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

[sonjay]

While this is a sad incident, albeit one that was preventable, accidents like this aren't exactly common.

MILLIONS of people legally carry concealed firearms everyday. Millions of people have a gun in their vehicle. Millions of people have a gun in their bedroom.

The incessant reporting on when things go wrong is largely skewed and gives us a false sense of some sort of epidemic.

When is defensive gun use reported? Hardly ever. This story has been blowing up every conceivable news outlet, while recent stories like the Pastor in FL who returned fire and wounded a disgruntled former church employee who was out to kill him...or the good Samaritan who witnessed a man viciously assaulting a woman and held him at gunpoint until police arrived... those stories largely go unnoticed.

Half the time it's not news unless an agenda can be pushed with it.

Egg-zackly. All of this hyped-up inflammatory rhetoric isn't about a threat of any significance. It's about an agenda. And it's very transparent.

 

[Donjeta]

More women die from abortions in the U.S. every year than people die from unintentional firearm injuries.

Deaths from abortion in the U.S.:
0.6 per 100,000 procedures
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501118_eng.pdf

Unintentional deaths from firearms:
.26 per 100,000 population

Anyone who is pro-choice is not only a baby-killer but also a woman-killer.

Interestingly, WHO considers the U.S. abortion mortality rate to be "negligable."

But an unintentional firearm death rate less than half that of abortion is an omnipresent real and present hazard about which something must be done immediately.

0.26 is less than half of 0.6 but it doesn't mean that the number of fatalities is less than half comparing those two figures because they're not comparable statistics. One is 0.6 per 100 000 operations, one is 0.26 per 100 000 people. See the difference?

A total of 784,507 abortions were reported to CDC for 2009

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm

The USA population is 3.16 million.



How about pregnancy and taking birth control? Women die of their complications too.
And if you ban abortion, illegal abortions tend to increase and more women die of those, not fewer. (The WHO link is a good reference for that as it's largely documenting the rates of mortality associated with unsafe, illegal or DIY abortion more than those happening in the hospitals.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
CONCLUSION:
Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

100 % of us dies of something, so you can always point out a number of other things that people die of, and say that X as a cause of death is negligible because people die of all these other things too. Never mind using seatbelts because people die of stroke too, not just car accidents. Smoke all you like because you could drown before you die of cancer.

It's just a distraction, and a strawman argument because it erroneously presumes that people who are worried about gun accidents caused by irresponsible practices aren't worried when people die of any other reasons.

However, women who die of abortion complications have been informed of the risks before the procedure and gave their informed consent. Two-year-olds who are involved in gun accidents are not able to give informed consent, they're just victims of the adults' negligence.

I don't care if it's less or more than some other types of accidents. If there's just one child involved even that is too much, because there is no need whatsoever for these types of accidents to happen. If everyone just remembered that dangerous firearms and toddlers don't belong together and acted accordingly.

If you have an abortion and you survive the first few days you've made it, you probably won't die of any complications later on. But if you're a toddler whose parent is careless and negligent with their guns, surviving today doesn't mean you're going to survive tomorrow. You're at risk every single day.

 

[Donjeta]

Egg-zackly. All of this hyped-up inflammatory rhetoric isn't about a threat of any significance. It's about an agenda. And it's very transparent.

It's perhaps not "a threat of any significance" to those of us who have been lucky enough to have been spared these accidents in the circle of our loved ones.

It is catastrophic if you're the child who shot his mother.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I don't understand why some people who want to carry guns aren't happy to see some safety measures put in place for those in the community who are not responsible enough to do so in the safest most intelligent way possible.

 

[Sonya610]

I don't understand why some people who want to carry guns aren't happy to see some safety measures put in place for those in the community who are not responsible enough to do so in the safest most intelligent way possible.

What safety measures exactly?

It was mentioned earlier that this is an EXTREMELY rare occurrence (i.e. ccw being fired accidentally in a store). Even the anti-gun crowd hasn't found any similar examples. How do you create laws to prevent an occurrence that is so freakishly rare?

And more importantly since MOST gun deaths are committed INTENTIONALLY by people with long criminal records wouldn't it make far more sense to focus attention on that?

 

[Confusion]

I think there's one major problem with many proposed laws for gun control. Those who need the control most are least likely to follow the new laws anyway. Those who would strictly follow new laws are probably already being responsible gun owners. MOO

 

[Caffeine]

I don't understand why some people who want to carry guns aren't happy to see some safety measures put in place for those in the community who are not responsible enough to do so in the safest most intelligent way possible.

There were plenty of safety measures available to the mom. She just chose not to use them.

She could have took her concealed gun "purse" gift and tossed it in the trash.

She could have invested in a thigh, hip, ankle, shoulder, bra or ANY body holster.

She could have flipped the safety on.

There's dozens of things she could have done, but didn't.

People make avoidable fatal mistakes every day, sometimes they don't even involve guns ...this unfortunately is another to add to the list.



Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[nrdsb4]

. sbm

"gun people"???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Ppl who own guns, and as/when required by law, pass background checks, register guns, obtain CCW licenses,
who store guns & ammo securely, in gun safes, vaults, cabinets, other secured locations.
who use them lawfully, e.g.:

Ppl who carry while dog-walking in suburban neighborhood in which coyotes (mountain lions, etc.) are seen, attacking dogs from time to time.

Ppl who carry guns while camping, in case of bear or wild animal attack.

Ppl whose guns never leave their homes (except for range practice) w no children in the household, not even visitors.

Ppl who have gun for self defense at home, in addition to ct order of protection, against spouse, ex BF/GF, crazy stalker, ex-employee, whoever.

Ppl who shoot at ranges or on their own land.

Ppl who carry guns in lawfully licensed hunting.

Ppl who shoot in organized competition.

OR

Ppl who do not pass background checks, register guns, obtain CCW licenses, etc, as/when required by law.
who buy guns on 'the street' because they cannot pass background checks, who violate their parole or probation terms,

Ppl who use guns to commit crimes such as robbery, and/or crimes against others by shooting them.

Ppl who use guns to resolve 'differences' such as who is bigger, stronger, smarter, or whether they received the full portion at fast food drive thru.

Ppl who leave loaded guns unsecured in their homes, e.g. under sofa, on coffee table, in pocket of coat hanging in closet.

Ppl who drink to legal intox % or take street drugs, misuse Rx, and handle guns while in that condition, at home or elsewhere.


Depending on who defines, any or all of the above could be 'gun ppl.' Paraphrasing Humpty Dumpty, 'a word means what I want it to mean.'
Imo, the term is too vague to be useful in meaningful discussions, without further clarification. JM2cts.

You might want to chill out. That was not my term, it was a quote from the deceased woman's FIL: "Odd as it may sound, we are gun people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ow-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/

 

[tlcya]

MOO there is no way to effectively regulate common sense. Would that it could be.

 

[nrdsb4]

The incessant reporting on when things go wrong is largely skewed and gives us a false sense of some sort of epidemic.

When is defensive gun use reported? Hardly ever. This story has been blowing up every conceivable news outlet, while recent stories like the Pastor in FL who returned fire and wounded a disgruntled former church employee who was out to kill him...or the good Samaritan who witnessed a man viciously assaulting a woman and held him at gunpoint until police arrived... those stories largely go unnoticed.

Half the time it's not news unless an agenda can be pushed with it.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

Lol, there was a thread started just today about a defensive shooting. Talk about a justified shooting.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...violence-jail-release&p=11356337#post11356337

ETA:

It is an old thread. MY bad! I guess someone just bumped it up for some reason, perhaps because of this thread.

 

[Donjeta]

What safety measures exactly?

It was mentioned earlier that this is an EXTREMELY rare occurrence (i.e. ccw being fired accidentally in a store). Even the anti-gun crowd hasn't found any similar examples. How do you create laws to prevent an occurrence that is so freakishly rare?

And more importantly since MOST gun deaths are committed INTENTIONALLY by people with long criminal records wouldn't it make far more sense to focus attention on that?

These two aren't exclusive options. If there's something that could be done to reduce violent crime rates, by all means, do it. IMO. In no way does that mean that one shouldn't also try to promote road safety, good hand hygiene, life without addiction, safe gun storage choices...

There is little that law-abiding citizens can do to change the behavior of career criminals but it's completely up to us to change our own unsafe practices and habits.

It is not freakishly rare to have toddlers find guns and shoot people by accident.

 

[Donjeta]

I think there's one major problem with many proposed laws for gun control. Those who need the control most are least likely to follow the new laws anyway. Those who would strictly follow new laws are probably already being responsible gun owners. MOO

At least you can then throw the book at the irresponsible ones when their kids shoot somebody.

People who murder people don't care about laws... People who drink and drive don't care about the laws... Thieves don't care about the laws...Murder and stealing and drinking and driving are still legislated against, no one is saying, "nah, there's no point because people who need those laws the most wouldn't care about them anyway..."

 

[al66pine]

You might want to chill out. That was not my term, it was a quote from the deceased woman's FIL: "Odd as it may sound, we are gun people."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ow-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/

Sorry nrdsb4, for offending.
Yes, "gun people" was decedent's FiL's word choice, which then was repeated here multiple times, along w "gun culture."

For some ppl, one or both phrases could have a negative connotation; for others a positive connotation.

Imo, without clarification or definition, the phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. JM2cts.

 

[Sonya610]

At least you can then throw the book at the irresponsible ones when their kids shoot somebody.

Yes you can do that.

And once again THIS case is very odd because it happened with a concealed carry gun IN PUBLIC which put everyone in the vicinity at risk.

When people leave guns lying around their house with small children the chances are the kids will shoot/kill someone in that house and most likely a member of that family! Sounds harsh but that is a family problem/lifestyle choice and if they don't care about their own lives or the lives of their kids that's really none of my business or concern. Throw them in jail or don't, I don't care much either way.

Now two year olds firing off rounds in a Wal-Mart concerns everyone in the store! Not their family or associates, but the public at large and that is a TOTALLY different matter IMO.

 

[Donjeta]

Yes you can do that.

And once again THIS case is very odd because it happened with a concealed carry gun IN PUBLIC which put everyone in the vicinity at risk.

When people leave guns lying around their house with small children the chances are the kids will shoot/kill someone in that house and most likely a member of that family! Sounds harsh but that is a family problem/lifestyle choice and if they don't care about their own lives or the lives of their kids that's really none of my business or concern. Throw them in jail or don't, I don't care much either way.

Now two year olds firing off rounds in a Wal-Mart concerns everyone in the store! Not their family or associates, but the public at large and that is a TOTALLY different matter IMO.

Yeah, everyone was in danger.

I don't think it's much better when people ignore the safety in their homes and other places where there is a smaller crowd. There are laws about child neglect that make it everybody's concern. The lives of the children are worth the same I think, even if their parents are complete idiots, and even in residential situations there are often neighbors and friends' kids and people walking by the windows who might get hit by random bullets flying to random directions and the children of careless parents might take the gun to school for a show and tell or something and cause casualties there.

 

[sonjay]

It is not freakishly rare to have toddlers find guns and shoot people by accident.

Well, yes, it is. All fatal unintentional firearm injuries occur 0.6 0.26 times per 100,000 population. Unintentional fatal firearm injuries occurring as a result of a toddler finding gun is only a small part of that 0.6 0.26. Conjoined twins occur 1.47 times per 100,000 live births. Siamese twins are twice 6 times as frequent as all unintentional fatal firearm injuries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002822 Your odds of being killed by an asteroid are about 1 in 200,000 -- about the same as four times the rate of unintentional firearm fatalities. http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html That's pretty freakishly rare by any definition. edited to correct -- 0.26, not 0.6

 

[nrdsb4]

^^^I find those stats comforting.

DH has toyed with the idea of getting our college age daughter a handgun for protection because she lives alone in a house we own and he worries about that becoming known and making her a target. I get that, but worry that the odds are greater that an intruder could over power her before she could get to it and would use it against her (she is athletic, but also very petite). She lives in a good neighborhood and has a security system. I'm not sure the benefit would justify the risk.

