Quote of the Day: Why Purse Carry is a Bad Idea

“If someone came up to me in Walmart and shoved a Glock whatever in my ribs, a gun in my purse would do me no good whatsoever because I’d never be able to rummage through everything and get it out before he knocked my block off. I can see it now: cellphone, hand sanitizers, breath mints, a fistful of keys, wadded up coupons, lipsticks, hairbrush, hand calculator, loose tissues, address book, check book, wallet … all frantically thrown on the floor until way down among the loose change, fingernail files and paperclips – ah! There is it. My Ruger LC9. Stick ’em up.” – Ina Hughs in Right to bear arms doesn’t come from God [via knoxnews.com]

comments

  1. avatar Pacer says:

    It’s like people are deliberately stupid.

    1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      They’ve been taught to be.

        1. avatar PDW says:

          I see your point, and after the Secret Service allowed JFK to have his neck shot out and his brain blasted into pink mist why would any future President rely on the SS to keep them safe ?

          I mean FAILURE, right ?

          Sometimes people wear seat
          belts and still get killed in car wrecks.

          I mean FAILURE, right ?

          Why bother if success isn’t guaranteed ?

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Pretty much yes.

  2. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Oh, look, yet another hypothetical scenario wherein the armed citizen is presumed incompetent, stupid or otherwise impaired. And the article from which it is taken is just more of the same. Shoulder holster would hurt her. At home it’s useless. If she saw one in a restaurant she’d leave. Et cetera ad nauseum.

    None of which would be considered justification for nullifying your right to free speech, by the way, or freedom from unreasonable search or seizure.

    1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      I think we can go with a stronger word than presumed. Mrs. Hughs demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that she is all of those things and more.

  3. avatar Aven says:

    Maybe this lady is one of the people who should be kept away from guns, sharp objects and other things that need to be used with common sense. She needs to stay in a “safe place” where she will not be harmed by the real world.

    1. avatar Chier says:

      She belongs in an assisted living facility.

  4. Yes my dear, you shouldn’t be carrying a loaded firearm in all that mess. I suggest that you attend a local CHL and a professional firearm safety course before you go to Wal-Mart packing heat. The world will be a better place because of it

  5. avatar Swilson says:

    Aw, a sweet little ol’ grammaw who sounds just down-home enough to appeal to us good ol’ Southern boys to forego our senseless preoccupation with guns. Yea, good one.

    1. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

      Exactly what I thought.

      “Now you boys stop that foolishness. One of y’all gonna get hurt.”

    2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      This particular lady might not be ready to carry, but I suspect she and many like her could be taught enough to make it possible. If they wanted to learn, obviously. An article like this can actually be a good starting point to help educate a lot of women. Clearly shows the wrong way to go about it!

      I won’t carry a purse, myself. Don’t need all that junk. The gun is on my belt where it belongs. But a good holster in a separate compartment fixes the silly problems mentioned, of course. Purse carry is not optimal, and has a lot of real problems quite aside from mixing a gun with assorted junk, but some people can’t or won’t carry any other way.

      The first rule is to have a gun, and know how to use it. The rest is mostly details.

  6. avatar Mark in NM says:

    Oh, Ina, aren’t you funny. Thank goodness you are out there. You see, dear, I’m one of those gun people out there who insists that my rights to defend myself and my loved ones exist simply because I exist. I frankly don’t care what you choose to do with that right. Apparently you have been successful so far arming yourself with misplaced trust in stupid information and a bit of humor. I sincerely wish you luck with that.

    Bless your heart.

  7. avatar The Original Brad says:

    Sooo stupid. First off, why would you get robbed at Walmart? Maybe she means the Walmarmt parking lot? If you’re robbing a store, you don’t have time to mess with the customers. Second, if someone has the drop on you, you and your lack of situational awareness have already failed. Your best bet to survive is to give up your things, not start rummaging in your purse. Third, if you concealed carry, and you casually throw your weapon in your purse, you’re doing it wrong. That’s not CC, that’s simply transporting or something because you’re merely moving the weapon around town with you and are not really ready or prepared for armed self-defense. She either didn’t listen in her CCL class or her instructors failed her badly.

    Whatever the case may be here, fictional scenario gamed with a healthy dose of snark is not even anecdotal evidence of what her premise is, it just stupid.

    1. avatar Jeremy in AL says:

      If you already have a “Glock whatever” in your ribs, you’ve already lost and there is nothing that can save you short of a vest.

      1. She isn’t worried about the Glock whatever. She just doesn’t want to get her block knocked off.

  8. avatar Car says:

    Maybe I’m missing something (didn’t read her article), but is she not pushing on-body carry over off-body? A gun in a purse or a messenger bag is better than nothing, but definitely inferior to one in a holster in terms of quick access.

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      No, she isn’t pushing on body carry. That would be great. She is pushing no carry and disarmament.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        She’s pushing her lameness to be the reason to keep you from having weapons. Her Casus Belli (an act used to justify war [on you]) is our Principium finis (first-beginning of the end) [J.M. Thomas, R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 136]

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      Finally! A comment that is trying to be constructive. Here is my take. Carry by women is harder than carry by men. Make all the excuses you like; it still boils down to telling women to always wear the same kind of outfit on all occasions so that they can maintain a consistent draw protocol. (Or, persuade women to train-train-train so that they can operate operationally under every pattern of carry they need to adopt.) NOT going to happen. Do we want to en-/dis-able our mothers / wives / sisters / daughters in their motivation to carry?

      FIRST: I propose that we empower women by training society to cope with seeing women open-carry in 3-point secure holsters. Adult women open-carrying will not terrify either the horses or the hoplophobes. Just as we put blind trust in uniformed police officers, the public CAN accommodate the idea that a woman openly carrying is NOT a threat. She is no more a threat carrying openly vs. concealed. Does anyone imagine that granny or a mother with kids in-tow is going to start shooting someone over a parking spot?

      All we are talking about here is public perception – what it “feelzzzzz like” to SEE someone open-carrying. What does it “feelzzzzz like” when we see a well-groomed uniformed police officer with a gun? NOTHING! What would it “feelzzzzz like” to see an adult civilian WOMAN open-carrying? In a couple of weeks, NOTHING!

      Women with 3-point secure holsters can learn to protect their guns from being taken from them. A criminal is unlikely to shoot-me-first when the open-carrier is a woman; the criminal will either find a better opportunity or carry-on with his intended target without first drawing attention to himself by shooting an openly-carrying woman (whom he can reasonably presume will attempt an escape at the first sign of trouble.)

      (My FIRST point is primarily rhetorical. The debate we are having is between we PotG and the Anti’s. What the Anti’s are saying is that women can’t carry guns to good effect. Purse carry is a bad idea for reasons about which both sides acknowledge some agreement. Concealed carry is impractical for women for reasons of fashion. What have we PotG to say in response?)

      SECOND: I concede that plenty of women WON’T be among the first to take-up OPEN-carry. So, what can we offer these more timid individuals? Purse carry isn’t a great option; for reasons we all understand. Yet, purse carry is plenty adequate for a MAJORITY of situations where carry COULD make a difference. Woman gets off her bus with 3 blocks to walk home after dark. Woman leaves a mall to cross a parking lot to reach her car. In such cases, she can access her gun before she is attacked. (E.g., move gun from purse to overcoat pocket; shroud it in a scarf; carry a purse with a gun-pouch; etc.)

      IWB, under-skirt, flash-bang-bra, shoulder-holster, or under-jacket carry is highly-UNlikely to make the critical difference when a victim is blind-sighted. The popularity of purse-carry among women is so great that we PotG really need to recognize that – for many women – there are only two ACCEPTABLE choices: purse-carry vs. NO-carry.

      Here, our response is: Do we prefer women to be 100% vulnerable 100% of the time they are in public? Or, could society temper its hoplophobia just enough to indulge women’s purse-carry to make them less vulnerable 30% of the time?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        An even simpler solution is a concealed carry purse. The one I bought my daughter has an external pocket that fits the gun and holds it securely, no more fits. The strap has a cable to prevent purse snatching by grabbing or cutting. The purse is meant to be carried cross-body, with the purse under the off-hand elbow, a position of the highest off body control. It is pretty similar to a cross-draw placement for the pistol. And what looks like a woman clutching her purse is really the first motion of the draw.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Mark N. Yes, of course, you are right. Such a specialized purse is one of the better solutions to the purse-carry dilemma.

          Yet, what is the most valuable point to any such discussion?

          I respectfully suggest that it is NOT to solve the ostensible problem. Instead, it is to find a way to close and engage with the enemy on any ground favorable to the RKBA.

          Whichever complaint an Anti wants to bring up, we ought to have a well-honed reply. (Mine might not be the best; I’m looking for others to compete with mine.) E.g.:
          – Why yes, that’s why Open-Carry is better for the women in our society!
          – Why yes, nevertheless, no form of carry will protect the self-defender from a blind-sighted attack. Where women are most vulnerable is in an “interview” scenario. If a woman is carrying she can anticipate a walk through a dark parking-lot or street; she can prepare or respond in a few seconds if she is carrying. Have we no better answer than to DENY HER the means to an effective self-defense?

          The Anti can’t be convinced – that is not our objective. Instead, we need to be thinking of what may appeal to a fair-minded audience to the debate. What might a mother – with a daughter in grad-school or a 2’nd shift job – think of our response?

          Do we want such an audience to try to concentrate on the alternative methods for Constitutional interpretation? Or, does it serve our purpose better if she thinks about denying her daughter a means of self-defense as she walks to her car or front-door?

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ” The strap has a cable to prevent purse snatching by grabbing or cutting.”

          Now *that* is a nice touch!

          I’ve wondered why I haven’t seen a smartphone case with a steel cable ‘leash’ to a heavy wrist strap to thwart thieves that snatch the phones out of people’s hands.

          Make ’em have to drag you along with the smartphone if they want it that bad…

  9. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    I agree with Ina, she should not have access to a firearm or an extremely sharp knife.

    1. avatar CalGunsMD says:

      But what about those nail files?

  10. avatar Milson Wilson says:

    I happen to agree with the lady. Carrying a gun in a purse is not effective if she needs it quickly. That is why police carry a pistol in a holster instead of a fanny pack or a backpack. It would only be useful if she witnessed someone else being attacked, giving her extra time to retrieve it.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Which just *might* be better than nothing. Remember the school teacher who stopped an active shooter by running to his damn *car* to retrieve a firearm, still had the situation under control before 911 arrived.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Police carry their sidearms in open carry holsters for the same reason they wear those (usually) black uniforms, massive utility belts, and shiny badges: so they can intimidate people and dominate encounteres by projecting an image of officialdom and force.

      The proof? Secret Service agents don’t open carry in a belt holster. Undercover officers don’t carry openly. Detectives don’t carry openly. Even criminals in open carry states don’t open carry.

      Most of these people still carry in holsters, to be fair, but not openly. All of these people rely on their firearms more so than Grandma at the Walmart. Yet, all choose some form of carry with some encumbrance to be overcome. The reduction in presentation must be small to be outweighed by other concerns.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “Detectives don’t carry openly.” The detectives around here do. It’s too hot to wear a sports coat all the time.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Same here in Florida…

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Lived in NJ for 25 years. Observed 2 cases of non-uniformed open-carry. In the context of a Won’t-Issue State, these cases are illustrative.

          #1: I noticed a ~40-yo woman in ordinary street cloths in line ahead of me at the Dunken Donuts. Nothing whatsoever out-of-the-ordinary about her, apart from the revolver on her belt. After seeing her several times I asked her: “Are you a cop?” She said “Yes”. I observed (gratuitously): “You aren’t in uniform.” (They don’t call me Captain Obvious for nothing.) She responded “I’m a detective.”

          On each such occasion we were surrounded by a couple of dozen other customers; most of whom were students at the adjacent Catholic HS for girls. I seemed to be the only person who noticed the plain-clothed woman OC’ing.

          #2 I went to a court-house to pay a traffic fine. The woman – dressed in street cloths – ahead of me was OC’ing a semi-auto. I asked her if she was a cop; “No” she replied. I remarked that she was carrying; “I need it for my job” she replied.

          Again, no one in the lobby seemed to notice this civilian (an armed courier carrying picking-up cash) in a court house.

          Somehow, all the hoplophobes in America have accommodated themselves to seeing uniformed cops and private guards open-carrying guns. They have somehow managed to intuit that the guns don’t jump out of holsters and firing spontaneously. Moreover, most people don’t seem to feel that open-carriers spontaneously draw and fire guns without cause (acknowledging that BLM would beg to differ).

          I wonder how long it would take for hoplophobes to accommodate themselves to the practice of women open-carrying.

        3. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

          Geoff PR – Jesus I guess. The “reverse summertime pattern” of the rain is killing me. I need to be up in Citrus WMA scouting for deer season.

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Yeah, the pop-up thunderstorms in summer can really suck.

          The upside is that all that rain ‘washes’ the air clean of smog nicely.

          The air quality would really suck here with all the cars belching smog and no rain to clear it out…

  11. avatar EJQ says:

    I have no idea if a shoulder holster would hurt my bursitis. Never tried one.

    I am not gonna go for my gun if someone has one poking me in the ribs already. However, WalMart doesn’t carry anything, including guns and ammo, that keeps me so enthralled I am unaware of the people around me. Might or might not help, if I see them first.

    I’m at the age to be a granny, just not there, yet. So, for MY safety, there’s a loaded gun on the bedside table. Usually two or three loaded around the house, because three shooters live here. I home carry. One always in the car, too. Doesn’t bother my seat belt.

    If she doesn’t want a gun, fine by me. But stop making ridiculous excuses. We aren’t all ready for the nursing home, and if she’s worried about her memory, that’s probably where she’s headed.

  12. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

    Another gray haired spinster full of a life time of Liberal enlightenment. University towns such as Knoxville are full of these Subaru/Honda Pilot driving, Hillary bumper sticker know-it-all Liberals. I find it best to ignore these Hillary-lites whenever possible.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      The sticker on my Subie says has a Brontosaurus inside the recycling triangle and says “Powered by Recycled Dinosaurs”.

      Really ticks off the Boulder types.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Right to bear arms doesn’t come from God” ??? FU Ina you stupid whore. Read the Declaration of Independence stupid, it says “We hold these truths to be self evident”. If you don’t think so, we can throw down right now. If you want to rewrite history, you may not be included in version 2.0.

    The opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence reads: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    It starts with “When” meaning ‘whenever such conditions exist’ meaning it’s an ongoing consideration, and states that Americans may “ASSUME THE POWERS OF THE EARTH” [that means/includes “arms” douchebag] “THE SEPARATE AND EQUAL STATION TO WHICH THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE’S GOD” [whose Son is JESUS and whose SPIRIT is called “HOLY” (for all those broke d1<k of you who are F'd up on all that)]. The next paragraph recites: ". . .That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends".

    CHUCK IT ALL AT YOUR PERIL MFs.

    Ina couldn't find her gat in her purse because she's got two hands fishing around in her a_ _ for her head.

    On second thought, she’s right she should go disarmed, with a wrist handcuffed to her ankle.

    1. avatar Mercury says:

      The term “Nature’s God” was coined by Thomas Paine, who claimed that God had never spoken to or directly interacted with man. This was one of the tenets of Deism, a secular humanist school of Christianity that was overwhelmingly popular among the Founders (with the notable exception of Adams, who was an orthodox Unitarian, but that still means he didn’t believe in the Trinity.)

      Like it or not, the Declaration and the Constitution were not written on religious precepts.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        She’s an intentionally stupid beotch, who leads with a title she doesn’t really cover or explain, in order to put the phrase out there.

        Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense, in which he wrote “MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: “.Your high, or as stupid on-purpose as she is. [AND YOU SURE AS SH_T SOUND LIKE YOU AIN’T FROM HERE].
        Our Constitution recites: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

        How are “Blessings” of Liberty cited? Couldn’t they just have said “trappings”, “aspects”, or “benefits of”?

        EVERYTHING THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS DID AND SAID WAS OPENLY DONE SO

        IN

        SHRINKING

        AWE

        OF

        MY

        LORD.

        Our (meaning Americans, F all else in the goat a_ _) DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ends with

        “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

        THE SIGNING OF CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ENDED WITH A PRAYER TO THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD (WHO is THREE PERSONS, ONE GOD = THE TRINITY)
        MOST (BETTER THAN HALF) OF THE CONTEMPORARY PAINTINGS DONE OF THE SIGNING ARE OF THE SIGNERS IN-PRAYER AFTERWARD.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        In verbally sh-tting on the notion of a “King”, or other non-shared-power form of government, Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense: “As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty as declared by Gideon, and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by Kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. “Render unto Cesar the things which are Cesar’s” is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

        Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of Republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was held sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage which is paid to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of Heaven.. . ”

        He goes on and on in deference to the LORD of Creation, the Judeo-Christian GOD. There are too many citations to list here.

        Don’t just read Common Sense MF, get it.

      3. avatar Joe R. says:

        NO NEWSPEAK, DOUBLE-SPEAK, “HISTORY IS WHAT I SAY”, MFs !!!

        The U.S. was founded by people wholly consumed with the final authority of GOD (again the Trinity). And you can tell, because we are the only nation in known history to have done so, and HE has been extremely gentle on us, and HIS blessings of Liberty have sustained us.

        https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fathers-jesus-christianity-bible/

      4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Thomas Paine had no hand in writing either of those documents, nor in voting on their adoption. The Declaration specifically states that men are “endowed by their Creator.” Jefferson, not Paine, coined thr phrase “Nature’s God”, though Paine had written about God in Deist terms often.

        I get what you’re saying, if you mean that organized religion was excluded from both documents. Specifically, Christianity was excluded. Jefferson’s faith was widely debated in his own time, and apparently still to this day, but what is clear from his own writings is that he did not believe in miracles, the virgin birth, revelation, the resurrection of Jesus, or even that Jesus was the son of God, and had no use for priests.

        Nevertheless, Jefferson greatly respected Jesus the man, characterizing his teachings as “the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.” Although Jefferson emphasized behavior over belief, he believed that morality was connected toa belief in God and that God was the fabricator of all things, including man’s rights.

        The Declaration, and the Constitution written to implement its ideas, reflect this. To reimagine either document as a purely secular or areligious text is entirely revisionist.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      “If you want to rewrite history, you may not be included in version 2.0.” THIS is the most persuasive argument for the RKBA I have EVER read. I congratulate you!

      Let’s grant the atheists and agnostics some small space in the debate; as did Jefferson’s oblique reference to “their Creator”. Suppose – for the sake of argument – we stipulate that the existence of God or her “endowment” can’t be proven with mathematical certainty. Even so, the axiom of an individual’s right to life – and to defend that life – is sound.

      For better-or-for-worse criminals have the means to take life unjustly. It does not matter whether the criminal is deemed to be a member of the private or public sector. It was this false distinction that the Founding generation did NOT concede. The unjust taking of life – not even by government – would not be tolerated by a free people.

      Remember the images of Nazi Germany: citizens being herded into box-cars by soldiers armed with sub-machine guns. Remember that such atrocities have occurred – without photographic memorialization – throughout histories and cultures.

      There remains just one prophylactic to the criminal threat to life. Its efficacy is not guaranteed. Its social cost is not zero. Nevertheless, it remains “necessary” for the security of a free state. So our Founding generation concluded; and, so it stands as a constituting axiom of our form of ordered society.

      This axiom can not be altered – politically – except by the manner prescribed in Article V of our Constitution. If we should admit that this 2’nd of our rights could otherwise be altered than so too could any other right enumerated in that document be so easily altered.

      While we are here on earth, the political decision is the only one that matters. We have 3 choices: 1) live within the limits of the Constitution; 2) amend it by a super-majority determination; or, 3) attempt to “alter or abolish” such bounds “by other means”. The casualties of the Revolution and the Civil War illustrate the cost of #3.

  14. avatar Stoney Man says:

    Maybe she should clean out her damn purse.

    I mean there are probably 30 butterscotch candies in there that she forgot to mention.

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Maybe a couple of cats too.

    2. And the complementary bread from O’Charley’s she rolled up in a napkin after lunch.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Ouch.

    3. avatar Freeheel says:

      She is so stuck in the 80’s…..checkbook, wallet, address book, fistful of coupons…..we call that a smartphone. I know if I’m old as dirt like this spinster I’m just going to do what a like to do and have my groceries and day to day nessesities just delivered to my house. When it comes I’ll just tell the kid to leave them on the porch via my Ring doorbell while I’m fly fishing with my “Glock” on my hip. I bet this Luddite went to Walmart to get a new ribbon for her typewriter.

  15. avatar Texas Irregular says:

    Ina is a special kinda stupid. To bad they let her opinions be printed in newspapers instead of the walls of a padded cell.

    1. avatar Swilson says:

      How does one even become an “opinion columnist”?

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        You buy a computer with a keyboard and make it make chicklet noises, turn in the product to SOME DESPARATE POS THAT IS SEVERELY DEVOID OF USEFUL CONTENT BUT WHO LIKES YOUR WORK WHEN YOU POLITICALLY SPOUT OFF IN A DIRECTION THAT THE EDITOR (and satan) WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE COUNTRY.

        Those who cannot do, teach. Those who cannot teach, teach gym. Those who cannot teach gym, write for satan and submit the product to knoxnews.com (no relation to FOX News, but the similarity was a likely wish for click-bait).

  16. avatar Kendahl says:

    Excuses to justify making no effort to defend herself.

  17. avatar Somebody says:

    Well, off-body carry is less preferable than on-body carry. However, many women seem unwilling to dress around a gun, so off-body is still preferable to being disarmed.

    Alternatively, open carry. Add a dash of liberal strategy, and BAM! Opposing OC becomes both sexist and victim blaming…

  18. avatar Richard McGannon, Esq. says:

    A Gun safety course isn’t going to teach situational awareness or carry methods. If Ina remembers the 4 rules of gun safety, her instructors did their job. What she needs to do is THINK of how she can carry effectively. IF she gave it some thought she might have been able to find and purchase a handbag with an exterior dedicated pocket that would hold her LC9 and extra ammo. The situational awareness thing is just plain common sense and experience. At her age she has plenty of experience of what constitutes bad situations, the common sense thing differs from one person to another. Let’s all say a prayer for her. She deserves that much. The LC9 was a good choice for a cc gun. Although I bet even money she hasn’t a clue of how to field strip it and clean it.

  19. avatar rick3 says:

    Wanted to comment on the original article at the knoxnews.com website…but they’re not accepting comments now…I wonder why?
    Anyway, I sent an email to the nice lady, just politely correcting her on one single aspect of her diatribe against guns and concealed carry.
    Maybe everyone could pick one aspect, and send her a polite correction?
    Her email: inamackie@yahoo.com

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      The shitlord teacheth that the wages of posting dumb shit on the internet are flaming.

      So it is written. So it shall be.

  20. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Well, as my grandmother would have said, bless her heart!

  21. avatar Shwiggie says:

    With a gun pressed in your side, it’s debatable whether having a gun in your hand would do you any good or not, let alone on your hip or in your bag. Makes a good case for body armor, but it’s a weak straw man argument.

  22. avatar K42inSEA says:

    There actual article is a gold mine of contrived infomercial situations where normal people can’t do the most basic of tasks:

    “A gun sling would aggravate the bursitis in my shoulder, and I don’t think they make holsters for beltless, elastic-waist pants. Besides, considering how much trouble I have fiddling with seat belts, with a gun at my side or my waist, I’d shoot off my foot before I got out of the driveway.”

    Cheezy infomercial voice: Can’t responsibly carry a firearm? Worried about shooting yourself or others accidentally? Can’t hide a Ruger LC9 in your sweat pants? Try our all new and improved method of “not carrying a firearm.” It is a personal choice, you make for yourself! Because having a right and invoking it are two different things.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Hey! How come only OFWG are ostracized by oh…I dunno’ EVERYONE?!? Why arent overweight old white women described as “old fat white women”(OFWW)? I’m starting a campaign for equality! Who will join me?!??

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      If you make fun of OFWGs, it’s an indication that you’re superior to them.
      If you make fun of OFWWs, it’s an indication that you’re sexist, shallow and judge people by their appearance.

      And if you think the above are acceptable ways to think, well, you just might be a Marxist/Progressive Racist…

  24. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “I don’t think they make holsters for beltless, elastic-waist pants.” Great research you did there.

    “Safety experts say to keep all guns under lock and key and put the bullets in a different place altogether.” Most of my gun knowledge comes from the internet. I have seen that pushed time and time again but never from a source I trusted, and I never found a reason for it. Does anyone know why that would be a good idea? I store most of my guns unloaded. I store several loaded and at the front of my safe for rapid access and use. I store most of my ammo on top of a book shelf. As long as the kids don’t eat it, they’ll be fine. Also, I’d be more worried about them being on top of the bookshelf.

    “Guns in the home do more harm accidentally than actual self-protection. I don’t know about guns on the hip.” More great research. One falsehood and one thing that wasn’t even googled.

    “Or take church: They’re passing the offering plate and the stranger next to you reaches for their wallet, and there staring you in the face is a Smith & Wesson — and its eyes ain’t on no sparrow.” What is she even talking about?

    “Maybe the best way to make America great, not to mention getting right with God, would be to cool our jets in this love affair with guns.” That statement is moronic. Maybe the best way to do this thing, besides other ways that are better … . And how would changing our opinions on guns help make America great? At best, if everything the pro-rape crowd said was true, all that would do is reduce a fraction of a percent of deaths by a fraction of a percent.

  25. avatar FedUp says:

    “If someone came up to me in Walmart and shoved a Glock whatever in my ribs, a gun in my purse would do me no good whatsoever…”

    If someone came up to me in Walmart and shoved a Glock whatever in my ribs, a gun not already in my hand would do me no good…this is why I laugh at the people who think carrying concealed will let them get the drop on the attacker who has already ambushed them…it’s not going to work unless they just want your wallet, and you can throw the wallet and draw from concealment before the wallet hits the ground…

  26. If someone sticks a Glock whatever in your ribs, press against it. It wont fire.

  27. avatar AFGus says:

    What a stupid Broad! Guess she hasn’t seen all the specialized purses made specifically for concealed carry. Stupid is as stupid does! Geesh!

  28. avatar The Rookie says:

    Who gets a gun stuck in their ribs at Wal-Mart? Other than Karl over in Housewares. But that was only because he squealed on Frank Nitti. So that doesn’t really count.

  29. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Headline fail. This is not about purse carry.

    Some people are too stupid to own guns.

  30. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I’m struggling to reconcile how a being can simultaneously be sufficiently intelligent to communicate ideas via the written word, yet be so stupid that it forms and chooses those specific ideas to communicate.

    It’s as though a field mouse knocked on my door and delivered an entire season’s worth of “Girlboss” scripts he’d just written. How is that possible?

  31. avatar Klause Von Schmitto says:

    My mom couldn’t have found her gun in the bottom of her purse under the 134 3 year old receipts, 57 cigarette lighters stolen from her friends, and 19 lipsticks she hadn’t used since the 50’s to save her ass, but she would have stabbed you or killed you with an ashtray or a ceramic matador lamp.

  32. avatar fteter says:

    The real blunder here is allowing someone to come up to you in Walmart and shove a gun in your ribs. Really doesn’t matter where you carry after that happens. This is a situational awareness problem, not a purse carry problem.

  33. avatar kenneth says:

    Yet more proof that age does not necessarily equal wisdom…

  34. avatar Ralph says:

    Uh oh, it looks like grandma wandered away from the home again.

  35. avatar YAR0892 says:

    What- she’s never heard of a concealed-carry purse???

  36. avatar Bud says:

    IF THE GUN IS IN YOUR RIBS, IT’S TOO LATE NO MATTER WHERE YOU CARRY.

  37. avatar jwm says:

    See. This is what happens when you party thru the 1960’s. 50 years later and she’s still trippin’.

  38. avatar skiff says:

    “Help, i’ve fallen down and I can’t get up! ” She needs one of those buttons.

  39. avatar Pete says:

    “How does [keeping guns at home] work, anyway?”

    Well, ma’am it varies from person to person. Sometimes I just leave them on the coffee table or stuffed down my pants. Like any tool or piece of sporting equipment there are specialized storage options and not-so-specialized storage options to meet a wide range of needs and budgets.

  40. avatar Brad says:

    I wrote the author and pointed out/questioned several of her statements in her article. She responded back with a link to how dangerous guns are.

    I responded back with a link disproving her article and questioning why she wouldn’t address the issues and concerns I had about her original article.

    She has failed to respond to my second email. For those that want debate about guns, she once again failed as soon as her belief was challenged and her facts were disproven.

    1. avatar Pete says:

      Good job. Figures she’d be the type to just come back with a link then clam up; lazy, smug and unable to improvise due to lack of philisophical spine, basically.

      They should do a reality show with her and Gersh Kuntzman. Every week they could be unable to use a different machine. She could stand by and fret and joke about her ineptitude while Gersh traumatizes himself with, I don’t know, air tools, a gas weed whacker, an AR10 with the barrel chained between posts and the stock chained to a bench so he can’t eff up and hurt someone.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email