She Wins the Darwin for 2014

[Being]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ida...hts/ar-BBhmnXx

"She was not the least bit irresponsible,"

What???

She was negligent. I'm pretty sure negligence connotes irresposibility. She left a loaded weapon within reach of a toddler. She needs to be prosecuted postmortem to set another example that it is not okay to be stupid with weapons just because you have a conceal carry permit. I can't believe the article saying it's just a tragic accident while totaly ignoring the negligence that led to her death.

[LittleFuzzy]

No, negligence doesn't connote irresponsibility. Negligence means failure to exercise the degree of care called for by normal prudence under the same set of circumstances. Her failure was having a loaded gun in her purse and that does not fail to meet normal prudence in her context, which necessarily includes regular behavior in Idaho. And just what do you want to prosecute her posthumously for (posthumous prosecution itself being all sorts of unjust), suicide? Oh, I know, you want to exercise that moronic felony-murder rule whereby her negligence contributes to the baby's performance of a homicide so she is guilty of first-degree murder against herself. Go crawl back under your rock, Being, leave this sort of crap to Lewk.

[Being]

No, negligence doesn't connote irresponsibility. Negligence means failure to exercise the degree of care called for by normal prudence under the same set of circumstances. Her failure was having a loaded gun in her purse and that does not fail to meet normal prudence in her context, which necessarily includes regular behavior in Idaho. And just what do you want to prosecute her posthumously for (posthumous prosecution itself being all sorts of unjust), suicide? Oh, I know, you want to exercise that moronic felony-murder rule whereby her negligence contributes to the baby's performance of a homicide so she is guilty of first-degree murder against herself. Go crawl back under your rock, Being, leave this sort of crap to Lewk.

Gonna call you on this Fuzzy. Neglect of duty and a lack of sense of responsibility go hand-in-hand. She failed to uphold her responsibility mandated by the permit by neglecting to secure her weapon.

Didn't really want to do this but what if it was you the toddler shot in the head with mom's legal concealed weapon. Would your family have reason to take the mother to court?

[LittleFuzzy]

Sure my family would take her to court. They're both lawyers and my father is getting litigious as he gets older and more bored. He's sued three cities for my mother's six broken bones in the last five years though her osteoporosis and declining visual-motor coordination are clearly the mechanisms responsible. Doesn't mean they're actually at legal fault anymore than that woman was. The gun was sealed away in her purse according to your article. She did what was reasonably necessary to secure it short of not carrying at all, and choosing to carry cannot meet any sort of negligence test in a state where it is so common.

[Being]

She did what was reasonably necessary to secure it short of not carrying at all, and choosing to carry cannot meet any sort of negligence test in a state where it is so common.

Within reach of a toddler? Round in the chamber? Firing pin armed? Safety off? Are you familiar with guns at all?

[Enoch the Red]

Within reach of a toddler? Round in the chamber? Firing pin armed? Safety off? Are you familiar with guns at all?

Are you? You certainly aren't talking about guns like someone who is familiar with them. Without knowing what type of gun it is, (something I haven't been able to determine with a cursory googling) it is entirely possible that there is no external safety. Furthermore, it is an accepted practice to have a round in the chamber when carrying defensively.

This is certainly a tragedy. My deepest sympathies go out to the families of those affected.

[Being]

... it is entirely possible that there is no external safety.

Whether or not a mechanical safety exists is irrelevant. The primary safety mechanism for any weapon is the brain of the person in charge of the weapon. That safety was off.

[Spenni]

Within reach of a toddler? Round in the chamber? Firing pin armed? Safety off? Are you familiar with guns at all?

It could have been she thought it was as empty and there wwas a round I'm chamber happened to a buddy of mine when he was cleaning his pistol. And what do you mean if firing pin arm. It doesn't "arm"

[Being]

It could have been she thought it was as empty and there wwas a round I'm chamber happened to a buddy of mine when he was cleaning his pistol. And what do you mean if firing pin arm. It doesn't "arm"

First rule of gun ownership is to assume every gun is loaded and armed until proven otherwise.

P.S. for all who don't understand what armed means, it is the state at which if the trigger is pulled the firing pin will be pushed into the percusion cap of the cartridge.

[Dreadnaught]

Within reach of a toddler? Round in the chamber? Firing pin armed? Safety off? Are you familiar with guns at all?

It's a Glock. They are basically made to pick up and fire when loaded.

My question is how a two year old has the strength to depress a 2.5 kg / 5.5 lb trigger and manage to hit something. I mean, what the hell are the odds?

I have to ask, what did she think was going to happen at Wal-Mart that carrying a loaded firearm was a reasonable precaution? Walking home late at night through a less than salubrious area of town? Sure, carry a gun, if you really must. Camping trip in the woods in an area where encounters with bears or other powerful wild animals are possible? I'd even say carrying a weapon is a good idea. But trip to a supermarket in the middle of the day? Come on, real world calling - you don't need a gun.

The Wal-Mart may be in a bad area of town. Or she may find herself in a bad area of town for unscheduled reasons. I think the feeling of safety comes from those unscheduled instances. Who knows.

