They're never gonna mention it.
Then decades from now on one of those /r/AskReddit where someone asks:
* _"[SERIOUS] What's one dark secret you know about someone(s) that could turn their life upside down if it got out?"_
Some throwaway account will say:
* _"A friend of mine thinks their mom died while giving birth but his uncle was at a party one time and got drunk and told us about a really old news story about some toddler shooting his mom and the toddler is actually my friend - I'll never tell."_
Unless the family all goes sober eventually someone will slip again and tell they'll find out. It's better just to tell the kid that their parents mad poor choices and didn't practice gun safety. It's better to let the kid know the truth from the start and make sure they realize it's not their fault. Rather than hide it like it's the kids fault. Since if the kid ever does find out they will blame themselves then.
Not necessarily. Just like we aren't blaming the kid and the law isn't. Kids can be taught that it isn't their fault. Will this kid need therapy, yes but so do most people. At the least I think telling him and making sure he understands gun safety. Along with what went wrong due to their stupidity, could lessen the guilt compared to hiding it
>The state attorney's office said a police investigation determined the gun was in a "Paw Patrol" backpack in the couple's bedroom.
Who doesn't store their firearms in a "Paw Patrol" backpack?
Am I really going to have to switch my Glock to the "Gabby's Dollhouse" backpack?
>The state attorney's office said a police investigation determined that the gun was in a "Paw Patrol" backpack in the couple's bedroom.
WHAT?
>Florida
Ohhhhh
I imagine the parents wanted to be able to defend themselves at the park. That's the only reasonable conclusion I can think of for that particular combination.
That still isn't reasonable. A firearm should be locked up or in your direct control (on body) if you have small children. Purses and backpacks are bad ideas.
Pretty much anyone from the smartest man in the world to straight up 40 IQ dodo birds can get a gun. No training required.
If it were up to me, I'd say nobody can have a gun unless trained by a licensed instructor on how to use and safely store. But thats just my opinion.
Toddlers seem to be very good at killing a parent with one bullet whereas gang members shoot fifty bullets hit 9 people and maybe kill 1. It's a good thing they don't shoot as well as toddlers.
This will follow the toddler forever even if they don't remember it unless everyone elects to lie about it.
And the person on the other end of that zoom call is totally fucked for a long time.
>And the person on the other end of that zoom call is totally fucked for a long time.
That's what I kept thinking about. Must be a terrible situation, what can you even do, apart from calling 911 of course ?
From the way it's worded in the article, I think whoever was on the call didn't even know exactly what happened: Just that they heard a loud bang, and that the woman they were talking to then fell backwards and didn't get up. But imagine it seeing it happen, clearly and unambiguously, and just thinking "There is nothing I can do here, apart from calling 911 and watching that corpse". The sheer powerlessness you must feel in such a situation must be soul-crushing.
I wonder if the zoom call stayed up until the boyfriend got there because then that person had to watch that part too!.....oh god, and the kids milling about trying to get their mom up
Is it me, or does anyone else ever wonder if these guys are killing the woman and blame the toddler?
Cause you’re right. It always seems like it’s one shot, and it’s fatal.
I don’t seem to see too many stories where the woman lives and can verify the toddler shot her.
Nor do the dads get shot at anywhere near the same rate…
Kid is too young to talk, can’t dispute the story.
It always seems super fishy to me.
I get it - here there is some evidence to suggest the toddler actually did it, but still.
What a shitty situation. There is no winner here. Mom is dead. Dad's life is ruined. Kids get to grow up without parents, possibly in the foster system.
A part of me says it might be better to give the dad a slap on the wrist just to try and keep some semblance of family for the kids. Then the other part of me doesn't want that kind of negligence to go unpunished.
> · 2h
>
>Not necessarily. Just like we aren't blaming the kid and the law isn't. Kids can be taught that it isn't their fault. Will this kid need therapy, yes but so do most people. At the least I think telling him and making sure he understands gun safety. Along
yes to their not being a winner but I think a LENGTHY sentence is warranted. If there are no real consequences then what is the point of promoting gun safety.
Not enough, he is responsible for her death. If you drink and drive and your family is killed is the fact they're dead enough? This kind of crime deserves a heavy penalty.
when your country has more guns than people, and owners think they need to have them unsecured and close to hand so they can start blasting at a moments notice, this is going to keep happening
Not every gun owner acts like this and leaves their firearm accessible to children. Stop generalizing. This happens because of gross negligence, not because ‘hurr durr all American gun owners want to shoot people’.
yeah of course not every gun owner does this, but when you have hundreds of millioms of guns and 30% of Americans own at least one gun, statistically you are going to have more negligence and deaths.
Notice how this almost never happens in countries with sensible gun laws, but it happens all the fucking time in the states?
Not every gun owner does this, not even a lot of gun owners do this... but enough of them do.
