GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-27-2013, 11:07   #41
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454 View Post
RussP
We are already seeing it in NY's new law- the requirement to have a safe to keep guns locked up- but like the UK they (NY STATE POLICE ) have to certify the safe! If they don't like it No guns for you! It's in Feinstiens new AWB as well! I'll say it again no compromise. I'm done with it! Stay the hell out of my life FEDS! There are way to many so called gun owners more then willing to just bend over an take it without lube!
If your so willing just to fold and give up your God given rights -just go turn your firearms in and be done with it! Your not helping us that believe in our right to own , carry with out Government "Infringments"!
Are your firearms secured in a way that a thief would either not find them, or would have a difficult time acquiring them?

Again, the OP's suggestion is that we take the personal responsibility on ourselves to make our firearms getting on the street as difficult as possible.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:14   #42
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
What came first, The Bill of Rights or a person's responsibility for their own actions?
Oh boy! You and I are gonna fight.

Personal responsibility = I lock my house when I leave. My matches and gasoline are in a locked garage. If a thief brakes in steals them and burns down a building is it my fault? My car is locked. If a thief steals it and kills someone with it is it my fault? Why is it if I don't spend EXTRA money on EXTRA security for my guns it's viewed as I've "shirked" my "personal responsibility". I have a safe. $1,200.00 wort of safe. If they brake into my home, then brake into my safe have I shirked my personal responsibility because I didn't buy a better safe? I'm pretty sure that a home is a man's castle and if locked anything inside should be considered secure. If a criminal wants what you have there are going to get it. How much money spent for how much security does it take to "prove" I have take "personal" responsibility? According to the antis it takes melting down all of my firearms. Don't fall into the blame trap. The only ones to blame are the criminals.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-27-2013 at 11:27..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:26   #43
4095fanatic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 950
Personally I secure them not only as a safety measure but also because I don't want them taken if someone breaks in... While I can understand not wanting to make people buy a thousand dollar safe, I personally think buying a safe is worth the money in case of fire, break-ins, etc. certainly cheaper to buy a safe than the cost of replacing the firearms


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
4095fanatic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:44   #44
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4095fanatic View Post
Personally I secure them not only as a safety measure but also because I don't want them taken if someone breaks in... While I can understand not wanting to make people buy a thousand dollar safe, I personally think buying a safe is worth the money in case of fire, break-ins, etc. certainly cheaper to buy a safe than the cost of replacing the firearms


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
You missed the point. The point is "RESPONSIBILITY". If you want to get-into fire and lost through theft it's recoverable through insurance. See I took the "personal responsibility" of insuring my firearms with the NRA.

Again how much money is a person to spend and on what to show they are a "responsible" person. According to some it's locking a door. According to others it's keeping your firearms in Fort Knox and yet others say the responsible thing is to not have them at all.

So lets get back to the real deal. People want to blame firearms owners if they don't lock their house, weld the doors shut, buy a $1,000,000.00 safe hire an armed guard etc. etc. Then that still isn't enough when it comes to guns. Yet if a thief steals a car and kills someone with it the owner isn't to blame. Rightfully so! But it's the double standard that makes my gonads swell.

I find that the better off a person is the more they want to tell others what they need to spend their money on to be "responsible". A man that saves may be able to afford a rifle and a pistol. But if he can't afford a safe or lock-box and the time to bolt the lock box to the floor or or or he's not considered "responsible". I find telling that man that he isn't responsible to be irresponsible.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.

Last edited by Jerry; 01-27-2013 at 12:02..
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:08   #45
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Oh boy! You and I are gonna fight.
IT"S ON CUZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which came first?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
Personal responsibility = I lock my house when I leave. My matches and gasoline are in a locked garage. My car is locked. Why is it if I don't spend EXTRA money on EXTRA security for my guns it's viewed as I've "shirked" my "personal responsibility.
Your situation, how you secure your firearms would not be viewed by anyone. It is another personal decision we gun owners make. The only time storage would come into play is if an event occurs involving your firearms.

Another way of putting that is what liability exists for a firearm owner if his/her gun(s) are criminally used that having a degree of security would mitigate the outcome?

