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

[Hatfield]

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?

Excellent question and for "anything" which is so important and specifically for personal use, it would seem to beg the answer to be it best to shop for yourself and choose what is best for you. The husband I am sure had good intentions, but he wasnt the one that had to deal with the kids so it would not become as obvious as it would have been had she been picking it out. Had she been the one picking it out, she may have even recognized it would not be good match for her, and maybe chose not to buy that purse. We will never know unfortunately now.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Excellent question and for "anything" which is so important and specifically for personal use, it would seem to beg the answer to be it best to shop for yourself and choose what is best for you. The husband I am sure had good intentions, but he wasnt the one that had to deal with the kids so it would not become as obvious as it would have been had she been picking it out. Had she been the one picking it out, she may have even recognized it would not be good match for her, and maybe chose not to buy that purse. We will never know unfortunately now.

Yes, I can see that myself, also even if she had reservations, she could hardly NOT use it so soon after receiving it, as she might not want to hurt his feelings.

 

[sonjay]

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's been too much compromise.

Gun control people say: You had a cake. I've already taken away parts of it. I would like to take away the rest of it, but I'm willing to compromise and leave you a little bit of it.

Me: No.

You: Why won't you compromise!

Sorry, no more compromise. We compromised with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. We've compromised to the tune of about 20,000 gun laws across the 50 states. There's already been too much compromise.

Compromise doesn't mean that you get to keep on chipping away a little more every year until there's nothing left.

 

[nrdsb4]

Yes, I can see that myself, also even if she had reservations, she could hardly NOT use it so soon after receiving it, as she might not want to hurt his feelings.

A fatal mistake and evidence that "to thine own self be true" is a very wise philosophy, especially in matters which can affect life and death.

 

[Gardenlady]

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.

Actually it IS about guns. If I were interested in mere "control", I'd vote to strip you of your reproductive rights, your voting rights, your marriage rights, etc.

However none of those effects the safety and well being of anyone else. Your "right" to carry deadly weapons into Walmart, Publix, Starbucks, etc, does.

It IS the gun.

I could control you 100,000 different ways, but I have no care or desire to.

I do however care to curtail your right to put the public - including children - in harms way simpy because you want to exercise an outdated and misinterpreted constitutional "right".

 

[sonjay]

Actually it IS about guns. If I were interested in mere "control", I'd vote to strip you of your reproductive rights, your voting rights, your marriage rights, etc.

However none of those effects the safety and well being of anyone else. Your "right" to carry deadly weapons into Walmart, Publix, Starbucks, etc, does.

It IS the gun.

I could control you 100,000 different ways, but I have no care or desire to.

I do however care to curtail your right to put the public - including children - in harms way simpy because you want to exercise an outdated and misinterpreted constitutional "right".

Sorry, but your fear of guns does not trump my right to self-defense.

 

[Gardenlady]

There's been too much compromise.

Gun control people say: You had a cake. I've already taken away parts of it. I would like to take away the rest of it, but I'm willing to compromise and leave you a little bit of it.

Me: No.

You: Why won't you compromise!

Sorry, no more compromise. We compromised with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. We've compromised to the tune of about 20,000 gun laws across the 50 states. There's already been too much compromise.

Compromise doesn't mean that you get to keep on chipping away a little more every year until there's nothing left.

View attachment 66779

So again, you are okay with the death rate as it is - so long as you keep getting to carry around your deadly toys?

 

[Gardenlady]

Sorry, but your fear of guns does not trump my right to self-defense.

You are self-defending yourself from ghosts. You are more likely to die in your bathroom from a fall.

 

[nrdsb4]

There's been too much compromise.

Gun control people say: You had a cake. I've already taken away parts of it. I would like to take away the rest of it, but I'm willing to compromise and leave you a little bit of it.

Me: No.

You: Why won't you compromise!

Sorry, no more compromise. We compromised with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993. We've compromised to the tune of about 20,000 gun laws across the 50 states. There's already been too much compromise.

Compromise doesn't mean that you get to keep on chipping away a little more every year until there's nothing left.

View attachment 66779

Who is "WE"? Gun owners comprise a whole hell of a lot of people, not all of whom share your views. There is no one profile of gun owner. Not every person who owns a gun is against regulation.

