# Young mom shot with her own gun by her toddler won't see the new year!



## Ralphy1 (Jan 1, 2015)

Legally carrying a concealed weapon that her child managed to get out of her purse and pull the trigger in a Wal-Mart was a sad and shocking story.  But the question for me was why couldn't she just carry mace or pepper spray for protection rather than a gun?


----------



## oldman (Jan 1, 2015)

Or, why did she have to have a bullet racked or chambered, as some call it?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 1, 2015)

Yes, and what about the safety?


----------



## Debby (Jan 1, 2015)

When I read that story, I have to say that I didn't feel the least bit sorry for that woman.  What a fool!  We baby proof our houses, put bumper pads on coffee table corners, put heavy objects out of their reach, guard them when they toddle down the sidewalk holding our hand.....and she parks a loaded gun on the grocery cart seat beside her baby!  What is that, Darwin's law at work?  At least no one else's family was impacted by her stupidity.  Does that make me sound hard?  Don't care.  I'm only sorry that little kid will grow up knowing that his little pudgy hand was the one that killed his mommy and that he will carry that forever.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 1, 2015)

I think it is sad.

This woman was a wife, a mother and a scientist. A moment's lapse, and haven't we all had those when taking the kids shopping, and she is suddenly dead. 
At the risk of labouring the point, that's the danger of firearms. They are designed to kill and they are only safe when they are unloaded.

The saddest thing of all is that this young mother probably thought that the gun would make her family safer.

When the very real risks are weighed against the supposed benefits of having one always are your fingertips, I cannot understand why so many people want to own a gun for any purpose other than their occupation, competitions or hunting.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 1, 2015)

It's sad... What is sad is that those children will not have a mother growing up..  What is sad is that it's because their mother was stupid and careless..  I feel sorry  for the children.. escpecially the little boy that will know his entire life he killed his mother..  I don't feel sorry for her.. she did it to herself and she died exercising her "Constitutional Right". I'm just glad that the bullet didn't hit and kill an innocent bystander or one of the other children..


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 1, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> ... When the very real risks are weighed against the supposed benefits of having one always are your fingertips, I cannot understand why so many people want to own a gun for any purpose other than their occupation, competitions or hunting.



Perhaps because the number of such incidents / accidents are FAR outweighed by the number of times they are _successfully_ used to defend themselves?


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 1, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> Perhaps because the number of such incidents / accidents are FAR outweighed by the number of times they are _successfully_ used to defend themselves?




But no one hears about those times... Do you have statistics at least?  How many lives have been actually saved because of a gun on someones person?   I'd like to know..  Post something... K?


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 1, 2015)

I have never known any woman to carry a gun.  I know one who is real estate agent and carries pepper spray...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 1, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> I have never known any woman to carry a gun.  I know one who is real estate agent and carries pepper spray...



My son used to be a meter reader for the Gas Company and they supplied them with Pepper Spray.   So he gave me some..  I carry that..


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 1, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> Perhaps because the number of such incidents / accidents are FAR outweighed by the number of times they are _successfully_ used to defend themselves?


Frankly I don't believe this assumption because it smacks of propaganda.

I carry nothing, never have, and my only self defence is to shriek at the top of my lungs.
I've only ever had to do this once, in Paris, when some gypsies got my wallet out of my handbag.
I shouted, "Thief, thief, thief", people surrounded the gypsies and I got the wallet back.

Minutes later a second group of gypsies attempted the same manoeuvre but I was now a wakeup.
I glared at them with maximum hostility written on my face and snarled "Bugger off", which they did.

These are my only brushes with crime over the last 72 years. 
Now, based on that lived experience, why would I need a deadly weapon in my handbag?
A rat trap in my handbag might have been useful in Paris, but a gun? 
Dangerous and pretty useless at the same time.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 1, 2015)

Ahhh, feistiness is a great deterrent!


----------



## Debby (Jan 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> My son used to be a meter reader for the Gas Company and they supplied them with Pepper Spray.   So he gave me some..  I carry that..




And at least no one will die from that.  Good for you QS!


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 1, 2015)

Debby said:


> And at least no one will die from that.  Good for you QS!



And the chances of my pepper spray accidentally going off in my face are pretty slim too...


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 1, 2015)

What is so sad is that this story or one similar is repeated DAILY in this country.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> But no one hears about those times... Do you have statistics at least?  How many lives have been actually saved because of a gun on someones person?   I'd like to know..  Post something... K?



