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.

Kimber's operating manuals are available online for full details of the safety features.

Having read those, I think the most likely scenario is that the woman loaded and cocked the gun, and let down the hammer on to a chambered round. The toddler knocked it off the seat, and the shock when it hit the floor cause the firing pin to strike the round in the chamber.

"Series II" Kimber pistols have an additional safety feature that locks the firing pin block until the grip safety has been correctly disengaged. Perhaps this was a Series I pistol.

I believe that Frazzled owns a Kimber and could give us more information on these points.

Not all Kimbers have a grip safety (wife has a Kimber Solo without one).

Seaward does as well.

I own a 1911, though not a Kimber - it's functionally the same but with a longer barrel. My guess is it was cocked and unlocked, and the kid simply grasped the grip and pulled the trigger. A drop fire is possible, but unlikely.


This is hers:



I would say it's a Ultra Raptor II but some stuff doesn't match - I don't see an option to get a blued slide and mag release\safety\slide stop\grip safety the way she did. I don't know if you can factory customize them or not.

 Ouze wrote:
My guess is it was cocked and unlocked, and the kid simply grasped the grip and pulled the trigger.

This seems the most likely scenario.

There is an indication of the real source of the problem in this sentence:

woman who managed to get shot by her toddler wrote:Got to play with my new toy today!

Wasn't there a tweet/post from this lady where she talked about her toddler already firing a .22 on the range? My guess would be this kid knows already how to point and shoot a gun - because she took her son to the range and let him load/fire guns - but he is too young to understand what actually happens when you point a gun at people and pull the trigger. That and/or she neglected that part of gun safety, which seems also possible the way she tweeted about her "new toy".

The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.

Granted, it could simply be a turn of phrase, however the performance of this particular individual in allowing a loaded, cocked gun into the hands of a four-year-old, and thereby getting herself shot, lays her open to the charge that she does not share your mature understanding of the nature of lethal weapons.

 CptJake wrote:
The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.

I agree with you that, in general, there's no severe problem in calling something that you buy for recreational activities (like shooting) a toy. I only have a problem with THIS case because this lady also posted these gritty memes about rights to protect her son with her gun. If you are a poster girl for the right for self-defense, and underline this with "srs bsns think of the children" posts, then I think calling her gun a toy is a bit...meh.

 CptJake wrote:
The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.

A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.

A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Granted, it could simply be a turn of phrase, however the performance of this particular individual in allowing a loaded, cocked gun into the hands of a four-year-old, and thereby getting herself shot, lays her open to the charge that she does not share your mature understanding of the nature of lethal weapons.

It is. I refer to my firearms as toys every now and again. Doesn't mean I treat them carelessly. 2nd Edition Dreadnoughts are "toys" as well, and you can't tell me those can't be deadly as hell.

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.

A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.

A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.

No, not all guns are created 'specifically and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction'. My my 22lr M4 is a good example. Just because YOU consider it distasteful does not make it any less true that some guns are indeed bought not as weapons, but as toys. There is no 'singularity of purpose' that magically and uniquely falls upon all guns. That really is an ignorant line of thinking, which is why folks like you who subscribe to it get the push back from gun owners that you do.

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.

A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.

A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.

No, not all guns are created 'specifically and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction'. My my 22lr M4 is a good example. Just because YOU consider it distasteful does not make it any less true that some guns are indeed bought not as weapons, but as toys. There is no 'singularity of purpose' that magically and uniquely falls upon all guns. That really is an ignorant line of thinking, which is why folks like you who subscribe to it get the push back from gun owners that you do.

A weapon is a weapon. That you bought it with no intent shoot at any living thing and no other's property makes it no less of a weapon. It is not ignorant to call a gun a weapon because a gun is a weapon.

One can buy a car "as display piece" leave parked in the garage and never drive, but it remains a vehicle. It remains something invented for the purposes of transportation.
One can buy a computer "as a doorstop" never plug it in and leave it propping open your door all the time, but it remains an electronic device meant for doing computation.
One can buy a skillet "as a weapon" and use it to cave someone's head in, but it remains a pan meant for cooking for food.

Your designs on and personal intent with an object do not change it's class, purpose, or the reason humanity came up with the thing. Your intent with your gun is recreational shooting of non-living things you have permission to shoot, and that's fine. However despite that it remains a weapon. It will always be a weapon. It was invented for the purpose of hostile destruction that's what a weapon is.

We can argue taste until we're blue in the face as it's subjective. I doubt I'm alone in finding it distasteful to call weapons "Toys" where calling other serious dangerous things "Toys" isn't as much. You don't, OK. I'm not going to argue my distaste is "Right" and your lack of it "Wrong". However let's not pretend that the distaste of those who have is not rooted in something real. Let's also not indulge in any fantasies that guns aren't weapons, and that weapons are not tools created by humans for the purposes of hostile destruction.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".
I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.

I see you are intentionally going with the tack of "when properly used, a firearm is safe.".
I suppose I should have said "guns are typically safe for the person using it, but terribly dangerous for those it is pointed at."

Now the definition:
British English: unsafe If a building, machine, activity, or area is unsafe, it is dangerous. ADJECTIVE Critics claim the trucks are unsafe.
(http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/unsafe)

If guns were "safe" they would not necessitate the couple safeties being discussed.
It would not require laws to regulate their purchase and use.
In this case, is not the intended purpose of a gun to put a hole in a target, whatever that may be?

The REAL interest is we paint this lady with being "negligent", how so?
Was she contrary to USA laws?
Should not the need to cock the gun and disarm two safeties been sufficient to prevent the child from discharging the firearm?

You want to know what my "controls" would be?
Easy.

When transporting / carrying a firearm the weapon must be controlled by the owner.
- All safeties must be enabled on the weapon.
- The weapon must be in a holster, gun rack or a closed, locked opaque container during transport.
- If a weapon cannot be secured for some reason, a trigger lock must be applied to the firearm.

So, your turn.
How is a firearm to be controlled to avoid being negligent thus the PERSON being unsafe... not the weapon.

<edit> Yes the statistics look pretty and all but a gun advocate got shot in the back by her son. One too many you think?
This is not a knee-jerk reaction to "All guns must be banned! they are evil!", it is more around the line that "common sense" is not all that common and a certain minimum standard of safety needs to be enforced against stupidity.
Might as well complain over the oppression of speed limit signs.

Tried checking various state laws: what a mess.
They seem to largely agree that a gun unloaded and put in a case in the trunk of the vehicle is the way to go.
BUT I see too many words like "may", "should" which reads to me as "un-enforceable".

 Talizvar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Could we argue that a gun is somewhat unsafe by design?

You could argue it, and I would like to hear your justification that firearms are "unsafe by design"

I am a bit speechless over this.
The thing is designed to fire a projectile at high velocity with the intent of blowing a hole through something at range merely by pulling a trigger.
Mousetraps are freaking unsafe, it is just a matter of the degree of consequence: death is pretty high for the mouse anyway.

An untriggerlocked loaded gun in the hands of a small child as discussed by the OP is unsafe as the mother found out.

At work we lock-out-tag-out to prevent machines we are working on from being turned on and removing limbs.

Responsible control of the firearm is necessary to prevent accidental deaths.
Until we start charging $5000 a bullet for better control of discharges, better controls are needed.

Every legally purchased firearm comes with a manual that describes safe handling procedures and a locking mechanism for the gun. We have multiple laws on the books that criminalize improper handling or storage of firearms. If people choose to handle guns improperly in an unsafe manner they run the risk of criminal prosecution. We already treat the unsafe handling/storage of guns the same way we treat the unsafe handling and storage of other dangerous tools/items. That doesn't guarantee that some peopel won't do something stupid, it still happens and it's not unique to guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 sebster wrote:
To maybe take a different tack...

To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

And to the people in favour of less gun laws, do you think there are any possible gun laws that would increase safety without placing too great a burden on gun laws?

I'm just looking to see if this really is a case one side vs the other, with no compromise possible, or if it is possible to find better gun laws than what is in place now.

In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.

That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system

Some states do teach gun safety classes or hunting safety classes in school. Virginia has had a law on the books since 2010 mandating gun safety classes in elementary schools. The NRA has a whole program dedicated to teaching gun safety to children, which is in a partnership with Virginia public schools. There are plenty of options available for people both online and in person to learn gun safety at no cost or low costs but it's not mandatory. Some states also include mandatory classes as a requirement for obtaining a concealed carry permit. Since gun safety classes aren't mandatory some people aren't going to bother taking them and even if people do take them that doesn't preclude them from having careless/negligent moments in the future.

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The 'toy' thing doesn't bother me a bit. Plenty of adults consider fast cars, motorcycles, boats, remote control aircraft and yes, guns as 'toys' in that they buy them to play with. My Colt rimfire .22lr M4 is my 'toy'. It is purely for target shooting/fun activities. To think just because I consider it a toy means I don't understand it is a dangerous toy would be silly of anyone.

A fast car is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A motorcycle is not a weapon. It can be dangerous, but it is not a weapon.
A RC Plane is not a weapon. Most probably aren't lethally dangerous, and again it's not a weapon.

A gun is a weapon.That you and others have found other recreational purposes for it is fine but a gun is still a weapon. Weapons have the distinction of being the only class of human invention created specifically, and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction. This singularity of purpose puts weapons in a special class, that makes calling them "toys" feel at minimum distasteful to most I'd imagine.

No, not all guns are created 'specifically and solely for the purpose of hostile destruction'. My my 22lr M4 is a good example. Just because YOU consider it distasteful does not make it any less true that some guns are indeed bought not as weapons, but as toys. There is no 'singularity of purpose' that magically and uniquely falls upon all guns. That really is an ignorant line of thinking, which is why folks like you who subscribe to it get the push back from gun owners that you do.

A weapon is a weapon. That you bought it with no intent shoot at any living thing and no other's property makes it no less of a weapon. It is not ignorant to call a gun a weapon because a gun is a weapon.

Your designs on and personal intent with an object do not change it's class, purpose, or the reason humanity came up with the thing. Your intent with your gun is recreational shooting of non-living things you have permission to shoot, and that's fine. However despite that it remains a weapon. It will always be a weapon. It was invented for the purpose of hostile destruction that's what a weapon is.

We can argue taste until we're blue in the face as it's subjective. I doubt I'm alone in finding it distasteful to call weapons "Toys" where calling other serious dangerous things "Toys" isn't as much. You don't, OK. I'm not going to argue my distaste is "Right" and your lack of it "Wrong". However let's not pretend that the distaste of those who have is not rooted in something real. Let's also not indulge in any fantasies that guns aren't weapons, and that weapons are not tools created by humans for the purposes of hostile destruction.

Not all guns are created/invented " for the purpose of hostile destruction". I've given one example of MANY that your premise just does not hold true for. Heck, a hunting rifle is not made for 'hostile' destruction.

So, yeah, you are arguing a viewpoint that is ignorant.

Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.

There are lots of potentially dangerous things you can buy or use without safety training or a licence, including gas cookers, power tools, and toilet cleaning chemicals.

There are lots of other potentially dangerous things you can only buy or use after getting a licence; such as cars, explosives, and controlled drugs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thinking about it, would this woman have qualified for a Darwin award if she had died?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.

There are lots of potentially dangerous things you can buy or use without safety training or a licence, including gas cookers, power tools, and toilet cleaning chemicals.

There are lots of other potentially dangerous things you can only buy or use after getting a licence; such as cars, explosives, and controlled drugs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thinking about it, would this woman have qualified for a Darwin award if she had died?

Given that it was her own offspring that pulled the trigger, I believe she is already incapable of receiving such an award.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Every legally purchased firearm comes with a manual that describes safe handling procedures and a locking mechanism for the gun.

Not true.

New firearms come as such, but used firearms normally don't. You can legally buy a used firearm and not get any of the accoutrements it came with when new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.

Some don't, but some do. My father in law has a Heritage Rough Rider revolver that has a safety, for example.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In regards to the latter, I'd really like to see some sort of firearm usage/safety component in schools. Something that will drill the 4 basic rules of firearm safety into everyone, even if they never touch a gun, and allow them to be safe if they encounter a firearm somehow other than just sitting there going "wat do?", and can at least safely operate one, if for no other reason than to unload & verify the weapon is safe. It's kinda silly that we have an established constitutional right that effectively is taboo in the educational system even from that perspective, and I think such a program could save a lot more grief than additional restrictions.

Interesting answer. It's maybe kind of a bit of cheating, because you're answering with a bit of legislation that actually increases the presences of guns in people's lives, but the answer was interesting enough I'll let that pass

Anyhow, I'm not sure firearm education is needed, certainly not universally. Gun ownership is down to around 40% of homes, and slowly drifting down.

So, much like our voting turnout rate?

Guns are a big part of some people's lives, and a big part of the culture in some areas, but for many other places they exist in movies and in endless gun debates, not actually as part of their lives. In terms of competing for scarce class time and resources, it isn't really up there with first aid classes, or basic finance, or anything else like that.

They could simply be part of something like that. Fold it into 9th grade health class or something. It doesn't need to be a whole class on its own, spend a week or two on it for a single class period and you're probably good. For something that's a constitutional right and that does have a safety component and that everyone is likely to encounter at some point in their lives (even if just passively), it could help a lot, and do a lot to remove excuses for people being negligent with firearms and up the "social" safety factor where greater awareness increases adherence to safety rules.

I do certainly agree that classes that like would be great for anyone buying a gun. They could be handled through a local range, or by local police forces.

There's a lot of places where this just wouldn't fly, particularly in places like SF where local ranges have all increasingly been pushed out to not be so "local" and the SFPD certainly has zero desire or intent to put something like that on themselves. Additionally, having anything like that go through police raises all sorts of hackles, and distrust of police, for an array of reasons (both justified and unjustified), makes that an awkward proposition, with many people having an active desire for the police *not* to know they own a firearm.

That said, I also think schools should teach stuff about basic finance, preparing personal taxes, using a credit card, etc, which is also apparently a taboo subject in the educational system

Definitely agree. Just doing a simple example - if you want a $2,000 holiday, how much will it cost if you save $50 a month on 5% interest, and how much will it cost if you borrow for the holiday now and repay $50 at 10% interest? It blows people's minds because they've never had the maths laid out in front of them. It's $1,900 vs $2,450, by the way

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.

There are lots of potentially dangerous things you can buy or use without safety training or a licence, including gas cookers, power tools, and toilet cleaning chemicals.

There are lots of other potentially dangerous things you can only buy or use after getting a licence; such as cars, explosives, and controlled drugs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thinking about it, would this woman have qualified for a Darwin award if she had died?

Revolvers tend to be double action IIRC? I'm not an expert on firearms by any stretch but from what I remember, most revolvers, or at least modern ones, tend to be double action, which if I understand it right mean you have to fully depress the trigger (which requires grip strength) to fire it, meaning you don't get accidents by touching the trigger, meaning that any time you fire it, it's because you intended to?

I see much speculation.

How would this weird situation have been avoided and not get the NRA's knickers in a knot? Remember this was a pickup truck so the trunk is not an option.

