Chris Keen Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 This is a sad story indeed. The grandmother wasnt paying attention to the fact that she had a loaded handgun in her purse, which was within reach of the child. But more importantly WE DONT NEED TO CREATE STRICTER POLICIES OR LAWS BECAUSE OF NEGLIGENCE! "Everyone at Sam's Club is deeply saddened by today's tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the little girl and her family," said Tara Stewart, South Carolina spokesperson for Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. Stewart said as of right now they do not have a policy on concealed weapons, but after this incident, that could change. That's the part of the story that irritates me beyond all else. *sigh* See for yourself: News Article Video of Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I have always been very down on the concept of carrying a gun in a purse. Aside from the fact that in an emergency it's probably going to be impossible to get to the gun if you've got someone all over you, women are constantly leaving the damn thing laying around, thus leaving their gun accessible to anyone too dumb - or young - to keep out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam B Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 it is always the stupid people that ruin it for the rest of us, it is a real shame that this had to happen to a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Keen Posted June 19, 2008 Author Share Posted June 19, 2008 The good news is this particular stupid person was carrying a .32 pistol, which authorities said had alot to do with why the little girl lived. Lower bullet velocity. She is off the vent. and recovering as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JThompson Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Aiken County Magistrate.... Basically a judge right? Glad the little girl is going to be okay. It's a miracle she didn't hit anything vital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el pres Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 I have always been very down on the concept of carrying a gun in a purse. Aside from the fact that in an emergency it's probably going to be impossible to get to the gun if you've got someone all over you, women are constantly leaving the damn thing laying around, thus leaving their gun accessible to anyone too dumb - or young - to keep out. I totally agree !!! I've always thought the same thing, you are responsible for it and it should be on your body at all times. When I take mine off for even a minute I cant relax the thought until it's back in it's storage place or back on me, not even a second. Not to be funny but I in my mind it's a loaded weapon not in your complete control (holster, being used, etc..), it's like dropping it, a safety DQ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slabbie Shooter Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Proof yet again that the safest shooters are the competitors in the Pracitcal Pistol field. This reminds me of my CCW class. If I was handing the permits out, half of the folks would have been denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSEMARTIN Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 The good news is this particular stupid person was carrying a .32 pistol, which authorities said had alot to do with why the little girl lived. Lower bullet velocity. The little girl lived because the bullet didn't hit anything vital. If the bullet had hit the aorta, vena cava, heart, mainstem bronchus, spine etc., it probably wouldn't have mattered what caliber the bullet was. Incidentally, I've never seen a child die from a GSW that made it to the hospital alive. They either die at the scene right away, or they survive. It's amazing what a child can tolerate. I saw this story last week, and it really pissed me off. Kudos to the trauma team that took care of her! I wonder if the judge was charged with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 The owner of the pistol is a magistrate, which basically is a judge. The Columbia Police Department is deciding whether or not to charge her with negligence and/or child endangerment. I assume the Sam's will move to ban CWPs in their stores here because of this incident. Letters to the editor citing the dangers of CWPs have been frequent here since the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Jack, I hope the editor is getting some addtional letters from CWP holders reminding the readers that the negligence of the grandmother, not the gun or permit, caused the accident. I hate it when children pay for the negligence of their parents or guardians. dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Jack,I hope the editor is getting some addtional letters from CWP holders reminding the readers that the negligence of the grandmother, not the gun or permit, caused the accident. I hate it when children pay for the negligence of their parents or guardians. dj The problem is that our Newspaper is owned by Knight-Ridder. The editor is as left-wing as you can get. He is the poster boy for "Bias." Very few "conservative" editorials get posted. When they do, they are usually out-weighted by several more with oposing views. I had my first gun-related letter posted back in April and I was stunned when it was published (I have been writing letters to the editor for years!). I had people calling me and saying, "Dude, how did you get them to print that?" So, that is the problem we have. We do have a great Grass Roots Organization that has been successful in getting to the media - particularly TV. I will have to say that local TV stations (incuding NBC affiliates) have been rather fair in their coverage. As an example of the State Newspaper's biasedness - the editor endorsed the state senate candidate that has been leading the fight to block CWP reciprocity with states that do not have CWP training equal to or more stringent than ours. He amended a recent reciprocity bill (HR 3212) and included requirements that would make it impossible for South Carolina to get reciprocity with South Carolina! In his endorsement, the editor stated: "The encumbant often fails to get facts correct; has a history of wasteful spending and voting for tax increases; tends to falsify statements; tends to bully and coerce colleagues and constituents; and does not completely represent the demographics of his district. However, we do beleive he is the best candidate and therefore are endorsing him for the seat." WTF?!?!?!?!? At first I thought this was a joke on the editors part.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 ...In his endorsement, the editor stated: "The encumbant often fails to get facts correct; has a history of wasteful spending and voting for tax increases; tends to falsify statements; tends to bully and coerce colleagues and constituents; and does not completely represent the demographics of his district. However, we do beleive he is the best candidate and therefore are endorsing him for the seat." WTF?!?!?!?!? At first I thought this was a joke on the editors part.. The other candidate must have really been a scumbag dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Suber Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 ...In his endorsement, the editor stated: "The encumbant often fails to get facts correct; has a history of wasteful spending and voting for tax increases; tends to falsify statements; tends to bully and coerce colleagues and constituents; and does not completely represent the demographics of his district. However, we do beleive he is the best candidate and therefore are endorsing him for the seat." WTF?!?!?!?!? At first I thought this was a joke on the editors part.. The other candidate must have really been a scumbag dj Nah. The other candidate, a lady, is too conservative. She has a CWP and wants to expand reciprocity. She also wants to clear up laws pertaining to CWPs - i.e. It is illegal for a CWP holder in South Carolina to have a firearm in his/her vehicle when driving onto school property. Having the firearm in your vehicle on school grounds is a felony (regardless if you are carrying it on your person). Federal law allows South Carolina to detemine whether or not CWPs can have firearms in their vehicle while on school property. South Carolina decided not to allow this until the CWP law had been in place for a while and to determine whether or not there would be any problems. This lady wants to remove that restriction so that a CWP holder dropping his/her child off at school is not committing a felony by having a firearm in their vehicle. The newspaper does not want "Guns at School." She also wants government reform that the paper opposes. For example, we still elect our Superintendent of Education (perhaps that is why South Carolina is ranked 49 in the nation for "ejucayshun"), Commissioner of Agriculture, and, Adjutant General (yep, thats right, we elect the chief of our National Guard. Six years ago, an Air Force major was running for the position. Had he been elected, he would have been promoted to Brigadier General . Do you think that promotions are being manipulated based on political support?). The incumbant and the State Newspaper oppose making these appointed positions because they do not want to put that much power in the hands of the Governor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now