That's a tough request, for several reasons ... first we have the media's reluctance to mention any successful defense involving guns. They love to print articles about 95-year-old ladies who kick a mugger in the crotch and save their purse, but they don't like to write about gun defenses because it would serve to increase even more the number of people applying for permits, and that's NOT on their agenda.

A second reason stats are hard to come by is because how can you include the number of occurrences of non-lethal self-defense involving the use of a firearm? I believe that many of those are never reported to the police, hence never make it to the people who collect the stats.

And there's the third bugaboo. The NRA claims 1.5 - 2.5 million cases of defensive gun use per year. That's probably grossly overinflated. Yet organizations such as the Violence Policy Center claim annual cases of defensive gun use per year of around 68,000 - and that's probably on the low end. 

Bottom line as I see it? Even if you take only only *one-tenth* of VPC's estimate, that's still a LOT more lives saved than lost through firearm accidents.



QuickSilver said:


> My son used to be a meter reader for the Gas Company and they supplied them with Pepper Spray.   So he gave me some..  I carry that..





Debby said:


> And at least no one will die from that.  Good for you QS!



Actually there are numerous cases of perps dying from pepper spray ... most often from over-enthusiastic use by police or civilians, and usually cited as only a contributing COD, along with heart problems, high blood pressure, asthma, etc. Also, police-issue O.C. (oleoresin capsicum, the active ingredient in pepper spray) is usually a bit stronger concentration than commercially-available pepper sprays.



Dame Warrigal said:


> Frankly I don't believe this assumption because it smacks of propaganda.
> 
> I carry nothing, never have, and my only self defence is to shriek at the top of my lungs.
> I've only ever had to do this once, in Paris, when some gypsies got my wallet out of my handbag.
> ...



You are one of 7 billion people on this earth, Dame. Luckily, it seems as if you have led a charmed life. There are some people (_ahem_) who, whether because of their occupation, their lifestyle, their travel habits or their plain bad luck, have undergone enough tests in 56 years to make Hercules' Tasks seem like a Sunday-morning "To-Do" list.

I'm truly glad that you've never needed a firearm, but please don't take away the right of ownership of those who do.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 1, 2015)

I found this..

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

*Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.*
*Fact-check: *Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5


*Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.*
*Fact-check: *Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.


*Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.*
*Fact-check:* In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than bycivilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found thatmore than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.


*Myth #7: Guns make women safer.*
*Fact-check:* In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

Strange item also. Most females who carry use special purses that have separate compartments. To easy to grab the lip gloss. The press alludes to this. Usally the compartments are on the side of the handbag. Also most revolvers require a5-6 lb. pull, difficult for a 2 year old. Gun was probably an automatic with a safety feature the kid was able to disable. Being from Idaho it doesn't surprise me the kid was a good shoot. That part of Idaho has very large wild animals that will stomp your ass into a mud puddle in a grocerystore parking lot.
I think it's NJ. Female real estate is suing for the right to carry concealed after being raped. She will win this one, overturning NJ ridiculous laws. 
Most uses of defensive firearms go unreported. What is the point. Over 30 years I needed it 4 times. No shots fired. Mostly rest stops along the interstate where anything could happen.
pepper sprays that are rated for bears work pretty good, because they have 34 ft. Of nasal sinus. They taste with their nose. Mercaptor lachrymators (tear gas) are marginally more effective. They all depend on the quality of the aerosol dispersion. Hopefully the wind isn't blowing, and if your close enough that it doesn't, good luck with that.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

Fact.most mass shootings occur in gun free zones

fact. If it wasn't a gun it would be something else. Assumes that if guns were not there the incident wouldn't happen.


next . There are factual studies contrary to these see the one posted in gun watch

females make up the largest sector of new gun buyers

motherjones and snoopes use the same recreational drugs


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Jan 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I found this..
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
> 
> ...



Mother Jones?  Please.  They are not exactly an unbiased news source.  I've been disgusted with them ever since they proposed housing the criminally insane in low-rent apartments, those insane enough to do things like start fires, and the heck with those of us honest people (this was still back when I was raising a child alone with no child support after having taken a $7,000 a year pay cut to keep her safe from her father) who have to live in low rent apartments.  I'm still 100% they want to warehouse the insane amongst the working poor so that they don't have to run the risk.

Well, given that I did run the risk at one point in my life, I am all for having a gun for protection.  I've had some interesting neighbors over the years.  

It's easy to say it's not needed when you live in a "safe" (nothing is really safe, but well safer) neighborhood and if you've been fortunate enough to not need to defend yourself in your life.  Some of us have had to and no, we don't go reporting everything to the police.  You think I want to put in a police report and get investigated for pulling a weapon and have to file a report giving the creep my name and address?  I don't think so.


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Jan 1, 2015)

As for this mother, she deserves this year's Darwin award for putting the gun within her 2yo's reach.  Stop acting like all gun owners are that retarded.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

And using such a tragedy to push a personal agenda.


----------



## Sid (Jan 1, 2015)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ent-playing-pepper-sprays-colleagues-JFK.html


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 1, 2015)

Concealed carry should be kept on the person, not in a handbag and the safety should have been on, or no bullet in the chamber.  Glad she was the one to get shot, not the kids or someone else, I have no sympathy for her.


----------



## Sid (Jan 1, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And the chances of my pepper spray accidentally going off in my face are pretty slim too...



         Hopefully you will benefit from this info.     http://www.loyaldefender.com/dangerous-pepper-spray-mistakes.html


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

Little area background you will not get, well maybe motherjones. This area of Idaho is still wilderness, very beautiful, remote, impenetrable etc. and one of the reasons why the Ayrian Nations chose it. Just sayin.


----------



## Debby (Jan 1, 2015)

rt3 said:


> And using such a tragedy to push a personal agenda.



What 'personal agenda' are you referring to?  In the event that it's a reference to Blaze's links, it's another side of the story and in any situation, all sides need to be considered.  That is not a 'personal agenda' so much as it is a case of getting a full 'education'.  I also think that suggesting that someone or an organization that you don't agree with are doing drugs is a little 'out there'.  Why not leave it at, 'their opinion is different than yours'?


----------



## Debby (Jan 1, 2015)

Sid said:


> Hopefully you will benefit from this info.     http://www.loyaldefender.com/dangerous-pepper-spray-mistakes.html




Thanks for the link Sid.  Some good points in it including a couple I would not have thought of.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

It's ok Washington, Colorado, oregan do recreational drugs, legally. Personal agendas are based on historical postings. Anti gun propaganda always use appeal to emotion aruements. If that's educational,,well ok.

forgot to mention that area of Idaho is a favorite "get away" for the Seattle rich Democrats, including Bill Gates of Microsoft.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

good post , but you will not rise to the occasion, you will fall to the level of your training.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 1, 2015)

Ralphy1 said:


> Legally carrying a concealed weapon that her child managed to get out of her purse and pull the trigger in a Wal-Mart was a sad and shocking story.  But the question for me was why couldn't she just carry mace or pepper spray for protection rather than a gun?



Keep the purse separate from the child, all kids seem to love to go through purses or things they know they are not supposed to.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

See the confusion, assumed you had read my slam on mothejones, oh you did!!!'


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 1, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I think it is sad.
> 
> This woman was a wife, a mother and a scientist. A moment's lapse, and haven't we all had those when taking the kids shopping, and she is suddenly dead.
> At the risk of labouring the point, that's the danger of firearms. They are designed to kill and they are only safe when they are unloaded.
> ...



People are scared Dame, look at the news where people are getting robbed, beaten, raped, murdered.  I know why I want to own a gun, and I can understand maybe some shouldn't, but the reason is fear.  I'm open for a better way, I never said I like guns, I'm only thinking I should get one the way things are going.  I also don't want anyone taking my right away to have one if I choose.

Have we ever talked about other options? I don't recall, my memory truly isn't as good, but I don't remember a discussion on options, other than counting on others to protect us and our families.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 1, 2015)

Debby said:


> When I read that story, I have to say that I didn't feel the least bit sorry for that woman.  What a fool!  We baby proof our houses, put bumper pads on coffee table corners, put heavy objects out of their reach, guard them when they toddle down the sidewalk holding our hand.....and she parks a loaded gun on the grocery cart seat beside her baby!  What is that, Darwin's law at work?  At least no one else's family was impacted by her stupidity.  Does that make me sound hard?  Don't care.  I'm only sorry that little kid will grow up knowing that his little pudgy hand was the one that killed his mommy and that he will carry that forever.





QuickSilver said:


> It's sad... What is sad is that those children will not have a mother growing up..  What is sad is that it's because their mother was stupid and careless..  I feel sorry  for the children.. escpecially the little boy that will know his entire life he killed his mother..  I don't feel sorry for her.. she did it to herself and she died exercising her "Constitutional Right". I'm just glad that the bullet didn't hit and kill an innocent bystander or one of the other children..