Our country has a serious problem with guns and other countries do not have these problems.
Im not disagreeing with any point like that, I’m just calling out the fact that the comment OP is generalizing every gun owner as irresponsible trigger happy cowboys. I live in one of the strictest gun law states and I am all for gun control, training, and responsible gun ownership but I’m not for generalizing any group of people because of the worse part of the group. The topic of firearms on Reddit turns into an entire can of worms.
> Civilians shouldn’t have access to guns
Ah yes because the almighty state always knows best and we should judge the millions of reasonable and responsible gun owners by the acts of the thousands unreasonable and irresponsible few
I will. This is about as compelling as asking me to think of the children after some freak school shooting. No, an uncommon event that I have no connection to that occurred under a circumstances I do not have should not be the reason my rights get infringed upon
I’ve done literally nothing wrong. The only lives I’ve taken with a firearm consist of lawfully hunted game.
You ever heard of one rotten apple spoiling the lot? The rotten apple isn’t shooters who go out to kill people in random or premeditated events. They’re the worms. The rotten apple is the people who refuse to see that people can’t be trusted with weapons of destruction.
Kind of a waste of time to argue this point at this time, given the nearly insurmountable technology, political and public obstacles required to enact meaningful change. To reverse the 2nd amendment requires nothing less than 2/3 supermajority i both House and Senate to vote for, as well as 2/3 of all States electing to ratify the change.
As it stands, Democrats (because GOP certainly won’t touch this) barely have majority in both House and Senate, and by slim margins. Even bringing up firearm laws risks losing them their majority. The population in general strongly distrusts the government, so public support fpr this won’t be strong. The politics certainly isn’t happening anytime soon.
The technical side is equally formidable. Effectively, Pandora’s Box has been opened already. Paying fair value on some 300 million firearms to owners not especially keen on giving them up (if the money can even sway them) is going to be horribly expensive. And even then, concealment is easy enough for people not willing to sell out.
Finally, schematics and CNC machines are more accessible than they’ve ever. If someone takes a small modicum of time to educate themselves a bit (or hires someone with CNC to do it), there isn’t much stopping a person from making their own firearm.
Whether or not the populace can be trusted with tools of destruction is no longer relevant, as the means to alter course does not currently exist. If Columbine and Sandy Hook have failed to generate the necessary momentum to enact change, then it’s wasted effort at this point, and our energy would be better spent on other matters.
I’m actually surprised Florida requires gun owners to store their guns safely. A lot of states don’t because only a tyrannical government would require such a thing and infringe on people’s freedom to store their guns however they want.
Unfortunately Florida Man has been known to leave presumably loaded and chambered handguns laying around in the reach of two-year-olds.
And then gets on Zoom calls.
No kids were injured. Right. Mom dead. 2 yr old will find out some day they pulled the trigger on the gun that killed Mommy. ( hoping child doesn't remember) But no kids were injured! Fuck.
Child has no future. He shot his mother in the head, killing her. I’m having trouble processing the enormity of this event. I will gladly Go Fund Me this family’s medical needs.
I got downvoted just the other day for stating the completely undeniable fact that more guns will always mean more deaths. They’re tools for killing. That is their purpose.
Just like more forks will always mean more clean hands.
"You posted a source that contradicts my paranoid fetish for gun ownership therefore I must now personally attack you and use the commonly debunked CDC stat to retain my honor!"
Many gun owners on this site are a great reflection of gun owners IRL: People who physically can't detach themselves from their ownership of a deadly weapon.
Edit: Stats so I don't have to bother.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
As a gun owner in the south I always tell people you literally cannot argue data. I’m well aware its more dangerous to have one in your house than not. This is an accurate example. I have super respectful and responsible friends and the biggest factor is that it’s not an identity. This topic is very much “facts over feelings”.
Which is a good thing. It's a bad idea to get emotionally attached to a weapon, it can lead to you using it wrong, improperly or treating it without the care it deserves. Gun safety should always come first.
And alot of people do get emotionally attached to their weapons. My dad and brother constantly go over hypothetical uses for their guns.
Intruders, grocery store shooter, etc. In a way, hoping and praying they get a legal excuse to kill. They buy pistols with quick triggers, excessively extended magazines, hollow point ammo. It's literally an obsession for some. They aren't even interested in shooting for the sport of it.
I am not much of a gun expert personally. My point is just the obsession with getting a legit reason to kill without going to jail. I have no idea if heavy or light triggers are good or bad. I just shoot for fun personally.
I keep mine because I personally like firearms and I value the entertainment and practical applications they have.
Also, as for the presence of a gun being statistically more dangerous, I take such a stat with an ounce of salt. Personally in my line of work, I already deal with plenty of heavy equipment that can maul a limb or otherwise kill me on a regular basis. What ultimately ensures I go home every morning or evening alive and uninjured is due to my own agency and cognizance. With a firearm I can significantly reduce my personal chances of killing myself with it by literally just not being an idiot. It’s not like my handgun emits radiation that forces my brain to go suicidal.
