Toddler kills his mother

[Phokus]

This wouldn't have happened if she had a gun

The toddler was just standing his ground.

 

[jhbball]

Obviously common sense is in order.
Some automatics can discharge when bumped with one in the chamber.
It's too late for her to learn that now.

Not all people have 'common sense'. This is why we have regulations.

 

[moonbogg]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes?

 

[master_shake_]

The benefit is to avoid being like this:

Source= http://genocidesandstuff.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cambodian-genocide.html

Pol-pot,Hitler..They both were against private gun ownership, too.

second page and Godwins law is invoked.

gj :whiste:

 

[Jaskalas]

For anyone so quick to dismiss this sort of thing - we're only lucky it was the gun owner who paid the price. It could have easily been pointing elsewhere. What if you were standing in that aisle?

Stupid people are not just a danger to themselves, but to others. All it takes is one little pull... you feel lucky?

 

[NesuD]

Any Conceal carry safety trainer worth their salt will always tell you that a womans purse is one of the worst places to carry a concealed weapon. This is all on her for not taking proper care with the weapon. Weapon should only be carried hot in a secure holster. A zippered pouch in a purse is not secure in anyway particularly when a child has physical access to it. I personally have doubts about the zippered pouch. If a 2 yr old was able to execute the number of manipulations necessary to actually successfully fire the weapon then I would say she was either leaving the child unattended with her purse or just not paying any attention whatsoever. Which again puts responsibility all on her.

 

[Thebobo]

The benefit is to avoid being like this:

Source= http://genocidesandstuff.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cambodian-genocide.html

Pol-pot,Hitler..They both were against private gun ownership, too.

Not true at all.

Do you own research rather than reading NRA propaganda.

In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.

Hitler's partial relaxation of gun control on government workers in Nazi Germany[edit]

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. But under the new law:

Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[3]
The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[4]
Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[4]
The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[3]
Manufacture of arms and ammunition continued to require a permit, with the revision that such permits would no longer be issued to Jews or any company part-owned by Jews. Jews were consequently forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.[3]
Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

 

[shira]

That's fine. Nobody is making you own a firearm, but don't don't tell me I can't own one.

Where do you get from . . .

This story is just one more data point proving that guns are the answer to our self-defeinse prayers.

. . . to me telling you that you can't own a gun?

 

[Matt1970]

Where do you get from . . .



. . . to me telling you that you can't own a gun?

That "one more data point" isn't going to be used to try and prove a point and further an agenda?

 

[Zorba]

The benefit is to avoid being like this:

Source= http://genocidesandstuff.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-cambodian-genocide.html

Pol-pot,Hitler..They both were against private gun ownership, too.

I am pretty sure Poland and France had guns, didn't do them much good. I doubt if basically every army in Europe was able to stop Germany, that private citizens with hand guns would've done much good. I know private gun owners have some dream that they could take on an entire advancing army with just their private guns, but reality says otherwise.

And what Thebobo said.

 

[PliotronX]

It's better than being lined up,shot and bulldozed into a mass grave.Yes it is.

If you're in New York,you don't have as much freedom as 96% of the rest of the country;and are probably fearful of interacting with the police.

True that, in Colorado a buddy didn't want to leave his handgun in his body-wrecked car after a bout with black ice: "hey officer, I just wanted to let you know that I am open carrying -- thank you for telling me, what kind is it -- a Springfield XD subcompact -- ohhh nice I love XD's." Would go down so differently in NY.

 

[shira]

That "one more data point" isn't going to be used to try and prove a point and further an agenda?

Well, if the "point" (that guns actually make one's life signficantly LESS safe) were ACTUALLY proven (by which I mean that pretty much everyone agreed that a study's methodology and data were valid, and conclusively demonstrated the point), it wouldn't require an "agenda" to get handguns out of the hands of most private citizens. I would imagine that most people wouldn't want a handgun in their homes or on their persons if the widepspread belief was that handguns cause much more harm than good.

But of course, the real point is that a significant percentage of the American public will never believe in their hearts that handguns cause more harm than good, in the same way that a significant percentage of the American public will never accept that human behavior is a significant driver of climate change. That being the case, no one is ever "going to tell" handgun owners that they "can't own" guns.

 

[Matt1970]

Well, if the "point" (that guns actually make one's life signficantly LESS safe) were ACTUALLY proven (by which I mean that pretty much everyone agreed that a study's methodology and data were valid, and conclusively demonstrated the point), it wouldn't require an "agenda" to get handguns out of the hands of most private citizens. I would imagine that most people wouldn't want a handgun in their homes or on their persons if the widepspread belief was that handguns cause much more harm than good.

But of course, the real point is that a significant percentage of the American public will never believe in their hearts that handguns cause more harm than good, in the same way that a significant percentage of the American public will never accept that human behavior is a significant driver of climate change. That being the case, no one is ever "going to tell" handgun owners that they "can't own" guns.

