Woman Accidentally Shot Dead by Two-Year-Old Boy in Wal-Mart

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
As Thomas Jefferson said,"In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

From the Monticello Historical website

I don't take life advice from a man who fathered children with a woman he owned, but you know... I'm the one with questionable morality here.

Ah, you prescribe to many leftist myths.

Of course you have questionable morality, you want to remove the rights of your fellow citizens to own something you have demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
As Thomas Jefferson said,"In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

From the Monticello Historical website

I don't take life advice from a man who fathered children with a woman he owned, but you know... I'm the one with questionable morality here.

Ah, you prescribe to many leftist myths.

Of course you have questionable morality, you want to remove the rights of your fellow citizens to own something you have demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of.

Seems I'm not the only one, but I digress.

www.monticello.org...

I'm more partial to the adage, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” I think there is a little wiggle room for the oft cited and much more deadly hammer in the fist.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
As Thomas Jefferson said,"In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

From the Monticello Historical website

I don't take life advice from a man who fathered children with a woman he owned, but you know... I'm the one with questionable morality here.

Ah, you prescribe to many leftist myths.

Of course you have questionable morality, you want to remove the rights of your fellow citizens to own something you have demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of.

Seems I'm not the only one, but I digress.

www.monticello.org...

I'm more partial to the adage, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” I think there is a little wiggle room for the oft cited and much more deadly hammer in the fist.

LOL. Given your "academic research" in the other thread, you have a pattern of not reading your own references thoroughly, only stopping at points you think support your preconceived views. From the link you provided:

Text

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.

But that's off topic.

Yes, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose but, and this is where you are confused, "swinging my fist" is an action. Me simply owning a fist does not hurt your nose in any way, shape, or form. It is the action of the fist owner that determines if your nose is threatened, not the object so your own metaphor actually supports my position--that it is the misuse of the user, not the object, that is the issue. Would you cut off my fist because I might swing it at your nose? Would you cut off my fist because somebody else swung at your nose once? These are not logical stances.

Most of these responses are pathetic, especially considering the tragedy that occurred.

With anything that is potentially deadly, there are always accidents. A dad accidentally backs over and kills his child in his driveway while leaving is a tragic accident, but an accident nonetheless.

Yes, most accidents can be avoided, and for one, I used this sad story to remind my wife that, when she obtains my Christmas present to her (enrollment in a CCDW course), a purse is absolutely NOT the place to keep her firearm, and certainly don't leave it in there without a holster and without the safety on.

But this was a tragic accident, and nothing more. It's not fodder to promote an agenda either way, and I wish that many of you could just f***ing jetison your ideological rantings during moments like this and just show a little sympathy and empathy. Quit acting like the politicians that we all generally dispise.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
how unfortunate. bet the kid is traumatized.

At 2 years, thankfully he probably doesn't realise what has happened. Hopefully, it will be kept from him as a kid so not to cause him mental problems as he grows.

Wonder why she didn't have the safety on the gun?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
As Thomas Jefferson said,"In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

From the Monticello Historical website

I don't take life advice from a man who fathered children with a woman he owned, but you know... I'm the one with questionable morality here.

Ah, you prescribe to many leftist myths.

Of course you have questionable morality, you want to remove the rights of your fellow citizens to own something you have demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of.

Seems I'm not the only one, but I digress.

www.monticello.org...

I'm more partial to the adage, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” I think there is a little wiggle room for the oft cited and much more deadly hammer in the fist.

LOL. Given your "academic research" in the other thread, you have a pattern of not reading your own references thoroughly, only stopping at points you think support your preconceived views. From the link you provided:

Text

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.

But that's off topic.

Yes, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose but, and this is where you are confused, "swinging my fist" is an action. Me simply owning a fist does not hurt your nose in any way, shape, or form. It is the action of the fist owner that determines if your nose is threatened, not the object so your own metaphor actually supports my position--that it is the misuse of the user, not the object, that is the issue. Would you cut off my fist because I might swing it at your nose? Would you cut off my fist because somebody else swung at your nose once? These are not logical stances.

Yes, and shooting a gun is an action. You seem to be under the continued mistaken impression that I want to ban guns instead of restricting their use.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
As Thomas Jefferson said,"In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

From the Monticello Historical website

I don't take life advice from a man who fathered children with a woman he owned, but you know... I'm the one with questionable morality here.

Ah, you prescribe to many leftist myths.

Of course you have questionable morality, you want to remove the rights of your fellow citizens to own something you have demonstrated complete lack of knowledge of.

Seems I'm not the only one, but I digress.

www.monticello.org...

I'm more partial to the adage, “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” I think there is a little wiggle room for the oft cited and much more deadly hammer in the fist.

LOL. Given your "academic research" in the other thread, you have a pattern of not reading your own references thoroughly, only stopping at points you think support your preconceived views. From the link you provided:

Text

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.

But that's off topic.

