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

[rpenmanparker]

"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.

Nobody gonna fool you.

 

[huntsman]

My guns are secure not for social good but because of the financial stake I have in them.

Freedom allows me that choice not some bureaucrat or politician.

 

[Jeff H]

It looks very simple to me, the powerless and ridiculed highschool outcasts have found vengeful power in firearms - getting some payback.

This is the sad reality. I wish they would find a better way, but having close family members afflicted with depression, I understand as well as I can.



Back on topic, I have 2 teenagers myself. Every once in a while when these topics come up, I'll offer the kids a dare to get access to any of mine or my wife's guns. With everything but the carry guns locked up in the safe and I'm the only one who knows the combination, so chances are pretty remote that they can get ahold of a gun with anything less than an ox-acetelene torch to cut into the safe.

 

[AlexanderA]

I remember when I was 17 (in 1962), and my parents trusted me with guns. In fact, I was the "gun person" in the household. My parents weren't technically adept, so a lot of tasks, such as driving and even financial management, fell to me. (My father never did learn to drive, even though he was a university professor.) So it is not a blanket rule that all teenagers can't be trusted. There's a big difference between straight-A high achievers and the losers who carry out these mass shootings.

 

[DeepSouth]

25 years ago a gun rack in the back windshield of a four wheel drive (especially in hunting season) was something you saw daily, even in school parking lots.
I’d also say almost no one had a gun safe, they either had a gun cabinet with glass doors or racks hanging open on the walls.

Believe it or not we HAVE come a long way, so far as security.

FWIW, it’s been reported that the Texas shooter retrieved the guns from his fathers safe.

 

[RPZ]

I remember when I was 17 (in 1962), and my parents trusted me with guns. In fact, I was the "gun person" in the household. My parents weren't technically adept, so a lot of tasks, such as driving and even financial management, fell to me. (My father never did learn to drive, even though he was a university professor.) So it is not a blanket rule that all teenagers can't be trusted. There's a big difference between straight-A high achievers and the losers who carry out these mass shootings.

I would suggest the security issue is also a band aid proposal. Even a red herring. The big question is why in 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s when many kids took their guns to school, we did not have school shootings like this. There are plausible answers for this by way of an objective examination of those involved.

There are a number of common denominators, and some of these were almost non existent in the 30s, 40s, 50s and in the early 60s.

Without any objective causation analysis it is down to band aids. And rather than focussing on security of guns at home, a more practical band aid would be security at schools.

 

[Swifty Morgan]

It would be nice if we knew that the cops who protect schools would not hide until the shooting was over.

 

[CraigC]

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

Exactly! I have no children and refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of a criminal.

Even if I did have kids, I have an 870 standing in the corner by our bed. How am I supposed to defend the house in the event of a home invasion if my shotgun is locked up?

All this is just looking at symptoms. The underlying cause is that our society is breeding soulless monsters. As Americans, we are failing our children because we either shirk our own responsibilities or we let liberals tell us how to raise our own children. Liberals have spent decades creating this environment that is a breeding ground for these creatures and now they want to make us defenseless against them. It's absolute lunacy.

 

[gulogulo1970]

I'm as pro-gun as they come but it is time to hold parents of unsecured firearms responsible for what their minor children do with them. Secure your guns when you do not have control of them. You have a minor child you are responsible for, you also own guns for which you are responsible for. Add these two facts together and realize they should be held responsible.

Now if they had the guns in a safe or locked cabinet and the kid defeated their attempts to secure, they should be not charged. Leave your keys in the ignition, car running on a playground and a kid jumps in and kills somebody is very different than somebody stealing your locked car while you sleep. If someone commits a crime getting your guns you should bear no responsibility with what they do with them afterwards.

Of course, all of this could be adverted if people today were better parents and people were just more responsible in general.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Exactly! I have no children and refuse to accept responsibility for the actions of a criminal.

Even if I did have kids, I have an 870 standing in the corner by our bed. How am I supposed to defend the house in the event of a home invasion if my shotgun is locked up?

All this is just looking at symptoms. The underlying cause is that our society is breeding soulless monsters. As Americans, we are failing our children because we either shirk our own responsibilities or we let liberals tell us how to raise our own children. Liberals have spent decades creating this environment that is a breeding ground for these creatures and now they want to make us defenseless against them. It's absolute lunacy.

I do have kids. I also have this silly notion that they have more of a right to be safe in our home than someone willing to break in to harm them. In answer to that silly notion, I have a Colt Commander in my purse on the bed stand and in the closet my husband has his loaded AR – 15 as well as my 20gauge shotgun. Some will say that either of our children could get into a closet and get those weapons and cause great harm to themselves. To which I answer – why would they? Both of my children have 22 rifles that they know they are free to use whenever they please. By the same token, either of my children with think nothing of getting into the ancient "Willies" Jeep and driving it anywhere on the farm they desired. Quite frankly, I am far more worried about them with the Jeep that I am the 22 rifles. By the same token, I'm far more worried about my youngest riding his horse that I am with him shooting the rifle. I am far more worried about either of them helping their father with the cattle that I am with them with the rifles. The older child has on occasion used it finishing disc pulled by a 130 horsepower tractor. I am far more worried about that then I am the rifle. Please do not inflict your priorities on my child-rearing. The statistics show that my children are far more likely to be hurt or killed by the Jeep, or the horses or the cattle or for that matter even the tractor then they are harming someone else with the rifle.

