Secure Storage of Firearms

[Screamin'Eagle]

Does it much matter? He KILLED his mother. Without delving into the macabre, somehow I don't think getting her guns would be much trouble.

This was posted in another thread, and I didn't want to get off topic and muck it up, so I am starting a new one. This is something I have discussed with a coworker and would have to disagree with Sam1911 on. I believe knowing where your guns are and knowing that they are secure should be a top priority of gun owners. The following is maybe a more extreme example, but illustrates my point nonetheless.

"When I worked at a pawn shop, people would come and pawn a gun for $10 while they were out of town for an extended period. They essentially paid $2.50 a month per gun for secure and insured storage of their firearms. When they got back into town, they would pay the loan and interest, fill out a 4473, and in most cases walk out the same day with their gun."

 

[Screamin'Eagle]

20 views. No yays or nays?

 

[Sport45]

I'm not sure what the question is.

Of course you should have control of firearms in your possession.

That said, I own firearms that aren’t in my possession too. So I guess I can’t say that I securely store all the guns I own.

 

[Screamin'Eagle]

Sport45,

Sorry, I should have made a statement that people could comment on when I started the thread. It was an attempt to fork off of another thread so it wouldn't run off course. The assertion was made that no measures would have prevented someone from gaining unlawful access to the woman's firearms. I disagree. Either she should have had a safe that the young man was not allowed to access or some other means of securing her firearms when not on her person, like the example above.

Sport45,

What is your definition of possession? Do you mean on your person, in your house?

 

[fanchisimo]

Well I don't own a safe and I can't afford what I consider a decent safe. I want one, but I could only afford one of those thin-sided metal ones. I really don't feel that type would be secure because a thief could come and physically carry it away. Even if it's bolted down it probably wouldn't be that hard to get into. I agree you should know your weapons are at all times, or at least, who they are with, but properly securing your weapons, if you don't have the cash, isn't that easy.

 

[Davek1977]

Maybe those who can't "afford" a safe should reduce their collection to fund the purchase of one. I think proper storage is just common sense, and someone who can afford guns, ammo, etc should, by my logic, be able to find a way to secure their weapons. Do I think it should be law? No, you can't legislate common sense, and situaitons aren't universal....but the "I can't afford to properly store my guns" excuse is a weak one as far as I'm concerned. If you can't afford a way to secure your firearms, make finding a way to do so a priority....before more guns, before more ammo, before more range time, etc. That said, I think the inital proposition of pawning one's guns every time they leave home is overkill in every sense of the word. Get a good safe, use it, and quit overthinking it.

 

[fanchisimo]

I don't have many guns as it is, prolly can't even call it a collection, but if I sold what I needed to fund a safe project, it seems like it'd be a waste to have a safe with only a pistol and two rifles. Kinda like buying a vault but using all your money to buy said vault, pretty much negating it's purpose. It's just part of being a college student searching for a job. Lol.

 

[Screamin'Eagle]

I will admit that mine are not in a safe.

We all don't live in the same environment under the same circumstances. I think that plays a part.

That said, I think the inital proposition of pawning one's guns every time they leave home is overkill in every sense of the word. Get a good safe, use it, and quit overthinking it.

They did not pawn it every time they left; It was done by people who were leaving for an extended period of time(months) who wanted to ensure their guns were safe. Lets do some math for a pretend scenario. $2.50/mo x 3 months for a summer away studying abroad=$7.50 in interest + $10 principal=$17.50 for secure storage of a firearm vs $1k+ for a decent safe that could still be stolen or broken into while you're gone. If they only have one handgun and they normally carry it when home, why invest in the safe? Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Davek1977]

Again, I don't think it is a legislative remedy anyone should seek.....but should still be a common sense precaution to take, and I question the wisdom of those who make unauthorized access to a weapon easy. Even without a safe, there are ways to store a weapon so that its inoperable. Most if not all new guns ship with safety locks. While not a be all end all solution, its a start to securing one's guns. Pull the bolt, remove a firing pin......there are numerous ways to make a gun nothing more than a club made of steel, wood and/or plastic, without resorting to a $1k safe.

 

[Screamin'Eagle]

Davek1977,

Well stated. I think it's better to police ourselves.

Pulling the firing pin etc: Now that reminds me of a movie...I think it was called Shooter. I gotta watch that again!

 

[45_auto]

Read the book instead. The book that the movie was based on, "Point of Impact" by Stephen Hunter, is MUCH better than the movie.

 

[2nd 41]

Buying a quality safe is cheaper than hiring a lawyer.

 

[Reloadron]

All in all I don't think anyone should regulate how you keep your valuables in your house.

While I agree with that I also figure firearms ownership just like owning a dog carries some responsibility. I have a responsibility to make sure that my dogs do not decide a neighborhood child would make a nice pull toy. I also figure that I have a reasonable responsibility to make sure one of my guns does not end up beside a corpse in downtown Cleveland, Ohio.

