HAYDEN, Idaho - A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Walmart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.
Kootenai County sheriff's spokesman Stu Miller told The Associated Press the woman was shopping with her son and three other children. Her family had come to the area to visit relatives, he said.
The woman was identified as Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, of Blackfoot, Idaho. Authorities said she had a concealed weapons permit. Miller said the young boy was left in a shopping cart, reached into the victim's purse and grabbed a small caliber handgun, which discharged one time.
"It appears to be a pretty tragic accident," Miller said.
Rutledge's husband was not in the store when the shooting happened at about 10:20 a.m. Miller said the man arrived shortly after the shooting. All the children were taken to a relative's house.
The shooting occurred in the Walmart in Hayden, Idaho, a town about 40 miles northeast of Spokane, Washington.
The store closed and was not expected to reopen until Wednesday morning.
Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Walmart, said in a statement the shooting was a "very sad and tragic accident."
"We are working closely with the local sheriff's department while they investigate what happened," Buchanan said.
A relative of says Rutledge was a "loving mother."
Hayden is a politically conservative town of about 9,000 people just north of Coeur d'Alene in Idaho's northern panhandle.
Walmart issued this statement Tuesday afternoon, reports CBS News KREM in Spokane, Washington :
"A very sad incident occurred at our store today involving the death of a female customer. We are fully cooperating with the Kootenai County Sheriff's deputies as they investigate this matter."
"It appears to be a pretty tragic accident," Miller said. You think???
Guns don't kill people let's hold that thought.
The only thing that stops a bad tot with a gun is you know.
And tomorrow, Wayne LaPierre will tell us that "his is not the time to discuss gun laws, it's the time to think of the victim."
Remove the gun from this scenario and the mother is still alive
Mac...I saw this article on NV..some of the replies were very interesting to say the least. A lot of the replies were that basically the mother should never have had the gun with her.....I was glad to read those comments.
All of which would be moot if the gun was removed from the scenario.
Hal....I just hope the children get some counseling...I'm sure they will need it.
The tragic, insidious irony of gun deaths
A tragic irony the mother likely carried the gun to protect herself from people with
guns.
Nona..
Even if this woman seemed to need her gun in Walmart... how about putting the safety on? This is also a case of Darwin award. Sadly it came at a great loss to the tot and her other children.
the mother likely carried the gun to protect herself from people with and her children
OMG jwc... I wrote my post before reading yours.
Sure do. They give it to her spouse.
That thought crossed my mind, too, Hal.
Guns don't kill people, toddlers do.
Like I said...it's another good reason NOT to shop at Wal Mart!!
Toddlers with brain dead parents.
Pretty scary huh?
Nona,
Have to agree with you. The few times I go in there I hate it.
I went in a Wal Mat one time when I was visiting someone...NEVER GAIN!! it'sa VERY scary place!!Thank goodness there are no Wal Marts near me!!
Any "Responsible" gun owner would have had the safety on - she obviously was not responsible enough. Interestingly, the test required in NM for the concealed carry has three questions dealing with ensuring the Safety is on. Can tell she's not from NM.
Condolences to the family - and to the two year old child who is going to have one hell of an emotional luggage rack.
And to think.../this could so easily have been avoided..
A loaded gun,
Mistake #1- Obviously with a round in the chamber.
Mistake #2- Not in her possession.
Mistake #3- Improper safeing procedure.
Mistake #4- Lack of control with children present.
Mistake #5- overconfidence.
A horrific tragedy, and entirely preventable. Mama (and obviously daddy) could have used some firearms training. A lot more than just how to shoot. The course I took to get certified instructed female trainees that you do NOT carry a firearm in a purse around children. If you must carry around children, then carry in an on body holster with capture, and NEVER with a round in the chamber.
No the gun was not at fault, the child was not at fault, the parent was. A perfect example of the overconfidence a weapon without proper training can bring to an individual.
I'm sure there are those that will say that remove the gun from the situation will eliminate such from ever happening in the future. Great, Wal-Mart should ban guns from the premises, it is their private property and their right to do.
The person killed is the responsible party, and her carelessness due to overconfidence, is her deficiency, and she paid the ultimate price for that.
