Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Eldorado

Mom accidentally shot dead by her child

41 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

TigerBright19
41 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's true, but that phone call could take minutes for the police to respond and you could be dead in seconds.  That's the whole idea of owning a gun to protect your home.  What police mainly do while dealing with any kind of crime is show up after the fact and write a report.

How many people killed by an intruder in a country that has outlawed firearms do you think wish they had a gun?  I'm going to say all of them and most of their relatives as well.

How often does an intruder break into someone's house with the intention to kill?  If they know the home owner has a gun then the intruder would be far more likely to use force to subdue the home owner so that he does not use his gun.  Self preservation would be top on the assailant's mind.  In the UK the assailant rarely is armed with anything fatal because they know the risk to themselves is minimal as the home owner does not possess any weaponry.  The traditional response from an intruder would probably be to grab the owner and say "keep quiet, don't move and you won't get hurt" with no real intention to actually hurt the home owner, but surely in America if the assailant feels threatened with a gun or believes the home owner may have a gun then they would themselves be armed and they would be far more likely to use force to subdue the home owner out of fear that the home owner may subdue them or even kill them.  By taking guns out of the home there is significantly less danger of a tragic result.  If the home owner has lost property, then they can get the police to file a report and claim the insurance.  If the home owner's life was threatened, then they can set up CCTV cameras and put additional security measures in place (before or after the event).  There is usually a safe alternative to solve most problems.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
spartan max2
10 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

How often does an intruder break into someone's house with the intention to kill?  If they know the home owner has a gun then the intruder would be far more likely to use force to subdue the home owner so that he does not use his gun.  Self preservation would be top on the assailant's mind.  In the UK the assailant rarely is armed with anything fatal because they know the risk to themselves is minimal as the home owner does not possess any weaponry.  The traditional response from an intruder would probably be to grab the owner and say "keep quiet, don't move and you won't get hurt" with no real intention to actually hurt the home owner, but surely in America if the assailant feels threatened with a gun or believes the home owner may have a gun then they would themselves be armed and they would be far more likely to use force to subdue the home owner out of fear that the home owner may subdue them or even kill them.  By taking guns out of the home there is significantly less danger of a tragic result.  If the home owner has lost property, then they can get the police to file a report and claim the insurance.  If the home owner's life was threatened, then they can set up CCTV cameras and put additional security measures in place (before or after the event).  There is usually a safe alternative to most problems.

 

Dude robbers are opportunist. They are not going to rob a house that knowingly has guns and big dogs compared to a defenseless old lady lol.

They want easy prey. Not some movie heist. 

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TigerBright19
21 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Dude robbers are opportunist. They are not going to rob a house that knowingly has guns and big dogs compared to a defenseless old lady lol.

They want easy prey. Not some movie heist. 

 

But the point is the robber is not going into the old lady's home with the intention to kill.  Just to rob, and if the home owner was armed then the assailant would be far more likely to be armed as well to defend themselves and to instinctively use force because they fear the home owner may shoot to kill.  Taking guns out of the picture means he is less likely to be armed because he does not have to protect himself against the home owner.  It is true that guns or no guns, the house would still be targeted, but the chances of death and injury would be greatly reduced.  If that mother had not felt insecure and vulnerable, then she would not have needed a loaded gun in her purse and a semi-automatic on the bed.  Take away the bug that was making her feel insecure by increasing police presence, adding CCTV in the area, and better street lighting, and maybe she would have had less reason to arm herself.  What if an old school friend saw her and tapped her on the shoulder.  She could easily have pulled out her gun and instinctively fired the trigger without pause for thought.  Be like Britain and leave the guns to the authorities who are specially trained.  Got to have faith in the protection service.

 

Two choices (which is better)

- Arm the residents and defund the police.

- Disarm the residents and fund the police.

 

 

Edited by TigerBright19
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
5 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

But the point is the robber is not going into the old lady's home with the intention to kill.  Just to rob, and if the home owner was armed then the assailant would be far more likely to defend himself against the home owner by using force.  Surely that is inevitable.  Taking guns out of the picture means he is less likely to be armed because he does not have to protect himself against the home owner.  It is true that guns or no guns, the house would still be targeted, but the chances of death and injury would be greatly reduced.  If that mother had not felt insecure and vulnerable, then she would not have needed a loaded gun in her purse and a semi-automatic on the bed.  Take away the bug that is making her feel insecure by increasing police presence, adding CCTV in the area, and better street lighting, and maybe she would have had less reason to arm herself.  What if an old school friend saw her and tapped her on the shoulder.  She could easily have pulled out her gun and instinctively fired the trigger without pause for thought.  The risks of owning a gun are too high.  Leave it to the authorities who are specially trained.

 

 

She literally just needed to practice the bare minimum of gun safety and nonething would of happened.

The risk of owning a gun is statistically very low.

It's just out of 330 million people there are bound to be some accidents.

What does not end up going viral are the times that a gun is used to protect someone or as a deterrent. UM use to have a thread where people would post when the stories pop up.

Also, who the **** shoots someone who taps them on the shoulder? Lol. You really see guns as magically shooting people. Like that's not how it works. 

A robber is more likely to leave if they see someone with a gun. It's human nature. Like you said they are not there to fight.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

A CDC study.

 

Quote

The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

What would happen to all those people who used it for self defense if we took it away? Just leave it up to survival of the strongest? Sorry for woman and small men I guess.

And that's assuming you effectively keep the guns out of criminals hands too.

 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
13 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Two choices (which is better)

- Arm the residents and defund the police.

- Disarm the residents and fund the police

... Or allow people to arm for self defense and fund the police? Lol

It's not a binary choice. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TigerBright19
20 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

She literally just needed to practice the bare minimum of gun safety and nonething would of happened.

The risk of owning a gun is statistically very low.

It's just out of 330 million people there are bound to be some accidents.

What does not end up going viral are the times that a gun is used to protect someone or as a deterrent. UM use to have a thread where people would post when the stories pop up.

Also, who the **** shoots someone who taps them on the shoulder? Lol. You really see guns as magically shooting people. Like that's not how it works. 

A robber is more likely to leave if they see someone with a gun. It's human nature. Like you said they are not there to fight.

 

Yes, but she had a loaded gun in her purse which conveys the message that she was nervous about her surroundings and was ready to act.  Some people react very aggressive on impulse when a person creeps up behind them and makes them jump.  e.g.  A relative see's the woman and says hello.  The woman does not hear and she opens her purse at the cash machine to grab her card, and when the relative walks up and puts their hand on her shoulder or arm, she instinctively grabs the gun, turns around and fires by accident.

A robber would surely assume the home owner had a gun, even if it was just a toy gun used to scare assailants off.  A robber that was determined to commit their deeds would be prepared and would be more likely to use force against an opposing force.  Taking guns off the market would mean neither of them would be inclined to use deadly force.

Don't forget I'm basing this on a British viewpoint.  Most people have never seen a gun except at airport security.

 

 

Edited by TigerBright19
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
10 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Yes, but she had a loaded gun in her purse which conveys the message that she was nervous about her surroundings and was ready to act.  Some people react very aggressive on impulse when a person creeps up behind them and makes them jump.  e.g.  A relative see's the woman and says hello.  The woman does not hear and she opens her purse at the cash machine to grab her card, and when the relative walks up and puts their hand on her shoulder or arm, she instinctively grabs the gun, turns around and fires by accident.

A robber would surely assume the home owner had a gun, even if it was just a toy gun used to scare assailants off.  A robber that was determined to commit their deeds would be prepared and would be more likely to use force against an opposing force.  Taking guns off the market would mean neither of them would be inclined to use deadly force.

Don't forget I'm basing this on a British viewpoint.  The only time we ever see a gun is at airport security.  Most people have never seen one.

 

I mean we can both make up nightmare scenarios all day :ph34r:.

Taking her gun away would also mean that if the intruder is male he is guaranteed to be stronger than her and would be able to do whatever he wants to her.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

One in her purse and a semi-automatic on the bed!  Other western nations manage quite happily without them in the family home.

 

 

no, the semi automatic was in her purse until the kid found it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

How often does an intruder break into someone's house with the intention to kill?  If they know the home owner has a gun then the intruder would be far more likely to use force to subdue the home owner so that he does not use his gun.  Self preservation would be top on the assailant's mind.  In the UK the assailant rarely is armed with anything fatal because they know the risk to themselves is minimal as the home owner does not possess any weaponry.  The traditional response from an intruder would probably be to grab the owner and say "keep quiet, don't move and you won't get hurt" with no real intention to actually hurt the home owner, but surely in America if the assailant feels threatened with a gun or believes the home owner may have a gun then they would themselves be armed and they would be far more likely to use force to subdue the home owner out of fear that the home owner may subdue them or even kill them.  By taking guns out of the home there is significantly less danger of a tragic result.  If the home owner has lost property, then they can get the police to file a report and claim the insurance.  If the home owner's life was threatened, then they can set up CCTV cameras and put additional security measures in place (before or after the event).  There is usually a safe alternative to solve most problems.

 

Oh my, how polite the criminals are in England :rolleyes:  Well in the USA most prefer not to assume that the person breaking in to their home is an otherwise nice guy that means you no harm.  You're barking up the wrong tree though, I don't own a gun and I don't own anything besides my own life that I feel would be worth using lethal force over.  But I'm not about to tell others how to defend themselves, their spouses, or their children.  As has been pointed out on this way off topic thread you can call the police but the chances of them getting there on the rare life or death occasion in time to do anything but zip up a body bag is pretty much nill. I'm happy for you that you feel fine not having guns and am sure that every person in your country killed in a robbery or the family members of those killed by intruders probably wishes the option to shoot someone had been available.  It is here.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Other western countries aren't nearly as violent as the US.  Taking guns out of the equation wouldn't change that as most murders are done with blunt objects like hammers or baseball bats.  We are the nicest violent people you'll ever meet though :P

And screw drivers and steak knives.   A cop who was friends with my ex was murdered by his wife with a steak knife, how much of an ******* and how drunk do you have to be to enrage a woman to the point of her being able to kill you with a steak knife? - (of course I blame the dead cop, he was an ******* and at the time I felt like I knew exactly how she felt because my cop ex was a ripe A**** too.  And about then is when I left him)

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gunn
1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

How often does an intruder break into someone's house with the intention to kill?  If they know the home owner has a gun then the intruder would be far more likely to use force to subdue the home owner so that he does not use his gun. 

 

Yeah that don't always work over here man. You might think it would from where you're sitting, but over here we often play for keeps because some of our criminal population are mentally disturbed. Some of them like to rape and kill people and then rob ya. Because they like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Tatetopa
36 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

What would happen to all those people who used it for self defense if we took it away? Just leave it up to survival of the strongest? Sorry for woman and small men I guess.

Guess one more time.  

 

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

They want easy prey. Not some movie heist. 

Violent assaults are not like a gun fight in Dodge City Kansas,  The real professionals have you down before you see them coming or know their intention.   Anybody, even a strong man can be a victim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
2 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Guess one more time.  

 

Violent assaults are not like a gun fight in Dodge City Kansas,  The real professionals have you down before you see them coming or know their intention.   Anybody, even a strong man can be a victim. 

The vast majority of people who comment crimes I wouldn't catagorize as professionals. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The vast majority of people who comment crimes I wouldn't catagorize as professionals. 

I agree, professional might be the wrong word.  Experienced?  People that make a habit of doing it and maybe a living get better with practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
3 hours ago, Rolltide said:

A biometric gun would have prevented this travesty..

many companies tried that, non could deliver a reliable weapon

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.