Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
Overall, this story is tragic on so many levels.
it's not the love of the object, it is ideology. concealed weapons = patriot, exercising constitutional rights in defiance of "nanny state liberals".
carrying an unnecessary 3 - 4 lb. chunk of metal on your person in a lily-white north Idaho walmart, when you have a 2 year old to lug about as well, makes so little sense it has to be ideological.
So for example if everybody runs around with a gun, one of the things that can go wrong is they will be killed by their own guns. It can happen, and it will happen.
Since we agree that it's bound to happen, then why not do something about it instead of sit on our asses? We all agree these "tragic" deaths are inevitable (note, if you saw it coming and knew it would happen, that's not tragedy, it's negligence). What we disagree about is whether to accept it. Gun lovers shrug and say, yeah, let's keep on living just like this.
If you ask me, most gun loons think being the kid who killed his mother with a gun at 2 is fucking metal and they'd like do be that kid. They're in this for the death.
@13, ideological, and more than a little psychopathological. Gun ownership is a mental illness.
As a parent of four, I know that toddlers are very observant - this is a good lesson to remind us that kids are little sponges, so be aware of what you do and say. And why take the risk, any risk at all, that your child will come in contact with a gun?
@14: What do you propose to do about it? Outlaw stupidity and negligence?
@18: I don't know what that means
@20: That's just factually incorrect
@21: The news report says he shot her twice. There was no way that was an accident
@22: More or less every cop in America walks around carrying a gun with a round chambered. Are they all mentally ill?
They will even sacrifice their own.
" Outlaw stupidity and negligence?" Aaaaaand here we are back to the fundamental nihilism of gun kooks. Why try to do anything? Why bother? No law is perfect so why have any law at all?
You dumb bastards keep getting caught making that sophomoric argument only for guns. But if its terrism or flag burnin' or immagrashun' then, and only then, we need to try everything. We need more and more laws and more enforcement. Doesn't matter how inefficitnt that law enforcement is. If we catch one illegal, if we catch one terrist, well, then it's worth it.
But pass the most minimal standards for gun ownership? Any kind of training? Any requirements for safe storage? Or liability insurance? Any rule that might save one life?
Well then it's not worth it. Even measures that we know will save thousands of lives, still not worth it. And actually, a law that would prevent every single gun death would be opposed by the same lying fuckers.
You're just lying.
Symbolic laws that consciously avoid any real issues, make no difference, and are aimed only to harass are what I object to - for an example see the assault weapons ban. And no, saving "one life" is not the standard, on this topic or any other, when the tradeoff is impacting tens of millions of people. Just isn't, never has been, never will be.
There is nothing realistic that would save "thousands of lives" besides dismantling the entire war on drugs and the cultural destruction that comes with it, but that's apparently not on the table. I guess you could propose a highly invasive civil commitment law and put hundreds of thousands or millions of people involuntarily in padded rooms if they're determined to be on suicide watch, as another alternative.
And in the meantime, no, we're not going to cough up our civil rights for your feelz.
@32: What are you proposing? I'm not minimizing anything - the whole thing sucks, the kid is going to have a mess of a life, and the woman was at fault. All I was trying to do is correct some bad info in the comments. How do you legislate someone not being stupid?
Sounds like a gun fetish to me. Imagine if the woman had died from some other fetish item, like her son found a dildo on a rotary hammer under her bedand caved her forehead in while she slept; she'd be mocked forever. But since it's a gun, it's just an off-limits tragedy.
Thank you.
"I shot a mom in Hayden, just to watch her die..."
Totally agree on the "suffered enough" deal - there are ample laws and procedures on the books to enforce right now, it's a prosecutorial discretion item. Passing yet more laws that don't get indicted will make no difference. And again, if your real goal is to deal with the mass casualty aspect of guns in the US, the numbers are in violent crime related (usually) to the drug trade, and suicide, as opposed to the one offs that are horrific but, stasticially, a blip.
"have been consistent with that"
You only post on gun threads. You have ZERO credibility. Your defense of armed 2 year olds reveals your mental illness.
Outlaw stupidity and negligence?
Stupidity, no, but yes, YOU can sue for negligence.
Here's the thing for me. As a mother, she put her love of guns before her child (and apparently 3 of her nieces who were with her). That's 4 children around a loaded gun.
Now she's the one who died but it could have been any of the four kids. Also terrible.
But here's where society (and negligence) comes into it. If the child had shot and injured/killed any innocent customer, then the mom should have been charged with manslaughter. Because the rest of us? Who don't carry guns?
We have the right to walk safely thru a store and not get shot because of your gun fetish and your negligence.
As it stands, she paid with her life and now those 4 kids get to live with that tragedy for a long, long time.
We know that you think you are, and that the very safety of the Republic depends on your eternal vigilance, but you're full of shit, and you are a danger to yourself and others.
http://www.cincinnati.com/videos/news/20…
It is obvious you have never lived in the EU. They do not have the thousands of guns deaths we have. They have somewhat dismantled the drug war and they have a really good standard of living while maintaining strong cultural traditions and values.
You sir are sorta of wrong all accounts as I see it..;-d
The Republicans have been nickle and diming us to death on the abortion issue through these sort of backhanded, round about measures; let's give the devil his due and give them a taste of their own medicine on the gun front.
@47: I think maybe you misread my comment, as you're making my point?
@50: You won't have enough pull to do that in Congress during my lifetime. You're losing, repeatedly and dramatically.
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/i…
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/i…
Yea we have a fucked up political system entirely dependent on money, so let's use it for good once in a while. Insurance companies look to have more, ahem, "pull" than the gun groups.
Also, watch out for this fucking guy, right? Billy Badass is the biggest badass of the bunch. Definitely a danger to some of those around him, lol.
As to your other point - just choose your assault victim wisely, every state now has legal concealed carry laws because, again, you're losing.
who thinks this kid is likely to grow up and kill himself with a gun?
"In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[8]" - National Center for Health Statistics, CDC. 2010.
the killer was a male, correct? just another example violence against women perpetrated by males and their phallic weaponry
The phrase you cherry picked applies to concealed transport of a gun in a car in Idaho, if the person doesn't have a permit.
OTOH, it would be nice for gun owners to look at cases like this and acknowledge that in exchange for the small chance that carrying around a loaded firearm will protect you from random violence, there is a much greater chance that the gun will be used by someone in your household to do injury to themselves or others.
So while 'Boring Dad is Boring' is focused on protecting himself from "those around me who attempt to make me or my family one of the 1.1M+ annual victims of violent crime in the US", for his sake let's hope he recognizes that those in his family are statistically the greater threat, and in that case, it'll likely be one of his/their guns that is involved in the violence.
On a related note, you might choose to look up "ecological fallacy" sometime before you get too far down the road in your statistics career.
Statistically, though, there is a greater chance that you or a family member will be injured by your firearm than that you will use it to repel a violent intruder.
http://www.nsc.org/NSCDocuments_Corporat…
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.…
"This data is from the CDC web-site (http://www.cdc.gov/...). During the period 2008-2009, the last year for which complete data is available, there were 62,940 deaths in the US due to firearms, for a crude (non-age adjusted) rate of 10.29 deaths per 100,000 persons. If you lived in a city of 100,000 persons, you could expect that 10 of your neighbors would die from a firearm injury that year. 1,146 of these deaths were classified as “unintentional” (an accident), and 61,289 of these deaths were classified as “Violence-related” (presumably intentional). During the same period, there were 145,390 non-fatal firearm injuries here in the US, with a crude rate of 23.8 non-fatal injuries per 100,000 persons. If you lived in a city of 100,000 persons, you could expect 24 of your neighbors to suffer an injury due to a firearm that year. Of these injuries, 35,826 were classified as “Unintentional”, while 109,565 non-fatal injuries were “Violence-related”.
@59 yeah gun owners are the drama queens. lmfao
65 ok
This kind of event is a statistical pimple on the Elephant's ass (1146/316,000,000) which is precisely why the story has received so much interest.
"Statistically, though, there is a greater chance that you or a family member will be injured by your firearm than that you will use it to repel a violent intruder."
i posted statistics in reply to that statement.
