Pregnant Mom Killed by Two Year Old Son - Shot in Back

[NowISeetheLight]

A pregnant woman was shot in the back by her two year old after he found a gun in a nightstand. She didn’t survive. The unborn child also perished. Apparently Dad wasn’t home.

They make quick release gun boxes with fingerprint locks. There is no excuse to leave a loaded gun in a drawer where a two year old can access it. I wonder if the shotgun was accessible to the kid as well?

Officers took possession of the gun, a SIG Sauer P365, along with a shell casing and the loaded magazine. Ilg and her husband told authorities that the handgun was kept in a nightstand in their bedroom. A 12-gauge shotgun and an airsoft rifle were also in the home, police said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pregnant-woman-fatally-shot-back-2-year-old-son-ohio-police-say-rcna90460

[Recycle_Guru]

1. so ridiculous and unavoidable

the dad looks "interesting".

[msongs]

2. 2A does not have any gun storage requirements or restrictions nt

[Squaredeal]

3. You reap what you sow.

[elocs]

16. But does a 2 year old need to reap these consequences? n/t

[StarryNite]

74. He was also in innocent victim.

My heart breaks for him because that will be one horrible thing that he will have to live with even though he was not at fault.

[getagrip_already]

4. It's a crime that active safeties are not required on self defense guns...

That gun only has a passive safety that is designed to keep the gun from firing if dropped.

Any pressure on the trigger will release it. Even the fressure of a 2 year olds hand.

Active safeties should be mandated by law unless you are a Leo or military. Nobody else needs a tactical trigger.

[multigraincracker]

14. Mechanical safeties

must violate the Second Amendment.
Common sense?

[Straw Man]

18. Mechanical safeties are neither child-proof nor fool-proof.

A much better idea is to keep the firearm securely locked up. As has been stated, biometric safes that open with a fingerprint are available, as are simple keypad combination safes.

[getagrip_already]

46. Agreed, but.....

Active mechanical safeties would save a lot of deaths and injuries, and pose no real interference with the self defense user.

A 2 year old likely wouldn't have flipped a safety and then pulled the trigger, or it would have at least slowed them down.

I'm thinking layers of safety, since someone carrying a gun in their purse isn't going to have it in a safe.

[sarisataka]

47. The 365 series

Has an option for a manual safety.

A good argument could be made that such safeties are more important on striker fired pistols than the double action types due to the difference in the initial trigger pull. I would however be a hypocrite if I said they should be required.

[Kaleva]

69. The trigger pull on my RIA M200 is 12 pounds in double action

It's 4 pounds for single action.

[sarisataka]

75. Twelve pounds is a very heavy pull

Even for double action.

4 pounds on single action is fairly typical, most striker fired guns are in the 5 pound range give or take but can be brought down with modifications.

[Kaleva]

77. It sure is

When I was training with the gun, I only used double action and you definitely notice the effort required

[Kaleva]

64. Few people need a round in the chamber

[getagrip_already]

65. That would solve a lot of accidental shootings.....

Most hunters won't xhamber a round unless they are hunting. It's too easy for the trigger to snag and discharge.

Then there are those shot by their own dogs.

The pseudo-warrier crowd are simply not concerned with what they need. It's what they want that drives accidents and crimes of hatred (passion to some, but it's a moment of hateful anger that kills).

[Kaleva]

70. Yes it would.

I have yet to come across an example of a gun owner who ended up dead or seriously injured because he didn't have the time to chamber a round .

When I was in the Navy, we weren't even allowed to have a magazine inserted in the gun.

[maxsolomon]

5. Hoist by his own petard, as Shakespeare said.

I'm trying to be sympathetic. At this point in America's romance with the Worst Amendment, it's difficult.

[Igel]

6. "unborn child"

By which they mean "fetal tissue".

Who knew NBCnews was RW?

[rsdsharp]

10. I'm pro choice, but "fetal tissue" at 33 weeks?

[JudyM]

12. She was at 33 weeks, just 3 weeks shy of full term.

That’s a 95% chance of survival if delivered. Within reason for unborn child terminology, even though that’s a loaded term.

