CDZ USMB POLL: Woman shot, killed by two-year-old son - Who is responsible for this woman's death?

[koshergrl]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

So parents should not be allowed to own horses, pools, buckets, or weapons, because it's theoretically possible that a child might get hurt.

What about tubs?

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. All of these things can, and are, used safely my youngsters every day. With proper safety precautions nearly anything can be made safe in a child's presence.

No, there are some things that are never 100 percent safe. Horses are never 100 percent safe. Water is never 100 percent safe. Fire is never 100 percent safe. And weapons are never 100 percent safe.

Parking lots are never 100 percent safe, schools are never 100 percent safe, and martial arts are never 100 percent safe. But I bet you take your kids to parking lots, and give them baths, and occasionally sit around a campfire with them. Because you choose to take that risk. Sometimes accidents happen. Sometimes a kid climbs on the roof and falls off and dies...is that bad parenting? What if it's a 12 y.o. kid who stayed home while mom ran to the store, and while she was gone, climbed up on the roof after her cat, fell off and broke her back? Negligence? Put mom in prison?

What if you're loading your 2 y.o. into his car seat, and your 5 y.o. is standing next to you, and you bump her with her butt and she is pushed into the path of a car that is backing up into the parking space next to you? Are you a bad parent?

According to you, you are.

 

[Chuz Life]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

 

[Asclepias]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

So parents should not be allowed to own horses, pools, buckets, or weapons, because it's theoretically possible that a child might get hurt.

What about tubs?

What is this about owning anything? This is about responsibility. Not who should own a horse or a tub.

 

[Asclepias]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I didnt see anywhere someone claimed it was possible to be 100% effective. Please stay on topic. The woman was a fool and somewhere she may be happy she died instead of her child blowing its own head off.

 

[oldsoul]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

I remember moving in with my Grandfather when I was about 8 or so. He was an "old school" hunter and farmer, so he had loaded guns just inside the door in case of an emergency. The very first day we where all told we where not to touch those weapons under ANY curcumstances. I remember that I wondered why they where there in the first place, and how irresponsible it was. Of course I didn't have the vocabulary to articulate my thoughts so well, but the thought proccess was there. Prior to that my father had guns in the house, they where ALWAYS unloaded, and locked up. I know he had a gun case, but I cannot for the life of me remeber where it was or what it looked like. That is securing your firearms.

 

[westwall]

(Reuters) - A woman was accidentally shot and killed at a Walmart store in northern Idaho on Tuesday when her 2-year-old son pulled a loaded handgun from her purse that then went off, a county sheriff said.

The 29-year-old woman was shopping at a Walmart in Hayden, Idaho, with the toddler seated in her shopping cart when the incident occurred, Kootenai County Sheriff Ben Wolfinger said in a written statement.

Who (if anyone) is responsible for this poor woman's death?

The mother is. Ultimately she is responsible for the weapon, and its misuse. A sad tragic event, but she is the one to blame.

 

[Asclepias]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

 

[Chuz Life]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

I remember moving in with my Grandfather when I was about 8 or so. He was an "old school" hunter and farmer, so he had loaded guns just inside the door in case of an emergency. The very first day we where all told we where not to touch those weapons under ANY curcumstances. I remember that I wondered why they where there in the first place, and how irresponsible it was. Of course I didn't have the vocabulary to articulate my thoughts so well, but the thought proccess was there. Prior to that my father had guns in the house, they where ALWAYS unloaded, and locked up. I know he had a gun case, but I cannot for the life of me remeber where it was or what it looked like.
That is securing your firearms.

Is it not fair to conclude that you THOUGHT your grandfather was being irresponsible because you were not used to being that close to loaded guns before?

Had you grown up and lived with your grandfather your entire childhood... you probably would not have thought anything of it at all.

 

[Asclepias]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

I remember moving in with my Grandfather when I was about 8 or so. He was an "old school" hunter and farmer, so he had loaded guns just inside the door in case of an emergency. The very first day we where all told we where not to touch those weapons under ANY curcumstances. I remember that I wondered why they where there in the first place, and how irresponsible it was. Of course I didn't have the vocabulary to articulate my thoughts so well, but the thought proccess was there. Prior to that my father had guns in the house, they where ALWAYS unloaded, and locked up. I know he had a gun case, but I cannot for the life of me remeber where it was or what it looked like.
That is securing your firearms.

Is it not fair to conclude that you THOUGHT your grandfather was being irresponsible because you were not used to being that close to loaded guns before?

Had you grown up and lived with your grandfather your entire childhood... you probably would not have thought anything of it at all.

