Toddler kills himself with mother's gun

[Phoenix86]

We have this happen a lot here in Phoenix, Az with pools, people become unattentive and little ones drown, the guilt that they have to bear must be incredible same for this mother who will have to live with this for the rest of her life.............he who is without sin can cast the first stone..........

Exactly. Fully loaded pool, no external safety, and they are everywhere.

All joking aside, I get how people can say "them's the rules, gotta apply them to everyone". On paper the law should apply to everyone equally.

However... That's a terrible way to fucking run government. We'd be handing out speeding tickets at the rate of hundreds per second. I saw at least 40 people speeding on the way to lunch and back.

Fine them all! We should have drones assigned to each citizen so we can lawfully enforce every law on every person equally ALL THE TIME.

Right?

...

...

Guys?

Who's with me?

 

[Bird222]

Exactly. Fully loaded pool, no external safety, and they are everywhere.

All joking aside, I get how people can say "them's the rules, gotta apply them to everyone". On paper the law should apply to everyone equally.

However... That's a terrible way to fucking run government. We'd be handing out speeding tickets at the rate of hundreds per second. I saw at least 40 people speeding on the way to lunch and back.

Fine them all! We should have drones assigned to each citizen so we can lawfully enforce every law on every person equally ALL THE TIME.

Right?

...

...

Guys?

Who's with me?

I'm with ya! :biggrin:

 

[highland145]

Looks like we've got a couple of NSA plants on the forums.

 

[Mxylplyx]

People suggesting we scrutinize the dangers of swimming pools or automobiles the same way we scrutinize firearms are simply being dishonest or deceptive. Most firearms are purposely designed to kill or maim other people. Arguing you need firearms to protect yourselves from others with firearms simply perpetuates a feedback loop, because the more that people demand unfettered access to them, the easier it is for people with bad intentions to obtain them.

The argument over gun control is kind of like the same sex marriage argument in the 90's. Progressive types believed in it, but were too cowardly to come out and say it because it was too bold of a position then. Well let me come out and say it. Gun violence, and particularly these mass shooting events, are a uniquely American problem among developed nations, and is borne almost entirely out of the easy availability of guns in this country. The way guns have been so thoroughly woven into the cultural fabric of this country can best be described as a cultural defect. The societal costs of having them so accessible grossly outweighs any benefit, and therefore the long term goal should be to almost entirely eliminate private gun ownership in this country. I'm sure many of you are just aghast at such a crazy statement, but please take a moment and articulate WHY it is so crazy? Would you argue that the homicide rate, particularly these mass homicide events, would continue unabated in the absence of guns? Are you just afraid of the transition period to a gun free society, when roving gangs of armed bandits would be running through your neighborhood to kill you? Do you love going to the shooting range so much that you just don't give a damn about all the gun violence? Before you try to get off easy and just label me a commie without addressing my points, please explain why this is so crazy.


And for the record, I own 5 guns. I wouldn't feel like less of a man if they suddenly disappeared

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

People suggesting we scrutinize the dangers of swimming pools or automobiles the same way we scrutinize firearms are simply being dishonest or deceptive. Most firearms are purposely designed to kill or maim other people. Arguing you need firearms to protect yourselves from others with firearms simply perpetuates a feedback loop, because the more that people demand unfettered access to them, the easier it is for people with bad intentions to obtain them.

The argument over gun control is kind of like the same sex marriage argument in the 90's. Progressive types believed in it, but were too cowardly to come out and say it because it was too bold of a position then. Well let me come out and say it. Gun violence, and particularly these mass shooting events, are a uniquely American problem among developed nations, and is borne almost entirely out of the easy availability of guns in this country. The way guns have been so thoroughly woven into the cultural fabric of this country can best be described as a cultural defect. The societal costs of having them so accessible grossly outweighs any benefit, and therefore the long term goal should be to almost entirely eliminate private gun ownership in this country. I'm sure many of you are just aghast at such a crazy statement, but please take a moment and articulate WHY it is so crazy? Would you argue that the homicide rate, particularly these mass homicide events, would continue unabated in the absence of guns? Are you just afraid of the transition period to a gun free society, when roving gangs of armed bandits would be running through your neighborhood to kill you? Do you love going to the shooting range so much that you just don't give a damn about all the gun violence? Before you try to get off easy and just label me a commie without addressing my points, please explain why this is so crazy.


