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

[sobo]

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.

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.

 

[Member 53328]

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.

Well off the body carry is dumb. Whether it's in a purse or a backpack. My opinion of course.

 

[isaacc]

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.

Why blame purse manufacturers? Why not blame the gun manufacturer? Where does the blame logic stop if not aimed at the person who misused the product?

 

[Koda]

Why blame purse manufacturers? Why not blame the gun manufacturer? Where does the blame logic stop if not aimed at the person who misused the product?

I never blamed the victim for misusing a product, for all I know she used her purse as it was designed. I do think off body carry is irresponsible and unsafe though.

 

[isaacc]

I never blamed the victim for misusing a product, for all I know she used her purse as it was designed. I do think off body carry is irresponsible and unsafe though.

That's my point! You didn't blame her. *I am not implying that manufacturers are blameless* However, how is that on the purse manufacturer that SHE ALLOWED HER CHILD TO GET AHOLD OF HER PURSE WITH A LOADED GUN IN IT.

 

[Koda]

That's my point! You didn't blame her. *I am not implying that manufacturers are blameless* However, how is that on the purse manufacturer that SHE ALLOWED HER CHILD TO GET AHOLD OF HER PURSE WITH A LOADED GUN IN IT.

I dont think they should be even selling concealed carry purses in the first place. I think they are dangerous and promote a false sense of security.... I also wont say the lady allowed her kid access, or if she had a CC purse in the first place.

 

[tac]

The most dangerous thing Mrs tac carries in her purse is a credit card.

 

[PaulF]

IMO if you're gunna carry without one in the pipe then there is no point in carrying at all. If you're not comfortable/confident/safe/proficient with carrying a loaded gun it may be a good idea to pump the brakes and practice awhile. Nothing wrong with that.

Carrying empty chamber is better, then having to ask for a "time-out while i run home and get something"

It takes an extra 1 seconds to chamber a round, and if they make clambering a round part of they're training then I don't see a problem with it. Nit just train but train on a timer.

I have nothing against carrying hot (and agree this id a better way to carry) but I disagree and always will, with the idea that no gun is better then an empty chamber.

There are some situations where an having to rack the slide before getting to work will likely get you killed, but there are other situations where a stealthy draw (like an and robbery or shooting where there are other victims prefer the threat to focus on) can save your life.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Training...

In most states one needs to be trained and have proof of training before getting a drivers license....yet there still are accidents and negligence with driving.
Training alone , is no guarantee of anything.

This is not to say that training is no good or useless.

If the quality of training is good and suited to the person being trained...
And if the person who has been trained follows though with practice of the trained skills...
Then all would be wonderful
Its that little two letter word that can be a big issue here..."If".

Please note that I am not in favor of mandated training for exercising a Right.

We leave in a world filled with choices...
There are only two choices :
The right ones...
And all the other wrong ones.
What this looks like for you may be different than for someone else.

Carry as you wish....carry what you want...
Own what you want.....
Just don't make that choice for me.
Andy

 

[Member 53328]

Carrying empty chamber is better, then having to ask for a "time-out while i run home and get something"

It takes an extra 1 seconds to chamber a round, and if they make clambering a round part of they're training then I don't see a problem with it. Nit just train but train on a timer.

I have nothing against carrying hot (and agree this id a better way to carry) but I disagree and always will, with the idea that no gun is better then an empty chamber.

There are some situations where an having to rack the slide before getting to work will likely get you killed, but there are other situations where a stealthy draw (like an and robbery or shooting where there are other victims prefer the threat to focus on) can save your life.

"If they're training" you said it yourself. I said the same thing above. I disagree with this method of carrying. We live in America. Do what you want. Carry how you want. Carry what you want. But I have the right to also look at it and say it's unsafe and stupid. My opinion. It doesn't matter to anyone but me. You don't have to agree. That's fine.

 

[Xaevian]

Training...

In most states one needs to be trained and have proof of training before getting a drivers license....yet there still are accidents and negligence with driving.
Training alone , is no guarantee of anything.

