Two words: trigger lock.
1 Like
What would be achieved other than feeding the bloodlust of the gun haters? I think she will remember the incident well enough even without other stuff piling on.
I did my share of mistakes (with electricity and other things, not guns yet). Some of them could warrant even legal trouble. Would do absolutely nothing to change my behavior as I learned from them anyway.
Mistakes happen. You wonât deter them with criminal charges. Nobody wakes up and says, âtoday I will unintentionally screw upâ.
Bloodlust it is, nothing else.
Good stuff. I thought there was a trend tho among many who focus on âdefenseâ as the purpose of their firearms, to rounds that are ostensibly hollow points but with deeper grooves that fairly well ensure some fragmenting. But if a typical hollow point round usually âflowersâ regardless of range then those would do what theyâre supposed to as well?
Nvm, just googled it. My firearms experiences were long before google (80âs) when info was people at the range, training, stores, or magazines/books. I guess thereâs no âostensiblyâ about it anymore with everything needing to be so extreme. But it does seem like a toss-up tactically, if you want to stop someone. Seems like the frag bullets are more about ?? than typical hollow point rounds.
Iâm not sure which side I take in this debate about child endangerment, but Iâm curious whether your response would be the same if, say, it was a mother who left her child unattended in a car while she stopped at a bar for a drink? And specifically if that mother had a history of proudly posting her liking for alcohol on Facebook, or had a history that indicated a predilection for the very act that caused the endangerment.
Clearly the state has an interest in protecting a child from reckless endangerment, but it also has an interest in balancing parental rights with that protection. Iâm conflicted on this one because I have a dislike for the kind of gun-lust that this woman proclaimed, but I also dislike the heavy handed punishment that seems to often target the wrong subject after the fact, rather than offer prevention in the first place as a goal.
3 Likes
The woman is an actual poster model for gun ownership and open-carry. Thereâs reason to believe her child/children could continue to be living in a dangerous environment.
If sheâd been charged with a felony and received a suspended sentence, that would be the best outcome as sheâd lose the right to own guns, but the kid(s) wouldnât be taken away, necessarily.
4 Likes
At least until the kid watches how that works too.
My 4 year old niece watched her mom turn the car on with the key in the ignition and change the gear enough to be able to replicate the act, shift into neutral, and roll down the driveway into the street.
Gun locks arenât difficult to figure out. Children already have toys that teach them how to unlock things. They just have to find the keys and mom probably secures those as well as she does her gun under her car seat.
Not having a gun in the house or car is a much better solution for not getting shot.
5 Likes
What about a mother who works long hours, tends to be sleep deprived and distracted, brags on social media about her workload and then forgets the child in the car?
Same kind of a mistake. You wonât do it intentionally even if you are predilected to it. No amount of punishment threat will prevent it then.
Why should the dislike for âgun lustâ have any weight in deciding the punishment?
Some people dislike some things and want other people to not have them. And applaud when something bad happens to those who they dislike.
This is what gave us the war on drugs. Because Nixon thought the same way when he disliked the hippies.
Not having a gas stove is a solution to not blowing the house up by accident. (Doesnât always work, the gas can seep through the ground from a damaged mains nearby.) Not having electricity installed will prevent electrical fires.
Good.
There should be less tolerance and more harsh legal penalties for being an idiot with a firearm. Negligence is just plain stupid and honestly thereâs no excuse for it at all.
1 Like
LoL, donât like your wording, or focus on it, then donât rely on it. Go ahead and point at the sentiment thatâs got you all hot n bothered over the sentiments of others.
Thereâs a quote feature, use it, who do you find celebrating the harm?
Câmon⌠you can do it⌠Iâll even help⌠I myself celebrated that the mother, not the child, was shot.
Thereâs your gimme, now find another
2 Likes
I know, even Catholics donât think kids can reason enough to be responsible for their sins until they are seven.
@Woodchuck45: [quote=âWoodchuck45, post:16, topic:75521â]
Do you know what a safety is? Do you know how to keep your gun secured and locked up around kids? No? Then youâre a danger to yourself, your loved ones and everyone around you, and you shouldnât be owning or operating a firearm.
[/quote]
I wonder how many people would notice that these are the exact same underlying thought, instead of purely responding to the tone? Not many, I think.
@aeon: On the contrary, in any sane world there would be court hearings to determine whether the state has an obligation to remove the child from an unsafe environment, or at minimum frequent unscheduled visits to make sure that environment has become safer.
@jake1732: I think that was sarcastic, but just in caseL Children that young arenât expected to have well-formed theory of mind yet, or impulse control, so of course they can be sociopathic.
@HistoricalWreckord: Not all slopes are slippery. You may or may not be right that this one is, but in any case you donât know whether anything would have said anything that offensive. And I apologize that I and the BB community are not so saintly as to be above schadenfreude.
The obvious answer here is that there is a clear element of danger added when guns are dropped into the situation and kept around children. And if that element were not clear, the NRA would not be working so hard to prevent the statistics-gathering on gun accidents, and trying to prevent discussion of the obvious dangers.
I guess that is similar, with the exception that she needs to work to survive and provide for her family, but there is no compelling need to carry a loaded weapon where a child can access it, and no excuse for not taking steps to secure it. In this case she went so far as to teach and encourage a small child to be attracted to the gun, so it would seem to necessitate an extra measure of care and responsibility.
5 Likes
Who will think of the horses?! (she was pulling a horse trailer when she allowed her kid to have a gun)
1 Like
Question. Should that extend to other things? Such as say texting while driving and causing an accident. Or just basic failure to yield, running a light, screwing with the radio, yelling a the kids, putting on make up or shaving, road head, etc? Almost any auto accident has deadly potential, especially at high way speeds. Certainly there is no excuse for not properly handling something like a fire arm, but there is also no excuse for the many dumb road accidents that happen every day and no one is immune to.
The first accident I got into was my fault. I have inadvertently done some bone head things accidentally, like run a red light I I didnât see. My dad just told a tale of passing on an unfamiliar highway and running out of passing lane suddenly.
What about other things like, backing over a child in your car (happens nearly every day). Or leaving a child unattended and they get hurt by what ever. Poisons, falls, animals, drowning etc. Or even supervised but injured/killed at play, biking, sports, swimming, horse back riding, etc.
To be clear I am not saying there shouldnât be consequences for negligence per se - but at the same time, shouldnât those consequences be applied across the board, not just to certain things you donât like.
I personally have been lucky and never had an âoh shitâ movement with my kid other then pinched fingers. But my ex has. She screwed up driving and ended up threading the needle between two lanes of traffic with my child in the car. Another time, she was following me in a car and locked up her brakes to avoid rear ending me as I stopped at a red light. She was distracted or something. She also had a 30 sec panic attack not sure where the child was in a store. Is she negligent and incompetent? Is it OK because she avoided some how a collision? Had she been in a wreck would she be unfit? As much as I would like to call her such things out of bitterment, no. She is very smart and capable. She screwed up a few times (that I know of). She isnât stupid. She isnât negligent. She made a few mistakes that could have ended poorly, but didnât I know class mates who broke arms doing things they shouldnât have been doing. Should child services take them away?
ETA - Wait - I have screwed up. I blew through a red light like it wasnât there with my kid in the car and nearly hit some one. To this day I have no idea why I was looking at that light and my brain didnât register it as red.
I want to stress that I am not trying to down play the seriousness of this issue. The mother was 100% in the wrong. This was 100% avoidable. Dangerous things require extreme caution and diligence. But I just donât see the disdain and border-line victim blaming for victims of âregularâ hazards are more likely to hurt or kill your child. ALL of these things require caution and diligence. I donât think boarder-line victim blaming or crucifying one person for their mistake is classy nor helpful. If she broke a law she should be punished according to the law, and hopefully serve as a warning to others.
2 Likes
Gas stoves and electricity werenât expressly designed to kill people. When gas explosions or asphyxiations or electricity kill someone, itâs usually an accident. Thereâs also probably little opposition in Congress if someone wants to decrease the numbers of such deaths with sensible legislation.
When a gun kills someone, the shooting could be an accident, but the fact that the bullet impacting the person at high velocity leads to their death is not. Thatâs what the gun was intended to do or at least to threaten to do and if it couldnât do that then itâs purposeless.
Not owning a weapon that specifically provides you with the ability to kill another human being is a statistically reliable way to not get shot by such a weapon.
7 Likes
I posted the mug shot because it makes a nice counter to the attractive, professional looking photo in the OP.
And the arrest is far from unrelated when it comes to character. The professional photo is good, it makes her seem credible and responsible. The arrest for shoplifting says that might be more illusion than truth.
3 Likes
Weird. When I posted an unflattering picture of a ârobot ethicistâ that want to ban sexbots, it was apparently a wrong thing to do.
Why is it a right thing for you?
Wow. Ok, you realize that youâre doing the exact same thing people did to Michael Brown or Eric Garner to justify what happened to them. I believe the used the same word - character.
Donât be come what you presumably hate.
2 Likes
A loaded gun loose in a car with a child inside? Who could have foreseen this tragedy happening, other than everyone?
8 Likes
I dunno if it is a ârightâ thing for me to do. But I do think it is justifiable given that Jamie Gilt is in the news for the contrast between her gun advocacy and self-promotion on her pro-gun âJamie Gilt for GunSenseâ Facebook page and her poor gun handling safety. The professional photos on that FB page boost her credibility. One of them is used in the OP for this thread. The mug shot is, I think, a legitimate counter to that image.
However, for someone who isnât a self-promoter whoâs self-estabilished credibility is at issue, posting a mug shot and arrest details might not be as germane.
2 Likes
