I'm almost glad that the local news outlets in Tennessee seem to have kept Wii out of the actual headlines (not so for Fox News), but why is this being reported as part of the story? Would it have been included if the parents had assumed the kit thought the gun was a hair dryer?LEBANON, Tenn. -- A 3-year-old Wilson County girl accidentally shot and killed herself Sunday night, said local police.
The incident happened at about 6:15 p.m. at a home of located off of Cainsville Road. The girl was identified as Cheyenne Alexis McKeehan.
Cheyenne's stepfather, Douglas Robert Cronberger, said he believed someone was trespassing on their property, so he stepped outside with his semi-automatic gun. When he returned inside, he placed the gun on the counter.
Cronberger said Cheyenne mistook the weapon for a Wii video game controller and fatally shot herself in the abdomen.
Cheyenne was rushed to University Medical Center in Lebanon where she was pronounced dead.
As of Monday morning, no charges had been filed in the case.
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
Heck, if the gun is lock and cock and lay on the counter, accidentally knocking off the counter COULD set it off. Yea. The parent is totally to blame on this one.Obviously it was ready to fire and safety off. The guy thought he heard something so of course the first thing you think of is, "Get yer gun!"
Then you find nothing and set it on the counter. Not the brightest move.
This.The information does not add up, unless the gun was locked and cocked, then it does not matter what the child thought it was.
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
Obviously it was ready to fire and safety off. The guy thought he heard something so of course the first thing you think of is, "Get yer gun!"
Then you find nothing and set it on the counter. Not the brightest move.
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
nah, everyone would be screwed as a parent if this were true. But leaving a loaded gun on the counter ranks up there with dipping your nuts in a piranha infested pool.I don't care if the kid had spent his whole childhood playing Persona 3 (the characters shoot themselves in the head with a gun-looking device regularly, for gameplay reasons), the culprit here is the dude that left an unsupervised loaded gun in a place accessible to a child. Parenting is not the kind of job at which you can afford this kind of slip up, not even once.
nah, everyone would be screwed as a parent if this were true. But leaving a loaded gun on the counter ranks up there with dipping your nuts in a piranha infested pool.[/QUOTE]I don't care if the kid had spent his whole childhood playing Persona 3 (the characters shoot themselves in the head with a gun-looking device regularly, for gameplay reasons), the culprit here is the dude that left an unsupervised loaded gun in a place accessible to a child. Parenting is not the kind of job at which you can afford this kind of slip up, not even once.
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
It is easier to think the child thinks it is a toy and shot herself.Facts are verifiable. The reporter was repeating conjecture.
"Fact" a bullet struck a child. The rest is hearsay.
That's not a fact. That's the parents' opinion of what happened. Unless the child said, "Hey look at this Wii controller" they didn't know what she was thinking. The reports can't even agree if the mother or the father is the one who said that the child mistook the gun for a Wii controller.It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.
I thought that was just me, since I go to a couple of gun and ammo sites.The ad I'm getting is for the Firearms Training Institute.
That's not a fact. That's the parents' opinion of what happened. Unless the child said, "Hey look at this Wii controller" they didn't know what she was thinking. The reports can't even agree if the mother or the father is the one who said that the child mistook the gun for a Wii controller.[/QUOTE]It was reporting a fact. She mistook the gun for a Wii controller. FACT. There is no bias or spin.
And if you believe a pistol has any other reason, you need to never have one. PERIOD.Guns don't kill people....people...oh yeah. Guns do kill people. It's kinda their thing.
Personally I would go with in hand only. A 5 second unload would have saved her up to 80+ years.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
What if... What if it was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then you'd be royally fucked with or without a gun.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
(agree)Personally I would go with in hand only. A 5 second unload would have saved her up to 80+ years.
(agree)Personally I would go with in hand only. A 5 second unload would have saved her up to 80+ years.
It shouldn't have been mention AT ALL. If by mentioning in passing (like above article) people will come to conclusion on their own and thinks the Wii controller promotes killing since people are likely to blame others than themselves.That's the only time the Wii is mentioned. Not once does it blame the Wii; it just says she mistook it for one. Obviously they shouldn't leave a gun lying around.
Calling them sensationalists? Pot calling kettle black.
What if... What if it was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then you'd be royally fucked with or without a gun.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
What if... What if it was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, then you'd be royally fucked with or without a gun.Protip: Hot guns are always kept in hand, holster, or sight.
And a bat is a terrible defense weapon. What if he had a gun too?
You know till someone shoots a relative, or their kid sneaking back in from a night out. Not that it has ever happened before.....That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
You know till someone shoots a relative, or their kid sneaking back in from a night out. Not that it has ever happened before.....[/QUOTE]That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
You know till someone shoots a relative, or their kid sneaking back in from a night out. Not that it has ever happened before.....[/QUOTE]That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
Plus, it saves you all those childcare money... win-win.That's all cool and shit Chad, but you know as well as I do, in the end, a gun would be the most useful in these collective 'situations'.
I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
Except that he committed a crime. If it had been an open jug of antifreeze and the kid drank it, that still would have been criminally negligent homicide and he should still be arrested. He didn't commit first degree murder - but he is responsible for the child's death and there are legal consequences.I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
Except that he committed a crime. If it had been an open jug of antifreeze and the kid drank it, that still would have been criminally negligent homicide and he should still be arrested. He didn't commit first degree murder - but he is responsible for the child's death and there are legal consequences.I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
as an officer of the law, do you think this guy should be charge? if so what kind? I am not a lawyer (or anywhere near it) but there are laws against murder of different level including involuntary or negligence. So what is your opinion?This is giving me some serious food for thought here, with a daughter on the way.
I keep my pistol hot at all times, out of habit, but if it's not in my hand, it's secure in my holster, high up and out of reach. Yes, the man screwed up by not re-securing his weapon, and his daughter is the one who paid the price.
The Wii controller aspect of the article is completely ancillary to the underlying aim of the report - lack of respect for the firearm on the part of the parent and child caused an easily-preventable death.
Except that he committed a crime. If it had been an open jug of antifreeze and the kid drank it, that still would have been criminally negligent homicide and he should still be arrested. He didn't commit first degree murder - but he is responsible for the child's death and there are legal consequences.I have known a few people who have suffered through similar situations with loaded guns and none of them were charged with anything. I don't think he should be charged and I don't think he will be.
If it hadn't been a gun and someone had left an open jug of antifreeze on the counter and the kid had drank it thinking it was gatorade should the guy go to jail too? Yes guns are very dangerous but there are a lot of things that are potentially deadly, especially to children.
The father is not a murderer Fade. As far as we know he never intended for her to die. He made a bad judgment call and WILL pay for it for the rest of his life, he doesn't have to do it in prison to be punished.
I always tell people that they also need to be sure that if they lock up their guns don't let the kid know where the key is. In that situation I mentioned earlier the older brother was 11 and his father had taken him hunting many times and he was trained to use guns so his father wasn't careful about letting him know where the key to the cabinet was.Even though, obviously, he wasn't "allowed" to go into it. One day the 11 year old wanted to show his little brother a new gun I think and he ended up shooting the little one in the head. Now they keep the guns in a completely different location but like I said horrible lesson learned a horrible way.This is giving me some serious food for thought here, with a daughter on the way.
I keep my pistol hot at all times, out of habit, but if it's not in my hand, it's secure in my holster, high up and out of reach. Yes, the man screwed up by not re-securing his weapon, and his daughter is the one who paid the price.
The Wii controller aspect of the article is completely ancillary to the underlying aim of the report - lack of respect for the firearm on the part of the parent and child caused an easily-preventable death.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
They were drunk, thus they were not in control. They intentionally placed a dangerous contraption in a state where it was out of their control and could kill someone. That is the same thing as placing a loaded gun on a table where a child could reach it.They were driving the car, they were IN CONTROL of what kills the people. That is completely different than leaving a gun on a counter. If the guy had been pretending he was a gunslinger and then accidentally shot the kid, lock his ass up. But all he did was leave a gun on a counter and the kid shot herself. Not the same thing.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
Stupid people drink and drive all the time, should they not be charged with vehicular homicide because many people do the same stupid thing?[/QUOTE]I don't think it fits negligent homicide because he didn't have a conscious disregard for the risk and putting a gun on a counter, while stupid, is not a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. Stupid people do that all the time.
you could probably argue that it is, that is the beauty of the law. But I would be right there arguing that IN THIS CASE (getting to argue a case by case basis also a beauty part of the law) it wasn't.I'd consider leaving a loaded gun on the table as the very definition of gross negligence.
you could probably argue that it is, that is the beauty of the law. But I would be right there arguing that IN THIS CASE (getting to argue a case by case basis also a beauty part of the law) it wasn't.I'd consider leaving a loaded gun on the table as the very definition of gross negligence.
