Girl mistakes gun for Wii controller - kills herself

I agree, the parent is completely at fault here. This is the worst kind of stupidity there is. Leaving an item out on the counter that was designed from the ground up to kill human sized animals.

But I want to zoom in on your comment a little bit. Why capitalize the words 'semi automatic'? Do those words scare you, are you trying to invoke fear in others, or was your caps lock stuck? Tell me, is a semi automatic, (in this case a recoil operated mechanism) more deadly than a revolver of the same caliber? Is that any more deadly than a single shot black powder pistol of the same caliber? Any way you slice it, weather it had been a revolver, semi automatic, black powder, or laser gun that little girl would be dead. Not through the fault of the gun, but through the fault of the owner.

@ jadasic
That is unacceptable. Accidents like this don't have to happen.

@ Jucretia_Gross
I have been not only handling, but shooting in competitions since the age of 9. I started out with a Daisy air rifle. I currently no longer shoot competitively because I'm old enough to professionally compete, and I can not hold my own against women who spend every day on the range so that they can win the big bucks. That's right America, women are statistically better at shooting than men. But now I'm rambling.

Finally I'd like to point out the controller its self. Pictured you see a piece of plastic representative of a large frame, long slide handgun. I would say that it only differs from a model 1911 by three or four aspects in this picture. But the controller has been altered for the picture. You can not, as far as I know, buy this controller in black. It seriously irks me that someone painted it to make it look more like a gun than when it was sold.

Get back in the kitchen...

Only when idiots leave loaded guns within the reach of a three year old. I have guns in my house and my children have NEVER been within arms length of them.

This man was and idiot and now a child is dead. This was no "accident".

Something to consider.

maisry,

Typical liberal blame propaganda. Personal responsibility is something liberals have never heard of. It can't be the fault of the irresponsible parent. It must be the fault of the gun club or the weapon.

libertyforall? why would you choose a screen name like that and post on a forum like this if you have a problem with liberals? "something liberals never heard of" wow... you don't have a clue what liberal or liberty even means do you?

So that's makes it all OK. Just another death among the many. Yeah, that's Amerrica.

If the father knows nothing about guns and TRUSTS a PROFESSIONAL who says that a small automatic weapon is safer for a small child than a larger weapon, then there is something wrong with the professional at that moment. It was stupid and sad. Bringing political jargon into a discussion like this is stupid and mean.

There isn't enough hate in my soul for someone like you.

interpretations are what erode the orginal concept, that document is timeless, it applies when it was wrote, it applies today, and it will apply tomarow, that document was built on the concept that the people have the rights, and those rights shall not change.

when the goverment starts dictating what is and what isnt, then they can take away every freaking right you have, as soon as that happens we are all subject to the king, we become property, our rights are god given so only god can take them away (aka they are natural rights that all of us are born with and no man can change that).

our forefathers came from a broken system, they saw how rights were broken and manipulated time after time, they wrote the document to be timeless the words used were speciffic, if it was written before the gun was common it would of been a sword, if it was written 200 years from now it would of been a lazer.

we the people, not we the fed, not we the state, not we the goverment, not we the elite.

lastly you cant look at just the second ammendment or the first ect, you need to look at the whole document when settleing a dispute.

these rights are inalienable.

Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Most cogent interpretation I've heard yet. I still think the first phrase modifies the rest of its sentence, rather than being separated from it.

You are right in that the second amendment can be interpreted in a number of ways. However, the two rights you mention, that of the states' right to maintain militias and an individuals' right to possess a gun are stated within the same sentence, certainly implying that the right to bear arms was the device by which the states' right to maintain a militia was to be maintained. I have read the debates within the Constitutional convention and I believe the concern of the founding fathers was that the states be allowed to maintain their own armies. The issue of an individuals' right to keep a gun was never discussed, as most likely in that day a gun was necessary to hunt for food and for protection and the issue of whether or not an individual should be allowed to possess a gun was not the subject of debate. I suppose some can argue that this necessity still exists today, but when we look at England and countries that do not have a lot of gun we find that the crime rate, and the gun violence death rate is much much lower. There is at least an argument in this modern day that guns do more harm to society than they do good. Consequently a responsible appellant court judge can, if he/she is so inclined, interpret the second amendment in a manner that does not allow the individual ownership of guns, or restricts the right to carry one in public, or limits the type of gun that an individual can own.

