A two-year old sitting in a shopping cart shot his mother dead at point blank range in a Walmart, after finding a loaded pistol in the mother’s open purse. It is such a horrible story that journalists are reluctant to call attention to its obvious lessons. Veronica Jean Rutledge engaged in grossly irresponsible conduct as a mother, a citizen and a gun owner. If her actions, which constituted child endangerment of all four of the children in her charge, as well as a public menace to unsuspecting shoppers in a public store, were to result in anyone’s death or injury, she was the best possible victim. This was all her fault.
The analogy might be a parent who leaves an infant locked in over-heated car, but this is far, far worse. Carrying a loaded gun in public without observing gun safety principles—safety off, for example— posed a threat to everyone around Rutledge. (UPDATE: It is apparently illegal in Idaho to carry a concealed, loaded gun.) Leaving any gun accessible to children is criminal negligence. She was lucky—yes, lucky—that her toddler didn’t shoot one or more of the three girls, all under 11, participating in the shopping trip, or himself. Now the boy will live with the trauma of knowing that he killed his own mother. He will be lucky not to be psychologically scarred for life.
Who knows how many times Rutledge had left her firearm, safety off, within reach of children? I find it hard to believe this was the first time. I find it difficult to believe that she didn’t regularly leave her child in peril, if she would do this even once. Allowing a child access to a loaded gun ready to fire is the equivalent of leaving an open bottle of rat poison within reach of an infant, allowing a child to share a home with a pet wolf, leaving a child alone without supervision while the mother partied and got stoned, or perhaps letting a toddler run free in a home meth lab. If any of these resulted in the death of the child, public outrage against the parent would be merciless and deafening. It should not be any less intense in this case, simply because moral luck took a relatively merciful turn.
Veronica Jean Rutledge was an unforgivably unethical gun owner, citizen, caretaker and mother, and it killed her.
If there had to be a victim, she was the right one.
UPDATE: From the Washington Post 12/31:
Rutledge isn’t just sad — he’s angry. Not at his grandson. Nor at his dead daughter-in-law, “who didn’t have a malicious fiber in her body,” he said. He’s angry at the observers already using the accident as an excuse to grandstand on gun rights.
“They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case,” he said.
- That link from Post reporter Terrence McCoy comes right back to this post. I’d like to know where “gun rights” are mentioned or even implied above, much less used to “grandstand.” I can’t even figure out what gun rights point McCoy thinks I’m trying to make (I’m for them, by the way.)
- VERONICA WAS NOT IRRESPONSIBLE????? This is res ipsa loquitur: if you get shot by a toddler because you left your loaded pistol, safety off, where he could get it while you are in a public place with 4 kids under your care, you ARE irresponsible: negligent, incompetent, reckless, ignorant of gun and safety obligations, careless. The facts speak for themselves; no further proof is necessary.
Ethics Alarms 
Oh dear God! I would agree that she was lucky for all the reasons you mentioned. I’d rather be dead than live to see my criminal negligence result in the death of someone else, especially another child.
I keep thinking the child is the greater victim.
You might be right.
It was my first thought.
The second was: oh, so if it hadn’t turned out as it did, then the boy (as a teen) and his mother could have gone on to star in a PSA about gun control….
And the other siblings too who saw this happened — this whole family is ruined. Fast forward 20 years to Christmas dinner, “Hey remember when Johnny shot mommy in the store?” “Yeah, there was blood and gore everywhere, we were crying.” “And then the police came and we were so scared!”
Johnny, “I don’t remember any of this. But thanks again for contributing to my drug and alcohol problems.”
How are Secret Service agents trained to handle firearms? I can only imagine what would happen to a Secret Service agent who just left a loaded pistol lying around.
A negligent discharge is an intentional discharge.
Oh so judgmental! Shopping with young children is hard and mistakes happen. It was the gun that killed, not any ‘bad ethics’. Just another dreadful tragedy to set against the general acceptance of carrying loaded weapons – killing machines primed for instant use. Of course accidents like this will happen again and again and again ….. How awful.
Wowsers!! Congratulations, Andrew!!!!! You win the “Who will be the first anti-gun hysteric who tries to turn this clear example of a certifiable idiot using a gun without proper concern for anyone’s safety including her own into an indictment of responsible gun owners?” Prize. I already wrote a post about people like you, here.
But you really are special, and perhaps a blooming satirist. Judgmental? Oh, you’re SO right, Andy: imagine questioning the sanity of a woman who takes a loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber along and leaves it in a purse next to a toddler when she’s overseeing 4 children. I mean, whose mother hasn’t done that? It’s a choice mothers have to make all over the country, thousands of times a day! Why couldn’t I put myself in her shoes—well, other than the fact that I really am bad in high heels— so terrified of those homicidal, cannibalistic Walmart shoppers around her, wanting to be prepared in case she is suddenly jumped by a rabid wolfhound…or another gun! Because the damn things just jump out and start shooting people all by themselves, you know! Yeah, imagine my criticizing a mother for doing this, or having her kids hold live hand grenades for her, or other similar conduct. What was I thinking?
And you are so right—Shopping with young children is hard, especially when the little tykes are always trying to shoot you, and loaded guns are lying just within reach everywhere. What’s a mother to do??? And of course, mistakes DO happen—lock yourself out of the house, forget to pay the water bill, set up your son to shoot you in a Walmart…Why, come to think of it, I recall the time I inadvertently left a bonfire I had built in our living room to toast marshmallows a few years ago, and then carelessly left the damn thing burning away when I decided on a whim to drive to Reno to play Keno (or was it the other way around?)
