SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Guardian reports that the woman who was accidentally shot dead by her two-year-old son in an Idaho Walmart is described by those who knew her as a gun lover, a motivated academic and a successful nuclear research scientist who worked for Battelle’s Idaho National Laboratory and wrote several papers there including one on using glass ceramic to store nuclear waste (PDF). Rutledge was raised in north-east Idaho and always excelled at school, former high school classmate Kathleen Phelps said, recalling her as “extremely smart. … valedictorian of our class, very motivated and the smartest person I know. … Getting good grades was always very important to her.”
Veronica Rutledge and her husband loved everything about guns. They practiced at shooting ranges. They hunted. And both of them, relatives and friends say, had permits to carry concealed firearms. “They are painting Veronica as irresponsible, and that is not the case,” says Terry Rutledge, her husband’s father. “… I brought my son up around guns, and he has extensive experience shooting it. And Veronica had had hand gun classes; they’re both licensed to carry, and this wasn’t just some purse she had thrown her gun into.” Many locals don't discern anything odd with a 29-year-old woman carrying a loaded gun into a Wal-Mart during the holiday season. “It’s pretty common around here,” says Stu Miller. “A lot of people carry loaded guns.” More than 85,000 people, 7 percent of Idaho's population, are licensed to carry concealed weapons (PDF), “In Idaho, we don’t have to worry about a lot of crime and things like that,” says Sheri Sandow. “And to see someone with a gun isn’t bizarre. [Veronica] wasn’t carrying a gun because she felt unsafe. She was carrying a gun because she was raised around guns. This was just a horrible accident.”
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:32AM
Just a hook to get the story into SN and /., as best as I can tell. Otherwise, every street shooting would appear here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by n1 on Saturday January 03 2015, @12:54AM
Editor here, thought this would come up.
Yes the 'nuclear scientist' was the hook that made me decide that this story does belong on the site. The main reason for that is the woman in question is more 'like us' than the average type of person involved in one of these tragic accidents. On from that, there is usually the position that the people involved in these incidents were not properly trained or respectful of their guns and such things do not happen to people with common sense, people 'like us'.
I thought this was an interesting example of that it can and does happen to anyone, even if they're more intelligent than the average and have had all the training, the appropriate and responsible exposure to firearms you would hope.
For me, this is not clickbait or incitement to start a flame war... Personally, I am interested in the perspectives people have on this incident with this additional insight and want to see a reasonable and interesting discussion on it.
My own 'anti' or 'pro' gun position is... I am not an American but have travelled the world and been in all sorts of dangerous places, including within the US, and never felt that a gun on my person (concealed or otherwise) would have made me any safer. However, if I was a US resident I would most likely go through the process to obtain a firearm. To me the US government 'want to take our guns away' opinion is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted; there are so many guns already they're not going away, no matter what the law says or what the government tries to do... So yeah I would probably feel safer there with a gun if I lived there. The other few dozen countries i've visited? Not at all.
So as much as I respect, understand and generally agree with the right to bear arms position of many Americans, that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion on the topic.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:34AM
> So yeah I would probably feel safer there with a gun if I lived there.
You should consider the fact that gun suicides outnumber gun homicides nearly 2-to-1. [vocativ.com] It is easy to say, "I would never get that depressed" but (a) mental disease is not voluntary and (b) it is even more difficult to be sure of the mental health of the people we live with.
Also, the violent crime rate is way, way, way down over the last 20 years. [chicagotribune.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:01AM
No arguments at all, especially about depression. It has affected me and several members of my family, if I had easy access to guns a few years ago I probably would have taken the 'easy way out'.
The statistics say violent crime is down, I don't have an opinion on it really. The crime fearing population say those statistics are lies and manipulated, I put this down to the media fear mongers. Additionally, the government of the day also has a strong incentive to make sure those figures head downward during their term in office.
Also I would like to put emphasis on the "feel" part of my statement, being safer is almost irrelevant to ones own perception. Same as with the above violent crime statistics, there being much lower rates of violent crime than there was 20 years ago does not stop large numbers of people being more scared now than they were then.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:54AM
Don't know how it is in other countries, but the US Constitution does not task the Government with protecting citizens from self-inflicted harm. It would be incompatible with the notion of personal freedom. Part of that freedom is the freedom of exit on your own terms.
