Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The purse carry is fairly common in states that allow concealed carry, and there are alot of purses designed for discretely carrying handguns and allowing easy access to them. The victim was reportedly using one of these kind of purses. The complication with this type of carry is that it requires a complete reevaluation of what the purse is. When one chooses to purse carry, it is no longer a purse. It is now a bulky holster with a gun in it. It can never be removed from your body, and cannot simply be set down. She evidently forgot this.
To clarify, the woman didn't just leave her purse with her kid, she handed her child a loaded pistol in a holster. When you realize this it becomes clear just how terribly foolish she was and unfortunately that foolishness cost her life.
Good points about why I absolutely detest "purse carry" and any product that encourages it. People still see it as a purse with a gun in it, instead of what it actually becomes; an off-body "holster" with junk in it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/01 17:56:14
Me Like Burnaz wrote: You have to realize that we Americans don't give a pile of steaming dog excrement what you Europeans think of us. Not a one of you has a military large enough to take on the South Dakota National Guard so why should we care? In this world you can blather on all you want about peace and civilization but in the end it's people with guns and the balls to use them that make it safe to go to bed at night in a house that doesn't have iron bars on every window and door. A majority of Americans accept that responsibility ourselves instead of hoping for a government agent to come save the day with a gun.
Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but I am sick and tired of being lectured by a bunch of people who aren't willing to get their hands dirty, hiding behind our military while blathering on about how barbaric we are. He we left you alone in WWII like we should have you would have gone on having a war every ten to twenty years like you had done prior to WWII getting lots of your young men killed while we could have enjoyed some serious economic success spending money on our own people instead of keeping yours safe.
Actually...
1) Brits were the true heroes of that war. They never surrendered, and they never let their allies down. After the war declaration against Japan, Germany waged war on the US, even if they didn't really have to. These guys stood up for their allies. If it weren't for that blunder, we'd still be waiting for you, guys. And the entire Europe world would probably have been communist now.
2) The british stockpile is large enough to blow this planet a couple times. Nukes are the great equalizer.
Wow. Military comparison back in the '40s freaking awesome.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote: Wow. Military comparison back in the '40s freaking awesome.
Edit
Murphey's Law in play
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Gitzbitah wrote: I'm not joking at all- well, a bit about defending against moms, and the bread helmet bit was an attempt at levity. But the 2nd amendment was aimed at keeping armed resistance to the government available if the need for it arises.
Oh come now- how long has it been since the Troubles? How many countries from the 90s no longer exist, or have been split, and split again? Nothing lasts forever, least of all government. The 2nd Amendment was put in there because our founders were certain that one day our government would fall to corruption and megalomania, and when that day came, an armed population would have a far easier time overturning their government.
I don't own a gun, and I don't expect that eventuality to come to pass within my lifetime, but inevitably the US will splinter or become a totalitarian state.
The second amendment- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The intention there isn't personal protection, hunting or anything else- it is there to keep the possibility of armed resistance around in case the government seeks to take away our other freedoms.
The 2nd amendment actually was put in because the purpose of the revolution was to avoid paying the taxes required to support the army and navy needed to protect the north American colonies from the French, Dutch, etc.
This could only be achieved by creating a cheaper defence force, i.e. a militia.
I almost wish you had left us alone, then we wouldn't have to keep listening to you yammering on about how you "saved us". Sorry to have to break it to you, but it was the soviets that defeated Germany in WWII, the war was already a foregone conclusion. America got involved serving American interests, as much as anyone else's.
djones520 wrote: Personally, I just get tired of the lack of respect for our culture.
This should be some kind of new fallacy: the argument from disrespect. People like to think that their traditions, religious beliefs, laws, rights etc... are somehow "sacred" -- like they have some magic shield that protects them from criticism. Well they don't. Nothing is beyond criticism, nor should it be.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/01/01 19:44:25
the people want back ground checks, the NRA says no, the politicians do as they are paid to do and vote no. because random shootings is good for business, it makes people scared and they go out and buy more guns.
to think a smart gun & a bracelet could have saved that moms life. So op course the NRA is against the whole idea of it and will pay off politicians to keep them off the streets.
I don't think anyone really cares about availability of 'smart guns and bracelets', I think they care about mandating that these be the only kind allowed. Some states have tried to mandate once these exist they will be the only allowed firearms.
Free market ideas are great here. If a 'smart gun and bracelet' are best for YOUR situation, by all means you should be allowed to have one. It is NOT best for my situation, and you can feth yourself if you try to force that as my only option.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
See, I'd oppose that too. I've had plenty of times when my phone wouldn't pair with, or lost it's pairing with, my car stereo (for example); and I'm not trusting my life to my phone; and from my reading they're pretty much describing Bluetooth.
You want to put tiny serial numbers on bullets, OK with me. You want to have it so each round when fired also throws out a tiny shower of microsopic confetti with a serial number, fine (my taser already does this now). However, when you get into tinkering with the core functionality of the gun, I wouldn't like it.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Gun bracelets are just one more thing to go wrong in the event you need to use your firearm to defend yourself.
It does nothing about any of the millions of firearms currently in circulation.
Like "universal" background checks, it's another feel-good measure that doesn't really do anything effective.
We already have background checks. They are required when buying from any FFL dealer (even at gun shows, despite what the left would have you believe) and private sellers can do the same checks on people they sell to. This does nothing to curb black market sales and theft, which is how the vast majority of people with a criminal record get firearms.
Of course, we can go through all of the restrictions of types of firearms, barrel length limits, magazine capacity limits, bans on folding stocks, barrel shrouds and "shoulder things that go up", but ultimately they are all dressing to make it look like things are being done about the "gun problem".
They all miss the point though. There is no "gun problem". The problem is crime. And with all these feel-good measures you're just making criminals out of the law abiding and doing nothing else.
The problem with the smart gun is that, while otherwise reasonable, it requires the gun to have an electronic lock and an RFID reader on it. You can spoof the RFID tag, which makes that not secure against stolen guns, at least in the long term, and the issue with the electronic lock is that you have to have the gun charged enough in order to actually use it. Things that are expected to be used in an emergency situation demand as few points of failure as possible. Also, I can build a functional short range EMP generator that'd likely take care of that out of stuff in my apartment.
This is also excluding any sort of mechanism for knocking out RFID at range. I'm not sure how portable a device you can make that would generate focused microwave rays. I don't know much about magnetrons, but I know it doesn't take much to kill an RFID tag.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus the first thing the criminals would do would be to rip the system out, thereby negating the good it does in any situation beyond accidental infantile discharge.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/01 19:57:57
Gun control is bogged down as much by some of the silly measures that liberals try to pass. The NRA actually periodically backs a gun control bill. But most bills are riddled with nonsense, so even if there are good parts they get opposed. Then, instead of thinking 'maybe we should dump the stupid stuff and pass the stuff we both can agree on', a new stupid thing gets added and the cycle continues. The rhetoric liberals tend to use is 'how can we ban guns' rather than 'how can we make owning guns safer', and so long as that is the case, you won't gain any traction.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
see a gun that would prevent your kids from taking them and shooting up a school. or should there be a intruder in your house there's a statistical 50/50 chance he gets your gun and shoots you with it. Preventable, so we can't have that.
States have rights to, except when it comes to guns, well that's what I hear when they're trying to deny rights to the people living in that state.
Yes the states has a crime problem, and criminals are freely allowed to buy all the guns they want legally and gun manufacturers profit. so citizens get scared and buy more guns and again gun manufacturers profit. Hey I'm seeing a pastern here.
we can't have gun laws because then us honest citizens become criminals. just like speed limits, we shouldn't have those, it just makes honest citizens criminals, just like drug laws, traffic laws, and any law. Don't break the law and you won't be a criminal right? If we had more gun laws, than when a criminal breaks those laws we'd have more laws to charge him with and keep him behind bars longer.
I don't have the inherent right to drive 100mph, peddle weed on a street corner or go the wrong way down a one way street. What I DO have is the right to keep and bear arms, infringement upon which is protected under the Constitution.
And you're not seriously thinking that a person who intends to commit murder is really concerned with a charge of illegally possessing/acquiring a firearm? Sure, add it to their list of multiple felonies. Feels good right? Might as well infringe on every other law-abiding citizen to do it. The perp will be back on the street after 5 years due to "good behavior" anyway, assuming they lived to face those charges and do the time...
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/01 20:45:32
"Statistics bear out that there is a 50% chance that the gun is taken over," Fleegler said. "And what do you think will happen after the bad guy gets the gun away from you?"
I'm talking home defense, the reason most state they own a gun in the first place. and oddly enough the act of buying the gun does exactly the opposite. You are far more likely to shoot yourself, or your family than ever even pointing a gun at some assailant.
Alex C wrote: I don't have the inherent right to drive 100mph, peddle weed on a street corner or go the wrong way down a one way street. What I DO have is the right to keep and bear arms, infringement upon which is protected under the Constitution.
And you're not seriously thinking that a person who intends to commit murder is really concerned with a charge of illegally possessing/acquiring a firearm? Sure, add it to their list of multiple felonies. Feels good right? Might as well infringe on every other law-abiding citizen to do it. The perp will be back on the street after 5 years due to "good behavior" anyway, assuming they lived to face those charges and do the time...
Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him. Hell might as well offer him a discount on the gun sale if he claims he's going to shoot someone with it.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.
sirlynchmob wrote: Ya so the guy who's intending to commit murder, we should make it as easy as possible for him.
People are trying to do that already by proposing more laws to prevent people from defending themselves.
you'd think law abiding people could wait a week for a background check. and for the nsa to check their facebook page to see if they're currently threatening to go kill someone. If that was the law, you'd think law abiding citizens would be able to comply.
With how impatient these so called "law abiding citizens" are, I wonder if that's true, or if they're up to some criminal activities.
oh no, I can't defend myself at all, not ever, if I have to wait a week to make sure I'm not a criminal first, give me my gun now.
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.
like the right to life?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/01 21:04:36
you'd think law abiding people could wait a week for a background check. and for the nsa to check their facebook page to see if they're currently threatening to go kill someone. If that was the law, you'd think law abiding citizens would be able to comply.
With how impatient these so called "law abiding citizens" are, I wonder if that's true, or if they're up to some criminal activities.
Why should we have to?
*I'd also like to add the caveat that your arguments are nonsensical and pretty hard to take seriously.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/01 21:08:00
Correct. You don't have any inherent right to anything, not even to guns. You have the dubious "right" to "bear arms" as granted to you by your government, with certain restrictions (some might even say, for example, being in a milita ). That right can be modified or removed at any point by said government.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes and protects from the government those inherent to us as human beings.
Nope. Fraid not. Since the rights granted in the original constitution and subsequent amendments (including the second one) can be removed at any point by the government, they are rights granted to you by your government. And as many of those rights are not recognised universally, they can hardly be considered inherent to being a human being...
What Americans do on their own soil is their own business.
After talking about gun control with my USMC collegues when I was out in Afghan, and then after the terrible tragedy of Sandy Hook, it became apparent to me that there was no way that American's are even ready to think about living without guns.
I'm just grateful that as a UK citizen it's just not something I ever have to worry about.
I just think it's very sad that this mum made a terrible mistake, and her family now have to pay a heavy price for that mistake.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
