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

[CoolJ]

I'd rather get off a late shot than not be able to shoot at all. The concealed gun poses no threat. There no advantage at all to being disarmed when confronted by a criminal, so I hardly think it's better. How could that be better? You make me laugh sometimes.

BBM
Here is how it could be a disadvantage: you get into a shootout with said criminal and die! When all he wanted was your wallet.
I will gladly give my wallet away if one of the options is dying.
Heck, I will gladly give my wallet away if the only other option is killing another human being. (Yes, that's right. I would rather be robbed then to become a killer)
IMO

 

[Gardenlady]

BBM
Here is how it could be a disadvantage: you get into a shootout with said criminal and die! When all he wanted was your wallet.
I will gladly give my wallet away if one of the options is dying.
Heck, I will gladly give my wallet away if the only other option is killing another human being. (Yes, that's right. I would rather be robbed then to become a killer)
IMO

Thanks - that's exactly how I feel. There really isn't any object or amount of money in the world id ever be willing to kill someone over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daisy7]

Good column on this tragedy including a quote from a friend I hadn't seen before. BBM.

Her close friend Sheri Sandow explained that for all her academic accomplishments, Rutledge was "as comfortable at a campground or a gun range as she was in a classroom."

OK, fine, but why Walmart? Not because she was fearful, Sandow explained.

"In Idaho, we don't have to worry about a lot of crime and things like that," she said. "And to see someone with a gun isn't bizarre. [Veronica] wasn't carrying a gun because she felt unsafe. She was carrying a gun because she was raised around guns. This was just a horrible accident."

Indeed, she needn't have felt unsafe. The most recent homicide in Blackfoot, Idaho, where the family lived, was six years ago.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-cult-of-gun-toting/Content?oid=3602946

 

[Mrs G Norris]

So she wasn't carrying for protection? There goes the CC argument.

The CULT of gun toting indeed.

WTF.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

In a recent New Yorker article Adam Gopnik explains the political psychology of guns. The great majority of Americans agree that there should be sensible limitations on the possession and use of tools whose function is killing, "while a small minority feels, with a fanatic passion, that there shouldn't. In a process familiar to any student of society, the majority of people in favor of gun sanity care about a lot of other things, too, and think about them far more often; the gun crazy think about guns all the time, and vote on the issue with fanatic intensity."

Hence handguns as costume jewelry, totems signifying one's membership in the NRA tribe. Terry Rutledge, however, can rest easy. If the 2012 Newtown, Conn., massacre failed to bring reform, his daughter-in-law's death won't change anything significant.
Except possibly the behavior of anybody tempted to pack heat around little children.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-cult-of-gun-toting/Content?oid=3602946

The majority is there, and the mental work is accomplished. This means that though the moral work—of persuasion, conviction, and shaming—needs to go on, we can be confident that it will go on and win, too, in the long run. There is nothing so irresistible as an idea that happens to be true. Piece by piece, legislation by litigation, the curse will be lifted. Time and temperament and patience will win out. This is the belief that the Victorians called “progressivism” and it is still much mocked. But the neat thing is that it happens to be true. There are many issues—the overwhelming majority—on which we need an ongoing public “conversation.” On a few, we don’t. Gun control stops gun violence. Gun possession does not deter crime; it merely makes it more lethal. Making these inarguable truths into necessary law takes the work of persuasion and legislation and litigation. The mental work finished, the moral work goes on, often in modest invisibility. Every day, something good happens at the state or community level that makes getting guns a little harder—and keeps families a little safer. That it might happen a little faster is a rational hope, and a proper holiday wish.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/newtown-lawsuit-moral-work-gun-control

 

[Sonya610]

For those that think only police should have firearms because they are "trained experts"...

Check out this story with video. Cop is in an elevator with his wife, for some reason he pulls his weapon then nearly drops it trying to reholster, then ends shooting himself in the stomach (actually the bullet hit the elevator doors and ricocheted into his stomach).

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news...mble-with-gun-before-shooting-self-in-stomach

 

[LinasK]

I've never been scared enough to own or carry a gun. If I lived in fear, I'd live elsewhere.

