911 call details how toddler fatally shot mom

[cali]

'I was trying to take the gun from him. I can’t believe it,' man tells dispatcher

Julia Bennett, 33, was killed April 20 when her 2-year-old son grabbed a gun and fired it.
By Todd Wright
NBCMIAMI.com NBCMIAMI.com

A momentary lapse in attention was all it took for a toddler to grab a loaded gun and fatally shoot his mother, a 911 call of the incident revealed Monday.

According to a man identified in the call as the 2-year-old boy's father, the boy grabbed the hand gun and before the man could get it away from the inquisitive child, the toddler had pulled the trigger.

The bullet hit Julia Bennett in the back, killing the 33-year-old Miramar woman.

"The little boy take it up off the ground. He squeeze it and he shot his mom," the unidentified man told a 911 operator on April 20. "I was trying to take the gun from him. I can’t believe it."

<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42754415/ns/local_news-miami_fl

I can't believe it either.

[bettyellen]

1. that explains her husbands prints on the gun, huh?

i can't wait for all the men's rights guys to show up and be offended that anyone would doubt the husband's story.

[DrDan]

13. "men's rights guys" - what does that mean?

[bettyellen]

105. oh there;s a s table of them here who show up anytime there's a spousal murder

claiming women are exactly as vilolent as men. That throwing a puse or slapping someone (even in self defense) is equally as significant as raping and murdering. They hate when you think any man might be guilty of anything, ever.
It must be sexist to think so! Even though this man;s story reeks to the high heavens, I knew someone would accuse me of sexism for not beliveing it.

[DrDan]

108. well

I think this story smells for all it is worth.

and even if remotely true - the guy should be jailed for allowing a two-year old child anywhere near a loaded gun.

[WatsonT]

131. Men are apparently so evil and violent

that they can force babies to do their evil bidding and murder their wives for them.

[WinkyDink]

142. Missing the point ......

The toddler didn't do it, is the opinion.

[WatsonT]

155. No, the toddler didn't do it

is the assumed truth.

It wasn't stated as an opinion, but as a fact. With the added caveat that anyone who disagrees the man is a lying murder must be some sort of bigoted sexist who hates all women.

[bettyellen]

164. it was stated as an opinion- you really do not comprehend half of what is written here, you know?

and further: what I said was, I was aware that DOUBTING the husband's story,it would seem to some here as being a knee jerk reaction of sexism. So, you proved me correct on that. Despite the fact that I emphasized I felt this way because the STORY (can't get a gun away from a toddler?!?) seemed like total BS. See, that is an opinion, and guess what- this is a discussion board- not a COURT of LAW, no one is convicting anyone- people are spouting opinions- that is what we do here, You seem very confused on all the above. Maybe re-read it several times?

[WatsonT]

166. Here I'll repost what you wrote because you seem to have forgotten:

1. that explains her husbands prints on the gun, huh?

i can't wait for all the men's rights guys to show up and be offended that anyone would doubt the husband's story.

[bettyellen]

180. yep,the husband said he was grabbing the gun, and most people here think it;s BS

and here you come along, trying to make it a gender thing.

[WatsonT]

182. Most people here do no think it's bs

you have merely claimed so due to your stereotypical knowledge of men.

[bettyellen]

146. ha ha, NO. The point is his story is a fucking joke that no one would try to pass off

as true unless they had their fingerprints all over the gun, and were desperate to blame someone else. Couldn;t wrestle a gun from a toddler, really?
The fact that pregnant women and women with young babies are most often murdered by the babies Dad doesn't enter into it.

[WatsonT]

156. And you've convicted him based on . .. .?

I really hope you never serve on a jury, especially not mine. As a male I can only figure that you will start with the assumption of guilt and work from there.

If you had said: I don't think this story is accurate I suspect it may be a lie. There would have been no issue.

Instead you assumed it, because hey he's a man duh, and then called anyone who may doubt your version of things a sexist.

[bettyellen]

162. WHERE did I say it was because he is a man? NOWHERE. you need to actaully read what you are

responding to... because it is you doing the assuming, and who seems to be ignorant of what the word "convicted" means. just as I had correcly predicted, you jump through hoops to make it about gender, and defend this man, based on only his gender. Not shocking.

Show me where I said it was because he's a man???
"that explains her husbands prints on the gun, huh?
i can't wait for all the men's rights guys to show up and be offended that anyone would doubt the husband's story. "

Hint: I didn;t say it- you jumped the gun. LOL.

[WatsonT]

167. Do you deny then that on your first post

you introduced gender in to it?

/watch carefully folks, mrs. ellen is about to hang herself.

[bettyellen]

172. my first post warned that because I didn't belive this BS story- someone would come along an accuse

me of sexism. Congrats. you stepped in and did exactly that. Exactly as I predicted, because I have seen it before too many times.

[WatsonT]

175. Here, I'll change directions here since you aren't getting it.

Imagine if my first post had been: the mom probably shot herself because she's an idiot and dad is just covering up the fact that women are idiots. I wonder how long it will take the feminazis to find issues with that.

Do you suppose people would have taken issues with that?

Obviously.

Why?

Well because I come up with an obviously sexist conclusion based on zero evidence and then pre-emptively accuse anyone who disagrees with my conspiracy theory of being a sexist.

Now do you get it? I really can't simplify this much more for you.

[bettyellen]

176. if your little story wasn;t as idiotic as the husbands, you might have a point.

but it is.

so I will leave you to these foolish musings and hallucinations.

[WatsonT]

181. Right right

the husband is idiotic because he's a man, we get it. Lame.

[bettyellen]

200. no, he;s an idiot because he said he couldn't get a gun away from a toddler

keep your deluions to yourself, thank you. i don;t think you even believe your own bullshit. goodbye.

[KurtNYC]

24. Update: Tot who may have shot mom removed from dad's care

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/22/2180613/tot-who-may-have-shot-mom-removed.html

"The child’s great aunt, Marva Anglin, said the boy doesn’t understand what happened and keeps asking for his mother. Bennett’s relatives said they had never met the child’s father, but told the judge they did not want him in their home for supervised visits with the child because they are afraid of him."

:cry:

[WatsonT]

37. Yes clearly the opposite of due process

is misogyny.

You've already convicted him based on his gender. I'll wait for more evidence to come out.

[CreekDog]

88. And you refuse to pass judgement out of obstinancy

See, if the story is EXACTLY as he described it, his irresponsibility was the key thing that let his child handle a deadly weapon and kill a human being with it.

Damn straight he shouldn't be allowed near that kid right now.

And this is IF YOU BELIEVE HIS VERSION of the story!

but nooooooo, you think it's misogynst to take the kid out of his care. as if nobody was killed by his gun, as if he didn't allow his gun to get into the hands of A TWO YEAR OLD!

:wtf:

(your defense of him is about as surprising to me as this story)

[WatsonT]

91. Let that sink in for a moment

My crime as it were is to "refuse to pass judgement" based on a tiny snippet of a story with few verifiable facts.

Just think about that for a while.

"but nooooooo, you think it's misogynst to take the kid out of his care. as if nobody was killed by his gun, as if he didn't allow his gun to get into the hands of A TWO YEAR OLD!"

Except none of that was ever said, at least not by me.

You already convicted the father as the murdered and preemptively attacked anyone who would maybe disagree with that. I don't doubt that he was careless, but your implication that he did the shooting will take some evidence to back it up other than "men evil, ugh!"

[CreekDog]

94. You are being obstinate...the most charitable thing I can do is take the father at his own words

and he said he was careless with his gun and his baby got a hold of it and shot it's mother.

i didn't convict him and nobody else did either --we supported the decision to get the child out of his care at this point.

duh.

so you are saying the baby should be in his care, right now? in light of what happened? anything else is *conviction*?

finally: i didn't accuse you of a "crime"...you're just being obstinate. funny that your persnicketiness puts words in my mount yet allows you to say i convicted you of a crime.

[WatsonT]

128. Look at the post I was responding to:

1. that explains her husbands prints on the gun, huh? i can't wait for all the men's rights guys to show up and be offended that anyone would doubt the husband's story.

----------------

Context helps, doesn't it?

[CreekDog]

136. I looked at it right after it was posted

Some criticism of the post was fine, but saying that he was being convicted (no, his kid was being taken from his obviously unsafe care) and based on his own statements, he was negligently irresponsible.

Saying what you said, actually makes the father out to be a liar because to make him an innocent, you have to disprove the dad's own statements of irresponsibility and negligence.

This wasn't the place to fall on your sword. :shrug:

[WatsonT]

158. First off I said nothing

about taking the kid away or not. Not. One. Thing.

So please stop with that lie ok. I find it's difficult to have a discussion when one side incessantly lies about the other, don't you?

And there is a difference between murder and negligence, don't you think?

The person I was responding to claimed the father straight up murdered the mom and convicted him of that. No one would deny that he was negligent, but as stated earlier, negligence is not the same thing as cold blooded murder.

You've taken: "I don't think it's fair to assume he's a murderer merely based on his gender" to mean "he must be innocent of any wrongdoing and should keep the kid and maybe get a father of the year award!"

You really shouldn't have gotten involved in this if you weren't aware of what was being discussed.

[Lance_Boyle]

96. Do you mean 'misandry?'

Misogyny is an irrational hatred of women. Misandry is an irrational hatred of men. One is kosher on DU and the other is not.

[WatsonT]

129. Yeah

I guess I flipped that around.

Supporters of due process apparently hate women. I suppose then the opposite is to oppose due process and hate men.

[bettyellen]

104. A) I am having an opinion based on the BS story (wrestled w/ toddler)am not able to CONVICT anyone.

do you know the difference between opining and sitting on a jury? I am not sure you do! This being a "discussion" board, you shld try and figure it out real soon, LOL.

[WatsonT]

130. LOL

you immediately accused the father based on nothing, then went ahead and insulted anyone who would have the audacity to disagree with your assumption that is presumably based on the infallible logic that all men lie and murder their wives.

Really funny.

[bettyellen]

147. i accused the father because his story is impossible to believe unless you;re an idiot!

And I accurately predicted someone like you would show up and try to make it about gender. Ha ha. It;s like I snapped my fingers and you came running.
How'd that all fly over your head?

[WatsonT]

157. Ha

So I made it about gender? Your first post began with the assumption of guilt due to having a Y chromosome then called anyone who would doubt your assumption a sexist.

You made it about gender, I responded to you. You may not agree with this, but every sentient being reading this will agree with what I just said.

[bettyellen]

160. um, no I said his story was BS., and I couldn;t wait for someone like you to show up and pretend

I said otherwise. Thanks for cooperating.

[WatsonT]

165. You assumed his story was BS based on gender

and then labeled anyone who would dare wait for the facts to come out and refuse to condemn him a sexist.

Notice I never said he was innocent, of anything.

I know you think you have a "gotcha moment" here, but really you're just embarrassing yourself with outright irrationality and hatred.

[bettyellen]

173. much of what you wrote makes no sense at all to me. you are a very confused individual.

I said merely that anyone saying "I think the husband did it" (for whatever reason- the popular one being that toddlers can;t wrestle away guns from grownups) would be accused of sexism.

I did say the story was BS in my opinion , and you followed w/ your accusation of sexism, as predicted. Pretty simple, isn;t it?

I never said anything about people "refusing to condem him" - never said anything (or cared) about whether you thought he was guilty. I can only conclude that you are totally imagining things. Including the hatred, buddy... you really do not have a clue how to read for tone either! I am very sorry, but perhaps you can print these oput and someone can help you with comprehension, because I am done dealing w/ your semi- literacy problem.

[geckosfeet]

2. A two year old would have great difficulty hanging on to a 9mm pistol.

The grip/trigger positions are simply not built for hands that small. Even the smaller subcompact handguns are not designed for tiny hands. The recoil of 9mm subcompact would certainly drive the gun from whatever grip he had.

I have to think the father tried to pull it away from the child, and the trigger was engaged in a very unconventional manner.

[Blue_Tires]

14. yeah, the man's "official" story could fertilize the lawn...

Either the father did it himself, or he is covering for some un-named third person...

[MilesColtrane]

80. Yep, a tricked out trigger is the only explanation for a 2 year old being able to fire...

a semi-auto handgun with ease.

Typical trigger pull weight wouldn't allow hands that tiny to fire readily, at all.

I gotta ask, what the hell was a loaded 9 doing on the floor with a toddler walking around?

[blondeatlast]

93. And that is the question that will haunt that child his entire life.

When he's old enough to realize what happened, he's going to be devastated.

I'm glad the kid was removed--daddy should never have another kid, nor a gun, ever again.

[geckosfeet]

152. When daddy explains what happened to his last wife, his date will make a quick exit.

[Lance_Boyle]

97. Cocked and locked would be a single-action trigger pull - very light.

No idea whether the gun in question was in that condition, but that would explain a small child managing the trigger pull. Of course he would also have had to manage to disengage the safety, too, unless the pistol was cocked on a loaded round with no safety engaged.

[geckosfeet]

153. Yes - and if so every gun safety rule in the book was broken.

[Courtesy Flush]

83. It's happened before

I won't post the link here, but search youtube for "Toddler Shoots Father with a Gun", and you'll find a video of a wedding celebration, somewhere in the Middle East, where this happened.

[sammytko]

99. I had a hard time firing a 9mm with my little hands and i'm an adult!

this story sure is fishy

[Buzz Clik]

3. This tragedy could have been avoided.

If only mom would have been packing.

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. Touche'

[slackmaster]

85. I hope you realize that nobody every makes such a statement in seriousness

I think you're smart enough to understand that, Buzz Clik.

[moriah]

110. See post 109. n/t

[moriah]

109. Actually, I agree with you.

The safest place to have a gun if you have one in the house with small children, aside from being in a safe, is *on your person*. If kiddo can get into my belly band and draw my pistol at 2 years old... no, not going to happen. Especially with the pistol in a properly secured holster.

http://www.corneredcat.com/Kids/kidstorage.aspx

Part of the responsibility of gun ownership is to keep your gun out of the hands of children, criminals, and the clueless. If you can't do that, you don't need to own a gun.

[octothorpe]

4. Sounds like something I said when I was about 5...

For some reason I was throwing rocks and one of them hit another kid (I think, or maybe it just came close) Anyway, I said someone came up behind me and hit my hand that had the rock in it. No one could believe that either.

[DCKit]

5. At the very least, negligent homicide. But I'm thinking 1st degree murder.

And I'm not talking about the baby.

[cali]

7. I say it's the baby and I say try him as an adult and throw the book at the little

criminal.

[DCKit]

8. Only if (s)he is a Republican. If so, I'm in total agreement. nt

[seabeyond]

12. ya. lets throw the baby into foster and take away his remaining parent.... nt

[cali]

15. if the guy murdered his wife and tried to pin it on his baby, yeah, let's do that

[seabeyond]

19. yup. if that is the case, prison. i hear ya. didnt know this was in question prior to posting.nt

[LisaL]

20. She was not his wife.

During the 911 call he calls her "his baby's mother." They weren't married.

[seabeyond]

26. ya. obviously i did not read the whole story. sounding worse and worse. nt

[Luminous Animal]

145. What!!! I didn't marry my baby's father until she was 15 years old. Lack of paper does not mean

lack of commitment.

[seabeyond]

154. wow. is that what i said? i still have not read the story. lack of interest. if man is guilty

they will prosecute. all i am saying is there is more here than i first assumed and had nothing to do with committment. your whole issue is not a topic for me, on this thread.

[raccoon]

44. I think so too. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

9. That kid needs to get a good lawyer, pronto.

He'll be tried as an infant, Dad's gonna throw him under the bus, or maybe even *gasp* take his guns away.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. Is the little boy named Stewie?

[JesterCS]

16. so wrong, but so appropriate n/t

[seabeyond]

11. i am so sorry for everyone. nt

[DrDan]

17. AND - the Father is a CCW-holder

we are constantly being told here how responsible and safe the CCWers are when it comes to their weapons.

At least the 3rd incident this week involving a CCWer
- drunk CCWer brandishes his weapon on school grounds
- drunk CCWer tries to "diffuse" a conflict and ends up killing one of two and injuring the other
- now this one

[AnOhioan]

27. +1 Took the words right outa my mouth

[Missy Vixen]

81. It's an anomaly

After all, CCW'ers are ultra-stable. They'd never do such a thing!

:sarcasm:

Of course, we'll get the usual "guns don't kill people", make/model of gun, "current laws aren't adequately enforced", bla bla bla.

Thank you for the great post...

[blondeatlast]

95. +1. funny, they've ususally descended en masse in these threads by now. nt

[Poll_Blind]

18. I'm waiting to see what gun residue and ballistics and other forensic tests reveal.

Thinking about this, I'm thinking there's more than enough reason to be suspicious that the child is being blamed for something the father either did accidentally or on purpose.

PB

[joeunderdog]

82. I'll take "on purpose" for $100, Alex.

What do you bet that the kid has no powder on him?

Hope they check dad out, though.

[RebelOne]

92. It is the father who is being tested.

The man has been questioned by police and submitted to a gun residue test to determine if the toddler really fired the weapon.

