Now what's so difficult about that? For the cost of a decent gun, you can have a proper gun safe.
One of my "Proper Gun Control Laws" calls for this to be the law of the land. That would put a dent in the half-a-million to one million guns that are stolen EACH YEAR.
One lying, gun control fanatic, suggested that by enacting such a law we would be giving the police permission to enter our homes to enforce it. That's not the case at all. But, when a gun used in crime was traced back to its original lawful owner, something that would be much easier once licensing and registration are passed, that lawful owner had better be able to demonstrate his safe storage practices or face prosecution.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment
No licensing, no registration, no punishing of property owners for the action of thieves, and no to the rest of your desires.
ReplyDeleteNRA Greg says no at anything, he's been programed by the NRA.
DeleteMore lies from Jim.
DeleteReally? How many times did you say no in your comment?
DeleteI say no to unreasonable things, not anything, and I'm not programmed by the NRA. Clear enough for your small mind to comprehend?
DeleteYou are unreasonable; more like irrational, do you say no to yourself?
DeleteGreg, I'll tell you how unreasonable you are, and silly. Jim said you say no to any gun control suggestions because you're influenced by the nRA. That's a fucking opinion, man. So you called a liar.
DeleteI don't even say no to any gun control suggestion, if you'll recall. I say no to the unreasonable ones. The fact that just about all of them are unreasonable is not my fault. And no, I'm not influenced by the NRA, though the word he used was "programmed." That's a bit more than influenced, no?
DeleteGreg, have you forgotten that you clearly stated in the past that you oppose ALL gun control laws? That was one of you most unreasonable statements. Are you backing off it now?
DeleteI've said that no deals can be made with you people until you become reasonable. At that point, we could work something out.
DeleteYou're dodging. Up thread you said, "I say no to the unreasonable ones. The fact that just about all of them are unreasonable is not my fault."
DeleteWhich sounds like there are some reasonable ones you don't object to, since you clearly said "just about all of them are unreasonable" not ALL OF THEM.
This is different from your former position in which you said, like a good libertarian, you oppose ALL gun control laws. Do I have to go look it up to refresh your memory?
as for the police entry, no, that doesn't have to be part of it, but it's a little goody often tagged un in the bills just like "gun-show loophole" bills often include provisions to make shows impossible.
ReplyDeleteI don't have 30 guns- why are you forcing me to buy a 30 gun safe?
ReplyDeleteI might just be tempted to fill it.
I wouldn't want to encourage you. You should buy a smaller more appropriate one - but I'm bettin' you already have one. Am I right?
DeleteYes, you're right.
DeleteSo Mike, if someone has one handgun, and has a safe appropriately sized for one handgun, and a thief rips it off the wall and carries it home with them under one arm, you WILL NOT blame the victim of the theft for improper storage/making a theft too easy, etc. Am I right?
It depends. The important thing is that gun owners are held accountable when the make theft too easy. A judge would have to decide.
DeleteAnd here it is--you want to make it possible to prosecute someone even if they have a safe, because maybe they didn't have a good enough safe. And so, while there are cheaper versions on the market, you're gambling with your future if you use them because a judge might rule that you had one that was too easily pried open.
DeleteSo you want no standards to your law. You want all victims of gun theft to be arrested, hire legal defense, and a judge to decide whether or not the thief worked hard enough.
DeleteAnd you wonder why we don't want to go along with this?
And as I pointed out, the smaller the gun collection, the easier an appropriately sized safe is to steal.
DeleteWell, that's not really true. A small safe could be bolted to the floor or to a wall. If a person were really concerned about thwarting a burglar, that's what he'd do. Of course the cost of drilling a couple holes and the appropriate hardware might be too steep.
DeleteThe problems with that are that 1--property managers probably aren't going to be as forgiving of large bolt holes as they are of screw holes, and 2--the small safes are still usually more flimsy or easily defeated if you know a few tricks. Heck, bolting a little safe in place might even make it easier to pry open.
DeleteAlso, all you did was suggest how a person could secure a smaller safe. You did not say anything against the idea that you want the people charged and to let a judge decide if they took enough precautions or not.
I said the smaller the safe, the easier it is to steal. That is true. Large safes can also be bolted down and be harder to steal than a smaller safe which is also bolted down.
DeleteIs this your standard? Some type of locked enclosure that picked up using obly bare hands? If the weak point in the system is wood, it won't be hard to defeat. Are you really ok with this? You talk like you want to inact measures that will cripple the black market firearms dealers- and a little lockbox stuck to a 2x4 isn't going to do that. That's about the same level of security as your average front door. I suspect you'll change you mind when you realize guns are still being stolen.
...that can't be picked up with only your bare hands.
DeleteWhy are you guys arguing so hard for keeping the status quo? Between a half a million and a million guns a year slip into the criminal world this way. Why would you not want to do something about this?
DeleteWe Like safes! We encourage the Use of safes. We are opposing your proposed "something" because your standard is to still arrest and charge the owner whose gun or guns were stolen, even if he had a safe, and let a judge decide whether the safe was good enough, and on the basis that this would, in effect, disarm some individuals because they would be unable to install a safe that they could know would keep them out of jail--one so safe that there wouldn't be a question.
DeleteAnd just to make that last part clear--those people could afford a safe that would defeat most criminals, but not the small number who could crack it on site, beat it apart, cut into it, or pry it loose and have a dolly to wheel it out with. Under your vague terms, these people would risk going to jail if they suffered the misfortune of being burgled by one of these more competent criminals.
DeleteWal Mart has a 24 gun safe for $478, I think. It's on my to do list, not because Mike B says so, but because a good safe is great for protecting important papers and treasured heirlooms.
ReplyDeleteI would buy the safe today, but have to build an addition first so I have a place to put it.
See Mike, it's not the cost of the safe, it's the cost of the extension to the house that's the real doozy. And Urban apartments are right out.
DeleteWell, in previous discussions it certainly was the cost. Maybe Greg remembers, but he won't admit it.
DeletePrevious discussions have focused a good deal of attention on the price of the safes because you have refused to say what level of protection you're demanding. Your comments have implied that if a child or a burglar get their hands on the guns, they weren't sufficiently safely stored. If this is the rule, then nothing but the high end safes will do as children and burglars can figure out ways to get into some of the more economical safes, potentially meaning that these safes wouldn't protect them against prosecution for "letting their guns fall into the wrong hands." If you and the people writing the laws would agree on what level of safe is required--flesh out your demands and come up with clear proposals, then you would be more credible when you say that you don't want to require everyone to buy a 1k-5k safe.
DeleteStill, this wasn't the only thing discussed in the old discussions. TS and others have brought up the same points about people in apartments who can't install a large, heavy safe.
Cost of a safe is an issue too, especially for those on a budget just starting off. I didn't mean to say it wasn't an issue- just that there are bigger issues than just the cost of the safe.
DeleteChecking out the safe manufacturer's web site, it seems their least expensive gun safe is $900 bucks. The one at my local Wal Mart must be a discontinued model.
DeleteWe talked about cost, and we talked about installation. And we discussed the fact that a thief is solely responsible for stealing another's property.
Delete"Still, this wasn't the only thing discussed in the old discussions. TS and others have brought up the same points about people in apartments who can't install a large, heavy safe."
DeletePeople in apartments can't own so many guns that they need a "large, heavy safe," then.
Guns need to be stored safely, protected from curious kids and thieves.
Ah, yes. Pretend that it's an issue about how many guns they can own, ignoring that you said, up above, that a judge would get to decide whether the smaller, cheaper safe made it too easy for the thief to steal the gun.
Delete(And all of this ignores your willingness to restrict the full exercise of the second amendment to the property owning class.)
What if the apartment person wants to own just one handgun for self-defense? You are making prohibitive barriers to entry as a handgun owner. I didn't bring this up as an example of someone who wants to own lots of guns. Urban dweller, low income, bad neighborhood, rents a small apartment or maybe even a room in a house. What are they supposed to do for safe storage in your mind? If they have an appropriately sized strong box to house one handgun, you have no problem with the Judge throwing down the hammer if a thief walks away with the whole box.
DeleteMikeb secretly favors the one percent.
DeleteMaybe you guys are right. The under-the-pillow technique is good enough.
DeleteNice straw man you've got there!
DeleteWe didn't say cheaper safes are worthless; we said that your proposal is so vague that people could still get prosecuted if they're using cheaper safes--that, and some people don't have the option to use anything but cheap safes or some other method such as a locking box, an old locker, etc., so those people would either have to choose to not own guns, or would have to risk prosecution if they were ever burgled.
If you cannot keep your guns out of the hands of children and thieves, then you are a negligent gun owner and should not own a gun.
ReplyDelete