Actually, interpretations of the Consitution by the Supreme Court have INCREASED, not decreased the rights we enjoy. For example, the first amendment declared that CONGRESS shall make no law..... Up until the 1920-30s this right was not considered applicable to states. In other words a state could pass a law restricting the freedom of speech, provided their own state's constitution did not restrict such a law. It was only by interpreting the 14th amendment as applying the 1st amendment to states as well as the Congress, that the freedom of speech and the other first amendment rights were exstended to the states. The right to privacy is no where stated in the US constitution but though interpretation this right has now been given to us. (My state's constitution has an explicitly stated right to privacy). The Constitution's interpretation has increased our rights over the last 200 years, not taken them away.

i agree. im not saying the constitution cant be revised cause its not perfect, nothing is. im just saying even if the second amendment were revised it would have "problems". we will never live in a "utopia". this is a grave parental error.

exactly

Actually, the original intent of the second amendment was to allow a state to maintain a militia, and since the states' militias were made up of citizens who brought their own muskets to the gathering site, it was assumed that a "well regulated militia" required the individual ownership of guns. All the interpretations of this amendment since it was originally passed are based not upon the original intent but upon the current political climate. The fact is that the amendment can be interpreted as allowing the regulation of guns, the licensing of guns, or the banning of guns, at least certain guns. Currently the US Supreme Court is conservative and has struck down restrictions on gun ownership. That may change someday, perhaps when the technology is so advanced that the bullets become mini nuclear bombs.

Pro gun people quote the second ammendment freely. But gloss over the "well-regulated militia" part. How does having a gun in your pocket, bedroom, truck, etc. fulfill the actual definition?

mi·li·tia n.
1. An army composed of ordinary trained citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Doesn't say "for personal use." It is a military concept. MI-LI-TAR-Y. Second Ammendment was intended to maintain an ARMY to protect the newly formed country against other ARMIES, not their neighbors.

And don't get me started on "well-regulated!"

so you refer to a modern dictionary for your propaganda? 1984...

im sorry the constitution is not open for interpretations period.

The United States of America IS a modern nation! The OED cites the first use of the word in 1590. Note the date in Merriam Webster below:
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

im sorry the constitution is not open for interpretations period."

EXCEPT YOURS?

maisry,

It appears you are using interpretations that fit your agenda rather than how they were originally intended.

Militia has absolutely nothing to do with an organized army. The Supreme Court ruled militia refers to the whole of the people. So the people must be allowed weapons at all times since they compose the militia. This implies personal use.

patanjali,

The original intent of the second amendment was not to allow a state to maintain a militia.

The intent of the second amendment was to ensure gun rights to the citizens against state laws. The Founders knew they could not dictate state law so they created the 2nd Amendment to make sure state law did not remove gun rights.

Of course it is open to interpretation. Just a month ago the Supreme copurt interpreted the first amendment restriction on Congress making no law "abridging the freedom of speech..." to include corporations as well as individuals. The intent of the founders was that the language of the Consitution would be interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts that are established.

Please read the debates within the Consitutional Convention of 1787-8. And irregardless of the original intent the amendment can now, and should now, be interpreted for modern times.

Nothing in the Constitution says anything about creating or sustaining a military. In fact most of the Amendments are anti-military. Try reading it sometime if you can read.

Yeah he needs to learn some very 'basic logic' before making an argument next time. What a dipshit. hahaha

i read about a guy that accidentally ran over his kid when she ran behind the car.

guess he "didn't loved his kid", right?

STUPID comment

EXACTLY.

You're an idiot, kill yourself.

Ding, ding, ding. You win.

ANYONE who has babysat a three year old knows THEY KNOW the difference between a gun shaped object and a Wii controller shaped object. They're just curious little fuckers and they enjoy pushing the limits to get into trouble.

Parents, and parents ALONE are to blame for this. For buying the fucking gun like morons and for keeping it loaded and in reach of the child.

Too true.

I was wondering that myself!

because as one example, the Ruger LCP .380 weighs only 9.5 ounces unleaded, and less than 14 ounces when loaded.

that's just slightly heavier than a milk bottle.

You agree that a 3 year old can pick up a milk bottle, right?

Look into barrel. Pick up the gun. It goes off. How much pressure does it take to fire the thing? Obviously any 3 year old (or backwoods toothless brainless hillybilly) can do it.

well, I really dont know where to start but I'll try. 1. the right to bear arms is in our constitution, the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) its number 2 yeah that one. I am not saying we dont have a gun problem but taking away a constitutional right is not the answer. you really need to read up on your American History. The founding fathers put #2 in the constitution for a reason, and that was not to have them taken away. okay now to the really personal stuff, I consider hillybilly derogatory and the people to use it to be ignorant. (not stupid)

hillbilly is MEANT to be derogitory.

