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

[Caffeine]

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.

VT, NH and ME all have relatively low crime, reasonable gun laws last I checked and lots of hunting enthusiasts.



Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[al66pine]

... 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.

sbm bbm

Respectfully, 'concealed-carry' purses are not designed to keep toddlers' hands from accessing the gun. Ditto pickpockets' paws.

These purses are designed w a special separate compartment/pocket to hold the gun, only the gun (plus maybe another magazine?).
That allows the carrier to quickly, easily draw the gun to fire.
Or allows carrier to keep hand on gun in compartment, while being vigilant about situation, but not exposing the gun.

Concealed carry purses preventing quick, easy draw of the gun would defeat the core purpose, imo.

There are portable gun carriers (terminology?) designed to prevent or reduce quick, easy access to the gun.
Ex: carrier to be used in car, where carrier is bolted or welded to car seat support/frame (not child type carseat),
and to access gun, person must unlock the carrier - maybe padlock, combination lock, or bio-metric device, recognizing fingerprints.

Maybe gun-literate posters c/give photos & links, distinguishing easy-access from prevent-access devices.

JM2cts.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

@CoolJ:
As an Australian living in the USA, I think your comment above concisely defines the dilemma and I have come to think about this issue in the same way as yourself. I think the ship has sailed. Even the most modest suggestion of gun control eg: restricting access for those with mental illness, mandatory gun safety courses, requirement for homes with guns to have gun safes are met with outrage. There is such inflexibility in the mind set of people because owning a gun is a right written into the law. Laws can change but it seems that this particular law defines a country and a culture and the very suggestion of a change is deeply offensive to those raised in that culture. It has taken me 4 years of living in this country to truly understand that.

BBM

Do you have a link where gun owners are outraged about restricting gun ownership to the mentally ill or who are against gun safety courses?

I have never heard of such a thing and I have been a legal gun owner for 48 years. That is the one thing that should be changed and anyone who has a mental history should not have access to a firearm just like it is already on the books that anyone who has been convicted of a felony cant obtain a legal firearm nor anyone who has committed acts of domestic violence.

As far as making it mandatory that all firearms must be locked up in a gun safe defeats the very purpose of having a firearm for protection. When someone is breaking into a home everything is happening a lightning speed and the home invader most likely is armed and ready to fire. If a citizen has to run to a gun safe, unlock it, and take the safety lock off the gun they are going to be a sitting duck for the criminal that already has a weapon.

The reason locks on protection weapons isn't logical is the studies revealed putting locks on the individual gun hindered the legal gun owner when they needed to have total access to their weapon should they need it for protection. In situations like this arise, (and there are thousands of cases where lives were saved by a law abiding gun owner.... which of course never makes the MSM news because of anti-gun biases) seconds can mean the difference between death and life. All of these thousands of heroic stories never make national news but they are there in abundance in local news stories all across America. All one has to do if they are really interested in the real truth is google it and thousands of stories printed in local newspapers comes up. Heroic stories that the national liberal media suppresses from the public because it goes against their liberal anti gun biases.

So I really don't know who the people are that you have posted about. Most mass shooters do have mental illness in their background so why would anyone want them to have access to a weapon? I have never seen one post here or elsewhere that said a person who is mentally ill should be able to obtain a weapon.

The books are filled with gun laws already but that is one thing that should change and along with a criminal background check a mental background check should be done as well.

Frankly I don't see many respectful 'suggestions' when it comes to anti-gun <modsnip> They seem to want to push their views down the legal gun owners throat even though we have a constitutional right to bear arms. Yes, you are right, it is a law that we can bear arms but to read some of the complaints one would think all 100 million+ gun owners are doing something against the law by having weapons when the majority never commit the crimes but are all painted with the same wide brush anyway....... as those who do.

The truth is more guns are in homes across America than ever before and our violent crime rate has continued to drop in the last five years.

In the 80-90s with far less guns... there were way more violent crimes being committed than there is now.

IMO

 

[CoolJ]

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.

So are you just assuming that because a permit is not needed that Vermont has a high household gun ownership rate? I haven't looked yet but I would be willing to bet that the deaths caused by gun is comparable to the actual number of guns in the state.

I would be willing to bet that because all of the research I have seen tells us that more guns = more deaths. Not only is that common sense but the research backs it up.

 

[sonjay]

The truth is more guns are in homes across America than ever before and our violent crime rate has continued to drop in the last five years.

Case in point: Illinois citizens finally got concealed carry recently.

There were the usual dire warnings:
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/mccarthy-warns-of-dangers-from-concealed-carry-law/

"McCarthy, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the law allowing Illinois residents to carry concealed firearms in public, warned there will be confrontations that could escalate into a deadly shooting"

"It’s outrageous. It’s not well thought-out. And 16 hours of training is not even near to being adequate to learning how to use a firearm, let alone become proficient with it, nor learn when you can use it."