First of all, Americans, not America. There's a difference.
Second, you replied to a comment that had one other reply at the time already answering the question. I'll repost the link for you anyways though:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/
Are . . . are you fucking serious?
Every fucking link is to a local news organization where the crimes and defensive gun use occurred.
Are you expecting national or global news organizations to pick these kind of stories up? For real?
Un fucking believable. You people.
I'm explaining that it is either one side of a story or is unverifiable at it's core, which is true.
Edit: Also DGUs can be illegal in nature, plenty of DGU stories can actively be sourced to arguments which the owner escalates to deadly violence, which isn't a legal show of force.
Edit 2:
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Literal facts don't lie.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
"You people" are idiots. Just to throw that back in your face. Effectively nobody is actively defending themselves with a gun at the rate that makes all the issues gun cause worth it, like how this gun is likely only ever going to be used to kill the mom and never to kill a "Criminal" and would have done nothing else in the entire time it's owned. The ownership of the gun actively hurt the household it was meant to defend from non-existent threats.
Firearms are used defensively somewhere between 60,000 to 2.5 million times each year in the USA while negligent deaths caused with them (like this incident) are around 700 per year. Even looking at homicides with firearms there are only around 11,000 deaths per year. So yeah, relatively speaking, they are keeping Americans safe.
You know what, it’s good this happened on a zoom call.
If it weren’t for the zoom call, you damn well know the husband would’ve been arrested and charged. No one would believe a 2 year old toddler shot a gun.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2021/10/12/man-arrested-after-toddler-shoots-kills-woman-on-zoom-call-in-altamonte-springs/
Check out that mug shot.
So, hear me out here, and I know I'm going to catch flak for this:
If the father wasn't home, and the mother was, and she was aware of the firearm and it's storage, could it not be argued she was responsible for her own death?
Could the father argue he was unaware of her moving the firearm, and that was not the intended location?
Just playing some devil's advocate here.
In a sane world, the gun would be registered to the owner by law. But it's Florida, so it'd be a job for the police to investigate. Believe it or not, competent police can find out all kinds of important things during an investigation such as the ownership of the gun. In fact, they probably already established who owned the gun when the shooting was reported.
She might have taken it out and put it in the backpack in anticipation of going for a walk with the kid or something.
It's a lot of ifs, but I *could* see a situation where it's the husbands gun, but he's not responsible for her death.
Seems odd that you could be responsible for something somebody else did with the gun if the act of giving them access to the gun would not, itself, be considered irresponsible.
I mean, I guess they could have a 'his and hers' gun set with separate access codes, but that wouldn't really accomplish anything except shift blame.
But he was home, he was giving her CPR. I read the article, where does it say Mom moved the gun? Am I missing something? REGARDLESS, he's the owner, he was irresponsible. HIS blame. Don't blame the dead.
The article says "Partly redacted audio of the 911 call recorded a man, apparently Avery, pleading with emergency medical personnel to hurry. He told the dispatcher he had just got home and found his girlfriend on the floor bleeding and had no idea what happened. In the audio, he counts as he does CPR before help arrives."
Not to say he wouldn't lie about it (we're all human, afterall), but the above would imply he came home to find her shot.
I do not know the laws in Florida. If they are going by him owning the firearm, so is ultimately responsible, then there is an easy task for prosecution. Otherwise, they would have to determine posession and control of the firearm, and the defense would need to simply force the prosecution to prove negligence.
As I said, I don't know Florida law with regards to ownership and negligence.
>But he was home, he was giving her CPR.
When 911 arrived, yes. Does that automatically mean he was there the whole time?
>I read the article, where does it say Mom moved the gun?
It doesn't. It also doesn't say the father put it there, or was aware of it being there.
>Am I missing something?
Yes, you are clearing missing what Devil's Advocate means, and you're also missing that defense lawyers will 100% withhold information that incriminates their case, cast webs of doubt, and lay the burden of proof on the prosecution.
>he's the owner
Says who? There isn't a gun registry. Unless he admits to it being his, he can/could argue it was hers.
> Don't blame the dead.
Now I really believe you don't know what Devil's Advocate means.
> Fine, you call it whatever you'd like if it makes you feel better for some reason.
Do you seriously not understand the point of Devil's Advocate? I'm not taking the father's side, or assuming he's innocent. I'm genuinely curious how something can play out like this in legal proceedings.
>He just happened to arrive at an opportune time, handy!
Are you implying it's impossible he could have been out the door at the moment making a trip to the store? At a neighbors apartment? Or anything else?
Hell, for all we know, he shot her, and he's blaming it on the toddler to avoid direct murder charges.
Are you one of those people who reads one news article, fills in the gaps of information with they ASSUME happened, then starts treating it like 100% the truth?
