Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« England to the rest of the lit... | Today in Line Out »

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

A Simple Solution

posted by on August 8 at 15:41 PM

Now if the six year-old had only been armed too—if he had a gun and a concealed weapon permit—then the six year-old could have shot the three year-old that had an illegal gun before the three year-old shot him. It’s really just that simple. Why do the damn liberals have to make it complicated with their gun control and their trigger locks and their safe-storage laws?

Via Americablog.

RSS icon Comments


apples and oranges Dan. And any asshole that "hides" a loaded gun when there are children in the vacinity should be publically flogged. And then sentenced to a nice long stint in prison.

Posted by Rotten666 | August 8, 2007 3:50 PM

This guy should go to jail.

Posted by Will from HA | August 8, 2007 3:55 PM

This guy should go back to jail.

A) Who the fuck keeps a loaded gun behind a stove?
B) Why the hell were two six year olds and a three year old unattended at 10pm? The mother of the three year old, who also happens to be the babysitter of the victim, was out on a walk!
C) "According to police, the adults in the house fled with the exception of the 32-year-old man..." WTF? They fled? It says the adults in the house, excluding the one who got arrested, fled. There's a baby bleeding in your house and you flee?

They should all go to jail.

Posted by Phelix | August 8, 2007 4:02 PM

Yes, mandatory trigger locks would have averted this tragedy. While we're at it, we should make it illegal for felons to own guns, or for people to leave loaded firearms within the reach of a child.

Posted by Ben | August 8, 2007 4:04 PM

think of the children! see this sensationalist example with small children proves beyond a doubt whatever point was made. We should do whatever keeps the children safe from now on.

Posted by meanie | August 8, 2007 4:05 PM

I hate guns and kids. Lets ban them both!!!
@ 4
So your point is "Laws don't always work, so why bother"?

Posted by muckfetro | August 8, 2007 4:17 PM

What an outrage! They should try the 3 year old shooter as an adult and throw the book at her!

Posted by monkey | August 8, 2007 4:21 PM

Why do guns get a bad rap? Why not box cutters?

Posted by Ellie | August 8, 2007 4:24 PM

Each week in the United States, 2 children are killed and 50 are injured in back-over accidents with cars. More than 2,000 children under the age of 15 are killed by cars every year.

Privately owned cars contribute to dozens of health and safety problems and kill almost 50,000 Americans outright every year. And yet private ownership of cars is continued because it's "necessary" -- in spite of the fact that the vehicles have only been available for the last 100 years of the vast span of human history. Personally, I can't speak to how necessary they may or may not be. I'm 35 and I've never owned one.

The thing you need to wrap your head around is that different people have different definitions of "necessary". To a lot of people, private ownership of firearms is an essential ingredient of American Democracy. It sounds pretty stupid to me, I admit. But then again, so do the arguments for private car ownership.

Posted by Judah | August 8, 2007 4:27 PM

Yes, but Judah, the PURPOSE of a car is not to kill. The purpose of a car is transportation.

The PURPOSE of a gun is to kill or wound. Thus a car that kills someone is not doing what was intended when then car was manufactured. The gun in this instance did EXACTLY what was intended when it was manufactured.

It's a critical difference.

Posted by arduous | August 8, 2007 4:48 PM

Arduous: I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. The distinction you're talking about pretty much only exists in tort law. From a criminal or legislative perspective, the "intended" use of an object is totally irrelevant. If I hit someone with a hammer, the hammer is a "deadly weapon" regardless of what its "intended" use might be and I'm guilty of aggravated assault. To put it another way, I wouldn't be allowed to carry a hammer through the metal detector at a court house, no matter how innocuous its "intended" use.

Posted by Judah | August 8, 2007 5:01 PM

@6: No, my point is that trying to use this single anecdote to show we need to mandate trigger locks is stupid, since it's pretty obvious from the context that the trigger lock wouldn't have been used.

If one were to present statistics showing that mandatory trigger locks have a net beneficial effect in terms of accidental shootings, one might be making a point, rather than just making noise.

(Note: I am not asking anyone to present these statistics. I'm sure they exist. I agree that guns should be locked up. I might disagree that it should be legally mandated, but I probably wouldn't argue it too hard. My point is only that this is a weak fucking argument.)