My heart aches for her as well.  She was doing what she thought was carrying protection.  She made a fatal mistake, someone up above in the thread mentioned it can be any one of us.  I wouldn't be quick to judge her.  This tragedy is thanks to the world we live in, and the world we have all had a hand in making.  I can't very well burn her at the stake when I have carelessly taken my eyes off the road to look for a stupid bee in the car.  I could have killed someone. 

I hope somehow some way, that little boy will be able to survive this but who's to blame, ultimately?  God??


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 1, 2015)

nwlady said:


> ... I hope somehow some way, that little boy will be able to survive this but who's to blame, ultimately?  God??



God didn't pull the trigger ... heck, He probably doesn't even have a current Concealed Carry permit ...


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 1, 2015)

I don't believe God "did" it if He exists, but if He exists, He allows these things, including the world to go to hell.  Remember "The Day the Earth Stood Still"?  I always remember Professor Barnhard talking about gathering the "greatest" minds in the world.  Then maybe they could convince people to behave (whatever) but I see so much ego from people who only "think" they're smart pulling the strings.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 1, 2015)

Debby said:


> What 'personal agenda' are you referring to?  In the event that it's a reference to Blaze's links, it's another side of the story and in any situation, all sides need to be considered.  That is not a 'personal agenda' so much as it is a case of getting a full 'education'.  I also think that suggesting that someone or an organization that you don't agree with are doing drugs is a little 'out there'.  Why not leave it at, 'their opinion is different than yours'?



lol!!  I can ONLY imagine... but Debby... the ignore feature saves me from even reading that crap..   So...  a lot of time and insults are completely wasted..


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

Ignore has a down side though, most forums are really "galleries" where many people can read, don't have time, but sort of mull over the stuff. The person who uses ignore makes it back just in time, without knowing the flow, to post some really dumb kaka. So remember the gallery.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 1, 2015)

nwlady said:


> People are scared Dame, look at the news where people are getting robbed, beaten, raped, murdered.  I know why I want to own a gun, and I can understand maybe some shouldn't, but the reason is fear.  I'm open for a better way, I never said I like guns, I'm only thinking I should get one the way things are going.  I also don't want anyone taking my right away to have one if I choose.
> 
> Have we ever talked about other options? I don't recall, my memory truly isn't as good, but I don't remember a discussion on options, other than counting on others to protect us and our families.



Excellent questions, Denise. The problem is fear of crime and personal attack. If the only answer is more and more guns, IMO things will only get worse over time. Again IMO there needs to be consideration of other approaches to find a way forward. The second amendment shouldn't prevent people coming together to find a way to reduce the fear and the crime levels. In saying this I am reminded of the quote, attributed to Albert Einstein (?)


> Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -



Time for some new ways of looking at the twin problems of violence and fear of violence.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

My favorite is; The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it's limits.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 1, 2015)

nwlady said:


> Keep the purse separate from the child, all kids seem to love to go through purses or things they know they are not supposed to.



Even if there were not kids in the picture, didn't she put her handbag in the seat of a shopping cart at a Walmart?  That, to me, is not responsible ownership at all.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 1, 2015)

It appears to me that so many people are irresponsible gun owners...  Not everyone... but many.. If they weren't these tragedies wouldn't be so common.   So how is that problem dealt with?  Just let everyone buy all the guns they want and let their stupidity thin the herd?   The problem with that is that many times innocent people are harmed or killed..    So tell me what the answer is.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 1, 2015)

Fear had nothing to do with our having a gun in our home for all these years.  Knowing how to use a gun and protect yourself without relying on others is just common sense, for those not afraid of the object itself.

  There were no crazy shooting decades ago like there are now, because doctors weren't putting kids on mind-altering prescription drugs before they even reached their teens.  And people didn't jump from one pharmaceutical to another, increasing doses,  where the side effects are always either suicide or homicide. 

 I personally carry pepper spray if I'm walking alone in the woods, for either a coyote or a stray creep. If I do concealed carry in the future, it will be on my person, where it should be.

  Having protection in the home will help to assure that I'm not a "victim", in case my 911 call operator wants to ask 50 questions before sending the cops to my home.  I've never had to use the gun, and hopefully I never will, but I'm prepared if a break-in occurs.  I don't intend to hand over my life or my possessions to a criminal, if I can stop his attack quickly.  Paranoid or fearful, no...prepared for emergencies, yes.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 1, 2015)

Rule 1 for safe bush walking - Don't wander off by yourself. Ever.
How will your pepper spray help you if you are bitten by a snake or have a fall and break your leg or hip?

