Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Tragic Death of 3 year old due to neglectful gun owner......

  1. #1
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249

    Tragic Death of 3 year old due to neglectful gun owner......

    This should be a tragic reminder to all of us on the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    This should be a tragic reminder to all of us on the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.
    Dumb people get their kids killed sometimes. Nothing new. It's tragic, but it would be equally so if he left the engine running and the kid drove down a hill and into a tree (also happens sometimes).
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-14-2012 at 10:59 AM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    http://www.komonews.com/news/local/B...142616396.html

    The third kid killed in the last two weeks in Washington state. The first kid was arrested along with the Mom and boyfriend. The second one was a LEO that left a weapon in the glove box. Now this guy leaving a weapon under the front seat.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    I think I read bathtubs kill more kids then guns, and what about all the other 1000 ways to die. The guns make more news because it feeds the sheep.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    ... In the second case, the LEO was exempt from that law due to his "government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training", RCW 9.41.060...
    Since SOMEONE is to blame, can we not hold the government sponsor accountable?
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  6. #6
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    And here's what is interesting about that (well the last two anyway). The third case, the guy violated RCW 9.41.050 and can be prosecuted for leaving the gun unattended in the vehicle. In the second case, the LEO was exempt from that law due to his "government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training", RCW 9.41.060. Because of their "government-sponsered law enforcement firearms training", LEO's are exempt from criminal prosecution, at least under RCW 9.41.050, in this case even though they should be the ones who know better while Joe Citizen can be prosecuted.
    It goes to show that our government give some LEO too much credit. That LEO was just as neglectful as the last story's father. He should be charged the same.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    And here's what is interesting about that (well the last two anyway). The third case, the guy violated RCW 9.41.050 and can be prosecuted for leaving the gun unattended in the vehicle. In the second case, the LEO was exempt from that law due to his "government-sponsored law enforcement firearms training", RCW 9.41.060. Because of their "government-sponsered law enforcement firearms training", LEO's are exempt from criminal prosecution, at least under RCW 9.41.050, in this case even though they should be the ones who know better while Joe Citizen can be prosecuted.
    To be fair, you are assuming he violated 9.41.050. We do not have (at least from this story) enough information to make that determination. The law does not state you can not "leave the pistol unattended in a vehicle" it states that if the CPL holder is not in the vehicle then the pistol must be locked within the vehicle. If the doors of the car were locked then there was no violation.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    What a tragic story. Another young child dead because of parental negligence. Tragic for the parents as well. How do you live with the knowledge that you accidentally killed your own child?!? The little boy obviously saw his dad put it under the seat. Why not just lock it in the glove compartment and take the key with you? I didn't think you were supposed to leave children unattended in a car in this state anyway. If the father had taught his son from the time he could walk and talk to not touch guns, chances are the child would still be alive. Parents need to teach their children about guns whether or not they own any; this will go a long way to keeping children safe around all guns, not just the ones they may own.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    To be fair, you are assuming he violated 9.41.050. We do not have (at least from this story) enough information to make that determination. The law does not state you can not "leave the pistol unattended in a vehicle" it states that if the CPL holder is not in the vehicle then the pistol must be locked within the vehicle. If the doors of the car were locked then there was no violation.
    entirely correct. i was about to point this out and you beat me to it.

  10. #10
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by END_THE_FED View Post
    To be fair, you are assuming he violated 9.41.050. We do not have (at least from this story) enough information to make that determination. The law does not state you can not "leave the pistol unattended in a vehicle" it states that if the CPL holder is not in the vehicle then the pistol must be locked within the vehicle. If the doors of the car were locked then there was no violation.
    Quote Originally Posted by PALO View Post
    entirely correct. i was about to point this out and you beat me to it.
    You both are free to read 9.41.050 in the purest, mindless, word parsing, of thoughtless, negligent, laywers!!! yea, I am dissing you both!

    My CPL empowers me to place my loaded gun in the lap of a kid in my car, cover it with a towel,
    then lock the kid, the gun, and the towel, in the car!!

    Now we see that i am not unlawfull,,, Its that darned KID thats breaking the law!!! He doesnt have a CPL!!!
    That kid needs to be taught a lesson!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    You both are free to read 9.41.050 in the purest, mindless, word parsing, of thoughtless, negligent, laywers!!! yea, I am dissing you both!

    My CPL empowers me to place my loaded gun in the lap of a kid in my car, cover it with a towel,
    then lock the kid, the gun, and the towel, in the car!!

    Now we see that i am not unlawfull,,, Its that darned KID thats breaking the law!!! He doesnt have a CPL!!!
    That kid needs to be taught a lesson!!!
    the law is what it is.

    contrary to the jack mccoy'ism we see here and elsewhere, what the guy did when he left the gun in his car (assuming it was locked) was not violative of the criminal law IN WA

    in many other states, it would be violative.

    nobody here is defending what he did. but there is a contrast between saying he acted immorally and irresponsibly and saying he broke the law

    there are a metric buttload of things people can do that are immoral, irresponsible, and disgustingly awful but are NOT illegal

  12. #12
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    No I dont think "the law is ""JUST"" what it is!!

