US boy, 3, killed self with gun he found in mother's purse

[Lite Beer]

US boy, 3, killed self with gun he found in mother's purse

CINCINNATI (AP) — A 3-year-old boy in the U.S. has fatally shot himself by playing with a pistol he found in his mother's purse, police said Friday.

The boy's mother placed an emergency call in Cincinnati on Thursday to say her son was not getting a pulse. She said she carried the gun in her purse, and had set her purse down after getting home.

Police said the boy was wounded in the chest and pronounced dead at a hospital shortly afterward.

Authorities were working to decide whether anyone should be charged in the case. It's the second apparently accidental gunshot death of a young person this month in the area. Gun control is a highly controversial issue in the United States.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-13

[Scott]

May he RIP. A tragic loss.

[Somtamnication]

The guilt that she will live with for the rest of her life. Why charge her?

[NeverSure]

Maybe to stop other idiots from leaving loaded guns laying around. What did she think it was, a loaf of bread?

[Seastallion]

Tragic as it is, I feel a bit ....it will never change, and more children will die, most certainly, while the NRA continues to lobby for guns for everybody.

[Seastallion]

Maybe to stop other idiots from leaving loaded guns laying around. What did she think it was, a loaf of bread?

Exactly! If you're going to keep a loaded gun in your purse, then you don't leave your purse anywhere where your 3 year old can reach it. You may as well leave the gun lying around. Better of course not to have loaded guns. But hey....it's my constitutional right to bear arms.

Here's the disjoint; It's the constitutional right to bear arms. The reason...."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." But how does the spirit of that uninfringeable right translate to keeping a gun in your purse? Was that mother hoping to be able to help defend the state...from injuns? From Mexican raiders? From a rogue US government? From an ISIS invasion?....maybe a rogue Texas cop? I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

[NeverSure]

I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

This phrase is from its era and has been settled many times by the US Supreme Count, going back to the beginning. It's pointless to debate it, but you are to be congratulated for being the 7 billionth person on earth to (erroneously) ask the question. You've won a prize of one bottle of Chang. (Empty bottle, LOL.)

Recently, Washington DC got its hands slapped by the Supreme Court for making it difficult for citizens to own guns.

The Oxford English Dictionary of 1709 says: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” Well regulated was a common term and militia didn't mean the military.

You will be considered to be correct in your presumption when the US Supreme Court changes its tune and agrees with you. Meaning not in your lifetime, LOL.

Cheers.

[Seastallion]

I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

This phrase is from its era and has been settled many times by the US Supreme Count, going back to the beginning. It's pointless to debate it, but you are to be congratulated for being the 7 billionth person on earth to (erroneously) ask the question. You've won a prize of one bottle of Chang. (Empty bottle, LOL.)

Recently, Washington DC got its hands slapped by the Supreme Court for making it difficult for citizens to own guns.

The Oxford English Dictionary of 1709 says: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” Well regulated was a common term and militia didn't mean the military.

You will be considered to be correct in your presumption when the US Supreme Court changes its tune and agrees with you. Meaning not in your lifetime, LOL.

Cheers.

I know the difference between militia and military.

I wonder if you have succumbed to urban myth? The first Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1884, so your reference to it's 1709 definition of "well-regulated" (sic), (which may be different to "well regulated"), is false.

[little mary sunshine]

So tragic!! After this mother deals with the shock and

grief of the death, she should be charged with MURDER

for being so stupid !!

[tonray]

We don't know whether she was carrying it legally or illegally. Not enough information given to make a judgement...but if legal then she can be charged due to negligence. Even if you have a permit to carry you still need to act like a responsible gun owner and leaving a gun where your 3 year old can find it is not smart or legal in any sense.

[PHP87]

Tragic as it is, I feel a bit ....it will never change, and more children will die, most certainly, while the NRA continues to lobby for guns for everybody.

More kids age 5 and under die in backyard swimming pools, and the NRA doesn't "lobby for guns for everybody"

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic, inflammatory, troll, deflecting posts and replies have been removed. Please stay on topic.

[PHP87]

Maybe to stop other idiots from leaving loaded guns laying around. What did she think it was, a loaf of bread?

Exactly! If you're going to keep a loaded gun in your purse, then you don't leave your purse anywhere where your 3 year old can reach it. You may as well leave the gun lying around. Better of course not to have loaded guns. But hey....it's my constitutional right to bear arms.

Here's the disjoint; It's the constitutional right to bear arms. The reason...."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." But how does the spirit of that uninfringeable right translate to keeping a gun in your purse? Was that mother hoping to be able to help defend the state...from injuns? From Mexican raiders? From a rogue US government? From an ISIS invasion?....maybe a rogue Texas cop? I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

The Supreme Court of the US ruled the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right. See DC vs. Heller, 2008 so your "point" is moot.

[Guest]

I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

This phrase is from its era and has been settled many times by the US Supreme Count, going back to the beginning. It's pointless to debate it, but you are to be congratulated for being the 7 billionth person on earth to (erroneously) ask the question. You've won a prize of one bottle of Chang. (Empty bottle, LOL.)

Recently, Washington DC got its hands slapped by the Supreme Court for making it difficult for citizens to own guns.

The Oxford English Dictionary of 1709 says: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” Well regulated was a common term and militia didn't mean the military.

You will be considered to be correct in your presumption when the US Supreme Court changes its tune and agrees with you. Meaning not in your lifetime, LOL.

Cheers.

Hey ... before you get up on your high horse and preach to the unwashed .. put down that quart of Koolaid and drink a nice hot cup of something black with caffeine in it.

The "Supreme court" is appointed and not elected and the majority of them came via Republican - Conservative Presidents.

The entire thing comes down to that. Those clowns in the black robes acting like they are the Maitre ' D at the "From God's finger tips to your plate cafe" are nothing more than a "check' in the "checks and balances" that is total crap ..

Because the very people that are supposed to "check" ... PUT THEM ON THE JOB.

So yes, the Republican Conservative bench is doing what it was put there for.

In the next few years, the very old SCOTUS will have many meaningful retirements .. if a Democrat is in office who does not think "John Q Public" needs an assault rifle and Mom's don't need LOADED guns in purses ...Let's hope you have the same reverence for their decisions.

We know the answer. You are not about bowing to the findings of the Supreme Court ... you just like that the deck is stacked in your favor. (Today)

Remember this conversation in ten years when your "Gun Lobby in Robes" is long gone and there is a meaningful effort to reverse the insanity we see in the Wild West / USA.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Guest

[glasswort]

So the child manged to disengage the safety catch, assuming of course that it was on!

I was brought up in a firearm environment in the UK and there were very strict rules about not bringing loaded weapons into the house. My father and grandfather were extremely strict about this and in thirty odd years I did not see the rule broken once.

[PHP87]

I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

This phrase is from its era and has been settled many times by the US Supreme Count, going back to the beginning. It's pointless to debate it, but you are to be congratulated for being the 7 billionth person on earth to (erroneously) ask the question. You've won a prize of one bottle of Chang. (Empty bottle, LOL.)

Recently, Washington DC got its hands slapped by the Supreme Court for making it difficult for citizens to own guns.

The Oxford English Dictionary of 1709 says: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” Well regulated was a common term and militia didn't mean the military.

You will be considered to be correct in your presumption when the US Supreme Court changes its tune and agrees with you. Meaning not in your lifetime, LOL.

Cheers.

Hey ... before you get up on your high horse and preach to the unwashed .. put down that quart of Koolaid and drink a nice hot cup of something black with caffeine in it.

The "Supreme court" is appointed and not elected and the majority of them came via Republican - Conservative Presidents.

The entire thing comes down to that. Those clowns in the black robes acting like they are the Maitre ' D at the "From God's finger tips to your plate cafe" are nothing more than a "check' in the "checks and balances" that is total crap ..

Because the very people that are supposed to "check" ... PUT THEM ON THE JOB.

So yes, the Republican Conservative bench is doing what it was put there for.

In the next few years, the very old SCOTUS will have many meaningful retirements .. if a Democrat is in office who does not think "John Q Public" needs an assault rifle and Mom's don't need LOADED guns in purses ...Let's hope you have the same reverence for their decisions.

We know the answer. You are not about bowing to the findings of the Supreme Court ... you just like that the deck is stacked in your favor. (Today)

Remember this conversation in ten years when your "Gun Lobby in Robes" is long gone and there is a meaningful effort to reverse the insanity we see in the Wild West / USA.

You wrote a lot, although you said nothing but stated your wishful thinking.

Wild West USA - Laughing at your ignorance.

And even the Dems know that the gun control issue is a loser because 90 Million voters own guns and will no longer stand for their Constitutional rights continually being undermined, so keep dreaming.

And the FBI estimates that up to 3 Million crimes are prevented by legal gun owners annually. Is that "insanity" or would you rather have 3 million people victimized by thugs every year?

Stay in your safe little nanny state while we citizens (not subjects) exercise our right to protect ourselves from criminal elements.What will you do? Cower in fear and try to "rationalize" with some thugs to not kill you after they rape your wife and daughter?

[MaxYakov]

So tragic!! After this mother deals with the shock and

grief of the death, she should be charged with MURDER

for being so stupid !!

Maybe she should be charged with "MURDER" based on forensics evidence - which probably was not methodically obtained and preserved.

For the anti-gun folks:

Do you have a better, more effective idea for personal self defense or are you simply opposed to personal self defense in general?

[PHP87]

So the child manged to disengage the safety catch, assuming of course that it was on!

I was brought up in a firearm environment in the UK and there were very strict rules about not bringing loaded weapons into the house. My father and grandfather were extremely strict about this and in thirty odd years I did not see the rule broken once.

Yet the Teacher's unions fight tooth and nail to prevent gun safety from being taught in schools, but they will take a classroom full of young kids to an Adult Store on a field trip.

While this child wasn't old enough for school, I do find it hard to believe a child has the strength to pull a 8+ pound pull trigger unless the hammer was cocked.

Nonetheless, a child that young should be taught not to touch a firearm under any conditions.

[NeverSure]

The "Supreme court" is appointed and not elected and the majority of them came via Republican - Conservative Presidents.

The entire thing comes down to that. Those clowns in the black robes acting like they are the Maitre ' D at the "From God's finger tips to your plate cafe" are West / USA.

The laws and The Bill of Rights have been the way they are since December 15, 1791. About 225 years. Supreme Courts follow their own precedents because the Constitution doesn't change in meaning over time. They actually look to their own writings and decisions over the centuries and they take their jobs very seriously. Even in the modern era Democrats haven't changed the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and must be approved by the Senate. Each of the 50 states, regardless of size gets two Senators for a total of 100. You therefore have to get a majority of the states to approve a new justice.

Also don't forget that in the US there are 100 million adult gun owners/voters. You won't see any significant changes in my lifetime. The State of Vermont just voted to legalize silencers for guns to make the place more peaceful around gun ranges and Nevada just did away with registration and restriction of carry laws and voted to allow a lot more out of state people to carry.

I'm afraid you won't see your dream come true in your lifetime.

Cheers.

Edited June 13, 2015 by NeverSure

[ICECOOL]

I hear the pro gun people say "Guns do not kill..people do" and "we have the right to protect ourselves"

Glad I live in a country where I don't feel so scared of people around me that I feel the need to carry a loaded gun.

RIP young child.

I am sure I will not have to wait for the next similiar news story from the good ole USA

[cocopops]

I feel sure that she was not a member of any legal state militia.

People also seem to ignore that the constitution's right to bear arms includes the phrase "well regulated" in it's reasoning. How about imposing some good regulations, then?

This phrase is from its era and has been settled many times by the US Supreme Count, going back to the beginning. It's pointless to debate it, but you are to be congratulated for being the 7 billionth person on earth to (erroneously) ask the question. You've won a prize of one bottle of Chang. (Empty bottle, LOL.)

Recently, Washington DC got its hands slapped by the Supreme Court for making it difficult for citizens to own guns.

The Oxford English Dictionary of 1709 says: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” Well regulated was a common term and militia didn't mean the military.

You will be considered to be correct in your presumption when the US Supreme Court changes its tune and agrees with you. Meaning not in your lifetime, LOL.

Cheers.

I know the difference between militia and military.

I wonder if you have succumbed to urban myth? The first Oxford English Dictionary came out in 1884, so your reference to it's 1709 definition of "well-regulated" (sic), (which may be different to "well regulated"), is false.

1709 was the year Samuel Johnson, creator of the first modern dictionary for the English language, was born though.

I learned that from QI.

[MaxYakov]

So the child manged to disengage the safety catch, assuming of course that it was on!

I was brought up in a firearm environment in the UK and there were very strict rules about not bringing loaded weapons into the house. My father and grandfather were extremely strict about this and in thirty odd years I did not see the rule broken once.

Yet the Teacher's unions fight tooth and nail to prevent gun safety from being taught in schools, but they will take a classroom full of young kids to an Adult Store on a field trip.

While this child wasn't old enough for school, I do find it hard to believe a child has the strength to pull a 8+ pound pull trigger unless the hammer was cocked.

Nonetheless, a child that young should be taught not to touch a firearm under any conditions.

How about this as an improvement: Any person of any age should not have unauthorized access to a firearm

And, as the case of the killing of Chris Kyle, even that rule was not enough to stop a firearm's unauthorized use.

Edited June 13, 2015 by MaxYakov

[nemrut]

This type of incident happens far too often in the US, and most likely, occurs much more often when victims are fatally wounded but do not die and goes unreported.

USA - land of the free, negligent and living in denial.

[Credo]

This type of incident happens far too often in the US, and most likely, occurs much more often when victims are fatally wounded but do not die and goes unreported.