 Deadshot wrote:

Revolvers tend to be double action IIRC? I'm not an expert on firearms by any stretch but from what I remember, most revolvers, or at least modern ones, tend to be double action, which if I understand it right mean you have to fully depress the trigger (which requires grip strength) to fire it, meaning you don't get accidents by touching the trigger, meaning that any time you fire it, it's because you intended to?

They can be double or single action. New production single action revolvers are still very much a thing. A lot of people actually carry tiny single actions made by North American Arms.

Single action means that when you pull the trigger, it releases the hammer, thus you must manually cock the hammer before each shot. Double action means that when you pull the trigger, it cocks and then releases the hammer. Double actions typically have a MUCH heavier trigger pull than single actions.

In any event, revolvers can still have safeties, and many feature a mechanism to lock the trigger via a small key when not in use.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Every legally purchased firearm comes with a manual that describes safe handling procedures and a locking mechanism for the gun.

Not true.

New firearms come as such, but used firearms normally don't. You can legally buy a used firearm and not get any of the accoutrements it came with when new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Except revolvers. They don't have a safety catch.

Some don't, but some do. My father in law has a Heritage Rough Rider revolver that has a safety, for example.

True. I meant new but didn't include that specificity.

In October 2005, as part of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, Congress passed and the President signed into law legislation making it unlawful for any licensed importer, manufacturer or dealer to sell or transfer any handgun unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device.1 A “secure gun storage or safety device” is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(34) as:


(A) a device that, when installed on a firearm, is designed to prevent the firearm from being operated without first deactivating the device;

(B) a device incorporated into the design of the firearm that is designed to prevent the operation of the firearm by anyone not having access to the device; or

(C) a safe, gun safe, gun case, lock box, or other device that is designed to be or can be used to store a firearm and that is designed to be unlocked only by means of a key, a combination, or other similar means.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Thinking about it, would this woman have qualified for a Darwin award if she had died?

No, she had already passed on her genes.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You still have not shown how firearms are "unsafe by design". If guns were so unsafe then the figure for deaths by negligent discharge would be significantly higher than ~500 out of the 359,000,000 (or .00014% of) firearms in the hands of US citizens. All you have shown is that the mother was negligent with her firearm, which is something that everyone in this thread agrees with. Please explain how firearms are "unsafe by design".
I'm curious as to what "controls" you believe are needed.

I see you are intentionally going with the tack of "when properly used, a firearm is safe.".
I suppose I should have said "guns are typically safe for the person using it, but terribly dangerous for those it is pointed at."

Now the definition:
British English: unsafe If a building, machine, activity, or area is unsafe, it is dangerous. ADJECTIVE Critics claim the trucks are unsafe.
(http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/unsafe)

If guns were "safe" they would not necessitate the couple safeties being discussed.
It would not require laws to regulate their purchase and use.
In this case, is not the intended purpose of a gun to put a hole in a target, whatever that may be?

The REAL interest is we paint this lady with being "negligent", how so?
Was she contrary to USA laws?
Should not the need to cock the gun and disarm two safeties been sufficient to prevent the child from discharging the firearm?

You want to know what my "controls" would be?
Easy.

When transporting / carrying a firearm the weapon must be controlled by the owner.
- All safeties must be enabled on the weapon.
- The weapon must be in a holster, gun rack or a closed, locked opaque container during transport.
- If a weapon cannot be secured for some reason, a trigger lock must be applied to the firearm.

So, your turn.
How is a firearm to be controlled to avoid being negligent thus the PERSON being unsafe... not the weapon.

<edit> Yes the statistics look pretty and all but a gun advocate got shot in the back by her son. One too many you think?
This is not a knee-jerk reaction to "All guns must be banned! they are evil!", it is more around the line that "common sense" is not all that common and a certain minimum standard of safety needs to be enforced against stupidity.
Might as well complain over the oppression of speed limit signs.

Tried checking various state laws: what a mess.
They seem to largely agree that a gun unloaded and put in a case in the trunk of the vehicle is the way to go.
BUT I see too many words like "may", "should" which reads to me as "un-enforceable".

Florida already has this covered:

(5) POSSESSION IN PRIVATE CONVEYANCE.—Notwithstanding subsection (2), it is lawful and is not a violation of s. 790.01 for a person 18 years of age or older to possess a concealed firearm or other weapon for self-defense or other lawful purpose within the interior of a private conveyance, without a license, if the firearm or other weapon is securely encased or is otherwise not readily accessible for immediate use. Nothing herein contained prohibits the carrying of a legal firearm other than a handgun anywhere in a private conveyance when such firearm is being carried for a lawful use. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize the carrying of a concealed firearm or other weapon on the person. This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.—(1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or her control, a loaded firearm, as defined in s. 790.001, and who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, or without the supervision required by law, shall keep the firearm in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure or shall secure it with a trigger lock, except when the person is carrying the firearm on his or her body or within such close proximity thereto that he or she can retrieve and use it as easily and quickly as if he or she carried it on his or her body.
(2) It is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if a person violates subsection (1) by failing to store or leave a firearm in the required manner and as a result thereof a minor gains access to the firearm, without the lawful permission of the minor’s parent or the person having charge of the minor, and possesses or exhibits it, without the supervision required by law:
(a) In a public place; or
(b) In a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner in violation of s. 790.10.
This subsection does not apply if the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person.

The woman broke Florida law and will suffer the consequences. We have laws to punish bad behavior; laws don't physically stop people from still behaving badly anyway.

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 sebster wrote:
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.

Restrictions on magazine size, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either (not that useful).

You do know 'assault rifles', no matter how you want to define them, are very rarely used in crimes. The gun 'frequently used in crimes' is a handgun.

Yes, which is why I just said the "assault weapon" laws had little value (excessively burdensome and not that useful). Prestor Jon also attacked me on that point, even though I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you guys.

I thought the responses to Sebster's idea might be interesting, but these counter responses turned out to be far more enlightening than I would have ever anticipated...

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 sebster wrote:
To the people in favour of greater gun laws, do you think there are any existing gun laws that are excessively burdensome and not that useful, that you would support removing?

Yes, I didn't see much value in the so called "assault weapon" laws. I think longer rifles and weapons used primarily for hunting, or valued by collectors, should not be tarred with the same brush as weapons that are frequently used in crimes. I would tend to be very liberal towards hunting rifles and such.

Restrictions on magazine size, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing, but I also don't feel it accomplishes much either (not that useful).

You do know 'assault rifles', no matter how you want to define them, are very rarely used in crimes. The gun 'frequently used in crimes' is a handgun.

Yes, which is why I just said the "assault weapon" laws had little value (excessively burdensome and not that useful). Prestor Jon also attacked me on that point, even though I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you guys.

I thought the responses to Sebster's idea might be interesting, but these counter responses turned out to be far more enlightening than I would have ever anticipated...

I expounded on a point you made. There is nothing in that post of mine that remotely resembles an attack on you. Seriously, what part of that post do you consider an attack on you?

Prestor Jon wrote:
I expounded on a point you made. There is nothing in that post of mine that remotely resembles an attack on you. Seriously, what part of that post do you consider an attack on you?

Well okay, perhaps I was mistaken. I ignored it at first, because I wasn't sure what you were doing. It sounded like you were trying to contradict something, but I guess you were just explaining my own post back to me... thanks

 Smacks wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
I expounded on a point you made. There is nothing in that post of mine that remotely resembles an attack on you. Seriously, what part of that post do you consider an attack on you?

Well okay, perhaps I was mistaken. I ignored it at first, because I wasn't sure what you were doing. It sounded like you were trying to contradict something, but I guess you were just explaining my own post back to me... thanks

There was information and opinion I wanted to present. Since it was inspired by your post and covered much of the same ground I quoted it for reference and to keep similar information/posts grouped together. It was directed at others more than you, in the spirit of, since you brought up that point here's some more info and my $0.02.