Toddler shoots parent dead in Super Market

seamus

Manic Moran wrote: »

Since one can never know ahead of time when one might be handy, it seems a little difficult to assess ahead of time when you're running a high risk of needing to use one.
...
Yes, absolutely a risk/benefit analysis must be undertaken by any individual contemplating going about his daily business armed, but to make a blanket statement about irresponsibility is irrational in itself.

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. One can absolutely know ahead of time what the likelihood of requiring a weapon is.

And in short, if you're going shopping in the United States, the odds of requiring a weapon are tiny. Maybe if you're going hiking in the Rockies a rifle might be handy, or if you're thinking about hitchhiking from New York to California.

But not if you're going about your day-to-day business. Assessing the risk of being attacked while shopping as "high" is irrational and carrying a loaded weapon in a purse is irresponsible.

FISMA

seamus wrote: »

You're kind of contradicting yourself here. One can absolutely know ahead of time what the likelihood of requiring a weapon is.

Absolutely know the liklihood?

That's somewhat unique!:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

seamus wrote: »

But not if you're going about your day-to-day business. Assessing the risk of being attacked while shopping as "high" is irrational and carrying a loaded weapon in a purse is irresponsible.

I never said the risk of being attacked was high, but the cost of being attacked if that small chance should occur certainly can be high. You are basically suggesting that people play the odds and rely on not being that statistic because, statistically, it's not likely to be you. But -someone- is that statistic, and who are you to say that it -won't- be you?

Testimony of Suzanna Hupp. She lost both parents in the Luby's shooting, the worst mass-shooting in the US outside of a school. She had followed the law and left her sidearm in the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

One of my former NCOs was a victim of a mass shooter. I've routinely eaten in the same restaurant in which he was killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_IHOP_shooting . If my colleague could have been a statistic, why couldn't I? Yet you would ask me to play the odds, and take decisions and actions out of my hands. I object to this line of reasoning.

volchitsa

Heckler wrote: »

Never called anyone stupid. But she was irresponsible. If you argue thats their culture then you have to accept the stupid pointless deaths that happen every year.

I own guns and wouldn't leave a child within an ass' roar of them. Why did she feel the need to have one at a supermarket ffs. Terrorist attack maybe ? Bull****. This 2nd amendment nonsense is just that. Legislation drafted in the 1700s and people citing it as good cause and their right to have a loaded handgun in a purse. See where your rights got you. A dead mother and a traumatised child. Well done Murka.

And I stand by responsible and irresponsible. In America its so easy to get a gun a large number of idiots have one. In Ireland the hoops you have to jump through to get a firearm would put anyone, unless they had a good reason for having it, off.

Anyone who does have a legal firearm here and theres an accident, yes they're stupid and yes they're irresponsible. Accidents and mistakes don't happen with firearms. They are caused. To err is human isn't a defence.

I didn't say it's a defence, I said it's a fact.
A number of people seem to reason backwards in these situations : woman brought her gun, something went wrong, therefore she was irresponsible. Someone else didn't bring their gun (another post) something went wrong, therefore they should have been allowed to bring their guns.

My point is that this woman works in nuclear research, and had followed all the legal requirements about carrying guns in that state. So it just isn't reasonable to assume, just because there was an accident that she was by definition more irresponsible than anyone else would ever be. Accidents happen, and when guns are involved those accidents kill.

I realize that posters emotionally involved in the gun debate immediately line up along the usual lines, but in this case at least, it makes no sense to presume the woman was just stupid.

Or if she was, then we probably need to ask serious questions about nuclear research as urgently as about America's gun control laws!

Egginacup

Actually,

If this woman deemed that going to the supermarket was so treacherous as to need to be armed when going there... as she still thought it acceptable to bring a child to a place of such peril then I would ask this one final question:

She took a gun to a place where she felt firearms were needed for self-defense, and she was killed by her own gun by her own toddler.

Why wasn't she wearing kevlar? Why wasn't she wearing a bullet-proof vest?

Police wear them. Soldiers wear them. Why didn't she wear one. She might still be alive had she done so.

FISMA

Egginacup wrote: »

Actually,
If this woman deemed that going to the supermarket was so treacherous as to need to be armed when going there... as she still thought it acceptable to bring a child to a place of such peril then I would ask this one final question:
She took a gun to a place where she felt firearms were needed for self-defense, and she was killed by her own gun by her own toddler.
Why wasn't she wearing kevlar? Why wasn't she wearing a bullet-proof vest?
Police wear them. Soldiers wear them. Why didn't she wear one. She might still be alive had she done so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKz82v5JQY

Witcher

Egginacup wrote: »

She might still be alive had she done so.

She was shot in the head so unless it was a kevlar burka; it wouldn't have helped her.

Egginacup

Strider wrote: »

She was shot in the head so unless it was a kevlar burka; it wouldn't have helped her.

Maybe a helmet too then, going to buy milk?

Should she not have left the baby at home and gone to Dairy Barn in a tank?

Should she not have taken all contingencies, including getting her head blown off by her own kid?

Dunno......if I had to go to a place where I needed a gun then I would go alone, and if I had to bring a baby then I would have probably not gone there.