You're telling me that a kid can't pick something up that is designed to fit into a hand comfortably? Granted the kid probably didn't pick it up with one hand, but you've to to be kidding me!

Ignorant can be fixed by learning. Stupid is forever and unforgiving. Just in case some of you are wondering what Jessicad is saying.

that's kind of a silly statement. the guy made a mistake, but so did the mom. she apparently said she "might have thought" the kid was playing with the wii controller...in other words, she saw the kid pick u something that looked like a gun but didn't do anything about it.

so, why are you so quick to blame the dad who made a mistake and not the mom who actually saw the kid play with a gun?!

i guess it must be that time of the month for illogical thinking.

lol!

Only in America

i really dont see how you could make fun of a "child's" death due to the stupidity of their parent.

Who cares? He didn't know this child. Therefore he should have no mental attachment to it.

Oh, no sir. You would be surprised to know that this kind of reaction is not limited to America. Though frankly it surprises me that you believe that this reaction is limited to America.

NO! The triggers on semi automatics are no easier to pull than the triggers on any other gun. For instance. The standard trigger pull on a model 1911 .45 handgun is 8 lbs. Though a match trigger, (witch I highly doubt was on this gun) would be set at about 3.5 lbs. I have a black powder pistol that is .50 cal. It's trigger pull is set at 2.6 lbs.

Have you ever shot a gun?

FUK U COMMIE! TAKEN OUR GUNZ@111

it's a legitimate question.
Main difference: gun ownership is a right, auto-operation is a priviledge.

there IS training available for those who want it, and it's required for Concealed Carry permits, as well as receiving hunting licenses you have to pass a fairly rigorous class (it's about 16 to 18 hours long in Colorado).

but as you know, the key issue is that the second amendment allows us to own guns to protect ourselves not only from criminals, but a tyrranical government. Allowing the government to license who gets them and who doesn't undermines that basic freedom and gives them a ready-made tool for people like, well, like JonRaymond to come along and decide who can defend his freedoms and who gets shipped to the Gulag.

Compare the number of deaths per year in auto accidents to the number of firearm accidents.
In 2005, 45,343 people died in auto accidents.
Same year, 789 died of firearm accidents. 17,002 commited suicide with one. There were 12,352 homocides with firearms.

In other words, the accident rate for firearms is EXTREMELY low. As has been demonstratd in other analysese, suicide rates do NOT decrease simply because firearms are banned. Suicides in the former Soviet Union did NOT decrease because firearms were not available, in fact what happened was that other methods of suicide increased (hanging, poisoning, slashed wrists, jump from buildings, etc).

And in countries where guns were banned, murderers found other tools to commit homocides--bats, knives, rocks, etc. And in many of those countries, such as the UK, illegal guns were used to commit murders in an increasing rate.

I read an analysis written by a former UK police commissioner in which his conclusion was that there were MORE gun-related homocides AFTER the gun ban than before, and it's getting worse.

Are you nuts? Think about the guns and ammo industry stocks. Oh the humanity!

To adress my first point, yes, there are many more accidental automobile fatalities every year in the United States than there are accidental firearm fatalities. Considering how not only just about every United States citizen owns a car and drives, but also considering that just about every United States citizen uses their car about 10,000% more often then they use their guns (and yes I pulled that figure out of my ass, the point being that people use cars much much more frequently because of what they are designed to do), I would think that having a grossly larger number of accidental automotive fatalities isn't that surprising.

Now I'm not going to argue the suicide, because that is an issue in which if someone is really determined, they'll just go ahead and go for it.

Homicide, that's a slightly different story. What school shootings involved the kid having to break into their parent's carefully locked gun safe, and disable the gun locks. Furthermore, what percentage of criminals who have stolen guns from gun owners to use in a crime have successfully stolen those guns from a secure gun safe as opposed to stealing the gun that was kept inside of a shoe box? Yes, criminals get guns through other means than just stealing them from law abiding gun owners, but a fair amount of firearms used in crimes were stolen from peoples homes because the owner didn't securely store his/her guns.

Yes in countries where guns are banned, murderers found other tools to keep on killin'. The thing is, people who kill using a gun or any other tool don't usually come right up to you, tell you they have a weapon, then take out the weapon so you can identify or verify it, then kill you with it. Most people who kill, either as a means for some other crime or just to kill, do so in a way that exposes them to minimal risk. That means if you are a law abiding citizen with a gun for protection, you'll be knifed, or bludgeoned, or shot before you even know that you should be reaching for your gun.