Anyway, when I got back the whole house had burned down with my first wife, Jean, and our 14 children— Babar, 12, the twins Kloe and Kim,11, Jo-Jo, 10, Adolf, 9, Rin-Tin-Tin, 8, Zsa-Zsa, 7, Zuzu, 6, Zorro, 5, Hieronymus, 4, the triplets: Larry, Mo, and Gertrude, 3, Barack, 47, Red Sox 7, Yankees 2 inside. It was a horrible tragedy, but hey, I chalked it up to experience: next time, put OUT the bonfire in the living room before Kenoing for a weekend.
You, sir, are a moron.
I didn’t indict responsible gun owners or anyone else. You’re the one indicting this mother for her mistakes, for which she and her family have paid dearly. My point, is simply that accidents like this will continue to happen in communities where the carrying of loaded weapons is commonplace. Ranting against this woman won’t achieve anything. The next toddler that finds a loaded gun may shoot you or your loved ones. I guess that is a risk you’re prepared to take, as preferable to restricting the carrying of loaded weapons.
I almost wonder if this is that weird internet mixture of satire and pure troll that I find so hard to catch.
But on the off chance this is serious, Andrew… Walking around with a loaded gun isn’t per se irresponsible, that line between irresponsible and responsible lies with the circumstances you’re in. Does it make sense to have a loaded weapon while walking alone through a slum at 2AM, or basically anywhere in Detroit? Sure. Is it irresponsible? I don’t think so. Now juxtapose that to this situation. Does it make sense to carry a loaded handgun with the safety off in the middle of a shopping center, in your purse, directly beside your toddler? No. And so yes Andrew, this woman in particular was cripplingly stupid, and irresponsible, and that mixture of stupidity and irresponsibility cost her her life in a stunning example of Darwinism.
Anyone who allows a firearm into the grabby paws of a two year old cannot complain to anyone but themselves when someone gets shot. Assume for instance, that the moral luck at play went sideways, and instead of the mother, the child shot the three girls, a nun, a nearby dog and them himself. Would you stand there and say “No no, it’s not the gun owner’s fault! It’s the society where we have guns!” You might. But that’s not true. It’s 100% her own fault.
I thought it might be a spoof too. Apparently not. Just a really idiotic comment from someone who may be frighteningly typical of those at the forefront of anti-gun efforts.
Andrew, I am so glad you wrote back: thank you. I wondered all night if you had written a sly satirical comment mocking the most extreme and irrational reactions of those whose response to every gun-related tragedy is “EVIL! EVIL! SEND THOSE DEVICES OF TH DEVIL TO HELL!”, and I had unfairly assailed you because I missed the joke.
Now I know that I properly assailed you. Your tunnel-vision on this matter crosses over into pathology. Of course you impugn reponsible gun owners: you wrote: “Just another dreadful tragedy to set against the general acceptance of carrying loaded weapons – killing machines primed for instant use. Of course accidents like this will happen again and again and again.” That means you believe carrying firearms is per se irresponsible because these are “killing machines.”
As Rooster Cogburn points out in “True Grit,” carrying an UNloaded weapon isn’t good for anything. No one should carry any kind of weapon who isn’t properly observant of the responsibilities that go with it. The excuses of the victim’s father and others come down to “we’re gun people.” That’s an insult to responsible gun owner, like your comment: she was a negligent and reckless “gun person” and paid the price. I cannot take seriously any comment or commenter that includes a fatuous rationalization like “mistakes happen” and “it was the gun that killed, not any ‘bad ethics’.” The first is like shrugging off Chernobyl or a serial killing with “hey, anyone can make a mistake!” and the second is just idiotic. The gun killed because the gun’s owner was irresponsible. There was no rant regarding the mother, just a preemptive strike against people like you, who would absurdly present her as a pure victim when she was the perp as well—an inexcusable negligent and incompetent gun owner, no different in her culpability from a drunk driver with children in the back seat.
Or worse, a drunk who allows his/her 2 year old to drive.
So why has not the Secret Service accidentally shot those whom they are protecting?
To be fair, it happened to Huey Long…
Accident?
“I guess that is a risk you’re prepared to take, as preferable to restricting the carrying of loaded weapons.”
Apparently Idaho’s restrictions didn’t make a difference. What’s your next solution, ant?
The gun killed no one. Your statement implies sentience. The responsibility for this tragedy lies entirely with the mother.
Just shorthand joed68. Of course I agree: inanimate objects like guns don’t have responsibilities. The makers and marketers of them may well do so though, and gun manufacturers certainly are ‘sentient’ and very conscious of their commercial interests. Makers of chainsaws and prescription medicines generally accept some responsibility for safety: guards, safety switches and pill bottles that kids find hard to open. Not perfect of course but they try, and they can be held at least partially responsible in the Courts for accidents involving their products. There are plenty of good ideas for improved gun safety – like personalised trigger locks. Why is development so slow? Hopefully in due course it will be just as illegal to take an inadequately protected gun to a shopping mall as it is to drive an unsafe car on the public highways.
I would welcome the development of technology like bio-locks, etc. What I wouldn’t welcome is legislation requiring such devices. I can think of numerous ways in which such legislation would be abused.
Would the Secret Service’s presidential security detail welcome bio-locks on the guns that the detail uses?
I don’t know. that’s one of the reasons why I said I wouldn’t welcome legislation mandating their use. I’m against all legislation that most people with their wits about them know could be used to set legal precedents, or towards other ends. I’m pretty much against any further legislation, truth be told. I have a list of direct quotes from politicians since about the early 60’s, spanning about 27 pages of 10-font, that makes their ultimate aim pretty clear.
The manufacturer responsibility is to make sure that the guns do not have any safety defects, e.g., the bullet can not be fired if the safety is on and unless the trigger is pulled, the chamber stays in one piece when the gun is fired, etc.