[KurtNYC]

21. "A momentary lapse in attention" ?! As if all of us just leave loaded 9mm

guns on the floor with our babies. AND that would be fine with the writer but our mistake is not paying constant attention as our babies crawl around on loaded guns.

[LisaL]

22. Don't you know-you have to watch those young'uns closely as

they crawl around loaded guns!

[progressoid]

23. Guns don't kill people...

or something.

[seabeyond]

25. vans dont kill people, those that drive it into a river do.... nt

[DrDan]

28. at least vans have other purposes

[seabeyond]

29. as do guns. hey... i hate guns and no desire to hold one let alone fire one.

but i hate stupid sayings....

[DrDan]

30. seems to me their purpose is either related to killing or practicing to kill

I guess maiming could be included.

[Pithlet]

31. You mean, you don't drive your gun to work?

Or use it to chop broccoli? Or bathe in it?

[DrDan]

33. I frequently use it as a hammer . . . .quite effectively

[LisaL]

34. And don't forget its function as a toy for little ones.

[DrDan]

36. drat - forgot that one

[seabeyond]

32. not true. nt

[Pithlet]

35. How is that not true?

What other uses are there, exactly? Guns shoot. What else do they do?

[seabeyond]

39. bow and arrows SHOOT. i betcha there are lots and lots of people that have used them

and never killed anything. totally opposed to killing. hey wait.... i like to SHOOT bows and arrows and do it whenever i go to inlaws cabin.

[Pithlet]

41. Yes, the epedimic of bows and arrows violence

Oh, wait.., And I guess you can say the same for them, too. Bows and arrows aren't very utilitarian, either. You use them to shoot at things, too. Targets or livign things. No one is saying that's always wrong. You just can't say there are other uses besides that.

[seabeyond]

48. moving the goal post? then lets go back to, .... vans dont kill people....

i thought i was addressing your concern that because a gun only SHOOTS it is ONLY for killing.

[Pithlet]

49. I never said it was only for killing.

I said guns only had one purpose. Shooting.

[seabeyond]

52. ok. and so do bows and arrows. doesnt mean they are for killing. that was the challenge i started

with above. i dont know what poster, or care

[Pithlet]

57. But that is their primary purpose, Seabeyond.

They don't actually kill every time they are used, no. You can use them for target practice, of course. But the contention that guns aren't for killing is ludicrous. That is their main purpose. Yes, you can buy a gun and tell yourself "I don't plan on ever using this to kill!" And that's fine. But guns are mainly for killing all the same.

[seabeyond]

63. ok. and still, as much as personally do not like them

i have a husband that really likes them. why? dont know, dont get it. he likes other things i do not like. i have boys that have learned about guns and practice shooting. another... why? dont know, dont like, not my thing. and one boy went hunting a couple times years ago and has no interest. another son that has never hunted and no desire.

i am going to stand up for their right to own. even though i dont like

i am going to stand up for someones right to porn, even though i think it is harmful

i am going to stand up for someones right to be a prostitute even though i think it is a fucked up life

[Pithlet]

67. Nothign wrong with that, Sea

But pretending a gun is something it isnt' won't help. That's my whole problem with the movement. Their push to get a gun into everyone's hands, by making it an instrument that it isn't. By making everyone think they need one. By taking a right, and making it a necessity. But they don't stop there. No, not only are guns no different then cars and bathtubs! Just another utilitarian tool in our lives (for defense and fun! Not dangerous at all We need them in our workplaces! IN our schools!!) but they push to remove all sensible laws and regulations as well. It's insanity. And all to sell more guns. If only those who truly had an interest and a health respect for them had them, there wouldn't be a problem. But no, that wouldn't sell enough guns.

[seabeyond]

69. well, now, this is a different argument and living in the panhandle of texas

and getting calls from nra... i hear just what you are saying. talking to anyone crying about losing guns and the necessity of them, i laugh, and scoff. i hear outrageous stories of why the need, and always call bullshit. i agree that gun advocates and nra are fucked up in this area. and so damn tired of it. i get it a lot

dont like obama cause he is gonna take my guns...

dont be stupid

[ChoppinBroccoli]

59. You Would Have A Point If.................

..................if the van drove ITSELF into the river.

Ask yourself this: if an INFANT had been able to start that van, put it into gear, and then drive it into a river, don't you think there would be a full-scale investigation as to why vans are so easy to start and put in gear?

The more "accidental discharge" stories that emerge, the less that whole "guns don't kill people" nonsense holds water. Guns DO go off by themselves.

[WatsonT]

76. I have never heard of a gun firing with no human interaction at all

at the very least some upright chimp must have loaded and cocked it.

But please, post these stories of unloaded, uncocked guns being able to load themselves and cock themselves and fire themselves with no human involved.

[WatsonT]

38. Guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people, swimming pools don't kill people, etc

when left to their own devices all those things are harmless.

When pared with idiocy they can become deadly weapons.

So what's the common thread there?

[Pithlet]

40. Yes, but one of these things is not like the others.

Cars, swimming pools, etc are all used for purposes other than maiming or killing. Guns just shoot. That's it. You can shoot them at a target if you don't actually want to kill or maim something, for practice. But otherwise, you just shine it up and store it.

[WatsonT]

43. Purpose doesn't really matter

Death by car is not fundamentally different than death by gun.

You're equally dead in both scenarios.

And in real terms cars are a far graver threat than guns.

[Pithlet]

47. Of course they do.

Why wouldn't they?

[WatsonT]

51. Because if your goal is to prevent death

which I assume it is, then the reason for the death isn't the issue.

Let's say I produce a bunch of kids toys that, oops are doused in lead and melamine. Well my intentions were good, toys are meant to entertain and have no evil purpose. But what-do-you-know, a bunch of kids turned up dead.

Does the intent matter to those kids and their families? Will they sit back and say: well a least toys are *meant* to be safe and fun, so this isn't such a big deal. Now if they'd been killed with a gun, *that* would be a tragedy.

[Pithlet]

56. My goal is anti gun industry. Always has been. I'm not actually ant-gun, believe it or not.

I actually find target shooting loads of fun. But lets just say I'm less than fond of the NRA and the gun lobby and the way it is in cahoots with the Republicans.

[WatsonT]

132. So the entire industry

what part, the jobs or the taxes they pay or the fact that they provide a service that people want?

Good paying american jobs there. But you oppose that. You'll need to elaborate.

[blondeatlast]

98. Purposes do matter (ever read a negligence suit en toto?)

But bless your heart.

[WatsonT]

133. Ah look at that

you just compared the "intent" of a gun with the "intent" of a human.

A human can kill someone vengefully, or not and that makes a difference.

But I thought guns didn't have feelings, or intentions. What with being inanimate and all.

But keep this in mind: You just compared an object to a thinking human being with regards to morality.

[BobbyBoring]

168. Wow a new rethug talking point!

Obamas gonna take your cars!

[DrDan]

46. even worse with single-purpose devices in the hands of idiots

[seabeyond]

53. here is the single purpose thing. kinda like bows and arrow with their single purpose

not

[DrDan]

58. what recognized use is not related to killing (or maiming) or practicing to kill (and maim)

[seabeyond]

65. a person can do target practice without any desire to kill or practice to kill

i shoot bow and arrows. have no intent to ever kill. cannot kill a fly with flyswatter. i have broken 3 or 4 or 5 windows trying to kill a fly. i hate killing.... anything. my family wont let me try anymore.

yet... i love shooting a bow and arrow and will shoot their pellet gun. it is fun

[DrDan]

68. target practice - isn't that to improve one's aim?

[seabeyond]

70. sure. and it is fun. especially when i kick ass and i dont do it regularly.... does a

pitcher practice his aim? basketball player shooting hoops?

i do those things too

[blueamy66]

183. Didn' you just say upthread that you didn't like guns?

But you enjoy shooting them at targets?

Did I mis-read something?

[seabeyond]

184. pellet and bbguns. i have fired those two. i have never fired a gun with bullets... nt

[blueamy66]

187. Oh okay....

nt

[PufPuf23]

135. I was a Federal employee once upon a time that was authorized

to carry a gun.

The purpose was to shoot cones for seed collection from trees in order to assess ripeness, degree of insect damage, and other factors as to whether a tree was worth climbing or felling. The goal was to add seeds of plus phenotype plus to the seed bank for planting stock.

Also used a gun to shoot limbs out of Douglas-fir to sample forest insect (western budworm) egg masses to assess extent and population trends of an epidemic.

Grew up in a hunting family but last licensed, hunted, and killed age 17, over 40 years ago. I own a minor arsenal given me or inherited hidden away but haven't shot a gun since 1985 (for cones). I used a 16 gauge pump with buckshot; the rod and gunner enthusists used a scope and deer rifle for cone samples and were prideful about their aim. Needless to say, my pumping a barrage of buckshot methodology was a more efficient sample method.

When I was a teen, we used to go camping on our dirt bikes and poach grouse with 22s and have rottiserie grouse on a willow stick for eats.

[WatsonT]

54. How so?

At least people recognize guns as deadly weapons.

They don't view swimming pools or unlocked medicine cabinets or cars in the same way.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

64. I've Never Heard Of A Pool "Accidentally" Drowning An Innocent Sunbather

But I HAVE heard of a gun accidentally going off all by itself and killing an innocent bystander. Several times, in fact. Anyone who doesn't admit that guns are INHERENTLY dangerous is either a fool or has an agenda. I can't call a gun a "dangerous ordinance," because that term is reserved for the REALLY dangerous, and therefore banned in my State, stuff like Fourth of July sparklers.

[seabeyond]

66. that gun "accidently" goes off when dropped or handled. not when sittin by itself not touched. as

much as the pool sittin there until someone falls in

[WatsonT]

75. Really? You've heard of a gun that loaded itself, cocked itself and then fired itself with no human

interaction?

This is incredible! Did you alert the presses?

[joeunderdog]

106. I heard that 12 people were killed by an automatic swimming pool in Des Moines.

Found them in the filter basket.


Maybe now they will understand the difference between an automatic swimming pool and one that's not as likely to be misused. Therein lies the problem.

[WinkyDink]

144. I don't think a pool has ever been used in anger. I could be wrong.

[WatsonT]

159. I don't think the anger of the person responsible has ever made a death more or less permanent

Would you rather be murdered by someone who bears you no ill will or murdered by someone who does?

[pipi_k]

42. I don't know the laws out there...

but don't people have to go through firearms training in order to get a permit to carry a weapon?

They do here in Mass.

And one of the first things you learn is that you NEVER assume a gun is unloaded. Ever.

Even if you personally took out all the bullets with your own two hands.

Also, and pretty disturbing when I think of it...

What does a two year old kid usually do when he picks up something interesting? He examines it closely. Might even put it in his mouth to see if there's any taste. Certainly he might hold it up to his face to look at it more closely. But what did this two year old kid (allegedly) do, very first thing?

Yeah...he shot the gun. He apparently knew where the trigger was, and what it was for.

Fast learner... :eyes:

Otherwise, the father would have had time to overpower the kid and force the gun to point down toward the floor/ground instead of straight at his mom.

Also, the kid seems to be a pretty good shot... yeah, right.

[LisaL]

45. And the mom was shot in the back.

Which means she wasn't watching neither the toddler with a gun nor the father trying to grab that gun away from the toddler. Seems like father trying to get the gun away from the toddler should have led to some noise. Yet the mother apparently was turned away from them.

[pipi_k]

79. I think of all the "coincidences" there and...

how convenient they are for the father's claims.

Add in the mom's being shot in the back. Just in case she happened to survive...it sure would be hard for her to say which one of them shot her, wouldn't it....

[jpak]

50. another "law abiding" "responsible" concealed weapon permit holder

yup

[WatsonT]

55. Clearly not.

But keep arguing with that strawman. It's a fun show.

[jpak]

60. But..but..but... we are told all the time that you get a halo with yer Holy CCW Permit

and NEVER sin

yup

[WatsonT]

61. Really? Ok, I will believe that if you can provide quotes to back it up

more than one, as it's "all the time".

[jpak]

71. a standard response in the Gungeon even by the folks that post this stuff - yawn

yup

[WatsonT]

72. Ok, so you have a databased of unaltered text at your disposal

and this is a common occurrence.

So find quotes to back up your claim.

For instance: if I wanted to say that you use "yup" a lot I could point out posts where you in fact said "yup".

See what I'm talking about now?

[jpak]

73. This comes up all the time in the Gungeon - multiple posts & thread beatifying CCW holders

Then when someone challenges that bullshit , they say "show me"

Even when the thread is bracketed by CCW sainthood threads

deny deny deny

yup

[WatsonT]

74. Again: if it comes up all the time

and you aren't lying you can find evidence of it.

The fact that you cannot find evidence suggests you are lying and realize it.

[jpak]

77. deny deny deny

yup

[WatsonT]

78. So that would be no quotes then?

No evidence for this thing you claim occurs all the time?

Great, thanks for clearing that up.

[ScreamingMeemie]

62. How awful.

It's not a momentary lapse in attention, it was fatal stupidity, no matter who pulled the trigger.

[slackmaster]

84. There are clueless people everywhere. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools.

Some people actually have to be taught the importance of keeping weapons away from small children.

[seabeyond]

86. as much as i stand up for rights to own gun, no way i would allow my child to get info from school

or want it in the schools... at all, nada. and to make people and kids who dont like guns have to take a course is bullshit. you have the right to have guns. and i have the right to have nothing to do with them, never have anything to do with them and if i say no with my child, that is it. my choice as a parent

[Cleita]

89. So, what else don't you trust the schools to teach

your children? You know they are going to come into contact with them in other people's homes whether you like it or not. My home was gun free, but the homes of many of my classmates and playmates were not.

[seabeyond]

101. no, i do not know they will come in contact in other peoples homes, yet... my husband

has taught my children about guns and they are familiar with them.

what else would i not be comfortable with children learning in schools.... how about, religion. again, something we address in home that i dont want to put in the hands of schools.

[Cleita]

121. I see nothing wrong with learning about religion

either as long as it's about all religions. I think if people would have been taught more about Islam, we wouldn't have the phobia about it that we have today. Let's face it, your kids are going to come into contact with other kids who are from different religious beliefs. Isn't it better for them to know about those other religions from a qualified teacher than listen to rumors from their peers about what those religions do? I was raised a Catholic but chummed around with kids from other faiths and I was pretty shocked when I learned what many of these kids had learned from their families about Catholics, all sleazy and mostly wrong.

[seabeyond]

123. you are talking to a mama that is open and enthusiastic in ALL subjects.

religion should be optional at older ages as in world religions or such (electives). though in my sons world history course they do touch on all religions. but listen to the peoples feelings of religion on du. i am not into stepping on their toes because i have a connected relationship with my kids and anything taught in school has been in our home or will be in home so we can bring balance if needed.

why dont you make demands of actually parenting our children. i never expected that school was going ot teach my children EVERYTHING they needed to know and i could sit on my ass and not interact with my child. i expect the school to teach academics and i teach EVERYTHING else.

do parents fail? ya. shame on them. so we have all the classes picking up where they fail their child. but there are areas that are opposed by large groups and i see no reason to force my views or another views on those parents.

[Cleita]

124. So you are objecting to other people parenting your

children? But isn't that what is happening when you leave them in charge of a school for five or six hours a day, other people parenting your kids? I see nothing wrong with learning about many things. It's no different than learning about gardening, cooking or computers. I would like to see kids being taught to handle money and at an early age, how the banks and markets work and how they relate to their every day lives, but I guess you would consider that being other people parenting your children.

[seabeyond]

127. i think there are some things that the parent gets to decide. guns being one of them

gardening cooking and computers are not controversial like guns. i respect a persons anti gun beliefs. as much as i respect the persons pro gun beliefs. and no, i dont want to see the nra in our schools feeding the kids a bunch of political bullshit on guns being taken away and all people need to be armed.

as far as financial responsibility, how is that controversial and what absurdly ridiculous allegations you make in order to try and create an argument. financial courses are given to the children. middle school. 7th grade in our schools and they will have another in the high school.

but yes... i would not be much into your adopting a parenting role of my child.... that is for sure. the mere disrespect you would feed a child would be a HUGE issue for me.

[Cleita]

137. Well, I wouldn't want to parent your children but

you seem to have very strange ideas of what teaching children about the world is about.

[seabeyond]

140. cleita. there is a HUGE difference between a parental role and a teachers role

i have NEVER had a teacher try to fill the parental role. thankfully. nor do i have any parents trying to fill that role. one should elave it to the parent, unless there are reasons to know that role is not being filled.

i am game to about all being brought into a school for an academic perspective. only a few issues do i believe it should be an opt in/opt out scenario. you define that as "strange ideas" of what teaching children about the world is about. as i said, i think you are working way too hard to find fault.

[Hangingon]

171. So interesting...

This could be a sex ed thread - same arguments.

[blueamy66]

185. I don't know anything about guns.

How could I teach my children?

[seabeyond]

188. i am sure you know someone who does no something about guns, that you trust.

there are also gun safety courses for kids that you can enroll them in. my husband not only taught my kids about guns and safety with guns, but they each had to take a course

[blueamy66]

190. Sure, I know people that own guns and may have some knowlege

I just don't have a problem with the schools teaching a bit about them. What could it hurt?

