Woman at Walmart Accidentally Shot Dead by 2-Year

[dnewton3]

My apologies for spelling errors; I type REALLY fast and don't catch all my mistakes. Many times, my mind is running faster than my fingers and the grammer sucks too!

I ask for some latitude in that regard.

It was not an intent to degrade people of any sexual orientation. "Homicide" was the topic I was speaking to.

There likely isn't a post here of mine that doesn't have an error somewhere in it.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: BMWTurboDzl


It's a straw man. That's what I'm saying. I think this is better. As you can see aside from suicide the increased risk from having a firearm in the home is minimal.

http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Ummm..so a risk of homicide of 2.7 times by having a weapon in the home is insignificant?
As I keep asking: Why are "many" gun owners defensive to the point of refusing to acknowledge what is common sense..that the gun in the home is far more likely to kill a friend or family member and will result in 3 times the risk of a homicide (not including home defense).

I can accept these facts and I keep a loaded sigma .380 in my nightstand and a 38 S&W Airweight for the wife when I am not home. I have 2 unloaded shotguns (Model 12/Iver Johnson's) in sight right now. I have no kids in the home.



I do understand what you're saying, AL, but I'll throw this in (not as a taunt but more of a tantilizing counter-offer for provacative thought).

Many of those "in home" deaths by guns are from domestic problems. And if you took away the guns, the homocide likely would still occur, but by other means.


I have a file at work that I keep which gives a "tit for tat" view of homocide. Granted, guns are used quite often. But folks will find a way to murder others, even if a gun is not available, and many times even though one is available. When I return next week, I'll load a quick synopsis for viewing.

My point is that it's wrong to infer that if the gun were not present in the home, that many of those homocides would not take place. More likely, they would simply find other means to manifest the crime. Maybe I took your comment the wrong way, but I found it to imply that having the gun meant an exclusive causation of homocide. I find that dubious; many of those people would have died from another cause.

The only time we can say it's reasonable to exclude guns is when we look at them as an accidental cause rather than homocide; there is no intent to cause accidental death, and therefore the method is mutually exclusive. If my daugher were killed by my Glock by accident, I cannot presume that she would have also been killed by a steak knife .... But with homocide, if the Glock were not present, the knife, a bowling pin, a tire-iron, a coffee mug, etc would all suffice.

See the difference?

What I would agree to with you is a very limited statement such as this:
It is a greater risk in my home to be killed by a gun, simply because I have so many in the home. While VERY remote, the risk is elevated over not having one present. However, that only applies to accidental deaths. Intentional deaths would likely occur regardless of what tool was present, especially in a violent domestic environment.
IMO deaths during domestic disputes are "crimes of passion". A gun is the more convenient and less personal choice of weapon.

 

[surfstar]

In conclusion,

I SHOULD bring a gun in when I see a doctor?


But I probably shouldn't drive there, b/c driving kills more people yearly than guns, too, right?

I think that's the point being made here.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
In conclusion,

I SHOULD bring a gun in when I see a doctor?


But I probably shouldn't drive there, b/c driving kills more people yearly than guns, too, right?

I think that's the point being made here.


The driving argument is as dumb as it gets.

The design, intent and purpose of cars is not to kill. The design, intent and purpose of guns is to kill.

The fact that responsible people use them for other reasons doesnt change the fact of what their true use is.

And, cars are registered, licensed, require insurance, sometimes inspection, training, etc.

I dont say any of this to be anti-gun; Im not. But that argument about cars is irrelevant.

As is the medical argument. Like the car, the intent of doctors and their procedures is not to kill. It is to heal, with some of the outcomes for one reason or another (I havent seen a true discrimination there). Meanwhile, medicine is more highly regulated than cars. Talkabout training, licensure, insurance, etc.

I get it that the deadly mishaps from doctors may be a greater risk than deadly mishaps from firearms... But again its a matter of intent. A tool meant to kill is a completely different discussion than a regulated profession meant to heal. The arguments IMO just dont fly because they are apples and oranges.

At the end of the day, the true numbers need to speak for themselves in terms of gun risk. Remove all the suicides, remove all the inner-city gang violence, and what do we have? A practically nil result is a practically nil result. That fact needs to be shouted from the rooftops without being spoiled talking cars or doctors or anything else. The fact that emotion rules over logic is just disgusting.

The one thing relevant here is that Darwin's observations will always appear as a removal of some of the population, guns legal or not.

 

[Al]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#.VLhfvV2YO1F

Again I am a gun owner 68 years old. Started hunting 54 years ago. Owned a dozen pistols. Slowly giving them to my son/selling them. I am now down to six. I ccw, hunt and keep a .380 in the night stand. More and more when I go to the range or gun shop. I see folks that don't appear to handle a weapon the way I was taught. I doubt if 10% of them have ever heard of the 10 commandments of gun safety.

Hunters (small game hunters) are a different breed..much better. Not sure about deer hunters. I just don't drink all of the Pro Gun Kool-Aid.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: Al
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#.VLhfvV2YO1F

Again I am a gun owner 68 years old. Started hunting 54 years ago. Owned a dozen pistols. Slowly giving them to my son/selling them. I am now down to six. I ccw, hunt and keep a .380 in the night stand. More and more when I go to the range or gun shop. I see folks that don't appear to handle a weapon the way I was taught. I doubt if 10% of them have ever heard of the 10 commandments of gun safety.

Hunters (small game hunters) are a different breed..much better. Not sure about deer hunters. I just don't drink all of the Pro Gun Kool-Aid.

But you apparently are sipping the anti-gun pablum:

http://www.gunowners.org/news01212015.htm

 

[jmb3675]

I have seen toddlers figure out and do more complicated things than pull a trigger on a gun. A 6 pound trigger is nothing for a kid using 2 or more fingers to pull it.
I believe her death was caused by negligence, Not stupidity or being an idiot. I don't believe she ste out to do something foolish. The reason for her negligence was likely her training. Either she did not pay attention, or proper control and handling of a firearm was not discussed enough during her training class. Add to that a convenient purse that "secures the firearm" so she does not have to feel it on her hip, which in my opinion is not a safe and secure way to carry, and you have the makings for a negligent discharge.
I am willing to bet there would be a lot less compassion for her if her negligence lead to another child in the store being killed. She likely would have been convicted of a crime. She would be the same kind caring person, but someone else would have paid for her mistake and she would now be a criminal. I can see why someone would not feel bad for her.

I do agree having a gun makes you statistically more likely to be injured due to negligence. It is hard to accidentally shoot yourself or someone else without a gun. And the increase in risk is likely significant. But the events are not common and over all risk is not that great. You are still significantly more likely to be killed by a medical mistake or illness. If you are responsible with your firearms you greatly reduce the risk of an incident, and that is something you can prevent. Almost all gun accidents could have been prevented. Medical malpractice and illness are considerably more difficult to control. Statistically I am safer with a gun in my home during a home invasion than I am without as long as I have training. I also know my gun in my home responds faster than a cop that is not here during a home invasion. Same thing if I am attacked in public. I do not have to wait for my gun to arrive to be defended. So statistically I am safer with a gun.

That is the problem with Statistics. They are open to interpretation. The numbers can be skewed either way depending on the side you choose. Take flying for example. It is statistically safer to fly commercial plane than to drive. More people die in vehicle crashes than plane crashes. That said, Far more people survive car crashes than plane crashes. Most car crashes are minor and don't even lead to injury. Most plane crashes are serious.

I do not think we need more gun bans. Bans only protect criminals. I can agree that more training is needed. I also believe gun safety should be taught in schools. It should start in Kindergarten and be taught every year through graduation. If children learn early on that guns are not toys, I think that would go a long way towards reducing negligence.
All parents should teach their children gun safety including parents without guns in the home. That way if they are at an irresponsible adults house and find one, they are more likely to understand it is not a toy to play with.

 

[DoubleWasp]

A gun? To go shopping at Walmart? Glad I don't live in that kind of town.