Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Imperializt Russia]

Ah, okey, I see.

Well, I personally believe gun control in America is a lost cause because of the overall mentality. There are civilians in the U.S. that think they need guns to feel safe, which is a sad reality.

Had they been more strictly regulated a long time ago, then maybe people would think differently about them. Maybe things would be somewhat similar as they are in my country.

A question: Would you accept/support stricter gun regulations if they followed after a change in society overall, reducing the need for guns for self-defense (e.g. better law enforcement, less crime, overall greater sense of personal safety and trust in the police, ...)?

The irony is guns don't make you safer. Gun ownership in a home has been linked to higher rates of homicide and suicide for occupants, as well as accidental shootings. Women are also in increased risk of facing death from an intimate partner. Guns at home are 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. So much for guns for self-defense.

I addressed this before.

This simplistic obsession with fatalities ignores the possibility and ability to defend yourself without killing a person.
Firearms in the home do kill a tragically large number of family members, by suicide or homicide. This is horrific. No denial.
But then you suggest that one can only defend themselves by killing aggressors in the home. I find this equally tragic and highly misleading. Like killing is the only worthwhile defence.
It's a mindset that can only contribute to the problematic aspects of gun culture in the US.

[Divitaen]

The irony is guns don't make you safer. Gun ownership in a home has been linked to higher rates of homicide and suicide for occupants, as well as accidental shootings. Women are also in increased risk of facing death from an intimate partner. Guns at home are 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. So much for guns for self-defense.

I addressed this before.

This simplistic obsession with fatalities ignores the possibility and ability to defend yourself without killing a person.
Firearms in the home do kill a tragically large number of family members, by suicide or homicide. This is horrific. No denial.
But then you suggest that one can only defend themselves by killing aggressors in the home. I find this equally tragic and highly misleading. Like killing is the only worthwhile defence.
It's a mindset that can only contribute to the problematic aspects of gun culture in the US.

Are there any statistics on the number of deaths deterred and prevented because of the presence of a gun? Because a lot of studies on this like the Lott study have been largely discredited.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Don't think anything should be done about it. No law short of complete ban on civilian gun ownership is idiot-proof, and in my view, only a paranoid idiot would carry a gun in her purse and leave it within the reach of her kid. In a way, the lass had it coming.

It's also evident that she was an untrained civilian who had no clue about how to properly carry a weapon for it to be of any use in personal defense. If anything should be done to prevent such incidents, it would be requiring gun owners to learn to use, carry and store their pieces properly.

[Imperializt Russia]

Who said deaths prevented? That's hideously difficult to quantify. I said defended. Something still difficult to quantify.

Given there are two million burglary offences committed in the US in 2010, to suggest that in a nation where firearms outnumber the population the number of times a firearm may have been brandished or discharged without the intent to wound or kill is less than the number of firearm homicides, especially with US gun culture, I believe is ludicrous.

[Divitaen]

The irony is guns don't make you safer. Gun ownership in a home has been linked to higher rates of homicide and suicide for occupants, as well as accidental shootings. Women are also in increased risk of facing death from an intimate partner. Guns at home are 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. So much for guns for self-defense.

I addressed this before.

This simplistic obsession with fatalities ignores the possibility and ability to defend yourself without killing a person.
Firearms in the home do kill a tragically large number of family members, by suicide or homicide. This is horrific. No denial.
But then you suggest that one can only defend themselves by killing aggressors in the home. I find this equally tragic and highly misleading. Like killing is the only worthwhile defence.
It's a mindset that can only contribute to the problematic aspects of gun culture in the US.

Also, not to mention a lot of studies seem to suggest there is no such correlation between having more guns and less crime.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/13/2617131/largest-gun-study-guns-murder/
http://www.bu.edu/news/2013/09/13/new-research-shows-link-between-rates-of-gun-ownership-and-homicides/
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/blog/higher-rates-of-gun-ownership-dont-correlate-to-less-crime

And there are lots of reasons for this. Gun ownership may deter crime, but criminals may be emboldened by the presence of the gun. Deaths may be the result of escalated violence rather than pre-meditated criminal activity. Worst of all, laws that allow people to shoot in self-defense, such as Stand Your Ground laws, often have the effect of expanding and increasing the number of homicides due to the expanded definition of what constitutes a justifiable shot. So the theory of "more guns, less crime" or "more guns, less death" has been largely debunked.

I posted a previous study by Harvard about the correlations of guns and homicides between countries and within the US. Also, homicide rates dropped in Australia after the implementation of sweeping gun control laws after the Port Arthur massacre. If the theory of guns saving lives were true, gun control laws should result in soaring homicide rates instead.

[Undivulged Principles]

Nations that train potential gun users in how to properly use, store and maintain a firearm don't seem to have this problem. Gun deaths in most of these States pale in comparison to USA. Coincidence? I think not.

It is because it is the right of every American to bear arms (and a necessity for the maintenance of political freedoms), all schools should have mandatory gun education. It goes without saying those teaching these courses should be rigorously tested for qualifications.

It is society's fault for not training people how to use guns while offering them a variety of methods to obtain one. If they knew how to properly store a firearm a loaded weapon would have almost never be within easy reach of a toddler.

[Imperializt Russia]

Schools in the US used to have NRA-backed shooting teams and gun safety classes that have been pretty much disbanded in recent years, and schools today branded gun-free-zones.

The Benelli official 3-gun team has a schoolgirl as a member.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Try the kid as an adult obviously, like it was Texas.

[Divitaen]

Who said deaths prevented? That's hideously difficult to quantify. I said defended. Something still difficult to quantify.

Given there are two million burglary offences committed in the US in 2010, to suggest that in a nation where firearms outnumber the population the number of times a firearm may have been brandished or discharged without the intent to wound or kill is less than the number of firearm homicides, especially with US gun culture, I believe is ludicrous.

Was the brandishing necessary though? All the studies after the Trayvon Martin incident into Stand Your Ground laws showed that many self-defense cases of people using or threatening to use violent force were in situations where it was doubtful that such force was necessary, and in fact many people began confrontations emboldened by the knowledge that they have a gun. And as I said, the fact that death from homicide rates drop with gun prevalence rates in a country speaks for itself.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nationally, the opposite is true in the US. Firearm homicides of all circumstances have been falling consistently year on year, except for spikes relating to the 1994 AWB, while firearm procurement has been rapidly accelerating. Less than a decade ago, the number of firearms in the US was estimated as approximate to the number of cars. Today, cars haven't increased much while firearms are now estimates as outnumbering people.

There is an inverse correlation, but I agree to immediately leap to announcing a causation would not be the case.

[Divitaen]

Nationally, the opposite is true in the US. Firearm homicides of all circumstances have been falling consistently year on year, except for spikes relating to the 1994 AWB, while firearm procurement has been rapidly accelerating. Less than a decade ago, the number of firearms in the US was estimated as approximate to the number of cars. Today, cars haven't increased much while firearms are now estimates as outnumbering people.

There is an inverse correlation, but I agree to immediately leap to announcing a causation would not be the case.

If we look at the crime rates though, crime rates have been falling from the 1990s due to better policing and a growing economy. These are crime rates across the board, including non-violent crime. Whereas firearm ownership rates had been increasing long before that. It is better to look at the rates between states and between countries, looking at possible correlations between firearm prevalence and homicides, and the results show that more guns equal more homicides.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

This would never have happened if she'd had a gun.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nationally, the opposite is true in the US. Firearm homicides of all circumstances have been falling consistently year on year, except for spikes relating to the 1994 AWB, while firearm procurement has been rapidly accelerating. Less than a decade ago, the number of firearms in the US was estimated as approximate to the number of cars. Today, cars haven't increased much while firearms are now estimates as outnumbering people.

There is an inverse correlation, but I agree to immediately leap to announcing a causation would not be the case.

If we look at the crime rates though, crime rates have been falling from the 1990s due to better policing and a growing economy. These are crime rates across the board, including non-violent crime. Whereas firearm ownership rates had been increasing long before that. It is better to look at the rates between states and between countries, looking at possible correlations between firearm prevalence and homicides, and the results show that more guns equal more homicides.

It's very important to remember that guns don't cause crime, they enable would-be criminals.

If decades-old racial divisions were to be fixed in the US, as well as socioeconomic problems amended (not likely under current political climate or foreseeable future tbh), crime would be able to fall and firearms would not be problematic. I don't believe the physical ownership of firearms is problematic now anyway.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

I don't believe the physical ownership of firearms is problematic now anyway.

That opinion is obviously stupid considering events like this.

[Esternial]

The irony is guns don't make you safer. Gun ownership in a home has been linked to higher rates of homicide and suicide for occupants, as well as accidental shootings. Women are also in increased risk of facing death from an intimate partner. Guns at home are 18 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. So much for guns for self-defense.

I addressed this before.

This simplistic obsession with fatalities ignores the possibility and ability to defend yourself without killing a person.
Firearms in the home do kill a tragically large number of family members, by suicide or homicide. This is horrific. No denial.
But then you suggest that one can only defend themselves by killing aggressors in the home. I find this equally tragic and highly misleading. Like killing is the only worthwhile defence.
It's a mindset that can only contribute to the problematic aspects of gun culture in the US.

Couldn't agree more.

[Divitaen]

If we look at the crime rates though, crime rates have been falling from the 1990s due to better policing and a growing economy. These are crime rates across the board, including non-violent crime. Whereas firearm ownership rates had been increasing long before that. It is better to look at the rates between states and between countries, looking at possible correlations between firearm prevalence and homicides, and the results show that more guns equal more homicides.

It's very important to remember that guns don't cause crime, they enable would-be criminals.

If decades-old racial divisions were to be fixed in the US, as well as socioeconomic problems amended (not likely under current political climate or foreseeable future tbh), crime would be able to fall and firearms would not be problematic. I don't believe the physical ownership of firearms is problematic now anyway.

Ok, but until then, let's ban guns. The studies I cited earlier showed that it would lower national homicide rates, as well as homicide rates within gun-owning homes, reduce accidental shootings, domestic violence and suicide rates. Not to mention, as you have alluded to, victims of gun violence are disproportionately racial minorities and women. For everyone intimate partner a woman shoots at in self-defense, 83 other women are killed by their intimate partners with a gun.

And you are very right, guns don't cause crime, they enable would be criminals. That's why the statistic I cited was homicide rates. Guns often embolden criminals, and in the escalation of violence during crimes a gun enables a homicide to occur much more easily. As you said, they "enable" these criminals, explaining the disparities in homicide rates between countries and between states. The fact that these racial and socioeconomic problems as you mentioned still exist means that the private ownership of firearms is actually problematic at present until these problems can be solved.

[Divitaen]

I addressed this before.

This simplistic obsession with fatalities ignores the possibility and ability to defend yourself without killing a person.
Firearms in the home do kill a tragically large number of family members, by suicide or homicide. This is horrific. No denial.
But then you suggest that one can only defend themselves by killing aggressors in the home. I find this equally tragic and highly misleading. Like killing is the only worthwhile defence.
It's a mindset that can only contribute to the problematic aspects of gun culture in the US.

Couldn't agree more.

Except that the statistics show a very different picture. Gun prevalence correlates with homicide. If this is true, then a lower prevalence of guns ought to prevent people from using a gun to defend themselves, and the homicide rate should increase rather than decrease.

[Esternial]

It's very important to remember that guns don't cause crime, they enable would-be criminals.

If decades-old racial divisions were to be fixed in the US, as well as socioeconomic problems amended (not likely under current political climate or foreseeable future tbh), crime would be able to fall and firearms would not be problematic. I don't believe the physical ownership of firearms is problematic now anyway.

Ok, but until then, let's ban guns. The studies I cited earlier showed that it would lower national homicide rates, as well as homicide rates within gun-owning homes, reduce accidental shootings, domestic violence and suicide rates. Not to mention, as you have alluded to, victims of gun violence are disproportionately racial minorities and women. For everyone intimate partner a woman shoots at in self-defense, 83 other women are killed by their intimate partners with a gun.

And you are very right, guns don't cause crime, they enable would be criminals. That's why the statistic I cited was homicide rates. Guns often embolden criminals, and in the escalation of violence during crimes a gun enables a homicide to occur much more easily. As you said, they "enable" these criminals, explaining the disparities in homicide rates between countries and between states. The fact that these racial and socioeconomic problems as you mentioned still exist means that the private ownership of firearms is actually problematic at present until these problems can be solved.

That's not a realistic suggestion, because guns have been ingrained in American culture as a means to feel safer.

Only way one could actually reduce American gun ownership would be if people felt safer overall, which is impossible because the media, for one, gives no fucks about that.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't believe the physical ownership of firearms is problematic now anyway.

That opinion is obviously stupid considering events like this.

A trucker is not looking where he's going on the motorway, fiddling with his tachograph. He drifts lanes. He doesn't see three cars stopped on the hard shoulder.

He kills the driver of the car at the rear of this queue, and concertinas the car into the two in front, injuring the other drivers.
Clearly, road haulage is obviously stupid considering events like this.

[Imperializt Russia]

Couldn't agree more.

Except that the statistics show a very different picture. Gun prevalence correlates with homicide. If this is true, then a lower prevalence of guns ought to prevent people from using a gun to defend themselves, and the homicide rate should increase rather than decrease.

Your logic sounds confused. Fewer guns means fewer people will defend themselves with guns, so more people are killed?

Again, this ignores the entire point of my argument - you don't even have to discharge your weapon to defend yourself, let alone kill a person.
People using firearms to defend themselves and killing their alleged attacker are a tiny minority of homicides.

[Divitaen]

Ok, but until then, let's ban guns. The studies I cited earlier showed that it would lower national homicide rates, as well as homicide rates within gun-owning homes, reduce accidental shootings, domestic violence and suicide rates. Not to mention, as you have alluded to, victims of gun violence are disproportionately racial minorities and women. For everyone intimate partner a woman shoots at in self-defense, 83 other women are killed by their intimate partners with a gun.

And you are very right, guns don't cause crime, they enable would be criminals. That's why the statistic I cited was homicide rates. Guns often embolden criminals, and in the escalation of violence during crimes a gun enables a homicide to occur much more easily. As you said, they "enable" these criminals, explaining the disparities in homicide rates between countries and between states. The fact that these racial and socioeconomic problems as you mentioned still exist means that the private ownership of firearms is actually problematic at present until these problems can be solved.

That's not a realistic suggestion, because guns have been ingrained in American culture as a means to feel safer.

Only way one could actually reduce American gun ownership would be if people felt safer overall, which is impossible because the media, for one, gives no fucks about that.

Well, the paranoid and alarmist media is a totally different story. At least we can agree that, statistically, fewer guns means fewer deaths, in a theoretical world where the US population wouldn't revolt with such a law in place.

[Hirota]

The right to bear arms is a 19th century ideology which is out of place in any civilized culture.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

That opinion is obviously stupid considering events like this.

A trucker is not looking where he's going on the motorway, fiddling with his tachograph. He drifts lanes. He doesn't see three cars stopped on the hard shoulder.

He kills the driver of the car at the rear of this queue, and concertinas the car into the two in front, injuring the other drivers.
Clearly, road haulage is obviously stupid considering events like this.

Hmm yes the absolutely vital-to-our-way-of-life logistics of the modern world are directly analagous to civilian firearms ownership.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

[Divitaen]

Except that the statistics show a very different picture. Gun prevalence correlates with homicide. If this is true, then a lower prevalence of guns ought to prevent people from using a gun to defend themselves, and the homicide rate should increase rather than decrease.

Your logic sounds confused. Fewer guns means fewer people will defend themselves with guns, so more people are killed?

Again, this ignores the entire point of my argument - you don't even have to discharge your weapon to defend yourself, let alone kill a person.
People using firearms to defend themselves and killing their alleged attacker are a tiny minority of homicides.

Your logic, correct me if I'm wrong, is that a person pulling out a gun alone is enough to cause a person's life to be defended or preserved. By that argument, you claim that guns actually save lives by acting as a deterrent force to violent crime. You also claim that while guns also take lives, the number of lives saved with guns outweighs the number of lives taken.

Assuming that is true, why does the Harvard study show very clearly that, even after accounting for economics and prevalence of other forms of crime, gun prevalence correlates with homicide rates across countries and across states in the US? If what you say is true, then fewer guns would mean fewer people whose lives are defended by the presence of a gun (not fired, just the presence of the gun). It means people who would not have been killed if they only had had a gun to pull out will not die because of the presence of fewer guns. However, the homicide rates are lower when there are fewer guns. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the lives taken from guns (i.e. suicides, domestic violence homicide, accidental shootings etc....) actually outweigh the number of lives defended by guns (even without firing a shot), and thus lower gun prevalence correlates with lower homicide.

And I did give reasons for why this may be true. A lot of homicides happen from escalation or the presence of drunk or people with impaired judgment pulling a gun and escalating the situation, rather than logical pre-meditated crimes. A lot of homicides happen as a result of criminals emboldened by a gun during a criminal situation to threaten victims or passers-by. And as mentioned earlier, post-Trayvon Martin investigations into Stand Your Ground laws found that many times when people pulled out a gun and used or threatened to use deadly force, it was in instances when it was unnecessary and may have endangered an innocent person who was misread as being threatening (i.e. using guns as self-defense may hurt innocent people as much as it may save your life).

Thus, adding everything up, the people who die as a result of guns outweigh the people who live as a result of guns.

[Gauthier]

It's rather unsurprising to see that quite a few posts blame the woman for the incident, using a variation of the "She shouldn't have dressed like that" condemnation to defend the sanctity of handguns. And not even for a second wondering, "What the fuck is wrong with a handgun where a 2-year old infant can exert sufficient force to pull its trigger?"

A smartgun would have just gone "click" unless the baby somehow got Mommy's wrist right up against the gun when he pulled the trigger, but then we can all thank the NRA for that brilliant marketing strategy. And they're the ones complaining about gun control?