There was unfounded fear:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/war...ois-chicago-crime-tribune-poll-271703771.html

"A new poll reveals that Illinois' new concealed carry law, introduced in January, makes a majority of Chicagoans feel unsafe."

Finally, there was reality:

http://quincyjournal.com/regional-b...ncealed-carry,-chicago-homicide-rate-plunges/

"One year after concealed carry, Chicago homicide rate plunges

The city’s homicide rate has plummeted to a 56-year low since the concealed-carry law"

To be sure, Chicago's homicide rates are still abysmal, compared to most of the country. But it's clear that Chicago's draconian gun-control laws didn't prevent homicides, and it's clear that legal concealed carry has not led to more homicides.

Funny how that works.

 

[sonjay]

So are you just assuming that because a permit is not needed that Vermont has a high household gun ownership rate? I haven't looked yet but I would be willing to bet that the deaths caused by gun is comparable to the actual number of guns in the state.

I would be willing to bet that because all of the research I have seen tells us that more guns = more deaths. Not only is that common sense but the research backs it up.

How much would you be willing to bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Maybe "all of the research you have seen" isn't all of the research that's out there.

 

[TrackerSam]

BBM

Do you have a link where gun owners are outraged about restricting gun ownership to the mentally ill or who are against gun safety courses?

I have never heard of such a thing and I have been a legal gun owner for 48 years. That is the one thing that should be changed and anyone who has a mental history should not have access to a firearm just like it is already on the books that anyone who has been convicted of a felony cant obtain a legal firearm nor anyone who has committed acts of domestic violence.

As far as making it mandatory that all firearms must be locked up in a gun safe defeats the very purpose of having a firearm for protection. When someone is breaking into a home everything is happening a lightning speed and the home invader most likely is armed and ready to fire. If a citizen has to run to a gun safe, unlock it, and take the safety lock off the gun they are going to be a sitting duck for the criminal that already has a weapon.

The reason locks on protection weapons isn't logical is the studies revealed putting locks on the individual gun hindered the legal gun owner when they needed to have total access to their weapon should they need it for protection. In situations like this arise, (and there are thousands of cases where lives were saved by a law abiding gun owner.... which of course never makes the MSM news because of anti-gun biases) seconds can mean the difference between death and life. All of these thousands of heroic stories never make national news but they are there in abundance in local news stories all across America. All one has to do if they are really interested in the real truth is google it and thousands of stories printed in local newspapers comes up. Heroic stories that the national liberal media suppresses from the public because it goes against their liberal anti gun biases.

So I really don't know who the people are that you have posted about. Most mass shooters do have mental illness in their background so why would anyone want them to have access to a weapon? I have never seen one post here or elsewhere that said a person who is mentally ill should be able to obtain a weapon.

The books are filled with gun laws already but that is one thing that should change and along with a criminal background check a mental background check should be done as well.

Frankly I don't see many respectful 'suggestions' when it comes to anti-gun <modsnip> They seem to want to push their views down the legal gun owners throat even though we have a constitutional right to bear arms. Yes, you are right, it is a law that we can bear arms but to read some of the complaints one would think all 100 million+ gun owners are doing something against the law by having weapons when the majority never commit the crimes but are all painted with the same wide brush anyway....... as those who do.

The truth is more guns are in homes across America than ever before and our violent crime rate has continued to drop in the last five years.

In the 80-90s with far less guns... there were way more violent crimes being committed than there is now.

IMO

Well said. It also needs to be mentioned that the guns used in mass shootings, be they mentall ill or not, are usually stolen, and that when scumbags are shot down in by someone defending themselves or by the police, they become a "shot to death" statistic.
Some here are demading the impossible, a rock solid accident free guarantee and they think more laws and restrictions can achieve that.

 

[TrackerSam]

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.

Don't forget Eric Holder. He sold quite a few Fast and Furious guns himself.

 

[TrackerSam]

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.

Because they've failed so far doesn't mean they're not still trying. I can't speak for everyone but I'd happily trade the right to own a gun for the right to get a procedure who's name may not be mentioned on WS. Said procedure starts with an A and ends with an N.

 

[believe09]

Is the thread about the case or gun control?

 

[wendiesan]

Is the thread about the case or gun control?

I'm not sure any more. I think the gun control came up as a way to protect the mother from victim blaming since the gun with which she was shot was her own, and the circumstances indicated that some basic tenets of carrying firearms were not followed. This conversation seems to have shifted from the profoundly sad, however unintentional, consequences of this young woman's actions to more general debates about gun ownership and regulation. At this time, no rules, no regulations, no defences about gun possession and use are going to help the father or the little boy, or the mother's friends and extended family recover from the loss of a woman who is remembered as a loving wife and mother. I hope that the family's immediate community treats them all with love and kindness, and gives them the time and resources they need in order to recover and support each other. JMO.

