Gun Control?
Just yesterday, a 42 year old Marysville man was arrested in the fatal shooting of his six year old daughter. He had been drinking, and he and his wife had been cleaning guns. Apparently, loaded guns. The wife went upstairs to retreive another gun to clean and as he cleaned that one, their six year old daughter "appeared out of nowhere" and was shot in the head. The father called 911 to report the incident and is now in custody for the investigation of manslaughter. The couple has two other children, an 8 year old and a three year old. They have been removed by CPS.
What is this to say about gun control? True, this was just your average family. Not crazy criminals or murderers. A husband, wife, and three children- just loaded with guns. But has the training not done enough? Did they really not know not to clean a loaded gun, especially with young children in the house?
Thoughts?
Delicious
Digg it
Stumble it
Reddit
Share on Facebook
Subscribe to comments- kat's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
Comments
we get to keep our own guns at home for safety reasons and that's alright. but what's not alright is to be irresponsible on holding it. we know that guns can hurt a lot and can damage a lot. whether we meant to pull the trigger or not, we should take the consequences. we should be careful in holding our weapons and be responsible for it.
I find it interesting how people use "safety" as a reason for owning guns. Did you know that more household guns are used against the person living there than for safety? As in, a burgler will enter the house, steal the gun, and use it on the person residing there. Or, as in this case, a person in the household will shoot another person in the household.
http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_1...
Well, that is my King 5. I also posted links to MSNBC and the PI. I would still like to actually see your source. Do you have a link to the police report? I would like to see it.
Being addicted to alcohol is far different than being addicted to other "leisure activites." I don't think it's average to be an alcoholic. Its a tragic disease. It sounds to me like you don't think very highly of Americans.
While gun control sounds like a nice idea, I really don't know what kinds of controls we can have to prevent accidents like this from happening. I don't think an average homeowners needs a handgun, but it is their constitutional right to have one.
I think the thing to get from this event is that there are too many of these "accidents" all the time. This isn't the last time this will happen whether it involves alcohol or not. Having children in the same house as guns at all scares me, regardless of any of the other circumstances. And I think it is a fine example of why we need more gun control in this country. I get that people enjoy hunting and would need rifles and such for that. But this is an incident about a handgun. Why would an average homeowner need one? And if it was for protection, I'd love to see statistics of accidental shootings vs. actual robberies while the families at home.
I'm not sure how alcoholism makes a family more average. Also, he told the police he lets all his children, including the 3-year-old handle guns. He also accidentally fired a weapon a few weeks ago at a target range and was talked to by people there about the incident. No one was hurt that time, but clearly this man has a history of problems with both guns and alcohol and I would not consider anyone who lets their 3-year-old handle guns on a regular basis, as he claims he does, average.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27798465/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/388155_g...
I'm not sure where you read the police report Kat, but The Seattle Times, Komo 4 News, The Everett Herald, and King 5 News all report that Richard Peters sent his 6-year-old daughter Stormy upstairs to fetch a Colt Couble Eagle .45 caliber handgun. I would like to do know where you obtained the police report and why it differs from the all the news sources.
Interesting how your King 5 differs from mine... but you can also access police reports online. It's a right that journalists learn, but many other people dont really know about. And alcoholism would make them more "average" because it would make them more like a majority of americans- addicted to some sort of leisure activity. Thats what our society does best, abuse the liberties its given and make a mess of them. Thats why we have DUIs, not because they're young and dumb. Because Americans in general are addictive and abuse substances way too much.
Everyone keeps calling this family, "average," but it depends on what you consider an "average" family, I suppose. I just read the article on komonews again, and I certainly don't think it is average for a father to drink several doubleshots of vodka and ask his 6-year-old daughter to retrieve his gun. I think, in this situation, alcohol is more of the problem than the guns, and I have heard about many examples of this. Alcohol and guns simply do not mix and I think, perhaps, this man had a drinking problem. Otherwise, why would he be drinking so much vodka around his kids while home on a Sunday night? I think what separates this family more so from other "average" families is the drinking, not the guns. Also, I don't think we know enough about this family to call them "average" just because they have three kids.
To respond to dwyman's point, I don't think we can prevent thugs from getting guns. Even when things are illegal or regulated, people still manage to get them (drugs, alcohol for minors). Unfortunately, I do not think there is anything we can do to keep guns out of the hands of those who really want them (thugs, criminals).
If you read the police report, it clearly states the wife retrieved the gun, not the child. Although he was drinking, he didn't ask his six year old daughter to handle the weapon. She was in the room however, which is still wrong. I agree that alcohol is definately a problem here, but with such an addictive society, it isn't something that can be easily controlled. How could you fight alcoholism? After all, he was of age. And although I don't think any stricter regulations would have prevented this family from obtaining guns, I'm not so sure why they had as many as they did. They had way more than they needed to "protect the household" as most gun-toting americans argue. And to respond to your comment that we dont know enough about them to call them average, I think we do. If they had other criminal history, it would've been reported with the story. They aren't felons, robbers, hardcore criminals, they have a family that obviously spends time together and alcoholism doesn't make them not average. If anything, it makes them more so.
Is it really up to you to decide how many guns people have and why they need them? Some people are hunters, some people are collecters, some people like just shooting at the range. If you haven't broken any laws or proven that you are a completely brainless moron you should be able to have as many guns as you want.
You seem to have a very low esteem of who the "average" American is.
I'm really simply curious on your take on gun rights. I know alot of people have passionate views about being able to protect their families, constitutional rights, etc. We had an interesting discussion in one of my classes today that alot of people believe that when it says "a right to bear arms" means its the individuals right to bear arms, even though it never says that. It says the people, i.e. the Military. What is your take on letting individuals bear hand guns? Simply protection from the dangerous world?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It never says "the individuals right to bear arms"?
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
I made it bigger so you would not miss it this time. Plus, its ridiculous to believe that amendments 1, and 3-10 are all meant for the individual but 2 is not. Why would they even include a government right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights which was explicitly meant to INHIBIT government power, and enable individual liberty? It simply is a ridiculous, illogical, and stupid idea.
I'll give you one reason why people should be allowed to have weapons for whatever reason they choose: Every time government has committed genocide against its people, the first thing they do is take away the guns. The founders knew that the best government is one that fears its populace, not the other way around.
I'm so glad we were able to have an adult conversation about a serious subject matter without belitteling the other person. Oh wait.....
When I said "right to bear arms" I was indeed refrencing the quote YOU SO KINDLY PUT IN BOLD. I honestly wanted to get yours, and others feedback, about the idea that the right of the people doesn't automatically mean each individual person. And if it does, it was a different era back then; it was a time when having a gun was a safety measure and a neccesity.
But you are right that the Bill of Rights was created in response to the Constitution because of the Anti-federalists. Let's go from there... you think the government put that in the bill of rights because of it fear of its populace? The government was founded on the idea the idea that it should be overthrown every several years, which obviously hasn't happened. The government was also founded on the idea that slavery was a-okay and women were unintelligent and that worked out....right? Do you honestly believe the reason people should have handguns in their homes in the chance of the United States committing mass genocide?
"The people" is used throughout the Bill of Rights, so if "the people" really means the military aka the government, then we have to radically re-evaluate what the Bill of Rights really means. I understand that you do not think guns should be legal, and that the Constitution is a roadblock in this desire, but to rationlize it in this way is just plain silly.
Afterall, blacks and women got their rights through the Amendment process, not by judicial tyrants deciding at their whim that it just doesn't suit the times anymore. So if guns are ever to be completely illegal, it will have to be passed as an Amendment to the Constitution which will never happen.
why don't you read into all the dictators and terrorist groups (including the group that would eventually fund al qieda) just because they alligned with our worldview at that time.
Could you elaborate? I am a little confused as to what you are trying to get at.
I was replying to huskygirl's comment about mass genocide, look at the size of the comments, when two people comment to the same thing, it stacks them, bad website design.
I agree, the design needs to be redone.
I agree with you in some aspects, and we can never eliminate the flow of guns to criminals, but making guns harder to get is a way to reduce it, to the point where small time criminals wouldn't get them. The US has more guns then any country on earth, even if you go to percentages, we have more per person then any country.
Do you know about what happens when guns are restricted or banned? Criminals still find plenty of ways to get them, and find the environment much more friendly to their endeavors ie. they know for sure that not one person they rob will have any way to defend themselves.
Moral of the story: Don't clean your guns when you are drunk and your kids are around. Does this demand "gun control"? No.
But can we be sure that guns don't get into the hands of these people? No, how do thugs get guns? They steal them from average people.
So your idea is to keep guns out of the hands of "average" ie. stupid people (who do not know how to live their own lives so we will dictate it to them) in hopes that "thugs" will no longer be able get them? Good luck with that.
Are we really going to define this guy as "average"? Does the "average" person abuse alcohol and let his 3 year old handle guns? This man is not average, he is a moron with a drinking problem that is a threat to his own family and probably the rest of society. He belongs in prison.
That's not what I'm getting at, I believe in the legalization of all guns, my comment was meant to show the flaws in what you saw as the "moral" of the story. But looking back, I think you're right. We can't take this and make it a statment about guns, this is a statment about stupidity and the mis-managment of tools.
All of these are very true.. I was discussing this event in my AP Gov class and I realized that this is a completely average family, the only thing making them somewhat different is the fact they owned a LOT of guns. So even if there were stricter laws, more background checks, classes (which I'm sure they knew about safety. drinking does impair that though..), this family would still own guns because they are normal people and not criminals...
Food for thought I suppose.
This is very tragic. Although these types of tragic accidents may happen no matter what we do, I think it is important that we have more laws when it comes to gun ownership. People should be required to take a class before they purchase a gun where they learn how to be responsible gun owners. It should emphasized the having a loaded gun around children is absolutely not acceptable. However, as I previously stated, no matter what we do, tragic accidents like this may still occur, but we should take more precautions.
I think that the guns should of been on safety. Wouldn't you know to put it on safety if you have a lot of guns!
I think this is very sad. If people are going to have guns they should definitely know that they should not be loaded when they are not using them, especially around children. The children can think they are toys and play with them and the parents should know better.