It all depends on how you count. Many assaults are not reported, as it is obvious to everyone involved that the guilty won't be found; and even if found, there won't be enough evidence to convict. I can agree that mafia with their Tommy guns is history, and that was time of violent crimes. But those were crimes against other mafia groups, not against an innocent citizen. Now we have bored teenagers who entertain themselves with knocking you out - and that directly impacts, so to say, the innocent citizen. Numerically the count of dead bodies may be lower, but the count of broken bones and cerebral contusions and humiliation is growing. Note also that for each pedestrian assaulted we have 1,000 pedestrians that are in fear of becoming a victim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:32AM
> US Constitution does not task the Government with protecting citizens from self-inflicted harm.
How is that relevant to the question of whether or not it is a good idea to keep a gun in the house?
> Now we have bored teenagers who entertain themselves with knocking you out
A couple of incidents that may or may not have a lot more context to them is statistical noise shouldn't be very compelling.
I recently read an article postulating that conservatives value mythos (stories) while liberals value logos (facts) and that's why neither finds the other group sensible. While nothing about people is ever 100% I see your post as an excellent example of that principle - in your mind anecdotal stories about kids playing the "knockout game" are more credible than 30+ years of reasonably consistent collection of nationwide crime statistics.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:58AM
Stories about crime that is unfolding here and now and that you can see with your own eyes are always more pertinent than 30+ years of statistical data that is interpreted for you by people unknown by, for example, averaging crime across densely populated inner cities and large, lightly populated rural properties. Even if statisticians tell you that the street in front of your house is perfectly safe, on average, you should be wary if a bunch of very suspicious people are gathering up there right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:20AM
And how many cases of teenagers "playing the knock-out game" have you witnessed with your own eyes?
Oh yeah, none.
In fact, your entire knowledge of it is through an interpretation by people unknown.
I find your mis-characterization oddly satisfying, proof that facts indeed do not matter to your narrative, just story-telling.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:40AM
Why none? Far more than that. And you can witness them too, on YouTube, in CCTV and personal records, and draw your own conclusions. Perhaps the trend will eventually fade, but so far "the game" is "played." It's easy to identify - it's an unprovoked, often unexpected assault that has no other purpose. Such signature - an attack just to prove your prowess - has not been seen since Japanese warriors ceased to test their new swords on live people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:52AM
> And you can witness them too, on YouTube, in CCTV and personal records,
What's a "personal record?"
And how do you know the videos on youtube aren't "interpreted by people unknown?" That they aren't staged? All I found was fakes and local news segments long on hype and low on analysis.
Its oddly satisfying that your scepticism is reserved for people who are part of a system of accountability as imperfect as it may be, but not for random anons posting to youtube.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:52PM
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I meant privately performed video recording, as opposed to CCTV that is usually operated by businesses and governments.
I take what I see for what I see. If I see an assault, I think it is an assault - not a staged performance. Especially in CCTV records, where "the actors" would have no way to know what is recorded and how to get to it. Combine it with words of witnesses and with police reports, and the picture becomes pretty consistent. It is certainly more believable than a country-wide practical joke that includes the actors, the victims, the doctors, the police, and the media.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:53AM
Tell about those statistics to Christopher Lane [abc.net.au]
Maybe you don't believe it was about "playing a game"? Well? [abc.net.au]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:00PM
(1) Shooting people isn't part of the "knockout game."
(2) Why is that anecdote more meaningful than the anecdote about this woman?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday January 04 2015, @10:35PM
Anecdote [wikipedia.org] - an anecdote is a short and amusing but serious account, which may depict a real/fake incident or character.
(I fail to see where's the "amusing" bit in the two cases, to consider them a proper Wikipedia anecdote)
anecdote [merriam-webster.com] - a brief account of something interesting that happened especially to one personally
(well, at least the two stories qualify as "interesting". But, whatever floats your boat, if you prefer statistics to real life incidents which may tell you something)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:44AM
the count of dead bodies may be lower, but the count of broken bones and cerebral contusions and humiliation is growing.
