Toddler Shoots and Kills Mother

[Calivada]

I think there are too many gun stores.Put more restrictions on how you can sell guns, tax them better, so the gov't gets more money while those who want to buy their guns are dissuaded by the price.

[Aurulie]

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/30/toddler-shoots-womanwithherowngun.html

A Walmart store in northern Idaho was the scene of the latest tragedy in a spate of accidental killings on Tuesday, when a toddler shot and killed his mother with the gun she was carrying in her purse, authorities said.

Kootenai County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Stu Miller said that the woman, whose identity was not released, was shopping at a Walmart in a suburb of Coeur d’Alene with four children in tow. Authorities confirmed that the 2-year-old boy was the woman's son, but it was not clear how she was related to the other children.

"One of the children, a boy about 2 years old, reached into the woman’s purse at about 11:15 a.m., and the weapon accidentally discharged," Miller told reporters.

The woman had a concealed weapons permit, and Miller noted on Twitter that a preliminary investigation “shows shooting was accidental. 1 female victim, late 20s, is deceased."

The fatal shooting is only the latest in a succession of accidental killings this year. Last month a 3-year-old boy reportedly shot and killed his mother while she changed his sister’s diaper. A 12-year-old boy accidentally shot his 9-year-old sister in Newark, New Jersey with what was reportedly a stolen handgun.

In April a 3-year-old girl shot and killed her 2-year-old brother with a .22 caliber rifle in Utah. That same month a 2-year-old boy shot and killed his 11-year-old sister with a handgun he apparently believed was a toy.

The accidental shooting death of a gun instructor in August by a 9-year-old girl during a demonstration of a submachine gun reignited debate about gun safety and whether children should be allowed anywhere near them.

The action group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America have long called for a “national discussion about children and guns” and stated after the August incident that they were urging the members and the public to find new ways to act against gun violence in the coming year.

Firstly my thoughts and condolences go out to this woman's family and friends. It seems like accidental gun deaths are in the news a lot lately. What's the answer to these killings? Up to 100 children die each year in the US from accidental shootings, and thats still not counting adults. So how do we combat this? Regular gun control? Or specific laws targeting guns in households with children? I'd prefer to see restrictions on firearms in houses with children, but we've also got to educate people about the dangers of these weapons. This woman clearly wasn't carrying the gun in a safe spot. Can we make sure that people know how to properly and safely carry and store firearms?

Eh, more children die from drowning. Don't regulate my rights even more.

[WestRedMaple]

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.

Actually, I looked at all 50 states, DC, and territories. Those in the middle showed no strong correlation either way.

Of course, as I stated, I did not look at homocides, only murders. Legal killings by police and private individuals were not counted. I also looked at all murders, not by any particular method.

[WestRedMaple]

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.

Design flaw? Possibly, but I've seen no mention of it supposed to be secured and locked in any way. All such bags, purses, and fanny packs I've seen merely have pouches to hold the handgun, not keep anyone out of it.

[WestRedMaple]

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.

Which would be accurately described by the word projection.

Now, by any chance, would you care to discuss the topic?

[WestRedMaple]

I think there are too many gun stores.Put more restrictions on how you can sell guns, tax them better, so the gov't gets more money while those who want to buy their guns are dissuaded by the price.

So then you'd support some hefty poll taxes?

[Galloism]

I think there are too many gun stores.Put more restrictions on how you can sell guns, tax them better, so the gov't gets more money while those who want to buy their guns are dissuaded by the price.

So then you'd support some hefty poll taxes?

Ok, I support expanded gun rights and think that most gun ban advocates are unable to see coherent reality regarding guns and the effects on crime, but...

Fuck that was a bad retort. Show me one person ever killed by a ballot ever. Ever. In the history of ballots.

[Calivada]

I think there are too many gun stores.Put more restrictions on how you can sell guns, tax them better, so the gov't gets more money while those who want to buy their guns are dissuaded by the price.

So then you'd support some hefty poll taxes?

Poll taxes ? No.
Taxes on guns.Guns do not help you voting.

[Imperializt Russia]

So then you'd support some hefty poll taxes?

Ok, I support expanded gun rights and think that most gun ban advocates are unable to see coherent reality regarding guns and the effects on crime, but...

Fuck that was a bad retort. Show me one person ever killed by a ballot ever. Ever. In the history of ballots.

I think his point is that if poll taxes are illegal, sales taxes (new ones anyway) on firearms probably should be too.

[Calivada]

Ok, I support expanded gun rights and think that most gun ban advocates are unable to see coherent reality regarding guns and the effects on crime, but...

Fuck that was a bad retort. Show me one person ever killed by a ballot ever. Ever. In the history of ballots.

I think his point is that if poll taxes are illegal, sales taxes (new ones anyway) on firearms probably should be too.

It's apples and oranges, if you ask me.

[Imperializt Russia]

I think his point is that if poll taxes are illegal, sales taxes (new ones anyway) on firearms probably should be too.

It's apples and oranges, if you ask me.

Since both are constitutional rights, not enormously.

[Galloism]

Ok, I support expanded gun rights and think that most gun ban advocates are unable to see coherent reality regarding guns and the effects on crime, but...

Fuck that was a bad retort. Show me one person ever killed by a ballot ever. Ever. In the history of ballots.

I think his point is that if poll taxes are illegal, sales taxes (new ones anyway) on firearms probably should be too.

Which is a stupid argument for whole other reasons, given the history of poll taxes and why they were made illegal. Of course, they had to be reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

Namely, there was nothing wrong, per se, with the concept of poll taxes until the 24th amendment specifically forbade them. They were upheld as constitutional.

There is no amendment which says "no one shall be denied a firearm for failure to pay any sales tax or other tax".

[WestRedMaple]

I think his point is that if poll taxes are illegal, sales taxes (new ones anyway) on firearms probably should be too.

It's apples and oranges, if you ask me.

Then you'd be incorrect. One is a tax intended to curtail a particular Constitutionally-protected right. The other is a tax intended to curtail a particular Constitutionally-protected right.

[WestRedMaple]

So then you'd support some hefty poll taxes?

Ok, I support expanded gun rights and think that most gun ban advocates are unable to see coherent reality regarding guns and the effects on crime, but...

Fuck that was a bad retort. Show me one person ever killed by a ballot ever. Ever. In the history of ballots.

The concept proposed was exactly the same as poll taxes.

It's a matter of consistency. Either the notion of intentionally taxing Constitutionally-protected rights with the intent of preventing them is acceptable to someone or it is not.

[WestRedMaple]

So then you'd support some hefty poll taxes?

Poll taxes ? No.
Taxes on guns.Guns do not help you voting.

How much something helps you vote is irrelevant to the discussion.

You have admitted that you support taxes with the intention of blocking the exercise of Constitutionally-protected rights. Why are you not okay with the old predatory poll taxes?

[Galloism]

Ok, I support expanded gun rights and think that most gun ban advocates are unable to see coherent reality regarding guns and the effects on crime, but...

Fuck that was a bad retort. Show me one person ever killed by a ballot ever. Ever. In the history of ballots.

The concept proposed was exactly the same as poll taxes.

It's a matter of consistency. Either the notion of intentionally taxing Constitutionally-protected rights with the intent of preventing them is acceptable to someone or it is not.

Let's consider the word "prevent" (which you used) vs "dissuade" (as used by the original poster you responded to).

Dissuade implies a discouragement, but not a prevention. For instance, I can try to dissuade you from making bad comparisons by pointing them out, but I cannot prevent them as I do not have the power.

However, if the government came by and charged a $1,000 per month tax on your internet because you make bad arguments, that would probably prevent you from using the internet, and therefore you could not exercise your constitutional right to make bad arguments.

A tax which is reasonable may be used as a dissuasion, and that's not significant problem.

But if it's $1,000 per gun, that's effectively a prevention for a significant portion of society, and would probably be unconstitutional.

[WestRedMaple]

The concept proposed was exactly the same as poll taxes.

It's a matter of consistency. Either the notion of intentionally taxing Constitutionally-protected rights with the intent of preventing them is acceptable to someone or it is not.

Let's consider the word "prevent" (which you used) vs "dissuade" (as used by the original poster you responded to).

Dissuade implies a discouragement, but not a prevention. For instance, I can try to dissuade you from making bad comparisons by pointing them out, but I cannot prevent them as I do not have the power.

However, if the government came by and charged a $1,000 per month tax on your internet because you make bad arguments, that would probably prevent you from using the internet, and therefore you could not exercise your constitutional right to make bad arguments.

A tax which is reasonable may be used as a dissuasion, and that's not significant problem.

But if it's $1,000 per gun, that's effectively a prevention for a significant portion of society, and would probably be unconstitutional.

It seems you might not be quite up on the meaning of those words.

They want to prevent firearm ownership through the dissuasion of firearm purchasing.

If someone is dissuaded from doing something, then that thing has been prevented.

[Galloism]

Let's consider the word "prevent" (which you used) vs "dissuade" (as used by the original poster you responded to).

Dissuade implies a discouragement, but not a prevention. For instance, I can try to dissuade you from making bad comparisons by pointing them out, but I cannot prevent them as I do not have the power.

However, if the government came by and charged a $1,000 per month tax on your internet because you make bad arguments, that would probably prevent you from using the internet, and therefore you could not exercise your constitutional right to make bad arguments.

A tax which is reasonable may be used as a dissuasion, and that's not significant problem.

But if it's $1,000 per gun, that's effectively a prevention for a significant portion of society, and would probably be unconstitutional.

It seems you might not be quite up on the meaning of those words.

They want to prevent firearm ownership through the dissuasion of firearm purchasing.

If someone is dissuaded from doing something, then that thing has been prevented.

To dissuade is to change one's mind. To encourage them or persuade them to take a different path.

No force has taken place.

If you would honestly state that dissuading the populace against doing something is unconstitutional, you would make the argument that the government encouraging people to put guns in gun safes and such is unconstitutional. The government expressing any kind of persuasive argument which encourages someone not to exercise a particular right would be unconstitutional. The government would be afraid of issuing any kind of nonbinding opinion on... well, most anything at all, really.

Such a reading of the constitution is downright absurd.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The concept proposed was exactly the same as poll taxes.

It's a matter of consistency. Either the notion of intentionally taxing Constitutionally-protected rights with the intent of preventing them is acceptable to someone or it is not.

Let's consider the word "prevent" (which you used) vs "dissuade" (as used by the original poster you responded to).

Dissuade implies a discouragement, but not a prevention. For instance, I can try to dissuade you from making bad comparisons by pointing them out, but I cannot prevent them as I do not have the power.

However, if the government came by and charged a $1,000 per month tax on your internet because you make bad arguments, that would probably prevent you from using the internet, and therefore you could not exercise your constitutional right to make bad arguments.

A tax which is reasonable may be used as a dissuasion, and that's not significant problem.

But if it's $1,000 per gun, that's effectively a prevention for a significant portion of society, and would probably be unconstitutional.

The problem is, much like poll taxes originally, the issue is relative exclusion based on income, and the other factors which follow alongside of it.

Middle-class working individuals can afford a wide range of surcharges on firearms with little or no impact on their availability.
Such is not the case with the poorer segments of society where, one would be remiss in not pointing out, the prevalence of potential usage in self-defense situations is considerably higher (the poor being more likely targets/victims of crime than other groups). One could also point out the unfortunate racial component this contains because of the wide segments of minority communities who live in poverty, and question the motives behind restricting access to these people in particular with surcharges which would be much more harmful on them than others. One might then question the motivation of an action designed to set-up monetary barriers to such people obtaining firearms and the motivations which underlay it, in the same manner poll taxes restricted the ability of such people to vote or voter ID requirements restrict the ability of such people to vote.

[Occupied Deutschland]

"Guns are designed to kill or injure " is a blanket statement. One that has been proven false, and will not become true through repetition. "Most guns are designed to kill or injure" would be an accurate statement.

Were, past tense.

Hand cannons, Arquebus, and Muskets.

Three gun powder weapons, the later two definitely being guns.

All tools of war.

Which is wholly irrelevant to anything.

Rockets were designed to blow up English people.
Saying today that 'Rockets were designed to kill/injure' isn't useful.
So fucking what? Such is irrelevant. One must base their perception upon the current status of such items. Appeals to historical occurrence are fucking useless for anything other than a historical exercise.

I'm sure I read it was used elsewhere as well...

...

Am I the only one that things that Jim got wrecked on the last page?

If you're gonna make the point that examples of some gun models and some recreational activities mean that guns aren't meant to kill, then you should expect it. It's very design and technology is aimed at that very purpose.

Allow me to quote myself:

Ridiculous and illogical bullshit. Firearms are tools which have a predominant usage as weapons (primarily thanks to the skewed statistics their usage by armed forces present).
Of course, this does not mean that axes were weapons a millenium ago when they were also used as battlefield weaponry just because they were designed for such at the time in a broad degree of instances (or, and oh my gods will this apparently be difficult to understand, when perfectly serviceable axes used as tools to cut down trees could also overlap and serve as weapons). Nor does this suggest that rocks are weapons because they were used millenia ago as such when Grog beat Blarg over the head for warm-glowy-stick and slope-browed woo-man he wanted.
Nothing is a weapon by inherent nature. Its usage is the determinant of that nature. Rockets were designed and predominantly used to blow up Englishman by Narzis. They weren't, and never were, inherently weapons. They had a predominant usage as such because of the decisions made by people at the time. As time progressed, they developed into seperate usages and designs for such (much like firearms). ROckets continued to be designed and used in the 'blowing up other people and their shit' capacity while simultaneously being designed and used in the 'getting other people and their shit to space' capacity. The two categories are not either the inherent nature of rockets, especially as both shared considerable overlap. Both existed, at the same time as designed uses of the items. Sometimes in the same rocket.

The human element is the fucking cornerstone of this entire business. It creates the distinction between a tool and a weapon (R-7 as ICBM = weapon, R-7 as shooty-Sputnik-spaceways-for-Soviets = tool). Because otherwise, a rather wide swathe of tools can be easily applied the label of 'weapon' (Such as the R-7 even when being used to shooty-Sputnik-spaceways-for-Soviets, even though it demonstrably was not being used as a weapon such classification as you and Div are applying would label it one solely on the basis of its historical design (Either as rockets were long ago used in a weaponry capacity or because the R-7 itself was designed as a weapon, both fit the logic being applied)...Which is incorrect).

I respect him, but that car retort was very, very stupid.

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

Rockets!
You're welcome.

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.

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.

The NRA didn't do anything over 'smart-guns'. The boogeyman you fear is not in the closet. Hell, it doesn't exist.

THe only 'objection' the NRA had to smart-guns was that such shouldn't be mandatory (with current technology in current iteration) because of cost and usage restrictions that would be onerous to the average consumer.
Which was a rather good point since the latest smart-gun anyone's bandied about was a $2000 .22 with a rather significant issue of being easily 'hackable' via application of a screwdriver.

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.

They didn't. Some of their members may have, rather half-cockedly. I'm rather baffled at where this came from beyond 'N-R-A is der ebul villain!' idiocy.

[Socialist Tera]

You need a license for a car, why not for a gun? Have an age restriction and have various tests to make sure the person is responsible enough to get one.

[Imperializt Russia]

You need a license for a car, why not for a gun? Have an age restriction and have various tests to make sure the person is responsible enough to get one.

If you want to use a firearm in a public place, you need a licence anyway.
If you want to use a car on private land, you don't need a licence for that either.

[WestRedMaple]

It seems you might not be quite up on the meaning of those words.

They want to prevent firearm ownership through the dissuasion of firearm purchasing.

If someone is dissuaded from doing something, then that thing has been prevented.

To dissuade is to change one's mind. To encourage them or persuade them to take a different path.

No force has taken place.

If you would honestly state that dissuading the populace against doing something is unconstitutional, you would make the argument that the government encouraging people to put guns in gun safes and such is unconstitutional. The government expressing any kind of persuasive argument which encourages someone not to exercise a particular right would be unconstitutional. The government would be afraid of issuing any kind of nonbinding opinion on... well, most anything at all, really.

Such a reading of the constitution is downright absurd.

Ah, so you went with the straw man approach. I hope you enjoyed talking to yourself

[Galloism]

To dissuade is to change one's mind. To encourage them or persuade them to take a different path.

No force has taken place.

If you would honestly state that dissuading the populace against doing something is unconstitutional, you would make the argument that the government encouraging people to put guns in gun safes and such is unconstitutional. The government expressing any kind of persuasive argument which encourages someone not to exercise a particular right would be unconstitutional. The government would be afraid of issuing any kind of nonbinding opinion on... well, most anything at all, really.

Such a reading of the constitution is downright absurd.

Ah, so you went with the straw man approach. I hope you enjoyed talking to yourself

You're the one who indicated that the government exercising dissuasion against some section of subsection of your exercising of constitutional rights was inherently unconstitutional.

It's certainty not my fault you can't make an argument that you don't like the consequences of.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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

Which would be accurately described by the word projection.

Now, by any chance, would you care to discuss the topic?

I've discussed it. It's an annoying topic, and I've found the approaches taken by some of the more ardent firearms aficionados to be intellectually dishonest, utterly fallacious, and eye-rollingly idiotic. I have no interest in further discussion when the other side acts as if any attempt to restrict or otherwise modify our current approach to gun ownership is treated as a proposal to amputate their genitals.