WWTBAM Bored

A 29-year-old Idaho woman was killed in a Wal-Mart when a two-year-old child with her reached in her purse and accidentally discharged the firearm she was carrying in the purse. Three other children were with her at the time of the incident as well (police aren't sure yet how all the children are related). She had a concealed weapons permit. Under Idaho law, anyone with a concealed weapons permit can carry a weapon into a private business unless the business prohibits it.

I'm sure LB must sleep a lot better at night knowing that there's people with their concealed weapons probably a lot like this woman walking around only a few feet away from him making sure he doesn't get attacked by crazed robbers or terrorists.

And I'm only one night away from my fellow Georgians celebrating the new year and their right to bear arms by shooting off their guns (hopefully at a high enough angle in the air). Perhaps by then, the laws of physics will have been revised so those bullets wont' come down.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /21062089/

Why would LB go all the way to Idaho to go shopping?

silverscreenselect wrote:I'm sure LB must sleep a lot better at night knowing that there's people with their concealed weapons probably a lot like this woman walking around only a few feet away from him making sure he doesn't get attacked by crazed robbers or terrorists.

I'd bet he's more irritated that you think you know what concerns him and that you would presume to speak for him here.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:I'm sure LB must sleep a lot better at night knowing that there's people with their concealed weapons probably a lot like this woman walking around only a few feet away from him making sure he doesn't get attacked by crazed robbers or terrorists.

I'd bet he's more irritated that you think you know what concerns him and that you would presume to speak for him here.

Yeah, I love being used as a pawn in other people's political arguments....

lb13

silvercamaro wrote:Why would LB go all the way to Idaho to go shopping?

To get away from all of the unpermitted concealed weapons carriers from Ferguson, of course....

lb13

Sad.

And completely preventable.

The mother, making the decision to carry, has the ultimate responsibility to ensure she has secure possession of her firearm.
Letting anyone, let alone her toddler, have access to the weapon is 100% preventable.

Tragic results for a moment's irresponsibility.

One that millions of other gunowners had nothing to do with either yesterday or any day. Millions of man-days every year where only a tiny percentage screw up or do harm, yet SSS and his ilk would punish me for someone else's actions. The mantra of "not one more" comes to mind.

Never mind those largely ignored instances where either the implied or actual use of a firearm saves a good guy.

Accidents like this or murder a la Newtown are the justification for ignoring the Constitution by some. Funny how liberals scream about "rights" when it suits them, but are more than happy to ride rough shod over those they don't like (conservatives do it, too).

I want SSS' ability to express his opinions limited, curtailed, even taken away.
Some have used the 1st Amendment for harm, therefore all should be restricted.

Constitutional rights are pesky things that require responsibility by those possessing them. Whether you like them or not.

Nothing is ever free.

Also, I'm agin' purse carry. One's firearm should be on one's person both for quicker access when needed and more security against accidents/losing control of it.

I wish Mrs. Flybrick would heed my advice, but y'all women have some clothing issues...

Note, I don't really want to curtail SSS' rights. Nor will I allow him to curtail mine.

Flybrick wrote: The mother, making the decision to carry, has the ultimate responsibility to ensure she has secure possession of her firearm.
Letting anyone, let alone her toddler, have access to the weapon is 100% preventable.

I'm somewhat curious what Flybrick and the other conservatives on the Bored feel should have happened if the scenario were changed somewhat, and the gun had wound up firing and killing a fellow shopper in the Wal-Mart instead of the mother. Obviously, a two-year-old child is not culpable, but what should happen to the mother? Send her to jail for whatever the equivalent of manslaughter is in the state of Idaho? Or just chalk it up to one of those unfortunate things that happen when people exercise their Second Amendment rights, because that poor family has suffered enough?

Ironically, curtailing Flybrick's "rights" might well keep Mrs. Flybrick safer. And those "rights" exist only because Justice Scalia, who claims to honor the original intent of the Constitution, adopted a ridiculously strained interpretation of the language to uphold his political point of view (something, which, in all fairness, members of the Supreme Court have done since the day of John Marshall).

According to the story I posted, about 7% of the adult population of the state of Idaho has a concealed weapons permit, which means that every time I go into a Wal-Mart in Idaho to shop, I could be at the mercy of about 1 in 12 of the adults in the store... none of whom came into the store with the intent to rob me, but who might do something stupid or careless. Balanced against that is whatever marginal gain in safety I achieve by possibly being a bit more secure if someone armed does actually confront me with the intention to rob me (a confrontation I've survived once). That's not a comforting thought.

Careless actions that cause the preventable death of another = whatever the legal term is.

As for the rest of your reply = just words.

"At the mercy of" those 1 in 7? Wow, classic liberal.