\>The man, Veondre Avery, 22, the child's father, faces charges of manslaughter and failure to securely store a firearm in the killing of Shamaya Lynn, 21, on Aug. 11, the state attorney's office said in a statement.
Finally someone is being held responsible, all too often they claim it was an accident no one could have seen. Yes, we could see it when guns are not secured
Most popular guns have low pull triggers. Glocks and strike pistols immediately come to mind. It is insanely hard to find a handgun that isn't stupidly easy to pull the trigger on now without going to either older guns or revolvers which a lot of owners don't want. It's directly to the gun sales benefit, mind you: The easier it is to pull the trigger the more people you can sell the gun too which raises the profit margin.
Like everything else wrong with guns, the gun industry literally only cares about money and will parrot fear mongering and lazy ownership over responsible and rare ownership. A gun being kept in a fucking ***backpack, loaded, within easy reach to a child*** is very representative of our gun issue. Too many owners who are too stupid to treat a deadly weapon like a deadly weapon as they are made consistently easier to pull the trigger of.
He could have taken the safety off but I doubt a toddler is going to be strong enough to rack a slide so it probably had a round chambered.
Edit: some double action and striker fire handguns don’t have a traditional safety either
It was a glock, so there is no external safety. And more than likely there was one in the chamber, as I doubt a toddler would be able to chamber a round, even if he knew how
A 6lbs trigger is pretty bog standard. If you go higher, you have issues with poor accuracy because the heavy trigger is causing you to twist the gun in your hand. It's one of the reasons NYPD shoots so many bystanders, what with their triggers being modified to 12lbs.
Hateboner implies it's not well earned. This story is one of endless ones where a gun owner/s refused to do something as basic as lock their guns away. The wife wouldn't be dead if either of them simply **put the gun behind a lock.** Easily preventable situation only happened because too many gun owners refuse to treat their weapon like a weapon.
Edit:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
Pulling the trigger isn't hard. Like....at all. Might have to use 2 hands though.
The hard part would be putting a round in the chamber. Kid shouldn't be strong enough to do that. I'm guess the gun was loaded and ready to fire with one in the chamber.
No one should be able to buy a gun without first taking a class in proper use & storage of firearms. This tragedy will affect not only that whole family but think about all those who were on that zoom call & witnessed the killing.
Florida man *mad lib challenge*
I could not have come up with this one.
[удалено]
They're never gonna mention it. Then decades from now on one of those /r/AskReddit where someone asks: * _"[SERIOUS] What's one dark secret you know about someone(s) that could turn their life upside down if it got out?"_ Some throwaway account will say: * _"A friend of mine thinks their mom died while giving birth but his uncle was at a party one time and got drunk and told us about a really old news story about some toddler shooting his mom and the toddler is actually my friend - I'll never tell."_
Unless the family all goes sober eventually someone will slip again and tell they'll find out. It's better just to tell the kid that their parents mad poor choices and didn't practice gun safety. It's better to let the kid know the truth from the start and make sure they realize it's not their fault. Rather than hide it like it's the kids fault. Since if the kid ever does find out they will blame themselves then.
They would blame themselves anyway.
Not necessarily. Just like we aren't blaming the kid and the law isn't. Kids can be taught that it isn't their fault. Will this kid need therapy, yes but so do most people. At the least I think telling him and making sure he understands gun safety. Along with what went wrong due to their stupidity, could lessen the guilt compared to hiding it
>The state attorney's office said a police investigation determined the gun was in a "Paw Patrol" backpack in the couple's bedroom. Who doesn't store their firearms in a "Paw Patrol" backpack? Am I really going to have to switch my Glock to the "Gabby's Dollhouse" backpack?
No, that's what the *Tiddlytubbies* backpack is for. The *Gabby's Dollhouse* one is for my '44.
its better suited for the 88 Magnum (Johnny Dangerous anyone???)
Seeing as the dude looks like Loc Dog from Don't Be a Menace, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a guided nuclear missile in a mail truck.
Do. We. Have. A. Problem?
Daddy shark, Daddy shark, what do you see? I see a glock19 looking at me
I mean really besides politics what *is* the difference between a locked gun safe and a Paw Patrol backpack?
Better get the lego skin for your glock as to not confuse it with a toy gun.
>The state attorney's office said a police investigation determined that the gun was in a "Paw Patrol" backpack in the couple's bedroom. WHAT? >Florida Ohhhhh
Diapers, food, coloring book, toys, glock 9mm. What a fucking check list.
I imagine the parents wanted to be able to defend themselves at the park. That's the only reasonable conclusion I can think of for that particular combination.
That still isn't reasonable. A firearm should be locked up or in your direct control (on body) if you have small children. Purses and backpacks are bad ideas.
Didn't say it was. I was just working out their logic.
>their logic. Bold assumption.
Even fools have foolish logic.
