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

[nrdsb4]

I think this mother was clearly distracted, not necessarily a bad mother. My point was and remains that with that many kids in tow, she had no business carrying that day. One could certainly argue the point about carrying any time she had her child with her, but on that day, her routine was changed as she was responsible for a number of children. Why couldn't it have occurred to her that one doesn't necessarily need to have a gun 24/7, that there are situations where risk is higher and others where the risk is relatively low compared to possible down side?

She had a new bag, was caring for multiple children, etc., and therefore due to her understandable risk of distraction should have left that dang thing at home.

It really is fortunate that no one else was killed, but certainly everyone in the vicinity was harmed, possibly for life, by emotional trauma that could have been avoided. Her child will probably require a lot of therapy, because some day he WILL find out about this.

 

[MyBelle]

Or raises the issue of a major flaw in the parenting .. I'm waiting to hear how the child was able to take the gun out, point, and shoot the mother when she was a few feet away from him.

The fact the child did it is not in dispute. The mother's parenting skills are a non-issue to me.

 

[sonjay]

But the studies also show that those in possession of a gun and the victim of assault; are much more likely to be killed (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099). Isn't that the opposite of what gun owners are trying to accomplish?
<snipped for brevity>

That journal is a publication of the American Public Health Association, which has an anti-gun bias. The APHA is a member organizaton of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, which began life in 1975 as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

The study linked above reviewed a population of assault victims in Philadelphia, an urban area with a large population of urban career criminals. It cannot be extrapolated to the country as a whole.

According to the U.S. government's own Bureau of Justice Statistics,
"A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon."
Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Of every 100 assault victims who defend themselves with a firearm, about 20 are injured.
Of every 100 assault victims who defend themselves with something other than a firearm, or with no weapon at all, about 50 are injured.

So, no, the results are not the opposite of what gun owners are trying to accomplish. The results are exactly what gun owners are trying to accomplish.

 

[sonjay]

I think this mother was clearly distracted, not necessarily a bad mother. My point was and remains that with that many kids in tow, she had no business carrying that day.

I would agree with this statement if it had 3 additional words:
"...with that many kids in tow, she had no business carrying in her purse that day."

 

[rob]

I will do some research, but I think these stats are based off of Legal gun ownership.
For example, Wyoming has the highest percentage of household gun ownership and a corresponding incidence of gun deaths. The same is true for all states. For every 1% increase in gun ownership, there is an equal increase in gun deaths for that state. More guns = more gun deaths.

I haven't taken the time to research this, just reacting upon reading. But I can't believe as many people are shot in the state of Wyoming as even in the cities Detroit or Chicago. Or, its just not covered in MSM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

OK, did a little research

 

[nrdsb4]

I would agree with this statement if it had 3 additional words:
"...with that many kids in tow, she had no business carrying in her purse that day."

Yeah, I could go with that.

 

[sonjay]

I will do some research, but I think these stats are based off of Legal gun ownership.
For example, Wyoming has the highest percentage of household gun ownership and a corresponding incidence of gun deaths. The same is true for all states. For every 1% increase in gun ownership, there is an equal increase in gun deaths for that state. More guns = more gun deaths.

The studies that look strictly at gun ownership rates and gun death rates are deliberately misleading.

Most "gun deaths" are suicide. About 60% of all gun deaths are suicide according to Pew Research.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

Overall suicide rates are largely unaffected by gun ownership rates. For example, Japan, with one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. When people want to kill themselves, they do so regardless of the availability of firearms. When they have a gun available, they are more likely to choose a gun, but in the absence of a gun, they choose other methods. More guns does not = more total suicides; it only equals more gun suicides.

Plus, let's face it, suicide is a voluntary gun death. It's hardly comparable to being killed accidentally or on purpose by someone else.

So, take suicides out of the numbers altogether.

What you're left with is this: In states with liberal firearm laws and high rates of lawful gun ownership (e.g., Vermont, Idaho, Montana), you have very low violent crime rates. In states with strict firearm laws and low rates of lawful gun ownership (and usually high rates of illegal gun ownership by urban career criminals), you have very high violent crime rates.