Also, you fail to take into account those who carry without a permit where so required. Or do so regardless of the law.

You know, criminals.

Darn that Supreme Court for deciding differently than you like.

BTW, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have some sort of carry legislation now.

Some make it much harder, near impossible, to obtain a legal permit, but the means do exist now. Of interest is the crime rate where carry laws for the law-abiding are citizen-friendly and those where the laws are government-friendly. Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

You get Obamacare via the Supreme Court.

I get to keep my rights as enshrined in the Constitution.

Win some, lose some.

Flybrick wrote: Also, you fail to take into account those who carry without a permit where so required. Or do so regardless of the law.

I do take those people into account. I had an encounter with two of them about twenty years ago. It cost me $60 but I'm around to talk about it. It was scary, no question about it (they were jumpy teenagers), but I had an opportunity to act rationally and avoid getting shot. If I had a gun, I might have avoided the situation and saved myself $60, or I might have been shot.

And there's nothing I can do to avoid the next mother of a two-year-old who allows the child to play with the toy in her purse.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Flybrick wrote: The mother, making the decision to carry, has the ultimate responsibility to ensure she has secure possession of her firearm.
Letting anyone, let alone her toddler, have access to the weapon is 100% preventable.

I'm somewhat curious what Flybrick and the other conservatives on the Bored feel should have happened if the scenario were changed somewhat, and the gun had wound up firing and killing a fellow shopper in the Wal-Mart instead of the mother. Obviously, a two-year-old child is not culpable, but what should happen to the mother? Send her to jail for whatever the equivalent of manslaughter is in the state of Idaho? Or just chalk it up to one of those unfortunate things that happen when people exercise their Second Amendment rights, because that poor family has suffered enough?

Ironically, curtailing Flybrick's "rights" might well keep Mrs. Flybrick safer. And those "rights" exist only because Justice Scalia, who claims to honor the original intent of the Constitution, adopted a ridiculously strained interpretation of the language to uphold his political point of view (something, which, in all fairness, members of the Supreme Court have done since the day of John Marshall).

According to the story I posted, about 7% of the adult population of the state of Idaho has a concealed weapons permit, which means that every time I go into a Wal-Mart in Idaho to shop, I could be at the mercy of about 1 in 12 of the adults in the store... none of whom came into the store with the intent to rob me, but who might do something stupid or careless. Balanced against that is whatever marginal gain in safety I achieve by possibly being a bit more secure if someone armed does actually confront me with the intention to rob me (a confrontation I've survived once). That's not a comforting thought.

This is from a friend from when I lived in Boise, not firsthand: The mother had her gun in a specially designed holster in her purse that she had just gotten for Christmas. The holster was supposed to prevent a child from removing the gun.

I don't know if the woman didn't use the holster properly or if her two-year-old is especially clever and was able to remove the gun. I guess the safety wasn't on.

Got it; two bad guys robbed you.

You were powerless to defend yourself.

It's the gun's fault.

Would your actions have been different if they'd 'only' used a knife?

Or 'just' threatened to use their fists?

I doubt it.

And I don't blame you.

I am glad you weren't harmed.

Carrying a gun doesn't provide an 'out' in every life-threatening self-defense situation. It does, however, provide options that may or may not be useful at the time.

I will not let you take that option away from be because you don't like something.

My wife likewise has purses with specially concealed either zip pockets or internal holsters.

Doesn't mean that she would ever let a toddler have access to her purse.

Sad, sad, preventable tragedy.

Try as you might, you cannot legislate away stupidity.

But you can legislate stupidly.

I am agin that.

Personal technique - don't touch the trigger and there is no need for a safety.

Bob Juch wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Flybrick wrote: The mother, making the decision to carry, has the ultimate responsibility to ensure she has secure possession of her firearm.
Letting anyone, let alone her toddler, have access to the weapon is 100% preventable.

I'm somewhat curious what Flybrick and the other conservatives on the Bored feel should have happened if the scenario were changed somewhat, and the gun had wound up firing and killing a fellow shopper in the Wal-Mart instead of the mother. Obviously, a two-year-old child is not culpable, but what should happen to the mother? Send her to jail for whatever the equivalent of manslaughter is in the state of Idaho? Or just chalk it up to one of those unfortunate things that happen when people exercise their Second Amendment rights, because that poor family has suffered enough?

Ironically, curtailing Flybrick's "rights" might well keep Mrs. Flybrick safer. And those "rights" exist only because Justice Scalia, who claims to honor the original intent of the Constitution, adopted a ridiculously strained interpretation of the language to uphold his political point of view (something, which, in all fairness, members of the Supreme Court have done since the day of John Marshall).

According to the story I posted, about 7% of the adult population of the state of Idaho has a concealed weapons permit, which means that every time I go into a Wal-Mart in Idaho to shop, I could be at the mercy of about 1 in 12 of the adults in the store... none of whom came into the store with the intent to rob me, but who might do something stupid or careless. Balanced against that is whatever marginal gain in safety I achieve by possibly being a bit more secure if someone armed does actually confront me with the intention to rob me (a confrontation I've survived once). That's not a comforting thought.

This is from a friend from when I lived in Boise, not firsthand: The mother had her gun in a specially designed holster in her purse that she had just gotten for Christmas. The holster was supposed to prevent a child from removing the gun.

I don't know if the woman didn't use the holster properly or if her two-year-old is especially clever and was able to remove the gun. I guess the safety wasn't on.

Here's the story from the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -wal-mart/

Flybrick wrote:Got it; two bad guys robbed you.

You were powerless to defend yourself.

It's the gun's fault.

No, you don't "got it."

I did defend myself in the most important way possible. I'm here today to talk about it, alive and healthy, although $60 poorer. You and I appear to have a different set of priorities. My priority in a life threatening situation is to protect my life and health and the life and health of my loved ones. It's not to catch criminals and it's not to save $60.

The mother in Idaho never had to defend herself against a violent assault by a criminal. She's not around to talk about it.

This man, like me, was innocent. Unlike me, he had a gun and was prepared to use it. He's not here to talk about it.

http://www.macon.com/2014/10/01/3338309 ... .html?rh=1

silverscreenselect wrote:If I had a gun, I might have avoided the situation and saved myself $60, or I might have been shot.

One thing you've apparently never considered is what crimes those newly emboldened jumpy teenagers committed after their encounter with you. It is not your responsibility to stop them, but you wouldn't have just "saved yourself $60." You might also have put an end to a life of thuggery before it began. Would you still have no regrets, had they come back the next day and attacked your wife, or would you have wished you had a gun?

Estonut wrote: You might also have put an end to a life of thuggery before it began. Would you still have no regrets, had they come back the next day and attacked your wife, or would you have wished you had a gun?

I guess by that logic, we should all be Batman, driving around the city at night trying to put an end to a life of thuggery before it begins.

silverscreenselect wrote: I'm somewhat curious what Flybrick and the other conservatives on the Bored feel should have happened if the scenario were changed somewhat,

here is a somewhat changed scenario.

I, and the other conservatives (I assume), think folks still should be able to drive their cars to the ice cream parlor. You apparently think such foolishness should be outlawed.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: You might also have put an end to a life of thuggery before it began. Would you still have no regrets, had they come back the next day and attacked your wife, or would you have wished you had a gun?

I guess by that logic, we should all be Batman, driving around the city at night trying to put an end to a life of thuggery before it begins.

You've conveniently ignored the part where I said, "It is not your responsibility to stop them." You also failed to answer the question, "Would you still have no regrets, had they come back the next day and attacked your wife, or would you have wished you had a gun?"

My point was that you don't know that the sole result of your acquiescence was that you lost $60. No one knows but the punks. You quite possibly may have provided those jittery teenagers with the swagger they needed to continue (and, perhaps, escalate) their lives of crime. Is that not possible?

The Walmart thing is a sad, unfortunate anomaly. It isn't representative of all gunowners or incidents. Honestly...

Beebs52 wrote:The Walmart thing is a sad, unfortunate anomaly. It isn't representative of all gunowners or incidents. Honestly...

No, but it's an example of what can go wrong. My daughter has never even seen my guns.

Whereas mine has been properly and thoroughly trained about firearms, most importantly about safety.

Flybrick wrote:Whereas mine has been properly and thoroughly trained about firearms, most importantly about safety.

And of course, no one who has been "properly and thoroughly trained about firearms, most importantly about safety" ever has an accident.

It's only after the accident that you realize that the proper and thorough training wasn't proper and thorough enough.

Let us pray for that perfect world.

Until then, you choose not to have a gun and I will respect your wishes.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/27634745/ ... the-driver

In America car keys are more deadly than guns.

Well, Mrs. SSS, our daughter, and I survived another New Year's Eve in the combat zone, but this man in Houston wasn't so lucky.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /21215135/

The only thing surprising about this is that it doesn't happen more often with the number of idiots out there blasting away each year. A few year's back, a child was killed here in Atlanta inside a church while his parents were attending midnight services. The bullet came through the roof of the building.

Most years, we hear about 50 shots or so in the first half hour of the new year, and there's no way we're going outside or even being near a window (and we live upstairs so it's highly unlikely a stray bullet would get through one of our bullets based on the angles involved).