Toddler accidentally shoots woman dead in Idaho Walmart

by nicolaou 101 Replies latest social current

• 

  little_Socrates

  The problem with most gun control laws is that they limit the access of peaceful law abiding citizens while doing little about the criminal element.

  It is about playing to the fears of the populace while only giving lip service to the real issues at hand.

  A perfect example is the assault weapon ban.  First of all the VAST majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns NOT rifles.  Even still the ban had to do with how a gun looked (playing on fears again) and not on how it functioned.   There is little evidence that the assault weapon band limited crime or that crime went up after it expired.
  

  
  
• 

  BizzyBee

  police officials reviewed the store's security video, they determined the incident was an "accident", not a result of being "irresponsible".

  I think in police terminology the word "accident" probably has a legal meaning of "unintentional," whereas the word "irresponsible" has judgmental and moral ramifications.  Police reports might be written using the former, but certainly not the latter.  

   Both are true - the killing was an accident, i.e., unintended, and the mother was irresponsible.  She was careless - leaving a deadly weapon between herself and a child - apparently closer to the child.  None of the known facts indicate otherwise and I would be seriously surprised if further investigation of this tragic but fairly straightforward incident reveals anything else.  We shall see.

  In the meantime, please don't chastise those of us who are genuinely heartsick and horrified by this appalling incident.  Don't infringe my first amendment rights in service of your second amendment "rights."

  
  

  In the meantime, NEVER underestimate a child's ability to mimic behavior he has seen previously demonstrated.  Wise parents know this.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Sorry,  but after reading the comments expressed on this thread , I still hold to the conclusion that when a given population has been openly offered the capability to purchase guns within that society, the entailing result is that there will be more violence and accidents occurring by use of those possessed guns.

  Is that just too logical within a factor of probability ? 

  The US has inherently created its own problematic predicament by upholding an old outdated  constitutional law that states that its citizens have the right to bear arms, a law the established way back in the 1800's century, a law that was originally established to protect any newly acquired land of the recognized government of the US  and to protect outside invading interference. At the time there were still raiding marauding native Indians, natives from the Spanish Mexican culture and the British government who were trying to take away what the first early colonist acquired on their own.    

  Created laws by man may have their own purposeful intent when they are firstly created as such,  that doesn't mean that those laws can never be changed or reformed to beneficially suit the needs of the people of which they designated for.  
• 

  little_Socrates

  "the entailing result is that there will be more violence and accidents occurring by use of those possessed gun."

  
  

  So do we ban everything that might lead to more violence or accidents?  See my earlier post about causes of preventable deaths...   we deal with numerous things in our society that are very dangerous.   Driving being the biggest one.   Yet we don't fear those things but for some reason many have an irrational fear of fire arms.
  

  
  

  The constitutional right to bear arms is not a law per say.   The right to bare arms is a universal one of all people.    The constitution simply recognizes this right and puts it in writing.
  

  I believe in individual rights.   I believe every man and women are sovereign individuals.  The only authority the state has is through consent of these individuals.  I believe these principals are what made America great. 

  Many here are collectivists.   They think the state and the society are more important than the indivual.  The problem with this view is that at some point YOUR desires, your rights, the way you live your life will be at odds with society.  If you don't fight for other peoples rights nobody will be there to fight for yours.

  I can support gun control as long as it meets these two criteria:   First it can not limit peaceful law abiding peoples access to their rights. Secondly it needs to objectively, and quantifiably reduce gun violence by the criminal element in our society.    Seldom do proposed gun laws do this.
• 

  Simon

  The problem with most gun control laws is that they limit the access of peaceful law abiding citizens while doing little about the criminal element.

  Do you believe this applies to vehicles too?

  It's easier to steal one than buy and license one right?

  Yeah, let's not bother with trying to control the roads at all ... it's just so difficult, not worth the effort. Let the blood bath at the next intersection commence. It's pot luck if the majority will decide to stop on red and follow the rules after all, no point even trying to even have laws, let alone enforce them.

  You have said some crazy things on this topic. My favourite is how planes would be safer if everyone was allowed guns. Still laughing at that one.
• 

  coalize

  That's really a north-american problem : free fireguns (and death penalty too.)

  More it's fireguns, more it's people killed and injured by fireguns... In europe, it's few fireguns, and few people die by fireguns. It's simple... And the most of the time, victims of fireguns shots are criminals who are fighting each other... Very few domestic accidents by fireguns...

  And here, in France, a guy who let a gun accessible to a child, (in a drawer, under the pillow, like a trophy on the wall), is considered like a total irresponsible psychopat... 

  Then I never understand this (for me totally stupid) claim : more guns will decrease the criminality... It's the total contrary! Like that, even innocent people of 5 years become accidentally criminals!

  More guns = more people killed by guns.

  You can say me : More cars = more people killed by cars.

  The only difference that guns are build to kill and can make nothing else. Not the cars.

  When I read : "to have a gun is a right", i hear "to kill is a right"

  And I feel more safer in the more dangerous parts of Paris,  that in the safer places in america, when you see "normal citizen"  but drunk, playing with guns for fun...

  
  

  
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Oh here we go with the constuatioal law crap .

  Well if its everyone right to bare arms, why not let people who once committed a crime using guns to able to own  guns again since its their legal right ? You want uphold their constitutional rights don't you ?

  .

  Reverting back to a previous comment I made, the entailing problem this wide spread availability to own guns, creates in itself a sociological awareness that people have to own guns as a viable means to protect themselves from all the other owners of guns within their population. 

  This is certainly a great self supporting situation for gun manufactures and resellers but that doesn't necessarily equate something good for the general population at large.  

   

   

   
• 

  little_Socrates

  If you want to use a car for lawful purposes you would buy it.   However if you want to use it for unlawful purposes you would be much more likely to steal it.  For the most part injuries caused by driving are by lawful drivers that want to obey the law.  Traffic safety laws help those people drive safer.   Gun violence is caused by lawless people.   Those people are already violating the law to do what they want, new laws won't change their behavior.
  

  
  

  I didn't specifically say allowing firearms on airplanes would make them safer.   I said that you would eliminate some problems while increasing other problems.   I said you would stop all hijacking but there would be a few more random shootings.  I really don't know what the net result would be.

  
  

  How do YOU propose to take guns out of the hands of criminals?
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  coalize

  How do YOU propose to take guns out of the hands of criminals?

  One thing is sure, proposing to take guns out of the hands of criminals by making it more easy to obtain is a strange way of reasonning.

  And, let me say you, take the exemple of a jewellery robbery. We had in 2014, in Paris around 50 jewellery robbery. 2 jewellers died : the two who try to make the proud and took their gun. The 48 anothers just hands up, let the robbers take the goods and let the police make the job, they're insured and they are safe!

  Then when you say that the guns is the panacea to protect you and your family, let me say you, by experience that's totally false!

  A good insurance policy is far more protecting your family than a gun... 

  
  

  
  

  
  
• 

  little_Socrates

  Finkelstine   convicted felons loose many rights, not just the right to bare arms.  They loose they right to vote and they loose their right not to be searched.