Good analyses by most. Yes it is unfortunate and there are several lives that will be adversely impacted by the event. Longer term damage will be done to us collectively as the anti-gun faction will be thrilled to get as much mileage out of this as possible. All the more reason for for us to be vigilant and practice what we have (hopefully) learned and preach. Be safe out there!
Unintended discharge with 9mm M&P Shield results in fatality.
- Thread starter Dutchboyy
- Start date
Doug M.
Member
Mechanical safeties are optional. The real safety, which is not optional, is between one's ears. Sadly, there are some people who use that space only to keep their ears from touching. One can only have an ND with a Glock, M&P, or other striker fired pistol, if they blatantly violate rule 3. And efforts to make the Glock more idiot proof at NYPD, instead of providing adequate training, have created MORE problems. The Apex kits come in at least 2 varieties - one of which is a Duty/carry design, and according to every qualified person whose opinion I have encountered, that version is perfectly fine for that purpose. (If the reset fetishists could have their training scar fixed, there would be less trouble about this, too.)
Cpo1944
Member
I think this reinforces my commitment to revolvers for CC. I don't think the poor little guy would have been strong enough to pull the trigger on DA . Just too sad for words and my heart goes out to them all.
F75gunslinger
Member
The first safety of any firearm you own is YOU. How it is handled, where it is kept,and who has access to it.
For those of you who have never had children, allow me to give you some advice( and remind those of you who DO have kids ). A 2 year old child will get into EVERYTHING. You will forever be astounded at the things they can get into. If this poor kid ever saw Mom pull some gum or a piece of candy out of her purse , that is more than enough reason for them to dig through the purse. On top of that, they're constantly curious,and always finding new things that can amuse them. This tragedy occurred because this woman got complacent in her responsibility.
For those who consider carrying unloaded, please take some time to do some research. One of the most common statements in a self defense situation is " It all happened so fast". Look at the " 21 foot rule " and see exactly what it's about. Take a friend and do some drills. See how fast he can get to you if you have to chamber a round first. Then take into account that you won't be nearly as ready if something goes badly for you. You will find you won't have time.If you carry a revolver, you're already down on ammo over a semi-auto. Being 15-20% further down is decreasing your chances even further.
Practice presenting whatever you carry. Take time to do it slowly, and do it deliberately. Look objectively at what you may be doing wrong. Fix it and try again. Train to take the safety off on the draw, but leave your finger outside the trigger guard. Again, the last safety of any firearm is YOU.
For those of you who have never had children, allow me to give you some advice( and remind those of you who DO have kids ). A 2 year old child will get into EVERYTHING. You will forever be astounded at the things they can get into. If this poor kid ever saw Mom pull some gum or a piece of candy out of her purse , that is more than enough reason for them to dig through the purse. On top of that, they're constantly curious,and always finding new things that can amuse them. This tragedy occurred because this woman got complacent in her responsibility.
For those who consider carrying unloaded, please take some time to do some research. One of the most common statements in a self defense situation is " It all happened so fast". Look at the " 21 foot rule " and see exactly what it's about. Take a friend and do some drills. See how fast he can get to you if you have to chamber a round first. Then take into account that you won't be nearly as ready if something goes badly for you. You will find you won't have time.If you carry a revolver, you're already down on ammo over a semi-auto. Being 15-20% further down is decreasing your chances even further.
Practice presenting whatever you carry. Take time to do it slowly, and do it deliberately. Look objectively at what you may be doing wrong. Fix it and try again. Train to take the safety off on the draw, but leave your finger outside the trigger guard. Again, the last safety of any firearm is YOU.
For every ND that kills someone, I'd bet there are a hundred that injure someone, or just leave a hole in the floor, or cause a TV set to blow up (Rule #1 violated by dry-firers who are surprised when there is a round in the chamber). One suspects a few family cats, ready targets for dry-firers watching TV in the barca-lounger, have died this way...
Every ND is an argument, in some minds, for more gun control. In addition to being a tragedy. This case (the woman shot by the child) is getting a lot of press coverage... being exploited on behalf of increased gun control.
I usually lose the argument about a round in the chamber in terms of numbers -- most people disagree with me, and that is probably the case on this forum, too. I will stand on one thing, though: my argument is not based on squeamishness or ignorance of guns. This is a moral argument, not a technical one.
The right to self-defense (and defense of innocents) has an unassailable moral and legal basis. As imperative as that is, it does not mean I can invoke "self-defense" without due diligence. The equation is NOT will I be better able to defend myself if I have a round in the chamber. If that were the only test, then there should always be a round in the chamber! What is my calculus? Is the reduction in threat to me with a round in the chamber, compared to risk with the first round still in the magazine, worth the increased threat to me and to others caused by the potential for a ND? I believe the answer is no, even if the risk is statistically very small, because of the moral responsibility involved if I hurt an innocent person by mistake.
