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

[Donjeta]

Okay, fine. Unintentional firearm injuries involving children comprise an epidemic of major proportions. What do you propose to do about it?

I have no power to make anyone else do anything but I'm certainly going to try to protect my own kids by not having unlocked firearms freely available in my own house. I'm sorry for caring. Really, I did not realize that it upsets people so if I dislike children's gun accidents, I thought that surely this is something that everybody could find common ground on.

Anyway, that's kind of selective reading, isn't it? If you read the post you quoted again you will see I was talking about many other things that I see as problems besides unintentional gunshot injuries. How about some statistics for birth defects and types of accidents that are more common than shooting homicides committed by children? It might make me feel better about the thought of kids shooting people if I knew that beestings are yet deadlier. Hospitalizations due to gunshot wounds wouldn't be so bad if we'd find a cancer that causes more morbidity. Children's suicides, who cares, doctors kill more kids.

 

[Harmony 2]

Mod note: Topic of the thread= 2 year boy accidentally shoots and kills mother in walmart in the US

Please get back on topic... The topic of abortion is not remotely on topic.

 

[Donjeta]

Unintentional falls kill nearly 29,000 people every year.

I wonder how much time people spend falling? Do the hours that falls are in use qualify them for a comparison?

If we managed to reduce deaths from unintentional falls by just 10%, we would save 3 times as many lives as if we managed to reduce unintentional firearm deaths to zero.

Perspective, people.

Why couldn't we do both?

Who would be any worse off if we managed to reduce the unintentional firearms death rate too?

 

[Donjeta]

A real desire to save lives would be more likely to concentrate its efforts in areas where it could make a significant difference. Even if one elects to narrow one's focus to unintentional injury deaths, there's lots of low-hanging fruit where a small difference would result in thousands of lives saved: medical errors.... traffic fatalities.... drunk driving.... unintentional poisoning... drowning.... suffocation....

Even if by virtue of exceeding amounts of time, efforts, money and other resources, one managed to reduce unintentional firearm injury deaths to zero, one would save at maximum approx. 1,000 lives per year.

But if one managed to reduce traffic accident deaths even by just 10%, one would save about 3,500 lives.

In light of the vanishingly small rate of unintentional firearm injuries, the excessive -- one might even say obsessive -- concern about wanting to reduce them might seem more like an attempt to whip up hysteria, fear and paranoia about gun ownership in general than like a real desire to save lives.

Yes, good idea, let's not try to save kids from being shot and shooting other people, let's rather imply nefarious motives if someone's even talking about it. If we don't care, no one else should either.

If you consider the measures available to the average citizen there is little that a random layperson can do to prevent medical error but it is not difficult, not very time consuming and not that expensive to avoid storing loaded weapons openly accessible.

JMO if there is something we could easily do to prevent gun accidents the fact that there are other things that could be done to prevent other misfortunes is not a reason not to.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Oh, heck, even the very anti-gun Violence Policy Center admits to 235,700 defensive uses of firearms during the 5-year period from 2007-2011. That's 47,000 times per year! And to get that figure, the VPC relies on the National Crime Victimization Survey, which doesn't even ask specifically if people who were victims of a crime used a firearm in self-defense -- that number is base on how many people volunteer that they used a gun in self-defense.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

The higher estimates come from surveys that actually do ask specifically whether a firearm was used in self-defense. The highest estimate, 3 million, is probably too high. Based on my own previous research on defensive gun uses and the validity of the survey methodologies, I'd personally put the number at somewhere north of 100,000 times per year. How far north, I couldn't begin to guess.

I would say it is higher than 100,000.

I read an article not too long ago that during Clinton's presidency he had the DOJ do a study on how many had used firearms in self defense in a year's time. It was in the 90s and they determined even back then 1.2 million people that year had used firearms for protecting themselves, their families or strangers they saw who were in danger of being severely injured or worse...to coming to the aide of cops caught in gun battles with criminals. Anyone can google 'Clinton's firearm study' and several sites should come up.

And the reason we don't know about all of these heroic stories is most of MSM is liberal anti-gun fanatics.

And you are right most gun owners never even have to fire their weapon. The mere pointing or showing of the gun is enough for the perpetrator to flee.

Any child's life lost is too many no matter the reason for their death. Just like the 400+ innocent children who are murdered by one or both of their biological parents each year.

And frankly I worry much more about my grandchildren dying or being critically injured if some speeder, reckless driver, druggie or alcoholic slams into us while they are with me. I will not take them to a restaurant that advertises they are a 'gun free zone' for that is like begging for the armed robber to come in and hold everyone up. Some of these anti-gun extremists have even said they don't want law enforcement officers in their place of business because they wear a firearm. GAH!

The second leading cause of death for little children is poisonings they get into right inside of their own home from what I read on the CDC site today and those who die from firearms is way down on the list. So while it is important there are many more things that are taking the lives of children than firearms.

And the straw man argument some make that cars and guns cant be compared...I don't agree. There are only 310 million people in our country. Many of them don't drive due to disabilities, or they are not of age to have a license (from infants to young teens) or they are too old or they take some other type of transportation yet the accidents they cause take many more lives than firearms and a million each year suffer from severe life changing injuries sustained in vehicle accidents. There aren't 310 million private vehicles on a road at any given time either. Yet there is between 250-300 million firearms in homes all across America every day. And those are owned by law abiding citizens and we know that a lot of gangs, thugs, and ex-cons also have obtained illegal weapons either from theft, a gun runner from another country bringing them in or getting them from another criminal off of the street.

Yet violent crime has steadily dropped in the last few years.

IMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Okay, fine. Unintentional firearm injuries involving children comprise an epidemic of major proportions. What do you propose to do about it?

I'm fine with encouraging gun safety education. I'm not fine with additional gun rights restrictions. JMO.

 

[gitana1]

It's always been normal to carry a gun.

Not really. Many farmers had a rifles of some sort once those became mass manufactured and accessible in the United States. Otherwise, hand gun ownership historically has been more prevalent in the Western states than in the East. Now, a lot of gun ownership has become, simply, political. To me, the poor lady who died was definitely part of a culture that celebrates gun ownership, is focused on gun ownership, and whose members carry firearms as a political statement even when unnecessary or unreasonable to do so.

I have firearms as a defense against nuts who may burst into my office and try to assault me, for example. I think that makes sense. Carrying a loaded firearm into a Walmart when accompanied by a small children who are within close proximity to the firearm, is crazy, IMO, and has more to do with political posturing and, as I stated previously, rhetoric fueled paranoia, than it does common sense.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Not really. Many farmers had a rifles of some sort once those became mass manufactured and accessible in the United States. Otherwise, hand gun ownership historically has been more prevalent in the Western states than in the East. Now, a lot of gun ownership has become, simply, political. To me, the poor lady who died was definitely part of a culture that celebrates gun ownership, is focused on gun ownership, and whose members carry firearms as a political statement even when unnecessary or unreasonable to do so.

I have firearms as a defense against nuts who may burst into my office and try to assault me, for example. I think that makes sense. Carrying a loaded firearm into a Walmart when accompanied by a small children who are within close proximity to the firearm, is crazy, IMO, and has more to do with political posturing and, as I stated previously, rhetoric fueled paranoia, than it does common sense.

I'm not sure that people own guns for political purposes. I bought my first gun when I was in my twenty's before I even registered to vote.

Carrying a loaded concealed weapon into a store when accompanied by small children is not crazy in my opinion. Not having control of the gun in that situation is why this tragedy happened. She should have carried the gun on her person and not left it in her purse. JMO.

 

[jjenny]

I'm not sure that people own guns for political purposes. I bought my first gun when I was in my twenty's before I even registered to vote.

Carrying a loaded concealed weapon into a store when accompanied by small children is not crazy in my opinion. Not having control of the gun in that situation is why this tragedy happened. She should have carried the gun on her person and not left it in her purse. JMO.

What exactly did she need it for in a store? She went in with a bunch of little kids and a loaded gun. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. Let's say she carried it on her person. She still had to lift the kid to put him in the shopping cart, etc. Her kid could have possibly gotten a hold of her weapon even if she carried the weapon on her person.

 

[Montjoy]

What exactly did she need it for in a store? She went in with a bunch of little kids and a loaded gun. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. Let's say she carried it on her person. She still had to lift the kid to put him in the card, etc.
It would still be possible for her kid to get the hold of the weapon.

I think that believing that she needed the gun in a Walmart shows a sort of psychological problem akin to paranoia. If she carried it not because she needed it, but primarily because she thought it was her right, well, in that case, I would call it a political/cultural/social problem.