    050 says what it says,,, but a court will judge legeslative intent.

    Try this case.
    I use my CPL to put me and my loaded gun in my car,
    I let my adult friend get in the car, without a CPL.
    We go to the gas station,
    I put my gun on the dashboard, I cover it with a towel.
    Its a warm day and the windows are down,
    I get out to pump the gas, I am now violating 050,, then remember the important words of 050, so
    I lean in the open window and tell my friend to LOCK the doors,
    now,,,
    I am complying with 9.41.050

    BTW A judge, A cop, and a prosecuter are all watching me...
    can I be charged? can I be convicted?
    Yes... Yes I can...


    keep in mind,,, (4) says ,, nothing in this section permitts firearms to those that are not permitted to have them...
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 03-16-2012 at 06:50 AM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  13. #13
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    The parents are already punished enough by the death of their son

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Would you not agree that the clear purpose of the locking and concealment requirement in 9.41.050 is to prevent the gun from being obtained by prohibited persons or getting stolen? In both of these cases, two prohibited persons, the children, were inside the vehicle when the gun was left in there. There was NO LOCK between the children and the guns. So, how can we possibly say that 9.41.050 was not violated when there was NO LOCK between the prohibited persons and the guns? AND, on top of that, the children could certainly have obtained the gun, unlocked the doors, and left with the guns. How can that possibly be construed, by any stretch of the imagination that 9.41.050 was complied with and the guns were locked inside the vehicle, even if the doors were locked when the CPL holder left?

    That's like having a gun safe with an emergency exit handle, and locking a felon inside the safe with your guns and claiming that you did not provide the guns to the felon because they were locked in the safe.

    Yes, I misspoke in my post above. The requirement in 9.41.050 is for guns to be locked in a vehicle concealed from view if the CPL holder leaves the loaded handgun in the vehicle. Since there was no lock between the prohibited persons (and even if the non-CPL holder was not a prohibited person), clearly 9.41.050 was not met.
    Tragic accidents occur. More young children die from neglectful use of 5 gallon buckets than from guns. These rare tragic incidents are used by the MSM to destroy our freedoms. That is the real story here. This is a clear case of political pedophilia.

    When was the last time you heard a national news story about a child drowning in a five gallon bucket?

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    More young children die from neglectful use of 5 gallon buckets than from guns.
    Please stick to facts which are true. There are enough of them to make our case without resorting to falsehoods.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Would you not agree that the clear purpose of the locking and concealment requirement in 9.41.050 is to prevent the gun from being obtained by prohibited persons or getting stolen? In both of these cases, two prohibited persons, the children, were inside the vehicle when the gun was left in there. There was NO LOCK between the children and the guns. So, how can we possibly say that 9.41.050 was not violated when there was NO LOCK between the prohibited persons and the guns? AND, on top of that, the children could certainly have obtained the gun, unlocked the doors, and left with the guns. How can that possibly be construed, by any stretch of the imagination that 9.41.050 was complied with and the guns were locked inside the vehicle, even if the doors were locked when the CPL holder left?

    That's like having a gun safe with an emergency exit handle, and locking a felon inside the safe with your guns and claiming that you did not provide the guns to the felon because they were locked in the safe.

    Yes, I misspoke in my post above. The requirement in 9.41.050 is for guns to be locked in a vehicle concealed from view if the CPL holder leaves the loaded handgun in the vehicle. Since there was no lock between the prohibited persons (and even if the non-CPL holder was not a prohibited person), clearly 9.41.050 was not met.
    I suppose the question could be asked: Did you lock the car door when you exited the vehicle? This section does not speak to whether the vehicle must be without occupants once the licensee exits the vehicle without the firearm.

    The man will not be found guilty of a crime, IMO, not even negligence, and he shouldn't, at least, from the articles that I have reade. The man placed the handgun under the drivers seat, the two children were locked in their car seats, it was not unreasonable for him to conclude that the handgun was safely stowed, and that the children wouldn't gain access to it.

    "(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,249
    "(2)(a) A person shall not carry or place a loaded pistol in any vehicle unless the person has a license to carry a concealed pistol and: (i) The pistol is on the licensee's person, (ii) the licensee is within the vehicle at all times that the pistol is there, or (iii) the licensee is away from the vehicle and the pistol is locked within the vehicle and concealed from view from outside the vehicle."

    I dont necessarily think that firearm laws should apply in this situation. Yes, a firearm was the end cause of death, but the true crime is child endangerment/neglect. I dont think the parents should be charged with any firearm law, but should be prosecuted for the endangerment of the child.

    I believe that losing a child for whatever reason is tragic, and any parent will be grieving for a long time, but in this situation, this man was the primary cause of his childs death. He left his children alone in a car in the middle of the night with a loaded gun. That is the information that should be used for prosecution. Not firearm laws.
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 03-16-2012 at 11:27 AM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    159
    Too bad he did not keep the gun on his person at all times.

