gunfighter?

This is yet another example of moronic parents.

A very sad story. But hardly a reason to radically rework our constitutional order.

Tragedies happen constantly, with all manner of objects. About 10 to 40 children die each year by drowning in plastic buckets. Should we ban them as well?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/though-rare-common-household-buckets-responsible-for-child-drowning-deaths/1183710

You know what causes lots of people to die of drowning?

Water. Ban water!

As long as someone teaches the 2-year old about personal responsibility, it's all good.

You can't effectively and permanently teach a two-year-old personal responsibility, let alone gun safety.

You absolutely can teach a two-year old gun safety. Just like you can teach them train safety. For them, it's more or less "stay away."

But at any rate, the mother is the one who had the burden of gun safety here. We don't know from the link what specifically happened so it's pointless and distasteful to speculate on whether she did something wrong or whether this was just a random tragedy.

Let's here it for all the gun advocates that protested for the rights of that mother to bring a gun into a Wal-Mart and leave it unattended. She had a legal right to be an idiot about it and got what she deserved.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I expect two-year-olds to make learning mistakes. I don't want one of those mistakes to be made with a firearm.

You absolutely can teach a two-year old gun safety, take the child in this story, I bet they won't be doing that again. Learning by trial and error.

I don't know, Maniac, he might kill his mother again.

All we know for certain is that the mother learned her lesson.

Why do people say that?

Let's not criticize the US too much though.
Of all the people learning to solve the issues with overpopulation by trial and error, the Americans are making real progress.

Lol okay mapleleaf

Unlike mapleleaf, I devote most of my life to helping people, so forgive me if I think irony is a weapon against misery.

Although keeping guns in range of 2-year-olds can be very effective against misery too of course.

If you're actually offended though, let me know.

Wow, such a great example of victim blaming; though i'll admit the law didn't require her to carry a weapon, it merely allowed it. Still a culture which expected concealed firearms is going to have accidents like this (and all the other gun deaths...)

Is that the price you pay for freedom?

Id rather have the freedom than not.

Surely victim blaming is only wrong when it's not the victim's fault? It is only by sheer good fortune that the child didn't shoot itself or any of the many innocent bystanders. She is no different to the people who choose to drive when exhausted or drunk. Often they get away with it, occasionally people die because of it.

I agree with Octavius. Victim blaming is justified when the victim is to blame. Her death was a result of her own negligence.

Looking at the wider question - and not being a US citizen - I'm curious as to the practical reasons for allowing general public to carry firearms.

Not relating the question to this incident specifically - but nobody has ever said, to me, why they feel they should be allowed to carry firearms in public.

It's because the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Simple as that.

@Invictus - I understand that - but that was adopted back in the 18th century - I meant to ask as to the modern day practicality.

That's irrelevant. As long as it's still in the Constitution it applies just as much as ever.

But why?

The idea behind carrying a firearm roots itself historically in a distrust for large government. The 2nd amendment was included as a means for the states and public to overthrow an oppressive government (keeping in mind the constitution was written about 10 years after the U.S gained independence from what they perceived as an oppressive king). In theory gun rights activists in America argue that the 2nd amendment still applies today because at any time should Americans feel our government is oppressive theoretically we CAN have a revolution. This is greatly contrasted to say England were the general public does not have firearms and could not stage an effective revolution should they ever need one. Personally I agree with regulations but not all out banning weapons. Regulations that force people to get phycological screenings, yearly firearm safety tests, and restrict the types of firearms owned by civilians. (I.e if you have kids, no pistols or weapons under say 10 pounds; or of you live in an urban environment no weapons above a certain caliber and limited mag capacity) that would make sense limit the amount of gun violence and keep the purpose of the 2nd amendment in tact.

Because that's how constitutions function, TrPrado. They're fixed rules which are hard to change. Unless they're changed through the proper constitutional mechanism they continue to apply.

For example, Congress still has the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Basically authorizing piracy on behalf of American interests. Even though that's completely obsolete in the modern world and the United States is a party to treaties banning the practice, Congress still has the power because the Constitution was never amended to change the status quo. Likewise for the right to bear arms.

The problem with that, Byron, is that who sets the regulations? If it is the government, they could hypothetically say that no one with less than a dozen kids could have anything bigger than BB gun. Not saying that will happen, but if push comes to shove, the gov could.