[ARPad95]

15. "Full term" is 39 weeks.

https://www.nichd.nih.gov/ncmhep/initiatives/know-your-terms/moms

"Full Term" Starts at 39 Weeks
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine announced more specific definitions to describe babies born between 37 weeks and 42 weeks of pregnancy.

In the past, a baby born anytime between 37 weeks and 42 weeks was considered "term." A pregnancy is now considered "full term" at 39 weeks.

[JudyM]

19. My bad, didn't realize the definition of term had changed.

Online info still does have a 95% survival rate though.

Thanks for the info!

[ARPad95]

20. I had to look it up because even though I thought 36 weeks was too early to be full term, I didn't

know the number of weeks for full term. I thought at 38 weeks.

[usaf-vet]

25. Spontaneous abortion? When are these right wing nut going to protect the life of all living people..

... from gun violence.

Dad should face manslaughter charges.

The kid will need counseling for years to come.

Lawsuits will also follow I would guess.

[NowISeetheLight]

30. That Conversation

The kid will need counseling for years to come.

Imagine that conversation. When the kid is 4 or 5 and asks where his Mom is.

[Rebl2]

31. I so agree

I read about this happening everywhere to often. It is time for surviving parents to be charged with manslaughter for not keeping guns out of the hands of their children.

[usaf-vet]

36. We have guns in our house. Hand guns, shot guns, rifles and the are all locked up. It was the rule.

It must have made an impression because our son has a teenage foster child. And the day the youngster moved in, he called and said, "Dad, can you store my guns in your safe?"

Yes, we have a home security plan. First, it includes yard alarms with lights and cameras. Second, we have cell phones with 911 buttons.

It's not that we haven't considered a gun readily available.

But the chances of a visiting youngster wandering and finding a load ready to fire a weapon is not a risk we are willing to take.

[Rebl2]

44. Good for you

You are responsible gun owners.

[usaf-vet]

45. Thank You. Just to add one more point. So some who visit this sight won't label me left winger....

..... who isn't a REAL gun person.

I have a Conceal Carry permit. My first one was issued in the early 1970s, and the others in the state I now live in.

The military considered me an expert marksman with M16 and a 45 pistol in boot camp in the mid-1960s.

[LonePirate]

7. If she didn't want to be shot, she should have secured her gun like a sane adult would do.

[maxsolomon]

17. Or, you know, not have a handgun at all.

Norwalk Ohio has under 17K people. There is barely anyone there. It is >90% white. There is barely any crime - 30% lower than the Ohio average.

You don't need an unsecured handgun in your nightstand in a tiny town like Norwalk. You WANT it.

[chowder66]

8. The poor children who fire these guns have to live with these tragedies.

[we can do it]

9. Too young to realize what happened.

[chowder66]

13. They grow up.

[cab67]

21. But mom is gone forever.

[we can do it]

23. Yeah and sadly he might be too young to remember her.

[womanofthehills]

39. Yrs ago, I worked at a children's hospital

Parents had no gun in their house. Mother over protective- rarely left her 3 kids with a sitter.

Father’s friend hid his gun above a doorway & kids saw him do it. When Grandma is babysitting, kids get gun and 6 yr old girl shoots her 4 yr old sister. She lived - thank god- but left arm paralyzed. She could walk eventually but swayed side to side. So sad too for the six yr old who did the shooting.
,

[mercuryblues]

11. If the gun is registered to the Dad

he needs to be arrested. That gun was kept where the kid could easily get it.

