Mum shot by her four year old son

[Zibago]

Mum shot by her four year old son

An outspoken pro-gun activist was accidentally shot in the back by her four-year-old son a day after boasting on social media that the toddler was learning how to use a firearm.

Jamie Gilt, 31, who runs a Facebook page called “Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense”, was wounded when the boy fired her .45 calibre handgun through the driver’s seat after finding it in the back of her pick-up truck.

A sheriff’s deputy was alerted to the incident after spotting Ms Gilt behaving “frantically” behind the wheel of the vehicle in Putnam County, Jacksonville, Florida.

The handgun was found on the floor next to the back seat, said Captain Joseph Wells of Putnam Country sheriff’s office. The injured woman told him her son had accidentally fired the weapon as he sat in the back.

“She was shot through the seat and the round went through her back,” Capt Wells told the Florida Times Union.

Ms Gilt was taken to hospital where she was said to be in stable condition. Her son, who was unhurt, was reportedly staying with relatives. Officers said he was not strapped into his child booster seat when they reached the scene. Police say they are satisfied the shooting is not criminal. It happened a day after Ms Gilt revealed that her son was being taught how to use a gun.

“Even my 4 year old gets jacked up to target shoot with the .22,” she wrote during a heated Facebook debate about the use of guns for self-protection. The post appeared to have been removed from her page following the shooting.

She also posted a video of a six-year-old disabled boy being shown how to use a semi-automatic weapon by what appeared to be American military personnel, with the comment “awesome”.

Ms Gilt had also declared her support for Ted Cruz, the Republican presidential candidate who is a vocal supporter of gun ownership rights. Gun control advocates used Ms Gilt’s Facebook page after the incident to mock her views on gun control.

“The hypocrisy... Jamie Gilt for gun sense? Sorry you were shot. Sorry your son will have to live with this the rest of his life,” one comment read.
Mum shot by her four year old son
@Ammara Chaudhry @WAJsal @django @MaarKhoor

 

[Moonlight]

Ted Cruz lost a vote. Awww! :p

On serious note, yeah 2nd amendment does give the rights to bear the arm guns. But when the problem of shooting was getting worsen (still it's there) in United States and when there was a discussion in parliament related to this amendment, people like her opposed it fully. Yes this is why this law should be looked over and I don't find anything wrong if there's going to be few changes in law to protect citizens.

Ps: RIP ms Gilt.

 

[Maarkhoor]

That happen when u befriended with weapons, take them as snakes u r enemy handle with care (source My Father).

 

[surya kiran]

Ps: RIP ms Gilt.

She is alive. Check this out on FB

Jamie Gilt's Son

 

[Indika]

yeah 2nd amendment does give the rights to bear the arm guns

that is a ancient relic that was passed 100 years back when country could not provide security. But now there is no justification for that right. I cant imagine trigger happy idiots running around with guns like kids wearing school bags. It simply seems ppl cant give up their love for fetish.

 

[Desertfalcon]

that is a ancient relic that was passed 100 years back when country could not provide security. But now there is no justification for that right. I cant imagine trigger happy idiots running around with guns like kids wearing school bags. It simply seems ppl cant give up their love for fetish.

225 years ago and it has more to do with the right of the people to be armed in case of their own government becoming a tyranny than it does security against a foreign power. But deeper than that, it has to do with the right of any man to defend his liberty and his life against anyone who would take them.

 

[Moonlight]

She is alive. Check this out on FB

Jamie Gilt's Son

She still can rest in peace though.

 

[Sky lord]

225 years ago and it has more to do with the right of the people to be armed in case of their own government becoming a tyranny than it does security against a foreign power. But deeper than that, it has to do with the right of any man to defend his liberty and his life against anyone who would take them.

In these days of inter continental missiles and nuclear bombs, how do you plan to defend life and liberty with militias armed with assault weapons?

The only people whose life and liberty are being taken away are the poor souls who get shot by accident or by maniacs who get their hands on guns.

 

[Desertfalcon]

In these days of inter continental missiles and nuclear bombs, how do you plan to defend life and liberty with militias armed with assault weapons?

Vietnam? Afghanistan? Ever here of those?

The only people whose life and liberty are being taken away are the poor souls who get shot by accident or by maniacs who get their hands on guns.

Some certainly do and we can lower such crime and accidents by taking away our 2nd Amendment, but then, we could also lower crime by taking away or 4th Amendment rights so police don't have to bother with pesky things like "probable cause" or warrants issued by a judge, or maybe eliminate the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination, or 6th amendment rights to legal representation, but the vast majority of American will not part with any of them.

 

[Azadkashmir]

chairman mao took away guns then killing started. under bolshveik government gun were taken away from the people, then killing started. now bolshaveik american government wants your gun so they can round you up for fema.

 

[Sky lord]

Vietnam? Afghanistan? Ever here of those?

Indeed I have, I believe they are both countries in Asia. There is much landmass and a couple of oceans separating gun owners in America from the Vietnamese or Afghans. How is it going to help save the Afghans by owning a gun in Florida?

Should Afghans have guns? Yes, they should, but that is an entirely different set of circumstances, a badly policed war torn country not a modern state with emergency services and police stations.

 

[Indika]

But deeper than that, it has to do with the right of any man to defend his liberty and his life against anyone who would take them.

What do you have police for? ppl having guns in their home is ok to defend against intrusion but in public it makes no sense. In that case lets disband the police, ppl can police themselves with guns. If Government becomes tyrannical can it over thrown by individuals with gunpower ? Hollywood movie nothing more than that.

The only people whose life and liberty are being taken away are the poor souls who get shot by accident or by maniacs who get their hands on guns.

Then govt should be sued for allowing maniacs to have guns and letting them on street.

Should Afghans have guns? Yes, they should, but that is an entirely different set of circumstances, a badly policed war torn country not a modern state with emergency services and police stations.

Exactly.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

So close to getting the Darwin Award.

 

[Desertfalcon]

Indeed I have, I believe they are both countries in Asia. There is much landmass and a couple of oceans separating gun owners in America from the Vietnamese or Afghans. How is it going to help save the Afghans by owning a gun in Florida?

You missed the point entirely. You asked how in the age of modern weapons and modern armies, a population armed only with small arms, could ever defeat a modern professional military, and I mentioned just two cases where that very thing happened. Indeed, the post WW2 nuclear world, has a plethora of cases where that has occurred.

What do you have police for? ppl having guns in their home is ok to defend against intrusion but in public it makes no sense. In that case lets disband the police, ppl can police themselves with guns. If Government becomes tyrannical can it over thrown by individuals with gunpower ? Hollywood movie nothing more than that.

So you think that out in public, when three or four or more gang members push you and you wife against a wall and put a gun to her head, that the police will just be there to save you? You either have the fastest, best police in the world where you live....or they have superhero powers! No, the police are there to draw a chalk line around you and your wife's body, and ask passers-by if they can describe the men who murdered you for the small amount of money in your pocket.

As to the question of can governments be overthrown by just people with guns, I would refer you to my answer to the other poster above. Afghanistan, Vietnam, a good deal of the conflicts of the post WW2 world, have been of insurgencies doing precisely that.

 

[Indika]

So you think that out in public, when three or four or more gang members push you and you wife against a wall and put a gun to her head, that the police will just be there to save you? You either have the fastest, best police in the world where you live....or they have superhero powers! No, the police are there to draw a chalk line around you and your wife's body, and ask passers-by if they can describe the men who murdered you for the small amount of money in your pocket.

what do you mean? US is a developed country where rule of law prevails and justice system is strong enough to deter ppl(other than the small percentage of maniacs) from committing crimes. At this rate ppl would also need a bullet proof vest to protect themselves. Your response makes me think that you are living in gotham or mad max world. End of discussion, buy a tank buster and protect your self.

As to the question of can governments be overthrown by just people with guns, I would refer you to my answer to the other poster above. Afghanistan, Vietnam, a good deal of the conflicts of the post WW2 world, have been of insurgencies doing precisely that.

oh yeah , who wants to fight US military? gotta run I have a drone over my head.