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

[sonjay]

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.


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. How many ER visits were there in the same period for people who got injured by falling asteroids?

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?

People should be responsible with their firearms. That is not in question.

What is in question is the ramped-up fear-mongering rhetoric suggesting hordes of irresponsible gun owners out there letting their toddlers play with their weapons in Wal-Mart. The fact is, things like this happen so exceedingly rarely that it's really just not something that's worth worrying about. You might as well spend your time worrying about being hit by an asteroid. Would you feel silly fretting constantly about being killed by a meteorite? That's about how silly it is to worry about being killed a by a toddler firing a gun in a Wal-Mart.

If you like to fret over such unlikely possibilities, by all means, feel free to continue to do so.

 

[Donjeta]

People should be responsible with their firearms. That is not in question.

What is in question is the ramped-up fear-mongering rhetoric suggesting hordes of irresponsible gun owners out there letting their toddlers play with their weapons in Wal-Mart. The fact is, things like this happen so exceedingly rarely that it's really just not something that's worth worrying about. You might as well spend your time worrying about being hit by an asteroid. Would you feel silly fretting constantly about being killed by a meteorite? That's about how silly it is to worry about being killed a by a toddler firing a gun in a Wal-Mart.

If you like to fret over such unlikely possibilities, by all means, feel free to continue to do so.

I understand that being concerned is considered wrong but I thank you for giving me the permission anyway. I am concerned about many things, including many that are not likely to happen to me at all because of various demographics and other factors.

I totally agree that reducing the rates of gun accidents in Wal Mart does probably very little to reduce the overall rates of gun accidents.


But then again that's why I don't understand why Wal Mart is being singled out here. This case happened to happen in Wal Mart, yes. But the people who die of accidental gun injuries at Starbucks or Target or at the bowling alley or at home or while deer hunting are going to be just as dead eventually.

I would like to reduce the rates of unintentional gun injury overall, not just those happening in Wal Mart.

 

[sonjay]

I would like to reduce the rates of unintentional gun injury overall, not just those happening in Wal Mart.

Do you contribute to any firearm safety programs? Or the Eddie Eagle program? The NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and many other firearm groups sponsor many many gun safety programs and courses, for adults as well as for children.

In the last two decades, the number of unintentional firearm-related fatalities has declined by 58 percent – from 1,441 unintentional fatalities in 1991 to 600* in 2011.
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf

Right now, unintentional firearm injuries and fatalities are so low that it will be very very hard to move that needle any further. That's not to say there's not room for improvement. Any such unintentional injuries or fatalities are too many.

But firearms, like cars, pools, buckets of water, prescription medicines, staircases, ladders, and other things that cause injury and death, involve people, and people, even the most careful, responsible people, make mistakes. Currently, people who own guns are making fewer mistakes than ever since record-keeping began on such things. There's simply not an epidemic of irresponsible gun owners allowing their toddlers to have access to a firearm.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I've read in the past some proposals that parents of small children not be allowed to have guns in their homes because of the danger. The government would search for and remove any guns that are found. The guns would be returned after the kids reach a certain age and government safety requirements are met.

Anyone think this is a good idea?

 

[Donjeta]

I think the rate of irresponsible gun owners may get underestimated quite a bit if we just count the fatalities.

For every irresponsible gun owner who left their gun lying around and a toddler found it there are several who left their gun lying around and the toddlers just happened to be interested in other things at the time and didn't find it.

Some accidents might happen the very first time that the person was ever irresponsible but for many I think it probably was a pattern of unsafe storage and it just never proved dangerous until it did. But it could have, many times.

Then for every toddler who finds the gun and shoots a person dead there are likely to be several who found the gun but didn't manage to fire it or the bullet didn't happen to hit anyone because no one was standing in its random path.

Most of those incidents we'd probably never hear about.

Federal data from the Centers for Disease Control
indicate that between 2007 and 2011, an average
of 62 children age 14 and under died each year in
unintentional shootings.4 By this measure,
American children are sixteen times more likely
to be killed in unintentional shootings than their
peers in other high-income countries.5

But our analysis of publicly reported gun deaths
in the twelve months after the mass shooting in
Newtown, Connecticut, shows that the federal
data substantially undercount these deaths:
FROM DECEMBER 2012 TO DECEMBER 2013, AT LEAST
100 CHILDREN WERE KILLED IN UNINTENTIONAL
SHOOTINGS — ALMOST TWO EACH WEEK, 61 PERCENT
HIGHER THAN FEDERAL DATA REFLECT. And even
this larger number reflects just a fraction
of the total number of children injured
or killed with guns in the U.S. each year,
regardless of the intent

http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf


The international comparison shows imo that there is something that could still be done to reduce the rates of gun accidents further.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think the rate of irresponsible gun owners may get underestimated quite a bit if we just count the fatalities.