Rule 2 - Carry water and matches, even if you don't expect to need them. They can save your life.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 1, 2015)

nwlady said:


> I don't believe God "did" it if He exists, but if He exists, He allows these things, including the world to go to hell.  Remember "The Day the Earth Stood Still"?  I always remember Professor Barnhard talking about gathering the "greatest" minds in the world.  Then maybe they could convince people to behave (whatever) but I see so much ego from people who only "think" they're smart pulling the strings.



Oddly enough I've never seen TDTESS - heard of it plenty of times, though. I'll have to put it in my queue. Thanks!



Dame Warrigal said:


> Rule 1 for safe bush walking - Don't wander off by yourself. Ever.
> How will your pepper spray help you if you are bitten by a snake ...



This reminds me of the story of the two guys walking in the woods. One gets bit by a deadly venomous snake, on what is perhaps the most sensitive part of the male anatomy, and the other guy doesn't know what to do. So he runs 10 miles and finds a doctor's office.

The doctor informs him that he needs to make an "X" with a razor blade and then suck out the venom. The guy runs back to his friend, who asks him "What did the doctor say?"

He replied, "He says you're going to die."


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 1, 2015)

SifuPhil said:


> This reminds me of the story of the two guys walking in the woods. One gets bit by a deadly venomous snake, on what is perhaps the most sensitive part of the male anatomy, and the other guy doesn't know what to do. So he runs 10 miles and finds a doctor's office.
> 
> The doctor informs him that he needs to make an "X" with a razor blade and then suck out the venom. The guy runs back to his friend, who asks him "What did the doctor say?"
> 
> He replied, "He says you're going to die."



I remember that joke Phil! :lol:


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 1, 2015)

Silly. The correct procedure is to apply a tourniquet. Very tightly.
:grin:


----------



## rt3 (Jan 1, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Concealed carry should be kept on the person, not in a handbag and the safety should have been on, or no bullet in the chamber.  Glad she was the one to get shot, not the kids or someone else, I have no sympathy for her.


As background information. This method is called the "Israeli carry" or civilian carry and is used/recommended/taught in this part of the world. 
If this person had the gun in her purse or in a car, and not on her person, under idaho law, it would be considered as personal property. This law requires a empty 1st chamber in a revolver or unchamered in an auto.


----------



## Debby (Jan 2, 2015)

nwlady said:


> My heart aches for her as well.  She was doing what she thought was carrying protection.  She made a fatal mistake, someone up above in the thread mentioned it can be any one of us.  I wouldn't be quick to judge her.  This tragedy is thanks to the world we live in, and the world we have all had a hand in making.  I can't very well burn her at the stake when I have carelessly taken my eyes off the road to look for a stupid bee in the car.  I could have killed someone.
> 
> I hope somehow some way, that little boy will be able to survive this but who's to blame, ultimately?  God??




In a sense I would agree with you Denise, we have all made mistakes but the difference here is that she had to have been aware of the danger of a gun just generally speaking and with forethought, that mother put it in her purse near children.  A bee flying in your car window isn't something that you do with forethought, it just happens and you have an instantaneous reaction (especially if you're allergic).  She made a choice not to buy some kind of body holster and instead decided to stick the darn thing in her purse.  The rest is history.


----------



## oldman (Jan 2, 2015)

I felt bad for her also. I read about texting and driving and someone gets killed, or eating, putting on make-up, shaving, reading and all have accidents with people ending up dead. I had a friend in high school that double-dated with another couple and the driver tried to outrun a train. Three dead and he survived, but he walked funny the rest of his life. (He was not the driver.) I know; these are accidents, but they all made choices. Like George Jones sings in his song, "Choices," "We all live or die by the choices we make."


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 2, 2015)

oldman said:


> I felt bad for her also. I read about texting and driving and someone gets killed, or eating, putting on make-up, shaving, reading and all have accidents with people ending up dead. I had a friend in high school that double-dated with another couple and the driver tried to outrun a train. Three dead and he survived, but he walked funny the rest of his life. (He was not the driver.) I know; these are accidents, but they all made choices. Like George Jones sings in his song, "Choices," "We all live or die by the choices we make."