[littlemissmartypants]

22. Found this tidbit for all those playing the blame game...

Sig Sauer, the manufacturer who designed the handgun, is facing numerous lawsuits from law enforcement and individuals claiming their handguns were faulty, resulting in misfirings that cause injuries or death, HuffPost reported.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/2-year-old-accidentally-shoots-and-kills-pregnant-mother-after-finding-gun-police-say/ar-AA1cRNv1

[ecstatic]

37. Still doesn't explain why it was on the nightstand for the child to find and use. nt

[littlemissmartypants]

38. In the drawer of the nightstand. It does, however add another layer to the investigation. ❤️

[Straw Man]

41. Not the issue here.

Sig Sauer, the manufacturer who designed the handgun, is facing numerous lawsuits from law enforcement and individuals claiming their handguns were faulty, resulting in misfirings that cause injuries or death, HuffPost reported.

Those lawsuits involve the P320, a completely different gun. The original flaw was that the pistol could fire if dropped on a hard surface at a certain angle. SIG Sauer addressed this with a recall. Subsequent incidents are most likely the result of user error, like a finger on the trigger when it shouldn't have been; to date, no one has proven a mechanical defect in court.

This incident involved a P365. There have been no claims of mechanical failures causing unintended discharges with this model. This is sloppy journalism.

[JI7]

43. That doesn't change anything .

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

24. I doubt "Thoughts and Prayers" are going to help that poor family. We need serious gun control

here that would enact the sorts of laws that would have kept the gun inaccessible to young children.

[dflprincess]

26. Ok, I don't know much about guns

but how can a trigger require so little pressure a two year old can pull it?

The insanity never ends.

[getagrip_already]

49. On these guns, the firing pin is already pulled back and ready to fire

If a round is in the chamber. All the trigger does is release the spring to drive the pin. It is adjustable, but nug nutz like to set it low.

So in this case a round was already chambered, and it was left accessible.

Stupid. I can't think of a situation where you would need to pull the gun and fire in a second in your own bedroom. You are more likely to shoot a family member if you act that fast - faster than you can id the target.

[Sancho]

27. People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[Wonder Why]

35. When I was in high school 60 years ago, a state policeman came in to give us

a talk on driving safely. That was his emphasis. He pulled out his pistol and said that both the pistol and a car could kill people so they were both dangerous.

My first thought is (and still is) that there is no comparison to the two. Lots of things can kill people but the purpose of them has nothing to do with killing. Cars, tools, wood sticks, paring knives, scissors, etc. But the gun has one purpose only - to kill or threaten to kill. It is a device designed to kill, not to move you from place to place, not to build or repair, not to use for making houses or for warmth, not to cut vegetables, not to cut paper or cloth. To kill!

[Straw Man]

42. That state policeman ...

... violated one of the fundamental rules of gun safety, which is that you don't handle your firearm unnecessarily. As an armed professional, he should have known that.

As for your other point ... well, I have a number firearms that I use frequently. I have never used any of them to kill or to threaten to kill. Recreational shooting is a thing. And if you want to claim that it is just practice for killing, let me ask you this: Would you say the same for archery? Fencing? Martial arts?

[Wonder Why]

48. Fencing with real swords? Is that a major sport? Martial Arts, like pugilism, is primarily a

sport to defeat but not kill one's opponent. Archery would be more akin to to gun shooting except that archery is not a significant source of death to either humans or animals.

As to recreational shooting, it uses live ammunition capable of killing (like archery). I have a lot of friends into recreational shooting and most of them talk about their guns "for protection".

So I still contend that guns themselves are inherently dangerous and are a major part of the problem. That's why most countries highly control them. Yes, if only those that take gun safety classes, pass strict licensing tests, positively protect them from theft and misuse, and practice high levels of gun safety, then gun deaths would be significantly lower. But their purpose is killing, whether for animals or humans and they are, by their nature, dangerous to have and use.

[Straw Man]

54. Fencing is the descendent of fighting with real swords.

The advent of firearms essentially made sword-fighting obsolete, but it persists as a sport.

A fencing foil is designed for sport, not for killing. So is this shotgun:



Could it kill someone? Yes, with the right ammunition, but the purpose for which it is designed and at which it excels is knocking flying clay disks out of the air.

I agree with your contentions that we could be made much safer with the steps you suggest. The problem is that the impetus toward these measure is mainly driven by groups whose agenda is extreme -- total bans on semi-automatic firearms, for example. This hardens the opposition, which sees any compromise as a step down the slippery slope.

We are going around in circles a bit here, but claiming that one lethal object is more dangerous than another lethal object just because its lethality is inherent rather than incidental is a bit specious, IMO. If a drunk driver mows you down, you are just as dead as if he had shot you.

[shrike3]

56. Why do civilians need semi-autos?

I have hunting friends, lifelong gun owners who are as mystified as me.

[Straw Man]

61. So ...

Why do civilians need semi-autos?

I have hunting friends, lifelong gun owners who are as mystified as me.

Do these hunting friends use repeating rifles, e.g. bolt action or lever action? Do they really need those? For that matter, do they really need breech-loaders? Muzzle-loaders will work for hunting.

Ask them. See what they say.

[shrike3]

62. My husband hunted for years with a single action.

He said, "If these guys actually knew how to shoot, they wouldn't need semi-autos."

Anyway, you are yet another gun owner I have to put on ignore. Whether you know it or not people like you come across as considering guns the most important items in the world. Or rather, your guns. Nothing matters more than your guns, and your rights. Nothing.

Ain't got time for that.

[Straw Man]

67. Single action?

I don't think you know what that means. There are semi-auto single action guns. If you mean that it only contained one round, and when that one was fired, it was empty, then good for him. He was infallible and never wounded an animal that needed a quick second shot to be humanely dispatched.

Putting people on ignore because you can't effectively respond to what they say is really an admission of rhetorical failure. How do you expect to effect any change if you're unwilling to engage in dialogue?

[shrike3]

50. But the gun was invented to kill something or someone. The only reason it exists.

That was the poster's point. Yes, it can be used safely, but that doesn't negate its initial purpose. It's in this world because in 1000 A.D. the Chinese developed gunpowder and everything that went with it. That's the only reason a gun exists.

As for fencing and swords, anyone would be more comfortable with rules in place -- what parent would want an unsecured sword around a two-year-old? If swords became more plentiful, I'd certainly worry about them because they, too, were invented to kill someone.

Those trained in martial arts would need years of expertise to advance to the point where they could kill someone with their bare hands, I would imagine. Not something Joe Average is going to be able to do. Too much work, quite frankly. Same with sword fighting. I've watched fencing and it takes tremendous skill.

But Joe Average can go buy a gun, without a permit or any licensing in some states, and have the capacity to kill someone without gaining any skill whatsoever. That's the difference.

[Straw Man]

53. Yes. And so were swords and arrows.

That was my point.

[shrike3]

55. Should swords and arrows be easily accessed by children?

That was part of my point.

Maybe we should make grenades easily accessible, too? I mean, they're weapons, right? Might as well go all out.

[Straw Man]

60. No, they shouldn't.

Nor should cars.

Shall we go around again?

[shrike3]

63. Once again, a car was developed as a means of transportation.

A gun -- and swords -- were developed to kill something, nothing else. Please stop using that false equivalency. Not that you will.

Anyway, on to ignore you go. And I get it. Nothing is more important than your guns. Nothing.

[Straw Man]

66. A distinction without a difference.

Last edited Sun Jun 25, 2023, 05:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Once again, a car was developed as a means of transportation.

A gun -- and swords -- were developed to kill something, nothing else. Please stop using that false equivalency. Not that you will.

And cars were developed to move things around. They're also dangerous objects, and access to them should be limited. Like guns. It's not an "equivalency"; it's an analogy. Not that you care.

Anyway, on to ignore you go. And I get it. Nothing is more important than your guns. Nothing.

Absolutely false. Not going to let that canard go. But you've got your fingers in your ears, so you'll never knw.

[Straw Man]

68. No, they shouldn't.

Nor should cars. Dangerous objects are dangerous objects. Where did I ever say that guns should be easily accessible to children? Please address what I actually say, not with the straw man that you wish to construct.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

58. Arrows and swords were not invented as weapons

They are direct descendants of tools used to hunt and forage.

