Oregon 2-Year-Old Shot in Stomach

[mikeb302000]

http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/">via Baldr

The 2-year-old boy named Payton survived the shooting, which happened in Dallas on Friday night. He was released from the hospital on Saturday afternoon.

Johnnie Flow said she bought the gun for protection in February after somebody threatened her family. She kept it in her purse.

Normally she said it’s not loaded, but when her kids found it there were bullets in the gun. The purse was sitting on the back of a couch in the family's front room.

Both she and her husband were home when the shooting happened. She immediately took Payton to the hospital and said she was afraid he was going to die.

Is it my imagination or are these kid-shootings on the rise. Recently we read http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-on-charlotte-4-year-old-victim.html">the yearly stats for child gunshot deaths, but they don't seem to match the stories we've picked up on lately in the main stream. I realize today's story in Oregon is just a non-lethal bullet to the stomach of a 2-year-old, which means it hardly counts for anything, but even the gun deaths like the little girl in North Carolina the other day seem to be disproportionately high of late.

But, what's the difference if it 37 or 3700, the pro-gun apologists will shrug it off as statistically insignificant. My contention is, you can say that if you're a hard-hearted, biased gun fanatic, but in this case it's not quantity that counts but quality.

The quality of these shootings is that they are preventable. Every one of them is the result of unforgiveable negligence, usually on the part of the gun-owning parents. We're talking about kids under 10 now. And in almost every case there are either no charges or minor ones brought against the real criminals.

Why would anyone oppose the forfeiture of gun rights for people who demonstrate the capacity to do something so dangerous? Is it a safe assumption that people learn from their mistakes? Is a sincere expression of contrition, like in this story, sufficient to convince?

I don't think so. I say the http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/03/man-who-would-be-king.html">MikeB is King rule, formerly known as the http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/08/one-strike-youre-out.html">one-strike-you're-out rule must apply. I believe most people who make serious mistakes don't learn from them, they repeat them.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://www.mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[MineralMan]

1. My opinion: Mommy's a Moron

That's my opinion.

[jeepnstein]

2. It's your overly-active imagination.

Outside of deliberate misuse by criminals in the drug trade, firearms are every bit as safe as any other consumer product out there.

[ileus]

4. Mikeb is king.......

[jeepnstein]

5. I didn't vote for him.

[ileus]

10. You don't vote for kings...sometimes they anoint themselves

BTW.....what kind of jeep do you have?

[PavePusher]

12. "We're an autonomous collective..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

[jeepnstein]

42. I'm between Jeeps right now.

Mr. Bush's Depression has me a little tight on funding. Once Happy Days Are Here Again I'm going to pop for a 4 dr. Wrangler with a hardtop. Sold my TJ about two years ago when it started eating more money than I had on hand, Bush's fault.

If I could have what I really want it would be this...

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. Because, of course, all those other commodities send metal projectiles

at high velocities to lodge in the intestines of children all the time.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

17. Some do...

Nail guns for example.

Then there are other much more benign things which are far more deadly - like your typical bathroom cleaners...

The "just one life" meme is played out. Find a new one. Nobody goes for it anymore.

[jeepnstein]

18. Dead is dead.

It's a horrible experience to lose a child no matter how it happens. I have a friend who drove her son to the ER with an arrow lodged in his chest only to have him bleed out when they tried to remove it. I'm not sure she'd be taking it any worse if it was a gun shot.

[mikeb302000]

21. well, they would be if everybody who owned them

was responsible. That's just not the case, therefore guns need special attention.

[jeepnstein]

25. Why?

What makes them more dangerous than my table saw or ATV?

[ileus]

32. because they're scary...

[ileus]

3. I think there's Venn diagram around here you need to see.

[maxsolomon]

6. The problem in America is always idiots.

Idiot dog owners.
Idiot drivers.
Idiot gun owners.

It's cruel, but as long as it's the children of negligent idiots bearing the consequences of their idiocy, it feels like Darwinian Selection. Nothing is going to change with regards to idiots leaving their loaded guns where their kids can get to them. The NRA and their money have every politician running away from the larger issue and hiding behind trees, so public policies to address these senseless shootings can't even be discussed. If there even is a policy that could prevent all these tragedies, beyond reminding idiots via the boob tube and AM hate radio to not leave their loaded guns where their kids can get to them.

[PavePusher]

13. Idiots are not a problem in other countries?

Huh, I missed another memo...

[AtheistCrusader]

7. It's your imagination.

Statistically insignificant.

[mikeb302000]

22. you would say that if the number were 3700 nt

[AtheistCrusader]

26. No, because that would be statistically significant.

It would account for 2 decimal places of the total death rate by firearms. That would be significant.

Currently you are whining about less than a whole number. Yes, deaths can be tragic on an individual, anecdotal basis, no disagreement there. But as for policy concerns, we have bigger shit to worry about. MUCH bigger shit.

If we could pass a law against bullying that might reduce the suicide rate by firearm by even 1%, we would save more than 10x as many lives, as you might by enacting all sorts of draconian shit that might prevent the number of deaths you are currently concerned with.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. Exactly. But 3700 sounds so much more dramatic, eh?

If we could pass a law against bullying that might reduce the suicide rate by firearm by even 1%, we would save more than 10x as many lives, as you might by enacting all sorts of draconian shit that might prevent the number of deaths you are currently concerned with.

Exactly.

[petronius]

8. If the actual rate of injuries is decreasing, and yet you perceive them as more common, then

yes - it would be your imagination. Is that what you're asking? :shrug:

As for people who commit acts of negligence that lead to tragedy, or who are simply the victim of perhaps-avoidable accidents, I favor proportionality and careful, context-appropriate judgment in the application punishment. One-strike, three-strike, and zero-tolerance structures are almost always misguided and inappropriate.

I'm not sure why you conclude that "most" people fail to learn from, and repeat, serious mistakes - my observation has generally been the opposite. For instance, I've never read of a person leaving a child locked in a hot car a second time, nor have I seen a kid-finding-gun story that mentions a previous occurrence. If your assumption was valid, repeats would be the norm rather than the (non-existent?) exception...

[Atypical Liberal]

15. Precisely.

I'm not sure why you conclude that "most" people fail to learn from, and repeat, serious mistakes - my observation has generally been the opposite. For instance, I've never read of a person leaving a child locked in a hot car a second time, nor have I seen a kid-finding-gun story that mentions a previous occurrence. If your assumption was valid, repeats would be the norm rather than the (non-existent?) exception...

Precisely. Most parents would die for their children. When something horrific happens to their child, it is a life-altering event that some people never recover from. To think that someone who loses a child due to any kind of negligence would ever fall prey to that negligence again is unthinkable for any parent of any reasonable intelligence level.

Given that less than 40 children die each year from accidental firearm deaths, I would be surprised if there were more than 10 in the history of the country who died from the same family.

[mikeb302000]

23. how do you know there are no repeats?

are you making up shit again to fit your pre-conceived truth?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. He never said he KNEW....

But don't actually pay attention to what was said. It is far better to pretend someone said something they didn't and then accuse them.

[petronius]

29. I ask you to support *your* claim, and your response is to accuse *me* of

making shit up? That's pretty asinine. :rofl:

Also, "again"? Please point to where I've ever made shit up, or feel free to delete/retract your comment...

(And, of course, you can take another stab at responding intelligently to what I did say, if you're able.)

[rl6214]

31. "are you making up shit again to fit your pre-conceived truth?"

POT...KETTLE

MikeB for King

[Atypical Liberal]

34. You are the one making the claim that laws are needed to prevent repeate offenders.

how do you know there are no repeats?

You are the one that is making the claim that a law needs to be passed that prohibits parents whose children are shot accidentally from ever owning firearms again, because of the possibility that it could happen again.

Given how few children die or are even injured each year, it seems highly unlikely that this happens often, if ever. But the onus is on your to support your claim.

Your odds of having your child accidentally shot with a firearm are astronomically low. The odds of it happening twice are absurdly low.