So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school!I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.
So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.
So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.
So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.
So this is how you impress a lawyer? Copy and paste shit you googled in 10 seconds? Fuck! I should have gone to law school![/QUOTE]I do however respect that you at least tried to educate yourself. Just remember no damages in criminal law, damages are what dictates what a jury says a defendant has to pay a plaintiff in a civil case.
There are many ways to change the facts. Let's say the father wasn't checking for a prowler instead, he's a drug dealer and he ALWAYS has the gun out so he can get to it for, I dont know, drug emergencies. Then in that case I would argue that it was gross negligence. The circumstances and the intent are very important. And in the end it really is just what argument you want to make. I am maintaining my argument in this case and I would in court but that doesnt make me "right" anymore than it makes anyone who argues the opposite "wrong". I want an outcome that fits the law and is just. So that is what I am arguing.Makare1: Ok So we have different type of case here.
Leaving a hot gun (lock, cock, and ready to roll. I.E. it is loaded and cock also I use the term hot since it makes sense to me) around the house can be negligence since anyone could pick it up and hurt someone with it.
Now - having a child around and leaving a hot gun on the counter. That is a recipe for disaster. This is a child of 3. So I might presume the father knew he had a child and should have been more care with the weapon.
Now circumstance could change the situation.
If the guy leave the hot gun ALL the time laying around. That could be consider Gross negligence. It would almost be the same as leaving a bomb around. Someone could set it off and hurt someone. (this is not the case with this guy)
There was an intruder (so he said) so this is an unusual situation that cause him to be negligence so it "could" be forgivable for leaving a hot gun on the counter.
Of course now the question would be. Was the gun hot? How much strength does a child need to shoot herself in the abdomen? If the gun was hot, it shouldn't be too much strength. I fire many different pistols (all rental I don't get to own one yet) at a range and I do try firing with and without hammer pull back. There is a difference to me.
Now the father did not shoot and accidentally shot his daughter. That would be totally different case here.
As a person studying law, does circumstance change much regarding having a loaded weapon? I mean what if a person kept a loaded pistol in his desk drawer and a visiting child found it and shot him/herself. What is the consequence then?
but certain situation regardless of circumstance, they are against the law.There are many ways to change the facts. Let's say the father wasn't checking for a prowler instead, he's a drug dealer and he ALWAYS has the gun out so he can get to it for, I dont know, drug emergencies. Then in that case I would argue that it was gross negligence. The circumstances and the intent are very important. And in the end it really is just what argument you want to make. I am maintaining my argument in this case and I would in court but that doesnt make me "right" anymore than it makes anyone who argues the opposite "wrong". I want an outcome that fits the law and is just. So that is what I am arguing.
but certain situation regardless of circumstance, they are against the law.There are many ways to change the facts. Let's say the father wasn't checking for a prowler instead, he's a drug dealer and he ALWAYS has the gun out so he can get to it for, I dont know, drug emergencies. Then in that case I would argue that it was gross negligence. The circumstances and the intent are very important. And in the end it really is just what argument you want to make. I am maintaining my argument in this case and I would in court but that doesnt make me "right" anymore than it makes anyone who argues the opposite "wrong". I want an outcome that fits the law and is just. So that is what I am arguing.
True, but kids don't usually pick them up and shoot themselves. If they did, we'd here more about it. I guess I'm leaning more toward having a weapon laying around (gun, sword, a bomb) and a kid got access to it and hurt him/herself and others. I'm sure there is something about that.I don't think so. But I can't say for sure. I would have to research it and I won't do that, Im on break haha. But if there is not all states would have it. I mean if that were the case half of south dakota would be in jail because most families have guns of some type and not all lock them up.
