Don't be like this person - fires gun in purse

[WillametteWill]

There's a strong argument to instruct new shooters, who have minimal training, to not carry one in the chamber.

How about a mechanical safety? (Obligatory disclaimer...everyone is allowed to carry as they wish.) I understand, safeties are, "a mechanical device which can fail," taken from every NRA test, but they will prevent situations like this more times than not...as will a 12 pound DA revolver (or DA/SA semiauto) trigger pull.

To me is is awesome when I hear someone with a newer CHL / CCW permit say they just don't feel comfortable carrying until they get more training, experience, comfort with the holster / draw...etc. I respect this enormously. But someone who says, "I'm not there yet so I'll just not carry with a round in the chamber." Bad JuJu. I respect that they "can" but strongly believe they shouldn't. Almost guaranteed that they are a walking liability, especially if they think showing a gun will scare someone...that is flat reckless and is extremely likely to give all gun owners a bad wrap. Many of you have seen my opinions on this...admit they are a tad strong.

$5 it wasn't a revolver.

Agree, chances are much lower, possible, but much lower (by a factor of about 3x from one study I read IIRC).

I'm not gunna take that bet. But isn't a snub nose what all gun shops tell women to carry as a first gun…..

Yes, unless my bride is present and leaps over the counter to duct tape their mouths shut. Seriously...she's a redhead.

 

[Kruel J]

AND I would rather be armed in condition 3 than with no gun at all. Also if one actually were to research self defense shootings I suspect most were NOT of a situation where instantaneous draw and fire was necessary - but where evasion, cover and concealment could be sought out first - and weapon deployment (and charging) could be accomplished with little inconvenience or detriment to personal safety.

I don't hear about too many SD shootings where anyone had time to duck and cover.

Carrying with an empty tube is like not carrying at all. I've seen a video where an off duty cop was carrying unchambered and while he was trying to rack the slide during a scuffle the suspect shot him in the head.

 

[Tony617]

https://www.boston25news.com/news/l...-line-northborough/N3YFFSC3PJERDJFEREBPFWAA7Q

MA, Northborough, Worcester
"The gun owner, a 31-year-old woman from Worcester told police she mistakenly fired her 9mm handgun, while digging through her purse at the cashier."

"The woman will be charged with discharging a firearm within 500 feet of an occupied building."


I speculate that the trigger was not protected - that is not in a holster of some kind.


ex.
View attachment 1072336




Or the holster was not one which secures the pistol and it came off while in her bag.

This happened in MA so is it possible get a carry permit there? I suppose if worked in law enforcement important positions of some kind,

 

[Koda]

agree most self defense use dont have time to rack the slide. While Id rather have someone untrained carry empty it seems the dilemma with it is even if they had time to rack the slide their lack of training is still a factor anyways. If someones not skilled enough to carry loaded can they hit the target under stress?

 

[salmon creek gary]

This happened in MA so is it possible get a carry permit there? I suppose if worked in law enforcement important positions of some kind,

Check provisions of the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (LEOSA). In theory, active officers when off duty, and retired officers, may carry concealed in any state. In practice, LEOSA certification and restrictions limit its attractiveness. In addittion, a number of states (notably NY, NJ) are pretty much "no go" states for officers from other states (there's a world of difference between a permit to carry and an "affirmative defense" against legal charges stemming from doing something not allowed to ordinary subjects of those states).

 

[Member 53328]

agree most self defense use dont have time to rack the slide. While Id rather have someone untrained carry empty it seems the dilemma with it is even if they had time to rack the slide their lack of training is still a factor anyways. If someones not skilled enough to carry loaded can they hit the target under stress?

If they got a rabbits foot in their pocket.

 

[isaacc]

We don't live in a perfect world, and it's not as black and white as that. There are going to be a lot of first time gun owners who buy a gun, stick it in their purse/holster and never shoot it in their entire lives. Should they not carry at all? Probably not, but they do. Instructing them to carry on an empty chamber is a step in mitigating negligent discharges.

Heck, if I'm not mistaken, even the military instructs trained soldiers to carry an empty chamber on sidearms.

I don't think the military is the beacon of best practices, unless speaking of those particular units who actually use their weapons regularly. Many in service who carry have inadequate training, I'd say probably most. I think the best anyone can do is practice. I didnt carry with a round in the chamber for a year. I trained that way. Now I carry with one in the chamber. I don't feel more or less safe, just different training. Key is, training, which this lady clearly lacked.

 

[Member 53328]

I don't think the military is the beacon of best practices, unless speaking of those particular units who actually use their weapons regularly. Many in service who carry have inadequate training, I'd say probably most. I think the best anyone can do is practice. I didnt carry with a round in the chamber for a year. I trained that way. Now I carry with one in the chamber. I don't feel more or less safe, just different training. Key is, training, which this lady clearly lacked.

There are plenty of individuals in the military who have no place handling loaded firearms. Like you said yearly quals at the range don't equate to "quality" or "efficient" training. Using the military as a foundation or guide is going to leave one disappointed at the least.

 

[MikeInOr]

Two weeks ago I received a load of nasty replies when I expressed my belief that CHL holders should be required to attend an onsite in person fire arms safety class before they receive their CHL... like I had to do 25+ years ago before getting my CHL for the first time.

Incidents like this make the responsible gun owning community look bad and are held up by the lefties as reasons why no one should be allowed to own guns no less carry them.

My guess is these incidents / accidents are going to only be more frequent as people without any knowledge of firearms spend a half hour in an online class then receive a CHL. I will hold up this incident as why everyone should be required to have the most basic of in person firearms training before being issues an CHL!

 

[Koda]

Two weeks ago I received a load of nasty replies when I expressed my belief that CHL holders should be required to attend an onsite in person fire arms safety class before they receive their CHL... like I had to do 25+ years ago before getting my CHL for the first time.

Incidents like this make the responsible gun owning community look bad and are held up by the lefties as reasons why no one should be allowed to own guns no less carry them.

My guess is these incidents / accidents are going to only be more frequent as people without any knowledge of firearms spend a half hour in an online class then receive a CHL. I will hold up this incident as why everyone should be required to have the most basic of in person firearms training before being issues an CHL!

my thoughts on this would be very different if the anti gun movement wasnt based entirely on a prohibition model. Until then, I wont support any laws that impact lawful citizens at all but agree the pro gun community needs to do all they can to promote training and safety.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

my thoughts on this would be very different if the anti gun movement wasnt based entirely on a prohibition model. Until then, I wont support any laws that impact lawful citizens at all but agree the pro gun community needs to do all they can to promote training and safety.

Exactly. Now it's a $2000 class, only held once a month and a 6 month waiting list to get in. Too easy to use this as a significant road block.

 

[MikeInOr]

I firmly believe that if the community of responsible fire arm owners don't establish the most basics of requirements for receiving a CHL there are a load of lefties that know NOTHING about guns who will push themselves into the void and establish asinine laws that make absolutely no sense what so ever for us. Without some very basic safety requirements (like having proof of actually having fired a gun once in your life before receiving a CHL) being agreed on by responsible gun owners we will end up with laws like the recent Oregon locked up firearm law.

 

[MikeInOr]

Exactly. Now it's a $2000 class, only held once a month and a 6 month waiting list to get in. Too easy to use this as a significant road block.

That is weird. Here in Central Oregon the basic 2 day live fire firearms safety training class is $215 and there are almost always open slots.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

That is weird. Here in Central Oregon the basic 2 day live fire firearms safety training class is $215 and there are almost always open slots.

It was not a literal "now." More of a prediction of what could happen if there was a mandatory state approved class.

 

[Koda]

I firmly believe that if the community of responsible fire arm owners don't establish the most basics of requirements for receiving a CHL there are a load of lefties that know NOTHING about guns who will push themselves into the void and establish asinine laws that make absolutely no sense what so ever for us. Without some very basic safety requirements (like having proof of actually having shot a gun before receiving a CHL) being agreed on by responsible gun owners we will end up with laws like the recent Oregon locked up firearm law.

Theres some truth to that, but the problem is even if the progun community makes training a requirement the anti gun movement is still going to push their prohibition model. In the mean time, how do we support the right for all people to bear arms if we impose financial limitations and approvals before one is allowed to exercise that right? Should someone be denied their constitutional right to defend themself with arms, if they cant take or pass a class?

 

[MikeInOr]

It was not a literal "now." More of a prediction of what could happen if there was a mandatory state approved class.

This is called a "slippery slope" argument... "In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen."

When I was 23 and wanted to get a CHL this is the way it was! The state required an in person live fire firearms safety class or comparable (military service was an equivalent) before you could get an CHL. I went through the class twice, once for my CHL and once with a girlfriend so she could get her CHL. The classes were taught by private individuals not the state! Most of the classes were taught by cops or ex-cops or ex-military. It was really the same as the requirement for a hunting safety class before getting a hunting license is now.

Where is the moral outrage about having to take a hunter safety class before being allowed the most basic of human rights; to put food on the family table?

 

[Koda]

This is called a "slippery slope" argument... "In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends. The slippery slope involves an acceptance of a succession of events without direct evidence that this course of events will happen."

When I was 23 and wanted to get a CHL this is the way it was! The state required an in person live fire firearms safety class or comparable (military service was an equivalent) before you could get an CHL. I went through the class twice, once for my CHL and once with a girlfriend so she could get her CHL. The classes were taught by private individuals not the state! Most of the classes were taught by cops or ex-cops or ex-military. It was really the same as the requirement for a hunting safety class before getting a hunting license is now.

Oregon has never required a live fire class to get a CHL. Just a basic safety class.

A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. it can be without evidence, but it can be a legitimate argument in cases with evidence. The gun control has whittled away at gun rights for centuries and their prohibition model is no secrete its right there on their websites.

 

[sobo]

I firmly believe that if the community of responsible fire arm owners don't establish the most basics of requirements for receiving a CHL there are a load of lefties that know NOTHING about guns who will push themselves into the void and establish asinine laws that make absolutely no sense what so ever for us. Without some very basic safety requirements (like having proof of actually having fired a gun once in your life before receiving a CHL) being agreed on by responsible gun owners we will end up with laws like the recent Oregon locked up firearm law.

...or the similar bullschit in WA...

 

[Ferryman]

Most y'all are missing the point here. Its not about what condition one should carry a firearm, or how much training one needs, its about carrying a loaded firearm as just another thing rattling around in an unorganized purse. Or more directly, this is about stupid people winning stupid prizes. Its like bringing a loaded gun to a TSA check point. All training in the world can't save you from yourself.

I actually knew a woman who did this, about twenty something years ago. Hit her husband in the leg with a .380. They were both pretty much complete idiots. And they had both completed NRA pistol courses.

 

[Koda]

several years ago I read about a woman shopping and her kid in the grocery cart found her purse gun and pulled the trigger, killed the mom.

Yet holster companies continue to make concealed carry purses.