Washingtonpost.com:

A woman was killed in an Idaho Wal-Mart Tuesday morning when her 2-year-old son accidentally shot her, according to local authorities.

Kootenai County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Lt. Stu Miller said in a statement that the boy was seated in a shopping cart when he reached into his mother’s purse and fired the gun.

Police have identified the 29-year-old victim as Veronica J. Rutledge from Blackfoot, Idaho. Deputies found her dead on the scene “from an apparent gunshot wound.” She had been shopping with the toddler and other family members, Miller said.

The woman had a concealed weapon permit to carry her gun.  She apparently had done everything right except allowing her toddler to get his hands on her weapon.  What laws, if any,  could have prevented this tragedy from happening?  What common sense behaviors could have prevented this tragedy?

People will say gun lock.  That does you no good if you are out and about and have to use your gun.  (Remember, we don’t know WHY she was carrying a concealed weapon.)  People will say to holster the weapon.  Will that make it more difficult for a child to get his hands on?  People will say not to carry the weapon loaded.  The list goes on.  Let’s discuss it.

 

 

83 Thoughts to “2-year-old shoots mother in Walmart”

  1. middleman

    There’s an important piece of information here that we don’t know and really need to in order to properly assess the situation- was the gun a revolver or a semi-automatic? If the gun was a revolver, I don’t think a 2 year old could pull the trigger. If it was a semi-auto, there would have to be a round in the chamber, AND the safety would have to be off to fire. It’s pretty unlikely that a 2 year old found and clicked off the safety first, UNLESS someone had shown them how to do it previously. Our resident gun experts can correct me if I’m wrong on trigger-pull tension.

    If the above is true, this leads one to believe that the deceased woman was carrying a loaded semi-automatic pistol in her purse with the safety off. IF that’s the case, I would say this woman contributed to her own death and possibly to ruining her child’s life. No law can prevent stupidity, but this does make a case for questioning whether it’s good policy to have everyone carrying guns- that’s a lot of responsibility that some just can’t handle.

    Before anyone jumps, I want to emphasize again that I don’t have the necessary information so the above is conjecture- just food for discussion.

    1. I heard the gun was in a case and that she had gotten the case for Christmas.

  2. Steve Thomas

    “What laws, if any, could have prevented this tragedy from happening? What common sense behaviors could have prevented this tragedy?”

    Not sure what laws could have prevented it, but certain behaviors could have. “Off-body carry” is something of which I am not a fan. I know that woman have certain challenges with “on-body”, mostly because of “fashion” limitations (ie. woman’s clothing tends to be more form-fitting, and women are less inclined to wear a thick supporting belt for a holster, or any belt for that matter) , so many opt for off-body.

    The reason I do not like off-body carry is it limits positive control of the weapon, which is a must. The co-ed courses I’ve taken that address this, and discourage carrying in just a regular purse or bag. However, there are purses that are specially designed for concealed carry that keep the weapon concealed, secure in carry (ie. you have to actually do something positive like open a special compartment or press a button), and secure on the body via a cut-resistant strap. Alas, too many women set their purses in the cart (with or without a firearm), and lose positive control of their bag. If you are going to carry, and can’t use a belt or pocket holster, get a purse designed for this, and for goodness sake, keep the bag on your body.

    1. cross body. If it fires, you have a better chancd of dying,

  3. Steve Thomas

    @middleman
    “If it was a semi-auto, there would have to be a round in the chamber, AND the safety would have to be off to fire. ”

    If it was a single/double action revolver or pistol, and the hammer was “cocked” and there was no manual safety, than it doesn’t take much to fire the weapon. If she was carrying in such a condition, she was negligent. Many DAO (double-action only) pistols don’t have a manual safety, and you are correct in that it takes much more effort to pull that trigger.

    Now I am purely speculating, and know little more than what was reported in the press, but my guess is she was indeed carrying a semi-auto in a regular purse, the purse was open, and she set in in the cart with the kids. I’d even go so far as to say the gun was “loose” in the purse, and not in a holster, or the holster wasn’t secured to the purse. Just about every safety rule broken.

