Girl, 3, kills herself with pistol

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/may/07/child-kills-herself-with-gun/

Summerville -- Three-year-old India Grant just finished going to the bathroom with her mother's help Friday morning when she crossed through her parents' master bedroom and saw the family's loaded handgun sitting unsecured on a windowsill.

Dorchester County Coroner Chris Nisbet said India's mother was still in the bathroom closet when the child handled the .45-caliber firearm and looked into the barrel.

The gun fired.

Dorchester County sheriff's deputies rushed to the home of Corey and Amaris Grant about 10:45 a.m. and found the little girl lying dead in the bedroom from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

<more>

this is why pediatricians ask about guns in the home

and this is why the Florida GOP/NRA wants to silence them

they don't care

yup

Then I let the dogs out and the cat in.


At 3 years of age my kids had no idea we even owned guns.

One day you'll let the dogs out and the cat just won't be there.

Cats aren't meant to roam unsupervised Please protect your cat by leaving it inside at night

I know the dangers of him not returning, our neighbors cat has been gone 3 weeks now, same story as the two before. The let it out and up in the woods it goes never to return. We suspect coyotes get their kitties.....They tried the past two to keep them in but eventually you relent and give them just enough freedom to never return.

Our kitty is 4 now and I worry any time I can't find him. If he's out when we go to bed I check a few times a night to let him in.

I just let him in as a matter of fact...

After a while they forget about outside and they live longer.

Your cat , your choice I'm just real big on keeping cats inside

At 3 years of age my kids had no idea we even owned guns.

Unless they happened to wander into your room before you woke up and find it on the nighttable or under your pillow or wherever the hell people keep these magic talismen while they sleep.

It would be nice if a way could be found to protect the innocent.

I doubt it.

or is 'only childless people should have guns' your proposal?

You seemed to imply that parents should not own guns. If that was not the meaning you intended to convey, please elucidate. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I genuinely wish there were a way to protect the innocent children from the incredible stupidity of some adults.

I'm not sure how 'parents' is even implied in my statement. The same thing could have happened with a gun left laying around by another adult. In fact I'm sure it has happened and will continue to happen.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

say "no one will ever find this gun" and then some kid does.

How can you leave a gun unsecured around kids? Beyond belief.

Hope the parent is charged with a crime for this as a deterrent to other gun owners. Losing a child is punishment enough but there has to be a child endangerment charge here.

This is why I do not mind secured gun laws.

don't you think?

swimming pools, bicycling accidents with no helmet, poisonings, ATV accidents, falling from dangerous places, etc. are also prosecuted...after all, parental negligence is parental negligence, no?

what is it going to take.

Then what good are they? I've never had or wanted a gun, I have kids in the house including one who is disabled and cannot really be taught "gun safety." Anybody who I would want to shoot would have to wait for me to unlock the gun -- it just makes no sense.

while still allowing rapid access. There are push-button safes, biometric safes that open in 1 second...there are a variety of "safety-plug" rounds and push-out trigger blocks...any of the above would have (most likely) saved that child's life.

Even if, as a parent, you go with a traditional safe; to me, it's a no-brainer that if you can't find any other options, you choose a delay in access to your firearm over quick access that allows accessibility to children.

I hope this parent is, at the very least, convicted of criminal neglect. You have to be actively stupid to leave a loaded gun on a windowsill with a child around.


Additionally- and this is just a quibble, which in no way diminishes the tragedy of this event- I notice the reporter writes that the girl picked it up, looked down the barrel, and "the gun fired." I suspect that this is done to increase the emotionality of the piece, but it's disingenuous to imply that the gun just randomly fired all on it's own. Something happened that depressed the trigger of the firearm...and that's yet another example of why it is SO CRUCIAL not to leave firearms where kids can reach them. They are not difficult to operate and, at least with the majority of modern firearms, they do what they are meant to do (fire a bullet) every single time.

:(

EDIT: to correct the quoted words, and to add this thought- I understand gun owners not wanting to answer a doctor's question about firearms. What if, along with you discharge paperwork when you leave the office, they attach a paper with gun death statistics, and suggestions of ways to safely lock up guns so children can't access them?

Safe, secure, and accesable by the responsible adult.

If anything they should have taken advantage of the numerous NRA gun safety programs or free gun locks. The NRA is actively working to prevent problems like this, what are you doing.

Look up how the NRA stood in the way of gun lock programs by organizations the NRA doesn't agree with politically.

And how about the gun locks the NRA was behind that were defective.

Just more BS from a right wing front.

And their efforts have saved countless lives.

anti gun crusaders (or at least a large subset of them) only cite stories like these for tactical advantage.

There are many ways to save more toddlers than focusing on guns; the kids are merely pawns.

Make and enforce laws designed and narrowly tailored to protect children, but let's not pretend that a rational concern for children is the real impetus.

would not have saved THIS toddler.

You were the one wailing about how children are not meat.

There are many ways to save more toddlers than focusing on guns

Children are not fungible. The death of one is not countered by saving the life of another, or another thousand.

who don't regard children as meat.

You (and any other Dahmer fans) stand alone. People who honestly perceive children as meat need immediate psychiatric care. Bald-faced liars, on the other hand are probably beyond help.

As for the fungibility of children, are you literate enough to have gathered that I SUPPORT laws protecting children?! The field must be strong today!

Let's see if I can break this down. A man who wants to prevent deaths of overweight, middle aged American men from lightening strikes but can't be bothered to care about heart disease isn't really focused on the men. The fact that I can see through his "concern" doesn't mean I support deaths by lightening strike.

You would be able to see all this, but the field has you. (Or the field IS you, your Sophistry, I'm not quite sure.)

The fact that I can see through his "concern" doesn't mean I support deaths by lightening strike.

The fact that others are concerned about children killed by firearm doesn't mean anything at all about what else they might be concerned about, or do about it.

Where I live, there are strict bylaws in all urban areas governing swimming pools. There are also strict laws governing the storage of firearms. I support both, and hope that both are strenuously enforced.

See how that works? Not mutually exclusive at all. Some of us actually can hold two thoughts at a time, and be concerned about more than one thing, and not pretend that our concern about Thing X absolves us of being concerned about Thing Y.

The only ones here attempting to deflect attention from one harm by pitching little phoney fits about another harm are those who do not want anything to be done to reduce the incidence of children being harmed by firearms.

The only ones analagous to your man who wants to prevent deaths of overweight, middle aged American men from lightening strikes but can't be bothered to care about heart disease are gun militants.

This is, as the Bard might put it, a tale of two universes.

In your universe, you are the Goddess of Ttruth and Beauty*, children are meat, and everything revolves around iverglas and Canada.

There is another universe, and in that universe, none of the above is true. One of these universes is real. Only one.

Reread post 26. There's nothing in it about you. I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote it. Or Canada. So your claim that you and/or Canada can think two thoughts at once, while very impressive, is off point. We've had this conversations before (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=171924), but apparently it didn't take. It still isn't about you. Or even Canada.

My point is that a significant subset of those who are concerned about children dying from guns couldn't care less about children dying from pools, or rat poison, or electrocution, or...

My point, being unrelated to iverglas or Canada, stands.





*Goddess of Truth and Beauty

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x182745#182768

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=241845&mesg_id=243088

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x191524#192442

lacking in reading comprehension as ... well, I'd say he who pretends not to comprehend, but that wouldn't make sense, would it?

"We" means "me and Canada". In someone's universe, I guess. Not yours or mine.

(or country for that matter, I don't follow these things in other countries) requires something doesn't mean that it is so in this country...it isn't of coarse. Here in this thread I made the simple suggestion that requiring 4 sided locking fences around swimming pools should be law. Oh the howls.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x307454

Certainly you realize (or realise) that because your neighborhood
(or country for that matter, I don't follow these things in other countries) requires something doesn't mean that it is so in this country...it isn't of coarse.

Nor does it mean that it should not be so anywhere. Howls from professional howlers notwithstanding.


“There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

Same as the VPC

You seem to be rather excited about using this tragedy for political propaganda

Would you post this if a parent left the basement stairs door unlocked? Or some water in a bucket? Or some water in a bathtub? Or the hot tub cover unlocked? Or a bottle of bleach accessible? Or a knife block on the counter

or

or

or


Lots of kids die due to negligent parents. (In fairness, I think this law was an over-reaction to one or two doctor's invasive questions and preaching. The law will probably be tossed out in court. Doctors should be free to speak to any dangers in the home that are statistically relevant dangers to children.)

about each and every death of a child (or anyone else for that matter) because of a gun.

Anti gun activists don't care who dies or how many people die each day. It's all about their hatred (and fear) of guns.

They could make a much bigger impact on child deaths by focusing on something like child car seats, swimming pool safety, safe storage of common household chemicals but their hatred and fears of guns is their main obssesion.

Would you post this if a parent left the basement stairs door unlocked? Or some water in a bucket? Or some water in a bathtub? Or the hot tub cover unlocked? Or a bottle of bleach accessible? Or a knife block on the counter

Children take baths. Thousands of baths, over their childhood. Children are exposed to water in bathtubs most days of their lives, for reasons having to do with the children's own well-being. The number of children who drown in bathtubs, as a proportion of the number of child/bathtub exposures, gives us a virtually unmeasurably small ratio.

Toddlers should never be exposed to firearms. Period.

All of the other situations you mention (and how many children have ever accidentally knifed themselves to death?), along with pots of boiling water, staircases, vehicles, and on and on and on, are situations that children are exposed to as part of ordinary household life. Yes, measures should be taken to protect them from adverse outcomes of exposure.

But there simply should be no exposure to firearms.

Leaving a loaded handgun on a windowsill is not remotely comparable to leaving water in a bucket.

Kids die from all that stuff you mentioned all the time. Dead is dead.

Up until recently, firearms WERE a normal part of most households in the US. Kids grew up with them, around them.

A gun is no different than any other household item...if it is a danger to a child the child should be educated about it, overseen, and the item should be safely put away when the child cant be overseen.

Guns are not useless or unneeded, they can provide important home and self defense. Just because some people dislike or fear them irrationally doesnt mean that they dont fulfill those purposes.

Poor parenting kills kids, not 'things.' And accidents happen even to conscientious parents.

And kids can be introduced to firearms at any age. I got 2 (not one but 2) sets of six-shooters for my third birthday. I wanted to be a cowgirl and everyone knew it. I knew what they were and how they were used at 3. And grownups made sure I understood that they werent real and what that difference would be with real guns.

I didnt grow up violent. I didnt even purchase a real gun until I was 48.

but according to these folks the cause matters.

Point out that a child is far more likely to drown in a swimming pool and they invariably come back with "well swimming pools aren't intended to kill!" as if that matters.

It seems to them that a drowned child < a shot child.

both are comparable. Much OLDER children that would be in no danger around a bucket with water in it, are still 100% at risk from an unsecured firearm, so the window of risk is much wider, but for certain ages, both are equally dangerous.

I agree, no firearm should be left unsecured around a child. Same with the other dangers, as age/competence mandates.

So the story is changing now? Now it's just about older kids (and yet you brought up buckets of water earlier).

I agree, guns need to be secured around kids of all ages. That is a parental responsibility like any other. What about alcohol? Parents try to control that, try to teach about it, yet teens drink mom and dad's booze and go take the car and die. Or kill others.

Parents need to teach their kids and then be responsible for them. For generations teens brought their hunting rifles to school to hunt afterwards. Kids learned the realities of guns from an early age, learned responsibility, and learned guns were nothing special...dangerous yes but not so mythical that they absorbed that 'forbidden fruit' attention.

Read my signature. It's all about being responsible for yourself and the fact that yup, there are some risks to freedom. Oh well. The nice thing is, freedom means that YOU have the right and ability to control yourself and your family rather than falsely (hoping) depending on the nanny govt to do so for you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

A bucket with water in it has a much smaller window of danger to children. 6months to 3 years most likely.

A firearm has a wider window of danger, probably 6 months to age 18, depending on the competence of the child.

I am not moving goal posts, only acknowledging that an unsecured firearm is not a perfect correlation to many other dangers around the house, since they are 'dangerous' to 'children' of a much larger age range, than say, a bucket.

On the flipside, there are competent children capable of being around a firearm without accident (I was one, as was my brother), as well as incidents of children using firearms to protect self/home, when no parent was present. But we are snowballing issues quickly here...

And the FL law doesn't stop doctors from providing information on child proofing your home about guns, chemicals, pools, knives, electrical outlets, etc.

This is an issue concerning the improper storage of firearms.

Pediatricians should no more be giving firearm advice than firearm instructors should be giving medical advice.

In my opinion, if you have firearms, you should lock them up. Mine are all in a safe. If you need quick access to a self-defense firearm, there are many quick-access devices on the market to safe your firearm with.

I'm torn as to what the punishment should be for people such as the parents in the original article, though. What can you do to a parent that is worse than the loss of a child?

Just like they don't have to be auto engineers to tell people to wear seatbelts.

You are right. Doctors can and should provide safety information for a variety of things, from household chemicals, to fall hazards, to choking hazards, to firearm hazards, to drowning hazards.

But they need not make any inquiries as to what sort of hazards exist in their patients homes, unless it has bearing on some current medical condition.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

would have found some other way to kill the kid.