a 6' high fence around my back yard, and a 4 high fence between my back porch and the pool. All the gates have child proof hasps and spring loaded hinges. You take precautions around a pool if you are responsible. Most people take precautions while hunting as well. Unfortunately just like with some pool owners, some hunters are idiots, and don't look for ways to mitigate risks.

I've had my kid in swim lessons since he was 6 months old. Granted I'm holding him the entire time but he's is already noticeably better than kids much older than him that are just getting introduced to the water.

 

Guns, pools, hell...bathtubs are all dangerous. This falls entirely on the Dad's shoulders.

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

As one of the more well thought out responses...let me ask this. Should involuntary manslaughter charges be brought against the father. He obviously had zero intent, but his reckless actions did result in death.

I think so...though a lot of people I talk to dis-agree. It's no more different than the 13 year old convicted of murder for wrestling with a friend.

[yo mama]

It's no more different than the 13 year old convicted of murder for wrestling with a friend.

No reasonable person or law should expect the same level of responsibility from a 13 year old who is horsing around, relative to a grown man who voluntarily chooses to discharge a firearm *knowing* that a child is in the vicinity.

 

Admittedly, I'm not up to speed on that 13 year old's murder trial. So I'm not in a position to compare the cases. I'm just saying we should expect more for adults; not less. Though based on the trascprit you provided the jury in that 13 year old's case determined that the 13 year old intentionally hurt a 6 year old. This hunting incident was (almost certainly) devoid of any intent to harm. So I really don't see the situations as comparable, except in that they're factually unusual.

Edited April 29, 2008 by yo mama

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

No reasonable person or law should expect the same level of responsibility from a 13 year old who is horsing around, relative to a grown man who voluntarily chooses to discharge a firearm *knowing* that a child is in the vicinity.

 

Admittedly, I'm not up to speed on that 13 year old's murder trial. So I'm not in a position to compare the cases. I'm just saying we should expect more for adults; not less. Though based on the trascprit you provided the jury in that 13 year olds case determined that the 13 year old intentionally hurt a 6 year old. This hunting incident was (almost certainly) devoid of any intent to harm. So I really don't see the situations as comparable, except in that they're factually unusual.

The 13 year old did not intentionally kill the 6 year old. He was convicted of murder, not manslaughter. If the father should be more responsible, then what should he be charged with? All I was saying was that if a 13 year old kid is deemed responsible AS AN ADULT, then what happens if it IS actually an adult. Does that make sense?

 

Just like this father who shot his son, the parents of the little girl who was killed should be brought up on charges.

 

If I understand correctly, a 6yo girl and 13yo boy were wrestling, the boy is supposedly mildly retarded... where were the girl's parents? Leaving her with his boy is at least reckless endangerment.

And that's what I have been saying all along....ACROSS THE BOARD....NO MATTER WHAT....IT'S THE PARENTS.

 

Edited April 29, 2008 by KSUChiefsTarheelFan

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

If a blanket statement could ever be made, that one comes closest to being valid.

 

My Dad taught me that one...

[Perchoutofwater]

how about this...

 

They should be charged. I have no problem with that.

[yo mama]

The 13 year old did not intentionally kill the 6 year old. He was convicted of murder, not manslaughter. If the father should be more responsible, then what should he be charged with? All I was saying was that if a 13 year old kid is deemed responsible AS AN ADULT, then what happens if it IS actually an adult. Does that make sense?

No, he didn't intentionally kill her. But given the multiple broken bones, damage to internal organs, brain damage, and 30+ bruises on the 6 year old the prosecution painted a picture of a 5 minute savage beating. From that, the jury apparently determined that there was an intent to harm from which death resulted: thus, murder. I don't see the dad in the turkey shooting incident being guilty of anything more than manslaugher; he may have been reckless but there's been no suggestion he intended to cause anyone any harm. Thus, murder should not be an appropriate charge in that case.

Edited April 29, 2008 by yo mama

[KSUChiefsTarheelFan]

No, he didn't intentionally kill her. But given the multiple broken bones, damage to internal organs, brain damage, and 30+ bruises on the 6 year old the prosecution painted a picture of a 5 minute savage beating. From that, the jury apparently determined that there was an intent to harm from which death resulted: thus, murder. I don't see the dad in the turkey shooting incident being guilty of anything more than manslaugher; he may have been reckless but there's been no suggestion he intended to cause anyone any harm. Thus, murder should not be an appropriate charge in that case.

But are you saying the 13 year old should be tried as an adult?

Edited April 30, 2008 by KSUChiefsTarheelFan

[yo mama]

But are you saying the 13 year old should be tried as an adult?

That's a totally different issue. But my personal feeling is that a 13 year old should not be tried as an adult. I mean, if you're not old enough to get legally married - even with the consent of your parents - then you're not close enough to being an "adult" in the eyes of the law for the purpose of being criminally charged with murder.