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    Children under 5 Fatal gun accidents 20 or less, 5 gallon buckets, about 40

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Please stick to facts which are true. There are enough of them to make our case without resorting to falsehoods.
    Here are a couple of links to back up my assertion that negligent use of 5 gallon buckets kill more young children than negligent use of firearms do:

    http://gunsafe.org/position%20statem...nd%20crime.htm

    The above gives the latest accidental death number for children under 5 as 17.

    http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/Fire/Swimming_Pool_Safety/

    The above lists the number of children drowned in five gallon buckets as "approximately 40". I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of them are under the age of five.

    So, why did you think I was lying?
    Last edited by ccwinstructor; 03-16-2012 at 02:53 PM. Reason: add "fatal" to title.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    Here are a couple of links to back up my assertion that negligent use of 5 gallon buckets kill more young children than negligent use of firearms do:

    http://gunsafe.org/position%20statem...nd%20crime.htm

    The above gives the latest accidental death number for children under 5 as 17.

    http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/Fire/Swimming_Pool_Safety/

    The above lists the number of children drowned in five gallon buckets as "approximately 40". I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of them are under the age of five.

    So, why did you think I was lying?
    I don't think you're lying, I think you're (probably) mistaken. Although upon further research it seems the numbers are closer than I was aware.

    The CDC claims 17 per year, accidental, age 0-5:

    Quote Originally Posted by CDC
    Fatal firearms accidents age 0-5...17
    As for drowning, it seems that the "30-50" deaths per year figure comes from this study, which claims 160 drownings between the years 1984-1989. 160 drownings / 5 years = 32 drownings per year.

    On the other hand, it seems like the issue has improved in years since (maybe due to awareness of the possibility).

    According to this 2004 fact sheet -- which incidentally still claims the "30 per year" figure, no doubt a reflection of the tendency of such things to exaggerate their own importance -- the tally since 1984 is only 327. 327 drownings / 20 years = 16.35 drownings / year.

    I'm not going to quote other sources for firearms deaths due to suspected bias there as well, but suffice it to say that the CDC is the lowest number for children in that age range.

    And that's forgetting the fact that the drowning-in-buckets risks decreases to almost nothing once a child is about 8 or so (my guess, because nobody bothers to keep statistics for that), whereas, even if you carefully discount homicides and whatnot, there are still unintentional firearm deaths that occur, well, even into adulthood. The risk is always present.

    Let's face it: guns are dangerous. That's kind of the point.

    Anyway, it's difficult to agree that either risk is more significant than the other. I think it's more accurate to say that they are both near the noise floor.
    Last edited by marshaul; 03-16-2012 at 03:31 PM.

  20. #20
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    I agree, both are extremely low. That is the point

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    I don't think you're lying, I think you're (probably) mistaken. Although upon further research it seems the numbers are closer than I was aware.

    The CDC claims 17 per year, accidental, age 0-5:



    As for drowning, it seems that the "30-50" deaths per year figure comes from this study, which claims 160 drownings between the years 1984-1989. 160 drownings / 5 years = 32 drownings per year.

    On the other hand, it seems like the issue has improved in years since (maybe due to awareness of the possibility).

    According to this 2004 fact sheet -- which incidentally still claims the "30 per year" figure, no doubt a reflection of the tendency of such things to exaggerate their own importance -- the tally since 1984 is only 327. 327 drownings / 20 years = 16.35 drownings / year.

    I'm not going to quote other sources for firearms deaths due to suspected bias there as well, but suffice it to say that the CDC is the lowest number for children in that age range.

    And that's forgetting the fact that the drowning-in-buckets risks decreases to almost nothing once a child is about 8 or so (my guess, because nobody bothers to keep statistics for that), whereas, even if you carefully discount homicides and whatnot, there are still unintentional firearm deaths that occur, well, even into adulthood. The risk is always present.

    Let's face it: guns are dangerous. That's kind of the point.

    Anyway, it's difficult to agree that either risk is more significant than the other. I think it's more accurate to say that they are both near the noise floor.

    Yes, both are down in the noise level. Virtually all accidental firearms deaths are reported and noted, because of their shock value. It is not nearly as certain that death due to 5 gallon buckets are so rigorously reported.

    The point is to show how incredibly safe firearms are, that they, because they are treated with care, are no more (probably less) of a danger to young children than five gallon buckets are. Certainly swimming pools are a far greater danger of accidental death to all children than firearms are.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    Yes, both are down in the noise level. Virtually all accidental firearms deaths are reported and noted, because of their shock value. It is not nearly as certain that death due to 5 gallon buckets are so rigorously reported.
    Good point. You're probably right.

    The point is [not] to show how incredibly safe firearms are, that they, because they are treated with care, are no more (probably less) of a danger to young children than five gallon buckets are. Certainly swimming pools are a far greater danger of accidental death to all children than firearms are.
    Fair enough.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •