Adult leaves gun lying around. Child finds gun. Child wants to be like cool guy in movies. Child pulls trigger. Child dies.
That is the recurring theme of incidents that happen all too often in America. This is the gun violence that is often overlooked in furious debates online. This sort of thing is barely even a crime in many states in the U.S.
The day before Mother’s Day this year, a six-year-old boy in Gary, Indiana shot his three-year-old sister after finding a gun left in the car where he and his sister were left alone for a few minutes outside of their daycare. The little girl survived after she was struck in the hand. Six inches to the center and instead of getting cute little hand prints or a macaroni necklace for Mother’s Day, the girl’s mother could have been pricing out a tiny coffin and popping tranquilizers like M&M’s just so she can stop, if only for a few hours, feeling the bottomless razor-sharp pain that comes with grieving the “accidental” death of a child. Luckily, this story did not end so tragically.
Pages on Facebook like Responsible Gun Owner of the Day remind us that gun tragedy strikes every single day in the U.S. and all too often involves children.
After reading about this latest “accident,” I was curious to find out just how many kids have died in similar circumstances, either shooting themselves or another child after finding a firearm carelessly left about in their environments this year alone.
Here are some quick statistics on gun violence for 2015:
Gunviolencearchive.org shows 221 children, ages 0-11, have been injured or killed in shootings so far this year. Children ages 12-17 killed or injured this year alone stands at 798 shootings.This number includes children who are shot by adults who are cleaning their weapons, intentional shootings or are innocent bystanders in domestic violence spats. The total number of incidents involving guns 16,635 and deaths from firearms for all age groups is at 4,432 in just 131 days in the U.S. alone.
That is an average of 33 people killed per day by guns.
An average of 8 children, ages 0-17, are injured or killed by guns every single day.
How many times were guns used defensively by the average citizen so far this year? 432 times. That is an average of 1.2 times per day a gun is used legally and properly.
To put this into perspective, one person died in the U.S. last year of Ebola and it’s all the public talked about on the news for months. Can you imagine if 33 people died of Ebola per day in America? The panic would be astounding! Consider also that in Africa, Ebola related deaths totaled 11,007 spanning three countries in 2014 and the total number of deaths in the U.S. were 12,523 in 2014, meaning we have a gun violence epidemic in our country that the public is barely willing to discuss.
Deaths from children (ages 0-17) killing themselves or others:
January
January 21: Kaleb Ahle, 2, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest after finding his father’s gun in the glove box of his family’s vehicle in East Lake, FL. Police say the father took reasonable measures for keeping the gun away from his child and no charges were filed.
February
March
March 29: Jaxon White, 3, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in Jefferson, GA after finding and playing with loaded gun. No charges have been filed.
March 31: Kendal Pinkerton, 2, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in Madison, TN after playing a loaded handgun. No charges were filed.
April
April 10: Ezra Ryan Jackson, 16, killed by 17-year-old friend who was handling a gun when the gun accidentally discharged in Houston, TX. The teen has been charged with manslaughter.
April 19: Dakota Washington, 16, was killed by a 15-year-old male in Victorville, CA, who was playing around with a loaded gun when it accidentally discharged, striking Dakota in the chest. The teen has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.
April 29: Rasheem Scriven, 1, was killed by 15-year-old male in Augusta, GA who was playing with a gun when the weapon accidentally discharged striking Rasheem in the head. The teen has been charged with involuntary manslaughter.
May
May 1: Dante Jones, 13, was killed by a teenage male (exact age not identified) who is suspected of playing with a gun when it accidentally discharged in Klamath, CA. The teen has been charged with manslaughter.
There is limited data available for January and February. These are just deaths alone, meaning there are hundreds more shootings involving children where they either injured themselves or another child that I have not included in this list.
What do all these incidences have in common? Besides taking place overwhelmingly in the south and “gun-friendly” states these incidents could have all been avoided had adults taken proper precautions to secure their firearms away from children. While teenagers should technically know better, consider also that the frontal lobe of the human brain (specifically the pre-frontal cortex) doesn’t fully develop until a person reaches their early 20’s. The frontal lobe is responsible for judgement and reasoning, which means teenagers should also be kept away from firearms unless they are under the watchful eye of an adult.
The NRA fights legislation designed to encourage parents to lock away their guns when kids are in the home
In some cases, parents or adults who owned the guns children used in these “accidents” were charged with neglect or child endangerment. That is because many states have recognized that guns in the home should be locked away safely, but the NRA is strongly against legislation like that.
An old study by The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence found that 12 states with childhood access prevention laws actually lowered accidental child deaths by 23 percent between 1990 and 1994.
Currently only 13 states have strong childhood access prevention laws, 14 states have weak childhood access prevention laws and the remaining 23 states have no such laws on the books.
According to a study done by Everytown in an article called “Innocents Lost: A Year of Unintentional Child Gun Deaths” found that between December 2012 and December 2013, at least 100 children died in unintentional shootings — nearly two per week on average.
Highlights from this report also show:
- About two-thirds of these unintended deaths — 65 percent — took place in a home or vehicle that belonged to the victim’s family, most often with guns that were legally owned but not secured.
- More than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them.
Perhaps a gun owner would think twice if prison were on the table for leaving their guns lying around with children around? Because dead children certainly isn’t enough for these gun owners to think twice.
The NRA doesn’t think so. After an incident involving a 5-year-old boy shooting his 2-year-old sister last year with a gun designed for children, Cam Edwards, NRA news host, went on the attack saying the media was blowing the incident out of proportion and saying that laws wouldn’t make an impact on childhood deaths as he pointed to suffocation and other ways children die. Despite his efforts, and the NRA’s efforts to stop the CDC from studying gun violence and children, gun violence remains one of the top five killers of all children. Edwards, however, contends that the horror of losing a child is punishment enough, but the NRA has no answer as to how to stop this horror from occurring.
To find out how you can get involved in stopping the NRA from lobbying against childhood access prevention laws in your state or others, click here.
Featured Image: NBC News
What does the NRA have to do with some moron leaving a gun lying around where children have access to them? I’m all for prison sentences for people who are irresponsible like that. Your liberal agenda is clear. There must be accountability in the instances. I am a hunter and a responsible gun owners. The NRA is a major factor in the last line of defense against law abiding citizens becoming lambs amongst sheep. Your blame is severely and intentionally misdirected!
You are a typical nra troll. If people were properly trained in gun safety, if laws required that guns be secured, and if people who leave guns lying around faced civil and criminal penalties fewer children would die.
The nra fights these laws by screaming “the gubmint is going to take away you guns” and ignorant fools like you believe them.
No NRA troll here. I’m not a member but this has nothing to do with the NRA. You can’t keep stupid people from driving, drinking, owning guns, breathing, etc.
Actually it has quite a lot to do with the NRA, They have a verifiable history of fighting laws that would hold irresponsible gun owners to account for accidents related to their unsecured weapons.
Which law in specific do you have in mind?
Take your pick. Any law that seeks to put any control over who owns a firearm or how they handle it sees the NRA pour money into getting it defeated.
Several states, for example, have tried to enact laws requiring trigger locks on guns, only to see the NRA come out against them. Every single time.
How is having a trigger lock on a gun you are not actively firing an infringement on your rights?
And they lock people up for driving drunk.
So when exactly do the trigger locks need to be on the gun? Reminds me of people who ride a motorcycle with the helmet strapped to the back. Oh, wait, I’m about to have an accident let me put this helmet on. Certainly, if the gun is not in your control then it should be secured. For me that means it is in a gun safe. But if the gun is in my control then trigger locks are insane. No wonder the NRA fights them. Same for laws that require external safeties. A double action revolver requires a long and heavy trigger pull; a safety is just a mechanical device that can fail at the wrong time. How about we enforce the laws we have. How about we quit using the funds to enforce those laws as political collateral. How about we recognize how crime actually went down where concealed carry was legalized or that crime rates in general are down.
Yea, okay.
You’re delusional, You are a liberal who wants all guns taken away. You and Michael Moore would get along well. UN arm law abiding citizens and this country will turn into Baltimore or Ferguson. And if it happens, and you’re attacked, don’t you dare call a cop with a gun. Who says gubmint anyway? That statement shows Your mentality and libtard thinking.
By the way I’m a flag loving, self employed patriot of the rights granted to us under the constitution, can you say that? Didn’t think so.
You guys are ALL flag luvin’, Murica luvin’, job luvin’ Patriots enjoyin’ the rahts granted to ya (BY GOD ALMIGHTY HISSELF!) unner the Constitution of these Great United States of ‘Murica.
Funny how no one else seems to need to make those claims to be taken seriously.
Tim Murphy
Well said tim!
I agree with you 100%
This moron blogger has no clue about reality.
Just the fact that she implies that the nra wants to see children killed by irresponsible gun owners make her story unbelievable to anyone with common sense.
enacting tougher gun laws does absolute nothing to stop criminals.
Stopping criminals… More important to you than the lives of Children. Got it.
That is the most ignorant statement I have heard in a long time.
You go right ahead a believe that lie if you want your a perfect example of how the minds of progressives work
Twist and spin and put words in other people’s mouth without having any knowledge of what your avocating or the ramifications of what you endorse. And punish people for what a few irresponsible people have done.
Oh. Now look who’s butthurt because they had the same hyperbole they used tossed back at them. It’s a beautiful thing, really. Cry little boy, cry!