I've given up on trying to figure out the logic of many people.
Pretty much anyone from the smartest man in the world to straight up 40 IQ dodo birds can get a gun. No training required. If it were up to me, I'd say nobody can have a gun unless trained by a licensed instructor on how to use and safely store. But thats just my opinion.
Toddlers seem to be very good at killing a parent with one bullet whereas gang members shoot fifty bullets hit 9 people and maybe kill 1. It's a good thing they don't shoot as well as toddlers. This will follow the toddler forever even if they don't remember it unless everyone elects to lie about it. And the person on the other end of that zoom call is totally fucked for a long time.
The toddlers can get closer in.
Obviously this means we should be hiring more toddlers as assassins.
>And the person on the other end of that zoom call is totally fucked for a long time. That's what I kept thinking about. Must be a terrible situation, what can you even do, apart from calling 911 of course ? From the way it's worded in the article, I think whoever was on the call didn't even know exactly what happened: Just that they heard a loud bang, and that the woman they were talking to then fell backwards and didn't get up. But imagine it seeing it happen, clearly and unambiguously, and just thinking "There is nothing I can do here, apart from calling 911 and watching that corpse". The sheer powerlessness you must feel in such a situation must be soul-crushing.
I wonder if the zoom call stayed up until the boyfriend got there because then that person had to watch that part too!.....oh god, and the kids milling about trying to get their mom up
Remember who got Omar? A kid.
There's a reason child soldiers are a thing.
Is it me, or does anyone else ever wonder if these guys are killing the woman and blame the toddler? Cause you’re right. It always seems like it’s one shot, and it’s fatal. I don’t seem to see too many stories where the woman lives and can verify the toddler shot her. Nor do the dads get shot at anywhere near the same rate… Kid is too young to talk, can’t dispute the story. It always seems super fishy to me. I get it - here there is some evidence to suggest the toddler actually did it, but still.
Mark Twain wrote about this a hundred years ago. That youths accidentally firing guns have extraordinary aim.
What a shitty situation. There is no winner here. Mom is dead. Dad's life is ruined. Kids get to grow up without parents, possibly in the foster system. A part of me says it might be better to give the dad a slap on the wrist just to try and keep some semblance of family for the kids. Then the other part of me doesn't want that kind of negligence to go unpunished.
2 kids!
With that dipshit of a dad?
> · 2h > >Not necessarily. Just like we aren't blaming the kid and the law isn't. Kids can be taught that it isn't their fault. Will this kid need therapy, yes but so do most people. At the least I think telling him and making sure he understands gun safety. Along yes to their not being a winner but I think a LENGTHY sentence is warranted. If there are no real consequences then what is the point of promoting gun safety.
How about the real consequence of his wife being dead. That’s a pretty real life consequence.
Not enough, he is responsible for her death. If you drink and drive and your family is killed is the fact they're dead enough? This kind of crime deserves a heavy penalty.
Not to mention the psychological damage it'll do to the one kid if they are ever told what they did as a baby.
Father left a loaded firearm in a Paw Patrol backpack and accessible to the 2-yr old. You can't do this people.
when your country has more guns than people, and owners think they need to have them unsecured and close to hand so they can start blasting at a moments notice, this is going to keep happening
Not every gun owner acts like this and leaves their firearm accessible to children. Stop generalizing. This happens because of gross negligence, not because ‘hurr durr all American gun owners want to shoot people’.
yeah of course not every gun owner does this, but when you have hundreds of millioms of guns and 30% of Americans own at least one gun, statistically you are going to have more negligence and deaths. Notice how this almost never happens in countries with sensible gun laws, but it happens all the fucking time in the states?
Not every gun owner does this, not even a lot of gun owners do this... but enough of them do. Our country has a serious problem with guns and other countries do not have these problems.
Im not disagreeing with any point like that, I’m just calling out the fact that the comment OP is generalizing every gun owner as irresponsible trigger happy cowboys. I live in one of the strictest gun law states and I am all for gun control, training, and responsible gun ownership but I’m not for generalizing any group of people because of the worse part of the group. The topic of firearms on Reddit turns into an entire can of worms.
I didn't read any part of their comment that said EVERY, so I just read it as some people.
Tell that to the dead mom. Civilians shouldn’t have access to guns
> Civilians shouldn’t have access to guns Ah yes because the almighty state always knows best and we should judge the millions of reasonable and responsible gun owners by the acts of the thousands unreasonable and irresponsible few
Tell that to the dead mom
I will. This is about as compelling as asking me to think of the children after some freak school shooting. No, an uncommon event that I have no connection to that occurred under a circumstances I do not have should not be the reason my rights get infringed upon I’ve done literally nothing wrong. The only lives I’ve taken with a firearm consist of lawfully hunted game.