Marketers have a duty to not sell to people who are prohibited by law from bearing arms.
neither applies in this particular case, though (unless it turns out the gun somehow discharged by the toddler merely touching it, without pulling the trigger).
What about the old common law requirement that goods should be ‘fit for purpose’? For guns this must include safety considerations and the reality that the young children many of us live with are inquisitive and resourceful.
We don’t require child proofing of cars, chain saws, swimming pools, or ladders. We keep coming back to that troublesome personal responsibility and accountability issue. Personal liberty is messy and dangerous.
In New York at least : Any child younger than four must ride in a federally approved child safety seat that’s properly secured by a safety belt or a universal child restraint anchorage system. /. All children younger than 8 years old must be secured in a child safety seat restraint system. I don’t like these laws but they are certainly an attempt to ‘child proof cars’. Aren’t there also some pool fencing requirements on domestic pools in some states to try to reduce child drownings? Yes a balance has to be struck between protecting children and respecting the freedoms of their parents. Not easy. I’d like gun manufacturers to accept at least some responsibility for accidents when young children find and shoot their parents’ weapons. Gun manufacturers could do much more. Hopefully in due course they will find it in their commercial interests to be more responsive.
Any sane person would like to see less children maimed or killed by implements intended for adult use, but even considered purely in terms of effectiveness, I doubt anything short of banning civilian ownership of firearms would stand a chance of accomplishing that, other than firearms owners being safe This is where terms like “striking a balance” worry me. Rather than being the argument to moderation it implies, it sets up a false dichotomy, wherein you’re either for “respecting freedoms” or killing children. It always means further restrictions. The reality is that there really isn’t anything more to be done legislatively that could make children more safe. Even in an outright ban, you’d end up with a black market in home-made guns which would have minimal standards of quality control. The fact is, a modern firearm can be rendered entirely safe with responsible handling, and, being intimately familiar with firearm construction and operation, I really can’t think of very much that can be done to make them safer.
Please explain, consistently with traditional notions of responsibility, how gun manufacturers are supposed to be responsible.
It’s an extreme strict liability theory. “Runaway Jury” makes as good an argument of it as can be made, it’s still not good.
If cigarette manufacturers can be held liable for the forseeable damage caused by their products (debateable – but they’ve already paid out millions) then going after gun manufacturers making guns without easily installable safety devices is at least conceivable. It is certainly an ongoing worry for their insurers.
Cigarette manufactures were found to be negligent and deceptive by denying the health dangers associated with cigarettes when they knew otherwise. Good luck making the case that gun manufacturers have been dishonestly representing that guns don’t kill people.
I would also point out that nicotine has been shown to be addicting, and cigarette manufacturers, on finding this out, put MORE of it in the cigarettes, for obvious reasons. Nothing analogous happened with gun manufacturers.
There are better arguments than that Jack Marshall! The forseeable harmful consequence is not killing the intended target, it is being shot by the toddler in the next door shopping trolley who has just found a loaded gun without a safety device.
That’s not an argument that stands up in a court or law or a court of logic, my friend. Guns, like cars and heavy machinery, have inherent dangers that the user, not the manufacturer, are entirely responsible for avoiding. You want to sue the makers of butcher knifes for stabbings? Good luck.
Ah, but the plaintiffs were people who smoked before the dangers of smoking became common knowledge.
I suspect Jack Marshall you are well aware of the arguments on both sides (re the liability of gun manufacturers). There are however plenty of surprised manufacturers of ‘heavy equipment’ (your example) who have been held liable for the ‘ forseeable adverse consequences’ of skimping on readily available safety guards and switches. I agree that for the moment gun manufacturers are at little risk of court action, more because of their political power than the strength of legal argument. Time will tell ……
Agreed Michael Ejercito. In using the tobacco experience to pusue gun manufacturers (re their product liability), the more useful parallel might be passive smoking. Public opinion re liability can change substantially over just a decade or two, and the law changes with it. I hope opinion on gun safety changes too but I’m not holding my breath. It is not hopeless: Who would have thought back in the 60s/70s that universities might have any liability for sexual harrassment on campus?
Has the Secret Service demanded the equivalent of safety guards and switches for the firearms used by its presidential security detail?
“Has the Secret Service demanded the equivalent of safety guards and switches for the firearms used by its presidential security detail?”
Very much doubt it Michael Ejercito. But guess also they’d resist having snivelling kids crawling over them on duty, and requirements to change nappies are probably rare. Their working environment is quite different to the domestic near chaos of many families with young children. Guns sold into the domestic market should be designed and equipped for the risks inherent in domestic family life: or if not they should be labelled with appropriate warnings.
No, they can not, because they are not responsible- at least under any sane definition of responsibility. The relevant safety considerations is that the gun only fires if the trigger is pulled and safety is off, and that the gun stays intact when the round is fired.
The “mistake” was not carrying on the person in such a condition that the firearm couldn’t be easily accessed by the children.
Duh.
“Just another dreadful tragedy to set against the general acceptance of carrying loaded weapons – killing machines primed for instant use.”
Screw you and your arrogance. You’re damned right they are killing machines primed for instant use. I’m not about to be caught with my pants down in a situation where I will regret not annihilating some asshole bent on doing the same to my wife and children or myself. Nope. Sorry. Take your feelings and shove them. And yes, I will “generally accept the carrying of loaded weapons” if others feel so inclined to protect those they care about.
Asshole.
She was the best victim. Hey, if things are perfect, natural selection will stop working. Watch out for toddlers, they shoot. Next time, I will wear bullet proof vest while shopping.
Hello all… i’m from India and we don’t have such gun laws here.. but it looks like, the only news that I see concerning America are “school shootings” and “accidental ones” every week. I have nothing against America and I love your country .. but owning a gun, seems to be a sign of insecurity to me. and I repeat, the only news I see is a regular pattern: “kid goes on shooting spree” or “kid accidentally discharges weapon”.. Don’t you see what’s happening b’coz of these Gun laws ? anybody can be careless about anything… nobody is perfect. I’m only airing my views about this.
