Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Cyrisnia]

Yes, that is true.But how many times do guns also kill innocent people or provoke unecessary deaths?

How do you think events like this toddler shooting his mom could be prevented in the future ?

I'd suggest not giving toddlers access to loaded firearms

What happened was that the toddler unzipped the purse and took it out.

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

No, it hasn't. Mostly because it isn't false. The fact that there are guns now that are designed for specialized purposes like target-shooting, does not change the fact that they were designed to injure/kill, in fact they were designed specifically to injure/kill people. Not to mention the detail that even the ones now that are designed for target-shooting/skeet-shooting/whatever are still capable of being lethal.

That is blatantly false. You are under the confused notion that Thing A being designed for one purpose magically makes Thing B be designed for the same purpose.

Firearms are not as wide as a group of tools as blades or pole arms.

Most fire arm purposes are ways to kill people or animals.

Nothing wrong with that, at least in context.

[Big Jim P]

Sure, but it wouldn't be right to take guns away anyways, that will create a black market and would be hard to enforce.

And it would just shit all over the prison system more, just look at drugs and the black market around those.

I think some smart guns would be a good thing too, but nope, NRA had to be fucking retarded over that idea.

I honestly have no idea why they got so worked up over it.

Mainly due to the technology not being fully viable yet, and at greatly added expense. $2000 for a .22 that has been rendered unreliable? No thank you.

[Seraven]

I'd suggest not giving toddlers access to loaded firearms

What happened was that the toddler unzipped the purse and took it out.

So we blame this fault on the zip of the purse, on the gun inside the purse, or to the mother who brings the gun around? Because we can't exactly blame the toddler.

[Big Jim P]

I'd suggest not giving toddlers access to loaded firearms

What happened was that the toddler unzipped the purse and took it out.

indeed. The woman should not have been carrying the gun in a purse in the first place, and damn sure should not have allowed her toddler access to the purse where she KNEW the gun was. I have seen reports where she left the purse unattended as well. That would make three violations of basic safety rules.

[Cyrisnia]

What happened was that the toddler unzipped the purse and took it out.

So we blame this fault on the zip of the purse, on the gun inside the purse, or to the mother who brings the gun around? Because we can't exactly blame the toddler.

True, true.

However, its just a really unfortunate series of events. A concealed holster probably would've saved her life in this case.
To be honest, nobody is really at fault in this. Its not the mothers, nor the toddlers.

[Dyakovo]

That is blatantly false. You are under the confused notion that Thing A being designed for one purpose magically makes Thing B be designed for the same purpose.

Firearms are not as wide as a group of tools as blades or pole arms.

Most fire arm purposes are ways to kill people or animals.

Nothing wrong with that, at least in context.

Just ignore him.

[Seraven]

So we blame this fault on the zip of the purse, on the gun inside the purse, or to the mother who brings the gun around? Because we can't exactly blame the toddler.

True, true.

However, its just a really unfortunate series of events. A concealed holster probably would've saved her life in this case.
To be honest, nobody is really at fault in this. Its not the mothers, nor the toddlers.

The purse, then?

[WestRedMaple]

@ 30000 a year and the incident could have been prevented had the mom not violated no less than 2 basic safety rules.

Of course, guns are also a defense against some 55,000-2.5 million crimes a year (depending on whose estimates you believe).

Edit, and even discounting their defensive uses, 30,000 out 300 million guns and 100 million owners makes the 30,000 insignificant.

If what you are saying is true, in that guns play an important defensive role against violent crime that outweighs the lives taken by guns, then this shouldn't be true:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Gun prevalence shouldn't correlate with homicide rates. If your theory is accurate, it should be the other way round. Gun prevalence should decrease homicide rates because apparently they defend against potential murderers, but clearly it doesn't. It enables potential murderers and causes the overall death rate to increase.

Interesting, considering that of the ten American states/territories with the lowest murder rates, only one (Hawai'i) had a firearm ownership rate lower than 5% over the national average. The highest several had firearm ownership rates of less than half the national average.

[WestRedMaple]

I'd suggest not giving toddlers access to loaded firearms

What happened was that the toddler unzipped the purse and took it out.

Which means the toddler was given access to that handgun.

That is negligent and dangerous. I would highly recommend not doing that

[WestRedMaple]

Firearms are not as wide as a group of tools as blades or pole arms.

Most fire arm purposes are ways to kill people or animals.

Nothing wrong with that, at least in context.

Just ignore him.

Oh, so you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Noted

[Seraven]

What happened was that the toddler unzipped the purse and took it out.

Which means the toddler was given access to that handgun.

That is negligent and dangerous. I would highly recommend not doing that

The fault is on the purse or to the mother who brought the gun.

[Big Jim P]

So we blame this fault on the zip of the purse, on the gun inside the purse, or to the mother who brings the gun around? Because we can't exactly blame the toddler.

True, true.

However, its just a really unfortunate series of events. A concealed holster probably would've saved her life in this case.
To be honest, nobody is really at fault in this. Its not the mothers, nor the toddlers.

No, it is exactly the mothers fault:

The woman should not have been carrying the gun in a purse in the first place, and damn sure should not have allowed her toddler access to the purse where she KNEW the gun was. I have seen reports where she left the purse unattended as well. That would make three violations of basic safety rules.

Anyone not willing to accept the responsibility that come with carrying/owning a gun, should not carry or own a gun.

[WestRedMaple]

Which means the toddler was given access to that handgun.

That is negligent and dangerous. I would highly recommend not doing that

The fault is on the purse or to the mother who brought the gun.

Just so, a matter of personal responsibility. Either this is supposed to be some sort of secure, child-proof device which was defective or the mother was negligent.

[Gun Manufacturers]

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.

I'm not butthurt over smartguns. I even volunteered to be a beta tester, as long as I got to keep the gun for free.

[Divitaen]

That is true, but the distinction is the effect. Banning all knives would destroy the cooking, wood-making and medical industries. And besides, as I cited in two articles in the page immediately before this, gun prevalence correlates with homicide, assault and robbery rates.

Then why aren't these crimes going up? Gun ownership and purchases (as I have pointed out), are at an all-time high.

Crime rates have been falling ever since the 1990s, across the board, all as a result of increasing incomes and better policing. The studies I cited thus looked across states and across countries because within a city changes in crime rate may be multi causal.

[Divitaen]

If what you are saying is true, in that guns play an important defensive role against violent crime that outweighs the lives taken by guns, then this shouldn't be true:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Gun prevalence shouldn't correlate with homicide rates. If your theory is accurate, it should be the other way round. Gun prevalence should decrease homicide rates because apparently they defend against potential murderers, but clearly it doesn't. It enables potential murderers and causes the overall death rate to increase.

Interesting, considering that of the ten American states/territories with the lowest murder rates, only one (Hawai'i) had a firearm ownership rate lower than 5% over the national average. The highest several had firearm ownership rates of less than half the national average.

Yes I've heard of that stat. Considering only the two extremes often leaves out important information. You are talking about only 10-15 states in your statistic. The study I cited looks at the stats across the board for all 50 states, so obviously when the statistic isn't cherry picked at the extremes, a holistic analysis of all states shows gun prevalence increase homicide.

[Divitaen]

It's the standard tripe I hear at every gun-related thread. Swimming pools. Knives. Cars. Come up with something new please.

Pot, meet kettle:

Also, I really get amused by the typical pro-gun slogan, "why pick on guns, other things kill people but no one wants to ban them". Ok, chew on this. If I told you that we should ban private citizens from owning nuclear missiles, tanks and explosives, would you honestly tell me, "why pick on explosives, other things kill people too"??

I brought nukes and tanks up IN RESPONSE to your repeated attempts to draw false parallels to knives and cars and other items. I was trying to explain that every of these items have different functions and that the way we treat each item ought to be different. If you read further on in the thread rather than quoting smugly out of context, you will realise I illustrate my point in the manner I have just explained.

[Sociobiology]

That is true, but the distinction is the effect. Banning all knives would destroy the cooking, wood-making and medical industries. And besides, as I cited in two articles in the page immediately before this, gun prevalence correlates with homicide, assault and robbery rates.

Then why aren't these crimes going up? Gun ownership and purchases (as I have pointed out), are at an all-time high.

purchases are up but not ownership, general ownership is down. people who already own guns are buying more guns, not more people are buying guns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[-The Unified Earth Governments-]

Firearms are not as wide as a group of tools as blades or pole arms.

Most fire arm purposes are ways to kill people or animals.

Nothing wrong with that, at least in context.

Just ignore him.

He has not given me a reason to ignore him.

If People were to just cancel out anothers opinions or thoughts in a discussion, that discussion is then pointless don't you think?

Unless it was leading into circular logic, or started entering in numerous fallacies or whatever, then I would ignore him, but because there is no form of progression in the argument, no willful discussion on their part.

That hasn't happened to me yet, so I will continue.

[Big Jim P]

Interesting, considering that of the ten American states/territories with the lowest murder rates, only one (Hawai'i) had a firearm ownership rate lower than 5% over the national average. The highest several had firearm ownership rates of less than half the national average.

Yes I've heard of that stat. Considering only the two extremes often leaves out important information. You are talking about only 10-15 states in your statistic. The study I cited looks at the stats across the board for all 50 states, so obviously when the statistic isn't cherry picked at the extremes, a holistic analysis of all states shows gun prevalence increase homicide.

Which fails as homicides are not increasing with the increase in gun ownership prevalence. Therefore the study is wrong. Either it is flawed, or intentionally misleading. Considering the track record of anti-gun groups, I tend to thing the latter.

[Big Jim P]

Then why aren't these crimes going up? Gun ownership and purchases (as I have pointed out), are at an all-time high.

purchases are up but not ownership, general ownership is down. people who already own guns are buying more guns, not more people are buying guns.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Perhaps I should have said prevalence.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What happened was that the toddler unzipped the purse and took it out.

Which means the toddler was given access to that handgun.

That is negligent and dangerous. I would highly recommend not doing that

It was a pouch specifically designed to safely hold guns. I'd say that it was a design flaw rather than negligence.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Just ignore him.

Oh, so you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Noted

Rather, I believe that he's saying that you have nothing of value to contribute, and is warning UEG of this.

[Imperializt Russia]

They can also be more dangerous and less effective. Smartgun technology still has problems. That's why it should certainly be an option, but by no means mandatory.

But the NJIT study did show more than 90% of the time the fingerprint systems worked, which is a success rate that is higher than most technology we use anyway. Dynamic biometric technology is only going to improve in time.

90% is a shockingly low success rate.
Face facts here, it's an electronic chastity belt for an all-mechanical device.

If your car's immobiliser only worked 90% of the time, you'd be incandescent.

This is butting up against the law of diminishing returns. The chances of any given firearm being used to kill is already miniscule.

Exactly, great, so we agree on this then. The more than 90% successful biometric recognition of smart guns won't put anyone in danger, because very seldom will anyone ever need to actually fire it in self-defense in the first place.

What exactly prevents people from shooting people with smart guns? I'm under the impression that it's literally nothing so long as you own that weapon.

No matter how many time you keep saying this it will not become magically true.

It is though. Even hunting for recreation involves using the gun to kill or injure something else. The purpose of a gun is to inflict violence. Whether in self-defence or recreation. All the other items on the list have a main, non-violent purpose, of which the possibility of it being used as a weapon is auxiliary.

A gun is a means to send a projectile a distance using a chemical reaction.
A firearm is a little more specific, it's a handheld device that does the same thing.

And millions trapped in poverty are denied self defense.

People who are in poverty don't buy guns. If you mean below-the-poverty-line kind of poverty.

One in six Americans are below the poverty line.