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

[Gardenlady]

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

Oh heavens, I am out then, I guess. My mom's family only ended up here because my grandfather hopped off a boat from Brazil before it hit port! :floorlaugh:

 

[Love143]

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?

Yep. If leaving your child in a car unsupervised is a crime how in the world is them having access to a gun not?!?!

 

[Jovi Girl]

Maybe part of the problem is that owning a gun is not just a right, but it's a responsibility. Just like driving a car.
I personally will never own a gun. I just don't feel comfortable. I know many people who own guns, but I know because we had a conversation about it. Many of them are people who my children visited when they were young. I ask if they have guns and how they are secured. They all understood and respected my view. Each one of them assured me that all firearms were under lock and key. My children visited these families many times, and they also came to my house. We adults never argued about the why or why most of having a gun. I am still in touch with most of these people. Naturally, if my child went to visit a friend who had guns laying around, my child would not be allowed in that home. ( same thing if there were knives, pills etc sitting on the coffee table. )

 

[Curious Guy]

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?

Unhealthy obsessions seem prevalent in this thread.

 

[MsFacetious]

I am really pretty "neutral" on the gun issue. I just don't care if it's not in my house.

However, if a 2 year old gets into your medication and takes it, that is a crime.
If you kill your kid in a crash because they are unrestrained, that is a crime.

I have never understood the "not charging because there was no crime" when a kid gets a gun.
There have been toddlers of COPS who have shot themselves or siblings with guns. Still no charges.
If a 2 year old gets a loaded gun and shoots someone with it... that should be a crime. Period.

I am the daughter of one of those people who "bought all the guns" when Obama was elected.
My father is a STRONG supporter of the right to own a gun and believes it's being taken away.
My closest Uncle is the same way. I grew up knowing that they both had guns.

Never had an issue with them being unsecured in the house or anything.
Don't think I even knew where they were and I was never curious.
I could not care less. I don't like guns. I don't use guns. I won't have a gun in my house. Not even toy guns.

However, I am totally fine with those who do own guns as long as they keep them out of the hands of KIDS.
When my children stay with my Dad his guns and ammo are kept separate.
Otherwise I believe it's loaded. That city has had 3 murders in the 23 years he's lived there. All personal, not random. :twocents:

I don't like guns, however I would be fine with my typical daughter learning to shoot if she wishes.
My other daughter has Down syndrome.
She is very smart, however I do not believe she could separate real gun from toy gun... so she has NO access to any type of gun.

We have had situations in our family where someone was temporarily not capable of having a firearm.
This has never needed to involve police and has always been taken care of as a family.
I think we would need less gun control... if we had more of a "village" situation.

About 20 years ago my baby cousin was shaken by a neighbor who was babysitting.
My Uncle had lost one baby to stillbirth and this was his only son.
They weren't sure he'd survive and it was very ugly for a while there.

My Uncle is an amazing man. I adore him. He is also a man who feels things very deeply.
While my Uncle was en-route to the hospital with his baby boy, my Dad took ALL his weapons.
His wife agreed it was the best course of action... he likely would have killed the babysitter or himself otherwise.

We did it one more time 10 years ago when his ex wife tried to drown him in the hot tub.
Though none of us would have minded seeing her dead... we didn't want him in prison. :twocents:

Also about 20 years ago my Aunt found out that her husband had been raping her son.
My Mom and Dad immediately went over and seized all of their weapons.
As a result of this, she didn't kill her husband.
He also was unable to blow his brains out in the boy's bedroom so he would find him, as he had planned.
(Mentioned in his suicide note he was angry about that.)
He instead had to resort to carbon monoxide poisoning in the desert because he had to hurry before police found him.

I don't think gun control is the solution... just some common sense.
Unfortunately common sense just doesn't seem to be so common anymore. :dunno:

Just my opinion as someone who really doesn't have a dog in the fight. :seeya:
(My Dad would be so disappointed if he saw this post.) :thinking:

 

[Brightbird]

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.

Let me see if I've got this right. Anyone who wants stronger gun regulations has a secret or not-so-secret agenda to ban all guns. So it's okay to call all gun control advocates fanatics, whether they admit it or not. But when gun control advocates say pro gun people are paranoid and irrational, then we're just being hysterical? :thinking: Or maybe there are extreme views on both ends which don't represent the majority?

 

[Fifth Avenue]

Let me see if I've got this right. Anyone who wants stronger gun regulations has a secret or not-so-secret agenda to ban all guns. So it's okay to call all gun control advocates fanatics, whether they admit it or not. But when gun control advocates say pro gun people are paranoid and irrational, then we're just being hysterical? :thinking: Or maybe there are extreme views on both ends which don't represent the majority?

Every time there is a push for more gun control, gun sales soar in America. This, if anything, reflects the opinion of majority.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CoolJ]

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.

BBM
I really picked up on this stat here. You know why? .26 per 100,000 is the exact same stat used in the UK.

Except that is the stat for TOTAL NUMBER OF GUN DEATHS

There are the same amount of people killed with guns in the UK in TOTAL as their are UNINTENTIONAL gun deaths in the US.

That one really stuck out to me.

 

[CoolJ]

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

It's a silly idea here in Canada too GardenLady and much closer

 

[CoolJ]

Here is an abstract to an older study comparing two cities. Seattle, USA and Vancouver, Canada. Two very similar cities in location, population, demographics, etc. Crime rates are similar, assault rates are similar, similar homicide rates without guns.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3185622
The only thing different was the risk for homicide. Significantly higher in Seattle.

Again, I have explained my stance. I have nothing against gun owners in the US. They have a right that they are exercising.
But everywhere I look, the statistics show us that in places where the availability of guns is lower, there is a lower incidence of people dying from guns. Including murder, suicide and accidental death.
Isn't that what everybody wants?

 

[gxm]

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

A few points. Often a purse holds cash, credit cards and identification so most people who carry a purse usually *carry* the purse or hand it to someone else to hold if they need to put it down. Secondly, who leaves a toddler unattended in a shopping cart? A small child could fall out and get hurt, or grab something off the shelf that they aren't supposed to. Lastly, if a toddler can reach in and grab the gun, then the concealed-carry purse is worse than poorly design as it has, quite literally, a fatal flaw. IMO, there is an abundance of negligence surrounding this case.

 

[TrackerSam]

Here is an abstract to an older study comparing two cities. Seattle, USA and Vancouver, Canada. Two very similar cities in location, population, demographics, etc. Crime rates are similar, assault rates are similar, similar homicide rates without guns.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3185622
The only thing different was the risk for homicide. Significantly higher in Seattle.

Again, I have explained my stance. I have nothing against gun owners in the US. They have a right that they are exercising.
But everywhere I look, the statistics show us that in places where the availability of guns is lower, there is a lower incidence of people dying from guns. Including murder, suicide and accidental death.
Isn't that what everybody wants?

What are they dying from, baseball bats, knives etc?

 

[TrackerSam]

Yep. If leaving your child in a car unsupervised is a crime how in the world is them having access to a gun not?!?!

Intent.

 

[CoolJ]

What are they dying from, baseball bats, knives etc?

No, that is just the point. In places where the availability of guns is lower, it appears there are a lower number of needless deaths in total.

In other words, if there are less guns, there are less murders. If there are less guns, there are less suicides. And obviously if there are less guns, there are less gun accidents.

This is not an attack on law abiding citizens who own guns. I am just pointing out that more guns = more needless death.

 

[TrackerSam]

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

A reasonable scenario and could very well be what happened, but what may have happened gets in the way of the argument for gun control and this thread has been hijacked.

 

[sonjay]

No, that is just the point. In places where the availability of guns is lower, it appears there are a lower number of needless deaths in total.

In other words, if there are less guns, there are less murders. If there are less guns, there are less suicides. And obviously if there are less guns, there are less gun accidents.

This is not an attack on law abiding citizens who own guns. I am just pointing out that more guns = more needless death.

One comparison does not make a universal fact.

It's interesting.... the crime rate among conceal weapon permit holders is universally lower than that of the general population.

Here's a link to study of concealed permit holders & crime rates in Texas:
http://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/arrest-rate-texas.pdf

"The average Texan is 5.3 times more likely to be arrested for the violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and assault than the average CHL holder. The average Texan is 14 times more likely to be arrested for committing a non-violent crime."

and

"The average Texan is 1.3 times (rate of 5.2 v. 4.0) more likely to be arrested for murder; 42 times (rate of 12 v. 0.3) more likely to be arrested for rape; 48 times (rate of 35 v. 0.7) more likely to be arrested for robbery; 2.2 times (rate of 121 v. 56) more likely to be arrested for aggravated assault; and 7.6 times (rate of 507 v. 67) more likely to be arrested for other assaults than the average CHL holder."

That means that people who legally carry guns to Wal-Mart are less likely to commit a violent or non-violent crime than people who don't carry guns to Wal-Mart.

Huh. Funny how that works.

 

[sonjay]

Every time there is a push for more gun control, gun sales soar in America. This, if anything, reflects the opinion of majority.

Yep. The gun-control crowd does more for firearm sales than the NRA ever could.

 

[sonjay]

Here is an abstract to an older study comparing two cities. Seattle, USA and Vancouver, Canada. Two very similar cities in location, population, demographics, etc. Crime rates are similar, assault rates are similar, similar homicide rates without guns.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3185622
The only thing different was the risk for homicide. Significantly higher in Seattle.

Have you looked at any studies involving the crime rate in Vermont, where no permit is even required to carry? Vermont has among the most liberal gun laws in the U.S., also among the lowest crime rates.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not the guns.

 

[rob]

"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so,
a well organized and armed militia is their best security."
Thomas Jefferson quote above. There are reasons that we have the 2nd amendment. This country has fought for freedom. Hopefully that will never have to happen again.

 

[rob]

Yep. The gun-control crowd does more for firearm sales than the NRA ever could.

I agree with that. Obama got more guns and ammo sold than any one person I've ever known of. Wasn't long ago, we would go into Academy Sports, and a 24 ft aisle, 6 shelves high, would be totally empty.