Swords are nothing more than a variation on the knives used to kill game in close-up confrontations. Knives had other uses, such as cleaning kills for food, and then cutting it up for eating. The "technology" of knives also progressed to dealing with agricultural needs like clearing vegetation for planting or making reaping less tedious, tiresome and time-consuming. Only later would daggers come into use for warriors in hand-to-hand combat, born of the old techniques for killing game, and from there to swords.

Arrows are nothing more than small spears like those used to kill game--not people. Spears enabled us to hunt food animals with some distance between. At first, primitive man used spears as impaling devices (think Aragorn v the cave troll in Fellowship of the Ring), but, later, they became projectiles, because why kill up close, when you could do it at a distance? Eventually, someone figured out how to build something to propel spears--AKA, the first bow and arrow, and the original use was hunting, not war. It's believed the first bow and arrow users were in southern Africa, some 60,000-70,000 years ago, BCE.

So, no, arrows and swords are not in the same use origin league as the gun.

[Straw Man]

59. Obviously the hunting use is paramount.

People have to eat, after all. But your contention that knives, spears, et al only became weapons later, as "descendants" is curious. When do you suppose that happened? After we were banished from the Garden?

People fought people before they had tools with which to do it. The idea that their hunting tools were not immediately utilized as weapons strains credulity.

[inthewind21]

51. Name

the mass killings that have happened in the last 20 years with Fencing swords or Bow and arrows. I'll wait.

[Straw Man]

52. Oh, so only mass killings count?

Not the thousands of individual deaths that constitute the bulk of our gun violence stats?

[shrike3]

57. Are guns really that important?

Mindset I just can't get.

[LeftInTX]

28. Will they charge the boy for performing an abortion?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

29. Yet another episode in the ongoing saga:

Guns Make Us Safer.

I have ZERO sympathy for any of those involved, except possibly for the 2-year old, and the odds are extremely high he will never remember this. After all, how many of you remember things that happened when you were 2.

I happen to be unusual in that I remember several things from right before my 2nd birthday, and lots and lots of stuff thereafter. Most people, not so much.

[Richard D]

32. I think . . .

. . . he will remember. That is a significant trauma.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

40. Maybe, maybe not.

Even traumatic events tend not to be remembered by someone that young.

I know that when I get in to conversations with people about "What's the earliest thing you remember?" I'm somewhat astonished at how many people cannot remember anything before the age of 4 or 5 or even later. Clearly, I'm not talking to people who shot and killed their mother, so my experience isn't all that relevant. But I will still stand by the notion that this child will not remember this.

Not that lack of remembering in any way justifies the careless gun safe keeping. But I'm beyond angry, disgusted, horrified at this kind of thing. What kind of a world do we live in that people think it's perfectly okay to leave guns in a place that a 2 year old can find. Let alone kill his mom.

[aeromanKC]

33. Alex, I'll take "what will never happen in my family" for $1,000 please.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. At least the King of England can't push THAT family around.

[Kaleva]

71. My guess is that the gun owner had little to no training

He might have spent time on the range but did little to nothing else

Even the NRA teaches that guns ought to be secured if children are present


"1. Plain Sight or Hidden Unsecured

.........

You’ll have to weigh that against the cons, which are legion. The unsecured method offers zero protection against fire or theft and zero protection against access by unauthorized persons, whether guests or members of your household. If you live alone or in a house with only capable, safety-conscious adults, the access thing is probably not a problem as long as you stow the guns securely when guests are over. If your household includes kids or, say, a grandparent with dementia, access is a big problem. And don't forget that laws on gun storage in the home vary by state, so be sure to check what is required where you live. "

https://www.nrawomen.com/content/the-pros-and-cons-of-keeping-gun-secure-at-home/

[clementine613]

72. Rethugs need to be put on trial and jailed for this woman's murder.

It's their wilful refusal to do anything about guns that led to this woman's death.

[prodigitalson]

73. where was the good toddler with a gun?