Home - List All Discussions

4 yr old girl shot herself :(

Little girl grabs a gun out of grandma's purse and shoots herself

by: Beprolifewithme

I know this doesn't really relate to pro-life topics, but I'm sure this family could use our prayers!
By KATRINA A. GOGGINS, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jun 9, 9:24 PM ET

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A 4-year-old girl shot herself in the chest Monday after snatching her grandmother's handgun from the woman's purse while riding in a shopping cart at a Sam's Club store, authorities said.


A witness, Lueen Homewood, said store workers grabbed first-aid materials off store shelves to help the grandmother as she cradled the wounded child near the store's pharmacy, The (Columbia) State newspaper reported on its Web site.
The girl was rushed to a hospital in critical condition and was recovering Monday afternoon after surgery, said police department spokesman Brick Lewis. Hospital officials would not release her condition after the operation.
Lewis said the grandmother, Donna Hutto Williamson, has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and the purse containing the small-caliber handgun was in the cart near the child. The 47-year-old Williamson, of Salley, was not immediately charged with a crime.
Williamson, a South Carolina magistrate, was distraught after the shooting, her mother-in-law said.
"The grandmother is just beating herself up," said Inease Williamson, 68. "She is just so upset. Everyone is upset."
Officials said the shooting, which was captured on store surveillance cameras, appeared to be accidental. Lewis said police would not release the video.
The store was closed while police investigated the shooting. It reopened Monday afternoon.
"Everyone at Sam's Club is deeply saddened by today's tragedy," Tara Stewart, state spokeswoman for Wal-Mart and Sam's Club, said in a statement. "Our thoughts and prayers are with the little girl and her family."
Concealed weapons permit holders in South Carolina are not allowed to carry weapons into buildings that prohibit it, or into government buildings, schools and daycare facilities, among other places.
The Sam's Club store does not have a sign prohibiting guns inside.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_re_us/sam_s_club_child_shot

reply from: LolitaOlivia

What sort of sick-***** keeps a gun in her purse? Hell, what sort of sick-***** keeps a gin anywhere a child could get to it, especially if it's loaded? This woman belongs in prison.

reply from: cracrat

What sort of a sick country allows almost any idiot to walk into a shop and buy a tool designed primarily to kill things...

reply from: nancyu

Can't you see how upset she is?! You are all so hateful, she will have to live with this for the rest of her life!
But seriously, I believe in the right to bear arms, but this was incredibly irresponsible. "Beating herself up" is the least she could do.

reply from: xnavy

the right to bear arms is in our constitution of the usa and i also believe in it as well, but i also believe people should be held accountable
when the gun is used like this. i have kids and i don't own a gun but my parents own them and they keep them out of the range of the children.

reply from: NoelleNostalgia

Maybe if the world wasn't full of people who will happily kill you for something as worthless as a pair of shoes, she wouldn't have felt the need to carry a gun.

reply from: carolemarie

All that speculation is pointless....I am sure she never thought such a tragdy could happen. I agree that she needs prayer, this whole familyl needs prayer...what a horrible thing to happen...
Lord, I just lift up this family to you who is dealing with incredible pain and guilt and grief. I just ask that you bring your presence into their agony and help them walk through this anguish. In the name of Jesus I pray this.
Amen.

reply from: cracrat

Jolly good. Slavery was allowed in the original draft but I think we can all agree that that was a bit of a mistake. Why should a person be allowed to carry a firearm? A tool that can serve no other purpose but to kill and/or maim.

reply from: carolemarie

They also serve to protect. Why should criminals be the only ones who have guns? The right to bear arms keeps all of us free from those who would enslave us.
I am a member of NRA, but I don't own a gun, but I am safer because so many other people do....

reply from: Banned Member

This is a terrible accident, but probably an avoidable one. Certainly the family deserves our prayers and we hope that the little girl will be okay. I however, do not oppose gun ownership, nor defending oneself from crime with a gun. I had a friend whose grandmother thwarted an abduction by carrying just such a gun. She pulled out her pistol and the guy ran like the *****ens. So yeah, guns work. Sometimes, they don't even have to loaded to work.
Frankly, more kids are hurt in shopping carts by parents that are stupid enough to allow their kids to ride on the bottom of the cart than will ever be by guns.
I support the Second Amendment.

reply from: sk1bianca

it was indeed very irresponsible to leave the gun so close to the child. but i agree to the roght to bear arms. there's no such thing in my country, unless you're a registrated hunter or a policeman, or military or something like that. anyway you have to go thru many papres and tests and stuff like that to be allowed to have a gun.
i would buy a gun. i don't know if i would carry it in my purse, but i certainly carry a knife with me every day, especially if i come home after dark. there're many dangerous creeps on the streets.

reply from: sander

This is odd, coming from a woman who has contended that it is justifiable to starve your child to death simply to avoid allowing it to take your nipple in it's mouth and suckle....So, a woman should be imprisoned for leaving a gun within reach of a child, but not for starving the child to death?
Massively, excellent point!

reply from: sander

I've witnessed the stupidity of leaving a child in the cart and falling to the concrete floor! What a horrible scene. Yes, accidents do happen and most can be avoided. I agree this child and family needs our prayers.
I support the second amendment too, the last thing we need or should want is just the military and police having the guns.
The founding fathers understood that principle.

reply from: jujujellybean

Geez, bet ol' Lol couldn't answer that. She doesn't agree with a person keeping a gun, and when the whole incident HAPPENED to be an accident, yet if someone decides they are purposefully going to kill their child, heck, go ahead! Sheesh. Are you going to answer Lol?

reply from: cracrat

Funny that. Apparently 15000+ kids killed or maimed every year is an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms. Tell me, pro-life "I do it for the kids" peeps, how many children dying each year would it take to convince you that perhaps gun control would be a good idea?

reply from: cracrat

In this country, someone getting shot is still front page news. Two or three people getting shot in quick order brings very loud calls for the govt./police to do something. Do you Americans even hear about these crimes outside of the local news?

reply from: cracrat

Since you ask, absolutely nothing.

reply from: sander

Agreed. Only idiots think everybody has the right to own a gun - people new zealand and australia do not have this right. And they have very few instances of ppl being shot - in new zealand the police don't even have guns, they don't need them.
Coincidence? I think not.
Only idiots think the government should be the ones who have the guns.
Read the constitution and some federalist papers and find out why.

reply from: cracrat

I had this explained to me once. Apparently at the end of the C18th in England, only the upper classes and the Army were allowed to carry guns. Therefore if the common folk wanted to rise up against their oppressors, their jobs would be that much harder. The Founding Fathers figured that if everyone on the street at least had the option to be armed, it would act as another check on government excess.
Which is all well and good, except that 15000+ kids, KIDS, are getting killed or maimed every year so that you lot can maintain the option of armed rebellion if enough of you decide that the President/Senate has gone too far. Consider the emotion that surrounds abortion. Consider the 4000 babies a day being killed with the governments apparent blessing. Consider the crime against humanity this represents. If this doesn't constitute a catalyst for armed rebellion against those who mean to rule you, what does? How grievous would the crime have to be for you to take up this option?

reply from: galen

i am against the second ammendment as it is now in practice...while i personally am nonviolent i belive the right to bear arms is trumped by the right to keep children safe... ie if you have a child near you your right to bear arms should be severely restricted... obviously this bit of common sense was not in practice in this case.
My heart goes out to this family and i agree that whatever punishment someone may think is fit... this woman will punish herself for far longer than society ever could.
i will pray for the child, her grandmother and all involved.

reply from: Beprolifewithme

Vexing did you miss that part?

reply from: jujujellybean

Since the pro choicers use this argument so often:
'you don't care at all about born children!' We are proving you wrong. We are for all life, and are mourning an innocent child's death. Put a sock in it.

reply from: jujujellybean

Cool; I'll start making threads about Pokemon and Yachting then.
Go ahead. They will be deleted. Waste your time on it, no one cares.

reply from: jujujellybean

NO U!
Good job responding to the one part of my message that didn't matter. You avoid facts like cats and water.

reply from: Skippy

Those statistics have been thoroughly debunked. Their definition of "child" was age 25 and under. After you subtract out all the gang-banger on gang-banger violence, and the suicides, you're left with a relatively small number of deaths. Each one is a tragedy, of course. But the solution isn't to disarm the populace in violation of the Constitution.
Now on to the actual facts of this case. Grandma was a Magistrate. Because of that, she had received threats multiple times. It wasn't irresponsible of her to arm herself in response to that. What she did that was irresponsible is not carrying her gun on her person rather than in her purse.
Finally, to sum up the Second Amendment for the anti-gun zealots: The first line of defense against government oppression is the ballot box. The last line of defense against government oppression is an armed citizenry.
For those of you who don't live here, I don't care what your country does. And you really shouldn't care what mine does either. If you think our gun laws suck, don't visit.

reply from: Banned Member

Why are people that think 4000 deaths from so-called gun accidents is horrible not outraged about 1.5 million abortions per year?

reply from: carolemarie

Those statistics have been thoroughly debunked. Their definition of "child" was age 25 and under. After you subtract out all the gang-banger on gang-banger violence, and the suicides, you're left with a relatively small number of deaths. Each one is a tragedy, of course. But the solution isn't to disarm the populace in violation of the Constitution.
Now on to the actual facts of this case. Grandma was a Magistrate. Because of that, she had received threats multiple times. It wasn't irresponsible of her to arm herself in response to that. What she did that was irresponsible is not carrying her gun on her person rather than in her purse.
Finally, to sum up the Second Amendment for the anti-gun zealots: The first line of defense against government oppression is the ballot box. The last line of defense against government oppression is an armed citizenry.
For those of you who don't live here, I don't care what your country does. And you really shouldn't care what mine does either. If you think our gun laws suck, don't visit.
Skippy is completely right on this.

reply from: AshMarie88

This was a tragic accident and I agree the grandma should have never had her gun with her, or at least that easily accessible.
HOWEVER... this does NOT mean that guns can't be good and that they should be taken away.
Where are all you gun protesters when innocent people are being murdered by KNIVES, CARS, ROPES, even HUMAN HANDS? Do you not care about those victims? Perhaps we should ban those things too... They kill people...

reply from: cracrat

C-rat, you do realize most of those kids weren't "innocent victims," right? The numbers are largely inflated due to gang activity. Most of those kids were shot by other kids, and the ones who were killed may very well have shot first....
I don't much care what they've done or not done, they are dying or ending up in hospital and no child deserves to go through that. If guns were not so easy to get hold of, what do you think would happen to the level of gang violence?

reply from: cracrat

I am very proud of the fact that I have never committed an act of violence in anger, only self-defense. Were I to go to South Central LA (don't think that'll happen any time soon as I'm boycotting the US at the minute in protest of Bush's foreign policy - I did write to him to tell him but I guess the letter got lost in the post), I would like to think that I will maintain that, which would include not arming myself for tourism.
There are parts of the city I grew up in that people will tell you are ravaged with gang violence, never had a problem there. Pubs that people would tell you you'd not get out of alive if you're white, had a fine chat with the landlord on one occassion. Things are rarely as bad as the media or gossip-mongers like to make out. Have you ever been to South Central and seen armageddon for yourself? Have you seen with your own two eyes the running gun battle and drive-by shootings? Unless the answers to these questions are yes, you'll have to forgive me taking your assertions with a grain of salt.

reply from: cracrat

What good can a gun possibly do?
Knives, cars, ropes can all kill people, but at least that is not their primary purpose. I would support any action or regulation that I thought would help reduce the pain and suffering caused by these items. I do care about these victims and would like to see their suffering stopped, but there is only so much I can do.

reply from: cracrat

Perhaps if you and a few more of your fellow countrymen and women climbed out of your little insular box, America might not be considered such a villain in so many parts of the world.

reply from: Skippy

Perhaps if you and a few more of your fellow countrymen and women climbed out of your little insular box, America might not be considered such a villain in so many parts of the world.
Frankly, I don't give a flying fork what the rest of the world thinks of us. And I believe we should be MORE insular, not less, because we're basically damned if we do and damned if we don't.
"America shouldn't have gone into Iraq!" You're probably right. We should have left those ungrateful bassturds to be wholesale slaughtered by Saddam until the end of time.
"America should have done more about the genocide in Rwanda in the 90s!" Yes, because sending in a few thousand troops is going to undo centuries of tribalist warlords in Africa killing each other.
Screw 'em. I say we bring all the troops home, from every corner of the world, and use them to protect our borders and harbors.

reply from: ZacTheMan

NO U!
Good job responding to the one part of my message that didn't matter. You avoid facts like cats and water.
My cat loves water. And getting vacummed. And getting its tail pulled. I have a wierd cat. Very wierd. I think it might be an alien.

reply from: xnavy

i have to agree with skippy on this, i don't care how the rest of the world feels about the us. we rebuilt alot of the rest of the
world after wwii. i agree with skippy on iraq ,saddam was killing and torturing his own people.

reply from: AshMarie88

What good can a gun possibly do?
Knives, cars, ropes can all kill people, but at least that is not their primary purpose. I would support any action or regulation that I thought would help reduce the pain and suffering caused by these items. I do care about these victims and would like to see their suffering stopped, but there is only so much I can do.
Guns are NOT the cause for murder. CRAZY PEOPLE who have them are. Don't give guns to crazy people who will murder people!
Every day millions of peaceful gun owners do NOT kill people. And you wanna take away their guns from them going against the 2nd amendment?

reply from: cracrat

Hundreds of people a week end up in American hospitals with gunshot wounds. Some are the result of crime of one sort or another but the vast majority are there because of a gun accidently going off, they were mistaken for an intruder, they were involved in an argument which got rather heated and there was a firearm to hand or something equally stupid and trivial. You are right in that millions of people have owned a gun/guns for many years without any bother or anything unfortunate happening to them and theirs. But you can't argue with the fact that you guys measure your gun crime rate in the tens of thousands of incident per year and we measure ours in dozens. Every one of those incidents is somebody dying or coming too close to death for comfort, yet you seem unmoved by this.
The second amendment can be read as the right of the citizenry to bear arms, or it can be read as the right of the states to hold a militia, ie the National Guard. Just as nancy keeps banging on about abortion being illegal because the constitution covers persons and the unborn are, in fact, persons. Depends on you point of view.

reply from: AshMarie88

I have to go to work now so I don't have time to argue with dumb people, but when I get back I'll post some good stuff.

reply from: cracrat

America, a the worlds only superpower (for the time being), has a responsibility to the world to help bring peace, stability and all the other trappings of modern civilisation. I really hope that you and skippy are not representative of Americans in general with your blithe, self-centred dismissal of this responsibility.
Well you rebuilt Europe, and we paid you handsomly for it. The Marshall Plan was a loan, not a gift with a big pink bow. Besides which, that was entirely in your interest to counter the growing Soviet threat.
Iraq was never about saving the Iraqi people, otherwise we'd have gone in after Gulf War 1 when the Kurds started their little rebellion. As it was, we shamefully abandoned them to their fate.

reply from: cracrat

Have a good day then dear. I'm looking forward to this.

reply from: Skippy

Well, that burning question will be answered soon enough. The Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is expected to be handed down at the end of this month.
And I fully expect them to get it right, in a 5-4 decision.

reply from: cracrat

Well first things first get rid of all the bullet shops. Then get rid of all the gun shops. I suspect that would get rid of quite a lot of the guns on the streets. Secondly, legalise or decriminalise all the drugs which they're fighting over. If there is no money to fight for, the fighting will decrease. 95% of all gun crime in London is drugs trade related. Tkae away the illegal drug trade, take away the associated gun crime. Thirdly get more police on the streets. I don't know about you guys, but for me it's unusual to see more that 2 or 3 cops on the beat on any given day and I live about half a mile from a police station. Try those and let me know what happens to the gun crime rate.

reply from: cracrat

I am aware of the reputation of South Central LA (we do have rap music here), I just don't believe that I would be tht likely to end up shot were I to go for a bit of a walk about there. That you spent some time running with such hooligans puts you in a position to offer more of a solution to these problems beyond "Arm everybody".

reply from: cracrat

If one has a gun, one is far more likely to use it. The threat of being shot by a passer-by doesn't particularly seem to impact on your crime rate. How effective do you actually think it is?
There is a big media hoohaa about knife crime at the moment (though the stats haven't really changed in 20 years). So the govt. is taking steps against it. Tighter controls on who can buy a knife and of what type, harsher sentances for those caught, lowering of the age at which a custodial sentence can be imposed, more police in vulnerable areas, tighter controls in 'problem' schools, ad campaigns showing the effects of knife crime.
There were 5 incidents of shootings in schools in February this year alone. Exactly what, if anything, has been changed to try and stop this happening again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm
">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3419401.stm
Yeah, sing it, brother....
That story is from over 4 years ago, brother. Home Office statistic show that in the last 5 years violent crime has fallen by 22%, brother.

reply from: cracrat

Why thank-you. Proper respect from you colonials is always appreciated.

reply from: cracrat

Yes, there are roving gangs of people every night who wouldn't look out of place in a Hollywood lynch mob. Oh no, wait, I've lived here for more than 25 years and have never seen someone armed with a bottle, bat, club or anything else. Hell, I had to go to Morocco before I'd even seen a gun or been threatened with a knife (not fun, I don't recommend it).

reply from: cracrat

You haven't the slightest clue what I think of you (Americans), and I would have expected you (CP) to be one of the last on this board to make such presumptions.

reply from: cracrat

I assure you I have. The vast majority of drug users maintain a perfectly 'normal' lifestyle for many years. Those unfortunate few who find themselves in a situation where the drugs have got on top of them need medical help, not penal rehabilitation.
I'm not so foolish as to think banning guns would make them all go away (just as you concede banning abortion won't make all of them go away), but it will reduce the number of guns enormously. It would also eliminate all those tragic accidents, such as the one that started this thread.

reply from: cracrat

Since I live about 5000 miles from LA and have no intention of moving there any time soon, it really is an academic problem from my perspective. Which isn't to say I don't want to try a help solve the problem, but seriously, what can I do?

reply from: cracrat

Of course we have problems. Mostly because I'm not in charge...

reply from: cracrat

I'm implying nothing. I do think your way is flawed, but the mass of social problems here makes it very clear that we've not got it figured out yet either. The comparissons I draw between our two countries on certain issues are fair(ish) because of the similarities in our culture. Comparing America to North Korea wouldn't be fair because of the huge cultural differences.

reply from: MC3

This idea that guns are the cause of America's crime problem is nonsense. Let's not forget that there was a time in this nation's history when even very young boys openly carried rifles with them to school. This was considered wise given that they might be called on to protect themselves or their siblings from wild animals during their trips to and from school. In fact, you can even find old photographs of one-room Texas schoolhouses with rifles stacked up by the entrance. But what you cannot find is a history of school shootings or similar violence during this period.
That's because the problem is not what people carry in their hands but what they carry in their hearts. And anyone who thinks that problem hasn't gotten exponentially worse since we legalized the slaughter of the unborn has not been paying attention for the last 35 years.
The reality is, only an idiot would suggest that society can permit its citizens to legally execute - at whim - an entire category of human beings, but then expect those same citizens to have respect for all other categories of human beings.
Maybe Michael Savage is right when he says that modern liberalism is a mental disorder.

reply from: cracrat

No, but I find your suggestion that we just substitute guns for things we find in the shed and continue otherwise the same a bit silly. If someone is going to commit a crime for which they need a weapon they will find a weapon. If some four year old British kid is going through her gran's handbag, she's unlikely to find a broken bottle that gran carries 'Just in case'.

reply from: jujujellybean

NO U!
Good job responding to the one part of my message that didn't matter. You avoid facts like cats and water.
Bumpity bump bump for Vexing.....

reply from: jujujellybean

Geez, bet ol' Lol couldn't answer that. She doesn't agree with a person keeping a gun, and when the whole incident HAPPENED to be an accident, yet if someone decides they are purposefully going to kill their child, heck, go ahead! Sheesh. Are you going to answer Lol?
Bump for Ms. LOL......lets take a vote: who says that LOL won't touch this with a ten foot pole? I do!

reply from: cracrat

Some. I have a fairly low opinion of them.
I hadn't heard of Kennesaw, Georgia. But I have now, I just looked it up. It appears to me that burgulary statistics didn't change all that much in the years preceeding and following the ordinance.
Apparently Morton Grove, Illinois banned gun ownership at about the same time and saw a reduction in the burglurary rate. Go figure.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/kennesaw_gun_ordinance_yet_aga.php

reply from: cracrat

I would far rather find myself in a situation with one gun than two guns. Think about it, it automatically halves your chance of getting shot.

reply from: cracrat

And you think the average grandmother in the states is "packing?" Who's really being silly here?
Well apparently this one was. I have no idea who carries a gun or who just has one at home, who has one for protection or who has one for sport. The point is that all sorts of people have them and there appears to be little control over who. If I came to your house, your owning one probably wouldn't concern me that much because you seem like a sensible person. The fact that everyone in Kennesaw does own a gun concerns me enough to never want to go there.

reply from: nancyu

Cracrat, why are you for banning guns, but not abortion? Makes no sense. Banning abortion will drastically reduce the number of abortions, too, yet you are opposed to this.
Your viewpoint doesn't seem very consistent here.

reply from: cracrat

I said drugs users, not dealers. Dealers are a product of prohibition and would go away as soon as laws become based on harm reduction not political expediency.
I posted the link. I don't know how to put graphics into a post and I can't post a link to the actual Criminology paper since you'd need a subscription to view it.
According to UN Office on Drugs and Crime, in 2000 Switzerland had 0.56 gun homocides per 100,000 population which is more than 4 times the UK rate (0.12 per 100,000).
I am unaware of a country that has completely banned guns.

reply from: cracrat

Armed or unarmed, if someone points a gun at me I do exactly as they tell me.

reply from: cracrat

You're right, it's not. I shall have to think on this.

reply from: yoda

Cracrat, why are you for banning guns, but not abortion? Makes no sense. Banning abortion will drastically reduce the number of abortions, too, yet you are opposed to this.
Your viewpoint doesn't seem very consistent here.
Apparently, reducing gun accidents is of more concern to him than reducing intentional abortions. "Priorities", ya know?

