questioning parents during times of tragedy

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-18-2006
questioning parents during times of tragedy
64
Mon, 07-23-2012 - 6:44pm

Sorry, I have to just go on a little bit of a rant here.

I'm sure by now everyone has heard about the tragedy that befell Aurora, Colorado at the movie theatre. Sad, sickening, revolting. Yet you know what I keep reading online? People questioning the judgement of the parents for taking little kids and babies to a late showing movie. Really?

I was incensed that people would look at this tragedy and begin pointing fingers at anyone but the shooter. What good does it do to question the parenting practices of those in the theater – the victims? It is akin to wondering why a rape victim was dressed scantily at a bar. It is disgusting.

There are people out there who abuse, neglect, and torture children. We're really taking THIS time of tragedy to pass judgement on something so benign? Really?? Like this couldn't have happened just as easily during the day?

How about the millions of other questions we should be asking? About gun control, security in public places, mental health evaluations, etc?

This just makes me very angry. I feel HEARTBROKEN for anyone who lost someone there, regardless of age. It's tragedies like this that makes me wish I hadn't brought kids into this messed up world to begin with!

Awhile back, I posted an article about a local, teenaged girl who was killed by her ex boyfriend. Her father is someone I've known for a long time. Basically, they had sex under a local bridge and that's when he killed her. His reasoning was because "she was doing drugs and I didn't like the changes in her". There have been comments in the local paper along the lines of "where were this girl's parents? She was doing drugs and having sex under bridges?" And let me tell you....she had wonderful, loving, parents who simply adored her. She was a bit wild, perhaps, but it's nothing that her parents did wrong.

Man, things like this just make me so damn angry!

Angie

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 6:43pm

hmm, did I say something funny?

I guess Jams you missed my entire post because I didn't say anything about people going after anyone with a box cutter. So, I will post the whole thing again for you.

"Just something to ponder. I am reading comments about gun control and/or people slaying with a box cutter. Let's not forget how wars were won before guns, as we see today. A man wielding an axe or sword or club, on the unsuspecting public, could easily cause the death toll this gunman caused.

What about homemade bombs? Downing an airplane means only controlling the men/ women in the cockpit. My point being, unstable people will find a way. Taking guns out of their hands isn't going to change that."

Is there something you want to argue there? You don't think some people will just choose other method or do  you just think people would choose a box cutter? Because it seems naive to believe the only other possible weapon available to people is a box cutter or that a box cutter could do any real damage in the situation provided by the OP ... oh, I would imagine there would be a few injuries, but deaths ... not likely. It just seems to me that if someone wants 12 people dead in a public place, there are other inventive ways to accomplish this without a gun.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 12:22pm
See, This puts it into perspective and it's no surprise that the majority of killings are with a gun.

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2009
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 11:21am

Yup,here our discussions on gun control center on how we can secure our border from gun smuggling and how to make our laws even stricter. 

Here,gun ownership is not a right, it is a privilege. And with that privilege comes responsibilities. You cannot just walk into a gun shop (I don't even know where one is-never seen one) and buy a handgun or a shot gun.  Handguns are restricted firearms. Assault weapons are of course illegal. Those weapons are solely designed to kill, on a large scale. There is no valid reason to have one, except if you are in the military.

We have the advantage here, when it comes to gun control, because of  our different culture and constitution.  It is a "no brainer" here.  Plus, with our Parliamentary system of government & strict limits on campaign contributions (max $1000), lobby groups like the NRA have no influence. We also have the advantage that gun ownership falls under federal control.  It is the same across the country.

 

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Thu, 07-26-2012 - 10:09am

Approximately 60 percent of all homicides and suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm. (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

RESULTS:
The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.
CONCLUSIONS:
The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

Explosives are the only weapon that comes close to the ability to murder on a mass scale as firearms. My research shows that the largest number of people murdered in a stabbing spree was 6. It takes longer to stab people than it does to spray them with bullets, making it more likely someone can stop them.

Though murder by explosive is the most dramatic and kills the most at one time, the truth is that our odds of dying in an explosion: 1 in 107,787 whether accidental or homicidal. The odds of dying by gun homicide are 1 in 25,361. The odds of dying by any homicide are 1 in 17,009. That means that the majority of people who die in homicides were shot.

Would limiting access to automatic weapons help? It has in Canada and across Europe.



iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Not laughing and you raise a good point.. I was very careful with my firstborn and I saved a lot of noisey tasks for when she was awake! With each additional child that changed though, And each of my children have different temperments which to me, start that young...

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001

He wouldn't have gotten very far in that theatre if he just had box cutters, Lol.. And I, personally do not oppose the entire right to bear arms but the thoughts that this man was allowed to buy so many guns in a short amount of time, that those kinds of rifle weapons are sold in an open market raises a lot of red flags, IMO... Laws do need to change.

 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 12-17-2003

Just something to ponder. I am reading comments about gun control and/or people slaying with a box cutter. Let's not forget how wars were won before guns, as we see today. A man wielding an axe or sword or club, on the unsuspecting public, could easily cause the death toll this gunman caused.

What about homemade bombs? Downing an airplane means only controlling the men/ women in the cockpit.  My point being, unstable people will find a way. Taking guns out of their hands isn't going to change that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Most babies will sleep through household noises that they've been accustomed to hearing in the womb. So if you've run the vacuum when they are in utero, they are used to that. They've done studies and found that neonates from homes where there's been a dog tend not to startle when they hear dogs bark, but if there was no dog in the home during the pregnancy, they will.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-27-1998
Wed, 07-25-2012 - 12:56pm

Don't laugh, that may be true in some cases. I had just brought my daughter home from the hospital (literally, we were home about a day) when work crews had to jackhammer up my street because of a problem with a gas line. We lived in a tiny antique house that was right on the street, so the place shook for about 8 hours. I thought my baby would scream, but she only woke up for feedings then went back to sleep.

Newborns are used to loud noises because the uterus is a very loud place!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
Also interesting is the message that guns don't kill people, people do. If the guy came in with a box cutter like the terrorist on Flight 93, maybe they could've taken him. But he was armed and protected like a SWAT team member would be. Legally. Would have taken a hell of an effort to kill 12 people and injure 50+ with a knife or even a handgun.