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.

Prestor Jon wrote:
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.

Well I agree 99% with what you said. Though I don't think it is true of "all" gun laws, but certainly "some". I would also add that while I agree the laws in question were/are stupid, I don't believe it's because the law makers are inept. I think part of the issue is that their hands are tied, so those kind of useless token gestures (ban pistol grips) is all they can offer people who are asking for better control.

Since you did quote me, and Sebster, I feel like it might have been appropriate to also answer Sebster's question. I appreciate that there is information and opinion you want to present, but I put my shoe on the other foot and tried to engage with you. For you to then quote me, put your shoe on the same foot you always have it on, and then keep running with it... That was a bit of a cheap-shot.

 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.

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.

This is true, and also gives me a opportunity to remind you all that you can generally get a safety kit, including trigger locks, for free!

I personally use a safe instead of trigger locks, but whatever floats your boat.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Revolvers usually don't have a safety.

They do - a very heavy trigger pull in double action.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The fact that guns are designed to shoot lethal projectiles might be a reason to consider them unsafe in a way that a smartphone isn't. Maybe a toddler could manage to remove and swallow the battery, or choke on the SIM card.

Of course if you follow safety procedure, and remove and store the ammunition separately, an unloaded gun is just an inert machine.

"unsafe by design" means that the design itself is inherently dangerous to the operator of those that are in it's vicinity, even without human input. The false comparison to a smart phone is deserving of no further comment.

 Deadshot wrote:
Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.

How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Having a firearm discharge by being dropped would be very unusual as firearms are almost all drop safe.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 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.

Yup, especially given the image shown of her firearm

 Talizvar wrote:
I suppose I should have said "guns are typically safe for the person using it, but terribly dangerous for those it is pointed at."

Correct

 Talizvar wrote:
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?

The tort of negligence

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

Follow the Four Rules, and do not leave firearms where other can get them

 Talizvar wrote:
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.

If you are arguing from a Utopian perspective and demanding absolute perfection you are going to be sorely disappointed. What "minimum safety" standards are you proposing, and who enforces them? We already have laws for safe storage, handling, and the punishment for negligent use of firearms.

 Talizvar wrote:
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".

If you are transporting it across State lines and with a permit that does not have reciprocity with the state you are travelling through.

 Talizvar wrote:
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.

A holster
Firearm kept in a holster

http://www.academia.edu/9677098/UnSafe_by_Design_Forensic_Gunsmithing_and_Firearms_Accident_Investigations

Here's a paper all about problems with gun safety. There is a book too that you can get from Amazon.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.

How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?

On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.

In a four-year-old it's about hand size as much as anything. Perhaps the boy was able to use both hands to grasp the gun, compress the grip safety and pull the trigger. It still would have required him to cock the weapon if it wasn't already cocked.

I'm not saying this is impossible, but it seems fairly unlikely. I don't find it super easy to cock my Beretta PX4 and it's only an air pistol.

Speaking of kids and guns.....

Don't seem to be the most....stable?...of individuals wielding this gun...

Wonder if she had a CCW permit and a holster....?

http://m.kcci.com/news/2-charged-in-gun-incident-caught-on-camera/38471798

 Deadshot wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.

How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?

On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.

Then please stop making statements such as "something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality" or "demonic, Omen-esque, interference". Thumb safeties on pistols are very easy to operate, and require very little pressure. Grip safeties likewise require little pressure. The ability to operate the slide is immaterial because it is safe to say that the lady carried it in Condition 1 (round in chamber, hammer back, safety on), and the trigger in most 1911's are usually fairly light.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In a four-year-old it's about hand size as much as anything. Perhaps the boy was able to use both hands to grasp the gun, compress the grip safety and pull the trigger. It still would have required him to cock the weapon if it wasn't already cocked.

I'm not saying this is impossible, but it seems fairly unlikely. I don't find it super easy to cock my Beretta PX4 and it's only an air pistol.

I personally do not carry my 1911 with a round in the chamber, but that's a personal choice - it's designed to be safely carried in condition 1 ("cocked and locked"); one in the chamber, hammer cocked, safety on. I'd rather trade off a little readiness vs not accidentally putting one in your foot or thigh on the draw, but as someone once pointed out, that extra second or two could cost me my life at some point so there are advantages and disadvantages to both. Point is, one in the chamber and cocked is a strong possibility.

Evidentially that second or two nearly cost this woman her life.
It's always better to have a gun with its ammunition not in the chamber. The act of making ready itself can be enough to deter attack. It certainly ratchets up the threat level.

