Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ SOFDC

You're getting caught up on people breaking and entering a house to steal the gun. If people have an issue with that at present then they would already have taken action against that. Safe storage isn't about preventing guys with blowtorches from stealing your guns. Its to prevent cases where the weapons can be put into the hands of people other than their owners without the owner's awareness. That's to say kids picking them up or someone just taking one and walking away with it. Its prevention, not a total solution. Is a kid going to start pulling out torches and hammers to get into a safe? Nine times out of ten, probably not. Is a safe better than someone just sticking their gun into a glass cabinet or leaving it out? ...Is this becoming a redundant question at this point?


@Vaktathi

Ack fair enough man. In which case let's do a blanket coverage of every case where someone doesn't have their gun stored away safely and then something ill happens as "criminal negligence". Rather than putting in preventative measures then you're advocating stamping down on when the lack of those leads to harm happening? Someone picks up a gun that was just lying around and kills someone. Their neighbours for instance are doing the exact same thing, but instead of taking that as a lesson, they just go "ah well, won't be me!" and carry on?

 SOFDC wrote:

Crowbars, screwdrivers, hammers make sense.

They will also open pretty much any safe you buy in a store. Hence my point. Also hence my question of "How much better can realistically be expected?" A lot of people for various reasons CAN'T afford or can't install the safes we might like to dream about having.

Again, that's a probelm with people buying crappy safes, not that safes themselves are not effective.

especially if they want to remain undetected.

After breaking in doors/windows, which is the only time a safe might ever possibly have a use. It has become clear.

Somehow I think a breaking pane of glass so they can reach the lock might be a tad quieter than going at a safe with a grinder.

And metal cutting tools are not cheap.

...You are aware that you can go like, right now and buy an O/A torch that will happily chew through inch thick+ steel plate for 60 bucks? http://www.harborfreight.com/18-inch-oxygen-acetylene-cutting-torch-96290.html That was after a whole two minutes searching in google, not looking used, not asking my mythical friend bob if I can borrow his torch for a day, etc. That's two fill ups for the car, it's not a big deal anymore.

Well, that might be useful if it was attached to anything and wan't literally just the nozzle.

Even then, you have to think about them knowing how to use them.

That's like saying hackers aren't a problem because you have to know how to use a computer. It takes less than 15 minutes to learn how to use the torch listed above.

Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.

Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.

If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +

Is a safe better than someone just sticking their gun into a glass cabinet or leaving it out?

In most cases? Honestly, no not really. Not if you stop and think about who this is all supposed to be preventing from getting at your stuff, at any rate.

Well, that might be useful if it was attached to anything and wan't literally just the nozzle.

That's a bit like saying "That car might be useful if it wasn't all there except for the vanity mirror." The torch itself is by far the most expensive part. rented tanks and a gas line will set you back about three or four starbucks, maybe. Again, big deal.

 SOFDC wrote:

Is a safe better than someone just sticking their gun into a glass cabinet or leaving it out?

In most cases? Honestly, no not really. Not if you stop and think about who this is all supposed to be stopping, at any rate.

People are really, really getting hung up about the home invaders with the industrial tools stick here. ...In a thread about stopping kids from picking up easily accessible guns. Kids aren't going to be pulling out the blow torches or hammers nine times out of ten... Its a deterrent not a total solution. =P

And as a whole this argument about not having any secure storage at all is sound like "oh a criminal can easily break through a lock, so that means I didn't have to go out and buy one for any of my doors.".

Well the real point that was being made was that, for people without spouses and/or children, there's no practical reason for them to have a safe or storage that locking your doors doesn't fulfill.

 cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.

Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.

If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +

That's all they need to be for sensible weapon security. If someone breaks into your house and steals your weapon-locker, report it to the police. There, your due diligence is done, crimes committed with the registered firearms in the stolen safe are no longer your responsibility.

Handed your 17 year old a S&W .40 cal before he went and shot up a nightclub? Yeah... that's on you.

As to what could be done to prevent this most recent killing?

Let's start with mandatory safety courses, to include both a written test and a test of practical application.
Minimum ages for the operation of firearms.
Re-testing at regular intervals to prove continued competence.
Possession of insurance to protect those injured by accidents, or deliberate use, involving your firearm

Just for starters.

 cincydooley wrote:
Well the real point that was being made was that, for people without spouses and/or children, .

