Toddlers Shoot Three People Every Month in Texas | Hacker News Reader

Toddlers Shoot Three People Every Month in Texas

kfox95.com

40 pointswoldemariam56 comments

Can anybody help us understand under this line of logic, which not the only one, clearly:

For driving, which is a dangerous activity, you need to qualify for it and regularly show you can handle the task responsibly, to avoid endangering yourself and/or others, but guns are a right without the need for any qualifications whatsoever? I'm not American, clearly, and I never got my head around this one fact, which I admit could be lowest of the low standard needed in the "I'd like to own a gun" for some reason category.

I doubt any of the toddlers purchased a gun.

Dammit. They're using stolen guns? Figures. Steal our hearts then steal our guns. Who's a widdle scam artist? *tickle tickle BANG* Oh, dang right in the *dies*

visit a gun show anywhere nearby where you live and observe for an hour or two, your doubts will melt away…

The problem is that you're looking for logic. There isn't any: it's a basic right.

Put another way: in the US, it is far more likely that we would collectively lose the ability to drive than we would the "right to bear arms."

The thing is that until as recently as the 1960s the 2nd Amendment wasn't widely interpreted to be about anything other than militias. Radiolab has a great episode on how a small but vocal minority shifted the NRA from a sports shooting (think Olympics) group to what it is today. https://radiolab.org/podcast/more-perfect-the-gun-show

The "logic" is "shall not be infringed". The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means what the NRA wants it to mean.

A large percentage of Americans believe that the slightest crack in "shall not be infringed" will open up the door to a complete ban. So you can't be registered; you can't be made to take a test; you can't be inspected.

And they believe that if there is any restriction at all, all of the bad guys will have guns, and they will be at the mercy of a vast crime wave.

I consider this reasoning absurd. And so do a majority of Americans, according to numerous polls. But the way the law is written, it's practically impossible to change.

> The Founders wrote it into the Constitution; the Supreme Court decided that their (extremely dubious) wording means what the NRA wants it to mean.

A 2000 law review article on the topic found that between 1887 (when things were first indexed) until 1960, all references were towards a collective right (i.e., in a militia, akin to the current National Guard):

* https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol76/iss1/2...

The 1960 article that first mentions it states:

> The majority of the jurisdictions have concluded that both the United States Constitution and the various state constitutions, having a similar provision relating to the right to bear arms, refer to the militia as a whole composed and regulated by the state as it desires. The individual does not have the right to own or bear individual arms, such being a privilege not a right.

* https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol2/iss2/6/

So the first mention of an individual right states that that is not how it is interpreted (the author argues for a dual-right, collective and individual).

In 1992:

> Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Warren Burger argues that the sale, purchase, and use of guns should be regulated just as automobiles and boats are regulated; such regulations would not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

* https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a...

Burger in a 1991 PBS interview:

> This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word ‘fraud’ – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well-regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18, or any other age, persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated?

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKfQpGk7KKw

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger

(Burger was nominated by Nixon.)

I am American, ex-military, and I don’t own a gun. I also have not touched a gun in 30 years.

With regards to the second Amendment, you have to remember the US was founded in a rebellion against what it considered a tyranny. The American mythos is encapsulated by John Locke’s social contract theory. Government exists to serve the people and when it does not, the people should overthrow the government by force if necessary.

With that said, there are a lot of good ole boys who can’t put two sentences together and shouldn’t be owning any weapon.

I have shot pistols, rifles etc. The AR-15/M-16 is by far the easiest weapon to shoot. It is incredibly accurate and becoming proficient takes only a few days. Even so , in a war, small arms don’t do much. I would rather tell my FAC to call down an air strike or fire support from the nearest tank or artillery.

I have to wonder about the sanity of people, who are limited to small arms, thinking that they can overthrow a government that has weapons that can annihilate them without even trying. Quantity can sometimes beat quality but they have neither one.

Which is really ironic because when you are fighting a foreign aggressor (which was basically what American patriots were doing), what you really don't want is everyone running around on their own with their own guns. You need trained soldiers who can take commands and hold a line. Once you have them, for all your purpose, you can just keep all your guns in a locked armory, and it takes half a day to summon your soldiers and distribute weapons should the need arise.

