Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2012, 21:03   #1
Lakota
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 74
Hazards of carrying handgun in purse.

Abbreviating a potentially extensive discussion to its more rudimentary point:

Carrying a firearm in a purse entails the real dangers that a purse will be stolen from its owner, consequently disarming the owner and arming the theif, who is then empowered to endanger his initial victim, and, all and any elements of the public.

Endangering self and/or others is among the clinical definitions for insanity.

Conclusion: Carrying a firearm in a purse is a palpable and greivous - life & death - danger to self and others.

Truly Yours is in agreement with any who are averse to the introduction of laws restricting firearms ownership and carrying, but:
those (anti-gun lobbyists) who would deprive gun owners and CCWs of their rights may arm themselves with any and all incidents of 'purse snatching' which leads to arming criminals and disarming the law abiding public, particulary when the subjected theft measurably results in the injury or death of the initial victim, or any element of the vulnerable public.

Conclusion:
Carrying a firearm 'on your person' should be a requirement for all CCWs, in the name of the safety of the firearms carrier, and, the public at large.

Respectfully,
- Lakota
Lakota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 21:35   #2
HKLovingIT
Resident Evil
 
HKLovingIT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Out On The Tiles
Posts: 4,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakota View Post
Abbreviating a potentially extensive discussion to its more rudimentary point:

Carrying a firearm in a purse entails the real dangers that a purse will be stolen from its owner, consequently disarming the owner and arming the theif, who is then empowered to endanger his initial victim, and, all and any elements of the public.

Endangering self and/or others is among the clinical definitions for insanity.

Conclusion: Carrying a firearm in a purse is a palpable and greivous - life & death - danger to self and others.

Truly Yours is in agreement with any who are averse to the introduction of laws restricting firearms ownership and carrying, but:
those (anti-gun lobbyists) who would deprive gun owners and CCWs of their rights may arm themselves with any and all incidents of 'purse snatching' which leads to arming criminals and disarming the law abiding public, particulary when the subjected theft measurably results in the injury or death of the initial victim, or any element of the vulnerable public.

Conclusion:
Carrying a firearm 'on your person' should be a requirement for all CCWs, in the name of the safety of the firearms carrier, and, the public at large.

Respectfully,
- Lakota
I disagree with your position...

So are you indicating that you would like to see passage of a law that mandates that if you carry you must carry on your person?

Okay, what if we extend that to say that carrying in an open top holster without retention device presents an opportunity for the gun carrier to be disarmed by the criminal?

Shall we now mandate that CCW is only permissible if the CCW permit holder has a level III retention holster?

If so, what government body will perform the testing and certification for such holsters? Will it be at the State or Federal level?

What if one state has an approved list of holsters that differs from your state, and you go there and get caught with an unapproved holster?

What will be the penalty for the CCW holder if they are found to be carrying in their purse or using a holster that is not on the government approved list?

Will they lose their permit or will they have their firearms confiscated, fine, jail time, all of the above?

In this instance with the purse, some women do not have other workable options, especially in business attire. So should they only have the option to be a victim and rely on the tender mercies of thugs who run around stealing things from women in the streets? Or is the intent here to deprive only women of the right to be armed? Or perhaps, they can only be armed when dressed casual?

I suppose this would apply to any of the guys using the ole fanny pack carry method as well.

Your argument is premised on the fact that a person - the woman - is doing something law abiding, carrying her legal firearm in the manner she chooses, but because some criminal scumbag, might decide to try to steal her property, we should regulate what this law abiding woman can and cannot do.

Maybe in a certain section of town the residents are more likely to steal a car than elsewhere. Seeing as how cars are big dangerous things that can kill people and endanger others if not used properly, it should be made illegal for citizens to own or park cars in that section of town. Oh, you have to walk or take the bus to work now? Too bad. It's for your own good, because we say so, that's why.

Is it not in fact the criminal who chooses to attack this woman, steal her property and potentially use her firearm against her and others the one who is endangering people? Or is it the woman, who is just walking in the parking lot on her way to meet her friends for lunch? I think you are seeing danger in the wrong person.

I think you choose to target the woman for your new law and regulation because you know she will comply, whereas you will never get the criminal to comply with your aims. They are quite simply beyond your control, so you would criminalize something else and place the burden for compliance on the good citizen who is going about her day seeking to harm no one.

No. How about we target our efforts towards jerks who run around trying to steal purses from ladies instead of coming up with new ways to restrict your rights? Robbing people in the street, stealing purses, using stolen firearms to commit felonies, these things are already illegal. If you want to solve a problem and make the world a better place, please direct your efforts against the people who run around doing those things.

See, when you invite the government in to regulate your rights and to make things 'safer', it just makes things harder on you, not the criminal, because they aren't going to follow any silly laws that get passed to start with. That's why we call them "criminals."

Rights are rights. They are not given by the government. They are your rights by natural law. If they are given and taken by the government by decree, law or whim, then they are not really rights are they? They are temporary privileges exercised only at the good humor of those who rule over you... I don't imagine that's what our Founding Fathers had in mind.

Don't be so eager to have the government solve problems for you. It rarely works out as predicted, even with the best intentions.
__________________
Jesus didn't have a stunt double, and neither do you...

кто пукнул здесь?
Nescio, sed foetet.

Last edited by HKLovingIT; 05-17-2012 at 22:11..
HKLovingIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 21:52   #3
JK-linux
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,655
.....

Last edited by JK-linux; 05-21-2012 at 19:52..
JK-linux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 21:58   #4
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 19,260


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakota View Post
Abbreviating a potentially extensive discussion to its more rudimentary point:

Carrying a firearm in a purse entails the real dangers that a purse will be stolen from its owner, consequently disarming the owner and arming the theif, who is then empowered to endanger his initial victim, and, all and any elements of the public.

Endangering self and/or others is among the clinical definitions for insanity.

Conclusion: Carrying a firearm in a purse is a palpable and greivous - life & death - danger to self and others.

Truly Yours is in agreement with any who are averse to the introduction of laws restricting firearms ownership and carrying, but:
those (anti-gun lobbyists) who would deprive gun owners and CCWs of their rights may arm themselves with any and all incidents of 'purse snatching' which leads to arming criminals and disarming the law abiding public, particulary when the subjected theft measurably results in the injury or death of the initial victim, or any element of the vulnerable public.

Conclusion:
Carrying a firearm 'on your person' should be a requirement for all CCWs, in the name of the safety of the firearms carrier, and, the public at large.

Respectfully,
- Lakota
What other restrictions on how a gun should be carried do you think about?

What about OC?
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 22:06   #5
rilkil23
Senior Member
 
rilkil23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 60 miles south of Denver.
Posts: 1,119
I'll second your proposal but only if your new law applies to Tuesday and maybe Thursday after noon, mountain standard time. Should we build in something that requires the exact location a woman has to carry on their body? Have you taken the time to think about your post. No offense but this is plain stupidity.
rilkil23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 22:45   #6
Hour13
Tah-dah!
 
Hour13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 2,116
OP, while I can certainly understand the basic safety concern in your train of thought...

This is something to bring up as a concern, a reminder to any of the women who purse-carry, to be mindful of their surroundings. Same concern applies to anyone in an OC state using open-top holsters, people with gun-racks in their trucks, etc, etc, etc...

But to call for government regulations?

A very dangerous door to open, especially when based on what-if scenarios.

People with "NRA" stickers in their car windows are "advertising" to criminals that they possess guns, likely multiple guns. Said criminals may tail them, find out where they live... Should we ban these stickers? While we're at it, hats, T-shirts?

Many people keep a gun in their car. If you are not in your car, then the gun is not "on your person". I'd wager a guess that cars get broken into more often than purses get snatched. By this logic, guns would be more likely to be stolen from cars, than from purses. Should we ban people from having guns in their cars?

If you are not at home, then your guns at home are not "on your person". Well, that's easy to fix. Pass a law that you can only own as many guns as you can realistically keep "on your person".

Or we could really simplify things. Just ban guns altogether, and the criminals will not have any guns to steal. As guns would be illegal, the criminals wouldn't have guns at all, right?

Working out great for England I hear...

__________________
"I'll have a Coke..."

Quote:
She can't say stupid stuff with her mouth full of sausage.
Quote:
I have no problem charging somebody stark nekid, with a TP tail hanging from my butt... Maybe they'll go to their maker with a smile on their face.
Hour13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2012, 23:35   #7
AngryPanda
Is he a troll?
 
AngryPanda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKLovingIT View Post
I disagree with your position...


In this instance with the purse, some women do not have other workable options, especially in business attire.
This is the only thing I disagree with. All women have options. Some are just unwilling to use them. I don't like off body carry either, but just like anything else. Keep yer head up, put the cellphone away and keep it in a good holster. Oh, and OTAPINS, gotta have one of those.
AngryPanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 00:28   #8
Kaonashi
Senior Member
 
Kaonashi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKLovingIT View Post
I disagree with your position...

So are you indicating that you would like to see passage of a law that mandates that if you carry you must carry on your person?

Okay, what if we extend that to say that carrying in an open top holster without retention device presents an opportunity for the gun carrier to be disarmed by the criminal?

Shall we now mandate that CCW is only permissible if the CCW permit holder has a level III retention holster?

If so, what government body will perform the testing and certification for such holsters? Will it be at the State or Federal level?

What if one state has an approved list of holsters that differs from your state, and you go there and get caught with an unapproved holster?

What will be the penalty for the CCW holder if they are found to be carrying in their purse or using a holster that is not on the government approved list?

Will they lose their permit or will they have their firearms confiscated, fine, jail time, all of the above?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKLovingIT View Post
Maybe in a certain section of town the residents are more likely to steal a car than elsewhere. Seeing as how cars are big dangerous things that can kill people and endanger others if not used properly, it should be made illegal for citizens to own or park cars in that section of town. Oh, you have to walk or take the bus to work now? Too bad. It's for your own good, because we say so, that's why.
You really shouldn't have brought that up, pretty soon California will have a list of cars, holsters, and purses and everyone in that state will only be able to buy the respective items on that list. That's a bit insane, it's not like they already do that for guns... oh wait.
__________________
There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. Any gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a decent person is no threat to anybody except bad people...

- Charlton Heston, on NBC's Meet the Press, May 18, 1997

Last edited by Kaonashi; 05-18-2012 at 00:31.. Reason: clipping and seperating quotes for length
Kaonashi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 06:28   #9
HKLovingIT
Resident Evil
 
HKLovingIT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Out On The Tiles
Posts: 4,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryPanda View Post
This is the only thing I disagree with. All women have options. Some are just unwilling to use them. I don't like off body carry either, but just like anything else. Keep yer head up, put the cellphone away and keep it in a good holster. Oh, and OTAPINS, gotta have one of those.

Yeah but what if she's a lifeguard and her business attire is...
__________________
Jesus didn't have a stunt double, and neither do you...

кто пукнул здесь?
Nescio, sed foetet.
HKLovingIT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 06:39   #10
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,515
How many of your wives can find her cell phone in her purse before it stops ringing and goes to voicemail?

Food for thought.

Draw times of 30-45 seconds are less than optimal. Then separating it from the holster... You do have a holster that covers the trigger, right? Can't have lipstick getting in the trigger guard.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 07:16   #11
FL Airedale
Dog Breath
 
FL Airedale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 1,982
I don't like the idea of carrying a pistol mixed up with everything else that may be in a purse. It can be dangerous.

There are purses that are made for concealing firearms. They have wire in the strap to prevent breakage or being cut. The pistol is put in a compartment that is only for the pistol. The draw is probably as quick as having to lift your shirt then draw from a holster.

http://www.gungear.com/ez-catalog/X300536/2

Personally, I'm still not going to carry in a purse. I think it may bring me unwanted attention. I have no problem with others carrying in this type of purse.
__________________
Life Member - NRA, GOA,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
.
I used to be a people person but people ruined that for me.
FL Airedale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 07:27   #12
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,521
I would think it would be easier to ban men from carrying purses period tan to ban men from carrying their guns in purses...
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 07:56   #13
glock_collector
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 851
I think we should make level 10 holsters a requirement. For those not in the loop a level 10 is the upgraded version whereas rebar is added to the fiber reinforced concrete(min 4 inches thick) and then surrounded by a titanium plate. This way if you dont practice or know how to use your firearm responsibly the rest of the public will be safer...
glock_collector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 08:00   #14
glock_collector
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 851
I am also going to have to extend the short busses for some folks, I can clearly see we are gonna need the room.
glock_collector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 08:07   #15
rilkil23
Senior Member
 
rilkil23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: 60 miles south of Denver.
Posts: 1,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by glock_collector View Post
I am also going to have to extend the short busses for some folks, I can clearly see we are gonna need the room.
You don't have to ask, I'll move over.
rilkil23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 17:32   #16
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,515
How many of your wives can find her cell phone in her purse before it stops ringing and goes to voicemail?

Food for thought.

Draw times of 30-45 seconds are less than optimal. Then separating it from the holster... You do have a holster that covers the trigger, right? Can't have lipstick getting in the trigger guard.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 17:50   #17
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,679
This all sounds like a hair brained scheme to try and limit how women carry guns. You surely have better things to think about. Are you an anti-gun troll? All the women I know that carry a gun do not throw the gun inside their purse with the lipsticks etc. Most of them don't carry in their purse, and the ones that do, carry in a gun purse.
oldman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 18:49   #18
IhRedrider
Not a walker
 
IhRedrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 516
Quote:
Conclusion:
Carrying a firearm 'on your person' should be a requirement for all CCWs, in the name of the safety of the firearms carrier, and, the public at large.

Respectfully,
- Lakota

I smell a liberal, gun-hating, liberty stealing, life destroying troll.

I'm not a woman, but if a woman wishes to exercise her RIGHT to carry a firearm, I don't care where or how she does. I would personally like to see ALL freemen OC especially the Ladies, they are so sexy when they carry.
IhRedrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 19:33   #19
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by IhRedrider View Post
I smell a liberal, gun-hating, liberty stealing, life destroying troll.

I'm not a woman, but if a woman wishes to exercise her RIGHT to carry a firearm, I don't care where or how she does. I would personally like to see ALL freemen OC especially the Ladies, they are so sexy when they carry.
Yeah, I got the same smell!
oldman11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2012, 19:42   #20
oldman11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,679
Last year he was against people carrying in shoulder holsters; this year he's against women carrying in purses. He only has 8 posts in about as many months, so it looks like his intention is to try and get CC limited as much as he can. So RedRider it looks like you hit the nail right square on the head.
oldman11 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:58.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 738
131 Members
607 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31