I have a lot of empathy, little sympathy.
Let this be a lesson to ALL gun owners.
NwM,
You forgot
Mistake #0: gun
What a preventable, irresponsible tragedy. Tragic the mom is dead, more so the family that will deal daily with her stupidity and a lifetime of guilt. Even with counseling, how do you shrug off accidently killing your Mom. I don't carry, never will,but have been taught to handle firearms as we have them in our home.
Lately I'm looking for the "no guns" signage before entering stores. As far as Walmart shopping, I no longer hear "attention Walmart shoppers"....haven't for almost 5 years.
We are each entitled to our beliefs, to me the gun wasn't the mistake, her decisions on handling it were.
I can't think words to describe this tragedy. My heart goes out to the family and friends.
Absolutely, it was her stupidity.
One might also consider how this incident is going to influence, perhaps even shape, the rest of the life of the child.
I hopewith counseling, the child will lead a half way normal life. That poor poor child.
... and the gun. Without either, she would still be alive.
Definitely!!
Apparently this is an example of a 'responsible' gun owner our Right Wing friends are always talking about.
A loaded gun, in a public place, within reach of a child, is not what I would call the responsible way to carry a weapon.
My condolences to her children and family, this is a tragedy that did not have to happen. There was no good reason for her to be shopping in a Walmart with a loaded pistol in her purse.
Another example of a 'responsible' gun owner carrying around an unnecessary loaded weapon within reach of a toddler.
Correction; #5 - Paranoid
Millions of Americans go safely about their daily business without carrying a gun.
Carrying a gun for the average person is about as useful as a lightening deflector.
But there's plenty of "No Smoking" signs.
I guess we think second hand smoke is more dangerous than a loaded gun.
I've been thinking about that. The boy is probably too young to be able to remember the actual incident, but he will learn what happened as he grows up.
I would imagine that it's going to take extensivecounselling to help the boy cope with what happened. The siblings will also have to be counselled, because there is no way they will not harbor resentment toward their brother for taking their mother away from them.
Do you believe it was really necessary for that women to be carrying a weapon? She was an average American shopper, out shopping in Wal-Mart. Millions of people do that every day without deeming it necessary to carry a concealed weapon with them.
THIS IS THE ONLY THING VERONICA RUTLEDGE NEEDED A GUN FOR.
Veronica pictured with her brother, Wade. (Facebook)
From Heavy.com;
" Rutledge, along with her husband, was an avid gun enthusiast who was licensed to carry. Her father-in-law, Terry Rutledge, told the Washington Post that for Christmas, just days before her death, Rutledges husband gifted her a special purse with a zipper compartment to hold a handgun:"
"The father-in-law, describing his family as gun people, said Rutledge was well trained and experienced in handling firearms. Hes outraged that gun-control advocates are trying to capitalize on her death.... "
There they go again, with their " we don't want to talk about this ", don't want us saying anything about this being an example of why people should not carry guns unless it is absolutely necessary for their safety.
This girl was not a stupid person.
The Spokesman-Review in Spokane reports that Rutledge had worked for the Idaho National Laboratory. The lab works with the U.S. Department of Energy in regard to nuclear research and national defense. Speaking to the Spokesman, one of Rutledges colleagues, Vince Maio, said:
The problem is her mindset about guns. I mean, there is nothing wrong with be enthusiastic about gun collecting, but when it gets so into your system that you think you have to have a gun with you at all times, then it become a problem, and too often a deadly problem.
do you really need a gun in Wal-Mart. Maybe in Vegas you do,
she was using a Christmas present from her husband who gave her a purse with a holster in it . She was not used to carrying it as she had been carryingthe gunon her person as intended by the law and good practice.
and of course there no gun laws in Chicago where 500 people a month are shot. OOPS guns are outlawed in Chicago.
He might want to do a reality check on what the outrage should be in this scenario.
This tragedy could have so easily been avoided.
I saw nothing in the article to indicate that the safety was on or off so I do not know how you reached your conclusion. if it in fact was off then I Agree but I can't get there from the article.