Firearms are not a leading cause of either injury nor death among children. Falls, automobiles, poisoning, cuts, and drowning all account for vastly more incidents than firearms.

[Glassunion]

9. Sounds more like...

Since I'm not allowed to play, than none of you can.

But that is just my perception.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. Why not look at data instead of guessing?

Is it my imagination or are these kid-shootings on the rise.

It is your imagination. I suggest you use the WISQARS database where you can query data collected by the US Government. Below is a graph that represents the crude rate of unintentional firearm injuries from 2001-2009, for ages 0-10.

As you can see, the while the rate varies from year to year, the overall trend is fairly flat. There was a minimum of 68 injuries (2005) and a maximum of 378 (2001) in any given year.



Here is a graph showing the crude rate for unintentional firearm deaths, age 0-10.



While the rate is increasing from 2001-2007, we should note that there are a minimum of 31 deaths (2004) to a maximum of 41 (2000). There is not much variation from year to year and very, very few deaths in comparison to the number of children and the number of firearms in this country.

Recently we read the yearly stats for child gunshot deaths, but they don't seem to match the stories we've picked up on lately in the main stream. I realize today's story in Oregon is just a non-lethal bullet to the stomach of a 2-year-old, which means it hardly counts for anything, but even the gun deaths like the little girl in North Carolina the other day seem to be disproportionately high of late.

But, what's the difference if it 37 or 3700, the pro-gun apologists will shrug it off as statistically insignificant. My contention is, you can say that if you're a hard-hearted, biased gun fanatic, but in this case it's not quantity that counts but quality.

The fact is it is not 3700, in fact it is not even close to 3700. It has nothing to do with being hard-hearted or being biased. It's a simple fact that less than 40 children die each year from firearm accidents in the United States each year.

The quality of these shootings is that they are preventable. Every one of them is the result of unforgiveable negligence, usually on the part of the gun-owning parents. We're talking about kids under 10 now. And in almost every case there are either no charges or minor ones brought against the real criminals.

Why would anyone oppose the forfeiture of gun rights for people who demonstrate the capacity to do something so dangerous? Is it a safe assumption that people learn from their mistakes? Is a sincere expression of contrition, like in this story, sufficient to convince?

You are absolutely right that these deaths and injuries are preventable. And the fact that there are so few means people are doing a damn good job at preventing them already.

But I have to ask you: If the possibility of their child dying is insufficient to get someone to secure their firearms, what law will prompt them to take action? And if that is not the goal, but rather to punish people after their child has been shot, I have to ask you: Do you really think that someone whose child has been shot through a firearm accident would ever leave firearms unsecured in their homes again? And if they did or would, again, what law would carry more weight than the risk of losing or harming another child?

Also I would like to know: how well did the laws deter your own admitted illegal ownership of firearms? How do you think the laws will deter these parents more than you yourself were deterred?

I believe most people who make serious mistakes don't learn from them, they repeat them.

So you believe that someone who's child is shot through firearm storage negligence is likely to continue to store their firearms insecurely? Do you have children?

Here is what the mother of the two-year-old in your story had to say:

http://www.kval.com/news/local/130583968.html

""I deserve it. I mean, that's just how I feel," she said. "I deserve to take whatever comes my way because of what happened. That's my baby and I will do whatever it takes to keep him safe from now on, which I should have done from the beginning."

Police said as far as they know, Flow does not have a concealed weapons permit.

She said she plans to never keep guns in her house again."

[ileus]

16. You dare question king mikeb?

[Common Sense Party]

39. That's 'Re Michele' to you, peon. n/t

[mikeb302000]

20. you may be right about people learning from

their mistakes. Would you let your kids play in a house where the parents let one of their own die from a gunshot the year before? Would you trust your theory with your own kids? I wouldn't.

I agree some people would learn but many who do this kid of thing do so out of alcohol or drug addictions, or just extreme carelessness. Some of these people would end up being repeat offenders. The girl in today's story is imposiing on herslef the "no guns in the house rule." It's almost as if she agrees with me.

