Gun Owners need to do their part in real gun control

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


  1. RussP

    Moderator

    29,576
    147
    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.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    0
    Oh boy! You and I are gonna fight. :supergrin:

    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.
     

    #42 Jerry, Jan 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  3. 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
     
  4. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    0
    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.
     
    #44 Jerry, Jan 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  5. RussP

    Moderator

    29,576
    147
    IT"S ON CUZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:tongueout:

    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...:whistling:
    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... :rofl: 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...
     
  6. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    4,142
    108
    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.
     
    #46 PhotoFeller, Jan 27, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2013
  7. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    0
    Yes yours is probably bigger. But it's the amount firepower in it that counts. :tongueout: :rofl:

    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?
     
  8. TDC20

    791
    16
    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. :upeyes:
     
  9. 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 :cool:
     
  10. RussP

    Moderator

    29,576
    147
    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. :wavey:
     
  11. RussP

    Moderator

    29,576
    147
    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.

    :cool:
     
  12. janice6

    Platinum Member

    23,494
    364
    government sources.

    [​IMG]

    Straw purchasing is the greatest problem with criminals procuring firearms.
     
  13. Jerry

    Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    0
    That^
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. RussP

    Moderator

    29,576
    147
    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?
     
  16. 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.
     
  17. TexasFats

    TexasFats NRA, TSRA, SAF

    1,002
    0
    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.
     
  18. PhotoFeller

    Silver Member

    4,142
    108
    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.
     
  19. RussP

    Moderator

    29,576
    147
    Have you asked?
     

Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
need some advice. ...cz RAMI 9mm owners General Firearms Forum Jan 18, 2015
10mm owners... Need your help!!! The 10 Ring May 22, 2014
Attn: Glock 30s owners need help General Glocking Oct 3, 2013
1911 and Glock owners need advice 1911 Forums Aug 20, 2012
Experts say rigorous training needed to prepare gun owners Carry Issues Apr 15, 2012

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus