2-year-old boy shoots mother dead in US

[GentlemanJim]

I'm Norwegian , civilians are not allowed to carry guns , I have nothing against you or anyone from the US , just the laws which we Scandinavians think belongs to the stone age or wild west if you like. Same with the death penalty . Even if a lot of people want terrorists like Breivik dead , we give them a life in prison instead. We don't kill people even if they deserve it. Call it being human if you like.

We call it being sanctimonious hypocrites, and it gets tiresome. Why don't you take all of Norway's contributions to civilization since "the stone age" and list them for us. They ought to fit on a postage stamp.

Well from memory, discovering the America's was probably quite an achievement, and then there was GSM and the Gas Turbine engine was probably quite important as well. Ooh and what would we have done without the aerosol spray can.

Edited January 2, 2015 by GentlemanJim

[chrisinth]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Be interesting to hear what the very vocal ThaiVisa Gun Lobby has to say about this, especially the clown who tried to tell me that 'the best way to stop a bad man with a knife is a good gal with a gun' after the Manoora tragedy. Imagine going through life knowing you shot your own mother dead before you were old enough to even understand the dangers of carrying a loaded firearm. RIP.

Regardless of your views (I'm pro gun control but not anti gun per se) I think what they'll say is that keeping a loaded gun within reach of a child is just plain dumb. Which it is.T

This is just incredibly sad.

But surely that should be part of the training required for anyone applying for a concealed firearms licence ? Many will recall the old chestnut about the Winnebago owner who - delighted to find that his new motorhome had cruise control - left his land whale in drive at 55 mph on the freeway and went to the back of the Winnie to make a coffee : even if it's fictional, it illustrates that you cant make assumptions based on the notion of 'common sense'.

My assumption is that she had a round in the chamber and the safety off - exactly how much training anyone prepared to walk the streets with a live grenade in their purse can possibly have had is one I'll leave to our very own gun lobby.

Show me certain flavours of Glocks that have safety catches, and i will show you an accident that could have been prevented.

(Not saying it was a Glock, but maybe something to be considered by people with children who decide to carry concealed weapons in their purses)

[chrisinth]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

She has a permit to carry concealed weapons - and I don't know anything about guns - but shouldn't a gun, carried (albeit concealed) in public, be unloaded and locked? I thought one was supposed to keep the bullets OUTSIDE the gun, no?

You might be getting confused with transporting a weapon from one location to another, without a permit to carry.

The idea of a concealed weapon is that it is readily available to do what it was intended to do. Albeit in a 'safe' condition.

[sead]

That trigger must have been very light. A 2 year old can pull that?

[theoldgit]

Link to comedy video removed, I really don't think this is a funny subject.

[Scott]

An inflammatory post and reply have been removed.

[simondan]

They have had recent car accidents and plane accidents. I move that we ban these vehicles of death also.

Nice idea..but I doubt we can keep guns away from the bad guys, by making them illegal. Not to mention that you get a snowball's chance in hell of defending yourself against bad guys. Takes the police 20 minutes or longer to come to the rescue, where I live..and by that time, if you operate a store or gas station, you would be already dying from lead poisoning.

Guns will always be a threat.. Management is the key.

Was this 2 year old a 'bad guy'?

How many criminals have undertaken mass shootings at schools or cinemas or their workplaces etc? Banning things like drugs or assault weapons/handguns will never deny them totally to the 'bad guys'.

But thats not the objective.

The idea is to get them out of the hands of the public, who time and again prove they are either incompetent, unreliable or subject to exactly the sort of wild and illogical passions that make ownership of assault weapons dangerous. Assault weapons and the like, after all, belong in the control of trained, disciplined forces, not mothers out shopping or angry hormonal teenagers.

And the arguments in favour, like needing to keep tyrannical govts in check, are outdated, fantastical, illogical and, frankly, ridiculous in 2015!

[F430murci]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I love this, especially being an Aussie:

Bang on the money. You have cost me 2 hours of my life because I started watching all his other gigs. Very funny and very true.

This guy is funny as all get out!!! Great stuff. Love it!

[simondan]

You Americans never learn do you ? In most civilized countries a mother would not be allowed to carry an armed gun, if she was in service working as police, guard or a miliary I could accept accidents might happen, but not something like this, where a 2 year old shoot his own mom, only in the US.

