Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 02 2015, @11:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the peace-of-mind dept.

The Guardian reports that the woman who was accidentally shot dead by her two-year-old son in an Idaho Walmart is described by those who knew her as a gun lover, a motivated academic and a successful nuclear research scientist who worked for Battelle’s Idaho National Laboratory and wrote several papers there including one on using glass ceramic to store nuclear waste (PDF). Rutledge was raised in north-east Idaho and always excelled at school, former high school classmate Kathleen Phelps said, recalling her as “extremely smart. … valedictorian of our class, very motivated and the smartest person I know. … Getting good grades was always very important to her.”

Veronica Rutledge and her husband loved everything about guns. They practiced at shooting ranges. They hunted. And both of them, relatives and friends say, had permits to carry concealed firearms. “They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case,” says Terry Rutledge, her husband’s father. “… I brought my son up around guns, and he has extensive experience shooting it. And Veronica had had hand gun classes; they’re both licensed to carry, and this wasn’t just some purse she had thrown her gun into.” Many locals don't discern anything odd with a 29-year-old woman carrying a loaded gun into a Wal-Mart during the holiday season. “It’s pretty common around here,” says Stu Miller. “A lot of people carry loaded guns.” More than 85,000 people, 7 percent of Idaho's population, are licensed to carry concealed weapons (PDF), “In Idaho, we don’t have to worry about a lot of crime and things like that,” says Sheri Sandow. “And to see someone with a gun isn’t bizarre. [Veronica] wasn’t carrying a gun because she felt unsafe. She was carrying a gun because she was raised around guns. This was just a horrible accident.”

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:24AM

    by tftp (806) on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:24AM (#131169) Homepage

    People don't go around randomly shooting each other

    You are happily living in a safe community. There are still plenty of those, and I am living in a similar environment. I wouldn't be carrying a gun even if I could, simply because there is no need to do so here. I'd hate to live in a place where I am threatened so much as to prompt me to go armed.

    However there are plenty of places (like large cities) where it is dangerous. Chicago comes to mind, with their unconventional pastime habits [heyjackass.com]. For 2014:

    Shot & Killed: 388
    Shot & Wounded: 2231
    Total Shot: 2619

    That's about 7 people shot every single day. I am not sure that your assurances that "people don't go around randomly shooting each other" is true there. As it appears, in some places people do exactly that. This undermines your entire proof.

    At the same time I can agree that in many circumstances you cannot defend yourself, with a gun or with your martial arts, against a small group of prepared robbers. You cannot attack them first; often you cannot even prevent them from coming close. The robbers are not afraid to draw a gun and point it at you, whereas you, a law-abiding citizen, cannot do that until the threat becomes justifiable in the court of law. The situation is stacked against you, and is basically unwinnable. Your only helpful actions could be staying away from the suspects and unzipping your jacket. Chances are that the attackers will leave you alone, as their business model does not favor robbing armed people.

    But this is not the only situation where you may use a gun for self-defense (or to defend others.) For example, take robbery of a store, like a drug store. You and a few other customers are there. Then a junkie barges in, gun in hand, points it at the clerk and demands drugs. You are personally threatened, as you are a witness. If you can safely defend yourself in this situation, it could be a wise thing to do. A similar situation had occurred in a mall, where an active shooter was planning to kill as many as he could. He was shot and killed by an armed citizen before he could do much harm. You can say that those people are insane, and probably they are. But that's not a solution. Even availability of firearms is not a major factor here. In China an insane man stabbed about 30 people; in Norway a nationalist blew up a car bomb in the street, killing 8 and injuring 209 people; in Boston fanatics blew up an IED that killed 3 people and injured 264. And those injuries are far from being clean bullet wounds.

    Another scenario could involve protection of your own home and family from a group of tall and strong "unarmed teenagers" who are intent on doing you harm. It may be unreasonable for them to do so, but logic will not help you when they have already kicked your door in. Leave it to the pathologist to figure out what drugs they were on. Within your home or on your property you are free to carry weapons and defend yourself against deadly threats.