Woman In Starbucks Drops Purse With Forgotten Gun, Shoots Friend In The Leg: St. Pete Police

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post



A Florida woman accidentally shot her friend in the leg while waiting in line at a Starbucks on Saturday.

Police say Pamela Beck and Amie Peterson were getting coffee at the Tyrone Square Mall in St. Petersburg when Beck moved to set her bags down in order to pay for her drink.

Her purse "hit the ground hard," St. Petersburg Police spokesman Mike Puetz told The Huffington Post, and a fully loaded .25 caliber semi-automatic handgun that was in the bottom of the handbag fired, striking Peterson above the knee.

Beck told investigators that her father had given her the gun about a year ago, and she hadn't intended to bring it out in public. "She had forgotten about it," Puetz said. Beck does not have a concealed carry weapons permit, according to police, and the case has been referred to prosecutors.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/gun-in-purse-starbucks_n_3268652.html

---

Gunfucks Amuck.

[happyslug]

1. Why did the Article run with a picture of a GLOCK, when it was a 25 caliber gun???

Glocks come in 9 mm and LARGER calibers but NOT the .25 caliber.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

Here is a typical .25 Caliber handgun:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.25_ACP

[onehandle]

2. Because... Who cares?

Large or small caliber. Any gun can kill a Kindergartner.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Nice Lovejoy!

"Won't somebody think of the children?"

[awoke_in_2003]

50. Unfortunately, too many aren't. nt

[JackInGreen]

72. I thought that was Maude Flanders

back in the day, or is that Mrs. Lovejoy?

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. It was Helen Lovejoy:

[happyslug]

6. You are correct as to any pistol can kill, but it takes a very large purse to carry a Glock

But you can put a .25 caliber gun into a very small purse. I have read reports that some Police Officers carry one as a "drop gun" i.e. to be drop near someone the Officer shot at and killed and later found to NOT have a gun (The "Drop Gun" thus would be put near the victim to show he did have a gun).

The .25 caliber is a very small round. Browning came up with it around 1900 after he found that he could NOT make a good automatic that fired .22 caliber rimfire rounds, due to the huge variation in .22 rounds firing ability (This did not matter in manual operated rifles or revolvers for neither depended in the burning of the powder to operate the mechanism).

The problem was with Automatic Pistols the operation of the mechanism depended on the power of the round. Given the wide variation in 22 caliber rounds around 1900 Browning had to drop the idea of designing a .22 automatic and instead invented the .25 auto round so he could design a small pocket pistol around the known power of the .25 caliber round.

[quakerboy]

44. Not really

A glock is not a tiny gun, but its not really very large. A glock would fairly easily fit in your average purse. Not so easy in a clutch or one of those tiny decorative purses, but easily in any purse any member of my family owns.

If my mother were into guns, she could quite easily lose a glock in her purse. Thank goodness my dad isn't into purses, glock's, or coffee, or I could see this happening to him. It wouldn't be the craziest thing to happen in the past 10 years.

[politicaljunkie41910]

71. Have you seen the size of the average woman's purse these days. We can carry the kitchen sink

in those things, and most do.

[RILib]

140. how big is a glock?

[quakerboy]

148. different sizes

from a small one (6x4x1.5 inches, or approximately paperback book size) up to a larger one (9x6x1.5 inch, or approximately hardback book size)

[spin]

101. I can carry a baby Glock .40 (Glock 17) in my pants pocket if I wish ...

Of course it would be in a pocket holster designed for the weapon and I would be wearing cargo pants. Therefore it would not be a big problem for a woman to carry one in her purse especially if the purse was designed for concealed carry.

[Sirveri]

112. Glock 17 fires a 9mm round. Glock 22, 23, 24, 27, 35 all fire .40 auto.

I personally have a 17, which is actually the only firearm I actually own.

[spin]

123. The Glock 27 has a snappy recoil ...

It's not a fun gun to shoot. Your Glock 17 is much heavier and also it throws a lighter round downrange. The Glock 17s that I have tried on the range have been a pleasure to shoot.

Edited to add: When I first replied to your post I didn't realize that I had called the Glock 27 a Glock 17. I would have a hard time fitting a Glock 17 into a pants pocket.

[CTyankee]

108. So what? Why is this gun trivia even needed in this discussion?

What is the point, anyway, of what happened? What is the significance? It was clearly her gun, so there was no issue in the identification of the essential problem.

I do not understand this focus on the trivia. Why is it important? This is about public safety, not forensic evidence.

Your focus is, IMO, misplaced.

[Threedifferentones]

58. I care, because journalism should present accurate and well researched info.

Obviously the pic of the gun does not really hamper one's ability to understand the story. But this would be like an article about someone who got ran over by a pick-up running a picture of a Camry. Ya, they are both automobiles, but they are different, and the article should carry a pic of the device that was actually involved because...well, it was actually involved in the story! Lazy journalism is bad IMO.

[onehandle]

66. HuffPo is the very definition of lazy journalism.

It's a pyramid scheme of news aggregation. Their photography is 90% of the time, stock photos they pulled.

