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

[nrdsb4]

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.

Yes, she DID put her child in harm's way! And she put everyone in the vicinity in harm's way as well. She had no business carrying a gun because she clearly wasn't up to the responsibility. She had too many distractions, she was forgetful, whatever the reason.

 

[LinasK]

Yes, she DID put her child in harm's way! And she put everyone in the vicinity in harm's way as well. She had no business carrying a gun because she clearly wasn't up to the responsibility. She had too many distractions, she was forgetful, whatever the reason.

Totally agree. If the kid had shot another Walmart shopper instead of his mother, would we still be pitying the mother???

 

[sonjay]

Bingo! It's the same argument pro-gun people always come up with. Cars were designed as a method of transportation, not as a lethal weapon, which guns were designed for!

Do I understand this reasoning correctly? Cars were designed for transportation, so the thousands of children accidentally killed by cars every year are acceptable, but guns were designed for killing, so the few dozen children accidentally killed by guns every year are a crisis of major proportions about which something must be done.

According to the CDC, from 2000 to 2012, about 835 children aged 14 and younger were accidentally killed by guns. That's approximately 64 per year.

Also according to the CDC, from 200o to 2012, about 25,781 children aged 14 and younger were accidentally killed by cars. That's approximately 1,983 per year.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html

Cars may have been designed for transportation, but they are much better at killing children than guns are. Do we only care about the children killed by guns? Do we not care about the children killed by cars?

 

[tlcya]

There is a middle ground here. At least for me. I can feel great sympathy for the loss of a life due to an unwise decision while still assigning personal responsibility to the person who lost their life due that unwise decision.

 

[Jovi Girl]

It seems as though not too many people in th e area are really shaken up by this tragedy, per the comments in the news articles . It's a way of life , they are gun people , etc. I guess it's just a side effect to some people.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

That's not a trump card.

Cars and pools accidentally kill more children than guns do, despite their intended purpose. So I would submit they are more dangerous than guns. I haven't looked up any stats on stoves, bleach, anti-freeze or prescription medicines, but I'd bet they also accidentally cause more harm than guns do.

Oh, and my guns must all be defective, then, because none of them has ever harmed or killed something.

But they surely would have had you ever felt threatened enough to use one. Correct me if I am wrong on this as I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Otherwise, why carry one at all if you have no intention of harming or killing something with it if you feel your self-defense warrants it?

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Do I understand this reasoning correctly? Cars were designed for transportation, so the thousands of children accidentally killed by cars every year are acceptable, but guns were designed for killing, so the few dozen children accidentally killed by guns every year are a crisis of major proportions about which something must be done.

According to the CDC, from 2000 to 2012, about 835 children aged 14 and younger were accidentally killed by guns. That's approximately 64 per year.

Also according to the CDC, from 200o to 2012, about 25,781 children aged 14 and younger were accidentally killed by cars. That's approximately 1,983 per year.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html

Cars may have been designed for transportation, but they are much better at killing children than guns are. Do we only care about the children killed by guns? Do we not care about the children killed by cars?

Again, apples to oranges. The gross numbers of fatalities aren't the issue. The issue is that many if not all of these gun accidents that kill children are, IMO, preventable by the gun owners taking proper responsibility.

I have no problem with gun ownership per se. What I do have a problem with is irresponsible, even negligent gun owners, such as a parent who leaves a loaded firearm within easy reach of her 2-year-old.

And yes, I have a problem with irresponsible, even negligent drivers as well, but in the statistics you cited, I doubt if those 25,781 children who were accidentally killed by cars were killed by irresponsible, even negligent acts on the part of their parents.

 

[sonjay]

It seems as though not too many people in th e area are really shaken up by this tragedy, per the comments in the news articles . It's a way of life , they are gun people , etc. I guess it's just a side effect to some people.

I don't see too many people all that shaken up about the 2,000 children under 14 accidentally killed by cars every year. It is, after all, just a side effect.

When it becomes commonplace for people to read a news story about a child being killed in a traffic accident, and then subsequently call for universal 10mph speed limits, mandatory car-passenger helmet laws, and all-steel cars built like hummers, then I'll believe that those people actually care about saving children's lives. When I see that kind of reaction only over gun deaths, but not about anything else, it's fairly clear that people care mainly about banning guns, and not so much about saving children's lives.

 

[sonjay]

But they surely would have had you ever felt threatened enough to use one. Correct me if I am wrong on this as I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Otherwise, why carry one at all if you have no intention of harming or killing something with it if you feel your self-defense warrants it?

My intention would be to stop the threat. Bodily injury to the attacker, or even death, may be a side effect of that, but would not be the intent.

 

[sonjay]

Again, apples to oranges. The gross numbers of fatalities aren't the issue. The issue is that many if not all of these gun accidents that kill children are, IMO, preventable by the gun owners taking proper responsibility.

I have no problem with gun ownership per se. What I do have a problem with is irresponsible, even negligent gun owners, such as a parent who leaves a loaded firearm within easy reach of her 2-year-old.

And yes, I have a problem with irresponsible, even negligent drivers as well, but in the statistics you cited, I doubt if those 25,781 children who were accidentally killed by cars were killed by irresponsible, even negligent acts on the part of their parents.

They were just tragic accidents involving cars, right?

 

[sonjay]

Yeah let's all let our children shoot people because it's wrong to think it's a bad thing.

You don't have to be a perfect person to stop this from happening, you just have to keep your guns away from your kids or vice versa.

BBM. I must have missed that post. Who said that? I'd like to have a few words with them.

 

[Donjeta]

BBM. I must have missed that post. Who said that? I'd like to have a few words with them.

So many people are upset not because a two-year-old was allowed to shoot his mother but because people are saying that two-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to be near guns...

As if expecting gun owners to be responsible about their instruments of death is a bad thing.

 

[MyBelle]

It seems as though not too many people in th e area are really shaken up by this tragedy, per the comments in the news articles . It's a way of life , they are gun people , etc. I guess it's just a side effect to some people.

How do you define shaken up? Would complete strangers be more or less shaken up if the child put her car in gear and ran over his mom as she got out to open the garage door? Accidents are just that and the people who are the most shaken usually are those who are closest to the victim, imo.

 

[sonjay]

So many people are upset not because a two-year-old was allowed to shoot his mother but because people are saying that two-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to be near guns...

As if expecting gun owners to be responsible about their instruments of death is a bad thing.

I must have missed the post where someone is upset because someone said two-year-olds shouldn't be allowed near guns. Who said that?

Believe it or not, the vast majority of gun owners are exceedingly aware of safety practices and never allow 2-year-olds access to their guns. I don't recall seeing anyone on this thread say that 2-year-olds should have access to guns.

We do, however, dislike the attitude displayed by the characterization of our self-defense, target-shooting or hunting weapons as "instruments of death" and paint us as irresponsible yahoos merely for owning such a thing.

 

[MyBelle]

But they surely would have had you ever felt threatened enough to use one. Correct me if I am wrong on this as I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Otherwise, why carry one at all if you have no intention of harming or killing something with it if you feel your self-defense warrants it?

Target shooting is an Olympic sport. The news articles have all stated the mother and father enjoyed target shooting. My brother, a Marine and his children, one a police officer, enjoy going to the range together. It is a social activity as most sports tend to be....

Veronica Rutledge, 29, was a hunter and target shooter, who had a concealed weapons permit.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/31/gun-toddler-used-shot-mom-was-purses-holster/

http://www.usashooting.org/about

 

[gitana1]

Anti-gun people always like to use this analogy. Personally, I'm against requiring people to have a license for guns, but if we were going to do that, I would be in favor of licensing in the same way driver licenses work.

1. You don't need a license of any sort to own a car, only to drive one on public roadways. So no license would be required to own any gun, only to carry one in public.

2. Driver's licenses from all states are recognized as valid in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. So, only one "gun license" would be required to be legal to carry in all 50 states plus D.C.

3. The minimum age to get a driver's license ranges from 14 to 18. So, depending on the state, 14- to 18-year-olds could get a gun license permitting them to carry a gun. No more of this "you must be 21 to buy a handgun or ammunition for a handgun."

4. No background check, fingerprinting or waiting period is required to get a driver's license. I'd like to see the same for guns.

5. There are no arbitrary and capricious limits on engine size, fuel tank size, maximum potential speed, or prohibitions on automatic transmissions. So, there would be no arbitrary and capricious limits or prohibitions on specific calibers, magazine size, or auto fire capability.

6. Mufflers are not only permitted but required on cars, to reduce noise. So, the use of sound suppressors to reduce noise would be at least permitted.

7. People don't call for banning cars or enacting more legal restrictions on cars every time someone does something dumb that causes an injury or death. (People do rightfully call for stricter enforcement of existing rules.) So, everyone would stop demanding that guns be banned or more strictly regulated every time someone does something dumb with a gun.

8. Driving, while not a Constitutional right, is viewed by many people as one and is generally treated by the states as one, with "shall issue" driver's license procedures. We don't allow a sheriff or police chief to arbitrarily decide if someone is allowed to get a driver's license; if a person can pass the driver's license test, they get their driver's license. Also, their license won't be taken away unless and until they break enough driving laws to justify taking away their license. And renewing a driver's license is simple and inexpensive. So, gun licenses would all be shall-issue, and sheriffs and police chiefs would not have the ability to arbitrarily decide who gets to have one, and renewing them would be simple and inexpensive.

9. In all states and cities, getting a driver's license is not dependent on the applicant demonstrating an actual "need" for one. So, no states would require that anyone demonstrate an actual "need" to carry a gun in order for the applicant to qualify for a license. There wouldn't be cities where having a license is limited to the elite of the city (like Howard Stern in NYC) but where no average person is ever able to get a license no matter how qualified they are.`

10. You can freely transport your car across state lines, drive it across state lines as long as you have a valid license, and sell it to someone in another state. I'd like to see the same for guns.

11. There are no silly laws anywhere requiring that cars be kept with an empty fuel tank except when in actual use, and that fuel has to be stored separately from the car.

I could go on..... Yes, let's license guns the way we license cars. I oppose gun licensing, but we'd really be better off under such a scheme.

So you believe 14-18 year old boys should be able to own and carry handguns around in the same manner that they may own and drive vehicles?It's bad enough when they drive. Oh boy.

As for your number 7, absolute nonsense. As a gun owner who believes in sensible regulation, I'm sick of the rhetoric-fueled hysteria about calls for regulation equating to a desire to eliminate rights or a quest to ban all ownership. Of course very specific NEW laws are created that restrict driving whenever someone does something stupid with a car that leads to death. Hence, cell phone laws, laws banning who may be a passenger of a driver of a certain age, seat belt laws, speed limits, young driver curfew laws, etc.

And in response to Archangel's statement that laws don't accomplish anything, I'm quite surprised that's coming from an apparent law enforcer. Laws specifically are intended and actually do change behaviors and keep people safe. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, gun laws around the world prove this.

Is there a danger of over-legislation? Sure. Indeed the world cannot be made 100% safe via laws and there must be a balance between personal freedoms and accountability and the good of society when contemplating laws.

Imo, we are not close to over legislating when it comes to firearms. The powerful and intelligent gun lobby has seen to that.

 

[Donjeta]

I must have missed the post where someone is upset because someone said two-year-olds shouldn't be allowed near guns. Who said that?

Believe it or not, the vast majority of gun owners are exceedingly aware of safety practices and never allow 2-year-olds access to their guns. I don't recall seeing anyone on this thread say that 2-year-olds should have access to guns.

We do, however, dislike the attitude displayed by the characterization of our self-defense, target-shooting or hunting weapons as "instruments of death" and paint us as irresponsible yahoos merely for owning such a thing.

Well, guns are designed to shoot hard metal objects that are expelled from the device with great speed and will often bring about death if they hit a living being. I think it's an apt description. If you are offended by my pointing out that shooting can kill I'm sorry but it doesn't change the fact that shooting can kill.

It's mostly an imagined attitude I think... The responsible gun owners are up in arms protecting their right to carry in every thread where irresponsible gun owners are being criticized. Why? It has nothing to do with you if you're a responsible gun owner. Why on earth do responsible gun owners disagree with posts calling for gun owners to be responsible?

 

[Donjeta]

Target shooting is an Olympic sport. The news articles have all stated the mother and father enjoyed target shooting. My brother, a Marine and his children, one a police officer, enjoy going to the range together. It is a social activity as most sports tend to be....

Veronica Rutledge, 29, was a hunter and target shooter, who had a concealed weapons permit.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/dec/31/gun-toddler-used-shot-mom-was-purses-holster/

http://www.usashooting.org/about

So was she going to practice target shooting in the cereals aisle? Hopefully no one is going hunting in Wal Mart.

 

[tlcya]

As a gun owner who believes in sensible regulation, I'm sick of the rhetoric-fueled hysteria about calls for regulation equating to a desire to eliminate rights or a quest to ban all ownership. Of course very specific NEW laws are created that restrict driving whenever someone does something stupid with a car that leads to death. Hence, cell phone laws, laws banning who may be a passenger of a driver of a certain age, seat belt laws, speed limits, young driver curfew laws, etc.

And in response to Archangel's statement that laws don't accomplish anything, I'm quite surprised that's coming from an apparent law enforcer. Laws specifically are intended and actually do change behaviors and keep people safe. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, gun laws around the world prove this.

Is there a danger of over-legislation? Sure. Indeed the world cannot be made 100% safe via laws and there must be a balance between personal freedoms and accountability and the good of society when contemplating laws.

Imo, we are not close to over legislating when it comes to firearms. The powerful and intelligent gun lobby has seen to that.

Reespectfully snipped and BBM for emphasis.

 

[MyBelle]

So was she going to practice target shooting in the cereals aisle? Hopefully no one is going hunting in Wal Mart.

She's a victim. She may have planned to go target shooting after her trip to Walmart but it is irrelevant because she had a license to carry a concealed weapon. Just as other shoppers may have been carrying a concealed weapon.

Walmart SELLS guns and accidents inside the store have happened with those guns.

The man, John Crawford III, was holding an air rifle he had picked up off a store shelf when police shot him. A prosecutor called the case a "perfect storm" with "no bad guys," but the family has said police used excessive force.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/16/justice/walmart-shooting-john-crawford/