What really gets me on this is the complete and total stupidity of the mother. In what universe would an aware individual put a toddler and a bag with a gun in the same cart?

Now this poor kid will spend his life thinking it is his fault his mother is dead when it was her utter stupidity. It hurts my heart to no end.

"As noted earlier, there is a chance that "dumb" guns will be viewed as defective. At one time, seat belts and air bags were viewed as extravagances. Personalized guns, or smart guns, can use RFID chips or other proximity devices as well as fingerprint recognition or magnetic rings. Magnetic ring guns are already available. There are even new designs that would allow biometric sensors in the grip and trigger known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition, which the New Jersey Institute of Technology says can distinguish an owner with 90% accuracy."

The single most reliable piece of equipment known to man is the modern pistol. No amount of "smart" bullshit can make up for the stupidity of the human handling one. Or, apparently, the stupidity of those making claims like this. The proximity devices would not have stopped this.

And this citation ignores the failure rate as if it were acceptable. 10% of the time, your pistol would not know it was you trying to defend yourself?

No deal, idiot. The design I have is over 100 years old because it works.

Works. For real, not in theory. Given a choice between my pistol and one of these fancy things touted in the quote, Jonathan Turley will pick MINE every time when his door is kicked in. Because then, the "experienced gun owner" will not be arguing from a comfortable chair in front of a pretty screen.

Kids and tools require extra care.

Fools and tools should be avoided.

Like Radwaste. I am not a fan of the new smart gun technology.
It isn't reliable enough for when you really need it.

I personally don't carry a loaded gun. I don't expect to ever be in a gun fight where the five seconds it takes me to insert the magazine, and rack the slide will matter.
But I support the rights of anyone with a dangerous job or who lives in a dangerous place to carry a loaded gun, in a holster where they maintain control over it.

(The pocket in your purse doesn't count for a very good reason)

I could also carry the gun with a loaded magazine in the gun but no round in the chamber. No toddler would have the hand strength to rack the slide, on most semi automatics, and then pull the trigger.

The gun is for my protection if I am ever unlucky enough to be in a deserted area with a flat tire, or some other place that is dangerous.

I suspect this incident involved either a revolver or a string of poor safety choices by the mother in question.

Turleys campaign for these high tech safety devices is silly.

The technology isn't even close to reliable enough for it to make any difference, and it will just be used as an excuse by idiot politicians to require that every gun be retrofitted with this technology at a cost of hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

Saying that he is an *experienced gun owner* is like having an opinion about the design of a car because you have driven one a few times.

He doesn't know what he is talking about,

I'll add that product liability will have the exact opposite effect of what Turley states: rather than driving "dumb" guns off the market, it will inhibit "smart" technology (no matter how good it ever becomes) from reaching the market. Because, in the eyes of the legal system, it shifts liability from the gun owner to the manufacturer.

As Isab said, there are many ways to 'carry' a gun that will make it just as impossible for a toddler to fire it without adding the inherent risk involved in using microchips and batteries.

I work with computers. I trust them to fail at some point when using them. Whether it's the car, the washing machine, or the toaster, it will fail.

When you need to use your weapon, it _must not_ fail. With your car, it just doesn't start. With your weapon, it's very probably your life.

"What really gets me on this is the complete and total stupidity of the mother. In what universe would an aware individual put a toddler and a bag with a gun in the same cart?"

Agreed. Apparently this woman also had three other children with her. Four is too many to watch.

Hypothetically, if the toddler had enough time to rummage in her purse, find the gun, and fire it, he had enough time to stand up, fall out of the cart head first and die from a cracked skull,

I think if that had happened Turley and others would be rightly blaming the adult in charge at the scene, and not screaming how if Walmart equipped their carts with giant high tech airbags, which worked 90 percent of the time, these things wouldn't happen.

But because it was a gun, the gun is the problem....