Posted by Ben | August 8, 2007 5:28 PM

face it: america wants to keep sleeping.

Posted by maxsolomon | August 8, 2007 5:38 PM

a locked up gun is just useless metal. for me to be told that i must legally keep my constitutionally protected gun locked away is as insane as telling dan savage that he must self censor certain words or he will be prosecuted for not doing so.

Posted by whilde | August 8, 2007 5:41 PM

Considering the utter stupidity and ineptitude of the parents, if it hadn't been a gun, it would've been a kitchen knife, a tumble down the stairs with a resulting broken neck, or a run out into traffic.

Posted by keshmeshi | August 8, 2007 6:04 PM

And for that matter, from the article:

The Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare is also investigating.

Take those children away now. Never give them back.

Posted by keshmeshi | August 8, 2007 6:07 PM


You're an idiot. Seriously. You'd have to make a conscious effort to have said something stupider.

The right to free speech is protected by the Bill of Rights; so is the right to keep and bear arms. But the right to free speech, like all rights, may be regulated where there is a compelling public interest in doing so. One definition of compelling public interest is where the exercise of a given right would cause immanent harm, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater -- which is, in fact, illegal. The same legal framework can and should be applied to trigger locks. There is no parity between trigger locks and swearing because swearing doesn't represent an imminent threat to the health and welfare of the community.

You fucking moron.

Posted by Judah | August 8, 2007 6:22 PM

your just afraid of guns judah just like you are of your own shadow.

Posted by whilde | August 8, 2007 6:31 PM

The right to bear arms is protected in this country, and though I disagree with some people about what type of arms should qualify under that protection (Me: rifles and shotguns are OK, pistols are only meant to kill people so I have grave concerns about them, and assult rifles and large caliber weaponry do not belong in the hands of the general population), the constitution says they are here to stay.

No matter what type of gun safety courses, parental lectures, or other admonishments children are put through, their brains are not adequately developed to support the critical reasoning skills necessary to make safe decisions about handling firearms. No child needs to handle a pistol, and no child should ever handle a rifle or shotgun unless immediately supervised by a responsible adult. If an adult chooses to keep firearms in their home with small children present, there is a duty to the safety of the child to secure the weapons in a manner that does not rely on the child's choices to prevent access or use.

I grew up in a home with dozens of guns, used for hunting and protection. My dad kept the guns locked up in a steel cabinet until my brother and I were nearly adults. Over the course of my childhood, my father messed up a couple of times and left a handgun unsecured in the house. Even though I knew better, I picked up the gun and looked at it. Looking back, I realize what a foolish thing that was to do, but at the time I just thought the gun was cool. I suspect that this is not an uncommon occurance in homes with guns, probably more common that having your home broken into while you are home and needing to use a firearm for protection. Given the choice between securing a weapon from my curious or angry child thus saving his life, versus having a gun handy for the remote possibility of a home invasion, I would choose my child and a trigger lock.

Posted by Chris | August 8, 2007 7:17 PM
your just afraid of guns judah just like you are of your own shadow.

And again with the moron. I own two guns, you stupid fuck.

Posted by Judah | August 8, 2007 7:56 PM

This is kind of a funny story. It demonstrates that Murphy's Law is always in effect.

Dan's comments were hilarious (I thought). Perhaps had the six year old been packing heat he could have shot the 3 year first and preserved himself (rather like the woman who shot the panhandler).

It's a crazy world out there! Enjoy it while it lasts!

The Wet One

Posted by The Wet One | August 9, 2007 8:02 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that the six year would have to be part of a "well ordered militia", just to be onside with the constitution.

Posted by The Wet One | August 9, 2007 8:03 AM

ltofj xmivlhac dqhs mwxubg mkstiu qsge enkvdlfbs

Posted by jsatmxeun bevhwjn | August 16, 2007 8:09 AM

ezqokwm xuynewatz kbgdsx ytckn incdagfkj iufcndrl suebgvf [URL=]patosdx rtap[/URL]

Posted by aerxlznv tukz | August 16, 2007 8:10 AM

yjubwsnr klpbsewt bshqe muqxajrgf inmjkqxfe xlzmgbdo tmuzwegyn [URL][/URL] uiahkc ldjegmwt

Posted by dbvnihrw frgkuhoym | August 16, 2007 8:11 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).