Florida 3-year-old shot one-year-old sibling in the face after both were left alone in car

A 3-year old reportedly shot their 1-year old sibling in the face by accident in Venice, Florida last Friday, WTSP reports. The shooting occurred around 4:30 p.m. in a car outside the Sonshine Learning Center on Orange Road in Venice, according to the authorities. The children were reportedly alone in the car at the time, with the gun left unintended inside. “The 3-year-old located a handgun that was in the vehicle and discharged a round which resulted in the striking of the 1-year-old,” said Lt. Vince Mayer of Sarasota Sheriff’s Office. The infant was flown to Bayfront Health and then was transferred to All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, where it was treated for non-life threatening injuries, according to WTSP.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/florida-3-year-old-shot-one-year-old-sibling-in-the-face-after-both-were-left-alone-in-car/


How many times do we keep seeing this happen?

they want to take guns off the americans but I hope america resists, accidents happen but compared to the ammount of guns there are it is fairly minor.

Seriously,

a case for banning guns
or

a case for prosecuting the owner of the gun and giving him/her 20 years for negligence???


if you choose the former

then why not ban EVERYTHING that can do damage

for instance the chemicals used in fracking have been proven to be dangerous

(the fact fracking produces oil and hence wealth IS irrelelvant)

if the latter at least you see the problem......

darknessss wrote:Seriously,
a case for banning guns or a case for prosecuting the owner of the gun and giving him/her 20 years for negligence???
if you choose the former
then why not ban EVERYTHING that can do damage
for instance the chemicals used in fracking have been proven to be dangerous
(the fact fracking produces oil and hence wealth IS irrelelvant)
if the latter at least you see the problem......

You fail to look at a third option that those like in this case should be banned from owning a gun as well as facing 20 years for negligence. Considering you use the car view point on deaths, why is it or cannot not be the case for where violations of events like this bring about imposing gun bans onto individuals?

This is not about banning guns per say, but the increasing amount of times this is happenning

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

darknessss wrote:Seriously,
a case for banning guns or a case for prosecuting the owner of the gun and giving him/her 20 years for negligence???
if you choose the former
then why not ban EVERYTHING that can do damage
for instance the chemicals used in fracking have been proven to be dangerous
(the fact fracking produces oil and hence wealth IS irrelelvant)
if the latter at least you see the problem......

You fail to look at a third option that those like in this case should be banned from owning a gun as well as facing 20 years for negligence. Considering you use the car view point on deaths, why is it or cannot not be the case for where violations of events like this bring about imposing gun bans onto individuals?

This is not about banning guns per say, but the increasing amount of times this is happenning

I would agree with that didge......(sorry ...i forgot this is the states ....one would not of necessity follow the other..over here a ban on ownership would be automatic)

darknessss wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


You fail to look at a third option that those like in this case should be banned from owning a gun as well as facing 20 years for negligence. Considering you use the car view point on deaths, why is it or cannot not be the case for where violations of events like this bring about imposing gun bans onto individuals?

This is not about banning guns per say, but the increasing amount of times this is happenning

I would agree with that didge......(sorry ...i forgot this is the states ....one would not of necessity follow the other..over here a ban on ownership would be automatic)

No worries Victor, that is my point, on an automatic ban system.

Was this a legally held gun or not?


Anyone who leaves a gun in a position where it can be obtained by unauthorized users or in this case, children, is totally to blame for any result and should be prosecuted accordingly.


You wouldn't leave knives or other tools or power tools etc in reach of children so for anyone to leave a loaded gun in this position of reach is beyond irresponsible, but not reason to ban anything other than the leaving of such dangerous items in reach of children and other unauthorized users.

the suggestion is Tommy, that the OWNER of the gun in these cases be banned for life from owning a gun (since clearly they are not sufficiently responsible) not arguing for a total ban....

darknessss wrote:Seriously,

a case for banning guns
or

a case for prosecuting the owner of the gun and giving him/her 20 years for negligence???


if you choose the former

then why not ban EVERYTHING that can do damage

for instance the chemicals used in fracking have been proven to be dangerous

(the fact fracking produces oil and hence wealth IS irrelelvant)

if the latter at least you see the problem......

spot on, it's the idiots that don't take care with the guns that are the danger but it is far easier to try to take everything away than teach people to be responsible....

darknessss wrote:the suggestion is Tommy, that the OWNER of the gun in these cases be banned for life from owning a gun (since clearly they are not sufficiently responsible)  not arguing for a total ban....

