Woman shot by two year old.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Tannhauser42**

Alex C wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Alex C wrote:
I don't have the inherent right...

Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.

The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.

Except we've had to amend that Constitution an additional 17 times beyond the first 10.

Since, you know, it forgot a few things like SLAVERY.

**Ouze**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ouze wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
or should there be a intruder in your house there's a statistical 50/50 chance he gets your gun and shoots you with it

I feel like that's maybe not true.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, I'm pretty sure it's not.

I'm pretty sure it is true, if you stay with the topic:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/are-you-safer-owning-a-gun-for-home-protection-b9912440z1-207958831.html

"Statistics bear out that there is a 50% chance that the gun is taken over," Fleegler said. "And what do you think will happen after the bad guy gets the gun away from you?"

I'm talking home defense, the reason most state they own a gun in the first place. and oddly enough the act of buying the gun does exactly the opposite. You are far more likely to shoot yourself, or your family than ever even pointing a gun at some assailant.

Yeah, it's really not true, at all, that if you own a gun it's 50% of the time your gun will be taken from you by an assailant. The fact there are a lot of gun suicides is moving the goalposts to a totally different statement, as you have done by the end of your post.

You have a guy who made a statement that "the statistics bear out" who then points to a study that says something different.

**Jihadin**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ouze wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
or should there be a intruder in your house there's a statistical 50/50 chance he gets your gun and shoots you with it

I feel like that's maybe not true.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
No, I'm pretty sure it's not.

I'm pretty sure it is true, if you stay with the topic:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/are-you-safer-owning-a-gun-for-home-protection-b9912440z1-207958831.html

"Statistics bear out that there is a 50% chance that the gun is taken over," Fleegler said. "And what do you think will happen after the bad guy gets the gun away from you?"

I'm talking home defense, the reason most state they own a gun in the first place. and oddly enough the act of buying the gun does exactly the opposite. You are far more likely to shoot yourself, or your family than ever even pointing a gun at some assailant.

sirlynchmob wrote:
cincydooley wrote:

And this sirlynchmob fellow sure knows what he's talking about when it comes to firearms in the US!

Ya it's not like I spent 20 years defending that right before moving to Canada. No, wait, ya that was me, I did that.

Just curious. What branch?

**djones520**

I wonder what statistics show that 50% of the time the gun is taken away.

No one can even find concrete proof on how often a gun is used in self defense, where is anyone going to find reliable evidence on how often one is taken away in such an instance?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
cincydooley wrote:

And this sirlynchmob fellow sure knows what he's talking about when it comes to firearms in the US!

Ya it's not like I spent 20 years defending that right before moving to Canada. No, wait, ya that was me, I did that.

As someone who has spent 13 years doing so, I haven't yet been granted total incite into said rights. At what point in our career does it become something we can stand on as unassailable proof of our knowledge?

**Jihadin**

CNN) -- The father-in-law of a mother fatally shot in an Idaho Walmart by her 2-year-old son says she didn't have a mean bone in her body.

"Everybody that met her, knew her, loved her," Terry Rutledge said about Veronica Rutledge, 29.

She died Tuesday after her young son grabbed a gun that was in her purse and shot her in an apparent accident, authorities have said. The two were out shopping with other family members when the shooting occurred.

Rutledge put herself through school and was a chemical engineer, Terry Rutledge said.

"She was a fun-loving, outgoing, outdoorsy person. Her family liked to camp, hike, do outdoorsy things. They loved being together," he said.

He added that she had carried a gun for years and had extensive training.

"I cannot put any blame on my daughter-in-law because I know her, the training she's had ... I don't take it lightly ... I cannot put any negligence on her part. It was a terrible accident," said Terry Rutledge.

He told CNN affiliate KREM 2 that the gun used in the shooting had been kept in a concealed zipper pouch in her purse.

One gun expert described what happened as a "perfect storm."

The toddler was able to unzip the pocket and grab the gun -- without being noticed. He was also able to grip the gun and exert sufficient force to fire, at least three pounds, Robin Ball, owner of Sharp Shooting Indoor Range & Gun Shop in Spokane, Washington, told KREM 2.

"Murphy's law just came into play today in so many ways and there are irreversible consequences for that," Ball said.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/us/idaho-walmart-shooting-accident-mother-toddler/index.html?hpt=hp_t4

**Nostromodamus**

Indeed, no negligence, apart from the point where she allowed her toddler to get into her handbag, find the "concealed zipper pouch", pull the gun from it and fire it at her, all the while she was apparently oblivious to it.

I guess weapon retention was never covered in her "extensive training".

**Smacks**

I wonder what they will tell the kid. My mother died when I was about that age, and it certainly had a big impact on my life. My sister was only 4 days old, and I worry that she has always felt responsible in some way. But to actually be told that you pulled the trigger would surely mess you up for life.

**Ouze**

Hopefully, not the truth. On the other hand, I suspect it's not going to be hard to find the truth with how the internet never forgets anything, ever.

**Dreadclaw69**

For some examples of defensive gun uses this may be useful; http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

sirlynchmob wrote:
the people want back ground checks, the NRA says no, the politicians do as they are paid to do and vote no. because random shootings is good for business, it makes people scared and they go out and buy more guns.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place."

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him. Hell might as well offer him a discount on the gun sale if he claims he's going to shoot someone with it.

Except that selling a firearm to someone with the knowledge that they intend to commit a crime with it is a felony, and it will get that business closed and owners prosecuted by the ATF

**sirlynchmob**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
For some examples of defensive gun uses this may be useful; http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

sirlynchmob wrote:
the people want back ground checks, the NRA says no, the politicians do as they are paid to do and vote no. because random shootings is good for business, it makes people scared and they go out and buy more guns.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place."

sirlynchmob wrote:
Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him. Hell might as well offer him a discount on the gun sale if he claims he's going to shoot someone with it.

Except that selling a firearm to someone with the knowledge that they intend to commit a crime with it is a felony, and it will get that business closed and owners prosecuted by the ATF

nice, cite an opinion poll, and reddit, LOL

OMG his 2nd amendment rights have been infringed upon, Look at those gun laws turning honest citizens into criminals, felons no less. What does the 2nd amendment which shall not be infringed upon, say about the intended use of the gun you buy?

See the 2nd amendment has been infringed upon numerous times, it's been done legally, and can be legally done a few more times, or even just done away with like the 18th amendment and replaced with better and more current laws.

**Dreadclaw69**

sirlynchmob wrote:
nice, cite an opinion poll, and reddit, LOL

I don't believe that "LOL" counts as a rebuttal. Surely an opinion poll is a legitimate way to gauge public opinion. The Gallop poll is valid, well researched, and sound. In fact they have a link at the bottom of their page to the methodology, questions, and trend data. The Reddit page acts as a portal, and as such contains links to many reputable news stories about defensive gun uses

sirlynchmob wrote:
OMG his 2nd amendment rights have been infringed upon, Look at those gun laws turning honest citizens into criminals, felons no less. What does the 2nd amendment which shall not be infringed upon, say about the intended use of the gun you buy?

If someone goes into the store with the intent to purchase a firearm to commit murder, and mentions their intent to the staff how does that then become "gun laws turning honest citizens into criminals, felons no less"?

sirlynchmob wrote:
See the 2nd amendment has been infringed upon numerous times, it's been done legally, and can be legally done a few more times, or even just done away with like the 18th amendment and replaced with better and more current laws.

That's a curious position to take, where you advocate for a strict reading of the Second Amendment, then call for it's alteration. Attempts to roll back the Second Amendment have not been successful on local, State, or Federal levels. In fact there is a very successful push back against gun control measures.
What, in your opinion, would be an example of a better and more current law?

**Da krimson barun**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It is a shame that this entirely preventable tragedy occurred because of the mother's decision to leave her firearm where it could be accessed by an infant.

Da krimson barun wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
Why should I have any respect for a culture that has such an obsession with fearmongering and gun ownership?And your country produced Me like Burnaz....

There really is no need for this thread to devolve into nationality bashing and personal attacks. I was born in Ireland and moved to the US, there is a lot (good and bad) to be said for each country. Why don't we stick to discussing the issues instead of one another?

well he was the one asking for respect that his country never earned. Any culture that started by throwing away TEA is one that dosn't really convince me to give it respect.Actually I just had a great Idea: Why don't the Brits and Irish Team up to destroy America for its crimes against the UNT?(United Nations of Tea)A real bonding excercise Between our peoples as we celebrate every heathen coffee place destroyed. I mave have gone off track at some point...

**Jihadin**

Fire Arm Culture country vs All of Europe No Fire Arm culture (besides Switzerland). We grew up with fire arms vs we did not grow up with fire arms.

Point; Counter Point.

Edit

I laugh when Christie veto a Bill in New Jersey that would ban that .50 cal rifle being it has not been used in a crime.

**Frazzled**

SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.

**the shrouded lord**

Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.

As I said, people will kill each other if they want to. I could kill a man with a pen, no gun required.
guns don;t kill, people kill.

**Jihadin**

9 lbs of pressure separates individual from opting someone out

**Smacks**

the shrouded lord wrote:
people will kill each other if they want to.

AND (importantly) if it isn't too much effort.

Admittedly some people are more determined than others, but it's fairly easy to understand that the more difficult something is, the fewer people will succeed in accomplishing it.

Many case studies have shown that crimes and suicides have been reduced simply by making them less convenient. This is probably because many crimes and suicides have an impulsive element to them, the more obstacles that are put in the way, the more time a person has to think it over and give up.

Guns make killing a bit too easy IMO, evidently even a 2 year old can do it without trying. They also seem to be a bit too easy to acquire in the US. If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops (background check would be an understatement), and I'd also need to provide a good reason -- shooting trespassers would not be considered a good reason, and would be a surefire way to have your application declined. In fact, it's so much effort most people decide they don't really need a gun after all (see above)...

So arguing that people will do something regardless of difficulty, is in fact false. Ergo, making things harder is not at all as futile as you suggest.

**the shrouded lord**

If I want to kill a man, all I have to do is whack him over the head witha pipe and then strangle him. If i am an aqquaintance with this person,a ll the better because I can invite him to my house and be sure of no witnesses. If they are my friend I can kill them in their sleep. murder is easy. not good, but easy.

**Jihadin**

It is not easy to "Kill" an individual.

**Smacks**

the shrouded lord wrote:
If I want to kill a man, all I have to do is whack him over the head witha pipe and then strangle him. If i am an aqquaintance with this person,a ll the better because I can invite him to my house and be sure of no witnesses. If they are my friend I can kill them in their sleep. murder is easy. not good, but easy.

And if a crowd of people are running away, can you hit 6 of them over the head with that pipe and strangle them all, before they escape? Didn't think so.

**cincydooley**

Smacks wrote:
the shrouded lord wrote:
If I want to kill a man, all I have to do is whack him over the head witha pipe and then strangle him. If i am an aqquaintance with this person,a ll the better because I can invite him to my house and be sure of no witnesses. If they are my friend I can kill them in their sleep. murder is easy. not good, but easy.

And if a crowd of people are running away, can you hit 6 of them over the head with that pipe and strangle them all, before they escape? Didn't think so.

You can with a pipebomb made from gak you can find at the hardware store.

**Jihadin**

Let's get off IED's shall we.

**the shrouded lord**

yep. that is not something we are going to discuss.

**Torga_DW**

May i ask why? Particularly in the instance of the boston marathon bombings - if someone wants to kill others badly enough, it can be done. IEDs are much like guns in that they can be made by people with the right knowledge and tools, and that is where the problem begins - this stuff is very common and unregulated. The IRA was doing this sort of thing in a country where guns were illegal, long before the 'radicalized terrorists' were.

You can't have an open discussion on the subject while refusing to talk about certain things.

**the shrouded lord**

IEDs are too close at heart to be discussed here. bad memories and stuff.

**SilverMK2**

Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.

There is also quite a lot more going on in Latin America than people not being able to legally own guns...

**Dreadclaw69**

Smacks wrote:
They also seem to be a bit too easy to acquire in the US. If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops (background check would be an understatement), and I'd also need to provide a good reason -- shooting trespassers would not be considered a good reason, and would be a surefire way to have your application declined.

All gun purchases through a store must have a completed 4473 and a completed background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

And self-defense (not "shooting trespassers" as the laws on deadly force vary tremendously from State to State) is a valid reason in the US for gun ownership. This has not been a valid reason in the UK since 1968

Smacks wrote:
And if a crowd of people are running away, can you hit 6 of them over the head with that pipe and strangle them all, before they escape? Didn't think so.

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

**Peregrine**

Smacks wrote:
If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops (background check would be an understatement), and I'd also need to provide a good reason -- shooting trespassers would not be considered a good reason, and would be a surefire way to have your application declined. In fact, it's so much effort most people decide they don't really need a gun after all (see above)...

Correction: if you wanted a legal gun you would have to do those things. If you aren't too concerned about legality you can build a machine gun with parts and tools from your local hardware store. And that's assuming you don't have any criminal connections that could get you an illegal gun.

**Spetulhu**

Peregrine wrote:
Smacks wrote:
If I wanted a gun here, I'd have to jump through quite a lot of hoops.

Correction: if you wanted a legal gun you would have to do those things.

Illegal guns were also - usually - legal guns at some point. Many guns used in crimes are common handguns that people like buying for selfdefense, now stolen from their legal owners. Burglars often carry away guns too because those can be sold for a nice sum of money. And ofc, seeing as both my father and brother hunt it would be pretty easy for me to "borrow" a powerful hunting rifle or small pistol for a few days.

Ofc, there's absolutely no reason I'd need a gun for any crime I can see myself even thinking about. Few local crooks get one either, unless they're drugheads afraid of robbers or debt collectors. We don't have the death penalty so crooks seldom see the need to kill everyone, and police seldom shoot anyone (or even brandish a weapon).

**Dreadclaw69**

Spetulhu wrote:
Illegal guns were also - usually - legal guns at some point. Many guns used in crimes are common handguns that people like buying for selfdefense, now stolen from their legal owners. Burglars often carry away guns too because those can be sold for a nice sum of money. And ofc, seeing as both my father and brother hunt it would be pretty easy for me to "borrow" a powerful hunting rifle or small pistol for a few days.

Ofc, there's absolutely no reason I'd need a gun for any crime I can see myself even thinking about. Few local crooks get one either, unless they're drugheads afraid of robbers or debt collectors. We don't have the death penalty so crooks seldom see the need to kill everyone, and police seldom shoot anyone (or even brandish a weapon).

Last figure I recall hearing was that 10-15% of guns in the possession of criminals were obtained through theft. It is more common for straw purchases to be a source for criminals to obtain firearms