That being said, the story is accurate.

Me. I would like a photo of the bullet wounds or dead bodies. Time to stop pulling punches on the threat to national security that guns are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Good luck getting editors to run them

And trust me, we have tried.

[SlipperySlope]

79. Because a glock cannot fire from being dropped.

The safety mechanisms inside a Glock prevent it from firing unless the trigger is pulled. I guess hypothetically a Glock could fire in this situation if something in the purse jammed itself inside the triggerguard and depressed the trigger.

More likely is she was carrying some handgun that was not a Glock, and that does not contain similar safety mechanisms.

The fact that it was .25 caliber implies to me that the handgun was either very old or very cheaply made. It isn't a common caliber today.

Edit: I found the correct model for the gun she was carrying was a Titan 25. Here is a picture of a representative model:

[pipoman]

120. I thought the same..

here is a Titan 25 starting at $85 no reserve..I don't have a log in on gunbroker so can't see completed listings..just pretty sure this is a cheapo "Saturday night special" with no safety features on the hammer or trigger..most modern guns can be dropped without firing..

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=341940008

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Holeeeee shit, that changes everything!

Case dismissed, please proceed to the checkout, and thanks for patronizing to your local Starbucks.

[happyslug]

9. If you want to debate never give the other side an chance to attack

Thus the use of a Glock, when a .25 caliber pocket pistol was involved just set yourself up for an attack that you know NOTHING of weapons and thus your opinion must be ignored. It is a trap you should avoid if possible, giving the right wing one less talking point.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. It was probably a newspaper file photo

It means nothing. The woman's gun shot her friend.

The Gungeoneers, however, thrive on this stuff in their quest to minimize gun misuse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Winner!!!!

[Zoeisright]

43. Yeah, let's focus on

irrelevant minutia, instead of the fact that yet ANOTHER shooting was caused by ANOTHER "responsible gun owner" because most people are fucking stupid.

[Hangingon]

85. Gun owner did not have a concealed license

Not a "responsible gun owner" but a person guilty of a crime.

[spin]

102. The gun owner also probably lacked firearm safety training ...

which she would have to have before she would be issued a concealed weapons permit in Florida.

[Hangingon]

105. +1 I had to demonstrate safety knowledge here in Texas

[Walk away]

40. Whew! What a relief!

I'll have a Grande Latte!

[Nanjing to Seoul]

24. How thin can you split that hair?

:eyeroll:

[jberryhill]

27. Aha! The entire story is fake!

I can only hope there is a full investigation into how an incorrect photograph appeared with the article, so that tragedies like picking the wrong file photo do not happen again.

[christx30]

70. The only thing that can stop a

bad proofreader with a picture of a gun is a good proofreader with a picture of the correct gun.

[jberryhill]

88. DUzy

[harmonicon]

61. Because it's a gun.

They got an image of a gun from Getty Images. See where it says "Getty Images"? This is what places do. They search through these databases for keywords and choose an image. I'm guessing they searched for something like "hand gun."

See, most people don't give a shit what the caliber was. Most people aren't like The Onion's autistic reporter when it comes to people getting shot.

[valerief]

77. Yeah, they should have showed the bloodied leg. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

78. 'Cause that's the REALLY important

point of this article.

[kestrel91316]

103. The model of gun involved is completely irrelevant.

What matters is that it was handled irresponsibly and shot somebody.

[treestar]

3. Forgot about it?

That's why people like her shouldn't have them. She doesn't treat it like the dangerous thing it is. Somebody got hurt due to her negligence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. And that is why the case is getting sent to prosecutors.

No permit? Careless handling resulting in injury? Off to the Graybar Hotel with her...

[Tikki]

22. Doesn't treat it like a dangerous thing...Heck,it's existence is thy rod and staff to comfort them..

The presence is spiritual to them until, like this stupid woman, they are no longer law abiding gun owners.


Tikki

[xtraxritical]

47. I'm old enough to say it - "far out"

I mean yes.

[mimi85]

54. Exactly!

How can anyone possibly "forget" they have a loaded gun with them??

[hughee99]

7. She lugged a gun around in a gun around in a bag for a year and "forgot" about it?

Bullshit. I don't buy that for a second.

[Archae]

10. My sister found a 1998 calendar in her purse.

In 2010.

[hughee99]

16. Was the calendar loaded with the safety off and weigh about a pound?

Was she required to, but didn't, have a permit to carry the calendar? Some things you just don't forget you have in your bag, or even if you do, you remember when you come across it while looking for something else, which is bound to happen many times over the course of the year.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

26. Yes. . .and if you pulled out the calendar, you could kill someone with the squeeze of a finger

Don't you love the BS some people just delude themselves into thinking? Gundamentalists are worse than Fundamentalists. . .well, no, just a different God to worship I guess.

[DakotaLady]

20. I agree with you 100%.

I would sure know it was in my handbag/purse just by the pure fact of the added weight.

Also I empty mine often to get rid of used tissues, receipts, coins and other stuff.

Her "I forgot" logic and no permit to carry ... she is in deep trouble.

I know next to nothing about guns ... can someone tell how much it weighs?

[mainer]

59. My purse is heavy enough with just a wallet, phone, pens, and glasses

I can't imagine lugging a gun around in there too without my shoulder aching.

[ellenfl]

11. we're number 1! we're number 1! florida's back on top of the dumb pile! eom

[Orrex]

13. Just last week another woman dropped her purse with a swimming pool in it.

Drowned 11 people, right there in the Starbucks.

Tragic.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. I bet she was too busy breastfeeding her pit bull

while text-messaging to notice it

[smirkymonkey]

96. LOL! *snort*

Tragic story, but that was funny.

[harmonicon]

62. +1 (nt)

[Tanuki]

14. Another worthy entry for the Florida Man/Florida Woman saga...

http://floridamanandwoman.tumblr.com/

[Laelth]

133. Awesome link. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[mokawanis]

17. Another responsible gun-owner firing off a round in a public place

Why do the gunners keep saying we shouldn't worry about people carrying guns in public places? (and why do people pollute the thread by talking about the make and model of the gun?)

[bobclark86]

37. Except she wasn't...

Duh.

[mokawanis]

39. Well said

She wasn't what? Carrying a gun in her purse? Did you read the post?

[quakerboy]

46. She was, right up untill she wasn't

As far as anyone knew, she was, right up till the instant she shot her friend in the leg.

In particular, she was in the eyes of law enforcement, of any friends, and of the father who supplied her with a gun, she was. Right up till that moment she shot someone. And the latter two probably still think she is.

[hughee99]

48. She was carrying around a loaded gun that she didn't have a permit to carry,

and according to her, she didn't even know it was there. She wasn't a responsible gun owner long before she shot her friend in the leg, even in the eyes of the law.

[quakerboy]

51. Then why didnt they arrest her?

She was. As far as anyone else was concerned she was. Right up till she proved she wasn't.

Regardless of whether she followed any safety precautions. Regardless of whether she was even at any point in her life made aware of any safety precautions or basic gun safety knowledge. Regardless of her mental health or overall track record of personal responsibility or training.

She was legally and socially presumed to be, and treated as, a responsible gun owner. Right up until the second she incontrovertibly proved she wasn't.

[hughee99]

53. The case was referred to the prosecutors, according to the article.

It doesn't say whether she was arrested or not.

Are you suggesting the police should have known she had a gun in her bag BEFORE it went off? Are you suggesting that although she claims to have not known there was a gun in her bag, her friends knew and were okay with it? Are you suggesting people SHOULD be treated as criminals before there's any proof of it?

In general, people are legally and socially presumed to be responsible (parents/gun owners/taxpayers/doctors...) right up until the second they prove they aren't.

[quakerboy]

104. I am suggesting

That in order to own a gun in the first place, a certain level of competency and responsibility ought to be shown. That a gun shouldn't be an item that one can merely be given by a parent, to be forgotten in a purse.

We make drivers take tests. We make doctors take tests. We make people handling food at McDonalds take tests. But there is no test for gun ownership.

[hughee99]

107. In many states, owners need a license to own a handgun.

That doesn't happen to be the case in Florida, though. She was, however, required to have a permit to carry it in her bag. I think it's a good idea to make owners obtain a permit to own a firearm, and to have to pass some sort of test to demonstrate they understand how the weapon works and proper safety measures and requirements.

As far as her being a "responsible gun owner", though (right up until the gun went off), she wasn't, even under the permissive Florida laws.

[CTyankee]

109. The whole point of gun safety laws are to help prevent such instances. On this we should

all agree.

[quakerboy]

119. But she was

Just as many many people are. . Right up until she proved otherwise, she was considered a legal, responsible gun owner. As far as any police officer she met on the street was concerned, it was none of their business. As far as her father who provided the gun was concerned. As far as anyone was concerned, she was a responsible gun owner.

Until she proved otherwise beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Because having a gun is a right. Like breathing. Only more protected.

Sure, if someone had searched her, then they would have found an illegally carried gun, and it would have been a different story. But this is the USA. As long as you are white, and don't look too youthful or start taking pictures of police or something, no ones going to just search you. So whether she was or was not following the law is irrelevant. For any practical intent or purpose, she was a responsible gun owner. Right up until that second when she wasn't.

Just like every other gun owner. They are all responsible. Right up until they make a mistake, get angry and do something stupid, or forget some important detail. Then they aren't responsible anymore, so we can't hold that against any other responsible gun owner. And possibly not even against that one, as he/she was always responsible, and just made an itsy bitsy mistake that one time.

[hughee99]

121. She was NOT a legal, responsible gun owner in that she was breaking the law

carrying a gun that she didn't have a permit to carry on her. Yes, she was a legal gun OWNER (as almost anyone in Florida is, since the requirements to simply own a gun are almost non-existent).

Are you taking issue with the fact that the police don't randomly search more people on the chance they may find something (like a national expansion of Bloomberg's "stop and frisk&quot ?

I REALLY don't get the point your making about this "she was a responsible gun owner, right up until she wasn't" stuff. I'd think you were arguing people should have to do something (pass a test, for example) to qualify to own a gun, but since I've already said I think that's a good idea, I can only guess that isn't what you're pushing at. Is what your getting at either that we should make the gun laws restrictive enough that only people who are really willing to put in a lot of effort should be able to have guns, or that no one should be allowed to have them and then we can be sure that those who aren't responsible with them won't have them either?

[quakerboy]

122. But she was as far as anyone knew. And she was presumed to be

I get that you dont get my point. Im glad you agree that there should be some sort of entry level proof of responsibility to own a gun. That would be a good thing, and i think one the people would overall support in the end. Not that they are likely to get that opportunity anytime soon.

My point, slightly differently:

We restrict many things. There is a presumption that you need some level of training and knowledge to drive a car. cook food for the public. Work as a notary. But there is no presumption that you need any training, knowledge, or experience to own a gun.

And so things like this happen. Guns are casual toys that can be kept in a purse without a second thought, like a nail file or a pack of gum, just in case. And all gun owners are responsible gun owners. Right up till they are not. And then, they never were.

But right up until/unless you prove you are not a responsible gun owner, you are. As far as any legal or social standard is concerned.

But based on my personal experience, many gun owners are not nearly so "responsible" as we are lead to believe. They just never have that unlucky, dropped the bag on the floor and shot my friend in the leg" moment that proves it.

And even if they do, as far as they are concerned, it was just a one time mistake(oops shot my own finger off, in the case of one acquaintance), not really reflective of their normal responsible gun ownership status. And so, gun owners are responsible. Except for the few that get caught and cant quite rationalize it away acceptably. And those ones were never responsible in the first place, so they shouldn't be considered to reflect on the rest of the responsible gun owners.

Or to spell it out further:
The delineation between "responsible" and "not responsible" gun owners is largely fiction. It is as much a matter of perception, and of getting caught, as it is a difference between actual responsible handling and storage of weaponry. Its a myth, and a well built one at that. Because as soon as anyone transgresses that line, they never were one of the "good guys with a gun", they were always irresponsible. And so the good guys with guns remain unsullied, no matter how many of them turn out to have been lazy morons with loaded guns in their purses, glove boxes, etc.

[hughee99]

129. Ah, okay, I understand now.

I agree. It may be a right, but it's also a responsibility. A person should need to demonstrate that they understand gun safety and the local firearms laws.

In my state you are required to get a permit just to own a handgun, and the local police have a class (I'm not sure if it's required, I don't own a gun) at the local fishing and hunting club where they teach this.

[Union Scribe]

94. Correct.

I wish people would at least skim articles before commenting on them.

[Skeeter Barnes]

18. If you are going to carry, it needs to be in a holster on your belt, not in a purse.

Sounds like it was just loose in there, not even in a pocket holster or anything. I'm surprised the trigger didn't get pulled long before this incident.

[spin]

84. Many women carry in a purse. In fact there are purses designed for concealed carry...

on amazon.com.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=gun+purse

The obvious problem is that a woman's purse can be snatched or she may leave it unattended.

Carrying a firearm in a belt holster is an excellent idea but I prefer to carry a light snub nosed revolver in a holster in my right pants pocket. If I chose to carry a larger handgun such as a 1911 style .45 ACP, I use either a shoulder holster or an inside the belt holster.

[CTyankee]

110. Shoulder or belt holster? I can never decide which looks cooler...

Depending on what jacket you are wearing, of course. Some could make you look fat if they weren't cut just right. I'm thinking the best fashion choice would be to have both, then you are dressed suitably for any occasion, and depending on the occasion, you could dress it up or dress it down. What goes best with sandals for the summer?

oh, god, I hate these fashion decisions...

[spin]

127. A shoulder holster makes more sense if you are driving for a distance. ...

In my opinion it's more comfortable.

I don't really have to worry about looking fat. I am.

[CTyankee]

134. But you would need your back fat spandex control...don't you see?

Hell, I need mine!
Oh well...

[progressoid]

19. If only her friend had been armed too.

[JohnnyRingo]

21. Something doesn't add up...

Despite movie scripts, guns don't fire when they're dropped.

I'm not defending her or the gun, but there's more to this story. It's more likely she had her hand in the purse and somehow fired the gun then dropped it. She might think this story will help her shift the responsibility to the gun.

Pistols are all designed to fire only when held in the hand and the trigger pulled. You can throw one against a brick wall, and it'll just leave a chip. Bullets aren't full of nitro.

[Thor_MN]

34. But in a purse full of crap, there's lots of things that could wedge into the trigger.

Definitely a (pardon the pun) long shot, but not impossible. I agree, drop a well made gun on the floor and you may get a cracked tile. Drop it in a bag full of junk, the odds go way up for a discharge.