(My name is Selena and I am a ranter.)

 

[Old Dog]

I would suggest the security issue is also a band aid proposal. Even a red herring. The big question is why in 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s when many kids took their guns to school, we did not have school shootings like this. There are plausible answers for this by way of an objective examination of those involved.

There are a number of common denominators, and some of these were almost non existent in the 30s, 40s, 50s and in the early 60s.

Without any objective causation analysis it is down to band aids. And rather than focussing on security of guns at home, a more practical band aid would be security at schools.

Indeed. As another who grew up in the era of glass-fronted gun cabinets and rifle racks in living rooms, basements and "family rooms," rifle racks in the back windows of trucks and cars heavily populating the high-school parking lots, drive-in movies and downtown street parking spots ... I cannot recall any instances of school shootings during my youth.

But then, most families consisted of two parents, fathers were usually engaged in the child-raising process, taught their boys how to throw a football or baseball, hunted, fished and participated in weekly activities with them ... Children were as a rule not medicated with pharmaceuticals for controlling their hyperactivity or other perceived conditions (they played sports), children engaged in physical play activities rather than watching six hours of television a day or playing video games (and why are so many "first-person shooter" video games acceptable to parents?) ... more families still attended church or synagogue together, ate evening dinner meals around one table together ... helped their children with homework ... children learned how to conduct social discourse in schools via social clubs, debate, forensics, academic team competitions, etc., and there were no cell phones!

I have no answers. As far as government involvement or mandates, in my state, when you purchase a gun safe, there is no sales tax charged. I do like that.

 

[yokel]

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

We learn a lot about ourselves and others in the midst of a crisis. Hollywood and leftists had no problem revealing themselves for what they are (again) in the aftermath of the horror of the Texas massacre. Leftists, these worshippers of failed big government, decided to condemn people of faith by mocking those who prayed on a day when innocent victims were murdered.

Mocking people who pray in response to shock and suffering is obscene and corrupt. And while it is not the only answer, prayer is a foundational part of change, and is a powerful and important act. It also must be paired with action, because the divine is not encumbered by the human interest in micromanaging our daily lives.

The irony of the reaction by leftists to devils who use guns is to call on their Lord of Government for more gun control. We now know that government bureaucracy failed us in Texas. It failed us in Charleston. And it failed us at Virginia Tech.

Despite the efforts of some, we will not defined by the few individual wackos and miscreants who are psychopathic mass murderers. We will be defined by the prayerful and the decent. The truth is, America is populated with millions of Steven Willefords, Johnnie Langendorffs and Jeanne Assams, people quietly living their lives only to emerge as heroes when coming to the aid of friends and strangers alike. What does that say about us? Everything.

 

[DeepSouth]

I'm as pro-gun as they come but it is time to hold parents of unsecured firearms responsible for what their minor children do with them. Secure your guns when you do not have control of them. You have a minor child you are responsible for, you also own guns for which you are responsible for. Add these two facts together and realize they should be held responsible.

I have two boys 19 and a 15, they sometimes get left home alone. I have to ask.... Do you believe they have the right to use a firearm to protect themselves when me and their mother are gone?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

It would be nice if we knew that the cops who protect schools would not hide until the shooting was over.

Did you know the school resources officer was hit while trying to engage the shooter? I mean, I would hate to think you made a statement like that knowing that... so, I'll just guess you didn't.


As to the situation at hand, no one seems to know quite yet how the shooter gained access to the firearms. They may very well have been responsibly stored. Safes are just a delaying action. Anyone with enough time or effort can defeat a gun safe, be it a $80 Stackon lockbox or a $1,500 monstrosity.

 

[gulogulo1970]

I have two boys 19 and a 15, they sometimes get left home alone. I have to ask.... Do you believe they have the right to use a firearm to protect themselves when me and their mother are gone?

No one said you can't let them have access. You are just responsible for the 15yo actions (the 19yo is an adult). If he(never said he would actually do so) hurt or killed someone in an unlawful way you should be charged with a crime not the crime.

I don't think anyone should be forced to lock them up. (Securing them when you are not in control of them is a good idea, though.) But parents/guardians should be dealt with severely if their young ones kill or maim with their weapons.

I believe most people on this site practice responsible gun ownership and use. The average American Joe needs to step up his game when it comes to who can easily access their weapons. If someone has an unstable family member, keep your weapons away from them by locking them up.