How exactly does punishing him prevent crime? It was an accident. Punishing him will do nothing but cause a man who has lost a child to lose years of his life in prison. That's it.And I can't understand not wanting to punish him. We punish our own children for unintentional accidents. Part of the legal system, as I'm sure you know, is prevention of future crime, whatever we've labeled as such. I would certainly believe the man in the above hypothetical should be punished. Intentional or not, the result is the death of a human being due to the actions of another. I believe you and agree with you that he feels terrible and has suffered a lot. But he still did something wrong. I just don't understand how loss and tragedy, terrible though it may be, should exempt one from punishment. I really do not understand. I counter still that the same arguments could be made of someone who killed anyone without malice aforethought, especially if the person was close. Intent alone doesn't exempt one from punishment, anymore than it did when you broke your mom's favorite vase playing tag in the house as a kid.
He intentionally raped a child and then lived it up in Europe. Not the same.*cough* Roman Polanski *cough*
Most of the time I feel the same way about most manslaughter cases. The penalty for manslaughter used to be like 5 years now it is 5 times that! That is ridiculous. The legal systems fetish for imprisoning people is not helping anyone especially not society which has to deal with the influx of pissed of ex-cons and the cost of the penal system.Again, how does punishing a manslaughterer benefit society or protect them from preventable crime?
if they knew the kid was in the car that would be completely different. In the case mentioned the man forgot her because it wasnt a usual part of his usual routine and he felt so horrible that he tried to kill himself.As far as prevention, not everyone is as nice as you. A person may not give a rat's ass about their kid in the car, but they may remember that they will go to jail if the kid dies.
if they knew the kid was in the car that would be completely different. In the case mentioned the man forgot her because it wasnt a usual part of his usual routine and he felt so horrible that he tried to kill himself.[/QUOTE]As far as prevention, not everyone is as nice as you. A person may not give a rat's ass about their kid in the car, but they may remember that they will go to jail if the kid dies.
What about people that leave medicine high up under the idea that the kids can't get to them, but the kids find a way?! They obviously didn't do a good enough job hiding the medicine which lead to a dangerous situation...People who leave loaded guns where their children can get at them deserve to be removed from society;
What about people that leave medicine high up under the idea that the kids can't get to them, but the kids find a way?! They obviously didn't do a good enough job hiding the medicine which lead to a dangerous situation...[/QUOTE]People who leave loaded guns where their children can get at them deserve to be removed from society;
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
http://kotaku.com/5489137/wii-gun-involved-in-3+year+old-shooting-is-amazingly-lifelikeIt is easier to think the child thinks it is a toy and shot herself.
http://kotaku.com/5489137/wii-gun-involved-in-3+year+old-shooting-is-amazingly-lifelike[/QUOTE]It is easier to think the child thinks it is a toy and shot herself.
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.[/QUOTE]No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
Yeah, scissors work too, that's the point. Knives are hunting/killing tools too, even if the have other uses, singling out guns because their use is more limited seems too arbitrary to me... gets closer to gun control then negligence imo.[/QUOTE]EDIT: Oh, so it's the chinese's fault... good to know.
Still, how much bad luck you need to have to shoot yourself instead of the TV or something...
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
Yeah, scissors work too, that's the point. Knives are hunting/killing tools too, even if the have other uses, singling out guns because their use is more limited seems too arbitrary to me... gets closer to gun control then negligence imo.[/QUOTE]EDIT: Oh, so it's the chinese's fault... good to know.
Still, how much bad luck you need to have to shoot yourself instead of the TV or something...
Fair enough, his wording was probably poor, but like I said the distinction between guns and medicine must be made. Because then you can just as easily state scissors as a possibility, my point was merely that guns are a killing device, unlike medicine or other household items.No, i'm pretty sure they where just giving it to him as a precaution... they even stopped giving it to him after.
And you can also lock it somewhere or do other things that make it harder for the kid to get to it... i don't see how the minutia of how you make on or the other safer matters.
But the point was that if the law did punish in this case then it would need to in all cases where the object was left somewhere reachable by a kid...
Which has what to do with prosecution for negligence?!True, but maybe some are for gun control
Or inspiring replicas in the gas lighter, bottle and video game controller industries... don't forget that.Also I was merely pointing out facts that guns have no other uses other than killing.