[JohnnyRingo]

67. Anything's possible...

but most, if not all semi-auto pistols, have a backstrap (or similar) safety that only activates the firing pin when held properly in hand. Gun manufacturers do this because they want to avoid the reputation of building an accident-prone model that kills people through mishandling (and the fed firearms law of '68 requires it). This isn't new technology, I have a 100+ year old Colt so equipped.

There could have been a confluence of events that came to be in her pocketbook that replicated the pistol being held in her hand and the trigger pulled when she dropped it, but it's much more likely she did something careless and wants to blame the gun. The purse did it!

She shouldn't have been carrying it in "condition one" anyway (Chambered with safety off). Guns aren't stupid, but many people are. She needs sued for everything she owns to learn her (safety) lesson. I'm glad she'll never see that gun again except in court.

See grip & drop safeties:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_(firearms)

(I don't carry a gun, and I'm not one of the gungeon dwellers who opposes background checks or mag limits, I just think there's more to this story than so far reported.)

[Bay Boy]

68. It's unlikely a cheap .25 auto...

...had anything other than a push button safety. I'm guessing it got bumped off or the owner had no idea how the safety worked, then the dropping of the bag allowed something in the purse to 'pull' the trigger. That or she's lying.

[Thor_MN]

98. You don't think a handgun cramed into a purse wouldn't simulate being gripped?

I seriously doubt that a significant fraction of handguns in use have a backstrap safety. It may be that that many being sold today have that that feature, but older handguns do not. Even if her's did, being wedged into a purse could certainly depress a backstrap safety.

[ManiacJoe]

90. This is a high probability contributor to the case being discussed.

> But in a purse full of crap, there's lots of things that could wedge into the trigger.

[Rebellious Republican]

99. Another responsible gun owner, did not know it was there, did not know that my tampon could undue

the safety and pull the trigger. By the way I did not know that you had to have a concealed carry permit, tee hee arn't i just silly!

[NickB79]

83. Every .25-cal handgun is a cheaply made POS

No reputable manufacturer makes a high-quality .25 ACP handgun that I know of; they are the original "Saturday Night Specials".

You can pick one up new for $100, made of cheap pot metal and mechanically very dicey.

I have no trouble believing that this gun discharged when dropped.

[spin]

86. Beretta makes a .25 caliber pistol. ...

However it is not cheap.

I see little reason to carry a .25 auto as it is underpowered at best. I do occasional carry a S&W Model 351PD .22 magnum snub nosed revolver as it is extremely light. Admittedly, it too is a mouse gun.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

23. I wonder if she was carrying a knife, if it would have gone off and shot a friend in a leg

Gundamentalists, please explain why we need this many guns in the hands of completely idiots!

[Doctor_J]

69. Or a baseball bat

or a car.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

97. Swimming pools too. I've seen gundamentalists here on DU use that NRA talking point as well.

[juajen]

36. Why is this starbucks fault?

[harmonicon]

63. It's their fault for not shooting every customer when they walk in the door.

You know, just in case they were later going to shoot someone in the Starbucks. It's bad for business, but safe as all get out.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

125. If only the barista was armed....(n/m)

[SheilaT]

28. Yet another responsible gun owner.

[Chalfont]

29. BS

Guns almost never go off when you drop them, and probably never when you drop them inside of a purse that has enough stuff in it that you don't realize that there is a gun in it.

[Union Scribe]

95. Yeah I'd be checking that store's security tapes

for what really happened. I bet she was rifling around the bag with her hand and not looking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Jaysus.

We got a nice cute multi tool that lives in the Jeep, since that one, is small...coud be accidentally taken to city hall or court...it will be confiscated in a New York minute. I do the responsible thing, I carry it in the vehicle due to back country driving and fire coverage.

She forgot she had a gun...she FORGOT SHE HAD A GUN. This bears repeating, SHE FORGOT SHE HAD A GUN!!!!! What a responsible gun owner, really.

[truthisfreedom]

32. The only thing that can stop a bad purse with a gun is a good leg with a gun.

Oh, I'm so funny.

[Thor_MN]

33. Was it her good purse or her bad purse?

[Walk away]

41. Guns don't kill people...purses do! nt

[Nanjing to Seoul]

49. Purse control!!!! We need purse the control. It wasn't the gun. It was the purse!

[Brigid]

35. Now just how in the hell do you have a gun in your purse for a year . . .

And forget about it?? I rummage through mine several times a day, and I can guarantee you a gun, no matter how small, would not be overlooked.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. If it's the size of my digital recorder...

Just kidding, a .22 is larger... (Yes, I have misplaced that one, drove me batty)

[quakerboy]

45. My guess is it usually happens

When you just shot your friend in the leg and are desperately trying to come up with some sort of rationale as to why its not so bad that you were carrying an illegally concealed weapon...

[kcass1954]

42. How do you "forget" where your gun is?? I know where mine is every minute of every day.

99% of the time, it's in the gun safe. I've never removed it from the safe and "forgotten" where I put it. Never.

[The Straight Story]

52. So she was breaking the law against CCW - maybe we should make another ccw law for her?

And others who break the first one?

