Why Aren't 2A People Worked up About Securing Guns?

Because some of us believe in personal responsibility and freedom.
So while I advocate for gun safety which includes securing them properly, I don’t believe in government forcing people to do it. It’s the same reason I wear a seat belt, wear a motorcycle helmet and don’t smoke but am against laws that force people to wear them or not smoke.

Right. This is s job for the NRA.

stevehgraham said:

Following the shootings in Texas today, I have a question: why aren't 2A supporters campaigning hard to keep guns secure? Why aren't securing guns and publicizing the effort top priorities? We ought to be getting ahead of this issue instead of hiding from it and reacting. Eddie Eagle isn't enough.

Some of the shootings we've seen were perpetrated by people who, all of us agree, weren't supposed to have guns. Adam Lanza's mom left an AR in a $200, 80-pound "safe" in a spare bedroom, and she bought him his own weapons even though he was mentally defective. The latest shooter is 17, so it sure looks like someone dropped the ball there. Dylan Klebold was 17 and got his guns illegally from imbeciles who were older. Nikolas Cruz, a locally notorious idiot, had his guns taken away, and his dad gave them back!

If we're going to tell the world they should leave our high-capacity rifles alone, shouldn't we be making as much noise as possible, pushing each other to keep guns out of the hands of mental cases and unsupervised kids (especially weird kids who post creepy things on social media)? If the world saw us getting vocal about this, policing ourselves, it might be harder for them to justify butting in.

Right now, they see us raising hell about AR-15's, bump stocks and magazines, but they don't see us agitating to get each other to behave responsibly without gun control.

A woman who lived with a mentally abnormal, maladjusted, highly intelligent son should not have had guns on the premises, especially in a safe you can break into with a spoon. As for taking him shooting and buying him his own guns...words fail me. Shooting is not acceptable therapy for mental cases who have strange outbursts and can't relate to other human beings. The Second Amendment isn't for everybody. Some people are better off giving up their rights than keeping guns in homes they share with mentally ill relations.

I think we ought to be making noise about this and taking the lead. It's always better to regulate yourself than to wait for someone else to do it, because they will eventually step in, and they'll do it in ways you don't like.

We should be pushing each other to get safes, put locks on guns we're not using if kids live in our houses, take guns away from screwy relatives, and so on. We ought to inform on people we know have no business with guns. It beats sitting back and reacting when they shoot up malls.

Click to expand...

erm ... My guns ARE secure. I'm not getting in your business and you shouldn't be looking to get into mine. If a person is found liable for aiding any of these shooters they should face criminal (and civil) charges. If it was from negligence then civil charges. But let's not assume people are negligent and irresponsible or worse ... before they act.

SharpDog said:

erm ... My guns ARE secure. I'm not getting in your business and you shouldn't be looking to get into mine. If a person is found liable for aiding any of these shooters they should face criminal (and civil) charges. If it was from negligence then civil charges. But let's not assume people are negligent and irresponsible or worse ... before they act.

Click to expand...

It isn’t personal. One can advocate for a general level of gun security without suggesting any deficiency by any particular individual. Be part of the solution.

You are responsible for 'reasonably' securing possessions that
can be 'reasonably' foreseen to cause harm if acquired/misused
by unauthorized users.

At issue -- and the only issue -- is the span of 'reasonable'.

... which a jury will decide, based both on Law and their view of
what a " 'Reasonable' Man" would be expected to do.

Depend on it.

The other side doesn't give two hoots about gun safety. In fact, a bigger body count gives them more "ammunition".

They are after citizen disarmament. It isn't about guns.

That said, I properly secure mine, advocate that others do the same, and try to pass my knowledge and convictions to the next generation.

For me it is because the laws addressing "securing" are focused on making innocent victims into criminals. It is obvious in some of the proposals that have been floated, that the real intent is to make people afraid of owning a firearm due to the potential criminal charges if the firearm is stolen. . . whatever happened to "don't blame the victim?"

Why are you and most everyone focused on the guns used in this latest false flag event and totally ignoring this part of the story "Authorities said they discovered homemade explosive devices in the school and nearby, including pipe bombs, at least one Molotov cocktail and pressure-cooker bombs similar to those used in the Boston Marathon attack."? Is it because the explosive devices, which are already illegal, do not fit your agenda of disarming the law abiding citizens of the country?

(The above quote came from this: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-...dimitrios-pagourtzis-latest-today-2018-05-18/)

That is one of the agendas in many places that heavily restrict guns beyond the common person.
In many European and other nations someone from the government has legal right to come into your home to verify your safe storage location, and the storage location must meet various increasingly expensive requirements to own guns. This puts them out of reach for most citizens including those that live in apartments, don't own or cannot modify the house, or otherwise are unable to meet the financial and other requirements to legally own guns or certain guns.
For example in Australia I think for the few people that get one of the special government exemptions for the increasingly restricted types of weapon classes they have to own a certain level of vault or safe bolted to the foundation verified by a government employee that must be allowed into the home without a warrant to certify them.

Guns are the rich man's toys when these policies get too burdensome. They also often cease to be useful for self defense when they must be stored unloaded and locked up, separate from ammo and other requirements that slowly increase over time.
Which in turn causes changes beyond just weapon laws to self defense laws as well. In England hurting the person breaking into your home using more force than may have sufficed to stop them can get you locked up. So if a big strong thug breaks in unarmed, using a gun seems a bit excessive right? I mean you could try to fight and get beat to death or use a lower level of force first. After all it might have been all that was necessary, and you shouldn't legally have a gun you can load as quickly as someone unexpectedly breaks in and confronts you anyways.


A slightly more reasonable requirement that ruffles the feathers of people that like their teenagers able to defend the home is holding the adult liable for the wrongdoing of the person that misuses the firearm.
This means a parent that doesn't take reasonable measures to secure the gun from an underage child gets into trouble.
But what is reasonable? A locked door? A safe? A vault? And if only a safe is reasonable then is any vehicle stored weapon unreasonable?
And if any vehicle stored weapon is unreasonable then what about when someone is going someplace and gets out of the car to go to a store, get gas, or do something else? What about in places that allow a licensed concealed carry or unlicensed concealed carrier most places but require them to disarm to go into certain establishments and the only option is to leave it in a vehicle? What if visiting such places is a regular thing does that mean you just don't get to carry the rest of the time so that you can say stop at the post office without violating the law to check your mail or PO box. What if you have to check the PO box everyday as part of being a business owner or live someplace without a good street address, do you just lose your right to carry or have a gun because leaving it in the car is unreasonable?

I mean it is already bad enough in places that require someone unload the firearm before leaving it in the car, you are making people load and unload firearms in public in a car. Do you think that makes the public safer or at greater risk of negligent discharges? By not allowing people to take a gun into various places you require them to leave the gun, if you also don't allow people to leave the gun loaded you are requiring them to unload and load their carry piece multiple times in a cramped space while concerned and trying to hide from public view to comply with the law. What happens if they cannot leave the gun at all? (AND who said you legally have to own a car or use a car to legally transport or carry firearms to begin with? Many people in large cities don't have cars, use a bicycle, public transport, or get by on foot. But that is another topic.)
Law makers don't think these types of things through when passing laws.

Once the government starts to get into how you can legally own or store firearms they start to eliminate who can store or own firearms even beyond those already disenfranchised through prohibiting offenses. Now you set minimum cost requirements, class requirements, etc Once you do that it is not long before most guns have limited support from most of the population that has little to no experience with firearms living in a society firearms are so hard to own, that in a generation it s just rich hunters that are a small minority of the population only allowed to own a limited type of firearms stored in a method that is useless for self defense. You reinvented the European model.


So yes gun owners should secure their firearms, and work to insure they stay secured. But it starts to get messy and you lose the right to keep never mind bear arms when the government gets too involved.

"Reasonable" is a conversation I was just having with a client (law firm) about securing their data from theft. Even he cannot answer the question of where liability ends based on "reasonable" actions taken, and what those actions need to be.

I am good with encouraging firearms owners to secure firearms. Part of being responsible. AND I have no problem with financial assistance from government or private sources to help people to be able to afford a small secure storage. For a minimum of firearms, though. If they can afford many firearms they can afford storage on their own.

Guy B. Meredith said:

I have no problem with financial assistance from government

Click to expand...

I have a problem with it.

I don't have kids. I store my guns in my house. If anyone comes in and takes them, they are the criminal.

Aren't the ranges where we shoot microcosms of society? Gun clubs have rules. Those written rules codify behavior that is expected. And I've seen numerous instances, as I'm sure many have as well, at the range where someone breaks a rule and another person on the line makes it very clear to the offender that 1/ they broke a rule and 2/ people need to follow the rules. The peer pressure does the most, in my opinion, of having people behave politely. The rules make it formal. Just because there are people who have and will break the range's rules doesn't mean we stop having rules at the range.

The issue I'm seeing with us gun owners continuing to offer the same responses we have been is that, from non-gun-owners perspective (which is more than the "antis" population....not all people who don't own guns are antis) is that people are concluding that our recommended actions and stances aren't working. Shootings happen, us pro-gun folks say what we say, and the shootings continue.

I know one person in particular who was completely ambivalent about gun ownership. It was not for them, but they didn't have an issue with others having guns and were not taking action to increase gun laws. But that person has reached their limit - and now they are completely fed up with gun owners. This person's basic position now is "I listened to you guys and you've failed. Before I wasn't willing to vote for stricter gun laws. Now I will be."

I know we believe what we believe. But we're losing people, I believe, who used to be tolerant of guns, and now are not. Because they PERCEIVE we're not stepping up.

I remember an incident in CA several years ago. Parents secured ammo separate from firearms. Naked man broke into house and barricaded exit with furniture etc. Older children knew how to use firearms but could not get to gun and ammo. One escaped through window after watching sibling killed with pitch fork. Horrible case.

I won’t be locking my guns up because other people’s kids are ignorant. That’s crappy teacher in high school all over. We must refuse to be punished because of what bad, stupid, or mental people do.

I'm with ColtPython, anything in my home is secured by me locking the front door.

I'm not putting every valuable I have in a bunker somewhere. My "responsibility" isn't to create Fort Knox in my residence. I'm not the criminal, the criminal is.

I will go ahead and throw it out there, part of this agenda is the MSM pandering this idea to the general public that everyone deserves to be safe and that that is a possibility, some kind of BS Utopia. That is the real lie that's being fed, that something can be done to make that happen. Makes me sick.

I was watching MSMBC ( I Know) and they had three people on and they kept repeating someone must be held responsible. Saying no one is ever held responsible. I wanted to scream "How about the one doing the murdering"

otisrush said:

Shootings happen, us pro-gun folks say what we say, and the shootings continue.

Click to expand...

They are not that common, and are being made as frequent as they are by a media that goes out of its way to find any incident anyplace in the nation and blast it all over the news
In a society obsessed with celebrities, how many likes or views they got online, or getting famous, the media makes that a way to get famous.
The media is against us.

The NRA is a grassroots organization that gets by on the membership and donations of millions of citizens, yet the media makes them out to be some giant business boogeyman. And yet that shouldn't even be a measure of firearm support, who said you have to belong to a specific organization to have your rights counted, and yet millions do go that far, and the media still tries to give the impression that it is some tiny group in the way of progress.

I will go ahead and throw it out there, part of this agenda is the MSM pandering this idea to the general public that everyone deserves to be safe and that that is a possibility, some kind of BS Utopia. That is the real lie that's being fed, that something can be done to make that happen. Makes me sick.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, freedom isn't free. That doesn't just mean some soldier has to die or be maimed on foreign soil sometimes.
They pretend this utopia exists and they can provide it and you can reach it if you just write them the blank check to make it happen, or something is done.
The best you can do, especially in a massively diverse society that allows people to form various subcultures, is a general stability where people have freedom. But that doesn't fit the agenda of the power grabbers.

Guy B. Meredith said:

AND I have no problem with financial assistance from government or private sources to help people to be able to afford a small secure storage.

Click to expand...

Government funding for securing private weapons? Such funding would be the equivalent of a Trojan Horse.

A lot of us actually are concerned about security. Many have gunsafes, or other methods of securing their weapons.
When I was a kid my father kept his Browning Auto 5, Remington 17 and M-1 carbine in a hall closet. That was in the 1960s ---70s. I think a lot of people in his generation kept their guns in clksets. Today, gunsafes are much more common.
We're human beings, not preprogrammed robots, and thus there will always be those among us who keep their 870s and M4orgeries under their beds.