Mother killed by her 2-year old son with her own gun.

[Denzein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326

Sympathies.

How many more will there be, though? We all know what unfortunate/despicable/barbaric (I don't know, pick one) aspect of American culture I'm referring to.

 

[Black Noise]

As long as there is the freedom to own weapons designed for one terrible purpose, there will always be tragedy.

No matter what measures are or are not taken, as long as the tools of accidents are laid out, there will be accidents. It's similar to cars. As long as we have the freedom to drive these death traps, people will die in accidents.

Though, admittedly, cars are not tended to kill people, guns are.

 

[Loco]

Sad :worried:

Sounds like a whole lot of dumb though. You keep a loose gun with no manual safety floating around in a purse you let your two year old get a hold of? Cause of death- terminal stupidity.


On the gun culture note though, the day America stops looking like this:

...Is the day I don't want to live on this planet anymore. #sorrynotsorry

 

[Denzein]

I was going to post a picture of a black woman shot in the head lying on the ground so you could see the price of your vision of America, but I get the feeling that wasn't totally serious. Also it'd probably get removed, it's pretty graphic.

But seriously now - why do you worship guns as a nation? Why, after every atrocity is the same line inferred of "Oh damn, that really is horrible - sorry that happened to you. You won't be the last, though, and we won't even try and make sure this won't happen again - because it will, and to be honest we're just lucky it wasn't a school this time.". I see arguments, like yours, that proper gun safety, training/whatever makes them much less of a threat. Sure it does, but that doesn't change the fact you're, as a nation, handing out almost freely tools that have the sole purpose of killing other things (things predominantly meaning people). What about that scenario sounds good to the American gun supporter? The disadvantages outweigh the benefits, surely?

But then I'm English, police started carrying guns in Scotland and the gentry snorted into their gin with derision.

 

[Loco]

Go for it. I've seen more than my fair share of dead people, kids included- and not all of them on the internet.

That said- no, it was not entirely serious. Neither though, was it entirely in jest. I think we've hashed out all of the arguments on both sides here and just about everywhere else on the internet when it comes to guns, so we both know nobody's opinions here are going to change based on anything said in this thread. But, since you asked "why?" I can tell you at least personally I'm solidly in the "dangerous freedom" crowd. I don't think it's a worship of guns so much as it is the worship of the sort of personal freedom that they are supposed to represent, much the way we glorify alcohol and tobacco use. Alcohol and tobacco- literal poisons that we willingly and legally ingest for the sole purpose of diminishing our ability to mentally function- kill far more people every year than guns, but nobody is screaming to ban them wholesale. Why is that? Because to do so would strip away a freedom that we feel entitled to. Same with guns.

We can argue statistics and cost/benefit in circles until we're all dead of far more likely causes of death than gunshot. But what it ultimately comes down to is that sense of personal freedom, real or perceived.

 

[Wit]

Whether or not someone allows alcohol and tobacco to kill them is their own choice, getting killed because a moron with a gun shot you is not.

 

[Loco]

Whether or not someone allows alcohol and tobacco to kill them is their own choice, getting killed because a moron with a gun shot you is not.

Getting killed by a drunk driver wouldn't be my choice either.

 

[Wit]

Getting killed by a drunk driver wouldn't be my choice either.

Touche.

 

[Denzein]

Yeah, I don't buy it. Alcohol and narcotics have been around for millennia, much like swords. The chief difference being that they, while being harmful to the user (and those around them if abused), have been used as a social stimulant, their primary purpose lying in enhancing one's experience at a party, on in a gathering. They help you with something. A sword does that too, but it helps you kill people. That's all it does.

The rest of the 1st world has long since shed the feeling that only by carrying a sword can a person feel safe and/or free.

Besides, you're totally right nobody is calling for a wholesale ban on alcohol and tobacco. Nor am I per guns in your country, or in any other for that matter. What is being called for and heavily lobbied for pretty much everywhere is regulation of alcohol and tobacco, and indeed that is what is happening. Why then, to use your argument, are gun control laws not already in place as alcohol control laws are? Tobacco can't even be sold in a branded packet anymore, where's the equivalent for guns?

 

[Logan]

Yeah, I don't buy it. Alcohol and narcotics have been around for millennia, much like swords. The chief difference being that they, while being harmful to the user (and those around them if abused), have been used as a social stimulant, their primary purpose lying in enhancing one's experience at a party, on in a gathering. They help you with something. A sword does that too, but it helps you kill people. That's all it does.

The rest of the 1st world has long since shed the feeling that only by carrying a sword can a person feel safe and/or free.

Besides, you're totally right nobody is calling for a wholesale ban on alcohol and tobacco. Nor am I per guns in your country, or in any other for that matter. What is being called for and heavily lobbied for pretty much everywhere is regulation of alcohol and tobacco, and indeed that is what is happening. Why then, to use your argument, are gun control laws not already in place as alcohol control laws are? Tobacco can't even be sold in a branded packet anymore, where's the equivalent for guns?

Because of an archaic fourth amendment that causes anyone that discusses tight regulations on firearms to be labeled a "freedom killer" or a "nazi" or other some such idiocy.

 

[Loco]

Yeah, I don't buy it. Alcohol and narcotics have been around for millennia, much like swords. The chief difference being that they, while being harmful to the user (and those around them if abused), have been used as a social stimulant, their primary purpose lying in enhancing one's experience at a party, on in a gathering. They help you with something. A sword does that too, but it helps you kill people. That's all it does.

The rest of the 1st world has long since shed the feeling that only by carrying a sword can a person feel safe and/or free.

And that's where the difference of opinion comes into play. It's totally different outlooks. To the very depths of my soul I am appalled that an entire nation of people would sacrifice the ability to defend themselves in the world we live in today. To me it doesn't matter how unlikely the average person is to need that right or ability, it's the fact that they would give up the very choice itself. And to you that probably sounds crazy. Both sides basically think the other is insane.

And if you think guns can't be a social stimulant, I'd love for you to hit the range with me and some friends if you're ever in California- that's an open invitation for any of you.

Besides, you're totally right nobody is calling for a wholesale ban on alcohol and tobacco. Nor am I per guns in your country, or in any other for that matter. What is being called for and heavily lobbied for pretty much everywhere is regulation of alcohol and tobacco, and indeed that is what is happening. Why then, to use your argument, are gun control laws not already in place as alcohol control laws are? Tobacco can't even be sold in a branded packet anymore, where's the equivalent for guns?

I'm not sure what your image of buying a gun in America is, but in almost all cases it is far, FAR more heavily regulated and difficult than hopping down to the liquor store and walking out with a basket full of booze and smokes. You can say it's too easy to find loopholes or get them illegally, but the same could be said of anything else too- I've never been to a high school or college party that was short on drink.

To continue the analogy, I've got essentially the same argument for alcohol- is a "social stimulant" worth 10,000+ deaths a year in drunk driving incidents alone? (I sure hope so, because I got like four different bottles of liqour for Christmas)

 

[Vulpes]

Personally, I thought that it was common sense to leave guns out of the reach of children and also to not loosely carry it in a purse. The safety can be easily knocked off, depending on what type of handgun it is. This is a really sad story, but I feel that to a degree this once again is an instance of poor safety. This is why I feel thaf there should be astronger emphasis on safely using guns, especially when concealed carrying.

 

[Empress]

I will add that Hayden Idaho is like a 15 min drive from me- ( me being in eastern WA ) I know it's horrid to say it, given how sad it all is, but at the same time I'm honestly not shocked at all it happened, more shock it does not happen more often since this side of the state, and into idaho -more so northern ID) are pretty heavily populated with the not so bright sort.

more concern is for the kid actually, given the amount of baggage that kid will feel his whole life knowing " I killed mom" and also siblings, or even another parent or anyone else has the ability to use that whole thing in the future as an argument to validate their anger or in a verbal fight with him- wont matter that he was TWO - its going to haunt him his entire life

and personally to me thats the saddest part, way more tragic on its own than the cause and effect of irresponsibility ( which yeah is sad, on its own too, but the end result for the kid is by far worse)

 

[BLADE]

I suppose I should point out that there are laws, an entire movement (MAD inter alia) --with real power too--, and a culture that aims at lessening --and which indeed has lessened-- deaths by drunk driving. I could point out the facts --which are pretty one-sided. I could appeal to the sense of humanity of these people.

But it's pointless. We live in a society of mechanized and normalized brutality. For certain people, the sexualized idea of having a gun --to kill people (because let's not pretend this is some argument about taking guns away from sports shooters or hunters) represents freedom. These people, with all due respect, don't know what freedom is.

Because if you tell me freedom is your right to act in a way that will harm others; If you tell me that freedom is your right to do whatever you please --with a comparison to a metal suicide box which gases the planet with liquid fire and which separates you from me: tiny little suicide people on an asphalt dead-end-- I don't think you have any idea what freedom is.

And I shudder to think you'll find it at the barrel end of a gun.

 

[Loco]

Like I said in the beginning, no one here is going to have their opinion changed by this thread. I'm not interested in having that argument here again. We're all going to go home at the end of the day sighing and shaking our heads at each other's thought process regardless of what is said. My only interest is to try to give some insight at some of the issues that can't be summarized by statistics, even if it is mostly anecdotal, and encourage friendly discussion based on that. Guns aren't a numbers debate, they're a moral debate, and peoples moral stances vary wildly and are very nuanced. I just wanted to re-iterate that before I go on, because what follows is sort of a different argument than the one I was using before.



I think another point that separates a lot of us in this argument and that I've sort of seen referenced here a couple times isn't the guns themselves, but the idea that killing people is inherently wrong. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand the sentiment there- that the world would be far better off if we all just stopped killing each other, accidentally or otherwise. I agree. Yes, guns are for killing people. I agree. I won't argue that they're just for sport or fun, because I think that's just a dumb argument. The fun I have at the range on the weekends is nothing more than a side benefit.

I know I'm there essentially practicing to kill people, and I'm comfortable with that. I am comfortable with that because I don't think, in the world we live in today, that killing people is inherently wrong. I think murder is wrong, but killing in the defense of yourself and others is not. Thus keeping a gun with the intent to use it to do so is not unreasonable in my opinion. And that's where we differ.

I am strongly of the opinion that there are a lot of people in this world who's very existence is detrimental and dangerous to civilized society. These are our terrorists and rapists, murderers (not accidental murders, ie drone operators/soldiers, but those with intent) and child molesters, our dictators, etc. I don't believe that the majority of these people have redeemable qualities, and I believe that their removal from this earth makes the world a better place. I'm not volunteering to seek out and "cleanse" them or some nonsense like that, but sometimes the opportunity presents itself and I think we're all better off when someone takes it. I believe that, like it or not, there are people in this world who enjoy killing and causing chaos and destruction, and that as long as these people exist there is plenty of legitimate reason for the existence and proliferation of tools used to kill them right back. You can argue that it's a vicious circle, and maybe you're right- but in the short term I'm not willing to take my chances. When these people cease to exist, and all potential future uses for a gun cease to exist, I'll melt mine down... Not sure what I'm going to do for a living after that, but I'll happily figure something out for the sake of humanity. Unfortunately, despite the strides we've made in the last few centuries, I do not believe that we live in that world yet.


But then again, maybe I'm just desensitized to the issue- I'll admit that. I grew up around guns. I've carried a gun for the majority of my adult life. On a day to day basis I am armed more often than I'm not, and as I sit here and write this there is a loaded gun three feet away in my nightstand. I've seen people killed with guns, and bombs, and by having their heads removed from their bodies. I am fully aware of the dangers that these weapons and the people who wield them pose to others, and I accept that risk every time I pick one up- the exact same way you accept the increased risk you pose to society as soon as you crack open the first beer in a six pack. And, finally, I fully acknowledge that my personal experiences have a very strong impact on my thoughts on these issues and hell, may not even reflect reality.

*shrug*

 

[BLADE]

I'm named after a great-uncle. He fought in the Spanish Civil War with the Communists, the Socialists, the Liberals and the Democrats. Family legend has it that he was there at the Siege of Madrid and that he shook Paul Robeson's hand (a letter to that effect is still bandied about by my grandfather.) He died. As far as family history can tell, he was killed in close quarters combat with one of the falangist Francoist brigades, presumably by a young man --like him-- who thought that other young men --like him-- were deserving of death. His brains were stoved in by a young man. Just like him. Just like me. Just like you.

You fought for an army that's killed more civilians in the 20th century than any extant major power. You fought for a country that starved half a million Iraqi children. You fought for a country that countenanced the rape of Berlin, of Kosovo, of Cambodia.

And all the while, you live in a comic book reality. One where bad people are easily identifiable and therefore deserving of death. Due process? The law? No mention. Because there are areas in which we do not differ so much. Because I believe in collective gun rights. A militia, set up along the lines of a commune or a Soviet with the militia engaging in regular training. I would not wield a gun personally. I can shoot and I can hunt, but I am a pacifist. I believe in people power, direct action, peaceful revolution. I would not make that choice for others.

But that brings me back to that comic book panel.

What gives you the right to decide who lives and who dies? What demons haunt you at night that as a citizen of the most powerful entity in all of human history you fear --or perhaps are titilitated, since you garb yourself with armor'd fear-- make you think you will ever need a weapon?

It is not a question of differing moralities. It is a question of fascism versus democracy. It is a question of nihilism versus decency. It is the question of one's entirely human hope that the other person at the other end of the trigger won't be so quick to believe that you are one of those "who enjoy killing and causing chaos and destruction."

The gun is almost entirely irrelevant here. It is a method and symbol, a testament to how far away from each other we've been wrenched.

Death where is thy sting?

Cradled but in our own hands.

 

[Joy Carleec]

As long as there is the freedom to own weapons designed for one terrible purpose, there will always be tragedy.

No matter what measures are or are not taken, as long as the tools of accidents are laid out, there will be accidents. It's similar to cars. As long as we have the freedom to drive these death traps, people will die in accidents.

Though, admittedly, cars are not tended to kill people, guns are.

Never has a truth been spoken such as this. :(

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Personally, I thought that it was common sense to leave guns out of the reach of children and also to not loosely carry it in a purse. The safety can be easily knocked off, depending on what type of handgun it is. This is a really sad story, but I feel that to a degree this once again is an instance of poor safety. This is why I feel thaf there should be astronger emphasis on safely using guns, especially when concealed carrying.

Problem is that wwhen you try, people will come out of the woodwork to accuse you of spreading gun culture and violence to the youth. And has been said earlier, trying to get guns removed from circulation or heavily restricted in ammunition or type gets you accused of being against freedom of choice and security, often by those trying to advocate more education.

The cycles endless because neither side wants to compromise, seeing aany aspect of the other as morally bankrupt and only their solution as truly right.

 

[Joy Carleec]

Whether or not someone allows alcohol and tobacco to kill them is their own choice, getting killed because a moron with a gun shot you is not.

Doesn't even have to be a moron. People with decades under their belts have died as a result of misfires and accidents. You can only reduce potiential death through intelligent decision making, very few have the forethought to completely remove the risk by taking out firing pins and such. And even then if the purpose is self-defense against intruders, you've got useless weapons until you re-assemble them.

The primary problem is, that America has had the right to arms for so long, that even removing that right would cause as big problems, as the ones currently they're currently facing. You do have to wonder how many more people have to die, before people who have the power and willingness to do so, say enough is enough. We've heard Obama say it, but until congress agrees - little can be done.

On the other side of the ocean, shootings are surpisingly common in England. They're just not reported on. Kept stupid, aren't we?

 

[Viabuck]

I agree, that in an ideal world, there would be tighter restrictions on certain weapons but unfortunately Pandora's Box is already open and there is absolutely no way to close it. A lot of gun violence is perpatrated by people who acquired their guns through unrestricted means. Registered gun owners aren't the ones who are going out and committing crimes with them. Now what does this mean? If you crack down further on gun control, do you know who you hurt? The people who aren't doing anything wrong to begin with. Do you know who gains an even greater advantage? The ones who shouldn't have them in the first place and already acquired their weapons via illegal means.

Now, admittedly, things like what happened in this story will happen because people are inherently irresponsible and can't take care of their possessions. That's something that'll always happen whether it's with guns or anything else in this world. Accident's happen and before you go 'Guns are only designed to kill!'. Yes they are but that's been a problem since they were invented. That was their purpose. That's still their purpose but again, the floodgates are open and the people who laws will actually restrict aren't the ones who are the reasons said laws exist in the first place.

When it comes right down to it, if one of these people have a gun and see fit to endanger my life, it is my right to pass judgement upon them and defend myself by whatever means necessary and I'd much rather have an even playing field if I'm going to have to protect myself. If that day never comes? Awesome. Life worked out how I wanted.