She had an order of protection against him. This is the law of imminence. Could the state have saved her? Did the court order save her?
No, a quick thinking 5yo was her only protection.
Where was the state?
Waiting for a phone call so they could come fill out reports and pickup the dead and injured.
And you wonder how kids learn guns can solve all their problems.
Now, just for ■■■■■ and giggles, we should compare how many children accidentally shoot others vs. how many save others with a gun.
(Fyi, I’m pro 2A, but this is a dumb thread)
He was choking her. What other solution do you offer?
This actually happened. You can call it “dumb” if you like, it’s a fact.
Who were you on the old forum?
No, I called the thread dumb.
Unless you are just reporting, but you seemed to have offered commentary.
I’m just looking at the stats of kids in houses with guns killing other people in house with guns.
Seem the 5 y.o. was the oldest of 4. Statistically, he would have shot one of his siblings as opposed to helping his mother with what appears to be a loaded gun easily accessed by a kindergartner.
I guess we can be happy a dirt bag was shot. Is this a silver lining thread then?
They 8yo was the oldest and there are absolutely no stat’s to support your claim.
The children – ages 8, 5, 2 and 1 – were not injured.
There are millions of kids who have access to firearms every day who never harm anyone with them.
What solution do you offer the woman being choked?
I think we can be happy the dirtbag was stopped short of killing the mother and/or any of the kids.
Nothing puts the weak and vulnerable on equal grounds with an attacker like a firearm, particularly a handgun.
You are right, I got the ages wrong.
As to the stats? What did I say? I said
Now, how many kids saved another person vs those who accidentally shot another person?
I think you get the picture.
What has this to do with a 5 yo kid who could easily access a loaded gun?
And your "stat’s"don’t support the contention.
We have no idea how many of those kids injured themselves, were injured by other kids, or by adults.
Statistically a child is far less likely to be injured with a firearm than they are to be injured with one.
Tens of millions of kids grow up in homes with firearms who never suffer any injury due to same intentional or otherwise.
You are targeting your own set of stats. I am targeting another.
Of gun arm events with children, which has the greatest percentage of occurrence, children saving other with guns, or children harming others with guns?
Seriously? Go post stupid stuff somewhere else please.
If it is stupid, dissect my thought process down and explain why it is not up to your intellectual standards.
Otherwise, I’m just saying you got nothin’.
You should have read the article you posted.