This is not to say that training is no good or useless.

If the quality of training is good and suited to the person being trained...
And if the person who has been trained follows though with practice of the trained skills...
Then all would be wonderful
Its that little two letter word that can be a big issue here..."If".

Please note that I am not in favor of mandated training for exercising a Right.

We leave in a world filled with choices...
There are only two choices :
The right ones...
And all the other wrong ones.

You are like a mind reader, down to the driving test and everything.

 

[washagonian]

 

[WillametteWill]

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!

I will definitely not be nasty. Respect your opinion. To me it is this difference between should and shall. Should most folks? Yes. Just don't agree with the shall since it is likely (insert the the name of a crazy, anti-gun politician here) may be the one's dictating the requirement. In Cali, the county must approve the course and you must qualify with EVERY firearm that you plan on carrying. The CHL class I teach is 12 hours and includes live fire. This is because I agree with you that folks will benefit from more knowledge. Some who take my class already have their CHL. I think we are very much on the same page at the should level.

I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery, someone smarter than me once said.

It takes an extra 1 seconds to chamber a round, and if they make clambering a round part of they're training then I don't see a problem with it. Nit just train but train on a timer.

But since many gunfights happen within bad breath distance you may not have the time or two hands to make this happen. Those who carry off-body also need to understand this limitation of course as well. More situational awareness is needed when carrying off body.

 

[RicInOR]

The most dangerous thing Mrs tac carries in her purse is a credit card.

What no pencil? We've seen John Wick.

 

[CRBMoA]

Taking off and landing are important if you are a pilot.

You cannot 'Learn to Fly' and then pick up 'Take Off and Landing' next term.

If you cannot Take Off and Land, you cannot fly by yourself.

That is not being mean or judgmental - that is how the world works.

Before one of you goes off on Rights vs Privileges, THAT is not what I am talking about.

I am talking about whether one is sufficiently prepared to carry a weapon in a dynamic, real life environment. Or not.

 

[RicInOR]

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!

Mike - sorry you got nasty replies. I can't agree with your position.


I think everyone who owns a gun needs to understand the laws about them, where they reside. Few do that.
Most don't know anything about the law and the law can be confusing - see the KR Trial about what kind of rifle a 17yr old could possess.

I think everyone who owns a gun needs to know how to safely use it. And, everyone around it needs to know how to safely handle it ( spouse, responsible child - handle means pick up and move not shoot )

Maybe that started with Grandpa out back. Or in the Scouts. Or in Basic.

I am far more likely to be killed by someone driving - and we don't require all that much training to operate a car. Just pass a simple test -- somewhere.

But, any government intrusion on my rights? No.
Put me on the side that says the 2nd amendment is my CHL.



Some years back I took the class from Firearms Academy of Seattle. One of the ideas they stressed is that if anything bad happens, righteous or not, you will be under a microscope and it is far cheaper to have had ongoing training in defensive gun use - legal and physical - than it will be to go to trial. The ability to show the Powers that Be that you are a responible gun owner may keep you out of a courtroom.


Great idea to get trained.
No to mandated.

 

[WillametteWill]

Mike - sorry you got nasty replies. I can't agree with your position.


I think everyone who owns a gun needs to understand the laws about them, where they reside. Few do that.
Most don't know anything about the law and the law can be confusing - see the KR Trial about what kind of rifle a 17yr old could possess.

I think everyone who owns a gun needs to know how to safely use it. And, everyone around it needs to know how to safely handle it ( spouse, responsible child - handle means pick up and move not shoot )

Maybe that started with Grandpa out back. Or in the Scouts. Or in Basic.

I am far more likely to be killed by someone driving - and we don't require all that much training to operate a car. Just pass a simple test -- somewhere.

But, any government intrusion on my rights? No.
Put me on the side that says the 2nd amendment is my CHL.



Some years back I took the class from Firearms Academy of Seattle. One of the ideas they stressed is that if anything bad happens, righteous or not, you will be under a microscope and it is far cheaper to have had ongoing training in defensive gun use - legal and physical - than it will be to go to trial. The ability to show the Powers that Be that you are a responible gun owner may keep you out of a courtroom.


Great idea to get trained.
No to mandated.

Great post @RicInOR

If the Rittenhouse trial is not an example of what we may be up against I don't know what is.

 

[CRBMoA]

To paraphrase myself, WE are on trial.

 

[sobo]

Training...

In most states one needs to be trained and have proof of training before getting a drivers license....yet there still are accidents and negligence with driving.
Training alone , is no guarantee of anything.

This is not to say that training is no good or useless.

If the quality of training is good and suited to the person being trained...
And if the person who has been trained follows though with practice of the trained skills...
Then all would be wonderful
Its that little two letter word that can be a big issue here..."If".

Please note that I am not in favor of mandated training for exercising a Right.

We leave in a world filled with choices...
There are only two choices :
The right ones...
And all the other wrong ones.
What this looks like for you may be different than for someone else.

Carry as you wish....carry what you want...
Own what you want.....
Just don't make that choice for me.
Andy

Once again, wise words from The Sage of NWFA...

 

[CLT65]

Interesting subject, and one that I'm hesitant to step into. There are certain things in the firearms community as a whole that some people get really worked up about, and I've learned to just stay silent if my own opinion is not the "correct" one.

We all make our own choices and take our chances. There are some who say that if you're going to do a certain thing, such as carry a gun, you have to go all the way and do it "right". You need extensive professional training, weekly personal training, the very best gear, better carry chambered or you're a dolt, etc..

On the other hand, we have more and more "Constitutional carry" states, where people who've never handled a gun before go into a gun shop and put a new gun they've never even fired into their pocket, purse, or $10 Uncle Mike's holster. Seems like an accident waiting to happen, to me. We can complain about these people all day long, but unless you mandate training (I'm generally opposed to these kind of mandates myself, in principle), they are not going to do it. They just aren't.

I like to look at statistics to make logical, practical decisions. I could get training to become a professional firefighter (in my spare time) and install a commercial grade fire suppression system to keep my home safe.
Realistically though, I'm careful with fire, have taught my family to also be careful. I have multiple smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. I think we are very reasonably safe from a home fire.

Do I have extensive professional CCW training, and carry religiously every day? Well, that's my personal business, but realistically, my life is quite boring and we simply don't go places where I feel the need, and we really only know and spend time with other boring people who are also at very low risk due to their boring/law abiding lifestyle. Statistically, crime/victim stats for boring people like us are very, very low. Yes, I know something could happen tomorrow, but statistically, that's extremely unlikely.

Also, looking at self-defense incidents, statistically fewer are such that you need your firearm instantly. Most occur with some warning or time to rack a slide. Some do not, so of course it is definitely best to have it ready in an instant. I'm not saying it's "right", but statistically, having a gun with ammo in the magazine is statistically better that no gun at all. The vast majority of my life I would be comfortable with no gun at all. Again, not saying that's "right", just statistical reality for most boring people.

So, in my typically long-winded, roundabout way, all I'm trying to say is that maybe some people shouldn't be pushed to carry chambered. Some people really shouldn't carry at all, though I still support their legal right to do so, as long as they can do it legally.

Ideally if you're going to carry, you have a responsibility to be safe and competent with your firearm, through training, practice, etc.. Without burdensome regulations that most of us are ideologically opposed to, there are simply going to be ignorant and unsafe people carrying guns. To me it's just a practical matter of how to encourage safety for those who aren't willing to take the time to do it right.

In general, exceptions aside, the firearm community does a pretty good job at encouraging safety. Accidental gun deaths have declined historically, and I'm actually surprised at how relatively few there are, given how many new gun owners there are out there. There's still a long way to go though. Gun safety is a very big deal to me. I've heard too many terrible stories in my life.