yet another stupid death in children gun related accident...yes, in USA of course.

[QuinSnydersHair]

To be clear, I am not in any way in favor of abolishing the right to bear arms. In fact, I'd say that would be ludicrous.

 

[Gameface]

A few people have mentioned a purse holster. Is there something about a purse holster that would make the gun inaccessible to a toddler for more than a minute or so?

Also, I second Stifle Tower's question about the safety. How hard would it be to disable it?

Some people have referred to this woman as careless, but what are proper precautions for a gun in a purse, outside of "don't keep a gun in your purse when it is accessible to children"?

A holster is very useful in keeping the trigger protected from accidental actuation. There are various types (levels) of holsters. Some are intended to make it more difficult for another person to disarm you. If a holster with a snap that held it in place was used it would be very difficult for a toddler to remove it from the holster in a way that went unnoticed.

Typical safety levers on a pistol are at the rear of the slide and can be accidentally engaged or disengaged.

In this picture you can see the safety lever above the red dot. The red dot being visible means that the safety is not engaged.

I typically favor pistols that DO NOT have a manual safety. It is not at all uncommon for a pistol to not have a manual safety. Many alternatively have passive safety devices. A common one is a "backstrap" safety, which requires that the pistol grip is actually being gripped. Another one is a "trigger" safety, that requires the trigger be depressed by pressure across the entire face of the trigger.

A manual safety is, in my opinion, most appropriate for rifles that will be carried through brush and trees.

But to answer the question, a small child could easily disengage a manual safety, either intentionally or by accident.

As for reasonable precautions for keeping a gun in a purse? There are so many reasons why I think it's a bad idea. One of the primary ones is that purses are not always under your direct control. Another is that there is usually a lot of stuff in a purse that could interfere with your draw and cause an unintended discharge.

A gun, in a holster, on your person, cannot be accessed without your notice.

Just to reiterate, the law regarding concealed carry is that the gun MUST be concealed.

 

[Gameface]

I'm baffled at the fact that many on here have said it's their right to be armed for whatever reason, protect their self, their loved ones and so forth because you never know when a madman is going to be out in public, and yet I've not heard one person mention the number of unwanted deaths that could arise from that.

George Zimmerman and this case are just two of a million ways something could go wrong in public. Many of the other 999,998 examples also consist of innocent bystanders being accidentally shot and killed...all because, ya know, you had your right to carry your firearms. In short, the number of unwanted, accidental deaths that could or do arise from this (I would assume) are much higher than the number of people's lives being saved because you play Dirty Harry for a day.

I'd also like to take this a step further and where I'm going is sort of AKMVP's original point. If this is your argument, that you have a right to carry, then where might that mindset lead us? To a place where everyone in society is always freely walking around, packing? Is this the type of society we want to live in? And what happens if a madman opens fire in a mall in such a world? How much chaos would ensue when 19 other men pull out their guns...and the cops arrive? How many more accidental deaths would result out of the sheer craziness?

Lastly, people always revert back to the 2nd amendment argument if all other logic escapes them except, and I've heard some posters bring this point up in other threads in year's past, we neither live in a society like Madison and his contemporaries did, nor one that they ever probably envisioned. Those men were just that, men, not gods, and to undyingly stick to the Constitution from hundreds of years ago unwaveringly without ever changing it would be insanity. Unless you think giving women and blacks the right to vote was the wrong call. Then I can't help you.

I think people have the right to own firearms because we each own our own existence. Since we own our existence it is each and every person's right to protect that existence using reasonable means and tools to that end.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

I think people have the right to own firearms because we each own our own existence. Since we own our existence it is each and every person's right to protect that existence using reasonable means and tools to that end.

You're simply repeating what you and others have already said without acknowledging what I wrote. Let me say it another way, IMO you should perhaps lose that right since it can have a severe negative impact on others and the public.

Isn't that what many laws do? Restrict us from our selfish wants or inclinations so as not to cause harm to others and society?

 

[colton]

Let me say it another way, IMO you should perhaps lose that right since it can have a severe negative impact on others and the public.

It *can*, perhaps... but you haven't demonstrated that it *does*. In fact it's probably impossible to do so, since the main reason the founders included the Second Amendment was probably NOT related to personal protection, as you've been arguing against, but rather so that citizens could protect against governmental tyranny. And since we haven't had a tyrannical government since the founding of this nation, it's obviously worked. Or at least that's one way of thinking. Are some accidental gun deaths worth that protection? Depends who you ask, but you have to start by asking the right question.

 

[QuinSnydersHair]

It *can*, perhaps... but you haven't demonstrated that it *does*. In fact it's probably impossible to do so, since the main reason the founders included the Second Amendment was probably NOT related to personal protection, as you've been arguing against, but rather so that citizens could protect against governmental tyranny. And since we haven't had a tyrannical government since the founding of this nation, it's obviously worked. Or at least that's one way of thinking. Are some accidental gun deaths worth that protection? Depends who you ask, but you have to start by asking the right question.

Saying we haven't had a tyrannical gov't since our inception and that the second amendment is the reason why is being intellectually dishonest. At best.

 

[colton]

Saying we haven't had a tyrannical gov't since our inception and that the second amendment is the reason why is being intellectually dishonest. At best.

I didn't say it's the ONLY reason why.

So are you saying that the framers did not have that in mind as a major reason for the Second Amendment? Or are you saying it hasn't played any sort of role in keeping U.S. citizens free from tyranny? Or what's your point in disagreeing with me?

 

[Gameface]

You're simply repeating what you and others have already said without acknowledging what I wrote. Let me say it another way, IMO you should perhaps lose that right since it can have a severe negative impact on others and the public.

Isn't that what many laws do? Restrict us from our selfish wants or inclinations so as not to cause harm to others and society?

I think this is perhaps a situation where you have no tolerance for ANY negative consequences. I'm not going to research the numbers here, but what I understand to be true is that the actual rate of firearm misuse to the rate of firearm ownership is ridiculously small. Again, that's based on my best understanding...if someone wanted to present the numbers maybe I would discover that I'm wrong.

I think, based on your previous post, that you are confusing actual occurrences of accidental shootings with the degree to which they are currently being covered in the news. It probably doesn't hurt that the increased news coverage also supports your bias.

 

[moevillini]

yet another stupid death in children gun related accident...yes, in USA of co...

I think, based on your previous post, that you are confusing actual occurrences of accidental shootings with the degree to which they are currently being covered in the news. It probably doesn't hurt that the increased news coverage also supports your bias.

What about "intentional" shootings that occur with firearms that are owned, purchased and/or possessed illegally? That to me is a larger problem than "accidental" shootings.

Don't quite know what the answer is, not do I have any idea if that is part of the discussion that QSH is concerned with, but that's a large part of the problem as I see it.


And to respond to Colton's comments about arming ourselves as protection from a tyrannical government, in many of the most tyrannical societies, it is the armed citizenry that provides the tyranny, not the government.

 

[fishonjazz]

And to respond to Colton's comments about arming ourselves as protection from a tyrannical government, in many of the most tyrannical societies, it is the armed citizenry that provides the tyranny, not the government.

Yup.
Government acting like tyrants is simply too rare and unlikely to have that be the basis for the 2nd amendment.

That's some paranoid thinking.

And thinking that citizens and thier guns are going to fight the government in some kind of war as being a good thing is idiocy. Either the citizens would get thier assess kicked or it would be even, in which case everyone would lose

 

[colton]

And to respond to Colton's comments about arming ourselves as protection from a tyrannical government, in many of the most tyrannical societies, it is the armed citizenry that provides the tyranny, not the government.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Deleted member 848]

It *can*, perhaps... but you haven't demonstrated that it *does*. In fact it's probably impossible to do so, since the main reason the founders included the Second Amendment was probably NOT related to personal protection, as you've been arguing against, but rather so that citizens could protect against governmental tyranny. And since we haven't had a tyrannical government since the founding of this nation, it's obviously worked. Or at least that's one way of thinking. Are some accidental gun deaths worth that protection? Depends who you ask, but you have to start by asking the right question.

no words, but lol.