US News 5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

[KaerfNomekop]

A teenage babysitter was arrested Tuesday and charged in the death of a 5-year-old Texas boy who accidentally shot himself with the babysitter's gun while she was napping, authorities said.

Melissa Ann Ringhardt, 19, of Vidor was being held in the Orange County Jail on a felony charge of abandoning or endangering a child, the county sheriff's office said in a statement. She could face a sentence of six months to two years if convicted.

The sheriff's office said Ringhardt, who lives with the boy's family, left her semiautomatic .40-caliber handgun on a coffee table when she went into a bedroom to take a nap Monday afternoon. When she woke up, she couldn't immediately find the boy, identified as John Read, according to the sheriff's office. She eventually discovered him dead in the living room, it said.

Because the home has no telephone, Ringhardt carried John and a 6-month-old child, whom she was also watching and who wasn't identified, about a block to his grandparents' home to call 911, the sheriff's office said. John was declared dead there when emergency crews arrived.

5-year-old Texas boy accidentally kills himself with napping babysitter's gun

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Accname]

Why does a 19 year old need a gun and keep it loaded and unlocked? Even if she really likes that gun there is no reason why the lock shouldnt be on.

 

[FireCat]

Guns "What a terrible tragedy."

 

[Hatebreeder]

Why does a 19 year old need a gun and keep it loaded and unlocked? Even if she really likes that gun there is no reason why the lock shouldnt be on.

Because the majority of people are too stupid to actually understand how dangerous a gun is, as modern media desensitizes people on that matter. The whole point of carrying a lethal weapon at all times is illusionary in this time and age. I can understand having a weapon under the counter or at home, but concealed weapons are utter nonsence, if America could manage gun control.
But that will never be the case.

 

[Accname]

That was complete nonsense.

how dangerous a gun

media desensitizes people on that matter

what the hell? Guns are pretty useless. If you want to murder somebody a knive is a much better weapon. A gun shot misses most of the time and most wounds are not lethal if immediate medical aid is applied.
If you really want to murder somebody and have nothing else at hand just use a rock, or better yet, punch them, kick them and strangle them.

Guns have never been powerful weapons. The only benefit of having a gun is inducing fear in your opponent. A gun wound sounds scary, somebody with a gun looks very intimidating. It doesnt even need to be loaded for that effect.

I think it is you who doesnt understand how dangerous guns are.

 

[FireCat]

 

[Nyph]

Guns have never been powerful weapons.

Lol? Why are they used so much by the military then? Why don't we send soldiers into combat with just a bunch of knives or axes?

 

[Varine]

But that will never be the case.

And shouldn't.

f you want to murder somebody a knive is a much better weapon. A gun shot misses most of the time and most wounds are not lethal if immediate medical aid is applied.

Exactly. Even better yet, a a trident, I think, is the ideal weapon to kill someone with. Because it has three points, when you stab someone, if one misses or isn't lethal, you still have two other chances at the same time to get 'em.

Why don't we send soldiers into combat with just a bunch of knives or axes?

 

[Hatebreeder]

what the hell? Guns are pretty useless. If you want to murder somebody a knive is a much better weapon. A gun shot misses most of the time and most wounds are not lethal if immediate medical aid is applied.
If you really want to murder somebody and have nothing else at hand just use a rock, or better yet, punch them, kick them and strangle them.

Guns have never been powerful weapons. The only benefit of having a gun is inducing fear in your opponent. A gun wound sounds scary, somebody with a gun looks very intimidating. It doesnt even need to be loaded for that effect.

I think it is you who doesnt understand how dangerous guns are.

Oh really? I don't quite believe what you're saying due to my extensive knowledge on Physics. Better shoot yourself in the head and make a video of it, that would proove your theory. I mean, you could just apply immediate aid to yourself or have someone else do it, just in case.

Exactly. Even better yet, a a trident, I think, is the ideal weapon to kill someone with. Because it has three points, when you stab someone, if one misses or isn't lethal, you still have two other chances at the same time to get 'em.

Join Accname in his experiment, since you can't formulate a conclusion with just one result.

 

[Accname]

Lol? Why are they used so much by the military then? Why don't we send soldiers into combat with just a bunch of knives or axes?

Because its not the intent of the military to kill as many people as possible. Of all rounds fired in military combat only about 5% actually hit a target. Most bullets are fired to keep the enemy away and buy time for your troops to maneuver.
Its scary when somebody is shooting. You duck, you take cover. And while you do that you can not attack yourself.
Furthermore it gives the soldiers a feeling of protection. Carrying a gun is good for the moral. You dont even see if you actually hit somebody, you dont know if you killed him or only wounded him. If you had to train 18 year olds to kill people with a knive this would have terrible consequences for their psyche. We already have lots of stories of soldiers returning from the war having flashbacks of the horrible things they did to others. If those soldiers were using hand to hand combat to kill somebody it would even be worse.

Another reason is the scaling. Melee weapons dont scale well in combat. If you have 1000 guys with a knive but you are fighting at a narrow choke only a few can attack at a time. If they are equiped with guns this becomes much more effective.

But if you are alone fighting against a single person and you actually want that person dead then any other weapon, or just a heavy object, will do much better. Do you know what happens when you hit somebody in the head with a rock? Does not look pretty.

 

[Nyph]

Because its not the intent of the military to kill as many people as possible. Of all rounds fired in military combat only about 5% actually hit a target. Most bullets are fired to keep the enemy away and buy time for your troops to maneuver.
Its scary when somebody is shooting. You duck, you take cover. And while you do that you can not attack yourself.
Furthermore it gives the soldiers a feeling of protection. Carrying a gun is good for the moral. You dont even see if you actually hit somebody, you dont know if you killed him or only wounded him. If you had to train 18 year olds to kill people with a knive this would have terrible consequences for their psyche. We already have lots of stories of soldiers returning from the war having flashbacks of the horrible things they did to others. If those soldiers were using hand to hand combat to kill somebody it would even be worse.

Another reason is the scaling. Melee weapons dont scale well in combat. If you have 1000 guys with a knive but you are fighting at a narrow choke only a few can attack at a time. If they are equiped with guns this becomes much more effective.

But if you are alone fighting against a single person and you actually want that person dead then any other weapon, or just a heavy object, will do much better. Do you know what happens when you hit somebody in the head with a rock? Does not look pretty.

Ok, rock > assault rifle for killing. Gotcha.

 

[Narks]

never heard of a mass stabbing, only mass shootings

 

[FireCat]

Hilarious thread! Just saying!

 

[Hatebreeder]

Because its not the intent of the military to kill as many people as possible. Of all rounds fired in military combat only about 5% actually hit a target. Most bullets are fired to keep the enemy away and buy time for your troops to maneuver.
Its scary when somebody is shooting. You duck, you take cover. And while you do that you can not attack yourself.
Furthermore it gives the soldiers a feeling of protection. Carrying a gun is good for the moral. You dont even see if you actually hit somebody, you dont know if you killed him or only wounded him. If you had to train 18 year olds to kill people with a knive this would have terrible consequences for their psyche. We already have lots of stories of soldiers returning from the war having flashbacks of the horrible things they did to others. If those soldiers were using hand to hand combat to kill somebody it would even be worse.

Another reason is the scaling. Melee weapons dont scale well in combat. If you have 1000 guys with a knive but you are fighting at a narrow choke only a few can attack at a time. If they are equiped with guns this becomes much more effective.

But if you are alone fighting against a single person and you actually want that person dead then any other weapon, or just a heavy object, will do much better. Do you know what happens when you hit somebody in the head with a rock? Does not look pretty.

Nice "facts" you pulled out of your ass right there.
For starters, not everyone is a soldier. Besides that, soldiers are trained to aim for body parts that result in immediate death. Actual combat may be different, but the aim isn't to maim or scare people. It is to exterminate threats, if I may simplify it that way.

Now, imagine no one had a weapon. No one could threaten anyone else without having to engage in close combat. Humans and animals tend to run away when threatened, if possible. If not, they defend themselves with everything they got, much like a cornered animal.
Realistically, not everyone will have a not weapon. But there are some that do. But there are different alternatives, Pepperspray for example, that disengages a fight without dealing too much damage to the other persons body.

I wonder who teaches this kind of bullshit to you.

 

[Accname]

Ok, rock > assault rifle for killing. Gotcha.

You are just stupid and you should feel bad about yourself.

never heard of a mass stabbing, only mass shootings

I have heard of a mass stabbing. We had a news article about that here on the forum one day. A guy with a knive killed 6 people and wounded several others in a killing spree.

Nice "facts" you pulled out of your ass right there.
For starters, not everyone is a soldier. Besides that, soldiers are trained to aim for body parts that result in immediate death. Actual combat may be different, but the aim isn't to maim or scare people. It is to exterminate threats, if I may simplify it that way.

Now, imagine no one had a weapon. No one could threaten anyone else without having to engage in close combat. Humans and animals tend to run away when threatened, if possible. If not, they defend themselves with everything they got, much like a cornered animal.
Realistically, not everyone will have a not weapon. But there are some that do. But there are different alternatives, Pepperspray for example, that disengages a fight without dealing too much damage to the other persons body.

I wonder who teaches this kind of bullshit to you.

1) These are not facts. Its called common sense. Something you seem to lack.

2)

not everyone is a soldier.

And thats exactly the reason why YOU are going to miss your target if you fire a gun.

3)

soldiers are trained to aim for body parts that result in immediate death.

Thats not important for this discussion and highly disputable.

4)

Now, imagine no one had a weapon. No one could threaten anyone else without having to engage in close combat.

Ever heard of "throwing" things? You know, the human race is the best living being on earth when it comes to throwing objects at a target.
Then, there is also bows, crossbows, catapults, etc.

5)

Humans and animals tend to run away when threatened, if possible.

Not when they are the ones who actually want to kill somebody. I think you are mixing up the topic we are talking about.

6)

Pepperspray for example, that disengages a fight without dealing too much damage to the other persons body.

But you might want to "damage the other persons body" a.k.a. kill them.

7) You are an idiot.

 

[FireCat]

And thats exactly the reason why YOU are going to miss your target if you fire a gun.

There's too many death stories out there. That Means "NO soldier involved"

 

[Hatebreeder]

1) These are not facts. Its called common sense. Something you seem to lack.

2)

And thats exactly the reason why YOU are going to miss your target if you fire a gun.

3)

Thats not important for this discussion and highly disputable.

4)

Ever heard of "throwing" things? You know, the human race is the best living being on earth when it comes to throwing objects at a target.
Then, there is also bows, crossbows, catapults, etc.

5)

Not when they are the ones who actually want to kill somebody. I think you are mixing up the topic we are talking about.

6)

But you might want to "damage the other persons body" a.k.a. kill them.

7) You are an idiot.

1) Where do the 5% hit rate come from? Where does your "knowledge" about the battlefield come from? Call of Duty? Battlefield?

2) I have no reason to shoot someone neither do I want to shoot anyone. And besides, I used to go hunting with my father, I know what it feels like to hold and shoot a gun and I know what it feels like to kill a wild animal. You should respect the power of a gun.

3) It is, because every division in a military has different jobs. Depending on what you're trained to do, thats what you're supposed to do. People getting killed is the nature of warfare.

4) You can throw things, sure. In fact, you can turn just about anything into a weapon. But does that justify using a tool thats designed to kill?

5) I think you're the one missing the point. It's about whether or not civilians owning weapons is a good idea, not soldiers or warfare or whatever you're talking about. You can't control each and every person and thats not the point, but you can minimize the outcome and the rate of hostile situations.

6) Again, why would you want to do that? Thats not how society is meant to work. Society is a construct that reduces the chance of getting killed, by whatever it may be.

7) Whatever you want me to be.

 

[Accname]

1) Where do the 5% hit rate come from? Where does your "knowledge" about the battlefield come from? Call of Duty? Battlefield?

http://www.military-sf.com/FireFightDynamics.htm
http://johnrlott.blogspot.de/2007/12/police-hit-rates-on-shootings-as-low-as.html
And several others.
The main purpose of firing a gun in war is not to kill somebody but to buy time. Its called Suppressive Fire and thats were most bullets go.

2) I have no reason to shoot someone neither do I want to shoot anyone. And besides, I used to go hunting with my father, I know what it feels like to hold and shoot a gun and I know what it feels like to kill a wild animal. You should respect the power of a gun.

But if you try to shoot somebody who knows what a gun is the person in question is probably going to duck, move, run away or take cover. Its not like you are running around town with a sniper rifle shooting people from far away.
If you try to gun somebody down with a handgun you are probably not going to hit, its not that easy.

3) It is, because every division in a military has different jobs. Depending on what you're trained to do, thats what you're supposed to do. People getting killed is the nature of warfare.

Why would that be even remotely important to our topic?

4) You can throw things, sure. In fact, you can turn just about anything into a weapon. But does that justify using a tool thats designed to kill?

5) I think you're the one missing the point. It's about whether or not civilians owning weapons is a good idea, not soldiers or warfare or whatever you're talking about. You can't control each and every person and thats not the point, but you can minimize the outcome and the rate of hostile situations.

Lets sum this up:

the majority of people are too stupid to actually understand how dangerous a gun is

Guns are pretty useless. If you want to murder somebody a knive is a much better weapon.

Oh really? I don't quite believe what you're saying due to my extensive knowledge on Physics.

{all kinds of arguements that guns are not as good a tool to kill somebody then a knive is}

{things which are not related to the topic at hand in any way}

This is how the discussion has been going, and now YOU are telling me that I am missing the point. I dont think so buddy.

 

[FireCat]

You would survive a knife attack "five times more than a handgun attack!"
And I bet, If you see someone with a knife you would also run away! Well, there's 99% more chance of survival.

 

[Accname]

You would survive a knife attack "five times more than a handgun attack!"
And I bet, If you see someone with a knife you would also run away! Well, there's 99% more chance of survival.

The idea is to not get seen. You dont run around with the knive clearly visible. If you saw someone with a handgun moving towards you, you would run away also.
You cant just draw a gun and shoot. That only works in movies.
But you can draw a knive and just stab away happily.