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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #521
NOBODY thinks it's okay.

So, why is it so difficult to have a civil conversation about how to reduce these incidents? This is not directed at you personally (I mean that), but it seems that anytime someone proposes advocating gun safety, it is perceived as trying to ban or take away guns. I just wish the two sides could have a civil discussion and come to a common ground as I believe there is much we have in common.
 
  • #522
The NRA, once committed to gun safety and education, is now the political equivalent of an English football hooligan. Disagree and get bludgeoned. All the while, the tragedies continue to mount. As gun people, we plead with the shooting community to demand more from society’s primary pro-gun advocates.

snip

The NRA often pulls out the classic “you don’t blame Ford when there’s a car wreck” line, which doesn’t make any sense. Vehicles are heavily regulated and only operated by licensed drivers. Any suggestion of regulating the gun industry is met with shrill rebuke and some scripted message meant to expand the scope of the Second Amendment as far as possible.

snip

The organization’s minions even go so far as to make the case that someone could feasibly be killed with any number of random objects. Of course, sticking someone with a fork would take substantially more skill and strength than peppering them with buckshot. That part gets left out. It’s that efficiency that explains why more than 60 percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a firearm, the FBI reports.

The NRA is intentionally obfuscating the obvious, most-significant fact here. Unlike cars, planes and various pointed kitchen utensils, guns are tools made specifically to kill. And they’re exceedingly good at it.

http://magicvalley.com/news/opinion...cle_5c0c5d4a-c7a9-5886-9800-ef957d904ec0.html
 
  • #523
The NRA is all about increasing gun sales, and sets the tone of these pro-gun arguments, take this campaign for example:


  • Johnson wondered, "What if instead of gun free-zones we had gun-required zones?"
  • He imagined a compulsory education system that would require children to become proficient with firearms, just like "reading and writing," even "if they didn't want to learn" in order to advance in school: "Gun policy driven by our need for guns would insist that we introduce young people to guns early and that we'd give them the skills to use firearms safely. Just like we teach them reading and writing, necessary skills. We would teach shooting and firearm competency. It wouldn't matter if a child's parents weren't good at it. We'd find them a mentor. It wouldn't matter if they didn't want to learn. We would make it necessary to advance to the next grade."
  • Like "education, healthcare, food, [and] retirement," Johnson suggested that gun ownership be subject to a government subsidies, either through "government ranges where you could shoot for free or a yearly allotment of free ammunition."
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/23/nra-floats-idea-of-kids-needing-to-show-gun-pro/200182

There is also a video at link above.
 
  • #524
  • #525
I don't think the majority of people who carry guns in the US are paranoid either. They were given a right and they make use of it.
But if you wish to talk about common sense; common sense to me says that if you drastically reduce the amount of guns you will drastically reduce the amount of gun deaths/injuries whether it be murder, suicide or accident.
Have a look at nations with strict gun control; less people have guns and that includes your average "🤬🤬🤬🤬". Therefore there is less a need for a law abiding citizen to believe they need to "protect themselves"
Have a look at other civilized nations, Switzerland for example, who have an extremely high gun ownership rate. They also have an extremely high suicide rate.
More guns = more needless death. Period.
Here in Canada, the idea of carrying a loaded gun with you as you shop with your children at Walmart is so foreign to us that it is just plain silly. But I understand how it might feel different to someone who grew up in that environment.

Now in a country like the USofA who grants everyone the right to own and bear arms I don't know what the answer is. There are 300 MILLION guns in the country. With that many guns I would say it is common sense that you will be safer if you yourself own one or two or three of those 300 million.

I have come to the conclusion that as a nation it is MUCH safer for your citizens if you have strict gun control. BUT if you have written into your constitution a right to own and bear arms it is safer for an individual to own guns.
IMO, America shot itself in the foot (pun intended) when they granted the right to own and bear arms and that DID create a "gun culture". But that ship has sailed, with 300 million guns there is no going back on having citizens relinquish their right.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. Whether the gun control laws work depends as much on the societies history, social dynamics, and cultural values. Comparing America to other Western nations is fruitless. Firearm crime is so high in some places that it makes sense to carry a gun in self-defence, or at least have one at home. Guns as a symbol of freedom, self-sufficiency etc is so entrenched that any discussion about regulation becomes an attack on what it means to be an American. I'm not criticising that, I just don't understand it. Our government recently tried to make people pay $8 to see their doctor, and there was such an outcry that it was 'un-Australian'. I strongly believe that more guns = more gun crime, particularly when aggregated at the national level. Laws like the ones in Chicago are kind of pointless when guns can flow freely across state borders. It's just common sense that where you have a lot of guns and relatively lax laws, criminals will have more guns too. Of course there will be a lot of examples of people using guns in self-defence. That's also common sense to me. And there'll be more gun accidents too. Training and education is great, but no way it will eliminate accidents and negligence. I believe regulation works to a point, but only where it is acceptable to the people. If the majority of Americans don't want further regulation, great. If there is a minority with loud voices and much political power dominating the issues, not so great. I hope the different sides can find their common ground. I just watch with interest.
 
