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

[Brightbird]

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.

Because some people were talking about regulations that might make these types of incidents less likely, and then they were accused of having a hidden agenda to ban all guns.

 

[Gardenlady]

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.

I haven't heard people say gun control doesn't work. Rather what they say is, "well, it might work for UK/Germany/Sweden/whatever" but they are a completely different society than the US! They are a homogenous society, their origins aren't the same, their racial makeup is different, etc".

I disagree with that being a factor, of course. But further, I'd say they cannot make the same argument with regards to Australia. While different, the US and Aus have always seemed more similar to each other than say, US --> France, US --> Sweden, etc. Both are also largly immigrant, diverse societies with violent/oppressive beginnings. Australia with its penal origins, America with its indenture/slavery origins.

I think the pro-gun crowd tries a little too hard to say America is somehow SO different that we absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of gun control here. Personally, I dont think we are so far off from Australia.

But maybe wishful thinking on my part. Every time a mass shooting happens here, I think "surely this will be the last; surely this is SO horrific that people will say ENOUGH!". But we never do.

So maybe you're right, and the differences are too significant for us ever to reach a similar tipping point, sadly.

 

[sonjay]

Because some people were talking about regulations that might make these types of incidents less likely, and then they were accused of having a hidden agenda to ban all guns.

No. It's more like they started talking about regulations, and then their hidden agenda revealed itself.

 

[Gardenlady]

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.

First, its not anyone's ability to defend themselves that I don't like. Its that you are self defending yourself from statistically unlikely events in a way that puts others at risk.

Self defend yourself from ghosts as much as you like - but your chosen method puts others at risk. THAT is what I don't like.

Further - accidental gun deaths are not freakishly rare. You keep using that phrase, but no matter how much you use it doesn't make it true.

<mod snip>

 

[Gardenlady]

No. It's more like they started talking about regulations, and then their hidden agenda revealed itself.

Who hides it? I don't. I'm very upfront. I've been wanting to take your guns away since the right wing militias started making noise about Clinton taking everyone's guns away back in the early 90s! :lol:

(and look - everyone still has their guns, despite all the fearmongering about the government coming for everyone's weapons)

 

[Mrs G Norris]

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.

Actually most people here were trying to discuss REGULATION, but of course, those of us who say that are just saying that to chip away at your rights until there are none right? God forbid we could discuss possible safety regulations, like say fining parents who don't keep their guns out of the hands of children, or have a debate about what could be done from keeping these tragedies from happening. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't law to wear a seatbelt, and kids rode around in the back of utes on a regular basis on main roads, now I guess we were just exercising our freedoms then too, but what we did was bring in regulations, for safety reasons. A perfect example is pool fences, I mean even lighters are designed in a way to make them hard for kids to use now.

Let's discuss a few options which could apply to guns.

 

[sonjay]

First, its not anyone's ability to defend themselves that I don't like. Its that you are self defending yourself from statistically unlikely events in a way that puts others at risk.

Boy, is that disingenuous.

U.S. homicide rate: 4.7 per 100,000
Forcible rape: 26.9 per 100,000
Robbery: 112.9 per 100,000
Aggravated assault: 242.3 per 100,000

Those numbers are "statistically unlikely."

But an unintentional firearm death rate of 0.26 per 100,000 is so great that you're afraid to go to Wal-Mart, and I'm putting you at grave risk when I carry in Wal-Mart.

Nope, sorry, you can't have it both ways. You cannot claim that 0.26 per 100,000 is an unacceptable risk while simultaneously claiming that 4.7 homicides per 100,000, 27 rapes per 100,000, 113 robberies per 100,000, and 242 agg. assaults per 100,000 are statistically unlikely.

