quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And those who leave unattended firearms in public places should not be afforded the chance. Nor should those who leave loaded, ready-to-fire weapons where children, even a toddler, can get them.

What exactly would legislation to achieve these look like? Other than a ban on gun ownership?

Well, if that's what you want, I'm OK with that...though it seems damn extreme. You really think it's necessary to ban, for example, hunting rifles to keep mom from leaving it in her purse where her toddler can fire it?

And you wonder why I don't think highly of you legal minds...

BTW, who's sock are you?

Ya lost me on that one. What is it exactly that you are replying to ? I'm getting the impression you think we should ban handguns because only then will we be free from having moms with kids close to handguns in their purses because ya can't stuff a rifle in a purse ? Is that close to what yer gettin at ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

there is a lock and a cock safety by your thumb (2) on that side, the squeeze safety, lockback safety, firing pin safety (for dropping the gun) and the half cock trigger safety. Thats six, and I cannot recall the other, have to look at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

there is a lock and a cock safety by your thumb (2) on that side, the squeeze safety, lockback safety, firing pin safety (for dropping the gun) and the half cock trigger safety. Thats six, and I cannot recall the other, have to look at it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

oh yeah, single action. thats the seventh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Exactly.

One of my friends works in NYC a lot, and carries a firearm in his truck--ready, but secured. He doesn't saunter down the street thinking he's in Tombstone.

You have a friend who brings a loaded gun into NYC? Does he have a permit for that? Cause if not, he's breaking the law every time he rolls across the bridge.

I'm no law expert. But according to http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newyorkcity.pdf, you need to meet two criteria:

It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any vehicle in NYC without a Permit/License endorsement issued by the City of New York. It is illegal to carry any loaded firearm in any motor vehicle without a valid New York Permit/License to Carry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And those who leave unattended firearms in public places should not be afforded the chance. Nor should those who leave loaded, ready-to-fire weapons where children, even a toddler, can get them.

What exactly would legislation to achieve these look like? Other than a ban on gun ownership?

Well, if that's what you want, I'm OK with that...though it seems damn extreme. You really think it's necessary to ban, for example, hunting rifles to keep mom from leaving it in her purse where her toddler can fire it?

And you wonder why I don't think highly of you legal minds...

BTW, who's sock are you?

Ya lost me on that one. What is it exactly that you are replying to ? I'm getting the impression you think we should ban handguns because only then will we be free from having moms with kids close to handguns in their purses because ya can't stuff a rifle in a purse ? Is that close to what yer gettin at ?

That's what, the 12th time I've answered that question?

THAT'S why I maintain the knee-jerk defensive gun-nutter image. You keep ignoring reality to repeat your pet straw man.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Not in ALL states. And in some of these states, the laws are not even primary.

"Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 37 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 44 states and the District of Columbia"
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws/maphandheldcellbans

And yet, people die while texting/talking on their cellphones and trying to drive. Especially children. These people need to be better-regulated.

Maybe some more laws? Or make cellphone laws primary all the way across the board?

Either outlaw them, altogether or make them so that there's a "safety lock" on the phone where you have to prove to Big Brother that you're not driving, at the moment and they unlock the phone. The default position is locked.

If you're camping and it's raining and you're in your vehicle to stay out of the rain and you need to call the cops or rangers for help, you're fucked. Your phone's locked

Michael

But...but...but Michael...shouldn't the Rangers or Police be patrolling the campground to make sue no one is doing anything illegal?

That would be their fucking job. So, yeah, they should fucking do that, sport.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is where knee-jerk gun-nuttery defense rolls in. It's a toddler. A toddler! With no safety provisions but a toddler can just reach in and fire. Rambo ready gun

.

I've got to say - as someone who finds this kind of tragedy utterly alien to him and his non-gun-culture - if they can make cheap plastic bottles with caps that toddlers can't get off, how come something similar can't be done effectively and economically with the safety catches of much more expensive firearms?

They can, and do. But (1) the gun nuts don't like to use them and (2) the NRA opposes them.

These are not issues that come up for responsible gun-owners, vs. the knee-jerk defend-guns-at-all-costs crowd here.

But just as traffic laws exist largely for the irresponsible, and hate speech for those unable to use free speech wisely, so too sensible safeguards help make society safer from those who handle such dead force irresponsibly.

Love how anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender.

There are sensible laws in place. Enforce them. Tragedies occur, whether it is a parent who lets their kid drive with a cellphone anywhere on their person...where ARE all the folks calling for a ban on teenagers having a cellphone while in a car?...or a busy, stressed mother who sets her purse down and let's her attention wander...to one of the other children, perhaps? They can't all be stopped without the state assuming complete control. Most people don't want that.

Nope.

It's statements like "anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender" when that has already been qualified, including yet again in this thread. But no, you go to your go-to strawman, and wring your hands, to avoid actually thinking.

Guess what? There ARE laws against cell phones and texting in cars.

And people who will carry loaded, ready-to-fire weapons, especially with children, need better regulation. They are dangerous.

Not in ALL states. And in some of these states, the laws are not even primary.

"Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 37 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 44 states and the District of Columbia"
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws/maphandheldcellbans

And yet, people die while texting/talking on their cellphones and trying to drive. Especially children. These people need to be better-regulated.

Maybe some more laws? Or make cellphone laws primary all the way across the board?

You wonder why I call you knee jerk? Nonsense like this.

Didn't say they were in all states. Said "There ARE laws against cell phones and texting in cars."

And...there are.

FFS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

Then you and peon should design it and make billions of dollars...

What's the point? If I were a gun manufacturer in the US, I'd realise that it would be much easier and cheaper to blame the given individual gun-owner who's had a tragedy for fucking up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Sigh.

You continually tell me I want to ban all guns. I don't. I keep saying that, you keep ignoring it.

That's the riddle.

FFS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Not in ALL states. And in some of these states, the laws are not even primary.

"Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 37 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 44 states and the District of Columbia"
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws/maphandheldcellbans

And yet, people die while texting/talking on their cellphones and trying to drive. Especially children. These people need to be better-regulated.

Maybe some more laws? Or make cellphone laws primary all the way across the board?

Either outlaw them, altogether or make them so that there's a "safety lock" on the phone where you have to prove to Big Brother that you're not driving, at the moment and they unlock the phone. The default position is locked.

If you're camping and it's raining and you're in your vehicle to stay out of the rain and you need to call the cops or rangers for help, you're fucked. Your phone's locked

Michael

But...but...but Michael...shouldn't the Rangers or Police be patrolling the campground to make sue no one is doing anything illegal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is where knee-jerk gun-nuttery defense rolls in. It's a toddler. A toddler! With no safety provisions but a toddler can just reach in and fire. Rambo ready gun

.

I've got to say - as someone who finds this kind of tragedy utterly alien to him and his non-gun-culture - if they can make cheap plastic bottles with caps that toddlers can't get off, how come something similar can't be done effectively and economically with the safety catches of much more expensive firearms?

They can, and do. But (1) the gun nuts don't like to use them and (2) the NRA opposes them.

These are not issues that come up for responsible gun-owners, vs. the knee-jerk defend-guns-at-all-costs crowd here.

But just as traffic laws exist largely for the irresponsible, and hate speech for those unable to use free speech wisely, so too sensible safeguards help make society safer from those who handle such dead force irresponsibly.

Love how anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender.

There are sensible laws in place. Enforce them. Tragedies occur, whether it is a parent who lets their kid drive with a cellphone anywhere on their person...where ARE all the folks calling for a ban on teenagers having a cellphone while in a car?...or a busy, stressed mother who sets her purse down and let's her attention wander...to one of the other children, perhaps? They can't all be stopped without the state assuming complete control. Most people don't want that.

Nope.

It's statements like "anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender" when that has already been qualified, including yet again in this thread. But no, you go to your go-to strawman, and wring your hands, to avoid actually thinking.

Guess what? There ARE laws against cell phones and texting in cars.

And people who will carry loaded, ready-to-fire weapons, especially with children, need better regulation. They are dangerous.

Not in ALL states. And in some of these states, the laws are not even primary.

"Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 37 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 44 states and the District of Columbia"
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws/maphandheldcellbans

And yet, people die while texting/talking on their cellphones and trying to drive. Especially children. These people need to be better-regulated.

Maybe some more laws? Or make cellphone laws primary all the way across the board?

You wonder why I call you knee jerk? Nonsense like this.

Didn't say they were in all states. Said "There ARE laws against cell phones and texting in cars."

And...there are.

FFS.

And...there are laws in place to reguregulate guns. In ALL states. So I would say knee jerk is coming down on gun laws every time a tragedy happens involving a gun. Yet, you ALWAYS seem to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And those who leave unattended firearms in public places should not be afforded the chance. Nor should those who leave loaded, ready-to-fire weapons where children, even a toddler, can get them.

What exactly would legislation to achieve these look like? Other than a ban on gun ownership?

Well, if that's what you want, I'm OK with that...though it seems damn extreme. You really think it's necessary to ban, for example, hunting rifles to keep mom from leaving it in her purse where her toddler can fire it?

And you wonder why I don't think highly of you legal minds...

BTW, who's sock are you?

So you would favor an (unconstitutional) ban but what short of that would you favor, you keep saying no one will go along with your ideas but you won't tell us what they are.
How about firearms education classes like we do drivers education, seems that it would cover your proclamations about the alleged "ignorance" of gun owners.

Well gosh, here's a thought -- actually read the posts, and you'd know the positions better.

And again, you're ascribing positions I don't have, just making them up. I'm supposed to take you seriously?

And there are MANY people who "go along with my ideas" in this country and many more who would go much further.

I have LONG advocated for mandatory firearms training for gun ownership. There we agree.

As for ignorant gun owners, good lord, we'd be here all day going through the news accounts. Then you'd spend the next year posting good gun news, as if this suddenly means there aren't clueless ones.

Most drivers are reasonable. Many aren't--so we have traffic laws to regulate them. And no, we don't ban driving.

Guys--the world isn't either/or.

You must not drive a lot, almost every time I go out I see people who shouldn't drive.
And you still dodged the point about teaching firearms training IN THE SCHOOLS most anti gunners want more training but they want to be sure it is expensive enough to put ownership out of many people.

Dodged? You never asked.

I don't see the point of such instruction in the schools, as it's largely not relevant. But I've no problem with it either, if the tax payers want to fund it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Yes, in the account I read she left it in her shopping cart, how else could the kid have gotten to it so easy?

Big purse, she's pushing the cart, the youngest starts playing in the purse. You see kids doing that all the time. But she may have put the purse into the cart, I wasn't able to find anything that said one way or another. If that's what happened, I'd agree, that was incredibly irresponsible. If you're going to carry, maintain control of your weapon.

At least we agree on something.

Where we seem to disagree is that if you don't, oh well, shit happens, right?

Or if that's unfair--OK, what should happen here?

As I also said leaving a firearm unattended in a public place is reckless endangerment. There's the law for that.

Tell me...how are you going to go about seeing which moms brought loaded weapons in their purses to the supermarket?

How are you going to?
If nobody sees it, it doesn't endanger anyone now does it.
Again, and you seem to have a problem following this, the problem wasn't that it was in her purse, it was she left the purse unattended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

The problem with this question is, there's no guarantee that it even had a safety. Some do, some don't. I prefer SIGs, they don't have safeties. For me, this simplifies things. If the gun is in the holster I know that it's loaded and there's no safety to worry about. But then I don't drop mine into a purse.

I checked on the S&W M&P Shield that she was carrying, they have two basic variants within each model, one with and one without a thumb-safety. So unless pictures of the actual gun she had are released, I doubt we'll ever know.

A few things though. You said that the child was an infant, but most accounts state it was a toddler. That's two very different things. Depending on the gun, some toddlers could easily work the safety. It's just a switch that clicks up and down. Most don't require that much pressure, since they want them to be easy to operate in an emergency. (The M&P looks trickier, but it's still just a switch.) Hell, the way they click, they even sound like some children's toys. The way kids will grab something and start poking and prodding at them, I can see this happening.

No offense, but there's no way to guarantee that children won't get hurt ever. That's called life. I realize that we want to pretend we can wrap children up in batting and make them perfectly safe, but that's just not the case. No matter what, your go to solution is more and stricter gun laws. It doesn't matter what happened, you're happy to use any incident with a gun as an excuse to make guns harder to get. Because you just don't like people having them.

As an owner of said model with a safety, its a very easy and can be done with a fingernail flick. It does have a small click.

As to the other stupidity on this thread.... nothing will cure stupid, as demonstrated by many a posters requesting more laws when current laws cover the issue.

So what's your solution? What existing law would you have enforced that would have prevented this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is where knee-jerk gun-nuttery defense rolls in. It's a toddler. A toddler! With no safety provisions but a toddler can just reach in and fire. Rambo ready gun

.

I've got to say - as someone who finds this kind of tragedy utterly alien to him and his non-gun-culture - if they can make cheap plastic bottles with caps that toddlers can't get off, how come something similar can't be done effectively and economically with the safety catches of much more expensive firearms?

They can, and do. But (1) the gun nuts don't like to use them and (2) the NRA opposes them.

These are not issues that come up for responsible gun-owners, vs. the knee-jerk defend-guns-at-all-costs crowd here.

But just as traffic laws exist largely for the irresponsible, and hate speech for those unable to use free speech wisely, so too sensible safeguards help make society safer from those who handle such dead force irresponsibly.

Love how anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender.

There are sensible laws in place. Enforce them. Tragedies occur, whether it is a parent who lets their kid drive with a cellphone anywhere on their person...where ARE all the folks calling for a ban on teenagers having a cellphone while in a car?...or a busy, stressed mother who sets her purse down and let's her attention wander...to one of the other children, perhaps? They can't all be stopped without the state assuming complete control. Most people don't want that.

Nope.

It's statements like "anybody that opposes the anti-gun crowd gets labeled a knee jerk gun defender" when that has already been qualified, including yet again in this thread. But no, you go to your go-to strawman, and wring your hands, to avoid actually thinking.

Guess what? There ARE laws against cell phones and texting in cars.

And people who will carry loaded, ready-to-fire weapons, especially with children, need better regulation. They are dangerous.

Not in ALL states. And in some of these states, the laws are not even primary.

"Talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving is banned in 14 states and the District of Columbia. The use of all cellphones by novice drivers is restricted in 37 states and the District of Columbia. Text messaging is banned for all drivers in 44 states and the District of Columbia"
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/cellphonelaws/maphandheldcellbans

And yet, people die while texting/talking on their cellphones and trying to drive. Especially children. These people need to be better-regulated.

Maybe some more laws? Or make cellphone laws primary all the way across the board?

You wonder why I call you knee jerk? Nonsense like this.

Didn't say they were in all states. Said "There ARE laws against cell phones and texting in cars."

And...there are.

FFS.

And...there are laws in place to reguregulate guns. In ALL states. So I would say knee jerk is coming down on gun laws every time a tragedy happens involving a gun. Yet, you ALWAYS seem to.

So which existing "reguregulation" would you have enforced to prevent this tragedy.

You know--the difficult task of keep a loaded gun out of the hands of a toddler.

What's your solution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
So what's your solution? What existing law would you have enforced that would have prevented this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Yes, in the account I read she left it in her shopping cart, how else could the kid have gotten to it so easy?

Big purse, she's pushing the cart, the youngest starts playing in the purse. You see kids doing that all the time. But she may have put the purse into the cart, I wasn't able to find anything that said one way or another. If that's what happened, I'd agree, that was incredibly irresponsible. If you're going to carry, maintain control of your weapon.

At least we agree on something.

Where we seem to disagree is that if you don't, oh well, shit happens, right?

Or if that's unfair--OK, what should happen here?

As I also said leaving a firearm unattended in a public place is reckless endangerment. There's the law for that.

Tell me...how are you going to go about seeing which moms brought loaded weapons in their purses to the supermarket?

How are you going to?
If nobody sees it, it doesn't endanger anyone now does it.
Again, and you seem to have a problem following this, the problem wasn't that it was in her purse, it was she left the purse unattended.

She was definitely negligent, but I don't really agree with the comment that the purse was "unattended". Does someone with a purse or bag have to actually have the purse or bag in hand for it to be attended? It seems to me that if she is pushing, or at least very near, her shopping cart, then the purse was attended. If this had been a different woman, with no kids, and she left her purse in the cart under the same shopping circumstances, would you consider that the purse had been "unattended" in that circumstance? Exactly how far away does she need to be to be able to say the purse was unattended? The distance would have to be the same for a woman with children as it would be for a woman with no children. So that's why I would say, negligence - yes, unattended - no. It's just my opinion, and doesn't really make any difference unless the term was actually worked into some kind of legislation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

She was definitely negligent, but I don't really agree with the comment that the purse was "unattended". Does someone with a purse or bag have to actually have the purse or bag in hand for it to be attended? It seems to me that if she is pushing, or at least very near, her shopping cart, then the purse was attended. If this had been a different woman, with no kids, and she left her purse in the cart under the same shopping circumstances, would you consider that the purse had been "unattended" in that circumstance? Exactly how far away does she need to be to be able to say the purse was unattended? The distance would have to be the same for a woman with children as it would be for a woman with no children. So that's why I would say, negligence - yes, unattended - no. It's just my opinion, and doesn't really make any difference unless the term was actually worked into some kind of legislation.