USA - land of the free, negligent and living in denial.

Doctors and any medical facility are required to report any injuries from a gunshot to be reported to the police. There are pretty accurate records of the number of injuries.

[maidee]

how will the NRA respond to that ?

no safety on the gun either ?

[NickJ]

Kids get into everthing. All handguns should be triggerlocked if not being activley carried. Women tend to leave there handbags laying around. Well a handbag aint a handbag if its got a live firearm inside of it. Sad...but I favor charging her. Not for murder but a lesser charge. No prison but some jail time and a huge fine. And no guns ever again.

[Chicog]

The technology is there to render the gun only usable by the owner.

It's high time it was enforced.

[Basil B]

Another tragic loss.

[Jingthing]

This could happen a million times in the U.S. and gun laws wouldn't be changed.

Some will celebrate that.

[Lissos]

......And the FBI estimates that up to 3 Million crimes are prevented by legal gun owners annually. Is that "insanity" or would you rather have 3 million people victimized by thugs every year?

Stay in your safe little nanny state while we citizens (not subjects) exercise our right to protect ourselves from criminal elements.What will you do? Cower in fear and try to "rationalize" with some thugs to not kill you after they rape your wife and daughter?

In recent months one of my neighbours in the UK who had moved from South Africa in recent years got a phone call from South Africa. His father and mother had returned home in their car and entered the secure compound. The security dogs were strangely silent. Out of the shadows a man walked straight up to the husband and shot him right in the face at close range, his wife next to him who was now understandably in terror. She was tied up and believed she would be raped or shot next. She wasn't but now has to live her elder years with that image of her husband's head being blown apart.

The house itself was full to the gills with firearms. He was a firearms enthusiast,big on the firearms for self-defense leaning, and they knew it full well as they researched.

Even the son believes that they were so merciless because they knew he was a firearms proponent, so they took no chances at all and executed him immediately. The security dogs had been poisoned in advance, by the way. The luxury he potentially had to neutralise first and ask questions (or not) later, was also a luxury the killers had. What did they steal? A few heirlooms and firearms they could access.

I appreciate the theory behind firearms being a deterrent and in some scenarios I think they can (particularly if handled by very well trained individuals). In others, I think they up the chances of wannabe heros escalating and truly screwing up a situation that could have been de-escelated or put down with far less 'end game' force.

The 'everyone armed solves / deters everything' theory doesn't match reality in all sorts of ways, and it is arguable that the ferocity of crimes in areas of the world with high gun ownership (legally, or illegally) is directly linked. If someone knows their attempt to rob could be met with lethal force, they may just go that extra mile to neutralise their opponent before the other neutralises them.

It works both ways.

The theory is that without firearms, a criminal is going to be all the more ferocious in his / her crime if the target house or person is not armed because the claim is that they have free reign. I'm not quite sure it always pans out that way (examples of that may be found, but on the whole probably isn't the norm), and in reality we are not expected to be shivering lambs to the slaughter, even if the law is indeed frustratingly ambiguous about what it will decide 'after' an event, was acceptable force in defending property / loved ones. Myself, I don't let that paralyse me though.

If there is a direct threat to loved ones I will do whatever is needed to disable that threat and will deal with consequences later. Protecting the loved one is my priority. Anyone who is paralysed into inaction by legal concerns cared more about self preservation than their loved ones.

I could argue that because criminal elements gettings firearms here is far less easy, this levels the playing field a bit in such scenarios and lessens the chance of us being shot in the face or from the shadows as we walk around the house in the early hours after hearing disturbances.

You wouldn't believe how inventive Brits have become with home defense. Baseball bats, kitchen knives,, axes, machetes, steel bars, it can be like a scene from Braveheart under the beds of even some elderly residents. Of course, the more damage inflicting the more we delve into the realms of our own such impliments being used upon us if things go badly.

Non firearms does open the door for warning off / talking down criminals though. Guns may do similar in theory, but only if someone is well trained and psychologically used to the high adrenaline and not panicky (both the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'). If not, 'shoot first' or equally ' freeze in inaction' can result. If the criminal has firearms they may just shoot first (re : the south African victim) to remove complications. If both attacker and defender are psychologically wired that lethal force is involved at both ends, lethal force is likely to be the outcome of it all.

And not always in the defenders favour.

I still believe that Government working behind the scenes to scupper criminal elements from obtaining firearms overseas and even getting them into the country is the most effective public safety, a 'nip it in the bud' approach rather than expecting citizens patch up the failings with firearms.

In a situation where largely anyone can go and buy a firearm and ammo, it serves to feed the 'need' for everyone to also be armed because that 'anyone' out there, is now out there.