2-year-old accidentally kills his mom in Wal-Mart!!!

Sumit05

Adept
HAYDEN, Idaho (AP) — A 2-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his mother after he reached into her purse at a northern Idaho Wal-Mart and her concealed gun fired, authorities said Tuesday.

Veronica J. Rutledge, 29, was shopping with her son and three other children, Kootenai County sheriff's spokesman Stu Miller said. Rutledge was from Blackfoot in southeastern Idaho, and her family had come to the area to visit relatives.

She had a concealed weapons permit. Miller said the young boy was left in a shopping cart, reached into his mother's purse and grabbed a small-caliber handgun, which discharged one time.

Deputies who responded to the Wal-Mart found Rutledge dead, the sheriff's office said.

"It appears to be a pretty tragic accident," Miller said.

The victim's father-in-law, Terry Rutledge, told The Associated Press that Veronica Rutledge "was a beautiful, young, loving mother."

"She was not the least bit irresponsible," Terry Rutledge said. "She was taken much too soon."

The woman's husband was not in the store when the shooting happened at about 10:20 a.m. Miller said the man arrived shortly after the shooting. All the children were taken to a relative's house.

The shooting occurred in the Wal-Mart in Hayden, Idaho, a town about 40 miles northeast of Spokane, Washington. The store closed and was not expected to reopen until Wednesday morning.

Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, said in a statement the shooting was a "very sad and tragic accident."

"We are working closely with the local sheriff's department while they investigate what happened," Buchanan said.

There do not appear to be reliable national statistics about the number of accidental fatalities involving children handling guns.

In neighboring Washington state, a 3-year-old boy was seriously injured in November when he accidentally shot himself in the face in a home in Lake Stevens, about 30 miles north of Seattle.

In April, a 2-year-old boy apparently shot and killed his 11-year-old sister while they and their siblings played with a gun inside a Philadelphia home. Authorities said the gun was believed to have been brought into the home by the mother's boyfriend.

Hayden is a politically conservative town of about 9,000 people just north of Coeur d'Alene, in Idaho's northern panhandle.

Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.

Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.

Under the law, gun holders are barred from bringing their weapons into dormitories or buildings that hold more than 1,000 people, such as stadiums or concert halls.

https://in.news.yahoo.com/police-boy-2-accidentally-kills-mom-wal-mart-201635957.html
 
I wonder if capitalism has a major role to play in these random shootings. I remember reading recently they approved a bill to allow guns on college campus against conventional wisdom.
 
Why these foreigners carry gun most of the time?
Mostly americans and that too not in the bigger metros unless they fill out paperwork. Why do they do it because they have a right to do it and those rights have to be defended.

Hayden is a politically conservative town of about 9,000 people just north of Coeur d'Alene, in Idaho's northern panhandle.

Idaho lawmakers passed legislation earlier this year allowing concealed weapons on the state's public college and university campuses.

Despite facing opposition from all eight of the state's university college presidents, lawmakers sided with gun rights advocates who said the law would better uphold the Second Amendment.
good stuff

And even if they do, why not unloaded with the bullets/magazine nearby?
Better question.
 
Why these foreigners carry gun most of the time?
And even if they do, why not unloaded with the bullets/magazine nearby?

Was their no safety lock on the weapon?
Why? Well, they come from a different culture & which is why it may be difficult for us to fathom. Possibly because they can, & because of genuine security concerns, idk.
I followed the Oscar Pistorius trial for a while, & that pretty much made me see the other pov as well (i.e. why guns are ubiquitous in S. Africa).

As for the carelessness, it may be because carrying a gun around becomes an everyday affair where you start to ignore/forget the risks. For e.g. people traveling (read hanging) on local trains in Mumbai often forget the risks because they are doing it everyday.
 
Why? Well, they come from a different culture & which is why it may be difficult for us to fathom. Possibly because they can, & because of genuine security concerns, idk.
I followed the Oscar Pistorius trial for a while, & that pretty much made me see the other pov as well (i.e. why guns are ubiquitous in S. Africa).

As for the carelessness, it may be because carrying a gun around becomes an everyday affair where you start to ignore/forget the risks. For e.g. people traveling (read hanging) on local trains in Mumbai often forget the risks because they are doing it everyday.


You might have a point there.
 
Guess American Weapon/Arms maker needs to make better Safety lock on the weapons to avoid accidental incidents like this
 
I have never used or had any person experience with Gun so someone with experience can answer this?

Isn't gun trigger supposed to hard, I mean for 2 year old is it possible to trigger the gun..?
 
Why these foreigners carry gun most of the time?
And even if they do, why not unloaded with the bullets/magazine nearby?

Because it is good to have a weapon handy to defend self when its required. In fact, India too needs this.

Criminals always have and will continue to have access to all sorts of weapons regardless of the state of the laws. So anti weapon laws make absolutely no difference to criminals in their ability to procure weapons.

But it makes a big difference in the potential of a criminal committing a crime when he knows that his target is completely helpless as compared to when he knows there is a chance that the target might pull out a gun and defend themselves. There is no bigger deterrent to crime than when a potential criminal knows that his target might have the ability to fight back and with lethal force.

In many countries including US, the cops have no direct liability towards ensuring the safety of individuals. Their responsibilities are only to ensure public law and order. Even services like 911 are voluntary and even if they choose to ignore a call from a residential address, no action can be taken against that. The individuals are responsible for their own safety.

http://personal-injury.lawyers.com/wrongful-death/the-failure-of-911.html

As for incidents that activists use demand anti-gun laws, I think it doesn't make sense at all. A gun is just a tool like any other and banning the tool doesn't accomplish anything. Irresponsible use can make anything into a potential life taker.

There was a case where a kid dropped a soap in the bathroom floor and his parent managed to slip on it and the outcome was that she lost her life. Should usage of soap be banned after this?

Even in the particular tragic case listed above, the kid might have accidentally discharged a gun which killed his mother, but there are dozens of other ways which involve common place household items that might have become dangerous enough to take life in the hands of a kid. Being responsible is the only thing you can do and that still leaves room for the occasional freak accident.
 
Last edited:
@Lord Nemesis I totally disagree but then that is my view-point. Guns are so ubiquitous only in the US of A and not so much because of the second amendment but more because of the fact that the gun lobby has an unusual amount of power in their country. If a country needs all its citizens to carry guns to ensure safety then it becomes a banana republic and not a developed nation.

Some facts:

1. There are approximately 81,300 nonfatal injuries and 31,672 deaths every year involving guns. This makes it approximately 308 shootings and 86 deaths every day and so it is not making the US safer.

2. Gun violence is almost 7 times lower in developed countries than the US including places like Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

3. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

4. Just for comparison -In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.
 
Misuse/Abuse is not always an excuse to boycott something. If you think banning guns fixes the problem, then why not ban eating to prevent obesity. How about castrating all men on birth to prevent rapes? Why not ban electricity since so many people are harmed or die from electrocution every year. How about banning fire as well since it is a leading cause of accidental death?

People stupid with guns will be stupid with something else in their absence. People who want to murder will anyway get their hands on guns and even if they don't, they will use something else. If you want to ban everything that can harm others, there would be no end to that list.
 
Because it is good to have a weapon handy to defend self when its required. In fact, India too needs this.
Your logic is correct but with human emotions involved, this method is likely to yield more cons than pros.
You may be able to scare away a few of the criminals but most others get prepared beforehand and strategise accordingly. In the process it's possible that they shoot you instead. Also if one is not a habitual user of guns, at the moment you try to use the gun you start fumbling and that's when the criminal attacks you and the result can be brutal.
 
We should trust the police with defending the citizens of a country. If anyone says that the one with the bigger stick wins then I want a nuke to defend myself.:jimlad:
 
Because it is good to have a weapon handy to defend self when its required. In fact, India too needs this.
<snip.....>

I disagree. Even if you make it point that everybody should own a gun for self defense, then maybe pistol or something. But just how easy is it to acquire machine & sub-machine guns (mostly owned by parents of criminals) to massacre innocent school children? I think less school children are killed in Pakistan than in USA.

And lastly:
57789969.jpg
 
^^ As I said before, It doesn't make any difference to a criminals ability to get a gun if he wants one and even if he doesn't, he wound find some other way to accomplish his task of killing. All those examples people give saying that guns enable people to kill doesn't make an iota of sense. If a person wants to kill he will find some way and people won't go killing just because they have a gun. .

For that matter, every man is equipped to rape, but doesn't actually. But by the logic you people are giving, castrating every man is a sound way of preventing rapes.
 
There was a case where a kid dropped a soap in the bathroom floor and his parent managed to slip on it and the outcome was that she lost her life. Should usage of soap be banned after this?

Also comparing soaps to gun is simply ludicrous. Both objects are in two extremes as far as their primary objectives are concerned. Comparing sharp objects like knives etc. with guns could have been little easy to accept.
Of course, I got your reasoning of saying that everything in this world can be used to kill.
But we need to segregate the items that need access and items that need to be controlled based on several factors including the ease of causing damage to body or property. Guns are the easiest to harm someone or kill because these are made with sole objective of killing.
 
^^ As I said before, It doesn't make any difference to a criminals ability to get a gun if he wants one and even if he doesn't, he wound find some other way to accomplish his task of killing. All those examples people give saying that guns enable people to kill doesn't make an iota of sense. If a person wants to kill he will find some way and people won't go killing just because they have a gun. .

For that matter, every man is equipped to rape, but doesn't actually. But by the logic you people are giving, castrating every man is a sound way of preventing rapes.
How many school shootings have happened in India & other countries that exercise gun control compared to USA? You may not be able to control criminals & terrorists from acquiring guns but atleast prevent some suicidal maniac to go on a killing spree using military grade guns lying in their house.
Even such incidents happen in weddings & political rallies in UP & Bihar. Those idiots don't get the concept that a bullet fired up in the air will come down with the same velocity! Imagine that instead of barrel guns(I don't know the exact name of the gun), if it were a semi-automatic rifle.
 
^^ Sorry, I see no direct connection there. Gun based violence in US is lower than many places with a fraction of gun availability and accessibility compared to US. There is no direct relationship between gun availability and accidents or deliberate violence.

Also, as far as I know, it is far easier and cheaper to get access to a gun in Pak than compared to US. They have a large desi gun market. In fact, Its probably just as easy in India too to acquire a gun illegally if you really want it. There are cases where 12 year old's managed to purchase guns with pocket money in India.

Ok, leaving all that aside, Fire crackers have already proven to be several orders of magnitude more deadlier than guns in the number of people they kill every year directly and indirectly and long term damage to the environment. Many of them are technically low intensity explosives (which can also easily be modified into more powerful ones even by kids). Yet, no attempt is ever made to ban them any such attempt is would surely be met with massive public out cry from the same kind of self deceiving people who want to keep guns banned in the name of protecting their children, but have no qualms about buying letting their children have access to and play with something that has killed so many people every year .
 
Back
Top