    This tragedy is going to be dissected in the media, and used by gun-control advocates to try to limit the rights of others. Such is the constant back-and-forth.

  4. Jackson Bills

    I don’t think any laws could have prevented this, but common sense could have. Lets start with not putting a loaded gun in arms reach of a 2 year old.

    1. This woman was apparently holding an advanced degree and the older kids were nieces and nephews.

  5. Emma

    I agree with Steve on the off-body carry. It makes no sense, and is incredibly risky not just for a curious toddler, but creates a tremendous opportunity for someone to steal the firearm. Either carry it on your body, or don’t carry at all. The concealed-carry purses are cute, but not practical unless you are willing to keep them glued to your body, and especially not practical for someone like me, who generally hates carrying a handbag in the first place.

    1. I use cross body handbags to avoid having to use my hands. I feel they are safer in general.

  6. Ed Myers

    How do you confront someone who is carrying a gun in an unsafe manner without getting killed? Bringing up the topic is likely to raise tempers and afterwards the shooter can say they felt threatened and attacked. The pro-gun lobby would acquit the gun owner as a matter of solidairity.

    Went to a breakfast buffet at the hotel couple of days ago and a 60ish man and wife came in..he had the vest and a heavy squarish object in the right pocket. I’m pretty sure it was a gun. He takes off the vest and puts it over the chair and then goes to pick up food. Little kids were roaming around. I’ve been schooled here that raising your hands and saying “don’t shoot” pisses off cops and pro gun advocates so how do you approach some one who is being reckless and cavalier about their capability to take some else’s life to discuss other people’s safety concerns without endangering one’s life? My experience here suggests that it is not easy to talk about gun safety without generating a lot of emotional fury.

    1. maybe you could have just gone over and stood near the vest to keep kids away. I don’t know how you talk sense to people.

      My husband and I reported a guy we thought had a gun on a plane. It wasn’t. oooops. We were discrete.

  7. Pat.Herve

    Sad to say but it looks like the victim is a Darwin Award Winner. But ignoring several known safety items she instigated her own death. No law or action could help her – there are many recommended safety issues here.

  8. Ed Myers

    Darwin awards require dying before reproducing. ..alas she already had a child making her ineligible.

  9. Jackson Bills

    @Ed Myers
    This is funny… an old guy had a vest with a ‘heavy squarish object’ in the pocket and your first thought is IT’S A GUN!!!!! Don’t shoot man!! It could have been anything, but then again, anything automatically is a gun to you. Never seen a squarish gun BTW, who makes those?

  10. Emma

    @Ed Myers ” I’ve been schooled here that raising your hands and saying “don’t shoot” pisses off cops and pro gun advocates so how do you approach some one who is being reckless and cavalier about their capability to take some else’s life to discuss other people’s safety concerns without endangering one’s life?”

    Stay indoors in your home at all times. Do not leave. Ever. No risk that way. If you run around with your arms raised yelling “Don’t shoot!” at everyone with “squarish” objects in their pockets, you risk abject ridicule, so it’s really better for you to just stay home.

  11. Steve Thomas

    Ed Myers :How do you confront someone who is carrying a gun in an unsafe manner without getting killed? Bringing up the topic is likely to raise tempers and afterwards the shooter can say they felt threatened and attacked. The pro-gun lobby would acquit the gun owner as a matter of solidairity.
    Went to a breakfast buffet at the hotel couple of days ago and a 60ish man and wife came in..he had the vest and a heavy squarish object in the right pocket. I’m pretty sure it was a gun. He takes off the vest and puts it over the chair and then goes to pick up food. Little kids were roaming around. I’ve been schooled here that raising your hands and saying “don’t shoot” pisses off cops and pro gun advocates so how do you approach some one who is being reckless and cavalier about their capability to take some else’s life to discuss other people’s safety concerns without endangering one’s life? My experience here suggests that it is not easy to talk about gun safety without generating a lot of emotional fury.

    More assumptive BS based on nothing, or an attempt to troll?

  12. Steve Thomas

    Ed Myers :Darwin awards require dying before reproducing. ..alas she already had a child making her ineligible.

    You are a jack-ass. That’s right, I said it.

  13. punchak

    The first thing you do not do, is leave your purse in a shopping cart – EVER – and to
    leave it OPEN is an invitation to theft. Several times I’ve seen women do this, while
    they turn their back to the cart picking items off the shelf. I have gently told them
    how unsafe that is and have never had a nasty reply.

    It’s tragic. Four young children have lost their mother; a death that was
    preventable. What’ll happen to the young boy, when he grows up and learns
    that he killed his own mother?

  14. Furby McPhee

    @Ed Myers
    Ok, I’ll feed the troll. The way I’d do it is:

    First, I’d make sure the “squarish object” is actually a gun so I don’t look like a fool overreacting. So we’ll pretend it’s an actual holstered weapon so I can clearly see the person left a gun unattended.

    I’d approach the person in a friendly way and say something like “I wouldn’t leave a nice weapon like that laying around here. Somebody might try to steal it” or “I kept an eye on your weapon while you were gone. Wouldn’t want somebody to steal it.” You remind the person it’s a dumb idea to leave a weapon unattended without making them defensive. You’d probably even get thanked for it.

    I know I’m just feeding the troll, but the problem with your hands up gesture to the cops is that it’s being deliberately provocative instead of trying to be helpful. Greet a cop with a polite nod and a ‘Morning officer” (or even just “Hey”) and you’ll never have a problem. If a cop is ever approaching you as a suspect, make slow deliberate movements and tell the officer what you are doing in advance. “Officer, I am going to reach into my back pocket to get out my wallet” Then do it slowly. And of course, OBEY the officer no matter what.

    It’s really not that hard. But I suspect you already know that.

  15. Cargosquid

    My heart goes out to her family. What a terrible tragedy.

    That said…let’s review the facts as presented.
    Handgun in purse….. fires by two year old finger pressure.

    So…she carried a handgun, either off safe, or a Glock, in her purse.
    Two year old is able to access it.
    Two year old is able to stick a hand into the trigger guard….so no holster.

    This is negligence.
    While I support carry…… use safe handling rules.
    Use a holster.
    Carry where it cannot be accessed by others.
    Be accountable for the gun.

  16. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    “How do you confront someone who is carrying a gun in an unsafe manner without getting killed? Bringing up the topic is likely to raise tempers and afterwards the shooter can say they felt threatened and attacked.”

    THIS is why we don’t take you seriously and consider you to possibly be unhinged.

  17. Ed Myers

    @furby, yeah, but then I don’t have any 1A rights to criticize the police in your world. The police are the most visible form of government and when they express their government sanctioned opinion of me by using foul and derogatory language I can only assume the majority approved the message. fighting words are a disturbance of the peace and that is unacceptable behavior from police as it is with protesters, right? It is easier to respect the police when they respect the citizens. There is no requirement that I respect police…only that I don’t commit a crime ..so they have to take the first step in showing they respect the citizens. The police behavior in NY showed contempt for citizens by showing contempt for the office of mayor. The police have major fences to mend.

  18. Cargosquid

    More on the story

    She left the kid and purse unattended.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/?tid=pm_national_pop

    Excerpt: “It was designed for that purpose — to carry a concealed firearm,” Rutledge told The Washington Post late Tuesday night. “And you had to unzip a compartment to find the handgun.

    On Tuesday morning, that was exactly what Veronica Rutledge’s son did — with the most tragic of outcomes. Veronica, 29, arrived at a nearby Wal-Mart in Hayden with her three nieces and son, her gun “zippered closed” inside her new purse, her father-in-law said. Then, in the back of the store, near the electronics section, the purse was left unattended for a moment.

