Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Allet Klar Chefs]

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?"

Obviously every gun needs a hair trigger and no safety or 80 year old bints are going to get raped all the time while their arthritic hands strain to kill their assailant.

[Glamour]

I'm just glad the toddler didn't shoot him/herself.

[The Emerald Dawn]

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?

Obviously the important thing here is that the toddler could have used the gun to defend himself against teletubbies.

[Imperializt Russia]

We don't (read, shouldn't, sadly) blame rape victims because they have been assaulted through no fault of their own.

Being killed by a mechanical object you have carelessly left in its primed state within reach of an infant means that blame can no longer be laid upon a violent assailant, but a person's own negligence.
You could at least agree that the two scenarios aren't equivalent.

[Sociobiology]

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?"

nothing
whats wrong with a parent that lets their toddler anywhere near a handgun?
A lot.

This is not a gun issue this a shitty parent issue, just as if the kid had been playing with a lighter and burned themselves or the parent.
The world does not need to be childproof, you need to watch your kids.

I buy and uses explosive and dangerous chemicals, I'm not going to let a toddler anywhere near them.

[WestRedMaple]

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?

Well, given the fact that she is the one who negligently allowed a toddler access to a loaded firearm, there is no honestly claiming that she is blameless.

If you don't like the fight against smartguns, thank New Jersey's idiotic legislation that led to it

[WestRedMaple]

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

Wrong. Any civilized culture respects the right to defense and the right to seek effective means to accomplish it

[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?

Well, given the fact that she is the one who negligently allowed a toddler access to a loaded firearm, there is no honestly claiming that she is blameless.

If you don't like the fight against smartguns, thank New Jersey's idiotic legislation that led to it

I see you ignored the article where the author of that legislation said she would kill it if the NRA stopped bitching about smartguns.

[WestRedMaple]

Well, given the fact that she is the one who negligently allowed a toddler access to a loaded firearm, there is no honestly claiming that she is blameless.

If you don't like the fight against smartguns, thank New Jersey's idiotic legislation that led to it

I see you ignored the article where the author of that legislation said she would kill it if the NRA stopped bitching about smartguns.

There is no good reason not to go ahead and kill it NOW. I support ending the fight against smart guns as soon as no such legislation exists. So far, they are keeping the bad legislation that caused the problem, so I agree that there is no good reason to end the fight

[Gauthier]

I see you ignored the article where the author of that legislation said she would kill it if the NRA stopped bitching about smartguns.

There is no good reason not to go ahead and kill it NOW. I support ending the fight against smart guns as soon as no such legislation exists. So far, they are keeping the bad legislation that caused the problem, so I agree that there is no good reason to end the fight

The bills gets killed and the NRA still cockblocks smartguns, then what?

[WestRedMaple]

There is no good reason not to go ahead and kill it NOW. I support ending the fight against smart guns as soon as no such legislation exists. So far, they are keeping the bad legislation that caused the problem, so I agree that there is no good reason to end the fight

The bills gets killed and the NRA still cockblocks smartguns, then what?

Then I would oppose the NRA on the issue and support the availability of smart guns

[Divitaen]

I see you ignored the article where the author of that legislation said she would kill it if the NRA stopped bitching about smartguns.

There is no good reason not to go ahead and kill it NOW. I support ending the fight against smart guns as soon as no such legislation exists. So far, they are keeping the bad legislation that caused the problem, so I agree that there is no good reason to end the fight

What's so bad about the promotion of smart guns through the New Jersey mandate? What's wrong with gun safety legislation?

[Gauthier]

There is no good reason not to go ahead and kill it NOW. I support ending the fight against smart guns as soon as no such legislation exists. So far, they are keeping the bad legislation that caused the problem, so I agree that there is no good reason to end the fight

What's so bad about the promotion of smart guns through the New Jersey mandate? What's wrong with gun safety legislation?

The New Jersey law mandates that all guns sold in New Jersey have to be smartguns once smartguns become available. Which butthurts gun manufacturers who don't make smartguns. Not exactly well thought out, but I can't help but wonder if the NRA in its official role as gun manufacturing lobby would continue to block them even if that half-ass law was killed as promised.

[Second Blazing]

http://www.idaho.gov/laws_rules/firearm.html

Purchasing Firearms

There is no state permit required for the purchase of any rifle, shotgun, or handgun.

It is unlawful to directly or indirectly sell to any minor under the age of eighteen years any weapon without the written consent of the parent or guardian of the minor.

No state permit is required to possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun.

You need to pass a test to get a drivers licence. You should also need to pass a test to get a shooters licence.

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right. That would be illegal under the same principle as the ban on passing tests to vote. The three most important tools in a democracy are the soap box, the ballot box and the ammo box, in that order.

[Divitaen]

What's so bad about the promotion of smart guns through the New Jersey mandate? What's wrong with gun safety legislation?

The New Jersey law mandates that all guns sold in New Jersey have to be smartguns once smartguns become available. Which butthurts gun manufacturers who don't make smartguns. Not exactly well thought out, but I can't help but wonder if the NRA in its official role as gun manufacturing lobby would continue to block them even if that half-ass law was killed as promised.

If I'm not wrong, there is a loophole in the law such that the New Jersey AG may certify that smart gun technology is available for production, even if one hasn't actually been sold yet. They prepared for a scenario like this where manufacturers may avoid selling to prevent the law from being triggered, but the AG hasn't done it due to political pressure from the NRA. I'm just saying the law itself makes sense. The government should invoke that provision and impose the mandate immediately.

[Pan-America under the United States]

She was irresponsible with her gun. If you have a toddler or child, you should keep your gun on you; it shouldn't be in your purse, where anyone can simply just take it.

I'm sorry for her family, and her toddler. However, I hope people use this as a lesson. Secure your guns.

[Divitaen]

http://www.idaho.gov/laws_rules/firearm.html



You need to pass a test to get a drivers licence. You should also need to pass a test to get a shooters licence.

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right. That would be illegal under the same principle as the ban on passing tests to vote. The three most important tools in a democracy are the soap box, the ballot box and the ammo box, in that order.

So you are one of those people who opposes background checks then.

[Gauthier]

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right. That would be illegal under the same principle as the ban on passing tests to vote. The three most important tools in a democracy are the soap box, the ballot box and the ammo box, in that order.

So you are one of those people who opposes background checks then.

Mental instability and wife beating shouldn't keep me from owning a gun, damn it!

[St Williams Parr County]

Then why are you saying it?

Welcome to NSG.

Thanks. Things will take a little time to get used to, but overall it's not bad here.

[Pan-America under the United States]

http://www.idaho.gov/laws_rules/firearm.html



You need to pass a test to get a drivers licence. You should also need to pass a test to get a shooters licence.

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.

So, violent criminals and the mentally ill should have the right to own guns.

Right.... Not to sound like someone who's anti-gun, but I'd feel much safer living in a society where violent criminals and Paranoid Schizophrenics can own guns, maybe someone will magically appear with a Colt revolver and save me when people like Adam Lanza start shooting at me!

God, statements like that are what's wrong with our movement. "Everyone should have guns!!!!11132141q2", everyone who is a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN should be able to have guns. NOT the mentally ill, and NOT violent criminals.

[Second Blazing]

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right. That would be illegal under the same principle as the ban on passing tests to vote. The three most important tools in a democracy are the soap box, the ballot box and the ammo box, in that order.

So you are one of those people who opposes background checks then.

I didn't say that, and you know that. Divitaen? Div. Something seems familiar there. You definitely remind me of a certain someone.

But anyway, there is a difference between background checks, and something akin to a poll test for gun ownership. It would be far too easy to rig it to write it so in a manner that most people would not be able to pass it. A background check just makes sure people with violent and criminal histories don't get their hands on them.

[WestRedMaple]

There is no good reason not to go ahead and kill it NOW. I support ending the fight against smart guns as soon as no such legislation exists. So far, they are keeping the bad legislation that caused the problem, so I agree that there is no good reason to end the fight

What's so bad about the promotion of smart guns through the New Jersey mandate? What's wrong with gun safety legislation?

Why do you ask nonsensical questions instead of anything related to the post to which you are replying?

There is nothing wrong with promoting smart gun technology. That has nothing to do with the law. The law doesn't promote it, it mandates it.

There is nothing at all wrong with safety legislation.

[Second Blazing]

Driving is a privilege, gun ownership is a right.

So, violent criminals and the mentally ill should have the right to own guns.

Right.... Not to sound like someone who's anti-gun, but I'd feel much safer living in a society where violent criminals can own guns, maybe someone will magically appear with a Colt revolver and save me when people like Adam Lanza start shooting at me!

God, statements like that are what's wrong with our movement. "Everyone should have guns!!!!11132141q2", everyone who is a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN should be able to have guns. NOT the mentally ill, and NOT violent criminals.

See the post right after yours.

[WestRedMaple]

The New Jersey law mandates that all guns sold in New Jersey have to be smartguns once smartguns become available. Which butthurts gun manufacturers who don't make smartguns. Not exactly well thought out, but I can't help but wonder if the NRA in its official role as gun manufacturing lobby would continue to block them even if that half-ass law was killed as promised.

If I'm not wrong, there is a loophole in the law such that the New Jersey AG may certify that smart gun technology is available for production, even if one hasn't actually been sold yet. They prepared for a scenario like this where manufacturers may avoid selling to prevent the law from being triggered, but the AG hasn't done it due to political pressure from the NRA. I'm just saying the law itself makes sense. The government should invoke that provision and impose the mandate immediately.

The law is idiotic. New Jersey should have no ability to mandate that people only be offered more expensive, inferior firearms

[Divitaen]

So you are one of those people who opposes background checks then.

I didn't say that, and you know that. Divitaen? Div. Something seems familiar there. You definitely remind me of a certain someone.

But anyway, there is a difference between background checks, and something akin to a poll test for gun ownership. It would be far too easy to rig it to write it so in a manner that most people would not be able to pass it. A background check just makes sure people with violent and criminal histories don't get their hands on them.

Yes there is a difference, I was honestly asking the question out of curiousity rather than accusation. I was wondering if you considered a background check a "test" to own a gun, that's all.