Summations Only

Then it is clear where we disagree. Your suggestion is inane. It is only understandable if you are taking on the mindset of an idiot, which is what you claimed to be doing a while back. If you are going to keep a gun around for protection, your first priority must be dealing with the situation when there is no crook around given that such is the situation you deal with all of the time. You are never going to get to shoot a crook if you kill yourself.If instead, your plan is to outdraw the crook, then going into your purse is likely a loser. The gun needs to be in your hand. Presumably, your child cannot get it if you are holding it. And of course we can extend this further. In hand, round chambered, safety off, hammer pulled back etc. ad ridiculous.Of course, not every confrontation happens in this way. Having a gun in the purse, with reasonable safety precautions taken which were not in this case, may be of use in some situations other than a quick draw. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Your vs You are. GrrrEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ringo will have to confirm, but I think he's just describing what extrapolating from the gun-nut mindset leads to. You seem to think it as absurd as he does.--Percy

I find Ringo's extrapolation more than a little bit cartoonish, Peacemaker Percy.

http://www.ktuu.com/...apparent-accidental-shooting/31404044

quote:

---

UPDATE: 4-year-old shot through leg when mother's gun falls out of holster

​

UPDATE: 4-year-old shot through leg when mother's gun falls out of holster
Tulsi Patil Tulsi Patil, Weekend Web Producer, tpatil@ktuu.com
POSTED: 12:51 PM AKST Feb 21, 2015 UPDATED: 04:54 PM AKST Feb 21, 2015

​

Share on pinterest_share Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services

​

Austin Baird / KTUU-TV
ANCHORAGE -

​

UPDATE 4:30 p.m.: A 4-year-old boy from Wasilla was shot through the leg, after his mother's gun fell out of its holster and discharged, Alaska State Troopers wrote in a dispatch, Saturday afternoon.

​

At around 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, troopers responded to reports of a child with a gunshot wound to the leg, at 4900 E Palmer-Wasilla highway.

​

Investigations revealed that "as the family was getting out of their pickup truck in the parking lot the mother's .357 magnum revolver fell out of her holster and struck the pavement by the hammer which caused the revolver to discharge a round," troopers wrote.

​

Troopers wrote that the fired round struck the child "just above the knee then exited his leg and lodged in the trim of the building."

---

So when do accidents become negligent behavior?This was posted on facebook by Jim Wright:Update Your Browser | FacebookThe comments are instructive.and so it goes and so it goesEnjoy

Definitely negligence and almost certainly either a lie or a gun that was tampered with.

Either the lie or the tampering ought to imply criminal negligence. But there seldom seem to be any legal consequences for parents in these cases. Usually we hear remarks from the local constabulary about how the parents were good law abiding gun owners.

Yup. And that there was an automobile accident.Willful ignorance is endemic.

Ah, but there are so many other things you need to do with your hands. Two aren't enough as it is without devoting one entirely to self-defence. For practical purposes, we have to keep the gun easily accessible and ready to fire but not actually "in the way". Unfortunately (or fortunately, for the Darwin awards) the need for self defence also makes the weapon easily accessible to your irresponsible three-year-old.

We're talking about gun ownership in the USA. Cartoonish is a given.

It could have been one of the first revolvers that was ever made they where notorious for going off if dropped.

Which is why you always left an empty cylinder under the hammer. It still can not be an accident but definitely is negligence. Most likely though still a lie.

In short, you are conceding 'readily accessible' to be whatever the idiot parents decide. Well that's wrong. A sane definition of readily accessible would include loaded with a functioning safety such as a grip safety. Or with a biometric detection system. Or without a bullet in the chamber.The amount of compromise required with each of those options is a good tradeoff[1] between your own safety (and that of the innocent people around you) and whatever crime prevention protection can reasonably be expected from having a loaded gun in your pocketbook, yet not even on your person much of the time.[1] A good tradeoff after having made the likely bad decision that a gun in the purse is a good idea in the first place.

Or you could self impose a practice of having the gun in one holster without ammo and a quick-load ammo pack on the other side: you draw both and assemble as you hold the pistol with both hands to fire.The gun by itself is then incapable of misfire. The ammo pack is also incapable of firing on its own nor when dropped (iirc).Enjoy.

Too funny.Have you ever tried that RAZD?

Curiously it was suggested to me by a gun instructor who practices it.Certainly you go thru the same motions when you reload using quick-load systems, yes?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ,.