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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why aren’t they going crazy over security? Really simple. They don’t want anybody to have anything to secure. They see guns as an outdated item that is a modern problem, so their take on it is akin to a flat bald tire. Sure it was useful to get us to where we are, but why waste the effort on a patch when you can just get rid of that tire. They don’t look forward though to see the problems that this will cause.
 
Maggie said:
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. ...
Click to expand...

There are ways to secure firearms against unauthorized access while keeping them quickly available to authorized users. Lockboxes are reasonably secure, not expensive and easy to quickly open. They may be secured unobtrusively various places around the house.

MEHavey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yup, it'll be up to a jury to decide if a gun owner exercised reasonable care with regard to securing his firearms.

And let's see what a Montana court of appeal said about the standard of care that applies to firearms (Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added)):
...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...
Click to expand...
 
jdh said:
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
Click to expand...
Well, I reckon if this thread was about responsible bomb ownership, and this was a 'bomb enthusiast' forum, perhaps that part of the story would garner more attention,,,

Hope most folks here are 'equally oblivious' when it comes to bomb making, and that we already have very similar views on it.

If so, I just don't see how it has direct effect on the larger, more opinionated subject of this thread relative to, for lack of a better definition, firearm control and (perhaps I missed the memo) why folks who are 'very 2A' aren't appearing like they want to take the lead and speak out publicly about 'an already generally agreed upon' principal that certain folks must not be allowed to have access to firearms, and that the first step in that process should begin in your own home, and not by the government.

Unless there is some 'publically shared and mutually agreed upon' stances showing unity from both sides of the debate, and some fraction of willingness to work on the subject together, with the possibility of give and take occurring on both sides of the aisle, sooner or later it will boil down to a decision by a simple majority.

A brief search indicated current firearm owners make up roughly ~1/3 rd~ of Americans, and that the percentage of owners is decreasing,,,

Can't speak for everyone, but is every gun owner willing to 'roll the dice' with those odds on the chance of an 'all or none' proposition that could be headed our way somewhere down the road?

If so, the outlook appears pretty grim to me, but perhaps many believe that quite a few 'non-owners' are somehow going to side with the "not gonna give a damn inch!" folks,,, (Insert 'Oceanfront property in Arizona' joke here)

While I'm sure many here will disagree, both sides better start emphasizing 'some' form common ground / unity ASAP, and display a willingness to work together to some kind of 'shared direction' ,,,however so small,,,,. Only then will a 'moderate majority' made up of both owners and non owners determine guns should remain a part of our civilian society.
 
Last edited:
There is no "common ground" because those that glorify these incidents don't want to address the problem. Moreover, they don't want to hear the answer.

The problem is bad people. And the answer is there's no way (civilly) to get rid of the problem.

And it's nothing new, this has been an issue since forever.

We already have laws that make no difference so unless folks are willing to wander down the road of less civil ideas then we just deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RPZ
Being safe is hopefully a common ground issue. Like the OP said - this doesn't have to translate to more gun laws.

I'm 57. I, literally, have been around guns for as long as I can remember - because my dad collected old guns and was a gun enthusiast (hunted and shot recreationally) long before I was born. I'd walk with him while he was pheasant hunting before I could carry a gun. As I grew older we did all sorts of hunting, shooting and reloading together.

He was a typical, crusty conservative. He believed deeply in the Second Amendment and conservative principles in general. He instilled deeply in me the responsibility of gun ownership and safety. He was very easy-going when we were together, *except* if he saw me do something that broke the safety rules. Then he'd come down on me like a ton of bricks. And he appreciated it when I was observing him, holding him accountable to the rules as well. (Although I can't say I recall a time where I caught him doing something wrong.)

Was I allowed to have a cap gun growing up? Nope. Would he get mad if I made the shape of a gun with my hand and pretended to shoot someone? Yup. His mantra was "Guns aren't toys. We don't play with guns." This crusty conservative, in the '60s and '70s, took stances that I think we'd generally associate with liberals: "I'm not going to let my kid play with guns."

We exhibit and demand safety when we shoot. We not only hold other people on the firing line accountable, I've seen people get very direct and very blunt with someone - to make the point they made a serious error. We hold each other accountable and we demand everyone act accordingly. At least where I shoot, if you ever want to see if this "invisible police force" is in action, simply touch your gun when there is a cease fire. Folks will be all over you in a heartbeat.

Why does this attitude toward other gun owners seemingly get abandoned when we leave the grounds of our gun clubs?
 
Last edited:
Once again, here’s the real deal—everything the leftists say about guns is a contemptible lie. Every. Single. Thing.

It’s a lie when they say they merely want to have a “conversation” and seek only “bipartisan compromise.” Foamy Marco Rubio got suckered into that grift just like Chuck Schumer suckered him into pushing amnesty, and they’ve been ritually disemboweling him ever since.