Now this can get sticky. If I leave guns lying out in my home (my castle) and a bad guy breaks in and steals one of my guns and uses it to kill someone am I in any way responsible? Could I be seen as negligent because I left guns out in the open? Years ago it would be a resounding no, I am in no way responsible. However, today it could come down to what a jury thinks. So thus we now have:

Buying a quality safe is cheaper than hiring a lawyer.

Where does responsible gun ownership end? I wonder about that.

Ron

 

[CTPhil]

All in all I don't think anyone should regulate how you keep your valuables in your house.

I feel the same. They're in my house, not in plain view, you're committing a crime if you go in and take them. Why am I responsible for what some felon does? Under Castle Doctrine, if a person tries to break in I can use deadly force, if someone breaks in and takes my guns when I'm not there, then I'm in trouble?

 

[mcdonl]

I have always been a gun cabinet guy but that is going to change after this event. I have a locked box I keep all my ammo and magazines in for my guns that are not in use but I have started the process of fixing that.

I too only have 300 or so to spend on a stack-on safe but I have the luxury of a man cave I can configure how I choose, so I will be building the stack on into the wall. Sure, a thief with time would have no worries... I dont care about them... it is my teenage daughters or their friends I want to protect.

 

[Blue Line]

lots of talk here about securing guns from outside intruders but like this kids mother, what about securing them from family members. I think if I had a kid that acted like this one reportedly did, I would have secured my firearms better. I dont know if the guns were in a gun cabinet, safe or hid under her bed but clearly there was a need to secure them better.

 

[smalls]

So we should be held accountable for what criminals do with property they stole from us.

 

[wtr100]

Maybe those who can't "afford" a safe should reduce their collection to fund the purchase of one. I think proper storage is just common sense, and someone who can afford guns, ammo, etc should, by my logic, be able to find a way to secure their weapons. Do I think it should be law? No, you can't legislate common sense, and situaitons aren't universal....but the "I can't afford to properly store my guns" excuse is a weak one as far as I'm concerned. If you can't afford a way to secure your firearms, make finding a way to do so a priority....before more guns, before more ammo, before more range time, etc. That said, I think the inital proposition of pawning one's guns every time they leave home is overkill in every sense of the word. Get a good safe, use it, and quit overthinking it.

so how is it you get to decide what a man can own?

 

[medalguy]

And here I was under the impression the Congress of the United States had decided that we all needed a gun lock with every new gun we purchased so we could secure our guns in our homes from unauthorized use. I guess we need a new law.

 

[Dave P.]

Yesterday, 10:49 PM #59
Dave P.

Join Date: July 9, 2011
Posts: 83 Reading this thread the idea of gunowner responsibility has popped up.

Question....has anybody seen anything regarding how the shooters
mother was storing the guns?
Gunsafe ?
Thanks
Dave

I started the sidetrack on the other thread with the above post
Dave

 

[Dave P.]

Sorry for the screwed up posts....not sure what's up with this
computer....
Dave P.

 

[Dave P.]

__________________
Sam,
I think it does.
Locked in a safe with a combination lock that you don't share with your mentally
ill 20 year old might have made a difference....or maybe not.
Looks like she had the money to own one.
You can bet that somebody is already starting a wrongfull death
suit against her estate.
Dave P.

One more try to pull off the other thread.
Dave P.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Anyone hell-bent on a mass murder is going to come prepared for any safe.
A sheet metal cabinet can be pried open in a few minutes with a big enough bar. A simple ax can bust open many safes in a fairly short time. Safes are for child safety and deterring lazy or unskilled burglars, not fortification.

 

[Bubbles]

Hypothetically...

What if Mom did have the guns locked in a safe so that her nutjob son did not have access?

What if nutjob son attacked Mom, either with his bare hands or a non-firearm weapon, incapacitating her?

What if nutjob son then obtained the keys to the safe while Mom was knocked out, got a gun, and shot Mom?

Would y'all be singing a different tune?

Hypothetically, of course...

 

[beatledog7]

OK, require us by law to secure our firearms in a particular manner so that nobody with malicious intent can get to them.

What else do we own that could be used for ill? A motor vehicle or two or more, which at speed can kill a dozen on a bus or in the average building in the wink of an eye. Better make me secure those in a certain way as well. Medicines. Foods. Common-use household chemicals...the list is endless. Forcing us to manage their security in any particular way, even a way we are already doing, is tyranny.

The vast majority of gun owners already take steps to secure them from unauthorized use, as do the owners of motor vehicles and all the other stuff they own. Rational people protect their property, as they always have. Where does it come from, this notion that guns are just lying around all over our homes for anyone to pick up and use in a mass shooting?

You know what, let every other country on Earth vote in a government that ultimately implements tyranny. I have no plans to let it grow in my country. Enough's enough!