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

I never said the risk of being attacked was high, but the cost of being attacked if that small chance should occur certainly can be high. You are basically suggesting that people play the odds and rely on not being that statistic because, statistically, it's not likely to be you. But -someone- is that statistic, and who are you to say that it -won't- be you?

Testimony of Suzanna Hupp. She lost both parents in the Luby's shooting, the worst mass-shooting in the US outside of a school. She had followed the law and left her sidearm in the car.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

One of my former NCOs was a victim of a mass shooter. I've routinely eaten in the same restaurant in which he was killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_IHOP_shooting . If my colleague could have been a statistic, why couldn't I? Yet you would ask me to play the odds, and take decisions and actions out of my hands. I object to this line of reasoning.

I can only say this MM you and a lot of the American people seem to operate primarily on the possibility of attack.

Egginacup

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can only say this MM you and a lot of the American people seem to operate primarily on the possibility of attack.

I'm off to buy toilet roll and some chocolate and 2 litres of milk. Pray for me, y'all....I'm not packing a jammy. I don't expect I'll need a gun though.























I'm back.....made it....phew! that was tough. Fcukin kids there at Sainsbury's were ALL strapped. Full metal jacket everywhere.

Manic Moran

steddyeddy wrote: »

I can only say this MM you and a lot of the American people seem to operate primarily on the possibility of attack.

Why not? Unless you care to advocate that there is no such possibility.

I operate on the side of safety in all cases. Possibilty of car accident, I drive defensively, wear seat belts, and purchase the side/rear airbag option on the car. Neither I nor anyone in my family have ever been involved in anything more than a fender-bender, but it seems foolish not to assume that a significant motor vehicle accident may occur. Possibility of house burning down, I have smoke/CO detectors, a fire extinguisher, and house insurance. I don't even know anyone who has lost their house to fire, but are you going to deride me for acting on the basis that my house -might- catch fire?

The difference between here and Ireland is that while personal crimes happen in both countries, we're, as individuals in the US, allowed to take more active measures when they happen. It does not replace the passive measures taken in Ireland (eg staying out of bad neighborhoods, travelling in pairs etc), but is a step in addition to.

Grayson

FISMA wrote: »

Why?

Most crime and deaths are due to hand-guns. Most hand gun deaths are self inflicted - suicides.

All rifles combined kill less that fists & clubs. More people die in the States because their car hit a deer, elk, or moose than all rifles combined.

Out of the tens of thousands of firearm deaths in the States, rifles cause about 1% of deaths. The "bigger stuff," almost zero.

You think that people should be allowed to buy the big stuff. Someone should be allowed own an AK-47, fully automatic. A mini gun? How about Barrett sniper rifles. Maybe a rocket launcher. How about a low yield nuclear weapon?

btw, I'm actually against handgun ownership. I think that the most dangerous weapons are the most concealable. That's something you can walk into a shop with. It's something that can fit in a handbag. The biggest benefit a handgun has over a shotgun for example is that the gun is concealable.


I think that target shooters should be allowed own pistols (If they are correctly stored. Failing the ability to store them, I think the range should also be equipped to store them)
I also think that hunting rifles should be allowed for hunting. the same for shotguns.
I should note that this is despite the fact that I'm a vegetarian. I believe that killing animals is wrong however I'm not about to say it should be outlawed. My objection to guns is not based on a moral opposition to guns. It's based on public safety.

MadsL

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm off to buy toilet roll and some chocolate and 2 litres of milk. Pray for me, y'all....I'm not packing a jammy. I don't expect I'll need a gun though.I'm back.....made it....phew! that was tough. Fcukin kids there at Sainsbury's were ALL strapped. Full metal jacket everywhere.

I wonder if this woman's family would find your ridicule funny?

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_27127446/shopper-75-fatally-stabbed-duluth-supermarket

or this mother?

http://www.wcvb.com/news/child-attacked-outside-grocery-store/24593658

or the family of this woman beheaded whilst shopping.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/05/15/spain.supermarket.beheading/

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

I wonder if this woman's family would find your ridicule funny?

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_27127446/shopper-75-fatally-stabbed-duluth-supermarket

or this mother?

http://www.wcvb.com/news/child-attacked-outside-grocery-store/24593658

or the family of this woman beheaded whilst shopping.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/05/15/spain.supermarket.beheading/

You reckon if they had a weapon then they would have been safe?

Bog Standard User

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm back.....made it....phew! that was tough. Fcukin kids there at Sainsbury's were ALL strapped. Full metal jacket everywhere.

i take it you didnt let your two year old play with your gun then?

pmasterson95

Egginacup wrote: »

I'm off to buy toilet roll and some chocolate and 2 litres of milk. Pray for me, y'all....I'm not packing a jammy. I don't expect I'll need a gun though.























I'm back.....made it....phew! that was tough. Fcukin kids there at Sainsbury's were ALL strapped. Full metal jacket everywhere.

I cant leave the house. I'm out of ammo.....can you deliver me some bullets please? Wanna take me dog for a walk.

MadsL

Sheep Lover wrote: »

You reckon if they had a weapon then they would have been safe?

Do you think it might have improved their chances?

MadsL

Bog Standard User wrote: »

i take it you didnt let your two year old play with your gun then?

The woman in this incident wasn't letting her two year old play with her gun.

Be nice to see some actual real responses in this thread, instead of made up things that didn't happen.

Sheep Lover

MadsL wrote: »

Do you think it might have improved their chances?

Maybe, but this is real life, not some Die Hard movie where you whip out your pistol and blow away 3 or 4 baddies before saving the pretty girl.

pmasterson95

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Maybe, but this is real life, not some Die Hard movie where you whip out your pistol and blow away 3 or 4 baddies before saving the pretty girl.

You mean having a gun doesn't turn you into Arnie or Bruce Willis instantly?

MadsL

Sheep Lover wrote: »

Maybe, but this is real life, not some Die Hard movie where you whip out your pistol and blow away 3 or 4 baddies before saving the pretty girl.

Where did I say it was a Die Hard movie?

Can you distinguish reality from fantasy?

So far we have mocking about the safety of going down the shops, whilst it might be all wonderfully crime-free down at the Supervalu in Ballywhateves, that is objectively not the case everywhere in the world.

I personally know two people who have been victims of crime at Walmart, one of whom was battered and bruised after her encounter - it was an off duty cop who came to her defence and arrested one of the three muggers. Even when arrested the mugger made threats to find this woman and kill her.

That scenario is a very real possibility in many parts of the US, and hence why some Americans choose to arm themselves.

Perhaps we could have less of the mocking tone and more actual debate? Just a thought.

Menas

MadsL wrote: »

I personally know two people who have been victims of crime at Walmart, one of whom was battered and bruised after her encounter - it was an off duty cop who came to her defence and arrested one of the three muggers. Even when arrested the mugger made threats to find this woman and kill her.

Do you believe that the perp deserved to be shot and killed in this case?

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

You mean having a gun doesn't turn you into Arnie or Bruce Willis instantly?

Funnily enough, that realisation is most common by people who actual have tried to hit something with a gun, unlike the keyboard warriors posting "why can't that cop shoot the gun out of his hand."

Ironic huh?

pmasterson95

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Do you believe that the perp deserved to be shot and killed in this case?

Obviously. How else could anyone possibly ever manage to defend themselves??

MadsL

Trigger Happy wrote: »

Do you believe that the perp deserved to be shot and killed in this case?

Three guys set on a small woman in her fifties. Unfortunately for them she had studied some kickboxing in her younger days and fought them off until help arrived.

Do you think it would have been unreasonable for her to have shot them in self defence? I certainly don't, once you start behaving like a thug, expect to have your 'rights' curtailed at 1200 fps.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I say it was a Die Hard movie?

Can you distinguish reality from fantasy?

So far we have mocking about the safety of going down the shops, whilst it might be all wonderfully crime-free down at the Supervalu in Ballywhateves, that is objectively not the case everywhere in the world.

I personally know two people who have been victims of crime at Walmart, one of whom was battered and bruised after her encounter - it was an off duty cop who came to her defence and arrested one of the three muggers. Even when arrested the mugger made threats to find this woman and kill her.

That scenario is a very real possibility in many parts of the US, and hence why some Americans choose to arm themselves.

Perhaps we could have less of the mocking tone and more actual debate? Just a thought.

What happened to the other one? The non battered and bruised one. That warranted a shooting?

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Obviously. How else could anyone possibly ever manage to defend themselves??

Would you stop short of killing someone who attacked your family/spouse/child such that you felt their life was in danger?

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

What happened to the other one? The non battered and bruised one. That warranted a shooting?

Where did I say that?

I gave two examples of crimes that have happened to people I personally know at walmart.

The mocking about going to the shops and taking a tank is simply nonsense. Crime is quite prevalent at US grocery stores, especially Walmart.

Guy:Incognito

Egginacup wrote: »

Actually,

If this woman deemed that going to the supermarket was so treacherous as to need to be armed when going there... as she still thought it acceptable to bring a child to a place of such peril then I would ask this one final question:

She took a gun to a place where she felt firearms were needed for self-defense, and she was killed by her own gun by her own toddler.

Why wasn't she wearing kevlar? Why wasn't she wearing a bullet-proof vest?

Police wear them. Soldiers wear them. Why didn't she wear one. She might still be alive had she done so.

Did she do her inventory and only bring the stuff in her purse that she knew she'd need at Walmart, deciding that the gun was essential, or was the gun just in her purse where it always was?

The only questions I'd have is whether there was or should have been a separate , closed compartment/pocket for the gun and why the safety wasn't on if there was one.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Three guys set on a small woman in her fifties. Unfortunately for them she had studied some kickboxing in her younger days and fought them off until help arrived.

Do you think it would have been unreasonable for her to have shot them in self defence? I certainly don't, once you start behaving like a thug, expect to have your 'rights' curtailed at 1200 fps.

I suppose thats the difference between those that want to blast people with guns and those who don't. Some people value life and dont want to blast peoples heads off just because its easier. This woman managed to defend herself without murdering anyone. Fair play to her. I respect those that dont feel compelled to have the need kill others.