I think the data is already out there if you put a few things together. We average around 600 deaths a year caused by firearm accidents. That number is easy to find. However, according to FBI reports fewer than 1/2 of the over 18,000 law enforcement agencies report data on justifiable homicide. With over 1/2 the agencies not even reporting, as well as the 3rd most populous state (NY) not in the study, we still had over 300 justifiable homicides in the us in 2010.

 

[WackyDan]

Anyone else think that the standard person should keep the gun and the clip separate? Too often they seem to just keep them loaded with one in the chamber. Complete and utter stupidity.

Utterly stupid on your part.

Maybe it was a revolver... you know, those always have a round in the chamber. My .38 S&W J Frame doesn't even have a safety.

When I carry my .45, it is always loaded and always chambered.

That is the point. A firearm without the magazine loaded and a round chambered is useless... Might as well not carry one at all.

 

[WackyDan]

nope. But honestly, some oversight should be made in the civilian ccw holster market. we really dont need people leaving guns in purses or cars. Keep it on you or leave it at home

Same thing happened with a female shopper at Staples last year... Kept a firearm in her purse without a holster or at least a decent one. Reaching into her purse discharged the weapon.

This story as well that one are very much about the stupidity of the gun owner. I can't tell you how many gun owners I've come across that are decent people but are pretty fucking stupid and complacent with proper carry as well securing of their weapons.

 

[WackyDan]

Dead Mother's Facebook Page.
https://www.facebook.com/veronica.j.rutledge?fref=ts

 

[shira]

I think the data is already out there if you put a few things together. We average around 600 deaths a year caused by firearm accidents. That number is easy to find. However, according to FBI reports fewer than 1/2 of the over 18,000 law enforcement agencies report data on justifiable homicide. With over 1/2 the agencies not even reporting, as well as the 3rd most populous state (NY) not in the study, we still had over 300 justifiable homicides in the us in 2010.

Hmm. That's an interesting way of evaluating the benefit/loss regarding firearms, and I have to say (to be fair) that it doesn't include the benefits of non-lethal (and non-injurious) self-defense on the benefit side of the equation. Of course, this approach also doesn't include non-lethal injuries caused by firearm accidents.

Edit: On the "loss" side something that also needs to be counted is "opportunistic" homicides using handguns. By this I mean homicides that were committed in the heat of passion only because of the fact that a handgun was being carried or was in the home, where the homicide wouldn't have otherwise occurred had a handgun not been easily available. I don't know how or where one would obtain an accurate count of that type of homicide, though.

I assume we're talking here about justifiable homicides caused by handguns owned by private citizens, since there's no debate on whether law enforcement should carry handguns. I'm not sure where that 300-death figure comes from. I was able to find this table. Notice that the average count of justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns has been only about 190 per year (I'm including in that total the deaths listed in the "Firearm type not stated" column).

 

[theeedude]

That's why I don't shop at Walmart. It's always some redneck/lowlife sh!t going on.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Obviously common sense is in order.
Some automatics can discharge when bumped with one in the chamber.
It's too late for her to learn that now.

And never too early to teach your toddler.

 

[soundforbjt]

That's why I don't shop at Walmart. It's always some redneck/lowlife sh!t going on.

+1

 

[Jaepheth]

Dead Mother's Facebook Page.
https://www.facebook.com/veronica.j.rutledge?fref=ts

Toddler's Facebook Page

:sneaky:

 

[Knowing]

Anyone else think that the standard person should keep the gun and the clip separate? Too often they seem to just keep them loaded with one in the chamber. Complete and utter stupidity.

I'm fairly certain that the weapon in question wasn't an M1 Garand unless her purse was more of a duffel bag. If it was, that 2yo is beast.

 

[theeedude]

At least she can't reproduce anymore. But 4 kids already out...

 

[Jaskalas]

That is the point. A firearm without the magazine loaded and a round chambered is useless... Might as well not carry one at all.

This story as well that one are very much about the stupidity of the gun owner. I can't tell you how many gun owners I've come across that are decent people but are pretty fucking stupid and complacent with proper carry as well securing of their weapons.

Having nearly been shot by a reckless gun owner, I feel firsthand that the issue of people's stupidity cannot be ignored.

 

[shira]

Having nearly been shot by a reckless gun owner, I feel firsthand that the issue of people's stupidity cannot be ignored.

I find it very interesting that this point is typically blithely ignored by firearms advocates.

I'm not aware of anyone who claims to have accurately computed the percentage of firearms owners who "stupidly" or "carelessly" handle their firearms and/or ammo. But I would like to pose a question to firearms advocates:

Suppose this "stupid/careless" percentage were known accurately; at what threshold level for this percentage would you agree that a pre-condition for gun-ownership (a "license to purchase," if you will) should be (1) required firearms training (including safety training) plus (2) periodic rigorous written and physical tests to determine if the person really does know how to safely handle, carry, transport, and store firearms and ammunition?