Guns are too lethal to take a chance on the negligent person learning.

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Do you have any data to back that up?

you may be right about people learning from their mistakes. Would you let your kids play in a house where the parents let one of their own die from a gunshot the year before? Would you trust your theory with your own kids? I wouldn't.

Nor would I. But nor would I go and try and pass a law over it. Not only is it an extremely rare event, but no law could ever be more compelling to someone than the loss of a child.

Again: How were the laws that did not deter you from your own criminal firearm ownership be any more of a deterrent to parents who have lost a child as a consequence of their actions?

I agree some people would learn but many who do this kid of thing do so out of alcohol or drug addictions, or just extreme carelessness. Some of these people would end up being repeat offenders.

Do you have any data to back this up your assertion, or is this just speculation?

The girl in today's story is imposiing on herslef the "no guns in the house rule." It's almost as if she agrees with me.

So why do you need a law passed, then, since this is the reasonable reaction of anyone who ends up with a child shot and injured or killed due to their negligence?

In spite of the law, you admit to illegally owning firearms when the consequences were presumably only fines and/or jail time. How could any law be more compelling than the consequences of your child being injured or killed?

[Common Sense Party]

41. Data? Re Michele don't need no steenkin' DATA!

It's good to be the king.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. Dude... mikeb has his own BLOG. All you have is statistical DATA & FACTS.

What the hell are you thinking... bringing facts and data to the table when trying to debunk mikeb? :eyes:

[Common Sense Party]

40. Show the King some respect. His name is 'Re Michele'

At least in HIS country.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. If the law didn't stop you, how will it stop a parent at risk of losing a child?

If laws did not deter you from your own admitted criminal ownership of firearms, how will they deter a parent from improperly securing their firearms when the consequences are the loss of a child?

[ileus]

33. most parents can't flee the country either.

[rl6214]

28. "Recently we read the yearly stats for child gunshot deaths,"

Who read them? Certainly not any of us here because they are IN YOU BLOG WHICH NO ONE HERE WILL READ.

You wan't someone here to read your shit, don't use a blind link to your blog, just post it here.

The "MikeB is King rule"? Does italy have a king now? Can self admitted criminals even be king?

Is it lunch time at the UN or are you doing this on company time?

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Last year 25 small children age 5 and under were killed by gun accidents.

Out of a nation of 310,000,000, with almost that many guns, only 25 deaths in one year means that we are doing a very good job on gun accident prevention.

If you use age 12 and under for children then the number is 51 last year. That is still doing a great job of preventing gun accidents.

Many more age 12 and down die from 43,945 car accidents, 3,375 - burns, 3,443 drowning, 22,631 - falls, 578 - bicycles, etc. Why are you so concerned about 51 and not about the tens of thousands dying from other types of accidents?

[ileus]

37. but if there were no guns they could die some other "better" way.

[Common Sense Party]

38. But would Re Michele then impose his one-strike rule and take away

the parents' household cleaners?

[SteveM]

43. ...IJN submarine doctrine emphasized attacks on warships, not commerce...

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Here's why you think these shootings are on the rise.

And I recommend you read the book too.
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/09/27/review-of-better-angels-of-our-nature/

"The idea that we live in an exceptionally violent time is an illusion created by the media’s relentless coverage of violence, coupled to our brain’s evolved propensity to notice and remember recent and emotionally salient events, of which violence plays second fiddle to no one. Unfortunately, our brains did not evolve to carefully track long-term trends, and thus it is that evolution, along with climate change and other historical sciences, seems counterintuitive. And Pinker’s thesis is nothing if not counterintuitive: that violence of all kinds—from murder, rape, and genocide to parents spanking their kids to the treatment of blacks, women, gays, and animals—has been in decline for centuries as a result of this civilizing process."

You think they are on the rise, because you are not approaching the problem with the cold calculation of reason. You allow confirmation bias to get in the way, because you are predisposed to it, by survival mechanisms imposed by evolution.

It would help if you could apply reason only, and surmount this perception problem.