  19. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    You have all the 1A rights to criticize the cops.

    You do not have the right to provoke or insult them. If they are unprofessional, then report the cop to his supervisor. You had a phone. You should have call them right then.

    Nope… you don’t have to respect the police. It IS stupid to SHOW disrespect to the police. Furthermore, if you did that to a “civilian.” and they reacted badly, you would also be in the wrong.

  20. Furby McPhee

    @Ed Myers
    You have the same rights under the 1st Amendment no matter how you treat the cops. But you’ll find your message will be better received if you don’t treat individual beat cops like jerks. They didn’t make write the laws you are upset over, and you’d probably be surprised to find many of them may not agree with them. But they are human beings, not robots. If you go out of your way to provoke them, don’t be shocked if you get some kind of a response.

    I’ve been in situations where I’ve been seconds away from being arrested because I was questioning the one of the cops who wanted me to leave the area and he didn’t like it. But he never drew his weapon and I wasn’t arrested because I defused the situation by explaining to the cop “I am going to comply. I’m just trying to understand why I can’t remain” He sort of explained it and I left. I still think I was right and the cop was wrong, but I could understand why he thought he was right.

    Some of the really big protests about the Iraq War had people who worked with the police to work out issues in advance (ie. what streets can you march on. What about people wearing masks, etc.) Heck, it’s been done with MPs outside of military bases.

    Treat the street cops at your demonstration with respect (or at least don’t go out of your way to provoke them) and help them understand that you and your group aren’t putting them in danger. The beat cops are there to make sure your demonstration doesn’t turn into a riot. Beyond that, the cops don’t care much about your cause. Even if it’s about police brutality.

    I doubt you’ll believe that last part, but it’s largely true. Cops know better than you or I that there are good cops and bad cops. And the good cops don’t like getting lumped in with the bad ones. Which is exactly what you did when you make your hands up gesture to a random cop.

  21. Steve Thomas

    @Ed Myers
    “but then I don’t have any 1A rights to criticize the police in your world.”

    Ridicule is not an infringement of your right to spew nonsense.

  22. Steve Thomas

    @Ed Myers
    “The police have major fences to mend.”

    This gave me a chuckle. Thank you. Let the police in NYC do what they are currently doing, ie. decreasing the numbers of citations they write, or misdemeanor apprehensions, revenue declines and crime rates rise. This hurts the Mayor. In a test of wills, my money is on the NYPD.

  23. Ed Myers

    If the police don’t want to do their job NY can fire them and hire new ones. That’s the union busting way to go. Reagan did that to the ATC.

    All the police who turned their back on the mayor (while in uniform, they have 1A rights other times) should be disciplined up to and including termination.

    The government does not have the constitutional authority to chill speech it thinks deserves “ridicule.”

  24. Jackson Bills

    @Ed Myers
    So when Warren Wilhelm (aka Warren de Blasio-Wilhelm, aka Bill de Blasio) ran for mayor of NY in 2013 he hired Kicy Motley as the director of the Brooklyn community affairs unit. Who is she? She was Bill de Blasio’s wife’s chief of staff. So somebody he knew VERY well.

    It was also known that Kicy Motley was no fan of the police, she even sent out a tweet saying “Fuck. The. Police” after they shot a knife wielding man in times square. She was also a big supporter of Chris Dorner, the ex-LAPD cop who killed four people, including three police officers, in a shooting rampage in California last year.

    So, the mayor hires someone who is a known cop killer supporter and hater of cops in general but it’s the cops who are in the wrong when they turn their backs on him? Are we in bizaro world or something?

  25. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers

    Yep.

    He sure can.

    THAT should make for an interesting NYC. Fire all those cops. Watch the rest go on strike.

    Personally, I don’t think that public servants should have unions. I join FDR in that idea.

    But, hey, NY is a strong union state. You get what you pay for.

    All I have to say is….. who has the popcorn?

    1. I think everyone has thee right to form and join a union. However, you reap what you so. I do not like closed shop. I think it takes away your right to chose.

  26. Ed Myers

    @Jackson
    I’ll not evaluate whether Kicy is anti-cop. However there is a big difference between someone who is hired to do operations administration and someone hired to develop policy. If Kicy was hired to prepare public safety policy statements and communicate them to the public then her opinion on the police is worth discussing. If her job is a constituent liaison, then her opinion is not important and even if true should not be used to stir up anger by associating that viewpoint to the mayor.

  27. Ed Myers

    “the cops who are in the wrong when they turn their backs on him? ‘

    Yes, they turned their backs on the voters. They clearly showed that they have no respect for civilian authority. It is the beginning of a political coup. The cops will do what they want no matter what the voters said. For blacks that was a sign that they would continue to experience discrimination and be unfairly targeted by police.

  28. Emma

    If one of the slain officers were a member of my family, I would use every legal means available to bar DeBlasio from coming anywhere near the funeral. Perhaps enlist Rolling Thunder to protect the funeral the way the have done so against Westboro Baptist Church members. It’s attitudes like DeBlasio’s that goad cop killers into action.

  29. Wolve

    punchak :
    The first thing you do not do, is leave your purse in a shopping cart – EVER – and to
    leave it OPEN is an invitation to theft. Several times I’ve seen women do this, while
    they turn their back to the cart picking items off the shelf. I have gently told them
    how unsafe that is and have never had a nasty reply.
    It’s tragic. Four young children have lost their mother; a death that was
    preventable. What’ll happen to the young boy, when he grows up and learns
    that he killed his own mother?

    Amen.

  30. punchak

    @Wolve
    Glad I got a comment that had something to do with the subject matter
    rather than the NY police.
    Happy New Year to you and all!

  31. middleman

    Still no word on what kind of gun it was, which is amazing in itself, but here’s some interesting perspective from an expert: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/31/toddler-shot-mom/21101833/

    Hopefully sooner or later SOMEONE will think to look into this obvious question in depth.

  32. middleman

    And by the way, HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone.

  33. Starryflights

    Idaho has the gun laws it wants. They can carry their damn guns wherever they want. They should get used to incidents like these.

    1. I can’t imagine why someone would take a loaded pistol in their purse along with a bunch of kids.

      I have several friends who have had near misses in their own homes involving their kids and their guns. I just don’t think kids can be trusted, regardless of how well that parent thinks he or she knows their kid.

  34. Emma

    @Starryflights Will you be sending that sentiment to the family of the dead mother in lieu of a condolence card?

  35. middleman

    No matter what the particulars, the adult will ALWAYS carry most of the responsibility in an incident like this. The child should not have been able to gain access to the gun. What if the kid had managed to pull the trigger more than once? What if granny or little sister had been along?

    This incident makes it crystal clear that not everyone is responsible enough to carry a gun in genteel society. One of the reasons lots of cow-town sheriffs in the old west collected the guns from the “boys” while they were in town.

  36. Steve Thomas

    Starryflights :
    Idaho has the gun laws it wants. They can carry their damn guns wherever they want. They should get used to incidents like these.

    Wow, 2015 might be an epic year. I actually kinda agree with Starry on this. Whodathunkit?

  37. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    Moon, please see my original comment. I am sure that this young, educated (she was a nuclear scientist) woman carried for one reason: she wanted to have the ability to protect her children. What is more determined than a mother protecting her young? It’s an imprinted instinct on most living things, and especially so in humans. I don’t fault her for wanting to carry. IMHO, she made the tragic mistake of treating the gun in thw same manner as women treat the myriad and multiple accoutrement they carry with them daily. She had a 2 yearold. Purse, diaperbag, snacks, etc etc. Pile kids.and crap in car. Go to walmart. Pile kids and crap in cart. Kid gets board, Mom is distracted. Kid goes through purse. Tragedy. This is why I advocate on-body carry only. Belt or pocket holster. Fanny pack or cross-body bag. If you are going to carry, carry on your body. Maintain positive control.