Yup! I lived in Oakland, CA. My apartment was broken into and a gang started playing rap music at midnight on the porch of my next-door neighbor's abandoned house. My response to both instances: call the police, then I moved. Never once did I think the answer was to go buy a gun!!!

 

[al66pine]

Good column on this tragedy including a quote from a friend I hadn't seen before. BBM.
http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-cult-of-gun-toting/Content?oid=3602946

Thanks daisy7 for link. From article dtd today:
"In the immediate aftermath, Terry Rutledge, Veronica's father-in-law,[said]
"They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case," he said.
"... And Veronica had had handgun classes; they're both licensed to carry...."

Until that moment, she may have been exceedingly careful and responsible w her child for the entire 2 years of his life, and
w guns for 5, 10, or 15 (or ?) years of her life. IDK
This may have been her first and only deviation from safe parenting and safe gun handling. IDK. Perhaps 60 seconds of inattention. IDK.
Imo, there was a minute's lapse from responsibility leading to a tragic outcome.
Maybe gun owners will review their carry, storage, and handling habits w an eye toward safer practices.



I cannot imagine walking in this family's shoes and hope they can eventually find peace and healing.

 

[SStarr33]

Good column on this tragedy including a quote from a friend I hadn't seen before. BBM.



http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/the-cult-of-gun-toting/Content?oid=3602946

That article gives the name of the handbag so I went and looked at one and I guess there is a holster in the zip pocket. Gonna look at some of the others and see if they all do.

http://www.guntotenmamas.com/

 

[wendiesan]

What services does the NRA provide for members who are involved in an incident like this?

 

[daisy7]

That article gives the name of the handbag so I went and looked at one and I guess there is a holster in the zip pocket. Gonna look at some of the others and see if they all do.

http://www.guntotenmamas.com/

From the homepage on their website

 

[Zuri]

That article gives the name of the handbag so I went and looked at one and I guess there is a holster in the zip pocket. Gonna look at some of the others and see if they all do.

http://www.guntotenmamas.com/

From the homepage on their website View attachment 67014 View attachment 67015

I had no idea these things even existed. On the website, they had iPad CCW covers. Do you really need to carry a gun in an iPad?

 

[Fairy1]

I knew this thread would devolve into a gun control debate. That said, I would like to bring this case into the discussion:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ve...thers-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766

I will just say, all 5 of the people that died on this day had guns. Every one of them - for different reasons.

Then again, you have this:

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/1-dead-another-sought-after-resident-shoots-home-invader

Pretty sure there will be much more to this story. Time will tell...

Fact is, an innocent little baby boy accidentally killed his own mother. There's no point in blaming her as she has paid the ultimate price for any mistakes that were made that day. I sure will be on my guard when out and about shopping from now on. It's not something I really ever thought about before.

 

[LinasK]

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

I just went back to read this thread. I'm not believing it was accident.:snooty:

 

[ThoughtFox]

The main problem I have with this shooting is that the gun wasn't really "concealed" at all. That special purse the mother had wasn't really special at all, and actually has more zippers and easier access than any handbag I've ever owned.

When I have something important I don't want to lose like my phone or a receipt, I tuck it away in an inside pocket of my purse. Guns are different because people want to be able to reach for them in a split second. I am baffled that her friend said she wasn't scared, but just wanted to have a gun with her. I'm really speechless about that.

ETA: I'll add that as a woman, the thing I fear that someone might steal is my purse, so why put a gun inside a purse? Of course a child might just as easily get a gun out of a mother's coat pocket as well, and then we're right back here again.

That type of gun purse actually it looks similar to a diaper bag, so how the heck is a 2-year-old toddler supposed to know the difference between a purse or diaper bag that is safe to unzip, or Mommy's Gun Bag which is hazardous to someone's health? Did he see her put the gun in there? Are guns waved around at home too? I think it's valid to ask these questions.

It's incredible that in our society we are so obsessed with child safety that we cover every electrical outlet, block the doorknobs, buy the safest high chairs and car seats and swings . . . then parents put a gun within reach of a toddler and walk away in a grocery store. It's infuriating! She paid the ultimate price for her choice, but it could have been one of the other kids dead or maimed, or someone else's kid or grandma or father.

Yeah, her gun was legal, her purse was legal, she had every right to have a gun in Walmart in Idaho apparently, but there's just something wrong with the fact that now her children are orphans, yet it was an accident anyone might have foreseen. We can rationalize all day about her right to carry a gun, but the negligence lies in where that gun was when the child found it, and the fact he was able to use it. It wasn't concealed enough.

 

[1&2&3]

When you stop to think about this case, these parents needed to realize that particular design purse was very unsafe if children would be around. How easy the gun was to get to! Really not hidden or in a location away from children of any age. Also, had it not been a shot to the mom, and a bystander was shot and killed, would the mom be held responsible?

Now that would have been a sad, long drawn out process.Why do people need to carry guns into public stores?

 

[Hatfield]

California politicians think gun laws that restrict law abiding citizens make things safer. It didn't work for a local woman yesterday.

Oakland man jailed in fatal shooting of woman outside El Dorado Hills pub




Background checks and waiting periods didn't help this lady. They ran when confronted by the armed felon and one of them was shot dead. Maybe if one or both of the women were armed with a gun this tragedy could have been avoided.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article5553672.html

JMO
That is a very common misconception that a lot of people have. That by passing more restrictive gun laws, a common "" would be less apt to shoot you.
The thing a lot of people forget is the common "" is typically not following any gun regulations at all. They have no permit, the dont care about no permit, and they probably had a past conviction already that prevents them from obtaining a gun, and they probably obtained the gun illegally already (either by purchasing it from an unauthorized person or it is stolen property, etc.).

So the typical "" today that is using a gun in commision of a crime likely is possessing that gun illegally already. So any new law is not going to change that "thugs" behavior.

 

[CoolJ]

JMO
That is a very common misconception that a lot of people have. That by passing more restrictive gun laws, a common "" would be less apt to shoot you.
The thing a lot of people forget is the common "" is typically not following any gun regulations at all. They have no permit, the dont care about no permit, and they probably had a past conviction already that prevents them from obtaining a gun, and they probably obtained the gun illegally already (either by purchasing it from an unauthorized person or it is stolen property, etc.).

So the typical "" today that is using a gun in commision of a crime likely is possessing that gun illegally already. So any new law is not going to change that "thugs" behavior.

That certainly is true, new "gun" laws are likely not going to change a criminals behaviour. But it could definitely make it very tough for a criminal to manage to get his/her hands on a gun. At least that's what we see in nations that have restricted access to handguns.

 

[Hatfield]

That certainly is true, new "gun" laws are likely not going to change a criminals behaviour. But it could definitely make it very tough for a criminal to manage to get his/her hands on a gun. At least that's what we see in nations that have restricted access to handguns.

I do agree to some extent, although at this point in the US at least, in order for it to make a real difference I almost think that LE would have to first pass a total ban on guns and then go door-to-door in a force entry to every single home, apartment, business, etc. to forcibly inspect and confiscate all weapons to really get them. I seriously doubt the US people would want their rights infringed upon to that extent.
Because we can probably safely assume that any sort of voluntary turn-in of guns would only be partially successful and not really remove them all. There would be many people lying that they dont have guns in their house. So I really do think that the only way to really remove them all from the country would be by involuntary force entry to search + seize. And this is on every single residence whether people claim they own guns or not.

There would probably have to be mutliple sweeps too of this same search + seize because the public would probably find out which areas are being done, and certain people will move their guns to a different friends home while the searches are happening, and then get them back afterwards. There would be a certain percentage that would most likely never be retrieved.

The other problem with that type of total ban is that there is always some small subset of the population that would somehow get "exclusions" from the ban. These would include LE officers, security officers, certain government officials, etc. And the problem there, is when these type of people retire from their profession, a certain subset will somehow not turn in their guns even though they are supposed to.

 

[Brightbird]

I'm not sure why people think gun control means a total ban on guns :dunno: