Gun Rights Activist Was Accidentally Shot By Her 4-Year-Old Son

That sucks!

Gun Rights Activist Was Accidentally Shot By Her 4-Year-Old Son

 

Wow. Popped her with a .45. She's lucky to be alive.

In the back? Coward. I know mommy put you in timeout, but you should have at least faced her before you tried to cap her with her own pistol.

She previously bragged about teaching the kid to shoot. Should have taught him to play checkers.

Glad she survived, though. I'm sure, however, this will only serve to steel her resolve on the issue. Better that than the alternative. I hope the child isn't too traumatized over shooting his mother.

 

That's funny but sadly your right and she will be even more zealous in her views.

 

What a dumbass. I'm a zealot about my gun rights but some folks do leave you scratching your head.

 

I don't like to see people getting shot but I have to admit that my first reaction was to laugh.

 

Growing up I was taught to respect guns. Lots of people were. Thing is, a lot of those people grew up to be too comfortable around guns. Many of them are the people at the shooting range who are doing things like shooting while a person is downrange or exhibiting very poor muzzle control.

Training is great. But training doesn't always override the nature of immature people to do immature things. That's why the most highly trained teen driver might still do something stupid behind the wheel. Training is fine but experience and maturity plus training is a much better mix.

Glad no one was killed.

 

Anyone who allows a 4 year-old access to anything potentially dangerous is a moron.

That being said, if the kid got the keys to the family car and ran over mom, would people be calling for her to renounce car ownership?

 

No, they would not. I wonder why? Perhaps because the car serves a very useful and common purpose otherwise, reducing the question to one of parenting and child supervision. While there are a lot of people in this country very interested in protecting gun ownership and use, there are an awful lot of people who think these things need to be curtailed.

I also think it has to do with safety. Yes, tens of thousands die each year in automobile accidents, but automobile usage is nearly universal, with hundreds of millions of Americans using them each day. There isn't a strong movement to ban or curtail automobile use because of safety--just to make it more safe. (Environmentalists excluded, but even they don't mount an impactful campaign.)

They (guns and cars) really aren't comparable issues.

 

Actually, I agree. Gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution, and ownership of no other physical item is so protected. The Founding Fathers realized that's how important it is to a free society.

A tyrannical government and terrorists aren't afraid of a Chevrolet, but I guarantee that they're very concerned about a Glock.

 

The idea that the citizens with their small arms are going to rise up and overthrow anything is, simply put, one of my most favorite little bits of shared delusions bordering on emotional masturbation. Go ahead, Bruce, stand at your front door with your Glock chambered. The Army is coming. How terrified do you think they are of you?

The idea of gun ownership helping a populace overthrow a tyrannical government probably made sense to our founding fathers. But our founding fathers also had no idea that one day the government would have drones. Go ahead, stand there with your Glock. If the government wanted you dead then you would be dead without your Glock ever entering into the equation.

Despite this, I don't think gun ownership is inherently bad. And I don't think this woman should give up her guns because her kid shot her. Perhaps we need to revisit the child being in a home where he has access to guns but that's another issue entirely. But I've not seen a single mainstream call for a ban on gun ownership. Rather, what we see are calls for things like universal background checks, ways to ensure that a person with a PFA against them cannot have guns in the home etc. These seemingly sensible measures end up meeting completely absurd amounts of resistance because, again, people are fixated on the fantasy that they are going to fight off the powers of oppression from their home fortress. I liked Walker Texas Ranger as much as the next guy. But the roundhouse kick of freedom was make believe. And the armed populace standing up to the government isn't that far behind it.

 

Since we don't have such a government, perhaps a different stance on gun ownership would be in order.

 

I agree. She should give up the kid. She put him in mortal danger for absolutely no good reason at all. That weapon could have just as easily been fired at him or someone else besides her.

I think she's facing merely misdemeanor charges, so her gun rights are probably safe. But her parenting rights ought to be in dire peril.

 

Only if accompanied by a radical change--regression--of their lifestyles. Asymmetry worked in China and Vietnam--and is working in the ME and Africa because those people were/are willing to live in very primitive and dangerous conditions for a very long time. From the scene we recently enjoyed in Oregon, that doesn't seem likely. The Vietcong never sent out a list of toiletries they needed.

 

I would not discount individuals owing guns posing a serious threat to organized military.

Much of partisan warfare revolves around individuals or very small cells constantly causing significant harassment for large, organized military units. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in history, and is still happening.

To the original topic, the gun should have been secured properly with no chance of at least discharge, but best access by anyone other than the owner.

 

I was in the Army, and most of my friends and co-workers are Veterans, so I know the culture very well. The overwhelming majority of military and police WILL NOT obey any orders to disarm citizens, search private homes, or especially shoot at citizens who don't comply. The problem with socialist tyranny from an operational standpoint is that you need the military and police to cooperate, and Americans are far too freedom minded to go along with it.

There are over 5 million members of the NRA, and millions more gun owners who aren't members. Active duty and reserve combined, there are a bit over 2 million members of the armed forces, most of whom would either lay down their weapons and walk away, or revolt if ordered to violate the Constitution.

I'll take those odds.