Exactly Victor, we impose driving bans, so why not bans to ownership of guns for violations, crimes and negligence etc.

darknessss wrote:the suggestion is Tommy, that the OWNER of the gun in these cases be banned for life from owning a gun (since clearly they are not sufficiently responsible)  not arguing for a total ban....

Well of course, that goes without saying... presuming of course that this was a legal gun being held by a licensed owner in The first place...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

darknessss wrote:the suggestion is Tommy, that the OWNER of the gun in these cases be banned for life from owning a gun (since clearly they are not sufficiently responsible)  not arguing for a total ban....

Well of course, that goes without saying... presuming of course that this was a legal gun being held by a licensed owner in The first place...!?

it is the USA:roll: guns are legal you by them at walmart
where do you think our illegal guns come from
that is why the 2nd amendment effects us because it means there is some dickheads making mass scale guns for retails selling them dirt cheap with almost no checks. So yeah if you are trying to import guns into a sensible nation you just get them from the USA

darknessss wrote:Seriously,

a case for banning guns
or

a case for prosecuting the owner of the gun and giving him/her 20 years for negligence???


if you choose the former

then why not ban EVERYTHING that can do damage

for instance the chemicals used in fracking have been proven to be dangerous

(the fact fracking produces oil and hence wealth IS irrelelvant)

if the latter at least you see the problem......

Indeed, ban the knife that carves the Christmas turkey. Lol. Try it with chop sticks.

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Well of course, that goes without saying... presuming of course that this was a legal gun being held by a licensed owner in The first place...!?

it is the USA:roll:  guns are legal you by them at walmart
where do you think our illegal guns come from
that is why the 2nd amendment effects us because it means there is some dickheads making mass scale guns for retails selling them dirt cheap with almost no checks. So yeah if you are trying to import guns into a sensible nation you just get them from the USA

No, no...those guns are legal. The illegal ones are guns that have been used in prior killings, or are simply untraceable (perhaps the serial number has been filed off).

Can poke an eye out with a chop stick...



If someone left a set of chop sticks near a child and they picked them up and poked another childs eyes out with them... BAN THE CHOP STICKS!!!



And while you're at it... better not let anyone have any pens or pencils either...!

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Well of course, that goes without saying... presuming of course that this was a legal gun being held by a licensed owner in The first place...!?

it is the USA:roll:  guns are legal you by them at walmart
where do you think our illegal guns come from
that is why the 2nd amendment effects us because it means there is some dickheads making mass scale guns for retails selling them dirt cheap with almost no checks. So yeah if you are trying to import guns into a sensible nation you just get them from the USA

No, no...those guns are legal.  The illegal ones are guns that have been used in prior killings, or are simply untraceable (perhaps the serial number has been filed off).

Umm No Illegal gun in Australia and the UK are Guns from the USA... (anything semi automatic)
Most of those guns in Walmart are ILLEGAL in EVERY single civilized nation on earth

The US has an industry around making guns and then Selling them to gangs in other countries.

Tommy Monk wrote:Can poke an eye out with a chop stick...

If someone left a set of chop sticks near a child and they picked them up and poked another childs eyes out with them... BAN THE CHOP STICKS!!!

And while you're at it... better not let anyone have any pens or pencils either...!

But can you eat rice with a gun?

About as relevant as what you said.

Can you protect your home and family with a chop stick..?

Plus I can't eat rice with chop sticks either but no reason to ban them for those who can responsibly eat rice with them...

Tommy Monk wrote:Can you protect your home and family with a chop stick..?

As well as you can with a gun
If the other guy has guns too.... well you got shot before you got your out of the safe.
much better for a chopstick fight to happen in suburbia than a gun fight

Or are you one of those cowards that think everything will be Ok if you have a bigger gun?
Real men can kill bears with pointy sticks. If your mindset is so fearful you already lost, because you think like prey

And you already showed yourself of the wrong mindset to be suitable for gun ownership, By any reasonable test you have already failed.
Because Only Criminals(and Americans) have guns so badly stored that they are in anyway practical for defense... If your gun is that easy to grab you are being criminally negligent... Pretty sure even victor will agree, Guns need to be stored properly as they are tools for hunting/pest control they are not items to defend yourself..

Tommy Monk wrote:Plus I can't eat rice with chop sticks either but no reason to ban them for those who can responsibly eat rice with them...

LOLZ

a man that can use it properly needs a single load bolt action rifle
and stores it safely

the over under style shotgun victor uses is all that a man needs

A child could kill another with a legally owned chop stick... among any number of objects... should all be banned too!?

Tommy Monk wrote:A child could kill another with a legally owned chop stick... among any number of objects... should all be banned too!?

Tommy goes full retard are you really so dumb you think that you made a logical statement???
Are you that stupid? who said ban something because they can kill people No one that's right.

Banning an object DESIGNED to kill PEOPLE is not the same. The difference between a single load rifle and magazine fed Is the magazine fed is designed for fighting other humans that might be shooting back at you... the Pig/deer etc is never going to shot back to the single load is all you need.. Assuming you can aim.. If you cant aim you should not be allowed a gun.

So if what you actually want to allow unskilled untrained morons that are weak cowards to have better guns to make up for their small testes and lack of skill competence and manhood

ANYONE that has a legitimate reason to own a gun (like victor) is fine with having guns that require a degree of skill and training to use SO THE OP DOESN'T HAPPEN.
We don't want to ban all guns but we want to make sure anyone Stupid enough to make the statements you have made in this thread Never gets one. As you have basically said that you will keep it under your pillow for protection and think children can use it with the same safety as a chopstick, the mere fact you compare a gun to chopstick shows you do not have the minimum respect for firearms necessary to responsibly own one.

SO to repeat... Absolutely No problem with a responsible man like Victor owning a gun.. But 100% agree with making sure that people like you can not get their hands on one.

I think that is the point. There is no other purpose for a firearm, but to kill another. When it was originally introduced, it might have been used for hunting and wilderness protection. But today there are handguns and assault rifles that have no other purpose than to kill another human being.

Original Quill wrote:I think that is the point.  There is no other purpose for a firearm, but to kill another.  When it was originally introduced, it might have been used for hunting and wilderness protection.  But today there are handguns and assault rifles that have no other purpose than to kill another human being.

gns have what ever purpose the handler has, it is that simple, it is a tool it has no life or purpose other than what it is used for.
The idiot who handles the weapon is responsible for its actions.

I still shoot Rabbits from the front seat of my Range Rover. My family and I eat Rabbit, my Daughter guts and skins them and gives any left over to local Pensioners. I see nothing wrong with this.

nothing at all wrong there Nicko, and I dont think anyone is saying there is....

\Here yah go...the case for banning chicken

http://news.sky.com/story/1485792/one-third-of-brits-fall-ill-from-chicken-bug


"One-third of people in the UK could contract food poisoning through campylobacter bacteria on chicken in their lifetime, according to new figures from the food safety watchdog.

Campylobacter, which is frequently found on raw poultry, is responsible for more than 100 deaths in the UK and costs the British economy an estimated £1bn each year.

The bug is the most common cause of food poisoning in Britain, with an estimated 280,000 people falling ill annually."

darknessss wrote:\Here yah go...the case for banning chicken

http://news.sky.com/story/1485792/one-third-of-brits-fall-ill-from-chicken-bug


"One-third of people in the UK could contract food poisoning through campylobacter bacteria on chicken in their lifetime, according to new figures from the food safety watchdog.

Campylobacter, which is frequently found on raw poultry, is responsible for more than 100 deaths in the UK and costs the British economy an estimated £1bn each year.

The bug is the most common cause of food poisoning in Britain, with an estimated 280,000 people falling ill annually."

100 people a year, bloody hell if they ban everything that kills 100 poeple a year we will have nothing left...

nicko wrote:I still shoot Rabbits from the front seat of my Range Rover. My family and I eat Rabbit, my Daughter guts and skins them and gives any left over to local Pensioners. I see nothing wrong with this.

I'm with you, nicko. I lov rabbit. Hasenpfeffer is a favorite of mine. But I have had people over (for rabbit dinner) that simply refused to eat.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:gns have what ever purpose the handler has, it is that simple, it is a tool it has no life or purpose other than what it is used for.
The idiot who handles the weapon is responsible for its actions.

