2 Year old accidentally shoots his mother to death :(

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
I'm actually curious if this is true or not. I don't think, from what I've read, that any ATOTer has actually ever fired a gun for home defense purposes. You don't read nearly as many stories about such cases as you do about these kind of shootings.

It could all be what the "evil commie-lovin librul' freedom-hatin'" media chooses to report, sure, but my exposure certainly lends me to think that accidents in home (or death by cop) are more common than legit home defense needs.

By requiring the firing of the weapon you have imposed a biased threshold. A weapon can defend you without having to be fired, as shown in numerous studies. I have actually fired my gun at my girlfriend's home, though it was against an animal attack, not an intruder. Others on here have also commented about weapon use. I believe someone fired through their back door once, though I could be confusing it with a story on another forum.

Regardless, it is known that there are at least a hundred thousand defensive gun uses annually (and potentially 25 times that number, but we can discount that for now). Even the staunchest anti-gunner agrees with this. Since there are only a few thousand firearm accidents per year (given the extremely small number of fatalities and general firearm mortality rates), your opinion is already disproved, even using the worst possible set of statistics available.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Don't forget Dihydrogen Monoxide. It's the leading cause of death for small children.

Don't forget that comparing the essential ingredient for life to an instrument whose sole purpose is killing human's is a sign of below average IQ.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Regardless, it is known that there are at least a hundred thousand defensive gun uses annually (and potentially 25 times that number, but we can discount that for now). Even the staunchest anti-gunner agrees with this. Since there are only a few thousand firearm accidents per year (given the extremely small number of fatalities and general firearm mortality rates), your opinion is already disproved, even using the worst possible set of statistics available.

I am really curiuos about this number, does this include every time cops draw their weapon on suspects? Do you have a link with supporting research into hundreds of thousands of civilain uses? I did some google searching but nothing popped up besides gun forums.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
The FBI says 2,000,000 people a year defend themselves with a gun.

Yes, I believe the stories are intentionally unreported because it does not fit the agenda of the news companies. I believe their agenda is to portray people as helpless. The reasoning for their agenda is debatable however.


That 2M number seems high... Though with the total US population somewhere north of 307M, it's still 0.0065 of the total.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
The glock's safety is an extra lever built into the trigger. The trigger is 3-pronged with the 1 prong sticking out extra far (the safety) and the main trigger being the other 2-prongs.

It essentially has no safety and is meant to fire a projectile downrange as fast as possible from draw.

Fixed
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
The FBI says 2,000,000 people a year defend themselves with a gun.

Yes, I believe the stories are intentionally unreported because it does not fit the agenda of the news companies. I believe their agenda is to portray people as helpless. The reasoning for their agenda is debatable however.

well there is a hopelessly vague figure right there! :D

and so...what is this "agenda" of the news companies?

a lot of you guys love conspiracies? what about the possibility that the gun lobby has it's own vested interest in propagating this mentality of fear and helplessness. would that not benefit their bottom line?

don't you realize that the greatest thing for the Gun industry is a Democratic president? lol, it's like the golden age every time it happens.

Gun lobby: Oh noes! vote against this Dem!! He gonna take ur gunz!!
Gun nuts: OMG! My gunz are gonna be gone!! Oh noe!
Gun lobby! Oh Noes! U didn't vote fer our friendz in the GOP! this dem is gonna take ur guns in 3 months!! see, he said this...!!"
Gun nuts: OMG! He gonna do it! Buy bullets now--Buy guns in bulk, Oh Noes!!1
Gun lobby: See--we are running low on ammunition! look--cost is way up!! Oh no--there goes freedom!!


Logical individual: :hmm: ...wtf.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,816
952
126
I would think if the dad killed her, the cops would know pretty quickly. Just the bullet path would be a give away from which height the gun was fired. I'm sure though the kid will be questioned to see if the father encouraged him to fire on his mother.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Having worked as a newspaper journalist in the Southern California market, I can say that the majority of journalists I knew were of the liberal/progressive bent. Stories about firearms being misused were considered vastly more sexy than stories about firearms being used in self-defense. My colleagues would look at me like I'd grown a second head whenever I suggested otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
I would think if the dad killed her, the cops would know pretty quickly. Just the bullet path would be a give away from which height the gun was fired. I'm sure though the kid will be questioned to see if the father encouraged him to fire on his mother.

It wouldn't be very hard for a particularly evil person to hold the gun in the infant's hands and call mommy into the room. Pow...the baby did it! Then just wash his hands before the cops got there.
 

FDF12389

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2005
5,234
7
76
I would think if the dad killed her, the cops would know pretty quickly. Just the bullet path would be a give away from which height the gun was fired. I'm sure though the kid will be questioned to see if the father encouraged him to fire on his mother.

If the child is questioned, a lawyer and his father will probably both be in the room. And the testimony of a two year old is worth almost nothing in court.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
By requiring the firing of the weapon you have imposed a biased threshold. A weapon can defend you without having to be fired, as shown in numerous studies. I have actually fired my gun at my girlfriend's home, though it was against an animal attack, not an intruder. Others on here have also commented about weapon use. I believe someone fired through their back door once, though I could be confusing it with a story on another forum.

Regardless, it is known that there are at least a hundred thousand defensive gun uses annually (and potentially 25 times that number, but we can discount that for now). Even the staunchest anti-gunner agrees with this. Since there are only a few thousand firearm accidents per year (given the extremely small number of fatalities and general firearm mortality rates), your opinion is already disproved, even using the worst possible set of statistics available.

I'm simply making an assumption, because I haven't seen any statistics. Even these "worst statistics" that you are talking about.

Your argument sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ...but where are the numbers? individual anecdotes aren't statistics. If people are only collecting numbers on weapons fired, then you're right--that isn't entirely accurate because I agree that a gun doesn't need to be fired to be used in defense.

but, without numbers, you're still inferring (this is not statistics), or even worse--assuming. :\
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
for example....

Henry Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, John Lott, etc. 5 minutes of looking for rebuttals, debunking, and analysis of Kellerman (upon which most of these statements are based) will get you to these and other works. Then there's all the primary work on the subject, of which Kleck and Lott are the two big boys. Then you can go to the National Academy of Sciences analysis of gun control in which they note the flaws in this argument, and uphold the refutations by many of the researchers I list above.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
I can both agree and disagree with this and it comes down to personal preference.

The bigger choice to make is to actually have a gun at all, for most people that's the big hurdle.

My preference when carrying a pistol is to have a round in the chamber but I can say I have practiced reloading to a degree that I am proficient at it. If having to draw the weapon and fire the additional step of racking the slide isn't adding a huge amount of time or movement.

I can agree that you could be in a situation where you have been made partially disabled, no use of non-firing hand, in which case you would need to utilize your holster to retain the pistol while you racked the slide. There could be other situations where you would be drawing and firing with an attacker "on you" and have no opportunity manipulate the gun other than aiming and firing.

I would say that if you have trained to a degree that you are competent with a pistol, specifically a pistol you intend to fight with, having a round chambered or not is a personal preference and if you are going to carry a pistol to fight with, you should be well trained.

Just my two cents. :)

Or you can just carry a revolver. :)

Yeah, I actually agree with you. I just get tired of ignorant fear driving people's opinions. While some people don't prefer to carry chambered, there's honestly not much of an argument against it other than just personal preference. It's not like it has any statistical impact.
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
I'm simply making an assumption, because I haven't seen any statistics. Even these "worst statistics" that you are talking about.

Your argument sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ...but where are the numbers? individual anecdotes aren't statistics. If people are only collecting numbers on weapons fired, then you're right--that isn't entirely accurate because I agree that a gun doesn't need to be fired to be used in defense.

but, without numbers, you're still inferring (this is not statistics), or even worse--assuming. :\

If you wants statistics and cliffs for a ton of gun related topics...

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
I am really curiuos about this number, does this include every time cops draw their weapon on suspects? Do you have a link with supporting research into hundreds of thousands of civilain uses? I did some google searching but nothing popped up besides gun forums.


There are more than a dozen primary survey studies (like NCVS) and a number of other primary works (like Lott). The ONLY argument is where between 100,000 and 2,500,000 the actual number of defensive gun uses falls. It is ONLY citizen gun uses, never work related. You can save time and trouble by reading the National Academy of Sciences analysis of gun control, which looked at all existing studies and data. While it's thin on conclusions, the endnotes, especially relating to the specific studies, are pure gold.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
With kids in the house even an idiot knows not to leave a loaded gun where a young child can get at it. Same would go for knives and other dangerous things.

Cant fix stupid.

In some states the laws require loaded guns to be kept locked up.

You cant ban stupidity.

Didnt your mom tell you not to run with Siccors?
 
Last edited:
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
I'm simply making an assumption, because I haven't seen any statistics. Even these "worst statistics" that you are talking about.

Your argument sounds perfectly reasonable to me. ...but where are the numbers? individual anecdotes aren't statistics. If people are only collecting numbers on weapons fired, then you're right--that isn't entirely accurate because I agree that a gun doesn't need to be fired to be used in defense.

but, without numbers, you're still inferring (this is not statistics), or even worse--assuming. :\

See my other posts for paper names. Look at the FBI, BJS, NAS websites. Hell, even the CDC publishes some numbers on defensive use, though their thresholds are laughable. Unfortunately for most serious study you'll need academic database access, but you'll find these works referenced all over the net at least.
 

Mide

Golden Member
Mar 27, 2008
1,547
0
71
Why did he keep one in the chamber? A 2 year old would not be able to rack the slide.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Henry Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, John Lott, etc. 5 minutes of looking for rebuttals, debunking, and analysis of Kellerman (upon which most of these statements are based) will get you to these and other works. Then there's all the primary work on the subject, of which Kleck and Lott are the two big boys. Then you can go to the National Academy of Sciences analysis of gun control in which they note the flaws in this argument, and uphold the refutations by many of the researchers I list above.

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

I now know where the 2.5M figure came from and how absurd it is.

article said:
Kleck and Gertz’s claim of 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year is derived from a telephone survey of 5,000 American adults conducted in 1992. Fifty-six respondents to this survey reported that they had used a gun in self-defense during the past year.

In this particular case the public’s skepticism is warranted. The primary problem is that, even if the Kleck and Gertz’s estimates were accurate, defensive gun use is a relatively rare occurrence in that only 1% of respondent reported a defensive gun use….inaccurate reporting of these events by a relatively small number of respondents could lead to population projections that are orders of magnitude different from the true incidence.

David Hemerway of Harvard University sites 1994 survey of 1,500 adults living in the U.S. Six percent of the respondents to this survey reported having had personal contact with alients from another planet. This six percent could be explained, in part, by the series of question that led up to question about contact with aliens that set up the respondent to expect that the interviewer was hoping for some alien-contact answers.

Kleck-Gertz projection for the number of assailants wounded by armed citizens in 1992 is more than twice as high as the estimate from another study of the total number of people treated for gunshot wounds …. In 1994. The Kleck-Gertz survey data suggest that , in serious crimes, the victim was four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun, a highly implausible finding.

when survey's depend on percentages as low as 1% they are HEAVILY biased by potential error and also telescoped responses. Combined with the extrapolation of their findings to total gunshot wounds and the likelyhood of a victim using a gun versus a criminal it is a study that has been debunked entirely.

I honestly think the gun lobby have valid points on certain issues, but please don't use insane studies to support your position.