  38. @Emma

    DiBlasio won’t always be mayor. It sets a bad precedence to allow this kind of disrespect to be shown to the mayor who is their commander in chief, regardless of how bad.

    I understand feeling that way. I discourage acting on one’s feelings.

    I understood how Jim Webb felt when he refused to shake BUSH”S HAND> I feel he was totally wrong to act upon his feelings in that particular setting.

    This is probably a chain of command issue.

  39. Emma

    @Moon-howler On some level I agree with you. But I am coming from a perspective of a mother whose child serves even the likes of Ed Myers, who from his postings apparently would prefer to see cops dead. I think we need to keep the perspective that the NYC police were in mourning and attending a funeral for one of their own, knowing that it could just have easily have happened to them. We don’t generally expect mourners to adhere to all standards of decorum.

    1. Well, I understand how they feel (not personally) and why they are being disrespectful. I just don’t approve of doing it because of the office, not the person.

      I guess the commissioner knows he is dealing with too many people to really lower the hammer on them. He can’t really discipline them.

      Its a hard one to call. I am not sure that what DeBlasio said was quite that awful Perhaps I have missed something. Do you actually have some quotes of the things he has said about cops? I might be persuaded. Let’s put them out here and discuss exactly what he said and why it was stupid and disrespectful to 35, 000 police.

  40. Ed Myers

    We have a police chief who shot his wife in the back. … Accidentally, while in bed, asleep. Can’t blame that on a kid or harried mom. Guns should never accidentally fire. Those that do have a design defect and should be recalled for a safety upgrade.

    1. Where did this happen? (police chief shooting wife)

  41. Steve Thomas

    Ed, A trigger has never pulled a finger.

  42. Ed Myers

    @emma, that comment is uncalled for and just wrong. I want no loss of life and that means giving police the tools to never have to kill someone. I think we are too accepting of police killings (actually any killing even in the name of self defense) as a cost of a civil society.

    1. Yet police officers are killed every day by criminals. I suppose I think arming police is the first step in protecting them rather than us.

  43. Emma

    @Ed Myers You want to take away the ability of police to use lethal force against a threat to someone’s life? That tells me you want cops dead, because they are killed nearly every day by criminals who intend to do them harm, and that fact of life simply won’t go away despite your fantasies. I stand by my comment.

    1. I don’t think Ed wants anyone dead. In fact, he wants the opposite. I just don’t think he is being very realistic.

  44. Emma

    @Moon-howler Part of what Deblasio said had to do with having the “talk” with his biracial son. OK, fair enough on the surface. But the reality is that his son enjoys 24/7 police protection. What a slap in the face to all of them.

    1. It didn’t bother me when Obama did it. It was personal and reflective. I thought DeBlasio was making a mistake at the time if for no other reason, it didn’t go so well for Obama.

      Let’s face it, any leader is walking a tight rope on this issue. Can anyone really say anything that isn’t going to make a large group of people angry? I can’t think of what it would be.

  45. Scout

    Nothing wrong with parents being very careful to instruct their children how to behave when in police interactions. For parents of African-American males, that discussion might be a bit more intense than with other demographics. De Blasio’s statements on that issue should have been no problem for his police force. He was speaking generically, and he wasn’t singling out the NYPD.

    The major underlying problem in NYC is the failure of the city government (this goes back before D Blasio, but includes him) to resolve contract disputes with the Patrolmen’s union. The bad feelings resulting from this issue poison a lot of other issues, including the City government’s ability to address the Garner incident and the murder of the two officers.

    1. It probably wasn’t the smartest thing for him to say. I agree that parents should instruct their teenage kids how to behave with police and I think it is even more important for minority parents to caution their kids. This falls in to JUST IS. Why did he have to personalize with his own kid when he already had morale problems. Just not smart.

      That conversation already fell flat when Obama got personal about it. Learn from someone else’s mistakes.