In my neighborhood, everyone owns a gun. Most people own multiple guns. Even the youngest of the neighbor kids, who is about 8, has his own gun. (Maybe he's 10 now, they grow up so fast I lose track.) The neighbor boys wander around with guns, hunting pigs, squirrels, and anything else they can shoot & eat. Nobody shoots anybody, though, because we're a bunch of peaceful, law-abiding people who don't rape, rob & steal, and who don't settle every little disagreement by shooting each other.

In Chicago, OTOH, you have a bunch of criminal thugs who are not allowed to own guns legally but who have them anyway, who go around shooting each other and shooting innocent people.

I know where it's safer to live.

It is absolutely not ownership of a gun that correlates most closely with crime rates or likelihood of being assaulted or likelihood of being injured in an assault. It is living a lifestyle, or living among thugs.

 

[sonjay]

I will do some research, but I think these stats are based off of Legal gun ownership.
For example, Wyoming has the highest percentage of household gun ownership and a corresponding incidence of gun deaths. The same is true for all states. For every 1% increase in gun ownership, there is an equal increase in gun deaths for that state. More guns = more gun deaths.

Wyoming has the highest percentage of household gun ownership. And yet, one of the lowest rates of gun murders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Like I said, take suicide out of the picture, and the numbers look very different. It's not Wyoming-ites with legal guns we need to worry about. It's career criminals with illegal guns in Chicago, NYC, L.A., St. Louis, and places like that.

 

[CoolJ]

Wyoming has the highest percentage of household gun ownership. And yet, one of the lowest rates of gun murders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Like I said, take suicide out of the picture, and the numbers look very different. It's not Wyoming-ites with legal guns we need to worry about. It's career criminals with illegal guns in Chicago, NYC, L.A., St. Louis, and places like that.

I agree, they do look much different without the suicides. Has anyone ever seen any studies that accounts for this. I would like to see stats on accidental gun deaths. Has anyone seen studies for that?

ETA - I would also think it important to determine if suicide actually increases in households with guns. I would assume if someone is going to commit suicide they will do it one way or another. But maybe just having ready access to a gun increases that likelyhood?

 

[Nova]

So you would have laws passed to legislate common sense for a parent? Would you have the Government monitor parents and have punitive actions against a parent being mistaken? Or would you just have Gov. ban all mistakes? Or just have the Gov/ seize and raise all kids after birth?

I am, or was a Police firearm instructor, not current now. Why should my RIGHTS be restricted because someone else has an accident or makes a mistake? Once that precedent is set..........where do we look next to right a perceived wrong?

Leaving a loaded and unsecured firearm within arm's reach of a toddler is NOT an "accident". It is gross negligence, pure and simple, and should be subject to the same type of law as other forms of negligence.

 

[Nova]

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.

What the government CAN do is ban behaviors and should do so when those behaviors are negligent.

 

[rain88]

The studies that look strictly at gun ownership rates and gun death rates are deliberately misleading.

Most "gun deaths" are suicide. About 60% of all gun deaths are suicide according to Pew Research.
Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

Overall suicide rates are largely unaffected by gun ownership rates. For example, Japan, with one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. When people want to kill themselves, they do so regardless of the availability of firearms. When they have a gun available, they are more likely to choose a gun, but in the absence of a gun, they choose other methods. More guns does not = more total suicides; it only equals more gun suicides.

Plus, let's face it, suicide is a voluntary gun death. It's hardly comparable to being killed accidentally or on purpose by someone else.

So, take suicides out of the numbers altogether.

What you're left with is this: In states with liberal firearm laws and high rates of lawful gun ownership (e.g., Vermont, Idaho, Montana), you have very low violent crime rates. In states with strict firearm laws and low rates of lawful gun ownership (and usually high rates of illegal gun ownership by urban career criminals), you have very high violent crime rates.

In my neighborhood, everyone owns a gun. Most people own multiple guns. Even the youngest of the neighbor kids, who is about 8, has his own gun. (Maybe he's 10 now, they grow up so fast I lose track.) The neighbor boys wander around with guns, hunting pigs, squirrels, and anything else they can shoot & eat. Nobody shoots anybody, though, because we're a bunch of peaceful, law-abiding people who don't rape, rob & steal, and who don't settle every little disagreement by shooting each other.

