• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mother accidentally shoots and kill teenage daughter

The fact that they gun fired accidently and killed omosnes proves it was negligence on the part of the owner.
It -proves- negligence?
How does it -prove- the woman ignored an obvious risk?
How doe sit -prove- she acted with disregard for the safety of others?
How does it -prove- the gun did not malfunction?
 
Safeties are an option on the M&Ps.

I mentioned most of this stuff pages ago.
True. My M&P 9L has no external safety. My wife’s Shield EZ has one.
 
It -proves- negligence?
How does it -prove- the woman ignored an obvious risk?
How doe sit -prove- she acted with disregard for the safety of others?
How does it -prove- the gun did not malfunction?
Unless she can prove that the gun malfunctioned, then the accidentally firing of the gun was negligence that she didn't act to prevent. Where was a trigger lock and why did it have a round in the chamber? The gun didn't fire by an act of god, so she was negligent in a lack of reasonable safety and failure to control that weapon.
 
I still haven't checked but there are no mothers accidentally gunning down their kids in Japan today either.

So that means those children get to grow up and have lives..
 
Unless she can prove that the gun malfunctioned, then the accidentally firing of the gun was negligence that she didn't act to prevent.
The state has to prove negligence.
The fact the gun fired, in and of itself, does not constitute that proof.
Where was a trigger lock
A trigger lock?
On a carry gun?
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
and why did it have a round in the chamber?
Because only a moron carries a gun which is unready to fire.
The gun didn't fire by an act of god, so she was negligent in a lack of reasonable safety and failure to control that weapon.
So you claim -- but the fact the gun fired, in and of itself, as you claim, does not prove this.
 
Somebody calculate how many Americans have been gunned down since the OP started this thread.
 
Was she a moron for carrying her gun the way she did?
When I worked private security we never carried a gun with around in the chamber. Its very easy to chamber a round when you pull it. It was also always with the safety on.
 
When I worked private security we never carried a gun with around in the chamber. Its very easy to chamber a round when you pull it.
Yeah?
What happens to you if you need your gun and you can't get to it with your off hand?
What happens to you if you need your gun and the threat can get to you before you can rack your slide?
Why don't police officers carry emtpy chamber?



 
Yeah?
What happens to you if you need your gun and you can't get to it with your off hand?
What happens to you if you need your gun and the threat can get to you before you can rack your slide?
Why don't police officers carry emtpy chamber?
That sounds like your are unqualified to do the job.
 
Would mandatory training help mitigate the frequency of these types of accidents?
No way... people need training and license's to drive cars and fish... not to own and use lethal weapons.
 
That sounds like your are unqualified to do the job.
You aren't a competent judge.
A trigger lock? On a carry gun? LOLOLOLOL
Discharge proves negligence? LOLOLOLOL
 
You aren't a competent judge.
A trigger lock? On a carry gun? LOLOLOLOL
Discharge proves negligence? LOLOLOLOL

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.”

― Thomas Paine, The American Crisis
 

My heart goes out to the mother because I'm positive it was an accident. However, charges should be brought because it was gross negligence with a lethal weapon.
People read about crime in the news and go buy a gun so they can feel safe. Meanwhile...most accidental shootings like this don't make the news. Chances are you are safer without the gun.
 
1711657102213.png
All I see here is your inability to effectively respond to the points made.

But hey - prove me wrong.
Prove you are a competent judge.

-Tell us how the discharge, alone, proves negligence.
-Tell us why you expect someone to have a trigger lock on their carry gun.
-Tell us what happens to you if you need your gun and you can't get to it with your off hand to rack the slide.
-Tell us what happens to you if you need your gun and the threat can get to you before you can rack your slide.
-Tell us why police officers do not carry carry empty chamber.

Don't worry - I don't expect a meaningful response, and thus I accept your concession in advance.
 
When I worked private security we never carried a gun with around in the chamber. Its very easy to chamber a round when you pull it. It was also always with the safety on.
Or if you do carry that way, do so with a holster. Loose in a bag that way is unecessary risk.
 
Exactly. Most women (who are new gun owners) will freely admit they've never handled a gun before, don't know how to load it, shoot it or safe keep it. They fully intend to go to classes most gun shops offer. I'm not talking about women brought up with guns in the household or who were in the service.

No published data just my opinion.
Depending on the state. For me in NY, training class was required for a permit. And so many hours of training plus passing a course was required for concealed carry.
 
Negligence requires that someone ignored an obvious risk or acted with disregard for the safety of others.
If you're the DA, do you think you can prove either?
I would say she acted in disregard to the safety of others. By letting things in her purse and get into the trigger well of her pistol and fire it.

There are ways to avoid this I'm never accidentally fired a gun that way.
 
Would mandatory training help mitigate the frequency of these types of accidents?
Probably not.

Mandatory training is typically based on hours spent training and this kind of training can be any manner of things so you'll have to be a lot more specific than just mandatory training.

And I don't think so you can't train somebody not to be careless that's an attitude issue.

Anybody that's fired a gun knows you pulled a little trigger bit to make you go bang and it doesn't matter if it's your finger or your lipstick or your pen that pulls the trigger it'll go bang.

She knew this so it wasn't the lack of training.
 
How does firearm safety training infringe on the right to own a firearm?
It doesn't. But firearm safety is very simple.

It all boils down to four sentences. If you follow these four rules this sort of thing doesn't happen.

I don't think it's a training issue. People don't need to be trained what they were in kindergarten and first grade to read and that's really all the trading you need in order to understand gun safety.

She was just complacent and careless.
 
Or if you do carry that way, do so with a holster. Loose in a bag that way is unecessary risk.
This isn't something that can be fixed in training this is obvious. Picking in unnecessary risk like this isn't about lack of training it's about lack of care.
 
It -proves- negligence?
How does it -prove- the woman ignored an obvious risk?
How doe sit -prove- she acted with disregard for the safety of others?
How does it -prove- the gun did not malfunction?
I don't mean this disrespectful... but if you knew anything about modern guns, you would know that a modern .44 pistol absolutely does not malfunction.
Easily - you could take one of these guns and literally thrown it down a flight of steel stairs and it would not fire. Guns are not like the movies.
Having a loaded hand gun with the safety OFF in a room with children.... is monumentally disregarding safety of others.
Again - having a gun, loaded, cocked and safety off is extremely ignoring risk.

Just sayin... the likelihood of this woman carrying a loaded, cocked safety off pistol with a 6.5lb trigger firing while looking for her keys??
If I was the investigative officer I would be very suspicious.
 
Back
Top Bottom