But this is a nation where the death penalty is still alive and accepted so no surprise really.....

"In most civilized countries a mother would not be allowed to carry an armed gun." Most civilised countries aren't plagued with black street gangs.

What's that you say? Your country doesn't have the death penalty? I sure hope are murders find this out and move there.

Nice try but the death penalty and low capital crime rates are rarely correlated. The former seldom results in the latter.

So youre just carrying out state sponsored revenge killing, really, on the say so of a notoriously unreliable method of determining the truth (criminal trials).

Mind you, for really heinous crimes where guilt is clear I must admit I m not opposed to killing the bastards.

[manarak]

Be interesting to hear what the very vocal ThaiVisa Gun Lobby has to say about this, especially the clown who tried to tell me that 'the best way to stop a bad man with a knife is a good gal with a gun' after the Manoora tragedy. Imagine going through life knowing you shot your own mother dead before you were old enough to even understand the dangers of carrying a loaded firearm. RIP.

Regardless of your views (I'm pro gun control but not anti gun per se) I think what they'll say is that keeping a loaded gun within reach of a child is just plain dumb. Which it is.T

This is just incredibly sad.

But surely that should be part of the training required for anyone applying for a concealed firearms licence ? Many will recall the old chestnut about the Winnebago owner who - delighted to find that his new motorhome had cruise control - left his land whale in drive at 55 mph on the freeway and went to the back of the Winnie to make a coffee : even if it's fictional, it illustrates that you cant make assumptions based on the notion of 'common sense'.

My assumption is that she had a round in the chamber and the safety off - exactly how much training anyone prepared to walk the streets with a live grenade in their purse can possibly have had is one I'll leave to our very own gun lobby.

Stupidity, negligence or just unlucky accidents have little to do with a lobby.

As Samran, I am all for gun control but not for a total ban, as my feeling is that armed responsible citizens are a significant improvement to security.

Yet, as anyone can be negligent or stupid at times, sad accidents are bound to happen as shit just happens - these accidents are the price to pay for the improved security.

It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

[OMGImInPattaya]

That trigger must have been very light. A 2 year old can pull that?

Yeah, the firing pin may have been really shaved down to a very light touch because the gun was apparently being used by a female.

[mania]

That trigger must have been very light. A 2 year old can pull that?

Yeah, the firing pin may have been really shaved down to a very light touch because the gun was apparently being used by a female.

Actually firing pin has nothing to do with trigger pull

They modify the sear & the sear spring also for lighter pull.

But truthfully folks only lighten triggers for certain competition type shooting like IPSC to 2-2.5lb pull

Defense guns are usually left at 4-4.5lb trigger pull for good reason.

Edited January 3, 2015 by mania

[simondan]

So sick of the NRA and pro gun folks making excuses. United States has became a dangerous place to live precisely because of the Gun lobby funded by Gun manufacturers and supported by gun lovers who see owning a gun as an extension of their manhood.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

There are only certain parts of some of the bigger cities in America, that can be dangerous. It isn't some gun lobby or gun manufactures that are making our cities dangerous. Street gangs contribute to most of the crime. If you can figure out a way to eliminate the gangs, the rest should be easy.

Saying guns make cities dangerous, is like saying spoons make people fat, pencils misspell words, and cars make people drive drunk. People with criminal minds make our cities dangerous.

What's up with the remark, "gun lovers see owning a gun as an extension of their manhood." Where did you get that idea from? OMG!

Guns dont kill people, people kill people!

But people are made of matter. So by that logic, people dont kill people, matter kills people.

But hang on, guns are made of matter too.

So I guess guns do kill people after all!

Arguing guns dont kill people is ridiculous and obviously circular. People can kill and injure a lot of other people in a short time with minimal skill with an assault rifle, less so a handgun of course (but still more than with a knife for instance, unless you're in the movies).

Thats a simple fact. Your silly aphorisms dont actually mean anything.

If thats the best American logic can bring to this very serious issue you 'free the guns' people should hang you're heads in shame (actually, you should anyway).

