Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Just a thought about guns being mis-used (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/just-thought-about-guns-being-mis-used-82240/)

Popgun 01-23-2013 06:58 PM

Just a thought about guns being mis-used
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest something that I'm pretty sure is going to spark some pointed contrary opinions, but here goes.

Out here in Kalifornia (the land of idiot lawmakers) they passed one law, I think, that makes some sense. In order to purchase a firearm here, you must first purchase and own a "California Certified" gun safe (which I did a few years ago). Most of the "heavy" gun safe manufacturers safes will qualify. They need to have combination or keypad locks (no pad locks), no exposed hinges, and basically, can't be pried open with crow-bars. The law doesn't say you need to have all your guns locked-up in this safe; only that you own one. Naturally, most of my firearms are kept locked-up in this kind of safe as are many of your's, but I AM allowed to have other, less secure "quick use" safes or not use the safe at all (as with a gun under your pillow). The point is that if more people used this system, fewer firearms would be stolen or mis-used by un-stable family members such as we have seen in Conn and New Mex. In most homes, they might get to one gun, but they wouldn't be able to access the rest of the armory for additional weapon selections or additional ammo.

I'm open to critique on this subject as I'm supprised this hasn't been discussed much in the news media or here.

Thanks for your feed-back

orangello 01-23-2013 07:05 PM

Would you find it unreasonable if the law required you to have all firearms locked in the safe when you are not home? Would you find it unreasonable if the law required you to only remove firearms from the safe for purposes of target practice or hunting at approved areas for these activities?

It is my understanding that Australia's draconian gun laws require not only that you store your firearms in an approved safe, but that it be available for their scheduled inspection (according to posts from a couple of Australian forum members in the past).

I find these requirements to be unreasonable and likely to lead to even more unreasonable requirements, much like the former ten round magazine capacity limitation in effect in NY, now a seven round capacity limit, probably to eventually be a single-shot limit.

davva360 01-23-2013 07:09 PM

While I agree with the argument that gun owners need to keep their firearms secured I don't agree that it would have stopped Lanza.

This guy was willing to kill his own mother so that he could take her weapons to commit the atrocity. He may have been willing to torture her to get the combination or key. I honestly don't think any law would have stopped this guy.

Like I said, I agree with keeping firearms secured. I have a child in my home and if a gun is not on my person it is locked up. Its basic common sense to me. Even if you are living alone you should keep them secured and if you have one near you while you sleep it should be out of sight of an intruder or it could be used against you.

The thought of having it a legal requirement makes me a little nervous. Right now it sounds like they force you to have a safe before you can obtain a gun but that doesn't mean you are going to use the safe like you should. So whats next? Random inspections? That would be where I would have a problem.

PrimePorkchop 01-23-2013 07:18 PM

So the law requires you to have one - but doesn't require you to use it.

Sounds like a stupid law all around to me.

Here's an idea if we want to be genuine about reducing gun crimes:

Crack down on CRIMINALS rights. Stop going after a law abiding citizen.


Oh, you're in prison? Well, if you want hot food, you're going to have to work for it, else you get bread and water. Oh, you want TV? Tough ****. Oh, you want books? Better be on good behavior.

Also, you are never allowed outside of your cell unless it's for showering. That gives us more room for for bars, more cells, and more guards. No basketball. No weight lifting. You want to exercise? You can do pull ups and push ups in your cell.

If you get into a fight with your cell mate, you'll spend the entire duration of your sentence in solitary - dont worry - we have plenty of those rooms too.

You don't get to write letters back and forth with the outside world, you're a prisoner - you get no rights.


Will THAT stop all crime? No. Absolutely not. But it'll certainly go a lot further than stripping someone who has never broken the law of their rights.

Want to get mentally unstable people away from guns? Make it a law that they're not allowed anywhere near them. Ever. For any reason what so ever.

Or, we could use the rights grabbing ideology of the left and say all mentally unstable people are to be locked up in a mental asylum.

But of course then the left would respond and say "we cant strip them of their rights, they have rights too"

It's amazing to me the astounding level of hypocrisy that happens in these arguments. They're okay with stripping me of my rights, evne though I've never done a damn thing to anyone.

Pisses me off.

danf_fl 01-23-2013 07:34 PM

Count the number of firearms mis-usage here in the forum.

We have a large number of people who share an interest in firearms use, safety, purchasing, sport, recreation, and selling.

I will go out on a limb here and state that the majority of the people have not mis-used firearms.
(maybe a couple when they took their guns for a boat ride).

While most are biased towards firearms, there is a diversity here that is comparable to most of the US population.
(and yes, we do have a couple of "looney tunes")

25-5 01-23-2013 08:11 PM

A step backwards, IMO, is a step backwards!

c3shooter 01-23-2013 08:30 PM

I'll bet if we started requiring people to have a substantial garage built, with a heavy duty door, good locks, no windows, concrete walls- we could really reduce the number of cars that are stolen and used in crimes. It is really irresponsible to leave a car just SITTING in your driveway where anyone could take it.

As far as not being able to open your safe- in 5 minutes, know some folks that could make any of us beg for the opportunity to unlock the safe and GIVE them whatever is in it. Requires a bobby pin, a lighter, and your fingernails.

Not a big fan of laws telling me what I MUST do because you have other people that WON'T do what they should.

orangello 01-23-2013 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c3shooter (Post 1107140)
Not a big fan of laws telling me what I MUST do because you have other people that WON'T do what they should.

I really like that part.

dub1686 01-23-2013 08:35 PM

No thanks! If we had safe rooms, they would not qualify? I agree with pork chop. Put heat on the people that do bad things. We will never protect people from the determined jackass.

John_Deer 01-23-2013 08:37 PM

I don't think a law should be required to get people to buy a safe. It ought to be common sense that if you own firearms and other valuables you need a safe. I even keep my medications locked in my safe. Not everyone needs a $600 safe but they need something to keep an honest man honest.

All anyone can do is take reasonable precautions. I am not a thief. But I do own a concrete saw that cut any safe open in about 15 minutes. I don't keep the saw locked up but I do keep the blades locked up. The blades will fit a lot of chop saws. Everyone around here has a chop saw or a concrete saw.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.