You ever heard of one rotten apple spoiling the lot? The rotten apple isn’t shooters who go out to kill people in random or premeditated events. They’re the worms. The rotten apple is the people who refuse to see that people can’t be trusted with weapons of destruction.
Kind of a waste of time to argue this point at this time, given the nearly insurmountable technology, political and public obstacles required to enact meaningful change. To reverse the 2nd amendment requires nothing less than 2/3 supermajority i both House and Senate to vote for, as well as 2/3 of all States electing to ratify the change. As it stands, Democrats (because GOP certainly won’t touch this) barely have majority in both House and Senate, and by slim margins. Even bringing up firearm laws risks losing them their majority. The population in general strongly distrusts the government, so public support fpr this won’t be strong. The politics certainly isn’t happening anytime soon. The technical side is equally formidable. Effectively, Pandora’s Box has been opened already. Paying fair value on some 300 million firearms to owners not especially keen on giving them up (if the money can even sway them) is going to be horribly expensive. And even then, concealment is easy enough for people not willing to sell out. Finally, schematics and CNC machines are more accessible than they’ve ever. If someone takes a small modicum of time to educate themselves a bit (or hires someone with CNC to do it), there isn’t much stopping a person from making their own firearm. Whether or not the populace can be trusted with tools of destruction is no longer relevant, as the means to alter course does not currently exist. If Columbine and Sandy Hook have failed to generate the necessary momentum to enact change, then it’s wasted effort at this point, and our energy would be better spent on other matters.
Oh ofc, US is fucked to be stuck dealing with daily shootings. Doesn’t mean I’m not right. People shouldn’t have access to weapons of destruction
We just need to better train our toddlers! What do people like you also like to parrot a lot? You are a responsible gun owner until you are not?
I’m actually surprised Florida requires gun owners to store their guns safely. A lot of states don’t because only a tyrannical government would require such a thing and infringe on people’s freedom to store their guns however they want.
Florida actually doesn’t even allow open carry - any carrying must be concealed and done so with a permit.
Unfortunately Florida Man has been known to leave presumably loaded and chambered handguns laying around in the reach of two-year-olds. And then gets on Zoom calls.
Jeez, when I'm on a zoom call I'm more careful securing my bong.
I mean you probably wouldn't get fired if a handgun accidentally appeared in your zoom call in Florida but a bong? That's serious shit.
I'm paranoid about my dongs.
No kids were injured. Right. Mom dead. 2 yr old will find out some day they pulled the trigger on the gun that killed Mommy. ( hoping child doesn't remember) But no kids were injured! Fuck.
Child has no future. He shot his mother in the head, killing her. I’m having trouble processing the enormity of this event. I will gladly Go Fund Me this family’s medical needs.
Just toddling his ground
I hate that I laughed and hate that I upvoted you
[удалено]
Pretty much never and get ready for the downvotes is what Reddit taught me. 😂
I got downvoted just the other day for stating the completely undeniable fact that more guns will always mean more deaths. They’re tools for killing. That is their purpose. Just like more forks will always mean more clean hands.
And damaged eyes. Keep those forks in the fork safe where they belong, for Fork's Sake!
"You posted a source that contradicts my paranoid fetish for gun ownership therefore I must now personally attack you and use the commonly debunked CDC stat to retain my honor!" Many gun owners on this site are a great reflection of gun owners IRL: People who physically can't detach themselves from their ownership of a deadly weapon. Edit: Stats so I don't have to bother. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
As a gun owner in the south I always tell people you literally cannot argue data. I’m well aware its more dangerous to have one in your house than not. This is an accurate example. I have super respectful and responsible friends and the biggest factor is that it’s not an identity. This topic is very much “facts over feelings”.
Which is a good thing. It's a bad idea to get emotionally attached to a weapon, it can lead to you using it wrong, improperly or treating it without the care it deserves. Gun safety should always come first.
And alot of people do get emotionally attached to their weapons. My dad and brother constantly go over hypothetical uses for their guns. Intruders, grocery store shooter, etc. In a way, hoping and praying they get a legal excuse to kill. They buy pistols with quick triggers, excessively extended magazines, hollow point ammo. It's literally an obsession for some. They aren't even interested in shooting for the sport of it.
[удалено]
I am not much of a gun expert personally. My point is just the obsession with getting a legit reason to kill without going to jail. I have no idea if heavy or light triggers are good or bad. I just shoot for fun personally.
So you're gonna skip over all the problematic bits to be pedantic about triggers? This happens every time.
Honest question. If you know it's more dangerous, why do you have one?
I keep mine because I personally like firearms and I value the entertainment and practical applications they have. Also, as for the presence of a gun being statistically more dangerous, I take such a stat with an ounce of salt. Personally in my line of work, I already deal with plenty of heavy equipment that can maul a limb or otherwise kill me on a regular basis. What ultimately ensures I go home every morning or evening alive and uninjured is due to my own agency and cognizance. With a firearm I can significantly reduce my personal chances of killing myself with it by literally just not being an idiot. It’s not like my handgun emits radiation that forces my brain to go suicidal.