Jessica Strunk
What language are you writing?
Because I see no correlation on what I said and this bloggers propaganda.
If someone who owns a gun and is irresponsible and a kid get shot the need to go to prison.
But like all progressives you want to punish good behavior and reward bad behavior I don’t understand why republicans don’t exploit that motto that seems to apply to almost everything your side does.
“But like all progressives you want to punish good behavior and reward bad behavior”
Generalize much?
Lincoln stern
Yes lately I have generalized but that is a fact that can not be broken or spun.
Democrats want to punish and always demonize wealth in this country like it’s a bad thing to work hard and accomplish something the rich even with their tax cuts pay more and get hardly none of the benifits that are mean tested.
Your side also enable the less fortunate with no requirements like drug testing or having to work at them low paying jobs so taxpayer’s would have to pay them less so yes that is rewarding people that can work but feel it’s beneath them to work for a low wage.
And we do the same thing with health care we pay for contraception and abortions when they should be paying for it themselves of course there are exceptions there always is and they should be exempt there are many more examples of that motto that hold true that can’t be denied but the problem is progressives never admit when their wrong they just blame others for their mistakes
Uh yea, sure.
Because the Right always stands up when they are wrong. God, you are sad beyond belief man. I mean, you have bathed in the Kool-aid.
Lincoln stern
Now your assuming what I do and if your educated you should know what happens when you assume.
There is plenty that I criticize the right on if fact they are not any better in my opinion with the way they spin a narrative also.
So I agree with you the right don’t either but where is any criticism for the failures on your side?
Please show me on post from this site that ever demonize their own side?
And please show me where the right calls the left racist for everything they do when that is impossible to prove which side has more racist in it
And the right don’t label groups for phony wars on woman or labeling the right as war mongers only the left is guilty of labeling and that is a fact .
Okey dokey.
It really doesn’t surprise me you aren’t able to pick up on the correlation. Even when you admit to points, you then walk away with a “yeah, but…” True or false: Your ability to have a gun is more important than the safety of children? Because there have been very stern points that even you can’t deny made to you… And then you go on to ignore those regardless, and basically say “Look. I just want my guns regardless, ok?”.
Since reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong suits, let me break down the point of the article -
It is not about “criminals.”
It is, however, about people who are criminally irresponsible and stupid. It is about gun owners who are so clueless that they leave loaded weapons where children can find them. It is about how those children, being children and so somewhat curious and foolish, get injured or killed by those carelessly unsecured weapons.
And it is about how the NRA has a verifiable history of fighting any laws that will hold these mouth-breathers responsible when a child gets killed or injured.
Any questions?
Lincoln Sternn
Yes lot`s of questions as your narrative makes no sense and I did not insult you did I? Just because you disagree with my point don’t mean I lack comprehension.
The first problem I have is you punish everyone for the few morons that are irresponsible why not just throw the book at them alone?
That`s the main issue the N.R.A. has and to imply that they want kids to get shot proves that you following a false narrative.
Do you honestly think the N R A wants this to happen? after all it puts them in a precarious situation don’t` it?
Are we going to take all cars away from people because a few drive drunk?
The author wrote this.
Perhaps a gun owner would think twice if prison were on the table for leaving their guns lying around with children around? Because dead children certainly isn’t enough for these gun owners to think twice.
I agree with him on this however what is being proposed is everyone would have to lock up there guns even if there were no children present and that is where I have a problem.
The N.R.A. has already come out to say they would support stronger punishment to irresponsible people but don`t support everyone having to lock up there guns.;
“This moron blogger has no clue about reality.”
Did the blogger insult you personally before you called them a moron?
How is being required to secure weapons “being punished”? The police do it. The military does it, Anyone with common sense and a wish to keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals or children does it.
Every kid who has killed with or been killed by an unsecured firearm has one thing in common - Someone had access to an unsecured firearm.
Nowhere in the article does the blogger imply the NRA wants kids to get shot. What they say straight up is that the NRA doesn’t care that these kids are getting shot. Watching the way they go on the offensive against even talking about common sense gun regulation after every single one of these events would give some weight to that argument.
Ah, the old, “Some people drive drunk so we should take cars away/regulate them for everyone!!!” misdirection. God, I am bored with this. Guess what, cars are heavily regulated, and people are safer for it. Here’s another point the NRA and the ammosexual fringe don’t like to talk about - A car’s primary purpose is transportation. That people get killed by them is a side effect. A gun’s primary purpose is to kill. That people get killed by them is inherent in their design.
You have a problem with locking up your guns “when no kids are present.” Why? What if one visits while you are not at home? What if someone breaks in and steals that magnum you have in your bed-side table and then goes out an shoots someone with it during the commission of another crime?