And if you don't have the training, the best automatic rifles on the world won't help you. If your fighters can't even run to the nearest police station without hopping on a car, forget about it. You think you'll take the interstate to the battlefield when tyranny descends and black helicopters are flying around?

I understand and agree with your intention. I also don’t want to be around an untrained mob with guns. History is a bit more complicated though. During the American revolution, we were an untrained mob and would stand and fight as often as we would run away. Despite losing almost every battle, somehow the founding fathers prevailed. There are various explanations of course. But at the heart of it all was the willingness to fight.

Guns don't shoot people, toddlers shoot people.

Sounds like we need toddler control laws, maybe parents need to have a background check.

No, we just need to train toddlers to have better trigger control.

Sounds like a good topic for board book "Timmy and his trigger discipline" and "Susie don't fan your friends"

Those would sell

They probably already exist.

Dogbert on parenting: https://www.tumblr.com/welcometoyouredoom/131691378557

We need to stop allowing toddlers into this country unchecked

The only thing that can stop a bad toddler with a gun is a good toddler with a gun

In lots of the country, parents should be asking the parents of their kids' friends if there are unsecured weapons in the house before letting them go over to play.

Maybe if they would legalize Kid Beer, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Is it the same gang of toddlers?

Two gangs: the cribs and the Luvs.

There's probably a bit deeper story behind this.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/28/texas-gun-stats/

Do they have good aim at that age, or is it just "spray and pray?"

Toddlers don't kill people. People kill people.

I blame the parents.

It stands to reason that guns and ammo should not need a "Keep out of reach of children" label, yet they plainly do since parents are obviously leaving loaded firearms where their kids can get at them.

it stands to reason that coffee cup should not need “the contents of this cup are very hot” but you know… :)

I guess we have similar "No shit, Sherlock" files, but our respective files are rather different from those of other Americans.

I mean one could just accept that people are idiots and just restrict their access to guns. But clearly you can't do that..

I accept that /other/ people are idiots, so please, don't restrict /my/ access to guns. /s

I know it's a joke (and I appreciate it), but it also makes you think how crazy it is. I would absolutely happily restrict everyone's access to guns to get them out of then hands of the psychos, and then jump through some hoops to get mine (if I really needed some).

NRA is a powerful Russian asset..

Wait until they find out how dogs have shot their owner.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-shot-dead-after-dog-steps-hunt...

Is there any constitutional right to have a toddler?

> Last year there were 36 unintentional shootings by children of all ages in Texas.

Considering how many are intentional shootings by children of all ages this is, this is a non-story the same way the sky is blue and water is wet.

Came here to say the same thing. Looks like in 2024, there were 9 unintentional shootings by children in Texas.

https://everytownresearch.org/maps/notanaccident/

The 36 number is inflated, as it likely includes teenagers with intent.

For those downvoting the parent comment, please do some critical reading of the article. It's conflating "children of all ages" with "toddlers". This is an absolutely trash article.

"Teenagers With Intent" is the name of my "Velvet Underground" cover band

9 is still 9 too much, don't you agree?

I agree, to an extent. But when articles twist words and uses stats in places that are lies, I have issues with it as well. There's no reason to embellish this data.

How many traffic fatalities is too many? If we lowered the maximum speed of cars to 20 mph, and that reduced fatalities by 90%, would that be worth it?

All things in life have a trade-off.

> How many traffic fatalities is too many? If we lowered the maximum speed of cars to 20 mph, and that reduced fatalities by 90%, would that be worth it?

Traffic fatalities are reduced by reduced speeds, and countries in Europe tend to limit quite heavily maximum speed in urban areas so... Yes, reducing speeds to 20-30mph in most cases is worth it, the US should adopt that.

Highways can have increased speeds as they are designed for it, here in Sweden it's limited to max 90km/h in urban perimeters (~55mph) but sometimes down to 70km/h, up to 120km/h outside urban areas (~75mph). Unfortunately speed limits aren't the solution though, better driver education, better urban design which naturally limits speeds, and stricter enforcement/punishment of traffic violations all build up to safer traffic.

Traffic in the USA is murderous, reminds me much more of my native country (Brazil) than any other developed country I've ever driven at.

this is your brain on American gun norms.

> Homicides involving firearms are less common in the UK compared to those involving knives. There were 29 homicides by shooting in the year ending March 2023, representing 5% of all homicides.

the UK (population 68 million) has 7 less MURDERS BY GUN IN TOTAL, than Texas (population 30 million) has CHILDREN SHOOTING PEOPLE, SUBCATEGORY: ACCIDENTAL.

https://aoav.org.uk/2024/does-the-uk-have-a-knife-and-gun-pr....

It’s worth pointing out that the entirety of the UK fits into the footprint of the state of Oregon

Also, nations that are islands have a much easier time eliminating guns from their borders, once the populace agrees that they should be.

The sad part is that the U.S. has a huge population of people that still don’t think anyone else’s rights to the pursuit of happiness and peace take precedence over their constitutional right to own guns, and if Sandy Hook didn’t move the needle then I don’t see what will.

But even if they agreed to take that action my first two points pose a pretty impossible logistical task to actually remove guns from our society

guns could 100% be removed from our society if we decided to do it. as you said though, sandy hook sealed that forever, right? once we decided as society to accept mass slaughter of children there is nothing else left to move the needle.

but if we wanted to do it logistically we are capable of much bigger things than removing guns from society. give everyone X amount of time to return them and then make being caught with a gun punishable by minimum of 45 years to life. once the deadline expires make a few highly publicized arrest and that’s that…

Guns could be removed by passing a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 2A.

The thing is, the anti-gun people are simply unwilling to do this because their position isn't nearly as popular as they believe. There's nothing stopping them from going through that effort other than fear. If 80% of the population really did agree with them, passing an amendment to repeal the 2A should be a no-brainer for any politician that wants to get re-elected.

this would be 100% accurate if this was an actual election issue, real or spoon-fed by politicians. while 80+% may be fully against ownership what do you reckon is a percentage from that group that would vote for a candidate simply on that one issue alone?! I am ballparking less than 2% - perhaps only family and friends who lost loved ones to gun violence

I think you may be glossing over how difficult it is to pass a Constitutional amendment.

If data is right and it pretty much is that ~80% of US population is for some sort of a gun control, then passing Constitutional Amendment would be a breeze.

If majority of these 80% of people were single-issue voters and this was THE thing they cared about, it would take few election cycles but eventually this issue would carry enough clout that things would get done... of course it never will be though...

For some context around my comment, the ERA was introduced 101 years ago and still has yet to be ratified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

> The sad part is that the U.S. has a huge population of people that still don’t think anyone else’s rights to the pursuit of happiness and peace take precedence over their constitutional right to own guns, and if Sandy Hook didn’t move the needle then I don’t see what will.

Sandy Hook is just one reason why I don't own a AR-15 or other semiautomatic firearms. I'm of the opinion that no civilian (police included) needs a semiautomatic.

But I've got a .30 lever-action rifle. I usually only load it at the range. I usually only fire it at the range. I've never even aimed my weapon at another human being, despite occasionally being tempted.

I see no reason why I should allow my rights to be abridged because other people abuse theirs. The needs of the many might outweigh the needs of the few, but I do not accept that they can outweigh the rights of the individual.

I'd wonder if a reasonable compromise would be for licensed ranges to have guns that people can toy around with, and not civilians themselves.

At the very least, a ban on semiautomatics and bump stocks sounds like it'd reach bipartisan appeal.

This already happens, actually. At the range I go to, you can rent fully automatic weapons and they'll walk it out with you, and for a non-trivial cost of usually $1/round, you can spray the range down. You can also rent a number of more conventional weapons to try as well.

> At the very least, a ban on semiautomatics and bump stocks sounds like it'd reach bipartisan appeal.

I think you're assuming that Republicans are still capable of bipartisan compromise. You'll have to pardon my cynicism given recent history.

It's ironic that the right to bear arms was kind of a British invention from the English Bill of Rights 1689 which got copied to the US. It goes to show that you can change things.

They are not fully banned here but about the only thing you can get without too much hassle in the UK is a shotgun and you need a license.

> this is a non-story

Oh good grief. It is NOT a non-story. It should NEVER HAPPEN AT ALL.

But, sure, let's just keep normalizing this instead of fixing it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com