ID - 2 year boy accidentally shoots and kills mother in walmart in ths US

[ontheclock]

I'm somewhere between Archangel7 and gitana1. Not to be middle of the road, that's just where I stand. Guns kill. I never wanted one when my son was young. I was totally peeved when he brought one into the house without my blessing. Now I'm glad he has one. Always have a round chambered and ready to go. However, an acquaintance just lost her husband due to slide mishap. Diligence and training are the key. Typing on iPad, so sorry for any weird posting.

 

[Donjeta]

Now we're getting to the problem. It's not the gun, the water, etc, it's the people and their responsibilities. However, even responsible people make mistakes, children drown, people slip on icy surfaces.

Personally I don't want the Gov. in my business of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You have to be alive to carry on your business of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If random babies at Wal-Mart are shooting at you you might die.

 

[Archangel7]

I really think that's nonsense. Guns are specifically designed to kill. They are weapons. That's why I own them. So I can kill an intruder or assaulter. So I can protect myself. I could own a BB gun if all I was interested in was target practice. Yeah, I've enjoyed target practice but that is certainly not the purpose of the weapon. Not the reason they were created and not the reason arms are named in our constitution.

Guns are weapons. Lethal, lethal weapons, specifically designed to kill an animal or person. That is their purpose. Thus, an extraordinarily high level of caution must be taken when handling, cleaning, using or storing them. And they need to be strictly regulated.

People like to compare guns to cars a lot. The make-up in the car argument, for example. Well guess what? The use of cars is, indeed, heavily regulated. The use of guns is arguably not (not as much).

There are age limits for ALL vehicles, speed limits, universal limits on combining cars with alcohol, drugs, etc. We must have a license to drive that involves actually studying and passing a test showing we know the laws and how to use the vehicle. We have to register the vehicle every year. We must have insurance in order to operate the vehicle. If we use the vehicle negligently or recklessly, or allow a child to use it, such is not brushed off as a "mistake". We are punished by law.

What about the little five year old Kentucky kid who shot his two year old sister dead with a loaded child's weapon (My First Rifle), that had been just leaning against the wall? There were zero charges in that case. The yokel coroner handling the death simply stated in awe: "It's a little rifle for a kid ... The little boy's used to shooting the little gun."

Wait, what? It's as if he doesn't get how a "little" rifle is just a capable of killing as a big one. He acted as if it was a toy and as if it was totally shocking that it could actually be used to end a life.

That death should've been labeled negligent homicide.

Driving is a privilege extended by the State PSC, not a true right.
I know guns that are designed as target guns. To say all guns are designed to target practice is the same illogical blanket statement you are using about guns are designed to kill.

Tools are used as one sees fit to use them.

So who do we crucify over this accident?

 

[Donjeta]

As I said, one should have care and control. I don't think the Gov. has any business telling a woman how to carry her purse, gun inside or not. If we are going to ban stuff let's ban crime, stupidity, etc.

The Constitution does not protect anyone's right to carry their purse so that other people lose their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because they get randomly shot accidentally.

If it does, it shouldn't.

People who take care of their weapons responsibly are in no way unjustly disadvantaged and tyrannized compared to the people who leave them accessible to very young children.

 

[Archangel7]

You have to be alive to carry on your business of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If random babies at Wal-Mart are shooting at you you might die.

Well, in this case she made a mistake and suffered the consequences. So now you wish to do hypothetical strawmen?

 

[Donjeta]

Guns are designed to shoot targets but we know that too.

Civil or criminal negligence? And by what EXACT standard or duty? I don't have the facts so please share, TIA.

ETA....I am sure the mom assumed the child wasn't able to gain access to the gun just as the dad assumed the toddler had no access to the rear of the car before he backed over him.

The gun was in a zippered pocket in an unattended bag that was within the child's reach.

Why would anyone assume that the child wasn't able to gain access?

The way this bag was described it was designed to carry concealed so that random passers-by don't see you're carrying. It was not designed as protection from children getting access if there was only a zipper between the child and the gun.

If you store guns in a child proof safe you can assume that children aren't able to access.

But two-year-olds can open zippers.

 

[Archangel7]

The Constitution does not protect anyone's right to carry their purse so that other people lose their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness because they get randomly shot accidentally.

If it does, it shouldn't.

People who take care of their weapons responsibly are in no way unjustly disadvantaged and tyrannized compared to the people who leave them accessible to very young children.

Now we're back to care and control?

 

[Donjeta]

Well, in this case she made a mistake and suffered the consequences. So now you wish to do hypothetical strawmen?

It was just the merest accident that the child shot his mother who was responsible for the gun being stored within the child's reach. The victim could have been anyone else in the store at the same time, including the child himself, another child, you, me, a cashier who was pregnant with twins, etc.

