Locking guns won't do anything to save lives

[Wendell]

...gun control advocates always want to use laws to force their solutions on others. Since the Santa Fe killer apparently took his father’s guns, a number of gun control advocates have proposed to hold parents like him criminally liable; any gun owner would face criminal charges for leaving his gun unlocked or failing to keep it under his immediate possession... Gun control advocates claim that gunlocks will also reduce children’s accidental gun deaths. Unfortunately, the problem is more complicated. Mandating that people lock up their guns can have unintended consequences.
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/389234-locking-up-guns-wont-do-anything-to-save-lives

[SAWBONES]

Gun control advocates always want to make new laws or use existing laws which result in only the discomfiture of or interference with honest people who are not inclined to commit criminal acts.

The fact that their ideas and recommendations accomplish nothing in regard to reducing crime or increasing safety seems to matter to them not at all.

They are either incapable of clear thinking on these issues or unwilling for such.

[Totem Polar]

Seems sort of like mandating more electric cars... doesn’t really effect pollution; just shoves it off in another source direction or to another area.

Locking guns away would certainly cut down on accidental shootings, but not enough to offset some random folks getting killed in their homes for lack of tools to defend themselves.

"The cobra effect occurs when an attempted solution to a problem makes the problem worse,[1][2] as a type of unintended consequence. The term is used to illustrate the causes of incorrect stimulation in economy and politics."

[RevolverRob]

I've become really irritated about these discussions with colleagues now (I don't usually partake in them).

But I like to start with facts.

1) Number of people killed annually in the US (including suicides) "by guns" (~31,000 in 2016)
2) Number of people killed in car crashes. (~37,500 in 2016)
3) Number of people killed by heart disease. (~630,000 in 2016)
4) Number of people killed by strokes. (~140,000 in 2016)
5) Number of drug overdose deaths (~64,000 in 2016)

All stats by CDC or NHTSA.

And once you look at those stats the discussions of people dying "by guns" are pretty irrelevant. It's not enough to make a significant difference (literally). Even if you eliminated every gun, you wouldn't eliminate the totality of those 31,000 deaths "by guns", because fully 50% of them are suicides and 40% of that total is gang-related violence. So, we're going to inconvenience 80,000,000 legal gun owners to prevent ~3,000 deaths.

[GardoneVT]

...gun control advocates always want to use laws to force their solutions on others. Since the Santa Fe killer apparently took his father’s guns, a number of gun control advocates have proposed to hold parents like him criminally liable; any gun owner would face criminal charges for leaving his gun unlocked or failing to keep it under his immediate possession... Gun control advocates claim that gunlocks will also reduce children’s accidental gun deaths. Unfortunately, the problem is more complicated. Mandating that people lock up their guns can have unintended consequences.
http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/389234-locking-up-guns-wont-do-anything-to-save-lives

I’d have to disagree with the notion locking up guns encourages criminal activity. For one ,most of the states which enact mandatory firearm lock laws are ones with a prexisting high crime rate like Illinois ,CA and so forth. Further the states used in the quoted analysis had varying time periods where the laws applied; finally no mechanism was used to determine if people who lock up guns would do so anyways regardless of the law.

This will be a contrarian perspective- but on the subject of mandatory locks on weapons not immediately being handled I wholeheartedly agree with. Want to leave guns in your home and in your car? Cool. But lock that shit up,because the last thing any of us need is a thug(s) getting a gun from a home/car break in because someone was too negligent to secure their weapon.
When LEOs and military members leave weapons unsecured and they’re stolen accordingly, the universal reaction is “omg what a moron”; so why is it OK for Joe Public to do the same thing by leaving an unsecured weapon in their vehicle?

[RevolverRob]

I’d have to disagree with the notion locking up guns encourages criminal activity. For one ,most of the states which enact mandatory firearm lock laws are ones with a prexisting high crime rate like Illinois ,CA and so forth.

Just for the record - Illinois does not have a mandatory firearm lock law (or mandatory storage container law). It has a law that specifically penalizes a firearm owner who does not secure their weapon and a minor under the age of 14 gains access to it and causes death or serious bodily injury with said firearm. So, in this realm if you have kids or regularly have kids in your house, it's best to have the weapon stored securely. But there is no law that specifically states it must be secured.

[NH Shooter]

Getting rid of guns will only prevent people from killing each other with guns;

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/26/why-do-people-become-killers-there-are-only-three-reasons-here-are.html

FWIW, all of my firearms remain in a safe when not in use.

[Joe in PNG]

There's a common misconception that if you take away the tools, you take away the ability to do bad with the tools.
Ban weapons, and humans won't murder. Ban speech against the government, and people won't commit treason, and so on.

Which is stupid- humans are good at improvising. Just look at pretty much any prison.

[GardoneVT]

Just for the record - Illinois does not have a mandatory firearm lock law (or mandatory storage container law). It has a law that specifically penalizes a firearm owner who does not secure their weapon and a minor under the age of 14 gains access to it and causes death or serious bodily injury with said firearm. So, in this realm if you have kids or regularly have kids in your house, it's best to have the weapon stored securely. But there is no law that specifically states it must be secured.

At the state level yes. Remember that some IL municipalities have home rule gun laws that are stricter then the state standard.

That said it’s academic; the point is that I doubt criminal conduct is directly affected by firearm security laws. It’s the accidental transfer of functional firearms to crooks after a burglary that I’m concerned with.

[RevolverRob]

At the state level yes. Remember that some IL municipalities have home rule gun laws that are stricter then the state standard.

That said it’s academic; the point is that I doubt criminal conduct is directly affected by firearm security laws. It’s the accidental transfer of functional firearms to crooks after a burglary that I’m concerned with.

With the passage of the IL Concealed Carry legislation, state level preemption came on for all handguns. Though municipalities can pass home rule regs on long-guns, virtually all existing home rule regs contained clauses about handguns, making them invalid until such time as they pass new ones or amend old ones. Which, by and large, hasn’t occurred since 2014.

That said, I concur with your point and keep my guns locked up and stored when not in my possession. I even use one of the little gunvault cases for my car (for instances such as the post-office). And I take it in with me at destinations while traveling for secure storage there.

[Qaz98]

I've become really irritated about these discussions with colleagues now (I don't usually partake in them).

But I like to start with facts.

1) Number of people killed annually in the US (including suicides) "by guns" (~31,000 in 2016)
2) Number of people killed in car crashes. (~37,500 in 2016)
3) Number of people killed by heart disease. (~630,000 in 2016)
4) Number of people killed by strokes. (~140,000 in 2016)
5) Number of drug overdose deaths (~64,000 in 2016)

All stats by CDC or NHTSA.

And once you look at those stats the discussions of people dying "by guns" are pretty irrelevant. It's not enough to make a significant difference (literally). Even if you eliminated every gun, you wouldn't eliminate the totality of those 31,000 deaths "by guns", because fully 50% of them are suicides and 40% of that total is gang-related violence. So, we're going to inconvenience 80,000,000 legal gun owners to prevent ~3,000 deaths.

For some reason, putting gun statistics in perspective doesn't work. 80-90 kids die a year from accidental shooting. There are also 3500 pool deaths a year, 20% are less than 14yo (700), and another 3500 kids are injured from drowning related injuries. "Yeah, but my pool isn't going to go out and kill someone," or "Yeah, but my pool wasn't designed to kill." All these statistics do, is expose the other side - are you really worried about some untrue epidemic? Or do you just want to ban all guns - because you cannot reasonably tell me that you want to spend money and effort on an area with a small impact, compared to other types of death. The same logic is applied to AR-15s in mass shootings, vs figuring out how to stem gang violence in the inner cities.

[RevolverRob]

For some reason, putting gun statistics in perspective doesn't work. 80-90 kids die a year from accidental shooting. There are also 3500 pool deaths a year, 20% are less than 14yo (700), and another 3500 kids are injured from drowning related injuries. "Yeah, but my pool isn't going to go out and kill someone," or "Yeah, but my pool wasn't designed to kill." All these statistics do, is expose the other side - are you really worried about some untrue epidemic? Or do you just want to ban all guns - because you cannot reasonably tell me that you want to spend money and effort on an area with a small impact, compared to other types of death. The same logic is applied to AR-15s in mass shootings, vs figuring out how to stem gang violence in the inner cities.

With dedicated gun banners, statistics and logic will not matter. For that matter, once these folks ban guns they'll ban knives, swimming pools, alcohol, non-autonomous cars, all cars which pollute, all motorcycles, all sex without a prophylactic, and all fun - except for marijuana, that they'll keep.

But realistically, for the average person, of which there are many, that only hear what the talking heads on the radio/tv say and/or read articles in WaPo they say, "Why do gun owners oppose "safe storage" laws?"

And the answer is simple, "First, by and large gun owners already use safe storage. Second, numerically speaking the potential for deaths prevented by so-called "safe storage" is not statistically relevant (cite stats above). Third, "safe storage" isn't incentivized by tax exemptions or tax breaks, why not? We give tax breaks for buying hybrid or electric cars or putting solar panels on our houses? If we want to encourage safe storage of firearms, how about we incentivize it?"

Or instead of my third point above. You can go with an alternative - "Firearms locks are provided with every single firearms purchase in the country, currently. The ability to safely store firearms is provided from the outset and as a result, the number of accidental deaths from firearms not properly secured is ~3000, which is about 1% of the total number of people killed via malpractice (~250,000 people annually according to Johns Hopkins). Or put into another sense, over 300,000,000 guns are in the U.S. And less than 1/10th of a percent are stored inappropriately to result in accidental deaths."

That generally gets them chewing on thoughts for awhile, before they get distracted by POTUS tweeting. And life goes on.

[Gadfly]

Tag for later reading....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lester Polfus]

I've become really irritated about these discussions with colleagues now (I don't usually partake in them).

But I like to start with facts.

1) Number of people killed annually in the US (including suicides) "by guns" (~31,000 in 2016)
2) Number of people killed in car crashes. (~37,500 in 2016)
3) Number of people killed by heart disease. (~630,000 in 2016)
4) Number of people killed by strokes. (~140,000 in 2016)
5) Number of drug overdose deaths (~64,000 in 2016)

All stats by CDC or NHTSA.

And once you look at those stats the discussions of people dying "by guns" are pretty irrelevant. It's not enough to make a significant difference (literally). Even if you eliminated every gun, you wouldn't eliminate the totality of those 31,000 deaths "by guns", because fully 50% of them are suicides and 40% of that total is gang-related violence. So, we're going to inconvenience 80,000,000 legal gun owners to prevent ~3,000 deaths.

And that's why if I were King For A Day, I'd tax the shit out of junk food, and heavily subsidize healthy shit like fruits and vegetables.

Personally, I lock my guns up. Always. In 2002 I left a Glock 27 on the back of a toilet in my home for five minutes, while my oldest daughter was watching cartoons in the next room, and that has been the biggest lapse in the last 25 years, but I'm far more concerned on a macro level about the fact that we are litterally dying and going bankrupt as a country from too many Big Macs and not enough ex ercise.

[pangloss]

Third, "safe storage" isn't incentivized by tax exemptions or tax breaks, why not? We give tax breaks for buying hybrid or electric cars or putting solar panels on our houses? If we want to encourage safe storage of firearms, how about we incentivize it?"

That's an idea worth writing my congressmen about. I could really use a second safe and a bedside lock box for a pistol.


Sent from my Moto G Play using Tapatalk

[TDA]

The thought had occurred to me that it could have been a great proactive PR move for the NRA to go to Gun safe manufacturers and negotiate a big rebate in exchange for direct mailing it to the menbership. Then they could come out and say “everyone’s circumstances are different, and we don’t want to dictate what’s mandatory, but we want everyone who needs a gun safe to be able to afford one.” Too much time devoted to the mendacious percentage of the anti-gun partisans looses all the people in the middle who can barely be bothered to care despite the constant propaganda barrage. And really, who wants a gun stolen?

[RevolverRob]

I've often wished that the V-Line "Rifle Case" was about $100-150 cheaper. At 4-bills, it's half-way to a decent sized safe in terms of cost, but it's small enough to be put almost anywhere. The Simplex + Barrel Key locks make it really secure. I'd love to see the NRA or SAF negotiate a discount with V-Line. Hell, even $100 off any product $350+ and $50 off anything up to $350 would make a big difference for some folks (myself included, in that I could afford to add another secure storage unit in the house, or upgrade the one in my vehicle).

http://www.vlineind.com/shop/rifle-case-home-defense-rifle-safe/

ETA: Don't forget folks to check with your home owners/renter's insurance provider. When you have guns and jewelry appraised or inventoried safe, secure, storage should earn you a discount.

[Totem Polar]

As an aside, gun safes are exempt from sales tax in WA state. No kidding.

[Drang]

Another point: In WA, gun owners can be held liable if they don't lock their guns up and prohibited persons use them illicitly; I forget whether it is in the Revised Code of Washington or the Washington Administrative Code, but it's covered under "reckless endangerment" or something similar.
Since this usually involves someone's kid(s) getting into the guns and either killing themselves or other kids, it is rarely pursued, under the theory that "they're suffering enough."

[Sensei]

Couple of thoughts:

1) The rate of accidental death and serious injury from all causes (car, gun, drowning, etc.) has been decreasing in America for decades. While the opiate epidemic threatens this trend, improved safety measures and education across all aspects of American life have contributed to thousands being saved. Those efforts have also reset the norms in society so that what was once common (keeping the parent’s handgun in the sock drawer or a shotgun in the closet) is no longer acceptable. I’m cool with that.

2) Virtually all of “accidental” gun deaths are not accidents; they are negligent. Those whose negligence results in the death of others often get to reflect on their actions in prison. I’m completely cool with that.

[DMF13]

"By John Lott . . . According to my research . . . "

Seeing as how his "research" will always be suspect, although I'm sure Mary Rosh will vouch for him, I would suggest finding a better "opinion contributor."

[LorenzoS]

I don't think anyone here would argue against being responsible about how we store firearms to prevent accidents or misuse. However I doubt that safe storage laws would have any impact beyond additional charges piled on after something bad happens.

If a person is such a poor decision maker that the risk of say, accidental death of their child is not enough to motivate them to lock up a gun, then the prospect of legal penalties won't make any difference.

[Sensei]

I don't think anyone here would argue against being responsible about how we store firearms to prevent accidents or misuse. However I doubt that safe storage laws would have any impact beyond additional charges piled on after something bad happens.

If a person is such a poor decision maker that the risk of say, accidental death of their child is not enough to motivate them to lock up a gun, then the prospect of legal penalties won't make any difference.

There is intrinsic value in that - especially when the “something bad” is caught before innocent lives are lost. Take for example a kid who shows up to school with their dad’s gun in their backpack. I’m perfectly fine with making that father a felon who is ineligible to own firearms.

[Wendell]

There is intrinsic value in that - especially when the “something bad” is caught before innocent lives are lost. Take for example a kid who shows up to school with their dad’s gun in their backpack. I’m perfectly fine with making that father a felon who is ineligible to own firearms.

That is a strong statement. Most locks and receptacles can be defeated, and fairly easily; I'm sure that you know that. There is no 'safe storage' law anywhere that can guarantee that a determined teenager of average intelligence cannot defeat the stipulated security precautions. What level of security would you demand? Bank-grade vaults monitored 24/7/365 by armed security?

Before you make that man a felon, prohibited for life, what 'safe storage' standard would you adopt?

[Mitch]

I've often wished that the V-Line "Rifle Case" was about $100-150 cheaper. At 4-bills, it's half-way to a decent sized safe in terms of cost, but it's small enough to be put almost anywhere. The Simplex + Barrel Key locks make it really secure. I'd love to see the NRA or SAF negotiate a discount with V-Line. Hell, even $100 off any product $350+ and $50 off anything up to $350 would make a big difference for some folks (myself included, in that I could afford to add another secure storage unit in the house, or upgrade the one in my vehicle).

http://www.vlineind.com/shop/rifle-case-home-defense-rifle-safe/

ETA: Don't forget folks to check with your home owners/renter's insurance provider. When you have guns and jewelry appraised or inventoried safe, secure, storage should earn you a discount.

The shotgun safe is about $100 cheaper and not much smaller. Depending on what you want to store, that may be a better option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRB]

There is intrinsic value in that - especially when the “something bad” is caught before innocent lives are lost. Take for example a kid who shows up to school with their dad’s gun in their backpack. I’m perfectly fine with making that father a felon who is ineligible to own firearms.

What's next? Shall we make LE officers liable for the actions of a felon that manages to disarm them? Assuming they survive said disarmament of course. If they die in the process we'll just cancel their life insurance and other LE officer death benefits because losing their own weapon was their own fault, after all.

I'm only being somewhat snarky and sarcastic with this suggestion.

[TGS]

There is intrinsic value in that - especially when the “something bad” is caught before innocent lives are lost. Take for example a kid who shows up to school with their dad’s gun in their backpack. I’m perfectly fine with making that father a felon who is ineligible to own firearms.

I'm not cool with "my gun got stolen because I forgot to lock it up when I was cleaning after range day and had to run outside for something, and lost track of what I was doing" being an automatic felony.

I'm not a lawyer and this theory stuff is fairly outside my lane, but as I understand our legal concepts under the model penal code I think you'd have trouble establishing some sort of legitimate mens rea for recklessness or even negligence unless you had some sort of prohibited person or other "high-risk" person (mentally ill?) with regular access to your house. I mean, dude, it's my fucking house. I get that locking up guns is a good idea....and all of mine are these days....but it's my house. For some reason, I don't feel right about the idea that someone else breaking into my house and stealing my property means that I'm a fucking felon.

Now if a prosecutor can prove that a person was somehow reckless or negligent above and beyond, then ok......but I don't think a felony charge as an automatic response is an appropriate baseline. That's going to have unintended consequences of good people getting hemmed up in some utopian pursuit.

[Kukuforguns]

The ability to safely store firearms is provided from the outset and as a result, the number of accidental deaths from firearms not properly secured is ~3000, which is about 1% of the total number of people killed via malpractice (~250,000 people annually according to Johns Hopkins). Or put into another sense, over 300,000,000 guns are in the U.S. And less than 1/10th of a percent are stored inappropriately to result in accidental deaths.

You can go a couple extra decimal places. 1/10th of 1% is 1/1000 or .001. 3000 is .00001 or 1/100,000 of 300,000,000. I am a lawyer, so double check my math.

[Sensei]

I'm not cool with "my gun got stolen because I forgot to lock it up when I was cleaning after range day and had to run outside for something, and lost track of what I was doing" being an automatic felony.

I'm not a lawyer and this theory stuff is fairly outside my lane, but as I understand our legal concepts under the model penal code I think you'd have trouble establishing some sort of legitimate mens rea for recklessness or even negligence unless you had some sort of prohibited person or other "high-risk" person (mentally ill?) with regular access to your house. I mean, dude, it's my fucking house. I get that locking up guns is a good idea....and all of mine are these days....but it's my house. For some reason, I don't feel right about the idea that someone else breaking into my house and stealing my property means that I'm a fucking felon.

Now if a prosecutor can prove that a person was somehow reckless or negligent above and beyond, then ok......but I don't think a felony charge as an automatic response is an appropriate baseline. That's going to have unintended consequences of good people getting hemmed up in some utopian pursuit.

Sorry, I was under the impression that we were talking about gun storage devices preventing negligent deaths of children. Thus, I should have been more clear that my comments were limited to scenarios where children gain access to a gun in your household. I would not be in favor of people being prosecuted for a gun being stolen by another adult.

[GardoneVT]

Sorry, I was under the impression that we were talking about gun storage devices preventing negligent deaths of children. Thus, I should have been more clear that my comments were limited to scenarios where children gain access to a gun in your household. I would not be in favor of people being prosecuted for a gun being stolen by another adult.

I would be.

Again;I realize it’s not the victims fault a thug broke into their home/vehicle. However, it IS the victims fault they left a loaded and ready to use gun in an unsecured environment ready for use. No,your vehicle is NOT a secure environment: even a locked car can be breached with a Mk1 Brick , and if a criminal gets a weapon they now become an armed threat to LE and the citizenry as a whole. I don’t know what kind of special case bonehead leaves a loaded gun in an unlocked and unattended vehicle.

In LE and military circles leaving unsecured weapons is frowned upon, and for good reason. Why then is it OK for Joe Citizen to leave his weapons- some of which are much nicer then the rack grade issue weaponry- unsecured? Why do we cry foul when a negligent officer leaves a squad car of guns unsecured and has them stolen,but then shrug and say “ cest la vie” if it’s a private citizens weapons?

[Sensei]

What's next? Shall we make LE officers liable for the actions of a felon that manages to disarm them? Assuming they survive said disarmament of course. If they die in the process we'll just cancel their life insurance and other LE officer death benefits because losing their own weapon was their own fault, after all.

I'm only being somewhat snarky and sarcastic with this suggestion.
Relax. Take a deep breath. Maybe have a hot coco.


I would be.

Again;I realize it’s not the victims fault a thug broke into their home/vehicle. However, it IS the victims fault they left a loaded and ready to use gun in an unsecured environment ready for use. No,your vehicle is NOT a secure environment: even a locked car can be breached with a Mk1 Brick , and if a criminal gets a weapon they now become an armed threat to LE and the citizenry as a whole. I don’t know what kind of special case bonehead leaves a loaded gun in an unlocked and unattended vehicle.

In LE and military circles leaving unsecured weapons is frowned upon, and for good reason. Why then is it OK for Joe Citizen to leave his weapons- some of which are much nicer then the rack grade issue weaponry- unsecured? Why do we cry foul when a negligent officer leaves a squad car of guns unsecured and has them stolen,but then shrug and say “ cest la vie” if it’s a private citizens weapons?

Cars are a bit tricky. Most places of employment do not allow concealed weapons. Thus, you’re options are: 1) risking loss of job/career and charges (in some states) for carrying in a prohibited location, 2) leaving your gun in the trunk or a console vault-type device, 3) never carrying to or from work. I’m not going to say which I choose, but I’m not sure that #2 warrants a felony. I’m willing to reconsider this stance for more egregious examples of weapons being left unsecured in the passenger compartment.

[RevolverRob]

That is a strong statement. Most locks and receptacles can be defeated, and fairly easily; I'm sure that you know that. There is no 'safe storage' law anywhere that can guarantee that a determined teenager of average intelligence cannot defeat the stipulated security precautions. What level of security would you demand? Bank-grade vaults monitored 24/7/365 by armed security?

Before you make that man a felon, prohibited for life, what 'safe storage' standard would you adopt?

Far be it for me to suggest that California did something smart - but they do have a roster of DOJ certified storage devices that have a set of standards. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist - specifically - https://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/chart.pdf

Most of them are generally available and inexpensive storage cabinets - For instance the Stack-On 810 - http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=138619206&KPID=26623360&cid=CAPLA:G:Shopping_-_Safes/Security&pla=pla_26623360&k_clickid=c26c8073-50ae-45f8-bb1a-9c5069f0eca0&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInqSHr6Cs2wIVEdRkCh2JpAFJEAQYASAB EgKhc_D_BwE

While many of these would be easily defeated by an enterprising criminal and or even smart and enterprising teenager - they still represent a "minimum standard" by which safe storage can be judged.

[RichY]

Another point: In WA, gun owners can be held liable if they don't lock their guns up and prohibited persons use them illicitly; I forget whether it is in the Revised Code of Washington or the Washington Administrative Code, but it's covered under "reckless endangerment" or something similar.
Since this usually involves someone's kid(s) getting into the guns and either killing themselves or other kids, it is rarely pursued, under the theory that "they're suffering enough."

Same here in Arizona, according to the instructor at the CCW class. If not in use, it’s in the safe.

[TGS]

I would be.

Again;I realize it’s not the victims fault a thug broke into their home/vehicle. However, it IS the victims fault they left a loaded and ready to use gun in an unsecured environment ready for use. No,your vehicle is NOT a secure environment: even a locked car can be breached with a Mk1 Brick , and if a criminal gets a weapon they now become an armed threat to LE and the citizenry as a whole. I don’t know what kind of special case bonehead leaves a loaded gun in an unlocked and unattended vehicle.

In LE and military circles leaving unsecured weapons is frowned upon, and for good reason. Why then is it OK for Joe Citizen to leave his weapons- some of which are much nicer then the rack grade issue weaponry- unsecured? Why do we cry foul when a negligent officer leaves a squad car of guns unsecured and has them stolen,but then shrug and say “ cest la vie” if it’s a private citizens weapons?

You're constructing a false equivalency. We aren't saying c'est la vie, I think what we are saying is that it shouldn't automatically be a felony...

....just like it isn't an automatic felony in the other two circles you mentioned.

[Wendell]

*****

[JRB]

Relax. Take a deep breath. Maybe have a hot coco.



Cars are a bit tricky. Most places of employment do not allow concealed weapons. Thus, you’re options are: 1) risking loss of job/career and charges (in some states) for carrying in a prohibited location, 2) leaving your gun in the trunk or a console vault-type device, 3) never carrying to or from work. I’m not going to say which I choose, but I’m not sure that #2 warrants a felony. I’m willing to reconsider this stance for more egregious examples of weapons being left unsecured in the passenger compartment.

I'm not the individual advocating automatic felony charges for what's at best a tragic mistake and at worst simple negligence. Perhaps it is you that needs to calm down with some coco.

[RevolverRob]

In an effort to steer this back to reasoned discourse...

As gun owners, let's see if we can arrive at a few agreed upon ideas:

1) While statistically speaking, locking guns up, will prevent only a few "gun deaths"; it should be a recommended best practice to secure all firearms not in your immediate control.

2) Securing firearms can mean many different things. But as responsible gun owners, we support the use of proper storage devices (cabinets/safes/locked boxes) with keyed or combination locks in homes and vehicles.

3) While we generally support legislation that punishes negligent firearms owners for not preventing unauthorized access to firearms by minors. We recognize that circumstances are variable. And feel that legislation may represent a "slippery slope" where gun owners are charged for negligence, even when "reasonable" measures were taken (e.g., a minor breaks into the storage container). We do not feel comfortable, allowing the courts to decide what is "reasonable", because laws have been unevenly applied across jurisdictions.

4) We would support some form of incentive to promote the purchase and installation of proper firearm storage containers. Tax breaks (like those in Washington, where no sales tax is assessed on gun safes), vouchers (public (tax) or private via the NRA), and/or discounts on home owners/renters insurance.

___

Why these four points? And who the hell are we talking to? Middle-of-the-roaders who are undecided on firearms ownership, but might be swayed if we promote and demonstrate responsible ownership. I believe by using these points as "Talking Points", you'll be able to demonstrate to your middle-of-the-road person, that gun owners want to be responsible. Heck, tell them, that you've had this very conversations with dozens of gun owners and by and large consensus has been had. The opposition to legislation is common sense, we recognize that legislation is really good at making criminals out of people who shouldn't be criminals. Creating laws to punish the few is not the purpose of democratic legislation and undermines the system. The numbers not only support us, but our behavior and decisions support us too.

[JRB]

In an effort to steer this back to reasoned discourse...

As gun owners, let's see if we can arrive at a few agreed upon ideas:

1) While statistically speaking, locking guns up, will prevent only a few "gun deaths"; it should be a recommended best practice to secure all firearms not in your immediate control.