 

[sonjay]

(and look - everyone still has their guns, despite all the fearmongering about the government coming for everyone's weapons)

[h=1]Cuomo sued by veteran after insomnia treatment prompts gun confiscation[/h]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/3/andrew-cuomo-sued-by-veteran-after-insomnia-treatm/

 

[Gardenlady]

Actually most people here were trying to discuss REGULATION, but of course, those of us who say that are just saying that to chip away at your rights until there are none right? God forbid we could discuss possible safety regulations, like say fining parents who don't keep their guns out of the hands of children, or have a debate about what could be done from keeping these tragedies from happening. I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't law to wear a seatbelt, and kids rode around in the back of utes on a regular basis on main roads, now I guess we were just exercising our freedoms then too, but what we did was bring in regulations, for safety reasons. A perfect example is pool fences, I mean even lighters are designed in a way to make them hard for kids to use now.

Let's discuss a few options which could apply to guns.

I agree. And because I am so willing to meet partway on this, I will start!

For example - everyone always says that there is already tons of regulation on guns, we should simply enforce what is already there.

Then why on earth are charges not filed 100% of the time when a child gets a hold of the gun of one of these "responsible gun owners" and kills or injures someone? So often the result is simply local LE saying no charges will be filed because no evidence of a crime.

I say, if a child picks up a gun, that's evidence of a crime right there.

Can anyone object to this? Is not a gun in the hand of a child de facto evidence of the crime of negligence at the very least?

 

[Gardenlady]

Cuomo sued by veteran after insomnia treatment prompts gun confiscation

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/3/andrew-cuomo-sued-by-veteran-after-insomnia-treatm/

LOL really?

What your headline neglected to mention was he was not just dx'd with insomnia but with depression also. Being a veteran, he was also at risk for PTSD. All in all, a completely rational move to confiscate his weapons.

What exactly are you submitting this as proof of?

 

[Confusion]

Sorry to interrupt, but I wanted to make a comment about the case at hand. I don't believe the mother was necessarily negligent/careless with her gun under normal circumstances. It was said that she always had her gun on her, and until receiving the new purse, literally "on her" in a holster. If she was anything like me, and most females I know who don't carry guns in their purses, she most likely just put her purse in the cart while shopping so she didn't have to carry it around. It sounds like this may have been the first time she went shopping while using the purse, and she had 3 (I think) extra kids along distracting her. I think she probably just threw the purse in there out of habit while she was tending to the girls. I don't want to lay "blame" on her since she's already paid the ultimate price, but I wonder if things would have worked out much better for her if she had waited to use the purse until she was less distracted so she could get used to it. I hope that made sense, it did in my head. MOO

 

[Brightbird]

I haven't heard people say gun control doesn't work. Rather what they say is, "well, it might work for UK/Germany/Sweden/whatever" but they are a completely different society than the US! They are a homogenous society, their origins aren't the same, their racial makeup is different, etc".

I disagree with that being a factor, of course. But further, I'd say they cannot make the same argument with regards to Australia. While different, the US and Aus have always seemed more similar to each other than say, US --> France, US --> Sweden, etc. Both are also largly immigrant, diverse societies with violent/oppressive beginnings. Australia with its penal origins, America with its indenture/slavery origins.

I think the pro-gun crowd tries a little too hard to say America is somehow SO different that we absolutely cannot even entertain the idea of gun control here. Personally, I dont think we are so far off from Australia.

But maybe wishful thinking on my part. Every time a mass shooting happens here, I think "surely this will be the last; surely this is SO horrific that people will say ENOUGH!". But we never do.

So maybe you're right, and the differences are too significant for us ever to reach a similar tipping point, sadly.

Yep, many similarities and many differences. Maybe I'm too focused on the differences because I think there must a logical reason for the difference in gun control. But the idea of a right to own guns is just silly here. Yet it carries so much weight in America. Some of that is history, and some of it has been used for political purposes I think. I agree that racial makeup and immigration isn't a big factor. It hasn't made any difference to the issue of gun control here. I think poverty and opportunity makes a difference in the grand scheme, but that's probably too off topic.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I agree 100% .. child touches gun, parent gets a fine.

Child at shooting range touches Uzi, shooting range gets a fine.

Is there any time when a child could use a weapon? I think it's quite feasible that a child could be taught to hunt for example. So in that case I would say that shooters who wish to take their child shooting should be licenced to supervise, do a safety course on how to supervise a child, then the child should also do a safety course, then parent (or guardian) may take that child shooting. If there is a mishap with the gun whilst the child is using it, and someone is hurt, then the supervising adult would be at minimum fined.