Good morning, sir. Our second amendment was essentially a reaffirmation of a natural right; the right to exist. In our declaration of Independence, we stated that people have the right to throw off the yoke of a government that has descended into tyranny. Having just fought a revolution, we were very aware of the importance of retaining the practical means of doing so. Since then, we’ve observed other nations succumb to mass democide, which for many of us, hardens our resolve to never go down their path. I would agree with you that we are insecure, with the modification that it is a healthy mistrust of what we regard as a necessary evil (government). Responsible people should always be alert, aware, and uneasy. If not, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we wake up one day to realize that far too many of our essential liberties are gone, and once these are gone, they usually don’t return. Legislation enacted in recent decades proves that, yes, it CAN happen here Some will argue that it would be an exercise in futility to resist if it ever came to this, but I disagree. One has only to look at the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan to realize that people fighting for their lives, on their soil, retain a distinct advantage that no amount of technology and unlimited resources can cancel out. Regardless of this consideration, there is the fact that, in this unlikely but possible scenario, many people would rather go out fighting than meekly submitting.
For some people, it’s about self-protection. The simple fact here is that police have no legal obligation to protect individual life, even in the unlikely event that they arrived quickly enough to help. Many people feel that it’s not only their right, but a duty to protect themselves and their loved ones from the predators among us. To people who haven’t been mugged (for example), the need for protection seems remote or nonexistent.As far as our exported propaganda, understand that there is an ideological war going on in America between conservatives and the misguided (guess which one I am). The misguided, who are terrified to shreds by even a pop-tart (a piece of sugar and cholesterol that you put into a toaster) chewed into the shape of a gun, also suffer from the delusion that it is their God-given mandate to force others to live as they see fit, without the slightest sense of irony or of their hypocrisy. Unfortunately, they also have taken control of our media and learning institutions. These school shootings do happen, and they are always tragic, but what you see is sensationalized, distorted, and cherry-picked out of all proportion in ways too numerous to list. A very useful propaganda tool is the polished ability to make isolated incidents look like epidemics. I have to stop for now; work to be done.
Well done, and Comment of the Day.
Thanks, Jack. I often wish I had more time to kick out a more refined comment now and then. I’m much slower at writing than I am at thinking.
@Jack Marshall : Truly, Joed68 is the response of the Day. Comment of the day.
Yep.
Hello Joed68,
I want to mention utter respect towards you for the response. It was well drafted to the highest forms of literacy and understanding. Of course, I do want to mention that there are other news from America as well. Like the health bill thingy etc, that is shown to us. Of course, some news could be handpicked and made a big issue in front of us and in the end, that is what we end up thinking. but at the same time, i dont have numbers, but statistics will never lie on accidental or intented deaths which have happened connected to privately owned guns.
As to what you said, it is sad that police have no legal obligation to protect individual life in your country. Over here, its different. Even an off-duty cop will never shirk off responsibilities when he sees arguments happening on the road etc. When someone is a cop, or elects to become a cop, it is considered to devote an entire of all your duties towards the country.
Basically, I see all of us in the attitude, of “that aint’ my job”.. for which different countries are at different levels of.
Many women in this country, carry for protection against violent crime incluing rape. But I guess they don’t have a rape problem in India.
Zing!!!
Bazinga.
@JustaSec, with much respect to you, its not necessary that you require to make a sarcastic comment that there is “no rape in India”. Being an Indian , representing India in this forum, I do accept that my country has become the hot bed for such action. but I understand, from other news that American college campuses are frequent hot beds for underage drinking and rape… More importantly, it shows in your movies. (P.S: I love hollywood)…
(I thought the rape crack was a cheap shot too. I almost said so, but I figured you could fend for yourself.)
Of course it shows in our movies: it is core to the culture. The US has a mythology and a legend base that is all about guns as an instrument of individualism, self-defense, and good triumphing over evil: it was a young country civilized by guns. Similarly, it is a nation created in defiance of central authority, and under-aged drinking is a right of passage. Americans feel they should be able to do what they want to.
The campuses are not a hotbed of rape, however. They are a hotbed of sex, and now there is a political movement on the left to gain traction by portraying all aggressive sexual advance and alcohol-fueled intercourse as rape or sexual assault. See here.
I enjoy and appreciate your perspective, and I hope you continue to be active here.
Hello Jack Marshall.
Thanks. I shall be available on this forum. I have subscribed !! 😉
Terrific! Welcome!
Hi Jack… I saw another similar incident today in the news.. heart rending to me. Sometimes, I see my wife suffer due to some type of sickness like asthma and we gotta rush to the hospital to get the nebulizer and it really breaks my heart to feel sad and pained. In this case. the husband must’ve been in too much of pain / emotional turmoil to see his wife in such a state…
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/02/justice/georgia-police-chief-wife/?iid=ob_article_organicsidebar_expansion&iref=obnetwork
First, Jabez, welcome. Then, almost automatically, the gun was in bed with you? And it went off when you tried to move it? What kind of an idiot Police Chief are you? Not you personally, but the guy in the article. This is criminally dumb. I didn’t think “stupid” was a crime, but maybe it should be.
I’m not so sure a tamed/pet wolf belongs with the other stupidities. other than any pet more active than an turtle could cause harm if the owner is irresponsible. I feel sorry for the kid, he’s too young to have to be saddled with the whispers and stigma. Any trips with a group of small kids can turn dangerous and I agree it’s far better she, and not a child or innocent stranger were harmed. Just because some can’t be responsible with a new toy doesn’t mean you should take it from everyone.
Wolves can’t be domesticated and like lions and other exotic predators are a risk to eat family members when kept as pets.
Not as a rebuttal and completely off topic, but I think it is extremely interesting that, although individual wolves cannot be domesticated, a mere 3 or 4 generations of selective breeding can produce Dog-like levels of domestication. And vice versa, a few generations of selective breeding in Dogs can produce wolf-like levels of ferality.
It is fascinating.
I once read a Readers Digest story about a family that had a pet wolf, and children, and a dog. It was nuts.
The father researched, discovered that wolves couldn’t be domesticated and also sometimes killed their young, so the whole family was run like a wolf pack. He established dominance over the wolf (he placed his jaws over the animal’s throat and urinated around the house) and eventually felt safe. Of course, I may have missed the news story about him getting eaten.
Wow! That is some dedication to own a wolf…
I mean, I use dog psychology to maintain a pack heirarchy in their mind with me as the alpha, such as dominance play wrestling and order of eating, but I don’t go to those lengths.
I bet the one dog in that family thinks “hey jerks, my ancestors domesticated so we could live comfortably… What are you doing?!?!”
Gun owners need to self-regulate. The primary reason I don’t own a gun is that I have no business owning a gun. Every minute of my life is divided between child rearing, a full-time demanding job, my husband, and my menagerie of high-maintenance pets.
I wouldn’t have the time to take gun safety classes or go to a range to practice. I couldn’t even remember a combination to a gun safe and certainly carrying would be out of the question since I can’t even keep track of my car keys in the morning.
So my post is not anti-gun, but anti-stupid gun owners. I have enough self-knowledge to recognize that I would be a shitty and irresponsible gun owner — this woman didn’t.
You have never been more absolutely dead-on, ever. Guns, which I own a few of (remember, retired, no kids at home, lockable gun cabinet, in my bedroom) are, and should be recognized as, dangerous. That is why the NRA has as one of it’s more rational programs, gun safety classes. I recognize and respect the fact that many people do not own guns for the very reasons you stated, but to that list I would add; no interest, philosophical objections, no time, not seeing a need and there are probably as many other reasons as there are people. The point is that we have a right to “keep and bear arms”. We also have a right NOT to own them and, as this story shows, there are many people who should exercise that right but, sadly, don’t.
Beth and dragin_dragon are right on. My wife and several of her friends have expressed the desire to apply for concealed-carry permits. I was appalled by the kinds of firearms they thought would be appropriate to buy for concealed carry, especially since they all have small children. I told them all to go to firearms safety classes and get comfortable using a rented pistol (gun ranges rent pistols) and think long and hard before even applying for the permit. At least our state does require range time during the permit class.
Children really complicate concealed-carry. Many women conceal-carry in a purse or in the car. These leave the firearm available for the children to easily access. As for the safety, many self-defense firearms do not have a safety. A common type of concealed-carry pistol is a hammerless double-action only revolver. In a panic situation, you don’t want to have to worry about jams, feeding a first round into the chamber, or safeties. This type of revolver has a heavy pull (to prevent accidental discharges) that would probably be more than a 2-year old could manage, but carrying one loose in a purse with children would still be irresponsible.
So my post is not anti-gun, but anti-stupid gun owners.
**********
I’m anti-stupid people, period.
I would also like to keep them off the roads.
A 2,000 lb projectile in the wrong hands is just as deadly as a .45 caliber one.
Let’s abstract this –
Every citizen needs to self-regulate. That’s what makes them responsible. I’m not sure what identifying that adds to the discussion.
Our family has always had a sort of unwritten rule to never have a hand gun. It’s just too easy to shoot yourself or someone else by accident. That said, a hand gun is as safe or unsafe as the person handling it. If a child gets hands on any gun the gun owner is at fault. It’s too bad this happened, but really, it’s a tribute to the responsible behavior of most gun owners that this kind of thing doesn’t happen more often rather than the other way around.
Of course the mom is at fault. It’s not even about whether or not the safety was on the gun. It’s having a bunch of guns in the first place and carrying one around to go to the store. I’ll never get shot by my toddler because I don’t have any guns.
That’s true. It’s also true that you would never get shot by a toddler if you had no children, and never get shot shopping if you never go out. Yes, but for the existence of guns, nobody would ever be shot. And if we ban cars, no child will be cooked in a hot car, and if we ban pitbulls, no one will ever be mauled by a mistreated pitbull. Banning alcohol should stop drunk drivers, and banning heavy machinery will stop the worst workers’ comp injuries. Yes, zero risk is always eschewing what creates the risk, whatever its benefits.
I don’t think that’s an observation worth making.
And I’ll never get shot by my great-grandson (he’s 2; a true toddler) because, despite owning a number and wide variety of guns, I EXERCISE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF GUN SAFETY IN MY HOME. I do this whether he’s visiting or not, because, as I stated in an earlier post, guns are dangerous, as are3 cars and chainsaws.
Not all handguns have a “safety”. That said, if you carry with a round “chambered” and your handgun doesn’t have a “safety”, then you are primed for such an incident. My handgun doesn’t have a safety and I sort of appreciate that a bit more…makes me consider if I want to carry chambered or not. Regardless, if I carry, it’s in my possession, on my body.
Yep.
My surprise so far: this post is getting runaway traffic, yet few have been willing to challenge the premise of the post. I expected a wave of “How dare you blame the victim!’ and “Where’s your pity and compassion!” protests. Is this because everyone pretty much agrees that under these facts, there’s no escaping the conclusion that the deceased was accountable and that there is no defense for her actions? Or has Ethics Alarms just accumulated a cold and callous readership?
The woman’s actions violated basic gun safety rules. A loaded firearm must be always secured.
