My no brainer statement in context is related to kids and guns. You expect kids to get into everything. I'm not making this into an anti gun thing.

__________________
National Debt =

Depends what the stupidity is, sometimes maybe.
I am thinking about it and I do not think the grandma should be charged.
I would call her a dumbass, but not make an accident illegal.
It would be like charging for a kid finding the scissors then running and poke their eye out.

Kids will not get into everything, if you keep things safe.
Like if she kept the purse at her side, instead of putting down right next to a 4-year old.

So if the child had shot a passerby and killed them, you would say that her recklessness was not criminal? Give me a break. She endangered everyone. She should be brought up on charges and lose her right to own a gun ever again.

__________________

When I saw the thread title I felt the same way as AnnEsthesia about the grandmother being charged, but when I read the article and learned that she was a magistrate and many magistrates carry guns for protection I changed my mind. This was a horrible accident but not a criminal one IMO. A child can suddenly do something in the blink of an eye while a parent is right there. It happens everyday.

Maybe she will be charged but no punishment could be any worse than the emotional hell the grandmother is going through right now. The grandmother of a precious four-year old myself, I know.

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

Tough. The kid is going through more than granny could think of. She should face charges if there's a reasonable prospect of conviction.

Your analogy is flawed

Cars have a productive purpose and aren't made to hurt people, That gun was doing exactly what guns were made to do. . . Shooting stuff.

There is a reason why guns are more commonly used as a symbol of violence than cars are.

Last I checked, how you are emotionally effected by your negligence is not a factor in your sentencing. As for her job... so? Police officers carry guns, but they are expected not to leave them where anyone else can touch them.

She should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment and lose her right to carry a gun. If she feels she needs protection, let her hire a bodyguard. Clearly she cannot be trusted with a firearm.

__________________

Guns have a very productive and useful purpose, the fact that they are made to hurt people does not mean anything. They do hurt people, many people.

* 1995 Fatal Accident Totals



Motor Vehicles
43,900
Falls
12,600
Poisonings
10,600
Drownings
4,500
Fires
4,100
Choking
2,800
Firearm
1,400 (1.5% of fatal accidents)



* For Children 14 and Under
Motor Vehicles
3,059
Drownings
1,024
Fires
883
Choking
213
Firearm
181 (2.7% of fatal accidents)
Falls
127
Poisonings
80

Just Facts.com --> Gun Control

Total number of deaths due to firearms(accidents inclusive):
35,957
Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Facts at a Glance - Firearm deaths by intent

I know 95 is a while ago, but it is the first stat I got for both of them. I would think that the relationship would be similar.

-- I checked to verify. The most recent for firearms was 01.

Total firearm: 29,573
Bureau of Justice Statistics Key Facts at a Glance - Firearm deaths by intent
Total motor vehicle: 42,196
Wikimedia Error
Wiki so I double sourced: 42,443

Now remember the firearm death include suicides and legal homicides.

It was an accident, a similar thing could have happened with many many other items.

I am torn I can see legal charges being reasonable. I have to think about it more.

Either way this is not a good reason to attack guns and/or gun ownership.