Those crimes stats aren't just for murders. They are about all forms of violent crime, rates of assault are down even more than the murder rate.
(Score: 1) by DNied on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:24PM
And that's why the US Government never declared any silly "War on drugs". Hmm...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday January 03 2015, @05:25PM
whenever i see somebody who's pro-gun but anti-drug, i always use their exact same, word-for-word pro-gun arguments back to them as pro-drug arguments. its fun to watch them quickly tear apart their own points as to why guns should be legal. they never, ever have a justification as to why guns should be ok but not drugs, except for bullshit like, "oh well that's different", meaning it always boils down to the bullshit, "guns are ok because I say so".
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:31PM
I would have set up street kiosks with heroin-loaded syringes. Anyone who hears a short lecture about suicide by drugs and signs on a dotted line will be given a dose for free. Darwin will take care of the rest.
Elsewhere on SN I also proposed setting up a secure area (a city block, or a small town) for use of drugs. Anyone can come in, but he can leave only after the drugs' effect wears off. Drugs are available inside, along with modern "opium houses" for their use.
The modern society is obsessed with value of human life - but that is valid only if the human in question also values his own life and life of others. If he does not - well, humans are nowhere close to extinction. The society will probably manage without drug users. Treatment has to be offered, of course. But the decision has to belong to the person in question. We may lose a few geniuses this way, but the society will be far healthier.
(Score: 1) by DNied on Sunday January 04 2015, @09:38AM
That's almost all kind of fine and dandy, but - back to the point - my counterexample was meant to show you how "not being tasked by the constitution" and "being against personal freedom" are two factors that never prevented the US gov't from doing things.
Sooo... You probably can't use those factors as convincing arguments for why the gov't never restricted weapons. There must be something else...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 04 2015, @01:02PM
Its a version of the no true scotsman fallacy.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @04:55PM
Yes, there is. It's called physical inability, so far, to violate 2A without massive repercussions. Not to say that they aren't trying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:50AM
> Also I would like to put emphasis on the "feel" part of my statement, being safer is almost irrelevant to ones own perception.
That's true, but it is not a good way to make decisions. The same mechanism is behind all kinds of other bad decisions like anti-vaxxers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:04AM
suicides are irrelevant; if someone wants to kill themselves they will use whatever tool is available
the drop in violent crime stats likely correlates more closely with the increase in police powers and government overreach, and are probably fudged in any case
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:37AM
> suicides are irrelevant; if someone wants to kill themselves they will use whatever tool is available
No, that has been proven to be a false characterization. They may indeed try to kill themselves, but literally all other forms of suicide take much more preparation and are much less final. A gunshot is one and done. Pills, hanging, co2 suffocation, jumping off a building, suicide-by-cop, they all have higher survival rates and give the person more opportunity to change their mind.
They've also found that suicide survivors tend not to try again in for at least the following six months. If it were a case of being determined to kill themselves, that would not be true.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:18AM
Leaving the gun stuff aside, I'd like to point out that not all people who kill themselves are depressed. Many are making a logical choice based on medical issues, pain, or expected loss of faculties.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by fnj on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:49AM
These particular individuals ending their lives due to medical issues are not actually "killing themselves". They are choosing the manner and time of their death, which is altogether different. And by extension, choosing not to undergo loss of faculties is much the same. A life which has descended into profound dementia is not really a life at all. I'm not talking about when you forget where your car keys are. I'm talking about you don't have the faintest idea who that person is who says they are your spouse or child.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Saturday January 03 2015, @06:46PM
That's the case if their disorder/disease is terminal and they're entering the end-stage where medicine's ability to alleviate suffering tends to fail.
The problem is, that's very rarely the case for suicidal people with serious medical problems. Speaking both from a lot of research and experience**, the vast majority of cases involve a person with traits like these:
-- disability that is likely permanent
-- frequently disabling pain levels that are undertreated
-- currently or recently being abused
-- social isolation
-- very poor with no reason to think it will improve
-- feelings of guilt for needing assistance
Unfortunately, 'normal' people see a major medical condition, and assume it's automatically "logical" to be suicidal -- but when the same patient doesn't have those other factors in place, the depression invariably either is absent or becomes fully treatable. It makes sense, too: if you remove the "disability" line, all of the others are well-known factors for depression in anybody.
If you stop and think about it, it's really saying something that out of all the countries that have considered legalizing euthanasia, none of them had the support of their country's disability rights movement. With very rare exceptions, the people in favor of it have invariably been healthy individuals that assume living with serious medical conditions (including dementia) is a living nightmare, when the people that are actually in that situation (like me) rarely become depressed without the same external causes that affect 'normal' people.
As a side note about dementia: the vast majority of them continue enjoying life and doing as much as they can as long as they're living somewhere that they're well cared-for. A lot of our impression of dementia/Alzheimer's is based on what it looks like when the person has been 'warehoused' in a nursing home with little-to-no interaction aside from family visiting. It's the family that 'suffers' from watching the person change as their memory & cognitive abilities fade; committing suicide when they have their full faculties, though, would mean dying long before the 'good times' would end and traumatizing the hell out of their loved ones anyway.
**I'm the sort of person you likely figure should be "logically" suicidal: internal defects galore [wikipedia.org], a herniated brain [wikipedia.org], and oldschool autism. None of that made me suicidal; what did was suddenly finding myself in constant intolerable body/head pain that were undertreated, social isolation, and being convinced I was a worthless burden on others by my then-boyfriend. Once I got on an antidepressant, dumped his ass, and was given proper pain management, I was OK again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @08:28PM
> individuals ending their lives... are not actually "killing themselves"
???
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @04:41AM
Sure, but that's in the noise. Especially with gunshots. Most people who kevorkian do it with pills because they've spent a long time coming to the decision and then planning it out and aren't so selfish as not to care about the trauma suffered by the people who find their body.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @02:01AM
I live in the US, I walk around a lot at night, and I don't own a gun. I don't feel unsafe. People don't go around randomly shooting each other*. You can be robbed just as easily with a knife as a gun. Personally, I'd be more afraid of a person with a knife rather than a gun.
If someone tries to rob you, you won't have your gun in hand. Grabbing for it will get you shot/knifed. If you saw the robbery coming, couldn't get away, and pulled first, then the other guy is going to claim you attacked him and you're going to rot in jail. If you're in a random ranged gun fight then you were probably shot before you noticed the gun pointed at you. At close range, the person with martial art skills is more likely to win or at least not get their gun turned against them. If you threaten someone with a gun then you're going to jail and/or seen as the attacker. You shouldn't pull a lethal weapon just to threaten and you should never be the one to escalate a conflict. You can pull on the robber, but now you made the situation worse. Before the robber had three choices: complete the robbery, give up and run away, or shoot the person. Most robbers pick one of the first two options. When you try to help, now he has two choices: Kill both of you or go to jail.
I don't have a problem with people carrying weapons, but I don't see how they're ever useful in public other than creating the mental fear that anyone around you might shoot you. Wearing a bullet proof vest might be better.
*The very few times that did happen it would have been very dangerous to pull your own gun out and start shooting. The risk of hitting a bystander was high and the risk of other people thinking you're the shooter would also be high. Again, martial arts (jumping the gunman at a choke point/blind spot) or wearing body armor would have been more helpful than having a gun. You should assume you'll always lose a shootout because the other guy already has you targeted before you draw.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:24AM
You are happily living in a safe community. There are still plenty of those, and I am living in a similar environment. I wouldn't be carrying a gun even if I could, simply because there is no need to do so here. I'd hate to live in a place where I am threatened so much as to prompt me to go armed.
However there are plenty of places (like large cities) where it is dangerous. Chicago comes to mind, with their unconventional pastime habits [heyjackass.com]. For 2014:
Shot & Killed: 388
Shot & Wounded: 2231
Total Shot: 2619
That's about 7 people shot every single day. I am not sure that your assurances that "people don't go around randomly shooting each other" is true there. As it appears, in some places people do exactly that. This undermines your entire proof.
At the same time I can agree that in many circumstances you cannot defend yourself, with a gun or with your martial arts, against a small group of prepared robbers. You cannot attack them first; often you cannot even prevent them from coming close. The robbers are not afraid to draw a gun and point it at you, whereas you, a law-abiding citizen, cannot do that until the threat becomes justifiable in the court of law. The situation is stacked against you, and is basically unwinnable. Your only helpful actions could be staying away from the suspects and unzipping your jacket. Chances are that the attackers will leave you alone, as their business model does not favor robbing armed people.