Anyway, I don't have any kids, so this really doesn't affect me.

[seabeyond]

191. i know you have no kids, and was pretty sure where you were coming from. BUT there are alternatives

and being anti gun myself, though i totally stand up for the right of gun owners, i disagree with gun in schools unless opt in or out program

[blueamy66]

194. Fair enough.

nt

[slackmaster]

90. You support keeping kids ignorant about guns. Are you also opposed to teaching them how to swim?

That doesn't seem very progressive to me. Children are going to encounter dangerous things in their lives, including bodies of water and unsecured weapons. You can't control them forever.

[seabeyond]

102. yes. i do. in a lifetime i have never had the need to know about guns

i dont like them.

my kids do know about guns. dad had the job of teaching the boys. if a parent wants to educate, that is their right

as we have seen, many many many accidents happen with guns. all unintentional and still, there is death. that is not something for the schools to deal with. i dont trust a school, with my childs life, when it comes to guns.

[slackmaster]

117. Your children are fortunate to have a parent who was willing and able to educate them

I did as well. Most children don't have such an individual in their lives.

...as we have seen, many many many accidents happen with guns.

Firearm accidents are rare and have been on the decline for about 100 years now.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

i dont trust a school, with my childs life, when it comes to guns.

I would fully support a parent's right to opt their children out of gun safety education, just as they can with sex education.

[seabeyond]

120. i almost always embrace an opt out program. i see little downside to that. nt

[PavePusher]

177. If you don't know anything about them...

how do you know you don't like them?

Are they like broccholi?

[seabeyond]

186. for real? i dont like holding something with a capability that can kill

a couple times over 17 yrs, i have told hubby i wanted to get comfortable with them. each time i held it, i didnt like it and gave it back. i figure if just holding an unloaded gun makes me uncomfortable, no reason to go further

[PavePusher]

193. I suppose you don't cook or drive either, correct?

And any mechanical workshop must be completely off-limits for you, as well as most sports...

[seabeyond]

198. all the men in my life, for a lifetime are gun advocates. husband nra. none of them would take

your approach. all of them have been respectful enough, openminded enough, smart enough, to understand and respect my position. as i have given them the same consideration.

you posts seem nothing more than childish to me.

[PavePusher]

201. I merely point out the illogic. If that is childish, I must be about... 3. n/t

[seabeyond]

204. you and i dont agree with the basis of the argument. nt

[PavePusher]

178. And yet you trust them with your child's life every day....

with stuff that has nothing to do with guns, but can be just as deadly.

[seabeyond]

189. i dont agree with you, but... so? nt

[PavePusher]

195. Then you are seriously lacking in observation and imagination.

I do hope that works out well for you and your children.

[seabeyond]

199. no. i simply disagree with you. then you have the condscending arrogance to challenge my parenting

i am anti gun. my husband is pro gun. my children understand both issues, have been afforded the opportunity to make their decision, has been taught the safety and responsibility of guns and are way beyond your ability in maturity.

yet you question us?

truly amazing.

[PavePusher]

202. "i dont like holding something with a capability that can kill"

I am not reproaching or questioning your parenting, or anyone's maturity, at all. I am challanging your blatent illogic and implied assumptions. You originally gave no additional evidence to point to any other conclusions.

By the way, my maturity is just fine. Been doing military aircraft maintenance for over 20 years and haven't dropped one yet.

As I said, I hope your system works for you. I was not being sarcastic about that, I truely do not wish harm on others.

[BobbyBoring]

169. WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Along with creationism??
WOW

[slackmaster]

170. Kindly point out where I have ever advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools

:crazy:

Or you COULD do the right thing and admit that I have never said any such thing.

[CreekDog]

87. guns don't kill people

babies do.

:sarcasm:

[moriah]

125. People who are irresopnsible with their guns kill people.

Seriously... As a gun owner, I have significant issues with anyone who leaves their gun in reach of a 2 year old.

I was taught that it is the responsibility of the gun owner to make sure their firearm does not fall into the hands of children, criminals, or the clueless (good-intentioned adults who don't have training on how to use them end up having far more accidental discharges than children who have found a gun). If you're taking off your holster you had better be putting the gun in the safe at the same time. ESPECIALLY if you have kids.

And if a two year old can get the pistol out of your holster, you're doing it wrong. Really. I promise.

[H2O Man]

100. Sure.

Sounds real.

Not.

[Ninjaneer]

103. How terribly sad. I can't imagine growing up knowing I killed my mother.

(if the story is true)

[burrowowl]

107. How is a 2 year old's hand

big enough and strong enough to pull a trigger? I think the Dad did it.

[hayu_lol]

112. Yawn...yet another 'rush to print' article by some nimrod...

journalist who failed to get sufficient details. No details, no proofs, and the circumstances are too suspicious.

Almost any adult, man or woman,would not attempt to 'wrestle' a gun from a 2 year old...but would more likely have just grabbed the child and turned the child in another direction.

[Very_Boring_Name]

111. Per usual the fascist gun zealots are here trying to defend this

If you own a gun for any reason I question your mental health.

[moriah]

114. Guess you've never had a bear break into your house.

Or had to defend livestock from predators.

Seriously, when you wake up to a bear in your bedroom, you might decide a rifle is a good thing. ;)

[ecstatic]

115. Wow. I would faint or pray it's a dream

How did a bear end up in your bedroom? And how were you able to get a gun while it was standing there?

[moriah]

119. It actually wasn't me that this happened to -- a neighbor.

But in the same general area of the Ozarks -- well down a dirt road. And Tim described what happened in great detail because yeah, he freaked out.

He lived alone and had went to sleep without his TV on, and his bedroom window open (screen still present). He woke up to a kind of shredding noise and saw that a brown bear was climbing in his bedroom after having torn the screen. It had been a rough year, drought and such, and the poor thing was likely hungry. There were a lot of hunting cabins in our area so the bear very well might have been making a practice of breaking into them and vacant summer homes trying to find food stores.