Fair point.  But you need to add to it.

Firearms, and to some extent, edge weapons, express a purpose of life destruction, which comes to the fore when one is angry or out of control.  That is why firearms are so often involved in irrational crimes.  You don't see a hoe or a scythe brought to a movie theater to carry out a massacre.  A firearm--and in earlier times an edge weapon--is the weapon most associated with destruction of life.

That makes the firearm uniquely dangerous.  Sure it is a psychological point, and to that extent it is still true that people kill people.  But generally those people are irrational or explosive anyway.  Why leave a match lying around?

I think the law has to recognize that some people are irrational all the time, and all people are irrational some of the time, and should be kept from firearms except in controlled circumstances.  Isn't that just the way we treat drugs and controlled substances.  Good god, we spend more on marijuana control than gun control.

Original Quill wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:gns have what ever purpose the handler has, it is that simple, it is a tool it has no life or purpose other than what it is used for.
The idiot who handles the weapon is responsible for its actions.

Fair point.  But you need to add to it.

Firearms, and to some extent, edge weapons, express a purpose of life destruction, which comes to the fore when one is angry or out of control.  That is why firearms are so often involved in irrational crimes.  You don't see a hoe or a scythe brought to a movie theater to carry out a massacre.  A firearm--and in earlier times an edge weapon--is the weapon most associated with destruction of life.

That makes the firearm uniquely dangerous.  Sure it is a psychological point, and to that extent it is still true that people kill people.  But generally those people are irrational or explosive anyway.  Why leave a match lying around?

I think the law has to recognize that some people are irrational all the time, and all people are irrational some of the time, and should be kept from firearms except in controlled circumstances.  Isn't that just the way we treat drugs and controlled substances.  Good god, we spend more on marijuana control than gun control.

and for te wrong reasons...
in fact as experience is showing very little control seems to be needed

nicko wrote:I still shoot Rabbits from the front seat of my Range Rover. My family and I eat Rabbit, my Daughter guts and skins them and gives any left over to local Pensioners. I see nothing wrong with this.

yes and do you need a 30 round mag semi automatic? Remember OP is from the USA
OR will you be using a handgun to hunt rabbits?

My french grandparents raised rabbits and just killed with a knife.... so Yes I have eaten plenty of rabbits (best slow cooked in a rich red wine and garlic sauce )


@HF
there are weapons for hunting animals and their are weapons for killing men. Hand guns are not for hunting neither are high capacity magazines.
it is disingenuous to call a weapon a tool, a weapon is used for no task but killing. so although other things can kill they're not designed for that purpose.
If you threw someone a ball and it hit them and they fell and died is that the same as throwing a spear at someone and killing them intent makes a big difference, if the intent is to hunt then there are weapons to hunt with.

I use an Ruger 10 shot semi-auto for Rabbits, why would you need a 30 round mag?
hand guns are banned in England. I can picture you running around a field waving a knife chasing rabbits. Rather amusing actually.

nicko wrote:I use an Ruger 10 shot semi-auto for Rabbits, why would you need a 30 round mag?
hand guns are banned in England.    I can picture you running around a field waving a knife chasing rabbits.  Rather amusing actually.

You don't that is the point!.. and would you hunt rabbits with a handgun anyway? already nations like the UK or Australia allow guns for hunters we don't need the Bushmaster AR-15 etc they are not for hunting If someone needs them for hunting they are not skilled enough and should not be allowed hunting.

called a snare or trap Nicko Not that you need that to take them out of a hutch
I did do boy scouts (Blacktown was the very edge of Sydney when i was a kid, literately 2 streets parallel to mine then paddocks as far as the eye could see... All Suburbia now though )

10 shot... pretty lazy why do you need that many
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_10/22
mind you they after market clips go up to 25
Mind you it is a 22 so it is a rabbit rifle NOT a man killer (you could but not designed for it)

I'm Actually looking at buying rural property at the moment cheaper than a 2 bedroom apartment in Sydney and I would be hunting feral rabbits possibly feral deer, pigs and goats too.
over 25 acre at least, to be worth the 'life change', depending on my brother we might get up to 500acre in the 'snowy' mountains, seen some real nice properties in the region that i could cover the deposit on