US: Pro-gun activist is accidentally shot by 4-year-old son

[Grouse]

perhaps some need glasses on this topic, it was not a "GUY" who got shot, it was a FEMALE-- LADY ok,

It was certainly a woman. It is, however, unclear if she was a lady or not!

[inbangkok]

For those asking.... If her opinion has changed.... Do a quick Google search.

Her mother has been interviewed and is defiant as hell about how neither of their opinions on guns has changed. Her mother broke into the typical gun rant about "rights" and "lifestyle" and how they both will keep all their guns...... Completely avoiding the real issue of a large caliber handgun, loaded and sitting on the back seat next to her child. The child was apparently not in a car seat either which is required by law at that age.

The women who was shot was also revealed to have a criminal record for stealing $500 of designer baby clothes a few years back.

A very, very good example of someone who should not ever be allowed around firearms again. Lacks total common sense, ability to act responsibly, and should be a convicted felon because of the dollar amount of stolen goods (she did a pre trial felony diversion program so she got off with lesser charges). In many states, convicted felons cannot own guns.

I feel horrible for the child and the guilt he will live with....... Even though it is 100 percent the fault of the mother......and quite frankly, her stupidity kinda makes me think she deserved it......Unfortunately however, that bullet could have hit someone who didn't deserve it.....

Edited March 14, 2016 by inbangkok

[7by7]

How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.

Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

But to be fair, the homicide rate in the US is 4.7 per 100,000, compared to 1 per 100,000 in the UK, and its the homicide rate that matters, not the firearm homicide rate, because if you are dead, you are dead, it doesn't matter how. But of course, 4-5 times doesn't sound as good as 30 times, so we should obviously choose the firearm only statistics. Then, at the same time we can trot out that the UK has higher violent crime rates than the US, while ignoring the differing definitions of violent crime to show that fewer guns causes more crime. We can then all be happy because we have reinforced our pre-existing biases related to guns and crime and call it a day.

We are talking about gun ownership here, so the gun murder rate is very relevant. That is nearly 30 times higher in the US than in the UK.

Even if you do include all murders there were still nearly 5 times more murders in the US than in the UK.

Plus 60% of all murders in the US were by firearm compared to 10% in the UK.

Take gun murders out of the picture and the murder rates would be much closer: 1.88 per 100,000 in the US, 0.9 in the UK (if my maths is correct).

No matter how you look at it; the liberal gun laws in the US do account for it's very high murder rate.

Yes, it is true that the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than that in the US; and that is, in part, due to the way the figures are counted, which cannot be ignored.

The following comes from By the Numbers: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.​

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

Reading on, you will find that even verbal harassment is counted as a crime against the person and so a violent crime in the UK, but not in the US.

All of which accounts for the difference.

But however you wish to use the figures, one fact is incontrovertible.

Shootings in the US, whether it's, like this one, accidental or whether it's someone going on a mass shooting spree or whether it's a robber shooting the person they're robbing, whatever the reason are so regular in the US that they have become mundane most of them make only the local news, if that.

In the UK, someone being shot at, accidently or deliberately, by a criminal or the police, missed, wounded or killed, is so rare it always makes national news headlines.

​

[dutchisaan]

^ You crease me up!

I'd better not post the last picture in the series or you'll go apoplectic.

Oh, please post it!

I'm in need for a other big laugh!

[vaultdweller0013]

How the US compares: The number of gun murders per capita in the US in 2012 - the most recent year for comparable statistics - was nearly 30 times that in the UK, at 2.9 per 100,000 compared with just 0.1.

Of all the murders in the US in 2012, 60% were by firearm compared with 31% in Canada, 18.2% in Australia, and just 10% in the UK.

But to be fair, the homicide rate in the US is 4.7 per 100,000, compared to 1 per 100,000 in the UK, and its the homicide rate that matters, not the firearm homicide rate, because if you are dead, you are dead, it doesn't matter how. But of course, 4-5 times doesn't sound as good as 30 times, so we should obviously choose the firearm only statistics. Then, at the same time we can trot out that the UK has higher violent crime rates than the US, while ignoring the differing definitions of violent crime to show that fewer guns causes more crime. We can then all be happy because we have reinforced our pre-existing biases related to guns and crime and call it a day.

We are talking about gun ownership here, so the gun murder rate is very relevant. That is nearly 30 times higher in the US than in the UK.

Even if you do include all murders there were still nearly 5 times more murders in the US than in the UK.

Plus 60% of all murders in the US were by firearm compared to 10% in the UK.

Take gun murders out of the picture and the murder rates would be much closer: 1.88 per 100,000 in the US, 0.9 in the UK (if my maths is correct).

No matter how you look at it; the liberal gun laws in the US do account for it's very high murder rate.

Yes, it is true that the violent crime rate in the UK is higher than that in the US; and that is, in part, due to the way the figures are counted, which cannot be ignored.

The following comes from By the Numbers: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US?

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.​

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”

Reading on, you will find that even verbal harassment is counted as a crime against the person and so a violent crime in the UK, but not in the US.

All of which accounts for the difference.

But however you wish to use the figures, one fact is incontrovertible.

Shootings in the US, whether it's, like this one, accidental or whether it's someone going on a mass shooting spree or whether it's a robber shooting the person they're robbing, whatever the reason are so regular in the US that they have become mundane most of them make only the local news, if that.

In the UK, someone being shot at, accidently or deliberately, by a criminal or the police, missed, wounded or killed, is so rare it always makes national news headlines.