Edited April 30, 2008 by yo mama

[tbimm]

This is the 1st time I have had time to look at this thread. I have read a few responses..... After reading the story in the news all I could think is "How horrible for the family!" Most hunting families I know include their children at a very young age. This brings on incredible risks depending on the age of inclusion.

This father did not want his son dead!

Any punishment he receives for this ACCIDENT will be far less than the punishment he is already experiencing.

Should he have been more careful? Yes! Is there anything we can do to make him so in the future? Maybe? My guess is he will not hurt anyone else again and probably wont even hunt again all on his own.

[billay]

And you wonder why some of us anti-gun folks don't trust Joe Blow packin heat legally under a concealed carry law.

 

Every hunter out there is a superior marksman.....riiight.

[westvirginia]

And you wonder why some of us anti-gun folks don't trust Joe Blow packin heat legally under a concealed carry law.

 

Every hunter out there is a superior marksman.....riiight.

 

Did you really have to go there? Like someone has already said, swimming pools kill more kids every year than guns do. IIRC, more children under 10 drown in 5-gallon buckets than are killed by guns.

 

I know you have the whole buddhist/zen thing going on, but the force (whatever that highest level of reincarnation is called) doesn't flow through inanimate objects, does it?

[billay]

Did you really have to go there? Like someone has already said, swimming pools kill more kids every year than guns do. IIRC, more children under 10 drown in 5-gallon buckets than are killed by guns.

 

I know you have the whole buddhist/zen thing going on, but the force (whatever that highest level of reincarnation is called) doesn't flow through inanimate objects, does it?

While i didn;t see any stats regarding 5 gallon buckets, given the following, I'd say that one's an old wives tale.

Just a quick google search.

In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)

 

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics

 

Granted the dates are a little old and they do not match year to year but that's a difference of 300 people. The drowning statistic included adults whereas the gun death statistics did not, so were looking at a wash for the most part.

[yo mama]

While i didn;t see any stats regarding 5 gallon buckets, given the following, I'd say that one's an old wives tale.

Just a quick google search.

 

 

 

 

Granted the dates are a little old and they do not match year to year but that's a difference of 300 people. The drowning statistic included adults whereas the gun death statistics did not, so were looking at a wash for the most part.

Plus, there's zero chance of somebody else's pool flying through my window and accidentally killing my kids. Pools are only a potential danger to those who chose to be around them. Guns are a potential danger to everyone within range whether they choose to be around them or not.

Edited April 30, 2008 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

While i didn;t see any stats regarding 5 gallon buckets, given the following, I'd say that one's an old wives tale.

Just a quick google search.

 

Granted the dates are a little old and they do not match year to year but that's a difference of 300 people. The drowning statistic included adults whereas the gun death statistics did not, so were looking at a wash for the most part.

 

You might want to dig a little deeper. Link

 

Below is an excerpt. The dates are about the same as yours. All the sources are cited, so Lulu can cry if he wants that the data comes from Gun Owners of America, but the sources can be validated.. If I had more time, I'd dig up some of John Lott's stuff as well. Might do that later...

 

Oh, and your gun-death stat (doesn't say where it comes from) says very clearly "children and teens". How many 17, 18 and 19 year-old gang-bangers does that include? More than 300, I'd wager... You still haven't answered my question though, can you be reincarnated as an inanimate object? Does it carry part of that "life force" that many of the far easter religions believe in? Or is it the same as a rock? I'm honestly just curious here. I truly don't understand why some people are so afraid of an inanimate object that it truly takes quite a bit of practice time to hit a moving target with.

 

7. Firearms statistics

A. General Death Rates

 

Cause

Number

 

Heart disease 710,760

Cancer 553,091

Stroke (cerebrovascular disease) 167,661

Chronic lower respiratory diseases 122,009

Doctor's negligence 98,329

Influenza and pneumonia 65,313

Motor-vehicle 43,354

Suicides (all kinds, including firearms) 29,350

Firearms (Total)*

 

Suicides

Homicides

Accidents

 

 

16,586

10,801

776

28,163

Accidents (six causes)

 

Falls

Poison (solid, liquid)

Choking on food or other object

Drowning

Fires, flames

Firearms

 

 

13,322

12,757

4,313

3,402

3,377

776

 

Homicides (all instruments) 16,765

Source: Except for the figure on doctor's negligence, the above information is for 2000 and is taken from National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition, at 10, 19-20, 129. The number of yearly deaths attributed to doctor's negligence is based on the Harvard Medical Practice Study (1990) which is cited in Kleck, Point Blank, at 43.127

*The total firearms death figure above is a summary of the "Suicides," "Homicides" and "Accidents" subcategories. The Total excludes two categories: Legal Intervention and Undetermined.

 

B. Children Accidental Death Rates (Ages 0-14)

 

Cause Number (Ages 0-14) Number (Ages 0-4)

Motor-vehicle 2,591 819

Drowning 943 568

Fires and flames 593 327

Mechanical suffocation 601 508

Ingestion of food, object* 169 169

Firearms 86 19

Source: Figures are for 2000. National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition, at 10-11, 129.