That would certainly be poetic justice... PROVIDED the choices only affected the individual making them.   Unfortunately, with gun accidents and gun violence.. those choices most often involve innocent people... as your highschool friend..  I suppose you could argue that your friend made the "choice" of riding in a car with an irresponsible person... BUT what about those people just going about their business in a shopping mall?  Or seeing a movie?   Or simply going to kindergarten class?   They made NO irresponsible choices, yet they paid the ultimate price.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 2, 2015)

I read somewhere that the number of gun deaths of young people would soon pass deaths from auto accidents. 

No one blinks an eye at auto regulations on safety.

The deaths of innocent people is just acceptable collateral damage to the pro gun people.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 2, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> I read somewhere that the number of gun deaths of young people would soon pass deaths from auto accidents.
> 
> No one blinks an eye at auto regulations on safety.
> 
> The deaths of innocent people is just acceptable collateral damage to the pro gun people.



I believe guns should be regulated just like cars.  There are certain cars that are not "street rated"... meaning they are too powerful and unsafe to be driven on an ordinary street by the average driver.    Cars are registered with the State.. It is possible to find out WHO ones WHAT car and how MANY cars.   Cars are insured for liablility.  IF you injure or kill someone with your car.. you pay.. or your insurance pays.   If a car is faulty or malfunctions... even the car manufacturer is culpable in a court of law.  You need a license to drive a car and have to PROVE to the State that you are able to drive..  

As you say.. no one blinks an eye at the regulation of cars... ALL of these can and SHOULD be applied to guns.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 2, 2015)

This is a common fallacy of the anti-gun people. There is a good example in gun watch. I wish that getting a gun was as easy as a car. There are waiting periods background checks, magazine capacity limitations, far more than autos. Oh I just remembered you have me on ignore . Your uninformed post illustrates my point, thank you.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 2, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> I read somewhere that the number of gun deaths of young people would soon pass deaths from auto accidents.
> 
> No one blinks an eye at auto regulations on safety.
> 
> The deaths of innocent people is just acceptable collateral damage to the pro gun people.


This post is so riduculous it doesn't deserve the respect of a comment.


----------



## oldman (Jan 2, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> That would certainly be poetic justice... PROVIDED the choices only affected the individual making them.   Unfortunately, with gun accidents and gun violence.. those choices most often involve innocent people... as your highschool friend..  I suppose you could argue that your friend made the "choice" of riding in a car with an irresponsible person... BUT what about those people just going about their business in a shopping mall?  Or seeing a movie?   Or simply going to kindergarten class?   They made NO irresponsible choices, yet they paid the ultimate price.



As I see it, we can come up with all kinds of "what if" stories. We have expressed our feelings on this issue and debated it back and forth, but most of us feel the way we do because our heart, or emotions guide us. Some folks are just more sympathetic towards these type of issues and look at it at as being just that; a very sad situation for all involved. It doesn't make any of us right or wrong and it doesn't make any of us less sympathetic. You can still be sympathetic, but blame the person carrying the gun and even think that person to be a fool.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 2, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> That would certainly be poetic justice... PROVIDED the choices only affected the individual making them.   Unfortunately, with gun accidents and gun violence.. those choices most often involve innocent people... as your highschool friend..  I suppose you could argue that your friend made the "choice" of riding in a car with an irresponsible person... BUT what about those people just going about their business in a shopping mall?  Or seeing a movie?   Or simply going to kindergarten class?   They made NO irresponsible choices, yet they paid the ultimate price.



[FONT=Roboto !important]Please eliminate the idea of "most of us" from your vocabulary. Concern yourself with what is specifically good for you.[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]The nanny state is perpetuated by the idea of whats good for "most of us". Our country is founded on the idea of the individual and personal responsibility.[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]Generalizations like "most of us" are used when the facts are not there to back up the argument. Apparently on this site "most of us" does not apply. Where "most of us" does apply those of a like mind should do what is good for them individually. I do not live in a herd.

this was told to me by a game warden the other day (dept of natural resources)[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]I got a call from a lady the other day wanting to harass a hunter in a legal area to hunt because his car was parked near houses and he "might" be hunting near the houses. Her concern was based on her disgust with hunting because of her negative comment regards hunting season in general. I was refusing to go out and bother the hunter because he was in an area that is known to be frequented by hunters and it is a lawful hunting season. Her comment was "but he might shoot near the houses". I informed her the cars on the road "might" speed should I pull everyone over now. She came back with "but this involves a gun" and she was none to happy to hear me explain that the Second Amendment allows for people to have guns for lawful purposes and hunting is a lawful activity. The hunter also has a Fourth Amendment and Im not going out to violate his rights to satisfy her concerns about "might".[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto !important]I imagine she operates under the idea of "most of us" which really just boils down to "I believe". She is not really concerned with "most of us" but like every other busy body she just wants the world to operate to her standards.[/FONT]