Its very fair if you know the meaning of responsible. My guess is that like my grandpa his never thought it was irresponsible. My grandpa thought all men should know about weapons. I thank him for it but it was irresponsible to allow us physical access to them

 

[Chuz Life]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

 

[koshergrl]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

I remember moving in with my Grandfather when I was about 8 or so. He was an "old school" hunter and farmer, so he had loaded guns just inside the door in case of an emergency. The very first day we where all told we where not to touch those weapons under ANY curcumstances. I remember that I wondered why they where there in the first place, and how irresponsible it was. Of course I didn't have the vocabulary to articulate my thoughts so well, but the thought proccess was there. Prior to that my father had guns in the house, they where ALWAYS unloaded, and locked up. I know he had a gun case, but I cannot for the life of me remeber where it was or what it looked like. That is securing your firearms.

XXXXXXXXXXX

I was raised in a house, in a community where everybody had loaded guns at the doors. Strangers don't have the authority or the right to tell people how to parent or what lifestyle to live. A homosexual lifestyle is 100 percent more dangerous than a hunting lifestyle..but I bet you don't chide your homo friends about their *irresponsible* lifestyles and how risky it is to tell their children that homosexual sex is perfectly safe and normal...

 

[Asclepias]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

Its one of the few words I see that has no ambiguity. If you control something and it effects someone then you are responsible.

Yes every woman with a loaded gun in her purse a child can get to is being irresponsible. Some may not like that word but their emotions dont change the meaning.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

Its one of the few words I see that has no ambiguity. If you control something and it effects someone then you are responsible.

Yes every woman with a loaded gun in her purse a child can get to is being irresponsible. Some may not like that word but their emotions dont change the meaning.

Is it emotions and feelings or is it simply perspective and a matter of opinion?

Surely you can agree that "responsibility" is often in the eye of the beholder. Women have the right to legally carry a weapon for self defense in their purses. If this same woman pulled that same gun from her purse and stopped a robber / child abductor in that store. . . she would have been lauded as a hero.

There are no laws which require women to cease carrying a weapon in their purses if there is a chance that a child MIGHT get to it and I think that is for good reason.

A responsible woman CAN responsiblly have their weapon in their purse and we (society) can reasonably expect that she will be able to control her child AND her purse enough to keep her child away from it.

No doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of women are doing exactly that - right now - as we speak.

I can agree on some level that they (those women) should be held accountable and even liable if a child manages to get to the gun in spite of their efforts to keep them out of their purses...

However, (again and in my opinion) we should allow that the vast majority of women are in fact capable of RESPONSIBLY having a gun in their purse AND caring for a child at the same time.

 

[2aguy]

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

Its one of the few words I see that has no ambiguity. If you control something and it effects someone then you are responsible.

Yes every woman with a loaded gun in her purse a child can get to is being irresponsible. Some may not like that word but their emotions dont change the meaning.

Is it emotions and feelings or is it simply perspective and a matter of opinion?

Surely you can agree that "responsibility" is often in the eye of the beholder. Women have the right to legally carry a weapon for self defense in their purses. If this same woman pulled that same gun from her purse and stopped a robber / child abductor in that store. . . she would have been lauded as a hero.

There are no laws which require women to cease carrying a weapon in their purses if there is a chance that a child MIGHT get to it and I think that is for good reason.

A responsible woman CAN responsiblly have their weapon in their purse and we (society) can reasonably expect that she will be able to control her child AND her purse enough to keep her child away from it.

No doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of women are doing exactly that - right now - as we speak.

I can agree on some level that they (those women) should be held accountable and even liable if a child manages to get to the gun in spite of their efforts to keep them out of their purses...

However, (again and in my opinion) we should allow that the vast majority of women are in fact capable of RESPONSIBLY having a gun in their purse AND caring for a child at the same time.

In fact...with over 320,000,000 guns in private hands in 2013....the gun accidental death rate was 505 people.....total.

So essentially 320,000,000 million people used guns responsibly......yet the anti gunners care only about the accidents with guns........tell them that 1,500,000 guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...doesn't mean a thing to them...

505 accidental gun deaths.

1,500,000 times guns are used to stop violent criminal attack...according to bill clinton...

 

[ChrisL]

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

Its one of the few words I see that has no ambiguity. If you control something and it effects someone then you are responsible.

Yes every woman with a loaded gun in her purse a child can get to is being irresponsible. Some may not like that word but their emotions dont change the meaning.

Is it emotions and feelings or is it simply perspective and a matter of opinion?

Surely you can agree that "responsibility" is often in the eye of the beholder. Women have the right to legally carry a weapon for self defense in their purses. If this same woman pulled that same gun from her purse and stopped a robber / child abductor in that store. . . she would have been lauded as a hero.

There are no laws which require women to cease carrying a weapon in their purses if there is a chance that a child MIGHT get to it and I think that is for good reason.

A responsible woman CAN responsiblly have their weapon in their purse and we (society) can reasonably expect that she will be able to control her child AND her purse enough to keep her child away from it.

No doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of women are doing exactly that - right now - as we speak.

