Toddler Dies After Mistaking Gun For Realistic Wii Controller

[ServiceSoon]

...
Even a revolver, unless the hammer is already pulled back, is not easily fired by a toddler-lot of effort in making double action work.
...

The average trigger pull for a revolver is 10-15 pounds? That's not that much resistance.

 

[roger]

The average trigger pull for a revolver is 10-15 pounds? That's not that much resistance.

Curl a 10 lb bag of flour with one finger, and you'll beg to disagree with yourself.

Trigger pull is a balance between ease of accuracy (the lighter the pull the easier to maintain the sight picture while shooting) and lack of ease of accidental discharge. Match pistol triggers are extremely light. A handgun for carry is typical in the 8+ lb range to prevent ND (many of these guns have no safety, so to pull the trigger is to shoot the gun), but it's not easy to achieve accuracy in that range. But accuracy is not that important in the 7yds or less that defense shooting almost always occurs at.

In a hunting rifle 5 lbs would be a bit heavy, as a point of comparison.

 

[Cavemonster]

That the vast majority of Democrats don't even talk about Gun Control should tell you something.

The Anti Gun Groups might be well funded or the might not be, but their political clout is at a all time low. Most Dems consider Gun Control to be sudden death on the election polls and won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole.

There's that political 3rd rail thing and then there is level of priority.

I am most decidedly not pro-gun.
But guns in general are way down on my list. The war on terror and the way it's being waged concerns me a lot more. Poverty and healthcare concerns me a lot more. The war on drugs concerns me a lot more.

I wouldn't mind seeing us follow in the footsteps of other countries that have banned handguns, but I will never contribute to an anti-handgun lobbyist group. Any money I'm able to contribute will go to issues more important to me. I will never make gun control one of the top 5 or even 10 reasons I vote for a political candidate.

But what concerns me is th large amount of political influence and money directed by the pro-gun lobby. A lot of power has been harnessed by the right by telling people the candidate on the left wanted to take away their guns.

The gun lobby's unholy alliance with the american political right is similar to the monopoly the right claims on religion. It lures people into voting against their interests in some areas that are much more important and pressing.

To me, this kind of stuff is scary. I don't think gun-rights either way should be a major political shaper. For that reason, I think the NRA and the gun lobby are more dangerous than guns themselves. But promoting anti-gun lobbying groups and making anti-gun views a priority in my voting would be playing right into the division they're trying to paint.

 

[grunion]

That the vast majority of Democrats don't even talk about Gun Control should tell you something.

By Democrats I am assuming you mean those in Congress, and all it tells me that politicians (Republicans too) will to avoid to the greatest degree possible taking a stance on anything for which they may be held to task.

I am by no means anti-gun, but to assume that the NRA represents a majority view is a very shaky premise on which to base an argument.

ETA - I am, however definitely anti-toy gun.

 

[quixotecoyote]

To me, this kind of stuff is scary. I don't think gun-rights either way should be a major political shaper. For that reason, I think the NRA and the gun lobby are more dangerous than guns themselves. But promoting anti-gun lobbying groups and making anti-gun views a priority in my voting would be playing right into the division they're trying to paint.

That's pretty much how I feel. I think democrats who really give a **** as opposed to just thinking it's a stupid idea are fairly rare, yet I'm surrounded by people who are STILL convinced that Obama's trying to steal their guns and hate him for it.

 

[luchog]

I thought must issue states got rid of the whole convincing local law enforcement thing. And what are your state laws relevant if you are in another state?

First, there is no such thing as a "must issue" state. State CCW laws are either "shall issue", "may issue", or "no issue".

And, as usual, you're wrong. CCW permits are issued by law enforcement agencies, and all applicants have to be vetted to ensure that they are allowed by both federal and state law to possess firearms -- ie. no outstanding felony convictions, no involuntary committment or significant history of mental illness, no outstanding no-contact orders, etc. The only difference between "shall issue" and "may issue" states is that in a "shall issue" state a qualified applicant does not have to prove need, and cannot be arbitrarily denied a permit. Most "shall issue" states include an "opt-out" clause that allows private businesses to prohibit the carry of firearms on their premises. Violation of a private prohibition will result in immediate revocation of the CCW permit.

There are only 10 "may issue" and 3 "no issue" states in the US (including D.C.); 37 others are "shall issue".

The sole exception to this is Vermont, which does not issue permits; but instead allows completely unrestricted carry for anyone who is legally permitted to own and keep firearms under federal and state law. Vermont also has the 3th lowest violent crime rate in the US, with only North Dakota and Maine being lower, both of which are "shall issue" states. Beyond that, states with "no issue" or "may issue" laws tend to be in the upper range of violent crime rates; but this varies considerably, and the results are skewed by high-crime major urban centers in otherwise low-crime states (eg. New York, Louisiana); with said municipalities typically having "no issue" laws, even when the rest of the state is "may issue", or even "shall issue" (eg. NYC).

 

[luchog]

Stand your ground refers to not having to run and hide in your closet if someone breaks into your house (or if you have a very friendly jury, your neighbor's house but you're taking a huge risk there).

This is more appropriately known as the "Castle Doctrine"; and is intended to explicitly permit the use of lethal force in self-defense primarily in one's home without fear of criminal or civil prosecution for doing so. NOTE: This STILL REQUIRES PROVING SELF_DEFENSE.

Describing it otherwise is pure disingenuous well-poisoning.

 

[Drudgewire]

NOTE: This STILL REQUIRES PROVING SELF_DEFENSE.

Describing it otherwise is pure disingenuous well-poisoning.

Absolutely. In ALMOST every instance (just so the whole Joe Horne debate isn't re-opened) you can't shoot someone without some sort of evidence you were in danger. Someone trying to flee your residence doesn't give you the right to use him/her for target practice.

 

[Careyp74]

By Democrats I am assuming you mean those in Congress, and all it tells me that politicians (Republicans too) will to avoid to the greatest degree possible taking a stance on anything for which they may be held to task.

Well I am a Democrat, and I own a gun. I remember friends at the range saying stuff like "don't vote for Obama, they gonna take away our guns" and such. I don't think it is an issue, like the GOP is trying to make it sound like. Perhaps that is what it is, a GOP propaganda ploy. Vote Dem and lose the gun.

ETA - I am, however definitely anti-toy gun.

As much like a joke as this sounds to some, I am also anti-toy gun. I will never allow my children to have one, I will never give one as a gift, and I will probably give a stern talking to when I see someone that does.

 

[Drudgewire]

Well I am a Democrat, and I own a gun. I remember friends at the range saying stuff like "don't vote for Obama, they gonna take away our guns" and such. I don't think it is an issue, like the GOP is trying to make it sound like. Perhaps that is what it is, a GOP propaganda ploy. Vote Dem and lose the gun.

It seems every gun thread I have to mention two of my three shooting buddies are the very definition of "liberal." My inclination to associate guns with political ideologies disappeared a long time ago.

As much like a joke as this sounds to some, I am also anti-toy gun. I will never allow my children to have one, I will never give one as a gift, and I will probably give a stern talking to when I see someone that does.

When I was in high school we had battery-powered water pistols that looked exactly like UZIs (you loaded water into the magazine and everything). They nearly got us shot by a cop in our school parking lot one day. That sort of turned me around on the realistic toy gun issue.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Curl a 10 lb bag of flour with one finger, and you'll beg to disagree with yourself.

Trigger pull is a balance between ease of accuracy (the lighter the pull the easier to maintain the sight picture while shooting) and lack of ease of accidental discharge. Match pistol triggers are extremely light. A handgun for carry is typical in the 8+ lb range to prevent ND (many of these guns have no safety, so to pull the trigger is to shoot the gun), but it's not easy to achieve accuracy in that range. But accuracy is not that important in the 7yds or less that defense shooting almost always occurs at.

In a hunting rifle 5 lbs would be a bit heavy, as a point of comparison.

And yet I manage to pull a 15 pound trigger with ease all the time.

The safety is the four rules and in my opinion not loading the firearm until you are ready to shoot it. This "cocked and locked" attitude blows my mind.

By Democrats I am assuming you mean those in Congress, and all it tells me that politicians (Republicans too) will to avoid to the greatest degree possible taking a stance on anything for which they may be held to task.

I am by no means anti-gun, but to assume that the NRA represents a majority view is a very shaky premise on which to base an argument.

ETA - I am, however definitely anti-toy gun.

Did you see the rasmussen poll results? 50% plus (generally more than 50%) of people fall on the greater gun freedom side.

 

[roger]

And yet I manage to pull a 15 pound trigger with ease all the time.

You should write all the gun manufacturers and tell them they are doing it wrong. Then move on to the match shooters. The reality remains that most guns do not have a pull anywhere near 15 lbs.

The safety is the four rules and in my opinion not loading the firearm until you are ready to shoot it. This "cocked and locked" attitude blows my mind.

What lock? Many self defense guns have no safety. Glock, for instance. The 'safety' in this case is leaving the gun in the holster until you are ready to shoot.

 

[grunion]

50% plus (generally more than 50%) of people fall on the greater gun freedom side.

Actually, no, you are wrong about this. According to all the poll links I can find, while the numbers of people for gun control are clearly trending downward over the past ten years (a fact which I attribute to the aforementioned scare tactics), far more people favor tightening gun laws (49% in 2009 Gallup poll) rather than loosening them (8%) with 41% happy with the laws as they are. Of course a lot depends on how the questions are phrased (i.e. Fox News' poll offered the choice of "better enforcement of existing laws" vs. "more laws and restrictions" and got 47% - 34%) but the polling data I could find (here is a bunch) shows Americans generally not to be in step with NRA fantasies.

I note that 41% of Americans think that Barack Obama will confiscate everyone's guns, about the same percentage that fear getting killed in a terrorist attack.

 

[Cavemonster]

77% of Americans believe some variation of the claim that Jesus is their savior.

I'm not super interested in arguments from popularity.

 

[grunion]

77% of Americans believe some variation of the claim that Jesus is their savior.

I'm not super interested in arguments from popularity.

Agreed, I was not arguing that poll numbers should make the slightest difference in how we regulate/legislate. But ServiceSoon made the claim that the NRA represents a majority viewpoint, and without some kind of better evidence, I find the claim to be laughable.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Thank god we're finally debating gun control on this forum!

 

[I Ratant]

It was not a revolver, from the reports.
Even a revolver, unless the hammer is already pulled back, is not easily fired by a toddler-lot of effort in making double action work.
And if, as reported, the guy was looking into a noise in the night, he likely jacked a round into the chamber, then didn't clear it when he put it down. Stupid, all the way


Probably not, BUT!
She didn't have to hold it. It was on a table, she was shot in the chest. A coffee or end table would be about chest high on a 3 year old.

.
Sounds like "Condition 0:... Round in the chamber, and cocked, slide safety not engaged, with no hammer block safety.
Trigger pull is light, in that mode on my S&W 539.
Round in the chamber, not cocked, the trigger pull is very high, for double-action.
Stupid to have any weapon in that condition.
AD's from that are common.

 

[ServiceSoon]

You should write all the gun manufacturers and tell them they are doing it wrong. Then move on to the match shooters. The reality remains that most guns do not have a pull anywhere near 15 lbs.

I agree that a lesser trigger pull is easier to shoot accurately. I was merely pointing out that I don't find it that surprising that a child could pull a heaver trigger.

What lock? Many self defense guns have no safety. Glock, for instance. The 'safety' in this case is leaving the gun in the holster until you are ready to shoot.

I understand that many pistols don't have mechanical safeties. That is why I said the 4 rules of firearm safety should act as a de facto safety. For instance, keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Seems like advice which would lend itself to increase the safety with firearms.

The glock certainly does have a mechanical safety. Two actually, if I'm not mistaken. It has a firing pin block & trigger safety.

Actually, no, you are wrong about this. According to all the poll links I can find, while the numbers of people for gun control are clearly trending downward over the past ten years (a fact which I attribute to the aforementioned scare tactics), far more people favor tightening gun laws (49% in 2009 Gallup poll) rather than loosening them (8%) with 41% happy with the laws as they are. Of course a lot depends on how the questions are phrased (i.e. Fox News' poll offered the choice of "better enforcement of existing laws" vs. "more laws and restrictions" and got 47% - 34%) but the polling data I could find (here is a bunch) shows Americans generally not to be in step with NRA fantasies.

I note that 41% of Americans think that Barack Obama will confiscate everyone's guns, about the same percentage that fear getting killed in a terrorist attack.

I interpret the information at your link differently than you. Public support for restricting the sale and possession of firearms to police and other authorized individuals only has decreased from 60% in 1959, to 40% in 1991, to 29% in 2009. That is a win for pro-gun.

Support for more strict guns laws has decreased from 78% in 1991 to 49% in 2009. People who want to decrease gun laws has stayed even during that same time period. People who want to keep it the same has increased from 17% in 1991, to 41% in 2009. Another win for pro-gun on all fronts.

I see the trend as more gun friendly.

 

[grunion]

I see the trend as more gun friendly.

I pointed out the trend. Do you see evidence that the NRA represents a majority view? Where?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Thank god we're finally debating gun control on this forum!

Isn't it your favorite topic here at the JREF? I see you couldn't stay away for very long

77% of Americans believe some variation of the claim that Jesus is their savior.

I'm not super interested in arguments from popularity.

And I agree with you. The purpose of my discussion with grunion isn't to determine that's right, wrong, worse or best for society, etc.

Agreed, I was not arguing that poll numbers should make the slightest difference in how we regulate/legislate. But ServiceSoon made the claim that the NRA represents a majority viewpoint, and without some kind of better evidence, I find the claim to be laughable.

Where is all the anti-gun support then?