Only in America- 5yo shoots/kills 5yo and it's an 'accident'

[EVT1]

Either that or felt they suffered enough- which is bullshit because I guarantee had one of them been driving drunk with kids in the car and the same kid got killed the jury wouldn't be so lenient.  Similar to the prosecution of hot car deaths.  Gun negligence gets a pass in this country because guns are somehow sacred.

 

 

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2014 20:16:50 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Either that or felt they suffered enough- which is bullshit because I guarantee had one of them been driving drunk with kids in the car and the same kid got killed the jury wouldn't be so lenient.  Similar to the prosecution of hot car deaths.  Gun negligence gets a pass in this country because guns are somehow sacred.

 

 

While I agree that it's BS... that's likely the reason they DID the Jury Nullification. So it's not really an "either/or" situation.

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2014 14:12:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Aug 3, 2014 0:07:16 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

I'm all for protecting kids, but believe we're going too far with these gun storage laws.
When one needs quick protection, an unloaded stored gun would be useless.
The answer is to educate our kids. We educate them against all kinds of dangers. How is this any different?

You sound like the NRA.  It is quite obvious we have not gone far enough with these laws as there aren't any in half the states.

It isn't that hard to keep a loaded gun out of the hands of a 5y/o- so why would you not want these idiots to pay for their stupidity by attaching some criminal penalties when people end up shot or killed when they leave their weapons lying around?

No. Not a member of NRA. There should be penalties when a parent allows a child to become injured or injure another with a gun. This is when CPS and lawsuits come into play. Why make laws that make it more difficult for all those who are wise enough to be responsible with their guns? 

[Tennesseer]

Aug 4, 2014 11:27:27 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Aug 3, 2014 14:12:02 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You sound like the NRA.  It is quite obvious we have not gone far enough with these laws as there aren't any in half the states.

It isn't that hard to keep a loaded gun out of the hands of a 5y/o- so why would you not want these idiots to pay for their stupidity by attaching some criminal penalties when people end up shot or killed when they leave their weapons lying around?

No. Not a member of NRA. There should be penalties when a parent allows a child to become injured or injure another with a gun. This is when CPS and lawsuits come into play. Why make laws that make it more difficult for all those who are wise enough to be responsible with their guns? 

But if they are wise enough to be responsible with their guns, making laws should not matter, yes?

[zibazinski]

We don't have children and we do not have a child friendly house. I have loaded guns all over the place. But when we have company over for parties or whatever, they are in the safe. We don't take trips without them being in the safe. I'm very lucky because I and most of my friends grew up with unlocked guns all over the place and we never touched them. Either children are being raised with ZERO boundaries, and these were a bit young to have any boundaries other than not ever coming into parents bedrooms. But no one was bullied and killed themselves or others over it and plenty of people including me, were bullied. If what I'm reading is correct one sibling shot another. Parents have paid dearly for their crime of stupidity.

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2014 11:34:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 4, 2014 11:27:27 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

No. Not a member of NRA. There should be penalties when a parent allows a child to become injured or injure another with a gun. This is when CPS and lawsuits come into play. Why make laws that make it more difficult for all those who are wise enough to be responsible with their guns? 

But if they are wise enough to be responsible with their guns, making laws should not matter, yes?

But it does matter to those of us who are tired of being legislated into being restrained at every turn.
The laws are now slowly creeping into our homes and this deeply concerns me.  

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2014 12:04:52 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

We don't have children and we do not have a child friendly house. I have loaded guns all over the place. But when we have company over for parties or whatever, they are in the safe. We don't take trips without them being in the safe. I'm very lucky because I and most of my friends grew up with unlocked guns all over the place and we never touched them. Either children are being raised with ZERO boundaries, and these were a bit young to have any boundaries other than not ever coming into parents bedrooms. But no one was bullied and killed themselves or others over it and plenty of people including me, were bullied. If what I'm reading is correct one sibling shot another. Parents have paid dearly for their crime of stupidity.

[Tennesseer]

Aug 4, 2014 12:07:34 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Aug 4, 2014 11:34:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

But if they are wise enough to be responsible with their guns, making laws should not matter, yes?

But it does matter to those of us who are tired of being legislated into being restrained at every turn.
The laws are now slowly creeping into our homes and this deeply concerns me.  

Lets stick with the issue of this thread. A child used an unsecured gun to accidentally kill another child and should the adult who owned the gun be prosecuted in some way.

If you secure your weapons when children (or others not members of your household) are around, how would any law that addresses unsecured weapons in the house (or car, etc.), and some one is injured or killed, creep in your home? The law should have zero affect on you as a responsible gun owner.

Would an enhancement or ever new law further penalizing someone for driving an unregistered vehicle and or having no auto insurance really affect you if your vehicle is registered and you have auto insurance?  Would that law be creeping into your home too? 

[Opti]

If what I'm reading is correct one sibling shot another. Parents have paid dearly for their crime of stupidity.

I think it is opinion if they have really paid that dearly, which is why this thread exists.

From a standpoint of crimes, only the youngest child who trusted her sibling paid by dying.

Yes the parents have to deal with the result of their negligence, but it is a lesser sentence than

immediate death.

There is no guarantee that the parents will do anything different going forward. We have no

idea whether the boy will be crushed or secretly happy he wiped out a rival for Mom and Dad's attention.

People are people. Just because they have dead daughter and might be down to just one son doesn't

mean they are going to act better in the future when a similar situation comes up.

I'd really to know what these kids who killed or severely hurt someone with a gun turn out.

How many try to be better people and how many veer to the dark side. How does it compare

to a normalized equivalent population?

[Green Eyed Lady]

Do we need any new legislation or do we already have laws in place to cover this type of thing?  Negligent homicide is simply causing the death of another through being negligent.  It doesn't have to be on purpose to be prosecuted.  How about the child neglect laws?  Wouldn't this apply?  If a 5 year old gets his/her hands on a loaded weapon, they are NOT being adequately supervised.  Do we need more laws?

Let's say mom forgets to lock the kitchen cupboard and her 3 year old gets in and drinks Drano.  Do we now need to enact new laws for the safe storage of Drano?  Dad forgets to put the bottle of anti-freeze on the top shelf and his 4 year olds drinks it and dies.  Do we need new laws for the storage of anti-freeze? 

If any of the above situations need to be prosecuted, there are already laws in place to do so and I have NO problems with prosecuting parents for intentionally or unintentionally causing the death of children - if it's applicable.  I just don't think we need new and more restrictive laws to do so.  We already have them and we need to use them when appropriate.

[Opti]

Aug 4, 2014 12:40:15 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Do we need any new legislation or do we already have laws in place to cover this type of thing?  Negligent homicide is simply causing the death of another through being negligent.  It doesn't have to be on purpose to be prosecuted.  How about the child neglect laws?  Wouldn't this apply?  If a 5 year old gets his/her hands on a loaded weapon, they are NOT being adequately supervised.  Do we need more laws?

Let's say mom forgets to lock the kitchen cupboard and her 3 year old gets in and drinks Drano.  Do we now need to enact new laws for the safe storage of Drano?  Dad forgets to put the bottle of anti-freeze on the top shelf and his 4 year olds drinks it and dies.  Do we need new laws for the storage of anti-freeze? 

If any of the above situations need to be prosecuted, there are already laws in place to do so and I have NO problems with prosecuting parents for intentionally or unintentionally causing the death of children - if it's applicable.  I just don't think we need new and more restrictive laws to do so.  We already have them and we need to use them when appropriate.

I think EVT's premise is they are not being prosecuted generally and only held to account in some states.

My guess is child neglect laws don't cover that many situations. Just supervision, access to food, water, that kind

of thing.

I don't know because they don't hit the news, but I think most poisonings of small children are not prosecuted

and hopefully most of them just end in emergency visits to the hospital with a live kid that comes home.

There are two things really in play here.

1) Do we as people as a society think there should be punishment for gun owners, usually parents,

when their child takes a unsecured gun and kills or severely injures someone?

Depending on your answer to that, #2 is in play or not.

2) If we do want to punish gun owners for gun deaths that could have been prevented had the gun

been secured, what's the punishment and what's the mechanism?

I think if you choose to punish this specific instance you will need a law to state what the punishment is.

Child neglect for example, is often punished/addressed by a small amount of jail time and removing the

children from home. Other laws determine whether that removal becomes permanent or temporary.

[Green Eyed Lady]

I think EVT's premise is they are not being prosecuted generally and only held to account in some states.

Agreed.  However, that has nothing to do with gun laws.  That has to do with your County or District or State Attorney.  Instead of ranting about more gun control - we should rant about people doing their jobs.

My guess is child neglect laws don't cover that many situations. Just supervision, access to food, water, that kind of thing.

That's why I specifically stated "supervision".

I don't know because they don't hit the news, but I think most poisonings of small children are not prosecuted and hopefully most of them just end in emergency visits to the hospital with a live kid that comes home.

I'm guessing you are right.  However, most homes with weapons don't end in the death of a child either, but we want to legislate the hell out of guns.

1) Do we as people as a society think there should be punishment for gun owners, usually parents, when their child takes a unsecured gun and kills or severely injures someone?

If the answer is "yes", refer to the part about demanding that prosecutors do their jobs (as you/we see it).

2) If we do want to punish gun owners for gun deaths that could have been prevented had the gun been secured, what's the punishment and what's the mechanism?

I already put forth mechanisms:  negligent homicide charges; felony child neglect charges...I'm sure there are other avenues, but I'm not an attorney, so I can't say.  As for the punishment, that would be up to a judge to decide if the person is found guilty.

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2014 12:19:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 4, 2014 12:07:34 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

But it does matter to those of us who are tired of being legislated into being restrained at every turn.
The laws are now slowly creeping into our homes and this deeply concerns me.  

Lets stick with the issue of this thread. A child used an unsecured gun to accidentally kill another child and should the adult who owned the gun be prosecuted in some way.

If you secure your weapons when children (or others not members of your household) are around, how would any law that addresses unsecured weapons in the house (or car, etc.), and some one is injured or killed, creep in your home? The law should have zero affect on you as a responsible gun owner.

Would an enhancement or ever new law further penalizing someone for driving an unregistered vehicle and or having no auto insurance really affect you if your vehicle is registered and you have auto insurance?  Would that law be creeping into your home too? 

Yes, the adult should be charged with child neglect or endangerment, laws already on the books.
If I allow my child or my child's friend to have access to my liquor cabinet and they drink too much and die, I will be charged and probably sued by the parents. Should every one else then be required by law to have locks on their liquor cabinets, cleaning cabinets and medicine cabinets, when children are around? Why should I be forced to live under such a law simply because there are parents out there who are idiots, who can't be bothered to properly teach their kids?

If I am required by law to have my guns locked up when children are present, regardless of how trusted my kids are around them, then that law does have an effect on me. 
Tenn...auto insurance and unregistered vehicles?...you just told me to stick with the theme of the thread. 

[Opti]

That's why I specifically stated "supervision".

Without seeing the law(s), I don't know what supervision is defined as.

Child neglect laws seem to cover supervision in only long spans of time except

for new laws about leaving kids in cars or at home at various ages.

In the scenario of the OP, it wasn't like he left them alone in the house for hours unsupervised.

They were told to go to their bedroom, did not, and Dad was in another room. Mere minutes,

so child neglect laws likely not even in play *if he had been charged with a crime*.

"
I don't know because they don't hit the news, but I think most poisonings of small children are not prosecuted and hopefully most of them just end in emergency visits to the hospital with a live kid that comes home.

I'm guessing you are right. However, most homes with weapons don't end in the death of a child either, but we want to legislate the hell out of guns."

I don't know who the we is. I'm on the side of - is this really a problem that needs to be addressed as a crime

or by a law, and if so, why and how?  What gets played in the media takes on a life of its own and seems bigger

than it is because we hear about it much more than other things. This is why some people are feeling the need

to legislate guns because they feel if they create laws that the problem will go away or be less enough to make them feel

better.

RichardinTN, would make a law if it only saves one child. I wouldn't. It seems you wouldn't.

[Opti]

Yes, the adult should be charged with child neglect or endangerment, laws already on the books.

Swamp should weigh in, but I bet there is no language in most of those laws that

can be used for this purpose. The adult possibly could be charged with some version of

negligent or unintentional homicide, but so far that has not happened that I know about.

A quick google shows sentences vary for child deaths in a car, and since I used max in my search.

Take a look at how varied it is for heat related car deaths. Its old, 2007, but shows some

sentences varying from 20 years plus for one child to jail annually for seven years plus a annual

blood drive.

An Associated Press analysis of more than 310 fatal incidents in the past 10 years found that prosecutions and penalties vary widely, depending in many cases on where the death occurred and who left the child to die — parent or caregiver, mother or father:

• Mothers are treated much more harshly than fathers. While mothers and fathers are charged and convicted at about the same rates, moms are 26% more likely to do time. And their median sentence is two years longer than the terms received by dads.

• Day care workers and other paid baby sitters are more likely than parents to be charged and convicted. But they are jailed less frequently than parents, and for less than half the time.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-29-lefttodie_N.htm

[Tennesseer]

Aug 4, 2014 13:23:35 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Yes, the adult should be charged with child neglect or endangerment, laws already on the books.
If I allow my child or my child's friend to have access to my liquor cabinet and they drink too much and die, I will be charged and probably sued by the parents. Should every one else then be required by law to have locks on their liquor cabinets, cleaning cabinets and medicine cabinets, when children are around? Why should I be forced to live under such a law simply because there are parents out there who are idiots, who can't be bothered to properly teach their kids?

If I am required by law to have my guns locked up when children are present, regardless of how trusted my kids are around them, then that law does have an effect on me. 
Tenn...auto insurance and unregistered vehicles?...you just told me to stick with the theme of the thread. 

I did stick with the subject of the thread. I just provided a separate, different type of example after I addressed the actual subject of the thread. 

I believe EVT provided a link in the opening post about the lack of any clear type of law in Idaho where this shooting took place.  There is no clear law in Idaho addressing this type of incident

I do understand your point though-you believe any new law is just weighing you down and infringing on any and all of your rights to own a weapon.

[EVT1]

I am also not suggesting as I think someone said- that we require people to unload and lock up their guns in a safe when children are around. 

I am suggesting that there needs to a legal duty to secure firearms when children are present and violating that should come with jail time when people are killed- not to mention no more guns for them.

While you will never stop true accidental deaths- such as 'chugging drano' as was said, leaving a loaded gun on a table, leaning against a wall, in a nightstand drawer, etc. with the safety off is not in anyway responsible gun ownership.

Doesn't take that much to stop a 5y/o from getting your gun- why not keep it on you in a holster if you need access to it 24-7.  If you are not worried enough about crime to have it on your person in your house, then you don't need it lying around ready to fire in the next room.  You can buy a cheap, quick access button safe.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Mostly we agree, EVT.  However, leaving Drano out on the table is not in anyway responsible Drano ownership.  Nobody does either on purpose (the purpose of someone getting hurt).  That's why they are called "accidents".  That means not on purpose.  If you want to prosecute one, how can you pooh-pooh the other?  As you said, we will never stop true accidental deaths.  Just because you hate people having weapons makes those deaths no less accidental.  Preventable?  Absolutely.  So is a kid drinking Drano.   You can't just pick one thing that happens to piss you off more than others and want those people hung by the balls.  It doesn't work that way.

[EVT1]

Now why do you go and ruin your argument by claiming I hate people having weapons?

And here is where you are wrong- some people absolutely intentionally leave loaded guns where kids could get them- and they always argue the claim that they taught their children about guns after someone gets shot and they are mystified. Sure they don't 'intend' that- but when does intentions absolve someone for an obviously reckless act?

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

A large part of the problem is education.  There is an educational program that has shown to be effective in preventing children from handling guns, but with the zero tolerance about guns that is in the schools today, the course has ceased to be taught in many places.


eddieeagle.nra.org/

There was a study that came out that taught half the kids in a program, the other half kids received no education.  A handgun was planted on the playground and every single child who went through the Eddie Eagle program did what the program told them to do.  STOP, DON'T TOUCH, TELL AND ADULT.  However, the children who did not go through the program proceeded to pick up the gun and handle it.

[Opti]

Aug 4, 2014 16:17:39 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

A large part of the problem is education.  There is an educational program that has shown to be effective in preventing children from handling guns, but with the zero tolerance about guns that is in the schools today, the course has ceased to be taught in many places.


eddieeagle.nra.org/

There was a study that came out that taught half the kids in a program, the other half kids received no education.  A handgun was planted on the playground and every single child who went through the Eddie Eagle program did what the program told them to do.  STOP, DON'T TOUCH, TELL AND ADULT.  However, the children who did not go through the program proceeded to pick up the gun and handle it.

Sounds like a good program. Maybe the adult who owned the gun should be sentenced to giving

at least one of these presentations and be required to have all remaining children attend a program as well.