I can agree on some level that they (those women) should be held accountable and even liable if a child manages to get to the gun in spite of their efforts to keep them out of their purses...

However, (again and in my opinion) we should allow that the vast majority of women are in fact capable of RESPONSIBLY having a gun in their purse AND caring for a child at the same time.

In fact...with over 320,000,000 guns in private hands in 2013....the gun accidental death rate was 505 people.....total.

So essentially 320,000,000 million people used guns responsibly......yet the anti gunners care only about the accidents with guns........tell them that 1,500,000 guns were used to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives...doesn't mean a thing to them...

505 accidental gun deaths.

1,500,000 times guns are used to stop violent criminal attack...according to bill clinton...

There are always going to be irresponsible and/or dumb people.

 

[Asclepias]

You're a fool if you think it is possible for a parent to be 100 percent vigilant and 100 percent effective at protecting their kids from 100 percent of all potential accidents 100 percent of the time. Your thinking shows a dangerous arrogance and smug conceit that is just as dangerous an attitude as the attitude of the parent who trusts her 2 year old not to fall into the pool if she runs into the bathroom for a minute.

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

Its one of the few words I see that has no ambiguity. If you control something and it effects someone then you are responsible.

Yes every woman with a loaded gun in her purse a child can get to is being irresponsible. Some may not like that word but their emotions dont change the meaning.

Is it emotions and feelings or is it simply perspective and a matter of opinion?

Surely you can agree that "responsibility" is often in the eye of the beholder. Women have the right to legally carry a weapon for self defense in their purses. If this same woman pulled that same gun from her purse and stopped a robber / child abductor in that store. . . she would have been lauded as a hero.

There are no laws which require women to cease carrying a weapon in their purses if there is a chance that a child MIGHT get to it and I think that is for good reason.

A responsible woman CAN responsiblly have their weapon in their purse and we (society) can reasonably expect that she will be able to control her child AND her purse enough to keep her child away from it.

No doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of women are doing exactly that - right now - as we speak.

I can agree on some level that they (those women) should be held accountable and even liable if a child manages to get to the gun in spite of their efforts to keep them out of their purses...

However, (again and in my opinion) we should allow that the vast majority of women are in fact capable of RESPONSIBLY having a gun in their purse AND caring for a child at the same time.

Having a gun in your purse and caring for a child at the same time is totally different from having a loaded gun and allowing that same child physical access to shoot someone with it by being irresponsible. I have a glock at my home that my teenage girls have trained on and can access. I am being irresponsible by betting they wont kill themselves or someone else accidentally. I can accept that risk and have no qualms with it but I do know I am responsible should this occur.

 

[Chuz Life]

I agree. . . and your post might help me explain why I am having trouble holding the woman responsible for the shooting situation.

The child was 2 years old.

The woman likely had her gun in her purse since the child's birth and may even have THOUGHT she done a very good job (so far) of teaching her child to leave her purse alone.

The child may have shown no prior signs of digging in his mother's purse.

The mother may have actually believed that she was doing a good job of teaching her son to keep his hands to himself and to leave things (including guns) alone.

I'm sure that my parents and grandparents thought the same as I was growing up with full access to guns for my whole life too.

Clearly, we don;t know or have all the details but we can assume that she probably didn't want to be shot - that she probably didn't want her child playing with her gun, etc.

From that, we can safely assume that she thought the gun was safely secured in her purse and she thought wrong.

In my view, that was a tragic mistake. . . but in that context it is not completely "irresponsible."

In my view, an error in judgement is not always an irresponsible act.

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

Its one of the few words I see that has no ambiguity. If you control something and it effects someone then you are responsible.

Yes every woman with a loaded gun in her purse a child can get to is being irresponsible. Some may not like that word but their emotions dont change the meaning.

Is it emotions and feelings or is it simply perspective and a matter of opinion?

Surely you can agree that "responsibility" is often in the eye of the beholder. Women have the right to legally carry a weapon for self defense in their purses. If this same woman pulled that same gun from her purse and stopped a robber / child abductor in that store. . . she would have been lauded as a hero.

There are no laws which require women to cease carrying a weapon in their purses if there is a chance that a child MIGHT get to it and I think that is for good reason.

A responsible woman CAN responsiblly have their weapon in their purse and we (society) can reasonably expect that she will be able to control her child AND her purse enough to keep her child away from it.

No doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of women are doing exactly that - right now - as we speak.

I can agree on some level that they (those women) should be held accountable and even liable if a child manages to get to the gun in spite of their efforts to keep them out of their purses...

However, (again and in my opinion) we should allow that the vast majority of women are in fact capable of RESPONSIBLY having a gun in their purse AND caring for a child at the same time.