      Obama’s words didn’t bother me at all but they sure did become political fodder with his opponents.

  46. Scout

    Re the Idaho situation – once my requirements are enacted that those who elect to carry deadly weapons do so conspicuously on their persons where all can see that they have them, the risk of this sort of incident would be substantially reduced. As Steve notes, the “fashion” concerns would fall by the wayside (I find it hard to understand why fashion considerations would ever affect a woman’s – or man’s – decision as to how to pack deadly force). If we require open carry for those who evaluate their position as one of near perpetual, imminent, life-threatening danger, the fashion issues will resolve themselves and folks will adjust to the necessity of keeping the weapons close to their persons in plain view. Fashion will follow with Givenchy, Coach, etc. etc. creations that flatter the figure and create yet another outlet for conspicuous consumption.

    I hasten to add, however, that these accoutrements must be brightly colored (which could include elaborate bejewelment and other ornamental filigrees), in order to permit those of us who assess our risk at a considerably lower level to absent ourselves quickly after observing these weapons from some distance. Again, this would have no impact on the right to bear arms. It would just impose a certain regularity to the practice that permits the more confident (or naive) among us to put some distance between us and people who not only strike us as having extravagantly distorted judgement, but who also marry that judgement to the personal ability to impose instant death and injury on others in their proximity.

  47. Censored bybvbl

    I totally agree, Scout. If a person is scared enough of everyday life that he/she has to carry a weapon every time he leaves the homestead, he should have nerve enough to at least carry it openly so the rest of us can evaluate their judgement – and style consciousness.

  48. Ed Myers

    @emma, the current death rate for police from homicide is around 50 per year. police killing citizens is around 500. That 10 to 1 advantage to police means that giving more firepower to police won’t substantially reduce the already low death rate of officers. The place to save lives is in the number iof civilians killed by police that didn’t need to be killed…children with toy guns, unarmed arrestees, etc.

    The place to save officers through reform is in the car…enforce seat belt laws and reduce the number of high speed chases so deaths of officers in automobile accidents drop. Traffic stops should be eliminated and replaced with ticket by mail. Traffic stops are too dangerous for civilians and police and are the beginning of a judicial system cycle of abuse for minorities. Enforcement of speed laws by camera would eliminate the police discretion that benefits women, rich and white.

    1. Ever been around a kid acting out with a toy gun? You don’t know if you are going to live or die. If that kid with the toy gun is around a bunch of other people, how do you want to determine whether the gun is a toy or not and at the same time protect yourself and by-standers?

      Toy guns should be painted bright pink or some other obnoxious color rather than looking like real weapons.

    2. Every once in a while an innocent civilian is killed. The vast majority of cop kills are those who are committing crimes and endangering others. If it comes down to it, better them dead than someone innocent. I won’t shed a tear for them.

    3. I fail to see how enforcement of speed laws benefits women.

      You might want to think about what you are proposing the next time your car breaks down on the interstate and a state trooper stops to give you road side assistance. How many cops are killed annually giving road side assistance and are struck by another vehicle?

  49. Cargosquid

    @Censored bybvbl
    Some people would LOVE to do that….but some states refuse to allow it.

  50. Scout

    CS: why do you think a state might ban open carry but permit concealed carry? What is the logic of that? My guess is that concealed carry is preferred by a wide cross section (pro-con-in between) of the gun debate public because it is an out-of-sight, out-of-mind situation.

    My support for mandatory open carry in conspicuously colored holsters is, in part, based on the idea that there are a number of people who carry concealed to satisfy certain of their inner insecurities, but who would not do so if they had to display those insecurities publicly. My guess is that opposition to mandatory open carry is in part based on the fact that a lot of people who carry concealed know damn well that they are not at any statistically measurable risk of death or bodily harm, but carry simply because it makes them feel more significant or important and that, in their more rational mental spaces, understand that carrying openly makes them seem somewhat nuts to the general public.

Comments are closed.