[Tennesseer]

And just for disgusted giggles.  Where were the parents:


Boy, 6, drives toy ATV onto NYC parkway

MOUNT VERNON, N.Y. (AP) — A 6-year-old boy is safe after driving his toy ATV onto a New York City highway.

Authorities say the child rode the battery-powered toy onto the Bronx River Parkway around 7 p.m. Sunday.

He was on an outing with his family in a Mount Vernon park when he disappeared. Relatives immediately notified police.

The Journal News (http://lohud.us/1o59mYA ) says that Westchester County police began receiving 911 calls less than an hour later about the boy. Police say he drove on a street near the park and took a ramp onto the parkway headed northbound.

Police say three motorists slowed their vehicles and surrounded the boy to protect him from other vehicles. They say one got out and grabbed the boy.

He was taken to a hospital and found to be OK.

Boy, 6, drives toy ATV onto NYC parkway

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2014 11:34:11 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 4, 2014 11:27:27 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

No. Not a member of NRA. There should be penalties when a parent allows a child to become injured or injure another with a gun. This is when CPS and lawsuits come into play. Why make laws that make it more difficult for all those who are wise enough to be responsible with their guns? 

But if they are wise enough to be responsible with their guns, making laws should not matter, yes?

But... if you are wise enough to not be doing anything wrong... why not let the Government put cameras in every room of your house?

I'm o.k. with laws about what goes on OUTSIDE my home, and in regards to intentional acts with/towards others... I'm not so o.k. with intrusion into my private life.

ETA: we already have enough laws about guns on the books... How about DA's (ETA II: and judges and juries) just start enforcing them...

[mmhmm]

Thanks be to the entity of each person's choice there are decent people in the world, Tenn! Sometimes, parents do lose concentration, and kids are lightening fast when they want to get away with something. It really does take a village!

[EVT1]

Aug 4, 2014 16:17:39 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

A large part of the problem is education.  There is an educational program that has shown to be effective in preventing children from handling guns, but with the zero tolerance about guns that is in the schools today, the course has ceased to be taught in many places.


eddieeagle.nra.org/

There was a study that came out that taught half the kids in a program, the other half kids received no education.  A handgun was planted on the playground and every single child who went through the Eddie Eagle program did what the program told them to do.  STOP, DON'T TOUCH, TELL AND ADULT.  However, the children who did not go through the program proceeded to pick up the gun and handle it.

Just about the only worthwhile thing that organization has done in the last few decades- but if the NRA had anything to do with it I am sure that study is flawed.  I am sure if you teach the kids all morning and leave the gun out at recess it might have some good results

But reality is totally different- I have seen expermients like this on news shows- where the kid that knows better gets in the car with the stranger, etc.- and the parents are shocked their children didn't listen to them.

Is it a good idea to teach it- sure.  But a cure for the problem it is not.

Speaking of news shows- remember the one where they had 'armed students' knowing a shooter was going to come into the classroom and they all proceded to screw it up and/or get killed- even had a self defense instructor try it and he fumbled.  Wonder what the NRA thinks about that one- kind of ruins their whole argument to arm everyone.

[Deleted]

Aug 4, 2014 15:00:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Aug 4, 2014 13:23:35 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Yes, the adult should be charged with child neglect or endangerment, laws already on the books.
If I allow my child or my child's friend to have access to my liquor cabinet and they drink too much and die, I will be charged and probably sued by the parents. Should every one else then be required by law to have locks on their liquor cabinets, cleaning cabinets and medicine cabinets, when children are around? Why should I be forced to live under such a law simply because there are parents out there who are idiots, who can't be bothered to properly teach their kids?

If I am required by law to have my guns locked up when children are present, regardless of how trusted my kids are around them, then that law does have an effect on me. 
Tenn...auto insurance and unregistered vehicles?...you just told me to stick with the theme of the thread. 

I did stick with the subject of the thread. I just provided a separate, different type of example after I addressed the actual subject of the thread. 

I believe EVT provided a link in the opening post about the lack of any clear type of law in Idaho where this shooting took place.  There is no clear law in Idaho addressing this type of incident

I do understand your point though-you believe any new law is just weighing you down and infringing on any and all of your rights to own a weapon.

Tenn. It's not just gun laws. I'm just sick of our government telling me how to live my life.
I can't ride in my own car without having a seat belt on. I can't ride our motorcycle unless I am wearing a helmet. I can't build a new house without installing ugly, expensive, ceiling sprinklers. Now I can't store my gun as I see fit. What next? 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Aug 4, 2014 16:13:27 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Now why do you go and ruin your argument by claiming I hate people having weapons?

And here is where you are wrong- some people absolutely intentionally leave loaded guns where kids could get them- and they always argue the claim that they taught their children about guns after someone gets shot and they are mystified. Sure they don't 'intend' that- but when does intentions absolve someone for an obviously reckless act?

Again, you are so intent on arguing that you don't read:


Nobody does either on purpose (the purpose of someone getting hurt).

My post exactly.  I was very clear.  I've made sure of that because I obviously haven't been in the past.  I never said they don't leave their guns out on purpose.  I said, and very clearly, that the purpose wasn't for someone to get hurt.  So?  I am not wrong unless you are, also, because we said the same thing.   People don't intend their children to die from drinking Drano either - even though they intentionally left it on the counter, telling their kids not to drink it.  They still die.  There is no difference.  You prosecute one - you prosecute them all, IMO.  I have no answer as to when intentions absolve someone for an obviously reckless act.  I just know I can't pick and choose according to what pisses me off the most. 

[Tennesseer]

Aug 4, 2014 18:20:54 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Aug 4, 2014 15:00:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I did stick with the subject of the thread. I just provided a separate, different type of example after I addressed the actual subject of the thread. 

I believe EVT provided a link in the opening post about the lack of any clear type of law in Idaho where this shooting took place.  There is no clear law in Idaho addressing this type of incident

I do understand your point though-you believe any new law is just weighing you down and infringing on any and all of your rights to own a weapon.

Tenn. It's not just gun laws. I'm just sick of our government telling me how to live my life.
I can't ride in my own car without having a seat belt on. I can't ride our motorcycle unless I am wearing a helmet. I can't build a new house without installing ugly, expensive, ceiling sprinklers. Now I can't store my gun as I see fit. What next? 

I cannot relate to your feelings of grand oppression.  What bothers you simply does not bother me.   We are simply different in outlook.

[EVT1]

Aug 4, 2014 18:24:58 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Aug 4, 2014 16:13:27 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Now why do you go and ruin your argument by claiming I hate people having weapons?

And here is where you are wrong- some people absolutely intentionally leave loaded guns where kids could get them- and they always argue the claim that they taught their children about guns after someone gets shot and they are mystified. Sure they don't 'intend' that- but when does intentions absolve someone for an obviously reckless act?

Again, you are so intent on arguing that you don't read:


Nobody does either on purpose (the purpose of someone getting hurt).

My post exactly.  I was very clear.  I've made sure of that because I obviously haven't been in the past.  I never said they don't leave their guns out on purpose.  I said, and very clearly, that the purpose wasn't for someone to get hurt.  So?  I am not wrong unless you are, also, because we said the same thing.   People don't intend their children to die from drinking Drano either - even though they intentionally left it on the counter, telling their kids not to drink it.  They still die.  There is no difference.  You prosecute one - you prosecute them all, IMO.  I have no answer as to when intentions absolve someone for an obviously reckless act.  I just know I can't pick and choose according to what pisses me off the most. 

So under that theory- if I decide to leave a loaded shotgun, one in the chamber with the safety off leaning in the corner of my den and my 5yo kills my 6yo it is not my fault since I didn't intend for it to happen.  It is an accident- correct? (This has happened to people)

BTW there is a reason there are childproof caps on pills, cabinet stoppers, wall socket covers, and a bunch of other shit that people that are concerned about their children use- I would think a quick access pistol box would be on that list.  Drano doesn't scare me- it tastes like shit I am sure, and I doubt one kid is gong to feed it to another or to a neighbor's kid (at least at that age ).  But a loaded weapon- that is the most dangerous thing you can leave lying around- probably doesn't help cartoons have guns in them that don't hurt people- and that's another topic- but probably not a good plan to show young children that you can stick your finger in a barrel or get shot in the face and all it does is blow your hair back and char you for a few minutes......

[zibazinski]

Isn't it amazing that generations of people, including me, survived unlocked cabinets, no car seats, dangles cribs and play pens, and no safety caps on bottles? Bad parents who had loaded guns everywhere and simply said to stay out of their bedrooms and drawers. I was one of those idiot children who actually took NO for an answer.