Child shoots Mom at Walmart
There was a sad story yesterday about a woman shopping in Walmart in Idaho with her kids and she had a weapon concealed in her purse. One of her kids, a two-year-old, snagged the gun while the purse was next to him in the cart and killed her with it. Of course, we can “woulda” & “shoulda” but that won’t bring the woman back to life. But, if you’re going to carry a weapon, it should be on your body, and certainly not within arm reach of a child.
A very sad story. Almost as sad was this comment on the article;
When you decide to carry a gun no matter how responsible you are, you put everyone you come near in danger. I have the right to live my life not in danger. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the main body of the constitution. So important they didn’t need to amend the constitution. That right is guaranteed to all. And it supercedes the 2nd amendment cuz your rights do not have the right to infringe on my rights. When you carry a gun, you violate my rights. You have the right to own a gun, we have cops to protect people we don’t need nor can we afford a bunch of people running around endangering the lives of innocent civilians. The rights of the many out weigh the few.
So, how many things can you find wrong with that comment?
“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. So, there’s not a “right” that you should be happy.
No rights supersede other rights. Even if they did, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect us from the government, not from each other – so I can’t “violate your rights” no matter what I do to you.
That last line is absolutely stupid. There’s that thing called “equal protection”, there is not a “many” or “few” provision. By the way, the reason it is so hard to amend the Constitution is to protect the rights of the few from the whims of the many.
The fellow who wrote that comment needs to go back to East Valley High School and Spokane Community College and get a refund because of their failure to educate him to competency.
Thanks to ROS for the link.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
When exactly did the Founding Fathers of this nation decide to quote Star Trek and include it in the Constitution?
As I remember it, it was “the *needs* of the many outweigh the *needs* of the few.”
Swear to God, liberals can’t even quote a non-sequitur right…
Terribly sad. According to the father, it was a concealed carry purse, which I suppose is fine as long as the purse is over one’s shoulder.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/?tid=hp_mm&hpid=z3
It would seem as though the weapon wasn’t secured within the purse as it should have been, or the kid shouldn’t have had access to it. No matter how good the securing mechanism, if it isn’t properly used, it’s useless. Also, she should have been keenly aware that a toddler will explore everything they can get their little fingers into if left unattended. Having a weapon within it’s reach was just careless. Unfortunately, she paid the ultimate price for her carelessness, and her child will now grow up believing it was his/her fault that mommy is gone.
Harks back to the Luby’s shooting in some respect. One the survivors normally carried a pistol in her purse but left in her POV to comply with the then current law. She stated that after the first shots were fired she had a clear shot at the guy – but no weapon. I believe 26 died that day.
How soon people forget.
I was taught, as were my children, from first breath that Mom’s purse is OFF LIMITS. Just as was mom n dad’s bedroom, (Remember the concept of the two parent household?), and to burgle either would invoke severe punishment. Apparently this, now deceased, Mom taught the Dr. Benjamin Spock concept of allowing the child to do what the hell ever it wants and that there are no real consequences. I knew that there was a loaded Model 94, as well as a loaded 16 gauge shotgun in “their” room, but I would have preferred to walk into a burning building to going into “their” room.
I see nothing wrong with a lady having her firearm in her purse or clutch, provided all security measures are met.
Respect and Fear. Respect Mom’s purse and Dad’s or any Gun. Fear for what would happen to you if did not follow either.
There was no gray area, it was said clear and plainly that your little fingers on either without permission or supervison was, and I quote, ” One of the LAST things you will do on this Earth”
Not to be a curmudgeon, but why was the safety not shifted to keep the gun from firing accidentally?
Not blaming anyone, just asking.
Possible the weapon didn’t have a safety. My Ruger .45 doesn’t have one, just a de-cock.
Depends a lot on the weapon, Ex. Personally, I don’t know of any revolvers that have an engageable safety. I don’t know what kind of pistol it was, but double-action snub revolvers are the most common “purse guns” due to their compact size, simplicity, and ease of use. Many (not all) women lack the grip strength in their hands to manually cycle the slide of an automatic, while the DA revolver requires no such complex or strength-intensive manipulation. More often than not, these will be concealed-hammer, double-action-only variants to avoid snagging an exposed hammer when the shooter draws her pistol from the purse. These DAO guns have a noticeably heavier trigger pull than DA/SA or SA pistols (revolver or automatic), and are supposed to be carried with all chambers in the cylinder loaded save one, with the empty cylinder indexed to the firing position for safety (with the hammer resting down on that empty chamber if it has an exposed hammer). I will speculate that her weapon was probably a DA/SA revolver with an exposed hammer, and that she failed to properly secure it within her CCW purse as the manufacturer intended. From here, there are three possibilities. She may have had it loaded -1 as she should have, but the unsecured weapon’s hammer was cocked either due to rattling around unsecured as she walked around or due to the child’s manipulation, which rotated a loaded chamber into place and left the weapon in single-action mode (light trigger pull). The second possibity is the same, only with the pistol loaded to capacity with no empty chambers. The third is that she was carrying it fully loaded, and that her child pulled the hammer back almost to the cocked position, but let it go before it locked into place, dropping the hammer and discharging the pistol. This is only speculation on my part, but based on my (slightly better than the average layman) knowledge of firearms, I’m comfortable with calling it informed speculation. The one thing that is certain is that this tragedy was 100% preventable had this woman carried her… Read more »
Most on conceal carry pistols don’t have a manual safety switch. Typically that stuff is for full sized duty weapons. The belief is when the shit hits the fan the less you have to think about operating the weapon the better. Under pressure many people will forget to place the weapon on fire and attempt to shoot. This includes police.
Since the make of weapon is not given, I’m gonna swag it and say, it was one of those without a safety OR it was one with the “safety” built into the trigger, most likely a .380 cal. I’m sitting here looking at my .45 ACP and I have no doubt, her weapons safety’s are anywhere near what mine are.
Be that as it may, her weapon served no useful purpose not being in a holster on her hip or in a shoulder rig. I am truly saddened she lost her life and the entire family has my sincerest of condolences and deepest sympathy. Even then, we’re still at risk of another person trying to snatch it from our holster unless we are wearing something that actually conceals it from view and imprint.
And, we still have to be alert to our surroundings especially when out and about in public. Because, there will always be some jackass that thinks “Oh lookie! They are wearing a pistol. Lets steal it”.
2 year olds are notoriously curious, and do not know the true meaning of “do not touch”… I feel awful that this child accidentaly killed their mother. The mother, left her weapon within reach and obtainable to her child.
To the idiots using it as a gun control argument. Just STFU already… it was tragic, and yes preventable accident, but it is not cause to call for gun bans.
This tragedy was an accident and, like all accidents, someone’s doing something (e.g., texting while driving) or not doing something (e.g., getting the pool fenced in) is connected to the accident’s occurrence. I’m not talking legal causation here, just plain experience. Some of you saw that a child was killed on Christmas Day. He rode his brand-new scooter into the street and was struck by a passing vehicle. In California alone, 42 people were killed in traffic accidents between Christmas Eve and the following Sunday. Accidents happen. When I was a kid, a young boy was climbing on rag bales when some toppled, crushing him and killing him on the spot. In another incident, a man told me that when he was a boy, he and other boys were jumping into a pool at a rock quarry. One of the other boys was his brother, whom he dared to jump. The brother took the dare, hit his head on a rock, and died. I could go on, unfortunately, and you have your stories, too. Accidents happen and, arguably, all of them needn’t have occurred—but they did and they will continue to occur. That’s all I have, other than wishing this family peace.
When I first saw this story, it was reported on the Facebook page of a TV station in Shreveport, LA. A city with a metropolitan survey area of over 250,000, an Air Force Base across the river and their own problems.
Why, then, was an accidental shooting in a town of 9000 people about 2000 miles away suddenly news? Along with the closing statement that the town is mostly conservative.
And today, it seems to have gained legs and become national news. Was there nothing else that happened of note anywhere yesterday? I find it obnoxious and disturbing that this tragic event is being thrust onto the national news stage to push a rather obvious agenda.
You answered your own question with your last statement.
“The rights of the many out weigh the few.”
This is close to “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” This line was first spoken by the famous constitutional scholar and founding father Leonard Nimoy. Oh, wait. He’s an actor who read a line in the 80’s.
However, that line can be tracked back to a British philosopher in the early 1800s named Jeremy Bentham. He is seen as the founder of modern utilitarianism. Did I mention he was also fervently against the idea of America separating from the crown? He is also a progressive’s wet dream. From Wikipedia:
—–
Bentham became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts.[1] He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty, and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children. He has also become known in recent years as an early advocate of animal rights. Though strongly in favour of the extension of individual legal rights, he opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights, calling them “nonsense upon stilts”
—–
The actual quote the line is based on is this:
“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.”
It seems that we pay a higher price for everything today — including mistakes. And a gun is not a set of car keys, a cell phone, or a tube of lipstick. IF you carry a gun in your purse, that purse becomes a holster, and it needs to BE ON YOUR PERSON.
I don’t think I’ve bothered to express my opinion on this before, but I don’t have much use for guns around small children. When they get old enough to understand what a gun is and what it does, that’s a different story, but at this age – no.
That commenter is dead wrong. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many, for without each of us as individuals, there cannot be a many. Hasn’t he watched Star Trek III?
Has he ever heard of Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, or the Kim family? They all dropped (or continue to drop) the same one-liner a lot.
And now you know why there have never been any firearms in my house. I know that I do not have the discipline to get and keep them properly secured from what used to be tiny fingers. It is not a more moral position, it is a realistic appraisal of my ability to treat a weapon with the respect that is absolutely required.
I would say the claim that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is in direct opposition to the Constitution.
Consider that the founding fathers made a special point of creating a form of government which would minimize the ability of the majority to tyrannize the minority.
On the other hand most progs today wouldn’t understand the fathers’ distrust of democracy. I expect the idea that pure democracy leads to tyranny would make their little heads explode.
A liberal tried that, “We have the police to protect us” argument on me. I countered that my now sainted mother-in-law lived at least 30 minutes from the nearest constabulary and, since ne’er-do-wells can do a lot of damage in 30 minutes, she needed a gun to protect herself. I went on to say if she was forced to move closer to the police, that would violate her civil rights.
It was a fun day watching the liberal turn blue trying to come up with a counter-point.
The truth is liberals won’t be happy until we all live in government quarters, with government agents in each block. The liberals love the idea of the block-fuehrers the Nazis had in the ’30’s & ’40’s.
What we’re seeing is the Mind of the Collective in action.
It’s sort of like watching a horror movie, but without the popcorn.
This is really a terrible tragedy in so many ways. The loss of this innocent mother by a terrible accident. And because there was so many other people killed, who didn’t make the headlines. Because there manner of dying wasn’t as spectacular for the media to be interested. Some may have been killed robbing someone or a gang shoot out in LA. Happens every day. But a 2 year old killed his mother! Media needs to tell the world. “Now we need to make a law so this doesn’t happen again”. Left goes nuts with this kinda story. But, You know we should be teaching our children starting in daycare how to handle firearms. Then maybe more kids would understand guns are not toys. Prepare them for concealed carry, just like Traffic safety is taught to young kids. This Probably would not have made a difference to this family, but we need to start teaching kids in school about firearm safety. Is that crazy!