Just repeating "click bait" over and over is pointless. The term has a meaning, and it doesn't apply across the board to mainstream outlets that do not use misleading headlines to produce clicks.

The media regularly reports on tragic deaths on a wide range of issues, from traffic accidents to fires. When there's a national debate surrounding an issue (such as gun control) it's most certainly not evidence in and of itself of any kind of yellow journalism.

That one or two outlets disagree on such details as whether the brother of the victim (who is most certainly grieving) correctly specified whether the one year old witness was in the front or rear seat at the time of the shooting is of absolutely no importance whatsoever, the one year old was neither the shooter, nor the victim, nor had any responsibility. That child is not even meaningfully a bystander as one is too young to comprehend or verbalise what has happened.

I think it's probably pushing the point beyond all credibility to continue with this tack you started instantly on page 1, when you erroneously claimed that a lot of people on this thread seem to think they know what really happened, despite not a single person having done so. It makes it look like if there's an axe being ground, the source is rather closer to home.

Columbus wrote:

laklak wrote:Something doesn't smell right here. The boyfriend's gunbelt was in the floor of the passenger seat, where the one year old was sitting, sans car seat. The gun was found in the floor of the back behind the driver's seat, where the two year old, also not in a car set, apparently dropped it after shooting his mother. A news release says he found the gun after it slid out from under the driver's seat.

So, either the gun pulled itself out of a gun belt and holster in the front passenger seat and jumped under the driver's seat, or it was never in the holster. The mother could not have failed to notice a gun belt when she put her one year old into the front seat without a child seat. If the gun was in the holster why didn't the dim bint put it in the trunk or otherwise secure it? If it wasn't in the holster why didn't she fucking look for it? How the fuck does a two year old, with their small little hands, cock and fire a .40 caliber handgun?

Nah, something isn't right here, I don't believe it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/04/27/driver-fatally-shot-child-back-seat/83584372/

Antonio Price said investigators told him that his sister Patrice was driving with her two sons, ages 1 and 2, riding in the backseat Tuesday when she was shot. Price said authorities told him the older boy fired the gun.

Price says his mother was in the passenger seat and was not struck.

So the new information differs a good deal from the old?
Maybe the problem is that click bait journalism is more about fast and emotive than accurate and complete. Because the former sells and the latter merely informs.
Tom

What of substance has changed? The pertinent details have not which is that unsecured children in a car got a hold of a unsecured gun in said car and shot the mother.

It's like if there was a story about a tornado destroying somebodies home killing all inside but initial reports got the number of the house wrong and said it was a two story when in fact it was split level home. "CLICK BAIT!!!"

Here's another one. 3 year old from Georgia kills himself with his father's semi-auto pistol.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/27/sheriff-boy-used-father-pistol-to-accidentally-kill-self.html

Same situation. Loaded gun left where a toddler could get it, but this time the fucking idiot responsible lived and an innocent kid died. This absolutely infuriates me. Moron had the gun in his book bag. Book bag? Like, for school books? Going to the library? What the fuck is he carrying a loaded weapon in his book bag for? I looked up Dallas, Georgia. Dookie squat town northwest of Atlanta, hardly a hotbed of violent crime. WTF was he carrying for? And knowing he was carrying, puts the bag where his kid can get to it? No charges filed. WTF again? If this isn't at least negligent homicide or culpable manslaughter then I don't know what is.

They need to start throwing the book at these people, lock them the fuck up for the protection of the rest of us. And really, really, really tighten up on concealed carry requirements. I assume he needed one to carry a loaded gun around in a book bag, if not there's another law that needs revisiting. And never let the fuckhead own so much as a slingshot in the future. I'll bet he's on his fucking knees jes a'prayin fer his little boyah Praise Jesus. Makes me want to puke.

You should write a letter to the NRA.

I'm sure they see this as just the price of freedom.

That's why I dropped my membership.

Columbus wrote:

If those children were not in car seats, those adults present and responsible were in violation of the law.

That's a lot different from homicide.

Have you ever been in a car with a toddler who has just discovered that he can push boundaries and buttons by pushing the button on the belt holding him into the car seat? It's a regular feature of parenting these days.
Tom

My bold

No, have you? No-one designs and/or is allowed to sell car-seats for toddlers that the toddlers can get themselves out of. That is ridiculous. Please show us the car-seat that you are familiar with that toddlers can push a button and free themselves.

I just don't understand it. I grew up around guns, I own guns, I shoot guns. I have a concealed carry permit, though I rarely do. I never saw, growing up, a loaded gun just lying around. I was absolutely NOT permitted to even touch one without my Dad there, if I could have gotten it out of the locked gun rack. There is never a loaded gun lying around my home. There is a loaded pistol in a gun safe on my dresser. If I needed it for some reason, which is very remote possibility, it would take maybe two seconds to chamber a round and fire. But there is an almost zero chance of an accidental discharge because a) there isn't a round in the chamber b) the safety is on c) the safe is keyed to only my and my wife's thumbprint and d) we are very goddamned careful. I don't transport guns loaded. If we go to the range the guns come into the house unloaded and safed, and go directly into the safes after cleaning. Why is this so hard for these people to do? Do they not understand how dangerous they are? Do they not realize they'll kill the shit out of someone if they aren't fucking responsible and very, very careful? Is this rocket science?

Edit the only time I ever broke my no loaded guns rule was living in the mountains when we kept a shotgun in the kitchen. Loaded but not one in the chamber. Bears.

Columbus wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Lady driver shot by toddler in back seat.

All that information still stands.

In other news:
Hasty, inaccurate, but emotive stories continue to make the rounds on the internet.
Tom

Except this isn't one - a lady was shot by a toddler in the backseat while she drove - so no one knows what you're talking about.

Columbus wrote:

laklak wrote:They were all from 'reputable' media, the Guardian, NYT, USAToday, but there's no telling how accurate any of them are. In any case, it doesn't add up. Somebody ain't tellin something.

I see no reason to think that reputable media outlets are above adding click bait to their revenue stream. Sorry if I sound old and cynical.

And maybe "someone" is quite able to explain that this is just another tragedy of errors. Small bits of irresponsibility that resulted in family disaster, but not meaningful in a national way. Who would bother reporting something boring like that?
Tom

It's just been on the BBC news.

Columbus wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Woman fatally shot while driving in Milwaukee by child in back of her car

Authorities say the 26 year old was driving on the highway when a child in the back seat of her car got hold of a gun


The Milwaukee county sheriff’s office says the woman was struck once in the back as she drove south on US 41/Highway 175 around 10.30 am Tuesday.

More...

A Dutch news site said it was left by her friend.

This sort of click bait media makes me a bit angry. People think they know enough to pass judgment when they don't.
For all anybody in the media know, she may have had the gun in the car out of desperation. She could have come home to find a death threat from her violent ex-hubby on her answering machine and panicked.
There are people who know what happened. But it is not me or anyone else on this forum.
Tom

Well she could have been. She could have also been part of some government conspiracy where they were after her because she had a secret tape of Obama feeding his pet duck nobody knows about. That's less likely than some violent ex-hubby which is less likely, by far, than her being an utter fucking moron and leaving her gun in reach of a fucking 2 year old who could have quite as easily have shot the other kid and killed him/her.

laklak wrote:They were all from 'reputable' media, the Guardian, NYT, USAToday, but there's no telling how accurate any of them are. In any case, it doesn't add up. Somebody ain't tellin something.

Playing devils advocate, don't all these news outlets take all their news from one report these days?

laklak wrote:I just don't understand it. I grew up around guns, I own guns, I shoot guns. I have a concealed carry permit, though I rarely do. I never saw, growing up, a loaded gun just lying around. I was absolutely NOT permitted to even touch one without my Dad there, if I could have gotten it out of the locked gun rack. There is never a loaded gun lying around my home. There is a loaded pistol in a gun safe on my dresser. If I needed it for some reason, which is very remote possibility, it would take maybe two seconds to chamber a round and fire. But there is an almost zero chance of an accidental discharge because a) there isn't a round in the chamber b) the safety is on c) the safe is keyed to only my and my wife's thumbprint and d) we are very goddamned careful. I don't transport guns loaded. If we go to the range the guns come into the house unloaded and safed, and go directly into the safes after cleaning. Why is this so hard for these people to do? Do they not understand how dangerous they are? Do they not realize they'll kill the shit out of someone if they aren't fucking responsible and very, very careful? Is this rocket science?

Edit the only time I ever broke my no loaded guns rule was living in the mountains when we kept a shotgun in the kitchen. Loaded but not one in the chamber. Bears.

No, because you live in a culture where toddlers die at July 4th celebrations from people shooting their guns in the air. You're so lackadaisical about guns there that this is exactly the kind of thing you're going to see.

When you can't even be fucked do do anything after you have more than one mass shooting a day over there and time and time again, toddlers shooting others then how are you surprised by this? Sounds like a weird case of special pleading on your part.

laklak wrote:Something doesn't smell right here. The boyfriend's gunbelt was in the floor of the passenger seat, where the one year old was sitting, sans car seat. The gun was found in the floor of the back behind the driver's seat, where the two year old, also not in a car set, apparently dropped it after shooting his mother. A news release says he found the gun after it slid out from under the driver's seat.

So, either the gun pulled itself out of a gun belt and holster in the front passenger seat and jumped under the driver's seat, or it was never in the holster. The mother could not have failed to notice a gun belt when she put her one year old into the front seat without a child seat. If the gun was in the holster why didn't the dim bint put it in the trunk or otherwise secure it? If it wasn't in the holster why didn't she fucking look for it? How the fuck does a two year old, with their small little hands, cock and fire a .40 caliber handgun?

Nah, something isn't right here, I don't believe it.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/04/27/driver-fatally-shot-child-back-seat/83584372/

I used to own a few guns, including a 1918 .45 and a small 9 mm with a more modern design like most of the .40 images from google. Not all are autos like the 1918, many have no visible hammer. I can't even remember if my 9 mm had a visible hammer. How do you cock one of these with no access to a hammer? If it's sliding back, obviously no 2 year old could do this, not unless guns have gotten way lighter and easier to operate than my 9, and certainly the old Colt. If it had a hammer, I don't see a 2 year old cocking the thing, it would require some flukish 'luck' to put the amount of force, directed force for long enough to engage the trigger mechanism, and it's better to say 'torque', because he has to be holding the gun still while pulling back the hammer . Not all the .40s I saw were typical autos, so if it wasn't this is irrelevant, i didn't see any more specifics than .40 caliber. If it was an auto, I think it had to be not just one in the cylinder but also cocked, hopefully with the safety on, which is another step the kid had to perform. If it was safety off, cocked, the boyfriend needs to get fucked, the mom too for being with someone like that when she had kids.

Without knowing the particular model this is all speculation but many semi-automatics will fire simply by pulling the trigger if a round is chambered (no need to cock the hammer) and many people do carry a chambered round. Many also carry with the manual safety off and of course many handguns don't have a manual safety at all. So the scenario described is certainly plausible.

Do safe storage/transport laws even exist there?

Griz_ wrote:Without knowing the particular model this is all speculation but many semi-automatics will fire simply by pulling the trigger if a round is chambered (no need to cock the hammer) and many people do carry a chambered round. Many also carry with the manual safety off and of course many handguns don't have a manual safety at all. So the scenario described is certainly plausible.

Do safe storage/transport laws even exist there?

My gun knowledge is spotty and dated at best. This info is all very relevant, do you have a feeling for how much force is needed in the autos without hammers? Does this mechanism add significant to the trigger pull compared to hammered ones? [Hammered guns are v v dangerous to be around[a joke]]. I'm thinking it's just the hammer isn't accessible, so you can't then lower the hammer on a chambered round? What sorts of guns do away with any safety at all? I know a lot of the old-timey revolvers don't have one, you were supposed to keep the hammer half-cocked if I remember correctly. Do they make many modern guns that aren't based on old designs without safeties? I would not have thought that. Unless for some of the more specialty guns like those Thompson single-shots. I think you can get a 30-06 chambered handgun from them if memory serves, that's a real beast.

In a double action/single action handgun, the first round is a heavier and longer trigger pull (it varies but is around 8-12lbs). The first pull both cocks and fires the round. Subsequent rounds require a much lighter pull (4-6 lbs) since the preceding round has cocked the firearm for you. But, many of these DA/SA hand guns will allow you to cock them, eliminating that heavy trigger for the first round. People do carry them chambered and cocked, which can be understandable in some cases but storing it that way is not something that any responsible person would be doing.

4-6 pounds is a very light touch and could easily be accomplished by a toddler. The longer heavier pull in double action is more difficult but certainly not impossible.

If this was his service pistol I think it's pretty safe to assume that this was a semi-automatic. In Canada at least you would rarely if ever see a revolver used.

Often. as you said, the hammer is there but just not accessible. Sometimes called a spurless hammer.

Double action only DAO handguns are used a lot in law enforcement (perhaps by security as well?) and these tend to have no manual safety.

My knowledge is admittedly limited and I'll gladly stand to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable. What I've posted is rather basic and there are a LOT of different handguns out there.

Where is Weaver? He could sort all of this out.

You're pretty close, but didn't distinguish between revolvers and pistols. The main practical difference being that a single action revolver will require that hammer be cocked manually for every shot. A double action revolver will operate simply by repeated squeezing the trigger (higher trigger pull weight), or manually cocking the hammer back then firing (much lighter and shorter trigger pull).

A single action pistol however, only need be manually cocked once, as you said. That will allow firing the first round, then the pistol action recocks the hammer for each subsequent round. A double action pistol behaves like a double action revolver, but only for the first shot, also as you said.

Judging on both pull weight and distance, I'm guessing that toddler got hold of a pistol with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked. He either operated the safety, it wasn't engaged, or there wasn't one. Could have been a revolver, but less likely. Revolvers aren't particularly popular among the fearful.

LOL
I just went back and added this: "If this was his service pistol I think it's pretty safe to assume that this was a semi-automatic. In Canada at least you would rarely if ever see a revolver used."

and I hadn't read your post first, honest.

I agree with your assessment as well.

Teague wrote:
No, because you live in a culture where toddlers die at July 4th celebrations from people shooting their guns in the air. You're so lackadaisical about guns there that this is exactly the kind of thing you're going to see.

When you can't even be fucked do do anything after you have more than one mass shooting a day over there and time and time again, toddlers shooting others then how are you surprised by this? Sounds like a weird case of special pleading on your part.

No special pleading. There are people like me, who are extremely careful with firearms, and others who aren't. We' been round this 1000 times here. There are plenty of people who shouldn't have access to a nylon spatula, let alone a firearm. Unfortunately, it's not possible in our current political situation to distinguish between the two. Other than banning guns (not gonna happen) and confiscating those already out there (not gonna happen) there isn't much to be done. One step would be extremely harsh penalties for stupidity of this mind-boggling magnitude. Dude left his service weapon in the car where a kid got it - 25 years. The other guy who left his gun in his book bag - 25 years. Shooting a gun into the air - 25 years. Use of a gun in the commission of a crime - life without parole. I'd do the same thing with drunk driving, texting while driving, and any number of other completely indefensible, selfish, moronic activities. If you cannot be trusted out in the world at large you'll have to live in prison, where the rest of us sane and responsible people don't have to deal with you.

There's no such thing as a "gun accident", it is always, every single time, because somebody made a brain-dead mistake and somebody else ended up hurt or dead. Jack the penalties up to a point where even the stupidest of the stupid will have to take notice, maybe it will at least cut down on these incidents.

I pretty much agree with laklak. In the US, you are unlikely to see much in the way of regulations for acquiring handguns or requiring proper training in their safe use. The only way to have an impact on so-called "accidents" by idiots like the one responsible for this incident is very harsh penalties for the unsafe use of firearms. I also think that nothing is going to change. The right to keep and bear arms apparently includes the right to be careless with them and suffer little if any consequences.

It will be interesting to see if he faces any charges but I also wonder if he actually violated any laws in the first place.