[CMNightRider]

So sick of the NRA and pro gun folks making excuses. United States has became a dangerous place to live precisely because of the Gun lobby funded by Gun manufacturers and supported by gun lovers who see owning a gun as an extension of their manhood.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

There are only certain parts of some of the bigger cities in America, that can be dangerous. It isn't some gun lobby or gun manufactures that are making our cities dangerous. Street gangs contribute to most of the crime. If you can figure out a way to eliminate the gangs, the rest should be easy.

Saying guns make cities dangerous, is like saying spoons make people fat, pencils misspell words, and cars make people drive drunk. People with criminal minds make our cities dangerous.

What's up with the remark, "gun lovers see owning a gun as an extension of their manhood." Where did you get that idea from? OMG!

Guns dont kill people, people kill people!

But people are made of matter. So by that logic, people dont kill people, matter kills people.

But hang on, guns are made of matter too.

So I guess guns do kill people after all!

Arguing guns dont kill people is ridiculous and obviously circular. People can kill and injure a lot of other people in a short time with minimal skill with an assault rifle, less so a handgun of course (but still more than with a knife for instance, unless you're in the movies).

Thats a simple fact. Your silly aphorisms dont actually mean anything.

If thats the best American logic can bring to this very serious issue you 'free the guns' people should hang you're heads in shame (actually, you should anyway).

No one is "hanging their head in shame" nor should they. The anti-guns nuts can weep, wring their hands, and get as hysterical as they want. Gun control in America, is about stance, grip, breath control, sight alinement, and trigger squeeze.

There are around 80 million gun owners in America. If anyone thinks anti-gun liberals (nuts) can take guns away from 80 million gun owners, then you are either delusional or very naive.

You were right about your first sentence. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Thanks anyway for sharing your thoughts on this serious issue.

God Bless America, and the mother and child that was involved in this unfortunate incident.

[OMGImInPattaya]

That trigger must have been very light. A 2 year old can pull that?

Yeah, the firing pin may have been really shaved down to a very light touch because the gun was apparently being used by a female.

Actually firing pin has nothing to do with trigger pull

They modify the sear & the sear spring also for lighter pull.

But truthfully folks only lighten triggers for certain competition type shooting like IPSC to 2-2.5lb pull

Defense guns are usually left at 4-4.5lb trigger pull for good reason.

I think lots of sports and self-defense gun owners have gunsmiths "lighten" the trigger pull required to discharge their guns. The stock pull on my S&W-357 was an armful.

[7by7]

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

[notmyself]

God Bless America, and the mother and child that was involved in this unfortunate incident.

Inevitable yes, unfortunate no.

Guy juggling chainsaws missed a catch and cuts his arm off. Unfortunate?

[chuckd]

God Bless America, and the mother and child that was involved in this unfortunate incident.

Inevitable yes, unfortunate no.

Guy juggling chainsaws missed a catch and cuts his arm off. Unfortunate?

No. Impossible.

If he is juggling it, how can it be running if his finger is not pulling the trigger?

[Credo]

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

They are very different countries with very different populations. The US is diverse and includes numerous ethic and racial groups. Japan is relatively homogeneous. The US is connected to Mexico on the South and Mexico is a well armed country with a fair number of illegals crossing the border. Japan is an island. Drugs being smuggled into the US are done so with well armed groups, this is less of a problem in Japan.

If you have fewer guns, at least if you could have a lot fewer guns, then there would most likely be fewer gun deaths, but the comparison you are using is not the best.

[notmyself]

God Bless America, and the mother and child that was involved in this unfortunate incident.

Inevitable yes, unfortunate no.

Guy juggling chainsaws missed a catch and cuts his arm off. Unfortunate?

No. Impossible.

If he is juggling it, how can it be running if his finger is not pulling the trigger?

[simondan]

So sick of the NRA and pro gun folks making excuses. United States has became a dangerous place to live precisely because of the Gun lobby funded by Gun manufacturers and supported by gun lovers who see owning a gun as an extension of their manhood.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

There are only certain parts of some of the bigger cities in America, that can be dangerous. It isn't some gun lobby or gun manufactures that are making our cities dangerous. Street gangs contribute to most of the crime. If you can figure out a way to eliminate the gangs, the rest should be easy.