* The "Ingestion of food, object" category is underreported in the first column since the NSC did not include death rates for "5 to 14 Years."

[westvirginia]

Plus, there's zero chance of somebody else's pool flying through my window and accidentally killing my kids. Pools are only a potential danger to those who chose to be around them. Guns are a potential danger to everyone within range whether they choose to be around them or not.

 

So are cars - wanna ban those as well?

[detlef]

So are cars - wanna ban those as well?

Who's talking about banning guns? Why is it that every time somebody mentions that just maybe we should give two poops about making sure people who use guns have some idea of what they're doing, you guys start acting like we want them to all be taken away?

 

Can I take it from your comparison to cars and your rather reactionary stance on any control whatsoever on guns that there should be no control at all as to who should be allowed to drive? If you can reach the pedals you're good to go? Just checking.

[westvirginia]

Who's talking about banning guns? Why is it that every time somebody mentions that just maybe we should give two poops about making sure people who use guns have some idea of what they're doing, you guys start acting like we want them to all be taken away?

 

Can I take it from your comparison to cars and your rather reactionary stance on any control whatsoever on guns that there should be no control at all as to who should be allowed to drive? If you can reach the pedals you're good to go? Just checking.

 

Point taken, no one did talk of banning. That's just usually where it leads and admittedly, my panties are in a wad over it.

 

Driving is not a right protected in the constitution. Driving is not a force equalizer. The two activities are very different, BUT, the fact that engaging in them involves inanimate objects is where the similarities lie. Both cars and guns are tools. Neither can hurt anyone until acted upon by a human (or sub-human, as might be the case in either category).

 

I just generally subscribe to Jefferson and Washington's ideas of governance - that you'd rather 100 guilty go free than one innocent be deprived of their liberty. This issue is, at it's core, just like the flag burning we talked about. Once you start the regulation, eventually the state gets to decide on the issue of what's proper speech. And if the state is the only one with the guns as well, you're f'kd. You cannot effectively resist. That's why any regulation on the BoR scares me. I'm as adverse to the illegal wiretaps and the search - then go get a warrant (and don't get me started on siezures) broaches of the fourth amendment as I am the flag-burning on the first or regulation on the second.

[billay]

You still haven't answered my question though, can you be reincarnated as an inanimate object? Does it carry part of that "life force" that many of the far easter religions believe in? Or is it the same as a rock? I'm honestly just curious here. I truly don't understand why some people are so afraid of an inanimate object that it truly takes quite a bit of practice time to hit a moving target with.

Can't say as I see what you are getting at, except that anti-gun people are afraid of guns? That wasn't my point at all. I have no problem with guns, in and of themselves. My point had to do with concealed carry. I have problems with allowing any a-hole to pack heat in the name of a safer america. I can't count the number of times on these boards Huddlers have claimed exceptional gun responsibility (either in terms of marksmanship or simple care-in-handling) as the standard to which all, or at least the majority of gun owners practice. One Huddler (I don;t recall which) even postulated a statistic that for every 1 irresponsible gun owner there are 50 responsible ones. I'd wager they've got that stat reversed and this thread provided evidence (albeit anecdotal and inflamitory) that there are grossly negligent gun owners out there. It is on that presumption that I have a problem with more americans carrying guns. I have no doubt that there are some very responsible gun owners here at the huddle, but I fear that they are the exception rather than the rule. Any huddlers here with daughters assume that the boy the boy taking out their teenage daughter tonight is angelic because they themselves were good boys as a teenager? I doubt it. They assume the worst in order to protect their loved ones. I don;t see this as any different. I can reasonably expect to control my childs time spent around a swimming pool and thus the risk involved therein. Guns render me incapable of ensuring any such protection for myself or my family.

[DemonKnight]

Driving is not a force equalizer.

 

Neither are guns. I'll buy into this argument when the Government allows me to buy a fully outfitted Apache helicopter or Abhrams tank.

Edited May 1, 2008 by DemonKnight

[BillyBalata]

Government allows me to buy a fully outfitted Apache helicopter of Abhrams tank.

 

 

 

:divingboard:

[westvirginia]

Neither are guns. I'll buy into this argument when the Government allows me to buy a fully outfitted Apache helicopter or Abhrams tank.

 

So a 5'4", 110 lb woman without a gun is equal to a 6', 200 lb man without a gun?

 

Give them both guns and if they both have the same training, the woman is now his equal, wouldn't you say?

[DemonKnight]

So a 5'4", 110 lb woman without a gun is equal to a 6', 200 lb man without a gun?

 

Give them both guns and if they both have the same training, the woman is now his equal, wouldn't you say?

 

I was assuming you meant in the "armed un-professional millita vs the government" sense.

 

I agree, but I dont have a gun, so that would make her my "ability to do bodily harm" superior. That would make a 9 year old kid my superior in that sense.