 

[sonjay]

LOL really?

What your headline neglected to mention was he was not just dx'd with insomnia but with depression also. Being a veteran, he was also at risk for PTSD. All in all, a completely rational move to confiscate his weapons.

What are you submitting this as proof of?

He was described as "mildly depressed." He was not considered a threat to himself or others. He was not involuntarily admitted for a mental problem. Saying he was "at risk for PTSD" is pretty slanderous.

Yet his guns were confiscated. Illegally.

Your statement that no one's guns are being taken away is simply not true. They are, in fact, taking people's guns away, and without legal justification.

You know what logically follows this? What follows is, vets will not seek help for mental problems or disorders. Those who actually need treatment will not get it. Some of them will do bad things. They might even do bad things to people in a Wal-Mart.

You think it's humorous to violate someone's rights? Okay then. That's all I need to know.

 

[Gardenlady]

Yep, many similarities and many differences. Maybe I'm too focused on the differences because I think there must a logical reason for the difference in gun control. But the idea of a right to own guns is just silly here. Yet it carries so much weight in America. Some of that is history, and some of it has been used for political purposes I think. I agree that racial makeup and immigration isn't a big factor. It hasn't made any difference to the issue of gun control here. I think poverty and opportunity makes a difference in the grand scheme, but that's probably too off topic.

The right to own a gun is incredibly silly to me too lol. How flexible are your immigration laws?

 

[Love143]

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.

So true and this is why I am torn about regulations.

 

[Gardenlady]

He was described as "mildly depressed." He was not considered a threat to himself or others. He was not involuntarily admitted for a mental problem. Saying he was "at risk for PTSD" is pretty slanderous.

Yet his guns were confiscated. Illegally.

Your statement that no one's guns are being taken away is simply not true. They are, in fact, taking people's guns away, and without legal justification.

You know what logically follows this? What follows is, vets will not seek help for mental problems or disorders. Those who actually need treatment will not get it. Some of them will do bad things. They might even do bad things to people in a Wal-Mart.

You think it's humorous to violate someone's rights? Okay then. That's all I need to know.

I think it's humorous that the only thing you can come up with to counter my statement that despite 25 years of the gun crowd crying that Clinton/Obama/libruls are coming for their guns, they STILL have their guns, is one story about a mentally ill man (so ill that he went to the ER not once, but twice) having his guns confiscated.

No one took his rights away. They took away deadly weapons that, in his state of illness, he might have used to harm himself or others.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

The right to own a gun is incredibly silly to me too lol. How flexible are your immigration laws?

Oh all you have to do to get in is say you are a top ranking Iranian spy, we wont bother you with proving it or anything, and if you act out against the families of fallen servicemen, we'll just put that down to cultural differences. Basically we'll let anyone in unless you are poor and arrive by boat, my advice, be middle class and come in on a plane: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/2015/01/06/siege-gunman-monis-duped-immigration.html

 

[Brightbird]

The right to own a gun is incredibly silly to me too lol. How flexible are your immigration laws?

Lol depends whether you get here by plane or boat I'm being silly....sort of.

 

[Gardenlady]

He was described as "mildly depressed." He was not considered a threat to himself or others. He was not involuntarily admitted for a mental problem. Saying he was "at risk for PTSD" is pretty slanderous.

Yet his guns were confiscated. Illegally.

Your statement that no one's guns are being taken away is simply not true. They are, in fact, taking people's guns away, and without legal justification.

You know what logically follows this? What follows is, vets will not seek help for mental problems or disorders. Those who actually need treatment will not get it. Some of them will do bad things. They might even do bad things to people in a Wal-Mart.

You think it's humorous to violate someone's rights? Okay then. That's all I need to know.

Also meant to add - if having weapons taken away keeps people from seeking help, then that right there is indicative of a problem, a warped view of weapons and violence in this country.

Are people so obsessed with weapons that the idea of not having them, when mentally ill, is so objectionable?

Unhealthy obsession or what?