reply from: cracrat

Not if the legitamate dealers are licensed and regulated in a similar fashion to alcohol and ciarette shops (though I wouldn't recommend any old corner shop selling such things). If the sources of funding for such gangs are eliminated, the gangs lose their power. Without power, they are unattractive to young people who would otherwise join them and so they fade away.
I don't know if this will work, but it the paper that that forum discusses:
http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/crim29&id=1&size=2&collection=journals&index=journals/crim
">http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page...x=journals/crim
page 541
Unfortunately I can't copy and paste things from it. It doesn't vindicate my point of view, but isn't too complimentary to yours.
OK, I'll concede that one. The homocide rate (same year, same source) in the UK is 0.05 per 100,000 higher than Switzerland.
Except in order to see the effect of banning guns, there must be a body of data on such crimes before the ban, say 10 years worth, and a comparable body of data after such a ban. Until such data has been collected, which is somewhat reliant on a country banning guns, this discussion will be largely inconclusive.

reply from: cracrat

I'd make my peace with God, kick him in the knackers and run my little ass off!

reply from: cracrat

Cracrat, why are you for banning guns, but not abortion? Makes no sense. Banning abortion will drastically reduce the number of abortions, too, yet you are opposed to this.
Your viewpoint doesn't seem very consistent here.
Apparently, reducing gun accidents is of more concern to him than reducing intentional abortions. "Priorities", ya know?
Yes, yes old man. Since you've got both sides of this discussion on ignore, I don't think you're really in a position to tender comment.

reply from: cracrat

Ok, I'll try again. The lucrative nature of the drugs trade, or indeed any other black market, stems from the illicit nature. The consumer is, in effect, paying someon else to take the risks of penal censure. If the risk of penal censure is removed, then the trade become less profitable to the point of being not worth the risks for the money earned. If a person were able to go to a shop of some kind to purchase their recreational drugs, why would they go to a dealer? That source of income for the gang is removed. The same can be applied to pretty much all income sources for such gangs. This, coupled with the millions of police man hours that would be freed up, would, I believe, result in the crippling, if not dissolution, of organised crime as it is recognised today.
You contend that if drugs were removed as a source of income, illegally run guns could replace them. Given that gangs use guns to protect their 'patch', if the patch is worth nothing, why defend it? I don't think running guns to have guns to protect your gun running is a business model many gangs will take up
I tried the link from the discussion page and came up against a login screen but then it turned out I can get it through my university library. It's quite a dry read, so you're not missing too much. The people who wrote it are criminology academics, so I'm inclined to listen to their conclusions given my lack of expertise in the area. They conclude that whilst mandatory gun ownership as a crime deterent is an interesting theory, in studying the examples put forward at that time, there was no conclusive evidence to support that. If you dismiss out of hand the conclusions of presumably respected academics (one does not become a professor if considerd a crackpot), what evidence would you consider?
Yes I suppose they are, but the logic is sound. If there are fewer guns around, there will be fewer accidents. Just as if there are fewer nuclear weapons in the world, it is less likely that there'll be an accident. Or if there are fewer doctors willing to provide abortion, there will be fewer abortions. If demand is untacklable, restricting supply is a valid means of affecting change.

reply from: cracrat

If he points a gun at me and demands my wallet, I give him my wallet. If he makes it clear he intends to execute me, I have nothing to lose in trying to get away.
There was an example in London a few months ago where a fellow got stabbed to death on his doorstep, in front of his fiance, by some punk who wanted his wallet. He decided he wasn't going to take that crap and stood up to him, a have-a-go hero that ended in tragedy. If people have guns they feel more secure and more inclined to follow this example. Sure some will get the drop on the bad guy and get their picture in the paper. I imagine a whole lot more would hesitate when they actually point that gun at another human being and end up in hospital or on a slab.

reply from: AshMarie88

http://attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense - give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.
Gun control means using both hands!
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
If you want to ban guns that kill people, ban knives, saws, rope, and poison that also kill people!

reply from: AshMarie88

And, the other 26 reasons:
http://www.usiap.org/Constitutional%20Principles/Principles.htm

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a
subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the
phone.
3. Colt; The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about
control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause
misspelled words.
7. "Free" men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have
any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have
neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All
Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you
not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the
politicians ignore the
others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one
yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and
politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns,
no peace, no safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay
alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their
jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its
citizens tries to control
them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to
fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't
make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms,
you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have
happened with gun control.
26. "..A government of the people, by the people,
for the people..."

reply from: carolemarie

That was a great list Ash Marie! Thanks for posting it. I say me too......