If a Secret Service agent assigned to the Presidential security detail were found keeping a loaded handgun in her purse, she would be fired on the spot.
Here’s an angle not explored yet – Maybe we should ban 2 year olds? The sneaky little devils can turn anything into a weapon. Plus, I get by just fine without a 2 year old in my life so why would anyone else need one?
Excellent point.
Liberalize abortion to include 11th Trimester procedures?
Did you not see comments are moderated? The page owner screens
I have no idea what you are referring to.
Bwahahahahahahahah!
Geez, can’t you tell the owner of this blog must be weeding out the very comments that Jack Marshall above referred to?
Ok, congratulations, you are right. It was all Veronica Rutledge’s fault, and she was killed. No one has ‘defended’ her actions or your assertion of her guilt. How could they? So do we stop there? All’s right with the world, is it? At least she won’t do it again! It was pure chance that the mother was killed rather than any other shopper. You don’t have any suggestion as to how such accidents could be reduced ….. other than to say “No one should carry any kind of weapon who isn’t properly observant of the responsibilities that go with it”? Yes, another statement of the blindingly obvious. Elegantly right again. “No one should ….” but plenty will. Accidents will continue to happen, again and again, and perhaps for you that’s ok too. Not much more to say, is there? Here’s wishing you a safe and accident free New Year, with no thought as to whether you deserve it or not.
“You don’t have any suggestion as to how such accidents could be reduced”
What? Are you blind? Such accidents will be reduced by gun owners following simple, well-known, well-established safety rules, and parents making sure that children don’t have access to guns, especially loaded ones.
I think he’s implying that we need more “common sense”, “reasonable” gun laws to add to the 45,000 or so we already have.
Yes, because Idaho’s gun laws stopped this.
I’m thinking we need some drug laws too, to address this drug epidemic. Wait..
I appreciate the comment regarding the difference between carrying a loaded gun at 2 a.m. in Detroit vs. carrying a loaded gun in an Idaho WalMart on a weekday afternoon. I do not put myself into places or situations requiring a loaded gun, and therefore have never thought that carrying one makes any sense. Meanwhile, I have been responsible for the lives and safety of two children, and had serious conversations with their father about how and where to keep his guns. He agreed, and we never had any kind of incident. Guns were hidden, locked, with ammunition stored elsewhere. Not useful in the event of a home invasion, but as our home was in a relatively quiet suburban town, the odds of child gun accident were always far greater than were those of a home invasion.
I think this incident was Darwinism at its finest. I understand from the Washington Post article that the victim was well-educated, intelligent, and careful. I don’t doubt that. I am grateful that this time the injury caused by accidental mishandling of a gun was restricted to she who negligently provided the gun, and nobody else. If this careful, prepared, practiced mother was killed by her own gun in her own toddler’s hands, what does that say for the danger to people less cautious and forward-thinking? And to all the WalMart shoppers around them?
Hiding guns from children is dangerous and negligent…
What???
She may have been suggesting that it’s better to show your children what guns are and how to handle them safely rather than just keeping your guns hidden hoping they don’t find them. I don’t think that would work with a two year old, but it’s certainly a reasonable argument for older kids.
Not useful in the event of a home invasion, but as our home was in a relatively quiet suburban town, the odds of child gun accident were always far greater than were those of a home invasion.
I’d love to see a statistical analysis of this. I’d be willing to bet that it actually IS more likely to have a home invasion than to have a child-gun accident…
I think this incident was Darwinism at its finest.
It is Darwinism at its clumsiest. Natural selection only IMPROVES species when flawed individuals are removed BEFORE passing on genetic code.
Let me start off by saying that I found your article tasteless and cold. The analogies to a meth lab and rat poison not only missed their mark but were gross overstatements. Also you made it sound as if the woman took no precautions whatsoever to protect her children from this gun. The woman had a specially made purse for concealed carry, it had an extra area for her firearm( in a zippered pouch supposedly) It wasn’t just tossed nonchalantly next to her lipstick and wallet where her child had access. This was an accident, plain and simple. The only thing the mother can be blamed for is having a round in the chamber. Which I assume was not intentional since the woman and her husband both legally carried and had extensive training. I have owned and been around guns all my life and seen two negligent discharges outside of any shooting environment, they happen, it is unfortunate, i just can’t stand the way you and most of your commentators make this woman out to be a monster. As is said before this woman is negligent, she is to blame for this. But the only thing i can see that she did was having a round in the chamber and she paid a very high price for her family to learn from her mistake. And all you people berating her should be ashamed of yourselves.
Oh and your comment about the gun safety not being on really leads me to believe you have very little experience with gun ownership or usage. Gun safeties are pretty much useless if not more dangerous because they provide a false sense of a loaded gun being “safe”. Drop a loaded m16 on its butt with the safety still on and you’ll find out what i mean.
Let me start off by saying that I found your article tasteless and cold.
I could not care less. There was nothing cold about it: this isn’t a blog about gratuitous regret. There is a major point to make, which is that unethical gun owners and irresponsible parents get people killed.
The analogies to a meth lab and rat poison not only missed their mark but were gross overstatements.
How? I am talking about a parent allowing a child to have access to things that might kill them. If that were a Jeopardy category, the 40 buck question would be “What is a GUN, Alex.”
Also you made it sound as if the woman took no precautions whatsoever to protect her children from this gun.The woman had a specially made purse for concealed carry, it had an extra area for her firearm( in a zippered pouch supposedly)
Please. She left a loaded gun next to a toddler. A zipper? My Jack Russell Terrier opens zippers, and on purses. What a ridiculous and lame excuse.
This was an accident, plain and simple.
You are beyond belief. This was criminal negligence, plain and simple, and if anyone other than the gunowner had been killed, she would have been prosecuted, and rightly so.