“Bought and paid for by the NRA; wants children murdered; blah blah blah.” We all know the score. He went to that CNN town hall, which seemed more like a dinner theater staging of The Crucible, and tried to be a cordial, open-minded guy, and they eviscerated him. There’s a lesson for you—never show these aspiring Red Guards any weakness. They despise us adherents of the Constitution for resisting, but at least they have to grudgingly respect that we won’t roll over. But Rubio is weak, and he showed his belly, and they despise him for it.

Though soft boys like Marco and his ilk refuse to acknowledge it, the other side’s ultimate goal is simple—they want us disarmed. But why?

They realize that Normal Americans are perfectly capable of safely owning all sorts of firearms. You slice the Democrat-run blue cities out of the statistics and America’s criminal misuse of firearms rate is comparable to Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood. They absolutely understand that. But that’s not remotely the point.
 
nah, just offer "thoughts and prayers" every time something like this happens.
let's never change anything - they will change it for us.
eventually.
p.s. I have a beef with "thoughts and prayers" b/c it is a phrase , empty words
just like "how are you ? '' became a greeting
 
I can't speak for anywhere else, but in both the Sunshine and Tarheel States, it is illegal to store a weapon in a way that a reasonable person would agree that a minor could access it.. Transferees of firearms must sign an affidavit to this effect at the time of purchase. Unsure if anyone has ever been charged with violating this law.
 
If you want to see an anti's head spin around in circles let them spout off about gun control for a while then tell them to insert the word alcohol or drugs (legal or not) in place of gun in what they just lectured you about. That will get them frothing at the mouth. Then explain that these items do kill and maim more innocents and "children" than any thing involving firearms every single day of the year. They then shut down their rational? thinking and try to out shout you and usually become violent. Ironic is it not.;) They are the ones that want us to be tolerant of a few "different" individuals/ideals. Again, this is about using useful idiots to further the complete gun removal agenda from ones political enemies. I personally feel that if things come down to a massive change in things gun related there will be more of a push back that the other side wants. The last incident used "common hunting and self defense firearms" to cause lots of harm. Those that always say "I am a hunter, they are not after my firearms." will now see that they indeed are after them. Rant over.:rolleyes:
 
jdh said:
Is it because the explosive devices
Click to expand...

...didn't go off. More, they wouldn't have worked according to reports. The fact that they were present pales against what actually caused harm to others when people consider the risk and their response.
 
Why are so many teenagers/young men going whacko? Parents who are aware and allow these ill young men access to firearms should be held responsible. Especially the recent shooting where the father returned weapons that had been taken.
 
stevehgraham said:
Some good responses, and some that demonstrate a great deal of imagination and an unwillingness to read carefully. One should respond to what I said, not what one thinks I said after reading one sentence.

Anyone who thinks I said the government should get involved gets a "D." I was suggesting a way to keep them out of it.

Smart people get involved in issues and take them over instead of waiting for their enemies to frame the discussion and decide where to put the goalposts. Bill Clinton learned this from Dick Morris, and it's how we got stuck with a second four years of his administration. When his enemies had a winning idea, he pretended it was his, and then he got control plus all the credit.

People on the other side see that we can find a great deal of time to speak up in support of bump stocks, yet somehow we are too busy to encourage each other to be safe.
Click to expand...
First let's be straight - If you have a nut job living under your roof, it's your responsibility to see that he/she is no longer a threat to society. It that means confining him/her in a mental health institution, then that's what is reasonable.

Second, many of our recommendations to prevent these school shootings haven't been implemented. Like securing the front entry against armed folks entering the facility to commit mayhem.

Third, gun free zones only mean those that could act to stop an event like the last couple can't because they don't want to break the law. They become a target rich environment.
 
otisrush said:
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.
Click to expand...

They were never tolerant to begin with, they just pretended to be in their own minds.
 
I think people should have training and should secure their weapons. However, I do NOT want the gov't to decide what that training nor security looks like as it could well end up being a $5k training class and your stuff being "secured" at the local police station requiring 72hr notice to get it out IF they decide to let you have it.

Yes, people should secure things but if someone breaks into my home (felony) and steals my firearms (felony) which I have secured those felonies are on them. Not me. Now, if I give a dangerous person a weapon that is another matter.

Pushing to secure will become a classicist argument (which the left loves). The low income single mom who needs to defend herself will have to scrap to buy a reasonable firearm and then have to meet the security requirements which may well cost more than the firearm.

When people steal a car and injure others I don't think I have ever heard a cry to secure them better. Maybe everyone should pull their car battery each night and put it into an approved safe.
 
As attacking schools with firearms has become fashionable among troubled teens, the whole idea of what “troubled” means has changed. A teen could be considered relatively normal in an environment where shooting up the school had not become trendy. Being nuts wasn’t such a problem until someone thought of killing all their friends. Carrying this further how many of the perpeteators’ parents would have thought their kids were wacko enough to do that. Essentially zero. So the mental illness and parental responsibility approaches just aren’t going to work. Mommy’s little darlings aren’t going to show their parents who they really are. And if they did, mommy wouldn’t believe it anyway.