You talked about “common sense.” It is only common sense to secure weapons. That it is too much trouble for you shows a lot more about you than it does about the person who wrote this article.
Lincoln stern
I have read several of your demonizing posts and wonder where you come off criticizing others? But then I remembered that it’s a prerequisite of being a liberal to be a hypocrite
I never used to personally attack anyone with opposite views as I felt they had a right to their opinion.
But this patitular site is more than just demonizing others it sends a message of anger and hate for all that opposes their views.
As far as gun safety goes my problem is if someone is irresponsible with a gun punish them not others that’s the point your missing and yes read the heading that is exactly what this author implies that the nra want kids shot which is bs and you know it.
When my 4 kids were growing up my guns were in a safe until I knew I educated them on safety now that they are on their own I have no need to lock up my guns if kids do come over the first thing I do is make sure it’s not a issue what you preposterous idea is all guns should be locked up which take away the concept of self protection for the most part and does punish responsible gun owners for the few that don’t deserve to have guns. I’m a supporter of stricter punishment for those that are stupid and irresponsible so yes its punishing those that did nothing wrong that’s my problem with his message
I’m not a “liberal” dipstick. Or a “conservative” either. I mock stupid people regardless of their political or religious affiliation.
And no, the headline doesn’t imply any such thing. It does strongly suggest dead kids are not a worry for the NRA, for the reason stated.
Cry me a friggin’ river that common sense inconveniences you in some way.
Lincoln stern
“Dead kids don’t bother the nra as long as gun manufacturers make a profit”
And for some reason you think this is a fair statement to make right?
I bet you have no idea on how or why the nra was created do you?
That is a very demonizing statement and anyone that was not a gun grabbing socialist would see it as such.
If someone has the gall to break into my house I do not want to surrender my life because of someone who hates guns said do.
They will get a bullet to the head without any hesitation and I could care less what you think about that if I have to have my gun locked up or a lock on it I might not make it and that’s the bottom line that you fail to see.
Stronger laws for those that fail to be responsible is a good thing that I would support but that’s as far as it goes.
I can see you don’t get it.
Tell me, do you think any of the people who left firearms unsecured were hoping a child would get hold of it and die? Or do you think they would want some meth-head to get their hands on it and go on a crime spree?
But, those things happen, because people are, by and large, irresponsible.
I applaud that you kept your guns locked up when there were children in the house. So, what has changed that you now feel the need to leave them lying about the house?
I can see you are not a critical thinker. You make a lot of foolish assumptions, then react to those assumptions.
As for the NRA, I was a lifetime member right up to the day they started pandering to the moronic crowd who thinks in terms of “gun-grabbers” and not to the hunters and sport shooters who were their bread and butter. So, that is another baseless line of reasoning on your part.
I will say goodnight, offering this pearl of wisdom -
May the curse of Mary Malone and her nine blind illegitimate children chase you so far over the hills of Damnation that the Lord himself can’t find you with a telescope.
Lincoln stern
Sorry I do get your point I just don’t agree with it and that’s OK if we don’t because we most likely live in two different lifestyles which would make both of our points valid for us.
I live in a neighborhood that has a turned into a drug zone and lots of crime believe me as soon as I retire I will be moving to a better area.
So for me its important to be ready at all time to defend myself .
That might not apply to you and can understand and respect that.
And I’m not a nra member and never have been just because I gave up hunting a long time ago as killing for me is something I’ve seen too much of when I was in vietnam.and did not need to hunt to feed my family
But I have always been avocating for freedom to choose the lifestyle you want.
Government laws are force that takes away our freedoms and yes we need most of them but still disagree with making responsible people lock there guns up.
I can respect that. I live in a semi-safe area, but still keep a defense gun handy. The difference between me and most of the people I am talking about is that I always have control of it. When I leave the house, it goes in the safe with the rest. My car defense gun gets locked in a storage box bolted to the frame if I can’t carry it in somewhere.
So, we can part amicably, realizing our differences are situational, not philosophical.
Lincoln stern
Thank you I enjoy having civil debate even if we agree to disagree I try and respect others point of view and understand your side also
But one point I did not bring up was there are always exceptions to the rule that should be considered or modified if it don’t change the integrity or perpose of the law.
We simply can not make laws for the exception of the rule as it is a major minority of people that are that stupid to leave a loaded gun while a child is present but thank you for your input as I feel we both learned something
Nobody cares when the abortion industry makes millions off of killing way more people than guns do and that’s not even a right granted by the Constitution. At least guns can be used for self-defense, so it’s not like the NRA is intentionally killing people. Why is life so sacred after birth but not before it? I say life is cheap in all stages because everyone’s going to die eventually anyway.