The only thing the mother can be blamed for is having a round in the chamber.
Riiiight…
1. Bringing a loaded gun into a public place.
2. Unholstered.
3. Placing it in close proximity to a child.
4. While in custody of other children
5. Violating the law
6. With a bullet in the chamber.
7. And no safety
8. With no reasonable threat or reason to be armed.
I just can’t stand the way you and most of your commentators make this woman out to be a monster.
I didn’t say she was a monster. I said that she was an unforgivably unethical gun owner, citizen, caretaker and mother, and it killed her. And that is 100% true. You are in denial.
Gun safeties are pretty much useless if not more dangerous because they provide a false sense of a loaded gun being “safe”.
Hilarious! You just rationalized a woman letting a child have a loaded gun an arms length away because of a zippered compartment!!! A safety would have probably prevented this death. It was one more layer of protection.
I used to build M16 and M4 lowers; they will NOT discharge when dropped on their butts unless something is severely damaged. Many older open-bolt submachine guns (which I also built) might do this. The series 80 M1911 came about because there was an entirely unfounded myth that California legislators (of course) used in an attempt to ban the pistol; that it would fire if dropped on its muzzle due to its inertial firing pin. I agree, nonetheless, that one shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of security by engaging a safety, and I think Jack would too. In fact, Jack is essentially trying to get out in front of the lunatics who will inevitably blame the gun, and not the owner, for this tragedy.
Happy New Year, Joe! I would also add that no gun will actually launch a bullet unless there is one up the spout. Good idea in tanks, not so much in hand guns.
Happy New Year, my friend! Good point!
If there had to be a victim, she was the right one? You’re sick. THAT right there and that alone is the grandstanding her FIL was talking about…
That’s not grandstanding, that’s called “cutting through the BS.” My job is to focus attention on where it should be focused. This was blatantly irresponsible conduct that threatened lives, including the lives of young children, and if a life was going to be lost, the one who created the danger is obviously–obviously—the correct one. The truth hurts, I know. But you have no counter argument.
Agreed. Good article as usual, Jack.
My estimation: This was a bad outcome, but the least bad of all conceivable outcomes. Least bad/Best outcome – kid does not have access to gun/does not fire gun. 2nd least bad, gun goes off, but no one gets hurt. Next least/ 3rd least bad? Moron who lets kid get gun gets shot.
I meant to write “3rd least bad of all conceivable outcomes” oops.
Who gave all these people the secret handshake?
As a mother, and a cop’s wife, I am accustomed to having guns in the home with small children. I cannot fathom taking children shopping along with a loaded gun. For what earthly purpose? When I took all three of my children shopping with me, which was often, I had a hard enough time concentrating on picking out fresh broccoli while minding the three of them at the same time. I was tired, overwhelmed and outnumbered. Add a gun to that mix?
And what do you tell this child when he’s older? What the heck do you tell him? “You shot and killed your mother when you were two years old but it’s not your fault. It was hers.” – which is true – but that’s small consolation to a child when children are often ferociously protective of their mothers – even the ones they don’t remember. It is heartbreakingly tragic. I agree with Beth. This family is ruined.
The NRA supporters frequently state, “Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun.”
More guns = more mayhem. Walmart should join other stores and restaurants to prohibit customer’s from carrying guns in their stores. Statistically, if you openly or concealed carry a loaded firearm, sooner or later, it will go off!
University of Idaho even allows students to open carry on campus.
They need to join Washington State’s gun sense laws, such as background checks for all purchases and no open carry on campus, or in public places. If you look where the legislators and judges work, they require a metal detector screening to enter the building, so they protect themselves, but not the public. NRA lobbyist money is more important to some politicians than common sense gun laws. Time to start a citizen sponsored initiative, such as Cheryl Stumbo’s I-594, if Idaho’s politicians won’t pass common sense gun laws in the state of Idaho. Take action and save lives from future tragedies like this one.
Sorry, OJ, what she did was already against the law, and laws don’t stop stupid. This death had nothing to do with gun laws, and reckless, irresponsibility people will get others, or themselves, hurt or killed, laws notwithstanding.
Actually, it’s not illegal to carry concealed in Idaho with a state issued permit to carry. An Idaho resident 18 years of age may carry openly, and at 21 or with a judge’s permission may obtain a permit to carry concealed. The Christian Science Monitor is the first outlet I’ve seen report that as fact, but then they do have an anti-carry agenda, which the Bloomberg lobby will jump on for an [erroneous} talking point. http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/idaho.pdf
Did she have a permit to carry a concealed weapon? Of course, it’s a tangential issue.
Tangential indeed, but a distinction the CSM should have researched for their story, lest they be accused of unethical reporting.
So then the Secret Service should not carry either open or concealed?
“More guns=more mayhem. Statistically, if you openly or concealed carry a loaded firearm, it will go off! Time to start a citizen-sponsored initiative for common sense gun laws. Take action. I have spoken.”
“More guns = more mayhem. “
A dumb comment. I assume this is the “Wild West” argument. A worn out one. The “Wild West” was no more wild than the cities in the east. Do some reading.
I love the phrase “common sense” gun laws. It’s the same governmentally intrusive and ultimately ineffective gun laws that were proposed before they were debunked as stupid. Just, hey, label them as “common sense” and maybe the next generation of voters will be too stupid to realize they are the same crap we’ve been trying to foist for years!
She’s human. She made a mistake. A mistake that cost her her life and a mistake that will haunt her child his entire life. Mistakes happen.
On average about 100 people die in car accidents per day. We rarely hear about them. But most of those deaths were caused because someone drove carelessly or recklessly. We hear about irresponsible gun mishaps because many in the media think guns are a menace. The media exploit those tragic mishaps to move public opinion against guns. But irresponsible drivers cause more deaths per year than guns. By a long shot. But you’ll never hear about that in the media.