 

[Gardenlady]

I will reiterate - if you are fearful and paranoid to the point that you feel you can't go shop at Walmart in rural Idaho without packing a loaded gun, then you have a psychological problem that needs to be looked at.

 

[sonjay]

edit to say also - my wish to take all the guns away is mine alone.

I wish that were the case. But alas, it is not.

People like Carolyn McCarthy want to ban gun-related things that they doesn't even know what they'd be banning. If it's associated with guns, they want to ban it.

 

[Gardenlady]

Who is "WE"? Gun owners comprise a whole hell of a lot of people, not all of whom share your views. There is no one profile of gun owner. Not every person who owns a gun is against regulation.

This is very true. I have more than one relative who lives rural, own guns, yet are in favor of stronger protections.

 

[Brightbird]

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

All good points but I think there are some important differences too. Australia is still a part of the commonwealth and the last referendum for a republic failed. We've never had a revolution or a civil war. The idea of guns as protection wasn't popular even before our stricter laws were introduced. For a long time, it's been mostly about hunting and farmers killing pest animals. The stricter laws didn't take guns away from people who wanted them for those reasons. Although it did take away certain types of guns. Somehow, illegal guns are mostly used by gangs on each other, and they leave most of us alone. Guns have never been about freedom, rights and self-defence in Australia. So we haven't had to contend with a powerful lobby group using those arguments. Both sides of politics simply said "Not again" and that was that. But I don't think anyone can really look at Australia and other countries with strict gun control and say it doesn't work. The stats on mass shootings alone show that.

 

[sonjay]

Who is "WE"? Gun owners comprise a whole hell of a lot of people, not all of whom share your views. There is no one profile of gun owner. Not every person who owns a gun is against regulation.

Easy: "We" is all the people who are tired of compromising.

 

[Gardenlady]

I wish that were the case. But alas, it is not.

People like Carolyn McCarthy want to ban gun-related things that they doesn't even know what they'd be banning. If it's associated with guns, they want to ban it.

I'm speaking of people on this thread. You want to seize on my post and write it large to all the other posters who are in favor of regulation. But my view is mine alone. Take everyone else's posts as their own. Sure, I wish all guns would be seized. But I see 99% of other posters here are not calling for that at all. To pretend my view is everyone's is merely an attempt to avoid the discussion.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

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.

I have said much the same. I would like to see gun safety increased. I have no desire to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

To accuse others of having a hidden agenda of taking all guns away despite their own words is rather insulting, IMO.

 

[sonjay]

I'm speaking of people on this thread. You want to seize on my post and write it large to all the other posters who are in favor of regulation. But my view is mine alone. Take everyone else's posts as their own. Sure, I wish all guns would be seized. But I see 99% of other posters here are not calling for that at all. To pretend my view is everyone's is merely an attempt to avoid the discussion.

I wish your view were yours alone. I'm speaking of the bigger picture. There are many, many people out there who do not like it that people are able to defend themselves. Who want nothing less than to ban all private ownership of guns. Who would, in fact, ban all guns if they could. And you are certainly not the only person on this thread who would like to ban guns.

How did we get from unintentional firearm injuries to banning guns? You see why so many gun owners react the way we do. There's a freakishly rare incident involving a child and an accidental gun death, and now here we are. You would like to ban all guns. So would many other people. Yet, gun owners are called paranoid and fearful because we fear that people want to ban guns. It's not paranoia if they really do want to take your guns.

 

[sonjay]

You are self-defending yourself from ghosts. You are more likely to die in your bathroom from a fall.

100,000 to 5 million times per year, guns are used in self-defense. How many fatal bathroom falls per year?

 

[nrdsb4]

I have said much the same. I would like to see gun safety increased. I have no desire to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

To accuse others of having a hidden agenda of taking all guns away despite their own words is rather insulting, IMO.

It's completely disingenuous, imo. The amount of people advocating banning of guns is amazingly small. Those calling for regulation, background checks, etc., are comprised of MANY gun owners.

 

[sonjay]

It's completely disingenuous, imo. The amount of people advocating banning of guns is amazingly small. Those calling for regulation, background checks, etc., are comprised of MANY gun owners.

1. There already are many thousands of regulations, including background checks.

2. Criminals do not buy their guns from FFL dealers and do not undergo background checks.

3. Background checks keep guns out of the hands of criminals virtually none of the time.