Again, this is all about personal, voluntary decisions. No mandate by anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
I have a safe. $1,200.00 wort of safe.
If mine cost more, does that mean mine's bigger than yours...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
If they brake into my home, then brake into my safe shave I shirked my personal responsibility because I didn't buy a better safe? I'm pretty sure that a home is a man's castle and if locked anything inside should be considered secure. If a criminal wants what you have there are going to get it. How much money spent for how much security does it take to "prove" I have take "personal" responsibility? According to the antis it takes melting down all of my firearms. Don't fall into blame trap. The only ones to blame or the criminals.
From the bottom up, no one is assigning blame. The suggestion is securing firearms will reduce the number of guns stolen, thus reducing the number of guns getting to the street.

Yes, melting guns, perhaps the next .gov anti violence funding will include a foundry for every department with quotas... That would be even less popular than DUI Checkpoint funding!!!

True, hardcore criminals will eventually get what they want. The hardcores, they are mostly a small group. The larger group, the opportunistic ones, they will not be prepared to get into your safe. What they are looking for are easy scores. You do what you are able to do. Remember, there is no government mandate. There is no government established standard. Money spent is not a standard.

Yes, a man's castle is just that. What you do there is your business. If you live in a second story walk-up studio apartment rental, there are not many heavy duty options available, especially for long guns. In rentals, there's always the possibility the maintenance requirements might mean someone comes in while you're out. What do you do then?

See, there is a whole spectrum here. There's b_oglethorpe. He may be at the top. You won't find his firearms. There's the guy who moved into a studio apartment in a complex my company managed. He came in and asked permission to secure a safe in his closet for "valuables." Gun Vault printed on the door was the hint. I had a trusted maintenance supervisor, a gun owner himself. A little steel here, some there, sheet rock over it. Pretty secure storage. Oh, and the agreement was that the safe stayed if he moved out within three years. He didn't move...

So, are their ways to enhance security? I think so. Of course, not everyone has me running their property management company...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:19   #46
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,746
Blog Entries: 2
Part of my determination to secure the guns I own is because I don't want to lose them to thieves. They are valuable and would be difficult to replace, even with a generous insurance settlement. Folks who keep large amounts of cash or valuable jewelry at home usually take careful measures to secure these things. They do so because locking the castle's front door provides little protection against thieves. No disrespect meant Jerry, but it is naive to say 'my home is sacred ground, so don't expect me to do more to protect valuables than lock the door'. That position is careless unless you are comfortable with the notion that all valuables can be replaced, and that's what insurance is for. Thieves don't give a damn about your castle except they want the valuable stuff inside it. Guns, as we all know, are among the most desirable merchandise sought by thieves. Furthermore, it is callous to disregard the fact that one's stolen guns might end up being used by criminals...perhaps to kill.

Once guns are stolen, where will they likely end up? They will often be in the hands of criminals, because anyone who knowingly buys stolen property is a criminal. Stolen guns are often used to commit crimes, and some are used to kill. Thus, is it enough to say if my front door is locked my responsibility has been fulfilled?

If a child kills himself or a playmate with a loaded gun that was hidden on a high closet shelf, is it enough to say the gun was placed well above his reach, so the gun owner's responsibility was fulfilled? If a liquor store clerk is killed because a gun was easily stolen, was the gun owner's responsibility fulfilled by locking the front door?

As responsible citizens, we are morally obliged to behave in a way that protects our families and fellow citizens from harm, aren't we? When our moral obligations are ignored and people are harmed, shouldn't there be consequences beyond feeling guilty or sorrowful?

When our failure to secure firearms results in our gun being used to wound or kill another citizen, the law should hold us accountable, somehow, for such negligence. Whether the victim is our own child or a 7-11 cashier in another state, we are complicit in the violent act because of our negligence, in my opinion.

Last edited by PhotoFeller; 01-27-2013 at 12:57..
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:27   #47
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
IT"S ON CUZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which came first?

Your situation, how you secure your firearms would not be viewed by anyone. It is another personal decision we gun owners make. The only time storage would come into play is if an event occurs involving your firearms.

Another way of putting that is what liability exists for a firearm owner if his/her gun(s) are criminally used that having a degree of security would mitigate the outcome?

Again, this is all about personal, voluntary decisions. No mandate by anyone.If mine cost more, does that mean mine's bigger than yours...From the bottom up, no one is assigning blame. The suggestion is securing firearms will reduce the number of guns stolen, thus reducing the number of guns getting to the street.

Yes, melting guns, perhaps the next .gov anti violence funding will include a foundry for every department with quotas... That would be even less popular than DUI Checkpoint funding!!!

True, hardcore criminals will eventually get what they want. The hardcores, they are mostly a small group. The larger group, the opportunistic ones, they will not be prepared to get into your safe. What they are looking for are easy scores. You do what you are able to do. Remember, there is no government mandate. There is no government established standard. Money spent is not a standard.

Yes, a man's castle is just that. What you do there is your business. If you live in a second story walk-up studio apartment rental, there are not many heavy duty options available, especially for long guns. In rentals, there's always the possibility the maintenance requirements might mean someone comes in while you're out. What do you do then?

See, there is a whole spectrum here. There's b_oglethorpe. He may be at the top. You won't find his firearms. There's the guy who moved into a studio apartment in a complex my company managed. He came in and asked permission to secure a safe in his closet for "valuables." Gun Vault printed on the door was the hint. I had a trusted maintenance supervisor, a gun owner himself. A little steel here, some there, sheet rock over it. Pretty secure storage. Oh, and the agreement was that the safe stayed if he moved out within three years. He didn't move...

So, are their ways to enhance security? I think so. Of course, not everyone has me running their property management company...
Yes yours is probably bigger. But it's the amount firepower in it that counts.

With all that said it still boils down to... Their "responsibility" ends when a criminal steals their property. Even if they didn't lock the door to their house. If someone left their car unlocked, a criminal stole it and killed someone with it they would not be held responsible. Why oh why should it be and different if you use the word gun in the sentence?
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:40   #48
TDC20
Senior Member
 
TDC20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 608
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Then why ask why Lanza's mother did not secure her firearms? Why did she leave them where he had access to them. Without that basic, preventive measure, he obtained the tools he needed. That opened the door to those murders.
We really don't know whether she tried to secure them or not, do we? I mean, the kid was smart. Maybe she had them in a safe with an electronic lock, and the kid watched her open it once, or maybe he figured out where she had the combination written down. Maybe he used a sawzall or a 5' crowbar to break into her safe. If that turns out to be the case, then the politicians can really put the beat-down on gun owners.
__________________
A handgun is only good for fighting your way to a rifle.
TDC20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 13:11   #49
BenjiEDF
Senior Member
 
BenjiEDF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeanderson View Post
This may be the subject for a different thread, but is to the point of responsible gun owners...

Read a story in the local paper about a 6 year old finding a loaded gun in her home and shooting herself in the head. Killed her instantly. The article, written by an anti-gunner, then went into a rant about this being another reason why "guns are bad".

My point, similar to the OP, is simply that we all need to be careful when securing our weapons, whether against theft or from access by young children. We don't need to give any more fodder for the gun-grabbers to use against us.
I think this is a good point. Gun owners have a responsibility to keep their weapons away from their children, to educate everyone in their family on safety etc. This I wholly agree with.

What I do not accept is the notion that if a criminal breaks into your home and steals your property, a gun, then commits a murder with it... that somehow the gun owner was liable in any way. It is a ridiculous argument.

BTW I love/and agree with your signature Sir
__________________
"There is only one kind of freedom and that's individual liberty. Our lives come from our creator and our liberty comes from our creator. It has nothing to do with government granting it." ~Ron Paul

"Life is good" ~Hickok45
BenjiEDF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 13:54   #50
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
With all that said it still boils down to... Their "responsibility" ends when a criminal steals their property. Even if they didn't lock the door to their house. If someone left their car unlocked, a criminal stole it and killed someone with it they would not be held responsible. Why oh why should it be and different if you use the word gun in the sentence?
Criminally, I am not familiar with all states laws.

Civilly, the way the juries and courts are headed, someone will try to get you. Even if dismissed at first reading, the cost of defending yourself will be large, maybe more than the cost of that little safe of yours.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 14:58   #51
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottieG59 View Post
However, I also recognize that gun owners have been very lax in securing their firearms. If most of us had previously better secured our weapons, this legislation would never have been considered.

If we, the responsible gun owners, really want to take weapons from criminals, we should secure our weapons from theft.
Okay, I maybe see the disconnect here.

This weapon ban/restriction legislation went to full speed after Lanza used stolen firearms. Other murderers used stolen firearms before that. Properly securing firearms in the future could prevent theft resulting in such crimes in the future.

I took the plurals, us and we, to include the theft victims of these crimes as well, not just our fine GT members.

__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 15:10   #52
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 18,819


government sources.

Gun-Control Issues

Straw purchasing is the greatest problem with criminals procuring firearms.
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 23:43   #53
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenjiEDF View Post
I think this is a good point. Gun owners have a responsibility to keep their weapons away from their children, to educate everyone in their family on safety etc. This I wholly agree with.

What I do not accept is the notion that if a criminal breaks into your home and steals your property, a gun, then commits a murder with it... that somehow the gun owner was liable in any way. It is a ridiculous argument.

BTW I love/and agree with your signature Sir
That^
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 23:51   #54
plainsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 701
Who in the obama administration do you want in your house?

Which obama minion do you want to do home inspections, hillary, finestein, biden, blumberg, etc.

These pathetic, illogical leftists want to take away sporting rifles because some madman takes pistols to a school, and they milked the fact that he had a rifle unused in the car for all the publicity they could get.

Once you start down that slippery slope , then you are at their mercy for not using what every crap they impose on you.

Seems they should have locked up the fruitcake, not innocent sporting goods.
plainsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 11:05   #55
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenjiEDF View Post
I think this is a good point. Gun owners have a responsibility to keep their weapons away from their children, to educate everyone in their family on safety etc. This I wholly agree with.

What I do not accept is the notion that if a criminal breaks into your home and steals your property, a gun, then commits a murder with it... that somehow the gun owner was liable in any way. It is a ridiculous argument.

BTW I love/and agree with your signature Sir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
That^
Liability is a legal determination, criminally and civilly.

Where and/or when might the shadow of liability cross over to show a lack of responsibility as a component?

Where was it that penalties surfaced for not reporting stolen firearms within a certain time?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 14:50   #56
plainsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 701
First Conservatives need to buy up mainsteam media.

Why they let the looney left get stronger and just castigate them all the time is beyond me. If we controlled the media, we'd have everything we wanted, let the wacko Kooks stand outside, while we would have the hearts and minds of America.

What about all the doctors, medical professionals trained in recognizing mental illness just letting this fruitcake run amock?

If his brain wasn't fried, you can bet that after the mind altering drugs he was certainly on, the ones the drug industry warn you on T V about lethal side effects, then sell it like candy, but what the heck. If you gave a nutcase a few beers and something happened, they'd put you in jail, but if you are a mind altering drug company, well it's business as usual.

Sandy hook should focus on the real ones that caused this problem, not innocent firearms owners who took no part in this crime.

There will always be dangerous people out there, that is why it is necessary for armed good people to be there to stop them.
plainsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 16:56   #57
TexasFats
NRA, TSRA, SAF
 
TexasFats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,264
A safe in every home is not practical. Folks like me, who live in apartments, would be out of luck since safes have to be bolted to the floor. My apartment manager would likely not be pleased at somebody drilling holes and installing bolts in the floor of one of her units.
__________________
Governments are about the acquisition, extention, and exercise of power by an elite, who will then use that power to rule a peasantry for fun and profit.

Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march.
TexasFats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 17:08   #58
PhotoFeller
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Midwest and south
Posts: 2,746
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasFats View Post
A safe in every home is not practical. Folks like me, who live in apartments, would be out of luck since safes have to be bolted to the floor. My apartment manager would likely not be pleased at somebody drilling holes and installing bolts in the floor of one of her units.
You and many others have this limitation. However, that doesn't cancel your responsibility to secure your firearm(s) somehow within your means. Situations like yours require creativity, and there are solutions other than safes.
PhotoFeller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 18:39   #59
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,186
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasFats View Post
A safe in every home is not practical. Folks like me, who live in apartments, would be out of luck since safes have to be bolted to the floor. My apartment manager would likely not be pleased at somebody drilling holes and installing bolts in the floor of one of her units.
Have you asked?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:16.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 773
168 Members
605 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42