He didn't have his rifle in that room. He screamed at the top of his lungs and started waving his arms around, and it scared the bear -- enough to make it turn around and leave the way it came in. Bear really wasn't expecting anyone to be home I imagine.

He didn't have livestock so his rifle was in his closet. We did. Ours lived above our front door, and we had to use it several times when coyotes came on the property and started killing chickens. One attacked one of our dogs and the dog had to be put down because we didn't get there in time.

(The previous poster said he questioned the mental health of anyone who owned a gun. There are valid reasons for owning them. The bear in the house is just one, but was an extreme enough of an example that really happened to someone I know that I figured it'd express my point.)

That being said, yes, I'd have fainted too! ;)

(Edit to clarify: The rifle lived above the front door, not our livestock. Heh!)

[H2O Man]

116. In the past,

we've had a bear and many a coyote after our livestock. That's a valid reason to have a gun.

I prefer to think of a gun as protection against a human intruder.

[ecstatic]

113. Does a 2 year old have the hand strength to pull a trigger?

I don't think so. My 2 yr old nephew was helpless when it came to opening a very easy to twist "egg" full of candy.

[Lance_Boyle]

118. Single action? Absolutely. Double action? Depends.

"Cocked and locked" is not an uncommon carry method for 1911-style .45s because they offer no double-action trigger pull - you would have to manually cock the hammer and then squeeze the trigger. It's not as common for Beretta-style semiautos because they do offer a double-action trigger pull - you can keep the hammer down on a live round and with a (rather heavy) pull of the trigger cock the hammer and release it. But I'm sure some people still do cocked and locked carry on the DA/SA capable weapons.

[moriah]

122. My 1911 has a grip safety too.

I am not sure if all 1911 styles have grip safetys -- but I thought most did. (Mine's a Kimber Ultra Aegis II -- 9mm 1911.) I have to have the pistol held very firmly for it to fire, and that's part of the reason I went for that particular style of firearm. I wanted at least two safety features if I did carry "cocked and locked" -- the "locked" wasn't enough in my mind.

It indicates in the article that the weapon was a 9mm semiauto -- and 9mm is a fairly uncommon caliber for a 1911. So doubt it had a grip safety.

[Lance_Boyle]

126. Not sure when the beavertails appeared, but I don't think all 1911-styles have them.

9mm would most likely be the Beretta style, with a lever safety just above the thumb notch. The lever safety can also safely lower the hammer on a live round when pushed down towards the grip. Not sure about safeties on the P38 style pistols, but the point I was trying to make was that most 9mm pistols out there now will have DA/SA action, and that SA action involves a light trigger pull. So it would be entirely possible for a small child to make it go bang if it was cocked. Now, my hammerless S&W J-frame revolver, obviously DA-only, could probably never be fired by anyone without intent - I think the trigger weight is over 12 pounds!

[moriah]

134. Per ABC:

"Police said there was more to the investigation that simply determining if the child could and did pick up the gun and pull the trigger. The gun was a Glock 9mm, which weighs three pounds when loaded and takes 4.5 to 5.5 pounds of pressure to pull the trigger. "

http://abcnews.go.com/US/tot-fatally-shoots-mother-police-investigate-fathers-role/story?id=13452342

[bettyellen]

148. the Dad lied. No way could a tod fight off Dad and shoot the Mom.

[Liberal_in_LA]

179. you know a lot about guns for a DUer

[Lance_Boyle]

192. Every time it's polled more than half of DUers own or enjoy firearms.

I am one of the majority on this - rare for me on DU! But my knowledge pales in comparison to folks like Slackmaster.

[PavePusher]

203. And...? n/t

[TNLib]

138. That's said the baby is going to grow up thinking he killed his mom

and he may not have done it.

[hayu_lol]

139. First off, the father(in the first link)made two claims:

That the gun was unloaded...or...he THOUGHT it was.

That the gun had never been fired.

Again, the writing in both links is slipshod by overeager journalists.

The 2nd link says that the mother died INSTANTLY when she actually lived until the emergency crew got their before she died.

This 'accident' was totally avoidable.

[bluestate10]

141. Tests will be done with the two year old to determine whether it

could generate enough force to fire the gun.

[WinkyDink]

143. So the child picked up the gun AND held it up high enough to shoot into an adult's back?

Hmmmmmmm.

[TK421]

149. I thought maybe Daddys last name was Eastwood n/t

[blondeatlast]

151. On the 911 call (link below) he says she was shot in the back (of/and?) the arm.

I don't see how the kid could have even picked up the gun, much less fired it.

[bettyellen]

163. and it;s the ONLY story that explains why Dad;s prints are all over the gun.

it explains why he picked this outrageous and physically impossible explaination.

[blondeatlast]

150. I just listened to the 911 call--he says the child picked up the gun.

Is that even possible?

When she appears to have fallen, the father actually calms down a bit. He keeps saying "nothing like this has ever happened to me; this is not me." Pardon me, but I'm even MORE suspicious of the dad now.

911 call from HuffPo (sorry): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/toddlers-accidental-fatal-shooting-mother_n_853971.html

[Rage for Order]

161. That poor guy

I can't imagine the grief he must be feeling right now

[Egnever]

174. Not buying it

I dont think a 2 year old has nearly enough strength to pull a trigger.

[LeftishBrit]

196. How horrible

Even if the story is true, and not a cover-up for a domestic murder, then it is incredibly irresponsible for the father to have had a loaded gun in a place where a child could so easily grab it.

That poor little kid will grow up without a mother, *and* if the story is true, with all the psychological damage of knowing that he accidentally killed her.

[Hepburn]

197. Somehow...I smell bullshit...

...sure, the two year old did it. :eyes: