Vacaville Couple Sentenced In Accidental Shooting Of Child

[KansasVoter]

Every parent of a child killed by a gun not secured should go to jail!
I hope every city/State has a "unsafe storage of a firearm" law to use against these type of worthless parents! We can all learn from these type stories about storing guns safety!

A Vacaville couple was sentenced Friday morning to four years probation and 275 days in Solano County jail in connection with the accidental shooting of their two-year-old daughter by their 8-year-old son last year.
Michael Shanahan's and Daniela Shanahan's daughter Ayana was shot around 2:10 p.m. on Sept. 23, 2009 while her brother was playing unsupervised with a 9mm handgun in their parents' bedroom at the family's Vacaville home on Syracuse Circle. She was pronounced dead at VacaValley Hospital.
Michael, 29, pleaded no contest in March to one count of unsafe storage of a firearm and his wife Daniela, 28, pleaded guilty to one count of child endangerment in Solano County Superior Court. All other charges initially filed against them, including child abuse or neglect, were dismissed.
Solano County Deputy District Attorney Terry Ray said the Shanahans have 185 days credit for time served and will serve the 90-day balance of their term.
Solano County Superior Court Judge Wendy Getty also ordered the couple to attend a 52-week parenting class and perform 200 hours of community service, Ray said.
Ray said she asked the judge to sentence the defendants to two years in prison. Michael Shanahan faced a three-year term and his wife faced six years in prison, Ray said.
The weapons confiscated from their home by police will be destroyed, Ray said.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24456285/detail.html

[X_Digger]

1. Yet accidental shootings continue to drop..

Must be those gun safety classes that the NRA teaches, or the free trigger locks the NRA gave away.

*tsk* *tsk* *tsk* And to think you're gleefully taking money away from those programs. Shame on you.

They also fedexed me some hard copy research for $28 so I have cost them at least $13!

[KansasVoter]

2. First off it was for real research that I shall post here shortly. And also....

if you really give a shit then send $13 to them TOMORROW to cover my loss. Let me guess. You will not send them money tomorrow! LOL.

[KansasVoter]

3. And accidental shootings are dropping because of many less hunters!!

[X_Digger]

5. Less Hunters? There are 80M+ more guns than 25 years ago..

But please, explain to me how it's hunters that were responsible for events like the one in the OP. (hint, it was a handgun).

[KansasVoter]

6. Do you deny there are many less hunters?

[X_Digger]

9. Slow, steady drop.. 1994, 18M, 2002 16M.

Now.. please show me your tortured logic that says that 'A' causes 'B', in the presence of 'C'- more guns.

This study lists slightly different numbers- http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/national/main3228893.shtml but doesn't include youth licensees-

"New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 - from 14 million to about 12.5 million."

[KansasVoter]

10. Many accidental shootings are hunting accidents

[X_Digger]

11. What percentage? Or is that just anecdote? n/t

[Statistical]

16. Another unsupported claim by Kansas "no facts" Voter. n/t

[cleanhippie]

19. PLease provide the source from where you got that stat.

[slackmaster]

13. You just made that up, and have no facts to support it.

Same shit, different day.

[Euromutt]

14. "Fewer," not "less"

You use "less" when talking about the amount of a single thing, and "fewer" when talking about units of a thing. E.g. "there is less water in this bucket than in that one," but "there are fewer buckets of water in this shed than in that one."

Similarly, "there is less hunting going on nowadays, because there are fewer hunters."

Okay, grammar cop routine over.

[cleanhippie]

18. Many less HUNTERS? WHAT?

Where did you pull THAT gem from?

[rrneck]

4. You cannot possibly be a progressive

since you are a member of the NRA.

[KansasVoter]

7. LOL.....

:rofl:

[rrneck]

12. NRA "enthusiast".

:rofl:

[Glassunion]

8. I agree with all of your points.

But how far do you want to go with an "unsafe storage law"?

[proteus_lives]

15. Outlaw accidents. It's the only way we'll be safe.

:eyes:

[Euromutt]

17. What is the social benefit of imprisoning such people?

By which I mean, imprisoning them rather than giving them suspended sentences and/or sentencing them to community service? I don't see how there's going to be any deterrent effect from a prison sentence, given that for a deterrent to be effective, there has to be prior intent, and practically nobody intends for his or her child to be fatally shot. And, speaking as a parent, the idea of my son dying from a fatal GSW is a far more powerful incentive for me to store my firearms securely than the fact that some couple in California did nine months in the county jail.

If convicted of a felony, the parents will be legally prohibited from possessing firearms, so there's not a lot of risk of reoffending, and if you do incarcerate them for an extended period of time, you're depriving any other children they have of their parents, with all the possible attendant ramifications.

As The Economist pointed out last week (http://www.economist.com/node/16640389?Story_ID=16640389 and http://www.economist.com/node/16636027), the United States' prison population is 2.3 million, a higher population than that of fifteen states, and a full percent of the adult population. The rate of incarceration has quadrupled since 1970, in spite of which, the violent crime rate (despite having dropped by half since the early 1990s) is still higher now than it was then. Proportionally, the US locks up five times as many people as the UK, and nine times as many as Germany.

What exactly is the point of slapping (admittedly criminally) negligent parents with a custodial sentence, other than to satisfy some desire for revenge?

Honestly, it seems like there isn't a person in this country who doesn't think the solution to their personal hobby horse problem is to put more people in prison for longer periods of time.

[KansasVoter]

20. So the NEXT idiot parent thinks more about it!

[X_Digger]

21. You didn't read his post, did you?

I don't see how there's going to be any deterrent effect from a prison sentence, given that for a deterrent to be effective, there has to be prior intent, and practically nobody intends for his or her child to be fatally shot. And, speaking as a parent, the idea of my son dying from a fatal GSW is a far more powerful incentive for me to store my firearms securely than the fact that some couple in California did nine months in the county jail.

How many parents are there out there for whom the idea of nine months in county jail serves as more incentive than the loss of their child? I'd say damned few.

[cleanhippie]

22. Obviously not.

That brick wall sure is thick.

[KansasVoter]

24. I guarantee at least ONE parent read that story and changed how they.....

store their guns!

[X_Digger]

26. And you think the 9 months in county jail is the incentive, not the loss of a child?

What a twisted view of humanity you must have. Course, that would explain a lot.

[KansasVoter]

27. Prison is how we punish people in the country for being bad people! I really....

worry about you. Your postings are not very helpful! Most do not make any sense.

[X_Digger]

28. It's simple logic, perhaps I expect too much.

Which do you see as the largest disincentive? 9 months in a county jail, or the loss of your child?

Of course, it's the same kind of non-thinking that leads people to think that a 'no guns' sign on a building would deter a crazy from killing a bunch of people inside that building- as though a person bent on murder will be deterred by a $5,000 fine and a year in jail.

[KansasVoter]

29. People convicted of DUI who injure their family members go to jail also!

[X_Digger]

30. Insert non sequitur here!

Perhaps you should re-read starting at the top of the sub-thread (post #17).

[KansasVoter]

31. I know it hurts to lose, but you should be used to it by now.

[X_Digger]

32. I'm not the one who thinks that 9 months of jail is worse than losing a child.

Seriously, you should start at the top, I think you missed something in your ardeur to reply.

[KansasVoter]

34. No, I think both are necessary!

[X_Digger]

35. Which is neither here nor there.

Please try to keep your comments germane to the topic under discussion in this subthread.

[KansasVoter]

36. Done with you today. You are getting on my nerves a little. More tomorrow!

[X_Digger]

37. Aww, please do come back tomorrow. I need a chuckle on a Friday. n/t

[KansasVoter]

38. Done with you today. You are getting on my nerves a little. More tomorrow!

[Euromutt]

41. Prove it

Your say-so carries no weight with me. I want evidence that at least one parent made his firearm(s) less accessible, and that he did so out of fear of imprisonment. A parent who made his firearm(s) less accessible because he didn't want one of kids suffering a possibly fatal gunshot wound doesn't count, because that would support my argument, not yours.

[cleanhippie]

23. Because the same principle works so well for drug offenses too, right?

Fail. There are better solutions than just prison time.

[KansasVoter]

25. Yes, taking drugs is like getting your child shot! LOL.

[cleanhippie]

33. Like I said, FAIL.

Even your lame attempt at humor and sarcasm fails.

[Euromutt]

39. Like I said, that's not going to happen

For a punishment--any punishment--to have a deterrent effect, there has to be prior intent to commit the offense, and (practically) nobody intends for a child to be shot (let alone fatally) with an insufficiently secured firearm. These incidents are (practically) always the result of a parent thinking the firearm was inaccessible to the child and being proven tragically wrong.

And again, I'm not advocating letting the parent off scot free; I'm asking why a non-custodial sentence is inadequate to achieve the desired result. Again, a felony conviction will prohibit the parent from possessing firearms, which is probably the most important factor in preventing re-occurrence.

And may I add that I find it pretty curious that I'm characterized as some kind of crypto-Teabagger in one thread (since I'm an NRA member) while in this thread, I seem to be have been cast as the bleeding heart liberal. Some offenders need to be kept away from the public, yes, but in general, using prison as an answer to society's ills strikes me as slapping a thick bandage over a still-festering wound; it may cover up the problem so you don't have to look at it, but underneath, the problem continues to fester. Maybe it's because I'm not only an immigrant, but from the Netherlands at that, but I'm fairly shocked how easy it is to get incarcerated in this country.

[rrneck]

40. Unfornutanetly, the most common response to excessive

incarceration in the United States is to run out and buy stock in the Corrections Corporation of America.