AOL As the issue of gun control dominates the political stage, gun safety at home should be on the minds of homeowners who keep firearms in their houses. There's reason to be vigilant: Stolen guns is a big problem. Statistics show an alarming rate of weapons being stolen during home burglaries -- and more often than not, they never get recovered.Gun-rights advocates won't even hear of it. Being required by law to do common-sense behavior like keeping guns locked up as a precaution against theft and accidents rubs them the wrong way. Their adolescent brains can't stand to be told what to do. They actually prefer that hundreds of preventable accidents take place and that hundreds of thousands of guns are stolen each year, many of which are used in crime.
According to the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition -- which counts political heavyweights such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg among its high-ranking members -- as many as 600,000 guns are stolen from private homes every year. The group said on its website that it got that figure by culling polling data on households that own guns.
The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report last November with lower -- but still alarming -- numbers. According to the report, 1.4 million firearms were stolen during burglaries and other property crimes between 2005 and 2010. That's an average of 232,400 annually. Here's the most frightening part: At least 80 percent of the stolen guns had not been recovered by the time the report was released.
What is wrong with these guys? Are they really so blinded by their bias?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
You refuse to advocate for safe television storage, safe alcohol storage, safe automobile storage, and so forth, so we realize that your desire here arises from your obsession with harming gun owners. What you call "safe storage" would add thousands of dollars of expense to each gun owner and would likely be impossible in a home that someone rents. Your goal is to reduce as much as possible our numbers.
ReplyDeleteBesides, useful suggestions are not law, and the law cannot regulate behavior to this level of detail without being tyrannical.
While I may agree with you that it is the manifest expression of futility to regulate individual access to an inanimate object, I beseech you with the plain fact that it is the fundamental duty of the State to insure the preservation of a civilized society, by imposing the expected moral standards of decency which mark the progression of the western civilized Nations.
DeleteThe incessant violence which festers with the perennial and omnipresent sound of gunfire is the direct result of the moral depravity, rampant obscenity, degenerate onanisim, poor diet (the promiscuous consumption of meat), the excesses of lewd passion, the lack of proper digestive balance (a primary cause of addiction, psychosis and delirium) and the moral decay which has been the cultural ailment of the previous century.
No, Greg, my goal is exactly what I said it is. You on the other hand are so selfish and immature that you won't even consider safe storage laws as a partial solution to the problem. Immature because you hate to be told what do to by the government and selfish because you hate to be inconvenienced.
DeleteA decent safe for a gun does not cost "thousands of dollars." That makes you a liar too.
Because you know fuck-all about safes? The law that you hint at wanting is what Canada has. Up North, gun owners are required to have a safe that is anchored to the structure of the house. Anything less is just a big box for carrying away all the owner's guns, right?
DeleteBy contrast, I've looked at the safe options available here. I'm not going to discuss in a public forum my choice for storage, but the prices for safes are exactly as I said, if you want one that isn't easy to pick up and move.
Doc, is it? E.N., why don't you grow an honesty gene and stop giving yourself all these different titles.
DeleteYou're full of it, Greg, as usual.
DeleteMikeb, note how easy it is to say that and how hard it is to show it. You're a lot of talk.
DeleteGreg just explained the reasons for the costs, and you told him he was full of it. No explanation of what the Canadian law really says. No examples of good, but cheap safes. You lose the debate for not even trying, Mike.
DeleteAre you saying you agree with Greg? Or are you just trying to make me waste time backing up my statement that he's full of shit saying that it costs "thousands of dollars" to acquire a decent safe?
DeleteI happen to know it does not. There are economical alternatives to the several-thousand dollar safes.
Then show us, Mikeb. You'd be doing a real service there.
DeleteBut since you refused to offer any details, I can't tell if you addressed my concerns about people who live in apartments or about the ease of removing a light-weight safe or whatnot.
Mikeb says, Their adolescent brains can't stand to be told what to do.'
ReplyDeleteTranslation: We are the collectivists. We will tell you what to do. Do not think for yourself. Do not be an individual. Do as you are told. We know what is best. Do not resist. Resistance is futile. The czar has spoken.
orlin sellers
One point that Mikeb fails to address is why he has any business telling us what to do. It's not adolescent to insist that authorities justify their status.