  • #526
So, why is it so difficult to have a civil conversation about how to reduce these incidents? This is not directed at you personally (I mean that), but it seems that anytime someone proposes advocating gun safety, it is perceived as trying to ban or take away guns. I just wish the two sides could have a civil discussion and come to a common ground as I believe there is much we have in common.

That's simply not true.

You must not have seen my links to Project ChildSafe of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or my references to the NRA Foundation. Firearm organizations, firearm manufacturers, and gun owners all advocate strongly for gun safety.

Most of the proposals for so-called "gun safety" are introduced by politicians who do in fact want to ban guns.

Dianne Feinstein is known for her statement, "If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it."

Gov. Cuomo took heat for his statement that "Confiscation could be an option."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler encouraged Obama to "exploit" Sandy Hook to further the gun-control crowd's anti-gun agenda.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy famously wants to ban guns that have a "shoulder thing that goes up." (I kid you not.)

Edited to add: And let's not forget that the National Coalition to Stop Gun Violence started life as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

We know where these discussions lead. We're tired of it.

As Donjeta said upthread, you can keep guns in your home secured from access by young children.

As I said upthread, you can support the NSSF's Project ChildSafe or the NRA Foundation's safety programs, or any other of the multitudes of firearm safety programs.

You don't need to push for more regulations, because there already plenty of regulations. No amount of additional regulations will ever be able to create perfect parents who never ever have a single momentary lapse in attention that could result in a tragedy involving their child.
 
  • #527
Susan Gonzalez hated guns too. She begged her husband to get rid of his, but he refused. Fortunately, she survived to be grateful that he wouldn't give in to her irrational fear:
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/071800/met_3568307.html

In a country with at least 300 million guns, it pretty obvious that there'll be many, many examples of guns being used in self-defence. I think it's the bigger picture that concern some people. Like how many times guns are used for illegal purposes and in this case, what happens when people are negligent.
 
  • #528
The NRA is all about increasing gun sales, and sets the tone of these pro-gun arguments, take this campaign for example:


  • Johnson wondered, "What if instead of gun free-zones we had gun-required zones?"

<snipped for brevity>

I can't say I'm in favor of requiring people to own guns, but I have to admit that Kennesaw, Ga., is one of the safest places to live. After they passed their law requiring every household to have a gun, the crime rate there dropped 89% -- compared to a 10% drop statewide. After dropping, the crime rate has stayed low. Clearly, gun ownership doesn't cause crime, or Kennesaw would be a very dangerous place to live.
 
  • #529
In a country with at least 300 million guns, it pretty obvious that there'll be many, many examples of guns being used in self-defence. I think it's the bigger picture that concern some people. Like how many times guns are used for illegal purposes and in this case, what happens when people are negligent.

When I talk about the bigger picture, I get accused of saying that dead children are "okay."

The bigger picture is that guns are used in self-defense at least 100,000 times per year, and possibly much more (possibly as often as 3 million times per year). And the bigger picture is that unintentional shootings are rare, and deaths from unintentional shootings are freakishly rare.

Perspective. I keep trying to put it in perspective, but people don't want perspective. They just want those scary guns to go away.
 
  • #530
  • #531
Yeah, I don't like the 2nd Amendment the way it was interpreted. I'd rather only LE and the military have guns, so do I need to move to Australia???

Ohhh if I could afford it I would be right behind you lol.

It's interesting because Australia and the U.S. are so similar. Anti-gun control people will dismiss any comparison between say, the U.S. And the UK, or the US and any European nation; but I don't think their dismissals work with Australia. Both British colonies, both with a violent past, both with a dangerous frontier... Both countries have a strong streak of independence and individuality.

Somehow, though, Australians were mature and logical enough to say "NO MORE". But we here in the US can't seem to. We are not so different at all, our nations. Why can we not do it here?. If you live rural, or shoot for sport, then go through a process to show you have a need and the responsibility to own a firearm. Otherwise, confiscate them all, I say.. Everyone points to Chicago - "but gun control doesn't work! Look at Chicago!" Well sure, because every other surrounding area does not have the same restrictions, and guess what, criminals steal the weapons from the law abiding "responsible gun owners".

Take them all away and we are all on equal footing. Will it eliminate every crime involving a gun? Of course not. But we could probably expect a drop in gun violence quite similar to that which Australia experienced once they decided that living in a civilized society was more important than making some outdated political statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • #532
Ohhh if I could afford it I would be right behind you lol.

It's interesting because Australia and the U.S. are so similar. Anti-gun control people will dismiss any comparison between say, the U.S. And the UK, or the US and any European nation; but I don't think their dismissals work with Australia. Both British colonies, both with a violent past, both with a dangerous frontier... Both countries have a strong streak of independence and individuality.

Somehow, though, Australians were mature and logical enough to say "NO MORE". But we here in the US can't seem to. We are not so different at all, our nations. Why can we not do it here?. If you live rural, or shoot for sport, then go through a process to show you have a need and the responsibility to own a firearm. Otherwise, confiscate them all, I say.. Everyone points to Chicago - "but gun control doesn't work! Look at Chicago!" Well sure, because every other surrounding area does not have the same restrictions, and guess what, criminals steal the weapons from the law abiding "responsible gun owners".

Take them all away and we are all on equal footing. Will it eliminate every crime involving a gun? Of course not. But we could probably expect a drop in gun violence quite similar to that which Australia experienced once they decided that living in a civilized society was more important than making some outdated political statement.


BBM

At the heart of every discussion like this, is a desire to take them all away.

This is why we bristle when people claim that they merely wish to increase gun safety. We know what they really want. It's not about guns; it's never about guns. It's about control.
 
  • #533
How could she have 'just forgot' the bag was brand new and she 'carried' every day of her life.

The day after Christmas, she took her new gift with her on a trip with her husband and her 2-year-old son. They headed hundreds of miles north to the end of a country road where Terry Rutledge, her husband’s father, lived. The father-in-law learned of the new purse.

“It was designed for that purpose — to carry a concealed firearm,” Rutledge told The Washington Post late Tuesday night. “And you had to unzip a compartment to find the handgun.

On Tuesday morning, that was exactly what Veronica Rutledge’s son did — with the most tragic of outcomes. Veronica, 29, arrived at a nearby Wal-Mart in Hayden with her three nieces and son, her gun “zippered closed” inside her new purse, her father-in-law said. Then, in the back of the store, near the electronics section, the purse was left unattended for a moment.

.....


“They carried one every day of their lives, and they shot extensively,” Rutledge said. “They loved it. Odd as it may sound, we are gun people.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/

Also if she was properly educated and prepared, how does 'forgetting' you have a gun fall in with that?

JMO
It appears to me that at least part of the root cause she encountered was making a critical judgemental error that her brand new purse with the special compartment for a gun was also going to provide her something more than it did. I believe she made a really bad assumption that the special purse also provided her an additional benefit of some sort of "secure area" from others being able to easily access that weapon.

I could be wrong of course but I do think she probably thought the special purse gave her more than what it really did. She let her guard down probably thinking the purse was going to accomplish more than what it was designed for. Im trying to put myself in her mindset after she got that as a gift and I could see a judgemental error being made to think that this purse was going to be the magic ticket to give her a secure place for her weapon when it really provided no such benefit.

It is truly tragic no matter the reason and for any gun owners like myself, this incident just re-emphasizes the need to become very familiar and comfortable with all the features of our equipment which include holsters, ammo, etc.
I was glad to read here and see so many cariing people and knowlegeable people. Some made great points that they did not feel comfortable enough to conceal carry and that is a valid honest opinion.
If one desires to get comfortable, the only way to get to that comfort level would be to practice at the gun range (a lot) using various holsters and shooting many rounds until that comfort can be achieved.

I had to shop around for a holster that I found that worked for me. It took me a very long time to select one after I had bought and gave away 3 other styles. I finally chose a double over both sholders with a holster on each side even though I only have my weapon on one side. It fits nicely snug almost in my armpit, and the balance of having the other shoulder feel the same works great for me and gives me concealment I had been looking for.

It took me 3 years to find this holster that I now use. Because like others I had never been "comfortoble" with other styles.

Anyway, some great discussion and many valid points by many people.
 
  • #534
BBM

At the heart of every discussion like this, is a desire to take them all away.

This is why we bristle when people claim that they merely wish to increase gun safety. We know what they really want. It's not about guns; it's never about guns. It's about control.

That is simply NOT TRUE. I've talked about increasing gun safety all the while I noted that DH and I have considered giving our daughter a gun to protect herself. Issue not resolved, but if what you say is true, I must be one hell of a liar.
 
  • #535
BBM

At the heart of every discussion like this, is a desire to take them all away.

This is why we bristle when people claim that they merely wish to increase gun safety. We know what they really want. It's not about guns; it's never about guns. It's about control.

The difference is though that you are unwilling to meet halfway. I recognize that my wish to take all the guns away will never happen. And so I am willing to meet halfway. Gun people? Forever unwilling to meet halfway. No compromise. There seems to be no number of dead children that are enough to make people reconsider their stance.

So I remain open to relocation... ironically, if it happens it will probably end up being to the countries from which my family immigrated not very many years ago!

edit to say also - my wish to take all the guns away is mine alone. I'd be happy to just see them restricted to rural residents and taken away from everyone else. But if you use my view and project it onto everyone else then you are simply doing so to avoid an argument. Most people would be fine with simply tighter restrictions. I fully accept that I am not the average/norm when it comes to my views. Which again is another reason to wonder if I'm better off emigrating! :D
 
  • #536
Just another 2 cents on this unfortunate accident. I suspect the 2 year old was watching mommy get that christmas present and maybe even watched the parents as they learned where that compartment was as the mom received her gift and learned all about it. The kid was probably just as "trained' where that special compartment was just as the Mom was if he got to watch them at christmas time.

All JMO of course.
 
  • #537
JMO
It appears to me that at least part of the root cause she encountered was making a critical judgemental error that her brand new purse with the special compartment for a gun was also going to provide her something more than it did. I believe she made a really bad assumption that the special purse also provided her an additional benefit of some sort of "secure area" from others being able to easily access that weapon.

I could be wrong of course but I do think she probably thought the special purse gave her more than what it really did. She let her guard down probably thinking the purse was going to accomplish more than what it was designed for.

<snipped for space>

It took me 3 years to find this holster that I now use. Because like others I had never been "comfortoble" with other styles.

Anyway, some great discussion and many valid points by many people.

I snipped that because I think the fact you took so long to find the right holster for you, that you felt safe and comfortable with is the main important point.

I think you are right, I think the product was 'endorsed' so it gave her the illusion of safety, and also I'm sure she perceived any threat to be beyond her and her immediate group, to other people who she may encounter, so therefore she was not particularly worried about her own son, but thought that the concealed compartment would be unknown to other people, who would be the threat. She may not have factored in that her son had probably watched with interest as she received her gift and again when it was shown to her FIL. I'm sure she thought he was 'too young' and not a threat to her, and didn't even consider he would take out the gun and shoot it, sadly.

I'm not sure what people think about accessories like that being bought for them by other people? Like is that normal, or is it more normal to choose these items for yourself and with great thought?
 
  • #538
You don't need to push for more regulations, because there already plenty of regulations. No amount of additional regulations will ever be able to create perfect parents who never ever have a single momentary lapse in attention that could result in a tragedy involving their child.

Respectfully snipped for focus.

I really don't know what the regulations are regarding keeping guns secured in a home with children in it. Based on the posts on this thread regarding accidental shootings where no charges will be filed, I was under the impression that there are few if any. Do you know?

If there aren't such laws, I don't understand gun rights advocates' objections to enacting them. There are laws requiring parents to transport their children in car seats, for example. There are laws in some places that require fencing around a swimming pool so that it is not an "attractive nuisance" to children, to reduce the risk of accidental drowning.

So what is so objectionable about laws requiring parents to keep their guns safely out of the reach of their children? I don't get it.

I'm jumping off from your post but welcome explanations from anyone.
 
  • #539
Just another 2 cents on this unfortunate accident. I suspect the 2 year old was watching mommy get that christmas present and maybe even watched the parents as they learned where that compartment was as the mom received her gift and learned all about it. The kid was probably just as "trained' where that special compartment was just as the Mom was if he got to watch them at christmas time.

All JMO of course.

SNAP!! Yes agree, that's what I think happened.
 
  • #540
Very good point, Hatfield, about the child probably seeing his mom get the purse for Christmas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
55
Guests online
3,390
Total visitors
3,445

Forum statistics

Threads
632,696
Messages
18,630,662
Members
243,260
Latest member
crimestories
Back
Top