For every irresponsible gun owner who left their gun lying around and a toddler found it there are several who left their gun lying around and the toddlers just happened to be interested in other things at the time and didn't find it.

Some accidents might happen the very first time that the person was ever irresponsible but for many I think it probably was a pattern of unsafe storage and it just never proved dangerous until it did. But it could have, many times.

Then for every toddler who finds the gun and shoots a person dead there are likely to be several who found the gun but didn't manage to fire it or the bullet didn't happen to hit anyone because no one was standing in its random path.

Most of those incidents we'd probably never hear about.


http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf

You sound like you may be a proponent of the gun confiscation proposal that I posted about. It appears that this is a rampant problem with parents of small children. It's obvious that these parents will not do the right thing and remove guns from their homes so it's up to the government to do it. Right? Or am I reading you wrong? Let me know.

 

[Caffeine]

^^^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.

A handgun is only helpful if it's with you and ready to fire.

With that said, only you as a parent can decide if that's a wise choice.

As far as home defense goes, if she can get her hands on a firearm before the intruder gets near her...she should have already fired rounds before she is even close enough to be accosted.

But again, parents know best. A dog and some good pepper spray is a good start. However people have guns at home because they are effective weapons that create safe space between you and the attacker, and make just about anyone pause. Kitchen knives, baseball bats, etc don't do that.

If that is a bridge you choose to cross, I'd recommend some NRA type safety courses, as well as defensive ones, trips to the local range and some really long, frank discussions on the matter.

 

[sonjay]

I think the rate of irresponsible gun owners may get underestimated quite a bit if we just count the fatalities.

For every irresponsible gun owner who left their gun lying around and a toddler found it there are several who left their gun lying around and the toddlers just happened to be interested in other things at the time and didn't find it.

Some accidents might happen the very first time that the person was ever irresponsible but for many I think it probably was a pattern of unsafe storage and it just never proved dangerous until it did. But it could have, many times.

Then for every toddler who finds the gun and shoots a person dead there are likely to be several who found the gun but didn't manage to fire it or the bullet didn't happen to hit anyone because no one was standing in its random path.

Most of those incidents we'd probably never hear about.


http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf


The international comparison shows imo that there is something that could still be done to reduce the rates of gun accidents further.

There are many groups working to reduce the rates of gun accidents. Which group do you prefer?

I support the NRA Foundation. They provide grants for many firearm safety courses.

I also support the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Gee, look at what's on their home page: Project ChildSafe:
http://www.nssf.org/

These groups, and others like them, have been very successful in reducing accidental firearm injuries and deaths. With your support, they'll be able to be even more successful.

 

[Crimson clover]

Rest in peace, Veronica.
I pray for your little boy...and for understanding in the things he'll grow up to know.

A tragic ACCIDENT...no less.

My youngest g-son got his first Red Ryder this Christmas. We shoot tin cans in the backyard. He knows to avoid the cardinals, blue-jays, doves, and squirrels. We don't shoot/kill what we don't eat.

He's aware of the thirty-aught-six, that supplies the freezer. Looks forward to the day his growing hands might supply the meals.

He's also aware of the pearl-handled 22. He knows his Maw packs it. He knows he can't touch it.

It's here for a reason. It may label me a part of the 'gun culture'...
But...I am prepared...will not hide in a closet.

 

[K_Z]

I've read in the past some proposals that parents of small children not be allowed to have guns in their homes because of the danger. The government would search for and remove any guns that are found. The guns would be returned after the kids reach a certain age and government safety requirements are met.

Anyone think this is a good idea?

You sound like you may be a proponent of the gun confiscation proposal that I posted about. It appears that this is a rampant problem with parents of small children. It's obvious that these parents will not do the right thing and remove guns from their homes so it's up to the government to do it. Right? Or am I reading you wrong? Let me know.

BBM.

These mothers of young kids, and a sick grandmother, might have some input. And there are many more.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/06/georgia-mom-home-alone-with-kids-shoots-ex-con-intruder/

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/national/police-sources-suspect-dead-another-loose-after-re/njTg2/

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...to-home-as-4-kids-slept-inside-284077871.html

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...ntruder-to-protect-family-in-edmonds-wash.htm

 

[al66pine]

I've read in the past some proposals that parents of small children not be allowed to have guns in their homes because of the danger. The government would search for and remove any guns that are found. The guns would be returned after the kids reach a certain age and government safety requirements are met. Anyone think this is a good idea?

bbm

RANCH
I just saw your later post about this confiscation proposal and see you are not advocating this. TY

Sounds Good on the Surface Idea.
As if
- All ppl w newborns have previously registered their guns, so gov't could locate & confiscate guns.
- After gun confiscation by govt, ppl w babies, infants, children could not acquire another gun, either legally or illegally.
- ppl w'out children permanently living in their homes, never have children visiting for an afternoon, a weekend, or the summer.
Grandchildren, anyone? Home-daycare providers? Scout leaders? Sunday school leader hosting home gatherings? Et al.

