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.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pro-gun-mother-is-shot-in-the-back-by-her-toddler-son-5743279/

It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.

How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?

What a fool.

I doubt it. Her stance is an ideological one, not a rational one. This won't change her argument about self defence.

They who live by the gun...

That should be a fun visit from Child Protective Services. Bit of a double whammy for not having her kid in a booster seat and, you know, the whole unattended loaded weapon thing.

Thankfully the child did not harm himself.

Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
F Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Point.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.

Instead of just calling people idiots for their beliefs lets try and keep this civil.

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Seconded.

Instead of just calling people idiots for their beliefs lets try and keep this civil.

Also Seconded.

I'm genuinely glad this is an amusing irony and not a dead child story.
What use is a gun on the back seat anyway? Did she just throw her handbag in there with it inside or something?

 Knockagh wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.

I think that it's more to keep the kid away from the gun. A locked glove compartment would do that trick.

 Nurgle wrote:
Instead of just calling people idiots for their beliefs lets try and keep this civil.

No one is doing that.

The consensus seems to be the woman is an idiot for not practicing gun safety. No one has attacked her beliefs.

 Knockagh wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.

There are two main options for gun storage (other than the "near toddler and everyone else option" obviously):

The first option is to deter theft: that's where you are talking about a big safe at home, thick safety boxes bolted to the frame of the car, etc.
The second option is to deter access: that's where you are talking about a locked glove compartment, locked center console, $25 metal box with a simple key or combination access, $100 box with electronic lock on your night stand.

I accept that there is pretty much no way to guarantee that nobody is going to steal my gun if I leave it in the car, so unless I'm going somewhere where I cannot carry it stays on my person (either IWB covering the trigger or OWB covering the trigger). If I am going in a place where I cannot carry (bring my wife lunch at the grade school, post office, quick dash into work to drop something off) then depending on the car I am driving it either goes in the locked glove compartment (where I accept that it can be stolen fairly easy if someone wants to break into my car) or in a lock-box attached with a cable to the frame of the drivers seat (where I again accept that it can be stolen fairly easy if someone wants to break into my car).

I also don't have a big safe at home, so my guns are secured to prevent access and not theft there as well.

If only she had a gun to defend herself with.......waidaminit....

Herzlos wrote:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pro-gun-mother-is-shot-in-the-back-by-her-toddler-son-5743279/

It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.

How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?

Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.


The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.


She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.


This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.

It does, hoverer, often lead to the argument "if gun owners are to stupid to protect themselves and those around them, then we will have to pass laws to protect gun owners and those around them".

There are quite a few news stories that make me realize that the biggest thread to gun ownership comes from gun owners being stupid.

 d-usa wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.

It does, hoverer, often lead to the argument "if gun owners are to stupid to protect themselves and those around them, then we will have to pass laws to protect gun owners and those around them".

There are quite a few news stories that make me realize that the biggest thread to gun ownership comes from gun owners being stupid.

Oh, I agree. Stupidity does hurt the image of gun owners. No argument there.


But in the end, the kid is safe and a valuable lesson can be learned from this. That what counts in my book.

 Steve steveson wrote:
I doubt it. Her stance is an ideological one, not a rational one. This won't change her argument about self defence.

Why should a negligent action change someone's stance? Her stance could be completely rational. That doesn't mean she wasn't negligent, and her being negligent really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not her stance is ideological or rational (or both). Someone can fully, rationally believe that something is good (or bad) and still make a horrible choice under certain circumstances. It happens all the time, and it doesn't mean that their stance is irrational. There doesn't seem to be very many people who claim that driving while drunk is a good thing, yet many people do it. Their stance is likely completely rational: most will probably say drunk driving is bad. But they still make bad decisions under certain circumstances. In the end, a person's stance doesn't really come into play that much when it comes to negligent actions. There are plenty of hugely pro-gun, pro-self defense people who have never had a negligent discharge and never allowed a child to have access to their firearms. I realize that doesn't lend it'self well to snarky comments by people who don't like or don't really understand the fact that others want to have firearms though.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pro-gun-mother-is-shot-in-the-back-by-her-toddler-son-5743279/

It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.

How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?

Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.


The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.


She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.


This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.

I would suggest that you are very wrong.

If this young lady, a paragon of gun ownership and competence such that she was held up as an example on a poster can suffer such a tragic fate in what would otherwise be a safe environment then in what danger are the 99.99% of gun owners and non-gun owners on if they not considered good /competent enough to maker the poster.

 d-usa wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.

It does, hoverer, often lead to the argument "if gun owners are to stupid to protect themselves and those around them, then we will have to pass laws to protect gun owners and those around them".

There are quite a few news stories that make me realize that the biggest thread to gun ownership comes from gun owners being stupid.

It certainly doesn't help the fact that many media outlets seem to prefer portraying guns and gun owners in a negative light. Not that gun owners don't provide them with plenty of material, mind you, but outside of specifically pro-gun media, with a few exceptions, the overall trend seems to be negative ranging to grudgingly neutral at best.

 Buttery Commissar wrote:

What use is a gun on the back seat anyway? Did she just throw her handbag in there with it inside or something?

That is actually a fantastic question. 45s, like the ones pictured in the associated link, are generally a little big for purse, unless it's a gigantic purse, which is possible I suppose. Now that I think about it, she may well have been a concealed carry permit holder, and absent mindedly put her purse (with gun) in the back seat.

That's still a terrible reason for putting a gun in the back with her child, but it's the most likely one I can think of, honestly.

Well, that and the fact it happened in floriduh. That's about all the explanation you need for idiotic behavior (like last month when a guy shoved an alligator into a drive-thru window).

 feeder wrote:
Thankfully the child did not harm himself.

Tell that to their eardrums.

 notprop wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pro-gun-mother-is-shot-in-the-back-by-her-toddler-son-5743279/

It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.

How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?

Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.


The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.


She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.


This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.

I would suggest that you are very wrong.

If this young lady, a paragon of gun ownership and competence such that she was held up as an example on a poster can suffer such a tragic fate in what would otherwise be a safe environment then in what danger are the 99.99% of gun owners and non-gun owners on if they not considered good /competent enough to maker the poster.

She wasn't a paragon of gun ownership and competence. In regards to what danger are the majority of gun owners who are not poster children in, the majority of gun owners aren't having negligent discharges or allowing toddlers access to their weapons so the answer to that question would be "rather minimal," I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Well, that and the fact it happened in floriduh. That's about all the explanation you need for idiotic behavior (like last month when a guy shoved an alligator into a drive-thru window).

Let's not generalize and stereotype an entire state's population. Besides being distasteful, quite frankly in the context of this discussion it's not useful information for anything.

 notprop wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pro-gun-mother-is-shot-in-the-back-by-her-toddler-son-5743279/

It seems despite wanting everyone to have guns for defence, she left a loaded gun in the back of her car along with her 4-year-old who shot her. She survived and faces negligence charges, though the article isn't clear if that's because of the gun or the lack of booster seat.

How can people claim to be responsible gun owners whilst allowing that to happen to themselves? It's just another high profile example of a lot of Americans lack of care with guns. I wonder if she'll change her stance now?

Nice way to turn the negligence of one person into an ideological pissing match.


The truth is that BOTH the child and weapon were unsecured and not under her full control. And this happens.


She should face charges for this, since both unsupervised access to firearms by children, and not having the child secured in a child safety seat, are both violations of the law.


This isn't about the gun debate. This is about a stupid parent and child endangerment.

I would suggest that you are very wrong.

If this young lady, a paragon of gun ownership and competence such that she was held up as an example on a poster can suffer such a tragic fate in what would otherwise be a safe environment then in what danger are the 99.99% of gun owners and non-gun owners on if they not considered good /competent enough to maker the poster.

Here's the thing: It wasn't a "safe" environment. Her negligence MADE it an unsafe environment. If the weapon was secured, and the child properly secured in a DoT approved child safety seat, this wouldn't have happened. That is a fact.


The use of one person's stupidity, regardless of who they are, to smear us all is a classic exercise in agenda-mongering and broad-brushing. And considering that a personal tragedy had been narrowly averted, such is downright sickening. Being a "poster girl" for the "terrible, nasty old gun lobby", is completely irrelevant in the overall picture.


You can say that I'm wrong. But I disagree.

 Desubot wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Thankfully the child did not harm himself.

Tell that to their eardrums.

Good point

 Knockagh wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.

There are companies that manufacture biometric and key code quick-access safes designed to be installed in motor vehicles. I believe this is the type of thing he was referring to, not just "bunging the gun in the glovebox".

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.

There are companies that manufacture biometric and key code quick-access safes designed to be installed in motor vehicles. I believe this is the type of thing he was referring to, not just "bunging the gun in the glovebox".

Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether. Maybe the next poster girl can spread the word about firearm safety.

 Breotan wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 SharkoutofWata wrote:
Fully a supporter of guns and having loaded weapons in the car ready for use. This woman was a negligent fool for keeping it where a child is. If a loaded gun is in the same area as a child, common sense is to have it inaccessible. A touch safe in the center console or glove compartment. Don't care about the gun owner, it's friggin lucky the child wasn't hurt.

Yea a glove compartment ( or centre console ) is total safety I would keep my savings in it knowing full well no one could get near them. Those latches are a safe crackers nightmare.

There are companies that manufacture biometric and key code quick-access safes designed to be installed in motor vehicles. I believe this is the type of thing he was referring to, not just "bunging the gun in the glovebox".

Or just carry concealed and solve the problem altogether.

Concealed carry also includes off-body carry though. And you still have instances where you are carrying concealed and may have to enter a place that doesn't allow it so you have to store the gun temporarily.