2 Year old accidentally shoots his mother to death :(

Page 5 - 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
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

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


.

Yup. I've never been a fan of those particular studies. Then again, the ones at the other end are equally absurd for similar methodological failures. In my own opinion the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. I find the 600,000-800,000 claims the best supported.

You'll notice I don't ever use Lott or Kleck with regards to the actual number of defensive gun uses. I use their other works, such as their debunking of Kellerman and their primary research into other factors.
 
Last edited:

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/myths.pdf

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



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.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rngn3274255v6j67/

How about those numbers? Seem more plausible?
 

Onita

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,158
0
71
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.

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

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



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.

When responding (and attempting to debunk) an argument, please use the full argument. Princeofwands even indicated that he was ignoring the 2.5 mil number.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
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.

$56.50 for the National Academy brief, I'm not that terribly interested in the debat.

I believe their finding is that gun control doesn't work and I agree with that statement. The problem is that there are already hundreds of thousands of handguns out there, so it's far too late for controlling access to criminals. I don't see any real path forward except for continuing to have a reasonable permiting process, keeping it out of schools and not having everyone and their mother walk around with open-carry handguns. Some people see these as infringements on personal freedom but I see them as sanity checks for a non-wildwest society.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
Why did he keep one in the chamber? A 2 year old would not be able to rack the slide.

As already mentioned, anyone appropriately carrying a firearm keeps one in the chamber. The problem isn't having one in the chamber, it's leaving it out where anyone has access to it.
 

amicold

Platinum Member
Feb 7, 2005
2,656
1
81
No one pointed out the obvious that kids generally don't point toy guns at their mothers or mother-figures so assuming this happened the way it is portrayed I would imagine the kid has the same sentiments about the woman as her ex-boyfriend
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
this guy was stupid/negligent, but if weapon laws weren't so lax incidents like this or even intentional ones (adolescents shooting their parents) would be far less likely to happen.

No one pointed out the obvious that kids generally don't point toy guns at their mothers or mother-figures so assuming this happened the way it is portrayed I would imagine the kid has the same sentiments about the woman as her ex-boyfriend
how do you know this?
maybe his retarded parents played with toy guns and shooted each other as a game. A quite retarded one.
 
Last edited:

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
He was defending himself. A mother stupid enough to leave a gun around a toddler is a threat.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
$56.50 for the National Academy brief, I'm not that terribly interested in the debat.

I believe their finding is that gun control doesn't work and I agree with that statement. The problem is that there are already hundreds of thousands of handguns out there, so it's far too late for controlling access to criminals. I don't see any real path forward except for continuing to have a reasonable permiting process, keeping it out of schools and not having everyone and their mother walk around with open-carry handguns. Some people see these as infringements on personal freedom but I see them as sanity checks for a non-wildwest society.

That's not really the issue as it pertains to this discussion (which is good, because I'd definitely disagree with some of your last few conclusions). I point out the NAS study so often because it did a case by case analysis of every existing study and major paper on firearm issues (mostly contained in the notes). As it pertains to this thread, it points out the utter fallacies in Kellerman and other studies claiming it was more dangerous to have a gun at home, and that validity of numerous points concerning defensive gun uses (which leads to having to accept at least a few hundred thousand each year).

BTW, if you ever do grab it, don't grab the short versions. Get the full study with included notes. That's where all the meat is.
 
Last edited:

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
this guy was stupid/negligent, but if weapon laws weren't so lax incidents like this or even intentional ones (adolescents shooting their parents) would be far less likely to happen.

No law will ever fix stupid...which by the way it is illegal to leave a weapon where a child can access it.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
this guy was stupid/negligent, but if weapon laws weren't so lax incidents like this or even intentional ones (adolescents shooting their parents) would be far less likely to happen.

There are 300,000,000 firearms in the US and about 600 accidental deaths. Just how much more rare do you believe its possible to make something?
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
As already mentioned, anyone appropriately carrying a firearm keeps one in the chamber. The problem isn't having one in the chamber, it's leaving it out where anyone has access to it.

In the situation given in the story, it is not appropriate or necessary to have a round in the chamber.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,534
911
126
It's the mother's fault for not teaching her 2 year old how to properly handle a gun.

Guns should be left lying around everywhere...it's not the gun's fault that the 2 year old wasn't taught how to handle a firearm. Darwin award for the Mom, life in prison for the 2 year old!
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
I get what you're saying...

... but I would say that this thread is more about stupidity than it is about guns. Most people do as much as they can to safeguard their homes when children are around - covers on electric outlets, locks on medicine cabinets, etc. But for some reason some people don't respect guns in the same manner. The gun isn't the problem any more than electricity, or poison, or anything else that is potentially lethal in an ordinary home... it's the fact that one or both of the parents didn't do what was necessary to keep their kid safe.

And I get what you're saying too. This thread (the story anyway) is definitely stupidity at work, and darwin's ghost was lingering in that house and I have little doubt someone was going to join him sooner or later. My point was addressing the arguments here equating guns with bathtubs, etc. A position on banning guns is not equivalent to a position on banning electricity or cars or anything with purposes designed to be benign. I could kill someone with a pencil or a pez dispenser if I really worked at it, yet it is not as inherently dangerous as a gun nor is it designed to be. A gun is a weapon designed to shoot (and kill) things. And while I don't agree with certain bans on guns, I'd never advance the argument that "we might as well ban X too" because it's a silly argument.

That said, this story is fishy and I wouldn't be surprised to find out there's more going on.
 

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
The gun is needed - just in case the man's ex didn't die from the roaming criminals that seem to be robbing every American, every minute of the day.

QUICK! TURN AND SHOOT!!! THERE IS A CRIMINAL RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!! SHOOOOOOOTTTT!!!
 

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
In the situation given in the story, it is not appropriate or necessary to have a round in the chamber.

In the situation given in the story it was not appropriate to lay the gun down where the child could access it...having the round in the chamber is a moot point.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
In the situation given in the story, it is not appropriate or necessary to have a round in the chamber.

The situation gives no information about the situation other than to say that a gun was left in the open. That's it. Doesn't say how long aside from saying that it was left when the owner visited his ex, which is a 20 minute drive. If I'm planning on going somewhere I don't want to carry, I have no problem putting my gun down, leaving it chambered, and then returning to it upon my return. I don't, however, leave it out or accessible.
 

Scotteq

Diamond Member
Apr 10, 2008
5,276
5
0
In the situation given in the story, it is not appropriate or necessary to have a round in the chamber.


Loaded or not - That weapon should never have been placed where a child might access it.


At All Times - The weapon should either be in your positive control, or locked up.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.../Two-year-old-boy-shoots-dead-his-mother.html



This shit is why we need to ban gun. Too many times children are able to get to these things, and it always ends in tragedy.

Idiot thinking. We don't need to ban guns. We need to hold those that misuse them responsible for that misuse. The owner of this gun is responsible for this death......not the gun.

If you don't like guns and don't know how to use them, then don't have one. I have guns, many guns, and killed no one today.

Is there proof, yet, that the 2 y/o actually was the one that pulled the trigger?
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
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 kill other human's as fast as possible from draw.

well technically the bullets and subsequent leaky holes they leave behind cause death. Unless you are talking about a severe pistol whipping but then that wasn't its designed use.
 

ForumMaster

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2005
7,792
1
0
Frankly, it's absurd that a gun was left in a loaded state. For a weapon that does not have a safety feature, it should always be kept unloaded, and locked. Leaving it loaded, and in a place where a two year old toddler was able to access it, is simply negligence.

Not the fault of the gun obviously, but of the owner. And again, as many have said, sound fishy.