...or visitors...

...In a thread about stopping kids from picking up easily accessible guns.

Did you miss the first three pages of the thread?

What kind of kids are we stopping from just picking guns up? I, and a lot of other people HAVE no children. Thus, any kid picking up my guns has broken into my house.

Second, if I did have kids, it goes one of two ways: I tell them not to touch thing. I put trigger lock on thing, put thing in safe, or I put thing in my bedroom.

At this point, they decide: Do I touch thing? If YES: Touch thing/bolt cutters to trigger lock/find key to safe or figure out what the combo is (Because he's totally stupid enough to never have watched you work the lock btw.) or busts the lock on the bedroom.

If NO: It could be dangling from the cieling fan for all it would matter.

I hate to break it down this way but at least in this case, crappy parenting overruled all.

 cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.

Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.

If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +

And legislation is pretty much concerned about keeping children away from them, so a gun safe or a cheap trigger lock is all you need for that.

I'm not sure how "keep kids away from weapons" suddenly turned into "these laws will not stop the neighborhood gang from breaking down my garage door with power tools while backing up their pickup to haul my safe down the street".

If you are looking at a gun safe for actually protecting your weapons from thieves then you would be looking at a lot of money of course. I also think that you would be stupid to put it in the garage for any number of reasons (letting everybody see that you have a lot of guns whenever you open your garage door, poor condition to store guns and other valuables considering that they will be exposed to big swings in temperature and humidity, a big opening that makes it easy to drive in with that mean pickup to chain up your safe).

If you just want a barrier that keeps kids away then the trigger lock or cable lock that came with your gun is fine. You can also get a $30 metal box that keeps the little one from picking up the gun as well. I keep a small metal box with a cable lock attached to my floorboard so that if I end up having to run somewhere that I can't carry I can stick it in there. I'm under no delusion that it will deter anyone who really wants it, but the guy dashing into my car really quick won't be able to pull it out in 5 seconds. I keep my guns and ammo in a cheap locked plastic box and I have a combination gun-box on my nightstand to keep my gun while I sleep. That helps me make sure that my 2 year old can't mess with anything and is enough to keep them out of sight and reach when nieces and nephews are coming to visit.

I wouldn't advocate a $2,000+ safe for everyone if they only have $500 worth of guns and ammo, that wouldn't make any sense. But if you have a lot of money invested in weapons it only makes sense to protect your investment with a quality safe that will also help keep them in the best condition by controlling the humidity and exposure to sunlight.I will probably pick up a big safe next year though because in addition to my guns it will also be a spot to keep other valuables. So I will be sure to get one that is rated well for entry and fire protection, and it will be bolted down in an interior closet to make it harder to get out and help control the climate conditions.

 SOFDC wrote:
Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.

Would it?

If a functional safe is impractical for your current living arrangements, surely that's an argument against your current living arrangements being adequate for you to own a firearm, rather than an argument against requiring a functional safe?

Likewise with the cost argument. If you can't afford the equipment needed to lock your guns away, then maybe you need to reconsider whether or not to buy a gun.

 cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.

Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.

If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +

I know. And I have repeatedly stating that then it's the fact that it's a crappy safe is the problem if it gets stolen, not that safes themselves can't stop them from getting stolen. That's the idea I was disagreeing with. I know I write in a somewhat confusing manner at times, but I thought I got my point across in a relatively clear manner.

 insaniak wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:
Telling someone they can't live in apartment because the safe the law requires weighs more than an apartment can safely support (by virtue of physics being a thing) would be ridiculous.

Would it?

If a functional safe is impractical for your current living arrangements, surely that's an argument against your current living arrangements being adequate for you to own a firearm, rather than an argument against requiring a functional safe?

Likewise with the cost argument. If you can't afford the equipment needed to lock your guns away, then maybe you need to reconsider whether or not to buy a gun.

In this case we run into the issue of a state imposition being used to prevent people from exercising a right, particularly those at the most disadvantaged levels of the socio-economic ladder. Applying similar logic to other rights, like Speech, would hardly fly, and in the case of firearms, typically don't make it past court challenges, particularly if it's attached to something else (e.g. CA has a law where if a child gets access to a firearm and discharges it causing damage, harm or death, and you had failed to adequately secure said firearm, *and* you had reasonable expectation that a child would be present, you can be sent to jail, but not just for not having it secured).

 Psienesis wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Co'tor, I think you vastly overestimate the metal quality and purpose of a basic gun safe.

Most of your affordable models are designed much like a gym locker, with the primary intent to keep children away from them and to have a reasonable place to store them.

If you want to start getting into the really heavy duty safes intended to prevent real burglary, you're talking $1200 +

That's all they need to be for sensible weapon security. If someone breaks into your house and steals your weapon-locker, report it to the police. There, your due diligence is done, crimes committed with the registered firearms in the stolen safe are no longer your responsibility.

Handed your 17 year old a S&W .40 cal before he went and shot up a nightclub? Yeah... that's on you.

As to what could be done to prevent this most recent killing?

Let's start with mandatory safety courses, to include both a written test and a test of practical application.
Minimum ages for the operation of firearms.
Re-testing at regular intervals to prove continued competence.
Possession of insurance to protect those injured by accidents, or deliberate use, involving your firearm

Just for starters.

All of which would be considered unreasonable barriers to expressing ones second amendment rights, ala requiring a photo ID to vote.

I've actually said in not opposed to safety courses. The government would have to pay for them, though.

Minimum age is ridiculous. There are millions of kids that hunt with their parents or shoot for sport. And the ones that are actually operating one as opposed to fething around with one an irresponsible parent locked most likely come from a home where they're taught how to respect and responsibly use a firearm.

None of them will ever happen in the current environment or without major changes to the 2nd.

So they're non-starters

 Vaktathi wrote:
In this case we run into the issue of a state imposition being used to prevent people from exercising a right, particularly those at the most disadvantaged levels of the socio-economic ladder.

Well, no, you run into the 'issue' of a state imposition being used to prevent people who can't afford something from buying that thing.

Which is sort of how it works in a capitalist society. People who can't afford things don't buy them.


Are guns exempt from sales taxes? If not, can poor people choose to not pay those taxes, on the grounds that they can't afford them but are entitled to own guns?

Applying similar logic to other rights, like Speech, would hardly fly, ...

The obvious difference being that somebody not owning a secure box in which to keep their diary is unlikely to result in their child taking a parent's careless turn of phrase and using it to kill the neighbour's kid for not showing them their puppy...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously you cannot take your house to a testing station, so you would be expected to make an appointment to let the gun safety inspector look at your gun locker.

So we're going to make an appointment with a government official for a set date, and time to show that we have firearms secured? How many people do you think are going to fail that test?

What you are proposing is a waste of taxes and a violation of the 4th Amendment.

 Da Boss wrote:
It's funny that plenty of people are comfortable with mass surveillance of their activities online and indeed out and about, but ask them to register for something dangerous like a gun and have an inspector call round by appointment to check up on it and suddenly, that, and that alone, constitutes some sort of fascist police state.

This sounds like a strawman. Who precisely on this board accepted mass surveillance and opposed gun registration?

 Wyrmalla wrote:
K, just following on from when I last entered this thread and seeing it went from there.

Can someone explain to me, without reference the 4th Amendment or the logistics of actually carrying the process (which as I already noted, works fine enough in other parts of the world, admittedly with fewer guns) why having a law that your guns should be safely stored when not in use?

Sorry I'm not getting my head around this other than people screaming about a police state. When I'm picturing people arguing that storing your guns safely I imagine that you have them sitting casually in umbrella stands or perhaps painted in festive colours as Christmas decorations. ...No, honestly, someone explain to me without having a stick up their ass about hurr durr Amendments and The Man wanting to put their boot down on you?

300,000,00 people live in the United States
There are 112.6 guns per 100 people
Those facts should sufficiently demonstrate the logistical difficulty in examining the storage of firearms. Now imagine the financial burden on the country for this venture.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In this case we run into the issue of a state imposition being used to prevent people from exercising a right, particularly those at the most disadvantaged levels of the socio-economic ladder.

Well, no, you run into the 'issue' of a state imposition being used to prevent people who can't afford something from buying that thing.

Which is sort of how it works in a capitalist society. People who can't afford things don't buy them.

To a point, however when it's government imposition that is creating that cost and pricing out of the range of a segment of the population, this is when you run into problems.

Are guns exempt from sales taxes? If not, can poor people choose to not pay those taxes, on the grounds that they can't afford them but are entitled to own guns?

Sales taxes are typically *very* modest relative to the price of something like a full on gun-safe, sales tax won't price anyone out of affordability. A full on gun safe however, which is often a four digit purchase, is another matter altogether. If we're just talking trigger locks, that's one thing, and most guns come with one these days.

The obvious difference being that somebody not owning a secure box in which to keep their diary is unlikely to result in their child taking a parent's careless turn of phrase and using it to kill the neighbour's kid for not showing them their puppy...

You clearly have never seen the havoc Facebook can wreak

To an extent I agree, however ultimately the point is that if you put lots of restrictions and mandatory prerequisites on a right, it ceases to be a right.

With rights come responsibilities. Has always been thus.

Your right to possess a firearm ends where my right to live and not be killed by you or your stupid-ass child while walking down the goddamn street begins.

EVERYONE needs to settle down and remember the rules of this site apply at all times - especially RULE #1.

Drinking alcohol has a minimum age, but is a 'right' under the 21st Amendment technically.

Its far from ridiculous.

 Vaktathi wrote:
To a point, however when it's government imposition that is creating that cost and pricing out of the range of a segment of the population, this is when you run into problems.

It should only be a problem if that 'government imposition' is an unreasonable one.

Expecting people who own deadly weapons to be able to adequately secure said deadly weapon is not an unreasonable requirement.

Saying 'You have to secure your weapons... unless you can't afford to, or you live somewhere where that might be awkward, in which case you can just pretend to secure your weapons'?

That, IMO, would be unreasonable.

 Psienesis wrote:
With rights come responsibilities. Has always been thus.

Your right to possess a firearm ends where my right to live and not be killed by you or your stupid-ass child while walking down the goddamn street begins.

And that's a wonderful platitude, but where do you determine where that line is, particularly in a nation of 300 million+ people spread over nearly 4 millions square miles of territory with rather stark divides between urban and rural populations?

More to the point, what is your actual chance of being killed in this manner? I mean, nobody says it doesn't happen, but looking at the annual death rate for things like this, it's absolutely minuscule, Tragic, but ultimately, extremely few in number.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
To a point, however when it's government imposition that is creating that cost and pricing out of the range of a segment of the population, this is when you run into problems.

It should only be a problem if that 'government imposition' is an unreasonable one.

Expecting people who own deadly weapons to be able to adequately secure said deadly weapon is not an unreasonable requirement.

Saying 'You have to secure your weapons... unless you can't afford to, or you live somewhere where that might be awkward, in which case you can just pretend to secure your weapons'?

That, IMO, would be unreasonable.

Which then all centers around what "adequately secure" is. If it's a trigger/action lock, well, as I said, that's cheap and many guns come with one these days. If it's a full on safe costing 4 digits, that's where you'll run into more disagreement.

EDIT: more to the point, trying to enforce something like this would be a nightmare, and really more commonly would just be used as an add-on charge (much like the way "resisting arrest" often is) or could really only be enforce in much the same way something like "criminal negligence" is now, after the fact.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Drinking alcohol has a minimum age, but is a 'right' under the 21st Amendment technically.

Its far from ridiculous.

No, it's not a right, it's simply repealing outright prohibition at the federal level and shifting that choice to state and local levels. There's nothing in there about granting a "right to drink", it's just saying "we're no longer actively prohibiting the manufacture & sale".

Very different things.

I’ve argued a hell of a lot times about the basic effect of gun saturation on a society. When there are more guns around, they get used more often. This shooting is a very simple example of that. That kid likely had a whole lot of issues, but the reality is if there was no gun in the house, he wouldn't have shot his neighbour.

This doesn’t automatically lead to banning or restricting guns, there remain plenty of arguments against gun control. But the gun control debate just needs to begin with a basic position of honesty, and accept that when there’s more guns around, they’ll get used more.

 cincydooley wrote:
Well the real point that was being made was that, for people without spouses and/or children, there's no practical reason for them to have a safe or storage that locking your doors doesn't fulfill.

There's a very obvious practical reason: it prevents casual thieves from getting your guns. Obviously no amount of secure storage is going to stop an FBI-backed* terrorist group from getting your guns, but a decent gun safe is going to stop the guy who is just looking for something to pay for their drug addiction. That guy is going to smash a window, grab whatever looks expensive and easy to carry (cash, laptops, etc), and get away. They aren't going show up with a truck, industrial-grade cutting equipment, and a few other people to help. I mean, why do you think people bother with stuff like deadbolts or alarm systems to protect their house? Those things aren't going to stop the most determined professional thieves, but we still believe that they have value.

In fact, why even keep a gun for home defense at all? The FBI-backed terrorist group knows that you have one, so their sniper will kill you as you walk out the door and then everyone will come take all of your stuff and murder the rest of your family. And the police won't show up because the terrorists cut the phone lines and brought in cell phone jammers to prevent your neighbors from calling for help. So clearly your personal gun is useless, and there's no reason to worry about whether or not you're allowed to have it.

*Which is of course a false-flag operation to create a national tragedy that will justify more gun control.

 insaniak wrote:
Well, no, you run into the 'issue' of a state imposition being used to prevent people who can't afford something from buying that thing.

Which is sort of how it works in a capitalist society. People who can't afford things don't buy them.

There's a problem with that argument: the US has a long and ugly history of using arbitrary costs as a way to keep the "wrong" people from voting/owning guns/etc. You can't explicitly say "only white people can own guns", but you can make guns have a $10,000 tax that only rich white people can afford, require permission from a racist police department to get a gun permit, etc. It's just like the case a while back with voter ID laws, the laws don't solve any real problem with voter fraud but they're effectively a poll tax that keeps the "wrong" people from voting.

Now, could there be reasonable mandatory expenses for exercising rights? I guess. But given past history we should be very skeptical about any such proposal.

 Peregrine wrote:
...but you can make guns have a $10,000 tax that only rich white people can afford, ....

Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?

 insaniak wrote:
Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?

No, but statistically non-white people are less likely to be rich in the US. And, again, I'm not talking about this as a hypothetical problem, targeting minorities using income as a placeholder for race is something the US has an ugly history with. It might not be 100% effective, but that doesn't stop racists from doing it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
...but you can make guns have a $10,000 tax that only rich white people can afford, ....

Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?

Why should only rich people be able to exercise their second amendment rights?

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?

No, but statistically non-white people are less likely to be rich in the US. And, again, I'm not talking about this as a hypothetical problem, targeting minorities using income as a placeholder for race is something the US has an ugly history with. It might not be 100% effective, but that doesn't stop racists from doing it.

Aye, and in most of US history, gun control has historically had links to both racist and/or classist motives (much in the same way as poll taxes and a number of other issues).

 sebster wrote:
I’ve argued a hell of a lot times about the basic effect of gun saturation on a society. When there are more guns around, they get used more often. This shooting is a very simple example of that. That kid likely had a whole lot of issues, but the reality is if there was no gun in the house, he wouldn't have shot his neighbour.

This doesn’t automatically lead to banning or restricting guns, there remain plenty of arguments against gun control. But the gun control debate just needs to begin with a basic position of honesty, and accept that when there’s more guns around, they’ll get used more.

I don't think there are many that would argue the fundamental truth of this statement, however in general the US also just has issues with more violence than other similarly developed nations, firearms or no, that should also be remembered in conjunction with that, though rates in general of assault & homicide (both with guns and without) have been dropping for decades now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Is there something specific about 'white person' money that would result in a rich person of any other race being unable to pay said tax?

No, but statistically non-white people are less likely to be rich in the US. And, again, I'm not talking about this as a hypothetical problem, targeting minorities using income as a placeholder for race is something the US has an ugly history with. It might not be 100% effective, but that doesn't stop racists from doing it.

Aye, and in most of US history, gun control has historically had links to both racist and/or classist motives (much in the same way as poll taxes and a number of other issues).

Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of those forgotten gun control historical fact... in which the Chief Justice distorted the meaning of citizen , in order to prevent free blacks from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights (and other important rights), which arguably added fuel to the Civil War fire.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think there are many that would argue the fundamental truth of this statement, however in general the US also just has issues with more violence than other similarly developed nations, firearms or no, that should also be remembered in conjunction with that, though rates in general of assault & homicide (both with guns and without) have been dropping for decades now.

Oh, people argue against it. In every dakka thread on guns that I've worked up the will to enter, that's what I end up trying to explain to people.

And yeah, assault, homicide, and actually all violent crimes (and most property crimes) have been dropping for decades. Not that you can get most people to believe it. There are bigger factors than guns - income, education, improved policing methods, that all drive crime rates far stronger than guns.