If you are carrying a gun your very first responsibility is to maintain control of it at ALL TIMES. This means, functionally, that it needs to be on your person. Which is why carrying in your purse is not a good choice. Unless you never EVER put your purse down. In your house? Nope, unless you live alone and have no visitors. At your desk? NO. In a restaurant? NO NEVER, in a shopping cart? HELL NO!!! So, carry on your person or never ever let go of your purse. Even on your person there are still challenges. Do you secure it when you take a shower? YES! What about when dropping your kid off at school? Oops, not allowed on school grounds, even in the parking lot! The safety would help too, but many gun people don't like a safety on carry pistols (some guns don't have them at all) -- they are hard to release in a crisis situation unless you have extensively trained the muscle memory into doing it. To which I say: you absolutely should be investing that much time & practice into handling your firearm if you are going to be responsible for carrying it around all the time and possibly be ready to use it. That means practicing with it at the range weekly or bi-weekly.

The bottom line is that it takes a great deal of dedication and diligence for a woman with kids to carry safely and if you aren't absolutely sure you are up to the responsibility 24/7 then DON'T DO IT.

(I don't, because based on the frequency of misplacing my keys/purse it's a responsibility that terrifies me. But I have considered it extensively)

I don't care about smart guns; I care about smart people -- because no matter how "smart" the gun gets, there will be someone stupid enough to circumvent it.

The smart gun technology isn't needed if you pick the right gun. My father had a concealed carry permit, and his weapon of choice was a double action .38 snub nose revolver. It was ALWAYS loaded, but He never carried it cocked and the amount of force needed to pull the trigger otherwise was too much for a small child to manage. I couldn't pull the trigger till I was 13. A toddler could have played with it all day long without it going off.

There are even new designs that would allow biometric sensors in the grip and trigger known as (DGR) Dynamic Grip Recognition, which the New Jersey Institute of Technology says can distinguish an owner with 90% accuracy.

If your car failed to start one time out of ten, you'd take it to a mechanic.

I don't want guns to have all that questionable crap added to them. It is just too unreliable when you really need it. I have several young children (3, 2, 1, 0) and I concealed carry. I carry with the safety on and don't keep a bullet chambered. It greatly reduces the chance of one of my curious toddlers being able to fire it on the off chance they managed to get their hands on it. I usually carry on my body, but have sometimes needed to carry in my purse, which I don't like doing for several reasons (like it does me good to gave it in my purse if someone is trying to steal said purse or they are physically assaulting me and I then have to not only try to protect myself but also rummage around for my weapon. I would never keep my gun in my purse if I weren't going to be holding it the whole time or in immediate reach and sight of it (like having it in the seat/top basket of the cart as I push it. This woman did so many things wrong that led to her toddler shooting her.

Every time that a law requiring "smart guns" is proposed, there are two groups that lobby - successfully - to be exempt, cops and prison guards. That should tell you how reliable these things aren't - the people most at risk of having their gun taken away and used by a criminal don't want to carry them.

Every now and then, we read of some tragic case where a toddler left in a vehicle with the engine running manages to put it in 'drive' with (insert tragic consequence here). Yet I don't hear calls for cars to be equipped with user-only interlock devices.

Calls like this for more technology and safety solutions are nothing more than pretexts for the real goals of many, which are to make firearms more-costly and less-functional for their intended purposes, thus discouraging their purchase and use.

One-in-a-million cases like this are a very bad basis on which to base any sort of regulation or design. It's quite possible that, if some of the technologies that Mr Turley suggests are forced onto firearms as a result of a case like this, several people will lose their lives because their firearm failed to operate when they needed it. It's always the unintended consequences that turn around to bite you.

llater,

llamas

Every now and then, we read of some tragic case where a toddler left in a vehicle with the engine running manages to put it in 'drive' with (insert tragic consequence here). Yet I don't hear calls for cars to be equipped with user-only interlock devices.

Actually, I do — every time a parent (whoopsie!) "forgets" a child in a car seat where it bakes to death, a call is raised for the American auto industry to install back seat alarms in every single goddamn car.

But because it was a gun, the gun is the problem....
If it was lipstick or a cell phone, she wouldn't be dead, would she?

Admit the gun is at least part of the problem. Or is that asking too much?

But because it was a gun, the gun is the problem....
If it was lipstick or a cell phone, she wouldn't be dead, would she?

Admit the gun is at least part of the problem. Or is that asking too much?

Posted by: DrCos at December 31, 2014 12:19 PM

Yes, it is too much. Because a gun is a tool just like a knife.

And a knife, sitting in a kitchen drawer isn't a problem, An unloaded gun, is even less dangerous than a knife, but once you load it, it is like turning the key in your car, and putting the gear shift into drive. At that point you need to be controlling it.

Not too difficult to understand, except for the willfully obtuse with some sort of emotional or political axe to grind.

Admit the gun is at least part of the problem.

From above: avoid mixing fools with tools. Or as we say in the tech biz: PEBKAC

Problem exists between keyboard and chair.

I just had to clean up the consequence of a user's lack of password security, so I'm bit of a stabby mood. Their password was used to access our server to send out a boatload of spam whilst I was on holiday.

Technically, I'm still on holiday, but if people can't reliably send their email...

Please visit a few Web sites to learn what is available for firearms training. Thunder Ranch, Gunsite, Front Sight, Lethal Force Institute are all firms you should consider once you notice that there is no TV show out there that uses guns correctly as a matter of routine.
The idiot cited isn't a professional.

Oh come on Aggie, you know you gotta give us a hint. What password was it? Was it password? or my favorite - password1?

Again, I don't want to force anyone into anything. I want a parent who has her gun in her purse next to her toddler to take a precaution or two. Because she's a mom.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2014 4:27 PM

Me too. But Turley's so called solution is silly.

And as others have pointed out, this tragedy was not only foreseeable, but easily prevented by training available in the most basic handgun class, and simple mechanical common sense methods of securing a handgun.

There is nothing magical about zipping a loaded gun up in the pocket of your purse. *but it was in a holster*.

SO WHAT?

It is like leaving it on a low table in the TV room, right next to where your toddler is eating Cheerios.

The mother is totally to blame for this. She never should have had a gun if she was going to be so irresponsible with it, especially around her kids.

It's idiots like this that give gun owners a bad name.

First off, this gun must have a hell of a "hair trigger" for a two year old to fire it. Second off, most of the guns that have "hair triggers" also have safeties. The mother was 100% to blame.

Yes, it is too much. Because a gun is a tool just like a knife.
And if a 2 year old killed his mom with a knife, the knife would be part of the problem.

From above: avoid mixing fools with tools. Or as we say in the tech biz: PEBKAC
It certainly does. On your end as well, Darth.

Badmouthing guns certainly brings out the best in some people, doesn't it? God, guns, and beer, I guess.

USA! USA! USA!

So, DrCos, in a car accident, the car is at least partly to blame, correct?
After all, you wouldn't be having a CAR accident if you weren't using a car, yes?
Quite an insight.

There is only one person to prevent this tragedy, and sadly, she paid all she had.
But an experienced owner, around guns all her life, and a scientist, to boot iirc... maybe a bit too comfortable.

Care, and long life go together, sheepherder.

We can speculate abut WHY a toddler could pull that trigger... and maybe learn something from that...
Maybe like a loaded weapon should always be in you physical control...
And that means no CC Purse. Every range safety or CC instructor I've heard of is against them.

But that's a decision an INDIVIDUAL makes. JUST LIKE GETTING IN A CAR.

It has no larger purpose for everyone else than "don't do that."
It's sad to learn lessons this way.

But back in yon olden days I knew a girl who went through the windshield of her car w/o her seatbelt. She lived, but with scars.
My response was to put seatbelts in my '59 Rambler (was an option on the car) and beginning to wear them.

Long before there were seatbelt laws, that roughly half the people ignore. Because I learned from another's mistake.

The answer to every ill in the world is NOT more laws and regulations... Because they mostly don't end up applying to the people they are intended to.

The answer is to allow people the agency to make up their minds, and potentially fail.
Elsewise, we are just cattle, constrained in a pen.

Admit the gun is at least part of the problem.

No; a gun is an inanimate, mechanical object. It has no will, it has no intent, it has no mechanism for setting itself off.

It it a tool, you may as well blame a rock because someone threw it and broke your widow.

Is the rock partially to blame for being just small enough to be held, while being just heavy enough to cause damage while not being to heavy to have been thrown the proper distance?

Hubby and I have a biometric gun safe. It has refused to open for me, before (always in a non-emergency, and not often) but it happens. Really cold hands, sweaty hands...all things that happen to the body in times of severe stress. Putting this on all guns is a horrible idea. Fully computerized medical records were a great idea too, till they hit the hospitals and the scanners won't scan a noticeable chunk of the time, the whole system crashes every so often leaving us little practical way to access records, and sometimes you simply can't get a patient their (pain) meds because they're locked up in a computerized McKesson dispenser that just malfunctioned (to keep people from stealing pain meds, you understand. It was for a GOOD purpose...). Specialization leads to extinction, not safety, and we really need to stop relying on computers quite so much, not add more.

We could live in a fully armed society for another 1000 years without this scenario happening again. It was shitty luck and pretty serious operator error.

Why oh why can't we have a smart gun that recognizes the owner's fingerprint, samples the skin for DNA, matches both against an FBI database, scours the internet for a facial recognition match of the target to make sure the business end isn't pointed at a policeman, school administrator, politician, or rich person, and then decides how much energy will be alloted to the bullet, if it's allowed to fire at all?

It just makes sense.

People as dumb as this mother are likely to figure out, so to speak, at least one way to kill one of their kids. Left in the car oh a summer day. Backing over one in the driveway. Poison left handy. Pull the batteries from smoke detector because the stupid thing keeps squawking for no reason. Boating without flotation devices.

"People as dumb as this mother are likely to figure out, so to speak, at least one way to kill one of their kids. Left in the car oh a summer day. Backing over one in the driveway. Poison left handy. Pull the batteries from smoke detector because the stupid thing keeps squawking for no reason. Boating without flotation devices."

Don't vaccinate, because Jenny McCarthy.

Radwaste and chickia have good points, as did (I believe) Cousin Dave - respectively, a 10% failure rate is unacceptable when your life is on the line, your gun should be under your control at all times which means you don't set your purse down where your two-year-old can pull the gun out, and if your car only started 9 out of ten times, you'd bring it to a mechanic.

That said, the discussion (which quickly degenerated into the American Gun Control Debate, MkI Mod 4, OD Green, 1 each) shouldn't be about biometrics. That gives an imperfect technology too much credit. The technology exists today to foil a two-year-old or at least to slow him down enough to allow Mom to get back to the firearm.

Some handguns really are "point and shoot." The news reports haven't IDed the make and model of Veronica Rutledge's gun yet, but if she had a revolver or, for example, a Glock, they have no manual safety, and even a toddler could pick one up and operate it without having to figure out anything else. (Comments above about "hair triggers" are just so much horsecrap.)

Other types of handguns, like the Taurus .45 semi-auto I frequently carry (even in my local WalMart), require me to manipulate a lever with my thumb before the weapon will fire, even if it's loaded and there's a round in the chamber. It would take some work and luck (and probably two hands) for the toddler to operate the safety lever. Likewise, as Isab points out, I'm not required to carry it with a round in the chamber, either; a two-year-old probably won't be able to rack the slide. Or at least not fast enough that Mom won't see it and catch him before he's able to discharge the weapon.

Firearms when carried in public belong on the person and in the control of the carrier at all times. If that threatens to ruin the lines of your cute outfit, maybe you're too concerned with your cute outfit to worry about carrying the means of ending someone's life. Some fashion sacrifices and a level of responsibility are absolutely required when equipping oneself with that kind of power.

Biometrics aren't the answer, nor (ultimately) are manual safeties, although they're a better answer than bio or than a Glock or revolver for a parent with a gun.

Biometrics aren't the answer, nor (ultimately) are manual safeties, although they're a better answer than bio or than a Glock or revolver for a parent with a gun.

Posted by: Grey Ghost at January 2, 2015 11:49 AM

My carry gun, is a Glock 19. No two year old can rack that slide. It is really stiff. Much stiffer than on my competition 1911 or my Beretta 92FS.

If you have shot a Glock that was easy to rack,either the mainspring was completely worn out, or it had been cut down to make it easier for a woman or a senior to operate.

I think a six pound trigger would be enough to deter most two year olds, Get down under four, and a strong two year old would manage it.

This was a perfect storm type of accident that could have been easily prevented by just being a little bit careful.

I am also thinking revolver being the type of gun involved, or single action auto with a lighter trigger. (Some well meaning people think that a lighter trigger makes it easier for a woman or an older person to use)

(It also makes an AD much more likely.)

Most instructors recommend a pretty heavy trigger on a carry gun because it is difficult to accidentally set off,

There are quite a few policemen, and action shooters who have managed to put a hole in their leg or foot when their pistol hung up in their holster.

I am not a big admirer of draw and shoot competitions or practice for this reason.

A lot of wanna be gun fighters out there, giving recreational shooting and concealed carry a bad name.

And sorry, I mistyped. That should have been *recoil spring* and not *main spring* on a Glock.

"Her father-in-law said that when she walked into the Hayden Walmart Tuesday morning, her 9-millimeter Smith and Wesson semi-automatic handgun was safely tucked into a purse with a special pouch designed to carry a concealed weapon"

So, a 9mm semi auto, round chambered, probably no safety engaged, and a light trigger.

"SEATTLE, Wash.--Gun experts recommend against women carrying guns in purses. At Wade's Eastside Guns, the retail manager says purses can be stolen, so it's best to keep a concealed gun on your person.

In the wake of the accident in Hayden, Idaho, KING 5 contacted retail manager, Rugger Cotten, for advise on gun safety for women.

Rugger showed us purses designed to hold pistols, with side pockets and built-in holsters. But he says a spandex belly band around the body is safer.

"This is your self defense. You get robbed and he runs down the street. Not only does the bad guy get all your information, he has your gun."

Cotten also says the pull weight is an important safety feature. Some guns have triggers that are easier to pull than others.

Cotten stresses that keeping the gun in a holster is vital to gun safety."

Thanks for the more info Isab...
but could a 2 year old manage an M&P9 Shield with a 6.5 pound trigger? I'm trying to think what weapon she would be likely that would have a light pull...

Unless she was foolish enough to modify it. Perhaps an older DA/SA that she could carry ready, but with the safety on...
And that could be offed by a kid perhaps...

Bottom line is it was out of her possession. All the other bad decisions flow from that.

Thanks for the more info Isab...
but could a 2 year old manage an M&P9 Shield with a 6.5 pound trigger? I'm trying to think what weapon she would be likely that would have a light pull...

Probably not.

I'm guessing that the gun was indeed modified. It takes about thirty seconds for an experienced gunsmith to change the trigger pull weight on a 1911. If you are shooting in competition you want a trigger that is slightly over the minimum allowable weight, and we often fix them on the firing line.
However, the only gun I can put together if you were to hand me a box of parts is a 1911 Series 70.

Anything else I would need a parts diagram, and a YouTube video. :-).

Don't ask me how you change the trigger weight on a Glock or a cheap Smith and Wesson. I would have to ask.

When you have a light competition trigger, you never chamber a round until you are at the range with the gun in your hand, and pointed at the target.

I'm guessing that the Smith she was carrying had a reduced trigger weight. Often done by well meaning gunsmiths because it is safe enough as long as you are not carrying the gun with a round chambered, and it does make it easier for women and older people to shoot the gun accurately. A really heavy trigger is tough to pull straight back and you will often pull the sights totally out of alignment trying to shoot it, and endanger everyone, and everything *but* your intended target.
If you are in a stressful situation it gets even worse.

I talked my 90 year old mother out of keeping a loaded gun in her dresser when she lost the hand strength to be able pull the trigger double action, or unlock the cylinder of her revolver.
The gun simply was not safe to store in a configuration that she could operate it.
She doesn't drive anymore for the same reason. She isn't strong enough, and does not have quick enough reactions to be a safe driver....

Shooting is a series of trade offs, and in this case, the light trigger, with a round chambered, and the gun not in the control of the permit holder was a series of choices that equaled a fatal chain of events.

Unfortunate, but not a situation that needs a high tech fix.

This poor woman did not take her hand gun responsibilities seriously enough, and died from it.