A single entrance at the school protected by a metal detector is one improvement. Alarmed secondary exits would allow emergency escape from the school without allowing a collaborator to let a shooter in the back door. Video surveillance with a full time security officer monitoring all entrances and exits would also help. Costly? Yes. Necessary? Also, yes.
 
sota said:
They were never tolerant to begin with, they just pretended to be in their own minds.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right about many people in the "formerly tolerant" group. I'm sure you're wrong about the person I described.

At the end of the day whether you're right or I'm right doesn't matter: The numbers of people willing to vote "anti" are growing.

So what do we do as a result? Dig in our heels deeper and offer nothing different than our standard answers? It's those standard answers that are causing the number of antis to grow.

So many people here seem to be thinking some here are advocating gun control. I'm advocating demonstrating a level of concern and willingness to hold each other accountable in all areas of gun ownership, not just when we're at the range. Make it socially unacceptable within our group to act irresponsibly. This is what happened with drinking and driving. It was when it became an embarassment to drink and drive that numbers started to fall.
 
It looks very simple to me, the powerless and ridiculed highschool outcasts have found vengeful power in firearms - getting some payback.
 
Steve S. said:
It looks very simple to me, the powerless and ridiculed highschool outcasts have found vengeful power in firearms - getting some payback.
Click to expand...

I think you have a fair point. This is part of the reason that the schools have been putting so much effort into anti-bullying, other than anti-bullyings obvious educational utility. I do see that all of the schools in my district have gone to an airlock system with doors that are remotely opened. The trouble is not only in developing security, but also in ensuring that the resulting system also promotes education.

However, this takes us a distance from the issue of securing firearms. I remain opposed to mandates because it moves the criminal behaviour from the thief to the victim. As far as allowing one's own children access to firearms, I think that we can all see that going either way.
 
I care for my dad, who has dementia. Last week, I sneaked into his bedroom and took his pistols, including the Crimson-Trace-equipped Glock I bought him a few years back. I didn't ask permission. It was time.

He's not going to try to harm anyone, but when he gets worse, he could very well forget what a pistol is, pick one up to look at it, and pull the trigger. If I start having mental issues, I hope I will be honest enough to give up my guns and take my chances without them before I put anyone else in danger.

It's too bad the parents of Adam Lanza and Dimitrios Pagourtzis didn't take similar measures. The victims, their families, and every gun owner in America are paying the price for their denial.
 
"Safe storage," "liability insurance," "training requirements," and "mental illness disqualification" are all things that, while sounding reasonable on their face, are ways to attack gun ownership. The antis are being deviously clever about this. Create so many onerous barriers to gun ownership, and fewer and fewer people will bother to jump through the hoops. I can see a scenario in which the 2nd Amendment remains on the books, but there are so many practical barriers that it becomes a nullity.
 
AlexanderA said:
"Safe storage," "liability insurance," "training requirements," and "mental illness disqualification" are all things that, while sounding reasonable on their face, are ways to attack gun ownership. The antis are being deviously clever about this. Create so many onerous barriers to gun ownership, and fewer and fewer people will bother to jump through the hoops. I can see a scenario in which the 2nd Amendment remains on the books, but there are so many practical barriers that it becomes a nullity.
Click to expand...

We call that place New Jersey.
 
stevehgraham said:
I care for my dad, who has dementia. Last week, I sneaked into his bedroom and took his pistols, including the Crimson-Trace-equipped Glock I bought him a few years back. I didn't ask permission. It was time.

He's not going to try to harm anyone, but when he gets worse, he could very well forget what a pistol is, pick one up to look at it, and pull the trigger. If I start having mental issues, I hope I will be honest enough to give up my guns and take my chances without them before I put anyone else in danger.

It's too bad the parents of Adam Lanza and Dimitrios Pagourtzis didn't take similar measures. The victims, their families, and every gun owner in America are paying the price for their denial.
Click to expand...
Sorry about your dad. He obviously raised you to be responsible, as a parent should.
In too many families there has been no responsibility for generations. More laws can't fix that and bigger government will make (has made) it worse.
 
PS, the Texas school children did not get killed with the
correct firearm so the media doesn’t seem very interested.
Click to expand...
au contraire mon ami, ... it is considered a "teaching opportunity".
From our sister board:

And now I understand that it was a Rem 870 and a revolver?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/05/18/gun-used-texas-shooting-explosives/623202002/

You're going to just loooove paragraphs 3 & 4 ....

Classic spin when the facts don't fit the narrative.
Classic USAToday.....
Classic MSM



https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6612958#post6612958

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Why Won't the Politicians Help Care for the Mentally Ill and Really Solve this?
2
Replies
37
Views
905
Robert
Robert
U
  • Locked
People always say it's 'guns' or 'mental health' but no one simply says 'Anger'....
2 3
Replies
64
Views
4K
cdk8
C
Zaydok Allen
  • Locked
Selling a Gun and People's Regrets: Why?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
commygun
commygun
V
  • Locked
The problem with denying firearms to the "mentally ill"
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
miamivicedade
miamivicedade
H
  • Locked
Mental health record submissions for gun checks on the rise
Replies
1
Views
437
Jeff White
J
Back
Top