 

[RPZ]

No one said you can't let them have access. You are just responsible for the 15yo actions (the 19yo is an adult). If he(never said he would actually do so) hurt or killed someone in an unlawful way you should be charged with a crime not the crime.

I don't think anyone should be forced to lock them up. (Securing them when you are not in control of them is a good idea, though.) But parents/guardians should be dealt with severely if their young ones kill or maim with their weapons.

I believe most people on this site practice responsible gun ownership and use. The average American Joe needs to step up his game when it comes to who can easily access their weapons. If someone has an unstable family member, keep your weapons away from them by locking them up.

So if your 17 year old intentionally runs someone down with a car, or your 14 year old stabs someone through the heart with a screwdriver, and kills them, you the parent should be charged with a crime?

 

[huntsman]

I grew up with access to firearms as did my children, but what I did restrict was their access to violent video games and slasher movies.

 

[toivo]

I've had this argument with anti-gun people before. Their position is this: If somebody got the gun, then it wasn't adequately secured and the owner is liable. This despite it being in a safe that was broken into, in a house that was broken into, etc.

You can see where this leads. They don't recognize the "reasonable" standard for security measures: only the extreme position that it must be absolutely impossible to access the gun. And since we all know that no method provides 100% security, they hope to discourage people from owning guns by raising the liability stakes too high.

They also don't want to hear about gun safety education from the NRA. They say it's all just a smokescreen designed to "normalize" gun ownership. Their goal is to "abnormalize" it; it's a culture war, pure and simple.

All of that aside, I'm all for more safety education. We shouldn't let anti-gun extremists control the conversation.

 

[Deanimator]

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.

How much SHOULD it have cost and who's going to pay for it?

Are you saying that nobody who can't afford a $2,000 safe should be able to own a gun?

 

[Deanimator]

You can't believe that.

The other side are the same people who demand that we not talk "mean" about MS-13 (yet call US "terrorists").

The ONLY thing which they would find "reasonable" is total disarmament.

Anybody who tries to pander to ignorance, mendacity and malice deserves whatever he gets.

 

[gulogulo1970]

So if your 17 year old intentionally runs someone down with a car, or your 14 year old stabs someone through the heart with a screwdriver, and kills them, you the parent should be charged with a crime?

No, just firearms. You are responsible for keeping your firearms under your control.

 

[Deanimator]

No, just firearms. You are responsible for keeping your firearms under your control.

But you're NOT responsible for keeping them away from OTHER potential weapons?

Are you saying that if your kid is so dangerous he shouldn't have access to firearms, he should still have access to a chainsaw, gasoline or poison?

You're fetishizing firearms.

 

[DeepSouth]

No one said you can't let them have access. You are just responsible for the 15yo actions (the 19yo is an adult). If he(never said he would actually do so) hurt or killed someone in an unlawful way you should be charged with a crime not the crime.

I don't think anyone should be forced to lock them up. (Securing them when you are not in control of them is a good idea, though.) But parents/guardians should be dealt with severely if their young ones kill or maim with their weapons.

I believe most people on this site practice responsible gun ownership and use. The average American Joe needs to step up his game when it comes to who can easily access their weapons. If someone has an unstable family member, keep your weapons away from them by locking them up.

I’d just like to point out you don’t didnt answer the question.

And as a parent of 2 teenagers I’d also like to say that teenagers frequently hide information from their parents. Especially “troubled” teens, parents are sometimes the last people to find out their was a problem. Sometimes it’s because they are absentee parents, which isn’t necessarily always their fault. Other times it’s because they have kids that are smart enough to hide things really well,

Following this logic will end in a terrible place.... Deaninator, has pointed out your inconsistency.

 

[gulogulo1970]

I’d just like to point out you don’t didnt answer the question.

And as a parent of 2 teenagers I’d also like to say that teenagers frequently hide information from their parents. Especially “troubled” teens, parents are sometimes the last people to find out their was a problem. Sometimes it’s because they are absentee parents, which isn’t necessarily always their fault. Other times it’s because they have kids that are smart enough to hide things really well,

Following this logic will end in a terrible place.... Deaninator, has pointed out your inconsistency.

One legally has the right anyway, the other if given permission.

There are laws on the books in several States (TEXAS Penal Code 46.13) that punish a parent if a child gets a hold of a gun and hurts themselves or others. So if they hurt or kill one or two dozen what is the difference?

 

[hdwhit]

stevehgraham wrote:
I don't believe in "government forcing people to do it," either. That's my whole point. If we don't step up, the government will.

As far as Texas goes, you're too late.

Too many people in Texas were irresponsible enough in the storage of their firearms that the legislature in 1995 added Section 48.13 to the Penal Code. It makes requires that a "readily dischargeable firearm" be "secured" by either: 1) storing it in a locked container or 2) applying a trigger lock. Should someone under the age of 17 get hold of a gun that has not been secured as described in the statute, it is crime. If the child just gets to the gun, it is a Class C misdemeanor. It becomes Class A if the child kills someone with the gun.