Oh no, i agree that the father was responsible for the kids death by being an idiot, i was just arguing against that making him liable for manslaughter charges... at most take away his gun license...No, It is the parents' fault according to kotaku. Even if it is realistic looking, the parents should have been more careful with a real gun in the house with a child (in this case 3 year old) but what was interesting is that it say about "shooting dogs" then it became intruder but our forum shows it was intruder to begin with.
my response was to thisThen what the hell are the NRA bitching about?!
But i bet there are laws against former criminals and the insane being allowed to own guns, so you could take it away somehow...
That is maybe why no one suggest that yet (taking away his license) cause it won't solves anything or teach other lesson. Punishment to an individual works two ways. It punish the actual individual and act as deterrent for OTHER people. Drug laws (the most I have read about) are design like this. to let other knows that this is a bad bad thing and you will be punish and hopefully people will be more careful.Oh no, i agree that the father was responsible for the kids death by being an idiot, i was just arguing against that making him liable for manslaughter charges... at most take away his gun license...
BTW, why has no one suggested that yet?!
Someone needs to ask him "Yeah, so?!"Well it's pretty obvious that because the damn Wii controller looks like a real damn gun, the logical conclusion is that the girl picked up the real gun thinking it was a Wii controller. JUST LIKE THE ARTICLE UNBIASEDLY REPORTED HER FATHER SAYING!
Isn't the war on drugs going badly?!It punish the actual individual and act as deterrent for OTHER people. Drug laws (the most I have read about) are design like this. to let other knows that this is a bad bad thing and you will be punish and hopefully people will be more careful.
I'd modify that statement a little. Precisely because it is realistic, the parents should have been even more careful with a real gun in the house... When I was a kid my parents gave me firearm lectures just about every time I played with any sort of gun shaped object. Squirt guns (both realistic and Super Soaker), cap guns, nerf guns, sticks held like guns while I said "bang", etc. They warned me repeatedly about the danger of real guns, and there weren't even any guns in the house. In fact, I don't think I even saw a real gun until I shot a .22 rife at Boy Scout camp. My friends didn't even have BB guns.Even if it is realistic looking, the parents should have been more careful with a real gun in the house with a child
Parents are to blame in my book.Let's be honest, who's to blame here? The Wii or parents leaving a gun around? Or perhaps parents using the Wii as a tool to be left alone in peace and being used as a parent to an inbecile child? I feel bad to what happened but there's no one else to blame than deplorable parenting.
But hey, WE DEFEND THE RIGHT TO PROTECT OURSELVES MAN!
Don't think we even had child-resistant containers back then.Putting medicine, inside a child-resistant container, in a medicine cabinet is normal behavior. Generally, by the time a child has the manual dexterity to open a container like that, (and medicine should not be stored in easy-open containers if a child is going to be in the house), they're old enough to have been taught that medicine is not candy. (If that is not the case, and a parent should be keeping track of their child's development, then locking the medicine cabinet is advisable) However, setting a loaded gun on a table and leaving it unattended is never acceptable behavior, period. It doesn't even matter if there is a child in the house. You don't run a space heater underneath curtains, you don't park a car on a hill without putting on the parking break, you don't mix bleach and ammonia, you don't mess around with Jim, and you don't let a loaded firearm out of your reach (and certainly not out of your sight).
I'm surprised it's not illegal or something to sell a black toy gun. I've only ever seen white Wii gun controllers.Have you guys seen their Wii controller? Second picture in the flash slideshow. http://www.wsmv.com/slideshow/news/22775502/detail.html
I can REALLY see how this happened.
I'm surprised it's not illegal or something to sell a black toy gun. I've only ever seen white Wii gun controllers.[/QUOTE]Have you guys seen their Wii controller? Second picture in the flash slideshow. http://www.wsmv.com/slideshow/news/22775502/detail.html
I can REALLY see how this happened.
I'm surprised it's not illegal or something to sell a black toy gun. I've only ever seen white Wii gun controllers.[/QUOTE]Have you guys seen their Wii controller? Second picture in the flash slideshow. http://www.wsmv.com/slideshow/news/22775502/detail.html
I can REALLY see how this happened.