Saying guns make cities dangerous, is like saying spoons make people fat, pencils misspell words, and cars make people drive drunk. People with criminal minds make our cities dangerous.

What's up with the remark, "gun lovers see owning a gun as an extension of their manhood." Where did you get that idea from? OMG!

Guns dont kill people, people kill people!

But people are made of matter. So by that logic, people dont kill people, matter kills people.

But hang on, guns are made of matter too.

So I guess guns do kill people after all!

Arguing guns dont kill people is ridiculous and obviously circular. People can kill and injure a lot of other people in a short time with minimal skill with an assault rifle, less so a handgun of course (but still more than with a knife for instance, unless you're in the movies).

Thats a simple fact. Your silly aphorisms dont actually mean anything.

If thats the best American logic can bring to this very serious issue you 'free the guns' people should hang you're heads in shame (actually, you should anyway).

No one is "hanging their head in shame" nor should they. The anti-guns nuts can weep, wring their hands, and get as hysterical as they want. Gun control in America, is about stance, grip, breath control, sight alinement, and trigger squeeze.

There are around 80 million gun owners in America. If anyone thinks anti-gun liberals (nuts) can take guns away from 80 million gun owners, then you are either delusional or very naive.

You were right about your first sentence. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Thanks anyway for sharing your thoughts on this serious issue.

God Bless America, and the mother and child that was involved in this unfortunate incident.

Actually Im not anti-gun at all. Im just anti-senseless massacres and killings by nuts or just angry people who have access to far too much killing power than is sensible or necessary.

Just cause you enjoy doing something (like owning and using firearms) doesnt mean you should do it. So its possible to be a gun enthusiast who also realises that strict gun control is necessary and sensible in our modern world.

Gun control as you define it depends on the shooter being in control, sane and calm themselves. So its flawed from the start. But flawed, hysterical logic that is naive, emotional and delusional is standard issue from the gun lobby, it seems.

There is no doubt that the US is a great nation with an outstanding record of achievement in just about every area of life. So saying you wont be able to disarm 80 million Americans cause it would be too hard (not cause it would be wrong) seems, frankly, unAmerican. Being difficult never stopped you guys doing something before. If a nation as puny and humble as Australia can do it successfully and peacefully, surely such a great, powerful, wise, and mighty nation as yours can too.

[notmyself]

Just cause you enjoy doing something (like owning and using firearms) doesnt mean you should do it.

Reminds me of my brother in law. His view on those buffet places where you just pat a set fee and you can 'eat what you like' are considered to be 'eat as much as you can' places.

Just because you have a right to own a gun does not mean that you 'should do' or 'have to'

[Bakeman]

A weapon in the purse is the worse. Bag snatchers, no control of the weapon etc.... The concealed weapon should be kept safely on the persons body in a holster.

We don't blame bombs for terrorists so lets not put the blame on guns for this ladies lack of safety or training.

I agree with the above dumb lady and poor child.

[7by7]

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

They are very different countries with very different populations. The US is diverse and includes numerous ethic and racial groups. Japan is relatively homogeneous. The US is connected to Mexico on the South and Mexico is a well armed country with a fair number of illegals crossing the border. Japan is an island. Drugs being smuggled into the US are done so with well armed groups, this is less of a problem in Japan.

If you have fewer guns, at least if you could have a lot fewer guns, then there would most likely be fewer gun deaths, but the comparison you are using is not the best.

So it's all the fault of those nasty Mexicans; you need your guns to defend yourselves from them?

[chuckd]

7x7:

You keep criticizing posters that post on events in the UK, saying they are 6,000 miles away and don't know what is happening in your little part of the world.

How far away from the US are you located?

[beechguy]

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

They are very different countries with very different populations. The US is diverse and includes numerous ethic and racial groups. Japan is relatively homogeneous. The US is connected to Mexico on the South and Mexico is a well armed country with a fair number of illegals crossing the border. Japan is an island. Drugs being smuggled into the US are done so with well armed groups, this is less of a problem in Japan.

If you have fewer guns, at least if you could have a lot fewer guns, then there would most likely be fewer gun deaths, but the comparison you are using is not the best.

So it's all the fault of those nasty Mexicans; you need your guns to defend yourselves from them?

