Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Gun Owners need to do their part in real gun control

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by ScottieG59, Jan 26, 2013.

  1. Senator Feinstein has learned a lot since the last ban. This one is about confiscation over time. Clearly, she believes criminals and crazies are getting weapons from legal owners and those owners have been lax about securing their weapons.

    I think she feels the criminals' weapons will be confiscated over time when they get arrested. However, the criminals will continue to obtain/steal weapons from legitimate owners who inadequately secure them.

    So, in order to disarm criminals, Feinstein wants to cause their source of weapons to go away over time. By creating the ban list and establishing restrictions on ownership transfer, the weapons will eventually be forced to be turned in for destruction.

    I hate the law and will fight it if it is even partially passed.

    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.

    It involves some effort and money.

    For some, it may provide an opportunity for new businesses. Selling and installing safes is one opportunity. Another is to create commercial arms rooms to rent storage for certain weapons people may want to secure outside the home. I am sure more industrious people will have better ideas.

    What I am saying is that we need to do our part in turning back these gun grabbing initiatives. Let's start by recognizing we are the source of the criminals' weapons. Let's show that we can better secure our weapons from theft and misuse by others.
  2. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    Jun 20, 2002
    So you want to have a safe in every house that owns a firearm? You going to pay the thousands of dollars to do that? So if every gun is in a safe then how does one protect themselves? Kind of stupid idea! How about we put those who steal guns in prison for a very long time instead. So how is this going to stop criminals from getting guns? I guess you've never seen them breaking into a guns store where you live? Do you think they will just suddenly stop getting firearms? So you make it harder for them to get guns- I can see them now coming in groups to invade ones home to get those safes or taking hostages to for you to open said safe. Besides you will never satisfy the gun grabbers- understand they don't want you to have ANY firearms so why do you feel the need to compromise your rights! There should be NO compromise!:steamed:

    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013

  3. Fear Night

    Fear Night NRA Life Member

    Dec 18, 2005
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Washington D.C.'s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 required that all firearms in a home must be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." This was overturned in the D.C. v Heller ruling as unconstitutional.

    How about we start blaming the criminals that break into houses for once? Why does it always have to be the victim that is labeled as doing something wrong?
  4. PhotoFeller


    Nov 18, 2010
    SW Florida
    Take a deep breath and read the OP again. It suggests gun owners need to be responsible in preventing gun theft.

    Proper, secure storage is a significant step one can take to be responsible. Secure storage can be provided with a locked bedside drawer or closet, a small personal safe, a gun safe, off-site high-security storage, a secure gun room, bank lock boxes, etc. These are measures we need to take to keep our guns out of criminal hands and away from kids and others who might do harm with them, including suicide.

    I agree with the OP. I think we should be responsible, and I think we should be held accountable for acts of absolute negligence that result in our firearms being used in the commission of a violent crime. I think anyone who leaves a gun unsecured for a child to use in shooting a sibling or himself should be prosecuted. I believe cases like Newtown, where an unstable person has access to guns, should result in prosecution.

    If installing a deadbolt lock on a closet door is all one can afford to do for secure gun storage, the test of reasonableness should be met. At least unauthorized access would require someone to exert substantial effort, take time and use tools to overcome the locked storage area.

    Holding us accountable isn't gun grabbing. It's common sense.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  5. TDC20


    Apr 11, 2011
    I'm glad that you're so willing to follow "common sense." The problem is not those who are willing, but those who force it upon the population by decree.

    So, the first law requires that all guns must be secured under lock and key. Then, someone breaks into that locked closet and commits a crime with one of those guns. Next, the state declares that guns must be secured in a state-approved safe. Some people won't be able to afford a state-approved safe, and everyone knows that safes, while a deterrent, are not impossible to break into. So when that fails, the state declares that all guns must be kept at a state-approved gun club. Until eventually, the state declares that it's common sense to just be rid of all guns.

    That's pretty close to how it went down in England. For every one of these "common sense" ideas that the state gets to incrementally encroach upon your 2A rights, what do you get in exchange? What's that? Nothing? That's right. You, Mr. Reasonable, Mr. Responsible, Mr. Common Sense, you give up your rights one little bit at a time. And if you refuse, you're labeled a psychotic, mouth-breathing, gunnut, red-neck moron.

    I am not against securing firearms by any means. I have a very expensive safe that will keep the meth addicts away from my guns, but it probably won't stop a professional. I don't leave guns around and unsecured when children are present, and neither should anyone else. These are good practices that everyone should follow, but by letting the state decree this or that, and subtly label it as "common sense", we head down the slippery slope to eventually losing our 2A rights, under the banner of "common sense."
  6. I"m into crime shows. One show featured a group of young men who broke into safes by pounding on them with sledgehammers. It only took two young men, a lookout, and about 20 min.

    IMO opinion this wouldn't please the Feinsteins of the world. They only thing that would make them happy would be guns out of the hands of peons. I think the elites could care less about criminals getting guns. I suspect some at the top will not mind if crime increases.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  7. alba666

    alba666 WWJGD

    Dec 19, 2009
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    The source of the criminal's weapons is crime, profits from crime, and lack of effective deterrence of crime. If criminals know guns have to be locked up, they know a resident is less likely to shoot them on a quick forced entry home invasion.

    The idea that the exercise of a Constitutional right must be tempered to coddle a government that can't and won't enforce existing laws to deter crime smells of liberal false flag logic.

    Even Biden admits they don't have the resources to prosecute the easy pickings of current 4473 violations. DC won't prosecute David Gregory for having a 30 round PMAG. So why create more laws when they can't ( or won't) enforce existing laws? They expect the law abiding sheep to comply, selectively prosecute the troublemakers, and look the other way when the wolves pick off some sheep from time to time.

    Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  8. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Where in the OP's post did he say that you could not have a firearm available while home?
    Excellent idea, increase penalties for gun theft!
    Securing YOUR firearms when you are not home may keep yours off the streets.
    Sure. Smashing through walls or windows, smashing cases where handguns were left insted of returning to a secure safe, taking long guns from racks on the walls, not in secure safes.
    No, but it will keep them from stealing yours.
    Always a possibility.
    What compromise are you talking about? The OP is talking about personal responsibility, not some mandated requirement.

    How do you secure your firearms?
  9. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Where is the OP calling for mandatory D.C. style storage requirements?
  10. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    This is a bit more of a slippery slope. In order to prove negligence, you need an acceptable standard that was neglected.
  11. PhotoFeller


    Nov 18, 2010
    SW Florida
    Please don't take my words to mean that written law should require everyone to have a gun safe or other means of preventing unauthorized access to personal firearms. I am saying gun owners should be held accountable for blatant neglect in keeping guns away from people who steal them and misuse them in a violent crime.

    If you want to store your Glock in a cigar box on your truck's front seat, thats ok. If you choose to display rifles and shotguns in an open rack in your den, thats good too. Nothing would be illegal about your chosen storage method.

    If someone takes your gun easily because there was NO attempt to secure it, and commits murder or suicide, there should be legal consequences. Application of the law could be avoided by locking the Glock in your glove box when you leave the vehicle or adding a chain locking device to the gun rack. The absence of a deterrent to theft would only become a crime (1) when theft occurred and (2) when the stolen firearm is used in a violent crime.

    The Newtown incident, based on my understanding of the circumstances, might have been avoided if the mother's guns had not been readily available to her mentally ill son. Her carelessness, in my humble opinion, translates to reckless negligence.

    I know this position is fraught with problems and might be seen as a concession to gun grabbers. Somehow, however, citizenship should require reasonable responsibility and accountability with guns, dynamite, poisons, and a few other items that are potentially deadly if misused by criminals, the mentally ill and children. This theory is about nothing more than accountability.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  12. FireForged

    FireForged Millenium #3936 Millennium Member

    Dec 25, 1999
    Rebel South
    Its simply a matter of being responsible. If you are not at home, guns need to be secured in a safe. If you are at home, then in my opinion.. you are in control of your guns.

    Sure there are burglars who may target a home with guns and come prepared to get into a safe but even if that were 50% of the time (statistically its more like 13%) that would at least prevent or cause significant problems to the other 50% who are not prepared to deal with a safe. Most burglaries are not Oceans 13 operations, but rather some thug looking to smash the back door and get in and out quickly.

    Guns hidden in the bottom of clothes hampers or that kleenex box in the bathroom are not fooling anyone.. burglars will get them.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  13. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    It isn't to please the Feinsteins, the Bloombergs, the Bradys of the world. It is to displease criminals!

  14. PhotoFeller


    Nov 18, 2010
    SW Florida
    Sure, a minimum standard would have to be established. It would have to be proven that the stolen guns were not protected by a reasonable method to secure them. The definition of reasonable for something as simple as a firearm security device shouldn't be so difficult. Use your imagination. A closet with a dead-bolt lock comes to mind. A gun case equipped with a padlocked cable attached to an eye bolt in the wall.

    The proof that you had the device would be the existence of the device for anyone to see.
  15. tcruse


    Jun 10, 2011
    The Newtown incident, based on my understanding of the circumstances, might have been avoided if the mother's guns had not been readily available to her mentally ill son. Her carelessness, in my humble opinion, translates to reckless negligence.

    If someone kills me to get my guns, I am not at fault for losing the guns.
  16. PhotoFeller


    Nov 18, 2010
    SW Florida
    Your understanding might be different than mine on the Newtown facts. I think the mom's guns were not secured, so the shooter took them while she slept and killed her in bed. Then he drove to the school for his killing spree...with mom's guns.

    How might this have turned out differently? The kid was sick and she knew it. She was contemplating having him institutionalized. If the guns had been removed from the house, or safely locked up to prevent access, he MIGHT have taken some other course.
  17. damnyankee20


    Jan 21, 2012
    Let's not forget that whackjob Lantz broke into his mother's gun safe then murdered his mother by blasting her face off while she lay sleeping THEN stole the rest of her guns, stole her car, drove to the school where she worked, killed her friends then killed the little kids she helped take care of.

    This kid had a whole lotta hatin' goin' on for his momma - and my guess is, he felt he was taking a backseat to her new job at the school (she was a retired stock broker and was financially set for life).
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
  18. I am not for mandated solutions. In some cases, such as with foster parents, part of the home inspection is showing how firearms, ammo, medications, chemicals, knives, etc.. are secured. The other issue, even the absence of new laws, there is tort law.

    I have read of too many cases where a mentally unstable person steals guns from relatives.

    When I was a younger and poorer gun owner, I did things like put additional locks on closet doors. I removed the bolts from my bolt action rifles and I was always armed. Back then, my fear was one of my kids getting to my guns or a burglar shooting me with my own gun.

    If you look at the push behind a lot of legislation dealing with safety, there is a period in which others failed to conduct reasonable practices. Look at how factories and US car makers had to be forced. We should do our best to avoid that fate.

    Today, I am armed everywhere I can legally carry. I am at home right now, and I have my Kahr PM9 with 2 extra mags on my person. My Glock 19 with 2 extra mags are in a lockbox at my side. When I leave, all, except for what I carry, goes into a large and heavy safe that is wedge bolted to a concrete floor in my locked "man cave."

    I do this to deter theft, to protect my curious children and to protect my valuable property from fire.

    Years ago, we left our rifles on wall mounted racks in the living room or in a glass front gun case. In time I learned better security. A friend of mine had a three year old nephew who found his father's revolver and ammo despite it being kept separate and on the top shelves of the closet. He figured out how to load the handgun, but apparently, he could not reach the trigger. The investigation concluded that the child turned the revolver around and sneezed the trigger with his thumbs, discharging the weapon and accidentally killing himself.

    It is too easy for things to happen.

    Basically, if we do not do what we can, within what we can afford, we will be told what to do.

    I do not seek legislation or restrictions. I want standards to be established so we know what is the right thing.

    For example, I work in a secure facility that has controlled access that varies according to the sensitivity of activities in the sections. The government, with the help of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has established standards by which things are classified and the standards required to meet appropriate protection.

    Similar standards exist in private industry and some are based on NIST publications. In home security, we are left to trust vendors. In particular, home safes can be good or bad and we do not have a standard to reference in determining how our options really compare. Other industries have established published standards. In home security, we are left to having to trust our gut feelings. Again, because the private industry failed to step forward, the president is going to have a study done by bias political cronies.

    This is why I say that we do our part and leave the federal government to dealing with national defense.
  19. BenjiEDF


    Jun 15, 2012
    So should women be forced to wear a chastity belt in order to prevent rape? After all they should do their part in rape control!!!!

    I'm of course half-joking, but seriously think about it...
  20. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    You seem to have a lot more information than many of us.

    Where did you hear about the safe he broke into? I'd like to read that.

    The fact that she worked at the school, I thought the superintendent of schools said that information was not true. The mother did not work there.