Or does the wild west still exist, and you still have quick draw shoot outs in the street? ;-)

Mind you, if you feel so threatened that you have to carry a firearm, the condition of that weapon is almost immaterial. But let's put it in perspective. On a day to day stroll about in camp Bastion, I never had a round in my chamber, until we went outside the wire.

How bloody dangerous is the suburban United states?

Having a round in the chamber is not only a matter of speed. What if your other hand/arm is disabled? What if you are having to use it to hold off your attacker? Perhaps you are using it to shield another person? There are many possibilities where you may have to employ your firearm with the other hand/arm unavailable to you, which means that chambering a round in such a situation will be made much more difficult, or even impossible.

Of course, it is up to the individual how they carry, but many experts and instructors recommend carrying with a round chambered.

I would think the state of readiness is rather moot when it is rattling around the floor of your truck.
It would have more relevance if holstered which appears to be the favored way this issue could have been avoided.
If I needed to defend myself in my vehicle, I think the first response would be to focus on driving away or over the threat...

 Talizvar wrote:

If I needed to defend myself in my vehicle, I think the first response would be to focus on driving away or over the threat...

Yup. Most instructors will say the same thing. Avoidance/escape is by far the favored response.

Not that this was really an option in this case, due to the gross negligence involved.

 r_squared wrote:
How bloody dangerous is the suburban United states?

Terrorists, the corrupt government, muggers, rapists, random psychos, children with their parents guns and gang members regularly have to fight it out over who actally gets to assault anyone they identify as not carrying a gun. Really inconvenient for all concerned.

 r_squared wrote:
Evidentially that second or two nearly cost this woman her life.
It's always better to have a gun with its ammunition not in the chamber. The act of making ready itself can be enough to deter attack. It certainly ratchets up the threat level.

That is another urban myth, and one that should not be relied upon. If it were that advantageous to utilize a strategy of making a firearms ready then most people would carry in Condition Butterscotch

**discretion advised - possible language warning**




Of course making a firearm ready is much more complicated when operating a motor vehicle, dealing with a child etc., unless the owner of the firearm has octopus DNA

I usually carry Consition Three, just because I have a toddler. Yes, the gun is on my body in a holster that covers the trigger (and all my carry guns have a trigger safety only) and if it's not on my hip it's unloaded and locked away.

It's simply a piece of mind thing for me. Carry condition is one of those things everybody should decide for themselves, just like what type of gun, what caliber, what holster, etc (although I personally would never advocate condition one for off-body carry).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.

How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?

On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.

Then please stop making statements such as "something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality" or "demonic, Omen-esque, interference". Thumb safeties on pistols are very easy to operate, and require very little pressure. Grip safeties likewise require little pressure. The ability to operate the slide is immaterial because it is safe to say that the lady carried it in Condition 1 (round in chamber, hammer back, safety on), and the trigger in most 1911's are usually fairly light.

Which was my original point. The baby would not have the strength to pull a slide, I know that much. Therefore the woman has left the gun in a state the child can easily fire it. She is thus responsible (and in my opinion got what she deserved for such stupidity.

 r_squared wrote:
How bloody dangerous is the suburban United states?

Do you think everybody lives in the suburbs?

 Deadshot wrote:
Which was my original point. The baby would not have the strength to pull a slide, I know that much. Therefore the woman has left the gun in a state the child can easily fire it.

Really? Because your original point (supernatural forces notwithstanding) was;
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/683185.page#8515601

 Deadshot wrote:
Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/683185.page#8515633

 Deadshot wrote:
Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.

**edit to add**
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/683185.page#8516966

 Deadshot wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?

On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.

The slide is typically not considered a safety feature, and it appears that you already knew we were not discussing the slide.

 Deadshot wrote:
She is thus responsible (and in my opinion got what she deserved for such stupidity.

Has anyone disputed that she was not responsible for the consequences of her negligence?

She clearly was a complete gakker so anyone who defended her would have to be looked on with some degree of suspicion.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
Which was my original point. The baby would not have the strength to pull a slide, I know that much. Therefore the woman has left the gun in a state the child can easily fire it.

Really? Because your original point (supernatural forces notwithstanding) was;
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/683185.page#8515601

 Deadshot wrote:
Did the gun not have a safety? Surely a toddler cannot operate a safety catch, let alone understand the safety catch's existance, without some sort of demonic, Omen-esque, interference.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210/683185.page#8515633

 Deadshot wrote:
Yes. As Kilkrazy said, the hand size and grip strength needed to disengage all the safety features, so they weren't engaged correctly, therefore, either the safeties were not engaged properly, else it would have to be something impossibly like demonic possession or the hand of god himself to put this situation in reality. Thus the gun was not properly made safe.

**edit to add**
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/683185.page#8516966

 Deadshot wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:How much pressure do you think is required to operate a manual safety on a gun, or a grip safety?

On a pistol, can't say for sure, never held one. The only weapon I've held is the L98A2 GP cadet rifle. It doesn't take much to hit that trigger, it's more about the dexterity and strength to hold the weapon while operating the mechanism. My 13 year old brother has a airsoft m9 (its mine but I left it at home, no ammo), he's a bit weedy for his age but he's stronger than a toddler, and holding the gun presents him some difficulty. He isn't able to pull the spring loaded slide. A toddler wouldn't be able to hold the thing.

The slide is typically not considered a safety feature, and it appears that you already knew we were not discussing the slide.

 Deadshot wrote:
She is thus responsible (and in my opinion got what she deserved for such stupidity.

Has anyone disputed that she was not responsible for the consequences of her negligence?

How is anything I said there different to what I said I said?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Evidentially that second or two nearly cost this woman her life.
It's always better to have a gun with its ammunition not in the chamber. The act of making ready itself can be enough to deter attack. It certainly ratchets up the threat level.

That is another urban myth, and one that should not be relied upon. If it were that advantageous to utilize a strategy of making a firearms ready then most people would carry in Condition Butterscotch

**discretion advised - possible language warning**




Of course making a firearm ready is much more complicated when operating a motor vehicle, dealing with a child etc., unless the owner of the firearm has octopus DNA

Kind of laborious to try and make a point, and not even a very good one. Any competent and trained individual can make a weapon ready in seconds. The only time anyone should realistically expect to have a weapon ready to fire from the safety, is in a state of high threat level.
If you're going shopping with a toddler and you have to have a firearm in that condition, then you are either in some futuristic nightmare dystopia like mega city one, or apparently any urban or extra urban area of the United States.

 Knockagh wrote:
I don't think the pro gun lobby in the states have any idea how it sounds in the rest of the western world to have a pistol in a car. I know you have a different culture with guns. The whole of Europe just cannot even come close to grasping why anyone would even think its ok.

I think the women of Cologne have some idea...

I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.

 r_squared wrote:
I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.

I don't know, some of the self defense laws in Europe are pants-on-head crazy, a gang rape in public should be enough to shock some of the delusion right out of someone.

 Hordini wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
How bloody dangerous is the suburban United states?

Do you think everybody lives in the suburbs?

Does it matter? What's your point? Or are you just trying to nit pick an argument?

If you like I'll just refer to the urban, and extra urban United states in all future posts, if that's OK with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormrider wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.

I don't know, some of the self defense laws in Europe are pants-on-head crazy, a gang rape in public should be enough to shock some of the delusion right out of someone.

You'd think that the murder of school children would do the same to Americans as well, but it's different strokes for different folks.

 r_squared wrote:
I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.

Uh, i saw this...

Protesters held aloft a sign reading, "Arm Cologne" as up to 500 people rallied against attacks by members of the migrant community during the city's New Year celebrations, and the authorities’ failure to stop dozens of sexual assaults which took place.

https://www.rt.com/news/328045-cologne-women-sexual-violence/


That particular issue has some darker elements to it than just people with PTSD, there appears to be a cultural/religous disrespect angle to it too.

Apart from an inflamatory placard at a demo, there's no serious campaign to attempt to arm women with guns in cologne.

Anyway, stop trying to deflect away from Americas inability to deal with its obsession with private gun ownership. If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

 r_squared wrote:
If the President of the United States, the supposed most powerful man in the world cannot bring the NRA to heel and effect his vision of effective gun control to his own country, I would think very carefully before criticising any other Nation.

It's not his place to do so.

 r_squared wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormrider wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
I very much doubt that those women would agree with you. But I'm not in a position to make any assertion on their behalf, but then neither are you.

I don't know, some of the self defense laws in Europe are pants-on-head crazy, a gang rape in public should be enough to shock some of the delusion right out of someone.

You'd think that the murder of school children would do the same to Americans as well, but it's different strokes for different folks.

Horrible events like that are not caused by allowing citizens to own and carry around weaponry. They're caused by people having psychotic episodes.

1 guy flipping his lid is no reason to trample of the rights of millions of others.