And for the record, I own 5 guns. I wouldn't feel like less of a man if they suddenly disappeared

The problem isn't guns. It's the people that use them. Get rid of the guns and they will use other methods to attempt to do their harm.

Anyway I use guns for protection and hunting. I usually carry when I'm hiking alone in the dark in remote places. If I come across a bear or mountain lion, I would at least have a bit of a chance to survive.

In my opinion, the limiting of freedoms and the ripping apart of the constitution that you and your type like to do is the real social defect.

 

[Rustler]

I was not saying that swimming pools and guns are the same. What I was refering to as the same or similar is the guilt that the person feels who let his child die in either an unattened swimming pool or an unattended firearm. I was talking about the guilt....that a person feels.

 

[irishScott]

People suggesting we scrutinize the dangers of swimming pools or automobiles the same way we scrutinize firearms are simply being dishonest or deceptive. Most firearms are purposely designed to kill or maim other people. Arguing you need firearms to protect yourselves from others with firearms simply perpetuates a feedback loop, because the more that people demand unfettered access to them, the easier it is for people with bad intentions to obtain them.

The argument over gun control is kind of like the same sex marriage argument in the 90's. Progressive types believed in it, but were too cowardly to come out and say it because it was too bold of a position then. Well let me come out and say it. Gun violence, and particularly these mass shooting events, are a uniquely American problem among developed nations, and is borne almost entirely out of the easy availability of guns in this country. The way guns have been so thoroughly woven into the cultural fabric of this country can best be described as a cultural defect. The societal costs of having them so accessible grossly outweighs any benefit, and therefore the long term goal should be to almost entirely eliminate private gun ownership in this country. I'm sure many of you are just aghast at such a crazy statement, but please take a moment and articulate WHY it is so crazy? Would you argue that the homicide rate, particularly these mass homicide events, would continue unabated in the absence of guns? Are you just afraid of the transition period to a gun free society, when roving gangs of armed bandits would be running through your neighborhood to kill you? Do you love going to the shooting range so much that you just don't give a damn about all the gun violence? Before you try to get off easy and just label me a commie without addressing my points, please explain why this is so crazy.


And for the record, I own 5 guns. I wouldn't feel like less of a man if they suddenly disappeared

A gun is the personification of my right to self defense, and I want to live in a society that respects that right. Some people believe this fallacy that guns are just for defending against other guns, like other weapons aren't just as deadly. If someone threatens me with a knife, bat, pipe or even fists, I want a gun. If you think that's outlandish, come on over and let me slam your head against a concrete wall a few times. To say I should be forced to defend myself hand-to-hand, with some UK-style "proportional force" is absurd. And yes, I know the odds of my being attacked are low. But it has almost happened twice in my life, it's happened to people I know who have defended themselves. The odds are not negligible, and statistics and 911 aren't going to save me if I win that particular lottery.

In fact, the non-partisan National Crime Victimization Survey estimates about 100,000 self defensive gun uses per year. This is by far the most conservative number and is actively cited by gun control lobbyists. The NRA endorsed numbers (which even I don't believe) place the number of defensive gun uses in the millions. Keep in mind that we're talking everything from displaying a gun defensively to a defensive shooting.

By contrast, there are about 8500 - 11000 gun homicides per year depending on who's numbers you reference (FBI vs CDC). Looking at the respective numbers, I'd says guns are doing much more good than harm even with conservative estimates.

I'd also like to point out that gun crime is highly localized to impoverished populations. Meanwhile middle-class neighborhoods with insanely high levels of gun ownership, like Kennesaw Georgia (where owning a gun is a legal mandate), boast some of the lowest crime rates in the nation. The guns are not the issue, and eliminating all 300,000,000+ from the US, even if it were possible, will not address the problem and will simply deny the responsible majority their natural right to self defense.

 

[Rustler]

the optimal word is Control, gun, climate change, what you eat, what you drink, what you think where you go


you will do as you are told until the rights to you ar sold....................