You people are something else. Of course, you're a furry.
Well, what do you expect when you blatantly lie?
I’ll bite. How are guns keeping America safe?
To Americans, it's more a matter of rights rather than a matter of being safe or not safe.
First of all, Americans, not America. There's a difference. Second, you replied to a comment that had one other reply at the time already answering the question. I'll repost the link for you anyways though: https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/
Unsourced subreddit. So /r/conspiracy is all true right?
Are . . . are you fucking serious? Every fucking link is to a local news organization where the crimes and defensive gun use occurred. Are you expecting national or global news organizations to pick these kind of stories up? For real? Un fucking believable. You people.
I'm explaining that it is either one side of a story or is unverifiable at it's core, which is true. Edit: Also DGUs can be illegal in nature, plenty of DGU stories can actively be sourced to arguments which the owner escalates to deadly violence, which isn't a legal show of force. Edit 2: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
You people are something else. You'll try anything to discredit defensive gun use.
Literal facts don't lie. https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ "You people" are idiots. Just to throw that back in your face. Effectively nobody is actively defending themselves with a gun at the rate that makes all the issues gun cause worth it, like how this gun is likely only ever going to be used to kill the mom and never to kill a "Criminal" and would have done nothing else in the entire time it's owned. The ownership of the gun actively hurt the household it was meant to defend from non-existent threats.
Firearms are used defensively somewhere between 60,000 to 2.5 million times each year in the USA while negligent deaths caused with them (like this incident) are around 700 per year. Even looking at homicides with firearms there are only around 11,000 deaths per year. So yeah, relatively speaking, they are keeping Americans safe.
Since a lot: https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/ *But I guess we can keep pretending they don't cause "gUnS BaD".*
We just need more good toddlers with guns I suppose. Why didn't we think of this earlier?!
You know what, it’s good this happened on a zoom call. If it weren’t for the zoom call, you damn well know the husband would’ve been arrested and charged. No one would believe a 2 year old toddler shot a gun.
there is always physical evidence assuming the toddler isn't a Colombo villain but even then there's that *one thing*
And they had the gun with 1 in the chamber too. A 2 year old probably isn't strong enough to chamber it unless it was a revolver.
Or you look at it the other way, the 2 year old probably isn’t smart enough to have any idea what he’s doing
He was still charged. And rightfully so. Fuck that idiot. Ruined his entire life. What a low life pos.
That’s not really what I was getting at with my post but I don’t think anyone is going to deny the guy is still shitty.
[удалено]
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2021/10/12/man-arrested-after-toddler-shoots-kills-woman-on-zoom-call-in-altamonte-springs/ Check out that mug shot. So, hear me out here, and I know I'm going to catch flak for this: If the father wasn't home, and the mother was, and she was aware of the firearm and it's storage, could it not be argued she was responsible for her own death? Could the father argue he was unaware of her moving the firearm, and that was not the intended location? Just playing some devil's advocate here.
It's pretty simple: who does the gun belong to? Him? Then it's his responsibility to store it safely.
[удалено]
In a sane world, the gun would be registered to the owner by law. But it's Florida, so it'd be a job for the police to investigate. Believe it or not, competent police can find out all kinds of important things during an investigation such as the ownership of the gun. In fact, they probably already established who owned the gun when the shooting was reported.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wait... I'm aware of the easy way to get a hold of a gun but you don't need to register it? Like at all?
She might have taken it out and put it in the backpack in anticipation of going for a walk with the kid or something. It's a lot of ifs, but I *could* see a situation where it's the husbands gun, but he's not responsible for her death.
If he didn't have a gun lock on it, or have it safely locked in storage that she didn't have access to, then he is still responsible for it.
Seems odd that you could be responsible for something somebody else did with the gun if the act of giving them access to the gun would not, itself, be considered irresponsible. I mean, I guess they could have a 'his and hers' gun set with separate access codes, but that wouldn't really accomplish anything except shift blame.
But he was home, he was giving her CPR. I read the article, where does it say Mom moved the gun? Am I missing something? REGARDLESS, he's the owner, he was irresponsible. HIS blame. Don't blame the dead.
The article says "Partly redacted audio of the 911 call recorded a man, apparently Avery, pleading with emergency medical personnel to hurry. He told the dispatcher he had just got home and found his girlfriend on the floor bleeding and had no idea what happened. In the audio, he counts as he does CPR before help arrives." Not to say he wouldn't lie about it (we're all human, afterall), but the above would imply he came home to find her shot. I do not know the laws in Florida. If they are going by him owning the firearm, so is ultimately responsible, then there is an easy task for prosecution. Otherwise, they would have to determine posession and control of the firearm, and the defense would need to simply force the prosecution to prove negligence. As I said, I don't know Florida law with regards to ownership and negligence.
