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

[LinasK]

I'm pointing out that when they get attacked, they generally call men with guns.

ETA: LinasK has made it very clear that she insists on keeping her home gun-free -- to the extent that she gave her husband an ultimatum, her or his guns. But if she should have need to call the police, they would no doubt arrive with guns. What then?

What then is that the police will handle it. In my view, not just GardenLady's, no private citizen should own guns, only LE and the military.

 

[LinasK]

You want men with guns to do violence on your behalf?

They are trained to use them as a last resort and to aim for non-lethal areas first. I trust police training in firearms far more than anyone else's.

 

[LinasK]

So you call this freedom then, living in fear of thugs breaking into your house with weapons, feeling the need to carry a piece into Walmart, sleeping with a gun within easy reach, just in case, with one eye open, and a finger on the trigger at all times.

I call it living in fear.

Ironic no, that people think having the right to bear arms is an expression of freedom, when it is in fact the opposite.

BBM. Well-put!!!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Well, I tend to come more from emotion and hunches than statistics, so I should be easy to knock down lol, but….

If I take a notion today to dye my hair blue and copy Marge Simpson’s do but there is no blue dye in my house, the probability that I will be doing this today goes way down. I might think of asking my friends if they have Marge dye; I might think of stealing some from my neighbors; I might think of trying to buy some blue dye online or in some store. But because it’s a whim or impulsive action on my part, if there is little to no supply that readily lines up with my demand, the moment might, just might, pass and my hair will remain purple.

If I get the urge to take my own life tonight, which thankfully I won’t, let’s say the idea of a gun appeals to me for that because it’s quick and easy. But if I have no gun and I can’t easily beg, borrow, or steal one, there’s a chance I just may live to see another day. We can’t put something to use that we do not have.

People will find another way to kill themselves, you say?

Here is someone who was willing to try a method of suicide that did not involve a firearm. She was alive when I got home. I once had a young woman houseguest make a suicide attempt while I was out. There was no gun on the property so killing herself with a firearm was not an option. She looked in my medicine cabinet to see what could be found. Nothing really, so she downed a bottle of Advil. A trip to the emergency room for a stomach pumping, and fifteen years later she is happily married with three beautiful girls. I shudder to think how that scenario might have played out had I had some weapons around that I felt no need to secure because my houseguest was an adult.

To me it stands to reason that there would be fewer suicides with fewer guns circulating. A gun is often a preferred instrument for taking one’s life because it provides the possibility of a simple, instantaneous, and efficient exit. The idea of slowly bleeding to death from slit wrists, for example, or gasping through a hanging death, or lying there waiting for pills to take hold, or summoning up the nerve to jump from a bridge could be unappealing enough that a person with no gun might find himself/herself still here, after all, to witness more sunrises. Not always, but sometimes the moment passes and the urge with it. You have a little bit of time to remember you have kids, or you sober up, or you call somebody and say you just scared yourself. But if there is a firearm in the armoire, and in one split second all troubles can be wiped away once and for all, how tempting is that?

To me it stands to reason that there would also be fewer murders with fewer guns circulating. Murderous rages, love triangles, domestic situations, sour business deals…..isn’t it easier to let a bullet do the work from a distance (think of the power-you are an annihilator) rather than to come within reach of another and have to deal with whatever defense is launched as you stab or bonk with a ball bat or try to throw your victim off a cliff? If the Sandy Hook perpetrator had come in with a knife, do we not suspect that an elementary building full of educators could have gained control of that knife somewhere shy of 26 innocents being slaughtered? Yeah, an armed teacher maybe could have taken care of everything in even shorter order. But when I stack up the odds of a gun being useful as self-defense against the possibility of the gun seeing criminal use or impulsive destructive use against self or others, I say no, thanks. You can say yes in the U.S.

The day that Sandy Hook occurred I thought, well, we finally know what it takes to generate more comprehensive firearms restrictions. A roomful of dead kids. Such a shame that it took that. What? Sales of high-powered automatic weapons and other weapons skyrocketed? In my view, a mentality that says give me more of what took the children out that day is a mentality that is very hard to deal with.

Thank you waitin'4thewrld2chg for putting that together to eloquently, and yes carrying on from that, if the mother in question even had a knife in her bag for protection, the chances of her two year old stabbing her to death with it go way down, and she would likely still be alive today.

 

[Sonya610]

To me it stands to reason that there would be fewer suicides with fewer guns circulating.

Well apparently you have never done any research into world suicide statistics so it is anyone's guess what you are basing your "reasoning" on.

Japan has virtually NO civilian firearms yet their suicide stats are TWICE that of the U.S.

Canada actually has slightly higher suicide rates than the US as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

 

[TrackerSam]

They are trained to use them as a last resort and to aim for non-lethal areas first. I trust police training in firearms far more than anyone else's.

And yet just recently, a police chief accidentally shot his wife in the back. She survived.

 

[sonjay]

They are trained to use them as a last resort and to aim for non-lethal areas first. I trust police training in firearms far more than anyone else's.

No, they're not. They're trained to aim for center of mass, just like everyone else.

Did you know that concealed-carry permit holders actually have a better record of hitting bad guys, and a better record of not hitting innocent bystanders, than cops?

Yep, it's true.

Boy, I just hate seeing so much misinformation about guns out there. No wonder so many people want to ban them; way too many people just don't know some of the most basic information.

 

[sonjay]

BBM. Well-put!!!:clap::clap::clap:

Dogs, knives, baseball bats, and actually programming the local police into your cell phone isn't living in fear.

But keeping a gun in my nightstand is.

Got it.

 

[sonjay]

Well apparently you have never done any research into world suicide statistics so it is anyone's guess what you are basing your "reasoning" on.

Japan has virtually NO civilian firearms yet their suicide stats are TWICE that of the U.S.

Canada actually has slightly higher suicide rates than the US as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

Sonya, you don't get it. Those statistics are to be disregarded.

 

[sonjay]

What then is that the police will handle it. In my view, not just GardenLady's, no private citizen should own guns, only LE and the military.

You too want men with guns to do violence on your behalf.

Isn't that kind of selfish? Expecting someone else to have to take the drastic step of shooting someone, just because you refuse to take responsibility for your own safety?

This kind of reminds me of people who are against hunting, because it's cruel to shoot Bambi.... while they pick out their steaks and pork chops wrapped in plastic at the grocery store.

 

[TrackerSam]

What does comparing Toronto to a county in FLA have to do with anything. There are going to be higher and lower crime rates in different cities everywhere. Look up the homicide stats comparing Canada to America. More people are being killed by guns the in the US. A lot more. I feel infinitely more safe here than when I lived in Boston. Nothing you say can change that.

Boston is a big city as is Chicago. Perhaps they're overcrowded. I'll bet you could find a study that says that the farther away from an inner city you go, there's less and less crime per capita. Maybe we should restrict the capita per acre of land. In any case, more laws aren't going change anything. Laws are for the law abiding.

 

[sonjay]

Boston is a big city as is Chicago. Perhaps they're overcrowded. Maybe we should restrict the capita per acre of land. In any case, more laws aren't going change anything. Laws are for the law abiding.

There is indeed a very strong correlation between population density and crime rates.

Areas with low population density tend to have lots of legally owned guns and lower crime rates.

Areas with high population density tend to have few legally owned guns (but many illegally owned guns), and higher crime rates.

But no.... please don't send the thugs to my little rural area. We like things the way they are. Keep 'em in the cities, please.

 

[TrackerSam]

I can post all day long showing stats of how safer it is in Canada compared to the US if you wish. And I won't have to compare New York City to Medicine Hat, Alberta to do it. LOL

You're the one who started the 'that is place is safer than' argument and now you're running from it.

 

[Nova]

Yes. A law should be passed requiring gang bangers and thugs to annonce they are packing. I think we have a right to know, don't you?
Do you think they'll obey it?

Sam, I was asking a serious question. If you don't care to answer it, that is your right; but the sarcasm isn't necessary in this instance.

Whether or not a gang member carries a concealed weapon tells me nothing as to why a a citizen carrying a lawful weapon needs to conceal it.

 

[Nova]

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."

That makes sense to me, but in states with concealed-carry laws, don't I have to assume that anyone trying to intimidate me may well be carrying a lethal weapon?

 

[sonjay]

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.

A serious question deserves a serious answer.

The answer is no, you don't have a right to know who is legally armed.

Anyway, it would be counter-productive. If open carry were required, the peaceful, law-abiding gun owners would obey the law and carry openly; but the criminals would still conceal. So you would think you were in danger when surrounded by peaceful, law-abiding people, but you would feel safe when surrounded by criminals with guns tucked in their pockets & waistbands. You would waste effort being super-vigilant around people that you have nothing to fear from, and you would relax when around people who aim to harm you.

 

[Nova]

To turn your thoughts upside down just to make a point => please remember that the criminals/repeat offenders are "concealed".

Maybe it would be more prudent to know who they are, right?

Moo

But by the same reasoning we should have no laws at all, because somebody somewhere will break any law we pass.

Whether or not I agree, I at least understand the argument that citizens need lethal protection to match the firepower of professional criminals, stalkers, psychopaths, etc. What I don't understand is why the same argument applies to concealed carry.

If anything, wouldn't it be a greater deterrent if everybody carrying had his or her weapon out where criminals could see it? Aren't we expecting too much if we assume a psychopath is going to be deterred by the mere possibility that somebody in the room may have a concealed weapon?

 

[Nova]

Well apparently you have never done any research into world suicide statistics so it is anyone's guess what you are basing your "reasoning" on.

Japan has virtually NO civilian firearms yet their suicide stats are TWICE that of the U.S.


Canada actually has slightly higher suicide rates than the US as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

(Emphasis added.)

Japan has a centuries-old tradition of suicide as a means to maintain honor in the face of failure or loss. (We've all heard of hara-kiri, more correctly called seppuku.)

We have Romeo and Juliet, the Japanese have literally hundreds of "love suicide" plays which are very central to their traditions and thinking.

During WWII, Japanese soldiers and civilians committed suicide by the thousands rather than be taken prisoner. This was partially due to propaganda telling them American captors would mistreat them, but it was also fueled by cultural traditions. Germans--who actually faced mass atrocities at the hands of the Red Army--did NOT respond with mass suicides.

In short, all comparisons to Japan on the subject of suicide are specious. Japan's attitude toward the practice is unique.

 

[Nova]

A serious question deserves a serious answer.

The answer is no, you don't have a right to know who is legally armed.

Anyway, it would be counter-productive. If open carry were required, the peaceful, law-abiding gun owners would obey the law and carry openly; but the criminals would still conceal. So you would think you were in danger when surrounded by peaceful, law-abiding people, but you would feel safe when surrounded by criminals with guns tucked in their pockets & waistbands. You would waste effort being super-vigilant around people that you have nothing to fear from, and you would relax when around people who aim to harm you.

Thank you, Sonjay.

I see your reasoning, but I have to remind you that this very thread exists because of a gun death resulting from legal CCW. True, the toddler shot his mother, but he might have shot me had I been standing nearby.

I'm not questioning your understanding of the law, but if it is true that I don't have the right to distance myself from a woman juggling shopping, four children AND a loaded revolver, that is seriously effed up! I didn't ask this question to start yet another argument, but it seems the Second Amendment is being used to give those who like their guns privileges far beyond the rights afforded the rest of us.

 

[TrackerSam]

Sam, I was asking a serious question. If you don't care to answer it, that is your right; but the sarcasm isn't necessary in this instance.

Whether or not a gang member carries a concealed weapon tells me nothing as to why a a citizen carrying a lawful weapon needs to conceal it.

Because open carry isn't allowed in most states. Perhaps you could lobby to have those laws changed. The only ones effected by gun restrictions are the law abiding citizens.