​

You clearly did not understand the point of my post.

Statistics are one thing, but showing a cause and effect relationship is very different. For example, in the mid '90s, many states made their concealed carry laws much less restrictive. The end result... essentially no significant change in murder rates. Overall, the US murder rate decreased, but when trying to determine the effect of loosening concealed carry, the result was slightly positive in some cases, slightly negative in others, with no clear overarching trend. This annoyed both sides because for the gun control proponents it didn't show the less guns, less crime mantra was true; similarly, for the pro-gun side, it failed to show that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens decreased crime.

If we are talking about statistics, there is an interesting one related in US murders: if you calculate the rates by race, whites are victims at a rate of about 1.22 per 100,000, which puts it round about the European levels, while blacks are victims at a rate of about 5.98 per 100,000. This is despite the gun ownership rate being twice as high among white compared to blacks (see note below about race). This implies that it is not gun ownership per se that causes murders, instead it is a combination of socioeconomic factors that drives the rates in specific populations. This leads to the difficult conclusion that it is not gun ownership rate and gun laws that need to be changed to reduce the murder rates, instead it is more wholesale changes in society and culture that need to change. This is, of course, hard to do, so it is much easier and more appealing to make the gun critical element that holds the blame. It provides a good rhetoric, but doesn't actually change anything. So, for example, I would propose that fixing the mess that is how schools are funded in the US would be a better medium to long term change to reduce murder rates than any sort of increased gun control.

Note about the race related statistic:

The reason for choosing the split as an example is two fold: first, it really does demonstrate that the issue of gun violence is not uniform across the US; this is why many people will see no overarching problem -- gun violence is not prevalent in their communities. Second, it is accurate. Recording the race of a victim in easy and done in common practice; we could try to look at other things like education level, income, etc. but these all would required additional investigation that would likely not be done as a matter of course, so it would be hard to get accurate statistics along these lines. Research into this would be a good idea so we could understand the actual underlying drivers that cause some segments of society to be more risky.Which leads to one of my biggest criticisms of the pro-gun side, is that such research into gun violence is banned from receiving federal funding. Being unable to properly research the issue, the best that can be hoped for is a "shot in the dark" that will likely miss the mark, regardless of whether it is coming from the pro-gun or gun control side.

[7by7]

It is obvious that crime rates in the more disadvantaged sections of society are going to be higher than in the more advantaged and this includes crimes where a gun has been used; from using the gun as a threat all the way to it actually being used to kill.

It is equally obvious that the more easily available guns are, the more they will be used in the course of crimes most commonly committed by the disadvantaged; robberies, muggings etc.

This is as true of other countries as it is of the US. But in the UK, for example, guns are not easily available, so it is rare for them to be used in such crimes, whichever part of society the perpetrator comes from.

But these accidental shootings, often of or by children, in the US seem to occur almost exclusively among the white, middle class population. The same for school shootings, mass shootings etc..

No doubt someone will be able to produce the relevant figures if I am wrong.

Of course, I haven't seen reports of all of them; they have become so common in the US that something exceptional needs to occur for them to make international news, and I suspect state, let alone national, news inside the US as well. If this woman had not been such a vocal pro gun supporter, I doubt this would have been reported outside her local area.

[inbangkok]

It is obvious that crime rates in the more disadvantaged sections of society are going to be higher than in the more advantaged and this includes crimes where a gun has been used; from using the gun as a threat all the way to it actually being used to kill.

It is equally obvious that the more easily available guns are, the more they will be used in the course of crimes most commonly committed by the disadvantaged; robberies, muggings etc.

This is as true of other countries as it is of the US. But in the UK, for example, guns are not easily available, so it is rare for them to be used in such crimes, whichever part of society the perpetrator comes from.

But these accidental shootings, often of or by children, in the US seem to occur almost exclusively among the white, middle class population. The same for school shootings, mass shootings etc..

No doubt someone will be able to produce the relevant figures if I am wrong.

Of course, I haven't seen reports of all of them; they have become so common in the US that something exceptional needs to occur for them to make international news, and I suspect state, let alone national, news inside the US as well. If this woman had not been such a vocal pro gun supporter, I doubt this would have been reported outside her local area.

Whoa.... Hold on! You are telling me.... "....The more easily available guns are, the more they will be used..."

Well, actually, I guess that might explain why war zones are not exactly noted for their safety.... Lol

[7by7]

Whoa.... Hold on! You (7by7) are telling me.... "....The more easily available guns are, the more they will be used..."

I know, it's obvious.

Which is why I find it impossible to understand why so many, presumably intelligent, Americans cannot grasp this simple fact.

[inbangkok]

Whoa.... Hold on! You (7by7) are telling me.... "....The more easily available guns are, the more they will be used..."

I know, it's obvious.

Which is why I find it impossible to understand why so many, presumably intelligent, Americans cannot grasp this simple fact.

I am American (also own guns) and don't get it either......

[Lex Talionis]

Pro-gun activist accidentally shot by son to face charge

By Dana Ford, CNN

(CNN) -- Jamie Gilt, the Florida pro-gun activist who was accidentally shot and wounded by her 4-year-old son, is expected to face a misdemeanor charge of allowing a minor access to a firearm, authorities said Tuesday.

The Putnam County Sheriff's Office on Tuesday filed an affidavit with local prosecutors asking that Gilt be charged with the second-degree misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of up to 180 days in jail, Capt. Gator DeLoach told reporters.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/22/us/gun-activist-shot-florida/

Edited April 1, 2016 by Lex Talionis