Out of curiosity about the UK police commissioner commenting on the gun ban, might that have more to do with the officers not being able to carry guns than just the civilians?

Now, moving onto the second amendment. "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." Am I incorrect for reading this and thinking that there is implied responsibility along with the right to keep and bear arms? Most people seem to focus on just, "being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," and seem to ignore the part about, "A well regulated militia." A well regulated Militia seems to suggest to me that people who bear these arms have the duty and responsibility to seek out the proper training in both handling and safety. There are a lot of people who own firearms that either aren't part of a well regulated militia and/or haven't been trained in firearm safety.

"Now, moving onto the second amendment. "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." Am I incorrect for reading this and thinking that there is implied responsibility along with the right to keep and bear arms? Most people seem to focus on just, "being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," and seem to ignore the part about, "A well regulated militia." A well regulated Militia seems to suggest to me that people who bear these arms have the duty and responsibility to seek out the proper training in both handling and safety."

Very clever post, varex! An interesting point!
I don't know what they meant by that, I'll have to do some research.
Gun owners sure should know how to use them and store them, no argument from me there.

Again, kudos on the very insightful post

curtisreed,

No, your interpretation of the "well regulated militia" is not correct. A well regulated miltia means nothing more than the state is supposed to provide training, arms, and equipment for the militia. It does not mean anything about government regulations or individuals receiving training on their own.

This has already been settled in DC v Heller.

But every person should receive proper safety training. This is a class that should be offered in high schools for those who want it.

you didn't read the post carefully, friend. I was quoting the statement made by Varex. I clearly said that I was not sure about the "A well regulated Militia" part and had to think about the meaning of it.

yours is another interesting post, but I'm not 100% convinced. It could be, but I'd like to research and find out more about what Jefferson et al said regarding that amendment to see if they intended for the States to provide arms and training etc.

keep in mind that the arms used during the revolution for the most part belonged to the volunteers: they were their personal arms.

at that time, it is safe to say that the "militia" simply meant that at a time of conflict, the PEOPLE volunteered to join the militia, and they brought their own arms. I am aware that there were depots of arms stored as well, which is why the British sent Cornwall to raid the militia's arms, and the british had also tried to disarm the people as well.

so...I agree with the DC V Heller decision, but how we interpret the limitations of the "regulated militia" clause is something that requires additional consideration.

A well regulated Militia = the people, the people have the right to assemble and train with weapons, so if the people are needed to protect our land, we are able, after all it was the people who kept enemy forces at bay, and it is still one of the reasons we have never really been attacked (except a few instances).

if a force attacked america, after they pwn the military they would still have all the gun owners to deal with, its our right and our responsability.

"train" and "responsibility" are keywords here. People who aren't responsible and/or who haven't assembled and trained for the militia don't qualify to bear arms.

Switzerland, the most neutral country one can imagine, maintains a citizen militia. Every man must serve in the Army learning to defend his country. Thus, every household has (or may have) a gun and a TRAINED user.

every man and woman is the militia, i train and im responsible, i am a militia of one if i need help i will seek like minded folks and defend our rights to the death.

maisry,

This post confirms you are just randomly making up definitions and interpretations as you go.

Really, a well regulated militia is one of the reasons why we have never really been attacked (except a few instances)?

I thought it would have had to do with no hostile nations sharing our borders. So unless we are invaded by the military force of either Mexico or Canada, potentially hostile nations have to either fly their troops in over what is a vast ocean, or they have to ship them in by boat. If either Mexico or Canada were hostile nations with a formidable military, I don't think that a well trained militia by our current United States standards would either be that much of a deterrent or a hinderance (except a few instances).

Not to be contrary, but wouldn't a civilian militia in which every man must serve in the army by definition not be a civilian militia?

I will yield to the idea that you meant for those to be two completely different ideas; however, if you meant for them to be as such, you need to do a better job at transitioning between the ideas. Right off the bat, it looks like you are saying that the citizen militia of Switzerland is part of their national Army and not a separate entity.

You are right; I wasn't clear. Each YOUNG man serves for 2 years. Back in civilian life, he keeps his gun at home.

Congratulations! You've achieved a whole new level of public idiocy.

And you pretend to tell others they are "morons". It takes one to...KNOW ONE

Your an idiot

Web pages don't make stupid comments. Idiots do.

Your not funny your never going to be a comedian go kill yourself

One question: What are you on?

Yeah, there's no fucking way we have any kind of gun problem in this country what-so-fucking-ever.

i sure hope you don't own one. clearly you couldn't handle it

For real, she woulda been losing points left and right

and falls asleep