"did timmy fall down a well?" very cerebral
Unfortunately, the numbers you quote show only that people are more likely to be injured or killed by intentional shootings than by unintentional shootings. It makes no distinction between injuries/deaths from one's own gun and those from another person's gun, and it makes no distinction between injuries/deaths caused by legitimate self-defense and those caused by assault.
I'm too damn obsessive to be fooled by someone just posting vaguely-related numbers and claiming that their argument is supported by them; if you post statistics that don't say anything useful about the topic at hand, I will notice and I will call you out on it. Get rekt.
the topic of the article is about an accidental death by firearm
firearm deaths 2008-2009: 1,146 (out of 61,289) of these deaths were classified as “unintentional” (an accident)
also doesn't take into account hunting accidents or firearm malfunctions or type of firearm or where the injuries/wounds were sustained or what caliber ammunition was used or what time of day or living conditions or national location or color of the weapon or the manufacturer of the weapon or why people own the guns in the first place.
i'd take you more seriously if you gave a source to your statistical analysis of increased injury by ones own firearm compared to a violent attacker. right now we know of one case for sure, this woman from idaho that had no crime to worry about and was irresponsible with a gun.
if we're going to focus on one story of an accidental death maybe we should add one about the use of a gun saving someone
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=woman+protects+hers…
Here is a 1998 study of three metropolitan areas finding that guns in a home were far more likely to be used in accidents, assaults, or suicide attempts than to be used in self-defense. Here is a 2004 study finding that having a firearm in the house correlates to a substantially higher risk of violent death. And just for good measure, here is a Harvard Injury Control Research Center rundown of studies regarding firearm use in self-defense.
The point I tried to make in my previous post, which you have been apparently unable to grasp, is that the statistics you posted allegedly in response to my claim in post #60 have nothing to do with that claim. I asserted that guns in the home are more likely to cause injury or death to a resident than to be used in self-defense against an intruder. You responded by quoting the numbers on accidental and intentional firearm death and injury, which don't actually have any bearing on the probabilities I referenced. What point do you believe your quoted numbers made?
that none of those people killed or injured, were shot by people that kept or used their guns at a home :eyeroll:
what's your problem? i gave some numbers, i never said i disagreed with your premise.
the links you provided, meh.
That statement is not supported by the data you posted; I guarantee you that it is false, in fact. Now that you've decided to hedge, I figure I'll ask: do you agree or disagree with my statement in post #60 regarding risk associated with gun ownership?
i agree that you are more likely to be injured/killed by a gun, if there is a gun around your person. just like the chances of getting in a car accident increase if you use a car, or your chances of dying of a prescription drug overdose increase if you use prescription drugs, or your chances of drowning increase if you go swimming or enjoy activities on water, or your chances of being a victim of violent crime increase if you are in a violent neighbor hood, or your chances of being in a plane crash increase if you are on a plane, or your chances of dying one day increase if you are alive.
i can see you just want to argue for arguments sake. i'd think you'd be happy with the numbers i provided, 300,000,000 people in the US, 90 guns for every 100 people. look at all those deaths and injuries caused by guns. SEE look how dangerous guns are even though those numbers don't break down into categories that show the increased probability that owning a gun causes injury and/or death, or how many times a gun was used for self defense, or suicide, or accidentally, or violent crime.
And yet despite cars being clearly less dangerous by that metric of commonality versus death toll, we regulate the HELL out of cars! We impose all sorts of safety requirements on them, we make you pass a safety test every few years to use them, and if there are accidental deaths because of cut corners in design or manufacturing, the manufacturers have to pay huge fines in recompense. NONE of those are done with domestic firearms.
there are plenty of municipal regulations, maybe too few nationally. you can't legally buy a fully automatic assault rifle without a lot of red tape but if you have the money and a drivers license you can buy a 1,000hp bugatti and go 200 mph. cars are much more sophisticated than guns, so manufacturing defects are more easily seen and fixed with guns. apples and oranges.
relatively few people die from cars or guns. if the media portrayed road rage incidents or car accidents like gun incidents the media would be telling the world this country has a car problem.