Does this graphic look familiar? It should: I used it only a month ago, and for the exact same reason.
“A toddler reaching for an iPod in his mother’s purse grabbed a loaded gun instead before shooting both his parents in an Albuquerque motel room on Saturday, according to news reports. Police said the bullet hit the father in the buttock and the mother, who is eight months pregnant, in her right shoulder, but did not strike a 2-year-old child who was also in the room, according to Fox News.”
Gee, I guess Monique Villescas and John Reynolds, the lucky parents in this near tragedy, were so amused at the death of Veronica Jean Rutledge at the hands of her toddler that they just couldn’t resist trying the old “let’s leave a loaded gun where a small child can reach it” trick themselves. Or, I suppose, they might just be irresponsible fools.
Observations:
1. Two of these incidents in a little more than a month ?! What are the odds that Rutledge and these boobs were the only Americans leaving loaded guns within the reach of young children?
2. Someone needs to ask these two dangerous knuckleheads if they happened to read about Rutledge’s Walmart end in December, and still did this. That would be useful information regarding just how irresponsible they are….or, in the alternative, it would be a cautionary tale about the dangers of not paying attention to the news, especially if you need to hear about a women getting killed to figure out that leaving your loaded gun in a small motel room with two toddlers is a bad idea. Of course, people this foolish would probably explain, “But that was a Walmart! This is a motel, so we thought we’d be OK.”
3. If the bullet had killed either of the children, the parents absolutely would have been prosecuted. If the bullet had killed one of the parents, I wonder. Then it would be called “a tragic accident” and it would be argued that the surviving parent had “suffered enough.” Yet the wildly irresponsible, incompetent, reckless and criminal act of leaving a loaded pistol for a child to grab and use is exactly the same regardless of where the bullet ends up…or even if the gun is never found or fired by the child at all. This moral luck in its purest form.
4. The Post writes, “Both children were placed on a 48-hour hold with the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, according to KOB-TV.”
Why just a hold? Why aren’t the children considered to be endangered, at least until mommy and daddy can make a persuasive case that they have more parenting skills than the average crack addict?
5. And this: “Investigators said they think the shooting was an accident but still plan to talk with the couple’s 2-year-old daughter.”
Wait…what? They think the three-year-old may have shot both his parents intentionally? If so, and this incident typifies the level of care they have lavished on their children, the three-year-old should plead self-defense.
6. And: “This case will be forwarded to the DA’s office and pending charges of felony criminal negligence will be reviewed on both parents,” Albuquerque police spokesman Simon Drobik said.
Since they both were criminally negligent, the DA should charge them. What possible justification could there be for not charging them, and don’t say, “it was an accident.” That’s what negligence is: reckless, unacceptable carelessness that causes an accident. Is the DA really going to say, “That’s OK, folks, you got away with it without anyone getting killed. Now READ that gun safety brochure I gave you, you crazy nutballs! I mean it! Now kiss your kids and get out of here”?
7. Explain to me why any American who is this reckless with a firearm shouldn’t be banned from owning one, at least for a good long while.
8. I am wrestling my brain to the ground to avoid making the same suggestion about being allowed to be parents.
9. Let me reiterate the conclusion from the last time I wrote about this incident (well, it was technically different, but ethically the same):
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 
To say again, philosophically I’m not opposed to mandatory yearly training for
firearms ownersall Americans. But I will oppose such as long as an entire ideology that alternates its control of the government would just as soon see all guns gone than have an empowered citizenry.Just related to this one recurring scenario: Idiot Parent places loaded weapon in easily accessible location, and then stands back to see how long it takes for inquisitive child to find and fire said weapon. . . .
What if I were a shopper in that Walmart, and had been killed by that gun? What if I were a hotel maid, and had been killed by the other gun?
No matter what you may think about this or that family having “suffered enough,” the fact is: THEY HAVE NOT! In the first case, of course, the mother was killed, but in the second, they should be prosecuted for recklessly endangering others and for corrupting their children. Furthermore, I think their Parental Rights should be severely questioned, as should their Rights to possess firearms.
We live in an open Society, under a Rule of Law. Our system of government, including our most cherished Documents promise the “Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I used to go about freely, assuming that my neighborhood, our local Downtown Area, and our suburban Malls were safe. Others presumably lived the same way, sending their children to school, and then heading off to work themselves. We assumed we were all playing on the same field, and we behaved accordingly. We were, for all intents and purposes, “happy.”
Now, though, whenever I see a group of young people hanging out, cussing and shoving each other and blocking the sidewalk; or even just one kid alone, driving erratically– I can’t help it: I just ASSUME there is a gun nearby. This is a thought which would never have occurred to me even a decade ago. I probably would have shaken my head, dismissed the kids as juvenile, and just kept walking. The sad truth is that today I immediately get myself out of these situations. I have seen too many instances where gunfire erupted without much more warning than a horn honking, or a teenager suddenly reaching into his pocket. Call me paranoid, but (as a great man once said) maybe they really are out to get me!
Anyhow, I believe in the Constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and think that the Citizenry should be ready, willing and able to defend itself against invasion or oppression. But I do NOT think that IDIOTS and Mental Cases should have access to guns. It is bad enough that I can no longer meander leisurely through a park, wait at a bus stop or cross the street without fearing an outbreak of violence. Because of people like these parents, now I also have to worry about every baby I see playing with his distracted mother’s purse in the grocery store, too! Gun Owners who behave as the adults in these cases behaved should never be permitted to own firearms again.
Must be hell living with that world view…
I’m surrounded by guns. Got on one me right now. At least half my coworkers have one on them right now also.
Have several at the house.
I don’t succumb to physiological bouts because of them, however.
I certainly don’t think every individual who is doing more than walking along the sidewalk eyes submissively towards the pavement is about to unleash a volley of lead either…
One of the problems is the inability to find a legal place to shoot. Gun clubs have wait lists that take years. The cities around here are shutting down some of the clubs that do exist by rezoning the surrounding area. Why don’t the cities establish municipal gun ranges where people can be taught the safe handling of firearms? I recently saw a group of adults who seemingly lacked all common sense with firearms and it was frightening.
We spend our time building skate parks to give 5% of the teenagers a place to skateboard without ripping up the town, but we won’t build a gun range that everyone could use and would benefit society.
Liberals run too many cities.
Agreed. In lieu of that, I think a nearby detachment of responsible gun owners should administer a severe beat-down for maneuvering us a bit closer to the statist left’s dream of a nationwide gun ban. This stuff is infuriating!
First, most all of you already know my stance on both guns (I own several and only one is not, as we speak, under lock and key, as is the ammunition) and frankly, my stance on parental rights for people this freaking stupid. However, I am not going to lose sleep worrying over a purse and toddler at the local grocery, because, even in Texas, it’s unlikely7 that the purse contains a gun. If I am going to worry about something, it’s going to be something that is a PROBABLE occurrence, not an improbable one. To paraphrase the Bible, the stupid will always be with us. That said, however, Jack is dead right, as is Tex. Gun training should be mandatory, yes, for all Americans, so that if you object to guns, you will at least know what you are objecting to.
No, no. I don’t want to touch a gun, ever. I know myself enough to know it’s a bad idea. I don’t object to guns for public service, self protection or hunting, just for myself. Forcing someone to take gun safety falls totally under the overintrusive gov’t. I can live as easily without a gun as I live without a particular championship game.
Nuts! Nowhere in that comment did I stipulate that you’d have to touch a gun. A gun safety course is about just that…gun safety. You don’t have to touch one, shoot it or even be in the same room with one. Some pictures, perhaps, so you can learn the morphology of a piece, but there is NO reason physical contact would be required.
FWIW…. I live in a largely gun-free society.
I have no intention of ever owning a firearm.
I took my 13 year old son to a skeet-shooting range a week ago to learn the basics of firearm safety under professional instruction, including practical handling of firearms. Theory is one thing, but a bit of hands-on practice seals the deal.
I think it’s a necessary life skill, like basic first aid and firefighting.
He has no interest in acquiring a firearm either, but he did want to learn the basics. The 4 rules.
1) The weapon is always loaded even if it isn’t.
2) Only point it at things you wish to destroy
3) Fingers outside the trigger guard until on target
4) Check not just on target but that downrange is clear too.
It de-mystifies the tool. It teaches respect for its dangers too.
Great point. My dad taught us all of those before we were 12, and I’ve never fired a real gun in my life.
You what?
Right. My son, my Dad, my wife…not me. It would be on my bucket list, if I didn’t think bucket lists were self-absorbed crap.
When I was a kid, riflery was one of the more popular of the mandatory activities at summer camp. Some of the older campers who got really good at it were taken on hunting expeditions, mostly after small dinosaurs, we were told. We didn’t believe this at first, of course, until someone identified the mystery meat we had for dinner on a pack trip. After that, I didn’t see the point in ever owning a gun.
Absolutely in agreement with you on that. My only argument would be with # 1, and I would put the period after “loaded”. There is no “even if it isn’t”.
I would support laws enforcing mandatory gun training for everyone who owned or used guns but if you had no interest at all in touching a gun then such laws would be excessive.
The training would include;
1. knowledge of the gun laws
2. gun safety
3. being able to hit what you are aiming at
Why #3? Especially for someone who has no real interest in learning to shoot. My belief is that everybody ought to be familiar with the reality of firearms, thus dispelling the various myths associated with them.
Why 3? If you can’t hit the side of a barn then you’re likely to hit some passer by.
Erroll, these are two different issues. You don’t have to learn to shoot to learn about gun safety. If someone has no desire to ever shoot a gun in his/her life, they can learn about gun safety using pictures and text books. Your actual question should be “Why learn about gun safety if you’re never going to touch one”? Because you might be walking through a Wal-Mart someday and see the butt of a Glock sticking out of a purse right next to a two-year-old, and you would KNOW 1) that was wrong and unsafe/dangerous, and; 2) what to do about it.
Is there anything unethical about that graphic you used? I mean, if the image is unethical, wouldn’t using it also be unethical? I truly am uncomfortable just gazing upon an image of a young child such as is shown, holding what looks to be a real handgun. I feel the same as I believe I might feel, were I to be momentarily and inadvertently exposed to child porn.
(Sorry, if those questions had already been discussed – I did not pay attention to your earlier post that used the same graphic, or, do not remember paying attention to it.)
I found a larger-file version of the above image, and magnified & examined it closely. It’s an airsoft gun, for what it’s worth.
What would be unethical about the image? It’s art, it’s a powerful image, it conveys emotion and meaning. You could have taken a similar photo of me at that age, except that would have been wearing my Roy Rogers hat and the gun would have been my beautiful replica six-shooter with the pearl handle and with cartridges you loaded with Greenie Stickum Caps. No orange tip. They would have shot me in Cleveland.
Not with the Roy Rogers hat on.
Did you have the fringed gloves with the “Double-R-Bar” brand on the cuffs?