[Khendraja'aro]

A gun without external safeties in a household with toddlers is just asking for trouble.

[Steely Glint]

I have to ask, what did she think was going to happen at Wal-Mart that carrying a loaded firearm was a reasonable precaution? Walking home late at night through a less than salubrious area of town? Sure, carry a gun, if you really must. Camping trip in the woods in an area where encounters with bears or other powerful wild animals are possible? I'd even say carrying a weapon is a good idea. But trip to a supermarket in the middle of the day? Come on, real world calling - you don't need a gun.

[Enoch the Red]

I have to ask, what did she think was going to happen at Wal-Mart that carrying a loaded firearm was a reasonable precaution? Walking home late at night through a less than salubrious area of town? Sure, carry a gun, if you really must. Camping trip in the woods in an area where encounters with bears or other powerful wild animals are possible? I'd even say carrying a weapon is a good idea. But trip to a supermarket in the middle of the day? Come on, real world calling - you don't need a gun.

I think the reality is that it is carrying was just another part of her everyday routine. Anecdotally, it wasn't too long ago that two women had their child threatened, and were abducted and raped in the parking lot of a Walmart.

Whether or not a mechanical safety exists is irrelevant. The primary safety mechanism for any weapon is the brain of the person in charge of the weapon. That safety was off.

Certainly. However, your claim that she was acting irresponsibly by having the gun loaded, and firing pin armed, (whatever that is supposed to mean) when that is typically the way defensive carry is taught. Her lack of judgment in placing a toddler in an area where he had access to her purse was a tragic mistake, and that's about the only judgment I'm willing to pass without more information about the type of gun she carried and how she carried it.

I'd just like to say that when confronting people about their lack of knowledge when it comes to firearms, people in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

[Being]

Her lack of judgment in placing a toddler in an area where he had access to her purse was a tragic mistake, and that's about the only judgment I'm willing to pass without more information about the type of gun she carried and how she carried it.

It is tragic that people treat guns like flash lights. This could have been anyone killed but fortunately it was the one with the lack of judgement.

[Khendraja'aro]

As an aside: Technically this doesn't qualify as a Darwin.

[Being]

As an aside: Technically this doesn't qualify as a Darwin.

That is certainly arguable so let me begin. She will have no more children...she is out of the gene pool. I'll save the rest of my thoughts for rebutals.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yes, round in the chamber. Because carrying around an unloaded gun isn't particularly useful for anything but intimidation. I don't know what you're talking about with a firing pin but the thing about your typical safety assuming it had one (and it certainly should have), is that the safety is difficul-to-impossible to turn on accidentally. . . if you're holding the gun to use. Wasn't the case here, with a toddler fumbling around inside a purse. Your demand is that it is negligent to carry a device that isn't completely idiot-proof under all conditions. Well I'm sorry Being but "idiot-proof" is not the threshold for negligence and for good reason.

[earthJoker]

Yes, round in the chamber. Because carrying around an unloaded gun isn't particularly useful for anything but intimidation.

You don't need to have it in the chamber to defense yourself, let the bullets in the magazine. If you have the time to get your pistol out of the handbag you also got the time to pull the cartridge. I know that many teach the other way around, but you need to consider probability here. The probability of get killed accidentally by your own gun if you have a bullet in the chamber is higher than get killed by someone else. Things change if you get into an area that is actually dangerous.

If you really want to be fast, better invest in more training. Assuming you got a full magazine in, you should be about to load aim and shoot under two seconds. That needs a bit of coordination as you need to load with your left hand at the same time as you pull up the pistol with your right hand and then move the left hand to the front of the gun while you aim. Even I could do that back in the days I was in the service, and I am far from good with coordination.

[Enoch the Red]

You don't need to have it in the chamber to defense yourself, let the bullets in the magazine. If you have the time to get your pistol out of the handbag you also got the time to pull the cartridge. I know that many teach the other way around, but you need to consider probability here. The probability of get killed accidentally by your own gun if you have a bullet in the chamber is higher than get killed by someone else. Things change if you get into an area that is actually dangerous.

If you really want to be fast, better invest in more training. Assuming you got a full magazine in, you should be about to load aim and shoot under two seconds. That needs a bit of coordination as you need to load with your left hand at the same time as you pull up the pistol with your right hand and then move the left hand to the front of the gun while you aim. Even I could do that back in the days I was in the service, and I am far from good with coordination.

There are multiple schools of thought on the subject, but generally I think you are assuming the best case scenario. Even assuming you do have the time to spare to both get your pistol out and chamber a round, you may not have an available hand to do so. Many defensive handgun training courses teach you to keep your offhand extended to keep an attacker at a manageable distance if you are in close quarters.

[LittleFuzzy]

You don't need to have it in the chamber to defense yourself, let the bullets in the magazine. If you have the time to get your pistol out of the handbag you also got the time to pull the cartridge. I know that many teach the other way around, but you need to consider probability here. The probability of get killed accidentally by your own gun if you have a bullet in the chamber is higher than get killed by someone else. Things change if you get into an area that is actually dangerous.

As a personal matter, I don't care for guns and I think owning them at all, much less engaging in regular carrying, demonstrates a lack of awareness of the statistics involved at the very least. But Being alleges that this was negligence. And that's an entirely different standard.

[Being]

As a personal matter, I don't care for guns and I think owning them at all, much less engaging in regular carrying, demonstrates a lack of awareness of the statistics involved at the very least. But Being alleges that this was negligence. And that's an entirely different standard.

Kinda hard to tell what you are saying when you talk around things. Get to the point. Do you believe the woman was negligent or not?

[Flixy]

Letting your toddler fumble around in a purse with a loaded gin seems a bit irresponsible, without knowing the details at least. But mostly it's tragic accident and I feel horrible for the kid, living the rest of your life knowing you killed your mother can't be easy

And yeah, I'm not a gun expert at all, but it seems to me that for a weapon to be useful for self defense it has to be able to be fired relatively easy, otherwise it kinda defeats the purpose. Though I do agree with Steely Glint here.

[Ominous Gamer]

Letting your toddler fumble around in a purse with a loaded gin seems a bit irresponsible,

Kids don't have to be slow about it, which is why putting a gun within reach of the child for any reason/routine is beyond stupid/irresponsible.

[GGT]

What a horrible thing -- and what child could ever be 'right' after something like that.

The company that made that "special purse with zippered gun pocket" better have huge and repetitive consumer warnings with it, especially for women with little kids, since they're gonna get sued by someone for product liability.

The article didn't say if the gift was opened in front of the little boy, or whether he knew "special things" could be hidden in it....or if he was just curious about mommy's new purse and started digging. Either way, it's pretty standard child-proofing to NOT leave a purse unattended with kids, gun or not.


Question: why don't conceal-carry permits require either wearing the weapon, or stored in a locked case, or locked glove compartment? Otherwise, guns in purses or backpacks that aren't being carried are just as dangerous as guns laying around. To curious kids, at least.

[GGT]

And yet, a two-year old child managed to pull the trigger on a Glock, and without any skill-training, or target practice, shot his mother in the head, and killed her instantly.


Guns really do kill people.

[earthJoker]

Pulling the cartridge is quite a bit harder than pulling the trigger.

[earthJoker]

We had only few 1 hand trainings and honestly, I couldn't hit shit. I mean, I hit the target but I had no idea where on the target and that was from 1 meter distance. You got only one shot in that scenario as you wont be able to hold your pistol in direction after the shot. Might depend on the training and the caliber, if you do more one hand shooting maybe you can improve on that as well.

Anyway if you want to be able to counter an attack of someone in reach of you, you need to have your gun in your hands in the first place. And once you got your gun in your hands, you will charge it. What I say is, that with a little training you get your gun out and charge it with very little more time than just get it out. And as long as your target is more than a meter away you need that second hand anyway for proper aiming.

[Enoch the Red]

We had only few 1 hand trainings and honestly, I couldn't hit shit. I mean, I hit the target but I had no idea where on the target and that was from 1 meter distance. You got only one shot in that scenario as you wont be able to hold your pistol in direction after the shot. Might depend on the training and the caliber, if you do more one hand shooting maybe you can improve on that as well.

Anyway if you want to be able to counter an attack of someone in reach of you, you need to have your gun in your hands in the first place. And once you got your gun in your hands, you will charge it. What I say is, that with a little training you get your gun out and charge it with very little more time than just get it out. And as long as your target is more than a meter away you need that second hand anyway for proper aiming.

The vast majority self-defense shootings occur under 3 meters, and at that distance weapon retention should be a top priority. Having to draw, disengage the safety (if applicable), chamber a round, and then fire requires a good deal more thought and coordination under a level of duress not generally seen in training, especially if it also involves grappling with your attacker. As a rule, I'd say the fewer steps to fumble the better. Again, if you aren't comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber, I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise. I just don't believe there is an absolute, one size fits all approach to it.

[earthJoker]

The vast majority self-defense shootings occur under 3 meters, and at that distance weapon retention should be a top priority. Having to draw, disengage the safety (if applicable), chamber a round, and then fire requires a good deal more thought and coordination under a level of duress not generally seen in training, especially if it also involves grappling with your attacker. As a rule, I'd say the fewer steps to fumble the better. Again, if you aren't comfortable carrying with a round in the chamber, I wouldn't try to convince you otherwise. I just don't believe there is an absolute, one size fits all approach to it.

As I read, she had the gun in her bag, with a zipper closed. No way to get it out in time with an attack from under 3 meters. And what do most attackers try to get for anyway? Your purse, good thing to have your gun at the most likely place to get stolen.

[Enoch the Red]

As I read, she had the gun in her bag, with a zipper closed. No way to get it out in time with an attack from under 3 meters. And what do most attackers try to get for anyway? Your purse, good thing to have your gun at the most likely place to get stolen.

I don't think you are addressing my argument here, Joker. What I have been arguing is that there isn't a single, indisputably right way to carry. Each decision has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses. What it ultimately boils down to is what the shooter is comfortable with, how they have trained, and what they believe the situation dictates. I'm not arguing that this woman did not make errors in judgment, or that I would choose to carry the same way she does.