I've mulled doing a regular Gun Death Report, but @KagroX is way better at documenting stupid shootings than I am. However, occasionally, there are killings that scream for attention, as do the two I'm writing up here. One involves a three-year-old child, and the other a 107-year-old blind, deaf man. The disparate ages of the deceased and all-too-common egregiousness were equally appalling.
First, the story about the 107-year-old who died at his home after SWAT officers returned gunfire. An investigation is ongoing.
Pine Bluff [Arkansas] Police Lt., David Price, told KATV-TV that officers responded to Monroe Isadore’s residence after he brandished a weapon at two people inside his house.
Officers escorted the threatened pair from the home, but Isadore had locked himself in a bedroom. As officers approached, shots rang out. Isadore fired through the closed door, but nobody was injured. [...]
...S.W.A.T. officers released gas into his room.
When S.W.A.T. officers made their way into the house, Isadore allegedly shot at them, so they shot back, killing him.
Larry Smith, who was an attendee of New Direction Baptist church with IsadoreSmith told KLRT-TV:
“He couldn’t hear. Somebody should’ve told the [police] he couldn’t hear.”
Monroe Isadore's friends said that he was legally blind and believe he must have been confused. So he was legally blind and couldn't hear. Call me crazy, but I'm thinking he was the one at a disadvantage. Then again, Iowa Debates Permitting Blind People To Carry Guns In Public.
Now on to the fatal shooting of a 3-year-old at Yellowstone National Park, a case that is also under investigation. Via the Los Angeles Times:
The child’s mother told emergency dispatchers that her daughter shot herself with a handgun, park officials said in a statement.
Saturday's shooting occurred at the Grant Village Campground, where an emergency medical team tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate the girl, the statement said. [...]
Carrying guns in national parks and federal wildlife areas is permitted as long as federal, state and local laws are obeyed. That policy came about because of the 2009 credit card reform bill, to which Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered the gun provision as an amendment. The Senate passed the bill, 90 to 5. The measure also passed the House, and President Obama signed it. The law took effect in February 2010.
But firing a gun and hunting are banned at Yellowstone.
Dear dead child's mom: Who negligently made a loaded gun available to a toddler?
If you picked none of the above, you were going with the odds on favorite. But guess what? There is one who was correct. Hint: it's not the guy in front or the one bringing up the rear. It's Jeb.
Here's Jeb Bush's recent statement:
Bush said "If you look at the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country, it is net zero. It’s been that way now for almost two years."
This statement has been verified by the Pew Hispanic Center and found to be true.
The sharp downward trend in net migration from Mexico began about five years ago and has led to the first significant decrease in at least two decades in the unauthorized Mexican population. As of 2011, some 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S., down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to Pew Hispanic Center estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Okay, let's just buy into this for a moment, because whether or not the issue is the number is up a percent or down a percent, it's staying relatively the same -- net zero. Therefore, to a great sense, this isn't a problem. Not a significant one at that.
So when 6 weeks ago the senate voted to add $46 Billion for border security, I was confused. What seems to be the problem. Illegal immigration isn't running rampant like it did during the 8 Bush years. It's steadily decreased. We don't seem to have any argument there. So whatever we're doing, seems to be working. Then why $46 Billion above and beyond the current budget?
If we've got $46 Billion to just toss into the pot, how about spending the money where it is needed. And on our own people. Our elderly who are being treated like discards at the very best and pariah's at most often. Here's people who worked their entire lives and we're not giving them the support they need when they can no longer work.
Watch this short clip of Cheryl Tenicat in her own words: “$624 a month. That’s what I live on. 99 of that goes to my Medicare Part ‘A’ and ‘B’. After I get my check in two weeks, it’s gone. I have nothing. I live on what I eat here (at the senior center). I don’t want my cost of living cut because I’ve paid in since I was 16.”
If everyone of the social security participants got to keep the $64 per month which is the currently proposed cut, that would still be $2 Billion less than the $46 Billion additional money to be tossed into a problem that DOES NOT exist. So we expect our seniors to be paying for additional border security instead of food? That's insane. And that's the Republican plan which Obama is okay with.
So we have $46 Billion available for a problem that doesn't exist, but we have to steal that money and food out of our senior citizens who have nowhere else to go? Sadly, for many now and many more to come in the ensuing years, Social Security may be our only bulwark against starvation. Let's address programs where there is a problem, and let's not waste money when there isn't one. We have enough problems to deal with, and starting with our senior citizens isn't a bad place to begin.