Because...well...those who aren't responsible now will suddenly be more responsible then.

Or something like that.

[harmonicon]

64. And why not get rid of these stupid drunk driving laws while we're at it?

Responsible people aren't going to drink and drive, so why make it illegal for them to do so?

[The Straight Story]

82. Ah - excellent question. Here is the answer

Let's say 99% of people are obeying the laws on Conceal Carry (people with guns that is). 1% ignore such laws.

There is no need to repeal the law. And no need to expand it.

That 1% (and it is less than that) have already proved they won't obey the law. You still need the law - but adding a new is not going to make those few any more obedient to laws than they are now.

Also look at enforcement. The only way to know someone is conceal carrying is to search them or they use it in a way that gets them in trouble. It is like DUI - the only way the cop knows you are drinking if is he has a reason to pull you over (weaving, etc).

Instead of adding laws look at higher penalties for the ones you have.

Lots of people drink and drive everyday on the way home from bars and such. They may never harm anyone in their life time. But the penalty should be 6 mo's in jail and loss of license for 12 mo's. Then maybe less will. Writing up a new law (like...say...if you are driving an SUV it is has more power to harm than a pinto so we will monitor and punish your harder) probably isn't going to help at all - the basic laws are already in place and most people obey them.

We don't more laws to affect the 99% who obey them and make their abilities/freedoms less when, as noted, the 1% still won't obey your news.

[harmonicon]

93. I guess we're largely in agreement about this.

Just thinking about it for a few minutes here while making dinner though, it strikes me that drunk driving laws have become far more severe, just in the last 10 - 20 years. However, I don't think it's exactly a change in drunk driving laws that have curtailed incidences of it (if they have been - I assume they have, at least anecdotally I know they have), but general attitudes which brought about the change in the laws.

We have yet to see that in regards to US gun culture. The laws won't change until they have to change to have an impact on that tiny percentage that would still ignore them. I think drunk driving laws in a lot of places have gone from being effective to being an extension of puritanical influence that wants to curb all recreational drinking and drug use. As far as most people and the courts are concerned, concealed carry is a constitutional right - as I think one could argue drinking is. When "accidents" such as this and drunk driving "accidents" happen, it's not because people decided to ignore laws, but because they didn't have enough cultural influence to act differently. If we see the culture change, we'll see laws change with it in accord.

[CTyankee]

111. Yes, let's stop making laws against stuff...let the culture magically change all by itself.

That worked really well for civil rights to change racial attitudes. All those people marching and getting beaten and Civil Rights Acts and stuff didn't do a damn thing. We shudda waited until attitudes changed...

[harmonicon]

113. That is what happened.

Maybe you've heard of the civil rights movement.

It wasn't the case that things were just the same, so one day - just for kicks - congress passed some new laws.

[CTyankee]

114. I'm old enough to remember Ike sending 101st airborne to Little Rock...

some real muscle had been applied. Like the old saying goes "when you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow..."

just sayin'...

[harmonicon]

116. Which was because of a Supreme Court decision...

So, the president at the time enforced the new lay of the land as the courts had determined it, but it wasn't him who signed the voter rights act. It was people who had to get out and change minds before the government was going to do anything that the court didn't make them.

[CTyankee]

117. well, I think it takes both. SCOTUS was ahead of lots of people's times in that decision.

same way with Roe (hence the dispute Ginsburg has with the decision, but women were literally dying and the Roe decision stopped that in its tracks).

In my own state, CT was the last state to keep a law prohibiting birth control. Activists went to Hartford year after year after year with testimony from doctors, citizens and civil libertarians. The state lege didn't budge as it was in the thrall of the Roman Catholic Church at the time. So it took activism and then the hammer of (ultimately) the Griswold SC decision.

AS for Roe, I suppose it would have been ideal for everyone to wait until we all joined hands and sang Kumbaya, but women were suffering and dying needlessly. After Roe was decided, the deaths from illegal, unsafe abortions dropped dramatically and sharply. The struggle is not over as we've seen, but with Roe there was no other way unless we allowed women to continue suffering and dying. In the face of that reality an existential choice had to be made and it was. You can read the history at the Alan Guttmacher Institute's website.

I think we've reached critical mass here the same way with gun safety.

[harmonicon]

118. I see that the point has been reached in regards to marriage equality, but not gun safety.

In terms of marriage equality, it was clear from the way people were behaving in their daily lives; essentially being in marriages, but denied the social and legal respect in accordance with their choices.

Gun safety? Hell no. If we had, people wouldn't be walking around with guns sloshing around the bottom of their purses.

[CTyankee]

135. It is coming faster than you think. There is real momentum around this movement.

I don't think the Newtown folks are going to give up. Would you? '

I've been on this since my own family member died from gun violence. I've decided that it will be a lifetime thing for me to do. That's fine. I'm used to causes that seem at some point to be hopeless: vietnam, gay rights, and an increasing number of reproductive rights issues. It will come, rest assured.

[harmonicon]

136. We'll see. I've seen it wax and wane many times in my 30-odd years.

First, it was John Lennon, almost Ronald Reagan... basically nothing changed.

Then, it really seemed like things would change with the moment from things like Bowling for Columbine... basically nothing changed.

Now, we've had a year or two where lots of white people have been getting shot... and basically nothing has changed.

I grew up in a house where guns weren't allowed. This was largely because my father had been in the military and didn't want to have anything to do with weapons after that. He always made a point of saying things like, "you know that's just pretend," when I was watching GI Joe.

Having people like you and I just become more vociferous about the harm that guns cause our culture will not change things. Only having more people have these feelings will change things. Right now, I'm afraid I'm just seeing more of the former and none of the latter (case in point: DU).

[CTyankee]

138. public opinion polls show overwhelming support for gun safety laws...

the will of the people in a democracy eventually wins. Fewer people are gun owners but they constitute a large percentage of gun sales. Radical fringe groups might hang on and continue killing, but without broad support among the general population, they won't win. In my long life, I don't remember seeing such overwhelming support for gun control as I do now. It is just a matter of time.

[harmonicon]

141. It's not gun control laws that I'm talking about.

What needs to change is attitudes about guns, not attitudes about laws about guns.

I don't think gun control laws are going to change how people relate to guns in their homes, their daily lives, etc. Unless those things change, the laws don't really matter.

[CTyankee]

142. We didn't think that stiffer drunk driving laws would stop people from doing it, but they

have been very successful. We didn't think we could practically ban tobacco and yet we were able to do it.

I think the fact that fewer people are owning guns tells us something about how people think about guns. It is also very telling that the NRA isn't flooding the internet and TV with PSA's aimed at getting people to think/act more seriously about gun safety and exactly the things you are saying. If any group should be doing this, it is the NRA. Yet all they do is whine about the Second Amendment. And short of an out and out repeal of it, I hope that there will be enough sane new appointees to the Supreme Court (as long as we hold on to the White House) to overturn it. But that is part of the larger issue which is a revamping of our U.S. Constitution, which is outdated and in need of major work.

But that is another conversation!

[harmonicon]

143. Another conversation, indeed.

The point I was trying to make about drunk driving laws wasn't that the laws stopped the majority from driving drunk. It was attitudes about drunk driving that changed for the vast majority, so laws were put into place to which may have now had an effect on a small minority. However - also a different conversation - many of those laws are now so extreme that they go well beyond being in place for public safety, and are simply a form of puritanical punishment. Same goes for a lot of the tobacco laws in various states.

If you want to change the constitution, you can try. I don't mind if people are allowed to own whatever weapons they want. I think it's far more important that they're just sensible about it, but I don't see that conversation happening. I see an us vs. them mentality, and I don't think it's good.

[CTyankee]

145. Sensible gun laws? Well, yes, I am in favor of that...

I have often offered Norway as an example. A gun loving and gun using populace who also agree to certain limitations on guns in the name of safety. They had ONE mass shooting, we have one just about every week or so. Am I crazy for thinking this doesn't work for us as a nation?

[harmonicon]

146. The first step has to be a change in attitudes.

In Switzerland, it used to be that everyone in the army (i.e., most men) had to have their service weapon at home. With so many guns, they have been slightly more cases of things like suicide committed with guns than in some other countries, but nothing like the US, both in terms of crime and "accidents." The attitudes are different. Now, the attitudes are so different, that it's possible for people in the army to petition to not keep their service weapon at home. First attitudes have to change, and then maybe laws will change. I care far more about the change in attitudes than I do in the change in law.

[CTyankee]

147. I'm in full favor of the Swiss idea, but tell me something: why hasn't that kind of

attitude caught on here? Is it because we keep on making excuses with the 2ndA?

What do you do in the face of such intransigence against the will of the people?

[rucky]

55. Venti latte, extra shot. n/t

[Bucky]

56. If the Harlem shake gets old and Broneys get old, how come the gun accident trend doesn't go away?

[Ilsa]

57. I can't believe she hasn't changed purses

in a year. Where are the fashion police?

[darkangel218]

131. Maybe she did, and thats why she forgot the gun was in that purse.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. The NRA, the gun manufacturers, the gun dealers, and gunners in general promote blase attitudes

towards guns.

They're "just tools," you know? Forgeting a loaded gun in your purse, or in a bag in a three year olds bedroom, or whatever - that's just the very same as forgetting a nail file, or a spatula. No difference at all, say the gun industry and their gunner flunkies. Tra la la! It's just a tool, doncha know?

They can't, on the on hand, demand that we consider a gun a tool like any other and, on the other, demand that we pay special attention to them. They promote the former attitude, and in doing so create these absurdist and deadly situations. There is no such thing as a "responsible" gunner; as soon as one buys the gunner ideology, one becomes constitutively irresponsible.

[classof56]

65. A similar thing happened in a town near me awhile back in a McDonald's.

A husband and wife just sat down at a table, she placed her purse on the floor and her gun discharged, shooting him in the abdomen. Got the other patrons' attention, guess you could say, and the aftermath has not been pretty. Why do I see further such incidents in the future?

Things that make you go

[duhneece]

73. Our County Commissioner 'forgot' his gun going into courthouse

Rardin gets gun citationCommissioner-elect carries weapon into courthouse
Alamogordo Daily News
By Laura London, Staff Writeralamogordonews.com
Posted: 12/11/2008 12:00:00 AM MST


Ronny Rardin, who is to be sworn in as an Otero County commissioner in January, says the ticket he got at the courthouse Wednesday morning for bringing a gun inside was the result of an honest mistake.

"I guess honesty isn't the best policy anymore," Rardin said during a telephone interview Wednesday afternoon.

Rardin said he had forgotten his .380-caliber semi-automatic pistol was in his computer case when he went into the courthouse, but immediately turned the gun in to courthouse security as soon as he remembered he had it.

He explained he had the gun for protection on the highway and had just returned from Albuquerque; he had simply forgotten to take it out of the case. He was in the county treasurer's office speaking to Grace Gonzalez when he remembered. ...
http://www.alamogordonews.com/ci_11190006
He's a Republcan (our county remains backwards Republcan) who keeps getting elected. This was just a minor glitch...he's fighting the Forest Service on behalf of ranchers and timber locals who want to rape our forest.

[Hekate]

75. She hadn't dumped her purse in a year?

I carry a big bag, which is bad news for my shoulder but easy for tossing everything into when I'm on the go. Periodically I upend it on my bed to sort out the contents and lighten the load.

How the hell do you miss knowing you have a gun in there? And if you are a gun owner, how the hell do you not have the weapon in the "off" position and in a case of its own? (Sorry I don't know your terminology, but I am sure you get the picture well enough.)

This defies reason, logic, common sense, and incidentally the law. I hope they throw the book at her.

As for HuffPost and their photo: lazy, lazy, lazy. It detracts from the seriousness of the information in the article, and makes one wonder if they got anything else wrong.

[AndyA]

76. Just another accident, folks. Nothing to see here, move on.

Go buy MORE MORE MORE guns.

Guess we should all be thankful it didn't go off and shoot a 4 year old in the face, right?

[undeterred]

80. Just how big is her purse?

If there were a gun in my purse I don't think I could forget about it very easily.

[SlipperySlope]

87. The Titan 25 is pretty small

Not the smallest handgun around, but it doesn't take up much room in a handbag.

[Rebellious Republican]

92. Sure, she must have thought it was a cigarette lighter or a tampon! N/T

[olddots]

89. A gun down the front of our pants

how many times have you seen a movie or TV show where somebody hides the gun in their pants ? Its a damn movie and a prop but people grow up thinking guns are toys or props and nobody gets hurt.

Looking at a picture of the real gun that looks like a cheap toy I can believe she forgot it in her purse .
A gun can be a prop ---- one that makes you feel safe n a dangerous world so you must carry one at all times and have one at close touch . Damn that must feel so good to have your " equalizer " with you at a Starbucks .

Guns are not toys or props and serious gun owners know that or do they ?i

[harmonicon]

115. Most of them don't seem to know that.

At least the vocal ones.

You can point out all of the statistics in the world to show them that having a gun in their home makes they and their family far less safe than if they didn't have guns in the home, and they'll ignore the facts or try to obfuscate by insinuating that people who rely on facts don't understand gun magic.

It is a toy or a prop, in the sense that people think it does something that it doesn't. It isn't, because people then fail to recognize what it really is.

[In_The_Wind]

91. How does a woman forget there is a gun in her purse!

[mysuzuki2]

100. I knw very little about firearms

But isn't it considered to be wise not to keep a round in the chamber?

[ManiacJoe]

132. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[Kablooie]

106. That does it! I'm not going to Starbucks anymore. They've become too dangerous.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

124. Women and their bags

You really do have everything in there.

[Laelth]

126. Lovely. (sarcasm) n/t

-Laelth

[demwing]

128. Until my recent divorce from StarFucks

this St Pete store was my regular stop after work.

I need a state that doesn't end up in the news so god damned much...

[darkangel218]

130. This was NOT a responsible gun owner, and anyone who wants to make an "example" of it

of how guns are not safe, then you're horribly wrong. This person was carrying a gun illegally and she will suffer the consequences. There are thousands of freak accidents every day, involving all sorts of objects. Should we ban every single object that could potentially harm someone if handled inappropriately?

lol!

[RILib]

139. covers mouth to prevent obviously laughing at karma at work

In a year she hasn't reorganized her purse? There was no safety on this gun?

[Sancho]

144. I shop in that mall...and now I can't go anywhere!

St. Pete used to be a quiet place. In the last year or so:

One women and one child were shot standing watching fireworks by gun fire in the air.

One guy was shot by some guy arguing about the pizza he ordered.

Now there's gunfire at the coffee shop...

I can imagine a new retirement trailer park sign now:

"Over 55; small caliber community"