----------



## oakapple (Jan 2, 2015)

oldman said:


> As I see it, we can come up with all kinds of "what if" stories. We have expressed our feelings on this issue and debated it back and forth, but most of us feel the way we do because our heart, or emotions guide us. Some folks are just more sympathetic towards these type of issues and look at it at as being just that; a very sad situation for all involved. It doesn't make any of us right or wrong and it doesn't make any of us less sympathetic. You can still be sympathetic, but blame the person carrying the gun and even think that person to be a fool.


 Good post oldman, and one I agree with.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 2, 2015)

oldman said:


> As I see it, we can come up with all kinds of "what if" stories. We have expressed our feelings on this issue and debated it back and forth, but most of us feel the way we do because our heart, or emotions guide us. Some folks are just more sympathetic towards these type of issues and look at it at as being just that; a very sad situation for all involved. It doesn't make any of us right or wrong and it doesn't make any of us less sympathetic. You can still be sympathetic, but blame the person carrying the gun and even think that person to be a fool.



Not sure if you are insinuating that I am not sympathetic.... I am... but with regard to the children now motherless..   I admit to not having very much sympathy for the mother..  If you are old enough to have 4 children... you are not a child..  she was allowed to purchase a gun and have a conceal and carry... she obviously shouldn't have.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 2, 2015)

> Originally Posted by *Jackie22*
> 
> I read somewhere that the number of gun deaths of young people would soon pass deaths from auto accidents.
> 
> ...





rt3 said:


> This post is so riduculous it doesn't deserve the respect of a comment.



Figures released today show that the NSW road toll is now back to where it was in 1923 in absolute terms when there were many fewer cars on the road and a much smaller population.



> The state's road toll fell from 333 to 309 in 2014, representing a decline of seven per cent.
> That's the lowest fatality rate, based on deaths per 100,000 population, NSW has posted since records began in 1908.
> It also represents the lowest annual total since 1923.
> NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay said that while it was encouraging to see the figures continuing to fall, there was still plenty to do to bring the number even lower.
> ...



The road toll was/is a matter of concern because of the trauma that people experience. There is also the trauma of the seriously injured who carry the results for the rest of their lives.

Experts told us what needed to be done and naturally enough there was public resistance to impositions such as compulsory seat belts, child restraints, motor cycle helmets, random breath tests, speed cameras etc but every year now more people get to live.

Why not apply the same thinking to the problem of unnecessary firearms deaths, starting with the deaths of children, and try to save lives?
To do this it will be necessary to get past the knee jerk reactions and start listening to experts.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 2, 2015)

Include swimming pools, curtains, drinking and smoking in general, home accidents and you could be on to something.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 2, 2015)

Why not? 

Actually these problems continue to be worked on -

-compulsory pool safety fencing. 
-mandating that curtain cords don't dangle and the curtain material is treated with fire retardant, 
-alcohol licencing rules including banning of shots after certain times and lockouts a couple of hours before closing from city late night bars and hotels, identity checks for minors, 
-banning of cigarette advertising and introduction of plain packaging

Home and workplace safety issues are continually being addressed and products and practices are constantly being reviewed and modified.

At least they are over here. How is it over there?
Do you have safety councils to address particular problems?


----------



## rt3 (Jan 3, 2015)

Yes they do. The court system has reversed the ban on gun carry in several major cities, Chicago in particular, which has resulted in a violent crime decrease. Many states, such as Ohio, are easing, and eliminating restrictive gun laws that date back into the Clinton era. The vast sweep in pro gun election seats being won in the last election at the local level will see pro gun ordinances at the local level, depending on the specifics, changed. Such as local ordinances violating the 2nd, example of which was one in Pennsylvania banning gun carry in public parks which was thrown out. The most significant is the recent Fereral Appeals court ruling that not allowing a cured mentally previously institutionalized violated his 2nd rights. Yes the Experts are acting..


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Jan 3, 2015)

This discussion remains interesting and I see I continue to fall in between camps thinking we should be allowed guns but they should be heavily regulated.



QuickSilver said:


> I believe guns should be regulated just like cars.  There are certain cars that are not "street rated"... meaning they are too powerful and unsafe to be driven on an ordinary street by the average driver.    Cars are registered with the State.. It is possible to find out WHO ones WHAT car and how MANY cars.   Cars are insured for liablility.  IF you injure or kill someone with your car.. you pay.. or your insurance pays.   If a car is faulty or malfunctions... even the car manufacturer is culpable in a court of law.  You need a license to drive a car and have to PROVE to the State that you are able to drive..
> 
> As you say.. no one blinks an eye at the regulation of cars... ALL of these can and SHOULD be applied to guns.



Agreed with this.  They should be heavily regulated.



oldman said:


> As I see it, we can come up with all kinds of "what if" stories. We have expressed our feelings on this issue and debated it back and forth, but most of us feel the way we do because our heart, or emotions guide us. Some folks are just more sympathetic towards these type of issues and look at it at as being just that; a very sad situation for all involved. It doesn't make any of us right or wrong and it doesn't make any of us less sympathetic. You can still be sympathetic, but blame the person carrying the gun and even think that person to be a fool.



Very well written comment and you just cut right to the heart of the matter.  This is, indeed, one of those push button issues most of us react to emotionally and decide with our hearts and not our heads.  We need to use our heads.  Also, yes, the gun, unless it has a manufacturing defect as is sometimes but rarely the case, does not kill people, people kill people.



rt3 said:


> [FONT=Roboto !important]Please eliminate the idea of "most of us" from your vocabulary. Concern yourself with what is specifically good for you.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Roboto !important]The nanny state is perpetuated by the idea of whats good for "most of us". Our country is founded on the idea of the individual and personal responsibility.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Roboto !important]Generalizations like "most of us" are used when the facts are not there to back up the argument. Apparently on this site "most of us" does not apply. Where "most of us" does apply those of a like mind should do what is good for them individually. I do not live in a herd.
> 
> ...



I can't help but agree with the assessment of the phrase "most of us".  Also, we are not a pure Democracy.  As we are a Democratic Republic rather than a pure Democracy, it doesn't even matter if it is most of us.  The majority cannot vote away our rights.



Dame Warrigal said:


> Figures released today show that the NSW road toll is now back to where it was in 1923 in absolute terms when there were many fewer cars on the road and a much smaller population.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's that reason for the decrease and also that cars themselves are safer and safer and working on eliminating human error all the time.  We have cars that park themselves; cars that stop if something's (like a toddler) is behind them.  Kitt is coming and the sooner the better quite frankly.  Human error costs life.  Of course, no matter how great the technology, in the end, humans are behind it.



Dame Warrigal said:


> Why not?
> 
> Actually these problems continue to be worked on -
> 
> ...



We do.  When I started work, coworkers would have their cigarettes in ashtrays on desks all around me.  Now they have to go outside.  I didn't really care until I was pregnant and sat behind two heavy smokers and the heating/air conditioning system was set up in such away that it blew their smoke back to me.  One of which would have a cow if I had a candy bar because sugar was so bad for my baby but didn't at all mind blowing her cigarette smoke back to my unborn.  We certainly do need to get away from the emotional knee-jerk reactions to guns on both sides and start making rational regulations about them.  We're so not there yet.  One side wants them totally banned and one side wants anything goes.  We need a sane middle road.


----------



## Kath (Jan 3, 2015)

I have always thought of guns as male playthings/status symbols/signs of virility and, alternatively, as a way for a woman to let her honeybunch know that anything he likes, she will like too.  Used to know a person who always kept a gun in her nightstand (hubby's idea) and always went with her husband on hunting trips.  She treated him like a royal personage for a number of years but, at some point, his tiara fell off when the wife decided she disliked many parts of his persona and hit the road with the kids.  One negative she'd come to detest was any kind of gun in the house - she was the one having panic attacks whenever one of their kids (there were 6 of those) got too close to a family firearm.  I've wondered for a long time how the U.K. made the change from gun-toting to no gun ownership.  I can't recall if there was a large amount of civil strife over this change but maybe I was just not as aware of it as I should have been.  I think of the U.K. as a very sensible and intelligent country - that's because my lovable, kind grandparents came to the U.S. from Bedfordshire in the 1920's so I'm very much an anglophile.


----------



## rt3 (Jan 3, 2015)

You are not aware of their rigged crime statistics. That's why my ancestors left euro. Royal control . Interesting use of dissociative third person.


----------