In Chicago, OTOH, you have a bunch of criminal thugs who are not allowed to own guns legally but who have them anyway, who go around shooting each other and shooting innocent people.

I know where it's safer to live.

It is absolutely not ownership of a gun that correlates most closely with crime rates or likelihood of being assaulted or likelihood of being injured in an assault. It is living a lifestyle, or living among thugs.

Except in this case it wasn't a lifestyle that killed this mother.

I did find some studies that showed there is an increase in suicide rates with gun ownership. I looked up "Higher suicide rates in homes with guns".

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The fact the child did it is not in dispute. The mother's parenting skills are a non-issue to me.

The child certainly did shoot the mother, how the child knew how to do so so effectively is my question, and you have to look at the parenting skills when a mother leaves her gun loaded and within easy reach of a child.

 

[Nova]

...I don't expect or live in fear of flat tires but I always carry a spare tire. Same with a fire ext.
If firearms are not for some people, I respect their choice, I expect the same in return.

(Emphasis added.) But the difference is that my choice (not to carry) can't kill anyone; your choice (to carry) can.

 

[Nova]

...Laws lately in the US tend to reduce freedom rather than expand it. We have become a nation of mediocrity based on the lowest common denominator existing in society and the partisan leverage philosophy....

(Emphasis added.) I'm glad to see you have figured out what a "straw man" argument actually is.

 

[sonjay]

Except in this case it wasn't a lifestyle that killed this mother.

I did find some studies that showed there is an increase in suicide rates with gun ownership. I looked up "Higher suicide rates in homes with guns".

Nobody said that a lifestyle killed this mother. Nobody said that all firearm deaths are a result of a lifestyle. However, people are blaming "the gun culture" for her death. "The gun culture" did not kill this mother either. There's a "gun culture" of peaceful, law-abiding people who own guns, and who typically don't shoot other people. And there's a " culture" of non-peaceful, non-law-abiding people who make a habit of shooting other people. There is little to no overlap between those two cultures -- not in lifestyle, or where they live, or who they hang out with, or any other key sociological factors. It's not the "gun culture" that's a problem; it's the " culture" that is a problem.

This mother unwisely chose an inappropriate method of carrying with young children present, IMO. Then she compounded that choice by setting her purse down in her cart where her toddler could get his hands on it. In any culture, any community, any group of people, there will be occasional lapses in judgment or momentary inattention that result in tragedy. It happens with guns. It happens with cars. It happens with pools. It happens with medicines. It happens with 5-gallon buckets. It happens with electricity. It happens with pets. It's very sad for those involved when it happens, but the fact that it happens does not mean that any particular instance is a sign that there's some sort of national trend that threatens the very fabric of society.

I think we all agree that people should not leave guns where 2-year-olds can get their hands on one.

As far higher suicide rates in homes with guns, if you look hard enough and narrowly enough, you can sometimes find a positive correlation. Keep in mind, though, that correlation does not equal causation. Also keep in mind that for every comparison where you can point to a higher suicide rate correlating with higher higher gun ownership, I can point to a comparison where higher suicide rates correlate with lower gun ownership.

 

[sonjay]

Leaving a loaded and unsecured firearm within arm's reach of a toddler is NOT an "accident". It is gross negligence, pure and simple, and should be subject to the same type of law as other forms of negligence.

Agree.

So, can they charge her posthumously with negligent manslaughter or something similar? Or is her death sufficient punishment?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Isn't it partly the normalisation of gun ownership in the USA that led to this woman thinking there was nothing wrong with packing heat in her handbag whilst visiting Walmart with 4 children in tow?

 

[sonjay]

Isn't it partly the normalisation of gun ownership in the USA that led to this woman thinking there was nothing wrong with packing heat in her handbag whilst visiting Walmart with 4 children in tow?

No, it's not.

 

[LinasK]

Isn't it partly the normalisation of gun ownership in the USA that led to this woman thinking there was nothing wrong with packing heat in her handbag whilst visiting Walmart with 4 children in tow?

Yes it is!