(And note that this argument does not apply to the Police, who have an imperative to respond to violent actors, thus bringing great and unpredictable danger upon themselves AND the requirement to apply force to protect society, which justifies carrying rounds in the chamber).
I do not believe my right to defend myself outweighs everyone else's right to be safe. In the logical extension of this principle, I have drilled and drilled on the idea that I will not shoot unless a life is threatened, and I'm not shooting unless I am sure of where that bullet is going if it misses or passes through the person (or beast) threatening innocent lives. For most city/suburban scenarios, this rule means I do not intend to fire unless I know exactly what the backstop is going to be. I expect to run away, or hold fire and maneuver to a better firing location, yes potentially increasing the risk to me, to avoid hitting an innocent victim somewhere behind the threat.
Likewise, I practice a lot at the range, building on several shooting courses attended over the years, to increase the odds I will hit what I am going to shoot at. Which is part of the due diligence required before using a weapon in a defensive situation, in my opinion. Similarly, I select ammunition suited for the potential target and environment -- usually the Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel Ammunition 38 Special +P 135 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point for my J frames.
That's just my philosophy. If you think my premise is correct -- that our firearms can potentially hurt innocent life as well as protect it -- there is a lot to think about, and perhaps getting that first shot off quickly is not #1.
In short, I don't think this shooting was necessary nor is it morally justifiable under the doctrine of self defense. Mindset, training, good procedures, safe carry, layers of safety well thought out (including an empty chamber), positive control of the firearm, and more factors in that poor woman's control and under her moral responsibility when taking up a lethal weapon could have prevented this event. She is dead, but it could have been the child, or another innocent in a nearby shopping cart.
Every ND is an argument, in some minds, for more gun control. In addition to being a tragedy. This case (the woman shot by the child) is getting a lot of press coverage... being exploited on behalf of increased gun control.
I usually lose the argument about a round in the chamber in terms of numbers -- most people disagree with me, and that is probably the case on this forum, too. I will stand on one thing, though: my argument is not based on squeamishness or ignorance of guns. This is a moral argument, not a technical one.
The right to self-defense (and defense of innocents) has an unassailable moral and legal basis. As imperative as that is, it does not mean I can invoke "self-defense" without due diligence. The equation is NOT will I be better able to defend myself if I have a round in the chamber. If that were the only test, then there should always be a round in the chamber! What is my calculus? Is the reduction in threat to me with a round in the chamber, compared to risk with the first round still in the magazine, worth the increased threat to me and to others caused by the potential for a ND? I believe the answer is no, even if the risk is statistically very small, because of the moral responsibility involved if I hurt an innocent person by mistake.
(And note that this argument does not apply to the Police, who have an imperative to respond to violent actors, thus bringing great and unpredictable danger upon themselves AND the requirement to apply force to protect society, which justifies carrying rounds in the chamber).
I do not believe my right to defend myself outweighs everyone else's right to be safe. In the logical extension of this principle, I have drilled and drilled on the idea that I will not shoot unless a life is threatened, and I'm not shooting unless I am sure of where that bullet is going if it misses or passes through the person (or beast) threatening innocent lives. For most city/suburban scenarios, this rule means I do not intend to fire unless I know exactly what the backstop is going to be. I expect to run away, or hold fire and maneuver to a better firing location, yes potentially increasing the risk to me, to avoid hitting an innocent victim somewhere behind the threat.
Likewise, I practice a lot at the range, building on several shooting courses attended over the years, to increase the odds I will hit what I am going to shoot at. Which is part of the due diligence required before using a weapon in a defensive situation, in my opinion. Similarly, I select ammunition suited for the potential target and environment -- usually the Speer Gold Dot Short Barrel Ammunition 38 Special +P 135 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point for my J frames.
That's just my philosophy. If you think my premise is correct -- that our firearms can potentially hurt innocent life as well as protect it -- there is a lot to think about, and perhaps getting that first shot off quickly is not #1.
In short, I don't think this shooting was necessary nor is it morally justifiable under the doctrine of self defense. Mindset, training, good procedures, safe carry, layers of safety well thought out (including an empty chamber), positive control of the firearm, and more factors in that poor woman's control and under her moral responsibility when taking up a lethal weapon could have prevented this event. She is dead, but it could have been the child, or another innocent in a nearby shopping cart.
Last edited:
I would think it would take at least a couple of minutes for a 2 year old to unzip the holster and take the gun out point it and pull the trigger. If it had a safety (mine does) it would have been even harder for the 2 year old to do as the safety on mine takes some force to click off. It seems that the child had some time unobserved for this to happen and that is never good with a 2 year old. Gun or no gun.
Hi, believe it or not as you get more comfortable with carrying you will change your mind. The only reason that you are aware of accidents is that they are heavily reported by the news media whereas CCW holders who successfully deter a BG is barely reported at all. In fact for many you have to go to the American Rifleman or Combat Handguns to find the reports. I highly encourage you to take one of Mas Ayoob's courses
Amen. That about sums it up.
For some NDs committed by people who have more firearms training than the average: Search Result: Accidental Discharges - POLICE Magazine
http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...0350-2-yr-old-shooting-mom-her-cc-weapon.html
Same discussion that forum. I repeat what i said there - you NEVER lose track of your firearm.
***GRJ***
Same discussion that forum. I repeat what i said there - you NEVER lose track of your firearm.
***GRJ***
Stratajema
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2013
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 87
It was the deceased's first or second day carrying the gun in a purse specifically designed for concealing a gun in a zippered pocket.
Hind is 20/20. Just tragic anyway you cut it, and that poor child has to grow up with the reality.
God Bless all involved.
God Bless all involved.
motorcyclejoe
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 178
- Reaction score
- 129
Speaking as an ignorant member of this forum I find myself in complete agreement with S&W Rover......
Johnmuratore
Member
I believe this happened because the purse containing a firearm became "just a purse". The lady wouldn't have removed a holster with a firearm in it and thrown it into a shopping cart.
I'm not faulting women on this. If men carried purses they also probably would start off being conscious of where the firearm was going, but when it returned to the habitual behavior of being cavalier about the purse, big problem.
I think anything off your person is dangerous and probably illegal.
I'm not faulting women on this. If men carried purses they also probably would start off being conscious of where the firearm was going, but when it returned to the habitual behavior of being cavalier about the purse, big problem.
I think anything off your person is dangerous and probably illegal.
I'll throw in my 2 cents…….an unloaded CCW might as well be a stick…things happen in a split second. I am guessing that very few people are trained, and practice drawing, and racking the slide on a semi auto, or drawing and pulling the trigger on an empty chambered revolver, those seconds, could very well get you killed. I am also not a fan of striker fired weapons, with no thumb safety. I regularly carry a 1911 in condition 1……I keep the safety on, and I keep my finger off the trigger, unless I plan on discharging the weapon, the same goes for any revolver I may carry….. I keep my finger off the trigger.
That being said, this mother made several mistakes, and it cost her life……the child should never of had access to the weapon, and a weapon with a trigger pull, that a two year old can pull, should of had a safety, which is something we don't know.
Your opinion may vary.
Semper Fi!
That being said, this mother made several mistakes, and it cost her life……the child should never of had access to the weapon, and a weapon with a trigger pull, that a two year old can pull, should of had a safety, which is something we don't know.
Your opinion may vary.
Semper Fi!
kbm6893
Member
Problem is that you can be the safest person in the world, just as you csn be the best driver in the world, but the unsafe idiot with the gun can be the one to kill you.
As awful as this shooting was, like 99% of negligent discharges, it was preventable by common sense. Something that is sorely lacking by far too many gun owners in this country. Just today, I left the range earlier than I planned to because of the two obviously hung over, maybe still drunk, idiots who wanted to "shoot some ****" to ring in the new year.
Last edited:
kbm6893
Member
I've been carrying for 25 years. I'm OK with what he said. Accidental shootings are far more likely than needing a firearm in a split second.
Last edited by a moderator:
Protected One
Member
I don't know where you got the idea that the number of tragic accidental shootings seem to far out number the number of times one actually defeats a mortal threat with pistol, but if you do some simple research you will find the opposite is actually true....by a large margin.
As to the notion of carrying without a round in the chamber, we are of course each free to make that decision for ourselves. But I encourage you to consider the following. You seem to recognize the fact that carrying a firearm is a large responsibility, and one not to be taken lightly. With that in mind, many of us (like-minded people) seek training and instruction from a reputable/licensed firearms instructor. Does it seem reasonable to you that if carrying without a round in the chamber was a good idea that those instructors would teach and encourage it? Yet, I know of none who do[any of them on the forum care to respond?].
Please consider finding out what those reasons are BEFORE you begin to carry. As uncomfortable as you obviously are with handling handguns in the manner for which they were designed, perhaps concealed carry should be delayed a bit, in the interest of your safety AND those you will be around.
Similar threads