reply from: nancyu

me three. I agree. Gun ownership should be permitted. Killing babies should not.

reply from: galen

-------------------------------------
here is a lyric for you...
Old pirates, yes, they rob I;
Sold I to the merchant ships,
Minutes after they took I
From the bottomless pit.
But my hand was made strong
By the 'and of the Almighty.
We forward in this generation
Triumphantly.
Won't you help to sing
Another song of freedom? -
'Cause all I ever have:
Redemption songs;
Redemption songs.
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
'Cause none of them can stop the time.
How long shall they kill our prophets,
While we stand aside and look? Ooh!
Some say it's just a part of it:
We've got to fulfil de book.
[ Lyrics accessible from http://www.rare-lyrics.com ]
Won't you help to sing
These songs of freedom? -
'Cause all I ever have:
Redemption songs;
Redemption songs;
Redemption songs.
---
[Guitar break]
---
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our mind.
Wo! Have no fear for atomic energy,
'Cause none of them-a can-a stop-a the time.
How long shall they kill our prophets,
While we stand aside and look?
Yes, some say it's just a part of it:
We've got to fulfil de book.
Won't you help to sing
Dese songs of freedom? -
'Cause all I ever had:
Redemption songs -
All I ever had:
Redemption songs:
These songs of freedom,
Songs of freedom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnJgIq48C9k&feature=related

reply from: cracrat

Within reason. Look at your own example of alcohol prohibition. Make something in demand illegal and pretty much instantly a black market develops. Once prohibition was repealled, the gangs, speakeasies and all the other associated crime went away. I'm not so naive to think that the men and women involved didn't suddenly decide to get a job, house, mortgage and married, but I suspect their lives were made considerably harder as they tried to find other nefarious employment.
Outlawing a commodity, such as drugs, alcohol, paid for sex, simply gifts control of that commodity to people only interested in how much money they can extract from it. There will always be crime, but if the most profitable crimes are taken away from the criminals control, they lose money and therefore power and influence. I understand the Mexican govt. is currently learning the hard way that is doesn't have the power to take on the drug cartels. If the drugs they control were legal in the US and that source of income immediately denied to them, do you think they'd have as much power?
Of course, they chase the biggest profits for minimum effort. Risk isn't really a factor since the people at the top who ern the big bucks probably don't even see the shipment, let alone do anything as foolish as get indictably involved. But my contention is that is the most profitable crimes are removed from their repertoire, they will very quickly come to the limits of available influence. The FBI goes after big time drug smugglers and the like, local cops go after bank robbers which indicates their relative importance. If robbing banks were the biggest payday available to the criminals, how much influence do you think they'd be able to exert?
Yes you did. You pointed to Kennesaw (GA) as an example which demonstrated gun ownership reduced crime, which I demonstrated is at best debatable. My original assertion was that reducing gun ownership would reduce the incidence of horrible accidents. I do think it would also reduce the incidence of gun related crime, since the tools for spur of the moment crimes of passion would be removed. I know that a ban would have no effect on those criminals determined to carry out an armed hold-up, but it would stop people ending up in hospital shot by a lover in the heat of the moment, or kids ending up with holes in them because they found this 'grown-up toy' and decided to play, or depressed student who listen to too much Marilyn Manson (which is a nonsense reason but there we go) shooting up their school.
You seem to be asserting that those hundres or thousands of people dying every year in completely avoidable incidents is a price worth paying for you to be allowed to continue owning a firearm. What price would not be worth paying, as a society/nation? Would you change your tune if it were one of your daughters paying in blood?
That is as unprovable as my contention.
And where did they get these guns? Carefully smuggled in to deserted beach in the dead of night? Or stolen from law-abiding citizens and gun clubs? If the legal guns are taken out of circulation, there are fewer for the criminals to get their hands on. If there are millions of legal guns in homes across the land, and every criminal knows this, why are they going to go to the trouble of getting them from abroad? Why not just go and turn over the house three doors down when they're on holiday?

reply from: 4given

Agreed in Jesus Name. Amen. Bring them comfort and healing and strength Lord.

