Re: 3-year-old shoots self playing with dad's gun
I cannot think of anything more stupid that to leave a LOADED gun without a trigger lock laying around where a three year old can get to it. This just makes all gun owners look like idiots and will give anit-gun people more fuel for their fire.
I know it's easy to say that, but when you live in the city it's a slightly different atmosphere. It's easy to say that in no circumstance should a gun be around a child. It's easy to say that in no circumstance should a gun be loaded, unlocked, ext.... But when the threat outside has the real potential to come inside, and the benefits of having a loaded weapon in the house outweigh the risks it begins making much more sense.
I grew up on the East side of Detroit. There was always loaded guns around. The intellegent thing to do is to keep them up high, out of the reach of infants, but when the idea of having a gun around is as common place as... say... a glass of milk it's easy to become comfortable enough (or negligent enough) to leave something like that laying around.
My father chose to address this by buying me my first gun when I was only 4 yrs old. It was a spring loaded BB gun that didn't even have the power to "shoot my eye out" as the old saying goes, but nonetheless it was a real gun and it taught me how to properly care for, and use, a weapon. At age 5 I received my first gun that used actual bullets for propulsion - a .22 caliber rifle. I had an M1 carbine shortly there after, my grandfather's gun used to defend the family store during the '67 riots.
I realize this may all seem odd to most people, but that's how things are in the city - at least the bad parts. Like I said, the obvious responsible thing to do is, at the very least, keep the gun out of the range of a toddler. The option to have an unloaded gun around really isn't there. It is just as crazy to have an unloaded gun around as it is not to have one at all in the city, or just as crazy to have one around at all outside of the city. Personally I feel if a gun is necessary for the protection of a home than the protector should keep it on them, in some sort of holster (not just down the waist of his pants) for both their security, and the security of their family (for both internal and external reasons).
And like I said... The idea of a deadly weapon around the house may seem blatently at odds with family safety to some, but there are less children dying of self-inflicted gun shot wounds than there are families dying of break-ins, shootings, and armed robberies. What is the better option? a family dog?
http://www.wxyz.com/wxyz/nw_local_news/ ... 34,00.html
Doesn't look to be the case... That's a link to the article of a family dog that mauled it's owner to death. And it's not just pitbulls... every year in the city a doberman, a shepard, a rot, ext. kill its owner... That pitt in the article mentioned had been well taken care of, never used for fighting, and was an otherwise normal, happy dog. Not just in pitts, but in all dogs that are bread to fight (doberman's are notorius for wigging out) there are dangers.
The real problem is the lack of a professoinal police force that has the real ability to stop these sorts of issues, and correcting a city that is so rampant with crime that low profile murders go uninvestigated. It really is a sad state of affairs in Detroit, and I wish someone would work at stopping the real problems instead of concentrating so heavily on the symptoms.