 

[CoolJ]

Is the thread about the case or gun control?

I don't think you can discuss this case without discussing why it is OK or not OK to walk around Walmart with your children and a loaded handgun hanging out of your purse. JMO.

 

[Nova]

Well, as long as we're discussing general questions arising from this incident, can someone explain why it is necessary that gun owners have a right to CONCEAL the weapons they carry?

Shouldn't I have a right to know who is armed and who is not? Then I can choose to leave Walmart if I find myself surrounded by guns.

 

[nrdsb4]

Well, as long as we're discussing general questions arising from this incident, can someone explain why it is necessary that gun owners have a right to CONCEAL the weapons they carry?

Shouldn't I have a right to know who is armed and who is not? Then I can choose to leave Walmart if I find myself surrounded by guns.

There is also a chain of thought which says open carry is bad because people use it to intimidate other people. So I could see how some carry advocates could say they "can't win for losing."

 

[gxm]

sbm bbm

Respectfully, 'concealed-carry' purses are not designed to keep toddlers' hands from accessing the gun. Ditto pickpockets' paws.

These purses are designed w a special separate compartment/pocket to hold the gun, only the gun (plus maybe another magazine?).
That allows the carrier to quickly, easily draw the gun to fire.
Or allows carrier to keep hand on gun in compartment, while being vigilant about situation, but not exposing the gun.

Concealed carry purses preventing quick, easy draw of the gun would defeat the core purpose, imo.

There are portable gun carriers (terminology?) designed to prevent or reduce quick, easy access to the gun.
Ex: carrier to be used in car, where carrier is bolted or welded to car seat support/frame (not child type carseat),
and to access gun, person must unlock the carrier - maybe padlock, combination lock, or bio-metric device, recognizing fingerprints.

Maybe gun-literate posters c/give photos & links, distinguishing easy-access from prevent-access devices.

JM2cts.

Well then they shouldn't be sold to parents, or anyone who is around children, if they are not designed with a "safety" element. It is absurd that the mother was carrying a loaded gun in something easily accessible to her two-year old, not to mention the negligence of her leaving the purse and loaded gun with the two-year old while she focused on something else. IMO, they are a bad idea if someone can just "forget" their purse with a loaded gun. Concealed-carry should be concealed on one's person, not in one's purse. The purse is a stupid idea with, as I've already pointed out, a very fatal flaw.

 

[gxm]

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.

That's because the fundamental flaw in this "reasonable" scenario is that it is unreasonable for someone to "forget" a deadly weapon because they have a new way to carry it. If you are going to keep a deadly weapon, like a loaded gun, around children and innocent bystanders then you better be able to remember where it is at all times. IMO, these concealed-carry purses sound like a really dumb idea.

 

[CoolJ]

How much would you be willing to bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Maybe "all of the research you have seen" isn't all of the research that's out there.

This link doesn't say anything about gun deaths. Just murders. Also, there are 18 states with a higher % of gun ownership than VT. So, the fact that you said Vermont doesn't require a permit does not mean that there are a lot of guns there.

According to 99% of the research:
More guns = more needless deaths

I would like to ETA: I DO actually believe that in the USofA gun laws and restrictions, and the fight to ban guns, are an infringement of your constitutional rights. I do not object to you or others carrying or owning guns. However, If I was American I would be singing a different tune.

 

[sonjay]

This link doesn't say anything about gun deaths. Just murders. Also, there are 18 states with a higher % of gun ownership than VT. So, the fact that you said Vermont doesn't require a permit does not mean that there are a lot of guns there.

We don't -- because we can't -- lump all gun deaths together. Suicides comprise the majority of gun deaths -- about 2/3 of 'em. Those would happen anyway.

Vermont has the country's second lowest murder rate, and lowest gun murder rate. And it has the the 19th highest gun-ownership rate. Yes, there are a lot of guns there. There are very very few murders there. Those are very relevant numbers.

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

 

[Brightbird]

How much would you be willing to bet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Maybe "all of the research you have seen" isn't all of the research that's out there.

So what's going on in Hawaii where gun ownership is 6.7% and gun murders are 0.5 per 100,000? Or Rhode Island with 12.8% and 1.8 gun murders? Or Mississippi where there are more gun owners (55.3%) than Vermont and 4 gun murders per 100,000? Or Louisiana and Arkansas?

 

[sonjay]

So what's going on in Hawaii where gun ownership is 6.7% and gun murders are 0.5 per 100,000? Or Rhode Island with 12.8% and 1.8 gun murders? Or Mississippi where there are more gun owners (55.3%) than Vermont and 4 gun murders per 100,000? Or Louisiana and Arkansas?

Or D.C., with both the lowest gun ownership rate and the highest murder rate in the entire country?

It means that gun ownership cannot be proven to either cause or prevent crime. Therefore, it's a non-issue (or should be) when discussing crime.