 

[waggy]

A gun is the personification of my right to self defense, and I want to live in a society that respects that right. Some people believe this fallacy that guns are just for defending against other guns, like other weapons aren't just as deadly. If someone threatens me with a knife, bat, pipe or even fists, I want a gun. If you think that's outlandish, come on over and let me slam your head against a concrete wall a few times. To say I should be forced to defend myself hand-to-hand, with some UK-style "proportional force" is absurd. And yes, I know the odds of my being attacked are low. But it has almost happened twice in my life, it's happened to people I know who have defended themselves. The odds are not negligible, and statistics and 911 aren't going to save me if I win that particular lottery.

In fact, the non-partisan National Crime Victimization Survey estimates about 100,000 self defensive gun uses per year. This is by far the most conservative number and is actively cited by gun control lobbyists. The NRA endorsed numbers (which even I don't believe) place the number of defensive gun uses in the millions. Keep in mind that we're talking everything from displaying a gun defensively to a defensive shooting.

pretty much how i feel. when it takes 20 minutes to get a cop to the house in a emergancy i need something to protect my family.

I am also not going to take the chance they are just in the house ot take my TV.

 

[stockwiz]

Dumb dumb dumb... I know some gun owners will insist on keeping a round in the chamber but with practice one can learn to chamber a round without even thinking about it.

Without a round in the chamber the gun (in modern striker fired pistols) will go click and nothing will happen until the slide is pulled back to chamber a round and this 3 year old would still be alive... with a gun like the Springfield XDM which requires your hand in the grip safety to pull the slide back, it's highly unlikely a small child would be able to chamber a round. Another good reason NOT to chamber a round is in case the gun is taken from you by the perp.. it will give you time to react as they try to fire only to see nothing happen... even better if they've never seen a grip safety and thus try to unsuccessfully chamber a round.

I'd never keep a round in the chamber if I had kids under the age of 5 (I don't usually keep one chambered anyways) .. the extra couple seconds it might take for me to chamber a round in a self defense situation... I'll take the risk the perp might get to me and wrestle the gun away.. which realistically is highly unlikely to happen if you practice, practice, practice, over and over again chambering a round, dry firing, operating the gun you own.. like you should be doing... until it all becomes second nature.


▶ How to shoot a Pistol with world champion shooter, Jerry Miculek - YouTube

 

[irishScott]

Dumb dumb dumb... I know some gun owners will insist on keeping a round in the chamber but with practice one can learn to chamber a round without even thinking about it.

Without a round in the chamber the gun will go click and nothing will happen until the slide is pulled back to chamber a round and this 3 year old would still be alive... with a gun like the Springfield XDM which requires your hand in the grip safety to pull the slide back, it's highly unlikely a small child would be able to chamber a round. Another good reason NOT to chamber a round is in case the gun is taken from you by the perp.. it will give you time to react as they try to fire only to see nothing happen... even better if they've never seen a grip safety and thus try to unsuccessfully chamber a round.

Racking the slide requires two hands, more time, complex movement and is one more thing to mess up. It's extremely easy to short-rack the slide and not chamber a round. Unless you're going to train that technique religiously you're going to mess it up under stress. As for gun grabs, if the perp is close enough to grab your gun then you're into hand-to-hand and the gun has lost much or all of its value.

Granted for someone who's too dumb/lazy to practice good firearm discipline around kids, it might be a better option.

 

[jlee]

Dumb dumb dumb... I know some gun owners will insist on keeping a round in the chamber but with practice one can learn to chamber a round without even thinking about it.

Without a round in the chamber the gun (in modern striker fired pistols) will go click and nothing will happen until the slide is pulled back to chamber a round and this 3 year old would still be alive... with a gun like the Springfield XDM which requires your hand in the grip safety to pull the slide back, it's highly unlikely a small child would be able to chamber a round. Another good reason NOT to chamber a round is in case the gun is taken from you by the perp.. it will give you time to react as they try to fire only to see nothing happen... even better if they've never seen a grip safety and thus try to unsuccessfully chamber a round.

I'd never keep a round in the chamber if I had kids under the age of 5 (I don't usually keep one chambered anyways) .. the extra couple seconds it might take for me to chamber a round in a self defense situation... I'll take the risk the perp might get to me and wrestle the gun away.. which realistically is highly unlikely to happen if you practice, practice, practice, over and over again chambering a round, dry firing, operating the gun you own.. like you should be doing...

Meanwhile, anyone with legitimate training is carrying a chambered gun. 😉

 

[irishScott]

Meanwhile, anyone with legitimate training is carrying a chambered gun. 😉

Bu.. but all the badass movie stars chamber a round right before shooting! Clearly it's a viable tactic and not a sign of poor preparation! And it makes that badass sound!

 

[stockwiz]

Meh.. to each their own. I live in a low crime area. If you choose to keep a round chambered that's your right. 🙂 There's no wrong way to do it as long as it's practiced.

 

[Kelvrick]

Meh.. to each their own. I live in a low crime area. If you choose to keep a round chambered that's your right. 🙂 There's no wrong way to do it as long as it's practiced.

Yes, to each their own but, with practice, nobody can ever draw, rack, and fire as quickly as if they just had to draw and fire. Practice can get you the muscle memory to do it without thinking, but it will never be as quick. The closest you can get is if you carry OWB at 3 o'clock so you only have to sweep your carry garment back with your strong hand so your support hand is ready to rack. Someone with a round chambered can fire almost immediately after clearing the holster by rotating the firearm before extending. Most people (I might be wrong) carry IWB though so they need their left hand to deal with the cover garment.

I'm just wondering, but do you have any experience with IDPA, USPSA, or IPSC?

I'm also wondering if it has been confirmed that the weapon in the purse was indeed unholstered or if it was just left free in the main pocket or at least a dedicated pocket.

 

[highland145]

round in the chamber and a decent holster...duh.

 

[sandorski]

No, you were saying that every gun owner is a responsible gun owner. That is not true. You're also implying that it is not possible to be a responsible gun owner. That is also not true.

No. I was saying that every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner. It is only after a tragedy like this occurs that they realize they were not.

 

[JulesMaximus]

No. I was saying that every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner. It is only after a tragedy like this occurs that they realize they were not.

We're a gun culture nation.

I never was exposed to guns until my Mom's second marriage to an alcoholic. He was actually a decent man when he was sober and the first time I fired a gun was under his supervision and I really enjoyed it. I was probably 10 at the time and this was maybe 1977. He owned two guns, a 22 caliber rifle and a 30-06 hunting rifle. He tried to kill himself with the 30-06 a year or so later on one of his drinking binges... blew part of his face off in that attempt. He had threatened to kill all of us in numerous tirades but thankfully he didn't.

My Mom left him after his suicide attempt and we never saw him again. I vividly remember the ambulance and the hours spent in the hospital after that. I'm sure there will be numerous posts deriding my Mom and her decisions in life that will make everyone else feel good about themselves and how they always make excellent decisions in their lives.

I didn't fire a gun again until the early 1990s when I was living in Los Angeles. I enjoy shooting but I have a unique perspective on gun owners I think and I'm not entirely trusting of them.

Just because you haven't committed a crime doesn't mean you're incapable of committing a crime.

 

[irishScott]

No. I was saying that every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner. It is only after a tragedy like this occurs that they realize they were not.

And some limited gun licensing might help with that, impose actual national standards for gun safety. Just need to find a way to make sure it never goes any further than limited licensing, and isn't exploited to enact defacto bans. While we're at it we can genetically engineer some pigs to fly . 😛

 

[sandorski]

We're a gun culture nation.

I never was exposed to guns until my Mom's second marriage to an alcoholic. He was actually a decent man when he was sober and the first time I fired a gun was under his supervision and I really enjoyed it. I was probably 10 at the time and this was maybe 1977. He owned two guns, a 22 caliber rifle and a 30-06 hunting rifle. He tried to kill himself with the 30-06 a year or so later on one of his drinking binges... blew part of his face off in that attempt. He had threatened to kill all of us in numerous tirades but thankfully he didn't.

My Mom left him after his suicide attempt and we never saw him again. I vividly remember the ambulance and the hours spent in the hospital after that. I'm sure there will be numerous posts deriding my Mom and her decisions in life that will make everyone else feel good about themselves and how they always make excellent decisions in their lives.

I didn't fire a gun again until the early 1990s when I was living in Los Angeles. I enjoy shooting but I have a unique perspective on gun owners I think and I'm not entirely trusting of them.

Just because you haven't committed a crime doesn't mean you're incapable of committing a crime.

Damn, I can't even imagine what that would be like. Your mother made the right choice. Something was troubling him, it sucks what he did, but what could have happened is worse.