For confiscating guns, does gov't compensate gun owners?
After confiscating these guns (how many? 1000s, 10,000s, 100,000s?) what does the govt do w the guns before returning them
to the homes after the children reach the approp age?
What about households where a parent is LEO? Or does proposal ban LEOs from having children? Or ban parents from entering LE positions?
What about members of armed forces?

Need to learn more about this proposal. Where? Link, anyone? TIA.

 

[sonjay]

bbm
Need to learn more about this proposal. Where? Link, anyone? TIA.

Such a proposal would be blatantly and completely unconstitutional in the United States. I personally have no need to learn any more about it.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

Well see here we go.

Somehow the discussion has now devolved into "the government wants to confiscate our guns!".

I might have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone on the thread advocating that the government should eliminate private gun ownership.

And I would argue with them on Second Amendment grounds.

I am truiy baffled. Isn't there any common ground here?

Is the stance that people who choose to own guns should be super responsible with those weapons equals the government wants to take away their guns?

Again, I'm baffled.

 

[al66pine]

Such a proposal would be blatantly and completely unconstitutional in the United States. I personally have no need to learn any more about it.

Aside from constitutional issue, seems unworkable on practical, operational levels. Maybe a well-intentioned idea. (But still curious)

 

[sonjay]

Aside from constitutional issue, seems unworkable on practical, operational levels. Maybe a well-intentioned idea. (But still curious)

Mandating a national 20mph speed limit on all roads all the time for everyone would save a heckuva lot more lives. And would be less invasive of the sanctity of our homes. I could get behind such a proposal.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Well see here we go.

Somehow the discussion has now devolved into "the government wants to confiscate our guns!".

I might have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone on the thread advocating that the government should eliminate private gun ownership.

And I would argue with them on Second Amendment grounds.

I am truiy baffled. Isn't there any common ground here?

Is the stance that people who choose to own guns should be super responsible with those weapons equals the government wants to take away their guns?

Again, I'm baffled.

These discussions always end up there, no matter what. Someone suggests 'regulation' and next thing you know people are jumping up and down about banning, because getting hysterical about the idea of banning stamps out any ability to have a rational discussion about regulation, because in reality, no regulation is what some gun advocates want.

 

[sonjay]

These discussions always end up there, no matter what. Someone suggests 'regulation' and next thing you know people are jumping up and down about banning, because getting hysterical about the idea of banning stamps out any ability to have a rational discussion about regulation, because in reality, no regulation is what some gun advocates want.

It's already illegal in every state that I'm aware of to leave a gun where a 2-year-old can get hold of it. What, we need to make it more illegal?

There is no additional regulation needed. People simply need to be perfect, that's all.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It's already illegal in every state that I'm aware of to leave a gun where a 2-year-old can get hold of it. What, we need to make it more illegal?

There is no additional regulation needed. People simply need to be perfect, that's all.

How does that fit in with Idaho CC laws, was she acting illegally by carrying in her purse then?

 

[sonjay]

How does that fit in with Idaho CC laws, was she acting illegally by carrying in her purse then?

I just looked up Idaho gun laws. Easy enough to find in Google.

As it turns out, Idaho does not have a child access prevention law. But it does have a juvenile possession law.

IANAL, but as I see it, she was perfectly legal carrying in her purse. (Not the smartest method of carry, IMO, but legal.)

But her inattention that permitted her young'un to possess the gun was illegal.

She has paid the ultimate price. I guess they could charge her posthumously, but I don't see the the point.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

It's already illegal in every state that I'm aware of to leave a gun where a 2-year-old can get hold of it. What, we need to make it more illegal?

There is no additional regulation needed. People simply need to be perfect, that's all.

How does that fit in with Idaho CC laws, was she acting illegally by carrying in her purse then?

I just looked up Idaho gun laws. Easy enough to find in Google.

As it turns out, Idaho does not have a child access prevention law. But it does have a juvenile possession law.

IANAL, but as I see it, she was perfectly legal carrying in her purse. (Not the smartest method of carry, IMO, but legal.)

But her inattention that permitted her young'un to possess the gun was illegal.

She has paid the ultimate price. I guess they could charge her posthumously, but I don't see the the point.

Since Idaho does not have a child access prevention law that would be a good place to start, along with some regulation into how people carry their weapons when out in public.