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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

I don't know how things work in the UK, but in some countries of continental Europe, it's surprisingly easy to have access to a gun.
On the right side of the Channel, you can have a gun if you're into hunting or sport shooting.

Hunting : You have to pass a small written exam. Things about species, regulations, stuff like that. Then you have an exam on the field, quite simple, it's just about safety and not acting like a moron. Done, you can buy your cal 12 shotgun. I'm not even sure you have to have a medical exam.
Sport Shooting : Medical exam performed by your doctor, just to be sure you're not legally blind... Then you just have to go to the shooting range 3 times a year to have your shooting licence. That's all.

Sure, there are some additional regulations: guns should be stored in a safe, you aren't allowed to own more than 12 of them, 10 magazines and 1000 rounds per gun. Things like that.

Long story short, it's not really about "no access to firearms", but more like a cultural thing. Even our thugs usually don't carry guns, but the occasionnal knife, pepper spray or telescopic baton.

Guns = Hunting = Cal 12. Sport shooters are not that common and usually shoot .22lr and .357. That's about it. Hilariously large calibers (14.5x114) are perfectly legal and you can buy a .50 BMG sniper rifle with close to no paperwork, but what's the point?

In the UK there are plenty of people with shotguns, mostly farmers and people in rural areas.

The point being that there are additional steps in getting a firearms permit, and generally (in the UK at least) you have to apply through the police.

 Frazzled wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I think the point being made is that in places with little to no access to firearms, there is little to no death, injury or crime related to firearms, nor any particular need to own or carry a firearm.

All of Latin America is a case study in how wrong you are.

Not necessarily at all. Latin American gun crime is directly linked to the out of control drug trade and massive corruption.
Europe is a much more valid example. Even with freak occurences taken into consideration like Anders Breivik, there are considerably fewer firearms related offences in comparative western democracies that enjoy an uncorrupted rule of law without warring drug cartels.
There is an interesting article HERE that covers some of the complex issues.

Not surprisingly, two of the most violent countries in the region have relatively lax laws. In Honduras -- the world's most dangerous country based on its total homicide rate of 91.6 per 100,000 residents -- civilians can own up to five firearms,

At the other end of the legal spectrum sit Mexico and Brazil, two countries fighting extreme gun violence. Mexico is commonly considered to have some of the strictest gun legislation in the region -– there is only one, military-owned gun store in the country. Civilians are prohibited from owning military grade weapons, cannot carry a gun outside their home, and must undergo rigorous background checks to obtain an ownership license.

The rule of law is critical in understanding why these countries with lax and strict gun controls have such high gun crime. They also suffer weak government, and corrupted legal systems.

So, in order to correctly assess how effective gun controls are you cannot point to Latin America and say "there you go, strict gun controls make no difference". Of course they don't if all they are are words on a bit of paper and the infrastructure is not in place to support a stable and law abiding society. You must look at other comparative countries with similar rule of law, uncorrupted legal systems and differing gun controls, like Europe.

 Peregrine wrote:
You can build a machine gun with parts and tools from your local hardware store.

 cincydooley wrote:
You can with a pipebomb made from gak you can find at the hardware store.

Since I was talking about the virtues of making things more difficult, I don't see how either of these are relevant. Making any sort of reusable gun, let alone a machine gun, is a serious project. I would need welding gear, and probably a fething lathe, and obtaining ammunition is difficult in the UK, you can't just walk into a department store and grab some like you can in America. No matter how determined I were to kill, making a gun is far too much effort. Also I'd be scared to hell that pile of junk would blow up in my face.

Pipe bombs are a bit easier, but still require quite a lot of effort, premeditation, and risk. My dad knew a man who lost all his fingers on one hand making one as a teenager. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they are also illegal right? So it's moot. A woman is not supposed to be carrying one around in her handbag at Walmart, and honestly what legitimate reason could she have for doing so.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
In the UK there are plenty of people with shotguns, mostly farmers and people in rural areas.

The point being that there are additional steps in getting a firearms permit, and generally (in the UK at least) you have to apply through the police.

In the US typically for carrying a pistol (whether concealed or otherwise varies by State) you require a permit be issued by the police, for long guns you have to pass a background check through the NICS system run by the FBI. For NFA items the police also have to sign off before you send your application to BATF

So, is it agreed then that a purse is a poor location to safely store a handgun on your person?
I have seen way too many kids rooting around in their mom's purse that it could not be a consideration never mind the potential for theft.
To legally carry a handgun it should require a holster guarding the trigger to prevent accidental discharge.
I would figure that any scenario where you would need that gun would be a bit of an emergency and rooting around in a purse is less than ideal.
With the way my wife looks for her keys in her purse, her or I would have been accidentally shot multiple times long ago if she had a gun in there.

Canada, any transportation of a handgun can only be to and from a gun club.
Gun must have a trigger lock and be in a locked case.
Ammo must be stored separately.
So this scenario cannot be played-out in Canada, at least legally.

Another case of parents not managing risk for their children (or themselves from said children)

Sorry to drag everyone back to the original topic, but has anyone commented on the fact that the deceased was a nuclear scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory?


It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.

 Talizvar wrote:
So, is it agreed then that a purse is a poor location to safely store a handgun on your person?

Nope. It's not.

Its as simple as "don't let your kid root around in your purse that has your concealed firearm."

Does anyone know what type of gun it was?

I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.

So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.

 djones520 wrote:
Does anyone know what type of gun it was?

I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.

So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.

That was my gut reaction too...

Must've been something like this:

 djones520 wrote:
Does anyone know what type of gun it was?

I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.

So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.

I'm not sure I've seen, but I read an article that said the firearm had a 3# trigger pull. Which we all know isn't a whole lot. IMO, if you're going to purse carry you need either a revolver or a DA/SA that you can decock so you ensure the trigger pull is much higher.

It was her negligence pure and simple. 1st for letting her kid root through her purse that had her CCW. 2nd for not noticing that her kid was rooting around in said purse.

 djones520 wrote:
Does anyone know what type of gun it was?

I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.

So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.

I'd imagine it was a compact, possibly a Ruger .380, with no external safety

 cincydooley wrote:
It was her negligence pure and simple. 1st for letting her kid root through her purse that had her CCW. 2nd for not noticing that her kid was rooting around in said purse.

That this tragic event was caused by her own, easily avoided, negligence cannot be in doubt. Hopefully it will serve as a cautionary tale for others who carry off body

 cincydooley wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Does anyone know what type of gun it was?
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.
So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.

I'm not sure I've seen, but I read an article that said the firearm had a 3# trigger pull. Which we all know isn't a whole lot. IMO, if you're going to purse carry you need either a revolver or a DA/SA that you can decock so you ensure the trigger pull is much higher.
It was her negligence pure and simple. 1st for letting her kid root through her purse that had her CCW. 2nd for not noticing that her kid was rooting around in said purse.

Root cause is the person failed to have control of their firearm.

Purses allow it to be out of reach or away from your immediate person so you could not notice it being handled.
I strongly disagree with "letting her kid root through her purse" as cause: kids are CONSTANTLY getting into stuff even with the best of kids safety locks.
Believe me, it is far easier and saner to try to control the environment around the two year old kid than to control the child (even if it is also strapping them down in a shopping cart, possibly with said purse).

I hate to pull this out but do you have kids cincy?
Or at least had to baby sit a two year old for a few hours outside of a playpen?

Yes, the responsibility lies with the gun owner but where and how it is stowed largely determines how controlled it is.

If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.

Pure and simple.

 Talizvar wrote:


I hate to pull this out but do you have kids cincy?

Yes. She's not old enough to be affected by this

Or at least had to baby sit a two year old for a few hours outside of a playpen?

Yes. My niece is nearly two and I taught school and worked at daycare summer programs for 5 and 7 years respectively.

Yes, the responsibility lies with the gun owner but where and how it is stowed largely determines how controlled it is.

Which is again, a responsibility that lies on the gun owner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.

Pure and simple.

Ding ding ding!

 d-usa wrote:
If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.

Pure and simple.

Off body carry is difficult. Off body carry when you do not retain control of the item carrying the firearm is impossible.

A retention holster would have been much more appropriate

 SilverMK2 wrote:
In the UK there are plenty of people with shotguns, mostly farmers and people in rural areas.

The point being that there are additional steps in getting a firearms permit, and generally (in the UK at least) you have to apply through the police.

Same thing here, it's mostly a rural thing : farmers and hunters.

But owning a gun is not that difficult. Buying a heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom is actually less complicated than, say, buying (and driving) a car, or a motorbike. It even requires less paperwork than a scooter.

Some countries just don't seem to share that 2nd amendment fetishism.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.
Pure and simple.

Off body carry is difficult. Off body carry when you do not retain control of the item carrying the firearm is impossible.
A retention holster would have been much more appropriate

To quote "Ding-ding-ding!"
Most appropriate means of keeping control of a firearm short of locking it up.
A lockable latch on the purse would have been nice but again would limit the usefulness of the firearm if needed.

Litcheur wrote:
But owning a gun is not that difficult. Buying a heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom is actually less complicated than, say, buying (and driving) a car, or a motorbike. It even requires less paperwork than a scooter.

Some countries just don't seem to share that 2nd amendment fetishism.

Well not many countries have a Second Amendment, not all countries have the same laws and culture as the US does. And that is their right too.

And buying a "heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom" is more complicated than buying a car or motorbike, as explained above. Purchasing a mechanically propelled vehicle does not require a background check through the FBI, and felons are permitted to own and operate motor vehicles

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.

Pure and simple.

Off body carry is difficult. Off body carry when you do not retain control of the item carrying the firearm is impossible.

A retention holster would have been much more appropriate

I'm not a fan of off-body carrying in general, since it gives you less physical control of the gun and increases the possibility of not having the gun available when needed.

Off-body carry that basically results in letting a child reach the weapon is inexcusable and pure negligence.

I think in this case it's not even the off-body carrying that's to blame. The mother left a loaded gun in a holster where the kid can easily reach it. A CCW purse is no different that a holster, and should always be treated as such. It's not a purse with a gun in it, it's a holster with junk in it. Maybe off-body carry makes it easier to forget that.

If she would have carried on her person, and then removed the holster and gun from her belt and put it next to the child where he could easily reach it, it wouldn't really be any different of a scenario IMO.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.

Maybe she tought the same thing? Though I did think it was suspicious, but the reports I read claimed that police reviewed security video from the store to ensure it was an accident. I assume they must have been satisfied with what they saw... At least we haven't heard otherwise.

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.

Meanwhile, in an alternate universe: "Nuclear meltdown destroys Idaho".

But in seriousness, I think what is hard (for any person) is to be consistent. People are inherently fallible. Even the most highly trained/practiced people, sportsmen, pilots, doctors they will all make mistakes eventually, it is just a matter of time. This is why the airline industry works so hard to minimize the possibility for human error. I was looking at some of my online game stats recently and figured out that I misclick about one time in every 10,000 moves -- I just click the wrong square like a spaz. That's actually quite accurate, but if someone died every time I did it then it would have killed about three people by now. 100% constancy is far harder than rocket science.

Who here hasn't cut themselves with their hobby knife? Or forgot to turn the oven off (or similar). These things just happen. It's not because she was a negligent person -- by all accounts she was smart, experienced, and responsible -- but she was also human, and people inevitably make mistakes. In the previous two years that she managed not to have an accident with her firearm, she tallied up 99.86% competency record. But that ~0.1% of the time when she was looking the wrong way, cost her dearly. By that standard we are all negligent, we probably just got away with it more often.

So calling negligence is really just deflecting attention away from the lethal weapon she was carrying which is known to cause terrible (fatal) accidents. Honestly, a woman with a bunch of small kids visiting Walmart during the day. How necessary was a gun here? Was she planning to have a shoot out with armed robbers, while surrounded by small children? I think the risks of carrying a gun around far outweighed the risks of not having one, in this case.

 d-usa wrote:
If you have a kid that constantly goes through everything then you don't leave a holster within reach of the kid.

Pure and simple.

You people are all glossing over the terrifying reality that is occurring.
We are through the looking glass here people. The two year olds are out to take over the world. Even their parents won't stand in their way.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm not a fan of off-body carrying in general, since it gives you less physical control of the gun and increases the possibility of not having the gun available when needed.

Off-body carry that basically results in letting a child reach the weapon is inexcusable and pure negligence.

I think in this case it's not even the off-body carrying that's to blame. The mother left a loaded gun in a holster where the kid can easily reach it. A CCW purse is no different that a holster, and should always be treated as such. It's not a purse with a gun in it, it's a holster with junk in it. Maybe off-body carry makes it easier to forget that.

If she would have carried on her person, and then removed the holster and gun from her belt and put it next to the child where he could easily reach it, it wouldn't really be any different of a scenario IMO.

You are absolutely right in what you say, a loaded firearm should never be left with a 2 year old infant. A lot of people I've spoken with about this are very critical of off-body carry, as it is not an effective way of retaining control of your firearm. This only reinforces that belief for many people.

Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

 Smacks wrote:
So calling negligence is really just deflecting attention away from the lethal weapon she was carrying which is known to cause terrible (fatal) accidents. Honestly, a woman with a bunch of small kids visiting Walmart during the day. How necessary was a gun here? Was she planning to have a shoot out with armed robbers, while surrounded by small children? I think the risks of carrying a gun around far outweighed the risks of not having one, in this case.

I'm sorry but this was a textbook case of negligence. She did not take reasonable steps to keep a loaded firearm out of her child's hands.

To answer your other question there are many examples of criminals robbing people (or worse) in store parking lots;
01/02/15 http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/01/02/man-shot-in-leg-in-westwood-parking-lot/21182259/
12/31/14 http://www.wilsonpost.com/reward-offered-in-parking-lot-robbery-case-cms-84805
12/30/14 http://woodtv.com/2014/12/30/taco-bell-manager-robbed-in-holland-parking-lot/
12/30/14 http://abc11.com/news/2-charged-with-robbing-victim-of-engagement-ring/455279/
12/26/14 http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/12/2_teens_booked_with_attempted.html
12/24/14 http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/woman_speeds_off_after_attempted_armed_robbery_in_law_office_parking_lot.html
12/23/14 http://myfox8.com/2014/12/23/2-robbed-at-gunpoint-in-belk-parking-lot-at-four-seasons/
12/18/14 http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article4654440.html
12/18/14 http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/orleans/2014/12/18/armed-robbery-downtown-quarter-rampart/20586711/
12/12/14 http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/12/12/woman-robbed-fashion-mall-parking-lot/20292543/
12/12/14 http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/police-searching-for-parking-lot-robbery-suspect/30208774

Having a firearm for self-defense is not indicative of "planning to have a shoot out"

 Matthew wrote:
Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

 Matthew wrote:
Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

Not to sound pithy but it is because the public support the right to own firearms.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

Laws? What Laws? Another Swede thinks its the Wild West over here. Church burning! Book burning! Sexual Orientation bashing! Followers of Islam intolerant! Why make new laws when we don't enforce the current laws...
.....
....
wait
......
....
She lost positive control of her weapon and that CNN report mention three shots squeezed off by the kid.
She had a CCW and training
police did not opt her out..

Another Euro on a 2nd Amendment bash

 cincydooley wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm sorry but this was a textbook case of negligence. She did not take reasonable steps to keep a loaded firearm out of her child's hands.

I agree, but you've missed the point. Everyone is going to make a mistake eventually it is just a matter of time. The only way to 100% prevent human error is to remove human responsibility.

To answer your other question there are many examples of criminals robbing people (or worse) in store parking lots;
01/02/15 http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/01/02/man-shot-in-leg-in-westwood-parking-lot/21182259/
12/31/14 http://www.wilsonpost.com/reward-offered-in-parking-lot-robbery-case-cms-84805
12/30/14 http://woodtv.com/2014/12/30/taco-bell-manager-robbed-in-holland-parking-lot/
12/30/14 http://abc11.com/news/2-charged-with-robbing-victim-of-engagement-ring/455279/
12/26/14 http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/12/2_teens_booked_with_attempted.html
12/24/14 http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/12/woman_speeds_off_after_attempted_armed_robbery_in_law_office_parking_lot.html
12/23/14 http://myfox8.com/2014/12/23/2-robbed-at-gunpoint-in-belk-parking-lot-at-four-seasons/
12/18/14 http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article4654440.html
12/18/14 http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/orleans/2014/12/18/armed-robbery-downtown-quarter-rampart/20586711/
12/12/14 http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2014/12/12/woman-robbed-fashion-mall-parking-lot/20292543/
12/12/14 http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/police-searching-for-parking-lot-robbery-suspect/30208774

Having a firearm for self-defense is not indicative of "planning to have a shoot out"

So she might have got robbed, but instead she died, and a firearm was discharged by a kid. So again I will say that I think the risks outweighed the rewards, in this case.