I have only actually seen 1 sign..and that was in a crafts store. A Jewish friend of mine said there is a no guns sign in her Synagogue...
Is there any way a gun will fire if the safety is on?
Guns in the home increase risk: Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally
justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Deaths: From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional
shootings.ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
Injuries: In 2010, unintentional firearm shootings caused the deaths of 606 people.
More Guns = More Accidental Shootings: People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.
On average, states with the highest gun ownership levels had 9 times the rate of
unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun ownership
levels.
A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such
shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.
Youth and Accidental Shootings: Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the
period 20052010 were under 25 years of age.
For kids ages 5 to 14, the mortality rate is 14 times higher in high gun ownership
states than low gun ownership states. For infants and toddlers, ages 0 to 4, the
mortality rate is 17 times higher in high gun ownership states than low gun
ownership states.
The majority of people killed in firearm accidents are under age 24, and most of these
young people are being shot by someone else, usually someone their own age. The shooter
is typically a friend or family member, often an older brother.
SHALL I GO ON?
...
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Injuries: In 2010, unintentional firearm shootings caused the deaths of 606 people.
I think the bottom line is, this tragedy didn't have to happen.
Try getting around in life driving a gun.
No one gets killed by someone carrying a concealed Toyota. I assure you the world could function quite well without guns not so without motor vehicles. The trade offs aren't even close.
But OK I'll play.
Gun Deaths Exceed Motor Vehicle Deaths in 10 States
...
Gun Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Deaths in US by 2015
AND IN 10 STATES, THEY ALREADY DO
...
The gun, a 9mm M&P Shield, is a striker fired weapon, with the safety on, which deflects the firing pin out of line with the striker, it could not possibly fire.
The safety was off.
Yes there are guns that will fire with the safety on. Many revolvers and some automatics have this fault, particularly those with only trigger safeties, especially if you keep a round in the chamber.
Guns can be made to not fire in any situation except when the trigger is pulled. Glocks are a perfect example, Some Springfield armory handguns also, specifically the XD series, and are why they are the top selling handguns worldwide.
Since it is well-known that all gun-lovers always obey the law, it is obvious that if Walmart requests concealed-carriers to check their weapons at the door... they'll do it without any problem. Of course.
Not my call, it was her call. I'm sure she probably didn't really need it inside the wal-mart. That being said, you never know when you will need one.
Did I need one in an Ice cream parlor? You would say no.
But it did come in awfully useful one day.
So I would say it is and was her call, not mine or yours.
You never know when you will need it, but when you do, it is the only tool that will suffice. You will never understand unless and until you have gone thru a shooting situation.
And I sincerely hope you never do.
But until you have, who are you or I to judge. I rarely carry anymore, but back when I was, the one time I needed it, I had it. I'm glad that I did.
More than happy to carry that guilt around, cause others don't have to.
Don't have to propose it, once a property owners posts no handguns, they have the right to exclude them from their property. It's the law. And no law abiding gun owner will violate that law.
I am a responsible gun owner, I don't necessarily consider myself "Right Wing" although some of our friends here do, and I'm here to tell you that this is NOT an example of a responsible gun owner or concealed weapon carrier.
I have already expressed this. Has nothing to do with a public place except for your paranoia.
Yeah, more often than not it is more deadly for the persons that want to do harm.
This was a terrible accident, it came from carelessness and overconfidence. and is a lesson that should be heeded by all persons that carry weapons.
It does not give anyone the right to say someone shouldn't be able to carry one where it is legal to do so.
You do not have the right to tell anyone how they should live. Why is it liberals always think they do.
The only thing I am going to say about your stats, BIASED.
Therefore they do not tell the truth. They present only one stilted side of the issue.
I'm sorry my friend, you want me to pay attention to stats, (and you know I will) then present some stats that correlate all sides of the issue. Not just the side that has an agenda of imposing their ideal on everyone else.
My statement above correlates with the National Institute of Sciences and their last report that plainly says that we need better stats than those presented by the two sides of the issue because neither side presents the whole truth.
I believe in science. and until we get such data, no policy can be effected to a successful resolution. That is the position of the people that really want answers.