 

[highland145]

d to kill all of us in numerous tirades but thankfully he didn't.

My Mom left him after his suicide attempt and we never saw him again. I vividly remember the ambulance and the hours spent in the hospital after that. I'm sure there will be numerous posts deriding my Mom and her decisions in life that will make everyone else feel good about themselves and how they always make excellent decisions in their lives.

Most here aren't dickheads.

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

No. I was saying that every gun owner thinks they are a responsible gun owner. It is only after a tragedy like this occurs that they realize they were not.

There are plenty of gun owners who know they are a responsible gun owner, and because they are, things like this would not happen with their guns.

 

[skyking]

Most here aren't dickheads.

:thumbsup:
Jules that is a terrible experience to have as a child. I can see how your view is going to be quite different on the whole subject.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I agree that we have a natural right to self-defense. What we *use* for self defense is not a natural right.

The Constitution gives to us an *amendment* that says Americans can own guns and the laws further clarify what types can be owned, etc. But it's still just an amendment that, by definition, can be amended or done away with altogether. Most gun people I know seem to think that the right to bear guns is a natural right that cannot be modified in any way, when in fact it is not.

It's an amendment put there with the original intention of being able to evolve with the times, like all amendments are.

It's entirely possible to amend the first amendment to change what people need to do in order to use these weapons. What changes are made would need to balance safety and liberty, of course. We want to allow people to stay safe but we don't want to place so many requirements that it becomes too much of a burden for people to stay safe and/or defend themselves against an oppressive government.

I'm for the right to bear arms.

I'm also for amendments to our 2nd amendment to make guns safer and to do our best to ensure that the people who choose to have them will do so in a proper, trained manner. The right to bear arms can and should come with more conditions. Maybe an education requirement where training is mandatory and the government can foot the bill (otherwise it becomes an unfair burden on exercising this right). Maybe ongoing bi-yearly requirements to be current with gun training and being cleared by a professional otherwise you can lose your gun license and the police come to your house and take away your gun (just because you qualify for a gun now doesn't mean your mental state will always be in such a qualifying state many years down the line). Maybe pushing for more smart guns that detect unauthorized use. Just throwing ideas out there with the hopes that they can minimize accidental shootings such as this.

If people are serious about protecting themselves against attackers they also need to be required (IMO) to be serious about keeping their weapons safe.

 

[SlitheryDee]

I'm also for amendments to our 2nd amendment to make guns safer and to do our best to ensure that the people who choose to have them will do so in a proper, trained manner. The right to bear arms can and should come with more conditions. Maybe an education requirement where training is mandatory and the government can foot the bill (otherwise it becomes an unfair burden on exercising this right). Maybe ongoing bi-yearly requirements to be current with gun training and being cleared by a professional otherwise you can lose your gun license and the police come to your house and take away your gun (just because you qualify for a gun now doesn't mean your mental state will always be in such a qualifying state many years down the line). Maybe pushing for more smart guns that detect unauthorized use. Just throwing ideas out there with the hopes that they can minimize accidental shootings such as this.

If people are serious about protecting themselves against attackers they also need to be required (IMO) to be serious about keeping their weapons safe.

I'm not opposed to that, but I understand why other people are. Modifying the law to add more restrictions to gun ownership will never be enough for some people. Whatever vestige of the second amendment is left will always be a point of contention until it is gone altogether. People have a habit of forgetting all the things that have gotten limited or restricted in the past and focusing solely on what is left.

If you need an example just look at smokers. First they got shoved into smoking zones, then they got kicked to the curb, then they were made to vacate the curb. Now they can barely get in sight of the curb.

If anti-smokers were content to stop at the first step and say "Good thing we got those smokers over there in the corner. Now we can move on to a completely different problem", then maybe you could say that we're safe allowing restrictions to be placed on gun ownership. That didn't happen though. People kept pushing. Enough was never enough. If smokers had just resisted the first step in the process like the NRA resists each and every mention of restricting gun ownership, maybe they'd STILL be fighting over that step with every one after it having never been implemented. Instead smoker just rolled over and did what they were told. So what the NRA is really doing is establishing a holding pattern. As long as activists are quibbling over banana clips and assault rifles they never get around to handguns and hunting rifles. Don't let them get a foot in the door because if you do, they're coming all the way in eventually.