quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

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.

If she had had the gun on her instead of in her purse, the kid most likely would not have been able to get at the gun.

Having the gun in the purse and that purse not on her person to me is the gun being unattended, if the purse was on her shoulder the kid most likely wouldn't have been able to get into it,

Any way you slice it, if she was being a responsible gun owner this wouldn't have happened. If she had an ounce of common sense, she wouldn't have allowed her kids to go into her purse where a loaded gun resided.


Ive been to about 15 different gun classes. First thing that's stressed when carrying a loaded weapon, Do not leave it unattended. For women specifically its been stated to me by 7 different teachers, if your putting it in your purse you do not put your purse down, you do not walk away from your purse, you keep it on your person at all times or DONT 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: quizzicalkitten

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.

If she had had the gun on her instead of in her purse, the kid most likely would not have been able to get at the gun.

Having the gun in the purse and that purse not on her person to me is the gun being unattended, if the purse was on her shoulder the kid most likely wouldn't have been able to get into it,

Any way you slice it, if she was being a responsible gun owner this wouldn't have happened. If she had an ounce of common sense, she wouldn't have allowed her kids to go into her purse where a loaded gun resided.


Ive been to about 15 different gun classes. First thing that's stressed when carrying a loaded weapon, Do not leave it unattended. For women specifically its been stated to me by 7 different teachers, if your putting it in your purse you do not put your purse down, you do not walk away from your purse, you keep it on your person at all times or DONT carry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

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.

If she had had the gun on her instead of in her purse, the kid most likely would not have been able to get at the gun.

Having the gun in the purse and that purse not on her person to me is the gun being unattended, if the purse was on her shoulder the kid most likely wouldn't have been able to get into it,

Any way you slice it, if she was being a responsible gun owner this wouldn't have happened. If she had an ounce of common sense, she wouldn't have allowed her kids to go into her purse where a loaded gun resided.


Ive been to about 15 different gun classes. First thing that's stressed when carrying a loaded weapon, Do not leave it unattended. For women specifically its been stated to me by 7 different teachers, if your putting it in your purse you do not put your purse down, you do not walk away from your purse, you keep it on your person at all times or DONT carry.

So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children? Just curious. I don't know, since I wasn't there, but I doubt that she was more than about an arm's length away. To say that that is "unattended" is a bit of a stretch to me. Like I said, though, I can definitely see negligence. I just don't feel that she was far enough away to call it unattended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

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.

If she had had the gun on her instead of in her purse, the kid most likely would not have been able to get at the gun.

Having the gun in the purse and that purse not on her person to me is the gun being unattended, if the purse was on her shoulder the kid most likely wouldn't have been able to get into it,

Any way you slice it, if she was being a responsible gun owner this wouldn't have happened. If she had an ounce of common sense, she wouldn't have allowed her kids to go into her purse where a loaded gun resided.


Ive been to about 15 different gun classes. First thing that's stressed when carrying a loaded weapon, Do not leave it unattended. For women specifically its been stated to me by 7 different teachers, if your putting it in your purse you do not put your purse down, you do not walk away from your purse, you keep it on your person at all times or DONT carry.

So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children? Just curious. I don't know, since I wasn't there, but I doubt that she was more than about an arm's length away. To say that that is "unattended" is a bit of a stretch to me. Like I said, though, I can definitely see negligence. I just don't feel that she was far enough away to call it unattended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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?

Other than banning both concealed and open carry (which is unconstitutional according to the courts) an accident like this is unavoidable. We outlaw drunk driving but that doesn't stop drunk drivers from killing thousands. You have never told us how you would stop this beyond we need a law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I have in several posts.

A toddler should not be able to pick up a gun and fire it. However you want to debate it practically, there are any number of safety features which could be added, any one of which would do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This tired rant could be drawn out for any law at all.

Agreed on the lack of common sense. And the rest, you've hit the essence of the disagreement.

You and some others feel you need loaded weapons at the ready to be secure. I and some others feel you're often a greater danger than a help.

Not that all weapons should be banned, as the knee-jerkers keep repeating even when no one is saying that. It's a question of what common sense means in this instance (of the disagreement).

So mom, ever at the ready, dies at the hands of her toddler. Another woman, armed and ready, shoots her husband through the closet door because he surprised her with breakfast in bed. Man kills 4 year old because he's got a gun at the ready and thinks he hears a burglar. Nothing about that is common sense or safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

This tired rant could be drawn out for any law at all.

Agreed on the lack of common sense. And the rest, you've hit the essence of the disagreement.

You and some others feel you need loaded weapons at the ready to be secure. I and some others feel you're often a greater danger than a help.

Not that all weapons should be banned, as the knee-jerkers keep repeating even when no one is saying that. It's a question of what common sense means in this instance (of the disagreement).

So mom, ever at the ready, dies at the hands of her toddler. Another woman, armed and ready, shoots her husband through the closet door because he surprised her with breakfast in bed. Man kills 4 year old because he's got a gun at the ready and thinks he hears a burglar. Nothing about that is common sense or safe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

Actually MM you have said you want a law that will prevent these things from happening. Not serious consequences for careless handling of weapons , which every pro gun person on here also wants. But a way to prevent careless handling of weapons. There is no law for that other than banning guns. You know it, and that is why you refuse to explain how the law you say you want would function.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

Actually MM you have said you want a law that will prevent these things from happening. Not serious consequences for careless handling of weapons , which every pro gun person on here also wants. But a way to prevent careless handling of weapons. There is no law for that other than banning guns. You know it, and that is why you refuse to explain how the law you say you want would function.

I want to know how his mechanical safety devices added to revolvers and semi auto handguns would function[8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g

Actually MM you have said you want a law that will prevent these things from happening. Not serious consequences for careless handling of weapons , which every pro gun person on here also wants. But a way to prevent careless handling of weapons. There is no law for that other than banning guns. You know it, and that is why you refuse to explain how the law you say you want would function.

I want to know how his mechanical safety devices added to revolvers and semi auto handguns would function[8D]

[image]local://upfiles/1271250/7D5C2420C7D14A989BDF5922D553CA33.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

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.

If she had had the gun on her instead of in her purse, the kid most likely would not have been able to get at the gun.

Having the gun in the purse and that purse not on her person to me is the gun being unattended, if the purse was on her shoulder the kid most likely wouldn't have been able to get into it,

Any way you slice it, if she was being a responsible gun owner this wouldn't have happened. If she had an ounce of common sense, she wouldn't have allowed her kids to go into her purse where a loaded gun resided.


Ive been to about 15 different gun classes. First thing that's stressed when carrying a loaded weapon, Do not leave it unattended. For women specifically its been stated to me by 7 different teachers, if your putting it in your purse you do not put your purse down, you do not walk away from your purse, you keep it on your person at all times or DONT carry.

So you would use that same standard for a woman that was in the store alone, with no children? Just curious. I don't know, since I wasn't there, but I doubt that she was more than about an arm's length away. To say that that is "unattended" is a bit of a stretch to me. Like I said, though, I can definitely see negligence. I just don't feel that she was far enough away to call it unattended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g
Actually MM you have said you want a law that will prevent these things from happening. Not serious consequences for careless handling of weapons , which every pro gun person on here also wants. But a way to prevent careless handling of weapons. There is no law for that other than banning guns. You know it, and that is why you refuse to explain how the law you say you want would function.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckyd0g
Actually MM you have said you want a law that will prevent these things from happening. Not serious consequences for careless handling of weapons , which every pro gun person on here also wants. But a way to prevent careless handling of weapons. There is no law for that other than banning guns. You know it, and that is why you refuse to explain how the law you say you want would function.

Why is it that you assume (without any real evidence I might add) that if someone suggests reasonable stuff; its with the alliterative motive that the person wants to ban the guns? That there can only be two conditions in America: Firearms or No Firearms. Its Zero Sum at its worst. Its like a football game to you. One side had to totally win for the other side to totally lose. And your sure as hell not going to lose! This mindset frankly disables your ability to be reasoned with, or consider an alternative. You know what its called when a Zero Sum event goes to someone that others despise? Its called a tyranny....

Firearms, by their nature, require responsibility on the part of the owner. Everyone knows this right? So why are laws created?

First, what is the purpose of a law? Its either to promote a good behavior (i.e. the 1st amendment) or to mitigate a negative behavior (i.e. murder). That it should be understand the nature and wording of the law to be considered. Likewise, the spirit of the law needs to be also understood. So a regulation is one form of a law. So is an amendment....

But updating a law in our form of government requires a new law be passed. And why are the laws updated? To keep up with technology, closing loopholes, better definitions, changing the penalty, etc. So we as a society wish firearm owners to be in more control of their firearms. To that end, we devise a law in which the firearm owner must be able to demonstrate they are in control of their firearm at all times. This incident unfortunately shows a loophole with that law just described, yes? So we would create a new law, that is an amendment to the previous law to explain the nature someone must be in control of their firearm (i.e. it has to be on their person, rather than nearby).

Which is why with every law, we need to always weigh the needs of the many to the needs of the individual. That is not a very easy discussion with regards to firearms (or anything else). Eventually, we as a society will decide on what we can live with. It will not be a perfect law, that works every time. And we'll deal with the consequences of said law as time goes on.