reply from: cracrat

concernedparent,
It's almost like you want to call me a stupid little child who deosn't understand how the world works, ergo my opinion isn't valid. Your line of thinking 'They've got guns, so we must have guns too' is exactly the sort that has led to every arms race in history and they don't tend to end well. It was only the MAD doctrine of the Cold War which prevented that from ending up as nuclear armageddon and I am glad I'm too young to remember much about it. The world, country, city or your street does not become a safer place by unendingly increasing the number of potentially lethal tools contained within. Only by reducing that number do we take any steps toward being able to live in peace and safety.
You're not a million miles off with your assessment of me, but you're not that close either. I've only ever tried cannabis once, many years ago and spent the rest of my evening talking to God on the big white telephone, never felt tempted to try anything else. I do know people who have taken drugs, and continue to take drugs. My firm belief is that problem drug use is indicative of other social malaise, not a malaise in itself. These people need our help, not chucking on a prison cell and left to rot and until drug abuse is recognised as a medical problem not a criminal one such help will continue to be piecemeal and ineffective.
If drugs were made legal and controlled they would be taken out of the hands whose only motivation is profit. Crack cocaine and heroin are two drugs that are so debilitatingly addictive they should never be made generally available, however rehabilitation programs centred around controlled and safe supply from medical professionals should be an available treatment option. Cannabis has shown itself to be highly effective in helping chemotherapy patients deal with the unpleasant side effects of such a regimen and also helping glaucoma patients with their syptoms. Psilocybin (magic mushrooms) have been shown to be effective in helping convicted felons realise the damage and hurt they have caused and thus better their rehabilitation. MDMA (ecstasy) has fantastic potential as an adjunct to psychotherapy and couples counselling, helping as it does people open up better to their therapist or loved one. LSD, with additional counselling, is a fabulously effective treatments for alcoholism. There is a drug related to MDMA (I can't remember the acronym right now, I'll look it up when I get home from work) which has shown superb efficacy in helping people get over opiate addiction. But all these drugs (and many more) are illegal so no research can be done without a license, but a license won't be granted without demonstration of medical benefit, with can't be demonstrated without research. Do you see the stupid circle? Do you understand the potential value of these substances that has been locked away because politicians want to scare people into voting for them? It is quite telling that generally drug laws are left alone during political good times, but tightened up during bad times or election years.
You don't appear to demonstrate a huge amount of concern for the people killed/injured in firearms accidents/incidents each year. If the assumption I drew (that you think your right to own a gun is worth those tragedies) is wrong then I apologise. I would not question any but the most barbaric acts of cruelty committed in the defense of loved ones. I don't have any children so can not speak as a parent, but I do have a girlfriend I'm crazy in love with and I do not know what I'd do to someone who threatened her life. My reference to your daughters was not to gauge what your response would be in defense of them, but if you would change your view if it were one of them who'd found your gun and got hurt? Or if they were round a friend's house and got similarly hurt? What if their school was the one that got shot up? Would you still consider your 'necessary' defense so necessary then?

reply from: cracrat

Yes dear, seemingly so.

reply from: cracrat

Perhaps I am quite naive about the 'real' world. I grew up in a nice suburb, dad had a good stable job, mum stayed home to raise the kids, good schools, university, never any trouble with the police, though quite a bit with school authorities when I was younger. All dreadfully middle-class really. I know there are people in the world who go through their entire lives not even being aware of the opporunities I've been given, but just because I have so much doesn't make my experiences of the world any less valid than yours. Perhaps when I'm your age and I have kids of my own etc. I'll understand better where you come from, but for now I hall have to struggle on with my endless optimism as to the nature of people and continue to trust that good begets good.
I can not condone what you did in any way, shape or form, though I do understand it. That trouble with school authorities? I nearly got expelled from school for knocking the ***** out of someone who beat up on my kid brother, so don't tell me I'd stand helplessly by whilst someone violated my love in that fashion. A gang of thugs? I imagine I'd end up dead or in hospital, but I would try with every fibre of my being to help her escape and be safe.
Yes. The first priority of the head of any household is to protect that house and its members and, within reason, they should be able to exert any necessary force to achieve that end. But a gun is too far. What do you consider too far? Clearly a pistol is acceptable, what about a double barrel shotgun? A pump action shotgun? An M16 assult rifle? ***** it, why not go all the way and set up a minigun on the porch?
Not offensive, disheartening. Disheartening that a clearly intelligent person doesn't see that guns result in violence and that violence will only beget greater violence. I apologise that my ivory tower, bourgeois do-gooder thoughts offend you, but they are what they are. I can not see them changing any time soon.
There are bad people in the world, but lowering ourselves to their level is not, IMO, the way to solve the problems they cause. More, better trained police, stronger communities, stronger locks on our doors and other such measures will defeat them, and with fewer innocent/stupid people getting caught up in the cross-fire.
And no, I can't imagine for a second that I'd blend in in South Central LA. I imagine I couldn't stick out more unless you painted me day-glow orange and stuck a sign on my head that said "NOT LOCAL". But I wouldn't walk there in fear until I had seen for myself what I should be afraid of.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics