[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by squishy

Absolutely not! It's logically equvient to your argument.

Since I'm pretty sure "equvient" is not a word, Mr Roboto could define it however he wants I suppose... For example "Absolutely not! It's logically inferior to your argument."

[Cassius]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

I just don't see the need to wear them around with me like the wild west.

Yee haw, get your cotton picking paws off my can of baked beans partner! c 1887.

[squishy]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Since I'm pretty sure "equvient" is not a word, Mr Roboto could define it however he wants I suppose... For example "Absolutely not! It's logically inferior to your argument."

It's spell check's fault, I swear to christ

[bd5400]

I know very little about guns so I'm hoping someone can shed some light on a question I have. The OP has suggested that the kid must have been aiming at his mother and learned it somewhere.

Now...I feel like the best way to NOT get shot by a 2 year old with a gun is for them to actually aim it at you. With the weight of the gun, kickback, etc. is it at all likely a child that small would have the capability to hit someone/something they were aiming at? I would think hitting her was just a coincidence rather than any sort of aiming skill.

[squishy]

Originally Posted by bd5400

I know very little about guns so I'm hoping someone can shed some light on a question I have. The OP has suggested that the kid must have been aiming at his mother and learned it somewhere.

Now...I feel like the best way to NOT get shot by a 2 year old with a gun is for them to actually aim it at you. With the weight of the gun, kickback, etc. is it at all likely a child that small would have the capability to hit someone/something they were aiming at? I would think hitting her was just a coincidence rather than any sort of aiming skill.

Gee thanks, now that we've concluded the 2 year old ought not be charged with 1st degree murder, we can move on to bigger and better things LOL

[TXSTYLE]

Originally Posted by bd5400

I know very little about guns so I'm hoping someone can shed some light on a question I have. The OP has suggested that the kid must have been aiming at his mother and learned it somewhere.

Now...I feel like the best way to NOT get shot by a 2 year old with a gun is for them to actually aim it at you. With the weight of the gun, kickback, etc. is it at all likely a child that small would have the capability to hit someone/something they were aiming at? I would think hitting her was just a coincidence rather than any sort of aiming skill.

When I say aiming, I don't mean like "AMERICAN SNIPER Skills".

I simply mean that the child had to physically point the gun at his mother. Why would a child do this unless learned by seeing it or dare I say even showed?

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by bd5400

I know very little about guns so I'm hoping someone can shed some light on a question I have. The OP has suggested that the kid must have been aiming at his mother and learned it somewhere.

Now...I feel like the best way to NOT get shot by a 2 year old with a gun is for them to actually aim it at you. With the weight of the gun, kickback, etc. is it at all likely a child that small would have the capability to hit someone/something they were aiming at? I would think hitting her was just a coincidence rather than any sort of aiming skill.

The child should have been able to hold the weapon up at least but probably wouldn't have aimed it since at 2yo chances are VERY low that the child knows how to use the sights properly. The weight would also make it more difficult to hold steady in a little one's hand. On top of this, handguns are difficult to shoot well with even at close ranges.

The biggest factor in the child's ability to aim the weapon is going to be the trigger pull. Her firearm was a Smith and Wesson M&P Shield which has a trigger pull of about 6.5 pounds. That doesn't sound like a lot but actually is. When you pull the trigger it will pull the gun to one side or another as your index finger works to apply this force. A 2yo is physically unable to apply sufficient pressure while also keeping the sights on target.

Basically even if the child had aimed the weapon at her there is a very small chance that it would be pointing in the same direction by the time the trigger was pulled. It was an extremely unlikely, but accidental, shot.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by TXSTYLE

When I say aiming, I don't mean like "AMERICAN SNIPER Skills".

I simply mean that the child had to physically point the gun at his mother. Why would a child do this unless learned by seeing it or dare I say even showed?

Definitely could be. Little kids mimic what they see and they catch on quickly. One walk through the living room while dad was watching Reservoir Dogs could have been enough.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by squishy

It's spell check's fault, I swear to christ

Ok BRUUUUH

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by PINeely

The child should have been able to hold the weapon up at least but probably wouldn't have aimed it since at 2yo chances are VERY low that the child knows how to use the sights properly. The weight would also make it more difficult to hold steady in a little one's hand. On top of this, handguns are difficult to shoot well with even at close ranges.

The biggest factor in the child's ability to aim the weapon is going to be the trigger pull. Her firearm was a Smith and Wesson M&P Shield which has a trigger pull of about 6.5 pounds. That doesn't sound like a lot but actually is. When you pull the trigger it will pull the gun to one side or another as your index finger works to apply this force. A 2yo is physically unable to apply sufficient pressure while also keeping the sights on target.

Basically even if the child had aimed the weapon at her there is a very small chance that it would be pointing in the same direction by the time the trigger was pulled. It was an extremely unlikely, but accidental, shot.

Agreed...also, kickback / recoil would have had little to do with the shot...bullet has already left the gun. Its only when you anticipate the recoil that your shot is affected...and a 2 year old wouldn't be anticipating recoil.

Ok - I think we've cleared the 2 year old from first degree murder charges.

Now, onto better things...what are the best arguments for the need for silencers?

I've heard:
1. Helps protect hearing at the range (I like this one)
2. Can improve speed of getting back on target
3. For criminals like Squishy...helps them minimize attention to their criminal endeavors.

No but seriously...we aren't allowed silencers, and I've always thought that was ok, because why would you need them unless you were trying to shoot someone and muffle your activities (keep in mind that was before I heard a silenced weapon fire and realize it only partially muffles the shot - prior to that I figured it was like in Bond movies where .45s sound like silenced .22s). But then some Americans opened my mind.

[MrPrena]

Well said.
S&W M&P (incl C and Shield lines) have about that pressure, unless they get that stupid MA complaint one.
For a fit guys who workout weekly, will have a sore forearm pulling 100-200 rounds at a range on their 1st day at a range.
That said, 6.5lbs weight is probably 25-33% of 2yr old's body weight.

Originally Posted by PINeely

The child should have been able to hold the weapon up at least but probably wouldn't have aimed it since at 2yo chances are VERY low that the child knows how to use the sights properly. The weight would also make it more difficult to hold steady in a little one's hand. On top of this, handguns are difficult to shoot well with even at close ranges.

The biggest factor in the child's ability to aim the weapon is going to be the trigger pull. Her firearm was a Smith and Wesson M&P Shield which has a trigger pull of about 6.5 pounds. That doesn't sound like a lot but actually is. When you pull the trigger it will pull the gun to one side or another as your index finger works to apply this force. A 2yo is physically unable to apply sufficient pressure while also keeping the sights on target.

Basically even if the child had aimed the weapon at her there is a very small chance that it would be pointing in the same direction by the time the trigger was pulled. It was an extremely unlikely, but accidental, shot.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Just think, if she had left her gun at home locked up in a safe place, she would be alive today.

For the record...I am a firearm owner including handguns. I just don't see the need to wear them around with me like the wild west.

That and your chances of qualifying to legally carry one is slim to none. Your government has made the decision to carry or not quite easy for you.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Agreed...also, kickback / recoil would have had little to do with the shot...bullet has already left the gun. Its only when you anticipate the recoil that your shot is affected...and a 2 year old wouldn't be anticipating recoil.

Ok - I think we've cleared the 2 year old from first degree murder charges.

Now, onto better things...what are the best arguments for the need for silencers?

I've heard:
1. Helps protect hearing at the range (I like this one)
2. Can improve speed of getting back on target
3. For criminals like Squishy...helps them minimize attention to their criminal endeavors.

No but seriously...we aren't allowed silencers, and I've always thought that was ok, because why would you need them unless you were trying to shoot someone and muffle your activities (keep in mind that was before I heard a silenced weapon fire and realize it only partially muffles the shot - prior to that I figured it was like in Bond movies where .45s sound like silenced .22s). But then some Americans opened my mind.

Before suppressors were subject to NFA restrictions, hundreds of thousands of Americans were beat to death with those items. They are as or more deadly than any other inanimate object.

[E92TTKING]

Originally Posted by inandout

Natural selection at work.

couldn't have been said any better.

[michaelthepsycho]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Agreed...also, kickback / recoil would have had little to do with the shot...bullet has already left the gun.

I have to disagree on this one. Limp wrist any pistol and your shot will print high. There's a split-second of time between when the powder ignites, imparting the recoil, and when the bullet actually leaves the barrel (even more noticeable on full-sized pistols). Try it at the range next time. Hold the pistol very, very loose. The baby could've been pointing at the chest / neck and hit the head.

[MrPrena]

Best way to practice.

1. Use laser site and start dry firing (please make sure do all your double check on safety rule 1,2,3's prior), and see what/how you are pulling your trigger.

2. After #1 muscle memory, put empty casing in the middle of magazine pack, and see how you are pulling the trigger during active drills. You can see what you are doing right/wrong while pulling the trigger.


That said(Going back to the topic), it would be very difficult for 2y/o kid to aim+hold the shield+ pull 6+ lbs trigger.



RH

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

That and your chances of qualifying to legally carry one is slim to none. Your government has made the decision to carry or not quite easy for you.

By the people for the people. It's not us vs them, we are suppose to be in this together. Thats what happens in a civilized society.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

By the people for the people. It's not us vs them, we are suppose to be in this together. Thats what happens in a civilized society.

My statement was about your government's assertion about you and your countrymen's ability to make a responsible decision.

Unexperienced liberties are not mourned.

[mike the snake]

I'd put money on it that the gun was probably upside-down in the purse, and the kid just grabbed the handle and squeezed hard enough to fire the weapon.

Do they know if the kid actually took the gun out of the purse and held it and shot it?

I think the mom just left a loaded gun, safety off, (probably upside-down) in her purse and the kid got his hands on it, squeezed, the rest is history.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by mike the snake

I'd put money on it that the gun was probably upside-down in the purse, and the kid just grabbed the handle and squeezed hard enough to fire the weapon.

Do they know if the kid actually took the gun out of the purse and held it and shot it?

I think the mom just left a loaded gun, safety off, (probably upside-down) in her purse and the kid got his hands on it, squeezed, the rest is history.

The whole thing is on surveillance footage but the police haven't said exactly what happened yet. I am also betting that the gun remained in the purse. It would have been upside down in the pocket so that she could grab and index it easily if she needed it.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

By the people for the people. It's not us vs them, we are suppose to be in this together. Thats what happens in a civilized society.

We get it, you don't like America. Take your (not so) subtle insults elsewhere.

[squishy]

Originally Posted by Templar

We get it, you don't like America. Take your (not so) subtle insults elsewhere.

Will you quit letting your sexual frustrations out on everyone else, Tempy?

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Templar

We get it, you don't like America. Take your (not so) subtle insults elsewhere.

Originally Posted by squishy

Will you quit letting your sexual frustrations out on everyone else, Tempy?

Yeah "Tempy" - it makes Squishy jealous.