Not a strawman, just a fact. If you let your kids access lethal weapons there is no telling who gets shot.

 

[Donjeta]

Now we're back to care and control?

Why not? it might save a few lives if people took care of their children and controlled who has access to their guns.

Who is any worse off?

 

[Archangel7]

The gun was in a zippered pocket in an unattended bag that was within the child's reach.

Why would anyone assume that the child wasn't able to gain access?

The way this bag was described it was designed to carry concealed so that random passers-by don't see you're carrying. It was not designed as protection from children getting access if there was only a zipper between the child and the gun.

If you store guns in a child proof safe you can assume that children aren't able to access.

But two-year-olds can open zippers.

That is the point. Self responsibility and care and control. A safe would be difficult to manage in Wal Mart.

 

[Archangel7]

Why not? it might save a few lives if people took care of their children and controlled who has access to their guns.

Who is any worse off?

That has been my point all along. If a mistake is so unrecoverable, it must have levels of control. However you can't eliminate all human interface in the equation. It's why we have accidents.

 

[Donjeta]

That has been my point all along. If a mistake is so unrecoverable, it must have levels of control. However you can't eliminate all human interface in the equation. It's why we have accidents.

You can't eliminate human interface but you can keep children away from loaded guns.

At least, let's all try and don't get all fussed up when people say people should make sure children are safe.... It makes no sense.

 

[gitana1]

Driving is a privilege extended by the State PSC, not a true right.
I know guns that are designed as target guns. To say all guns are designed to target practice is the same illogical blanket statement you are using about guns are designed to kill.

Tools are used as one sees fit to use them.

So who do we crucify over this accident?

'

When you can show me that the gun carried by this lady was a target gun, you will make sense, IMO. Until then, it's spin, IMO.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

'

When you can show me that the gun carried by this lady was a target gun, you will make sense, IMO. Until then, it's spin, IMO.

Also what would be the point of taking your target gun to Walmart whilst out shopping with the kids?

 

[Donjeta]

That is the point. Self responsibility and care and control. A safe would be difficult to manage in Wal Mart.

Yeah, but there are several options for keeping your gun out of reach of your toddler. It is perfectly manageable even in Wal Mart.

 

[Archangel7]

You can't eliminate human interface but you can keep children away from loaded guns.

At least, let's all try and don't get all fussed up when people say people should make sure children are safe.... It makes no sense.

No doubt she made a mistake or a bad choice/decision. I see it every day. Death is a terrible, tragic event whether by mistakes or choices with guns, tobacco, alcohol, cars, poison, matches, knives etc.

I'm sure she was a good mother who would never place her child in harms way with any of the above items but apparently she had a lapse or made a lethal mistake.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

These kinds of accidents are exactly why official regulations are required, not all people are capable of making wise decisions when it comes to carrying weapons, definitely not the NRA judging by these endorsed products: http://www.guntotenmamas.com Basically if a state is going to allow CC they also need to put in stipulations which will keep people as safe as they can be under such conditions, and fine people if they don't comply. I'm sure this woman's family is wishing she'd carried on a holster today, or wished she hadn't even had the gun on her that day full stop.

 

[Archangel7]

Yeah, but there are several options for keeping your gun out of reach of your toddler. It is perfectly manageable even in Wal Mart.

I would think so. I believe my previous wording was tragic and preventable. Pretty much all human mistakes are.

Same type circumstance with people with pets, dogs in public especially. Care and control.

 

[SallyLu]

Yet another example of the craziness that has developed in this country. If something like this would have happened 35-40 ish years ago when I was a child, there would have been outrage: why was a woman carrying a gun in her purse? a loaded gun? where a 2 year old could get it? Now, nope, it's all about the crazy brainwashing/rhetoric/politics that has developed when it comes to guns and every ones "rights" to carry around a damn deadly weapon. Every day that goes by I fear more and more for my children growing up in a country that is apparently going backwards instead of forwards when it comes to being civilized. Seriously, this s*** scares the hell out of me.

The mindset on gun ownership scares me too.

 

[Donjeta]

No doubt she made a mistake or a bad choice/decision. I see it every day. Death is a terrible, tragic event whether by mistakes or choices with guns, tobacco, alcohol, cars, poison, matches, knives etc.

I'm sure she was a good mother who would never place her child in harms way with any of the above items but apparently she had a lapse or made a lethal mistake.

If she carried a knife, alcohol, matches or poison in her purse the child would have got access to those as well.

If we take care not to place our children in harm's way with any of the above items we might as well go all the way and not place them in danger with guns either.

I'm pretty sure when the founding fathers spoke about well regulated militia, they did not intend that parents should have the right to endanger their children with guns but not knives.