But this is not the only situation where you may use a gun for self-defense (or to defend others.) For example, take robbery of a store, like a drug store. You and a few other customers are there. Then a junkie barges in, gun in hand, points it at the clerk and demands drugs. You are personally threatened, as you are a witness. If you can safely defend yourself in this situation, it could be a wise thing to do. A similar situation had occurred in a mall, where an active shooter was planning to kill as many as he could. He was shot and killed by an armed citizen before he could do much harm. You can say that those people are insane, and probably they are. But that's not a solution. Even availability of firearms is not a major factor here. In China an insane man stabbed about 30 people; in Norway a nationalist blew up a car bomb in the street, killing 8 and injuring 209 people; in Boston fanatics blew up an IED that killed 3 people and injured 264. And those injuries are far from being clean bullet wounds.
Another scenario could involve protection of your own home and family from a group of tall and strong "unarmed teenagers" who are intent on doing you harm. It may be unreasonable for them to do so, but logic will not help you when they have already kicked your door in. Leave it to the pathologist to figure out what drugs they were on. Within your home or on your property you are free to carry weapons and defend yourself against deadly threats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @03:53AM
You're reminding me of the incident where NYPD cops (supposedly trained in use of firearms and required to periodically re-qualify) fired 16 shots in a crowded area.
2012 Empire State Building shooting [wikipedia.org]
7 rounds hit the target; 9 bystanders were wounded. [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:02AM
I take it you never had a gun shoved in your face then? I have and it is scary because even a 98 pound wheelchair bound heroine addict on chemo can pull the trigger and end your life. It makes the most timid feel powerful and you can't outrun a bullet.
I'd rather deal with a knife than a gun. Only two types of people are going to rob you: drug addicts and gang members. Both of those people are from the streets or are very intimate with them. They are around a lot of people who carry guns. They know this and many of them are scared that others might be carrying as well (because many of them are). They really aren't tough guys so they just carry a gun. The last thing you want is some junkie strung out, jonesing for a hit carrying a gun. All they need is for something to startle them and bam, your dead. I remember a story where a few years back some pill head junkie executed four people during a drug store robbery, customers and workers because he thought they were witnesses. Meanwhile the security cameras caught the whole thing. That is how far gone they are. Gang members usually rob for initiation or to up their street cred. I was robbed at gun point along with a friend because we were in a rough neighborhood and they were looking for some dough on a Friday night. So here comes a white boy and his Indian looking friend. Before we knew it six dudes were on us and one pulls a gun. We were not assaulted but told were were in the wrong hood and to give up our cash. We just gave them our money, they laughed at us, threw our wallets in our faces and ran off. I am not going to lie, it was terrifying looking down the barrel of a gun. At any moment that dope could have pulled the trigger and ended it. We were shaking. After that we never took the train to his house because it was a scary five block walk through the ghetto to his home. I have had a few other incidents with guns but none of them were pointed at me. But they were also equally terrifying. Especially if your friend is hunched over on the ground with the barrel to his head while some low life is screaming "I'm gonna smoke this white boy" while you are standing there helpless thinking you are going to watch your friend die as you are surrounded by another five thugs. I even thought I was also going to die. We got lucky that day when they decided to just punch my friend in the face instead of blowing his brains out and just rob us. More gang bullshit.
A knife is an unarmed or hand to hand weapon and it takes far more balls for someone to really try to use it. You can outrun a knife. And you can fight a knife if you know how. Though, yea they can be just as intimidating. And I was also robbed with a friend by some gangbangers near my home many years ago. They were behind a van pretending to look busy. We didn't pay them mind until one of them grabs my friend and throws him against the van and puts a utility knife to his throat. The other demands money from me and I hand over the few bucks I had. We were high school freshman and they were probably just a few years older. After they got my money I saw a third older kid come out from an alleyway, yell to them and they all took off. Cops said it was a gang initiation for those two shit heads and the third was a gang member overseeing their robbery. Seeing a blade to my friends throat was very scary. The expression on his face was that of fear for his life. BUT that wasn't the first time I was assaulted with a knife. A few years earlier another friend and I were assaulted by these kids who were our age, maybe 12 or 13. They just started following and taunting us as we were walking back from a store. We told them to go fuck themselves and one runs up to me, pulls out a knife and lunges at me. I don't know how but I think he was a scared as I was and was sloppy in his attack. I quickly grabbed his arm, twisted it away and flung him to the floor. My other friend took karate classes and started hitting the other kid who was now startled by my scuffle. I kicked the knife wielding kid in the face and the third kid with them, a little boy, just began crying. The other kid started pleading with my friend to stop hitting him and I grabbed my friend and we ran. I think they were two wimpy kids looking to feel tough and happened upon what they thought were two wimpy white boys. But they got their asses kicked. So like I said, you can fight a knife. If that were a gun and that kid wouldn't have to run up on me and instead, just squeeze a trigger. Bang. That is all it takes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @07:51AM
U need to stop walking the ghettos.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:20AM
Well that isn't always an option. My friend lived in Far Rockaway and we went to high school in Jamaica, both rough neighborhoods in Queens. I also live right near the Brooklyn border next to Brownsville and it's notorious Pink Houses, the most dangerous housing project in the city. I know a friend who was stabbed just a few minutes away over the border by pink house thugs a few years back. Again, gang bullshit. We just deal with it and stay alert when we walk around, day or night.
People who insist that they feel safe at night clearly live in better neighborhoods. They just don't know any better, or more properly, any worse.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday January 03 2015, @09:23AM
Oops. I just realized that I said Brownsville when I should have said East New York. Though, they border each other and are both as bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05 2015, @10:30PM
Not sure anyone will even read this, but to answer your question, sometimes people are in fear of a particular person. An abusive husband for example. They know WHO they are afraid of and thus carry a gun for that particular reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2015, @01:02PM
Luckily, in my state, we buy and sell firearms privately without the need to involve government. We need only have a good faith belief that the other party is qualified to sell or buy firearms. And we havd less crime, violent or otherwise, than practically any place on earth.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday January 04 2015, @12:03AM
>there is usually the position that the people involved in these incidents were not properly trained or respectful of their guns and such things do not happen to people with common sense, people 'like us'.
>I thought this was an interesting example of that it can and does happen to anyone, even if they're more intelligent than the average and have had all the training, the appropriate and responsible exposure to firearms you would hope.
Err, no. Keeping a handgun in your purse is irresponsible, period. What if a purse-snatcher grabbed your purse, then used your gun to shoot you? What if the gun were to randomly discharge, and the purse was positioned so that the gun was pointing toward you or someone else?
I don't even own or have had training in firearms, but it seems clear to me that you should carry a firearm with a discrete safety, the safety should be activated, and the gun carried in a proper holster directly on your person in a position such that it is extremely hard for someone other than yourself to draw it, impossible for someone else to reach it without you being 100% aware that they are doing so, and pointing down toward the ground at all times in case of accidental discharge.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday January 04 2015, @06:47PM
As I understand, purses with gun compartment were invented simply because women often have no pockets and can't carry a regular holster on a hip without it being too obvious. (That is a requirement for concealed carry.) Men have far more freedom in their choice of clothes.
Just like it happened in this very case? Sure, a child interfered with the gun, but for all practical purposes it was a random event. Next time around the purse could be hit by a corner of a shopping cart, for example, right inside the trigger guard... I don't know how much protection is there. Most holsters (leather and plastic) completely enclose the trigger area, so that it cannot be touched prior to drawing the gun.
That is exactly how most recreational gun users carry the weapons. Aside from a few very specialized designs that intentionally have no safety latch, plenty of people carry the gun on safety and without the round in the chamber. They bias the weapon toward not firing. If necessary (say, if a rancher sees a coyote) the gun can be made ready to fire at cost of one extra second to rack the slide and move the safety latch. Soldiers and police - who may need to shoot instantly - avoid safeties and have the gun ready to fire upon a long trigger pull. CCW people are somewhere in between, as they may need to shoot quickly, but at the same time the penalty for unintentional discharge is very high.