2) Securing firearms can mean many different things. But as responsible gun owners, we support the use of proper storage devices (cabinets/safes/locked boxes) with keyed or combination locks in homes and vehicles.

3) While we generally support legislation that punishes negligent firearms owners for not preventing unauthorized access to firearms by minors. We recognize that circumstances are variable. And feel that legislation may represent a "slippery slope" where gun owners are charged for negligence, even when "reasonable" measures were taken (e.g., a minor breaks into the storage container). We do not feel comfortable, allowing the courts to decide what is "reasonable", because laws have been unevenly applied across jurisdictions.

4) We would support some form of incentive to promote the purchase and installation of proper firearm storage containers. Tax breaks (like those in Washington, where no sales tax is assessed on gun safes), vouchers (public (tax) or private via the NRA), and/or discounts on home owners/renters insurance.

___

Why these four points? And who the hell are we talking to? Middle-of-the-roaders who are undecided on firearms ownership, but might be swayed if we promote and demonstrate responsible ownership. I believe by using these points as "Talking Points", you'll be able to demonstrate to your middle-of-the-road person, that gun owners want to be responsible. Heck, tell them, that you've had this very conversations with dozens of gun owners and by and large consensus has been had. The opposition to legislation is common sense, we recognize that legislation is really good at making criminals out of people who shouldn't be criminals. Creating laws to punish the few is not the purpose of democratic legislation and undermines the system. The numbers not only support us, but our behavior and decisions support us too.


Just because something is a recommended best practice, and overwhelmingly a good idea, does not mean that I'd advocate for making that 'good idea' into a mandatory law. In this case I emphatically recommend the opposite.

We don't need any more laws. I strongly doubt that any such "mandatory security container" laws, or laws that levy Felony charges on a victim of theft will accomplish *anything* good for us. It will simply lead to more abuse and unjust, inequitable enforcement and prosecution by activist judges.

Any potential gain for using this as a talking point for middle-of-the-road folks is minimal at best. It is very easy and straightforward to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of gun owners keep their firearms under lock and key with few exceptions. Gun owners are largely self-policing in this regard and there is NOT some justifiable, provable rampant negligence that would make legislation a sensible idea.

Making criminals out of gun owners that are victims of theft is 100% anti-gun playbook thinking. It doesn't fix anything, it simply drops a felony conviction on a victim for what a criminal already did.

It also culturally reinforces the perpetual 'it wasn't *my* fault' sort of thinking.
(sensational anti gun hysteria)"It's the gun owner's fault that kid stole those guns and that kid went and shot those people!" (/sensational anti gun hysteria)
Sure, and it's the bank's fault that there's cash in the drawer, it was just begging to be stolen.

I'm absolutely against laying the *criminal* blame at the feet of anyone but the actual perpetrator here - especially if Felony-level charges are involved.

Mind you, I believe people who leave weapons inadequately secured are blithering pants-on-head idiots. But being an idiot isn't a crime, yet.
If it were, I'd advocate for very different criteria to determine criminal levels of idiocy.

[GardoneVT]

Sure, and it's the bank's fault that there's cash in the drawer, it was just begging to be stolen.

I'm absolutely against laying the *criminal* blame at the feet of anyone but the actual perpetrator here - especially if Felony-level charges are involved.



Funny-if a person robs a bank due to a criminal gaining access to money which should have been secured,the employees and management is held responsible. Even if a customer commits check fraud and it’s not caught by the bank staff,the employees could nonetheless be held liable for the loss. Due diligence with regard to firearms shouldn’t be optional. Lock your guns up in public or face the consequences.

Now whether those consequences should or shouldn’t be a felony isn’t a question I can settle; the laws differ between counties and states. Frankly if a gun someone was responsible for is stolen in a ready to use condition without a lock or some security measure in place (even if it’s just disassembly or removal of a functional part such as the firing pin ) , they should lose their gun rights for five years on the first offense. Lifelong ban on the second .It’s stiff,but that’ll motivate casual gun owners to take security seriously.

[Bart Carter]

Funny-if a person robs a bank due to a criminal gaining access to money which should have been secured,the employees and management is held responsible...
Who holds them responsible? Is there a law that they have broken?


..Frankly if a gun someone was responsible for is stolen in a ready to use condition without a lock or some security measure in place (even if it’s just disassembly or removal of a functional part such as the firing pin ) , they should lose their gun rights for five years on the first offense. Lifelong ban on the second .It’s stiff,but that’ll motivate casual gun owners to take security seriously.
So a mother with small children loses her right to self defense because she kept a gun accessible to her, but not her children, and it was stolen? Unintended consequences?

When does the blame start and stop? Who cannot really claim no involvement in a tragedy? Parents, teachers, government, health officials? The only ones that you can truly blame are the criminals, as it should be.

[SAWBONES]

Just because something is a recommended best practice, and overwhelmingly a good idea, does not mean that I'd advocate for making that 'good idea' into a mandatory law. In this case I emphatically recommend the opposite.

We don't need any more laws. I strongly doubt that any such "mandatory security container" laws, or laws that levy Felony charges on a victim of theft will accomplish *anything* good for us. It will simply lead to more abuse and unjust, inequitable enforcement and prosecution by activist judges.

Any potential gain for using this as a talking point for middle-of-the-road folks is minimal at best. It is very easy and straightforward to demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of gun owners keep their firearms under lock and key with few exceptions. Gun owners are largely self-policing in this regard and there is NOT some justifiable, provable rampant negligence that would make legislation a sensible idea.

Making criminals out of gun owners that are victims of theft is 100% anti-gun playbook thinking. It doesn't fix anything, it simply drops a felony conviction on a victim for what a criminal already did.

It also culturally reinforces the perpetual 'it wasn't *my* fault' sort of thinking.
(sensational anti gun hysteria)"It's the gun owner's fault that kid stole those guns and that kid went and shot those people!" (/sensational anti gun hysteria)
Sure, and it's the bank's fault that there's cash in the drawer, it was just begging to be stolen.

I'm absolutely against laying the *criminal* blame at the feet of anyone but the actual perpetrator here - especially if Felony-level charges are involved.

Mind you, I believe people who leave weapons inadequately secured are blithering pants-on-head idiots. But being an idiot isn't a crime, yet.
If it were, I'd advocate for very different criteria to determine criminal levels of idiocy.

Agreed.

There seems to be a real spirit of victim-blaming among some here, not to mention some "virtue-signaling" about the condition of some folks' firearms in the home or car.

Of course guns should be kept inaccessible to little kids who know no better than to touch and investigate "interesting" things like sidearms. Who would argue otherwise?

In a home with no little kids, however, is there a responsibility to lock up all guns not carried on one's person in a safe just in case a burglary may occur, and guns outside the safe may be more easily available to a burglar?

No, there's not.

(Alternatively, what about concealment within the home instead of a safe? And what kind of a safe is "acceptable", and who decides? Need it be a certain size/weight/quality/lock design?)

The burglarized homeowner is a victim, and is not a criminal, and having things stolen from his home that might be subsequently used by a criminal in committing more crimes is not reasonably to be considered the homeowner's proper responsibility in any reasonable degree.

And having a gun stolen out of the trunk of your car (not that I advocate "car guns") by a thief who breaks a window and accesses the trunk lock from the driver's compartment (if there is one) can hardly be considered a "crime" on the part of the car/gun owner, and anyone who thinks that it is has disturbed perceptions of where responsibility truly lies.

Sure, you can emphasize "safety" to any degree you please, for yourself, but making non-compliance by others with your conception of proper safety illegal, and therefore punishable as a crime, shows an improper and illogical emphasis in one's judgement.

[JRB]

Funny-if a person robs a bank due to a criminal gaining access to money which should have been secured,the employees and management is held responsible. Even if a customer commits check fraud and it’s not caught by the bank staff,the employees could nonetheless be held liable for the loss. Due diligence with regard to firearms shouldn’t be optional. Lock your guns up in public or face the consequences.

Now whether those consequences should or shouldn’t be a felony isn’t a question I can settle; the laws differ between counties and states. Frankly if a gun someone was responsible for is stolen in a ready to use condition without a lock or some security measure in place (even if it’s just disassembly or removal of a functional part such as the firing pin ) , they should lose their gun rights for five years on the first offense. Lifelong ban on the second .It’s stiff,but that’ll motivate casual gun owners to take security seriously.

Crazy how many gun owners like yourself can think like psychotic, draconian anti-gun nutjobs in certain contexts. The only difference is where you put the goalposts.

Might as well just summarize it as "Hey, this is already illegal, and since making the illegal thing MORE illegal for the actual felon gun-thief won't stop him, let's just make a new 2A-deprived felon out of the same incident."

I don't believe in punishing victims.

If they were deliberately complacent to deliberately provide that weapon - different story.

[chl442]

Funny-if a person robs a bank due to a criminal gaining access to money which should have been secured,the employees and management is held responsible. Even if a customer commits check fraud and it’s not caught by the bank staff,the employees could nonetheless be held liable for the loss. Due diligence with regard to firearms shouldn’t be optional. Lock your guns up in public or face the consequences.

Now whether those consequences should or shouldn’t be a felony isn’t a question I can settle; the laws differ between counties and states. Frankly if a gun someone was responsible for is stolen in a ready to use condition without a lock or some security measure in place (even if it’s just disassembly or removal of a functional part such as the firing pin ) , they should lose their gun rights for five years on the first offense. Lifelong ban on the second .It’s stiff,but that’ll motivate casual gun owners to take security seriously.

Hey dude . News flash. You don't make any of the consequences at all period end. Because guess what ?
Your not in charge . Your really just starting to talk out of your ass at this point .
Your getting to be as inflammatory as that Hogg kid .
Have a day.

[Bill Foster]

Funny-if a person robs a bank due to a criminal gaining access to money which should have been secured,the employees and management is held responsible. Even if a customer commits check fraud and it’s not caught by the bank staff,the employees could nonetheless be held liable for the loss. Due diligence with regard to firearms shouldn’t be optional. Lock your guns up in public or face the consequences.

Now whether those consequences should or shouldn’t be a felony isn’t a question I can settle; the laws differ between counties and states. Frankly if a gun someone was responsible for is stolen in a ready to use condition without a lock or some security measure in place (even if it’s just disassembly or removal of a functional part such as the firing pin ) , they should lose their gun rights for five years on the first offense. Lifelong ban on the second .It’s stiff,but that’ll motivate casual gun owners to take security seriously.

So let's examine your asinine logic...

Let's say I leave my car in "ready to use" condition (i.e. a good engine, a full tank of gas, and four good tires) in a parking lot and it gets stolen. Later, that car is used in a high speed police chase through city streets and the criminal driving it happens to hit an elderly lady using a walker on the sidewalk - killing her dead on the scene. Now you're telling me that not only am I somehow liable for her death which should at minimum result in me losing my driver's license, but additionally you imply but are unable to articulate the conditions in your mind that determine whether or not I should be charged with a felony.

[Bill Foster]

Edited to remove the last bit.

My apologies to you and to the quoted poster.

[OlongJohnson]

Far be it for me to suggest that California did something smart - but they do have a roster of DOJ certified storage devices that have a set of standards. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fsdcertlist - specifically - https://oag.ca.gov/sites/oag.ca.gov/files/pdfs/firearms/chart.pdf

Most of them are generally available and inexpensive storage cabinets - For instance the Stack-On 810 - http://www.acehardware.com/product/index.jsp?productId=138619206&KPID=26623360&cid=CAPLA:G:Shopping_-_Safes/Security&pla=pla_26623360&k_clickid=c26c8073-50ae-45f8-bb1a-9c5069f0eca0&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInqSHr6Cs2wIVEdRkCh2JpAFJEAQYASAB EgKhc_D_BwE

While many of these would be easily defeated by an enterprising criminal and or even smart and enterprising teenager - they still represent a "minimum standard" by which safe storage can be judged.

Don't know if they're still on the list, but there are videos on YouTube of a two-year-old defeating some CA DOJ-approved devices in seconds.

[GardoneVT]

Sure, you can emphasize "safety" to any degree you please, for yourself, but making non-compliance by others with your conception of proper safety illegal, and therefore punishable as a crime, shows an improper and illogical emphasis in one's judgement.

Securing firearms from unauthorized use is not GardoneVTs personal opinion. It’s pretty much standard practice for every organized group of people who use firearms.

I fail to understand why securing a firearm is such a touchy subject on *Pistol-Forum.com*.Perhaps it’s best to lock the thread right here,since consequences for negligent behavior is clearly a fresh concept for some folks.

[BN]

What about the shotgun behind the kitchen door for when the coyotes get in the chickens? What about the news stories where kids had access to a firearm and saved the day when a bad guy broke in?

[RevolverRob]

<Snip>.

Not sure you read what I wrote, to be honest.

But I predicted when I wrote, "As gun owners, let's see if we can arrive at a few agreed upon ideas" - that I wouldn't get any kind of actual agreement...

[JRB]

Securing firearms from unauthorized use is not GardoneVTs personal opinion. It’s pretty much standard practice for every organized group of people who use firearms.

I fail to understand why securing a firearm is such a touchy subject on *Pistol-Forum.com*.Perhaps it’s best to lock the thread right here,since consequences for negligent behavior is clearly a fresh concept for some folks.

Perhaps losing a firearm to an asshole is a consequence in and of itself, innately and profoundly undesirable, riddled with complications and bona-fide problems that are a rather effective deterrent all by themselves? Does a bad thing need to be made into a felony before it's actually, you know, *bad*?

Securing a firearm isn't a touchy subject. That's common goddamn sense. Don't put words in our mouths in that regard.

Where you jump the shark is wanting to make a guy a felon because he locked a Glock 19 in his car under the seat, or make another guy a felon because he keeps a 10/22 by his back door. Just skip your sanctimonious attitude about it and think about what you're really suggesting.
Nothing about this is a felony-worthy offense. Even if some asshole steals that Glock 19 by breaking out the window, and goes on to shoot five people, that guy didn't store that Glock with the intent or desire for it to be used to shoot 5 people. Should the guy at the Home Depot counter who handed over the keys to the terrorist asshole in NYC to run over those people be charged with a felony? Should FFL's be charged with felonies when a gun they sold was used in a felony? What about weapons stolen from LEO and Federal vehicles, or weapons stolen from FFL's in the dark of night?

This is the can of worms that is opened when you suggest that unintentionally making some asshole's crime *possible* is a crime in and of itself, that sets an absolutely terrifying and abhorrently misguided precedent that I cannot and will not support. I'd honestly rather have open anti-gun assholes to deal with than gun owners that think in such a way and would stab theft victims in the back like that, all under some sort of holier-than-thou assumption that you're incapable of making such a mistake so you'll happily make the stakes that high because you assume you'll never face those stakes yourself.

All of those organizations that use firearms, yes, they have those storage standards not just out of good practice, but out of self-preservation in a litigious society that'll happily allow 12 ignorant minimum-wage mouthbreathers determine that yes, said organization *should* have done all of these extra things - because going after them is what gets the big settlement, not going after the actual, malicious, bona-fide criminal asshole that stole said firearm in the first place and did ____ with it.

I personally find the 'blame everyone else' syndrome as well as the 'sue everyone semi-involved in the incident with money' syndrome to be pure examples of bald greed disguised as justice. The new American dream is figuring out how to sue someone with lots of money, get it in front of 12 other people that are delighted to give away some rich guy's/rich company's money, and getting a big payoff.


Not sure you read what I wrote, to be honest.

But I predicted when I wrote, "As gun owners, let's see if we can arrive at a few agreed upon ideas" - that I wouldn't get any kind of actual agreement...

I did - and I could re-write all of it to justify banning so-called 'assault weapons' without changing a whole lot. That whole statistical minority thing sets it up nicely.

There is nothing - absolutely fucking nothing - good about inventing new laws to hurt otherwise lawful people because *actual* bad guys don't obey laws.

[GardoneVT]

What about the shotgun behind the kitchen door for when the coyotes get in the chickens? What about the news stories where kids had access to a firearm and saved the day when a bad guy broke in?

What about the cop who gets shot because of a loaded gun left in an unlocked car?

[SAWBONES]

Securing firearms from unauthorized use is not GardoneVTs personal opinion.

"Securing firearms from unauthorized use" is not the bone of contention here.

Everyone probably agrees that firearms should be, to one or another degree, kept "from unauthorized use", in the sense of not making them readily accessible to children and others who lack specific permission from the owner.

The bone of contention regards: what "securing" should mean, and to what degree it should be taken, and under what circumstances, plus
the type and degree of responsibility of the gun owner if someone achieves access to his sidearm without his permission, via theft, and whether and to what degree he deserves to be punished.

Recommending or condoning the idea that someone whose "unlocked-up" gun is stolen from his home or store in a burglary or robbery be charged as a felon, or even imprisoned, is frankly ridiculous IMO, and entirely misplaces the responsibility.

Criminals commit crimes.
If a criminal gets a hold of your gun, by whatever means, against your will (assuming you haven't left the gun out in plain sight, unprotected), why blame anyone but the criminal?

[JRB]

What about the cop who gets shot because of a loaded gun left in an unlocked car?

I'm pretty sure that requires some asshole to pick up a gun and shoot a cop. Maybe we should just make that *more* illegal, too?

[TGS]

What about the news stories where kids had access to a firearm and saved the day when a bad guy broke in?

This is a whole other reason I vehemently disagree with laws that make someone a felon for allowing children access to guns.

I was raised in a household where I had the key for the gun safe. If I wanted something to clean or otherwise see for fun, all I had to do was ask grandpop. He also understood that living in a rural area with a part time police department that I should have access to the guns regardless, for defense reasons. The way he raised me pretty much prevented the whole notion of a curious kid sneaking away with a gun to see it and accidentally shooting themselves. Guns weren't verboten in my household, to begin with.

How the hell should my granddad be a felon if I ended up cracking and went on a killing spree? Why should that be any different than my wife who also has the combination codes and keys to our various safes? What if she goes on a killing spree......should I also be a felon because I let her have regular access to my guns? Why is that any different than letting a kid know how/have the capability to access the guns?

No.

If you think so, get fucked. (I know that's not you, Bill).

[TGS]

I'm pretty sure that requires some asshole to pick up a gun and shoot a cop. Maybe we should just make that *more* illegal, too?

You mean we should actually prosecute criminals for firearms laws already on the books rather than let them plead out on a misdemeanor while putting the gun owner in jail for a felony?

No. You obviously don't know how to America.

[RevolverRob]

I did - and I could re-write all of it to justify banning so-called 'assault weapons' without changing a whole lot. That whole statistical minority thing sets it up nicely.

There is nothing - absolutely fucking nothing - good about inventing new laws to hurt otherwise lawful people because *actual* bad guys don't obey laws.

So...you’ll have to point out where I specifically said anything about supporting making new laws. I said there is general support for criminal negligence for not securing a firearm that results in a minor accessing that firearm. The reason I said that, is because roughly half of the states have existing laws to that effect.

But I specifically stated that gun owners recognize circumstances are highly variable and view legislation as a slippery slope. And then I states that more legislation isn’t amenable because courts apply it unevenly.

Best practices aren’t laws. They are recommended best practices. I didn’t say we should make them laws. Quite the contrary, the goal of making these statements is to avoid making laws - by showing folks that a CULTURE OF RESPONSIBILITY exists. The reason we do this, is because we are having a culture war currently, and we’re losing. The way to not lose the war is to focus not on those who have decided, but rather to focus on those who have not. And to demonstrate a calm, collective, relatively unified approach that embraces and dissemenates a culture of responsibility.

If we don’t do this - we WILL lose the culture war. And in doing so rights will become increasingly restricted.

Please, take a deep breath and re-read what I wrote. Don’t “read between the lines” because there is nothing there. What I wrote is specifically constructed and politic to deflect legislation and place the onus on gun owners to be responsible. While simultaneously demonstrating that by and large gun owners are responsible.

If you still disagree. Let’s talk specifics, not generalities. “Criminals will be criminals” is a generality (and irrelevant). Let’s instead talk about how we can encourage more safe storage? How we can incentivize responsibility (if we can?). And what kinds of cultural changes could or need to happen (if any. If not, what data do we have to support no change).

[GardoneVT]

"Securing firearms from unauthorized use" is not the bone of contention here.

Everyone probably agrees that firearms should be, to one or another degree, kept "from unauthorized use", in the sense of not making them readily accessible to children and others who lack specific permission from the owner.

The bone of contention regards: what "securing" should mean, and to what degree it should be taken, and under what circumstances, plus
the type and degree of responsibility of the gun owner if someone achieves access to his sidearm without his permission, via theft, and whether and to what degree he deserves to be punished.

Recommending or condoning the idea that someone whose "unlocked-up" gun is stolen from his home or store in a burglary or robbery be charged as a felon, or even imprisoned, is frankly ridiculous IMO, and entirely misplaces the responsibility.

Criminals commit crimes.
If a criminal gets a hold of your gun, by whatever means, against your will (assuming you haven't left the gun out in plain sight, unprotected), why blame anyone but the criminal?

I don’t know where the “felony” idea came from -but I posted some pages back I wasn’t going to touch that notion. Laws are different in different places.

I do believe there should be a stiff consequence to leaving loaded weapons laying about without any attempt made to secure them. I don’t mean 20 years in jail or some extreme cosequence e: maybe a fine, loss lawful of gun ownership,suspension and/or revocation of carry permits, so on.

Whether “attempt” is defined as removing the firing pin,locking up the gun,field stripping it,etc- at least SOMeTHInG should be done to secure the thing. Bad guy busts in and steals a Glock pistol secured with a lock ? That’s not on the owner. Bad guy opens an unlocked door and uses the loaded Glock contained therein to attack an innocent victim-very different story. The story wouldn’t have ended like that if the weapon was secured. There are too many accounts of LEOs and citizens who get attacked from someone that acquired their gun from a negligent fool. We gun owners can and should take some basic steps to inhibit that. For those who can’t be bothered to do that,heres a $10,000 fine (for one example).

Leaving a loaded weapon in an unlocked car,in a house unattended , to me are both tactically unsound ideas and great ways to arm criminals.

[BN]

Leaving a loaded weapon in an unlocked car,in a house unattended , to me are both tactically unsound ideas and great ways to arm criminals.

So, if my double barrel shotgun is beside the bed, unloaded, but with ammo in the butt cuff, and my doors are locked, am I OK?

I had a double barrel shotgun before Joe Biden made it cool. ;)

[GardoneVT]

So, if my double barrel shotgun is beside the bed, unloaded, but with ammo in the butt cuff, and my doors are locked, am I OK?

I had a double barrel shotgun before Joe Biden made it cool. ;)

Only if your bed is part of the “Bulletproof Home and Garden” collection. All those bulletproof beds and sofas I see on TV have to come from somewhere,no? :cool:

[Sensei]

You mean we should actually prosecute criminals for firearms laws already on the books rather than let them plead out on a misdemeanor while putting the gun owner in jail for a felony?

No. You obviously don't know how to America.

This is a pretty interesting article on the topic being discussed:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/101568654

It seems there is a lot of heterogeneity on how childhood deaths for unsecured guns are adjudicated. That may be a good thing as each case should probably be weighed on its individual merits. Moreover, there is no need for any additional gunlock laws since most states have child neglect and endangerment laws that are already on the books. You will notice that none of my posts called for new laws; enforcement of existing laws will do.

As to my earlier point, here is my logic. I completely agree with a parent facing felony neglect or endangerment in most cases where their child kills them self or someone else with a unsecured gun. Having said that, one must then ask, when did the endangerment begin? Was it when the trigger was pulled? I’d argue much earlier when the child gained control of the weapon. Thus, I have no problem with child endangerment charges in most cases where a child gains control of a gun rather than waiting for them to pull the trigger.

[TGS]

As to my earlier point, here is my logic. I completely agree with a parent facing felony neglect or endangerment in most cases where their child kills them self or someone else with a unsecured gun.

So what would an example be for you in the few cases where felony neglect charges wouldn't be appropriate?

What if I ND'd into my cousin and killed him? I was taught basic firearms safety. And then later had a hunters safety education class. And then later had an NRA High Power clinic.

At what point are we allowed to call a tragedy a tragedy instead of shaking our fist angrily, for no real reason or purpose other than virtue signalling, at a scape goat?

[WobblyPossum]

TGS seems to have the same thoughts about this issue as I do and has done a better job than I could of explaining them. I’m just posting to say his logic is sound.


–————————————————
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

[Sensei]

So what would an example be for you in the few cases where felony neglect charges wouldn't be appropriate?

What if I ND'd into my cousin and killed him? I was taught basic firearms safety. And then later had a hunters safety education class. And then later had an NRA High Power clinic.

At what point are we allowed to call a tragedy a tragedy instead of shaking our fist angrily, for no real reason or purpose other than virtue signalling, at a scape goat?

If it could be shown that a parent made reasonable accommodations to secure their weapons and the child somehow defeated the measures probably shouldn’t result in charges. Having said that, those cases almost never occur since only 100-200 kids are negligently killed with an otherwise legal gun each year. The vast majority of those cases redefine the meaning of stupid such as cases described in the linked article like the kid was put to bed with a gun under the pillow or a house were virtually every room had an unsecured gun in the closet.

When it comes to your cousin, there is a chance that you may face involuntary manslughter charges depending on the mitigating circumstances of your negligence. For example, a “Roland Special” (shooting your cousin while drunk) should probably result in you never owning another gun. NDing him because you tripped or the trigger caught an article of clothing would likely mitigate in your favor.

As for our definition of a tragedy, that is generally reserved for accidents that could not have been reasonably foreseen or occur despite reasonable safety precautions. A car hitting a patch of black ice is an accident. A sugeon dropping a lung on an emergent central line is an accident. The same car hitting black ice that ejects 4 toddlers who were not in safety seats is negligence and will probably draw charges.

When it comes to firearms, the shooting community has pretty much defined a gun that discharges outside the 4 Rules as a negligent discharge. That is our definition; we own it. This negligence becomes gross (easily foreseeable) by further inactions that allowed access to the gun such as leaving it in a purse, closet, or under a kids pellow - any reasonable parent knows that kids go through their mom’s purse or look for shit in closets.

[idahojess]

So...you’ll have to point out where I specifically said anything about supporting making new laws. I said there is general support for criminal negligence for not securing a firearm that results in a minor accessing that firearm. The reason I said that, is because roughly half of the states have existing laws to that effect.



I'm not sure that half the states do have laws to that effect. Got any specific statutory references? I'm sure California, New York, Illinois and northeastern states have such "common sense" laws, but half the states?

Washington state attempted to pass some this last legislative session, and they did not pass.
http://www.guns.com/2017/03/13/safe-gun-storage-legislation-fails-in-washington-state/

The People's republic of Seattle is currently proposing making safe storage violations an infraction (similar to a speeding ticket). (State preemption apparently doesn't apply in Seattle. )

https://crosscut.com/2018/03/seattle-pursues-gun-laws-where-it-can-starting-safe-storage

There have been some prosecutions in this state in cases where a minor gained access to an unsecured firearm, but those have had mixed results. For example, a very sad case occurred in Stanwood, where an off-duty officer's 3 year old son shot his 7 year old sister. There was a manslaughter trial, but no conviction. https://www.kiro7.com/news/police-officer-who-left-kids-gun-van-going-back-wo/81847920

Around the same time, there was a school shooting involving a 9 year old who brought a gun to school and accidentally shot another student. The State Supreme Court held that it was not a crime.


“Bauer’s act of gun ownership, in contrast, is not felonious or criminal,” Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud
wrote for the majority. “His decision to keep loaded weapons around the house is not, in itself, a crime in
this state, either.”

http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2014%2007%2018%20Supreme%20Court%20Man%20who%20lef t%20gun%20loose%20for%209%20year%20old%20not%20res ponsible%20PI.pdf


I'm all for safe gun storage, but I do think these things are problematic to legislate.

[TGS]

If it could be shown that a parent made reasonable accommodations to secure their weapons and the child somehow defeated the measures probably shouldn’t result in charges. Having said that, those cases almost never occur since only 100-200 kids are negligently killed with an otherwise legal gun each year. The vast majority of those cases redefine the meaning of stupid such as cases described in the linked article like the kid was put to bed with a gun under the pillow or a house were virtually every room had an unsecured gun in the closet.

When it comes to your cousin, there is a chance that you may face involuntary manslughter charges depending on the mitigating circumstances of your negligence. For example, a “Roland Special” (shooting your cousin while drunk) should probably result in you never owning another gun. NDing him because you tripped or the trigger caught an article of clothing would likely mitigate in your favor.

As for our definition of a tragedy, that is generally reserved for accidents that could not have been reasonably foreseen or occur despite reasonable safety precautions. A car hitting a patch of back ice is an accident. A sugeon dropping a lung on an emergent central line is an accident. When it comes to firearms, the shooting community has pretty much defined a gun that discharges outside the 4 Rules as a negligent discharge. This negligence becomes gross (easily foreseeable) by further inactions that allowed access to the gun such as leaving it in a purse, closet, or under a kids pellow - any reasonable parent knows that kids go through their mom’s purse or look for shit in closets.

So my granddad was grossly negligent by raising me with access to guns, given I had one of the keys?

Kids become curious when stuff is forbidden. I abhor the idea that parents should be legally prevented from allowing their kids access to guns based on 200 kids per year who were either 1) let down by oxygen thief parents or 2) succumbed to a true tragedy, like an ND while they were otherwise legitimately handling a firearm.

[Sensei]

So my granddad was grossly negligent by raising me with access to guns, given I had one of the keys?

Kids become curious when stuff is forbidden. I abhor the idea that parents should be legally prevented from allowing their kids access to guns based on 200 kids per year who were either 1) let down by oxygen thief parents or 2) succumbed to a true tragedy, like an ND while they were otherwise legitimately handling a firearm.

It depends. Negligence is generally defined by what a reasonable person would do under a similar set of circumstances. What was considered reasonable when we were young is no longer reasonable today, assuming you are my age. It might have been reasonable for you to have access to the guns when you were 14; probably not if you were under 10, even back then. The age of what is reasonable has almost certainly gone up over the past 30 years as American kids have become more dependent.

Keep in mind that my earlier statement that drew so much attention was that I had no problem with felony charges for a parent whose kid showed up to school with an unsecured gun. Assuming you had done this with your granddad’s gun, that would mean that he failed in the following respects: 1) to adequately secure his guns, 2) train you in proper safe firearm handling, 3) instill in you proper respect for the law. Tell me again why I should continue to trust that such a person can safely exercise their 2nd Amendment right? Why should there be no consequence for his failures that endangered other kids? Why would he not fit your definition of an oxygen thief grandparent?

Last 2 points 1) While only 100-200 are killed by guns, thousands more endanger others by bringing guns to schools. I can’t find the stat now, but I recall something like 6-10 guns are seized in American schools everyday; most of those guns came from home. In other words, the number of deaths is the tip of a very stupid iceberg. 2) Every parent knows that kids are curious about everything, not just what is forbidden. If I hand my 5 year old a transformer he will play with it...he’ll probably even put it in his mouth.

[rcbusmc24]

I've always operated on the premise that you should never hand the other side a law that they can turn around and beat you over the head with, It seems like some of us are bound and determined to hand over a baseball bat studded with nails in this case.....

Maybe this is just me being cynical since I just got my first cup of coffee right now but, While I like to believe that people in America can be reasonable, in this case I just don't trust it. In my mind I see some guy being thrown under the bus by 12 idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty, an Activist judge and a Prosecutor who just wants to make a name for themselves and an emotional electorate that " just wants to DO Something". Of course this is all very much location dependent but lets be honest, the places that are most likely to pass a law like this are remarkably similar to the types of areas most enthusiastically trying to regulate gun owners in every way imaginable and would willingly use the proffered nail studded bat to beat down a gun owner who already is dealing with a tragedy and possibly a civil suit.

I also don't like the Pandora's box this opens up, Logically if I can hold a owner liable for what a unauthorized person does with something that they stole from me, then why can't I hold a manufacturer responsible for something that they made, or a store responsible for something that they sold, Right now there are laws in place to protect against that but I see something like this being passed as removing a cornerstone from that castle protecting manufacturers and dealers from malicious attacks.

[Sensei]

I've always operated on the premise that you should never hand the other side a law that they can turn around and beat you over the head with, It seems like some of us are bound and determined to hand over a baseball bat studded with nails in this case.....

Maybe this is just me being cynical since I just got my first cup of coffee right now but, While I like to believe that people in America can be reasonable, in this case I just don't trust it. In my mind I see some guy being thrown under the bus by 12 idiots who couldn't get out of jury duty, an Activist judge and a Prosecutor who just wants to make a name for themselves and an emotional electorate that " just wants to DO Something". Of course this is all very much location dependent but lets be honest, the places that are most likely to pass a law like this are remarkably similar to the types of areas most enthusiastically trying to regulate gun owners in every way imaginable and would willingly use the proffered nail studded bat to beat down a gun owner who already is dealing with a tragedy and possibly a civil suit.

I also don't like the Pandora's box this opens up, Logically if I can hold a owner liable for what a unauthorized person does with something that they stole from me, then why can't I hold a manufacturer responsible for something that they made, or a store responsible for something that they sold, Right now there are laws in place to protect against that but I see something like this being passed as removing a cornerstone from that castle protecting manufacturers and dealers from malicious attacks.

Everyone loves to bash jurors and think of them as idiots. I’m not sure why. In my brief delve into LE, I found the jurors to often be the most thoughtful and deliberate people in the room with the possible exception of the judge.

Truth be told, if you find yourself in court being really worked over, the best place to look for blame is probably a mirror. The jurors are generally the least of your problems, far below the occasional (but far too common) prosecutor who over charges or ignores exculpatory evidence.

[JRB]

It depends. Negligence is generally defined by what a reasonable person would do under a similar set of circumstances. What was considered reasonable when we were young is no longer reasonable today, assuming you are my age. It might have been reasonable for you to have access to the guns when you were 14; probably not if you were under 10, even back then. The age of what is reasonable has almost certainly gone up over the past 30 years as American kids have become more dependent.

Keep in mind that my earlier statement that drew so much attention was that I had no problem with felony charges for a parent whose kid showed up to school with an unsecured gun. Assuming you had done this with your granddad’s gun, that would mean that he failed in the following respects: 1) to adequately secure his guns, 2) train you in proper safe firearm handling, 3) instill in you proper respect for the law. Tell me again why I should continue to trust that such a person can safely exercise their 2nd Amendment right? Why should there be no consequence for his failures that endangered other kids? Why would he not fit your definition of an oxygen thief grandparent?

Last 2 points 1) While only 100-200 are killed by guns, thousands more endanger others by bringing guns to schools. I can’t find the stat now, but I recall something like 6-10 guns are seized in American schools everyday; most of those guns came from home. In other words, the number of deaths is the tip of a very stupid iceberg. 2) Every parent knows that kids are curious about everything, not just what is forbidden. If I hand my 5 year old a transformer he will play with it...he’ll probably even put it in his mouth.

We're talking about statistically insignificant numbers of these kinds of incidents. If it's statistically insignificant, why does it require legislation?
That's an argument we use to combat anti-gun types who seek to ban 'Assault Weapons'. It's a law that will be used to hurt otherwise lawful people who are either victims or bystanders themselves.

We all readily accept that deviance cannot be fully mitigated. We all readily accept that good parents can raise good kids that make a terribly bad decision - or raise kids that are knuckleheads and awful human beings despite the most commendable efforts of those parents.

So why can't we all accept that these tragedies, regardless of how many criminals we make out of them, will continue to happen? The only difference is how many people are criminals when the dust has settled. We've established in virtually every possible gun control debate that gun owners are overwhelmingly responsible, law abiding, and self-policing. The numbers here being in the low hundreds a year in a country with 100+ million gun owners in it speaks for itself.
That's why supporting legislation or legal repercussions to 'DO SOMETHING!!!!' about statistically insignificant numbers of tragedies is ineffective and ultimately damaging to our overall cause.

It's pulling a Zumbo, but on personal responsibility instead of AR-15's.

Ultimately I do not trust the powers that be to make legislation that exclusively criminalizes true negligence. I do not trust the legal system to be free of abuse in using such laws to punish gun owners in states and locales where gun ownership is unpopular.
Further, I do not see how a statistically insignificant number of tragedies warrants such legislation to further mitigate them.
I also see a great deal of terrifying unintended consequences coming about from the notion that a lawful person's mistake or indiscretion that allows a criminal to do criminal things somehow makes that lawful person a criminal just the same.

I believe in laying the blame at the actor's feet. If someone steals a gun and kills someone with it -they're a thief and a murderer and they should be prosecuted effectively as such. Getting into the nitty gritty about how they stole the gun is pedantic and frankly just enabling that kind of criminality by displacing blame onto someone else.

Same goes for making criminals out of family members following the loss of a child. Any constitutional legal repercussions cannot possibly outweigh the loss of a child. I don't see anything worthwhile about making that parent a felon once their kid is in the ground.

[OlongJohnson]

We are currently massively successful at preventing problems. Go dig up the CDC numbers for how people (or just children) are being killed accidentally, and firearms are so far down the list and in such small numbers that it's a zero as far as public policy objectives. If we really want to make a difference in outcomes, let's look at the big numbers. Yes, every person who is killed or seriously injured by any means is a tragedy for them and their community, but for a responsible leader focused on the betterment of society overall, "ain't nobody got time" for worrying about accidental firearms deaths.

[Sensei]

We're talking about statistically insignificant numbers of these kinds of incidents. If it's statistically insignificant, why does it require legislation?
That's an argument we use to combat anti-gun types who seek to ban 'Assault Weapons'. It's a law that will be used to hurt otherwise lawful people who are either victims or bystanders themselves.

We all readily accept that deviance cannot be fully mitigated. We all readily accept that good parents can raise good kids that make a terribly bad decision - or raise kids that are knuckleheads and awful human beings despite the most commendable efforts of those parents.

So why can't we all accept that these tragedies, regardless of how many criminals we make out of them, will continue to happen? The only difference is how many people are criminals when the dust has settled. We've established in virtually every possible gun control debate that gun owners are overwhelmingly responsible, law abiding, and self-policing. The numbers here being in the low hundreds a year in a country with 100+ million gun owners in it speaks for itself.
That's why supporting legislation or legal repercussions to 'DO SOMETHING!!!!' about statistically insignificant numbers of tragedies is ineffective and ultimately damaging to our overall cause.

It's pulling a Zumbo, but on personal responsibility instead of AR-15's.

Ultimately I do not trust the powers that be to make legislation that exclusively criminalizes true negligence. I do not trust the legal system to be free of abuse in using such laws to punish gun owners in states and locales where gun ownership is unpopular.
Further, I do not see how a statistically insignificant number of tragedies warrants such legislation to further mitigate them.
I also see a great deal of terrifying unintended consequences coming about from the notion that a lawful person's mistake or indiscretion that allows a criminal to do criminal things somehow makes that lawful person a criminal just the same.

I believe in laying the blame at the actor's feet. If someone steals a gun and kills someone with it -they're a thief and a murderer and they should be prosecuted effectively as such. Getting into the nitty gritty about how they stole the gun is pedantic and frankly just enabling that kind of criminality by displacing blame onto someone else.

Same goes for making criminals out of family members following the loss of a child. Any constitutional legal repercussions cannot possibly outweigh the loss of a child. I don't see anything worthwhile about making that parent a felon once their kid is in the ground.

First, I never said anything about new legislation. I simply said that I have absolutely no problem with parents being charged with a felony when their kids commit a crime with a gun that was left unsecured, and I gave the kid showing up to school with the parent’s unsecured gun (which is a crime in every state) as an example. I never said anything about criminalizing people whose guns are stolen by strangers because parents are responsible for their kid’s actions, not a stranger’s.

Moreover, there of plenty of laws on the books in all 50 states to make this happen without writing new laws. In other words, I think that we should use existing laws to hold parents accountable for actually raising their kids in a safe environment rather than waiting for some tragedy to take place because the parent is dipshit. If you want to be like Adam Lanza’s mom or TGS’s granddad and give your child access to the gunsafe, then you had better goddamn make sure that you raised them properly, or expect your life to be ruined if your kid fucks up. Let’s not stop at guns. I’d incarcerate any parent whose unsecured prescription drugs wind up being brought to school by their kid. Did you know that our local middle schoool administers more Narcan for opiate overdoses than epinephrine for anaphylaxis; virtually all from prescription drugs left unsecured at home and sold or used at school. So, if your toddler overdosed on your oxy that fell out of your pocket and into the crib (a case I had a few months ago), then expect to get a colonoscopy from CPS and the local DA - your’re a shitty parent who should not be around kids or guns.



We are currently massively successful at preventing problems. Go dig up the CDC numbers for how people (or just children) are being killed accidentally, and firearms are so far down the list and in such small numbers that it's a zero as far as public policy objectives. If we really want to make a difference in outcomes, let's look at the big numbers. Yes, every person who is killed or seriously injured by any means is a tragedy for them and their community, but for a responsible leader focused on the betterment of society overall, "ain't nobody got time" for worrying about accidental firearms deaths.

For every kid killed there are 10 more who misuse their parents unsecured gun. To put it in perspective, 4% of high school students report bringing an illegal weapon (guns were estimated to be 1/4 of the weapons) to school at some point. Moreover, statistically insignificant does not equate to clinically irrelevant. For example there are 320M Americans. In 2014, 11 of those 320 million contracted Ebola - a statistically insignificant number. Yet the US spent roughly $2.5 billion in its response. If you are going to tell me that campaigns to educate parents and children on safe gun use and storage are a waste and have not contributed to the impressive decline in deaths from negligence, then I will respectfully disagree.

[JRB]

First, I never said anything about new legislation. I simply said that I have absolutely no problem with parents being charged with a felony when their kids commit a crime with a gun that was left unsecured, and I gave the kid showing up to school with the parent’s unsecured gun (which is a crime in every state) as an example. I never said anything about criminalizing people whose guns are stolen by strangers because parents are responsible for their kid’s actions, not a stranger’s.

Moreover, there of plenty of laws on the books in all 50 states to make this happen without writing new laws. In other words, I think that we should use existing laws to hold parents accountable for actually raising their kids in a safe environment rather than waiting for some tragedy to take place because the parent is dipshit. If you want to be like Adam Lanza’s mom or TGS’s granddad and give your child access to the gunsafe, then you had better goddamn make sure that you raised them properly, or expect your life to be ruined if your kid fucks up. Let’s not stop at guns. I’d incarcerate any parent whose unsecured prescription drugs wind up being brought to school by their kid. Did you know that our local middle schoool administers more Narcan for opiate overdoses than epinephrine for anaphylaxis; virtually all from prescription drugs left unsecured at home and sold or used at school. So, if your toddler overdosed on your oxy that fell out of your pocket and into the crib (a case I had a few months ago), then expect to get a colonoscopy from CPS and the local DA - your’re a shitty parent who should not be around kids or guns.




For every kid killed there are 10 more who misuse their parents unsecured gun. To put it in perspective, 4% of high school students report bringing an illegal weapon (guns were estimated to be 1/4 of the weapons) to school at some point. Moreover, statistically insignificant does not equate to clinically irrelevant. For example there are 320M Americans. In 2014, 11 of those 320 million contracted Ebola - a statistically insignificant number. Yet the US spent roughly $2.5 billion in its response. If you are going to tell me that campaigns to educate parents and children on safe gun use and storage are a waste and have not contributed to the impressive decline in deaths from negligence, then I will respectfully disagree.

Thank you for that clarification - I was under the mistaken impression that by advocating for felony charges, you were advocating for enhanced storage laws.

I agree with you to a point. My Sister is a 6th grade math teacher at a local middle school. Being in Albuquerque, there's a lot of drugs and other problems with middle school kids dealing with seriously advanced levels of scary shit.
To that end, yes, there's a LOT of cases where the kid is a serious problem and the parents are simply awful. But there's a lot of good parents that simply have a kid that fell in with the wrong crowd.

Obviously if they're cognizant of that with their child they ought to make sure a *very* good security posture is in place around firearms, medication, etc. A little asshole of a kid, though, can do some amazing stuff when motivated by peer pressure and by the time a lot of these kids are 14,15,16 years old then those parents can really be at their wits end trying to do the best they can to influence their child, and fail miserably.

Some kids just grow as bad seeds no matter how good the parents are, and I'd be disinclined to blame all parents for their children's actions as a default. That's certainly the case most of the time, but not all of the time.
With the way that kids will totally game the system between schools and parents, especially in retaliation for punishment at home (Kid claims child abuse or falsely says that Mom or Dad beats them at home, because they're angry their iPhone got taken away for missing curfew, etc) I'm exceptionally disinclined to blame parents by default unless schools get substantially more tools to permanently expel true problem children, and parents get significantly more benefit of the doubt when it comes to CYFD and abuse investigations.

Also, while I'm not a medical health professional, I believe it's a false equivalency to compare the response to a virulent disease to prevent an epidemic and a reasonable response to a statistically rare type of human-controlled negligence or accident that very rarely results in a fatality.
Young children aren't going to be shooting each other by the tens of thousands within weeks if that 2.5 billion isn't spent.
I would agree, though, that spending some millions on Eddie Eagle types of mandatory safety classes would be money well spent. Sadly, the political climate would make it very difficult to put that into a public school curriculum.