Likely, it was a combination of both.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

What exactly did she need it for in a store? She went in with a bunch of little kids and a loaded gun. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. Let's say she carried it on her person. She still had to lift the kid to put him in the shopping cart, etc. Her kid could have possibly gotten a hold of her weapon even if she carried the weapon on her person.

For protection. That's why people get a concealed weapons permit.

If she had the gun on her person the odds that she would be unaware that her child was grabbing it would be slim. She could have taken action to stop him from getting a hold of the gun.

Having the gun in a purse sitting in a shopping cart doesn't allow for any feeling or awareness of what is happening with the gun.

JMO

 

[Brightbird]

I don't object to the term "gun culture."

I do object to promiscuous use of terms such as "instruments of death" and "stupid gun culture obsession."

Do you seriously not understand why peaceful, law-abiding gun owners would object to such terms?

I get why people would object to emotive language, but I was specifically talking about the term "gun culture" in my post. What I don't get is why peaceful, law-abiding gun owners so often react emotionally by twisting words and claiming that people who want more gun control are anti-gun, are hysterical, have a hidden political agenda, are naive, or must want criminals to be armed.

 

[jjenny]

For protection. That's why people get a concealed weapons permit.

If she had the gun on her person the odds that she would be unaware that her child was grabbing it would be slim. She could have taken action to stop him from getting a hold of the gun.

Having the gun in a purse sitting in a shopping cart doesn't allow for any feeling or awareness of what is happening with the gun.

JMO

As it turns out, she would have been a lot safer (and alive) if she didn't carry her gun with her.

 

[wendiesan]

The mother was highly intelligent, accomplished and very familiar with guns, and yet did not make sure that the internal and external safety mechanisms of her gun were engaged. For whatever reason--forgetfulness, distraction, rushing to meet a deadline--this lovely young woman made a fundamental error that endangered everyone in her vicinity.

“All the precautionary measures weren’t taken to ensure the safety of that weapon,”...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/31/idaho-nuclear-scientist-shot-dead-son-walmart

Her poor little boy will be reliving this incident over and over for the rest of his life. IMO, he's going to need a lot of professional support as well as every bit of support he can receive from his father and the rest of his family. Aside from the normal emotional pain of such a young child losing his mother, this little boy will eventually realize that he pulled the trigger that ended her life. An incredible burden.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think that believing that she needed the gun in a Walmart shows a sort of psychological problem akin to paranoia. If she carried it not because she needed it, but primarily because she thought it was her right, well, in that case, I would call it a political/cultural/social problem.

Likely, it was a combination of both.

I'm not sure that the desire to protect yourself from harm is a psychological problem. We saw recently in Australia, which has very strict gun laws, people killed in a public cafe.

So it's not surprising that people wish to carry self defense guns in stores or other public places. JMO.

 

[jjenny]

I'm not sure that the desire to protect yourself from harm is a psychological problem. We saw recently in Australia, which has very strict gun laws, people killed in a public cafe.

So it's not surprising that people wish to carry self defense guns in stores or other public places. JMO.

Australia had one case. How many mass shootings did US have?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

As it turns out, she would have been a lot safer (and alive) if she didn't carry her gun with her.

True. But she would still be alive if she practiced some simple safety measures like keeping control of the gun and putting the safety on. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Australia had one case. How many mass shootings did US have?

Too many.

 

[Montjoy]

I'm not sure that the desire to protect yourself from harm is a psychological problem. We saw recently in Australia, which has very strict gun laws, people killed in a public cafe.

So it's not surprising that people wish to carry self defense guns in stores or other public places. JMO.

People get hit by lightning, fall down open manholes, etc., but they still leave their homes every day. That's because people do a sort of risk assessment as a matter of course. Now, some people are extremely poor at assessing risk, and may even imagine extraordinary risks that are unsupportable by any analysis. People who have irrational fears have a sort of mental illness -- a psychological problem.

As it turned out, the main people that this woman needed to fear were herself and her son, and she made the worst possible decision to protect herself by electing to exercise her right to carry a loaded firearm into an otherwise safe place.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I get why people would object to emotive language, but I was specifically talking about the term "gun culture" in my post. What I don't get is why peaceful, law-abiding gun owners so often react emotionally by twisting words and claiming that people who want more gun control are anti-gun, are hysterical, have a hidden political agenda, are naive, or must want criminals to be armed.

Probably because some fear that the United States will go the way of Australia and they will have to turn in their guns. So it scares the crap out of them. JMO.