What kind of argument is that? A silly one. Check out the Rationalizations List: you nicked 1,2, 19, 20, and 22.
I don’t think Groty was arguing for or against any commentary you made. Rather taking a jab at the leftist media and it’s obvious agenda…
Why do you think that? These tongue in cheek replies need to signal their intent better than that, especially when I get comments like Andrew’s initial sally.
A few thoughts come to mind here.
I think it was a dangerous assumption on the mother’s part that concealed carry-type purses are suitable to prevent access to a firearm by children. They are not. This is not the purpose for which they are designed.
They provide a compartment in the purse in which a firearm may be A. easily accessible for quick retrieval and B. less prone to accidental discharge, from jostling with other items present in the purse, for example.
That’s it.
They do NOT offer a means of preventing access to a firearm from children. A firearm is neither secured nor under one’s direct control simply because it is stored in such a compartment in a purse.
This ought to be even more apparent in a case such as this, when the purse is in close proximity to a child, and distractions presented by taking care of multiple other children in a shopping outing would make keeping an eye on any one of them at all times close to impossible.
If children are present, I don’t see how a firearm could be carried responsibly without being worn in a holster on one’s person. If this is not practical/possible, it should be left at home stored in a locked container suitable for securing firearms.
Would utilizing a manual safety have helped prevent this? Likely. However, it is not clear if the firearm in question actually was designed with a safety. Would not carrying the firearm with a round in the chamber have prevented this? If it were a semi-auto, yes. I haven’t seen if there was confirmation on wherever it was a semi-auto or a revolver. If it was a revolver, clearly it could be a different story.
Thinking about this, I keep coming back to a point that seems to be of central relevance here. If a firearm is neither secured nor under one’s direct control -and in this case, it clearly was neither- then one has no business having it around children.
Quinn, your post brings up questions that the wife and I have been discussing, ie the carry method and nature of the firearm. Wifey is adamantly against women carrying arms in a purse, whether designed for concealment or not. On the body carry is the safest place to carry, and yes, Wifey does carry a pistol with one in the pipe, safety on, ON her person (we live in an urban war zone). A woman’s purse is most vulnerable to an attack by a bad actor; a purse snatching puts a loaded gun in the hands of a criminal. Likewise, with this case, it is in reach of a curious child.
As far as the gun itself, it would have had to be a semi-automatic pistol as opposed to a revolver based on the trigger pounds of pull, and “one in the pipe.” denoting a cocked gun with fairly light trigger pull. A single action revolver would require the child to cock the hammer, then pull the trigger. The trigger pull with the hammer back does make for a light trigger, but cocking the hammer would be beyond the physical capacity of any two year old to manage (and I’ll stake my life on that 😉 ) A double action revolver requires no cocking, but the first trigger squeeze is very heavy. Again, something beyond the physical capacity of a very young child, unless the gun had a trigger job (which is stupid, IMVHO).
Wife and I are both in agreement that it must have been a pistol as opposed to a revolver, and a manual safety more than likely would have prevented this incident. It sounds like this woman was trained; I don’t know how proficient her training was or how diligent she was with her habits, but this incident is the ultimate Darwinian fail.
I seriously can’t imagine how a mother with young children can keep a loaded firearm on her person and be really safe. How are hugging, toileting, vomit clearing, trying on clothes, swimming classes, doctor’s visits, settling disputes and the other traumas of parenting managed safely with a loaded gun that a 2 year old could fire strapped to one’s body? Isn’t this all too hard?
This comment makes me wonder what firearm experience you even have.
A properly holstered pistol is not going to be fired by anyone without withdrawing it first. It’s a ton easier to notice someone fumbling around pulling your pistol from your body. But then again, if you know your activities will increase the ability for someone else to pull your own gun, you adjust your carry needs accordingly.
Excuse me for presumption, but I guess few of us have real extended combat experience of going solo with multiple young children, all demanding attention, leaky nappies and other horrors in shopping trollies etc etc.? Or getting three babies and toddlers plus oneself changed for swimmimg lessons while keeping track of wallet, mobile phone, shopping, puffer for the asthmatic ….. and the loaded gun? And breastfeeding a baby in a small toilet cubicle while keeping control of a couple of energetic toddlers ….. and the loaded gun? it seems very clear that carrying the loaded gun in a purse or bag on such missions is inherently unsafe. But how many carrying mothers, like Veronica Rutledge, with young children, use a well secured holster? Pretty few I guess.
Yup—they are smart enough, in fact, to realize when, under those conditions they can’t be responsible gun carriers, and thus are endangering themselves, the kids, and everyone else. She didn’t. Your astounding response:“Oh so judgmental! Shopping with young children is hard and mistakes happen.”
Sorry, I can’t take anyone seriously who would write such idiocy for public consumption.
Andrew, it would be damned near impossible for ANY child to remove and fire a mother’s properly holstered pistol without her being able to take control of it long before it could be fired. I have to agree with Tex that it appears you have little, if any, personal experience with firearms. Nothing wrong with that, but it precludes a knowledge of the mechanics of a situation like this.
And what is she to do?
Hire an armed bodyguard.
Of course, this begs the question of how armed bodyguards deal with children
As you would know if you knew ANYTHING about firearms at all, no, it isn’t.
Agreed that it must have been a pistol with a round chambered. Some of those double action and double action only pistols have very light trigger pulls. Personally, I never had a round chambered when I carried off-duty. I feel that enough practice will allow you to rack and present just as quickly as having a chambered round. It seems to me that she gave up more tactical advantage by having it in her purse with a round chambered than she would have by having it on her person without a round chambered. Either she lacked proper training, or she ignored it.