Yes, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose but, and this is where you are confused, "swinging my fist" is an action. Me simply owning a fist does not hurt your nose in any way, shape, or form. It is the action of the fist owner that determines if your nose is threatened, not the object so your own metaphor actually supports my position--that it is the misuse of the user, not the object, that is the issue. Would you cut off my fist because I might swing it at your nose? Would you cut off my fist because somebody else swung at your nose once? These are not logical stances.

Yes, and shooting a gun is an action. You seem to be under the continued mistaken impression that I want to ban guns instead of restricting their use.

Define "restrict their use."

originally posted by: swanne


Why was she carrying an unsecured loaded weapon in her bag in a shopping area?

Killed by the thing supposed to protect her.

Hm. It almost seems as if weaponizing the public is the best way for the public to achieve autodestruction... I wonder if TPTB has already thought about this...

Guns never solved nothing.

Poor lady.

There were 243,475 deaths by car accidents in Indonesia alone in 2011.

One death in Walmart from an accidentally discharged gun.

Maybe try actually applying context, logic, and reason, then thinking through your thoughts before coming to knee-jerk conclusions that are non-sensical.

a reply to: NavyDoc

"Define "restrict their use." " For one, keep weapons and bullets separate when children are around. My grandfather who trained me with a shotgun, born in 1898, that was his number one rule.
She had 3 nieces with her also, all under the age of 11.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: NavyDoc

"Define "restrict their use." " For one, keep weapons and bullets separate when children are around. My grandfather who trained me with a shotgun, born in 1898, that was his number one rule.
She had 3 nieces with her also, all under the age of 11.

And everyone here has already agreed that this lady failed by negligently allowing her toddler access and child access laws are already on the books in very state in the nation.

One cannot legislate away irresponsibility with more laws when access laws are already on the books. By law, every new handgun comes with a trigger lock and in every state it is unlawful to leave a firearm where it can be accessed by children when not in use. What further restrictions does one want? Have a cop come into everybody's house to make sure that they are in compliance with the safe storage rules?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
One cannot legislate away irresponsibility with more laws when access laws are already on the books.

Well, that's wrong.

If gun manufacturers where held responsible for the "misuses" of their consumer products, like other manufacturers are, we would most assuredly see a dip in gun production, sale, and distribution in this country.

a reply to: DrJunk

Have you ever seen someone 'hold responsible' a kitchen knife manufacturer when a person stabs another to death with one?

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
One cannot legislate away irresponsibility with more laws when access laws are already on the books.

Well, that's wrong.

If gun manufacturers where held responsible for the "misuses" of their consumer products, like other manufacturers are, we would most assuredly see a dip in gun production, sale, and distribution in this country.

Now that is just nonsensical. No other manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible for deliberate misuse of their products. I can't sue Ford because you chose to drive drunk and hit me.

You do want to ban guns, you just think suing them away a clever end run against the law, just like Bloomberg.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
One cannot legislate away irresponsibility with more laws when access laws are already on the books.

Well, that's wrong.

If gun manufacturers where held responsible for the "misuses" of their consumer products, like other manufacturers are, we would most assuredly see a dip in gun production, sale, and distribution in this country.

Nice example of the famous "rectal extraction" formation of an argument, followed by a completely non-sensical conclusion.

Based on your um.... logic.... we'd see an even steeper decrease in the production of cars and alcohol. I can almost see Utopia from here.

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
One cannot legislate away irresponsibility with more laws when access laws are already on the books.

Well, that's wrong.

If gun manufacturers where held responsible for the "misuses" of their consumer products, like other manufacturers are, we would most assuredly see a dip in gun production, sale, and distribution in this country.

That's not factual nor logical. Hell, you could kill the right(or wrong depending on how you look at it) person with a chocolate bar with nut products in them. Would that make Hershey responsible?

a reply to: intrepid

A chocolate bar is not produced with the single purpose of wounding or killing anyone. A gun is.

Very big difference.

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: intrepid

A chocolate bar is not produced with the single purpose of wounding or killing anyone. A gun is.

And neither are firearms(hunting) as I pointed out yesterday. Why is that so hard to understand?

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: intrepid

A chocolate bar is not produced with the single purpose of wounding or killing anyone. A gun is.

Very big difference.

It is for those with nut allergies.

But if you want to continue this line of discussion, please give us examples of manufacturers whom have taken responsibility for the misuse of their products.

Even just one.

I think this is just another reason now why I think that if you're going to carry a gun on you as a conceal and carry, you should have it in a holster or something. As a female, I know that handbags get pretty jumbled. What would have happened if she bumped the wrong thing and it pulled the trigger? Or if she was in her car and she reached into her bag for her keys but maybe hit something and blew her face off? Your purse is the place of pepper spray or a taser. Not a gun.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Well, I hope this family can afford counseling for the children who saw the whole thing happen. Idaho does not have social programs for the mentally ill. Of course, they will probably sue Wal Mart.