Of course not; that proposition is a tautology. But it's not the "law abiding gun owner" that is always the concern although at times, it is.
I contend that "Stand Your Ground Laws" constitute an invitation for many, who, by definition, are abiding by that law, to kill without concern because they can simply claim they were "standing their ground," often killing the only other witness to the killing but themselves. Convenient huh?
And what "law-abiding," law-enforcing police officer who has killed an unarmed victim, hasn't claimed that he felt his life was threatened?
Too many guns, too many loopholes, too many gun lobbyists who own too many legislators, too many D.A.s who work hand-in-hand with too many cops and too many un-licensed "collectors" who sell guns at gun shows
what could possibly go wrong?
How 'bout we REQUIRE OPEN CARRY AND MAKE IT A FELONY WITH A MANDATORY PRISON SENTENCE, FOR CARRYING CONCEALED? That should please the gun lover, the NRA and MAKE EVERYONE AWARE OF WHAT MAY BE OUT THERE AND THE INHERENT DANGER AND CRAZINESS OF IT.
WTF! IF HAVING A GUN IS A DETERRENT TO CRIME, LET'S F'N DETER OUR ASSES OFF!
Thoughtful rebuttals invited.
Please correct me with specifics.
I can handle it although it doesn't really matter. Denigrating motor vehicles because some die by them is in no way analogous to gun deaths/accidents. Cars, etc. are not designed nor intended to put holes in things or people and have infinitely more uses than guns.
It's a bad analogy.
Living in TN, we have a no gun sign on our church doors! Scary!
@ Jerry, I'd rather handle second-hand smoke (I use to be a first "hander") than fearing the possibility of someone accidently discharging a weapon.
I understand the "right" to carry, where is my right to pursue happiness without fear of getting killed in a store?
I have seen comments right on this site where people said the 10 -12 thousand Americans that die every year from gunfire is the price we have to pay for 'freedom'.
MY PARANOIA?!
I'm not the one that thinks I need to carry a gun all the time in order to protect myself from all the evil people in the world.
Some folks think life is cheap. Especially others' lives.
Thanks John, you and I are on the same page regarding this gun issue.
In other words, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, and as a society we should not pass any laws that tell us how we should live.
The United States Constitution is designed to tell us how we should live, the Bible tells us how we should live, the 10 commandments tell us how we should live.
Jesus was a liberal, we're just following in his footsteps.
Please do, you're making an excellent case!
USA Today Jan 9, 2013
WASHINGTON Deaths from traffic accidents have dropped dramatically over the last 10 years, while firearm-related fatalities rose for decades before leveling off in the past decade, a USA TODAY analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.
Meanwhile, the rate of firearms deaths has exceeded traffic fatalities in several states, including Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon, records show. The rate is equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In the United States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled 31,672 in 2010.
Read more ;
(?!) How are statics biased? The numbers are what they are, apparently they are not what you would like them to be.
Whenever studies produce statistics that do not suit someone, they do not 'tell the truth' or they only show 'one side' of the issue.
Ok then, show us some statistics that controvert the numbers shown here.
Then Do that! Read the fucking numbers! They are what they are! How can they be changed?
Do think someone made them up?!
Btw, how about a link to thatNational Institute of Sciences last report. I'd like to see that report.
Actually if they are as biased as the doctors kellerman et al did try to pass as scholarship, yes they are made up.
Report for you sir.
Release Notice Nat. Ada. of Sciences. Firearms and Violence; A Critical Review, and this was 10 years ago!
Actual report 340 pages, enjoy...
It's not impossible...but, who knows for sure.
Yes, your paranoia, that everyone with a gun is out to kill someone.
(I can sling hyperbola around just as well)
Never said this, it is always the hyperbola that gun banners go to. laws are here to protect everyone and not be used as a hammer on others.
The constitution?
Yes and the constitution says we have such rights to firearms. Confirmed by the Supreme Court.
The Bible?,
The Ten Commandments? If they are so important, then why do liberals want them off every public institution and removed from sight like they are ashamed of them? You can't have it both ways.
The Bible says do unto others? My version of Christianity superceeds the Ten Commandments. Jesus came down to save us from the law, not destroy us with it.
And,
Jesus is a friend of mine, I don't follow in his footsteps, he walks with me. (sometimes carries me when I am weak)
What else you got?
100% agreement. I'm all for open carry, lets put an end to violent crime.
NOW your making sense.
Where are the numbers contradicting those I posted? Here's another comparison
Take your pick.
Gun Deaths Exceed Motor Vehicle Deaths in 10 States ...
[PDF] Gun Deaths Outpace Motor Vehicle Deaths in 10 States in ...
Oakland Effect: Study shows gun deaths outpacing motor ...
American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015 ...
Gun Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Deaths in US by 2015
Gun deaths top motor-vehicle deaths in a rising number of ...
Report: In 10 States, Guns Kill More People Than Cars Do ...
Death By Gun Now Higher In 10 States Than Death By Car
Gun Deaths in America: Gun deaths outpace motor vehicle ...
Gun Deaths Outpace Motor Vehicle Deaths in 10 States in ...
People.....Please remember that this is not a Religious article...thank You!
Wasn't about religion sweets, just countering the idea that Jesus supports one side.
What is interesting in where this conversation is going, is the shift in the liberal arguments over gun control/banning.
It is pretty clear that the issue of less guns in society equals less violent crime have been proven false. Since 1995 when the Clinton Gun Ban went into effect and its expiration 10 years later, we have seen an explosion in private gun ownership in America. As many gun advocates opined, private gun ownership will reduce violent crime, and we are actually seeing this and as better data is collected, we are having such opines confirmed.
There are now two and a half times as many guns in the hands of private citizens as there were in 1995, and the violent crime rate is declining rapidly, so rapidly that a report ordered by the president just a few years ago could not give him the statistics to justify a push for more gun controls.
So more guns equals less violent crime. It's nice to actually see that transpire over the last 20 years.
But that does not deflate the gun controllers/banners. what they do is expand the gun issue to cover ALL deaths by guns since criminal gun use is becoming less and less of a political battle cry.
We are seeing here a shift in the battle, but it is a rational shift.
More guns in a society means yes, less violent crime, but it also means more guns in the hands of those that shouldn't have them even though they can legally possess them.
People that shouldn't have guns in their possession?
The mentally ill.
The untrained.
So the battle line has shifted on the gun control issue. But, I lament to say, it hasn't shifted focus even though the highest court in the land shot down any and all claims that ownership of weapons and their use for personal defense is not a right.
Many of the comments here today represent that shift in the political battle. It hearkens me to see that we are making progress in the war against gun banning. I can be conciliatory, most of the gun people that I know do not want guns in the hands of the mentally ill. We have common ground there and I'm sure a solution can be wrought to resolve that issue. Most of us that are trained in firearms also would like to see the training of people in firearms usage/handling be vastly improved from it's sorry state today.
So I ask, instead of the highly emotional rhetoric filled calls for more useless gun controls, more citing of biased and slanted so called studies on the problem.
WHEN are we going to come together to resolve the remaining issues. Now I understand that the losing of the gun banning argument based upon the practical and proven more guns means less violent crime is a tough one to take given the level of emotional absolutism put into that argument.
But can we put it to one side and speak rationally about the subject, instead of throwing useless rhetorical arguments back and forth?
Jerry, you and Neale were going to do an article on gun control and hopefully come up with a rational compromise.
Are we getting any closer? or have we given up on that ideal.
Of course accidental discharges happen, and are very tragic at times, but the military has proven that AD's can be all but eliminated with proper training.
WHY can't we compromise?
WHY can't we compromise? Maybe it's just human nature.....sigh
Wasn't about religion sweets, Please tell me that wasn't a sarcastic remark...
No it wasn't
I apologize if the salutation wasn't to your liking. No offense was meant.
I just wasn't sure how to take it. It's hard at times to tell the exact meaning of a statement when one can't see or hear the person who is making the comment...
I know, it's tough to rationalize.
One aspect I left out of the above is that the citizen decided that waiting for the politicians to resolve the issue was not effective, so the citizens voted their desires, with their wallets.
Ten straight years of record gun sales, is a very affirmative vote on where the people stand. Maybe what is really angering our liberal friends is that the citizens, without government or political direction, took it upon themselves to resolve the issue.
Which in this country, is absolutely the way it aught to be. Much to our liberal friends chagrin.
Human nature being what it is, a society so dependent on personal choice and individualism, loathes a vacuum of leadership. When that happens, the citizens will take action on their own.
Which is good for freedom and America.
Yeah I'll answer, on the issue of bias. (I already dealt with the shift in tactics below)
You links my friend.
#1 Huffington Post; Josh Sugarman , creator of the term "Assault Weapon", runs the Violence Policy Center citing Dr. David Hemenway director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Youth Violence Prevention Center , wrote his 2004 book Private Guns, Public Health , And has done at least one noted study on guns and violence, a study that has been roundly criticized for it's lack of data controls, limited data samples and misstatement of statistics. Known as the Hemenway study, it was specifically done to support the debunked Kellerman AMA study, in response to criminologists pointing out the glaring mathematical faults of Kellerman et al, it failed miserably.
#2American Public Health Association; PDF, A chart and rationalized conclusions over 2009 data on 10 states that happened to have more gun fatalities than traffic fatalities. Interesting that it (in footnote "a") cites a 2009 report, (Source: WISQARS database, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) that there were more traffic fatalities than gun fatalities in the entire United States for the year of 2009. Seems like cherry picking data to me.
#3 San Jose Mercury News; citing the report in Link #1 above. Repetition does not make veracity.
#4 Bloomberg L.P.; Article by Chris Christoff ; Read the section on "Game Changer" which states this...
And this is obviously where you get your chart from, but the chart represents a speculation, extrapolating from earlier data claiming a "Trend" which means they really don't know. Other than that they are citing the usual AMA studies and reports, quotingGaren Wintemute from UC Davis and his gun banner opinions with the same flawed data he has been emitting for years.
So this link clearly shows the change in tactics for the coming debate over guns from violent criminal use of guns to overall gun deaths. He still under reports gun ownership in America claiming that gun ownership is declining ignoring the record rates of gun sales nationwide over the last decade, and attributes the reduction in criminal gun deaths to a reduction in the number of drug crime victims. (chuckle, that is a good one, when was the last time you heard about the drug cartels killing fewer people? chuckle)
#5 Newser.com; Quoting the Bloomberg article in #4 above as its source, again repetition does not make veracity.
#6 Minnpost; Quoting the reporting in #1 above, again repetition does not make veracity.
#7 thinkprogress; Again reposting and re-reporting the information from link #1 above.
Again, Repetition does not make veracity. (just a thought, are all the remaining links just a repetitive player piano type spiel citing one singular source, not very credible)
#8 newtrajectory; A blog for Ceasefire Oregon. (no bias there at all
)
#9 Slatest, (as opposed to Slate.com) they are citing the same old tired data from link #1 above. Again, repetition does not make veracity.
#10 Violence Policy Center; I guess posting it once isn't enough so they post their own information twice? Posting it here twice? As usual repetition does not make veracity. but the originating site posting their info twice, claiming the second posting is new using the same 2009 data as posted in the first link?
I guess they are trying to embed the new paradigm into the thought processes and slant the debate in a new direction. People who actually think aren't fooled by this repetitive droning citing already clear extrapolations (read rationalizations) that have no more proof than maple cider comes from apple trees.
We can wait and see if the trend claimed is actually happening, but their own data suggests otherwise when you actually dig into the sources. (remember that footnote cited above)
Post all the links you want, these were interesting, but the repetition got a bit tedious to say the least without saying anything more than the first link did.
Ergo sum, a long list of links, pretending to explore a new data point and make an overwhelming argument for a new paradigm, but actually a long list of links that are merely droning of the robot repeaters on a potential paradigm that might not even be real.
Fail.
More than welcome to try again.
Which is an article citing the same flawed gun banner survey as cited in Mr Macarthurs links above.
We expect you gun banners to put all your stock in such things to the exclusion of anything else.
You can repeat it all you want, repetition doesn't make validity.
Psst: the FBI reports that the new applications for background checks (new owners) for handgun purchases have set all time records and has mirrored the sales records.
Either the FBI's data is wrong, or the survey's data is flawed.
Which is more likely?
Very good point, not only that, there is the HIPAA laws to consider also.
A huge issue is a person in a home that is mentally ill, does his illness negate the non mentally ill's household members rights?
Reporting is another issue, the framework already exists to create a database of mentally ill that shouldn't have access to weapons, but the laws on patient confidentiality will have to change.
Serious issues for sure. where does one class of peoples rights end and another's begin?
Like to hear a liberal take on that.
When someone actually examines the data cited, removes the repetition, analyzes the apparent facts, no case has been made yet.
But I'm still open for more data.
Just give me the "real" numbers.
And again, it's moot since the utilitarian aspect of motor vehicles if infinitely greater than that of firearms -- I only went with my comments to express the pointlessness of the comparison.
Still if you insist "my" numbers are speculative, show us the actual numbers.
I don't have to show that you numbers are speculative, it is stated right on the chart.
They are "Projecting" to 2015. that is speculation, they don't actually know, no one does.
I agree that making such comparisons are apples to oranges and don't really correlate to cause and effect. but then again, you use them in speculation to make a point also.
If it is apples to oranges to one side, it is the same for the other side. As you say, pointless to discuss, we are in agreement on that.
Show me some valid numbers and we will have a point to discuss.
Same request. But still a moot point.
ok Brother, we agree it isn't worth discussing anymore.
But I would like to make one point for the future.
When one insists that the person making the claim bears responsibility for proving the claim with facts, ie bears the burden of proof, one cannot demand the other side provide the data to prove his claim.
The chart you post above extrapolates based upon data from 2009 to 2011, the extrapolation running to 2015. It is now 2015, the data proving said concept/extrapolation should be readily available. given the nature of the original poster, if the extrapolation was proven, we would have heard about it blaring from every liberal robot site out there.
Since we haven't, it is safe to assume that the extrapolation failed to materialize. It is also wonderful to note something else that is revealed in the data posted on the chart.
When gun deaths go down, there is a corresponding rise in vehicle fatalities, when gun deaths go up, there is a decrease in vehicle fatalities. seems like a weakly tied together correlation to me and it covers 33 years of non-disputed data that is even more interesting than the extrapolation.
And that is from the portion of the chart that is NOT in dispute.
Bears investigating I would think.
No argument regarding "burden of proof." But when a source goes "on the record" and puts a contention thus, those who the allege "inaccuracy" consequently take on their own burden of proof. Unless the allegation does not post valid contrary information, it's a toss up. Further, speculation based on existing statistics, while still speculative, exceed by far the validity of a non-specific rebuttal. A "projection" based on the known is beyond "pure speculation."
But we agree that its "apples and oranges" and that's a good place to drop it.
Agreed, Peace.
E.
yes if the person handling the gun takes it off. OF course it was off when the gun fired again that does not mean it wasn't on when the kid picked it up.
The kid didn't pick it up, he reached inside the purse opened the pouch it was in and reached in.
A two year old's hands are not large enough to pick it up, point and pull the trigger. It discharged from inside the purse.
and grabbed a small caliber handgun,
You are speculating as there is no hard evidence in the news reports of how it happened a two year old can handle a baretta 22 it does say small caliber gunI do not know what size the gun was that was used and nothing in the article says the weapon was stored with the safety off or on. .
Don't read much?
It was a a 9mm M&P Shield.
Where did I get that?
From the link in the original article .
AS far as the safety and how it works in a striker fired weapon, I'm a qualified gunsmith.
Don't believe me, ask any of the other qualified gunsmiths around the board.
Don't want to believe them, there are a great many owners that think the safety on this gun is unneeded, in response, S&W the makers, issued a second model of this gun without a safety three years after the first release. Given the customers requests for such. So Mama's gun in her purse had a round in the chamber and either had a safety that was off, or didn't have a safety at all.
So much for speculation.
Ditto...
Some guns do not have a safety.