Having a gun in your purse and caring for a child at the same time is totally different from having a loaded gun and allowing that same child physical access to shoot someone with it by being irresponsible. I have a glock at my home that my teenage girls have trained on and can access. I am being irresponsible by betting they wont kill themselves or someone else accidentally. I can accept that risk and have no qualms with it but I do know I am responsible should this occur.

I am simply not seeing the connection between the probability that you will be or would be held accountable. . . if your daughters abused that trust. . . and your conclusions that you are therefore being "irresponsible" with your trust.

 

[Asclepias]

Nothing you said absolves the mother from responsibility. She took a gamble with her childs life and luckily she died instead of the child. How miserable would her life have been if the child had shot and killed itself?

re·spon·si·ble
rəˈspänsəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
   "the department responsible for education"
   synonyms: in charge of, in control of, at the helm of, accountable for, liable for
   "who is responsible for the prisons?"
   • being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

You may see that definition as clear and precise when it comes to having guns around children. . . but I don't think it's as narrowly defined and clear as you think it is.

The woman had her gun in her purse and she did have control over her child and his care for well over two years before the incident.

We have to ask the question "is every woman with a loaded gun in her purse being irresponsible. . . if there is any chance at all that their child can get to that gun?"

You might answer "YES" and you have every right to do so.

I just disagree.

Its one of the few words I see that has no ambiguity. If you control something and it effects someone then you are responsible.

Yes every woman with a loaded gun in her purse a child can get to is being irresponsible. Some may not like that word but their emotions dont change the meaning.

Is it emotions and feelings or is it simply perspective and a matter of opinion?

Surely you can agree that "responsibility" is often in the eye of the beholder. Women have the right to legally carry a weapon for self defense in their purses. If this same woman pulled that same gun from her purse and stopped a robber / child abductor in that store. . . she would have been lauded as a hero.

There are no laws which require women to cease carrying a weapon in their purses if there is a chance that a child MIGHT get to it and I think that is for good reason.

A responsible woman CAN responsiblly have their weapon in their purse and we (society) can reasonably expect that she will be able to control her child AND her purse enough to keep her child away from it.

No doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of women are doing exactly that - right now - as we speak.

I can agree on some level that they (those women) should be held accountable and even liable if a child manages to get to the gun in spite of their efforts to keep them out of their purses...

However, (again and in my opinion) we should allow that the vast majority of women are in fact capable of RESPONSIBLY having a gun in their purse AND caring for a child at the same time.

Having a gun in your purse and caring for a child at the same time is totally different from having a loaded gun and allowing that same child physical access to shoot someone with it by being irresponsible. I have a glock at my home that my teenage girls have trained on and can access. I am being irresponsible by betting they wont kill themselves or someone else accidentally. I can accept that risk and have no qualms with it but I do know I am responsible should this occur.

I am simply not seeing the connection between the probability that you will be or would be held accountable. . . if your daughters abused that trust. . . and your conclusions that you are therefore being "irresponsible" with your trust.

I'm betting my girls teenage minds wont short circuit. Thats irresponsible since we all know that childrens minds are not fully formed during their teenage years. I am weighing a risk. I'm not even talking about being held accountable. You cant be held accountable unless you are responsible.

 

[Arianrhod]

So are parents whose children fall into the swimming pool and drown likewise to blame for having something dangerous near the child? How about the parents who own horses, whose child is killed by a kick to the head?

Yes, and Yes. As parents we are responsible for protecting our children.

So parents should not be allowed to own horses, pools, buckets, or weapons, because it's theoretically possible that a child might get hurt.

What about tubs?

Parents should be intelligent.

I'll let that sink in for a moment.

A parent who has a backyard pool and doesn't (A) teach their child to swim at a very early age (arguably, all children should be taught to swim, considering that infants can swim from birth, and it may not necessarily be the family pool, but some Idiot Neighbor who's at fault and (B) fence that pool in before the kid can walk and (C) explain to the kid that deep water is dangerous, is as reprehensible as the stupid cow who puts a gun in her purse and sets the purse down next to the two-year-old in the grocery wagon.

As for horses, or any animal, you teach the child that this is a living thing, not a toy, and you teach the child how to comport itself around the animal.

Otherwise, it's not the animal's fault if something happens. It's you the "NOTMYFAULTNOTMYFAULTIT'SLIBRULSFAULTNOTMINE, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!" idiot who, in a sane society, would have been questioned xxxxxxxxxx.

 

[320 Years of History]

Otherwise, it's not the animal's fault if something happens.

Off Topic:
Yep. I agree, so much so that I think it wrong to destroy animals that harm humans. After all, very few non-rabid or otherwise "deranged" animals, if any do, view humans as anything other than something to avoid/leave alone. Even great white sharks after their first bite on a human tend to release them more so than proceeding to eat them, or so I've been told. (I haven't verified that as being so or not so.) That may be something of a moot observation given the harm a great white's first bite can have.