DeleteAnd I suppose Mike likes being told what to do- especially when Republicans tell him what to do.
DeleteAntisocial gun-toting freaks like yourself will face the penalty of law if you refuse to submit to the authority of the State, in a feeble attempt to cling to the fetish objects which you use to compensate for your mental inadequacy.
DeleteThe common subject simply has no right to question the nature of (It's) governance.
When under threat of imprisonment, capital punishment, and forfeiture of property, those with anarchist tendencies (such as yourself) will submit to the authority of the collective State.
The U.S. needs to allow Ex post facto prosecutions so they can punish those who have held firearms after prohibitive measures are taken.
Tremble and Obey.
Actually, I do hate to be told what to do. The seat belt law bothered me for a while. That's why I understand you guys. It takes one to know one.
DeleteMikeb, you were never one of us. We believe in freedom. You believe in nothing.
Delete"The common subject simply has no right to question the nature of (It's) governance."
DeleteSo you hate the first amendment, as well as the second, good to know
E.N. exercises his right to free expression all the time, while at the same time denying the concept of individual rights. That tells us what his comments are worth.
DeleteGreg, I believe in telling the truth, something you don't burden yourself.
DeleteWhy would anyone oppose safe storage laws when they would certainly save lives. Your first mendacious attempt at answering was that safes are too expensive. I don't accept that. What's next? The government has no right to tell you what to do with your personal property? That's also bullshit and you know it. The government does indeed tell you what to do with all kinds of things. That's what living in society is all about.
The only reason I can think of is that you're an adolescent-minded weakling who only feels secure with a gun. And being all pumped up with those gun-muscles, you think you can refuse to obey laws you don't like.
Until you can provide evidence of safes that would accomplish the stated goal--preventing theft--you have proved nothing. I'd genuinely be interested in seeing such safes. I do know that a good one that can't be wheeled out on an average dolly runs four figures.
DeleteBut hey, why don't you show me lying, instead of claiming it without evidence? I went through this with Democommie, remember. A lie is a statement that I know to be false. It's not an interpretation, and it's not an unintentional error.
You, for example, are making wildly false interpretations of my mental state. I won't call that a lie. Stupid, yes. Ignorant, yes. Delusional, yes. But not a lie.
What exactly constitutes safe storage from theft in your mind, Mike? Is it: any gun stolen must not have been stored properly? As I said before, there is no template in this country for anti-theft storage. All the state laws are child-access laws, not theft prevention. I think even DC’s old law (which got stuck down for being… ahem… unconstitutional) didn’t have an anti-theft element.
ReplyDeleteHe's still buttmad over that provision in the decision, I'd wager
DeleteTS, I'm not sure is there is actually no state that requires guns to be locked up. But I'm sure you're right about most.
DeleteMy idea is the guns must be locked away so that thieves and children cannot simply pick them up. If a gun is sitting on the closet shelf or in the night stand drawer or under the pillow and it's stolen or a kid gets a hold of it, the gun owner should be held accountable for failure to store the gun safely.
Sorry, TS, DC's old Law DID have an anti-theft element. I can't really say the extent of it, or the section of the Code which dealt with it.
DeleteI do know that firearms needed to be disassembled for storage. I believe they also had to be locked up, this was was an issue in the Heller Case. I think they may have even had a requirement that the police could verify storage.
I would need to have access to a copy of the old DC code, which I don't these days.
However, as I said, this was an issue in the Heller Case.
BTW, as for idiotic "Buttmad" comments, If I didn't give a rat's arse for what the Constitution actually said, or the rule of law, I would be overjoyed at the Heller Decision for several reasons:
Delete1) it says that registration and background checks are constitutional
2) it says that "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
3) It points out that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."
4) it creates a legal maelstrom around the Second Amendment which will keep lawyers busy for ages (of course, I couldn't take firearms cases which used the Second Amendment as a defence since it is not a proper legal theory in my opinion).
By rewriting the Constitution, the Robert's Court have gone against his desire to "not burden the Second Amendment with baggage".
On the other hand, instead of seeing the Heller-McDonald decisions for what they are, you lot are actually embracing the tyranny you claim to despise.
Only the legislature can amend the Constitution and write laws, not the judges.
What if they're in a locked room in the house? Is that good enough?
DeleteIf not, and they have to be in a safe, what if the safe is easy to pick the lock on?
What if it can be broken open with a crowbar?
What if it's light enough to put it on a dolly and roll it out for later cracking?
etc., etc., etc.
Once you get your way and the government starts regulating, you just want to keep ratcheting up the requirements until everyone needs a prohibitively expensive safe that can only be put on a concrete floor that only some people have. Too bad if you live on a second story in an apartment complex.
Yeah, that's right Anonymous. It's all a big conspiracy to have you eventually living in a FEMA camp with the same rights as a Gitmo inmate.
DeleteMikeb, when you're shown reason, you immediately jump to silliness and accuse us of thinking it.
DeleteLaci, you won't take firearms cases? Well, la-dee-da. Trust me, no sane person would want you as an attorney.
Yep, Laci, you're still Buttmad. Why do you concern yourself so much with our laws? You're a Brit?
DeleteMike, Laci, we talked about this before. A disassembled gun can be stolen just as easy as one that is put together, yes? I don't think there was a requirement that the parts be scattered throughout the house. A gun with a trigger lock can be just as easily stolen, yes? Several guns locked together in a metal box with a convenient carry handle is even easier to steal, yes? As you see, these are child access requirement, not anti-theft.
DeleteAs an example, one could satisfy California's safe storage law by unloading their shotgun, installing a trigger lock, and then keep it leaned up against the front screen door of the house. Are you saying that gun is harder to steal than a loaded one under the bed? The picture you showed would be perfectly fine so long as there were trigger locks.
DeleteLike I said, I don't know of a state or jurisdiction that has the type of provision that you are asking for. There could be, but not that I have seen.
Wow, Mike! Don't answer my questions--don't say where the line should be drawn and taken no further. Instead, accuse me of being a fearer of FEMA camps.
DeleteIt's becoming as much of a waste of time to ask you questions as it is to try to give Laci remedial law classes. You enjoy dodging questions too much, and the pooch is just an example of the fact that you can't fix stupid.
TS, I understand the difference and I'm talking about safe storage as an answer to both theft and child mischief.
DeleteAnd you've got a safe that will achieve both? For only four easy payments of $19.95, I'll bet. Does it have the muscle to keep guns safe, fight tooth decay, and get out grease stains from fabric, all while gluing together two trucks by their bumpers?
DeleteYou do realize that Billy Mays is dead, right?
There is "safe-storage" system a human can devise that another cannot defeat. Over time, the means to defeat the latest and greatest become increasingly available. So, what criteria would you set? Would you require updates? If so, how often? The legitimate questions and concerns go on and on. More important than the questions, though, is this: your idea reeks of an attempt to control others. Not happening.
ReplyDeleteC'mon, man, we're not talking about a sytem that cannot be defeated. We're talking about making it reasonably difficult for a thief or a kid to simply find a gun and pick it up.
DeleteYour remark about my wanting to control others is a perfect illustration of what I said about the adolescent mentality of many gun owners.
Did you feel that way about the seat belt law?
Ah, yes, don't argue back with us. Just deflect with an Insult about how we're adolescents.
DeleteSo mature!
Here's something to note about this article. The author quotes Illegal Mayors Against Guns, but gives no time to any group that disagrees. Balanced piece of reporting that was not.
ReplyDeleteOnly Fox News claims to be fair and balanced. The rest of us are biased and have an agenda, but that doesn't mean what we say is not true.
DeleteOnly they claim to be fair and balanced huh? That's why yall take HUGE offense if we accuse the media of liberal bias. That's why Journalists go on and on about how they are objective and how they should be objective. That's why Fox isn't criticized for not living up to its ideals, but is criticized for not living up to the Journalistic Ideal of being objective.
DeleteDon't get me wrong, I agree that everyone has biases and that it's best to admit them for clarity, but that's not what your side argues for...except when it suits you.
I agree that they are simply blinded by their bias and refuse to heed useful advise on proper guns storage. I think the most dreaded accident for families who own guns is to have a young one injured or even killed. Thus, it is actually their very own responsibility to ensure their guns are properly stored away for their family's own safety. Another issue is having to already suffer being robbed, then to have your guns used for other burglaries. You might even be accused of being the burglar because the guns are registered using your name. I think the public should be more educated about proper guns storage, else they should suffer the consequences.
ReplyDelete