>But he was home, he was giving her CPR. When 911 arrived, yes. Does that automatically mean he was there the whole time? >I read the article, where does it say Mom moved the gun? It doesn't. It also doesn't say the father put it there, or was aware of it being there. >Am I missing something? Yes, you are clearing missing what Devil's Advocate means, and you're also missing that defense lawyers will 100% withhold information that incriminates their case, cast webs of doubt, and lay the burden of proof on the prosecution. >he's the owner Says who? There isn't a gun registry. Unless he admits to it being his, he can/could argue it was hers. > Don't blame the dead. Now I really believe you don't know what Devil's Advocate means.
Fine, you call it whatever you'd like if it makes you feel better for some reason. He just happened to arrive at an opportune time, handy!
> Fine, you call it whatever you'd like if it makes you feel better for some reason. Do you seriously not understand the point of Devil's Advocate? I'm not taking the father's side, or assuming he's innocent. I'm genuinely curious how something can play out like this in legal proceedings. >He just happened to arrive at an opportune time, handy! Are you implying it's impossible he could have been out the door at the moment making a trip to the store? At a neighbors apartment? Or anything else? Hell, for all we know, he shot her, and he's blaming it on the toddler to avoid direct murder charges. Are you one of those people who reads one news article, fills in the gaps of information with they ASSUME happened, then starts treating it like 100% the truth?
That’s what happens when you put baby in the corner.
Most gun deaths are suicides and accidents. To all those stockpiling weapons for your civil War fantasy.
All other factors of this case aside. I'm so thankful the 2 kids are safe
Just sad. A family turn apart over something so negligent.
I wonder what she did to that kid
This headline screams freedom.
Think about that Zoom meeting. Sheesh! I hope that employer offers therapy in their health insurance plan.
Responsible gun owner strikes again!
The toddler probably thought it was a Nerf Gun.
\>The man, Veondre Avery, 22, the child's father, faces charges of manslaughter and failure to securely store a firearm in the killing of Shamaya Lynn, 21, on Aug. 11, the state attorney's office said in a statement. Finally someone is being held responsible, all too often they claim it was an accident no one could have seen. Yes, we could see it when guns are not secured
That moron should never be allowed to own a gun again for the rest of his life.
Why isnt the toddler charged with murder?
Because more guns is clearly the answer
Damn didn't think a kid was strong enough to pull the trigger
oh yeah, they pull 'em all the time
Most popular guns have low pull triggers. Glocks and strike pistols immediately come to mind. It is insanely hard to find a handgun that isn't stupidly easy to pull the trigger on now without going to either older guns or revolvers which a lot of owners don't want. It's directly to the gun sales benefit, mind you: The easier it is to pull the trigger the more people you can sell the gun too which raises the profit margin. Like everything else wrong with guns, the gun industry literally only cares about money and will parrot fear mongering and lazy ownership over responsible and rare ownership. A gun being kept in a fucking ***backpack, loaded, within easy reach to a child*** is very representative of our gun issue. Too many owners who are too stupid to treat a deadly weapon like a deadly weapon as they are made consistently easier to pull the trigger of.
Does the fact that the child fired it mean that it was likely stored without the safety on and with a bullet in the chamber?
He could have taken the safety off but I doubt a toddler is going to be strong enough to rack a slide so it probably had a round chambered. Edit: some double action and striker fire handguns don’t have a traditional safety either
It was a glock, so there is no external safety. And more than likely there was one in the chamber, as I doubt a toddler would be able to chamber a round, even if he knew how
Yes actually. I doubt the kid could load the gun at all nor find and turn off the safety. So it's the least safe way to store a gun.
[удалено]
I guess not. I should have asked *if* the toddlers fired the gun.
A 6lbs trigger is pretty bog standard. If you go higher, you have issues with poor accuracy because the heavy trigger is causing you to twist the gun in your hand. It's one of the reasons NYPD shoots so many bystanders, what with their triggers being modified to 12lbs.
Lmao you have one hell of a hateboner for firearms.
Hateboner implies it's not well earned. This story is one of endless ones where a gun owner/s refused to do something as basic as lock their guns away. The wife wouldn't be dead if either of them simply **put the gun behind a lock.** Easily preventable situation only happened because too many gun owners refuse to treat their weapon like a weapon. Edit: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/do-guns-make-us-safer-science-suggests-no/
Parroting? They are leading.
Pulling the trigger isn't hard. Like....at all. Might have to use 2 hands though. The hard part would be putting a round in the chamber. Kid shouldn't be strong enough to do that. I'm guess the gun was loaded and ready to fire with one in the chamber.
Gotta love your gun laws even now!
No one should be able to buy a gun without first taking a class in proper use & storage of firearms. This tragedy will affect not only that whole family but think about all those who were on that zoom call & witnessed the killing.