North Carolina 3-year-old who accidentally shot herself on Christmas Day has died

[conuly]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/29/us/north-carolina-christmas-shooting-toddler-dies/index.html

In 2020 in the US, more than 5,100 children younger than 18 were killed or injured in gun incidents, according to the Gun Violence Archive.

People say they get guns to protect themselves and their families, and therefore they MUST have a gun and CAN'T secure it because they need it ready to access, but they really are only putting themselves and their families at risk.

If you want to protect yourself, don't get a gun. If you really do have a reason for it, keep it locked up, with the ammunition locked up separately.

If you're sure that you need a gun to protect yourself from violence - well, firstly, you probably don't, not in the US, but if you did the best way to protect yourself from gun violence is to advocate for better gun control.

This death, like all those deaths, is framed as a tragedy, but really? It's a statistic. Tragedies are rare, isolated incidents, not wholly predictable and common events.

Protect your family by not getting a gun.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

Studies show that for most home invasions a gun is the worst weapon to have, most are useless for close range combat, and the bullets have this nasty habit of going through walls potentially hitting other family members.

Honestly, a baseball bat is a better option. Although a taser gun is better still.

[conuly]

the bullets have this nasty habit of going through walls potentially hitting other family members.

As happened with that unfortunate girl in the dressing room this week.

Honestly, a baseball bat is a better option. Although a taser gun is better still.

Both these things are 100% unnecessary for the vast majority of people. Burglaries aren't that common, and they typically occur during work hours. Criminals sleep at night, just like we do. Even if one happens when you're home (what even is "work hours" in these pandemic times?), burglars rarely carry weapons because they don't help. Their goal is to get in and out and NOT get caught and definitely, if they do get caught, not add on to their charges unnecessarily.

Nothing is the better option. Literally, nothing. Put aside that irrational fear of home invasion and, if you can't, get therapy or perhaps medication and therapy.

[siliconshaman]

I didn't say a better option for what.

I know these things are emotional crutches for people. Not unlike security blankies... So, what works best to make people feel safe, with the least probability of accidental harm?

[conuly]

I find knowledge and information a good antidote for fear.

[siliconshaman]

This is universally true. But a lot of the 'pro-guns' crowd are somewhat immune to logic and rather knowledge adverse unless it matches their opinions. Hence the need for what amounts to a teddy bear for them.

[the_siobhan]

I have twice had people break into my house when I was at home. Both times a gun would have made things infinitely more dangerous.

[conuly]

That is amazingly bad luck.

[the_siobhan]

It was more about the neighbourhood. I live a half-mile from the city's biggest mental health research & treatment centre and a lot of my area used to be half-way and boarding houses before it gentrified. Dealing with people who were having a really bad day was a pretty regular thing.

[sabotabby]

I'm not anti-gun and enjoy an afternoon at the shooting range when I've had the opportunity, but ffs, people who have children should not buy guns. The chances of foiling a home invasion are vastly lower than the chances of your toddler shooting itself with it. Not to mention the chances of a husband shooting his wife with it.

[conuly]

Buying a gun because you enjoy a hobby sport that involves a gun is a world more rational than buying a gun because you imagine that you're at risk.

(And since most burglaries happen when people aren't at home, for the obvious reason, that's even more cause to lock up your weapons. I'm guessing you have the good sense to see that and don't need it spelled out.)

[sabotabby]

I haven't done it a lot! But the people who taught me how to shoot were these nice Comp. Sci. kids at the university gun club who were hardcore about gun safety. (I wanted to learn how to shoot for research purposes.) They were very sensible and kept their weapons locked in a safe at the range itself. That's who I think about when I think of responsible gun enthusiasts.

[lilysea]

Years ago, someone invaded my partner home and hit him in the head with a cricket bat, causing him a nasty concussion.

I am VERY glad that the home invader had a cricket bat, and not a gun.

My partner's flatmate hit the home invader in the head with a skateboard in self defence.

I am VERY glad that my partner's flatmate had a skateboard, and not a gun.

Guns are an excellent way to get people killed, including curious children, innocent bystanders, and neighbours who share a wall with you [because walls don't always stop bullets...]

[fred_mouse]

I was also reminded of the skateboard as weapon of protection incident, and was going to mention it until I saw you had.

[pipilj]

Completly agree. Hope US implements better gun control

[hudebnik]

Oh, and all that talk about arming schoolteachers so they can protect their kids from Sandy Hook-style shooters... can you imagine trying to keep track of a gun in a noisy classroom full of ten-year-olds, while still doing your primary job of teaching? There would be a Sandy Hook's worth of children shooting themselves and one another every year. Or you wouldn't get any teaching done because your primary job had become keeping an eye on the gun.

[sabotabby]

I have knives in my class and I used to have heavy machinery (I taught shop when I started out and now I teach art, which is substantially less dangerous). My first year of teaching, I had to disarm a 6-foot-something sociopathic ninth grader who somehow got ahold of a steel pipe and was swinging it at another student. Even in less fraught environments, about 90% of my job these days is reminding kids that they need to cover both their mouths and their noses at all times and have to step outside if they need to snack or have a drink of juice.

I cannot imagine the logistics and stress involved with having a gun in the classroom.

[chelseagirl]

Yes.

My cousins live in a different part of the country so I see them rarely, but when we went out to eat after my father's funeral a few years ago, I was horrified to hear one cousin's husband tell another cousin's wife earnestly how he always brought his gun when they went to Chicago because after all it's dangerous there and he needed to protect his family. He was sitting next to me; I suddenly became deaf in that ear.

[thewayne]

There was a recent question on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me about a nursing home that sent out a notice for residents to not store ammunition in toasters.

Now, ignoring the fact that people would store ammunition in toasters, people in rest homes feel the need to have guns?!

I really want out of this country and to move to a sane, first-world country with actual health care.

[mindstalk]

"If you're sure that you need a gun to protect yourself from violence - well, firstly, you probably don't, not in the US, but if you did the best way to protect yourself from gun violence is to advocate for better gun control."

What if you have a violent stalker, or are otherwise a specific target? Advocating policy changes won't help you, separate ammo won't protect you if he breaks in...

[conuly]

First, the percentage of people who have ever had a violent stalker, much less have one now, is not that large. You'd be in the minority.

Secondly, if your violent stalker did not have easy access to guns, both legal and otherwise (mostly stolen) then you'd be a lot safer. Gun control is safer than easy access to guns.

[mindstalk]

> Gun control is safer than easy access to guns.

Sure, but there's a difference between "I'd be better off with gun control" and "Given that we don't *have* gun control, will having a gun make me safer?"

[conuly]

Statistically speaking, it won't. You are much, much, MUCH more likely to die from a gun you or a household member bought for "protection" than to be protected by it - either in an accidental discharge, as a suicide, or by mistake by somebody who thought you were intruder. (And more people still die because the gun that they thought they needed to protect them was actually used to escalate a fight they should have walked away from.)

I don't know for certain what the stats are in that actually unlikely situation of "violent stalker", but my guess is that a gun offers no more protection than other, less lethal weapons such as tasers or pepper sprays, and all the same risks as a gun, like the risk that you'll harm yourself or that the intruder you fear will get the gun away from you.

[hudebnik]

If you're making decisions about your own behavior rather than public policy, that's the right question to ask. And as conuly says, the answer for most people is still "no". Having a gun in the house makes you substantially more likely to get shot by accident, or by suicide, or by a partner. As mentioned above, it makes no difference in the case of burglary while you're not at home (except that it's one more attractive thing to steal).

In the case of a violent stalker who's specifically targeting you, having a gun in the house might enable you to get him before he gets you (at the risk of also shooting a family member, a pet, or a neighbor). [I use "he" because most violent stalkers are male.]

But the odds are in the bad guy's favor. He probably knew hours ago that he was coming to get you, while you were surprised a few seconds ago, so you're full of adrenaline, which impedes your aim. And he's probably less concerned than you are about family members, pets, and neighbors, which again gives him a tactical advantage.

And your possession of a gun escalates conflict. If you both have lethal weapons and you both know that, your stalker has every reason to believe you're going to shoot him, so he has to shoot you first (rather than, say, just beating you up, which would be no fun for you but better than dying).

[silveradept]

I am still surprised at the number of people who either do not understand or refuse to acknowledge the first rule of guns: guns are designed to kill what they are pointed at. The correct question about any gun is "Will someone who I do not absolutely trust their judgment about who should live and who should die have access to the gun if I get it and store it in my house?" If the answer is yes (and the question includes the buyer), don't get the gun. That would help prevent so many of these accidental discharge fatalities.