I'm conflicted.

 

[LinasK]

^^^I find those stats comforting.

DH has toyed with the idea of getting our college age daughter a handgun for protection because she lives alone in a house we own and he worries about that becoming known and making her a target. I get that, but worry that the odds are greater that an intruder could over power her before she could get to it and would use it against her (she is athletic, but also very petite). She lives in a good neighborhood and has a security system. I'm not sure the benefit would justify the risk.

I'm conflicted.

BBM. Get her a big dog instead.

 

[Donjeta]

Well, yes, it is. All fatal unintentional firearm injuries occur 0.6 0.26 times per 100,000 population. Unintentional fatal firearm injuries occurring as a result of a toddler finding gun is only a small part of that 0.6 0.26. Conjoined twins occur 1.47 times per 100,000 live births. Siamese twins are twice 6 times as frequent as all unintentional fatal firearm injuries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22002822 Your odds of being killed by an asteroid are about 1 in 200,000 -- about the same as four times the rate of unintentional firearm fatalities. http://www.livescience.com/3780-odds-dying.html That's pretty freakishly rare by any definition. edited to correct -- 0.26, not 0.6

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm

I posted some articles earlier in the thread about how unintentional gunshot accidents tend to be underestimated in the mortality data. Anyway, it's not just the dead people who count.

Since 1993, firearm-related injuries and deaths have been declining steadily (1--3). However, in 1998, firearm-related injuries remained the second leading cause of injury death in the United States (3), accounting for approximately 31,000 deaths. The majority of these fatal and nonfatal firearm-related injuries result from interpersonal violence and intentionally self-inflicted gunshot wounds, but approximately 15,000 unintentional gunshot wounds are treated in U.S. hospital emergency departments (EDs) each year (4). Although firearm-related injuries represent <0.5% of injuries treated in hospital EDs, they have an increased potential of death and hospitalization compared with other causes of injury (5--7). In 1994, treatment of gunshot injuries in the United States was estimated at $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs, of which $1.1 billion was paid by the federal government (8). These factors emphasize the importance of firearm-related injuries as a public health concern.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm

The statistics in the article are pretty old but 15.000 accidental gunshot injuries doesn't sound like freakishly rare to me.


Statistics don't mean anything if you compare apples and oranges.

That sounds like some guy pulling some figure out of his hat to say what the odds of being hit by an asteroid are. If a big enough asteroid hits us the chances are that we'd all die... That might easily happen in the next 60 million years or so, or it might not.

What we want to know is how many ER visits were there in the same period for people who got injured by falling asteroids? How does asteroid injury rate in the cause of death statistics?

Anyway, if one of my loved ones died of a gun accident it wouldn't comfort me in the least to find out that they beat the odds and weren't Siamese twins when they were alive.


Please can someone enlighten me and tell me why the frequency of Siamese twins has anything to do with whether or not people should be responsible with their firearms?

 

[sonjay]

^^^I find those stats comforting.

DH has toyed with the idea of getting our college age daughter a handgun for protection because she lives alone in a house we own and he worries about that becoming known and making her a target. I get that, but worry that the odds are greater that an intruder could over power her before she could get to it and would use it against her (she is athletic, but also very petite). She lives in a good neighborhood and has a security system. I'm not sure the benefit would justify the risk.

I'm conflicted.

Re: "odds are greater that an intruder could over power her before she could get to it and would use it against her" -- that is also freakishly rare. I don't have any stats handy, but it's probably more rare than unintentional firearm deaths.

So, that's not something I would particularly worry about.

However, with that said, if you and your husband aren't "gun people" and your daughter hasn't grown up shooting, her college years are probably not the best time for her to have her first gun, for a number of reasons that we can talk about if you want to pursue the discussion further.

LinasK's advice is probably the best: Get her a dog. It doesn't even need to be a big one, just one that'll bark at intruders. The deterrent effect of a barking dog is a dog's single biggest advantage. A bad guy is likely to move on down the street to a house that doesn't have a barking dog to alert people to his presence.