• Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      The toddlers need gun training. If every toddler had a gun, stuff like this wouldn’t happen.

      • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s why my new bill would mandate that all babies receive in-womb gun-safety training. New borns are expected to complete a gun-safety test. If they fail, they’re shot and killed. We only care about life until birth.

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Or if we just had mental health programs for toddlers, we wouldn’t have any issues with giving toddlers guns!

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Sad thing is is that there are probably many responsible gun owners, but its the jackasses that get publicized and drawn into the public eye.

      Though, that’s how it should be. It just takes one reckless owner to ruin several people’s lives. That’s an incredibly low margin of error, and people should talk about it.

          • Pratai@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            41
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            2 years ago

            Don’t even start with that bullshit. Cars are necessary and aren’t manufactured for the purpose of killing.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              And any dumbass who tries to equate the two to justify mass firearm proliferation, just tell them to defend their homes with cars and knives just the same.

              Then they’ll raise their hands and go, “whoa whoa, hey now…”

            • mapiki@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 years ago

              Cars are not technically necessary. But we regulate them heavily - through licensing, safety tests, and policing. And your license can be pulled or suspended so that you cannot drive.

              Why? Because they are deadly. Just because something isn’t created to kill (say… To protect your family? To get you to your job?) doesn’t mean it can’t kill.

              Sadly, we live in a country where freedom and rights are valued more than community and respect.

              But as the welcome to nightvale NRA says: “Guns don’t kill people. We’re all invincible and it’s a miracle.” (Podcast.)

            • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I mean, a part of me would sooner say “yes, they are both needlessly dangerous and costly to society, which is why a society structured around needing and allowing either mass guns or cars is stupid.”

              • Pratai@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                2 years ago

                Cars are necessary despite what a bunch of people in Reddit forums think.

                • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  The US has more car deaths than anywhere else in the world, by far. Like guns, it’s a real “This is not preventable, says only country where this happens” vibe.

                  Some cars will always be necessary. The crazy delusional obsession with car dependence that happens literally nowhere else in the world is not necessary.

          • GladiusB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Are cars designed to kill people? Or are they used to kill people in extraordinary circumstances?

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        There are, mostly in fact. For some rough math, there are 333,287,557 people in the US, about 50% of which own guns for a rough 166,643,778.5 gun owners. There are 60,000 yearly gun deaths including suicides, accidents, and intentional firearm homicides, for a total of 0.036004944523026% of gun owners likely to be irresponsible leading to death in any given year.

        Couple notes, this doesn’t include illegally owned guns/gun owners in the number (166,643,778.5) of gun owners, because we can’t have that number by the nature of it. Most gun crime excluding suicide comes from them though, and so the 60,000 does include them. This also doesn’t include people only injured or non injurious irresponsibility or negligent discharge, as often this goes unreported and so far as I can find isn’t tracked well likely due to difficulty. That surely does happen as well, like the idiots filming themselves pointing it at the camera (and their own stupid hand). But these figures can at least paint a picture that somewhere around .036% of gun owners/yr are in the “irresponsible” camp, +/- .002% for margin of error.

        I do agree, it should be talked about, we can learn from others’ mistakes and lessen the frequency. We should also talk about it when people use them correctly in self defense, or training, IDPA, etc, because that is a lot more frequent and we can learn from good examples as well.

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think there’s a big problem with responsible gun owners defending irresponsible gun owners. Like, there’s a knee-jerk reaction when someone says guns are dangerous, even though you’re supposed to always act as though they are dangerous.

  • randombullet@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    Needs to be changed to negligent discharge.

    There are no accidents, just negligence.

    Unless there is hardware failure, but that’s a different story

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Since when did USA become so anti freedom?
      The toddler is clearly part of a militia, to prevent government oppression.
      So he has every right to carry and fire whatever weapon in whichever place and direction he chooses.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    that the 2-year-old boy took her Taurus 9mm firearm from her purse

    Right, so the safety was off then, because there’s no way that a two-year-old could release the safety on their own. The movies make it look like you just flick it with your finger but seriously that thing does not move without a reasonable around a force.

    • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      Many modern pistols don’t have safeties. Either way it shouldn’t have been loose in the purse and not in a holster.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Not a super knowledgeable gun guy, but I think a fairly common example is for the “safety” to be part of the trigger. Safety’s traditionally weren’t meant to prevent someone from shooting the gun, they were there to prevent the gun from going off if you dropped it.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          Any gun made in the last 50 years shouldn’t go off if dropped. Physical safeties have always been about preventing human error. Trigger blades don’t do anything to prevent this. I get a lot of flack in the gun community for this opinion but Glock doing away with physical safeties made the entire gun world more dangerous.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      You can put a lot more force on any part of a gun if you’re not concerned about proper grip and aiming and just use your whole hand.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      Tbh not entirely, it could be possible, however unlikely. Honestly imo the bigger issue is off body carry in general is unsafe. Case in point your 2yo can grab it from the purse (and so can anyone else) but it’s harder to grab and easier to retain it from a real, good holster, either CCW or active retention (like cop holsters with the button) for open carry (I also generally advise against OC, but whatever.)

  • ShunkW@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Of course it was in Waverly. That Walmart is always full of insane people who shouldn’t have weapons, but you know they do. Used to pass through on my way to my hometown and refused to stop there after a few incidents with good old boys because I’m a gay dude who had very long hair back then.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.eeBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s a good thing that Toddler had a gun! Imagine if a gunman had decided to shoot up that Wal Mart! The Toddler could Protect itself!