Depends on where you live. Where I grew up, it was the black gangsta, rappa mfer wannnabe drug dealers. Thankfully, my step father put one in the ground, during an armed robbery attempt, the other two went to jail.

[mania]

I think lots of sports and self-defense gun owners have gunsmiths "lighten" the trigger pull required to discharge their guns. The stock pull on my S&W-357 was an armful.

Yes I did not really note if they ever said what that lady had in the way of a gun

But being the US I would guess a semi auto

The 38 semi or 9mm is popular with the ladies.

But that S&w 357 of yours is what we call a hand cannon & has a pull of 5.5 or so lbs trigger

Also a single action if not previously cocked so not easy to pull thru....but a semi auto cocked & locked is quite a bit lighter in trigger pull.

Most knowledgeable folks do not want a self defense gun to have a hair trigger for obvious reason that the weapon will be held in likely a stressful situation

So of course a reasonable trigger pull is desired in that scenario to prevent unwanted discharge of the weapon

In the case of this lady there is really no excuse...she was basically as dumb as a stump

I mean if the weapon is carried in a combat ready state...ie: cocked

Of course that would normally be on person & not in her bag

Because realistically if her 2 yr old could have gained access to it that means basically anybody even a purse snatcher could have.

This lady was just plain stupid & should not have had a gun off her body nor in this state of readiness period.

I can see how anti gun groups will have a field day with this one

[beechguy]

I think lots of sports and self-defense gun owners have gunsmiths "lighten" the trigger pull required to discharge their guns. The stock pull on my S&W-357 was an armful.

Yes I did not really note if they ever said what that lady had in the way of a gun

But being the US I would guess a semi auto

The 38 semi or 9mm is popular with the ladies.

But that S&w 357 of yours is what we call a hand cannon & has a pull of 5.5 or so lbs trigger

Also a single action if not previously cocked so not easy to pull thru....but a semi auto cocked & locked is quite a bit lighter in trigger pull.

Most knowledgeable folks do not want a self defense gun to have a hair trigger for obvious reason that the weapon will be held in likely a stressful situation

So of course a reasonable trigger pull is desired in that scenario to prevent unwanted discharge of the weapon

In the case of this lady there is really no excuse...she was basically as dumb as a stump

I mean if the weapon is carried in a combat ready state...ie: cocked

Of course that would normally be on person & not in her bag

Because realistically if her 2 yr old could have gained access to it that means basically anybody even a purse snatcher could have.

This lady was just plain stupid & should not have had a gun off her body nor in this state of readiness period.

I can see how anti gun groups will have a field day with this one

Where are you guys coming up with, the gun was cocked?

Did she make a mistake? Yes, apparently she over estimated the security that specialized purse provided, and she under estimated the abilities of her 2 year old.

[manarak]

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

I think it is not possible to draw conclusions on gun control from a comparison of countries.

For years, Swiss army reservists had their personal weapons at home with ammo, yet Swiss crime stats were among the lowest in the world, so this would rather plead in favor of dissemination of guns.

I would rather be interested in seeing following statistics from one same country:

- amount of murders / durable disabilities caused using a registered gun

- amount of murders / durable disabilities caused using a stolen registered gun

- amount of assailants / trespassers killed or wounded in self-defense or home defense using a registered gun

- amount of assailants / trespassers deterred with a registered gun

- amount of accidental deaths / durable disabilities caused by misuse / negligence of a registered gun

I think the USA don't qualify as a country from where I would like to see the data because from what I know, guns were/are pretty easy to obtain in the USA.

Which country does have a sensible gun dissemination policy ?

Edited January 3, 2015 by manarak

[Credo]

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

They are very different countries with very different populations. The US is diverse and includes numerous ethic and racial groups. Japan is relatively homogeneous. The US is connected to Mexico on the South and Mexico is a well armed country with a fair number of illegals crossing the border. Japan is an island. Drugs being smuggled into the US are done so with well armed groups, this is less of a problem in Japan.

If you have fewer guns, at least if you could have a lot fewer guns, then there would most likely be fewer gun deaths, but the comparison you are using is not the best.

So it's all the fault of those nasty Mexicans; you need your guns to defend yourselves from them?

I see you can't have a reasonable discussion on any subject. At no time did I make a statement that Mexican's were the problem.